rfordphotos wrote:
--- I suspect China could take Taiwan anytime it really wanted to. 

I really have doubts the West would commit many lives to prevent it, and China could simply overwhelm Taiwan with its huge resource advantage. ..

Not so sure about that. You never really know how a seemingly lopsided war will turn out. Ask Vladimir Putin. And the West seen to acquiesce to a major Chinese aggression on Taiwan would have massive repercussions in the global balance of power and alliance calculations, not to mention the chaos in world trade for all parties, which would hurt China maybe more than any other country.

Focuspuller wrote:
DELETED

Do you know anything about military doctrine? No. Military tactics? I don't think so. Military technology? It doesn't look that way to me. Apparently though, your daddy once told you that you should always buy things marked "Made in the USA".
At the time of the Vietnam War people used to talk about the US having a 25 year lead in military aviation technology. In reality, they might have had a ten year lead, not necessarily worth very much in real terms and in practice the USAF sometimes had the worst of it in air-to-air combat. If the North Vietnamese had more MiG 19s and MiG 21s they might have been in serious trouble.

Focuspuller wrote:
Not so sure about that. You never really know how a seemingly lopsided war will turn out. Ask Vladimir Putin. And the West seen to acquiesce to a major Chinese aggression on Taiwan would have massive repercussions in the global balance of power and alliance calculations, not to mention the chaos in world trade for all parties, which would hurt China maybe more than any other country.

Oh, I thought I made it clear I was speculating, and not "sure" about any of it---

The geopolitical impact of China taking Taiwan would be huge--- but China may at some time in the future feel it can weather the storm--- China has certainly "managed" their crushing of democracy in Hong Kong...

Eliminating Taiwan's manufacturing capacity would greatly benefit China, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, S. Korea etc....

And, tactically--- unlike Ukraine, with a strong NATO presence literally feet away, and a politically and economically potent EU backing NATO up--- Taiwan is MUCH more geographically isolated. Taiwan is an island, miles and miles from a political ally in a part of the world where the US is significantly weaker politically.

Taiwan has about 90K military, China 1 million+, Taiwan has about 800 tanks, China 6000+ etc etc,

Ukraine has the second largest army in the area, second only to Russia.

SOOOOO---- while I FREELY admit this is speculative, based on nearly no evidence, I do see SIGNIFICANT differences in the situations surrounding Taiwan and Ukraine.

To be clear---I find it disappointing that we might well not defend Taiwan with the same vigor we are helping Ukraine... if it comes to it---I hope to high heavens I am DEAD WRONG.

rfordphotos wrote:
To be clear---I find it disappointing that we might well not defend Taiwan with the same vigor we are helping Ukraine... if it comes to it---I hope to high heavens I am DEAD WRONG.

I think it would be such a huge strategic blunder for the US to not make it crystal clear to the Chinese the determination to oppose militarily if necessary an invasion of Taiwan, and then in the face of an actual invasion, to be seen as reneging in any way on that commitment. The history of US bugging out and leaving allies high and dry is already not very good.

And remember, conventional wisdom had mighty Russia defeating Ukraine in three days, unaware of the low quality of the Russian army, the poor leadership, training, morale, logistic failures, and tactics. The actual situation on the ground remains a shock to everyone except the Ukrainians. I don't think a Chinese victory would be a slam-dunk, if it came to that, unless China decides to just level the country with total carpet bombing.

JSouthworth wrote:
Do you know anything about military doctrine? No. Military tactics? I don't think so. Military technology? It doesn't look that way to me. Apparently though, your daddy once told you that you should always buy things marked "Made in the USA".
At the time of the Vietnam War people used to talk about the US having a 25 year lead in military aviation technology. In reality, they might have had a ten year lead, not necessarily worth very much in real terms and in practice the USAF sometimes had the worst of it in air-to-air combat. If the North Vietnamese had more MiG 19s and MiG 21s they might have been in serious trouble.

And YOUR expertise? Go ahead, take  your time, we will wait....

MEANWHILE let me school you on the Vietnam War, which I marched against in college at the time.

Your obsession with military hardware as determinative reveals your ignorance. FYI, the US, despite a vast advantage in hardware and technology, lost the war to a better motivated, better led, indigenous force fighting on their homeland. The Vietnam War, despite your obsessions, was NOT won or lost in the air.  As the Pentagon Papers revealed, American prosecution of the war was rife with deception, delusion, illegality, immorality, bad judgment, and ineffective tactics and strategy, all of which combined to neutralize any perceived advantage in military force. Lessons for today?

Here is a link to the Pentagon Papers: https://www.archives.gov/research/pentagon-papers I suggest you do a deep drive into the files before you ever think about sharing your misconceptions about the Vietnam War again.

And for your information, my "daddy" was stationed in England during WWII and experienced the Blitz, and appreciated the determination of the indomitable British people to withstand the superior (at the time) air power of the Luftwaffe demonstrated by nightly bombing raids on the civilian population. ROCKETS, for heaven's. sake. The British people did not wilt in the face of overwhelming military technology, and went on to win the war. As did the Vietnamese.

Now run along.

Focuspuller wrote:
And YOUR expertise? Go ahead, take  your time, we will wait....

MEANWHILE let me school you on the Vietnam War, which I marched against in college at the time.

Your obsession with military hardware as determinative reveals your ignorance. FYI, the US, despite a vast advantage in hardware and technology, lost the war to a better motivated, better led, indigenous force fighting on their homeland. The Vietnam War, despite your obsessions, was NOT won or lost in the air.  As the Pentagon Papers revealed, American prosecution of the war was rife with deception, delusion, illegality, immorality, bad judgment, and ineffective tactics and strategy, all of which combined to neutralize any perceived advantage in military force. Lessons for today?

Here is a link to the Pentagon Papers: https://www.archives.gov/research/pentagon-papers I suggest you do a deep drive into the files before you ever think about sharing your misconceptions about the Vietnam War again.

And for your information, my "daddy" was stationed in England during WWII and experienced the Blitz, and appreciated the determination of the indomitable British people to withstand the superior (at the time) air power of the Luftwaffe demonstrated by nightly bombing raids on the civilian population. ROCKETS, for heaven's. sake. The British people did not wilt in the face of overwhelming military technology, and went on to win the war. As did the Vietnamese.

Now run along.

Believe me, we lost that war for more reasons than you can imagine. I feel fairly confident everyone who was there has a different idea about why we lost.

From my perspective- we never had permission to win. A war, micro managed by non military politicians from half way around the world was bound to end in defeat. A military command structure that was set up "to get junior officers some combat time" regardless of performance was bound to fail. A political leadership who ignored the rampant corruption in the South Vietnamese government and armed forces was a certain path to defeat.

Yes the North Vietnamese air force was successful against our aircraft--- but they wouldnt have been if we had been allowed to take out their airfields. Hanoi had the best air defense system the Russians could build (and operate)--- but they wouldnt have been an issue had we been allowed to sink the transports bringing them into Haiphong harbor. The list goes on and on.

We entered Vietnam well prepared to fend off the Russian tank hoards flooding thru the Fulda gap and completely lost at fighting a so called "limited war" against a guerilla army.

Focuspuller wrote:
I think it would be such a huge strategic blunder for the US to not make it crystal clear to the Chinese the determination to oppose militarily if necessary an invasion of Taiwan, and then in the face of an actual invasion, to be seen as reneging in any way on that commitment. The history of US bugging out and leaving allies high and dry is already not very good.
.

I am afraid our biggest strategic blunder is allowing China to take the South China Sea and turn it into a huge forward operating base...

Oh, and I believe if China DID decide to take Taiwan they would bomb it into the third century before landing a single troop.

rfordphotos wrote:

I am afraid our biggest strategic blunder is allowing China to take the South China Sea and turn it into a huge forward operating base...

Oh, and I believe if China DID decide to take Taiwan they would bomb it into the third century before landing a single troop.

"I am afraid our biggest strategic blunder is allowing China to take the South China Sea and turn it into a huge forward operating base..."

You mean creating artificial islands and calling them "China"? Big mistake letting that pass, but there doesn't seem to be any hesitancy in the US Navy enforcing the right of passage in International waters regardless what pile of junk China wants to claim.

" I believe if China DID decide to take Taiwan they would bomb it into the third century..."

At which point China not only becomes an international pariah as Russia is becoming with its scorched earth "special military operation", but would find itself with its own Vietnam War on its hands. I don't think Mr. Xi would go down that road and risk the catastrophic setback that Putin is beginning to feel right now. Politburo to Xi: "President for life? Ok , here's how we deal with that..."

Focuspuller wrote:
"I am afraid our biggest strategic blunder is allowing China to take the South China Sea and turn it into a huge forward operating base..."

You mean creating artificial islands and calling them "China"? Big mistake letting that pass, but there doesn't seem to be any hesitancy in the US Navy enforcing the right of passage in International waters regardless what pile of junk China wants to claim.

" I believe if China DID decide to take Taiwan they would bomb it into the third century..."

At which point China not only becomes an international pariah as Russia is becoming with its scorched earth "special military operation", but would find itself with its own Vietnam War on its hands. I don't think Mr. Xi would go down that road and risk the catastrophic setback that Putin is beginning to feel right now. Politburo to Xi: "President for life? Ok , here's how we deal with that..."

You are probably right.

My pessimistic nature sometimes gets the best of me.

China didnt worry terribly about gunning down its citizens in Tienanmen Square, nor it's on-going campaign against the  million Uighurs it has "detained". I am not sure how concerned China would be about world opinion concerning it's treatment of a group of it's citizens who faced off in what it has long characterized as open armed rebellion.

But as I said, my pessimistic nature sometimes gets the best of me.

rfordphotos wrote:
China didnt worry terribly about gunning down its citizens in Tienanmen Square, nor it's on-going campaign against the  million Uighurs it has "detained". I am not sure how concerned China would be about world opinion concerning it's treatment of a group of it's citizens who faced off in what it has long characterized as open armed rebellion.

There isn't much China can do about world opinion, but it can do a lot about what the people of China can say.  Most Chinese people in China have no idea that the Tiananmen Square massacre ever happened.  They certainly don't know the truth about the genocide conducted against the Uighurs.

Ultimately, it is up to the world to hold China accountable.  Can't do that when businesses are fighting against accountability within their own countries because they want a piece of the huge market in China.  Money matters more than anything else.

rfordphotos wrote:
You are probably right.

My pessimistic nature sometimes gets the best of me.

China didnt worry terribly about gunning down its citizens in Tienanmen Square, nor it's on-going campaign against the  million Uighurs it has "detained". I am not sure how concerned China would be about world opinion concerning it's treatment of a group of it's citizens who faced off in what it has long characterized as open armed rebellion.

But as I said, my pessimistic nature sometimes gets the best of me.

My friends call me "Mr. Negative" so I know the feeling.

As to Tienanmen and the Uighers, the international community could rightly call those "internal matters". Not so much Taiwan, despite the Chinese claims to the contrary.

Now, Xi could conceivably make the erroneous assumption that Putin did; that trump damaged the United States so much that national unity here is so shattered, a consensus for standing against a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would be weak at best. I think Xi looks at Putin and thinks, "Not me. AND I'm not going to throw the entire region into the arms of the US against China."

rfordphotos wrote:
Believe me, we lost that war for more reasons than you can imagine. I feel fairly confident everyone who was there has a different idea about why we lost.

From my perspective- we never had permission to win. A war, micro managed by non military politicians from half way around the world was bound to end in defeat. A military command structure that was set up "to get junior officers some combat time" regardless of performance was bound to fail. A political leadership who ignored the rampant corruption in the South Vietnamese government and armed forces was a certain path to defeat.

Yes the North Vietnamese air force was successful against our aircraft--- but they wouldnt have been if their we had been allowed to take out their airfields. Hanoi had the best air defense system the Russians could build (and operate)--- but they wouldnt have been an issue had we been allowed to sink the transports bringing them into Haiphong harbor. The list goes on and on.

We entered Vietnam well prepared to fend off the Russian tank hoards flooding thru the Fulda gap and completely lost at fighting a so called "limited war" against a guerilla army.

Air-to-air combat in the Vietnam War was actually irrrelevant to the outcome, offhand I think about 72 US aircraft were shot down by the North Vietnamese air force versus roughly double that number of Vietnamese aircraft. The vast majority of US aircraft losses were caused by gunfire and missiles from the ground.
Much of the supposed US technological superiority was illusory, the F4 Phantom for example didn't perform well in air-to-air combat, it's missiles were unreliable, the radar wouldn't lock on to an approaching MiG at more than about 9 miles, and the Soviet built aircraft were more maneuverable.

JSouthworth wrote:
The book "Jet fighter performance; Korea to Vietnam" by Mike Spick is a reliable source.

Sure sure, but I'll BET you are more interested in the author's "AIR BATTLES IN MINIATURE: A WARGAMERS' GUIDE TO AERIAL COMBAT 1939-1945"

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/08505 … HWK55XCGG2

So how is YOUR basement Vietnam War going? Who won YOUR WWII?

Garry k wrote:
Just as small point regarding US support for the defence of Taiwan

After Covid hit it and the various Vaccines began to roll out -Taiwan ( like most countries )wanted to get their population vaccinated quickly

British made Astra Zeneca was the first to be approved and administered in the Taiwan and it took several months for the American made Moderna and Pfizer vaccines to be approved and when they were -the dosages supplied did not appear nearly adequate. Reportedly some direct sales between US based Pharma Companies and Taiwan were rerouted through European Subsidiaries , and Japan actually ended up donating a lot of  vaccine toTaiwan -but still there was a serious shortfall

By July 2021  approximately 10 per cent of Taiwanese were  vaccinated compared to approx 50 per cent of Americans

Does the Covid Vaccine Situation offer us any measure of US support for Taiwan ( or willingness to stand up to China )?

Taiwan was practically Covid free for all of 2020, and demand for vaccines was nonexistent. Eventually the virus became a problem and Taiwan had to scramble after a very late start. Also, world-wide vaccine distribution was a nightmare in general. What does any of this have to do with defending Taiwan from a Chinese invasion?

Focuspuller wrote:
Taiwan was practically Covid free for all of 2020, and demand for vaccines was nonexistent. Eventually the virus became a problem and Taiwan had to scramble after a very late start. Also, world-wide vaccine distribution was a nightmare in general. What does any of this have to do with defending Taiwan from a Chinese invasion?

I am not sure where You get your information or ideas from but

Taiwan is located approx 100 miles from Mainland China (where the Virus originated ) My Taiwanese Friends there have told me directly via Messenger ) that People there were very concerned about the Virus and the delays in receiving the Western Made Vaccines

In fact the Taiwanese Government was unable to even purchase the Pfizer/Biontec Vaccine (Pfizer being an American Company and Biontec being German ) which led to Taiwanese President Tsai Ing Wen to directly accuse China of blocking the purchase (According to the Associated Press )

(Fortunately Taiwan was prepared for a virus and was able to fend it off in other ways until Private Interests were able to purchase the Pfizer/ Biontech vaccine as well as purchasing and having vaccines donated from other Sources )

Not much help extended to Taiwan by the US or the Western Governments in that situation IMO

Garry k wrote:
I am not sure where You get your information or ideas from but

"WHY TAIWAN, LONG A COVID SUCCESS STORY, IS SEEING A RECORD SURGE IN CASES"

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/taiwan-cov … rus-surge/

"Throughout 2020, Taiwan was held up as one of the world's greatest coronavirus success stories — a streak of 253 days without a single reported infection, from April until December."

But Taiwan's low vaccination dilemma is a function of both access and apathy — a lack of the former, and an excess of the latter."

"China-based Shanghai Fosun Pharmaceutical Group holds distribution rights across Greater China, which includes Hong Kong, the former Portuguese colony of Macau, and Taiwan."

"As COVID-19 started to surge across the wider population in mid-May, so did the number of people who finally decided they needed a vaccine. On May 14, when Taiwan reported a record 29 indigenous cases in a single day, the number of people getting vaccinated also hit a record of more than 32,000."

Like I said; low initial demand, and a complex and problematic world distribution system contributed to Taiwan's  Covid problems, not lack of Western desire to aid Taiwan.  If your friends have evidence otherwise, do let us know.

Garry k wrote:
Not much help extended to Taiwan by the US or the Western Governments in that situation IMO

I'd suggest that history shows that in the early days when the vaccines were initially starting to ship (but in desperately short supply), each country basically went into a "Every Country for Themselves" mode.

The major countries all ordered WAY more than they needed at the beginning, and from every major potential supplier that they could find.  The reason why was that they were each trying to get a bigger share of the EARLY shipments.  Plus they didn't know which ones would come through, and which ones wouldn't.

Only later, when the supply finally started to exceed demand, did those countries (including Canada and the U.S.) suddenly get "generous" and started supplying their excess vaccines to other countries.

Smaller countries, that didn't have the same massive "over-ordering" clout, ALL suffered in the beginning.  I'm suggesting that Taiwan was just another example of what was happening at the time.  And no, it wasn't our finest hour.

LightDreams wrote:

I'd suggest that history shows that in the early days when the vaccines were initially starting to ship (but in desperately short supply), each country basically went into a "Every Country for Themselves" mode.

The major countries all ordered WAY more than they needed at the beginning, and from every major potential supplier that they could find.  The reason why was that they were each trying to get a bigger share of the EARLY shipments.  Plus they didn't know which ones would come through, and which ones wouldn't.

Only later, when the supply finally started to exceed demand, did those countries (including Canada and the U.S.) suddenly get "generous" and started supplying their excess vaccines to other countries.

Smaller countries, that didn't have the same massive "over-ordering" clout, ALL suffered in the beginning.  I'm suggesting that Taiwan was just another example of what was happening at the time.  And no, it wasn't our finest hour.

Just another example of the invisible hand of the market working its magic.

Focuspuller wrote:
"WHY TAIWAN, LONG A COVID SUCCESS STORY, IS SEEING A RECORD SURGE IN CASES"

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/taiwan-cov … rus-surge/

"Throughout 2020, Taiwan was held up as one of the world's greatest coronavirus success stories — a streak of 253 days without a single reported infection, from April until December."

But Taiwan's low vaccination dilemma is a function of both access and apathy — a lack of the former, and an excess of the latter."

"China-based Shanghai Fosun Pharmaceutical Group holds distribution rights across Greater China, which includes Hong Kong, the former Portuguese colony of Macau, and Taiwan."

"As COVID-19 started to surge across the wider population in mid-May, so did the number of people who finally decided they needed a vaccine. On May 14, when Taiwan reported a record 29 indigenous cases in a single day, the number of people getting vaccinated also hit a record of more than 32,000."

Like I said; low initial demand, and a complex and problematic world distribution system contributed to Taiwan's  Covid problems, not lack of Western desire to aid Taiwan.  If your friends have evidence otherwise, do let us know.

I see what You are trying to do

And that is to suggest that Taiwan really didn’t need vaccines in the beginning as Covid didn’t pose a risk til later.

The Truth is that Taiwan was far more prepared for the virus than most countries and because of that was able to keep it at bay longer ( through measures such as restricting travel into the country,having a very organized and responsive healthcare system ,quarantining /monitoring/and contact tracing …not to mention a having a society that was not as mask adverse as those of us in the West…but all of this does not suggest that Taiwan did not seek Vaccines from the West as well …Their Government did seek vaccines (even signing purchase contracts ) with Pfizer / Biontech we’re initially denied -then delayed by Chinese Distributer Shanghai Fosun until later part of 2021

But the real question in all of this is where was th West in supporting Taiwan during this crisis , and what are the implications if China launches a military action against Taiwan

Your article make some reference to apathy on the part of Taiwanese in getting vaccinated and I would like to know what they meant by that  as currently over 85 percent of Taiwanese are fully vaccinated

LightDreams wrote:
I'd suggest that history shows that in the early days when the vaccines were initially starting to ship (but in desperately short supply), each country basically went into a "Every Country for Themselves" mode.

The major countries all ordered WAY more than they needed at the beginning, and from every major potential supplier that they could find.  The reason why was that they were each trying to get a bigger share of the EARLY shipments.  Plus they didn't know which ones would come through, and which ones wouldn't.

Only later, when the supply finally started to exceed demand, did those countries (including Canada and the U.S.) suddenly get "generous" and started supplying their excess vaccines to other countries.

Smaller countries, that didn't have the same massive "over-ordering" clout, ALL suffered in the beginning.  I'm suggesting that Taiwan was just another example of what was happening at the time.  And no, it wasn't our finest hour.

It was interesting to me that Japan started donating Aztra Zeneca fairly early On
And to date has sent over 4 M doses

Taiwan was once a Japanese Colony

That shows some Loyalty

Garry k wrote:
I see what You are trying to do

And that is to suggest that Taiwan really didn’t need vaccines in the beginning as Covid didn’t pose a risk til later.

NO, you do not "see" what I am "trying to do". Not suggesting the Taiwanese didn't need vaccines, but because of early success in avoiding Covid spread, there was a lack of initial DEMAND for vaccines until later in the pandemic when Covid did spread in Taiwan and the demand for vaccines increased. Unfortunately, by the time the populace woke up to the pandemic threat, the world distribution system had become a chaotic mess. You think only Taiwan suffered from lack of supply when the wealthy nations grabbed more than they needed? Think again. Then to suggest all this somehow shows there is a lack of perceived strategic interest and committment of the West in opposing an invasion of Taiwan by China is just not credible. Some would say the linkage is preposterous.

Garry k wrote:
I think this is an important matter to bring up in a discussion concerning how much the West is willing to support Taiwan against A Chinese Invasion

What is your point? That the West willfully deprived  Taiwan of Covid vaccine therefore proving the West would sacrifice its own strategic interest in opposing a major shift in Chinese policy to aggressive militarism, challenging Western interests and allies in the region? Seriously?

Focuspuller wrote:
Sure sure, but I'll BET you are more interested in the author's "AIR BATTLES IN MINIATURE: A WARGAMERS' GUIDE TO AERIAL COMBAT 1939-1945"

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/08505 … HWK55XCGG2

So how is YOUR basement Vietnam War going? Who won YOUR WWII?

If that's a way of asking me whether I took the figure for the probability of a kill with eight missiles from a book which I'm not familiar with, the answer is no, I calculated it myself. 0.90909 (the probability of a miss with a single missile) to the power of eight is about 0.47, subtract that from 1.0 and you have the probability of at least one hit.

If you did get a hit, the probability of getting a second hit with an average of 3.5 remaining missiles would be 0.284, so the overall probabilty of getting two hits with eight missiles would be 0.15 or thereabouts.

Focuspuller wrote:

What is your point? That the West willfully deprived  Taiwan of Covid vaccine therefore proving the West would sacrifice its own strategic interest in opposing a major shift in Chinese policy to aggressive militarism, challenging Western interests and allies in the region? Seriously?

My point is that if China were to suddenly attack Taiwan- I wouldn’t expect a quick counter attack by the US and the West

Garry k wrote:
My point is that if China were to suddenly attack Taiwan- I wouldn’t expect a quick counter attack by the US and the West

It would be quite difficult to launch a surprise invasion of Taiwan, and for the US/West to just let that happen would be a historic mistake with repercussions throughout the world. The best defense would be to make it clear that an invasion of Taiwan will exceed Putin's huge miscalculation in Ukraine.

JSouthworth wrote:
If that's a way of asking me whether I took the figure for the probability of a kill with eight missiles from a book which I'm not familiar with, the answer is no, I calculated it myself. 0.90909 (the probability of a miss with a single missile) to the power of eight is about 0.47, subtract that from 1.0 and you have the probability of at least one hit.

If you did get a hit, the probability of getting a second hit with an average of 3.5 remaining missiles would be 0.284, so the overall probabilty of getting two hits with eight missiles would be 0.15 or thereabouts.

No, that was my way of probing the depths of your maniacal obsession with armament minutia, Thanks for providing. But don't worry. When the day comes future wars are fought as coding battles between algorithms on computer displays, you will be revered as a pioneer.

Oh wait! Meant "war-games".

Never mind.

Oh, and BTW, your military strategy and tactics expertise, again ...besides a library of field manuals? Still waiting.

Focuspuller wrote:
No, that was my way of probing the depths of your maniacal obsession with armament minutia, Thanks for providing. But don't worry. When the day comes future wars are fought as coding battles between algorithms on computer displays, you will be revered as a pioneer.

Oh wait! Meant "war-games".

Never mind.

Oh, and BTW, your military strategy and tactics expertise, again ...besides a library of field manuals? Still waiting.

Oh yeah? Well to be honest it looks to me as though your accusing other people of obsession with armaments is your way of trying to conceal the fact that you know next to nothing about military technology. And that's a problem, in the context of a discussion about the military defence of Taiwan.

The current doctrine of the Taiwanese defence forces aims to keep any fighting away from the major population and industrial centres by engaging and defeating the Chinese in a large scale air-sea battle. The Taiwanese have constructed two large underground bases which can shelter thousands of soldiers and hundreds of vehicles and aircraft. They can continue to operate under Chinese air attacks and missile bombardment. The problem is that the Chinese would have about a 4 to 1 superiority in aircraft and naval forces. Land based anti-ship missiles and sea mines could provide more effective means of delaying and inflicting losses on Chinese naval forces attempting an amphibious landing.

Two thirds of Taiwan is mountainous country. The Taiwanese military could hold the Chinese at bay there almost indefinitely with the right preparation and sufficient supplies, the problem is that the remaining third, the coastal strip facing China is where most of the population and industry are, from the political perspective they can't simply abandon that to the invading Chinese forces.

JSouthworth wrote:

Oh yeah? Well to be honest it looks to me as though your accusing other people of obsession with armaments is your way of trying to conceal the fact that you know next to nothing about military technology. And that's a problem, in the context of a discussion about the military defence of Taiwan.

The current doctrine of the Taiwanese defence forces aims to keep any fighting away from the major population and industrial centres by engaging and defeating the Chinese in a large scale air-sea battle. The Taiwanese have constructed two large underground bases which can shelter thousands of soldiers and hundreds of vehicles and aircraft. They can continue to operate under Chinese air attacks and missile bombardment. The problem is that the Chinese would have about a 4 to 1 superiority in aircraft and naval forces. Land based anti-ship missiles and sea mines could provide more effective means of delaying and inflicting losses on Chinese naval forces attempting an amphibious landing.

Two thirds of Taiwan is mountainous country. The Taiwanese military could hold the Chinese at bay there almost indefinitely with the right preparation and sufficient supplies, the problem is that the remaining third, the coastal strip facing China is where most of the population and industry are, from the political perspective they can't simply abandon that to the invading Chinese forces.

Still waiting.

Focuspuller wrote:

It would be quite difficult to launch a surprise invasion of Taiwan, and for the US/West to just let that happen would be a historic mistake with repercussions throughout the world. The best defense would be

to make it clear that an invasion of Taiwan will exceed Putin's huge miscalculation in Ukraine.

You have a skill for stating the obvious at times

Of course any American School Kid  will be able to watch Satellite images of the Chinese Troop Buildups on CNN

But do You think the US can afford yet another War with a major recession looming and so much division at home .?

Garry k wrote:

You have a skill for stating the obvious at times

Of course any American School Kid  will be able to watch Satellite images of the Chinese Troop Buildups on CNN

But do You think the US can afford yet another War with a major recession looming and so much division at home .?

You might recall YOU brought up the possibility China could "suddenly" attack Taiwan.

And only a complete naif would suggest the US would stand by as China invaded Taiwan, regardless of the economic considerations. The repercussions would be massive, as any American School Kid would know.

Focuspuller wrote:
Still waiting.

For your therapist perhaps? Your name isn't Focuspuller, it's leg puller.

Why do you think it would be difficult for the Chinese military to launch a surprise attack when they have airbases within 20 minutes flying time of Taipei, and ballistic missiles with 3 minutes flying time?

Obviously they could launch a surprise attack, which would probably have the objective of knocking out much of Taiwan's military capability and infrastructure at the beginning of a conflict. This is a possibility that the Taiwanese military have to plan for.

JSouthworth wrote:

For your therapist perhaps? Your name isn't Focuspuller, it's leg puller.

Why do you think it would be difficult for the Chinese military to launch a surprise attack when they have airbases within 20 minutes flying time of Taipei, and ballistic missiles with 3 minutes flying time?

Obviously they could launch a surprise attack, which would probably have the objective of knocking out much of Taiwan's military capability and infrastructure at the beginning of a conflict. This is a possibility that the Taiwanese military have to plan for.

That would meet the definition of sudden

JSouthworth wrote:
For your therapist perhaps? Your name isn't Focuspuller, it's leg puller.

Why do you think it would be difficult for the Chinese military to launch a surprise attack when they have airbases within 20 minutes flying time of Taipei, and ballistic missiles with 3 minutes flying time?

Obviously they could launch a surprise attack, which would probably have the objective of knocking out much of Taiwan's military capability and infrastructure at the beginning of a conflict. This is a possibility that the Taiwanese military have to plan for.

"For your therapist perhaps? Your name isn't Focuspuller, it's leg puller."

Oh sooo funny. British humor? But no. Waiting for YOUR military strategy expertise such that when you say, 'Obviously they could launch.." and "...would probably have the objective...." and "This is a possibility ..." anybody would care what you opine or how many field manuals you crib from.

And you demonstrate your staggering ignorance by suggesting a Chinese invasion of Taiwan could be suddenly launched from the mainland without a MASSIVE buildup in planes, rocket launchers, ships, and troops, easily spotted in advance. Do you have satellite surveillance in your battlefield?. Spies? The US does. Your simplistic regurgitation of hardware specs and other metrics is symptomatic of the myopic vision which contributed to the US defeat in Vietnam.