Quote:
Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers
The problem is numbers. There simply not enough 500lb bombs (on both planes and missiles) to make life miserable for the Taiwanese
|
What I'm wondering is what happens when one nuclear power faces off with another. From what I have read and I may be out on a limb here, the usual idea is to restrict the conflict to as small a theatre as possible. Would that mean that the US would not strike at mainland china?
The Taiwan straits is about 180Km wide. Does that really need a heavy troop lift capability? If (and I emphasise the "If" to stave off a flame war
) the chinese could paradrop/airlift sufficient troops to hold a single port open, couldn't they just press in merchant vessels for transporting troops?
Further, I would suggest that the Chinese navy having evolved primarily into a sea-denial role would while running to significant losses still be able to able to keep the straits open. While that sounds like a lopsided argument my reasoning is this : The US is not capable of sustaining a high casualty war. (This is not usually a problem since they can bomb a country into the stoneage before the first US soldier actualy sets foot). An aircraft carrier has a compliment of roughly 3000 sailors. Woudl you really stick it in a rather small area with a lot of hostile submarines? Hence my "sea denial in the taiwan straits = limited sea control" proposition.
I'm not even sure where my question is in all this. It's just that I'm not sure it would be the cakewalk most of you describe it to be.
Also Zeng_xinren, I'm not actually advocating war. I'm just curious about the scenario. Personally I think that given the economic stakes for the US, China and practically everyone else in the world this is one war that's very unlikely to happen. Unless of course there is a rebel general ala "Crimson Tide"
