
A Chinese invasion of Taiwan would be a bloody, logistical nightmare - Ultramanoid
https://lite.cnn.io/en/article/h_e673d64d9b00162b973518a0dd0f1ccf
======
baybal2
I'm surprised that they almost omitted the point of mine warfare.

Sea mines were historically the most efficient marine weapon ever, and Taiwan
has enough of them to use them for months.

Allegedly, they also have a stash of domestically developed "smart mines," and
that will complicate things even further for the PLA.

------
Shivetya
Logistical is the least of the issues, the effect on world financial markets
would be astounding. Besides the human cost the repercussions to the world
would be generational.

Which would be worse, an EU and USA that do nothing in the face of it or do
something because of it. The world is boxed and so it really comes down to
China deciding if the cost in lives and to their economy is worth it.

------
cm2187
Given the crucial role of the fleet in PLA's invasion plan, I am surprised
Taiwan only has two submarines. I would have assumed it would spend a lot of
energy torpedoing the incoming PLA's fleet.

~~~
EliRivers
Purely thinking out loud, Taiwan doesn't need submarines to deny use of the
Taiwan Strait to PRC's surface fleet. Minefields can do the job over a much
wider area and much more cheaply. Modern mines can sit passively for extended
periods of time and the expensive ones effectively are torpedo launchers.

They also have a stock of land-launched (and truck-launched) anti-ship
missiles, the range of which exceeds the width of the Strait. The "only" issue
there comes in lighting up the incoming PRC vessels to direct the missiles at
them, but that's a different problem of detection.

------
sdinsn
And of course someone flagged this good article. The pro-China narrative on HN
is real.

------
throw0101a
Another article, referencing a book, that argues that it is not a foregone
conclusion:

* [https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/09/25/taiwan-can-win-a-war-wi...](https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/09/25/taiwan-can-win-a-war-with-china/)

~~~
empath75
It sounds like the best case scenario for Taiwan _winning_ such an invasion
would be an almost complete devastation of the island.

~~~
throw0101a
For Taiwan, "winning" may simply entail not-losing. They simply may try to
exact a really high price for any invader to make them think twice.

If it is known that they are willing to burn everything to the ground rather
than letting anyone else have it, then adversaries may not think it's worth
the price.

------
vezycash
Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad.

History shows that dictators run on a different logic.

------
coldcode
I wonder if you could drop a few nuclear bombs of small yields to encourage
surrender? Obviously its been done in history, but while it might work, the
fallout could drift back to China and the political fallout might make the
whole thing backfire.

~~~
SiempreViernes
The importance of the bomb is actually not clear[1][2], which is not that
surprising considering the US had already been almost wiping out Japanese
cites for quite a while before they hit Hiroshima.

[1] [http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/03/08/the-decision-to-
us...](http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/03/08/the-decision-to-use-the-bomb-
a-consensus-view/) [2] [http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2015/08/03/were-there-
alterna...](http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2015/08/03/were-there-alternatives-
to-the-atomic-bombings/)

------
dddw
good pragmatic view, interesting read.

~~~
SiempreViernes
Yeah, but I would have liked some more commentary about the fact that China
doesn't have adequate resources for an invasion (not enough paras or landing
vessels).

Naively this seems like a purely political choice, expressing an unwillingness
to invade Taiwan (right now). I wonder if this is part of fundamental view on
the use of force offensively or just result of economic realities.

------
ubercow13
Offtopic: am I mistaken in thinking that comma shouldn't be in the title?

~~~
ralusek
Depends on if you want "bloody" to act as an adverb modifying "logistical" (no
comma) or adjective modifying "nightmare" (comma).

~~~
ubercow13
I was thinking more because 'logistical nightmare' seems like a compound noun
rather than logistical being just an adjective

------
empath75
I don’t think China wants to invade Taiwan. They think long term. It’s
inevitable that Taiwan reunifies with China eventually as the us continues to
withdraw from the world and the mainland economy improves and Taiwan and
mainland economic ties grow. Eventually it will get to the point that
Taiwanese economic leaders insist on it.

~~~
Ultramanoid
Every decade, and it's been several now, the proportion between the population
that considers itself Chinese-Taiwanese versus only Taiwanese shifts closer to
only Taiwanese. It is 'inevitable' as well that as more generations live and
work in a de facto independent nation, 'reunification' becomes an impossible
objective for the mainland, unless force is used.

No need to look farther than the Sunflower movement when the previous
Taiwanese president ( from the KMT ) tried to build stronger economic ties
with China. The young movement _literally_ occupied government, and on the
next election the DPP swept to power.

Edit :
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunflower_Student_Movement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunflower_Student_Movement)

~~~
simongray
Here's some evidence backing your claim: [https://theasiadialogue.com/wp-
content/uploads/2019/02/fig1....](https://theasiadialogue.com/wp-
content/uploads/2019/02/fig1.png)

It's hard to look at that chart and argue in good faith that reunification is
somehow inevitable. We don't even have to go into the obvious cultural
differences that exist between a successful, progressive (in an Asian context)
democracy and a repressive single-party state.

~~~
Ultramanoid
> evidence...

It seems so obvious to anyone in touch with Taiwanese society it didn't occur
to me the need to provide it, my mistake.

[http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2016/05/28/20...](http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2016/05/28/2003647291)

Identifying as a Taiwanese only does NOT equal support for independence, by
the way. Things are not that simple.

And beyond issues of identity, the vast majority of Taiwanese, however they
identify themselves, overwhelmingly support the 'status quo', meaning no
declaration of independence, no reunification. No one wants war, which seems
assured with either of those two options.

Edit : Just seeing now that the article claims 51% for independence, but that
can't be right, maybe a typo, both independence and reunification are always
on the extremes, shifting anywhere from 10 to 25%, and status quo is
consistently the preferred option by far.

~~~
taejo
As an outsider, what's the difference between the status quo and independence?
The status quo is that Taiwan has its own government, miltary, economy and
diplomatic relations: is independence just about making a political
declaration and changing the name of the state?

~~~
Ultramanoid
Short answer, a declaration of independence means war with China.

The status quo allows for what are effectively two separate nations to keep
face and avoid disaster -- for both. It is a unique and somewhat absurd state
of affairs for sure.

Long answer is... Long. Probably reading on the history of China and what
happened after the Communists won the war and the KMT retreated to Taiwan
would be a good starting point to understand what's going on with Taiwan
today.

( Edit :
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20263049](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20263049)
)

Also, no country in the world can have official diplomatic relations with
Taiwan if they have them with China. ( Most do unofficially. ) Taiwan is
consistently blocked by China from international organizations starting with
the UN, etc. Not everything is as it should be in a 'truly' independent
nation, with the status quo. A declaration of independence would therefore
also affect every other country and the international order of things.

