Pentagon: China Preparing Taiwan Attack

[Worlds Spanner]

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.

I think you're underestimating the resilence of the US market. Insurance
losses would probably ruin the insurance industry, unless they've all
put in that clause that gets them out in case of a nuclear exchange.

Uhm, hello? The act of a dozen Saudis with dirty towels wrapped around their heads almost caused worldwide stock market losses of more than 50% within three days from which we have hardly recovered even two years after, even though they did rather miniscule damage (compared on a national level), causing (in comparison to a nuclear attack) laughable 3.000 casualties.

I have to disagree. I think they ruined the markets because of their unconventional tactics and obscure motives.

Nuclear war, on the other hand, makes clear sense and the response is also clear.

Not that this makes it GOOD.

As I said, a nuke would make that look like child's play.

[Exonerate]

Aren't most of the Taiwanese moving to mainland China?

Not that I'm aware of. I understand that there's more economic ties now than before, but I don't recall hearing that people are moving to mainland China en masse.

As mentioned before, Germany was rebuilt fairly quickly after WW2, but only with outside support. After WW1, it slumped into a depression. If an nuclear exchange occured, we might not exactly lose, but I wouldn't call it a victory either, considering the immense losses that will occur. Furthermore, have you thought about what the rest of the world is going to say? If we nuke China, that's 1.2 billion people gone. Many people are going to be pissed as hell.

There was a worldwide depression after WW1, because international trade went down. Exports stopped, countries could no longer afford to import commodities, leading to an even larger depression. Right now, there's a hell lot more trade going on, what do you think the total destruction of China and crippling of the US would do?

I very much doubt if the US would be willing to get into an nuclear war with China over a little island.

[CaptainChewbacca]

I'm guessing Hassler never took a class on economics.

He's talking about the economic effects of having to rebuild a large urban
area.......can you imagine the construction contracts being let? Shit, If
I landed only a single contract for rebuilding Los Angeles, I'd be set for
life!

Yes, but can your difficult-to-implement contract offset all of the lost income from the city of LA? And with what would you build? You would have no nearby infrastructure to build with and no workforce?

Trying to rebuild like this would be like the construction of the Alaskan pipeline. Hard work in bad conditions in the middle of nowhere.

You'd be set for life, but everyone else would just break even.

[Ypoknons]

Perhaps living in Hong Kong has me rather concerned about a nuclear war on my doopstep... But in all reality, I would doubt that China would attack Taiwan now. Too much business interest from the Taiwanese currently and that the large loss of Taiwanese people and industry from a nuclear invasion isn't worth whatever political gain China will take, nevermind the political beating China will take on the world stage. As Exonerate said.

And also, as Alex Moon said, everyone's market will take a hit. The simple fact is that China gets away with things like human rights abuses these days is partially because of the sheer manpower of Chinese trade - there is huge, untapped market of goods should China develop one day. Partially the reason why everyone has assets in Asia.

[LMSx]

Actually, I just thought about this while reading the posts. If LA was nuked, and the harbor was damaged, wouldn't that fubar the economy pretty hard? When the dockworkers went on strike last year, they said it cost the economy about 1 billion a day. LA/Long Beach harbor has more goods and cargo flowing through it than any other one in the US.

Think north. The Seattle/Tacoma shipping areas, IIRC, are the #2 port in the US. If SeaTac had to absorb ALL of Long Beach's capacity for here on out, they'd be screwed, but carrying over the LA shipping for the 2-3 weeks it would take to set up pontoons north/south of the LA blast zone would be a difficult but managable task as long as they rationed dock space around Puget Sound.

[Hasler]

Im still wondering what shipping you would be refering to if the above senarios played out. The countries that do the large amount of buisiness with west cost ports will be glowing ruins. I dont think China, Japan, or South Korea will be sending large quanties of anything after a regional nuclear war.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Those ports service alot of the western US. They also get crops from western states out to world markets. It would take many years to get shipping squared away to where it was before.

Plus, you can't forget India.

[MKSheppard]

Trying to rebuild like this would be like the construction of the Alaskan pipeline. Hard work in bad conditions in the middle of nowhere.

"bad conditions", in the middle of fucking California? The state that
car magazines rate the place as the best for your car to be in?

[CaptainChewbacca]

Trying to rebuild like this would be like the construction of the Alaskan pipeline. Hard work in bad conditions in the middle of nowhere.

"bad conditions", in the middle of fucking California? The state that
car magazines rate the place as the best for your car to be in?

I'm referring to the charred, nuclear wasteland that would be there, with no power, water, or gas and few servicible roads. Rebuilding in those circumstances would take a while. And it gets damn hot here in the summer.

I know, California is wonderful.

[Hasler]

Those ports service alot of the western US. They also get crops from western states out to world markets. It would take many years to get shipping squared away to where it was before.

Plus, you can't forget India.

Your not getting the point i was makeing. The massive amounts of shipping that go to West Coast ports wont be there anymore. The big players in asian exports will glass The west coast produce market will be gone. What little Pacific- america shipping that is left can easily be handaled by all the ports in the Atlantic and gulf of mexico.

[CaptainChewbacca]

So, all shipping from Japan, India, Russia, Indonesia, Australia, and east Africa will be gone?

And the food that needs to get to and from Oregon, Montana, Nevada, Colorado, and Idaho will just "find a way"?

I'm glad you think its pretty easy to get from the Pacific to the Atlantic. After all, what's an extra month and $800,000 to go through the Panama canal?

You need to realize even a limited nuclear exchange over the western US would be CATASTROPHIC to our economy, and to the rest of the world. There won't be any construction boom to rebuild cities for people who aren't alive in places that are charred wastelands.

[Alex Moon]

Those ports service alot of the western US. They also get crops from western states out to world markets. It would take many years to get shipping squared away to where it was before.

Plus, you can't forget India.

Your not getting the point i was makeing. The massive amounts of shipping that go to West Coast ports wont be there anymore. The big players in asian exports will glass The west coast produce market will be gone. What little Pacific- america shipping that is left can easily be handaled by all the ports in the Atlantic and gulf of mexico.

Bullshit. About half of the tonnage coming from through the LA seaport is from the far east. The rest of it comes from other places. In addition, any major war in Asia would mean massive amounts of aid sent to nations on our side, and the most efficient way to send it is by sea. So you're essentially trying to handle a huge amount of material from both imports *and* exports that will have to either be sent from smaller seaports, who can't handle the volume, or from ports on the East coast, which would mean greater expenses and travel time.

[Supreme_Warlord]

One of the biggest lies heard in the American media is that China may invade Taiwan. China has 1300 million people, so how can Taiwan with only 22 million people possibly defend itself. The simple answer is 100 miles of water, known as the Taiwan straits. A Chinese invasion would require an amphibious force larger than the Anglo-American force which landed at Normandy in 1944. China has only 10% of the naval power needed just to attempt a difficult invasion against Taiwan, which has only three practical landing sites, all heavily fortified. Anyone who performs some quick research will find that no expert believes China is capable of invading Taiwan, nor that it is building the naval force needed. All major powers acquire new warships every year, but every new Chinese warship is treated as proof of growing Chinese power by the American media.

The air forces among these two nations are considered an even match. China has more aircraft, but Taiwan has more sophisticated fighters with pilots who are much better trained. In addition, Taiwan's fighters operating in a defensive role would have the advantages of Taiwanese ground radar, E-2C airborne radar, and surface-to-air missile support. The Chinese Air Force could inflict damage on Taiwan, but would lose most of its Air Force in the process. It could fire some 300 missiles at Taiwan, but they are not precision guided and would have no military effect. In short, a massive Chinese air and missile attack could kill a thousand Taiwanese and cause some damage, but China's airpower would be sacrificed.

Likewise, the larger Chinese Navy could attempt to blockade Taiwan, but would be gradually sunk by sophisticated Taiwanese anti-ship and anti-submarine weaponry. Last May, Professor Bernard Cole of the U.S. Naval War College, appeared on C-Span and informed America that China cannot invade Taiwan, and would be hard pressed to to blockade the island. The American media ignored this news, but made the U.S. offer to sell Taiwan "new" weapons a major story. Taiwan's lukewarm reaction confused most reporters. What happened is that the Pentagon was asked to develop a list of weapons to offer Taiwan, so the Generals and Admirals recommended that Taiwan buy used American weapons which they plan to retire. Most of these weapons are unsuitable for Taiwan's needs, and are overpriced considering their age.

Despite the image of a growing China superpower portrayed in the American media, China's military remains second class. Estimates of Chinese military spending range from the CIA's $12.6 billion a year, to $37.5 billion by the respected Institute of Strategic Studies, whose latest "1999" data will be cited throughout this article. Interestingly, both China and Taiwan (which spends $10.7 billion annually) devote a smaller percentage of their GDP to their military than the USA, which spent a whopping $305.4 billion in 1999. President Bush has also proposed a two-year increase in military spending that will exceed China's entire military budget. In contrast, news reports of China's "big military build-up" over the past two years fail to note that it just matches its economic growth, and amounts only $4 billion more each year. China does have nuclear weapons, but the USA has many times more and would use them to retaliate if Taiwan were nuked.

The most ignored aspect of the China-Taiwan conflict is China's other national security concerns. It has a long disputed border with unstable Russia (which spends $55.0 billion each year on its military). China also has a disputed border with India ($10.7 billion) which resulted in a short war in 1962 and a 1986 border clash. India's population will surpass China's by 2020, and Indians are irritated by Chinese military sales to their archrival Pakistan. Tensions with Vietnam ($0.9 billion) remain since 1979 when China invaded to teach them a lesson about invading Cambodia, resulting in a stalemate which killed 55,000 Chinese. Finally, China is wary of the Japanese, who killed millions of its citizens during World War II. Japan spends more on its military than China ($41.1 billion in 1999) and possesses the most powerful air and naval force in the Western Pacific. Japan may seem docile today, but politicians change quickly, and all Asian nations worry since Japan has begun building amphibious ships.

China's leaders have profited from better relations with the West. They are modernizing and enjoying the benefits of technology and trade. Starting a winless war with Taiwan would result in trade embargos and increased internal unrest among China's diverse cultures. The billions of dollars in new Taiwanese and American investment in China would end forever. China's unfriendly neighbors would support Taiwan and deploy forces to their borders in protest. Meanwhile, China's Air Force and Navy would suffer devastating losses fighting Taiwan, leaving the entire nation vulnerable to land grabs by hostile neighbors and internal revolts. A senseless war with Taiwan would cause China would lose everything it has gained over the past 20 years.

The Chinese seek no tension with the USA. They have learned to exploit the corrupt American political system for their own gain. American defense contractors are happy to sell them anything that can be excused as a commercial venture, and classified American military technology can be acquired indirectly; click Israeli sales to China for details. The Chinese have talked tough about taking control of their "renegade" province for over 50 years, but remain far too weak to take action. However, these facts are ignored as the U.S. Navy pretends that its aircraft carriers protect Taiwan from invasion, and whenever the U.S. military establishment points to potential enemies to justify spending increases. China will not attack Taiwan, and even if they do, Taiwan can defend itself.

[Vympel]

I can imagine what the US media will make of China's next two Project 956EM Sovremenny-class Destroyers, the ones with longer range Moskits. Ooooh, scary- Taiwan is screwed now.

China would need something equivalent to the Soviet Northern or Pacific Fleet to seriously attempt to blockade Taiwan, let alone defend a non-existent amphibious landing force. By the end of the decade, Taiwan's airforce will be pretty much screwed against China's (ever increasing numbers of Su-27SK/UBK and Su-30MKKs along with their own J-10 will see to that) but it still doesn't mean much.

[Ypoknons]

Of course, Taiwan's originally dream of retaking China are long, long over.

[Hasler]

So, all shipping from Japan, India, Russia, Indonesia, Australia, and east Africa will be gone?

And the food that needs to get to and from Oregon, Montana, Nevada, Colorado, and Idaho will just "find a way"?

I'm glad you think its pretty easy to get from the Pacific to the Atlantic. After all, what's an extra month and $800,000 to go through the Panama canal?

This rates a just wow. On the first part of the reply Yes Japan will be gone. US bases are there sop they will be targeted and if you hit them you have to hit the rest of the targets in the country to knock them out of the war. India only does 170,000 tonnes of shipping with the west coast.
East Africa dosent really export much and its quicker and cheaper for them to go thrugh the Suez. As for Austrailia what do they export to the US.

Now for your even stupider Produce reply. First i will have to tell you Oregon is on the west coast and wont be producing much after a nuclear exchange as i said before. The food will get to US markets as it always has by truck and rail. Do you think a crop of oranges would hold the month trip through the canal. Do you think that farmers are going to send there produce via ship when its cheaper and quicker by rail. For a final point If you send something from the west coast to east coast ship you have to at least go thrugh the Panama canal. so basically your whole reply about the western states was a waste of time.


For Moon
Who exactly is going to be sending aid. The US sure wont. It will be tied up in reconstruction efforts. Any other country that would be sending aid to asia will go direct and not pay the port fees and unload just to load agin when it they could just go through a canal either panama or suez.
You obviously dont know the size of ports on the east coast. Just to name a few large ones New Orleans, Norfolk, Chesapeak, New York, Boston, etc. there is more than enough dock space to hold the trickle of pacific shipping.

[CaptainChewbacca]

I wash my hands of hasler. He certainly lives up to his name, by not trying to understand any point of view but his own.

[MKSheppard]

I wash my hands of hasler. He certainly lives up to his name, by not trying to understand any point of view but his own.

You're stupid too. "contaminated wasteland" riiight...do some lookup into
fallout..within one week, radiation levels will still be elevated, but you won't
need suits...within one month, meh, who cares?

[CaptainChewbacca]

I don't believe I said contaminated, I said "charred nuclear wasteland". I said it would be ruined/wasted and have no infrastructure. You can't just rebuild on the ashes.

You're right. There would be many pockets of survivors, though, and the humanitarian relief nightmare we would have trying to help those areas would be greatly impeded by our lack of pacific ports and transportation hubs. Building anything in there would cost ten times as much just to get your materials and equipment.

[Hasler]

Wash your hands of me you still havent come up with any though out answer and seem to think ships are the end all be all of transportation.

Here I will give you a likely senario of the initial reconstruction effort. Marshall law will enacted along the whole of the west coast. US Army unconventional warfare teams along with navy hospital ships, enginearing batallions, National gaurd and MASH units units will deploy to the area. The Cp will likely be in either lightly damaged suburbs or a small town/city. Initial efforts will be clearing debris fixing rail links and treating survivors.The military will also be tasked with distribution food and water which wont be difficult due to large number of MREs andother preprepared food that is stock piled.
Heavy equipment can be transported by rail air or land and possibly sea via military landing craft. Any equipment that has to be transported by sea can be taken via Navy amphib ships. Material will be stock piled for when the reconstruction effort actually begins. cement can be made on site, steel will be transported via rail depending. Many construction companies in various contiguous states will probably recive contracts to clear and rebuild the cities. Basically the infrastructure to get the men and material to the destroyed area will still exsist. What ever is needed can be quickly constructed.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Wash your hands of me you still havent come up with any though out answer and seem to think ships are the end all be all of transportation.

Here I will give you a likely senario of the initial reconstruction effort. Marshall law will enacted along the whole of the west coast. US Army unconventional warfare teams along with navy hospital ships, enginearing batallions, National gaurd and MASH units units will deploy to the area. The Cp will likely be in either lightly damaged suburbs or a small town/city. Initial efforts will be clearing debris fixing rail links and treating survivors.The military will also be tasked with distribution food and water which wont be difficult due to large number of MREs andother preprepared food that is stock piled.

Heavy equipment can be transported by rail air or land and possibly sea via military landing craft. Any equipment that has to be transported by sea can be taken via Navy amphib ships. Material will be stock piled for when the reconstruction effort actually begins. cement can be made on site, steel will be transported via rail depending. Many construction companies in various contiguous states will probably recive contracts to clear and rebuild the cities. Basically the infrastructure to get the men and material to the destroyed area will still exsist. What ever is needed can be quickly constructed.

Quickly is a relative term when you have 30 million people without food, water, or power.

Getting everything TO the disaster areas would be a very difficult task. What was the first thing the US did in Iraq? Made sure we took Um Qasar, as we couldn't get ANY appreciable humanitarian aid to the people except for by ship. Rail just can't deal with the volume, and incidentally there are very few rail lines connecting states.

The only infrastructure you have to move stuff on site is scattered smaller airports and the Interstate highway system.

You presume many things, like "Material will be stockpiled" or "Naval amphibious landing craft can be easily used". They only have a few dozen of these, and they're designed to move military equipment.

How long do you expect reconstruction to take? If your answer is less than 25 years minimum, I don't know what kind of resources you think we have.

[Alex Moon]

For Moon
Who exactly is going to be sending aid. The US sure wont. It will be tied up in reconstruction efforts. Any other country that would be sending aid to asia will go direct and not pay the port fees and unload just to load agin when it they could just go through a canal either panama or suez.
You obviously dont know the size of ports on the east coast. Just to name a few large ones New Orleans, Norfolk, Chesapeak, New York, Boston, etc. there is more than enough dock space to hold the trickle of pacific shipping.

The US will be sending aid. Military aid especially, since a nuclear war with China will have far reaching effects. Any strike by China means war, and thus we're going to have to immediately begin shifting the US to a war footing on the level of WW2. That means that any seaports on the west coast are going to be tied up with military aid to places like India, Russia, and whats left of Japan and South Korea.

In addition, only about half of the imports/exports from the Port of LA, one of the largest in the country, are for the Far East (the Port of LA did 42.15 million tons of imports in 1997, only ~26 million of that was from the Far East). Many others are from places like India, Thailand, and elsewhere.
This means you have approx. 16 million tons of imports that suddenly must be shifted somewhere else. These people won't suddenly stop all business connections with the U.S., and in fact it would hurt us even more if they did.

[Grand Moff Yenchin]

Taiwan can defend itself.

I'm conservative on this. Simulations ran by the Taiwanese military all pointed a failure of defense, and the officials blamed the settings. The problem is not in the settings, it's their attitude. IIRC an observation group sent by America in 2001 had quite negative impression on the quality of Taiwanese troops. Of course that was 2 years ago, when the side effects of personnel reduction were still very obvious. I'm not sure about now, but IMHO if it goes on like 2 years ago Taiwan will gradually lose its advantages.

[Hasler]

The US will be sending aid. Military aid especially, since a nuclear war with China will have far reaching effects. Any strike by China means war, and thus we're going to have to immediately begin shifting the US to a war footing on the level of WW2. That means that any seaports on the west coast are going to be tied up with military aid to places like India, Russia, and whats left of Japan and South Korea.

In addition, only about half of the imports/exports from the Port of LA, one of the largest in the country, are for the Far East (the Port of LA did 42.15 million tons of imports in 1997, only ~26 million of that was from the Far East). Many others are from places like India, Thailand, and elsewhere.
This means you have approx. 16 million tons of imports that suddenly must be shifted somewhere else. These people won't suddenly stop all business connections with the U.S., and in fact it would hurt us even more if they did.

I am wondering where the US will be sending troops to. China will be glowing ruins So will the DPRK if they joined in. As for humanitarian aid all the US's efforts will be directed at the US.

No back to the point of shipping. First almost all US heavy equipment is loaded in Jacksonville. For the 16 million figure i am still wondering where you got that from. Are you expecting me to belive that Japan, china, tiawan, and South Korea, all of which will be destroyed, only produce 60% of the import traffic. Even if your 16 million figure is true which i doubt that can easily be absorbed into east coast ports. That would represent a month average less than the increase in East coast shipping durring the dock strikes.

[Hasler]

Heavy equipment can be transported by rail air or land and possibly sea via military landing craft. Any equipment that has to be transported by sea can be taken via Navy amphib ships. Material will be stock piled for when the reconstruction effort actually begins. cement can be made on site, steel will be transported via rail depending. Many construction companies in various contiguous states will probably recive contracts to clear and rebuild the cities. Basically the infrastructure to get the men and material to the destroyed area will still exsist. What ever is needed can be quickly constructed.

Quickly is a relative term when you have 30 million people without food, water, or power.

Getting everything TO the disaster areas would be a very difficult task. What was the first thing the US did in Iraq? Made sure we took Um Qasar, as we couldn't get ANY appreciable humanitarian aid to the people except for by ship. Rail just can't deal with the volume, and incidentally there are very few rail lines connecting states.

The only infrastructure you have to move stuff on site is scattered smaller airports and the Interstate highway system.

You presume many things, like "Material will be stockpiled" or "Naval amphibious landing craft can be easily used". They only have a few dozen of these, and they're designed to move military equipment.

How long do you expect reconstruction to take? If your answer is less than 25 years minimum, I don't know what kind of resources you think we
have.[/quote]

Yes we captured the port in Iraq because there was no other way to transport large scales of aid. Once off loaded it was carried by truck The problem was getting it to Iraq. We dont have the problem of getting to the US because its alread here and just needs to be distributed.

To the Rail system. The US rail system is quite extensive and carries more goods than the entire interste truck fleet. It is still the choice method of carring any heavy item from Steel to Bulldozers. It is more than adaquate to move the massive amount of supplies that would be needed.

Navy amphibious ships and LSTs cand land anything an army needs from troops to bulldozers to boxes of MREs and would be an excellent temporary solution to the destruction of useablre port facilities.

Parial Reconstruction(a Useable city) should take between 10-15 years. You cant say if and when they will return to their previous condition just due to the fact that a massive number of there inhabitants would be dead. I find the at least 25 year comment very hummorous maybe we should tell the germans and the japanese that it should have taken them untill 1970 to rebuild.

As for the resources we have Several large steel mills thousands of construction companies one of the most exstensive road and rail systems over 20,000 airports, large stock piles of food, Large tracks of useable land, a large number of scrapable ships, very large rock quaries, lots of coal, Lots of reserve fuel, and lots of equipment to transpot it.