U.S. aircraft carriers hold joint drills after ASEAN lambastes Beijing over South China Sea

[Reashot Xigwin]

No proof.

There's also no proof that the PLAN are any good & yet here I am giving them the benefit of the doubt. Just not against the A list countries.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

There's also no proof that the PLAN are any good & yet here I am giving them the benefit of the doubt. Just not against the A list countries.

You seem allergic to actually citing literature and actual analyses from sources like US Naval Institute and Rand (as biased as they are).

So I'll assume that you can think and aren't trolling for this time.

Read and understand this paper.

https://www.rand.org/blog/2019/10/how-the-united-states-could-lose-a-great-power-war.html

It doesn't mean it's true. But it means they are thinking about the possibility.

Basically, in this paper, Rand admits that the US may be unable to win directly on the battlefield and has to enlarge the war by either striking Chinese assets outside the scope of the war i.e. western China or by striking at the Chinese government and economy.

They then say that the first is ineffective because China doesn't care enough and the second could lead to a cataclysmic escalation to nuclear WW3.

So my question is:

1. Why would they worry about not being able to win directly if what you say is true?

2. Why would they worry about escalation if what you say is true?

 

[Figaro]

You seem allergic to actually citing literature and actual analyses from sources like US Naval Institute and Rand (as biased as they are).

So I'll assume that you can think and aren't trolling for this time.

Read and understand this paper.

https://www.rand.org/blog/2019/10/how-the-united-states-could-lose-a-great-power-war.html

It doesn't mean it's true. But it means they are thinking about the possibility.

Basically, in this paper, Rand admits that the US may be unable to win directly on the battlefield and has to enlarge the war by either striking Chinese assets outside the scope of the war i.e. western China or by striking at the Chinese government and economy.

They then say that the first is ineffective because China doesn't care enough and the second could lead to a cataclysmic escalation to nuclear WW3.

So my question is:

1. Why would they worry about not being able to win directly if what you say is true?

2. Why would they worry about escalation if what you say is true?

RAND is one of the most credible sources for military operations out there

 

[Reashot Xigwin]

You seem allergic to actually citing literature and actual analyses from sources like US Naval Institute and Rand (as biased as they are).

So I'll assume that you can think and aren't trolling for this time.

Read and understand this paper.

https://www.rand.org/blog/2019/10/how-the-united-states-could-lose-a-great-power-war.html

It doesn't mean it's true. But it means they are thinking about the possibility.

Basically, in this paper, Rand admits that the US may be unable to win directly on the battlefield and has to enlarge the war by either striking Chinese assets outside the scope of the war i.e. western China or by striking at the Chinese government and economy.

They then say that the first is ineffective because China doesn't care enough and the second could lead to a cataclysmic escalation to nuclear WW3.

So my question is:

1. Why would they worry about not being able to win directly if what you say is true?

2. Why would they worry about escalation if what you say is true?

Except we ain't discussing US strategy for winning a possible war against china we're discussing whether or not PLAN/China can defeat the US Navy in combat. The answer is no. As I already stated. You guys should really learn how to read. Also here's a much better article that actually goes into the detail but not enough if you ask me.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/we-asked-expert-imagine-us-china-war-we-wish-we-hadnt-88636
Here's what the US objectives would be like if it actually go to war with china:

War Aims

The US will pursue the following war aims:

1. Defeat the affirmative expeditionary purpose of the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN).

2. Destroy the offensive capability of the PLAN and People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF).

3. Potentially destabilize the control of the CCP government over mainland China.

The US can already achieve objective 1 & 2 with what she already have. Third one are doable.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Except we ain't discussing US strategy for winning a possible war against china we're discussing whether or not PLAN/China can defeat the US Navy in combat. The answer is no. As I already stated. You guys should really learn how to read. Also here's a much better article that actually goes into the detail but not enough if you ask me.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/we-asked-expert-imagine-us-china-war-we-wish-we-hadnt-88636
Here's what the US objectives would be like if it actually go to war with china:

War Aims

The US will pursue the following war aims:

1. Defeat the affirmative expeditionary purpose of the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN).

2. Destroy the offensive capability of the PLAN and People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF).

3. Potentially destabilize the control of the CCP government over mainland China.

The US can already achieve objective 1 & 2 with what she already have. Third one are doable.

The article doesn't say what you claim it says. It never affirmatively confirms that the US can even achieve those goals and admits 3 is a longshot.

You are intellectually dishonest.

 

[Reashot Xigwin]

The article doesn't say what you claim it says. It never affirmatively confirms that the US can even achieve those goals and admits 3 is a longshot.

You are intellectually dishonest.

Are you seriously this dense? A research study are not meant to be a detailed play book it just gives the general outline on what steps to take based on the informations at hand. Basically a guideline.

Also again because you seems to have a basic comprehension & reading problems. We're not discussing a possible war scenarios just combat scenario. The whole argument start on whether or not China can take on the US Navy. The answer is no. Based on respective technology & that China simply do not have an effective counter strategy against US CBGs.

If we expand it to war scenario the US would be able to bring her allies. That means Taiwan, S. Korea, Japan & possibly Vietnam & the Philippines (& maybe India because they more than likely want a hard drawn border if you catch my drift). That's not even including the Commonwealth nations. Then not only china have to fight the USN but the entirety of the Indo-Pacific Alliance.

1 thing the Study you cite forgot to mention & you failed to notice. Is that the whole scenario hinges on the assumption that US will be acting alone. The problem is in war things don't go "u wut bro fight me 1v1."

If you want to discuss this further then it's better to discuss what is more likely going to happen if China & the US goes to war. That means discussing how china are supposed to get out off of being attacked from all sides.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Are you seriously this dense? A research study are not meant to be a detailed play book it just gives the general outline on what steps to take based on the informations at hand. Basically a guideline.

Also again because you seems to have a basic comprehension & reading problems. We're not discussing a possible war scenarios just combat scenario. The whole argument start on whether or not China can take on the US Navy. The answer is no. Based on respective technology & that China simply do not have an effective counter strategy against US CBGs.

If we expand it to war scenario the US would be able to bring her allies. That means Taiwan, S. Korea, Japan & possibly Vietnam & the Philippines (& maybe India because they more than likely want a hard drawn border if you catch my drift). That's not even including the Commonwealth nations. Then not only china have to fight the USN but the entirety of the Indo-Pacific Alliance.

1 thing the Study you cite forgot to mention & you failed to notice. Is that the whole scenario hinges on the assumption that US will be acting alone. The problem is in war things don't go "u wut bro fight me 1v1."

If you want to discuss this further then it's better to discuss what is more likely going to happen if China & the US goes to war.

But that wasn't the scope of the question. You stated that 2 US carrier groups or 1/5 of the US Navy could defeat the entire PLAN.

 

[Reashot Xigwin]

But that wasn't the scope of the question. You stated that 2 US carrier groups or 1/5 of the US Navy could defeat the entire PLAN.

Are you being pedantic or serious? Yes, then some dude start listing out air based assets to strike at the USN & then to ground assets like Dongfeng ballistic missiles then it escalates from there by the US using air assets in Okinawa & Taiwan & using B1 bombers. But the argument remains mostly the same that the CBG can still take out the PLAN or effectively neutralizing it that it won't be much of a threat.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Are you being pedantic or serious? Yes, then some dude start listing out air based assets to strike at the USN & then to ground assets like Dongfeng ballistic missiles then it escalates from there by the US using air assets in Okinawa & Taiwan & using B1 bombers. But the argument remains mostly the same that the CBG can still take out the PLAN or effectively neutralizing it that it won't be much of a threat.

PLAN has its own naval aviation and missiles that are not under the rocket forces or air force, thus air/missile assets are not outside the scope of the question.

 

[Reashot Xigwin]

PLAN has its own naval aviation and missiles that are not under the rocket forces or air force, thus air/missile assets are not outside the scope of the question.

Except the dude clearly describing Airforce assets.

 

[Paul2]

You seem allergic to actually citing literature and actual analyses from sources like US Naval Institute and Rand (as biased as they are).

So I'll assume that you can think and aren't trolling for this time.

Read and understand this paper.

https://www.rand.org/blog/2019/10/how-the-united-states-could-lose-a-great-power-war.html

It doesn't mean it's true. But it means they are thinking about the possibility.

Basically, in this paper, Rand admits that the US may be unable to win directly on the battlefield and has to enlarge the war by either striking Chinese assets outside the scope of the war i.e. western China or by striking at the Chinese government and economy.

They then say that the first is ineffective because China doesn't care enough and the second could lead to a cataclysmic escalation to nuclear WW3.

So my question is:

1. Why would they worry about not being able to win directly if what you say is true?

2. Why would they worry about escalation if what you say is true?

Basically the they admit they don't have an option other than getting Ohios, and other strategic level assets to use right away in a limited scale conflict. USA sure has huge surface fleet, but they never though of surface combatants as a main offensive player, as naval air power was their focus.

It's 21st century now, and air power advantage is nowhere near what it used to be. They fear their main assets like carrier groups, and subs will have to be "spent" in attrition warfare, for which PLAN is way more prepared.

The proposed solution: "give even more money to the navy, and its contractors!"