The statements in this article are based on reliable sources and are repeated at the end of this article
As we all know, in fact, the war of reunification and liberation of the motherland has not completely ended, and this is because Taiwan has not completely returned to the embrace of the motherland. As a matter of fact, we have never let go of the power to use armed forces and means to liberate the other side, and comparing the current military and production capacity of the two sides of the strait, it is obvious that it will be difficult to sustain the military force of the other side for a long time.
But there is a huge obstacle in this, that is, the attitude of the United States, in fact, American think tanks have actually produced a lot of strategic military deductions, such as the famous military research think tank (CSIS) has conducted such a military deduction attempt in 2023, but after 20 rounds of deduction, it has come to a very "strange" conclusion, that is, it believes that the United States can "win" from it! [Beer]
1
The "Victory" of "Wonderful"
The impact on both favorable and unfavorable "settings".
So how did this conclusion come about? Before we can understand this question, we need to understand what this deduction is all about. First of all, this so-called "wargame" is essentially very similar to the "board game" that many people have played, which is to first set a lot of "possibilities" (that is, basic settings), and then use different combinations to deduce the changes in the whole situation.
Of course, think tanks have many "information benchmarks" that have never been contacted by the outside world as a basis, and their analysis models are relatively more perfect, but a lot of the tricks in this come from the "possibilities" of these assumptions, for example, in the results of this so-called "residual victory" of the United States, there is such a preset "assumption", that is, the soldiers on the other side of the strait are all fearless of death, and can hold on unscathed for a long time under all kinds of bullets and bullets.
Let's be honest, it's not that we look down on the "strawberry soldiers" on the other side, but this assumption is also true, which is too outrageous, which is equivalent to completely turning the other side into a so-called "porcupine". Now you all know how outrageous these so-called "settings" are, and this setting is the "basic setting" for many rounds.
In the "setting" of think tanks, if Japan "spares no effort" to assist the United States in carrying out operations in the Taiwan Strait after the "formal start of war," this is quite difficult to evaluate. Of course, this is not the biggest "setting", and the biggest "setting" in this exercise is that the United States will go all out to wage a fierce "hot war" with China in the Taiwan Strait for the sake of the government on the other side of the strait.
In fact, it is easy to make it clear that the other side of the strait actually has a completely different meaning for China and the United States, and the value of the target is completely different; after all, the United States regards the other side of the strait more than as a kind of "chess piece" to contain and contain the mainland, while liberation is the demand of more than one billion people in China, and the investment that the two sides are willing to make in this matter is completely different.
And after making such a series of all kinds of strange things, some of which are not added to the stack, what kind of "results" did the think tank finally come up with after such a set of "precise deductions"?
Before talking about the so-called "deduction of the results of the battle," it must be clearly stated that the so-called "victory" condition of the US military in this case is not how many soldiers are annihilated, or how many soldiers we are defeated, but the goal of "as long as we prevent our landing ship from continuing to land on the other side," this is considered a victory, and this is actually a very "abstract" victory goal.
However, after such an "abstract" so-called "victory condition" and so many "setting bonuses," what is the "most probable" result that the deduction considers? That is the so-called: The mainland's navy was "heavily damaged" and lost the ability to continue the landing, and the tens of thousands of soldiers who had already landed were killed in battle and taken prisoner, and for the sake of these captured soldiers, they were forced to hold peace talks, and finally won the so-called "crisis" with the United States resolving the so-called "crisis."
In the process, they found that no matter how the "hypothetical premise" was arranged, the aircraft carrier fleet of several US troops deployed in the western Pacific would be devastated, and several formations would be forced to undergo major repairs or de-formations. Hundreds of state-of-the-art planes will be lost in the exchange with the mainland air force, and thousands of soldiers will be directly lost, and although the other side of the strait can be defended, it will basically end up in a quasi-ruin.
Let's not say whether this result is accurate or inaccurate, but even if such a result is really achieved, can it be regarded as a "victory" for the United States? I doubt it for the time being, because after all, we admit that the US military's national defense investment and military strength are still unique in the world at present, but the scenes and situations it needs to deal with are also very complicated, after all, they need to be deployed in various parts of the world to "safeguard" their interests.
If only part of the forces of the Eastern Military Region can be "exchanged" with the US military to this extent, I am afraid that the so-called "global hegemony" will also be shaky, just like the "Great Britain" in World War I and World War; although it "won" the war, it can also be regarded as a "failure" in the overall strategic situation.
The two aircraft carriers are not only the aircraft carriers themselves, but also mean that the two supporting aircraft carrier formations lose their combat capability. It also means losing control of half the world, and the result is only a so-called "crushing victory". And the legitimacy of the intervention is also a huge question.
After all, he himself created various bills and so-called unilateral treaties. Even for public opinion in their own country, this is a huge problem. And if we insist on going our own way, this will only accelerate the division of the United States. Moreover, no matter whether we win a crushing victory or a crushing defeat, we will never give up on reunification. How much energy do they have, and how many times can they intervene? For the sake of one Taiwan. Sacrificing their own global interests?
In fact, no matter how you think about it, it is very unlikely, after all, the isolationist tendencies and forces in the United States are very strong, and it is good to fight a good war and bully the weak, but if you really want to fight a tough battle with a big country, I am afraid that it will be difficult to pass through the internal link. Moreover, the key to victory in this exercise is to use the most advanced B1/2/52 and other bombers to launch more than 3,000 subsonic long-range cruise missiles outside our defense zone, so as to destroy the continental navy with saturation attacks.
However, according to the open budget order, this missile will be equipped with 450 missiles by 26 years, and this GPS-guided, long-range subsonic stealth cruise missile, whether it can hit high-speed moving targets such as ships has not even been tested. This makes many people feel that there are also interests behind this so-called "deduction".
Under their "setting" and anticipation, these "Void Missiles" that had not yet been "ordered" fired 3,000 in unison, "destroying" all the large amphibious landing ships, and then blocking the direct support channel, leaving only a few dozen battalions of troops forced to fight on the island and the troops on the opposite shore, and the direct internal turmoil in the country because of this wave of losses led to "indefinite delay" of support.
2
Miscalculating our determination to safeguard national unity
In addition to strategy and tactics, they also underestimated China's belief in defending its territorial integrity. In colonial culture, interests are put first, but in the concept of Chinese civilization, complete territory and unification are the first place. In other words, they think that if they pay a certain price, there will be a "result" that they think they think. But in our view, unless we don't move, we move at any cost. This is an essential difference, and it is also destined that we will certainly bring about the historical mission of the reunification of the motherland.
And in fact, due to the impact of the lack of a supporting system for deindustrialization, the industrial production capacity of the United States has also been greatly reduced, even if the highest-end weapons factories are still retained, but the supporting metals, supporting various processing materials and frames are also greatly limited, just like the more than 3,000 rounds of anti-ship missiles mentioned in the report, not to mention the problem of cost and price, even the production cycle is also a huge problem.
It is said that even if an order is placed on the spot and production begins, it may take several years to fully produce it. Moreover, these thousands of missiles are only the amount required for the first round, and it will take several years of production cycle to produce, so it is difficult to imagine that if this really happens, the next batch of missiles will be produced in a few years, and I am afraid that the army on the other side will not need the support of these missiles for a long time.
But the question is, can these anti-ship missiles produced be used as food? Can these anti-ship missiles produced for the sake of aid directly improve the living standards of the American people? If not, if you can't, spending so much money on them when there is no war will have a huge impact on your economy.
Moreover, the current international economic situation is so bad, once it has a huge impact on the economy, I am afraid that the political party that made the corresponding decision will usher in a huge wave of public opinion boiling, and a large number of votes will be lost. So this is a significant problem for the United States, and it is undoubtedly a difficult problem to solve.
However, despite the fact that in recent years, both the United States and Japan's think tanks have predicted that it will be difficult for the US military to prevent Chinese troops from landing on the island of Taiwan, we still need to be vigilant. After all, most of these predictions are based on the assumption that the United States will not and is not willing to suffer excessive losses.
However, from the point of view of a cautious assessment of the enemy, we must be well prepared. After all, the United States still has the highest defense budget in the world, and the strategic realignment of its air force and army has long been initiated. Therefore, despite the great difficulties that the United States is currently showing to prevent us from liberating and reunifying, we must not be gullible and must remain highly vigilant.
Resources:
The Paper - Changing the parameters to "defeat" the People's Liberation Army, can the war deduction of the US think tank be played like this?
North Net - US Think Tank Claims: If a War Breaks Out in the Taiwan Strait, US Ammunition Will Not Last 7 Days-News-North Net
CSIS - Mark F. Cancian/Matthew Cancian/Eric Heginbotham: The First Battle of the Next War. Wargaming a Chinese Invasion of Taiwan. Washington, D.C.: Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Januar 2023