Article

2004-09-30 China-Japan-Koreas

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 muck4doo 2004-09-30 14:45|| || Front Page|| [11129 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 With everything else taking place in the world all we need is the commies starting another major problem.

Posted by Mark Espinola 2004-09-30 3:33:42 PM|| 2004-09-30 3:33:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 Despite the current unpleasantness, I suspect that both China and the US are, and have been for a LONG time, making preparations for war. Ironically, this may not result in a war between the two. For example, if you just look at demographics, China should be going to war with India. Why? Because both nations have far too many excess males in their populations. 20 to 50 million men with no jobs, no prospects for marriage, and who do not contribute to their respective countries, except to cause instability. But this is not the only problem that may lead to a major war. Fresh water and oil are just as likely, as is an extreme nationalism movement, and combinations of causus belli.

Posted by Anonymoose 2004-09-30 4:37:56 PM|| 2004-09-30 4:37:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 With of course, the 100 participation of Taiwan's armed forces, we would need at least the following recipe if this blows out to an all are nothing confrontation with the "Great Dragon": 100 nukes (DEFCON2), 300 MOAB's, 5,000 cruise missiles, 10,000 JDAM's and atleast 300,000 ground forces to slay it! A clear cut war (nation to nation), we would not need to hold back because of collateral damage! Are we commited?

Posted by smn 2004-09-30 6:11:46 PM|| 2004-09-30 6:11:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 It depends on mission objectives. First of all, China wants physical possession of Taiwan. All the US has to do directly is prevent this to "win". However, despite its size, almost all of China worth anything is on its coasts, which are very vulnerable to all sorts of offensive weapons, and could be utterly shredded by a half dozen carrier task groups.
If push came to shove, and China refused to stop trying to attack Taiwan, then the US would start to dismantle its ability to wage war *against Taiwan*. No reason to invade the country, or to engage in huge land battles. The one proviso would be a renegade warlord type military commander attempting to use nuclear weapons. The main US objective would then be to first defeat this attack, then to preclude others in any way short of a major nuclear response; which would be the last option.

Posted by Anonymoose 2004-09-30 6:46:19 PM|| 2004-09-30 6:46:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 LOL smn, let's get MOAB in there somewhere, lends a lot of authority to any argument about military power. Throw in DEFCON also, that's always an eye opener.

Posted by Shipman 2004-09-30 6:52:32 PM|| 2004-09-30 6:52:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 If Kerry wins the election, I expect we'll see the China/Taiwan conflict spin out of control within weeks of him taking the oath of office.

They lost no time testing Bush's resolve early in 2001; whatever he did in response to that seemed to settle their beans for the time being. With Kerry, I doubt they'll feel any need to test him, as they're certain to have already written him off as a fool.

Hold onto your hats if Bush loses the election-- it's going to be a wild ride.

Posted by Dave D. 2004-09-30 7:04:54 PM|| 2004-09-30 7:04:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Shipman, I'm sure you remember the communist party chief who said the reason the US wouldn't hinder the Chinese retake of Taiwan, was because we valued Los Angeles over Seoul! I hope you don't live in that area!!

Posted by smn 2004-09-30 8:16:33 PM|| 2004-09-30 8:16:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Ohh, by the way, that would take us to DEFCON1!!

Posted by smn 2004-09-30 8:18:12 PM|| 2004-09-30 8:18:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 I'm sure you remember the communist party chief who said the reason the US wouldn't hinder the Chinese retake of Taiwan, was because we valued Los Angeles over Seoul!

Perhaps you meant Taipei. Seoul happens to be the capital of South Korea. In addition, your troop and materiel estimates are hilarious, smn.

Posted by Zenster 2004-09-30 11:33:51 PM|| 2004-09-30 11:33:51 PM|| Front Page Top

12:38 R-Burg
12:38 R-Burg
12:38 R-Burg
12:38 R-Burg
12:38 R-Burg
12:38 R-Burg
12:38 R-Burg
12:38 R-Burg
12:38 R-Burg
12:38 R-Burg
12:38 R-Burg
12:38 R-Burg
12:38 R-Burg
12:38 R-Burg
12:38 R-Burg
12:38 R-Burg
12:38 R-Burg
12:38 R-Burg
12:38 R-Burg
12:38 R-Burg
12:38 R-Burg
12:38 R-Burg
12:38 R-Burg
12:38 R-Burg