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.
True, but the tyranny of distance and the gradual loss pf power nearer to China's periphery will automatically be a China advantage.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.
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.China must be really stupid to start a war against Taiwan. Such a move would be more suicidal than Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
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.
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 what if China's takeover is swifter than you might imagine ?
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, 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.
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.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.
Yeah and then we reject. We don't want to die and get bombed, just because Taiwan wants to be independent.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.
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.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.
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.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?
Not that easy, in a naval war, number of ships does decide the outcome.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.
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.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.
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, 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 they will still function. Russia's economy only drop by 2%...not the earlier 15-20%. China is even more resilient.and iron ore from Australia and Brazil, basically chocking off the Chinese economy.
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.
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.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.
True, but the Westerners actually think that everything will only affects their foe and not them.I believe this to be unlikely , the consequences of stopping trade with PRC will cause crises in many European nations.
This is my concern. Because I actually wants the US to winThey'll be stretched trying to fight a peer adversary on one hand and trying to police maritime traffic to punish China on the other.
Carriers are not as much survivable as one might think.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.
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.We saw a glimpse already what the chaos in the developed world will look like once all trade stops.
KFC having chicken supply issues made it to national news in Britain.These people will kill for toilet paper.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Not that easy, in a naval war, number of ships does decide the outcome.
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 they will still function. Russia's economy only drop by 2%...not the earlier 15-20%. China is even more resilient.
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...
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.
True, but the Westerners actually think that everything will only affects their foe and not them.
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.
Couldn't agree morePeace and trade is what brings prosperity. War brings only destruction and poverty.
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 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,
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.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.
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.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.
And do you believe Russian statistics? They lie while they breathe, so their statistics are very hard to believe.
China is actually moving towards a robust domestic consumption economy in addition to manufacturing goods (which will eventually consumed by Chinese themselves).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.
If you want to know what I think about Taiwan's defense here my take (hint: you're late to the party)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.
Indonesia ans Australia pretty big trade partners but also distrust each other.
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 ??
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.
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.
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.
Following revelations of former British and Australian fighter pilots training the PLA Air Force, the latest story from French local media now suggests that several former French pilots have also been instructing the PLAAF in China.eurasiantimes.comThe disclosure is the latest development in a campaign by the U.S. and its allies to prevent China from recruiting Western aviators.www.wsj.com
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
The United States on Monday demanded that buyers of Iranian oil stop purchases by May 1 or face sanctions, a move to choke off Tehran's oil revenues which sent crude prices to six-month highs on fears of a potential supply crunch.www.reuters.com
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..
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.
Totally agree with that.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.
If it starts a hot war, China will stop trading with most of the world, not only with the West.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.
If you want to know what I think about Taiwan's defense here my take (hint: you're late to the party)
Anyone on this forum actually from Taiwan? Im working on a complex scenario and deep dive into PLAs ability to actually invade Taiwan. This, as you can imagine, is quite the process. As a work up to this scenario i was hoping to talk with someone from Taiwan i could bounce elements of the...defencehub.live
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.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.