Read on Twitter
"There won't be a war because if there was a war it wouldn't be in American interests and why would America ever act against its own interests" is.... an argument, I guess. But refutable in a single word: "Iraq." https://asiatimes.com/2020/08/why-there-wont-be-a-us-china-war/
"China wants to get overland supplies from Russia"
If you think we can't hit a thousands-of-miles-long pipeline full of combustible fuels then you're high.
If you think we can't hit a thousands-of-miles-long pipeline full of combustible fuels then you're high.
"China has South China sea bases"
Which are like 16 inches above sea level and with a couple MOPs dropped on them will be like 9 feet below sea level.
Which are like 16 inches above sea level and with a couple MOPs dropped on them will be like 9 feet below sea level.
It IS true that the US needs to reconsider its pattern of deployment in the region. Carrier-based defenses are much too vulnerable. If Taiwan is amenable, we need a permanent base there. We need WAY more missiles, and Taiwan needs better missile and air defense.
US reliance on fancy communications networks is also a vulnerability.
But China is relying on many of the same kinds of systems with similar vulnerabilities.
But China is relying on many of the same kinds of systems with similar vulnerabilities.
Where China has a huge advantage is that the straits are pretty narrow.
But folks, it doesn't matter what international laws say, you KNOW Taiwan is stocked up on seamines.
But folks, it doesn't matter what international laws say, you KNOW Taiwan is stocked up on seamines.
Heck y'all in 1991 Iraq, which didn't even really have a navy, successfully prevented US access to one of the best amphibious landing sites by placing seamines around it.
*Even if* China manages to achieve aerial dominance (or at least to keep US vessels out of the skies), that's not even remotely a guarantee that they'd be able to land troops. CHina has its "carrier killers" but the US and Taiwan have short-range missiles and artillery too yall
But yes, we should invest in more. The US and Taiwan both need to have a massive number of short- and medium-range missiles deployable from every section of Taiwan, and need to have tons of seamines ready to deploy as well on hours notice.
The key thing about seamines in particular is they're the gift that keeps on giving: even after an invasion, the little buggers are still out in the water for reinforcement craft to bump into. The more you drop on Day 1, the harder it is to sustain an invasion.
Here's an article on the current cutting-edge of seamine weapons technology. Nowadays you can deploy a minefield from a variety of different aircraft, including in theory a formation of F-35s, and you can do it from 40 miles away. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/23705/b-52-tested-2000lb-quickstrike-er-winged-standoff-naval-mines-during-valiant-shield
But aside from all that, let's just return to the part where the whole argument here is "because China would have good odds of victory the US wouldn't engage."
I just..... I think that misunderstands how America engages with the world.
I just..... I think that misunderstands how America engages with the world.
