Biden says U.S. forces would defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion

[Galactic Spin]

US nuclear arsenal was far bigger in 1967 (31,255 warheads) than it is today (3750 warheads).

And the warheads are more accurate, harder to defend against, and have larger yields today.

 

[Dayton3]

Even at its now smaller size the US nuclear arsenal is still more than enough to kill everyone you could ever need to kill.
You don't need to turn the entire world into super heated plasma to win.
The US could certainly obliterate all of China and Russia at the same time if needed but the fallout would end up killing everyone in the US and Europe as well so not exactly all that helpful really.

airbursts don't produce much fallout

 

[Cordelier]

And the warheads are more accurate, harder to defend against, and have larger yields today.

More accurate, sure.... but there was no way to defend against them in 1967 - so how can they be harder to defend against? And no, yields were larger then as well. Since they're more accurate, we no longer require massive yields.

 

[Dayton3]

Yes me

yet you're biased against me for reasons you've never made clear.

 

[Tangmo]

But that's the thing... you don't have to defeat the entire Chinese army, when they are stranded in China, because we sink 100 of their boats every day.

True except the defending force doesn't need to kill, destroy or disable 100% of the attacking force to stop it.

It's also a long established military principle and doctrine that when the defender kills, destroys, disables 40% of the attacking force you've stopped 'em.

The attacking force at 60% strength can only lose more yet given the defender has the advantage at that point of strategic and tactical defensive positions and supplies on its own terrain. As I noted in scrolling the attacking force needs a 3-1 force strength over the defender's lesser strength because 2-1 is problematic and 1-1 is a loser from the start. Taiwan besides is smart like the Israeli commanders are smart, ie, you focus from the first shot on the exact 40% you want to take out of the action. Then you take 'em out.

 

[Peter]

then say goodbye to civilization and pretty much the entire human race. Including china. Do you think they would commit suicide over taiwan?

The only way that doesn't end with a global nuclear war is if they somehow instantly win and the war ends which I don't see how that's possible or they agree to sacrfice something of equal value and agree an instant ceasefire.

 

[vegas giants]

yet you're biased against me for reasons you've never made clear.

Because you want Americans to die in a war either China. You have practically begged for a nuclear war with China on here

 

[The Mark]

Everyone thinks they're the good guys to include myself and 300+ million Americans too.

Yet you're only and always focused against the United States -- relentlessly besides.

Which is why I didn't say all 330m Americans.

I don't think you're talking to me.
It's more like you're talking at a strawman you've superimposed on me.

 

[Dayton3]

Because you want Americans to die in a war either China. You have practically begged for a nuclear war with China on here

IIRC I specifically hoped that the U.S. would be able to eliminate the Chinese strategic nuclear arsenal in a first strike meaning the Chinese could no longer strike back against us.

 

[Peter]

US nuclear arsenal was far bigger in 1967 (31,255 warheads) than it is today (3750 warheads).

The warheads now are much more accurate and likely to hit the target.
I'd rather have 3k warheads that I know will mostly get through that 30k that will most likely not get through or fail in flight.

 

[Ahlevah]

What did you want him to do in Afghanistan? Put more troops into a conflict we had already agreed to exit?

We should have kept Bagram Airbase. We spent billions upgrading it, and it was strategically located, both for surveillance and projecting airpower. But even if he ultimately chose to jettison it, the final evacuation of Americans should have been done from there, not Kabul Airport. Idiocy. Plus he lied. He said we wouldn’t complete the withdrawal until all Americans who wanted to leave did. He ended up leaving them to fend for themselves, plus thousands of Afghans who helped us and faced death, torture, or imprisonment if captured by the Taliban. People should remember that when they vote in the next presidential election. Their lives were worthless to him.

 

[vegas giants]

IIRC I specifically hoped that the U.S. would be able to eliminate the Chinese strategic nuclear arsenal in a first strike meaning the Chinese could no longer strike back against us.

Not hoped....said we should do it.


Absolute insanity

 

[Metric Mouse]

If the US sends in the Navy then I expect the UK will send a carrier task force as well to help protect them.

We've already had year long deployments of US Marine F-35 on board HMS Queen Elizabeth so we know they can operate together.

I don't think anyone with a Navy stronger than Italy's is worried about a British "carrier" unfortunately...

 

[Galactic Spin]

but there was no way to defend against them in 1967

There absolutely was a way to defend against bombers in 1967, though not ICBMs (that weren't very accurate, relatively).

China's nuke threats over Vietnam were hot air anyway. They did not have the arsenal for a large exchange with the US. The US made its nuclear threats, too.

 

[Peter]

IIRC I specifically hoped that the U.S. would be able to eliminate the Chinese strategic nuclear arsenal in a first strike meaning the Chinese could no longer strike back against us.

The problem is every nuclear armed nation knows this strategy so they try and make sure it's not possible.
China will have loads of completely unknown missile silo's ready to fire and the US can't target silo's they have no idea exist.
The US will do exactly the same.

 

[Metric Mouse]

US nuclear arsenal was far bigger in 1967 (31,255 warheads) than it is today (3750 warheads).

Is it bigger or smaller in kilotons of tnt equivalent? Meaning fewer warheads, but still more deadly?

 

[Peter]

I don't think anyone with a Navy stronger than Italy's is worried about a British "carrier" unfortunately...

Why?
The F-35 is a fine aircraft and the Meteor is the best air to air missile in the world at the moment.

 

[Cordelier]

The warheads now are much more accurate and likely to hit the target.
I'd rather have 3k warheads that I know will mostly get through that 30k that will most likely not get through or fail in flight.

As far as deterrence goes, I don't see the reality of 1967 as being all that different than 2022. At either time, we had vastly more than enough capability to turn China into a glow in the dark parking lot.

 

[Dayton3]

The problem is every nuclear armed nation knows this strategy so they try and make sure it's not possible.
China will have loads of completely unknown missile silo's ready to fire and the US can't target silo's they have no idea exist.
The US will do exactly the same.

The U.S. does not have unknown ICBM silos.

Is it bigger or smaller in kilotons of tnt equivalent? Meaning fewer warheads, but still more deadly?

The most common American strategic warhead is the W-76 which has a maximum yield of 100 kilotons (about seven Hiroshima's).

 

[bave]

The U.S. nuclear arsenal was far larger back then than it is now.

It is more deadly today with 10% as many warheads.

Even if that was true and I very much doubt it is do you think it would be impossible for those nations to get the forces inshape for an operation if needed?

Frankly, yes, and we are seeing that with Ukraine.

Ukraine effectively exhausted global excess stockpiles of a wide range of munitions. All sorts of ATGM and MANPADs are effectively at inventory minimums and we don't have the capacity to replace them anywhere near the level of expenditure. Take Javelins for example. By all accounts we gave the Ukrainians effectively 12 years worth of production of Javelins. The factory only makes 2500-3k per year normally. It is being expanded to 4500, but the expansion will take 2 years. Even then the existing production for the next 6 years is already spoken for. So it is going to take ~8 years for the US to replenish our own inventory of Javelins given these figures. Now, I don't think that is really the most relevant weapon system for a Taiwan issue. That is where you are talking about AIM120-D's, Meteors, NSMs on the cheap side.

Those missiles are all in short supply already and in maximum production, NSMs in particular.

The real problem is this. Sure, Germany and France could ramp up infantry, mech, and armored brigades in 9-12 months. That's not how a war in Taiwan would be fought. How long would it take these nations to build a real blue water navy capable of global force projection? A decade? How long to build a fleet of destroyers, blue water subs, LHDs/carriers? Then talk about aircraft. The F-35 is the most relevant aircraft in a theoretical fight over Taiwan. Europe is procuring them, slowly. Germany just authorized to buy them. Lockheed has a decade of F35 orders on the books. Germany *might* start getting training planes in 3-4 years. So the idea of NATO air and naval forces offering an assistance in that theatre is almost non-existent.

It just takes too long to procure and train up on this equipment and it is already in short supply with strained production capacity.

 

[Cordelier]

Is it bigger or smaller in kilotons of tnt equivalent? Meaning fewer warheads, but still more deadly?

It's smaller. But how many times do you really need to make the rubble bounce?

 

[Peter]

True except the defending force doesn't need to kill, destroy or disable 100% of the attacking force to stop it.

It's also a long established military principle and doctrine that when the defender kills, destroys, disables 40% of the attacking force you've stopped 'em.

The attacking force at 60% strength can only lose more yet given the defender has the advantage at that point of strategic and tactical defensive positions and supplies on its own terrain. As I noted in scrolling the attacking force needs a 3-1 force strength over the defender's lesser strength because 2-1 is problematic and 1-1 is a loser from the start. Taiwan besides is smart like the Israeli commanders are smart, ie, you focus from the first shot on the exact 40% you want to take out of the action. Then you take 'em out.

Yep, I'm pretty sure the rest of the airforce is going to have second thoughts if they see an attrition rate of 50% in the first week or so of combat.
This isn't WW2 and we can't just pump out new aircraft at those rates anymore like we needed to during the Battle of Britain.

 

[bave]

It's smaller. But how many times do you really need to make the rubble bounce?

It's a function of accuracy. 60's warheads were monsters because the delivery system had an accuracy window measure in miles. If you were going to miss a city by 3 miles, you needed a really big boom to still level it. If you are going to be able to drop a 100kt nuke in a baseball field in the middle of that city, that is plenty to kill everyone there.

 

[Metric Mouse]

It's smaller. But how many times do you really need to make the rubble bounce?

Thanks. I honestly didn't know. I appreciate the information.

 

[bave]

Yep, I'm pretty sure the rest of the airforce is going to have second thoughts if they see an attrition rate of 50% in the first week or so of combat.
This isn't WW2 and we can't just pump out new aircraft at those rates anymore like we needed to during the Battle of Britain.

This is a big part of the problem I was alluding to previously. Naval vessels and aircraft production are at capacity. Meaning, what we have under construction or in the field now is all that would be available to fight in a war with China.

The real problem I have with Biden's new strategem is that it now effectively forces China to launch a pre-emptive strike on the US in the event they want to attack Taiwan. Since the US has no declared intent to intervene, China would need to neutralize Okinawa and Guam at a minimum. At which point we are in the war no matter what, and off we go to the races. The deterrent existed before, maybe the US enters the war, maybe not. That causes China to plan for the worst, now that have to execute on the worst too.