Have you peeked? You weren't supposed to look yet! But I'm thrilled you think so. (Please don't judge it yet though because it's *full* of typos and infelicities. We're working on them.)
Another point to be noted is the the appearance on the American Left of an anti-anti-China movement. Essentially this is an alliance between progressive antiwar groups and progressive Asian-American advocacy groups. Their claim: that a robust US response to the Chinese threat stokes racism and incites hate crimes against Asians. Needless to say, that all-purpose demon, “white supremacy,” lies at the root of the problem.
Whether these activists are acting in good faith or not I leave for others to decide, but there can be no doubt that their campaign is very serviceable to the Chinese regime. For instance they condemn negative characterizations of the regime as inherently racist. Also they argue that the security threat posed by China is greatly exaggerated. All this must be music to the ears of of the Chinese oligarchy.
This wouldn’t matter very much if it was a phenomenon confined to the deep reaches of the progressive fever swamp. But it has already gained a foothold in the Democratic Party, where the likes of AOC and Bernie Sanders embrace the position of the anti-anti-China movement in whole or in part.
Perhaps the willingness of the PRC regime to invade Taiwan is exaggerated. An amphibious invasion is the most complex operation of war—and one of which PLA has no practical experience. I have no doubt that the regime desires to brandish a credible military threat so as to intimidate Taiwan. I very much doubt that it’s eager actually to go to war. Taiwan, after all, has powerful allies.
My view has always been that a cross straits invasion of Taiwan would be the largest conventional military operation in the world since D-Day. It has never been all that clear to me how even now it is the realm of capability for the PRC.
It's been said that whereas good generals study tactics, great ones study logistics—and the logistics of a PRC invasion of Taiwan would be daunting indeed.
Above all, an amphibious invasion requires port facilities at either end of the operation. Once a beachhead is seized—and this itself is by no means certain—it must be sustained. Reinforcements and supplies would have to move from ports on the west coast of the PRC to the bridgeheads seized in the first phase of the invasion. The immediate operational objective would be the consolidation and expansion of those bridgeheads, and a buildup of forces for a breakout. The scale of the buildup would depend on the size of the force that could be sustained at the eastern terminus of lines of communication stretching back to those ports on the PRC east coast. Some supplies could be delivered by air, but most would have to be moved by sea. Since the only suitable invasion sites are on the southwestern coast of Taiwan, the sea route would be a long one.
The invaders’ communications would thus be vulnerable to attack along their entire length. Damage to the PRC embarkation ports and discharge facilities in the bridgeheads, and ships sunk en route would automatically reduce the scale of the resupply effort, thus limiting the scale of the buildup. In June 1944, Hitler made a capital mistake by refusing to redirect the V-1 “buzz bombs”—essentially an early type of cruise missile—from London to the Allied beachheads in Normandy. Though the V-1 was not particularly accurate it had an 1,800lb high-explosive warhead, and the Allied bridgeheads were so congested that a hit almost anywhere could be counted on to do a lot of damage. Modern stand-off weapons are much more accurate and lethal. The Tomahawk cruise missile has a range of over 1,500 miles and can be launched from submarines, surface ships and aircraft—ideal for strikes on the embarkation ports and bridgeheads. The bridgeheads would also be exposed to bombardment by short-range missiles and artillery. Attack submarines operating in the Taiwan Straight would be the main threat to shipping.
Also, let us not forget that modern, high-intensity battle consumes supplies of all kinds at a prodigious rate. It’s one thing to observe that the PLA has an excellent main battle tank in its 1,200+ Type 99s but quite another to estimate how many it could land in Taiwan in the first 72 hours of an invasion. (The Type 99 weighs over 50 tons.) In any invasion scenario the resupply effort would have to be massive, operating around the clock, heavily reliant on requisitioned merchant ships—an easy target.
Finally, the PLA forces in the bridgeheads need not be completely cut off from the PRC mainland. If resupply capability falls below a certain level, a buildup of forces, hence any effort to break out of the bridgeheads, would become impossible. At that point the invasion would have failed, leaving the PRC with the choice of withdrawal (which the defenders may choose to allow) or the destruction of the invasion force.
I actually think this Chinese hypersonic missile test is a bigger story although again one that perhaps doesn't show China's strength as much as people think. First it IS either a violation or very close to a violation of the Outer Space Treaty which in turn now opens up the opportunity for the US and its allies to conduct activities that are "grey areas" under the OST such as asteroid mining and China will no longer really have any grounds to complain about them(China is arguing that the "test" was simply that just an R&D test and thus no actual violation of the OST has occurred). China notably has no real interests or capabilities in areas such as asteroid mining.
The broader issue is by opening up the issue of OST compliance China is also exposing the fact that its space program over the last 20 years isn't quite the achievement that the make it out to be. From the first US manned spaceflight in 1960 over the next 20 years the US went to the moon multiple times and then by 1980 had moved on to the Space Shuttle. China has largely engaged in occasional flights to low earth orbit using largely purchased Russian technology during length of time as the US from 1960-1980. Even worse for the Chinese is worth the commercialization of space on the US side the US is doing all sorts of new things and probably will beat China back to the moon. If China wanted to overtake the US in space the time was probably 5 or 10 years ago.
There is a reason in Star Trek beyond just being an "American" tv show that the intergalactic earth of the future seems to be represent the evolved values in the 23rd/24th century of the US and other "western" countries not those of Russia, China(or the USSR). The writers had a pretty good hunch that Russian and Chinese society would probably not be that good at pushing outwards the boundary of mankind.
I learn more about Asia from reading Vivek Kelkar’s brilliant essays at the Cosmopolitan Globalist than I do from any other source. Thank you Mr. Kelkar!
I can’t help but wonder how the world will react to the increasingly obvious fact that SARS-CoV-2 emerged from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. While no one expects China to cooperate with the new WHO panel charged with investigating the origins of the pandemic, the circumstantial evidence is mounting fast, especially the reality that gain of function research took place in that lab with the obvious endorsement of American virologists.
Will the world turn its head to Chinese complicity in the deaths or illness of millions? It’s hard to say, but the hit to the Chinese reputation is sure to be profound.
The reality of the conflict between Taiwan and China elucidates the decades long mistaken of Asian nations sheltering under the American nuclear umbrella. No thinking person can possibly believe that in response to a Chinese invasion or even a nuclear attack in Taiwan, that the United States would respond with nuclear retaliation. Would any American President but our country at risk to protect an island nation most American’s don’t care about? It’s highly doubtful.
Taiwan would have been much better off now if it had developed it’s own nuclear deterrent decades ago as Israel did. The American nuclear umbrella has been ripped apart by the gusts of history. If Taiwan had nuclear weapons even a nation as terrible as China would think twice about putting hundreds of thousands of its own citizens at risk of nuclear annihilation.
As for China’s economic woes, David P. Goldman at the Asia Times thinks they’re exaggerated. See,
Thank you for the lovely comment; that's so nice to hear. I'm also wondering whether China's responsibility for the pandemic will really dawn on people: Whether or not it emerged from the WIV (and I agree it looks growingly likely), the obstruction of the investigation alone is a massive crime. But is it possible China succeeded in obscuring this, in as much as the evidence has dribbled out in small doses, and most people don't understand it?
As for whether Taiwan would be better off: The problem--and the reason many countries *don't* want to develop nuclear weapons--is that once you do, the stakes in any conflict become apocalyptic. Adversaries will want to wipe you out in a single strike if they think they can. And of course there's the problem of accidents and false alarms, as we've discussed. It's not obvious to me that a nuclear Taiwan would be a more secure Taiwan.
typo: "his his path, " Good article. Not enough attention paid to the Climate Crisis effect and the Covid Effect and the ramifications world wide.
The site looks great and it is rocket fast, BTW.
Have you peeked? You weren't supposed to look yet! But I'm thrilled you think so. (Please don't judge it yet though because it's *full* of typos and infelicities. We're working on them.)
Another point to be noted is the the appearance on the American Left of an anti-anti-China movement. Essentially this is an alliance between progressive antiwar groups and progressive Asian-American advocacy groups. Their claim: that a robust US response to the Chinese threat stokes racism and incites hate crimes against Asians. Needless to say, that all-purpose demon, “white supremacy,” lies at the root of the problem.
Whether these activists are acting in good faith or not I leave for others to decide, but there can be no doubt that their campaign is very serviceable to the Chinese regime. For instance they condemn negative characterizations of the regime as inherently racist. Also they argue that the security threat posed by China is greatly exaggerated. All this must be music to the ears of of the Chinese oligarchy.
This wouldn’t matter very much if it was a phenomenon confined to the deep reaches of the progressive fever swamp. But it has already gained a foothold in the Democratic Party, where the likes of AOC and Bernie Sanders embrace the position of the anti-anti-China movement in whole or in part.
Perhaps the willingness of the PRC regime to invade Taiwan is exaggerated. An amphibious invasion is the most complex operation of war—and one of which PLA has no practical experience. I have no doubt that the regime desires to brandish a credible military threat so as to intimidate Taiwan. I very much doubt that it’s eager actually to go to war. Taiwan, after all, has powerful allies.
My view has always been that a cross straits invasion of Taiwan would be the largest conventional military operation in the world since D-Day. It has never been all that clear to me how even now it is the realm of capability for the PRC.
It's been said that whereas good generals study tactics, great ones study logistics—and the logistics of a PRC invasion of Taiwan would be daunting indeed.
Above all, an amphibious invasion requires port facilities at either end of the operation. Once a beachhead is seized—and this itself is by no means certain—it must be sustained. Reinforcements and supplies would have to move from ports on the west coast of the PRC to the bridgeheads seized in the first phase of the invasion. The immediate operational objective would be the consolidation and expansion of those bridgeheads, and a buildup of forces for a breakout. The scale of the buildup would depend on the size of the force that could be sustained at the eastern terminus of lines of communication stretching back to those ports on the PRC east coast. Some supplies could be delivered by air, but most would have to be moved by sea. Since the only suitable invasion sites are on the southwestern coast of Taiwan, the sea route would be a long one.
The invaders’ communications would thus be vulnerable to attack along their entire length. Damage to the PRC embarkation ports and discharge facilities in the bridgeheads, and ships sunk en route would automatically reduce the scale of the resupply effort, thus limiting the scale of the buildup. In June 1944, Hitler made a capital mistake by refusing to redirect the V-1 “buzz bombs”—essentially an early type of cruise missile—from London to the Allied beachheads in Normandy. Though the V-1 was not particularly accurate it had an 1,800lb high-explosive warhead, and the Allied bridgeheads were so congested that a hit almost anywhere could be counted on to do a lot of damage. Modern stand-off weapons are much more accurate and lethal. The Tomahawk cruise missile has a range of over 1,500 miles and can be launched from submarines, surface ships and aircraft—ideal for strikes on the embarkation ports and bridgeheads. The bridgeheads would also be exposed to bombardment by short-range missiles and artillery. Attack submarines operating in the Taiwan Straight would be the main threat to shipping.
Also, let us not forget that modern, high-intensity battle consumes supplies of all kinds at a prodigious rate. It’s one thing to observe that the PLA has an excellent main battle tank in its 1,200+ Type 99s but quite another to estimate how many it could land in Taiwan in the first 72 hours of an invasion. (The Type 99 weighs over 50 tons.) In any invasion scenario the resupply effort would have to be massive, operating around the clock, heavily reliant on requisitioned merchant ships—an easy target.
Finally, the PLA forces in the bridgeheads need not be completely cut off from the PRC mainland. If resupply capability falls below a certain level, a buildup of forces, hence any effort to break out of the bridgeheads, would become impossible. At that point the invasion would have failed, leaving the PRC with the choice of withdrawal (which the defenders may choose to allow) or the destruction of the invasion force.
I actually think this Chinese hypersonic missile test is a bigger story although again one that perhaps doesn't show China's strength as much as people think. First it IS either a violation or very close to a violation of the Outer Space Treaty which in turn now opens up the opportunity for the US and its allies to conduct activities that are "grey areas" under the OST such as asteroid mining and China will no longer really have any grounds to complain about them(China is arguing that the "test" was simply that just an R&D test and thus no actual violation of the OST has occurred). China notably has no real interests or capabilities in areas such as asteroid mining.
The broader issue is by opening up the issue of OST compliance China is also exposing the fact that its space program over the last 20 years isn't quite the achievement that the make it out to be. From the first US manned spaceflight in 1960 over the next 20 years the US went to the moon multiple times and then by 1980 had moved on to the Space Shuttle. China has largely engaged in occasional flights to low earth orbit using largely purchased Russian technology during length of time as the US from 1960-1980. Even worse for the Chinese is worth the commercialization of space on the US side the US is doing all sorts of new things and probably will beat China back to the moon. If China wanted to overtake the US in space the time was probably 5 or 10 years ago.
There is a reason in Star Trek beyond just being an "American" tv show that the intergalactic earth of the future seems to be represent the evolved values in the 23rd/24th century of the US and other "western" countries not those of Russia, China(or the USSR). The writers had a pretty good hunch that Russian and Chinese society would probably not be that good at pushing outwards the boundary of mankind.
I learn more about Asia from reading Vivek Kelkar’s brilliant essays at the Cosmopolitan Globalist than I do from any other source. Thank you Mr. Kelkar!
I can’t help but wonder how the world will react to the increasingly obvious fact that SARS-CoV-2 emerged from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. While no one expects China to cooperate with the new WHO panel charged with investigating the origins of the pandemic, the circumstantial evidence is mounting fast, especially the reality that gain of function research took place in that lab with the obvious endorsement of American virologists.
Will the world turn its head to Chinese complicity in the deaths or illness of millions? It’s hard to say, but the hit to the Chinese reputation is sure to be profound.
The reality of the conflict between Taiwan and China elucidates the decades long mistaken of Asian nations sheltering under the American nuclear umbrella. No thinking person can possibly believe that in response to a Chinese invasion or even a nuclear attack in Taiwan, that the United States would respond with nuclear retaliation. Would any American President but our country at risk to protect an island nation most American’s don’t care about? It’s highly doubtful.
Taiwan would have been much better off now if it had developed it’s own nuclear deterrent decades ago as Israel did. The American nuclear umbrella has been ripped apart by the gusts of history. If Taiwan had nuclear weapons even a nation as terrible as China would think twice about putting hundreds of thousands of its own citizens at risk of nuclear annihilation.
As for China’s economic woes, David P. Goldman at the Asia Times thinks they’re exaggerated. See,
https://asiatimes.com/2021/10/gobbling-chinas-exports-us-sinks-into-dependency/
Thank you for the lovely comment; that's so nice to hear. I'm also wondering whether China's responsibility for the pandemic will really dawn on people: Whether or not it emerged from the WIV (and I agree it looks growingly likely), the obstruction of the investigation alone is a massive crime. But is it possible China succeeded in obscuring this, in as much as the evidence has dribbled out in small doses, and most people don't understand it?
As for whether Taiwan would be better off: The problem--and the reason many countries *don't* want to develop nuclear weapons--is that once you do, the stakes in any conflict become apocalyptic. Adversaries will want to wipe you out in a single strike if they think they can. And of course there's the problem of accidents and false alarms, as we've discussed. It's not obvious to me that a nuclear Taiwan would be a more secure Taiwan.