Would a Chinese naval invasion of Taiwan really be all that hard? It's only 180km away and the country itself is 36,000km2.
2/3 of that is the rural East, so really they just need to occupy the Western 1/3 to have complete control. An area roughly the size of Connecticut.
It would be incredibly easy for China to invade the island. China is far superior to any of the island’s allies. The opposition would not stand a chance.
But wait a minute. Taiwan is part of China. And China is unbeatable. So therefore how could China invade China and beat an unbeatable foe?
Dw, China would decisively beat China.
Decisive Tang victory.jpg
How fricking dumb are you? They'd have to cross 100+ miles of open water, all of which is in range of a huge number 9f anti-ship missiles. Then they'd have to make highly contested landings dodging mines, artillery, and short range anti-arnir missiles.
It would literally be multiple orders of magnitude more difficult than the D-Day landings.
This is acti g like they arent going to hit the island with every thing they got first before going in for the beachead would that not knock out alot of the defenses? D-day after all was done after the bombings missed their targets.
They would, but the big difference is that now things 50km from the shore can still frick up a landing force. You'd have to destroy every green truck on the island.
Ah makes sense and i see other people mentioned that china lacks much lanfing craft to begin with
>You'd have to destroy every green truck on the island.
They're Little Blue Trucks, akshually.
Motherfricker, Taiwanese anti-ship missiles can literally hit mainland naval facilities. PLAN ships don't even have to be out of port to be targeted. And the PLA has no ability to effectively target a huge number distributed anti-ship missile batteries.
Taiwan won't have an ability to target OTH. They can target static facilities if Chinese AD fails.
And if you think China has it bad, imagine Taiwan. Its the same range away, except China has 100x the missiles. Consider this statistics: Taiwan has so far 400 Harpoon missiles while China has 425 conventional ballistic missiles of various kinds.
It's painful to watch you put your abject stupidity on full display. What Taiwan has to do to be successful in a conflict and what China has to do are vastly different and China's task is at least 100x more difficult. They have to land hundreds of thousands of troops in the main island, something they have no hope of achieving. Taiwan just has to prevent that, a far far far easier task.
You're shifting goalposts from that Taiwan has a missile advantage to Taiwan has an easy task. Both are wrong. Taiwan has to prevent hundreds of thousands of Chinese troops from landing under intense naval, missile and air bombardment. Taiwan will almost instantly lose air and naval superiority. Taiwan also cannot "win" in the sense that they cannot actually defeat China militarily, but have to keep withstanding Chinese attack until China decides to give up.
>Taiwan also cannot "win" in the sense that they cannot actually defeat China militarily, but have to keep withstanding Chinese attack until China decides to give up.
not that anon, but China would be fighting against the clock as well
at a minimum the strait of Malacca is going to be blockaded, china's energy requirements would starve it very quickly (let alone their military hardware) as its everything not from Russia is cut off (they get most of their oil from the strait, and Russia is in no shape to fill that void because they literally don't have the eastern infrastructure)
only about 20%~ of their oil demand is fulfilled by domestic production
Their strategic petroleum reserve can last for 90 days. There's going to be a second pipeline Power of Siberia 2 from Russia. And although expensive, China could use rail to transport oil over friendly countries from Iran through Kazakhstan and into China.
>at a minimum the strait of Malacca is going to be blockaded
Frick no. China has enough ships to stop that from happening, theyre also building an airbase in Cambodia right now.
Furthermore, blockading Hormuz/Malaca is basically declaring a total war. China would be forced to deploy 200 warships/tactical nukes to obliterate the blockade/carrier fleet, which in return would mean total war from the USA.
>China has enough ships to stop that from happening
top kek.
Compelling and concise. American education is a blessing.
Want compelling and concise? Google a list of China's naval assets vs the US's naval assets. Also look up a list of naval military victories by both countries while you're at it. Your assertion was so moronic it doesn't deserve any reply more serious than: "top kek." So to reiterate: top kek.
Now you want a respectful and adult discussion? Tough breasts. Go frick your cousin Cleetus. Also:
>USA loses every war game sim vs China in Chinese waters
"Top kek"
>Now you want a respectful and adult discussion?
I causally made fun of you, you said that that doesn't constitute an argument, fine, I made an argument - now you refuse to acknowledge it (did you google those lists and shit your pants?) because "uhh, you mocked my ignorance - that means I get to ignore cold hard facts. Yeah, sure.
>Go frick your cousin Cleetus.
Wrong continent.
>USA loses every war game sim vs China in Chinese waters
And Russia took half of Europe in a week in war games. Hell, right now I got a game of Civ open where the vikings took over all of the Americas - maybe we all should tremble before Sweden. For a third time: top kek. Win one, just one war against a western power and maybe then you get to brag chang.
China bombing Taiwan into nonexistence would literally defeat the entire purpose of taking the island, which is to subjugate the people and claim the industry. They have no reason to control a big worthless pile of rubble, and it won't help them peacefully integrate the people of Taiwan into the PRC either. Plus Taiwan has their own missiles that can hit Beijing.
Taiwan's industry is icing on the cake, but the real goal of controlling Taiwan is, and always has been to shatter the first island chain containment, and stage nuclear subs straight into the pacific ocean - guaranteeing MAD with the West in perpetuity. The chipfabs are nice, but the CCP/PLA will gladly throw them under the bus if it means securing the island itself.
It'd also piss off Chinese citizens when their PCs suddenly become more expensive than cars.
The Island is colossal, it’d take a ton of firepower to prepare it for a landing. Also remember that during the island battles of WW2 the Japanese simply hid underground and it was very effective against American bombing.
look up China's inventory of standoff systems, space assets, and Chinese radar sites along Fujian.
The most likely hot Taiwan scenario is a huge decapitation strike on Taipei and every troop concentration on the island.
Sure, but if they miss any of those green trucks then their landing force is drowning.
I'm embarrassed for you. It's wild how you just ignore the most basic facts of how Taiwanese forces and equipment are distributed.
Hasn't the recent conflict in Ukraine shown the limited effectiveness of over-the-horizon PGMs without real time overflight?
>Then they'd have to make highly contested landings dodging mines, artillery, and short range anti-arnir missiles.
Taiwan hasn't mined its beaches, moron. There might be some old ones still on Kinmen, which is a postage stamp sized rock that can be ignored.
Taiwan's military is 40,000 people. Even if China lost 120,000 Changs, Xi wouldn't GAF. There's 700,000,000 more where those came from. China could just give lifetime pensions to the 240,000 parents whose kids died and come out ahead.
>They can't guarantee the US won't step in, and we do they're completely fricked.
Is the U.S. willing to lose NYC, San gaycisco, Chicago, and Los Angeles? A Republican president might be, but Biden would shit his pants if that many Democrats were incinerated. (Oh wait, he does that daily anyway. Buy Depends stock)
>Is the U.S. willing to lose NYC, San gaycisco, Chicago, and Los Angeles?
More than that.
Top 20 metropolitan areas hit. More if you assume PLARF holds no reserve for a 2nd/3rd exchange.
DF-5As are 5MT city busters. DF-5Bs are mirv'd. DF-31A and DF-41 are all mirv'd and very likely deploy penetration aids.
Assuming everyone will be too scared of nukes to do anything has a pretty poor track record as a strategy.
China doesn't have enough noooooks to stop the US from intervening, nor does it have enough of a Navy. That's the real deterrent. And that's to say nothing about other US allies in the region who long have had bones to pick with modern-day China and it's recent territorial aggression.
China has issues "final warnings" so often about Taiwan that even the fricking Russians mock them about it. They have done nothing about Taiwan for decades because they weren't capable of doing anything about it. If they did it now, it would not be for strategic or economic gain, nor would they be prepared to sacrifice everything that would result from this. It would be about saving face after some old white b***h laughed at yet another one of their "final warnings" and flew there anyway.
>Is the U.S. willing to lose NYC, San gaycisco, Chicago, and Los Angeles?
Is china willing to lose literally everything?
Because that's what's they're gonna lose if they nuke the US
There you go, right? Best case is nobody starts a fight and everyone keep picking on the little guy
Except that's not it at all. The US gets involved all it wants and China doesn't use nukes because using nukes means they lose their top 500 most populous bughives, all their major industrial sites, all their major military bases and any large troop concentrations ready to go to Taiwan. China does not stand to gain anything by using nukes against the US, so they will not use nukes. Any war would stay purely conventional unless the US decided to take it nuclear (considering they actually have a credible first strike capability) or the US turned moronic and started invading the Chinese mainland
You do realise its called mutually assured destruction right? China loses 500 cities, the US loses 100. The US "wins", but it loses 30-50% of its population, gets sent back 200 years economically and undergoes a breakdown of financial, technological and governmental systems.
>gets sent back 200 years economically
Most of PrepHole shitposters already live 200 years back economically so nothing to lose there.
Yes, that is the point. The Chinese won't launch a nuclear strike on the US because the best case scenario for them is the US being knocked back 200 years while china is effectively wiped off the map. There is no scenario where a Chinese nuclear strike on the US leads to China being in a better position than they were before the strike. Thus it will not happen.
Meanwhile the US has an overwhelming advantage in warhead quantity, quality, delivery vehicle quality, abm techand submarine technology. There is a scenario where a US first strike neutralizes the Chinese ability to strike back and can dictate terms to China, losing no more than 10-20 million tops, depending on the breaks.
It is not in china's interest for the war to go nuclear. It is not in the US's interests for the war to go nuclear when they can achieve their goals with a convention blockade. A war between China and the US will not go nuclear unless someone's mainland is being invaded, which will never happen
You have severe misunderstanding about how MAD works
>the US can take out Chinese nuclear assets
This is known as counterforce, and it doesn't work. Early satellite warning systems will detect a massed launch the instant it happens, and in five minutes their own missiles will be in the air.
>10-20 million
A single MIRV with a half dozen warheads targeting the most populated US cities would kill easily ten million. In reality, about 100-150 million people would die, and the vast electromagnetic pulses would destroy the electric, computer and Internet infrastructure. The subsequent complete breakdown of society means even if the US wanted to invade China, they would not be able to sustain a war. Even optimistically, ABMs have a 50% hit rate for the BMD, and you would need thousands of missiles to even protect a fraction of the population. Its called mutually assured destruction because both sides would sustain unthinkable losses.
>China won't use nukes even if the US directly engages Taiwan
The US almost certainly will not ever directly confront China, same for Russia, because of the incredible risk of escalation. If there is direct intervention
>US navy hits Chinese troops
>China starts shooting at the US navy
>an aircraft carrier or nuclear sub is attacked, constituting an attack on US nuclear forces an de facto a counterforce strike
>US retaliates by striking mobile Chinese DF 31 launchers
>both sides are now technically in a nuclear war already
It's for this simple reason no nuclear power has even had open confrontation with another in the 80 years since nuclear weapons were invented.
>Explaining counterforce to me
I'm well aware my man, that's why i said a scenario. As in it would be possible, which is inarguably true. Chinese SSBNs are loud as frick and their small ICBM force is largely liquid fueled. They are vulnerable to a first strike, even if there is no shot in hell the US would attempt something so risky or radical.
>10-20m tops
It's a doctor strangelove quote you dip
>A single MIRV targeting the most populated us cities
I hope youre not implying a single missile could drop warheads on multiple US cities. That isn't how MIRV works, all of the warheads are falling relatively close to each other. The point is that with more warheads you have better coverage than one large warhead due to square cube law+less energy lost upwards, and it's more difficult to intercept
>The US would never risk standing up to China, the risk of nuclear war is too high!
But the Chinese will invade Taiwan when America has stated multiple times it will use military force to defend it? When global industry depends extremely heavily on the chips manufactured there? Frick no. Either a confrontation between the nations is too risky in which case China will never start shit, or it will be kept purely conventional because that is what is in both state's best interests.
>Df-31 for carrier strike
Nani the frick?
>MIRVs
Not him but MIRVs separate during the mid course near its peak. So yes they can hit cities many hundreds of miles apart. It's not like they separate in the final descent.
Yes one missile could hit say multiple targets on the western seaboard but you aren't gonna have one missile hitting all the most populous cities in the US like the guy seems to be implying. They aren't magic, you aren't gonna have a ballistic trajectory that has one landing in LA and one in NY
They can hit up to 1500 miles apart
https://armscontrolcenter.org/multiple-independently-targetable-reentry-vehicle-mirv/
>US turned moronic and started invading the Chinese mainland
That would probably cause coup in US, republicans removing democrats on basis of insanity supported by their armed militias.
Holy fricking christ, you are a moronic bootlicker. It's like you actively tried to say egregiously incorrect shit.
They just bought land and sea mines from US.
>Is the U.S. willing to lose NYC, San gaycisco, Chicago, and Los Angeles?
五毛,你吃飯了嗎?有沒有錢?家人好嗎?
>Is the U.S. willing to lose NYC, San gaycisco, Chicago, and Los Angeles?
Is China willing to lose Beijing and the Three Gorges damn in turn? Two can play at escalation, and betting that the nation with one of the largest nuclear arsenals in the world is gonna stay out of things because you're threatening to nuke them seems like a pretty risky bet.
You're totally wrong on China's losses.
If they launch a nuclear strike, the US is going to retaliate by obliterating much, MUCH more than just Beijing and the dam.
I don't think Xi Jinping gives much of a frick about anyone other than himself and a few high-level CCP members.
He gives enough of a frick to ensure he's the ruler of an actual modern country and not a third world shithole or a pile of radioactive rubble. He may not care about the survival of the Chinese people, but he absolutely cares about the survival of the Chinese state.
Biden has already called Putin's bluff multiple times. The guy got into politics during the fricking Cold War and was chairman of the Foreign Relations committee. The guy was used to tangoing with the USSR, a much, MUCH scarier threat in terms of both conventional and nuclear forces than China or Russia today.
There's a reason he's said, multiple times, that the US would defend Taiwan before having his press people walk it back. The dude isn't scared.
>The dude isn't scared.
The dude doesn't have sufficient neurons to be scared. He poops his pants two or three times a day.
He was right about Russia-Ukraine.
fricking cope gay
What bluff? He's invaded Ukraine
Consequences bluff.
Putin said that he will NOOK if the west gives weapons or Finland/Sweden joins NATO.
And nothing happened.
>He's invaded Ukraine
no he hasn't, he said so himself, as did his chief diplomat, Lavrov, as matter of fact, even participating in a planning of offensive war carries 20 years in Russian prison, there is no war you schizo
I mean if you assume China doesn't use its massive inventory of standoff missiles, strike craft, PGMs, aircraft carriers, ship launched missiles, rocket artillery, AWACs, HARMs, and tries to force its way onto the beach like its 1949, Taiwan might win.
Standoff missiles are a two way street you fricking brain-dead syphilitic c**t.
Except China has about 100x more and 10x areas to launch them from. China could reasonably conduct SEAD/anti missile sorties against Taiwan, it is a laughable impossibility for Taiwan to do the same to China.
They don't need to do the same. Get that through your thick, low sloped skull you stupid motherfricker. They literally just need to prevent a a large and sustained landing force, which they absolutely are more than capable of doing. You have no fricking clue how advantaged they are as defenders.
>being this butt hurt you are completely uneducated about the subject and didn't realise China has missiles too
Was it so easy that the Germans at D day, or the Japanese on their islands, couldn't do it?
Remind me, what side were they on? The world's largest military alliance? Or the other side.
Hey, it's so easy! Why didn't Germany take Britain? Could it be... that they couldn't if they wanted because of the massive material advantage and manpower of the Anglo-American alliance?
Right, and now remind me who exactly is getting invaded? The 2nd richest country in the world, the world's largest industrial manfucturer and the 2nd most expensive military in the world, or an island the size of Maryland?
The one with the richest country in the world and largest manufacturer (yes, the USA is a bigger manufacturer than China) on their side.
>US is a bigger manufacturer
No it isn't. The US lost that card long ago. It started losing it back in the 70s when Japanese companies were shredding American industrial firms.
>the US is on their side
Except even in Ukraine, the biggest thing the US gave was rocket artillery. And with Taiwan unable to secure naval supply routes, how will the weapons get there?
The US, Japan, Germany, South Korea, Italy, France and the UK would all be in this together. Even just the anglosphere+American Pacific client states outproduce china. China is at a industrial disadvantage.
Read your own graph mate:
>China = 28.7%
>US+Japan+Germany = 29.6%
populations:
>China =1.4b
>US+Japan+Germany = 0.55b
NATO+Japan+South Korea+Australia dwarf China by a factor of almost 2 in industrial output while still having a lower total population.
>inb4 lol who cares about per capita
In WWIII resource and food shortages will be huge in affecting the outcome - if you can produce the same amount of industrial goods with half the population you've already won. Not even taking into amount that the majority of the west if self sufficient in terms of food and even energy (if Europe lifted all bans on coal it would be energy independent in 3 months) - while China is decidedly not.
The west can't take sacrifice
i'm sure all those little emperors and single child families are more than willing to sacrifice their family lines for the ego of a bumbling dictator determined to mimic 1980s-90s Japan
>The west can't take sacrifice
how many times in history did morons get btfo'd for operating under this assumption?
besides, in case of ww3 people in the west will have to ration their meat, butter and chocolate - in china people will have to decide which child to feed and which one to turn into stew (to feed aforementioned lucky chang jr.)
add to that that chinas economy is even more based on international trade, complex globally intertwined financial products and liberal private and government spending based on assumptions of continuous prosperity and growth: any argument you can make about the wests economy being impacted by war goes doubly for china. china is entirely a peace-time economy and would collapse in conditions of war, the west at least has some economic backbone (as atrophied as it might seem) for war. going to war would be national suicide for china and the ccp knows it.
>in case of ww3 people in the west will have to ration their meat, butter and chocolate
Not even. I don't see why Atlantic trade would be impacted at all.
It would take a season or two to start exploiting the massive strategic reserves of stuff like phosphorous, coal, steel etc. that the west has but can afford not to touch while we're strip-mining China. Also can't forget that the west would have to feed a bunch of third worlders for a while - gonna need a new place to make our popper-scoopers and fly-swatters after the dust settles. Far worse than the rationing would be not being able to buy a new gpu for a few years probably - so if shit starts popping off go you'd probably wanna buy up shit from your local electronics store.
lel
So you're saying the graph you posted yourself is completely meaningless and it all just comes down to willpower. Why in the frick did you post the graph in the first place then? Also, if being poorer and more butthurt somehow equated to more willpower and that somehow equated to being better able at waging war - then we'd all be living in The Grand Global Federation of Best Korea.
Go flip some burger for ukraine now
great counter-argument.
>Go flip some burger for ukraine now
>flip some burger
>for ukraine
wdhmbt?
>flip some burger
He means you should go prepare and enjoy some of that non-leaded beef you can afford so easily to remind yourself how beautiful it is to not be born in China.
>for ukraine
idk, probably spil a patty or two on the ground for the homies in Odessa.
it would take roughly 4% of the US population to produce what it takes 20% of the Chinese population to, and 1/5th of the capital investment...
sacrifice?
>still using the 2019 numbers
>doesn't take into account the shitty manufacturing in china
>doesn't take into account the massive pull out since covid and rising chinese costs to produce there
outdated info chang.
This is China we are talking about, not Russia. They want to take the island intact, arrest the opposition, bully the students, and brainwash the population into loving the Chairman Xi. Can't do if they turn the island into smoking pile of rubble.
>durr Chyna
Yeah
>Yeah
Yeah
>Chinese
54659269
Lmao, can’t wait to see how many newbies take this bait.
Look closely at the trouble that Russia has had trying to cross rivers and get back to us on that.
China has a lot more money and men to play with
Russia has had problems crossing rivers because they're huge spergs who don't have any air superiority
There's quite an interesting article about how ineffective Russian Air power has been. The summary is
>Russia has actually been reasonably effective at conducting SEAD on long range systems like the S 300
>but the lack of PGMs forces them to fly low missions and put them in range of MANPADs like the Javelin
>they can't fly these often either, meaning they can't conduct any meaningful air power
In other words, it's an industrial failure on Russia's part.
https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/rusi-defence-systems/getting-serious-about-sead-european-air-forces-must-learn-failure-russian-air-force-over-ukraine
>Russia has actually been reasonably effective at conducting SEAD on long range systems like the S 300
>>but the lack of PGMs forces them to fly low missions and put them in range of MANPADs like the Javelin
Nope.
In Syria Russians flew high altitude bombing missions with dumb bombs flying above mandpads ceiling. They can't do same tactics in Ukraine because Ukraine has S300 and Russians can't SEAD them enough.
> because Ukraine has S300
How many are still active?
If anything, it’s grad the russians are worried about.
>How many are still active?
Enough to scare Russian aircrafts to approach frontlines at high altitude
>flying high altitude with dumb bombs
This is what they're doing, where do you think all those shitty bombs come from? Every now and then you get news about Russians dropping bombs on a theater or a residential building. The Russians are also using Tu 95s and 160s that Ukraine cannot intercept, indicating a lack of long range AA.
>Every now and then you get news about Russians dropping bombs on a theater or a residential building.
That were cruise missiles, and Iskander ballistic missiles. Russians launch 50-70 of them per day. It's their main long range "strategic" reach tool in this war.
It took thousands of landing ships for d day and it was much easier to choose a landing spot. Modern missiles would make short work of all those ships
D-day was almost 80 years ago, something tells me amphibious invasion doctrine has changed a little since then
the doctrine has largely become
>don't
It really hasn't, which is why modern militaries aren't attempting it.
The doctrine became don’t do it because guided missiles just made the entire concept obsolete.
At best China only has 300 active warheads. The US has at minimum 3,000 ready to be launched at any given moment, also counting nuke subs. China *may* hurt the US, but the US will make sure China as a concept no longer exists and will give LeMay a hardon unlike anything ever seen, nevermind the rest of NATO. And given so much Chinese shit is just half assed Soviet/40 year old US tech knockoffs I seriously doubt they could stand a snowballs chance in hell of any meaningful retaliation.
>At best China only has 300 active warheads. The US has at minimum 3,000 ready to be launched at any given moment, also counting nuke subs. China *may* hurt the US, but the US will make sure China as a concept no longer exists and will give LeMay a hardon unlike anything ever seen, nevermind the rest of NATO. And given so much Chinese shit is just half assed Soviet/40 year old US tech knockoffs I seriously doubt they could stand a snowballs chance in hell of any meaningful retaliation.
Sigh, the only thing is that I'm likely one of those who will die in that nuclear exchange. Though honestly if it meant the eradication of China from this Earth I would accept my fate to die in a nuclear hellfire. And tbh, the area I'm in deserve to be nuked into oblivion anyways.
>t. Oregonian
At least you’ll have a beautiful landscape to see one last time.
>assuming any of their shit can even get that far lmao
I mean, the West Coast would probably be the furthest Chinese nukes could actually hit so... And the view here would be certainly amazing. Just a shame that the Pacific Northwest disappears. Although the majority of people here are scum, the weather makes it by far the best place in the world to live with no humidity, mild summers, mild winters, & lots of rain (which to me is perfect as I love rain).
ive never understood this pic, wouldnt the missile ranges in the midwest be 500 warhead targets?
the logic is that 500 warheads isn't enough to both put a dent in US strike capability while also destroying enough conventional forces/industry/population - so you might as well not try and just focus on the later. at 2000 an enemy could afford to try to do both - at least destroy enough silos to go from "the US will now proceed to utterly destroy both russia and china 5 times over" to "the US will now proceed to utterly destroy both russia and china 2 or 3 times over."
i don't think that LA would be a nuclear targer, since those places are chink and soviet pet projects
Actually it hasn’t, because even 80 years ago the Germans were wary enough to know that a naval assault on Britain would be far too costly of a gamble.
So they started work on the first ballistic missiles with the V1 and V2 rockets.
Coincidentally the modern tactic is also to prefer ballistic missiles to naval assaults.
So yes the tactics have barely change over 80 years.
D-Day was only attempted because the Allies had near infinite resources at their disposal, Italy was already gone, and the Allies were ready to just finish it at that point.
I’m more curious about eternal world peace and true utopia and the soul of heaven for all.
I am more interested in fricking this tiger lady who had an entire chinese feast all by herself.
China is strong multicultural empire with progressive views on lgbt and troony cam prostitutes cosplaying as Japanese anime girls
If invasion was easy they would’ve done it already. Cope.
asiatics cant swim and their ships are Junk
Well you're not 100% wrong
Heh
Get outta here you
the chinese are not asiatics and the asiatics built decent ships
Typically you want a 3 to 1 ratio in men and equipment when on the offensive. With amphibious you probably want 5 to 1 ratio. With just Taiwan's active personnel being 160k you are hitting 700-800k men in the invasion force. As of now China doesn't have that capability to ferry that many soldiers. It could probably win in a long-drawn 1v1 conflict but as long as the US Navy exist it won't.
Also such a move would pretty much piss off any neighbors and make trade/diplo much harder. It's a stupid move that gains little but with potentially huge costs.
Is it this assuming some kind of crazy scenario in which there's a landing against 160k beach defenders?
I imagine any initial landing would be smaller so as to not require so many initial soldiers
Just comparing manpower is a pretty bad metric to use in a scenario like this. Just putting men on a beach isn't what's going to win the war, and even getting to that point is going to be a war in and of itself. Far more important is how many long range missiles, aircraft, landing craft and naval guns China has vs how many coastal batteries, naval assets, and anti-ship missiles Taiwan has. If China can't take out Taiwan's long range defenses and fast, they aren't going to be landing anything but wrecks and corpses on the beaches. Fast is important too. China doesn't have that many military vessels that can ferry troops, and Taiwan doesn't need much to cut that down to a number that flat out makes invasion impossible. Those craft don't just have to carry out the initial landing troops, but continue to supply them for as long as it takes before an airport can be secured. That's China's biggest problem. They can't just beat Taiwan, they have to beat them all at once and they have to do it fast. Anyone looking at the situation would say that the only way to safely beat Taiwan would be a long and bloody bombing campaign where the air defenses are slowly taken out by long range missiles, and then aircraft can pick off targets at leisure, all while the island is under blockade. The problem is that that's not an option for China. They can't guarantee the US won't step in, and we do they're completely fricked. Any invasion of Taiwan by necessity will have to be a plan so ambitious that it makes desert storm look like a child drew it up, striking every military asset simultaneously with a combined air and artillery assault and putting hundreds of thousands of troops on foreign soil all while avoiding any retaliation. It would be a miraculous feat for any country to pull off, not just the bugmen.
>can't guarantee the US won't step it
The US cannot step in meaningfully for several months. The most immediate thing the US could do is send two CBGs to the area, which would be vastly outnumbered by Chinese missiles and navy.
Can you ahh elaborate on how two nations packed to the brim with American military assets ~500 miles away wont be able to "step in meaningfully" for months?
Because
1) They are 500 miles away
2) They have to cross water that will be highly contested and under a missile umbrella
3) No nuclear power has ever gone into conflict with another for obvious reasons. Why do you think the US doesn't deploy forces into Ukraine?
>Why do you think the US doesn't deploy forces into Ukraine?
because it doesn't need to and no other reason in particular, shit example; in the Cold War the US and Russia threw active duty soldiers at each-other in proxy wars and open conflicts regularly, and there were more missiles with a worse umbrella (incomplete triad) then
why would the US with total superiority waver now?
domestic politics, mostly
>it doesn't need to lmao
It doesn't need to fight in Taiwan either, China would be happy to sell America Taiwanese chips if it takes over.
>they threw active duty soldiers at each other
No, they didn't, except for extremely small and limited circumstances like when Soviet pilots flew over North Korea with Korean markings. That's literally why its called the Cold War, jesus christ learn some history.
The truth is nobody knows how it would go when the next-best frame of reference is almost a century ago
war-games, exercises and computer simulations do allow us to guess - the answer is: it'd go really fricking badly for china unless they shit out a few thousand landing craft a few dozen attack subs that aren't so shittily made they can be detected by US ships from hundreds of miles out and maybe a few more aircraft carriers. and even that would only give them the ability to establish beach-heads. actually holding taiwan for good would require sci-fi levels of bullshit.
>attack subs
The entire Chinese coastline is a shallow continental shelf for hundreds of miles and entry points into the deeper South ching sea and pissific are surrounded by democracy. Locating them via satellite surveillance and MPA then neutralising them should they ever attempt to leave the kiddie commiepool would be trivial.
Taiwan is 36000sqm Iwo Jima is 27sqm and how fun that was. The center is a mountain of 4000m most of the coast is steep cliffs of up to 1600m. The few landing points are either cities or fortified
Taiwan is 22Ksqm and Iwo Jima is 13sqm
Meant square km ,gomenasai /K/
Iwo Jima style would be fine actually given the defenders lost 3x as many men
>The few landing points are either cities or fortified
Nah. Taiwan has miles and miles of landing suitable beaches and their fortifications (some dragon's teeth around ports) are absolutely pathetic considering threat and time they had to prepare.
You can check it on Google street view yourself (and fact they allow street view is just lol).
>few
Taiwan has about a dozen different landing points, clustered at both ends of the islands so reserves cannot meaningfully support each other. And there are about eight major ports that if captured, would strongly support the logistics of an invasion.
>Taiwan has about a dozen different landing points, clustered at both ends of the islands so reserves cannot meaningfully support each other.
Stop being zoomery anon, blindly parroting what some authority (NT) feeds you. Just open Google Earth.
Weird how every military expert on the planet, including the PLA itself disagrees with you.
>every military expert and the PLA
Name all of them
They seriously lack actual landing capability. Part of their plan involves driving fricking amphibious IFVs across the entire strait like a moron.
>They seriously lack actual landing capability
t. a fricking moron
PLAN has the 2nd largest sealift capability in the world.
Sure, on paper
so that's how you're gonna cope with getting btfo?
Will the mighty VDV be participating?
The shape of that island looks like a Zelensky I made earlier.
I made a pootin awhile ago.
China could always just take the island easily. Worst case scenario? A glassed island with millions of corpses.
Is the intervention of US that stops them.
Thank US for stability of the region.
They couldn't even capture Kinmen islands which are a mile away the mainland
That is assuming that the exchanges of literally thousands of missiles and immense aerial battles all go in China's favor. Then they actually need to establish a beachhead and move in men and materiel to put down resistance on an island that is all either cities or forests on mountains.
With the quad on their side, China would never be able to take Taiwan.
> With the quad on their side
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>Japan and the USA will just let Taiwan fall because... They just will! Okay!? They will abandon the first island chain strategy that they have poured billions into because of reasons!
>Japan
Japans military is a fricking laughing stock please the starved n.koreans can do more than any asiatic army
Woefully misinformed. They have the strongest collection of naval hardware in the Pacific besides the USA, and they have a strong naval tradition. They're also moving towards an active guarantors hip of Taiwanese independence and repealing article 9 is almost a foregone conclusion.
Your opinion doesn't matter. They're a major military force and the USA is on their side.
>They have the strongest collection of naval hardware in the Pacific besides the USA
What fricking use is that amry if they have
>Never been deployed
>Old as frick
>No nukes
>Make a huge public outcry to stop fascism because one of there troops died in afhanastan
>rentfree
Whats rent free I just showed how japan has no army are you moronic lmao
>You have no idea how much the Japanese hate China
homie is you dumb the japs dont give 2 fricks about china anymore they are old and cold nobody and I mean NOBODY is fricking for japan
Also watch the fricking video next time
Black person, Japan fricking HATES China and there is a mountain of recent evidence proving it.
>t.14 year old homosexual who read 2 history books
homie the japs who hated china in the 50s are fricking dead or old no otaku is going to fight for the motherland with a dying population get a fricking grip
>muhh military though
There "military" is fricking pathetic
>reddit spacing
>homie
tell me you're a 3rd world shitskin without telling me you're a 3rd world shitskin
>no army are you moronic lmao
Hahaha the video says that they do have a military though
>homie is you dumb the japs dont give 2 fricks about china anymore
AHAHAHAHAHAHA
>NOBODY is fricking for japan
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA That is fricking good! Tell us another!
dont get your hopes up ivan, nobody forgetting about your Bootleg Barbarossa anytime soon.
I oppose the Ukraine war and i see nothing wrong with aiding Taiwan to kill as many commie bug people as possible.
Kill thy self chink
Read a book dipshit. You have no idea how much the Japanese hate China, and with China openly threatening to annex Japanese islands and attack Japan, you just couldn't be more fricking wrong.
Lmao, cope and seethe.
>Never been deployed
False. And there's always time to start 🙂
>Old as frick
Better demographics than China
>No nukes
Paranuclear state. Has nuclear allies and can make a nuke tomorrow.
>Make a huge public outcry to stop fascism because one of there troops died in afhanastan
A few hundred peaceniks is not a huge outcry.
But please, cite another YouTube video that doesn't even say what you want it to.
>DEBOONKED. And there's always time to start
The quad will be on their side, but the question is to what extent? None of them are likely to actually put boots on the ground like in Ukraine. Most likely they will supply arms to Taiwan, but this is complicated by how Taiwan almost certainly cannot secure trade routes to the quad.
Excuse my ignorance, but what's the "quad"?
It would be very easy
underestimate the they/them army at your peril, zhang.
Remember when this kind of shit would get posted about the Russians? lol
Imagine how demoralizing it would be to see one of your squadmates get beaten to death by a troony. They are our ultimate psychological weapon.
imagine, in your flashbacks, all you see is the perfectly manicured nails US tax dollars paid for
imagine, you escape with your life, but a scar running down face from where the perfectly manicured claws struck you
>Giving away all your secret weapons for PR
Lol
you need to have nice nails at the office, it's part of drone striking people on the other side of the world.
Burgers couldn't do it with Cuba so Chinks most likely won't be able to do it with Taiwan.
Also time is on chink side, they can wait another 10 or 20 years, burgers can't, they want to engage while they still hold supremacy.
>Time is on the chink side
The great boomer invasion of 2042
20 more years trust the plan
>trust the plan
works alright, no complaints there...
where does all that money go in us? why people don't live two times better than in 1995?
>what is population growth?
>what is wealth inequality
people generally do live better in terms of stuff but it's more work to get this stuff.
west never recovered from 2008 crisis. same is happening now with covid recession but even more dramatic while chi-nah is untouched by it, same as in 2008.
>while chi-nah is untouched by it
kek
yeah, there's no recession and inflation in chi-nah since covid didn't have such impact like in west where whole population was/is infected.
biggest impact for chinese economy is burgers and euros going poor under recession and not having money to buy chink shit.
>since covid didn't have such impact like in west where whole population was/is infected.
instead of being infected they were all locked down which managed to make things worse by fricking up local, national and global supply chains. There still doing it
they have to knock off 23 million of their citizens this year or the whole country will starve!
>what better way then to throw them into a war, WIn or lose the war, they still meet thier quotas of millions dead
>west never recovered from 2008 crisis.
That's because the lgbtq+ freaks subverted OWS and libertarians who supported it allowd the 1% to get away with their crimes.
Leftytards are the biggest useful idiots the modern world has produced.
Unfortunately that doesn't translate into successfuly naval invading a fortress with a force of clueless asskissers.
I think it does...
Very good jin wei .50 cents has been deposited into your account.
it's jiao but thanks
>a fortress
Have you seen Taiwanese beaches?
>Have you seen Taiwanese beaches?
KEK! I know you haven't.
>Have you seen Taiwanese beaches?
Idiot you can even see how fast the terrain goes high, that's a fricking pot like all others.
>parabolic charts of economic factors result in favorable outcomes
kek
>wait another 10 or 20 years
I think you need to take a look at Chinese demographics
the common consensus today is that china is actually at its strongest *now*, which causes fear for the same reason Russia did, if they want it, they have to take it *now* as everyday they grow comparatively weaker (strongest compared to what it will be in the future, in both cases)
here is a basic rundown of both concepts
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/09/24/china-great-power-united-states/
if technology and the situation stays the same (it won't, but still) China is about to get absolutely fricked by an aging population as their budget gets swallowed by transfer payments for the elderly
this is completely ignoring the ongoing rumblings of bubbles and infrastructure debt traps (such as their absurdly expensive, and unprofitable, trains)
>the common consensus today is that china is actually at its strongest *now*,
The CCP knows this. It explains the increasing aggressive behaviour and this nrw seething abput Taiwan compared tp say pre 2015 when everything was much more chill. Time is not China's ally but it is America's
F*** me, you can literally see the impact all these years later from Great Leap Forward famine; the massive fall off in the 59 to 61 year old mark.
Most western countries have atrocious demographics as well if you don't count importing millions of immigrants to solve the problem. Something China can just do as well
>Something China can just do as well
Do they though? How much immigration is China getting? I hear of a lot of Chinese moving to Australia and Canada but nowhere near as much of French and Germans moving to China. If anything China is just like a third world hellhole suffering from brain drain, it's best and brightest unless they can get a job via nepotism settle in some developed country that they went to college in whether the US, Australia, Canada, or outside the Pacific rim in Europe.
>haha, the west is doomed due to demographics and china will take over
>so what if china has the exact same problem on an even worse scale
>so what if china, unlike the west, isn't willing to use the only viable fix for that problem
>importing millions of immigrants to solve the problem. Something China can just do as well
lel, the average chang boomer makes southern rednecks with swastikas tattooed on them look like champions of inter-ethnic harmony. just look at chinese muslims: ethnically closely related to the han, been a part of the country for centuries, played a major role in chinas fight to become an independent modern country, average crime rates, biggest stereotype about them was that their restaurants are clean and safe to eat at, etc. and still the han couldn't get along with them enough to not put them in massive concentration camps.
imagine what would happen in 20 years if china imported a bunch of vietnamese or venezuelans or namibians. east asians are the biggest xenophobes on the planet - look at how koreans who have been living in japan for 5 generations are regarded - even if they exclusively speak japansese and adopt japanese names.
For a successful invasion you need
>air superiority
China will be most likely unable to achieve it because their planes are based on Russians planes which have been proven to be shit
>to outnumber the enemy
China will achieve it easily
>and a constant line of supplies
China is not able to achieve it due to is underwhelming navy and probable lack of air superiority
Russian planes aren't the problem, its their lack of SEAD and PGMs that mean they can barely conduct sorties.
> Russian planes aren't the problem, its their lack of SEAD and PGMs that mean they can barely conduct sorties.
https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2022/01/25/sukhoi-su-35-a-disaster-fighter-jets-for-russia/
There’s a few interesting factors in this scenario.
1. Neither side has a good military. The PLA is supremely corrupt — it’s a branch of the CCP, not a national institution. Their readiness is most likely trash and therefore can’t run a major combat operation. But, still, Taiwan’s military is full of soft stickmen with very questionable training standards.
2. Logistics. This is a short crossing therefore it’s not that big of a handicap for China. Taiwan’s defenses aren’t that good so it’s very likely China will be able to suppress it enough to secure long-term beachheads.
3. Taiwan fully excepts the US, with the 7th Fleet just across the street, to defend them. Due to this belief they probably haven’t taken their defense as seriously as they should have. Pic shows an exercise against a simulated landing — the fact that they think they can just arrange a line of guns on a beach and not be shredded by missiles 9n the first salvo shows how make-believe and un-serious they are.
Short crossing? Oh sure it's only about 4x the distance of the d day landing with a fleet that is woefully under equipped and has absolutely zero experience, what could possibly go wrong?
>4 tines
It's 3, but you're saying it like it's a lot. The Dover strait is extremely narrow. The Taiwan strait, a motorboat can cross in five hours. The landsings will take several days, at this distance it's not a significant factor
>no experience
Neither did the US during WW2, the closest was 30 years ago before tanks were even invented
For a naval invasion it's huge, 5 hours to reinforce a heavily defended beach head is crippling.
The US did have experience, as you just admitted from the first world war and even before that, in the Spanish American war. China has frick all in when it comes to proven doctrine.
>WW1
Not WW1, the battle of Veracruz. It was barely an amphibious assault. Marines disembarked on boats and went to the beach unresisted.
>five hours to reinforce
It's five hours to deploy additional troops. They will be reinforced by a constant stream of naval, air and missile bombardment, which can be called in in five minutes. Its not even huge. In the D Day landings, the Mulberry harbors weren't even set up until 2 days after the initial landings.
>the Mulberry harbors weren't even set up until 2 days after the initial landings.
Where are China's mulberry harbors? Or do you expect China to actually secure a major port within a week? This is the whole issue with the Chinese planning, they plan around everything going right which means if anything goes wrong the whole invasion would be a shitshow. You saw the same thing with Russia in Ukraine, they believed that Ukraine would be a pushover and every operation would succeed and after an operation suffered a delay or outright failure the whole strategic situation degenerated until they were forced to withdraw from the Kiev area and fell into a war of attrition that they are struggling to win.
What happens if
>China fails to capture an intact port within the first week
>US naval/air support prevents China from supporting the invasion with aircraft
>ASHMs or submarines prevent or disrupt naval resupply
>The Chinese suffer higher numbers of wounded than expected
>The Taiwanese citizenry resist
>Taiwan sabotages its harbors before China can take them
>The world collectively places economic sanctions on China tanking their already unsteady economy
This is an immensely complicated landing and everyone who seems to think that it's feasible just glosses over every issue with a shrug and the assumption that if something goes wrong that someone will fix the problem.
>Or do you expect China to actually secure a major port within a week?
Of course. Chinese Sea Dragon commandos and various other special forces units could take over several ports after infiltrating, you stupid western pig dog.
The fact that it's so likely to go horribly wrong makes me really want to see China actually go for it, because if such an invasion attempt failed it would make Ukraine invasion look like a stroke of military genius.
>Chinese fleet and transports wiped out before reaching Taiwan, hundreds of ships sunk and hundreds of thousands of Chinese sailors and soldiers drowned
>Chinese manage to land but are unable to capture a port and supply their forces, attempt to evacuate but it turns into a rout with soldiers hanging onto the sides of ships because the decks are full and drowning when they lose their grip
>Chinese manage to land but their navy is wiped out by an American counterattack leaving hundreds of thousands of soldiers stuck on Taiwan without resupply, reinforcement, or retreat, 200,000 Chinese captured
If such an invasion fails we aren't talking about 10-50k casualties over a few months, we're talking about hundreds of thousands of casualties over a couple weeks.
>Chinese plans are unrealistic
Neither of us know what Chinese plans are. We can obviously come up with scenarios where either side fails, that's a stupid question, what we're talking about here is the intrinsic difficulty in taking Taiwan, which is not very great for China.
>Russia
The problem for Taiwan is that even if it was like Russia, it would have won several times already. Everything from the manpower to budget to missile gap is magnified severely because China is bigger than Russia and Taiwan smaller than Ukraine. Yes, any number of things could go wrong, but China has a lot more dice to roll than Taiwan. It has far more troops to absorb losses, far missiles to conduct strikes, a far bigger economy to withstand a blockade, etc.
>US naval and air support
As has been pointed out threads like these, the chances two significant nuclear powers would engage in open warfare is virtually zero. And even if it did, the US would probably not risk putting its two local CBGs against China.
China doesn't have plans and barely has a PLAN,
>And even if it did, the US would probably not risk putting its two local CBGs against China.
why do you think they're there, dumbass? US Carriers are mobile death circles that never need to refuel, chuck 90 more death circles that can go 300 miles, shoot several missiles that wipe ships 200 miles in that radius, and then fly back to do it again
they would be "in range" for offensive operations docked at Okinawa, but they won't be in port because they don't need to be to do work (and because China has never hit a moving target with any of its missile demonstrations)
>It doesn't need to fight in Taiwan either,
I agree, presumably Taiwanese will put up enough of a fight that the US won't need to intervene either, just like Ukraine
>No, they didn't
>except
stopped reading here, off yourself disingenuous ape
>mobile death circle
You do realise that an aircraft carrier is just a very small, mobile and visible air base right? China has something like 6 air bases that are several times bigger than in the vicinity. Hell, Taiwan has many times more planes than even both CBGs put together. And Taiwanese air bases can't be sunk by China's vast arsenal of ballistic, conventional and submarine missiles. Even if the CBGs anti missile defenses work with a 100% interception rate, which is a fairytale, China has more missiles than the CBG has interceptors. Look at how much shit the Argies caused the brits during the Falklands War, flying subsonic fighters with bombs that more often didn't explode than did. CBGs cannot operate safely within hundreds of kilometers from Taiwan
>Okinawa
Okinawa, or Kadena, is about five hundred miles away. It is within the combat range of fighters, but it is completely impractical. If you're doing CAP, half the loiter time is gone just flying there and back. If you're doing interception, the enemy planes will be long gone when you arrive. If you're doing CAS, it would take forty minutes at supersonic speeds to get there.
>Taiwanese will put up a fight
Actually since 2012 most Taiwanese have resoundingly voted to end conscription and actually fight. The Taiwanese welfare state, Taiwan's defense spending as a percentage of GDP has been below 2% for over a decade. Most recently with a 16% increase, it just hit 2%.
>just a very small, mobile and visible air base
you say these words but you don't realize how devastating they are
a "small, mobile" air base is incredibly valuable and China still struggles to mount one
it's understandable that you don't grasp the concept when you prattle into raw numbers of aircraft, pretending that Chinese submarines, missiles, and submarine missiles are capable of doing much but hitting coral reefs, etc.
>Okinawa is about five hundred miles away. It is within the combat range of fighters, but
thank you for affirming that my claim is correct and then proceeding to miss the point entirely; likewise, I'm sure your "Taiwan will not fight" will go down about as swimmingly as "Ukraine will not fight" did
proportionally, that would be about 60k dead PLA service members before the US even gets involved, assuming they only last as long as Ukraine has so-far
It's not even that. We won't know for sure until it actually happens but the PLA is super corrupt and they probably can NOT mount a large-scale operation like what is being talked about here. The PLA is *** NOT *** a national institution, it's a branch of the CCP; ranks from generals all the way down the chain are literally up for sale, and they are sold as an investment strategy for corruption. Xi appears to be trying to wrestle with the corruption by stuffing the command structure with his people (the "rocket-promotions") but I bet this won't work.
This is the REAL reason why China's heavily modernized military NEVER goes anywhere. They CAN'T because corruption has obliterated most of their readiness.
>And even if it did, the US would probably not risk putting its two local CBGs against China.
If China attacks Taiwan (a major US ally, a critical component of its economy, a stable democratic state) and the US just stands idly by: that would basically mean that the US is telling all the world that it won't stand up and defend its interests, let alone allies. That all those CBGs are just an elaborate scam and that they're happy to live in a China dominated world. Basically what you're saying is: "not to worry, the US will just roll over and die." Good luck with that.
A ship can be sunk or crippled by a single anti-ship missile. You may have an advantage of 100 to 1 and still not be able to land until the opponent loses the ability to fire at you.
If you are going to argue that China would be able to destroy Taiwan with long range missiles, well, maybe (they'd still need to achieve local superiority bringing all their weapons to within range, and Taiwan gets to shoot back), but at that point we're not talking about an invasion but a shooting.
>It's only 180km
That's 5 times the distance between UK and France. D-Day is the largest naval invasion done in history, and it was basically a coin flip for success.
Now imagine doing D-Day on fricking mountainous coast that have been fortified against that for 60 goddamn years. While Americans are on the enemy side sinking your boats with impunity.
>mountainous coast
The mountains are on the Western side of Taiwan. The east is flat.
Realistically, what can the nearby 7th Fleet do against the invasion force?
sink it
Enjoy eternal peace for all
You see the little island in the cutout that's within spitting distance of the Chinese coast? Taiwan owns that too.
Here's what happened last time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Guningtou
>ROC tank crews who had depleted their ammunition used their tanks as road rollers to crush PLA infantry. The pivotal role these tanks played caused ROC troops to give the M5A1 the nickname "Bear of Kinmen"
Anon, that battle was in 1949
and the chicoms have been seething ever since
Well, we can always look at Vietnam for more recent experiences.
Chinks are hilariously awful at war. This goes back to centuries of performance no matter the flag. So bad in fact that they have usually been the ones invaded and dominated by their more competent outsiders. Should be impossibru if you look at their relatively large size throughout history.
Even today, for every bombastic propaganda vid about crazy eyed chinks and big explosions there is no NCO core; officer positons are given based on party loyalty first and bribes second; joining the military in general is seen as the poor, prostitute son tier job like whoring is for poor women; corruption levels are crazy in everything they do with frequently cutting corners just because they can; scamming everyone, including themselves, is seen as the ultimate virtue of a model han chinese etc etc etc
As time goes on it becomes increasingly clear the last militarily threatening opponents the US had were the nipps and germans. For their base society culture actually put emphasis on miltiaristic values like discipline and intelligence. No matter the end results fact is that one ended up running over half of the pacific and defeating a major colonial powers asian stronghold (Singapore) in the process while the other nearly managed to establish a continental german empire in less then a half decade. Both of them would have even succeeded if the US never existed the way it did.
>Chinks are hilariously awful at war
Remind me again, what happened in Afghanistan less than 11 months ago?
>america was lousy at nation-building in afghanistan that means china will destroy them in conventional war!!!!!!11
Why are morons like this?
>america was lousy at nation-building in afghanistan that means china will destroy them in conventional war!!!!!!11
A conventional war like Vietnam?
>ROC tank crews who had depleted their ammunition used their tanks as road rollers to crush PLA infantry.
That must have been immensely satisfying. Imagine the crunching.
The CCP destroyed any chance it had at sustaining a major war between the years 1965 and 1985. They have completely destroyed their ecological capacity for food dependence. ONLY ten to fifteen percent of the mainland is arable land. Meaning- the 20,000,000,000 grand Chang army will devour every last grain, seeing as how the average man engaged in combat needs a set minimum calories to remain effective. 80% of their groundwater is contaminated. There is no future in which the CCP wages major war without starving 40% of its peoples. The citizens of the mainland are already pissed at the bank and housing bubble. What makes any of you think that they’ll be able to handle no money, being locked in a closet because of covid, AND starving even worse than how some of them are now? The CCP is FRICKED. They exchanged the future of their nation (the land) for temporary money. Missiles, warheads, small arms, and artillery mean nothing in the scheme of supporting your military with basic necessities.
>not including urban areas as grazing land
>"In certain areas includingWuxuan CountyandWuming District, massivehuman cannibalismoccurred even though nofamineexisted."
>Guangxi Massacre, 1966-76
Uyghur bros... you doing okay over there?
>roll one of the best start locations on earth
>throw the game anyway
kek. kmao even.
Nobody really knows. Nobody's tried a major amphib op against a peer adversary with modern missiles. (Sorry, Argentina, you don't count)
Go ahead, do it. See you in the next half year long beachhead assault like someone else tried against their weak and unprepared neighbor with their world class military.
we have to ask ourselves a question, has chinkland ever won a war?
korea-draw
'nam-lost
civil war-draw
chinks don't have combat expirence and their military equipment is so shoddily made it breaks after you pick it up
Just like hohols, Taiwanese people are a vermin on this on this earth and deserve a painful removal of this earth. The superiorly gened han-Chinese should do everything in their power to assure this outcome. I would advise them to firebomb the cities and livestream brutal torture of captures Taiwanese (starting with the most vulnerable). They should hire some Russian consultants, I bet they can give some great advice.
>is too stupid to realize that Taiwanese are also han-Chinese except they don't want to live under Pooh bear
Chinks can't beat the US in military strength, and even if they could knock the US down a few decades back when it comes to technology and manpower, the US could make China the biggest radioactive desert there is. You can't outnuke the US at the moment.
>amerimutts now have to resort to vatnik tier “muh nukes” cope
this is how you know China is winning.
They threaten to kill everyone on earth because the populists are winning.
No, this is how you know the US is winning. The only reason Russia still exists is due to the nukes. The reason why Taiwan still exists is becouse the bugs cannot touch the US, not with their shitty military, and especially not with their laughable nukes.
You call humans bugs and you think killing everyone in the world is even a topic.
You know what, your people, whoever is fighting China, doesn’t represent the USA.
>has a bug fetish
I'm not judging, but it's just a reminder that the individualist liberal society will always be better than the dystopian collectivist authoritarian society
>that the individualist liberal society will always be better than the dystopian collectivist authoritarian society
Tell that to the millions of barbarians that Rome ground into the dirt because they had an authoritarian collectivist society
Rome doesn't exist anymore and I live and eat better than anyone in Rome ever did.
different time, different methods
for the current type of society individualist liberalism operating on the capitalist system has proven itself to work way better than any kind of communism or authoritarian imperialism
you'll remember it before the end
>individualist liberalism operating on the capitalist system has proven itself to work way better than any kind of communism or authoritarian imperialism
Is that why gas is $5 a gallon, inflation is 10%, and babies die because they can’t get forumula?
Yes.
You don't really understand the severity of eastern-style authoritarism, do you?
I'm not American. By the look of things, neither are you, homosexual.
>authoritarianism is… le bad!!
And to think that lolberts still exist past 2015
>schizo thinks that it's more than just lols
homie you ever lived in an authoritarian country?
no, the US is not an authoritarian country
it's text-book wumao:
>"china could crush X, ha-ha puny west"
>lol no they'd get btfo'd
>"oh so you wanna kill fellow human beings, how awful" (often this is in response to a false-flag of their own)
if that doesn't work then it's spamming the most moronic shit to derail the conversation. if you follow a few of these threads you can literally recreate the script they're working off for yourself.
>Is that why gas is $5 a gallon,
Pic related: Gasoline cost the exact same in China as it does in the US. The difference is that 5$ is 1/12,000th of a median US salary but 1/1,600 of a median Chinese salary.
>inflation is 10%,
So?
>and babies die because they can’t get forumula?
Probably the most transparent lie: a bunch of baby formula factories in the US were put on hold as a precautionary measure (because the FDA unlike its Chinese counterpart doesn't wait around for thousands of infants to die of lead poisoning to start an investigation - it acts most often with prophylactic measures) Supplies never reached zero - they merely were depleted below optimal levels. That is until 1 week later when Europe flew in baby formula by the plane-load to the US - because the US actually has friends in the world.
forgot pic
Formula is poison and my gas is probably cheaper than yours, $3.79 a gallon.
Rome does exist. It’s everywhere and only growing more powerful.
And it is getting all its satisfaction.
HAIL XI
HAIL POPULISTS
HAIL PATRIOTS
HAIL IDEALISM
HAIL UTOPIA
HAIL TRUE PROGRESS
HAIL IMMORTALITY
Rome was not collectivist lol.
And it wasn’t really authoritarian until the fall of the republic.
The Barbarians were honestly even less authoritarian because they’d basically crowd fund their armies by going around and just trying to convince random Celtic village folk to join their coalition army.
This same kind of tradition was basically how the crusades gathered their manpower.
Except instead of Celtic villages it was French and HRE villages.
And instead of arguing they should fight because Romans are invading it was now basically deus vult.
In what way was fricking Rome collectivist
Year of the Water Tiger. Last time was 60 years ago...Cuban missile crisis. Just a coincidence you say?
>lunar years
yes, it's just a coincidence
mind you, the cuban missle crisis ended in a stalemate and the USSR collapsed almost 30 years later
history does like to repeat itself though in an analogical fashion
The sole military focus of the CCP since 1949 has been the invasion of Taiwan, I’m not a chink shill but to just dismiss china’s capabilities to invade the island outright is beyond moronic
The invasion of Taiwan is basically an open war against the US. You can prepare all you want, but the cold war was there for a reason anon.
I've already put a lot of cash on chinks doing something stupid and knocking themselves back to the three kingdoms period.
Even in Ukraine/Russia you don't see massed formations anymore. At best it's a couple dozen armored vehicles and platoon versus platoon.
Even the vatniks can't do mass human and armor waves anymore like in WW2, China if delusional if they think they can pull off Operation Wongverlord against Taiwan.
There are no human waves in Ukraine firstly becouse there's no mobilisation in place, secondly becouse russians are no soviet union, there's simply not enough men. Also tactics have proven to be more sucessful
I don’t subject people to the current “US government” do you?
Reminder Ashli Babbitt
>Ashli Babbitt
Lmao
Get out of my country.
You aren’t real Americans and never shall be. It’s obvious.
The amount of staging time and force size the Chinese would need makes the operation borderline impossible.
So China gets the force together and everybody sees it coming, China then has to deal with outlying Taiwanese islands before they can even attempt an assault on the main island.
Then you need to factor in the limited amount of landing zones in Taiwan, the need to take harbors with minimal damage (which rules out non precise artillery barrages and airstrikes) so the Chinese could offload a meaningful invasion force. Lets say China manages that, they're now fighting a professional force in an area encompassing one of the densest urban areas in the world, jungles, and mountains with a shit load of tunnel complexes.
All of this without factoring in the United States
>staging time
They've been staging for decades, all their Marines, naval bases and air bases in the area are deployed constructed with taking Taiwan in mind. They regularly send hundreds of aircraft around Taiwan. They essentially scrambled together the naval and aircraft sorties for the Pelosi visit in less than a week.
>limited amount of landing zones
Taiwan's coast has a dozen possible landing sites, several of them very close to Taipei. If China does seize a port one of its half dozen ports, its basically over for Taiwan.
>professional force
Of about 165,000 people. China's professional force is ten times that.
>naval bases and air bases in the area are deployed constructed with taking Taiwan in mind
and all taiwanese and us assets are deployed with china in mind. by itself that's not much of an advantage.
>They essentially scrambled together the naval and aircraft sorties for the Pelosi visit in less than a week.
which is about 1-5% of what they'd need for any kind of invasion - and remember - things only get exponentially harder the more assets you add.
>Taiwan's coast has a dozen possible landing sites
which is great defensively for an island that size. china can't just pick any site they want and they can't just divert a few knots down the coast if they need in most scenarios. also after the choke-points of the landing zones come the choke-points of the mountain roads, cities, dense forests etc. the impact of such geography on nullifying an attackers numbers advantage is absolutely huge.
>If China does seize a port one of its half dozen ports, its basically over for Taiwan.
why? taking a port is one thing; holding it and making sure it isn't rendered useless (for example via pre-placed demo charges, sabotage, air-strikes, artillery, mines etc.) and organizing hundreds if not thousands of transfers over weeks or even months unimpeded - that's an entirely different thing. and if - and that's a gigantic if - you manage to get most the stuff you need across: there's still the tiny business of actually taking the island.
>US and Taiwanese assets are deployed with China in mind
Shifting goalposts from staging time to asset deployments, but alright. The assets are deployed to the best of their ability. The US can only deploy naval assets. Taiwan tries to the best of its ability but it only has 165k active troops, since conscription is a joke and has been for ten years, their reserves are essentially duds.
>dozens of landing sites
>great
>mountains and narrow roads
>can divert a few knots
Yes, they can. You should really look at a map of Taiwan instead of parroting the headlines of whatever Foreign Policy/National Interest headlines you read. Everything on the west of Taiwan is flat, the mountains are in the east. So are the dense forests. All the important parts of Taiwan are also on the west. Taipei is very close to the sea, Shalun beach is just 15 miles away from it. In fact you could land IFVs all along the Tamsui River until you reach Taipei, its such a big risk that Taiwan has its own unit to protect the Tamsui. There's a half dozen of such rivers that lead deep into Taiwan and also require defending.
This gives China many favorable avenues of attack, and several other more than are unfavorable but could be forced into. The small Taiwanese army can, at best, only commit about a division of 10,000 men to each beach. In reality it would be a lot lower because they would need to be commit units in the cities, bridges, and other installations to fight off paratroopers and act as a reserve
>holding it
Landing in Taiwan is the difficult part. After that, not so much. Its pretty much an open secret that if Taiwan doesn't defeat China at the beaches, it'll lose. Why? It has no strategic depth. When Russia invaded Ukraine despite their horrendous performance, if they traveled as far as they did towards Kyiv in Taiwan, they would have reached the other side of the island. There's simply nowhere to fall back to.
>Yes, they can. You should really look at a map of Afghanistan instead of parroting the headlines of whatever Foreign Policy/National Interest headlines you read. Everything on the South of Afghanistan is flat, the mountains are in the East.
I don't know how you can just handwave away the kind of mountains lurking in Taiwan as if they wouldn't form the basis of an eternal insurgency after the past 20 years in Afghanistan shows just how fricking easy that is even against Protoss-tier US army
You can abandoneer while in land
You cannot abandoneer while you're inside a AAV, even BUD/S candidates can't and don't swim that far
China will end up glassing the country and get nothing if they ever expect an easy landing. Taiwan has some payloads allegedly pointed at 3 gorges dam, for maximum meme value potential. I want China to frick around and find out honestly.
Also Taiwan is technically a US ally per act of Congress in 2003, so, ya.
Taiwan is also not technically a country according to decades old US foreign policy
That's true.
There's only the Republic of China, the one and only true leader of China.
No, the US government only recognizes the People’s Republic of China.
>No, the US government only recognizes the (...) Republic of China.
yes, it does
Honestly. Do we really think the chinks are gonna do it? Like, if someone asked me pre-Ukraine I would have laughed, but honestly I don't even know what to expect anymore. Is this some global shittest of America as a global peace keeper?
They have sleeper agents on the island.
Launching the largest and most difficult amphibious invasion in human history with a military that has zero real world experience in the last 40+ years and that is famously corrupt and staffed with illiterate peasants from the poorest parts of China against a heavily fortified island armed with thousands of anti-ship missiles is not a recipe for success.
The USA doesn't need to fire a single shot to win a war with China lmao, fricking bugmen simply got outclassed on the world stage and have to hide behind hilariously fake propaganda
>b-b-but chyna numbah wan manufactuling!
Sorry to break the news, chang, but there are entire continents full of impoverished subhumans who can make cheap plastic junk. It'd be a mild inconvenience to lose access to that junk for a couple years, but it's not a big deal, really
>feed grain
yawn.
during any war, meat will be reserved for soldiers and essential workers and for the rest of the nation, it will be heavily rationed and only issued rice and russian wheat.
>would and amphibious landing be hard
well they haven't gotten easier sense
This exactly. We just saw Ukraine, a country with literally no navy and only a handful of early low rate production anti-ship missiles sink a flagship of the Russin fleet.
The idea that the PLAN would fare better in and around Taiwan, which has thousands of anti-ship missiles is just laughable.
Ok China gets some troops to Taiwan now what
>"The six zones were chosen for their importance in a potential campaign to seal off Taiwan and thwart foreign intervention," said Major General Meng Xiangqing in an interview on Chinese state television. "The zone near Kaohsiung in southern Taiwan, where there are crucial bases, creates conditions to bolt the door and beat the dog."
In this situation China can afford to wait and subjugate Taiwan over time unlike Russia who was forced to choose between bad or worse.
Chinese strength grows in this region of the world each decade while the US is overextended.
>China can afford to wait
see
, they've got 20 years tops.
true
Russia is actually and unironically run by a cabal of israeli elites tho.
>Would a Chinese naval invasion of Taiwan really be all that hard?
with all their ships in the bottom of the pacific, yes
The common talking point is that amphibious invasions are some of the hardest shit to do in history and countries generally try to avoid them for a reason. D-Day was an incredible feat that hasn't been done before on a scale like that and hasn't been repeated since. An invasion of Taiwan would have to make D-Day look like a joke in comparison in order for it to be successful, more people are needed, more beachheads to consider, greater distance to cross (yes, despite how narrow the Taiwan strait is) for the troops and for every single attempt to resupply and preparations for the operation would be known by the US and Taiwan months in advance, the exact opposite of surprising the enemy, which is what happened to the Germans on D-Day. Once there, Taiwan could be relatively easily rolled over and blown to shit with missiles even before that, but landing there would have to set a new historical standard in order for it to be successful and of course, landing, resupplying and further ferries to the island would all have to be done under constant harrasment by the USN. There is every reason to think China wouldn't be able to pull it off today or even in 5 years and I've seen little presented that would convincingly say otherwise.
China will never invade taiwan, because doing so will result in Japan and South-Korea becoming a nuclear power. Both nations can start producing nukes in a matter of months.
>only 180km away
Russians only had to travel 195km to Kiev and still got fricked by logistics, and they didn't have to cross any oceans. Unless China can secure total air and naval superiority, their transports are going to be sitting ducks crossing those 180km of sea.
>the country itself is 36,000km2
Most of which is mountain and terrain so shitty to navally invade that the US left it alone in WW2.
>so really they just need to occupy the Western 1/3 to have complete control
They "just" need to occupy Taipei, a major city with a population of 2.6 million.
I think China might be able to pull it off if no one else gets involved on Taiwan's behalf. If the US decides to step in, China is gonna have a bad time. Thing is we don't know how strong the Chinese military really is beyond knowing they have a lot of stuff and manpower, but there's very little proof that they're capable of properly utilizing it in such a scenario. One thing though, people have brought up China's lack of transports before, but they have sneakily converted a lot of civilian ferries to be able to provide military logistical support.
Also, keep in mind China has been saber rattling about Taiwan for decades. It's a convenient distraction for the public whenever they get antsy about how the country is run, and right now it isn't being run every well and people know. It's a dangerous gamble for the CCP, because if it succeeds it'll be a major prestige win, but if they fail, the CCP might not survive it, or the current top brass in the CCP anyway. If it was easy, they would have done it already.
>China securing air and naval superiority
Taiwan has a very miniscule chance of maintaining an active navy or air force past the first 24 hours of the war.
the key to defending taiwan is air superiorty
You dont have attack China. just defend taiwan.Air superiority is easy over taiwan.
wed frick up all their hi tech planes at once.
No need for any US infantry. Just focus on the Chinese NAvy and defend Taiwan airspace. Sink every chink ship on the water.
The us military would be embiciles if they didnt realize this and have a plan that has been tweaked over the years.
What if China sends ships which don't look like they're carrying soldiers, but they're actually carrying soldiers, so they unload them like regular passengers and invade Taiwan?
drowning on a civilian ship isn't going to be any more fun than drowning on a military ship
I'm pretty sure if several hundred ships simultaneously launched from China and beelined towards Taiwan the Taiwanese wouldn't assume that thousands of Chinese civilians suddenly decided to come visit at the exact same time.
I devised a slightly modified plan, see:
I've devised a strategy for China which involves some luck, but as Machiavelli himself said, every leader needs not only virtu, but also fortuna.
1. Taiwan is hit by earthquakes relatively frequently, and here's where the fortuna comes in: China has to wait for an earthquake which causes significant damages to justify an international aid by the IFRC.
2. The Red Cross Society of China sends vehicles marked with the Red Cross, which, according to the Geneva Conventions, must not be carrying any war personnel or equipment. The first couple of these will be actual Red Cross volunteers helping civilians, but the rest of the planes, ships, etc. will be carrying soldiers and weapons.
Yes, China commits perfidy, a war crime, but who's going to bring a whole country to trial. The US has been getting away with much worse for decades, anyway.
>Yes, China commits perfidy, a war crime, but who's going to bring a whole country to trial. The US has been getting away with much worse for decades, anyway.
The US has never masked an invasion force as humanitarian relief to my knowledge. That's arguably a worse way to start a war than just flat out invading someone with zero pretext like Putin did. It's basically an invitation for nobody to ever trust China ever again. They'd become a global pariah, no one would believe anything they say from that point on. How could any government justify dealing with a country that is so clearly willing to violate any agreement it makes?
That's assuming you could even pull off smuggling thousands of soldiers, guns, and equipment into Taiwan without being found out. It's not like they'll just stop inspecting Red Cross convoys simply because the first few checked out OK.
Yeah, I see now the holes in my plan.
It's definitely a complex enough topic to be difficult for an average PrepHole dweller to solve.
>It's only 180km away
The distance from Bongistan to Normandy was far less and involved 6,939 vessels: 1,213 warships, 4,126 landing craft of various types, 736 ancillary craft, and 864 merchant vessels.
But lets look at something smaller and a tad more recent, Inchon, this only involved landing 40,000 infantry (far fewer than China would need) and still involved 230 ships. Opposed landings (which this would be) require massive amounts of support, not just vessels to protect the landing ships and carriers for the aircraft to support them, but countless transport ships to ferry supplies to the troops as they will need a lot of supplies to quickly push the enemy back from their positions and secure a beachhead. Add to this that China has zero experience practical or theoretical experience with massed naval invasions.
If Winnie the Pooh demanded that I invade Taiwan in 5 years or get shot I wouldn't do these gay naval exercises around the islands I would do practice landings with hundreds of thousands of soldiers. Get a bunch of commanders from every military branch, make them work together to board 150,000 soldiers onto ships, sail them 200km down the coast of China, land them on a beach, and supply them exclusively by air and sea transport for two weeks without any harbour or air strip.
Next year repeat it with more inconvenient variables thrown in, assume heavy losses during the landing so half the ships have to be cut from the exercise day 1 and sent back, evacuate wounded, moving 5,000 soldiers a day back to the initial area of deployment, continually reinforce with another brigade every two days, assume heavy air casualties or even that air supplying is impossible.
>Would a Chinese naval invasion of Taiwan really be all that hard?
Yes, because the US navy exists.
Taiwan has hundreds of subsonic and supersonic missiles. A bit of short range ballistic missiles too. Invasion of Taiwan would be a complete disaster for China.
And china has tens of thousands of missiles. Taiwan would get flatened
Are you moronic? China doesn't want Taiwan flattened because China needs the infrastructure and resources Taiwan has. They cannot destroy Taiwan which will limit what they can actually do to the country. China has a LOT more to lose than Taiwan does should Taiwan decide to go out with a bang. 3 Gorges Dam would make a wonderful target for Taiwanese missiles should China try to escalate any further with Taiwan.
这个招牌是一个微妙的玩笑。这家店叫 "Sneed's Feed & Seed",其中 "feed"和 "seed"都以"-eed"结尾,因此与店主的名字Sneed押韵。牌子上写着这家店是 "以前是查克的",意味着 "F"和 "S"开头的两个字会以"-uck"结尾,与 "查克"押韵。所以,当Chuck拥有这家店时,它应该叫 "Chuck's Frick and Suck"。
>Would a Chinese naval invasion of Taiwan really be all that hard?
taiwan is a natural fortress
there's only two beaches were you can land
Taiwan is kinda a nightmare for landing operations. It’s why they skipped it in WW2.
it would be good for humanity if an asteroid destroyed most of eastern china
Taiwanese military doctrine in the event of a Chinese invasion is literally "lob all our shit at their navy and then bunker down until the USA comes to bail us out."
Everything will rely on if America is really willing to get into a shooting war with China over Taiwan. If they are, the conflict will be long and drawn out unless nukes fly. If they're not, China will be able to secure Taiwan within a week, if not sooner.
Taiwan's coasts are mostly mountainous which limits heavily the viable landing spots, in addition, China has to decide if it needs to control all the islands leading up to Taiwan or only control some (imagine the brutal island hopping of ww2 X 5, those c**ts are heavily fortified). China could very well securd a bridgehead but the expectation is that it would be extremely hard fought.
How things are going Taiwan will probably me eurovision winner next year.