US Army Secretary Christine Wormuth said this week that the US must prepare to win a future war with China over Taiwan by beefing up its military deployments in the region.
“I personally am not of the view that an amphibious invasion of Taiwan is imminent,” Wormuth said at an American Enterprise Institute event, according to Voice of America. “But we obviously have to prepare, to be prepared to fight and win that war.”
Wormuth’s plan would involve sending more troops and advanced weapons into the region, including hypersonic missiles. She said the buildup would be an effort to deter war with China, although Beijing has been increasing its military activity in the region in response to US actions.
Wormuth laid out three ways the US Army would work to build up forces in the region. First, by increasing cooperation with allies, which she said would “complicate” Beijing’s decision-making. Second, the Army will establish “theater distribution centers” to pre-position weapons and other supplies in the region.
She listed Australia and Japan as two places where weapons could be staged and said non-lethal equipment might be stored in the Philippines and Singapore. The third aspect of the plan would be to place more visible combat forces in the region. “Our goal is to have Army forces in the Indo-Pacific seven to eight months out of the year,” Wormuth said.
When war breaks out in the region, Wormuth said the Army’s role would be to establish “staging bases for the Navy, for the Marines, for the Air Force” and to “provide intra-theater sustainment” using the weapons stockpiles and watercraft. She said the US Army would also have a role to play in the American homeland.
“If we got into a major war with China, the United States homeland would be at risk as well, with both kinetic attacks and non-kinetic attacks. Whether it’s cyberattacks on the power grids, or on pipelines, the United States Army, I have no doubt, will be called to provide defense support to civil authorities,” she said.
When asked if the American public could sustain the level of casualties that would come with a war with China, she said they could, just “like we did in World War II.” But both the US and China possess nuclear weapons, meaning a potential war could be catastrophic for the entire world.
Wormuth is the latest US official to openly discuss the fact that the US is preparing for war with China. Earlier this year, a four-star Air Force general predicted the US will be at war with China within two years and ordered his forces to be prepared. “I hope I am wrong. My gut tells me will fight in 2025,” Gen. Mike Minihan, the head of Air Mobility Command, said of war with China in a leaked memo.
168 thoughts on “US Army Secretary Says US Preparing to Win a War With China Over Taiwan”
“win a war” … yeah ok.
How about we learn how to wipe our asses first.
The US is at a crisis point. If Russia thrives and feeds and Supplies Europe and other countries with Food and Oil,the US loses markets. This can not be tolerated by the Masters of Mankind.In the other case as China gets stronger and appears to be helping and unifying Africa another prospective market shot to hell. What are the rapacious Capitalists going to do? The outcome is clear. The rulers of the Us have no interest in sharing. It is our way or the Bus. It does not matter that the planet is at risk and stake If the US can’t rule no one will.
Favor a bottom up approach
It’s too complicated LL. We need a bede.
Christine is so dumb she doesn’t even know that we don’t have Supersonic missiles but China and Russia have them. Russia has Hypersonic missiles that will sink both of our Aircraft Carrier Groups in the first 5 minutes of this “War”, plus all of the support vessels, and finally, she doesn’t even know that our supposed allies on Taiwan were beaten like a drum in the recent elections and that the majority has no interest in disconnecting from China.
This is the Clown 🤡🤡 🤡 Show running the “State Department 🤣 🤣 🤣 .
uncle sam doesn’t need supersonic missiles because uncle sam has god on his side.
just ask any american.
That reminds me of George W Bush saying God told him to wage war on Iraq.
Putting the “hype” in hypersonic. We have plenty of weapons too. I read a piece that suggests a hypersonic missile can be fast or it can be accurate but not both. At hypersonic speeds a plasma is created around the projectile that effectively kills radio so guidance systems can’t use gps and radars and radio don’t work. To use that stuff the missile has to slow down till the plasma goes away.
When hitting a moving the target, a hypersonic missile has to slow down to acquire its target. It is like difference between driving a car down the interstate and driving in a parking lot. Yes you can go very fast on an interstate because the turns are long and wide. You can’t not drive fast in a parking lot because turns are sharp and with little distances to make them. Therefore the missile has to slow down to make the final adjustments need to hit the target. That is when it is vulnerable to defensive measures.
The missile doesn’t have to slow down to make those adjustments due to anything like your parking lot analogy.
The missile has to slow down to make those adjustments because at hypersonic speeds a plasma shield forms around the missile making it possible for it to receive or transmit information, including sensor information on where the target is now versus where it was before the missile went hypersonic.
The plasma shield only blocks signals from some directions. Signals from a satillite relay may still work, depending on the angles involved.
That plasma shield only forms during re-entry, below certain altitudes. Re-entry is steerable about that, as we know from many space shots that steered in until the plasma blocked the signal down to NASA.
Even then they continued to steer from other data, the Space Shuttle flying all the way down while its heat shields were forming plasma.
“Even then they continued to steer from other data, the Space Shuttle flying all the way down while its heat shields were forming plasma.”
Exactly — toward a static runway, not toward a moving target that is not now where it was when the plasma shield formed.
A hypersonic missile could certainly hit that same static runway accurately. But a hypersonic missile would not be able to track a moving target without first slowing down — making it vulnerable to anti-missile weapons.
Since cities and silos are relatively immobile, I think Mark Thomason is more correct.
You can guide, hypersonic missiles.
The US Air Force could guide their Sprint ABM missiles. And they could do Mach 10.
And that was in the 1970’s.
Bigger hooey than pixie dust, It seems loser technologies find loser arguments to deceive.
“It is like difference between driving a car down the interstate and driving in a parking lot. Yes you can go very fast on an intersta-”
Please turn off the vehicle engine, sir, step out, and breathe into this nozzle.
If we had those types of strategic weapons that Russia has, it would be a game-changer according to the warmongers.
In the future, China’s science and technology will lead the world in new weapons applications and technology.
Just look at our schools for the proof.
The pixie dust argument…
You can guide, hypersonic missiles.
The US Air Force could guide their Sprint ABM missiles. And they could do Mach 10.
And that was in the 1970’s.
Sinking an aircraft carrier with a hypersonic missile is not as easy as you think. The carrier is moving and changing direction. Thus unlike a land target the missile can not be preprogramed to hit a specific spot. It has to have onboard radar to acquire the target and make adjustments at a sufficient distance to make the necessary turns. That radar can be jammed. Plus the carriers and escorts will fire anti missiles missiles.
Taiwan has zero interest (well less 5%) in joining with China. That island will never voluntary join with China.
You don’t need a hypersonic missle to sink or damage a carrier, and NBC just put out an article decribing just how deep in shit one of our carriers would be should that ever happen. Here’s to this conflict never starting!
Few states have hypersonic missiles and none have hypersonic missile interception abilities. Moreover, you betray your lack of understanding when you raise the motion of the ship as somehow being problematic. The ship is going maximum 50 knots maximum. But the missile you talk about firing an anti-missile at will be going 4,000 knots and therefor 1000s of times harder to stop.
Right lol. Never did Hawaii voluntarily join America.
There are two types of ships in modern Navies = Submarines and Targets.
An actual aircraft carrier is not as maneuverable as the one in your bathtub.
There have been numerous instances of military vessels being sunk by missiles – whilst moving.
US Super Carriers can only go about 40mph. And they are over 1,000 feet long. No way they could ‘dodge’ an anti-ship missile.
‘Zircon can travel at a speed of Mach 8 (6,100 mph; 9,800 km/h; 2.7 km/s). This has led to concerns[neutrality is disputed] that it could penetrate existing naval defense systems. Because it flies at hypersonic speeds within the atmosphere, air pressure in front of it forms a plasma cloud as it moves, absorbing radio waves and making it practically invisible to active radar systems (plasma stealth). However, this also blinds any radar or IR seeker on the missile. With plasma stealth, hypersonic-speed and sea skimming technique, intercepting a flying Zircon is extremely difficult, if at all feasible at the current level of technology. The final section of the trajectory is completed in minimal time (under 10 seconds), so the enemy will likely not have time to carry out all the necessary procedures to intercept it. Zircon exchanges information in flight and can be controlled by commands if necessary.’
Yes there have been numerous instances of military vessels being sunk by missiles — whilst moving.
That doesn’t change the fact that a hypersonic missile can’t send/receive information, including information to help it track moving targets, while traveling at hypersonic speeds.
I see you mention the Sprint. Twice. What you don’t mention is that it was abandoned after one year of testing. Guess why.
Next time you make a point?
I suggest you find out what the heck you are talking about BEFORE you start typing/talking.
You obviously had never heard of Sprint. Hit the link I posted. And saw that it was only in service for 2 years. And (wrongly) assumed that was due to a failure in it’s capabilities. And you clearly did not do ANY other research. Or even read the bloody article.
Sprint was part of America’s Safeguard, ABM program.
From the article:
‘Sentinel was itself changed to become the Safeguard Program, which was operational only for a few months from October 1975 to early 1976. Congressional opposition and high costs linked to its questionable economics and efficacy against the then emerging MIRV warheads of the Soviet Union, resulted in a very short operational period.’
It’s cancellation – along with the longer-range Spartan ABM – was political. And little if anything to do with the lack of capabilities of the weapon systems involved.
Please show me a document from an unbiased, knowledgeable source that states that Sprint failed because the Air Force was not able to control the missile through it’s plasma cloud?
Until you can? Your point is COMPLETELY baseless.
Well, I guess it sucks for me that my point is COMPLETELY baseless.
But, then, it sucks for you that your point is COMPLETELY missing.
Just as I thought.
I ask you to post a link to evidence that Sprint was not able to be communicated with the weapon whilst in flight. And you post NOTHING.
You just post some INCREDIBLY lame point about it only being in service for a short time.
Even though the reason it (and Spartan) were pulled from service was political…nothing to do with their respective capabilities.
Clearly, you have NO IDEA what you are talking about here. None.
And you have tried to cover that up with strawman nonsense.
You have now devolved into a troll.
And I try not to waste time on trolls.
So we are done here…for now.
America does have supersonic missiles.
I think you meant ‘hypersonic missiles’.
And, btw, the US Air Force started testing their own hypersonic missile.
But you are right about the vulnerability of the Navy’s carriers.
Their Aegis radar cannot (apparently) track hypersonic missiles.
Us couldn’t sustain the small amount of deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq. The authorities do not have any trust of its people and people r deeply divided. If thousands start dying either initial rally around the flag will crumble and us will need to cut and run or public rage and us leadership hubris will cause us to use tactical nukes leading to Armageddon.
Sick! I have nothing against diversity, but does she realize that her 2 daughters may end up nuked as a result of their Mom’s hard work? “When war breaks out in the region, Wormuth said the Army’s role would be…” as she points at her slick color matched power-point presentations…
“…We have to fight and win that war…”
As they said in Vienna in summer 1914 – and many other times.
This is the 2025 Budget battle.
Thank you Garrett.
As you so succinctly observe, it’s all a pile of mouth-flapping nonsense. Prepping for the final desperate chapter. The stripping of the putrifying corpse of the Old Republic in anticipation of the funeral rites. Witness the end of the American Empire.
There will be no war with China. The catastrophic failure of the Neocon “Ukrainian Gambit” will bring the dissolution of NATO. Europe will throw off the parasitic vassalage of the hegemon and embrace the Eurasian future. The United States will sink into destitution, the various political and identitarian subtribes will feed on one another, the elites will huddle in their gated fortresses, and perhaps, with a little luck, the neocons will be fed into the chipper.
Taiwan is not Ukraine. The Chinese are smarter than that. And they are patient. They will not be impressed — much less provoked — by the noise. And when the dust has settled, and the hegemon is no more, they will get back to business with their fellow Chinese on Taiwan, and nature will take its course.
I can’t help thinking that you are overly optimistic.
Gerrett should have preceded his post with “SPOILER ALERT!”
I hope you are correct and the world finds peace and agreement instead of War,Destruction and extinction. But given the love of war profits in the US I have grave doubts about our.chances.
In decades to come….. after we finally find clean water and uncontaminated food sources, the few thousand undamaged that are left will gather around the camp fire and look to the stars and blame the unseen Gods. Eventually, their cave paintings will be interpreted and clearly indicate we were all mushroom farmers.
Why the rush to get into a shooting war with Chinan? why not resolve the issues with talks and agreements.? Could it be that that the Capitalists,Imperialists and Militarists of America are not willing to share equally the bounty of the Earth and live peacefully with other Nations ?Is it possible that the rulers of the US do not believe in equality especially for people of different races and colors as in White Supremacy needs to be supported and enforced? Does no one see the pattern of behavior of the US.? First it was the Native Americans,after that it was the millions of Africans imported to work the cotton fields of the South. Then we fought a war with Mexico for land.Beyond that period we killed each other for profit.Further down the line we acquired the Phillipines.We got in WW1 without a good reason.Thank you Woodrow Wilson.We probably would not have fought the Germans if they could have found a way because the Nazis has a lot of supporters in the US.But Rooseveldt cut off Japans OIL and the rest is History.The Korean Conflict and Viet Nam speak for themselves.Then a bunch os Saudis blow up the Trade Towers and we go into Afganistan,the wrong culprit. We rectify this twice and wreck the MidEast possibly forever.Then Afganistan again and now Ukraine. What is the matter with America that it can not let people live in harmony or God forbid fight their own wars?
She’s a special kind of stupid. Is what she is.
What chance does the US have against China, unless it factors in the use of nukes? And even then.
So we’re talking conventional war only — what are the objectives?
If the US objective was to e.g. invade, occupy, and rule the People’s Republic of China, US chances of success would approach zero.
If the US objective was to e.g. prevent the People’s Republican of China from invading, occupying, and ruling Taiwan, US chances of failure would approach zero.
But the latter equation is beginning to change, and it’s plausible to assume that within 25 years or so, the PRC will have fielded a blue water navy and amphibious capability that might potentially even things up somewhat.
The US objective is to use Taiwan to weaken China’s ability to stand in the way of US global hegemony. And in this contest, as far as the US is concerned, Taiwan is expendable.
China’s objective is not so much to rule Taiwan, but to prevent the US from placing offensive military weaponry in Taiwan that would again threaten China.
And US involvement makes it much less likely that China’s reunification with Taiwan will be peaceful.
China definitely wants peaceful reunification with Taiwan. But, I agree, they don’t want the United States to make Taiwan into their proxy. I’m not so concerned about China’s objectives, because they don’t act in my name and with my resources. What they do in Taiwan is between them and Taiwan. But I am concerned about the US’s objectives, because they are acting in my name and with my resources. The US has absolutely no business meddling in the South China Sea. Their objectives have nothing to do with the well being of the people of Taiwan.
As a long time aficionado of bizarre humor, I could not help but laugh to tears at the last sentence. Thanks for that.
Good thing my bladder was empty when I read the headline, or I’d have pissed myself laughing.
China has fifty times the population of Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention an air force, a navy, nuclear weapons, and an industrial base larger than the US. And it would be fighting on its own turf instead of 10,000 miles away. People like Warmouth are some combination of stupid, lying, and insane.
Another POS heard from!
“But both the US and China possess nuclear weapons, meaning a potential war could be catastrophic for the entire world.”
She conveniently left that out of her grand vision. But maybe both sides will only use “tactical” nukes.
“The smallest tactical nuclear weapons can be one kiloton or less (producing the equivalent to a thousand tonnes of the explosive TNT). The largest ones can be as big as 100 kilotons.”
“Deployed tactical weapons in Europe can have explosive yields up to 300 kilotons, or 20 times that of the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima.”
Jesus Christ, how about NOT getting into a war with a China that will kill MILLIONS on both sides, destroy our economy and turn Taiwan into rubble. That is, if the nuclear bombs don’t start flying and destroy all life on Earth.
Our neocon “leaders” are all death cultists who will stop at nothing until they get us all killed.
I agree, so why would China start a war with the USA over an island that China gave control up in 1890s?
Kenny, Kenny, Kenny… I expect to see you on the front lines when this conflict breaks out. Good luck to you!
Markie, Markie, Markie. So you think China will attack the USA.
Only if the US attacks China. Then everybody, everywhere will be on the front line. Nuclear winter does not respect national borders.
No, we were talking about the invasion of Taiwan…
Forced by Japan, and after WWII, Taiwan was returned to China. The ROC loved that set up when they sat in the UN Security Council China seat from 1949 to 1971.
China isn’t the party wanting to start a war, the US is. Why would the US want a war with China over a Chinese island on the opposite side of the globe (at the opposing side of the disk for flat-earthers) that is as much their business as is Hawaii of China. Questionmark.
Someone else here posted a link a while back. Sorry that I forgot who to credit.
The gist is that US policymakers are frightened that China’s Belt and Road Initiative will be more effective at enriching Asia than our own infrastructure (such as the interstate highway system) was at enriching the US. The motivation is to remain king of the hill.
Yes, that’s part of it. The BRI is of real concern to the US and is also leading to divisions within Europe. The war over chip-technology (ASML photolithography methodology) is another. The discovery of really significant deposits of Lithium recently in Iran, taking into account it’s importance in battery-technology today (more than half of all extracted lithium is used for that purpose) and despite possible and may be even promising new technologies, will remain so for the foreseeable future, may also be a factor in the decision-making process to give Israel their desired war.
Will we VAPORIZE?…
Well, at the very least it seems safe to say we’re headed toward a pretty hazy future. Probably not all that good.
It’s the Republic of China (Taiwan) that always insisted that the island and the mainland are one country. Everybody knows that except for a few stragglers in the US. Don’t blame the People’s Republic of China (PRC) for running that logic back in the other direction.
What’s sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose.
How many Americans would it kill?
That is the only thing of political importance to the warmongers in charge. If even that.
And only for reasons not related to them giving a damn.
USA hasn’t won a was since WW2?
Grenada! Panama! Kuwait.
What about the first Iraq war in 1990-91?
That wasn’t a war. That was an idiocy after April Glaspie our Ambassador to Iraq, told Saddam we had no issues in the squabble regarding the Kuwaiti Regime stealing Iraqi oil.
Could not handle Afghanistan, but think they can best China?
They must be losing their minds…..!!!!!!!!!!
The US military has not faced a functional Army in almost 20 years, has not faced a functional airforce since the 1990s and has not faced a functional navy since the 1980s. Not a good army, airforce or navy, just one that exists.
It may do a decent job bombing weddings and blowing goat herders to perdition, but I would not bet on them steamrolling China anytime soon, even if the war does not go nuclear.
“When asked if the American public could sustain the level of casualties that would come with a war with China, she said they could, just “like we did in World War II.” This isn’t 1945 and we don’t have the military troops to take on China. Although I could be wrong, I don’t think most Americans are going to rally around the flag and jump on board signing up enmasse to fight a war in a far off country in which they would be cannon fodder. Fighting a war with the woke military that we have against a country that could lose several million people and not blink an eye is insanity and kind of brings to mind ‘Caeser crossing the Rubicon’ which would most likely lead to the U.S. using Nuclear weapons as it will become apparent that they cannot win a war against China in their backyard.
So, it’s the wokeness of our military that won’t allow us to win? Sure, why not.
Well, I could be surprised of course, but I don’t see it happening either that countless fleets of cargoplanes stacked full of bodybags with the remains of much of America’s youth laid out along the runways to be put in the endless columns of hearses, off to infinitely stretched out warcemetaries, for an efficiently quick burial will be a spectacle to be stomached for any time close to what will be expected. So that promises to become well covered.
Not just the wokeness but it doesn’t help when you’re going to be fighting a war against a nation that could give a rat’s ass about gender and race and promote people on perceived competance and not whether or not they fit the progressive narrative.
I agree. We need to stop preferentially promoting white guys just because they happen to have desirable complexions and genitals.
Yea, like Eisenhower, Patton, Montgomery, Bradley, MacArthur, Marshall and other males who had genitals and white complexion. Would you have rather we had Generals based on race or gender back then? I mean surly Miley and Austin would come up to their standards.
What’s waiting behind the Miley and Austin types? Pick any color or gender and I would say nothing much different. At least of what we are going to see. It would seem that the Miley and Austin types are all that is allowed.
Now they nominated an FAA Director who knows nothing about aviation. However, he is highly qualified in quota/affirmative action studies.
I did 3 years in the 70’s. I assume there is still basic training and AIT or something similar. I would also assume that you still have to meet the qualifications for whatever MOS you pick. I just think the blaming of wokeness as the reason for any military decline is way overblown. As far as promotions go, if you kiss enough ass you get promoted. Simple as that. I would assume that also hasn’t changed much since the 70’s. But no doubt about them trying to check boxes at the same time. But a kiss ass is a kiss ass is a kiss ass. Woke or not.
Just a little bit different from when you were in. https://taskandpurpose.com/military-life/vast-majority-americans-20s-unfit-military-service/
You sound like a foreign agent trying to destroy the US from within.
Bad news is: you and your team are succeeding 🙁
…..and compared to other combatants our casualties were light.
Pipe dreaming. The USA has a big ocean to cross and ships do sink in these days of missile technology.
China will have the home field advantage. Their ships can fire a load of missiles and return to harbor and do it again every 5 days, our ships can do that every 3 weeks.. For the price of one super nuclear sub that can strike anywhere in the world China can build 3 or more super quiet subs suitable only for coastal defense. 3 on 1 who is going to win?
In WWII we were attacked by Japan. Only idiots wouldn’t know the difference between an elective war that goes against our professed agreements with China, and WWII.
Wasn’t that a fight that was ultimately won by the party that first started throwing nuclear weapons? On cities. So, what was the lesson there again? It’s safe if they don’t have them? Beat them to it? What?
War with China seems like the dumbest idea ever. You go pick on the little guys, not the big guys. Playground rules
I agree and that is why China will not start a war with the USA over island about haft size of Florida.
It isn’t China that’s moving toward starting a war over that island.
Sure, if not pretending hard enough that Taiwan belongs to Beijing is “starting a war.”
Have you been on extended vacation, or perhaps on temporary assignment to a planet in a galaxy far, far away?
Announcing that our military expects to be at war with China, while openly working to beef up military forces and strengthen military alliances in the region, explicitly targeting China; repeatedly and persistently provoking China with actions guaranteed to anger its government and people; brazenly making it clear that the US intends to take on China while it is believed to be weak enough to conquer; maintaining an official “defense” posture that aims to prevent any regional power from gaining sufficient influence to challenge US primacy — all of these things, among others, constitute the early stages of starting a war. Arguments to the contrary are either disingenuous or delusional.
“Conquering” China has never been on either the practical or propaganda table.
But yes, the US is absolutely trying to bait China into starting a war over Taiwan, because it calculates (almost certainly correctly) that it would win that war now and (at least plausibly) that it might lose that war 25 years from now.
The wild card question is whether the Chinese regime is really as full of tantrum as it always comes off as, or whether that’s just their fake-it-til-you-make-it variant of Nixon’s “madman theory.”
It’s only true that conquest isn’t on the table if you accept only the narrowest of the multiple accepted meanings of the word. In every other and broader sense, the intent is indeed to conquer.
What sort of war against China do you think the US would be likely to “win.” It might be able to prevent a successful invasion and occupation of Taiwan, but probably not more than that, and the cost would be enormous — beyond enormous for Taiwan.
Tantrum(s)? Compared to the US, Beijing’s leaders seem quite restrained to me. Of course, that may be damning with faint praise.
Well, let’s look at two versions of “conquest.”
The first would be the classical one — a foreign army lands on the South China Sea coast (or comes overland from elsewhere in Asia), marches to Beijing, deposes the existing regime, and imposes its preferred regime on the entirety of the land encompassed by the current borders of the People’s Republic of China. What was the PRC becomes a part, a colony, or a satrapy of the conquering polity.
While I don’t like to say that anything’s impossible, that seems so exceedingly unlikely as to be impossible for practical purposes.
The second would be something like the late Qing Dynasty and early republican periods, where there was a putative “Chinese government” on the mainland, but other “great powers” pretty much did what they wanted with only minimal interruption, extracting whatever trade and other concessions they could versus a fractured, sprawling, not really single in any meaningful sense, polity.
I guess the chances of that situation returning might be a LITTLE better than the first, but not much. China is an industrial power with a much more ideologically homogeneous population now than it was then. I’m not saying that all Chinese are e.g. totally committed to the Chinese Communist Party or anything of that sort. But they’d likely be both united enough against such games, and capable enough of coordination to resist those games, to make the whole thing both far more draining and far less rewarding than it was before there or has been since in other areas (such as the post-WWI Middle East).
At present, the PRC simply doesn’t have the capability to invade and occupy Taiwan, and wouldn’t even if the US decided not to offer Taiwan direct naval and air support. That would require mass amphibious assaults (for which they don’t have many practical landing craft) on a very limited number of beaches (each of which has been continuously addressed in terms of obstacles, overlooking artillery registration, etc. for nearly 75 years) and almost certainly without anything resembling air supremacy, and without more than, at most, half of its forces available to do things other than patrol existing borders.
Which is why the US would prefer that the PRC try it now instead of 25 years from now when it’s built out its naval/amphibious capabilities and possibly settled its border hashes with e.g. India, freeing up more of its forces. And which is why the PRC plays for time with tantrums instead of actually throwing down.
For a nation with China’s industrial capacity, building landing craft, in any number, is a trivial exercise. But if China were to decide to take Taiwan by force, it would almost certainly begin with a blockade, which the US might or might not be able to break but certainly could not break without unacceptable losses, for itself and its allies and catastrophic losses for the people of Taiwan.
Taiwan can’t even feed itself without massive food imports and would never be able to do so unless the population were radically reduced.
Bur China has no need to invade or blockade Taiwan, in any time frame that the US might prefer, or perhaps ever. China is already the world’s largest economy by purchasing power parity and is well on its way to being number one by any measure. It knows, as much of the world knows, that American military and economic dominance are almost certainly more limited than Chinese patience.
China wouldn’t invade to get their way; they would impose a naval blockade on Taiwan until the leaders in Taiwan were overthrown and common sense prevailed.
“China wouldn’t invade to get their way; they would impose a naval blockade on Taiwan until the US decided to spend five minutes breaking that blockade.”
Fixed, no charge.
five minutes breaking that blockade.”
And four minutes for China to sink the Fleet.
At the moment, it seems likely that the PLA navy could conceivably damage, perhaps even sink, a US carrier before the PLA navy ceased to exist.
That’s why the US would love a war now, and why the PRC prefers to wait.
The Chinese can do just fine from dry land.
You are certifiably nuts. The US navy absolutely stands no chance. All US ships will be sunk. US submarines will be hunted down by chinese drone submarines, and sunk as well.
In 30 years, perhaps.
As of right now, the PLA navy is so far from range and combat power parity with the US navy that it wouldn’t be a close-run thing and the PRC would end up having to rebuild its currently growing fleet entirely from scratch.
World-wide you are correct. But on a regional scale, China has enhough naval capability that both sides would suffer considerable losses. Now if the US pulled naval assets it uses to boss and bully other parts of the world, you are probably correct. But then, who would intimidate those other parts of the world if we didn’t?
I agree that in a naval/air war with the PLA Navy over Taiwan, the US would suffer considerable losses. Probably including at least one carrier.
But the US Navy fields nine carrier strike groups, including two that are Pacific-focused already. It could augment that without losing much if anything in the Atlantic, Mediterranean, and Gulf areas. It’s fairly routine to extend CSG floats when their relievers are needed elsewhere.
At the moment, it’s my (as informed as I can make it) assessment that such a war would result in severe damage to the US Navy, and the effective destruction of the PLA Navy.
Which actually might be a good thing for the PLA Navy if it rebuilt in a new direction.
Carriers are probably obsolete at this point. At some point — before or after that obsolescence is demonstrated in battle is the big question — air power will likely start being exercised by drones launched from something like LHD (landing helicopter dock) ships.
But if both the US and the PLA Navy continue in their current directions, the latter will probably be competitive with anything the former can throw at it within two or three decades.
Which is probably why the US would like to get the war started now and why the PRC would prefer to not go that far just yet.
Right now, the PRC is mainly just trying to keep its Taiwan line alive and contentious so that its position is never in question and any future war can be justified/defended on the basis of that position.
And the US is happy to have the issue alive and contentious to justify its saber-rattling and give it hope that it can bait the PRC into moving too fast.
Fixed, fixed: The US wouldn’t be able to break the blockade, and why would we stick our noses into another family quarrel on the other side of the planet? Oh I know because that would be “OUR rules based operation to impose OUR rules based order.”
To the Chinese we are barbarians for a a very simple reason: we are.
China actually practices diplomacy with other nations and have a specialized bureaucracy that is devoted to that. It’s our Diplomatic Corp that should reduced to a vassal agency of the Department of Defense/Offense, making demands of how other nations must pay tribute to us and adhere to OUR “rules based order”.
The US will not win a war against China. I am not sure what you are smoking. China has more troops and more weapons than US can ever field. All US aircraft carriers will be sunk, and all US military bases that participate in the hostilities will be destroyed. Expect North Korea to assist as well. The US is crazy to think it can win a war against China. I don’t think the US could even win a war against Russia, let alone China.
I look at the pictures on Chinese news every day and have traveled the US extensively. I have seen nothing to photograph in the US that compares to the grandeur being built in China; Note that China was hired to replace the San Fransisco Bay Bridge.
Translation: The PRC is spending most of its money on infrastructure, and the US regime is spending most of its money on weapons.
Now, what does that imply for mutual combat effectiveness?
Personally, I’d rather the US regime spent its money on peaceful things rather than on warlike things*, but it is what it is.
The PRC is spending enough of its money on e.g. a blue-water navy that it will likely become militarily competitive offshore in the next few decades. And it’s more than capable of defending its territory from ground attack now.
* Actually, I’d rather the US regime, like all regimes, cease to exist, but that’s not on the immediate table.
Requiring a balanced budget unless a bond is approved by voters is a step in the right direction, especially if advertising associated with a vote on a bond issue is constrained by something like the old post ww2 fairness doctrine.
Thomas, I’m sure you know that the only people who would win that war would be the rich fat cats who make lots of money off of the sufferings of ordinary people. The rest of us always lose.
Very true, and I should have spoken more carefully.
On purely military metrics, the US regime could almost certainly not “win” a ground war on Chinese territory, at the moment or in the foreseeable future.
On purely military metrics, the PRC almost certainly couldn’t “win” an air/naval war aimed at blockading or conquering Taiwan at the moment, but in the foreseeable future it’s not at all implausible that they could.
This whole business makes me sick. And I see the arrogance and belligerence of the US driving it all. It might seem from my comments that I am rooting for Russia and China to win. But it’s not that. I’m rooting for the United States to be neutered. In fact, I’d love to see the neocons be humiliated. They deserve that and a lot worse. And I’m very skeptical about how the west portrays Russia and especially Putin. What I’ve actually seen and heard from Putin doesn’t fit with the western narrative.
We were fine all those years when we supported the idea that Beijing belonged to Taiwan.
Well, I’m glad you guys were fine, whoever that “we” consists of.
The US, England, Japan, Australia and the rest of the so-called world, that’s who.
President Jimmy Carter for one.
How is that our business?
It’s not the US’s business if the PRC pretends that Taiwan is part of it. But the US has no obligation to play along with the pretending, nor is it the PRC’s business if the US doesn’t.
If both regimes mind their own business, everything will be OK. But it’s not likely that either regime will be content to mind it’s own business.
As for this “we” and “our” stuff you’re always saying, I’m unaware of any really significant category which includes both you and me.
How is China/Taiwan any of your business?
Well you do have to factor in how much it matters to them. There is going to be a point on the how much it matters, how much it will cost, domestic political considerations tradeoff matrix where war might break out. I hope we are fully bluffing, making some money selling weapons to Taiwan and will supply the heck out of them in the event of a war so they are a tough nut to digest but war seems like a poor idea. We may lose it will certainly be ruinously expensive and so long as nukes don’t get used will end up putting either the EU or India at the top of the world order.
Especially when you consider China’s main unification plan is through scholarships, normal trade, and tourism.
It is extremely good news that the US Army is preparing to “win” a war with China, as opposed to preparing to “lose” a war with China.
Delusion is strong with this woman.
The well honed policy of poking other nations in the eye to provoke a response which can be used to accuse them of unprovoked aggression has got to stop.
everybody on the entire planet is the bad-guy
with the exception of uncle sam
You forgot the saintly Israel.
What happened to the obligatory sarcasm indicator? [/S]
There will be no “WINNING” in any war with China. Just death and destruction on all sides. It is the same fools who squandered our primacy in deterrence on the terror war leading the charge while Russia and China had almost two decades to get way way ahead in rocketry to hypersonics. While we spent the time ferreting out every Muslim who was too radical. Now the bill comes due..Trillions squandered & two decades of progress in great gamenship lost. Never will we get back the money or the time. It’s too late, or over.
The profiteers ALWAYS win, the people ALWAYS are the losers.
The trillions ended up in the pockets of billionaires and trillionaires and more is on the way.
It would be folly for the USA to discount countries that will side with China; and there are many.
She’s just another bureaucrat appointee. I would like to hear what the serving military personnel have to say about war with China. But, I’ll never hear that, and neither will anybody else.
Imagine If China Did To The US What The US Is Doing To China
Notice the similarities of US and Israel long term goals – both pursue goals of an even greater state regardless of the cost to humanity.
That’s what states do — constantly attempt to maximize their discretionary power, both domestically and abroad.
State evolution is always in the direction of Mussolini’s “everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.”
At any given time, some states pursue that more successfully than others, but it’s the direction all of them are always headed in.
Not all states – I’m rather surprised that you made the suggestion.
It’s only the US and the Israeli apartheid state that bomb other nations at will and even harbor ambitions to carve them up into smaller and far more manageable vassal states.
Remember how Europe was supposedly ”liberated” by the US after the 2nd ww – Almost all European nations have become Washington’s submissive and obedient vassal states.
The US has developed quite a history of orchestrating regime changes and coups plus these latest lie based wars of aggression.
So here’s the thing…The US does not consider other nations a ”Democracy” unless they privatize their state owned assets to their masters who’ll snap them up with credit created out of thin air.
However as with most things there’s far more to this – So if interested I’d recommend this brilliant article by the late Robert Parry Free Markets’ Defame ‘Democracy’ [Consortiumnews]
From The Plan to Carve Up Russia By Mike Whitney – [lewRockwell]
Ugh. This shit of talking about our inevitable war with another nuclear rival while we are still swirling inwards towards war with Russia.
Fuckers aren’t just evil, they’re stupid too. Keep your mouth shut until you’ve finished the eschaton we already have at home.
Karl Marx……Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains.
They are preparing for war, they do not prepare to win. Its important that the billionaire class get richer, that happens win or loose. The billionaire class are parasites who are gorging themselves on the host (working class). The billionaire class will destroy America and move on to another host.
The working class will die in huge numbers so the billionaire class can own plantations across the planet (Hegemony).
U.S. Also preparing to find buried treasure in Montana that will pay the national debt!
Hypothesis: Washington DC has been invaded by a virus which rots the brains of politicians and their military brass. Apparently the virus dissolves the gray matter and replaces it with raw sewerage. I decided this based on the verbal effluvium which pours from their oral cavities.
Its not a virus…….its money.
I agree that these folks are rewarded with money. But their rot goes far deeper.
I dont believe the rot is any deeper. Vast sums of money = institutionalised, endemic, global corruption.
We need to place limits on peoples wealth to limit the corruption they can do.
Meanwhile, AG Garland travels to Kiev to give Ukrainian peons tips on how to dispense political justice to all opponents of the installed Dictator.
The US Army may be preparing to fight China.
That is not the same as preparing to win.
Winning is a lot more than fighting.
The US military has lost 20 years of wars of choice. It has yet to win one. That it would or even could win against China is not a foregone conclusion from just preparing to fight.
This is why fighting wars is a really bad idea.
Sure, the job of the military is to prepare as best it can. But talk of “preparing to win” is inviting trouble, and whistling past the graveyard.
Examine the problems.
It wasn’t trying to “win” those wars either, much like a mob enforcer shooting a target in the face is trying to “win” a fight. The goal is to use up munitions and spend trillions more; secondarily to break any nation that does not follow our international diktats. Winning would involve some geopolitical resolution beyond leaving a failed state behind (who sells oil in dollars, of course).
Lets change the name Wormuth to Warmoth.
To understand the deranged Biden administration we have to admit to ourselves that the owners of the MIC own the wealth of the nation. They govern in their own favor only at the expense of the people. Neoliberal economics serves their needs see the train wreck and the consequences in Palestine, OH.
To think a train with 150 cars including highly toxic chemicals, maybe 3 miles long, right through the middle of town along main street with only about 3 engineers on board of the train, and the response of the officials.
It is about as rotten as it gets.
Given Biden’s two-China policy, which China are we going to win a war with? My vote is for the war with the Taiwan China.
If there is a war it will be because WE (the usa) started it.
It would never cross her pea sized brain not to start another war.
Why do they want a war with China, could it be that they are well connected with the MIC? Austin was on the board of Raytheon is he still on a retainer now?
For several weeks the daily ‘clobber report’ by the Russian Defense Ministry reported some 350-400 Ukrainian soldiers killed per day along the whole frontline. On Thursday that number increased to 640, stayed at 640 in Friday’s report and increased to 880 in today’s report. 490 of those were reported in the Bakhmut area.
Bakhmut is in operational encirclement, soon to be a physical cauldron. The Ukrainian soldiers in Bakhmut are left with only two options: surrender or die.
So should Russian Defense Ministry “clobber report” numbers be discounted by 90%, or only 50%?
You tell me, you seem to be the oracle of all information. By all means post your more accurate numbers.
I am guessing that your option is for the drafted conscripts to die. After all they are just Ukrainians right?
You’re not a very good guesser. My option is for people to stop murdering each other in support of their respective street gangs / death cults.
I don’t pretend to have accurate numbers. The reasonable assumption is that the Russian MOD numbers, like the Ukrainian and US regime’s numbers, are composed of roughly half wishful thinking and half propaganda.
There is a solid foundation for the Russian MOD figures, example….they add 1 more fighter shot down, when you check on LiveUAMap they also show a Ukrainian fighter was shot down.
Be nice if US would stop murdering anyone, including their own in my opinion. I still remember Madeleine Albright saying the death of half a million Iraqi children was worth it. After they lied us into that war.
The US fleet would be gone in no time , they have admitted the fact that US carriers can`t get close enough to China to launch fighters and get them back before they run out of fuel , China`s hyper sonic missiles cover vast swathes of the pacific and are all most unstoppable , and any land bases the US sets up will become a target before a ounce of earth is moved .
“Fight and win”? They couldn’t “fight and win” against the Taliban, what makes them think they could “fight and win” against a near-peer military?
Zelenski of course got voted into power on a peace platform. The total betrayal of the working class in Ukraine is no different than anywhere else in the western world.
The Russian MOD is fighting a very successful war of attrition disarming NATO (Ukraine was disarmed in March), tank by tank, artillery by artillery, air defense by air defense.
NATO overall has accumulated the following equipment losses;
394 Aircraft, 216 helicopters, 3336 UAV’s, 409 Anti Aircraft systems, 8162 tanks inc. APC’s, 1050 multiple rocket launchers, 4282 rocket launchers and 8746 military automotive equipment.
What the empire looses in the Ukraine, they loose for the final Russian attack on NATO. Remember Russia attacked Ukraine just as NATO was about to unleash in the Donbass. Russia has shown they will pre-emptively attack to defend the Motherland when the time is dictated by events on the ground.
America needs to beef up it’s economy.
Not it’s military.
At their respective levels of growth?
Within 50 years?
China’s economy will be far more powerful than America’s.
And they will be able to outspend the US militarily.
Leave it to a SofS to say something as imbecilic as he just did.
When pigs fly…
Comments are closed.