Asia Is a US-China war about to break out?

Remove this Banner Ad

iluvparis

Import Whisperer
Apr 1, 2005
40,886
33,697
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Calgary Flames, Man Utd
If Taiwan had the same History, only with China replaced with the UK I reckon the Poms would hand allow them a referendum and leave it there.
Can't see a referendum over Northern Ireland happening any time soon.

I think a better analogy is if the Nazi's had shipped off to Crete or Malta or something post the end of WW2.
 

DaRick

Norm Smith Medallist
Jan 12, 2008
5,933
5,087
Brisbane
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
(See avatar)
Didn't stop them in Korea, and it wont stop them now.
My memory might be failing me, but I don't believe that China was a nuclear power during the Korean War (the USSR had only become one in around 1950).

Also, the US/UN were rapidly approaching Chinese territory, so it's hardly surprising that Mao decided to send as many 'volunteers' across the border as he could.

Different situation.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Ned_Flanders

Premium Platinum
Aug 22, 2009
66,484
122,564
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
76'ers
My memory might be failing me, but I don't believe that China was a nuclear power during the Korean War (the USSR had only become one in around 1950).

Also, the US/UN were rapidly approaching Chinese territory, so it's hardly surprising that Mao decided to send as many 'volunteers' across the border as he could.

Different situation.
1) china got the bomb in 1964

2) As the US troops approached the Yalu River, the PLA invaded (after initially demobilizing much of the post civil war army around the start of the war). A big part of the reason for this was the belief that Macarthur wanted the US troops to invade China after taking Korea. He had made arguments that this was the time to aid the Guomingtung in retaking China, and the USA should do it. China issued a warning when the US army approached the 38th, but the power of Macarthur back then was unstoppable, and Congress and the UN gave the nod (even though it was initially only intended for South Korean troops to cross the line). Macarthur was adamant that the chinese wouldnt attack, but as the armies marched towards the Yalu the inevitable occured.

After the chinese invaded, Macarthur later wanted battlefield control of nukes, and this was too much for congress and the WH who recalled him. Macarthur was a big advocate for nuking chinese cities as part of the US invasion of china, so this demand was pretty much seen as Macarthur wanting to escalate the Korean conflict into his long wanted invasion of China
 

Rotayjay

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 28, 2014
9,045
16,150
Adelaide, South Australia
AFL Club
Adelaide
China has done some chest-puffing and suspended a trade mechanism.

If a war breaks out, I'm guessing it would be:

1. China invades Taiwan
2. The US issues an ultimatum to withdraw and the ultimatum expires
3. The US, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the UK and all of NATO send in aircraft carriers, the air forces and maybe infantry to try and retake Taiwan and liberate it, perhaps try to cripple the Beijing government and its military?
4. Nuclear war?

Could the US retake Taiwan and prevent China from having another go without destroying the Chinese Communist Party or crippling the Chinese army?

It's all well and good to say that the US has sufficient nuclear weapons to vaporise the Chinese military, but is that practical and would it go that far? I doubt it and I hope not.
 

Ned_Flanders

Premium Platinum
Aug 22, 2009
66,484
122,564
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
76'ers
And are we willing to throw the Taiwanese under the bus in order to save our arses and avoid a third world war?
Taiwan is only going to be invaded if:

1) they declare independence
2) they host USA military bases

Neither is happening, and the only country talking war is Australia, even the USA is asking wtf we are on about with all our sabre rattling
 

QuietB

Brownlow Medallist
May 13, 2008
27,819
37,335
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Taiwan is only going to be invaded if:

1) they declare independence
2) they host USA military bases

Neither is happening, and the only country talking war is Australia, even the USA is asking wtf we are on about with all our sabre rattling
The USA is more than happy to sell us sh*t though. And we are buying it in droves. I think the USA weapons manufacturers are quite happy with the useful idiots in Australia and their sabre rattling.
 

Taylor

Community Leader
Jul 16, 2009
53,267
58,986
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
If there is a war breaking out I'd think it's more likely to be our ties with India that see us brought into it than the USA dragging us along to protect their friend.
 

Ben The Donkey

Team Captain
Aug 18, 2019
305
409
AFL Club
Fremantle
Having lived through much of the cold war it was neither baseless nor hysterical. I'll add a LOL, for good measure.

BTW I don't think we are going to have another cold war, I expect rather more of a hot peace.

I think Taiwan is at very real risk from the belligerent PRC. As mentioned earlier by other posters it's likely to be a pressure campaign/gray zone actions hoping to get Taiwan to fold without 'war'. However if those measure don't work I expect the PRC will contemplate invasion if it continues under it's current leadership.


Agree it doesn't make any sense, but folks running the ultra nationalistic line often don't make sense.

I'm not underestimating US airpower, the problem for the US is simply distance. They can't bring their full force to bear. In any conflict in the western pacific the PRC would bring vastly superior numbers of aircraft and missiles, many of which are modern and top class, they would also threaten the US fleet from a distance with their ballistic antiship missiles fired from the safety of central china.

The F22 production line cannot be restarted at the stroke of a pen.

The US has not recapitalised it's fleet of aircraft or ships in a way that is suitable for long range war in the Pacific after decades of stupid wars in the middle east. You pay a price for your actions.
You're right. Any conflict over the South China Sea is going to be, for the US, a primarily carrier based one. Any number of historical battles will reveal how much of a tactical disadvantage that is, against a capable enemy with a missile force the size and capability of China's. The remaining F-22's are relegated to insignificance in this respect, and regardless of how dauntless the air power of the USA is in a localized conflict from land bases, or closer to home, in the SCS it is humbled. even Guam could be quickly neutralized if the Chinese planned it right.
China's land forces will easily be able to contain any supporting attacks from most potential regional allies, the only real threat will come from India - and they have problems of their own at the moment, and will for some time into the future.

The economic importance of the South China Sea itself will be enough (you'd think) to deter any nuclear option.

Simply comparing numbers and technological capability is not a good basis to assess tactical or strategic outcomes of a conflict in the Western Pacific against China. It's not something the USA would be eager to get into, if they have any sense.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Doc_

Premiership Player
May 7, 2007
4,911
5,650
AFL Club
Adelaide
You have to wonder why covid was "released" at this point in time.
Did they think they could take Taiwan while the world was incapacitated?
As devastating as it has been, I'm sure they expected a bigger impact. The ulterior motive may yet to be realised.
 

Linda_Lovelace

Cancelled
Jul 28, 2004
3,782
5,702
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Collingwood
To take China on, or at least punish them they will rely on the near naval power based on their aircraft carriers.

Battleships were the mainstay of fleets going into WW2 but this changed very quickly. I suspect Aircraft carriers might go the same way. China, Russia and Iran for example, know this is how the USA projects power, they will have spent a lot of time working out how to nullify them with the advances in missle tech the key. Take out the carriers and USA has a very difficult decision to make, as at that point it probably nuclear.

I think that if the Chinese attacked Taiwan you may see the use of sanctions to cripple China. Chine, like Japan pre WW2, is very dependent on sea borne trade. A hard blockade of sea passages would leave China very vulnerable to internal collapse as their economy would start to struggle. You don't need to go into the Sth China sea to block the trade routes. Would China seek to escalate, can they without aircraft carriers?

We live in interesting times.

PS either way, Oz would be crippled economically re life style but we are a wealthy country re natural resources and can clothe, feed and look after ourselves.
 

Ned_Flanders

Premium Platinum
Aug 22, 2009
66,484
122,564
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
76'ers
To take China on, or at least punish them they will rely on the near naval power based on their aircraft carriers.

Battleships were the mainstay of fleets going into WW2 but this changed very quickly. I suspect Aircraft carriers might go the same way. China, Russia and Iran for example, know this is how the USA projects power, they will have spent a lot of time working out how to nullify them with the advances in missle tech the key. Take out the carriers and USA has a very difficult decision to make, as at that point it probably nuclear.

I think that if the Chinese attacked Taiwan you may see the use of sanctions to cripple China. Chine, like Japan pre WW2, is very dependent on sea borne trade. A hard blockade of sea passages would leave China very vulnerable to internal collapse as their economy would start to struggle. You don't need to go into the Sth China sea to block the trade routes. Would China seek to escalate, can they without aircraft carriers?

We live in interesting times.

PS either way, Oz would be crippled economically re life style but we are a wealthy country re natural resources and can clothe, feed and look after ourselves.
This 100%

in ww2, carriers where mobile invisible platforms that could dump major airpower on you well beyond normal reach. Radar was still in its early years, and the tactics of managing the carrier fleets were pretty cool back then

now we have global satellite networks. Forget govts, you can track the USN carrier fleet!

US Aircraft Carriers Location Tracker (marinevesseltraffic.com) allows you to get up to date locations on all of the US carriers, including live maps. So their ability to surprise is gone

next you have their strength. To attack a carrier you had to get past its fleet, its planes, and now its modern defences. in the era of newly developed carrier killer missiles, much of this may be redundant. Yes the defences will stop say 99/100 missiles, but this isnt ww2. losing multiple squadrons on a suicide attack of a carrier was expensive and difficult to replace quickly. missiles are dirt cheap (comparatively) and can be dumped in the hundreds on a single target. Math is no longer on the side of the carrier group.

Then we look at the cost. The gerald ford cost $13b. It holds 90 planes, and for easy math lets assume thats FA-18-F's. Thats another $6b in planes. So lose one carrier, you're out of pocket $20b, and 8 years to replace it.
 

QuietB

Brownlow Medallist
May 13, 2008
27,819
37,335
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
This 100%

in ww2, carriers where mobile invisible platforms that could dump major airpower on you well beyond normal reach. Radar was still in its early years, and the tactics of managing the carrier fleets were pretty cool back then

now we have global satellite networks. Forget govts, you can track the USN carrier fleet!

US Aircraft Carriers Location Tracker (marinevesseltraffic.com) allows you to get up to date locations on all of the US carriers, including live maps. So their ability to surprise is gone

next you have their strength. To attack a carrier you had to get past its fleet, its planes, and now its modern defences. in the era of newly developed carrier killer missiles, much of this may be redundant. Yes the defences will stop say 99/100 missiles, but this isnt ww2. losing multiple squadrons on a suicide attack of a carrier was expensive and difficult to replace quickly. missiles are dirt cheap (comparatively) and can be dumped in the hundreds on a single target. Math is no longer on the side of the carrier group.

Then we look at the cost. The gerald ford cost $13b. It holds 90 planes, and for easy math lets assume thats FA-18-F's. Thats another $6b in planes. So lose one carrier, you're out of pocket $20b, and 8 years to replace it.
I read or watched something the other day that China's medium/long range missiles are so good now it will not even allow the USA carriers to get close enough to Taiwan to be effective in any conflict.

There is not going to be a USA China conflict. There was never a USA Russia conflict for the same reason. It can only end one way and that is mutually assured destruction.
 

Linda_Lovelace

Cancelled
Jul 28, 2004
3,782
5,702
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Collingwood
This 100%

in ww2, carriers where mobile invisible platforms that could dump major airpower on you well beyond normal reach. Radar was still in its early years, and the tactics of managing the carrier fleets were pretty cool back then

now we have global satellite networks. Forget govts, you can track the USN carrier fleet!

US Aircraft Carriers Location Tracker (marinevesseltraffic.com) allows you to get up to date locations on all of the US carriers, including live maps. So their ability to surprise is gone

next you have their strength. To attack a carrier you had to get past its fleet, its planes, and now its modern defences. in the era of newly developed carrier killer missiles, much of this may be redundant. Yes the defences will stop say 99/100 missiles, but this isnt ww2. losing multiple squadrons on a suicide attack of a carrier was expensive and difficult to replace quickly. missiles are dirt cheap (comparatively) and can be dumped in the hundreds on a single target. Math is no longer on the side of the carrier group.

Then we look at the cost. The gerald ford cost $13b. It holds 90 planes, and for easy math lets assume thats FA-18-F's. Thats another $6b in planes. So lose one carrier, you're out of pocket $20b, and 8 years to replace it.
You can see the future with these new missiles.


MACH 17!!!
 

Ned_Flanders

Premium Platinum
Aug 22, 2009
66,484
122,564
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
76'ers
I read or watched something the other day that China's medium/long range missiles are so good now it will not even allow the USA carriers to get close enough to Taiwan to be effective in any conflict.

There is not going to be a USA China conflict. There was never a USA Russia conflict for the same reason. It can only end one way and that is mutually assured destruction.
I dont rule it out, but I dont see it being a normal one. To defeat china, you have to conquer china. As Japan found out, you cant do that just taking costal cities (the interior is just too damn big)

and the moment the USA engages, Okinawa, Guam, and us all get bombed.

China would take taiwan, but at an incredible price (in blood, treasure, and international standing)

the only idiots who want war are scomo, trump, and news limited
 

Linda_Lovelace

Cancelled
Jul 28, 2004
3,782
5,702
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Collingwood
I dont rule it out, but I dont see it being a normal one. To defeat china, you have to conquer china. As Japan found out, you cant do that just taking costal cities (the interior is just too damn big)

and the moment the USA engages, Okinawa, Guam, and us all get bombed.

China would take taiwan, but at an incredible price (in blood, treasure, and international standing)

the only idiots who want war are scomo, trump, and news limited
Trump never did, only US president in my life time to not start a war and to actively seek to stop ones they were already in. He deserves some credit for that, I am sick of war being used as a tool of state craft by the USA which then drags us in. And then we see the fall out when the soldiers come home.
 

Ned_Flanders

Premium Platinum
Aug 22, 2009
66,484
122,564
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
76'ers

Ned_Flanders

Premium Platinum
Aug 22, 2009
66,484
122,564
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
76'ers
Trump never did, only US president in my life time to not start a war and to actively seek to stop ones they were already in. He deserves some credit for that, I am sick of war being used as a tool of state craft by the USA which then drags us in. And then we see the fall out when the soldiers come home.
he kicked off the current war with china. make no mistake, we are at war with them (just without the bullets so far)
 

Remove this Banner Ad