Multani's Political Corner 5: Bush's International Policy

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Multani, Apr 12, 2001.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    I thought we were talking about "civilians" being arrested for spying, not spyplanes...

    <shrug> Well, I gotta say again: I doubt it. There's only so much you can monitor and without a good cause to do it I doubt they'd be expending the energy...

    As far as I know the US had camps for POWs for Germans and Italians, but not civilians like they had for the Japanese.

    History book? I would definitely take that with a grain of salt... it's been known that US schoolbooks are riddled with errors. Sad but true.

    You've read enough? No offense, but talk about being brainwashed... that's like saying I've read enough about China that I could hate their guts... If you've made up your mind then there's nothing I can do to change it, but I will repeat that basing a strong emotion such as "hate" solely on reading is not very good practice, IMO. Personal experience I could understand...

    Maybe so, or I could say the opposite for you. <shrug> Tell me this: what rough estimate do you think China needs in its military to succeed in such an invasion? Then tell me what it has in the area.

    The US went to war over Kuwait, a tiny Middle East kingdom. I don't think it's unfeasible to assume the US might go to war over Taiwan. Plus, I think that if it ever GETS to that point, so much buildup in rhetoric and opinion would have occurred that it would not be a "surprise" if it happened.

    I'm not sure I understand your statement "China has everything to lose". I'd say realistically, it's pretty much "lost" it for now, in terms that it doesn't really have control over it.

    Okay. I still don't see that big of a difference as implementing this is still a long ways off, giving plenty of time to other countries to steal the secrets and the US and Russia have already been working on a "mini" shield anyway under the 1972 treaty and haven't gotten anywhere yet.

    Well, I'm going to differ and leave it at that. As far as I know, no one replacing the current ICBMs with bigger planet-busters, so replacing the pistol with the Uzi doesn't hold. The shield is already represented by the bullet-proof glass, so I don't know why you're trying to make that analogy.

    The US will still need allies because they still need to place the warning system/launch sites on foreign soil. An example is Great Britain; the US will need to upgrade its radar site(s) there and they haven't exactly given their blessing to do so yet. Everyone has objections, but Russia is also willing to participate (so far I haven't heard an official China reply, just the "standard objections" in the press, whatever that means in press language).

    Who exactly DOES have "true allies"?

    Can you spell out exactly why it's a violation? I'm a bit unclear...

    I agree with your last sentence and it is too bad, but I could also point out a good many other countries do the same thing...
  2. Mundungu grumpier than ever

    I dont know if you caught the news but the US has been voted off the UN council for human rights.

    Basically, the democrats find it bad, and the Republicans say "f*ck it we dont it the rest of the world".

    Reasons for the exclusion are the recent US political decisions :
    The shield affair
    The refusal of signing the Tokyo treaty on green house gases
    The refusal of anti Land mine - policies (one of the last countries world wide...) and some others that I forgot.

    I couldnt find the links to the articles on CNN anymore (showing how much they consider it unimportant) but on of the government official stated something like :
    "The rest of the world was happy to have us during the cold but are ungrateful of all our past efforts, rejecting our influence nowadays, but that doesnt matter because we dont need them anyway" (I believe it was Rumsfeld BTW).

    The article was also stating that the voting off of the US of the Civil rights council was one of the sign of the resentment of other countries toward the US actual international attitude.

    The US had created the council in within the UNO (I believe in 47) and was a member since.



    Some other intersting news that you dont hear on the main stream medias:
    US/China Cyber Wars:
    http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/east/04/27/china.hackers/index.html
  3. Multani Treetrunk Guy

    Spidey:

    Please read what I wrote more carefully.

    FYI: It was the issue for the week of April 19.

    Yes. It is a biased opinion. But it's not totally an opinion without base....

    Kuwait is a soveriegn country. Taiwan is not. Kuwait had vital U.S. interests.(Oil) Taiwan does not. Look, the U.S. sees Taiwan as an annoyance to China, but ONLY an annoyance. Besides, let's not forget China still has Nukes....
    If you truly think that the U.S. is willing to risk war with a nuclear power, you're the one that's brainwashed...
    As for the assets, Ura listed those already....

    And no, China has not lost Taiwan despite what it might seem. Taiwan constantly has an axe over her head. The only thing keeping China from turning Taiwan into a smoldering crater, is ties with the U.S. economy....

    You give spy networks too much credit. Besides, the very act of researching a missile shield is a very aggressive act in and of itself. It only reinforces the idea that the U.S. is imperialistic, and hegamonic.

    Ok. Taiwan is a province of China. When China and the U.S. first began to have normal diplomatic relations, there was a treaty signed saying that the U.S. will not sell weapons to Taiwan.
    Lookie what Bush is doing now. Also, there is the fact that the U.S., on one hand officially denies Taiwan as an independent country, but on the other hand, officially vows to protect Taiwan from China.

    Now, you tell me what's the violation....

    As for your last sentence, true, other countries do do it, but not to the extent in which the U.S. is doing it, and certainly, they don't always proclaim innocence after being caught in the act....
  4. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    Mundungu: I also read about the Us being voted off and found it rather amusing. However, the impression I got is that none of the reasons you gave were CONCRETE reasons on why it was voted off, just speculation. It was secret ballot and as far as I know, no countries have given their reasons on why they voted the way they did.

    The US (admittedly a poor source in this example) has said that countries it normally relies on for the vote thought the US had a lock so they voted for other countries.

    The US also lost its seat on the international drug monitoring body.

    Multani:
    Oh, I get it. I don't have the issue handy and since you're not bringing up any points, I guess we'll have to lay this to rest.

    Well, I prefer to take the WHOLE of the FBI and its history and weigh how much "good" it did vs the "bad" or "questionable" <shrug>

    Taiwan must have SOME vital US interests, otherwise why would the US be "defending it" so strongly? It's not like the African continent where the US pretty much gave it up after Russia lost its influence.

    China has nukes. Big whoop. No country is stupid enough to actually use them and if they did, I daresay it's be China before the US (which will go to show how brilliant they are :rolleyes: )

    I don't believe Ura listed what I specified, what EXACTLY is in the region and can go over to Taiwan, right now. Please back him up.

    "Smoldering crater"? I love your extremism... :)

    Maybe you don't give it enough... seeing how paranoid you are about the FBI "certainly" monitoring this conversation...

    The US AND Russia have been researching a "missile shield" since 1972 WHICH the treaty allows. Haven't heard much of an outcry during then...

    And you must be awfully optimistic in thinking China isn't developing one... They must not be "stupid" enough to announce it though.

    There was a treaty spelling this out? This is news to me... please correct my information by giving the name of the treaty and/or where I might find it (not the actual, just the 'Cliff Notes" version)

    I forgot what we were talking about here and I can't scroll up since the thread is too long, but I would say in regards to the "extent" just chalk it up to world influence. And I have no idea about "claims of innocence" so I can't address that...
  5. Ura Feline Lord of the Pit

    Spidey & everyone else:

    here is a great big pile of strategic information and links to more of it regarding China's military capabilies and its ability to commence with an invasion of Taiwan.

    Basic stats on China
    http://www.maps.com/explore/factbook/china.html


    The Chinese anti-ship missle, (though I said torpedo, my bad) I mentioned before.
    3M82 Moskit sea-skimming missiles (NATO code-name SS-N-22 "Sunburn"):
    WARHEAD - 750 LB. CONVENTIONAL OR 200 KILOTON NUCLEAR
    RANGE - 90 MILES
    WING SPAN - 6.2 FEET
    BODY DIA. - 2.5 FEET
    LENGTH - 31.9 FEET
    WEIGHT - 9,920 POUNDS
    ENGINE - INTEGRATED ROCKET BOOSTER RAMJET SUSTAINER
    GUIDANCE - ACTIVE RADAR HOMING SEA SKIMMER
    SPEED - MACH 2.5 AT SEA LEVEL

    In August 1999, the first of two 8,480-ton Russian Navy Project 956A destroyers built for China conducted trials in the eastern Baltic. Each 956A warship is armed with eight supersonic 3M82 Moskit sea-skimming missiles (NATO code-name SS-N-22 "Sunburn").
    The 3M82 MOSKIT anti-ship missile is produced by the Raduga Machine Building Design Bureau located in Dubna. Raduga developed the widely exported SS-N-2 Styx missile which sank an Israeli destroyer during the six day war. The Raduga Moskit anti-ship missile is perhaps the most lethal anti-ship missile in the world. The MOSKIT is designed to fly as low as 9 feet at over 1,500 miles per hour, faster than a rifle bullet. The missile uses a violent pop-up maneuver for its terminal approach to throw off Phalanx and other anti-missile defense.


    Chinese military numbers:
    Air Force (470,000 airmen; 2,556 jet fighters; 400 ground attack jets.)
    Ground Force (Army) (1.9 million men; 14,000 tanks; 14,500 artillery pieces & 453 helicopters)
    Navy (250,000 sailors; 63 submarines; 18 destroyers; 35 frigates)


    Report to Congress:
    Pursuant to the FY2000 National Defense Authorization Act
    http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2000/china06222000.htm
    Scroll down about 2 thirds of the page for China invasion of Taiwan possibilities and statistical review. It is very accurate with the majority of China's manpower and technological abilities and basically backs what I stated before that if China truely wanted a full scale invasion of Taiwan, they would simply have to dedicate alot of resources and manpower to the project.

    Hopefully all this will help to clear some of the misconceptions of the chinese military abilities.
  6. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    Very interesting. It still doesn't really say what forces are in the area that if they wanted to do an invasion right now what can be brought to bear. And if an invasion is to be preceeded by a blockade, that would take time also.

    I don't doubt China could overwhelm Taiwan. All I was saying was that there would probably be ample time beforehand because the US would pick up on the transport of material and troops and have time to prepare, if they were truly committed to defending Taiwan.

    Sidenote: Here's a link in a US newspaper that seems to report on a "positive" happening in China:

    China lauds Hong Kong Freedom
  7. Mundungu grumpier than ever

    http://asia.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/05/01/missile.defense.bigp/index.html

    Spidey: The scope of a defense shield was forbidden by the 72 treaties, to the contrary of what you said.

    quote:
    ------------
    The thrust of Bush's nuclear strategy -- a move toward a national missile defense system, a proposal banned by the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty. Bush considers the treaty outdated and wants to scrap it. The talk in the White House is over how and how fast.
    -------------

    That is the base of the problem.
    If the ABM was not against the 72 treaty, there would be no need to scrap it.
  8. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    Or I was not clear...

    The key word is "national". That IS forbidden. But from what I understand (and I think I read this last week so if I try to dig this up it'll take some time) the treaty allows for a missile defense over a single city. That is what the US and Russia have been researching up until now (and at least the US has not been succeeding). That's what I'm talking about. Bush wants to expand that coverage to the nation/much wider area.
  9. Ura Feline Lord of the Pit

    Spidey:

    Granted that link I gave doesn't present exact numbers, but then that would also be difficult to aquire anyways as non-chinese agencies wouldn't be privilage to that kind of information so they could only guess, (guessing is a bad thing in warfare so most groups don't do it) and the chinese officials certainly aren't going to post that kind of info for the world to see, believe me, I looked everywhere including places I shouldn't have been.
    But if you want to make some guesses about it we can start with the air force (2956 jets total) and we'll assume that they are evenly spread across all of china at different bases. Now China is about 2500 miles or so across the long way. Most of the chinese jet fighters are supersonic, although old ones they can still do mach speeds. ThIs means they can cover a distance of 150 miles within about in about 6 minutes or so after hitting mach 2, (mach 2 is = to about 24.7 mpm).
    Now with those factors in mind we look at where the largest concentration of military bases are in China. It is known that there are large air force bases around Wuhan, Shanghai, Tianjin, Beijing, and Nanning. THe farthest of these places is about 1100 miles from T'aipei. So if we take 1100 miles and divide it by the previous figure of 24.7 miles per minute, (mach 2), we get about 44.5 minutes which is how long it would take the furthest of the cities mentioned fighters to reach the capital of Taiwan, we'll assume that this is 1/3 of the total airforce as these are some of the largest bases in china. Thats 986 jets (rounded up from decimals) that can be in the area in about an hour giving time to refuel along the way. Pretty good if you ever wanted to get the jump on someone without them, or rather any possible allies, having time to react. Also it should be noted that the majority of China's navy is located in and around the Taiwan straight which already gives them a considerable military presence in the area. Ground troops could easily be moved in after the initial assualt to a secured beach head. This is the time where the US reaction, if any, would be underway at full power, but by then its practically to late.
    However because Taiwan is equiped with newer and more sophisticated aircraft it does give them the chance to defend themselves, however china has sheer numbers on its side. The biggest thing stopping China from doing so would be a highly unacceptable loss of manpower and equipment at this time.
  10. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    I wasn't expecting exact numbers, just rough estimates like what you're doing (as opposed to saying the entire air force is available right now, which would be unrealistic).

    I also appreciate your time in looking this up, I didn't mean for this to be a major exercise :)

    I guess one of the unknowns is how long will it take for Taiwan's air force to scramble to intercept once they get warning? I'm guessing it'll be enough time to meet the farthest fighters, but maybe not the closest ones.

    Also, it will be presumed that China will precede with a naval/missile bombardment, so who knows how many planes will be left (let alone navy).

    As the link said, air superiority is one of the keys.

    Of course, I'm sure the US, Taiwan, and China run military simulations to test all of this out :)
  11. Mundungu grumpier than ever

    Let's put some reason here.

    Taiwan is an island with no resources, with 16 mio people, and pretty small on the top of it.

    Taiwan is like a big processing center for value added products or subproducts.

    Without this processing capacity, Taiwan is worth nothing.

    China would have nothing to gain with an "all out attack" aimed at distroying Taiwan.

    Which is why they didnt attack Taiwan earlier. Because China wants to HAVE Taiwan, not DISTROY it.

    Taiwan's forces are no match to the chinese in the event of an "all out conflict" but they are strong enough to prevent a successful invasion by the chinese forces.
  12. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    We're not talking about destroying Taiwan either. We're talking about an invasion to bring it back under Communist rule (since it's unlikely they'll agree to "one party, two rule" or whatever it is China has with Hong Kong).

    I think Taiwan will put up a spirited defense but successful? Hard to say... did you take a look at Ura's link? Even there it estimates by 2005 and beyond, China's technology will have caught up, which is pretty much Taiwan's only advantage right now...
  13. Ura Feline Lord of the Pit

    Mundungu:

    Saying taiwan is an island country with no reasources isn't quite true, they have a very large resource in that the US wants them to be a free country for the moment. Hence why the US is willing to sell them naval military vessles and aircraft.
    However China's goal, as is suggested in one of the links I provided, isn't the destruction of Taiwan, but rather bringing it under Chinese control by use of strategic surgical strikes and putting the capital of T'aipei under military duress until they "willingly" join with mainland China.
    The reason Taiwan's forces are able to repel a successul Chinese invasion is because of their advantage in technological development in their aircraft. Because of this the chinese losses would be much to high to be acceptable in both manpower and aircraft. The same would be said or an all out conflict as well which is why China is very careful about where its stepping at the moment.
    However as the report to congress stated and Spidey reiterated, by 2005 China will be fully caught up on the technological side nullifying any advantage Taiwan has now. Thank the Russians or that one.

    Spidey:
    If Taiwan has military standards similar to that of the US then they have fighters on routine manuvers in their own airspace and have groups of alert aircraft on the ground that can be launched immediatly on them being required. Most bases alert status aircraft consist of 2 pair of jets alot of the time, sometimes a primary pair and a single backup. The idea being that the alert craft intercept and delay the attackers so that the rest of the defense force can mobilize.
    The active and alert craft could meet the initial assault, but they'd be overwhelmed by sheer numbers very quickly. Hopeully they'd be able to delay the Chinese attack to get the rest of their jets, (or at least a majority) airborne.
    Also it should be noted that while Taiwan does have more up to date aircraft, their radar and detection facilities are still on the antiquidated side which leads to wonder on what kind of defensive gaps they may have.

    In General:
    The more popular and feasable invasion strategy that china could take is scrambling its fighters and bombers with a preceding round of missle strikes at Taiwanese military bases and air fields reducing the number of launchable jets of Taiwans side and them basically bombing the snot out of whats left. If performed pefectly and hopefully catching Taiwan with its pants down estimates of this senario result in a 68% percent loss on Taiwan's side before a proper response could be launched. Thats pretty high when Taiwan doesn't have that many aircraft to begin with. Note that this type of attack would also keep any possible damage to industrial and civilian areas minimal.
  14. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    Hey, is there a Taiwan report in that link you provided? That'd be interesting...
  15. Ura Feline Lord of the Pit

    Not in the link I provided, but I'm sure I can find one. Give me a day or so. ;)
  16. Multani Treetrunk Guy

    Spidey:

    I wouldn't know Spidey. You're the one that lives near Washington. You tell me. :rolleyes:
    As for Nukes, if the U.S. attacked Chinese forces on China's "invasion" of Taiwan, who knows who'll use Nukes first? I think it's rather arrogant of you to assume that China would use Nukes first.
    You make China look like a desperate ragtag government in that last statement. If the U.S. forces were attacked by Chinese forces, can you honestly say the U.S. would not launch Nukes?

    You're nitpicking is not impressing me...

    I don't know. I didn't catch a single hint of it on any of the sites I was searching for....

    Actually, it was more of a joint communique, called the Shanghai Communique. It was signed in 1972. It stated that the U.S. would remove all it's forces on Taiwan. In 1982, a second communique was signed addressing arm sales to Taiwan. In it, the U.S. promised to gradually reduce the number of arms until it stopped. Now, arm sales to Taiwan are increasing...now, I'm thinking of a word coughhypocritecough. Also, the U.S. bases it's right to sell arms to Taiwan on the TRA. Now, TRA is a domestic law and has no international standing. Please clarify how a domestic law can be applied to the international world...

    Check out this site: http://www.bjreview.com.cn/bjreview/EN/World/World200113b.htm

    I read it Spidey, and for the most part, it's filled with the opinions of the Falun Gong advcoates...doesn't sound positive to me....

    Ok...you seem to be contradicting yourself... You say that the treaty forbids national missile shields, yet you say Bush wants to expand the shield to the nation...please clear this up...


    All:

    I'm seeing a trend here. The U.S. says Taiwan belongs to China, yet treats it like a soverign state. Also, the ABM prohibits NMD but, Bush doesn't seem to care. As I see it, the U.S. is acting like it's the king of the world. Spidey, if you're trying to convince me the U.S. is not acting in an imperialist way, you're not doing a very good job.

    The simple thought of defending Taiwan is a complete violation of international law, yet everyone in the U.S. supports it. Hmmm...well, the U.S. is making threats that it's going to use it's military..blah blah.
    Well, here's my threat. If the U.S. sends a fleet near China, I guarentee there won't be a single U.S. surface vessel that will leave the Taiwan Strait if they enter it. If the U.S. sends aircraft to China, don't expect those pilots to return. Taiwan will fold in about a few days, and nothing the U.S. does will stop that.

    Unfortunately, I can't simply say Bush is out of his mind. He knows exactly what he's doing. But he's playing a dangerous game. He's talking tough right now, but when a conflict arises, it'll be too late for him to retract his hardball comments...The thing is, he's very imperialistic, and hegemonic. U.S. foreign relations have gone to hell ever since he came up...

    As for missile shields, all I have to say is a.) They won't work. b.) They'll piss everyone else off. On the articles I've read, the Russian and Chinese concerns are simply labeled, "missplaced".

    Now, I'm willing to bet that at least 75% of Americans don't see anything wrong with anything I've said above. To them, the U.S. is always right...

    And people wonder why I started a "U.S. bashing thread".....
  17. Cateran Emperor Passed On


    Does anyone else see the inherent hypocrisy here..?
  18. Multani Treetrunk Guy

    Enlighten me CE....
  19. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    Multani:
    Gee, I didn't know living near the Capitol automatically made me the expert on why the US should be doing what it's doing. Let me check with my neighbors... no, they didn't know it either! They're horrified at their ignorance and are immediately buying all newspapers to correct this!

    :rolleyes:

    I think it's rather arrogant of YOU to assume the US would use nukes first, and I say this because you brought it up first. Yes, I can HONESTLY say the US would probably not launch nukes first because they haven't done so in all the recent conflicts they've been in! Especially the Gulf War, the most major of them all (and no, I don't think just because it's a conflict against China we would use nukes. We're talking about defending a little "nation", not a full-out invasion of the China mainland). Frankly, I see the disadvantage of China being technologically inferior as the reason why they would use nukes first, if ever.

    And your inflammatory rhetoric is not impressing me...

    Hmm... "reducing sales of arms" doesn't exactly mean banned from selling them, eh? I think you need to find something else before I'm convinced...

    What's the TRA again? Unless it's on that link...

    <sigh> That's funny, I read NO opinions in there, just reporting... exactly what wasn't so positive? And I thought the mere fact of reporting in a US paper (which you have said NEVER happens) that someone in China (the prime minister no less) said something GOOD about someplace was worth noting.

    The treaty forbids the coverage of a shield for a nation or wide area, not for a single city which it allows. Bush does want to expand the coverage to the nation which is in violation of treaty, which is why he wants to "renegotiate" it. I don't see how your sentence up there is contradictory at all.

    Treating Taiwan as a sovereign nation? Do we have an ambassador there?

    I'm not sure WHAT I'm trying to convince you of. I guess basically that the US, while not the most perfect nation. is frankly better than China. I realize this is MY opinion and probably a useless argument, but that does seem what this is turning out to be.

    T
    "Everyone"? I doubt it... it was just an rash remark made by Bush in his first few weeks in office and who probably privately regrets making it. Although they're not the best barometer, give me a poll that reflects this.

    I'm sorry, I have to laugh at your guarantees. They remind me of "If you don't <do this>, I won't be your best friend" bravado.

    I think Bush is a foreign policy newcomer and doesn't know exactly what he's doing. He tried to be tough in the beginning without realizing the world consequences. I think he CAN back down though because unlike China, saving face is NOT quite as big of a deal (it still matters, but if China had been the one making the remarks, they'd be more locked into their course).

    I agree on both counts, realistically.

    But you have to ask WHY they don't see anything wrong... I'd be willing to bet most of them don't even care and are more worried about their neck of the woods than what Bush in far-off Washington thinks.

    It's a good thing we don't have "China bashing person" here, I bet they'd have a ball with you...
  20. Mundungu grumpier than ever

    In "retaliation" of the voting off the human rights council, the chamber of representative voted not to deliver due payments to the UN.

    Good for Bush, he advised the house not to do it and to continue the payments (244 mio USD).

    The republicans in the house thought otherwise, to the dismay of the government, democrats and other nations.

    What a show of democracy: Money for election.

    I cant provide a link to an article, since I only read about it in foreign media and found no refs in CNN.

    Edited :
    Oops, I just found a link:
    http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/05/10/congress.un/index.html
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page