Posted on 10/07/2004 6:46:59 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Korea was the last time you had two forces that could remotely be considered evenly-matched.
And what of the Arab-Israeli and Indo-Pakistani conflicts?
The NVA used SAMs because they couldn't compete directly in the air--and they couldn't compete because they couldn't afford the price tag of first-line aircraft and first-line aircrews.
Once we defeated the SAM (easy in principle, harder in practice), we defeated the one cheap option for contesting air dominance. The air-to-air option is expensive, and we're the only country rich enough to afford it.
It was the last time that the OPFOR could afford to be anywhere near evenly matched, and that was only in raw numbers. They couldn't afford to train any pilots.
And what of the Arab-Israeli and Indo-Pakistani conflicts?
Air-to-air combat was scarcer in all of the Indo-Pak wars than it was in 'Nam, even when considered on a per-capita or per-combat-day basis. In the Arab-Israeli Wars, they've gotten increasingly rarer as well.
The trend is away from dogfighting, and it's for a very good reason: we're the only people who can afford the flight time to train the aircrews.
Every war begins with either the knowledge or fantasy of superiority. No country starts a war without a strong belief in their own inevitable victory. Most countries get this belief wrong; example: The 6 day war. The only country I know to get this idea right is the U.S., which every day is working to insure combat advantage from every perspective.
The great thing about the current war, is that it forces the U.S. to become proficient at anti-insurgency, by forcing the Army's tactical weaknesses into the open.
In the future, we wont fight like this. We will simply give civilians a choice of two actions. Drive out the insurgents on their own, or leave their cities, upon which we will just level the place from the air.
the India-Pak war of 65 was the one which was most evenly matched of all,infact tilting towards the Pakis(with their new American toys),while India was still getting over the shock of it's 62 defeat with China.By the 1999 Kargil conflict,the tables were totally turned with the IAF receiving lots of weapons on a contingency basis from Israel & Russia.The Pakis on the other hand were reliant on their Chinese F-7 as the F-16s faced a spare-parts crunch(due to sanctions).There are widespread stories of how an Indian Mig-29 pilot locked on to 2 Pakistan F-16s with his AA-10 Alamos during the conflict,making the F-16s flee.The Pilot was the only AF officer to be decorated ,despite having no role in the Air to Ground campaign(which was handled by Mig-27s & Mirage-2000s)-so there must be an element of truth in that incident.
The Eagle's RWR's turned off or what?
What is funny, is that many of these countries think that they can use fighters the way that the U.S. uses our Carriers. They believe that the presence of fighters is enough to influence policy. None of these countries can afford(or build) a modern carrier, so this is their decided option. It is foolish, because we can blow them up in the air or on the ground. Does the IAF think they can get anywhere near a CG in this lifetime? That is the only question as to who wins.
When you control the air, they cant move. When you control the sea, they cant eat. When you cant move or eat, you cant fight on the ground too good either.
I certainly agree that the conflict won't be limited to simple strikes attempting the destruction of Iran's nuclear capacity; even if the U.S. were to try to wage such a limited campaign (and isn't my most likely scenario), I agree that it would escalate since that escalation plays to what one of the few strengths the Iranians have, the ability to put a relatively largish number of people in the field.
The Mullahs in Iran aren't averse to escalating a conflict & with the pretty large Shia populations in Bahrein,Lebanon,Pakistan,Saudi Arabia & Yemen,you can expect a lot of trouble.
My best guess is that a second demonstration of political will from the U.S. will have a salutary effect (as with Libya) on Syria and Saudi Arabia.
Any US action on Iran,esp if it's a longterm commitment,will give the PRC breathing space to act on Taiwan.
As I said earlier, I don't believe that the U.S. leadership has any plan to actively defend Taiwan at this point nor will China reckon on us having such a plan (not only do we owe them lots of money, they have lots and lots of our assets in the way of manufacturing capacity sitting conveniently at hand for quick nationalization), so that "breathing space" already exists as much as it ever will.
Will the US public want to see US forces go to war with a nation with the world's largest armed forces(& 350 odd nukes) when they are taking casualities in Iraq & Iran(which contrary to what folks on FR expect will not be a cake walk)??
I certainly don't believe that it would in any way be a cakewalk, and I don't believe that our government will attempt an active defense of Taiwan.
However, I believe that if we were to make such a defense, it would be extraordinarily popular with Americans. Most big wars start that way, and most of us want to defend a fellow democracy against China.
But just because we citizens want to do something, that doesn't mean that the U.S. government would do something -- believe me, if we had attacked Iran in 1979, it would have had universal popularity here, but a Carter government wouldn't defend itself against a bunny rabbit, much less mad mullahs.
I think that we're supposed to come away from this with a "gee, the Air Force sure needs the new 20 gazillion dollar fighter". They take away radar coverage, limit the Ammram (sp?) to 20 miles and give three to one odds. What does this tell you?
I've always joked about the ultimate air-to-air killing machine:
A C-5 or an AN-225 equipped with a big honkin' AWACS radar (one that, when it goes to max ERP/PRF, can make you sire FLKs from 50 miles out), and loaded with rack after rack of 200-nm range AAMs (say, a modified Block IV Standard).
The only thing the pilot needs to do is flip a switch marked "COMBAT MODE" to "AUTO" and pour himself another cup of coffee (c8
RIOs/WSOs say, "Whoa, that would be very cool, dude."
Pilots accuse me of heresy (c8
True enough, which is why it's only a joke.
Especially when I describe the combat system: to activate it, you have to stick in a quarter (c8
You would be right if John Kerry were the President. He aint gonna be.
The U.S. not only currently would kick China's ass over Taiwan, but would do it with such force as to cause revolution in China. We would punch the bully in the nose.
How do you think China felt about those 7 Carrier Battle Groups hanging out and taking in the scenery earlier this year. What do you think we were doing there, besides working on our tan lines? China would never escalate against us over Taiwan. We would make their rice glow.
You would be right if John Kerry were the President. He aint gonna be.
Senator Kerry, were he elected, would be drinking champagne toasts with Kim Jong-il in Beijing to celebrate the glorious reunion of Taiwan and the Koreas. Fortunately, he has run one of the worst campaigns in many years, and will probably lose in a landslide.
The U.S. not only currently would kick China's ass over Taiwan, but would do it with such force as to cause revolution in China. We would punch the bully in the nose.
Nobody is going to match us in a battle of our choice. However, this won't be a battle of our choice -- and if it goes from battle to hot conventional war between the U.S. and China, we are going to be in a world of hurt. China will nationalize our factories. They will cut off shipping through the straits, which will put Japan in a very bad spot for oil. They will probably try to make indirect war, from causing trouble everywhere from the Panama Canal and among the chosensoren in Japan, to having Kim stirring up trouble in the Koreas. Our multinationals which are dependent on China will be in a world of hurt. Wal-mart will go under.
How do you think China felt about those 7 Carrier Battle Groups hanging out and taking in the scenery earlier this year. What do you think we were doing there, besides working on our tan lines? China would never escalate against us over Taiwan. We would make their rice glow.
I hope they gulped and decided to back off permanently from ideas of taking Taiwan.
I personally think we should stop doing business with China's Communists, and bring our factories home. However, our government has been going a completely different course of "engagement" with the Communist government of China. And China has been responding by only being more boldly bellicose about Taiwan. I don't think that we have convinced China that we can or will actively defend Taiwan.
Could I be wrong? Of course. I am not an expert, and, for instance, I didn't foresee the collapse of the Soviet Union, President Reagan's greatest achievement, which other people called well ahead of time.
It wont be a battle of our choice? Oh brother.
Listen, it is China's desperate hope that it wont be a battle at all, because if there is a battle, they will get their ass kicked. This is why the world wants Bush to lose so badly.
First, if China so much as massed troops for an invasion, there would be a firing solution on every opposing ship in the vicinity. China knows this. Any Chinese troop getting off a ship may as well kiss it goodbye. How would China cut off shipping? Harsh language?
Here is the deal. Our submarines are like invisible guns pointed at the world's heads. "Make our day" type stuff. Get it? China cant track our subs, nobody can. You don't want to piss off our Sub fleet. We will hurt you. China's shipping fleet is the lifeline of their economy. We could have it underwater in a single afternoon. It takes a long time to build ships, and it costs a lot of money. Money China wont have if they cant sell anything in America or anywhere else. In the end, China will exchange Japan's oil for the ability to sell chopsticks in New York. They are not stupid.
The invasion of Taiwan depends on having an idiot pacifist U.S. President who hates our power. Without John Kerry, the world will just have to take what we give it. Those are just the facts. China is not so crazy as to launch a missile at a CBG, or anything else that might hit back. Oh, and Walmart has insurance.
Listen, it is China's desperate hope that it wont be a battle at all, because if there is a battle, they will get their ass kicked. This is why the world wants Bush to lose so badly.
I agree that we can kick them anywhere we decide to do so. We can put a world of hurt on them in any battle that we choose. If we get to choose our battle, we get to win.
First, if China so much as massed troops for an invasion, there would be a firing solution on every opposing ship in the vicinity. China knows this. Any Chinese troop getting off a ship may as well kiss it goodbye. How would China cut off shipping? Harsh language?
I believe that China is going to try this and has been directly signaling this intention for a long while. I certainly hope that you are right that we can stop them just this cold, and that we have the will to do it.
My own wild guess however (and it is not as informed as yours) is that they will not depend so much on conventional sea power since we are strongest there. Maybe they go with a some sort of massive Mariel armada. Who knows? Maybe they use a lot of big commercial aircraft like a big Red Ball Express in the air. Since they have a lot of people, it will likely be a big wave of some sort. Maybe we can take on any tactic -- I would sure like to think so, but I don't count on it. Knowing how to solve the problems of the last war hasn't always been fruitful for solving all of the problems of the next one.
Here is the deal. Our submarines are like invisible guns pointed at the world's heads. "Make our day" type stuff. Get it? China cant track our subs, nobody can. You don't want to piss off our Sub fleet. We will hurt you. China's shipping fleet is the lifeline of their economy. We could have it underwater in a single afternoon. It takes a long time to build ships, and it costs a lot of money. Money China wont have if they cant sell anything in America or anywhere else. In the end, China will exchange Japan's oil for the ability to sell chopsticks in New York. They are not stupid.
Yes, our Navy's technology is magnificent; we have a large fleet, both surface and submarine, and we can feed it for at least a battle of our choice. Put us in another conventional Pacific War, and we are unbeatable in the battle of our choice, and likely any other conceivable conventional situation.
However, I don't discount the unconventional pain that China can cost us. If they start with a strong unconventional bang (much as Japan did in Port Arthur and Pearl Harbor), it will knock us off balance just like Pearl did to us and Port Arthur to the Russians (my own guess is that they use their conventional shipping as a delivery mechanism to our refineries.) They can take all of that industrial wealth that we have so obligingly placed there -- and while currently they do a lot of shipping to us, they can run their economy without that shipping, certainly as a wartime economy. They can use their little puppet Kim to take our minds off the Taiwan front. They run the Panama Canal, and can close it. They can stretch us with fifth columns here and other places, and even have Korean surrogates in South Korea and Japan in additional to their own folks.
And look where we started: I personally think that India will silently assent to this invasion. It is certainly possible that Russia will come down on China's side. I think it is possible that Japan will ask us to leave if it appears that there is a possibility of hot war with China, though recent events have me hopeful that this might not occur.
And finally, if it turns into a protracted hot war and not just a battle of the straits, we cannot run our war machine that hot. We don't have the steel capacity; heck, apparently we don't even the capacity to manufacture enough ammunition for our small arms. Even to handle just Afghanistan and Iraq, apparently we are even starting to stretch our forces, due to the massively corrupt President Clinton's cuts to our forces. Taking on a country with four times our population and which houses our industry is a far greater challenge.
The invasion of Taiwan depends on having an idiot pacifist U.S. President who hates our power. Without John Kerry, the world will just have to take what we give it. Those are just the facts. China is not so crazy as to launch a missile at a CBG, or anything else that might hit back. Oh, and Walmart has insurance.
Senator Kerry's election would be a foreign policy disaster as great as Presidents Carter and Clinton, and maybe far greater.
As to China's nuttiness, I think China is just that crazy. China has been using their surrogate Kim to push us, and our government seems to have fallen for the ruse that China is somehow a disinterested party. My guess is that they think that they can get away with a lot, even with President Bush in office.
My line about Walmart was a throwaway, but seriously I don't think that they have any business risk insurance that encompasses war risk. I have had the misfortune to read such insurance coverage, and I haven't seen any that covers it. If you are referring to OPIC (i.e., we the people), I don't believe that we have any insured in Red China, though we do have liabilities in Taiwan.
But this all aside of the main political point that I just don't think that even the Bush administration is going to be willing to pay the cost of trying to defend Taiwan. The price is high, because it will further fire China's ambitions as it then labels a huge swathe as its territorial waters.
Would I personally prefer to see us defend Taiwan? Yes, of course I would, as would most Americans -- and I hope that if does come to blows that you are right, and that I am way off base. I'd like to see Communist China choke on its ambitions; I'd like to see us stop indebting ourselves to this monstrous regime; I'd like to see the U.S. bring back its vast industrial wealth and no longer see it run by the serfs of a vile totalitarian government.
You have completely allayed my fears that we might be getting a scosh too satisfied with ourselves.
This former Marine is laughing his a$$ off at you.
Amphibious assaults are not a pickup game of basketball.
Maybe they use a lot of big commercial aircraft like a big Red Ball Express in the air
Boeing would love it! They sell lots of expensive airplanes to the PRC...and then get to sell the replacement for the PRC a bunch of expensive airplanes to replace the ones shot down during the failed invasion attempt!
Since they have a lot of people, it will likely be a big wave of some sort.
Human wave attacks have had one distinguishing feature since 1914:
They are bloodily unsuccessful.
They can take all of that industrial wealth that we have so obligingly placed there -- and while currently they do a lot of shipping to us, they can run their economy without that shipping, certainly as a wartime economy.
And when the oil runs out--and it will run out in a matter of a couple weeks--how are they going to get more oil? There's going to be ZERO shipping into Shanghai or Hong Kong.
They can use their little puppet Kim to take our minds off the Taiwan front.
Congratulations, the ROK Army is now on the Yalu, and Kim Jong-Il was eaten by his guards. (That is the likely scenario of a Korean war at K+14.)
They run the Panama Canal, and can close it.
The Panamanian government, loathe to lose the revenue from the Canal, tells them "Open the f***ing Canal before we start hacking your dependents to pieces with machetes, maricons." The US government, meanwhile, chops XVIII Airborne Corps to SOUTHCOM, and we reprise Operation Just Cause.
It is certainly possible that Russia will come down on China's side.
China claims that Russia stole Siberia.
If China tries to take Taiwan, Russia will understand that they are next in line, and they will act very decisively. Putin's likely to launch a "limited" nuclear strike that kills 20,000,000 Chinese outright, and kills another 780,000,000 in six weeks because the transportation infrastructure will be destroyed. (The food in China is grown away from where it is consumed; without a rail net, China's people will starve very quickly.)
The key is to control your pessimism.
China is not a nation run by crazies. In fact, the Chinese are much more pragmatic than we are. They know that the deciding factor over Taiwan is will. Bush has it, Kerry does not.
I have no doubt that Bush would light up China like a torch if he had to, to defend Taiwan.
You must understand that our military is no longer about protracted warfare. If you take us on, we are going to obliterate you. We no longer depend on the U.N. for anything at all. When you are alone in the forest with only your knife to protect you, you use that knife and ask questions later.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.