What is fuss over US coming to TW defense then? US wants to prevent PRC reunification regardless of method, that's ample reason for war. If US doesn't want war, just have state department tell PRC TW is internal problem.
> get its shit together
How, it takes years to build up modern atrophied industrial base + workforce. It will take even longer to degrade PRC industrial base. Reminder US vs Iraq took 5 carrier groups, favourable regional basing and unsustainably high tempo permissive operations 6 weeks to dismantle Iraq... scale that to PRC size... charitably 500x more industrially capable than Iraq with greater tech base, it will take US+co decades, and US MIC was much better capitalized then, and US industry more productive (as in actual material production not value add). Meanwhile, US basing and posture vs PRC is significantly worse than Iraq, i.e. relative fire generation ability is even worse at standoff range, assuming it even exists. It is innumerate thinking US+co can substantially degrade PRC knowing basic numbers. Either way this is dependant on PRC mainland being hit, is US going to permit mainland attacks from 1IC? What if PRC creams JP, PH for using basing to undermine PRC efforts? Attacking via proxies isn't some magical lifehack that keeps CONUS safe, especially with US basing. This isn't UKR where US has deniability shipping shit from Poland. Hitting mainland from theatre with US basing opens proportional CONUS attack.
> land oriented
Who cares? It's not about land/sea/air oriented, it's about long range strikes oriented, just because PRC doesn't double down on supremely vulnerable legacy navy/airforce to project fires doesn't mean they cannot prosecute long range fires. Again this is 2025, that 8000km DF27 land attack to CONUS exist for a reason. Other missiles to hit tankers/unrep within stand off range etc all the logistics chain that USN and USAF depends to even operate in theatre. There's a reason why is DDGX and FAXX getting the ugly step child treatment, because none of them or their sustainment are survivable in their platform range. When US depend on middle platform to deliver fires, and those middle platforms cannot operate because their even more vulnerable sustainment goes boom, US muh boats and planes is at massive long range fires disadvantage over "land" based fires that simply skips middlemen. And PRC gets to do that precisely because they have industrial base to make disposable single shot long range fires economical.
Extrapolate to land attack US infra with modest DF27 upgrade, that's all of CONUS oil infra going boom too. Everything US can do to PRC, PRC can do to US in short term, if not already because DoD reports tend to be behind the times. Who do you think will fare better then? PRC with 4x more energy infra for US to strike and magnitude more distributed energy infra. So yes, of course the answer is more missiles because PRC prompt global strike explicitly to attack CONUS strategic targets conventionally was written in PLA future doctrine as far back as 2010s. They explicitly are circumventing vulnerable naval fires for global fires straight from mainland because they understand US Navy+airfoce expeditionary model is shit fucked, having spent 20 years building all the tools to dismantle it. Meanwhile, US institutionally locked into shit fucked model, because again, by law US cannot divest from it.
>bomb Japan and Korea
Yes? If US drawn into TW scenario, escalation logic incentivized to align with geopolitical logic, which is to displace US out of east Asia, which calls for bombing JP/SKR/PH or anyone that assists US materially. They are absolutely on the menu because the gains are huge. As for Saudi + others, just US bases if they contribute to undermining PRC interests. If oil ain't flowing to PRC because US pressure, then remove US pressure. Again note all of CENTCOM is in PRC missile range, that is by design.
>nobody can do anything about it
Did I say that? I said PRC will receive counter fire, but not at scale vs what PRC can dish out. Nobody can do _enough_ about it, that's patently realistic when you look at stockpiles and force balance. Go back to the Iraq example. Now realize PRC has magnitude more than US+co in firepower targeted at JP/SKR/PH etc than US+co has via Iraq.
>escalates to nuclear war
Because I don't think it will. I think it's frankly cope rhetoric US delulus themselves into thinking US can maintain presence in another upcoming hegemons backyard because nukes. That bluff is going to get called because alternative is ceding regional hegemony aspirations forever because US cray cray and will nuke if they can't preposition on other side of globe. BTW PRC went to war with USSR, US in KR, shadow fought France in IndoChina, threated UK over HK, border skirmish with India, aka almost every nuclear state, over strategic considers much less important than TW. US threatening nukes vs PRC over TW isn't credible, nuclear umbrella isn't going to save JP/SKR/PH if they assist US in TW.
>China is building so many surface ships
But they're not? They have 300x military shipyard capacity than US, with CSCC producing more tonnage than ALL US postwar shipbuilding, a period where US was rolling out full carriers every year. PRC not doing that, they are keeping an absolutely modest navy relative to their productive capability. PRC military ship building is <1% of total shipbuilding capacity, every other naval power was dedicating 20-50% during peacetime. PRC match low end of that they're launching 80 carriers a year with dry docks sized to fit. PRC naval acquisition is best described as cautiously sufficient for regional overmatch, i.e. be more powerful than US+co in PRC backyard where they need peacetime presence. There's a reason rocket force is the most prestigious / pillar and reported directly to CMC before recent reforms.
>GWOT
C'mon you think GWOT built any surface warfare competency, see Yemen, see 7th fleet crashing left and right. It's negative experience, history has show correct doctrine + training > legacy experience time and time again.
>don’t really accept your theory... change mind
Don't? I'm not here to change your mind. This is public for others to draw conclusions based on argument.
>rejoin peacefully
Let's not pretend US isn't funding NGOs and various political groups to spike peaceful reunion efforts before HK. Reality post US sponsored sunflower movement was it's obvious if PRC wanted TW back before 2049, or prior due to generational voting habits, they'd have to fight for it. It just so happens fighting may ultimately be the PRC quiet preferrable route since retaking TW peacefully doesn't displace US out of east Asia, only drawing US into TW conflict does. So yes, I disagree, I think US overplayed it's hand pretending it can intervene in TW, and legitimizes PRC reason for extended war, and will end my comments here since impasse.
What is fuss over US coming to TW defense then? US wants to prevent PRC reunification regardless of method, that's ample reason for war. If US doesn't want war, just have state department tell PRC TW is internal problem.
> get its shit together
How, it takes years to build up modern atrophied industrial base + workforce. It will take even longer to degrade PRC industrial base. Reminder US vs Iraq took 5 carrier groups, favourable regional basing and unsustainably high tempo permissive operations 6 weeks to dismantle Iraq... scale that to PRC size... charitably 500x more industrially capable than Iraq with greater tech base, it will take US+co decades, and US MIC was much better capitalized then, and US industry more productive (as in actual material production not value add). Meanwhile, US basing and posture vs PRC is significantly worse than Iraq, i.e. relative fire generation ability is even worse at standoff range, assuming it even exists. It is innumerate thinking US+co can substantially degrade PRC knowing basic numbers. Either way this is dependant on PRC mainland being hit, is US going to permit mainland attacks from 1IC? What if PRC creams JP, PH for using basing to undermine PRC efforts? Attacking via proxies isn't some magical lifehack that keeps CONUS safe, especially with US basing. This isn't UKR where US has deniability shipping shit from Poland. Hitting mainland from theatre with US basing opens proportional CONUS attack.
> land oriented
Who cares? It's not about land/sea/air oriented, it's about long range strikes oriented, just because PRC doesn't double down on supremely vulnerable legacy navy/airforce to project fires doesn't mean they cannot prosecute long range fires. Again this is 2025, that 8000km DF27 land attack to CONUS exist for a reason. Other missiles to hit tankers/unrep within stand off range etc all the logistics chain that USN and USAF depends to even operate in theatre. There's a reason why is DDGX and FAXX getting the ugly step child treatment, because none of them or their sustainment are survivable in their platform range. When US depend on middle platform to deliver fires, and those middle platforms cannot operate because their even more vulnerable sustainment goes boom, US muh boats and planes is at massive long range fires disadvantage over "land" based fires that simply skips middlemen. And PRC gets to do that precisely because they have industrial base to make disposable single shot long range fires economical.
Extrapolate to land attack US infra with modest DF27 upgrade, that's all of CONUS oil infra going boom too. Everything US can do to PRC, PRC can do to US in short term, if not already because DoD reports tend to be behind the times. Who do you think will fare better then? PRC with 4x more energy infra for US to strike and magnitude more distributed energy infra. So yes, of course the answer is more missiles because PRC prompt global strike explicitly to attack CONUS strategic targets conventionally was written in PLA future doctrine as far back as 2010s. They explicitly are circumventing vulnerable naval fires for global fires straight from mainland because they understand US Navy+airfoce expeditionary model is shit fucked, having spent 20 years building all the tools to dismantle it. Meanwhile, US institutionally locked into shit fucked model, because again, by law US cannot divest from it.
>bomb Japan and Korea
Yes? If US drawn into TW scenario, escalation logic incentivized to align with geopolitical logic, which is to displace US out of east Asia, which calls for bombing JP/SKR/PH or anyone that assists US materially. They are absolutely on the menu because the gains are huge. As for Saudi + others, just US bases if they contribute to undermining PRC interests. If oil ain't flowing to PRC because US pressure, then remove US pressure. Again note all of CENTCOM is in PRC missile range, that is by design.
>nobody can do anything about it
Did I say that? I said PRC will receive counter fire, but not at scale vs what PRC can dish out. Nobody can do _enough_ about it, that's patently realistic when you look at stockpiles and force balance. Go back to the Iraq example. Now realize PRC has magnitude more than US+co in firepower targeted at JP/SKR/PH etc than US+co has via Iraq.
>escalates to nuclear war
Because I don't think it will. I think it's frankly cope rhetoric US delulus themselves into thinking US can maintain presence in another upcoming hegemons backyard because nukes. That bluff is going to get called because alternative is ceding regional hegemony aspirations forever because US cray cray and will nuke if they can't preposition on other side of globe. BTW PRC went to war with USSR, US in KR, shadow fought France in IndoChina, threated UK over HK, border skirmish with India, aka almost every nuclear state, over strategic considers much less important than TW. US threatening nukes vs PRC over TW isn't credible, nuclear umbrella isn't going to save JP/SKR/PH if they assist US in TW.
>China is building so many surface ships
But they're not? They have 300x military shipyard capacity than US, with CSCC producing more tonnage than ALL US postwar shipbuilding, a period where US was rolling out full carriers every year. PRC not doing that, they are keeping an absolutely modest navy relative to their productive capability. PRC military ship building is <1% of total shipbuilding capacity, every other naval power was dedicating 20-50% during peacetime. PRC match low end of that they're launching 80 carriers a year with dry docks sized to fit. PRC naval acquisition is best described as cautiously sufficient for regional overmatch, i.e. be more powerful than US+co in PRC backyard where they need peacetime presence. There's a reason rocket force is the most prestigious / pillar and reported directly to CMC before recent reforms.
>GWOT
C'mon you think GWOT built any surface warfare competency, see Yemen, see 7th fleet crashing left and right. It's negative experience, history has show correct doctrine + training > legacy experience time and time again.
>don’t really accept your theory... change mind
Don't? I'm not here to change your mind. This is public for others to draw conclusions based on argument.
>rejoin peacefully
Let's not pretend US isn't funding NGOs and various political groups to spike peaceful reunion efforts before HK. Reality post US sponsored sunflower movement was it's obvious if PRC wanted TW back before 2049, or prior due to generational voting habits, they'd have to fight for it. It just so happens fighting may ultimately be the PRC quiet preferrable route since retaking TW peacefully doesn't displace US out of east Asia, only drawing US into TW conflict does. So yes, I disagree, I think US overplayed it's hand pretending it can intervene in TW, and legitimizes PRC reason for extended war, and will end my comments here since impasse.