[ranger207]

Wargames are designed to be lost. It's not as useful to say "welp we stomped all over them" as it is to push the forces being tested further and further until they break, then fixing or compensating where it broke and pushing even further. Wargames aren't constrained by reality, and the game's opposing force may be more powerful than in reality. Just hearing that the US lost a wargame doesn't mean anything without knowing more details. Think of a wargame as the military's version of a pentest.

[tablespoon]

> Wargames are designed to be lost. It's not as useful to say "welp we stomped all over them" as it is to push the forces being tested further and further until they break, then fixing or compensating where it broke and pushing even further.

Wasn't there a pretty famous case, in a wargame meant to simulate conflict with Iran, where the red team general actually played to win but the game leaders reset things with new constraints that played to US advantages?

There are also pretty significant intrinsic problems with a Taiwan strait conflict: it's literally in China's backyard and the PLA is modernizing so the US can no longer rely on having an overwhelming technological advantage. IIRC, Taiwan's military strategy also assumes that they'll have a technological over the PRC, so they haven't embraced asymmetric tactics as much as they should.

From my armchair, it seems to me that Taiwan needs to adopt something like the Israeli model, where pretty much their whole population is in the reserves and can be mobilized quickly for a conflict. The US needs to figure out a way to reinforce and resupply it, and disentangle its supply chains from China to make that workable.

However, I'm not hopeful with the kind of leadership we have now. It's thinking is too short term and it's unwilling to make any really costly commitments.

[ranger207]

You're probably thinking of the 2002 Millennium Challenge. That was a wargame plus a training exercise, which complicates things. For example, there were real US Navy ships out in the Persian Gulf, but to avoid disrupting commercial traffic they were confined to a specific area. The OPFOR (opposing forces) commander knew the confines, so he didn't have to scout for BLUFOR (US forces), and BLUFOR couldn't maneuver to avoid him. For another example, BLUFOR was jamming and destroying all of OPFOR's communications, so OPFOR switched to motorcycle runners. Unfortunately the simulation software didn't exactly support motorcycle runners, so they moved just as fast as radio communications but were invulnerable to BLUFOR strikes.

BLUFOR kept getting revived because it was also a training exercise in addition to a wargame. You've got dozens of ships gathered in the area to practice formation maneuvering, underway replenishment, etc, under wartime conditions. If you're on a ship that's blown up on day 2 of 20, what are you supposed to do for the rest of the time? It's better for training to revive casualties.

Stuff like this is why it's not easy to trust the outcome of a wargame.

[bryanrasmussen]

>Wasn't there a pretty famous case, in a wargame meant to simulate conflict with Iran, where the red team general actually played to win but the game leaders reset things with new constraints that played to US advantages?

yes, wargames are designed to be difficult to win, unless political expediency interferes with the design.

[sudosysgen]

It's an accurate portrayal. The US also made wargames where it won against China, that required future weapons systems against present-day China.

[Aeolun]

I mean, they’re playing a wargame against themselves, so technically they won too.

[coliveira]

Similar words were said right before the invasion of Afghanistan... Now we see the folly of foreign invasion.

[delecti]

We won Afghanistan fairly easily (a few months), and held it fairly easily for 19 years. And not to trivialize 4000 dead, but if it had mattered, that would have been a pretty small sacrifice.

Where we failed miserably was at turning the result into a stable country, but Taiwan is already a country.

[jacquesm]

Once upon a time Afghanistan was also a country.

[fnord77]

I don't think it was ever a _stable_ country.

[jacquesm]

https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2013/07/afghanistan-in-the...

Besides that, stability is always relative, in the longer term no country is ever stable, in the shorter term in the case of countries like Afghanistan they are stable about as long as other nations don't cross their borders.

Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and many others besides. All of these were at some point reasonably stable, and then someone somewhere decided to attempt to enlist them in one scheme or another and/or tried to wage a proxy war through them or actively tried to install regimes more friendly to foreign interests.

The Roman Empire in the long run also wasn't stable, but it fell to rot from within, as most countries eventually do. But in the case of Afghanistan the destructive force was applied from without.

[dirtyid]

Sure, but you can also examine recent US defense proposals / thinktank wonks gaming out indo pacific strategy, i.e. AGILE deployment in Japan, hosting IRBMs in region. The overwhelming pattern and prevailing consensus for those that follow the space is that despite proposals being aspirational / borderline geopolitical fantasy, US blobs aren't even pretending to pursue strategies that explicitly defend TW anymore. Force balance has changed so much with PRC military modernization that US simply cannot defend TW against PRC off her shores. So much so that it's barely worth speculating anymore. Focus is on containing PRC which =/= defending TW. Entirely different propositions that normies still try to conflate with TW defense.

[dforrestwilson]

Japan would care a lot if China made a move on Taiwan. They recently strengthened defense ties there.

Wouldn't just be the U.S.

Oh, and two of the above mentioned countries have real blue water navies that can go anywhere to cut supply lines like say, oil from the Middle East. One does not.

[smegger001]

the thing is Taiwan can't count on the US as we have demonstrated that we aren't willing to help when called on by a nation we have treaty obligations to. The US agreed to defend Ukraine from Russia in event of invasion in exchange for Ukraine getting rid of its nuclear stockpile. Then Russia invaded the Crimean peninsula, part of Ukraine, and the US did nothing.

Why would the US treat Taiwan any differently when China is the US biggest trading partner?

As for Japan, they are constitutionally prevented from declaring war.

So of Taiwans strongest alies, one cant defend them,and one wont defend them.

[dforrestwilson]

TSMC.

We legit need their semi production for defense much more than we need cheap plastic kids toys at Walmart.

[sudosysgen]

There is absolutely nothing that Japan could do.

Cutting oil from the ME would not be enough. China would ration oil and increase imports from Russia massively as well as reactivate domestic oil production, it would be great for the environment, China would carry on, and the US would make a lot of enemies.

[seanmcdirmid]

The Ryukyus are mostly adjacent to Taiwan, it’s also where most of America’s Japan based military bases are. So in terms of air power brought to bare, China has a huge hill to climb with enemies right next door. The main reason that China has pushed for dominance of the entire South China Sea is simply so that they aren’t easily hemmed in from the rest of the world.

A war between the USA and China would ultimately do no one good, even Chinese wolf warriors should realize that.

[sudosysgen]

No, it really doesn't. Japan doesn't have the capacity to deploy enough air power to affect the invasion. If Japan made the strategic mistake of getting involved militarily before the US, the Chinese would use ballistic missiles to strike Japanese airbases and supply infrastructure and carry on.

I agree it would do no good to have a war between the US and China for anyone. I want Taiwan to stay independent and chose its own destiny. But the reality is that China has an overwhelming advantage in-theater over anyone and it's only getting worse.

[simonh]

If China invaded Taiwan, Europe would stand together with the US on any retaliation. It would be the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait all over again, geopolitically. China would be cut off dead from the global economy, no matter the cost. I don’t think it would be practical to liberate Taiwan, but China would be ruined.

[sudosysgen]

China is not Iraq. It's insane to compare the two.

Europe was okay with the first invasion of Iraq because they frankly had very little to lose and a lot to gain.

Meanwhile suiciding the EU economy by cutting off Chinese exports would hurt the EU a lot more than it would hurt China and certainly much more than the invasion of Kuwait.

In any case I'd recommend reading what Chinese generals write on the subject. For the exact same reason as you cited they don't want to invade Taiwan unless "necessary" until the balance of trade shifts far more into the Chinese side.

Yet when confronted on the possibility of doing it now they make a very solid point. China is the only country in the world that produces everything it needs for daily operations, without a single exception, in one way or another.

That is to say, in the Chinese calculus, the EU and US cutting themselves off of Chinese trade would hurt the former more in the short term and medium term than it would hurt China, and their arguments for it are compelling.

Beyond that, the truth is that there is a lot more to the economy than the EU and the US. China would still trade with Russia, Africa, South East Asia, almost definitely South Korea, and most of Central and South Asia.

The real thing that is at issue in Chinese military planning is not a voluntary embargo, it's a blockade by the US. But even the ability for the US to execute such a maneuver is already questionable and dwindles every year, and it would assuredly royally piss of the entirety of the world and definitely kill millions outside of China from economic dysfunction.

[goatsi]

>China is the only country in the world that produces everything it needs for daily operations, without a single exception, in one way or another.

Tell me what I'm missing about their domestic oil industry then, because everything else I'm reading tells me they need to import around 10 million barrels of crude oil a day (primarily to produce gasoline and diesel, so it's very hard to substitute).

[c_o_n_v_e_x]

"China is the only country in the world that produces everything it needs for daily operations, without a single exception, in one way or another."

...produces finished goods. China cannot do this without massive imports of raw materials copper, iron ore, coal, etc. China has effectively colonized Africa for access to said raw materials.

Belt and Road is a way to set up overland routes to avoid any naval blockades.

[dirtyid]

JP/TW had "security" dialogue that basically amounted to JP begging Taiwan for semi fabs. JP isn't going to do shit because like US they're even less capable of defending TW. JP actions has been all rhetoric. It means nothing until they commit to credible but politically expensive actions. Some notional missile force increase on Ryukyu is theatre when what's needed is massive mobilization of main islands (and put every JP civilian in harms way) outside of Okinawa as prescribed in AGILE. It's not going to happen, they can't even commit to land based Aegis Ashore ABM to save themselves from NK nukes.

>One does not.

PRC has blue water Navy that operates up to ME and has been for years. It's also signifantly larger and more capable than Japans. I suspect you need to update understanding from old Zeihan powerpoints.

With respect to US, PRC has 30 CEP ICBMs which means USNavy vessels become scrap the second they pull into port. Even nuclear carriers can't stay at sea forever, nevermind their sustainment / oilers / resupply ships will be long gone. US carrier groups will likely be one-time deployment assets. This is roughly reality now, and and even more dire in the coming years. US can sink every PLAN ship on the waters and PRC can sink every USN ship in port. Or destroy entire east Asian fab supply chain, setting back US industry/tech decades. Or bait US security commitments in Korea / Japan which compels US to send assets within 1st island chain where they are weakest, negating point of blockade outside of 1st island chain. The wank over blockading PRC via Malacca / SLOC overlooks the fact that at minimum PRC can force US to sign a hegemony suicide pact. PRC can make US lose everything even in defeat. And is willing to over TW.

[dforrestwilson]

This is not your first wolf warrior post.

I don’t see a need to rebut your false claims and would encourage folks to read your comment history.

[dirtyid]

Acknowledging reality is wolf warrior now? Yes, I encourage people to read my comment history on the subject to get sense of current US/PRC strategic thinking and update their model likely formed by bad takes from pop Chinawatching sources. Consensus today is dramatically different than consensus from 5/10 years ago, yet there's still folks pretending TW is hard to invade / easy to defend nonesense arguments from 20 years ago.