very off topic: China/Taiwan

[Guest Captain Foobar]

The only person who is currently banned from this site, if I remember correctly, is an unnamed user who decided to impersonate BTS and announce that the game is ready for release.

The expression of opinions is encouraged.

[argie]

Only to differentiate philosophy from actual politics, Karl Marx said (sorry by the bad english translation): "an end pursued by unjust means, is an unjust end". He was referring to capitalists, of course.

The "machiavelism" is a way to make politics that is not even close to the philosophy involved in the different ideologies.

Mark IV said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...by people whose philosophy states that the end justifies any means.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ariel

[Guest GriffinCheng]

MarkIV, I am sorry I was a little little over-reacted here.

It would be a good topic about hypothectical China invasion to Taiwan. I have read a lot of such discssions from Taiwan military magazines, mostly published by civilians.

I personnally agree that if the Mainland is more democratic, people in Taiwan may agree more on unification.

Fionn, there is still no direct flight nor shippment between Taiwan and the Mainland. They have to go through either Hong Kong or Macau. But you scenario still holds true.

Grififn @ work.

[Fionn]

Griffin,

Ahem... Hong Kong IS part of China ... I was having my flights route through there .

I even found a flight timetable and used it to plan a few early morning flights into Taiwan on the day of the invasion (attention to detail and realism is rewarded by GMs in PBEM campaigns so my research on looking up flight times etc I think got me a big bonus in plane survivability during the initial stages.)

[Mark IV]

Argie- for an elaborate explanation of the meaning in communist terms of the end justifying the means, see:

http://www.ex.ac.uk/meia/trotsky/Archive/1936-Mor/index.html

I assume Trotsky is authentic enough to speak for the communist point of view? I would not even attempt to summarize this dance, but interested parties should read it for themselves...

[excerpt]"A means can be justified only by its end. But the end in its turn needs to be justified, From the Marxist point of view, which expresses the historical interests of the proletariat, the end is justified if it leads to increasing the power of man over nature and to the abolition of the power of man over man.

"We are to understand then that in achieving this end anything is permissible?" sarcastically demands the Philistine, demonstrating that he understood nothing. That is permissible, we answer, which really leads to the liberation of mankind. Since this end can be achieved only through revolution, the liberating morality of the proletariat of necessity is endowed with a revolutionary character. It irreconcilably counteracts not only religious dogma but every kind of idealistic fetish, these philosophic gendarmes of the ruling class. It deduces a rule for conduct from the laws of the development of society, thus primarily from the class struggle, this law of all laws."

PS: enjoyed, as always, my visit to Buenos Aires and the pampa. Missed you at the hotel .

[This message has been edited by Mark IV (edited 03-18-2000).]

[Guest MantaRay]

*Fionn wrote*

"MantaRay,

I have to disagree with your assesment of Korea. I think the Sierra Kilos would definitely be able to put up a better fight now than they did last time the November Kilos attacked.

All those high-rises along the main highways into Seoul are reinforced, bunkers litter the landscape, stay-behinds are designated etc.. I think that the Sierra Kilos could hold. The Novemeber Kilo numerical superiority isn't that large and invasion routes are well known and have had 50 years of defensive preparation."

Fionn, you are right in only the general sense. Sure they are better equiped and some have decent training, but as a whole the SK's are not even close to being able to help stave off an attack by NK.

There is a growing sentiment towards the US even being involved in the country in the first place. The younger generation is almost dead set against us being there and MANY favor reunification. The biggest thing that stops this from happening is the economic factors that the older generations embrace. I used to train SK's how to fight and most IMO would not really be very effective in an invasion of 2.5 million troops that NK has over the border.

At the time I was there, there were approx 30-40 thousand US and UN troops, with that coupled with a few companies of MBT's and support groups.

The Arty support we have will be our best bet, but if NK fully committs, then we will have a very hard time especially with us trying to protect Taiwan at the same time. Spreading our aircover will be a huge factor with the 7th Fleet trying to keep an envelope over Taiwan.

We would have to hold NK at bay for about a week so we can resupport and infuse troops back into the region. But I dont believe we can keep both a float if we have a limited time frame.

But with China not taking any action I dont see an invasion by the NK forces for quite a while.

Ray

------------------

SWAT 3 Page

Panzer Elite(not up)

Combat Mission(comming soon)Page

[argie]

Well, Trotsky was in the "action politic" side of the thing. The revolutionary theory, as every theory of war, starts in break the "normal" ethic rules. This is more pronounced in Trotsky's terms as is a war to change the very basis of the world ethics, as he conceived it. The subjacent philosophy, the good for all mankind, is another aspect.

I'm only making a differentiation between politics and philosophy.

I hope you haved a good hunting. The ciervos colorados are missing you

Ariel

[Von Rom]

Excellent topic. Keep it up.

I just learned some interesting information.

The London Times (Feb 22, 2000) was quoting the German magazine Der Spiegal, and it stated that the mainland Communist Chinese Gov't had produced a paper called "Document 65" in which it stated that China was prepared to use nuclear weapons against the U.S. in the event of open hostilities.

This is significant especially since Communist China has effectively taken control of the Panama Canal through its Hong Kong based Hutchinson Whampoa conglomerate. Apparently, the Panama Gov't sold two prime U.S.-built port facilities to this company (which many observers say is a front for the Chinese Communist Party). This Company effectively controls both the entry and exit sites to the Canal.

The Panama Gov't has also granted long-term lease options to this Chinese company for the takeover of a number of military installations scheduled for evacuation by the U.S.

The Panama Canal is a strategic sea gate and it is located only 900 miles from Miami, Florida.

------------------

"A sherman can give you a definite edge." Donald Sutherland to Clint Eastwood in Kelly's Heroes

[Mark IV]

Argie: The boundary between political action and political theory is very murky; when you are talking about the likelihood of someone justifying and engaging in war, it is almost irrelevant. China is publicly committed to the eventual domination of Taiwan. That they have sufficient socialist rationale for this is only additional ground for worry.

There is no public scrutiny or discussion of Chinese foreign policy decisions in their media, and there is no stated principle renouncing the use of force to settle the Taiwan issue (quite the opposite; their statements indicate that it is only a matter of time before the issue is "resolved" meaning that China will never rest until Taiwan is brought "back" into China, one way or another).

Other reports in the London Times support this:

http://www.the-times.co.uk/news/pages/tim/2000/03/06/timfgnfar01001.html?999

We have not dodged the bullet; the timing is simply not right for China to pull the trigger yet. China's new rapprochement with Russia is partly based on the similarity between the Chechnya situation and those in Taiwan and Tibet- they are "internal matters", and each has released statements supporting the other.

Von Rom: Many of us share your concerns. One caution, though, is that [i think] China sees an aggressive posture as a bargaining tactic. It is quite possible that their "secret" document was deliberately leaked for effect. After all, we can hardly get reliable information on the Chinese postal service, much less the factions vying for power in the government, yet Der Spiegel manages to look at secret documents for the conquest of Taiwan including nuclear contingencies?

While I wouldn't discount the authenticity of their report, the prospect of a "planted" story cannot be discounted either. I believe that the current regime is serious about reclaiming Taiwan intact and would attempt it if they thought they had a good chance of success. In the meantime (until they do, or the regime changes), any doubts they can raise in the West are to their own advantage.

The vietnamization of Taiwan has already begun in the American press. The question is, will American resolve outlast the communist regime?

[Speedy]

Most of you seem to think that US forces conducting military operations against China would recieve support (basing etc.) from regional governments. I do not believe this would be the case, as most people in the region know that within the next 20 to 30 years China will be the dominant superpower in the region. It would be unwise to antagonise this future superpower by giving active support to a nation conducting military actions against it.

[Guest GriffinCheng]

Fionn, that point I know. But, Hong Kong has a dedicated position (same for Macau) in the relationship between both sides of strait. We have here an official representative of Taiwan here, in form of "China Travel Agency" (sorta) And it may act as the "undertable" communication channel.

One thing people tends to suspect PLA spending is actually 3 or 4 times higher than shown to the public. So it is a little dangerous to underestimate the ability of PLA amphibous (sp) operations. Moreover, they may not use convential means (via LST), they may use other vechicles as many posted.

One highly possible scenario, imo, would be the use of SSM (like M-9) to wipe out military targets in a surprise attack, display a pose to fend off US and her allies, and force the RoC Government to the talks table.

US policy plays a dermining role here, but I highly skeptic if US would deploy troops to defend Taiwan. Not to mention her Asian allies. (espeically the Japan willingness to play wargame with China again. )

Grififn @ work

[Mark IV]

The US 7th Fleet and LA class subs do not require foreign regional basing of any kind.

US ground troops are a much trickier matter, but it doesn't look as though they'd be required (except, perhaps, for specialists) anytime soon.

However, if Taiwan was physically lost I don't think the US would/could do much to regain it, as the fait accompli would render the argument moot.

Taiwanese missile bases do seem pretty well prepared for PRC missile attacks. And satellite reconnaissance should theoretically yield advance notice of Chinese amphibious plans (it would be difficult to prepare an invasion on the order of DDay+ and escape photodetection).

Japan would keep a pretty low profile if/when the matter went "hot", though the fall of Taiwan would not augur well for the future of Japan or South Korea. Remember the good will France gained by closing an eye to the occupation of the Sudetenland, et al?

The idea is to outlast the current regime in China- not China itself.

[Major Tom]

My understanding of Hong Kong, is, that it is now a part of Communist China, yet, it is allowed to retain it's capitalist ways. It is just TOO productive to mess with, and the Chinese Government knows this.

The communist-domino theory doesn't float very well. China has some precidence in invading or uniting with Taiwan (Just like East and West Germany, or even Austria and Germany). But, NATO will not stand for a completely culturally independent nation falling to a nother hostile regime. Sure, you could say that Vietnam was historically Chinese, but, these cultures split ways HUNDREDS of years ago, and are now totally different. It would be like France trying to unify with Quebec. Plus, after Vietnam fell Communist, how many other nations went under? Cambodia? Well that place was on the verge of collapse with a corrupt dictatorial government. Strangely, the West doesn't realize that having DEMOCRATIC and FREE nations that prosper through Capitalism is the best deterrent to Communism, not dictatorships and repressive goverments.

China is slowly getting its act together. First a nation achives financial security, then it is able to achieve freedom. Given time, China will become a democratic nation. Even Nazi Germany would have crumbled well before Hitler's 1000 year deadline.

[Lee]

China invade Taiwan? What a joke that would be. If they did the

U.S. would most likely come to Taiwan's aid to repel the communist

attack. And our fleet could easily sink the entire Chinese navy

if necessary as they tried to land. It would be the greatest

slaughter (for sure this time ).

[Guest KwazyDog]

Umm, to be honest Lee I think the whole situation is a lot more complicated that you are taking in consideration. China certainally wouldnt be another Iraq. The world learnt a lesson from the Persian Gulf conflict, I dont think China would be such an easy target.

Was it McAuthor whom underestimated the Chinese in korea? If I recall (and I havnt read about this in years), he stated that he would be able to push back the primative hordes of Chinese troops without worry, but instead the allies were force to make a 'strategic withdrawal'. From what I have read, he even suggested a nuclear barrier (radioactive wasteland basically) along the Korea China border would be a possilbe solution, damn Im glad we dont live in those days any more.

I agee that the place to stop them would be whilst they were on the sea, once on the ground I think it would be a grave situation.

[This message has been edited by KwazyDog (edited 03-19-2000).]

[Guest GriffinCheng]

Mark IV,

I would not overestimate the effectiveness of PAC-3, Hawk and SkyBow 1 & 2 (Taiwan-made AAM/SAM) against ballastic SSMs or even cruise missles (?). Even if they could, summarized with all other posts (including mine), I doubt PLA would just use this method alone.

BTW, I read an interesting article from one of the Taiwan defense magazine in which the discussion of the use of EMP device, which have not direct harm no human lives. It is more strategic than tactical means.

Griffin @ work.

[This message has been edited by GriffinCheng (edited 03-20-2000).]

[This message has been edited by GriffinCheng (edited 03-20-2000).]

[Von Rom]

Mark IV: You are right, and I agree - why should China (or any nation) fight for something that they can get for "free". I imagine that a "show" of force, bullying tactics, and so forth would be more to China's way of thinking to bring Taiwan into the fold(using Hong Kong as an example of its "benevelant rule"). Yet, history shows us that nations cannot always act as we expect them to - they can often be full of surprises. Who knows what China has up its sleeve.

It will be interesting to watch the Panama Canal - if China is behind this Hong Kong Company - then they will effectively control the Canal. This would give China a base in the western hemisphere as well. I just hope events won't develop whereby this situation turns into another potential "Cuban Missile Crisis". The ball seems to be in China's court. My feeling is, China knows what it wants and is willing to bide its time until all the "chess pieces are in place".

------------------

"A sherman can give you a definite edge." Donald Sutherland to Clint Eastwood in Kelly's Heroes

[Von Rom]

Just one additional comment. I think it would be very interesting if a very knowledgeable person would be able to simulate the situation that currently exists between China/Taiwan/U.S. (maybe other nations as well?). Iguess the best game to use would be The Operatonal Art of War II. I am not aware of any scenarios out there based on this situation. I could be wrong. I think it would be very timely and interesting to game this situation.

------------------

"A Sherman can give you a definite edge" - Donald Sutherland in Kelly's Heroes

[Spook]

It's an ironic question you pose, Von Rom. A Taiwan/China scenario has expected from TalonSoft since its release of The Operational Art of War (TOAW) Vol. 2.

In truth, though, even TOAW2 would not serve to create an effective scenario of a Taiwan invasion. The naval model is still overly generic, with many ship/anti-ship capabilities still missing from the game engine. Hopefully the next release for TOAW, "A Century of Warfare" will provide something better. Leastways, Norm Koger has expressed a personal desire to get a more-detailed naval model into the game.

[Mark IV]

There were Taiwan scenarios in SPII (set in 1999!). Since they mostly involved US armored units with M1A2s against the PLA, I don't think they're very realistic, but there were some hellacious urban assault scenarios... but by the time PLA has massed armor forces on the ground in Taiwan it's probably over anyway.

Griffincheng: Doesn't EMP require a nuclear detonation to generate?

BTW, if China's experience with precision missile delivery is anything like ours, their first attempts to use them in a tactical situation with hostiles may be disappointing. Come to think of it, they've already had some direct personal experience with our precision delivery systems !

Pentagon estimated China will have all it needs to pull off a successful invasion by 2005. Of course, ALL public statements are meant to be read.

[Black Sabot]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Black Sabot:

I once found a web site detailing the military match-up between the PRC and the ROC.

Damm, i wish i could remember the web address. Has anyone heard of it?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, guess what i found:

http://www.emeraldesigns.com/matchup/military.shtml

It's been updated since the last time i checked it out, but still makes for interesting reading.

[This message has been edited by Black Sabot (edited 03-20-2000).]

[Hakko Ichiu]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV:

Griffincheng: Doesn't EMP require a nuclear detonation to generate?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My understanding of EMP is that it can be generated with a low-yield, 'clean' warhead that would not create widespread civilian casualties, especially when detonated in the upper atmosphere. I welcome any elucidation from any nuke specialists out there.

AFAIK, China is already eschewing a 'no first use' policy in its stated intention to launch nuclear strikes against the US mainland in case of American intervention over Taiwan, so an EMP strike is hardly out of the question. Strategically, it probably makes sense. What would the US do to retaliate, especially under the current C-i-C?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von Rom:

This is significant especially since Communist China has effectively taken control of the Panama Canal through its Hong Kong based Hutchinson Whampoa conglomerate. Apparently, the Panama Gov't sold two prime U.S.-built port facilities to this company (which many observers say is a front for the Chinese Communist Party). This Company effectively controls both the entry and exit sites to the Canal. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But the Clinton administration assures us that Hutchison is entirely benign and Chinese activities in the PCZ represent no threat to US interests. If you can't trust the government, who can you trust?

Ethan

------------------

Das also war des Pudels Kern! -- Goethe

[Von Rom]

It's a pity that there is no scenario that covers this situation. But there are a lot of pretty intelligent gamers out there. I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find one posted soon. (hint, hint)

As for the Panama Canal: Many high ranking military figures have argued strongly against the hand-over of the Canal to Panama; it played a very strategic role in the U.S. efforts to get naval warships, troops and supplies into the Pacific Theatre during WWII.

Just speculation: if China does confront Taiwan (in the near future?), I wonder if it will then shut down/sabatoge the Canal (thus preventing U.S. reinforcements from getting into the Far East)?

Just speculation: What if China decided to execute a one-two punch, namely - North Korea invades South Korea, China (through whatever means) attacks/assaults Taiwan, AND closes/sabatoges the Canal? (possibly even placing missiles/planes/warships in the Canal?) Now that would be scenario worth gaming out.

I usually take official government pronouncements with a grain of salt. After all weren't the American and Japanese Gov'ts negotiating peacefully right up until the surprise Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbour? And the Israelis will never forget how the Yon Kippur war began. And Stalin must be rolling over in his grave over failing to see Barbarossa coming.

Excellent topic and discussion.

------------------

"A Sherman can give you a definite edge" - Donald Sutherland in Kelly's Heroes

[Von Rom]

I just thought, for those who have the following two naval wargame sims (which can be purchased VERY inexpensively), there are several scenarios (albeit limited) based around China/Taiwan. These two sims are:

1) Jane's 688(I) Hunter/Killer attack submarine (many scenarios covering Tomahawk attacks on land-based targets as well as Chinese ship intercepts)

2) Jane's Fleet Command - a Carrier Task force is sent to China/Taiwan to deal with Chinese naval incursions.

I highly recommend both sims. There are also hundreds of user scenarios on the web for both games.

Are there any other games currently out there that cover this neck of the woods?

------------------

"A Sherman can give you a definite edge" - Donald Sutherland in Kelly's Heroes

[MCab]

For those whose nation is involved in China's WTO status, read this:

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/ed-column-2000320184125.htm