Re: Satellite defense
- From: "Ed Kyle" <edkyle99@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 25 Jan 2007 22:31:15 -0800
On Jan 25, 6:53 pm, "Jonathan" <b...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
China is counting on their missile attacks to
win it for them before the invasion. But the
recent history of depending on air and missile
attacks shows that isn't enough. They have
to land a force.
And much of our forces in the region are
stationed in Japan, China would have to attack
Japan to get at our air forces there. Japan
would have even more to lose than we would
and I doubt they'd stay out. They have a
significant air force. We'd rule the skies
and with it the seas.
And an amphibious operation depends almost
entirely on surprise. In WW2 surprise could be
accomplished. Not today. The Chinese assault
would have to be very quick and work to perfection.
Else they'd get slaughtered. It'd be horrible
for them.
The war would be horrible, yes, for all involved. But
if it committed to an invasion, China, with its billion
souls, could overwhelm a defense if it remained
committed long enough.
As for getting on the island, China could easily use
a ruse. It conducts periodic military exercises in
the area, with big mobilizations of ground, sea, air,
and missile forces. All it would have to do would be
to turn one of those exercises in to a surprise attack
one year. Smother Taiwan with hundreds of missile
and air attacks to decimate Taiwan's air force and
then drop in a few paratroop divisions to hold a
landing beachhead. The U.S. only has 40,000-ish
military in Japan. China could land more than that
on Taiwan in a day or two. The allies landed
about 156,000 in Normandy on D-Day and more
than 600,000 within a couple of weeks.
- Ed Kyle
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Satellite defense
- From: Pat Flannery
- Re: Satellite defense
- From: Harri Tavaila
- Re: Satellite defense
- From: Jake McGuire
- Re: Satellite defense
- References:
- Satellite defense
- From: Frogwatch
- Re: Satellite defense
- From: Ed Kyle
- Re: Satellite defense
- From: Rand Simberg
- Re: Satellite defense
- From: Ed Kyle
- Re: Satellite defense
- From: Jake McGuire
- Re: Satellite defense
- From: Ed Kyle
- Re: Satellite defense
- From: frédéric haessig
- Re: Satellite defense
- From: Ed Kyle
- Re: Satellite defense
- From: Jonathan
- Re: Satellite defense
- From: Ed Kyle
- Re: Satellite defense
- From: Jonathan
- Satellite defense
- Prev by Date: [] SpaceX static test?
- Next by Date: Re: Footsteps to Mars
- Previous by thread: Re: Satellite defense
- Next by thread: Re: Satellite defense
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|