Military Power of the People’s Republic of China 2006

[SUBMAN1]

PENTAGON ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS

http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/China%20Report%202006.pdf

Some more doom and gloom for ya. China is probably a much larger threat than any tiny middle eastern country.

If you want war, war may or may not happen with Iran, but war will definitely happen with China. It is just a question of when. Taiwan is going to be in the middle of it.

-S

[STEED]

Are yes I was right all long time to be :smug:

[Konovalov]

If you want war, war may or may not happen with Iran, but war will definitely happen with China. It is just a question of when. Taiwan is going to be in the middle of it.

-S

Well, I better purchase those computer components for my next fast whiz bang computer then since many of those components I'm after are made in Taiwan.

[SUBMAN1]

If you want war, war may or may not happen with Iran, but war will definitely happen with China. It is just a question of when. Taiwan is going to be in the middle of it.

-S

Well, I better purchase those computer components for my next fast whiz bang computer then since many of those components I'm after are made in Taiwan.

Hahaha! I just got mine, but some of the components came from the enemy! I notice a lot of stuff comes from the enemy these days and most of it coming from that country seem to be made like crap. Not much comes from China that is good, ie. quality control is out the door, but they sure as hell can produce it fast!

-S

[Konovalov]

The other day I learned that here in the UK we actually export some of our waste to China in particular old and broken electronics where it is dissassembled by people paid jack squat and with zero safety precautions. I watched on tv as Chinese labourers dissassembled motherboards ad the like of transisters and so forth to salvage what they could. Not suprisingly many of the workers have developed cancers, skin rashes and irritations, lung problems, and eye/sight difficulties. Now that is what I call looking out for the worker NOT. It's for reasons such as this that the likes of Australia, America, and Europe can't compete with China.

[Onkel Neal]

My prediciton: if hostilities break out between China and Taiwan, the US will not intervene.

[Kapitan]

America intervienes then china will threaten if not use nuclear weapons tiawan is the hostage in this.

[Bort]

Sooner or later we will be in a war with China, whether over Taiwan or some other territories like the Spratly's or Siberia. China will flex it's muscles soon, lets hope the US is ready for it when they do, because right now we aren't. :o

[STEED]

One thing is for sure China is no push over. :yep:

[SUBMAN1]

* Bort]Sooner or later we will be in a war with China, whether over Taiwan or some other territories like the Spratly's or Siberia. China will flex it's muscles soon, lets hope the US is ready for it when they do, because right now we aren't. :o

We are still holding to policy of being able to fight on 2 fronts and still fight a thrid major power, so yes we are ready, but not completely as capable as we would like I would think. Basically, CHinas policy is not to defeat us, but just to stall us while they over run Taiwan. That is how they are building up their Navy.

-S

[bradclark1]

My prediciton: if hostilities break out between China and Taiwan, the US will not intervene.

You can bet your last dollar on that and that is what China is betting on.
Just remember we gave them or rather Clinton did, the missile technology.
We won't go for broke over a little island.

[SUBMAN1]

My prediciton: if hostilities break out between China and Taiwan, the US will not intervene.

You can bet your last dollar on that and that is what China is betting on.
Just remember we gave them or rather Clinton did, the missile technology.
We won't go for broke over a little island.

THe US has already vowed to intervene on behalf of the Taiwanese. THe US gave its word. Seems this is already decided.

-S

[bradclark1]

We are still holding to policy of being able to fight on 2 fronts and still fight a thrid major power, so yes we are ready, but not completely as capable as we would like I would think.
-S

We don't have the capability to take a third front while we aren't even holding two.
Shifting all your airforce and a CVN to a third region doesn't make a front and thats all we could do.

[bradclark1]

THe US has already vowed to intervene on behalf of the Taiwanese. THe US gave its word. Seems this is already decided.

-S

How many times have we not kept our word? We gave our word at the Bay of Pigs and we gave our word to the Kurds.
Talking smack and acting on it is going to be two different things.
The president could talk all he wants but when you don't have the capability you don't have the capability.

[TLAM Strike]

No worries we got the USS Cheyenne. She will destroy the entire PLAN then capture Beijing by sailing up a river or something… :lol:

:-j

[Oberon]

I just have visions of the fleet being tied up in the Gulf and when Taiwan gets on the phone screaming "The Chinese are coming!" the US'll say
"Hang on...we'll get a free boat out to you."

The next morning, the only free boat in the US navy arrives:
http://www.adirondack-guide-boat.com/agb_image_file/monk.jpg

But, as TLAM rightly pointed out, all ya have to do is write USS Cheyenne on the bow and she'll take down the entire PLAN. :up: :up:

[SUBMAN1]

We are still holding to policy of being able to fight on 2 fronts and still fight a thrid major power, so yes we are ready, but not completely as capable as we would like I would think.
-S

We don't have the capability to take a third front while we aren't even holding two.
Shifting all your airforce and a CVN to a third region doesn't make a front and thats all we could do.

I think you are right. THe third was supposed to be fought on our home turf. So yeah, we will have to ditch Afganistan, etc.

-S

[DeepSix]

How many times have we not kept our word? We gave our word at the Bay of Pigs and we gave our word to the Kurds.
Talking smack and acting on it is going to be two different things.
The president could talk all he wants but when you don't have the capability you don't have the capability.

Got to agree with that - the entire history of U.S.-China-Taiwan diplomacy is pretty much one of talking smack. I think that *probably* the U.S. commitment stops at "deterrence." It would be too easy for a squabble over Taiwan to turn into the full-on nuclear contest. If the British had insisted on keeping Hong Kong, it might have been different (I'm not necessarily saying they should have), but currently the balance is tipped in favor of the mainland.

[mapuc]

My prediciton: if hostilities break out between China and Taiwan, the US will not intervene.

I thought that it was some military corporation(off the record, so to say) between USA and Taiwan?

Markus

[scandium]

* Bort]Sooner or later we will be in a war with China, whether over Taiwan or some other territories like the Spratly's or Siberia. China will flex it's muscles soon, lets hope the US is ready for it when they do, because right now we aren't. :o

We are still holding to policy of being able to fight on 2 fronts and still fight a thrid major power, so yes we are ready, but not completely as capable as we would like I would think. Basically, CHinas policy is not to defeat us, but just to stall us while they over run Taiwan. That is how they are building up their Navy.

-S

You honestly believe the US has the capability to go toe to toe with China while having 150,000 troops fighting in Iraq and a smaller force fighting in Afghanistan? Give me a break. The US has been bogged down in Iraq for 3 years now and they don't even have a military. Its seems to me that if China wanted war with the US they could not pick a better time - and yet they haven't. Probably because they have no desire to (capability does not equal willingness to use it). Now back to your regularly scheduled doom and gloom.

[TLAM Strike]

* Bort]Sooner or later we will be in a war with China, whether over Taiwan or some other territories like the Spratly's or Siberia. China will flex it's muscles soon, lets hope the US is ready for it when they do, because right now we aren't. :o

We are still holding to policy of being able to fight on 2 fronts and still fight a thrid major power, so yes we are ready, but not completely as capable as we would like I would think. Basically, CHinas policy is not to defeat us, but just to stall us while they over run Taiwan. That is how they are building up their Navy.

-S

You honestly believe the US has the capability to go toe to toe with China while having 150,000 troops fighting in Iraq and a smaller force fighting in Afghanistan? Give me a break. The US has been bogged down in Iraq for 3 years now and they don't even have a military. Its seems to me that if China wanted war with the US they could not pick a better time - and yet they haven't. Probably because they have no desire to (capability does not equal willingness to use it). Now back to your regularly scheduled doom and gloom.
But the US Army alone has something like 600,000 active and 250,00 reserve. 150,000 troops in Iraq is nothing compared to the whole.

Anyways a action against China would be a defensive action in friendly territory unlike Iraq and Afghanistan. This is something we have been training for since the Warsaw Pact was formed 50 years ago. China is predominately a conventional army with Tanks and Platoons of men not a bunch of unconventional guerrillas planting bombs and firing off random mortar shells.

Name one conventional war the US has lost? :roll:

If China invades Taiwan they are going to encounter a lot of the stuff we are seeing in Iraq. :yep:

[scandium]

Name one conventional war the US has lost? :roll:


Vietnam.

[TLAM Strike]

Name one conventional war the US has lost? :roll:


Vietnam.

Name one CONVENTIONAL war the US has lost? :roll:

[AG124]

The War of 1812 against the UK ended in a stalement, but a stalemate is not a defeat and that was before the US was a superpower anyway.

Other than that, I think that the US has won every single conventional conflict in which it has been involved.

[TLAM Strike]

The War of 1812 against the UK ended in a stalement, but a stalemate is not a defeat and that was before the US was a superpower anyway.

Other than that, I think that the US has won every single conventional conflict in which it has been involved.
Thank you. I glad someone here understands the word "conventional". :up:

(Sorry I'm just in a pissy mood for some reason.) :roll:

BTW We don't answer to the King/Queen of England so I say we go the better end of the War of 1812 Stalemate. ;)

[scandium]

Name one conventional war the US has lost? :roll:


Vietnam.

Name one CONVENTIONAL war the US has lost? :roll:

How was it an unconventional war and why does that matter? This may come as a bit of a surprise to you but the days of armies linining up in nice orderly lines to do battle in their bright red coats ended a couple centuries ago. In fact I would guess most of the better militaries have branches that are made up of irregular troops trained in unconventional tactics - including the US military with its Special Forces. In fact these unconventional forces played a major role in the US's own war for independence (where militias fought using tactics considered "unconventional" in their day but which proved very successful all the same). If you have a point here it seems kind of simplistic and irrelevant.

By the way I didn't challenge your assertion earlier that the 150,000 troop deployment in Iraq made no real difference when it has "600,000 active and 250,000 reserve" but I should of. Of course a 150,000 strong deployment wouldn't have much impact if that was the only deployment but this is not the case. That 150,000 deploymment is in addition to the deployment in Afghanistan and to the US's extensive deployments in Korea, in Europe and around the world. It is also in addition to the national guard units that are a part of it and have committments at home to protect against national disaster and such. Oh and to police the Mexican border now as well. If this 3 year 150,000 deployment, in addition to all of the other forces deployed, really made no difference then there'd be no need for Stop-Loss programs and the like. But that is not the case.

[scandium]

BTW We don't answer to the King/Queen of England so I say we go the better end of the War of 1812 Stalemate. ;)

Consider though that in the Commonwealth countries the King/Queen of England is only a figurehead who serves a strictly ceremonial purpose, while the governments are made up of several smaller parties where the ruling party can be tossed out of government if there is no confidence in it. Then contrast that with your "Unitary Executive" (US President) who rules for a 4 year term no matter what his constituents think of his policies. And where politics is a strictly 2 party affair (sure in theory there are more possibilies, but in practice government is made up almost exclusively of those with either an (R) or a (D) after their name) limiting democratic choice to black/white options.

I think that even with the Queen of England we go the better deal as far as meaningful democracy goes ;) Not to mention the fact that it wasn't us who had our seat of government burned down. :lol:

[TLAM Strike]

Name one conventional war the US has lost? :roll:


Vietnam.

Name one CONVENTIONAL war the US has lost? :roll:

How was it an unconventional war and why does that matter? It was an Unconventional War in that the majority of battles were fought by guerrilla forces and not by the standing army. When the standing army did fight they got stomped, its commonly said that the US won every battle but lost the war, this is due to the unconventional nature of the enemy. They blended in to the population, even when the US forces found and took out groups of VCs there were still more hiding and bringing villages over to their side.

Now you can't take territory with unconventional troops you need Tanks, APCs, IFVs, Infantry Divisions and Aircraft. You back to fighting battles like in WWII and Korea. If you try to take a city for example with unconventional forces you in for a blood bath, look at the Tet Offensive: 50,000+ US, Aus, NZ, and SV forces against 85,000+ VC and NVA troops, in the end over 60,000 red side casualties and only 20,985 casualties on the Blue side and no red side objectives achieved.


By the way I didn't challenge your assertion earlier that the 150,000 troop deployment in Iraq made no real difference when it has "600,000 active and 250,000 reserve" but I should of. Of course a 150,000 strong deployment wouldn't have much impact if that was the only deployment but this is not the case. That 150,000 deploymment is in addition to the deployment in Afghanistan and to the US's extensive deployments in Korea, in Europe and around the world. It is also in addition to the national guard units that are a part of it and have committments at home to protect against national disaster and such. Oh and to police the Mexican border now as well. If this 3 year 150,000 deployment, in addition to all of the other forces deployed, really made no difference then there'd be no need for Stop-Loss programs and the like. But that is not the case. But the forces in Europe for example can be redeployed, also we are dealing with a smaller area than Iraq. Even a small force can defend a city with the well-coordinated air support the US military has demonstrated over the years. The Pentagon has kept Taiwan in mind when it deploys its troops around the world. In all of the current deployments how many are tying up large numbers of Tactical Aircraft? Korea yea, Europe a few, Iraq and Afghanistan a few too but the majority are at their bases. What about the Strategic Aircraft (The P-3s, B-52s, Tankers)? Again very few.

Against China all those tactics developed against the Soviets are going to come in to play. Its going to be a war decided by cluster bombs and anti-ship mines not IEDs and car bombs.

Consider though that in the Commonwealth countries the King/Queen of England is only a figurehead who serves a strictly ceremonial purpose, while the governments are made up of several smaller parties where the ruling party can be tossed out of government if there is no confidence in it. Then contrast that with your "Unitary Executive" (US President) who rules for a 4 year term no matter what his constituents think of his policies. And where politics is a strictly 2 party affair (sure in theory there are more possibilies, but in practice government is made up almost exclusively of those with either an (R) or a (D) after their name) limiting democratic choice to black/white options. The US President can be impeached even for stupid reasons. In reality the President is only 1/3 of the federal government and only the Judiciary is selected by him (Pending congressional approval). This differs strongly with the Parliamentary system (Although I admit being only familiar with the Canadian system) where the winning party selects their Ministers, the PM, and the PM chooses the Judiciary and can kick out or call for new elections when ever (s)he wants. Maybe England is different than Canada but I’m glad we didn’t get stuck with a British style Parliament.

[DeepSix]

...Then contrast that with your "Unitary Executive" (US President) who rules for a 4 year term no matter what his constituents think of his policies...

Everything you do in politics costs you *something*. I don't care whether you like the guy or not, it's inaccurate to say that he rules with an iron fist. Some of Bush's stances (just like Clinton's, the other Bush's, and any other president's) have cost him in other areas.

American politics (or anybody else's, I suppose) could hardly be described as being "black and white."

[Sulikate]

I still don't get this concept of conventional war. Like Scandium said, if you consider it as a line up-load guns-shoot war, I think it is no such achievement to have never been defeated in this rules of engagement, when facing the type of war US or any other great military power may fight nowadays: guerrila wars are most likely to be the new standard when a small country with poor quality weapons defends itself against a well armed and prepared nation, for example Iraq (this kind of engagement has shown to be favorable to the defenders...)
So I don't give less importance to this kind of conflict, even if it may look "unfair".

That's my point anyway.

[Sea Demon]

You honestly believe the US has the capability to go toe to toe with China

I definitely think the US can more than handle China. China has no capable SSN force, no credible nuclear deterrent (only 21 DF-5's, and one obsolete Xia SSBN), no carriers, no SSGN's, no capable space based surveillance, only 6 modern DDG's, and only a handful of modernized FFG's, and no coherent naval doctrine or strategies.

In addition, defense of the mainland relies on a number of spaced S-300 systems with PLAAF tactical fighter aircraft. Most PLAAF aircraft are totally obsolete. China has no real LACM's to attack US bases and facilities in the region. And the US is based and can launch attacks against mainland China from Japan, Guam, South Korea, Diego Garcia, Central Asia, and the Western Pacific. The USAF and US Navy both are not overly tasked and could conduct operations against PLAN with lots of cruise missiles from naval units and heavy bombers. And they could do it today if necessary.

The real answer is China is in no position to attack Taiwan or confront the US military. While the USAF and US Navy were built to take on the Soviets, the US has only gotten stronger since the end of the Cold War. China hasn't even achieved what the Soviets had back then 20 years ago. I think all the stuff regarding China's military buildup is alot more hype than anything. I respect what they do have and think they could be dangerous, but I think they would get utterly decimated in a war of this scale gainst the USA.

[Sulikate]

You honestly believe the US has the capability to go toe to toe with China

I definitely think the US can more than handle China. China has no capable SSN force, no credible nuclear deterrent (only 21 DF-5's, and one obsolete Xia SSBN), no carriers, no SSGN's, no capable space based surveillance, only 6 modern DDG's, and only a handful of modernized FFG's, and no coherent naval doctrine or strategies.

In addition, defense of the mainland relies on a number of spaced S-300 systems with PLAAF tactical fighter aircraft. Most PLAAF aircraft are totally obsolete. China has no real LACM's to attack US bases and facilities in the region. And the US is based and can launch attacks against mainland China from Japan, Guam, South Korea, Diego Garcia, Central Asia, and the Western Pacific. The USAF and US Navy both are not overly tasked and could conduct operations against PLAN with lots of cruise missiles from naval units and heavy bombers. And they could do it today if necessary.

The real answer is China is in no position to attack Taiwan or confront the US military. While the USAF and US Navy were built to take on the Soviets, the US has only gotten stronger since the end of the Cold War. China hasn't even achieved what the Soviets had back then 20 years ago. I think all the stuff regarding China's military buildup is alot more hype than anything. I respect what they do have and think they could be dangerous, but I think they would get utterly decimated in a war of this scale gainst the USA.
Agreed, but I'm not sure we know all China's potential. I'm sure they've got more than they show (of course).

[TLAM Strike]

I still don't get this concept of conventional war. Like Scandium said, if you consider it as a line up-load guns-shoot war, I think it is no such achievement to have never been defeated in this rules of engagement, when facing the type of war US or any other great military power may fight nowadays: guerrila wars are most likely to be the new standard when a small country with poor quality weapons defends itself against a well armed and prepared nation, for example Iraq (this kind of engagement has shown to be favorable to the defenders...)
So I don't give less importance to this kind of conflict, even if it may look "unfair".

That's my point anyway. You are thinking from a false assumption, in this case we have one a rich country with moderate equipment and an alliance of two+ rich countries with advanced equipment. An invasion of Taiwan will be something out of the wars of the middle of last century, airborne assaults, tanks formations, dogfights, ASW. This is “Conventional Warfare”, it may not be men standing shoulder to shoulder but it is symmetrical warfare where many different units all coordinate on a battlefield.

[Sea Demon]

Agreed, but I'm not sure we know all China's potential. I'm sure they've got more than they show (of course).

So do we, sir. And I'm sure alot more than China. Look at all the technology demonstrators produced by US defense firms that have been produced then quickly "shelved". ;)

Plus China's current modernization efforts are driven largely by reverse engineering existing technology, or absorbing technologies from Russia. You can't get very far using this as the basis for your modernization efforts. At some point, your own military infrastructure will become stale and your technical abilities will become deficient.

China cannot compete with the US military despite the hype you read. I'm just trying to figure out why these sources are driving this hype. :hmm: Maybe they're just looking down the road about 20 years and planning.

[Sulikate]

Agreed, but I'm not sure we know all China's potential. I'm sure they've got more than they show (of course).

So do we, sir. And I'm sure alot more than China. Look at all the technology demonstrators produced by US defense firms that have been produced then quickly "shelved". ;)

Plus China's current modernization efforts are driven largely by reverse engineering existing technology, or absorbing technologies from Russia. You can't get very far using this as the basis for your modernization efforts. At some point, your own military infrastructure will become stale and your technical abilities will become deficient.

China cannot compete with the US military despite the hype you read. I'm just trying to figure out why these sources are driving this hype. :hmm: Maybe they're just looking down the road about 20 years and planning.
Sure thing, US is obviosly also keeping it's most advanced weapons hidden, as any other nation would do. In the future, China may be a threat to US, but not know.

[Sulikate]

I still don't get this concept of conventional war. Like Scandium said, if you consider it as a line up-load guns-shoot war, I think it is no such achievement to have never been defeated in this rules of engagement, when facing the type of war US or any other great military power may fight nowadays: guerrila wars are most likely to be the new standard when a small country with poor quality weapons defends itself against a well armed and prepared nation, for example Iraq (this kind of engagement has shown to be favorable to the defenders...)
So I don't give less importance to this kind of conflict, even if it may look "unfair".

That's my point anyway. You are thinking from a false assumption, in this case we have one a rich country with moderate equipment and an alliance of two+ rich countries with advanced equipment. An invasion of Taiwan will be something out of the wars of the middle of last century, airborne assaults, tanks formations, dogfights, ASW. This is “Conventional Warfare”, it may not be men standing shoulder to shoulder but it is symmetrical warfare where many different units all coordinate on a battlefield.
Taiwan's conflict will be surely one case apart from the others (not like the recent previous conflicts), if you consider different powers are present, and even different cultures. I'd rather wait a bit more to see what will this all become. Anyway, do you think there will be any military difficulties faced in Taiwan's possible invasion?

[scandium]

It was an Unconventional War in that the majority of battles were fought by guerrilla forces and not by the standing army. When the standing army did fight they got stomped, its commonly said that the US won every battle but lost the war, this is due to the unconventional nature of the enemy. They blended in to the population, even when the US forces found and took out groups of VCs there were still more hiding and bringing villages over to their side.

Now you can't take territory with unconventional troops you need Tanks, APCs, IFVs, Infantry Divisions and Aircraft. You back to fighting battles like in WWII and Korea. If you try to take a city for example with unconventional forces you in for a blood bath, look at the Tet Offensive: 50,000+ US, Aus, NZ, and SV forces against 85,000+ VC and NVA troops, in the end over 60,000 red side casualties and only 20,985 casualties on the Blue side and no red side objectives achieved.

Alright, I see where you're coming from now and these are valid points.

The US President can be impeached even for stupid reasons. In reality the President is only 1/3 of the federal government and only the Judiciary is selected by him (Pending congressional approval). This differs strongly with the Parliamentary system (Although I admit being only familiar with the Canadian system) where the winning party selects their Ministers, the PM, and the PM chooses the Judiciary and can kick out or call for new elections when ever (s)he wants. Maybe England is different than Canada but I’m glad we didn’t get stuck with a British style Parliament.

The party's ability to select ministers is no different really than the ability of the US President to appoint (subject to nominal congressional approval) his cabinet. Same thing, essentially. The party leader is the person appointed head of government and this is known at election time by the voters (who know that a vote for the MP in their riding is also a tacit vote for the next PM). The only real difference here is that the head of our government is not chosen by a seperate election, as in the US system.

As to elections they are actually held when the Governor General (who is the head of state) dissolves the current government upon a signal from the PM or within 5 years maximum. Elections tend not to be held too closely together, though, do to alienation of voters it can cause when they're made to feel that a premature election isn't respecting their vote. So usually they're about 3-5 years apart. All Commonwealth countries, by the way, use pretty much the same form of Westminster system Canada uses. In England the head of state is the Queen rather than a Governor General, who is the Queen's representative elsewhere.

[Ishmael]

I would hardly expect China to attack the US at this time. As one of their top export markets, as well as the amount of our debt they are financing, this would be counter-productive in the near term. However, the last factor does give them leverage over us regarding Taiwan. Consider the effect of a large scale-dumping of US debt on the world financial markets immediately prior to a Chinese attack on Taiwan. This would cause chaos on the world financial markets and severely constrain US freedom of action due to widespread domestic inflation and the collapse of US financial markets. The US could wind up not being able to afford to put an armed force into the field. A cursory reading of the document tells me that the Chinese force modernisation goals are aimed specifically at denial of access to US forces of the area around Taiwan.
This is a two-edged sword for the Chinese as well, since Taiwan is one of the largest sources for foreign capital used in their economic modernisation. 20-30 years from now would be a different story. If present trends continue, China will outstrip the rest of the world in scientific innovation and production. Their energy needs will undoubtadly increase at a geometric rate, so their need to secure energy will become paramount. Add this to the fact that China now has port facilities in Panama and is developing strategic relationships with nations on the Mallacca Straits could give China control of strategic marine shipping choke points in the event of a conflict.

[scandium]

The real answer is China is in no position to attack Taiwan or confront the US military. While the USAF and US Navy were built to take on the Soviets, the US has only gotten stronger since the end of the Cold War. China hasn't even achieved what the Soviets had back then 20 years ago. I think all the stuff regarding China's military buildup is alot more hype than anything. I respect what they do have and think they could be dangerous, but I think they would get utterly decimated in a war of this scale gainst the USA.

My point is that the US is in no position to confront China either. It is simply spread too thin right now. I'm not saying I think China could win it right now, only that I don't believe the US could either - even if its military wasn't spread out as thinly as it is now.

[scandium]

Plus China's current modernization efforts are driven largely by reverse engineering existing technology, or absorbing technologies from Russia. You can't get very far using this as the basis for your modernization efforts..

It worked for AMD ;) In any case their modernization efforts are still fairly recent while their infrastructure and manufacturing ability continues to expand. They also have numbers on their side, although without technological parity (or close to it) that isn't so beneficial.

[TLAM Strike]

Anyway, do you think there will be any military difficulties faced in Taiwan's possible invasion? Well it all depends on the amount of warning. If the PRC attacks with total surprise it will be an uphill battle to establish a safe area to land heavy armor (those M1s are hard to get around). If there is several weeks of build up on both sides the US will problem have an advantage unless the PRC decides to attack the Philippines or Okinawa which I doubt unless they want a much bigger war on their hands (attacking Okinawa would probably be the stupidest thing they could do because Japan might join the war as a full ally of the US/Taiwan.) If the PRC took out Okinawa they might have a temporary advantage, but if Japan joins the fight the advantage would fade.

If the US can establish air or sea superiority quickly and deny the PLAN any landing zone for their LCTs I think the battle will tip very strongly in favor of the US. With out any heavy armor the airborne and mechanized infantry the PRC sends in first will be in a lot of trouble against the better equipped US and Taiwanese units.

[Bort]

Gotta drop this link since we're talking ROC vs. PRC
http://www.emeraldesigns.com/matchup/military.shtml
This site compares just about all the major ROC and PRC equipment as well as how the match up to each other. Some recent PRC modernizations might not be included though.

[Bort]

Another link, from Globalsecurity, everythinng you ever wanted to know about the ROC-PRC issue and more.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/taiwan.htm

[Sea Demon]

My point is that the US is in no position to confront China either. It is simply spread too thin right now. I'm not saying I think China could win it right now, only that I don't believe the US could either - even if its military wasn't spread out as thinly as it is now.

The US Navy is not spread too thin. Nor is the USAF. If you say the Ground-pounders, I would agree with you. And in a military scenario as described, I think Iraq and Afghanistan would be put on the back burner, if you get my drift.

As far as who would win.....China's goal would be a successful and sustained invasion of Taiwan, and the elimination of all US intervening forces. All the USA would have to do is force the Chinese side into a defensive posture. With the US's amount of readily available weapons assets, the Chinese would have no way to sustain their invasion. Basically, they would have to retreat into a defensive posture, or they lose alot of high value targets on the mainland. The USA would win just by denying the Chinese a successful invasion.

Currently, the Chinese do not have alot of quality assets to fight US forces with. While the US could attack China from multiple axis's with alot of different weapons systems and platforms. China just doesn't currently have the resources to defend themselves against this. Those S-300's and few Sukhoi fighter they have just aren't enough to do the job. And these defenders just couldn't be everywhere at once. The USA would have the initiative here.

Well it all depends on the amount of warning. If the PRC attacks with total surprise it will be an uphill battle ......

TLAM, you hit the nail on the head. And I got to tell you, that there is no way that China can amass the forces for the invasion of Taiwan without that activity being detected. We would see indications of this weeks before they could even move. Don't be surprised if we see this, and we forward deploy 4 or more CSG's to this area as a show of force.

Like I said, the China equation is more hype than anything. The US military is more than capable of taking them on if necessary. Would war be desirable to the US? No. But it is something I know we're prepared for. China cannot match the firepower of 4 CSG's with all their Arleigh Burke and Ticonderoga escorts, plus 20 or so SSN's, possibly the 1 Ohio SSGN, B-2 strikes, and B-52 cruise missile attacks. China only has a few (300-450???) Sukhoi jets, next to no J-10, no air refeuling capability, next to no modern DDG's, no carriers, nothing like our SIGINT, ELINT, or J-STARS, vulnerable logistics, very little AEW capability, little to no space based surveillance. And they would have to devote alot of resources in protecting their air bases and air logistics. If they don't do that, the US could eliminate or degrade their air sortie rates. That means total US air supremacy. And that means total sea control once the Kilos and Songs are dealt with.

And guys, don't forget, the Taiwanese aren't exactly pushovers. They will be there too, ya know. :up:

[scandium]

American politics (or anybody else's, I suppose) could hardly be described as being "black and white."

That is an oversimplfication, true, but when you have only two accepted parties wouldn't that tend to distill policy choices to only two alternatives?

[mapuc]

And I say it again if China attack Taiwan, USA will intervene they have made a promise to Taiwan(off the record)

But there's many way on intervening(wrong spelling?)

Markus

[DeepSix]

Some food for thought (IMO):

The responsibility of the planners is always to examine the capabilities of a potential enemy, not his intentions. It would [be] irresponsible for them to fail to prepare for the possibility of... conflict.
- James Calvert, Silent Running

He was obviously writing about the threat from Japan, but it's sound advice when looking at any and all potential threats in today's world.

[DeepSix]

American politics (or anybody else's, I suppose) could hardly be described as being "black and white."

That is an oversimplfication, true, but when you have only two accepted parties wouldn't that tend to distill policy choices to only two alternatives?

Yes the Republicans and Democrats are the dominant two parties, and yes *most* people vote for one of the two (at least in national elections), but they are by no means the only two accepted parties. Quite a few people, especially today as the R's and D's have left more and more people disenchanted, are Libertarians, for instance. American politics has almost always been balanced between two dominant parties, but rarely has it been limited to two, and every so often there's a big shift in party constituency. At the local and state level (where the machinery of American politics is really driven, IMO), party lines become blurred far more than they appear on TV for national elections. Hardly anybody votes straight ticket anymore; I myself have voted for Republican presidents and Democratic governors and a mix of both when it comes to sheriffs, mayors, councilmen, etc.

The D's and R's have succeeded for years by gathering large numbers of people under broad idealogical (and organizational) umbrellas for the sake of staying in power. But they have migrated further to their extremes over the last two administrations, and that has alienated a lot of people, I think. Even though neither Ross Perot nor Ralph Nader won in their bids, both had very successful campaigns considering their third-party status.

Whenever the moderates in both parties feel left out, the "middle" opens up and the time is ripe for third parties (Libertarian, Green, etc.); occasionally one of the big two gets displaced entirely. Both the Dems and the Reps are at extremely weak times right now, for various reasons. They may survive, but it's not a given.

[August]

One thing is for sure China is no push over. :yep:

Well neither are we...

[SUBMAN1]

* Bort]Sooner or later we will be in a war with China, whether over Taiwan or some other territories like the Spratly's or Siberia. China will flex it's muscles soon, lets hope the US is ready for it when they do, because right now we aren't. :o

We are still holding to policy of being able to fight on 2 fronts and still fight a thrid major power, so yes we are ready, but not completely as capable as we would like I would think. Basically, CHinas policy is not to defeat us, but just to stall us while they over run Taiwan. That is how they are building up their Navy.

-S

You honestly believe the US has the capability to go toe to toe with China while having 150,000 troops fighting in Iraq and a smaller force fighting in Afghanistan? Give me a break. The US has been bogged down in Iraq for 3 years now and they don't even have a military. Its seems to me that if China wanted war with the US they could not pick a better time - and yet they haven't. Probably because they have no desire to (capability does not equal willingness to use it). Now back to your regularly scheduled doom and gloom.
But the US Army alone has something like 600,000 active and 250,00 reserve. 150,000 troops in Iraq is nothing compared to the whole.

Anyways a action against China would be a defensive action in friendly territory unlike Iraq and Afghanistan. This is something we have been training for since the Warsaw Pact was formed 50 years ago. China is predominately a conventional army with Tanks and Platoons of men not a bunch of unconventional guerrillas planting bombs and firing off random mortar shells.

Name one conventional war the US has lost? :roll:

If China invades Taiwan they are going to encounter a lot of the stuff we are seeing in Iraq. :yep:

Yeah, if you read a little futher down, I agreed with that a couple posts back. It is a home turf army when fighting 2 fronts so yeah, opening a 3rd front is not a real option even though the doctorine states that those two fronts are supposed to be against a much more capable enemy with a ton more troops involved. Maybe they could, but who knows.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

* Bort]Sooner or later we will be in a war with China, whether over Taiwan or some other territories like the Spratly's or Siberia. China will flex it's muscles soon, lets hope the US is ready for it when they do, because right now we aren't. :o

We are still holding to policy of being able to fight on 2 fronts and still fight a thrid major power, so yes we are ready, but not completely as capable as we would like I would think. Basically, CHinas policy is not to defeat us, but just to stall us while they over run Taiwan. That is how they are building up their Navy.

-S

You honestly believe the US has the capability to go toe to toe with China while having 150,000 troops fighting in Iraq and a smaller force fighting in Afghanistan? Give me a break. The US has been bogged down in Iraq for 3 years now and they don't even have a military. Its seems to me that if China wanted war with the US they could not pick a better time - and yet they haven't. Probably because they have no desire to (capability does not equal willingness to use it). Now back to your regularly scheduled doom and gloom.

Yes.

You smoking crack or something thinking otherwise?

[bradclark1]

Active Reserves and National Guards:
You have to remember that the majority of AR and NG are support troops.
That was one of the ideas behind smaller active and larger reserve concepts.
If we had a third front(any where) we couldn't just up and leave the ME while leaving a small token force because everything that had been accomplished up to that point would be lost in a matter of days or weeks.

Vietnam:
We did not lose in any way. We just took our toys and went home. The North rolled in after we had mostly left.
Vietnam is a prime example of why civilians shouldn't run wars.

[Wildcat]

China does not have the means to invade Taiwan with its current military.

I forget what happened to it, but for a while there was a hot little document that assessed China's military readiness and ability to invade Taiwan.

The end conclusion is that China lacks the ability to gain complete air superiority over Taiwan and the strait, but it also lacks the necessary firepower to effectively make an amphibious landing of troops on Taiwan. That strait is pretty big, and if the US decided to step in, no landing craft would ever make it through, barring some 100% surprise invasion.

I agree with that conclusion. China's air force does not have staying power yet. Their Su-27's don't have aerial refueling capability, their new fighters are still in design, their navy is DEFINATELY not up to snuff and they are facing all the disadvantages of an amphibious assault, rather than a defense. The odds are really against them in that case.

If it were a defensive operation I would say it's something completely different. But in this case I think China would not be able to invade Taiwan if the US provides assistance. With no US assistance I think it could go either way.

[scandium]

Even though neither Ross Perot nor Ralph Nader won in their bids, both had very successful campaigns considering their third-party status.

That's something I consider another weakness of the American political system: that their "very successful campaigns" had absolutely no impact on policy and government despite being, in your own words, "very successful". The fact is that under the American 'winner take all' system of government a very successful campaign accomplishes absolutely nothing unless you win your presidential bid. Proof of this is that neither Nader nor Perot have had any influence at all on government after losing their bids. At best they might get an appearance or two on a talk show. The only influence they "won" with their very successful campaign bids was on the issues the campaigns were run on - but with absolutely no political voice or ability to hold government accountable to its own platform afterward. Even Gore, who lost by less than 1% of the vote, was left with no voice in government.

Under the Westminster system it is very different and small parties can and do win seats in government, giving these parties and their leaders a voice in government that doesn't end with the campaign. And a party that could pick up Nader's or Perot's percentage of the national vote would have a very profound impact on government.

As to the Libertarian and other such parties you cited as an example, what seats do they hold in government? Without seats in government they are merely paper parties with about as much influence on policy and government as a good blog, and probably less.

[DeepSix]

You know what, dude? I don't pretend to know anything about the Westminster system because since it doesn't concern my country it's none of my damn business. So I don't give a flying F*CK about what you in your self-appointed wisdom consider to be the "weaknesses" of a system that isn't yours. You are not an American citizen, you don't live under its system, and you don't know as much about it as you think you do. You always have a comment on one aspect or another of the American system, always negative and often wrong.

I'm outta here. I'm sorry I wasted public time by even trying to be polite and rational. :stare:

[August]

Even though neither Ross Perot nor Ralph Nader won in their bids, both had very successful campaigns considering their third-party status.

That's something I consider another weakness of the American political system: that their "very successful campaigns" had absolutely no impact on policy and government despite being, in your own words, "very successful". The fact is that under the American 'winner take all' system of government a very successful campaign accomplishes absolutely nothing unless you win your presidential bid. Proof of this is that neither Nader nor Perot have had any influence at all on government after losing their bids. At best they might get an appearance or two on a talk show. The only influence they "won" with their very successful campaign bids was on the issues the campaigns were run on - but with absolutely no political voice or ability to hold government accountable to its own platform afterward. Even Gore, who lost by less than 1% of the vote, was left with no voice in government.

Under the Westminster system it is very different and small parties can and do win seats in government, giving these parties and their leaders a voice in government that doesn't end with the campaign. And a party that could pick up Nader's or Perot's percentage of the national vote would have a very profound impact on government.

As to the Libertarian and other such parties you cited as an example, what seats do they hold in government? Without seats in government they are merely paper parties with about as much influence on policy and government as a good blog, and probably less.

Soooooo Scandium. Why are you posting about the relative merits of western political systems when this thread is supposed to be about the Chinese military?

[TLAM Strike]

Under the Westminster system it is very different and small parties can and do win seats in government, giving these parties and their leaders a voice in government that doesn't end with the campaign. And a party that could pick up Nader's or Perot's percentage of the national vote would have a very profound impact on government.But under the Westminster System if the government doesn’t pass a major bill its must resign or be dissolved. It forces the Legislature to vote with the party or lose office. Not very democratic. Under the American system a member of congress can vote how ever (s)he wants to with out fear of losing office (save for the next election). Also the PM must maintain a majority in the Legislature to remain in power, under the American system a minority president can be elected. The American system gives the people more direct and often say in their government. Seats in part of the House of Reps and Senate are up for election every two years (Congressmen serve for 6 years), under the Westminster System the government is elected only every 5 years at a minimum, assuming the government maintains cohesion the people have very little say.

[scandium]

You know what, dude? I don't pretend to know anything about the Westminster system because since it doesn't concern my country it's none of my damn business.

The funny thing about this is that nobody's forcing you to participate in this discussion. "Its none of my business" is a great cover for ignorance; meanwhile I'm pretty sure I could dig up several of your own posts that are critical of other countries, their leaders, or their policies so this doesn't carry much weight from you since its pure BS.

So I don't give a flying F*CK about what you in your self-appointed wisdom consider to be the "weaknesses" of a system that isn't yours.

Nor is anyone forcing you to. If you don't like what I have to say, don't read it. How hard is that? And certainly don't respond to it, where you're only provoking a response of my own.


You are not an American citizen, you don't live under its system, and you don't know as much about it as you think you do.

Nor can one learn much about something they don't ask questions of or engage in any debate over what they perceive as its strengths/weaknesses.

You always have a comment on one aspect or another of the American system, always negative and often wrong.

If that is the case then my comments shouldn't be that offensive and should be easily debunked.

I'm outta here. I'm sorry I wasted public time by even trying to be polite and rational. :stare:

If this is what passes for "polite and rational" to you then perhaps that is just as well.

[scandium]

Soooooo Scandium. Why are you posting about the relative merits of western political systems when this thread is supposed to be about the Chinese military?

Because it somehow came up earlier in this thread (probably as an aside somewhere from me). It is a bit of a sidetrack though.