China - Geostrategic & Geopolitical.

[koxinga]

Europe has a huge latent military production capability. If the US is lacking equipment, they can put in some orders.

Ananda has answered this, but to add on, US ordering from Europe... is extremely unlikely.

* Naval Strike Missile (NSM) is already supplementing Harpoon. Production line is being established in the US however main production line still in Europe. If US wants more they can order not just from the US production line but also the Norwegian one. And if there is an urgent need, they can also "borrow" a few NSM from some of the 12 (soon to be 15) countries that have NSM in their inventories, to will be back-filled later.

* Ukrainans jury-rigged MiGs to use HARMs. If need be the Americans can do something similar to get access to e.g., IRIS-T, Meteor, Mica a2a missiles, Exocet, RBS-15, JSM, SOM, Sea Agle anti-ship missiles, and Taurus, Storm Shadow/Scalp cruise missiles (some of these already integrated into US systems) and get access to not only existing inventories but also European production lines. The total number of Taurus, Storm Shadow/Scalp in NATO countries seems to be more than 1,600, possibly up to 2,000... how many LRASM does the US have...?

* European naval production capacity can be mobilized -- countries like Spain, France, Italy, the UK, Germany, the Netherlands, Turkey, Denmark, Sweden, etc. all have the capabilities to build high-quality, high-performing frigates, and some can also build destroyers and other warships. All the US needs to do, is to place some orders...

All possible but extremely remote. Feels like grasping at straws type argument.

It boils down to exactly what type of conflict is going to happen in TW. That conflict is going to be fast and furious because there is only going to be so much ships and planes that either side can lose and so many troops that China can potentially land. It is not going to be WWI redux that we are seeing now, but more like 1942 WWII Pacific.

Production in Europe has some advantages, in particular in an all-out war between the US and China, they will both try to damage production facilities in the other country. Thus we should expect Chinese manufacturing to be strongly reduced by the US. I don't know if China will have capabilities to hit US production facilities but if they do, European production facilities will become even more important, and pose a conundrum for China: If they attack Europe, it will turn into WW3. If they don't the US will have access to a continuous flow of weapons and munitions, whereas China will struggle quite a lot to produce.

That's insane. No one is suggesting all-out war where US and China bomb each other's production facilities over TW.

If it is not happening today in Ukraine/Russia, why do you think this is likely in the Pacific?

Europe can assist US in other ways, not just selling gear, and without becoming directly involved in such a conflict. For instance, the US has significant number of troops, equipment and munitions in the ME. The US can rapidly shift this to Asia, and European countries (e.g., Italy, Spain, France, etc.) can step in and stabilize the situation in the ME. There are many different ways that European countries can support the US.

Hmm, no. That is another can of worms that I suspect no European leader wants, beyond the fact that Europe will be dealing with the mess that is Ukraine and Russia aftermath.

IMO, the best Europe can do in such a Pacific conflict is to relief the US in Europe and start to buckle up on their defence obligations.

 

[Toptob]

A conflict with China and the stress it brings to the munitions supply chain will quite different compared to Ukraine. The war on the European conflict is largely a land based conflict, with artillery, artillery rockets, various small arms munitions taking the center stage.

I think this hits on something important. Though I think there would be plenty of occasion for artillery and small arms to shine in a potential conflict for Taiwan, but I also think that the situation in Ukraine shows how impactful a well sorted air defense can actually be. Especially when it's densely packed with a lot of ammunition! And this is something for which I admire the Taiwanese very much, they actually have a pretty nice line up of indigenous anti air missiles and anti ship missiles. This means that they can build as many as they want and they're not dependent on third parties, while at the same time they stimulate high tech industries in their country.

IMO, the best Europe can do in such a Pacific conflict is to relief the US in Europe and start to buckle up on their defence obligations.

What is there to be relieved? US positions in Europe are all there to support US geopolitical interests beyond Europe! The idea that those are there to defend Europe is silly and only used by people as a stick to force Euopean countries to spend more on their militaries, but for that to happen they would have to be allowed to develop geo-strategic interests independently from the "Western" powerblock. Otherwise there is no direct threat to Europe...

But if the US wants to withdraw from Europe, well... they are free to do so! They don't have to have a base in Rota to support their operations in the central and Southeastern Atlantic. And they don't need to be in Souda Bay to project power into the Eastern Mediterranean and support operations into the Indian ocean. Do they need a massive logistics node at Ramstein? And why would they want to have an airbase at Sigonella to fly their spy planes from?

Realistically in a conflict between China and the US, Europe would be used as a springboard to project pressure onto China from the West through the Indian ocean and their positions here will do what they where meant to do and that is supporting US operations beyond Europe.

 

[Ananda]

What is there to be relieved?

I believe what koxinga implied, if there's conflict in Asia Pacific in near future, realistically there's not much US Euro allies can do to support US. This is under present condition and capacities.

Thus the best they can do is to cover some US capabilities in Europe that potentially being withdrawn to cover US needs in Asia Pacific conflicts. Yes some US bases in Europe in theory can be used as spring board for US supplies traffic. However that's using US own supplies network, thus some of that potentially being withdrawn from Europe, and need to be cover by Euro Allies.

Remember this is in near future scenario, where Euro Zone also has not resolved Russian issue. This's the base of CSIS studies. Russian war in Ukraine still happening, and China invade Taiwan.

 

[Toptob]

I believe what koxinga implied, if there's conflict in Asia Pacific in near future, realistically there's not much US Euro allies can do to support US. This is under present condition and capacities.

Thus the best they can do is to cover some US capabilities in Europe that potentially being withdrawn to cover US needs in Asia Pacific conflicts. Yes some US bases in Europe in theory can be used as spring board for US supplies traffic. However that's using US own supplies network, thus some of that potentially being withdrawn from Europe, and need to be cover by Euro Allies.

Remember this is in near future scenario, where Euro Zone also has not resolved Russian issue. This's the base of CSIS studies. Russian war in Ukraine still happening, and China invade Taiwan.

No I understand that @Ananda , but what I'm implying is that there is not much for the US to withdraw from Europe. There are only a few actual combat troops while the rest of their positions are more for supporting US operations in Africa, the middle east and the Indian ocean. So in the case of conflict in the Asia Pacific those bases will be doing what they where meant for which is supporting power projection in the Indian ocean and keeping open lines of communication to the East.

What I'm saying is that there isn't really much that the US is doing that European militaries can take over, except maybe flying some patrols and some training missions but those would be questionable in war time anyway. Or are you suggesting that they take over the logistic trail between the US East coast and Europe?

I guess that it would be possible to take over some flights and there should be shipping capacity be available so that more official US assets could be focused closer to the conflict zone. And if Europe wanted to join into such a conflict there is still a lot of very capable assets available that is trained to be integrated in US force structures. I'm thinking here of Marines and amphibious units, and in a pinch there should be some excess escorts available.

As for the Russians, I don't agree that they ever where a threat to Europe after the early 90's, and I've always been of the opinion that European countries combined without the US was already more than a match for the Russians. Even in the frankly deplorable state which our respective defense apparatuses are in at the moment.

Of course all this would put a dent in the support that the US is 'giving' the Ukraine right now, but if we're looking at the rate at which they're burning through things like ammo and ATGM's... Well it's hard to how anyone could support a conflict that's any bigger than this, let alone a conflict that's potentially much bigger! The burn rate in Ukraine put a big dent in ATGM and manpad supplies of most Western arsenals combined and it's projected to take years to replenish those stocks.

So yes there is some catching up to do in terms of industrial capacity, and I doubt the US could supply both the Ukraine and another comparable let alone a bigger conflict as well. But if the tempo and intensity of operations we see in the Ukraine is indicative of modern warfare. Then I think the Chinese would also have a hard time supporting such an undertaking in the long run. Ultimately what I'm saying is that it seems to me that in reality, modern warfare is turning out to be much more resource intensive than many people have expected.

And then I'm not even considering the potential breakdown of globalized supply-chains!

 

[koxinga]

Re to relief the US, it largely means to take ownership of their defense responsibilities. If anything, this current conflict has shown certain disfunctionalities as well as a need to reorder defense policies of European nations. The challenge is also an opportunity for Europe to take the lead. The recent Leopard fiasco where Berlin refuse to make a decision on its own equipment until Uncle Sam provided guarrantees is pretty daming.

Practically, withdrawal of equipment (e.g APS-2 stockpiles under CEGE) from Europe would send a negative signal to the region, which makes it very unlikely Anyway, that is another NATO related discussion.

 

[SolarisKenzo]

US presence in Europe is not even close to what it was during the cold war.
Not even close to 1990s.

This is a pic from june 2022, taken from Home page

US numbers are close to 100 000 troops, which not very different from pre-invasion numbers, a bit higher, but not much.
Many european NATO countries are providing forces and deploying them to the eastern flank.
So I wouldnt really overestimate US commitment to Europe, which is important but not huge.

The amount of forces the US redirected to the Pacific is very impressive and you have to combine that with the expansion of Korean, Japanese, Australian and Taiwanese forces.

 

[Vivendi]

Ananda has answered this, but to add on, US ordering from Europe... is extremely unlikely.

Europe needs time to ramp up, as does the US. However there are some significant European inventories that have not been touched by the Ukraine war (e.g., cruise missiles, anti-ship missiles, European a2a missiles, etc.).

Why is US ordering from Europe extremely unlikely? I gave you an example of US ordering European missiles already, there are several other examples.

All possible but extremely remote. Feels like grasping at straws type argument.

If somebody had described how US/EU aid to Ukraine would happen, before the invasion, I think most people would say "possible but extremely remote". Germany and several other countries had a clear policy in place for decades, to never send arms to conflict zones. All that has changed, and now even German tanks are going to be sent to Ukraine. What seems extremely remote today, may not be so in the future. Things may change very significantly.

It boils down to exactly what type of conflict is going to happen in TW. That conflict is going to be fast and furious because there is only going to be so much ships and planes that either side can lose and so many troops that China can potentially land. It is not going to be WWI redux that we are seeing now, but more like 1942 WWII Pacific.

So when the US is running out of missiles what do you think they will do? Give up and go home? You don't think they will consider the possibility of how they can obtain new ships and more munition?

That's insane. No one is suggesting all-out war where US and China bomb each other's production facilities over TW.

If it is not happening today in Ukraine/Russia, why do you think this is likely in the Pacific?

What do you mean "not happening in Ukraine/Russia"? Russia has destroyed Ukrainian arms manufacturing facilities. Ukraine has not the capabilities/capacity to attack Russian arms manufacturing facilities. If they had the capabilities to do so, I suspect they would at least consider it. All-out war between the US and China will hopefully never happen, on that I fully agree.

 

[Delta204]

What do you mean "not happening in Ukraine/Russia"? Russia has destroyed Ukrainian arms manufacturing facilities. Ukraine has not the capabilities/capacity to attack Russian arms manufacturing facilities. If they had the capabilities to do so, I suspect they would at least consider it. All-out war between the US and China will hopefully never happen, on that I fully agree.

Think the premise here is that in such a conflict only forces "in theatre" will be eligible targets. The current Ukraine/Russian war is a poor example for a few reasons. Perhaps the Falklands War is a better comparable. Each side will have to weigh how many resources they are willing to commit to the fight - basically it would be a "limited war".

 

[koxinga]

Europe needs time to ramp up, as does the US. However there are some significant European inventories that have not been touched by the Ukraine war (e.g., cruise missiles, anti-ship missiles, European a2a missiles, etc.).

Why is US ordering from Europe extremely unlikely? I gave you an example of US ordering European missiles already, there are several other examples.

Two points:

Because US MIC is closely interwined with domestic politics, and the same applies to Europe.

High demand almost means a desire for US MIC to press their state senators to push US DOD to fund additional procurement, production lines. Europe have been allies with the US since the end of WWII. But US defence procurement has always been US centric. Even in cases where European systems are adopted (which is far and few), they would require domestic production. NSM (designed by Kongsberg, but built in the US by Raytheon), as you pointed out, is one example.

Second point, I would question your assertation that there are significant European inventories of these said missiles. Are these inventories enough for European security AND supporting the US? Most of these purchases were meant to meet domestic requirements. For purely commercial reasons, many of these systems are not integrated with US platforms.

If somebody had described how US/EU aid to Ukraine would happen, before the invasion, I think most people would say "possible but extremely remote". Germany and several other countries had a clear policy in place for decades, to never send arms to conflict zones. All that has changed, and now even German tanks are going to be sent to Ukraine. What seems extremely remote today, may not be so in the future. Things may change very significantly.

If that's your position, so be it. It is not wrong, but we get more intellectual mileage out of debating considerations, possibilities than taking a simple view that anything/everything is possible in future.

So when the US is running out of missiles what do you think they will do? Give up and go home? You don't think they will consider the possibility of how they can obtain new ships and more munition?

US is running out of missiles is a very remote possibility but use here like a strawman argument.

If the US is going to run out of missiles and ships, we will all be in a deep shit and you think that demand can be solved by Europe?

What do you mean "not happening in Ukraine/Russia"? Russia has destroyed Ukrainian arms manufacturing facilities. Ukraine has not the capabilities/capacity to attack Russian arms manufacturing facilities. If they had the capabilities to do so, I suspect they would at least consider it. All-out war between the US and China will hopefully never happen, on that I fully agree.

Ukraine and Russian are direct actors in the current wars. In that case, technically, the weapons infrastruture of either sides are fair targets. But even NATO/US have restraints against Ukraine from directly attacking Russian infrastructure or the "rusty gas station" because of consequences. Rational actors consider the benefits versus consequence.

Likewise, in a TW scenario, direct actors will be China and TW, with the US supporting. Unlikely they want to widen the conflict by directly attacking mainland targets. The importance and necessity to support TW isn't a blank cheque to do any action.

It is your pregorative to argue that "anything is possible", of course.

 

[Vanquish]

U.S. four-star general warns of war with China in 2025

A four-star U.S. Air Force general said in a memo that his gut told him the United States would fight China in the next two years, comments that Pentagon officials said were not consistent with American military assessments.

www.reuters.com

While I know this article is only an opinion I still can't help but feel very disconcerted. With a very dangerous war already taking place in Europe currently and whatever the true story is with the Iran drone strikes, adding in a war with China might very well spell the end of times as we know them.

 

[koxinga]

End of times is rather dramatic.

There is always a concern / possibility that it can escalate but we can reasonably infer that China are laser focused on taking Taiwan and not get into a wider, civilisation-ending conflict with the US and likewise, the US seeks to deter and prevent China from taking Taiwan, while not getting into a full-on war.

The general is but a list of serving US military leaders (2021, Adm. Phil Davidson, PACOM talked about 2022, 2023, 2027) who have come up with timetables that is based on assumptions that are difficult to proof or disproof. He took a step further and said his "gut" as the source of wisdom for that prediction.

Davidson: China Could Try to Take Control of Taiwan In 'Next Six Years' - USNI News

China could attempt to take control of Taiwan by the end of the decade, the admiral leading U.S. Indo-Pacific Command said today. Testifying in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Adm. Phil Davidson said China’s aggression in the region leads him to believe its goal of seizing Taiwan...

news.usni.org

 

[John Fedup]

The level of commitment that the US, Japan, SKorea, and Europe along with other an Asian neighbours for Taiwan is critical. If this group is comfortable losing the largest advanced microchip producer in the world to the CCP we should look forward to seeing the analog renaissance. Microchip production overseen by the CCP, good luck with that. In time perhaps this production can be duplicated by elsewhere but time is short IMO.

 

[ngatimozart]

The level of commitment that the US, Japan, SKorea, and Europe along with other an Asian neighbours for Taiwan is critical. If this group is comfortable losing the largest advanced microchip producer in the world to the CCP we should look forward to seeing the analog renaissance. Microchip production overseen by the CCP, good luck with that. In time perhaps this production can be duplicated by elsewhere but time is short IMO.

I believe that the Taiwanese have built, or are building, a microchip manufacturing facility in the US just in case. Maybe they should do the same in NZ and / or Australia.

 

[koxinga]

I believe that the Taiwanese have built, or are building, a microchip manufacturing facility in the US just in case. Maybe they should do the same in NZ and / or Australia.

Asianometry has a very detailed analysis of this issue, in particular. The conclusions are sobering.

Even with the CHIPS Act and TSMC's Arizona facilities, it represents just a small fraction of the total, global production volume and only a part of the type of chips.

More critically, other sections of the supply chain (which is more than just TSMC) such as chip packaging, test and assembly, trained personnel are in Taiwan and no where else.

 

[Ananda]

China Wants to Dominate the Global Chip Market

China’s largest chip maker, Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp. (SMIC), is ramping up production of a decade-old chip technology that is…

www.instituteforenergyresearch.org

This's what some pundits did not want to talk in mainstream media, or US politicians want to talk with their media. China growth in semiconductor production already increase significantly. Their griwth pace is something that already surpassed growth pace of other major producers like Taiwan, ROK and Japan.

Despite all the talks of 14nm or 7nm chips, most semiconductor that being used is 28nm or larger chips. Some 'state of the art' defense equipment still even use 92nm chips. Thus China industry still can produce cutting edge tech for military equipment, at least under current tech competition. 14nm and 7nm is for future and no indication, despite all Biden administration plan to cut tech access for China to produce that range, China will not eventually catching up.

Quantity is matter, abilities to flood the market to corner competition is matter. That's what market analysts already see, and this's why many of them will not discount China producers future yet.

 

[koxinga]

I think there are plenty of research for those that want to read up more about the vulnerability of the current semiconductor supply chain. Doesn't help that the two major manufacturers and their supply chain happen to have challenges with their neighbours.

Strengthening the Global Semiconductor Supply Chain in an Uncertain Era

www.semiconductors.org

The larger question is around how to get them to diversify to other locates.

I suspect cultural challenges as well business practices that won't translate well in other countries. When TSMC wanted to beat Samsung, they assembled the Nightingale Army, a three-shift R&D department that ran 24 hours. During the drought in Taiwan last year, the priority was making sure the fabs had access to clean water, instead of the citizens. Neither of such practices would be considered acceptable else where. And Foxconn being infamous for its labour practices.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

The chinese 'weather balloon' has been shot down by the US Air Force and later recovered by the US Navy.
China still claims it was an innocent weather balloon accidentally drifted away..... across the whole ocean.

The Pentagon told reporters "a significant" amount of the balloon had already been recovered or located, suggesting American officials may soon have more information about any Chinese espionage capabilities aboard the vessel.

In beeld: Amerikaanse marine bergt resten Chinese ballon

De overblijfselen werden gevonden voor de kust van Myrtle Beach in de staat South Carolina.

nos.nl

And now the US has taken down another unidentified flying object above Alaska.
The Pentagon and the White House declined to give a detailed description of the latest object, saying only that it was far smaller than the Chinese balloon.

U.S. shoots down unidentified object flying above Alaska

Officials would not speculate about what the object might be and said they do not know who owns it.

www.reuters.com

 

[ngatimozart]

The chinese 'weather balloon' has been shot down by the US Air Force and later recovered by the US Navy.
China still claims it was an innocent weather balloon accidentally drifted away..... across the whole ocean.

The Pentagon told reporters "a significant" amount of the balloon had already been recovered or located, suggesting American officials may soon have more information about any Chinese espionage capabilities aboard the vessel.

In beeld: Amerikaanse marine bergt resten Chinese ballon

De overblijfselen werden gevonden voor de kust van Myrtle Beach in de staat South Carolina.

nos.nl

And now the US has taken down another unidentified flying object above Alaska.
The Pentagon and the White House declined to give a detailed description of the latest object, saying only that it was far smaller than the Chinese balloon.

U.S. shoots down unidentified object flying above Alaska

Officials would not speculate about what the object might be and said they do not know who owns it.

www.reuters.com

The CCP / PRC want their balloon back. If it's only a weather balloon as they claim, why are they getting so cranky about it all?

https://www.realcleardefense.com/2023/02/09/china_wants_spy_balloon_back_it_belongs_to_china_880653.html

 

[Ananda]

CCP / PRC want their balloon back. If it's only a weather balloon as they claim, why are they getting so cranky about it all?

Because it is their toys, the nerve on somebody shoot down my toys..

 

[Stampede]

The CCP / PRC want their balloon back. If it's only a weather balloon as they claim, why are they getting so cranky about it all?

https://www.realcleardefense.com/2023/02/09/china_wants_spy_balloon_back_it_belongs_to_china_880653.html

Because the CCP / PRC want to control the weather!!!!!