In the time it would take US naval forces to get here, I’m sure the PRC would be able move troops across the straits, assuming that they’re not heavily contested.
Besides, who says all the fighting would be in TW? Its numbers give the PRC room to escalate, givinghte US even more reasons to back down.
Yes, but what are they going to move them on? At present, the PRC doesn’t seem to have the logistical ability to move substantial numbers of troops across the straits. The naval forces are limited.
What are the troops going to come over on? Canoes? Inflatable matresses? Pride?
The only way that invasion type forces could possibly be moved in any large number is to put them onto ferries or cargo vessels.
If this happens then intelligence services would undoubtedly find out and the defenceless ships would hit the sandy bottom of the Taiwan Strait with a thud.
Getting the troops to shore would be a nightmare using a non military vessel unless it was drastically modified.
The PRC army is mostly centred around defensive and not offensive drill and the PRC has the military hardware to reflect that.
In my opinion, if the US got involved they would make a dogs breakfast out of the whole affair and would do half a job as usual. So regardless of whether they got involved or not, nobody would be better off in the long run.
I’m sure the PRC would love to help Iran and Afghanistan remove USA influence in the area, not to mention look the other way as NK goes nuclear. How about pegging the RMB back to the USD? 160 billion trade deficit and growing.
There are a number of US interest PRC could leverage to cojole USA to over-look the PRC “liberation” of Taiwan from the evil “terrorist” TI organizations that have restricted the “freedom” and “security” of the compatroits.
All you need is a good theme song and some T-shirts and the US will back up Taiwan in a war.
ac_dropout wrote:
" Yes based on their international swim team, the PRC has some of the world best swimmers, divers, and sprinters. "
I heard back in the day that navy divers from the ROC had to swim across the strait and collect an ear from some victim. Sounds like urban legend.
The biggest objective reality that TI/ers must face against mainland China are: size, distance, time.
So, TI/ers had better work on subjective things like convincing mainlanders why TI is such an excellent idea, because pretty much nothing else will provide them with security in the event of TI, successful or not. Nothing will change the objective reality.
[quote=“Bubba 2 Guns”]
I heard back in the day that navy divers from the ROC had to swim across the strait and collect an ear from some victim. Sounds like urban legend.[/quote]
That was not across the Strait but simply from K-inme-n/M-ats-u/etc to the nearest PRC occupied rock. Back until the late 1950s, Taiwan held over 100 islands up and down the Chinese coastline.
Oh but it’s gotten easier now.
An astonished friend of mine was sitting in a Fuzhou cinema one day when a wet and bedraggled chap claiming to be a Taiwan navy diver sat next to him to watch a movie. The diver claimed he had to swim across, buy a ticket, watch a movie and return with the stub of the ticket.
Why he bothered to tell that friend of mine or indeed enter the cinema dripping wet is just too bizarre for words.
HG
:[quote] That was not across the Strait but simply from K-inme-n/M-ats-u/etc to the nearest PRC occupied rock.[/quote]
Which is about 2 km - I could swim that without breaking a sweat.
Well put.
Today, I decided that Taiwan has a nuclear weapons program, if not nuclear weapons already. It would be stupid if they didn’t. They know that Taiwan has no hopes of having a quantitative edge over China, and the US support for Taiwan is waning. In fifty years, the US probably wouldn’t even issue a statement if China launched an attack upon Taiwan.
It’s not like it would be difficult for Taiwan to conceal a nuclear weapons program either. Taiwan has several military fortifications that have underground bunkers superior in size and quality to those in Cuba and Iraq. Since the 1990s, they’ve been gradually reducing their military spending. Why? Because there’s no point in spending money on guns, ships, and soldiers. In conventional war, there’s no way for Taiwan to defend itself effectively against China. They of course couldn’t have made a sudden decrease, because that would have created immediate suspicions, which would lead to more aggressive international IAEA inspections.
Taiwan won’t announce their program until the US fails to honor its promise of defense of the island, because once they do, the US is certain to use it as an opportunity to denounce Taiwan and retract their promise. I’ve never really been a conspiracy theorist before, but this just seems so logical to me.
[quote=“XiangGangDuLi”]Today, I decided that Taiwan has a nuclear weapons program, if not nuclear weapons already. It would be stupid if they didn’t.
*
*
It’s not like it would be difficult for Taiwan to conceal a nuclear weapons program either. Taiwan has several military fortifications that have underground bunkers superior in size and quality to those in Cuba and Iraq. [/quote]
Uhhhhh…where have you been? They tried that back in the 1980s, got caught red-handed and had to shut it down.
[quote=“Comrade Stalin”][quote=“XiangGangDuLi”]Today, I decided that Taiwan has a nuclear weapons program, if not nuclear weapons already. It would be stupid if they didn’t.
*
*
It’s not like it would be difficult for Taiwan to conceal a nuclear weapons program either. Taiwan has several military fortifications that have underground bunkers superior in size and quality to those in Cuba and Iraq. [/quote]
Uhhhhh…where have you been? They tried that back in the 1980s, got caught red-handed and had to shut it down.
mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/tainuke.htm[/quote]
Maybe so but there were many guys from the US nuclear companies working over here. I’m sure it was all all only to build nuclear power stations.
To think that the locals could not build some type of atomic weapon would be foolish.
Yeah, they definately have the know how. And why would it be a conspiracy theory?
It would just be top secret, that’s all.
One thing this thread has entirely overlooked is availability of oil. If any type of sustained war between the U.S. and PRC was actually started, (Although I find it unlikely that it will happen anytime soon) one of the most important determining factors would be who could secure thier oil supply. Given that nearly all of China’s oil goes through the Malacca straits and the U.S. has more naval power, my bet would be on the U.S. there.
The situation now is that the US protects just about everybody’s oil as it makes its way out of the Middle East and across the world on the water. The US could certainly turn the taps off on much of China’s oil if there were a war today. However, China does get some oil domestically from South China Sea platforms (the US could destroy them) and from oil fields in Northern and Western China. They are also getting more and more oil and gas from Russia and Central Asian countries. Those sources would be harder for the US to block both militarily and politically. And of course Taiwan is 100% dependent on oil from abroad. I wonder how many days of blockade the island could last before the military ground to a halt because of lack of fuel. We always hear about poor training and lack of or misuse of equipment in the ROC military, but we rarely hear anything about how many days of fuel they have for the jeeps and jets. That would be interesting to know.
I doubt this will happen, but the ROC MoD should be paying attention to this:
[quote]
Chavez Warns of Moving Jets to Cuba, China
By NATALIE OBIKO PEARSON, Associated Press Writer
Tue Nov 1, 8:11 PM ET
CARACAS, Venezuela - President Hugo Chavez warned Tuesday he might share Venezuela’s U.S.-made F-16 fighters with Cuba and China, accusing the United States of making it difficult for his country to obtain spare parts for the aircraft.
Chavez claimed the U.S. broke a contract to supply parts for Venezuela’s fleet of 21 F-16s and pressured other countries not to help maintain them.
“We can do whatever we want with the planes. Maybe we’ll send 10 to Cuba, or maybe to China so that they can see the technology. I say with whatever country that can use them,” said Chavez, a close ally of Cuban leader Fidel Castro.[/quote]
Venezuela only has Block 15 F-16s, and they probably don’t have any of the ugrades that Taiwan’s have, but that still would not be a good thing if the PRC got a dozen of them to play with. I’m sure they already know a damn lot about the F-16, but having a few to experiment with could tell them everything they ever wanted to know.
As stated in the article, Chavez is talking out of his ass when he says that they can do whatever they want with these jets. Any unapproved transfer would be illegal. If Chavez decided to break the sales agreement, the US would just bomb those planes to bits. There is no way that the US or any of its allies that operate the F-16 would allow these planes to fall into the hands of China or Cuba.
Yeah, only Isreal is allowed to transfer technology of this type to China.
And even then we’ve give them such grief about it…Oy veh
cia.gov/cia/publications/fac … 7rank.html
This says quite a bit about U.S. military superiority. I remember reading a Newsweek article a year or so ago stating that the U.S. spends more on it’s military than the rest of the worlds military’s combined.
I think it would be quick (if they could get here en-force in time).
If the Pan-Blues would get off their infantile arses and stop killing every bill that comes their way proposed by the DPP (especially the arms procurement package) because they are still sore about the election, then Taiwan would stand a better chance of holding out until then.
Ask yourself this, who has the best attack submarines in the world?
Who has 18 Trident submarines? Who has a bunch of aircraft carriers?
Which country sails it’s Navy in the Taiwan strait when China likes to show off?
The status quo will continue… there will be no war 
If there are missiles raining down they won’t be where I live in Alishan. 
What, does no one read the TT any more?
China may have upper hand in five years: US report
By Charles Snyder
STAFF REPORTER IN WASHINGTON
Wednesday, Nov 30, 2005,Page 2
Advertising Within five years, China’s armed forces may be able to prevent the US from coming to Taiwan’s aid against a military attack from China, a new US congressional report warns. Some expert observers, the report adds, feel that the Chinese military may already have such capabilities.
With current US naval capabilities, it could take two weeks or longer for the US to respond to a Chinese attack on Taiwan, lessening the chances that it could thwart China, the report says.
The document, China Naval Modernization: Implications for US Naval Capabilities, Background and Issues for Congress, was prepared in secret by the Congressional Research Service to help Congressional committees with oversight of the military to plan for US defense needs in the Western Pacific. It was published on Monday by the Federation of American Scientists’ Project on Government Secrecy, an organization that brings security-related information to public attention.
“Some analysts speculate that China may attain [or believe that it has attained] a capable maritime anti-access capability, or important elements of it, by about 2010,” the report says.
Anti-access capability refers to preventing US naval access to the Taiwan Strait.
The issue of when China could attain such capabilities, the report says, “is significant because it can influence the kinds of options that are available to US policymakers for addressing the situation.”
The potential for a military conflict in the Taiwan Strait was a main focus of the report.
“Observers believe that China’s military modernization is aimed at fielding a force that can succeed in a short-duration conflict with Taiwan that finishes before the United States is able to intervene,” the report says.
The Pentagon wants Taiwan to focus on acquiring systems that would “lengthen the time Taiwan could deny the PRC [People’s Republic of China] from gaining air superiority, sea control, and physical occupation of [Taipei],” it says.
The time needed would be “at least five days” after a “credible warning” that an attack is imminent or underway.
But even then, the congressional researchers warn, the US navy might not be up to the task.
The report notes that so-called “early arriving forces,” often involving warships stationed close to the Strait, would be of particular importance in a short conflict over Taiwan. Addressing this could involve having US warships based in locations such as Japan, Guam, Singapore or Hawaii, rather than the US West Coast.
At an expected average speed of 25 knots (46kph), over long Pacific Ocean distances for US submarines, aircraft carriers, cruisers and destroyers, a ship based in San Diego, California would take nearly 10 days to reach an area east of Taiwan after setting sail.
By contrast, a US warship based in Yokosuka, Japan, would take just under two days, one in Guam would take 2.2 days, and a ship sailing from Pearl Harbor in Hawaii would take more than seven days.
But added to these times would be delays for at-sea refueling, rough sea conditions, and the need to avoid sea mines and deal with other contingencies. Moreover, it would take time to get a ship and its crew ready to leave port.
Depending on a ship’s status, “preparing it for rapid departure might require anywhere from less than one day to a few days,” the report quotes a military expert as saying.
At present, the US has only one aircraft carrier based in the Western Pacific – in Japan. The closest additional carriers are on the US West Coast, although carrier groups are regularly at sea in the Pacific, patrolling the area and conducting drills to hone their wartime skills.
“Given that a conflict with China could begin with little warning, this means that as much as two weeks could elapse before additional aircraft carriers reach the area of combat operations,” the report quotes another expert as saying.
Link to actual FAS-hosted report:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33153.pdf