It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can China Invade Taiwan?

page: 84
1
<< 81  82  83    85  86  87 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 02:49 PM
link   
ive been looking at this whole thread, the big question is when? when is taiwan going to declare independents? taiwan for days been having protests with anti-china chants with just about one mil people. how would taiwan declare ind. they cant just call china and say im breaking away now.




posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Might I point out, in a few hours a B-52 can be smothered with the chinese airforce before it even gets to taiwan, also a couple of hours is a long time.


The Chinese air force would be decimated by Navy fighters before they ever try to attack a B-52.

Devil no one except for very few people at the pentagon know the exact location of U.S. subs. they are probably circling the region just incase of an event like this, so don't claim as if you know their location and what they are doing. Also fighters launched form S.K. Japan and Guam would buy some time till the carriers arrive there.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Devil no one except for very few people at the pentagon know the exact location of U.S. subs. they are probably circling the region just incase of an event like this, so don't claim as if you know their location and what they are doing. Also fighters launched form S.K. Japan and Guam would buy some time till the carriers arrive there.

Sorry...been looking at the wrong side of the table...
But in reality you have to admit...where exactly is the majority of the subs still going to be based?
On the north eastern coast and western coast...do you agree?

Only 20% are on deployment and 31% are away from home port...
BTW I doubt the US has that many subs in the area...they tend to be lone hunters rather than group hunters...and as rogue pointed out there has been no signs of buildup yet so unless the chinese are REALLY confindent to the point of being idiotic they wont be launching an attack pretty soon.

Also westy, those SK fighters need to fly pretty damm close to chinese airspace or dodge it compltely which would take longer...
Remember the fighters need time to prep and fly before getting there...

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

The Chinese air force would be decimated by Navy fighters before they ever try to attack a B-52.



Say again?... they can shoot down a b-52 without sending a single plane up. It's not exactly a nimble missile dodger now is it?
And considering most of China's most advanced SAM sited are located along the Taiwan straight I think it's safe to say sending a B-52 into there is sending it to it's death.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Those 2 carrier fleets need to get into position first...are you trying to tell me 1/7th of the US Navy's air power is now situated within several hundred miles of taiwan at all times?


I may be mistaken but i think the US has 10 or 11 active aircraft carriers.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 06:06 PM
link   
10 active carriers with a further 2 in for repairs and maintenance

I think they rotate the fleet so there is always 1 or 2 in the "shop"



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 06:30 PM
link   
I think that sooner or later China will reunify. China and Taiwan today is like North Korea and South Korea, East Germany and West Germany, North Vietnam and South Vietnam, etc. Except it's not called North China or South China though the GMD (The party in civil war with the CCP in the 50s but lost and fled to Taiwan) did declare Taiwan as "New China" after they fled there. Not internationally recognised though.

The real situation today is that the civil war between CCP and GMD is still not over (somewhat like a ceasefire status right now), and the country (mainland + Taiwan) is still divided. Since pro-reunification parties have been created in Taiwan that favour the 1 country, 2 systems proposal, the CCP has been looking forward to the full acceptance of that proposal and end the ~70 year long conflict peacefully. If it doesn't work out, the war would continue (the CCP is not just going to go "ah whatever" and give up like what George Bush said about Osama). If the US gets involved, it gets messier (for the Americans as well. If they want to fight China they will have to be prepared for many times more American casualties than the Iraq war). Hopefully, the conflict can end peacifully with the acceptance of the 1 country 2 systems prposal. If not, then the future ain't going to be pretty.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 06:43 PM
link   
I feel as if in case of war, the U.S. can make a wise choice and choose to wage a liberation and then defensive campaign of only Taiwan and never go on the offensive against China. The U.S. cannot afford to conduct an offensive campaign against China.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by zakattack
I may be mistaken but i think the US has 10 or 11 active aircraft carriers.



But given the other commitments elesewhere in the world and the need to return to port periodicaly for routine maintenence, precludes moving more than say 5 tops to the region.

However, 2-3 carriers acting in a defensive role should combined with the Taiwanese AF, and USAF elements operating in a standoff maritime strike role, and subs should be able to handle an invasion fleet. China can destroy the island, and the task force described is not even close to the offensive firepower needed to conduct operations over China itself. Maybe a few strategic ports but thats about it.

However, the PLAN will no doubt have an exciting, but short life.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
I feel as if in case of war, the U.S. can make a wise choice and choose to wage a liberation and then defensive campaign of only Taiwan and never go on the offensive against China. The U.S. cannot afford to conduct an offensive campaign against China.


Well, to properly defend Taiwan, I think the U.S. would have to go on the offensive somewhat with China (i.e. destroy their airbases, etc...) but in terms of putting troops on the ground, that could be a problem. I think tp precision-hit such targets though, you'd have to put boots of some type on the ground.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by zakattack
I may be mistaken but i think the US has 10 or 11 active aircraft carriers.



But given the other commitments elesewhere in the world and the need to return to port periodicaly for routine maintenence, precludes moving more than say 5 tops to the region.

However, 2-3 carriers acting in a defensive role should combined with the Taiwanese AF, and USAF elements operating in a standoff maritime strike role, and subs should be able to handle an invasion fleet. China can destroy the island, and the task force described is not even close to the offensive firepower needed to conduct operations over China itself. Maybe a few strategic ports but thats about it.

However, the PLAN will no doubt have an exciting, but short life.


That's assuming U.S. forces can cut off the invasion force in time.

I wouldn't say the PLAN would have a short life. The U.S. Navy has seriously downgraded it's ability to deal out punishment against enemy naval forces. It's now more of a land-oriented force. Even submarines are more vulnerable than the data shows.

Nothing is easy in modern, high-tech warfare. Plus I doubt the U.S. would ever go on the offensive.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Broadsword20068
Well, to properly defend Taiwan, I think the U.S. would have to go on the offensive somewhat with China (i.e. destroy their airbases, etc...) but in terms of putting troops on the ground, that could be a problem. I think tp precision-hit such targets though, you'd have to put boots of some type on the ground.


But with China's air defense system, an offensive air campaign against targets in China would be extremely costly and probably not worth it.

Better to liberate Taiwan and barricade the island from sea and air assault.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Oh, I definitely would not say the U.S. Navy has seriously downgraded its ability to handle enemy naval forces. The size is just smaller now, because it is not up against the Soviet Navy anymore.

As for China, they have a loooooooong way to go in terms of acquiring naval knowledge. Having decent tech ships is one thing, operating them efficiently and knowing how to go into combat is another.

Heck, the British navy I am sure is still a force to be reckoned with, let alone the U.S. Navy. The U.S. Army is a lot smaller too, it still has the ability to inflict tremendous damage to enemy forces.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Broadsword20068
Oh, I definitely would not say the U.S. Navy has seriously downgraded its ability to handle enemy naval forces. The size is just smaller now, because it is not up against the Soviet Navy anymore.

As for China, they have a loooooooong way to go in terms of acquiring naval knowledge. Having decent tech ships is one thing, operating them efficiently and knowing how to go into combat is another.

Heck, the British navy I am sure is still a force to be reckoned with, let alone the U.S. Navy. The U.S. Army is a lot smaller too, it still has the ability to inflict tremendous damage to enemy forces.


China was never really a naval-oriented nation. Then again, the concept of naval warfare is a very new one in the Eastern world (except for Japan). So yeah, China's Navy is definitely not up to par. Which makes me think it's role will be fairly limited, besides landing troops on Taiwan.

To me, the U.S. Army, despite all it's issues, is an amazing success story in the history of warfare. It went from a heavy, high-tech, destructive, jam-packed force of the 1980s honed towards stopping a massive Warsaw Pact invasion in Central Europe, to a smaller, yet still highly powerful force that is even more high-tech, easier-to-deploy, and prepared for the whole spectrum of modern-day contingencies, if not all-out global war (not likely anymore). But it can definitely handle the biggest of regional conflicts.

One thing it has failed miserably in is controlling it's costs. One would think that dropping all that weight of those 1980s Cold War heavy divisions would've made the cost a bit more managable. But with Land Warrior, Force XXI, it just keeps getting larger. Comanche was a failure, and Land Warrior and Force XXI just keep falling backwards more day by day.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 11:27 PM
link   
The cost what are you talking about? We should increase our DOD spending not decree it. And Comanche was not a failure it was simply replaced by UAV’s who are cheater, stealthy have the same capabilities and don't put anyone at risk. Also I haven't herd any news that Land Warrior is having problems I think they are still on schedule for 2008-2010.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
The cost what are you talking about? We should increase our DOD spending not decree it. And Comanche was not a failure it was simply replaced by UAV’s who are cheater, stealthy have the same capabilities and don't put anyone at risk. Also I haven't herd any news that Land Warrior is having problems I think they are still on schedule for 2008-2010.


You want more defense spending?

Then forget about everything else. Defense is hideously expensive. If you're okay with less money in the things we need more, such as social programs, law enforcement, health care, science, etc., then more power to you.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Yes it keeps them occupied BUT can can the US deal with permantly haveing 2 carriers never leaving taiwan?


Do you think about anything or do you just immediately write in the negative ?
As I have stated previously there would be warning signs, allowing the fleet to deploy.
So you think the Chinese are just going to leave there troops and ships at marshalling pints indefinately.


[quote[
It still doesn't change the fact that leaving your forces bunched up and vulnerable for your enemy to attack is very bad strategy, something which the military commanders wouldn't do.

Actualy they would, gambleing on the bet the US wouldnt be so stupid to attack the chinese homeland...

Oh ok
Well that goes against every precaution a marshalling army would take. So your saying the Chinses military leadership is incompetant ?




Might I point out, in a few hours a B-52 can be smothered with the chinese airforce before it even gets to taiwan, also a couple of hours is a long time.


Gawd, so your assuming that the Chinese would have complete control over Taiwans airspace and several hundred miles beyond, instantaneously. LMAO about that one - I think you're being completely unrealistic.





Most of them are in the atlantic.. so would take longer, I was counting the american forces on the western coast, I wasnt takeing into account them sailing from other parts of the world like off the african coast...


I am talking about the submarines on patrol in the Pacific and based in Peral Harbour. The US hardly needs to assemble even a sizable fraction of the SSN force to confront the Chinese. A force of 5 SSN's in conjunction with airpower would be more than enough to stop the PLAN.



They could be in taiwan if they sped away at top speed and loud as hell through the ocean in about 6 days...ish..
Another half a dozen will take days to get someone to sortie , which I doubt they would do, they would probably just all head to taiwan those takeing longer...


So what if they're loud, the PLAN hardly has bluewater assets capable of tracking them.



[edit on 29-3-2005 by rogue1]



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
You want more defense spending?Then forget about everything else. Defense is hideously expensive. If you're okay with less money in the things we need more, such as social programs, law enforcement, health care, science, etc., then more power to you.


Do rember that many of the "innovations" we use today come from defence research notably DARPA so it does prime the pump for the civilian sector.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Do you think about anything or do you just immediately write in the negative ?

I am usually quite positive and always thinking...


As I have stated previously there would be warning signs, allowing the fleet to deploy.
So you think the Chinese are just going to leave there troops and ships at marshalling pints indefinately.

The fleet will deploy but to keep two carriers permanantly off the coast of taiwan would be insane and would take a large chunk of the US navies force (I heard it was 14 carriers....thats where I got the "1/7th" of the force...from..)



Oh ok
Well that goes against every precaution a marshalling army would take. So your saying the Chinses military leadership is incompetant ?

Every army?
No thats just your opinion of what wouldnt happen....
I believe the leadership is quite good....just mabye a bit currupt...


Gawd, so your assuming that the Chinese would have complete control over Taiwans airspace and several hundred miles beyond, instantaneously. LMAO about that one - I think you're being completely unrealistic.

Lets see, the PLAAF and PLAN have several hundred fighrers stationed just on the south side of china....One F-14 aint going to be able to waste 20 Mig29's or J-8's...
And do you think a B-2 can be flown over the pacifc or from SK in a few minutes?




I am talking about the submarines on patrol in the Pacific and based in Peral Harbour. The US hardly needs to assemble even a sizable fraction of the SSN force to confront the Chinese. A force of 5 SSN's in conjunction with airpower would be more than enough to stop the PLAN.

What airforce though?
You act like the US navy already has 2 carriers off the coast....if it did that would be another question but come on....5 subs alone cant do much...



So what if they're loud, the PLAN hardly has bluewater assets capable of tracking them.

They have a brown water navy....thats not exactly long range but its mid range...you sound like the PLAN has no ASW weapons in its invetory...



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Anyway you slice the pie the Chinese cannot invade Taiwan as long as the USN is there its simply wont happen our carriers, subs, jets will probably destroy any force trying to cross the strait into Taiwan. Sure china will be able to launch a whole lot of missiles into Taiwan but they will not be able to bomb it with aircraft nor invade it.




top topics



 
1
<< 81  82  83    85  86  87 >>

log in

join