Can China Invade Taiwan?

I got a question: are you a liberal?

By all means!

[edit on 2-8-2005 by puri]

[edit on 2-8-2005 by puri]

[edit on 2-8-2005 by puri]

The United States has about 12 carriers out there, along with nuclear submarines, not one carrier. And the modern U.S. military's pilots have far more training than Chinese pilots. A Su-27 versus a Hornet in an aerobatics show is one thing, but with better pilot training and better avionics, no way. Especially now with the headmounted targeting systems the Superhornets are getting.

The U.S. also has the most advanced submarines in the world. You really think the U.S. isn't watching China via satellite and submarine, and so forth?

And what is this with the U.S. would have "everything to lose?" SO WOULD CHINA. And infrastructure? Infrastructure is the things like schools, hospitals, manufacturing capabilities, etc...the Chinese do not have these on par with the United States. If they did, their economy would be equal with ours (or a lot closer). Well, you need infrastructure to support a pro-longed war if you start one.

And yes, training does matter. The U.S. would not be up against equal forces with the Chinese. They would be against forces capable of doing damage to them, but Chinese forces are a far cry from U.S. forces. Chinese pilots have no experience in real combat, even.

If the Chinese were to start massing troops to invade Taiwan, the United States would know about it immediately. And massing troops is no quick matter. It takes time. The United States, if it decided to defend Taiwan, would then send in submarines and carriers to take out the Chinese ships, and the Taiwanese and American aircraft would go up to take out the Chinese aircraft.

The Chinese would have to mass their troops and then get their boats and ships out very quickly. 100 miles is still ONE-HUNDRED miles. Assuming their ships went 30 miles per hour, that's approximately a three-hour boat ride across the straight. Assuming they go 50 mph, that's about a two hour ride.

What the Chinese would probably do is send in missiles to bomb the daylights out of the Taiwanese military bases, to destroy the resistance from Taiwanese aircraft and set chaos going, which is why they are putting missiles on their side of the straight.

In an all-out battle, the Chinese would lose to the U.S. But what they want to do is make the loss large enough that America would not feel like going through it with it all.

As for the Chinese gov't being "willing to use military force to achieve their aims," that was misunderstood. If the U.S. gov't wants to do something, it seeks approval first. It doesn't just go and "do it," unless it is sure it is in the right (as is the case with Iraq). The Chinese do none of the sort. Their people cannot vote their gov't members out of office if they don't like what they're doing and the Chinese consent no one about what they do.

Also, one doesn't always need to use military force. The Chinese have shown a history of the willingness to use military force to achieve their aims, regardless of whether diplomacy would work or not.

And the Vietnamese performed rather poorly against the United States in Vietnam. Lyndon B. Johnson literally would NOT allow U.S. forces to attack the Vietnamese. Thus, the NVA could attack, retreat, resupply, and regroup, then attack again. The U.S. wasn't allowed to pursue them.

What Vietnam was was the North Vietnamese fighting an army that literally was not allowed to pursue it and attack it, with open supply lines from Russia and China. Had Johnson cut off the supply lines and allowed the soldiers to attack, it would've been a whole different war (much shorter too).

And regardless of the above, the Vietnamese still lost far more men in the end then the United States did; by the end of the war, they were virtually destroyed.

I think it is silly to assume that at some point, the Chinese will physically claim Taiwan. There is just no way to know. During the Cold War, people thought at some point, in the future, the United States and Russia were most definitely going to duke it out World War III-style. But that never happened.

And it didn't just happen because the Soviet Union went bankrupt, either. The Soviet Union and the United States got on much better relations with each other in the 1980s when compared to how hostile they were in the 1960s to each other.

Originally posted by EngineMan2145
You really think the U.S. isn't watching China via satellite and submarine, and so forth?

Now THAT would be naive wouldn't it. ;-)

manufacturing capabilities, etc...the Chinese do not have these on par with the United States. If they did, their economy would be equal with ours (or a lot closer). Well, you need infrastructure to support a pro-longed war if you start one.

I remember reading a report in one of the Canadian newspapers that said China graduates more engineers than any other country in the world. Probably the same is true, or nearly true for doctors and other professionals.
China has a trade surplus and the US a deficit, I believe.

One other thing. "Highly trained" anything is time and resource expensive. The Chinese/Russian style of low quality mass production might put the US at a disadvantage in a prolonged war. Cold war tactics. I'm sorry, but I can't see your argument as being credible.

What the Chinese would probably do is send in missiles to bomb the daylights out of the Taiwanese military bases, to destroy the resistance from Taiwanese aircraft and set chaos going, which is why they are putting missiles on their side of the straight.

Yup. IRBM's protected by Chinese soil. What would the rules of engagement be? Could the US diplomatically justify attacking mainland China? Reminds me of the problem in Vietnam that gave the north a fighting chance (you summarized it in your post). Plus, now the USAF/Navy will have to run much more of the Chinese Anti-air as well as taking on the Chinese fighters on their home turf.

In an all-out battle, the Chinese would lose to the U.S. But what they want to do is make the loss large enough that America would not feel like going through it with it all.

Now you're thinking!! A post 9/11 attack on Iraq and Afganistan is one thing. How would you justify attacking mainland China inorder to send American lives into what is essentially a civil war? Some treaty made for reasons that only historians recall?!? It would be a tough sell. Especially if the war becomes long.

As for the Chinese gov't being "willing to use military force to achieve their aims," that was misunderstood. If the U.S. gov't wants to do something, it seeks approval first. It doesn't just go and "do it," unless it is sure it is in the right (as is the case with Iraq). The Chinese do none of the sort.

The PLA is "liberating" the Chinese on the island of Taiwan loyal to the Communist cause (there are quite a few of those judging by the Taiwanese voting results, if you look at the numbers in the right way). Furthermore, China has a soverign "right" to engage in a "police action" against dangerous "separtist movements" on its "own" soil. Permission sought and granted!! Yeah! We live in a liberated and enlightened society!! Again, please THINK rather than spewing propaganda. Politicians are experts at putting "spin" on things.

Personally, I find it disgusting that a nation would actually try to justify killing people by getting "approval". There's only one being who has that right and He doesn't sit in the UN.

And regardless of the above, the Vietnamese still lost far more men in the end then the United States did; by the end of the war, they were virtually destroyed.

4 to 1 body ratio in favour of the Chinese this time. "Let the bodies hit the floor. Let the bodies hit the floor...." It'll be a nasty, bloody, stupid war if the US gets involved.

Soviet Union and the United States got on much better relations with each other in the 1980s when compared to how hostile they were in the 1960s to each other.

Let's all hope cooler heads prevail. MacArthur said it best "Don't get involved in a war in South East Asia!!"

Originally posted by chinawhite
the su-27 vs hornets. i think thats more than a fair match

the americans only have 1 forward deployed carrier. by the time america gets more carriers china will already have estiablished a beach-head or more on taiwan.


huh. india. please dont go there.

and you can rule out any russian help. because they support chinas stance on taiwan.

No no.. you misunderstood.. I never said Russia or India would assist in any taiwan related war..
I said that if China were to INDEPENDANTLY get into a conflict with any of these two, they wouldn't have it easy at all.. THe US is a class above India/Russia

The only disadv. the US has is the reaction of their public to bodybags..Almost 2000 in Iraq now aye??

China and Russia are no closer than the US and India are now.. And thats not close believe me...
But I agree that neither Russia nor India would assist the US in any taiwanese endeavour..
As for superhornets (or were you specifically referring to hornets? ) vs. Su27..
we got to check the radar and missile capabilities of both..
Even MVR and dogfighting would be equal I suppose since the Su-27 ain't got any TVC ..But it has canards..so then again.. who knows..

Originally posted by Daedalus3

Even MVR and dogfighting would be equal I suppose since the Su-27 ain't got any TVC ..But it has canards..so then again.. who knows..

i even said in my first post. equal or something like that

Originally posted by EngineMan2145
Especially now with the headmounted targeting systems the Superhornets are getting.

chinese su-27s already have that feature.

The U.S. also has the most advanced submarines in the world. You really think the U.S. isn't watching China via satellite and submarine, and so forth?

you think they'll be in chinese waters.

let the US watch us. the whole chinese coast is full of maritine activity

And infrastructure? Infrastructure is the things like schools, hospitals, manufacturing capabilities, etc...the Chinese do not have these on par with the United States. If they did, their economy would be equal with ours (or a lot closer). Well, you need infrastructure to support a pro-longed war if you start one.

well per capita maybe but not as a number.

isn't the war in iraq costing the US something like 1 trillion dollars. think about the size of china and the size of iraq

The United States, if it decided to defend Taiwan, would then send in submarines and carriers to take out the Chinese ships, and the Taiwanese and American aircraft would go up to take out the Chinese aircraft.

do you know where the carriers are stationed. only one is forward deployed.

In an all-out battle, the Chinese would lose to the U.S. But what they want to do is make the loss large enough that America would not feel like going through it with it all.

both countries will lose. its two nukes powers in a "all-out" war.

As for the Chinese gov't being "willing to use military force to achieve their aims," that was misunderstood. If the U.S. gov't wants to do something, it seeks approval first. It doesn't just go and "do it," unless it is sure it is in the right (as is the case with Iraq). The Chinese do none of the sort. Their people cannot vote their gov't members out of office if they don't like what they're doing and the Chinese consent no one about what they do.

well the 63+million communist members do have a say

And the Vietnamese performed rather poorly against the United States in Vietnam. Lyndon B. Johnson literally would NOT allow U.S. forces to attack the Vietnamese. Thus, the NVA could attack, retreat, resupply, and regroup, then attack again. The U.S. wasn't allowed to pursue them.

huh? what war is this. the NVA never attacked over the 17th parallel

What Vietnam was was the North Vietnamese fighting an army that literally was not allowed to pursue it and attack it, with open supply lines from Russia and China. Had Johnson cut off the supply lines and allowed the soldiers to attack, it would've been a whole different war (much shorter too).

ummm. it would have been a lot more costly war. china was willing to fight for the vietnamese. and seeing their comrades getting blown out so close to thier border would have made china intervenre

Originally posted by LemonAide
[The PLA is "liberating" the Chinese on the island of Taiwan loyal to the Communist cause

Yes, the three people in that back room no doubt want liberation :shk: Some of your quotes sound like they are right after one of your communist party posters. "liberating" Funny whenever China does any liberating, how come millions die?

Again, please THINK rather than spewing propaganda. Politicians are experts at putting "spin" on things.

*Picks up phone* Hello Pot? Its the Kettle --- YOUR BLACk"

Personally, I find it disgusting that a nation would actually try to justify killing people by getting "approval". There's only one being who has that right and He doesn't sit in the UN.

Mao? He killed how many millions between the cultural revolution and the 'Great leap Nowhere"? But you may have a point. I do not think that the communist government of China nor her people felt they needed UN approval to go into Tibet and rape nuns and slaughter.

Originally posted by chinawhite


huh? what war is this. the NVA never attacked over the 17th parallel

Huh, what war is that? 1ATF operating out of Nui Dat was tangling with NVA regulars in Phuoc Tuy Province.

ummm. it would have been a lot more costly war. china was willing to fight for the vietnamese. and seeing their comrades getting blown out so close to thier border would have made china intervenre

Yes, that would have been a much more costly war, and also rather unlikely. There would have been no UN action as in Korea, given the Soviet and Chinese vetoes, and Johnson hamstrung his generals to prevent exactly that kind of war. Nixon wouldn't have prosecuted it, he had Kissinger too busy running back and forth between Beijing and Washington to want to piss the Chinese off too obviously. Ansd Sino-Soviet split or not, it's unlikely the Soviets would have allowed the USA to unilaterally thump the Chinese, which they were far more capable of then than they are now.
However, back then the US was only just coming to the end of its love affair with the KMT and madame Chiang. To get that scenario going you need different US leaders. Don't forget the size of the US presence at Clark and Subic back then, a hell of a lot more forward-deployed everything and two fleets at Yankee and Dixie stations.

Originally posted by FredT


Mao? He killed how many millions between the cultural revolution and the 'Great leap Nowhere"? But you may have a point. I do not think that the communist government of China nor her people felt they needed UN approval to go into Tibet and rape nuns and slaughter.

the cultural revolution.?

the leaders after that mao suffered a lot in the cultural revolution. the people responsible were given death sentences. do you remember the gang of four?

hhhmmmm so much anger and hate by some of the chinese here to the US its no wonder that some americans are becoming very wary of china and her plans, deans of military univeristy saying they will nuke the us if it helps out a people that dont want to live under chinese "communist" rule they have seen what happens under them with Tibet. The past has shown if china invades and controls it never gives back the land but keeps it and uses a tactic the romans used on the Jews. The Japanese and the US could lay claim to the island of Tiawan if they wanted to, it was the Americans that liberated Taiwan from the Japanese so by all rights of war it should be an US island. IF it wasnt for the US china still would be Japanese.

The US is watching China's every move now, I am sure the US as it fair share of agents, statilites, boats and subs watching china's every move. Not just in the military sectors but economic watching how much steel and other important supplies are being transfered to china.

Looks like an arms race has started, more toys china unveals the more toys the US will bring out its toys, another arms race has begun just like 100 years ago. THe sound of some of the chinese on this board they want it to happen and I am sure there are many americans licking thier lips as well.

NBC i detest with all of my being, a threat of these being used is always considered to be super serious, the US wont stand for much more of it from her "friend", maybe someday the US companies that want to go over there will be stopped and the amount of chinese stuff entering the US will be limited, the US is the biggest buyer of Chinese goods, who gets hurt more if the US stops buying chinese stuff and buys from other nations or the chinese stops buying from the US which they they do in a limited amount and has tobuy from other nations?

Thats a big if not huge market that would close to the chinese and i think the chinese industry would suffer cfar more than the us.

I ask the chinese, indians, russians and americans if you want to have an arms race, another cold war and maybe ww3/global war?

if you do thats ok, if you dont thats ok.

Beijin throw the nuke to US?
They dare???????
What about that richman whose villa L L car and beautiful woman?
all of these richman do can influence community party or even they ARE community party's members
Acording my knowing that only someone who live in west of China will maybe hope make a war with US, since they really poor and no idea can be used to help them.

Originally posted by FredT
Yes, the three people in that back room no doubt want liberation :shk: Some of your quotes sound like they are right after one of your communist party posters. "liberating" Funny whenever China does any liberating, how come millions die?

Sarcassm. My appologies. Didn't think anyone would read that paragraph as anything other than that.

Personally, I find it disgusting that a nation would actually try to justify killing people by getting "approval". There's only one being who has that right and He doesn't sit in the UN.

Mao? He killed how many millions between the cultural revolution and the 'Great leap Nowhere"? But you may have a point. I do not think that the communist government of China nor her people felt they needed UN approval to go into Tibet and rape nuns and slaughter.

Like I said, I find it disgusting. I didn't limit my disgust to the US.

Originally posted by Char2c35t
hhhmmmm so much anger and hate by some of the chinese here to the US its no wonder that some americans are becoming very wary of china and her

I, like many Chinese I know, have family and friends in both the US and in mainland China. How many Americans can claim unbiased personal stakes in this discussion?

You've written a lot of reasons why the Chinese should love Americans. Did it ever occur to you that the Chinese DO infact like Americans? That maybe the right of the Chinese people (or any peoples) to build a better life for themselves is all the Chinese want? That maybe peace is gained through communication and mutual respect?

I can only speak for myself, but my anger isn't towards any particular nation. It's towards people who spew propaganda and refuse to have an open mind.

Originally posted by chinawhite

Originally posted by FredT


Mao? He killed how many millions between the cultural revolution and the 'Great leap Nowhere"? But you may have a point. I do not think that the communist government of China nor her people felt they needed UN approval to go into Tibet and rape nuns and slaughter.

the cultural revolution.?

the leaders after that mao suffered a lot in the cultural revolution. the people responsible were given death sentences. do you remember the gang of four?

I do. I watched the trial on TV in China. At the time the only other TV you could get was the news about how great the pork harvest was. :-) The whole trial was broadcast on nation wide television.

The people of Taiwan do not want to become communist, I don't know what "polls" show that. And polls are not to be taken seriously anyhow. There are so many variables to making polls, you could write a book about them.

The people of China do not like the Communist ways; if they did, there wouldn't be protests over there over China. They like their new economic goodies and so forth. No one has ever liked communism except those who command thep eople in it. Taiwan has a military of very patriotic, very democratic people; Taiwan also has one of the largest Christian populations of many countries. They are not communist at all.

And Taiwan is not a country that broke off from China that China hasn't had the ability to get back. The communists succeeded in winning China, and the democratic folk retreated to Taiwan. The Chinese government then claimed Taiwan as its own.

You are right, the Chinese people themselves do want to just have a happy and peaceful existence, but the Chinese government, people aren't so sure of. The Chinese government has shown a history of willing to use military force to achieve its aims, no matter what.

Do not take the inability to have power as a lack of desire.

As for China producing engineers and scientists, you are right about that. That is something the United States needs to be careful of. If the U.S. wants to remain the world leader in technology we need to make sure we keep producing high numbers of engineers, scientists, and technicians.

EngineMan2145; don't you find a lot of your statements are true of European Nations and the U.S. of A?

Which statements do you mean?

Originally posted by EngineMan2145
The people of Taiwan do not want to become communist, I don't know what "polls" show that. And polls are not to be taken seriously anyhow. There are so many variables to making polls, you could write a book about them.

Read my post about sarcasm.

You need to get yourself over to China and see what's really going on. You still seem to have some stereotypes. It really isn't that hard to see why the Chinese government acts the way it does if you see things from the point of view of what's good for China. There's nothing evil going on, just the act of governing a country.

Until the Chinese prove that, the U.S. will remain weary of them. They also have been aiming missiles at Taiwan and building up their military. Until they prove themselves to not be the new version of the Soviet Union, the U.S. will remain weary.

Of ocurse it is about governing the country over there. They want to build a strong infrastructure to build a strong economy.

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by LemonAide
[The PLA is "liberating" the Chinese on the island of Taiwan loyal to the Communist cause

Yes, the three people in that back room no doubt want liberation :shk: Some of your quotes sound like they are right after one of your communist party posters. "liberating" Funny whenever China does any liberating, how come millions die?

Again, please THINK rather than spewing propaganda. Politicians are experts at putting "spin" on things.

*Picks up phone* Hello Pot? Its the Kettle --- YOUR BLACk"

Personally, I find it disgusting that a nation would actually try to justify killing people by getting "approval". There's only one being who has that right and He doesn't sit in the UN.

Mao? He killed how many millions between the cultural revolution and the 'Great leap Nowhere"? But you may have a point. I do not think that the communist government of China nor her people felt they needed UN approval to go into Tibet and rape nuns and slaughter.

Yes Fred, we are well-aquainted with your hatred of any Chinese living in the mainland.

I think you should read your comments, then study the reality of the situation. How on Earth do you expect change to come in a stable manner all the time? When a country undergoes a major revolution, stuff happens. Look at America. Tons of people died in the American Revolution. The numbers don't matter, the fact that people died is what matters. Happens in all revolutions. Doesn't make one party any more "evil" than the other.

I look forward to your "Destroy China" Crusade in the future.