Sea Invasion
Jim Walsh
the tactical and strategic difficulties thereof.
Unfortunately I have no military experience so I have added
sci.military.naval to the newsgroup list (I tried to add
sci.military.moderated, but it didn't propagate) I hope those who post there
will consider giving the advantage of their experience to us. My thoughts, to
begin the discussion, are as follows:
The first 15 minutes or so of Saving Private Ryan shows the difficulty (and
cost in lives) of a sea invasion.
Quite a few Mainland Chinese nationalists imagine that an invasion of Taiwan
by the People's Liberation Army (to use its ironic formal name) would be a
cakewalk. They should rent the DVD and take a hard look.
The sea invasion depicted there would differ in several respects from a sea
invasion from the PRC into Taiwan.
(1) The allies had total control of the sea and of the air all during the
invasion. No part of the invasion fleet was sunk at sea.
(2) Although the Germans defended the site of the invasion, they were fooled
into putting most of their defenders at other locations.
In spite of (1) and (2) the most reliable sources say:
According to the D-Day Museum at Portsmouth, US casualties totalled 6,603;
the Canadians suffered 946 casualties, including 340 dead; and British
casualties were approximately 2,700. The British suffered about 1,000
casualties on Gold Beach and a similar number on Sword Beach. The US
casualties included 1,465 dead, 3,184 wounded, 1,928 missing and 26 captured,
most of them at Utah Beach, where German resistance was particularly fierce.
Altogether, more than 425,000 Allied and German troops were killed, wounded
or went missing during the Battle of Normandy [3 months of fighting]. Allied
casualties totalled around 209,000, including 37,000 dead from the ground
forces and almost 17,000 from the airborne forces.
Now, I want to consider whether:
(1) a PRC invasion could be a surprise, and
(2) what sort of PRC losses could be expected, given that the PLA will not
control the sea or the air.
--
Love, Jim
(I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
crossposts.)
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
deem...@aol.com
Doubtful, but never say never. They would have to use some
serious deception.
>
> (2) what sort of PRC losses could be expected, given that the PLA will not
> control the sea or the air.
If they first got the US out of the picture, they could
just pound the crap out of Taiwan until they got control of the sea
and land. If they couldn't get the US out of the picture, I can't see
them attempting the invasion because the costs would far outweigh the
benefits.
Even without US presence, I really don't see how the
invasion would be worth it to China. Even if successful, Taiwan would
be wrecked.....would the cost of rebuilding be worth the gain?
Jim Walsh
(in article
<71383492-2715-407f...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>):
> On Jun 21, 9:52 am, Jim Walsh <jimNOwalsSPA...@gmNOail.com> wrote:
>> (1) a PRC invasion could be a surprise, and
>
> Doubtful, but never say never. They would have to use some
> serious deception.
Without any military experience, just reading books, I also don't think it is
possible for the invasion to be a surprise.
>> (2) what sort of PRC losses could be expected, given that the PLA will not
>> control the sea or the air.
> If they first got the US out of the picture, they could
> just pound the crap out of Taiwan until they got control of the sea
> and land. If they couldn't get the US out of the picture, I can't see
> them attempting the invasion because the costs would far outweigh the
> benefits.
How likely is it that the PLA could "get the US out of the picture"? Assuming
the US did not bail, does the PLA have the capability to do this?
> Even without US presence, I really don't see how the
> invasion would be worth it to China. Even if successful, Taiwan would
> be wrecked.....would the cost of rebuilding be worth the gain?
Good points.
deem...@aol.com
>
> > Doubtful, but never say never. They would have to use some
> > serious deception.
>
> Without any military experience, just reading books, I also don't think it is
> possible for the invasion to be a surprise.
My non-expert opinion is that China couldn't build up the
overwhelming force needed to assure sucess in secret. I'm sure the PLA
would also prefer a softening up period prior to landing troops which
would give a hint or two that an invasion was coming.
China would have to choose between a full build-up without
surprise or throwing as many troops across as could be concentrated
without raising suspicion.
>
>
> > If they first got the US out of the picture, they could
> > just pound the crap out of Taiwan until they got control of the sea
> > and land. If they couldn't get the US out of the picture, I can't see
> > them attempting the invasion because the costs would far outweigh the
> > benefits.
>
> How likely is it that the PLA could "get the US out of the picture"?
Do you want the left or right-wing answer? The left might say
that if the rights keep going off on adventures like Iraq, the US
would be stretched too thin to intervene. The right might say that a
Democratic President wouldn't have the guts to stand up to China. Who
knows?
The other question would be "Is it worth it to the US to
defend Taiwan"? I think that China can take Taiwan if it really wants
it. I don't think the US can sucessfully defend Taiwan without using
nukes...which hopefully will never be necessary.
Assuming
> the US did not bail, does the PLA have the capability to do this?
Yes, if they want to take the risk of nukes being used.
That's a mighty big risk to take, even if the chance is fairly small.
>
> > Even without US presence, I really don't see how the
> > invasion would be worth it to China. Even if successful, Taiwan would
> > be wrecked.....would the cost of rebuilding be worth the gain?
>
> Good points.
I really don't see China and the US getting into a serious
war in the near future. China is too busy building up internally and
the US has other fish to fry. Both nations are making a lot of money
off each other.....China moreso at the present, but what would happen
to China's economy if the US defaulted on all those loans?
rst0wxyz
Jim Walsh, face reality. There is no need for an invasion. Mainland
China does not want to destroy Taiwan. It is their own land, their
own people. Taiwan will beg to join Mainland China when the right
time comes. There is no rush, no shooting, no killing, no
destroying,...
rst0wxyz
Even today, the U.S. 7th Fleet is just a status symbol, not a threat
to China. Anyone who is foolish enough to serve in the 7th Fleet,
knows it is a death trap, a sitting duck in front of the Chinese
coastline. There are 1.3 billion Chinese behind the coastline. The
closest to the 7th Fleet are Taiwan, Japan, and the Philipines. And
they are all within range of the Chinese medium range missiles.
> just pound the crap out of Taiwan until they got control of the sea
> and land. If they couldn't get the US out of the picture, I can't see
> them attempting the invasion because the costs would far outweigh the
> benefits.
> Even without US presence, I really don't see how the
> invasion would be worth it to China. Even if successful, Taiwan would
> be wrecked.....would the cost of rebuilding be worth the gain?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
guy
> I would like to discuss an invasion of Taiwan, an island, and in particular
>
> Now, I want to consider whether:
>
> (1) a PRC invasion could be a surprise, and
>
and time, they then have to be concentrated (and you need lots of
them) DDay worked because masssive air superiority drastically reduced
German aerial reconaissance. The US can watch mainland China with
ease. Remember unless they take a Mulbery equivalent with them they
will have to take a port ***immediately*** (I do not know Taiwan, any
suggestions on which this might be?)
> (2) what sort of PRC losses could be expected, given that the PLA will not
> control the sea or the air.
Extremely heavy I would guess
Guy
>
> --
> Love, Jim
> (I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
> crossposts.)
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----http://www.newsfeeds.comThe #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
guy
> On 21 Jun, 14:52, Jim Walsh <jimNOwalsSPA...@gmNOail.com> wrote:> I would like to discuss an invasion of Taiwan, an island, and in particular
> SNIP
>
> > Now, I want to consider whether:
>
> > (1) a PRC invasion could be a surprise, and
>
> Extremely unlikely, as a build up of invasion craft takes production
> and time, they then have to be concentrated (and you need lots of
> them) DDay worked because masssive air superiority drastically reduced
> German aerial reconaissance. The US can watch mainland China with
> ease. Remember unless they take a Mulbery equivalent with them they
> will have to take a port ***immediately*** (I do not know Taiwan, any
> suggestions on which this might be?)
>
> > (2) what sort of PRC losses could be expected, given that the PLA will not
> > control the sea or the air.
>
> Extremely heavy I would guess
>
> Guy
>
>
>
>
>
> > --
> > Love, Jim
> > (I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
> > crossposts.)
>
> > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Copied also to rec.aviaition.military
deem...@aol.com
Even if I agree that you're right, which I don't...it's not
like they'd anchor a mile off the coast.....what kind of response
would China expect if it did sink the 7th and killed a few thousand US
sailors?
deem...@aol.com
I agree.......it's just not worth it to invade and
destroy....not that common sense always rules these things.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<d64eade5-374f-4c51...@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com>):
>... The
> closest to the 7th Fleet are Taiwan, Japan, and the Philipines. And
> they are all within range of the Chinese medium range missiles.....
One hour after a missile hit a ship in the 7th Fleet, Europe, America and
Japan would blockade China. and no exports would go out and no imports would
come in. The Chinese economy would implode.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<fbb59840-b30b-4d9a...@p25g2000pri.googlegroups.com>):
>
> Jim Walsh, face reality. There is no need for an invasion. Mainland China
> does not want to destroy Taiwan. It is their own land, their own people.
> Taiwan will beg to join Mainland China when the right time comes. There is
> no rush, no shooting, no killing, no destroying,...
I agree that an invasion would be a disaster, politically and physically.
Part of the reason I started this thread was to make that very point.
For example, I have repeatedly told the hyper-nationalists that threatening
Taiwan with missiles is counter-productive.
The best way to increase the chance of a merger is to prove to the Taiwanese
that they will gain a lot from it.
Every step toward a free and open society makes Taiwanese less afraid of
China and more willing to consider a merger while every hyper-nationalistic
threat makes them less willing.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<31b1becc-e813-4ef3...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>):
>
>>
>>> Doubtful, but never say never. They would have to use some
>>> serious deception.
>>
>> Without any military experience, just reading books, I also don't think it
>> is
>> possible for the invasion to be a surprise.
>
> My non-expert opinion is that China couldn't build up the
> overwhelming force needed to assure sucess in secret. I'm sure the PLA
> would also prefer a softening up period prior to landing troops which
> would give a hint or two that an invasion was coming.
> China would have to choose between a full build-up without
> surprise or throwing as many troops across as could be concentrated
> without raising suspicion.
>
>>
>>
>>> If they first got the US out of the picture, they could
>>> just pound the crap out of Taiwan until they got control of the sea
>>> and land. If they couldn't get the US out of the picture, I can't see
>>> them attempting the invasion because the costs would far outweigh the
>>> benefits.
>>
>> How likely is it that the PLA could "get the US out of the picture"?
>
> Do you want the left or right-wing answer? The left might say
> that if the rights keep going off on adventures like Iraq, the US
> would be stretched too thin to intervene. The right might say that a
> Democratic President wouldn't have the guts to stand up to China. Who
> knows?
Funny enough, it was a Republican President that sold out Taiwan.
> The other question would be "Is it worth it to the US to
> defend Taiwan"? I think that China can take Taiwan if it really wants
> it. I don't think the US can sucessfully defend Taiwan without using
> nukes...which hopefully will never be necessary.
I disagree. Sinking the invasion fleet would defend Taiwan just fine. There
are no strategic or tactical target which require nuclear weapons.
> Assuming
>> the US did not bail, does the PLA have the capability to do this?
>
> Yes, if they want to take the risk of nukes being used.
> That's a mighty big risk to take, even if the chance is fairly small.
See above.
>>> Even without US presence, I really don't see how the
>>> invasion would be worth it to China. Even if successful, Taiwan would
>>> be wrecked.....would the cost of rebuilding be worth the gain?
>>
>> Good points.
>
> I really don't see China and the US getting into a serious
> war in the near future. China is too busy building up internally and
> the US has other fish to fry. Both nations are making a lot of money
> off each other.....China moreso at the present, but what would happen
> to China's economy if the US defaulted on all those loans?
The US did not borrow any money from China. It is a myth.
guy
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
And this is what i meant to copy!
rst0wxyz
Today's China is not yesterday's China where they had no factories to
produce machineries and bombs. Most of today's world market goods are
produced in China. Each escalation will be matched until the end.
China is huge, mountainous and with 1.3 billion hard working people.
Today, China can not be defeated by the U.S. It will not be the
destruction of the 7th Fleet and a few thousand sailors. Most likely,
it will be the first invasion of the U.S. Homeland.
rst0wxyz
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 00:12:18 +0800, rst0wxyz wrote
> (in article
>
> >... The
> > closest to the 7th Fleet are Taiwan, Japan, and the Philipines. And
> > they are all within range of the Chinese medium range missiles.....
>
> One hour after a missile hit a ship in the 7th Fleet, Europe, America and
> Japan would blockade China. and no exports would go out and no imports would
> come in. The Chinese economy would implode.
You are talking like fool, Jim Walsh. What good is a blockade when
the 7th Fleet didn't do any good? Do you think the U.S. economy will
sail right through it?
rst0wxyz
> On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 23:55:57 +0800, rst0wxyz wrote
> (in article
>
>
>
> > Jim Walsh, face reality. There is no need for an invasion. Mainland China
> > does not want to destroy Taiwan. It is their own land, their own people.
> > Taiwan will beg to join Mainland China when the right time comes. There is
> > no rush, no shooting, no killing, no destroying,...
>
> I agree that an invasion would be a disaster, politically and physically.
> Part of the reason I started this thread was to make that very point.
>
> For example, I have repeatedly told the hyper-nationalists that threatening
> Taiwan with missiles is counter-productive.
>
> The best way to increase the chance of a merger is to prove to the Taiwanese
> that they will gain a lot from it.
>
> Every step toward a free and open society makes Taiwanese less afraid of
> China and more willing to consider a merger while every hyper-nationalistic
> threat makes them less willing.
Jim Walsh, you're talking like fool on this topic. You don't seem to
know reality.
Mainland China's coastal missiles are not threat to Taiwan but a
defensive system from invasion from the outside. I wouldn't a bit
surprise China has a system of missiles all around China, in Inner
Mongolia against invasion from Russia side, In Tibet region against
invasion from India side,...
The CCP will not lose power. The Politburo will not lose power. More
likely, as time goes, the People's Congress will gain some power and
meet more often instead once every five years to rubber-stamp the
Politburo. People's Congress will probably take on a roll like the
U.S. Congress in investigation of corruptions, crimes, and other
problems,...
As time goes, Taiwan's roll will be less and less important, and the
world will have no meaning for Taiwan as politics go. The only way
Taiwan can play a roll in world politics will be as part of China,
therefore, Taiwan will be asking to come into China as part of China.
Peter Skelton
Japan got the sh*t kicked out of it because it had only a year or
so's supply of oil. How many weeks has China?
Nobody's going to walk into China and take over, but its power
projection capablilty is not enough to secure its lines of
essential supply.
Peter Skelton
Peter Skelton
If they get the US out of the picture, how will India and Japan
react? Will Indonesia be concerned enough to allow them bases?
The main benefit of teh US presence is that it keeps the region
stable - nobody is fighting seriously. Remove that and some
really nasty scenarios can emerge. A regional superpower being
allowed to pound a second rank power with impunity is not one of
them.
Peter Skelton
deem...@aol.com
>
> > Do you want the left or right-wing answer? The left might say
> > that if the rights keep going off on adventures like Iraq, the US
> > would be stretched too thin to intervene. The right might say that a
> > Democratic President wouldn't have the guts to stand up to China. Who
> > knows?
>
> Funny enough, it was a Republican President that sold out Taiwan.
Sold out vs bowed to reality? That's really here nor
there....do you disagree with how it would play out today?
>
> > The other question would be "Is it worth it to the US to
> > defend Taiwan"? I think that China can take Taiwan if it really wants
> > it. I don't think the US can sucessfully defend Taiwan without using
> > nukes...which hopefully will never be necessary.
>
> I disagree. Sinking the invasion fleet would defend Taiwan just fine. There
> are no strategic or tactical target which require nuclear weapons.
Can the US sink the invasion fleet before it puts enough
troops ashore? My point is, that if China really wants to invade
Taiwan, the only way we could stop them is by nuking a port where the
fleet is/is supplied from or nuking airfields, troop concentrations,
bases, etc. We can't project enough conventional force over there to
do that.
>
> > Assuming
> >> the US did not bail, does the PLA have the capability to do this?
>
> > Yes, if they want to take the risk of nukes being used.
> > That's a mighty big risk to take, even if the chance is fairly small.
>
> See above.
>
> >>> Even without US presence, I really don't see how the
> >>> invasion would be worth it to China. Even if successful, Taiwan would
> >>> be wrecked.....would the cost of rebuilding be worth the gain?
>
> >> Good points.
>
> > I really don't see China and the US getting into a serious
> > war in the near future. China is too busy building up internally and
> > the US has other fish to fry. Both nations are making a lot of money
> > off each other.....China moreso at the present, but what would happen
> > to China's economy if the US defaulted on all those loans?
>
> The US did not borrow any money from China. It is a myth.
Okay, "loans" was the wrong word to use. China/Chinese
corps(which amounts to the same thing) do own a lot of US debt. The
Japanese still own more, but China is a major player.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<7d59fe75-ddca-4f53...@w34g2000prm.googlegroups.com>):
> Today's China is not yesterday's China where they had no factories to
> produce machineries and bombs.
Yes, and no.
Today's China is connected to the economy of the world. It imports and
exports. It buys oil from Africa. Were that connection cut (which it would be
in case of a war), the Chinese economy would suffer severe dislocations.
> Most of today's world market goods are produced in China.
A lot of what is produced in China can not be sold in China. It is produced
for export. And a lot of what is imported by China can not be locally
produced.
> Each escalation will be matched until the end.
> China is huge, mountainous and with 1.3 billion hard working people.
The issue is whether the people can project their power across water. And the
answer is not yet. China does not have a "blue-water" navy.
> Today, China can not be defeated by the U.S.
No one is talking about conquering, invading or defeating China.
We are talking about preventing an invasion of Taiwan. That is a rather
simple task.
> It will not be the
> destruction of the 7th Fleet and a few thousand sailors. Most likely,
> it will be the first invasion of the U.S. Homeland.
I see you have lost track of reality. On what ships?
Jim Walsh
(in article
<c0783f9b-04bf-4d4d...@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>):
>
> The CCP will not lose power. The Politburo will not lose power. More
> likely, as time goes, the People's Congress will gain some power and meet
> more often instead once every five years to rubber-stamp the Politburo.
> People's Congress will probably take on a roll like the U.S. Congress in
> investigation of corruptions, crimes, and other problems,...
If the Politburo does not lose power, how will the People's gain power? Where
will its power come from? Isn't the political power in a country a zero-sum
game?
The Taiwanese fought for and gained their freedom. Why would they want to
give it up and be part of a communist dictatorship?
Jim Walsh
(in article
<c0783f9b-04bf-4d4d...@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>):
> The only way Taiwan can play a roll in world politics will be as part of
> China, therefore, Taiwan will be asking to come into China as part of China.
That is a silly suggestion. Taiwan plays a huge role in the world economy,
and nothing in the future suggests that will change. It has about the 24th
largest economy in the world (meaning the economy of 23 countries is bigger).
And, when the 23 million people in Taiwan are dissolved into the 1.3 billion
Chinese, how much will the Taiwanese affect world politics??
Jim Walsh
(in article
<c0783f9b-04bf-4d4d...@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>):
> I wouldn't a bit surprise China has a system of missiles all around China, in
> Inner Mongolia against invasion from Russia side, In Tibet region against
> invasion from India side,...
I would be shocked were there anti-Russian missiles. Invade thru Siberia?
India attack over the world's highest mountains? On skis, perhaps?
Jim Walsh
(in article
<c12cca39-f017-49bc...@j1g2000prb.googlegroups.com>):
> What good is a blockade when the 7th Fleet didn't do any good? Do you think
> the U.S. economy will sail right through it?
I am saying something very simple. International commercial shipping into and
out of China would cease if there were a battle raging in the Taiwan Strait.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<c0783f9b-04bf-4d4d...@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>):
>
> Mainland China's coastal missiles are not threat to Taiwan but a defensive
> system from invasion from the outside.
False. They are aimed at Taiwan. And besides there is no enemy planning a sea
invasion of China.
However, the CCP and the hyper-nationalists have repeatedly threatened an
invasion of Taiwan. The aggressor is the CCP and the hyper-nationalists.
rst0wxyz
> On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 09:40:01 -0700 (PDT), rst0wxyz
>
>
>
>
>
Vietnam did well with only muscles and bicycles. Who needs oil?
>
> Nobody's going to walk into China and take over, but its power
> projection capablilty is not enough to secure its lines of
> essential supply.
China is not projecting its power overseas, unlike the U.S.
deem...@aol.com
How much of what China produces is really needed? Not
wanted, not it's nice to have. Really needed?
Each escalation will be matched until the end.
Which is why I said nukes would be necessary. China isn't
yet able to destroy the US with nukes. The reverse is not true.
Whether it would be worth living after an all-out exchange is another
argument.
> China is huge, mountainous and with 1.3 billion hard working people.
> Today, China can not be defeated by the U.S.
Without nukes, you are correct. I'd bet a thousand nukes could
defeat China. i'd bet it would'nt take anywhere near that many.
It will not be the
> destruction of the 7th Fleet and a few thousand sailors. Most likely,
> it will be the first invasion of the U.S. Homeland.
First off, the US homeland has been invaded....it's just been
awhile. Second, if you think China is able to do that....well, I
didn't realize you were a moron.
Jim Walsh
(in article <r4eq5415utgcn7nqb...@4ax.com>):
>
> Nobody's going to walk into China and take over, but its power projection
> capablilty is not enough to secure its lines of essential supply.
That's what I thought.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<09d971b8-9ba8-468f...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>):
>
>>
>>> Do you want the left or right-wing answer? The left might say
>>> that if the rights keep going off on adventures like Iraq, the US
>>> would be stretched too thin to intervene. The right might say that a
>>> Democratic President wouldn't have the guts to stand up to China. Who
>>> knows?
>>
>> Funny enough, it was a Republican President that sold out Taiwan.
>
> Sold out vs bowed to reality? That's really here nor
> there....do you disagree with how it would play out today?
I think Mao would have agreed to let the ROC stay in the UN, if the PRC got
the Security Council Seat. I think Nixon betrayed the ROC. He could have
gotten a lot more from Mao.
>>> The other question would be "Is it worth it to the US to
>>> defend Taiwan"? I think that China can take Taiwan if it really wants
>>> it. I don't think the US can sucessfully defend Taiwan without using
>>> nukes...which hopefully will never be necessary.
>>
>> I disagree. Sinking the invasion fleet would defend Taiwan just fine. There
>> are no strategic or tactical target which require nuclear weapons.
>
>
> Can the US sink the invasion fleet before it puts enough
> troops ashore?
The Taiwan Strait is 180 km wide at the narrowest part.
I think it is unlikely that the troop ships could sneak accross. I think it
likely that many if not all would be sunk by the 7th Fleet and the ROC
airforce. But, as I said, I have no real experience or training to back up
this estimate.
> My point is, that if China really wants to invade
> Taiwan, the only way we could stop them is by nuking a port where the
> fleet is/is supplied from or nuking airfields, troop concentrations,
> bases, etc. We can't project enough conventional force over there to
> do that.
Why not? The 7th Fleet "at present it is the largest of the forward-deployed
U.S. fleets, with 5060 ships, 350 aircraft and 60,000 Navy and Marine Corps
personnel." I thought it could strike with conventional bombs any ship in the
Taiwan Strait.
>>> Assuming
>>>> the US did not bail, does the PLA have the capability to do this?
>>
>>> Yes, if they want to take the risk of nukes being used.
>>> That's a mighty big risk to take, even if the chance is fairly small.
>>
>> See above.
>>
>>>>> Even without US presence, I really don't see how the
>>>>> invasion would be worth it to China. Even if successful, Taiwan would
>>>>> be wrecked.....would the cost of rebuilding be worth the gain?
>>
>>>> Good points.
>>
>>> I really don't see China and the US getting into a serious
>>> war in the near future. China is too busy building up internally and
>>> the US has other fish to fry. Both nations are making a lot of money
>>> off each other.....China moreso at the present, but what would happen
>>> to China's economy if the US defaulted on all those loans?
>>
>> The US did not borrow any money from China. It is a myth.
>
> Okay, "loans" was the wrong word to use. China/Chinese
> corps(which amounts to the same thing) do own a lot of US debt. The
> Japanese still own more, but China is a major player.
All they can do is "sell" the bonds and not buy more. They can not demand
the US redeem them in gold or something.
deem...@aol.com
> On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 07:12:28 -0700 (PDT), "deemsb...@aol.com"
I agree.....it was a "what if" type of situation with regards
to China invading Taiwan.
deem...@aol.com
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 01:10:26 +0800, rst0wxyz wrote
> (in article
>
>
>
> > The CCP will not lose power. The Politburo will not lose power. More
> > likely, as time goes, the People's Congress will gain some power and meet
> > more often instead once every five years to rubber-stamp the Politburo.
> > People's Congress will probably take on a roll like the U.S. Congress in
> > investigation of corruptions, crimes, and other problems,...
>
> If the Politburo does not lose power, how will the People's gain power? Where
> will its power come from? Isn't the political power in a country a zero-sum
> game?
>
> The Taiwanese fought for and gained their freedom. Why would they want to
> give it up and be part of a communist dictatorship?
>
>
That would be news to the Taiwanese. Now, the Nationalist Chinese
forces got their butts kicked and ran to Taiwan with their tails
between their legs....and then hid behind the USN.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<af3a7353-9da0-47c4...@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>):
A bit abrupt, but sometimes a splash of cold water is needed to wake someone
up.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<75b795e5-3f8d-4065...@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>):
Very funny.
Again we are NOT talking about fighting on Chinese land. We are talking about
sinking an invasion fleet and taking out some missile launchers. All of that
can be done pretty easily.
>> Nobody's going to walk into China and take over, but its power
>> projection capablilty is not enough to secure its lines of
>> essential supply.
>
> China is not projecting its power overseas, unlike the U.S.
Agree. Which is why the ultra-nationalists threats to invade Taiwan are
provocative but unrealistic.
rst0wxyz
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 00:40:01 +0800, rst0wxyz wrote
> (in article
>
> > Today's China is not yesterday's China where they had no factories to
> > produce machineries and bombs.
>
> Yes, and no.
>
> Today's China is connected to the economy of the world. It imports and
> exports. It buys oil from Africa. Were that connection cut (which it would be
> in case of a war), the Chinese economy would suffer severe dislocations.
You have not learned anything from the Vietnam experience. And also
you have not learned anything from our problems in Iraq. We started a
war against the Sunnis in Iraq. today, we don't even see the word
"Sunni" anymore. today, we are fighting the Shiites in Iraq. So, do
we know who we are fighting against? Like the U.S. during wartime,
the country will adapt to wartime footing, will produce wartime
products, not consumer products.
>
> > Most of today's world market goods are produced in China.
>
> A lot of what is produced in China can not be sold in China. It is produced
> for export. And a lot of what is imported by China can not be locally
> produced.
Wartime will produce wartime products for the purpose of war.
>
> > Each escalation will be matched until the end.
> > China is huge, mountainous and with 1.3 billion hard working people.
>
> The issue is whether the people can project their power across water. And the
> answer is not yet. China does not have a "blue-water" navy.
How long did it take the U.S. to build a "liberty" ship, a week?
>
> > Today, China can not be defeated by the U.S.
>
> No one is talking about conquering, invading or defeating China.
>
> We are talking about preventing an invasion of Taiwan. That is a rather
> simple task.
It is not a simple task, the invasion or the prevention.
The simple things have a tendency to get very complicated, like Iraq,
for example.
>
> > It will not be the
> > destruction of the 7th Fleet and a few thousand sailors. Most likely,
> > it will be the first invasion of the U.S. Homeland.
>
> I see you have lost track of reality. On what ships?
A "liberty" ship took a week to build. Where there is a need, there
is a will.
rst0wxyz
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 00:54:03 +0800, rst0wxyz wrote
> (in article
>
> > What good is a blockade when the 7th Fleet didn't do any good? Do you think
> > the U.S. economy will sail right through it?
>
> I am saying something very simple. International commercial shipping into and
> out of China would cease if there were a battle raging in the Taiwan Strait.
Do you think commerce will stay as usual for the U.S.? like in WWII?
dream on!!!
Jim Walsh
(in article
<3d5d25e2-da7f-4ea3...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>):
> On Jun 21, 1:42 pm, Jim Walsh <jimNOwalsSPA...@gmNOail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 01:10:26 +0800, rst0wxyz wrote
>> (in article
>> <c0783f9b-04bf-4d4d-94f5-c7b4f2a7b...@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>
>>
>>> The CCP will not lose power. The Politburo will not lose power. More
>>> likely, as time goes, the People's Congress will gain some power and meet
>>> more often instead once every five years to rubber-stamp the Politburo.
>>> People's Congress will probably take on a roll like the U.S. Congress in
>>> investigation of corruptions, crimes, and other problems,...
>>
>> If the Politburo does not lose power, how will the People's gain power?
>> Where
>> will its power come from? Isn't the political power in a country a zero-sum
>> game?
>>
>> The Taiwanese fought for and gained their freedom. Why would they want to
>> give it up and be part of a communist dictatorship?
>>
>>
>
> That would be news to the Taiwanese.
When I came to Taiwan in 1987, it was a one-party dictatorship. Now it is a
multi-party democracy with free and fair elections, a free press, and so on.
It was wonderful to watch the transformation.
>Now, the Nationalist Chinese
> forces got their butts kicked and ran to Taiwan with their tails
> between their legs....and then hid behind the USN.
Agree. But a lot has happened since then. And one of them was that the
Taiwanese fought for and gained their freedom.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<591d6934-7c11-46b4...@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com>):
>
>
> A "liberty" ship took a week to build. Where there is a need, there is a
> will.
Pretty funny.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<591d6934-7c11-46b4...@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com>):
>
> It is not a simple task, the invasion or the prevention. The simple things
> have a tendency to get very complicated, like Iraq, for example.
I agree.
Now, let us consider the human side.
First the decision makers. Suppose you were President of the PRC and the PLA
commanders told you that they thought that the invasion of Taiwan was
possible with only a couple of hundred thousand killed, and a 30% chance of
failure.
Knowing that the President who authorized a failed invasion would spend the
rest of his life in prison (or worse), what would you do?
What chance of failure would you be willing to tolerate? And how confident
would you be in the estimate of the PLA commanders?
Jim Walsh
(in article
<c889ed6f-4b4f-4787...@u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com>):
No. I am not making that claim. But the US economy would experience much less
dislocation than the Chinese economy because the Atlantic would not be
affected.
rst0wxyz
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 01:10:26 +0800, rst0wxyz wrote
> (in article
>
>
>
> > The CCP will not lose power. The Politburo will not lose power. More
> > likely, as time goes, the People's Congress will gain some power and meet
> > more often instead once every five years to rubber-stamp the Politburo.
> > People's Congress will probably take on a roll like the U.S. Congress in
> > investigation of corruptions, crimes, and other problems,...
>
> If the Politburo does not lose power, how will the People's gain power?
The Politburo will not lose power, but has more work than they can
handle. The works being handle by the underlings can be distributed
to the People's Congress, and that, in asense is where the People's
Congress comes in handily and ready to work.
> Where
> will its power come from?
Power distributed by the Politburo. Don't worry. The main power will
still be in the Politburo.
> Isn't the political power in a country a zero-sum
> game?
It's not a game. It's serious selection of the most capable.
>
> The Taiwanese fought for and gained their freedom.
They didn't fight for any gain. It was dished out to them by a man
who realized the game was up.
> Why would they want to
> give it up and be part of a communist dictatorship?
Be someone or be a nobody?
China IS definitely a dictatorship, but it is different than the term
"dictatorship" as it was in the old days.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<67fc1b5b-2791-4d72...@a32g2000prf.googlegroups.com>):
>
>> Why would they want to
>> give it up and be part of a communist dictatorship?
>
> Be someone or be a nobody?
>
> China IS definitely a dictatorship, but it is different than the term
> "dictatorship" as it was in the old days.
I agree that it is not Maoism. But when the CCP holds all political power,
the ordinary Chinese people are nobodies. They will be nobody until they can
act like adults, making the normal decisions of a free person.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<67fc1b5b-2791-4d72...@a32g2000prf.googlegroups.com>):
>
> The Politburo will not lose power, but....
> .... The main power will still be in the Politburo.
Do you see any inconsistency between those sentences.
Anyway, I hope the Chinese people gain power, at the expense of the
Politburo.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<67fc1b5b-2791-4d72...@a32g2000prf.googlegroups.com>):
>
>> The Taiwanese fought for and gained their freedom.
>
> They didn't fight for any gain. It was dished out to them by a man who
> realized the game was up.
Nonsense. The ruling class never gives up power. It is taken by the people,
or they keep it. I watched the Taiwanese fight for and suffer for and win
their freedom. It was a glorious transformation.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<67fc1b5b-2791-4d72...@a32g2000prf.googlegroups.com>):
>
>> Isn't the political power in a country a zero-sum
>> game?
>
> It's not a game. It's serious selection of the most capable.
The expression "zero-sum game" is a serious term. Only the Chinese people
have the right to choose their government.
Richard Casady
<jimNOwa...@gmNOail.com> wrote:
>> It will not be the
>> destruction of the 7th Fleet and a few thousand sailors. Most likely,
>> it will be the first invasion of the U.S. Homeland.
>
>I see you have lost track of reality. On what ships?
Boxboats, of course. Easily fit 6 soldiers, with their gear, and the
necessities of life for the trip. into a twenty foot special made
container. That is a space equal to a six foot cube, each. The Chinese
are building 100 000 ton ships that will carry 8000? boxes. [Panamax
is about 40 000 tons.]
Casady
Richard Casady
<jimNOwa...@gmNOail.com> wrote:
>> A "liberty" ship took a week to build. Where there is a need, there is a
>> will.
One only did. It was a stunt with non standard methods of
construction. Large prefab assemblies, for one thing. I think six
weeks is more realistic, but I don't really know.
Casady
Jim Walsh
(in article <48635762....@news.east.earthlink.net>):
And they could invade the US in ships like that?
rst0wxyz
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 02:05:40 +0800, rst0wxyz wrote
> (in article
>
>
>
> > A "liberty" ship took a week to build. Where there is a need, there is a
> > will.
>
> Pretty funny.
Why is it funny? Do you think America is the only one who can build a
liberty ship in a week?
>
> --
> Love, Jim
> (I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
> crossposts.)
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----http://www.newsfeeds.comThe #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
rst0wxyz
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 02:05:40 +0800, rst0wxyz wrote
> (in article
>
>
>
> > It is not a simple task, the invasion or the prevention. The simple things
> > have a tendency to get very complicated, like Iraq, for example.
>
> I agree.
>
> Now, let us consider the human side.
>
> First the decision makers. Suppose you were President of the PRC and the PLA
> commanders told you that they thought that the invasion of Taiwan was
> possible with only a couple of hundred thousand killed, and a 30% chance of
> failure.
>
> Knowing that the President who authorized a failed invasion would spend the
> rest of his life in prison (or worse), what would you do?
>
> What chance of failure would you be willing to tolerate? And how confident
> would you be in the estimate of the PLA commanders?
Realistic men do not take chances when a sure thing is available just
by waiting.
William Black
"Jim Walsh" <jimNOwa...@gmNOail.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C4835E9A...@news-east.alibis.com...
> India attack over the world's highest mountains? On skis, perhaps?
I happen to know an Indian soldier who has served in that area.
Missiles!
Both sides have a problem projecting enough infantry to man the bunkers on
the border.
The Indians have a special battalion of mountaineers and a couple more of
Ghurkhas there and seem to be happy to maintain the status quo.
Power projection from India to China is by sea, which is why India is
spending shed loads of cash on big blue water ships.
Power projection from China to India seems to be by covert support for
Pakistan, including giving them the plans for nuclear weapons...
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
rst0wxyz
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 02:07:59 +0800, rst0wxyz wrote
> (in article
>
> > On Jun 21, 10:42 am, Jim Walsh <jimNOwalsSPA...@gmNOail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 00:54:03 +0800, rst0wxyz wrote
> >> (in article
> >> <c12cca39-f017-49bc-a0aa-f7a8ad31b...@j1g2000prb.googlegroups.com>):
>
> >>> What good is a blockade when the 7th Fleet didn't do any good? Do you
> >>> think
> >>> the U.S. economy will sail right through it?
>
> >> I am saying something very simple. International commercial shipping into
> >> and
> >> out of China would cease if there were a battle raging in the Taiwan Strait.
>
> > Do you think commerce will stay as usual for the U.S.? like in WWII?
> > dream on!!!
>
> No. I am not making that claim. But the US economy would experience much less
> dislocation than the Chinese economy because the Atlantic would not be
> affected.
Today, large nations at war involves everyone.
rst0wxyz
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 01:58:49 +0800, deemsb...@aol.com wrote
> (in article
> <3d5d25e2-da7f-4ea3-82de-c4a790f90...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>):
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 21, 1:42 pm, Jim Walsh <jimNOwalsSPA...@gmNOail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 01:10:26 +0800, rst0wxyz wrote
> >> (in article
> >> <c0783f9b-04bf-4d4d-94f5-c7b4f2a7b...@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>):
>
> >>> The CCP will not lose power. The Politburo will not lose power. More
> >>> likely, as time goes, the People's Congress will gain some power and meet
> >>> more often instead once every five years to rubber-stamp the Politburo.
> >>> People's Congress will probably take on a roll like the U.S. Congress in
> >>> investigation of corruptions, crimes, and other problems,...
>
> >> If the Politburo does not lose power, how will the People's gain power?
> >> Where
> >> will its power come from? Isn't the political power in a country a zero-sum
> >> game?
>
> >> The Taiwanese fought for and gained their freedom. Why would they want to
> >> give it up and be part of a communist dictatorship?
>
> > That would be news to the Taiwanese.
>
> When I came to Taiwan in 1987, it was a one-party dictatorship. Now it is a
> multi-party democracy with free and fair elections, a free press, and so on.
> It was wonderful to watch the transformation.
>
> >Now, the Nationalist Chinese
> > forces got their butts kicked and ran to Taiwan with their tails
> > between their legs....and then hid behind the USN.
>
> Agree. But a lot has happened since then. And one of them was that the
> Taiwanese fought for and gained their freedom.
The Taiwanese did not fight. The course of events was set by Chiang
Kai Shek's treatment of his son during his son's growing up years.
Once Chiang Kai Shek died, his son knew the game was up, and there was
no way to prevent others from taking power. The pain would have been
much less had he himself gone to Beijing for the re-unification.
rst0wxyz
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 02:24:03 +0800, rst0wxyz wrote
> (in article
>
>
>
> > The Politburo will not lose power, but....
> > .... The main power will still be in the Politburo.
>
> Do you see any inconsistency between those sentences.
There is no inconsistency.
>
> Anyway, I hope the Chinese people gain power, at the expense of the
> Politburo.
The CCP and the Politburo will not lose power in China.
Fred J. McCall
:On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 00:12:18 +0800, rst0wxyz wrote
:(in article
:<d64eade5-374f-4c51...@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com>):
:
:
:>... The
:> closest to the 7th Fleet are Taiwan, Japan, and the Philipines. And
:> they are all within range of the Chinese medium range missiles.....
:
:One hour after a missile hit a ship in the 7th Fleet, Europe, America and
:Japan would blockade China. and no exports would go out and no imports would
:come in. The Chinese economy would implode.
:
You've got a lot more faith in Europe and Japan than I do.
--
"We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night
to visit violence on those who would do us harm.
-- George Orwell
rst0wxyz
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 02:24:03 +0800, rst0wxyz wrote
> (in article
>
>
>
> >> The Taiwanese fought for and gained their freedom.
>
> > They didn't fight for any gain. It was dished out to them by a man who
> > realized the game was up.
>
> Nonsense. The ruling class never gives up power. It is taken by the people,
> or they keep it. I watched the Taiwanese fight for and suffer for and win
> their freedom. It was a glorious transformation.
Except for a man who knew exactly what was like to the son of Chiang
Kai Shek.
He knew a kind heart of (Joan Chen), the thirteen-year-old girl Chiang
Kai Shek married and abandonned for Soong Mei Ling. Chiang C. C.
treated her kindness in return for the rest of her life.
Chiang C. C. knew the game was up. The ending would have been much
better had he himself gone to Beijing for the reunitification.
Vaughn Simon
"Jim Walsh" <jimNOwa...@gmNOail.com> wrote in message
>
> I disagree. Sinking the invasion fleet would defend Taiwan just fine. There
> are no strategic or tactical target which require nuclear weapons.
>
Sinking the invasion fleet would be diplomatically impossible until China had
actually made the first hostile move. China would hold the advantage of
plausible deniability ("just a peaceful exercise.") almost until the moment
their ships started hitting the beaches of Taiwan. By then, too many options
would be behind us.
Vaughn
Fred J. McCall
:On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 00:54:03 +0800, rst0wxyz wrote
:(in article
:<c12cca39-f017-49bc...@j1g2000prb.googlegroups.com>):
:
:> What good is a blockade when the 7th Fleet didn't do any good? Do you think
:> the U.S. economy will sail right through it?
:
:I am saying something very simple. International commercial shipping into and
:out of China would cease if there were a battle raging in the Taiwan Strait.
:
Why? China's major ports are well away from the Taiwan Strait.
--
"It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
I am the law."
-- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer
rst0wxyz
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 02:24:03 +0800, rst0wxyz wrote
> (in article
>
>
>
> >> Isn't the political power in a country a zero-sum
> >> game?
>
> > It's not a game. It's serious selection of the most capable.
>
> The expression "zero-sum game" is a serious term. Only the Chinese people
> have the right to choose their government.
The people are happy and enjoy life to the ultmost when they have
money, fast car, fast women, fast travel, and respect from all over
the world. Who give a damn about the power of the government? If you
are unhappy with the government, you always have the choice of
starting your own revolution to overthrow them. Don't ever expect the
government to hand over power to you.
Fred J. McCall
:
:The Taiwanese fought for and gained their freedom. Why would they want to
Really? When did that happen? Is history on your planet different
from here?
The Taiwanese are a 'subject people'. They were overrun by Kuomintang
Chinese from the Mainland (who fled there because they were getting
their asses kicked by the Maoists).
This is still a big piece of the political division on Taiwan today.
Kuomintang tend to be 'anti-Independence' because they still maintain
delusions that they are the legitimate government of all of China.
Taiwanese, on the other hand, tend to favour independence because it
would be a full and final break with the idea that Taiwan is
'Chinese'.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
rst0wxyz
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 02:24:03 +0800, rst0wxyz wrote
> (in article
>
>
>
> >> Why would they want to
> >> give it up and be part of a communist dictatorship?
>
> > Be someone or be a nobody?
>
> > China IS definitely a dictatorship, but it is different than the term
> > "dictatorship" as it was in the old days.
>
> I agree that it is not Maoism. But when the CCP holds all political power,
> the ordinary Chinese people are nobodies. They will be nobody until they can
> act like adults, making the normal decisions of a free person.
Jim Walsh, grow up. They are free. If there ever is war in China,
those people will fight like hell for China. Don't ever think they
will rise up against their government.
Gary Renzetti
future. But forever is a long time and these things can change very
rapidly. If I were you, I would hedge my bets on this one.
Gary Renzetti
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 03:32:54 +0800, Richard Casady wrote
> (in article <48635762....@news.east.earthlink.net>):
>
>> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 01:42:46 +0800, Jim Walsh
>> <jimNOwa...@gmNOail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> It will not be the
>>>> destruction of the 7th Fleet and a few thousand sailors. Most likely,
>>>> it will be the first invasion of the U.S. Homeland.
>>> I see you have lost track of reality. On what ships?
>> Boxboats, of course. Easily fit 6 soldiers, with their gear, and the
>> necessities of life for the trip. into a twenty foot special made
>> container. That is a space equal to a six foot cube, each. The Chinese
>> are building 100 000 ton ships that will carry 8000? boxes. [Panamax
>> is about 40 000 tons.]
>>
>> Casady
>
> And they could invade the US in ships like that?
>
out of the water in transit, the dock workers would be delighted to
offload them! ;-} LMAO!
Raymond O'Hara
<deem...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:09d971b8-9ba8-468f...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Can the US sink the invasion fleet before it puts enough
>troops ashore? My point is, that if China really wants to invade
>Taiwan, the only way we could stop them is by nuking a port where the
>fleet is/is supplied from or nuking airfields, troop concentrations,
>bases, etc. We can't project enough conventional force over there to
>do that.
sure the USN could take out the PLAN during an invasion
Gary Renzetti
week. It was a propaganda stunt, they could not do this on a constant basis.
Fred J. McCall
:On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 01:42:17 +0800, deem...@aol.com wrote
:(in article
:<09d971b8-9ba8-468f...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>):
:
:>
:>>
:>>> Do you want the left or right-wing answer? The left might say
:>>> that if the rights keep going off on adventures like Iraq, the US
:>>> would be stretched too thin to intervene. The right might say that a
:>>> Democratic President wouldn't have the guts to stand up to China. Who
:>>> knows?
:>>
:>> Funny enough, it was a Republican President that sold out Taiwan.
:>
:> Sold out vs bowed to reality? That's really here nor
:> there....do you disagree with how it would play out today?
:
:I think Mao would have agreed to let the ROC stay in the UN, if the PRC got
:the Security Council Seat. I think Nixon betrayed the ROC. He could have
:gotten a lot more from Mao.
:
You're wrong. If you believe this you really do not understand what
is and has been going on in the region.
It is the unalterable and vehement position of BOTH governments that
there is only 'one China'. Taiwan is, from the Mainland point of
view, a 'renegade province'.
There is no way in hell they would have accepted Taiwan remaining in
the UN, just as they will not now accept a vote by Taiwan to declare
itself an independent country.
:>>> The other question would be "Is it worth it to the US to
:>>> defend Taiwan"? I think that China can take Taiwan if it really wants
:>>> it. I don't think the US can sucessfully defend Taiwan without using
:>>> nukes...which hopefully will never be necessary.
:>>
:>> I disagree. Sinking the invasion fleet would defend Taiwan just fine. There
:>> are no strategic or tactical target which require nuclear weapons.
:>
:>
:> Can the US sink the invasion fleet before it puts enough
:> troops ashore?
:
:The Taiwan Strait is 180 km wide at the narrowest part.
:
:I think it is unlikely that the troop ships could sneak accross. I think it
:likely that many if not all would be sunk by the 7th Fleet and the ROC
:airforce. But, as I said, I have no real experience or training to back up
:this estimate.
:
You're assuming that the ROC air force would be allowed to operate
unmolested to sink ships. Ditto for 7th Fleet.
:> My point is, that if China really wants to invade
:> Taiwan, the only way we could stop them is by nuking a port where the
:> fleet is/is supplied from or nuking airfields, troop concentrations,
:> bases, etc. We can't project enough conventional force over there to
:> do that.
:
:Why not? The 7th Fleet "at present it is the largest of the forward-deployed
:U.S. fleets, with 5060 ships, 350 aircraft and 60,000 Navy and Marine Corps
:personnel." I thought it could strike with conventional bombs any ship in the
:Taiwan Strait.
:
You might want to examine the strength of the PLAAF and the PLAN. Now
stop assuming that they're doing nothing other than putting targets
into the Straits for us to shoot at.
:
:>>> Assuming
:>>>> the US did not bail, does the PLA have the capability to do this?
:>>
:>>> Yes, if they want to take the risk of nukes being used.
:>>> That's a mighty big risk to take, even if the chance is fairly small.
:>>
:>> See above.
:>>
:>>>>> Even without US presence, I really don't see how the
:>>>>> invasion would be worth it to China. Even if successful, Taiwan would
:>>>>> be wrecked.....would the cost of rebuilding be worth the gain?
:>>
:>>>> Good points.
:>>
:>>> I really don't see China and the US getting into a serious
:>>> war in the near future. China is too busy building up internally and
:>>> the US has other fish to fry. Both nations are making a lot of money
:>>> off each other.....China moreso at the present, but what would happen
:>>> to China's economy if the US defaulted on all those loans?
:>>
:>> The US did not borrow any money from China. It is a myth.
:>
:> Okay, "loans" was the wrong word to use. China/Chinese
:> corps(which amounts to the same thing) do own a lot of US debt. The
:> Japanese still own more, but China is a major player.
:
:All they can do is "sell" the bonds and not buy more. They can not demand
:the US redeem them in gold or something.
:
True, but by dumping them all (at a huge loss to themselves), they
could depress the prices (which raises the interest rate the US would
be required to pay to finance deficit).
Would it hurt us? No doubt. Would it hurt them? Probably much
worse.
--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney
Fred J. McCall
:On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 01:52:37 +0800, rst0wxyz wrote
:(in article
:<75b795e5-3f8d-4065...@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>):
:
:> On Jun 21, 10:23 am, Peter Skelton <skelt...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
:>>
:>> Japan got the sh*t kicked out of it because it had only a year or
:>> so's supply of oil. How many weeks has China?
:>
:> Vietnam did well with only muscles and bicycles. Who needs oil?
:
:Very funny.
:
:Again we are NOT talking about fighting on Chinese land. We are talking about
:sinking an invasion fleet and taking out some missile launchers. All of that
:can be done pretty easily.
:
For a guy who admits he has no clue about the technologies involved or
how to do this stuff you talk a real good fight.
Please describe how you think this would all come about so 'pretty
easily'.
:>> Nobody's going to walk into China and take over, but its power
:>> projection capablilty is not enough to secure its lines of
:>> essential supply.
:>
:> China is not projecting its power overseas, unlike the U.S.
:
:Agree. Which is why the ultra-nationalists threats to invade Taiwan are
:provocative but unrealistic.
:
Taiwan is not considered 'overseas' so far as the Chinese are
concerned. They consider it a Chinese province that is in rebellion.
Peter Skelton
<rst0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jun 21, 10:23 am, Peter Skelton <skelt...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 09:40:01 -0700 (PDT), rst0wxyz
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <rst0w...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On Jun 21, 9:26 am, "deemsb...@aol.com" <deemsb...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> On Jun 21, 12:12 pm, rst0wxyz <rst0w...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Jun 21, 7:12 am, "deemsb...@aol.com" <deemsb...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > On Jun 21, 9:52 am, Jim Walsh <jimNOwalsSPA...@gmNOail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > I would like to discuss an invasion of Taiwan, an island, and in particular
>> >> > > > the tactical and strategic difficulties thereof.
>>
>> >> > > > Unfortunately I have no military experience so I have added
>> >> > > > sci.military.naval to the newsgroup list (I tried to add
>> >> > > > sci.military.moderated, but it didn't propagate) I hope those who post there
>> >> > > > will consider giving the advantage of their experience to us. My thoughts, to
>> >> > > > begin the discussion, are as follows:
>>
>> >> > > > The first 15 minutes or so of Saving Private Ryan shows the difficulty (and
>> >> > > > cost in lives) of a sea invasion.
>>
>> >> > > > Quite a few Mainland Chinese nationalists imagine that an invasion of Taiwan
>> >> > > > by the People's Liberation Army (to use its ironic formal name) would be a
>> >> > > > cakewalk. They should rent the DVD and take a hard look.
>>
>> >> > > > The sea invasion depicted there would differ in several respects from a sea
>> >> > > > invasion from the PRC into Taiwan.
>>
>> >> > > > (1) The allies had total control of the sea and of the air all during the
>> >> > > > invasion. No part of the invasion fleet was sunk at sea.
>>
>> >> > > > (2) Although the Germans defended the site of the invasion, they were fooled
>> >> > > > into putting most of their defenders at other locations.
>>
>> >> > > > In spite of (1) and (2) the most reliable sources say:
>>
>> >> > > > According to the D-Day Museum at Portsmouth, US casualties totalled 6,603;
>> >> > > > the Canadians suffered 946 casualties, including 340 dead; and British
>> >> > > > casualties were approximately 2,700. The British suffered about 1,000
>> >> > > > casualties on Gold Beach and a similar number on Sword Beach. The US
>> >> > > > casualties included 1,465 dead, 3,184 wounded, 1,928 missing and 26 captured,
>> >> > > > most of them at Utah Beach, where German resistance was particularly fierce.
>>
>> >> > > > Altogether, more than 425,000 Allied and German troops were killed, wounded
>> >> > > > or went missing during the Battle of Normandy [3 months of fighting]. Allied
>> >> > > > casualties totalled around 209,000, including 37,000 dead from the ground
>> >> > > > forces and almost 17,000 from the airborne forces.
>>
>> >> > > > Now, I want to consider whether:
>>
>> >> > > > (1) a PRC invasion could be a surprise, and
>>
>> >> > > Doubtful, but never say never. They would have to use some
>> >> > > serious deception.
>>
>> >> > > > (2) what sort of PRC losses could be expected, given that the PLA will not
>> >> > > > control the sea or the air.
>>
>> >> > > If they first got the US out of the picture, they could
>>
>> >> > Even today, the U.S. 7th Fleet is just a status symbol, not a threat
>> >> > to China. Anyone who is foolish enough to serve in the 7th Fleet,
>> >> > knows it is a death trap, a sitting duck in front of the Chinese
>> >> > coastline. There are 1.3 billion Chinese behind the coastline. The
>> >> > closest to the 7th Fleet are Taiwan, Japan, and the Philipines. And
>> >> > they are all within range of the Chinese medium range missiles.
>>
>> >> Even if I agree that you're right, which I don't...it's not
>> >> like they'd anchor a mile off the coast.....what kind of response
>> >> would China expect if it did sink the 7th and killed a few thousand US
>> >> sailors?
>>
>> >Today's China is not yesterday's China where they had no factories to
>> >produce machineries and bombs. Most of today's world market goods are
>> >produced in China. Each escalation will be matched until the end.
>> >China is huge, mountainous and with 1.3 billion hard working people.
>> >Today, China can not be defeated by the U.S. It will not be the
>> >destruction of the 7th Fleet and a few thousand sailors. Most likely,
>> >it will be the first invasion of the U.S. Homeland.
>>
>> Japan got the sh*t kicked out of it because it had only a year or
>> so's supply of oil. How many weeks has China?
>
>Vietnam did well with only muscles and bicycles. Who needs oil?
>
Power projection over water pretty much requires it in very large
quantities.
As for Vietnam, they relied on supplies from other countries,
which had uninterrupted supplies of the needed oil.
>>
>> Nobody's going to walk into China and take over, but its power
>> projection capablilty is not enough to secure its lines of
>> essential supply.
>
>China is not projecting its power overseas, unlike the U.S.
Well the question posed here is an invasion of Taiwan, isn't it
Peter Skelton
rst0wxyz
No one said "forever", but within the forseeable future, they will not
lose power.
Fred J. McCall
:
:First the decision makers. Suppose you were President of the PRC and the PLA
:possible with only a couple of hundred thousand killed, and a 30% chance of
:failure.
:
:Knowing that the President who authorized a failed invasion would spend the
:rest of his life in prison (or worse), what would you do?
Depends on why I felt I'd been pushed into an invasion in the first
place.
:
:What chance of failure would you be willing to tolerate? And how confident
:would you be in the estimate of the PLA commanders?
:
See above.
--
You have never lived until you have almost died.
Life has a special meaning that the protected
will never know.
Peter Skelton
<jimNOwa...@gmNOail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 01:42:17 +0800, deem...@aol.com wrote
>(in article
><09d971b8-9ba8-468f...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>):
>
>>
>>>
>>>> Do you want the left or right-wing answer? The left might say
>>>> that if the rights keep going off on adventures like Iraq, the US
>>>> would be stretched too thin to intervene. The right might say that a
>>>> Democratic President wouldn't have the guts to stand up to China. Who
>>>> knows?
>>>
>>> Funny enough, it was a Republican President that sold out Taiwan.
>>
>> Sold out vs bowed to reality? That's really here nor
>> there....do you disagree with how it would play out today?
>
>I think Mao would have agreed to let the ROC stay in the UN, if the PRC got
>the Security Council Seat. I think Nixon betrayed the ROC. He could have
>gotten a lot more from Mao.
>
>>>> The other question would be "Is it worth it to the US to
>>>> defend Taiwan"? I think that China can take Taiwan if it really wants
>>>> it. I don't think the US can sucessfully defend Taiwan without using
>>>> nukes...which hopefully will never be necessary.
>>>
>>> I disagree. Sinking the invasion fleet would defend Taiwan just fine. There
>>> are no strategic or tactical target which require nuclear weapons.
>>
>>
>> Can the US sink the invasion fleet before it puts enough
>> troops ashore?
>
>The Taiwan Strait is 180 km wide at the narrowest part.
>
>I think it is unlikely that the troop ships could sneak accross. I think it
>likely that many if not all would be sunk by the 7th Fleet and the ROC
>airforce. But, as I said, I have no real experience or training to back up
>this estimate. . . .
>
One might, at this point consider Taiwan's ionterest in subs and
the Seawolfs (seawolves?) with their large loadout (and other USN
submarines).
Peter Skelton
William Black
"rst0wxyz" <rst0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:919a3820-a111-48e9...@v1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
Jim Walsh, grow up. They are free. If there ever is war in China,
those people will fight like hell for China. Don't ever think they
will rise up against their government.
--------------------------
History seems to show that the Chinese people never fought with any
effectiveness or cohesion against any invader.
They should have rolled over the Japanese, they had more men of military
age than the Japanese had bullets. Instead they did nothing until the
Soviets chased the Japanese out, and then fought a civil war.
Jim Walsh
(in article <8jqq54tr7gi22pmka...@4ax.com>):
>
> There is no way in hell they would have accepted Taiwan remaining in the UN,
> just as they will not now accept a vote by Taiwan to declare itself an
> independent country.
Actually it was understood at the time that Mao would have accepted it.
Neither of us were there, so who can say.
--
Love, Jim
(I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
crossposts.)
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
Jim Walsh
(in article <6grq54t8md9p67eqg...@4ax.com>):
> Taiwan is not considered 'overseas' so far as the Chinese are concerned.
> They consider it a Chinese province that is in rebellion.
So?
The US is bound by law, policy and history to defend Taiwan from a Chinese
invasion.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<de8eca38-8aa1-4c17...@p39g2000prm.googlegroups.com>):
In other words, while hyper-nationalist may bluster and threaten invasion, it
is extremely unlikely in fact.
Jim Walsh
(in article <1Kd7k.123665$SV4....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>):
>
> "Jim Walsh" <jimNOwa...@gmNOail.com> wrote in message
> news:0001HW.C4834EDC...@news-east.alibis.com...
>>
>> I disagree. Sinking the invasion fleet would defend Taiwan just fine. There
>> are no strategic or tactical target which require nuclear weapons.
>>
> Sinking the invasion fleet would be diplomatically impossible until China
> had actually made the first hostile move.
I would have thought that an invasion was a hostile move.
> China would hold the advantage of
> plausible deniability ("just a peaceful exercise.") almost until the moment
> their ships started hitting the beaches of Taiwan.....
That seems very implausible to me.
Jim Walsh
(in article <8jqq54tr7gi22pmka...@4ax.com>):
>
>> All they can do is "sell" the bonds and not buy more. They can not demand
>> the US redeem them in gold or something.
>>
>
> True, but by dumping them all (at a huge loss to themselves), they could
> depress the prices (which raises the interest rate the US would be required
> to pay to finance deficit).
>
> Would it hurt us? No doubt. Would it hurt them? Probably much worse.
That is roughly right. It would hurt the US only if the Republicans are
re-elected and cut taxes while they increase spending. (Used to be the
Democrats that did that, but Reagan, Bush and McCain make it clear that the
deficit spend superstars are Republicans these days.
Jim Walsh
(in article <8jqq54tr7gi22pmka...@4ax.com>):
> You're assuming that the ROC air force would be allowed to operate unmolested
> to sink ships. Ditto for 7th Fleet.
> You might want to examine the strength of the PLAAF and the PLAN. Now stop
> assuming that they're doing nothing other than putting targets into the
> Straits for us to shoot at.
I have made neither assumption.
Jim Walsh
(in article <6npq549nvu4ndc0cj...@4ax.com>):
>
> You've got a lot more faith in Europe and Japan than I do.
It is a little remembered fact that Europe will STILL not sell weapons to the
PRC because of the massacre at Tiananmen Square.
How do you imagine Japan and China would conduct trade with a naval battle
going on in the middle of the sea lanes?
Jim Walsh
(in article <t1sq545thr2kf1fki...@4ax.com>):
> Jim Walsh <jimNOwa...@gmNOail.com> wrote:
>>
>> First the decision makers. Suppose you were President of the PRC and the
>> PLA
>> commanders told you that they thought that the invasion of Taiwan was
>> possible with only a couple of hundred thousand killed, and a 30% chance of
>> failure.
>>
>> Knowing that the President who authorized a failed invasion would spend the
>> rest of his life in prison (or worse), what would you do?
>>
>
> Depends on why I felt I'd been pushed into an invasion in the first
> place.
Standing the shoes of the PRC President, what circumstances would you regard
as "pushing" you into an invasion?
>> What chance of failure would you be willing to tolerate? And how confident
>> would you be in the estimate of the PLA commanders?
>>
>
> See above.
>
>
--
Jim Walsh
(in article <4vpq545aa8ubsh0f9...@4ax.com>):
> Jim Walsh <jimNOwa...@gmNOail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 00:54:03 +0800, rst0wxyz wrote
>> (in article
>> <c12cca39-f017-49bc...@j1g2000prb.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>> What good is a blockade when the 7th Fleet didn't do any good? Do you
>>> think
>>> the U.S. economy will sail right through it?
>>
>> I am saying something very simple. International commercial shipping into
>> and
>> out of China would cease if there were a battle raging in the Taiwan Strait.
>>
>
> Why? China's major ports are well away from the Taiwan Strait.
We are discussing the possibility of an invasion of Taiwan by the PRC. I
suppose that the invasion ships could attack Taiwan without traveling in the
Taiwan Strait but since that would make the sea journey significantly longer
(and time is important in such things) so I can't imagine why they would do
it.
Commercial shipping from many Chinese ports (most?) involves passing thru the
Taiwan Strait.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<9419a45e-1726-4eb2...@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>):
>
>>> A "liberty" ship took a week to build. Where there is a need, there is a
>>> will.
>>
>> Pretty funny.
>
> Why is it funny? Do you think America is the only one who can build a
> liberty ship in a week?
I don't think anyone can build a modern warship in a week. And neither would
you if you gave it half a thought.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<f73ddc32-1843-4479...@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>):
> On Jun 21, 11:20 am, Jim Walsh <jimNOwalsSPA...@gmNOail.com> wrote:
>> Agree. But a lot has happened since then. And one of them was that the
>> Taiwanese fought for and gained their freedom.
>
> The Taiwanese did not fight.
Of course they did. I watched them fight, and suffer and succeed in winning
their freedom.
> The course of events was set by Chiang
> Kai Shek's treatment of his son during his son's growing up years.
> Once Chiang Kai Shek died, his son knew the game was up, and there was
> no way to prevent others from taking power. The pain would have been
> much less had he himself gone to Beijing for the re-unification.
When CKS's son died, Taiwan was still a one-party dictatorship. The
transformation took place during Lee's administration. There is no clear
evidence that CKS's son set the change in motion.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<472a5c35-abce-47fb...@z24g2000prf.googlegroups.com>):
> Who give a damn about the power of the government?
People who desire to be treated like a normal adult.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<472a5c35-abce-47fb...@z24g2000prf.googlegroups.com>):
> If you are unhappy with the government, you always have the choice of
> starting your own revolution to overthrow them. Don't ever expect the
> government to hand over power to you.
I never would expect that.
Aren't you the one who claimed that CKS's son handed over power to the
Taiwanese?
Jim Walsh
(in article
<94426f21-ae18-4fb8...@a9g2000prl.googlegroups.com>):
> On Jun 21, 11:48 am, Jim Walsh <jimNOwalsSPA...@gmNOail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 02:24:03 +0800, rst0wxyz wrote
>> (in article
>> <67fc1b5b-2791-4d72-accf-c5b4ef974...@a32g2000prf.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>
>>
>>> The Politburo will not lose power, but....
>>> .... The main power will still be in the Politburo.
>>
>> Do you see any inconsistency between those sentences.
>
> There is no inconsistency.
One sentence states no change. The other states change.
>> Anyway, I hope the Chinese people gain power, at the expense of the
>> Politburo.
>
> The CCP and the Politburo will not lose power in China.
The Chinese should be free. It is their destiny and their right.
rst0wxyz
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 04:35:18 +0800, rst0wxyz wrote
> (in article
>
> > On Jun 21, 11:48 am, Jim Walsh <jimNOwalsSPA...@gmNOail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 02:24:03 +0800, rst0wxyz wrote
> >> (in article
> >> <67fc1b5b-2791-4d72-accf-c5b4ef974...@a32g2000prf.googlegroups.com>):
>
> >>> The Politburo will not lose power, but....
> >>> .... The main power will still be in the Politburo.
>
> >> Do you see any inconsistency between those sentences.
>
> > There is no inconsistency.
>
> One sentence states no change. The other states change.
>
> >> Anyway, I hope the Chinese people gain power, at the expense of the
> >> Politburo.
>
> > The CCP and the Politburo will not lose power in China.
>
> The Chinese should be free. It is their destiny and their right.
A few tried and became emperors. It was known as "mandate of
heaven". Many died, but a few have succeeded beyond their dreams,
including Mao Zedong, Liu Bang, Zhu Yuanzhang,...
Jim Walsh
(in article
<919a3820-a111-48e9...@v1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>):
> They are free. If there ever is war in China, those people will fight like
> hell for China. Don't ever think they will rise up against their government.
The Chinese are not free. The CCP does not pretend that they are. Since the
CCP admits it, why should you lie about it.
I am sure that were China invaded, many Chinese would fight to defend it.
I am sure that if the CCP told them too, may Chinese would get in invasion
boats and drown for the greater glory of Chinese nationalism.
Every day I read that this or that group of Chinese protested against the
misconduct of this or that government official (CCP member). At the moment,
the expanding economy leads the majority to calm their passions and wait for
a better opportunity.
Were China to suffer a serious economic slow down, were the PLA to try to
invade Taiwan and fail, with heavy loss of life, then all bets are off.
Jim Walsh
(in article <v3qq54lb9tbrnk02u...@4ax.com>):
> Jim Walsh <jimNOwa...@gmNOail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The Taiwanese fought for and gained their freedom. Why would they want to
>> give it up and be part of a communist dictatorship?
>>
>
> Really? When did that happen? Is history on your planet different
> from here?
>
> The Taiwanese are a 'subject people'. They were overrun by Kuomintang
> Chinese from the Mainland (who fled there because they were getting
> their asses kicked by the Maoists).
The KMT candidate for President lost in 2000 and in 2004. Is this really news
to you?
Michael Shirley
wrote:
> On 21 Jun, 17:18, guy <guyswetten...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On 21 Jun, 14:52, Jim Walsh <jimNOwalsSPA...@gmNOail.com> wrote:> I
>> would like to discuss an invasion of Taiwan, an island, and in
>> particular
The Chinese build a lot of LST type craft and use them for river and
inshore transport. If they were planning an invasion, they could
concentrate them fairly quickly. They don't need to build and then leave
them sitting in a prepositioning area because they have a lot of use for
them in peacetime. That flat bottom and ramp means that they can land and
pick up cargo without dock facilities and there are a lot of places in
China, both in their inland littorial, (along the rivers)and on their
coast where this kind of transport is both effective and economical. It
also means that the crews of those ships and boats are extremely
experienced in operations that resemble amphibious landings.
Also keep in mind that COSCO is the largest containership fleet in the
world and the ones in second, third and fourth place are also Chinese.
That gives them a huge pool of experienced sailors. Add the implications
of the Vickers Containerised Weapons Fit concept, and you've got
auxilliary reserve fleet that the Brits and the Germans had prior to WW-I
and II. This not only allows them to raid shipping, but it also gives them
an immense base of tonnage that can be applied to invasion operations.
That gives them the ability to fit out an invasion fleet in days if
they've purchased and prepositioned the containerised conversion kits, and
they may have done so. Nobody's been asking the question so that could go
right under everybodies noses.
The Chinese are putting together a fairly good naval infantry corps. The
guys you see marching in three hued blue battledress are those guys.
They're liberally equipped with amphibious tanks and other vehicles, but I
do see a couple of weaknesses that they haven't shorn up yet.
First off, there's the anomaly of their not having a lot of specialised
armored assault vehicles. And given their experience and emphasis on beach
defense by both regular units and Peoples Militia, I find that odd. You'd
expect to see armored engineer vehicles with weapons like the 165mm
Demolition Gun carried by the late model Churchill and Centurian AVREs and
the US M728 Combat Engineer Vehicle. You don't see mechanised ramp
vehicles like the the Ark equipment that was fitted to Churchill and
Sherman chassis, you don't see a lot of armored vehicle launched bridges,
mine clearing units, ect. The big difference in casualties between Utah
Beach and Omaha Beach is because the Brits had Hobo's Funnies, (79th
Armored Division under Percy Hobart, the inventor of AVREs and similar
equipment) whereas the US Command didn't want any other than a few Duplex
Drive Shermans.
Unless the Chinese achieve complete surprise, a sort of modern day siege
train of these vehicles is necessary in order to minimise casualties and
to keep beach obstacles and fortifications from slowing troops from
getting off the beach and establishing themselves in the lodgement area.
The second big thing that's missing is specialised invasion suppor craft.
Mines in any invasion situation can be taken as a given, but you don't see
specialised vessels like the US LCI (R), (Landing Craft Infantry-Rocket)
that can do saturation bombardment of landing areas. It's wasteful to use
air assets for this kind of operation and you'll have higher casualty
rates in aviation assets if you do waste them in that kind of operation.
In comparison, converted landing craft like the LCI (R) are cheap, easy to
employ and manage a great saturation of intended landing areas for the
price.
I'm not seeing either of these, and I find it odd. Also, I don't think
that the Chinese are proposing to use human wave attacks in a landing.
That's expensive and modern weapons will just chew up the infantry, so
they've got to have something like the special rocket boats and Hobo's
funnies if they're going to make a ground invasion work. Airpower alone
won't solve that problem for them.
Now they may have some of that stuff, including complete vehicles stored
as kits or handled like the Soviets handled a lot of their capabilities.
For example the crews for the BM-13 Katusha rocket batteries were
organized and trained as pontoon bridge troops in peacetime. They learned
to handle things like mortars and the like, which produced a pool of
skills that could be transferred to operate the rocket weapons, but the
BM-13 crews didn't know that they were rocketeers until they were told to
turn in their pontoon bridge sets, collect their rockets and get moving.
The Chinese may have done this as well, so I wouldn't consider the lack
of visible preparations to imply an actual lack of them.
Two things I'd be looking for if you're doing the Google Earth thing
during their exercises, is for pontoon bridge elements being used to build
a causeway off the beach as a terminal for RORO ship to offload, since
there's a lot of places on Taiwan that this would be useful. The other is
to look for an increase in LASH, (Lighter Aboard Ship) type assets being
used by COSCO or one of the other companies. Both of these technologies
are very applicable to amphibious landings, especially if you haven't
captured a port with terminal facilities for conventional unloading of
supplies.
--
"Implications leading to ramifications leading to shenanigans"-- Admiral
Elmo Zumwalt, USN.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<dc692f13-5de6-49cd...@v1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>):
>> The Chinese should be free. It is their destiny and their right.
>
> A few tried and became emperors.
Emperors are not free. Freedom is a circumstance which one shares with
others.
Neither the master nor the slave is free. One has abusive power, the other is
the victim of abusive power.
Fred J. McCall
:
:Rusty, Kaiser Industries produced *ONE* Liberty ship *ONE* time in a
:week. It was a propaganda stunt, they could not do this on a constant basis.
:
True. The average construction time was a whole 6 weeks.
--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
Jim Walsh
(in article <op.uc4cyww4ra3qj7@schooner-blue>):
>
> The Chinese build a lot of LST type craft and use them for river and
> inshore transport. If they were planning an invasion, they could concentrate
> them fairly quickly.
Thank you for a helpful description of some of the technological issues.
Do you think the Chinese could transport sufficient soldiers to occupy Taiwan
in the face of active resistance by the US 7th Fleet?
rst0wxyz
wrote:
> "rst0wxyz" <rst0w...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:919a3820-a111-48e9...@v1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>
> Jim Walsh, grow up. They are free. If there ever is war in China,
> those people will fight like hell for China. Don't ever think they
> will rise up against their government.
>
> --------------------------
>
> History seems to show that the Chinese people never fought with any
> effectiveness or cohesion against any invader.
>
> They should have rolled over the Japanese, they had more men of military
> age than the Japanese had bullets. Instead they did nothing until the
> Soviets chased the Japanese out, and then fought a civil war.
China at that time didn't have the machinery to produce firearms to
fight back. The Chinese civil war was fought with American and
captured Japanese arms.
Fred J. McCall
:On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 05:05:44 +0800, Fred J. McCall wrote
:(in article <8jqq54tr7gi22pmka...@4ax.com>):
:
:>
:> There is no way in hell they would have accepted Taiwan remaining in the UN,
:> just as they will not now accept a vote by Taiwan to declare itself an
:> independent country.
:
:Actually it was understood at the time that Mao would have accepted it.
:
Cite? It was 'understood' by whom?
:
:Neither of us were there, so who can say.
:
You seem to think you can. I seem to think you can't.
Which of us do you think is more likely right?
--
"Oooo, scary! Y'know, there are a lot scarier things
in the world than you ... and I'm one of them."
-- Buffy the vampire
Fred J. McCall
:On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 05:05:44 +0800, Fred J. McCall wrote
:(in article <8jqq54tr7gi22pmka...@4ax.com>):
:
:
:> You're assuming that the ROC air force would be allowed to operate unmolested
:
:> to sink ships. Ditto for 7th Fleet.
:
:> You might want to examine the strength of the PLAAF and the PLAN. Now stop
:> assuming that they're doing nothing other than putting targets into the
:> Straits for us to shoot at.
:
:I have made neither assumption.
:
Then you must just be a fool.
Why don't you put together what you think will be the TOE for both
sides and then explain to all of us who DO know something about
military things precisely how you think this all works out.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
rst0wxyz
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 06:02:07 +0800, rst0wxyz wrote
> (in article
>
> >> The Chinese should be free. It is their destiny and their right.
>
> > A few tried and became emperors.
>
> Emperors are not free. Freedom is a circumstance which one shares with
> others.
Freedom is not given to you. You have to know what it is and take it
on your own, even in the U.S.
Emperors were not free because they let others control them. In
China's history, even a woman became an emperor.
>
> Neither the master nor the slave is free. One has abusive power, the other is
> the victim of abusive power.
So the sin perpetuate itself.
Fred J. McCall
:On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 05:05:44 +0800, Fred J. McCall wrote
:(in article <8jqq54tr7gi22pmka...@4ax.com>):
:
:>
:>> All they can do is "sell" the bonds and not buy more. They can not demand
:>> the US redeem them in gold or something.
:>>
:>
:> True, but by dumping them all (at a huge loss to themselves), they could
:> depress the prices (which raises the interest rate the US would be required
:> to pay to finance deficit).
:>
:> Would it hurt us? No doubt. Would it hurt them? Probably much worse.
:
:That is roughly right. It would hurt the US only if the Republicans are
:re-elected and cut taxes while they increase spending.
:
Stupid political polemic ignored...
Vaughn Simon
"Jim Walsh" <jimNOwa...@gmNOail.com> wrote in message
>
> I would have thought that an invasion was a hostile move.
OK, at exactly what point would China's lawful "peaceful military exercise"
become an invasion? ...and how close would the fleet be to Taiwan at that
point?
Vaughn
Fred J. McCall
:On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 05:12:41 +0800, Fred J. McCall wrote
:(in article <6grq54t8md9p67eqg...@4ax.com>):
:
:> Taiwan is not considered 'overseas' so far as the Chinese are concerned.
:> They consider it a Chinese province that is in rebellion.
:
:So?
:
:The US is bound by law, policy and history to defend Taiwan from a Chinese
:invasion.
:
And what does that have to do with everything you snipped to remove
the context?
--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates