What's new

Taiwan-China War

Also, try reading a book for once in your life. You go around making stupid claims like Taiwan has strategic depth. Only a fool like you believe that. No one else does (see citation below).

Defending Taiwan: The Future Vision of Taiwan's Defence Policy and Military ... - Google Books

"Martin Edmonds, ‎Michael Tsai - 2013 - ‎History
The Future Vision of Taiwan's Defence Policy and Military Strategy Martin ... ability to carry out, not only the proposed, but also current defense policy effectively. ... of Mainland China, Taiwan has always suffered from a lack of strategic depth."

dude, I wrote those book, and who is Michael Tsai and Martin Edmonds?

So, one word form two random guys and I have to be dead set believe on what they said?

The Strategic Value of Territorial Islands from the Perspective of National Security | Review of Island Studies

From the viewpoint of military strategy, islands have played such important roles as warning and surveillance posts, logistic bases for operations launched from the sea against mainland targets, and fortifications to prevent intrusions by hostile ships. Today, they also provide countries with baselines to measure jurisdictional waters. Since the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) came into force, national governments have been able to establish exclusive economic zones extending beyond their territorial waters, within which they retain certain sovereign and jurisdictional rights. The EEZ can extend up to 200 nautical miles from the baseline, making it an important body of water for the military strategies of both the coastal and seafaring states. In littoral military operations, the jurisdictional waters stretching from the shore can be an important area for both a defense-in-depth strategy, as seen from the continent, and power projection, as seen from the sea. Military operations within the EEZ are interpreted quite differently from country to country, though, with some, notably the United States, claiming that military ships may freely navigate, explore, and carry out exercises, and others like Brazil banning foreign navies from conducting exercises in their EEZ. Legal interpretations of naval operations within an EEZ can have great bearing on national security policy, so remote islands that serve as bases of EEZ claims have gained new importance from the vantage point of military strategy.
 
do you know why I like to read comment from @Martian2 albeit it wasn't even remotely true?? 'Cause it's entertaining, he uses big word like "Strategic Depth" but he don't actually know what that means

Case in point


Despite the imbalance, invading Taiwan would not be a walk in the park. Relative weakness notwithstanding, the Taiwanese military fields a relatively modern force—F-16s, AH64E attack helicopters, Kidd-class destroyers and so on—that could inflict a fair degree of damage to invading PLA forces. Furthermore, the fielding of offensive-defense platforms, such as the Hsiung Feng IIE land-attack cruise missile (LACM), the Hsiung Feng III supersonic antiship cruise missile and the Wan Chien —an air-to-ground, standoff, cruise missile-type missile mounted on aircraft that can be used to disable airbases and radar sites in China—would increase the potential cost of Chinese military adventurism in the Taiwan Strait.

Besides technology, Taiwan’s geography also poses a challenge to invading PLA forces. The the soil composition and inclination of Taiwan’s west coast facing China, where the Taiwanese military deploys most of its antiarmor capabilities, is even less conducive to a successful amphibious assault than were the beaches of Normandy, where Allied forces changed the course of World War II, at the cost of an estimated 10,000 casualties, including 2,500 dead.

Regardless of the impressive advances made by the PLA in recent years, the fact remains that no occupation of Taiwan will ever be possible without a major amphibious assault and putting enough boots on the ground. Anything short of that would fail to ensure Beijing’s control of Taiwan, and falls in the category of “limited strikes” for coercive or punitive purposes—not invasion. If the 1995-96 Taiwan Missile Crisis is any indication, coercive displays would accomplish very little besides encouraging Taiwanese to rally around the flag and thus undermine China’s efforts to annex Taiwan. Moreover, though damaging, Taiwan is resilient enough that it would weather such operations.

The costs of taking Taiwan by force is massive, and would perturb the entire East Asian apparatus. If ever, the best cost is to wait it out. Take for example Hong Kong and Macau, both were under the rule of the British and Portuguese, respectively. Hong Kong was under British control for almost 200 years, while Macau was a Portuguese colony for nearly half a millenia , China did not seize the territories by force, rather, these eventually voluntarily joined back to the Chinese Motherland gradually and in its own time. I believe the same will manifest in regards to Taiwan's reunion with Chinese Motherland , a gradual and voluntary basis.
 
dude, I wrote those book, and who is Michael Tsai and Martin Edmonds?

So, one word form two random guys and I have to be dead set believe on what they said?

The Strategic Value of Territorial Islands from the Perspective of National Security | Review of Island Studies
Are you claiming that this author from the Naval War College (see citation below) is wrong too? Everybody intuitively understands that an island that is 90 miles at its MAXIMUM lacks strategic depth. You're just dumb and can't grasp the concept.

Here, I'll teach it to you.
90 miles maximum width = no strategic depth
900 miles maximum width = strategic depth

Got it?
--------

https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment...ding-Taiwan,-and-Why-It-Matters---Rahman,-Chr

"defending taiwan, and why it matters - Naval War College
by C Rahman - ‎2001 - ‎Cited by 14 - ‎Related articles
The unresolved political status of Taiwan has over the past decade assumed a ...coming an increasingly urgent problem for regional security, not due simply to ......Taiwan suffers from small size, lack of strategic depth, and proximity to the...."
 
Not impossible.
But why would china want to destroy a 500b gdp economy?

Precisely. Taiwan is a major East Asian economy, with a population of only 23 million , yet with an economy that already exceeds half a Trillion (USD), and one that is heavily integrated with China (PRC) , a war would result in pervasive collateral damage to the notion of a Greater China (PRC+ ROC). In fact, @Martian2 's postings is anti-thetical to CCP's policy in regards to peaceful reunification of both China and Taiwan. Polarization of an already turbulant and political aversive region would not benefit to Chinese countenance and policy of peaceful ascendancy.

@Martian2 premise is asinine and infantile, devoid of practical and strategic visage. I pity any organization that would actually harken to such self destructive processes.
 
Despite the imbalance, invading Taiwan would not be a walk in the park. Relative weakness notwithstanding, the Taiwanese military fields a relatively modern force—F-16s, AH64E attack helicopters, Kidd-class destroyers and so on—that could inflict a fair degree of damage to invading PLA forces. Furthermore, the fielding of offensive-defense platforms, such as the Hsiung Feng IIE land-attack cruise missile (LACM), the Hsiung Feng III supersonic antiship cruise missile and the Wan Chien —an air-to-ground, standoff, cruise missile-type missile mounted on aircraft that can be used to disable airbases and radar sites in China—would increase the potential cost of Chinese military adventurism in the Taiwan Strait.

Besides technology, Taiwan’s geography also poses a challenge to invading PLA forces. The the soil composition and inclination of Taiwan’s west coast facing China, where the Taiwanese military deploys most of its antiarmor capabilities, is even less conducive to a successful amphibious assault than were the beaches of Normandy, where Allied forces changed the course of World War II, at the cost of an estimated 10,000 casualties, including 2,500 dead.

Regardless of the impressive advances made by the PLA in recent years, the fact remains that no occupation of Taiwan will ever be possible without a major amphibious assault and putting enough boots on the ground. Anything short of that would fail to ensure Beijing’s control of Taiwan, and falls in the category of “limited strikes” for coercive or punitive purposes—not invasion. If the 1995-96 Taiwan Missile Crisis is any indication, coercive displays would accomplish very little besides encouraging Taiwanese to rally around the flag and thus undermine China’s efforts to annex Taiwan. Moreover, though damaging, Taiwan is resilient enough that it would weather such operations.

The costs of taking Taiwan by force is massive, and would perturb the entire East Asian apparatus. If ever, the best cost is to wait it out. Take for example Hong Kong and Macau, both were under the rule of the British and Portuguese, respectively. Hong Kong was under British control for almost 200 years, while Macau was a Portuguese colony for nearly half a millenia , China did not seize the territories by force, rather, these eventually voluntarily joined back to the Chinese Motherland gradually and in its own time. I believe the same will manifest in regards to Taiwan's reunion with Chinese Motherland , a gradual and voluntary basis.

Finally, some sane voice, I was afraid that I am the only one sane in this discussion, and hence I wonder, if I am the only one, is that I am the one that gone insane instead? lol

The question is, unless China willing to laydown a portion amount of live, there are no way they can take Taiwan for any so called "Minimal Prize"

Taiwan West Coast (The one facing China) is mountain, that mean the assault force must be deliver on the East Coast, that mean the point of surprise is gone, on the other hand, Taiwan can lay mine to the only 2 approach toward the East Coast, and the time the Chinese have to clear the mine off, which take the initiative out of the Chinese Invasion.

Don't get me wrong, China will still win (Given US does not intervene) but the price to pay can be upward to 1 millions people depends on how serious Taiwanese want to defend their coast.
 
Oh look, a Pentagon analyst says Taiwan lacks strategic depth (see citation below). Gee, he must be wrong. Jhungary insists little Taiwan has strategic depth! A tiny 90-mile-wide island has strategic depth according to Jhungary the dummy.

By the way, on the other issue, China has a fleet of IL 76 transports with more on order. Your question regarding the Y-20 is irrelevant, because you're ignoring China's existing transport capability. Also, China can multiple sorties per day for airlift.

Do us all a favor and stop challenging me on widely-accepted truths. It makes you look foolish and wastes my time to prove you wrong.
----------

Naval Blockades and Seapower: Strategies and Counter-Strategies, 1805-2005 - Google Books

"Naval Blockades and Seapower: Strategies and ...
Bruce A. Elleman, ‎S.C.M. Paine - 2007 - ‎History
Strategies and Counter-Strategies, 1805-2005 Bruce A. Elleman, S.C.M. Paine ... a Pentagon analyst has noted that “the Taiwan Strait case may be unique in that it ...strengths to capitalize on Taiwan's vulnerability and lack of strategic depth."
 
Are you claiming that this author from the Naval War College (see citation below) is wrong too? Everybody intuitively understands that an island that is 90 miles at its MAXIMUM lacks strategic depth. You're just dumb and can't grasp the concept.

Here, I'll teach it to you.
90 miles maximum width = no strategic depth
900 miles maximum width = strategic depth

Got it?
--------

https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment...ding-Taiwan,-and-Why-It-Matters---Rahman,-Chr

"defending taiwan, and why it matters - Naval War College
by C Rahman - ‎2001 - ‎Cited by 14 - ‎Related articles
The unresolved political status of Taiwan has over the past decade assumed a ...coming an increasingly urgent problem for regional security, not due simply to ......Taiwan suffers from small size, lack of strategic depth, and proximity to the...."

You still don't get it do you?

You cannot take the base value of "Off-The-Shell" comment in the internet, if you have to comment on something, comment using your own head. People said things on the internet have their own tone, context and meaning, you cannot use one word quote them and use it on other context.

So what if that person is a highly educated Admiral or NWC guy?So, can a PLAN Admiral gone gaga? Of course

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhang_Zhaozhong_(military_official)

FOX News - World - Latest Headlines - Stealth destroyer, at over $3 billion apiece, is US Navy's latest answer to rising China

One outspoken admiral in China has scoffed that all it would take to sink the high-tech American ship is an armada of explosive-laden fishing boats

Then if what you said is what people should do, then should ALL OF THE PLA listen to this admiral and stop making Type 05-Whatever and start arming your navy Fishing boat with explosive?
 
You still don't get it do you?

You cannot take the base value of "Off-The-Shell" comment in the internet, if you have to comment on something, comment using your own head. People said things on the internet have their own tone, context and meaning, you cannot use one word quote them and use it on other context.

So what if that person is a highly educated Admiral or NWC guy?So, can a PLAN Admiral gone gaga? Of course

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhang_Zhaozhong_(military_official)

FOX News - World - Latest Headlines - Stealth destroyer, at over $3 billion apiece, is US Navy's latest answer to rising China



Then if what you said is what people should do, then should ALL OF THE PLA listen to this admiral and stop making Type 05-Whatever and start arming your navy Fishing boat with explosive?
I gave you reputable citations and you reply with Wikipedia. Are you serious?

You know that the Pentagon canceled the Zumwalt, because it's a dog. Right?

If you bothered to read my other posts, you wouldn't be so ignorant.
----------

The Zumwalt is a failed project. The US canceled after three vessels were produced. The Zumwalt is incapable of air or ballistic missile defense. Also, Zumwalt's anti-submarine capability is lousy.
---

Navy cancels new ships, says they are vulnerable | The Los Angeles Times

"WASHINGTON — The Navy took the unusual step of abruptly canceling construction of its expensive new class of destroyers last month because the ships lack abilities that top commanders believe are necessary to protect U.S. interests, according to the service's senior officer.

Adm. Gary Roughead, chief of naval operations, said the DDG-1000 Zumwalt class destroyer does not have crucial missile and air defense capabilities and defending it against submarines would be difficult. The last ship in the class will cost $2.6 billion.

'I started looking at the DDG-1000. It has a lot of technology, but it cannot perform broader, integrated air and missile defense,' Roughead said in his first interview since the controversial move to cancel the destroyer program.
...
The Zumwalt class was designed to operate in coastal waters close to shore, but the Navy is developing a less costly ship for that.

Roughead also noted that design compromises resulted in the removal of some of its torpedoes, making it more vulnerable to submarines.

'Submarines can get very close, and it does not have the ability to take on that threat,' Roughead said.

The destroyer was originally designed as a ship that could move close to shore and fire its guns in support of ground forces. But Roughead said there is little call for the Navy to fire guns on shore."
 
Precisely. Taiwan is a major East Asian economy, with a population of only 23 million , yet with an economy that already exceeds half a Trillion (USD), and one that is heavily integrated with China (PRC) , a war would result in pervasive collateral damage to the notion of a Greater China (PRC+ ROC). In fact, @Martian2 's postings is anti-thetical to CCP's policy in regards to peaceful reunification of both China and Taiwan. Polarization of an already turbulant and political aversive region would not benefit to Chinese countenance and policy of peaceful ascendancy.

@Martian2 premise is asinine and infantile, devoid of practical and strategic visage. I pity any organization that would actually harken to such self destructive processes.

actually, I am torn

The American part of me Really want the PLA to hire Martian2 in high position, such as G-2 operation planning. But the Chinese part in me scream NO!!!!

I gave you reputable citations and you reply with Wikipedia. Are you serious?

You know that the Pentagon canceled the Zumwalt, because it's a dog. Right?

First, that's a reputable news outlet. Not just Wikipedia and He did gone on TV and say that, I can show you the video he said that on CCTV if you want, but I am at home now, don't have access to a desktop, so kind of hard to find you the video

before then maybe you want to enjoy yet another of his "Great speech" on youtube Titled

解放軍將軍張召忠:用人造隕石雨炸毀航母有道理

In English -It's reasonable to destroy Aircraft Carrier with Asteroid

Second, no, USN does not cancelled Zumwalt. In fact, the first one has just complete
 
Second, no, USN does not cancelled Zumwalt. In fact, the first one has just almost complete
The Zumwalt has been canceled after 3 copies. You're totally clueless.

Citation: Navy Cancels, Postpones Zumwalt Christening

WREiV4n.jpg
 
The Zumwalt has been canceled after 3 copies. You're totally clueless.

Citation: Navy Cancels, Postpones Zumwalt Christening

Not continue to make more does not equal to cancelled. lol And the reason cited by Congress committee is Cost Overrun

And how about the Admiral, do you want me to find more of his outlandish claim too? Or that Asteroid destroy Aircraft Carrier video is enough
 
Not continue to make more does not equal to cancelled. lol And the reason cited by Congress committee is Cost Overrun

And how about the Admiral, do you want me to find more of his outlandish claim too? Or that Asteroid destroy Aircraft Carrier video is enough
Jesus, the Navy.mil website says "Navy cancels...Zumwalt."

Can you read?

Do you know what .mil means? It's the official US military. You dimwit. Can't you see the Navy emblem in the citation?
 
Jesus, the Navy.mil website says "Navy cancels...Zumwalt." Can you read?

Dude, the Navy said "Cancelled Order for further Zumwalt", not cancel the Zumwalt Program altogether, can you read?

You argue the Zumwalt was stupid design, a dog - using your own word, if the congress think that way, they would not even have made the 3. dude, that's a big different they think the zumwalt is dog like you say and cancel the project, and that they think that zumwalt is too expensive and too advanced and only order 3.
 
Dude, the Navy said "Cancelled Order for further Zumwalt", not cancel the Zumwalt Program altogether, can you read?

You argue the Zumwalt was stupid design, a dog - using your own word, if the congress think that way, they would not even have made the 3. dude, that's a big different they think the zumwalt is dog like you say and cancel the project, and that they think that zumwalt is too expensive and too advanced and only order 3.
Earlier, I had already said 3 copies were being built. Next, I said the program was canceled.

What exactly is your point?

You disputed my statement and claimed the Zumwalt was not being canceled. The common-sense implication is that you were claiming more than 3 copies were being built. Now, you're backtracking again.

You've wasted enough of my time.

1. Taiwan does not have strategic depth. Contrary to your bizarre claim.
2. China has an IL-76 fleet. Not the Y-20 that you were focused upon.

I'm done wasting my time with your nonsense.
 
Earlier, I had already said 3 copies were being built. Next, I said the program was canceled.

What exactly is your point?

I wonder if that because of your English??

Program was cancelled (By the way you spell cancelled wrong) mean the program have been folded.

When a program have made and is currently making ships, the program is NOT CANCELLED, but discontinued.

The different is, you can remake the item (The production line is still there) once on discontinue list and you can't when you cancel an product.

F-22, in this case is discontinued with production, the US can make them if they seems fits and have money, but the US would not make a "Cancelled" FB-23 project even if they seems fits and have money.

The same case with Zumwalt.

I know, in Chinese both mean the same, but not the same in English
 

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom