US attacks China!! a scenario

[Field Marshal]

China and Russia will not back UN Security counsel against Iran, simply because there are billions of dollars involved

Even US wont go for the UN sanction so dumply beacuse it involves the OIl the lifeline for millions of consumers in US to satisfy and full fill whom's Oil needs US is doing everything including attacking oil rich countries.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

It would help your arguement if the US actually get most of its foreign oil from the MidEast. Unfortunately for you, the US gets most of its foreign oil from Canada and Mexico.

 

[TexasJohn]

No, they cannot. For Pete's Sakes, everything that stands right now, any PLA force that can land on Taiwan will die on Taiwan. Why does everybody under-estimate the difficulties in crossing 100 miles of water?

Well, it's not really an underestimate thing. It's also not a straight 100 miles of water. Several islands in between. China could take out Taiwan's Air Force easily ( SU-30MKKs vs early F-16s -- a very uneven match). A missile barrage could destroy most runways and highways. Chinese Amphibious forces could then take strategic islands, paralysing the Army which by the way is really not all that top notch as someone suggested. The leadership's defence plan? evacuate to Guam - quickly!

Our carriers? LARGE targets for Silkworms etc.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

Think you better redo the math.

The PLA has 500-600 conventional missiles aimed at Taiwan.
SU-30MKK is in limited regt service. There are more F-16s than there are SU-30MKKs.
All islands in the Taiwan Straits are either no man's land or garrisonned by the ROCA.
The available sea lift (including commercial lift) can transport at most 1 corps (30,000). The ROCA numbers at 350,000+, not counting reserves.

And for the SILKWORMs to get to your carriers, it has to find them first. More likely, CVBG aircrafts will find the launchers long before the SILKWORMs even find the picket ship.

 

[sigatoka]

Frankly I don't see a need to attack China proper; just sink the invasion fleet towards Taiwan and the CCP would crumble under the weight of 30,000 screaming mothers of dead sons.

The days that China can lose 10,000 men in a stupid ill conceived campaign without blinking an eye are long over. They can still tolerate the lost of 10,000 men but they have to have something to show for it. "Teaching Lessons" ain't it.

As for containment, what containment? 100 miles of water does plenty of containing on its own.

You underestimate the Chinese military force and the dramatic modernisation that it is undergoing. Every single one of the five million chinese troops is volunatary, every day they are being armed with better aircraft, tanks, artillery and ships. Also improved has been their level of training.

The Chinese economy is (7trillion) is larger than the U.S. economy when it undertook the Normandy invasion.

Because of technology improvements, chinese aircraft are able to hit target across taiwan.

From a military of 5,000,000; China could easily afford to "lose" 10,000 men.

 

[sigatoka]

True, the whole scenario sucks. But US will go to war with China if they invade Taiwan.


Simple question, why does china hedge its currency against dollars? Why did they accumulate $1 trill forex?

China is accumulating U.S. dollars in order to keep its export competitive. Purchasing foreign reserves devalues domestic currency and hence lower price for exports, increasing demand for chinese goods and hence lowering unemployment.

Its nothing to do with a "hedge". Hedging is done to reduce/manage risks.

 

[sigatoka]

China's economy would be far more damaged than America's.
1. China would lose its primary market.
2. America would cancel the bonds that China holds.
3. American dollars are the fiat currency and the rest of the world would not stop using them as such, infact would reinforce them so international currency stability could be maintained.

Its more difficult to say whose economy would be more hurt Parihaka without further analysis. China would subsititute from supplying U.S. with textiles to weaponary for PLA to keep economy at full output.

China spends a lower proportion of GDP on military (approx 2.5%) vs u.s. of around 3.5%. This gives china a lot of spare capacity to increase spending without "damaging economy".

1. U.S. would lose "cheap" goods which would act like a m***ive tax which would depress economy
2. U.S. would lose cheap source of borrowing when China stopped buying bonds hence raising U.S. domestic interest rates further dampening economy.
3. Pressures on U.S. current account deficit would be reduced and hence currency wouldnt deprecaite too heavily, but at what cost to economic growth?

 

[sigatoka]

The available sea lift (including commercial lift) can transport at most 1 corps (30,000). The ROCA numbers at 350,000+, not counting reserves.

Why are you excluding naval transport, 100miles allows naval ***ets to quickly transport lots of troop, army and artillery by the Chinese navy. The chinese navy would be able to transport 100,000 troops in a few days, these would be the best equiped trained elite troops of the Chinese military.

The Taiwan navy is the weakest link in Taiwan's capabilities.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

The US is already working on its agenda on China.

All this boom is creating a divide amongst the rural and the urban (yesterday there was a BBC programme on the subject), Being a Communist country where the State was the sole arbiter of existence, to have the economic freedom and the disparity is taking its toll.

The social discontent will create upheavals.

It depends on the resilience of the Chinese State to contain the same or it shall have consequences that maybe in the interest of the US.

 

[Bull]

No, they cannot. For Pete's Sakes, everything that stands right now, any PLA force that can land on Taiwan will die on Taiwan. Why does everybody under-estimate the difficulties in crossing 100 miles of water?

Why do u think engineers are for...???they will build a 100 mile bridge in say 24 hrs,what do u say??? Lol ....

 

[Bull]

China is accumulating U.S. dollars in order to keep its export competitive. Purchasing foreign reserves devalues domestic currency and hence lower price for exports, increasing demand for chinese goods and hence lowering unemployment.

Its nothing to do with a "hedge". Hedging is done to reduce/manage risks.

why is the central bank then bothering to diversfy the reserves to euro and gold.

....as long as they are buying any currency in large figures yuan would be undervalued.If they buy 1 trillion dollar worth of Euros,the valuation with respect to yuan-dollar will be the same.The only thing it has to make sure is that they shud keep on selling yuan to keep it down.

And most of the countries keep their reserves in dollar,since it has been the steady currency for a long period of time,but the recent volatily has made all the govts think twice abt dollar.

Its a sort if hedging as by bying dollar china is covering its export risk.

 

[sigatoka]

why is the central bank then bothering to diversfy the reserves to euro and gold.

And most of the countries keep their reserves in dollar,since it has been the steady currency for a long period of time,but the recent volatily has made all the govts think twice abt dollar.

Its a sort if hedging as by bying dollar china is covering its export risk.

The central bank is buying euro and gold because the massive u.s. current account deficit is starting to scare people because of potential for massive devaluation.

You are not using the precise meaning of hedging, read a finance text book.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

You underestimate the Chinese military force and the dramatic modernisation that it is undergoing. Every single one of the five million chinese troops is volunatary, every day they are being armed with better aircraft, tanks, artillery and ships. Also improved has been their level of training.

Son, I know more about the Chinese military than you will ever know. I'm one of the founders and moderators of China-Defence.com, the largest English based PLA watcher forum in the world.

Yes, they've improved but nowhere near what you think they are. At best, they are a 1970s Soviet style force armed with 1970s technology.

While their service is "voluntary," there is no way a two year stint will ever match the West's 4 year contracts.

The Chinese economy is (7trillion) is larger than the U.S. economy when it undertook the Normandy invasion.

Extremely misleading. The entire US economy was geared towards supplying 3 major powers. The Chinese economy is still geared towards feeding itself.

Because of technology improvements, chinese aircraft are able to hit target across taiwan.

With what?

From a military of 5,000,000; China could easily afford to "lose" 10,000 men.

Yeah, right, sure. Two words, Tienamen Square. The Chinese population will not tolerate that kind of loss again.

Why are you excluding naval transport, 100miles allows naval ***ets to quickly transport lots of troop, army and artillery by the Chinese navy.

Where do you get this bull? I've got 43 pages over at CDF going back 10 years of study. You want me to copy it here? Including both civilian and military vessels, the Chinese are limited to a single corps of FOOT infantry in a two days transit. Fire support is extremely lacking, so much so that the PLA Army has taken upon itself to arm civilian cargo ships with land based artillery instead of relying on the PLAN.

The chinese navy would be able to transport 100,000 troops in a few days, these would be the best equiped trained elite troops of the Chinese military.

Considering that there are only 10 Rapid Reaction Divisions, that is just pure baloney. And by the time, the PLA can mass those 100,000 troops for transit, the ROCA would have called up their reserves which would numbered at 1mil+.

The Taiwan navy is the weakest link in Taiwan's capabilities.

So bloody what? All they have to do is to block the approach, including sinking some freighters on the line of approach.

 

[sigatoka]

Yes, they've improved but nowhere near what you think they are. At best, they are a 1970s Soviet style force armed with 1970s technology.

While their service is "voluntary," there is no way a two year stint will ever match the West's 4 year contracts.


Extremely misleading. The entire US economy was geared towards supplying 3 major powers. The Chinese economy is still geared towards feeding itself.


Yeah, right, sure. Two words, Tienamen Square. The Chinese population will not tolerate that kind of loss again.

They have improved aircraft, tanks, Artillery and they are constantly improving their missiles with their growing expertise in IT. China is one of the largest producers and exporters of IT products. Its impossible to characterise them as a 1970's Soviet military force. They have an economy bigger than the Soviet Union ever had and one which is quickly moving high-tech. They have also had access to Russian technology and weaponry, which is proving effective in the hands of 3rd world rebels in Iraq.


I find this 2v4 year thing confusing. Even though the terms of contract are different, most troops would roll their contract over such that in the West & China they would spend roughly the same time in service.

The Chinese economy is 7 trillion, it is the largest producer and consumer of Coal and Steel, the second largest consumer of Oil and the list goes on and on. 7trillion is 7trillion. Wats more is that it is growing @ 9% a year, doubling roughly every 7 years.


Two bit military powers like Egypt have been able to sustain 10,000 casualties, are you suggesting that China the nation with the largest population and second largest economy in the world cant sustain 10,000 casualties?

 

[Officer of Engineers]

They have improved aircraft, tanks, Artillery and they are constantly improving their missiles with their growing expertise in IT. China is one of the largest producers and exporters of IT products. Its impossible to characterise them as a 1970's Soviet military force. They have an economy bigger than the Soviet Union ever had and one which is quickly moving high-tech. They have also had access to Russian technology and weaponry, which is proving effective in the hands of 3rd world rebels in Iraq.

Ok, let's examine your statements.

What's their best plane? SU-30MKK - 70s era aiframe.
Their best tank - Type-9whatever - a T-90 wannabe
Their best missile - DF-31 - a landbased POSIDEN

Yep, real impressive. And get off the shtick about the Iraqi Insurgency. They're two different things. It's like comparing a horse to a camel just because both can run and have 4 legs.

I find this 2v4 year thing confusing. Even though the terms of contract are different, most troops would roll their contract over such that in the West & China they would spend roughly the same time in service.

For an economics major, this is one pure baloney. There is absolutely no way 2 years training would ever equal 4 years of training. And within those 4 years, most Western soldiers would have seen at least one deployment to an actual combat situation. Thus far, since 1986, only 2000 Chinese troops have been exposed to a combat situation.

Not in the same class.

The Chinese economy is 7 trillion, it is the largest producer and consumer of Coal and Steel, the second largest consumer of Oil and the list goes on and on. 7trillion is 7trillion. Wats more is that it is growing @ 9% a year, doubling roughly every 7 years.

Get off the PPP shtick, it doesn't work comparing China to the West.

Two bit military powers like Egypt have been able to sustain 10,000 casualties, are you suggesting that China the nation with the largest population and second largest economy in the world cant sustain 10,000 casualties?

The Chinese can sustain 10,000 casualties. Provided that they win. The CCP can't afford 10,000 screaming mothers demanding answers for their incompetence.