I came across this Video with the same title as the OP here , i find it somewhat Interesting though i do feel that the Presenter has undermine Chinese Missiles and Defense Systems against the US navy and Air force but overall a Good comparison of Force , Battle , and outcome ..
What do you guys think is it accurate ? if yes than why you think it is ? and if its not accurate than what are your reasons ..
Please don't bring Irrelevant Countries here and keep the thread on Topic .
@Chinese-Dragon @Beast @Deino @Oscar @Khafee @Penguin @Basel @war&peace @Bratva @The Deterrent @The Eagle @MastanKhan @Rashid Mahmood @jhungary @gambit @Desertfalcon @DESERT FIGHTER @MilSpec @hellfire@waz
@TaimiKhan @WAJsal @Zaki @Blue Marlin @Syed.Ali.Haider
Althought I said I am going to need to focus on my school works (my final semester on my MPhil started 2 weeks ago) I am going to make an exception and comment on this post. I hope we can keep this civilize and to the point only to Strategic nature.
To begin with, let me point out a few assumption the video make that is generally not correct.
1.) In the video, it mentioned China will strike US bases in Japan while keeping Japan on the sideline (staying neutral), I don't see this coming, China would still be attacking Japan (albeit they are US bases) and Japan will engage with China if they are to attack US bases in Japan, and the Chinese will not simply attack US Bases in Japan, they will also attack Japanese own bases in Japan, due to the fog of war.
Likewise US Bases in South Korea, Singapore, Indian Oceans (which will bring UK to war), Afghanistan will be involve in such a war, and either China will have to leave all these bases alone or have to drag the above mentioned country for war.
I don't see China have enough soft power to pull an Israel during the First Iraq war, not to those nation anyway.
Once these country are at war with China (China have to attack those country otherwise those country will be make a safehaven to the US), the bases will increase multiple fold.
2.) The video assume the US will attack Chinese Military Power first, then industrial, then economical. From 1990 till now, all the pattern of US engagement suggest Industrial Power first, Economical second, then Military Target last.
3.) The video assume US will initiate the offensive and suffer major lost (it would) even if the back up fleet and materiel have not been arriving to support the war effort. The US will actually play defensively (as in the first part of Korean War) and US will play a delaying action until all accessible materiel in place, then the US will launch their offensive.
4.) If the video assume nuclear power will not be use, then China will also not be able to use DF-series misile (namely DF-21 and DF-26) as thsoe are nuclear capable missile. You cannot launch a nuclear capable missile without expecting a nuclear response
5.) The video did not mention US forces in Hawai'i and Alaska. Both are far shorter distant than US east and west coast to China.
6.) The video ignore the combat drone, logistic and supporting element (Such as EW, Intel, Cyberwarfare) for both Chinese and US military.
The assumption the video made I agree with.
1.) US will suffer a larger lost at the begining of the campaign, once all the materiel inplace, China will suffer more lost to the US.
2.) China would launch Airstrike against US bases in the Pacific, and the assumption that since China does not have a estabished logistic fleet, these flight will be graduately intercepted and destory due to lack of support.
3.) Without a land route (either from afghanistan or vietnam) US will not launch ground attack into China.
4.) the video assume PLAN have to stash their ship or risk losing them all is correct.
5.) China will forego Naval Defence and favor Land base defence.
6.) War of attrition will favor the US simply because US have more equipment than China.
Now, onto my comment.
Make no mistake, if a war between US and China were to happen now, the US will most definitely win this war. In fact, if there are any US/China war in the near future (near mean within 50 years from now), US wll still win the war, but the level of damage done to the US military will increase over time.
US will not attack at all unless they can secure a willing coalition for it, namely EU, Asian allies.
The only way China can possibly win is to take the initiative and engage and destory US and Allies asset in the begining of the war. However, this is most probably easy to say than done, even if China can eliminate the US/Allies threat completely (namely invade and take over Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Australia and other US bases in the Pacific) and thus denied US reinforcement to have access to these area. Chinese force would and should be combat ineffective and possibly drained and stretch their military too far and it would have been a easy prey for the US/Allies Reinforcement.
No doubt the US will fight a delay action on South Korea, Japan, US bases in the Area and wait for the rest of the US Navy and US Air Force power to be able to brought to bear.
The US will then uses Pearl Harbour and Hawaii as a stepping stone and support the war effort from there, local support can also be garnered from country such as Australia, Singapore and Indonesia.
Chinese have too little asset to denied the whole Pacific Ocean for the US military, not without majority of the surrounding country support (Namely, Vietnam, Thailand, the Philippines, North Korea, Malaysia and Indonesia), all of these country have to support the Chinese military in order to close off that part of the Pacific to the American, however, US have 10 CBG and 11 Assault Group with a LHD/LHA each, and the US Navy probably have more Naval power than all these countries, plus China, combine. Even if China can drag Vietnam, Thailand, Philippines, North Korea, Malaysia and Indonesia to its side, US Navy still be able to provide sea control to that part of the Pacific. Again, the nly difference is how much US would suffer before dominating the Eastern Pacific.
Pakistan will remain neutral otherwise risk India being drag into the war on US side.
The key of USAF and PLAAF show down is between Chinese sorties and US equipment making up these sorties, the numbe of sorties will largely depends on how much US can damage China air power in the begining stage of the action and Chinese effectiveness on striking US and Allies Air Force facilities.
I came across this Video with the same title as the OP here , i find it somewhat Interesting though i do feel that the Presenter has undermine Chinese Missiles and Defense Systems against the US navy and Air force
Missile defence alone cannot stop US combine Naval and Air Power, the problem is that missile defence only works if these ADS site are protected, but since US Navy alone is about 10 times stronge (Probably more) than PLAN, PLAN would have to comtemplate between stay and fight and being anninhilated in East China Sea (or Japan Sea) or have to bug out Somewhere and seek safe haven. And when that time come, the Chinese coast is then unguarded, and the US Navy can swim ashore and bombard the ADS site at will, it will resulting in thsee site moving generally inland. thus cannot protect the coastal structure, and unless US decided to invade China (Which would never happen unless a ground route is secured) These Air Defence site will be useless against US Air Force and Navy as they have to be positioned quite far inland to protect themselves from US Navy shore strike.
Also, the US have a very good EW and Intelligence Package, ADS remained in USAF coastal AO would be subject to Ironhand mission from a combine fleet of US Navy EG-18 and F-16CJ
Overall, the video would depict a similar outcome had a war between China and US to be fought today. But the video assumtion make the prediction more deadly to the US Military,and if there is a war between US and China, it will not be US and China alone. Local and International Participant will be a part of it, and at this stage, US have more friends than China in the regions.
mostly i agree with you and even where i don't i just need to ask few questions, but your analysis is very neutral .
