What would a modern naval battle be like?

[uk 75]

There has been no large scale action between rival navies since World War2.
There are many simulations available of what might have happened if US and Soviet warships had clashed in the Atlantic or Mediterranean. But we do not know how accurate or realistic these are.
Generally there are significant losses of most major units in a short space of time.
Carriers are either disabled or sunk by missile or torpedo attack.
The one modern naval action, the sinking of the Argentine cruiser Belgrano by a British nuclear sub seems to underline this.
Escort ships like the USS Stark or the British destroyers and frigates sunk or damaged in the Falklands conflict are even more fragile.
This all suggests that any encounter between the Chinese Navy and it's opponents would be over quickly with massive losses.

 

[Foo Fighter]

IMHO, most likely, yes.

 

[TheRejectionist]

There has been no large scale action between rival navies since World War2.
There are many simulations available of what might have happened if US and Soviet warships had clashed in the Atlantic or Mediterranean. But we do not know how accurate or realistic these are.
Generally there are significant losses of most major units in a short space of time.
Carriers are either disabled or sunk by missile or torpedo attack.
The one modern naval action, the sinking of the Argentine cruiser Belgrano by a British nuclear sub seems to underline this.
Escort ships like the USS Stark or the British destroyers and frigates sunk or damaged in the Falklands conflict are even more fragile.
This all suggests that any encounter between the Chinese Navy and it's opponents would be over quickly with massive losses.

Who would bear the most losses ? Chinese or opponents? Or both?

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Depends on whether or not the US Navy has been keeping up to date and fixed the issues that keep resulting in embarrassment in the past few years.

I do have a lot of concerns. The timeline for the next destroyer seems too long and even the new frigate seems to be taking too long for a warship based on an existing design with components mostly already in service. Getting a new generation of missiles in service including the hypersonic strike ones is going to be crucial. F/A-XX seems to be moving along at a snail's pace too and the Super Hornet simply won't cut it against the latest threats.

I haven't kept up on news on the directed energy weapon (lasers) front so maybe there is some good news there for defense of the surface fleet?

 

[uk 75]

Battle of Tsushima - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

History warns us that a new emerging naval power can spring some surprises. But not sure that there are too many parallels

 

[Desertfox]

There has been quite a large number of small scale naval "combats" thought they share more similarities with ancient Roman vs Carthage, with plenty of ramming and boarding, than say WWII.

 

[In_A_Dream]

"If you have to fight, punch first, and punch hard"

I think the biggest threat the USN has to watch out for is a large scale drill that's masking a full scale attack. Otherwise, the pre-attack ruckus would be enough to alert the DoD to something amiss. Not many nations today are capable of that and the ones that are (namely China), would have the capability to overwhelm anything & everything in the Western Pacific.

More than likely very, very heavy casualties and losses by the USN, low-to-medium losses by the PLAN.

Then comes everything else.

 

[Manuducati]

The YouTube channel HypOps has a couple interesting (IMHO) videos about that subject.

View: https://youtu.be/rzw68Wt77aA

View: https://youtu.be/vJXWJ-Px5tU

 

[Scott Kenny]

There has been no large scale action between rival navies since World War2.
There are many simulations available of what might have happened if US and Soviet warships had clashed in the Atlantic or Mediterranean. But we do not know how accurate or realistic these are.
Generally there are significant losses of most major units in a short space of time.
Carriers are either disabled or sunk by missile or torpedo attack.
The one modern naval action, the sinking of the Argentine cruiser Belgrano by a British nuclear sub seems to underline this.
Escort ships like the USS Stark or the British destroyers and frigates sunk or damaged in the Falklands conflict are even more fragile.
This all suggests that any encounter between the Chinese Navy and it's opponents would be over quickly with massive losses.

Likely, yes.

The real question is what happens after the first major fight. (My mental image is one very mangled carrier group running like hell out of the A2AD zone as a result of the first fight. Probably just the carrier and one DDG left, with the DDG absolutely out of SAMs.)

I suspect that the US would simply order the submarines into action, and warn any US allies that we have declared certain areas "submarine hunting zones" - any submarine found there is assumed to be hostile and will be treated as such (ie, snuck up behind and blown out of the water). Yes, China has more submarines than the US does. None of them are individually as good as the 688i still in service, let alone Virginias, the two available Seawolves, the 4 SSGNs...

After about 6-9 months, China would likely not have many submarines left. US would definitely be down some as well, hopefully not as bad as the 1 in 6 lost during WW2.

I think the real question is whether someone declares "unrestricted submarine warfare" again, and makes every Chinese-flagged merchant ship a legal target. Or even making every ship visiting a Chinese port a legal target.

 

[uk 75]

There are a few similarities between Taiwan and the Falklands. Both involve a neighbouring country able to take the islands by amphibious assault and then use its airpower to make life hard for enemy surface forces. The naval forces of the defender have a key advantage in nuclear submarines to control the seas and blockade the opponent.
US commanders will be obliged to put their scarce carriers in harms way in order to reinforce Taiwan. Land based airpower will overwhelm them if they get in range.
Decisive blockade of enemy ports by nuclear submarines will be essential. If action is taken too early the US risks being labeled the aggressor. The UK was reluctant to interdict the Argentine amphibious forces before they invaded and the sinking of the Belgrano remains controversial despite having saved many British lives by keeping the Argentine navy home.
The role of nuclear submarines in detering an invasion is crucial. China should be reminded that US submarines are always present and will act quickly and decisively.

 

[shin_getter]

I don't think the US would even commit the USN to decisive battle with PLAN unless all other forces like USAF, Taiwanese and Japanese forces are failing in opposing a landing and there is very high levels of motivation somehow. The surface USN forces probably will be doing a distant blockade and escort ships going into Japan and Guam for most of the war.

What is more likely to require surface USN action is running the blockade after a stalemate. Frankly I see this fight as ugly as the worst of Malta convoy battles.

The near complete lack of investment in blockade running means China probably would win by outlasting Taiwan if it is willing to endure being cut off from world markets for long periods of time.

If there were and forces that landed and the war lasts long enough for industrial response, USV will probably be "surprisingly" effective. Unmanned subs is just cheap and subs are just hard to deal with. Unfortunately I don't think USV resupply can save the campaign given the state of US shipbuilding.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The near complete lack of investment in blockade running means China probably would win by outlasting Taiwan if it is willing to endure being cut off from world markets for long periods of time.

I'm not sure China could survive that. China as a whole is still highly dependent on exports to fuel their economy.

 

[Dilandu]

The near complete lack of investment in blockade running means China probably would win by outlasting Taiwan if it is willing to endure being cut off from world markets for long periods of time.

What do you means as "investment in blocade running"?

 

[Scott Kenny]

What do you means as "investment in blocade running"?

Ways around a total embargo.

 

[Dilandu]

Ways around a total embargo.

The simplest way for China around a total embargo is the fact, that such embargo would cause much greater damage to the USA and West than for China. China is the world leading economy, the largest industry. China produced the absolute majority of real industrial production in the world - more than a half of total world steel, aluminum, chemicals, a majority of machine tools, shipbuilding, ect., ect., ect. Total embargo against China would collapse USA and EU economy - while China would continue to trade with the rest of the world.

 

[Dilandu]

About the topic - I suspect, that modern "major" battle would be more like ultimate Jeune Ecole concept of "continious action", rather than second Jutland or Midway. It would be a constant attacks of different magnitude against targets of opportunity, mainly done by standoff weaponry. Both sides would be constantly probing each other across the whole battlespace, seeking the vulnerability to exploit, the weak spot to immediately launch a massive attack against. The destruction of enemy warships would be less a priority than interdiction of enemy communications and logistic, and surgical strikes against important objects.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The simplest way for China around a total embargo is the fact, that such embargo would cause much greater damage to the USA and West than for China. China is the world leading economy, the largest industry. China produced the absolute majority of real industrial production in the world - more than a half of total world steel, aluminum, chemicals, a majority of machine tools, shipbuilding, ect., ect., ect. Total embargo against China would collapse USA and EU economy - while China would continue to trade with the rest of the world.

Yet China's economy is still heavily export-dominated. They don't consume much of what they produce.

Yes, the US and EU putting an embargo on China would do hideous things to the US and EU economies.

But 20% of China's economy is directly made up of exports (value of exported goods as a % of the economy). Then there's paying the employees that make the products. And all the people that serve the factory workers, the restaurants and entertainment, etc. Those "extras" are typically close to the value of the goods exported.

So imagine what happens to China when 40% of their economy goes away.

About the topic - I suspect, that modern "major" battle would be more like ultimate Jeune Ecole concept of "continious action", rather than second Jutland or Midway. It would be a constant attacks of different magnitude against targets of opportunity, mainly done by standoff weaponry. Both sides would be constantly probing each other across the whole battlespace, seeking the vulnerability to exploit, the weak spot to immediately launch a massive attack against. The destruction of enemy warships would be less a priority than interdiction of enemy communications and logistic, and surgical strikes against important objects.

Agree with the "dominated by standoff weaponry" part.

But I think the kickoff attack(s) will try to look like Pearl Harbor, damaging as many ships in the US Pacific Fleet as possible as much as possible. Because the carriers have to go around the Horn to get from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Take 2-3 carriers out of the Pacific fleet and you have months to get into the constant probing without having to worry about any carrier groups intruding.

 

[Dilandu]

But 20% of China's economy is directly made up of exports (value of exported goods as a % of the economy). Then there's paying the employees that make the products. And all the people that serve the factory workers, the restaurants and entertainment, etc. Those "extras" are typically close to the value of the goods exported.

So imagine what happens to China when 40% of their economy goes away.

Well, their economy is heavily regulated by government. They could just drop export prices below unit cost to create interests from other markes (such as Asia, South America, Africa, ect.). With Chinese government compensating for the losses (and making it clear, that dissent from large buisness owners would not be tolerated) they could maintain economy working fine for quite a long time. Of course, not forewer. But long enough for either the Western economical situation became intolerable, or blockade turning into formality.

But I think the kickoff attack(s) will try to look like Pearl Harbor, damaging as many ships in the US Pacific Fleet as possible as much as possible. Because the carriers have to go around the Horn to get from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Take 2-3 carriers out of the Pacific fleet and you have months to get into the constant probing without having to worry about any carrier groups intruding.

Possible, but unless USN carriers would be pre-deployed close to China, it would be pretty hard to concentrate enough striking forces near Pearl Harbor and San-Diego to hit them. Yokosuka could be attacked, and 7th fleet carrier taken out of action, but I doubt about other positions. I suppose, PLAN could send some missile-capable submarines to launch attacks against San-Diego, and use air-refueled bombers to strike Pearl Harbor, but... it wouldn't be very efficient.

Also, it would be quite provocative. First-strike attacks on American bases would be a large-scale escalation. While China could easily justify striking the carriers, going toward Taiwan - after all, USA did not recognize Taiwan, so formally it would be USA who is meddling with Chinese internal affairs - it would be much harder to invent justification for first-strike scenario.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Well, their economy is heavily regulated by government. They could just drop export prices below unit cost to create interests from other markes (such as Asia, South America, Africa, ect.). With Chinese government compensating for the losses (and making it clear, that dissent from large buisness owners would not be tolerated) they could maintain economy working fine for quite a long time. Of course, not forewer. But long enough for either the Western economical situation became intolerable, or blockade turning into formality.

If there's no demand for those items in the other countries, there's no price that you could sell the goods at.

And besides, sending the goods to Africa or South America means loading them on a ship. If the situation has dropped into a blockade, well, the ships are going to get sunk, or at least boarded and seized. Not sure about SE Asia, some of that could go by truck or train, but you'd move a lot more stuff by ship, which then gets back to sunk or boarded ships.

Possible, but unless USN carriers would be pre-deployed close to China, it would be pretty hard to concentrate enough striking forces near Pearl Harbor and San-Diego to hit them. Yokosuka could be attacked, and 7th fleet carrier taken out of action, but I doubt about other positions. I suppose, PLAN could send some missile-capable submarines to launch attacks against San-Diego, and use air-refueled bombers to strike Pearl Harbor, but... it wouldn't be very efficient.

Also, it would be quite provocative. First-strike attacks on American bases would be a large-scale escalation. While China could easily justify striking the carriers, going toward Taiwan - after all, USA did not recognize Taiwan, so formally it would be USA who is meddling with Chinese internal affairs - it would be much harder to invent justification for first-strike scenario.

Yes, it'd take something like an attack on a carrier group in the South China Sea, one at Yokosuka, and maybe one in the Indian Ocean if the Chinese can get a submarine flotilla out there. Attacking Pearl or San Diego would be a very poor idea.

 

[Dilandu]

And besides, sending the goods to Africa or South America means loading them on a ship. If the situation has dropped into a blockade, well, the ships are going to get sunk, or at least boarded and seized. Not sure about SE Asia, some of that could go by truck or train, but you'd move a lot more stuff by ship, which then gets back to sunk or boarded ships.

There are quite a few problems here. Firstly, the blockade needed to be enforced. Which means, there must be some unfortunate USN ships serving as targets for Chinese missiles. Secondly - the absolute majority of modern cargo fleet is going under neutral flags. Thirdly - China actually own a lot of port facilities in South Asia, so it could just sent containers by land to neutral countries and load them here.

Yes, it'd take something like an attack on a carrier group in the South China Sea, one at Yokosuka, and maybe one in the Indian Ocean if the Chinese can get a submarine flotilla out there. Attacking Pearl or San Diego would be a very poor idea.

Exactly.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

There are quite a few problems here. Firstly, the blockade needed to be enforced. Which means, there must be some unfortunate USN ships serving as targets for Chinese missiles.

Hence the idea of a distant blockade. The blockade will be enforced in the Straits of Malacca, or the Central Pacific, well away from China, and beyond the reach of much of it's armed force's ability to interfere.

Secondly - the absolute majority of modern cargo fleet is going under neutral flags.

Didn't stop Britain in the First World War, US and US aligned warships can board the neutral cargo ships, and offer to buy their cargos if they deliver them to a friendly port.

Of course the neutral cargo ships have to get into Chinese ports and load cargo and leave unmolested in the first place, in the middle of a war zone. Most sea mines don't discriminate on the basis of flags, and there's also the issue of insurance to worry about. I expect neutral shipping will stay well away from the South China Sea if there is a war going on.

Thirdly - China actually own a lot of port facilities in South Asia, so it could just sent containers by land to neutral countries and load them here.

Ownership doesn't mean control, you have to have troops there for that, and the problem is China has territorial disputes with many of those South Asian countries (many of whom may well be hostile belligerents), and so they are unlikely to able to transport goods across some of these borders.

Of course the capacity of the railways are going to be less, hence fewer goods will e able to be transported, and given the greatly increased bargaining power of the purchasers, they'll also demand to pay much lower prices, so China will be getting less return of the individual goods it is able to export.

And which ports can they export from in any quantity, can cargoes from those ports avoid inspection and seizure? The two main options for China are probably Russia and Pakistan, but Pakistan's ports are in the Indian Ocean, enabling easy US (or a US-aligned ally) the opportunity for inspection and seizure without any Chinese interference whatsoever. The same is true for ships sailing from Russian Ports in the Baltic, Black Sea (unless they're delivering to Azerbaijan, every ship from Russian ports will have to go through the Dardanelles), or the North Pacific. And who are these cargoes being delivered to. At the moment it's mainly Europe and the US, even if China is delivering to other customers, worst case scenario, the US and it's partners can seize the cargoes, and reimburse the ship's owners without giving the Chinese anything. In other words, what Britain did to Imperial Germany in the First World War.

 

[pathology_doc]

The winner is the last one to run out of missiles. I hope I don't get proven correct in my belief that US warships don't have anywhere near enough point-defence guns.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Gun-based CIWS is increasingly useless, especially against supersonic maneuvering threats. Would rather that they replaced every Phalanx with a RAM launcher on legacy ships, and use something like CAMM in ExLS (so you don't use up Strike-length cells) on new builds (as with the Canadian Surface Combatant), at least if the ship impact allows it, this should enable a form of cllse-in-protection which is not easily saturated). If you're worried about magazine depth, and the unmanned/loitering threat, use a combination autocannon in the 30-40mm range, High-Powered Microwaves and lasers of less than 100kW, Phalanx seems badly optimised for that sort of thing. Should also deal with USVs, but if you have the ExLS available, Radar Hellfire is also an option.

 

[A_Random_Guy]

Gun-based CIWS is increasingly useless, especially against supersonic maneuvering threats.

This is true for unguided gun systems but guided gun-launched weapons like DART and HVP may provide a more affordable option for some moderate threats such as subsonic cruise missiles and maybe some supersonic threats to at least augment missiles but they do have some issues.

The fundamental limitation is that the reason such weapons (and in a similar vein missiles like the 9M311) are affordable is they use radio command guidance for their direction, offloading much of the expensive processing equipment to the launcher which has inherent limitation in range due to limitations within the angular resolution of the arrays.

Now if you have a big SPY array tied into your HVP you probably have sufficient angular resolution to guide the shell well beyond its theoretical kinematic range but then you're getting into time-energy budgets and how you prioritize that (though SPY-6 is such a leap in capability that this may be unnecessary).

 

[Dilandu]

Didn't stop Britain in the First World War, US and US aligned warships can board the neutral cargo ships, and offer to buy their cargos if they deliver them to a friendly port.

During First World War Liberia wasn't the holder of absolute majority of naval traffic, and containers weren't invented yet. Just try to imagine what kind of enormous traffic jam would cause an attempt of USN to check every containter ship going through Malacca strait. Not even considering that it would cause as much economical damage to US as to China, it would also took moths to check every single shipping container on just ONE massive cargo ship.

Of course the neutral cargo ships have to get into Chinese ports and load cargo and leave unmolested in the first place, in the middle of a war zone. Most sea mines don't discriminate on the basis of flags, and there's also the issue of insurance to worry about. I expect neutral shipping will stay well away from the South China Sea if there is a war going on.

Well, look at the current situation in the Black Sea... And seriously, if US start to hit neutral ships coming into Chinese ports, any kind of support for USA would evaporate rather quickly.

Ownership doesn't mean control, you have to have troops there for that, and the problem is China has territorial disputes with many of those South Asian countries (many of whom may well be hostile belligerents), and so they are unlikely to able to transport goods across some of these borders.

It doesn't matter. The point is, that China could just use those ports to circumvent any kind of blockade, since neutral ship going from one neutral port to another COULD NOT be considered legitimate target.

. In other words, what Britain did to Imperial Germany in the First World War.

You are too fond of wrong historical analogues. They wouldn't work now.

 

[SK2]

During First World War Liberia wasn't the holder of absolute majority of naval traffic, and containers weren't invented yet. Just try to imagine what kind of enormous traffic jam would cause an attempt of USN to check every containter ship going through Malacca strait. Not even considering that it would cause as much economical damage to US as to China, it would also took moths to check every single shipping container on just ONE massive cargo ship.

People do VBSS nowadays based on intelligence gathering, which the information can be obtained from global custom clearance system to decide if any of the container boxes may have suspicious cargo. NO authority will approve the search of all containers on feeders, let alone ULCV.

To work effectively, confiscation of a few vessels that breach the US Navy order will encourage major shipping companies to comply, no spark is needed.

By using those ports, they are no longer neutral and could be easy targets also. Mind that US Custom has a global presence in most major ports currently.

 

[uk 75]

The specific contingency of a Chinese attempt to gain control of Taiwan by force is a highly political one.
Although the US has recognised China's claim that like Hong Kong Taiwan is part of China, the US has also commited itself to defend Taiwan's right to peaceful self determination.
Clearly this leaves both China and the US a lot of wriggle room. Taiwan is shrewd enough to realise that it cannot rely on the US to back any provocative actions against Beijing that challenge Chinese claims to sovereignty.
Taiwan is not West Berlin. There are no US tanks facing down the PLA at a land border.
The use of force by China against Taiwan would require air or naval units to start combat against Taiwanese units.
US nuclear submarines would be the fastest way of countering naval operations. US airpower in the region can also be brought to bear quickly.
But this requires difficult decision making by Washington. China is a nuclear power. As in West Berlin shooting brings you the risk of nuclear war. The US response to Ukraine has shown how this realisation limits US responses.
Once the shooting starts I suggest that initial exchanges will be decisive.
Will US (and other) submarines curb the PLAN's ability to operate at sea?
Can US F22s and F35s gain air superiority?

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Well, look at the current situation in the Black Sea... And seriously, if US start to hit neutral ships coming into Chinese ports, any kind of support for USA would evaporate rather quickly.

The US and Russian Federation are different countries with significant differences in the amount of diplomatic clout they have access to. Not to mention that unlike China, Ukraine is a significant source of grain, without which there would be a global famine, hence the global pressure to open up the Black Sea.

The US doesn't need to deliberately hit neutral ships, the inevitability of neutral shipping being attacked accidentally by either side will greatly increase insurance premiums, so that commercial shipping is no longer viable. And given that they are fighting an invasion of Taiwan, the US will certainly attempt to block Chinese ports with mines from day one.

It doesn't matter. The point is, that China could just use those ports to circumvent any kind of blockade, since neutral ship going from one neutral port to another COULD NOT be considered legitimate target.

The number of ports China will have access to over land bridges will be considerably more limited though. Not to mention the cross-continential railways may not be set up for. Even theoretically neutral European countries for example, will likely cooperate closely with the US, and these are the people that China wants to sell to.

You are too fond of wrong historical analogues. They wouldn't work now.

Honestly given how globalised the pre-First World War Edwardian world was, and especially the reluctance of governments to interfere in the market, even during wartime, it's not a bad analogy. When the existence of your country as a great power is at stake, you will become increasingly ruthless.

 

[Scott Kenny]

There are quite a few problems here. Firstly, the blockade needed to be enforced. Which means, there must be some unfortunate USN ships serving as targets for Chinese missiles. Secondly - the absolute majority of modern cargo fleet is going under neutral flags. Thirdly - China actually own a lot of port facilities in South Asia, so it could just sent containers by land to neutral countries and load them here.

Subs.

If China shoots first, SUBPAC declares Unrestricted Submarine Warfare (before Congress even declares war, if things work out like Pearl Harbor), and every sub in the Pacific Ocean goes hunting.

Any cargo ship that docked in a Chinese port would be fair game. And I bet that subs (and surface ships) today have the right receivers to pick up surface ship transponders, so they could just say "You picked up your containerload in Shanghai after the embargo was declared. You are in breach of the Chinese trade embargo. Load your crew into the lifeboats, you have 10 minutes before we sink your ship."

Other ships will get the "You picked up your containerload in Shanghai before the embargo was declared. Heave to and prepare to be boarded. Your ship and cargo are being confiscated."

 

[uk 75]

Unfortunately as the lack of support for Ukraine outside the G20 indicates, China will be able to count on much of the world to see US opposition to its "peaceful harmony with the people of Taipei province" as "neo-colonial aggression". Brazil, India and S Africa to name three.
I expect both Biden and Trump will go for a Britain in the 82 Falklands crisis approach. US submarines and surface vessels will enforce an exclusion zone against the PLAN and aim to keep its major units either in port or terminated. Meanwhile US carriers will stay well out of range of China (Adm Woodward with Hermes and Invincible) while using their aircraft to operate over Taiwan.

 

[Dilandu]

Can US F22s and F35s gain air superiority?

Most likely no due to simple reason - limited basing capability. Even assuming that airfields on Okinawa would not be attacked (and this is not guaranteed), the distance is much less favorable for USA than for China, which have massive network of airbases on continent. USAF and USN carrier forces would be able to operate, of course, but air superiority is pretty much out of question.

 

[Dilandu]

The US and Russian Federation are different countries with significant differences in the amount of diplomatic clout they have access to. Not to mention that unlike China, Ukraine is a significant source of grain, without which there would be a global famine, hence the global pressure to open up the Black Sea.

And without Chinese goods, there would be a global industrial collapse everywhere, due to lack of most basic materials. While a lot of nations could at least feed themselves (and, for example, Russia have vast agricultural reserves - we aren't USSR, you know), no nation could realistically replace the China's part of global industrial production.

The US doesn't need to deliberately hit neutral ships, the inevitability of neutral shipping being attacked accidentally by either side will greatly increase insurance premiums, so that commercial shipping is no longer viable. And given that they are fighting an invasion of Taiwan, the US will certainly attempt to block Chinese ports with mines from day one.

That's possible. Hovewer international society may frown on minelaying or submarine operation outside of immediate zone of conflict. The whole Taiwan business is not exactly legally clear; especially after USA condemned the situation with Crimea. And I rather doubt that US politicians would be willing to provoke everyone else even more than unavoidable.

The number of ports China will have access to over land bridges will be considerably more limited though. Not to mention the cross-continential railways may not be set up for. Even theoretically neutral European countries for example, will likely cooperate closely with the US, and these are the people that China wants to sell to.

With all respect, but even US/EU sanctions against Russia are leaking. And Russia is nowhere as big in terms of economy as China. In fact, I actually quite doubt that Europe would be even willing, far less eager to maintain sanctions against China in case of Taiwan war. Simply speaking - it's far away from Europe, it's very muddy situation from legal point of view, and it's USA/Japan problem, not French or Italian. Why should Europeans concern themselves with more than formal support of USA?

Honestly given how globalised the pre-First World War Edwardian world was, and especially the reluctance of governments to interfere in the market, even during wartime, it's not a bad analogy. When the existence of your country as a great power is at stake, you will become increasingly ruthless.

It's not bad analogy, but it's relevance is quite limited. I should point out, that Britain during World War I joined the pre-existing Franco-Russian coalition against Germany, and have their unquestioned support. In case of war over Taiwan, I rather doubt that US could have anything like unquestioned support from anyone besides Japan.

 

[Scott Kenny]

In case of war over Taiwan, I rather doubt that US could have anything like unquestioned support from anyone besides Japan.

That is definitely a good question.

How much does Taiwan produce? Aren't most of the non-PRC-made electronics dependent on chips made in Taiwan?

 

[SK2]

And without Chinese goods, there would be a global industrial collapse everywhere, due to lack of most basic materials. While a lot of nations could at least feed themselves (and, for example, Russia have vast agricultural reserves - we aren't USSR, you know), no nation could realistically replace the China's part of global industrial production.

Hence the deglobalization, which started by someone years ago by claiming to "Make America great again"......

While there may be some unrealistic claims/suggestions by those politicians, factories are moving out and sources of various material are currently being dispersed in a progressed way, which is why major countries are refocusing on Africa for raw material.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

And without Chinese goods, there would be a global industrial collapse everywhere, due to lack of most basic materials. While a lot of nations could at least feed themselves (and, for example, Russia have vast agricultural reserves - we aren't USSR, you know), no nation could realistically replace the China's part of global industrial production.

You could have said the same about German industrial goods. The belligerents of the First World War persevered regardless.

That's possible. Hovewer international society may frown on minelaying or submarine operation outside of immediate zone of conflict. The whole Taiwan business is not exactly legally clear; especially after USA condemned the situation with Crimea. And I rather doubt that US politicians would be willing to provoke everyone else even more than unavoidable.

The immediate zone of conflict is the the entire Western Pacific, and that includes every Chinese port. If the entrances to those ports are mined, then no neutral shipping is getting through.

The preponderance of US power is such that the only country willing to militarily challenge the US blockade will be China.

The Taiwanese business is morally clear, which is why the US will get greatly increased support. The only way a Pacific war can start is through aggressive actions by the PRC, which will set the tone in how most countries will react to the war.

Another factor that is also going to greatly influence Chinese isolation amongst wealthier nations is the quality of their diplomats and completely intransigent Wolf Warrior diplomacy. Wealthy countries unsurprisingly tend to be nice cushy postings, so the various incompetent sons and daughters of senior Part officials tend to get these postings, with more competent professionals being sent to more minor postings elsewhere (which explains why China tends to do so well on a diplomatic level in Africa).

With all respect, but even US/EU sanctions against Russia are leaking. And Russia is nowhere as big in terms of economy as China. In fact, I actually quite doubt that Europe would be even willing, far less eager to maintain sanctions against China in case of Taiwan war. Simply speaking - it's far away from Europe, it's very muddy situation from legal point of view, and it's USA/Japan problem, not French or Italian. Why should Europeans concern themselves with more than formal support of USA?

It's a pretty clear cut situation from a legal point of view, Taiwan is an independent state, and since Europe is dependent on the US remaining a great power for their security, they will be willing to cooperate. They don't have to declare war on China, only cooperate with the sanctions regime, which does not preclude them from getting hold of Chinese goods, which they will be able to obtain either through trade with third parties, or seizing them from shipping breaking the sanctions regime. Either way, China will be forced to sell their goods at very low prices, much like Russia is currently forced to with it's oil, because they will be bargaining from a position of weakness..

Economic warfare is marathon, not a sprint, it is the slow strangulation of trade and gradual diminishing of viable options. The US can control China's access to most global trade, China cannot to the same to the US.

It's not bad analogy, but it's relevance is quite limited. I should point out, that Britain during World War I joined the pre-existing Franco-Russian coalition against Germany, and have their unquestioned support. In case of war over Taiwan, I rather doubt that US could have anything like unquestioned support from anyone besides Japan.

India, Vietnam, the Philippines and Malaysia, if not active belligerents, will at the very least be hostile to China, and will not enable Chinese ships to make use of their ports or allow Chinese trade to travel through their borders. In terms of countries with access to the sea that may be willing to allow access to Chinese goods, that leaves Russia, Pakistan and Myanmar (and the last one depends on how good rail infrastructure across the border to Yangon is, and how the Civil War turns out).

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

That is definitely a good question.

How much does Taiwan produce? Aren't most of the non-PRC-made electronics dependent on chips made in Taiwan?

Hence why TSMC is building chip fabs in the US with significant government support.

 

[jsport]

TSMC leadership has promised in a TV interview that they have contingencies to assure none of their technology will be captured in warfare situation.

 

[Dilandu]

You could have said the same about German industrial goods. The belligerents of the First World War persevered regardless.

With all respect, Germany did not control THAT big share of world total industrial production as China now.

The immediate zone of conflict is the the entire Western Pacific, and that includes every Chinese port. If the entrances to those ports are mined, then no neutral shipping is getting through.

I rather doubt that USA would dare to declare something like that.

The Taiwanese business is morally clear, which is why the US will get greatly increased support. The only way a Pacific war can start is through aggressive actions by the PRC, which will set the tone in how most countries will react to the war.

Excue me, WHAT?

You realize, that since USA did not recognize Taiwan, it's essentially means that USA support and helped to arm illegal insurrectionist movement in foreign country?

You call this clear?

It's a pretty clear cut situation from a legal point of view, Taiwan is an independent state,

No it isn't. USA did not recognize Taiwan independence.

They don't have to declare war on China, only cooperate with the sanctions regime, which does not preclude them from getting hold of Chinese goods, which they will be able to obtain either through trade with third parties, or seizing them from shipping breaking the sanctions regime. Either way, China will be forced to sell their goods at very low prices, much like Russia is currently forced to with it's oil, because they will be bargaining from a position of weakness..

Yeah. And while US and EU economy collapsed due to loss of Chinese trade, how long till USA would be forced to bargain from the position of weakness?

India, Vietnam, the Philippines and Malaysia, if not active belligerents, will at the very least be hostile to China, and will not enable Chinese ships to make use of their ports or allow Chinese trade to travel through their borders. In terms of countries with access to the sea that may be willing to allow access to Chinese goods, that leaves Russia, Pakistan and Myanmar (and the last one depends on how good rail infrastructure across the border to Yangon is, and how the Civil War turns out).

With all respect, but you lean too much in wishful thinking area.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

I rather doubt that USA would dare to declare something like that.

They wouldn't declare anything like that, they will be a large-scale high-intensity war with the People's Republic of China, mining the entrance to ports would be a normal course of action.

You realize, that since USA did not recognize Taiwan, it's essentially means that USA support and helped to arm illegal insurrectionist movement in foreign country?

No it isn't. USA did not recognize Taiwan independence.

De jure, the US does not recognise Taiwan as an independent country. De facto, however they do, as do most Western nations, and if the PRC attempts to invade Taiwan, they will react accordingly. I don't know if you've noticed this, but the US has been selling weapons to Taiwan since 1949, they clearly recognise it as a separate government and have supported it's independence ever since the end of the Chinese Civil War.

Yeah. And while US and EU economy collapsed due to loss of Chinese trade, how long till USA would be forced to bargain from the position of weakness?

They fill in the gaps with industrial policy, that is if they have not already achieved that prior to the war breaking out, given that most Western countries are beginning to move in that direction.

With all respect, but you lean too much in wishful thinking area.

Given how China has treated nearly every country that it shares a border with, I doubt that. None of these countries are going to bend over backwards to accommodate China when it has been fighting border skirmishes or building bases atop reefs in their territorial waters.

 

[Desertfox]

Unfortunately as the lack of support for Ukraine outside the G20 indicates, China will be able to count on much of the world to see US opposition to its "peaceful harmony with the people of Taipei province" as "neo-colonial aggression". Brazil, India and S Africa to name three.
I expect both Biden and Trump will go for a Britain in the 82 Falklands crisis approach. US submarines and surface vessels will enforce an exclusion zone against the PLAN and aim to keep its major units either in port or terminated. Meanwhile US carriers will stay well out of range of China (Adm Woodward with Hermes and Invincible) while using their aircraft to operate over Taiwan.

India is most certainly not going to support China like they have with Russia. India has their own very personal beef with China and China is currently allied to their eternal enemy in Pakistan.

As for exports to the US, Mexico has now passed China as the #1 exporter to the US, the US is slowly but surely de-tangling itself from being dependent on China. The TPP would have been so useful... if only it hadn't been killed.