Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm playing Devil's advocate again, but if the USA complains about a power grab in the pacific by the Chinese, then it's being hypocritical, and if the UK complains...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I'm playing Devil's advocate again, but if the USA complains about a power grab in the pacific by the Chinese, then it's being hypocritical, and if the UK complains...

It being hypocritical has no bearing on the fact that China's power grabbing though.

Something I have said before

China only needs to have enough assets, and of a decent enough quality, when push comes to shove to make the US baulk at conflict.

I'm not so sure that the Philippines knows the US has its back if it comes to anything other than a minor skirmish over disputed atolls or sandbanks.

Equally Japan isn't likely to do much of anything other than announce its disapproval/concern.

The Philippines knows that its own forces would not be a match for the Chinese. I'm pretty sure that the average Filipino is the media target for any new military arrangements made rather than Chinese leaders.

Obviously japan having the Sol satellite targeting Chinese mainland rather than Tetsuo and Akira, would make a difference.

If there's any future problems, then it's likely to come over Taiwan. China only has to look at what Russia did over the Crimea, and seeing that Taiwan was a part of China for centuries anyway...

I honestly don't think the international community would make that big a deal over China taking Taiwan. They'd make the right noises...

The Chinese leadership may come to that conclusion...

Taiwan has a MUCH better military though, and as noted, mounting a sea invasion is a different animal completely.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
If there's any future problems, then it's likely to come over Taiwan. China only has to look at what Russia did over the Crimea, and seeing that Taiwan was a part of China for centuries anyway...

I honestly don't think the international community would make that big a deal over China taking Taiwan. They'd make the right noises...

The Chinese leadership may come to that conclusion...

Isn't Taiwan expressely under US protection though? Backing down would mean the end of US hegemony.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
If there's any future problems, then it's likely to come over Taiwan. China only has to look at what Russia did over the Crimea, and seeing that Taiwan was a part of China for centuries anyway...

I honestly don't think the international community would make that big a deal over China taking Taiwan. They'd make the right noises...

The Chinese leadership may come to that conclusion...

Isn't Taiwan expressely under US protection though? Backing down would mean the end of US hegemony.

Don't mention the red line

It probably would provoke a response, but if China was in de facto control of Taiwan after a quick invasion, then there might not be an appetite to try and win it back.

Taiwan IS explicitly under US protection. At any point that China instigates hostile action, we punch back.

So our treaties say... whether or not we do that, well who knows.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
If there's any future problems, then it's likely to come over Taiwan. China only has to look at what Russia did over the Crimea, and seeing that Taiwan was a part of China for centuries anyway...

I honestly don't think the international community would make that big a deal over China taking Taiwan. They'd make the right noises...

The Chinese leadership may come to that conclusion...

Isn't Taiwan expressely under US protection though? Backing down would mean the end of US hegemony.

Fine by me?

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Something I have said before

China only needs to have enough assets, and of a decent enough quality, when push comes to shove to make the US baulk at conflict.

That is really not a concern with the current "game" in the Pacific, China lacks and will likely continue to lack appreciable Naval assets to be anything more then a threat to regional allies, they'd be hard pressed to handle PACOM. The Pacific submarine fleet can easily bottle the PLAN into the strait of Taiwan if they attempt to invade, and it would not be difficult to destroy their sealift capacity before they make the beachheads in Taiwan, or make blue water. When 7th fleet finally gets involved then the PLAN will cease to exist as a functional naval force, and the rest of the U.S. Pacific surface fleet will be steaming that way in short order.

Much hay is made about the Airforce, but no one comes close to being a peer competitor to the United States in terms of sheer naval power, and the Pacific where China is trying to project force and power, naval power is all that matters.

This is what gets me nervous. People discussing conventional naval assets, like a war between two major nuclear powers wouldn't go full megaton very quickly.

Well the US Navy are nuke powered so........
China might just go with
"If we cannot have Taiwan then no one will!" option

 Jihadin wrote:
Well the US Navy are nuke powered so........
China might just go with
"If we cannot have Taiwan then no one will!" option

No. If the wind turns badly all the fallout ends up on China's east coast, which is one of the most densely populated areas in the world.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Well the US Navy are nuke powered so........
China might just go with
"If we cannot have Taiwan then no one will!" option

No. If the wind turns badly all the fallout ends up on China's east coast, which is one of the most densely populated areas in the world.

This is China now we're talking about. They think long long term. Good money says they already have a plan for that

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Well the US Navy are nuke powered so........
China might just go with
"If we cannot have Taiwan then no one will!" option

No. If the wind turns badly all the fallout ends up on China's east coast, which is one of the most densely populated areas in the world.

Winds about 5000' and below usually blow east to west in that part of the world, so nuking Taiwan would be a bad thing.

 djones520 wrote:
Taiwan IS explicitly under US protection. At any point that China instigates hostile action, we punch back.

So our treaties say... whether or not we do that, well who knows.

My money is on that we wouldn't

You figure the escalation up to combat would see quite a bit military hardware start arriving in Taiwan from the US

Question for the military people. Yes, China has a clear naval disadvantage, but what if they do a Market Garden on Taiwan and launch a massive Airborne invasion?

I'm assuming Taiwan would have AA capability, but couldn't the Chinese overwhelm that before sending in the paratroopers?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Question for the military people. Yes, China has a clear naval disadvantage, but what if they do a Market Garden on Taiwan and launch a massive Airborne invasion?

I'm assuming Taiwan would have AA capability, but couldn't the Chinese overwhelm that before sending in the paratroopers?

China doesn't exactly have the capability of doing that either. Even if they did, it would just be sending in an army of unsupported infantry. Good to cause havoc for a day or two, but without reinforcements coming in, they'll eventually be rounded up, and captured/killed.

Market Garden/D-Day were succesful for one main reason. There was a massive influx of reinforcements shortly after the drop.

 djones520 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Question for the military people. Yes, China has a clear naval disadvantage, but what if they do a Market Garden on Taiwan and launch a massive Airborne invasion?

I'm assuming Taiwan would have AA capability, but couldn't the Chinese overwhelm that before sending in the paratroopers?

China doesn't exactly have the capability of doing that either. Even if they did, it would just be sending in an army of unsupported infantry. Good to cause havoc for a day or two, but without reinforcements coming in, they'll eventually be rounded up, and captured/killed.

Market Garden/D-Day were succesful for one main reason. There was a massive influx of reinforcements shortly after the drop.

All depends on controlling one main road for supplies
They captured two bridge crossing but did not captured the last bridge. They (MI) disregarded the intel provided by the Resistance that one maybe two Waffen SS Panzer divisions or something like that that was refitting at Arnhem.

 Jihadin wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Question for the military people. Yes, China has a clear naval disadvantage, but what if they do a Market Garden on Taiwan and launch a massive Airborne invasion?

I'm assuming Taiwan would have AA capability, but couldn't the Chinese overwhelm that before sending in the paratroopers?

China doesn't exactly have the capability of doing that either. Even if they did, it would just be sending in an army of unsupported infantry. Good to cause havoc for a day or two, but without reinforcements coming in, they'll eventually be rounded up, and captured/killed.

Market Garden/D-Day were succesful for one main reason. There was a massive influx of reinforcements shortly after the drop.

All depends on controlling one main road for supplies
They captured two bridge crossing but did not captured the last bridge. They (MI) disregarded the intel provided by the Resistance that one maybe two Waffen SS Panzer divisions or something like that that was refitting at Arnhem.

Yes, but in the case of Taiwan, there would not be that road. There would be the straits, that we've already determined will not be open for transport.

 Ketara wrote:

Talizvar wrote:At some point when China's standards of living go up enough to not be inexpensive (like automotive did in Mexico) they would "need" North America less.
At some point China will do what they want and pretty much tell the USA to get lost.
The biggest hit China could do is with no warning, set an embargo on the USA.
So much manufacturing has been lost to them that damage would be catastrophic.

Let me just say point blank here that you do not appear to understand global economics even superficially.

 Frazzled wrote:
Taiwan has a MUCH better military though, and as noted, mounting a sea invasion is a different animal completely.

Frazz has a pretty good point,

watch what happens when the locals *dont* want to change sides, taiwan would have to be an actual invasion.

You know, with people actually going to fight about it instead of a bloodless change of power. Regardless of ones opinion on the legitimacy of that change in power in crimea it would be miles apart from what would happen in taiwan as they dont want to be absorbed into china.

That being said, I would be shocked if china *doesnt* start flexing more muscles over seas, but I see them doing more economically then militarily.

 Talizvar wrote:

Short-term, yes they are not in position to do as I outlined.

Long term as well. Things don't operate in bubbles. A Chinese embargo would cause China exactly as much pain as it could ever cause America at best, and considerably more at worst.

They are quickly becoming THE largest consumer as the Apple sales are quickly finding out.
As we have utilized them for cheap manufacture, their industry is a 500 lb gorilla that can crank out more product than anywhere in the world.(Top country starting 2011: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/002fd8f0-4d96-11e0-85e4-00144feab49a.html#axzz3VG0i5irJ)
All other countries the manufacturing sector has been in decline other than India is still moving along.

And every step they take along the transition from being a producer to a consumer lessens the potential damage they could do the American economy. Because more and more manufacturing capacity relocates to other nations. And as America does not buy high tech goods from China generally, and is unlikely to in the foreseeable future, what will happen is that China (like Japan did) will have to muscle into an increasingly crowded luxury/high tech goods/services market as low tech/mass production goods shift to the next place sweatshop conditions are legal.

In other words, you're more or less defeating your own argument here. The short term is the time span within which China can do the most economic damage to the US, because the short term is where the US still depends more on China as a manufacturer. But that would wreck the Chinese economy as well. In the long term, the US no longer buys the vast bulk of it's low tech/mass produced goods from China, so the Chinese are more able to impose an embargo/tell the US to get lost, but it would no longer be 'catastrophic' as you put it.

You cannot have both sides of the fork, alas. China cannot be independent, and the US dependent. At least, not within the foreseeable state of affairs. Both are too big and have too much economic muscle of their own. Either they're interlinked and thus vulnerable to each other, or neither one.

That is all well and good, but how quickly if used as an economic weapon? Years would be a kind estimate.

It depends. If it is in the short term, then yes, it would damage the US economy. But it would completely wreck the Chinese one. The lashback of Western countries pulling out and sending their cash elsewhere would reduce China to the status of international pauper overnight. Nobody would be prepared to do business there. All the international business, the people who fund the economic ascent of China would immediately start making plans to relocate to India or Nigeria.

Not under the guise of hostilities conducted in China's "back yard" and an immediate calling in of debt they have been buying up of the USA.
You are assuming small economics maneuvering, not a Chinese "endgame" to wrest American dominance in world affairs.
They can easily turn world opinion against the USA and point out they are living beyond their means on China's dime (10% of all American debt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_States)and to leave the region or no economic trade can happen.

I'm afraid you're trying to integrate some bizare world where the US is dependent on China, national debt is something that can just be 'called in' (it doesn't work like that at all), and international corporations base their short and long term business planning on some vague anti-americanism originating from Chinese media.

I've no idea where you've come up with this from, but I'm afraid the world really does not work like that. China cannot 'call in the American national debt' whilst imposing a 'catastrophic' embargo and 'turning world opinion against America' by the amazing revelation that America runs a national deficit (as indeed, most countries do).

Chinese Naval power is a wee bit bigger than USA, (http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=China) yes it is not just a hop over the pond but doable for a beach-head with multiple means of securing areas to land troops (air or sea).

Chinese naval and air power is the equivalent of a paper aeroplane against the US in this particular scenario (namely, Chinese invasions of Japan). Trust me on this, I actually have something vaguely approaching a professional opinion on it.

"No knowledge" if you wish to attack opinions, feel free, attack me, you are just proving to be rude and resort to name calling rather than a logical argument.

I'm not attacking you personally. I don't know you, and wouldn't presume to assume anything about you personally, except that which you choose to reveal here. And so far, what you've revealed is that you haven't got the faintest idea how global economics, or military affairs actually work. I mean, you just (I assume seriously) told me with a straight face that Chinese naval power is 'bigger than the US', from which I'm taking to mean in this context as 'more powerful/capable/able' as opposed to just 'numerically superior'. I mean, really?!

And even if you did just mean 'numerically superior', that statement would just be meaningless and irrelevant in this context. Numbers do not necessarily confer any sort of advantage in modern warfare. I could throw a hundred small coastal patrol boats with machine guns against an American carrier fleet, and still have no hope of winning. I wouldn't even get close enough to target them before being whacked.

Perhaps I'm being a trifle blunt here, and if you're feeling attacked, I'm sorry for that. Genuinely I am, I don't come here to insult/upset people as a rule of thumb. But I honestly feel like I'm talking to someone telling me katanas are the best swords ever, or that the German Army in WW2 was this super awesome machine with the best tanks that would totally have won WW2 if Hitler hadn't ruined it. The idea that China can economically wreck America if it so chooses is one of those fallacies that gets wheeled out in American political trails, and has about as much basis in reality as the queries about Obama's birth certificates.

The Chinese hulls aren't much to talk about. 10 Subs, and a pile of destroyers and coastal defense ships. They have no real naval airpower (which IS naval power) and I'd question their missile launch and radar capabilities compared to say, an Arleigh Burke class destroyer (which is an older model as well), in open naval warfare my generous estimate of approximately 72 hours survival for the PLAN stands. Their sealift capacity (vital for landing troops) is relatively minor, even with opening aerial and missile bombardment on Taiwan those puppies are going to be hard to get ashore. Assuming they get past the attack subs that like to prowl the strait of Taiwan.

A conventional attack on Japan, past PLAA coverage won't even have those benefits.

A Nuclear attack on a U.S. ally, be it Taiwan or Japan is insanity for one simple reason. China does NOT have MAD with the United States.

If their missiles get past ICBM countermeasures all over Japan, Korea (I'd assume Taiwan) and anywhere a U.S. ship is at sea all it will take is waking up ONE Ohio class boomer captain and ordering him to launch. Therefore a nuclear strike by the Chinese cannot be considered, because it's simply suicide.

Further thought, China itself is not an invadable country in the modern sense, U.S. Sealift and Airlift capacity is pretty fething impressive, but that won't be enough to break the PLA. Should it come to a fight, I'd estimate that the PLAN and PLAA would be wiped from anything approximating existence, and through one channel or another a cease fire would be offered.

However I very honestly doubt the Chinese are going to go that far. However... if they move it's going to be in roughly the next 2-3 decades. They're going to shortly have the largest population of senior citizens as a ratio to children and adults in the world. Many of the current generation will never have the chance to get married or father children. The fruits of the one child policy have come to bloom. Mix in the rising middle class in China, and you have a recipe for paralysis.

Fight over Taiwan?! Are you serious?! Have any of you been there? Tourists from PRC flock there to see the magic stone cabbage carving and to empty their pockets for shuranpo (dumplings). The whole country smells like the kitchen entrance of a Chili's and has 7-11s on every corner. It's a gigantic rock with midget deer.

China doesn't give two fugs about Taiwan. The revolutionary fervor died in the late 60s. Now it's a place for high ranking PLA types and business men to hide their cash and that's about it.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

 KiloFiX wrote:
Japan is scrapping their pacifist clause?

Does that mean Giant Robots soon?

Giant Robots no This


The return of Yamato!

I enjoy how the bow of this flying boat looks like a terrified seal if you look closely. It's fitting.

 Haight wrote:


I enjoy how the bow of this flying boat looks like a terrified seal if you look closely. It's fitting.

Aaaaaaaaand, just like that, Yamato 2199 is now forever ruined for me.

What's been seen, cannot be unseen

 Khornholio wrote:
Fight over Taiwan?! Are you serious?! Have any of you been there? Tourists from PRC flock there to see the magic stone cabbage carving and to empty their pockets for shuranpo (dumplings). The whole country smells like the kitchen entrance of a Chili's and has 7-11s on every corner. It's a gigantic rock with midget deer.

China doesn't give two fugs about Taiwan. The revolutionary fervor died in the late 60s. Now it's a place for high ranking PLA types and business men to hide their cash and that's about it.

Is that why they have thousands of missiles pointed at it?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Khornholio wrote:
Fight over Taiwan?! Are you serious?! Have any of you been there? Tourists from PRC flock there to see the magic stone cabbage carving and to empty their pockets for shuranpo (dumplings). The whole country smells like the kitchen entrance of a Chili's and has 7-11s on every corner. It's a gigantic rock with midget deer.

China doesn't give two fugs about Taiwan. The revolutionary fervor died in the late 60s. Now it's a place for high ranking PLA types and business men to hide their cash and that's about it.

Is that why they have thousands of missiles pointed at it?

Don't they have thousand of missiles point at all their neighbours? They aren't going to war over that rock. Pure posturing.