Zhang Fei

Because it's one thing for Chinese troops to die defending the territorial integrity of the ancestral nation (i.e. by attacking Taiwan) and quite another for Chinese students to be killed by armored units of the PLA.

astralis

zhang fei,

ever read the people's daily (in chinese)? if you have, do you know the four words the daily used more often to describe the chinese-japanese relationship?

even a casual reader will pick up on this one. it's not a hard question to answer.

__________________
Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present.

-Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

astralis

also, regarding

the original premise of your argument is that chinese are naturally desensitized to casualties not immediately related to them, and that by dint of the large population, the impact is small.

i would argue that 6/4 not only demonstrated that to be false, but was also a clear warning shot that the CCP will have to expect to pay a political price if they spend their soldiers' lives.

furthermore, with the growth of mass media, we can only expect the impact of this to increase. after all, the whole premise of nationalism, especially ultranationalism, is to treat your countryman as part of your family.

so i would agree with HKDan: public support will continue until china meets serious resistance. public support for the CCP will collapse altogether if china has paid the price and is seen to be losing.

Zhang Fei

Let me suggest again that Chinese students (i.e. innocent demonstrators) getting killed by armored units vs large numbers of Chinese soldiers getting killed in combat are two different things. The first suggests that Chinese leaders are a bunch of bloodthirsty murderers with no compunction about slaughtering the innocent (and in Chinese culture, students are by definition innocent). The second may simply be bad luck (combined with good intentions) easily forgiven just as the Chinese populace forgave the Communist Party the tens of millions of dead from the twin Party-made disasters of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. If they'll believe the Party's explanation for the deaths of tens of millions, which coincided with great hardship on the part of most of the Chinese population, why would they question its explanation for battle deaths, whatever this explanation turns out to be?

Feanor

The question is would the Chinese be successful in an invasion of Taiwan. If they would be then the public would most likely forgive the loss, and the families and friends of the deceased would not speak up or be silenced. If China lost then the CCP would have some serious problems on its hands.

Officer of Engineers

Two events would strongly suggest that the PLA is no longer as casualty tolerant as many would like to believe. The 1979 Sino-VN War and 6-4. Suffering 30,000 casualties in a "teaching a lesson" campaign resulting in a dramatic decrease in prestige and political standings. 6-4 confirms that the populace will no longer suffer for the sake of the CCP.

The CCP has one and only one go at Taiwan. They don't have the political stamina to withstand the backlash from 100,000 angry mothers demanding their sons back.

__________________
Chimo

gunnut

Sir, does Taiwan have the ability to strike at targets along the coast of China?

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

zraver

With both a large airforce and navy the RoC has the ability to hit the PRC coast, what they lack and what the argument is for or against is dedicated platforms for that mission. As it stands now most of the RoC strike capable assets have dedicated defensive missions to do during war.

The RoCN lacks a real strike capability but its Kuang Hua VI patrol boat offers some real commerce raiding capability which is a direct threat to the PRC's economy. The laffeyyette class Frigate offers some interesting options if its stealth works. While not armed that impressively if it can dash in under cover of darkness its 100mm gun could cause quite a stir by thumping the massive Chinese Dragon on the nose. RoCN submariners offer the best capability, the boats are old but can still aly mines outside the invasion ports or commerce choke points if the RoCN's P-3 otions can keep PLAN submarines out of the game.

Taiwan's current real capability is the Mirage 2000's of the airforce along with the still capable F-16A/B both these planes have proven to be great low level light bombers. With assumedly excellent pre-war mapping of PRC coastal radar nets and in-war near real time US satalite and elint intelligence dumps these fighters offer a decent strike capability not only along the coast, but to a certain depth inland.

However as new fighters like the J-10 enter servicein the PLAAF the usefulness of the IDF and F-5 decrease and more and more of the F-16's hav eto assume a pure fighter role so Taiwan's strike capability is decreasing with each new J-10 that enters service.

gunnut

The La Fayette class in ROCN really need some ESSM for self defense. If I remember correctly, they have the OTO 76mm onboard rather than the French 100mm. It would be neat to swap out that 3" for a Mk 45 5".

How are the Kidd class in ROCN service? Are they still decent?

HKDan

The Kidd class(now Kee Lung class) are the most capable ships in the ROCN. Still, in the context of this discussion they dont really represent a whole lot of capability to strike the mainland.

Zinja

I have one particular question about the RoCAF that has puzzled me all along; why do or did they prefer the F16 as its primary fighter AC instead of the F15? Did they prefer the multi role capabilities of the F16 to air dominance? I know their F16s have been 'seriously' re-engineered but surely there is only one plane with a record under its belt when it comes to A-to-A combat. Or at least they would have done sort of assortment in their 160 fleet.

gunnut

No one wants to sell advanced aircraft to Taiwan because no one wants to offend China.

We sold F-16s to Taiwan due to the Taiwan Relations Act which states the US must provide the Republic of China with defensive weapons. F-15's range is deemed to be "offensive."

ROCAF would love to have some F-15s. But we don't want to upset China too much. Money is at stake here.

zraver

We (USA) are the only nation that stamps our god, In God we trust.

entropy

What is the landing craft capability of the PLA? Does ROC aviation and navy have sufficient anti-ship missiles to fend it off?

__________________
If memory serves...

glyn

__________________
Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.