As I discussed Chinese military tech with Steve Hsu recently, it was obvious that China/Taiwan scenario was central to so many things we discussed, but especially the employment of hypersonic missiles.
I expressed to him multiple times my just absolute detestations of think tank analysis on the entire matter & their very unrealistic war games. Think tank backers want to see war game results that make them feel better, but unfortunately that makes them not reflective of reality.
The reality is China/Taiwan conflict is quite unlikely over next few years despite the constant alarm from the blob. Although we officially have a policy of “strategic ambiguity”, the actual policy became clear for a few years now. If there is an actual attack on Taiwan, America will absolutely defend it.
The reason is quite simple. Taiwan is center of America’s goals of containing China in Asia. If America does not come to defend Taiwan, the foreign policy establishment (articulated by John Mearsheimer and Elbridge Colby) believes its entire alliance structure in Asia will fall apart. It also believes America cannot let China achieve hegemony in the region of the world where all the economic growth is happening.
By this point, Biden has publicly stated an abandonment of “strategic ambiguity” so many times (despite immediate State Department retractions) that China has received the message very clearly. It has been planning with the expectation that Japan and Australia will also be part of American plans. Whether Japan or Australia actually participate in actively supporting America (vs just providing bases) is irrelevant. They have already passively give support. As such, PLA has to make its plans on the assumption that both countries will be involved.
So, you may ask, does that mean China is screwed? After all, America & Taiwan now have Japan, Australia & possibly India or SK, how can China possibly defeat so many countries by itself. You cannot be further from the truth. I would imagine very few people who have really looked at force structure in a westpac (West Pacific) conflict think China can lose.
The reason is straight forward. PLA has singularly devoted and trained for this 1 conflict next to its home base for 30 years while America is overstretched from many responsibilities and don’t have the base structure needed to really compete around East China Sea (ECS) and South China Sea (SCS).
In fact, by tasking itself with this goal of maintaining presence next to China with this constant freedom of navigation patrols and thumping of chest in ECS & SCS, the blob is placing extra stress on its already overworked fleet. All of this ends up simply lowering the availability of its fleet after long deployments and require more time under extended repairs. Does anyone not see that deploying 2 carrier groups for long period of time around the Persian Gulf (like right now) will put excessive stress on those surface combatants? When will those 2 carriers be available for surging again after they return from deployment? Having such a high % of old & abused fleet mean steadily worse readiness and smaller usable fleet over time. If we consider the weakness of the American shipbuilding industry, new ships aren’t coming to fleet fast enough. F-22s don’t have the numbers, availability or range to fight westpac conflict. If US bases are taken out in Asia (the most likely scenario), F-35s can only assist in a fight as part of carrier group operations. All of which limit F-35 numbers, attacking prowess & number of attack missiles that can be carried. As such, any realistic American defense strategy centers around aircraft designed for westpac conflict, which are B-21s and NGAD. Since those aircraft are not joining USAF in meaningful numbers before end of this decade, you can see the reason for anxiety among many people.
At this pt, you may ask why China is able to do so much damage? Well, it has massive amount of fire power deployable from all 4 of its services, but especially PLARF. It’s also why I think a conflict is unlikely. The best strategy for PLA is actually to take US military by surprise. The disastrous Pelosi visit has allowed PLA to normalize large scale exercises around Taiwan for any perceived snubs. PLA has shown it can deploy forces into position for large scale exercise in 2 days. Future snubs will allow PLA to conduct practice run of the real thing.
By normalizing such exercises, PLA can at any moment decide to do the real thing while US military is desensitized to the exercises and have alert down. PLA can start off with intense military exercise which tire out the responses of ROCAF/ROCN. At which point, it will have a pretty easy task of taking out the ROC air defense in early hours of a conflict with PCH-191, attack aircraft & drones. This would not require large portion of PLA’s fire power. PLA would devote much of its fire power to attack US 7th fleet and JMSDF while they are in the ports and/or with their air defense down. Such a “first strike” is critical in giving China overwhelming advantage in the region, since it can neutralize US military bases and fleet within Second Island Chain. The goal for PLA would be to deal knock out blow with overwhelming fire power against American/Japanese forces on the first day. It can then blockade Taiwan and Japan with its large naval and coast guard fleet that will control Sea of Japan to South China Sea. PLA will use helicopters, persistent UCAVs and PCH-191 to steadily degrade and demoralize Taiwan’s defense force. It probably takes 40 days for US navy to form a multi carrier fleet that can come to try to free Taiwan. It is unlikely Taiwan can survive even 20 days of blockade. Assuming that Taiwan surrenders by this point, PLA will be able to use airports and bases in Taiwan for the showdown against maybe a 3 to 4 carrier group American force. This extends their defense further away from mainland. The odds really are not in America’s favor in this scenario.
Do a simple thought process. How many aircraft can 3 carrier groups launch per day? How many attack aircraft is in there? How many LRASM can they carry? How many targets are there on the mainland? How quickly can China repair its bases or factories even if attacks are successful? How many ships does PLAN have? Even if some are taken out of action, how many successful attacks would put real dent on PLAN defenses? How many days of operation can US navy maintain in the region with its limited number of replenishment ships? How many days before the fleet runs out of air defense missiles and attack missiles?
While this type of first strike strategy is ultimately effective, it would likely cause permanent separation of US/its allies and China. It probably also increase the likelihood of nuclear scenario. It doesn’t make sense for China to break up such important trading relationships unless it feels it has no choice but to respond to certain red lines being crossed. As China continues to get stronger, it is likely to reach a point where it no longer has to employ such a strategy. At this point, you might ask how force structure might tilt further toward China over next 10 years. The main areas are of strategic in nature. Most obvious items are H-20 bombers and 095 nuclear subs. While these two platforms are unlikely to be as stealthy as its American counterpart, they will be stealthy enough and have enough range to conduct strikes against military targets in CONUS. Beyond that, Y-20BU joining service in large numbers also allows PLA to conduct strike missions further out. Once China starts to build out nuclear powered carriers, it will also increasingly conduct missions farther and farther out.
In terms of military balance of power, China thinks things will continue to shift in its favor. There are more important portion of building out national power. For example, China will want to first comprehensively win the tech war. It will also want to achieve energy security and complete access to trade market and critical minerals via BRI projects. It simply makes no sense for China to try anything adventurous when there are so many important projects for it to complete. It also likely believes that as it continues to get stronger, it will eventually force Taiwan into negotiating “some type of reunification” that Taiwanese people can live with.
Put yourself in the shoes of Chinese leadership. If you think things continue moving in your favor, why would you stop that? Why would you believe Western fantasy of a China collapse? You wouldn’t. You would continue completing all your plans and become the most technologically advanced and most powerful country first.
It was a very interesting interview!
I think that there's more than relative strength in tech and industry, and the rate at which this is further developing. The two of you made it sound a little like it is a mode of competition in which the strength of the winner will be recognized and then everybody goes home with the gold and silver medal or whatever. Forgive me if what follows is long winded or too obvious, but hopefully other people in your audience are clear on some of these things.
Take a look at the amount of nastiness the British empire left in its wake as it was receding. The war apparently starting tonight in Yemen, coincidentally on the same day as Israel at last faces a serious legal action against it, can be case in point. That one goes all the way back to the British in Israel in the 1920s and 1930s, as they played off the Arab independence movement vs the Israeli settlers, eventually setting up the the ill fated UN partition in 1947-1948, and the independence war and simultaneous and very intentional* drive by the nascent Israeli state to dramatically alter the geographic distribution of Palestinian population, by force, which happened also in 1947-1948. This sowed the seeds for the conflict that has only gotten worse and worse. [* this isn't the place for the subject, but check out "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine", Ilan Pappe 2006, there's a free PDF online if you search ]
Similarly look at how Ukraine was systematically poisoned with the revanchist nationalist ideology celebrating the WWII german collaborators, and contrary to its own interests, led to the present slaughter. The transformation between 2014 and 2021 (when the showdown producing the desired result in 2022 was set in motion) was dramatic.
Japan, Taiwan, and Philippines are prone to some degree of this as well, although the wealth of the two former would first have to be destroyed to make room for the psychological transformation needed. But that's often not too hard.
In other words, the US, if the hawks continue in power, wouldn't simply march up and fight a battle that cannot be won. They're aggressive enough to bite off more than they can chew (happening now as I write), but not quite that dumb. They will try to trick others into very hard-to-reverse conflict - as tense and cruel and bloody as possible, with no regard whatsoever for the losses absorbed by the proxy. For example, by telling the client state that US military will step and guarantee their safety, as long as they "start the ball rolling" in challenging the main US opponent, then US in reality gives the client state just enough support to have them lose very painfully instead of quickly. Japan would be the most prime candidate, I'd have to think.
It is noteworthy that US has so far failed in trying to rile up, against China, the Islamic world (that story is done and done, now), and HK, and India has been triangulating deftly enough. But some societies who for years seem like they have it so together, suddenly become easily led to national suicide, like many of the Europeans. Anyway, I too hope conflict is avoided. But I would not hold out any hope at all of sanity from either US client states, and would not count on recognition by the US of its own limitations.
All this is not to say China will have a particularly hard time overcoming the difficulties (compared to the 20th century, anyway), but just that it won't be pretty. I'd expect very very far from pretty.
PS - the current security establishment isn't Mearsheimer or Colby, it's the Sullivan / Blinken / Nuland crew.
So on that happy note [/sarc].... Appreciate your many informative posts!
I hope China doesn't resort to any "first strike" to take out US forces in Japan, etc. Perhaps that is what the military advisers would advise, but it seems politically untenable as it would allow the West to portray China as the aggressor and confirm all prior prejudicial attitudes toward China as a "bad actor" (no matter how unjustified).
I suggest China wait for the US to make the first move (i.e., strike China first), even if this does prolong the conflict. I am sure over time, China will eventually prevail, and by letting the US strike first, it is possible for China to call out the US (and its allies) as the aggressor.
As China and the Global South continues to grow economically, the West will diminish more and more. Also, the day will come (surely) when even on market rates, China's per capita GDP approaches that of the US, or even exceeds it. The US economy relies on its hegemony over financial markets, and this will eventually end when the Global South find ways to trade and invest in each other without involving the US-led financial system.
Meanwhile, China could point out that the people of Taiwan will have much more freedoms as part of China, then as an "independent state". Do Taiwanese really want to end up like Okinawa or S Korea, and function as a tool for US hegemony?