Hacker News Reader

Comment by WarmWash | Hacker News Reader

The saving grace is that China (well modern living CCP members) have never had an armed conflict. China's military ranks are people who got there by playing politics and bending exercises to their benefit rather than showing battlefield competence. There are no war vets or experienced players.

So while they might have incredible man power and manufacturing capability, everyone in that first battle will be seeing battle for the first time in their life.

View on HN

China did send "observers" from state TV at the start of russian war in Ukraine.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/16/im-on-the-fron...

Afaik official pro russian Chinese TV report broadcasts stopped abruptly when their team got a front view of a tank turret toss on a road 100km away from official front.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/russian-tank-blown-up-...

After that they kept quiet recording tactics and occasionally producing some russia propaganda like this gem https://news.rthk.hk/rthk/en/component/k2/1810903-20250627.h... where dude on a front line in full camo complains being mistaken for a soldier.

The flip side is that the US isn't used to fighting anything other than asymmetric warfare / insurgencies / terrorism against people who can't project force and can't really hit back. We park valuable assets out in the open on military bases and installations around the world, and don't do anything to shelter them or even move them around during a conflict because of hubris.

Iran also basically just fought us to a stalemate, with an arguably long-term strategic victory going to Iran, just by being willing to absorb more punishment in the short term. Once we depleted our stocks of expensive weaponry we had to stop. We could win every fight and still lose the war.

> Iran also basically just fought us to a stalemate, with an arguably long-term strategic victory going to Iran, just by being willing to absorb more punishment in the short term. Once we depleted our stocks of expensive weaponry we had to stop. We could win every fight and still lose the war.

Iran had a different victory condition. All they had to do was outlast and not be completely wiped out. Trump's victory condition was... well, only Trump knows. Short of a total ground invasion of Iran and full eradication of the Iranian regime (a tall, tall order), victory for the US in Iran, in the eyes of the public, was always going to be impossible.

Trump seemed to think that the Iranian regime was unstable and would fall once the US killed their top ranks and applied a bit of pressure. Turns out that he was very wrong (and experts would have told him if he had bothered to ask / listen).

I think its poignant to point out that Trump is listening to experts he appointed, who by objective standards do not have the experience or maturity necessary to guide the ship.

This is a war that even the "forever war" US military-intelligence complex had been resisting starting for decades. This really illustrates what a colossally bad idea it was.

China is even worse than Russia on that matter. Before the invasion to Ukraine, Russia was heavily involved in Syria, Chechnia and other conflicts and with that experience it failed miserably. China, with all its posturing, military wise is even worse than Russia. That's why all it can do is propaganda war on social media to weaken American society.

I dont think starting war that you then proceed to loose somehow makes Russia and America look strong.

This difference makes China look smarter and wiser.

> China, [...] military wise is even worse than Russia.

Define "military" first. China's infantry is less experienced than Russia's, but so is America's infantry by-and-large. Neither country envies Russia's army, or the war they chose to fight. Arguably China got the best of both worlds by sending a limited quantity of mercenaries to study the way the conflict was fought.

The war China wants to fight is in the first island chain. They don't need their infantry to swim to Taiwan to occupy it, they need their navy and air force to deny America A2/AD while their Marines fight onshore. Their army is almost purely a defensive force in this conflict, and it's unlikely that they'll be deployed en-masse if the US manages to disrupt their logistics. The pressure will be on China's missile forces and naval assets, both of which are very credible for the war they want to fight. On the other hand, America's Arleigh Burkes will be running with half their VLSes empty because the US needed to launch decapitation strikes against Iranian kindergartens.

Military-wise, China has almost every advantage they could want. They'll be fighting an overextended opponent that has limited support from their Pacific ocean assets, a miniature international coalition, and a depleted magazine depth with no esclatory strategic advantage. None of those are worth giving up to bloody your troops, especially if those troops are mostly just going to watch the war unfold on their smartphone.

No, China military (or rather, navy+airforce), while less corrupt than Russia contrary to what GP claimed (or gggp?), is still way inferior to the US in a direct conflict (mostly because of the US air dominance + OTAN submarines and radar tech). The truth is that they don't need an army anyway, they just need to wait an economic slump and will get Taiwan politically/economically.

Thales land radar systems always perform as expected, sometime better than expected, in land conflicts. If this is the same for their naval radars, they are far ahead of the competition.

How is that "saving grace" in any way

It's in direct response to the parent

> I shudder to think just how badly we will be outmatched in a shooting war with China.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com