Great assumptions, but I'd bet the PLAN would be working to disrupt and destroy our mobile assets, and the bases from which they operate, if not also the industrial base and our national infrastructure. Hostilities would likely end within a week, and the world at that point would be a very unpleasant place for the survivors.
David: What the Ukraine experience proves is that a coastal power can use modern technology to extend it's offshore reach. The Ukraine experience demonstrates that China can probably make life very difficult for USA ships both west and east of Taiwan. If they spend the money on shore based weapons and standoff weapons in China air defense space, they will (with mines) be very able to totally isolate Taiwan from commercial shipping and from USA Navy ships of any type.
I'm not clear that China has the volume of weapons it needs to isolate Taiwan. It has sufficient technology and certainly the production capability for volume production. If China decided today to ramp up to do this, they would get there in less than 5 years based on WW2 production experiences.
China might never do this because the opportunity they have is the same opportunity that the USA has in the approach lanes to China. If China blockaded Taiwan, the USA could claim the same right to blockade China via approach routes. China lacks the Navy to reach out to these routes to react to such a blockade. And China would not last very long without export customers and without imported resources of all types.
If you are an American, it is logical to have that point of view. Nevertheless, it is always funny to watch your uncheked political proselytism.
But try at least watch it from another perspective. Just try. Up to this point I haven't seen that Chinese want to mess up the Middle East (again) and leave one country in the hands of the terrorist group from which you intended to liberate it.
No, because the Chinese are perfectly happy with Iran and its proxies destabilizing the Middle East because it serves their goal of re-ordering the international system to make it safe for authoritarian regimes. There I engaged in your thought exercise.
Well haven't the US made the international system safe for authoritarian regimes which happened to be allied with you? Like the Saudis (or like all of the Gulf arab states lol) or Thailand? Not to mention the stuff the US did in the Cold war.
You see, democracy is not about the US, it is about the other countries' own developemnt (how much is Iraq democratic now?).
Sometimes you help it, sometimes is the opposite case. Just do not fool yourselfs, you are talking about your own interests, not that of "the world".
Some USA support of some countries is essential to the USA. Some is not. And some is in the middle ... important but not critical in a 25 to 50 ear time line. I don't desire to reward dictators on their road to conquest but not every war among distant countries requires a DEFCON 1 response.
Assuming some modest some short term actions, Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan are NOT in the category of essential. We don't have to draw the line there. And ditto for much of Europe.
But even if a USA defense of a country isn't in the 25 to 50 year essential category, the USA should establish some rules that let friends and foes know what it takes for a relatively free western oriented country to gain sizable USA support. First, a country worthy of USA support and if such country is in a 25 year window of existential risk, this country needs to show the USA and the world that they are serious about their defense of their country.
Serious about defense is subject to some negotiation but the effort by the at risk country needs to be substantial and sustained for the entire period a country is in the 25 year risk category. My criteria would be defense expenditures at least 10% annually of prior year GDP and the ability to create an army equal to 10% of the population ready to go into battle in less than 30 days. Serious preparation for countries seriously at risk.
Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan have not and are not serious about their survivability as a country and are not doing all they can and should do. Until they do, it's time to reconsider unending support.
If they don't and we don't find it in our interest to support, we certainly should invite the population of these countries to the safety of the USA. Most of these people would be an addition to our economic wealth and likely better individual contributors then many of the millions recently arrived on our shores.
It's complicated but also simple. People at immediate risk should be willing to 'pay' more than a USA that might assist them in their defense.
If TSMC falls, so does the western economies. Everything with embedded processors depends on TSMC. So no new cars or new planes for a few years. Heck, no power tools for a few years. Plus AMD. NVIDIA, Apple, etc.
And some very smart Americans think the main deterrent preventing the CCP from using the PLA to finally win the long Civil War is their inability to develop a domestic source of the goods TSMC manufacturers.
Living in the US, I can only hope to see Bejing is slower to do that then their Western competitors—in Ottawa.
For those not in the semiconductor industry, the recent book CHIP WAR by Chris Miller is an excellent overview on where China stands in chip development. The book is meticulously researched / referenced and provides clear examples as to why China will continue to remain behind for this decade and even much of the next. But not forever.
The USA has a window for a final victory in semiconductor development and it is possible but not in any way guaranteed. The west will be first in generating the specialized chips needed for AI 1.0 and probably versions 2.0 and 3.0. Like all computer hardware, it is hard to catch up when you are significantly behind. AI tech to support chip design and production is currently present but limited. There will be a version of AI that will give it's owner the opportunity to create a lead that is so far ahead that the losers will never catch up.
China knows its position and it knows that it MUST catch up. And unlike the Russians in the first chip race, China knows the cost of being a distant second. The only question is whether the USA can create an industrial policy that focuses on this race. The USA deciding not to race is the most likely way for China to win.
> Like all computer hardware, it is hard to catch up when you are significantly behind.
Well, my abilities with electronics max out at putting together a Raspberry Pi—and not even a la carte, but out of a kit—but still one of my core beliefs about how the world works is that a nation in possession of a technological advance can deal with rivals in one of two ways:
1. Be willing to give rivals the tech, using negotiations to extract the most concessions possible from the rival before ending up with them getting it the time we expect, them feeling like they earned it, us feeling generous, them having less incentive (and committing minimal) espionage theft—and less risk of armed conflict all around.
2. Be unwilling to give rivals the tech, forfeiting all leverage over them, giving them the most incentive for espionage theft, and ultimately ending with them committee maximal espionage theft and getting the tech unbeknownst to us—which not only maximizes the possibility of armed conflict, but also means we enter it with one less advantage than we thought.
But my core beliefs about how the world works are only about 85% accurate, so I will keep an open mind as I read the book. Thank you for the recommendation.
J'myle: We tried [1] when we invited China into the world trade system about 30 years ago. It gave China a path to growth and prosperity without having to go to war for resources and colonial markets. It was a good compromise for the time. But China did not live up to it's side of the agreement. It increased militarization, it kept it's market closed, it stole IP and voided protections on IP and made it's population less free. The open trade round gave us time and a chance to see if China would really join the western cooperative system. China's response is very clear.
And that is what has led us to choice [2]. It may not be the best solution but it's better than continuing [1]. The Russians tried the steal and copy program for semiconductors from the 1960s to the 1990s. It failed. And for the same reasons, China will also fail if we close them off from the western cooperative.
I agree, hence my comment "...Assuming some modest short term actions...". It was a long reply and more detail would have made it even more unreadable.
We are the sole guarantor of Taiwan safety. We need to make our current level of support conditional on the kinds of defense actions I spoke of above AND on some special conditions for each country the USA supports. For Taiwan, it is simple. Give them 5 years to move or create chip production in the USA equal to half their total production across all levels of technology. This means current 7nm and 4nm tech in volume equal to what they do in Taiwan. And if they don't, we cut them off from the tech that TSMC needs to exist. No fab equipment, no chemicals, etc. TSMC is not a self sufficient island. It cannot create any of the fab equipment that the Dutch provide. And the Dutch cannot provide the fab equipment without USA restricted and licensed technology.
And I believe the message has already been sent via the CHIPS act. TSMC has a major facility going live in Arizona in 2025. The USA needs to put more pressure on TSMC to do more faster. Specifically, the USA should demand that TSMC move 20% of their engineers and production teams to the USA either permanently or on long multi year contracts.
If Taiwan were lost, a dozen missiles delivered to TSMC facilities in Taiwan would 100% cripple TSMC permanently if coupled with an embargo on equipment.
=====
The above is the kind of example the USA needs to apply to each country that asks for USA defense help.
The CSIS study estimates that the US would need 5,000 LRASMs in the first month of a conflict with the PRC over China. Based on current production orders, the US would have 460 LRASMs by 2026. 460. We'll be Winchester long before we start running into ship repair and replacement problems.
The silver lining is that the window between Typhoon season and Winter is almost over, Xi's ongoing purges of the senior defense leadership and the PRC on-going economic woes may buy a little bit more time.
They don't have that many targets that need a LRASM to get through. Their corvettes, missile boats, landing ships, and auxiliaries can be killed on the cheap along with their Coast Guard and Maritime Militia. We need a hell of a lot of cheap stuff for all that.
In a for instance. Hit the high levl platforms with LRASMs from B-1s. There won't be a lot they can counter there. Once we eat through the carriers, destroyers, and frigates the rest are easy pickings.
And you think the B-1's are safe, because? And you think that China cannot take down LRASMs, because? I'd be shocked if China let us get the first punch in. If we do go kinetic, say goodbye to U.S. assets in Taiwan, South Korea, Japan and probably Guam. China is not going to play flag football.
Killed by what? Who is the shooter? Does the munition have the range? How are they getting through or around the A2AD WEZ without getting blown up themselves?
If we take out there high level assets at sea the umbrella won't be as big. They will have to back up their A2AD or get whacked. I'll admit, this is one aspect of a radically larger equation, some of which will have absolutely nothing to do with the shooting.
Sal needs to ask Substack to add a button for "dislike but accurate," because I want to boost this comment, but can't bring myself to click a heart next to what you wrote.
If there is a fight for Taiwan in the fall of 24 we need a right now list.
In ships:
- Let autonomy wait and use the Ghost fleet overlord and MUSV ships as manned patrol/missile boat replacements. Mariner and Ranger are the same design. Seacor Marine has 2 more just like them we could get hold of and 2 very similar larger ships. If the MUSV prototype can be manned that would be 7 compatible ships plus Vanguard and Nomad.
- We have to find a means to upgrade the Coast Guard's ships.
- We need real UAV and point defense everywhere.
In Munitions: Get more weapons integrated in existing platforms so they don't know what capability to expect from what they see they are facing.
- NSM on helos, not ships
- Anything that can be used against a ship integrated on P-8
- We need every Mk 70 launcher we can get our hands on so any ship with a flight deck can be a strike threat. Even better, just stick them on auxiliaries so the helo decks can stay useful. If it has a 40' x 8' space with weight and stability, and the ability to network.
In the air:
-Get ASW gear available and make sure any existing aircraft that can carry it are familiar.
- Get STOVL Mojave/Reapers out in the fleet as a faster means to proliferate UAV ISR for AS purposes. MQ-25 is too slow to get here.
Nope. Pretty much none of what we are supplying to Ukraine is useful to Taiwan's war at sea. It might be if the PLA gets a serious lodgment, but that that point you are not going to have an easy time getting anything to Taiwan.
All good stuff. The USA needs volume production of munitions and that means factories, people and money. Hard to do when transfer payments suck up most of the available revenue. I hope we improve in weapons production.
I'm not in favor of many more ships. A contested environment less than 500 miles from an unfriendly shore might be difficult at best for all ships. Stand off weapons of reasonable cost and in huge volume will make the difference.
====
There is one long range project that could become medium range and make a big difference. And one that China is years behind the USA in developing.
It's the ability of tungsten telephone poles in ceramic casing dropping from outer space (200 to 500 miles up) on targets. Stationary (like weapon sites) and moving (like ships). This 20 foot (or much smaller smaller) telephone pole could travel around 2 miles per second with a kinetic impact of a small nuke. This would damage any Chinese ship. The technology isn't that complex, its just math. The problem is that getting the telephone pole into space. In the past for the USA and the present for China, such a launch requires a one time rocket of limited capacity and very high cost. SpaceX has a current reusable rocket that that can toss 50 tons into low orbit for just a few million dollars and be available in a short time for another launch. SpaceX has put into space around 5,000 satellites for StarLink. And the new model of their rocket will have three times the capability at even lower launch cost.
How do you stop something coming at you (perhaps in volume) at 2 miles per second and your launch awareness window might be 5 minutes if you have a global picture of threats and less than 30 seconds if the ship can see 50 or 60 miles up. Going to run out of tactical nukes pretty quick. And launch devices as well.
Like WW2, the best path to victory against a peer or near peer is to take technology leaps that change the name of the game. Aircraft carriers vs Battleships. B-29s against nothing. Atomic weapons versus 1,000 pound TNT bombs. For the next war, kinetics from space trump ships including aircraft carriers. And almost any homeland defense.
I think the trick there is the need to go all in on militarizing space, but that ship may have already sailed. Agreed, we don't need to obsess over ship count, but we need some options we don't have, particularly for gray zone action.
We are not moving on militarizing space fast enough.
But the ship that has sailed is any expectation that ships are safe anywhere in the world. SpaceX is launching 20+ refrigerator size boxes as often as twice a week for their StarLink product. This means that the USA could launch 500 pound sensor boxes for sea surveillance ... gps, optical, thermal, electronic emissions, radar (SAR), etc. Ships can no longer hide. Coupled with not very smart AI type systems, 24/7 world wide ship tracking is totally possible and economical.
With a couple thousand of these satellites and some persistent supplemental drones, every ship and every fleet is always visible in very specific detail and with very specific location information. These ships are going to be simple targets for mass launches of missiles from standoff platforms (that are simple to construct and deploy). These mass missile assaults will exhaust defensive weapons and eventually overwhelm fleets and individual ships. Ships cannot carry enough defensive weapons to respond to wave after wave of assault missiles. Kinetics from space have the ability to be on station for an assault in an hour compared to much longer periods needed to marshal and move masses of missiles and their platforms to the 'front'. Space kinetics are the first line of defense or offense.
I'm just asking that anyone with experience and knowledge of current naval defense weapons describe how a fleet could handle wave after wave of 200 to 1,000+ missiles. And China would be even less capable of handling such an assault. For the USA, getting the Navy to think about offense and defense and commercial ship protection on blue water with ships being only a small part of the solution is key. The mission might require some ships but it's not just ships. The Navy has an opportunity to truly dominate but it must think differently and must not be bound by 'old thinking' and operational restrictions caused by inter service rivalry.
I DO have to take exception to " democracies — Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan " Ukraine is anything but a "democracy", it is one of the most corrupt oligarchies in memory. Taiwan and Israel deserve our support; Ukraine does NOT.
70 years ago Taiwan was a military dictatorship, one that was plenty corrupt.
Ukraine has a population that appears pretty committed to democracy, and judging from similar countries in NATO and the EU seems likely to do well given a real chance.
But, at the end of the day, it's moot. The decisions were made. The US and it's most important allies have tied their legitimacy and prestige to the Ukrainian cause. It's less costly to invest enough resources to deny Russia anything like a victory than otherwise, at this point.
It is incredible just how much both the international and domestic situations have deteriorated since January 2021. Energy. Inflation. Debt. Wokeness. The southern border. Afghanistan. Ukraine. Israel. Taiwan. Iran. BRICS. Etc. Donald Trump cannot return to the White House soon enough.
Makes sense. HAMAS is far away in Gaza and doesn't threaten them whereas Trump threatens their power, perks and privileges. The people in DC only care about this country in so far as it affects them.
We should find some near-surface seamounts or reefs that are within mutually supporting range of each other, dredge up sand and build hardened air bases with long-range AA & AS missiles on them.
It is difficult to take Europe seriously. Never let an opportunity go to waste to push a narrative, even if that opportunity is a war. Who would have thought the UKR-RUS would bring a platform to discuss the environmental benefits of taking agricultural land out of production and planting trees for carbon capture. In 30-40 years, you will have a natural defensive speed bump against the invading RUS empire.
From the "Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) is the world’s oldest and the UK’s leading defence and security think tank."
Defensive Rewilding: Where Military and Environmental Protection Overlap (20 October 2023)
A supplemental appropriation of $105 BILLION is a serious chunk of money, and sorta shows we are serious.
But, just printing more money, or going to the effort of actually trying to borrow it does not convey the seriousness of the threats or our commitment.
Congress needs to take that $105 Billion out of other FY 2024 spending. Yes, slashing free Obama phones and welfare, social security and defense spending would be painful, but it would immediately give all Americans actual skin in the game and encourage them to decide if fighting endless foreign wars (of whatever degree of relevance to our vital national security) is more important than our other spending wants.
When we are $34 TRILLION in debt, we cannot just throw around money like drunken politicians. Time to have a serious discussion on our national priorities. Some we can afford, and some we can no longer afford. Our elected officials will have to make some hard, and likely unpopular choices.
Remember, a billion dollars is a Thousand times one million dollars. $105 Billion is an incomprehensible amount of money.
Such a huge number...!!! Imagine being able to use that to reinvigorate our shipbuilding!! Throw a third of it at building/expanding shipyards, then order/ fund a quick, extra 25 Burkes. Would be nice to see us building 5 a year...
Or...expand the facilities and fund all our sub maintenance, and get ALL the boats back in shape in the next 12 months.
Maybe get a hundred or so new Super Hornets, maybe raid the boneyard and bring back A-6, among other things, and make airwings full size again?? Maybe stand up at least one more?? We will need it...
Or maybe just pay off all the multi year procurement contracts now... I imagine we could go out like 5 yrs or so...
Maybe get all the missile and torpedo production lines spun up as fast as we can make em go. $105B is a LOT of reloads, even if half is spent enlarging facilities...
So many great options to get our Navy back on track, or at least closer...
"...maybe just pay off all the multi-year procurement contracts now..."
Please, for the love of God, Mom, and Apple Pie, no. Defense contractors (and really, any supplier, any industry) should be managed like your local plumber: payment on delivery with just enough of an advance to make sure they take on the work.
In general yes I agree. But when shipyards drag out the process and it costs more overall because theyre waiting for the next payment, thats bad business too.
I agree that Taiwan and it's microchip industry is a vital strategic interest of the US. I just wish that Taiwan took their situation seriously. I always thought their military was organized and armed like the ROK. Everything I am reading lately is that their reserves are not organized and their mandatory draftees serve about four months and are not well trained. It is hard to be more worried about the Taiwanese than they are about themselves.
1/3 of Taiwan is not concerned about going back under China. 1/3 is meh and the other 1/3 wants to remain independent. Their actions over the past eighty years are ambivalent.
The Chinese can bring to bear the entire PLAN, not a small fraction of the much smaller Russian fleet. Not comparable.
Great assumptions, but I'd bet the PLAN would be working to disrupt and destroy our mobile assets, and the bases from which they operate, if not also the industrial base and our national infrastructure. Hostilities would likely end within a week, and the world at that point would be a very unpleasant place for the survivors.
David: What the Ukraine experience proves is that a coastal power can use modern technology to extend it's offshore reach. The Ukraine experience demonstrates that China can probably make life very difficult for USA ships both west and east of Taiwan. If they spend the money on shore based weapons and standoff weapons in China air defense space, they will (with mines) be very able to totally isolate Taiwan from commercial shipping and from USA Navy ships of any type.
I'm not clear that China has the volume of weapons it needs to isolate Taiwan. It has sufficient technology and certainly the production capability for volume production. If China decided today to ramp up to do this, they would get there in less than 5 years based on WW2 production experiences.
China might never do this because the opportunity they have is the same opportunity that the USA has in the approach lanes to China. If China blockaded Taiwan, the USA could claim the same right to blockade China via approach routes. China lacks the Navy to reach out to these routes to react to such a blockade. And China would not last very long without export customers and without imported resources of all types.
Well if Taiwan is that important for the US why do you still recognise it as a part of PRC?
They don't recognize themselves as independent from 1 China either. Just their RoC and not the PRC.
That doesn't answer the question why should the US intervene in the de jure intra-Chinese affairs
You changed the question. That wasn't the question.
Throw out any reason. A world dominated by China will be much less than a world dominated by the US and allies.
If you are an American, it is logical to have that point of view. Nevertheless, it is always funny to watch your uncheked political proselytism.
But try at least watch it from another perspective. Just try. Up to this point I haven't seen that Chinese want to mess up the Middle East (again) and leave one country in the hands of the terrorist group from which you intended to liberate it.
No, because the Chinese are perfectly happy with Iran and its proxies destabilizing the Middle East because it serves their goal of re-ordering the international system to make it safe for authoritarian regimes. There I engaged in your thought exercise.
Well haven't the US made the international system safe for authoritarian regimes which happened to be allied with you? Like the Saudis (or like all of the Gulf arab states lol) or Thailand? Not to mention the stuff the US did in the Cold war.
You see, democracy is not about the US, it is about the other countries' own developemnt (how much is Iraq democratic now?).
Sometimes you help it, sometimes is the opposite case. Just do not fool yourselfs, you are talking about your own interests, not that of "the world".
Sure is troll season around here.
Because Taiwan has not declared themselves an independent nation.
I note that Poland spends 3.9% of its GDP on defense. Just sayin’.
They know the bear has claws
So do dragons.
So do Eagles
I don't believe in haruspicy but saw a burst opossum on the road a few days ago. It seemed to foretell we'll be using our gums in the next war.
Some USA support of some countries is essential to the USA. Some is not. And some is in the middle ... important but not critical in a 25 to 50 ear time line. I don't desire to reward dictators on their road to conquest but not every war among distant countries requires a DEFCON 1 response.
Assuming some modest some short term actions, Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan are NOT in the category of essential. We don't have to draw the line there. And ditto for much of Europe.
But even if a USA defense of a country isn't in the 25 to 50 year essential category, the USA should establish some rules that let friends and foes know what it takes for a relatively free western oriented country to gain sizable USA support. First, a country worthy of USA support and if such country is in a 25 year window of existential risk, this country needs to show the USA and the world that they are serious about their defense of their country.
Serious about defense is subject to some negotiation but the effort by the at risk country needs to be substantial and sustained for the entire period a country is in the 25 year risk category. My criteria would be defense expenditures at least 10% annually of prior year GDP and the ability to create an army equal to 10% of the population ready to go into battle in less than 30 days. Serious preparation for countries seriously at risk.
The USA did spend at this level post WW2 through around 1970: https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/defense_spending_history
Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan have not and are not serious about their survivability as a country and are not doing all they can and should do. Until they do, it's time to reconsider unending support.
If they don't and we don't find it in our interest to support, we certainly should invite the population of these countries to the safety of the USA. Most of these people would be an addition to our economic wealth and likely better individual contributors then many of the millions recently arrived on our shores.
It's complicated but also simple. People at immediate risk should be willing to 'pay' more than a USA that might assist them in their defense.
If TSMC falls, so does the western economies. Everything with embedded processors depends on TSMC. So no new cars or new planes for a few years. Heck, no power tools for a few years. Plus AMD. NVIDIA, Apple, etc.
And some very smart Americans think the main deterrent preventing the CCP from using the PLA to finally win the long Civil War is their inability to develop a domestic source of the goods TSMC manufacturers.
Living in the US, I can only hope to see Bejing is slower to do that then their Western competitors—in Ottawa.
For those not in the semiconductor industry, the recent book CHIP WAR by Chris Miller is an excellent overview on where China stands in chip development. The book is meticulously researched / referenced and provides clear examples as to why China will continue to remain behind for this decade and even much of the next. But not forever.
The USA has a window for a final victory in semiconductor development and it is possible but not in any way guaranteed. The west will be first in generating the specialized chips needed for AI 1.0 and probably versions 2.0 and 3.0. Like all computer hardware, it is hard to catch up when you are significantly behind. AI tech to support chip design and production is currently present but limited. There will be a version of AI that will give it's owner the opportunity to create a lead that is so far ahead that the losers will never catch up.
China knows its position and it knows that it MUST catch up. And unlike the Russians in the first chip race, China knows the cost of being a distant second. The only question is whether the USA can create an industrial policy that focuses on this race. The USA deciding not to race is the most likely way for China to win.
> Like all computer hardware, it is hard to catch up when you are significantly behind.
Well, my abilities with electronics max out at putting together a Raspberry Pi—and not even a la carte, but out of a kit—but still one of my core beliefs about how the world works is that a nation in possession of a technological advance can deal with rivals in one of two ways:
1. Be willing to give rivals the tech, using negotiations to extract the most concessions possible from the rival before ending up with them getting it the time we expect, them feeling like they earned it, us feeling generous, them having less incentive (and committing minimal) espionage theft—and less risk of armed conflict all around.
2. Be unwilling to give rivals the tech, forfeiting all leverage over them, giving them the most incentive for espionage theft, and ultimately ending with them committee maximal espionage theft and getting the tech unbeknownst to us—which not only maximizes the possibility of armed conflict, but also means we enter it with one less advantage than we thought.
But my core beliefs about how the world works are only about 85% accurate, so I will keep an open mind as I read the book. Thank you for the recommendation.
J'myle: We tried [1] when we invited China into the world trade system about 30 years ago. It gave China a path to growth and prosperity without having to go to war for resources and colonial markets. It was a good compromise for the time. But China did not live up to it's side of the agreement. It increased militarization, it kept it's market closed, it stole IP and voided protections on IP and made it's population less free. The open trade round gave us time and a chance to see if China would really join the western cooperative system. China's response is very clear.
And that is what has led us to choice [2]. It may not be the best solution but it's better than continuing [1]. The Russians tried the steal and copy program for semiconductors from the 1960s to the 1990s. It failed. And for the same reasons, China will also fail if we close them off from the western cooperative.
I like how it worked when the USSR stole the tech for managing natural gas systems. Shortly after it went live you could see the fire on weather sats.
I agree, hence my comment "...Assuming some modest short term actions...". It was a long reply and more detail would have made it even more unreadable.
We are the sole guarantor of Taiwan safety. We need to make our current level of support conditional on the kinds of defense actions I spoke of above AND on some special conditions for each country the USA supports. For Taiwan, it is simple. Give them 5 years to move or create chip production in the USA equal to half their total production across all levels of technology. This means current 7nm and 4nm tech in volume equal to what they do in Taiwan. And if they don't, we cut them off from the tech that TSMC needs to exist. No fab equipment, no chemicals, etc. TSMC is not a self sufficient island. It cannot create any of the fab equipment that the Dutch provide. And the Dutch cannot provide the fab equipment without USA restricted and licensed technology.
And I believe the message has already been sent via the CHIPS act. TSMC has a major facility going live in Arizona in 2025. The USA needs to put more pressure on TSMC to do more faster. Specifically, the USA should demand that TSMC move 20% of their engineers and production teams to the USA either permanently or on long multi year contracts.
If Taiwan were lost, a dozen missiles delivered to TSMC facilities in Taiwan would 100% cripple TSMC permanently if coupled with an embargo on equipment.
=====
The above is the kind of example the USA needs to apply to each country that asks for USA defense help.
The CSIS study estimates that the US would need 5,000 LRASMs in the first month of a conflict with the PRC over China. Based on current production orders, the US would have 460 LRASMs by 2026. 460. We'll be Winchester long before we start running into ship repair and replacement problems.
The silver lining is that the window between Typhoon season and Winter is almost over, Xi's ongoing purges of the senior defense leadership and the PRC on-going economic woes may buy a little bit more time.
They don't have that many targets that need a LRASM to get through. Their corvettes, missile boats, landing ships, and auxiliaries can be killed on the cheap along with their Coast Guard and Maritime Militia. We need a hell of a lot of cheap stuff for all that.
Which we most assuredly don't have, and will not have, for too many years.
- Hellfire / JAGM
- Maverick
-HARM
- Every laser guided bomb
-Harpoon
-Tomahawk
-Every Standard Missile
We have a deep well while awaiting future rains to fall.
There are problems of Range, Time, Distance, does it even fix on what you're shooting at...etc.
Forgot Stormbreaker/SDB2. I'm sure I am missing others.
The Chinese will be happy to use their missiles against the platforms that we use to send missiles against their vessels. They have the advantage.
In a for instance. Hit the high levl platforms with LRASMs from B-1s. There won't be a lot they can counter there. Once we eat through the carriers, destroyers, and frigates the rest are easy pickings.
And you think the B-1's are safe, because? And you think that China cannot take down LRASMs, because? I'd be shocked if China let us get the first punch in. If we do go kinetic, say goodbye to U.S. assets in Taiwan, South Korea, Japan and probably Guam. China is not going to play flag football.
Killed by what? Who is the shooter? Does the munition have the range? How are they getting through or around the A2AD WEZ without getting blown up themselves?
If we take out there high level assets at sea the umbrella won't be as big. They will have to back up their A2AD or get whacked. I'll admit, this is one aspect of a radically larger equation, some of which will have absolutely nothing to do with the shooting.
Big "if", especially knowing that the Chinese will not be idle during our attack.
Well, we are buying 160 SM-6s/year too iirc.
Sal needs to ask Substack to add a button for "dislike but accurate," because I want to boost this comment, but can't bring myself to click a heart next to what you wrote.
If there is a fight for Taiwan in the fall of 24 we need a right now list.
In ships:
- Let autonomy wait and use the Ghost fleet overlord and MUSV ships as manned patrol/missile boat replacements. Mariner and Ranger are the same design. Seacor Marine has 2 more just like them we could get hold of and 2 very similar larger ships. If the MUSV prototype can be manned that would be 7 compatible ships plus Vanguard and Nomad.
- We have to find a means to upgrade the Coast Guard's ships.
- We need real UAV and point defense everywhere.
In Munitions: Get more weapons integrated in existing platforms so they don't know what capability to expect from what they see they are facing.
- NSM on helos, not ships
- Anything that can be used against a ship integrated on P-8
- We need every Mk 70 launcher we can get our hands on so any ship with a flight deck can be a strike threat. Even better, just stick them on auxiliaries so the helo decks can stay useful. If it has a 40' x 8' space with weight and stability, and the ability to network.
In the air:
-Get ASW gear available and make sure any existing aircraft that can carry it are familiar.
- Get STOVL Mojave/Reapers out in the fleet as a faster means to proliferate UAV ISR for AS purposes. MQ-25 is too slow to get here.
Just spit balling
" Get more weapons ... " Good idea; too bad we've about emptied the shot locker propping up Zelensky. What a waste.
If Ukraine went easy on Russia we'd be neck deep in the Pacific already. We bought time. Don't waste it.
Nope. Pretty much none of what we are supplying to Ukraine is useful to Taiwan's war at sea. It might be if the PLA gets a serious lodgment, but that that point you are not going to have an easy time getting anything to Taiwan.
Ukraine and Israel need similar stuff.
Javelin is the main thing that would be useful that we're giving to Ukraine.
This OPLAN is brought to you by Transformationalism and powered by pixy dust. It will not survive reality let alone contact with the enemy.
All good stuff. The USA needs volume production of munitions and that means factories, people and money. Hard to do when transfer payments suck up most of the available revenue. I hope we improve in weapons production.
I'm not in favor of many more ships. A contested environment less than 500 miles from an unfriendly shore might be difficult at best for all ships. Stand off weapons of reasonable cost and in huge volume will make the difference.
====
There is one long range project that could become medium range and make a big difference. And one that China is years behind the USA in developing.
It's the ability of tungsten telephone poles in ceramic casing dropping from outer space (200 to 500 miles up) on targets. Stationary (like weapon sites) and moving (like ships). This 20 foot (or much smaller smaller) telephone pole could travel around 2 miles per second with a kinetic impact of a small nuke. This would damage any Chinese ship. The technology isn't that complex, its just math. The problem is that getting the telephone pole into space. In the past for the USA and the present for China, such a launch requires a one time rocket of limited capacity and very high cost. SpaceX has a current reusable rocket that that can toss 50 tons into low orbit for just a few million dollars and be available in a short time for another launch. SpaceX has put into space around 5,000 satellites for StarLink. And the new model of their rocket will have three times the capability at even lower launch cost.
How do you stop something coming at you (perhaps in volume) at 2 miles per second and your launch awareness window might be 5 minutes if you have a global picture of threats and less than 30 seconds if the ship can see 50 or 60 miles up. Going to run out of tactical nukes pretty quick. And launch devices as well.
Like WW2, the best path to victory against a peer or near peer is to take technology leaps that change the name of the game. Aircraft carriers vs Battleships. B-29s against nothing. Atomic weapons versus 1,000 pound TNT bombs. For the next war, kinetics from space trump ships including aircraft carriers. And almost any homeland defense.
I think the trick there is the need to go all in on militarizing space, but that ship may have already sailed. Agreed, we don't need to obsess over ship count, but we need some options we don't have, particularly for gray zone action.
We are not moving on militarizing space fast enough.
But the ship that has sailed is any expectation that ships are safe anywhere in the world. SpaceX is launching 20+ refrigerator size boxes as often as twice a week for their StarLink product. This means that the USA could launch 500 pound sensor boxes for sea surveillance ... gps, optical, thermal, electronic emissions, radar (SAR), etc. Ships can no longer hide. Coupled with not very smart AI type systems, 24/7 world wide ship tracking is totally possible and economical.
With a couple thousand of these satellites and some persistent supplemental drones, every ship and every fleet is always visible in very specific detail and with very specific location information. These ships are going to be simple targets for mass launches of missiles from standoff platforms (that are simple to construct and deploy). These mass missile assaults will exhaust defensive weapons and eventually overwhelm fleets and individual ships. Ships cannot carry enough defensive weapons to respond to wave after wave of assault missiles. Kinetics from space have the ability to be on station for an assault in an hour compared to much longer periods needed to marshal and move masses of missiles and their platforms to the 'front'. Space kinetics are the first line of defense or offense.
I'm just asking that anyone with experience and knowledge of current naval defense weapons describe how a fleet could handle wave after wave of 200 to 1,000+ missiles. And China would be even less capable of handling such an assault. For the USA, getting the Navy to think about offense and defense and commercial ship protection on blue water with ships being only a small part of the solution is key. The mission might require some ships but it's not just ships. The Navy has an opportunity to truly dominate but it must think differently and must not be bound by 'old thinking' and operational restrictions caused by inter service rivalry.
LOVE the thought of Taiwan being "spiney"
I DO have to take exception to " democracies — Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan " Ukraine is anything but a "democracy", it is one of the most corrupt oligarchies in memory. Taiwan and Israel deserve our support; Ukraine does NOT.
Taiwan was a dictatorship and so was South Korea from practical purposes. Nurture the seed. I understand Boat Guy does not equal farmer.
Ukraine is as corrupt as is Biden
Ukraine is slowly reducing its corruption, so it's at least heading towards the right direction.
Maybe, and thirty years too late.
Well, they had Clinton/Obama/Biden profiting off their corruption. And Bush didn’t care.
I'd say Ukraine is more corrupt than Biden in that Biden hasn't been charged with a crime. Ukraine is probably a shade less corrupt than orange man.
70 years ago Taiwan was a military dictatorship, one that was plenty corrupt.
Ukraine has a population that appears pretty committed to democracy, and judging from similar countries in NATO and the EU seems likely to do well given a real chance.
But, at the end of the day, it's moot. The decisions were made. The US and it's most important allies have tied their legitimacy and prestige to the Ukrainian cause. It's less costly to invest enough resources to deny Russia anything like a victory than otherwise, at this point.
Great ideas if only we had the money. The usa is bankrupt moral and finically like most of the west. Its past time we worry about our own house
Money printer go "Brrrrrr".
It is incredible just how much both the international and domestic situations have deteriorated since January 2021. Energy. Inflation. Debt. Wokeness. The southern border. Afghanistan. Ukraine. Israel. Taiwan. Iran. BRICS. Etc. Donald Trump cannot return to the White House soon enough.
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
So you believe it is sheer coincidence that all these disasters are taking place under Biden.?
Happening after Trump
And there are supposedly, 'Really Smart People In The Room' in the NatSec World, who still write that MAGA is a worse threat than HAMAS...
The DC - Chesapeake Bubble is full of blithering idiots.
But will also say we will be better off in a post Trump/Trump Deranged World.
Makes sense. HAMAS is far away in Gaza and doesn't threaten them whereas Trump threatens their power, perks and privileges. The people in DC only care about this country in so far as it affects them.
DO we really think the US can stop China if they decide to "take" Taiwan. We can't even protect our own country from the ongoing invasion.
With our current military and political leadership?
Different ROE
Would this be another case of the toothless "Don'ts" that Biden utters?
We should find some near-surface seamounts or reefs that are within mutually supporting range of each other, dredge up sand and build hardened air bases with long-range AA & AS missiles on them.
You appear to be unaware of U.S. shipbuilding capacity. We need every dredge we can dig up just to keep the existing infrastructure up to snuff.
Well, can we order them from China?
South Korea.
And Japan.
How can the US decouple from Europe when it is one (WEFers the other) of the main causes of instability there?
It is difficult to take Europe seriously. Never let an opportunity go to waste to push a narrative, even if that opportunity is a war. Who would have thought the UKR-RUS would bring a platform to discuss the environmental benefits of taking agricultural land out of production and planting trees for carbon capture. In 30-40 years, you will have a natural defensive speed bump against the invading RUS empire.
From the "Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) is the world’s oldest and the UK’s leading defence and security think tank."
Defensive Rewilding: Where Military and Environmental Protection Overlap (20 October 2023)
https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/defensive-rewilding-where-military-and-environmental-protection-overlap
Operation Ranch Hand 2 will never occur to anybody....
FDR and Harry Truman both had to figure out you can't pivot to the Pacific. What is the definition of insanity again?
A supplemental appropriation of $105 BILLION is a serious chunk of money, and sorta shows we are serious.
But, just printing more money, or going to the effort of actually trying to borrow it does not convey the seriousness of the threats or our commitment.
Congress needs to take that $105 Billion out of other FY 2024 spending. Yes, slashing free Obama phones and welfare, social security and defense spending would be painful, but it would immediately give all Americans actual skin in the game and encourage them to decide if fighting endless foreign wars (of whatever degree of relevance to our vital national security) is more important than our other spending wants.
When we are $34 TRILLION in debt, we cannot just throw around money like drunken politicians. Time to have a serious discussion on our national priorities. Some we can afford, and some we can no longer afford. Our elected officials will have to make some hard, and likely unpopular choices.
Remember, a billion dollars is a Thousand times one million dollars. $105 Billion is an incomprehensible amount of money.
Such a huge number...!!! Imagine being able to use that to reinvigorate our shipbuilding!! Throw a third of it at building/expanding shipyards, then order/ fund a quick, extra 25 Burkes. Would be nice to see us building 5 a year...
Or...expand the facilities and fund all our sub maintenance, and get ALL the boats back in shape in the next 12 months.
Maybe get a hundred or so new Super Hornets, maybe raid the boneyard and bring back A-6, among other things, and make airwings full size again?? Maybe stand up at least one more?? We will need it...
Or maybe just pay off all the multi year procurement contracts now... I imagine we could go out like 5 yrs or so...
Maybe get all the missile and torpedo production lines spun up as fast as we can make em go. $105B is a LOT of reloads, even if half is spent enlarging facilities...
So many great options to get our Navy back on track, or at least closer...
"...maybe just pay off all the multi-year procurement contracts now..."
Please, for the love of God, Mom, and Apple Pie, no. Defense contractors (and really, any supplier, any industry) should be managed like your local plumber: payment on delivery with just enough of an advance to make sure they take on the work.
In general yes I agree. But when shipyards drag out the process and it costs more overall because theyre waiting for the next payment, thats bad business too.
Not incomprehensible to Biden. Just a number that he doesn't have to care about what it means.
I agree that Taiwan and it's microchip industry is a vital strategic interest of the US. I just wish that Taiwan took their situation seriously. I always thought their military was organized and armed like the ROK. Everything I am reading lately is that their reserves are not organized and their mandatory draftees serve about four months and are not well trained. It is hard to be more worried about the Taiwanese than they are about themselves.
1/3 of Taiwan is not concerned about going back under China. 1/3 is meh and the other 1/3 wants to remain independent. Their actions over the past eighty years are ambivalent.