Help support TMP


"The U.S. Army Should Plan To Send Four Divisions To..." Topic


28 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2009-present) Message Board


Areas of Interest

Modern

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Showcase Article

Fight's On Surface-to-Air Missile Site

Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian is painting some ground targets as he needs them.


Featured Workbench Article

Magnets & AK47

How to use my 15mm figures for one ruleset without gluing them down to a set base size?


Featured Profile Article

ISIS in the Year 2066

What if you want to game something too controversial or distasteful to put on the tabletop?


Featured Movie Review


708 hits since 17 Oct 2020
©1994-2020 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP17 Oct 2020 1:26 p.m. PST

… Taiwan In The Event Of A Chinese Invasion

"If China invades Taiwan and the United States opts to get involved, the U.S. Army should be prepared to deploy tens of thousands of soldiers and thousands of heavy vehicles to the island country and "drive the enemy into the sea," according to a bold new essay from Brian Dunn, a former Michigan Army National Guardsman.

Dunn's essay is one of several Taiwan-themed think-pieces in the latest issue of Military Review, the Army's professional journal.

Many American military thinkers for decades have steered clear of publicly, and specifically, discussing the possibility of war between the United States and China over Taiwan. But with Beijing's escalating aggression in the western Pacific and the Pentagon's own increasing attention on the region, that's changing…"


picture


Main page
link


Interesting paper here…

link


Amicalement
Armand

RudyNelson17 Oct 2020 1:54 p.m. PST

Back in the early 1980s I worked with a unit that prepared the logistic side of the Pacific Capstone program. This prepared to send forces to Asia in case of an outbreak in Europe.
Most of the units deployed to Asia were scheduled to be reserve and national Guard units.
I did not work on any China aggressor only program. I am sure there was one.

Defender1 Supporting Member of TMP17 Oct 2020 2:26 p.m. PST

Pipe dream at this point. Maybe if they were prey positioned it might work.

Thresher01 Supporting Member of TMP17 Oct 2020 3:42 p.m. PST

Perhaps, or we could go asymmetric and liberate Hong Kong instead, or too.

We could help arm and free Tibet also, if they're willing to fight for their freedom.

At the very least, we should openly announce that ALL options are on the table to give the Chi-coms something to worry about.

arealdeadone17 Oct 2020 4:08 p.m. PST

4 divisions is a massive ask given current US Army only has 10 active divisions (4 of these are light divisions lacking in heavy armour etc) Not sure how long it would take to activate the 8 National Guard Divisions.

I also doubt the US has sealift capabilities to shift even 1 heavy division quickly these days given massive cutbacks to logostics since 1990 and massive losses of maritime shipping.

They might be able to get one of the airborne divisions across quickly but these are lacking in armour and air defence.

And I suspect any announcement to deploy troops to Taiwan would be a reason for the Chinese to invade.

And given distances the Chinese will be far more responsive and far better able to concentrate force.

15mm and 28mm Fanatik17 Oct 2020 4:21 p.m. PST

I would assume a necessary prerequisite for stationing US troops as a trip-wire force in Taiwan to deter mainland invasion is recognizing Taiwan as an independent nation and abandoning the One China policy. Otherwise, China would consider such a move as violating their sovereignty.

CFeicht Supporting Member of TMP17 Oct 2020 5:36 p.m. PST

Perhaps we could use mercenaries.

Thresher01 Supporting Member of TMP17 Oct 2020 7:19 p.m. PST

Probably not a good idea, since we could lose a lot of troops.

Better to loan or give them nukes for self defense. If we're overly worried about that, we could go the NATO/West German route and station some of our troops there to control the nukes (we keep the codes in our possession), and act as a trip-wire on the island.

A pity those old Pershing IIs were scrapped. Seems like they would have been perfect for the job.

I guess we'll just have to loan them some longer-range, cruise missiles instead.

Nothing ensures REAL deterrence like nuclear weapons.

RudyNelson17 Oct 2020 8:59 p.m. PST

Send them thousands of drones with the pilots located in the States.

Legion 418 Oct 2020 8:15 a.m. PST

4 divisions is a massive ask given current US Army only has 10 active divisions (4 of these are light divisions lacking in heavy armour etc)
Well there is one USMC Div on Okinawa, IIRC, that is the closest. Albeit the USMC just deactivated their M1 Bns.

The 82d ABN Div, 173d ABN Bde and 75th RANGER Rgt could also also get there somewhat quickly. These unit all have TOW, and other AT assets. If enough lift assets are available ?

Followed by the 101 Air Assault and 10 MTN Divs. They would take a little longer. Again both have a lot of AT assets. Hopefully we'd have to the Taiwanese military for heavier assets in armor, FA, ADA, etc. And air support from the USN, USAF and Taiwanese to provide some CAS & CAP.

Ships loaded with troops, etc., from outside the region would probably never make it in time.

The 25th ID is in HI as well as at least a Stryker Bde at FT. Lewis, WA. They are closer to the region too. But they are heavier than the other units I mentioned but I'll admit I'm not sure of what the 25ID's TO&E is right now. I had heard they even have some airborne elements(?).

A Stryker Bde is lighter than a Tank Bde, but still pretty heavy. IIRC 3 Strykers will fit on a C-17. But would those lift assets be available ? They may be already being used by the US ABN elements ?

The 2ID in the ROK couldn't be deployed "en masse" as they still have Un to contend with. He may take advantage of the situation to role South. And I'm sure the PRC would not stop him. He'd be keeping assets from being deployed to Taiwan. The US 6th in AK would be in a similar situation. They'd have to defend that state/region. But at least not from Un …

Admittedly the US ARMY may have made some changes to it's TO&Es since I last looked.(they don't email for advice, etc. !😁😎 )

By the time we could get a heavier units there, it might be over. Maybe the "ANZACs" could supply some heavier units. They are relatively closer to Taiwan than US assets.


Not sure how long it would take to activate the 8 National Guard Divisions.
Too long …

And I suspect any announcement to deploy troops to Taiwan would be a reason for the Chinese to invade.

And given distances the Chinese will be far more responsive and far better able to concentrate force.

Yes I agree … "The firstest with the mostest", I think the CSA Gen N. B. Forrest said something like that. [Don't get upset, I'm from OHIO, and would have been with a Union unit during the ACW !]


Send them thousands of drones with the pilots located in the States.
Based on current combat actions occurring in some places on the planet. Drones will definitely play a big role on the battlefield.

panzerfrans18 Oct 2020 10:25 a.m. PST

Taiwan is a large island located over 100 kilometers from mainland China.
Without controlling this stretch of water a Chinese invasion can only fail.
The best way to deny them this control is through air and naval assets.

USAFpilot18 Oct 2020 1:02 p.m. PST

Is China going to invade Taiwan? What is the cost vs. benefit analysis? How far out of the region would a conflict expand?

Will a US military presence on Taiwan provide a deterrent or a provocation?

If China attacks US troops on Taiwan (whether 4 divisions or just 1 battalion), will that start WW3?

How many divisions does China have?

arealdeadone18 Oct 2020 1:59 p.m. PST

Legion, ANZACS:

1. Australia has 1 division with 3 mixed brigades in total. This includes some 59 M1 Abrams penny packeted across 3 brigades with not all operational. Artillery is minimal but being upgraded with SPGs. Still no MLRS. Air defence is severely lacking.


Australia does have 100 fighter aircraft, AWACS, EW etc but I am not sure if we would go against our Chinese pay masters.

2. New Zealand – 2 light infantrry batallions with minimal artillery support. No combat air air force and navy is 2 obs9lete frigates

arealdeadone18 Oct 2020 2:01 p.m. PST

USAFpilot, China used to have 2 triggers for invading Taiwan:
1. Taiwan declares independence.
2. Taiwan switches allegiance to USSR.

2 doesn't exist but the first does. Not sure if US deployment of troops counts. These days that could be akin to placing NATO troops in Ukraine or Georgia.

15mm and 28mm Fanatik18 Oct 2020 3:08 p.m. PST

Not sure if US deployment of troops counts. These days that could be akin to placing NATO troops in Ukraine or Georgia.

Since China considers Taiwan a part of the country that will eventually be reunited with the mainland, I would wager that any foreign troops based there to deter itself would cross a red line and be tantamount to a de facto declaration of independence.

Furthermore, unlike Ukraine and Georgia which de jure gained independence when the Soviet Union collapsed, Taiwan isn't recognized as an independent country in the international community.

Thresher01 Supporting Member of TMP18 Oct 2020 3:40 p.m. PST

Xi keeps telling his troops they need to "prepare for war", though of course he does that every year, like clockwork.

Perhaps trying to lull us into complacency for when they really want to do it.

We may need to keep some divisions/troops available to go in and rescue Americans that the Chinese are planning to kidnap and hold hostage on trumped up charges, since they don't like us prosecuting their people for lying to us here, AND are threatening to do that.

Before anyone says don't be silly, they'd never do that, they've been holding a couple of Canadians for more than a year, since they won't release some woman we're interested in, for crimes as well.

That same "international community just appointed China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia to "the human rights council", so it isn't what it used to be when sanity prevailed.

Now, insanity seems to be gaining inroads on many fronts.

15mm and 28mm Fanatik18 Oct 2020 7:01 p.m. PST

they've been holding a couple of Canadians for more than a year, since they won't release some woman we're interested in, for crimes as well.

The Chinese aren't the only ones holding hostage though. The head of Huawei is held on trumped up charges so it's just a game of tit-for-tat, similar to the recent consulate exchange with Houston and Chengdu.

That same "international community just appointed China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia to "the human rights council"

SA didn't make the council. They don't have enough clout.

Thresher01 Supporting Member of TMP18 Oct 2020 10:07 p.m. PST

Well, at least that's one good thing.

I was surprised Iran wasn't up for consideration too, given the others being admitted.

Legion 419 Oct 2020 7:50 a.m. PST

Without controlling this stretch of water a Chinese invasion can only fail.
The best way to deny them this control is through air and naval assets.
I've been saying that. I.e. the USN & USAF and maybe some Allied assets might have something to say about the PRC crossing the Straits. Plus this is not WWII, with our orbital assets, etc. The PRC won't be able to build up their forces, before an invasion, and we not see it. Will they attack our orbital, etc. assets ? That would be an act of war, AFAIK.

2. Taiwan switches allegiance to USSR.
I just don't see that happening anytime soon if ever. But would make a good "what-if" scenario to game, I'd think …

@ arealdeadone thanks for the ANZAC force breakdown. Of course they are a fairly "light" organization/military. But any additional assets would help, IMO. My question is would they commit to Taiwan's defense ? If the USA commits forces … or not …?

The Chinese aren't the only ones holding hostage though. The head of Huawei is held on trumped up charges so it's just a game of tit-for-tat, similar to the recent consulate exchange with Houston and Chengdu.
Standard geopolitical/Realpolitik skullduggery. Nothing new there …

That same "international community just appointed China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia to "the human rights council"

"SA didn't make the council. They don't have enough clout."

Well they all know all about human rights and how to ignore, by pass, etc., them, AFAIK.

Barin119 Oct 2020 8:09 a.m. PST

I have a feeling that in case of real conflict China will be allowed to get Taiwan if an alternative would be a nuclear conflict. Nobody will risk it, so if China would be serious to invade\take control the best thing that Taiwan might get would be free passports to emigrate, like in HongKong.

arealdeadone19 Oct 2020 2:47 p.m. PST

I agree with Barin- I don't think Taiwan is a "line in the sand" for the US, unless the US wants a reason to wage war on China.

15mm and 28mm Fanatik19 Oct 2020 2:56 p.m. PST

Taiwan is a core issue for China but not for the US, so if push comes to shove Taiwan isn't worth it from our standpoint.

Legion 419 Oct 2020 3:47 p.m. PST

Yes, admittedly Taiwan is not worth starting WWIII and tossing around WMDs over.

RudyNelson19 Oct 2020 5:56 p.m. PST

Had the USA have a war in Taiwan or Japan. What is wrong with a flexible line in the sand, militarily not politically.

panzerfrans19 Oct 2020 7:49 p.m. PST

I don't think Taiwan being "worth it" or not has anything to do with it.
China is an aggressor nation.
Now it's Hong Kong, tomorrow it's Taiwan, and what then?
They also want a piece of India, they also want a piece of Japan, they also want to rob Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei's resources.
The main lesson WW2 taught is that lines in the sand are best drawn as early as possible.
Sacrificing Taiwan to get "peace for our time" is only going to weaken the position of the US in Asia and embolden China.
And, by the way, Taiwan isn't a "rebellious province" of China.
Taiwan is what remains of China.
It's the dictators residing in Beijing who have no rights, who live on stolen land, and oppress the Chinese people.

arealdeadone19 Oct 2020 9:08 p.m. PST

Panzerfrans, you might be morally right about needing to stop an aggressor.

However the west has sold out completely.

Some of our bestest "bros" like Saudi Arabia or UAE or Qatar are countries that actively plot our demise by suppprting terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism and whose values make Chinese Communists look like hippies.

The west avoids "meaningful" conflict against anything but the lowest apples.

Saudis committed 9-11 so the west invades Afghanistan and then Iraq whilst Saudi Arabia, Pakistan etc get off free.

Norks sinks a South Korean corvette and the west does nothing.

Iran spreads its wings throughout the middle east and the west does nothing meaningful.

Sultan Erdogan's Turkey sows as much chaos as Iran including against other NATO partners (not just Greece but also against France) and the west does nothing meaningful.


China conquers and militarises the South China Sea and the west did nothing.

Russia starts war in Ukraine and the west does nothing meaningful

Etc etc.


Thus when it comes down to it , the consumerist west will let Taiwan slide into Chinese hands. There might be some strong words and maybe even sanctions against certain Chinese individuals but in the end the west won't send its sons and daughters to stand against the Chinese.

Sacrificing Taiwan to get "peace for our time" is only going to weaken the position of the US in Asia and embolden China.

The US already fundamentally compromised its position in Asia when the US let the Chinese conquer the SC Sea without even diplomatic harsh words, let alone sending in the Navy!

This resulted in the Philippines, Malaysia and others to approach China. It also led to Australia taking the stance that the US is not a reliable partner in the Asia Pacific and focusing on an independent defence force.


Unlike 1939 there are no Winston Churchill types in the west to push for a serious response to China's growing ascendancy.

panzerfrans20 Oct 2020 7:34 a.m. PST

I didn't say a line in the sand will be drawn, I only said it would be very wise to draw one, because not drawing one will inevitably end in WWIII.
And yes, what goes for China goes for Turkey too.
Turkey has been illegally occupying half of another western country since 1974, is currently a major aggressor in wars against four(!) other nations, and is actively seeking war with at least four other nations by violating their economic zones.
The current Geo-political situation has been created by the globalists/deep state, who are fanning international conflicts because they want for ALL the earth's nation states to cease to exist.
That's why their puppets have been destabilizing the Middle East, caused conflict with Russia, and have NOT taken any effective actions against real aggressor nations like Turkey and China.
They need the carnage and chaos that will result in order to be able to fill their pockets and achieve their megalomanic goals.
This is why it is crucial for "the swamp to be drained", and don't think this swamp is limited to the US borders, it's a global(ist) swamp.
And I have to correct you on one point; it wasn't Russia but an illegal regime in Kiev, installed by the EU/deep state, that started the war in eastern Ukraine.
The last thing the globalists/deep state wants is for the West and Russia to become close, because that would stabilize the world and thus be disastrous to their plans.
Luckily the most powerful state on earth is currently lead by an anti-globalist, who has already made major progress in stabilizing the middle east, and who has also been putting China on notice.
If current US policy is allowed to continue I expect a cold war with China, and not a hot one.
A cold war in which China is going to be defeated the same way the USSR once was, by having the military drawing lines in the sand, and then destroy them economically.

Legion 420 Oct 2020 7:47 a.m. PST

All pretty much true, but with nukes being available today as opposed to at the beginning of WWII. That changed the entire paradigm of war among the larger WMD armed nations.

There have been smaller proxy wars in SE Asia, A'stan, etc. Or just smaller wars in the Mid East, Africa, etc. As I have said before, the creation of Nukes changed the way war is waged. Wars are now smaller, among smaller forces/nations, in many cases supported by one of the big nuked armed nations. I.e. USA, Russia and the PRC.

With the fall of many "empires", after WWII, it took some time but the rise of fundamentalist radical jihadi religious inspired terrorism became a bigger threat as well. But no where near the threat posed by Nuked armed nations, when it comes to mass destruction, etc. Those jihadis are lucky the bigger nations didn't use all of it's firepower. Causing mass CD but ending much of the jihadi threat. A dead jihadi is no longer a threat. But many places on the planet would look like the dark side of the moon. 🌑 I'm not saying this should be done, just pointing out the options, etc.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.