Pentagon: China Preparing Taiwan Attack

[jegs2]

From this article:

WASHINGTON - China is boosting its missile stocks and military budget to prepare for what could be a quick and brutal showdown with Taiwan, and to prevent U.S. forces from getting in the way, the Pentagon said Wednesday.

Defense officials said China was emphasizing a "surprise, deception and shock" doctrine in its campaign against Taiwan, which Beijing considers a renegade province.

"Preparing for a potential conflict in the Taiwan Strait is the primary driver for China's military modernization," the Pentagon said in its annual evaluation of China's military.

While focusing on Taiwan, China is developing weapons systems that would impede U.S. intervention on behalf of the island in any future conflict, the report found.

"Beijing apparently believes that the United States poses a significant long-term challenge. China's leaders have asserted that the United States seeks to maintain a dominant geostrategic position by containing the growth of Chinese power, ultimately 'dividing' and 'Westernizing' China," the report said.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry in Beijing had no immediate comment on the report.

China has about 450 short-range ballistic missiles but is expected to increase its inventory by more than 75 missiles each year, defense officials reported. Last year, the Pentagon estimated that China's military had acquired 350 ballistic missiles and was adding at a rate of 50 a year.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I think one should note in this that China is only increasing its capability for a successful attack on Taiwan rather than really planning one (though obviously they must do that a lot too, but in the theoretical sense)--which, really, is more for intimidation than anything else, considering that Taiwan's Falcons would one-way a special sunlight surprise to Beijing if they were being overrun...

[Posbi]

The whole thing is hypothetical. China's under no circumstances going to risk the economical progress made during the past 15 years just for such a maneuvre. In twenty years maybe, but who knows were China and Taiwan stand in 20 years...

[Vympel]

I think one should note in this that China is only increasing its capability for a successful attack on Taiwan rather than really planning one (though obviously they must do that a lot too, but in the theoretical sense)--which, really, is more for intimidation than anything else, considering that Taiwan's Falcons would one-way a special sunlight surprise to Beijing if they were being overrun...

They wouldn't make it.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I'm just bringing up the fact that China always has to be concerned about the possibility that Taiwan may have several nuclear weapons and that they could be used in an invasion; if, I grant, rather melodramatically.

[Vympel]

Yeah they could use it on or around their own soil (though I doubt they have any sort of nuclear antiship missile) but as to delivering nuclear weapons against targets in China, they don't have a hope. Not only will they be at the mercy of China's Su-27/30s (unencumbered by any nuclear weapon or the extra fuel tanks they'll need to make the trip), but once they hit the mainland they're in S-300PMU territory. Trying to evade that in a manned fighter? Not humanly possible.

[MKSheppard]

Well, they forget Taiwan is friends with the US...I wouldn't put it past W with
threatening a pre-emptive first strike on Chinese targets if they invade
Taiwan...

The Chinese have what, 14 ICBMs capable of hitting the West Coast of
America, while we could blot them out in a continous rain of thermonuclear
fire...and the damned thing is, the Russians would be cheering us on...hell
the russians actually ASKED us during the 60s if we would mind if they nuked
China...we of course, said yes.

[Posbi]

Actually, the number of Chinese ICBMs is a bit above that number, Mike. It's close to 150, with the entire nuclear arsenal numbering about 600 warheads.

And the US wouldn't start a war over Taiwan. If it comes down to it, it simply is not worth the risk of getting a nuclear retaliatory strike against the west coast and the western mid-west territories. The way I see it, you can maybe slow down the Chinese regional domination, maybe even contain it for a while, but in the end your forces are simply too far spread to really stop it.
Sure, there'll be much diplomatic bickering about it when China really would invade/attack, maybe even embargos, but fact is China simply has become too important economically for the global and the asian market as to risk that over a rather small 65 million inhabitants island...

[MKSheppard]

Actually, the number of Chinese ICBMs is a bit above that number, Mike. It's close to 150, with the entire nuclear arsenal numbering about 600 warheads.

*runs over Posbi with 79 chevy*

The actual number that can HIT the US is only 30~ or so...we'd win easily
in a nuclear exchange

[Posbi]

I have to correct my formetr statement. While China does have 150 ICBMs, only about 35 of those are able to strike the US. Still, more than enough to cripple you.

[Posbi]

Actually, the number of Chinese ICBMs is a bit above that number, Mike. It's close to 150, with the entire nuclear arsenal numbering about 600 warheads.

*runs over Posbi with 79 chevy*

The actual number that can HIT the US is only 30~ or so...we'd win easily
in a nuclear exchange

Beat me to it.

[MKSheppard]

I have to correct my formetr statement. While China does have 150 ICBMs, only about 35 of those are able to strike the US. Still, more than enough to cripple you.

All of them can only hit targets in Hawaii and California.....No big loss, as
opposed to the complete extermination of China under megatons of
throw weight

[Posbi]

Actually, the number of Chinese ICBMs is a bit above that number, Mike. It's close to 150, with the entire nuclear arsenal numbering about 600 warheads.

*runs over Posbi with 79 chevy*

The actual number that can HIT the US is only 30~ or so...we'd win easily
in a nuclear exchange

And well, "winning" a nuclear exchange isn't exactly the word I would have chosen. You'd only loose by a smaller margin than the Chinese do. Hell, even one succesful nuclear strike against a major city would send the US economy down the drain; loosing more than that would do almost irreperable damage - meaning it would take you decades to recover. And all that for Taiwan?

[MKSheppard]

Hell, even one succesful nuclear strike against a major city would send the US economy down the drain; loosing more than that would do almost irreperable damage - meaning it would take you decades to recover. And all that for Taiwan?

Hiroshima was rebuilt rather quickly, and besides, Taiwan is a US ally,
and besides, if China was stupid enough to try and invade Taiwan while
US forces are on an asskicking expedition somewhere else (korea) and
cant be sent in theatre, then it will in all likely end up going to nuclear
sabre rattling...

[Posbi]

I have to correct my formetr statement. While China does have 150 ICBMs, only about 35 of those are able to strike the US. Still, more than enough to cripple you.

All of them can only hit targets in Hawaii and California.....No big loss, as
opposed to the complete extermination of China under megatons of
throw weight

Which would be really helpful for the US an the world, loosing a 1.2 billion people consumer market, producing global fallout for years, changing the global climate. Nukes are cool, Mike. But I wouldn't use them in numbers bigger than 3.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

And well, "winning" a nuclear exchange isn't exactly the word I would have chosen. You'd only loose by a smaller margin than the Chinese do. Hell, even one succesful nuclear strike against a major city would send the US economy down the drain; loosing more than that would do almost irreperable damage - meaning it would take you decades to recover. And all that for Taiwan?

We'd recover from thirty-five+ nukes within a decade. It would be worth it to defend Taiwanese independence.

[MKSheppard]

Which would be really helpful for the US an the world, loosing a 1.2 billion people consumer market, producing global fallout for years, changing the global climate. Nukes are cool, Mike. But I wouldn't use them in numbers bigger than 3.

Hence why China is fucked. They only destroy 1 or 2 American cities, and
end up being wiped from the face of the earth. MAD works

[The Duchess of Zeon]

We'd recover from thirty-five+ nukes within a decade. It would be worth it to defend Taiwanese independence.

(Especially since the Republic of China would be our staunch ally afterwards, and would literally be the Republic of China, at that.)

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Which would be really helpful for the US an the world, loosing a 1.2 billion people consumer market, producing global fallout for years, changing the global climate. Nukes are cool, Mike. But I wouldn't use them in numbers bigger than 3.

1.2 billion from an exchange involving, in all liklihood, less than two hundred devices? Please. There would also be virtually no fallout from such an exchange, as there would be little reason to be using ground-bursts.

[Vympel]

Not to mention that not every nuke is going to make it. US forces will definitely try and strike their silos. If they keep their primitive crap in silos, that is.

[Posbi]

Hell, even one succesful nuclear strike against a major city would send the US economy down the drain; loosing more than that would do almost irreperable damage - meaning it would take you decades to recover. And all that for Taiwan?

Hiroshima was rebuilt rather quickly, and besides, Taiwan is a US ally,
and besides, if China was stupid enough to try and invade Taiwan while
US forces are on an asskicking expedition somewhere else (korea) and
cant be sent in theatre, then it will in all likely end up going to nuclear
sabre rattling...

You don't get it, Mike, do ya? ONE nuke is enough to ruin you, enough to send the global markets, lead by the US economy down the gutter. It would be a total economical fuckup worldwide, with the US being the ones being hit the hardest. It simply doesn't matter if you can annihilate Peking twenty times in a row if the very single succesful counterattack will leave you as a third world nation. Cause and effect, man. And the sideeffects of such a thing are alway bigger than the actual cause. The destruction would be secondary, as I don't think the Chinese already do have the MT-ranges to effectivly destroy LA or SF. Fact is, they don't need to. It will make your economy collaps in a way that'll make the crisis of '29 look like childs play.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Not to mention that not every nuke is going to make it. US forces will definitely try and strike their silos. If they keep their primitive crap in silos, that is.

It's not entirely impossible that we could disable their ICBM arsenal using conventional weaponry from B-2s before the conflict escalated, and that SSBN is so dead.

[phongn]

Well, if we wanted to be cruel we could go for the contamination strike on the Yangtze, but I think a few other countries would be annoyed at us if we did.

From a more normal counter-population/counter-industrial strike, fallout generation should be minimized and global climate patterns unaffected.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

You don't get it, Mike, do ya? ONE nuke is enough to ruin you, enough to send the global markets, lead by the US economy down the gutter. It would be a total economical fuckup worldwide, with the US being the ones being hit the hardest. It simply doesn't matter if you can annihilate Peking twenty times in a row if the very single succesful counterattack will leave you as a third world nation. Cause and effect, man. And the sideeffects of such a thing are alway bigger than the actual cause. The destruction would be secondary, as I don't think the Chinese already do have the MT-ranges to effectivly destroy LA or SF. Fact is, they don't need to. It will make your economy collaps in a way that'll make the crisis of '29 look like childs play.

The damage from one MT-range nuke to LA could easily be repaired, and most of the city could still be inhabited immediately after the blast, while most of the populace would survive and easily be able to participate in repair efforts.

Are you smoking a bong today Posbi? Try to remember the damage your country took after WWII--cumulatively vastly worse than that doled out from a hundred atomic bombs, easily--and how quickly Germany was restored into an economic power.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Well, if we wanted to be cruel we could go for the contamination strike on the Yangtze, but I think a few other countries would be annoyed at us if we did.

That would be so naughty.