The new cold war with China

[wannable alpha]

China has now kidnapped 5 Indians from a border area in Arunachal Pradesh, which is on the opposite far end of Ladakh. Seems like China is ramping up for a limited conflict with India and do a repeat of 1962. Objective seems to be to show India and the world who's who and where India really stands in terms of economic and military strength.

 

[MovingForward2050]

China has now kidnapped 5 Indians from a border area in Arunachal Pradesh, which is on the opposite far end of Ladakh. Seems like China is ramping up for a limited conflict with India and do a repeat of 1962. Objective seems to be to show India and the world who's who and where India really stands in terms of economic and military strength.

Xi may think a quick victory against India is just what his regime needs to get his citizens to rally around him, and forgive his mishandling of the Coronavirus. And this is a relatively safe way to tell the United States and the world that China is to be respected and even feared. It will be at least a decade or more until China's navy will be truly capable of scrapping with the U.S. Navy.

This Youtube video indicates the winner would be India, and being that they are an ally of America, I certainly hope so. But I think if it is a short-term conflict, China may be seen as the winner, due to superior air power and artillery/rocket forces. But in terms of hardened and capable infantry, I would say India has the advantage, for ugly up close engagements. But one concern I have is that military observers have found that China has made a leap forward when it comes to sophisticated combined arms maneuvering and attacking. This has been viewed as an area of weakness for India. And so India will be facing a potentially more capable adversary, than they are expecting. Underestimating China in the past lead to painful experiences for India, and that could happen again.

But as the video says, if this becomes a longterm war, than India actually has the advantage, due to China's shipping passing through the Indian Ocean. This could lead to the choking out of China's economic lifeline. But I'm not sure if the Indian Navy is strong enough to contend with China's larger and probably more advanced Navy (especially their large submarine force). And so I hope the American navy is there for them, if necessary. India and America both have a problem with their military industrial complexes often wasting money and not being on time, within the budget, and up to the required specs, when it comes to building weapon systems. A humiliation at the hands of China, could definitely shake things up.

 

[dicknixon72]

IIRC, India has troops that have seen combat; China doesn't.

 

[MovingForward2050]

‘Chairman Xi’ seeks only to purge and subjugate. That is his weakness



"It’s often said that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely – but does it also induce leaders to act in foolhardy, headstrong and ultimately self-destructive ways? History, especially Chinese history, is full of examples of omnipotent rulers whose unchecked behaviour led to disaster. Xi Jinping, China’s comrade-emperor, is a modern-day case in point. Xi seems to think he can do no wrong. As a result, not much is going right.

Xi’s authoritarian, expansionist policies, pursued with increasing vehemence since he became communist party chief and president in 2012-13, have enveloped China in a ring of fire. Its borderlands are ablaze with conflict and confrontation from Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang, Tibet and the Himalayas in the north and west to Hong Kong, the South China Sea and Taiwan to the east. More than at any time since Mao’s 1949 revolution, China is also at odds with the wider world."

‘Chairman Xi’ seeks only to purge and subjugate. That is his weakness | Simon Tisdall

From Tibet to Taiwan, China’s leader is intent on wielding absolute power. Instead he is fanning the flames of dissent

www.theguardian.com

 

[wannable alpha]

The Han majority is with him. As is the Party and military. He can use Han chauvinism to brutalize and subjugate the Mongolians, Tibetans and Uyghurs.

Many Indians are hoping that U.S. will step in to help on India's side in case of a Sino-Indian war but the fact is that both U.S. and Russia have a stronger relationship and need for China. So whatever help will be available will be limited. Basically, Indians will have to do all the fighting and at best get some intelligence and weapons help from U.S.

 

[MovingForward2050]

The Han majority is with him. As is the Party and military. He can use Han chauvinism to brutalize and subjugate the Mongolians, Tibetans and Uyghurs.

Many Indians are hoping that U.S. will step in to help on India's side in case of a Sino-Indian war but the fact is that both U.S. and Russia have a stronger relationship and need for China. So whatever help will be available will be limited. Basically, Indians will have to do all the fighting and at best get some intelligence and weapons help from U.S.

I would not want Trump in the White House, should China and India go to war. But then Biden may not be that much better, considering his China connections. I really doubt/hope such a war would last very long. I think the moment China had scored one or two quick black eyes to India, they would be content, and declare a victory, with the proposal of a ceasefire. But then again, Xi may want to use turn a border conflict into a major war, to bodyslam India, and show what happens to those who oppose his military. China's air superiority and advantage with artillery/rockets will prove very punishing to the Indian Army. But Indians do have combat experience, and they are seriously fed up, which is important.

But China's weakness is if the war is not short, that very quickly their shipping in the Indian Ocean will become fair game for the Indian Navy. And then things escalate even further, with the United States Navy hopefully moving in to fight beside the Indian Navy. India would probably need our help, especially due to China's large submarine force which could terrorize the region.

 

[wannable alpha]

^^As you said, any conflict will be a short and sharp war with the aim to show India who's the boss. Then China will offer to return to status quo since they have proved their point. Prolonging the conflict will only end up being a bigger loss for India and a loss of face for Modi that he will not be able to survive. Indian land ending up under Chinese control is a big loss of confidence in the government and may even lead to resignation of the entire government and new elections.

Some jouranlists are now reporting that China has been encroaching on Ladakhi border areas for years and Indian Army has not done anything. I suspect this talk is just Chinese psych op and propaganda meant to demoralize the Indian public.

 

[fokker]

Iran and China have signed a 25-year deal, in which Chinese-style surveillance equipment will be installed and Mandarin will replace English as the main foreign language. I'm thinking it'll probably lead to Iran joining BRICS in the future.

China Looks To Build Espionage Hub In Iran Under 25-Year Deal | OilPrice.com

China has moved onto the next stage of its plan to turn Iran into a fully fledged client state, with the Asian giant now planning to roll out large scale spying facilities in Iranian cities

oilprice.com

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

The terrain of the China/India border is not exactly conducive to a protracted ground conflict (which is why those two regional powers have never in their thousands of years of history fought a major war against one another). Tough to see any China/India conflict rising beyond border skirmishes, now at sea is where things could get interesting (and where India's allies the US/Japan/Australia would be able to provide more aid).

Russia "needs" China in the sense that they need China to not invade their soft underbelly to seize land and resources.

 

[Wutang]

Pentagon: China’s Military Has Begun To Surpass The United States’s

New Pentagon paper paints a grim picture of a fractured, debt-ridden America in competition with an emerging Chinese empire.

thefederalist.com

China is also not an ideological foe, and unlike the USSR, is not seeking to spread communism by force. That gives China an advantage in places like Africa. China is happy to simply do business and sell arms and push American influence away, while Americans are predisposed to try and shape the internal politics of places we do not like.

China will have no issues with LGBT discrimination in a Chinese-allied state in Africa, whereas the United States tries to impose our social values, in even allied countries like Hungary and Poland. It’s like the Cold War in reverse: the Soviets wanted to impose their social and political values, and the rest of the world increasingly chose to go the other way.

 

[wannable alpha]

Iran and China have signed a 25-year deal, in which Chinese-style surveillance equipment will be installed and Mandarin will replace English as the main foreign language. I'm thinking it'll probably lead to Iran joining BRICS in the future.

China Looks To Build Espionage Hub In Iran Under 25-Year Deal | OilPrice.com

China has moved onto the next stage of its plan to turn Iran into a fully fledged client state, with the Asian giant now planning to roll out large scale spying facilities in Iranian cities

oilprice.com

China is certainly building its sphere of influence which is going to exceed the former USSR's reach. China has much more money and a growing economy. For any sort of BRICS alliance, you can swap out India with Iran or Indonesia. Many Pakistanis are already learning Mandarin in order to increase work opportunities with Chinese firms in Pakistan.

There could be a new Axis alliance with a main countries being Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan, Iran and Turkey (increasingly hostile towards Europe). The junior partners could be Belarus, Mongolia (landlocked country, so no options for it), the 5 central Asian countries, 3 Caucasian countries, Iraq (controlled via Iran) and Syria. In the Americas, Cuba and Venezuela will join in unless the regimes are overthrown in a color revolution.

 

[Hansel]

Anyone who suggests India can attack Chinese shipping are uneducated in how carriage by sea works. Each cargo ship has a predetermined schedule and route and so ports sign contracts with and fill up any cargo ship that has the right schedule with whatever goods that happen to be there. What that means is that a cargo ship with a Chinese flag could be carrying goods made in Australia on the way to Germany and a Norwegian cargo ship could be carrying goods from China to Mexico. Due to China’s vast shipbuilding industry it has around 45% of the world’s container ships, and therefore if the Indian navy decides to attack Chinese shipping it would be attacking 45% of the global trade and push everyone to China’s side.

And I don’t see how India’s supposed combat experience is helping them in any way. You can deploy well-trained cavalry against machine guns and it’ll be a failure, simple as that. The Indian army in Kashmir and Ladakh is focused on small scale incursions and peacekeeping, not against Chinese armor. The Chinese have superior armor in the form of the world’s only high-altitude light tank (around 35 tons), the Type 15. India has the T-90 and T-72, none of which has undergone any refitting for high-altitude use and therefore, will probably stutter and fail under vigorous use. Throw in the Chinese advantages in rocket artillery/ballistic missiles, air force and arguably infantry (the Galwan clash in June resulted in 20 dead Indians and dozens more captured that were eventually released in batches, see the Indian media confirmation), I don’t see how India can win if China really wants to slap India around.

 

[MovingForward2050]

China Donated $1 Billion To Harvard - Covert Cash

China using it's "soft power" to sway influential American universities......

 

[Arado]

Interesting video simulations here of war - marginal Chinese victory against India in Himalayas but not much territory gained. US would not be able to capture Chinese mainland territory in case of U.S. - China War.



Interesting belligerent article coming out of the Global Times recently:

“Chinese people don't want war, but we have territorial disputes with several neighboring countries instigated by the US to confront China. Some of these countries believe that the US support provides them with a strategic opportunity and try to treat China outrageously. They believe that China, under the US' strategic pressure, is afraid, unwilling or unable to engage in military conflict with them. Thus they want to pull the chestnuts out of the fire. Considering that there is also the Taiwan question, the risk of the Chinese mainland being forced into a war has risen sharply in recent times.
...
Chinese society must therefore have real courage to engage calmly in a war that aims to protect core interests, and be prepared to bear the cost. In that way, China's comprehensive strength can be effectively transformed into a strategic deterrence against all kinds of provocateurs… China must be a country that dares to fight. And this should be based on both strength and morality.”

 

[Yatagan]

Anyone who suggests India can attack Chinese shipping are uneducated in how carriage by sea works. Each cargo ship has a predetermined schedule and route and so ports sign contracts with and fill up any cargo ship that has the right schedule with whatever goods that happen to be there. What that means is that a cargo ship with a Chinese flag could be carrying goods made in Australia on the way to Germany and a Norwegian cargo ship could be carrying goods from China to Mexico. Due to China’s vast shipbuilding industry it has around 45% of the world’s container ships, and therefore if the Indian navy decides to attack Chinese shipping it would be attacking 45% of the global trade and push everyone to China’s side.

And I don’t see how India’s supposed combat experience is helping them in any way. You can deploy well-trained cavalry against machine guns and it’ll be a failure, simple as that. The Indian army in Kashmir and Ladakh is focused on small scale incursions and peacekeeping, not against Chinese armor. The Chinese have superior armor in the form of the world’s only high-altitude light tank (around 35 tons), the Type 15. India has the T-90 and T-72, none of which has undergone any refitting for high-altitude use and therefore, will probably stutter and fail under vigorous use. Throw in the Chinese advantages in rocket artillery/ballistic missiles, air force and arguably infantry (the Galwan clash in June resulted in 20 dead Indians and dozens more captured that were eventually released in batches, see the Indian media confirmation), I don’t see how India can win if China really wants to slap India around.

Unrestricted submarine warfare against shipping is one of the major causes for the U.S. declaring war on Germany in WW1 as well.

 

[MovingForward2050]

Is China a Corrupt Nation?

A short but very pointed discussion about how the key factor that makes the difference between effective and ineffective nations, is having relatively corruption free institutions, combined with the rule of law. This is a great failing of China, and the Chinese know it and at least among the average citizens, are infuriated over it. Xi is currently engaged in a purge against corruption, but it is as much about getting rid of any potential political enemies, as it is about rooting about criminality.

A must listen!

 

[Hansel]

Interesting video simulations here of war - marginal Chinese victory against India in Himalayas but not much territory gained. US would not be able to capture Chinese mainland territory in case of U.S. - China War.

I’m a couple minutes into the Sino-US war video and I can’t watch it anymore. By depicting a 2020 war in a WW1 fashion, it’s nothing more than a money grab from people who wants to masturbate and feel good. I would advise anyone who are genuinely interested in understanding how a potential conflict would play out to refrain from watching his videos.

He describes 2020 air combat as if it’s one-on-one every time. So China has j20s and since the US has more of them that is no longer worth addressing? No, that is totally wrong, it’s not trench attrition warfare. Fifth-gen fighters aren’t never designed to engage each other, they’re meant to move in undetected with their stealth and high speed and assassinate critical junctures of combat systems. What if the j20s shoot down the AWACS and refuelling air tankers? How many of them can you field at the same time? 2-3 at most. When you take them down the whole flotilla becomes blind from around 200km onwards and the j20s will take down a whole squadron of fourth-gen planes and leave before the F-22 can reinforce. Of course he doesn’t talk about that tactic as if that’s impossible to happen. Btw no one knows how many j20s are in service, there’s no reason to believe a random YouTube guy that there are only 40 of them. Plus the F-22 only has a paltry combat radius of 500 miles, and so if the Chinese ambushes the operation outside its range the mission is likely busted.

Then he suddenly states that aircraft carriers should be fielded to contest air superiority, without taking into account the danger anti-ship ballistic missiles poses. The Chinese test launched two AShBMs (one DF-21 and the other a DF-26, both of which have been commissioned for at least 5 years) last month and successfully hit a decommissioned supply ship. And this binkov guy thinks the US can drive aircraft carriers into the East China Sea without mentioning it would be one-way suicide mission. The shitty F-35B only has a combat radius of 520 miles and an LHD will have to get suicidally close to the Chinese mainland to utilise them


He has next to no knowledge to missiles and interception systems. He simply “forgets” to mention the DF-17, the only supersonic missile in the world, and the fact that the US currently do not have any assets capable of intercepting it. Then he says the PAC-3 is enough already. That is absolutely incorrect when those can’t even intercept a DF-15. Expect to lose at least half of the japanese air bases once a war starts, and there is no way the US can deploy thousands of aircraft to Japan as he suggests. Japan may have 60 commercial airports but that doesn’t mean all of them can be appropriated and converted for military use at the same time. Are the fuel storages reinforced and hardened against blasts? If there is not enough equipment to quickly repair damage done to a runway from missile strikes there is no reason to appropriate 60 commercial airports at once. And surely there is not.

I stopped watching 6 minutes into the video.

so in 6 minutes he:
1. Makes up numbers of Chinese fifth-gen fighters.
2. Imagines one-on-one plane duels are going to be a thing.
3. Neglects to mention the critical roles support planes play in modern warfare and their vulnerability.
4. Thinks aircraft carriers can be used to contest air superiority with a real opponent like China.
5. Doesn’t know AShBMs are a thing and they work.
6. Doesn’t acknowledge supersonic missiles are unstoppable with what we have currently.
7. Dismisses China’s most powerful arm, the Rocket Force as “mostly focused on Taiwan”.
8. Doesn’t know PACs are inadequate.
9. Thinks the US has an infinite amount of supplies, equipment and most importantly, ground and engineering personnel to convert 60 commercial airports into military ones in a short time.

Overall he would make a good WW1 general.

 

[MovingForward2050]

I’m a couple minutes into the Sino-US war video and I can’t watch it anymore. By depicting a 2020 war in a WW1 fashion, it’s nothing more than a money grab from people who wants to masturbate and feel good. I would advise anyone who are genuinely interested in understanding how a potential conflict would play out to refrain from watching his videos.

He describes 2020 air combat as if it’s one-on-one every time. So China has j20s and since the US has more of them that is no longer worth addressing? No, that is totally wrong, it’s not trench attrition warfare. Fifth-gen fighters aren’t never designed to engage each other, they’re meant to move in undetected with their stealth and high speed and assassinate critical junctures of combat systems. What if the j20s shoot down the AWACS and refuelling air tankers? How many of them can you field at the same time? 2-3 at most. When you take them down the whole flotilla becomes blind from around 200km onwards and the j20s will take down a whole squadron of fourth-gen planes and leave before the F-22 can reinforce. Of course he doesn’t talk about that tactic as if that’s impossible to happen. Btw no one knows how many j20s are in service, there’s no reason to believe a random YouTube guy that there are only 40 of them. Plus the F-22 only has a paltry combat radius of 500 miles, and so if the Chinese ambushes the operation outside its range the mission is likely busted.

Then he suddenly states that aircraft carriers should be fielded to contest air superiority, without taking into account the danger anti-ship ballistic missiles poses. The Chinese test launched two AShBMs (one DF-21 and the other a DF-26, both of which have been commissioned for at least 5 years) last month and successfully hit a decommissioned supply ship. And this binkov guy thinks the US can drive aircraft carriers into the East China Sea without mentioning it would be one-way suicide mission. The shitty F-35B only has a combat radius of 520 miles and an LHD will have to get suicidally close to the Chinese mainland to utilise them


He has next to no knowledge to missiles and interception systems. He simply “forgets” to mention the DF-17, the only supersonic missile in the world, and the fact that the US currently do not have any assets capable of intercepting it. Then he says the PAC-3 is enough already. That is absolutely incorrect when those can’t even intercept a DF-15. Expect to lose at least half of the japanese air bases once a war starts, and there is no way the US can deploy thousands of aircraft to Japan as he suggests. Japan may have 60 commercial airports but that doesn’t mean all of them can be appropriated and converted for military use at the same time. Are the fuel storages reinforced and hardened against blasts? If there is not enough equipment to quickly repair damage done to a runway from missile strikes there is no reason to appropriate 60 commercial airports at once. And surely there is not.

I stopped watching 6 minutes into the video.

so in 6 minutes he:
1. Makes up numbers of Chinese fifth-gen fighters.
2. Imagines one-on-one plane duels are going to be a thing.
3. Neglects to mention the critical roles support planes play in modern warfare and their vulnerability.
4. Thinks aircraft carriers can be used to contest air superiority with a real opponent like China.
5. Doesn’t know AShBMs are a thing and they work.
6. Doesn’t acknowledge supersonic missiles are unstoppable with what we have currently.
7. Dismisses China’s most powerful arm, the Rocket Force as “mostly focused on Taiwan”.
8. Doesn’t know PACs are inadequate.
9. Thinks the US has an infinite amount of supplies, equipment and most importantly, ground and engineering personnel to convert 60 commercial airports into military ones in a short time.

Overall he would make a good WW1 general.

I wish you would watch the entire video, because I'd like to hear a complete review. Oh, and what is the source of your military knowledge? I'm just curious.

As for the U.S. Army landing in China, I could only conceive of that happening if a serious civil war was going on, and our forces landed to aid the anti CCP side. Otherwise, it would be an insane thing to do. But such an action might cause a very cornered CCP to consider the nuclear option at a tactical and strategic level. And so we should probably just supply weapons and supplies, in such a situation.

American warships are being outfitted with anti-missile lasers, but I'm not sure just how truly effective they are at targeting and knocking out incoming anti-ship missiles. I'm hoping it will be a game changer.

And so what do you think is holding back China from invading Taiwan? Do they still need to build many more landing ships and heavy transport planes? What are the missing pieces of the puzzle, for them?

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

I’m a couple minutes into the Sino-US war video and I can’t watch it anymore. By depicting a 2020 war in a WW1 fashion, it’s nothing more than a money grab from people who wants to masturbate and feel good. I would advise anyone who are genuinely interested in understanding how a potential conflict would play out to refrain from watching his videos.

He describes 2020 air combat as if it’s one-on-one every time. So China has j20s and since the US has more of them that is no longer worth addressing? No, that is totally wrong, it’s not trench attrition warfare. Fifth-gen fighters aren’t never designed to engage each other, they’re meant to move in undetected with their stealth and high speed and assassinate critical junctures of combat systems. What if the j20s shoot down the AWACS and refuelling air tankers? How many of them can you field at the same time? 2-3 at most. When you take them down the whole flotilla becomes blind from around 200km onwards and the j20s will take down a whole squadron of fourth-gen planes and leave before the F-22 can reinforce. Of course he doesn’t talk about that tactic as if that’s impossible to happen. Btw no one knows how many j20s are in service, there’s no reason to believe a random YouTube guy that there are only 40 of them. Plus the F-22 only has a paltry combat radius of 500 miles, and so if the Chinese ambushes the operation outside its range the mission is likely busted.

Then he suddenly states that aircraft carriers should be fielded to contest air superiority, without taking into account the danger anti-ship ballistic missiles poses. The Chinese test launched two AShBMs (one DF-21 and the other a DF-26, both of which have been commissioned for at least 5 years) last month and successfully hit a decommissioned supply ship. And this binkov guy thinks the US can drive aircraft carriers into the East China Sea without mentioning it would be one-way suicide mission. The shitty F-35B only has a combat radius of 520 miles and an LHD will have to get suicidally close to the Chinese mainland to utilise them


He has next to no knowledge to missiles and interception systems. He simply “forgets” to mention the DF-17, the only supersonic missile in the world, and the fact that the US currently do not have any assets capable of intercepting it. Then he says the PAC-3 is enough already. That is absolutely incorrect when those can’t even intercept a DF-15. Expect to lose at least half of the japanese air bases once a war starts, and there is no way the US can deploy thousands of aircraft to Japan as he suggests. Japan may have 60 commercial airports but that doesn’t mean all of them can be appropriated and converted for military use at the same time. Are the fuel storages reinforced and hardened against blasts? If there is not enough equipment to quickly repair damage done to a runway from missile strikes there is no reason to appropriate 60 commercial airports at once. And surely there is not.

I stopped watching 6 minutes into the video.

so in 6 minutes he:
1. Makes up numbers of Chinese fifth-gen fighters.
2. Imagines one-on-one plane duels are going to be a thing.
3. Neglects to mention the critical roles support planes play in modern warfare and their vulnerability.
4. Thinks aircraft carriers can be used to contest air superiority with a real opponent like China.
5. Doesn’t know AShBMs are a thing and they work.
6. Doesn’t acknowledge supersonic missiles are unstoppable with what we have currently.
7. Dismisses China’s most powerful arm, the Rocket Force as “mostly focused on Taiwan”.
8. Doesn’t know PACs are inadequate.
9. Thinks the US has an infinite amount of supplies, equipment and most importantly, ground and engineering personnel to convert 60 commercial airports into military ones in a short time.

Overall he would make a good WW1 general.

It's a 20 minute free video (with a couple of 30 second ad reads) narrated by a hand puppet with a fake Russian accent, the target audience obviously is not serious military planners or experts, the guy creates these mostly as a hobby and the target audience is dudes BSing on the internet. Take it for what it is.

 

[Arado]

I’m a couple minutes into the Sino-US war video and I can’t watch it anymore. By depicting a 2020 war in a WW1 fashion, it’s nothing more than a money grab from people who wants to masturbate and feel good. I would advise anyone who are genuinely interested in understanding how a potential conflict would play out to refrain from watching his videos.

He describes 2020 air combat as if it’s one-on-one every time. So China has j20s and since the US has more of them that is no longer worth addressing? No, that is totally wrong, it’s not trench attrition warfare. Fifth-gen fighters aren’t never designed to engage each other, they’re meant to move in undetected with their stealth and high speed and assassinate critical junctures of combat systems. What if the j20s shoot down the AWACS and refuelling air tankers? How many of them can you field at the same time? 2-3 at most. When you take them down the whole flotilla becomes blind from around 200km onwards and the j20s will take down a whole squadron of fourth-gen planes and leave before the F-22 can reinforce. Of course he doesn’t talk about that tactic as if that’s impossible to happen. Btw no one knows how many j20s are in service, there’s no reason to believe a random YouTube guy that there are only 40 of them. Plus the F-22 only has a paltry combat radius of 500 miles, and so if the Chinese ambushes the operation outside its range the mission is likely busted.

Then he suddenly states that aircraft carriers should be fielded to contest air superiority, without taking into account the danger anti-ship ballistic missiles poses. The Chinese test launched two AShBMs (one DF-21 and the other a DF-26, both of which have been commissioned for at least 5 years) last month and successfully hit a decommissioned supply ship. And this binkov guy thinks the US can drive aircraft carriers into the East China Sea without mentioning it would be one-way suicide mission. The shitty F-35B only has a combat radius of 520 miles and an LHD will have to get suicidally close to the Chinese mainland to utilise them


He has next to no knowledge to missiles and interception systems. He simply “forgets” to mention the DF-17, the only supersonic missile in the world, and the fact that the US currently do not have any assets capable of intercepting it. Then he says the PAC-3 is enough already. That is absolutely incorrect when those can’t even intercept a DF-15. Expect to lose at least half of the japanese air bases once a war starts, and there is no way the US can deploy thousands of aircraft to Japan as he suggests. Japan may have 60 commercial airports but that doesn’t mean all of them can be appropriated and converted for military use at the same time. Are the fuel storages reinforced and hardened against blasts? If there is not enough equipment to quickly repair damage done to a runway from missile strikes there is no reason to appropriate 60 commercial airports at once. And surely there is not.

I stopped watching 6 minutes into the video.

so in 6 minutes he:
1. Makes up numbers of Chinese fifth-gen fighters.
2. Imagines one-on-one plane duels are going to be a thing.
3. Neglects to mention the critical roles support planes play in modern warfare and their vulnerability.
4. Thinks aircraft carriers can be used to contest air superiority with a real opponent like China.
5. Doesn’t know AShBMs are a thing and they work.
6. Doesn’t acknowledge supersonic missiles are unstoppable with what we have currently.
7. Dismisses China’s most powerful arm, the Rocket Force as “mostly focused on Taiwan”.
8. Doesn’t know PACs are inadequate.
9. Thinks the US has an infinite amount of supplies, equipment and most importantly, ground and engineering personnel to convert 60 commercial airports into military ones in a short time.

Overall he would make a good WW1 general.

There aren't many simulations of a US-China war out there, so we have to take what we can. I appreciate your clarifications and pointing out his errors - if you have any other simulation videos to suggest many on this thread would be eager. Never said I agreed with his assessment, just that it was one analysis of how things can play out.

In the real world there are hundreds of other factors (geopolitics, economics, social unrest, environment, etc) that would play out, and thousands of more "unknown unknowns". So no one will be happy with any simulation.

But the main takeaway I think is legit, that it would be extremely difficult to actually invade the Chinese mainland. So, in the event of a military conflict, if it doesn't go nuclear all we would be doing is give the Chinese a bloody nose and a chance to reform their tactics. Assuming the government doesn't fall after a partial loss, the Chinese will bounce back in a few years far more deadly and prepared.

And so what do you think is holding back China from invading Taiwan? Do they still need to build many more landing ships and heavy transport planes? What are the missing pieces of the puzzle, for them?

This is certainly a much debated question as of late. Curious what folks here think whether the U.S. should declare unequivocally that we will support Taiwan, or maintain strategic ambiguity.