Recent war game suggests that attempted Chinese invasion of Taiwan in 2026 would result in "Pyrrhic" US/Taiwan/Japan victory

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

War game suggests Chinese invasion of Taiwan would fail at a huge cost to US, Chinese and Taiwanese militaries | CNN Politics

EDITION.CNN.COM

---

A Chinese invasion of Taiwan in 2026 would result in thousands of casualties among Chinese, United States, Taiwanese and Japanese forces, and it would be unlikely to result in a victory for Beijing, according to a prominent independent Washington think tank, which conducted war game simulations of a possible conflict that is preoccupying military and political leaders in Asia and Washington.

 

Quote

 

A Chinese invasion of Taiwan in 2026 would result in thousands of casualties among Chinese, United States, Taiwanese and Japanese forces, and it would be unlikely to result in a victory for Beijing, according to a prominent independent Washington think tank, which conducted war game simulations of a possible conflict that is preoccupying military and political leaders in Asia and Washington.

 

A war over Taiwan could leave a victorious US military in as crippled a state as the Chinese forces it defeated.

 

At the end of the conflict, at least two US aircraft carriers would lie at the bottom of the Pacific and China’s modern navy, which is the largest in the world, would be in “shambles.”

 

Those are among the conclusions the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), made after running what it claims is one of the most extensive war-game simulations ever conducted on a possible conflict over Taiwan, the democratically ruled island of 24 million that the Chinese Communist Party claims as part of its sovereign territory despite never having controlled it.

 

 

Quote

 

CSIS ran this war game 24 times to answer two fundamental questions: would the invasion succeed and at what cost?

 

The likely answers to those two questions are no and enormous, the CSIS report said.

 

"The United States and Japan lose dozens of ships, hundreds of aircraft, and thousands of service members. Such losses would damage the US global position for many years," the report said. In most scenarios, the US Navy lost two aircraft carriers and 10 to 20 large surface combatants.

 

Approximately 3,200 US troops would be killed in three weeks of combat, nearly half of what the US lost in two decades of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

"China also suffers heavily. Its navy is in shambles, the core of its amphibious forces is broken, and tens of thousands of soldiers are prisoners of war," it said. The report estimated China would suffer about 10,000 troops killed and lose 155 combat aircraft and 138 major ships.

 

 

Quote

 

The scenarios paint a bleak future for Taiwan, even if a Chinese invasion doesn’t succeed.

 

“While Taiwan’s military is unbroken, it is severely degraded and left to defend a damaged economy on an island without electricity and basic services,” the report. The island’s army would suffer about 3,500 casualties, and all 26 destroyers and frigates in its navy will be sunk, the report said.

 

 

Quote

Japan is likely to lose more than 100 combat aircraft and 26 warships while US military bases on its home territory come under Chinese attack, the report found.

 

[CayceG]

This didn't wind up with a rogue general cheating like Millennium Challenge 2000 did it?

[CayceG]

For real though, I am certain that this war game's results were released to the public mostly to serve as a warning flag to China of the potential risks involved. 

[PaladinSolo]

Those casualty numbers are way too low.

[Signifyin(g)Monkey]

I’d make China my odds-on favorite to win just about every geopolitical contest except for this one.

 

As I always say, the Chinese state is one of the most highly rational in the world, except when it comes to Taiwan.  The open insult that is its existence makes the Chinese bureaucracy lose its cool in regards to any policy towards it, and they would likely make a ton of terrible decisions in trying to take it.

 

[Bloodporne]

I thought this was gonna be a Kotaku article outraged by some RTS round's outcome. 

[Uaarkson]

War with China would probably end up nuclear, so yeah, these casualty numbers are way too low.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

2 hours ago, PaladinSolo said:

Those casualty numbers are way too low.

 

That bit of information puzzled me as well.

 

That many US ships being sent to the bottom would unquestionably yield significantly more than 3,200 KIA.

[CitizenVectron]

31 minutes ago, Uaarkson said:

War with China would probably end up nuclear, so yeah, these casualty numbers are way too low.

 

I'm not sure how I feel about US nuclear war with China. If the US and Russia engaged in full nuclear war, then my city would likely also be hit because of our strategic plants (oil refinery and steel mill). With China, it's not really as likely. So I have a better chance of surviving the exchange...but is that actually better? lol

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

The chances of a conflict between China and the US over Taiwan going nuclear are so very miniscule that it's really not worth even remotely considering.

[Jwheel86]

1 hour ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

That bit of information puzzled me as well.

 

That many US ships being sent to the bottom would unquestionably yield significantly more than 3,200 KIA.

 

Exactly, who's doing Search and Rescue during a war?

[silentbob]

Japan probably has secretly been hiding a real life Godzilla like creature for this type of scenario. 
 

oh, maybe will see them break out some Gundams

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

19 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said:

 

Exactly, who's doing Search and Rescue during a war?

 

Absolutely - SAR at sea is a VERY different (and vastly more fraught) situation than SAR on land.

 

The US KIA figure should be at least doubled to more accurately reflect the potential reality.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

12 hours ago, CayceG said:

This didn't wind up with a rogue general cheating like Millennium Challenge 2000 did it?

 

For those wondering, he's referring to this now-infamous event:

 

Millennium Challenge 2002 - Wikipedia

EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG

 

[CayceG]

One of the other criticisms I'm seeing is that Gen. Deptula (ret.) stated that our fighter aircraft having short unrefueled ranges isn't an issue because of our aerial refueling capabilities. 

 

This ignores the possibility that China would attack the refueling aircraft and their bases. 

 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

12 minutes ago, CayceG said:

One of the other criticisms I'm seeing is that Gen. Deptula (ret.) stated that our fighter aircraft having short unrefueled ranges isn't an issue because of our aerial refueling capabilities. 

 

This ignores the possibility that China would attack the refueling aircraft and their bases. 

 

 

That's a VERY valid criticism and it should definitely have been accounted for as part of the engagement assumptions/constraints.

[CayceG]

I'm beginning to turn around on why this was made public. 

 

I think now it was more to display "we will fuck you up and you will fail." But there are some glaring issues with the assumptions made in the model that put this even outcome in question. 

[CitizenVectron]

I mean, the biggest issue with China wanting to invade Taiwan is that performing a massive troop marine assault is incredibly difficult. Overlord was possible because Germany didn't have satellites and such. 

[Xbob42]

Hm. I'm the opposite of an expert on military topics, but I always thought the idea with wargames that the US does is that we intentionally make them borderline impossible to win, because you don't really learn anything if you just win them all, so you let the opponent do the most wild unfair (but probable) shit they can and you deal with it using much stricter limitations. Basically, if you win, whoever set it up fucked up or I guess we had a genius.

 

I don't know how true that is, or how it would be impacted by something like this, which appears to be a pretty blatant (if blunted by the "pyrrhic" victory) propaganda piece.

[PaladinSolo]

3 hours ago, CayceG said:

One of the other criticisms I'm seeing is that Gen. Deptula (ret.) stated that our fighter aircraft having short unrefueled ranges isn't an issue because of our aerial refueling capabilities. 

 

This ignores the possibility that China would attack the refueling aircraft and their bases. 

 

I mean, it could also mean they don't believe they're capable of doing so, as we're seeing in Ukraine its not easy to knock out aircraft outside your sphere of influence, and thats ancient soviet crap.

[CayceG]

2 minutes ago, PaladinSolo said:

I mean, it could also mean they don't believe they're capable of doing so, as we're seeing in Ukraine its not easy to knock out aircraft outside your sphere of influence, and thats ancient soviet crap.

 

China is INCREDIBLY capable of doing so. China's capabilities are far and away closer to ours in terms of air war and surface naval capabilities than they are to Russia's. 

 

The J-20 stealth fighter is equipped with long range missiles and one of the potential missions we suspect it's for is to find and attack refueling and other behind-the-line assets. 

[Kal-El814]

I’m not a military wonk by any means, but… shouldn’t all of these be treated with much more skepticism after Russia derping all over Eastern Europe?

[PaladinSolo]

12 minutes ago, CayceG said:

 

China is INCREDIBLY capable of doing so. China's capabilities are far and away closer to ours in terms of air war and surface naval capabilities than they are to Russia's. 

 

The J-20 stealth fighter is equipped with long range missiles and one of the potential missions we suspect it's for is to find and attack refueling and other behind-the-line assets. 

I'm aware of what China's capabilities are claimed to be, but again, Russia's were also claimed to be far higher than reality.  Even if its true, they'd still have to get through US' capabilities to even sniff a refueler, let alone launch from hundreds of miles away and hit.

[CayceG]

6 hours ago, Xbob42 said:

Hm. I'm the opposite of an expert on military topics, but I always thought the idea with wargames that the US does is that we intentionally make them borderline impossible to win, because you don't really learn anything if you just win them all, so you let the opponent do the most wild unfair (but probable) shit they can and you deal with it using much stricter limitations. Basically, if you win, whoever set it up fucked up or I guess we had a genius.

 

I don't know how true that is, or how it would be impacted by something like this, which appears to be a pretty blatant (if blunted by the "pyrrhic" victory) propaganda piece.

 

I don't think this assumption is the basis for every war game. They're set up based on a set of assumptions and starting points, then allowed to progress with a red team and blue team working for their own goals. There are limitations on certain things based on real world capabilities. Like, China has 50 anti-ship ballistic missiles to use and their radars can target out to X miles from their shore; or that the US can muster 3 carrier groups within a week, but no more than that. 

 

Where the assumptions break down are places like in Millennium Challenge where units that saw >50% attrition were assumed to be out of the fight (but were re-spawned by the controlling general anyway just as capable as at 100%). In Ukraine, those units aren't totally out of the fight. But they aren't as capable either. Likewise, if the assumption is that our fighters can be refueled in the air within X miles of the first island chain, that could potentially be a part of the war game that benefits the US, but might be a poor assumption in real life. 

 

5 hours ago, PaladinSolo said:

I'm aware of what China's capabilities are claimed to be, but again, Russia's were also claimed to be far higher than reality.

 

This is another thing. I don't think we have a good idea on what to go on besides the claimed capabilities. We can independently assess these capabilities as best as we can to build the war game assumptions on, but in the real world, we just won't know until it happens. 

 

It behooves the US to assume the most capable adversary so that we are prepared to meet that adversary. If China fucks up and tries this and sucks at it, then things may turn out better. If we assume they can't shoot down our refueling craft or that their submarines are too noisy to avoid detection, and they wind up killing refueling craft and sinking amphibious craft beyond the first island chain in a real war... then WE fucked up with our assumptions. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Doesn’t China also only have a limited number of high tech weapons that can out/compete with the US? Just asking as I have no idea 

[CayceG]

5 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Doesn’t China also only have a limited number of high tech weapons that can out/compete with the US? Just asking as I have no idea 

 

 

Yes, but they're rapidly closing the gap in areas where it counts, such as naval surface combatants. 

[mclumber1]

5 hours ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

That bit of information puzzled me as well.

 

That many US ships being sent to the bottom would unquestionably yield significantly more than 3,200 KIA.

 

There are about 5000 crew on a fully staffed aircraft carrier.  Although some may be able to abandon ship, it would still result in hundreds, if not thousands of sailors and marines perishing directly from the attack or from the sinking of the ship. 

 

 

[CitizenVectron]

3 hours ago, Kal-El814 said:

I’m not a military wonk by any means, but… shouldn’t all of these be treated with much more skepticism after Russia derping all over Eastern Europe?

 

2 hours ago, CayceG said:

 

 

Yes, but they're rapidly closing the gap in areas where it counts, such as naval surface combatants. 

 

If we've learned anything from Ukraine, it's that the most effective navy in the world is likely 10,000 dingies, each manned by two guys with MLAWs and Stingers. 

[Zaku3]

5 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

 

If we've learned anything from Ukraine, it's that the most effective navy in the world is likely 10,000 dingies, each manned by two guys with MLAWs and Stingers. 

 

Jeune École is that you?

[unogueen]

Russia's shitshow is a clear sign of logistic breakdown from word one. War in Taiwan is only a 'moral' victory at best since I imagine all that useful infra is going to die in the process, which would be REALLY BAD for everyone.

[chakoo]

I've been hesitant to post but really you would think CCP learned a few things in how they've been dismantling HK that if they played the long game they might be able to do the same to TW and not need to actually go to war.

[mclumber1]

37 minutes ago, unogueen said:

Russia's shitshow is a clear sign of logistic breakdown from word one. War in Taiwan is only a 'moral' victory at best since I imagine all that useful infra is going to die in the process, which would be REALLY BAD for everyone.

 

I would assume one of the prizes of a potential invasion of Taiwan is its industrial capacity, such as chip manufacturing.  China would be dumb if they targeted these places.

[unogueen]

5 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

I would assume one of the prizes of a potential invasion of Taiwan is its industrial capacity, such as chip manufacturing.  China would be dumb if they targeted these places.

And I've not seen a non-messy war. Even if the structures survive, there's a long supply and labour chain that's probably borked to fuck either way.

[DPCyric]

With what Covid is doing to China and the issue they were already having with population decline where will they be in 3 years anyways?

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

The second shooting starts for reals we will 100% be operation paperclip-ping anyone remotely experienced in chip manufacturing