Shmack
Active member
Well, yeah, you're right. It's early for rapid-fire conclusions.
The Missile Miracle In China
Partisan
Active member
Schmack, very good point, but as monkeys have discovered, fling enough pooh and some will stick. In reality the missiles would probably be launched as multiple salvoes, following the general Chinese theory that quantity has a quality of its own. Even the best defended ship can only shoot, reload, shoot, reload so many times even as the threat gets closer. It could be a bit of nightmare, especially if you chose to attack from 2-3 different quadrants simultaneously, but that could never happen!
Shmack
Active member
Well, we're not talking about pooh, but about expensive and complicated high-tech weapon. If it's all about how many ballistic missiles the Chinese can afford to launch against a single ship, than i see no sense in discussing its capabilities.
Partisan
Active member
In warfare the objective is to attack the enemy fighting spirit as well as it's combat capability, something the Chinese know and understand as one of their own developed that philosophy.
The loss of a capital ship would be a severe blow on both fronts, to any nation. I was using the analogy of monkey flinging to point out that it is not the cost of the weapon, but the cost and capability of the target.
I would surmise that multiple cheap (ish) but effective weapons launched against an aircraft carrier would be a scary scenario for any boat driver, as has been shown on land, we ignore the low tech attacks against our high tech equipment at our peril.
I think that the Iranians have just been demonstrating that point with their recent naval exercises in the Persian Gulf. It acknowledges that they will take casualties, depite which they are willing to prosecute an attack, after all we in the West are becoming very risk averse to their minds, they just watch the news to take the temperature of a nation.
Ultimately the fact that the Dong Feng is being talked about means that it is somewhat viable, if it is viable then it is a threat, if it is a threat then it needs to be taken into consideration when planning any kind of naval operation. Even if it is not 100% effective, how many would need to be released to scuttle an aircraft carrier?
c/Commander
Active member
Nope. There are 2+ sets of Aegis-linked SPY-1 radars in every battlegroup, plus whatever other ships are carrying. You would need so much chaff to jam them all that you probably wouldn't be able to put a warhead in the missile
.Hello Gman88,
I might say - that even if the relationship would cool down - why should China want to make war on it's own people? Taiwan is and has never been a threat to China - as long as the US do not "use" Taiwan in some capricious political games - China will never see a need to attack.
In case of Taipeh trying to invoke it's population against China - it is however very realistic to anticipate a Chinese blockade around Taiwan. Afterall Taipeh is a renegade government that established itsself in (on) a Chinese province.
Regards
Kruska
Probably to show military & political power. Where the Taiwan Govt. is the old Govt of China, or descendants of, I wouldn't say they are renegades, it's that they could only hang onto 1 of the Provinces of the Country they used to rule.
Hello George,
maybe only from US geopolitical point of view?
When was the KMT Gov. elected? when was the last election? The communist party opposed the KMT and had undoubtedly the major support amongst the people - as such the KMT was also defeated. And if e.g. the Republicans would rise in the US to oust the Dems and a defeated Obama would set up a own republic on Hawaii and claims to represent the entire USA - I would love to see the Republicans reaction.
The KMT government had totally lost out militarily and in regards to support by the population - if the US had not been meddling in other's internal affairs - there wouldn't be any Taiwan issue at all.
Regards
Kruska
Elected?? You've just wiped out most of Russian (& the rest of the World's) Governmental history. How they got in power is irrelevant to the fact that they were the Government & ended up controlling one Province. Most Governments-in-exile are just an Office in Paris, London &, occaisionaly, Miami.Hello George,
maybe only from US geopolitical point of view?
When was the KMT Gov. elected? when was the last election? The communist party opposed the KMT and had undoubtedly the major support amongst the people - as such the KMT was also defeated. And if e.g. the Republicans would rise in the US to oust the Dems and a defeated Obama would set up a own republic on Hawaii and claims to represent the entire USA - I would love to see the Republicans reaction.
The KMT government had totally lost out militarily and in regards to support by the population - if the US had not been meddling in other's internal affairs - there wouldn't be any Taiwan issue at all.
Regards
Kruska
Hello George,
E.g. Georgia was a former Soviet (republic) or previously an independent State, not a province or municipality such as Taiwan, and it received official independence from Moskow - so it wouldn't be a renegade government at all - neither would all the other former Soviet Republics be such.
Taiwan never constituated as a former Chinese Republic but as one of many municipalities in China, it never received an independence from Beijing - nor is it recognized by a majority in the UN, as such it is indeed a renegade government.
So a state or former Republic such as Colorado or Texas could claim an independence from the USA, but not Teller county in Colorado or Nacogdoches County in Texas.
Regards
Kruska
Last edited:
The Free World recognized Taiwan as The Republic of China untill they realized that mainland China was getting to be a huge market & it made it OK to suddenly curry favor with the mainland & reduce ROC to the govt of Taiwan. The Olympics reduced them to Chinese Taipei, probably butt kissing over the eventual Beijing Olympics.
It's not a matter of the Taiwan Provencial Govt declaring independence from Beijing, but the established Govt fleeing there. Like if the White Army stopped the Red Army along the Urals & Kerensky established a Capitol in Valadivostok vs the Red Capitol in Moscow.
The Founders believed the States of the US had the Right to seceede, supposedly Virginia got it in writing as a condition of joining the US, but that was crushed under the boots of the Union Army. Texas has the Right to split up into a total of 5 States.
Last edited:
Hello George,
Taiwan is not even a UN member due to it's status - Free World recognition - come on!!
Maybe you have the time to read up on the following UN article - it's quite short:
Since 1971 the Republic of China is recognized as the only legitimate representative for Chinese territory by the UN’s General Assembly........
http://www.whydemocracy.net/house/news/node/42
Ban said on Tuesday that Taiwan's application to join the UN was not accepted for legal reasons because of a 1971 UN resolution that gave China's seat to China
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia-pacific/2007/09/200852512506475576.html
BTW, Taiwan is recognized by a meere 24 countries - such as the Marshall Islands
In order for the renegade Taipeh government to be legitimized - it would need a majority vote in a "new" UN resolution - and China such as the US has a Veto option.
You might not like it - but those are the international facts - regarding Taiwan - and has nothing to do with kissing as.. and getting prosperous alongside China's economy of 2010.
Regards
Kruska
Last edited:
And Nepal isn't a member because the UN doesn't accept flags that aren't rectangular....I was actually talking about the 50s , 60s, before a lot of geopolitical shifts.Hello George,
Taiwan is not even a UN member due to it's status - Free World recognition - come on!!
Maybe you have the time to read up on the following UN article - it's quite short:
Since 1971 the Republic of China is recognized as the only legitimate representative for Chinese territory by the UN’s General Assembly........
http://www.whydemocracy.net/house/news/node/42
Ban said on Tuesday that Taiwan's application to join the UN was not accepted for legal reasons because of a 1971 UN resolution that gave China's seat to China
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia-pacific/2007/09/200852512506475576.html
BTW, Taiwan is recognized by a meere 24 countries - such as the Marshall Islands
In order for the renegade Taipeh government to be legitimized - it would need a majority vote in a "new" UN resolution - and China such as the US has a Veto option.
You might not like it - but those are the international facts - regarding Taiwan - and has nothing to do with kissing as.. and getting prosperous alongside China's economy of 2010.
Regards
Kruska
Hello George,
sounds funny indeed - and I admit, but I don't get the point. Nepal is a UN member since 1955.
yes - in regards to pre 1971 you would be correct in asserting that the Taipeh government being legitimite in the eye's of the USA. But that would not represent a world opinion even in the 50's.
In 1947 the 228 Massacre was an uprising of the local Taiwanese against the incomming mainland KMT Chinese - and the locals demanded a UN mediation - which was never given but would have been clearly in favor for the local Taiwanese according to the primary UN charta in regards to "selfdetermination of a population" see Falklands issue.
Neither did the US nor the ROC/KMT respect that primary article of the UN Charta.
As such IMHO a vaild independence of Taiwan to the local Taiwanese would have been the correct step to take.
In 1952 the Japanese government declared the Treaty of Shimonoseki for invalid. As such Taiwan constitutes again as a province of China as under the Qing Dynasty. Japan never addressed a receipient for this declaration.
Which could have been the USA since it held occupational status of territories such as Taiwan under previous Japanese rule. Truman himself wanted to return Taiwan to the PRC and upon the Korean war - decided to hold back on the decision - one hell of a mistake.
Truman then declared that a permanent solution need to be undertaken by the UN.
Therfore in 1971 the UN with 76 yes, 35 no and 17 no votes declared the PRC to represent China as the only single institution to represent China and to remove the representatives of Chiang's KMT from their place which they held un- lawfully in the past.
Furthermore the one State solution is recognized and upheld by the UN and the PRC.
In 2007 Taiwans PM Chen Shui-bian tried to play smart and forwarded to present the Republic of China as a "Taiwan" therefore defying a one State solution - and for this he got kicked around from everone incl. the USA.
So IMHO there is nothing to discuss as to who has the souverenity over Taiwan - clearly and officially the PRC since 1971.
And therefore Beijing IMO is correct to rebuff any inter-mingling from outsiders into its internal affairs.
The today's Taiwanese have fought a hard and long struggle against the dictatorial and oppressive KMT rule on their Island - and they will certainly not be willing to accept another dictatorial system to take over. As such both the PRC and Taiwan will have to live in a mutual and peacefull coexistence till one day both places will have the same mindset towards a common government.
I do not believe that Beijing will ever press the issue towards Taiwan - unless provoced by independence movements, and the population in Hongkong and Maccau is not complaining about being oppressed by a dictatorial system or that they would suffer in any way - the Taiwanese can see that for themselves too.
So what works for HK can just as well work in Taiwan. Afterall they are all Han Chinese in majority and are primarily interested only in $$$.
Regards
Kruska
looks like I saw bad info on Nepal. China seems to be putting a lot of money & effort into threatening Taiwan. Wasn't aware of the political history you've presented.
Hello George,
AFAIK, Beijing has not threatened Taiwan in the past 25 years - it is however clearly stressing out that any moves on behalf of Taiwan to claim independence - as such defying the UN 1971 resolution towards a two state solution will not be tollerated.
If you want to interprete this as a threatening towards Taiwan - okay.
The PRC's military isn't ment anywere close in regards to budgets or equipment to act as an imminent threat solely towards Taiwan. The stationing of missiles directed towards Taiwan can be seen as a guesture towards intimidating Taiwan. Beijing's national security policy is designed as that of any other country - and not primarily directed towards a single location.
That would be just as forwarding that the entire USN 7th fleet and the whole US armed forces are designed to threaten the DPRK.
Off course both the US and the PRC would possess the capabillity to place their respective arsenal towards a single country - but it is not the intension or beholds the content of a White Book in regards to financing or building up one's armed forces.
Also I might forward that Washington D.C. already had it's own Taiwan issue in 1865 - a war between to factions were one claimed independence and another faction refused to accept that situation. - right?
Regards
Kruska
Last edited:
1861-65. Southern States legally seceeded. It's still actually a different situation, Old Govt vs New Govt. I'll go with my proposed area (Crimea or Kamchatka) still under control of the White or Imperial Army that was able to sucsessfully defend itself from the Red Army & run by the earlier Russian Republic or Romanov governments. The Taiwan Govt has seen itself as the ligit govt of China even if no one else does.
Hello George,
okay lets stick to the Romanov's - and asume that the Zarist regime escaped to Sachalin Island which at the time would have been under Japanese jurisdiction such as Taiwan.
As such the Romanov's could not have legaly called out a Republic or country since they seeked refuge onto an Island that was under another countries jusrisdiction.
The USA is sympathetic to the Zarist government in exile on foreign soil but is not able to persue an independence acknowleded by the UN. And some decades later the UN rules in favor for the Bolshewiki - so what is that Sachalin government other then a renegade government.? clinching onto an Island that never belonged to them in the first place when they declared their own independence - even a P.O. box number in Swizerland would be more impressive in regards to international law.
And in 1952 Japan acknowledges the invalidity of the pre-Zarist and the at that time Japanese government in regards to the Sachalin Island. As such the Sachalin Island belonging to a pre- Zarist government.
Nobody has ever acknowleded Chiang and his KMT aka the Zarists on Sachalin to be the legitimite government of Russia aka China.
And that is the whole point - now unless you would know otherwise - I am not aware of the UN ever having acknowleded Chiang's KMT on Taiwan to represent the whole of China and as such to be the legitimate follow government body of the Qing Dynasty.
Which would have been impossible in 1949, since Taiwan was still under Japanese jurisdiction till 1952. However the PRC was acknowledged in 1949 by the UN in being the offical government of China.
Instead of clearifying that issue in 1952 - well the UN clarified it in 1971 - don't ask me why.
Anyway - it was nice having met you - even different opinions will always be valid by me - but this Forum in regards to other threads surely isn't mine.
Regards
Kruska
Last edited:
Hello Kruska,
True
I was just trying to emphasize that with the current atmosphere of warming ties, its far more unlikely for China to invade. Thanks for pointing helping clarify my point. GMan