What China Learned From The Pacific War

[@EurasiaNaval]

In hindsight, I should have referred to primary sources more in the video to support the claims. I did refer to one, author Liu Yi (listed below), but more would have been useful. Here is a reasonably comprehensive overview of Chinese thinking on the Pacific War here (in English): csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/CSBA8336_(Chinese_Lessons_from_the_Pacific_War)_FINAL_web2.pdf Chinese scholarship on the Pacific War is large and longstanding. In terms of prominent Chinese works on the matter, I recommend (keep in mind these are in Chinese): - Zhao Zhenyu, History of Sea Battles in the Pacific (Beijing: Haichao Press, 1997) - Liu Yi, The Combined Fleet (Wuhan: Wuhan University Press, 2010) - Guo Yuanfei, Bai Wenjie, and Hao Luoming, “Looking Back on the Guadalcanal Campaign: The U.S.-Japan Contest over Logistics Supper that Determined Victory or Defeat”

[@ltribley]

An excellent analysis many of us have not considered. In recent U.S. Congressional Hearing testimony, representatives from the military stated that the U.S. does not have the logistical capabilities to sustain a war in the Pacific. In previous Congressional Hearings, the U.S. military representatives state that they do not have sufficient shipyard capacity to repair or build warships to compete with China. Numerous U.S. GAO investigations and reports over the last 5 years document that ALL branches of the U.S. military are NOT combat ready and it will take years to achieve this goal. A war in the Pacific will still not allow the U.S. to deploy its entire Naval assets to the region (around 296 ships) leaving the U.S. coast’s, Hawaii, Guam, etc. undefended along with other naval regions around the world. And, don’t forget that both Russia (think Pacific Fleet) and North Korea are now allied with China; Russia and China operating joint missions and rumors North Korea will be invited.

[@jaihindersingh]

Nott truu! Amerikka is maighty supaapoower militaree heeroo contri dat saiviing de wurld evedyday in holiwuud moviis

[@cklam8722]

@455ch33k LOL🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@FerDzone205]

So what would you say China will win hahaha u talk too much nonsense u better punch your brain first this is not past but it's the present present

[@urcompnioncube0213]

another issue that should be pointed out is that some of strongest experience is not navy related. We have been in a ground based asymmetrical wars since the 1970s. In a war with China we would not be able to leverage our highly experienced ground forces in a naval centered war. With that being said, our least experienced component is actually the Navy. The last time we were in a naval battle was 1940s. Our entire force and doctrine have been restructured to operate in low to medium impact operations. A war with China would be our first high-impact conventional warfare since WW2.

[@Amidat]

@@urcompnioncube0213 well another reason the American people should shake off the military industrial complex propaganda and make peace with China. The Pacific is plenty big enough

[@yttean98]

I am not a Military person this video explains several very logical and important points to consider before any war starts.

[@paulsteaven]

An important thing that this video mistakenly mentioned. Japan lost its experienced carrier pilots at the Guadalcanal campaign, not in the Battle of Coral Sea or Battle of Midway, what they lost at Midway were the majority of experienced maintenance crew.

[@codyandrex152]

Yeah, they actually lost the most aircrew at Santa Cruz Islands out of the early carrier battles. They also lost a number of mechanics during the Rabaul evacuation.

[@user-jl8jy2sn3p]

😮

[@douginorlando6260]

That rewrite of common interpretation requires more justification than a declarative statement.

[@paulsteaven]

@@douginorlando6260 never heard or read Shattered Sword, I presume?

[@acebrandon3522]

Right on. So true...

[@eymeeraosaka2954]

Yes I agree with your analysis...The reason Japan lost the war in the Pacific is because the US has a more superior Industrial Military Supply Chain and Logistic Capability. Not because the American sailors are braver nor more well-trained. Technologically Japan was also at par with the US.

[@903IDFOLEY]

Well, there's also the tendency to tell your soldiers and sailors to die gloriously for the Emperor in pointless situations, instead of finding ways to coming back alive so that your experiences can be passed on to train new pilots, sailors, damage control crews etc...

[@kapitankapital6580]

I mean, there were also important technological and experience differences that did contribute, especially as the war continued.

[@eymeeraosaka2954]

@@kapitankapital6580 I am more inclined to think the Japanese warships and aircraft were more advanced than the US when the war started.

[@kapitankapital6580]

@@eymeeraosaka2954 their naval aircraft, particularly the Mitsubishi Zero, absolutely did outclass the American equivalents *at the start of the war*. In terms of warships the picture is more complicated; Japanese ships had significant advantages in some areas but the Americans took the edge in others.

[@mikael5938]

​@@kapitankapital6580Could you give examples where japan and american ships had edge over eachother in 41/42 ?

[@tlowe9796]

One important thing to note...if war really broke out between China and the US due to Taiwan issue. The Chinese can afford to lose 2 or 3 of its carriers or 10s of surface combatants and will still have the public support due to the strong belief of national sovereignty and unification, can the US does the same? I doubt so.

[@taiwanstillisntacountry]

The USA, aka IOU-country can never sustain a full-scale war with the PRC.

[@hughmungus2760]

while getting taiwan to surrender and keeping the US at bay isn't terribly difficult, actually winning the war would be the real challenge. At present the only thing china can hope to do is play nuclear chicken with the US and hope that detonating a nuke in front of a US fleet can scare them into a ceasefire. Conventionally china cannot win a total war against the US because it just doesn't have the ability to serious hurt the continental US.

[@taiwanstillisntacountry]

You must be watching too many Bollywood or Hollywood movies. Glory-to-the-British-Raj. The export of the 2 rare-earth minerals, that were placed on the Chinese sanction-list, in August? 0 kilograms. To build 1 F-35? You need 400kg of rare-earth minerals. Dream on.

[@tlowe9796]

​@@hughmungus2760 You know winning a war isnt just about military strength, right?

[@abdiganiaden]

@@tlowe9796 If war did start, the US will just sail to Persian gulf and stop all oil going to China. There’s literally no need for US to get close to China if it can hurt its imports half a world away.

[@echen71]

What an outstanding analysis. I think this is your best yet as I hear many novel points (to me and from a western perspective). References and sources? I would love to take a look at primary sources.

[@EurasiaNaval]

Hey thanks for your feedback. In hindsight, I should have referred to primary sources more in the video to enhance the credibility of the claims. I did refer to one (listed below), but more would have been useful. Here is a reasonably comprehensive overview of Chinese thinking on the Pacific War here (in English): csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/CSBA8336_(Chinese_Lessons_from_the_Pacific_War)_FINAL_web2.pdf Do understand that Chinese scholarship on the Pacific War is very large and longstanding. In terms of prominent Chinese works on the matter, I recommend (keep in mind these are in Chinese): - Zhao Zhenyu, History of Sea Battles in the Pacific (Beijing: Haichao Press, 1997) - Liu Yi, The Combined Fleet (Wuhan: Wuhan University Press, 2010) - Guo Yuanfei, Bai Wenjie, and Hao Luoming, “Looking Back on the Guadalcanal Campaign: The U.S.-Japan Contest over Logistics Supper that Determined Victory or Defeat”

[@echen71]

@@EurasiaNaval what do you think of this quote from CSBA, the PLAN has, “… the penchant for attacking first…”. Do they ever back up this claim??

[@nostradamus2642]

2 decades old 🇺🇸 Rand Corp paper suggesting interdiction of 🇨🇳 commercial shipping at Malacca Strait or Indian Ocean is already obsolete. 🇺🇸 destroyers and carriers will be too busy trying to dodge Chinese DF-27 hypersonic maneuverable precison strikes at terminal speed at Mach 15. China deployment of vast numbers of LEO satellite means US ASAT won't work while China has perfected low cost rapid launches to replace lost satellites. The game has changed.

[@ВинниПух-у5п]

This is what happens when one country is engaged in satellites, destroyers and hypersonic weapons, and another only increases the number of genders.

[@djtan3313]

Putin is bemused…

[@widodoakrom3938]

No need china has the best railways technology

[@papatango2362]

Submarine: am I a joke to you? Airplanes (from Australia): am I a joke to you?

[@中华神龙]

​@@papatango2362Sorry, Australia is a joke.😂

[@slimygrimy-l7m]

If we went to war with China... and we lost a few carriers the Americans public would be outraged, especially if we started the conflict.... china would be fighting in there own backyard for what they would see as the continued existence of there country, this would not be Iraq there would be huge casualties that I don't see the American public excepting, were China wouldent see any other choice.. if there is a war it will be because we went looking for it, and I think we could loose that war, and that's without even getting into possible nuclear exchanges.

[@賴志偉-d7h]

Let's not forget that before the outbreak of hostility Japan, not the US, has the better fleet, larger carrier groups, and more experienced aircraft pilots and combatants. If we were to apply the Pacific War analogy, US is pre-WWII Japan and China is pre-WWII US. China produces 51% of the world's steel while the US produces 1%. China's shipbuilding by tonnage is 232 times that of the US, according to the US Navy's own admission.

[@jonaspete]

But China has no naval technology.

[@johnsmith1953x]

@@jonaspeteChina can sink the entirety of the US Nancy in about 2-3 hours. All ships, subs, shipyards, bases GONE.

[@paulsteaven]

China is surrounded by many enemies like Japan of WWII.

[@johnsmith1953x]

You're also forgetting that the US has a deficit more than its GDP. In contract to the USA that had a surplus in 1941. The US is broke.

[@davidmoss2576]

@@jonaspete What do you mean no naval tech?

[@keli4068]

first lesson make sure you can our produce your opponent 2 to1 before starting the war

[@abdiganiaden]

That only makes sense if all the materials is within your borders & not coming from half world away.

[@echen71]

@@abdiganiaden wrote, "That only makes sense if all the materials is within your borders & not coming from half world away.". What if all the materials is coming from your next door neighbor?

[@abdiganiaden]

@@echen71 then that neighbor will have a too much leverage in future which is something no one wants long term no matter how friendly now. Especially against large regional power that has its own goals.

[@echen71]

@@abdiganiaden I see, so your point is it has to come from within your borders. Half way around the world or next door neighbor, makes no difference. Gotcha.

[@abdiganiaden]

@@echen71 to be completely free of external factors yes obviously

[@soothsayer2406]

Awesome insightful Analysis!!!

[@AGTheOSHAViolationsCounter]

An excellent analysis and given what I've been seeing in my recent research regarding economic, industrial, and military capability/capacity. I'd say that the PLAN/PLA and CPC have been exemplary students of history surrounding the major conflicts of the last century. They have seemingly taken into account every single level of their supply and logistics chain from the mundane such as rice, grain, livestock feed, lightbulbs, etc. To the specialized such as Rare earth's like germanium and gallium, steel, titanium, gold, to oil reserves which are now larger than the US's own strategic reserves. They've also ensured that their industrial capacity can function much the way US industry did during WW2. Which is to say essentially every civilian factory is a "turnkey factory" that go from producing products such as civilian electronics to guidance systems for missiles at the drop of a hat. All of their absolutely massive shipbuilding capacity, all 23,250,000 million tons is also capable of and has experience building or refitting military vessels. Add into all this the recent CSIS(a leading US/DoD funded think-tank) "Empty Bins" report which calculated that during any PLA/PLAN-US/USN conflict the US would COMPLETELY EXHAUST it's entire stockpile of guided munitions within A WEEK. Which would then require up to 29 months before the first replacement munitions can be delivered for some items with others it may be longer. This should all be painting a very clear and rather sobering picture for any and all Western Military and Political leadership. If of course we were actually dealing with actors who are all sane and rational which I am less and less convinced of every day. As one analyst who I've become rather fond of recently has stated of the so-called "experts" here in The Old West they are "An International Collection of Ignoramus's who have no idea how to fight a real war". An it's beginning to show I think as even some of the civvies are seemingly starting to catch onto this fact. Though I imagine most of them will go right on thinking that The Old West is "numba one!" in all things right up until the second or third CSG is sunk or they suddenly see a double-flash brighter than a thousand suns. All in all I may not "like" the CPC and I may find many of their internal practices absolutely abhorrent. However. . .my respect for what they have managed to accomplish, the sheer scope and scale of it all. Is beyond impressive and much as the Russian SMO against NATO/Ukraine will be studied in military collages for generations to come. So to I imagine will the CPC and PLA/PLAN's long term strategic, economic, and industrial planning be studied for generations. Both of these instances being absolute masterclass's in their respective fields and I don't doubt that there has been a fair bit of overlap between the two. The two nations have managed to collectively deliver an almost complete 'Fait Accompli' onto The Old West were we actually being led by sane and reasonable actors. As we are not I unfortunately anticipate that we all may indeed get to see just how impressive the Chinese's chosen strategy and weapon systems truly are. Personally if we don't get "Big Red Button Time" before a US-China conflict I estimate that the US will tolerate up to 3 full CSG's and up to two ARG's sunk before they throw a hissy fit and reach for their nukes. www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/alarming-navy-intel-slide-warns-of-chinas-200-times-greater-shipbuilding-capacity features.csis.org/preparing-the-US-industrial-base-to-deter-conflict-with-China/ www.heritage.org/military-strength/download-the-index

[@yttean98]

The Chinese knows about the contribution of LOGISTICS to the success of any battle hence the final war is long Known since the first emperor of Qin dynasty, watch or read the "Romance of the 3 Kingdoms" book or videos the importance on the coordination of logistics was explained in a no. of episodes.

[@HTV-2_Hypersonic_Glide_Vehicle]

Just because they had logistics back then, doesn't mean they have modern naval logistics down today. No correlation.

[@112313]

​@@HTV-2_Hypersonic_Glide_Vehiclethat's exactly what he meant. Note that early modern PLAN ship mix are mostly brown water vessels. Thus are relegated to near water operations...but they're considered brown water vessels exactly because China lacked long range logistics assets and capabilities.

[@HTV-2_Hypersonic_Glide_Vehicle]

@@112313 Your comment doesn't make sense. You claim that you understand what "he" means about something, but when I read your comment and their comment, both of you are talking about drastically different things. Their comment was talking about the Qin Dynasty era, and you are talking about the early PLAN.

[@112313]

@@HTV-2_Hypersonic_Glide_Vehicle I'm saying the Chinese knows the importance of logistics. He talked about the times of the early dynasties...and I'm talking about modern times. Importance of logistics still apply.

[@HTV-2_Hypersonic_Glide_Vehicle]

@@112313 And how can you tell they know how to do logistics today based on something that completely does not correlate to today? That is the point of my comment. It is like saying the Americans know the importance of winning because they have won in the past and implying that they can do it again because of that. Like that makes no sense.

[@kapitankapital6580]

I've seen some Western commentators suggest similar ideas, but it's very much a niche view. In so far as American military thinkers consider history at all, they always assume that their position is more or less equivalent to the position of America in the past. Ironically hubris gained from past victories is yet another parallel between the US and IJN...

[@jakemocci3953]

Because assessing how America is different from the past is a touchy subject

[@thomasferrari6465]

Good all I have to say is keep analyzing tactics change as time does

[@arthurvandeman]

outstanding and uniique analysis in the public arena. a vidon on the chinese strategy of building artificial islands/forward bases would dovetail neatly with this article (bearing in mind the huge political fallout that the strategy continues to generate) and perhaps, a n accompanying vid on lessons learned by plan from from the falklands as the plan studied that conflict in grt detail. (if u r able to access the ch language material). ur research and effort is appreciated and keeps ur blog at the forefront of resources in ths arena. as an aside, it folllows that the chinse shipbuilding facilities would b high pririty targets for the usa if the usa were prepared to escalate to attacking the mainland..

[@mobiuszero1018]

You know,i just thought of something:I think i know why China is seen as a weak country-it may very well be because people think china is a bigger imperial Japan(Just as people thought of and still think of the Russians as modern day Nazi Germany cuz Ukraine) The whole idea of blocking the straits of malacca is what triggered this brainstorm of mine..when you think of it,a blockade of that nature would work brilliantly on Japan,right? So people think that it would work great on china too. But that also speaks volumes about collective west/U.S cognitive decline:being utterly unable to tell the difference between China and Japan. "Them asians are all the same",thinks the collective west/U.S (namely the anglo nations) And this is why if and hopefully not when we end up in war with China that China realizes they are dealing with an opponent that rejects reality and simple common sense/logic and prepare accordingly.

[@camt8804]

Japan only started importing oil form the middle east after WW2. It's not a very good comparison.

[@112313]

China recognised the vulnerability of the Malacca strait, and position of Singapore as an American ally...which is why I think BRI was launched. To diversify the supply line from a wholly maritime one, to a land over, from Pakistan, Afghanistan and even Myanmar.

[@gelinrefira]

@@112313 Singapore is not an American ally, despite whatever America wants to believe. Singapore is friends with everyone and will not be drag into a war that is none of our business. If America will to force Singapore's hands, we might just go with China. We will remain neutral until you forced us not to be and you might not like the outcome. The last thing Singapore wants is be an enemy of China and then be turned into a target and cannon fodder for the US.

[@E-zey]

As an Indonesian, idea to blockade strait of malaka doesn't seet well to me as well.

[@gelinrefira]

@@E-zey Well the Americans will want us to deny China any supplies and material and to blockade the strait for them or allow them to do it. LOL, they are so arrogant that they really think Malaysia, Indonesia and even Singapore is going to destroy our economies and industries and our livelihood for their "Freedom(TM)" and "Democracy(R)". What a f*cking bunch of a**holes.

[@johnsmith1953x]

*Japan made a serious mistake of allowing the USA shipyards to build ships in WW2*

[@saml7610]

I don't think they really had an option to stop it. They didn't have any assets capable of pulling off anything more than pin prick attacks. Additionally, most Pacific shipbuilding was tucked away in the SF Bay and the Puget Sound, both of which would have been very challenging for submarines to reach. The Germans couldn't pull it off either.

[@M-I]

Japan made a serious mistake by attacking Pearl Harbour in the first place

[@koonsiang0345]

@@M-Iit’s a classic failing of neo cons whether from Japan or US that they always feel superior and never contemplate the possibility of failure

[@paatryk.y5162]

⁠@@M-I Japan had no other choice at that point. In the years leading up to the attack on Pearl Harbor, the United States effectively prohibited all export of oil and metal to Japan. Even before the sanctions, Japan was already facing extreme financial and resource constraints as it struggled to sustain its war effort in China. This ban forced Japan to consider a new strategy for its imperialist ambitions, which ultimately led to the decision to invade and control the resource-rich Southeast Asian region. Japan foresaw that further expansion into Southeast Asia, where territories were primarily under the control of France (Indochina), Great Britain, and the United States (Philippines), would effectively provoke the United States and its European allies into military conflict. They recognized that this course of action would likely result in military retaliation from the United States. To preempt this threat, Japan launched the attack on Pearl Harbor with the hope of crippling the US Navy and eliminating the potential danger before it could fully manifest. However, as @johnsmith1953x has rightly pointed out, they underestimated the industrial might of the United States at that time and made a significant error in allowing US shipyards to continue constructing ships even after the Pearl Harbor attack.

[@redhongkong]

consider america own shoreline on both ocean, there isnt a way to stop america from building ships

[@謝元-o2d]

謝謝！

[@EurasiaNaval]

Hey, thanks so much!

[@richardrestall8592]

According to this video, PLAN strategists are correctly focusing on logistics in a Pacific-wide war with the USA. Bad logistical planning indeed doomed the Japanese effort in WW2. If the pre-war situation was an indicator, Japanese industries only had 60% of the shipping required to keep factories operating efficiently. Once the Americans stopped selling oil to Japan, the die was cast. Japan could seize Dutch colonial oilfields and foreign shipping, but the logistical deficit only grew as the war went on. Excellent presentation.

[@Unitra2550]

another eurasia naval insight banger

[@hughmungus2760]

on a further note. We should more focus on talking about china's VS the US ability to produce long range munitions. While the US can deal a devastating strike on chinese infrastructure and military hardware by firing missiles from is allies in the region. There are a finite number of missiles the US has and can produce. If the US is unable to degrade china's ability to shoot back and china is able to shoot back ordinance in greater numbers by orders of magnitude, the US and its allies will quickly sue for peace. If I were a chinese military planner, I would massively expand china's ability to produce long range weapons with the ability to hit the US mainland, I would start moving assembly lines for said weapons as well as SAMs, fighter aircraft and drones into the thousands of kms of nuclear tunnels dug over the decades. I would also dramatically increase the number of redundancies in the supply chain for all these systems to keep production rates going should any of these assembly lines be struck. Furthermore I would develope very long range conventional trike capability to hit the continental US and take out US arms production. particularly those for missiles, fighter aircraft and drones. I would almost not worry about ground warfare production as the US would never in a million years consider landing troops on the chinese mainland, and naval production would be next to impossible to protect in such a fashion. This is how I see a 'winning' strategy against the US in a conventional war.

[@Ace1000ks]

China has a larger industrial capacity than the US. During WW2, the US had the largest industrial capacity, and this is why the US won WW2. The IJN started with a large navy; however, when war broke our Japan couldn't replace what they lost. The US cannot repair and maintain the warships that they have now.

[@marselangjo2201]

​@@Ace1000ksThe wartime economy the US can have is non comparabke to what they have now. Everyone wants to make money and when money is unlimited and the government places roof prices for what it will buy every company will expand their production capacity to a point where any analisis you can do based on US economy now is pretty much useless. They said Russia this, Russia that but Russia is still producing planes, tanks, drones, artillery guns and shells, missles, ships and everything it needs.

[@Ace1000ks]

@@marselangjo2201 You have defense contractors in the US charging inflated prices and ripping off the government. This explains why the US has the largest defense budget in this world, yet they cannot produce of enough of anything.

[@tren133]

The problem with any of this analysis is why would any major power sue for peace in the event of a total war like WW2? Winning or losing or drawing a PROXY war such as Korea/Vietnam/Ukraine is one thing, but there is a very good reason the US and USSR were very careful to never engage in direct warfare with each other. If current day US and China decide to engage in open warfare all across the Pacific hot enough where US carriers are sunk? Is the US just going to take that lying down and negotiate a peace afterwards? Or if the US manages to take out most of the PLAN and before China can hit the US supercarriers and Guam, China would just back down and surrender? No, once this hypothetical war starts, it will end in nukes flying, and everyone on the whole planet losing.

[@hughmungus2760]

@@tren133 Well thats the risk. If the US loses all their carriers and their ability to produce warships/long range munutions/aircraft to chinese missile attacks, their only option at that stage is to either call for a ceasefire or escalate to nuclear war. the latter makes less sense as china even at that stage doesn't pose an existential threat to the US, the bulk of US land forces would be spared and china still isn't going to invade the US. Im only proposing this because Im pretty certain thats what the US plans with china as well. But as it stands, china can afford to lose its navy while the US military would cease to function without one.

[@jeraldsamuel5598]

Profound lessons are the best lessons. Especially if you don't forget them.

[@rainerkinzinger555]

won't industrial capacity be rendered useless in the event of a war? I presume both sides already have warheads with the coordinates of key industrial sites among other things.

[@mickeyjuiced]

Nailed it !

[@douginorlando6260]

Looking at every battle in WW2, one factor made a huge difference … awareness of the opponents’ military assets. Look at each battle with the question, how small of a force could have defeated the larger force if they only knew the location of the forces such as is available nowadays from satellites. This knowledge would easily allow victory over a force double its strength. Now add what battlefield knowledge is possible by using a swarm of small sensor drones. Whoever knows the precise location of enemy forces could win even if outnumbered 10 times over.

[@ReviveHF]

Also the design philosophy of the Type 15 light tank was said to be inspired by the US experience in using M18 Hellcat and M8 Scott as assault gun during WW2.

[@促至]

Since at the beginning you specified Chinese thinkers thinks conceptually, what does this distinguishes with western thinker? What difference is there between their thinking process? And it’s strategy planning? I am curious about it

[@kapitankapital6580]

There has been very little effort to engage with naval theory in the West on any serious scale since the end of the Second World War. Western thinking is highly mechanistic, the focus is on technology and developing tools to perform a certain job. This is why, for example, the US has invested in wonder weapon projects like the Zumwalt or the railgun, whereas the Chinese have focused on a fleet that is sustainable in wartime. Fundamentally the US (which strongly informs all Western) thinking is highly militarised. That might not sound like a bad thing but naval theory arises from the intersection between military and civilian thinkers, particularly historians. Mahan, Clausewitz and many of the other great military theorists were not just military men but students of history, and that is what informed their theoretical advances. That's not to say there's nobody in the West taking this approach, but they are for the most part divorced from the strategic decision makers. Civilians on their own lack the specific knowledge and experience to make truly informed naval theory, while soldiers on their own lack a holistic view of warfare; a soldier's job, even at high levels, is very task-orientated, and this informs their thinking. It is only when you have a robust dialogue between the two that proper naval theory emerges, and this simply is not happening in the Western world.

[@koonsiang0345]

Western thinkers are hiding in the face of the Neo cons.

[@tonywei423]

There is no continuance of the western thinking, especially the big strategic ones, the government changes every 4 years, so as the main leaders in most areas, no point to think too far, this is the fundamental problem of so called democracy if there still some left.

[@alankucar8025]

What is your source for all of this?

[@EurasiaNaval]

Hey, thanks for commenting. In hindsight, I should have referred to primary sources more in the video to enhance the credibility of the claims. I did refer to one (listed below), but more would have been useful. Here is a reasonably comprehensive overview of Chinese thinking on the Pacific War here (in English): csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/CSBA8336_(Chinese_Lessons_from_the_Pacific_War)_FINAL_web2.pdf Do understand that Chinese scholarship on the Pacific War is very large and longstanding. In terms of prominent Chinese works on the matter, I recommend (keep in mind these are in Chinese): - Zhao Zhenyu, History of Sea Battles in the Pacific (Beijing: Haichao Press, 1997) - Liu Yi, The Combined Fleet (Wuhan: Wuhan University Press, 2010) - Guo Yuanfei, Bai Wenjie, and Hao Luoming, “Looking Back on the Guadalcanal Campaign: The U.S.-Japan Contest over Logistics Supper that Determined Victory or Defeat”

[@djtan3313]

A fool fights a fort with his ship. A bigger fool fights a fort with his unsupplied ship.

[@clausjensen5658]

Considering the modern day weaponry and technology I would argue that any naval war between USA and China will be fought much faster than either side are cabable of replenishing. By the time a new warship takes to be built , testet and crew trained and commissioned the battle will allready be over or have escalated into something where ships dont really matter anymore. We are no longer just dealing with first generation ship radars and airplanes searching for enemy ships and targets. Both sides will most likely have so good surveilance of the pacific that there are more targets being tracked than weapons to fire at it. Offcourse the potential start scenario of the conflict will have alot to say when it comes to the amount of initial losses both sides will have. Even so I still think the war would be fought so fast and escalate or perhaps de-escalate so fast that initial starting numbers is more important than the capability to build new ships.

[@MrCastodian]

Yes, and also no…China can as an example build Type 22 and Type 56, maybe as many as 150 in a year, large amount of shipyards have that capability so 150 is not strange to believe they can build, the problem is crew…But in that regard China have an edge, they already have 10s of thousands trained sailors, they are an conscript based military so in a short period of time they can call up sailors to newly built ships, it’s different for USA, no small sell and easily built ships. Now Type 22 and 56 are no destroyers…But they have just as many anti ship missiles as a U.S. destroyer, the ones that even have that, so escorted by air defence destroyers this small ships patch a dangerous punch.

[@wardaddyindustries4348]

I imagine older guns will be be botled to older ships and the war would keep going. Maybe even new efficient ways of killing with modern technology that has been considered yet.

[@clausjensen5658]

@@MrCastodian I dont know if these numbers are correct but if they are, then WOW! I was´nt aware of that. And then China would have an advantage in a long conflict. Even so I still dont even think a conflict would take a year before it´s over or has escalated into nuclear war or de-escalated because one side clearly has lost. But again it depends on the start-scenario I suppose. A Taiwan invasion scenario might take longer and include more countries. A US vs China naval conflict over perhaps freedom of movement alot shorter. And I think as in the cold war both sides are keeping track of ships/subs to suchs a degree that alot of sinkings will be happening the first days and weeks not months or years like WW2. But im no expert on this it just seems to me the most likely thing happening. I watch sub brief and remember him talking about the amount of intellegence and target tracking going on during the cold war, if it´s the same or better. Both sides most likely know pretty much everything the other side is doing. Then it´s only a matter of having the weapons available to fire. Which is why I believe biggest starting numbers might win the the war.

[@clausjensen5658]

@@wardaddyindustries4348 It is possible. Like in Ukraine where Russia is putting T-55´s into service again. I just think that before either side decides on doing that the conflict has gone nuclear or have been won/lost. I can easily imagine a scenario where China having lost most of it´s modern ships and subs , perhaps even failed an invasion of Taiwan. decides to nuke Guam to show their determination and perhaps gambling the US will back down not risking nukes going to the mainland. Somehow I feel that it most likely will depend on who is in power in both China and the US at the time. There is offcourse also the possibility that both sides cool down after the first strikes knowing the risks of this escalating beyond control. It all depends on the start scenario I would imagine.

[@wardaddyindustries4348]

@@clausjensen5658 I would hope it would calm down quickly, sadly I think the case of "we just need to try harder and enemy will break" Will come into play. Interesting a nuclear strike on Guam. That could be a ace in up the sleeve and a very real possibility. I do wonder when they would pull that switch. In the beginning when it heats up or if they are desperate. But it would be a very clear line.

[@OpinionatedMatt]

I like this video, could you share the sources?

[@EurasiaNaval]

Hey, thanks for viewing. In hindsight, I should have referred to primary sources to enhance the credibility of the claims. I did refer to one (listed below), but more would have been useful. Here is a reasonably comprehensive overview of Chinese thinking on the Pacific War here (in English): csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/CSBA8336_(Chinese_Lessons_from_the_Pacific_War)_FINAL_web2.pdf Do understand that Chinese scholarship on the Pacific War is very large and longstanding. In terms of prominent Chinese works on the matter, I recommend (keep in mind these are in Chinese): - Zhao Zhenyu, History of Sea Battles in the Pacific (Beijing: Haichao Press, 1997) - Liu Yi, The Combined Fleet (Wuhan: Wuhan University Press, 2010)

[@OpinionatedMatt]

@@EurasiaNaval thank you! This is the kind of content I hoped for you to begin covering as it’s crucial to understand the reasoning behind the procurement choices for PLAN.

[@Steve_Farwalker]

Must say, those Chinese DDG's have some clean lines.

[@khorweesiong]

The only thing missing from this video is how the PLA intends to deal with the massive nuclear submarine fleet of the USN?

[@Phantom-bh5ru]

By building some sea mounts

[@echen71]

I think that was implied in the sections on logistics and different approaches of German and Japanese sub tactics. The inference I drew was that US will focus on using subs to interdict supply ships. Chinese will follow a strategy of "let them come". Sure, they'll lose some supply ships or even naval combatant ships, but they'll take out the US sub and still be able to replace lost assets. US, on the other hand, won't.

[@jwickerszh]

China has plenty of "cheap" ASW capable ships and their diesel electric subs are also cheaper, so sending expensive nuclear subs on the other side of the planet to "hunt cheap supply ships" isn't going to be sustainable. Those would maybe be useful should the PLA plan to expand Eastward and their logistics have to be long range in the open ocean, but not fighting in China's backyard.

[@echen71]

@@jwickerszh i agree 100%

[@echen71]

@@Rob-iz6nm can you refer me to your sources, speculative or factual. I've heard the rumors, but would love to see or read a detailed analysis even if it is complete inference/speculation.

[@112313]

Regarding the conclusion of this video, i think china was looking at the american liberty cargo vessels as the real hero of the entire pacific campaign. Amateurs study tactics... professionals study logistics....indeed...

[@JagdPantherable]

The US has sealed its own fate the moment when it decided to deindustrialize.

[@familyguyrofl]

great vid

[@fredfrond6148]

Japan, to the benefit of the world, got unlucky because the US carriers were out at sea when the Japanese attacked at pearl harbour. If the US had no aircraft carriers the US fleet would have been sitting ducks.

[@tren133]

Even if Japan caught all US carriers and even occupied Hawaii, it would merely prolong the war by a certain amount of time. Japanese industrial capacity could just shoestring together enough resources to hit Pearl Harbor once. They have literally zero capability to then occupy Hawaii, build up enough forces there, and then somehow project those forces all the way to the US West coast. Meanwhile the US shipyards would be laying down ships dumpling style like nobody's business, quicker than even what China is doing now. Japan would be trying to swallow all of China, trying to hold all of SE Asia against the British and Aussies, and also somehow establish logistics to cross the entire Pacific ocean to attack the Americans, with very limited industrial resources at their disposal. Not possible in any scenario.

[@fredfrond6148]

@@tren133 I can’t disagree with you. But it would have made it more difficult for the US to win and more resources would have to be provided to fighting the Japanese and less to help the British. Theoretically this might have allowed Stalin to overrun Germany all the way to the French border. Changing the course of history.

[@humanbeing9079]

It is easy to forget that the Japanese still had 9 carriers for the Battle of the Philippines sea. It is not decisive battles that sealed Japan's fate, but continual attrition, lack of a culture of accountability(the only successful japanese admirals sent to do ground duty because they are blamed for not winning hard enough), japanese being out developed technologically in all aspects(Superiority of american aircraft engines, fire control computers, radar, proximity fuses), japanese logistical breakdown by American submarine campaign(Project Starvation)

[@112313]

And don't forget one very important aspect that is seldom talked about...the American side are practically listening in on all japanese communication. All Japanese cipher systems were broken.

[@dabo5078]

@@112313 WHile important that aspect only shortened the war, not the decisive factor that changed it. Even if the USN did not break the code. They could've still crushed Japan via attrition and battles due to overwhelming resources.

[@edwinvargas7969]

In my opinion, the most vital factor in all this is the economic factor. US is already falling apart with Russia by proxy), imagine now China gets rid of all US treasuries, cuts off trade, other countries also follow suit (think Brazil, South Africa, etc), and in order to back up the war the US economy goes into war economy? The chaos at home alone could take down the country, let alone fighting a war across the ocean.

[@九州寻欢]

我想知道，如何看待前几天解放军山东舰编队加东海舰队西出太平洋的军舰，总数20艘+，美军西太的军舰加日韩海军能不能应对

[@weiminglu5331]

agreed with the host on the three strength points that the US held against Imperial Japan in WWII. If I may elaborate a bit more, even If the US Navy lost in Midway, the US Navy would win the Pacific War eventually. Simply because of stronger industrial power of the US.

[@yueyu1479]

The most important thing we learned is that... The money will be spent anyways, if not on building ships, then it would be on compensations and ceding territories.

[@kakavdedatakavunuk8516]

For a superpower like China in today's highly sophisticated technological era, the only viable conclusion from the past is to leave the past to the historians.

[@jeraldsamuel5598]

What would this hypothetical war be fought for?

[@jakemocci3953]

Nominally, Taiwan, in reality, the continued supremacy of the dollar.

[@shinobi2119]

Taiwan of course

[@edwinvargas7969]

Whenever Taiwan pulls the trigger and announces independence, get ready for a crazy ride @@shinobi2119

[@zhli4238]

True. China has the largest industrial capacity. Steel production alone accounts more than 50% of the world, drone manufacturing ... Lessons can be drawn from Japan, also from Germany on technologies. It's not what you currently have, but what you can make that counts. These things are ongoing, Ukraine conflicts drag on and these things play back again.

[@davidmoss2576]

In my opinion if war breaks out in the Pacific the first country to go is South Korea. From there the Chinese and Russian would use it as springboard to take out Japan. The only question is how much of a fight can Japan put up.

[@paulsteaven]

It seems like you're underestimating the capability of the South Koreans? If Russia is having a hard time in Ukraine, what more the more equipped Korean military? Among the three, it's the Chinese that has the high chance of defeating the South Koreans. The North Koreans and Russians were just a fodder.

[@ameyapotdar461]

​​@@paulsteaventhere is no way south Korea can take on russia china and north korea at the same time. North korea alone would give south Korea a tough fight

[@paulsteaven]

@@ameyapotdar461 sure. With what, Mig-15 fighters? Even tho the South Koreans only used the North Korean threat to justify their defense spending, they're adding the helo coming from China and Russia to justify their huge defense spending. Ex. Who needs an F-35 against antiquated Soviet fighters? Who needs an AEGIS destroyer against a small coastal defense navy?

[@nunyadambusiness6902]

​@@ameyapotdar461Russia isn't DUMB enough to risk a nuclear war over nk - China IS...

[@davidmoss2576]

@@paulsteaven I don't underestimate the SK at all. They have a good military, but the end result is they will lose. The US simply can't defend SK from China, Russia, and NK. As for Ukraine, they have lost 3 full armies since Feb 2022 so its quite a high price to pay. The West pumped 3x Russia's military budget into Ukraine so you shouldn't be surprise they are causing some damage to the Russians.

[@afunguynamedkawhi7959]

Any potential China US conflicts will happen far away from American homeland. So there will be no pure navy battles between the two, Chinese missile powers from land bases will play a major role.

[@COLINJELY]

It is a long way from the US West Coast to the South China Sea, US supply convoys would be vulnerable

[@multipolarworldorder]

China must also include forces from allies such as Japan; South Korea; Britain; France; Canada; Australia if a Pacific conventional war with the U$A occurred. China would be fighting a massive navy force and not just the U$A. China needs to increase defense spending from the present 1.3% GDP to meet the present threats posed by the U$A and allied forces which are immense.

[@multipolarworldorder]

@@Rob-iz6nm China has many other civilian priorities so an increase from 1.3 to 2.6% GDP may be enough to address the military balance at this time.

[@MicMc539]

Having been embarrassingly late for the last two World Wars. The U.S. is determined to be early for this one. YANKEE GO HOME !!

[@widodoakrom3938]

True

[@afahmid]

The Allied won because of better coordination among the allies which Axis forces were severely lacking.

[@ysw3885]

Todays IJN is in the east coast of Pacific Ocean

[@mop330]

America as a nation needs to be humbled

[@milcearry]

The biggest factor in my opinion in a hot naval war is jamming technology

[@multipolarworldorder]

China needs to increase the nuclear deterrent to the same warheads as NATO to deter a nuclear strike by the U$A. The delivery of the warheads needs to be modernised in air and sea. China needs to increase defense spending from the present 1.3% GDP to meet the present threats posed by the U$A and allied forces which are immense.

[@multipolarworldorder]

@@Rob-iz6nm I do not trust American think tanks and establishment sources - they all lie under the Wolfowitz doctrine. The many estimates I have seen from independent sources is that China has about 1000 warheads maximum. It is almost impossible to hide ballistic missiles with modern surveilance. NATO and Russia have about 6000 warheads each and the means to deliver them. China should aim for 6000 warheads PLUS the means to deliver them which China lacks at present - to not have modern Ballistic Submarines and Strategic Bombers is a major problem for China - if China relies only on Ballistic missiles these can all be destroyed in a pre emptive strike by NATO in an hour.

[@multipolarworldorder]

@@Rob-iz6nm Under the WOLFOWITZ DOCTRINE any thing can be used to maintain U$A world hegemony and full spectrum dominance. As ex CIA Pompei says " we lie, we cheat, we steal". Karber can say anything in this regard. China only has six very old noisy ballistic submarines and no long range nuclear bombers. The DF41 is a very recent ballistic missile development that can reach the U$A so they do not have 3000 DF41 ballistic missiles that is a fact.

[@NixsonJr]

She's moving slow and steady

[@minhmeo9506]

1st and the most important lesson: when you attack Pearl Harbor (again), please remember to target the logistical facilities first :)))

[@賴志偉-d7h]

You missed the point: US is more similar to pre-WWII Japan, and China is more similar to pre-WWII US.

[@minhmeo9506]

@@賴志偉-d7h agree, many things have change. So that lesson should probably be for America :V

[@dabo5078]

Eh why pearl harbour?

[@minhmeo9506]

@@dabo5078 I say that from the Chinese perspective

[@paulsteaven]

​@@賴志偉-d7h China is still locked by important SLOC (Strait of Malacca) that they will having a hard time to control. China is also surrounded by enemies like Japan of WWII. And China will be having a hard time in securing important resources (oil) like Japan.

[@philippebyrnes1213]

This is an excellent analysis and reflects a wisdom best expressed by five-star General Omar Bradley: "Amateurs talk about strategy. Professionals talk logistics." That said, I think the PLA analysis ignores a central fact of what the next global war will look like. That is, there will be no 'rear' areas. PRC shipyards and steel mills will be destroyed within weeks of a war starting. The Japanese were never able to interdict American industrial production during WW2 because the continental US was too far away. The missile age changed that. China will likewise attack American industry with ballistic missiles but the US will destroy China's present advantage in manufacturing capacity very quickly in a global war. (None of this supposes the attacks will be nuclear. Ballistic and cruise missile with 1000+ lb warheads delivered to within 50' of their intended targets will be able to destroy dry docks, steel mills, railyards.) This was the real lesson of Gulf War 1: the US mastery of high precision weapons meant that the Iraqis had no rear-areas to regroup and re-arm in. It didn't take the thousands of bombers of WW2 or the hundreds of Vietnam to destroy a bridge. One JDAM bomb will destroy it 90% of the time. That said, I hope this conflict never comes because the two sides will unleash fearsome destruction on each other. If the CCP is mentally prepared to accept up to 50% of their population as total casualties (per Mao) then the level of carnage will be unprecedented. But at the end of the day I think China moved too soon under Xi to stop 'hide and bide'. Their forces are peaking and the relative balance will be adverse to them going forward. The next 5 years may be the most perilous.

[@williambenedictalava2634]

Tip: hit with ICBMs Philippine Current and EDCA bases here to further cripple the Americans.

[@davidl.6125]

Imperial Japan did not have a complete industrial chain and was short of material supply.

[@tyme5837]

just have peace at any cost, war is too destructive in the nuclear age

[@samad3251]

Any war of yesterday, today or tomorrow will be the war of attrition.

[@rags417]

Total number and tonnage and numbers of US warships shrank drastically from 1988 (its peak) to around 2014 and it has basically waffled around the same numbers since then. Meanwhile the PLAN has grown in leaps and bounds since 2010 or so and should overtake the USN by 2035 at the latest.

[@arthurchen5221]

if there is no integrated electric propulsion it is less meaningful for PLA.

[@syq8888]

China doesn't have ambition outside its waters. You don't see chinese warship near New York city but you see american fleet sailing pass taiwan straits. Dont back her to a corner, engage her constructively and talk.

[@jacobbaumgardner3406]

Good analysis, though I have one critique. It is true that China has a greater industrial capacity, as well as a larger shipbuilding industry. The difference, however, is that Japan was physically incapable of further expansion due to lack of resources. This is not something the US lacks, it has plenty of the raw materials to continue to produce hardware. If it came to a conflict the US would indeed suffer initially, but in a protracted war the US after a few years would not struggle to create the industrial base required, same goes for shipbuilding. The industry lacks because policy set up by moronic politicians starved the US shipbuilding industry. Just my two cents, but I agree with your video otherwise.

[@rs-dp6pr]

Yeah but then end of of two super powers comes.. either will emerge successful

[@dabo5078]

Japan did not lack resources in terms of territory it captured. It howeve lacked the means to exploit their resources

[@jacobbaumgardner3406]

@@dabo5078 true, but that is not something the US lacks.

[@taiwanstillisntacountry]

The collective West doesn't even have the cability to refine rare-earth minerals, let alone produce enough war-ships. Go watch more Hollywood or Bollywood movies.

[@hughmungus2760]

resources is another issue china needs to resolve. in a total war situation its pretty much guarenteed that china's sea borne oil would be cut off, Even land based pipelines and refinaries could come under attack too. Again china needs the ability to produce all the energy it consumes domestically to protect from the prior, and the ability to hit US oil refinaries to deter the latter.

[@Grace17893]

I wish the best to both sides; God willing our world can have peace amen

[@frogdu]

Goven the size of the two and the range of modern weapons, it will not be a regional war on Pacific only.

[@ALWH1314]

China used this ancient but effective 😊😊grinding strategy many times. CCP used massive civilian in battle to soften National Party fire power during civil war, used massive “volunteers” in Korean War against U.S. and National party used human life and resources to slow down and exhaust Japanese invasion.

[@jeraldsamuel5598]

Why couldn't Japan in WW2 import all the raw materials it needed from USSR?

[@jakemocci3953]

They hated each other, Japan sent 40k troops into Kamchatka to fight the Bolsheviks.

[@Stench512]

America and the USSR were allied during WWII. As a side note, it was agreed the USSR would join the war against Japan after the Nazis were defeated, which they did.

[@DavidSeto-i2q]

No body ever ask the question what will Japan will do in a war brween China and the US ? If rhey will not allow US forces based on Japanese soil to be used against China, we are in big trouble. And South korea too. No one every ask this question ?

[@edwinvargas7969]

Why do you think theyre desperate for an asian NATO?

[@rdiddyspace1708]

interesting video. so if you are right and Chinese naval leadership sees themselves as like the USN during WW2 in a war in 21st century, that sounds kind of arrogant to me. by 1942 the US Navy had already proved itself as a global naval force after the decisive defeat of the Spanish Navy during the Spanish American War. True that the IJN had more ships by tonnage than the US Navy in 1942 and maybe your are right about the industrial capacity of Chinese ship building in 2023. but naval combat leadership and experience at the highest levels matters in a war. when was the last time the Chinese Navy won a major sea battle against another major Navy? naval history has examples of outnumbered fleets winning battles because they had the better crews and commanders.

[@EurasiaNaval]

I said 1941 US. Before the war in December.

[@rdiddyspace1708]

@@Rob-iz6nm well then i hope the US Navy will train harder. I'm from Taiwan. that tells you what side I want to see winning. let's pray this stays hypothetical and a peaceful resolution comes out. but America will fight hard spending half the worlds defense budget.

[@rdiddyspace1708]

I've always admired the IJN ww2 ships though I don't agree or like what Japan did to China and allies in WW2. it's possible to admire and respect certain aspects of another country but also hate at the same time some country. I wished people could share culture and pride without bloodshed. People in Taiwan and USA respect Japan for the most part. China not as much but maybe they will eventually forgive.

[@suntemple3121]

⭐🇨🇳🇨🇳🇨🇳🇨🇳 Victory to the People's Republic of China. And The People's Liberation Army.

[@seanzibonanzi64]

I fear that America's making the same mistake Britain did in WW2, betting on a losing technology. Aircraft carriers, like battleships, are thought the epitome of naval warfare but to a hypersonic missile, it's just a large target.

[@jonwick7635]

Heh. Murica will crumble, no need to fire shots. Even though there are shots, it will be so little

[@ganboonmeng5370]

History is important but...every generation battle will be different...it is doubtful...there will be time..to replace lost ships or men..in the modern war...

[@sidlee13]

This is what worries me. The US Congress is moving to spin up the American Military Industrial Complex. But this process will probably take a decade or more and will never reach the levels seen during WWII. So China really has a small window of opportunity to move on Taiwan. That’s why the US is trying to buy itself some time by creating all these Pacific Coalitions to contain China. Very dangerous times.

[@jwickerszh]

"But this process will probably take a decade or more" .. I think how long that takes is irrelevant, the industrial base and potential is greater in China so they would be able to more than match whatever increase the US can muster. Right now the US can't even outmatch Russia in a war of attrition they aren't directly participating in.

[@gelinrefira]

Actually there is no way the US can catch up to China in terms of industrial capacity. It will require a complete retooling of the economy, de-financialized it, and reindsutrialized it, meanwhile vampirically sucking out all the industrial surplus from the EU, Japan and SK, and it won't come close to China. No way the neoliberals in Wall St will allow that. Meanwhile China is still growing at 4-5% every year, they still have 400 million people to be lifted out of poverty. The economy of China ten years in the future will be even bigger, while the west is in decline. Heck, the BRICS + has already outztrip the G7 andprojected trajectory of the BRICS+ will further the gap. China has allllll the time in the world to reunify Taiwan and it wants to do so peacefully if possible. China doesn't want war and she has the patience of a mountain. What's 10 years, 20, or even 100 years to them? They are doing fine economically without Taiwan, they just want it back to close the chapter of century of humiliation and be whole again. It is the US that is running out of the time. They are now at 33 trillions USD in debt and their debt servicing is climbing. In a few years time, it might reach unsustainable level, maybe even 40% of their budget will be spent servicing that debt. The US is staring down the barrel of a fiscal cliff and their fundamentals are completely wreck. Their economy is financialized, they depend on sucking up other countries' surpluses to buy their bonds and engage in financial shenanigans. They don't produce enough valuable goods and services to export out of their debt and sooner or later they will lose the tool to inflate away their debt. If the US defaults, and it is now a real possibility with way the the American regime spends, what do you think will happen to their military? They are running out of time and they are just struggling to keep things afloat.

[@patrolmanracv]

Taiwan is China ...

[@hanooi7450]

I disagree. The USA's problem is its aging population. The Baby Boomers which represent a huge population bulge will be fully retired in the coming years. Social Security and Medicare is already running massive deficits and forecasted to go insolvent in 10 years. The US simply lacks the funds to support its retirees and fund such an expensive war on the other side of the world with such a high tech power. In fact, the US lacks the money to fund the retirement of the Boomers even with no war, full stop. US Army will probably suffer conscientious objections on a scale that would make Vietnam looks like a walk in the park. China just needs to take a knee and wait for the US to go BK.

[@MrBdoleagle]

US has no way to re-build its Military Industrial Complex to WWII level. Meanwhile on the other hand, China keeps its light speed development. You can't image the scale/efficiency of Chinese military industrial. There is no compete, totally at different levels

[@johnnyflores5954]

Because, Taiwan is a core issue for China, Taiwan is not a core issue for America. America might win a 1st time, 2nd time, maybe even a 3rd time, but a 4th time. America, will loose interest in defending Taiwan. - Lee Kuan Yu

[@Ricardo-lb4so]

Learning from other's experience helps to develop strategic thinking, but for tactical and operational planning & decision making the best source is to fight battles at your own. Nothing can replace experience on the ground. As per this line, the USnavy and army has an unquestionable superiority. I'm afraid China wil learn this in the painful way.

[@richardkong4387]

Do tell that to the Wet nam rice farmers and the nomads of Affgun nistan. Superiority on the run?

[@henryyip1]

@@richardkong4387 Fantastic reply to criminals and war mongers Thanks Richard

[@widodoakrom3938]

China has the best railways technology so they don't have worry about any supplies chains

[@nunyadambusiness6902]

Only till the tomahawks take out the railroads & power lines...

[@假的自由言论]

直到中国摧毁美国的机场和发电厂

[@taiwanstillisntacountry]

Tell us which Bollywood or Hollywood movie? Because that is the only place where the USA wins

[@hughmungus2760]

@@nunyadambusiness6902 china is literally crisscrossed with rail and power lines, Good luck finding them all. Plus china is well known for fixing things fast. They'd probably rebuild before you can even replace those tomahawks.

[@sumba8871]

do you understand the range of tomahawks relative to Chinas size? @@nunyadambusiness6902

[@comments2840]

You speak of supply lines, logistics and industrial capacity, etc. But none of these matters if nukes are used. Having done before, the US would have no problem using them again, even if it could cause great calamities on both sides. Indeed, even mutual destruction. In fact, this was the thinking during the cold war with the USSR.

[@kapitankapital6580]

I think it's a bit of a stretch to suggest the US would wipe out all life on Earth with a total nuclear war in order to protect Taiwan or any other potential conflict point between the two.

[@mikael5938]

America only used nukes againt non nuke countries. Do you think china will just be nuked and not nuke back ?

[@假的自由言论]

想想中国有多少地铁？ 你以为那仅仅是地铁吗可能毁灭的只有你们

[@edwinvargas7969]

Im not going to lie to you, but everyday the world inches closer to multipolarity, this line of reasoning seems less likely @@kapitankapital6580

[@debratakahara2494]

Good video however China is not this magical power that dominates over every other country as many would like to believe. New fancy warships look cool but China has nearly no actual combat experience, which is far different than simple strategy. Their weapon systems are often overhyped and don’t perform as advertised. Many of their personal have questionable training combined with zero real world experience. You also forget to factor in some key US advantages in a pacific war which would be caused by a Chinese attack on Taiwan. Those are Australia, Japan and South Korea.

[@ryanjuguilon213]

No navy in the world has an actual experience in modern missile dominated naval battles. Using your ships to fire cruise missiles against decrepit regimes or even shoeless muslim peasant is not an experience you should brag about.

[@frank-ko6de]

@@ryanjuguilon213 We've shooting down nothing but cruise missiles fired by the Houthis with missiles that are very modern. Try paying attention so that you don't sound nonsensical.

[@ryanjuguilon213]

@@frank-ko6de very modern? A subsonic missiles and drines by a rag-tag group modern? Have your head checked my friend. Delusion is one sign of mental illness. Being a fat slob is one thing. Being fat and insane is anothef

[@frank-ko6de]

@@ryanjuguilon213 Its not my fault you have no idea what modern is it even what you're talking about. You're free to continue with your lazy characterizations because yours simply too stupid to come up with critical thinking on your own. I'm just here laughing at you. Deluded ridiculous nonsense with easily breakable glassed jaws are something else.

[@COLINJELY]

All you have to do is read Sun Tzu 🙂

[@Novideos00]

Why would the US go to war with China over an island that is 10,000 kms away from the US but 150kms from the coast of China. The distance from the US would post big logistic challenges for America. Leaving aside comparisons between the two militaries how does the US expect to sustain the island over decades as it will be economically cut off from a 1.5 billion middle income consumer market. In 5 to 10 years time US should be independent in terms of fabricating its own computer chips. 95 percent of the Taiwan population are Han Chinese who will have relatives in the mainland and whose ancestry can be traced back to China. China and Taiwan should be left alone to resolve their issues and encouraged to eschew use of military force. The US and the West should also refrain from being agents of provocation encouraging Taiwanese independence. President Nixon envisaged a loose union based on common economic , business and trade interests. This process of negotiation should not be rushed and may take decades.

[@chanwu5615]

我們要從歷史去了解過去, 用現代科技思考去營造未來. 固定我的有的是五千年文化,

[@tyme5837]

don't try america's patience and do not provoke her neither

[@Wvk5zc]

more like it's the americunts who have been provoking non stop

[@huluwaiwai7838]

I was curious: If China launched a war to liberate Taiwan and had no desire to attack the US homeland and its people, how much support would the US have at home if it intervened? This is not an attack on Afghanistan or Iraq, which would necessarily require the mobilization of large numbers of troops and the logistical coordination of large numbers of people.

[@刘辉-n5t]

The United States may say that China invaded a free and democratic Taiwan, but in reality it was a Chinese civil war. It's no different from the American Civil War.

[@raymondtay3532]

Well done China Super PLA Navys had the power in pacific war. 👍👍💪💪👏👏💯💯❤❤

[@ThePTBRULES]

That's not a good thing.

[@井蛙坐井观天]

Around 2030, the United States will have a large number of active aircraft carriers, cruisers, submarines and destroyers facing retirement, while China will build more warships and submarines with larger tonnage before 2030.Although the US Navy is currently the country with the most powerful data on the books.

[@kumbackquatsta]

just imagine how dumb america's replacement personnel will be during war, considering they need to reduce standards just to meet quotas today

[@pj_ytmt-123]

The chinese strategy is a good one. The US shipbuilding industry is indeed a pale shadow of its former self. However, having raw materials won't do them much good if all their major shipyards were destroyed by american stealth bombers lopping missiles from standoff ranges. Unless they have secret shipyards in Xinjiang or something. 🎉🎉🎉

[@jwickerszh]

Actually they do have large shipyards far "inland", yes.

[@pj_ytmt-123]

@@jwickerszh Yep they have 2 large rivers among the longest in the world.

[@patrolmanracv]

China could destroy any bomber before it got 1000 kms ..

[@andrewnewton2246]

Japan should have attacked Vladivostok in 1941 instead of Pear Harbour.

[@tyme5837]

over confidence

[@bonkersblock]

China misses the most important factors in war, Americas legion of alliances and it superb logistics second to non..

[@Thutghihi]

well chian got destroy by usa like japan in ww2

[@sidb9540]

NATO.. That's all I will say.. no single country will dare fight the US... you'll have to fight the 10 other nations as well!

[@MicMc539]

Q. What China Learned From The Pacific War? A. The U.S.N.'s best days are decades ago. YANKEE GO HOME ! Peace.

[@paulsteaven]

They're still the best navy tho upto this day.

[@shinobi2119]

@@paulsteavenbut there’s too many gays, trans and negros in the USNavy

[@MM-mo2yc]

The PLA is a tofu-dreg joke.

[@ycplum7062]

You cannot read about soccer/football and then expect to play well. While academics and admirals absorb theory and insights, execution demands experience and practice. PLAN have conducted exercises, but they appear focused on learning basic operations and for propaganda. The PLAN needs to test till failure to truly competent in naval warfare. China does NOT have the industrial capacity to engage the US. In WW II, the US had most of the raw materials to support the war effort. Much of China's critical materials can be cut off by the USN. Chona cannot sustain a significant force east of the Malacca Straits and no forces west of the Malacca Strait. China will lose 80% of its crude oil and a significant portion of their food imports and industrial material for food production. Time would be on the US side. China's industry would grind to a halt and population face famine in 6 months

[@liangcongg]

why do you think you can survive under DF41😂

[@ycplum7062]

@@liangcongg I don't think it is easy for China to complete a kill chain. Just having a capable weapon system is not enough.