Strike Force Taiwan: Taiwan

ACB, In some ways the PLA forces stationed in Nanjing, Guangzhou, and Jinan military regions (the numbers you cited above) sans reserves are the most accurate comparison to Taiwan. Were war to come in a way that surprised China and thus prevented them from mobilizing the reserves or bringing in reinforcements from other provinces, these are the forces available to the PLA the day that a war started. On the other hand, one must consider what forces the Chinese military would have available to it a month later (military leaders always predict a short war and it almost always turns out not to be so). When Chinese forces a little farther away are considered, the balance of forces look considerably different. Basically, defense planning and net assessments aren't as simple as the above would indicate, which is why the Pentagon report included other information on that page (Chinese forces, total) and numerous other pages.

To a person dedicated to peace and brotherhood, this is scary beyond comprehension.

美中台:

Right now, I don't have accurate figures for Chinese military deployments, and I don't fully trust the figures that I have as different sources contradict each other, so I decided to stick with forces immediately threatening Taiwan, and those that could be moved in at short notice, as stated publicly by the Pentagon.

As you said, China has a lot in reserve, BUT a substantial amount of those forces are in North China and are there to defend the capital, and so would remain where they were. More still would remain along the east coast to defend Shanghai and co from attack from Japanese-Okinawa. Speaking of which, if China had time to move those forces, then so too would America have time to bring in its own forces, boosting Taiwan's numbers considerably.

Within that month you mentioned, American could assemble maybe six aircraft carriers, some carrying in the region of 100 attack planes each, several ten of thousands of troops, and a dozen aegis ships. Plus, if China attacked US bases in Japan in roder to delay US arrival, you can add at least a quarter of Japan's self defense force to the mix, and while Japan may be peaceful, it still has over 1500 attack jets and a strong navy that could guard US flanks if nothing else.

Let us also not forget that that month would allow America to deploy sufficient nuclear submarines to reign the fires of the apocalypse down on every population center in China, burning the heart of the Han race itself to ash where it stood.

Sarah

When you look at the amount of weapons that Taiwan has, and you compare it to its size, and to other world nations, Taiwan is one of the most fortified locations in Human history.

If Japan was armed in the same way that Taiwan is today, it would have an airforce that would be over 10,000 aircraft strong, which would give it only a little less firepower than the entire airforce Soviet Union had during the cold war.

If America had even a fraction of this firepower sitting 100 miles off its coast, I'm sure thait would be rolling out the nukes by now, and it's actually encouraging Chen to buy MORE.

It just goes to show that the cold war and SALT taught Washington nothing.

Speaking of learning nothing, two major research labs in the US are going to compete to develop an upgraded nuclear weaponry system (i.e., the Bomb). Talk about scary!

Sarah:

Yeah, I heard about that, maybe Bush should waltz on down to Hiroshima and see what he's cooking up to drop on other cities.

In the good old days, the only reason that Ameirca didn't nuke the Soviets was because the Soviets would nuke them right back, now America is gunning for non nuclear states like Iran and Iraq who can't retaliate in kind. This makes it far more likely that America will us the bomb on them.

It's rather scary isn't it, not least because it will make a lot of people think tha they need the bomb to defend themselves from America.

ACB, I have a lot of respect for the majority of the stuff you write, but to say that the US would use nuclear weapons on a country simply because it can't retaliate in the same fashion.

That is complete <<Edited for language>> and you're letting your anti-American attitude interfere with clear thinking.

THM

Sorry, but you are not allowed to use curse words on my site.

Sigh,

In 2004, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, repealed a congressional regulation that forbade the #US from developing what are commonly known as “Pocket Nukes”.

These nukes, such as the B61-11 bunker busting nuke, are exclusively for use in “winnable” nuclear wars; wars that do not involve the utter destruction of both sides - Ala USA V Soviet Union.

They are designed to be used to destroy localized targets like nuclear reactors, command bunkers and hardened military airstrips, in situations where the US wants to strike at an opponent that it doesn't want to obliterate, and which can't retaliate in kind

If you add this to the fact that the US has publicly refused to rule out “No first use” of nuclear weapons (they will nuke without first having been nuked), and has issued the “Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations“, under which it reserves the right to use nukes if a dangerous state is about to build a nuke, then you have a nasty situation.

Read the 2005 "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations", it spells out quite clearly what I am saying.

mmm but you do not say anything about the more than 700 missiles China have pointing towards Taiwan. Also one of the resons for Taiwan to have some defensive weapons (no bombers, no artillery, few destroyers, few and old, very old diesel submarines) is China's continous threat in case they decide to walk their way and define their identity. Even a referendum is considered a war provocation and the passing last year of the anti-secesionist law that contemplates the use of force in case Taiwan simply "confirm" what they already are, a sovereign independent nation.

Alternatively, many of China's missiles are little more than rocket engines with warheads strapped to them. Their guidance systems are a compass heading and a can of gasoline, you point them in one direction and they keep going until the run out of fuel, then the curve back to Earth. In a conflict situation, how many of them would actually be able to score any useful damage on Taiwan's military machine. No, China's missiles aren't a military weapon at all, they have a single purpose, to threaten Taiwan's civilian population.

As For Taiwan's warships and submarines, honestly, where did you do your tactical training, WOW? They would be a waste of money, pure and simple. China's military would rely on massed battle tactics. A large scale missile bombardment followed by airstrikes and then a seaborne invasion involving as many men as possible in landing crafts plus a foreguard of paratroopers. In such a situation a submarine would be no use as it would not be able to take out enough targets to make a difference, and destroyers are big high value targets that would be targeted and destroyed in China's first strike. Basically, submarines and destroyers are only any use when your enemy starts off a long way away and is coming at you in large oceangoing transport ship that can be taken out one at a time for a lot of casualties. Taiwan would do better investing it's money in secondary and tertiary infrastructure systems so that it could survive a first strike, as well as high mobile medium and close missile systems and missile defense for key targets.

It would be foolish for Taiwan, a nation on China's doorstep, to try to arm itself like the US or Japan, which could strike at a Chinese invasion force for a day or two before it came close to their beaches.