👇👇👇👇👇👇👇👇
… you have it totally backwards!
With a functioning government, military, and select infrastructures, the Laws of Physics dictate that it is IMPOSSIBLE for PRC to successfully invade and occupy Taiwan!
Just think about this issue for one second - what must PRC do, in order to successfully invade Taiwan? Have its PLA troops on-the-ground to suppress and occupy Taiwan Island and its populace? How many troops are required? Military estimates vary, but let’s just pretend that merely 100,000 will be sufficient. How must PRC move them across the Taiwan Strait? By ships? How many ships will be required? Let’s pretend that PRC commandeers some huge container cargo ships and crams its 100,000 troops onto those, at 20,000 troops per ship. So 5 such huge container cargo ships need to each onboard 20,000 troops. What are the chances that such a huge feat can be done without being detected in advance?
And once detected, exactly HOW will those 5 huge container cargo ships survive its ferrying trip across the Taiwan Strait without being first relegated into becoming new seabed frameworks for new coral colonies?
What if PRC resorts to using huge numbers of smaller ships to swarm Taiwan? Say each carrying 100 troops? That means 1000 such smaller ships … does PRC actually have 1000 such smaller ships that each carry 100 troops? Given how Taiwan has the world’s 2nd densest inventory of missiles per capita (Israel being 1st), what are the chances that those 1000 smaller ships can survive crossing the same Strait?
And do NOT make that tired old argument about how PRC can merely “saturate” Taiwan with its hundreds of missiles and take down all of Taiwan’s defenses in a first strike - most all of Taiwan’s missiles are now on mobile launchers that can be readily hidden from such “saturation” attacks and Taiwan now has long range hypersonic missiles that can strike Beijing, Shanghai, and even that huge (now not so stable) 3G Dam … which means that PRC’s military missiles’ launch facilities can be subject to either pre-emptive and/or retaliatory strikes by Taiwan’s hypersonic missiles in response!
So … the ASSumptions that Taiwan can be trivially brought to its knees is total BS and PRC now very well understands this FACT!
@Unveiled_ChinaX … yet Starmer STILL kowtows obediently to PRC, so could there STILL be some OTHER “things” that PRC is holding over him? Could he be under some sort of “blackmail”? 🤔
ROFLMAO! 🤣🤣🤣
… what’s the difference between this latest PRC propaganda claim and those decades-old aerially flown magnetic anomaly detection systems that have traditionally been used to detect ALL subs under water?
And what is a “stealth” sub, anyway? Isn’t that just a “quieter” sub than prior ones? 🤔
... yes, very true!
But PRC has a nasty habit of blaming such shortfalls and/or failures on others (eg, foreign supply chain vendor delays in delivering critical components like jet engines, avionics, etc) ...
... and it does NOT help COMAC's case for certifications by FAA and EASA, when so many of its prior C919 passengers had posted videos on PRC's social media, about numerous shoddy workmanship issues that were overtly visible to them! And when so many of those passengers have also vowed to stay away from flying on C919s in the future! 🤔
... here's another tidbit that might help to shed some additional light on PRC's possible oil supply resilience against externally imposed sanctions on its new oil imports --
https://t.co/92sceKgtAn
Note that coal liquefaction (CL) process(es) described in the above video will be less energy efficient (around 45% to 70%) than direct oil refining (around 85% to 95%), with CL additionally requiring large quantities of water usage, but when national security is at stake, I don't think that PRC cares much about such efficiency and quantity issues.
This said ... the actual quantities of PRC's domestic energy generation and chemicals production feedstock that come from CL processes, is currently estimated to still be very small (less than 1% of total), as compared to direct oil refining; however, PRC is known to be capable of building new CL plants at rapid rates, should critical fuel crises arise, so that low percentage figure could rapidly increase in the near future, if it hasn't already, due to prior long-imposed oil import sanctions that had already existed even before current shutdowns of the Hormuz Strait.
It looks like those sanctions against external oil imports do impact PRC's transportation fuels sectors, but won't have very much, if any, impact upon its military's own operational fuel needs, which can potentially come solely from CL processes.
… I guess you’re just out-of-date about hypersonic missiles (HMs) …
… USA is now fielding multiple types of HMs, some launched from ground, some from ships, some from flying aircraft …
… and HMs do NOT need to carry explosive warheads to inflict intended destructions … but could carrying those, anyway, magnify destructive powers? 🤔
@NewRulesGeo … PRC will ALWAYS be ahead of USA in making such CLAIMS … that may or may NOT ultimately manifest … or be as effective in actual operations … especially if properly engaged with appropriate countermeasures! 🤔
... I think that I was a bit overly casual in using the word "official," as relating to PRC's "official" governmental releases of its data across many sectors -- it turns out that SPR is NOT one of those sectors (perhaps that's considered to be a "state secret"?) ...
... so the "official" numbers on PRC's SPR levels, are actually best guess "estimates" from what have been considered to be "official" sources for those "estimates" (ie, USA's EIA, Oxford Energy / Kpler-Vortexa, various other sector specialists) ...
... and those sources have estimated PRC's current petroleum reserves to total around 1.4 Billion barrels, including many other storage facilities that are NOT considered to be part of PRC's SPR storage facilities.
Those other non-SPR storage facilities account for the majority of total reserves, with actual SPR-only levels estimated to be only around 0.380 Billion barrels out of a total of 1.4 Billion barrels ... which means that, if those estimates are accurate, assessing PRC's SPR numbers will NOT give an accurate accounting of PRC's resilience against externally imposed sanctions against new oil imports.
@leiyilu@AngelicaOung ... of course, everything will affect PRC -- when did I ever suggest that the oil crisis won't affect PRC, at all?
I'm merely pointing out that PRC's official "statistics" too often deviate hugely from reality, but I didn't expect their SPR number to be so totally wrong! 🤔
... except -- silly me! 🤔😲
This is what I get for trusting "official" SPR numbers from PRC, that are totally as fake as the rest of its other "statistics" on amazing GDP, amazing industrial growth, ultimate in high tech world leadership, (totally over-optimistic) accounting of population numbers, etc --
https://t.co/a2RodDGX0v
@Mahboiii@AngelicaOung ... what you stated contradicts the Separation of Church and State, as derived from the 1st Amendment of the USA Constitution, so what's your personal definition of "theocracy"?
... yes, that's one perspective, but what many people are missing, is that weapons stockpiles designated for use in the Pacific theater, are separate from those used against Iran. What is actually of concern, is whether existing A&D capacities to quickly replenish expended stockpiles, can actually keep up with current/future draw downs, regardless of theaters of operations.
With respect to USA's other capabilities to help defend Taiwan, it seems to me that many new weapons and systems were actually validated after usages against Venezuela and Iran, which should give USA more confidence in how/when to use those in future wars?