Short Taiwan?

[Climacus]

Stupid question: could the Chinese even run the fabs? Im not aware they let <7nm chips produce in Taiwan so I assume they aren't able to design them (since its all US software). If so the only benefit of an invasion would be the destruction of the US-production but not the building of its own chips...(I further assume the production is somehow encoded).

[Blugolds11]

41 minutes ago, benchmark said:

There is no doubt that US has the most powerful military force. I think the question is will US be able to afford/win a sustained war with China over Taiwan? We haven't been able to do that with Vietnam or Afghanistan. 

Keep in mind the style of warfare in Vietnam/Afghanistan vs Ukraine/China/Taiwan is very very different. Mainly due to geographics and population density. Guerilla warfare with a difficult to identify enemy hiding in tunnels/mountains via terrain that benefits defending against an unfamiliar foe. Look at Ukraine…air defense and tanks lead to fighting in the streets. This IMO is closer to “normal” fighting that we could expect vs jungle and dessert, and gives more of an advantage to the superior firepower and tech weapons available to be used. 

 

 

[wabuffo]

Keep in mind the style of warfare in Vietnam/Afghanistan vs Ukraine/China/Taiwan is very very different. Mainly due to geographics and population density. Guerilla warfare with a difficult to identify enemy hiding in tunnels/mountains via terrain that benefits defending against an unfamiliar foe. Look at Ukraine…air defense and tanks lead to fighting in the streets. This IMO is closer to “normal” fighting that we could expect vs jungle and dessert, and gives more of an advantage to the superior firepower and tech weapons available to be used. 

 

Geography is also very important. 

 

Taiwan is an island.  A populous and well defended island armed with high tech weaponry.   There has never been a successful invasion of a large well defended island in modern human history.  Nazi Germany decided against it vs England (Operation Sea Lion) and the US also drew up plans for an invasion of Japan's main island (Operation Downfall) during World War II and scrapped it.

 

An invasion of Taiwan would require over 2 million soldiers (needs a 5-to-1 ratio vs defensive, dug-in army).  Imagine how many ships, ferries, and carriers would be needed to try to cross 2 million PLA regular infantry across the rough seas of the Taiwan Strait while deeply hidden and deeply silent US nuclear attack subs hundreds of miles away wait to be assigned their targets.   This isn't Normandy either - even if landfall is made, Taiwan's coastline is rocky and mountainous making its coastline very easy to defend by even a small force.

 

Very different degree of difficulty with low odds of success for the invading force.  There's a reason it hasn't been tried in over 70 years - it's an unbelievably difficult operation.

 

Bill

 

 

Edited February 27, 2022 by wabuffo

[Castanza]

2 hours ago, wabuffo said:

Keep in mind the style of warfare in Vietnam/Afghanistan vs Ukraine/China/Taiwan is very very different. Mainly due to geographics and population density. Guerilla warfare with a difficult to identify enemy hiding in tunnels/mountains via terrain that benefits defending against an unfamiliar foe. Look at Ukraine…air defense and tanks lead to fighting in the streets. This IMO is closer to “normal” fighting that we could expect vs jungle and dessert, and gives more of an advantage to the superior firepower and tech weapons available to be used. 

 

Geography is also very important. 

 

Taiwan is an island.  A populous and well defended island armed with high tech weaponry.   There has never been a successful invasion of a large well defended island in human history.  Nazi Germany decided against it vs England (Operation Sea Lion) and the US also drew up plans for an invasion of Japan's main island (Operation Downfall) during World War II and scrapped it.

 

An invasion of Taiwan would require over 2 million soldiers (needs a 5-to-1 ratio vs defensive, dug-in army).  Imagine how many ships, ferries, and carriers would be needed to try to cross 2 million PLA regular infantry across the rough seas of the Taiwan Strait while deeply hidden and deeply silent US nuclear attack subs hundreds of miles away wait to be assigned their targets.   This isn't Normandy either - even if landfall is made, Taiwan's coastline is rocky and mountainous making its coastline very easy to defend by even a small force.

 

Very different degree of difficulty with low odds of success for the invading force.  There's a reason it hasn't been tried in over 70 years - it's an unbelievably difficult operation.

 

Bill

 

 

Devils advocate 
 

This assumes the US would even get involved. It’s a big risk to defend Taiwan and have China cut off all manufacturing to the US….what then? 
 

US gets far more goods and items from China than Taiwan 430b vs 29b. A single fab would be worth risking the rest when we are building our own (Intel)? That would cripple the US economy.
 

Sure, China would also be hurt in this scenario, but ask yourself which group of people could handle more suffering? People here are soft and haven’t had to endure any type of suffering in their life. The country is demoralized and is in a full fledged identity crisis. We haven’t had solid leadership in decades, congress fails to operate properly and everyone is war weary from GWOT. The military is strong, seasoned and advanced….but what’s backing that military isn’t. 

[benchmark]

2 hours ago, wabuffo said:

Keep in mind the style of warfare in Vietnam/Afghanistan vs Ukraine/China/Taiwan is very very different. Mainly due to geographics and population density. Guerilla warfare with a difficult to identify enemy hiding in tunnels/mountains via terrain that benefits defending against an unfamiliar foe. Look at Ukraine…air defense and tanks lead to fighting in the streets. This IMO is closer to “normal” fighting that we could expect vs jungle and dessert, and gives more of an advantage to the superior firepower and tech weapons available to be used. 

 

Geography is also very important. 

 

Taiwan is an island.  A populous and well defended island armed with high tech weaponry.   There has never been a successful invasion of a large well defended island in human history.  Nazi Germany decided against it vs England (Operation Sea Lion) and the US also drew up plans for an invasion of Japan's main island (Operation Downfall) during World War II and scrapped it.

 

An invasion of Taiwan would require over 2 million soldiers (needs a 5-to-1 ratio vs defensive, dug-in army).  Imagine how many ships, ferries, and carriers would be needed to try to cross 2 million PLA regular infantry across the rough seas of the Taiwan Strait while deeply hidden and deeply silent US nuclear attack subs hundreds of miles away wait to be assigned their targets.   This isn't Normandy either - even if landfall is made, Taiwan's coastline is rocky and mountainous making its coastline very easy to defend by even a small force.

 

Very different degree of difficulty with low odds of success for the invading force.  There's a reason it hasn't been tried in over 70 years - it's an unbelievably difficult operation.

 

Bill

 

 

Totally get this and I agree. However, if US were to defend Taiwan, I don't think it can do it w/o doing an all-out-war with China -- that means bombing/destroying military basis on the mainland, and that's a very dangerous path for us (and them). In the end, I think that the west will do what it is doing now with Ukraine, PR/sanctions, but not getting involved militarily.  

[wabuffo]

This assumes the US would even get involved. It’s a big risk to defend Taiwan and have China cut off all manufacturing to the US….what then? 

 

Japan alone could repel an attack on Taiwan and the Japanese government has said publicly that an invasion of Taiwan is an existential threat to the Japanese homeland. 
 

US gets far more goods and items from China than Taiwan 430b vs 29b. A single fab would be worth risking the rest when we are building our own (Intel)? That would cripple the US economy.

 

We get $430b in goods and we give them dollars (which we control the price and quantity of).  I think that's a very good deal for us.

 

In the end, I think that the west will do what it is doing now with Ukraine, PR/sanctions, but not getting involved militarily.  

 

I disagree.  Ukraine (unfortunately) is not strategically important - despite the tragedy unfolding in front of us.   Taiwan is very important to the US strategically and existentially important to Japan.  The PLA on Taiwan would threaten the future of Japan in terms of freedom of navigation and trade.

 

Bill

[Xerxes]

People often like to compare the size and h/w of one nation's military to others or opponant and draw some conclusion. 

 

Here is my take:

 

The last time PLA went to war was in the late 70s and early 80s, when it went to war against Vietnam, and came back with a bloody nose. Perhaps that was Deng Xiaping sending the PLA (potential kingmaker) south on an adventure while he consolidated power in Peking. Who knows. Reality is the antiquidated PLA got decimated by the veteran Vietnam (who had just send Americans packing to where they came from and that itself was after tag-baggin the French in the 1950s).

 

The Gulf War of 1991 and the Powel Doctrine unleashed on Iraq did however shock the Chinese to their very core. From there, they embark on multi-decade long effort to modernize their peasant-based armies. Contrary to Imperial Japan that had a blue-water navy operating in the 1930s and 1940s and ever since, China had only a brown-water navy in the 1990s. They were very behind and effort to modenize that also accelerated.

 

Fast forward to 2020s, their PLA is in a different shape and far more modernize, BUT critically they have NOT fought in an actual miliatry campaign for decades.

 

Even the mighty Russia, when it invaded Georgia in 2008, that military campaign outlined major deficiencies, which only meant acceleration of its modernization. The campaign on Crimea went better and now this. So the ability to project power on paper is very different that doing so in a real war. Russia, in the post Berlin War era, went through this steep learning curve. In a real war, it is all about logistics, logistics and logistics. China has not seen that in real time.

 

That is one, Two, China is not interested in distrupting the global world order in the same way Russia is, all they (China) want is dominion over that global world order, ... but in good time. There is no rush. You are not going to burn down the building, you know you will be moving in 5 years from now.

 

 

[benchmark]

3 hours ago, Xerxes said:

People often like to compare the size and h/w of one nation's military to others or opponant and draw some conclusion. 

 

Here is my take:

 

The last time PLA went to war was in the late 70s and early 80s, when it went to war against Vietnam, and came back with a bloody nose. Perhaps that was Deng Xiaping sending the PLA (potential kingmaker) south on an adventure while he consolidated power in Peking. Who knows. Reality is the antiquidated PLA got decimated by the veteran Vietnam (who had just send Americans packing to where they came from and that itself was after tag-baggin the French in the 1950s).

 

The Gulf War of 1991 and the Powel Doctrine unleashed on Iraq did however shock the Chinese to their very core. From there, they embark on multi-decade long effort to modernize their peasant-based armies. Contrary to Imperial Japan that had a blue-water navy operating in the 1930s and 1940s and ever since, China had only a brown-water navy in the 1990s. They were very behind and effort to modenize that also accelerated.

 

Fast forward to 2020s, their PLA is in a different shape and far more modernize, BUT critically they have NOT fought in an actual miliatry campaign for decades.

 

Even the mighty Russia, when it invaded Georgia in 2008, that military campaign outlined major deficiencies, which only meant acceleration of its modernization. The campaign on Crimea went better and now this. So the ability to project power on paper is very different that doing so in a real war. Russia, in the post Berlin War era, went through this steep learning curve. In a real war, it is all about logistics, logistics and logistics. China has not seen that in real time.

 

That is one, Two, China is not interested in distrupting the global world order in the same way Russia is, all they (China) want is dominion over that global world order, ... but in good time. There is no rush. You are not going to burn down the building, you know you will be moving in 5 years from now.

 

 

I agree with this. China is patient, as long as Taiwan is not forcing Xi's hand by declaring independence, they are not going to invade anytime soon. However, if Taiwan does declare independence tomorrow, Xi/China will act.

[mcliu]

The gap between US and China is getting smaller and closing quickly.

China's technological & industrial capacity is growing quickly and compounding.

Taiwanese forces have not had real combat experience since being defeated by the communists.

And unlike Ukraine invasion, PLA troops would be highly motivated due to belief in 1 china and liberation.

Logistics might be more of a nightmare for the US fleet than PLA crossing the strait. 

Plus, realistically, how many casualties will the US tolerate to support Taiwan?

This is why I think US will not be involved in a conflict. Unless US uses the nuclear card.

 

 

[wabuffo]

The gap between US and China is getting smaller and closing quickly.

 

Some facts:

 

Aircraft carriers:  US has 11 super carriers +2 under construction.  They are all 50 percent bigger and hold twice as many aircraft as China's 2 carriers (+ 2 under construction).  Fighters launched from US carriers carry 40% more ammo because they are catapulted into the sky which Chinese carriers can't do.   China's carriers are steam-powered and need to be refueled and refurbished back at port regularly limiting their range.  US carriers are powered by nuclear reactors that only need to be replaced once every 50 years or so and can stay out at sea for long periods of time.  Basically, US carriers are portable airbases that can be positioned all around the world for long duration.  Of course, also important is the types of airpower associated with the US Navy.  It operates hundreds of stealth fifth-generation fighter aircraft.  China operates none and probably won't for a decade or more.  Huge advantage here for US that really won't be overtaken by the PLA.

 

Submarines:  China has nine nuclear subs which are smaller and carry less than 50% of the munitions of current US subs.  They are louder than US subs from the 1960s and easily picked up by sonar.  The US Navy can track them at long ranges with its sound surveillance system. China has no such system and is trying to develop one.  US submarines are so quiet that they are not picked up even at close range to targets.   China also has 50 or so diesel subs which are much quieter when they switch to electric battery power but they sail at half the speed and have half the endurance of the US's over 70-strong, 100% nuclear powered submarine fleet.  Because of these limitations, China's diesel subs have limited range beyond China's naval bases.   Again its not close here either.

 

Destroyers/Cruisers:  US Navy destroyers and cruisers carry 40 to 60 percent more munitions than China's larger naval ships.  They are also equipped with radars and data systems that are at least one or two generations ahead of China's.  In addition, they are equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles which can strike targets a 1000 miles away.  Chinese navy has no such capability - their current strike range is between 100-300 miles. 

 

It's not just about counting ships.   Its also about technology, capability, weaponry and battle-tested experience.  The US Navy is so far ahead that its hard to see how it will be overtaken. 

 

Hope this helps.  In my opinion this a stalemate situation where not much will happen to the status quo.  There's some good books that I would recommend on this area if you're interested.  One is "Unrivaled" by Michael Beck and anything by Peter Zeihan is also very informative ("Accidental Super Power", "Disunited Nations"). Also Ian Easton’s “The Chinese Invasion Threat”.
 

 

Bill

 

 

 

Edited February 27, 2022 by wabuffo

[mcliu]

Yeah sure, all that tech did wonders in Afghanistan. Weaponry & tech doesn't do much good if there's no will to fight and no logistics to support it.

You have to keep in mind, China is taking Taiwan, not trying to defeat the US. The carriers don't need to be nuclear since it's not meant to project power globally. The US has about 500 F-22/35, but it's deployed all over the world & needs a ton of support/logistics. How many can it really field to defend Taiwan? China has 150 J-20 stealth fighters & producing more. That's how things stand now, the gap will be even closer to the US and far superior than Taiwan in 10/15 years.

 

[hasilp89]

Wow, I didn’t realize the US navy was that advanced. the fact that you responded in ~30 mins tells me you knew all of this stuff and didn’t go looking it up. So we add US naval superiority over china to @wabuffo’s bag of tricks alongside monetary plumbing, special situations investing and god knows what else (I actually would like to know what else…)

[Spekulatius]

7 hours ago, mcliu said:

Yeah sure, all that tech did wonders in Afghanistan. Weaponry & tech doesn't do much good if there's no will to fight and no logistics to support it.

You have to keep in mind, China is taking Taiwan, not trying to defeat the US. The carriers don't need to be nuclear since it's not meant to project power globally. The US has about 500 F-22/35, but it's deployed all over the world & needs a ton of support/logistics. How many can it really field to defend Taiwan? China has 150 J-20 stealth fighters & producing more. That's how things stand now, the gap will be even closer to the US and far superior than Taiwan in 10/15 years.

 

The argument is laughable. For once the US Army wasn’t militarily defeated in Afghanistan either, it was just that the Afghans in the end didn’t want the US to be there and had no will to fight for themselves.

There is no comparison of Afghanistan and Taiwan, in terms of geography, geopolitical  and economical  importance. Taiwan and Korea are totally different cases than Afghanistan.

Edited February 27, 2022 by Spekulatius

[wabuffo]

There is no comparison of Afghanistan and Taiwan, in terms of geography, geopolitical  and economical  importance

 

I agree with Spek's POV.

 

Japan also has to be factored in the mix.   They will not wait for the US and will rush to Taiwan's defense because for them a PLA stationed on Taiwan is an existential threat to the Japanese home islands.  While the Japanese Self Defense Force is not a navy that matches the US's (no one does), it is a true blue water navy and has been for decades (the US never disarmed Japan or its defense industry after World War II).  Japan has four full aircraft carrier battle groups and also has fourth and fifth generation F-35 stealth fighters that can launch vertically from Japan's smaller carriers.  Japan's SDF Navy is also fully inter-operable with the US Navy's surveillance, underwater listening systems and signal intelligence and would draw on these resources even if the US went to the sidelines.  Japan's submarine hunting capability is second only to the US.

 

It has the firepower to take on the PLA and can also move into the Indian Ocean and interdict all China bound oil tankers from the Middle East in an effective blockade out of reach from PLA missiles.  Japan recently signed a military logistics pact with India which gives the Japanese SDF Navy full use of Indian naval bases and ports for re-supply/re-fueling.

 

In a weekend full of tectonic-plate-shifting news flow, this speech by Japan's former PM needs to be paid attention to.   The Japanese are not usually this public in their foreign policy thinking.

 

https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/U.S.-should-abandon-ambiguity-on-Taiwan-defense-Japan-s-Abe

 

Bill

Edited February 27, 2022 by wabuffo

[mcliu]

Obviously not comparing Afghanistan to Taiwan. My point is military superiority does not guarantee success in a conflict.

Nobody is doubting US military superiority over the next 10/20 years. But China does not need to surpass the US in order to take Taiwan.

 

Keep in mind, only 14 countries recognize Taiwan as sovereign. If anything, Japanese/US intervention will be seen as an invasion by the China & allies. Especially given Japan's reputation in Asia.

 

The fact is that the amount of damage China's military can inflict is increasing rapidly. Don't think anyone will argue this.

And I think as China's military capabilities increase, the probability of US or Japan intervention decreases.

Probability of Japanese unilateral intervention to defend Taiwan without US is 0.

[KJP]

1 hour ago, wabuffo said:

There is no comparison of Afghanistan and Taiwan, in terms of geography, geopolitical  and economical  importance

 

I agree with Spek's POV.

 

Japan also has to be factored in the mix.   They will not wait for the US and will rush to Taiwan's defense because for them a PLA stationed on Taiwan is an existential threat to the Japanese home islands.  While the Japanese Self Defense Force is not a navy that matches the US's (no one does), it is a true blue water navy and has been for decades (the US never disarmed Japan or its defense industry after World War II).  Japan has four full aircraft carrier battle groups and also has fourth and fifth generation F-35 stealth fighters that can launch vertically from Japan's smaller carriers.  Japan's SDF Navy is also fully inter-operable with the US Navy's surveillance, underwater listening systems and signal intelligence and would draw on these resources even if the US went to the sidelines.  Japan's submarine hunting capability is second only to the US.

 

It has the firepower to take on the PLA and can also move into the Indian Ocean and interdict all China bound oil tankers from the Middle East in an effective blockade out of reach from PLA missiles.  Japan recently signed a military logistics pact with India which gives the Japanese SDF Navy full use of Indian naval bases and ports for re-supply/re-fueling.

 

In a weekend full of tectonic-plate-shifting news flow, this speech by Japan's former PM needs to be paid attention to.   The Japanese are not usually this public in their foreign policy thinking.

 

https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/U.S.-should-abandon-ambiguity-on-Taiwan-defense-Japan-s-Abe

 

Bill

 

You've explained the difficulties of an invasion earlier.  But wouldn't blockade be China's strategy with Taiwan?  If the Chinese had a large quantity of highly accurate, satellite-guided anti-ship cruise missiles (including hypersonics) with 500km - 1000km range that could be fired from land (perhaps from mobile launchers) and were willing to sink non-combatants, couldn't they interdict all shipping into Taiwan.  Could even a US carrier battle group survive in such an environment?  To the extent the Chinese don't have such missile technology today, when will they have it?

 

The flip side is what you mention above -- US and Japan blockade China. 

Edited February 27, 2022 by KJP

[wabuffo]

But wouldn't blockade be China's strategy with Taiwan?

 

I think you are right that this might be China's most likely strategy to try to force Taiwan's surrender.   But blockades rarely work in practice, if history is any guide.

 

From what I've read from Easton's book and others, China would indeed, threaten Japanese and US Navy ships and bases in Okinawa and Japan with cruise missiles in order to create an "umbrella" around Taiwan.   Then, the strategy would be to unleash the PLA's submarine fleet into the Taiwan strait to sink merchant shipping as well as the air force over the island to prevent air cargo landing into Taiwan's airports.  The Taiwanese air force would counter - but let's assume the PLA prevails and creates a "no-fly zone" over Taiwan.

 

The main threat would come from PLA subs sinking merchant ships - much like the German U-boat campaign during WW II that tried to blockade England.  But submarine campaigns, even when they have complete air and sea superiority only take down 10% of cargo.  Of course, the PLA's hope would be to scare merchant ships out of the area completely.

 

Meanwhile, the US (and its allies) would have weeks and months to consider their options (as opposed to the very short reaction time required to counter an invasion) and rally the world into opposition to the blockade.   My guess is that in addition to sanctions and financial measures, the US could deploy its submarine force to attack the PLA subs and escort merchant shipping through the strait - a strategy not without risk but probably low risk to the US Navy.  The US nuclear subs would just loiter silently in and around the Taiwan strait, wait for the "noisy" Chinese subs to expose themselves in order to enforce the blockade and then take them out and scoot out of the area.   This is what ended the German U-Boat campaign after the Allies launched their anti-submarine campaign.

 

As you've noted, the US could also itself (along with its allies) put in place a counter-blockade by cutting off shipping from the Middle East and the through the Stait of Malacca to all inbound Chinese merchant shipping.  China is a country that can't feed its population without imports and also must important significant amounts of petroleum.  This would put serious strains on the Chinese economy as further pressure.

 

The blockade strategy would probably end up in a huge stalemate with costs on both sides but not be a decisive victory for China.  In the end, there's no doubt that both sides can unleash a lot of destruction and death on each other - even with just conventional high tech weaponry.  So hopefully this situation just stays in a kind of perpetual Cold War stasis, as uncomfortable as that may be.

 

Just my 2-cents.

 

Bill

 

I would also add another non-military but related point.  Russia and China both suffer from terrible demographics.  Both of these populations are now in steep decline (Chinese stats understate the real numbers as they do for most "official" statistics).  I think the geopolitics of nations is largely based on two big factors that are beyond their control - demography and geography - both of which are hugely in the US's favor.

 

Anyhoo - I think I've emptied my tank on this subject and will only end up becoming boring and repetitive.  Thanks for the interesting conversation, y'all. 

 

Edited February 27, 2022 by wabuffo

[Spekulatius]

35 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

You've explained the difficulties of an invasion earlier.  But wouldn't blockade be China's strategy with Taiwan?  If the Chinese had a large quantity of highly accurate, satellite-guided anti-ship cruise missiles (including hypersonics) with 500km - 1000km range that could be fired from land (perhaps from mobile launchers) and were willing to sink non-combatants, couldn't they interdict all shipping into Taiwan.  Could even a US carrier battle group survive in such an environment?  To the extent the Chinese don't have such missile technology today, when will they have it?

 

The flip side is what you mention above -- US and Japan blockade China. 

I think a Blockade with missiles could work to impede trade flow, but think about how easy it is to impede China‘s trade flow, The Gulf strait , Singapore strait, US has bases in Japan, Phillipines, Taiwan. The Chinese merchants trade would just be bottled up on now time. Think about this - no bulk goods like, crude, LNG, coal, iron ore, grain etc coming in and out of China. It would cause an economic collapse for them very quickly and severe issues for the resting the world as well. 
 

Again, this would be a move that comes at a much higher cost to the Chinese than to the US or even Taiwan.

Edited February 27, 2022 by Spekulatius

[KJP]

29 minutes ago, wabuffo said:

 

The main threat would come from PLA subs sinking merchant ships - much like the German U-boat campaign during WW II that tried to blockade England.  But submarine campaigns, even when they have complete air and sea superiority only take down 10% of cargo.  Of course, the PLA's hope would be to scare merchant ships out of the area completely.

 

Meanwhile, the US (and its allies) would have weeks and months to consider their options (as opposed to the very short reaction time required to counter an invasion) and rally the world into opposition to the blockade.   My guess is that in addition to sanctions and financial measures, the US could deploy its submarine force to attack the PLA subs and escort merchant shipping through the strait - a strategy not without risk but probably low risk to the US Navy.  The US nuclear subs would just loiter silently in and around the Taiwan strait, wait for the "noisy" Chinese subs to expose themselves in order to enforce the blockade and then take them out and scoot out of the area.   This is what ended the German U-Boat campaign after the Allies launched their anti-submarine campaign.

 

 

 

If they had adequate anti-ship targeting capability, I believe the Chinese would implement their blockade of Taiwan with land-based anti-ship missiles, not submarines.  So convoys with submarine escorts would be ineffective.  Depending the capabilities of the Chinese missiles, convoys with surface combatant escorts may also be ineffective for the same reasons that even a carrier battle group may not survive attacks from sufficient numbers of advanced satellite-guided anti-ship missiles. 

[wabuffo]

If they had adequate anti-ship targeting capability, I believe the Chinese would implement their blockade of Taiwan with land-based anti-ship missiles, not submarines.  So convoys with submarine escorts would be ineffective.  Depending the capabilities of the Chinese missiles, convoys with surface combatant escorts may also be ineffective for the same reasons that even a carrier battle group may not survive attacks from sufficient numbers of advanced satellite-guided anti-ship missiles. 

 

You may be right.  But the central point is that this would unfold over weeks and months.  So the US and its Allies would have ample time to carefully formulate and implement a counter-strategy with lots of options to choose from.

 

Bill

[Sal_875]

I think it is not so straightforward comparison between current invasion of Ukraine and possible invasion of Taiwan. Current Russian lack of success in Ukraine is not so much due to their outdated equipment and conscripts but rather due to their complete failure of planning it. It currently seems they didn't plan to fight a war. They planned to drive to the Kiev and other major cities and declare their victory. Also Taiwan territory is 15 times smaller than Ukraine, so lot less land to occupy. If Chinese military actually plans the invasion and takes Taiwanese defense seriously, it might have its chance to successful invasion.

[mcliu]

Another big difference is that Ukraine is a recognized sovereign nation.

Taiwan is not. All the major world powers recognize Taiwan as a province of China.

Which is why I think the probability of US intervention is very low.

I think Chinese planners would also actively try to create a scenario where the cost/benefits analysis for the US would skew toward non-intervention.

[Pelagic]

48 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

If they had adequate anti-ship targeting capability, I believe the Chinese would implement their blockade of Taiwan with land-based anti-ship missiles, not submarines.  So convoys with submarine escorts would be ineffective.  Depending the capabilities of the Chinese missiles, convoys with surface combatant escorts may also be ineffective for the same reasons that even a carrier battle group may not survive attacks from sufficient numbers of advanced satellite-guided anti-ship missiles. 

 

There's some good reading available online on The Tanker War as part of the Iran-Iraq war in the 80s. Both sides took a lot of shots at the others shipping with anti-ship missiles. It has been a few years but the takeaway I got was that merchant shipping is far more resilient than one would expect and despite both sides dedicating a lot of resources to counter shipping, neither really succeeded.

 

The other takeaway is that despite having little interest in the outcome, Kissinger famously saying "it's a pity they both can't lose", the US did end up intervening against Iran to protect Kuwaiti shipping. In the IMO highly unlikely scenario where the US/Japan/Australia completely refrain from involving themselves in a conflict, there's a scenario where they could be drawn in much like in the Iran-Iraq war to protect shipping.

[Spekulatius]

2 hours ago, mcliu said:

Another big difference is that Ukraine is a recognized sovereign nation.

Taiwan is not. All the major world powers recognize Taiwan as a province of China.

Which is why I think the probability of US intervention is very low.

I think Chinese planners would also actively try to create a scenario where the cost/benefits analysis for the US would skew toward non-intervention.

The major powers don’t recognize Taiwan as  province of China, they are dancing around the issue. I think it is just a matter of time until Taiwan is recognized as a sovereign country by the US.  If anything, the current developments will speed up this process, not delay it.  This will happen especially if China and Russia are creating a neo Axis and start to work together. Taiwan should already have been recognized as a sovereign country a long time ago.

Edited February 27, 2022 by Spekulatius

[Xerxes]

The tanker war developped in the Iran-Iraq was because neither side could land the coup de grace. Well Iran was about to 1982, but ... anyways.

Like two boxers that exhausted themselves, they just moved into that phase organically post 1985.

 

I suspect a conflict with Taiwan that starts off with the blockade has a different dynamic than tanker war between two exhausted foes.