Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Chinese Reunification Scenario
gixxxerking    4/5/2005 2:36:51 PM
China has just invaded Taiwan in a no warning OOTB attack. The speed and ferocity of the attack have beaten back the Taiwanese but not without heavy losses. The Invasion force has suffered 30% to 50% casualties on the ground. Although organized resistance has been broken and the Taiwanese government has ceased to exist, remnants of the Taiwanese military have the Chinese invaders locked in a brutal guerrilla war on the ground and UNDER the sea. It is day 7 and a powerful allied Airforces and fleets are forming but have yet to begin hostilities. The Allies are what remains of Taiwanese defense forces, Japan, South Korea, Australia, India and United States. The EU has condemed the Chinese invasion but has decided to remain nuetral and not supply military equipment during the conflict but will continue trade. Russia has decided to honor its military logistical commitments to China but states that it will not get involved by direct military means. As usual the United Nations is ineffective and useless. No nuclear weapons have been used, yet. The Allies have given the Chinese an unspecified ultimatum to unconditionally withdraw from Taiwan and has put a Naval blockade against all Chinese shipping and air traffic. What does China do next?
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT
PeregrinePike    Gixx - why nukes on US, and not on India, Oz, Japan, or a US fleet?   4/6/2005 11:27:48 AM
Gixx - why do you assume the Chinese will launch nukes on US, and not on India, Oz, Japan, or a US fleet? As far as I can see: 1. Launching it on Japan has terrible emotional-rallying appeal among the Chinese. It can win the war for China then and there, when the remaining Taiwanese simply join up the PRC. 2. Oz will probably be a good and secure marshalling point for future strikes on China, and say there is a good enough concentration in a Australian port - it will provide a good military target, which can be explained off to the lefty US and the world -- remember some were saying Pentagon was an ok target for the terrorists, but WTC wasnt? 3. US fleet for the same reason? 4. India, for the fear of being invaded - afterall only India alone can put up enough soldiers (since you say no NATO or Russia) for a ground invasion of China and suppressing the Chinese autocracy (I am not confident enough to say bring democracy)... and destroy CCP in process.
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    RE:Gixx - why nukes on US, and not on India, Oz, Japan, or a US fleet?   4/6/2005 12:51:53 PM
India, Oz and Japan are potential targets. The US fleet I think has an excellent chance to shoot down any Chinese nuke and even Japan should have a limited means to survive anything short of a full ICBM strike.
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    RE:Chinese Reunification Scenario--displacedjim   4/6/2005 12:56:38 PM
Your personal political views and moral limitations are clouding your judgement. Facts and reason dont back up your arguement although it is admirable. China could nuke a lot of other places but they are way short of being able to reliably hit CONUS and even if they do the damage will be minimal when looked at from a military point of view. A few RV's arent going to put us out of the fight. I too believe Taiwan should do more to defend itself but how we feel is irrelevant. Its US law to destroy any Chinese invasion and you can believe this President would do it. The bottom line is we can win a nuclear war with China.
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    Alexis   4/6/2005 1:32:04 PM
"No, Gixxx, you're mistaken. As FS said, the Chinese leadership not being bonkers would ***never*** start a war before having a solid second strike deterrent. They are no Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait without having the first nuke ! The scenario you outline would result in : - ABL being useless (400 km range isn't going to get you anywhere when it comes to ICBMs dispersed in a nation just as large as the US) - Aegis is even worse as far as range is concerned - NMD is already behind schedule now, and will most probably become even more later. Even if it was deployed in a meaningful way, Chinese deterrent of the time could easily overcome it by sheer numbers - B-2s will be deprived of targets as far as fixed ICBMs go (again, the Chinese are not stupid) and they will fail finding mobile ones. The stealthiest bomber is useless if it cannot be fed targeting information, even if it is not shot down thanks to antistealth ground radars What would happen next would be VERY relevant, because that would be a coordinated strike by several tens or more than one hundred DF-41 mobile MIRVed ICBMs against CONUS from mainland China. Out of several hundreds RVs, several tens would be stopped by NMD (IF it is operational ...). The end result would be the loss of both China's and America's most important cities, with consequences that would take several generations being healed. Because that would be the consequences of a US nuclear first strike against China, that nuclear first strike would never happen. Because that first strike would never happen, the Chinese would be free not only to threaten to strike, but also to actually strike landing forces with nuclear weapons. Pardon me to say that you seem to have trouble understanding the word "impossible" when it comes to US military abilities. These are great, but not infinite. Stopping a solid second strike nuclear deterrent is impossible for the US now, and it will remain so in any foreseeable future." --Alexis ---I am not mistaken at all. There is a method to my madness. This scenario, or any non peaceful Chinese reunification scenario, can only result in a US victory or nuclear exchange between US and China. All talk of not getting involved is silly especially when its de facto US law to stop this. So lets discuss reality. Of course the Chinese arent likely to assualt Taiwan for the very reasons I have outlined. It would be the end of China one way or the other. What happens to the US is not the point. But since you brought it up let me correct some of your errors... 1. Aegis and ABL protects Taiwan, Japan and US fleet from Ballistic missiles. Both systems especially Aegis are proving to be quite promissing in this role. 2. NMD is behind but is operational and has been publically declared to be capable right now of stopping limited ICBM attacks. China is only capable of limited ICBM attacks now and in the near future. The have approx 20 publically acknowledged ICBM's and maybe a few more that we likely know about. If all launched in a first strike then yes we will take some RV's. The damage will be severe but recoverable in 5 to 10 years from few dozen RV's. I we use my nuclear first strike plan then the Chinese may no be able to launch any ICBMs back at all! But that is optimistic and 5 to 10 ICBMs could survive to be fired back at US. 5 to 10 ICBMs could be stopped by NMD as it exist today. 3. Fixed ICBM locations are known Alexis and why would the B-2 be deprived of targets? Earth penetrating nuclear bombs could destroy them with ease. Not to mention the SLBMs. 4. OK once and for all stop hating the B-2. It is the ultimate publically declared US bomber. It has LPI radar and was designed to penetrate the Soviet Union and HUNT DOWN MOBILE LAUNCHERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Lets discuss mobile launchers. If we were talking about the Soviet Union with their vast arsenal then yes 21 bombers roaming aroung could not possibly get enough launchers. But thats why the USAF was looking to buy 100+ B-2s! But China isnt even a shadow of what Russia is today in terms of strategic weapons. 21 B-2's are more than enough to do this job. And they would not be unsupported. Everything from HUMINT to Satellites are used to isolate the locations of Chinese mobile Strategic weapons. These weapons still require logistical support are bigger than Tractor Trailers. It is not difficult to Identify the areas the would disperse to. And the B-2 is networked into so many of board targeting systems that even if its onboard LPI set cant find a target, several dozen other systems will. The few missiles that escape will can an increasingly capable NMD system. Summary Even if I am only 50% correct in my assessment of the US capability, the results are a disaster to China! They would have to be on a suicide mission to tempt fate this way.
 
Quote    Reply

PeregrinePike    RE:Gixx - why nukes on US, and not on India, Oz, Japan, or a US fleet?   4/6/2005 2:23:45 PM
"The US fleet I think has an excellent chance to shoot down any Chinese nuke and even Japan should have a limited means to survive anything short of a full ICBM strike." -- So those Ageis systems work better than the Patriot ones? Australia can get (and will probably ask for) some such system before going aginst China. India will have Arrows (and will ask US and Russia for more kinds - hence bleeding the Chinese?) for the same reason. But will such systems be sufficient? - I dont think so... and exposing Allied civilians (especially in high density Japan and India) isn't too good for reputation of a democracy, right? Weigh the political and the economic risks of involving Japan, India, and Australia - three pretty big engines in the world you see. Those little details on protecting those 3 will have to be worked out to fine perfection (very little margin of error here).
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    RE:Gixx - why nukes on US, and not on India, Oz, Japan, or a US fleet?   4/6/2005 2:31:18 PM
Why would you think they wouldnt work? If you mean 100% then no. But we have to get away from this 100% or nothing mentality that is poisoning strategy. Losing a city is insignificant in the scheme of things if Taiwan is kept free and China destroyed in return or even pre-emptively. Also an ICBM is not going to destroy a city in most cases. Cause lots of damage but not completely destroy a large city.
 
Quote    Reply

displacedjim    RE:Chinese Reunification Scenario--displacedjim   4/6/2005 4:04:33 PM
"Your personal political views and moral limitations are clouding your judgement. Facts and reason dont back up your arguement although it is admirable. China could nuke a lot of other places but they are way short of being able to reliably hit CONUS and even if they do the damage will be minimal when looked at from a military point of view. A few RV's arent going to put us out of the fight. I too believe Taiwan should do more to defend itself but how we feel is irrelevant. Its US law to destroy any Chinese invasion and you can believe this President would do it. The bottom line is we can win a nuclear war with China. " -- Gixx ----- First off, I haven't even mentioned what I think we should do. I'm talking about what a presidential administration would do. Second, please suggest which sentence(s) was/were not in accordance with facts and reason, and how. "Way short of being able to reliably hit CONUS?" Facts and reason show that today if they choose they could hit CONUS with up to 24 RVs of over 1 MT each, plus either can now or within a couple years be able to add several more RVs from their new designs slowly coming into service. Elcid speaks of reloads, but I'm not aware of any evidence of that, so I'll leave it at this. Of course the damage would be minimal from a military point of view and wouldn't put us out of the fight. I never said it would. My point is that the damage from even one RV getting through wouldn't be worth the risk merely to nuke the crap out of Chinese nukes when the Taiwanese didn't even fight for themselves when they could have. The converse to that point is that the nuking of all China's nukes would only cause minimal damage to China from a military point-of-view and wouldn't put them out of the fight, either. We'd still need to defeat the PLA to liberate Taiwan, nukes or no nukes. Why do it? If there are still ROC forces fighting, then we don't need to nuke China in order to defeat a Taiwan invasion, so therefore it would be silly to take even the slightest risk in doing so. All we need to do is sail/fly in there and take back air superiority over Taiwan. The PLAN could not get through to reinforce/resupply, and with help from our airpower the remaining Taiwanese forces would defeat the PLA invasion force left on the island. Displacedjim
 
Quote    Reply

displacedjim    RE:Gixx - why nukes on US, and not on India, Oz, Japan, or a US fleet?   4/6/2005 4:17:55 PM
"Losing a city is insignificant in the scheme of things if Taiwan is kept free and China destroyed in return or even pre-emptively." -- Gixx ----- Certainly can not agree. Keeping Taiwan free by losing a couple hundred thousand Americans per RV that gets through is NOT worth it because we can keep Taiwan free using far less extreme measures that don't put American civilians at risk. And what's this, did I miss something and now your scenario has gone from a first strike against their nukes to an all-out strike against their entire military/government structure? Where the frack do you get off destroying millions of Chinese because they invaded Taiwan? That's just goofy. If you said to do this because somehow (I realize it's not possible, but for purpose of illustration) it was possible for China to invade America and they did it, then nuking Chinese military targets could be okay, but this? Displacedjim
 
Quote    Reply

PeregrinePike    RE:Gixx - why nukes on US, and not on India, Oz, Japan, or a US fleet?   4/6/2005 4:51:07 PM
"Also an ICBM is not going to destroy a city in most cases. Cause lots of damage but not completely destroy a large city." -- A hydrogen bomb on Tokyo or Kolkota (Calcutta)? - I think it can do lot more damage than you say it would... 800,000 with an atomic bomb in 1945, I think it will be in tens of millions. Not at all acceptable for a miserable, pirate-infested island in the view of Japanese and Indians. Besides as we see it, Taiwan is hardly differentiable from so many of the East Cost Chinese cities now -- you either raise the stakes, or we pull out of the game... which I suspect you cant (not realistically) - seeing the objections already raised by displacedjim.
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    RE:Chinese Reunification Scenario   4/6/2005 5:20:20 PM
First off, I haven't even mentioned what I think we should do. I'm talking about what a presidential administration would do. Second, please suggest which sentence(s) was/were not in accordance with facts and reason, and how. "Way short of being able to reliably hit CONUS?" Facts and reason show that today if they choose they could hit CONUS with up to 24 RVs of over 1 MT each, plus either can now or within a couple years be able to add several more RVs from their new designs slowly coming into service. Elcid speaks of reloads, but I'm not aware of any evidence of that, so I'll leave it at this. Of course the damage would be minimal from a military point of view and wouldn't put us out of the fight. I never said it would. My point is that the damage from even one RV getting through wouldn't be worth the risk merely to nuke the crap out of Chinese nukes when the Taiwanese didn't even fight for themselves when they could have. The converse to that point is that the nuking of all China's nukes would only cause minimal damage to China from a military point-of-view and wouldn't put them out of the fight, either. We'd still need to defeat the PLA to liberate Taiwan, nukes or no nukes. Why do it? If there are still ROC forces fighting, then we don't need to nuke China in order to defeat a Taiwan invasion, so therefore it would be silly to take even the slightest risk in doing so. All we need to do is sail/fly in there and take back air superiority over Taiwan. The PLAN could not get through to reinforce/resupply, and with help from our airpower the remaining Taiwanese forces would defeat the PLA invasion force left on the island. Displacedjim Certainly can not agree. Keeping Taiwan free by losing a couple hundred thousand Americans per RV that gets through is NOT worth it because we can keep Taiwan free using far less extreme measures that don't put American civilians at risk. And what's this, did I miss something and now your scenario has gone from a first strike against their nukes to an all-out strike against their entire military/government structure? Where the frack do you get off destroying millions of Chinese because they invaded Taiwan? That's just goofy. If you said to do this because somehow (I realize it's not possible, but for purpose of illustration) it was possible for China to invade America and they did it, then nuking Chinese military targets could be okay, but this? Displacedjim ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---OK so if you read about the NMD system 24 RV's attritted by a nuclear first strike have a good chance of being STOPPED!!! And I'm not suggesting limiting the targets to the Chinese nuclear forces. Read the list of targets I suggested. And I have no objection to frying any body military or not if they are from an enemy nation. Civilians are legitimate targets as far as I'm concerned as long as they continue to support their government. This is war not a hand holding contest with Koffi and friends. Sometimes civilians get caught in the fray and thats just too god damned bad. I never shed a tear or felt the slightest remorse over it. I noticed your displeasure at the choice to bomb the Serb civilian in another thread. Well news flash, THATS A WAR FOR YA!!!
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy