Attack on Taiwan an option to stop independence, top China general says

[billd766]

16 hours ago, Mike k said:

maybe if johnson had of let the military fight, bombed anything even remotely associated with military bombed hanoi and all seaports into rubble we might have won

Winning isn't that difficult. It is the follow up that is hard.

 

Just suppose that the USA did defeat N Vietnam, what would they do next? Let the corrupt S Vietnam run the whole country and pull all the US forces out of the country? They did that at the end of the war and how long was it before N Vietnam and the Viet Cong reunited the country under N Vietnam?

 

The alternative would have been to maintain many thousands of the USA forces to keep the country "free" from communism. Of course then you have to think how many decades US troops would stay in Vietnam. All the time that they are there the Viet Cong will be fighting a guerrilla war and have a safe haven in Laos, Cambodia and across the Yalu river in China.

[robblok]

19 hours ago, GinBoy2 said:

I'm always fascinated by some posters references to Vietnam.

 

Yes it was a disaster, but nobody seems to remember the French were there long before, and their casualties almost equaled those of the US, from a country the third of the size of the US

 

Somehow thats been airbrushed out of French and European memory

 

One of the things that is true I think in any conflict is locality. 

 

Take WW2 as an example. The Germans and the Japanese got more fanatical the closer the fighting came to home soil.

Independence struggles, same thing

 

I wouldn't underestimate the Taiwanese to fight like Hell, and it would be a guerrilla war at the end

 

 

In this case i responded with bringing up Vietnam because someone said that the US technology would bring victory. They thought the same in Vietnam, but the Vietnamese just cared less about casualties and that is why they lost. So in this case it was quite a relevant comparison. China might be technologically less advanced (I am not so sure its that backwards at all). But is willing to sacrifice lots of people.  I guess Americans don't like Vietnam mentioned as it was indeed a failure. Yes the french failed too but that has little to do with it. Because they failed for the same reasons an enemy that cared less about lives and were far more determined to fight. 

[robblok]

15 hours ago, nausea said:

The Americans know all about how difficult it is taking islands from determined opponents, even with air and sea superiority. Vietnam comparisons are a distraction, totally different ball game. This would really boil down to how determined the Taiwanese are to hold on to their independence. Both sides would suffer horribly. I can't see China being so stupid. It's all rhetoric.

Depends how you use the comparison I used it to show that an enemy that does not care about lives being lost will always have an advantage over a nation where they do care MORE about human lives. The US has a lot more to lose then China. 

[phkauf]

8 minutes ago, robblok said:

They thought the same in Vietnam, but the Vietnamese just cared less about casualties and that is why they lost. So in this case it was quite a relevant comparison. China might be technologically less advanced (I am not so sure its that backwards at all). But is willing to sacrifice lots of people.

The Vietnamese cared a lot about their casualties, their leaders didn't, specifically Le Duan. But they didn't have a hostile press hammering casualty numbers every night on the news. They didn't have people like Cronkite coming out against the war (each to his own opinion on that call) or Jane Fonda shilling for the enemy. The commie propaganda machine was in fifth gear and remarkably effective, after all it was about uniting the country and kicking out the outsider which is a part of the Vietnamese identity for over 1,000 years. This was a major miscalculation by the Johnson administration and the idiots running the State Department.

I hardly think the Chinese people are willing to accept massive casualties in a war for Taiwan no matter how patriotically the government tries to portray it. Tough talk is just that (as many TV commenters can prove) but when the bodies and death notices start coming home, reality sets in pretty fast. While China controls social media pretty tightly, there would be no way to control a population suddenly dealing with tens of thousands deaths of what would be the only child in a family due to their one-child policies. The social repercussions from this could easily destabilize the government, which is a much scarier option for the leaders than retaking Taiwan. 

[Brunolem]

21 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

The alternative would have been to maintain many thousands of the USA forces to keep the country "free" from communism. Of course then you have to think how many decades US troops would stay in Vietnam. 

Your answer to that question can be found in Afghanistan and Iraq...

 

...or if you prefer something more musical, in a slightly altered version of Hotel California:

 

You can check in but you can never leave...

 

 

[robblok]

4 minutes ago, phkauf said:

The Vietnamese cared a lot about their casualties, their leaders didn't, specifically Le Duan. But they didn't have a hostile press hammering casualty numbers every night on the news. They didn't have people like Cronkite coming out against the war (each to his own opinion on that call) or Jane Fonda shilling for the enemy. The commie propaganda machine was in fifth gear and remarkably effective, after all it was about uniting the country and kicking out the outsider which is a part of the Vietnamese identity for over 1,000 years. This was a major miscalculation by the Johnson administration and the idiots running the State Department.

I hardly think the Chinese people are willing to accept massive casualties in a war for Taiwan no matter how patriotically the government tries to portray it. Tough talk is just that (as many TV commenters can prove) but when the bodies and death notices start coming home, reality sets in pretty fast. While China controls social media pretty tightly, there would be no way to control a population suddenly dealing with tens of thousands deaths of what would be the only child in a family due to their one-child policies. The social repercussions from this could easily destabilize the government, which is a much scarier option for the leaders than retaking Taiwan. 

There are 1 billion Chinese... so 10.000's of deaths dont really hit home or hit enough families to cause too many problems. My opinion of course. I just hope im wrong.

[jimmyswale]

18 hours ago, Mike k said:

thailand will just give up same as they did to the japs during ww2

Some say that was wise as it prevented the country from being destroyed. An argument that has some legs - but I deflect.... 

[Odysseus123]

20 minutes ago, jimmyswale said:

Some say that was wise as it prevented the country from being destroyed. An argument that has some legs - but I deflect.... 

Actually..it was very wise as the British rout in both Burma and Malaysia might attest.

 

However it should not be denied that some portions of the Thai ruling elite had aligned themselves -ideologically speaking-with both Nazi Germany and Japan-Japan especially,Japanese propaganda at that time trumpeting the message "Asia for the Asians" which a great many Asian folk agreed with until Japanese behaviour disabused them of that notion. 

 

Nevertheless the idea persisted and the parasitic Westerners were invited to go in no uncertain terms in the decade following 1945.

 

There are two excellent books written on the subject by two very good British historians..

 

Christopher Bayly and Tim Harper;

"Forgotten Armies"

"Forgotten Wars"

Edited May 31, 2020 by Odysseus123

[jimmyswale]

1 hour ago, Odysseus123 said:

Actually..it was very wise as the British rout in both Burma and Malaysia might attest.

 

However it should not be denied that some portions of the Thai ruling elite had aligned themselves -ideologically speaking-with both Nazi Germany and Japan-Japan especially,Japanese propaganda at that time trumpeting the message "Asia for the Asians" which a great many Asian folk agreed with until Japanese behaviour disabused them of that notion. 

 

Nevertheless the idea persisted and the parasitic Westerners were invited to go in no uncertain terms in the decade following 1945.

 

There are two excellent books written on the subject by two very good British historians..

 

Christopher Bayly and Tim Harper;

"Forgotten Armies"

"Forgotten Wars"

Thanks for the recommendations I will seek them out. 

[cmarshall]

20 hours ago, jimmybcool said:

Possible.  If China doesn't screw the pooch and retains the worlds second largest economy and builds a modern military then they may become more aggressive.  We will see.  Well, some of us.  Some of us are in the aging category and might not be around.  ????

 

The Chinese has been the largest economy measured by Purchasing Power Parity, which the IMF regards as the most accurate basis on which to compare two economies since about 2010:

 

PPP GDP of the largest economies:

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)

[RocketDog]

On 5/29/2020 at 7:26 PM, bkk6060 said:

Hong Kong, Taiwan, who is next?  Thailand?

Difficult times but the western countries need to have a plan quickly to stop these Communist takeovers. 

A bit over the top speculation. No? 

 

I agree that china's goal is long term takeover of as much of the world as possible, but hey, everybody has dreams. 

America once dreamed of being a model of freedom and democracy for the world. That hasn't turned out so well the last few years either. 

 

Having a dream and realizing it are often vastly different things. 

[misterjames]

1 hour ago, cmarshall said:

The Chinese has been the largest economy measured by Purchasing Power Parity, which the IMF regards as the most accurate basis on which to compare two economies since about 2010:

 

PPP GDP of the largest economies:

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)

"Those findings were based on a PPP reading of the data. The problem, familiar to international economists, is that Chinese and US output are each measured in the country’s respective currency. How should one translate the numbers so that they are comparable?

 

The obvious solution is to use the contemporaneous exchange rate: multiply China’s yuan-measured GDP by the dollar-per-yuan exchange rate, so that it is expressed in dollars. Viewed in these terms, the US economy ($19.519tn) is still more than 50% larger than China’s ($12.144tn), according to the latest figures."

[jimmybcool]

8 hours ago, Brunolem said:

Your answer to that question can be found in Afghanistan and Iraq...

 

...or if you prefer something more musical, in a slightly altered version of Hotel California:

 

You can check in but you can never leave...

 

 

When I read his post I also had that line from Hotel California run though my brain.  ????

[jimmybcool]

5 hours ago, cmarshall said:

The Chinese has been the largest economy measured by Purchasing Power Parity, which the IMF regards as the most accurate basis on which to compare two economies since about 2010:

 

PPP GDP of the largest economies:

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)

Interesting and I won't debate which measure is more accurate.  Thanks as I like to learn new things.  

 

But one thing is certain that the USA is spending way more money on military (why the Chinese can't when they provide little services to their people is debatable).  And the US has a lengthy history of developing military technology that works and is advanced.  So my point would be the Chinese will need years, perhaps decades, to approach the level of combat effectiveness of the US forces.

 

Now again, I am not saying the US could invade China.  On their own turf they have massive numbers.  And Taiwan might be near enough for them to mass enough older technology to defeat whatever forces the US can project into the area.  All I am saying is the Chinese would see massive reduction in their latest military technology and be exposed as not being as fearsome in "projecting" force as they wish to be.  This is why they are ramping up spending and training on carriers and a blue water navy.  They know they lag.  Which is why I don't think they will attack Taiwan unless they think the US won't respond.  And I don't think they want to "try" Trump.  Love him or hate him I'm pretty sure the Chinese can't read him.

 

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

On 5/30/2020 at 12:26 AM, bkk6060 said:

Hong Kong, Taiwan, who is next?  Thailand?

Difficult times but the western countries need to have a plan quickly to stop these Communist takeovers. 

the western countries need to have a plan quickly to stop these Communist takeovers. 

Dreaming?

The west has sold out to China. Almost anything I want to buy is made there, The financial consequences for many countries of going against China could be severe, especially given the domestic financial disasters of Corona lockdowns.

Anyway, I doubt any ( non American ) western country has the military ability to stand up to China, even if they all worked together, which I can't see happening. China attacking Taiwan isn't a threat to any western country.

The only country that could stop China is America, but when it came to it would they? Did any country come to the aid of Tibet- no.

 

Of course this could all be a political move to divert attention from something going on elsewhere.

If, however, they do attack and the west does not respond, the "domino theory" may yet come to pass.

[thaibeachlovers]

13 hours ago, RocketDog said:

America once dreamed of being a model of freedom and democracy for the world.

Do tell.

They rebelled against Britain to become independent, and after that set about building their own "empire". Other than taking in immigrants to populate the land with people more friendly than the original inhabitants they have, IMO, been more isolationist than a "model" of whatever label people wish to put on them.

 

It's amusing, in a horrible sort of way, that people are now looking to America to militarily support Taiwan, when the chorus before was for America to stop getting involved in wars overseas.

[kingdong]

On 5/29/2020 at 1:26 PM, bkk6060 said:

Hong Kong, Taiwan, who is next?  Thailand?

Difficult times but the western countries need to have a plan quickly to stop these Communist takeovers. 

If Thailand wants to cozy up to China up to them,need to have a plan?stop buying their <deleted> and break off all diplomatic ties.

[rvaviator]

On 5/29/2020 at 8:45 PM, Pilotman said:

I hope that you are wrong, but maybe.  a good part of my pension income comes from Taiwan so i have a vested interest in that country.  

Well I think you can kiss your investment goodby after a nuclear attach on China ... ????    Can you really see any American our European politician  saying  ... Yes lets go to all our war with China over Taiwan.  Now people a sweating over people dying of C19 .. How many will die after ICBM start flying ....

 

Better start investing in deep deep Cole mines then ... Think Dr Strangelove  

 

[jimmybcool]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Do tell.

They rebelled against Britain to become independent, and after that set about building their own "empire". Other than taking in immigrants to populate the land with people more friendly than the original inhabitants they have, IMO, been more isolationist than a "model" of whatever label people wish to put on them.

 

It's amusing, in a horrible sort of way, that people are now looking to America to militarily support Taiwan, when the chorus before was for America to stop getting involved in wars overseas.

Very sad that the world stood by while China gobbled up Tibet.  But it isn't quite the same as Taiwan.   Tibet was a vague concept of a nation to the world with no military and no one in the west had ever been there.  Taiwan is a westernized trade partner that has established independence in everything but recognition from UN who sadly thinks it can pick up a piece of <deleted> from the clean end when dealing with China.

 

Tibet had virtually no self defense nor physical barriers to prevent the Chinese waltzing in unopposed.  Even if the world and USA wanted to stop them it would have required sending in massive numbers of troops into land controlled by the Chinese army.  Dumb doesn't even begin to cover the concept.  Nothing like defending Taiwan.

 

Taiwan is populated by an accomplished people who have their own military and reside on an island instead of direct land access.  I've no doubt if Taiwan wasn't separated from China by 100 miles of ocean that they would have been "reunited" long ago.  But people don't understand just how difficult an island invasion is.  The US doesn't have to send in troops and lose 1000s of soldiers.  It merely needs to destroy the Chinese air superiority and control the seas.  Which is possible.  In fact probable despite the numerical advantage China has.  One F22 can destroy lots of the Chinese best fighters.  The gap between generation 4 and 5 fighters is vast.

 

It all comes down to will the US act?  My guess is (and it is just a guess) that if they try it while Trump is president he will send in the navy to stop them.  If Biden wins the election I think he will talk us all the death and make speeches at the UN while China annexes Taiwan.  But who really knows?  

 

 

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, jimmybcool said:

It all comes down to will the US act?  My guess is (and it is just a guess) that if they try it while Trump is president he will send in the navy to stop them.  If Biden wins the election I think he will talk us all the death and make speeches at the UN while China annexes Taiwan.  But who really knows?  

and my guess is that if she was president Taiwan would have been annexed years ago, but she isn't and I'm not psychic.

In the end it probably comes down to what advantage the US gets from defending Taiwan. I hope at least they send some really good SAMs and ship killers. I doubt the US would sent troops as that could escalate into a real war that no one would win except at great cost.

[cmarshall]

10 hours ago, jimmybcool said:

Interesting and I won't debate which measure is more accurate.  Thanks as I like to learn new things.  

 

But one thing is certain that the USA is spending way more money on military (why the Chinese can't when they provide little services to their people is debatable).  And the US has a lengthy history of developing military technology that works and is advanced.  So my point would be the Chinese will need years, perhaps decades, to approach the level of combat effectiveness of the US forces.

 

For some purposes exchange GDP is preferred, for others such as comparing the relative standard of living, the PPP GDP rate is better.  

 

The US is wasting more money on the military than China.  That's true.  The vast military budget provides no benefit at all to Americans.  After spending between $1 trillion to $3 trillion in the Iraq war, did your life get better in any way?  Mine didn't.

[jimmybcool]

2 hours ago, cmarshall said:

For some purposes exchange GDP is preferred, for others such as comparing the relative standard of living, the PPP GDP rate is better.  

 

The US is wasting more money on the military than China.  That's true.  The vast military budget provides no benefit at all to Americans.  After spending between $1 trillion to $3 trillion in the Iraq war, did your life get better in any way?  Mine didn't.

I don't mean to infer if the US spending this much is wise or not.  Just in the context of comparing relevant strength of military usefulness to China's military the level of spending does result in many more modern systems and better trained specialists in operating that equipment.  

 

Reality is - money spent on military is a complicated formula.  If no one is threatening you or your trading partners all spending is wasted. If you will be conquered into slavery everything you've got is the right amount.  In that context the question is - what has America received  for it's money in military since WWII?  A vast amount of money.  Well, for one thing a stable and safe environment for America and it's best trade partners such as Europe, Japan, the rest of the Americas.  Do you think the world and America specifically would have enjoyed that long of a respite from outright war if the US military wasn't so daunting?    

 

I am no jingoistic fool that thinks America's $hit doesn't stink.  Iraq, in retrospect, was a huge mistake.  But I do think the world has been a better place with the US holding Russia and China somewhat in check the last 70 years.  My guess is if the US had gone into a shell after WWII the world would look very different now.  Europe would probably all be speaking Russian and most of Asia would be under Chinese control.  Not good for the world or the US.  Unless you think those communist states would have been benign and beneficial for the subjects they controlled.  

 

We can all nitpick the dumb things done by the US but the overall result has been good for the majority of humanity on the planet.  And the military expense has been very good for the lifestyle of US citizens.  Do we need to spend this much?  I don't know.  I wouldn't mind if they just did it without rolling up the huge debt the nation now owes.  That scares me more than the Chinese.

[Eric Loh]

12 minutes ago, jimmybcool said:

Europe would probably all be speaking Russian and most of Asia would be under Chinese control.  Not good for the world or the US.  Unless you think those communist states would have been benign and beneficial for the subjects they controlled.  

 

Don't think you got things right regarding US involvement in Asia. WW2 in Asia was to stop Japan expansion; not China. In fact, China was much involved in fighting the Japanese occupation in the mainland. US was involved in the civil war in China and sided the Kuomintang against the Communist Party and the Kuomintang lost. The Korea war was fought to a stalemate and still at war between the North and South. US didn't win the Korea war. US embedded themselves in the Vietnam war and they lost. The neighbouring Indo-China countries Laos and Cambodia where CIA was active are now in China's influence. In Malaya, communist was prevented by the British military. So what exactly has US done in Asia. 

[Eric Loh]

On 5/30/2020 at 2:39 PM, phkauf said:

The KMT was decimated in the last election because of it's pro-China stance. Ma was effectively removed as head and they are now recruiting a younger base of politicians. The KMT is viewed as an "old" party by most people, especially the younger generations. Ma's kissing up to China last election really turned off a lot of support. Before the HK protests, KMT supporters could take a pragmatic view towards China but after the protests and especially now, people see China's true intentions and lies. China will be waiting a LONG time for a pro-mainland party to get any popularity in Taiwan.

KMT has to realize the aspiration of younger voters who may not share the same cross-straits sentiment as the older generation. They have to drop Beijing-friendly policy to regain voters especially the policy known as the 1992 consensus. However the question on whether Taiwan economy can grow without China will be a big factor for mature voters in future election. 30% of Taiwan's economy is with China and there are many cross-straits investments and tourism.  

[sukhumvitneon]

Don't care about HK.  The WSJ published an editorial the other day saying the US should offer visas to Hong Kongers to "escape" HK.  Lol no, if anything the UK should take them all back, it was their colony.  Don't care about Taiwan either, China can have it, there's way more pressing issues happening domestically at this point.  But anyone who thinks the Chinese military could defeat the US in a Taiwan conflict needs to get their head out of their rear end

[phkauf]

1 hour ago, Eric Loh said:

KMT has to realize the aspiration of younger voters who may not share the same cross-straits sentiment as the older generation. They have to drop Beijing-friendly policy to regain voters especially the policy known as the 1992 consensus. However the question on whether Taiwan economy can grow without China will be a big factor for mature voters in future election. 30% of Taiwan's economy is with China and there are many cross-straits investments and tourism.  

I agree with your premise of how intertwined the two economies are, but after the recent few years Taiwan has made strong strides to dissociate with the Mainland. When the Mainland turned off the tourist spigot about two years ago, Taiwan struggled but then saw an influx from Europe and the rest of Asia which replaced the Mainland tourists (I don't think they want them back in large numbers again). Companies are relocating back to Taiwan or other Asian countries. 

The Taiwanese I know don't view themselves as Chinese - they are Taiwanese. That sentiment is getting stronger every day and the recent moves in HK are just amplifying it.

[Brunolem]

4 hours ago, jimmybcool said:

 

We can all nitpick the dumb things done by the US but the overall result has been good for the majority of humanity on the planet.  And the military expense has been very good for the lifestyle of US citizens.  Do we need to spend this much?  I don't know.  I wouldn't mind if they just did it without rolling up the huge debt the nation now owes.  That scares me more than the Chinese.

Earth to jimmybcool...

 

You should ask non American people if they think the US has been good for them.

 

I am afraid you might be disappointed by their answer...

 

The American lifestyle has little to do with its military, but a lot to do with the dollar being the world reserve currency.

 

Now one could argue that the US military has been used to protect the dollar, especially during this century in the Middle East.

 

Saddam and Gaddafi lost their heads, not because they were a military threat, but because they threatened the dollar.

 

Now the US has gone full bully, printing fake money by the trillions and daring anyone to refuse this worthless paper in exchange for their raw materials and finished goods.

 

We will see how long this will last...

[misterjames]

9 hours ago, Brunolem said:

Earth to jimmybcool...

 

You should ask non American people if they think the US has been good for them.

 

I am afraid you might be disappointed by their answer...

I'm non American and my answer is yes America has been good for me because I am not having my organs harvested by the CCP just yet that's one thing we can thank the yanks for.

 

All the people talking about US military spending need to remember that it's probably the one thing that is keeping us from becoming Chinese slaves at this point.

 

I am by no means pro american but I'm not not short sighted enough to not see that there is a link between US and maintaining our freedoms.

 

Also some people need to remember that it won't just be US alone fighting for our freedoms if push comes to shove.

[thaibeachlovers]

15 hours ago, sukhumvitneon said:

Don't care about HK.  The WSJ published an editorial the other day saying the US should offer visas to Hong Kongers to "escape" HK.  Lol no, if anything the UK should take them all back, it was their colony.  Don't care about Taiwan either, China can have it, there's way more pressing issues happening domestically at this point.  But anyone who thinks the Chinese military could defeat the US in a Taiwan conflict needs to get their head out of their rear end

If they take Taiwan without any western response, IMO the Chinese communists will know the way is clear to take over the rest of SEA. Not immediately, but one by one. The Chinese have always played a long game.

America and it's allies went into Vietnam to stop it happening in the 60s, but gave up too easily. IMO China has just been waiting for another opportunity, and may think that time has come.

[jimmybcool]

16 hours ago, Brunolem said:

Earth to jimmybcool...

 

You should ask non American people if they think the US has been good for them.

 

I am afraid you might be disappointed by their answer...

 

Earth to Brunolem,

 

You should check the conspiracy theory and personal opinion at the door and try responding to what I wrote.