Breaking News China-US War?

Bogeyman 

Experienced member
Professional
Messages
7,866
Reactions
54 27,787
Website
twitter.com
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Message from the US general: "We must be ready for war with China in two years"

According to the news of NBC television, the Commander of the Air Deployment Force of the US Air Force, General Mike Minihan, sent a written note to his troops, "I hope I am wrong, but my feeling is that we will fight China in 2025." used the phrase.

Pointing out that in 2024, presidential elections will be held in both the USA and Taiwan, which is in a sovereignty conflict with China, Minihan warned that in this period when Washington's attention will turn to domestic politics, China can take advantage of the opportunity and make a move towards Taiwan.

In the memo sent to the affiliated commands of the Air Departure Force and other operational commands of the Air Force, Minihan, who asked the troops to prepare for such a conflict, instructed them to report their efforts in this regard by February 28.

Minihan wanted "to form a fortified, integrated, ready and aggressive Joint Force Maneuver Team that can fight and defeat (the enemy) within the first island chain" in a possible conflict.

"Throw a bullet at 7 meters, aim at his head"

To emphasize the seriousness of the possibility of war and the importance of preparedness, Minihan gave the following order to all Airlift Force personnel:

"Shoot a bullet at a target at 7 yards. Keeping in mind that determination to kill (in combat) is the most important thing, aim for the head."

Minihan also asked all personnel to update their records and emergency contacts, and resolve their personal and legal issues.

The Air Transport Command, which has approximately 50 thousand personnel and 500 aircraft, performs transportation and refueling duties.

While confirming the existence of the memo, the Command Spokesman said, "The order given by General Minihan to his commanders is a continuation of the efforts initiated last year to prepare the Air Deployment Command for future conflicts if deterrence fails." said.

In a written statement, US Department of Defense (Pentagon) Spokesman Brigadier General Patrick Ryder said, "The National Defense Strategy makes it clear that China is an increasing threat. As the Department of Defense, our focus is to maintain peace in the Indo-Pacific region by working with our allies and partners." used the phrases.

Philip Davidson, then Commander of the US Indo-Pacific Forces, stated in his statement to the Senate Armed Forces Committee in March 2021 that China could attempt to invade Taiwan by 2027.

Earlier this month, US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, regarding the possibility of an invasion of Taiwan by China, said, "Recently, we have been witnessing the provocative behavior of Chinese forces and their efforts to create a new normal, but I have serious doubts whether this means an imminent threat of invasion." had evaluated.
 

Old Codger

Active member
Messages
104
Reactions
28
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Australia
Everyone knows a war is coming over Taiwan except for the people from mainland China and Taiwan. The power of western media.

Only those that are gullible enough to believe "western media".

A total lack of common sense helps too.

OC
 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
7,344
Reactions
21 11,958
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
@Afif I'll continue here, lets not derail the Ukraine war thread
If it really comes to war in the Pacific between China and the US, than there will be no way to remain neutral in such a nightmare scenario.

There are mostly three possible ways for such a conflict to start:
1. China attacks Taiwan, the US helps Taiwan with weapons and supplies, China hits at the US ships supplying Taiwan, and the US joins the war
2. China attacks Taiwan, the US helps Taiwan by entering directly into the war and attacking Chinese warships
3. China directly attacks the US ships and bases in the region, trying to get an advantage by striking first and by surprise

In all three scenarios China is seen as the aggressor, so it will be very easy for the US to create an international alliance that will support it in the war. Australia, Japan, South Korea are already allies. NATO members will be forced to join because of Article 5. Now with such a strong alliance and under direct attack, the US will force the hand of every other country in the region to choose sides. This is what happens in World Wars when you happen to be close to the conflict.

The Philippines and Indonesia have a very important and strategic location in the region, so I see it very unlikely that they could avoid getting involved, at least by providing airfields and resupply locations, and of course, participating in the economic blocade.

Article 5 doesn't apply for non-member Taiwan.

Indonesia (and I think most of SE Asia) knows fully the size, scope and capability of China and the destruction they could bring if we were to engage directly. So most of the time SE Asia will stay shut and watch as the two power clash themselves. That doesn't mean Indonesia will not secretly engage with the U.S for some limited cooperation (intelligence ?). But forget it if you think that our airbase will be used as staging ground for allied forces. They must fly from their carriers or Japan/S.K/Philippines.


Unpopular opinion, but I think this is also shared by the our side war planners that once general war broke out, the threat to our national security will likely come from China first, Australia second.

Jakarta has declare its displeasure with Australia AUKUS initiative and maybe later, its decision to station US bomber near our South.

For us the best outcome is for China to be defeated, but if they don't this is not some existential threat.

And speaking economic blockade, we don't blockade with our largest trading partner

por.PNG



What does my country has to do with having an informed opinion about naval forces in the Pacific? While I understand that countries closer to China have all the reasons to be more worried about it, this doesn’t change the fact that the US Navy is by far the most powerful in the World, and this won’t change very soon.
True, but the tyranny of distance and the gradual loss pf power nearer to China's periphery will automatically be a China advantage.

The U.S navy is big but it's dispersed globally, China while not as big are concentrated in the Western Pacific and still growing by the year.

But yes true, the USN is by far more powerful, professional, trained and their institutional knowledge far outweigh China's

China must be really stupid to start a war against Taiwan. Such a move would be more suicidal than Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
That is not for us to decide, if Putin's military planner are the likes of Guderian, Von Manstein, Chuikov and not Gerasimov...then I could argue that Putin invasion of Ukraine is an act of genius. Its because they fail, that now Russia is seen as stupid.

But what if China's takeover is swifter than you might imagine ?
 
Last edited:

contricusc

Committed member
Messages
297
Reactions
1 413
Nation of residence
Panama
Nation of origin
Romania
Article 5 doesn't apply for non-member Taiwan.

Yes, but if the US gets attacked too, than things change. Of course, there can be arguments that Article 5 applies only to an attack in the North Atlantic or home territory, but in the end, if the US will ask its allies for help, they will not refuse.

Indonesia (and I think most of SE Asia) knows fully the size, scope and capability of China and the destruction they could bring if we were to engage directly. So most of the time SE Asia will stay shut and watch as the two power clash themselves. That doesn't mean Indonesia will not secretly engage with the U.S for some limited cooperation (intelligence ?). But forget it if you think that our airbase will be used as staging ground for allied forces. They must fly from their carriers or Japan/S.K/Philippines.

My personal opinion is that the US would be able to sink the Chinese fleet without falling back as far as Indonesia is concerned. Japan and Philippines are much closer, and they should be sufficient for containing China’s fleet. But assuming the situation would get worse, than I can see a situation where Indonesia is asked for airfields, and in the context of a hot war at such a scale, it would be vry difficult to refuse.
Unpopular opinion, but I think this is also shared by the our side war planners that once general war broke out, the threat to our national security will likely come from China first, Australia second.

Genuine question: why do you think Australia is a threat to Indonesia? They have plenty of territory already, and a low population. They don’t have a history of attacking neighboring countries. Also, Australians enjoy their vacations in Bali, so they wouldn’t want to lose their vacation gataway.
And speaking economic blockade, we don't blockade with our largest trading partner

View attachment 54631

I think that if it comes down to full scale war, the global commerce will be changed in a way that would be unrecognizable right now. Nobody would be allowed to trade with China, as there would be a shipping blocade. Who would dare to send uninsured commercial ships to China while there is a naval war in the seas and a US blockade?

True, but the tyranny of distance and the gradual loss pf power nearer to China's periphery will automatically be a China advantage.

The U.S navy is big but it's dispersed globally, China while not as big are concentrated in the Western Pacific and still growing by the year.

Yes, China has the advantage of concentration, but this can easily be turned into a disadvantage, because the US can strike at Chinese assets that are concentrated in the war theater, while committ only a fraction of its naval assets. The US could rotate carrier groups, and it could use long rage strikes, including on the Chinese military harbors. The US would have the advantage of having safe places to retreat to.

Also, the easiest way to choke off China would be to simply cut it away from the seabound trade. The US would shut off China’s imports of oil and gas from the Middle East and iron ore from Australia and Brazil, basically chocking off the Chinese economy.

But what if China's takeover is swifter than you might imagine ?

Given Taiwan’s geography and the need to cross almost 200 kilometers of seas to get troops on the ground, I think China has zero chances to occupy Taiwan if the Taiwanese decide to fight back.

China could destroy Taiwan by raining missiles on it, but conquering it is a totally different thing.
 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
7,344
Reactions
21 11,958
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Yes, but if the US gets attacked too, than things change. Of course, there can be arguments that Article 5 applies only to an attack in the North Atlantic or home territory, but in the end, if the US will ask its allies for help, they will not refuse.
Don't be so sure, maybe the likes of France, UK, Italy will send their fleet. But the likes of Turkiye will think twice before sending their sons to die in the waters of South China sea for a war that they're not obliged to participate under article 5.

But hey, I like the idea of a PLAN v NATO. It suits us. Especially because PLAN is getting too large for comfort.

My personal opinion is that the US would be able to sink the Chinese fleet without falling back as far as Indonesia is concerned. Japan and Philippines are much closer, and they should be sufficient for containing China’s fleet.
True, I like the idea of Japanese and Filipinos dying instead of us. And this is not because I hate them (Indonesia and Japan is actually quite close buddy buddy). The war should be confined within Taiwan and its close periphery.
But assuming the situation would get worse, than I can see a situation where Indonesia is asked for airfields, and in the context of a hot war at such a scale, it would be vry difficult to refuse.
Yeah and then we reject. We don't want to die and get bombed, just because Taiwan wants to be independent.

There's off course a threat of invasion (ironically from the U.S), but if that's the case, then we might just invite China here. And if that happens China wins twice. Wins the hearts of the largest county in ASEAN (who used to despise them) and now suddenly have their own Japan in which to threaten U.S shipping and Australia.

You may argue that China will be destroyed, but everyone is allowed to believe what they want to believe. Real world fact when it comes to numbers does point out that this will be a war with China's advantage.

Genuine question: why do you think Australia is a threat to Indonesia? They have plenty of territory already, and a low population. They don’t have a history of attacking neighboring countries. Also, Australians enjoy their vacations in Bali, so they wouldn’t want to lose their vacation gataway.
Its well known, we are neither enemy nor we are friends. Australia's paranoia of a strong Indonesia goes back to the 50s and vice versa. If you read many of Australia's think tank reports, only recently China has replaced Indonesia as the no.1 threat.

Doesn't mean we want war (both always avoided this), but the suspicion is always there.

I think that if it comes down to full scale war, the global commerce will be changed in a way that would be unrecognizable right now. Nobody would be allowed to trade with China, as there would be a shipping blocade. Who would dare to send uninsured commercial ships to China while there is a naval war in the seas and a US blockade?
Yeah maybe with Europe (which will voluntarily stop trade), but elsewhere the U.S doesn't actually have the hulls to compete with China when it comes to open sea piracy of cargoes. More so in the Western Pacific, where Chinese ship will just flood the traffic.

By 2030 the U.S will actually be smaller by hull counts and China will in some estimation, double in size.



Yes, China has the advantage of concentration, but this can easily be turned into a disadvantage, because the US can strike at Chinese assets that are concentrated in the war theater, while committ only a fraction of its naval assets.
Not that easy, in a naval war, number of ships does decide the outcome.


The US could rotate carrier groups, and it could use long rage strikes, including on the Chinese military harbors. The US would have the advantage of having safe places to retreat to.
This is the only part from your argument that I can agree on. But carriers are finite in numbers and sorties they could do. Because of onboard space for fuel and arms bunker.
Also, the easiest way to choke off China would be to simply cut it away from the seabound trade. The US would shut off China’s imports of oil and gas from the Middle East
China's oil comes from Iran and Russia by pipeline, in fact I could argue that Russia is now China's own gas station...

Also I figure out that China actually also produce oil. They import because their own production aren't sufficient enough for the industry. In a war most of that industry will be reduced and China could depend less on imports and from domestic productions.

and iron ore from Australia and Brazil, basically chocking off the Chinese economy.
And they will still function. Russia's economy only drop by 2%...not the earlier 15-20%. China is even more resilient.

Given Taiwan’s geography and the need to cross almost 200 kilometers of seas to get troops on the ground, I think China has zero chances to occupy Taiwan if the Taiwanese decide to fight back.

China could destroy Taiwan by raining missiles on it, but conquering it is a totally different thing.

I suggest be careful with oversimplification. There's no such thing as impossible. Constantinople used to be regarded as impenetratable because of its high walls and geography...
 

F-6 enthusiast

Well-known member
Messages
417
Reactions
1 595
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
U.S doesn't actually have the hulls to compete with China when it comes to open sea piracy of cargoes. More so in the Western Pacific, where Chinese ship will just flood the traffic.
They'll be stretched trying to fight a peer adversary on one hand and trying to police maritime traffic to punish China on the other.
 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
7,344
Reactions
21 11,958
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
I believe this to be unlikely , the consequences of stopping trade with PRC will cause crises in many European nations.
True, but the Westerners actually think that everything will only affects their foe and not them.

I can do this and that...and expects nothing in return.

We saw a glimpse already what the chaos in the developed world will look like once all trade stops. These people will kill for toilet paper.


They'll be stretched trying to fight a peer adversary on one hand and trying to police maritime traffic to punish China on the other.
This is my concern. Because I actually wants the US to win 🙁
 

Afif

Experienced member
Moderator
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Bangladesh Moderator
Messages
3,755
Reactions
62 6,631
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
Yes, China has the advantage of concentration, but this can easily be turned into a disadvantage, because the US can strike at Chinese assets that are concentrated in the war theater, while committ only a fraction of its naval assets. The US could rotate carrier groups, and it could use long rage strikes, including on the Chinese military harbors. The US would have the advantage of having safe places to retreat to.
Carriers are not as much survivable as one might think.

Admiral Rickover who also happened to be the 'father of the nuclear navy' in a congressal testimony during 1980s when he was asked, how long US carriers would survive in a full blown war with soviet union he replied, ''48hours, 1 week if it stays at port.''

When it comes to PLAN, US navy's desicive advantage is its SSN fleets.

Carriers will come at second.
 
Last edited:

F-6 enthusiast

Well-known member
Messages
417
Reactions
1 595
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
We saw a glimpse already what the chaos in the developed world will look like once all trade stops.
Let's see , supply chains breakdown , products aren't made/sold , job losses, services affected , mass layoffs , social unrest. Is it not worth the Trouble.

These people will kill for toilet paper.
KFC having chicken supply issues made it to national news in Britain.

Very recently , we had a shortage of Antibiotics here in the UK exacerbated by Brexit.

What will happen once these ppl lose their jobs ? houses ? cars ?
_ascism (someone please Fill in the blanks)
 

contricusc

Committed member
Messages
297
Reactions
1 413
Nation of residence
Panama
Nation of origin
Romania
Don't be so sure, maybe the likes of France, UK, Italy will send their fleet. But the likes of Turkiye will think twice before sending their sons to die in the waters of South China sea for a war that they're not obliged to participate under article 5.

Yes, of course not all NATO countries will participate in such a conflict, but those with a powerful Navy will need to contribute in a way, while the rest will have to at least stop trade with China.

But hey, I like the idea of a PLAN v NATO. It suits us. Especially because PLAN is getting too large for comfort.

I don’t like this idea at all. Such a war will be bad for everyone, not only because of the huge loss of human life, but also because the economic ramifications would be huge. Peace and trade is what brings prosperity. War brings only destruction and poverty. I hope the Chinese are smart enough to understand that.

True, I like the idea of Japanese and Filipinos dying instead of us. And this is not because I hate them (Indonesia and Japan is actually quite close buddy buddy). The war should be confined within Taiwan and its close periphery.

That’s what everyone hopes, if it actually comes down to war, which I doubt it would.

Its well known, we are neither enemy nor we are friends. Australia's paranoia of a strong Indonesia goes back to the 50s and vice versa. If you read many of Australia's think tank reports, only recently China has replaced Indonesia as the no.1 threat.

Doesn't mean we want war (both always avoided this), but the suspicion is always there.

I think the paranoia and suspicion is necessary in order to justify investing in expensive military equipment. You always need to have a potential dangerous foe. Now that China is getting stronger, both Australia and Indonesia can fear the same potential enemy, so there is no need to distrust each other anymore,

Yeah maybe with Europe (which will voluntarily stop trade), but elsewhere the U.S doesn't actually have the hulls to compete with China when it comes to open sea piracy of cargoes. More so in the Western Pacific, where Chinese ship will just flood the traffic.

By 2030 the U.S will actually be smaller by hull counts and China will in some estimation, double in size.

I think that the threat of the US Navy confiscating your ship would be enough for most shipping companies to sit out trade with China.


Not that easy, in a naval war, number of ships does decide the outcome.

It’s not the number of ships, but the quality, quantity and range of the anti ship missiles that matters more, combined with the intelligence gathering and targeting capabilities.


China's oil comes from Iran and Russia by pipeline, in fact I could argue that Russia is now China's own gas station...

Also I figure out that China actually also produce oil. They import because their own production aren't sufficient enough for the industry. In a war most of that industry will be reduced and China could depend less on imports and from domestic productions.

Among China’s top suppliers of crude oil are: Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Oman, Kuwait, UAE, Brazil, Angola, Norway. That’s all ship bound oil.

And they will still function. Russia's economy only drop by 2%...not the earlier 15-20%. China is even more resilient.

And do you believe Russian statistics? They lie while they breathe, so their statistics are very hard to believe.

And China is a lot more dependent on the global economy and trade than Russia. China needs its export markets, and its imports of energy, raw materials and food. If China is cut off from trade, it ends up in starvation.

I suggest be careful with oversimplification. There's no such thing as impossible. Constantinople used to be regarded as impenetratable because of its high walls and geography...

Yet it didn’t fall quickly, despite receiving very little outside help.

Now on a more serious tone, modern weapons make a sea landing of troops exagerately dangerous. Ships are just too vulnerable to modern precision weapons. And even if China would manage to land some troops in Taiwan, the logistics would be a nightmare and the landing troops would be obliterated.

Russia didn’t even manage to hold an Airport near Kyiv despite having a land frontier close to it. Holding a beachhead in Taiwan would be mission impossible if the Taiwanese are willing to fight back.
 

contricusc

Committed member
Messages
297
Reactions
1 413
Nation of residence
Panama
Nation of origin
Romania
Carriers are not as much survivable as one might think.

When it comes to PLAN, US navy's desicive advantage is its SSN fleets.

Carriers will come at second.

I agree with that. Carriers are a very big target, and losing one would be too catastrophic in terms of loss of life. But submarines combined with long range bombers could do the trick in sinking the Chinese fleet from a safe distance.
 

contricusc

Committed member
Messages
297
Reactions
1 413
Nation of residence
Panama
Nation of origin
Romania
True, but the Westerners actually think that everything will only affects their foe and not them.

No, we don’t think like that. We’re just willing to accept that sometimes we need to suffer some economic hardship to defend sovereignty and freedom.

We saw a glimpse already what the chaos in the developed world will look like once all trade stops. These people will kill for toilet paper.


I wouldn’t call those three mammals “people” 🤣😂🤣 (It’s just a joke, I hope nobody gets offended by that…)
 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
7,344
Reactions
21 11,958
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Peace and trade is what brings prosperity. War brings only destruction and poverty.
Couldn't agree more
I think the paranoia and suspicion is necessary in order to justify investing in expensive military equipment. You always need to have a potential dangerous foe. Now that China is getting stronger, both Australia and Indonesia can fear the same potential enemy, so there is no need to distrust each other anymore,
International politics doesn't work that way. Nazi Germany is the mutual enemy of the West and the Soviets. Once that threat is out both resume their rivalry. Our relationship with Oz is less deadly than the one we saw between the two victors of the war, but its definitely there.
I think that the threat of the US Navy confiscating your ship would be enough for most shipping companies to sit out trade with China.
Maybe for companies the likes of CMA CGM, Hapag or Maersk. But China's own state owned shipping line like COSCO will trade as usual under the protection of the PLAN. COSCO are pretty big in fleet size and TEU carry capacity.

largest-shipping-companies-share.jpg


I mean if I were China and I saw Southeast Asian countries cargo ships getting blown for trading with their largest trading partner, that would be an opening for some pretty good deal. PLAN protection for your shipping in exchange for access to airbases in your country. So while trying to intimidate pseudo allies in Southeast Asia, you would have Chinese bombers flying from Iswahyudi or Halim Perdanakusuma instead, which is kinda bad.

Also, because trade are prohibited, we will likely see the fall of some established Asian trading port like Singapore. You know, I'm pretty jealous with Singapore having the title as the busiest port in Asia and the World, so maybe by maintaining trade with the devil itself we could grab the spot and grab the title of busiest port for Tanjung Priok instead of Singapore ?

It’s not the number of ships, but the quality, quantity and range of the anti ship missiles that matters more, combined with the intelligence gathering and targeting capabilities.
True but the difference in quality of modern Chinese ships and its weaponry aren't as extreme as ironclads vs sailing ship. In fact China is the 2nd most advanced military by now already and its navy also in the same rank.

The one's they're lacking is trained personnel on how modern military works, but they just figured out how to buy those institutional knowledge instead.

Among China’s top suppliers of crude oil are: Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Oman, Kuwait, UAE, Brazil, Angola, Norway. That’s all ship bound oil.


For a guy who seems to know trade and geopolitics you seems to either ill informed or being ignorant on purpose. China is buying oil from Saudi because of the oil waivers introduced by the U.S on Iran oil

Not because they actually depended on all those countries for oil. If one day Saudi, Iraq and Oman decide to put a stop on the flow of oil, they will just switch supplier to Iran instead, and those oil will flow through pipelines..

Yes, China does produce significant amount of oil too. In fact they ranked 7th on oil production.

And do you believe Russian statistics? They lie while they breathe, so their statistics are very hard to believe.

Its trustful enough that Western media reported that

And this is from a country that is in many ways very dependent on the West on equipment and everything not to mention their very small population in comparison to China. China has neither or very little of those problem.

And China is a lot more dependent on the global economy and trade than Russia. China needs its export markets, and its imports of energy, raw materials and food. If China is cut off from trade, it ends up in starvation.
China is actually moving towards a robust domestic consumption economy in addition to manufacturing goods (which will eventually consumed by Chinese themselves).

In a war everybody will suffer and basically all participants will say goodbye to the lifestyle of excess they used to live when trade and commerce are on high gear during peacetime.

China will definetly not collapse just because t stops trading with the West. It will be lose lose for both side.

Talking about starvation China is the largest food importer while also a major food exporter

Over the past several decades, China’s grain consumption has more than tripled from 125 million metric tons (tonnes, t) in 1975 to 420 million tonnes in 2018.1 Considerable investments in agriculture have enabled China’s farmers to produce high volumes of staple crops, allowing the country to achieve a roughly one-to-one ratio of production and consumption of grains. India has achieved a similar one-to-one ratio of grain production and consumption, but it has also positioned itself as the world’s leading exporter of rice. In 2018-2019, India exported nearly 9.8 million tonnes of rice – roughly 22.5 percent of the global total. China by comparison was the sixth-largest exporter over the same period, accounting for just 6.3 percent of global exports. (source)


And all of this pointed out to a larger and wealthier consumer base...in a war, they will automatically be less consumptive, but starvation is out of the question.

Did Britain starved to death during the Blitz ? off course not. In fact there are countries that survived food crisis while being weaker in agriculture than China.

Yet it didn’t fall quickly, despite receiving very little outside help.

Now on a more serious tone, modern weapons make a sea landing of troops exagerately dangerous. Ships are just too vulnerable to modern precision weapons. And even if China would manage to land some troops in Taiwan, the logistics would be a nightmare and the landing troops would be obliterated.
If you want to know what I think about Taiwan's defense here my take (hint: you're late to the party)

Its difficult and would take a lot of time yes, true. But in the end China's overall power will scrape what Taiwan have to the point of zero even if it takes time. China's industrial, resource, technology and population outnumbers Taiwan by a mega margin.
Russia didn’t even manage to hold an Airport near Kyiv despite having a land frontier close to it. Holding a beachhead in Taiwan would be mission impossible if the Taiwanese are willing to fight back.

China =/= Russia.

Using your logic the allies would have never be successful in operation overlord because a few years earlier they got defeated very badly in France.

Its 50/50 when it comes to China vs Taiwan + Allies. 90/10 if it comes to Taiwan v China alone.
 
Last edited:

Ryder

Experienced member
Messages
10,237
Reactions
5 17,677
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Turkey
@contricusc

In 1999, Australia and Indonesia came close to war due to East Timor

East Timor has and oil and gas whats so ironic that Australia supported Indonesia when took back East Timor but once oil and gas got discovered the tune changed.

Indonesia and Australia pretty big trade partners but also distrust each other.
 
Last edited:

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
7,344
Reactions
21 11,958
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
@contricusc

In 1999, Australia and Indonesia came close to war due to East Timor

East Timor has and oil and gas whats so ironic that Australia supported Indonesia when took back East Timor but once oil and gas got discovered the tune changed.

We never took back east timor, because it never belongs to us. Our invasion is actually pre planned with US and Australia to stem left leaning government.
They use us to do the dirty job and when the cold war is over, present themselves as the ultimate savior of the Timorese.

In fact during our occupation only Australia recognize our occupation. Pretty bad shit when dealing with these people ehh ??
Indonesia ans Australia pretty big trade partners but also distrust each other.
 
Last edited:

Ryder

Experienced member
Messages
10,237
Reactions
5 17,677
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Turkey
We never took back east timor, because it never belongs to us. Our invasion is actually pre planned with US and Australia to stem left leaning government.
They use us to do the dirty job and when the cold war is over, present themselves as the ultimate savior of the Timorese.

In fact during our occupation only Australia recognize our occupation. Pretty bad shit when dealing with these people ehh ??

Damn never knew it was this deep. Wow
 

contricusc

Committed member
Messages
297
Reactions
1 413
Nation of residence
Panama
Nation of origin
Romania
Maybe for companies the likes of CMA CGM, Hapag or Maersk. But China's own state owned shipping line like COSCO will trade as usual under the protection of the PLAN. COSCO are pretty big in fleet size and TEU carry capacity.

largest-shipping-companies-share.jpg


I mean if I were China and I saw Southeast Asian countries cargo ships getting blown for trading with their largest trading partner, that would be an opening for some pretty good deal. PLAN protection for your shipping in exchange for access to airbases in your country. So while trying to intimidate pseudo allies in Southeast Asia, you would have Chinese bombers flying from Iswahyudi or Halim Perdanakusuma instead, which is kinda bad.

I think shipping and trade should be judged differently depending on the conflict scenario. If the US and China end up in a cold war based on economic sanctions and economic blocs, than I agree with you that Chinese shipping companies would be able to trade with partner nations, and the US will not be able to persuade many countries to give up on Chinese trade.

Such situation will result in a gradual decoupling between China and the West, while some countries (like Indonesia) may choose to act as a bridge that does business with both. It would be hard for any side to put too much pressure on such countries, because it would lose them to the other side.

But the second scenario which is a hot war is totally different. If China and the US end up in a full fledged war with destroyed warships and many casualties, than trading with China will simply not be allowed. The US strategy to win the war would be to cut off China entirely from the global economy, and except for some land routes with Russia and neighboring Asian countries, China will be totally isolated. Which country do you think will have the courage to accept Chinese ships in its docks if the US threatens war?

No sane leader will align with China, because it will be obvious that China will lose the war and will be a pariah in the global order for the next few decades at least. Being an ally of China in such a scenario would equal to being allied to Germany and Japan during WW2.


The one's they're lacking is trained personnel on how modern military works, but they just figured out how to buy those institutional knowledge instead.

The Chinese army, navy and air force are not battle tested. They have zero war experience. The Ukrainian war has shown the difference between military exercises and real war. China is an autocracy like Russia, and such countries usually excel at parades and fail at the real thing.

Remember how Saddam’s army was one of the strongest in the world? Until it faced the US and its allies. Remember how Russia was the second most powerful army in the world before the Ukraine invasion? Now it is the second most powerful army in Ukraine.

The Chinese would be wise to remain the second most powerful military in the world, but they need to stay at peace in order to keep their status.

For a guy who seems to know trade and geopolitics you seems to either ill informed or being ignorant on purpose. China is buying oil from Saudi because of the oil waivers introduced by the U.S on Iran oil

Not because they actually depended on all those countries for oil. If one day Saudi, Iraq and Oman decide to put a stop on the flow of oil, they will just switch supplier to Iran instead, and those oil will flow through pipelines..

I don’t think pipelines from Russia and Iran are sufficient to replace all the oil China it imports from other countries, which is 85% of the oil it imports. Add to this the LNG imports, and China would have its energy supplies greatly restricted.



Yes, it was reported because of lack of other sources, but this does not make it true. I know how stats were falsified during Soviet times, and Russia hasn’t changed much since then. They lie in everything they say. Recently Lavrov just said that Ukraine attacked them, to the laughter of those in the audience.
And this is from a country that is in many ways very dependent on the West on equipment and everything not to mention their very small population in comparison to China. China has neither or very little of those problem.

China needs resources, food, and high tech components and machinery. China is very dependent on trade. This is how it developed in the first place. If China is cut off from most of its trade, its economy is destroyed.
In a war everybody will suffer and basically all participants will say goodbye to the lifestyle of excess they used to live when trade and commerce are on high gear during peacetime.
Totally agree with that.

China will definetly not collapse just because t stops trading with the West. It will be lose lose for both side.
If it starts a hot war, China will stop trading with most of the world, not only with the West.

Talking about starvation China is the largest food importer while also a major food exporter

Over the past several decades, China’s grain consumption has more than tripled from 125 million metric tons (tonnes, t) in 1975 to 420 million tonnes in 2018.1 Considerable investments in agriculture have enabled China’s farmers to produce high volumes of staple crops, allowing the country to achieve a roughly one-to-one ratio of production and consumption of grains. India has achieved a similar one-to-one ratio of grain production and consumption, but it has also positioned itself as the world’s leading exporter of rice. In 2018-2019, India exported nearly 9.8 million tonnes of rice – roughly 22.5 percent of the global total. China by comparison was the sixth-largest exporter over the same period, accounting for just 6.3 percent of global exports. (source)


And all of this pointed out to a larger and wealthier consumer base...in a war, they will automatically be less consumptive, but starvation is out of the question.

Did Britain starved to death during the Blitz ? off course not. In fact there are countries that survived food crisis while being weaker in agriculture than China.

China has a huge population to feed. While it may not literally starve, they will go back to the times of Mao when they barely had anything to eat.
If you want to know what I think about Taiwan's defense here my take (hint: you're late to the party)

I will check that thread.
Its difficult and would take a lot of time yes, true. But in the end China's overall power will scrape what Taiwan have to the point of zero even if it takes time. China's industrial, resource, technology and population outnumbers Taiwan by a mega margin.


China =/= Russia.

Using your logic the allies would have never be successful in operation overlord because a few years earlier they got defeated very badly in France.

Its 50/50 when it comes to China vs Taiwan + Allies. 90/10 if it comes to Taiwan v China alone.
I would put the odds inverted. 10/90 if it is China vs Taiwan + Allies and 50/50 if it is China vs Taiwan alone.

But everyone has his own opinion. Hopefully we’ll never find out who is right on this topic.
 
Top Bottom