If the old ways were not working, why not try a new approach!

The US would currently lose against China. Its standard response used to be to defuse a Taiwan crisis by sailing a couple of carriers through the Taiwan straits . With current carrier numbers available , 9, and current deployment patterns with only two forward deployed globally, it would take weeks to find 2. Two carriers at present would be incredibly vulnerable there - to local Chinese air and missile power, and Chinese submarines . its carriers go around with small escort forces, its submarine fleet is too small to meet warfighting requirements , and its airpower is reliant on bases in Guam , Okinawa and Tainan, that have runways within Chinese missile range. China has a big , modernising, airforce , extensive air defences, and hardened airfields .Its nuclear force is being grown to be able to kill 100 million Americans - which the Chinese think will make America think again in any crisis.

The problem isn't that either side would try and find out who would lose most - Its that China would now be far more inclined to discount any US deterrent moves.

Russia can't fight American airpower , but it can over-run much of Europe because it has an overwhelming advnatgae in artillery and tanks. The geography is such that strategic forces would soon get caught in the crossfire , and theatre and tactical nulcear use would be considered early on. That might help deterrence, but it might invite Russian attack in desperate political circumstances, depending on how many risks they think the opponent will take. Once it goes nuclear , there's no nuclear winners - even less so in flyover America where the nuclear bases, attracting most bombs , are

no it can not.

the USSR had entire divisions dedicated to logistics, Russia doesn't. On paper it has an incredibly large army, in reality how many of them are poorly trained conscripts?

the bear is grossly over hyped as a military power.

china on the other hand, that is why in the past two decades american policy has changed from keeping japan down to encouraging them to re arm.

Because the US is historically responsible for Taiwan's security, and it would lose international credibility if it did nothing. There's also the legal commitment to defend Taiwan under the Taiwan Relations Act . And the consequences for breaking any one of the US 's security treaties.

The curent context is that China has pretty much deatt with the shortfalls in its military capability to invade Taiwan . Its improved its air , naval and amphibious capability, and its ability to use missiles to destroy Taiwan's airfields and defences. Taiwan's armed forces have shrunk , and become less modern . The Chinese now have the option they didn't use to have if theymobilise their merchant navy in support of an invasion.
http://www.ustaiwandefense.com/tdnsw...c-of-China.pdf

China is also modernising its stratgeic nuclear force and already has about 100 warheads, and big ones too, that can hit America Thats rising realtively fast as new multiple warhead DF 41 missiels enter service.
http://tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1...2.2016.1194054

And its deploying multiple systems to deal with both US airbases within the region http://www.defensenews.com/story/def...ange/84279494/ and US carriers http://nationalinterest.org/feature/...-missile-11321

You are quite deluded about China's actual military capability.

The USA sends its fleet close to China every two years and conducts military exercises.

China does not reciprocate because it can't.

The USA currently has 50 warheads for every Chinese one even though it has allegedly 'retired' the majority of its nuclear weapons. Its delivery systems are vastly superior to the Chinese ones.

On conventional warfare capability the Chinese are completely outclassed. They have more actual soldiers not vastly more but more. What use are those against modern weaponry?

I quote again the real world military position.


" China's nuclear arsenal and delivery capability is a tiny fraction of the USA's.

On conventional weapons and military budgets, take the worlds military superpowers.

China
Russia
United Kingdom
India
France
Japan
Germany
South Korea
Brazil
Australia
Italy
Iraq
Israel


The USA's military budget is the larger................................................................... of them all added together!!

China's manpower won't exactly cut the mustard against modern sophisticated weaponry."



Maggie

Criticising China for building military bases - oh the irony.

Its potentially huge because Trump is implying recognition of a rival claimant to be the legitimate 'China'. The official name of Taiwan is "Republic of China" which succeeded the last emperor in 1911

You have no understanding of nuclear strategy. China has a counter value/counter city strategy . it aims to be able to kill 100 million Americans . It doesn't have a need for much bigger numbers, because its not engaged in targeting US strategic forces - which would take warhead requirements well past a thousand, or protecting allies which requires more cabaility still. It doesn't need great accuracy, and it has bigger warheads on its missiles- to maximise their effect on cities. . Its also protected its missile force with underground facilities, road mobile systems, the US can't track, and air defences t- hat prevent US aircrfat flying around looking for them. . The consequence of that is that a homeland exchange, where the US hits China at all, runs the risk of escalating - to The US losing a third of ts population and its major cities.

The US has no defence against a significant ICBM attack , the system in Alaska is designed to deal with a far smaller N Korean attack , and doesn't yet work reliably . China has more missiles to shoot, than the US has bought interceptors.

China covers targets in India, and Russia, with shorter ranged systems - so it doesn't need ICBMs for other threats either. The US has most of its long ranged warheads, unavailable , and assigned to Russia.

China's also got a regional nuclear capability, and a large conventional missile capability, that can target all US airbases in the region. US airpower anyway is limited by the distance back to its airbases , and China is now exploiting this - by building its capability to take down Us tankers, so US fighters can't fly far enough, in big neough numbers. . And China's also got a formidable , anti-ship missile capacity, that can overwhelm the defences any US carrier group goes around with. The US has no defence against some weapons, and 4 escorts is not going to be enough to fight off hundrds of incoming misisles, plus aircraft, plus submarines, all at once. Operating against similar Russian defences was a job for 4 carriers - which the US would now take 6 months to assemble . Thats why the US Navy is now arguing for more ships, new offensive weapons, and better defences - most won't arrive till Trump is no longer eligible to be President.

The bottom line, is that the US Navy can't risk responding quickly to aggression on Taiwan , as it will lose conventionally. if shooting starts. . If it waits, to assemble a big enough force, Taiwan will be gone. China knows this. They also know that the US doesn't have good conventional responses elsewhere - planes on Guam would be dodging incoming missiles and craters. The US also can't rationally escalate to a nuclear response - even if a carrier is lost, because New York or LA is then at risk of not being there in 30- 35 minutes. China has escalation control, and the US would be the one to have to decide to go nuclear and start trading cities.

The more the Chinese believe their modernisation has covered the threat, and the more US cities they can threaten , the more they will discount US protection of Taiwan, or the region. Americans shouting how great their armed forces are, and America is the greatest , isn't going to impress them . They can count , and read about the state of US forces, and have tailored their investments for precisely the job of deterring the US in their region. Indeed, acting while they are ahead, and before US modernisation becomes more significant, from the late 2020s onward, has a certain logic.

Oh dear . Trump is still doing the bull in a China shop act - literally.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...e-china-policy

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/11/us...=top-news&_r=0

He wants them to make economic concessions to him, or he will abandon the One China strategy. So he expects to control their economic policy, and tell them what they are allowed to see as part of China. Thats not going to end well .

Taiwan will either refuse to play in this nonsense, or become more at risk of Chinese invasion if it agrees , or he starts uparming it. China will just tell Trump where to go, and where he borrows his money from China knows its own military capabilities, and has a good idea of US weaknesses so thats not going to impress them either. Trump on the other hand, seems to believe his own nonsense, about how Great America is., and isn't bothered about briefings or facts. Ironically, China believing they are dealing with a mad fool, may be the best, remaining , deterrent the US has.

China doesn't seem very mpressed with Trump's hot air . it knows how to send nuclear messages too - this one says my cruise missile launcher can do what yours can .....
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7468021.html

Isn't this an indication that as a business man his priority are the commercial threats rather than the military threats to America.

This is not the first time he has told China what its monetary & commercial policy should be and should seek approval from him.

It probably explains why he wants the EU broken up, as leaves 27 commercially weaker countries which American companies can dominate.

Partly. He thinks everything is about money, and money is his priority. But he's not bullying some contractors here , and the Chinese are defending whats politically and historically vital to them, Its also their military backyard he's playing in.

He's basically used to telling people what to do, and bullying those who show any opposition . And he lacks the knowledge, ability, and application, to try and find out what the other guy wants, or can do to him. .

In this case, he's over estimating US power , underestimating how long it would take for any defence build up to produce anything much, missing the impact on the US of a trade war, and threatening to take China on in a competition they will win - militarily or economically,