Taiwan Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Also I wanted to add.
The latest stunt I was referring to was the C-130 landing to announce the vaccine donation.
I don't think that the US military landing planes would be any boost for morale for the next little while (Also I think they are needed elsewhere)

Agnus said:

The ironic thing is that die hard troops of the ROC army are probably those who tend to identify with their Chinese roots more. Most of the leadership for the ROC army is still those who came from families that move to Taiwan in the post 1949 era. The irony is those who probably fight are those who are opposed to independence. In a way, they're stuck in a strange catch 22. They don't want to support independence because they don't want a Republic of Taiwan at all and they don't want to join the PRC either probably. Most of those people want the ROC to still remain. Watch during the conflict, the ROC army will be paralyzed and have a hard time knowing what to do. In a way, they're caught in a struggle where their ideology doesn't really matter much. It is mainly a struggle between PRC unificationists and Taiwanese secessionists

Click to expand...

I had brought this up at some point. Since the ROC army are considered "oppressors" because of the martial law era, joining the military is highly unpopular amongst the DPP followers. Basically there are not many independence supporters in the military.

The original context of my point was that any declaration of independence without referendum by DPP would be violation of the constitution. Even something like opening an American embassy would be a de facto declaration and lead to war. How would the military want to fight a like that? This is not a situation like the PRC unilaterally deciding to invade. To me, that is always just an American fantasy.

If we revisit the Crimea situation, according to some Russian media, the Russian soldiers jumping out of the trucks when confronted by the Crimean-Ukrainian security forces yelled "Are you going to shoot your brothers?", in the end they did not.

For ROC armed forces, it would be hard to accept a political party playing Russian roulette with your family.

Mr T said:

I know what you're saying, I just don't agree.

Point A

Biden didn't start the withdrawal, it was begun by Trump. His negotiations with the Taliban also undermined the Afghanistan government and emboldened the Taliban.

If Biden had reversed the withdrawal it would have stopped the Taliban temporarily, but it would only have cost the US even more money and resources.

Point B

The credibility hit is relevant only towards current US allies where they're not fulfilling their responsibilities. The US had Kabul's back for 20 years despite them refusing or being unable to stop corruption and properly pay, feed and equip their military/police. How many US personnel died or were wounded in Afghanistan - like 2,000 and 20,000 respectively, maybe more?

No country was going to give Afghanistan a blank cheque forever.


There's no "conscription referendum" planned to my knowledge at least this year. Points 1 and 2 are under "consideration" by the Taiwanese government, but they're not policy.


I'm not sure what "proof" I could offer that China would attack Okinawa in event of an invasion of Taiwan. Beijing isn't going to allow its war plans to be leaked.

There is an argument that it would be smart to not fire first to see if the US/Japan could be convinced to not intervene. However, if China allows bases in Okinawa, Guam and elsewhere to remain active and there is direct foreign intervention then obviously that's a missed opportunity.


Slightly different, though. The Russians already had substantial forces in Crimea and the Ukrainians weren't even being paid properly. Russia had control of Crimea before anyone knew what was going on. If China starts preparing for an invasion it's going to be fairly obvious, even if it pretends it's just a "normal exercise".



Yeah, but Clarke was making a factual statement, whilst Biden was making an estimation about another country. The US did stay 20 years in Afghanistan, longer than anyone expected. I'm not expecting you to remember that far back, but when the forum started were most people here expecting America to last that long?

Click to expand...

You don't have to agree, but generally speaking Afghanistan details are irrelevant. As previously pointed out, a majority of independence supporters believe America will fight for them. This is also the line the DPP has been selling (which is why the C-130 landed, a military plane)

I never said there was a referendum coming this year (although I can see where you inferred that). However, it is possibly/likely coming at some point (possibly next presidential election).

Regarding Okinawa, my point is that is a strawman.

Mr T said:

Biden didn't start the withdrawal, it was begun by Trump. His negotiations with the Taliban also undermined the Afghanistan government and emboldened the Taliban.

Click to expand...

Very true; it's not the credibility of specifically the Biden admin that has been once again proven unreliable; it is America's in general, across different presidents, across both political parties.

Mr T said:

If Biden had reversed the withdrawal it would have stopped the Taliban temporarily, but it would only have cost the US even more money and resources.

Click to expand...

Right, basically, you rely on the US and you'll eventually be dumped to save money when the US loses the stomach for it, and a conflict with the PRC will undoubtably incur astronomical costs in every dimension.

Mr T said:

The credibility hit is relevant only towards current US allies where they're not fulfilling their responsibilities. The US had Kabul's back for 20 years despite them refusing or being unable to stop corruption and properly pay, feed and equip their military/police. How many US personnel died or were wounded in Afghanistan - like 2,000 and 20,000 respectively, maybe more?

Click to expand...

That's a good excuse to get out. "They weren't fulfilling thier responsibilities! Ultimately, the ROC was responsible for providing its own security and the US afforded them decades to get thier act together, but not only have they squandered a heavy technological edge, they continued with abysmal military spending and poor military training/moral. They did not fulfill thier responsibilities so neither are we obligated to." They can copy paste that one to the NY Times when the US sits out.

Mr T said:

No country was going to give Afghanistan a blank cheque forever.

Click to expand...

Nobody gave Afghanistan any check; the US invaded a country, tried to use force to turn in into a US vassal, then left hoping it would hold but but really knowing that they just couldn't do it.

Mr T said:

Slightly different, though. The Russians already had substantial forces in Crimea and the Ukrainians weren't even being paid properly. Russia had control of Crimea before anyone knew what was going on. If China starts preparing for an invasion it's going to be fairly obvious, even if it pretends it's just a "normal exercise".

Click to expand...

Yeah, every situation is slightly different with a slightly different excuse. The only thing that is consistant is that the US will not fight a nuclear peer-level foe for any alliance but it's Johnny-on-the-spot when a weak country with resources can be robbed.

Mr T said:

Yeah, but Clarke was making a factual statement, whilst Biden was making an estimation about another country. The US did stay 20 years in Afghanistan, longer than anyone expected. I'm not expecting you to remember that far back, but when the forum started were most people here expecting America to last that long?

Click to expand...

No, we really expected the US to be much more competent, get things done much faster and perhaps successfully turn Afghanistan into a vassal. 20 years later, we have the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, established in basically 2 weeks to topple everything the US tried to do in 20 years, bringing every American worst-case scenario and more to fruition in real time as if it were on fast-forward. We greatly overestimated America's capabilities.

China naval sealift fleet is small but their civilian sea lift is gargantuan And most of them are built with dual civilian and military standard better firefighting, heavier floor, stronger landing bridge etc So it could be used for Taiwan invasion scenario with little advance notice providing they can secure a port which is the job of SOF and marine Here is excerpt


What really matters in terms of the threat of invasion of Taiwan, however, is how much China’s civilian shipping could bolster its assault forces in aggregate. To help gain a sense of this I conducted a survey, using broadcasted identification data, of large oceangoing Chinese-owned roll-on/roll-off ferries and vehicle carriers. The size of ships is often measured in tons. Confusingly, sometimes this refers to the volume of the enclosed space of a ship (gross tons), and sometimes it refers to the weight of the contents a ship can carry (cargo, fuel, passengers, etc., in deadweight tons). Naval vessels are normally measured in displacement tonnes, which refers to the weight of water displaced by a ship when it floats. For the purpose of comparison with the Chinese navy’s fleet of amphibious assault ships, with the assistance of a naval architect I converted the measurements of China’s roll-on/roll-off ferries and vehicle carriers into displacement tonnes.

The result? By my estimate, China’s large roll-on/roll-off ferries total approximately 750,000 displacement tonnes, and its vehicle carriers total about 425,000 tonnes. The combination of this civilian roll-on/roll-off shipping — more than 1.1 million tonnes of potential vehicle and troop transport ships — is more than three times the tonnage of the Chinese navy’s entire fleet of amphibious assault ships (about 370,000). These civilian roll-on/roll-off fleets, essentially all of which could be put at the service of the People’s Liberation Army, are also greater in tonnage than the sum of all of the U.S. Navy’s amphibious assault ships (about 840,000). If available for military use, Hong Kong’s roll-on/roll-off vehicle carriers would add a further 370,000 displacement tonnes to the total, bringing it to nearly 1.5 million tonnes of sealift shipping. This larger total would also be nearly equal to the roughly 1.5 million tonnes of government-owned, civilian-crewed roll-on/roll-off shipping maintained by the U.S. — the Defense Department’s primary provider of ocean transportation

The US chaotic withdrawal will have strong repercussion all over the world


Chinese media outlets carried threats to Taiwan and criticisms of the U.S. during the from Kabul.

An editorial by the Global Times, a Chinese state-run outlet, took aim at Taiwan’s ruling Democratic Progressive Party and President Tsai Ing-wen.

“From what happened in Afghanistan, [the DPP] should perceive that once a war breaks out in the Straits, the island’s defense will collapse in hours and the US military won’t come to help,” the . “As a result, the DPP authorities will quickly surrender, while some high-level officials may flee by plane.”

The editorial called on the DPP to “keep cross-Straits [of Taiwan] peace with political means, rather than acting as strategic pawns of the US and bear the bitter fruits of a war.”

Global Times editor-in-chief Hu Xijin also commented on the Afghanistan withdrawal on Twitter.

“After the fall of the Kabul regime, the Taiwan authorities must be trembling,” Hu wrote. “Don’t look forward to the US to protect them. Taipei officials need to quietly mail-order a Five-Star Red Flag from the Chinese mainland. It will be useful one day when they surrender to the PLA.”

In a separate tweet, Hu wrote, “Chinese netizens joked that the power transition in Afghanistan is even more smooth than presidential transition in the US.”

The head of China Daily‘s E.U. bureau, Chen Weihua, encouraged CNN anchor Jim Sciutto to explain to his son that the U.S. clearly lost the Afghanistan War.

Hendrik_2000 said:

The US chaotic withdrawal will have strong repercussion all over the world

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Chinese media outlets carried threats to Taiwan and criticisms of the U.S. during the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

from Kabul.

An editorial by the Global Times, a Chinese state-run outlet, took aim at Taiwan’s ruling Democratic Progressive Party and President Tsai Ing-wen.

“From what happened in Afghanistan, [the DPP] should perceive that once a war breaks out in the Straits, the island’s defense will collapse in hours and the US military won’t come to help,” the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. “As a result, the DPP authorities will quickly surrender, while some high-level officials may flee by plane.”

The editorial called on the DPP to “keep cross-Straits [of Taiwan] peace with political means, rather than acting as strategic pawns of the US and bear the bitter fruits of a war.”

Global Times editor-in-chief Hu Xijin also commented on the Afghanistan withdrawal on Twitter.

“After the fall of the Kabul regime, the Taiwan authorities must be trembling,” Hu wrote. “Don’t look forward to the US to protect them. Taipei officials need to quietly mail-order a Five-Star Red Flag from the Chinese mainland. It will be useful one day when they surrender to the PLA.”

In a separate tweet, Hu wrote, “Chinese netizens joked that the power transition in Afghanistan is even more smooth than presidential transition in the US.”

The head of China Daily‘s E.U. bureau, Chen Weihua, encouraged CNN anchor Jim Sciutto to explain to his son that the U.S. clearly lost the Afghanistan War.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1382340039175200771

Click to expand...

Lmao he is very on point too. Grade A trolling.

You know, if Chen Weihua was Indian or Saudi or Nigerian or Russian or any other nationality, this White douche journalist would have never been angry enough to pull this bullshit out of his lying ass (or to respond at all for that matter), but when it's China they for some reason have a simultaneous severe inferiority and superiority complex about it.

There is real hatred for China and 'yellow' people who seem powerful in general. I wonder why? Is it just because they see China as the only potential power to replace the White world which has dominated the globe for 400+ years? I think there's more to it, but I'm not sure what exactly it is.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

The situation in the Taiwan strait is dramatically different. As despite Wang measuring. Taiwan has been a orderly government for decades.
Next in polling a majority of the population identified as Taiwanese not Chinese or both. This means that a mainland force would be viewed as an invader. Which means that you have a strong position for resistance. Farther you have recent comments by both the US and now Regional states voicing support for Taiwanese security vs the PRC.

Click to expand...

It is guaranteed to be dramatically the same, as strong evidence of China's expanding nuclear arsenal and infrastructure informs us. China seems to be moving along MAD path just like the Soviets and Americans before. American hubris and threat is driving China to prepare an all you can eat MAD buffet for dear Americans if they wish so. China being China doing things in strategic patience and methodical steps, just like the way she is building her conventional forces, we should agree another 15 years give or take to get full MAD in place. There is a point where Americans can no longer take it and flee, and flee like without a shame, and can't even lie straight about it. Comedy comes in three, so probably in 15 years' time, it is gonna be Taipei. All your wishful thinking about taiwanese japanese and american will to fight will see the true test there and then.

Agnus said:

The ironic thing is that die hard troops of the ROC army are probably those who tend to identify with their Chinese roots more. Most of the leadership for the ROC army is still those who came from families that move to Taiwan in the post 1949 era. The irony is those who probably fight are those who are opposed to independence. In a way, they're stuck in a strange catch 22. They don't want to support independence because they don't want a Republic of Taiwan at all and they don't want to join the PRC either probably. Most of those people want the ROC to still remain. Watch during the conflict, the ROC army will be paralyzed and have a hard time knowing what to do. In a way, they're caught in a struggle where their ideology doesn't really matter much. It is mainly a struggle between PRC unificationists and Taiwanese secessionists

Click to expand...

Yes this is true. Xiangyu @twitter has repeatedly emphasized this. I think many people including me initially, did not realize how embedded the higher ups of taiwan military is in kmt. They are kmt supporters. They are not Chinese traitors. They may be against CPC but they support one china, and identify as Chinese not like the traitorous separatists. If the traitors declare independence and China had no choice but to invade then the tw army will not fight to the death to support independence. That's wishful thinking from DPP