Posted on 11/21/2004 11:45:29 AM PST by TapTheSource
"Despite the frantic hype the PRC Navy and Air Force simply aren't that great. No ship is absolutely invulnerable, and yes, a Carrier is sinkable, but we've got plenty of those."
***It would really only take the loss of one or 2 of these and we're down $1trillion or so, plus the loss of about 10k lives, and the U.S. is likely to lose stomach for more fighting.
"And destroying one would likely end up with the PRC losing all of their naval and air power-projecting capability in the process."
***This neglects the already mentioned strategy of asymmetrical warfare. An attack would be in the form of a swarm of antiship missiles, they wouldn't care if 90% of them get shot down. The remaining 10% could get through and sink carriers (with planes & men aboard) at the loss of a few dozen pilots and planes. After that, the power-projecting capability rests with the army, which engages in its own form of swarm tactics (previously utilized in Korea), with the willingness to accept tens of millions of casualties.
The PRC is likely to be completely helpless at ASW warfare, and, thus, incapable of projecting power anywhere overseas.
***China doesn't necessarily want to project power overseas other than across the Taiwan Straits, which are well within their currently tested missile capabilities.
The assumption you make is that the chinese, if they ever engaged in warfare against the US, would meet us mano-a-mano. It is common knowledge to all that facing the US in open warfare, where all the advantages inherent in the American style of warfare (3rd generation maneuver) come into play is basically a death trap.
***The maneuver card is trumped by the tight quarters presented on such a small island as Taiwan. And the chinese could wipe out the american air advantage with hundreds of thousands of cheap, light anti-aircraft missiles such as are flooding the market after the soviets were knocked out of Afghanistan. They would aim for the same approach to antitank weapons. An army marching in force with hundreds of thousands of swarming, cheap anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons would be formidable enough to instill heavy casualties in American lines. That's all they would be aiming for, they don't have to aim to win the battle. It's kind of like the Vietnamese, who said that our efforts at winning every battle were "irrelevant".
There is no force on earth that is as adept at destroying massed formations of men/aircraft/naval resources like the US is.
***Agreed, but there is also no populace that expects more from their armed forces than the American press.
If they send their J-11s and J-10s against our F-15s and F-22s, they will lose. If they send their T-72s against our Abrams ....you get the picture.
***If the Chinese send hundreds of J10s and thousands of antiship & antiaircraft missiles, how many do you think will be shot down? This won't be J10 vs F15, it will be J10 + 30 antiaircraft + 40 antiship missiles vs F15 & 1 ship.
What the Chinese will do is follow the formula that has consistently defeated super-power/regional-power level nations. 4th generation decentralized warfare (whcih defeated the US in Lebanon and Vietnam, Russia in Afghanistan and Chechnya, the French in Algeria etc etc).
***These 2 statements are contradictory with each other: "The Chinese are not dumb enough to follow Saddam's example of hoping to match the US blow for blow."
Not even the Russians could hope to last in an open conventional war against us.
***The chinese will be going for an open UNconventional war.
"***It would really only take the loss of one or 2 of these and we're down $1trillion or so, plus the loss of about 10k lives, and the U.S. is likely to lose stomach for more fighting. "
Modern aircraft carriers are extremely tough ships as the fires aboard the Oriskany(I believe), the Forrestal, and the Enterprise attest. Even the Franklin, I believe it was, suffered tremendous damage during WW2 and survived. But it's irrelevant since a crippled carrier might as well be sunk for the time it is under repairs. And if the free traders have their way the steel makers that produce the large componets for conducting the repairs will be out of business. Their equipment bought up and scrapped or shipped overseas. The ships might very well be unrepairable.
"***China doesn't necessarily want to project power overseas other than across the Taiwan Straits, which are well within their currently tested missile capabilities."
It'll be more than just the Taiwan Straits. They'll do their best to intimidate the Phillippines, Malaysia, Japan, and S. Korea into halting the supply of all military-critical components to the US. Once that happens, it won't take long before our technological edge starts to erode. Besides, the Chinese are patient and are not likely to try anything until American free trade policies have given them technological parity with the US in 20 years or so.
Modern aircraft carriers are extremely tough ships as the fires aboard the Oriskany(I believe), the Forrestal, and the Enterprise attest. Even the Franklin, I believe it was, suffered tremendous damage during WW2 and survived.
***I had this discussion with a reporter for Jane's Weekly at the OshKosh fly-in. He said that modern aircraft carriers are actually relatively thin-skinned concrete compared to the WWII behemoth battleships. Just one missile could get through and cause tremendous damage, whereas the armor on the old battleships would just make an antiship missile bounce off. There was an accident in the Caribbean in the 1980s where one aircraft missed its landing wire and the resulting fire caused $500M worth of damage. Once a missile gets through and starts a fire, the gig is up, especially in a NUCLEAR powered ship, where the downside is a mushroom cloud.
It'll be more than just the Taiwan Straits.
***Yes, if the Chinese are successful. Once a nation-state on the offensive tastes victory, they tend to keep moving in that same direction.
Besides, the Chinese are patient and are not likely to try anything until American free trade policies have given them technological parity with the US in 20 years or so.
***The Chinese are NORMALLY patient, but this is an extraordinary time, the first time in history that there has been such an unbalanced male-female ratio in a society. They have been "patient" in their own minds since Mao pushed Chang Kai Check off the mainland. Their sensors are tuned to any perceived weakness, just like the Germans prior to WW1.
As a postscript, I should note that I had similar fears when we went up against Iraq in the first Gulf War. I felt that Saddam could assemble a littany of "Sahibs in their Cessnas" and overwhelm the defenses of our carrier fleet prior to a ground based engagement. But Saddam "was no general" (Schwarzkopf's assessment), he didn't attempt such a bold maneuver. His tactics & strategy were easily outfoxed, as long as Colin Powell wasn't working on the plan. I sure hope the Chinese generals are as dimwitted as Saddam.
PING 2 POOHBAH
THX TapTheSource
"If we do something real early, like recognize Taiwan as an independent nation in the next 4 years (like they deserve), it could force China to back down, taking away their future catalyst for war."
I agree. But that would mean that the Taiwanese need to claim independence, which is like asking a child to do the dishes. Sure, maybe they'll do it but you're never really impressed with the results. I do think that on the basis of how aggressors tune their ears to weakness, this next 4 years will probably be the only true window of opportunity for Taiwan to extricate itself. After that, they're a future writeoff.
You're kidding right? Mushroom cloud?
"You're kidding right? Mushroom cloud?"
Okay, maybe that's not an accurate description of the downside, but it saved a lot of wordiness. The downside would be a giant column of radioactive steam rising from the overheating, sinking reactor, lasting possibly several months before the nuclear reaction plays itself out. This radioactive steam could poison everything it touches. Think Chernobyl but in a giant tub of water. In some respects, a mushroom cloud would be preferable.
It's a lot cheaper to park a couple trident subs off the coast
Unless it sank in 5 feet of water, no steam would reach the surface.
"Unless it sank in 5 feet of water, no steam would reach the surface."
Yikes, that means the sea itself would be radioactive. I seem to remember lava flows from Hawaii causing steam vents at several hundred feet of depth, but you're probably right, there's a point where the steam transitions back into water. Either way, we're looking at a terrible mess.
Mess, sure, but remember, more people have died in Teddy Kennedy's car than have been killed by American civilian nuclear reactors.
Kevin, to put a none-too-fine-point on it, you're completely ignorant of how nuclear reactors work.
The only way a conventional antiship missile hitting a nuclear-powered ship would generate a mushroom cloud:
1. The missile warhead must disassemble the reactor
2. The missile warhead must then process the reactor fuel into weapons-grade material
3. The missile warhead must then reassemble the bomb-grade material into a supercritical configuration...
And all this must happen in a millisecond or so.
I doubt that...China has painted themselves into a corner re: trade. They can't use their nuclear arsenal on Asia or America to blackmail anyone. Why kill off your best customers? Their economy only survives and prospers because of the U.S., S. Korea, Taiwan and Japan. Lets also remember that they are a country that cannot (independently) feed their own people.
They cannot "take" Taiwan. It would automatically draw the U.S., S. Korea, Taiwan and Japan vs. China in a non-nuclear war, I'd call it WWIV. Its lose-lose for China there too. The export dollars they use to build their military and feed them would dry up quickly. They would lose their customer base and get their ass handed to themselves militarily.
It is interesting that the Chinese are planning and researching "space" weapons to take out satellite's. A good part of our technological/military advantage against them depends on satellite technology. They would create a more level battlefield if they accomplished this. I hope folks in the Pentagon have countermeasures and plans for this.
Unless Minister Louis Farrakhan gets hired as a consultant to "The Million Man Swim."
I guess you didn't read the remaining comments on mushroom cloud.
That makes you the ignorant one.
But your post was fascinating, in a useless sort of way.
Oh, I wouldn't be that picky; it's got at least 10 ms before subatomic particles get too far away to be of much use. Heck, slow neutrons stick around a lot longer...
The swim isn't the only scenario...
1. Missile attack then air drop
2. Hide troops in regularly scheduled flights
3. Missile attack until surrender
4. Internal Taiwanese coup (helped by China)
5. Missile attack, followed by simultaneous beach landing and airdrop
I'm not saying any of these would be successful, but there are several scenarios to look at. Very interesting scenarios I might add.
The big question is whether the US will intervene with its navy.
One non-military response would be to cancel all Chinese held US treasury bonds/bills. That would HURT.
Missile attacks are useless without nukes. About all the atatcker accomplishes is to alert the defender.
Hiding troops in regularly scheduled flights is pretty stupid--because it would be rather obvious (a bunch of young men suddenly start showing from Mainland China--yup, nobody gets suspicious...)
Beach landings are out of the question unless Louis Farrakhan is setting up the Million Man Swim.
I think all missile attacks alert defenders. Nothing like having something go kaboom in your backyard - to shake you out of bed.
Currently there are several hundred to maybe a thousand missiles aimed at Taiwan. There are probably pre-targetted at military bases, airports, etc etc. If we assume (safe bet) that Taiwan have been given decent Patriot missile batteries, then Taiwan can shoot down a few of these missiles. If Chinese launches all missiles at once, then the Patriot batteries will be saturated. (in both area of coverage and launcher reload capacity)
Ok... so Taiwan is alerted. What is Taiwan's response?
Hiding troops on flights can be done. You ground the current plane and send a transport plane in its place. Coordinate the flight dispatcher and set the transponder to match the expected squack code.
Ok, you say beach landings are out of the question? How exactly?
China probably doesn't have enough LSTs or pure military vessels to do a amphibious assault. But they do have a bunch of container ships. You can fit alot of equipment on those. I wouldn't be surprise if the Chinese figured out how to put Russian IADS on ships.
The big question on the ship landings
1. Can you do it without satellite detection?
2. How fast can you off-load on the beach?
3. How fast can you get out of the staging area?
4. US subs? (will they act at all)
5. US carrier battle groups in the area? (again if they act at all)
6. Will the Taiwanese air force survive the missile barage to assist in repelling the naval landing?
A beach landing is probably not realistic, unless you combine it with a sustained airstrike.
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.