Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Beijing will not attack Taiwan
Brookes News ^ | Peter Zhang

Posted on 02/10/2004 7:04:20 PM PST by Dr. Marten

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-162 next last
To: ZOOKER
Actually I don't think they give a rat's rump about the cost. The variable they are looking at is their chance of success. The reason they didn't invade yesterday is they think they'd lose, not that they'd win but it would be expensive.

They know they'd lose if the USN shows up. It is all predicated on us staying out, whether because they have the right kind of coward in the White House, or there is enough trade money on the line, or they can threaten to hit a few of even our ships, or LA for that matter, or we are too busy dealing with the proxy troublemakers they've set in our path and armed (from North Korea to the Sudan). If they think we might not, they won't go. Not for cost reasons, but because they know they'd get their tails kicked.

Just Taiwan, on the other hand, they are gearing up to be able to take. The land force "we are all Japanese in coral bunkers who will fight to the last man" line is silly. The Chicoms aren't worried about that and they've no real reason to be. The question is does their shipping get sunk or does it get enough men over and keep them supplied.

As for their conventional warhead missiles, they have no military significance. They make for saber rattling, that's all. They aren't accurate enough to hit e.g. an airfield, as opposed to a whole city. Missiles that inaccurate either use nukes or do next to nothing. They don't need 500 of them to use nukes.

As for the idea they can't try it or won't, that might be naive. Dictators do dumb things all the time, that lose and get them smacked. Being surrounded by apple polishers is not conducive to rational assessment of risks, people make mistakes, some don't care what happens to those they shovel around.

The thing to focus on is making sure if they go, they get sunk in the Taiwan strait and lose. If that is clear enough that they don't go, great. If they go anyway, so sorry, sink their fleet, Taiwan survives. The target is not their will in the matter but their capabilities. Outmatch those and the worst that happens is they break a lance for the stupidity of tyrants.

41 posted on 02/11/2004 1:18:14 AM PST by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy; Quix; Poohbah; HighRoadToChina; maui_hawaii; Slyfox; Free the USA; rightwing2; ...
TH, I think we have to assume you are right: a war that could somehow be started at a time when the Coalition is "too busy elsewhere" to respond would be high on the PRC's list of desirables. Above that on the list would be a bloodless takeover signed by the Coalition and spineless (read: traitorous) elements of the Taiwanese leadership.
42 posted on 02/11/2004 1:19:53 AM PST by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: JasonC; Cincinatus' Wife
bttt
43 posted on 02/11/2004 1:21:27 AM PST by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Marten; Byron_the_Aussie; shaggy eel; Trapper John; Dundee
<< .... what's the problem with the Australian Labour Party? Doesnt it realise that [Peking's thuggees] have only contempt for those who kowtow to them? >>

Self-loathing, psychopathologically-hesperophobic, envy-motivated and rage-engined and hatred-driven "Labour" potty members -- and "DemocRATS" -- love it when they're treated to the Peking predators' contempt.

Except for their [Girly] boys nights out in Kings Cross, Saint Kilda -- and Georgetown's [The mama-san-kkkli'ton place, eg] -- leather, chains, whips and bondage salons, that's the only time the bastards feel noticed.
44 posted on 02/11/2004 1:45:52 AM PST by Brian Allen ("I don't belong to no organized political party -- I'm a Republykin!" - With Apologies to J Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Charles H. (The_r0nin)
"OK, if this author doesn't know the difference between "ordinance" and "ordnance," I have a hard time taking his opinion on a military conflict seriously..."


I would be more inclined to believe that it has more to do with English not being his native languge rather than his lack of knowledge on the subject.
45 posted on 02/11/2004 3:08:05 AM PST by Dr. Marten (Treason...How can such a small word mean so little to so many?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: belmont_mark; John H K; hchutch
Or, in time for IRBM attacks, followed by air drops, followed by hovercraft, followed by plain old boats full of troops docking in seized ports.

IRBM strikes: ineffective unless you're using nukes. And if you're using nukes, the rest of the invasion CONOPS is worthless.

Air drops: expensive way to put troops into place

Hovercraft: there's a reason that the USMC doesn't use LCACs (Landing Craft Air Cushion) for forcible entry (i.e., hitting a hostile beach that actually has troops defending it). That reason is that when a fifty-caliber machine-gun stitches the skirt, that LCAC is going to stay where it is--and an LCAC is an extremely expensive way to drop off troops on a one-way mission.

Boats arriving in seized ports: Well, yes...with all of the dock facilities blown up.

As I've pointed out to you more than once, if your CONOPS requires tactics that do not work (conventional IRBM strikes, large-scale airborne drops, etc.), or tactics that the defender's active help in order to work (i.e., not doing anything to oppose the assault, such as blowing up the port facilities, or not attacking and destroying the one and only main supply route available to the attacker), then your idea is, to put it mildly, pretty stupid.

46 posted on 02/11/2004 3:43:43 AM PST by Poohbah ("Would you mind not shooting at the thermonuclear weapons?" -- Maj. Vic Deakins, USAF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: belmont_mark; John H K
The answers, land, geopolitical position, psychological impact on distant great powers ... Got Von Clausewitz? Got Sun Tzu?

Please give us a dissertation on Clausewitz's concept of friction and how it would affect a complicated endeavor such as an amphibious assault

For a "neo-Clausewitzian," you sure seem to have a tenuous grasp of the concept of friction, which was one of the central elements of Clausewitz's work.

47 posted on 02/11/2004 3:47:01 AM PST by Poohbah ("Would you mind not shooting at the thermonuclear weapons?" -- Maj. Vic Deakins, USAF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: JasonC
There is no point in keeping a nuclear deterrent secret. It doesn't deter anybody if they don't know you have it. Having nukes but not saying so is the quickest way to an actual nuclear exchange, through miscalculation.

Israel has never officially stated that they have nuclear weapons.

But everyone knows that they do.

Taiwan doesn't have to formally announce that they have nukes.

But, given that they worked with the Israeli nuclear program for 20+ years, they really don't have to.

48 posted on 02/11/2004 3:51:08 AM PST by Poohbah ("Would you mind not shooting at the thermonuclear weapons?" -- Maj. Vic Deakins, USAF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
You are wrong. People involved in the strategic planning do not think Taiwan has them, certainly not with any confidence. Israel has acknowledged it does, just not formally so as not to invoke IAEA inspections and what-not, and the French have even explained how they helped them get them. If Taiwan does and is just keeping it a secret, it is a dangerous miscalculation. Personally, I don't think they are that stupid and so don't believe they do.
49 posted on 02/11/2004 3:58:09 AM PST by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Marten
I think that China could at some point in the future take Taiwan by force, maybe twenty years from now.

On the other hand, optimist me thinks China would be so different in 20 years they would not want to take Taiwan by force.

If China becomes democratic (if a large enough middle class develops it will probably happen!) then Taiwan may ask to rejoin China on their own...

I think what the Maoist fossils in Beijing are hoping for is a hyper jimmuh carter type president who gives up Taiwan to the China like Chamberlain and the weak willed Europeans gave up the Sudetenland to Germany in 1938...

50 posted on 02/11/2004 3:58:09 AM PST by chilepepper (The map is not the territory -- Alfred Korzybski)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Marten
1000,000 heavily armed troops in heavily fortified positions.

Big deal. in iwo Jima 20K Japanese troops killed 25K American troops. If the 1 million Taiwanese kill say 2 million Chinese soldiers, that's NOTHING for china, it's got lots of cannon fodder. It can just push thousands or millions of militia members on to the island. It'll take heavy losses but big deal, the Russians won WWII by throwing unarmed men at the Germans, knowing that the sheer wieght of numbers would destroy the enemy.
51 posted on 02/11/2004 4:42:14 AM PST by Cronos (W2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Marten
Plus China has so many spare young men thanks to it's skewed male-female ratio (at least 20 million at the last count) that they may deem it good for their society to get rid of the excess.
52 posted on 02/11/2004 4:43:38 AM PST by Cronos (W2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZOOKER
Conquest seems like a waste of effort if you destroy Taiwan's high-tech infrastructure. What have you gained?

Taiwan's capture is symbolic. While it is still independence, the commies can never claim victory. Plus they know it would be a great place to launch an invasion of hte mainland.
53 posted on 02/11/2004 4:44:51 AM PST by Cronos (W2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
Big deal. in iwo Jima 20K Japanese troops killed 25K American troops. If the 1 million Taiwanese kill say 2 million Chinese soldiers, that's NOTHING for china, it's got lots of cannon fodder. It can just push thousands or millions of militia members on to the island.

Since the population of China is not "thousands of millions," this statement is false.

Second, "getting there is half the fun."

China doesn't have a navy worthy of the name.

Absent absolute naval supremacy (over the Taiwanese AND the US Navy), the ChiComs will run out of shipping long before they run out of soldiers.

54 posted on 02/11/2004 4:48:45 AM PST by Poohbah ("Would you mind not shooting at the thermonuclear weapons?" -- Maj. Vic Deakins, USAF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: All
On the other hand, the Taiwanese may be playing in longer terms. They've built up their ties with China's potential rival to the West -- India, both are preparing for a post American hyperpower world in 20 to 25 years. India's also pushign up ties with russia to a higher level, and both R&I would like to punish China for it's arrogance and to keep it in place, so you never know what may happen in 2025.
55 posted on 02/11/2004 4:49:24 AM PST by Cronos (W2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: chilepepper
If China becomes democratic (if a large enough middle class develops it will probably happen!) then Taiwan may ask to rejoin China on their own

Don't hold your breath. China already has a large middle class (larger than the population of the US), but they're pretty content to let the commie Emperors rule (the Chinese have NEVER had a democracy or a republic in their history)
56 posted on 02/11/2004 4:50:54 AM PST by Cronos (W2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
It can just push thousands or millions of militia members on to the island. Since the population of China is not "thousands of millions," this statement is false.

Re-read my sentence, I said push thousands OR millions.
57 posted on 02/11/2004 4:51:53 AM PST by Cronos (W2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Furthermore, the Taiwanese navy isn't that great either. The Chinese have air power advantage. THey blow up Taiwanese ships and just need troop carriers to take a couple of million militia (spare young men) across to quell the Taiwanese military. Then, they send in the experienced troops.
58 posted on 02/11/2004 4:53:22 AM PST by Cronos (W2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Quix
If they use neutron weapons on Taiwan, they better have enough for the rest of the class, because the use of the weapon would invite an immediate and massive response in kind from us.

Factor in the response time that a submarine can afford, and the war, in that case, would be academically over with in about 18 minutes.

I would hope the horror of the use of that particular weapon would put a quick stop to things.
59 posted on 02/11/2004 5:02:56 AM PST by RinaseaofDs (Only those who dare truly live - CGA 88 Class Motto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy; Quix; John H K; Cronos
The most valuable sentence in this article is "an atrack on Taiwan would be a political suicide" for the PRC.

Any person that has a good understing of the PRC realizes this. The degree of the people who believe that the PRC will attak Taiwan depends on their degree of understang of the PRC. Chen Shui-bian, Hu Jintao and Bush are playing a game of cat and mouse. They are simply trying to push their political agendas rater than trying to touch the hot potato itself.

At the same time though, I am not naive enough to say that Beijing would NEVER attack Taiwan under any circumstances.
60 posted on 02/11/2004 5:07:54 AM PST by Dr. Marten (Treason...How can such a small word mean so little to so many?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-162 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson