China and Taiwain heating up..........

[Hubb]

with help from a pentagon memo.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3825927.stm


this is something that could get really bad

"Proponents of strikes against the mainland apparently hope that merely presenting credible threats to China's urban population, or high-value targets, such as the Three Gorges dam, will deter Chinese military coercion," the report said.

The cost of fighting between major nations is too high to make it rational - making credible deterrence important.

[MysteryMeat]

From the article:
In October 2002 a paper from the US think tank, the Center for Non-Proliferation Studies, suggested that in order to develop a deterrent, "Taiwan could try to develop the capability to inflict unacceptable losses and damage on China through military targets of its own."

"This would require the ability to destroy military, economic, or symbolic targets such as major population centres, Shanghai's Pudong Tower or even the Three Gorges Dam."

Spot-on, guys. Think up some more terrorist acts while you're at it. Nothing like strategically deciding to blow up a building or major site, postulating that the country attacked won't counter-attack.

Who cares if you blow up a few civilians in the name of prevention? It's not like they matter, anyway.




Bombing for peace is like screwing for virginity.

Originally posted by MysteryMeat
Spot-on, guys. Think up some more terrorist acts while you're at it. Nothing like strategically deciding to blow up a building or major site, postulating that the country attacked won't counter-attack.

Who cares if you blow up a few civilians in the name of prevention? It's not like they matter, anyway.




Bombing for peace is like screwing for virginity.

Ummm - you've missed the point now haven't you.


If the Chinese are aware that we can take out the Three Gorges dam (among other targets) then they are far less likely to attack Taiwan.

My point was that that cost of taking Taiwan would be whatever we wreck in China.... thus making it a bad trade.... ergo ... they don't invade Taiwan...

[90dayRichie]

I've read recently that a massive naval excersize is scheduled for the end of summer/early fall that will involve seven US carrier groups converging off the coast of china. The excersize is a test of some new plan that is supposed to get any element of the US navy anywhere in the world in 30 days. The carrier groups are to be a "comfortable" distance from china's waters but who are they kidding? Considering we only have 12 or 13 (i think) carrier groups total, how would it make you feel if more than half of the US's sea power were parked off your doorstep?


I don't have a source, feel free to ignore me.

Originally posted by RC
how would it make you feel if more than half of the US's sea power were parked off your doorstep?

I'd think it was a bad idea to mess with them.


One carrier group is impressive and has more fire power than most nations on the planet. I didn't think we put that many in that small of an area though.....?

[MysteryMeat]

Originally posted by xiannaix
Ummm - you've missed the point now haven't you.


If the Chinese are aware that we can take out the Three Gorges dam (among other targets) then they are far less likely to attack Taiwan.

My point was that that cost of taking Taiwan would be whatever we wreck in China.... thus making it a bad trade.... ergo ... they don't invade Taiwan...

I see. So actually planning an attack and coercing via extortion is a good way to deal with a country, right?

As I recall, your monkey puppet in office thought it was enough to raze a country just because of the suspicion that they might attack us, or may be capable of attacking us. By turning the tables, we become no better than the muppets in Washington that tried to lead us to believe Iraq was going to attack us.

Originally posted by MysteryMeat
I see. So actually planning an attack and coercing via extortion is a good way to deal with a country, right?

You again miss the point. No one is planning to attack China.

What has been proposed is that we install a deterrent system - missiles - in Taiwan of sufficient strength that China would not invade because it knows the damage from a counter attack would exceed the value gained in taking Taiwan.

[MysteryMeat]

Originally posted by xiannaix
You again miss the point. No one is planning to attack China.

What has been proposed is that we install a deterrent system - missiles - in Taiwan of sufficient strength that China would not invade because it knows the damage from a counter attack would exceed the value gained in taking Taiwan.

I think you misunderstood me here. Me saying 'planning an attack' means 'planning out what the attack would be' not 'planning to make an attack'.

Originally posted by MysteryMeat
I think you misunderstood me here. Me saying 'planning an attack' means 'planning out what the attack would be' not 'planning to make an attack'.

Well then, yes, planning would be wise.

[MysteryMeat]

Originally posted by xiannaix
Well then, yes, planning would be wise.

You missed my point. Nevermind.

CORRECTION: I plan on attacking China and the supporters of their state-mandated genocide of the people of Tibet and neighbouring regions.

Shitfuck, that means I have to take out the US as well.

[MysteryMeat]

Originally posted by hyoomen
CORRECTION: I plan on attacking China and the supporters of their state-mandated genocide of the people of Tibet and neighbouring regions.

Shitfuck, that means I have to take out the US as well.

Where have you been? I've missed some of the high-minded banter we've shared

Originally posted by MysteryMeat
You missed my point. Nevermind.

No I didn't.

I'm saying it is cheaper and safer to provide a disincentive to China which prevents a problem from happening rather than try to deal with it after it happens.

You're saying that it's horrible policy to take a position of strength to discourage China (you called it coercive) - I'm saying you're short sighted.

[MysteryMeat]

Originally posted by xiannaix
You're saying that it's horrible policy to take a position of strength to discourage China (you called it coercive) - I'm saying you're short sighted.

That position seems to be working rather well for North Korea right now, wouldn't you say?