• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

China/Taiwan rising tensions.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cowley

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
15 Apr 2016
Messages
15,827
Location
Devon
It’s probably worth discussing the current situation in a new thread as the most recent one was about wider conflicts as well.
This has all heated up quite rapidly over the past few days…



China reacted by launching its biggest ever military exercises in the region.
Ms Pelosi is the most senior US politician to visit the island in 25 years.
Her decision to stop at the island has enraged Beijing, which considers Taiwan to be a breakaway province of China.
The US does not officially recognise Taiwan, but it does maintain a strong relationship with the island, which includes selling weapons for Taiwan to defend itself.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,829
Location
Glasgow
It’s probably worth discussing the current situation in a new thread as the most recent one was about wider conflicts as well.
This has all heated up quite rapidly over the past few days…

Noteable I think that the present situation is a reverse of the original post-war policy.

Until Nixon's visit to mainland China, Taiwan was recognised as the legitimate Chinese government not Peking/Beijing. Nixon essentially began a reversal US policy, quite remarkable given the situation in Vietnam and the fact that the US generally recognised right-wing/nationalist dictatorships/authoritarian regimes in preference to Communist ones.

The agreement between the US and the PRC China was signed by Carter in 1978, but the seeds were sown by Nixon.

I do wonder how things would be if the US had continued its support and recognition of Taiwan and either separately acknowledged mainland China or entered into an alternative agreement. Perhaps the demand to not recognise Taiwan and the hopes of a trading agreement with the emerging superpower was just too tempting?
 

Magdalia

Established Member
Joined
1 Jan 2022
Messages
3,059
Location
The Fens
The BBC report has a link to China and Taiwan: a really simple guide:


Quoting from this guide:

Much of the world's everyday electronic equipment - from phones to laptops, watches and games consoles - is powered by computer chips made in Taiwan.
By one measure, a single Taiwanese company - the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company or TSMC - has over half of the world's market.


What's happening there could have consequences here.
 

Pete_uk

Established Member
Joined
28 Jan 2017
Messages
1,254
Location
Stroud, Glos
I think if China goes for Taiwan there will be a hell of a fight to start with but I think China will ultimately win.

God know what would happen if the US gets involved though
 

Trackman

Established Member
Joined
28 Feb 2013
Messages
3,015
Location
Lewisham
I think if China goes for Taiwan there will be a hell of a fight to start with but I think China will ultimately win.
You have to remember Taiwan is an island, this makes things a hundred times more difficult to invade plus it's a fair distance from China (120 miles?) so their military can pick targets off, It's not like Putin walking over the border to Ukraine.
 

deltic

Established Member
Joined
8 Feb 2010
Messages
3,237
You have to remember Taiwan is an island, this makes things a hundred times more difficult to invade plus it's a fair distance from China (120 miles?) so their military can pick targets off, It's not like Putin walking over the border to Ukraine.
But very easy to blockade and as Taiwan is dependent on food imports it would probably not take long to starve it into submission.

The war in Ukraine has shown China that the West has fairly limited stocks of munitions available and struggles to ramp up supply - its ability to supply Taiwan with weaponry and munitions will be severely constrained and a blockade would lead to a rapid escalation with the international community. There can only be one winner unless the US is able to achieve a cyber knockout that brings China to its knees.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,225
Location
SE London
The war in Ukraine has shown China that the West has fairly limited stocks of munitions available and struggles to ramp up supply

I doubt that state of affairs will last for very long now that the West has (hopefully) learned the lessons of Ukraine.

Besides, are the limited stocks true of the West in general or only of Europe? I suspect the USA has quite large stocks of munitions that it's not sending to Ukraine precisely because it wants to keep them in reserve to meet any threat from China.
 

deltic

Established Member
Joined
8 Feb 2010
Messages
3,237
I doubt that state of affairs will last for very long now that the West has (hopefully) learned the lessons of Ukraine.

Besides, are the limited stocks true of the West in general or only of Europe? I suspect the USA has quite large stocks of munitions that it's not sending to Ukraine precisely because it wants to keep them in reserve to meet any threat from China.
The US has supposedly used up a quarter/third of its stockpiles of some weapons (Javelins and Stingers) supporting Ukraine and that is not a particularly large war. Such weapons would be needed if there was an attempted land invasion. Its not easy to ramp up production of munitions given they are much more sophisticated these days. Its not like switching from car production to tanks as in WW2.
 

Magdalia

Established Member
Joined
1 Jan 2022
Messages
3,059
Location
The Fens
The US has supposedly used up a quarter/third of its stockpiles of some weapons (Javelins and Stingers) supporting Ukraine and that is not a particularly large war. Such weapons would be needed if there was an attempted land invasion. Its not easy to ramp up production of munitions given they are much more sophisticated these days. Its not like switching from car production to tanks as in WW2.
I wonder how many of those use microchips that were made in Taiwan?
 

Mogster

Member
Joined
25 Sep 2018
Messages
907
The important question is how strongly would the Taiwanese resist a Chinese invasion?

If the results of current war game exercises are to be believed then a Chinese invasion would be over before US forces arrived. That certainly seems to be the US belief. The US has refused to sell advanced weapon systems like the F-35 to Taiwan, the suggestion being they could soon be in Chinese hands.

So if a Chinese invasion is well underway and the Taiwanese defence is collapsing would the Biden administration really commit US forces against China? I just can see that happenning.
 

birchesgreen

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2020
Messages
5,216
Location
Birmingham
One question mark over the Chinese armed forces is that they are pretty much untested. Their last military adventure was against Vietnam in the late 1970s (and that didn't go very well), so pretty much no one will have actual combat experience. It matters a lot, so much stuff and systems you think work do not in the heat of battle as folks like we and the US have discovered over the last few decades.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,225
Location
SE London
One question mark over the Chinese armed forces is that they are pretty much untested. Their last military adventure was against Vietnam in the late 1970s (and that didn't go very well), so pretty much no one will have actual combat experience. It matters a lot, so much stuff and systems you think work do not in the heat of battle as folks like we and the US have discovered over the last few decades.

Do the Taiwanese forces have any actual combat experience either?
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,750
Location
Redcar
I doubt that state of affairs will last for very long now that the West has (hopefully) learned the lessons of Ukraine.
You'd hope so but I have my doubts that the bean counters will see it that way and actually allow for proper stocks of munitions to be built up. Though perhaps that's just my cynicism at having seen the near continual running down of European (and in different but still significant ways US) armed forces since the end of the Cold War. I can't help but fear that shaking off the mantra that "we will only ever have to fight wars of choice against far weaker opponents" and all that leads from it (smaller forces, less reserves, small munitions stockpiles, etc etc) is something that will be tricky. Especially at a time of high inflation and a recession.
Besides, are the limited stocks true of the West in general or only of Europe? I suspect the USA has quite large stocks of munitions that it's not sending to Ukraine precisely because it wants to keep them in reserve to meet any threat from China.
It's true everywhere just worse in Europe. The West in general has never had enough of a stockpile of munitions we always use them faster than we think we will. Even during the Gulf War we burned through Cold War level stockpiles at a rate of knots far higher than anticipated pre-war. The situation has not gotten better and indeed has gotten worse in general. In an exercise (paper based!) we ran out of ammunition in eight days during a major war whilst the US would start to run out of artillery ammunition in three weeks to a month. I note that Ukraine - Russia has is approaching its six month anniversary...

There's an interesting article on Royal United Services Institute (a think tank, but one dating back to the 1800s and held, I think(!), in high regard) which you can find here, I've pulled a couple of extracts below:

Presently, the US is decreasing its artillery ammunition stockpiles. In 2020, artillery ammunition purchases decreased by 36% to $425 million. In 2022, the plan is to reduce expenditure on 155mm artillery rounds to $174 million. This is equivalent to 75,357 M795 basic ‘dumb’ rounds for regular artillery, 1,400 XM1113 rounds for the M777, and 1,046 XM1113 rounds for Extended Round Artillery Cannons. Finally, there are $75 million dedicated for Excalibur precision-guided munitions that costs $176K per round, thus totaling 426 rounds. In short, US annual artillery production would at best only last for 10 days to two weeks of combat in Ukraine. If the initial estimate of Russian shells fired is over by 50%, it would only extend the artillery supplied for three weeks.

The US is not the only country facing this challenge. In a recent war game involving US, UK and French forces, UK forces exhausted national stockpiles of critical ammunition after eight days.

Unfortunately, this is not only the case with artillery. Anti-tank Javelins and air-defence Stingers are in the same boat. The US shipped 7,000 Javelin missiles to Ukraine – roughly one-third of its stockpile – with more shipments to come. Lockheed Martin produces about 2,100 missiles a year, though this number might ramp up to 4,000 in a few years. Ukraine claims to use 500 Javelin missiles every day.

The expenditure of cruise missiles and theatre ballistic missiles is just as massive. The Russians have fired between 1,100 and 2,100 missiles. The US currently purchases 110 PRISM, 500 JASSM and 60 Tomahawk cruise missiles annually, meaning that in three months of combat, Russia has burned through four times the US annual missile production. The Russian rate of production can only be estimated. Russia started missile production in 2015 in limited initial runs, and even in 2016 the production runs were estimated at 47 missiles. This means that it had only five to six years of full-scale production.

Finally, there is an assumption about overall ammunition consumption rates. The US government has always lowballed this number. From the Vietnam era to today, small arms plants have shrunk from five to just one. This was glaring at the height of the Iraq war, when US started to run low on small arms ammunition, causing the US government to buy British and Israeli ammunition during the initial stage of the war. At one point, the US had to dip into Vietnam and even Second World War-era ammo stockpiles of .50 calibre ammunition to feed the war effort. This was largely the result of incorrect assumptions about how effective US troops would be. Indeed, the Government Accountability Office estimated that it took 250,000 rounds to kill one insurgent. Luckily for the US, its gun culture ensured that small arms ammunition industry has a civilian component in the US. This is not the case with other types of ammunition, as shown earlier with Javelin and Stinger missiles. Without access to government methodology, it is impossible to understand why US government estimates were off, but there is a risk that the same errors were made with other types of munitions.

Its not easy to ramp up production of munitions given they are much more sophisticated these days. Its not like switching from car production to tanks as in WW2.
Yes and no. I'm not sure it's necessarily the complexity of the munitions and similar though that will certainly play a role but more the industrial base to produce whatever is needed at scale. After all a dumb 155mm artillery shell isn't much more complex than it's WW2 ancestors and yet, if required, I can't imagine ramping up the production of such munitions in a matter of a few years to reach even a fraction of the levels achieved during WW2.

A far bigger issue is that we don't have the base of industrial production and skilled people to redeploy to producing munitions and weapons systems at the requisite scale. And in some respects we're going backwards. The time taken to develop and introduce new systems is reaching, if it wasn't so serious, frankly hilarious proportions.

The other big issue is the fragility of supply of key components. At the moment if we really went all out we probably could convert significant portions of our civilian industrial base to wartime production. Converting Nissan in Sunderland to producing armoured vehicles would be difficult but not insurmountable. But the bigger issue is in ensuring the supply of components to go into those vehicles. Where do all the semiconductor chips come from to equip the fleet of new vehicles? Well, most of them come from Taiwan.

In a war with Russia that's not an insurmountable problem as we (NATO) would probably just end up buying most of Taiwan's production of such chips (which would be eyewatering as well as potentially catastrophic for global supply chains and other countries not involved in the war but not impossible). But obviously in a war with China or a China - Taiwan war that supply is just gone. Either because no-one can export it anymore or because the factories that make them get destroyed/damaged.

If the UK Government were serious about ensuring our security I'd be suggesting they look to making sure that the UK has some latent domestic semiconductor production available. Before Brexit I would have argued for an EU wide project to set up a semiconductor plant but seeing as we have left the EU it probably needs to be a UK solution.

But in any event there should be very serious discussions going on around NATO about just how reliant we have become on being able import critical military components from other nations (sometimes hostile or potentially so) and on running down our own industrial capabilities. Another one, do we have enough steel production capacity in the UK to ramp up production of armoured vehicles? I'd gamble we do not.

Do the Taiwanese forces have any actual combat experience either?

No but its not quite as important to a defending side.

Lot easier to give a guy a rife and an anti-tank rocket launcher, stick him in trench and tell him to shoot at anything that comes over that beach and for him to actually be effective at that than it is to conduct the amphibious assault side of that equation. I wonder if perhaps, at such remove, we sometimes take for granted quite how remarkable of an operation D-Day and its follow up was in many respects? Taiwan's lack of combat experience is about as significant as China's but as the defender they have a considerably simpler task than China would. That's quite apart from the impact of "I'm fighting for my home" on the morale of our Taiwanese defender. There's only so far that Chinese Communist Party propaganda can push someone to believe that they're reclaiming a "rogue province" when they're getting shot at by the locals.
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
6,556
Location
UK
The war in Ukraine has shown China that the West has fairly limited stocks of munitions available and struggles to ramp up supply
Has it, do we have any sources for that? A lot of these claims point to Stinger AA missile systems, which is very much an end-of-life platform.
 
Last edited:

Magdalia

Established Member
Joined
1 Jan 2022
Messages
3,059
Location
The Fens
The other big issue is the fragility of supply of key components. At the moment if we really went all out we probably could convert significant portions of our civilian industrial base to wartime production. Converting Nissan in Sunderland to producing armoured vehicles would be difficult but not insurmountable. But the bigger issue is in ensuring the supply of components to go into those vehicles. Where do all the semiconductor chips come from to equip the fleet of new vehicles? Well, most of them come from Taiwan.
What has stopped China from invading previously and what makes them more likely to invade now?
Having a secure supply of microchips is critical for a functioning economy, cyber security, and battlefield weapons.

Taiwan's dominance of the microchip industry make it a place of great strategic significance, which wasn't the case when it mainly manufactured cheap consumer goods (ironically, these are now mostly made in mainland China).
 

Gostav

Member
Joined
14 May 2016
Messages
415
What has stopped China from invading previously and what makes them more likely to invade now?
Until late 1990s, China had no electronic-warfare aircraft, no modern fighters, and no modern warships. At that time, USN EA-6B Prowler could disable the radars of the defense zone in the eastern coastal area of China. Take 1996 as an example, the Chinese Army was even worse, they were still equipped with first and second generation tanks and severely lacked armored transport vehicles. The Army Aviation only had 8 Gazelle armed helicopters (!). There were almost no air defense missiles in the field air defense forces at the division level and below.

It was a very different era.
 
Last edited:

DustyBin

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2020
Messages
3,634
Location
First Class
Lot easier to give a guy a rife and an anti-tank rocket launcher, stick him in trench and tell him to shoot at anything that comes over that beach and for him to actually be effective at that than it is to conduct the amphibious assault side of that equation. I wonder if perhaps, at such remove, we sometimes take for granted quite how remarkable of an operation D-Day and its follow up was in many respects? Taiwan's lack of combat experience is about as significant as China's but as the defender they have a considerably simpler task than China would. That's quite apart from the impact of "I'm fighting for my home" on the morale of our Taiwanese defender. There's only so far that Chinese Communist Party propaganda can push someone to believe that they're reclaiming a "rogue province" when they're getting shot at by the locals.

In addition, Taiwan is equipped with Western equipment that we know works as it's well tested. That's not to say that the Chinese kit is junk, won't work etc. but there are question marks over the capability of domestically produced aircraft for example.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top