Old news. Its already been done!
Star Trek: A Taste of Armageddon
Posted on 04/24/2007 4:24:56 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Going back to the original point-how exactly can Taiwan strike the 3 gorges dam??It’s Mirage-2005 & F-16s barely have the range for a one-way strike on a target almost 1,200 kms away-that over heavily defended territory(flying low level which eats up fuel).They don’t have missiles for that range either.The nuclear option you talk about makes sense when it can employed on Chinese targets closer by.
After all does North Korea need to target Washington or New York to get Bush to play nice??
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2004/06/16/2003175282
You shouldn’t have stopped there. The shipping company Hutchinson-Whampoa has constructed a deep water port in the Caribbean, which could be used to interfere with our Atlantic fleet, and the Chinese have been very involved with both SA and African countries. Guaranteed any hostilities between the US and China and the Panama canal would be shut down.
The USN is very aware of the international hanky-panky, and the Bush administration pulled a fast one by cultivating Musharraf of Pakistan, so that after the Chinese built him a major deep water port, the Pakistanis opened it up to US warships.
The US does have a major disadvantage with having only two major naval port facilities in the Pacific capable of major repairs, refuel and rearmament of our warships. Even Subic Bay was not capable of the full range of Pacific Fleet needs.
We are also cultivating the Indian navy, in something called the “thousand ship navy”, which will represent a much more local challenge to China’s ambitions. I even suggested that instead of mothballing the USS Kennedy, we should have sold it to the Indians to reverse engineer, which would let them leapfrog the Chinese aircraft carrier technology, but at the same time would still be inferior to our fleet.
"It's far more realistic than the clueless pants-wetting panic and frantic overhype of the PRC military with no recognition of its weaknesses and the EXTREME difficulty of conducting opposed seaborne invasions, you get from the Bill Gertz's of the world and quite a few self-proclaimed experts on here."
IMO, and those of a great many others, and PRC/PLA invasion of Taiwan would be of very short duration. Actual heavy bombardment and mil activity probably lasting 4 - 5 days at most. While there may be sporadic resistance over the next 2 weeks or so, it is expected that most of the military and political structure of the island will quickly acclimate to the PRC/PLA occupation. IN-place subversives will smooth over much of the resistance and it is expected that there will be only small infra-structure damage. The targeting and rendering non-operational of Military emplacements is already a given.
China looks at Taiwan as a technology cash cow;but it must be understood that there has been significant technology transfer to the Mainland as Taiwan has shifted its manufacturing base off the island.
Don't expect much in the way of 'organized' resistance. It just is not going to happen.
IMO, and this is my opinion only, this action will be assisted by Taiwanese politicians and key military personnel already in place to smooth this overthrow. Just my personal observations from living on the island. Taiwanese just want 'Business as usual.'
You are so correct in this. As time passes, it will be clear that China has so much leverage over Taiwan in non-military means, there isn't a need to invade. Taiwan will simply be absorbed into China. Also, there are already citizens in Taiwan that want to unite with the mainland. It's a topic of debate in Taiwan. Not everyone in Taiwan is advocating independence. However, it isn't even an issue in China. 98% of the people in China want re-unification. They celebrated in the streets when Hong Kong was united with China. They will celebrate in China when Taiwan is also brought back in.
Sorry, if they ever establish a beach head, it’s all over.
Ping
“The French Army was larger, better equipped, had the advantage of fighting a defensive battle on their home ground.”
This is only partly right.
The French (and British, and Belgian) armies had the advantage of the defense in 1940, but numbers favored the attacking Axis powers.
Allied forces in France, total, were 2.8 million.
Axis forces in the French campaign were 4.1 million, a better than 3:2 advantage in manpower. There were 144 Allied divisions facing 173 Axis divisions.
The Allies, combined, had 3100 aircraft. The Axis had 5500, a better than 3:2 advantage in favor of the Axis in that decisive arm.
The Allies had about 900 more tanks than the Germans, but German armor was combined into strike forces for blitzkrieg warfare, while the Allied tanks were spread out among the thinner and considerably less numerous Allied forces, and a material number of those Allied forces dropped out of the war swiftly when Belgium collapsed.
Had they had better tactics, the Allies had a fighting chance in France in 1940, but in point of fact the notion that the French outnumbered the Germans is a myth. The Germans BADLY outnumbered the French in airpower and troop strength, and significantly outnumbered the combined Allied forces as well.
Another myth is that the French surrendered without a fight.
Actually, in that two month campaign, there were 360,000 dead, which was very heavy casualties (for reference sake, it is about double American losses in all of World War I).
France did not surrender without a fight, and France in no sense at all had the military advantage in 1940. She was outnumbered, badly, even with her British (and Belgian) allies in the field. France fought, hard, but it is a short distance from the Rhine to Paris. The French were outmaneuvered by new tactics in the hands of a numerically far superior enemy, and they lost the war in the field. But they fought.
There were no computer simulations of 1940, because the computer wasn’t invented until later in World War II, by the Americans.
There were computer simulations done of Vietnam, which showed the Americans winning an easy victory in 1966. Of course, simulations are only as good as the parameters.
Right now, China could not win for the same reason Napoleon couldn’t beat Britain in 1805: IF the Chinese today, or the French then, could get across the water, they would manhandle the little island on the other side, which they vastly outnumber(ed).
But Napoleon didn’t have a navy to do it, and China doesn’t have one...yet. However, time is on the side of China. They have almost a trillion dollars in trade surplus pouring in every year. Their industrial base is skyrocketing. With each passing year, they can build a bigger and bigger force. Taiwan cannot possibly keep up, and the technological edge over China is eroding.
With time, the defense of Taiwan would require either the intervention of the US, or Taiwanese nuclear weapons. I myself prefer the proliferation route. Taiwan and Japan both need nuclear weapons of their own, to safeguard them against attack by China.
It has been argued that the 21st century will be called the Anglosphere Century, to include Britain, North America, The Carribean, Australia, and India.
More important than NATO ?
They sound like the American Captains of Industry (Whatever is left).
We are All Globalists Now sarc/....
Thanks for catching the catch, happyg!
You know that AP writers would love for the ChiCom “invaders” to take over Taiwan and California and DC for that matter.
I can always count on someone like “One-eye Pico-de-Gallo” or whatever his screen name is to try to give me remedial reading lessons when something like this comes up!
FR is getting painful to post on sometimes.
Old news. Its already been done!
Star Trek: A Taste of Armageddon
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.