主题：【文摘】刘华清回忆录谈航母:防御作战也需要航母 -- georgenine

79年对越作战, 南方是 “杀鸡用牛刀”, 北方则是全力以赴, 准备对付北极熊. 我所在军区精锐尽出, 全部布署在第一线.

台海之战, 政治方面的因素更复杂; 作战方案及其危险程度就要随着政治目的来拟定和评估. 依我看,快速攻下台岛应该是目的, 所以要一开始就拿出对台的全部力量. 此其一; 其二, 作战时, 要采取措施将作战对象固定为以台岛为基地的国军. 如果没有相当力量的外围警戒部队, 达成作战目的的不确定性太大, 亦难以保证作战对象的唯一; 所以用了 “罩住” 和 “关起门来打狗”这样的话. 说白了, 搞上不了台面的小动作是美日的拿手好戏, 到时你都不知道谁会给你来一下子!

难到这样做美日就会袖手旁观? 何况你那警戒部队比起美日可能的力量来总是弱. 这里有一个基本的判断权衡和决心问题: 假若台海事态发展到了这一步, 用现在的话就是: 触及了中华民族的核心利益! 咱们就要拿出决战的架式: Plan A 是不战而屈人(美日)之兵, Plan B 就是朱将军讲的了, 没有Plan C !

这样摆出兵阵, 也就是把事情放在桌面上. 你让我自己处理家务事或者咱们全玩完!

另外, 不知晨枫兄是否读过 Robert D. Kaplan’s How we would fight China ? 那里面提到了几位美国人的看法:

"Getting into a war with China is easy," says Michael Vickers, a former Green Beret who developed the weapons strategy for the Afghan resistance in the 1980s as a CIA officer and is now at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, in Washington. "You can see many scenarios, not just Taiwan—especially as the Chinese develop a submarine and missile capability throughout the Pacific. But the dilemma is, How do you end a war with China?"

"Ending a war with China," Vickers says, "may mean effecting some form of regime change, because we don't want to leave some wounded, angry regime in place." Another analyst, this one inside the Pentagon, told me, "Ending a war with China will force us to substantially reduce their military capacity, thus threatening their energy sources and the Communist Party's grip on power. The world will not be the same afterward. It's a very dangerous road to travel on."