Chinese missiles can now reach as far as the US territory and military base in Guam. Picture: US Studies Centre
Daily Mail: US 'would lose a war with China fought in the Pacific, is unable to defend Taiwan from an invasion and fears the Guam military base is at risk NOW', Pentagon sources warn
* 'Eye-opening' Pentagon war games revealed the US is vulnerable to China and an attack from the superpower would lead to the US 'suffering capital losses'
* US defense sources told The Times that one Pentagon simulation based on the year 2030 resulted in the US being overwhelmed by the nation's force
* Every US base in the Indo-Pacific Command region is considered to be at risk of attack now with the US island territory Guam a particular concern
* Taiwan is the 'most volatile issue' between the two nations, sources said
* A source said the Pentagon is developing more hypersonic weapons and arming marine units along China's seas with anti-ship missiles in preparation
* The worrying analysis is expected to come to light in the Pentagon's 2020 China military power report this summer
* Tensions between the US and China have escalated in recent months as the coronavirus pandemic has ravaged the globe
The US would lose a war with China fought in the Pacific, is unable to defend Taiwan from an invasion and fears the Guam military base is at risk now, US defense sources have warned.
'Eye-opening' Pentagon war games have revealed growing fears the US is vulnerable to threats from China and that any attack would lead to the US 'suffering capital losses', the sources said.
The worrying analysis is expected to come to light in the Pentagon's 2020 China military power report this summer.
The stark warning comes as tensions continue to mount between the two nations after US President Donald Trump has blasted China's handling of the coronavirus pandemic and repeatedly suggested the nation lied about the extent of its crisis.
Read more ....
Update: ‘US would lose any war with China in Pacific’ (The Australian/The Times)
WNU Editor: If nuclear weapons are not used, a U.S.-Sino war will last a long time. I know Chinese war planners are confident that China will be able to consolidate its gains in a short war because they believe the U.S. will acquiesce to their demands. Many in China feel confident that the U.S. will not have the stomach for a prolonged conflict. I think this would be a terrible mistake. The Japanese felt the same way before Pearl Harbour, and we know how that ended. The Chinese are also underestimating the alliances that the U.S. has build over the decades. They are not going to be passive if they see China conquering countries and waging war. My prediction. If nuclear weapons are not used (and that is a big if), China will win the initial battles, but they will lose the war.
16 comments:
Aside from the alliances, and consistent with a post you shared yesterday, much of the world already distrusts or even despises the PRC...could you imagine who would do business with or in China after a major (even short) conflict? It's neighbors aren't only small countries that it can bully at will...Russia and India would be on high alert for the foreseeable future. It would further marry their passive aggression to unpredictable active aggression. They would lose the fight to be a respectable first world country in the modern era...if they haven't already.
India will change the war to a ground invasion sell nukes to Taiwan and Japanese military and Mongolia tell north Korea point all missiles south 4. 3 trillion dollars
Now what
Or armongedon
No one should want or promote war. All we ask for is an apology and admission of what happened. Why it was done. And if indeed what our intelligence agencies say is true, ie that Xi asked the WHO to delay info and all the other stuff, Xi must immediately resign and some reasonable reparations must be made. It won't bring back the dead or the jobs but at least it reduces our pain and this unspeakable insult we had to endure on top of it all. We do not seek the humiliation of our Chinese friends, nor the destruction of their economy. But the lies and resulting death and damage to us must be recognised publicly and strongly so. This must never happen again. And knowing Chinese - once they find out the truth - will want the same. They cannot be without honour.. living this lie would damage relations for decades and risk unintended war.
I think much of China's attitude towards a war as mentioned in the article depends on the acceptance of Xi's policies by the Chinese population. They may seem quiescent but that could be a surface image. The internet and travel has eroded a portion of the control the Chinese government had over the population after 1949. Some incidents have, I would think, opened eyes in the population. Hong Kong, 1989 Tia...[sp], and others have not been total successes in the governments following the end of Mao.
A war against it's neighbors and the US, if at a lower level and prolonged, will bring a drop in current living standards as China is dependent on world trade. Note the impact of the recent swine flu outbreak on the Chinese diet. The current lifestyle is dependent on imported fuels and maritime trade as was Japan's. The Japanese suffered greatly during WWII. Japan at War, an Oral History, H.T.Cook and T.F.Cook.
There will be no "winners" as in WWII. Some will lose more.
In a conventional war, they would
ultimately lose because they would face a very large alliance 360 degrees.
Unless of course they deploy Covid 20, then the USA will surrender im less than 24 hours.
War game simulations mean little. Simulations also said the U. S would have over 20,000 casualties in gulf war 1
If war game simulations mean little, then we do we listen to climate simulation results.
I can give you a 600 billion dollar a year reason why that won't happen.🤑
Somebody wants more money and power.
This looks like an attempted shakedown to me. After all it worked well for the people pushing the "lock downs." They derived extreme power from this and very likely great wealth so why shouldn't the Pentagon try the same thing.
Regarding the rstimated 20,000 casualties in Gulf War 1 that was actually a sanguine assessment. Essentially everything that could go right for the Coalition did and everything that could go wrong for Iraq did. Add to this extremely poor leadership on the part of Iraqi leaders hip and we had the result we had. On effect, we won the lottery!! It would be unwise to stake one's future on that occurring again!!
For example, if a man bets his last $5 on lottery tickets and wins $500 million he'd be unwise to bet his entire winnings in the hopes of winning $5 billion.
Gulf War 1 was an extremely unusual event that is unlikely to be duplicated. It'd be very unwise to base any decision making off of the results of Gulf War 1.
In essence fazman is right. Simulations like some types of training can be somewhat helpful but you still have to fight the war, just like in sports you still have to play the game. History's cemeteries are full of armies and generals who loudly lament "there's no way we/I should have lost".
James
Yes Fazman is right is right in a way. Add to this the "models" didn't factor in the tye extreme and breathtaking stupidity of Iraq's leaders. There's no way that could've possibly been predicated.
Essentially when "modeling" future conflicts between nations it'd be best to treat the Gulf War 1 as an outlier that isn't ever going to occur again any more than one wins the lottery twice in a lifetime.
"It would be unwise to stake one's future on that occurring again!!"
Merely stating a common truism.
Asymmetric warfare was practiced. The allies had superior air power and used it no differently than the Parthians did at Carrhae. At Carrhae the 2 armies were asymmetric. The Parthians had standoff weaponry. What was better it was mobile.
Other than Anti-Air Artillery, Sadam did not challenge allied air supremacy. Digging in like Sadam did is usually a good idea, but not when the enemy is interdicting you supply lines and pelting your troops like the Parthians did at Carrhae.
The Russian assisted the Iraqis some by selling GPS jamming gear.
Why id if the Russians assisted the Iraqis by telling them of the end sweep, it didn't matter for some reason. Either the Russians did not tell them or the US was too quick.
The Russians gave the Vietnamese satellite data in the 1979 was that was decisive.
Again either the Russians dd not give it the Iraqis so as to not piss off the US or the Iraqis were too slow.
Anyway, I smell the rankness of Tom, Bert & William.
saudibusiness
saudibusiness
saudibusiness
saudibusiness
saudibusiness
saudibusiness
saudibusiness/
saudibusiness/
saudibusiness
saudibusiness/
saudibusiness/
saudibusiness/
saudibusiness/
Post a Comment