I remember hearing recently that some Chinese general said they could hit us with a nuke. That really is very unfortunate (to the point of saying, “That sucks”) about our poor intelligence. I know our attention is focused on the middle east right now, but I don’t think we should forget about our secular foes in the far east.
Well, I’d still like to go to Taiwan or even Hong Kong, but now I’m not so sure. Maybe I’ll have to go to Japan, heh.
China would destroy itself if it attempted to hurt the United States. China has become increasingly capitalistic over the past few decades, especially with the emergence of official government doctrine of “get rich first.” The actually limitations on businesses are less in China because they want to develop the mainland. Political freedom is another story, there really is none. I am optimistic that once they see the benefits of freeing their citizens in a business manner will give way to freedom in China. Probably will not happen anytime soon.
What do you think? Is this a good sign?
“The Real Force Changing China: Capitalism”
http://artofwarplus.com/wordpress/?p=543
It’s about a new Chinese reality television show promoting entrepreneurship. This looks like a good sign to me. It just seems to exemplify the brake of what the chionese people want and what their goverment wants.
I think you’re over estimating our military and underestimating the Chinese. I seriously doubt we would be able to remove China from Taiwan.
I seriously disagree with you. In fact I am quite confident in my assessment that the Chinese are incapable of invading Taiwan. I doubt they even have the capacity to land forces due to the massive amount of Coastal defenses that Taiwan has. But if they did and if they used every last one of their amphibious assaults ships in the operation, they would be able to bring something around 20,000 soldiers (all infantry) ashore . Now the trip across the formosa straight in these ships is not very quick, it would take several hours(if not more) to cross the straight, and several more hours to load the boats up, and several more to make it back to Taiwan, all while they are under attack from the air, land, and sea. Now these 20,000 soldiers if they make it ashore are going to get stuck there, with little air support (due to the incredible density of Taiwanese air defense, and the number of aircraft at their disposal), and minimal Naval Surface Fire Support. They would be surrounded by the better trained, better equipped, highly mechanized Taiwanese Army which would surround them and annihilate them.
The Chinese would have nothing on their side.
I agree, I doubt they could get the numbers they would need across the straight. That’s not what I was stating though. I said, I didn’t think we could get them off the island if they did manage to get there. Some day soon they might.
They would be surrounded by the better trained, better equipped, highly mechanized Taiwanese Army which would surround them and annihilate them.
What makes you think that Taiwan’s military is better trained and equipped?
I agree, I doubt they could get the numbers they would need across the straight. That’s not what I was stating though. I said, I didn’t think we could get them off the island if they did manage to get there. Some day soon they might.
The Chinese simply do not have the capacity to stop us from taking back the island. The shear ammount of power we can direct at the Chinese military on the Island would be incredible. Within a couple of months we could get a naval force there like we had in the Gulf during the recent war. That is to say 5 Carrier Battle Groups. This would be on top of the dozens of strategic bombers, hundreds of fighter aircraft, and a large portion of the United States Marine Corps. The chinese have nothing to match it, either in size, trickery, or technology that they could bring to Taiwan to stop us.
The only traditional advantage the Chinese have over western armies is shear numbers (i.e. Korea), but we are not talking about something that is connected to the mainland. We are talking about an island, that has to be reinforced by sea and air. The larger the force the more dependent it is from resupply from mainland China. Which is a very bad thing for the Chinese, given the operation of US/British/Japanese Submarines and Aircraft in the Formosa straight, it wouldn’t look pretty for the Chinese.
What makes you think that Taiwan’s military is better trained and equipped?
It is 20,000 infantry, they have no tanks, nor indirect support assets to speak of outside of mortars and sparatic NSFS. The Taiwanese would outnumber them damn near 10 to 1, and on top of that they would have tanks, howitzers, mortars, air support, and infantry support vehicles. This is assuming they don’t get thrown back into the ocean within the first few hours of the fighting.
It is 20,000 infantry, they have no tanks, nor indirect support assets to speak of outside of mortars and sparatic NSFS. The Taiwanese would outnumber them damn near 10 to 1, and on top of that they would have tanks, howitzers, mortars, air support, and infantry support vehicles. This is assuming they don’t get thrown back into the ocean within the first few hours of the fighting.
China possesses the world’s third largest armored force, with 10,000 main battle tanks, light tanks, and amphibious tanks in its inventory. PLA (Peoples Liberation Army) operates about 500~600 SRBMs, most of which are believed to be based in Nanjing Military Region opposite Taiwan. While the size of the force is likely to increase substantially over the next few years, the accuracy and lethality of the force also are expected to increase through use of satellite-aided guidance systems. The PLA is also developing land-attack cruise missiles (LACMs). These cruise missiles seem to have a relatively high development priority to ensure that Chinese forces will have greater conventional firepower.
China also has several nuclear powered submarines. Pluse several 4th generation Russian fighter/bombers.
In the last 10 years china has made huge strides in military advancement. They are advancing in all fronts in military technology. It would be a mistake to under estimate their force as the large clumsy, unsophisticated force that they were in the eighties. Iraq’s military during the gulf war was nowhere near the level of the Peoples Liberation Army is today. I don’t mean to be the PLA cheerleader, but I would like people to realize the upcoming potential of the PLA. It’s a serious threat that should not be ignored nor bushed off as an ineffectual force. To do so would be dangerous and careless.
China possesses the world’s third largest armored force, with 10,000 main battle tanks, light tanks, and amphibious tanks in its inventory.
All of it is rendered irrelevant by the fact that they can not transport them to Taiwan, which was my point.
PLA (Peoples Liberation Army) operates about 500~600 SRBMs, most of which are believed to be based in Nanjing Military Region opposite Taiwan.
Can you give me a single example in the history of warfare where inaccurate conventional ballistic missiles have been effective? Their good for inspiring terror in the populace, but that’s about all it’s good for. Furthermore they (Taiwan) have an extensive array of PAC-2’s which have been proven very effective against short range ballistic missiles in Iraq and Israel in both Gulf Wars.
While the size of the force is likely to increase substantially over the next few years, the accuracy and lethality of the force also are expected to increase through use of satellite-aided guidance systems.
Actually the Chinese military is shrinking and will continue to shrink if they want to modernize it to the point where it is at least close to western standards. We can maintain a very large and advanced force because our budget is 400 billion dollars and we have the infrastructure already built. They are running a budget of around 60 billion and they have a force larger then ours, do the math.
The PLA is also developing land-attack cruise missiles (LACMs). These cruise missiles seem to have a relatively high development priority to ensure that Chinese forces will have greater conventional firepower.
These cruise missiles are also very easily taken out by PAC-2/PAC-3. They are also irrelevant if China lacks the intelligence assets required to find the strategic targets these things are meant to hit.
China also has several nuclear powered submarines.
The US has over 50, not to mention the best ASW assets in the world. Since these Chinese nuke submarines are poorly made they are very loud. They are not the problem, Chinese deasil subs are the major threat.
Pluse several 4th generation Russian fighter/bombers.
I think you are referring to the Su-27/Su-30MK? These are very good aircraft, but you might want to check out how much flight time the pilots get and then compare it to the flight time American naval and airforce pilots get. Then compare the shear number of modern planes we have on the same level as the Su-27/Su-30 to the number of Su-37/Su-30s. You will find that these aircraft will be of little help.
In the last 10 years china has made huge strides in military advancement. They are advancing in all fronts in military technology. It would be a mistake to under estimate their force as the large clumsy, unsophisticated force that they were in the eighties.
But you must understand that the vast majority of their force is still that same unsophisticated force that they were in the eighties. Don’t buy into all of this “China is the next super-power” garbage. The facts simply aren’t there.
But you must understand that the vast majority of their force is still that same unsophisticated force that they were in the eighties. Don’t buy into all of this “China is the next super-power” garbage. The facts simply aren’t there.
What concerns me about China is that they clearly now possess some significant fraction of the world’s productive capability. Either that or the massive number of tools, furniture, electronic devices, etc., stamped “Made in China” are lying.
It is certainly logical to think that the money and technology behind that productiveness are going to radically scale up and improve the quality of their weaponry, given the nature of the Chinese government. It is also true that the engineering and scientific talent in China is growing at a rapid clip. Intel just funded a major new site in China, with 600 people as I recall, for doing advanced semiconductor work. Just one example of many.
I would much rather that Taiwan were getting such resources and attention, but I certainly don’t see it in the products I buy or in most of the references I read about new investment and development.
It is certainly logical to think that the money and technology behind that productiveness are going to radically scale up and improve the quality of their weaponry, given the nature of the Chinese government.
Their economy is so much smaller then ours, I don’t see what your talking about.
It is a different thing to build hammers then it is to build highly advanced fighter aircraft, put highly trained pilots in them, and equip them with the latest weaponry.
What concerns me about China is that they clearly now possess some significant fraction of the world’s productive capability. Either that or the massive number of tools, furniture, electronic devices, etc., stamped “Made in China” are lying.
It is certainly logical to think that the money and technology behind that productiveness are going to radically scale up and improve the quality of their weaponry, given the nature of the Chinese government. It is also true that the engineering and scientific talent in China is growing at a rapid clip. Intel just funded a major new site in China, with 600 people as I recall, for doing advanced semiconductor work. Just one example of many.
Not to mention they’ve got Mickey Mouse now. :-\
I would much rather that Taiwan were getting such resources and attention, but I certainly don’t see it in the products I buy or in most of the references I read about new investment and development.
Taiwan used to produce a lot of junk too, but now their economy is more developed. They have the 23rd best economy based on GDP (PPP) per capita, better than China (97).
China possesses the world’s third largest armored force,
Iraq had the world’s 4th largest armed forces and they quickly became the second largest armed force in their own country. But then we set out to fight a war of occupation/liberation which China wouldn’t be; it would be a stop them from setting foot in Taiwan and then smack the crap out of them so they get the idea to never do it again.
China also has several nuclear powered submarines. Pluse several 4th generation Russian fighter/bombers.
We still outclass them.
In the last 10 years china has made huge strides in military advancement. They are advancing in all fronts in military technology. It would be a mistake to under estimate their force as the large clumsy, unsophisticated force that they were in the eighties. Iraq’s military during the gulf war was nowhere near the level of the Peoples Liberation Army is today. I don’t mean to be the PLA cheerleader, but I would like people to realize the upcoming potential of the PLA. It’s a serious threat that should not be ignored nor bushed off as an ineffectual force. To do so would be dangerous and careless.
I don’t think you are a cheerleader at all. And I don’t think that we are underestimating the PLA’s abilities. But the PLA’s advantages are much the same as Iraq’s were at the begining of the Gulf war. They had the numbers and they did have some modern equipment, indeed much of which we had sold them. In the case of China our allies France and Israel have sold them some of their equipment along with Russian materials still doesn’t add up to a winning combination.
From the earlier posts, I did say that quantity does have a certain quality and if the Chinese did throw enough Shipwrecks our way that they would indeed do some damage but when all is said and done there isn’t a chance in hell that they would be able to actually make it with landing boats to set foot on the ground of Taiwan. It has to be taken by the Chinese without anything being broken so to speak which is really impossible. The last time anybody took over anything without massive damage was either Grenada or maybe the Falklands. And that was a case of numerical superiority to the ludicrous extremes.
These cruise missiles are also very easily taken out by PAC-2/PAC-3.
Taiwan has a limited amount of PAC-3 missiles, far fewer then China’s potential to produce LACMs. Not to mention that China also has the SA-20 which could shoot down the PAC-3There are several ways China could take Taiwan with out having a full-scale invasion. One of the more diplomatic ways is to politically isolate them. The number of countries recognizing Taiwan as a free and independent nation is small. Chinese president Hu Jintao has been racking up his frequent flyer miles as of late by traveling all over the world pressuring countries to recognize the “One China Policy”. In the first five months of this year Taiwan’s imports from China stood at US$7.93 billion, representing growth of 29.1% and a share of 10.7% of the country’s total imports. If China continue to isolate Taiwan diplomatically and financially it would be easier for them to persuade Taiwan to the “One China Policy”. China could also run a blockade on Taiwan. The Peoples Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) would easily overpower the Taiwanese navy. Taiwan’s only hope would be for foreign intervention. The US could and should intervene if there was a blockade of Taiwan, but to what extend? Currently the USN would win a naval battle with the PLAN but at a cost of men and equipment. Also, China most likely won’t run a blockade on Taiwan tomorrow. No, the Chinese are if anything patient. They will continue with there massive upgrade and build up of the PLAN and it’s missile forces. The US FY04 Report to Congress on PRC Military Power(http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/d20040528PRC.pdf) suggests that China is spending much more on its military than it is actually admitting. If the current trend continues the success against the PLAN would not be guaranteed in a naval scenario. The real question is would the US risk losing a carrier and other assets over Taiwan? During a time when our forces are stretched more and more due to Iraq and the war on terror, could we afford such a loss and still intervene with North Korea and Iran? Would the American public stand for massive losses that a confrontation with China would produce, over an island most of them could not even locate on a map. If you read the US FY04 Report to Congress on PRC Military Power report you will note that congress and the US military seem to be concerned about some of the same things.
Not to mention that China also has the SA-20 which could shoot down the PAC-3
What? The S-400 (SA-20) isn’t even in service with Russia, let a lone China.
Your right, they don’t have a lot of PAC-3s, but what they do have is a lot of PAC-2s which have been shown to be nearly as effective as PAC-3s.
There are several ways China could take Taiwan with out having a full-scale invasion. One of the more diplomatic ways is to politically isolate them. The number of countries recognizing Taiwan as a free and independent nation is small. Chinese president Hu Jintao has been racking up his frequent flyer miles as of late by traveling all over the world pressuring countries to recognize the “One China Policy”. In the first five months of this year Taiwan’s imports from China stood at US$7.93 billion, representing growth of 29.1% and a share of 10.7% of the country’s total imports. If China continue to isolate Taiwan diplomatically and financially it would be easier for them to persuade Taiwan to the “One China Policy”.
We aren’t talking about non-military options that China has.
China could also run a blockade on Taiwan. The Peoples Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) would easily overpower the Taiwanese navy. Taiwan’s only hope would be for foreign intervention.
They are getting 4 Kidd class Destroyers which outmatch all but a few of China’s newer destroyers. Not to mention that the western coast of Taiwan is flooded with land based anti-shipping missiles.
The US could and should intervene if there was a blockade of Taiwan, but to what extend? Currently the USN would win a naval battle with the PLAN but at a cost of men and equipment. Also, China most likely won’t run a blockade on Taiwan tomorrow. No, the Chinese are if anything patient. They will continue with there massive upgrade and build up of the PLAN and it’s missile forces. The US FY04 Report to Congress on PRC Military Power(http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/d20040528PRC.pdf) suggests that China is spending much more on its military than it is actually admitting. If the current trend continues the success against the PLAN would not be guaranteed in a naval scenario.
The real question is would the US risk losing a carrier and other assets over Taiwan?
Given that we have plenty of air bases in the mid east, having carriers there is superfluous. So yes, we would risk it, and if they took out a single carrier it would be at an amazing cost to the PLAN, making it an ineffective brown water navy that reinforcements could come in and annihilate in short time. Remember that the US has well over half a dozen super-carriers in mothball that could be called up in times of war.
During a time when our forces are stretched more and more due to Iraq and the war on terror, could we afford such a loss and still intervene with North Korea and Iran?
We station a boomer off their coast and threaten them with annihilation, they won’t do a damn thing.
Would the American public stand for massive losses that a confrontation with China would produce, over an island most of them could not even locate on a map.
Describe, “massive”? Why do you believe there would be massive casualties?
What? The S-400 (SA-20) isn’t even in service with Russia, let a lone China.
I’m afraid you’re mistaken the SA-20 has been in service in Russia for many years. As stated in the Annual Report to Congress: The Military Power of the Peoples Republic of China 2005(http://russia.shaps.hawaii.edu/security/us/2005/d20050719china.html); in August 2004, China received the final shipment from Russia of four S-300PMU-1/SA-20 battalions. China has also agreed to purchase follow-on S-300PMU-2, the first battalion of which is expected to arrive in 2006.
Given that we have plenty of air bases in the mid east, having carriers there is superfluous.
Although we do have bases in Turkey, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates it would still take several hours of flight and an air-air refueling to reach Teheran. We would lose the tactical advantage of having a carrier in the gulf. Pulse lets not forget the North Koreans. Its also true that we have mothballed carriers but they are mostly for test and spare parts. I don’t think we will have the 2 or so years to rebuild a Vietnam era carrier.
We station a boomer off their coast and threaten them with annihilation; they won’t do a damn thing.
I thought about this too. What if we gave Taiwan a boomer? What would be the Chinese response? It would definitely make China think twice about attacking Taiwan, but least we forget China has a boomer as well. Not to mention nuclear weapons, I don’t think we’d risk nuclear war with China.
I’m afraid you’re mistaken the SA-20 has been in service in Russia for many years. As stated in the Annual Report to Congress: The Military Power of the Peoples Republic of China 2005(http://russia.shaps.hawaii.edu/security/us/2005/d20050719china.html); in August 2004, China received the final shipment from Russia of four S-300PMU-1/SA-20 battalions. China has also agreed to purchase follow-on S-300PMU-2, the first battalion of which is expected to arrive in 2006.
The S-300PMU-2 is not the same thing as S-400. Although a very capable system it is not on the same level as the S-400. The S-400 has been marked by delay after delay due to lack of interest in the product. The S-300 is known as the SA-10, not the SA-20.
Although we do have bases in Turkey, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates it would still take several hours of flight and an air-air refueling to reach Teheran. We would lose the tactical advantage of having a carrier in the gulf.
Iraq and Afghanistan are closer to Tehran then any carrier would be. The Carrier would have be stationed below Qatar to avoid anti-shipping missiles anyways, making Qatar just as reasonable a place to launch aircraft from as an aircraft carrier.
Pulse lets not forget the North Koreans.
Like a I said before, threaten them with a nuclear strike if they don’t cease and desist.
Its also true that we have mothballed carriers but they are mostly for test and spare parts.
Every Carrier even in the Nimitz class are different. They are not the same exact ship, and parts can’t be used interchangeably.
If they were used for tests and spare parts they wouldn’t be mothballed, because that be contrary to the definition of mothballing.
I don’t think we will have the 2 or so years to rebuild a Vietnam era carrier.
We wouldn’t need too, my point was that they can take out a Carrier and have no long term effect on the effectiveness of our fleet.
I thought about this too. What if we gave Taiwan a boomer? What would be the Chinese response? It would definitely make China think twice about attacking Taiwan, but least we forget China has a boomer as well. Not to mention nuclear weapons, I don’t think we’d risk nuclear war with China.
I’m talking about North Korea and Iran. In the event of war with China over Taiwan we can check Iran and North Korea with boomers stationed near them (which I’m sure already are) and threaten to use them.
China has both SA-10s and SA-20s.
We have no fighter/bomber bases in Iraq or Afghanistan.
There is no “Moth balled “ NIMITZ class carriers. The parts they take from older classes are overhead lights, desk, shelves, and minor equipment of lesser importance. They also use them for test platforms and occasionally blow them up (Like the USS AMERICA)
We need Carriers in the Gulf; they are still vital to our operations in the Middle East. A carrier in the Gulf could respond faster in both Iraq and Afghanistan then an air force base could. That’s way there is always a carrier in the Gulf even today. If it were unnecessary they would not be there.
- China has both SA-10s and SA-20s.
The SA-20 is called the “Triumf” and it’s other designation is S-400, the Chinese simply do not have this. The Chinese have the SA-10 and the SA-12 and both of these are from the S-300 series.
- We have no fighter/bomber bases in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Upgrade Iraqi airfields. Seabees could build temporary bases in Afghanistan or upgrade old Soviet air fields.. I’m not saying it is the ideal situation, but certainly is possible given an emergency situation like a war with China over Taiwan. I don’t even think bases in Iraq of Afghanistan are nessecary as the ones in Qatar and Kuwait are absolutely massive and capable of holding plenty of aircraft.
http://www.good-hotels-guide.com/middle-east/middle-east.gif
Look how close Qatar and Kuwait are to both Iran and Iraq. Just as close as any carrier would be.
- There is no “Moth balled “ NIMITZ class carriers. The parts they take from older classes are overhead lights, desk, shelves, and minor equipment of lesser importance. They also use them for test platforms and occasionally blow them up (Like the USS AMERICA)
I never claimed that we had moth-balled Nimitz carries, simply that they were all different so the ones we do have in mothball could not give the Nimitz Carriers supply parts. I could see how they would take the minor things like that, but I don’t see how that would effect their commisioning time.
They don’t blow up mothballed ships, it’s as simple as that. The mothballed fleet in essance is the Naval reserve.
- We need Carriers in the Gulf; they are still vital to our operations in the Middle East. A carrier in the Gulf could respond faster in both Iraq and Afghanistan then an air force base could.
We simply do not need them. Bases in Qatar and Kuwait are closer then any Carrier would be.
That’s way there is always a carrier in the Gulf even today. If it were unnecessary they would not be there.
It couldn’t be that the admirals want some credit for the action?
