Posted on 10/07/2001 7:27:44 AM PDT by KevinDavis
The elemental lesson to be learned from Sept. 11 is that nothing is unthinkable, although many possibilities are unthought, particularly by peaceful nations. So perhaps now Americans should think about the possibility of a swift, remarkably brutal, conquest of Taiwan by the People's Republic of China.
It is U.S. strategic doctrine that the armed forces should be sufficient to successfully fight two major regional conflicts simultaneously. Forces sufficient for one are being deployed to Southwest Asia. A second such conflict could erupt in Southeast Asia, explains professor Richard L. Russell of the National Defense University. His ''devil's advocate analysis''--written before Sept. 11--appears in Parameters, the U.S. Army War College quarterly.
America's sanguine assumption is that China lacks the necessary force-projection capabilities. It is deficient in amphibious ships and other means of delivering troops by water, particularly given that Taiwan's pilots and aircraft (F-16s and Mirage 2000s) are superior to China's.
But China could confound that assumption using surprise, a ''force multiplier.'' China could use amphibious assaults only as diversions to draw Taiwanese ground forces away from the primary invasion points--air bases. And China could employ unprecedented ruthlessness--tactical nuclear weapons and chemical weapons.
Such surprise and ruthlessness may seem far-fetched--as far-fetched as the idea of using commercial aircraft as bombs to level skyscrapers would have seemed a month ago, had anyone imagined it. However, Russell notes that Pearl Harbor, Germany's attack on the Soviet Union, North Korea's invasion of South Korea, China's intervention in Korea and the 1973 Yom Kippur War were all surprises.
Besides, Russell says, a nation contemplating aggression considers the dangers of peace as well as of war. China sees that time is on the side of Taiwan's improvement of its economic strength, political links to the world and military capacity for self-defense--particularly if Taiwan acquires defenses against ballistic missiles.
Russell says China could secretively increase sealift and air transport capacity, and paratrooper training, for a conflict that would begin with a bolt-out-of-the-blue barrage of hundreds of missiles to ''decapitate'' Taiwan's military by striking command-and-control facilities. China has an estimated inventory of 240 missiles capable of striking Taiwan from the mainland.
Missile warheads loaded with persistent and nonpersistent chemical agents could incapacitate Taiwan's air and air defense forces. Hence Chinese fighter aircraft could escort transport aircraft that would deliver paratroopers. Their drops onto Taiwan's air bases would be timed to coincide with the evaporation of nonpersistent chemical agents that had disabled those bases. Once the bases were secured by Chinese paratroopers, Chinese transports could land more troops.
By striking hard and fast, even with tactical nuclear weapons, China could hope to conquer Taiwan before there could be any U.S. military buildup in the region. And Westerners might be projecting their values on China by assuming that China regards nuclear weapons exclusively as means of deterrence and weapons of last, desperate resort.
There is evidence that Chinese military doctrine, unlike America's, holds that nuclear weapons can be applicable even in wars in which less than national survival is at stake. And Russell writes that the Chinese might argue that the use of weapons of mass destruction would set no international precedent because they would be employed against a province in an ''internal affair.''
Tiananmen Square demonstrated Beijing's readiness to use violence for political objectives against Chinese who challenge it. As for the price China would pay for international disapproval of such ruthlessness, Beijing may be willing to pay the price because it would be transitory: Just 12 years after the Tiananmen Square violence was telecast to the world, China was awarded the 2008 Olympics.
Russell wrote his scenario to emphasize that ''improbable'' is not a synonym for ''impossible,'' and to induce ''a sense of caution and humility about the limits of foresight in knowing the prospects for war.'' On Sept. 11 America received a violent lesson about those limits.
The aggression Russell describes is not unthinkable. Nothing is.
I have watched this possibility being formed over the past year. I think you have a valid theory. Time will tell and we will see how strong our Allies are. The US can't do it by itself.
That's DOCTRINE only - a leftover from the days when the the U.S Military reigned supreme. Ten years ago we couldn't even engage Iraq (whose greatest military prowess was the propensity to surrender) without calling up the reserves ... and that was before Clinton gutted the services.
In the end, when all is said and done, this will become a choice between Christianity and Islam...it may not seem to be immediately, but it will eventually be obvious.
That is the root issue...it will take time for many people to realize the truth.
It is a time fo war.
Bet on it.
Anti-Civilization [IE:- America] Terrorism is a trans-national, growth, industry.
It is also very true to say that the Chinese leadership are very pragmatic.
This article has been written many times I first read it when it was talking about the planned Soviet Invasion of West Europe in the early 80s. It was accepted that any attack would first start with a massive chemical and conventional strike against command and control, logistics and pol points.
1) The Chinese have a very limited amphibious capability.
2) The Chinese have a very small blue water fleet, the majority is coastal, useless in this sort of operation.
3) The Chinese have a small airborne capability.
The surprise option, an invasion of a well armed country like Taiwan is not the same as launching a terrorist attack.
The Logistics alone will be a nightmare, the article says that civilian airliners would be used to land parachutists, that means they will have in some cases to be converted, brought to a central point, this will not go unnoticed, the same with using shipping both military and civilian.
In Intelligence they have what’s called a Hostile Activity Indicator.
Taiwan has one enemy only they are not like America they are not watching the whole world.
They study Chinese shipping, Chinese airlines, all military and political activity, the media, news or lack of news
But still it makes a good techno thriller.
Tony
The Taiwanese are tough, and conquering their island would be like bear-hugging a wasp's nest.
The referred-to article by Russell is found What if . . . "China Attacks Taiwan!"
The people who brought us the whitepapers on Asymmetric (unrestricted) Warfare are back in the spotlight.
One thing to add... China WILL attack, but not based on what Taiwan does. An attack on Taiwan is the CCP's "assasin's mace" or 'trump card' to keep themselves in power.
If the internal situation inside of China goes awry with civil discontent at CCP rule, then they will launch an attack.
They will launch the attack to do nothing more than save their own @sses from the mobs of people.
Find out how probable civil unrest is inside of China and you will find out how probable an attack is.
1. bump post #39.
2. If China attacks using any kind of conventional forces it will take a minimum of 12 to 18 months to blockaide the island...that is with little resistance.
The only way would be for the PRC to go nuclear from the start. In that case, I would not want to be on the recieving end of the retaliation...
The best thing is to have a missile shield over Taiwan and the USA. That will take much of the nuclear threat and missile attacks out of it. From there on out it will be more of a conventional fight, which would take well over a year to win, if they could win at all.
Those beach landings are not so easy.
China freaks out about NMD not so that they cannot only not hit America, but because they won't be able to hit Taiwan either.
Their trump card to stay in power will be taken away.
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.