LS46,
With all respect, I believe that your analysis of our ability to bring sufficient naval forces to bear is flawed, though your scenario of how the US and China could be drawn into conflict is completely rational.
China had developed plans to counter our Carrier Action Groups (CAG), and deployed and trained their forces according to the assumptions of the number of carriers we’d be able to sortie. I believe that their assumption was two carriers. During Summer Pulse ’04 where we demonstrated the ability to sortie 7 (of 12 at the time)carriers. The Fleet Response Plan has the reqirement that the Navy maintain the ability to scramble 6 carriers within 30 days, with 2 more available within 3 months from a ‘go’ order.
When the Chinese saw this, it immediately shook their confidence because they do *not* have the ability to meet 3 CAGs and their attendant aircraft. The Navy would still have the ability to respond to other hotspots around the globe with the other 3 (plus another 2 in 90 days).
China lacks both the air assets as well as amphibious craft to invade the island of Taiwan. Plus, they lack the assets to protect such an invasion force, even from a smaller air force and navy such as Taiwan’s.
The scary thing for this Sailor is that China has been intensely developing a ‘carrier killer’ ballistic missile, and buying all of the Russian Kilo-class submarines that they can. I suspect that their calculus now would be to dissuade us from bringing our carriers anywhere close to Taiwan as they (the Chinese PLAN) try to enforce a blockade of the island in order to coerce reconciliation on Mainland China’s terms.
At that point, the Chinese are testing our *political* will, and not our military might, gambling that our leadership would not be willing to risk the loss of a strategic asset. Given the historical US bias towards non-confrontation with China, and the perception that our current CinC would have less than a muscular response, I believe that we’ll see this scenario before 2012.
