China And Taiwan

[nova_satori]

Does anyone here actually think that China can take Taiwan without nuclear weapons?

[KrustyKidd]

Does anyone here actually think that China can take Taiwan without nuclear weapons?

I do. A million cuts, sustained pressure, one word - attrition. Fight that one. Fourteen resolutions, fifteen. Twelve boardings, thirteen .... this blockade, that blockade .... extension of airspace and whatever hapened to those fishing boats ......?

[nova_satori]

I do. A million cuts, sustained pressure, one word - attrition. Fight that one. Fourteen resolutions, fifteen. Twelve boardings, thirteen .... this blockade, that blockade .... extension of airspace and whatever hapened to those fishing boats ......?

Sustained pressure from what?

Attrition doesn't work in this case.

A blockade and Airspace? That's a laugh. The current defenses in Taiwan are a military marvel. The sheer number of anti-ship missile batteries is staggering. Should a PLAN assault force come into range, the Taiwanese defenses will launch more anti-ship missiles then anyone has ever seen. They might be using the new exocet, or a weapon similar to the p-700 Granit currently in Russian arsenals. The US cannot even defened aganist a large granit missile launch. Any Chinese ships will be cut to ribbons before they meet the extremely advance Taiwanese naval defense forces, who are using modern French, Swedish and US ships. The PLAN, on the other hand, has ships even vietnam doesn't want. Nor do they have a effective carrier, unless secret work on the Minsk has been done.

Moving on to a air defense. The taiwanese defense force is able to shoot down PLAA fighters DIRECTLY after takeoff. There won't be much of a fight from the southern and middle airbases of China. China's refuling system is seriously lacking. Also, the best fighters China has is Sukhoi Su-27s and a few Mig-29s bought from Iran, in addition to their new 5th generation fighter, comparable to the F-16, which has been in service for years. Taiwan on the other hand, is using heavily upgraded F-16s, their own generation fighter (with design teams from around the world), and F-15s (?).

The anti-missile defenses are upgraded Patriot defense batteries. They've got plenty.

However, the huge advantage Taiwan has is it survelliance. Located primarily on the Islands of Quemoy and Matsu, the Taiwanese can see every plane, ship and armor divison for hundreds of miles. There's not much they don't see. China on the otherhand, has four, count um, FOUR Awacs. Remove one, they lose 6 hours of survelliance. Remove 2, 12. 3, 18, 4, No survelliance. Take this into account when the vast majority of PLAA's 3,000 planes are not equipped with modern radar or night equipment.

Many of the China's 3000 planes are J-8s and J-7s. Soviet copies that the Soviets stopped using decades ago. Their best fighters, the Sukhoi Su-27/35 flankers are is such bad repair, they are hardly a threat. A defector from the PLAA flew his Flanker to a US base in South Korea. The American and ROK techs were AMAZED it could FLY. Now, if the best planes are in total despair, imagine the rest.

China's serious lacking of any amphibious force will prevent any invasion. Unless they can land 20+ divisons on Formosan soil, they will lose. Taiwan's defenses are so well connected, that in 1-2 days, the entire Taiwanese ground forces can mass the converge on any beach head taken by the PLA.

So unless China intends to use Nukes, or burrow tunnels, there's no way they can win.

[KrustyKidd]

I didn't mean invasion. Attrition, it's a nice way of saying seige. It doesn't have to take place a hundred miles off the coast but rather on the high seas, a thousand miles from Taiwan in the air and so on and forth. You know much more than I for sure about the forces in this area but far from home I am sure Taiwan's forces are less than able to deal with China.

[nova_satori]

Trade attrition? Unless they are hitting taiwanese cargo ships, I don't think the Chinese are willing to go that far. But then again, who is going to break trade with the largest market in the world?

If China can get her carrier up and running, then they might be able to do a trade attrittion war.

[KrustyKidd]

Then Taiwan is pretty safe then I would say. It is useless as a radioactive wasteland and China's introspective philosophy has not changed for thousands of years so not much is to be gained for them.

[nova_satori]

The only way I see China winning without nukes is to force every country that trades with Taiwan to stop or lose their markets in mainland China.

Hmmm...give up 3 billion customers or contiune trading with a tiny market?

[nova_satori]

Thus, I think Taiwan should declare indepedence.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Nova,

Very well argued.

Why do you suppose Taiwan has not declared independence thus far? If they have a military edge, at least from a defensive posture,and support of the US, they have little to stop them. Except for the US and it's markets, I suppose.

The US can't afford to lose either of them as trading partners, China is the slavery capital of the world. Are the Kuomintang Nationalists a threat to US control? Would they do something so vile as to threaten to keep the profits from the Taiwanese factories for the Taiwanese? That would surely put the brakes on as far as the US is concerned.

[nova_satori]

I think they fear nuclear weapons. I wouldn't declare independence if I knew they might use nukes on me. I suppose they would lose a war of attrition, PLA has the edge in numbers, and Taiwan lacks strike capability.

The US can't afford to lose either of them as trading partners, China is the slavery capital of the world. Are the Kuomintang Nationalists a threat to US control? Would they do something so vile as to threaten to keep the profits from the Taiwanese factories for the Taiwanese? That would surely put the brakes on as far as the US is concerned.

I think the US would sac Taiwan for China. Bottom line wins the war with ethnics and morality. I think the Taiwanese are far more likely to adopt a internaional trade scheme then the mainland. It took a few months for piracy to be squashed in Taiwan, it's gonna take 50 YEARS for that to happen in mainland China.

[Boydfish]

I think that most people examining the issue of the PRC attempting to annex Taiwan tend not to see it in the scope of both the local political balance and on the larger global scale.

The big worry on both a local and global scale would be the Japanese. If China tried to take down Taiwan, the Japanese would go nuts. Figure that they'd have nukes and a couple of carrier groups within five years. National self-preservation would demand it, what with a billion person country with expansionist desires literally knocking at their door.

The Chinese do not, repeat, do not want any condition to come to pass that sees Japan rearm. A good historical/political comparison would be the resistence that the Russians had towards a German unification and rearmament. The Chinese were treated roughly by the Japanese in WW2, both in strategic and occupation terms.

In addition, a rearmed Japan would be a fear for the North Koreans. This would push the DPRK further towards developing nuclear delivery options.

On the global scale, the USAmericans also do not want a rearmed Japan for similar historical reasons, so they'd be forced to respond to the PRC's invasion.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Boydfish,

A very good post.

China does not seek to annex Taiwan, for it still believes it has possession. It is just being a 'naughty province', and, indeed, has yet to become an independent country.

I agree, the Japanese must have some concerns, but not expansionism, at least at this time. The Chinese lost upwards of 20 million people in WWII, the largest civilian loss of any nation in that war. They do have lots to lose, though.

However, do you (or anyone else) think that nukes have lost their threat to any degree? Everyone knows nuclear conflict on any major scale would mean the end of life on earth, so are countries more willing to 'push the envelope' now that they are so widespread?

[nova_satori]

On the global scale, the USAmericans also do not want a rearmed Japan for similar historical reasons, so they'd be forced to respond to the PRC's invasion.

I disagree. The US has been quitely pushing the Japanese for them to take over defense of their country entirely. They are ready for it. Their defense force is on par with the US. Their airforce already strikes fear into China. Their navy is strong, and their ground is quite capable. The US has quitely been pushing for Japan to go nuclear.

PRC invasion of what? Japan? With the two amphibious ships?

The Chinese do not, repeat, do not want any condition to come to pass that sees Japan rearm

A nuclear Japan is china's worst nightmare. It is also a extremely useful pawn to force China to crack down on North Korea.

In addition, a rearmed Japan would be a fear for the North Koreans. This would push the DPRK further towards developing nuclear delivery options.

It's a bit late for that. They already can hit Japan.

Nuclear weapons are the most powerful tools of the apcolypse.

[Boydfish]

China does not seek to annex Taiwan, for it still believes it has possession. It is just being a 'naughty province', and, indeed, has yet to become an independent country.

I suppose that the perspective of the PRC has some validity, but for all intents and purposes, Taiwan will not reunify without force of arms.

I agree, the Japanese must have some concerns, but not expansionism, at least at this time. The Chinese lost upwards of 20 million people in WWII, the largest civilian loss of any nation in that war. They do have lots to lose, though.

I'm not sure that I understand: The PRC wants to keep the status quo of a non-expeditionary Japanese Armed forces and not do anything that would upset that. A PRC military expedition to Taiwan, successful or no, would trigger a rearmament response, no?

However, do you (or anyone else) think that nukes have lost their threat to any degree? Everyone knows nuclear conflict on any major scale would mean the end of life on earth, so are countries more willing to 'push the envelope' now that they are so widespread?

Only the most extreme anti-nuke peaceniks would see a global nuclear exchange as a life ender on earth. The simple fact is that a release of a single ICBM or SLBM would almost certainly trigger a full release, but life would still exist post-exchange in a fairly well developed state. Some of the interesting aspects of the theorized "broken back" war stage by both US and Soviet planners resulted in things like the USSR's Typhoon class, which was meant to not particpate in the initial strike, but to hide under the icepack for a year then emerge to wipe out any signifigant infrastructure repairs that the non-communists had made.

I disagree. The US has been quitely pushing the Japanese for them to take over defense of their country entirely. They are ready for it. Their defense force is on par with the US. Their airforce already strikes fear into China. Their navy is strong, and their ground is quite capable.

The US wants the JSDF to take on a larger self-defence component, even to the point of being able to withdraw the forward deployed US forces in Japan, but they do not want to have an IJN sailing around the Pacific with power projection capabilities.

The US has quitely been pushing for Japan to go nuclear.

You're going to have to prove that. The US has had a firm policy of being against any other nation developing nuclear weapons since 1945.

PRC invasion of what? Japan? With the two amphibious ships?

I think the worry would be less of an invasion and more of IRBM strikes.

The invasion I was referring to was a PRC attack on Taiwan.

Nuclear weapons are the most powerful tools of the apcolypse.

Actually, Bioweapons are. A nuke makes a hole, a chemical weapon can render a small area uninhabitable, but a bioweapon can't be stopped easily.

[nova_satori]

Some of the interesting aspects of the theorized "broken back" war stage by both US and Soviet planners resulted in things like the USSR's Typhoon class, which was meant to not particpate in the initial strike, but to hide under the icepack for a year then emerge to wipe out any signifigant infrastructure repairs that the non-communists had made.

Essentially the same idea behind a Ohio Class Boomer. Well that and as a deterrent aganist just targeting known silos and airbases.

You're going to have to prove that. The US has had a firm policy of being against any other nation developing nuclear weapons since 1945.

Sure. No problem.

1

The United States does not need to press Tokyo and Seoul to go nuclear. It is sufficient if Washington informs the South Korean and Japanese governments that the United States would not object to their developing nuclear weapons."

Guardian

As Kim Jong-il cranks up his bad-boy behavior, people in both Tokyo and Washington are starting to think the unthinkable - that Japan itself could, and maybe should, go nuclear.

rethinking strag.

MARK SIMKIN: Diplomatic sources have told the ABC that officials in Tokyo and Washington have been seriously pondering the possibility of a nuclear Japan. Japan already has enough plutonium, missile technology and scientific know-how to build a bomb. By some estimates, it would only take a few months. The theory is that a nuclear Japan would keep North Korea and China in check.

Interview

LONG article

The invasion I was referring to was a PRC attack on Taiwan.

That is the funniest thing I've heard all month. China couldn't take Taiwan without using the largest missile barage the world has ever seen or using nuclear warheads. For an invasion to occur, air and sea must be controlled. China can't do that.

Nuclear weapons are the most powerful tools of the apcolypse.

Actually, Bioweapons are. A nuke makes a hole, a chemical weapon can render a small area uninhabitable, but a bioweapon can't be stopped easily

Not really. Bioweapons disappate, leaving the area able to used to go war again. Nukes remove the ability to make war period.

[Boydfish]

Essentially the same idea behind a Ohio Class Boomer. Well that and as a deterrent aganist just targeting known silos and airbases.

The Typhoon and Ohio are similar in rough design features, but the doctrine of use was different. The USN kept the Ohios on deterrence patrols to act as a first strike counterforce, in mirror image to the Delta class Soviet SSBNs. In other words, if the balloon had gone up, the Deltas and Ohios would unload their cells as part of a massive strike. The Typhoons, on the other hand, were proposed to hide out for an extended period post-exchange.

Sure. No problem.

From your link: No responsible U.S. politician with any authority or influence has ever advocated Japan going nuclear; few developments are potentially more destabilizing and more counter to U.S. interests in the region.

The US doesn't want anybody playing with nukes; notice how they tend to invade countries that try to build them?

From your link to the Guardian: The United States does not need to press Tokyo and Seoul to go nuclear. It is sufficient if Washington informs the South Korean and Japanese governments that the United States would not object to their developing nuclear weapons."

But the article also makes it clear that the US government has not said that; is not leaning towards that and has a policy of not wanting other nations to develop nuclear weapons.

That is the funniest thing I've heard all month. China couldn't take Taiwan without using the largest missile barage the world has ever seen or using nuclear warheads. For an invasion to occur, air and sea must be controlled. China can't do that.

Excuse me, you're not grasping the subtle parts of the issue. Could the PRC overrun Taiwan? Very unlikely. Could such an attack cause massive infrastructure damage to Taiwan? That's almost a given.

You're also applying your logic to try and predict the actions of a group that is using a totally different logic set. The PRC are communists, granted, they are the most capitalist communists at the Politburo level, but they are still commies. You do not start a war expecting to lose, you engage in war expecting to win. In 1991, Iraq did not expect the whole damn world to ride to Kuwait's rescue, despite the overwhelming likelyhood of that happening.

Taiwan has no realistic ability to hit back to the PRC, with the bulk of their defence assets exactly that: Defensive. Now, if China tosses a heavy punch at Taiwan, the economic cost to Taiwan is going to be high, no matter what the result. As an example, the Nazi invasion of the USSR was also a failure, but the damage was horrific.

That damage is what is going to push the Japanese and ROK to develop a deterrence force.

Not really. Bioweapons disappate, leaving the area able to used to go war again. Nukes remove the ability to make war period.

Bioweapons are not targeted on places, they are targeted on populations. They are the ultimate indiscriminate killing weapons. Once introduced into a population, they keep infecting and infecting.

Nukes do not remove the ability to make war period, they are simply powerful explosive devices. The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not exceptionally more destructive than a typical bomber raid in WW2; the part that was shocking was that it was done with a single bomb.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Boydfish,

I understand where you might think a nuke is not a 'planet-killer'

,Only the most extreme anti-nuke peaceniks would see a global nuclear exchange as a life ender on earth. The simple fact is that a release of a single ICBM or SLBM would almost certainly trigger a full release, but life would still exist post-exchange in a fairly well developed state.

but large scale nuclear exchange would be the first step towards annihilation. The greater the spread of radiation, the greater the spread of sterilization. Earth and people. Not annihilation right away, of course, but...

With regard to bioweapons, does anyone recall what the last aggressive useage of biological WMD's was?

[Boydfish]

but large scale nuclear exchange would be the first step towards annihilation. The greater the spread of radiation, the greater the spread of sterilization. Earth and people. Not annihilation right away, of course, but...

Radiation ain't the death dealer that people make it out to be. Or to be more specific, it won't kill as many as the movies make it out to. Large areas of the planet would be essentially unharmed, depending on weather patterns and targeting methods of the devices. Remember, fallout is only a problem when you need the device to detonate at ground level to wipe out a hardened or hard to kill target. If you're doing the rather mundane of knocking over the typical soft buildings that make up cities, you do that via airburst for two reasons: First, the airburst spreads to blast over a larger area, killing more of the city. Second, vastly smaller amounts of dust become radioactive as a result, allowing you to move in guys with boots and bayonets quicker.

The movies like to portray a global nuclear exchange as "end of life", but the simple fact is that it's not going to happen. Will it be horrific? Oh yeah. Figure casualties of around 1-2 billion in the first months, but after that, it becomes an infrastructure restoration footrace.

The most common bugaboo that gets tossed around is that of "nuclear winter" killing off all plant life and thus killing the food chain. I hate to cause the unemployment of so many science fiction writers, but the logic doesn't hold. Hydroponics can generate vast quantities of vegtables. Since we can generate electricity from gravity(Hydro)and from that, heat and light, we can literally "wait out" the dust cover. That and the idea that the resulting dust cloud would cover the entire planet is dubious to begin with.

With regard to bioweapons, does anyone recall what the last aggressive useage of biological WMD's was?

Wouldn't that be the Anthrax mailings of 2001?

[nova_satori]

The Typhoons, on the other hand, were proposed to hide out for an extended period post-exchange.

What is the fuel and supply levels on a typhoon?

No responsible U.S. politician with any authority or influence has ever advocated Japan going nuclear; few developments are potentially more destabilizing and more counter to U.S. interests in the region.

The US doesn't want anybody playing with nukes; notice how they tend to invade countries that try to build them?

Notice that part of the article was before the North Korean problem.

But the article also makes it clear that the US government has not said that; is not leaning towards that and has a policy of not wanting other nations to develop nuclear weapons.

When the US doesn't want you to do something, it makes a huge LOUD STINK about it. When it wants you to do something but without drawing much attention, they simply will not object. Surely anyone can see this.

You're also applying your logic to try and predict the actions of a group that is using a totally different logic set. The PRC are communists, granted, they are the most capitalist communists at the Politburo level, but they are still commies. You do not start a war expecting to lose, you engage in war expecting to win. In 1991, Iraq did not expect the whole damn world to ride to Kuwait's rescue, despite the overwhelming likelyhood of that happening

Chinese as a whole can never be communists. The people in power take control then force everyone else to be commnunist so they can take all the wealth. When does one ever go to war not expecting to win? As much as the PLA beats its chest and roars, it knows perfectly well it cannot take Taiwan.

Taiwan has no realistic ability to hit back to the PRC, with the bulk of their defence assets exactly that: Defensive. Now, if China tosses a heavy punch at Taiwan, the economic cost to Taiwan is going to be high, no matter what the result. As an example, the Nazi invasion of the USSR was also a failure, but the damage was horrific.

Not exactly. Their upgraded 24 F-16 Falcons can carry large amounts of cluster bombs. With a drop on a city or base, there goes ALOT of troops and equipment. Take into mind they have superior air and sea control, and can repeat this tactic many times over.

I never said that Taiwan would escape unscathed.

Bioweapons are not targeted on places, they are targeted on populations. They are the ultimate indiscriminate killing weapons. Once introduced into a population, they keep infecting and infecting.

Nukes do not remove the ability to make war period, they are simply powerful explosive devices. The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not exceptionally more destructive than a typical bomber raid in WW2; the part that was shocking was that it was done with a single bomb

Um. No. Bioweapons are targeted at place with populations. Usually those populations are areas for that population to make war upon you with. They essentially kill everyone and everything. However, they can be contained and eradicated and the area can be again used to make war. The simple fact of war is you NEVER need to kill your enemy, simply remove their ability to make war upon you.

Nukes remove the enemy's ability to use a facility, area or general infrasture to produce the methods and means to war. You cannot fight with weapons you don't have. You cannot support a war with a economy that lacks infrastcture. You cannot engage without transportation.

Essentially the point of a tactical nuke.

The weapons on WWII are pathetic compared to the weapons of today. However, those two bombs removed any ability to use the cities for war.

[Boydfish]

What is the fuel and supply levels on a typhoon?

Fuel: A nuclear reactor that requires refuelling ~every 14 years.

Supplies: That's a question of war rations, start of patrol at time of deployment and countless other questions.

Notice that part of the article was before the North Korean problem.

Your link, not mine. I won't even point out that the "problem" with North Korea started in the 1950's.

Not exactly. Their upgraded 24 F-16 Falcons can carry large amounts of cluster bombs. With a drop on a city or base, there goes ALOT of troops and equipment. Take into mind they have superior air and sea control, and can repeat this tactic many times over.

There is so much wrong with your theory as to be laughable. You've totally discounted things such as air defence and the fact that Taiwan's air force cannot maintain a high enough tempo to do what you're suggesting.

Um. No. Bioweapons are targeted at place with populations. Usually those populations are areas for that population to make war upon you with.

Bioweapons are aimed at populations for the simple reason that they are non-persistent without a human population.

However, they can be contained and eradicated and the area can be again used to make war.

Please put down your Tom Clancy book and go tell that to anybody who has even a basic knowledge of bioweapons. They'll laugh at you.

The simple fact of war is you NEVER need to kill your enemy, simply remove their ability to make war upon you.

Oh my gawd...you're a "Bomber Bill" fan! You think that 6000 years of military science is wrong and that the infantry is unimportant!

Essentially the point of a tactical nuke.

I could tear apart the rest of your points on nuclear warfare, but with this one statement, you've kinda shown you have no idea what you are talking about: A tactical device is used in a tactical operation akin to a conventional weapon. Attacking infrastructure like cities or factories is a strategic mission.

[nova_satori]

I won't even point out that the "problem" with North Korea started in the 1950's.

I meant the current one.

There is so much wrong with your theory as to be laughable. You've totally discounted things such as air defence and the fact that Taiwan's air force cannot maintain a high enough tempo to do what you're suggesting

They can't do major damage to PLA's bases. However, they can do enough to harrass and prolong their attacks, giving the island more time. It's highly unlikely that the Chinese have already utilized the Patriot Missile System that Israel sold them by now. Air defenses can always be subverted. Taiwanese pilots are as good as Japanese, and ROK, and the US, and their F-16s are heavily upgraded. Taiwan could probabably set up a long range jamming aganist China's SAMs.

Yes it wouldn't break the back or even prolong them for a extended time, but Taiwan's military is not entirely defense.

Bioweapons are aimed at populations for the simple reason that they are non-persistent without a human population.

So you're saying that bioweapons will kill everyone regardless of medical expertise and massive training? So any vaccinations, any quick response medical teams, any training, is useless aganist a bio attack?

So no soldier should get getting anthrax vaccinations? So people shouldn't be gettign smallpox vaccinations?

Please put down your Tom Clancy book and go tell that to anybody who has even a basic knowledge of bioweapons. They'll laugh at you.

Um. NO. The Kurd Cities hit by chem weapons are still heavily inhabitated. Diseases such as Sars (once thought to be a terrorist doing) was contained and eventually stopped. You don't see HK completely abandoned do you? Are you saying that there is NO way to stop a bio attack?

Oh my gawd...you're a "Bomber Bill" fan! You think that 6000 years of military science is wrong and that the infantry is unimportant!

Sun Tzu acknolwedges this somewhere in the art of war. If we DO need to kill them all, and not remove the ability to make war, why is the military developing EMP weapons? Why are Pinches developed? How about non-lethal weapons? You do not need to kill unnecessarily. Simply remove their ability to make war upon you. While some aruge that a true warrior never leaves his opponent the chance to return another day, can your opponent be a threat if he does not have the resources to return as a threat? If you cannot remove their ability to make war, then the obvious choice is to kill them. However, needless killing is something that will contribute to the end of the world.

Military history shows that armies don't go around mindlessly killing everything. They take strategic points, depot, supplies, all things needed by the enemy to make war. Grind the enemy down, until they can not longer fight. Do you need to completely oblierate your enemy when you can tactically strike and remove their ability to contiune the fight?

Infantry will always be imporant. Neither Naval nor Air power can take a hold territory. Naval and Air power lack the ability to arrest people. Air, for the being, lacks the power of sniping a important officer without killing everyone around him off. This will never end. Even when 'wet' navies were a thing of the past, ground troops launched from carriers/drop ships will be fundemental in a campaign. As the navy brass, in white clean uniforms sip their tea in their ships orbiting the planet, ground forces getting down and dirty will be the instrumental key in taking planets/installations/nations. Airpower might be able to force a surender (kosovo), but it can never enforce laws or carry out a occupation.

So thus, you still think I think infantry are useless? Or as davin felth likes to say, "foot soldiers?"

[Boydfish]

I meant the current one.

So did I.

They can't do major damage to PLA's bases. However, they can do enough to harrass and prolong their attacks, giving the island more time.

More time? To do what? I also seriously doubt that the Taiwanese Air Force is going to toss away the pilots and aircraft required for the mission you're describing.

It's highly unlikely that the Chinese have already utilized the Patriot Missile System that Israel sold them by now.

Yeah, so they'll just get by with the air defence systems that they already have.

Air defenses can always be subverted.

Are you going to lend Taiwan the magic wand you're waving to "subvert the air defences"?

Taiwanese pilots are as good as Japanese, and ROK, and the US, and their F-16s are heavily upgraded. Taiwan could probabably set up a long range jamming aganist China's SAMs.

Look, you're not getting it: The PRC can inflict and enforce massive damage to the strategic and economic infrastructure of Taiwan as a whole; Taiwan cannot do that to the PRC, as the PRC has massive infrastructure that lays beyond the reach of even a one-way mission. Taiwan's F-16's, at max fuel and minimal weapons capacity can only reach Bejing one-way. Even then, they'll have a one shot run at it as they'll be in near glide at that point.

So you're saying that bioweapons will kill everyone regardless of medical expertise and massive training? So any vaccinations, any quick response medical teams, any training, is useless aganist a bio attack?

You're making a vast generalization. I also never said that there is no defence against bioweapons; I just said that they are far more dangerous than nuclear weapons.

Um. NO. The Kurd Cities hit by chem weapons are still heavily inhabitated.

Whoops, there you go, trying to make a point that unmakes itself: A bioweapon and a chem weapon are two vastly different creatures.

Diseases such as Sars (once thought to be a terrorist doing) was contained and eventually stopped. You don't see HK completely abandoned do you? Are you saying that there is NO way to stop a bio attack?

Yup, SARS was eventually contained. SARS was a naturally occuring and quite predictable event. You then compare that against a genetically modified Soviet nightmare germ and it's like comparing a stone age sling and a nuke.

Sun Tzu acknolwedges this somewhere in the art of war. If we DO need to kill them all, and not remove the ability to make war, why is the military developing EMP weapons? Why are Pinches developed? How about non-lethal weapons? You do not need to kill unnecessarily. Simply remove their ability to make war upon you.

EMP is to blind electronic tracking systems in order to kill them with greater ease.

Pinches? WTF?

Non-lethal weapons are to allow the military to contain and control civ populations in rear ech areas, not to use in combat operations.

While some aruge that a true warrior never leaves his opponent the chance to return another day, can your opponent be a threat if he does not have the resources to return as a threat?

Please read the history of WW1 and it's big follow-up, WW2, which will speak volumes to your theory.

If you cannot remove their ability to make war, then the obvious choice is to kill them. However, needless killing is something that will contribute to the end of the world.

I think once you've seen a little bit of the world, both in how humans live in it, as well as how the world lives around humans, you'll see that pretty much all killing is needless. Or perhaps the most needful thing of all. Death is common across all species and things; you can kill every last human on the planet and the world will not end. But before you try, consider that no armed conflict or disaster has ever threatened more than 3 billion lives. That leaves several billion more to kill before we drop below that magic 200 number of people where procreation becomes impossible.

Military history shows that armies don't go around mindlessly killing everything. They take strategic points, depot, supplies, all things needed by the enemy to make war. Grind the enemy down, until they can not longer fight. Do you need to completely oblierate your enemy when you can tactically strike and remove their ability to contiune the fight?

Please explain then how the US Armed Forces managed to tactically strike successfully at will in Vietnam, but still lose the Vietnam War.

Infantry will always be imporant. Neither Naval nor Air power can take a hold territory.

Agreed.

Naval and Air power lack the ability to arrest people.

Now, you didn't outright say it, but are you implying that the land forces, especially the infantry can "arrest" people? You've got the infantry confused with the cops: The role of the infantry is to close with and destroy the enemy. Everything else is secondary to that mission.

Air, for the being, lacks the power of sniping a important officer without killing everyone around him off.

I hate to say this to you and shatter your daycare world, but it's perfectly acceptable in the context of combat operations to kill everybody around your target too. It's not nice, but if making him dead requires torching a busload of retarded kids and nuns, you do it. The minute you start making rules of when you won't kill the enemy during combat, they will use those rules against you. I'll give you an excellent example: In the early 90's, when the Canadians first arrived in Yugo, some local militia got the great idea of putting a kid on the top of a bunker and plinking at a CF patrol because they figured that the Canadians wouldn't kill a small child in response. A single Carl Gustav put paid to that idea. Other examples include Somali milita trying similar stunts in Mog with the Rangers by using women and children as human shields; the Rangers just shot anyway.

Even when 'wet' navies were a thing of the past, ground troops launched from carriers/drop ships will be fundemental in a campaign. As the navy brass, in white clean uniforms sip their tea in their ships orbiting the planet, ground forces getting down and dirty will be the instrumental key in taking planets/installations/nations. Airpower might be able to force a surender (kosovo), but it can never enforce laws or carry out a occupation.

I think you need to stop re-reading Starship Troopers.

So thus, you still think I think infantry are useless? Or as davin felth likes to say, "foot soldiers?"

I never said the infantry are useless. You're the one making the claim that strategic warfare(Even tho' you keep calling them "tactical")is all that is required to win a war.