Thousands Of Ships, Millions Of Troops: China Is Assembling a Huge Fleet For War With Taiwan

https://www.forbes.com ^ | Jul 27, 2021 | David AxeForbes Staff

[RomanSoldier19]

To have any chance of conquering Taiwan, China might need to transport as many as two million troops across the rough 100 miles of the Taiwan Strait and land them under fire at the island’s 14 potential invasion beaches or 10 major ports.

That’s a lot of people—far, far more than the People’s Liberation Army Navy can haul in its 11 new amphibious ships. To transport the bulk of the invasion force, Beijing almost certainly would take up into naval service thousands of civilian ships.

To that end, the Chinese Communist Party has created a legal and bureaucratic framework for taking over control of commercial shipping. Meanwhile, naval engineers have begun modifying key vessels to make them better assault ships.

All that is to say, the vast flotilla that would be both the vehicle for China’s assault on Taiwan—and the biggest target of Taiwanese forces and their allies—is taking shape.

“If the PLA invasion force was a million or more men, then we might expect an armada of thousands or even tens of thousands of ships to deliver them, augmented by thousands of planes and helicopters,” Ian Easton, an analyst with the Project 2049 Institute in Virginia, wrote in a recent report.

The PLAN’s eight modern Type 071 landing docks and three Type 075 big-deck assault ships together can haul around 25,000 troops. A drop in the bucket. To transport the balance of the invasion force, the Chinese navy can take up around 2,000 large commercial vessels crewed by around 650,000 mariners.

[Kevmo]

Of course you can’t see the difference. That’s what makes your posts so full of stupidity.

And look at what you so idiotically said, that YOU can only see the difference in MY fantasies. Dunb, incredibly dumb.

[Kevmo]

First, your question conflates TAIWAN’s claim with China’s claim. China is very definitely an independent country. Taiwan is not. Our own state department acknowledges the one-China policy of chicom sovereignty over Taiwan. Do I think the chi-coms are legit? In light of your conflation it is a ridiculous question. Learn to engage clarity, take a writing class.

When did the chicoms ever hold a legit election? Immaterial to the issues at hand. The relevance is whether or not chicom weapons can kill tens of thousands of US soldiers.

Second, your stupid question about being SURE. about US defense of Taiwan degrades into nitpicking about 5. Naturally, someone as hideously hidebound as you focuses on such minutiae— obviously it is HOWEVER MANY aircraft carriers — without addressing the presented hypothetical. The reason you do this is because it is obvious I’m right and America would luze stomach for the fight.

Third, if there are no US aircraft carriers in a blockade breaking maneuver then our forces will suffer the same defeat as the Bay of Pigs.

Fourth, the chicoms might very well TRY to sink all our deployed carriers if we blow out the 3 Gorges Dam, attacking chinese citizens on chinese soil, as has been discussed upthread but you’re too obtuse to remember. There would also be very high casualties on Taiwan.

[DuncanWaring]

Ever heard of the RAF’s “617 Squadron”?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chastise

[Kevmo]

hey, brojerk

Can you STILL not see the difference?

America’s ‘Great Retreat’ is well underway The US is rapidly lowering its military profile and backing away from commitments to allies in the Middle East and Asia
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3980258/posts

[BroJoeK]

Kevmo: "Of course you can’t see the difference.
That’s what makes your posts so full of stupidity."

"Kevmo" in Chinese means "useful idiot" -- look it up.

[BroJoeK]

Kevmo: "First, your question conflates TAIWAN’s claim with China’s claim.
China is very definitely an independent country.
Taiwan is not."

Mainland China is ruled over by force of the unelected illegitimate Chi-Com party.
Taiwan is governed by an elected constitutional republic -- that makes them both legitimate and independent.

The United States has always agreed that all-China, long run, should be governed by one government, but we've also insisted reunification should be accomplished peacefully and lawfully.
And we've always said we'd intervene if the Chi-Coms tried anything different.
We've never said exactly what that intervention would be, and so the Chi-Coms have been free to imagine the best, or the worst, depending on their mood that day.

Under Pres. Trump there seemed no reason to doubt Americans meant what we've always said.
Under Pres. Kamala Biden, nobody knows what the US really means, and US weakness has always been provocative.

Kevmo: "Do I think the chi-coms are legit?
In light of your conflation it is a ridiculous question.
Learn to engage clarity, take a writing class."

And there it is: confirming my translation of the word "Kevmo" in Chinese as "useful idiot".

Kevmo: "When did the chicoms ever hold a legit election?
Immaterial to the issues at hand.
The relevance is whether or not chicom weapons can kill tens of thousands of US soldiers."

Rubbish, the real question is: how many Chi-Coms must die for every Taiwanese, American or anybody else they kill?
Should it be 10 to one? 100 to one? What do you think, Kevmo?

Kevmo: "obviously it is HOWEVER MANY aircraft carriers — without addressing the presented hypothetical.
The reason you do this is because it is obvious I’m right and America would luze stomach for the fight."

Right, just as we did after Pearl Harbor?
Nobody knows exactly what would be the US response to a Chi-Com all-out attack on Taiwan, but you assume the worst -- that we would blunder into range of their most lethal missiles and prove unable to defend against them.
I'm only saying: how are you so certain of those things?

Kevmo: "Third, if there are no US aircraft carriers in a blockade breaking maneuver then our forces will suffer the same defeat as the Bay of Pigs."

Bay of Pigs? You're going to wave the Bay of Pigs at us?
Unless by "our forces" you mean the Chi-Com invasion army, then Bay of Pigs is the wrong analogy.
The Bay of Pigs will be your Chi-Com army's fate after Taiwan & its allies destroy the Chi-Com invasion fleet.

Kevmo: "Fourth, the chicoms might very well TRY to sink all our deployed carriers if we blow out the 3 Gorges Dam..."

If the Chi-Coms launch a massive attack on Taiwan, with thousands of their magic-missiles destroying hundreds of Taiwan targets (even if non-nuclear), and Taiwanese respond in kind against mainland Chi-Com targets, then the disappearance of a dam here or a dam there will be among the lesser of Chi-Com worries.

Kevmo: "attacking chinese citizens on chinese soil, as has been discussed upthread but you’re too obtuse to remember."

If Chi-Coms attack Taiwanese citizens on Taiwan's soil, how could they not expect their own citizens to also suffer, Kevmo?

[Kevmo]

BroJoke means you’re a joke, bro. In English.

[BroJoeK]

Oh, look, here's the Russian translation of "Kevmo" -- it means "Putin's puppy".

And in North Korean? Oh, my goodness, "Kevmo" means "sucks little Kim's Un".

They all love you, pal.

[Kevmo]

It is time to call you out on being a first class @$$#0/e.

BroJoke: “Under Pres. Kamala Biden, nobody knows what the US really means, and US weakness has always been provocative.”

***That has been one of the starting points of my criticism of US policy. It DEPENDS upon USA willingness to pour blood for an ally. But we have lost stomach for fighting for freedom in the past, such as in Korea, Vietnam, and various other withdrawals in the past.

So we AGREE on this aspect of US unwillingness to defend allies [especially when those allies are hardly even willing to fight for themselves].

But you turn this around into incredible fkkking ugliness. You try to make it look like the US luzing military assets in a Taiwan conflict would be like when OUR OWN FRIKKING territory was sneak-attacked. You are incredibly dense, caused by your @$$#0/e inclination to ignore some obvious points just so you can cause a rift.

STFU

[Kevmo]

Kevmo: “attacking chinese citizens on chinese soil, as has been discussed upthread but you’re too obtuse to remember.”

If Chi-Coms attack Taiwanese citizens on Taiwan’s soil, how could they not expect their own citizens to also suffer, Kevmo?
***That’s just it. It is NOT Taiwan’s soil, it is China’s soil . And about a third of those affected are ethnic Chinese, among whom maybe only HALF will fight for China against Taiwan as a fifth column.

[Kevmo]

Kevmo: “Fourth, the chicoms might very well TRY to sink all our deployed carriers if we blow out the 3 Gorges Dam...”

If the Chi-Coms launch a massive attack on Taiwan, with thousands of their magic-missiles destroying hundreds of Taiwan targets (even if non-nuclear), and Taiwanese respond in kind against mainland Chi-Com targets,
***Interesting hypothetical, that there IF statement. It completely changes and ignores the original hypothetical which is if WE — the USA — take out the 3 Gorges Dam. I’ll address your hypothetical if you address mine. But you won’t.

then the disappearance of a dam here or a dam there will be among the lesser of Chi-Com worries.
***If that disappearance of a dam was due to the US striking targets on mainland China then China is free to take out mainland targets on US soil. But you won’t be addressing that hypothetical any time soon, because you approach this subject matter like a complete jerk.

[Kevmo]

Kevmo: “Third, if there are no US aircraft carriers in a blockade breaking maneuver then our forces will suffer the same defeat as the Bay of Pigs.”

Bay of Pigs? You’re going to wave the Bay of Pigs at us?
***Hell yes I’m waving the Bay of Pigs at us. It was an island military engagement where the air support was withdrawn by wishy-washy political authority. Hence, they were slaughtered.

Unless by “our forces” you mean the Chi-Com invasion army, then Bay of Pigs is the wrong analogy.
***You really go out of your way to misread things, don’t ya. Misread this: You are a freeping jerk. Argue the actual points instead of propping up bullshiite straw arguments.

The Bay of Pigs will be your Chi-Com army’s
***Frack OFF.

fate after Taiwan & its allies destroy the Chi-Com invasion fleet.
***The invasion fleet will be surrounded by tens of millions of migrants in a sampan civilian internal migrant “mass march migration”, all on CNN so that when we wipe out those civilians it will be a PR disaster. Not that you are EVER going to address these hypotheticals that I bring up.

[Kevmo]

Kevmo: “obviously it is HOWEVER MANY aircraft carriers — without addressing the presented hypothetical.
The reason you do this is because it is obvious I’m right and America would luze stomach for the fight.”

Right, just as we did after Pearl Harbor?
***AGAIN you bring up Pearl Harbor, which was a sneak attack on AMERICAN SOIL. This engagement in Taiwan will be us interfering with an ACKNOWLEDGED interior dispute on acknowledged Chinese soil. We lost stomach for the fight when 60k US died, we’ll luze stomach for the fight when 250k US soldiers die over an ungrateful ally who has not yet even declared independence. But it’s not like you are going to acknowledge these elements, so it’s like dealing with an insolent child. Take a critical thinking class.

Nobody knows exactly what would be the US response to a Chi-Com all-out attack on Taiwan,
***Of COURSE not. That’s what hypotheticals are all about. So when you refuse to examine one set of hypotheticals but push your own set which ignores obvious parameters, you are being disingenuous.

but you assume the worst —
***That is how military planning works, numbN*ts.

that we would blunder into range of their most lethal missiles
***We are ALREADY in range of their most lethal missiles. Duhh. Blindingly obvious gigantic duhh factor.

and prove unable to defend against them.
***It is certainly a very distinct possibility. One that you refuse to address. Because you’re so obtuse.

I’m only saying: how are you so certain of those things?
***How are you so certain they’re NOT? You aint. So, commenting on the other side’s uncertainty is, once again, disingenuous. That happens a lot with you.

[Kevmo]

Kevmo: “When did the chicoms ever hold a legit election?
Immaterial to the issues at hand. The relevance is whether or not chicom weapons can kill tens of thousands of US soldiers.”

Rubbish,
***Bullshiite.

the real question is: how many Chi-Coms must die for every Taiwanese, American or anybody else they kill?
***The real question is, how many Americans must die before we withdraw from the fight, like we did in Vietnam?

Should it be 10 to one? 100 to one?
***I will answer your hypotheticals if you answer mine.

What do you think, Kevmo?
***I think Taiwan should be for the Taiwanese, China should be for the Chinese, SoyBoyTown should be for the SoyBoys, and Kurdistan should be for the Kurds. Upthread I pointed out how Taiwan is divided roughly into thirds, 1/3 ethnic chinese with perhaps no more than half willing to fight as a fifth column for China against Taiwan; 1/3 ethnically Taiwanese who want their own country; 1/3 soyboys who don’t GAFF who is in charge as long as they can get their Starbucks and cable tv. But you don’t address these obvious factualities because you are so disingenuous. That comes up a lot with you.

[Kevmo]

Kevmo: “Do I think the chi-coms are legit?
In light of your conflation it is a ridiculous question.
Learn to engage clarity, take a writing class.”

And there it is: confirming my translation of the word “Kevmo” in Chinese as “useful idiot”.
***You’re just a first class @$$#0/e. On top of that writing class, you should take some kind of spiritual class to treat others as you would have yourself treated.

[Kevmo]

Kevmo: “First, your question conflates TAIWAN’s claim with China’s claim. China is very definitely an independent country. Taiwan is not.”
Mainland China is ruled over by force of the unelected illegitimate Chi-Com party.
***Take that up with the UN, who gave China legitimacy, as well as the US state department which does the same thing with their “one China” bullshiite policy. The UN does not acknowledge Taiwan as a separate country, but as a province of China. https://www.google.com/search?q=is+taiwan+recognized+by+the+un&source=hp&ei=QCAEYf6rEY6VwbkPkuehyA4&iflsig=AINFCbYAAAAAYQQuUGCAyvDK1eyc6IESMDDFagW-rpu0&oq=Is+taiwan+recogni&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAEYADIFCAAQgAQyBQgAEIAEMgUIABCABDIFCAAQgAQyBQgAEIAEMgUIABCABDIFCAAQgAQyBQgAEIAEMgUIABCABDIFCAAQgAQ6CwgAEIAEELEDEIMBOg4ILhCABBCxAxDHARCjAjoICAAQsQMQgwE6CAgAEIAEELEDOgUILhCABDoLCC4QgAQQxwEQowI6CAguEIAEELEDOggILhCxAxCDAToLCC4QgAQQsQMQgwE6CAgAEIAEEMkDOgUIABCSA1CTDljmJWDJMWgCcAB4AIABwQKIAYEckgEIMC42LjEwLjGYAQCgAQGwAQA&sclient=gws-wiz

Taiwan is governed by an elected constitutional republic — that makes them both legitimate and independent.
***I am not signing up for your Humpty-Dumpty definition because there are half a dozen countries in the world that this easily pulls off the list of independent countries.

The United States has always agreed that all-China, long run, should be governed by one government,
***Basically a pile of bullshiite policy position to accommodate an intransigent and stupid ally.

but we’ve also insisted reunification should be accomplished peacefully and lawfully.
***And the Chinese WILL say that their 15Million man sampan migrant flotilla is a peaceful and lawful migration from some internal provinces to an island internal province. But you are too stupid to see this.

And we’ve always said we’d intervene if the Chi-Coms tried anything different.
***So you have confidence in our wavering political leadership, the same guys who threw our allies such as the Vietnamese and Free Cubans under the bus. Got it.

We’ve never said exactly what that intervention would be,
***Because the policy is so stupid.

and so the Chi-Coms have been free to imagine the best, or the worst, depending on their mood that day.
***And now they are building a 100 million man army and perhaps a flotilla of 15-20 million civilians in front of it so they can legally and peacefully begin administering things in Taiwan like how they did in Hong Kong when the time was right.

Under Pres. Trump there seemed no reason to doubt Americans meant what we’ve always said.
***This points out the folly of the approach. It should be independent of who is president at the time.

Under Pres. Kamala Biden, nobody knows what the US really means, and US weakness has always been provocative.
***Again, pointing out the folly of such an approach, not that you will ever be able to see it because you are so disingenuous. That disingenuous thing comes up a lot with you. You should look into it.

[Freedom56v2]

Just an interesting sidebar—and note the last paragraph in post:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbes

Forbes put up for sale and sold 51% stake to Integrated Whale Media...

Sale to Integrated Whale Media (51% stake)
In November 2013, Forbes Media, which publishes Forbes magazine, was put up for sale.[22] This was encouraged by minority shareholders Elevation Partners. Sale documents prepared by Deutsche Bank revealed that the publisher’s 2012 EBITDA was US$15 million.[23] Forbes reportedly sought a price of US$400 million.[23] In July 2014, the Forbes family bought out Elevation and then Hong Kong-based investment group Integrated Whale Media Investments purchased a 51 percent majority of the company.[7][8][18]

Isaac Stone Fish wrote in the Washington Post, “Since that purchase, there have been several instances of editorial meddling on stories involving China that raise questions about Forbes magazine’s commitment to editorial independence.”[24]

[BroJoeK]

Kevmo: "It is time to call you out on being a first class @$$#0/e."

That's you, pal.

Kevmo: "***That has been one of the starting points of my criticism of US policy.
It DEPENDS upon USA willingness to pour blood for an ally.
But we have lost stomach for fighting for freedom in the past, such as in Korea, Vietnam, and various other withdrawals in the past."

All peace, without exception, in the world depends on American treaties, promises and willingness to fulfill our promises to defend our allies from naked aggression.
Remove those treaties, promises and willingness to defend our allies and the world reverts to chaos, war and domination by its most bad-*ssed military powers.

As for US withdrawal from Korea, you might wish to talk to people in Seoul, South Korea about that.
They will be most surprised to learn Americans have gone.

South Vietnam is a different story -- there Democrats in Congress not only forced US troops out, but also, after nearly 20 years (1955 - 1975), cut off military aid to the South Vietnamese government.
It was similar to the situation in Afghanistan today -- we can only help those guys so much, after that, they're on their own, if they won't defend themselves, we have to let them sink or swim.

As for "other withdrawals", you refer perhaps to our withdrawal from Germany, Japan, Italy, Spain... well, here's a recent map of US military bases worldwide:

Kevmo: "So we AGREE on this aspect of US unwillingness to defend allies [especially when those allies are hardly even willing to fight for themselves]."

Pres. Trump was big on pushing our allies to contribute more to their own defenses, and was more successful at that than any other recent president.
Trump also wanted to withdraw from countries like Afghanistan which seem unwilling (after 20 years!!) or unable to defend themselves.
Enough is enough.

Kevmo: "But you turn this around into incredible fkkking ugliness.
You try to make it look like the US luzing military assets in a Taiwan conflict would be like when OUR OWN FRIKKING territory was sneak-attacked.
You are incredibly dense, caused by your @$$#0/e inclination to ignore some obvious points just so you can cause a rift."

The US does indeed have a long-term legal obligation to help defend Taiwan -- not the same as, say, Japan or Korea, but also not "nothing".
Here is a map of US defense treaty obligations, notice it includes Taiwan:

The obvious point you ignore is our historical commitment to Taiwan, you'd like to pretend it never happened and we don't care now what becomes of Taiwanese.

By the way, what is this "cause a rift" talk?
You're the one babbling insanely, so any "rift" is coming from you, pal.

Kevmo: "STFU"

STFU

[Kevmo]

Kevmo: “It is time to call you out on being a first class @$$#0/e.”
That’s you, pal.

Kevmo: “STFU”

STFU

---

It looks like the thread is where you wanted it to be, brojerk.

[BroJoeK]

Kevmo: "***That’s just it.
It is NOT Taiwan’s soil, it is China’s soil .
And about a third of those affected are ethnic Chinese, among whom maybe only HALF will fight for China against Taiwan as a fifth column."

The mainland Chi-Coms have never ruled or governed Taiwan, not ever, not for a single day.
Their claims to "own" Taiwan are based on nothing more than naked power aggression.
Indeed, that is also their only claim to rule the mainland -- unlike (small-d) democratic Taiwan, mainland Chi-Coms have never established a legitimate mainland government, never held honest elections, never showed the least respect for human rights or our constitutional principles.
The Chi-Coms are, in short, a thug-ocracy and nothing can change that -- no amount of kowtowing, *ss-licking & obeisance by Kevmo can turn that monstrosity into a civilized government.
Chi-Coms are the children of Marx, Stalin & Mao -- murderers at heart, nothing good can come from them.

We are shamed forever if we walk away from Taiwan in the face of naked Chi-Com aggressions.

You claim "half" of Taiwanese will fight for the mainland Chi-Coms -- maybe, but how many will still fight after Chi-Coms have launched thousands of their magic-missiles against targets all over Taiwan?
What if those include nuclear warheads?

If we tolerate naked aggression against Taiwan, we'll be inviting more naked aggressions against our friends worldwide.