[dkstories] Chinese invasion of Taiwan scenarios (inspired by events i

[C James]

Since I live in Taiwan myself, and the threat of conflict with China is very present and very real, I found the mention of the "Battle of Taiwan" very interesting, though I must disagree with its outcome. Current predictions and scenarios by both the Taiwanese military (who I have worked for) and the U.S. Pacific Command show that Communist Chinese forces would most likely overrun Taiwan before US forces had a chance to react, with Taipei (the capital) falling within six days. Could the US defeat China in a conflict over Taiwan? Yes. Would they? Probably not, since they wouldn't have enough time to get here, unless they resorted to using tactical nuclear weapons against targets in China.

 

(I hope this isn

[JamesSavik]

Taiwan is in the same place England was in WWII.

 

She faces a huge land power that can't project power in enough force to land and fight it out. Taiwan and the US 7th fleet have too much sea power for an invasion to take place.

 

As it stands, it is a stalemate. The two sides could fight a pitched and vicious air and sea battle for about a week. The US would move a second carrier battle group into the region and it would be over.

 

The only real winner would be the South China Sea.

[LittleBuddhaTW]

One interesting little fact is that, technically, Taiwan should be governed by the U.S. military, as there was no treaty signed (communiques or declarations aren't legally binding in international law) ceding Formosa (Taiwan) to the then Republic of China (under the rule of the KMT and Chiang Kai-shek at the time). The KMT, as an ally of the US during the war, was given temporary military custody as an "agent" of the US authorities. So in terms of international law, the "Taiwan question" is a very sticky problem.

 

Despite what many people believe, the Taiwanese military is incapable of fending off a Chinese invasion, which as was previously pointed out, would probably not be in the form of an amphibious assault, but rather an initial "decapitation strike" by a large number of conventional short-range ballistic missiles, followed by a massive air assault. The PLA could easily, and without detection, load up two civilian aircraft in Hong Kong with Chinese special forces, fly them right into CKS International Airport, and take the airport very quickly.

 

The Taiwanese military does have some very high-tech equipment ... the problem is, only about 1/3 of it is servicable, because they don't know how to maintain it or use much of it properly. The Taiwanese military also has an extremely low morale, is based mainly on a conscription force of young people who don't want to fight, leaving only Taiwanese Marines and special forces to do the fighting ... hardly a large number.

 

I worked with the Taiwanese military police back in 2001. They are supposed to be one of the most "elite" units in the Taiwanese military, and they are responsible for protecting the government. I was horrified at how poorly trained these soldiers were, not to mention when directly asked what they would do in the event of a Chinese invasion, most said they would surrender immediately. That's not a good sign.

 

There are only two things keeping China from invading: 1) politics/economics, and 2) the US's policy of strategic ambiguity when it comes to whether or not it would enter into conflict over Taiwan. While the US would require quite a bit of time to have forces in place to seriously join the fight, its Tomahawk cruise missiles could wreak havoc in China by destroying Chinese oil refineries (the lifeblood of China's rapidly growing economy) and other strategic targets. The US and Japan also recently signed a mutual defense treaty which included the defense of Taiwan, so Japan's navy and airforce could very possibly join in the fight.

 

In the end, though, with US forces stretched so thin as they are now, I think China would eventually win. The main reason being that China has the will to win, and the Taiwanese people do not. That's something that all of those high-paid "experts" in the think tanks in Washington don't realize because although they have their prestigious Ph.D.s from schools like Harvard or Yale, they can barely speak a lick of Chinese, and have probably never spent any real time living in China or Taiwan, unless it was a five-star hotel and they were meeting at some conference.

 

Just my $0.02.

 

LBTW

[C James]

One interesting little fact is that, technically, Taiwan should be governed by the U.S. military, as there was no treaty signed (communiques or declarations aren't legally binding in international law) ceding Formosa (Taiwan) to the then Republic of China (under the rule of the KMT and Chiang Kai-shek at the time). The KMT, as an ally of the US during the war, was given temporary military custody as an "agent" of the US authorities. So in terms of international law, the "Taiwan question" is a very sticky problem.

 

That is extremely interesting!!! I was not aware of that at all.

Isn't China's claim on Taiwan largely based upon the Chinese rule of Taiwan (1945-1949) which was entirely under the nationalist government? If so, wouldn't that effectively negate China's already tenuous claim? Taiwan was under Japanese rule long before WWII, but I'm not sure of it's exact situation prior to that.

 

I do recall that elements of the Ming dynasty, once defeated on the mainland by the Manchu, seized parts of Taiwan in the 1600's, and Taiwan existed as a Ming enclave for a few decades, eerily reminiscent of the current situation.

 

This is fascinating! I'll look into this angle. Thanks!

 

Despite what many people believe, the Taiwanese military is incapable of fending off a Chinese invasion, which as was previously pointed out, would probably not be in the form of an amphibious assault, but rather an initial "decapitation strike" by a large number of conventional short-range ballistic missiles, followed by a massive air assault. The PLA could easily, and without detection, load up two civilian aircraft in Hong Kong with Chinese special forces, fly them right into CKS International Airport, and take the airport very quickly.

 

That's another angle I hadn't thought of: the initial attack being without warning. I would have hoped that, due to the strategic implications, that the Taiwanese military has plans in place to render a seized airport unusable. It would be very simple to do: conventional field artillery, even a few pieces warehoused anywhere within a dozen miles, would suffice to close the runways. However, the airport itself is quite suitable, even without runways, for an airborne drop zone, and it's only a few blocks from the capitol complex, if I recall correctly.

 

I think you are right, a decapitation strike is a likely scenario. It's sensible from a tactical point of view, as well as a political one (the Chinese are forever calling the Taiwanese government "Pirates", and worse).

 

The Taiwanese military does have some very high-tech equipment ... the problem is, only about 1/3 of it is serviceable, because they don't know how to maintain it or use much of it properly. The Taiwanese military also has an extremely low morale, is based mainly on a conscription force of young people who don't want to fight, leaving only Taiwanese Marines and special forces to do the fighting ... hardly a large number.

 

I worked with the Taiwanese military police back in 2001. They are supposed to be one of the most "elite" units in the Taiwanese military, and they are responsible for protecting the government. I was horrified at how poorly trained these soldiers were, not to mention when directly asked what they would do in the event of a Chinese invasion, most said they would surrender immediately. That's not a good sign.

 

Indeed! I had no idea that things were that bad. That kind of readiness and morale/training problem would make a fast initial response very hard if not impossible, and in the case of any invasion, the first 24 hours are absolutely critical. If the Chinese can gain and hold an airhead, they win, and win quickly, especially if it's in Taipei!

 

The biggest problem, as I see it, is that even if the US has both the ability and will to intervene, it's options are very few if China already has control of Taiwan before we can react.

 

There are only two things keeping China from invading: 1) politics/economics, and 2) the US's policy of strategic ambiguity when it comes to whether or not it would enter into conflict over Taiwan. While the US would require quite a bit of time to have forces in place to seriously join the fight, its Tomahawk cruise missiles could wreak havoc in China by destroying Chinese oil refineries (the lifeblood of China's rapidly growing economy) and other strategic targets. The US and Japan also recently signed a mutual defense treaty which included the defense of Taiwan, so Japan's navy and airforce could very possibly join in the fight.

 

I fear the US domestic political angle on that. The Chinese have in the past threatened, via an official spokesman, threatened to nuke US cities if the US defended Taiwan. If the Chinese threaten to nuke US cities if Tomahawks are launched against China, it would put the US President is a very tricky situation.

 

There is also the problem that America's own oil refineries are just as vulnerable and even more vital to our economy. We have virtually zero reserve refining capacity, and refineries are exceedingly vulnerable targets. One well trained man with a high powered rifle and tracer bullets could disable one for months, and failing that, a Cessna and a couple of hand grenades would put one out of commission. They would only need to hit a few, too.

 

In the end, though, with US forces stretched so thin as they are now, I think China would eventually win. The main reason being that China has the will to win, and the Taiwanese people do not. That's something that all of those high-paid "experts" in the think tanks in Washington don't realize because although they have their prestigious Ph.D.s from schools like Harvard or Yale, they can barely speak a lick of Chinese, and have probably never spent any real time living in China or Taiwan, unless it was a five-star hotel and they were meeting at some conference.

 

Just my $0.02.

 

LBTW

 

I totally agree.

I've spent all of three hours in Taiwan, so aside from seeing the long corridors in the terminal at the airport, I have zero knowledge of the "ground truth". I was totally unaware of the morale issues with both civilians and military, as well as the readiness issues. That is disturbing as it makes war far more likely.

 

If Taiwan could hold on for a week, I think that China could be stopped with just the use of US navel forces. But if the can over run Taiwan quickly, I think all is lost.

 

This is absolutely critical and important far beyond Taiwan. The historical model I'm thinking of is Hitler's Anschluss with Austria.

Edited March 24, 2006 by C James

[LittleBuddhaTW]

It is a critical problem, and the US has been putting a lot of pressure on Taiwan to beef up its military. The most visible part of this is the arms procurement package that George Bush approved, which includes Patriot III missile batteries, 12 P3-C Orion ASW aircraft, and eight diesel-electric submarines. All of these are vital to the defense of Taiwan, especially the latter, because Taiwan's submarine force and ASW capabilities are awful. Unfortunately, internal politics have stalled the deal for a couple of years now, and there is little hope of its passage. Fortunately, they now have the four Kidd-class destroyers, which will boost their naval air defenses significantly, which can counter the threat of the Chinese Sovremenny-class ships that they've procured from Russia.

 

The US Pacific Command has also suggested to Taiwan that it take some more concrete steps now that may be more important than the arms procurement package, such as improving command, control, and logistics, better integration between the military branches, and shoring up their defensive positions. Unfortunately, the military is so corrupt and politicized, that none of these seemingly "basic" improvements are being made. They have been talking about switching to an all-professional force, but all it's been so far is talk.

 

Another interesting thing is that the ROC airforce has lots of nice, high-tech fighters, namely F-16s and Mirage 2000s ... the problem is, they 1) don't have enough pilots, and 2) don't have enough missiles to arm them!

 

As for the nuclear issue ... I don't think China would dare launch nuclear weapons against US cities if we were to fire Tomahawks at Chinese targets. Chinese missiles are nowhere near as accurate as ours, and if they were to launch a nuclear strike against the US, they would be decimated. The number one priority for China has been and always will be regime survival ... they would not win a nuclear pissing contest with the US. So I don't think it would come to that.

 

Most people, unfortunately, don't realize how vital Taiwan is to US strategic interests. With South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan, we basically have China "boxed in" ... if Taiwan were to fall, China would be able to project power into the Pacific, a direct threat to US strategic interests. The US is not being proactive enough in its approach with Taiwan, not putting enough pressure on them to get their house in order, and it could end up backfiring. The US got totally blindsided by the Taiwan authorities' abolishing the "National Unification Council" ... they were lied to by the Taiwanese president, and took the Taiwanese gov't for their "word" regarding the wording of the proclamation ... unless the State Department doesnt have a single competent Chinese-English translator, which I find hard to believe.

[dkstories]

The four Kidd-Class destroyers are nice, yes, but they were a bone for the dog, really. We should have offered the Aegis-destroyers, but politics scuttled that. Aegis would have given a true defense against the short-range ballistic missile problem. Patriot III helps with that, but naval platforms really are the best anti-ICBM platform, and the SM3 missile is really the only effective defense we have yet against ICBMs. (SM-3 is only deployable on Navy Aegis ships).

 

Don't get me wrong, the Kidd-class are good destroyers (although they were originally supposed to go to Greece, not Taiwan). They were "Iran's give to the US" back in 1979. Originally ordered by the Shah of Iran, after the Iranian revolution, the sale to Iran was cancelled and the Navy got four more destroyers the Congress would never have approved for them.

 

Built on the hull design of the Spruance class (also the basis of the Aegis ships although those have a much-altered superstructure and are a little longer), the Kidd class destroyers carry the Mk. 26 missile systsem (fastest Non-Vertical launch system capable of launching two missiles every six seconds off of each launcher and the Kidd class have two launchers, one forward and one aft.). They can also carry Anti-sub rockets in their Mk. 26 launchers and have two five-inch cannons as well as two point defense. Their radar systems are good, even if thirty years old, and their command and control facilities are decent.

 

The only problem of course is their age and their power plants, but those are reportedly in decent shape.

[C James]

It is a critical problem, and the US has been putting a lot of pressure on Taiwan to beef up its military. The most visible part of this is the arms procurement package that George Bush approved, which includes Patriot III missile batteries, 12 P3-C Orion ASW aircraft, and eight diesel-electric submarines. All of these are vital to the defense of Taiwan, especially the latter, because Taiwan's submarine force and ASW capabilities are awful. Unfortunately, internal politics have stalled the deal for a couple of years now, and there is little hope of its passage. Fortunately, they now have the four Kidd-class destroyers, which will boost their naval air defenses significantly, which can counter the threat of the Chinese Sovremenny-class ships that they've procured from Russia.

 

Those PLAN Sovremennys are armed with Sunburn, a supersonic sea-skimming missile that looks like very bad news. It's nicknamed "AEGIS killer" for a reason. I'm not sure if it would work as well as expected, but it's one heck of a threat, especially in a surprise engagement.

 

Another interesting thing is that the ROC air force has lots of nice, high-tech fighters, namely F-16s and Mirage 2000s ... the problem is, they 1) don't have enough pilots, and 2) don't have enough missiles to arm them!

 

Every time the Taiwanese Air Force has engaged the Chinese, the Taiwanese Air Force has achieved a stunning kill ratio. I agree with what you say about readiness (always a key issue) but fortunately the Chinese also have huge problems in this area. The bad news, though, is that they have vastly larger resources to draw on, so they can afford to be sloppy.

 

As for the nuclear issue ... I don't think China would dare launch nuclear weapons against US cities if we were to fire Tomahawks at Chinese targets. Chinese missiles are nowhere near as accurate as ours, and if they were to launch a nuclear strike against the US, they would be decimated. The number one priority for China has been and always will be regime survival ... they would not win a nuclear pissing contest with the US. So I don't think it would come to that.

 

I wish I could agree. I don't, because of some things I've seen, including past Chinese behaviour involving direct and public nuclear threats against the US. I think their strategy would be political: Threaten US cities with attack if the US attacked mainland China in any way. Could a US President take the risk? It's true that we could indeed obliterate most of China, but here, our own regard for human life works against us: Would a US President willingly kill a billion mostly innocent people, or just settle for trading a few cities? The Chinese leadership would not be seriously damaged by losing a few cities, while the US leadership would be, if the exchange was preceded by a public threat.

 

The core problem is that, IMHO, the Chinese leadership is very insular, and inclined to look at things from their own perspective. I also feel that they understand us even more poorly than we understand them. This sort of situation is rife for strategic misconceptions, and actions based upon them.

 

However, I don't feel China is likely to act against Taiwan unless it's own internal stability (the regime's hold on power) is threatened. In such a case, they would have nothing to lose by launching a war.

I sincerely hope I'm wrong.

 

Most people, unfortunately, don't realize how vital Taiwan is to US strategic interests. With South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan, we basically have China "boxed in" ... if Taiwan were to fall, China would be able to project power into the Pacific, a direct threat to US strategic interests. The US is not being proactive enough in its approach with Taiwan, not putting enough pressure on them to get their house in order, and it could end up backfiring. The US got totally blindsided by the Taiwan authorities' abolishing the "National Unification Council" ... they were lied to by the Taiwanese president, and took the Taiwanese gov't for their "word" regarding the wording of the proclamation ... unless the State Department doesn't have a single competent Chinese-English translator, which I find hard to believe.

 

On this, we disagree, in part, but only because I feel that Taiwan is even more vital than that. As I mentioned, I'm using the Anschluss with Austria as a model, and look where that ended up. Munich might be an even better example, as a US failure to defend Taiwan would result in other countries that depend on the US for protection to doubt us. I believe China has a fixation on Taiwan, compounded by strategic interests, especially it's wish to control the oil reserves in the South China Sea, and in Indonesia as well.

 

I totally agree with you about the US failing to push Taiwan where needed, especially on readiness and logistics. As for the State Department not having a single competent translator, I have to say I find that possible. Nothing regarding any sort of deficiency at Foggy Bottom would surprise me. Even if they do have competent translators (and they probably do), the failure was most likely in interpretation. Still, that event did raise hackles here.

Edited March 25, 2006 by C James

[C James]

The four Kidd-Class destroyers are nice, yes, but they were a bone for the dog, really. We should have offered the Aegis-destroyers, but politics scuttled that. Aegis would have given a true defense against the short-range ballistic missile problem. Patriot III helps with that, but naval platforms really are the best anti-ICBM platform, and the SM3 missile is really the only effective defense we have yet against ICBMs. (SM-3 is only deployable on Navy Aegis ships).

 

Don't get me wrong, the Kidd-class are good destroyers (although they were originally supposed to go to Greece, not Taiwan). They were "Iran's give to the US" back in 1979. Originally ordered by the Shah of Iran, after the Iranian revolution, the sale to Iran was cancelled and the Navy got four more destroyers the Congress would never have approved for them.

 

Built on the hull design of the Spruance class (also the basis of the Aegis ships although those have a much-altered superstructure and are a little longer), the Kidd class destroyers carry the Mk. 26 missile systsem (fastest Non-Vertical launch system capable of launching two missiles every six seconds off of each launcher and the Kidd class have two launchers, one forward and one aft.). They can also carry Anti-sub rockets in their Mk. 26 launchers and have two five-inch cannons as well as two point defense. Their radar systems are good, even if thirty years old, and their command and control facilities are decent.

 

The only problem of course is their age and their power plants, but those are reportedly in decent shape.

 

Ahh, the "Dead Admiral Class". I agree that they are good ships, though as you say, dated. They are certainly an excelent ship for multi-purpose use and independant operations. I'd agree that AEGIS ships would be a better choice: AEGIS, like Block-3 Patriot, can handle IRBM's, though not in the numbers China can launch against Taiwan. Still, some defence is far better then none.

 

From my reading of DO, I got the strong impression that you were a big fan of the Nuclear powered cruisers (Virgina class, California class, and a few one-offs, like Bainbridge, as I recall). I was very sorry to see the Virginia class retired, as they were fairly modern, and quite capable. I have never quite understood the Navy's choice to give up on nuclear powered surface shipe (except Aircraft carriers). They have massive advantages for operations with a nuclear carrier, and avoid logistics demands for fuel bunkerage. They also avoid the need to make port calls for fuel (such as the USS Cole was doing when attacked).

[LittleBuddhaTW]

The problem with the AEGIS procurement was not just political, although that was part of it. The Taiwanese would not have been able to afford AEGIS cruisers (just look at how much trouble they're having pushing through the budget for the subs, Patriots, and Orions -- it's been voted down in the procedure committee of their legislature something like 43 times!) ... the other problem with an AEGIS procurement as opposed to the Kidds is that the AEGIS cruisers would have to be built from scratch, and that would take a long time, whereas the Kidds were available almost immediately (after a complete re-outfitting, of course, which is now complete). I believe, that for the time being, the US made the right choice in "forcing" Taiwan to purchase the Kidds.

 

Another potential serious threat that will come from the PLA navy is their Lanzhou class (Type 052C) DDG, which has a phased-array radar system similar to the AEGIS. How similar it is (and where they really got the technology) is anyone's guess. The Chinese have been very good about stealing US military technology, and I believe the US hasn't gotten serious enough in its counter-espionage regarding the Chinese. With EVERYTHING focused on the "war on terror" and Iraq, we're letting China get stronger and stronger, and we could find ourselves in a mess in another decade.

 

Another problem with allowing China to take Taiwan is that it would make Japan VERY nervous. Japan has the capability (although it has not exercised it, for good reason) to build a nuclear weapon, according to many experts, in as little as a month. If China shows moves of extending its power further into the pacific, it could create an arms race with Japan, which in turn would make North Korea and South Korea antsy ... the whole East Asian theatre is a potential powder keg, and Taiwan would just be the fuse.

 

The US needs to start taking the threat much more seriously, and get some better qualified people into their intelligence services.

[C James]

The problem with the AEGIS procurement was not just political, although that was part of it. The Taiwanese would not have been able to afford AEGIS cruisers (just look at how much trouble they're having pushing through the budget for the subs, Patriots, and Orions --

 

Any idea yet on just where those subs will be coming from? The US can't sell one from the US Navy, as we don't have any conventionally powered subs. The US also does not produce conventionally powered subs. I've been puzzling over where we would find ones to sell ever since I saw that arms deal.

 

I agree with your points about AEGIS and the Kidds.

 

Another potential serious threat that will come from the PLA navy is their Lanzhou class (Type 052C) DDG, which has a phased-array radar system similar to the AEGIS. How similar it is (and where they really got the technology) is anyone's guess. The Chinese have been very good about stealing US military technology, and I believe the US hasn't gotten serious enough in its counter-espionage regarding the Chinese. With EVERYTHING focused on the "war on terror" and Iraq, we're letting China get stronger and stronger, and we could find ourselves in a mess in another decade.

 

I've been wondering about their phased array systems too. I have yet to see anything definitive on how good they really are, but as you say, they are very adept at stealing what we don't outright give to them (such as Clinton's satellite technology deal, which had huge military potential for both spy satellites and ICBM upper stages, including the ability to create a "bus", hence a MIRV'd ICBM.)

 

US intel services are woefully inept and inadequate, both for non-electronic intel and counter-espionage. Our HUMINT capabilities are horrendously bad.

 

As for China, I've been ranting for years (close to 20, actually) that the US economic involvement with China, especially our fostering of a Chinese high-tech industrial base, is effectively insane on our part. We are giving them the economy that is the required basis for a modern military. I've heard too many times that such trade relations are good because they generate friendship and thus prevent war. I really do wish people who hold that opinion would at least crack open a history book, as I've yet to encounter one who knows that on August 31st, 1939, Germany's largest trading partner was France, or that on Dec 6th, 1941, that Japan's largest trading partner was the US.

 

Another problem with allowing China to take Taiwan is that it would make Japan VERY nervous. Japan has the capability (although it has not exercised it, for good reason) to build a nuclear weapon, according to many experts, in as little as a month. If China shows moves of extending its power further into the pacific, it could create an arms race with Japan, which in turn would make North Korea and South Korea antsy ... the whole East Asian theatre is a potential powder keg, and Taiwan would just be the fuse.

 

The US needs to start taking the threat much more seriously, and get some better qualified people into their intelligence services.

 

Totally agreed on that. Japan does indeed have the intrinsic capability to produce nuclear devices quickly, and in large quantity. I've seen estimates ranging from weeks, to six months, but nothing longer than that. I do suspect, though, that the North Korean situation may well prompt a Japanese nuclear weapons program, though a Chinese conquest of Taiwan would certainly do so.

[LittleBuddhaTW]

The latest I've heard on the sub deal (which is far from done, as the budget hasn't been approved yet, and it's looking as though it may never be) is that they will be built in the US, perhaps based on European designs with US "improvements" or modifications. Some Taiwanese lawmakers wanted the first couple of boats (the deal calls for a total of eight) built in the US, and the rest constructed in Taiwan, which the US has basically said 'no' to, with good reason. The Taiwanese do not have the ability to produce submarines, and it would be an absolute disaster if they tried. The only reason they want to do that is because if they build them in Taiwan on license, using Taiwanese contractors, that means major payoffs and bribes for the greedy politicians.

 

I personally think the Taiwanese should scrub the sub deal, or the US should cancel it. I don't think they're necessary. I think the Taiwanese should focus their attention and resources on internal military reform, re-structuring, developing a non-conscript force, and integrating better with US and Japanese military forces. They should also spend more money buying more Patriot missile batteries (they've only ordered three). The P-3C Orions are also a necessity, as their ASW capabilities are practically nil. They then need to make sure that those are coordinated with the US and Japan. Also, dropping the subs would make the budget much easier to pass through the legislature, as that is the biggest sticking point. Their lack of a credible submarine force could be easily taken care of by the US and Japan. Taiwan also needs to look to replace its fleet of Knox-class frigates, and hopefully won't f*ck up like they did when they purchased the Lafayette-class frigates from France, which are next to useless.

[C James]

The latest I've heard on the sub deal (which is far from done, as the budget hasn't been approved yet, and it's looking as though it may never be) is that they will be built in the US, perhaps based on European designs with US "improvements" or modifications.

 

Frankly, that sounds like a recipe for disaster! Setting up a production run of a ship type we do not produce is incredibly difficult, and vastly more expensive than purchasing them from the source. Just milling and forming the hull segments would be a nightmare. They couldn't even use the U-80 or U-100 metal at the thicknesses standard on US subs, due to the smaller displacement (you would end up with negative buoyancy).

 

I personally think the Taiwanese should scrub the sub deal, or the US should cancel it. I don't think they're necessary. I think the Taiwanese should focus their attention and resources on internal military reform, re-structuring, developing a non-conscript force, and integrating better with US and Japanese military forces. They should also spend more money buying more Patriot missile batteries (they've only ordered three). The P-3C Orions are also a necessity, as their ASW capabilities are practically nil.

 

The P-3c also has a decent anti-shipping capability, when armed with Harpoons.

 

I agree with your assessment, though IMHO one aspect that Taiwan needs to focus on is equipping and training it's air force for anti-shipping roles.

 

They then need to make sure that those are coordinated with the US and Japan. Also, dropping the subs would make the budget much easier to pass through the legislature, as that is the biggest sticking point. Their lack of a credible submarine force could be easily taken care of by the US and Japan. Taiwan also needs to look to replace its fleet of Knox-class frigates, and hopefully won't f*ck up like they did when they purchased the Lafayette-class frigates from France, which are next to useless.

 

Sweden makes some interesting ships for coastal defence roles, as well as some interesting submarines. I've long been interested in the Stirling cycle engines they use, which make them the next best thing to an SSN IMHO.

 

BTW, how are things on Quemoy and Matsu these days? Those are truly on the front line, and on the wrong side of the straits. IMHO, if the Chinese want to force a showdown, hoping for a partial capitulation, they might initiate by attacking Quemoy and Matsu (or some of the smaller islands near Matsu). Both are within artillery range of the mainland.

 

Has there been any shelling since the 50's?

[LittleBuddhaTW]

The US would have to build the subs, because no European country is willing to do it due to pressure from China. There's no other choice.

 

As for Kinmen (Quemoy) and Matsu, there hasn't been any shelling since the 50's (and maybe the 60's, I'd have to check). The ROC military presence there has actually been decreased significantly, and they've even opened up what they call the "three small links," which offers direct travel between those two islands and Xiamen on the mainland -- supposedly a trial run for opening up the three links completely someday (which the KMT says they will do if they win back power in 2008, which looks very likely). What the ramifications of that will be for Taiwan, militarily and economically, is hard to say.

 

It would be interesting to see how the Taiwanese (and the US) would react to a Chinese invasion of Kinmen and Matsu. It's really hard to say. Previously, threats from China have galvanized the Taiwanese population.

[C James]

The US would have to build the subs, because no European country is willing to do it due to pressure from China. There's no other choice.

 

I probably shouldn't say this, as it's getting very close to being politics, but I personally find it disgusting that some European governments won't hesitate to arm dictators, even evading UN sanctions to do so, yet won't sell arms to a Democracy for self-defence.

 

Speaking of subs though, Russian subs have always fascinated me. I'm adding in a photo here, a crop from a high res digital wide-field shot, taken in May 2001, of the Russian submarine replenishment docks at Krondstat, their largest base in the Baltic, on an island just offshore of St. Petersburg (Formerly Leningrad).

 

This sub has the weirdest superstructure I've ever seen! Square and boxy, including a very oversize square conning tower. The surface covering did seem to be standard anechoic tile. In the full photo, there are a couple of normal Russian subs, and then this one. I have no clue as to what the heck it is, but thought you might find it interesting. If you (or anyone) has any idea what the heck it is, please let me know.

 

 

 

As for Kinmen (Quemoy) and Matsu, there hasn't been any shelling since the 50's (and maybe the 60's, I'd have to check). The ROC military presence there has actually been decreased significantly, and they've even opened up what they call the "three small links," which offers direct travel between those two islands and Xiamen on the mainland -- supposedly a trial run for opening up the three links completely someday (which the KMT says they will do if they win back power in 2008, which looks very likely). What the ramifications of that will be for Taiwan, militarily and economically, is hard to say.

 

It would be interesting to see how the Taiwanese (and the US) would react to a Chinese invasion of Kinmen and Matsu. It's really hard to say. Previously, threats from China have galvanized the Taiwanese population.

 

That would be very interesting. Quemoy and Matsu would be extremely hard to defend, due to their locations. My guess would be that if China was planning an invasion, they wouldn't tip their hand by attacking Qemoy or Matsu. However, if they just wanted a showdown to extort concessions, they very well might. Just guesses on my part.

[Mark Arbour]

This discussion has been fascinating. All of you raise excellent points, both politically, militarily, and technically. I hope this isn't too off-topic, but I've been watching perhaps too much "history channel" tv and the topic of Chinese aggression has been on my mind lately.

 

It seems to me that, unlike many nations, China as a nation has historically been pretty non-aggressive: Specialists in defence (the wall builders) and not offence. That is not to say that it doesn't exerts it's will in local areas (N. Korea, Vietnam, Tibet), but I wonder if it is fair to categorize China as a threat along the same vein as a Soviet Union, a 1930's Germany, or even, perhaps, a 19th Century Britain.

 

Personally, I suspect that the Chinese will be able to achieve most, if not all of their goals, through continuing to build their economic might. It is no great secret that they are purchasing billions in US Gov't Securities, providing us with the opportunity to foolishly spend ourselves into oblivion. Who knows, maybe they'll end up just buying Taiwan.

[C James]

This discussion has been fascinating. All of you raise excellent points, both politically, militarily, and technically. I hope this isn't too off-topic, but I've been watching perhaps too much "history channel" tv and the topic of Chinese aggression has been on my mind lately.

 

Thanks..

I'm not sure whether I should comment on Chinese aggression, as that's getting political. I'm not quite sure where the rules are here, so I'll comment, but request that my post be deleted if it is indeed over the line.

 

It seems to me that, unlike many nations, China as a nation has historically been pretty non-aggressive: Specialists in defence (the wall builders) and not offence. That is not to say that it doesn't exerts it's will in local areas (N. Korea, Vietnam, Tibet), but I wonder if it is fair to categorize China as a threat along the same vein as a Soviet Union, a 1930's Germany, or even, perhaps, a 19th Century Britain.

 

Unfortunately, one could say exactly the same for Japan prior to the early 20th century, Germany prior to WWI (and perhaps all the way to prior to WWII), etc, etc. Sadly, past historical behavior (and China, as you mentioned, has been territorially expansionist in India, Kashmir, Tibet, Vietnam, etc.) of non expansionist behaviour does not, historically, prove a useful tool for predicting future behaviour.

 

I'll also add one to the instances of Chinese expansionism that you mentioned: Kashmir.

Many of us know that Kashmir is in dispute between India and Pakistan, and has caused three wars there. However, many do not know that there are THREE countries occupying (and claiming) territory in Kashmir: the third is China.

 

Personally, I suspect that the Chinese will be able to achieve most, if not all of their goals, through continuing to build their economic might. It is no great secret that they are purchasing billions in US Gov't Securities, providing us with the opportunity to foolishly spend ourselves into oblivion. Who knows, maybe they'll end up just buying Taiwan.

 

I suspect that is entirely possible. I've long said that the US policy of encouraging economic growth in China is incredibly foolish on many levels. We have succeeded in creating ourselves a rival, and have given it the economy which is a prerequisite of a modern military. By our trade policies, we have, once again, given an enemy the tools to threaten our existence. At the present time, I must sadly conclude that there is little chance of the US changing it's policy before it's too late. I sincerely hope I am wrong.

 

As for Taiwan, IMHO the greatest short term threat is political instability in China, causing the regime in Beijing to embark on a war to solidify it's own internal hold on power, much as Argentina did when it invaded the Falklands.

 

In such a situation, the Chinese government would be faced with a very simple decision tree. They could either do nothing, and probably lose power, or attack Taiwan (it's long been a very politicized issue). If they attack, the face basically three outcomes: They win, and hold onto power. They lose, and lose power, OR, they lose, and find an external scapegoat (the US) and hold onto power. So, from their point of view, the worst outcome is far more likely if they don't attack, and even if the attack and lose, their odds of holding onto power (and thus personal survival) are far better than doing nothing. The Galtieri regime in Argentina took the gamble it did for exactly these same reasons: they were losing their grip on power, so from their point of view they had no reason not to go to war. Just my opinions...

 

IMHO, I think Dan was smart when he didn't mention the "why" of the Chinese invasion attempt on Taiwan that was seen in flashbacks in DOR. He thus avoided a lot of very sticky and complex aspects that were not relevant to the story.

[LittleBuddhaTW]

The problem with trying to analyze China's motives and policies is very difficult because the government is extremely non-transparent. I've been following China-Taiwan relations and politics for years, and the PRC is a very hard nut to crack. Hu Jintao is supposedly in charge, but no one can say for sure if he really is, or if the PLA (military) is pulling the strings. If Hu Jintao isn't in full command over the military, that makes a conflict with Taiwan more possible.

 

There are also cultural factors that come into play that most westerners can't understand, and that is the concept of "face." For the government in the PRC, it is a great loss of face that they haven't been able to re-take Taiwan, and that they haven't (yet) completely won the civil war (they are offically still in a state of hostilities). They have contiuously said that they will foresake everything, including their economic progress, to unify the country.

 

As for Chinese expansionism, while it does seem at some points in history, such as the relatively weak Song Dynasty, and even the Ming Dynasty, China was relatively isolationist. During the Qing (Manchu) Dynasty, however, they went onto a policy of expansionism. China has historically seen all of East and Southeast Asia as being within its sphere of influence (basically vassal states), and ever since the PRC came into existence in 1949, we have seen wars with India, Vietnam, continuing conflict with Taiwan, etc.

 

China wants to become a superpower. This is no secret. Personally, I don't think they are interested in Japan, but the fact that the two countries have terrible relations, if China begins to show *any* expansionist tendencies, such as using force to occupy the Spratly islands or invade Taiwan, it is going to make Japan nervous. There has already been serious talk in Japan of a military buildup, and even the potential of developing their own nuclear weapons to counter China and N. Korea. IF that were to happen (and that's still a big "IF"), that is going to create a major arms race in East Asia, a lot of people are going to become nervous, and it will seriously threaten regional peace & security as well as America's own security interests. Taiwan is just the spark that could ignite a major regional conflict.

 

2008 is the big year to watch, with the Beijing Olympics and Taiwan's next presidential election, where the current chairman of the KMT (Nationalist Party), Ma Ying-jeou (a Harvard Ph.D. and professor of law) is widely expected to win. No one is quite sure exactly what his position towards mainland China is. Unification with China before China democratizes is just as dangerous to US interests as Taiwanese de jure independence.

[C James]

The problem with trying to analyze China's motives and policies is very difficult because the government is extremely non-transparent. I've been following China-Taiwan relations and politics for years, and the PRC is a very hard nut to crack. Hu Jintao is supposedly in charge, but no one can say for sure if he really is, or if the PLA (military) is pulling the strings. If Hu Jintao isn't in full command over the military, that makes a conflict with Taiwan more possible.

 

I'm curious as to how you feel about my theory that internal dissent in China, sufficient to make the regeme fear losing it's hold on power eventually, would result in an attack on Taiwan becoming highly probable. (for the same reason that the Argentine Junta invaded the Falklands: To shore up their domestic power base).

 

There are also cultural factors that come into play that most westerners can't understand, and that is the concept of "face." For the government in the PRC, it is a great loss of face that they haven't been able to re-take Taiwan, and that they haven't (yet) completely won the civil war (they are offically still in a state of hostilities). They have contiuously said that they will foresake everything, including their economic progress, to unify the country.

 

An excellent point.

 

2008 is the big year to watch, with the Beijing Olympics and Taiwan's next presidential election, where the current chairman of the KMT (Nationalist Party), Ma Ying-jeou (a Harvard Ph.D. and professor of law) is widely expected to win. No one is quite sure exactly what his position towards mainland China is. Unification with China before China democratizes is just as dangerous to US interests as Taiwanese de jure independence.

 

Do you have any insight into the last Taiwanese Presidential election? I found it very, very odd that both the President and Vice President were shot, though not seriously wounded, shortly before the election, an election they were about to lose, and thus due to public sympathy won.

 

***begin edit

OK, I'm going to leave my question below alone so that everyone can have a good laugh at my expense. I somehow saw "de jure" and thought "de facto", even using "de jure" while meaning "de facto".

So, obviously, my entire question below was based on my misreading the term (and I was a poly-sci major for a while, which makes this sort of error on par with misspelling my own name)

***end edit, and go ahead, laugh. I sure did when I realized what I'd done.

 

BTW, why do you consider Taiwanese de jure independence to be dangerous to US interests? I would have thought that Taiwan already has, by any real measure, de jure independence.

Edited March 29, 2006 by C James