China invades Taiwan

[Albany Rifles]

If Taiwan loses it then whatever logistics will be taken care of.

Want to explain how?

[Double Edge]

Once you convince the Politburo Standing Committee, Military Affairs Commission, oh, and the Chairman of Everything of your plan to woo Taiwan away from independence and freedom, be sure to post it here.

It's current CCP policy. They have not concluded that MMOTW has failed as yet.

Question is where/when is the tipping point

[Double Edge]

In all of history, this has been in one way and only one way. A mountain of skulls.

There is a counter to what I said.

CCP has done it before. Southern Mongolia, Xianjiang & Tibet. All military takeovers.

Taiwan is just another renegade province but with a difference, these guys are armed.

In theory, not a walkover like they had in the past. Even in the 50s not a walkover.

So there is going to be destruction and then rebuilding.

Back to logistics.

Am thinking deterrence.

If Taiwan loses it then whatever logistics will be taken care of.

[DOR]

That's a lesson China just learned the hard way. Their attempts to leverage their dominance of Australia's export trade for Australian agricultural products like wine, beef & seafood etc and for a (very brief period coal) have backfired - badly.

Firstly they're being taken to the World Trade Organization where they will lose (assuming they don't back-down before it gets to that point which IMO is quite likely since they won't want the loss of face that will go with losing multiple cases). Secondly Chinese domestic prices for all the embargoed/newly tariffed goods have spiked as the imports disappear. Lastly Australian producers have had their eyes opened to the risks inherent with relying on China as your major or in some cases only customer and are now busily diversifying, with a lot of success apparently away from China. Which means when they do decide to enter the market again they'll face more a lot completion.

End result? All they've achieved is making Australian imports more expensive for their own people. In fact IMO on balance China's embargoes etc have done us a favor. Everyone is now alert to the risks of doing business with them, something which it was better to learn sooner rather than later.

Finally and interestingly there's been a big spike of late in the exports of wine and luxury sea food to, of all places Hong Kong! Who knew? If it wasn't impossible one could almost think Chinese importers are simply starting to get around the tariffs etc by using third parties nations. Exporters suspect other foreign middlemen are getting in on the game as well.

…all that and a 2,000% increase in Aussie lobster exports to Hong Kong.
Which is now, as per a senior HK official, a national security issue: using HK to bypass China law.

I’m sure it is the first time that’s ever happened … not.

[Monash]

Huge amounts of Virginia pigs going to China makes Virginia vulnerable to an embargo, not China.
Huge portions of consumption dependent on imports makes one’s economy vulnerable to an embargo.

That's a lesson China just learned the hard way. Their attempts to leverage their dominance of Australia's export trade for agricultural products like wine, barley, beef & seafood etc and for a (very brief period coal) have backfired - badly.

Firstly they're being taken to the World Trade Organization where they will lose (assuming they don't back-down before it gets to that point which IMO is a distinct possibility since they won't want the loss of face that will go with losing multiple cases). Secondly Chinese domestic prices for all of the embargoed/newly tariffed goods have spiked as the imports decline in response. Lastly Australian producers have had their eyes opened to the risks inherent with relying on China as your major or in some cases only customer and are now busy diversifying their client base, with a lot of success apparently China. Result? China's economic & political leverage is declining apace. All of which means when they do decide to enter the market again they'll face more a lot completion and have much less influence.

End result? All they've achieved is making Australian imports more expensive for their own people. In fact IMO on balance China's embargoes etc have done us a favor. Everyone is now alert to the risks of doing business with them, something that was better learned sooner rather than later.

Finally and interestingly there's been a big spike of late in the exports of wine and luxury sea food to, of all places Hong Kong! Who knew? If it wasn't impossible one could almost think Chinese importers are simply starting to get around the tariffs etc by using third parties nations. Exporters suspect other foreign middlemen are getting in on the game as well.

[DOR]

Huge amounts of Virginia pigs going to China makes Virginia vulnerable to an embargo, not China.
Huge portions of consumption dependent on imports makes one’s economy vulnerable to an embargo.

[Albany Rifles]

I was unable to find useful data on food imports, particularly imports as a percentage of consumption.

Well I know large swaths of Virginia's pork & soy beans go to China. I mean Smithfield is a Chinese owned business.

[DOR]

Chinese imports


Coal: 32.88 mn tonnes (Sept 2021), +76% YoY

LNG: 10.62 mn tonnes (Sept 2021), +22.6% YoY

Natural Gas: +22.2% (Jan-Sep 2021 YoY)

Crude Oil: 10.36 mn bpd (Jan-Sep 2021), -6.8% YoY – draining stockpiles?

I was unable to find useful data on food imports, particularly imports as a percentage of consumption.

[Monash]

China does not have the naval power to break a distant blockade, but has a big enough domestic market to weather it short term.

The US can impose a distant blockade but lacks the political clout to see it sanctioned by the UN.

Russia and North Korea (via Russia) have rail links.

With food stuffs perhaps. I was thinking more in terms of energy and other key industrial inputs. As for the UN in the case of a direct, full scale invasion I doubt the US and key allies would care how much the UN dithered. On top of that virtually every nation in the region are going to have a collective fit at thought of what could happen if there is no united opposition. I would suspect there would be a substantial block of nations pushing for immediate sanctions regardless of China's and/or Russia's nay saying. In fact I suspect it would be easier for those nations to impose sanctions unilaterally and then stall China's objections in the UN than it would be to get approval for them in the first place.

[zraver]

Blockade is unlikely. More likely is US precision strikes on Chinese aircraft, marshalling yards and ships. Airpower can't win, but it can make it impossible for China to win.

China would try and deny Guam to the US but Ohio's and Virginia SSGNs and conus based B-1/2/52 bombers don't have to have access to Guam.

China could try and deny access to Okinawa, but that brings Japan in.

[zraver]

China does not have the naval power to break a distant blockade, but has a big enough domestic market to weather it short term.

The US can impose a distant blockade but lacks the political clout to see it sanctioned by the UN.

Russia and North Korea (via Russia) have rail links.

[Monash]

So back to the subject at hand. Assuming China did launch an invasion how effective would a strategy of blockading the South China Sea be as opposed to direct military intervention be? If China can't get so much as a gram of food, coal, iron, oil or gas etc in and not so much as a rowboat worth of goods out how long before the economic pressure forces them to withdraw? Or do they dig in.

[Albany Rifles]

Yes I pretty much expected that was the case. It just that calling the those units 'enablers' sounds so ...... buzz wordy.

We will leave no buzzword unturned....

[Monash]

While you choose the 2nd definition, we in the US DOD prefer the first definition of the word....

"...a person or thing that makes something possible."

Yes I pretty much expected that was the case. It just that calling the those units 'enablers' sounds so ...... buzz wordy.

[Albany Rifles]

Enabler ' a person who encourages or enables negative or self-destructive behavior in another.' I guess that term fits. You certainly can't move forward to the location where your supposed to be shot at if someone doesn't help you get there in the first place.

While you choose the 2nd definition, we in the US DOD prefer the first definition of the word....

"...a person or thing that makes something possible."