I think that as they go for Taiwan, they will reinforce and then fully back the North Koreans. Ultimately, they want to go at Japan, and Korea is the gateway to Japan.Xeraphim1 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 11, 2022 3:25 pm
While I don't doubt that China wouldn't mind having NK tie down US forces, I do have to wonder how blatant they would be.
One thing I didn't see mentioned in the modelling is the fact that one of the first actions of the US (and allies) in any war with China would be an immediate distant blockade. Anything coming to/from China by ship would be stopped. China is already a major oil importer and while it has a strategic stockpile, that would only support the country for about 45 days (I think that's the figure) and that is without having major military operations which sucks up fuel in vast quantities. It would also stop the majority of raw material imports which would shut down a huge swathe of China's workforce. While China has been moving up in the value chain in manufacturing, it still has a huge amount of low level processing. Come a war and you'll have tens of millions out of work because no materials are coming up on top of the tens of millions out of work because there would be no exports. Another thing to consider is that a China at war with the West may be an irresistible target for India. I could see at least threatening moves toward Aksin Chin and parts of Tibet.
As for surprises, I also question how well it is modelling the networking abilities coming into being now. A common comment from pilots transitioning to the F-35 is how as soon as they power up they have access to much more information than they ever did before. Israeli pilots have said that from the parking apron they have a god's eye view of the entire region. Greater sensor integration will only improve this and the West has a huge advantage. This compresses the SEAD/DEAD cycle because of the ability to use stealthy forward craft to locate targets and hand off weapon release to platforms out of range of retaliation. I expect that air defenses will last for a much shorter time than is modelled which will allow air assets to move to interdiction and direct support more rapidly.
Mostly this goes back to my earlier comment that inherent bias in the game design will affect the results. I have no direct experience with any of the games by this company, but based on earlier war games I would not doubt that it's true.
Of course we would blockade China. They (and Russian) oil production will have to go only to military customers once war starts. I know the Chinese have been stockpiling strategic materials in preparation for this.
As for unemployment, the Chinese would move to a war economy, moving to direct command/control of all production. Plus mass conscription.
India moving on China while the Chinese are engaged might be something that happens. But it can easily backfire too. India/Pakistan troubles are always ready to break out, and with both having nukes, it could quickly become the biggest mess in the world.
I know that you believe that the tech edge of the West is what will allow us to quickly be victorious. If I was China, I would have EMP weapons ready to go at the outset (to take out unhardened electronics - which is most everything). I would also have teams ready to attack Airbases, whose security is rarely what it should be. I had a long conversation with an officer with first hand knowledge of what happen at Camp Bastion (Taliban infiltration attack by about 15 fighters got to the flight line and took out about 10 AV-8 Harriers and a C-130). This was a base in an active war zone. I think it will be even easier (and more effective) if airbases in peaceful countries are hit.
I also agree with the Design Bias bit, and I think I brought this up in the original article. As I did the fact that the aggressor usually has a number of surprises in store for the defenders, that can put quite a kink in defense plans.