A new game was played.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-invasion.html
Quote:
Exercises gamed out by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) showed how the US and its allies could derail an amphibious Chinese assault - but not without taking heavy losses themselves.
Fighting would claim some 10,000 casualties on all sides, CSIS projected. The US would lose 10-20 warships, two aircraft carriers, 200-400 warplanes and some 3,000 troops in just the first three weeks of fighting.
But China comes off worse, failing to regain Taiwan and losing most of its amphibious fleet, 52 major warships and 160 warplanes - a military humiliation that would imperil the country's communist leaders.
|
While that may sound kind of reassuring, the report concludes that in all scenarios they played a fast and direct involvement of the US would be paramount to win and that the US must have a strong presence on the island itself, else the aerial and maritime missile shield by the Chinese would prevent reinforcements and deliveries reaching Taiwan forever and keep any transports away.
The report also concludes that Taiwan needs more missiles. As I said somewhere else, they need missiles, missiles, missiles: anti-sea and anti-air. Thats better than big surface units and tanks.
Seen that way, Trump could really do massive damage by demanding deals on buying such big platforms - and that way making Taiwan distracted from what it really should buy: missiles.