Why China can't defeat the US

[westwall]

Use one of these

Those missiles are not mounted on SUBMARINES. Try again silly person.

Yea....but Taiwan sure has a shitload of em

Sky Bow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, and China has shitloads of the attack jet I just posted and they shoot these...

Which blow these...

to bits...

Kind of like this....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

China thinks it can defeat America in battle - The Week

The bad news first. The People's Republic of China now believes it can successfully prevent the United States from intervening in the event of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan or some other military assault by Beijing.

Now the good news. China is wrong — and for one major reason. It apparently disregards the decisive power of America's nuclear-powered submarines.
Moreover, for economic and demographic reasons Beijing has a narrow historical window in which to use its military to alter the world's power structure. If China doesn't make a major military move in the next couple decades, it probably never will.

Fortunately for that liberal order, America possesses by far the world's most powerful submarine force — one poised to quickly sink any Chinese invasion fleet. In announcing its readiness to hold off the U.S. military, the PLA seems to have ignored Washington's huge undersea advantage.

The Navy has 74 submarines, 60 of which are attack or missile submarines optimized for finding and sinking other ships or blasting land targets. The balance is ballistic-missile boats that carry nuclear missiles and would not routinely participate in military campaigns short of an atomic World War III.

America's eight-at-a-time submarine picket in or near Chinese waters could be equally destructive to Chinese military plans, especially considering the PLA's limited anti-submarine skills. "Although China might control the surface of the sea around Taiwan, its ability to find and sink U.S. submarines will be extremely limited for the foreseeable future," Cliff testified. "Those submarines would likely be able to intercept and sink Chinese amphibious transports as they transited toward Taiwan."

In practical military terms, that means the Pentagon can more or less ignore most of China's military capabilities, including those that appear to threaten traditional U.S. advantages in nukes, air warfare, mechanized ground operations, and surface naval maneuvers.

So....how do those subs intercept these?

Which drop these...

Which are supported by these...

Use one of these

The oped you quoted talked about subs, which do not mount those weapons.

 

[westwall]

So....how do those subs intercept these?

Which drop these...

Which are supported by these...

Use one of these

The oped you quoted talked about subs, which do not mount those weapons.

Yeah, he had to move the goalposts, and I smacked them down too.

 

[SteadyMercury]

So....how do those subs intercept these?

Which drop these...

Come on man, surely you know China doesn't have the military airlift capability to put enough soldiers/armor on the ground to successfully invade Taiwan, not even close. What do they have about a dozen strategic transport planes like in your picture?

The only way China can get sufficient boots on the ground is ships across the straits, where the subs could become quite relevant.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So....how do those subs intercept these?

Which drop these...

Come on man, surely you know China doesn't have the military airlift capability to put enough soldiers/armor on the ground to successfully invade Taiwan, not even close. What do they have about a dozen strategic transport planes like in your picture?

The only way China can get sufficient boots on the ground is ships across the straits, where the subs could become quite relevant.

China doesn't have to mount a massive invasion to defeat Taiwan, I actually posted a Navy War College paper that explains all of that. But feel free to pretend that China can't take Taiwan if it wants to.

 

[SteadyMercury]

But feel free to pretend that China can't take Taiwan if it wants to.

Who are you even replying to?

Hi! I'm the guy who questioned China's military airlift capability, not whatever poster said China can't take on Taiwan.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

But feel free to pretend that China can't take Taiwan if it wants to.

Who are you even replying to?

Hi! I'm the guy who questioned China's military airlift capability, not whatever poster said China can't take on Taiwan.

The thread isn't about the airlift capability of China, it is about the fact that US submarines aren't capable of stopping China if they launch an attack.

That said, the main criticism of China's airlift capacity is the lack of a long range transport, not their ability to fly troops 50 miles off their cost to invade Taiwan. There is a significan difference between tactical and strategic airlift capability.

 

[SteadyMercury]

The thread isn't about the airlift capability of China, it is about the fact that US submarines aren't capable of stopping China if they launch an attack.

Threads wander into different areas of the same subject. People starting posting about Chinese military airlift being a means to get around the US submarine force, and I replied to that notion in that I don't believe China has sufficient airlift capability which is surely related to the topic and the post I was replying to.

Apparently you have a policy that when threads aren't going exactly how you wish you just adopt a strawman argument policy and generate opinions for others to attack.

That said, the main criticism of China's airlift capacity is the lack of a long range transport, not their ability to fly troops 50 miles off their cost to invade Taiwan. There is a significan difference between tactical and strategic airlift capability.

When did they change the geography of Taiwan to reduce the width of the strait to 50 miles?

Either way you greatly underestimate how much aerial tonnage of airlift capability is required to transport and supply even a division sized military force, and the criticism of China's airlift ability is amount of tonnage they can move versus the size of the army they'd need to move.

They might someday with that new C-17 imitation they've been fooling around with but right now the dozen or so large transports and whatever prop planes aren't sufficient, they would need to manage the bulk of any Taiwan invasion across the water both for troops and equipment.

 

[PratchettFan]

China thinks it can defeat America in battle - The Week

The bad news first. The People's Republic of China now believes it can successfully prevent the United States from intervening in the event of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan or some other military assault by Beijing.

Now the good news. China is wrong — and for one major reason. It apparently disregards the decisive power of America's nuclear-powered submarines.
Moreover, for economic and demographic reasons Beijing has a narrow historical window in which to use its military to alter the world's power structure. If China doesn't make a major military move in the next couple decades, it probably never will.

Fortunately for that liberal order, America possesses by far the world's most powerful submarine force — one poised to quickly sink any Chinese invasion fleet. In announcing its readiness to hold off the U.S. military, the PLA seems to have ignored Washington's huge undersea advantage.

The Navy has 74 submarines, 60 of which are attack or missile submarines optimized for finding and sinking other ships or blasting land targets. The balance is ballistic-missile boats that carry nuclear missiles and would not routinely participate in military campaigns short of an atomic World War III.

America's eight-at-a-time submarine picket in or near Chinese waters could be equally destructive to Chinese military plans, especially considering the PLA's limited anti-submarine skills. "Although China might control the surface of the sea around Taiwan, its ability to find and sink U.S. submarines will be extremely limited for the foreseeable future," Cliff testified. "Those submarines would likely be able to intercept and sink Chinese amphibious transports as they transited toward Taiwan."

In practical military terms, that means the Pentagon can more or less ignore most of China's military capabilities, including those that appear to threaten traditional U.S. advantages in nukes, air warfare, mechanized ground operations, and surface naval maneuvers.

A sub is of no value unless you are willing to use it. Are you willing to engage in a nuclear exchange with China over Taiwan?

 

[whitehall]

What an insane argument. Some weekly blog unaffiliated with the intelligence agencies or the military says not to worry about a shooting war with China because we have an efficient submarine force.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The thread isn't about the airlift capability of China, it is about the fact that US submarines aren't capable of stopping China if they launch an attack.

Threads wander into different areas of the same subject. People starting posting about Chinese military airlift being a means to get around the US submarine force, and I replied to that notion in that I don't believe China has sufficient airlift capability which is surely related to the topic and the post I was replying to.

Apparently you have a policy that when threads aren't going exactly how you wish you just adopt a strawman argument policy and generate opinions for others to attack.

That said, the main criticism of China's airlift capacity is the lack of a long range transport, not their ability to fly troops 50 miles off their cost to invade Taiwan. There is a significan difference between tactical and strategic airlift capability.

When did they change the geography of Taiwan to reduce the width of the strait to 50 miles?

Either way you greatly underestimate how much aerial tonnage of airlift capability is required to transport and supply even a division sized military force, and the criticism of China's airlift ability is amount of tonnage they can move versus the size of the army they'd need to move.

They might someday with that new C-17 imitation they've been fooling around with but right now the dozen or so large transports and whatever prop planes aren't sufficient, they would need to manage the bulk of any Taiwan invasion across the water both for troops and equipment.

Sigh.

China has multiple long range guns that are more than capable of hitting Taiwan without ever leaving China. They also have air superiority to overwhelm China, and even an aircraft carrier. This gives them a tactical advantage which negates the need to put massive amounts of boots on the ground to invade Taiwan. If you want an example of how that actually works feel free to look back at our invasion of Iraq in the First Gulf War. We won despite the fact that Iraq had all the advantages on the ground because we took advantage of the air power we had. The need for boots on the ground was just to wipe up minor pockets of resistance.

China has actually demonstrated the ablity to airlift a full battalion in the past, and their airlift capability has improved sine then. They are not nearly as good as we are, but they have the ability to actually take Taiwan if they want, and there won't be much we can do about it in the short run because we aren't prepared to deal with an all out assault if China launches it. Pretending otherwise just makes you one of the people with his head in the sand. Like I said earlier, read the PDF I linked to if you want to see why you are wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What an insane argument. Some weekly blog unaffiliated with the intelligence agencies or the military says not to worry about a shooting war with China because we have an efficient submarine force.

To be honest, I wouldn't worry about China mounting a naval assault on the shores of California, but that does not mean that we can go toe to toe with China. Their army is a hell of a lot bigger than ours.

 

[SteadyMercury]

China has multiple long range guns that are more than capable of hitting Taiwan without ever leaving China.

Seriously? I didn't know that, what kind? That must be some seriously long range artillery.

Pretending otherwise just makes you one of the people with his head in the sand.

Sigh.

I dub thee King of the Straw Man, for your repeated ability to attack opinions that I've not held.

Your Majesty, I've not opined once in this thread on whether China could successfully invade or defeat Taiwan, I have merely objected to the notion that China could do so by air thus rendering the impact of naval operations moot.

Your ability to argue against phantoms is cute, right up there with your cheering about China's ability to transport troops 50 miles off their coast into the water.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

China has multiple long range guns that are more than capable of hitting Taiwan without ever leaving China.

Seriously? I didn't know that, what kind? That must be some seriously long range artillery.

Pretending otherwise just makes you one of the people with his head in the sand.

Sigh.

I dub thee King of the Straw Man, for your repeated ability to attack opinions that I've not held.

Your Majesty, I've not opined once in this thread on whether China could successfully invade or defeat Taiwan, I have merely objected to the notion that China could do so by air thus rendering the impact of naval operations moot.

Your ability to argue against phantoms is cute, right up there with your cheering about China's ability to transport troops 50 miles off their coast into the water.

Funny, no one said that they could reneder naval operations moot. What we said is that the OP was wrong when it cited an oped that the US submarine force could defeat China. You must have been doing the same thing you accuse me of.

As for China's long range guns, like I said before, feel free to read the link I provided earlier.

 

[westwall]

So....how do those subs intercept these?

Which drop these...

Come on man, surely you know China doesn't have the military airlift capability to put enough soldiers/armor on the ground to successfully invade Taiwan, not even close. What do they have about a dozen strategic transport planes like in your picture?

The only way China can get sufficient boots on the ground is ships across the straits, where the subs could become quite relevant.

They have 79 of those aircraft currently in inventory. That drops enough troops to take, and hold an airport. Then the rest get ferried over. Look up the German invasion of Crete some day. Yes, the Germans suffered horrendous losses....just remember...the Chinese don't care about losses...

 

[Indofred]

This is all bullshit anyway.
The moment America attacks China, both China and Russia will dump their Dollar holdings, totally collapsing the US economy.
You may well destroy lumps of China, but you'll be well and truly fucked as well.

 

[westwall]

The thread isn't about the airlift capability of China, it is about the fact that US submarines aren't capable of stopping China if they launch an attack.

Threads wander into different areas of the same subject. People starting posting about Chinese military airlift being a means to get around the US submarine force, and I replied to that notion in that I don't believe China has sufficient airlift capability which is surely related to the topic and the post I was replying to.

Apparently you have a policy that when threads aren't going exactly how you wish you just adopt a strawman argument policy and generate opinions for others to attack.

That said, the main criticism of China's airlift capacity is the lack of a long range transport, not their ability to fly troops 50 miles off their cost to invade Taiwan. There is a significan difference between tactical and strategic airlift capability.

When did they change the geography of Taiwan to reduce the width of the strait to 50 miles?

Either way you greatly underestimate how much aerial tonnage of airlift capability is required to transport and supply even a division sized military force, and the criticism of China's airlift ability is amount of tonnage they can move versus the size of the army they'd need to move.

They might someday with that new C-17 imitation they've been fooling around with but right now the dozen or so large transports and whatever prop planes aren't sufficient, they would need to manage the bulk of any Taiwan invasion across the water both for troops and equipment.

Sigh.

China has multiple long range guns that are more than capable of hitting Taiwan without ever leaving China. They also have air superiority to overwhelm China, and even an aircraft carrier. This gives them a tactical advantage which negates the need to put massive amounts of boots on the ground to invade Taiwan. If you want an example of how that actually works feel free to look back at our invasion of Iraq in the First Gulf War. We won despite the fact that Iraq had all the advantages on the ground because we took advantage of the air power we had. The need for boots on the ground was just to wipe up minor pockets of resistance.

China has actually demonstrated the ablity to airlift a full battalion in the past, and their airlift capability has improved sine then. They are not nearly as good as we are, but they have the ability to actually take Taiwan if they want, and there won't be much we can do about it in the short run because we aren't prepared to deal with an all out assault if China launches it. Pretending otherwise just makes you one of the people with his head in the sand. Like I said earlier, read the PDF I linked to if you want to see why you are wrong.

Taiwan is 112 miles across the straight from China so I really doubt the Chinese have an artillery piece capable of reaching Taiwan. They didn't have Gerald Bull working for them...

However, their tactical airlift capability is fully capable of airlifting a full parachute battalion across to take and hold whichever piece of ground they want to.

 

[SteadyMercury]

Funny, no one said that they could reneder naval operations moot. What we said is that the OP was wrong when it cited an oped that the US submarine force could defeat China. You must have been doing the same thing you accuse me of.

Sure it was, the discussion clearly evolved (devolved) into the submarines couldn't intercept the transport planes. The submarines would be moot.

Nothing close to your bizarre arguing with voices in your heads while quoting my posts.

As for China's long range guns, like I said before, feel free to read the link I provided earlier.

I've skimmed it, didn't see anything about a gun that could shoot from China to Taiwan. It interests me as I've never heard of a gun of that range being produced outside of one-off Gerald Bull type stuff.

Could you tell me where in the article in references Chinese artillery targeting Taiwan without leaving China?

 

[SteadyMercury]

They didn't have Gerald Bull working for them...

Hah I thought of the exact same guy.

I couldn't find any reference to it in his paper but I might have missed it. Another possibility is since Quantum thought the strait was only 50 miles across he was in error in guessing artillery ranges, although that would be a hell of an artillery piece too.

 

[whitehall]

I don't know why "the week" is posting this bull shit. Nobody can win a global shooting war between nuclear armed opponents.