Luo suggested using a missile to sink one U.S. ship and cause 5,000 casualties, and two with 10,000 casualties. “Let’s see if the U.S. is afraid or not.”
Basically he's suggesting sinking a carrier or two. He has a point and this is one reason I don't like peacetime forward deployment of big carriers (or any big ships) where they can tempt an enemy to launch a first strike with overwhelming numbers that have more chance to work when they are on a war footing while we are still on a peacetime footing.
But the Chinese admiral makes a mistake if he thinks casualties are a weakness of America alone. Some years ago I read that the Chinese consider 21,000 casualties apparently too much of a price to pay to invade and conquer Taiwan:
Some months ago it was reported that the Chinese high command regularly provides the leadership with its predictions for an attack against Taiwan. Apparently in 2004 it emerged under questioning that about 21,000 deaths were expected in such an attack. Contrary to Western views that China has unlimited manpower and that human life is cheap, the leadership found this figure unacceptable.
With China desperate to convince their people to have more children are the Chinese any less concerned about their military lives now than they were in 2004?
China has about 4.25 times as many people as America. The admiral thinks 10,000 American casualties could do the job of exposing our "fear." If China isn't willing to suffer a little over twice that to take Taiwan--their most "core" interest--is China really waging an asymmetric battle against our supposed weakness if they go that route?
Conveniently, the Chinese are building carriers that will allow our forces to return the favor at sea a little more efficiently.
