Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis

Status
Not open for further replies.

Minm

Junior Member
Registered Member
Except this time, China will be forced to act. Expect significant repercussions if this Act is passed. Downgrade relations, recalling of ambassador, etc.. etc.. are all possibilities.
It seems unlikely that it will pass without amendments. If they actually end the one China policy, then China has to end diplomatic relations with the US, otherwise the whole world will think they can have embassies in Taipei and Beijing at the same time
 

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
It makes you wonder why she is elected. If she was elected on the ticket for independence yet is happy with the status quo, what's the point in having her in power? Just to troll the mainlanders once in a while?

Pretty soon Taiwanese will realise that even without war, needlessly provoking a much bigger country that you are entirely dependent on economically will result in a Cuba style economy, except without socialism it'll be more like Haiti.

国台办 can help.
 

Petrolicious88

Senior Member
Registered Member
It seems unlikely that it will pass without amendments. If they actually end the one China policy, then China has to end diplomatic relations with the US, otherwise the whole world will think they can have embassies in Taipei and Beijing at the same time
The One China policy has already been hollowed out. Taiwan is already an independent country.

If the core tenets of the bill remain unchanged, then Taiwan basically becomes a Non-NATO ally. China will be forced to act.
 

coolgod

Major
Registered Member
I think the Soviets supported Sun Yat-Sen, the founder of the KMT; I doubt they cared much for Chiang Kai-Shek (Jiang Jieshi), an ex-officer of the Japanese Imperial Army. (Jiang was Chinese, but yes, he voluntarily joined the Japanese Imperial Army.)
WTF? He never voluntarily joined the Japanese Imperial Army, he only went to a Japanese military academy.
 

Minm

Junior Member
Registered Member
Sounds like a highly face saving way of admitting loss.

If you lose basically your entire combat effective military in the region, how can you carry out an invasion when you have no troops/air support/ships to hold the captured territory anyways? At most, the study is showing that at massive costs, US offensive in China can have limited gains, and then we get a cliffhanger on what will happen afterwards.

I think the most important take away point from the article and most of US' own simulations of an invasion is this: if America wants to take Taiwan, it better mobilize completely and institute a general draft. Because its gonna need 110% of its forces.

In some regards, China could benefit from provoking US into striking first with a "special operation" rather than allowing US to mobilize on its own terms and declare "war". If US sends only 2 CVs and around 200k troops, China could crush the invasion force and essentially win the war with low risks. As for how exactly China would bait US into launching a premature strike its hard to speculate. But this remains an attractive option to China.
If the wargame reveals the thinking in the US military, then the road to victory is clear. A quick fait accompli.

“The Chinese always can land, there’s no way to prevent that,” Cancian reveals. However he expounds that a coalition of US, Taiwan and Japan are almost always able contain the invaders to their beachhead landing.

“In most cases, where the United States can do that, the Chinese can’t get off the beach, they can’t occupy a large part of the island and they would eventually be driven off,” he explains.
They imagine defending Taiwan by containing the PLA to beachheads with American and Japanese troops helping ROC fighters. If the PLA establishes a beachhead and secures the surrounding area, then it's too late for the US to stop the eventual Chinese victory.

Should Washington respond with indecision following the launch of a cross-strait invasion, even for a period one or two weeks, Cancian says the defenders of Taiwan will face a significantly greater challenge and correspondingly higher losses.

“In the pessimistic cases, that’s a 700-800 aircraft loss for the United States, and 900 aircraft overall for the USA, Taiwan and Japan,” he explains.
Every single day of progress for China will increase the cost of an American intervention on Taiwan. If progress is advanced enough by the time that the US can make a decision, then they'll be forced to conclude that it's too late to fight and they'll stick to sanctions.

It also shows how crucial it is to time any attack well. An exercise in response to pro independence statements from the ROC government could evolve into an attack, but it might be better to launch a surprise attack when the US is least able to respond. Civil war caused by Trump, a tsunami in Japan or even the Christmas holidays might be such good opportunities
 

zhangjim

Junior Member
Registered Member
Sounds like a highly face saving way of admitting loss.

If you lose basically your entire combat effective military in the region, how can you carry out an invasion when you have no troops/air support/ships to hold the captured territory anyways? At most, the study is showing that at massive costs, US offensive in China can have limited gains, and then we get a cliffhanger on what will happen afterwards.

I think the most important take away point from the article and most of US' own simulations of an invasion is this: if America wants to take Taiwan, it better mobilize completely and institute a general draft. Because its gonna need 110% of its forces.

In some regards, China could benefit from provoking US into striking first with a "special operation" rather than allowing US to mobilize on its own terms and declare "war". If US sends only 2 CVs and around 200k troops, China could crush the invasion force and essentially win the war with low risks. As for how exactly China would bait US into launching a premature strike its hard to speculate. But this remains an attractive option to China.
The article didn't disclose any details, so we don't know whether the following words are "politically correct":
However he expounds that a coalition of US, Taiwan and Japan are almost always able contain the invaders to their beachhead landing.
I have not paid attention to other simulations conducted by the United States. Did the Americans imagine the scene of fighting with Russia in Ukraine?
Wargames conducted by Americans always seem to set some strange strategic goals, which are based on treating China as another Iraq.
Cancian says this was based on observations such as Beijing’s extreme reaction to US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s recent diplomatic visit to Taiwan, which suggest basing troops on the island ahead of time would not be politically tenable.
The previous military exercises are really meaningful. If we really don't do anything, Americans really dare to let the army enter Taiwan.
Key to any a successful defence in any of the scenarios, according to Cancian, will be the ability to inflict substantial losses on the fleet of amphibious landing ships that would be needed to ferry massive numbers of Chinese ground troops across the strait.
Long-range bombers, like the Boeing B-52 and Boeing B-1, proved particularly effective in the CSIS wargame when armed with LRASM, Cancian notes.
With the caveat that final analysis is still ongoing, Cancian says that LRASM appears to be the most important US capability in defending against a Taiwan invasion scenario.
I always feel like I see too many people retelling such cliches. It makes me feel like it's an arms ad.
I don't know the details, but the plan to attack the transport fleet means that the Americans may create the illusion that they will not intervene at first, and then launch a surprise attack when the army starts to land.
 

Overbom

Brigadier
Registered Member
Key to any a successful defence in any of the scenarios, according to Cancian, will be the ability to inflict substantial losses on the fleet of amphibious landing ships that would be needed to ferry massive numbers of Chinese ground troops across the strait.
Reason number 1 why a first strike against the US is a necessity.

There is no other way around it, if you really think that the PLA is going to risk its amphibious fleet getting sank to the bottom of the sea by the Americans because they chickened out from doing a first strike against them, then I got a bridge to sell you

First strike or bust.

Mind you, first strike only if military operations have begun. If its only about blockades and such, it doesn't count.
 

Temstar

Brigadier
Registered Member
It makes you wonder why she is elected. If she was elected on the ticket for independence yet is happy with the status quo, what's the point in having her in power? Just to troll the mainlanders once in a while?

Pretty soon Taiwanese will realise that even without war, needlessly provoking a much bigger country that you are entirely dependent on economically will result in a Cuba style economy, except without socialism it'll be more like Haiti.
DPP is really good at playing electoral politics and mud slinging, KMT not even close. Among DPP Tsai is particularly gifted at this, she's a prodigy at this game of thrones thing.

But it's sort of the only talent she has. She doesn't actually know how to do anything else like govern and solve Taiwan's problems. You consider the actual problems facing Taiwan:
  • regular electricity outage
  • unreliable water supply
  • aging railway with many accidents
  • very high economic dependency on China
  • falling birth rate
Yeah she has slogans to tackle each of those, "generate electricity with love", "drill more wells", "new southbound policy" etc, none of which actually solved the issue and she and DPP just sweep the issue under the rug and fill the air wave with some new distraction so that people forget.

In that regard, Tsai is actually helping reunification and hence why I sometimes joke she's an 峨嵋峰 or CPC mole. If she ran the place really well it would actually make post reunification rule very hard as people fondly reminiscent about the good old DPP days. But instead she's actually running the island into the ground which makes post reunification socialist reform easier.
 

reservior dogs

Junior Member
Registered Member
If the most probably case scenario is over 500 aircrafts gone, then I am betting $100 US will sit out. Taiwan is virtually indefensible in the long run.
These war games are done for propaganda reasons and not really serious study of probable events. If the U.S. were to fight the Chinese in case they go for Armed Reunion, the carriers are going to get hit before the planes are in range, so no carriers. Asides from that, there are only a few airports out of the first island chain and the Philippines that can even reach Taiwan. They will all be bombed. How many sorties can the U.S. launched before these airports are out? It will fall very far short of 500 aircrafts shot down before any of these airports are not useable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top