What's new

‘If war breaks out … I will just become cannon fodder:’ In Taiwan, ex-conscripts feel unprepared for potential China conflict

Do I need something to qulify me to ask quesitons here in PDF? asking quesitons is just asking questions. but this question you are asking is very strange indeed.
I asked what make you qualfy to ask that question, which imply your logical and knowledge based understanding of the subject matter. Then I asked 2 simple Yes or No questions followed on, and you had not answer any of the 3.

Again, you can ask your question, but then I can't ask you how or why you are able to ask that question? now that's weird.
 
What the f*ck it matters who intervenes or not! At most, it'll supply weapons to cripple you. At worst, they fight you directly if it serves their interest. The question you should be asking the CCP is why it's dragging its *** in its unification efforts, giving time to Taiwan to arm heavily for China.
China fighting in Taiwan in order to integrate it is a no sum game, effectively, they are trying to fight the population they were trying to pacify. And destroy the land they wanted to integrate. And in the process destroy a part of China and completely destroy Chinese reputation in the process.

The American may or may not fight the Chinese in Taiwan, but they will most definitely supply Taiwan with arms to a point they may as well be fighting the American themselves.

What the Chinese is doing is to basically work on a gamble, they are looking for an "Afghan" type situation where the Taiwanese would just melt away after Chinese attack. It may happen, but we don't know, most account would have suggested otherwise. But one thing for sure, if Taiwanese fight back, this would probably be more of a quagmire probably surpass Ukraine.
 
You claimed that Taiwan doesn't belong to China, how come the very name of Taiwan is The Republic Of China ?
Whatever the Taiwanese claimed in their country's name then, is essentially irrelevant today. If they change their official name to 'Republic of Taiwan' would you leave them alone? If not, then the official name is irrelevant.

The fate of Taiwan should be decided by Chinese, not you foul mouth Greek or Americans. Taiwan is Chinese territory as recognized by UN, dont pretend you are stupid that you dont know this.
The UN does not recognize China's claim to the South China Sea. Would China go along?
 
Civil wars don't have a time limit, who said they have a time limit? UN? Greece?
I will grant that China can make this civil war for as long as humanly feasible. But you cannot deny what our Greek forum member pointed out. The reality is that Taiwan is further from China than Hong Kong was from China. There is 1.5 generation of people since the end of WW II. The Taiwanese themselves have a distinct culture and even dialect, they do not want to be part of China. The comparison with the US Civil War has its limits. In the US Civil War, the issue was a greater moral one: slavery. In the Chinese Civil War, we are looking at an ideological divide that essentially harms no one. Then once you have 1.5 generation passed and whoever few remains from that previous era, they can no longer contribute to the issue simply because they are too old and too few. The US would have been harmed in many ways had its union been destroyed. Whereas with the Taiwan issue, the island have been separated from the mainland in more ways than geography. Humanely speaking, let the Taiwanese go. China have nothing to lose, not even face, but much to gain over the long term.
 
I asked what make you qualfy to ask that question, which imply your logical and knowledge based understanding of the subject matter.
Why I need qualificiation to ask a simple question? I just like to know if he would fight for US, it's about a person's willingness, not how well they can fight? your question is so funny, a man who has no prior military experiences is not qualified to be willing to fight for their country?
 

‘If war breaks out … I will just become cannon fodder:’ In Taiwan, ex-conscripts feel unprepared for potential China conflict​

By Eric Cheung, CNN
Updated 8:36 PM EST, Fri January 20, 2023

Taipei, TaiwanCNN —
Rising concerns over increasingly aggressive military maneuvers by China have prompted Taiwan to extend the mandatory military service period most of its young men must serve. But former conscripts interviewed by CNN say Taipei will need to do far more than that if it is to make the training effective.

Outdated, boring and impractical. That was the verdict of six young men who spoke to CNN about their recent experiences of mandatory service in Taiwan’s military.

They describe a process that was designed decades ago with a heavy emphasis on bayonet training, but lacking instruction in urban warfare strategies or modern weapons like drones. Some say there were too few rifles to go around, or that the weapons they trained with were too old to be of use. Others recount “specializing” in cannon, grenade and mortar units, but never receiving any ammunition to train with.

Their criticisms come at a crucial time for Taiwan’s military. President Tsai Ing-wen announced recently that the period of mandatory service for men born in or after 2005 will be extended from four months to a year, saying that the present system “no longer suits the needs” of the island’s defense. The military says the rethink follows comparisons to the militaries of other democratic jurisdictions that have longer conscription periods – such as South Korea (18-21 months), Singapore (24 months) and Israel (24-30 months).

Strengthening the island’s military has become a key concern for Tsai, who has spoken of the need to highlight Taiwan’s determination to defend itself amid increasingly aggressive noises from Beijing. The ruling Chinese Communist Party claims the self-governing democracy of 23.5 million people as part of its territory, despite never having controlled it, and has sent record numbers of air and sea patrols to harass it since former US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi visited in August. Chinese leader Xi Jinping has repeatedly refused to rule out the use of force to “reunify” the island with mainland China.

“No one wants war,” Tsai said in announcing the lengthening of mandatory service periods in December. “This is true of Taiwan’s government and people, and the global community, but peace does not come from the sky, and Taiwan is at the front lines of the expansion of authoritarianism.”

‘I only shot 40 rounds’

But former conscripts are skeptical, telling CNN the problems with mandatory military service go beyond the short time frame and will only be fixed by a more thorough revamp.

Tsai herself has acknowledged that many citizens feel serving in the military is “just a waste of time.”

“In our company, we had more than 100 assault rifles, but only slightly more than a dozen could be used for shooting practices,” said Frank Liu, a 26-year-old auditor from the central Changhua county who served in 2021. He said about 140 conscripts received training in his company.

“A lot of those assault rifles were made many decades ago, and many were too worn out to be used in training. The weapons had to be rotated among ourselves.”

Paul Lee, a factory manager from Taipei who served in 2018, had a similar experience.

“We didn’t fire many rounds during the military training,” Lee said. “I was practicing with the T65 assault rifle, and I only shot about 40 rounds during the entire training period.

“I’m concerned that many people who underwent the training with me won’t even be able to operate a rifle with confidence.”


Under the current rules, the four-month service period is normally divided into two parts: five weeks of basic training, and 11 weeks of ground training at a military base.

During the ground training period, conscripts are often assigned specialties – but even then some say they receive only the most cursory of insights.

Dennis, a 25-year-old engineer from Taichung city who served last year, said while he was assigned to specialize in cannons, he never learned how to fire them because trainers were worried the recruits might get hurt. He asked only to be identified by his first name because he remains a reservist.

“We were assigned simple tasks, and we spent most of the time helping with cleaning and washing the cannon carts,” he said. “If war breaks out today and I am told to work as an artilleryman, I think I will just become cannon fodder.”

Adam Yu, a 27-year-old designer from the northern Keelung city who served in 2018 and specialized in mortars and grenade launchers, said while he had been shown how to prepare the weapons, he had never been given any ammunition or practiced firing them.

“I’m not sure if I can even operate those weapons,” said Yu, adding, “I still don’t know how those weapons are supposed to be used in the battlefield.”

That sentiment was echoed by another former conscript surnamed Liu. The 28-year-old salesman specialized in data processing with the air force and received training in the southern Pingtung county in 2015. He too asked for his first name to be withheld, saying he may still be called upon for additional reservist training.

“Our commanders barely taught anything during our ground training, because they felt we would only be here for a few months and it wouldn’t make much of a difference for them,” he said.

Bayonets?

Taiwan has a professional volunteer military force that as of last year was made up of 162,000 full-time troops, according to a report by the Legislative Yuan. On top of this, an estimated 70,000 men complete a period of mandatory military service every year.

Conscripts must undergo a period of physical training and are taught to shoot rifles and use bayonets.

Several of those who spoke to CNN questioned the amount of time spent on bayonet training, arguing it was outdated, although some militaries continue to teach it in recruitment training programs.

“I think bayonet training was just a waste of time, because I really couldn’t think how we could put that into practice,” Frank Liu said.

“Just look at the Russia-Ukraine war, there are so many types of weapons used. When does a soldier ever have to resort to a bayonet to attack their enemy? I think that was really outdated.”

Yu, from Keelung, said his commanders had put huge emphasis on bayonet training because it made up part of the end-of-term examination.

“We were ordered to memorize a series of slogans,” he said. “When we were practicing bayonet, we were required to follow the instructions of the squad leader with a specific chant for each movement, and we had to repeat it in the exam.”

Lesson learned?

Some of these criticisms were acknowledged, tacitly or otherwise, when Tsai announced the lengthening of the conscription period and in the subsequent news briefing by the Defense Ministry in early January.

The ministry said that when the new policy begins in 2024, all conscripts will shoot at least 800 rounds during their service, and they will be trained with new weapons such as anti-tank missiles and drones. Bayonet training will be modified to include other forms of close combat training, it added, and conscripts may also participate in joint military drills with professional soldiers. Meanwhile, basic training will rise from five to eight weeks.

Su Tzu-yun, a director of Taiwan’s Institute for National Defense and Security Research, which is funded by the government, said he is confident the reform will boost the island’s combat capabilities.

He also thinks there is value in keeping bayonet training in the curriculum.

“It helps boost a soldier’s courage and aggressiveness,” he said. “If soldiers engage in a mission that is not suitable for firing weapons, they may also use bayonet as an alternative option.”

Su added that while modern weapons will be included in the new training curriculum, it would be impractical for every soldier to practice firing them because this would simply be too costly.

“In the US, the training of Javelin [anti-tank missiles] is conducted through simulation, because each missile costs $70,000 and it is not possible for everyone to fire them,” he said. “Usually, the whole unit finishes the simulation, then the commander will pick a few soldiers to practice firing it.”

Taiwan’s Defense Ministry said in a statement to CNN that it has invited experts to numerous academic seminars on reforming the conscription system, and that it accepted many of their suggestions to boost training intensity.

Doubts remain

Even so, not everyone’s convinced.

“I don’t think the lengthening of service alone will lead to better national defense,” said Lin Ying-yu, an assistant professor at Tamkang University’s Institute of International Affairs and Strategic Studies.

He said the “more important questions” involved clarifying in detail the type of training new conscripts would receive.

And on this point, the former conscripts who spoke to CNN remain skeptical.

“When I saw they wanted to add drones to the training, my question was – are we going to have one drone per person and multiple chances to practice flying it?” Yu said.

“If they stick to their old way of teaching, they will just tell us to follow their instructions and memorize its weight and flight distance, and we will not be able to operate it.”

The fear for conscripts is that the new form of mandatory service might end up looking pretty much like the old form, only longer.

“During my service, most of the time we were just asked to perform tedious tasks like moving weapons around to show our commanders, and we spent a lot of time waiting,” said Dennis, the engineer.

It remains to be seen if conscripts’ time will be spent more fruitfully when the new rules come in next year, but all sides agree the stakes are high.

“Active citizens are the foundation and the bedrock of our will to resist,” said Enoch Wu, founder of the civil defense think tank Forward Alliance and a member of Taiwan’s ruling Democratic Progressive Party.

“If the public decides our home is not worth fighting for – or that we don’t stand a chance – then you can have the most professional military and it will still be too little too late.”


So dying for the Party is glorious?
 
I will grant that China can make this civil war for as long as humanly feasible. But you cannot deny what our Greek forum member pointed out. The reality is that Taiwan is further from China than Hong Kong was from China. There is 1.5 generation of people since the end of WW II. The Taiwanese themselves have a distinct culture and even dialect, they do not want to be part of China. The comparison with the US Civil War has its limits. In the US Civil War, the issue was a greater moral one: slavery. In the Chinese Civil War, we are looking at an ideological divide that essentially harms no one. Then once you have 1.5 generation passed and whoever few remains from that previous era, they can no longer contribute to the issue simply because they are too old and too few. The US would have been harmed in many ways had its union been destroyed. Whereas with the Taiwan issue, the island have been separated from the mainland in more ways than geography. Humanely speaking, let the Taiwanese go. China have nothing to lose, not even face, but much to gain over the long term.
There are still a significant number of people in Taiwan want reunification with the mainland, even those pro indepdendence are not really hardcore like Japanese in WW2, People from both sides are Chinese, we don't really regard each other as foreigners, PLA fought KMT before, and we know their capabilities and their how much fight in them.

So dying for the Party is glorious?
Dying for the country , not the party, dying for killing Afghan , Iraqi and Syrian civilians is glorious for American soldiers?
 
Dying for the country , not the party, dying for killing Afghan , Iraqi and Syrian civilians is glorious for American soldiers?

It's the Party military. It is the armed branch of the Party. Constitutionally so. Then, it should be glorious to die for the Party. Would not it be imbecile to die for a Party?
 
Why I need qualificiation to ask a simple question? I just like to know if he would fight for US, it's about a person's willingness, not how well they can fight? your question is so funny, a man who has no prior military experiences is not qualified to be willing to fight for their country?
Well, again, you can have answer my question in a direct and express way as possible, you can say I am have no qualification to ask that question or I do have and you refer to X Y and Z and no I have not served in the Military, and yes, I did answer that question. But no. You choose to "answer" said question by questioning my question.

I asked 1 opened ended questions and two closed questions with Yes or No as answer, you answer none of them, you can ignore me if you want, but you are sort of living in a limbo to question why I ask that question.

That's sounded like you are trying to avoid those line of question, which make me want to know more. Because you expected someone to answer you that same question where you avoided the same line of questioning when someone asked you.
 
Well, again, you can have answer my question in a direct and express way as possible, no. You choose to "answer" said qustion by questioning my qustion.

I asked 1 opened ended questions and two closed questions with Yes or No as answer, you answer none of them, you can ignore me if you want, but you are sort of living in a limbo to question why I ask that question.

That's sounded like you are trying to avoid those line of question, which make me want to know more. Because you expected someone to answer you that same question where you avoided the same line of questioning when someone asked you.
What question? Am I qualified to ask another person's a questiona of his willingness to fight? what a stupid question you are asking.
 
What question? Am I qualified to ask another person's a questiona of his willingness to fight? what a stupid question you are asking.
I asked 3 questions, you have NOT answer any single one of them. In case you are this slow. I will repeat it th 4th time.

What qualify you from asking a member whether or not he will fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. That came from a person who just show you a picture of him in a blackhawk helicopter in afghanistan

Have you ever served in the Chinese Military

Have you ask said member the question I mentioned in number 1.

You can keep dodging those question and questioning why I ask such question, but the more you do that, the more you look dodgy, You can either answer the question by saying I don't have any qualification in that field to ask such a question. Ie I have never served in any military and law enforcement setting, or you have, and you point to X Y and Z to support your point. And the other 2 questions are just a yes or no question.

The more you try to question why I ask this question, the more it look dodgy on you. Again, I am not the one that ask those questions to the other member first, whom have a record for flying jets with the USAF. So you ask that question and dodge the same question I ask you?
 
I answered his question, I would fight for China, and I know it myself, who care if you believe it or not, no one expects you fight for China
Your willingness to fight is rhetoric and we can even take it at face value that you would live up to your words. But that does not qualify you to talk about warfare especially when you and your forum Chinese friends talked so carelessly about war and combat. At the very least, one is expected to have served at least one term before those who have actually been in combat will take one's comment seriously.

Why is that, though?

Because as a civilian, it would take the government multiple steps to get me to fight for the country's causes, whatever they maybe. Look at the Russia-Ukraine War currently for example. The Ukrainian president had to proclaim that men (specific sex) of certain age range are forbidden to leave the country, thereby making them legally available for the government to draft them into the military.

But once I joined the military, %99.999 legal barriers are removed. I can be sent anywhere for any reason without the government making justifications why. Most military members do not see combat but even so, those in non-combat specialties can still be drafted at the lowest level into combat if the local commander(s) deems it necessary. Many times on this forum, I pointed out how when I was in the USAF and under Victor Alert duty, I held in my hands the navigation codes for a nuclear weapons equipped F-111. Thanked God we never had to launch. The closest we ever did was cranked engines and waited for the order that none of us ever wanted to hear. The standby VA pilots still had to gear up and watch but every Victor Alert pilot knew that once launched, he was on a one-way trip. I can only imagine what my Army and Marines brethens had to go thru under actual combat where many of them made that one-way trip.

That is why those who served, even though never been in combat, looks at civilians like you and your friends with jaundiced eyes.
 
Your willingness to fight is rhetoric and we can even take it at face value that you would live up to your words.
You can believe it or not, it doesn't matter, as long as I know I will is enough for me, but do you think I need some qualification to ask you if you would like to fight for US ?

Your willingness to fight is rhetoric and we can even take it at face value that you would live up to your words. But that does not qualify you to talk about warfare especially when you and your forum Chinese friends talked so carelessly about war and combat. At the very least, one is expected to have served at least one term before those who have actually been in combat will take one's comment seriously.
I was just asking about one's willingness to fight, when did I talk about anyone's military experiences?
 
Listen to what your master Gen Milley said on Ukraine, then decide to declare your early victory in Ukraine. You suffer from a disease called premature ejaculation and premature celebration.
Wow comparing the china of 1970s with China of today. Get your IQ level checked.
How can I win a argument with you Sir! you are a legend.
It is YOU who should get his IQ checked. Then go read up on some military history.

Technology changes how an army fight, but it is actually wars that changes an army down to its nature. Big difference.

The comparison is invalid only if China had continuous combat experience since the 1970s, and we are talking about the end of the Vietnam War and that China-VN border disputes where Chinese troops actually did some shooting. But since 1979, the most the Parade Line Army (PLA) did was sent advisors to various small communist guerrilla outfits in Africa and the Americas. It was not until Desert Storm, not a Chinese war, that the PLA was forced to reassess itself and modeled after the American military. Without a war where you can find out where your doctrines succeed and fail, you cannot change or changes very little. Regardless of how you may feel about US, you cannot deny the US military changed dramatically and essentially dragged everyone else's military along.

Taiwanese are Chinese, will be decided by all Chinese.
If you want to go that route -- fine. But I would add that it should be decided by Chinese who are actually at risk of being drafted into the Parade Line Army (PLA) or the ROC Armed Forces, which rules out YOU. So since your skin are safe in Canada, maybe you should STFU about this issue.
 
Last edited:
There are still a significant number of people in Taiwan want reunification with the mainland, even those pro indepdendence are not really hardcore like Japanese in WW2, People from both sides are Chinese, we don't really regard each other as foreigners, PLA fought KMT before, and we know their capabilities and their how much fight in them.
Electorally speaking? If not, then we have to go with the majority who says 'No'.

 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom