Who would be hurt more in a US-China ECONOMIC confrontation over Taiwan?

[Ted Striker]

Yeah

[kittenOFchaos]

The best solution is for the United States to sell to China the "right to invade Taiwan" for an annual tribute that can go towards tackling the National Debt

Thus China wins, the USA wins, the World economy wins and the Taiwanese are screwed


What have the Taiwanese ever done for...anybody...

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Mordoch
However China still has only so many medium range missiles, and Taiwan has a very impressive number of SAM systems. Almost all of Taiwan's SAM Missiles systems are either in fortified concrete bunkers that will take a perfect hit to take out, or in mobile positions that can choose to frequently move in order to severely complicate targetting them.

Not at all. You don't have to destroy an entire SAM system to disable it - all you need to do is to take out its radar. They can keep the radar off, sure, but then the systems would be useless.

Originally posted by Mordoch
You also have the complicate that some of the these sytems can serve both an anti-air and anti-missile role, so the Patriot Missile batteries Taiwan already has may shoot down some of these missiles.

The Patriot system was only tested against the Scud, which is a modified version of the Soviet's SS-1. I doubt it has any effect on modern SS or AS missiles.

Originally posted by Mordoch
Just to give you an idea of the number of SAM systems we are talking about here, Taiwan currently has 20 I-HAWK SAM batteries.

Blimey, that's 20 radars to take out. So a few anti-radiation missiles go a long way.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by kittenOFchaos
What have the Taiwanese ever done for...anybody...

Well, they are the biggest motherboard producer...

[notyoueither]

Of course it would be painful, UR. The issue is it would be painful on the same order for China as the US.

Incidentely, it would be good for me. PCs are too cheap for my liking (as one who makes them).

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Not at all. You don't have to destroy an entire SAM system to disable it - all you need to do is to take out its radar. They can keep the radar off, sure, but then the systems would be useless.

The Patriot system was only tested against the Scud, which is a modified version of the Soviet's SS-1. I doubt it has any effect on modern SS or AS missiles.

Blimey, that's 20 radars to take out. So a few anti-radiation missiles go a long way.

You're somehow assuming that the system can't use radar data from other Taiwanese systems.

At a minimum, many of these radar systems can turn themselves off and only go back on once other radar lets them know that enemy planes are now in range.

Its definately not just Scuds for Patriot Missiles.

Patriot Advanced Capability-2 (PAC-2) is a surface-to-air guided missile defense system designed to detect, target, and destroy incoming ballistic missiles flying three to five times the speed of sound. PAC-2 was first deployed by the U.S. during the 1991 Persian Gulf War and successfully shot down Iraqi Scud missiles. In doing so, it became the first anti-missile system to eliminate hostile warheads in combat.

The original Patriot Air Defense Missile System, dating back to the 1970s, was designed to shoot down enemy aircraft. During the mid-1980s, however, the U.S. Army decided to expand Patriot to deal with the growing threat of tactical ballistic missiles, in particular the Soviet SS-21A (Scarab A, OTR-21, Tochka), SS-21B (Scarab B, OTR-21, Tochka-U), and SS-23 (Spider, OTR-23, Oka). Initial modifications to the system were dubbed Patriot Anti-tactical Missile Capability-1 (PAC-1) and involved software, radar, and missile trajectory upgrades.

The second expansion phase, known as Patriot Advanced Capability-2 (PAC-2), occurred between 1986 and 1988. It included a superior interceptor missile as well as upgrades to its software and guidance algorithms. The enhanced PAC-2 system had the ability to shoot down longer range ballistic missiles. In particular, it was capable of destroying the hardened metal shell that surrounded most enemy warheads.

http://www.missilethreat.com/systems/patriot_pac-2_usa.html

Here's an example of successful testing against a more advanced adversary.

September 86 PATRIOT's inherent antitactical missile (ATM) capability was demonstrated with an off-the-shelf standard production missile. Accomplished by ground equipment software changes only, PATRIOT intercepted a LANCE missile simulating an SS-21 and deflected it from its objective.

http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/systems/PATRIOT.html

[Ned]

I think the way to avoid such a war is to make it clear to the Chinese that we will intervene decisvely on the side of Taiwan if they begin hostilities. Simultaneously, we need to keep the Taiwanese from provoking a war by declaring independence.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Why would the PRC want to blockade Taiwan? It serves no purpose at all. I don't see they are looking at seige warfare.

So China will just bomb them into submission. What if the Taiwainese refuse to surrender? Will they just kill everyone on the island? Is the rest of the world just going to sit back and watch?

I've said before: If Taiwain declares independence, China loses. The status quo is beneficial for everyone. Taiwan is only a problem for China because China makes it one. On that note:

The creation of an anti-secession law is based on "doing the utmost for a scenario of peaceful reunification," Foreign Ministry spokesperson Liu Jianchao said on Tuesday.

It "aims to curb separatist activities, which is favorable for maintaining the peace, stability and prosperity of the Taiwan Straits and the Asia-Pacific region as well," Liu told a regular news briefing.

The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPC) will deliberate on a draft of the law at their coming session between December 25 and 29 in Beijing.

Many lawmakers and senior government advisers have said over the past year that a law on national reunification should be promulgated as soon as possible.

"The legislature is expressing the common will of the Chinese people by making the law, that is peaceful reunification and 'one country, two systems'," said Liu.

Responding to reports that some US State Department officials have alleged that the proposed anti-secession code is a threat to regional peace, Liu said the comment indicates ignorance of China's stance on the question.

He urged the US to abide by its one-China commitment, and to support and understand the legislative actions of the NPC instead of sending wrong signals to forces for "Taiwan independence."

Liu reiterated opposition to any military ties between the US and Taiwan. Jane's Defense Weekly said that over the next year the US will assign military officers to its liaison agency in Taiwan for the first time in 25 years.

"The US developing military relations with Taiwan, for any reason and by any means, is against the principles of the three Sino-US joint communiqués," Liu said. "It will encourage separatist moves by 'Taiwan independence' forces, and harm peace across the Taiwan Straits as well as Sino-US ties."

Taiwan's authorities are currently trying to clinch an US$18 billion US weapons deal.

[Ned]

I simply do not believe that Taiwan will have to defeat China all by itself.

[notyoueither]

The PRC is trying to pressure the US into backing off. All the US has to do is tell the PRC to keep its hands off, or else... Who the hell cares if Taiwan solidifies in law what is already the case in fact?

Does the PRC really want WW3 over the issue?

This reminds me of the other thread where Q^3 is urging that the US not take Kim seriously, because he couldn't possibly be mad and therefore a threat, as if only insanity is a threat.

Is there something in Oriental water that makes people think Americans are stupid?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DaShi
So China will just bomb them into submission. What if the Taiwainese refuse to surrender? Will they just kill everyone on the island? Is the rest of the world just going to sit back and watch?

Yes.
Since WW2, we have seen time and time again that everybody prefers the PRC over Taiwan when prompted to make a choice. And nobody wants to lose China's market by doing something that has no strategic value (saving the Taiwanese population)

You'll have many outraged speeches by the heads of States, and some humanitarian aid, however.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Yes.
Since WW2, we have seen time and time again that everybody prefers the PRC over Taiwan when prompted to make a choice. And nobody wants to lose China's market by doing something that has no strategic value (saving the Taiwanese population)

You'll have many outraged speeches by the heads of States, and some humanitarian aid, however.

Europe wouldnt have to go to war for Taiwan, however. All they would have to do would be to support a US campaign of economic warfare against the PRC. Cut back on purchases from and sales to China (not even a full embargo). Maybe make an effort to buy dollar assets when PRC sells them. Would PRC really retaliate against Europe for that? Would Europe do it?

[Patroklos]

960 I-Hawk missiles. That is about 20% of their SAM capability. Then their is their Air Force to worry about. And if they try and take out the Taiwanese Navy, well then you can add add about 2 dozen more SAM sites to the list.

As far as China's missiles go, the majority of their stock is ancient. Remember the accuracy of those SCUDs anyone? China does have a small cadre of modern weapons which it likes to show off, but the VAST majority of their assets are 70's tech.

China's arsenal has nothing like the tomahawk or laser guided bombs of even the Gulf War, let alone now. Their missiles are for general bombardment, not pinpoint accuracy. They will lose a high tech war, they will win if they load every junk on their coast with conscripts and rush the island. They have a 100 million extra males to throw at the problem anyways.

[GePap]

The Chinese should simply play the nuclear card.

The simplest way to do this is to use the US's own nuclear policy and turn it back on us- how?

State that China will retain its no first use policy-regarding strategic nukes, or the use of nuclear weapons in circumstances when the probability of large civilan death is likely or just possible.

BUT reserve the right, or even make it standard doctrine, to use nuclear weapons against purely military targets in situations where collateral damage is minimal at best- the example? Warships on the high seas.

Then see how the US reacts to the notion that if we send a carrie battle group into the Taiwan strights, it is fair game for a tactical nuclear attack.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
The Chinese should simply play the nuclear card.

The simplest way to do this is to use the US's own nuclear policy and turn it back on us- how?

State that China will retain its no first use policy-regarding strategic nukes, or the use of nuclear weapons in circumstances when the probability of large civilan death is likely or just possible.

BUT reserve the right, or even make it standard doctrine, to use nuclear weapons against purely military targets in situations where collateral damage is minimal at best- the example? Warships on the high seas.

Then see how the US reacts to the notion that if we send a carrie battle group into the Taiwan strights, it is fair game for a tactical nuclear attack.

GePap finds a way to get in a dig at a recent controversial admin policy. 9.5 out of 10, very good.

IIUC using tactical nukes against warships isnt all THAT simple. And while Im sure GePap wishes it were so, I dont think the rest of the world will equate Chinas actual crossing of the firebreak against nukes with an as yet theoretical policy statement from the US, no matter how unpopular the latter is. In any case, this should help Susie Homemaker accept higher prices at Walmart.