Question:
What would be the most effective strategy in a war against China?
anonymous
2008-01-26 01:15:44 UTC
What would be the most effective strategy in a war against China? Without using strategic or tactical nuclear bombs.

The situation is China just invaded Taiwan- after Taiwan formally declared it's Independence, drawing NATO into the war.

Russia refuses to honor it's alliance with China, and remains neutral, but North Korea takes the opportunity and invades South Korea and allies with China, forcing Japan into the war on the side of NATO.

So you have NATO,Taiwan,Japan,South Korea, and NATO
against China and North Korea.

What strategies would be effective against the Chinese alliance? How would the war unfold?
Fourteen answers:
anonymous
2008-01-26 01:25:17 UTC
Out last them.



Should a conflict break out across the Taiwan Strait, Taiwanese forces would face a grave shortage of ammunition after just seven days of fighting. Even though China has a much greater stockpile of ammunition than Taiwan, it would also encounter similar problems in a sustained conflict.



The PLA Air Force fleet of third generation fighters comprises 281 Su-30s, Su-27 SKs, J-11A/Bs and 64 J-10As, whereas its bomber fleet includes approximately 48 JH-7As and 117 H-6s. In full-scale warfare across the Taiwan Strait, suppose there were a loss of 20-30 combat aircraft each day, the current fleet of 344 third generation fighters in effective service in the PLAAF could sustain combat operations for only 11-17 days.



Unlike the United States and Russia, China does not yet have the capability to independently manufacture third generation fighters. For instance, in order to produce J-11B fighters, China has to rely on imports from Russia for critical subsystems including engines and infra-red search and track systems.



Furthermore, the manufacturer of J-11 serial fighters, the Shenyang Aircraft Co., has had a production capacity limited to roughly 17 aircraft each year. As for the J-10, it is widely known that production of this fighter aircraft relies heavily on the outside world, as the J-10's AL-31FN engines are imported from Russia, and other large parts are forged following the designs of a certain Western country.

As a consequence, if a conflict broke out and a military embargo was imposed, the PLA Air Force would immediately face difficulties with its insufficient number of third generation fighters.
mike b
2008-01-26 01:32:32 UTC
I really don't think NATO would get involved. Taiwan is not a NATO country and if China wanted to take Taiwan it wouldn't take them long to get it. Would almost be over before anyone like the US could even get there. Now I think North Korea would be a different story. The US already has troops there who I think would all be but wiped out in the first few hours, causing a huge strike back by the US from bases in Japan. Of course NK would know this and strike Japan at the same time as invading SK. This one would be a bloody mess. But again, as far as Taiwan, I just don't think the US could get there in time to do anything. Very thought provoking question though.
Bob D
2008-01-26 04:12:42 UTC
A couple of problems with your scenerio. NATO will not get invovled. It is outside its traditional role. It also helps to keep Russia neutral.

Though Taiwan would struggle the force projection ability of the Chineses is limited since their Navy is still a coastal defense force. THe Air battle woudl go to the Chinese forces intially until the Americans could get enough forces there. Older gen planes cans still do damage esp if you overwhelm the air defences. If you shoot down 15-1 but they have 20-1, its a problem. There are enough mobile US forces to seriuosly hurt the invasion forces.

The biggest problem would be Korea. The manpower of the Chinese would be toughest challenge.

You dont want to invade China. You hurt the military. Take out the war fighting capapbilities esp any extra border force projection and then let internal problems take over.
GIJOEROCK
2008-01-26 02:03:40 UTC
Excellent question: I'm Army but I am not a warfighting strategist. Here is how I would fight this potential WAR.



Russia is key: Neutral company also allows for launch and recovery platforms on either side of the fight.



China has so much open water you can attack from numerous angles to divide it's huge Military into thirds to create a three prong attack using US/NATO Land, Air, and Sea forces. In addition, I would ask the UN to slap sanctions and a trade embargo to starve this country of it's economic benefits.



I would use the Japanese Defense Force combined with the Taiwan Army to restablish its sovernity and push all invaders out of the Country. Once victory is declared, establish a UN peacekeeeping force in the Taiwan straights and launch a counter offensive in the country of China that supports US/NATO troops.



South Korea has a well-trained Military combined with US forces that are synchronized for this type of fight with North Korea. Also, I would request the UN to slap sanctions on North Korea and use a counterinsurgency force to turn the Peoples of North Korea against it's government while supporting military efforts.



A counterinsurgency force does more damage than a regular army conducting force on force operations.



Phase I: Restablish a soveriegn country in Taiwan w/ Japan and Taiwan forces.



Phase II: US/NATO invasion on Chinese soil (Three Prong Attack)



Phase III: US/South Korean Forces push the North Korean military fight into Chinese soil.



Remember this is a simultaneous attack even though I mentioned phased Operations. Good luck on your invasion
anonymous
2016-04-07 09:22:16 UTC
A Non-American perspective: -Invasion would be necessary, and incredibly painful for both sides. Blockades and embargoes only infuriate: look at 1941! Japan may have attacked Peal Harbour, but there was plenty of aggression fom both sides prior to that. -Chinese culture differs greatly from American culture: do not think for one second that the majority of Chinese need or want US-style democracy, let alone occupation. Anyone here who would then consider Chinese guerillas to be 'insurgents' would be dead wrong: like the Vietnamese, they would be fighting for their homeland. -Any truce favouring the US would require international support and isolation of China. Not bloody likely! Unfair terms (in German eyes) were a large measure of the cause of World War 2! - American posturing and penis measuring about who has the most/biggest/best etc did not help in Viet Nam. The Chinese know their nation well, and how to use the land. They will have no issue with tactics that Americans find distasteful, and will be morally supported in these actions because they feel violated by invaders. -Any American atrocities will not so easily be excused. - The American public loves war: until Americans come home in body-bags, and your people are very fickle when it comes to prolonged engagements. Modern wars are fought at home too.
anonymous
2008-01-26 04:37:53 UTC
Great question - very Tom Clancy



I know you didn't include a date in your hypothetical scenario and that's pretty important.



If this happened tomorrow, the most effective strategy would be for the US to make its statements of condemnation, but to let the United Nations take lead... in fact we need to show the world we aren't cowboys.



I'm pretty sure that we're spread too thin in the Middle East and our equipment is too banged up to pull off any kind of deployment to the Pacific - other than a token U.N. peacekeeping force.



Also, the American Public probably would not stand for any kind of large-scale deployment in the next couple of years unless we're attacked on our own soil by a real military threat.



We'd slow play it... cry tears for Taiwan... claim we're doing everything we possibly can through diplomatic channels, but we wouldn't send troops.
who WAS #1?
2008-01-26 01:44:49 UTC
NATO is not what it used to be. It's been watered down.



One of the 7 classic blunders is getting involved in a land war in Asia.



It's not about nukes or China's pit bull of North Korea, it's about resources. Trees, water, oil, fertile soil, etc.



Wars are fought over food and fuel, not ideals.



You seem to be concerned about Taiwan; guess what: USA will not fight China over Taiwan, we don't have the kind of Navy anymore to fight a 2 Front war. Nor the manpower. USA will sell out Taiwan at the first sign of trouble, we need China to fuel our debt. Done deal, Taiwan (Formosa) will be eaten.



sorry. But that's what's going to happen.
gregory_dittman
2008-01-26 04:10:46 UTC
China's government is not well liked and is very centrally organized. Hitting the top government compounds will cause the government to collapse. Without an enemy to fight on the ground the population will do what it wants without getting any support from the lower ranked military. China's military spends more amount of resources controlling the people of China that trying to defend China.



If China's population does back the government, napalm could be used to destroy the food supplies and mass starvation would occur. Bombs could destroy the dams. China's military would be too tied up trying to protect itself from the starving mob.
Arcanum Noctis
2008-01-26 01:21:13 UTC
Covertly start a war between Russia and China or India and China. If you plan on taking out a country, it would be best to weaken it first.



This is partially why the U.S. uses sanctions. The other reason the U.S. uses sanctions is to make a country's citizens so miserable that they take it out on their government with the possibility of the government being overthrown.
carterchas
2008-01-26 01:29:08 UTC
Embargo all of their imports. Their economy could not stand it.



Greatest tactic against China?

Make George W. Bush their prez. They wouldn't have a chance.
United_Peace
2008-01-26 01:40:55 UTC
An armed war against China is futile. Our population compared to theirs is like a drop in the ocean. We can win an economic war against China if we can educate and train our workers as fast as they are doing, and lead with integrity. While we are following Israel's example of making enemies, China is all out to win friends: While we are chasing 'terrorists', China is all out to winning friends:

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-51966420.html

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=7051

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/12/1F638050-5F67-421B-952B-82219A5739CC.html

http://cgi.stanford.edu/group/wais/cgi-bin/index.php?p=3310
anonymous
2008-01-26 01:23:16 UTC
To give up immediately.
anonymous
2008-01-26 01:22:34 UTC
Well, it couldn't be WMD's could it. GWB told us that they are very very bad.



Or is that only when it is other countries which are using them??????
amibeethoven
2008-01-26 03:53:20 UTC
I think it will be nuclear.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...