very off topic: China/Taiwan

[Guest Captain Foobar]

I have heard the control of the Panama Canal mentioned several times, and I just dont understand how this could become a military threat.

They could use the Panama Canal to annoy us, and in some political leverage, but I don't think that they could control it with force.

[Hakko Ichiu]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Captain Foobar:

I have heard the control of the Panama Canal mentioned several times, and I just dont understand how this could become a military threat.

They could use the Panama Canal to annoy us, and in some political leverage, but I don't think that they could control it with force.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, but they could blow it up, mine it, scuttle ships in it, use smuggled anti-ship missles to ambush a reinforcement fleet as it made it's way through, etc. This could severely degrade our ability to reinforce the Pacific Fleet and be a major pain in the arse.

Ethan

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

Das also war des Pudels Kern! -- Goethe

[Lorak]

First, I want to say thanks for all the replies this post has recieved. There are a lot of good point-counterpoint ideas being thrown around. It has been very informative.

Second: this post wasn't ment to stir up bad feelings towards Taiwan or China, It was just ment as a debate. I could have choosen the situation in India/Pakistian as well. I just choose China/Taiwan for th US angle involved.

Lorak

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

http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/combatmissionclub

[Guest GriffinCheng]

MCab, visit your link, thans in the first place. But I would point out there are some inaccuracies.

From the Taiwanese military magazines, I think C-27J (under "Air Force New Development" section ) is already out from first line of duty last year or 1998! It was used for transport and gunship role, definitely not for AWACS role.

Mark IV, I read 2 articles from Taiwamese magaines (Hey, I don't buy military magazines published by Mainland for the information is less subjective.), appearently written by experts. They are about the use of EMP devices. I read these devices can detonate high up at 10KM and would create naturally no direct biological victums.

Griffin @ work

[Mark IV]

Lorak: This thread is too far off- shove off.

Actually it's fascinating, and would be a blast to game (come, come, we're past having to apologize for puns, here?). Fionn needs a hobby in his life....

I agree that Chinese control of the Canal would be a pain in the arse, but I don't see what direct impact that would have on a Taiwanese invasion scenario. That sucker's gonna be fast, one way or t'other, and if we were to the point of having to reinforce with Atlantic assets it would already be essentially over (and there are two ways to get there). Possession is 10 parts of the law in Taiwan.

In the event of total war with China, sure, the Canal's vital, but I think some sense of perspective would prevail over a Taiwan invasion. An occupied Taiwan is a lost Taiwan. It's worth fighting for, but there wouldn't be any Iwo/Inchon/Normandy-type effort once it was physically occupied by PLA. For example, if we had grabbed Cuba (without the nuclear thing), would the Russians have mounted a trans-atlantic amphibious invasion to reclaim it? I see these situations as strategically somewhat analogous, while recognizing the cultural difficulties in the analogy... The Panama Canal is no longer as strategic as it was in WWII, and would be a bitch for an Asian power to defend.

We need to quietly (as possible) help the Taiwanese help themselves, encourage negotiations, and generally buy time. The only real-time tactical help Taiwan is going to get from us is naval and air, and short term I think it might be enough.

As an aside, it's interesting that our Israeli allies seem to be providing a good deal of high tech assistance to PLA. Good to know our technology has two routes to Asia, in case the copiers break down at our nuke labs! On the other hand, maybe that provides a window into Chicom operations we wouldn't have otherwise.

The NK dual-invasion scenario should fill the Pentagon gamer with dread, except... that would really allow us to take the gloves off, too.

Now, if Fionn were at the (western) controls this might be seen as a real opportunity for US, but with leaders who need to get re-elected and no particular militaristic inclinations this has got to be the nightmare scenario.

Technology could stem the tide in the Taiwan straits, but Korea has a lot of fixed-bayonet we're-here-and-you're-there massed armor/infantry kind of country which is WHY IT WOULD MAKE SUCH A GREAT CM SEQUEL.

Ahem...

Our clear legal obligation and unambiguous treaty obligation is with Korea, moreso than Taiwan, but it (SEATO, whatever) is really one theater. We would have to go to the mat for Korea.

If Taiwan were a grand tactical factor in the Second Korean War, China would face a level of escalation that they would not otherwise face in merely reclaiming a "renegade province". So it might not be in their best interest to combine the operations, since it would justify a greater US commitment that might outweigh the local tactical benefit.

GriffinCheng: A 10 km "clean" nuke airburst anywhere near Taiwan would give the Pentagon and the rest of the world a screaming ****fit and California would DEFINITELY file a class-action suit on behalf of all marine life in the area.

This would be a VERY ballsy move because we have things in the sky that spend the whole day looking for just such events. It is ILLEGAL to set off nuclear weapons even in jest, and seriously, even the PLA knows that would change some very serious rules.

I sincerely hope that the counter-revolutionary nests of spies and capitalist running-dogs are able to change some minds in the PRC before such dreadful idiocy comes to pass.

As a taxpayer, I expect a lot from my nests of spies. And peaceful capitalism is working out really well over here, lately.

[Guest GriffinCheng]

MarkIV, opinons well taken. But to some US policians, accusing the Clinton administrations for his "weak" diplomatic policies towards China, should well think about what US could do for the general global prospecus and well-being of everyone. Heck, I make myself recalling the line from movie "Sneakers"....

And, as most people in Hong Kong SAR, I am no Communist but one of the "slience majority".

BTW, about "Janes Fleet Command", it would make a fun (no pun intend) scenario about Mainland-Taiwan conflicts but the database is weak (I am astonished to find Japan is such a "peaceful" country with so little armaments). I have not checked the "Warship Database Project" and other mods, so I think I am missing something.

Griffin @ work

[Mark IV]

GriffinCheng: Yes, it is very easy to criticize any US administration for being "weak" on Taiwan.

We see ambiguity as a strength on this issue-we don't want to be committed to nuclear war at any cost, but we want the PRC to be unsure of our real intentions. They know we will commit to some level of defense for Taiwan, but how much? That is up to each president to decide.

I think we could sink the Chinese fleet in the straits if we wanted. But would we? That is for the PRC to guess and each US administration to know, or decide. That's what makes it interesting. We can back out if it gets too hot, or launch (whatever) if we feel like it.

There is no US advantage in committing before the s**t hits the fan, and we would only lock ourselves into a suicidal or destabilizing situation by saying one way or the other ahead of time. If you think about it this is world-class poker at its best. No fun if you're one of the chips, I agree (and strat nuke, aren't we all?).

China is already publicly committed to bringing Taiwan "back" at (almost) any cost. They cannot back down from this position, so we would be very stupid to commit ourselves to a position from which we also cannot back down; otherwise, Mushroom City.

Most "military types" probably don't think Clinton has the b*lls to face China down over this. I, for one, think he has b*lls to spare, but is an amoral, pragmatic, opportunist. If I was China (and Taiwan) I would consider this carefully. Timing is everything.

Better to wait- see what the next administration's like- in both the US and Taiwan.

I don't like Clinton but Taiwan is just a stick to beat him with- I can't see any US president handling the current situation much differently. What that president would do at "crunch time" is when you find out who you really elected.

[Von Rom]

Excellent views by all. The opinions expressed on this topic are very enlightening. Cheers to everyone.

With regard to the Panama Canal: It is perhaps more strategic than we may realize. Because of Hutchinson Whampoa, the Chinese Communists will effectively control the Canal. For the first time in history this gives them a base and a foothold in the Western Hemisphere. Setting aside the fact that a large portion of commercial shipping passes through this Canal, there is also the very real possibility of Red China now having the potential and ability to deny the U.S. Navy right of access through the Canal. Transit of military equipment, troops and ships via the Canal was crucial to the U.S. strategic efforts during WWII, Korea, Vietnam and the Persian Gulf. In essence, the Canal is the door to the Pacific and China now holds the key.

Further, possession of the Canal means that Red China could open up a base for Chinese warships, submarines and bombers only 900 miles from Miami. Should the Chinese choose to base their J-11 attack jets in Panama, supposedly to "protect" the Canal, this would place them within striking distance of the U.S. mainland.

In addition, Ret. Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testifying before a closed session of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, warned of grave risks posed by the Canal's takeover by China. He stated that the use of the Canal is tied directly to the overall global strategy of the U.S. and the security of the free world; that is, the ability for the U.S. to be able to project its power whenever and wherever the need might arise in the world.

Lastly, several factors have emboldened Red China. Over the last couple of years China has succeeded in reclaiming Hong Kong and Macao, and now it controls the Canal. There have also been confrontations between Chinese boats and the Philipine navy over the Spratly Islands. Further, President Clinton, himself, basically renounced America's alliance with Taiwan, when, during his last visit to China, he read from a prepared script that had been written by the Red Chinese leaders. Obviously, China has a grand, global strategy in mind, and these events and ambiguous statements by the President can only encourage more bold moves on the part of the Chinese. Their next target? Taiwan? Who knows.

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

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

[Guest GriffinCheng]

Mark IV, I think I am with you, but with different reason, Chinese fighting again Chinese is never a good idea to me. I think AlGore would stick with Clinton's lines and concentrates his efforts on internal issues. I am not so sure about G. Bush Jr., he sounds like a "hard-liner", but who knows when he sit on the Presidential seat

Oh, this is my first test in US politics.

First of all, Whanpao Hutchison is chaired by the tychoon Kar-shing "Superman" Li. The company is not a state-owned enterprise of Mainland China, she is a public listed company in Hong Kong.

BTW, Hutchison also owns container terminals in UK and several others in Europe. Also, he was one of the largest holders of Orange, a UK mobile phone operator and then sold to Mannasemen (sp?) which in turn is accquired by Vodaphone Airtouch. I think Hutchison still holds a seat in the new company's board. But I hear no complaints from UK about all this. For the case of Panama Canal, I see no reason, pardon me for my ignorance, why Mr. Li and Panama authority would allow the scenario to happen.

Oh, I am in no defense for Mr. Li and I don't like his personality very much. Though he is a clever and the richest man in Hong Kong he is bully.

I am going way too off-topic now.

Griffin @ work

[This message has been edited by GriffinCheng (edited 03-21-2000).]

[Von Rom]

Perhaps the scenario may never happen, but it may be important to ask "could it happen?"

My take on the matter is this: China is ruled by a dictatorship. This dictatorship now controls Hong Kong. Hutchinson Whampoa operates out of Hong Kong (thereby effectively operating under the good graces of Red China). I am sure that any moves into the Canal itself by China will be done with a very subtle touch - arranging a deal with Mr. Li to lease some land, sending a ship or two to protect Mr. Li's investment, maybe station a plane or two there, etc. It will be a very gradual build-up - soothing us into a false sense of security.

Also, I am sure that Red China would make it very lucrative for Mr. Li to "invest" in other property: such as the abandoned U.S. military installations in Panama. It would be all very business-like. But what would be the ramifications of such a deal?

Private enterprise has always worked hand-in-glove with gov'ts to either make military hardware or to procure the necessary resources. For example, in Germany Krupp, Volkswagan, and Porche all manufactured military equipment for Germany's war effort in WWII. They were private companies and still exist today.

In the U.S. the private companies that make up the so-called "military-industrial complex" are well-known for producing and selling armaments.

In fact, almost every major country in the world has private companies either making weapons or are investing in other countries to obtain needed raw materials, resources, land or financial holdings. All this is nothing new.

As for the Pananma Authority. Well, it simply has no authority. Panama is a tiny country with basically no military and it is sitting on a major waterway that links the Atlantic to the Pacific. It is ripe for any nation to move in and take it over. Besides, Panama wil be cash-strapped now that the U.S. has pulled out and will be very open to countries that are wiling to pay big money for a preferred status to be in Panama.

As far as official gov't pronoucements telling us that everything is OK - well call me Mr. Sceptical. Wasn't it Chamberlain's Gov't in 1936, '37 that was DECEIVING its own people telling them they had nothing to fear from Germany, even though actual British documents revealed that Germany was conducting a military build-up? In fact, it was Churchill who revealed to the British Public the need to increase fighter production to counter the growing menace of German aircraft manufacture. So smooth words from a gov't telling us that there is nothing to worry about is nothing new.

Who knows what could happen? History teaches us that anything can happen.

As Santayana once quipped: "Those who fail to remember the past, are doomed to repeat it".

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

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

[Guest GriffinCheng]

Von Wom,

It would cost a grand for China to station and maintains military presence in Panama. On the countary, I think it may be even harder for US to fold her hands and see Chinese staging troops near their throat, not at least to American public with opinion like you. Do you think Finlandization would be the future of Panama? (Oops, this could cast off another thread! )

About the Chamberlan example, iirc, George Bush ignored the warning from CIA bout the Iraqi military buildup on Kuwait border before Gulf War. But if Saddam was a little smarter to move into Saudi Araiba (sp?), the face of Gulf War would be different. Anyway, though current military suvillerance technology still cannot provide 100% coverage, but I think the decision maker still holds to very key to the course of outcome.

Back to the Straits. The new President Chen of RoC is protraiting the willingness to talk and President Jing is not using strong words afterwards, so I think the danger of waging hot war is not likely, not at least in the near future.

Griffin waiting to go home.

[dumbo]

Hey Griffencheng:

Just curious as an outside observer how does US politics appear to you? A Hong Kong freind of mine (Ok my dentist) said that her relations back in HK regarded the US as a borderline christian fundamentalist state trying to impose its religious views on the world.

I bring this up as many of us here are giving our views on our perception of Chinas political system and I thought it might be enlightening to hear someone from the area in question to give a reverse analyses.

This is NOT meant to dissolve into a bashing China/US post but I really am curious.

If you dont wanna go down that path I understand.

Cheers

_dumbo

[Kurtz]

I think there are different kinds of EMP effects. One is created by a nuclear blast high in the atmosphere (>100km?). This creates an EMP that will cover *extremely* large areas. There is also ways of creating non-nuclear EMP-like effects near the ground but I don´t remember how it was done. This method demands a more precise mean of delivery as the area of effect is much smaller.

(I´m listening to Japan´s song Communist China right now. )

[guachi]

Hating communists is an American political past-time (esp. for Republicans).

In the current political climate, Democrats can bleat about China's human rights record and Republicans can bleat about the presecution of poor Christians in China (not that they complain about Tibet and Buddhist persecution. Hypocrites. Freedom of religion, as long as it is their religion, But I digress...)

Anyway, a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would bring a very heavy price both politically and economically. An invasion would doom china's chance to get into the WTO (which they very much want) as well as severly disrupting trade.

Could you imagine how companies would react? Taiwan's stock market plunged after Chen-Shui Bien was elected I shudder to think what would happen in an invasion. An invasion would cause a massive economic disruption and likely send investment to other countries in SE Asia. Businesses don't like uncertainty and capital would flee to safer havens.

Jason

[Guest GriffinCheng]

Dumbo, You mean US as Christian Fundamentists? Should that be Valtian? I am no Christian and no flame please, thank you! I know there are a lot of different reglions, cults in US, and Chritianity still holds majority in most part.

I personally view US as a big and bully, the only living superpower right now, following the steps of Spain and England before her. Our culture, same for Taiwan, Korea and Japan, is highly influenced by the American. Say, "Toy Story 2" wins hands down to all local movies just in the Chinese New Year holidays, which I have seen it too. People go crazy when Disney is setting up a theme park here.

Of course, I think if the question touches the interests of one's nation and/or city, everbody has a line. Every citizen expects their national interests comes first! This is the bad thing about nationalism. But to most Hong Kong people, including me, believe it or not, don't give a damn about those politics so long as they can earn money: earn it fast and in large sum. Most of us won't pick up a rifle and fight to "reclaim" Taiwan back -- so long as Taiwan don't send us a SSM.

Oops, it is even off this topic here....

Griffin lazily @ home.

[This message has been edited by GriffinCheng (edited 03-21-2000).]

[Mark IV]

GriffinCheng: A reply to your thoughts in the same spirit...

We are exactly the same as imperial Spain and England. We are crushing Asia, not with pikes and cannon, but with Disney theme parks.

However, now that the notion of economic imperialism has been raised, I look around me as I type, and nearly everything I see is from Hong Kong, Taiwan, Korea, Japan, etc., including the thing I'm typing on and the thing that made the coffee I'm drinking.

If Disney theme parks are American cannons, all of my appliances are Asian infantry! If this is economic imperialism, balance of trade statistics show we are losing the war!

[Von Rom]

GriffenCheng: Cheers!

Thanks for your kind reply. With regard to the Canal - it's basically a wait and see attitude. But a lot goes on in the world that we know nothing about. Even the CIA was caught off guard when India and Pakistan detonated their nuclear devices.

It is agreed that political leadership does often ignore evidence of a contrary nature. The fact that leadership is aware of it and does not inform the public or take action is very unsettling to any observer of the international scene. This means that the public is putting their trust in leaders (throughout the world) who are willing to ignore facts or deceive their own people. Not a pretty picture.

As to China/Taiwan - I agree with you - China will gladly accept a peaceful resolution to the situation (provided of course that it is a resolution on their terms). It's the same situation in the current Arab/Israeli peace talks: why go to war to get back land, when that may be accomplished through "peace negotiations".

By the way, I was wondering what the situation is in Japan; that is - does Japan feel that its security is jeopardized by China's position?

Cheers to all

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

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

[dumbo]

Griff: Thanks for the answer I hope ya dont get any flames for that one

Interesting though, it fits with what other people have told me. I guess a countries self image is always radically different from how others view it.

Thanks again.

_dumbo

[Guest Captain Foobar]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hating communists is an American political past-time (esp. for Republicans) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it would be far more accurate to say that Republicans hate communism, not communists. I am not afraid of communists , communism, or socialism, and I encourage true believers in this philosophy of government to try their hand through free elections at changing the world. As soon as I see positive results ANYWHERE in the world of Communism working well, I will consider it on its merits.

I have no problem with any forign country that elects their own leaders. I want to see a Free World out there.

Sorry if that is oppressive GriffinCheng.

I will I can only speak for myself, as a Republican, so keep that in mind if responding. I have no intention to speak to any and all anecdotal bullcrap that someone can come up with.

[Guest GriffinCheng]

Woo Woo, everybody, I am flattered.

Captain FooBar, no oppressive feeling after all. Thanks to the British rule, politics and even sense of nation is weak among here in Hong Kong. I can hear local critics scolding aloud against local, China and Taiwan administrations on radio, on TV everyday, they are even harsher than you, if your view means oppressive at all.

Griffin @ work.

[This message has been edited by GriffinCheng (edited 03-21-2000).]

[Guest GriffinCheng]

Oh, just recovered from my inflated ego.

Recent news (not found on CNN & NY Times) China official has recently drawn their baseline that if the talks are based on "One China" as principle, they can talk anything. Most believe so long as Taiwan does not openly declare independence, talks is still open. The DDP, party led by the next RoC president Chen, is talking about changing the party ideology on Taiwan Republic and declaration of independence. We are seeing a more optumistic future here.

About Japan, I think she should worry about her economy woes more than her influence on East Asia. Again, China is still at least 20 years before she would really become economically strong as a major player. IMO, if she would follow the strategy like UK after WW1, she would treat China and US as her close allies, not direct competitors.

One remote worries is, if the global economies would break down again, just like in 1920s, right-winged groups would sieze power in Japan and it would be very bad news for everyone.

Japan is the only country who has not publicly apologized for her war crimes during WW2 and there are still right-wing groups publicly denies her war crimes during 1930s and 1940s like the "Rape of Nanking".

My $.02.

Griffin @ work (?)

[Guest Mirage2k]

I just wandered in on here today...interesting topic!

One thing I haven't seen discussed very much in this thread is the PRC/ROC/USA air match-up. From everything I've read, the PRC's air forces are made up of aging Soviet designs...Chinese-copies of MiG-21 Fishbeds and some old Foxbats. I believe that their most advanced fighter is the Su-27 Flanker, but they only have a couple dozen of them. Their bomber forces, from what I've read, are similar in that they're old and not particularly fast (H-6s are the mainstay, I believe--a copy of the Tu-16).

ROCAF has an assortment of western designs: Mirage 2000s, F-16s, and a whole lot of F-5E Tigers.

USN, we all know, has the carriers: F/A-18 Hornets, F-14 Tomcats, EA-6 Prowlers. USAF (based out of S. Korea and Okinawa) has the F-15s, F-16s, F-117s, and the land-based bomber forces: Lancers, Spirits, and Stratofotresses.

Bottom line: Mainland China is liable to get creamed in any air war with Taiwan and the United States. I would fully expect ROCAF to hold its own for at least a little while (assuming that it's bases weren't completely knocked out by an initial Chinese missile attack), long enough for the USAF to get its long-range bomber forces into action against Chinese naval surface groups, and long enough for Navy and Air Force fighters (with tanker support) to set up extended CAPs around Taiwan. In addition, B-2 Spirits are fully capable of penetrating Chinese radar coverage, placing any mainland air bases under threat. Once CINCPAC sends in the carriers (and they aren't dumb enough to sail right into the strait...ugh, Chinese missiles!), it would be very difficult for China to establish any semblance of air dominance over Taiwan.

Lack of air support would make it very difficult indeed for China's amphibious forces (however large they may be) to stage an assault on Taiwan.

In regards to the Panama Canal, which was mentioned earlier, I believe that I read something about this in one of Tom Clancy's nonfiction books...maybe "Armored Cav." It was a second Korean War scenario, in which North Korea attempted to sink a freighter in one of the shallowest portions of the canal. It didn't work out in the end...I can't remember why.

-Mirage2k

[Guest Mirage2k]

Oh, one other thing...

Does anybody know anything about Taiwan's strategic capabilities. I doubt they have nukes, but what about biologicals or chemical weapons? Would they be tempted to retaliate with them if China decided to use nuclear weapons as a prelude to invasion?

-Mirage2k

[Guest GriffinCheng]

About the air power of PLAAF verses ROCAF, check out the link in page 2 of this thread.

BTW, AFAIK, PLAAF does not have any MiG-25 clones. They do have copied version of MiG-21 called J-7 and are exported to Pakinstan. China has bought more than a dozens of SU-27SMK (J-11) and twin-seaters and she has the license to build her own. First J-11 rolls out of home production line in 1998, iirc.

About strategic assets, I don't think Taiwan has any. That is one of the major imbalance betwee OTOH, US admits that they seceretly stationed a number of nukes in Taiwan some time in 1950.

IMHO, we should not forget that China has a large number of advance mobile SAM systems. If you have flown Su-27 Flanker sim from SSI, you will learn to fear the dreaded SA-10 (or S-300 in Russian notation).

And for our geographical vast mainland China , it would be very difficult, if not impposible, to hunt down every mobile SAM and SSM sites. Even the Allied, with total air superiority and all-weathered survillence capability, failed to hunt down ever lauch-capable Scud sites during the Guilf War.

Griffin @ work

[Guest Mirage2k]

I'm not sure China's advanced SAM systems are much of an issue. The objective of U.S. forces supporting Taiwan would be to maintain the security of Formosa. All those advanced SAM systems sitting in Manchuria on the China-Russia border aren't going to be much help in penetrating ROCAF/USAF/USN CAPs.

Which is not to say STRATCOM wouldn't send a few B-1Bs over China. However, China would be the one on the offensive (at least in the initial stages), and SAMs aren't much help there. Also, it's extremely tough to counter the long-range strike capabilities of modern strategic bombers. Given a combination of B-1s, Spirits, and sub/ship-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles, U.S. air and naval power would pose a serious threat to any Chinese air bases within striking distance of Taiwan. And that's all without worrying about tankers and forward air bases

Anyway, my point is the U.S. would be concerned primarily with defending Formosa (at least if I was running the war!) We're not talking about invading China here. In order to successfully take Formosa, PLAN would need a sizable surface fleet able to counter several U.S. carrier battle groups, submarines, and long range bombers. Especially the bombers, which, unlike the carriers and subs, would be immediately available to American military planners. IMHO, China has absolutely no chance of securing control of the skies above and around Formosa. Without air superiority, any surface/amphibious warfare group is in very real danger.