BoQ77
BANNED
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2012
- Messages
- 8,704
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
A war with China in 2025 would be bloody and unwinnable
2016-8
A top defense strategy think tank recently released a report hat looks at the implications of a possible war between the US and China.
The news is almost universally bad, but the assessment of a full-scale war between the US and China in 2025 paints a dire picture of the aftermath of a conflict between the world’s two biggest superpowers.
While a war today would be costly for the US, China’s increasing anti-access, area denial arsenal as well as its growing carrier capability and aircraft strength could make it impossible for the US to establish military dominance and achieve a decisive victory in 2025, the report by the RAND Corporation says.
“Premeditated war between the United States and China is very unlikely, but the danger that a mishandled crisis could trigger hostilities cannot be ignored,” RAND says. “Technological advances in the ability to target opposing forces are creating conditions of conventional counterforce, whereby each side has the means to strike and degrade the other’s forces and, therefore, an incentive to do so promptly, if not first.”
Instead, the two sides would fight until its home populations got fed up and demanded an end to hostilities, something that may not happen until the body counts get too high to stomach.
RAND declined to state a number of expected casualties in any potential war, but it estimated the loss of multiple carriers and other capital platforms for each side. Nimitz-class carriers carry approximately 6,000 sailors and Marines on a cruise. The loss of a single ship would represent a greater loss of life and combat power than all losses in the Iraq War.
The study predicts a stunning display of technological might on both sides, which isn’t surprising considering what each country has in the field and in the works. The paper doesn’t name specific weapon systems, but it predicts that fifth-generation fighters will be able to shoot down fourth-generation fighters with near impunity.
The US recently fielded its second fifth-generation fighter, the F-35 Lightning II. America’s other advanced fighter, the F-22 Raptor, has been in service since 2005. China is developing four fifth-generation fighters — the J-20; the J-32; the J-23; and the J-25.
The J-20 and J-32 will likely be in the field in 2025 and would potentially rival America’s fighters.
By 2025, China could have two more aircraft carriers for a total of three. It currently owns one functional carrier purchased from Russia and is manufacturing a second.
Despite America’s greater numbers of both fifth-generation fighters and total aircraft carriers, China’s growing missile arsenal would force America to act cautiously or risk unsustainable losses, RAND argues.
Outside of the conventional war, cyber attacks, anti-satellite warfare, and trade disruptions would hurt both countries.
Both belligerents have anti-satellite weapons that are nearly invulnerable to attack, meaning that both countries will be able to destroy a substantial portion of each other’s satellites. The destruction of the American satellite constellation would be especially problematic for the rest of the world since nearly all GPS units connect to American satellites.
Cyber attacks would cripple vulnerable grids on both sides of the Pacific, likely including many of the computer servers that maintain public utilities and crucial services like hospitals.
Trade disruptions would damage both countries, but China would be affected to a much greater extent, RAND says.
A lot of American commerce passes through the Pacific, but China does a whopping 95 percent of its trade there and is more reliant on trade than the US. For China, any large Pacific conflict would be very expensive at home.
While it’s very unlikely that China could win a war with the US, RAND says the fighting would be so bloody and costly for both sides that even average Americans would suffer greatly. Service members and their families would have it the worst.
“By 2025, US losses could range from significant to heavy; Chinese losses, while still very heavy, could be somewhat less than in 2015, owing to increased degradation of US strike capabilities,” RAND says. “China’s [anti-access weapons] will make it increasingly difficult for the US to gain military-operational dominance and victory, even in a long war.”
There are two pieces of good news. First, leaders on both sides are hesitant to go to war. Even better, RAND’s assessment says that neither country is likely to risk nuclear retaliation by firing first, so the war would likely remain a conventional affair.
The bad news is that increasing tension could trigger an accidental war despite political leaders best intentions. RAND recommends that leaders set clear limits on military actions in the Pacific and establish open lines of dialogue.
The American and Chinese military do participate in some exercises together. The Chinese hospital ship Peace Ark and the Chinese frigate Hengshui took part in the Rim of the Pacific exercise, but continued Chinese espionage against America and reported cyber attacks prevent a happy relationship.
Hopefully the US and China can come to friendly terms because a war tomorrow would be catastrophic and a war in 10 years could be crippling for everyone involved.
http://www.businessinsider.com/china-war-2025-bloody-unwinnable-2016-8
According to the report, until 2025, China still depends on the coastal missiles for Anti Access.
Someone said wrong things about the war.
War is losses, damages ... so several shotdown aircrafts, some sunken aircraft carriers are predictable.
But who reach the purpose is the winner. The full scale conventional war would be more lethal.
The Korean war was more bloody, despite the poor armament.
Vietnam didn't consider their advancing to Cambodia as invasion.
If you consider that an ongoing invasion, you are wrong. Actually, Vietnam occupied and protected entire of Cambodia territory from Khmer Rouge as early as 1980-1981.
After 1981, or 1982-1988 Khmer Rouge operates in Thailand territory as Thailand was requested by China and USA to accommodate Khmer Rouge after they were swept out of Cambodia
Khmer Rouge sometimes reenter Cambodia territory for raids. That causes the counter strikes and clashes in Thai territory. Thailand should feel sorry about their accommodation giving to Khmer Rouge, as nowaday the whole world opposed Khmer Rouge.
The facts tell us that, "de facto invasion stopped in 1982" is totally meaningless.
In the point of view from nowaday Cambodia govt, they also don't call that an invasion, but liberation from Khmer Rouge regime.
I don't know where my Turk friend get his idea from.
How are you?
De Facto invasion stopped as early as 1982 and Chinese invasion had a huge impact on this. De jure invasion stopped in 1990.
After Sino-Soviet split main Soviet hypothesis was, China would eventually fail as a state since it was very vulnerable without Soviet help. However China proved that not only it can function on it's own, it can also cross Soviet Union when their interest conflicts. During the invasion bulk of the Chinese army was waiting in the Soviet border, not invading Vietnam. Clearly the message was to Soviets and it was well received. Soviets not only failed to protect their ally Vietnam but also couldn't stop China from invading it.
So China's aim was humiliate Soviets and it did that.
But as I've said in my previous message, Soviets and China had a lot of positive implications to politics. It's a sad part of history seeing them fight eachother.
Secondly, until 1990 China made a series of border clashes with Vietnam. Gained territories from that clashes. Even gained territory from the so called "failed" invasion.
Thirdly; while China was enjoying integration to World economics and trade, Vietnam was isolated from the entire World until 1990 and had even less allies then today's North Korea. Only Soviets were looking after them economically. But it was a huge burden. An entire country was at a point of economic starvation and Soviet Union was the only caregiver. Of course this resulted a lot of complaints from Soviet officials.
Also China protected Chinese minority (Hoa people) in Vietnam. Hoa people lived hell because of Vietnamese regime. They would live a lot worse if China hadn't invaded. When China opened it's border to accept Hoa people, cunning Vietnamese government started to attack Hoa people and triggered an ethnic cleansing.
I don't see a failed China in that conflict. The entire event resulted in larger control of China in SCS, Vietnamese economic development is crippled and isolated from the World, Hoa people are 6th largest minority group in Vietnam and they still exist in there, Soviet Union no longer exist, China gained territory from Vietnamese border, Thailand and Cambodia has very good relations with China and they are thankful for what China did.
You decide who win.