You should now define how that "smoking hole" got there in Guam, because I think you are now moving the target of the discussion.  I think DA and I have both made it clear that taking out the dam is on a rough equivalency with something like a nuclear strike, and thus is disproportionate in the context of a conventional-only fight.  If the Chinese make Andersen into a smoking hole using nukes, then you've changed that scenario and now we're talking about something very different to most people at least.  If the Chinese make Andersen into a smoking hole using conventional weapons, well, then I just have to stop right there as they barely have the capability to do that and much less chance than that of actually succeeding at doing that.

 

 

 

Whoops, and on toip of that, the documents DA cited show that in the scenarios DA and I are contemplating (conventional-only attempt to invade Taiwan, including attacks on western Pacific U.S. bases,) there is ***NO WAY*** we would breach that dam.  Is it physically possible?  Yes.  Can a piece of paper physically rise up and prevent us?  No.  Will w prevent opurselves because of the existence of that piece of paper?  Yes.

 

Not sure where you are going with this post. He was merely making a statement on the quantatative aspect of air combat in a hypothetical scenario. It a fact that an F-15 can launch more missiles than a LO F-22. It is also a fact that SU-27 series aircraft can do the same. If basing and support is the issue at hand it makes sense to deploy the least amount of aircraft to get the job done, assuming it doesn't turn out to be a turd in combat, the F-22 does everything better than the F-15 with less aircraft. Against a numerically superior enemy the point of running out of missiles before all enemy fighters have been eliminated is the quantitative vs. qualatative advantage. In terms of cost, the F-22 is far from one dimensional and can and will be used for many other aspects besides knocking Flankers out of the sky. The aircraft is still maturing as all platforms do, adding a myriad of capabilities will only shorten an already stressed fleet. Everyone is so worried about sacrificing something to buy more but that hasn't stopped the bailouts, executive bonuses or a trillion dollar health care reform so people that don't want to work can afford health insurance. If we can find money for irresponsibility then we can build more Raptors

 

 

Where I'm going with those questions is to demonstrate that while it is a the fact that four F-15s carry more missiles than two F-22s, that fact is of essentially no relevance to anything in the real world.  There is almost no such thing as a "numerically superior" enemy in the first place because the proper comparison is USAF/USN/USMC (plus allies?) v. the opposing force, and especially not in any context where having some additional F-22s (or some additional F-15s or any other fighter, either) in our global inventory will make any numerical difference in the AO.

 

I'd be perfectly happy to see us buy more F-22, but saying "4 x F-15 carry twice as many missiles as 2 x F-22" isn't an argument for that.

 

I've read this many times before. I agree that the Chinese have a tremendous capability to do economic damage to the USA. I also agree and have said many times including in this thread that a general open war with China is very low probability due to mutual economic ties. What I am not sure about with regard to your opinion, is the magnitude of the damage a Chinese economic attack could cause. My position is that the Chinese would be MUCH worse off in an economic tug-o-war with the USA. Here is why. First and foremost, there really is nowhere else to invest all the money the PRC has. Second, the bulk of the PRC economic activity and much of the employment are directly related to business in the USA. So, in a case like this, China would be in essence laying off several tens of million of it's citizens and wrecking it's own economy. Take a look and the current US situation. As we went into recession, the affects on China were profound. So if we stopped trading with them then now the PRC government would have all of these unemployed to contend with and that makes for a rather large internal security problem. No other nation could make up for the loss of US business in China.

The USA on the other hand. We can move our cheap labor to a whole bunch of other countries and buy their goods as well. In the short term the disruption would be a calamity but we would recover much quicker than the PRC. So, in sum, if you are saying the an attack on 3 Gorges is comparable to the PRC dumping the dollar, I have to disagree with that. But this is my lay opinion and I am not an economist.

-DA 

I'd like to add a little more to this. It's been my experience with my own units and the enemy that when a fight happens, ITS RARE, that the battle is waged until one side is completely dry of weapons and/or ammo. Usually, once the shooting starts, the fog of war kicks in and the humans fighting don't really know, "Hey, there are 2 

Raptors and  I have 8 Flankers so I'll just fight until he's out of missiles"...ect. What typically happens is in the confusion, you really don't know until after how many the enemy have and if you start to take disproportional casualties, like say those 2 Raptors fire several of their missiles and 4 Flankers go down right away. The remaining 4 are very likely to get so scared that they will run away and live to fight another day on terms more favorable. So I think it's a bit shallow to simply add all the missiles from both sides as a measure. It's "Art of War" not "Science of War" because after all we are talking about humans.

-DA 

""BW, China isn't afraid of a full scale strategic nuclear war?""

 

No , not really . The Chinese Gov made it clear in different occasions .

In China , "face" is everything and is more important than Death . The Chinese Gov don 't give a monkey about its citizens .

In fact , they ultimatly believe that they can do more damage to the USA than the USA can damage China , and with good reasons .

Who has the most to loose ? China with her internal economy and her huge manpower , or the USA who basicaly rule the Western economy and are on top of the "human chain" ? Do you know what I mean ?

China has more than enough nuclear warheads to vaporised 100+ US cities , which is enough to completly take the USA out of the World equation for one or two generations .

Then , the entire Western economy would plunge into darkages for at least 20 years ...

 

Cheers .

I think there are a few points I would make in response to your well presented argument.

 

? China can handle economic contraction more easily than the USA can, this is partly because they have a vast rural population, often living without electricity, running water, sanitation. It is also partly because it is able to tolerate widespread starvation, unemployment, and unrest, especially during a wartime (a virtue of having an ambivolent attitude towards suffering and human rights ((the ruling party at least))- they are less "economically" dependant because they can maintain order more ruthlessly than is possible in the US, they can force people to work.

 

? China actually can invest in other currencies as an alternative to the dollar - in fact, it's been the subject of widespread discussion in the past 6 months, leading to a recent statement that the dollar (for now) will remain the reserve currency of choice - they aren't diversifying to maximise the value as would be the case if there were no other strategic benefits to holding several trillion USD in reserve.

? The actual problem with western economies is that when the money runs out, things LITERALLY stop, we have a long supply chain, we can't force people to work domestically without pay, we can borrow, but the problem is that we already have been, extensively, we're not far off our total economic capacity in terms of expenditure as it is, there is little room for wartime economic stimuli. The situation in California is a good example of the effects this can have even with relatively trivial amounts of defecit (20 billion?), in China they would simply pay everyone less, or force people to work without pay, but in either case - the fact that they have so much wealth held in reserves is almost the most critical war-asset they currently have.

 

 

? Our military (in the west) simply can not fight without minute to minute funding, from oil to manpower, we can't fight without an economy, China has the ability to "make it so" without having to pay, another advantage of authoritarian governments, and in fact, probably the single reason that despite their many shortcomings, such regimes are able to continue to wield power even when the economy has entirely collapsed. (n.korea, zimbabwe, for example).

 

 

Basically it boils down to the fact that china is able to absorb economic shock more than the US, whether it ends up with millions starving, being forced to work, or simply being unemployed and living hand-to-mouth. There have been tens of millions (yes millions) of job losses in china, but because so many of the factory workers are from the rural poor, they have simply gone back (in many cases at least) to living a subsistence life until work prospects improve again, this is not an option we have in similar situations, in that our mechanism for coping is state-benefits, a further economic drain that "has to come from somewhere".

 

There is a very good reason to hold trillions of USD in currency, it's a fail-safe, the effects of which will make any us president very wary of getting involved in a conflict with Taiwan, as you say, the short-term effects would be catastrophic for the day-to-day running of public life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BW,

You are incorrect. The PRC does not have what we would have considered a Nuclear Deterrent during the Cold War. Yes, they can strike the USA proper. But their ability to do so is far ore limited than the Soviets, French, English or even the Russians today. Moreover, the PRC is as afraid as any sane nation about the prospect of nuclear war. Especially one they will suffer far worse in. They cannot "vaporize" 100 cities in the USA in a war.

-DA 

 

China has between 20-40 missiles or therabouts that are currently capable of hitting the US. Many are older designs with a single warhead that have a vast CEP and are prone to failure.

 

link

Interesting positions ReactivE. While I do disagree with you about China's options for diversifying their investments, I also think you have a very interesting viewpoint with regard to China's ability to handle internal security. It seems that in the West we have a tendency to overestimate how much like us people in other countries want to be. Sure, they wear our denim, listen to pop music and surf the Internet. But there are still profound cultural differences. One of those differences is obviously tolerance for hardship. While I don't see the PRC as an evil and oppressive regime, they are certainly more authoritarian than anything we would be used to. I think there's a time and any authoritarian form of government history where significant portions of the population will rise up in protest for some reason. In modern times, with regard to China, that was the Tian an men Square massacre. The Chinese government demonstrated that it can successfully put down very large-scale uprising, endure internal and external pressures and survive international sanctions. So I'm inclined to agree that we may be underestimating the ability of the Chinese to handle the misfortunes of war with regard to internal security. Military and security issues are my expertise so I feel more comfortable discussing this aspect of your post that I do the economic references. I'll have to do some research and get back to you with regard to China's options on investments in our ability to do business elsewhere. However, I strongly suspect China would suffer far worse than the United States. The particularly astute observation you made is in reference to the United States presidency. Because we do have a very short four-year election cycle, first-term presidents are particularly susceptible to economic pressures. That is a vulnerability we would be well advised to consider given our form of government.

-DA 

RE: My disagreement. Disagree may be too strong a word. Rather, I don't understand the economic aspect well enough to make an opinion yet.

Regards

-DA 

The PRC bandits have to attack Andersen or they can't even mount a credible blackmail of the RoCs. Its the one US base that is within heavy bomber range of their assembly areas and rocket bombardment sites. Even with Tomahawks we can mount an unacceptable (to them) deterrent.

 

Andersen has to go. Guaranteed opening move.  Therefore smoking hole.

 

Herald

 

I talk with adults (and one wanttobe) here. Stick to your usual BS and leave us alone.

 

Herald

 

 

 Thanks for your thoughts, I do understand where you're coming from.

 

To what extent China dumping the dollar would have on your economy affects day to day life is uncertain, but it will mean massive strain and massive cuts on spending. We're (both the UK and US) "maxed out" in terms of borrowing, and in any case, further borrowing will actually compound the problem. 

 

Probably major shortages of energy, huge lay-offs, inflation, military spending, which is necessarily massive during wartime is one of the surest areas to be "hit", given the choice, I do wonder what any incumbent would choose. It becomes a choice between huge domestic problems in almost every area imaginable, or accepting the loss of an ally that was under the illusion it would be defended.

 

The domestic public position is important, many would favour intervention, but if that did mean the massive "hit" on personal wealth and public services that the media would be predicting (alongside stock markets losing value as fear stuck in) would probably lead to a huge amount of resistence to military intervention. 

 

You are right in that the net effects would be huge for China too, but the lead-time for those effects would be several years in the making, China can manage its internal economy and has a lot of room to soften the blow for a sustained period. It can't replace the US as a trading partner, but it can delay the effects (and manage the percieved effects) for a far longer period.

 

This is why I think it is highly unlikely that either side is looking forward to the prospect of a war over Taiwan, it simply is massively costly for both parties.

 

Economics (however boring) do have a part to play in what wars we will find ourselves involved in, just as much as military capabilities do, and that the trade/debt links between countries function as a mutual deterent. The reality is that both sides are capable of significantly disrupting the lifestyle of the other without having to even fight.

 

And you very accurately noted that the chinese populace can tolerate more, yes, and they're used to it, and when they're fed up they have no mechanism by which they can make their voices heard. In contrast; if a war REALLY affected the lifestyle of a large proportion of the population by means of severe economic depression, then you would find a lot of opposition, and that, in itself, should be regarded as part of the fundamental equation when making a decision about which side wins; it might not be the side that feels it has, as you say, more to lose.