Mostly it's that the USA has been obsessed with Russian even since the end of the Cold War, with literally no one in DOD thinking seriously about China as a threat. Very much like 1930s Japan to be honest.
Had Nazi Germany coordinated with Japan to focus on Russia, we would have lost. Japanese stretch too thin across Asia Pacific islands. They would have done much better had they establish their empire on eastern Russia while Germans chomping the west side. Russians wouldn't have the manpower to mount against Germans. Affectively resulting in Germans and Japanese having a huge contigous defensible territory shielded from even nuclear bombs. Then within 5 years, they would have build enough atomic bombs and V2 rockets to wipe USA. Essentially alternate universe that Philip written in The Man in the High Castle. I'm glad I am in this universe, not Philip's. So Russia basically saved USA indirectly. The irony we treat them as the worst bad guy ever.
I guess this means their DF21 uses some onboard optical system for terminal guidance, otherwise there would be no need for a physical mockup that visually resembles the intended target (it would otherwise be much easier to just designate a target region and measure afterwards if it landed in the region). Interestingly this might mean the DF21 is vulnerable to countermeasures that would interfere with the optics like a laser dazzler.
According to Wikipedia: "The DF-21D has a range estimated between 1,035 to 1,726 mi (899 to 1,500 nmi; 1,666 to 2,778 km),"
So, anyway, to me this sounds like Taiwan invasion scenarios where the US might send aircraft carriers off the coast of China. If so, they would be in range for so many attack scenarios so that they'd be toast sooner than later anyway. So far since WWII the US have successfully deployed aircraft carriers because they always have control of both air and sea so their carriers are relatively safe.
But that's academic since the overwhelming probability is that the US would not engage China directly and that China would not engage the US directly either because that would be catastrophic for both sides. If anything all those latest developments is China sending that message again, if needed be.
That assumes that China just keeps firing an infinite number of missiles. In reality, there is some ratio where the tradeoff no longer makes sense. If one cheap missile can sink a multibillion dollar aircraft carrier, that's a good deal. If it takes hundreds of these missiles, that's significantly less useful.
Further, carriers aren't wimps. These ships were designed to survive nuclear war, with modern damage control actually sinking a ship with a conventional explosive is incredibly difficult. More likely a hit would just result in minor damage that could be repaired at nearby bases.
China stands to gain little from invading taiwan - a small province full of disloyal people whose only economic value is in advanced industry which would be destroyed in a war. America, on the other hand, stands to lose everything if it does not defend Taiwan. The moment America can't be trusted to defend its allies, its hegemony is over. No country has the means to touch America in a conventional war, any victory any other power could possibly hope for would be completely pyrrhic. The only unknown is exactly how much of the other nation would be left standing when the Americans decide to go home. There is no logical reason for America to back down first in a game of geopolitical chicken, and everyone knows it. The only winning move for China is not to play.
> If it takes hundreds of these missiles, that's significantly less useful.
I wrote "attack scenarios" because if aircraft carriers come within that range then they can be attacked in many different ways, not only with those missiles. Raw numbers mean that they would be sunk sooner than later if China wanted them sunk.
> China stands to gain little from invading taiwan
Territorial integrity and national feelings are worth a lot to people (Taiwan is importantly located as well).
> America, on the other hand, stands to lose everything if it does not defend Taiwan
They would help but they would not attack China directly because that would be the scenario in which they would really lose everything. That's also why they have no formal commitment to intervene directly.
Neither country wants WWIII but China is probably willing to pay a higher price than the US do because it is a matter of deep national importance for them whereas for the US it really is only prestige and chips (and they are working on mitigating the latter).
So what are the US to do if China hypothetically launches an invasion of Taiwan? They would supply weapons and intel as much as they can, implement sanctions against China, and push for international sanctions. But they wouldn't attack a single PLA target because that would open Pandora's box. They never attacked the USSR/Russia for the same reason and China is arguably a more formidable adversary.
> No country has the means to touch America in a conventional war,
The question is rather whether the US can defeat China in a direct war... They know they can't so they wisely won't start one. It goes both ways, China won't start one, either.
What other means does China have for attacking a carrier 1700 km from its shores?
China has been able to live without Taiwan for nearly its entire history, clearly it's not that important.
No, America doesn't lose everything in a fight. So long as war stays conventional, it can't be hit; and if war turns nuclear its still in the best position. You have the factors exactly backwards: China has no reason to fight a war except prestige, whereas America has an immense network of alliances that will unravel if it does not fight.
If tensions ever rose the point that an invasion of Taiwan was a serious possibility, the US would position forces in close proximity such that China could not attack Taiwan without also attacking the US and thus starting an all out war, which China does not want. It's the same reason the US put military bases all around USSR/Russia - and just like how the USSR never attacked for fear of US retribution, neither will China.
How are you defining "defeat China in a direct war"? If your definition is US troops holding a victory parade in Beijing, then probably not. If you use my definition, which is prevent China from taking Taiwan, America is definitely in a good position to win. But again, America already has a free Taiwan, it's China's move.
You cannot move the goal post by redefining winning a war against China the way you now try to do... And the nuclear option is really losing everything on both sides.
The US cannot win a war against China and they know it. Everyone knows it. That's why the issue is academic. So the US will not attack China and China will not attack the US. But an invasion of Taiwan is not an attack on the US.
TBH the way you dismiss Chinese national feelings passes off as complete lack of awareness and understanding of other people's points of view and of the whole Chinese history of the last 200 years.
I am not saying that mainland China will invade Taiwan, but it is indeed an important issue to them (as seen by how touchy they are about it), more than it is to the US, and they won't let go. For the US it is really only about divide and conquer against China but they otherwise don't care about it. So we shall see how things evolve.
For China yes. But China doesnt make the moves, its the person leading the country who does.
If Xi decides that the calculus benefits him he might make the move. If he succeeds he moves China to the worlds undeniable number 1 super power. He only needs America to blink. And the appearance right now is that American leadership is completely unwilling to challenge China.
Xi didn't get to the top of his party's leadership by misidentifying peoples incentives nor by betting everything on people going against their own self interest. Xi wants to rouse chinese nationalism as a stabilizing influence as china prepares to face several serious challenges in the near future, and saber rattling with a distant opponent is a good way to achieve that aim. Actually going to war is unnecessary and indeed runs directly counter to his goals. Further, Xi is not an autocrat; he certainly holds immense influence over the workings of government, but if he loses the faith of the party by a series of irrational decisions, he will be replaced.
America, for its part, has essentially named China its primary adversary and focused all efforts on opposing it economically, diplomatically, and militarily, with wide bipartisan support. Maybe America's current leadership would blink, but its a gamble; a gamble in which if Xi wins he gets basically nothing while if he loses his country burns.
But if Xi's internal situation with his party denigrates to the point where he needs to take some kind of major action that boosts his stature, that is when trying to invade Taiwan becomes a possibility.
China basically gains nothing from invading Taiwan, but Xi might have some things to gain politically to solidify his position in other words.
>That assumes that China just keeps firing an infinite number of missiles. In reality, there is some ratio where the tradeoff no longer makes sense. If one cheap missile can sink a multibillion dollar aircraft carrier, that's a good deal. If it takes hundreds of these missiles, that's significantly less useful.
Countering anti-ship missiles requires multiple interceptors, which are also very expensive. Tradeoff typically advantages offense, especially closer to land based assets. US carrier group will have limited magazine depth, and any missile dedicated to anti-AShM will take away missile cells for offense. Even hundreds of missiles per carrier group = a few thousands missiles to destroy USNavy capital assets / global hegemony. That's cheap.
>There is no logical reason for America to back down first in a game of geopolitical chicken, and everyone knows it. The only winning move for China is not to play.
The opposite, caveat being China can't afford not to play with respect to domestic politics especially if initiated by US/TW. That said, general trend of force balance has shifted so much within 1st island chain that US is no longer able to defend TW without pyrric costs. US has every reason to abandon Taiwan, because the prospect of trying to defend TW but failing is much deadlier to US hegemony than abandoning TW (for the 2nd time). US abandoning non security commitment partners is not new, modern US losing a peer war even at theatre level will is. The last thing US article 5 partners want exposed is US security commitment being insufficient for domestic politics. Or the scenario where US succeeds but loses so much assets that they don't have enough to honor security commitments. Which circles back to Chinese AShMs and relevant work on hypersonics. We're approaching the day where PRC will aquire conventional prompt global strike capabilites to strike carriers / capital ships in port, i.e. US naval assets is one deployment away from becoming scrap. Folks are preoccupied with PRC now, but the danger is proliferation of cheap, mature ICBM / AShMs to mid tier countries that eventually, even Iran and North Korea can stalemate USN, across the globe, with very little consideration for kill chains.
None of those are carriers nor were any of them hit by missiles. I'm sure you could sink a carrier if you rammed it with a comparably sized ship or if you snuck on board and disabled all the safety systems, but that's easier said than done.
Not sure I would expect an optical guidance system... Would be pretty much useless >50% of the time (during night, or cloudy periods). More likely to be infrared. Carrier's are big and probably have an obvious thermal contrast against the ocean.
Making a to-scale mockup and then targeting it with ballistic missiles would help them understand the actual accuracy of their missiles under ideal conditions. Of course, hitting a moving carrier with active defenses would be much harder, but if you can't even hit a static carrier under ideal circumstances then you have no chance of hitting a mobile one.
I suspect with how far AI image recognition has improved in recent years, there's going to be a lot of work with optical targetting at terminal phase. Kill chain will probably be less vunerable to electronic warfare measures.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/33591/chinas-biggest-b...