Comments by "Alan Friesen" (@alanfriesen9837) on "These American “Experts” Want WW3 So Bad" video.

  1. The thing about a nuclear attack on naval assets is that two can play at that game. And while China might get more bang for the buck as they destroy the larger of the two navies, they still need to be able to sustain supply lines across a body of water, and they'll need surface vessels to counter U.S. submarines. I don't know if we're underestimating the Chinese or not. The American military is the more powerful of the two, but China is playing on their home turf and that makes a difference. I think if the United States is serious about militarily thwarting a Chinese military reunification operation, then they should war game on the assumption that Japan and Korea do not get drawn into the conflict, not because they won't, but because they might not. The ROK has everything to lose from going to war with China. China may not be able to get the entire PLA in place in Taiwan, but if they felt that the Koreans were aiding and abetting their enemy, they could dump the entire PLA into Korea. Japan is less vulnerable and would be harder to dissuade from involvement, but if China won the war and Japan was seen as a belligerent, trade from Japan through the straits of Malacca would probably be entirely choked off until the Chinese grew tired of punishing them. It certainly wouldn't be a fait accompli, but it should definitely be a consideration to the strategists and politicians in Japan. Because of this, the U.S. needs to know if it can win without direct involvement from these two allies. Conversely, the Chinese should be war-gaming on the assumption that Japan and Korea do participate against them.
    9