China gets bold with Taiwan

[sq764]

This could turn out very bad..

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050314/D88QPPDO0.html

[boxcar]

China represents the single largest threat to our security. Make no mistake about it: This is one a wicked, barbarian and...opportunistic regime. China knows the U.S. is spread very thin, militarily, and could likely make some bold moves -- and make those moves with Russia at her side, which would be an even more chilling scenario!

I wonder if the Libs will consider this latest strategy, which basically puts China on a war footing, to be "hawkish"?

Mabye Jimmy Carter can go over there and talk some sense into the goverment. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[Tom]

China has aways been an evil empire - W should not be trading with China, we should be boycotting them. No good has come from establishing relations with China. Nixon made a dreadful mistake by giving legitimacy to the Chinnese diactors.

[Show Me the Wire]

Tom:

Agree with you completely about China. It is a shame American companies fill the pockets of the Chinese military complex through manufacturing products in China for sale within the U.S.

[Secretariat]

I must be getting old. I am in agremeent with SMTW and Tom.

It bugged me when Nixon opened the doors to China when they were actively supporting North Vietnam during the war and was praised for it. It bugged me when Clinton pushed NAFTA and trade with communist China expanded further. Now GW has embraced that absurd policy as well, taking American jobs, but worst of all helping to make China a wealthier nation which will someday pose a real military threat ot us. As is we're in debt to our eyeballs with them, and will most likely blink if they invade Taiwan. This new Chinese guy reminds me of Mao and the old hard liners.

[boxcar]

In addition to everything else that has been said, thus far, we must not forget, also, that China and Russia are by far the biggest trouble-makers, mischief-creators and instigators in the world. Together, I have to think these two evil nations probably account for at least 75% of the arms sales to third world dictators, who are just as wicked as these two major arms suppliers.

If there was ever an unholy alliance between two nations, we're witnessing one now with China and Russia.

Boxcar

[Dave Schwartz]

I agree with all of you.

Think about this... If China decided to invade Japan we could not possibly defend it TODAY.

My point is that we are THAT weak militarily.


Dave Schwartz

[Tom]

Mexico is already invading US! And we can't do a damn thing about.

[PaceAdvantage]

I agree with all of you.

Think about this... If China decided to invade Japan we could not possibly defend it TODAY.

My point is that we are THAT weak militarily.

I find this a little difficult to swallow. Could someone please go into a little more detail as to why the United States could not defend the small island country of Japan?

[boxcar]

PaceAdvantage asks:

I find this a little difficult to swallow. Could someone please go into a little more detail as to why the United States could not defend the small island country of Japan?

PA, you are aware that China has a 1,000,000+ man army, right? The only way we'd we'd ever be able to defeat an army that size is with WMD, which even the threat of use thereof, of course, would bring Russia into the conflict...and after that...Armageddon, here we come.

And the number above is what the size of that army was a decade or two ago, and represents less than 10% of China's poplulation.

Boxcar

[lsbets]

If we were to look at numbers in the traditional WWII type scenario, no we could not take on China - in Japan or anywhere else, we don't have enough bullets to shoot all of their soldiers. However, when looking at the unbelievable power of our combined arms doctrine and the incredible power that we can bring to bear on any enemy, we could and would win - it would be ugly and bloody, but the end result would be victory. Technology is a force multiplier on the battlefield, and ours is unsurpassed. Within a matter of minutes, a unit under attack over here can call in support - whether it is fixed wing, rotary wing, or artillery. Add in naval support (in the China scenario) and the results are devastating. As an Army guy I hate to say this, but the fact is the only reason we need ground troops now is to mop up and secure the victory. We can degrade any enemies combat power by an incredible percentage in a very short amount of time thanks to our ownership of the air, and there is not a nation on earth that can dream of taking the skies from us.

With that said, I would much rather make a left turn at Baghdad and head to Syria, or a right turn and head to Iran than take on China - it would be ugly.

[boxcar]

lsbets wrote:

If we were to look at numbers in the traditional WWII type scenario, no we could not take on China - in Japan or anywhere else, we don't have enough bullets to shoot all of their soldiers. However, when looking at the unbelievable power of our combined arms doctrine and the incredible power that we can bring to bear on any enemy, we could and would win - it would be ugly and bloody, but the end result would be victory. Technology is a force multiplier on the battlefield, and ours is unsurpassed.

And China has made large improvements in their technology, as well, over the last couple of decades.

I certainly respect your expert military opinion, but I'm not quite as optimistic as you -- most especially with Russia waiting "backstage".

It used to be a good thing when Russia and China were entrenched enemies. The U.S. had the option, as recently as 10 years or so ago, of playing one against the other. But no more. Political relations between these two giants have undergone a 180 degree turn. Russia and China are now "soul brothers", having signed mutual defense treaties with one another that include agreements to participate in joint military exercises on a regular basis.

This unholy, hell-orchestrated alliance does not bode well for the world. We might...might be able to take on China, using conventional weapons due to our superior technology, but we'd never be able to take both countries on. No way, Jose -- not without nukes involved.

Boxcar

[PaceAdvantage]

PA, you are aware that China has a 1,000,000+ man army, right?

Yeah, but we're talking about Japan here....how are you going to get 1,000,000+ men into Japan without anyone noticing? Plus, where are you going to fit them all?

PS. If my war planning ignorance is showing, I apologize in advance.

[Dave Schwartz]

PA,

My point was not that China WOULD attack Japan, but rather that they easily COULD.

They would not need 100,000 soldiers to take Japan... just a few well-placed divisions would do it. Remember that they are just hours away from what is basically a defenseless island. How long do you suppose it would take us to get a sizable force to Japan? I would say at least weeks and by that time the war would be fought by diplomats. At the very least they'd be discussing a "ransom" for Japan.

And what happens if there is a war in the region? Where would we get our technology products from then?

(But let's remember this is all fiction.)


Dave Schwartz

[boxcar]

PaceAdvantage wrote:

Yeah, but we're talking about Japan here....how are you going to get 1,000,000+ men into Japan without anyone noticing? Plus, where are you going to fit them all?

:lol:

PS. If my war planning ignorance is showing, I apologize in advance.

I ain't no military expert either...but you're right -- we're talking Japan, which happens to be one of the weakest nations, militarily, on the globe.

Secondly, Japan is a decent-sized island nation. Somehow I think most of China's army would be able squeeze in.

Thirdly, logistically speaking, it isn't as though Japan is a half a world removed from China -- like the U.S. is!

Also, China has a formidable navy and air force, in addition to the planet's largest army.

Sure...the U.S., and the rest of the civilized world, would notice any kind of overt military threat. But the logisitcs don't favor us. Japan is practically next door to China. Even if we were able to get two complete aircraft carrier groups there in relatively short order, would this be sufficient firepower to repel a Chinese invasion? Would even three carrier groups be sufficient? And if so, how long would it take to get three naval battlegroups assembled in the area?

Then you have to factor in the Russia factor. If China didn't feel secure going it alone against our mighty forces, just how willing would Russia be to join forces with China?

Very, very sticky scenarios...

Boxcar

[Equineer]

Global economics will determine the course of events in the 21st century.

Most experts foresee Russia eventually joining the EU.

We are much more likely to pursue the economic strategy of the EU than wind up in a full-scale war with China.

An EU-like union with Mexico, Canada, and then other nations is what many experts see in their crystal balls.

The public doesn't support this prospect today, but our trade and immigration negotiations/policies already indicate that this outcome has been tacitly conceded behind closed doors.

[Steve 'StatMan']

Throw North Korea into the mix, and its even more disturbing. I think China is one of the few countries they'll listen to.

[Tom]

If push came to shove, we would HAVE to ue nukes if China were to invade Japan. We have to stand by our allies and we aren't dumb enough to engage a million man army in conventional warfare.

[sq764]

I agree with all of you.

Think about this... If China decided to invade Japan we could not possibly defend it TODAY.

My point is that we are THAT weak militarily.


Dave Schwartz
I think we are spread thinner than we'd like to be right now. I don't think that equates to a weak military..

[Secretariat]

If push came to shove, we would HAVE to ue nukes if China were to invade Japan. We have to stand by our allies and we aren't dumb enough to engage a million man army in conventional warfare.

Just remember that China has nukes too that can span the ocean.

[Kreed]

Whether its Taiwan or N. Korea ... i've always thought that the USA could be
"seduced" into battling China, which I think would prove disastrous. I'm sure
that 43 & his staff keep 5 eyes on China .... personal note: Me & my wife
Solange try NOT to buy "made in china" Anything, but its tough, but face it,
we could all try harder. #2 PS: the one sure way out of our weak dollar,
deficits, is Export more, but first we should try to Make more stuff here. I do
NOT agree w/ 99% of the economists who have resigned the USA to be a
service economy only.

[Secretariat]

ditto Kreed

[sq764]

Whether its Taiwan or N. Korea ... i've always thought that the USA could be
"seduced" into battling China, which I think would prove disastrous. I'm sure
that 43 & his staff keep 5 eyes on China .... personal note: Me & my wife
Solange try NOT to buy "made in china" Anything, but its tough, but face it,
we could all try harder. #2 PS: the one sure way out of our weak dollar,
deficits, is Export more, but first we should try to Make more stuff here. I do
NOT agree w/ 99% of the economists who have resigned the USA to be a
service economy only.
You don't just export more, you need buyers on the other end..

[Tom]

That's how Germany lost WWII - spread between two fronts. I agree-weak are weak now because we cannot effectivley address new situations of war while we have or troops committed to re-building. and THEY know it.:eek:

[Equineer]

I've post on SS before... but would like to reiterate the negative impact on our ability to export goods and keep manufacturing jobs here.

One significant damper on exports is our payroll taxation on every worker in the chain of manufacturing steps for our products.

Social Security and Medicare taxes amount to 15.3% of employee wages: 6.2% employee share SS payroll deduction
2.9% employee Medicare deduction
6.2% employer matching SS contribution

Of course, these taxes inflate the cost of our exported products before they leave the U.S.

Moreover, countries importing from us may require their resellers to add a consumption tax to our products.

Conversely, most consumption tax countries are smart enough to waive or refund accumulated taxes on their exported good, which makes them cheaper here.

Payroll taxation has become a flawed method of funding social welfare programs.

[Equineer]

That's how Germany lost WWII - spread between two fronts. I agree-weak are weak now because we cannot effectivley address new situations of war while we have or troops committed to re-building. and THEY know it.:eek:I think the Chinese have no intention of really provoking a war... they get bellicose to win other concesions, such as shielding Iran, which is becoming a significant trading partner with China.

How many more years will it be until war with China will be moot anyway... because it won't be long before war with them would bankrupt most of the corporations we used to think of as American companies.

[boxcar]

Equineer wrote:

Global economics will determine the course of events in the 21st century.

Most experts foresee Russia eventually joining the EU.

We are much more likely to pursue the economic strategy of the EU than wind up in a full-scale war with China

I'm bowled over. Are you intimating that capitialism will win the day and save for the world from itself? :D

Boxcar

[Equineer]

Originally posted by Boxcar,
I'm bowled over. Are you intimating that capitialism will win the day and save for the world from itself?Capitalism has already won the day, but the "road to global salvation" will not be universally popular.

Global capitalism and traditional nationalism are becoming mutually antagonistic.

Multinational/global business interests want unfettered global capitalism, and their growing influence on policies adopted throughout the world by all forms of government is abundantly clear.

Traditional nationalistic policies are at odds with the model for an efficient global business operation.

Many of our complaints in this forum are really protests that unfettered global capitalism is emerging too quickly... and complaints posted in other parts of the world are often protests that it is developing too slowly.

[ponyplayer]

Just a question. In case of a war with China, who in the world would side with US?

[sq764]

Just a question. In case of a war with China, who in the world would side with US?
Well if you are speaking of China and Taiwan, I wouldn't think it would be a war, more of a 'hostile takeover'..

I don't think China will pull the trigger.. They have too much to lose with us opposing this move..Regardless of their reign as a potential superpower, they still rely on the US for a ton of imports and could not function as it does today without them..

In 20 years, who knows.. May be a different story.