Moderated taiwan invasion war game

[FutureTank]

Ah, very good, we have a little controversy here! Glad to see that, it makes things more interesting.

Shall we have a Gentlemanly War Game? I would volunteer to serve as a PRC commander. We will need a Moderator, or two Mod's to run a few double-blind turns as resolve conflicts (drawing cards or rolling dice) and of course, I need an opponent or two.

Shall we give it a try? I think this could be an interesting research tool, and perhaps entertaining to the observers.

Ok, I'll be PRC...btw, I am not a gentleman :nutkick

 

[Manfred]

Hey, I called PRC first!

No problem, we can split commands, and when I said gentlemen, I meant it. I don't want this to degenerate into the usual schoolyard nonsense; the Moderator/umpire cannot be argued with, period.

Speaking of Moderators, we need a good one. Since it is a tough job, I will volunteer to serve as an Umpire in any future war game (as long as it is a subject I know something about!).

Is there nobody who wants to take the part of Taiwan? We might need a US player too... however, you have to roll a lot of dice; politics might prevent an American response in any form at all.

I am serious, can we make this happen?

 

[Manfred]

Oh, and about N. Korea; sure, we might have a slot for that place. But if you play Kim Il JOng, just make sure you are drinking enough Congnac to take yourself seriously, and kill a bunch of your own people whenever you feel depressed.

As for format; we can go with weekly or even daily turns, whatever people have the time for. Each turn would cover 6 hours of "War" time. All you would have to do is submit a War plan (limit of 500 words or less) and then an operational plan once each turn (limit 200 words?). We submit these orders to our troops by PMing them to the Umpire, and then he posts the results.

We don't get to see anything that our own troops could not tell us about the situation. All we know for sure are our own positions, our own looses and what our troops claim to have done.

This is called double-blind, and works well for the Proffesionals.

 

[ren0312]

China has to get to not only a baseline asset parity – but a capability parity as well. The US on the other hand has the advantage of being able to witness well ahead of build cycle what Chinas production – and capability intentions are. Unless they revert to a 21st Cent version of the Monroe Doctrine – they do not have to be as focused on china reaching parity at all




I hope you’re not relying on Adm Gavin Menzies for that claim – as even current Chinese historians regard it as a work of cavalier assumption (ie fiction presented as forensic history) Mahanian beliefs didn’t work within the same construct in 1421.



You’re actually reinforcing my point – was that your intention?



Actually, I think China will fragment into at least 3 separate entities - but thats another topic altogether, and one that can't be persued here.



Exactly – but we work on evolving reference points. The contemporary reference point is that the US is being challenged so as to dissolve a single polar power and to move towards a multi-polar international community. Again, it assumes that the US will not fight to maintain Mahans fundamental précis of the protection of the state at a global, projected and persistent level



I'm not sure how China can be Rome when she fails to fulfill the basic requirements. ie the fundamental power behind a republic. When hannibal invaded southern europe to rattle the roman cage - Rome was just a fledgling republic - it was by no means an empire. what hannibal did was trigger the birth of change where the republic decided that they needed to change. He triggered the birth of the empire. Chinas not even remotely in that position of political change. Dramatic change in china is just as likely to rend her apart before anything else.

re quotes, as my Chinese mother said, you have 2 ears and 1 mouth – use them in the right ratio. (its just as relevant as your quote). I inherently find it a bizaare case that people still focus on US Carriers as the principle sword behind the shield. Landlocked powers struggle to contain “island” continents. They are automatically contending at the physical level with a multi fronted enemy. In chinas case, she’s unable to fulfill all the requisite “P’s” of warfighting – and being landlocked exacerbates that dilemna



The US has the capacity to rapidly change her risk profile - and she's doing that in various areas already. Chinas single biggest piece of coal in the engine room of her growth is american consumerism, so its an incestuous relationship – as much as china thinks that she can define and mold an American response – the reality is that if American investment and purchasing power is turned off – the the Chinese economy would tank. They can’t sell off the US consumption to Europe – as the European and African demand is but a fraction of American consumption. The US however has the resources and motivation to build and buy elsewhere. Eg India and Africa. While some are getting excited at the notion that China has suddenly moved into Africa, they seem to be unaware that Congress has made provisions for African nations to trade into the US without the normal penalties. They did that quietly and without fanfare.


Not at all, I’m highlighting then fact that India as well as Africa are threats to the speed of its development. The US is a consumer society – and that means that it will have the opportunity to source its needs between 4 economic blocs. The consumer wins.



China does not have stellar relationships in place with her neighbours – in fact she has over the last 500 years been in military conflict with all her bordered neighbours. Again, as my good old Chinese mum said – “we have long memories and don’t forgive readily”. Neither do her neighbours. As for the meeting in Africa – well as I said before, the US already gives them (African states/countries) preferred access to export their products into the US. They get a significant tax exemption. For some reason the rest of the world is oblivious and seemingly ignorant of what the US has been successfully doing in Africa. They haven’t been asleep at the wheel at all. Hence my distrust of mass media commentary as it tends to lack diligence of execution in research.



Intellectual and creative centres change - that is the wonder of developmental gravity - the centre shifts over time. Whoever educates their population effectively wins - and an educated population seeks change and freedom to be and maintain creativity. That leaves a few countries with some inherent dilemnas




I don’t see a US Canada Mexico bloc with Europe – IMV its more of a Central American bloc. The US will become closer with her southern neighbours over time. Look at the steady but persistent rise in her Hispanic population. Cultural bonds are hard to break. The Canadians IMV are more European in attitude/behaviour, the Americans? – definitely not.

Well regarding the persistent rise in the Hispanic population, I do believe that the US needs some sort of an immigration control mechanism in order to preserve its essentially European based cultural identity, or not to accept immigrants at a faster rate than the dominant culture can assimilate them, but that is another topic altogether. Going back to issue of a Taiwanese invasion, I believe that any invasion, if such will occur will be after the 2008 Olympics, what I am worried about is the potential for the conflict to spill over into neighboring countries, such as the Philippines.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

Actually Taipei seems to be moveing in the opposite direction.

It isn't. People's Daily is just jumping on the bandwagon. All people knowledgeable on Taiwan's political system know that he was simply appealing to his core vote ahead of elections later this year.

If he was going to declare independence, he would have done it years ago.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

I am surprised that they didnt go independant a long time ago. The ideal time would have been back in the 1970s, when Carter recognized China.

But the KMT leadership back then didn't want independence - they wanted unification in the belief they could regain power in China one day, somehow. The KMT say they still want unification, but have placed so many caveats that:

a) it wouldn't happen for decades, even if everything went fine and the people voted for it.

b) if it did happen it would be more of an affirmation of the status quo, the only thing changing would be Taiwan's name and Constitution. Beijing would gain no real power over Taiwan, only it being technically part of China/a greater Chinese political union.

In the last 110 years, the Island has only been part of China for 4 years. What is the big deal?

The deal is that the CCP have shot themselves in the foot. They wanted to finish the civil war so badly that they made Taiwan a huge nationalist cause, bringing in nonsense about foreign imperialism and the like trying to divide China. Now there is too much momentum behind the cause - it's like a runaway freight train.

 

[eckherl]

Oh, and about N. Korea; sure, we might have a slot for that place. But if you play Kim Il JOng, just make sure you are drinking enough Congnac to take yourself seriously, and kill a bunch of your own people whenever you feel depressed.

As for format; we can go with weekly or even daily turns, whatever people have the time for. Each turn would cover 6 hours of "War" time. All you would have to do is submit a War plan (limit of 500 words or less) and then an operational plan once each turn (limit 200 words?). We submit these orders to our troops by PMing them to the Umpire, and then he posts the results.

We don't get to see anything that our own troops could not tell us about the situation. All we know for sure are our own positions, our own looses and what our troops claim to have done.

This is called double-blind, and works well for the Proffesionals.

Hey - you are the one who wanted to war game it.

Yes - Kim Jong Ill loves his drink, gets rather upset when we want to take it away from him, but he is not as dumb as some people may think, are we not holding formal talks with him.

China has more to gain in leaving him alone, and if the balloon went up in that regoin, North Korea would most likely side with China giving us even more major head aches.

China knows what they have to do in re-gards to Taiwan and they won`t even have to fire a shot. China culture is really good at the patience game, just look at where they are today.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

China knows what they have to do in re-gards to Taiwan and they won`t even have to fire a shot. China culture is really good at the patience game, just look at where they are today.

The Chinese do have very significant lapses of judgement sometimes. The Anti-Secession Law was a completely pointless exercise, as there was no legal requirement for it. At the same time, it damaged relations with Europe leading to the shelving of the lifting of the EU arms embargo - two years on, with the two main proponents of the resumption of sales gone/going (Shroeder out, Chirac will be off soon), it is impossible to see when such a proposal will be aired again.

China lost its patience and decided to throw a big, political hissy-fit. It achieved nothing and produced negative repercussions. Thus there is no guarantee they will wait things out, especially if opinion in Taiwan hardens against unification.

 

[FutureTank]

Going back to issue of a Taiwanese invasion, I believe that any invasion, if such will occur will be after the 2008 Olympics, what I am worried about is the potential for the conflict to spill over into neighboring countries, such as the Philippines.

If PRC Command is clever, they will conduct the operation fast and this will restrict the spread of conflict, wich is in PRC's interest to restrict.

I would agree that nothing is going to happen before the Olympics.

 

[eckherl]

The Chinese do have very significant lapses of judgement sometimes. The Anti-Secession Law was a completely pointless exercise, as there was no legal requirement for it. At the same time, it damaged relations with Europe leading to the shelving of the lifting of the EU arms embargo - two years on, with the two main proponents of the resumption of sales gone/going (Shroeder out, Chirac will be off soon), it is impossible to see when such a proposal will be aired again.

China lost its patience and decided to throw a big, political hissy-fit. It achieved nothing and produced negative repercussions. Thus there is no guarantee they will wait things out, especially if opinion in Taiwan hardens against unification.

Do you honestly feel that they would gamble with placing their economy in jeapardy with such a move, the U.S has pretty much told the Taiwan government to chill out with the independance move and seems that the population is a little uneasy with this move also.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

Do you honestly feel that they would gamble with placing their economy in jeapardy with such a move, the U.S has pretty much told the Taiwan government to chill out with the independance move and seems that the population is a little uneasy with this move also.

The problem is that with the way China is going, it wouldn't see an invasion as a gamble. Not because it would be able to crush Taiwan, but because it would believe it could before the US could intervene. Plus Taiwanese have no real interest in unification, so China may force the issue.

As I said, if China never loses its patience, why the Anti-Secession Law? It was so moronic and created out of pure arrogance. This is China's problem - it can really get a stick up its backside and then refuse to accept it's even there.

If PRC Command is clever, they will conduct the operation fast and this will restrict the spread of conflict, wich is in PRC's interest to restrict.

They can't carry it out that fast. Plus it would be near impossible to stop the conflict spreading, given USAF would be operating out of Okinawa - unless they want to give the US a free hand in re-supplying, etc.

 

[FutureTank]

Purpose for invasion

I think maybe it’s appropriate to remind what the discussion is about.
Taiwan represents the government of China as recognized by the Allied powers after WW2. It has historical legitimacy albeit not a realistic one given PRC's standing.
Declaration of independence by Taiwan would therefore acknowledge defeat and remove any claims to the government of China as a whole. Independence would also legitimize PRC as a government of China, and therefore the original Communist revolution.
On the other hand the Communist Government claims legitimacy to governing China based on the revolution. Taiwan is part of China and therefore it harbours a regime which is anti-revolutionary, and would not be pronouncing independence but in fact secession, which is a form of counter-revolution under PRC’s constitution (and in fact would be in most countries.

The big problem is that PRC is rapidly approaching a state of society that can be said to be ‘Yugoslavianized’ in that its society and economy are evolving to a model approximating market economies, while its political culture remains Communist, albeit of an increasingly pragmatic nature.

Taipei does have options, but none are very acceptable politically speaking.
It can wait, as mentioned by eckherl, since significant change takes time. Usually significant social change takes 60-80 years (3-4 generations).
In modern times China was induced into change by the Europeans from 1820s, transforming from monarchy to republic at the turn of the 20th century. Even as the republican era dawned, the form of that republic was already being challenged, and the end of this era culminated rather neatly just after the end of the Cold war with renewed commitment by the Communist government to further economic development, and accepting social change that this would bring to its society. Next time to change will not come until 2060s at the earliest.

Waiting another generation (20 years – c.2015) may bring the political culture more in line with the rest of society, or it may not. One of the problems is that the social transformation is economy based rather then based in legislation based as happened in Europe. The economic transformation is to a significant degree dependant on the resources of the state and in particular the Armed Forces…which are a significant part of the party political culture. The Armed forces anywhere are not democratic institutions, so they are usually the last to accept social changes that require greater liberalism, hence the spate of coup de etats that accompany social transformations. However the Armed Forces derive their personnel from less developed parts of society that fail to aspire to greater material achievement (commonly urban). This is the much larger and still impoverished rural population, so the ‘reset’ may in fact be retrogressive towards greater Communist ideal of more equitable redistribution of resources by the state, or the New Cultural Revolution.

Waiting a bit longer (40 years – c.2035) may bring a new popular hero to the fore, for which there are many previous precedents in China’s history. Usually this would be a ‘righteous general’, but invariably this would cause a fragmentation of China. This would be a highly motivated individual born about 10 years ago, and hence raised in a China unlike that of Mao. What would China of 2035 be like? Probably quite socially fractured, and not unlike many military-based regimes of 1970s Asian countries (Marcos Philippines).

Now the purpose for PRC invasion is to remove opposition to it's regime from what it sees as an entity within it's sphere of governance. However Taiwan may become the catalyst of change PRC fears so much. Hong Kong is already providing just such an effect on China, but it is small by comparison, and is somewhat of a desensitizing agnt of change in a very large population. Taiwan would be a much larger 'drop' in the proverbial China tea cup.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

However Taiwan may become the catalyst of change PRC fears so much. Hong Kong is already providing just such an effect on China, but it is small by comparison, and is somewhat of a desensitizing agnt of change in a very large population. Taiwan would be a much larger 'drop' in the proverbial China tea cup.

It's important to remember that unless China invades Taiwan and runs it like a Police-state, it will have to allow it to keep it's political independence (and probably retain its military). So in that case, if China and Taiwan have direct links, etc Chinese people will see 23 million other "Chinese" having huge amounts of control over their political system, special freedoms, etc. It would have a huge effect compared to Hong Kong, which is still fighting for full autonomy and democracy.

A Chinese friend once said to me that she didn't believe China actually wanted Taiwan back and wanted to prolong the status-quo for as long as possible, because unification would mean a huge amount of pressure for change occuring.

 

[FutureTank]

They can't carry it out that fast. Plus it would be near impossible to stop the conflict spreading, given USAF would be operating out of Okinawa - unless they want to give the US a free hand in re-supplying, etc.

It's all in the planning. Commonly an operational combat time is proporational to the amount of planing time available. During WW2, Soviet strategic operations that took 3-6 days, would be planned for 2-4 months.

Seven months of planning produced a seven day campaign in 1991 to liberate Kuwait.

From this it follows that to finalize the invasion of Taiwan in 48 hours, planning woul be in the 9-12 months order of magnitude.

In fact planning can begin sometime at the end of 2007 to be executed sometime towards the end of 2008, probably towards the holiday period when much of the US Armed Forces would be on leave, and when civilian airlines would be at their busiest, creating havock in air traffic control (and becoming an immediate economic impact on US economy).

 

[Grand Danois]

It's all in the planning. Commonly an operational combat time is proporational to the amount of planing time available. During WW2, Soviet strategic operations that took 3-6 days, would be planned for 2-4 months.

Seven months of planning produced a seven day campaign in 1991 to liberate Kuwait.

From this it follows that to finalize the invasion of Taiwan in 48 hours, planning woul be in the 9-12 months order of magnitude.

In fact planning can begin sometime at the end of 2007 to be executed sometime towards the end of 2008, probably towards the holiday period when much of the US Armed Forces would be on leave, and when civilian airlines would be at their busiest, creating havock in air traffic control (and becoming an immediate economic impact on US economy).

But that was for forces already in position to jump... The signature of the preparations for an invasion would be picked up well in advance.

How does, say, Overlord fit into these schedules?

 

[FutureTank]

But that was for forces already in position to jump... The signature of the preparations for an invasion would be picked up well in advance.

How does, say, Overlord fit into these schedules?

Quite right, so signiature supression would be part of planning, as it was with Overlord. Germans were completely surprised as to day and time of invasion, methods, and objectives (to some degree), and forces available to the Allies (which is why the reserves were not thrown in earlier).
Planning for Overlord started in March 1943 and execution date was set for May 30, 1944 - a duration of 14 months.

From Wikipedia "The Allied invasion plans had called for the capture of Carentan, St. Lô, Caen and Bayeux on the first day, with all the beaches linked except Utah, and Sword (the last linked with paratroopers) and a front line six to ten miles (10 to 16 km) from the beaches. In practice none of these had been achieved. However, overall the casualties had not been as heavy as some had feared (around 10,000 compared to the 20,000 Churchill feared), and the bridgeheads had withstood the expected counterattacks."

This is however not relevant because PRC lacks the "6,938 vessels: 1,213 warships, 4,125 transport vessels (landing ships and landing craft) and 1,600 support vessels which included a number of merchant vessels" for the operation. Even IF they were available, they would be eminently detectable with modern surveillance technology, and engaged far out from shore, maybe even in the harbours.

Hence why I keep saying that a conventional amphibious assault is out of the question.

 

[FutureTank]

It's important to remember that unless China invades Taiwan and runs it like a Police-state, it will have to allow it to keep it's political independence (and probably retain its military). So in that case, if China and Taiwan have direct links, etc Chinese people will see 23 million other "Chinese" having huge amounts of control over their political system, special freedoms, etc. It would have a huge effect compared to Hong Kong, which is still fighting for full autonomy and democracy.

A Chinese friend once said to me that she didn't believe China actually wanted Taiwan back and wanted to prolong the status-quo for as long as possible, because unification would mean a huge amount of pressure for change occuring.

All countries are 'run' as police states. What you mean is more along the lines of North Korea, or Stalinist USSR. I suspect this would not be neccessary. First PRC would offer amnesty to all members of Taiwan's armed forces. After all, they could use help in modernising PRC forces, and the Taiwanese defence forces would be diluted in the mass of the PRC organisation.

Secondly they would announce a transitional security period. Not quite 'troops on the streets' but a visible presence...like Paris for example.

They would also announce HK like appointments and promise of local elections with UN monitoring. Of course the PRC faction would win, and it would be easy to secure since all troops would be immediatelly assigned to local basis and therefore be required to vote in local elections as residents.

I suspect a large number of Taiwanese would also support this sort of transition since it would simply remove the sense of insecurity from their lives. Most only care about economic freedoms, and this has all appearances of becoming freely sanctioned, so much so that many Taiwanese DO have mainland business interests.

What could US do about it, particularly under a Democratic Administration? Not a lot. Blockades are expensive, for not a lot of visible gain (like sieges), and tend to require a long period of time to be effective. Would the US voter sanction such a strategy? Would there be international support? Most countries do not recognize Taiwan as an independent state.

 

[Manfred]

Well, I am still willing to give it a shot, but the biggest roadblock seems to be finding an Umpire. No surprise, it is a difficult, thankless job. However, my offer to mediate a war-game in the future still stands.

Erkhl gave me a good link to pursue this with. Since most arguments seem to be based on the idea that China cannot invade Taiwan, I will let you know if this truns out to be false.

 

[FutureTank]

Well, I am still willing to give it a shot, but the biggest roadblock seems to be finding an Umpire. No surprise, it is a difficult, thankless job. However, my offer to mediate a war-game in the future still stands.

Erkhl gave me a good link to pursue this with. Since most arguments seem to be based on the idea that China cannot invade Taiwan, I will let you know if this truns out to be false.

I never said China can't invade Taiwan. I just said it can't do so by conventional methods.

You may want to start with the admin and terms of reference like timescale, and OOB, etc.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

All countries are 'run' as police states.

"Police state" does not refer to the fact Police exist. Check your dictionary.

Secondly they would announce a transitional security period. Not quite 'troops on the streets' but a visible presence...like Paris for example.

Oh, yeah. Like Tibet and Xinjiang - they're still in "transitional security periods".

They would also announce HK like appointments and promise of local elections with UN monitoring. Of course the PRC faction would win, and it would be easy to secure since all troops would be immediatelly assigned to local basis and therefore be required to vote in local elections as residents.

So what you're saying is China would fix the vote and find quislings to do its bidding.

I suspect a large number of Taiwanese would also support this sort of transition since it would simply remove the sense of insecurity from their lives. Most only care about economic freedoms, and this has all appearances of becoming freely sanctioned, so much so that many Taiwanese DO have mainland business interests.

Do you really believe that? If so I don't think you have the understanding of Taiwan necessary to comment further on this.

Taiwanese fought for decades against KMT dictatorship. Why would they roll over and accept CCP dictatorship, especially when they've got used to democracy and the ability to elect who they want? They wouldn't - there would be riots in the streets and China would have to respond with repression not seen since 1989, or give in to the demands.

What could US do about it, particularly under a Democratic Administration?

You're telling me Clinton was a Republican?

Would there be international support? Most countries do not recognize Taiwan as an independent state.

Oh, so I suppose the European Union did lift the arms embargo on China in 2005 - the Anti-Secession Act had no effect on their decision....

Get real. Just because they don't recognise Taiwan doesn't mean they would agree with China stomping all over it. If they let China do that, there would be no stopping it next time it decided to launch a military operation against another country.