Is China Preparing for War?

[David Floyd]

The US won't launch a nuclear first strike, but the US would respond. A nuclear first strike is the only real response China would have to US intervention in Taiwan, and I just don't think they would do it.

And, AFAIK, China doesn't have enough ICBMs with the range to totally take out the US. It's a question of partial destruction/major damage vs. absolute annihilation.

[Main_Brain]

Chance of Conventional US Intervention seem slim to me.
Overstrechted US & Chinese Military Technology vastly improving?

[David Floyd]

I certainly don't think the US SHOULD intervene, just that if it did, there's no way China could win.

[Alinestra Covelia]

If China attacks Taiwan, there is no way that the PRC can "take and hold" cities and urban areas. Their navy and troops support is inferior and their air force is passable. The mainland does not yet possess the ability to win a war without the utter destruction of the Taiwan island. China doesn't want this because then it gains nothing. Taiwan doesn't want this for obvious reasons. America also doesn't want this because a collapse in either economy would result in substantial problems for the US economies.

Right now all you're hearing from all sides concerned is a load of hot air. If war breaks out, Taiwan would go up in flames after the mainland's initial missile barrage, well before anybody could do anything about it. Then you'd see the mainland having to deal with several US carrier fleets heading across the Pacific to assign severe retribution, which the Chinese military would be ill equipped to counter.

For its part, China is far too vast for any hostile force to police in any meaningful way. A war against China, regardless of who wins, would destabilize the region immensely.

The Chinese Communist Party may not be the best of neighbors and it may be a prickly customer for the Americans to deal with, but given the monopoly on political power it holds, it is nevertheless the only organization currently able to come close to administering the nation. A breakdown on that leadership level would be disastrous for everybody. Think Soviet breakup, but multiply the amount of short-term human misery by ten and you've got it.

Taiwan also provides the mainland with its most convenient trading partner. The thousands of factories popping up in the south of China are largely administered by Taiwanese businessmen who use their familiarity of culture, language, and history to a far greater degree of personal familiarity than the Westerners. Many come from families who have, like the displaced Palestinians in the Middle East, deepseated memories of their hometowns (frequently a history that goes back dozens of generations... like my own family, for example). There are definitely Taiwanese citizens who would love to see a complete political break from the mainland, but don't forget that there are some who favor the status quo; and the fact that they can ride back to their homelands after two generations' absence like wealthy barons probably has something to do with it.

There are many more reasons why war between the aforementioned territories is highly unlikely. What you're hearing is a form of political masturbation on all sides - saber-rattling largely intended to give the impression of strength, power, and decisiveness in a situation that is currently actually highly desirable to most people concerned. (The above goes just as well for the Chinese Communist Party as it did for Bush in the 2000 election, and I'm sure nobody is going to deny that President Chen probably has his eyes firmly on the polls when he weighs his own political announcements.)

So essentially the chances of war breaking out are very slim (barring some sudden bout of extreme isolated leadership-level stupidity/heroics). Even if it did break out, the consequences would be severe for everybody involved, uncontainable. Furthermore, the extreme imbalance of military forces (clearly Taiwan < China < USA) means that each successive level of actual fighting would be pretty much over fairly quick, but the various inabilities of any given power to actually administrate the territories of the other would make for a chaotic and unsuccessful aftermath.

But it would sure make for an interesting Civ2 scenario!

[Alinestra Covelia]

I just read through that above post and realized it's uncharacteristically badly edited. But today's Valentine's Day so I'm sure you can guess the excuse I'd use...

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
From a cost benefit point of view China would have very little to gain from launching an invasion. The economy is doing nicely, foreign investments is pouring in, there is a growing middle class. If the war is lost the communist leadership would be in serious trouble.

People are not rational economic creatures. China will attack Taiwan because it is a matter of pride. Whether or not the US will be able to/have the will to respond is another matter.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by The Templar


I wouldn't count on it. If the Chinese leadership were to say, "How many cities are you willing to lose for Taiwan? We're willing to lose three or four ..." then it's over for Taiwan. No president will trade Honolulu and/or Los Angeles for Taipei.

Besides, the business community has too much invested in China to let Bush and those neocons get too hot about Taiwan. What would probably happen is China would offer some economic concessions (maybe letting their currency rise) and abandon North Korea to the US in exchange for the US backing off.

Even the Chi-coms aren't that crazy, with the SDI stuff we are bringing on line we can ensure total annihilation of Chinese leadership targets, and there is no way they will be able to do the same.

[Barinthus]

Whoha, forgive me if I misunderstood you but didn't you just contradicted yourself?

[Hagbart]

USA won't attack China (even if they occupy Taiwan). China is not just another Iraq.

1 out of 5 people in the world is chinese.

BTW: If the US attacks china don't expect any danish help like in iraq. The danish navy wont come to your rescue this time, neither the sub the Seal or Olfert the frigate.

[Chemical Ollie]

The Swedish ambassador in China defined the Chinese system as "Stalinist Thacherism"

[David Floyd]

China is not just another Iraq.

Good point. We wouldn't even need ground troops to hand China's ass to them on a platter.

[Imran Siddiqui]

USA won't attack China

Yep.. no need to start WW3.

[Shi Huangdi]

We wouldn't need to occupy China to defeat them. The goal would to be defend Taiwan, which we could do. But even if China did manage to quickly take over Taiwan and fortify it(a dubious prospect in itself), we could devestate China without landing a soldier. China is so connected to the world economy a blockade would devestate them, and we would be able to use airpower to severly cripple the Chinese economy.

Crippling the Chinese economy would place the Communist Party's hold on leadership in question. Which is why the PRC won't invade.

[joncha]

Sometimes over-blown rhetoric can paint a country's leadership into a corner. What do you think the PRC's leadership would do, after all their posturing and sabre-rattling, if one of the Taiwanese nationalists, in a similar bout of posturing, actually goes ahead on the long-standing threat of a referendum on independence? What do you think the PRC's leadership would do if the people of Taiwan actually voted for outright independence? Do they back down and risk looking like a "paper tiger"? I think there would be some in the inner circle that would see the risk of conflict with the US as being less that the risk of losing control of their own country. At least they'd go down "in control" if the US decided to intervene... and (added bonus) the US may decide not to intervene.

Now, all that said, I don't think the PRC will go to war over Taiwan, but I do think its a definite possibility. If it does happen, I don't think even the chickenhawks in the Whitehouse would end up doing more than imposing sactions or, at most, using limited airstrikes. But again, it is a possibility. If that happens, we're likely all screwed.

jon.

[Patroklos]

There is no reason this war would have to turn nuclear. Hell, half the Cold War Europe scenarios were non nuclear. There is only really one reason why any side would use nuclear weapons, and that is to defend its own existance. A Tiawanese war would be conventional. The USA would not try to invade China, just repel them from the island.

That is why there was some question of the US nuclear umbrella for Europe in the Cold War. Would the US be willing to nuclear strike Soviet Union if one of the European allies folded? Risk the destruction of the US over a third party? I think West Germany was exempted from the overrun rule because it was accepted that we should expect a Soviet push to make it that far before bieng halted.

Now after France and Britian got their nuclear arms up the question was mute. If France was on the verge of collapse they would nuke Russia, and though they had relatively few nukes they had enough to triger armagedan from everyone else.

So bottom line, niether China nore the US would use nukes over a none treaty obligated thrid party. And in that case China would fail, as they just don't have power projection and the US Navy is far from streched. Remember we are not on a total war footing, so we are only stretched from that standpoint . If we went to war with China it would be a total mobilization scenario, conventional wise.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia
Then you'd see the mainland having to deal with several US carrier fleets heading across the Pacific to assign severe retribution, which the Chinese military would be ill equipped to counter.

That is not going to happen in the case of a PRC attack on Taiwan.

Right now the US military is having a severe problem - mainly in $ - dealing with Iraq. Besides, how many carrier battlegroups were used?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
And, AFAIK, China doesn't have enough ICBMs with the range to totally take out the US. It's a question of partial destruction/major damage vs. absolute annihilation.

Everybody will be launching nuclear missiles at the US if the US even contemplates in making such a thread, Floyd. Better to get rid of a madman first.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
China is so connected to the world economy a blockade would devestate them, and we would be able to use airpower to severly cripple the Chinese economy.

The US military might is vastly overrated. Vastly.

[Patroklos]

Despite how "major" some people think the Iraq war is, the US is not on a war footing. In the case of China a war we would be.

We used 3 out of 9 carrier battle groups capable of bieng feilded for Iraq (four becasue one was relieved). China woudl warrent more than that, but I doubt we would need more than three. China's blue water navy is pathetic, and Tiawan is far enough away to need blue water assets.

[Patroklos]

Our Naval might is NOT overrated.

At least Jane's doesn't think so.

[Lonestar]

Our Navy and Airforce would stomp the crap out of China's counterparts. Then, we would rule there air over the country....

...which would lead to a lot of "uhhh....what now?" when we can't muster the invasion force.

[Patroklos]

We don't even have to rule the air over China, just Tiawan. That has always been China's problem.

It has lots of stuff (mostly inferior stuff, but their are exceptions) but no way of gertting it anywhere.

Yes China is rapidly modernizing, but alot of people forget where they are modernizing from. They starte d 20 years behind, and the going is slow. And they also have a tendance to pull they "we now have two squadron of modern fighters in our 1000 plan airforce, modernization complete" mantality.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by DataAeolus
Whoha, forgive me if I misunderstood you but didn't you just contradicted yourself?

The conflict won't go nuclear.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
The US military might is vastly overrated. Vastly.

Not exactly. Winning a land war in mainland China might be one thing, but its not what's required in this scenario. At the moment, very little of the US's air and Naval assets are tied up in Iraq. Occasional air support might be needed against insugents, but that only requires a few aircraft.

The US navy is vastly more powerful than any other force in the world. The most powerful naval assets remains the carrier, and the US has 9 carrier battlegroups total in contrast to other countries that have 2 carriers at most, and those carriers are far smaller than the Nimitz class ones that the US is fielding. The reality is that China's bluewater navy is extremely poor right now.

US Airpower remains extremely dominent. While some US aircraft are newer versions of somewhat old airframes, they remain extremely effective. The US aircraft also have weaponry that gives them an extreme edge over their Chinese opposition, such as the medium range AMRAAM missile with its large "no escape" kill envelope. While China's airforce may be large, may of its planes are based on old Soviet models and are going to be extremely limited in their effectiveness against modern US aircraft. (You saw what happened when Saddam Hussein did try to shoot down US planes with his airforce in Gulf War I.) Another thing to consider, especially in a scenario a year from now, is that F-22's should be be starting to become available in numbers large enough that they can be deployed. The F-22 Raptor stealth fighter would massively outclass anything that China can field and would inflict damage far in excess of their numbers. Presumably, the moment war broke out between China and the US, F-22 production would be drastically ramped up as well.

When looking at US aircraft total numbers, its important to remember that aircraft that are not listed as being part of the active airforce or reserve are often placed in the "boneyard" where they are kept in usable condition. The USAF AMARC base alone holds over 4,500 of these aircraft. Many of these Airforce and Navy aircraft are F-14's. F-15's, and F-16's. While older versions of these aircraft, they remain potentially usable and would be quite effective if pitted against China's Airforce. This gives the US the ability to win an aerial war of attrition, especially because the US will enjoy a very favorable ratio of planes they shoot down in comparison to the number of times that US planes would be shot down.

Finally, in response to the idea that China could surprise the US and invade Taiwan before the US can react... In order to sucessfully invade Taiwan, China would need to move virtually all of its naval transport assets close to Taiwan before they could launch an invasion. Such a buildup would be easily noticable using satellite intel, and the US could react and deploy aircraft and carriers to defend Taiwan before China could begin their invasion. I'll talk about why Taiwan's army is no pushover and why its questionable that China is currently capable of moving enough forces by sea to even successfully pull off an invasion of Taiwan without any US intervention some other time.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by The Templar
I wouldn't count on it. If the Chinese leadership were to say, "How many cities are you willing to lose for Taiwan? We're willing to lose three or four ..." then it's over for Taiwan. No president will trade Honolulu and/or Los Angeles for Taipei.

Besides, the business community has too much invested in China to let Bush and those neocons get too hot about Taiwan. What would probably happen is China would offer some economic concessions (maybe letting their currency rise) and abandon North Korea to the US in exchange for the US backing off.

The US would certainly call China's bluff. China can merely nuke parts of the West Coast, while the US can turn China into a glass radioactive parking lot in response. When talking about a war with limited stakes involved for both countries and the possiblity of a negotiated settlement, it won't go nuclear.

On the second point, you are completely forgetting that the US is a Democracy, and I find it extremely unlikely that any US Presiden could survive abandoning the Democratic government of Taiwan to conquest by a Communist Totalitarian regime. For that matter, many people in the US don't like how manufacturing jobs are going to China, and wouldn't worry about any temperary trade disruption from a war. (Something else to consider is that there are all sort of countries in the world that can provide cheap labor to manufacture goods.)

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Mordoch

The US would certainly call China's bluff. China can merely nuke parts of the West Coast, while the US can turn China into a glass radioactive parking lot in response.

No president will sarifice a Hawaiian or West Coast city. Tawanese don't vote in US elections ...

On the second point, you are completely forgetting that the US is a Democracy, and I find it extremely unlikely that any US Presiden could survive abandoning the Democratic government of Taiwan to conquest by a Communist Totalitarian regime.

Yes, the US is a democracy. Now go find that majority that's willing to risk war with China over Taiwan. As I said, I see a deal as being more likely. We abandon Taiwan, they abandon North Korea (you remember the Axis of Evil). President spins it as a win for us as well as China ending its civil war (all it takes is every official for a few weeks calling Taiwan secessionists and talking about the right of a nation to bring recalcitrant states and provinces to heel).

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by The Templar
Yes, the US is a democracy. Now go find that majority that's willing to risk war with China over Taiwan. As I said, I see a deal as being more likely. We abandon Taiwan, they abandon North Korea (you remember the Axis of Evil). President spins it as a win for us as well as China ending its civil war (all it takes is every official for a few weeks calling Taiwan secessionists and talking about the right of a nation to bring recalcitrant states and provinces to heel).

I'm a Moderate Democrat who believes that Bush stole the election in 2000, and I'm supporting Kerry in this one, (Kerry has been my favorite from the start so I'm not just a bandwagon supporter) and I'd enlist if China invaded Taiwan. A Chinese invasion would be a classic case of good versus evil, with China being the totalitarian agressor. China also represents a longterm threat to the US, and I think most Americans would be worried about not stopping China while we can still do so relatively easily. Finally, I believe support for defending Taiwan would not merely come from the right, but also from many in the left. Many liberals protest China's treatment of Tibet and even support the "free Tibet" movement, and a sucessful invasion of Taiwan would represent more people falling under China's totalitarian boot. Protecting true Democracies is something that Americans in general can support. By the way, if a Democratic president were to refuse to support Taiwan, I'd be on the phone making it clear that I'd vote Republican in the next election unless the President reversed his policy.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by The Templar
No president will sarifice a Hawaiian or West Coast city. Tawanese don't vote in US elections ...

The president would know China is bluffing. If the US anihilated all of China, even if the Chinese leader survived, he wouldn't have a country any longer. In contrast the US President would be fine, along with most of the country. (If he caved on this issue he's probably dead politically anyways.) Unless China's survival was at stake, its not plausible that Chinese leadership would actually play the nuclear card.

[DaShi]

Remember when the Chinese underestimated Britain's military strength.

[:) Smiley]

Remember when the Americans underestimated Iraq's nonmilitary strength.

The US has already spent $87 billion on the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Occupation costs around a billion a week. China's annual military budget is $15 billion. Even if one considers that the Chinese soldier gets paid far less than the American soldier, and the supply lines would be shorter, the math don't work out, especially since every part of the war would be urban combat.

Back in the 1970s there was a Taiwanese nuclear weapon program, the US protection deal was basically the US way of getting the program stopped and defusing a potential problem.