NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm reletively unimformed over recent developments on this issue however I heard on the news today that the US says will intervene if China makes any aggressive moves to take back Taiwan.
Did they really say this and if so surely it would be a bluff; a US-China war would be one of the few conflicts left which would be able to ignite any sort of world war with the decline of Russia as a military superpower. Is the Taiwanese issue really that important to either side?

I'm reletively unimformed over recent developments on this issue however I heard on the news today that the US says will intervene if China makes any aggressive moves to take back Taiwan.
Did they really say this and if so surely it would be a bluff; a US-China war would be one of the few conflicts left which would be able to ignite any sort of world war with the decline of Russia as a military superpower. Is the Taiwanese issue really that important to either side?
Ive heard this for a long time also of interesting note rrecent arguments aross over the place of latest war games between Russia and China China wanted them near Taiwan where as Russia wanted them more towards Chechnya!!!

I'm reletively unimformed over recent developments on this issue however I heard on the news today that the US says will intervene if China makes any aggressive moves to take back Taiwan.
Did they really say this and if so surely it would be a bluff; a US-China war would be one of the few conflicts left which would be able to ignite any sort of world war with the decline of Russia as a military superpower. Is the Taiwanese issue really that important to either side?

Its very important to China.
Not so important to the US.

However the US's current policy is "Thee shall not touch Taiwan or ve vill smite thee unto the hell 'pon which you came!"

Whether we live up to that archaic policy or not is a different queston.

Next Question, who would win?(obviously US in a full scale conflict but it may depend upon the level of commitment by the military, especially with iraq depleting resources at the mo')

If it dosent go into cold war style and taiwan being all the "satalite countries", then it all depends on whether or not anyone uses nukes, i think if china seeks support from north korea then america is pretty much a pile of radioactive goo. If not, i think that americas superior tactics and coordination skills and such (ofcourse they might be completely made up and they might have none at all) will over come the sheer number of chinas soldiers. Also there would probally be alot of riots around china, and the poverty rate would increase alot with the amount of money goin into their army.
But thats just my opinion.

Also as an Australian, id be pretty scared that the war would inevitably bring us into it.

If it dosent go into cold war style and taiwan being all the "satalite countries", then it all depends on whether or not anyone uses nukes, i think if china seeks support from north korea then america is pretty much a pile of radioactive goo. If not, i think that americas superior tactics and coordination skills and such (ofcourse they might be completely made up and they might have none at all) will over come the sheer number of chinas soldiers. Also there would probally be alot of riots around china, and the poverty rate would increase alot with the amount of money goin into their army.
But thats just my opinion.

Also as an Australian, id be pretty scared that the war would inevitably bring us into it.
Not to mention, Pakistan and China have close relations. More nuclear threat...

But who knows, if Pakistan really wants to suck up, they'll try to talk China out of it..

China will moan and grumble and back down, this isn't a new occurance.

I'm reletively unimformed over recent developments on this issue however I heard on the news today that the US says will intervene if China makes any aggressive moves to take back Taiwan.

The US's policy for decades has been strategic ambiguity, which is that the US wouldn't explicitly state whether or not they would militarily intervene in a China Taiwan war. The US wanted to deter China but not commit themselves to defending Taiwan if things looked to risky to do anything.

Bush discarded this policy soon after coming into office, saying the US would stop China to make himself seem tough, a real mans man blah blah blah. China is indeed out to "reunify" the country by any means but they are obviously not eager for a risky war, which if failed would likely mean the end of the Communist Party's one party rule. Despite the media hype not all Taiwanese are for independce either. The main opposition group in Taiwan, the Kuomintang often reffered to as the Nationalists supports reunification with China as a goal, but without the Communists running china, however they are out of power currently.

Personally I doubt the US would want to fight China, since it would K.O. the US economy. I think in a war Taiwan is on its own, albiet armed with some very hitech weaponry like Patriots and AGEIS destroyers etc.

Hmm.. Depends if America would really keep to their word when push comes to shove and help Taiwan. All the fight and disagreement for a small island?

Hopefully these are just mere empty threats by China as always. Things could turn ugly if US gets involved.

If it was Kerry or Clinton, you can somehow bet that US is just going to condemn China from afar. Not too sure what Bush would do though.

It is ironic that the conquerors of Taiwan in the 1660's were the Qing dynasty, and not actually Chinese but Manchu.

I don't know who will win. It depends were the battle will be fought. If America invades mainland China, they're toast. I doubt if China can invade Taiwan. Their navy is puny, especially if you compare it to the US navy. They're working on it though and when they have a good navy, it's showtime.

Just prevent China getting a good navy and its OK.

China's strength would lie, as in the Korean war, in numbers, not quality. Still, the nations of Europe would sell modern weaponry to them, and they have a well organized espionage program undoubtedly, so they may have a few surprises for an invasion force. They can't match the US in the air or on the water, so this is their weakest spot.

Please let me know when it starts. I want to set up my hot dog stand somewhere close to the action! I bet I could make.........a killing!

China's strength would lie, as in the Korean war, in numbers, not quality. Still, the nations of Europe would sell modern weaponry to them, and they have a well organized espionage program undoubtedly, so they may have a few surprises for an invasion force. They can't match the US in the air or on the water, so this is their weakest spot.

The majority of Chinese ground forces are infantry. Not mechanized infantry - although they have a few divisions of those - but foot infantry and truck-borne infantry.

As such, more than half of their army is essentially a vast collection of unarmored targets who could not withstand being hit by cluster munitions, and would probably be wiped out in the first few days of a war.

I'm reletively unimformed over recent developments on this issue however I heard on the news today that the US says will intervene if China makes any aggressive moves to take back Taiwan.
Did they really say this and if so surely it would be a bluff; a US-China war would be one of the few conflicts left which would be able to ignite any sort of world war with the decline of Russia as a military superpower. Is the Taiwanese issue really that important to either side?

What a smart move that would be lol China and Taiwan. Why does America allways get them selfs into things that have nothing to do with them? Taiwan is, like many other nations under tyrant Chinees communist rule, a free nation. The only other nation that says they are not is China.
Let the Asians help them selfs. I dont care about China nor do I care about Taiwan and most people in the West do not either so why should we fight theire war? It makes no sence. In a war like that America would haveto reinstate the "draft" and you can count on it that it will be us fighting there and loosing our lifes and not the people that want to defend Taiwan llike any of the Bush, Chainey, Rice, etc. family's and you can bet on it that the children of senators will be safe at home seeing us die on CNN.

Just a few points that i don't think have been mentioned.

Taiwan is part of China, as they have never declared independence from China. It all come from the peoples up rising, the old leader of China fled to Taiwan with all the Chinese money. So technically Taiwan is part of China.

As to the States winning a war, now that’s difficult. China is different from any other country that America has gone to war with before. There not a backward underdeveloped 3rd world country that America has fought before. China does have the biggest armed force in the world.

Saying that China and America have fought each other before, but it’s not widely known. It happened in the Korean war. America went 2 miles into China. China reacted and pushed the Americans back, that’s why there is now a North and south Korea. It’s the only loss the Americans have had.

Considering how ruthless and arrogant the US have become in the last years, I think they'd have no hesitation to start WW3, even if it meant the annihilation of the whole world.

Somehow Americans always think that a Nuclear war would not affect them at all, which is a rather stupid way of thinking.

I'm reletively unimformed over recent developments on this issue however I heard on the news today that the US says will intervene if China makes any aggressive moves to take back Taiwan.
Did they really say this and if so surely it would be a bluff; a US-China war would be one of the few conflicts left which would be able to ignite any sort of world war with the decline of Russia as a military superpower. Is the Taiwanese issue really that important to either side?

If an intervention were to occur it wouldn't likely turn into a major war. I think China has the sensibility (unlike some other countries) to realize that the US is stronger and just give up.

It’s the only loss the Americans have had.
Viet-nam.

If an intervention were to occur it wouldn't likely turn into a major war. I think China has the sensibility (unlike some other countries) to realize that the US is stronger and just give up.
Lol as if China was a toothless tiger without any nukes. Hahaha... if you forgot - in nuclear war there is no winner. If the US and China nuke each other, you can rest assured, that the world as we know it ends.

Your precious US is already failing in Iraq and has failed in Vietnam before. The US is not the super-strong country that it is being shown as in the media or from people here. China is not Afghanistan or Iraq. China is equal to the US - although they don't parade their power around like the US does. In fact, considering the massive debt that the US has amassed, which is in the hands of Chinese banks, they have the US by the balls.

It’s the only loss the Americans have had.

It wasn't really a loss, which is why their is a north and south Korea. The Americans and their allies eventually drove the chinese back north. If it had been a loss, the South would have been conquered.

Economically, China has more to lose than the US. It's in neither country's interest to have a war.

China, other than in the form of nuclear missiles, has no ability to globally project power. The Chinese Navy is essentially a regional navy. It's air force is outdated and short-ranged. Its army cannot deploy overseas in any substantial numbers, and has little provision for global deployment. Most of its army is foot soldiers and truck-mounted infantry - otherwise known in modern parlance as static targets.

China has 20 ICBMs that could reach the West Coast of the United States. None of these would survive transit over an Aegis SM3 equipped ship, several of which are on station in the Pacific.

China has 24 sub-launched ballistic missiles. Considering the small number of subs on which these are installed, and the fact that they are essentially copies of the Golf-class submarine, it is likely that these are continually tracked by US forces, and would not survive any attempt to launch their missiles.

I find it much more likely that China is making these noises about Taiwan because they feel they can get some leverage from our problems with North Korea. I find it extremely likely that they will let us do whatever we want with North Korea - as long as they get a firmer grip on Taiwan.

Economically, China has more to lose than the US. It's in neither country's interest to have a war.

China, other than in the form of nuclear missiles, has no ability to globally project power. The Chinese Navy is essentially a regional navy. It's air force is outdated and short-ranged. Its army cannot deploy overseas in any substantial numbers, and has little provision for global deployment. Most of its army is foot soldiers and truck-mounted infantry - otherwise known in modern parlance as static targets.

China has 20 ICBMs that could reach the West Coast of the United States. None of these would survive transit over an Aegis SM3 equipped ship, several of which are on station in the Pacific.

China has 24 sub-launched ballistic missiles. Considering the small number of subs on which these are installed, and the fact that they are essentially copies of the Golf-class submarine, it is likely that these are continually tracked by US forces, and would not survive any attempt to launch their missiles.

I find it much more likely that China is making these noises about Taiwan because they feel they can get some leverage from our problems with North Korea. I find it extremely likely that they will let us do whatever we want with North Korea - as long as they get a firmer grip on Taiwan.

Bunch of uneducated propaganda to make the US look better than it is. China has approx. 150 ICBMs and a much larger military than the US. It's Air Force is larger than the US Air Force and the Chinese Navy is only marginally smaller than the US one. They may not be "projecting power" over the globe because aside from the US, no other super power currently feels the need to do so or is arrogant enough to do so.

China COULD project power, if it wanted to, and clash with the US. But it would not be in their economic interests. However, this does not mean that China is weak and the US superior to China in some way - because it is the case that neither the US nor China, would survive a war between the two.

Actually considering their vastly superior land forces, China's military is about double the size of the US. Though it is much less funded - but in China their money is used better anyway, since there aren't loads of government funded corporations to receive billions of dollars for nothing... Chinese workers earn so little money that even with their smaller spending (approx. 40 billion $US), they get modern weapon systems aswell, since they build them themselves with the mass of workers they have, which cost them literally nothing.

Not to forget that China can simply build their own carriers and defend themselves against the US Navy. They're actually doing exactly that, since the US and Taiwan have their "Taiwan Relations Pact" - which is a US involvement in Chinese matters, where the US has nothing to say. China is already expanding it's Navy, so if there is a war, the US would very likely not have as easy a time fighting against China as some neo-jingoistic Americans would like to believe.

Economically, China has more to lose than the US. It's in neither country's interest to have a war.

China, other than in the form of nuclear missiles, has no ability to globally project power. The Chinese Navy is essentially a regional navy. It's air force is outdated and short-ranged. Its army cannot deploy overseas in any substantial numbers, and has little provision for global deployment. Most of its army is foot soldiers and truck-mounted infantry - otherwise known in modern parlance as static targets.

China has 20 ICBMs that could reach the West Coast of the United States. None of these would survive transit over an Aegis SM3 equipped ship, several of which are on station in the Pacific.

China has 24 sub-launched ballistic missiles. Considering the small number of subs on which these are installed, and the fact that they are essentially copies of the Golf-class submarine, it is likely that these are continually tracked by US forces, and would not survive any attempt to launch their missiles.

I find it much more likely that China is making these noises about Taiwan because they feel they can get some leverage from our problems with North Korea. I find it extremely likely that they will let us do whatever we want with North Korea - as long as they get a firmer grip on Taiwan.

Ahh your patriotic bluster would make you a good replacement for Donnie Rumseld.

Your claims that all of China's ICBMs would get shot down over the pacific is patently untrue. Durring ICBMs cruise phase they literally orbit the earth at altitutudes of hundreds of miles-- They can't be shot down at that phase. The only way to shoot down an ICBM is when it is lifting off or coming down on re entry. Sure an Aegis destroyer might have a chance of nailing one with a patriot missle if such a destroyer were anchored right off the coast of China durring a war, and was not anihitated by waves of Chinese anti ship missiles but once an ICBM is at cruisng altitude there is no stopping it until it re enters the Earth's atmosphere and is crashing down on its target. Some would likely be shot down but probably not most.

Ein Deutscher']Though it is much less funded - but in China their money is used better anyway, since there aren't loads of government funded corporations to receive billions of dollars for nothing...
ahahahaha yes there are.

Ein Deutscher']Not to forget that China can simply build their own carriers and defend themselves against the US Navy. They're actually doing exactly that, since the US and Taiwan have their "Taiwan Relations Pact" - which is a US involvement in Chinese matters, where the US has nothing to say. China is already expanding it's Navy, so if there is a war, the US would very likely not have as easy a time fighting against China as some neo-jingoistic Americans would like to believe.
And China would not have an easy time fighting the US as jingoistic Chinese would like to believe. Such a war would ruin both countries and wreck the entire world economy, and both countries know it so war is highly unlikely.

Your claims that all of China's ICBMs would get shot down over the pacific is patently untrue. Durring ICBMs cruise phase they literally orbit the earth at altitutudes of hundreds of miles-- They can't be shot down at that phase. The only way to shoot down an ICBM is when it is lifting off or coming down on re entry. Sure an Aegis destroyer might have a chance of nailing one with a patriot missle if such a destroyer were anchored right off the coast of China durring a war, and was not anihitated by waves of Chinese anti ship missiles but once an ICBM is at cruisng altitude there is no stopping it until it re enters the Earth's atmosphere and is crashing down on its target. Some would likely be shot down but probably not most.


The Aegis is armed with the SM-3 Standard, not the Patriot. Please know your facts before spouting.

The SM-3 had been tested for mid-course intercept, and has passed its tests. The ship could sit comfortably in port in Hawaii and do the job.

ahahahaha yes there are.


And China would not have an easy time fighting the US as jingoistic Chinese would like to believe. Such a war would ruin both countries and wreck the entire world economy, and both countries know it so war is highly unlikely.
China would have a MUCH easier time fighting the US, since Taiwan is a regional matter, which China can easily win for itself. The US are too distant from Taiwan to be much of a help for them, if a war came to happen, which is highly unlikely, due to the grave consequences of war between China and the US. And no, I'm not Chinese, but I hate it when Americans try to make China look like a little toothless tiger, which is totally untrue.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/ticonderoga/
"In November 2002, the Standard Missile SM-3, being developed by Raytheon, successfully intercepted a ballistic missile in space from USS Lake Erie (CG 70). The SM-3 is designed to intercept ballistic missiles outside the earth's atmosphere and will form part of the US Navy's Sea-based Midcourse Defense (SMD)."

Ein Deutscher']China would have a MUCH easier time fighting the US, since Taiwan is a regional matter, which China can easily win for itself. The US are too distant from Taiwan to be much of a help for them, if a war came to happen, which is highly unlikely, due to the grave consequences of war between China and the US. And no, I'm not Chinese, but I hate it when Americans try to make China look like a little toothless tiger, which is totally untrue.
There is no doubt that China can overtake Taiwan. The Taiwanese government predicts that in case of war, Chinese soldiers will have taken every square inch of the island within two weeks, the Americans won't even have time to respond. The best that the US can do is throw some missiles at the mainland. Though the mainland's infrastructure can be seriously fucked up, Taiwan is a lost cause. That said, I'm Chinese myself, and the harmful economic and political consequences of war are inconcievable. I am disturbed when people talk so casually of war in this area, because the truth of the matter is, Taiwan will not ever declare independence!! They are too smart to do such a rash thing, they are doing just fine as a de facto independent state and formal independence will bring only disaster. Taiwan and China will peacefully coexist as mutually exclusive states for a long long time. China has insisted it will not harm its fellow Chinese citizens on Taiwan as long as Taiwan doesn't secede. And in 20 years China will probably be democratic, and Taiwanese president Chen Shui Bian has already said that Taiwan is willing to reunify once the mainland achieves political liberalization. People who are analyzing submarines and missiles and ships are missing the point - the cost of war is far too great, no side wants war, and current political conditions in the area prevent war from happening. Instead of concentrating on the specs of ICBMs, attack subs, and army sizes, people need to realize war is a pipe dream. American jingoists go on and on about America's mighty military but don't even know the name of the Taiwanese president while Chinese jingoists I've talked to don't know much about Taiwan and the USA either. People definitely need to calm down when talking about this issue... the politics, culture, and negotiations are far more relevant than discussion about who's bombs are bigger or who's planes are faster.

Ein Deutscher']Considering how ruthless and arrogant the US have become in the last years, I think they'd have no hesitation to start WW3, even if it meant the annihilation of the whole world.

Somehow Americans always think that a Nuclear war would not affect them at all, which is a rather stupid way of thinking.

This post is even more simplistic, ill-informed, and xenophobic than your normal fare.

The Aegis is armed with the SM-3 Standard, not the Patriot. Please know your facts before spouting.

The SM-3 had been tested for mid-course intercept, and has passed its tests. The ship could sit comfortably in port in Hawaii and do the job.


OK from what I read SM-3s aboard Aegis vessels provide Theater defense which is defense against localized threats-- Against North Korea shooting missles at South Korea, or China shooting missiles at Taiwan or China or those countries shooting missiles at US naval forces in the area.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/stardsm3.htm

Read the link the Sm-3 has a ceiling of 100 miles while ICBMs cruise at 1200km or roughly 700-800 miles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICBM
How then could a destroyer in Hawaii shoot down an ICBM with a SM-3 while in Hawaii?

OK from what I read SM-3s aboard Aegis vessels provide Theater defense which is defense against localized threats-- Against North Korea shooting missles at South Korea, or China shooting missiles at Taiwan or China or those countries shooting missiles at US naval forces in the area.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/stardsm3.htm

Read the link the Sm-3 has a ceiling of 100 miles while ICBMs cruise at 1200km or roughly 700-800 miles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICBM
How then could a destroyer in Hawaii shoot down an ICBM with a SM-3 while in Hawaii?

That's the ceiling for one test. It's designed for mid-course interception of ballistic missiles - not just theater defense.

PAC-3 is for theater defense. SM-3 is for boost-phase and mid-course defense. GBI is for mid-course defense. And the Airborne Laser is for boost-phase.

By the end of this year, when Airborne Laser is in service in the Pacific, the Chinese could have twice as many missiles as they have now, and it wouldn't matter at all.

Also consider these links notice that destroyers can only shoot down short or intermediate range ballistic missiles- Not the long range ICBMs which would vaporize LA.

http://www.acq.osd.mil/mda/mdalink/html/midcrse.html
http://www.acq.osd.mil/mda/mdalink/pdf/seabased.pdf

Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense

The sea-based system is intended to intercept short to medium range hostile missiles in the ascent and descent phase of midcourse flight.
Engaging missiles in the ascent phase reduces the overall BMD System’s susceptibility to countermeasures.
Builds upon technologies in the existing Aegis Weapons System now aboard U.S. Navy ships and uses the Standard Missile 3.

http://www.acq.osd.mil/mda/mdalink/html/midcrse.html

Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense

The sea-based system is intended to intercept short to medium range hostile missiles in the ascent and descent phase of midcourse flight.
Engaging missiles in the ascent phase reduces the overall BMD System’s susceptibility to countermeasures.
Builds upon technologies in the existing Aegis Weapons System now aboard U.S. Navy ships and uses the Standard Missile 3.
Don't even try. In the eyes of Whispering Legs, the US is undefeatable and immune to nukes :rolleyes:

http://www.acq.osd.mil/mda/mdalink/html/midcrse.html

Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense

The sea-based system is intended to intercept short to medium range hostile missiles in the ascent and descent phase of midcourse flight.
Engaging missiles in the ascent phase reduces the overall BMD System’s susceptibility to countermeasures.
Builds upon technologies in the existing Aegis Weapons System now aboard U.S. Navy ships and uses the Standard Missile 3.


Yes, and because it uses something called "inverse trajectory shaping" it works just fine against ICBMs in the ascent and descent phases of midcourse flight.

PAC-3 also uses inverse trajectory shaping - which is why it works so well for terminal defense.

The United States is far more concerned with terrorism and therefore will not give the kind of military commitment that a Taiwanese war would require. I believe that the U.S. will not use military force in this situation no matter how aggressively China persues the recapture of Taiwan. The president might, however, set up an embargo on Chinese goods and services, although Bush probably does not have the moral courage to do something that would be so strenuous on buisiness.

If it dosent go into cold war style and taiwan being all the "satalite countries", then it all depends on whether or not anyone uses nukes, i think if china seeks support from north korea then america is pretty much a pile of radioactive goo. If not, i think that americas superior tactics and coordination skills and such (ofcourse they might be completely made up and they might have none at all) will over come the sheer number of chinas soldiers. Also there would probally be alot of riots around china, and the poverty rate would increase alot with the amount of money goin into their army.
But thats just my opinion.

Also as an Australian, id be pretty scared that the war would inevitably bring us into it.

I dont really see how you find this outcome.... China has no more then several hundred nukes.. and N.Korea if they have any (which there is no evidence of) would only have 2 or 3 ... the US on the other hand has thousands... what is the comparison your trying to make here ? we would all be piles of radioactive goo .. thats IF china even has transcontinental missel technology which i dont belive they do.

The United States is far more concerned with terrorism and therefore will not give the kind of military commitment that a Taiwanese war would require. I believe that the U.S. will not use military force in this situation no matter how aggressively China persues the recapture of Taiwan. The president might, however, set up an embargo on Chinese goods and services, although Bush probably does not have the moral courage to do something that would be so strenuous on buisiness.

moral courage.. i think Iraq is evidence enough he has more moral courage then the pope. The Us would not have to commit much of a military force anyway.. several carriers to set up a barricade would bring Chinas booming economy to a stand still. And chinas inferior military technology would make it impossible to conduct an efficent war against Taiwan seeing how Taiwan is equipt with some of the latest US military technologies in anti-aircraft and navel defense

...nor do I care about Taiwan and most people in the West do not either so why should we fight theire war? It makes no sence. In a war like that America would haveto reinstate the "draft" and you can count on it that it will be us fighting there and loosing our lifes and not the people that want to defend Taiwan llike any of the Bush, Chainey, Rice, etc. family's and you can bet on it that the children of senators will be safe at home seeing us die on CNN.
YES...thei sons of senators will be safe at home seeing us die on CNN...or getting drunk at the Texas Air National Guard. :gundge:

Everyone has been mentioning how shitty the Chinese Navy is. However badly equipped, their diesel/electrics are very quiet and can cause incalculable damage. Most would be thinking "Oh, US Escorts will take care of them."

Well, a US Carrier Group would have something else coming for them. The Russians, back in the mid 90's, developed a torpedo that can reportedly go 400 km/h underwater. It's called the Shkval or "Squall" in Russian. There is no defence against this torpedo and you better bet the Russians have sold a few to the Chinese. If a submarine just sits in the projected path of a US Carrier group, the carrier is toast unless an extensive search is to be made 24/7 during the Carrier's voyage.

Apparently fired from standard 533mm torpedo tubes, Shkval has a range of about 7,500 yards. The weapon clears the tube at fifty knots, upon which its rocket fires, propelling the missile through the water at 360 kph [about 100 m/sec / 230 mph / 200-knots], three or four times as fast as conventional torpedoes. The solid-rocket propelled "torpedo" achieves high speeds by producing a high-pressure stream of bubbles from its nose and skin, which coats the torpedo in a thin layer of gas and forms a local "envelope" of supercavitating bubbles. Carrying a tactical nuclear warhead initiated by a timer, it would destroy the hostile submarine and the torpedo it fired. The Shkval high-speed underwater missile is guided by an auto-pilot rather than by a homing head as on most torpedoes.

Yeah, I would want to be the sub that fired this - it can only work with a nuclear warhead, and if it goes off at 7500 yards, I can't imagine how you would survive firing it.

the possibility of anything more than words being given in defense of taiwan from the US government, is almost null. we have our lines far, far too spread out as it is, trying to cover the nations we already occupy, which are not even close to being ready to self govern without daddy US watching over, and fighting a war with the most vast nation on the planet would be suicide. We are in a position where we have learned from our past. we could have the numbers if we reopened the draft, but the quality of soldiers that come out of a draft bootcamp are not the quality we need to fight such a commited war. China should and will be left alone. All the US will do is wait out the communist regime and try to step in after it falls

A torpedo can NOT take out an entire carrier. Today's torpedos are guided by sonar. They focus on noise levels generated by the screws of whatever ship it finds first. That is why the aircraft carrier(s) are always in the middle of the battle group. Besides even if the torpedo ignores the 15 or so active screws in the water before the carrier and hits the carrier, that Chinese sub would be in a hell of a lot of trouble. In about 2 minutes a torpedo from a helicopter could already be on its way to the sub which fired the fish.

All of this is provided that the Chinese nucleur sub stay still for about 2 days since they make so much noise most US Navy skippers worry about their sonarmen's ears.

Wow that is interesting. A rocket powered topodeo! Still 7,500 yards doesn't seem like much range. What is that like 4 miles? Shame on the US navy if they let a a Chinese sub sneak up that close to their fleet. Plus the straights between Taiwan and China are pretty shallow, I don't care if diesal powered subs are super quiet they would get detected by US Orions or S-3 Vikings or Sea Hawk helicopter or american subs or destoryers etc. If the US tried to approach China's coast I think it is vollies of Supersonic Sunburn anti ship missiles which would be the real threat.

The US doesn't have the bad habit of hunting elephant guns with elephants.
They prefer asymettrical attacks - a Sunburn is not a terrible long range weapon - and is useless against aircraft.

Between JSTARS - which locates all equipment and personnel within range, moving or not - and AWACS - which locates all airborne targets, it would seem that Sunburn launchers would be dealt with using aircraft or cruise missiles.

I find this whole topic a waste - China and the US are both too interested in making money. I'm sure the US will trade Taiwan (in some manner) for North Korea.

I really believe this is another foreign issue America has no reason to be involved (militarily) in. Taiwan is part of China, it always was, and just because few spoiled richer Chinese see themselves as an independent state, then this issue is between China and Taiwan and not America and China. It's like this, Texas wants to be independent and France claims that it supports (militarily) Texas, how would the rest of the Americans react to this?

... It's like this, Texas wants to be independent and France claims that it supports (militarily) Texas, how would the rest of the Americans react to this?
They(US) would suiside.

in the words of Hank Hill "hghghg god!" We cant aford another war! I dont care if the US gets nuked by the North Koreans we cant aford another war! Especially when the governments idea of raising funds is giving all the money back to the people.

I really believe this is another foreign issue America has no reason to be involved (militarily) in. Taiwan is part of China, it always was, and just because few spoiled richer Chinese see themselves as an independent state, then this issue is between China and Taiwan and not America and China. It's like this, Texas wants to be independent and France claims that it supports (militarily) Texas, how would the rest of the Americans react to this?
I don't think france would do that but check out their awesome new killing machine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Neuron ! Isn't it cool!? Once again the world will tremble before France!

I don't think france would do that but check out their awesome new killing machine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Neuron ! Isn't it cool!? Once again the world will tremble before France!

Bah. The only French that have ever made me tremble were a flatuent older couple I was stuck sitting next to on the subway near Times Square.

The last good thing to come out of France:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bikini :D

I don't think france would do that but check out their awesome new killing machine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Neuron ! Isn't it cool!? Once again the world will tremble before France!

It reminds me of the time that I saw the Mirage 2000 at the Paris Air Show, and I heard a reporter say, "Well, the French have finally invented the F-102" (an American plane from the 1950s).

Boeing already has a plane like this and has already delivered it to the Air Force. I guess the French figure it's never too late to invent what the Americans have already perfected.

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/x-45/flash.html

It's been flying for a while now.

Ein Deutscher']Bunch of uneducated propaganda to make the US look better than it is. China has approx. 150 ICBMs and a much larger military than the US. It's Air Force is larger than the US Air Force and the Chinese Navy is only marginally smaller than the US one. They may not be "projecting power" over the globe because aside from the US, no other super power currently feels the need to do so or is arrogant enough to do so.

China COULD project power, if it wanted to, and clash with the US. But it would not be in their economic interests. However, this does not mean that China is weak and the US superior to China in some way - because it is the case that neither the US nor China, would survive a war between the two.

Actually considering their vastly superior land forces, China's military is about double the size of the US. Though it is much less funded - but in China their money is used better anyway, since there aren't loads of government funded corporations to receive billions of dollars for nothing... Chinese workers earn so little money that even with their smaller spending (approx. 40 billion $US), they get modern weapon systems aswell, since they build them themselves with the mass of workers they have, which cost them literally nothing.

Not to forget that China can simply build their own carriers and defend themselves against the US Navy. They're actually doing exactly that, since the US and Taiwan have their "Taiwan Relations Pact" - which is a US involvement in Chinese matters, where the US has nothing to say. China is already expanding it's Navy, so if there is a war, the US would very likely not have as easy a time fighting against China as some neo-jingoistic Americans would like to believe.

Good gravy man, where do you come up with those numbers? 150 ICBM's? Our own best intelligence reports indicate 20 or so. Moreover, even supposing the 150, which is better than 7 times better than what we know of, we still have 7,000+ warheads. In short, they have at the very best enough firepower to level the 30 largest cities on the west coast. We have the enough firepower to make every square inch of China glow in the dark for the next 10,000 years. . .and then do it over again about 4 more times. Odds are fairly good, therefore, that they won't go nuclear.

As for the army, you have to first land it in order to use it, and then you have to keep it supplied. In an assault on Taiwan, you have two means of doing that: by air and by sea. Well, at sea, they don't have the transport capacity as is to first get a large enough force over the Formosa, and then to keep it supplied. And that's not even counting the fact that their convoys will have American subs and aircraft actively shredding them. You seem to forget that a single old-style 500 lb. bomb can effectively disable a cruiser, and demolish a freighter. An F/A-18 can fairly easily tote 4 missiles with that much destructive power, which means that a squadron of six Hornets could theoretically kill on their own a convoy of 24 freighters. A Nimitz-class aircraft carrier has about 90 aircraft aboard. Do the math: a single Nimitz in the Formosa would effectively doom a Chinese expeditionary force, and any troops that did manage to land would find themselves without any hope of logistical support on a very hostile beachhead. Same principle applies in the air.

Oh, but perhaps you were thinking that the numerical superiority of the Chinese in the air would save the day? Allow me to assure you: it won't help them at all, because aside from numbers, they have no advantages. We have the far better planes, the far better pilots, the far better targeting software, the far better munitions, the far better training program, and the far better tactical superiority afforded by our AWACS planes. A war between the U.S. and the Chinese military would see their air force and navy butchered within the first 24 hours. After that, we'd move on to the ship construction yards/harbors and radar stations/SAM batteries, followed quickly by bridges, key military installations, and major factories along the coast. All told, we wouldn't need to fight a full-blown war against the Chinese, because in about 72-96 hours, depending upon the forces we can muster on short notice, we would have completely wrecked any offensive ability the Chinese had.

Now, the one real worry I have is what happens if the Chinese do something to really get our dander up, like kamikazeing an aircraft carrier or using pontoon boats to knock out a cruiser or two ala the Cole bombing. It wouldn't help out their war effort, but suppose they really, really pissed us off, and that is a furball I don't want to see.

Ein is pulling numbers out of his ass.

Go to www.fas.org and you can look up the numbers yourself - nowhere near what Ein is thinking of.

It reminds me of the time that I saw the Mirage 2000 at the Paris Air Show, and I heard a reporter say, "Well, the French have finally invented the F-102" (an American plane from the 1950s).

Boeing already has a plane like this and has already delivered it to the Air Force. I guess the French figure it's never too late to invent what the Americans have already perfected.

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/x-45/flash.html

It's been flying for a while now.
I don't know about this boeing flying frisbee. Only 4,500 lb payload? That pretty weak... I have a hard time imagining that this would in anyway rival the f-35 JSF as a ground attack aircraft. This Frenchie thing supposedly will have air to air combat capabilites and be able to launch nuclear strikes and do all kinds of stuff.

I don't know about this boeing flying frisbee. Only 4,500 lb payload? That pretty weak... I have a hard time imagining that this would in anyway rival the f-35 JSF as a ground attack aircraft. This Frenchie thing supposedly will have air to air combat capabilites and be able to launch nuclear strikes and do all kinds of stuff.

The new thinking in US Air Force circles is to reduce collateral damage. The new JDAM will only weigh 250 pounds. As opposed to 2000 pounds. Since it's going to drop it right on top of the target, 250 pounds is enough. It's also substantially cheaper than a JSF. Smaller, stealthier, cheaper. But just as lethal on target.

The Airborne Laser has another job aside from shooting at missiles. It's supposed to revolutionize air combat. It will detect targets using a visual system (the same mirror that focuses the laser) with a laser illumination system. It will have a lethal range measured in hundreds of miles. They want to use it to shoot down enemy fighters wholesale before they can get in range - without using a radar to detect them.

SBIRS-Low is also supposed to be used to detect stealth aircraft by their heat signature - you know, they moved the vents to the top of the aircraft so that they couldn't be detected from below - but they stand out to a thermal imaging satellite. Airborne Laser is supposed to cue to targets based on SBIRS data in real time.

Don't think of the US Air Force of the future doing things the same old way.

Ein is pulling numbers out of his ass.

Go to www.fas.org and you can look up the numbers yourself - nowhere near what Ein is thinking of.
I got my numbers from here:

http://www.globaldefence.net/deutsch/asien/china/china.htm

But as usual, you're spouting propaganda without any background.