Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Thu 02/17/2005 View Wed 02/16/2005 View Tue 02/15/2005 View Mon 02/14/2005 View Sun 02/13/2005 View Sat 02/12/2005 View Fri 02/11/2005
1
2005-02-17 China-Japan-Koreas
China military buildup threatens US forces: CIA chief
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Steve White 2005-02-17 00:00:00 AM|| || Front Page|| [11132 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 What are robust, survivable nuclear armed missiles? I thought the whole point is that neither missile nor target survive their meeting.
Posted by trailing wife 2005-02-17 6:25:46 AM||   2005-02-17 6:25:46 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 I think it means that they can survive an encounter with an ABM system. Multiple warheads, electronic countermeasures, dummy heads, warhead hardening, und so weiter. After all, we've been making all that noise with those defensive missile tests in the international media...
Posted by Mitch H.  2005-02-17 7:19:37 AM|| [http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/]  2005-02-17 7:19:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 TW -
He might have been trying to describe hardened missiles that could survive a US first strike - not freakin' likely, but if he doesn't sound the alarm about something, there goes his budget.

Mike
Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2005-02-17 7:23:24 AM||   2005-02-17 7:23:24 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Bingo, Mike.

But we need to pay attention to something.

If China is actually developing missiles with the idea of surviving either first strike or coutermissile fire then they are planning for a war. Not anticipating possible need, but actually getting ready those items they feel will be useful.

Traditionally our intelligence agencies have estimated that China possesses only a small number of nuclear devices and those are not mated to delivery systems. What that says is that they are not serious about the possibility of them being used in the near future.

Just as Iran only needs to develope ICBM-type weapons if they are going to have nukes to deliver, China only has the motivation to develope better missiles if they intend to mate them to warheads for use against . . . well, the US and Taiwan.
Posted by Jame Retief  2005-02-17 7:37:38 AM||   2005-02-17 7:37:38 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Just let China have Taiwan! Who wants to go to war with China for pissant Taiwan, a tiny piece of land with people that eat brains and dead babies (no lie...human rights coalitions have tried to circulate the photos). Clinton's policy on One China was the only thing I liked about his politics...it's simply not worth it. Don't let the war chiefs convince you China is some looming danger, some just think it sounds sexy...World War III: starring the United States vs. China. Just ask yourself, "How many Taiwanese buddies do I have?". Probably none...I wish people would stop assuming shitholes like this are worth American lives (not implying anything about Iraq...the Middle East has been long overdue). China's politics are jacked up but they do not seek our destruction. They seek to preserve their union...sound familiar? Imagine if Asia told the North to leave the South alone in our Civil War, or else. Yes, I know they don't believe in our freedoms, but if they want Taiwan, so be it.
Posted by shellback 2005-02-17 10:18:37 AM||   2005-02-17 10:18:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Shellback, you clearly didn't get the memo. WWIII was the Cold War; we won. WWIV is the War on Terror, really the Islamofascism animating the terrorists, among others; we have won the first major battles and, so long as our nerve holds, will win the war. A war initiated by China would be WWV; if, as is sounds to my untutored ear, they are going for a conventional war goosed with nukes, we will win, and quickly. We have an excess of missiles to dispose of, and the kind of technology our troops have to play with will not be stymied by the raw numbers of wifeless men that are China's main threat.

As for that little rant about Taiwan. You sound like some of the rabid antisemites who chance upon Rantburg from time to time -- all noisy ignorance and unthinking cant. I do have very dear friends from there, very gentle, cultured, erudite people, devoted to their children and their students, but with the tough core that goes with growing up under a permanent siege -- much like the Israelis I know, in fact. If you want to meet some, go to your nearby university or corporate research department. That's where Taiwanese tend to congregate outside of their country.

But regardless, keep that kind of shit to yourself. It is wrong, rude, and uncivilized.
Posted by trailing wife 2005-02-17 11:34:11 AM||   2005-02-17 11:34:11 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 oops shellback, you went too far and let the fever show
Posted by Frank G  2005-02-17 12:01:14 PM||   2005-02-17 12:01:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 China is significantly expanding their strategic nuclear arsenal. Witness their construction of long range mobile ICBMs such as DF-31, long range SLBMs like DF-23, and ballistic missile submarines. They are still in the early stages of ramping production and the next 10 years will be interesting.
Posted by ed 2005-02-17 12:09:36 PM||   2005-02-17 12:09:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Just ask yourself, "How many Taiwanese buddies do I have?"

Um, a score or so.
Posted by 11A5S 2005-02-17 12:10:59 PM||   2005-02-17 12:10:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 I apologize if I've offended anyone...let's just go to war with everybody over everything.
Posted by shellback 2005-02-17 12:13:47 PM||   2005-02-17 12:13:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 The statement should be, "I apologize that I offended some of you." And, an honest apology is not be followed by further asininity.
Posted by trailing wife 2005-02-17 12:21:09 PM||   2005-02-17 12:21:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 trailing wife: wrong, rude, and uncivilized is to imply we should attack and bomb China in defense of Taiwan because we have an "excess of missiles to dispose of". I don't particularly care for the Chinese but who I really love are my American people. I wouldn't trade their lives for Taiwanese lives. We all have to live in fear one way or another. If you live in the city, you worry if someone's going to break in your house, if you live in Taiwan, you worry about Chinese aggression.
Posted by shellback 2005-02-17 12:33:16 PM||   2005-02-17 12:33:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 trailing wife: wrong, rude, and uncivilized is to imply we should attack and bomb China in defense of Taiwan because we have an "excess of missiles to dispose of". I don't particularly care for the Chinese but who I really love are my American people. I wouldn't trade their lives for Taiwanese lives. We all have to live in fear one way or another. If you live in the city, you worry if someone's going to break in your house, if you live in Taiwan, you worry about Chinese aggression.
Posted by shellback 2005-02-17 12:33:40 PM||   2005-02-17 12:33:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 I didn't think it was an honest apology. My Taiwanese friends became American citizens last year. Who are your "American people?" As for China, we don't need to invade them, just administer a stern spanking when they attack. An excess of missiles delivered from a distance, will do nicely for the purpose, and provide amusement for some otherwise bored American troops.
Posted by trailing wife 2005-02-17 12:45:22 PM||   2005-02-17 12:45:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 SB:
What you are saying sounds a lot like:
"How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas masks here because of a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing."
--Neville Chamberlain

And we know the results of backing down then, don't we?
Posted by jackal  2005-02-17 1:29:19 PM|| [http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]  2005-02-17 1:29:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Well, it honestly wasn't. And what world are you living in that you think China would take a "spanking" and that'd be it? Oh, and that would just be to alleviate some boredom, huh? My American people are the ones you're casually willing to sacrifice for the benefit of Taiwan. Taiwan wouldn't survive a war between us and China anyways, it would be destroyed while it was supposed to be defended. And congratulations to your new Taiwan-American friends...I still wouldn't trade them for your sons and daughters.
Posted by shellback 2005-02-17 1:34:03 PM||   2005-02-17 1:34:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 How about the Fillipinos? Would it be okay to intercede for them?
Posted by Shipman 2005-02-17 1:38:44 PM||   2005-02-17 1:38:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 jackal: Our government's very public demand China not hinder Taiwan independence, and if so face military action, negates the possibility we'll back down.
Posted by shellback 2005-02-17 1:44:47 PM||   2005-02-17 1:44:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Shipman: Nice analogy however the Battle of Leyte Gulf was after the attack at Pearl Harbor. And Japan was invading sovereign nations, not break-away regions. How about Chechnya? Their fighting for their independence, against a country we've had what you could call "serious problems" with in the past. Why no support for them? Because they're just as bad as who they're fighting against. Same as Taiwan. They're no angels. And not worth our blood.
Posted by shellback 2005-02-17 1:55:46 PM||   2005-02-17 1:55:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 " I wouldn't trade their lives for Taiwanese lives."

Shellback, are you really a shellback? Someone posted it the other day, I'll do so again. The verse below is from the Battle Hymn of the Republic, and all the encouragment I would need to fight for Taiwan or any other freedom loving peoples.


In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me:
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on.

Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
His truth is marching on.
Posted by Analog Roam 2005-02-17 2:41:20 PM||   2005-02-17 2:41:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Analog Roam: Started to write a nasty response, then stopped and composed myself. Yes, what a wonderful little ditty the Battle Hymn of the Republic is. Here's a newsflash for ya'... that song (and others like it) only inspire people who are on the sidelines, safe and far away from actual combat. When the time comes, which it will, we'll see where you are Mr.Analog. I already have a reserved seat.
Posted by shellback 2005-02-17 3:39:59 PM||   2005-02-17 3:39:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 interesting "shellback". So are you going to disobey orders that direct you to aide and assist the Taiwanese allies if you believe "Your American People" are not at risk? Sounds like you either aren't really in or you need to resign. I know which I believe about you
Posted by Frank G  2005-02-17 3:51:22 PM||   2005-02-17 3:51:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 And what world are you living in that you think China would take a "spanking" and that'd be it?

Because the U.S. has more than enough armament to administer a spanking that China would be hard-pressed to recover from. The only number they have over us is in people; where it matters is in destructive power, and we've got them beat several times over.
Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2005-02-17 4:00:21 PM||   2005-02-17 4:00:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 Frank G: The more people that insist that China is an supposed impending threat, the more the threat will become a reality. Yeah, you can believe I'm "in" or "out" or "whatever"... when the time comes, I'll be there. I believe you'll be with Analog Roam playing armchair quarterback. We need to focus on our first priorities, Afghanistan and Iraq. Then somewhere towards the bottom of the list is Taiwan and China.
Posted by shellback 2005-02-17 4:37:17 PM||   2005-02-17 4:37:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 Started to write a nasty response, then stopped and composed myself.

Shellback: "Composed" is that the new slang for wanking off these days? I became a shellback in the US Navy in 1976, and I somehow suspect you weren't even born then.

I've already done my time, and would do so again if called. Yes, I find the BHotR very inspiring, to say the least. Next time get nasty, let's see what you got, boy!

-AR
Posted by Analog Roam 2005-02-17 4:40:41 PM||   2005-02-17 4:40:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 Bomb-a-rama: Of course, I agree.
Posted by shellback 2005-02-17 4:40:51 PM||   2005-02-17 4:40:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 its quite possible to question the inevitability of a future US-China confrontation. I do so myself. But when you call Taiwanese "babyeaters" you only mark yourself a troll, and exclude yourself from rational conversation. Just like people who call Jews babyeaters, and for that matter people who call Muslims babyeaters.
Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-02-17 4:43:41 PM||   2005-02-17 4:43:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 Shellback-> Calling people chickenhawks is not an effective argument. There are undoubtedly people here with more military experience than you who disagree with you. If you want to convince them, you have to do better than insulting people's future bravery or military service.

Notwithstanding this, tell us why we should go back to the days of not supporting our friends and bribing our enemies with selling out our friends? It didn't work before, and won't work now.

Moreover, deterrence works only when resolve is firm and communicated to the other party. Any expressed uncertainty of intentions is regarded by the other side as weakness of purpose (by definition), which increases the raw probability of conflict, whether intentional or through error or misunderstanding.
Posted by Mark E. 2005-02-17 4:46:06 PM||   2005-02-17 4:46:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 Liberalhawk: No, I'm serious. I've seen the pictures. They eat babies, man. I know it sounds like I'm only trying to smut them out, but I'm dead serious. I didn't have much of an opinion of Taiwan until I saw the photos. I wish I still had them. I would post them. And what "rational conversation"? You say you don't think we should go to war with China and see how irrational everybody gets. Probably the same way if I'd said we need to stop supporting Israel.(relax everyone...I support Israel.) No, but seriously, not every single person from Taiwan eats babies but they serve them, when they're stillborn, in certain places. I got this stuff from an Human Right's activist. And Jews/Muslim's have eaten babies, check Old Testament and Josephus' "The Jewish War".
Posted by shellback 2005-02-17 4:56:55 PM||   2005-02-17 4:56:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 The point not addressed is will China implode before any confrontation explodes? The death of too many dynasties has been the rot corruption that sets in the bureaucracy. Haven't seen the present rulers are any more effective at suppressing it, then their forefathers. Oh, and just wait till the economy hits a real nasty recession.
Posted by Thraing Whaimp1866 2005-02-17 4:57:09 PM||   2005-02-17 4:57:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 Shellback-> I believe I know what photos you are talking about. Those photos were from a performace art exhibit and they were proven false long, long ago. (You will probably not find any friends of performance art here on RB) You might find the debunking on snopes or something like that. There is no canibalism in Taiwan. There are no places where they serve stillborn babies. Preposterous. Unbelieveable.

Actually, I just found this on Snopes:
http://www.snopes.com/horrors/cannibal/fetus.htm
Posted by Mark E. 2005-02-17 5:02:52 PM||   2005-02-17 5:02:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 Oh, and by the way, that was the first hit when I googled "cannibalism taiwan". Google is a pretty effective tool. You should try it.
Posted by Mark E. 2005-02-17 5:06:24 PM||   2005-02-17 5:06:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 It took me 5 sec to google the Taiwan baby eating BS. Some performance artist claimed to eat fetuses he stole from a hospital. Folks took his pictures and wrote some nasty emails around them.

Site one
Site two

Bottom line: It's one asshole claiming to eat dead babies. Not a cultural phenomena.

Just noticed that Mark E beat me to it, my cites are unique so I'm posting anyway.
Posted by 11A5S 2005-02-17 5:10:06 PM||   2005-02-17 5:10:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 Mark E.: I don't know what a chickenhawk is. I also have not insulted any senior military servicemen here on purpose. I know that we're not going to back down if China invades Taiwan because our President has publicly said we're not going to. Porter Goss can tell you whatever he wants, it doesn't make it neccessarily so. And how are the Taiwanese our "friends"? Our friends are not even our friends these days. There are no "friends" in this game. We've got each other. That's it. And that's why we've got to go slow (not United Nations slow, a little faster than that) and deal with our problems, one at a time.
Posted by shellback 2005-02-17 5:12:16 PM||   2005-02-17 5:12:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 Mark E: Yes, thank you. Those were the pictures. Now, I didn't see all the ones I originally saw about two months ago, but o.k... I appreciate you putting it out there so people will at least know I'm not calling Taiwan babyeaters just to be mean.
Posted by shellback 2005-02-17 5:29:23 PM||   2005-02-17 5:29:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 AnalogRoam: Relax shipmate, Mark E. has enlightened me. Taiwanese are (probably) not baby-eaters. And what's wrong with wanking off?
Posted by shellback 2005-02-17 5:36:01 PM||   2005-02-17 5:36:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 A chickenhawk, my dear shellback, is a civilian entirely too eager to send the troops off to war. Something like your armchair quarterback. The opposite concept is the general who is so careful of his troops that they never see battle -- Lincoln's early generals come to mind. Rumsfeld strikes the right balance, "You go to war with the Army you've got," is what I believe he said, incidentally causing the armor brouhaha.

As for China, attacking Taiwan would only be a first step in militarily establishing hegemony throughout the entire region. Just as Hitler could have been stopped when he first absorbed the industrial region on the border with France; and Saddam Hussein was pushed back from Kuwait in 1991, preventing him from achieving his goal of taking over the oil-rich country of Saudi Arabia as well, thus cornering oil production and controlling the world; so, too, for the Middle Kingdom Taiwan is merely the first step in regional conquest. Stop China there, and we can avoid the nastiness of a prolonged world war.

This is much my preference, the more so since Trailing Daughter has recently spoken of the Marines, and of Sniper training. I don't think she has the physical equipment to be a Marine (although I think she'd be a wonderful sniper), but my opinion won't have any weight in a few more years. And, as it looks like China is about 10 years out from feeling ready to attack its goals, this is a personal as well as philosophical concern for me.
Posted by trailing wife 2005-02-17 5:44:47 PM||   2005-02-17 5:44:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 Nice analogy
thanks
however the Battle of Leyte Gulf was after the attack at Pearl Harbor.
LOL!
And Japan was invading sovereign nations,
The Phillipes were a US possesion.

not break-away regions. How about Chechnya?
What about'em? They're thugs, have been for neigh on to 1200 years.

Their fighting for their independence, against a country we've had what you could call "serious problems" with in the past. Why no support for them?
Because they smell funny and slaughter children

Because they're just as bad as who they're fighting against.
LOL!
Same as Taiwan. They're no angels. And not worth our blood.
LOL.

Listen SmellBack the Taiwaneese require Chinnee chidlres blood for certain ceremonies... it's a cultural thing, don't get your plang ina plor.
Resign.
Posted by Shipman 2005-02-17 5:50:37 PM||   2005-02-17 5:50:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 IMHO, the current admin policy wrt to Taiwan is about right. We dont recognize Taiwan, for good reasons having to do with international law. And we would NOT object to the peaceful integration of Taiwan and China. Which may well happen, ONCE China democratizes. Or may happen anyway for economic reasons. BUT, if China, unprovoked by a UDI, is SO impatient as to use FORCE to take Taiwan, THAT would be an indication of a level of aggressiveness on the part of China that WOULD threaten regional and US security, and would STRATEGICALLY justify war. If, OTOH, Taiwan is so rash as to provoke China, by a UDI, I dont think we want to stand with them. also letting them know we wouldnt will deter them from such rash action. as for inbetween steps, some of which Taiwan is taking, those raise difficult questions about which we may disagree.
Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-02-17 5:57:00 PM||   2005-02-17 5:57:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 B-a-R, thank you for expanding on my point. My hero!

ed, I so thoroughly absorbed what you wrote that I didn't reference your post in mine. See how good you are?

Thraing Whaimp1866, so true! Wouldn't it be wonderful if all we need do is keep the terrorists from settling somewhere in an imploded Red China. Its a good thing Rumsfeld is working to increase the various Special Forces -- 10 years just might be time enough for that, and the guys in charge of the missiles could just go on being bored.

Sidenote -- this little civilian housewife would love to know what "shellback" means to our sailors. My neighbor's son is at Annapolis hoping to become a Seal, and I'd like to understand him when he comes home.

Finally, for shellback: some of our lurkers may well be your own superior officers. Rantburgers (not me, of course) know some very interesting and influential people. True German Ally was just at that conference in Germany, heard Senator Clinton speak, but by choice missed Kofi Annan. And he's mentioned this site to SecDef Rumsfeld and SecState Rice. But, I believe, not to Herr Schroeder. Just so that you understand the size of the field you just charged on to.
Posted by trailing wife 2005-02-17 6:13:51 PM||   2005-02-17 6:13:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 http://www.desausa.org/pollywog_to_shellback.htm

General question: How many of these do you have....

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq92-3.htm

heh...order of the caterpillar. Hope I never get one of those!
Posted by Mark E. 2005-02-17 6:49:37 PM||   2005-02-17 6:49:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 What you are all overlooking is that Taiwan, pretty much is no longer Chinese, but Formosan, in character. And that Taiwan is also the major source for much of the memory ship business these days, as well as being a leader in chip fabrication. These are things that the US (and the economies of Korea and Japan and a lot of the rest of the workd) depend on for consumer and defense electronics.

This doesnt mention the basic "wrongness" of abandoning an essentially "free" people to communist totalitarianism by giving in to Chinese military threats. Not to mention the damage to US political power in the very important pacific rium region. Think back: how long did it take us to recover from the abandonment of Vietnam? How free is Iran these days after we abandoned it under Carter?

Shell, I think you missed the boat on this one.
Posted by OldSpook 2005-02-17 7:34:35 PM||   2005-02-17 7:34:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 Taiwan is an unsinkable aircraft carrier. It was the staging area for the invasion of Southeast Asia during WWII. As long as Taiwan stays out of Chinese hands, China will have considerable difficulty extending its tentacles into Southeast Asia.

shellback: Imagine if Asia told the North to leave the South alone in our Civil War, or else.

This is the classic Chinese argument. But China isn't Asia, even though they like to make the argument (much like the Japanese during WWII) that the yellow-skinned peoples ought to unite against white interlopers. Asia is just a geographical entity that the Greeks defined as being outside of Europe and Africa. In reality, it is not even close to being a coherent entity, housing as it does Aryans, Semites, Mongoloids and Afroid ethnic groups, and an even bigger variety of distinct cultures and languages.

The Chinese like using the Civil War analogy because they think it strikes a chord - it is part of the official Chinese propaganda effort. My preferred analogy is if the French had refrained from supporting the 13 colonies in their effort to separate from Great Britain.

Note also that a basic strategic principle is that we should try to prevent existing great powers from adding to their holdings. China is already the third largest country in the world. We don't need the Chinese adding to their empire.

Britain acted in the role of offshore balancer through most of the preceding three centuries. The point was to prevent any single continental power from consolidating its hold on the continent. They fought, in turn, the Spanish, the French, the Russians and the Germans. It makes perfect sense for Uncle Sam to prevent the Chinese from making any headway with their expansive territorial claims.

Anyone who thinks that China isn't an emerging threat needs to talk to ordinary Chinese, preferably after establishing their bona fides as non-American sinophiles. They are full of resentment at what they consider humiliations by the West and by Uncle Sam in particular. Their notions of what they consider Chinese territory are pretty expansive. In the views of many, Hawaii and Guam really ought to be Chinese territory, because of Chinese settlements in Hawaii and the fact that the majority of Americans are demonstrably non-Asian.

China is also a much bigger threat than the Muslim world because it is a unitary state. The Muslim states cannot act cohesively because each has its own interests at heart, the primary interest being continued national sovereignty.
Posted by Zhang Fei  2005-02-17 7:34:54 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2005-02-17 7:34:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#44 I figure SB has crossed the Tropik of Atlanta and is a hard chargin shooter of a vet.

Is that you MiniGun?
Posted by Shipman 2005-02-17 8:05:59 PM||   2005-02-17 8:05:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#45 All Taiwan has to do to stall mainland China is declare it has 30 nukes and the means to deliver them. Follow that by making the 3-Gorges dam the first target, Shanghai second, Canton third, and so forth. Nobody in either China is willing to initiate mutual suicide.

As for the United States, it can totally criple China by knocking out all the bridges on the Yangtsee and Huang Ho rivers. That would effectively divide the nation into thirds and end any chance of moving goods from one section to another without a HUGE detour. The economy would effectively pancake, there wouldn't be any money to wage war with, and no real way to move troops and equipment except by air - a capability China is sorely lacking in. It would take about 370 tac nukes to take out ALL the bridges on both rivers, and it could be done in one attack. China knows this as well as the United States does. That's one reason they're trying to build up their supplies in each of their military areas where they can act independently for more than three weeks - the maximum length of time China can currently survive a pounding by the United States and its allies.
Posted by Old Patriot  2005-02-17 9:49:38 PM|| [http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]  2005-02-17 9:49:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#46 "That would effectively divide the nation into thirds and end any chance of moving goods from one section to another without a HUGE detour."

-Bingo for OP, as usual. SB, trust me, I know where your coming from in general wrt feeling like the world's policeman. However, I think ZF puts the china/taiwan situation in pragmatic terms that you should consider. Losing Taiwan would be an incremental thing, in the long run a bad deal to put it very un-eloquently.

I met some Taiwanese Marines about 5 yrs ago whom I did some school with. Good guys, a Lt Chen gave me a Taiwan MC tie clasp I still have.
Posted by Chase Unineger3873 aka Jarhead 2005-02-17 10:29:36 PM||   2005-02-17 10:29:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#47 What you are all overlooking is that Taiwan, pretty much is no longer Chinese, but Formosan, in character. And that Taiwan is also the major source for much of the memory ship business these days, as well as being a leader in chip fabrication. These are things that the US (and the economies of Korea and Japan and a lot of the rest of the workd) depend on for consumer and defense electronics.

This doesnt mention the basic "wrongness" of abandoning an essentially "free" people to communist totalitarianism by giving in to Chinese military threats. Not to mention the damage to US political power in the very important pacific rium region. Think back: how long did it take us to recover from the abandonment of Vietnam? How free is Iran these days after we abandoned it under Carter?

Shell, I think you missed the boat on this one.
Posted by OldSpook 2005-02-17 7:34:35 PM||   2005-02-17 7:34:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#48 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]
Posted by OldSpook 2005-02-17 7:34:35 PM||   2005-02-17 7:34:35 PM|| Front Page Top

01:59 IDidSoToo
00:03 OldSpook
23:43 2b
22:49 Chase Unineger3873 aka Jarhead
22:44 Chase Unineger3873 aka Jarhead
22:44 Prince Abdullah
22:42 CrazyFool
22:39 Pappy
22:29 Alaska Paul
22:29 Chase Unineger3873 aka Jarhead
22:21 Old Patriot
22:18 Jacqueline
22:14 someone
22:11 Old Patriot
22:08 Chase Unineger3873 aka Jarhead
22:03 Alaska Paul
21:56 Jacqueline
21:50 Wuzzalib
21:50 Tom
21:49 Old Patriot
21:48 Frank G
21:45 Chase Unineger3873 aka Jarhead
21:40 Chase Unineger3873 aka Jarhead
21:39 Bomb-a-rama









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com