FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD
Posted on 09/24/2002 8:51:32 PM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
You removed ONE word that changes things. That word was "combat," as in "combat sea lift."
They have thousands of various transport/fishing vessels and several airborne divisions.
Those vessels need port facilities to unload, and Taiwan's are pre-wired for demolition.
All they have to do is land a similtaneous limited assault and hold the beach head....
In other words, recreate Normandy without all of the Allied advantages that made Normandy a success instead of a complete disaster. The airborne guys die waiting for the amphibious assault to relieve them--and the amphibious assault never gets a beachhead because their transports and fishing boats are dying long before they can unload their troops.
Total box score: China's merchant marine crippled, and a considerable amount of face lost.
the missile batteries will keep the US at bay.
Not really.
And for the Chinese it is often a numbers game.
War is rarely a numbers game.
The US can't invade China and it can't afford to loose the West Coast...
Let's see, the US loses the West Coast. In other words, China nukes her only ally in the Western Hemisphere, the People's Republic of Kaliforniastan. The US becomes considerably more conservative.
In return, China loses her entire coastal region--which also happens to be the only part of the country that makes a profit. China also loses her rail net--which means that one billion Chinese are not going to be able to eat, and at least 800 million will die of famine and pestilence within the next six months.
Sounds good to me...
what to do, what to do.
Tell 'em "if that's the way you want to play it, it's fine by us, amigos."
They understand the US reserve on loosing to many people, so while the US has to win large amounts of strategic/tactical victories, they simply have to attrit the US and with 300,000,000 extra "throw away" males coming of age, that's not an issue.
Actually, the US would probably wage an effects-based campaign intended to destroy the political power of the Beijing government.
Long before they get to the 300,000,000-loss mark, the political effects of not being able to successfully invade Taiwan would manifest themselves--and then those "throw away" males become a liability.
As for numbers, war is often all about numbers, especially any kind of protracted war: you might have missed the US Civil War and Grant's strategy or maybe WW1 or the Franco-Prussian War....but I find it hard to believe you missed WW2...which on the Eastern Front and the Western Front, following 1941 was all about numbers and production figures. The Germans killed 5 shermans for every panther....but there were always so many more shermans. Korea was equally about that....body waves of Chinese and they almost won. So yes, it is about numbers. And C/Kalifornia is still the US.
The US knows about taking islands, expensive lessons taught by Japanese teachers. The US never had to take the advanced course of taking the Japanese homeland.
The unsurmountable problem for China IMHO is that they will have to take the final exam in Taiwan without having taken any of the course prerequisites.
The Taiwanese will be fighting for their homeland, the Chinese will be fighting because they recieved orders from geriatric idealogues.
The ultimate outcome will be the breakup of the Peoples Republic of China and an overthrow of the Communist Party.
You still need amphibious assault vessels for a combat assault--and the PLAN is NOT procuring them.
As for the missiles, yes they actually are enough to keep the 6th Fleet (which is not all that big) away from the intercoastal waters, especially with all the Chinese subs and land based planes in the area.
It's the 7th Fleet, not 6th Fleet (6th Fleet is in the Med), and they can draw reinforcements from 3rd Fleet rather quickly. And when you run any serious analysis, the PLAN and PLAAF do not have enough combat power to stop 7th Fleet.
Whether they loose face is debatable, especially if they face a possibility of loosing internal integrity anyways.
If Taiwan is still independent after 24 hours, given the relative strength of the PRC and Taiwan, it's a major embarrassment.
Loosing face in Vietnam did not destroy the government.
That was a very minor border skirmish, and Deng had enough sense to avoid pouring good money after bad. Invading Taiwan would involve most of the PLAN, most of China's merchant marine, and losing expensive capital assets like that is a tad noticeable (especially in the Shanghai-Hong Kong region, which is, again, the only part of the country that makes a profit).
So yes, it is about numbers.
Then kindly explain why you aren't in a Chinese reeducation camp, since a simple numeric comparison of forces on the Amur River in 1969 says the Chinese won that war.
And C/Kalifornia is still the US.
Not to hear the Tancredo wing of Free Republic talk about it.
It is compartmentalized thinking on a comic scale to think that because what eventually became the Kmer Rouge started out as a rag-tag minority peasant group there is, therefore, no legitimate intellectual and moral case for following its bloody footprints from those roots. Nor that because Fidel Castro started out as a classic "rag-tag" leader with his twelve apostles in tow, that anit-communists were not correct in following the Soviet money from campfire klatches to Presidential Palace.
Unfortunately for our civilization (fortunately for the government Class), this kind of anti-rational thinking dominates our political "discourse". And so, Americans seem to believe that each four-year Presidential election cycle represents an iron door of ideological separation from its predecessor.
I like the phrase but I'm not sure I agree with it. For instance, look at how many so-called conservatives are clamoring for Congress to pass more Patriot acts and support Bush's Duetchland Homeland Security department.
If they really believed that there were such stark differences in ideology why give the next administration such tools to work with?
Seems like they think that Bush will be President forever. When Clinton was President, the possibility that he would try and cling to power was bandied about as a real possibility. I believe that if Bush attempted to do so, these same "conservatives" would support him. Seems like there is no line he can cross which doesn't result in a whole gaggle of supporters shoveling crap against the tide in order to justify his actions.
Depending on how and where you deploy troops, you don't need a large amount of assault vehicles/boats. The troops can wade in to shore...and if a million die in the process? So what? To the Chinese it is a numbers game in casualties...that's why you send in trained airborne first to take and fight for the landing areas while you send in the cannon fodder to wade ashore and suck up enemy ammunition. Once secured, you move in the more experience troops to do the actual island warfare.
Besides, enough missiles are out there to keep the enemy pinned down, especially in a first strike capability, which they now have since Clinton sold them weather analysis super computers...just right for guiding missiles in on target.
Fortunetly in island warfare, once you've established a beach head and held it, there is very little skill or intelligence needed from the generals to take the rest....for the most part it is a slug fest. There is not enough room to maneuver and win strategic objectives by avoiding direct confrontation with superior foes or choosing your place of battle....there is simply an island with a very limited amount of land and it has to be taken....especially if you can blockade an enemy in, so no reinforcements or resupply reaches him. Then it's a pure slug fest and if anything, the PRC is all to ready for that.
You are probably mistaking Jiang and all the other ChiCom Nazis giving away copies of some anti-Falun Gong propaganda book.
Well, is this interesting or what? They failed to mention one of their tactics, the buying of the American President, who clearly was for sale to the highest bidder. The media comment is telling, as some of the comments by the Chinese are the exact ones the media/Rats are parroting today.
Nothing like ACTUALLY fighting for your homeland (as opposed to fighting for some synthetically defined area) to up your spirit. Don't forget that until Changkaishek showed up in Taiwan THERE WERE NO 'CHINESE' on Taiwan, only TAIWANESE. The mainland Chinese Kuomingtang muscled in.
A beach head is only as good as the logistics you can set up.
The problem the PRC will have is that years of business with the west have provided extremely detailed targeting information.
The secret to modern warfare is efficient utilization of munitions. That is what superior sensors and weapons provide.
On one of your earlier posts you said most of the Iraqi tanks were taken out by US/Allied armor - that is patently false.
They were taken out by A10s and Hellfire missles fired from attack helicopters (as confirmed in the Qiong & Wang book)
Of course the Chinese will take a beating, that I have no doubt about....nor that they will take Taiwan, though. If most of the fighting is infantry, though logistics are of course needed, they can still do it with a lot less then if they brought armor. Also, you can not judge by Western softened forces, who like to live well in the field and because of that have 13 REMF for every line soldier. Eastern forces, particularly Chinese have much fewer support personel to worry about.
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.