|
iyaayas01 posted:It's not about a zerg rush, if you think I was implying any sort of one-off Ace Combat mass air attack you were mistaken. It's about their ability to leverage their advantages and our disadvantages to regularly gain local numerical superiority while using non-completely lovely fighters. When I said "run out of missiles" I wasn't talking about China flinging hundreds of J-7s at 187 Raptors, I was talking about them putting up a 16 ship of J-11s at a couple 4 ships of Raptors....closely followed by 8xJ-10s...and another 8 ship of Flankers...and so on, while the nearest 4 ship of Eagles is a hundred miles away hitting a tanker, and the closest 4 ship of Raptors is still 2 hours out transiting from Andersen or wherever. One of the RAND studies I referenced before posited a 27:1 exchange ratio for F-22s and still had the USAF losing the air war. (Preemptive note: as I stated earlier, that study has some contentious points and some things they overlooked/they felt were outside the scope; I don't necessarily agree with all of it). I will fully admit that this is looking at one small part of a notional conflict in a vacuum, and that there are many other components that would have a bearing on this (both positively and negatively, and those other components may carry drawbacks of their own). I'm just trying to show what I was referring to is about the furthest thing from some "lol dumb barbaric commie yellow hordes zerg rush" crap. Well, the 1300 Chinese aircraft figure is similarly generous, assuming they kept the entire J-7 fleet operational and also including all the various prototype and trainer aircraft (not to mentioned the 500+ J-7s which are essentially Mig-21s). At an exchange rate of 27:1 it would only take 50 aircraft to destroy every single combat aircraft in China's inventory. As for political issues, of course China has political issues in a war with Taiwan. A Taiwan/US/Chinese war is something that could easily sink their economy and have long lasting political repercussions from drat near every country nearby.
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 12:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 23:28 |
|
|
Warbadger posted:Well, the 1300 Chinese aircraft figure is similarly generous, assuming they kept the entire J-7 fleet operational and also including all the various prototype and trainer aircraft (not to mentioned the 500+ J-7s which are essentially Mig-21s). At an exchange rate of 27:1 it would only take 50 aircraft to destroy every single combat aircraft in China's inventory. As for political issues, of course China has political issues in a war with Taiwan. A Taiwan/US/Chinese war is something that could easily sink their economy and have long lasting political repercussions from drat near every country nearby. This is all exceptionally theory-crafty, but you can't just count airplanes and determine outcome. There are many other externalities. Every single US sortie either has to fly an extremely challenging distance, requiring a ton of tanker support,* or they get to land in range of the most advanced SRBM/MRBM force in the world, areas that would certainly be among the top targets, because China's prime way of winning even a small conflict hinges on its superior sortie generation due to the distances involved. If both sides agreed to just line up their air forces on some neutral battlefield and go at it, sure, then the numbers game would be heavily stacked against China. But we're talking local pockets of air superiority, on China's doorstep, in some cases with overlaps with China's considerable SAM force. Regardless, all China really has to do is keep just kind of taking over areas in an ad hoc manner while maintaining enough credible assets and expertise to ensure that no one feels like getting into a war or even a skirmish. *lol, our tanker program mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 13:18 on May 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 13:06
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:This is all exceptionally theory-crafty, but you can't just count airplanes and determine outcome. There are many other externalities. Every single US sortie either has to fly an extremely challenging distance, requiring a ton of tanker support,* or they get to land in range of the most advanced SRBM/MRBM force in the world, areas that would certainly be among the top targets, because China's prime way of winning even a small conflict hinges on its superior sortie generation due to the distances involved. If both sides agreed to just line up their air forces on some neutral battlefield and go at it, sure, then the numbers game would be heavily stacked against China. But we're talking local pockets of air superiority, on China's doorstep, in some cases with overlaps with China's considerable SAM force. Well, you also can't simply count MRBM/SRBMs (and planes) and determine outcome. Again, if the US planes are managing 27:1 in some theoretical conflict, the PLAAF is getting ultrafucked, not running everyone out of missiles then winning the air war. Particularly given that by the nature of the conflict the PLAAF would be required to fight inside Taiwan's own SAM network (HAWK, Patriot, indigenous Patriot-alike, and indigenous AMRAAM-alike). This is also very different from the original example I responded to which involved all the Raptors with F-15C's playing backstop.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 13:36
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:Well, you also can't simply count MRBM/SRBMs (and planes) and determine outcome. Again, if the US planes are managing 27:1 in some theoretical conflict, the PLAAF is getting ultrafucked, not running everyone out of missiles then winning the air war. Particularly given that by the nature of the conflict the PLAAF would be required to fight inside Taiwan's own SAM network (HAWK, Patriot, indigenous Patriot-alike, and indigenous AMRAAM-alike). If you can find me an air defense expert not paid by the Taiwanese government who thinks that Taiwan's SAM network would survive anything more than an accidental skirmish with China, I'll buy you a beer, I guess. China has had a lot of time to design overlapping systems specifically designed to gently caress Western/Taiwanese air defenses up. This argument is dumb anyway, though.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 14:12
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:If you can find me an air defense expert not paid by the Taiwanese government who thinks that Taiwan's SAM network would survive anything more than an accidental skirmish with China, I'll buy you a beer, I guess. China has had a lot of time to design overlapping systems specifically designed to gently caress Western/Taiwanese air defenses up. I don't think that anyone worth their salt is going to argue that Taiwan could single-handedly fend off a Chinese invasion, but they have a large enough and advanced enough military to be able to hold their own until the bulk of the US military can come to assist. You can bet that Taiwanese military planners have been planning for exactly this kind of conflict for over 50 years.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 14:32
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:I don't think that anyone worth their salt is going to argue that Taiwan could single-handedly fend off a Chinese invasion, but they have a large enough and advanced enough military to be able to hold their own until the bulk of the US military can come to assist. You can bet that Taiwanese military planners have been planning for exactly this kind of conflict for over 50 years. Sure, my point is that the extent of China fighting inside Taiwan's SAM network, aside from short-range piddly stuff, would be to rain advanced ballistic missiles and ARMs on Taiwan's more threatening systems to great effect.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 14:35
|
|
|
You can't MRBM stingers!
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 14:58
|
|
|
I may or may not know people in Taiwan working on contingency plans to deal with a potential existential threat to the Republic of China... but what I can say is that as with all first world nations, Taiwan definitely has plans to develop or has already developed a credible non-nuclear deterrent (and the technical knowledge to create a nuclear deterrent). Taiwan doesn't have to have a big enough stick to take down China. They only have to have a credible offensive deterrent that has the potential to survive a first strike and punch enough holes in important mainland Chinese infrastructure to make war a very unpalatable idea. The same way that mainland China only has to have a big enough stick to deter American intervention, Taiwan only has to make the aggressor think twice about the consequences. I'm not expressing some gung-ho jingoism here for my parents' homeland or anything. What I'm trying to say is that let's not limit our thinking to "In the case of limited/no US intervention, Taiwan takes it lying down and doesn't conduct its own counteroffensive."
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 15:05
|
|
|
Insane Totoro posted:I may or may not know people in Taiwan working on contingency plans to deal with a potential existential threat to the Republic of China... but what I can say is that as with all first world nations, Taiwan definitely has plans to develop or has already developed a credible non-nuclear deterrent (and the technical knowledge to create a nuclear deterrent). Then again you can always flip this around and say that the solution from the aggressor's side is to politically isolate the smaller country enough that they know they're hosed and the cav is never coming, so why not integrate as peacefully as possible? Does it become worth it to rip up mainland China and destroy themselves in the process if there's a 0% chance of the US, Europe, India, or anyone else coming to the rescue? What do you do if the PRC is willing to pay that price?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 15:40
|
|
|
Related question, I remember something about Chinese S-300/400 and their indigenous versions being able to reach into Taiwanese airspace, even to the point of engaging aircraft well over the landmass. What's the real story here, say in terms of realistic/plausible engagements? Again, something I can probably google, but this thread is a more interesting read.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
Mazz posted:Related question, I remember something about Chinese S-300/400 and their indigenous versions being able to reach into Taiwanese airspace, even to the point of engaging aircraft well over the landmass. The latest generation of extremely long-legged interceptors (the 40N6 from Russia, Patriot MSE and SM-6 from the US) have some pretty interesting implications. No aircraft has ever been engaged at the distances that these things are capable of flying so it is all theoretical, but generally speaking they could potentially actively contribute to OCA missions and/or take the place of manned aircraft in DCA roles pretty effectively. The big issue is that despite the long legs they're still limited by the guidance/tracking capability of their ground-based radars, which goes to the evolving focus on truly integrated fire control. Once you figure out how, for instance, to launch a giant land-based interceptor and then pass off its guidance to terminal to, say, an airborne platform, you've got a massive increase in capability.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
bewbies posted:The latest generation of extremely long-legged interceptors (the 40N6 from Russia, Patriot MSE and SM-6 from the US) have some pretty interesting implications. Not to mention attacks on high-value targets like tankers or AWACS. Although none of these have entered service yet, the R-37 or MBDA Meteor both have ranges in excess of 200km and inertial guidance. There's also some speculation that the K-100 (aka R-172) has re-entered development in cooperation with India or that the Chinese may be working on an air to air derivative of the Kh-31 ARM. Information on all this seems to be rather sketchy though, as none of these systems have proven themselves. Still, the use against air forces relying on tankers to project power seems interesting. Which brings me to a question: Are there any plans to develop AAMs with anti-missile capabilities for HAVCAP use? Something along the lines of an air-launched RAM for example. I guess target acquisition would be tricky with a small target potentially coming from any angle, could maybe launch on datalink targets (from an AWACS) or as an ARM going against the seeker of the attacking missile. Any information or speculation would be welcome.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
Insane Totoro posted:I may or may not know people in Taiwan working on contingency plans to deal with a potential existential threat to the Republic of China... but what I can say is that as with all first world nations, Taiwan definitely has plans to develop or has already developed a credible non-nuclear deterrent (and the technical knowledge to create a nuclear deterrent). Creating a nuclear deterrent is politically risky from Taiwan because not only would that likely prompt isolation from China but it would also hurt relations with the US if Taiwan appeared to be proliferating nukes.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Creating a nuclear deterrent is politically risky from Taiwan because not only would that likely prompt isolation from China but it would also hurt relations with the US if Taiwan appeared to be proliferating nukes. But having the ability to burst the Three Gorges Dam won't...well it drives China apeshit, but most of the world wouldn't care.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:Well, you also can't simply count MRBM/SRBMs (and planes) and determine outcome. Again, if the US planes are managing 27:1 in some theoretical conflict, the PLAAF is getting ultrafucked, not running everyone out of missiles then winning the air war. Particularly given that by the nature of the conflict the PLAAF would be required to fight inside Taiwan's own SAM network (HAWK, Patriot, indigenous Patriot-alike, and indigenous AMRAAM-alike). You don't have to play count the AAMs oor count the MRBMS. A simple understanding of the standoff distances imposed by Chinese capabilities (both offensive and defensive) will show you why this scenario is a very difficult one for the US.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
To respond on the comments made about Taiwan creating a non-nuclear (or nuclear) deterrent, you have to keep in mind that the political situation in Taiwan isn't as clear cut as some people want to believe. There is a lot of doubt that Taiwan would just throw up their hands and go "welp, force of history, let's rejoin the mainland." Since the end of WW2, Formosa (Taiwan) hasn't exactly been happy with the idea of Chinese rule. The concept of a distinct Taiwanese identity apart from a mainland Chinese identity has been around since... well, just about forever. Consider that the Chinese government during the imperial eras had very little role in governing Formosa/Taiwan. The general undercurrent was that the native Taiwanese were actually rather amenable to Japanese modernization of the island prior to WW2. If anything, a modern Taiwanese identity has always been closer to Japan (and continues in modern times) and their culture was formed by the Japanization colonial policy of the early 20th century. Of course, after the war, the United Nations placed Formosa under the administration of China. As you might imagine this sudden changeover wasn't exactly well taken by the native Taiwanese. This was only exacerbated by the exile of the ROC government from the mainland to China. The ROC government essentially oppressed the free will of the native Formosans and there was essentially a one-party rule under the Kuomintang(the ROC). The 1980s saw a large scale democratization of the political system in Taiwan, leading to the eventual two party system they have now. The Democratic Progressive Party of Taiwan are essentially vehemently against reunification (after all, what ties did they have to China in the first place?) while the Kuomintang have a softer stance (hey, they do have ties to China). By virtue of the free will of the native Taiwanese (a majority of the population), they have no real reason to want to "reunify" with China since.... well, there wasn't ever a connection in the first place. The issue is that the PRC and ROC are still at odds, but you might as well see the ROC as standing on the heads of the native Taiwanese who really don't see the whole goddamn argument and just wish everyone would shut up and let them have their own right to self determination. Peaceful integration may be IMPOSSIBLE due to the large native Taiwanese population that existed (and still does) prior to the ROC exile to the island. Edit: If Cyrano was asking a rhetorical question, I apologize profusely from historian to historian.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
vulturesrow posted:You don't have to play count the AAMs oor count the MRBMS. A simple understanding of the standoff distances imposed by Chinese capabilities (both offensive and defensive) will show you why this scenario is a very difficult one for the US. And that would still have nothing to do with running the US/Taiwan out of missiles to win the air war.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:And that would still have nothing to do with running the US/Taiwan out of missiles to win the air war. Did someone actually make this claim? I've been following this discussion but I don't remember it being made. And China doesn't have to achieve air superiority or air supremacy in this conflict, they basically need to be able to neutralize our aircraft. What point are you trying to make exactly? Trying to remember who is claiming what is too much for my old brain. 
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
Insane Totoro posted:
Pft, zero need to apologize for poo poo. That was really interesting, and I have learned some poo poo about But, yes, I was generalizing. I think all in all there is an over-reliance on a kind of downward projection of MAD where people assume that if you become a prickly enough porcupine (but still non-nuclear) you won't get eaten. There's always the chance that the aggressor nation could politically isolate you and then simply accept some discomfort in exchange for completely wrecking your poo poo. I would argue that avoiding that isolation in the first place, ideally with strong and binding alliances with a truly major power, are much more useful for small countries stuck with a big neighbor that wants to swing their weight around. Maybe (probably) I'm wrong - I do history, not foreign policy. I'm still thinking a lot of this through. It just seems to me that there are a lot more examples of long-term survival of small nations due to strong alliances than due to arming up so much that they weren't worth the cost of forcibly absorbing.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
Some of the ideas they came up with for missile basing during the cold war were amazing (..ly ridiculous) Project Sunrise / Project ORCA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyJjfCpfnI4
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
You also have to keep in mind that the KMT's "maybe reunification, maaaaybe not" carefully nuanced stance might not be sustainable in the island's politics. The DPP has been rather successful lately in terms of winning elections and there is a question as to the long term viability of the KMT. The KMT was a recent transplant (by force) to Taiwan only as of 1949. And while there were imperial Chinese settlers in the 1800s, it's questionable as to how closely administered they were by the rapidly weakening Qing Dynasty. Regardless, the bulk of early 20th century modernization was under Japanese colonial administration. The concern of the KMT is that they're losing the culture war in the sense of convincing the younger generations to have ties to China. As I mentioned before, there are extremely strong ties culturally to Japan and the rest of the Asian first world. Heck, the first popular election for a president of Taiwan ended in electing a dude (and a KMT candidate at that) who loved the idea of cosplaying as his favorite Japanese manga character. I poo poo you not, go and Google "Lee Tung Hui cosplay" and tell me what you find. Of note is also the Sunflower Student Movement (actually last month) in Taiwan that led to the occupation of the ROC parliament by various protest groups. It's a symptom of the larger cultural shift away from China and a popular sentiment against closer economic and cultural ties with the mainland. It's a culture where the mainlanders-in-exile have a derogatory slang phrase "your adoration for Japan" that the younger set (both native and mainlander youth) wear with pride. If you're on an American college campus right now, I will bet you that the Taiwanese student union is separate from the Chinese student union. It's not just a clique. They literally don't understand each other and the cultural background of either side. So you have to wonder if thirty years from now if the KMT will even be politically viable as the older "KMT thugs-in-exile" generation begins to die out, especially if the "KMT kids" and the Formosan kids are getting along swimmingly enjoying their shared identity as "not mainland Chinese." In terms of US strategy, all these think tanks might want to plan for a Taiwan Strait conflict where peaceful reunification is politically impossible and/or lacks popular support in Taiwan. And if demographically speaking Taiwan becomes culturally "incompatible" with the mainland, why would China want to reunify other than for a point of national pride/dick waving? Forty years from now China might have the means to annex Taiwan via military/diplomatic/economic force where the KMT sentiment for reunification no longer exists in a meaningful way. TL;DR, if the KMT had never exiled itself to Formosa, nobody would ever be asking why Taiwan and China should reunify. And it's one of the last leftover flashpoints from the Cold War that the younger generation doesn't give a flying gently caress about because they're too busy not giving a poo poo about mainland China and rolling their eyes at the mainlanders who are jaywalking on campus. Disclosure: I am one of the "KMT kids" and my viewpoint might be colored by my personal experiences. Edit: I found enough public information to openly say there may be contingency plans in the ROC military to develop standoff munitions capable of severely damaging mainland ports, industry, and other infrastructure including the Three Gorges Dam. And the specifications of the existing munitions including indigenous weapons similar to the AGM-154 and Tomahawk are available on the open web. Insane Totoro fucked around with this message at 19:34 on May 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
vulturesrow posted:Did someone actually make this claim? I've been following this discussion but I don't remember it being made. And China doesn't have to achieve air superiority or air supremacy in this conflict, they basically need to be able to neutralize our aircraft. iyaayas01 posted:For all the arguable oversights and points of contention contained in those RAND studies a few years back, it's hard to dispute the ultimate conclusion: there aren't enough planes carrying enough missiles. Even if you assume a generous Pk, backstopping with F-15Cs/the Navy/whoever, and invincibility cheat codes on, 187 Raptors (and fewer than that combat coded) combined with turn times and the tyranny of distance means that you eventually run out of missiles, leakers get through, your enablers like AWACS and tankers get shot down, and you've lost the air war. That would be the post I responded to.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:That would be the post I responded to. And that post doesn't say "US loses air war due to running out of missiles". Its the number of missiles combined with the number of airframes combined with the long turn times that makes the air war a bad time for US air forces.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
vulturesrow posted:And that post doesn't say "US loses air war due to running out of missiles". Its the number of missiles combined with the number of airframes combined with the long turn times that makes the air war a bad time for US air forces. No, I'm pretty sure that's exactly what it says. And I'm pretty my point is that China doesn't have the number of airframes to make that specific scenario happen without also ending up torn to poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
Insane Totoro posted:And if demographically speaking Taiwan becomes culturally "incompatible" with the mainland, why would China want to reunify other than for a point of national pride/dick waving? Forty years from now China might have the means to annex Taiwan via military/diplomatic/economic force where the KMT sentiment for reunification no longer exists in a meaningful way. Here's my question: Since when has "China" (and here I'm basically talking about the Han that more or less dominate Chinese government) ever given two shits about the cultural identity of the people next door when grabbing some piece of land that they consider theirs because it was once colored that way on a map back wheneverthefuck? You point to the KMT generation dying off and the increasing importance of an identity separate from the mainland, but then it's not like they really gave two shits about Tibetan or Uyghur identity, to name to prominent examples.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:No, I'm pretty sure that's exactly what it says. And I'm pretty my point is that China doesn't have the number of airframes to make that specific scenario happen without also ending up torn to poo poo. No, it doesnt say that. If you want to insist on that to score points or whatever, than go for it. It's not just the # of airframes. You just want to compare number of missiles to number of aircraft and that simply doesn't work, for reasons that have already been given to you.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
Insane Totoro posted:
Ask a Tibetan how much the PRC may care about peaceful integration.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
vulturesrow posted:No, it doesnt say that. If you want to insist on that to score points or whatever, than go for it. It's not just the # of airframes. You just want to compare number of missiles to number of aircraft and that simply doesn't work, for reasons that have already been given to you. I'm basing my comments off what he posted, not what you wish he posted/what he actually meant/other things he didn't post/factors he didn't mention. I suppose that may be where the problem is. Each response has introduced new factors without addressing the situation as described in the original post. I'm not going to debate other ridiculous scenarios, just the one he posted, and honestly I don't care that much. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 20:58 on May 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Here's my question: Since when has "China" (and here I'm basically talking about the Han that more or less dominate Chinese government) ever given two shits about the cultural identity of the people next door when grabbing some piece of land that they consider theirs because it was once colored that way on a map back wheneverthefuck? You point to the KMT generation dying off and the increasing importance of an identity separate from the mainland, but then it's not like they really gave two shits about Tibetan or Uyghur identity, to name to prominent examples. I am stating that the Taiwanese may be entirely unwilling to reunify with the mainland in a few decades. As of now, there is still enough popular sentiment to have that be a "maaaaaaaaybe we want to." The question is whether that willingness to do so peacefully will evaporate over time. And then they would have to ask the question "what strategic value does this hold" and why they would want to force reunification if there is a diminished Han Chinese identity and no strategic value. Tibet and Xinjiang (where the Uighurs are) have actual strategic values in terms of the Chinese economy, natural resources, and buffers from other unfriendly countries. Previously in the Chinese mind, the Soviets had invaded through that particular northwestern corridor. And Tibet has been and continues to be the "buffer" between India and "China China."
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
simplefish posted:All this missile talk got me looking up about the Sergeant, and I found this: Is it just me, or does the CH-37 Mojave (shown airlifting the bigger guns around the middle of the video) look oddly like Samus' suit from Metroid?  Big shoulders (because there's radial engines in there). I like the progression of Sikorsky heavies -- the Mojave with the nose door shorter than the cargo compartment roof (it was a split-level, you had to duck under the pilots' floor), to the CH-54 (gently caress having a fuselage, let's just carry the
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 23:23
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
I wanna get one of those, paint the Flying Tigers mouth on it, and fly into some never contacted Amazonian tribe.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
Twin Double Wasps. 
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
Insane Totoro posted:You also have to keep in mind that the KMT's "maybe reunification, maaaaybe not" carefully nuanced stance might not be sustainable in the island's politics. The DPP has been rather successful lately in terms of winning elections and there is a question as to the long term viability of the KMT. The KMT was a recent transplant (by force) to Taiwan only as of 1949. And while there were imperial Chinese settlers in the 1800s, it's questionable as to how closely administered they were by the rapidly weakening Qing Dynasty. Regardless, the bulk of early 20th century modernization was under Japanese colonial administration. This is a really good post. It also fits my point earlier about mainland Chinese convictions. Chine people have been told they really care about "returning" Taiwan to China, and so they will tell you they care because the Chinese are socialized to accept authority figures' beliefs unquestioningly. But ask them to actually sacrifice something for it and I suspect they will quickly discover that no, they actually don't care about a small island that will never affect their lives. The days when the Chinese were uncritical about propaganda is over (or maybe it never really existed) and while Chinese kids are indoctrinated to be nationalistic in school the overall attitude of adults is mostly quiet cynicism. Maybe they remember when the Party was less benign or maybe it's just part of growing up. But it's obvious that communism doesn't mean anything anymore and that the leadership is corrupt to the core. Can anyone comment on corruption in the PLA? I've just read the one article about it; a report on a newspaper editorial written by a retired PLA general in which he says the PLA has become so corrupt that he questions its readiness to fight a real war.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 07:47
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 09:49
|
|
|
 These guys certainly look indoctrinated into the governments world outlook, and would be totally comfortable laying down their lives invading Taiwan and fighting American capitalist pig dogs.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 12:01
|
|
|
Nobody's going to loving ask them tho.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 12:08
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Nobody's going to loving ask them tho. The reason the '89 massacre was so bad was that Beijing flipped its collective poo poo when they called in the army. Before that it was a student protest, after they sent in the APCs it was city-wide non-violent resistance. The reason most people died outside the square is not because they dragged the students out and then killed them, it's because the army had to shoot and crush its way through the common people just to get to the square. In the days leading up to the massacre the Beijing people had stopped PLA columns just by showing up in such large numbers that nothing could move on the streets. When they decided to push through a human blockade, it's no wonder so many people died. And when they started shooting the non-violence ended on the other side too. I don't have numbers obviously but there are reliable reports that Beijing civilians knocked out quite a few APCs, mostly with gasoline. They needed tanks to get through the burning buses and other roadblocks. The People's Armed Police is huge now, but it shows you just how terrified the Beijing leadership was the last time they went up against the people for real. I'm not sure if you mean that China can just make its citizens do what they want or if you mean that they wouldn't have to ask citizens for any meaningful sacrifice in order to take Taiwan.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 14:37
|
|
|
Just to play Devils Advocate... The fact that the people don't give a poo poo about Taiwan means they probably wouldn't actually give a poo poo about protesting.... ... Unless it affected their way of life and well being. Which is why ROC deterrence is essentially saying that "we will make your economy miserable and is invading us worth it." I also would not be surprised to see an east Asian Alliance of some sort against a rising China or India. The same fears about the wishy washy nature of US conventional deterrence are the same in Taipei, Seoul, and Tokyo... Maybe even Manila
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
I wonder what Taiwan's cyber attack capabilities are - cyber attack strikes me as an excellent way to make themselves an unappealing target. The Chinese would probably use an extensive cyber attack against them in this scenario anyways, so there wouldn't be much of a desire to avoid escalating. If Taiwan was facing down an invasion force and felt it had little/nothing to lose, I could see them dumping all over China's cyber-vulnerable spots in retaliation.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 23:28 |
|
|
VikingSkull posted:
ftfy
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 17:30
|
|
