The US military doctrine prefers "asymmetric conflict," i.e. against a much weaker enemy such as Panama, Nicaragua, Grenada, and Iraq.  Afghanistan and Viet Nam looked like pushovers, but turned out not to be.  

 

 China would at the very least not be a pushover.  I think the use of nuclear weapons would be unacceptable, although some in the military would push for it.  So, the likeliest outcome is that the US would back down.

 

I don't think President Tsai Ing-Wen would go so far as to declare independence.  It's better for both sides to maintain the status quo.  

20 hours ago, robblok said:

I doubt the USA or any other country will stand against China for Taiwan. There is no oil there or other things the US can use. Also its not an easy victory for the US (they would probably give up after losing too many people). Nuclear attack.. highly doubt it again. In the end Taiwan will just be Chinese.

 

I wish it were different but dont think anyone will help or is able to help. The Chinese have all the advantages.

Unfortunately, yes. I think at the last estimation China has at least over 2 million active military personnel and about half that again in reserve. Being on the doorstep, as it were, of Taiwan it wouldn't take much Chinese effort to outnumber Taiwanese forces and still have a military bigger than the US on the mainland. Granted, that it might come down to technology and know how but still difficult to see the Taiwanese surviving as separate.

What might be different though is that if the Chinese backed NK to invade SK. This would probably then lead to problems with Japan and no doubt result in a bigger international response.

4 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

The US military doctrine prefers "asymmetric conflict," i.e. against a much weaker enemy such as Panama, Nicaragua, Grenada, and Iraq.  Afghanistan and Viet Nam looked like pushovers, but turned out not to be.  

 

 China would at the very least not be a pushover.  I think the use of nuclear weapons would be unacceptable, although some in the military would push for it.  So, the likeliest outcome is that the US would back down.

Any sane military would prefer asymmetric conflict, who really wants a drawn out bloody fight. Since the US is the preeminent military power by a long stretch, any conflict by definition would be asymmetric! 

While China would not be a pushover, they are not nearly as formidable as their numbers suggest. The PLA has not fought a foreign conflict since the mid-70's when they fought to a draw with Vietnam in what was incredible embarrassment to China. Planning and training are just that, as Mike Tyson famously said: "Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth". 

Nuclear weapons are by far the last resort of any military for a multitude of reasons. The only scenario I can envision their use would be coming from the likes of N. Korea or Iran as a last ditch effort to save their regimes. As bellicose as China is lately, they are not stupid and driven by some crazy ideology. There would be NO winner in a nuclear scenario.

48 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

The US military doctrine prefers "asymmetric conflict," i.e. against a much weaker enemy such as Panama, Nicaragua, Grenada, and Iraq.  Afghanistan and Viet Nam looked like pushovers, but turned out not to be.  

 

 

I'm always fascinated by some posters references to Vietnam.

 

Yes it was a disaster, but nobody seems to remember the French were there long before, and their casualties almost equaled those of the US, from a country the third of the size of the US

 

Somehow thats been airbrushed out of French and European memory

 

One of the things that is true I think in any conflict is locality. 

 

Take WW2 as an example. The Germans and the Japanese got more fanatical the closer the fighting came to home soil.

Independence struggles, same thing

 

I wouldn't underestimate the Taiwanese to fight like Hell, and it would be a guerrilla war at the end

 

 

China shouldn’t wake the sleeping giant.

36 minutes ago, GinBoy2 said:

Yes it was a disaster, but nobody seems to remember the French were there long before, and their casualties almost equaled those of the US, from a country the third of the size of the US

 

36 minutes ago, GinBoy2 said:

 

Somehow thats been airbrushed out of French and European history

Actually..it hasn't..see Martin Windrow's 

The Last Valley' and Bernard Fall's 'Street Without Joy' and 'Hell in a Very Small Place'

 

The big difference is that France and Europe are no longer top military players in the region whereas the US-even after its catastrophic defeat-remains one.

 

The other reason is primarily one of "face" as the US never forgives a defeat either one-on-one or by proxy unless the war is resolved in their favour.

 

They are still trying to prove that George Armstrong Custer was one of the greatest military geniuses of the 19th century.

 

Addit-the desperate desire for some US Air Force generals to "Nuke 'em" was never more apparent than in the Indo-China War where they advanced proposals to the French to drop nuclear weapons around Dien Bien Phu.Big mouths with small brains.

1 minute ago, Odysseus123 said:

 

Actually..it hasn't..see Martin Windrow's 

The Last Valley' and Bernard Fall's 'Street of Joy' and 'Hell in a Very Small place'

 

The big difference is that France and Europe are no longer top military players in the region whereas the US-even after its catastrophic defeat-remains one.

 

The other reason is primarily one of "face" as the US never forgives a defeat either one on one or by proxy unless the war is resolved in their favour.

 

They are still trying to prove that George Armstrong Custer was one of the greatest military geniuses of the 19th century.

I think the difference is how it's remembered.

 

I've been to both Vietnam memorials in Washington &  Marseille.

 

It was striking. In Washington I was one of many looking at the memorial.

 

I went to the memorial in Marseille because I was on vacation in Southern France and thought it would be good to visit.

 

I was the only person there. I talked to the custodian, he said they get a handful of people a week

21 minutes ago, GinBoy2 said:

I think the difference is how it's remembered.

 

I've been to both Vietnam memorials in Washington &  Marseille.

 

It was striking. In Washington I was one of many looking at the memorial.

 

I went to the memorial in Marseille because I was on vacation in Southern France and thought it would be good to visit.

 

I was the only person there. I talked to the custodian, he said they get a handful of people a week

That is because they have moved on...it was a disastrous colonial adventure-primarily fought by colonial troops and the Legion.There were proportionately few members of the Metropolitan forces there-especially as conscripts.Moreover the Legion and Colonial regiments upon re-arrival at their North African bases got involved in all sorts of murky business and were eventually disbanded with dishonour.

The US army became a draftee one and the moral of that tale is never to fight a colonial war with conscripts/draftees.

maybe China will have to deal with the Portuguese as well 555

 

The name Formosa dates from 1542 when Portuguese sailors sighted an uncharted island and noted it on their maps as Ilha Formosa ("beautiful island").^[3] The name Formosa eventually "replaced all others in European literature" and remained in common use among English speakers into the 20th century.^[4]

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

 

1 hour ago, Isaan sailor said:

China shouldn’t wake the sleeping giant.

The awakened giant is China. They will never start a war but will win against anyone who is stupid enough to dare. They will eat the dust from the ground rather than surrender and will pay any price,  suffer any hardship the likes of which we in the comfortable west can only glimpse in our worse nightmares. 

 

And for those reasons there will be no war just set piece chest baring and beatings. Nothing more. 

Attacking Taiwan now would be one of the stupidest things they could do.  Not saying it won't happen but it would be bad for China.  Why?

 

OK, assuming they really meant it could they take Taiwan?  Yes.  Logistically they hold the cards to muster the numbers needed to overcome Taiwans defenses and the US/Allied forces that would face them.  But only if they are prepared to accept MASSIVE losses.  Now, I know they don't give a damn about their soldiers as they have as many as they want.  But their equipment losses would be huge.

 

Between Taiwan and allied forces most of China's most modern jets would be splashed in the first few days.  And with the gap between only about 100 miles pretty sure a lot of their ships will be gone as well.  A single nuclear sub and Taiwans missile defenses would destroy a lot of China's emerging navy.

 

So let's assume they accept the losses.  What then?  Now, their vaunted navy and Airforce have been exposed as being large but out of date.  And they have finally succeeded in passing off most of the rest of the world.  No one buys their <deleted>.  Their economy crashes.  Bye bye CCP.

 

This, along with sabres rattling at Indian border and man made islands etc is nothing more than fodder for their masses that they are beset from all sides and it isn't the CCP that sucks it's the rest of the world not accepting Chinese superiority.  They know they would end up on the trash heap of history.  They won't attack anything militarily.  They play the long game.

 

 

12 minutes ago, jimmybcool said:

They play the long game.

You are right. However there may be several possible time horizons for long game. One ending around 2035.

18 minutes ago, candide said:

You are right. However there may be several possible time horizons for long game. One ending around 2035.

Possible.  If China doesn't screw the pooch and retains the worlds second largest economy and builds a modern military then they may become more aggressive.  We will see.  Well, some of us.  Some of us are in the aging category and might not be around.  ????

 

4 hours ago, Ireland32 said:

More so Deby  Traps , Colonizing , SCS , nice to  see the China Fangirls coming out of Woodwork , China just hired 300,000 Wumao CCP Trolls , we get new hires on TV 

After a while you will notice it's always the same people batting for China in all these posts.

 

There is highly suspicious pro CCP behaviour on TV, only the observant seem to notice it.

3 hours ago, Ireland32 said:

We have 7,000 Nukes same as Russia and your  Pro Chinese they have a 1000

So you think that having a nuclear war is a good idea? 

 

If you do, I feel very sad for you.

 

Have you any idea what the fallout pattern would be? Any idea how many millions of people will die and how much land will become uninhabitable?

 

Perhaps India and Pakistan will have their own little nuclear war and maybe Israel will destroy Iran. Russia might want to join in and lob missiles at China and maybe at the USA too.

 

Do you think that you will survive a nuclear war or even want to?

 

No sane person in their right mind would want that.

 

It never ceases to amaze me how so many keyboard warriors would love a war, especially if they are not touched by it.

 

4 hours ago, Ireland32 said:

Your Chinese Bootlicker Game  is Preposterous 

 You are as stupid as you post.

 

4 hours ago, Ireland32 said:

You like the taste of Boots I see 

 

No logical commonsense reply, so just insult the poster instead.

I think that the problem is not China but the communist party that is in power, XI and comrades are ready to lose it risking a war? The economic consequences for the population would be disastrous and their power would be threatened in the event of defeat.

On 5/29/2020 at 7:26 PM, bkk6060 said:

Hong Kong, Taiwan, who is next?  Thailand?

Difficult times but the western countries need to have a plan quickly to stop these Communist takeovers. 

thailand will just give up same as they did to the japs during ww2

14 minutes ago, billd766 said:

Well under President Johnson the US fielded over 500,000 men in S Vietnam, thousands of aircraft and helicopters, many ships and aircraft carriers and if that wasn't the full might of the US I wonder what was. It took them years and billions of $USD and they still they didn't win.

 

China has more men and materials than Vietnam and their logistics base is only a few km away.

 

Whilst the USA has a large technological advantage it is boots on the ground which count.

maybe if johnson had of let the military fight, bombed anything even remotely associated with military bombed hanoi and all seaports into rubble we might have won

9 minutes ago, billd766 said:

Well under President Johnson the US fielded over 500,000 men in S Vietnam, thousands of aircraft and helicopters, many ships and aircraft carriers and if that wasn't the full might of the US I wonder what was. It took them years and billions of $USD and they still they didn't win.

 

China has more men and materials than Vietnam and their logistics base is only a few km away.

 

Whilst the USA has a large technological advantage it is boots on the ground which count.

Vietnam was a disaster not due to lack of manpower or military might.  Politics caused the failure.  But that isn't the issue and could happen again today in another conflict so it is part of the equation.  How many casualties will the US stomach to defend Taiwan?  I've no idea.

 

Boots on the ground do usually win in the end.  The real issue with taking Taiwan for China is - despite being very close there is 100 miles of open ocean to cross and those soldiers aren't gonna swim it.  So projecting force is the issue.  While en-route the casualties will be enormous.  Assuming the US and it's allies are willing to stomach some casualties of their own.  If they are, it is possible China never gets a foothold on Taiwan.  China's airforce is larger than US can project with a few carriers.  And Taiwan has some jets but the numbers favor China.  But, modern warfare in the air is won with generation 5 fighters not numbers.  Despite a numbers advantage it is likely the US and Taiwan will control the skies.

 

It is also likely that any nuclear subs in the area will be able to operate with impunity and destroy troop carriers crossing the straights.  Yeah, eventually the US will run out of munitions or the casualty rate even at 10-1 erodes defense and China gets to Taiwan.  At that point the Taiwanese will be fighting for their lives.  And they WILL pull together if the <deleted> kicks off.

 

Seriously, can China win?  Yeah maybe.  But their military will be massively hammered and shown to be unprepared for war with a modern foe anywhere but locally.  They need more time to master true generation 5 fighters, nuclear subs, and carrier operations before they can project the manpower they have.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, jimmybcool said:

Vietnam was a disaster not due to lack of manpower or military might.  Politics caused the failure.  But that isn't the issue and could happen again today in another conflict so it is part of the equation.  How many casualties will the US stomach to defend Taiwan?  I've no idea.

 

Boots on the ground do usually win in the end.  The real issue with taking Taiwan for China is - despite being very close there is 100 miles of open ocean to cross and those soldiers aren't gonna swim it.  So projecting force is the issue.  While en-route the casualties will be enormous.  Assuming the US and it's allies are willing to stomach some casualties of their own.  If they are, it is possible China never gets a foothold on Taiwan.  China's airforce is larger than US can project with a few carriers.  And Taiwan has some jets but the numbers favor China.  But, modern warfare in the air is won with generation 5 fighters not numbers.  Despite a numbers advantage it is likely the US and Taiwan will control the skies.

 

It is also likely that any nuclear subs in the area will be able to operate with impunity and destroy troop carriers crossing the straights.  Yeah, eventually the US will run out of munitions or the casualty rate even at 10-1 erodes defense and China gets to Taiwan.  At that point the Taiwanese will be fighting for their lives.  And they WILL pull together if the <deleted> kicks off.

 

Seriously, can China win?  Yeah maybe.  But their military will be massively hammered and shown to be unprepared for war with a modern foe anywhere but locally.  They need more time to master true generation 5 fighters, nuclear subs, and carrier operations before they can project the manpower they have.

 

 

 

Looks lie a dirty 'guerrilla" war has broken out in the US right now. They would probably be wiser to fight that one than looking for scraps halfway round the world. 

The Americans know all about how difficult it is taking islands from determined opponents, even with air and sea superiority. Vietnam comparisons are a distraction, totally different ball game. This would really boil down to how determined the Taiwanese are to hold on to their independence. Both sides would suffer horribly. I can't see China being so stupid. It's all rhetoric.

1 hour ago, Mike k said:

maybe if johnson had of let the military fight, bombed anything even remotely associated with military bombed hanoi and all seaports into rubble we might have won

The problem with comparing Vietnam and Taiwan is this.

 

The AVRN were somewhat inept, and the South Vietnamese government was corrupt and widely despised by the majority of the Buddhist population. Remember that Buddhist monks didn't self-immolate to protest the Americans, but in protest against their own Catholic leaders, in particular Diem. That basically provided a great breeding ground for a 5th column for the North Vietnamese.

 

Contrast that with Taiwan and a truly democratic government legitimately elected, and armed forces which are pretty formidable. 

In that scenario I don't believe that, as in South Vietnam, you would have any sizable section of the population fighting for the opposition

3 hours ago, jimmyswale said:

The awakened giant is China. They will never start a war but will win against anyone who is stupid enough to dare.

Nonsense.

1 hour ago, Mike k said:

thailand will just give up same as they did to the japs during ww2

Lets face it they are already under the control of CCP.

China is not as powerful as some as you seem to think a lot of you guys are buying into the CCP propaganda when in actual fact China's per capita income has only just pulled ahead of Egypt and remains middle of the pack globally behind Brazil, Iran, Mexico and even Thailand.

23 hours ago, Heppinger said:

Your understanding of China, its culture, abilities and scope of power is weak.  And your upset i have pointed that out.  Try research rather then fantasies.

I tried to google chinese culture while in china to get a better understanding, but for some reason it was blocked. Then I tried twitter. It was also blocked. Can you explain? Is there something out there the chinese government doesn't want their people to see?

8 minutes ago, brucec64 said:

I tried to google chinese culture while in china to get a better understanding, but for some reason it was blocked. Then I tried twitter. It was also blocked. Can you explain? Is there something out there the chinese government doesn't want their people to see?

There's something they don't want their people or the people of other nations to see.  Of course corporate leaders are privy to the fact. as is anyone capable of critical theory

9 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

To be geologically correct, those were reclaimed coral atolls. 

Haha. You are the best. Straight from the Global Times. You must be raking it in at 50 cents a post.

13 minutes ago, BeltAndRoad said:

There's something they don't want their people or the people of other nations to see.  Of course corporate leaders are privy to the fact. as is anyone capable of critical theory

Actually it's more simply a case of facts they don't want their own people to know.

We all have the luxury of being able to retrieve information on anything, something the CCP denies it's own citizens sat behind the Great Firewall and the largest surveillance system ever known to man.

 

Now the usual suspects on here, the China trolls, will respond with 'but but but what about country xyz' but unfortunately facts are the facts when it comes to the PRC

16 hours ago, Mike k said:

maybe if johnson had of let the military fight, bombed anything even remotely associated with military bombed hanoi and all seaports into rubble we might have won

Winning isn't that difficult. It is the follow up that is hard.

 

Just suppose that the USA did defeat N Vietnam, what would they do next? Let the corrupt S Vietnam run the whole country and pull all the US forces out of the country? They did that at the end of the war and how long was it before N Vietnam and the Viet Cong reunited the country under N Vietnam?

 

The alternative would have been to maintain many thousands of the USA forces to keep the country "free" from communism. Of course then you have to think how many decades US troops would stay in Vietnam. All the time that they are there the Viet Cong will be fighting a guerrilla war and have a safe haven in Laos, Cambodia and across the Yalu river in China.