Pentagon Report:War With China

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Probably the same way the refugees fleeing Communism got there in the late 1940's. If they could do it THEN why cannot the MODERN CHINA do it now?

For the same reason the Chinese invasion of Vietnam failed in 1979 and the Chinese invasion of Russian Manchuria failed in the 1960s. Do you really think the Taiwanese will sit there while an invasion fleet lands and deploys its troops and equipment? They have to capability of picking the invaders off like ducks in a pond before they ever land. PRC casualties would be massive - most likely, prohibitive.

The Nationalist "migration" to Taiwan was unopposed because the Nationalist gov't controlled Taiwan - so your comparison of the two isn't even close to being realistic. sorry.

The only realistic course for the PRC is to blockage the island - which they can't do completely - and then try and isolate the Nationalists internationally. Given the plain fact that the PRC is so effective at isolating itself - this isn't likely.

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

By the way have you ever heard of the KOREAN WAR? A war the United States Of America fought against the North Koreans and the Chinese?

Can you tell me who WON THAT WAR?

Sure, but first tell me why the U.S. and its allies were never able to take out the Russian and Chinese MIG bases NORTH of the Yalu River.

Then, tell me why a Chinese army of over 1 MILLION troops were unable to dislodge the mere 300,000 U.S. and "UN" troops? The famous Pusan Perimeter was held by a single regiment - facing a force of over a Half Million North Korean troops and Chinese "volunteers" who were supported by the Russian Air Force flying out of bases in the Soviet Union and in China that the U.S. commanders were forbidden to attack.

The Korean War ended in a stalemate largely because MacArthur was forbidden to pursue the Chinese and Russians north of the Yalu River. The enemy had a safe haven from which to regroup and resupply without even being bombed or shelled. This was a "policy defeat" and not a military one. In the end, the Chinese and NK lost because they started a war with an aim they were never able to accomplish.

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

We could not defeat the Chinese army THEN. We settled for a truce.

No offense Bro, but you obviously have heard very little of the Korean War if you think the U.S. was there to defeat the Chinese.

Read up on the Pusan Perimeter and the landings at Inchon Harbor. Dig a bit into just why Truman fired MacArthur. Frankly, your taunts here reveal a great deal of ignorance on your part when it comes to U.S. history in the 20th century. Again, no offense, but you obviously haven't even done any casual reading of the events surrounding the Korean War.

Read the story of the "Frozen Chosin." Also, read the accounts of the U.S. troops who actually cleared almost all of North Korea of communist forces. The U.S. didn't "defeat the Chinese" in Korea because it was never our policy to do so. Even with that, MacArthur nearly pulled off the conquest of NK with the small forces that Truman had parceled out to him. U.S. troop strength didn't reach its max (300,000) until much later in the war - and long after MacArthur was fired.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Those Chinese now have thousands of missles that can easily destroy Taiwan if they chose. And guess what? If they chose to do so they can destroy the United States in one day. Before we can do anything they can send hundreds of nukes our way.

... and not done even any casual reading into the yield of the standard land-to-land and land-to-ship missiles currently deployed around the Straights of Taiwan.

Get a map, Bro. Find the Quemoy Archipelago. China tried AND FAILED to take these islands, not once, not twice, but three times. The Nationalists didn't even have any sort of missile defense at the time and were outnumbered (literally) Millions-to-One.

Battle of Guningtou (1949)
First Taiwan Strait Crisis (1954-1955)
Second Taiwan Strait Crisis (1958)

The only way the PRC would be able to "destroy Taiwan" would be with nukes. Nuking Taiwan sort of begs the question, "Why bother with an irradiated island whose primary resources (manufacturing) have been destroyed?" China's strategy is for the long haul. Persuade and buy off Taiwanese officials and create sympathy for peaceful unification.

The legendary corruption of the ruling Nationalist Party helps this cause immensely. The Taiwanese themselves may end up choosing unification along the lines of Hong Kong's rejoining the mainland - preserving most of their rights and liberties. The DPP (opposition party) has been making huge strides toward power. They officially proclaim continued independence as their policy, however, they have had to enter into coalitions with "Greens" and other Leftists.

China will most likely see unification with Taiwan after being approached by the Taiwanese themselves - if they play their cards right. The Taiwanese are ethnic Han people - just like the ruling establishment on the mainland.

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

After that our retaliation will not matter to WE THE PEOPLE.

Consider this: I did not just sit here in my living room and make this up myself. Did you read the SOURCE of this report?
Here it is from the link.

On Wednesday, the Pentagon issued its annual report on China’s military, Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2011 (PDF).

The Pentagon.

Yes. You cut and pasted pretty much the whole thing. Consider this however, this report was produced by the same office that warned us of Saddam's nuclear and WMD program. It's just a report - one seeking additional funds for its tasks and interests.

Check out the many other reports that describe the PRC as an "ethnic basket case." Reread (or read for the first time) my earlier statements about the ongoing revolts in Uyghur areas and the current "Siege of Wukan" - a battle the PRC is loosing right now in large part because they haven't been able to effectively besiege a town of 20,000 people.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Those Chinese now have thousands of missles that can easily destroy Taiwan if they chose. And guess what? If they chose to do so they can destroy the United States in one day. Before we can do anything they can send hundreds of nukes our way.

... and then, if you have any time left, read up on Nuclear strategy. All of the nuclear states follow similar strategies in this regard.

".. before we can do anything..."

The flash of any ICBM missile launch is immediately detected by a rather large number of nations with the capacity to do so. Space, sea and ground based radars and other sensors. We even have listening posts located in China itself ostensibly monitoring the former USSR. This is part of the famous "Deep Black" and Keyhole projects. The sensor data is uploaded right from China itself and downloaded by those "giant golf balls" on the east side of the city where I live. This is why missile tests are announced days or weeks in advance. You don't want the others to get jumpy.

Moreover, most of the Chinese nukes require lengthy fueling which is also detectable from space. It has been reported that the PRC has about 20 ICBMs currently targeted at the U.S. Don't forget, China has fought actual military battles with both Russia and India recently - and they pretty much surround China and have nukes themselves; so it's a good bet that the Chinese have some sort of deterrent devoted to those old foes as well. To understand the Chinese gov't and military you have to understand that they often have some pretty good reasons for being so paranoid.

It would take about 30 minutes to an hour for the hypothetical Chinese missiles to reach the U.S. (depending upon launch site and the type of missile). Meanwhile, they will have over flown an entire fleet of Trident submarines whose retaliatory missiles would strike China before most of the Chinese ICBMs even reach Washington or their other targets. At times, we probably have more nukes in Asia than China itself has.

Then, the Minute Man missiles would launch and China would cease to be. We would have literally hundreds (if not thousands) of missiles in the air and on their way before China's 20 or so missiles hit us. Believe me, China is well aware of this.

The Chinese nukes are a deterrent. They will only fly if China's very existence is threatened - unless if, during the coming and inevitable fragmentation of the Chinese Empire, some of them fall into the hands of some lone nut case - then all bets are off.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jay

We actually could have won both the Korean and Vietnam wars. Gen. MacArthur was already into mainland China when Eisenhower pulled him out and pulled back. The key there was that China had just gone through a revolution and was not in a position yet where they could effectively bring their military to bear. Korea was very winnable, but American leaders yielded to other voices instead of finishing the job.

We would have won also in Vietnam, but after the Tet Offensive (which actually destroyed the Viet Cong as an effective force in Southern Vietnam) leading men in the United States like Walter Cronkite told America that the war was lost. Between that and politicians forcing the military to retreat after securing an area caused the war to be lost at home before we ever actually were beaten on the field.

ah! An actual historian of the 20th Century.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by bbyrd009

Hmm; quite similar to our victory/pullback @ Berlin, yes? Quite the (globalist agenda) pattern, IMO.

The Soviets had Berlin surrounded before U.S. forces had even reached the Elbe River.



The U.S. "pull back" was a big piece of real estate - but we weren't really close to Berlin until after the war when the joint occupation of the German capital was set up.

The purple area on this map shows the territory U.S. and British forces had conquered from the Nazis and then turned over to the Soviets (the DDR actually, but they were pawns of the Soviets of course).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_G...border#Origins

With the exception of the post-war "trip to Berlin" U.S. troops never crossed the Elbe River.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

We "could have" does not count. China had just went through the second world war also and had endured horrible things against the Japanese for 12 years. We had just lost hundreds of thousands of men also in the war.

Tho we had the much more modern army after 3 years we saw no way to win against China except to begin nuking them. Seeing what nukes did to Japan helped the Chinese come to the table. It would not work today because we know China has hundreds if not thousands of nukes themselves.

20. They have 20 ICBMs targeting the U.S. In addition, they have another few dozen which are no doubt dedicated to other deterrent purposes. Most of their nukes are only capable of hitting targets in Asia.

http://www.nukestrat.com/china/Book-173-196.pdf

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

They dont need super spohisicated systems to deliver them. We did if with high flying airplanes. They have a large submarine fleet also that can come right to our coasts and deliver them quite easily if they decided to.

Actually, they do need "super sophisticated systems to deliver them" to U.S. targets. Either that, or possible one guy crossing the U.S. border with Mexico carrying a tremendously heavy pallet sized suit case.

China does have the largest submarine fleet in the world, however, their subs are dedicated more toward the "threat" they perceive from the U.S. carriers and our Trident subs patrolling right off their coast.

They are said to have nuclear torpedoes to wipe out air craft carriers, but they have yet to demonstrate the ability to launch even a medium range ballistic missile from a sub. Their subs are designed for relatively short range missions. They have nothing like a Trident equipped U.S. submarine that can stay submerged for a months and launch missiles without even surfacing.

"High flying planes" are rather easy targets today. Also, the U.S. enjoyed complete air control over Japan in 1945, the two scenarios you propose with this just don't fit together. The Chinese Air Force would be obliterated after, or maybe even before, they reached Midway. That's why they have those 20 ICBMs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People'...tems_Estimates

The tables have data from the 2010 Annual Report to Congress: http://www.defense.gov/pubs/pdfs/2010_CMPR_Final.pdf

... and the Federation of American Scientists: http://www.fas.org/

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Our politicians today have far less will to fight a total war than in those days. The Korean War cost us many times the KIA from both of the wars we have fought in the past decade and neither have we prospered anything of value in them.

Go back and reread Jay's comments. It's a plain fact, MacArthur was fired specifically because "our politicians then" had no "will to fight a total war." That's why it became a stalemate. Much is made about MacArthur's comments concerning nukes (which we didn't have in very large numbers at the time), but we have to also acknowledge the fact that the Chinese, Russians and NK were granted safe havens north of the Yalu River and we couldn't even bomb or shell their runways.

It's a little early to write the history of the Iraq and Afghanistan "wars." My son is in Afghanistan as we speak. And, don't forget: Afghanistan attacked us. We had to destroy their capability to maintain the terrorist bases and sanctuary that our enemies enjoyed over there.

We lost some 33,000 dead in Korea. Until recently, they didn't even have a monument.

What have we gained? You're right. Not much. However, that too was the policy of the United States. We didn't enter those wars to conquer territory nor were we seeking to "steal" mineral, petroleum or other natural resources (despite what the Lefties and the Ron Paul brigade said).

We fought for freedom and security. Freedom and security for ourselves and freedom and security for others around the globe.

[Michael The Disciple]

A word to the wise is sufficient.

[BrotherEastman]

I wonder if the American public would have the heart to fight such a war. They want our troops to return now.

[bbyrd009]

Originally Posted by pelathais

The Soviets had Berlin surrounded before U.S. forces had even reached the Elbe River...
With the exception of the post-war "trip to Berlin" U.S. troops never crossed the Elbe River.

Ty! Quite illuminating! There is a sense in which truth has to come from at least two directions, for us, huh?

[Jay]

Originally Posted by pelathais

ah! An actual historian of the 20th Century.

I am not a historian as such, but I love history and have acquired over the course of years a number of such things, unfortunately, I could not remember if it was Truman or Eisenhower the had MacArthur in Korea, I apparently was remembering Eisenhower instead of Truman.

For the last 60+ years we have gone to war on behalf of the United Nations or with their permission. Most of our last wars were conducted that way, and when the United Nations told us to put an end to it, we hastily complied even if our objectives were unmet. For too many years, we have have been the enforcer at the U.N. and the time has passed to quit.