posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 03:40 PM
Okay seeing as how there is 113 or so pages and having speand an hour going over the first 12 I gave up and starting a new thread.
Here's my opinion.
Technically, while you can't just judge a war just from the paper strength of its armed forces, since a resourceful military can bring about
astounding victories through the focused and efficient usage of overwhelming force at the tactical and strategic points of concentration or
swerpunkt(sp?). Next, the ability to acheive such victories can best come about through a resourceful chain of command where information from the
bottom can easiely reach the top and orders just as easiely and swiftly reach the lowest squad commander.
Next, other attributes towards determining victory is moral, whether your people are willing to throw 120% into acheiving ultimate victory for as long
as they can keep up the effort year after year your nation's determination to carry on the war will never waver.
Military Prepardness and logistics: if your nation has the ability to carry on the war with a careful buildup of forces prior to the outbreak of
hostilities without attracting the ire of your enemies then complete surprise will be yours and it is possible to subdue the enemy before it has time
to react, also remember a military staff should be able to adapt quickly to changing circumstances and fully grasp new concepts of war and be able to
learn from past mistakes, one must never lose the initiative in warfare and any outbreak of hostilities in the Taiwan straight is no exception.
Military Production is nolonger quite beating stick it once was, in WWI/II the brute force industries of the world could and would fight wars inorder
to achieve self sufficiency to keep up what could possibly be a long war of attrition inorder to maintain their fullest Industrial Capacity, nowadays
MegaCorporate and State-Owned enterprises make up more of the Military Industrial-Complex then ever before and the ability to outproduce your opponent
is nolonger as important, the ability for your arms dealers to produce QUALITY arms capable to give as good as it gets is far more important then
being able to produce 3 inferior T-90's to his 1 M1A2 but rather to build 1-2 T-101's to his 1-2 M1A3's.
Now I know what you must be thinking "what does this have to do with Taiwan" Everything.
The ability of a nation to project overwhelmign force in a given area and to do so successfuly hinges on various factors in Military Science or more
accuratly, it's dependent on those who master (mind the pun) "The Art of War" also refering to the book authored by the brilliant military observer
Sun-Tzu. In a Taiwan Incident while military force spreads over 4 branches air, navy, gorund, and strategic (Nukes and WMD's) the war should only
involve the first 2 with only a slight need of the 3rd and hopefully ignoring the last.
Airwars are fought with the first and foremost priority of gaining air supremecy. To do this one must not only wipe out the initial enemy assets in
the air (to the best of their ability) but also to exterminate all inrange airfields and keep survieliance on any area that small easily errected
fields might be built.
To achieve this AAA and SAM missiles will nodoubt be used, the standard would be to have say a squardron of jets engage with AWAC guidance to knock
out or heavily damage the enemy squadron, and also with AWAC's guide longer range missiles to their targets. Medium to long range missiles would
nodoubt be used against with AV and AP mines to hinder the repair of air facilities.
The quality of the airforce in their planes and electronics as well as sheer numbers, training, and quality of the command staff and officer corps
will decide the issue and when one side gains air supremecy how long will navak supremecy follow?
I have nodoubt that the Aegis cruiser and other variant AA escourts have excellent AA capabilities, but isn't it all theotical? Has their once been a
true combat situation where say 6-8 ATS missiles all came in all aiming to sink your ship? Does the Aegis truly have the capability to to shoot down
those missiles and all missiles after it? Don't say that they're other ships, those ships could just as easily have 1-20 missiles heading for them
A Naval war essentially is fought by using at least partial air supremecy to knock out or damage port facilities, other then that it's mostly using
hunt-and-seek tactics to lure small enemy task forces into traps where a screen of ATS missiles will soften up the fleet and then use subs and fast
attack craft to start confusing the enemy fleet and keeping loses expendible. Then larger battlewagon Cruiser/Battleship class ships with escourts
will enter the scene and will use overwhelming force to decimate the enemy fleet. Thus the goal is to maul the enemy force so that normal productions
runs won't keep up with their loses while minimizing yours allowing you to fight a naval war of attrition and with the point of Taiwan to keep US
naval forces out of the theatre of priority.
Now for Taiwan itself taiwan is an island well within range of even short range missiles, all aircraft and even artillery supposedly, the plan in my
view would be to gain naval and air supremacy over the Taiwan straight, Taiwan itself it about 300 miles beyond would be nice. Once established air
drops on strategic zones accompanied with simultanious amphib landings inorder to sieze moderatly undamaged ports and from their to establish a
defence perimeter, once the port is online land forces to consolidate Taiwan can be ferried across and the defenders while attecipating a brave
defence will nodoubt fall not nessasarily because of numbers but because of the skill and efficincy of the command staff and the determination of the
average PLA soldier to unify the motherland.
However it is of my opinion the the PLAAF and the PLAN is in no position at this time to accomplish this, in 5-10 years time then I'll have no doubt
of the outcome, currently the PLA, PLAN, and PLAAF and Strategic Rocket Forces are in a period of reorganization during the shift to a faster, more
efficient Brigade-High Tech style army organization to take advantage of the "fighting an intense short war under high tech conditions" doctrine.