WAR CHINA THREATENS TO INVADE TAIWAN

jward

passin' thru
Mind the Gap: How China’s Civilian Shipping Could Enable a Taiwan Invasion
Thomas Shugart
August 16, 2021



139454422_16031925358881n


Recent months have seen much discussion of the “Davidson Window” — the idea, based on recent commentary by the then-commander of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, Adm. Philip Davidson, that China could take military action against Taiwan in the next six to 10 years. Some within the defense commentariat accused Davidson of “sloppy exaggeration,” that he was “simply wrong as a matter of fact” (though perhaps some critics should consider that a combatant commander may have access to a different set of facts than they do). While others took his warning more seriously, there have been good reasons to question whether China could successfully subjugate Taiwan any time soon. Among these is that China has appeared to lack the amphibious transport capacity necessary to successfully conduct a cross-strait invasion. However, assessments of China’s amphibious sealift capability have typically focused on its navy’s dedicated amphibious assault ships, and have largely discounted the ability of China’s civilian merchant shipping to contribute to an invasion — especially in its initial stages. This approach does not take sufficient account of the emerging and ongoing integration of substantial portions of China’s merchant marine into its cross-strait assault forces. When civilian shipping is included in an assessment of China’s cross-strait sealift capability, Davidson’s warning gains added credibility.

The Sealift Question
Despite many worrying aspects of the degrading cross-Taiwan Strait military balance, the Chinese military does not appear to have enough amphibious assault capacity on its own to successfully invade Taiwan, and hasn’t seemed to make it a high priority to get more. The U.S. Department of Defense’s assessment of China’s amphibious lift capacity stated that the amphibious fleet seemed to be focused on global expeditionary missions rather than “the large number of landing ship transports and medium landing craft” that would be required for a full-scale beach assault. Taiwan’s own Ministry of Defense has largely concurred, indicating that China “lacks the landing vehicles and logistics required to launch an incursion into Taiwan.”

The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission has largely agreed. In its 2020 report on Taiwan, it said, “The [Chinese military’s] most immediate limitation in executing a Taiwan campaign is a shortage of amphibious lift, or ships and aircraft capable of transporting the troops the [Chinese military] needs to successfully subjugate the island.” The report did indicate that China is working to close this gap in “creative ways that may challenge foreign preconceptions of what the [People’s Liberation Army] can and cannot do in an invasion of Taiwan,” but indicated that efforts to use civilian vessels to do so consisted thus far of limited training efforts to support the landing of follow-on forces — that is, after the Chinese military seized a port or constructed temporary wharves to offload civilian ships.

Some observers of Chinese military developments have been somewhat mystified by China’s apparent willingness to live with this limitation in amphibious lift capability. After all, the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party seems focused on the idea of eventual unification with Taiwan, peaceful or otherwise, and China hardly lacks the ability to build the necessary ships should it choose to do so. On this question, Lonnie Henley, a retired career intelligence officer and China specialist, testified this year to the U.S.-China commission that among a number of other possibilities, China probably has a goal to be able to invade Taiwan, that it probably set that goal for 2020, and that it has probably met that goal. He indicated, however, that it may not be readily apparent to most external observers that China has built enough landing capacity, as having done so would require “a different concept for how to deliver forces, relying less on military ships and more on civilian vessels.” While Henley declined to delve into the details of such a concept of operations in his testimony, it has become clear in recent months that just such a concept is being practiced by the Chinese military on a regular basis, that it could be used to land first-echelon assault troops on Taiwan, and that it could be employed at a scale that dwarfs the capacity of China’s traditional amphibious assault fleet.
 

jward

passin' thru
continued. . .
Closing the Gap
The People’s Liberation Army has for years used civilian roll-on/roll-off vehicle carriers and car ferries to transport equipment and personnel for exercises and routine transport. China’s 2016 National Defense Transportation Law formalized and clarified this role and, according to researcher Conor Kennedy of the China Maritime Studies Institute, was “designed to improve the [Chinese military]’s ability to leverage civilian carriers to support strategic projection,” and introduced the concept of “strategic projection support forces” organized from large and medium-sized Chinese companies. Ian Easton of the Project 2049 Institute addressed the use of ad hoc civilian vessels in his 2017 book, The Chinese Invasion Threat, identifying that a lack of specialization, standardization, and coordination could doom an attempt to use civilian shipping in an invasion.

China’s efforts in recent years seem intended to rectify the sorts of shortcomings Easton identified, through technical standards, peacetime organization, and practice. First, starting even before the defense transportation law went into effect, China issued technical standards for key types of civilian ships that would ensure that they could “serve national defense needs if they are mobilized.” Evidence of the dual-use nature of China’s civilian shipping can be seen in the press announcements of China’s own roll-on/roll-off ferry builders and operators. China’s biggest ferry shipbuilder stated publicly in 2015 that one of its largest roll-on/roll-off ferries was built for dual military and civilian purposes, and one of China’s largest ferry operators has been similarly described as having a dual civil-military development philosophy. In short, many of China’s merchant vessels are seemingly being built with military-supporting features and design characteristics “baked in,” though the details remain vague.

Rather than waiting for a crisis to mobilize and organize its merchant fleets on an ad hoc basis, Chinese leaders have already begun organizing civilian shipping into auxiliary units of the military. As examples, the Bohai Ferry Group, which operates large roll-on/roll-off ferries across the Yellow Sea, is organized into the Eighth Transport Group of the strategic support ship fleet. Hainan Strait Shipping Co., which operates ferries to and from Hainan Island on the South China Sea, is similarly organized as the Ninth Transport Group. CSC RoRo Logistics Co., which operates dozens of specialized vehicle-carrying ships, is organized as the Fifth Transport Group, with a number of its vehicle carriers built to national defense specifications.

Perhaps most importantly, the Chinese military now seems to be regularly practicing the execution of amphibious assaults with civilian shipping integrated into the operations, and in a July 2020 exercise even experimented with launching amphibious assault craft directly from civilian ferries with modified stern ramps, and thus potentially straight toward the beach rather than through port facilities. Employment of civilian roll-on/roll-off ferries appears to have continued in the summer of 2021, in an amphibious assault exercise that I identified as likely involving civilian ferries via observation of automatic identification system broadcasts. China’s Global Times later confirmed that “intensive cross-sea exercises” occurred during that time frame that involved civilian vessels carrying both marine corps and ground force units.

Seriously? A Bunch of Car Ferries?
At this point, a reader could be forgiven for wondering how a few car ferries and vehicle carriers could significantly increase the threat of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. This is where the issue of scale comes to the fore — and if the Chinese maritime sector has anything to offer, sheer scale is front and center. China’s merchant shipbuilding industry is the world’s largest, building more than 23 million gross tons of shipping in 2020 (U.S. yards built a mere 70,000 tons the same year, though they typically average somewhere in the 200,000s). Of note, while gaining control of Hong Kong’s sizable merchant fleet was not a primary driver of China’s subjugation of Hong Kong, it is likely to be a significant result. The powers related to national security in the Hong Kong National Security Law are quite broad, apply to offenses undermining the “unification” of China as well as those “committed on board a vessel or aircraft registered in the [r]egion,” and are explicitly left to the interpretation of China’s National People’s Congress. If that were not enough, Hong Kong’s largest container shipping carrier, Orient Overseas Container Line, was bought in 2018 by COSCO Shipping, a state-owned shipping company that is “widely recognized as the maritime supply arm of the People’s Liberation Army.”

In terms of individual vessel size, most of China’s roll-on/roll-off ferries are substantially larger than the ferries that many readers may have encountered. For a sense of scale, the largest ferries in the Staten Island Ferry system, as well as the largest that ply the routes to Martha’s Vineyard, measure at around 4,500 gross tons. The largest ferries operating anywhere in the United States are the “Jumbo Mark II” class of the Washington State Ferries system, almost three times that size at just under 13,000 tons. For comparison, one of the two ferries that appeared to be involved in China’s recent amphibious assault exercises, the Bo Hai Ma Zhu, is more than two and a half times as large as the Jumbo Mark II ferries. The ferry Huadong Pearl VIII, described above by its shipbuilder as a dual-purpose vessel built partly for military use, is even larger yet, as are many of China’s pure vehicle carriers.

What really matters in terms of the threat of invasion of Taiwan, however, is how much China’s civilian shipping could bolster its assault forces in aggregate. To help gain a sense of this I conducted a survey, using broadcasted identification data, of large oceangoing Chinese-owned roll-on/roll-off ferries and vehicle carriers. The size of ships is often measured in tons. Confusingly, sometimes this refers to the volume of the enclosed space of a ship (gross tons), and sometimes it refers to the weight of the contents a ship can carry (cargo, fuel, passengers, etc., in deadweight tons). Naval vessels are normally measured in displacement tonnes, which refers to the weight of water displaced by a ship when it floats. For the purpose of comparison with the Chinese navy’s fleet of amphibious assault ships, with the assistance of a naval architect I converted the measurements of China’s roll-on/roll-off ferries and vehicle carriers into displacement tonnes.

The result? By my estimate, China’s large roll-on/roll-off ferries total approximately 750,000 displacement tonnes, and its vehicle carriers total about 425,000 tonnes. The combination of this civilian roll-on/roll-off shipping — more than 1.1 million tonnes of potential vehicle and troop transport ships — is more than three times the tonnage of the Chinese navy’s entire fleet of amphibious assault ships (about 370,000). These civilian roll-on/roll-off fleets, essentially all of which could be put at the service of the People’s Liberation Army, are also greater in tonnage than the sum of all of the U.S. Navy’s amphibious assault ships (about 840,000). If available for military use, Hong Kong’s roll-on/roll-off vehicle carriers would add a further 370,000 displacement tonnes to the total, bringing it to nearly 1.5 million tonnes of sealift shipping. This larger total would also be nearly equal to the roughly 1.5 million tonnes of government-owned, civilian-crewed roll-on/roll-off shipping maintained by the U.S. Military Sealift Command — the Defense Department’s primary provider of ocean transportation, responsible for moving and prepositioning cargo and supplies used by U.S. forces and partners worldwide.

Reasons for Skepticism
Some observers are sure to point out that China’s civilian shipping is likely to be vulnerable to attack — essentially defenseless and with limited damage control capabilities. While true, we should remember that even naval amphibious assault ships depend mostly on escorts for their defense. The Chinese navy has been building huge numbers of seemingly world-class cruisers, destroyers, and frigates, and would surely use them — along with land-based aircraft — to put robust anti-air and anti-submarine defenses around an invasion fleet. Regarding damage control capabilities, well-prepared civilian ships may be harder to kill than some may expect. The late Capt. Wayne Hughes estimated in his classic work Fleet Tactics and Naval Operations that, during the Iran-Iraq “Tanker Wars” of the 1980s, of more than 400 merchant ships hit (60 percent of them tankers) only about a quarter were destroyed. Improvements to damage control capabilities would also be just the sort of thing that China’s national defense technical standards would address. China’s ferry companies do in fact claim to have equipped their newer ferries with improved firefighting capabilities, though perhaps some more work in this area remains in order.

Similarly, the fact that China’s civilian roll-on/roll-off ferries and vehicle carriers are not, in fact, specialized amphibious assault vessels may mean that they are not ideally suited for landing assault troops, whether in the first echelon or later. While this is likely true to some extent, the fact remains that China’s ferries are built to efficiently carry the maximum number of people and vehicles possible for a vessel of their size, operating at an efficient speed over moderate areas of open ocean, quickly disembarking their cargo, and returning for more. Additionally, the fact that the majority of China’s ferries normally operate in either the Northern Theater Command or Southern Theater Command areas (across the Yellow Sea or Hainan Strait) could mean that those fleets may be able to, with relatively little warning, convey troop formations from those theaters directly to Taiwan, bolstering the Eastern Theater Command forces that are stationed across the strait — and which are usually of the greatest concern. Certainly, China has built some impressive ferry embarkation facilities in recent years that could seemingly be used to load ground forces quickly and efficiently.

Conclusion
What is to be done? As I recommended in testimony to the U.S.-China Commission earlier this year, Taiwan and the United States should deploy larger numbers of survivable anti-ship weapons, with a focus — given the likelihood that the Chinese maritime militia will provide decoys and concealment for naval units — on smart weapons that are capable of identifying and targeting specific vessels such as China’s dual-use roll-on/roll-off vessels and amphibious assault ships. Also, U.S. military and political leaders need to think carefully through the detailed rules of engagement that will be necessary to ensure that China’s “civilian” vessels are targetable soon enough to prevent them from accomplishing their missions, but only after a point where they are no longer operating in civilian service. Doing this effectively will be a non-trivial process — one that would be much harder in the fog of crisis, or under a Chinese assault on U.S. and allied command and control functions.

Does all of this mean that China has been assembling, in plain sight, a transport fleet sufficient to invade Taiwan successfully? To be sure, the answer to that question remains far from clear. Detailed analysis of the ground forces required for China to decide to invade, as well as whether they could be successfully transported by a military-civil-fused fleet, would be (and should be) an appropriate topic for a well-resourced team of analysts, working at a classified level. What is clear is that the answer to the question, “How many transports does the Chinese military have?” is very probably, “more than you might think.”

Become a Member

Capt. (ret.) Thomas Shugart, U.S. Navy, is a former submarine warfare officer, an adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, and the founder of Archer Strategic Consulting.
Image: Xinhua (Photo by Tang Ke)
 

northern watch

TB Fanatic
China Touts ‘U.S. Humiliation’ in Afghanistan in Warning to Taiwan
China poised to fill vacuum in Afghanistan as United States flees Taliban takeover

China-Taiwan-Philippines


Hypothetical ways China could attack Taiwan and the Philippines

Adam Kredo
Free Beacon
August 16, 2021 4:00 pm

China says "U.S. humiliation" in Afghanistan should be a warning sign to Taiwan and other U.S allies in the region that the American military "won't come to help" if war breaks out in the future.

As Taliban militants reclaim control of war-torn Afghanistan after the Biden administration's decision to remove all U.S. troops from the country, China is stepping in to fill the power vacuum. Communist Party officials have been talking to Taliban leaders, and China's embassy in Afghanistan is operating normally, even as the United States conducts an emergency evacuation of its personnel in the country.

Chinese state-controlled media and Communist Party loyalists gloated on Sunday over America's "humiliation" as the Taliban marched into the Afghan capital, Kabul, forcing U.S.-backed president Ashraf Ghani to flee the country while his government crumbled. China is now offering to fund post-war construction efforts in Afghanistan as part of its Belt and Road Initiative, a sweeping Communist Party infrastructure project that has helped the CCP gain a foothold in many countries across the globe.

The catastrophe in Afghanistan provides China another opportunity to subvert U.S influence and power in critical regions such as the Middle East. While the Biden administration scrambles to secure the safety of Americans stationed in the country, China is exploiting the situation to send a warning to its regional enemies, primarily Taiwan. The CCP is also promoting Afghanistan as an example of American decline across the world: "The US lost. It was a no-brainer," tweeted Chen Weihua, editor of the Communist-controlled China Daily, on Monday.

"From what happened in Afghanistan, those in Taiwan should perceive that once a war breaks out in the Straits, the island's defense will collapse in hours and U.S. military won't come to help," the Global Times, an official CCP mouthpiece, tweeted on Monday. "As a result, the [Democratic Progressive Party of Taiwan] will quickly surrender."

China is not the only anti-American regime that sees the situation in Afghanistan as an opportunity to erode American influence in the region. Iran and Russia already say they will increase their influence in the country and work with the Taliban, which seized the presidential palace on Monday afternoon in its latest victory in the capital.

The Biden administration on Friday sent 3,000 American troops back into Afghanistan to help evacuate Americans stranded in the country—a decision that many critics likened to the U.S. evacuation from Saigon, Vietnam, in 1979.

Meanwhile, the "Chinese Embassy in Afghanistan is operating normally," Chinese officials reported on Monday. "The principle of non-interference in domestic affairs enables China to maintain the confidence that it need not close its embassy in Kabul which still functions normally in this special, chaotic time."

While it remains unclear how active China will be in Afghanistan in the coming months, Beijing's early outreach to the Taliban and offer to help rebuild Afghanistan could signal that the CCP sees value in replacing the United States as a leading player in the country.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken spoke on Monday afternoon with Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi "about developments in Afghanistan, including the security situation and our respective efforts to bring U.S. and [Chinese] citizens to safety."

China Touts ‘U.S. Humiliation’ in Afghanistan in Warning to Taiwan (freebeacon.com)
 

SSTemplar

Veteran Member
The citizens of the country had better be willing to spend their last drop of blood to defend their country. Better dead then red. That is why Afghanistan is where they are today. Refused to properly prepare and no balls.
 

TheDoberman

Veteran Member
Didn't China just shut down 25% of one of their major ports? It kind of makes you wonder if they are diverting those ships and captains to participate in an eventual incursion into Taiwan. With China's huge shipping capacity I would think 25% of the capacity of a major port would be more than enough to do the job. And, if that is the case, this thing is really about ready to tip off. Also, I believe China is going to really soften up Taiwan's defenses before it ever has a single troop step foot into that country. I don't think there is going to be much opposition by the time China lands on the island.
 

Techwreck

Veteran Member
Don't worry, the same intel community that assured us last week that it would be at least 90 days before the Taliban could get to Kabul, is likely watching this with a laser focus. /sarc

The chicoms will have Taiwan occupied before we can make a decision about what sanctions to threaten them with.

I am just sick for what America has been corrupted into.

The ineptitude and weakness on current display is almost as disgusting as knowing that absolutely no one responsible will ever be held to account for any of it.
 

northern watch

TB Fanatic
Didn't China just shut down 25% of one of their major ports? It kind of makes you wonder if they are diverting those ships and captains to participate in an eventual incursion into Taiwan. With China's huge shipping capacity I would think 25% of the capacity of a major port would be more than enough to do the job. And, if that is the case, this thing is really about ready to tip off. Also, I believe China is going to really soften up Taiwan's defenses before it ever has a single troop step foot into that country. I don't think there is going to be much opposition by the time China lands on the island.
Yes, I believe as well that there will be a pre-invasion bombardment. I guess we will know when the invasion has begun when the internet connection to that part of the world goes dark.
 

TheSearcher

Are you sure about that?
Yes, I believe as well that there will be a pre-invasion bombardment. I guess we will know when the invasion has begun when the internet connection to that part of the world goes dark.

Starlink? Imagine if Musk's constellation made it possible to get real-time info around such a disruption.
 

northern watch

TB Fanatic
Don't worry, the same intel community that assured us last week that it would be at least 90 days before the Taliban could get to Kabul, is likely watching this with a laser focus. /sarc

The chicoms will have Taiwan occupied before we can make a decision about what sanctions to threaten them with.

I am just sick for what America has been corrupted into.

The ineptitude and weakness on current display is almost as disgusting as knowing that absolutely no one responsible will ever be held to account for any of it.
That may very well be true.
 

northern watch

TB Fanatic
If You Live In Taiwan, It's Time To Worry

BY TYLER DURDEN
ZERO HEDGE
TUESDAY, AUG 17, 2021 - 05:25 PM

By Stephen Bryen of The Epoch Times,

Taiwan needs to worry about American reliability. Unlike Afghanistan, where the United States had committed its forces for two decades, Taiwan has no U.S. forces and no assurance that the United States will come to their defense if attacked by China.



The United States has a bad habit of walking out on its allies and friends. The list is long. It includes Vietnam and Cambodia, Iraq and Afghanistan, and Iran. In all of those cases, one way or another, the United States, for its own reasons, took a hike.

Obama pulled U.S. troops from Iraq, opening the door to Iran. While the United States has a few thousand soldiers still in Iraq in training and advisory capacities, they’re under siege and it’s unlikely the United States will protect them.

In fact, President Joe Biden has said the United States will end combat missions in Iraq by the end of 2021. Unless U.S. troops are pulled out in the middle of the night, as they were in Afghanistan, they’ll quite possibly have to shoot themselves out while exiting.

Carter let Iran collapse into chaos and refused to support the Shah. Prior to that time, the United States had massively supplied Iran with weapons and military advisors. But when the Shah asked for help, he got none. The collapse of the Shah’s regime, without U.S. backing, was a foregone conclusion.

Nixon let Vietnam and Cambodia go down the drain, trying to cover their tracks with the so-called Paris Peace Accords that required U.S. troops’ withdrawal from Vietnam, a key demand of North Vietnam. South Vietnam hung on for a while, but without U.S. airpower and support, they couldn’t win against a North Vietnamese army supported by Russia and China.

The debacle in Cambodia involved the mass murder of perhaps 2 million Cambodians by the Khmer Rouge over a three-year period. Washington could have prevented it but didn’t. The United States was fully aware of what the Khmer Rouge was doing as the flow of starved and brutalized victims flowed into Phnom Penh as the impending collapse gained momentum. (The author was in Cambodia in the last two weeks of the war.)

The United States also let mass murder happen elsewhere, although the United States wasn’t under any specific obligation to intervene. The Rwanda genocide in 1994 took the lives of 1.1 million people in that country.

The U.N. had a peace-keeping mission there (UNAMIR), but because of restrictive rules of engagement and logistical limitations, those forces failed to stop the genocide. Its head, a Canadian named Romeo Dallaire, afterward tried to commit suicide four times.

No one (yet) is saying there’s anything comparable happening in Afghanistan, but the future there looks bleak. Already, there are numerous reports of executions of Afghan army soldiers and many murders.

In Taiwan, a prosperous middle-class, Asian country, there’s a palpable fear of China. The United States is obligated to supply Taiwan with defense materials under the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979.

That act provides for the United States to supply Taiwan with “arms of a defensive character” and “to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan.”

In 1979, the United States canceled the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty with Taiwan. That treaty required that if either party was attacked, the other would come to its assistance with military aid. The language of the Taiwan Relations Act doesn’t reflect this key mutual defense provision and only requires the United States to “maintain the capacity” to resist any resort to force.

In truth, the United States faces many issues in “maintaining the capacity” to resist any resort to force. China has been building up its conventional and military forces and has been harassing Taiwan and Japan increasingly by using its air and naval power.

The U.S. response to the stepped-up tempo of China’s aggressive actions has been less than stellar. U.S. Navy ships have conducted freedom of navigation exercises in the South China Sea and in the Taiwan Strait, but those exercises have been few and far between. Moreover, there’s already pushback about freedom of navigation exercises, mainly because there’s fear it’ll get the United States into a war with China.

But the United States has also pulled its long-range bombers (B-52s and B-1s) out of Guam and has taken few steps to reinforce U.S. forces in Japan and Okinawa. The single U.S. aircraft carrier in the Pacific, the USS Ronald Reagan, has been redeployed to the Indian Ocean, removing a formidable capability from the area. These measures, especially Guam and the redeployment of the Reagan, represent dangerous Biden administration concessions to China.

No one in the administration has explained why the United States is reducing its profile in East Asia while the threat from China is rising.

A few voices have been raised in Congress, even by Democrats who are alarmed. One of them is Rep. Elaine Luria (D-Va.), vice chairperson of the House Armed Services Committee-Sea Power subcommittee. Luria called the redeployment of the Ronald Reagan carrier “one of the biggest mistakes we have made in maybe my lifetime, strategically.”

Luria served two decades in the Navy, retiring at the rank of commander. She served at sea on six ships as a nuclear-trained surface warfare officer, deployed to the Middle East and Western Pacific, and culminated her Navy career by commanding a combat-ready unit of 400 sailors.

Even before the Afghanistan debacle, Japanese leaders reflected growing alarm about Chinese threats to Taiwan. Japan’s Deputy Prime Minister Taro Aso asserted that a Chinese invasion would be an “existential threat (to Japan) since Okinawa could be next.”

The primary issue is U.S. reliability. South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan all depend directly on the United States. Without its support, none of them can avoid war—in Korea, the threat from Pyongyang and in Japan and Taiwan, the threat from Beijing.

Neither Taiwan nor Japan can defend against China by themselves. South Korea is different only in the sense that it has a formidable army and a lot of firepower. But in any war, South Korea would pay a very high price.
The United States has troops in Japan and on Okinawa and in South Korea. Will they fight or leave? The United States has mutual defense treaties with both countries, unlike the case of Taiwan, where only the Taiwan Relations Act offers some help to Taiwan.

Will the United States stay the course in the Pacific?

Stability in the Pacific depends on strong and visible U.S. resolve and U.S.-led deterrence. That seems to be at risk right now.

The signals coming from Washington are anything but positive.

If You Live In Taiwan, It's Time To Worry | ZeroHedge
 

northern watch

TB Fanatic
China's military conducts assault drills in seas near Taiwan
Chinese fighter jets, anti-submarine aircraft and combat ships have conducted assault drills near Taiwan
By The Associated Press
17 August 2021, 06:19

FILE - In this July 1, 2021, file photo, a military band rehearses for a ceremony to mark the 100th anniversary of the founding of the ruling Chinese Communist Party at Tiananmen Gate in Beijing. Chinese fighter jets, anti-submarine aircraft and comb

Image Icon
The Associated Press
FILE - In this July 1, 2021, file photo, a military band rehearses for a ceremony to mark the 100th anniversary of the founding of the ruling Chinese Communist Party at Tiananmen Gate in Beijing. Chinese fighter jets, anti-submarine aircraft and combat ships conducted assault drills near Taiwan on Tuesday, Aug. 17, 2021, with the People’s Liberation Army saying the exercise was necessary to safeguard China's sovereignty. (AP Photo/Ng Han Guan, FIle)

TAIPEI, Taiwan -- Chinese fighter jets, anti-submarine aircraft and combat ships conducted assault drills near Taiwan on Tuesday with the People’s Liberation Army saying the exercise was necessary to safeguard China's sovereignty.

China has stepped up military exercises around self-ruled Taiwan, which it considers its own territory.

Recent U.S.-Taiwan provocations severely violated Chinese sovereignty, Eastern Theater Command spokesman Shi Yi said in a statement.

The assault drills were held near Taiwan’s southwestern and southeastern waters
.

Taiwan’s defense ministry said in a statement it had fully grasped and assessed the situation in the sea and air and was prepared to respond in each respect.

In June, China flew a record 28 fighter jets toward Taiwan.

Last week, officers from the U.S. and Taiwanese coast guards met to discuss improving cooperation and communication.

The meeting followed the announcement of plans by the U.S. to sell 40 self-propelled howitzers to Taiwan in a deal valued at $750 million that drew strong condemnation from Beijing.

The U.S. maintains only unofficial relations with Taiwan in deference to Beijing, but it is the island’s key arms supplier and closest political ally. It has been boosting U.S.-Taiwan ties amid deteriorating relations with China.

China's military conducts assault drills in seas near Taiwan - ABC News (go.com)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
If You Live In Taiwan, It's Time To Worry

BY TYLER DURDEN
ZERO HEDGE
TUESDAY, AUG 17, 2021 - 05:25 PM

By Stephen Bryen of The Epoch Times,

Taiwan needs to worry about American reliability. Unlike Afghanistan, where the United States had committed its forces for two decades, Taiwan has no U.S. forces and no assurance that the United States will come to their defense if attacked by China.



The United States has a bad habit of walking out on its allies and friends. The list is long. It includes Vietnam and Cambodia, Iraq and Afghanistan, and Iran. In all of those cases, one way or another, the United States, for its own reasons, took a hike.

Obama pulled U.S. troops from Iraq, opening the door to Iran. While the United States has a few thousand soldiers still in Iraq in training and advisory capacities, they’re under siege and it’s unlikely the United States will protect them.

In fact, President Joe Biden has said the United States will end combat missions in Iraq by the end of 2021. Unless U.S. troops are pulled out in the middle of the night, as they were in Afghanistan, they’ll quite possibly have to shoot themselves out while exiting.

Carter let Iran collapse into chaos and refused to support the Shah. Prior to that time, the United States had massively supplied Iran with weapons and military advisors. But when the Shah asked for help, he got none. The collapse of the Shah’s regime, without U.S. backing, was a foregone conclusion.

Nixon let Vietnam and Cambodia go down the drain, trying to cover their tracks with the so-called Paris Peace Accords that required U.S. troops’ withdrawal from Vietnam, a key demand of North Vietnam. South Vietnam hung on for a while, but without U.S. airpower and support, they couldn’t win against a North Vietnamese army supported by Russia and China.

The debacle in Cambodia involved the mass murder of perhaps 2 million Cambodians by the Khmer Rouge over a three-year period. Washington could have prevented it but didn’t. The United States was fully aware of what the Khmer Rouge was doing as the flow of starved and brutalized victims flowed into Phnom Penh as the impending collapse gained momentum. (The author was in Cambodia in the last two weeks of the war.)

The United States also let mass murder happen elsewhere, although the United States wasn’t under any specific obligation to intervene. The Rwanda genocide in 1994 took the lives of 1.1 million people in that country.

The U.N. had a peace-keeping mission there (UNAMIR), but because of restrictive rules of engagement and logistical limitations, those forces failed to stop the genocide. Its head, a Canadian named Romeo Dallaire, afterward tried to commit suicide four times.

No one (yet) is saying there’s anything comparable happening in Afghanistan, but the future there looks bleak. Already, there are numerous reports of executions of Afghan army soldiers and many murders.

In Taiwan, a prosperous middle-class, Asian country, there’s a palpable fear of China. The United States is obligated to supply Taiwan with defense materials under the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979.

That act provides for the United States to supply Taiwan with “arms of a defensive character” and “to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan.”

In 1979, the United States canceled the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty with Taiwan. That treaty required that if either party was attacked, the other would come to its assistance with military aid. The language of the Taiwan Relations Act doesn’t reflect this key mutual defense provision and only requires the United States to “maintain the capacity” to resist any resort to force.

In truth, the United States faces many issues in “maintaining the capacity” to resist any resort to force. China has been building up its conventional and military forces and has been harassing Taiwan and Japan increasingly by using its air and naval power.

The U.S. response to the stepped-up tempo of China’s aggressive actions has been less than stellar. U.S. Navy ships have conducted freedom of navigation exercises in the South China Sea and in the Taiwan Strait, but those exercises have been few and far between. Moreover, there’s already pushback about freedom of navigation exercises, mainly because there’s fear it’ll get the United States into a war with China.

But the United States has also pulled its long-range bombers (B-52s and B-1s) out of Guam and has taken few steps to reinforce U.S. forces in Japan and Okinawa. The single U.S. aircraft carrier in the Pacific, the USS Ronald Reagan, has been redeployed to the Indian Ocean, removing a formidable capability from the area. These measures, especially Guam and the redeployment of the Reagan, represent dangerous Biden administration concessions to China.

No one in the administration has explained why the United States is reducing its profile in East Asia while the threat from China is rising.

A few voices have been raised in Congress, even by Democrats who are alarmed. One of them is Rep. Elaine Luria (D-Va.), vice chairperson of the House Armed Services Committee-Sea Power subcommittee. Luria called the redeployment of the Ronald Reagan carrier “one of the biggest mistakes we have made in maybe my lifetime, strategically.”

Luria served two decades in the Navy, retiring at the rank of commander. She served at sea on six ships as a nuclear-trained surface warfare officer, deployed to the Middle East and Western Pacific, and culminated her Navy career by commanding a combat-ready unit of 400 sailors.

Even before the Afghanistan debacle, Japanese leaders reflected growing alarm about Chinese threats to Taiwan. Japan’s Deputy Prime Minister Taro Aso asserted that a Chinese invasion would be an “existential threat (to Japan) since Okinawa could be next.”

The primary issue is U.S. reliability. South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan all depend directly on the United States. Without its support, none of them can avoid war—in Korea, the threat from Pyongyang and in Japan and Taiwan, the threat from Beijing.

Neither Taiwan nor Japan can defend against China by themselves. South Korea is different only in the sense that it has a formidable army and a lot of firepower. But in any war, South Korea would pay a very high price.
The United States has troops in Japan and on Okinawa and in South Korea. Will they fight or leave? The United States has mutual defense treaties with both countries, unlike the case of Taiwan, where only the Taiwan Relations Act offers some help to Taiwan.

Will the United States stay the course in the Pacific?

Stability in the Pacific depends on strong and visible U.S. resolve and U.S.-led deterrence. That seems to be at risk right now.

The signals coming from Washington are anything but positive.

If You Live In Taiwan, It's Time To Worry | ZeroHedge

IMHO, the only thing that is going to "chill out" Xi et al will be "new management" in the District of Columbia that will be so hard nosed and old school as to be mistaken for an early Plantagenet or earlier purple wearing hard case.
 

jward

passin' thru
IMHO, the only thing that is going to "chill out" Xi et al will be "new management" in the District of Columbia that will be so hard nosed and old school as to be mistaken for an early Plantagenet or earlier purple wearing hard case.
Do we have such a woman- or man, to call upon? Would the price pd to get them in be worth it in the end?
 

CGTech

Has No Life - Lives on TB
I suspect the deployment of "canned sunshine" is now going flat out in that country.

Something else to think about here: Assuming this does happen.... where do all the computer chips (or at least the majority) get produced? Taiwan. You think supply shortages are bad now..
 

jward

passin' thru
Taiwanese Official Say Island’s Freedom Key to Stable Indo-Pacific

By: John Grady


August 17, 2021 8:23 PM



President Tsai Ing-wen reviews a Marine Corps battalion in Kaohsiung in July 2020. Ministry of National Defense of the People’s Republic of China

Taiwan needs to remind Washington of the island’s geostrategic role in maintaining a peaceful and stable Indo-Pacific, one of its top diplomats said Tuesday.
Chiu Chuicheng, deputy minister of the mainland affairs council, said President Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party have misjudged the resolve of the United State, United Kingdom, the European Union, Japan and Australia in “standing by international law“ and their resistance to Beijing’s “global ambitions.”

Taiwan and those democracies see “the true nature of the CCP” and Xi’s push toward one-man rule. Xi even adopted Mao Zedong’s title of “Helmsman,” and is establishing “a new totalitarian system” Chiu said. He added that all Xi’s actions are being “carried out in the name of domestic security” on the mainland.
Xi’s insistence on a China with “one voice” puts Hong Kong’s position “as a global financial hub in peril” by curbing democratic speech and organization there, Chiu said. The party is also persecuting the Muslim minority Uighurs in western China.

The party is a threat to Taiwan’s status as a democracy under a one-China policy where different approaches were supposed to be acceptable when Hong Kong reverted to Beijing’s control, Chiu said. Reunification of Beijing and Taipei seemed viable as late as 1992. He said several times Taiwan’s status as a democracy is an example of what life can be like to the rest of China, he said.

At the same time as it clamps down internally, Xi and the party “are not averse to using coercive measures against other nations” like Japan and militarizing the South China Sea in “seeking to become the global hegemon.”
Chiu said these ambitions were spelled out in Xi’s July 1 speech celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party’s founding.
Chiu said, “we will enhance our own internal security” against pressure from the mainland. Taiwan is committed to pursuing a policy of “maintaining peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait [which] is the responsibility of both sides.”
Chiu did note that in Xi’s centennial speech he did not set a timeline for reunification with Taiwan. Senior U.S. commanders have become publicly concerned about China’s buildup of its naval invasion forces, which could be used against Taiwan within a decade.

When asked about the collapse of the American- and NATO-backed government in Afghanistan, he said, “we can always hope for the best but prepare for the worst.” Chiu said he would not be surprised to “see a more arrestive China” in the wake of the Taliban takeover. He added, “Taiwan never will succumb to CCP pressure” to reunify.
”We need to stand together” against Chinese ambitions, he added. “We trust the U.S. knows Taiwan’s strategic importance” militarily and as a trading partner in computer chips and high-technology manufacturing.
Chiu said negotiations between Taiwan and the mainland have been at a standstill for years over family visits and people-to-people exchanges, new trade agreements and political status.

In future reunification talks, he said Taiwan expects to be treated with “principles of parity and dignity.” On signing bilateral or multilateral trade agreements with the United States, Japan and the European Union, he said they “shall be at our own discretion” rather than first clearing the pacts with Beijing.

Related
Panel: Taiwan Looking More to Japan, U.S. for Economic, Security Support Panel: Taiwan Looking More to Japan, U.S. for Economic, Security Support
March 13, 2018
In "China"
Panel: Beijing Keeps Increasing Pressure on Taiwan to Join Mainland Panel: Beijing Keeps Increasing Pressure on Taiwan to Join Mainland
July 13, 2017
In "Budget Industry"
Panel: Chinese Navy, Maritime Militia Has Given Beijing De Facto Control of the South China Sea Panel: Chinese Navy, Maritime Militia Has Given Beijing De Facto Control of the South China Sea
June 1, 2018
In "China"


Article Keywords: Center, CSIS, okinawa, PLA, Taiwan, Xi Jinping

Categories: China, Foreign Forces, News & Analysis, Surface Forces

Taiwanese Official Say Island's Freedom Key to Stable Indo-Pacific - USNI News
 

PghPanther

Has No Life - Lives on TB
IMHO, the only thing that is going to "chill out" Xi et al will be "new management" in the District of Columbia that will be so hard nosed and old school as to be mistaken for an early Plantagenet or earlier purple wearing hard case.
If You Live In Taiwan, It's Time To Worry

BY TYLER DURDEN
ZERO HEDGE
TUESDAY, AUG 17, 2021 - 05:25 PM

By Stephen Bryen of The Epoch Times,

Taiwan needs to worry about American reliability. Unlike Afghanistan, where the United States had committed its forces for two decades, Taiwan has no U.S. forces and no assurance that the United States will come to their defense if attacked by China.



The United States has a bad habit of walking out on its allies and friends. The list is long. It includes Vietnam and Cambodia, Iraq and Afghanistan, and Iran. In all of those cases, one way or another, the United States, for its own reasons, took a hike.

Obama pulled U.S. troops from Iraq, opening the door to Iran. While the United States has a few thousand soldiers still in Iraq in training and advisory capacities, they’re under siege and it’s unlikely the United States will protect them.

In fact, President Joe Biden has said the United States will end combat missions in Iraq by the end of 2021. Unless U.S. troops are pulled out in the middle of the night, as they were in Afghanistan, they’ll quite possibly have to shoot themselves out while exiting.

Carter let Iran collapse into chaos and refused to support the Shah. Prior to that time, the United States had massively supplied Iran with weapons and military advisors. But when the Shah asked for help, he got none. The collapse of the Shah’s regime, without U.S. backing, was a foregone conclusion.

Nixon let Vietnam and Cambodia go down the drain, trying to cover their tracks with the so-called Paris Peace Accords that required U.S. troops’ withdrawal from Vietnam, a key demand of North Vietnam. South Vietnam hung on for a while, but without U.S. airpower and support, they couldn’t win against a North Vietnamese army supported by Russia and China.

The debacle in Cambodia involved the mass murder of perhaps 2 million Cambodians by the Khmer Rouge over a three-year period. Washington could have prevented it but didn’t. The United States was fully aware of what the Khmer Rouge was doing as the flow of starved and brutalized victims flowed into Phnom Penh as the impending collapse gained momentum. (The author was in Cambodia in the last two weeks of the war.)

The United States also let mass murder happen elsewhere, although the United States wasn’t under any specific obligation to intervene. The Rwanda genocide in 1994 took the lives of 1.1 million people in that country.

The U.N. had a peace-keeping mission there (UNAMIR), but because of restrictive rules of engagement and logistical limitations, those forces failed to stop the genocide. Its head, a Canadian named Romeo Dallaire, afterward tried to commit suicide four times.

No one (yet) is saying there’s anything comparable happening in Afghanistan, but the future there looks bleak. Already, there are numerous reports of executions of Afghan army soldiers and many murders.

In Taiwan, a prosperous middle-class, Asian country, there’s a palpable fear of China. The United States is obligated to supply Taiwan with defense materials under the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979.

That act provides for the United States to supply Taiwan with “arms of a defensive character” and “to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan.”

In 1979, the United States canceled the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty with Taiwan. That treaty required that if either party was attacked, the other would come to its assistance with military aid. The language of the Taiwan Relations Act doesn’t reflect this key mutual defense provision and only requires the United States to “maintain the capacity” to resist any resort to force.

In truth, the United States faces many issues in “maintaining the capacity” to resist any resort to force. China has been building up its conventional and military forces and has been harassing Taiwan and Japan increasingly by using its air and naval power.

The U.S. response to the stepped-up tempo of China’s aggressive actions has been less than stellar. U.S. Navy ships have conducted freedom of navigation exercises in the South China Sea and in the Taiwan Strait, but those exercises have been few and far between. Moreover, there’s already pushback about freedom of navigation exercises, mainly because there’s fear it’ll get the United States into a war with China.

But the United States has also pulled its long-range bombers (B-52s and B-1s) out of Guam and has taken few steps to reinforce U.S. forces in Japan and Okinawa. The single U.S. aircraft carrier in the Pacific, the USS Ronald Reagan, has been redeployed to the Indian Ocean, removing a formidable capability from the area. These measures, especially Guam and the redeployment of the Reagan, represent dangerous Biden administration concessions to China.

No one in the administration has explained why the United States is reducing its profile in East Asia while the threat from China is rising.

A few voices have been raised in Congress, even by Democrats who are alarmed. One of them is Rep. Elaine Luria (D-Va.), vice chairperson of the House Armed Services Committee-Sea Power subcommittee. Luria called the redeployment of the Ronald Reagan carrier “one of the biggest mistakes we have made in maybe my lifetime, strategically.”

Luria served two decades in the Navy, retiring at the rank of commander. She served at sea on six ships as a nuclear-trained surface warfare officer, deployed to the Middle East and Western Pacific, and culminated her Navy career by commanding a combat-ready unit of 400 sailors.

Even before the Afghanistan debacle, Japanese leaders reflected growing alarm about Chinese threats to Taiwan. Japan’s Deputy Prime Minister Taro Aso asserted that a Chinese invasion would be an “existential threat (to Japan) since Okinawa could be next.”

The primary issue is U.S. reliability. South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan all depend directly on the United States. Without its support, none of them can avoid war—in Korea, the threat from Pyongyang and in Japan and Taiwan, the threat from Beijing.

Neither Taiwan nor Japan can defend against China by themselves. South Korea is different only in the sense that it has a formidable army and a lot of firepower. But in any war, South Korea would pay a very high price.
The United States has troops in Japan and on Okinawa and in South Korea. Will they fight or leave? The United States has mutual defense treaties with both countries, unlike the case of Taiwan, where only the Taiwan Relations Act offers some help to Taiwan.

Will the United States stay the course in the Pacific?

Stability in the Pacific depends on strong and visible U.S. resolve and U.S.-led deterrence. That seems to be at risk right now.

The signals coming from Washington are anything but positive.

If You Live In Taiwan, It's Time To Worry | ZeroHedge

1629287057592.png
 
Top