06-09-2020, 07:49 AM
** 08-Jun-2020 World View: China vs Taiwan
That's a really great analysis.
However, on one point I would disagree -- and I know we've discussed
this in the past.
You say: "The United States is very much in a mood of: "Screw foreign
entanglements; let people deal with their own problems!""
A Chinese attack on Taiwan would be a generational Regeneracy event,
and we'd be at war with China within 24 hours.
If you'd like a recent example, after 9/11/2001, we were at war with
Afghanistan by the end of the day. The Democrats hated Bush, but they
didn't object to the military response. Compare the Democratic
response to the Afghan war with their response to the Iraq war.
That's why I keep saying that the war won't begin with some massive
invasion, like the invasion of Poland or the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
It will begin with some minor event, like the Marco Polo Bridge
incident, that spirals into full-scale war over time.
Trevor Wrote:> I've looked at both Taiwan's and China's current military
> capability, so I have a few thoughts on it.
> I don't believe China would be able to conceal an invasion, as it
> would require hundreds of ballistic and cruise missile systems as
> part of an opening attack. They'd hit every airfield, naval base,
> and vessel they could. Taiwan would have ample warning, although
> some of their aircraft would be caught on the ground. You can't
> keep every plane in the air all the time.
> China greatly outnumbers Taiwan in terms of its naval forces, air
> forces, and ground forces. That being said, Taiwan's capable of
> inflicting heavy losses on them. In fact, 20 years ago, i would
> even say they were capable of repelling a Chinese invasion without
> outside help.
> However, I no longer believe that's the case. China would suffer
> enormous losses, but they've made it clear people are a mere
> resource to be expended. They will call up reserves, even use
> civilian boats to transport troops to the island should it prove
> necessary.
> And I believe Taiwan knows they're not going to be able to stop
> China from establishing a beachhead. However, the island is
> mountainous, providing ample opportunity for guerilla warfare, and
> if I was part of the Taiwanese military, I'd ensure there were
> hundreds of hidden caches of weapons buried so deep China could
> never find them. China would lose tens of thousands of their
> troops securing territory in Taiwan, maybe more taking over the
> major population centers.
> Even so, if Taiwan fought alone, they would lose the fight. And
> our intervention is an open question. The United States is very
> much in a mood of: "Screw foreign entanglements; let people deal
> with their own problems!" The attitude dominates both
> conservatives and progressives. We'd find ourselves in a position
> where if we intervene, it'll be a bloody war, but if we don't, we
> send a message to the world that American protection means
> nothing.
> China would certainly threaten us with force not to get involved
> in an internal matter, perhaps cutting off medical supplies or
> other crucial items. However, let's say. . . they offer an
> agreement where all debt we owe them will be forgiven in exchange
> for not assisting Taiwan. It'd be a tempting offer for some,
> especially with an anti-intervention mood. Our government is
> paralyzed with the knowledge we have two impossible choices in
> front of us, which would likely end in a bitter partisan battle as
> Taiwan falls. Japan would likely be in a similar situation,
> arguing between a clear danger and their Post-WWII pledge not to
> declare war.
> Our assistance is far from guaranteed, though refusal would have
> untold consequences. The Philippines would be a prime target for
> China. Their military is far weaker than Taiwan's, underequipped
> and poorly trained, Moreover, their strategic location would be an
> excellent buffer state against the U.S. Navy, where they could
> station thousands of anti-ship missiles in opposition to us.
> The question is: how effective are China's "carrier killers"? I've
> read many articles on the topic, with varying opinions of how
> deadly they are. I've seen the massive crater in a desert test
> against our carrier, but there's a difference between that and how
> well they perform under battlefield conditions. I expect we won't
> have a true answer until they're actually used.
That's a really great analysis.
However, on one point I would disagree -- and I know we've discussed
this in the past.
You say: "The United States is very much in a mood of: "Screw foreign
entanglements; let people deal with their own problems!""
A Chinese attack on Taiwan would be a generational Regeneracy event,
and we'd be at war with China within 24 hours.
If you'd like a recent example, after 9/11/2001, we were at war with
Afghanistan by the end of the day. The Democrats hated Bush, but they
didn't object to the military response. Compare the Democratic
response to the Afghan war with their response to the Iraq war.
That's why I keep saying that the war won't begin with some massive
invasion, like the invasion of Poland or the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
It will begin with some minor event, like the Marco Polo Bridge
incident, that spirals into full-scale war over time.
