PDA

View Full Version : How can China take Tawain?



Praxus
06 Sep 03,, 18:51
How can China take Taiwan even without US support to Taiwan. First off they don't have enough Amphibious Assault capability or Airborne Assault Capability.

Seems to me the only stick that China has is it's Ballistic missiles and it's effect will be greatly diminished by PAC-2 GEM and PAC-3 systems.

Taiwan also outnumbers China in modern aircraft 2 to 1, and on top of that the Taiwanese are defending so they also have SAMs that will be firing at enemy aircraft were the Chinese have to avoid SAMs and fight the Taiwan Airforce.

I don't think China will have the capability to invade for at least another 15 years and even then it will probley have it's ass handed to them on a plate.

bigross86
06 Sep 03,, 21:37
Which is why the ChiComms aren't trying anything, just rattling the sabre

Officer of Engineers
07 Sep 03,, 03:32
Oh, they can invade. Whether they win is another question but one they believe that they can win.

Ironduke
07 Sep 03,, 03:44
Some Taiwan military info

1999 2005

Army

Armor
M60A3 105mm gun, 60 tons: 169 480
M48H 105mm gun, 54 tons: 450 450
M48A5 105mm gun, 52 tons: 100 100
M41D 76mm gun, 24 tons: 675 675
M24 90mm gun, 20 tons: 230

Armored Fighting Vehicles
M113 APC tracked w/20mm: 225 225
M113 APC tracked: 650 650
V-150 4x4 wheeled: 300 300

Artillery, Self-propelled
M110 203mm self-propelled howitzer: 60 60
M110 T69 155mm self-propelled howitzer: 45 45
M109 155mm self-propelled howitzer: 110 110
M108 105mm self-propelled howitzer: 100 100

Artillery, Towed
M115 203mm howitzer: 70 70
TRF1 155mm howitzer: 56
M114 T-65 155mm howitzer: 250 250
M59 155mm howitzer: 90 90


2000 2010
Navy

Destroyers
Tien Tan ACS (Arleigh Burke) 8,300: 4
Kidd 9,574: 4
Chao Yang (Gearing) 3,500: 7

Frigates
Cheng Kung (Perry) 4,100: 7 8
Chi Yang (Knox) 4,200: 8 8
Kang Ding (La Fayette) 3,500: 6 6
Kuang Hua-V 2,000: 14

Fast Attack Missile Craft
Ching Chiang 580: 11 11
Kuang Hua-VI 200: 30
Lung ChiangPSMM MK5 250: 2
Hai Ou Dvora 47: 49

Submarines
Hai Lung II 2,500: 8
Hai Lung (Zwaardvis) 2,600: 2 [/i]2[/i]
Hai Shih (Guppy) 2,440: 2

Amphibious
Hsuhai (Anchorage) 14,000: 1
Chung Cheng (Ashland) 9,375: 2
Chung Ho (Newport) 8,792: 2 2
Chung Hai (LST-1) 4,080: 7 7
Mei Lo (LSM-1) 1,095: 4 4

2000 2005
Air Force

Fighters
F-16A/B: 146
Mirage 2000-5: 58
IDF Ching-kuo: 130
F-5E/F: 144

Early Warning
E-2T: 4 6

bigross86
07 Sep 03,, 09:14
It doesn't look like they got much since 1999

Bill
07 Sep 03,, 19:37
I don't think China can win even absent US intervention, but i don't think they think that themselves.

Hell, they attacked US forces once before. So i don't think they'll hesitate to do it again if the stars line up just right and they percieve a decisive advantadge.

Officer of Engineers
08 Sep 03,, 06:23
I'm getting the distinct feeling that only the Central Military Commission HQ has the real insight on the feasibility of invading TW. However, since this is official Chinese Communist Party dogma, who in their right mind would say this can't be done and still keep his job?

UnitedDiversity
09 Sep 03,, 00:33
new forum doesn't mean we should start the same pointless disscusion again...

Sino-Taiwan war will never happen, Beijing will never let that happen, Washington will never let that happen and Taipei doesn't have the guts to make that happen.

Period.

Ironduke
09 Sep 03,, 00:35
Originally posted by UnitedDiversity
new forum doesn't mean we should start the same pointless disscusion again...

Sino-Taiwan war will never happen, Beijing will never let that happen, Washington will never let that happen and Taipei doesn't have the guts to make that happen.

Period.
I don't think Praxus was ever a member of PDF.

Praxus
09 Sep 03,, 00:57
Pakistan Defense Forum?

Yah I was.

Officer of Engineers
09 Sep 03,, 04:14
Originally posted by UnitedDiversity
new forum doesn't mean we should start the same pointless disscusion again...

Sino-Taiwan war will never happen, Beijing will never let that happen, Washington will never let that happen and Taipei doesn't have the guts to make that happen.

Period.

Then why is it CCP dogma and a PLA stated mission?

Bill
09 Sep 03,, 04:49
Cause the PRC likes to bark as do most little dogs? ;)

bigross86
09 Sep 03,, 12:40
Yeah, except this little dog can shit about 1 billion times in your shoes.

Stinger
09 Sep 03,, 12:46
While this would be an EXTREME measure, I can't help but wonder what effect one nuke on the Chicoms equivalent politburo would do.... would it plung China back into a warlord Society or would it hang together as one state?

My vote would be back to independant Warlords, but I'm not sure that would be a good thing.

Doesn't much matter the TW don't have any nukes anyway and the US would not likely use one.

bigross86
09 Sep 03,, 13:00
I wonder if Israel could get any advantage out of chaos over there.

UnitedDiversity
09 Sep 03,, 20:46
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D

ah you guys are truely funny you know that... I'm sorry Ironman but the members in your forum have just runined the reputation of this forum.

bigross86
09 Sep 03,, 22:23
Who ruined it? The long standing members of the Forum, or the newcomer with the big mouth?

Praxus
09 Sep 03,, 22:46
UD needs to get his head out of his ass and have a nice breath of reality.

You still havn't answered how China can effectivly invade Taiwan.

bigross86
09 Sep 03,, 22:55
I think we've got us a T.I.T. on our hands. Troll In Training

Officer of Engineers
10 Sep 03,, 01:22
Praxus,

Alot of people have answered that question. I have answered that question. You're just refusing to listen. Whether you believe that they could win or not is irrevelent. The point is that the PLA believe that they could win and that is what will give them the desire to go and try.

ZFBoxcar
10 Sep 03,, 02:00
I think they are waiting for the booming economic times to end. They know their economy will be all fucked up whether they win or lose. So they are waiting until the rapid growth period they are going through to end. Then they will beef up the PLA some more, then attack. Just an opinion. :D

Praxus
10 Sep 03,, 02:03
Alot of people have answered that question. I have answered that question. You're just refusing to listen. Whether you believe that they could win or not is irrevelent. The point is that the PLA believe that they could win and that is what will give them the desire to go and try.

Hello?????
I am sorry but no one has told me how China could possibly win!

If they think they can win or not has nothing to do with Objective reality!

UnitedDiversity
10 Sep 03,, 02:57
To: [bigross86]

why don't you pay a visit to PDF and find out if I'm a TIT.


To: [Praxus]

that question has been anwsered by me soo many time in the past 2 years in PDF, CDF, CMF and all the other forums I can't belive you never caught a glimps.

Ironduke
10 Sep 03,, 03:03
Originally posted by bigross86
I think we've got us a T.I.T. on our hands. Troll In Training
UnitedDiversity is a moderator at PDF, has the name of UD2 over there.

I don't mind difference of opinion, as long as there's no trolling. I at first welcomed the Russians on this board until I found out what their purpose was. Difference of opinion leads to more debate and a more active board. There isn't a point of having a miltiary and political forum if there's no debate.

UnitedDiversity
10 Sep 03,, 03:14
thank you Ironman.

Officer of Engineers
10 Sep 03,, 03:16
Originally posted by Praxus
Hello?????
I am sorry but no one has told me how China could possibly win!

If they think they can win or not has nothing to do with Objective reality!

You're not qualified to make that statement. The PLA have more than painted scenario after scenario in which they defined their OPOBJs and how they would go about achieving them.

If you want to argue, argue what is wrong with their picture, not what you think is Objective reality.

From their experience, they have devised what they think is reasonably achieveable. From our (M21 and mine) experience, we know the pitfalls. Does not mean that we know for certain that the PLA is wrong when quite in fact, we could be wrong.

Praxus
10 Sep 03,, 03:26
If you want to argue, argue what is wrong with their picture, not what you think is Objective reality.

From their experience, they have devised what they think is reasonably achieveable. From our (M21 and mine) experience, we know the pitfalls. Does not mean that we know for certain that the PLA is wrong when quite in fact, we could be wrong.

UD2 said that and I quote "You can't take the whole PLAN, PLANF and PLAAF with one carrier group, you need 6 or more. So by the time you finish mobilizing the carrier groups, Taiwan is either under Chinese control or flat as a piece of ice, either way, you loose your whole point to attack China."

As you see he is claiming that by the time it takes to deploy 6 Carrier Battle Groups China would have won. Not only is he ignoring the fact that we have bases in Guam, Okinowa, Japan, and the Phillipines but he is also ignoring the fact that even if they could(which they may very well be able to do) establish a beachhead it would be extremely hard for them to push foward into the mainland and win within a couple month period.

By the way I never claimed one Carrier group could take on the PLAN, PLAAF, and PLA Ground Forces. He chose to make that up by himself.

Sorry if I was telling you to tell me how they could win, I was talking to UD2.

Officer of Engineers
10 Sep 03,, 03:29
Originally posted by Stinger
While this would be an EXTREME measure, I can't help but wonder what effect one nuke on the Chicoms equivalent politburo would do.... would it plung China back into a warlord Society or would it hang together as one state?

My vote would be back to independant Warlords, but I'm not sure that would be a good thing.

Doesn't much matter the TW don't have any nukes anyway and the US would not likely use one.

A couple of issues. The Chinese had been preparing for nuclear war ever since MacArthur openned his big mouth. Their procedures are down pact, especially when you consider that their early warning is lacking. It would be very hard to catch them all at once at the same place.

The second issue is that the CCP is deathly afraid of the military. Thus, they ensure the loyalty of the military through whatever means they can. In this, they used the tried and tested method of assigning non-local commanders to various commands, ensuring that the cmdrs of various regions don't have a local following to become a warlord.

As a sidenote, the Soviets were poised to attack in 1973 with both nuclear and conventional strikes. Brezhnev had in fact asked Nixon to join him on this matter. Nixon declined and went further to state the US would take a grim view and would assist in anyway to aid a devastated China.

Now, I bring this up because at the time, the only working doctrine the PLA had to counter the Soviets (and the Americans) was the People's War. Not going into details but it entails the entire population to goto war.

Well, there was no way the Chinese could have stopped Soviet tank columns and while regime change wasn't possible with 500K Soviet troops, regieme collapse certainly was.

Mao could not have forgotten the Soviet struggle against the Nazis and how the Soviets united under Stalin, a butcher on par with Hitler. The reason being was that Hitler was more visible doing the butchering. Well, the People's War foreseen casualties in the tens of millions, in effect forcing the Soviets to be butchers.

Mao may not have planned it this way but essentially he would turn it into a race war (judging by Russian behaviour in Chechnya, not an invalid assumption) and was willing to sacracfice tens of millions of Chinese just to ensure Chinese loyalty to him (or rather he was the lesser of two evils).

Officer of Engineers
10 Sep 03,, 03:33
Originally posted by Praxus
So let's just agree if the PLA can manage to somehow get enough force projection then they will take massive ammounts of casulties on the mainland.

If the PLA could take Taiwan quickly they would, otherwise they would have gigantic economic problems from embargos that would likely come. Not to mention all the money going into the war instead of their economy.

UD2 is just making it seem like China could whipe them off the map in a war which is clearly not the case.


Back up. You have not stated any economic parameters and have in fact only stated military scenarios. Regardless of how fast or how slow the PLA takes TW, if at all, the embargoes are on. That is a moot point. If the PLA initiate action, it would be because the CCP believes it can survive the economic actions that would be certain to come.

The PLA is not casualty averse and in fact, one of their boasted strengths. Hell, they've fired on their own people which tells you just how prepared they are to lose blood.

And the PRC could wipe TW off the face of the map. It's called nukes.

Praxus
10 Sep 03,, 03:38
And the PRC could wipe TW off the face of the map. It's called nukes.

Well that's obvious:D

I mean conventionally because China won't resort on Nuclear weapons because that would almost surely mean a US pre-emptive strike on their ICBM's and MRBM(Is that correct for Medium Range Ballistic Missile?) with either nuclear weapons or conventional.

Also I edited my post.

Officer of Engineers
10 Sep 03,, 04:06
Originally posted by Praxus
Well that's obvious:D

I mean conventionally because China won't resort on Nuclear weapons because that would almost surely mean a US pre-emptive strike on their ICBM's and MRBM(Is that correct for Medium Range Ballistic Missile?) with either nuclear weapons or conventional.

Also I edited my post.

I saw that, my reply is following but nukes is always in the back of my mind when talking this scenario.

Let's get one thing straight right off the bat, the PLA acknowledges that once the US is involved, they have no chance of conquering TW. Their actions is planned on preventing/delaying (may in fact even a matter of hours) US involvement.

There is a very strong possibility the Chinese would resort to nukes not because of desire but in the "use them or lose them" scenario. The CMC HQ would be the one running the TW ops. It would be a very tempting target for the US. It is, however, also the national nuclear authority. If the CMC HQ is targetted, the Chinese may in fact launch nukes before they lose the ability to do so.


Originally posted by Praxus
but he is also ignoring the fact that even if they could(which they may very well be able to do) establish a beachhead it would be extremely hard for them to push foward into the mainland and win within a couple month period.

It would help if you know how the PLA thinks. Read this thread, it is a summary of over five years work.

CDF & TMF's work on the PLA WZC in the TW Context (http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=140)

Ironduke
10 Sep 03,, 04:31
Originally posted by Praxus
Well that's obvious:D

I mean conventionally because China won't resort on Nuclear weapons because that would almost surely mean a US pre-emptive strike on their ICBM's and MRBM(Is that correct for Medium Range Ballistic Missile?) with either nuclear weapons or conventional.

Also I edited my post.
We might as well face it though, neither side is willing to risk a nuclear exchange over Taiwan.

What I do see as a probability in the event of a conflict is that the United States will do everything short of outright war. This means giving Taiwan up-to-the-minute intelligence information, stationing a carrier fleet off the coast of China, probably embargoes and sanctions against PRC, piloting fighter jets for the ROCAF, supplying arms, clandestine ops, etc.

UnitedDiversity
10 Sep 03,, 21:14
To: Everyone

China VS. Taiwan? check out this thread. It's a very very long thing to read but it has some good points on why China cannot take taiwan, and some good points on why China can take Taiwan.

http://www.pakistanidefenceforum.com/index.php?showtopic=18296&st=80&#entry253391

Oh and people like Ironman, or M21sniper don't have to bother reading it, it's only the same old discussion that has been inactive for like 2 months.


My point of view on the Taiwan matter is that, in any case, there are too many variables to determine the winning side. So I will stay nuteral on this matter, although when I do feel like debating, I will be biased towards the Chinese side because I am Chinese.

Praxus
10 Sep 03,, 21:53
China can not invade Taiwan and win at this point of time and it is that simple. PAC-3 and PAC-2 GEM would greatly deminish the Ballistic missile threat which at the moment is China's only stick. China can't bring Taiwan back into the fold and they know it. That's why a war hasn't started yet.

UnitedDiversity
10 Sep 03,, 21:57
To: [Praxus]

the war hasn't started yet is not because that China can't take Taiwan, it's because no one want a war.

Praxus
10 Sep 03,, 22:34
the war hasn't started yet is not because that China can't take Taiwan, it's because no one want a war.

If they don't want a war they should stop threatening Taiwan with a war. The fact is that China is making empty threats and pretending they are less impotent then they really are.

You claim it will take 6 Carrier Groups to take out the PLAN yet a single Carrier Group contains more fire power then all of the PLAN ships combined.

UnitedDiversity
11 Sep 03,, 02:57
To: [Praxus]

the threats are half empty. If Taiwan really crossed the line, China would think twice before attacking, but that doesn't mean they won't eventially attack.

Remember that just becaue China doesn't want a war, doesn't mean they won't fight one.

Bill
11 Sep 03,, 06:29
It will likely never happen, which means everyone wins.

Ray
08 Oct 03,, 02:51
I was re reading Simpkins Red Armour. This book brings out an intereting lesson - We must not look at other countries with OUR mindset. That is the cardinal mistake.

I read one article on the CDF by the Colonel. it gives an insight into the mind of the Chinese leadership. Though the Colonel is not a Chinese national and still far removed from the cultural mindset of the Mainland Chinese, yet he is far closer to the mindset than, let us say, me - even though it is just the Himalayas which requires a small climb which separate the Chinese and me, while the Colonel has to swim the Pacific to reach!:D

Officer of Engineers
08 Oct 03,, 03:29
Sir,

My thanks for your compliments but that insight came from years of being wrong and butting my head against brick walls. I've made so many mistakes concerning the PLA that for every one article, I could write a book about my wrong assumptions.

Ray
08 Oct 03,, 07:54
Honestly, this thread is getting as interesting as the 'friendly' banter I had with my good and close friend Sniper M21 and 155. In fact, I count him as a dashed fine bloke after the banter. Good fellow. Likewise, I am sure Prax and Col will appreciate each other's views since both have jolly fine points to offer and I am grateful that I am getting enlightened.

Though not quite on the subject, I must confess my visitation and observation of the threads on this board has made me understand a wee bit better of the mindset of the US folks. The rather 'inhumane and callous' military actions post Iraq war in Iraq used to shock me. But I have now understood the vast cultural, ethnic and historical gulf that divides us. Yet, the gulf that divides us from you palls when I realise that that is the way you all view life. You detest the UN, I can't help but think it is the salvation of the weak against the strong. You fire first and then talk, I feel lets talk and then fire. Therefore, nothing shocks me any more. It's the way you are and it's the way we are East of Suez.

The Russians may have had an agenda, but I think let them gas. We will understand them better and when the time comes to interact for a common good, we will know exactly how 'the cat shall jump'. Even Shield had his value.

I wish to thank Ironman, Tophatter and the Colonel for being such sobering influences on this board and for being so tolerant. Ironman has made the board interesting by his posting info from around the world so that we could express ourselves.

I thank Sniper for being 'difficult' and teaching me that I must build in myself more tolerance. I thank Colonel to understand the expatriate Chinese mind, even though he has never seen China and I hope I shall wend my way there soon. And beat his to that. BTW, did you know Shanghai was sinking?

Bring back Shield even if he is racist. We are all racists in some way or the other.

Admins, wipe this post from the face of the earth if it is offending, though it is not meant to be so.

TopHatter
08 Oct 03,, 15:43
Originally posted by Ray
Honestly, this thread is getting as interesting as the 'friendly' banter ...Though not quite on the subject, I must confess my visitation and observation of the threads on this board has made me understand a wee bit better of the mindset of the US folks. The rather 'inhumane and callous' military actions post Iraq war in Iraq used to shock me. But I have now understood the vast cultural, ethnic and historical gulf that divides us...
I wish to thank Ironman, Tophatter and the Colonel for being such sobering influences on this board and for being so tolerant.

Ray
Thanks for the good words, I know I certainly appreciate them. I really like the banter as well and I agree with Ironman that debate and differences of opinion are what really make a board work.
Now, as for me being sober...well, :ermm

Officer of Engineers
08 Oct 03,, 23:15
Sir,

I have to say that it is an honour to have met your aquaintance. I know we had our difficulties but once we reached common ground, I believe that we were able to explain to each other our thoughts without clash though we do disagree on our views.

I must say that your introductions have been an eye openner for me, especially to the ethos of the InA. If you're any reflection, Sir, then the InA must be the most honoured bound army on earth, valuing honour above combat efficiency, a most facinating view and one that I'm afraid that I fail to embrace as much as you do.

Blademaster
09 Oct 03,, 00:53
Thank you for the compliments of the InA. But remember always, there is always a bad apple in every buschel. We must be vigilant to weed those bad apples out and if the damage is incurred, we must contained the damage and then repair the damage. The key action is VIGILANCE. This is true for every army and witness the history of those who failed to take this lesson to heart.

Ray
09 Oct 03,, 04:37
Honour is indeed an important aspect of our Armed Forces. Legacy of the British? After all, its an Officer and a GENTLEMAN.

It may surprise you, but in the Battle of Shakargrh [1971], the Pakistani Battalion Commander led a Counter Attack personnally and was mowed down.

After the war, the Indian Commanding Officer Lt Gen [the Lt Col] VP Airey, handed over a citation to the Pakistanis lauding the bravery and courage of the Pakistani Commanding Officer.

The Pakistani Commanding Officer was awarded the highest gallantry award by the Pakistani govt based on an Indian citation!

We learn to dislike the enemy, but we also learn to keep our heads firmly on our shoulders and not go berserk or seek vengance.

Didn't a US President say - Speak softly but wield a big stick?:dbanana

xxxxx
20 Sep 04,, 11:13
UD2 said that and I quote "You can't take the whole PLAN, PLANF and PLAAF with one carrier group, you need 6 or more. So by the time you finish mobilizing the carrier groups, Taiwan is either under Chinese control or flat as a piece of ice, either way, you loose your whole point to attack China."

As you see he is claiming that by the time it takes to deploy 6 Carrier Battle Groups China would have won. Not only is he ignoring the fact that we have bases in Guam, Okinowa, Japan, and the Phillipines but he is also ignoring the fact that even if they could(which they may very well be able to do) establish a beachhead it would be extremely hard for them to push foward into the mainland and win within a couple month period.

By the way I never claimed one Carrier group could take on the PLAN, PLAAF, and PLA Ground Forces. He chose to make that up by himself.

Sorry if I was telling you to tell me how they could win, I was talking to UD2.

if a beach head was established Taiwan is likely to surrender very soon. Its about 9,000 men strong army can't do anything against the PLA. No matter if they have better weapons or not.

xxxxx
20 Sep 04,, 11:26
I saw that, my reply is following but nukes is always in the back of my mind when talking this scenario.

Let's get one thing straight right off the bat, the PLA acknowledges that once the US is involved, they have no chance of conquering TW. Their actions is planned on preventing/delaying (may in fact even a matter of hours) US involvement.

There is a very strong possibility the Chinese would resort to nukes not because of desire but in the "use them or lose them" scenario. The CMC HQ would be the one running the TW ops. It would be a very tempting target for the US. It is, however, also the national nuclear authority. If the CMC HQ is targetted, the Chinese may in fact launch nukes before they lose the ability to do so.


CDF & TMF's work on the PLA WZC in the TW Context (http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=140)

There's no point in using nukes vs. taiwan. The goal of the chinese government is not blowing up an enemy but a one state two system solution.
What would be the use of a nuked island?

roshan
20 Sep 04,, 13:50
I used to know Shield for a really long time, I was very surprised when I read his racist posts here. He used to be quite tolerant, he even converted to Islam and would preach it all the time! Then all of a sudden he just turned into a racist.

xxxxx
20 Sep 04,, 14:07
I used to know Shield for a really long time, I was very surprised when I read his racist posts here. He used to be quite tolerant, he even converted to Islam and would preach it all the time! Then all of a sudden he just turned into a racist.

Where did he post?

Officer of Engineers
20 Sep 04,, 16:38
if a beach head was established Taiwan is likely to surrender very soon. Its about 9,000 men strong army can't do anything against the PLA. No matter if they have better weapons or not.

If it's a beachhead, the PLA is dead. They don't need a beachhead. They need a port.

liaozixiansheng
20 Sep 04,, 18:48
Then why is it CCP dogma and a PLA stated mission?


If you think mathematically in terms of game theory and threat games with mixed strategies, the reason is obvious. China's strategy is a mixed strategy with a high level of probability that she will invade, whereas Taiwan lacks any coherent strategy whatsoever, which increases the risk of her acting suboptimally vis a vis the current reality.

Contrary to popular opinion, China is acting very rationally vis a vis Taiwan, and will only move once she develops the capacity to undertake a successful operation, and that time may come by 2010. In any case, Kenichi Ohmae predicts a peaceful reunification before 2020.

As to whether Taiwan can resist a Chinese attack in 2006, recent Taiwanese computer simulations demonstrated that Taiwan could hold off for 6 days before being forced to capitulate. I leave it to you to figure if the calculations in these simulations were in error, but they do suggest that the odds are stacked highly in China's favour, given a relatively reasonable set of assumptions.

liaozixiansheng
20 Sep 04,, 18:51
If it's a beachhead, the PLA is dead. They don't need a beachhead. They need a port.

Another unsupportable assumption. There is not one iota of evidence to suggest that China cannot successfully establish a beach head.

Officer of Engineers
20 Sep 04,, 18:54
Another unsupportable assumption. There is not one iota of evidence to suggest that China cannot successfully establish a beach head.

You're not understanding. A beachhead is useless to deliver more troops and equipment. Trucks and artillery cannot swim to shore. For that, you need a port.

Officer of Engineers
20 Sep 04,, 18:56
As to whether Taiwan can resist a Chinese attack in 2006, recent Taiwanese computer simulations demonstrated that Taiwan could hold off for 6 days before being forced to capitulate. I leave it to you to figure if the calculations in these simulations were in error, but they do suggest that the odds are stacked highly in China's favour, given a relatively reasonable set of assumptions.

1st, computer games ain't real life. 2nd, those were money grabbers. "See, we can't defend Taiwan with what we have. We need to buy these new toys." In other words, those games were skewed in China's favour - ie worst case scenario.

liaozixiansheng
20 Sep 04,, 18:57
You're not understanding. A beachhead is useless to deliver more troops and equipment. Trucks and artillery cannot swim to shore. For that, you need a port.

Your implicit assumption is that China will not be able to capture a port following establishing a beach-head.

Officer of Engineers
20 Sep 04,, 19:01
Your implicit assumption is that China will not be able to capture a port following establishing a beach-head.

First of all, I am a military man. I say EXACTLY what I mean. Read again.


If it's a beachhead, the PLA is dead. They don't need a beachhead. They need a port.

liaozixiansheng
20 Sep 04,, 19:02
1st, computer games ain't real life. 2nd, those were money grabbers. "See, we can't defend Taiwan with what we have. We need to buy these new toys." In other words, those games were skewed in China's favour - ie worst case scenario.

Of course, it makes sense to model worst case scenarios, people do it all the time in order to prevent them.

But when the information was divulged, there was a large outcry by independence supporters, which resulted in a Taiwanese military officer conceding that 6 days was the worst-case scenario, and that Taiwan could actually hold out for 2 weeks if the parameters were adjusted to reflect probabilistic expectation. 6 days or 2 weeks? Same difference.

Officer of Engineers
20 Sep 04,, 19:06
Of course, it makes sense to model worst case scenarios, people do it all the time in order to prevent them.

But when the information was divulged, there was a large outcry by independence supporters, which resulted in a Taiwanese military officer conceding that 6 days was the worst-case scenario, and that Taiwan could actually hold out for 2 weeks if the parameters were adjusted to reflect probabilistic expectation. 6 days or 2 weeks? Same difference.

No, it's not. 1st, no battle plan survives 1st contact. 2nd, the tactical situation changes day-to-day. 3rd, unexpected resistence, and heavy resistence can crop up where you least expected and may not compensate for.

I can point to you the number of unexpected clusterfucks that happenned to the Coalition in the Iraq War. Had it not been for Iraqi incompetence, the war would have gone very badly for the Coalition, least of which the 7-Cav was surrounded by the Medina Division.

liaozixiansheng
20 Sep 04,, 19:17
No, it's not. 1st, no battle plan survives 1st contact. 2nd, the tactical situation changes day-to-day. 3rd, unexpected resistence, and heavy resistence can crop up where you least expected and may not compensate for.

I can point to you the number of unexpected clusterfucks that happenned to the Coalition in the Iraq War. Had it not been for Iraqi incompetence, the war would have gone very badly for the Coalition, least of which the 7-Cav was surrounded by the Medina Division.

Of course, but it is bad logic to assume that Taiwan will hold out just because computer simulations often offer outcomes that diverge from reality. Reality is always more complicated than simple models suggests, but their predictive power shouldn't be under-estimated. The potential for error works both ways: China might have an easier time taking Taiwan just as Taiwan might have an easier time defending.

Ray
20 Sep 04,, 19:35
liao,

Try as you may Taiwan will remain Taiwan and not a part of Commie China.

They have Uncle Sam.

Sometimes I think Uncle Sam is a religion!

:biggrin:

Oh yes, dont take the Colonel (OOE) to be some cool cat. He is quite volatile. So, take it easy and let's have facts and not dreams.

BTW, not that he requires, I and many more can also act as his backup. :rolleyes:
Why don't you visit http://www.china-defense.com/? Your contentions can be taken up in real earnest. Good Chinese and non Chinese are there.

liaozixiansheng
20 Sep 04,, 19:48
liao,

Try as you may Taiwan will remain Taiwan and not a part of Commie China.

They have Uncle Sam.

Sometimes I think Uncle Sam is a religion!

:biggrin:

Oh yes, dont take the Colonel (OOE) to be some cool cat. He is quite volatile. So, take it easy and let's have facts and not dreams.

BTW, not that he requires, I and many more can also act as his backup. :rolleyes:
Why don't you visit http://www.china-defense.com/? Your contentions can be taken up in real earnest. Good Chinese and non Chinese are there.

ray, it is a well known fact that there is a growing body of military experts (especially among the Taiwanese) who believe that China will possess the full capacity to take over by 2006. Who is to say who is right or wrong? In the end, reality will prevail. And reality also has it that at present China has twice the GDP of India even though both countries started at the same base level after WWII.

Officer of Engineers
20 Sep 04,, 23:08
CDF has been on this issue for over 8 years now. 2006 is quite optimistic. It can happen, if the moon is litterally in the right place in conjunction with the sun and the stars (read tides).

What's everybody been ignoring (until the CDF finally put 2 and 2 together) is how the Chinese said they were going to fight.

Again, here is the thread

CDF & TMF's work on the PLA WZC in the TW Context (http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=140)

Ray
20 Sep 04,, 23:45
And reality also has it that at present China has twice the GDP of India even though both countries started at the same base level after WWII.

India has been a democracy (with all the faults that free society can offer) from 1947 and China a Commie dictatorial and ruthless regime.

Had India been Commies and there was no dignity of life, it would be way ahead.

Russia was a shithole of Europe when the Commies took over. Because of the ruthlessness of a Godforsaken dogma called Communism, they became a superpower. It mattered not how many perished or how many starved or how concentration camps was an excuse for free labour! Dissent was not tolerated.

Now Russia is tottering with a semi democracy. China is not. It is chugging along its ruthless ways.

Check any Army and compare it to the government. The Army is more efficient.

Got the photo?

I rather be free than be a chained human and a imbecelic robot of a superpower!

liaozixiansheng
21 Sep 04,, 00:24
India has been a democracy (with all the faults that free society can offer) from 1947 and China a Commie dictatorial and ruthless regime.

Had India been Commies and there was no dignity of life, it would be way ahead.

Russia was a shithole of Europe when the Commies took over. Because of the ruthlessness of a Godforsaken dogma called Communism, they became a superpower. It mattered not how many perished or how many starved or how concentration camps was an excuse for free labour! Dissent was not tolerated.

Now Russia is tottering with a semi democracy. China is not. It is chugging along its ruthless ways.

Check any Army and compare it to the government. The Army is more efficient.

Got the photo?

I rather be free than be a chained human and a imbecelic robot of a superpower!

You are missing the point; China intends to democratize, but only in lock-step with economic reforms. It is a matter of efficiency. Democratize too early in the process and you get something that looks like India, which is what China wants to avoid at all costs (although India is doing relatively well). Its a matter of both efficiency and patience, both which are well-known Chinese traits. You already have considerable freedom of press and a substantial level of human rights in China; you have consumer rights, people suing the government and launching complaints against corruption, and university professors debating previously taboo topics openly. The mistake most people make is in comparing today's China to that of Mao's; the difference is almost that between heaven and hell. That is like comparing the America of today to the America of the settler period, when millions of red Indians were displaced and slaughtered.

Of course, China is not by any means a democracy; it is an enlightened authoritarian state, something like say, Singapore; but there definitely will come a point when China will relax restrictions (she has been doing this for the last 10 years) although it will take time. But it would definitely not serve the purposes of economic growth to allow economic decison making to devolve into the hands of the public who are quite often myopic with respect to painful but necessary economic policies. Therein rests my argument. I recently talked to a mainland Chinese and asked him what he thought about the government and he said that the vast majority of Chinese would support the government as long as it was delivering economic growth; this view may seem materialistic to some, but it is pragmatic.

ajaybhutani
21 Sep 04,, 00:30
You are missing the point; China intends to democratize, but only in lock-step with economic reforms. It is a matter of efficiency. Democratize too early in the process and you get something that looks like India, which is what China wants to avoid at all costs (although India is doing relatively well). Its a matter of both efficiency and patience, both which are well-known Chinese traits. You already have considerable freedom of press and a substantial level of human rights in China; you have consumer rights, people suing the government and launching complaints against corruption, and university professors debating previously taboo topics openly. The mistake most people make is in comparing today's China to that of Mao's; the difference is almost that between heaven and hell. That is like comparing the America of today to the America of the settler period, when millions of red Indians were displaced and slaughtered.

Of course, China is not by any means a democracy; it is an enlightened authoritarian state, something like say, Singapore; but there definitely will come a point when China will relax restrictions (she has been doing this for the last 10 years) although it will take time. But it would definitely not serve the purposes of economic growth to allow economic decison making to devolve into the hands of the public who are quite often myopic with respect to painful but necessary economic policies. Therein rests my argument. I recently talked to a mainland Chinese and asked him what he thought about the government and he said that the vast majority of Chinese would support the government as long as it was delivering economic growth; this view may seem materialistic to some, but it is pragmatic.


i read somewhere that chineese dont allow free movement of labour.i mean if a farm labour wants to go and work in a city he cannot simply do it as and when he wishes there are restrictions ? is it true??...

liaozixiansheng
21 Sep 04,, 00:41
i read somewhere that chineese dont allow free movement of labour.i mean if a farm labour wants to go and work in a city he cannot simply do it as and when he wishes there are restrictions ? is it true??...

The income in the cities is sometimes as much as ten times higher than rural incomes. The ratio of rural people to urban people is 5:1. What happens if you lift restrictions?

The rural people will swamp the city areas in search of better opportunities, which will become hotspots for beggars, slums will rapidly develop, crime rates will rise, property prices will drop, and the infrastructure of the cities will not be able to cope, leading to economic bottlenecks and utter stagnation. The people in the cities do not benefit; and neither will the rural migrants. There is only so much space in cities.

In any case, economic growth in rural areas is quite solid, and if the urbanisation programme works out as planned, restrictions may be lifted in as near as 5-10 years. The wealth has to spread out from coastal cities to the hinterland, and will gradually fan out to rural areas as long as the cities keep on growing. But this will not be impossible if restrictions are lifted and cities are swamped; it would destroy China's only source of future wellbeing - stupid to say the slightest.

Lastly, restrictions aren't exactly set in stone; and there are plenty of migrant workers in the cities; it is just that each city puts a cap on the number of migrants it can tolerate without breaking down. Things are difficult in China; which is the reason why a stable government able to implement tough but ultimately sound policies is entirely necessary if China is to prosper in the long run.

ajaybhutani
21 Sep 04,, 00:53
The income in the cities is sometimes as much as ten times higher than rural incomes. The ratio of rural people to urban people is 5:1. What happens if you lift restrictions?

The rural people will swamp the city areas in search of better opportunities, which will become hotspots for beggars, slums will rapidly develop, crime rates will rise, property prices will drop, and the infrastructure of the cities will not be able to cope, leading to economic bottlenecks and utter stagnation. The people in the cities do not benefit; and neither will the rural migrants. There is only so much space in cities.

In any case, economic growth in rural areas is quite solid, and if the urbanisation programme works out as planned, restrictions may be lifted in as near as 5-10 years. The wealth has to spread out from coastal cities to the hinterland, and will gradually fan out to rural areas as long as the cities keep on growing. But this will not be impossible if restrictions are lifted and cities are swamped; it would destroy China's only source of future wellbeing - stupid to say the slightest.

Lastly, restrictions aren't exactly set in stone; and there are plenty of migrant workers in the cities; it is just that each city puts a cap on the number of migrants it can tolerate without breaking down. Things are difficult in China; which is the reason why a stable government able to implement tough but ultimately sound policies is entirely necessary if China is to prosper in the long run.


well isnt it a human right to decide what hes gotta do where he wants to work.. u shud ask a person who couldnt go to the city for working bec of the caps put by the govt he's been snached away a right to decide his future.. ?? what kind of a country is that???? how can it take away a big fundamental right ..

i guess this is the difference between china and india .In india if u r an indian national then u ahve a right to go anywhere in the country... settle down anywhere.. and work anywhere..yes india is half the GDP of China but the indians have a right to decide their individual future.

Frankly a villager has a same right to decide his future than the city worker.. Moreover u forgot to mention the other half of the story if theres more people available then labour gets cheaper and the economy gets more competetive.Furthermore it will reduce the per capita income gap between the cities and the villages.Which in turn means lesser villagers will tend to move out to cities as theres not much advantage left and teh whole income divide between the cities and country side is reduced.Mydear frnd if the chineese had let the people move freely they would definitely not have been able to build such beautiful cities but yes they would ahve build a much more economically equal world and yes they would have been even more competetive.Economic disparities up to the level of 5-10 times and restrictions can even lead to anti nationalist feelings and develop hatred amongst the residents of the deprived territory. I hope u understand that it can lead to stuff like revolutions.

liaozixiansheng
21 Sep 04,, 01:00
well isnt it a human right to decide what hes gotta do where he wants to work.. u shud ask a person who couldnt go to the city for working bec of the caps put by the govt he's been snached away a right to decide his future.. ?? what kind of a country is that???? how can it take away a big fundamental right ..

i guess this is the difference between china and india .In india if u r an indian national then u ahve a right to go anywhere in the country... settle down anywhere.. and work anywhere..yes india is half the GDP of China but the indians have a right to decide their individual future.

Frankly a villager has a same right to decide his future than the city worker.. Moreover u forgot to mention the other half of the story if theres more people available then labour gets cheaper and the economy gets more competetive.Furthermore it will reduce the per capita income gap between the cities and the villages.Which in turn means lesser villagers will tend to move out to cities as theres not much advantage left and teh whole income divide between the cities and country side is reduced.Mydear frnd if the chineese had let the people move freely they would definitely not have been able to build such beautiful cities but yes they would ahve build a much more economically equal world and yes they would have been even more competetive.Economic disparities up to the level of 5-10 times and restrictions can even lead to anti nationalist feelings and develop hatred amongst the residents of the deprived territory. I hope u understand that it can lead to stuff like revolutions.

Let me put it this way:

Restrictions are mild; people do get permits to work in the cities; but only a limited number selected at random to ensure fairness. The idea is that these migrants who earn city-level wages will invest in their home towns and villages and help these to develop into sizable cornubations, thus becoming generators of wealth in their own right, and allowing a sort of multiplier effect to spread through the economy.

In simple language - the restrictions make perfect economic sense and are necessary for the health of the entire economy.

No restrictions: everybody suffers.

Restrictions: rural people suffer temporary, but cities generate wealth which spread to surrounding rural areas eventually, thus enriching them. Both cities and rural areas prosper.

Its true that the per capita income gap will be reduced given two separate labour markets have now been fused; but this marginally attractive benefit is far outweighed by its costs in terms of cramped and suffocated cities unable to progress.

Jay
21 Sep 04,, 01:16
ray, it is a well known fact that there is a growing body of military experts (especially among the Taiwanese) who believe that China will possess the full capacity to take over by 2006. Who is to say who is right or wrong? In the end, reality will prevail. And reality also has it that at present China has twice the GDP of India even though both countries started at the same base level after WWII.

Liao,
China is an authoratarian country while India is a democratic country. Socomparing them would be comparing apples and oranges. You cannot just go by economic numbers (again remember China started freeing up their economy 10 years before India). Economy and money alone doesnt make a country a better place to live.

ajaybhutani
21 Sep 04,, 01:16
Let me put it this way:

Restrictions are mild; people do get permits to work in the cities; but only a limited number selected at random to ensure fairness. The idea is that these migrants who earn city-level wages will invest in their home towns and villages and help these to develop into sizable cornubations, thus becoming generators of wealth in their own right, and allowing a sort of multiplier effect to spread through the economy.

In simple language - the restrictions make perfect economic sense and are necessary for the health of the entire economy.

No restrictions: everybody suffers.

Restrictions: rural people suffer temporary, but cities generate wealth which spread to surrounding rural areas eventually, thus enriching them. Both cities and rural areas prosper.

Its true that the per capita income gap will be reduced given two separate labour markets have now been fused; but this marginally attractive benefit is far outweighed by its costs in terms of cramped and suffocated cities unable to progress.



[QUTOE=]
No restrictions: everybody suffers.

[/QUOTE]

Well as far as i could understand if no restrictions
1. theres an increased lwlessness in cities. But again compensated by a decreased lawlessness in villages.Bec there are lesser people in villages and thus better per capita incomes thus more lawfulness.Keeping the villagers tight in their homes and unemployed will cause more unrest though the unrest cant be seen by the outside world and can be contained by c hineese govt after whichforeigner/foreign agency goes to the villages in china.

2. Cities get cheaper labour and thus become mroe competitive they expand horizontally and vertically faster.

3. Ya they do look ugly.. but isnt looking ugly better if u can perform better that way.

4. Maybe the chineese govt dsnt want the world to see the real china (i.e. the villages and villagers not allowed to mave our freely.).

If restrictions
1. Villagers suffer. At the expense of beautful cities and better life for urban people..
2. China protrays thats its not poor since it has beautiful cities.Govt is happy.but the people arent ...?

Ray
21 Sep 04,, 07:44
What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or progress so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!

I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Ray
21 Sep 04,, 21:16
ray, it is a well known fact that there is a growing body of military experts (especially among the Taiwanese) who believe that China will possess the full capacity to take over by 2006. Who is to say who is right or wrong? In the end, reality will prevail. And reality also has it that at present China has twice the GDP of India even though both countries started at the same base level after WWII.

Xing,

Wgat has India's GDP got to to with China and Taiwan? Wanting to state you can capture India? I thought the Opium War was over long back.

Anyway back to the point. China will take over Taiwan by 2006? Not taking the Opium angle, do you understnd geopolitics or you think the Red Book contains all the verities of life like the Koran?

Praxus
21 Sep 04,, 21:43
Ray, I see you like Patrick Henrys speech;)

But I would have to say that if one has liberty one will have progess and wealth. China's growth is being artificially inflated. It is built on the quick sand of economic manipulation and slavery by the Government. They will soon hit a recession, similar to that of Japan.

liaozixiansheng
21 Sep 04,, 23:07
Ray, I see you like Patrick Henrys speech;)

But I would have to say that if one has liberty one will have progess and wealth. China's growth is being artificially inflated. It is built on the quick sand of economic manipulation and slavery by the Government. They will soon hit a recession, similar to that of Japan.

Don't make inferences when they are not valid.

Japan's crash was caused by a liquidity trap, and any suggestion to the contrary demonstrates a preternatural lack of knowledge.

liaozixiansheng
21 Sep 04,, 23:14
Xing,

Wgat has India's GDP got to to with China and Taiwan? Wanting to state you can capture India? I thought the Opium War was over long back.

Anyway back to the point. China will take over Taiwan by 2006? Not taking the Opium angle, do you understnd geopolitics or you think the Red Book contains all the verities of life like the Koran?

I haven't read the Red Book or the Koran, but would like to in the future. I have however, read Plato, the Bible, the Analects, Sun Tzu, Zhugo Liang, Machiavelli, Clausewitz, Leibniz, Bertrand Russell, Fukuyama, Origen, Augustine, Calvin, Luther and more authors than you would be able to count up to, without suffering from a brain aneurysm.

ajaybhutani
21 Sep 04,, 23:35
Don't make inferences when they are not valid.

Japan's crash was caused by a liquidity trap, and any suggestion to the contrary demonstrates a preternatural lack of knowledge.


Many economists have talked about chineese artificially inflated growth rate. Lets see it like this China controls its currency so taht it gets an edge in export which in turn act as the drivers of growth in teh chineese economy.But to control the currency Chineese had to collect a lot of Foreign exchange which means that a lot of money in teh economy ahs been trapped useless in teh form of foreign exchange .It cannot be fed back into the economy as then Chineese currency will go not remain stable.so its artificial. and not natural expert have created doubts over teh sutainability of such growth rates longer and thats y we are expecting hte chineeese growth rates to go down to 5% by 2025.

Somewhere i even read a comparison made between todays china and us of beginning 1910-1920sAccording to the author the Similiar control of currency is exibited by china now as us did then which led to the great depression.


None has seen teh future but many paths can be shown as possible future trends by history.It really depends upon how well chineesse are able to manage control voer their economy and at the same time give the much needed democracy to the poeple .Only time can tell what will happen .But even with the worst circumstances in case shina dsnt see a revolution(a rare case by any standards ) it surely will be strong nough by 2040-50 to overtake americans.

liaozixiansheng
21 Sep 04,, 23:40
None has seen teh future but many paths can be shown as possible future trends by history.It really depends upon how well chineesse are able to manage control voer their economy and at the same time give the much needed democracy to the poeple .Only time can tell what will happen .But even with the worst circumstances in case shina dsnt see a revolution(a rare case by any standards ) it surely will be strong nough by 2040-50 to overtake americans.

2040-50?

By that time, the most of us would be too old (and mature) to get any vicarious entertainment from the fact that our particular country (or ancestral homeland in my case) is on the top spot geopolitically. Your concerns will be markedly different when you're 60 or 70, at least that's what I would expect.

ajaybhutani
21 Sep 04,, 23:45
By that time, the most of us would be too old (and mature) to care. You aren't going to be able to do much when you're 60 or 70.
in fact then we will be free to think jsut about politics and so on.....after all politics is the game where experience always gives an edge LOL..
and at least in india We have people in their 70's guidiing companies to success ..Take and example of Tata Steel MD and look at what he's doin to the company. Ony is as old as he feels.

I think with the growing technology we should all hppe to live a 100 years and enjoy them to their fullest. IO wish to see india overtake US. u cant kill me before that :tongue:

cooldw57
23 Oct 04,, 00:25
What makes you all keep thinking that China WILL HAVE to INVADE Taiwan? Their sole purpose is to reunite with the ROC. War is unlikely, Taiwan is afraid of infuriating Mainland, and China DOES NOT want a war to hinder its economy growth.

A war in Taiwan strait is disasterous for ALL of us, imagine you'll HAVE to pay 4 times as much for computer memory... That was what happend after the earthquakes in Taiwan couple years ago, if a fullscale war breaks out, the world will have to suffer with the shortage of RAM, Chips, Wafer production (TSMC and UMC accounts of 80% of world production).

cooldw57
23 Oct 04,, 00:30
Anyone been to www.military-quotes.com ? There is one great discussion on how to sink a carrier, PLA could adopt those strategy against US in case US intervenes.