Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Russian on March 14, 2005, 01:16:06 AM
-
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-03-13-china-taiwan_x.htm?csp=24&RM_Exclude=Juno
China's president tells army to be prepared for war
BEIJING (AP) — China's national legislature on Monday overwhelmingly approved a law authorizing a military attack to stop Taiwan from pursuing formal independence, a day after President Hu Jintao told the 2.5 million-member People's Liberation Army to be prepared for war.
The measure was approved by a vote of 2,896 to zero, with two abstentions on the last day of the figurehead National People's Congress' annual session.
"We shall step up preparations for possible military struggle and enhance our capabilities to cope with crises, safeguard peace, prevent wars and win the wars if any," the official Xinhua News Agency quoted Hu as saying Sunday.
Hu's comments, made to military delegates at the national legislature, appeared aimed at underlining Beijing's determination to unify with democratically ruled Taiwan, which split from the Chinese mainland in 1949. Delegates to the NPC burst into applause after the approval of the law, shown live on national television.
"This law ... represents the people's determination not to allow Taiwan to be separated from China by any means or any excuses," said Wu Bangguo, China's No. 2 leader and chairman of the parliament.
On Sunday, Hu was appointed as chairman of the government's Central Military Commission, a largely symbolic move that capped a generational transfer of power. He already heads a parallel party commission that runs China's military.
Hu, 62, has shown no sign of diverging from former President Jiang Zemin's hard-line stance toward Taiwan, a democratically ruled island that Beijing insists is part of the communist mainland.
The two sides split in a civil war more than 50 years ago, and Beijing has long threatened to invade if Taipei takes formal steps toward independence.
The anti-secession law passed Monday is aimed at discouraging self-ruled Taiwan, which Beijing claims as its territory, from making its de facto independence permanent.
"We must ... always place the task of defending national sovereignty, security and territorial integrity and safeguarding the interests of national development above anything else," Xinhua quoted Hu as telling military delegates to the congress.
Taiwan's government has condemned the law, saying it risks raising tensions. The United States also appealed to China not to enact the measure.
At a news conference after the measure passed, however, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao denied it was a war bill.
"This is a law advancing peaceful unification between the sides. It is not targeted at the people of Taiwan, nor is it a war bill," Wen said.
Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian has said it "enables China to unilaterally decide Taiwan's future and ignore that Taiwanese have the right to choose a democratic and free lifestyle."
After the bill passed Monday, the Japanese government's top spokesman said it could dangerously raise regional tensions.
"We are concerned about negative effects of the bill on the peace and stability in the Taiwan Straits and the relationship between the two sides, which had been improving," said Chief Cabinet Secretary Hiroyuki Hosoda.
The United States would be Taiwan's most likely defender if China attacked. Washington is lobbying strongly against European Union plans to lift a 15-year-old arms embargo against China, arguing that high-tech European weapons might be used against Taiwanese or U.S. forces.
Hu replaced Jiang as Communist Party leader in 2002 and as president the next year, as power passed to a new generation of Chinese leaders. He succeeded Jiang as head of the party's military commission in September.
Analysts say Jiang, 78, still exerts influence, but not to the extent that his predecessor, Deng Xiaoping, did after retiring from his government posts. Deng was considered China's paramount leader until his death in 1997.
Unlike earlier Chinese leaders who were revered as heroes of the 1949 communist revolution, neither Hu nor Jiang has military experience.
The Communist Party newspaper People's Daily said Sunday that the anti-secession law "shows the Chinese people's common will and firm determination of safeguarding territorial integrity and sovereignty and absolutely does not allow Taiwan independence forces to separate Taiwan from China by any name or by any means."
Jiang, a former Shanghai mayor, was chosen to head the party in 1989 in the tumult that followed the military crackdown on pro-democracy protests centered on Tiananmen Square in Beijing.
He served as president from 1993-2003. During his leadership, China boomed economically even as it remained an authoritarian one-party political system.
-
Well, now is a good a time as ever for them to try. My guess is that they will not try, but if they do, they will lose.
-
Originally posted by Russian
"This law ... represents the people's determination not to allow Taiwan to be separated from China by any means or any excuses," said Wu Bangguo, China's No. 2 leader and chairman of the parliament.
Meanwhile, back on planet Earth, Taiwan and China are seperated and China can't do anything about it.
-
meanwhile, nuke leaves his buddy a' hangin.
:)
-
There's not going to be a war betwwen China and Taiwan because right now both of them are making money and a war would ruin that.
-
And this is US answer.
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/03/13/china.npc.law/index.html
The measure, passed on Monday by the National People's Congress, "represents the common will and strong determination of the Chinese people to safeguard the territorial integrity" of China, NPC chairman Wu Bangguo said.
Wu said the measure would "promote the peaceful reunification" and "contain secessionist forces in Taiwan," which China's ruling Communist Party considers a renegade province.
The law allows China's State Council and the Central Military Commission to move against any formal secession attempt by Taiwan as a last resort, should chances for peaceful reunification "be completely exhausted."
But Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao said the new legislation was not a "war bill."
"This is a law advancing peaceful unification between the sides. It is not targeted at the people of Taiwan, nor is it a war bill," Wen said at a news conference, shortly after the law was passed.
China has long threatened to take military action to prevent Taiwan from declaring formal independence.
Monday's resolution, approved as the annual National People's Congress came to a close, puts a legal framework behind those threats.
The law also declares that the status of Taiwan "is China's internal affair, which subjects to no interference by any outside forces."
The measure has triggered widespread criticism from Taiwan, where one leader called it a "dark cloud" hanging over relations with mainland China. There was no immediate reaction to its passage from Taipei.
In Washington, the Bush administration last week called it "unhelpful" and urged Beijing to reconsider the bill. But Wu waid the measure would promote peaceful reunification and regional stability.
"This law has practical and profound historical significance," he said.
China hopes the law will deter Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian from pushing for the island's independence before the end of his second and last term in 2008, analysts say, Reuters reported.
Despite the legislation, analysts say the People's Liberation Army has no immediate plans to attack Taiwan and the "non-peaceful" means is not specifically a reference to war. It could, for example, be economic sanctions or blockades.
Beijing has claimed sovereignty over Taiwan, which lies east of the Chinese coast, since Nationalist troops lost the Chinese civil war on the mainland and fled to the island in 1949.
Reuters reports the new law will feature in talks between U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her Chinese counterpart Li Zhaoxing in Beijing on March 20-21.
Washington recognizes China but is Taiwan's main supporter and arms supplier.
U.S. President George W. Bush has pledged to help Taiwan defend itself against any Chinese attack.
-
We don't have to threaten China with military force on behalf of Formosa to prevent a war- all we have to do is threaten to close our markets to them.
-
Originally posted by Airhead
We don't have to threaten China with military force on behalf of Formosa to prevent a war- all we have to do is threaten to close our markets to them.
China cannot take Taiwan with the forces they have. Maybe in 10 years.
-
not all nations adhere to your principles of model building my friend.
;)
-
Originally posted by Airhead
We don't have to threaten China with military force on behalf of Formosa to prevent a war- all we have to do is threaten to close our markets to them.
lets do it, im sick when i see everything they sell in all shops is labeled "made in china"
-
Originally posted by ramzey
lets do it, im sick when i see everything they sell in all shops is labeled "made in china"
Why are you sick that things are make in China?
I'd be sick if things were made in Poland, but China makes some good stuff when told exactly how to manufacture a western product.
Poland is a lost cause.
-
And all this time I was under the impression China could come over here and beat us with sticks, never mind nukes.
This is interesting to me because when my dad was alive, he and my brother got into a discussion about China (this was 15 years ago.)
Dad thought the Chinese were a serious potential threat and my brother said they were not to worry about far as war with the US. I hope my brother was right, but Dad had respect for the Chinese commies. He said their form of communism was probably the only form that worked, and that it was even good for them and we shouldn't interfere in their affairs.
Les
-
more people got fed than did under the emperor.
at least that much i know is true.
-
Stop shopping at Wall Mart and China goes broke. :D
-
All I ask is that all dogfights between U.S. fighters and Chinese Migs be recorded. I am getting tired of watching and rewatching Iron Eagle.
-
Exactly why is China so obsessed with getting Taiwan back? like China isn't big enough already?
The world is populated by some very crazy people!
What the hell is wrong with them leaving things the way they are!
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
Exactly why is China so obsessed with getting Taiwan back? like China isn't big enough already?
The world is populated by some very crazy people!
What the hell is wrong with them leaving things the way they are!
nationalism?
pride?
taiwanese industry and finance?
But yes... full of crazy people.
-
Originally posted by Airhead
We don't have to threaten China with military force on behalf of Formosa to prevent a war- all we have to do is threaten to close our markets to them.
I would really like to hear from an expert on international economics here, because I think your statement is seriously in error. But if this situation drags on I expect we'll hear from some of them.
Remember, China is financing the US deficit to the tune of 2 billion a day. We are a debtor nation to them. I think you may over estimate our ability to influence them.
You know, maybe they just have a new leader who appreciates the George Bush style of leadership - he's going to do what he thinks is right, and the rest of the world be damned. That Chinese bill and the discussion around it reminded me an awful lot of our own first resolution against Iraq. Remember how they said it didn't necessarily mean the use of military force? How all other avenues would be pursued before resorting to a military option?
I think Taiwan's days are numbered, and have been since the explosion of trade and debt to China. The fact the our military is currently so stretched makes this a particularly good time for the Chinese to ratchet up the pressure.
I wonder if the Chinese have any territorial disputes with the Japanese left over from WWII?
I wonder if the Chinese are working out a deal with North Korea to 'look the other way' as each nation pursues its territorial goals in the region? A Chinese-NK military pact would be extremely unsettling.
If all the events in the world today were boiled down into a Diplomacy-style board game, personally I wouldn't want to be the US player. The EU and China look like the strongest palyers to me.
-
Washington is lobbying strongly against European Union plans to lift a 15-year-old arms embargo against China, arguing that high-tech European weapons might be used against Taiwanese or U.S. forces.
Why on earth would the EU want to start selling high tech weapons to China?
Cept maybe for specific purpose of using against the USA. And potentially eventually even them.
Sorry but I see China as the largest single threat to the world today.
They certainly have the cannon fodder. And they havent gone on a campaign of conquest in a very very long time.
Which means they are probably due.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Why on earth would the EU want to start selling high tech weapons to China?
In my best impression of OneWordAnswer: "Money".
-
Just give the Taiwanese some old, low-tech nukes and stand back. After all, spreading nukes around is no big deal right? I've read right here on this board that we shouldn't be deciding who can or can not have nukes.
Then if China wants Taiwan so bad, they can come for it. The Taiwanese can decide how badly they want their independence.
A family matter to be settled in the family.
I KNOW the UN won't stop China from taking Taiwan and I'm pretty sure the average American has little interest in seeing his son/daughter involved in that conflict.
-
Originally posted by oboe
In my best impression of OneWordAnswer: "Money".
ahh so they wont let their own people have guns but they are willing to freely sell them to potential future enemies.
That makes sence.
To someone.
Somewhere.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
They certainly have the cannon fodder. And they havent gone on a campaign of conquest in a very very long time.
Which means they are probably due.
With that logic, USA should deffinatly be done with the their campaigning. We should prolly watch out for those Icelandic maniacs too, they havent been on a rampage for some time now... :D
-
oboe nailed it. china bankrolls the US. it's the international equivalent of "dad may I borrow the car please, oh and your credit card too please :D" china is so far into our collective bowels from the wrong entrance that it could be considered our conjoined twin.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Poland is a lost cause.
Now, now, Nuke, give them some time! It can't be too easy for them with their best and brightest having been systematically slaughtered for over half a century.
-
Nuke is just reminding us why everybody hates him.
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
Exactly why is China so obsessed with getting Taiwan back? like China isn't big enough already?
The world is populated by some very crazy people!
What the hell is wrong with them leaving things the way they are!
because if they let Taiwan have independance, then the government will have lost face in the eyes of the people and more importantly the military. When that happens, the Chinese government will see a succession of numerous other provinces as well. They can not afford that.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Just give the Taiwanese some old, low-tech nukes and stand back. After all, spreading nukes around is no big deal right? I've read right here on this board that we shouldn't be deciding who can or can not have nukes.
Then if China wants Taiwan so bad, they can come for it. The Taiwanese can decide how badly they want their independence.
A family matter to be settled in the family.
I KNOW the UN won't stop China from taking Taiwan and I'm pretty sure the average American has little interest in seeing his son/daughter involved in that conflict.
You know, I don't know that the Chinese would be very happy with us if we tried that. I wonder what their reaction would be? Threaten to stop buying US govt notes and invest in the Euro instead? An action like that would pull that bottom out of the US dollar and send interest rates skyrocketing.
I think the US will probably have to rethink its commitment to defend Taiwan. I'm not sure if we our signatories to a defense pact or if its more of a general promise to come to their aid, but odds are that it was made before China grew to be so dominant in our economy.
Regarding the EU lifting its ban to arms sales to China, why should the EU give the US position any more consideration than the US gave EU member nations positions' before we invaded Iraq? Here is where we find out diplomacy is a two-way street.
The EU should do what is in its best interest, and that is clearly to expand trade with China. The fact that it hurts the US is sauce for the goose. This is worldwide competition for economic dominance, and I think we've already made it pretty clear to the EU how much we value their opinion.
-
If you want to have some fun, go to Washington DC and ask anyone, "What about China?"
I understand they all cover their ears and run away screaming. :eek:
-
In 1954, the US and Taiwan signed a mutual security pact. AFAIK, it's still in force.
I wouldn't give them nukes openly. I'd slip them to them, sort of like NK uranium is slipping out on subs and going to places unknown.
The Taiwanese have rockets/missiles. You slip them a few old nuke warheads, all cleaned of any US markings and using uranium/plutonium from non-US sources (yeah, I'm sure we have enough). Then let them hose one off into the ocean as a test, like the French did back in 1996. Maybe they could shoot it into the French test area. ;)
When asked, I'd lie about it like the Iranians and NK's do. :rofl
-
Personally I'd prefer a high road approach but I wouldn't be surprised to learn our intelligence services are looking into a plan similar to what Toad proposes.
Remember the old saying that "a Capitalist will sell you the rope with which to hang him"? LOL, we were all so worried about the Soviet commies, did we forget that China was a communist nation too? Only in the case of China, it looks like we have the rope manufactured for us by their cheap labor before we sell it.
Meanwhile, Osama Bin Laden is still out there, probably laughing his prettythang off at us.
-
There is no "high road" approach unless you want our kids to defend Taiwan. Remember that Mutual Security Pact? The "high road" would be to honor that. You want your kid standing between the Chinese Army and Taiwan when the shooting starts?
The smart way is probably to funnel the weapons through Israel. We know the Israelis have nukes; I'm sure with all the aid we give them, they could be persuaded to help out.
Of course, you're aware of this, right?
Report on the 1979 Vela Incident (http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Safrica/Vela.html)
or:
There is no evidence that Israel has ever carried out a nuclear test, although many observers speculated that a suspected nuclear explosion in the southern Indian Ocean in 1979 was a joint South African-Israeli test.
I was still active in NSA-directed Recon at that time. There were rumors that Taiwan was a third party to that test.
So you just never know, do you?
Osama may be out there; I seriously doubt he's laughing though.
-
Some people seriously underestimating China. They can take over that little island before US can seriously react. And just because EU doesn’t sell high-tech weapons, Russian weapon industry is more then happy to sell top of the line stuff to China.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/FD10Ad02.html
The second phase would begin after airborne forces captured Sungshan Airport. With a secure landing strip, China would fly in elements of its 14 divisions of "rapid reaction" troops using Ilyushin Il-76, Shaanxi Y-8, Antonov 26, and Xian Y-7 troop transports, with air support from China's 1,000 bombers and fighters. China's 10 Il-76 transports can carry 130 troops apiece, though this limitation could be overcome by commandeering aircraft belonging to commercial courier and passenger airlines. China has about 500 Boeings and Airbuses from which to choose. Some of China's heavy-lift transports would bring in BMD-2 Airborne Combat Vehicles and an assortment of armored vehicles. These air-lifted troops would spread throughout the city, securing bridges and key intersections. In addition, China has 200 transport helicopters capable of carrying commandos to Taiwan.
-
Taiwan seems to have a decent air force.
Those transports still have to make it there.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/taiwan/airforce.htm
-
If China went for Taiwan and meant it, no one is going to stop them short of nukes. You don't have to be a big time military analyst to figure that out either.
Look at the supply line from China to Taiwan and from the US to Taiwan. Any questions?
If it starts, the Chinese win in short order unless nukes are used.
Now.. do you want the US tossing nukes or the Taiwanese?
What do you think would play best on the world stage?
-
and it's a big IF, the chinese decided to air lift an invasion force, they would have a problem with logistics. Until the strait is open to their shipborne traffic, they can't get enough beans and bullets into the island to take it in time to prevent a US reaction.
Nobody has yet run a completely airborne invasion that worked, except the Germans in Crete. There, the island was isolated in a way that Formosa is not--the Japanese and US forces in the area would OWN the sea approaches.
Respectfully,
shubie
-
Well, relatively higher road than covertly supply nukes. I'm sure we would frown on any other nation covertly supplying nukes to another nation, so wouldn't it be hypocritical to do it ourselves? (Not that I think that would stop us for a second). But no, I wouldn't want my boys over there in the middle of a shooting war between China and Taiwan.
What is our compelling national interest in defending Taiwan, anyway? And how does it compare to our national interest in preserving the trade relationship with our largest(?) trading partner and lender to our government? Would we really want Taiwan to use nukes we supplied, and perhaps seriously damage the Chinese population and/or manufacturing infrastructure? We've got lots of powerful CEOs in this country making money hand over fist because of operations which have been moved to China. Would they want our government selling Taiwan instruments to destroy that profitable relationship?
Maybe the high road would be to admit how important China is to us and negate the treaty with Taiwan. Perhaps Walmart has lobbyists in DC right now arguing that very point, who knows?
-
The straight is about 100 miles wide. How many naval task force commanders want to be that restricted when they're within 5 minutes flying time of a huge land-based air force?
-
Originally posted by oboe
What is our compelling national interest in defending Taiwan, anyway?
I'd say it would be the worth of our word. We freely gave them a Mutual Security Pact in 1954 and we have continually reiterated the intent therein through the years.
What do we do now? Say, "Sorry, deal's off.... we're into cheap tools, cotton t-shirts and flip-flops way too far now. You guys are on your own."
What effect would that have on us globally?
It's a mess, no doubt about it.
-
If china wanted taiwan they wouldn't need nukes. they wouldn't need barges, landing craft, transports, or even weapons. they could march people into the ocean and make a cadavre causeway and then walk over and eat and crap the place into submission. taiwan exists as a "rogue province" because china allows it to.
-
What a different world it is today than it was in 1954. I think the sooner admit the truth, the better off we will be, and yeah, too bad for the Taiwanese. As you say, nobody wants their children fighting over there anyway, so would we really defend Taiwan?
And in supplying them nukes would just damage our economic relationship with China, especially if they are used. OTOH, maybe that's exactly why we should do it...
-
Originally posted by oboe
OTOH, maybe that's exactly why we should do it...
It'd sure give them something else to think about, wouldn't it?
-
Originally posted by storch
taiwan exists as a "rogue province" because china allows it to.
I disagree.
Taiwan exists because of the US / Chinese economic relationship. If we stop sending them steel, heavy equipment, and grain, and stop allowing their crap to be imported, things will become very untenable for them indeed.
There is not going to be an invasion of Taiwan. The Chinese won't risk it, the Taiwanese can not afford it, and the US will just continue to control the situation through the relationship China has with us.
-
i am certain that the chines just want to
liberate the misguided taiwanese.
heck of an example we gave em eh?
-
It would be a major task for China to try to take Taiwan, and a tast that they probably would fail at, in my opinion.
Give China a few more years to build up their navy and transport ability, then yes.....right now, no.
The only thing China could really do to Taiwan is launch a bunch of missles at it, which would not be enough to take Taiwan.
Taiwan has a more than capable modern military and China just does noit have the means to land troops and equipment.
-
So what if China takes Taiwan? It's their business and there isn't a damn thing anyone can do about it if they do decide to take it today,tomorrow or in 10 years from now.
Some of you have such a blind obsessed view of China it's quite amazing.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gixer
So what if China takes Taiwan? It's their business and there isn't a damn thing anyone can do about it if they do decide to take it today,tomorrow or in 10 years from now.
...-Gixer
I don't have much of a view of China at all really. I'm just interested in the debate over weather or not they could take Taiwan.
I'm not real sure I believe that Taiwan is China's business though. I believe Taiwan should be free from China.
-
You know what the sad thing about China is to me? It's that the US has historically been a friend of China.
The Chinese are good people and they have a pretty peaceful history. It's sad that they are under the hand of oppressive communism.
-
Originally posted by Gixer
So what if China takes Taiwan? It's their business and there isn't a damn thing anyone can do about it if they do decide to take it today,tomorrow or in 10 years from now.
Some of you have such a blind obsessed view of China it's quite amazing.
...-Gixer
true,
and some have blind egotistical know-it-all opinions at well, but we are not complaining about you.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Why are you sick that things are make in China?
I'd be sick if things were made in Poland, but China makes some good stuff when told exactly how to manufacture a western product.
Poland is a lost cause.
how many jobs where lost by this in US?
how many companies move out to china from US
is that not hit you, your relatives?
its not about Poland its about US
-
Originally posted by ramzey
how many jobs where lost by this in US?
how many companies move out to china from US
is that not hit you, your relatives?
its not about Poland its about US
So, are you saying that China doesn't deserve or shouldn't be allowed to manufacture or sell anything for the US?
Global economy baby!
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
There is not going to be an invasion of Taiwan. The Chinese won't risk it, the Taiwanese can not afford it, and the US will just continue to control the situation through the relationship China has with us.
That really depends on the US & Taiwan. The current US "let's annoy the Chinese" 'diplomatic' policy of joining with the oh-so hated Japanese to defend Taiwanese independence is the most likely reason for the secession law that was passed: it is a diplomatic finger to the US. And a reminder that the PRC always does stuff the way it wants to, however much other countries like to think they hold influence over it.
It is also a line in the sand, however, because they're quite serious about the law too: they will invade if they think they have to, and they'll probably win because at the end of the day, Taiwan is the size of Delaware & Maryland, with a population of 22 million, and China is huge with a population of 1,300 million and the US lacks the kind of political will (and at present, possibly the manpower) to defend it. The PRC on the other hand will persue it if it thinks it has to and won't stop: in their eyes it is a domestic issue and nothing to do with anyone outside of China.
With a UNSC veto, there'll be no outcry from the UN, so a UN task-force is out of the question, and Taiwan is recognized only as a province of China, so as far as the UN charter goes it is - as the PRC always points out - a domestic affair, a issue entirely within Chinese sovereignty.
So on balance, you're off the mark: the Chinese will definitely risk it, the Taiwanese might just risk it too: it's really only the US that might not. As for the Japanese - well I'm not sure - I have an inkling they would almost definitely fold ASAP: China is more important to them than the US, economically-speaking, and they are far too close to China and her nuclear weapons to risk it. In a nuclear exchange, the US would lose a few ships - the Japanese have to live there.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
so a UN task-force is out of the question,
Without the US, can there even be a UN task force?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
You know what the sad thing about China is to me? It's that the US has historically been a friend of China.
Do you wipe after you post?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalist_China#History
-
Yeah, what about when the U.S. actually FOUGHT the Chinese during the Korean War? The Chinese pushed (pushed is such a sanitized word, how about "killed/forced to retreat") U.S. troops back to the 38th parallel from the Yalu River.
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
Yeah, what about when the U.S. actually FOUGHT the Chinese during the Korean War? The Chinese pushed (pushed is such a sanitized word, how about "killed/forced to retreat") U.S. troops back to the 38th parallel from the Yalu River.
The US was not allowed to attack China directly, yet we were fighting the full strenght of the Chinese anyway, with hands tied. We could have whiped out China if we wanted.
-
The only card the U.S. had to play was atomic weapons. Our troops were still using surplus WW2 equipment, and fighting troops were being depleted rapidly. Also, B29s wouldnt have been able to fly over China. They couldnt even fly over North Korea.
-
Originally posted by Octavius
Do you wipe after you post?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalist_China#History
Do you have a brain that can produce an original, pot influenced thought?
What point are you trying to make by posting that link?
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
Our troops were still using surplus WW2 equipment, and fighting troops were being depleted rapidly. Also, B29s wouldnt have been able to fly over China. They couldnt even fly over North Korea.
What equipment was China using?? :lol
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Do you have a brain that can produce an original, pot influenced thought?
What point are you trying to make by posting that link?
Your posts are akin to taking a rorschach dump on the keyboard, squishing it around, and contemplating which animal it looks like.
Educate yourself with that link. If you're still stumped, I'll manually point out your ignorance.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Without the US, can there even be a UN task force?
Doesn't matter. No blue rinse = aftermath is prohibitively expensive = US not very interested. Invasion Iraq's total cost hovers at somewhere around $156 billion so far, with the promise of at least another ten years of this being touted by the Pentagon. Iraq is tiny compared to China.
The US trade deficit is somewhere around $55-60 billion per month, federal deficit closing in on $8,000 billion at $2.3 billion per day. A war with China won't help this one little bit, and no blue rinse would just extend the agony.
-
If the US put it's full might and attacked China during the Korean war, China would have lost.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Doesn't matter. No blue rinse = aftermath is prohibitively expensive = US not very interested. Invasion Iraq's total cost hovers at somewhere around $156 billion so far, with the promise of at least another ten years of this being touted by the Pentagon. Iraq is tiny compared to China.
Well, we didn't go into Iraq to whipe it out. We are spending money in Iraq to avoid damage and build the country back up.
If we went to war with China, we would just destroy it.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Well, we didn't go into Iraq to whipe it out. We are spending money in Iraq to avoid damage and build the country back up.
If we went to war with China, we would just destroy it.
Well that'd be a waste of natural resources and a huge market - I don't think the Pentagon's suppliers would join you in the "destroy it" plan. And of course there'd be the problem of the US forces being war criminals too, so I'd say the US lacks the political will to do that either.
Besides if you start to go down that route it ends up as a nuclear war, where everybody loses. Nuke China and you'll have Russia, India and Pakistan looking for nuclear payback, because they'd all be poisoned too.
So the nuclear option isn't really available, so the destroy the place option isn't really available either.
-
...and the Chinese were being pushed back to the Yalu when "political considerations" halted the UN/US attacks.
On May 10 the Chinese launched a second offensive, concentrating their main effort on the eastern sector of the UN line. Van Fleet attacked in the west, north of Seoul. The surprised Communist units pulled back, suffering their heaviest casualties of the war, and by the end of May they were retreating into North Korea. By late June, a military stalemate had developed as the battle lines stabilized in the vicinity of the 38th parallel.
Van Fleet was ordered to halt offensive operations by Ridgeway. The Chicoms were hardly invincible. The death toll on our side would have been much higher and the Chinese would have lost astronomically. Van Fleet inflicted 200,000 casualties on the Communists in a drive north of the 38th Parallel to the Iron Triangle area of North Korea after the Chicom attack in May '51.
-
Originally posted by Octavius
Your posts are akin to taking a rorschach dump on the keyboard, squishing it around, and contemplating which animal it looks like.
Educate yourself with that link. If you're still stumped, I'll manually point out your ignorance.
sorry, I don't play the "link" game pothead. I am informed enough to argue my own points.
-
I agree with -dead-. If there ever a book-length topic, this is it. Let's start with a small dose of the politics and do the economics later.
The US sent carriers during China's sabre rattling in the 90's, but the mutual security treaty of 1954 was with Formosa. Taiwan is now a non-entity without diplomatic (or legal) recognition so the treaty would be considered no longer valid by the US if desired.
One must keep in mind that the change in China/Taiwan status during the Nixon years was based on the (astounding) premise that the US relationship with China would help the US keep Japan under control. The official US policy in the 1970's was that Japan must still be contained.
Chinese leaders know well that taking something is easy if you persevere. China has built outposts on small islands controlled by Indonesia and Thailand and along major shipping routes without anyone standing up to them. They just did it.
The colonization of Formosa by Japan is considered by Chinese to be the greatest humiliation in the long history of China. The fact that Taiwan is still not part of the fold keeps this wound alive, and Chinese politicians are adept as any western politicans in funneling their society's opinions for their own purposes.
Pride is just as strong a motivator of Chinese government actions and society as any other nation. Maybe more so. China's leaders know quite well that any action against Taiwan would be justifiable and supported in the eyes of the people who have been 'prepped' before the operation. The US and UK proved how easy it is to prep the population of a democracy with flag waving, even in societies with a free press.
I believe China learned some other tremendous lessons from the invasion of Iraq that make a big difference in today's dynamic. The lessons being that there is no such thing as international law; the US is not intersted in using the position of sole superpower to advance any noble casuses such as global stablity, it is interested in advancing its own interests only; the US 'one China' policy in essense endorses any action to bring Taiwan back under China's control; the use of military force to 'return' Taiwan will not be challenged by the UN.
Will the Chinese invade? If necessary, they will. They simply made it 'lawful' now. They are sitting back gauging the reaction to their move to make it lawful.
Do they want to invade? No. they would prefer not to. They are just keeping their options open because conditions change. Hong Kong still isn't as stable as they would like and they are learning now what works and doesn't work in reunification.
Will the US defend Taiwan if there ever were an attack? I would say the US is more interested in pushing Taiwan toward accepting peaceful reunification, then supply or defending Taiwan. The US would rather save face by pushing Taiwan toward voluntary reunification than trying to push China right now. What choice would Taiwan have when the US says, "Reunify or fight China on you're own."
The economics of this Japan/Taiwan/China/US puzzle are pretty complicated, so we'll leave that for later.
-
The China Card was played by Nixon as an anti-soviet move.
The Defense of Formosa was an anti Mao move during the Korean War.
On 05 January 1950 President Harry Truman announced that "the United States will not involve in the dispute of Taiwan Strait", which meant America would not intervene if the Chinese communists were to attack Taiwan. However, on 25 June 1950 the Korean War broke out, and President Truman reacted by declaring the "neutralization of the Straits of Formosa" on June 27. The Seventh Fleet was sent into the Straits under orders to prevent any attack on the island, and also prevent the Kuomintang forces to attack on China. From that point on, Taiwan was placed under US military protection.
-
This isn't meant to be some kind of dig or anything (because I don't think either side would deny it)...
One thing that seems to be left out of the equation here is the fact that Bush doesn't seem to be saddled with a great deal of appreciation for the practicalities of a situation, opting instead for a more idealistic, bigger picture approach to things.
To me, as it stands now, the extent of the US's participation in any China/Taiwan conflict can't really be discussed without taking that into consideration. It's a wild card.
-
A wild card is usually a plus for the poker player who has it.
-
Yup, sure.
I'm not assigning any value to the card... good or bad. Just saying that it's there. And it's a big, big there.
-
Here's another thing to consider: The Mutual Defense Treaty Treaty between the United States and the Republic of China expired Jan 1, 1980.
-
Guys I hate to bring this up, but the fact is that the US military is presently overextended just covering Afghanistan, Iraq, and our security commitments to places like North Korea and the Balkans.
For the US to be able to engage China successfully it would require a build-up of the Armed forces to at least 1980s levels. 10 Active Duty Divisions is barely enough for a one theatre war - twice that number would be necessary to engage a superpower, and that would require that we cut/control the growth of bloated social programs (For instance, I worked at the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Education in the 1990s, you could entirely cut everything but the D.Ag. inspections and controls programs from the budget tomorrow and all you would see is improvement). But since that is extremely unlikely to happen...
I know I'm not exactly an uninterested party here, but US troops and their families have been overextended and undersupported since the 90s.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Well, we didn't go into Iraq to whipe it out. We are spending money in Iraq to avoid damage and build the country back up.
If we went to war with China, we would just destroy it.
Let's see here. We can't even control the road between Baghdad and its airport, and you think we can conquer China?
Are you on dope?
-
Bush might be a wild card, but I doubt the US Congress would be.
Here's some polling info, this is the unfortunately the latest I could find. If anyone can find something more recent, I would really appreciate it.
Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates. March 15-19, 2000. N=1,184 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.5:
...
As you may know, there have been renewed tensions about when and how to bring Taiwan back under Chinese control. If China were to use military force against Taiwan over this, should the United States use military force to defend Taiwan, or not?"
Should use force %31
Should not %53
Don't know/Refused %16
http://www.pollingreport.com/china.htm
NewsMax.com/Zogby Poll Question: "If attacked by another country, should the United States help defend militarily, even though it could cost American soldiers their lives, . . . ?"
Taiwan More Detailed Poll Results
Yes – 31%
No – 69%
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/3/1/211348
-
The wild card was in Rolex's post: the Japanese.
How do you think they would react to any aggression by the CHICOMS against Taiwan?
There is a huge amount of bad blood (no pun intended) between them.
On the economic side of things, just one of my crazy little thoughts, when it comes to the treasurys that the CHICOMS are long- void them. Thats right void them, crazy right. All I know when soybeans were $12/bu. last year those stupid tards (the CHICOMS) were long many, many boats of them and all of a sudden the bean market goes to $7 dolla, you talk about a Chinese fire drill,,, me no buy those beans, must be other soybean crusher, me no pay for those beans so fruk you American weazel !!!!!!
Think I am kidding, between Bunge, Cargil, ADM and a host of others the losses were in the 100's of millions of dollars no only on the physicals but demerge reselling etc. So guess what now, CHICOMS wanna buy beans its done on a FOB basis ( google it ) not in the mood to explain.
All of a sudden USA economy is no good, world economy is no good and everyone is back to an even playing field.
Just one of my crazy thoughts.
-
Milo, we need to do lunch... Friday with Rude and I?
-
the US does not have to invade china, it only has to defend Taiwan.
-
I think we established earlier that the US in fact no longer has a treaty obligation to defend Taiwan from aggression. Someone posted that the agreement expired in 1980 and was not renewed; no one challenged.
China has time on its side - why would they do anything before the EU vote anyway?
-
Something else to think about: Why would China announce something like that? Surprise attack would work so much better.
-
Originally posted by greentail
Let's see here. We can't even control the road between Baghdad and its airport, and you think we can conquer China?
Are you on dope?
baghdad? we can't even control our borders. the liberals have turned us into a nation of limp wristed carpenter's album buyers (well most of you anyways) and latte drinkers. we have the first good shooting war in 40 years and recruitment into the armed services is on the decline. next thing you know they will be required to inintiate the draft and then we'll be really screwed. we have become soft. we might put together a sound military by doing what the romans did when they went soft, namely offering citizenship to people who would serve in our armed services for twenty years. we would get some rough and ready central americans in here and that would solve two problems. oh and euros need not apply. :D
-
Originally posted by NUKE
You know what the sad thing about China is to me? It's that the US has historically been a friend of China.
The Chinese are good people and they have a pretty peaceful history. It's sad that they are under the hand of oppressive communism.
Maybe, but then it wasn't so long ago american survelliance planes were coming back in boxes.
I personally think it is only saber rattleing by the Chinese. The obsession by the world on the war on terror has taken alot of the spotlight off the Chinese. I find it hard to believe they would suddenly simply up the ante over Taiwan unless there was a real raised concern over future of the island. This could be the Chinese way of rapping Taiwans knuckles over edging towards independance.
It is an interesting senario indeed, if the final step to invasion was attempted by the chinese. After all we now live in a world where percieved threat real or unreal are tacit approval for military action and cries of liberation mute any close inspection of truth until it's all too late.
If the Taiwanese did claim independance it would place great pressure on the allied "coalition of the willing" whose populace would have zero patience for military action. However...the US did not go to war with Russia over Chechyna - but then Chechyna did not have the same relationship as Taiwan.
The Chinese could take the island, but with much difficulty. If the JSDF, and the US Navy were positioned in strength - that is another issue altogether.
I think the argument could be once action was taken, how do you win such a war?
Tronsky
-
The JSDF is currently constitutionally prohibited from such as action, so they are out of the scenario. The Japan/Taiwan/China relationship is convoluted and as foggy as the US/Taiwan/China relationship. But Japan has been more direct than the US. The US, more or less, washed its hands of the issue with the 'one China' policy. I believe that is the path the US will take.
The pro independence political faction in Taiwan has been rattling the cage a little too vocally in the eyes of China's leaders and this is a reminder to them that reunification is not an 'if', it is a 'when.' China will not fade on Taiwan reunification and I'm of the opinion that this current generation of Chinese leaders would like it to happen on their watch. The new law still emphasizes a peaceful reunification, but says that a formal move toward Taiwan independence or the failure of a negotiated reunification could result in military action. I see it as a clear message to the west that China will do things their way, and don't even think about challenging our intended leadership in Asia.
The Chinese premier was painfully and unwaveringly clear in his statement that China would allow no foreign intervention on the issue. He spoke it with a slow and deliberate style that was tailored linguistically and in delivery to be clearly understood by the United States government and by the people of the United States. It was delivered specifically for US consumption in Bush-style language and mannerism, as in: "Don't even think about interfering in our business..."
Was he shown on any American TV news, or was it just reported? I'm curious.
The Japanese have invested heavily in Chinese factories and Taiwan factories as well. When people think about Chinese imports to the US, they usually don't grasp that Japan has supplied most of the electrical components, built the Chinese subsidiary assembly plant, or supplied the machinery to operate the plants. In essence, the China trade surplus is partially a Japanese trade surplus. China has tacked on about 50% added value.
Japanese and Chinese politicians are at odds with their business leaders on policy. The financial and business communities are plugging away in the hope that the continually growing commerce will influence the politicians to back off the rhetoric and maybe even get along. Unfortunately, people like Tokyo Governor Ishihara (who is actually quite insane) get reelected with over 70% of the vote by saying things like, "Nanking never happened," or, "Asia wanted to be colonized by Japan," or, "All Chinese are all sneaky thieves." What does China have to do with running the police or fire departments in Tokyo? I guess it just proves that politicians and voters everywhere are not much smarter than cabbages.
There is no getting around the fact that Koizumi's continued support and visits to Yasakuni are a major stumbling block to political normalcy between China and Japan. (Note: Yasakuni is the Japanese war dead memorial where WWII Class A war criminals are entombed in addition to other military members. It is a Shinto shrine run by right wing nationalists who believe the war was a just cause and the emperor should be returned to power.)
Japan is not in any position to challenge any Chinese military action against Taiwan or anywhere else, except Japan. But China and Japan are not in any real danger of a major conflict. The only way Japan would be in danger is if the US decided to defend Taiwan. All bets are off if that happens.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
Tokyo Governor Ishihara (who is actually quite insane) get reelected with over 70% of the vote by saying things like, "Nanking never happened," or, "Asia wanted to be colonized by Japan,"
I never knew Bolshevik Bob Boroda had a brother! And a successful politician too!
-
Boroda is a mild case compared to thier politician, Zhirinovsky. He's like a commie version of Hitler.
-
The USA would not enter in a war with chinese over Taiwan's independency.
If would, the troops would be withdrawn within few months due to public opinion and economical pressure.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
The USA would not enter in a war with chinese over Taiwan's independency.
If would, the troops would be withdrawn within few months due to public opinion and economical pressure.
aren't you on airhead's list? you need to be. :D
-
Originally posted by Gixer
So what if China takes Taiwan? It's their business and there isn't a damn thing anyone can do about it if they do decide to take it today,tomorrow or in 10 years from now.
Some of you have such a blind obsessed view of China it's quite amazing.
...-Gixer
Actually if they did it would have a massive economic effect on all our countries gixer, especially anything with a piece of silicon in it. Once again your lack of understand and immaturity shine through. Even China's simple posturing has massive repercutions for businesses.
However, IMHO one day in the near future Taiwan will want to join China as a state or province once the Chinese economic freight train becomes a little more rational.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Why are you sick that things are make in China?
I'd be sick if things were made in Poland, but China makes some good stuff when told exactly how to manufacture a western product.
Poland is a lost cause.
Hmm. Generalisations again?
I'll prefer almost any stuff made in Poland to the same thing made in China. At least if Chinese thing isn't manufactured by government company, but even government companies make exellent BBK DVD-players with DiVX support and crappy Huawei cell-phones.
-
Originally posted by Russian
Something else to think about: Why would China announce something like that? Surprise attack would work so much better.
From comments I have heard here - http://echo.msk.ru/interview/35119/ - the problem is that Kuomintang lost the elections at Taiwan, and a new president may declare Taiwan independant, while Kuomintang always said that Taiwan is a part of China, while PRC are "rebellious provinces", at the same time PRC says the same thing about Taiwan :)
It's oriental mind, we can't understand them. Some formal things may be vital for them. As long as Taiwan keeps hallucinating about being the real "Republic of China" - there is no serious problem for PRC.
BTW, PRC has a special attitude to former independant provinces or colonies: "One country - two systems". Hong-Kong and Macao are still capitalistic, more to say - immigration from China to Hong-Kong is not allowed...
Mao said: "Let hundreed flowers blossom" :) Think about it ;)
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
Exactly why is China so obsessed with getting Taiwan back? like China isn't big enough already?
The world is populated by some very crazy people!
What the hell is wrong with them leaving things the way they are!
Sorry, how many Americans are in Iraq? I forgot.
-
Originally posted by wetrat
Sorry, how many Americans are in Iraq? I forgot.
there are 100,000 american troops in germany, oh sorry you said iraq, do you want kawait also because iraq thinks kawait is part of iraq, remember the gulf war?