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

Skip to comments.

TO TAKE TAIWAN, FIRST KILL A CARRIER
The Jamestown Foundation ^ | July 8, 2002 | Richard D. Fisher, Jr.

Posted on 07/09/2002 6:25:15 AM PDT by Tai_Chung

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-170 last
To: Poohbah
"I disagree with your assessment of the "Second Battle of Taiwan.""

Good, valid, and insightful points.

I'm wondering how two things may impact your thoughts.

One is the rapid advance in missle technology vs carriers. Just like WWII put an end to the battleship as king I'm estimating (guessing?) that the emerging generations of anti-ship missles may make the era of the carrier end. The tools for finding and destroying a carrier are growing much much faster than those for defending it.

The other is the simple size of the population of China; 1,400 million. That size makes me feel on a purely intuitive level (I can't defend the point) that they will find a way. Like the movie Jurrasic Park said "Life finds a way." I just feel that that many people, focused on the task, will find a way to conquer Taiwan. Especially if our carriers are no longer in the picture.

I liked your previous analysis, and want your thoughts.

161 posted on 07/19/2002 11:23:51 PM PDT by TheLooseThread
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: TheLooseThread
One is the rapid advance in missle technology vs carriers. Just like WWII put an end to the battleship as king I'm estimating (guessing?) that the emerging generations of anti-ship missles may make the era of the carrier end. The tools for finding and destroying a carrier are growing much much faster than those for defending it.

Missile technology, for all practical purposes, has reached the absolute limits of destructiveness. If you're willing to use nuclear weapons, you can destroy any target. I don't think that anyone is crazy enough to use nukes, as any use raises an unfortunate precedent that will rebound to the initiator's detriment.

The problem is finding what you want to destroy, and it is a HUGE problem. There is exactly ONE country with a reasonably robust ocean surveillance network, and that's America. China may have missiles, but they do not have the sensors needed to use them to full effect.

The other is the simple size of the population of China; 1,400 million. That size makes me feel on a purely intuitive level (I can't defend the point) that they will find a way. Like the movie Jurrasic Park said "Life finds a way." I just feel that that many people, focused on the task, will find a way to conquer Taiwan. Especially if our carriers are no longer in the picture.

If our carriers are no longer in the picture, it will be because some other means of sea control and power projection will replace them. (I can think of about four different concepts right off the top of my head.)

Numbers are useless without context. 900 million of those 1.4 billion people live in conditions not significantly removed from the first agricultural villages of 6-7,000 years ago. China as a whole has a serious problem: it isn't a single country. It's actually three. The first is the China I've discussed. The second is the Manchurian industrial heartland. They'd probably support Pat Buchanan for Premeir if he went over there and started talking in Cantonese about how the WTO is a raw deal for China. The third is the Shanghai/Hong Kong region (I call it "Shang Kong"), which is a Third Wave post-mass-industrialization economy.

One interesting thing about secessionist movements in the past couple of decades is this: the rich want to secede from the poor. Basically, the rich are tired of carrying the poor along via confiscatory taxation. The poor want the goodies to keep on coming, so they support central governments. The Shanghai/Hong Kong region holds the prospect of seceding from the rest of China--and Chinese efforts to modernize their military are only likely to exacerbate the trend, because the folks who can run a post-modern military force able to take on US forces are all from that region.

162 posted on 07/20/2002 10:30:47 AM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
"The poor want the goodies to keep on coming, so they support central governments."

Hey Poohbah, we're supposed to be talking about China, not the US.

;)

163 posted on 07/20/2002 1:20:18 PM PDT by TheLooseThread
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Tai_Chung
Stupid Chicom's, you'd think that after 9-11 that Americans wont sit by quietly while innocent Americans or American soldiers are killed for no reason.
164 posted on 07/20/2002 1:27:13 PM PDT by stuck_in_new_orleans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tai_Chung
With North Korea acting up, I thought it would be interesting to bring this thread back on line.
165 posted on 12/29/2002 4:46:46 AM PST by CIB-173RDABN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CIB-173RDABN
We'll probably need to BUMP it a few times to catch attention. Besides it's pretty early yet.
166 posted on 12/29/2002 4:51:14 AM PST by johniegrad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: bimbo
I don’t fully understand why China didn’t take Taiwan while Clinton was in office – he would have weighed all options and done nothing. With that in mind, the only real deterrent China had for those 8 years was the Taiwanese Defense Force!

We should keep in mind that China is not the PLA. They're hoping to take Taiwan by intimidation, not force.

Of course, another 8 years of Clinton (Hillary) and they may decide to take the chance.

167 posted on 12/29/2002 5:02:01 AM PST by wotan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

We've been discussing Carrier issues over at this thread as well.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1768932/posts?page=168

Big mistake by China if they do this, this means they are miscalculating American will, the same way the Japanese did in 1941.
***The difference is that Japan attacked US soil unprovoked. We would be moving a carrier group into Chinese waters in order to engage in what they consider to be an internal dispute. I could see how we'd stiffen our resolve if they attacked Alaska, but perhaps we all need to see that the Chinese would stiffen their resolve if we intend to attack one of "their" provinces which has not yet declared independence.


168 posted on 01/17/2007 8:53:29 PM PST by Kevmo (Darn, if only I had signed up 4 days earlier, I'd have a 3-digit Freeper #)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Lake

Have you ever studied the PLA's battle for Hainan Island in 1950 when the PLA had no navy and air force?
***Nope. Perhaps there's a reference or a book I could keep an eye out for?


169 posted on 01/17/2007 10:02:03 PM PST by Kevmo (Darn, if only I had signed up 4 days earlier, I'd have a 3-digit Freeper #)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: TheLooseThread

good enough post to bookmark


170 posted on 01/17/2007 10:18:01 PM PST by Kevmo (Darn, if only I had signed up 4 days earlier, I'd have a 3-digit Freeper #)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-170 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