Can China Invade Taiwan?

Thirdly, I know for fact America payed for those people, from both American and English service men who were over there and the fact it has been on the news in England and in the Guardian newspapers

Ooooh.....Don't let Devilwasp here you say England and English.....he'll nut ya! (Only joking DW )

Originally posted by Odium

Firstly, by law I'm an adult.

If you say so.

Secondly, Afghanistan has always had a lot of Pakistani citizens going inbetween the two countries for work. (Hence why they're setting up a Pakistan/Afghan bus route). So it's not overly hard to explain.

Ahem so ? Many of the people in Gitmo are not Pakistani citizens. Come on the only foreigners into Afghanistan during the Taliban rule, were people willing to fight for them or people training with Al-Qaeda.

Thirdly, I know for fact America payed for those people, from both American and English service men who were over there and the fact it has been on the news in England and in the Guardian newspapers.

Oh yeah, your personal briefong , so thses soldiers just happened to want to fill you in on what's been happening ? a schoolkid no less.

Also, I didn't say they were all innocent but if soem are guilty why have they not been put on trial? If they did that, and got them convicted it would give a good reason to let Guan stay open. Would it not?

Oh ok, I get you now. It's ok to torture them once they're convicted.

"fighting for the Taliban or Al-Qaeda" fighting so well, that they didn't get killed? Oh come on, if these are Die-Hard Muslim Terrorists, they'd fight to the death. They'd not let themselves get captured. Now would they?

Ahem, well if you'd been following any of the Afghanistan Campaign, you would know that thousands of prisoners were taken. Hardly the ' die hards ' you talk about.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Also devilwasp why don't you stop giving me all this Abu Gharib BS. That was a small group of U.S. soldiers we don't treat all of our prisoners like that, so don't use what happened in Iraq as our policy, because its not.

So is the suicide part of the insurgents a small part...
Fine we wont use abugrave...
How about mosul?
Or the seven homicides in Afghanistan?

Thirdly, I know for fact America payed for those people, from both American and English service men who were over there and the fact it has been on the news in England and in the Guardian newspapers

.......British prisnors....british service men and women.....news in britain.....**starts to draw claymore from sheath** england is not all of the UK.....the UK is scotland....engand....northern ireland and wales.....please dont forget..

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Also devilwasp why don't you stop giving me all this Abu Gharib BS. That was a small group of U.S. soldiers we don't treat all of our prisoners like that, so don't use what happened in Iraq as our policy, because its not.

So is the suicide part of the insurgents a small part...
Fine we wont use abugrave...
How about mosul?
Or the seven homicides in Afghanistan?

Thirdly, I know for fact America payed for those people, from both American and English service men who were over there and the fact it has been on the news in England and in the Guardian newspapers

.......British prisnors....british service men and women.....news in britain.....**starts to draw claymore from sheath** england is not all of the UK.....the UK is scotland....engand....northern ireland and wales.....please dont forget..

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

I don't forget, but I was talking from personal experience and the people who told me are English. If they were scotish, I'd of said Scotish, and I said England for the fact, I'm in England and the newspaper was a local one where I got part of the story from. (It's why I seperated the Guardian, as it's not an English newspaper.)

rogue1, stop taking my words out of their context and making up your own meaning for them. I guess that's the only way you can debate something?

I never said to torture them whatsoever, but if America has 'facts' they're terrorists and can do so much damage put them on trial by Jury.

Also, it was Donald Rumsfeld who said they were “hard core, well-trained terrorists”, and “among the most dangerous, best-trained vicious killers on the face of the earth”. As one of the reasons for them being locked up. So either they are this or aren't? Your choice?

Since when have I been a school kid? Go quote me saying I'm in school? I'm in College and if you know anything about the English Education system (Remember, we have a different education system devil) then you'd know I could be 70 and in College. Is this how you try to belittle my arguement? Due to my age? Best go get a really old person, to agree with me and then I win.

also, did I ever say private briefing? No. They just talked about their time in service. Lots of people do, especially when they've had to kill people. Also the fact growing up in a military family and living near two bases, you make a lot of friends in them.

web.amnesty.org...
www.kabulcaravan.com...

Just a few pages worth reading. Also, didn't you complain about China's human rights at one point? (Can't remember for sure).

Gooseuk, yes, I can say that the U.S. would never use nuclear weapons to defend American lives. There are more efficient bombs these days, with a lot of power. The atomic bomb at the time had never been used. The long-term effects of radiation and all that were not realized initially. The idea was: "We have a bomb that can blow up the entire city with one blast, pretty much. Use it, and we can get the Japanese to surrender pretty quickly."

It was not a mentality of, "We have a bomb that will destroy an entire city, and most likely kill thousands more in the coming years, as well as mess up the ecosystem in the region, etc...but anyways, let's use it anyway as it will save us from having to invade the traditional way."

The knowledge and mentality these days are different.

I believe that the United States has only one confirmed position on Nuclear ICBM’s and missiles. I believe that as of now the United States will only use nuclear systems only if the Continental U.S. was fired upon by a Nuclear missile form another country.

If China invades Taiwan, would the people of Taiwan give the Chinese military a "bloody quagmire" they would never forget?

Well did you see the protest in Taiwan today about the new law that china passed about using force against Taiwan. I think if china starts to just bomb everything in site than the Taiwanese people might fight in a gorilla style if china invades.

Originally posted by the_oleneo
If China invades Taiwan, would the people of Taiwan give the Chinese military a "bloody quagmire" they would never forget?

No.

And the reason why is simple.

1. China is not going to invade or bomb Taiwan.

2. If Taiwan were to be taken, it would not involve a single shot being fired.

difficult question... the attitude of about 50% of Taiwanese is pro-china and the remaining 50% against.

I would say yes there would probably be insurgancy... but not on the scale of Iraq simply due to the different culture nature of the peoples.

If Beijing grants the island continued democracy and a high degree of autonomy than I can imagine it will be buisness as usual... it all depends on how swiftly the war is over and how few civilian lives are lost.

Recent simulations show that China can take the Island in 6 day's, which suggests the war will be brief... very scary but ultimately not so devastating... China wants to keep Taiwans infrastructure and economy intact so the fighting will probably be confined to the coast and millitary installations.

800+ missiles accurate to 10 meters, will deverly damage Taiwans defenses before the first Chinese soldiers even arrive... after which the PLAAF will have the majority air suppremacy, allowing them coverage for a naval invasion.

I dont see china invading.

Times are different now, but you never know?

I think more info is needed here.!

Originally posted by Lucretius

Recent simulations show that China can take the Island in 6 day's, which suggests the war will be brief... very scary but ultimately not so devastating... China wants to keep Taiwans infrastructure and economy intact so the fighting will probably be confined to the coast and millitary installations.

Whose simulations are these ? Whilst I don't doubt Beijings overwhelming military su[remacy over Taiwan, I still wonder how the Chinese would deliver enough men to the island with assciated equipment, especially to win the war in 6 days.
If the US did commit itself, its SSN's and converted SSBN's could deliver a fatal blow to any mariritime expeditioanry force. China has bugger all anti-submarine capability. That is of course if the US did commit.

On another note both there economies are becoming mroe and more intertwiined. All the companies I do business with in China have offices in both Taiwan and the mainland, with many businesses being joint ventures

Id like to see china have air superiority over the F-14's and F-18's. And Id like to see china attempt an invasion with US subs in the are. It will be a turkey shoot.
That is of course if the U.S. commits itself, if we don't its a different story.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Id like to see china have air superiority over the F-14's and F-18's. And Id like to see china attempt an invasion with US subs in the are. It will be a turkey shoot.
That is of course if the U.S. commits itself, if we don't its a different story.

Can the US get a task force there in say 6 days?
The US has no F-14's nor F-18's in strike range, how many US subs are in the area?
Mabye 2?
2 cant destroy a task force, a task force can destroy 2.

Two US Subs can do plenty of damage to a PLAAF task force. If a Seawolf is in the area even more so. I doubt there are only two, but two is still a crediable force. The PLAAF has a long way to go with ASW.

Also I doubt Taiwan is going to let thier diesel subs sit at port. Yes, i realize they are far from state of the art, but still could sink a few ships.

Destroy an entire PLAAF task force? No, But maybe able to render it a ineffective force for sure.

Originally posted by FredT
Two US Subs can do plenty of damage to a PLAAF task force. If a Seawolf is in the area even more so. I doubt there are only two, but two is still a crediable force. The PLAAF has a long way to go with ASW.

Also I doubt Taiwan is going to let thier diesel subs sit at port. Yes, i realize they are far from state of the art, but still could sink a few ships.

Destroy an entire PLAAF task force? No, But maybe able to render it a ineffective force for sure.

2 US subs cant do this if they dont know there's a war on, the US most likely only has 2 in the imediate area due to they dont work so well in groups.
The PLAAF and PLAAN can stop 2 US subs, even if outdated tech the US subs would still be faceing the largest airforce in the world.
The military doesnt deal in "mabye"'s and what ifs.

Subs can be updated through ELF (Extremely Low Freq) transmissions. Essentialy they get a signal with thier call sign surface and get thier messages. Communication with the SSBN's is done in this manner.

Yes, they have the biggest freestanding AF, but hom much of that is ASW?? A Mig 21 or a SU-30 cannot really hunt subs

And if the PLAN Sorties towards Taiwan in the middle of a war do you expect the subs to turn tail? No, they will go hunting......

Totally off subject but..

I can't believe this post has received 1616 posts.. that is HUGE! That has to be the most replies received for a thread on ATS..

sorry, 1617 now...........

BTW, while hunding about for PLAN ASW capabilities I came across this interesting analysis of China's military capacity and its potential invasion of Taiwan. It is 5 years old, but is an interesting read none the less.

www.comw.org...

"The island of Taiwan lies some 200 km off the southeastern coast of China across the Taiwan Strait, with the East China Sea to the north, the Philippine Sea to the east, the Luzon Strait directly to the south and the South China Sea to the southwest."

en.wikipedia.org...

"The People's Republic of China has also built an upgraded version of the HQ-10 labelled the HQ-15 with the maximum range upgraded from 150 km (93 mile) to 200 km (124 mile). "

en.wikipedia.org...

How would America engage the Chinese Air Force? Would it not be suicide to go into their air space, with a damn good Air Defence system? Also, isn't the HQ-15 going to be upgraded to give it even better range?

I've also seen on several pages (included the one I gave) Russia has a system that has a range of 400KMs. If this was the case, that would cause a lot of problems for anyone willing to help Taiwan.

As for them stopping the invasion with 700missiles pointed at Taiwan, roughly 900 by 2010 (I think it was that). I doubt Taiwan will have many ports, Air Fields or barracks left to defend themselves with. Especially since their Army is split over three Islands and China only needs to capture one.