[Skybird]

I think the Chinese must not just collect hits, but can dish out heavily as well. Both against Taiwan and the US Navy. And Taiwan is immobile, cannot swim away. It is fully covered by the Chinese missile rain from static platforms - and that still excludes Chinese fighter- and bomber- and naval-assets-lauched missiles.

In WW1, they had battleships dominating and winning the war. Then it was thought that battleships wiould win the next big war, WW2, but the carriers had something against that, and took victory instead. Now it is thought carrier would win the next big war. I do not necessarily think so. Its technology and paradigm from an old, past era. The dimension of cyberspace did not exist, long ranmge ,mi8ssiles and autonomous drones did not exist, the orbital space as an extension of the principle to dominate the higher altitude did not exist. And former turned into carrier killers did not exist. Carriers are weapons from a past, old war, nice to impress inferior small enemies - but one on same eye level...?

There is also a clash of different war cltures. In Asia, the war of patience and attrition is the big thing, in the West powers aimed more at enforcing the last, the winning decisive battle. War of attrition versus quick decision seeking. Two very different tempers clash here. You can see that in Yamato's decision at Pearl Harbour to maximise chances for preserving the Japanese fleet by folding over the chance to send a third attack wave and searching the carriers that had escaped. The historians verdict on this decision is split. What I described has something to do with his decision.



Militaries are very prone to imagine that the next war will be won by the strategies and tools that were used to win the last war. When one realsies that that has been once again a mistake, it usually is too late (again).