Battle for Taiwan.

[Peter Cairns]

John,

The fact that the Chinese have been saying it for years and done nothing, means that the "intent" part hasn't changed, the Soviets talked about crushing the west but they didn't do anything either.

The fact that China is modernising it's capability does not infer that it is preparing for war , for that you need evidence of change in intent and so far there has been none of note, True it has reacted to independence talk by the Taiwanese government, but only by restating existing policy i.e. Reunificatiuon by force if necessary".

But then the US stating that it is prepared to use nuclear weapons fist if attacked, doesn't indicate a new agressive policy. as it too is a restatement of existing policy.

The case of hHitlers Germany is clearly different as there we had a change in both capability and intent. The Nazi's both similtaniously built up there capacity while changing policy to talk of both reversing the humiliations of Treaty of Versailles, and "living space for the German people".

In effect both C and I were increasing.

Oddly in the case of Bin Laden, we clearly prior to Sept 11th, corrected assessed "Intent", but missed badly on "Capability".

As security experts had been warning on multiple highjacks since Dawsons Field, and complaining about lax airline and airport security in the US, with that to the rise of the suicide bomber, and somebody state side messed up big time.

Peter.

[Abbott]

I do enjoy watching those who disagree with America's foreign policy doing their best to champion China. I guess everyone needs a hero. Personally I don't think the world is going to see China start much while the US military is in position to interdict the worlds oil supply. Darn for a second there... I had forgotten that China is supposed to be the only far thinkers left on the planet and that the U.S. and Great Britton should just surrender. I think the more serious issue is Palestine and Iran and what the might and militaries of the US/Great Britton/Israel plan to do with it. China can be stopped in the Middle East and its economy ruined with submarines.

[cassh]

Peter,

global security has a good measured article on Chinese defence budgets.

Hmmm you critise my source/figures - yet by some mystery of chance they match figures in the link you cite.

Chinese defence budget for the past fifteen years increased from a lowest figure of 9.6% (2003) to a highest figure of 28.8% (1994) with the average being 15.4%.

Curious, no?

Zhu Rongji openly stated that growth in military spending will run parallel to the growth in the national economy and could be sustained for a decade or two in double digit growth. The plan is to have fifteen-percent of the government budget (3% GDP) on defence spending each year. This linkage was written into the Law of National Defence in 1997.

Add to this the indirect defence spending budget which is not part of the quoted defence budget(first establish in 1962) which covers the following areas:

defence-related R&D

dual use civilian/military transportation construction

dual use civilian/military communication construction

militia forces

national reserves

national defence construction

local defence construction

By this method the CMC are able to ensure PLA funding has a budget growth beyond what they report.

As I said, I believe that what we are seeing is far more than merely high-tech national defence strategy (gaojishu guofang zhanlie),and way beyond 'peoples war under modern conditions'. If you look at the speeches and papers of the CMC you will detect as John highlights a belligerent and anti-American tone to all strategic and operational planning and direction.

If you believe everything is rosy in Beijing and that China poses no threat to her neighbours or the balance of power in the pacific, that is entirely up to you. I believe they have the potential to cause problems if we do not address the issues that could upset the states system.

John,

Quite so.

[cassh]

Abbott,

A sound strategy.

Arab countries account for 44 percent of China's total oil imports.

However, Russia may have increased production capability and is vying to be a major energy supplier by the time China poses a serious threat (5 - 15 years).

It is more difficult to interdict overland pipelines without political/strategic consequences when the owner is a big angry bear and the target is deep inland behind the Chinese and Russian air defence systems. Without turning a Pacific rim conflict into WWIII, the Americans may have to take a more considered view and limit their embargo to Arab oil!

Naval blockade is achievable, but again, Chinese ASW and hunter-killer capabilities are not non-existent.

Additionally, if the ships conducting trade are flagged internationally then the U.S. may find itself antagonising many nations just as German did in both world wars if they conducted an unrestricted submarine campaign.

Back to Taiwan...

Possible Scenarios are:

1)Peters imaginative inter-Chinese-Taiwanese 'civil war'.

2)DPP declare independence - PRC invades to settle things - treaty-bound Japan/U.S. respond.

3)Limited PRC campaign to take Kinmen (Quemoy), Matsu and Wuchiu; the three small Taiwanese fortress islands that lie just off the mainland.

Number 3 has Peter's Taiwanese-Chinese mix; is a limited and contained area/political scope; and would allow USMC amphibious campaign on a limited scale.

In other words an ideal an ideal CMx2 module with three actors (China, Taiwan and USA) with limited and specific forces (Taiwanese defenders, Chinese marines and airborne, American MEU).

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by juan_gigante:

... Take your false rhetoric elsewhere, dirtbag.

:eek:

You do realize you're full of ****, right?

[Bigduke6]

Guys,

Last I heard the non-Republican Left was part of the U.S. population and had rights under the constitution. If they disagree with an agressive/activist U.S. foreign policy, they may be wrong, they may be right, but they can't be discounted as meaningless to how the U.S. could fight a war. The U.S. is a democracy, fer Pete's sake, and one of the rules is that if you don't get most every one on board, you're gonna have trouble sustaining a war effort.

If the wartime enemy plans to bank on that U.S. domestic opposition, that's reality. Whining and complaining about jellyfish liberals isn't going to make the enemy strategy go away. The rule is still there: For a democracy like America to fight a war of more than a year or so, its political leaders must build a coaltion behind the war and hold it togeter, otherwise they box themselves into having to win all wars in a New York minute, 'cause they can't sustain cross-party support for the long term.

Wishing domestic opposition would go away so the U.S. could just use all its whiz-bang weapons is dumb if it's a supposedly informed citizen doing the wishing. If it is a policy decision-maker doing the wishing, it is close to criminally irresponsible in my book.

Cassh,

Yeah, that makes about 600 front-line aircraft if the Chinese mobilized their whole air force against Taiwan. But they can't, and they wouldn't even try.

Counting air frames available to a continental power is a superficial way of estimating how many real aircraft that country could sortie in an actual war. I didn't. Did you?

There are lots of things the Chinese are good at but sustaining intense air ops over time isn't one of them. Absent the ADA, and I doubt the Chinese Air Force could sustain a hard air effort against Taiwan and the U.S. for more than a week. And the Americans are great at getting the maximum out of every aircraft.

Let's not forget the neighborhood China lives in. Me, I doubt very seriously China would concentrate its entire air force against Taiwan under any circumstances, even if the Taiwanese invaded Fukien province, bombed the Forbidden Palace and Mao's corpse, and the Russians voted with the Chinese for U.N. retaliation.

Russo-Chinese mistrust is a good 300 years old and I don't see it disappearing because it's fashionable these days to criticize U.S. interventionalism. The Chinese did not demobilize forces opposite Taiwan when the invaded Korea; I see no reason to believe the Chinese would denude their Russian and to a lesser exent Indian and Central Asian frontiers just to challenge the U.S. Navy for air supremacy over the Taiwan strait.

So even though you may see every single first-line Chinese aircraft and pilot concentrated against Taiwan, I don't.

What's more, the J-10 is not an F-18; from what I've read it's roughly analgous to an F-16. That would be pretty good if Chinese pilots and air war traditions matched the U.S. They don't; and you can't change something like that overnight. Yes they could probably create a small corps of highly competent pilots (sort of the Japanese pre-WW2 recipe).

But where is the experience, educational base, and insitutional traditions to identify and train replacement pilots, collect intelligence, find counter-measures, organize supply so the right munitions are in the right place, learn and implement new technologies fast - China's never even tried to fight an air war on those terms

Keeping an air force flying and fighting over the long term takes a hell of a lot more than spiffy air frames. Ask the Germans, at the end of WW2 they had the best fighters in the world, but by the time the war ended those great aircraft were on the ground while the U.S. Army Air Force held air supremacy over the entire continent of Europe, set off fire storms over German cities at will, and did it with thousands of excellent, well-maintained, competently piloted, but admittedly technically inferior aircraft.

As to this:

Bigduke, again, I suggest you take a much closer and detailed look; not just the number of aircraft (you can add about 300 J-10's to the 300 odd J-11/Su-27's you've characterised as a couple of hundred first-line aircraft), but to the type of c4i and training issues that that you believe currently exist. Why have they purchased so many trainers? Why have air combat schools all rapidly expanded? When did they start fielding so many 'aggressor' squadrons? In my limited view this is indicative of an air force attempting to undertake a qualative change.

I cited these papers in the "Economist article" thread, both are from Global Security, and here they are again:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1999/chinese.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2003/pla_and_china_transition.pdf

I would say together that's a page count of over 600. The authors are independent subject are experts. I read fast.

If you can demonstrate that's a superficial overview of the subject, or if those sources are full of hooey, well go for it.

Me, I would like to hear from you how you see the Chinese sustaining an air effort of the scale you are talking about, living in the neighborhood they do.

[Peter Cairns]

Caash,

At no point did I critcise your figure, go back and check, you asked me about mine, and I told you that I used figures for both the US and China from the same source.

As to the increases of over 10%, thats only marginally more than GDP growth, and given all the civil tasks that the PLA undertakes, including much larger Internal security than the US national guard, it's still not unreasonable for it's size.

India and Pakistan spend 3% and 5% so it's not that unreasonable for the region.

I don't see China as any kind of champion and certainly would far rather see the US as number one, but the fact is I just don't see anything that looks like agression on the part of the Chinese. Thats in part why I went for a sceanrio which has them enter by invitation, that and the fact that for at least ten years to do it by force would be suicide.

Of the three scenarios I still go for mine, in that in number two I think the US especially if it was involved from day one and could use Bases in Guam, Korea, Japan and the Philippines would slaughter them.

As to the third scenario I got a figure for Quemoy of only 153km2 which on the basis of 2kmx 2km, is less than 40 CM:SF maps, it would be like fighting on a ball park.

In addition as the Chinese have MLRS with a range of 100 miles, the chinese could probably disperse enough artillery on the mainland to crater the place like the moon, It shelled it in the straits war of 1953(?) but artillery has moved on a fair bit since then.

As to Abbots blockade theory, add to Russia as a land oil supplier, Kazahstan which is currently building a pipeline to China.

Apart from that given the current level orf interdependence in SE Asia and the trade and investment patterns, there is a good chance that a US blockade of China would bring the economies of Japan, Korea and the PHilippines to their knees. Good strategy "Hey Guys help us to fight a war that will cripple your economies".

Peter.

[Moronic Max]

Recall, the Roman military began to lose effictivness when they ran out of actual Roman citizens who wanted, or could be coerced into fighting in the Legions.

That was one factor, yes, but not one of the main factors. There were many, many causes for the decline of Roman power. I'm not even going to try to go into them, because doing so would result in something like a fifty page essay, at minimum.

[Beastttt]

I see China as being too vulnerable to attack sby aircraft off the coast and from the southwest from Afganistan

4 688I's maybe add a seawolf or 2 and

if they ever convert some of the older boomers to tomahawk platforms

Nothing is going to cross the straits of Formosa and any coastal bases are going to get hurt bad

add to that US carriers not in the straits

But in the Pacific say 200 miles east

fighting close to land were SAR will be most effective

so unless the Chinese pull a surprise landing like in Red Storm Rising or Debt of Honor(both Tom Clancy books)with lots of onboard supplies that don't get destroyed before they can be offloaded and dispersed

and getting a Pearl Harbor type blow(this time hitting the carriers and subs)

I see no hope of them sustaining any kind of supply lines to hold what they might get

[ February 02, 2006, 02:21 PM: Message edited by: Beastttt ]

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

(snip) Kazahstan which is currently building a pipeline to China.

Apart from that given the current level orf interdependence in SE Asia and the trade and investment patterns, there is a good chance that a US blockade of China would bring the economies of Japan, Korea and the PHilippines to their knees. Good strategy "Hey Guys help us to fight a war that will cripple your economies".

Peter.

I don’t see a pipeline supplying a major powers wartime need for oil. If it became too much of a factor it would be interdicted and burned, pipelines are squishy. As to crippling Japan, Korea and the Philippines economy what world war wouldn’t. Japan and South Korea would likely stand beside the U.S. and nobody really cares which way the Philippines enter the fray or if they sit it out to the best of their ability. I don’t see a U.S. vs. China conflict as anything short of a world war.

China’s ASW assets and her submarines would be gone the first week. Sure they might sink one or two western boats but then they would be history. While the U.S still held control of the worlds oil supply via the Middle East and all the major trade routes via air and sea power, not to mention Great Britton’s assets which are not trivial.

I see no reason why an ultimatum could not be issued and enforced: “Any ship attempting to pass such and such coordinates will be considered hostile and subject to wartime rules of engagement”.

A Tomahawk or two would then interdict the ship and/or port facilities. Sink a few Super container ships or large Tankers in port you have then rendered that port useless. A few Tomahawks or J-DAMS fired into the port facilities the port is useless and the economy in jeopardy. Japan and Korea would just have to suck-it-up and act as allies or sit it out the best they can. As above who cares what the Philippines choose to do. Chinas military, economy and criminal enterprises could easily be set back a few decades. Trying to wield China like the big bad wolf or sumfink is rather entertaining.

[Imperial Grunt]

Interesting thread. In another board I have offered my opinion about such a war, but all the strategy and politics is really not what the game would be about, just like the Syria scenario. So I say we vote for Peter's scenario and pressure Steve to get the game made!

The US would not be able to commit 100% of its military (same for China), just like 100% is not committed to Iraq and Afghanistan so the US player would have to start off with a limited amount of forces that that made forced entry into Taiwan. The Chinese player would have alot of forces with a steadily dwindling state of supply. Taiwanese forces would be divided amongst the civil war. Overall, the US player has to win his battles as fast as possible to maximize victory conditions, to reflect the fact domestic political concerns. The Chinese player needs to last, to maximize a "political" solution.

It would make for an interesting game, with alot of varying terrain and forces. Digging Chinese infantry out of the mountainous and urban areas would not be easy for the US and UK Marines, paratroopers, and follow-on forces. Quite a furball.

CM is a ground combat sim. Let's stick with that.

[Kurtz]

I wonder who a blockade or war will hurt the most; US/EU or China?

I turned my mouse and keyboard around and found a sticker which said "made in China" (on a Microsoft mouse). What would happen to Wal-Mart wihout a steady supply of cheap trinkets made in China? What would happen to the prices of stuff 'made in China' in case of a conflict (or threat of conflict) in the area?

The Chinese and US/EU economies are so hard tied together you can't hurt one without hurting the other.

[Peter Cairns]

Of course if it comes to bombing pipelines, China has more than enough MRBM's which with a 2-3,000kg conevtional warhead and a 100m CEP can within 30minutes destroy every oil terminal and refinery in all of the US allied Gulf states.

So far all of the people who think the Chinese would loose hands down have been limiting what the Chinese might do to within the Taiwan straits area, while letting the US act Globally.

It's also worth noting that, there is no great love of the US in either Korean or Japanese society, and that as a result of WW2 and event before, neither Korea or taiwan particularly like the Japanese.

Given the economic changes that SE asia has undergone in the last decade, I would be wary of seeing the US allies there as being like Nato. There are alot of reasons for thenm to want to sit on the fence and call it a "chinese" matter.

Not least of which is that if the US hits bases on the Chinese mainland, then Chinahas the ballistic missiles to hit US bases in Japan and Korea. As with europe if it gets too hot, the First nuke isn't going to hit the US but one of it's allies.

Thats a big price for someone to pay in a war that they don't want to fight and is probably not in there interest.

Peter.

[Peter Cairns]

Oh and before I forget, if the US involves, Japan and Korea, then the possibility that China might bring in North korea to make the US fight on two fronts.

the other thing is the last time I looked, narrow as it is, China has aland boarder with Afghanistan, so they could well cause trouble their too, and if they team up with India Pakistan comes in to the firing line.

All good reasons to suspect that people would be as reluctant to get involved in a "Chinese Matter", as they were over Iraq...

Peter.

[Kilroy Lurking]

China/Taiwan,

What is needed here is an operational tie-in with Harpoon3...........

David

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by Kilroy Lurking:

China/Taiwan,

What is needed here is an operational tie-in with Harpoon3...........

David

Sounds great to me.

[Wisbech_lad]

Meh, If I were China I would forget the perils & uncertainty of invasion and declare an embargo/ blockade of Taiwan.

Can't see many oil tanker owners deciding to run that one. And US/ Japan intervention less likely than if an invasion, especially as the legalities are "interesting"

(Both US and Japan regard Taiwan legally as part of China. So if China decides to close Taiwan ports to foreign trade, it is a domestic issue, rather than interfering with freedom of the seas)

[Peter Cairns]

Wisbech_lad.

Problem with the blockade scenario is that Taiwan is one of Chinas biggest suppliers, and trading partners, so it would need to be a declaration of independence to do that.

Even before that China would threaten a trade blockade if independence was declared, and the US would probably back Taiwan. However long before any blockade emerged the loss of trade with China and hong Kong would send the Taiwanese economy in to free fall.

I suppose the US could retaliate by saying that if China wouldn't buy Taiwanese goods, America wouldn't buy Chinese, but given that that would cause huge disruption to the US economy, that might hurt the US more than China.

It would certainly cause huge short term dislocation to US suppliers and in the medium to long term force up US inflation, as the replacement suppliers would both be more expansive, and unable to meet the demand immediately ( if supply doesn't meet demand price rises).

I suspect thats why the current seperate state but still part of China line continues, it's a political expediant driven by economic interdependence.

Peter.

[MikeyD]

Bigduke6 writes:

"The U.S. is a democracy, fer Pete's sake"

It was considered one up til that 2000 election year judicial coup d'etat, anyway.

More on the topic of the thread, another post said:

"I don't think the world is going to see China start much while the US military is in position to interdict the worlds oil supply."

Unfortunately, the interdiction thing works both ways nowadays. With a single word from central authority in Beijing the U.S. could be placed in a corporate strangle-hold that would probably bring us to our knees. With a snap of their fingers the supply of Chinese semiconductors, appliances, designer sneakers, etc., etc. stops. Plus they put pressure on Indonesia to not take-up the slack. Plus they give a sharp tug to the financial strings that currently binds the U.S. treasury to China. One way to conserve on oil in the event of an embargo is to stop producing stuff for the U.S.! After a few months of U.S. corporate heads realising how much of their fortune is tied to China a peaceful 'unified China' will start looking better and better. You'll have 'country club' Republicans battling with 'red menace' Republicans on which direction to proceed!

[Peter Cairns]

I think it's strange that so many people who look at this from the US perspective seem to want to attack the Chinese mainland.

The US certainly has the capability, but would it be wise to do so.

A tacit agreement that we don't attcak the mainland if you don't atttack our aircraft carriers or bases would seem to work well for the US. If it is restricted to Taiwan and the US interdicts anything in Taiwans 12 mile limit or ashore, then it can avoid the vast bulk of Chinas AD network, and it can take on Chinese fighters over relatively neutral air space.

In addition from the naval perspective letting China have the straits means not having to go to close with either surface ships or subs in to narrow shallow waters. This allows the US to shield it's carriers and assault forces with Taiwan by staying to the east. Used defensively US subs would be more than capable of screening against Chinas few SSN's and that far out it's SSK's would be really retricted.

The alternative has the US at long range attacking the full Chinese integrated AD network and it's fighters over it's own airspace.

From a naval point of view it widens the war to include over 1,000 miles of Chinese coastline. In addition in such a widened conflict the obvious palces for Chinas SSN's would be NE pacific off the Alaska/California tanker route. Two more south of China one each side of the straits of Moluca either east in Indonesian waters or west in the Indian Ocean. Another possible is in the SW of the indian ocean covering the Horn of Africa.

If The US had available 40 of it's fifty SSN's having to hunt over two oceans could mean almost half of then being tied up else where. Not to mention still having to protect SSBN's and telling a Chinese SSN from a spying Russian one.

Adding to that the possibility of China then attacking US bases, where to lose only one or two airstrips they would struggle to mainatain air superiority.

Finally for the US to lose a single carrier could mean a higher death toll that 9/11.

If I was the US I would try to keep the conflict as local as possible.

Peter.

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

I think it's strange that so many people who look at this from the US perspective seem to want to attack the Chinese mainland.

Peace thru superior firepower.

[lucero1148]

As far as a blockade on China would go it wouldn't be more than 2 to 3 months (maybe even less) for Walmart to source tis goods through India or even in the developing economies of Africa for consumer goods.

The liklihood of India or Pakistan coming in on the Chinese side is very dim as economically they are in competition with China and this hypothetical war would be more to their benefit to stay with the US. Both India and Pakistan are also in dispute with China over their Himalayan borders. China also defeated India in a war so the Indian military has never really looked upon China with much favor since then.

I doubt very much that the US would want to try to invade China as that would be more than it could chew. The US would have to go in for Total war to win and defeat China totally. Can anyone imagine US troops storming the Forbidden City and then trying to foist a new democracy in China? We did a lousy job winning the peace in Iraq and I doubt the Pentagon has any kind of endgame plan to re-develop any country's social political structure.

As for identifying subs I would think the US already has acoustic id's on every sub in service today (on both allies and adversaries) so identifying a Russian sub from a Chinese one would be simple.

china doesn'thave thatmuch influence on Indonesia.

The Indonesians would have to weigh in the influence of the US and the West for that matter. Aside from that china also lays claim on the offshore oil rigs Natuna(?) which is in Indonesian territorial waters just like it claims the Spratleys and the Mischief Shoals off the Philippines. Nike has plants in Indonesia so the US may have a dip in shoe production losses from China but the Indonesian factories would ramp up their production just as quickly.

A war in China would see some economic disruption but look at the global economy today and you can see how fluid it is. Busiensses would justshift to non conflict areas in the 3rd world and those countries would happily accomodate the new business.

As for Korea and Japan if China sent missles to hit US bases wouldn't that turn world opinion against them? Not that they would care one whit but that is also a factor to consider. Japan and Korea would be forced into a regional war onthe US side.

Russia would be the big winner here as it could sit on the sidelines and supply China with warmaterial and oil which the US wouldn't dare touch.

all best

Patrick

[juan_gigante]

Multi-national corporations couldn't instantly shift production elsewhere if China and the U.S. got in a war. It would take time to build factories and train workers and so on in the new places of production. And even so, goods would still be more expensive. Think about this - if it were cheaper or as cheap to produce in Africa or wherever as opposed to China, wouldn't we see MNCs doing that already? Most of the "developing economies" in Africa and the rest of the 3rd world are actually really bad places to do business. They are unsafe, politically turbulent, have an uneducated workforce, and are extremely far from possesing the infrastructure to support the kind of investment you see in China.

After all, it's no good to move your factory to (insert impoverished 3rd world nation here) when the workers aren't trained and have high turnover, there's only one decent road in the entire country, and two months after you've set up, the crazy dictator decides to nationalize your factory. Which really doesn't matter too much now, since a suicide bomber blew up a third of the main port.

No, China (and its fellow "Asian Tigers") remains the best place to invest, and proof of this is that China and company are the places where MNCs are investing the most.

[lucero1148]

Well let's see for consumer goods its usually not the major MNC that's actually setting up the factory. For example Nike, Walmart or any clothes brand actually own their own manufacturing capability. That portion is usally farmed out to independent manufactuers who set up the actual brick and mortar to produce for the MNC's.

The Taiwanese have for the last 5 years have been setting up small scale factories to manufacture garments in South Asia and Africa and even in the Mideast (Bahrain and Abu Dhabi). Revamping industry would just be a matter of financing to expand facilities.

Most of the semiconductor companies already are spread out in Malaysia, Philippines, Korea and India and some factories are even stated to be built in the Gulkf states as well.

Yes SE Asia / China is quite popular for investing now, but the question posed was what if war broke out between China and Taiwan. Then the whole busienss equation is out the window and new strategies be formed to fill the gap that will ensue .

[juan_gigante]

lucero -

I totally agree. I just wanted to emphasize that there would very much not be a seamless transistion if the U.S. lost China's manufacturing capability, and that some of the damage could be irreversible.