Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would be really hard considering that the Ryukyus reach almost adjacent to Taiwan.
Yeah taking some of the Ryukyus to build airbases and host anti ship missile forces would probably be an early objective to support the blockade. Depending on how bad the US is hit in the initial stages it wouldn’t even be out of the question to see an amphibious operation against Okinawa.
The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution
461–469 of 469 posts
Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution
#462Earlier quoted context omitted.
>In an environment where information is shared freely and widely. Umm, no. Ever heard of loose lips sinking anyhing?
You're going with war propaganda to make a point about commerce?
Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution
#463Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bad idea. I want the US to continue projecting power because the alternative is worse.
Somehow, all those people whose countries get bombed, embargoed, invaded, or have their governments switched by the US - generally seem to fail to agree with you.
Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution
#464Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They're building those anyway, which suggests they have some sort of plan to use them after the antiship missile threat has been eliminated in the region. The most plausible way to accomplish that is to paralyze the American response by having Taiwan capitulate very fast, before the invasion actually takes place. There are a lot of very dumb assumptions baked into this. First, building something vulnerable to antis…
The thing is that an amphibious invasion will likely not be the first move in the war. China will almost certainly strike hard to try and neuter US air and seapower close to the First Island Chain, and then impose a blockade to starve Taiwan into submission. The war would then center around the US and its allies trying to penetrate China's A2AD complex and keep food and supplies coming to Taiwan, while China builds u…
You can strike US air and seapower close to the first island chain, but the airpower will be replenished in hours and the seapower in days. Blockades require a massive naval advantage, otherwise the attacking navy can concentrate its forces and defeat the blockading navy in detail. That's before we just consider the anti-ship missile threat which would make operating near an unfriendly Taiwan extremely costly even with no naval opposition. Taiwan already has supplies to last for months in the event of a blockade, and would certainly stockpile more on the eve of a major conflict. That's going to be a lot of attrition.
The major reason China is concerned about the first island chain is because it is actually quite vulnerable to the gaps in the chain being closed off and itself blockaded. The islands of the chain have much more direct access to the pacific, meaning they are much more resistant to blockade. The US and its allies can shut off the lifeblood of China's economy and industrial power without sailing anywhere near Chinese defenses. Either China will have to sail out to dislodge them on their terms, or the Chinese people will have to endure a long period of high attrition and economic hardship with little demonstrable gain. That's not to say it would be impossible for China to win, but they're going to have to go up against an extremely powerful military alliance that has a lot of positional advantage in a protracted war and win a fair fight.
Rushing Taiwan, despite being a bad idea, is probably the best strategy they could have. Its odds of success are low, for the reasons already discussed, but if they are the right combination of clever and lucky they might be able to exploit some unrecognized weakness. If they can get control of the island, a lot of things flip in their favor. The island's natural resistance to invasion would make them nigh impossible to dislodge (for comparison during WW2, the US judged an attack on Formosa to be impossible despite the Japanese only having about 170,000 troops there and the local population being hostile to Japan). Access to the pacific would make it more difficult to effectively blockade China; they still could, but it would take more resources and more would slip through. Finally, having won something, the Chinese people would be more tolerant of the war's costs. I think this is a losing gamble, and believe the Chinese invasion ships are best used as bargaining chips for negotiation (as in 'we'll sink $10 billion worth of ships to avoid tariffs which would cost us $100 billion'), but perhaps someone high up in the Chinese leadership has a different opinion.
Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution
#465Earlier quoted context omitted.
Has there ever been a period in history where the dominant military power said "okay, no one can challenge us, let's roll back our military spending" and the peace remained? I can think of a lot of previous hegemons who got complacent and lost everything.
I can't think of a period in history where most nations were democracies either, where most women could vote, or where most people had access to public education. But alas, here we are.
I see no reason to believe that democracies with women's suffrage and public education are immune to military competition. I certainly wouldn't want to risk massive upheaval of the world order which jeopardizes the existence of all those things to find out.
Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution
#466I don't share the confidence in large ships being the future of naval anything. Even in the 90s, surface ships were easy pickings for submarines and antiship missiles. Smaller ships acting as drone carriers combined with arsenal ships can allow local power projection to keep shipping lanes open. Submarines and aircraft remain the safest, and best way to deliver offensive firepower. The aircraft carrier does have a ro…
> The aircraft carrier does have a role, but it is far behind the contact line. That's why they're called 'aircraft carriers'. The entire point of them is that the offensive firepower in the form of aircraft can reach out pretty far. They don't need to sail the carrier right up beside the enemy in order to hit him with their swords, you know. Jokes aside, there might (eventually, maybe not today?) be a point in what…
Cruise missiles have ranges >1500km:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile_family)
And they're putting missiles in shipping containers so as long as you have a flat surface you can place them just about anywhere:
* https://gcaptain.com/pacific-dragon-is-the-shipping-industry...
Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution
#467Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bad idea. I want the US to continue projecting power because the alternative is worse.
Somehow, all those people whose countries get bombed, embargoed, invaded, or have their governments switched by the US - generally seem to fail to agree with you.
Re: The U.S. needs a shipbuilding revolution
#468Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bad idea. I want the US to continue projecting power because the alternative is worse.
Somehow, all those people whose countries get bombed, embargoed, invaded, or have their governments switched by the US - generally seem to fail to agree with you.