0 $
2,500 $
5,000 $
1,360 $
JUNE 2021

RAND Corporation And Pentagon Simulate US-China War Over Taiwan: China Wins Every Time

Support SouthFront

RAND Corporation And Pentagon Simulate US-China War Over Taiwan: China Wins Every Time

Click to see full-size image

The US Department of Defense and the Rand Corporation are continuously simulating war between the US and China over Taiwan.

It appears that Washington loses every time, Real Clear Investigations reported.

“Around a large table with a map and icons representing ships, submarines, planes, missile batteries, land-based forces, space-based sensors, and other apparatuses of modern warfare, officials from the Pentagon and the Rand Corp. fight a thus far unimaginable conflict.”

The Red Team, composed of experts on the Chinese military, aims to use all available forces to capture Taiwan.

The Blue Team, made up U.S. military personnel with operational experience — fighter pilots, cyber warriors, space experts, missile defense specialists – must try to defeat the Chinese invasion.

It just goes poorly for the Blue Team, more or less, every single time.

“It’s had its ass handed to it for years,” David A. Ochmanek, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense for force development and now a defense analyst at Rand, told the outlet. “For years the Blue Team has been in shock because they didn’t realize how badly off they were in a confrontation with China.”

Obviously, this is a war simulation, and it is not real world where economic, diplomatic and cultural considerations have a very tangible effect on what takes place.

There’s also one thing most experts on China agree on – it’s not going to war over Taiwan “any time soon.”

The US appears to be causing a sort of deterioration of the situation – the US Secretary of Healthy and Human Services Alex Azar visited Taiwan, in the highest-level visit in 40 years.

To make it worse, the US Congress is to vote on the “Taiwan Defense Act” – it ends the US policy of “strategic ambiguity.” The bill would force the US “to delay, degrade, and ultimately defeat” an attempt by China “to use military force to seize control of Taiwan.”

The bill suggests that both parties in the US Congress strongly support Taiwan.

As China faces more criticism from the US and other Western countries, it is obvious that achieving what Beijing calls the “reunification of the motherland” would be a significant and sought-after achievement for the Chinese Communist Party and its President Xi Jinping.

“As several military analysts put it, the days of unfettered American military superiority in the Western Pacific are over. China has, the analysts say, achieved what’s called anti-access area denial, or A2/AD, which would prevent American forces from being able to penetrate anywhere near Taiwan once a war there started.”

With the A2/AD capability, China has a 2-million-strong military and could directly attack Taiwan, with a standing force of 220,000, hoping that the U.S. would stay out of the conflict. But the U.S. would have powerful reasons for not allowing that to happen.

A Chinese seizure of Taiwan would enormously expand China’s power and position in Asia, especially if combined with its absorption of the entire South China Sea into its maritime territory.

If China felt that the U.S. would intervene, military planners from the Pentagon and Rand who have gamed out scenarios believe a war over Taiwan would most likely begin with a massive attack by advanced Chinese missiles against three American targets: its bases on Okinawa and Guam, its ships in the Western Pacific, including aircraft carrier groups, and its air force squadrons in the region.

Military analysts predict the American side would initially counter with Patriot anti-missile missiles. But the sheer number of Chinese missiles would mean that hundreds of them would reach their targets. American submarines operating near Taiwan would be able to sink some Chinese ships, including amphibious landing craft bringing the Chinese invading force to Taiwan.

Regardless, the number of submarines close enough to take action would still not be enough to deal anything near a crushing blow.

“We’re playing an away game against China,” Rand’s Ochmanek said. “When bases are subjected to repeated attacks, it makes it exponentially more difficult to project power far away.”

“The casualties that the Chinese could inflict on us could be staggering,” said Timothy Heath, a senior international defense researcher at Rand and formerly a China analyst at the U.S. Pacific Command headquarters in Hawaii. “Anti-ship cruise missiles could knock out U.S. carriers and warships; surface-to-air missiles could destroy our fighters and bombers.”

China would have its challenges, but in the end it would more than likely achieve victory.

“They are giving off a lot of signals about how this campaign would unfold,” Lyle J. Goldstein, a China and Russia specialist at the Naval War College in Rhode Island, told RCI. “They’re talking a lot about airborne assault in two varieties, by parachute and by helicopters. It’s what’s called vertical envelopment. Amphibious assault is old school. It may be necessary but it’s not the main military effort.  The new school is to bring lead elements over by air, secure the terrain and then bring in more forces over the beach. The intensity and scale of training in the Chinese military now for airborne assault is, to me, shocking.

There would be 15, maybe 20 different landings on the island, east, west, north, and south, all at once, some frogmen, some purely airborne troops,” Goldstein continued, saying he was expressing his own views, not official assessments of the U.S. “The Chinese high command would watch these bridgeheads to see which of them is working, while the Taiwan command is looking at this amid decapitation attempts and massive rocket and air assaults. The Chinese would seize several beachheads and airports.  Their engineering prowess would come into play in deploying specialized floating dock apparatuses to ensure a steady flow of supplies and reinforcements—a key element. My appraisal is that Taiwan would fold in a week or two.”

In short, China’s strategy would be to get an invasion fleet across the Taiwan Strait before the U.S. could come to its ally’s aid. “And once that happens we’d face an Iwo Jima situation,” Ochmanek said, referring to the small Japanese-held island in the Pacific that the U.S took in one of the most casualty-heavy battles of World War II. “Once Taiwan was occupied, the option of retaking it with an amphibious assault of our own would be very unattractive.”

In order to deter that, the US could move towards defending Taiwan with stand-off missiles and not with aircraft and aircraft carriers.

A second component of such a defense could space-based reconnaissance using artificial intelligence to locate enemy targets, which the long-range anti-ship missiles would strike.

A third would be an American version of flooding the zone, with unmanned undersea drones that could fire torpedoes at Chinese landing craft.

“All of these things are doable,” Ochmanek said. “There’s no magic here, no technological breakthroughs.” He estimates that the Defense Department could make the needed changes if it diverted about 5 percent of its budget— about $35 billion — a year.  Taiwan, he said, also needs to move away from the glamorous, showy weapons, like F-16 fighter planes, that it buys from the United States. “The F-16s are not going to get off the ground once the war starts,” Ochmanek said. “They need anti-ship cruise missiles, sea mines, mobile artillery, mobile air defenses, unmanned aerial vehicles. It comes down to sinking about 300 Chinese ships in about 48 hours,” he said.

What else is a possibility between the US and China?

“What both sides can do is turn the sea and air space around Taiwan into a no-go zone,” Heath said. “China could do that, but we could make it very hard for any surface ship to survive near Taiwan, including Chinese transport vessels loaded with troops. That alone might stop an invasion.”

Finally, if all else fails, China would face the risk of a larger war with the United States, which might involve nuclear weapons and an outcome Beijing could not guarantee. “The biggest threat to China is that a regional anti-China coalition forms,” Heath said. “And so if the United States can succeed in building its alliances in Asia, that would be a powerful deterrent, because China can’t afford to go to war with Asia.”

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

Support SouthFront

SouthFront

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
143 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
guest

The US government could have saved a lot of money and did not need RAND to tell them that. The PRC is the largest country in terms of population and economy and the US is a bankrupt imploding failed state, so duh!

occupybacon

The larger the country/economy, the more efficient expensive weapons get.

Zionism = EVIL

LOL, not necessarily, the more expensive weapons are harder to maintain or operate. Why do think Russian weapons are kings of the battlefield? because they are robust, easy for an average grunt to handle and their performance is top notch. The new Chinese conventional weaponry is at par with Russian ones, most of which they have copied and upgraded. The Americunts have lost every war from Korea to Iraq, do you think they can fight China :)

occupybacon

The American expensive weapons are harder to maintain and operate and are integrated, that’s why they are worthy only for expensive targers and richer countries. Russian weapons are cheap and robust and are worthy for cheaper targets, and worthy to spend on poor countries. It’s pretty basic.

Tommy Jensen

You guys are talking talking barking barking “US lost every war” getting nowhere.
Who is the most influencial nation on the planet today?

occupybacon

The jewish people.

Jim Allen

Yes, of course they are. NO, they’re not.
US military hardware is dated, performs poorly, if at all, particularly anything new. Western military technology, and capabilities are decades behind Russia, and China, and Iran. US military hardware isn’t particularly upgradable in contrast to Russian,which is infinitely upgradeable.
There’s nothing integrated about US military. After 10 years of deferred maintenance, no replacements for retired hardware, US Government has only recently begun to scramble to get what it has back in shape, drag out hardware that’s been sitting for years, and try to develop new hardware that will actually function. Then there’s this little matter of manufacturing. There isn’t any in US, it’s all been moved offshore, and the Zionist Khazar criminal Banking Cabal that owns US Government has this Government busy with happily destroying the country, and de-populating it 81%, and have that done by 2025. Other details, three generations of intense indoctrination have the people so brainwashed, and believing whatever Government tells them it appears the people are going to volunteer to be vaccinated with poison.
What, don’t believe this is real ?
Where is US Government going to come up with allies to fight a war ? All the former British colony’s, are being de-populated just like US, how about New Zealand ?
Even MSM is covering part of this, and the Globalist’s aren’t bothering to hide what they’re up to.
New Zealand, then Canada outlawed guns recently the people gave up their means to defend themselves, and the instant New Zealand was disarmed, prison camps began popping up everywhere. The Government telling the people these are “quarantine” facilities that will test for
COVID-19 using tests that are known to show false positive results. Anyone that’s had the flu (Corona Virus, and it’s man-made derivitives) will test positive. The people are told they must stay 14 days, those that refuse the test are told they must stay another 14 days. But in reality they will never leave.
Straight off Western MSM.
The fact Trump stated more than once these Gates vaccines are going to be forced by the military going door to door. (the military told Trump fuck off we’re not doing it)
This US Government going to war is a farce.
It has not the wherewithal to wage war. Rothschild is financing US Government, so money isn’t an issue but given US Government is the most hated country on earth today and it’s treated it’s NATO allies so badly they want nothing to do with US Government. What countries are stupid enough to ally with US ?

occupybacon

Please make me a resume of that long shit and I will reply.

HB_Norica

You seem to think projecting power halfway around the world is easy …. it’s a decided disadvantage. China has home field advantage.

The USA has to have enough fuel, weapons and munitions in theater to conduct the war and the cost of getting them there, in energy, manpower and dollars is exponentially more than China has to spend to defend their homeland.

The USA has to gamble that they have enough of everything in stock because if they don’t they have a long vulnerable supply chain to get them once the shooting starts.

What happens to the US war plans if China successfully attack US fuel, lubricants, aircraft maintenance hangers, commissaries or ammo dumps? This is high intensity modern warfare … once you’re out of one component in the kill chain … say lubricants, fuel or even new tires for jets you either take the loss or go nuclear. You may have a tanker with fuel steaming toward you but you need the stuff now … not tomorrow. and tankers make for fat targets for anti-shipping missiles.

Consider too that China will be defending their homeland while US soldiers are in the middle of a culture war with riots and demonstrations at home, understaffed because of a rampant virus running amok throughout their ranks, with equipment that’s overused, a budget that pays for make work projects like the F-35 while important maintenance on less attractive systems are put off.

Tommy Jensen

We are having homefield everywhere. We know every single cm2 on this planet and their culture because we have bases everywhere.
We know more about the chinese homeland than the chinese, because china is also our homeland in the same way, south korea and japan now are our lands.

occupybacon

Then bad luck I guess :) anyway the chrisis wouldn’t be a problem, it was one right before WW2.

Jim Allen

Explain Germany ’39 – ’45.

occupybacon

It’s a request or confirmation?

johnny rotten

The overestimation that the Yankees have of themselves and the racial contempt they bring to Asians must also be taken into account, in the end you will get that the fucking Yankees lose badly, as usual.

guest

The Chinese have defeated the US racists directly in Korea 1952, when they sent a million men across the Yalu. The arrogant MacArthur was fired by Truman as he wanted the US to commit suicide by using nuclear weapons.

Lone Ranger

No surprise.
U.S. is even struggling against third world countries, let alone major and superpowers.
RAND is one of the few think tanks worth their money, they have a 80% accuracy track record for the past 50years.
U.S.lost against Vietnam…
China is around 15-20times more powerful militarily, not counting nukes.
And they have SSBNs and supersonic cruise missiles, advanced SAM systems, state of the art radars.

occupybacon

Only the US will never land in China. But will turn them into what they were 30 years ago. China has big targets that unlike Afghanistan, worth expensive bombs spending.

Lone Ranger

They wont do that.
M.A.D. Doctrine…

occupybacon

China is not Russia, they can’t destroy USA. And USA could use only conventional bombs.

Lone Ranger

Dont talk about things you dont know a thing…
Chinese ICBMs are on pair with their U.S. countepart.
Entering Chinese airspace would be a one way ticket, not mentioning thatbU.S. carriers and airfields in the region would be destroyed within hours.

Zionism = EVIL

He is funny and clueless. Does not understand either conventional or nuclear capabilities.

Lone Ranger

CIA trolls arent what they once were…

Zionism = EVIL

The cunts are broke so they have to hire at the bottom of the barrel, just like hasbara :)

Lone Ranger

???

occupybacon

USA would bomb China from a distance, like Israel does in Syria.

Lone Ranger

You cant bomb from a distance.
You can strike with cruise missiles.
China can hit the airfields and carriers with a range if 4000km.
Enough to acess denial…

occupybacon

The Aegis won’t let them hit anything. Do you think Putin is decrying Poland and Romania for installing Aegis, just because he’s bored?

Lone Ranger

Aegis can only hit targets with known trajectories.
China has MIRVed ICBMs and hypersonic gliders, Aegis system is close to useless against them.
Russia isnt worried about the missile defense system.
They dont like the fact that those launch tubes are compatible with the Tomahawk cruise missiles, which can be nuke tipped.
Only U.S. personal is allowed on those bases so Polish and Romanian troops cant control the U.S. whether they violate the agreement or not.
Using offensive tactical weapons instead of defensive…

Кристофер Петров

Exactly. AEGIS is meant to intercept for short range and medium range ballistic missiles, not their warheads. An ICBM out of range would be safe from AEGIS, and its many warheads would be completely unscathed

occupybacon

Russia said it diminishes its M.D.A.

Lone Ranger

Indeed.
But not the way you think.

occupybacon

Indeed, it’s because it shows how many friends Russia has around.

Lone Ranger

More than the U.S. and Ukropisstan…

occupybacon

Russia has a lot of friends ready to install American missiles.

Lone Ranger

In Disney movies.
On the contrary lot of U.S. vassals are using Russian Sams…

occupybacon

Soon, Aegis will be in Belarus.

Lone Ranger

In a Disney movie…
But S-400s are getting more numerous :)

occupybacon

Israeli F-35 will fire at them, from Germany airspace.

Lone Ranger

From Proxima Centauri…
Dont sink to the level of Jens…

occupybacon

Unlike you bot, jens is a human

Lone Ranger

Coming from a CIA bot I take this as a compliment ;)

Lone Ranger

I dont really understand your problem by the way.
This report is from RAND and the Pentagon…

occupybacon

Report is about Taiwan war not nuclear steikes.

Lone Ranger

Nuclear war is not winnable.
If it was we wouldnt be talking…

occupybacon

And that’s why a war against China is winnable.

Lone Ranger

Not according to RAND and the Pentagon…
In a defensive war China would win.

occupybacon

They didn’t say that it’s not winnable.

Lone Ranger

They said exactly that.

Lone Ranger

Its funny you trying so garzd to protect them.
For the U.S. you are less worth than a duracell battery.

occupybacon

That hurts, even my undies with US flag worth mire than a simple batery :(

Lone Ranger

Indeed…

HB_Norica

It’s not the missile defence aspect of Aegis that Putin “decrys” it’s that Mk-42 launchers can house TLAMS as well as SAMs which makes them a first strike weapon not an ABM system.

HB_Norica

“The Aegis won’t let them hit anything.”

Where exactly do you see Aegis missile defence systems anywhere near the flight path of Chinese ICBM’s? They go into space somewhere around Mongolia then overfly Siberia and the arctic ocean …. so is the USA now mounting Aegis systems on camels?

THADD stationed in Alaska are the missiles protecting against Chinese ICBM’s and they won’t be looking for a missile but the mirved warheads reentering the atmosphere. Unlike a missile going from the launchpad to space on a ballistic trajectory Mirved warheads have can do all sorts of manuevers and have countermeasures that make it impossible to predict their flight path. they can only be taken out with point defences which for the USA are patriot missiles.

Have you seen patriot missile batteries defending US cities and even if they were can they shoot down warheads travelling at mach 15?

Кристофер Петров

Nuclear warheads are usually travelling at Mach 21-23, way out of THAAD, AEGIS or Patriot interception capabilities. The purpose for these systems are to intercept the MISSILE before warheads separate and begin re-entry.

HB_Norica

… and where do you do that if the missile is launched somewhere between Kazakhstan and the Sea of Japan

Frank G

they could not even do anything for japan, when NK missiles fly over the island

Кристофер Петров

exatly. and they think they can intercept Avangard warhead when it makes a final dive at Mach 28? Funny americunt have me laugh hard all day haha

occupybacon

I don’t think Russia lets China fly nukes over its teritory. China needs to launch them from submarines and those are not functional yet. In a CIA report they will have them working in 2025-2026.

HB_Norica

“I don’t think Russia lets China fly nukes over its teritory.”

They’re in space by the time they overfly Russia. During the NK / USA spat a couple of years ago the DF-41’s were reportedly deployed in NE China along the border with Russia under Russian AD bubble so it seems Russia may be OK with Chinese nukes flying over their heads …. provided they aren’t headed for Moscow.

“In a CIA report they will have them working in 2025-2026.”

no they have working SLBM’s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JL-2

occupybacon

That would work the other way around too, USA will fly ICBMs over Russia, through China…

HB_Norica

Exactly …. mutual assured destruction. Which is why I’ve been arguing the size and diversity of the nuclear arsenal is only relevant in terms of having weapons survive an attack so you can retaliate. A nuclear attack on China by the USA would result in the destruction of the USA by China even though the USA arsenal is far bigger and more diverse.

Nuclear weapons are only good for deterrence. Any attempt to gain a first strike advantage only leads to an arms race which is why the USA and Russia have such vast, diverse arsenals of nuclear delivery systems.

Better weapons doesn’t make you dominant … it only forces you’re opponent to create counter strategies. Look at the situation today between Russia and the USA. The USA pushes ahead with Prompt Global Strike and puts TLAM launchers in Poland and Romania and the Russians counter with Hypersonic glide vehicles and hypersonic cruise missiles which leads to the USA pouring billions into their own hypersonic missiles.

Neither side gets a decided advantage over the other but the taxpayer gets stuck with the bill. In the fifties it was a bomber race, then missiles, then SLBM’s and ABM systems …. which just led to a never ending cycle of spending on arsenals that simply cancel each other. A nuclear strike resulted in your own destruction in 1950 and would result in your own destruction today.

occupybacon

I never said USA will be the first to use a nuke against China. But I remember that I said China could try to strike back with nukes. Maybe the US bases from Japan.

HB_Norica

That’s the danger isn’t it. Gunboat diplomacy in the nuclear age is risky business. China doesn’t say much about their nuclear strategy except that they won’t be the first to use nukes and they intend to maintain second strike capabilities without explaining how they achieve this.

Frank G

u are a trolling idiot here. both Russia and china have longer range standoff missiles, this is chinas backyar yard, us has no chance for any victory, the only chance they would have is to loose 98% of their pacific military assets….don’t you ever bother to read articles before posting your non sense.

FlorianGeyer

The rank and file Japanese populace would privately be happy to see the US occupation forces in their country ‘removed’, I would think. :)

HB_Norica

“China is not Russia, they can’t destroy USA.”

China can ‘destroy’ the USA. Their ICBM’s are more modern than US ICBM’s they’re mirved and are on road mobile launchers. They also have SLBM’s as well giving them second strike capabilities. Since they aren’t signatory to any nuclear arms treaties no one knows how many warheads they have, the range and number of missiles. It’s all guesswork. Some say they have 200 warheads some say 2000. Who knows.

The question is if China attacks the USA with 30 missiles carrying 10 warheads each and the USA counters with 1000 bombs they’re both destroyed as nations. So who’s the winner? The USA is dead but China’s deader?

So you have a Chinese general in charge of strategic defence during a shooting war with the USA who gets a warning from satellites and spies on the ground that the US has B-2’s and tankers in the air and has gone to defcon 1 because they are attacking a nuclear power. Doesn’t matter if it’s with conventional or nuclear weapons the threat remains the same.

Does he sit back and watch his nuclear arsenal be destroyed by stealth bombers or does he launch at the first sign that US strategic bombers are in his airspace? Are you willing to bet your life and the lives of everyone you know and love on his decision?

HiaNd

“China can ‘destroy’ the USA. Their ICBM’s blah, blah”

NOT TRUE!
China has about 300+ nukes tops that can reach US at the moment (even if all “mirved” they are still far behind in nuke to nuke warhead parity and combined destruction power in expressed in megatons.
US has more SLBM’s than China nukes all together!
MANY of Chinese nukes are not long range.

From nuke side China still belongs to the club like France,India, Pakistan while US and Russia are far above !

FlorianGeyer

I agree, although I wonder at the mental capacity of the majority in the US to be able to suffer limited nuclear attack’s that for example kill 1 million and injure 5 million.

The US has not been seriously challenged within the United states since the Brits were booted out.

HiaNd

“I wonder at the mental capacity of the majority in the US to be able

to suffer limited nuclear attack’s that for example kill 1 million and
injure 5 million”
You might be even 100% right (there is certain logic to it ) but still I don’t pretend to have all the answers on every situation to confirm that…

The thing is that example you are giving is talking about period AFTER all nuking has happened already and people must face horror of the situation.
That would not affect nuke exchange (people would be in some kind of shelters during exchange)

China has huge disadvantage that their coast is hyper saturated with the population and all most advanced industries are in those coastal cities mostly.
If US would destroy only that part of China, they would suffer huge setback.
While US has West coast that is very distant and only missiles with the biggest range can reach those parts and there are not many of them in China’s arsenal.
While US has plenty of nukes to annihilate China totally at least several times.

All US subs are nuke strategic subs Florian.
While countries like Russia and China have strategic subs and diesel electric (conventional) subs (non strategic) also (excellent for defending coast). So all in all US is far above Russia and China in the number of strategic subs (naval possibility to bring close the nukes and nuke tipped cruise missiles and shorten time of the 1st strike reaction )

Because of much shorter distance US nukes sub launched “SLBM” would of course land much earlier (1st strike surprise attack) etc etc…

All this was hypothetical of course because Russia shields China from US nuke attack in defensive war (under only one condition that China never attacks US 1st )

ΠΑΡΜΕΝΙΩΝ

” All this was hypothetical of course because Russia shields China from US nuke attack in defensive war”

Do not be so sure that Russia will do that.

HiaNd

They are already doing it.
And US knows it.
Russia has Chinese back militarily, while China has Russian back economically.

If not like that already for some time, US would find excuse to nuke Chine already by now.
In conventional war US is not match to China at all.
In nuke war they are not match to Russia.

Frank G

a satan hit on NYC alone would take take out about 20-30 million or more. i read that the blast can detroy an area the size of france or texas, now imagine the fallout from that area.

HiaNd

The story about Texas is linked to “Satan “2 ( new version of Satan ) called “Sarmat” that has about 10 tons of nuke payload 10 to 15 warheads

HB_Norica

You want to flatten a car so no one can drive it. You have one bulldozer and the next guy has 10 bulldozers. Is one bulldozer enough to keep you from driving that car or would 10 do a better job?

Granted the US has more nukes than China but all that give them is second strike capability. Rialto California is the 300th largest city in the USA so if the Chinese are successful with 299 warheads they’ll live …. at least until the cloud of radiation is over the croplands of the midwest they they have to worry about starvation.

At that point can you really say the USA has won anything if they destroy more Chinese cities than US cities destroyed by China?

HiaNd

I am not talking about “destruction of some Chinese cities” I am talking about complete destruction of China and even several times repeating it if they want.

Rad my comment to Florian above for details. And be very specific and technical in your question if you want my answer.

I am not interested in the silly examples of “cars and bulldozers”.

China is not even close to US when it comes to nuclear triad and specially strategic nukes.
US is far above.

HB_Norica

Do you understand the concept of MAD? Salt I and Salt II agreements? All a nuclear arsenal is good for is deterrence. You hit a country with 100 nukes and they are done …. having 3000 is redundant and meaningless.

The USA has 6000 warheads but only 1700 deployed the rest in storage or “potential” missiles meaning they have the fissile material and components but haven’t put them together … Russia about the same. that’s more than enough to end civilization on this planet.

200 missiles would easily end the USA and possibly world civilization as the firestorms from burning cities would drive enough soot and ash into the stratosphere to stop crop production. Same goes for China.

Numbers greater than that are redundant EXCEPT for the concept of second strike capabilities which is why the USA and Russia keep larger arsenals that they’ll ever need or even be able to use. It’s all about having enough left over for second or third strike just to make the rubble bounce and make life hell for the few survivors of previous strikes.

HiaNd

“Do you understand the concept of MAD?”
And do you?
I was reading little bit and you exaggerate way too much…
China is way below US and Russia….that is all I want to tell you.
US strategic bombers , strategic subs and strategic missiles are SO MUCH in numbers above anything China has; that this conversation is pointless.

P.S.
Salt I and Salt II agreements have nothing to do with China
If US would attack China with nuke annihilation Russia would destroy US immediately.
Every other reaction would be too risky.

It is as simple as that.

HB_Norica

So just to be clear.

You think the USA can WIN a nuclear war against nuclear armed country like China simply because they have more nukes?

All the nuclear triad does for the USA means that they have a means to destroy you even if you obliterate the USA.

They don’t WIN anything. All they get for their bigger nuclear arsenal is revenge from the grave.

“If US would attack China with nuke annihilation Russia would destroy US immediately.”

Please show me any document or quote from a Russian official that Russia would ‘destroy the USA immediately” if China was attacked.

Russia and China don’t even have a mutual defence agreement let alone a murder suicide pact like you seem to think they have.

Russia and China enjoy a “treaty of friendship” but that’s it.

Russia will do what’s in the best interests of Russia if a war breaks out between China and the USA. The USA has a potent SLBM fleet that would survive a nuclear attack from either China or Russia. Entering into a nuclear exchange with the USA and having their cities destroyed is NOT in the best interests of Russia.

It’s unlikely that Russia will nuke anyone unless Russia is attacked and that’s exactly what their doctrine states.

HiaNd

“Please show me any document or quote from a Russian official that Russia
would ‘destroy the USA immediately” if China was attacked”

Ha ha ha and what kind of “document” would you want with hundreds of US missiles flying towards the China to annihilate them on Russian radars ? That would trigger immediate Russian reaction since after China, the Russia (as last obstacle to NATO dominance) would be next on list of the destruction and that would not be permitted at all by Russians !
Reaction would be immediate because total destruction of China would be an attack on survival of Russia as well.
But for people like you it is difficult to see obvious i suppose.

You are no expert on nukes just person who likes to sound like one.
I am not expert either but still i know plenty (even comparing to people like you)…so I don’t buy your nonsense explanations.
I am pro Russia and pro China and anti U.S. anti NATO yet I do not deny reality and I do not tell silly stories that has nothing to do with reality like you.


YES the US have absolute dominance in much bigger number of much better strategic bombers and much bigger number of strategic subs (of much better quality than Chinese) with so many more strategic missiles, much, much more than China.
That would ABSOLUTELY PUT U.S. in total dominance in the case of use of nukes in war with China.
I have not even smallest doubt about that what so ever.

What “treaty of friendship”bollocks?!?
You are ignorant. They are members of SCO military organization for long years already (Asian version of NATO ) Even Iran is becoming member with many central Asian countries and India and Pakistan also. Turkey has “observer” status.
Good bye !

HB_Norica

I see what the problem is …. you’re getting the CSTO confused with the SCO.

The TSCO is a military alliance like NATO formed out of former Soviet republics and satellites.

The SCO is a trade and military COOPERATION treaty that includes most TSCO members and China. They cooperate on security issues like terrorism and cybersecurity NOT nuclear war and no mutual defence pact like NATO.

None of the countries you mentioned are considering membership or even observers to the SCO .

Turkey is a ‘dialogue’ partner in the SCO … whatever the fuck that means. Turkey is a member of NATO …. in what fucked up alternative universe would Russia or China allow a NATO member to sit in on their “defence pact” meetings. Think about it.

“You are no expert on nukes just person who likes to sound like one.”

It’s not ‘nukes’ that’s are important here. It’s deterrence strategy. The strategy behind having nukes is never having to use them. If you use them both you and your opponent lose. That’s all you gotta know.

The large US arsenal would keep China from launching a first strike on the USA but it doesn’t guarantee that China couldn’t retaliate against a US strike on China. That’s why the size of the US arsenal is irrelevant.

HiaNd

I don’t get at all confused but you for some reason can’t simply read at all !
I have told you SCO = Shanghai Cooperation Organization very clearly !

(yet you tell me that I was “confused” – when you can’t simply read what is written?! )

“They cooperate on security issues like terrorism and cybersecurity NOT nuclear war and no mutual defense pact like NATO.”
Why the fuck would they “cooperate” on nukes? Only Russia and China has them.
What would be the purpose of that?
They are not international terrorists like NATO !

YES they are SIMILAR to NATO of course because it is not NATO, logically can’t be totally the same as NATO!
They cooperate on most important issues in central Asia since US is bringing terrorism there as well so the core of their cooperation (is not about non existent external enemy ) but TERRORISTS that are real for all those countries !
They are exported from Afghanistan by usual suspect CIA !
Those countries do have “mutual defense” on the anti terrorist level and obligation to send military units to help country that has big problems with large scale terrorist presence in that country or region.
So they have military cooperation on the level ADEQUATE for them, nothing more!
They are not invading aggressive terrorist force like NATO.
They exist strictly in defensive purpose!

Turkey is on their meetings and could easily become member if they get out of NATO which is not far fetched at all (the way you make it sound)
India and Pakistan are new members of SCO despite your claims that you say that they are not. Slowly whole central Asia (and even larger than that) will enter SCO.

Your speech of “deterrent” doesn’t impress me.

As nuke power China is just junior member whichever way you try to turn that around nothing will change that fact.
China is no match to US or Russia when it comes to strategic nukes end of story.
I can’t even be bothered to argue with you over obvious.
So think whatever you want like I care…

Tommy Jensen

Exactly, if we carpet bomb china with 1200 nukes in our swarm technique, china cant make use of their poor 300 nukes who falls into the water before they can reach anything, and we won the battle.

HiaNd

I have even better solution

That Wallmart imports those 300 + nukes and puts them on the sale so that some citizens of US who need advanced self protection can buy few nukes to protect their ranch or resort from nuisance of emigrants or even flock of European tourists wandering around with nostrils full of COVID 19 .
When incinerated-evaporated by nukes they’ll represent no danger to peace loving Americans and their exceptional way of life …and their American dream…

Jim Allen

What, you think you’re Westmoreland, or something ?

Frank G

problem is they are hidden and no one really knows exact details but enough to deter a preemptive strike, it only takes a few say 10, to get through to wipe out a country the survivors would want to have died a usa ret strike would end china but with that many nukes flying rus would also have to launch and others to, this would be the end of life.

HiaNd

Oh yes they know (and unknown margins of error are small ) because if not cheating with numbers of nukes could start the war.

So why would they (Russia and US have few thousand) if only 10 is enough?
Those 10 can’t even get through “Moscow anti ballistic defense systems” let alone all other anti ballistic defenses Russia has (like S-500 that will be produced starting next year)

You are exaggerating so much and talk in such approximative way that this conversation is becoming ridiculous.

occupybacon

They have 250-350 max. Most of them are not on subs.

HB_Norica

That’s what most people say based on the estimated amount of fissile material China is estimated to have. That’s supposedly known because China is signatory to the NPF treaty which makes them subject to inspections. However since China isn’t party to any arms limitation treaties no one knows for sure.

China has seven nuclear powered boomers. They apparently like to hide close to Russia’s pacific coast and can hit most of the USA from there. From the Indian ocean they can hit japan, SK, Guam I would be surprised if the USA didn’t have a tail on all of them … especially these days.

The real threat are the road mobile DF-41’s which are dispersed and hidden across China. The USA has no defence against them and good luck finding them. Remember scud hunts in 1991? That was in the open desert with total air superiority and Scuds were liquid fuelled so they remain stationary a lot longer than DF-41’s

occupybacon

So they could also have less than that. Communists always brag to have more than in reality.

HB_Norica

“So they could also have less than that.”

Sure … but would you bet your survival on it ?

“Communists always brag to have more than in reality.”

Interesting but it sounds a little absolutist to me. Care to cite a study on that …. other than from the Bacon school of Occupation of course.

occupybacon

There is a book named ‘The God That Failed’ by Richard Crossman, a compilation of testimonies from ex-communist university teachers and other highbeducated groups, mostly from the West. They describe the process of how the KGB was bribing them by buying the majority of the circulation of their garbage books and they were lying to their students that in USSR people had a better life than in the West. The book is pretty fun but the sad part was that under the influence of money, most of this people with high studies, started to sincerely believe their own lies. And they woke up only after the flow of money stopped.

HB_Norica

That sounds about right.

The west lied too overstating Russia’s nuclear strength and intentions all through the cold war. Kennedy never revealed to his people that he bargained away missiles deployed in Turkey during the Cuban missile crisis so the USA didn’t look weak.

You have Americans today arguing that they have the best healthcare system in the world despite average to poor outcomes and they claim the reason they lead the world in covid-19 infections and deaths is because they’re the best in the world at fighting it.

This is what nations do …. they bullshit their people into believing their way of life is superior and the enemy is less than human caricatures.

occupybacon

Of course private healthcare is better than what the state gives you ‘for free’. So maybe those amerucans that boast withbtheir healthcare are right :)

Rhodium 10

USA needed 166 cruise missile to destroy an small complex building in Barzeh (Damascus) , 3 warehouse, and damage ( not destroyed) a Bunker in Him Shinshard( Homs) also an airbase Shayrat in Homs(which was always operative)….so it means that USA need 1660 for 10 targets like that and 16.600 for 100…more than all arsenal of Tomahawk…it is because modern air defense system like Pantsir and Buk work well….once China have a shield of modern short/medium range AD…they can preserve the military-industrial complex and military assets and therefore deters USA military for a large scale war.

occupybacon

That was a symbolic gesture, negotiated with Russia before. Trump just needed to please some Soros NGOs and the lil Macron.

HB_Norica

“USA needed 166 cruise missile to destroy an small complex building in Barzeh (Damascus)”

The USA claimed to have hit it with 166 missiles. More likely only one or two actually reached the target.

I saw an interesting youtube video on how the 1991 air war on Iraq that showed how it unfolded minute by minute and what aircraft and naval assets were used.

TLAMs were used to take out civilian infrastructure like electrical grid and water treatment plants but only after radars and air defences along their path were taken out by aircraft. They didn’t strike many military targets. The whole key to the air war was a helicopter gunship attack on two radar installations lasting 4 minutes in total that created a path for aircraft to fly through undetected and then clear a path for the TLAMs and other aircraft.

The attack on the Barzeh was just a volley of TLAM’s without air support or jamming so they were easy to shoot down however they way they actually use them in a full on air war is completely different.

Rhodium 10

The modern and mobile Russian air system avoid close air support to troops, airstrike over the target( for example tu use heavy antibunker bombs)…the use of cluster bombs, rockets…of course fighterjets nowdays can attack with cruise missile from long distance…but its an expensive waste of sofisticate weapons..are useless vs heavy bunkers ( as we have seen in Al Kiswah base of Syria where all of them are without damage because Delilah , Spice bomb and popeye are useless vs them)…

HB_Norica

USA inc is in the business of of fighting in a manner that burns the most fuel, expensive munitions and spends the most $$$ possible. These days that’s what makes the economy hum.

Stealth aircraft that need a week of maintenance and a repaint between sorties is bad enough but some time look into the proposed ‘prompt global strike’ initiative in which they propose reacting to terrorists by launching an $85m ICBM armed with a conventional warhead. They already have stealth aircraft that can find the most expensive way to fly a bomb to it’s target but why not just burn up an $85M missile instead …. better yet make the payload a pallet of cash!

Then there was the ‘rod from god” …. 20′ X 1’ dia tungsten rods weighing close to 9.5 tons which they would haul into orbit at $10,000 / lb then drop on evil doers. Americans who are rich and big on ideas but poor at math loved the idea. Space x heavy will get that cost down by 75% however it will still cost close to $50 M just to get one of these babies into orbit. Evildoers beware!

So in light of this a massive TLAM attack costing a quarter of a $billion on an empty building, against an enemy armed with air defences designed to take out TLAMs is in fact sensible and shows fiscal restraint.

christianblood

The Chinese have an standing army of 5.5 million with 110 million ‘first priority’
or (首要任务) reservist ready for duty within 24 hrs!

James Adams

Correction China only has an Active Army of 2.1M and 500,000 reservists. Your including paramilitary and militia in you 5.5M I’m assuming which are vastly underequipped and trained for a war against Taiwan. The 110 you quote would have to be enrolled by gunpoint, which doesn’t make them the best soldiers.

Plus you have to get all those soldiers onto Taiwan for them to be effective. Not only that you’ll have to be willing to sacrifice at least 3-400,000 soldiers to claim victory.

HiaNd

It is within Chinese effort to reduce standing army and augment (through military modernization reforms, mirrored from Russia) general performance and reducing the sheer number of soldiers. All the savings from that effort will be redirected to modernization of the army.
At the moment China is making huge strides and their investing in army and modernization.
That investment is on parity or similar with US considering what they can get for the amount of money they give to the military and what military can buy with that money.
Also they are never 100% transparent in their investments in army.
So the sum can be even bigger.

Taiwan is hardly opponent worth mentioning without direct US help
They look pathetic comparing to standards PLA has.
The Chinese naval strength will keep growing so fast that soon enough Taiwan will be surrounded by Chinese navy from all sides.
Today China is capable to build 1 aircraft carrier per year.
No other country can come even close, US included

christianblood

The 5.5 million include People’s Liberation Army with its active paramilitaries, people’s militias and auxiliaries all of them fully armed and equipped for battle. The 110 million are first priority reserves which can all be summoned with 24 hrs of a major global war involving of an invasion of the People’s Republic itself.

Kenny Jones ™

Of course the PLA rocket force alone could destroy their defenses with thousands of missiles, then their huge navy would send it’s huge manpower, could be done in 1 week, hopefully this year, before the US election in November

ARAB Warlord

lol nice dreams you got . the chinese army lacks experience . it literally have never been in a war for decades . obviously a war between super powers is out of the pictures , but lets say if china with its current army tries it’s luck in countries like afghanistan , pakistan , india or vietnam it would be kicked so hard it will collapse .

but china is smarter then that

Selbstdenker

The statement, that us could build an Anti-China coalition in Asia is a wet dream. US is there since the seond world war, and did not make any friends in the region since then. They were harvesting their benefits from all countries there. How could they possibly convince any country there to trust them now to act in their best interest, and join such a coalition?

FlorianGeyer

The Kurds have :)
Several times, Lol.

Tommy Jensen

90% of people are for sale. Its proved again again again. People and politicians shift partners by convenience, stockholm syndrome and power structures.
Look at the US/Nato Coalition of 70 countries including EU going into a complete idiotic war with Iraq.
They could have got anything in Iraq on a silverplate by a give and take negotiation. But no. Its about dominance and master race.

Zionism = EVIL

hahahha the stupid Americunt loser arseholes are not having a good week, first the utter humiliation at the UNSC, now an international tribunal has rejected all the cunts lies:

BEIRUT, LEBANON (1:30 P.M.) – The Special Tribunal for Lebanon
announced their findings after a long investigation into the
assassination of the former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafic Hariri.

According to the Tribunal’s findings, there was no direct evidence
that leaders of Hezbollah or Syria had anything to do with the
assassination of Rafic Hariri.

Furthermore, the Tribunal said the assassination was likely carried
out for political reasons, but they were unable to find any evidence
that Hezbollah’s leadership was behind the assassination.

The Tribunal described the relationship between Hezbollah’s
Secretary-General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and Rafic Hariri as being
positive and Hezbollah has been an politically positive influence in Lebanese politics..

Traiano Welcome

This whole STL circus has been a huge nothing burgher.

lovethemapples

logistics

johnny rotten

And then what if the americunts while engaged in such a challenging conflict are attacked by everyone they have unfinished business with? what would become of israhell or the ukrainian nazi-fags, and the bastard fake kingdoms of the Persian gulf? perhaps they would put personalized sanctions on every inhabitant of the globe?

Damien C

They ran wargames scenarios against Iran in 2002 and put a retired marine General Paul Van riper in charge of the red team.

Van Riper kicked their ass!

So they changed the rules to stop him winning!

Ooops … Van Riper kicked their ass AGAIN!

So they changed the rules again where he wasn’t allowed to use his best assets and he had to say where all his manpower and assets where hidden and they weren’t allowed to be moved!

And the US still struggled to win but with swathes of Iran unconquered

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_20

Zionism = EVIL

Actually, a RAND and CIA war gaming study in 2006, after the Hezbollah whupping of Zionists in Lebanon concluded that Iran would kick their dumbarse in any asymmetrical war and that is why the idiot Bush and all since then have backed off taking on Iran.

Lazy Gamer

Taiwan folding in a week is not enough time for a political decision by US, Japan Sokor, Australia, Asean. Taiwan wasted its money with those fighter planes. There are other smaller islands that held longer under bombardment.

Jim Bim

When has the US, singlehanded won a war.

Кристофер Петров

Apart from colonizing and massacring indigenous Americans, imperialistic ventures to the Philippines, the fight against Spain, Grenada and Panama, US has never singlehandedly won a war by itself. WW1 was won by the French and British, US barely made a difference strategically.
And WW2 was won by the Soviet Union, US entered Europe in the last year of the war, taking on the Western and southern front which was defended by less than 1 million germans, meanwhile USSR took on 8 million German soldiers from 1941-45

Tommy Jensen

During all times since sitting bull was forced to leave his bison fields to us. Everytime and everywhere we have been in a war we won!
We took over Japan after the hiroshima. We control Vietnam today who love to see americans in their country as a protection against enemies and who comes with peace.

Traiano Welcome

“We control Vietnam today”

Bullshit. Vietnam beat you completely and sent you running tail between legs back to yankee land.

Tommy Jensen

As I said, we never give up, we came back and conquered Vietnam.
Today they all bow and even paid and STILL pay war compensation to America for destroying our T-shirts under the war.
So dont say we didnt won……………………………………………………………LOL.

Traiano Welcome

“we came back and conquered Vietnam”

LOL! In what parallel universe? Stop watching Rambo movies, they’re all CIA propaganda.

AM Hants

Rand Corporation, didn’t they give instructions, demanding genocide of 1.5 million, in Ukraine? Back when Poroshenko were voted in. How did that work out?

Tommy Jensen

Computer games……………….LOL

In real life an american take out 1000 chinese soldiers, meaning 1 mio americans can take out 1 billion chinese in normal warfare. In very Intelligent warfare with surprises as we are doing it, the figure is higher.
Further they cant play computer with high classified secret technology and modern hybrid weapons as we have and they dont have, why the computer game is worth nothing but psy-op.

Traiano Welcome

In real life, the US gets defeated in Korea and gets beaten back to the 38th parallel.
They get stuck there for more than 60 years.

We are not living in 1952 anymore – China is a nuclear superpower now. The US will lose a war in the SCS or on the mainland with China. Period.

Tommy Jensen

We still own Japan and Taiwan yes? We are still in South Korea yes?
The reason why we didnt took N-Korea is we need N-Korea to cause tensions and divisions in the area. Divide and conquer………………………..LOL.

Traiano Welcome

What has Taiwan and Japan got to do with regard to your performance against China?

What makes you think you ‘own’ Taiwan and Japan? You’re no more than a temporary colonial force in Asia that will soon vanish, like the other ex colonial powers like the British, the Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish.

You’re in South Korea to act as convenient targets for the PLA. Essentially you are hostage forces.

The reason you didn’t take NK is because the PLA did not allow you to. They beat your asses back to the 38th parallel, plus that of the Australians, Brits, South Africans and other lackeys who joined the gang-rape of Korea.

You tried to get to the Yalu river, China’s border and China wouldn’t allow that so they booted you far away enough to make a buffer. you’ve not been able to cross that line for 70 years now.

Paul

Chinas 3rd rate military will get vanished if they Challenge USA

<>

China will never get Taiwan, same as India will teach the Chinese bastards what it means to try and take Indian lands. Goodluck brother!

Traiano Welcome

The simulations seem to show China has a very good likelyhood of taking Taiwan if they wish.

Remember: Taiwanese are Chinese. They have family links across the straits. Eventually the island will be joined to the mainland.

James Adams

China would not win at all. It would be to costly for them to successfully take the island. SouthFront stop lying

Veritas Vincit

– Liu Guoshon, a Chinese Central Military Commission official, [pointed] out that violence between China and America might not be so far into the future…. Ian Bremmer, [a Stanford-trained political scientist] commented that, “Chinese officials are preparing for the worst, and they expect to retaliate decisively in response to any US policies they perceive as against their interests.” (Chinese Army Commander: War With US Increasing Reality, SputnikNews, 30/01/2017)

– “According to a report in China Military Online, escalations between the two superpowers will lead to the inevitable. “The problem is not whether the war will break out, but when,” the report said.” (New Arms Race: China, US Prepare for Missile Warfare, Sputnik, 24/08/2016)

It is interesting to observe while many Western bloc analysts promote the concept of forming anti-PRC coalitions/military alliances, remarkably what is overlooked is the fact that the PRC also has strategic allies (that would become involved if the format of conflict necessitated the activation of broader defence architecture). For example, as defined by the Sino-Russian Treaty of Friendship: “Article 9 of the treaty can be seen as an implicit defense pact…. The document affirms Russia’s stand on Taiwan as “an inalienable part of China” (A5), and highlights the commitment to ensure the “national unity and territorial integrity” in the two countries (A4).” (Wikipedia: 2001 Sino-Russian Treaty of Friendship)

The uncompromising pursuit of US sponsored separatism by the DPP places this alliance on a collision course for war against the PRC (as defined by the Anti-Secession Act) . If broader alliances become involved the conflict will logically change in nature.

The aggressive militarism of certain Western bloc nations (evident in wars of aggression/hybrid warfare against successive nations) continues to globally expand with the targeting of more recent nations (particularly the PRC, the Russian Federation, Iran, Venezuela, etc). It is likely the many wars the Western bloc is engineering will in time be recognised as one. The structure of various military exercises indicate preparations for this outcome [for example 1-2].

References:
1. “The US military-intelligence complex is engaged in systematic preparations for World War III. As far as the Pentagon is concerned, a military conflict with China and/or Russia is inevitable, and this prospect has become the driving force of its tactical and strategic planning…. Each of the hearings presumed a major US conflict with another great power (sometimes unnamed, sometimes explicitly designated as China or Russia) within a relatively short time frame, years rather than decades.” (Washington prepares for World War III, WSWS, 5 November 2015)

2. “Russia does not want war and does not intend to start a war. But today, Russia can see that the explosion of a global war is almost unavoidable and is prepared and will continue preparing. Russia does not want a war but is not afraid of a war. Those who get Russia involved in this process will learn the real meaning of pain”. [Vladimir Putin] (At the Threshold of a Third World War, Southfront, 12/09/2016)

HiaNd

“Those who get Russia involved in this process (of war) will learn the real meaning of pain”

Exactly what I keep blabbing my mouth about!
Nobody takes Russia seriously enough and they might regret it badly.
Russia is not about posturing and about bluffing like West.
If you come to Russian border with big army and make ONE wrong move you will regret it the rest of your miserable life!

Tommy Jensen

Its never too late. You dont understand that US already steer this globe.
US State Department is divided into world regions where an US Officer are resonsible over everything that happens within his world region.
Our flag will hang in Moscow some day not by guns but by deception……………LOL.

HiaNd

The only place where your “flag will hang” could be up your faggot LGBTQ 60 genders arse.
Dollar is about to implode country on verge of civil war and your economy in disarray you would be world power…

Anthony Papagallo

On the other hand the Chinese could just hire the Taliban, give them some canoes to replace their donkeys and just let them kick the Americans backside around the Pacific basin for the next 19 years?

Traiano Welcome

This is common sense. One just needs to look at the map to see the USA cannot win a conflict over Taiwan with China. But, the US needs million dollar simulations to tell them what you average Chinese farmer knows.

cechas vodobenikov

amerikans lose all wars—empire collapse will render USA irrelevant and their colonies more vulnerable—taiwan will integrate w China, Donbass w Russia etc

LibertyIsGreat

This doesn’t make sense. China can only invade through the sea and air so any movement would be picked up immediately way in advance and US bombers and missiles will take out ships carrying troops.

Hannibal Lecter

Just like in the movies…

LibertyIsGreat

Yes, D-Day invasion movie.

Dick Von Dast'Ard

Clearly you haven’t read the article.

LibertyIsGreat

Yes, I have. They have more people but we are not waiting until 220K are in the ships ready to move before we act. USA will mobilize at same rate as they are. More subs, missiles, and AirPower will be sent.

Dick Von Dast'Ard

China would EMP Taiwan first, remove it’s ability to make electricity and after that Chinese SSK’s and missile boats (Type 22) would prevent Taiwan from having a food or water supply.

In short, PRC-China could use psychological warfare operations to win a victory, very swiftly, with minimum of PLA losses.

cechas vodobenikov

amerikans r too cowardly to defend Taiwan. it is China’s interest to maintain Taiwan as semi-independent presently. this permits them to conduct trade internationally through Taiwan—circumventing impotent amerikan tariffs/sanctions….amerikans r stupefied

143
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x