'Patriot which failed so spectacularly '

No it didn't. Did exactly what the designers said it would do.

...nor does it matter if the intelligence is human or silicone...

Yeah, you gotta watch out for that silicone intelligence. It'll make a boobie outta ya.

Or, in short:

Busted!

TO: Stephen Green
RE: Failure?

"It's true that Taiwan has Patriot PAC-3 anti-missile missiles (a big improvement over the original version of the Patriot which failed so spectacularly in Gulf War I)" -- Stephen Green

The Patriot missile system did not fail. It performed very well, as advertised. The problem was, in my opinion, placement of the weapon systems. They should have been deployed well outside of the defended areas, instead of inside them. In such a location their interceptions would have brought down the incoming missiles outside of the densely populated areas not IN them.

The vast majority of casualties were the result of intercepted SCUDs crashing to earth and STILL exploding. After all, they had armed in flight. Wherever they hit they would explode. There were some 'excursions' on the part of some Patriot missiles. But they were the exception, not the rule.

As for the PAC-3, we'll see. And we could well see it in a target-rich environment this Spring.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Incoming artillery has right of way.]

China has been basically bluffing the whole time. They don't have the naval power to properly conduct or cover a massive invasion, and would still take horrific casualties on the ground regardless of how many missiles they lob. If the US Navy gets involved, the ChiComs would be lucky to get a rubber raft across the straits.

The other alternative is to nuke Taiwan flat, which gets them nothing but a hunk of rock and pariah status with the rest of the world.

With communism's current track record, I'd be willing to wager that we see Taiwan unite China under democracy before the progeny of Chairman Mao unite China under communism.

Main thing to remember is that Taiwan is an island. How long can they last under what level of blockade? Can a Berlin-type air-bridge sustain them long enough for us to clear the surrounding waters of PRC subs? Can the Taiwanese keep sufficent shipping lanes open if we're unable to assist? Are there situations where we wouldn't be able to assist Taiwan and is the PRC trying to set such a situation up?

Steven has put his finger on the problem. It is not a matter of "keeping sea lanes open", nor is it a matter of an amphibious invasion, and in particular China does not want to destroy Taiwan.

With hundreds of conventionally armed ballistic missiles, they could do the following. Announce that Taiwan is part of China, and that any unauthorized ship which gets within X number of miles of it is subject to attack without warning. Also, announce that Taiwan's harbor facilities are subject to attack if they service any such ship. Then, lob a few missiles at the container-ship areas on Taiwan. Kill a few people and do some damage to show they are serious.

Effect? All commercial traffic into or out of Taiwan halts due to the risk -- no commercial ship could get insurance even if someone were willing to take the risk. Taiwan would be effectively blockaded by scaring off all commercial traffic.

What can the USA do? We won't attack the Chinese mainland launch sites. Maybe we'll be able to knock down some of the missiles, but some will get through. The Chinese are probably smart enough to not actually shoot at any US Navy ships.

(If we make any move to attack the mainland, the Chinese announce that they will respond by attacking the American mainland and they do not rule out using nuclear weapons, that this is an internal dispute inside Chine, and the USA better stay out. Mass demonstrations in US cities to get us to back down.)

China lets this situation go on for several months, with the occasional missile launch, while Taiwan and its trading partners suffer huge losses. Then, China publishes a list of demands. The Taiwanese and American business communities howl for Taiwan to accept the demands, to get the economy going again. The Taiwanese government caves.

Huge win for China. Huge black eye for the USA. Outright defeat for Taiwan.

It is going to be a big Spring all right.

I hope I'm wrong.

Please tell me where I'm wrong.

Lex,

Not a bad theory but there's a way around it. If China threatens a blockade-by-missile all we do is stick a US flag on the back of a cargo ship and sail it into Taiwan harbor.

China is right back to where they started from. If they blow up a US ship, they either have to be willing to go nuclear to deter our response, or risk devestation of their navy, air force and shore missile batteries by massive US bombardment.

It's lose-lose-lose for China. They can't effectively blockade Taiwan, they aren't militarially ready for a conventional invasion, and they *would* lose a nuclear war (we might lose a couple cities, they lose every military and government target in the country). It would a be a crisis, but we stood up to a far more capable Soviet Union and they didn't have the guts to pull the trigger. No way China does.

China's only real hope is to somehow get the US divorced from Taiwan politically and build up a credible conventional naval force to invade or convince Taiwan to surrender to prevent such an invasion.

Sorry guys. The Pentagon did a study on Patriot effectiveness a couple of years after GW I (sorry, no link. I read it years ago in print.), and concluded that it had an overall 90-95% miss rate. It was not effective at all.

One of the conclusions was that the follow-up missile system, that was supposed to be available by the time GW I started, but was killed by Congress, was the real deal. The first Patriot system was never originally intended to be more than an anti-aircraft missile system, but had its guidance system (I think) upgraded in an attempt to give it anti-missile capabilities.

Anyway, that's what I read. And I'm sticking to it, darnit! At least until you bludgeon me to death with facts that make me grovel in humility....

TO: Greg Hill
RE: Studies

If you can find the study, I'd like to see it.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Like I said, it was in print, many moons ago (probably 93-94). If I get a chance, I'll do a little digging around, see if maybe it's archived on the 'Net somewhere.

Folks, remember, two can play the game. Should China decided to enact a blockade, it really doesn't take much from Taiwan to mine Shanghai and other economically important harbor.

I've read that study about the Patriot fiasco as well. They determined that they hit almost none of their targets and that they tended to plummet back down on the people it was meant to protect, giving the false impression that it had knocked a scud short of the target.

The threat from China is very real. China is like an oversized Korea in its attitude towards Taiwan. Taiwan is not a golden goose, China gets nothing from it now and if they destroy it they are none the worse off for it.

Never forget that China is a Stalinesque dictatorship. No matter what happens, short of complete overthrow of the government, the dictators will live well. They couldn't care less how many of their population dies or whether they get revenue from Taiwan. Their purpose is control, not wealth. The rulers eat well regardless.

Looks like Bush defused it today.

He slapped the Taiwanese around, traded spit with the Chicom leadership.

It gripes me, but it is probably wise.

The Taiwanese get everything of substance -- democracy, capitalism, independence, protection by the USA -- but no formal recognition. It is a good deal they'd be wise to hang onto. The mainlanders get to maintain the pretense that unification is just around the corner. Everybody is happy except the Chinese military and hundreds of millions of mainlanders who have been indoctrinated to be raving nationaists ala the Germans of, say, 1903.

Long term, I'm still worried the mainlanders will just cook off and do something insane. As Mr. Rentner notes, "China is a Stalinesque dictatorship" -- and unaccountable governments have a way of doing bone-stupid things all too frequently.

This is all a very long and involved, messy way in public for Bush to effectively tell Chen Shui-bian to stuff it, you're either under our nuclear umbrella and stick with the status quo, or buck it and go it alone. Although we'd have to know what if anything is being said between them behind the scenes, it could all be pre-scripted drama for a certain political effect. Who knows...

Patriot Missile performance in the Gulf War:
http://www.cdi.org/issues/bmd/Patriot.html

Over at the NRO Corner, John Derbyshire hypothesized that Taiwan may make a run for independence right before the 2008 Beijing Olympics. He doesn't go into a lot of detail, but China can't afford to screw up the Olympics, and wouldn't really be able to respond militarily.

Coupla points: the PRC doesn't have to be able to hoist their flag over Taipei to go to war or for Taiwan to call it a loss. They can shell the crap out of the place.

Second, there's the running start problem. China can deploy an airhead faster than we can get carriers over.

Third, China is pretty emphatic about not letting US staging areas (read Japan) go unmolested, so that whole ball of wax is in play.

Fourth, China is pretty damned serious about '08 Olympics. If there's any way to pull the trigger before then, they might get away with it. I kind of doubt it - far as I know a military response to Taiwanese UDI is automatic.

Fifth, the original patriots had a couple of problems with fuzing the warhead to detonate in the flight path v. at the target center, and #2 the SCUD warheads didn't separate and just stayed attached and flipped end over end. Not spectacular success. The Bloc III missiles have excellent terminal manuvering capability and are much more effective.

Finally post here on the whole Taiwan missile gig.

Mike: "Taiwan is not a golden goose, China gets nothing from it now and if they destroy it they are none the worse off for it."

This couldn't be more wrong. The economies of Taiwan and China are as intermixed as those of the U.S. and Mexico, with Taiwan supplying capital and expertise, China supplying labor and natural resources, often through 3rd parties in Hong Kong. War between the two countries would be catastrophic for both, from every angle, whether human, economic, or political.

I don't get it. China commits mass murder for wounded pride, and then suffers no sanctions? Other countries still trade with it? They still send their Olympic athletes there in '08? Okay, okay Tienanmen Massacre, but bombing another country because of an insult? Wouldn't there be a price to pay in this case?

Coupla points: the PRC doesn't have to be able to hoist their flag over Taipei to go to war or for Taiwan to call it a loss. They can shell the crap out of the place.

...and risk damaging very, very expensive assets belinging to major US corporations, such as chip fabs? I think not.

Second, there's the running start problem. China can deploy an airhead faster than we can get carriers over.

They'd have to fight their way through Taiwan's fighters to do it, and I suspect China will run out of airlift before the Taiwanese run out of AA missiles...

Third, China is pretty emphatic about not letting US staging areas (read Japan) go unmolested, so that whole ball of wax is in play.

...same calculation as before, they can hurt the US, but the US can put them back in the dark ages. The downside is freakin' huge, and the upside is what? Bragging rights? The risk is not nearly commensurate with the reward.

not dark ages

there won't be no china left... 0 people

0

dark ages is too advanced..

stone age, maybe... pleistocene more likely

and china can't get an airhead

AA missiles are a pain in the ass.. especially if you only have 600 missiles

plus, the bush admin could return to former policy and always have a few us ships tied up in taiwan...

gives a little bit of extra pucker factor to pushing the launch key

plus, there are always fleets in the area 1-2 days travel, and we still don't tell people where the subs are (can assume that they have a heavy concentration off of chinese waters)

diego, okinawa, korea are also within relatively easy distance for taiwan or mainland usage...

and then there's all the forces on the other side (we could invade from uzbekistan!)

First of all: China can apply all kinds of pressure short of invasion to compel Taiwan to cave. A blockade would be a good start -- sure, the U.S. could flag a few vessels and run them through. But we'd also have to supply insurance for those vessels, because no one else would. And all that would do is keep Taiwan from starving to death. Taiwan's a huge-volume export-driven economy. If China closes Taiwan's ports -- which it would do, calling it an "internal matter" -- then the only shipping going through would be this kind of flag-showing exercise. The economy would collapse. Meanwhile, China would be offering the whole Hong Kong carrot to the Taiwanese, who, don't forget, are now a democracy and can demand their leaders do whatever they say.

Which gets us to point two: the leaders. Right now, Lien Chan and James Soong -- a mainlander and a KMT loyalist -- are way out in front of Chen Shui-bian in the Presidential race. People don't WANT Chen or his "pro independence" party, mostly because they've presided over an economic mudbog for the last 4 years. Chen's looking for Hail Mary political plays here, and referenda allowing people to say they don't like missiles pointed at them seems like an easy play. But Chen is jeopardizing Taiwan's current level of sovereignty and risking a conflict by doing it, and our response is designed to send the message that it's dumb, and we won't support it. The fact that it buys us some more cuddle time with Beijing is gravy, considering that they have nicely put their entire ForEx reserves in U.S. t-bills and can therefore crash the US dollar with a single mouseclick.

I would guess Ben is spot on about the Taiwanese politics and US response. The indications are that Beijing is well aware of all the problems and downsides of war with Taiwan, and are deperate to avoid it. (Taiwan's own forces are capable of defeating an invasion, and I suspect countering a blockade too; with US involvement the outcome is massively overdetermined.)

But they are not willing to endure the massive loss of face the blatant Taiwanese defiance would entail, and likely afraid of the internal political cosequences of such.
IIRC Chinese historical tradition sees the defiance of provinces is a sure sign of dynastic decay. The danger is that faced with this, Beijing would either act irrationally, or push a bluff way too far.

For the US, conflict with China is the last thing wanted at the moment, especially as Chinese cooperation offers the best chance of dealing with the problem of North Korea while avoiding catastrophe.

Ben, I've been following the Taiwanese presidential campaign for some time. I agree with your analysis that by pushing a defensive referendum as a reelection strategy, Chen is playing with fire. But it's been getting him some results. The latest polls have Chen and Lien Chan in a statistical dead heat:

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2003/12/09/2003078879

If next March Chen is reelected (too close to call now) and a referendum stating that China should remove its missiles is passed (which, if it gets past the committee that approves referendums, would be approved overwhelmingly), things will get really interesting here.

I lived in Taiwan for the last 3 years. When 9/11 came and GWB said, "Either you are with us or against us," Taiwan was totally with the US. I heard lots of anti-US opinions in Asia, but almost never in Taiwan, the one real democracy in Asia.

Now we look like back-stabbing assholes. I guess GWB knows how to talk, but not how to walk.

>

The Chinese have a self-depreciating saying that goes, "Japanese want order, Americans want money, and Chinese want face. Only two of these are useful."
Almost every social interaction here is based on face, which is just a fancy way of saying bragging rights, and I wouldn't discount any Chinese action just because it doesn't seem 'reasonable'.

Most of the Patriot problems during GWI were, I believe, due to the fact that the proximity fuze points sideways, while the warhead points straight ahead. Since PAC-3 has neither of these, it ought to (and has) performed better. I believe there were fire control issues as well, but I can't get into the specifics. Let's just say that there's a world of difference between one-on-one engagements and many-on-many.

It ought to be noted that, as someone said, Patriot was designed to be an anti-aircraft missile first, with some capability against incoming missiles. PAC-3, on the other hand, had missile defense in its roots. PAC-3 is descended from ERINT, which is in turn descended from SRHIT (later renamed FLAGE). PAC-3 basically has a (nearly) 20-year history in flight test against ballistic missiles. But, as I've noted above, the missile isn't the whole system. The PAC-3 radar and fire control system design are key to making the system work properly, and I have absolutely no idea how well those work.

As Lex Green implies earlier, folks tend to focus on the fact that China can't just wade on over and stomp Taiwan flat. This, however, might not be necessary for a Chinese victory.

I've tried to put finger to keyboard on that in this post.

Long story short, all that China need do is not lose: i.e. not allow an independent, internationally recognized Taiwan with strong allies to make it's claim stick. They've got a lot of spoiling actions and whatnot available to them.

The whole stituation is pretty far from being a slam-dunk, particularly if they can both goad the North Koreans into keeping us tied up in Seoul and keep the Japanese out of play. There's a lot of wriggle room on those scenarios, and we can't really look at the Taiwan issue without keeping an eye on that stuff.

Steve,

I beg to differ for reasons I posted over on Winds of Change here:

The Myth of Chinese Airpower

http://windsofchange.net/archives/003628.html

"The wonderful thing about building ballistic missiles rather than a large air force or navy is that you can parade junk and it looks threatening. This make them very powerful political symbols for both internal political grandstanding and for bullying international diplomacy, a la China with Taiwan. You get all the peacetime benefits of a strong air force without the political coup threat problems that come with them. Besides, pilots that are politically reliable often are very poor in their flying skills, as the Darwin Award winning Chinese fighter pilot in the EP-3 affair proved.

This, BTW, is why American ballistic missile defenses are so fundamentally unacceptable to the Chinese. They neutralize the implied political threat Chinese missiles represent, and destroy Chinese illusions of power both internally and externally, because people will believe American missile defenses will work while Chinese missiles won't."

That artice was a derivative of something I sent to Jerry Pournelle about SDI missile defenses that he posted here:

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/special/sdi1.html

with this Chinese relevant section:

"Even assuming a "Paramount Leader" could arise to control the factions in the near future, the Chinese still couldn't pull off any of these strategies. The PLA Air Force is known as the "Center of Corruption in the PLA," according to James Dunnigan. The independent budget and testing oversight that force test after test of American weapons is lacking in the PLAAF. Tests are expensive and an embarrassing lost of face if they uncover failure. Testing is kept unrealistic, and done as few times as possible, as a result. A good historical analog is the performance of both American torpedoes and the U.S. Naval Ordnance branch early in WW2.

Then there is the final threat to this scenario: the Chinese version of the "DOT COM" brain drain. The foreign joint venture companies are raiding the Chinese military industrial complex for talented engineers and managers.

The brain drain of the "Dot Com" economy is blamed for several recent U.S. space launch failures. Reports are that the same is happening to the Chinese military in a much more threadbare industrial economy, as its technological culture is "one deep." That is a major drag on any Chinese military buildup and ensures what they build cannot be maintained.

"Building missiles" does not mean, "building missiles that work." This is a fact the Chinese are well aware of in light of their reaction to the possibility of American strategic missile defenses.

The wonderful thing about building ballistic missiles rather than a large air force or navy is that you can parade junk and it looks threatening. That is why American ballistic missile defenses are so fundamentally unacceptable to the Chinese. They neutralize the implied political threat those missiles represent, and destroy Chinese illusions of power because they will believe our defenses work while their missiles won't. When you combine the brain drain problem with the rampant corruption loose in the Chinese PLAAF, and lack of direction above, the odds approach certainty that any long-range missile built by the Chinese, and launched by the regular military under combat conditions, will fail.

Remember that even in our checks and balance driven procurement system, the USA did not build reliable SLBM/ICBMs during the Cold War.

The Polaris missile had corroded safety interlocks that rendered its nukes inert until the mid-1960s. A Titan 2 missile blew up because someone dropped a tool on a fully fueled missile in the 1980s. Only 3 of 7 "combat ready" Minuteman were successfully launched from active silos in early 1980s realistic tests ordered by then Defense Secretary Casper Weinburger - realistic compared to the standard phony tests from Vanderberg AFB silos of carefully reworked Minuteman ICBM's. Our MX Peacekeeper ICBM's were rendered unusable for half a decade because of a defense contractor defrauding the government with faulty guidance gyros.

The kicker here was that the Soviets missile serviceability rates were half what American ballistic missiles were.

If we had such problems, and the Soviets' were far worse, how reliable will Chinese ICBM's be? How much of drain on China's economy will an attempt to build lots of land-based ICBM's be?"

Excellent, Trent.

Is that it? Finished?

Is this better discussed elsewhere? Maybe not. I just tuned in but i live in Taiwan and follow this argument in real life. Too bad all you armchair missile technicians stopped debating because y'al were doin' a good one.

In my experience it's impossible to hold a strong opinion on this big question of what China will do. The comment about a Chinese ability to do seemingly irrational things for face is quite valid. I reckon the potential ineffectiveness of Chinese missiles is an important factor too.

Not mentioned in this thread, but often brought up in this vein is the "silicon shield" theory, which says the USA can't let China disturb the compute/IT economy by screwing with Taiwan's OEM computer manufacturing. Guess where your Gateway and Dell computers come from. Taiwan has hardly any brands of its own but it's the world's number one producer of a wide range of computer chips, and products such as notebooks. I guess the reasoning goes that if the US loses Taiwan, they lose the whole computer race to Korea and/or Japan. Don't want that. And don't want to give the mainland Chinese the secrets of cutting edge chip production. Taiwan's government, surely with American advisement (?), strictly regulates how much chip fabrication technology it lets businesspeople take over to China, where they can build plants cheaper.

If China tries to blockade shipping to Taiwan, wouldn't the US have good grounds to defend their companies rights to go there anyway? And isn't the US likely to be very, very good at opening shipping lanes closed off by the Chinese navy? Isn't that a potential embarrassment for China? Not being able to do what it sets out to do.

A lot of people say Chen Shui Bien is playing chess dangerously. But think what he probably believes. Now is the time to do what needs to be done. And that is, simply, raise Taiwan's profile. He has done that very well. Without him, the world would be fast forgetting Taiwan while China really got moving on annexxing the place - legally, peacefully and with the consent of its people. And that wouldn't be a good thing.