Chinese begin to worry U.S. militarily

[-dead-]

Originally posted by Toad
There were rumors way back when about Israel, South Africa and Taiwan all being in on the test in the Southern Indian Ocean back in '79.

 Have  your intel agency check that out.


As for a blockade, I'm sure that'd be one way to get the question decide in the short term. Both sides could see if they really want to fight over it.

Rumours leaking out about Taiwan testing nuclear weapons tests, eh? Surely it would have been a rather secret affair... I wonder how the world got to hear about that? You seem to be making my case for me.

[Toad]

It must have been a well kept secret; no one really knows for sure. Just the satellite data which is not definitive.

Even the countries involved are a matter of speculation.

So, reasonable doubt seems to suffice.

[-dead-]

Originally posted by NUKE
Hey Dead, just wait till you are under 100% Chinese rule. Say goodbye to any free speech over the internet like you enjoy now.

I'm glad you are happy about your future.

I've been under 100% Chinese rule for eight years now. Aside from the increased safety derived from the lack of drunken British squaddies, and being able to vote, I must say I haven't noticed any change in free speech.
I suspect you may be referring to the vague spectre of what may happen in 2047: by then I'll be so old, I doubt I could make it to a polling booth, or see a computer screen so frankly it makes little odds to me, although a serious socialist healthcare system would appeal more then.  But 2047 is a long way off � as the Mullah Nasrudin would tell you: "Who knows? Maybe the horse will sing."

[weaselsan]

Originally posted by -dead-
You're sort of arguing against yourself there � the DPRK have openly claimed to have nuclear weapons. Whether they do or not, they are still capitalising on the declaration, and using it as a deterrent. Although in North Korea's case the real deterrent is more likely their enormous amount of conventional artillery, coupled with the close proximity of Seoul to said artillery.

A deterrent from what? Neither the U.S. or South Korea has any thing to gain by an invasion of the North. What pray tell would we do with it? Hell we have enough on our hands in Iraq,and they have oil. PRNK has what ? A couple Million starving Koreans.

[indy007]

Originally posted by simshell
i would like to ask could Taiwan win such a war with the US giving full support such as some Carrier Groups?

Economic endurance has always been the key to warfare. The Chinese Navy can't stand up to ours.. at all, so a blockade would go into place relatively quick. A country with 2 billion mouths to feed... I think they'd get in trouble pretty fast. We'd never be able to invade them and conquer.. but we could starve them to death.


Now, if they pick up a few of those South African built stealth destroyers, things may change over time.. but I don't know if their high tech construction capacity could handle it... hell, they can't make cheap rubber goods that don't break.

[-dead-]

Originally posted by weaselsan
A deterrent from what? Neither the U.S. or South Korea has any thing to gain by an invasion of the North. What pray tell would we do with it? Hell we have enough on our hands in Iraq,and they have oil. PRNK has what ? A couple Million starving Koreans.

A deterrent to US invasion, of course. Remember: having a deterrent doesn't particularly need to make sense to the people being deterred, just to the people doing the deterring. To the DPRK it makes fairly good sense, but nobody here would accuse the DPRK of being the most rational of governments.

[Gixer]

Originally posted by indy007
Economic endurance has always been the key to warfare. The Chinese Navy can't stand up to ours.. at all, so a blockade would go into place relatively quick. A country with 2 billion mouths to feed... I think they'd get in trouble pretty fast. We'd never be able to invade them and conquer.. but we could starve them to death.

Naval blockade of China? Might as well try that on Switzerland while your at it. That's one of the dumbest thing's I've ever read. How on earth can you blockade China when it has such large boarders spreading in every other direction? This isn't Cuba.

And as for the 2 billion mouths to feed it's pretty much independent as far as feeding itself anyway.

Some of you should actually visit China or atleast take some time to understand it and it's people a little more before comenting. I wonder with your blockading idea if you actually even know where it is on the map.


...-Gixer

[oboe]

I think the US currently borrows billions daily from China just to keep the government afloat.

Not sure what the exact figure is, but some one here might be able to supply it.

I doubt the US is going to war with China anytime soon.

[Seagoon]

Originally posted by Raider179
SG, regards still say none of chemical weapons compare to a nuclear retaliation. I understand completely what you mean by pay a little now, but  I don't think you grasp how easy it could turn nuclear. China starts losing and they might let a few go and then some of our boys get caught in it and you know we would let a few loose. Gotta say I am surprised that you would believe that violence is the answer in this case. I would like to hear more on your rational behind it. I know you are not advocating violence but you are saying defend Taiwan if they are attacked correct? They are not 3rd rate weapons by the way. We have given them plenty to work with. f-16s, aegis, i think the even have patriots if I remember right. Anyhow your views are always a reason to rethink mine. Raider

Hi Raider,

As always, I appreciate your willingness to "reason together" (Isa. 1:18). I want to make it clear that I am not defending deliberate aggession, a first strike against China or the like. Generally, as far as China is concerned, I believe the policy of the West must be containment, combined with concerted attempts to change the government from within (and this process is advancing, China currently has 240 Million plus Christians and the church continues to grow despite persecution). I believe however, that China must be made to realize that we will confront them if they invade Taiwan (and we must make it clear that we would regard crossing the straits to be an invasion). Making it clear that we will confront them if they invade is merely an outworking of the Romans 13 mandate that good civil magistrates have to use the sword to execute wrath on those practicing evil. So, in essence I believe it is high time we applied the same containment + threat of confrontation equation that was applied to the USSR.

I am fairly confident that an actual confrontation with China would not go Nuclear, as neither Chinese nor American contingency plans (several have already been discussed in public) concerning a conflict over the straits call for a Nuclear exchange. Both sides would be content to slug this one out with conventional weapons. A Nuclear exchange only becomes a viable option for a country when they firmly believe they are going to be utterly overrun otherwise, something that neither China nor America have any fear of in a fight over Taiwan. The only wildcard that would enter into this scenario would be if Taiwan had nukes, because they would be in grave danger of being overrun which is why I disagree with some of the members of this board; Taiwan should have access to first rate conventional weapons, but not nukes.

Oboe: The CSA was a rather different kettle of fish. With Taiwan we are talking about a state that has been free and self-governing for over 50 years, and which has developed into a flourishing democracy. Also in regards to Taiwan we are talking about protecting a democracy from being conquered by a totalitarian communist regime. I really don't want to get into a Civil War discussion, but the south was not about to lose fundamental god-given human freedoms by remaining part of the USA. There I would say that intervention was a far more ambiguous issue, in this case however, I think that at least most of us agree that free Taiwan has a right to both existence and self-determination. We are however split on whether we are actually willing to die to defend them.

- SEAGOON

[Rolex]

Japan and China are financing 80% of the $2 billion/day.

[Thrawn]

dead, any particular reason you blithely pass by my post about  Cowperthwaite.  Or does it just not fit in you agenda?

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Seagoon
Hi Raider,

As always, I appreciate your willingness to "reason together" (Isa. 1:18).

"I  am one of those who are very willing to be refuted if I say anything which is not true, and very willing to refute any one else who says what is not true, and quite as ready to be refuted as to refute-I for I hold that this is the greater gain of the two, just as the gain is greater of being cured of a very great evil than of curing another. For I imagine that there is no evil which a man can endure so great as an erroneous opinion about the matters of which we are speaking and if you claim to be one of my sort, let us have the discussion out, but if you would rather have done, no matter-let us make an end of it. "

-Gorgias, Plato

Although not a Christian, I agree with William of Ockham et al,  one is foolish to try and build ladders to your God through reason.  But by the same token you are equally foolish to use the ladder given to you to try to reason all things temporal.

[Nash]

That's good stuff Thrawn.

[Suave]

The chinese are just beginning to worry the US military? Is this 1952?

Taiwan will be reassimilated by the empire of china. Any intervention of the USA will just delay the inevitable, and seriously hamper our relations with china, as well as retard china's re-entry to civilization.

Better to stay our current course of helping china appreciate the benefits of  modern civility.

I think 10-15 years from now, China will view north korea as a much more dangerous enemy than the USA.

[Seagoon]

Originally posted by Thrawn
"I  am one of those who are very willing to be refuted if I say anything which is not true, and very willing to refute any one else who says what is not true, and quite as ready to be refuted as to refute-I for I hold that this is the greater gain of the two, just as the gain is greater of being cured of a very great evil than of curing another. For I imagine that there is no evil which a man can endure so great as an erroneous opinion about the matters of which we are speaking and if you claim to be one of my sort, let us have the discussion out, but if you would rather have done, no matter-let us make an end of it. "

-Gorgias, Plato

Although not a Christian, I agree with William of Ockham et al,  one is foolish to try and build ladders to your God through reason.  But by the same token you are equally foolish to use the ladder given to you to try to reason all things temporal.

[My sincere apologies for going way off topic in answering the above...]

Thrawn,

I do not have a lot of time to go into a long discussion of epistemology tonight, so this may not be as clear a reply as I might like to give - but suffice it to say that the idea that in order to discuss events that occur within the universe I must first abandon everything I know to be true about that universe - its order, its Creator, its ends - is simply untenable. Even Plato, pagan that he was, acknowledged that knowledge would be impossible if there was no unifying order in the universe. Socrates, in the very book you quoted from says: "this universe is therefore called Cosmos or order, not disorder or misrule, my friend."

I will freely admit that my worldview presupposes that history is the stage on which redemption is being played out, that there is a God, that the Bible is the way in which that God has revealed Himself and His will to man. I also believe what that revelation teaches me about human nature, but I do not believe these things against what common sense tells me. If 8 years of counseling have taught me anything, they have taught me that everything the bible teaches about anthropology is absolutely true.

So if I am talking about China and Taiwan, of course I need to attempt to discern and understand the "historical facts" but in interpreting those facts, I would be both insincere and foolish if I attempted to do so from a point of view I long ago abandoned as false. I have enjoyed reading Hume, Hegel, Russell and even Sartre but I cannot and will not adopt their presuppositions about the universe in order to discuss international politics, any more than I would require that in order to even begin a discussion you abandon your anti-theistic worldview.  

Anyway, here's a quick overview of my starting presuppositions as laid out by another Christian in regards to reality and epistemology. I apologize again if this is a big yawner...

"1. Reality
Both Christians and non-Christians make presuppositions about the nature of reality.
a. The Christian presupposes the self-contained God and his plan for the universe as back of all things and therewith the absolute distinction between Creator and creation.
b. The non-Christian presupposes �Chaos and Old Night,� or the self-existence of matter in some sense.

2. Epistemology
Neither Christian nor non-Christian can, as finite beings, by means of logic, legislate what reality should be.
a. Knowing this, the Christian observes facts and arranges them logically in self-conscious subjection to the plan of God revealed in Scripture, i.e., he listens to God�s explanation of his relation to the world and man, both in Adam and in Christ, before he �listens� to, and during his observation of, the �facts.� He knows that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Assuming the plan of God, the Christian knows that the facts have a divine order. The Christian�s task in science is to uncover the God-ordained structure of the world. For the Christian, man and the world are made for one another so that the rational abilities of man are applicable to the world as man seeks to �subdue the earth.�
b. Knowing this, the non-Christian, nonetheless, constantly attempts the impossible by demanding a coherence that originates with himself.
(1) Negatively, he must assume that reality is not divinely created and controlled in accordance with God�s plan at all, and that the Christian story therefore cannot be true. The world of �facts� springs from �Chaos and Old Night��ultimate Chance.
(2) Positively, he must assume that reality is after all rationally constituted and answers exhaustively to his logical manipulations. If the world were not rational or �uniform,� then there could be no science. Any �cosmic mind,� or God, must therefore be able to be manipulated by man-made categories. Any God not reducible to logical or empirical categories, and therefore completely understandable, is a false God." - Cornelius Van Til  

Anyway, you are of course free to call me a fool, tell me I'm wrong, contradict my assertions, point out the flaws in my logic, and so on - but I simply can't comply with a request to abandon my worldview in order to discuss the world. Have I ever made that request of you? What point would there be in that?

- SEAGOON