A poster at Forumosa pointed me to this paper on Shock and Awe in the Chinese invasion of 2011. A fictionalized analysis of Chinese and American fighting methodologies. The abstract:
Abstract : This paper evaluates Shock and Awe through a futuristic lens. In 2011 China conducts asymmetric attacks against the United States and conventional war against Taiwan. Shortly after China occupies Taiwan the President of the United States commissions a working group to evaluate the concept of shock and awe. The working group out-brief report provides an orientation examination and evaluation of shock and awe. The report begins with a review of the 1996 National Defense University book Shock and Awe. Next the report examines and evaluates the historical examples used in the 1996 publication and identifies alternative historical lessons for shock and awe. Lastly the working group conducts a selective comparison between Shock and Awe and China's seminal 9and controversial) treatise, Unrestricted Warfare. Based on the analysis the working group determined that Shock and Awe maximized conventional warfare capabilities but failed to address the asymmetric and unconventional threats posed by China. Recommendations (1) Shock and awe needs to cast a wider conceptual net (2) The U.S. approach to operational art needs to be expanded and refined. (3) More integration and jointness between military and non-military centers of power is required for future war. (4) Warfighting needs to be treated as both an art and a science. (5) Ends ways and means need to be mutually suppolting; balancing fl%e human organisational and technical aspects of conflict are essential for success in future war.
[Taiwan] [China] [US] [asymmetrical warfare]
I have heard about such hypothetical scenario every few months.
ReplyDeleteBut you know, such out of proportion paranoid theories does not help to instill confidence in investing in Taiwan, whether by Taiwanese businessmen or foreign investors.
sendover -- the link is right there in the post!
ReplyDeleteSun Bin -- the paper is actually on asymmetric warfare -- the invasion of Taiwan is just an excuse for the comparison.
Thanks, Brian, that's very useful information.