The Taiwan Straits War 1996

[Leistungsfähiger Amerikan]

What if the 1996 Taiwan straits crisis spiraled out of control into a war? Say the Independence Carrier Group is sent directly into the straits, and in order to demonstrate their own power, the PRC orders an invasion of the proximate ROC islands? Taiwan retaliates against China, and the Chinese, thinking the USA was involved, fire at the Independence? I think this scenario is possible--neither nation really wants war, but a series of mis-communications sends up with the USA and PRC fighting each other, and neither willing to back down. So what happens in the ensuing war? How does the post-war world look?

Here (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0WDQ/is_1999_August_23/ai_55620044/)is a link where I got the relevant info, including how close the USA came to sending the Independence group into the straits and general Taiwanese war plans.

[MacCaulay]

I'm far from well read on the political end of this subject, but I'm willing to bet this war wouldn't last very long. A few weeks at the most, but I'm kind of guestimating by rolling a bunch factors I'm sort-of sure about into a ball and throwing it at a wall until it sticks: as in the Middle East in '67, either a decision is reached or the UN steps in, which is probably how Taiwan was thinking.


I read a book in the library near where I live that pointed out an interesting fact about the numerical disparity between the PLAAF and the Taiwanese Air Force: only so many aircraft can fit in the airspace over the strait, and those that Taiwan can field have an equal/longer range in their weaponry than the PLAAF's does.

While it's not a common way to think about it, the same funneling effect that assisted the Spartans at Thermopylae and the Israelis on the Golan would help the Taiwanese here. Also, the PLAAF may want to think twice about throwing all it's front line aircraft into a war against Taiwan that would leave them depleted if they ever face Russia or India later. The air battle, if it could be seen from space, may look like a giant line of Sukhois and older MiGs stretching back for 200 miles or so away from the Straits across southern China away from the meat grinder of US and Taiwanese aircraft, ground defenses, and AEGIS ships.

[Hecatee]

Beside 96's China was not the giant we know now, and any attempt by them at that juncture would lead to a very, very painfull teaching by the US forces, with a lot of old weapons and, more importantly, a lot of younger officers, pilots and sailors dead and unavaillable for the great expansion of the Chinese forces we've seen since. Also this failure may lead to a loss of confidence in the governement and a coup attempt by the rich and weatlthy new capitalists (even if it might be a bit too early for that).

[MacCaulay]

Beside 96's China was not the giant we know now, and any attempt by them at that juncture would lead to a very, very painfull teaching by the US forces, with a lot of old weapons and, more importantly, a lot of younger officers, pilots and sailors dead and unavaillable for the great expansion of the Chinese forces we've seen since.

Well, that's not really the reason I was positing for it being a very short conflict: this would be a shooting war started over what was probably some itchy trigger fingers on both sides. No one would want this thing to keep going, and in '96 (unless I'm wrong) there's only so many targets the Taiwanese would have on their list to hit.

So...let's say there's 200 surface targets the TAF has on their target list in mainland China, counting airfields, SAM sites, and barracks. (I'm just pulling a number out of the air, so don't get anal if someone finds a list that says different) Now...the Taiwanese Air Force, from the sounds of this article, was the one that was going to hit the ground targets as the Americans were only concerned with shooting down stuff over the straight and defending their carrier groups.

So...let's say...70 planes launching against targets inside China. Provided they can actually get through, a fair amount of those targets will probably be hit within a week. Even with an attrition of 10 aircraft a day (with replacements) it's still possible for them to put bombs on everything.

And while all this is happening, you know that everyone and their brother is going to be at the UN trying to shut this little fireworks show down. So if the PLAAF or TAF don't run out of targets before the UN stops them, then it'll be the other way around. But either way there would be a lot of external pressure from the outset to stop.

[Douglas]

All sorts of interesting Air-Sea battles. I think that the only way China can pull it into a draw is to launch a salvo of ballistic missiles with conventional warheads at key points in Taiwan to indicate that "enough is enough".

Taiwan has kept its stature, and semi-humiliated the Chinese with successful air strikes. Independence movement increases?

China has "lost" this engagement, and suffered large losses of material and personnel, but has demonstrated vividly to the world that Taiwan will always be in China's sphere of influence and will be met with serious force if it tries to seek independence. Hong Kong is going to be watched very closely.

The United States has to re-evaluate its diplomatic position vis-a-vis the PRC, especially depending on whether or not the Chinese get lucky and get hits on a carrier or a cruiser.

[juanml82]

I read a book in the library near where I live that pointed out an interesting fact about the numerical disparity between the PLAAF and the Taiwanese Air Force: only so many aircraft can fit in the airspace over the strait, and those that Taiwan can field have an equal/longer range in their weaponry than the PLAAF's does.

How? They are fighters in the air, not infantrymen in a narrow valley. They can come from north, west and south, from a variety of heights, including over 10,000 m and skimming over the waves to avoid sams... we are talking about 15 m long objects in thousands of cubic kilometers of air. The Taiwanese fighters will, if anything, run out of missiles and the Chinese will keep coming at them.

[MacCaulay]

How? They are fighters in the air, not infantrymen in a narrow valley. They can come from north, west and south, from a variety of heights, including over 10,000 m and skimming over the waves to avoid sams... we are talking about 15 m long objects in thousands of cubic kilometers of air. The Taiwanese fighters will, if anything, run out of missiles and the Chinese will keep coming at them.

You can only fit so many fighters in that airspace. You can't line them up shoulder to shoulder like infantrymen, they need room to maneuver.

Tankers can be shot down by AEGIS ships or carrier aircraft of the Taiwanese or US navies, which reduces the PLAAF's ability to project around the island. If the Chinese can batter their way through and get local air superiority, then they would keep fighting on that narrow front to try and widen it. That's the accepted theory of both Soviet and Chinese warcraft.
That in itself will form a cone of planes and missiles over the Strait. And since the PLAAF can only fit so many planes into that engagement area without running them into each other or reducing their maneuvering ability, they'll have to back them up in holding patterns or keep them on the ground.
If they back them up in holding patterns, then they're open to attack from carrier-based F-14s armed with Phoenixes and Hornets armed with AMRAAMs.

But needless to say, it's the exact same warplan that the Soviets had for eastern Europe: you line up your equipment, and you keep throwing it at the enemy. Wave after wave, time after time, until they break. But if they keep throwing it into a maw of Taiwanese and US missiles and aircraft, it's going to be hard to spin it like they're making progress. And all the while the UN is going to be trying to stop it.

That's what I think would stop this war: a UN resolution from an insane amount of people that doesn't say anything beyond "Stop shooting in the Strait NOW."

[kojak]

That's what I think would stop this war: a UN resolution from an insane amount of people that doesn't say anything beyond "Stop shooting in the Strait NOW." How does the UN issue a resolution when the conflict is between two Security Council members?

[MacCaulay]

How does the UN issue a resolution when the conflict is between two Security Council members?

You know, I was thinking about that as I walked away from the computer to change my son's diaper. :D

Okay...I'm downgrading that from "UN resolution" to "massive external pressure through UN auspices." I don't see any other way for these three to talk in a hurry while shooting's going on.

[Leistungsfähiger Amerikan]

All sorts of interesting Air-Sea battles. I think that the only way China can pull it into a draw is to launch a salvo of ballistic missiles with conventional warheads at key points in Taiwan to indicate that "enough is enough".

Taiwan has kept its stature, and semi-humiliated the Chinese with successful air strikes. Independence movement increases?

China has "lost" this engagement, and suffered large losses of material and personnel, but has demonstrated vividly to the world that Taiwan will always be in China's sphere of influence and will be met with serious force if it tries to seek independence. Hong Kong is going to be watched very closely.

The United States has to re-evaluate its diplomatic position vis-a-vis the PRC, especially depending on whether or not the Chinese get lucky and get hits on a carrier or a cruiser.


I think it could have the opposite effect--the USA was just attacked and brought into a war (albeit by accident). A massive dose of patriotism akin to 9/11 could make the American public support Taiwan, especially, as others are saying, if the USA wins.

Just musing randomly here, but might the PRC want to escalate the war to Korea as a way to hurt the USA and her allies? I mean, all they really have to do is tell the regime in Pyongyang that the PRC will support a violent reunification of the peninsula, and suddenly American forces are needed elsewhere(regardless of the actual success of the invasion).

Edit: And about the war itself-while there is some 'funneling' effect, wouldn't the numerical superiority of the air force of the PRC help them in the long run? As in, both sides take losses, but the PRC can just take more damage until they are out of action.

[Mako_Leader]

OK, were China to do this stupid thing, AND actually go all out to try and do it big, they would have air superiority and virtually impunity in about an hour. That's also when the risk to any carrier still inside the straights gets highest. There's a very significant if not certain risk of loosing the entire CVBG after that. Now before all you USA home boys start jumping up and down and bleating that the USN is invincible and China is pathetic etc etc blah blah blah, think about one basic fact.

Ammunition.

A carrier carries about 48 fighter aircraft. They can each carry around eight air to air missiles. They're going to want to fire off their Amrams first of which they will carry six, then probably half will leave the fight to land and rearm while the rest go in to knife fighting range. So you're probably looking at a maximum of 200 targets destroyed in the first volley, and you're getting down to likely only 20 - 30 in the knife fight, which is when you'll likely loose several US fighters. If there's enough time to get a second fully rearmed strike off the decks, 24 aircraft, you're looking at a maximum of only around 100 targets destroyed from them.

A Tico class cruiser can fire off every last missile in a very short time. Normal procedure is to fire two shots at each inbound target, so in three minutes a Tico can kill about 45 targets. So lets say its a normal CVBG, the Carrier, 2x Cruisers, 2x Destroyers, 2x Frigates. That's approximately 440 SAM's. Let's be generous and say they can kill 300 targets. And ships don't carry reloads.

So all up you're looking at the potential to kill less than 700 targets, and keeping only around 50-60% of your fighter cover for fleet defence, not attack. Out of those 700 targets, how many will be aircraft? Most are infact going to be ground or air launched missiles. The aircraft will be following behind, and they will be targeting the carrier's fighters.

Certainly Taiwan would throw everything they could into the mix, and Taiwan has plenty of reloads the CVBG doesn't have access to. So maybe all that would blunt an ALL OUT Chinese attack for about two hours instead of one. Is that time for the CVBG to get out of the straights? Or for another to arrive?

Please note this is based on the extremely ASB idea that China would go all out for one incredibly massive strike, and not let up till the job was done. Under those circumstances a CVBG would kill allot of Chinese war fighting equipment, but as China can launch a couple of thousand aircraft AND missiles, the carrier would be in very serious risk.

The thing is though, while this CVBG is most likely lost, there will the three more reinforced and supported CVBG's comming over the horizon tomorrow, along with wings of B1's, B2's, and B52, as well as wave after wave of SLCM's.

Day 1 - China 1, US and Taiwan 0.

Day 2 - What was China?

[Douglas]

Just musing randomly here, but might the PRC want to escalate the war to Korea as a way to hurt the USA and her allies? I mean, all they really have to do is tell the regime in Pyongyang that the PRC will support a violent reunification of the peninsula, and suddenly American forces are needed elsewhere(regardless of the actual success of the invasion).


Probably the worst idea ever. "Let's put pressure on the United States by being responsible for kicking off definite NBC use by the worst regime on the planet, with thousands of civilian casualties in Seoul, etc." You would see a corporate coup if someone with responsibility gave the OK to that idea.

[alphaboi867]

How does the UN issue a resolution when the conflict is between two Security Council members?

It doesn't. At least not when both have veto power.

[corditeman]

Which rather points to wars being supra-legal rather than illegal. Wars exist outside the diplomatic and civilian legal framework.

That won't please the 'just war' legalists - but war is usually about some kind of group trying to survive.

[Drew]

There never has been a direct war between security council members in OTL history of the UN, so this would be a novel situation for the UN; it could paralyze the SC, possibly leading to its demise.

Japan, South Korea, Thailand, Malaysia, the Phillippines, Vietnam and Singapore will be very nervous about their physical and economic security as this goes on, and they will likely try to mediate, possibly recruiting the remaining SC permanent members and (maybe) India as partners. The Australians will also have a stake in that. All of them will feel the effects of this, although India may be positioned to take advantage of the economic fall out. Russia will likely see an opportunity to increase its influence in the region.

At some point US naval tactics will call for a blockade, and possible bombing of China's southern ports, in order to tie up the People's Navy and prevent any effort to reinforce PRC forces already at sea. This will put Hong Kong, Guangzhou and Shaghai in a very tight spot.

There will then be both external and internal pressure on the PRC leadership to resolve this. The PRC Communist Party may try to whip up nationalist sentiment over this; which will have a lasting effect on the PRC's internal politics.

Something like this may not lead to a coup in the conventional sense, but it may be the catalyst for the early turn-over of leadership to a new generation of leaders, leading to further change in the PRC, maybe at an accelrated pace than in OTL

[Cook]

“Better to jaw-jaw than to war-war” – Winston Churchill.

[Nikephoros]

“Better to jaw-jaw than to war-war” – Winston Churchill.

Well, considering this war starts by accident, I don't see how that quote applies.

[Atreus]

Well, considering this war starts by accident, I don't see how that quote applies.

I think he's saying that, seeing how nobody is really going to come out ahead in this war (China losing the better part of its military for no purpose, America suffering high USN casualties in a war it doesn't want, Taiwan getting trashed overall for, at the most, bitter cross-straight relations and independence), better for all parties involved that it never takes (took) place.

[Dave Howery]

would the USN send a carrier right into the strait though? Seems to me that it would just make it a big target for the PRC, who would be able to toss everything at it. Wouldn't it be better for the carrier to sit north or south of the island and slightly east (or heck, even directly behind the island), so that the Chinese have to travel further to attack it (less time for aircraft to linger), but the carrier's fighters could still operate in defense of Taiwan?

[jaybird]

A CVN in the Taiwan Strait proper is a USN nightmare and a PLAN/PLAAF wet dream. As long as someone with half a brain is running Sixth Fleet, it won't happen, period.

Even outside the Strait, there's plenty of Kilos and AShMs to keep the American sailors nervous...the only more suicidal action is fighting the Royal Navy in the Channel.

[Dave Howery]

wouldn't the ideal place for the carrier be a bit east of Taiwan itself? That way, if the PRC wanted to attack it, they'd have to either fly through all the defenses on Taiwan first, taking casualties all the way, or go a long ways around to the north or south, reducing their combat time in the air... and of course, having to fly through the protective ring around the carrier as well.

[Blue Max]

This is a shooting war between two nuclear powers. Either peace comes quickly or the worst will come to pass.

The UN could not stop the violence, given the power of the security council.

A engagement in the Taiwan straits is prone to escalate further--fighting on the interKorean border, US Air Attacks on PRC military targets.

The USA will use tactical nuclear weapons to stop a PRC/NK wipeout in Korea; from that point a general nuclear exchange is imminent. It's an exchange that will devastate the USA and destroy China entirely, and this gets into the post-Nuclear trauma that is bound to be bad for the world in a multitude of ways.

Few things say stupid more loudly than a shooting war between two nuclear powers. This case is quite possible if either side decides to reject negotiations.

LA has the odd quirk of ignoring nuclear war as an outcome, so I'm going to shelve it, in spite of the fact that "Neither Side willing to back down" would end in the devastation of the United States and the annihilation of the PRC.

---

From the USA's point of view, the status quo is a victory. Taiwan's independence or at least its outright defiance is China's loss. This conflict is clearly China's to lose. The Independence CAG could get sunk, but what does this achieve? It essentially only extends a hopeless war for the PRC and diminishes the chance of a white peace.

Further Escalation would end in a nuclear war. The United States Economy hugely outpowers its own, to say nothing of the implications of endless bombing raids from the United States. Taiwan is the PRC's only possible gain in this war, but it is a war they can't win because the United States will almost certainly be able to retake the island, and several others, and then bomb the PRC silly.

So the PRC is humiliated. They are forced to back down in the face of the USA's Superior economic and military power. It is hard to know what concessions the PRC would concede, but claims on disputed islands between the PRC and Taiwan and formal recognition of Taiwan would probably be in the conditions.

The postwar world is going to depend dramatically on the nature and intensity of the fighting. Unless the PRC is depopulated in a nuclear holocaust, the USA is going to view it as a cold war continued scenario. The considerable US/PRC economic ties that emerge in OTL will not in this situation. There may also be much more rapprochement with Russia as a counterbalance in Central Asia.

The PRC government may well fall as well. Democracy protests in 1989 were crushed with force. How a PRC that played tough and is forced to back down at home fares is up in the air. The course of OTL--economic progress through access to global markets--will be closed to them. The PRC may collapse in another serious round of democratic protests, or it may find itself turning into a hawkish military state with even lower prospects than the Soviet Union in a second cold war.

The United States would almost certainly build another alliance club to deal with China. It will prevail, given time, but things will suck again for much of the world.

[Cook]

This link will probably be of interest here:

Simulated U.S. and Chinese Nuclear Strikes;

http://www.nukestrat.com/china/Book-173-196.pdf (http://www.nukestrat.com/china/Book-173-196.pdf)

http://www.nukestrat.com/ (http://www.nukestrat.com/)

[Blue Max]

So, China had something like 500 Nuclear weapons at this point?

Well, the USA will survive as a third world country afterward. Charming answer for a heartwarming scenario.

[Atreus]

So, China had something like 500 Nuclear weapons at this point?

Well, the USA will survive as a third world country afterward. Charming answer for a heartwarming scenario.

Not all of those 500 would actually be used in such a war. Many are oriented at targets in Russia and Europe, while others lack the range to hit the CONUS. Counterforce strikes would degrade the number of missiles available. I don't think that the Chinese even had an SSBN which could threaten America without crossing the pacific at the time.

That being said, though, something on the order of 20 missiles hitting American cities (as envisioned in the study posted above) would still be an unmitigated disaster.