If china attacks Taiwan, what do you think America will do ?

Remember what happened to the Dixie Chicks?!!!

 

Yea they got burned by the redneck press and then proceeded to sell out their entire USA tour in about 10 minutes.

 

do you honestly believe China doesn't have military capabilities to take Taiwan if US doesn't intervene?? To paraphrase Jian Zhemin, too naive! LOL!

 

Good info, it's quite ironic that our buddies the Israelis, who I fully support, nearly sold them the Phalcon AWACS planes they need. That new fighter looks not coicidentally just like the Lavi, which was developed with our assistance and cancelled with our pressure.


Also they are working on a fighter in the class of our F-22, the most advanced fighter ever conceived. It shows these folks are serious about taking Taiwan and preventing us from intervening.

 

bama and Lil -

You guys seem to forget the primary factor that wins battles: competence. Not weapons, not even tactics. Competence, bred by good training. Yes, they've got some Su-27 copies, but if their pilots only get to fly three days out of the year, how long do you think they'll last against our pilots? Not very long at all.

I read an article by a Russian flight trainer a year or so ago,; this guy was basically sent as part of the package, his mission to train Chinese pilots on how to fly the Suks. He was totally disgusted, and had asked to be reassigned, because the Chinese pilots were so incompetent that he did not feel safe training them. He cited numerous accidents that would have been prevented even by the level of training Russian pilots recieved (which is horrid compared to the training ours get). Just an indicator of the true state of the Chinese military...

And I wouldn't worry too much about the Sunburns. In order for them to matter, the ship has to A) not be sunk, and B) acquire its target first. Those Soveremennys will be gone within the first hour of the initiation of hostilities, and even if they aren't, they will never get close enough to acquire a carrier. The carriers' (and their escorts') sensor packages, along with their CAPs and the data they recieve from the E-2Cs, extends their effective range of detection to about 700nm. You can't hit something you can't see, and it is extremely difficult to see where a carrier actually is. Very few navies on the planet have the required capabilities, and the PLAAN ain't one of 'em. The Soveremennys would never even get close.

And bamaslammer - don't be so confident that the PLA leadership will make the "sane" assessment of our response to their initiation of nuclear hostilities. What I cited was actual policy of the PLA, not just a guess. They do not understand us, and don't make the mistake that they do.

 

All you need for the Sunburns to reach out and touch you is something providing mid-course guidance. That can be a submarine, fishing boat or airplane for that matter. The SPY radar is a little more vulnerable in littoral zones (near the coast due to the clutter) than the Navy would like to admit. Our navy is great, but you need to remember they are not invincible. We no longer have the same kind of interception capabilities we once had when our carriers carried a pair of Tomcat squadrons (they carry only one now) during the Cold War. I can see your point about their pilots, that one that ran into our EP-3E was flying like an idiot. Training an air force that was used to flying licence-built 50's and 60's Soviet aircraft will take a lot of time to convert to the 21st century.

 

bama:

Who is going to get close enough to provide that midcourse guidance? A sub? No, they have only a handful of subs that are actually difficult to detect, and those are already shadowed by Los Angeles SSNs. A fishing trawler? Maybe, but one will never get within sight of a carrier at sea. Won't get within 200nm during a war situation, because we know what they'd use them for. An aircraft? Not with our birds around.

Sure, there's always a possibility that one could get through. But A) it is very unlikely that any would, B) the Aegis would likely get it if it did (and behind that, Improved Sea Sparrows, and Phalanx guns), and C) even if it got past that, it is likely to hit an escort before it hit the carrier. Also, it would take several hits to actually dismantle a carrier. They are very tough ships... Their defenses are heavily layered, and are the toughest to break in the world. Not impossible to crack, but damn near so.

And I think it highly unlikely that we would put a carrier anywhere near the littorals. We don't do that.

 

I'm not trying to sit here and nah-nah your reponse, but nothing is perfect. Diesel/electric subs are the quietest around and although their nuke boats are rather noisy, they are developing a new nuke sub with help from the Russians (remember when the Japanese Toshiba corp. sold them the precision milling equipment neccessary to build precise sub screws to prevent cavitation and make them ultra-quiet?) that will be as quiet as our subs.

The Aegis system is the greatest air defense system in the world, but it's capabilities against the Sunburn is unknown. All you need is for the Kilos or even a recon satellite (thanks to the Democrats back in the eighties, we no longer have an ASAT anti-satellite capability, awww, boo-hoo, it might anger the Soviets!) to find a CVBG, which takes up a lot of ocean space. And on the littoral thing, the littorals are going to be their primary area of responsibility in the future, since no one but the Chicoms are working on a blue-water capability. We run our CVBGs into the Persian Gulf, which is a large littoral arm of the Indian Ocean.

 

bama:

Like I said, it is not impossible to crack a CVBGs defenses, but you need a sophisticated navy to do it, and that's one thing the PLAN isn't.

Their diesel fleet is unreliable at best, and I would not give any of their boats a very good chance of making it past the two to four LA class SSNs that would be guarding a carrier, much less the Arleigh Burkes or Spruances on the surface that would be hunting them. Yes, diesels are generally quieter, but their deisels are for the most part two whole generations behind our nuke subs. There is no comparison. And we now have a couple of Seawolfs, with the Virginia class SSNs coming soon, so that gap is only widening. There is also a significant training gap there - a significant difference in the quality and ingenuity of their submariners and ours.

Also keep in mind that most of their sub fleet, to say nothing of their surface fleet, would be busy with the Taiwanese navy. While smaller, the Taiwanese navy is far more capable pound for pound, and from the PLAN's point ov view an even more stark imperative than neutralizing our carriers would be to neutralize the Taiwanese navy, as they would be standing directly in the way of the Chinese invasion. So it is not as if the PLAN would be throwing everything they had at the carriers; most of its assets would already be busy. And to crack a carrier's defenses, they'd realistically need to saturate it with attacks.

As for the Sunburns - you're missing a key detail here: it is a fairly short range missile. No way a Chinese DD gets within 100nm of a carrier. No way in hell, at least not unless every single radarman in the Group was asleep at the screen. It is nowhere near as dangerous as a Tomahawk SSM (ship-to-ship), something nearly all of our surface ships and subs carry.

As for going into the Gulf, there is a reason for that - the need to engage land targets with high optempos and to threaten amphibious action. I see no similar need in the Taiwan Straits. In general, though, you will never see a carrier loping around the littoral zones (30 miles in). They will generally stay well out of range of land-based cruise missiles (and in this case certainly would, considering the Chinese love for such weapons), and try to keep some distance so that they have some warning against hostile aircraft.

 

I'm not saying they can do it, I'm just saying that they are gearing up for the same kind of saturation attacks (according to former Soviet admiral Gorschov, the "war of the first salvo") that the Soviets intended for our CVBG's in case of war. Personally, I think they would be stupid to even think about invading Taiwan because our C3 capabilities make our smaller forces much more powerful out of whack of their actual numbers. I just hope they don't think they could, which would lead to war.

 

i hope you're not referring to the "million fishing boats" strategy...
that might work for mass evacuations, but i have my doubts about mass invasion...

Napoleon once proudly commented to his naval commanders that if only they will give him a 1-month window on the English Channel, he can conquer Britain. He spent 3 years planning that invasion, assembling his men, preparing his invasion and logistics flotilla. His battle fleet was at least 3 times the size of the English fleet. But his fleet and his invasion failed.

The Chinese army is not led by Napoleon. Their fleet is 10 times smaller than the U.S. They haven't prepared any invasion flotilla. Is it going to be the fishing boats then?

keep in mind you gotta not only get your 500,000+ troops there, but keep them supplied over the 2-3 years minimum they're going to be there. and these are optimistic estimates. more likely it's going to be 2-3 million troops there, and 5 years.

that's five years for the U.S. to win back naval superiority in the Taiwan Strait assuming they lose it temporarily at the start... And we haven't even gotten started on the fact that the Taiwan Strait happens to be the most highly saturated anti-air/anti-ship net in the entire world. Better to teach the PLA to SWIM 100 miles.

I personally am not sure which would be a greatest testament to the foolishness of any attempted invasion: 1 million dead PLA soldiers floating in the Taiwan Strait, or 3 million PLA soliders dying of starvation after they arrive in Taiwan.

currently i think the Chinese barely have the ability to support a 50,000 man UNOPPOSED invasion, that's including paratroopers too. that's not my opinion. just a general consensus among military analysts.

naive? hmm... just look at the title of this thread! They would if they could, but they can't so they won't!

 

wow this thread is large. I have a few questions,Im curious what everybody thinks.

1.If Ming was iraqi,would you still want him to be a rocket? Probably yes,so if we go to war with China,I can assume we will still support Ming here right?

Btw,this is a hypothetical because if theres war,Ming will not be here and thus our team will suck bad.

2. History is kinda irrelvent now. And some of my fellow americans on this board are really naive.China has icbm nuke warheads that can take out Houston,and they have ALREADY made a nuke threat on Los Angelos. Remember,back in 1997,they did. Our media dismissed it,because IMHO ,the usa gov/media doesnt want to scare americans.Either that or our own gov is trying on purpose to get us invloved in ww3. You decide.

Facts are,China and the usa would end the world.Did I mentian Russia is on Chinas side. Some of you that want to do the "moral" thing of supporting Taiwan,I doubt would literally pack your bags and head for the cold mountains tomarrow. Talk is cheap.

Oh,and China is buying Russian nuke subs and surrounding TW as I speak.Dont believe me?Do some research.

So,obviously Im against a war with china at all costs. So from my research,the only reason the usa would get involved,is not b/c of a moral obligation to TW but strictly b/c so many goods are made in TW. Atleast its either that or our presidents from Clinton to Bush are r****ded for saying war is the answer to defend TW.

OH,and another thing. Even if you cant prove china has icbms,a country likes to keep its best weapons CLASSIFED so dont expect china to publicly tell the world how many nukes/where they have them. 2008 sounds about right. Anyways,Ive made serious plans for my family should this war happen. I will leave Houston and go to New Mexico or Arizona.

 

what is known is that in 1968 China had a 50 million man army back then. Right now estimates are at 250 million.

If you want to know what that means,that means they outnumber our troops 250/1,and could take over usa any time they want. Nukes wont stop it,because they have nukes to. seeing how gullible americans were to believe bush about the wmd in iraq,I wouldnt be surprised if alot of idiots in this country actually want to die for TAIWAN. Remember,Im not against dieing for america soil,but dieing for TW is vietnam all over again. Plain stupid and unneccesary. Yeh,I will fell sorry for the Taiwanese people,but if the resolution means billions die in icbms nukes obviously only a r****d would be for it. That means you can damn well expect Bush to be for attacking china since BUsh has his nice safe bunker under the whitehouse.It would also distract americans about the economy and give our sucky leaders an excuse for letting the economy collapse and americans would be okay with it as long as the Taiwanese are safe.

 

You think the size of the army matters? haha...... there is something called technology, something the United States is well ahead of China on. The size of the army would have little effect. MOABS, Tactical Nukes, a million ways to destroy the chinese army. Sorry to wake you up to reality but get real

 

This is so naive on so many levels, it is not even worthy of answering. Please do some research before u speak again!

 

I am still reading this just for some laugh.