Is China Preparing for War?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia
Then you'd see the mainland having to deal with several US carrier fleets heading across the Pacific to assign severe retribution, which the Chinese military would be ill equipped to counter.

That is not going to happen in the case of a PRC attack on Taiwan.

Right now the US military is having a severe problem - mainly in $ - dealing with Iraq. Besides, how many carrier battlegroups were used?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
And, AFAIK, China doesn't have enough ICBMs with the range to totally take out the US. It's a question of partial destruction/major damage vs. absolute annihilation.

Everybody will be launching nuclear missiles at the US if the US even contemplates in making such a thread, Floyd. Better to get rid of a madman first.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
China is so connected to the world economy a blockade would devestate them, and we would be able to use airpower to severly cripple the Chinese economy.

The US military might is vastly overrated. Vastly.

[Patroklos]

Despite how "major" some people think the Iraq war is, the US is not on a war footing. In the case of China a war we would be.

We used 3 out of 9 carrier battle groups capable of bieng feilded for Iraq (four becasue one was relieved). China woudl warrent more than that, but I doubt we would need more than three. China's blue water navy is pathetic, and Tiawan is far enough away to need blue water assets.

[Patroklos]

Our Naval might is NOT overrated.

At least Jane's doesn't think so.

[Lonestar]

Our Navy and Airforce would stomp the crap out of China's counterparts. Then, we would rule there air over the country....

...which would lead to a lot of "uhhh....what now?" when we can't muster the invasion force.

[Patroklos]

We don't even have to rule the air over China, just Tiawan. That has always been China's problem.

It has lots of stuff (mostly inferior stuff, but their are exceptions) but no way of gertting it anywhere.

Yes China is rapidly modernizing, but alot of people forget where they are modernizing from. They starte d 20 years behind, and the going is slow. And they also have a tendance to pull they "we now have two squadron of modern fighters in our 1000 plan airforce, modernization complete" mantality.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by DataAeolus
Whoha, forgive me if I misunderstood you but didn't you just contradicted yourself?

The conflict won't go nuclear.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
The US military might is vastly overrated. Vastly.

Not exactly. Winning a land war in mainland China might be one thing, but its not what's required in this scenario. At the moment, very little of the US's air and Naval assets are tied up in Iraq. Occasional air support might be needed against insugents, but that only requires a few aircraft.

The US navy is vastly more powerful than any other force in the world. The most powerful naval assets remains the carrier, and the US has 9 carrier battlegroups total in contrast to other countries that have 2 carriers at most, and those carriers are far smaller than the Nimitz class ones that the US is fielding. The reality is that China's bluewater navy is extremely poor right now.

US Airpower remains extremely dominent. While some US aircraft are newer versions of somewhat old airframes, they remain extremely effective. The US aircraft also have weaponry that gives them an extreme edge over their Chinese opposition, such as the medium range AMRAAM missile with its large "no escape" kill envelope. While China's airforce may be large, may of its planes are based on old Soviet models and are going to be extremely limited in their effectiveness against modern US aircraft. (You saw what happened when Saddam Hussein did try to shoot down US planes with his airforce in Gulf War I.) Another thing to consider, especially in a scenario a year from now, is that F-22's should be be starting to become available in numbers large enough that they can be deployed. The F-22 Raptor stealth fighter would massively outclass anything that China can field and would inflict damage far in excess of their numbers. Presumably, the moment war broke out between China and the US, F-22 production would be drastically ramped up as well.

When looking at US aircraft total numbers, its important to remember that aircraft that are not listed as being part of the active airforce or reserve are often placed in the "boneyard" where they are kept in usable condition. The USAF AMARC base alone holds over 4,500 of these aircraft. Many of these Airforce and Navy aircraft are F-14's. F-15's, and F-16's. While older versions of these aircraft, they remain potentially usable and would be quite effective if pitted against China's Airforce. This gives the US the ability to win an aerial war of attrition, especially because the US will enjoy a very favorable ratio of planes they shoot down in comparison to the number of times that US planes would be shot down.

Finally, in response to the idea that China could surprise the US and invade Taiwan before the US can react... In order to sucessfully invade Taiwan, China would need to move virtually all of its naval transport assets close to Taiwan before they could launch an invasion. Such a buildup would be easily noticable using satellite intel, and the US could react and deploy aircraft and carriers to defend Taiwan before China could begin their invasion. I'll talk about why Taiwan's army is no pushover and why its questionable that China is currently capable of moving enough forces by sea to even successfully pull off an invasion of Taiwan without any US intervention some other time.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by The Templar
I wouldn't count on it. If the Chinese leadership were to say, "How many cities are you willing to lose for Taiwan? We're willing to lose three or four ..." then it's over for Taiwan. No president will trade Honolulu and/or Los Angeles for Taipei.

Besides, the business community has too much invested in China to let Bush and those neocons get too hot about Taiwan. What would probably happen is China would offer some economic concessions (maybe letting their currency rise) and abandon North Korea to the US in exchange for the US backing off.

The US would certainly call China's bluff. China can merely nuke parts of the West Coast, while the US can turn China into a glass radioactive parking lot in response. When talking about a war with limited stakes involved for both countries and the possiblity of a negotiated settlement, it won't go nuclear.

On the second point, you are completely forgetting that the US is a Democracy, and I find it extremely unlikely that any US Presiden could survive abandoning the Democratic government of Taiwan to conquest by a Communist Totalitarian regime. For that matter, many people in the US don't like how manufacturing jobs are going to China, and wouldn't worry about any temperary trade disruption from a war. (Something else to consider is that there are all sort of countries in the world that can provide cheap labor to manufacture goods.)

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Mordoch

The US would certainly call China's bluff. China can merely nuke parts of the West Coast, while the US can turn China into a glass radioactive parking lot in response.

No president will sarifice a Hawaiian or West Coast city. Tawanese don't vote in US elections ...

On the second point, you are completely forgetting that the US is a Democracy, and I find it extremely unlikely that any US Presiden could survive abandoning the Democratic government of Taiwan to conquest by a Communist Totalitarian regime.

Yes, the US is a democracy. Now go find that majority that's willing to risk war with China over Taiwan. As I said, I see a deal as being more likely. We abandon Taiwan, they abandon North Korea (you remember the Axis of Evil). President spins it as a win for us as well as China ending its civil war (all it takes is every official for a few weeks calling Taiwan secessionists and talking about the right of a nation to bring recalcitrant states and provinces to heel).

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by The Templar
Yes, the US is a democracy. Now go find that majority that's willing to risk war with China over Taiwan. As I said, I see a deal as being more likely. We abandon Taiwan, they abandon North Korea (you remember the Axis of Evil). President spins it as a win for us as well as China ending its civil war (all it takes is every official for a few weeks calling Taiwan secessionists and talking about the right of a nation to bring recalcitrant states and provinces to heel).

I'm a Moderate Democrat who believes that Bush stole the election in 2000, and I'm supporting Kerry in this one, (Kerry has been my favorite from the start so I'm not just a bandwagon supporter) and I'd enlist if China invaded Taiwan. A Chinese invasion would be a classic case of good versus evil, with China being the totalitarian agressor. China also represents a longterm threat to the US, and I think most Americans would be worried about not stopping China while we can still do so relatively easily. Finally, I believe support for defending Taiwan would not merely come from the right, but also from many in the left. Many liberals protest China's treatment of Tibet and even support the "free Tibet" movement, and a sucessful invasion of Taiwan would represent more people falling under China's totalitarian boot. Protecting true Democracies is something that Americans in general can support. By the way, if a Democratic president were to refuse to support Taiwan, I'd be on the phone making it clear that I'd vote Republican in the next election unless the President reversed his policy.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by The Templar
No president will sarifice a Hawaiian or West Coast city. Tawanese don't vote in US elections ...

The president would know China is bluffing. If the US anihilated all of China, even if the Chinese leader survived, he wouldn't have a country any longer. In contrast the US President would be fine, along with most of the country. (If he caved on this issue he's probably dead politically anyways.) Unless China's survival was at stake, its not plausible that Chinese leadership would actually play the nuclear card.

[DaShi]

Remember when the Chinese underestimated Britain's military strength.

[:) Smiley]

Remember when the Americans underestimated Iraq's nonmilitary strength.

The US has already spent $87 billion on the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Occupation costs around a billion a week. China's annual military budget is $15 billion. Even if one considers that the Chinese soldier gets paid far less than the American soldier, and the supply lines would be shorter, the math don't work out, especially since every part of the war would be urban combat.

Back in the 1970s there was a Taiwanese nuclear weapon program, the US protection deal was basically the US way of getting the program stopped and defusing a potential problem.