It was a logical assumption. Being near the Capitol would give you more sources, wouldn't it? Besides, it was only an assumption. Nothing more...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!
There's a first for everything. Besides, when's the last time the U.S. attacked a major power directly?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.
Really? I thought you'd appreciate being burned every once and a while...well, guess I have to start submitting to the great divinity of the U.S.And your inflammatory rhetoric is not impressing me...
Another fine example of the nitpicking you so vehemetely deny. All you need to do is read a few words more, and you'll see the words 'until it stopped'.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...
All I asked was clarification, and you clarified it. End of issue.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.
Read the TRA and you'll know exactly what I mean....Treating Taiwan as a sovereign nation? Do we have an ambassador there?
Okay, maybe not everyone but a good majority of Americans. As for my 'bravado':"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.
Ah, but notice how China ISN'T making the remarks...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'm not so sure about that.It's a good thing we don't have "China bashing person" here, I bet they'd have a ball with you...
Ah, but when you put the in it, your meaning translates into "you big dummy". Try to be a tad more selective in using smilies in conveying what you mean.It was a logical assumption. Being near the Capitol would give you more sources, wouldn't it? Besides, it was only an assumption. Nothing more...
I never assumed China would launch first either, I was also pointing out that it was equally possible for China to launch first. So why is it arrogance on MY part and just assumption on yours?There's a first for everything. Besides, when's the last time the U.S. attacked a major power directly?
When there are tensions between nuclear powers, no one knows who will fire the first shot. I never assumed the U.S. would launch first. I simply pointed out the possibility that it would. As for being technologically inferior, when it comes to war, fancy gadgets aren't everything especially when we're talking about nukes....
Tell me when I'm being burned so I know...Really? I thought you'd appreciate being burned every once and a while...well, guess I have to start submitting to the great divinity of the U.S.
Honestly, so far it's mostly opinion... you haven't raised too many facts (unless you'd be kind enough to search back through this and list them for me) <shrug>Besides, everything I've stated is either an opinion or a fact. I haven't nearly typed as much bravado as you think I have....
Hate to break it to ya, but this is an example of NOT nit-picking... you're basing your argument here that the US is "breaking some law or treaty" because you said it "bans the sale of arms" when in fact it does not, as far as I can see. In fact, your TRA Sec. 2.b.5. says the US may provide Taiwan with defensive arms. And Section 3 pretty much says the same thing. And Section 4.b.1 says the US can treat Taiwan as any other country, despite the absence of diplomatic relations or recognitions. So it appears the US is not breaking ANY of its own laws.Another fine example of the nitpicking you so vehemetely deny. All you need to do is read a few words more, and you'll see the words 'until it stopped'.
TRA- Taiwan Relations Act.
http://ait.org.tw/ait/tra.html
Have fun.
Read the TRA and you'll know exactly what I mean....
Oh, I know! Maybe because the US figured it wasn't enough to make a big deal out of it because they're the "bigger" nation and they "drove near" it anyway which was enoughOkay, maybe not everyone but a good majority of Americans. As for my 'bravado':
A few years ago, the U.S. sent an aircraft carrier near the Taiwan Strait. China warned the carrier not to apporoach the strait. The carrier drove near the strait, but never entered it. Gee, if the U.S. is so assured of it's military supremecy, why not let the carrier go through?....
...
...
Oh, now I remember! Maybe it's because the U.S. knew that if they sent that carrier near China after being warned not to go in there, the carrier would get blown out of the water....
I was talking about making remarks in general... if you were too, then you'll also notice that the US is a superpower and has global responsibilities (misguided as some may think) while all China has to worry about is her own backyard.Ah, but notice how China ISN'T making the remarks...
Well, I'd sure be interested in how you'd defend China against someone who knows more Chinese policies and "violations", domestic and foreign. It's easy to bash the US, I imagine it's just as easy to bash China.I'm not so sure about that.
Besides, in real life, I'm probably surrounded by China bashers....
And just what un-conventional means are we talking about?! A missile shield? I don't think so. In the next 5 years, being technologically superior will not always grant you the upper hand....And yes, being technologically inferior does matter because if you're being beat by conventional means, you're going to consider using non-conventional means to win/get the upper hand.
Two words will put holes in your bubble. Domestic Law. Two more words will burst it. International issue.Hate to break it to ya, but this is an example of NOT nit-picking... you're basing your argument here that the US is "breaking some law or treaty" because you said it "bans the sale of arms" when in fact it does not, as far as I can see. In fact, your TRA Sec. 2.b.5. says the US may provide Taiwan with defensive arms. And Section 3 pretty much says the same thing. And Section 4.b.1 says the US can treat Taiwan as any other country, despite the absence of diplomatic relations or recognitions. So it appears the US is not breaking ANY of its own laws.
Oh no. Chinese military units are tough-pressed to take on American ones. I'm talking about planes and naval units being blown up via ground-based missiles on the mainland...Can I make a "guarantee" that the US planes or ships will totally "blow out of the water" any Chinese military units they'll face? 'Cause Iknow they're better, period? Please... talk about "blind faith in the homeland"
I find it funny that the U.S. believes it has the duty to manipulate the many aspects of the world to it's needs. As I see it, global responsibilites is just a long phrase that means "Protect U.S. interests at all cost".I was talking about making remarks in general... if you were too, then you'll also notice that the US is a superpower and has global responsibilities (misguided as some may think) while all China has to worry about is her own backyard.
There's nothing wrong with bashing a country. Sure, if you're going to bash China, I'll give you hell, but that doesn't mean what you're doing is wrong. And neither am I wrong for defending a country. Bashing is simply a way of expressing a different view of things. As I see it, it's welcome relief to all the pro-U.S. messages buzzing around on the media....Well, I'd sure be interested in how you'd defend China against someone who knows more Chinese policies and "violations", domestic and foreign. It's easy to bash the US, I imagine it's just as easy to bash China.
Broadly speaking, anything "nuclear" and "missiles" together are non-conventional.And just what un-conventional means are we talking about?! A missile shield? I don't think so. In the next 5 years, being technologically superior will not always grant you the upper hand....
One question: Then why are you giving me stuff that has NO relevance to the topic??Two words will put holes in your bubble. Domestic Law. Two more words will burst it. International issue.
Oh yeah, I forgot the US totally missed that possibility and didn't provide defenses on the planes and naval units against missiles. My bad.Oh no. Chinese military units are tough-pressed to take on American ones. I'm talking about planes and naval units being blown up via ground-based missiles on the mainland...
Well, here I have to admit that MrUSA does seem rather fanatic...As for faith, I know I'm not as blind as many of your fellow American Patriots are. Just look at Mr. USA
<shrug> That's what you get for being a superpower. I'll even be generous and say half of the time the US probably "missteps" in places where it should be obvious that they shouldn't. I guess China should be fortunate that it doesn't have to worry about such responsibilities.I find it funny that the U.S. believes it has the duty to manipulate the many aspects of the world to it's needs. As I see it, global responsibilites is just a long phrase that means "Protect U.S. interests at all cost".
Well, the only problem I see with bashing a country is if you don't have facts to back you up. Otherwise, it's not "welcome relief", it's just mindless and unintelligent raving.There's nothing wrong with bashing a country. Sure, if you're going to bash China, I'll give you hell, but that doesn't mean what you're doing is wrong. And neither am I wrong for defending a country. Bashing is simply a way of expressing a different view of things. As I see it, it's welcome relief to all the pro-U.S. messages buzzing around on the media....
Let me put it this way. Technological superiority only becomes a factor when the one side is drastically and greatly technologically superior to another side.Can you elaborate on why being technologically superior will not always grant you the upper hand?>
First off, with the exception of countermeasures, there are few truly capable missile defense systems. China has enough short-range missiles to lob about 3-4 of them at every major U.S. target, and still have some left over to hit and drastically damage Taiwan military installations.Oh yeah, I forgot the US totally missed that possibility and didn't provide defenses on the planes and naval units against missiles. My bad.
1.) It has relevance. It shows that the U.S. is arrogant enough to let a domestic law be a legitimate reason to sell arms to a province and also violates Chinese soveriegnty.One question: Then why are you giving me stuff that has NO relevance to the topic??
Another question: Why can't you provide this international law that the US is so-called breaking?
Start it anyway. We can have two things going on at once.I'm back. I wonder when I should end this issue. I'm getting ready to put up a new issue, and I have to wrap this one up first.
(Don't worry, the next one won't be as heated as this one.)
Hmm, I think it IS a big enough difference. I guess we'll never know until it happens...Let me put it this way. Technological superiority only becomes a factor when the one side is drastically and greatly technologically superior to another side.
The U.S. is technologically superior to China, but enough so to make a large enough difference in combat.
I think Vietnam and Korea proved that point.
<shrug> Once again, you have your confidence in China, while I have mine in the US.First off, with the exception of countermeasures, there are few truly capable missile defense systems. China has enough short-range missiles to lob about 3-4 of them at every major U.S. target, and still have some left over to hit and drastically damage Taiwan military installations.
As for aircraft, China has superior numbers. Combat usually favors the side with numbers.
Looking at this, I think you are confusing "domestic 'law'" with "international 'law'". Because the TRW deals with a foreign country, it is NOT domestic. It's a guideline of how the US will treat Taiwan.1.) It has relevance. It shows that the U.S. is arrogant enough to let a domestic law be a legitimate reason to sell arms to a province and also violates Chinese soveriegnty.
Funny, I see the communique says the US will "reduce ITS forces and military installations in the area". I see nothing about reducing or banning SALES of weapons to Taiwan. Please point out where it says so if I missed it.2.) The international law is the communique I gave you. When two countries jointly sign a communique, it means something.
The communique says that the weapons will be gradually reduced.
Bush isn't doing this.
Also, in it, the U.S. agreed not to promote activities that would suggest one China, and one Taiwan.
A: Correct, they won't work, all current tests of these proposed systems have been far less then stellar.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".
Spidey:
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.
This entire is kinda silly IMHO for one simple reason. Neither side is dumb enough to use nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are a deterent weapon that is active and useful by threat, not by function. Both sides know that if they launch first they will absolutely not be able to take out all the enemy missile sites in the first volley do they will be counter nuked. Since a counter attack would not be launched directly at opposing missle sites they would be launched at a general popualace area or a large military base such as Los Angles city or Pearl Harbor in Hawaii. Fortunatly for all of us neither side places so little value on human life to risk themselves or their people in this way. This is just for the nuclear counter attack that would come. The other problem with this is that if either side launched the UN and NATO would jump right down their throats and implace major sanctions and possible "peace keeping" action. This is for both the US and China, while both are indeed powerful, neither is good enough to take on the world by themselves without totally destroying it. The repercussions of such an attack would go far beyond the basic military applications. The only reason the US dropped the bombs, (fat man & little boy) on Japan was because Japan had no counter attack for it and Japan was already labled the "bad guys" at the time so the allied forces approved of the usage. If any type of nuclear attack was launched it wouldn't be at the countries themselves but at the naval fleets by use of torpedo or cruise missle warhead.Multani:
There's a first for everything. Besides, when's the last time the U.S. attacked a major power directly?
When there are tensions between nuclear powers, no one knows who will fire the first shot. I never assumed the U.S. would launch first. I simply pointed out the possibility that it would. As for being technologically inferior, when it comes to war, fancy gadgets aren't everything especially when we're talking about nukes....
Simple, because getting shot at sucks regardless if the missles get through. Even if China wouldn't open fire on the carrier they would meet it with they're own naval vessles and escort it from the area. One carrier and a place to sail isn't enough to risk a war or major international incident over as the Straight of Taiwan to the best of my knowledge isn't considered international waters.A few years ago, the U.S. sent an aircraft carrier near the Taiwan Strait. China warned the carrier not to apporoach the strait. The carrier drove near the strait, but never entered it. Gee, if the U.S. is so assured of it's military supremecy, why not let the carrier go through?
I'd say this is a bit of "blind faith" as you put it Spidey in both your parts. Are the US units better? Yes, they are more modern and efficient. However, they wouldn't simply blow any of the Chinese units out of the water period. While the Chinese forces are older then the American, they're only about 10 years behind which isn't all that much on the grand scale. On a 1 to 1 factor the odds are definately in the american's favor simply because of technovantage, but this situation isn't about 1 to 1 odds. Its about a US naval and marine force entering into a combat situation against the majority of China's navy and a good portion of they're air force, ( I addressed theoretical Chinese air force movements in an earlier post). Despite the technovantage the US carries in this scenario it would lose simply from lack of fast reinforcement and lack of numbers. In theory they would only send in the north pacific fleet leaving the rest of the pacific forces on manuvers and combat alert around their own coast line and bases to protect against any form of possible counter insurgence from the Chinese or other forces such as North Korea.Can I make a "guarantee" that the US planes or ships will totally "blowout of the water" any Chinese military units they'll face? 'Cause I know they're better, period? Please... talk about "blind faith in the homeland"
Actually this wouldn't work, at least on the naval vessles, the plane's pilots better hope they're insured nicely.Oh no. Chinese military units are tough-pressed to take on Americanones. I'm talking about planes and naval units being blown up via ground-based missiles on the mainland...
This I agree with this very much, though it should be noted that China is right on that doorstep and should be watched for to be at that point in the next 3-8 years.<shrug> That's what you get for being a superpower. I'll even be generous and say half of the time the US probably "missteps" in places where it should be obvious that they shouldn't. I guess China should be fortunate that it doesn't have to worry about such responsibilities.
I'll have to call you on this one Multani as there are mountains of very capable anti-missle defense systems, far more then the couple I listed previously. I've got a mountain of book all about this kind of stuff. The planes would basically be dog meat from a good missile volly, but the naval craft would be dropping the missiles like flys on a bug zapper. In addition to just the raw gunning systems I mentioned, US and Taiwanese vessles have had a number of different tracking, active-information orginisations, and weapon control combat systems built into their ships. Such as the Cardion Electronics modular combat display system (MCDS), the Mod2 of Honewell's H-930 weapon-control system on fast patrol boats and Taiwanese craft, Kollmorgen's GCS-362 gunfire-control and Pathfinder sea sentry navigation/tracking system, the Lockheed Electronics Sharpshooter brand of fire-control and syncronizational defense systems, the Sperry Challenger SA-2 optronic fire-control system, and the list goes on and on and on....I'll spare you the full details as statistics are only so nessessary.First off, with the exception of countermeasures, there are few truly capable missile defense systems. China has enough short-range missiles to lob about 3-4 of them at every major U.S. target, and still have some left over to hit and drastically damage Taiwan military installations. As for aircraft, China has superior numbers. Combat usually favors the side with numbers.
This is part true, however it greatly depends on the level of quality difference. If its say a 10 soldiers with Ak-47's vrs. an M1 tank, them yes the quality difference is greatly apparent and the soldiers are going to be street pizza. However if its something like a McDonnell Douglas FA-18A Hornet vrs. a Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-31 Foxhound, then the higher quality of the Hornet means very little as both are excellent aircraft and it only takes a single good missile lock to take the other down. Standard wargames sadly aren't quite up to par with real world combat in its broadness and level of possibilities just yet. Though believe me I wish they were. Most wargames also do a god awful job or presenting air combat and units from what I've seen, though I will admit I haven't played a ton of them yet to judge them all.And combat INITIALLY favors numbers. Quality will usually win out over quantity (as numerous wargamers will attest to).
I was merely saying this is response to Multani's bold assertion that the Chinese would kick US tail. I really don't believe the US is automatically better than China, just that it would give China a run for its money with less units.I'd say this is a bit of "blind faith" as you put it Spidey in both your parts. Are the US units better? Yes, they are more modern and efficient. However, they wouldn't simply blow any of the Chinese units out of the water period. While the Chinese forces are older then the American, they're only about 10 years behind which isn't all that much on the grand scale. On a 1 to 1 factor the odds are definately in the american's favor simply because of technovantage, but this situation isn't about 1 to 1 odds. Its about a US naval and marine force entering into a combat situation against the majority of China's navy and a good portion of they're air force, ( I addressed theoretical Chinese air force movements in an earlier post). Despite the technovantage the US carries in this scenario it would lose simply from lack of fast reinforcement and lack of numbers. In theory they would only send in the north pacific fleet leaving the rest of the pacific forces on manuvers and combat alert around their own coast line and bases to protect against any form of possible counter insurgence from the Chinese or other forces such as North Korea.
I was merely saying this is response to Multani's bold assertion that the Chinese would kick US tail. I really don't believe the US is automatically better than China, just that it would give China a run for its money with less units.
Hehe, I can't really call myself a wargamer as I've only really ever played a little bit of Warhammer 40k and Mechwarrior. I didn't perticularly care for either, but thats just me. I like having real air support.Are you a wargamer by chance? Your knowledge of weapons seems to indicate this is so... or is this just an interest?
Vietnam: The fact that the U.S. withdrew implies that despite all the U.S. Army's technological superiority, they still were not able to outright crush Chinese, and Vietmamese forces.Vietnam? The US was constrained politically and had to withdraw due to those considerations, not militarily reasons. Apparently, according to MrUSA, the US militarily won most of the battles.
Korea? Um, after the unexpected entry of Chinese forces and being driven back to the sea, the US came back and forced the Chinese back to the whatever parallel it is, despite being outnumbered. We would have continued northward too if we didn't want to fully involve China (and coming right after WIII).
The TRA is domestic because it was approved ONLY by the U.S. Congress. China had no say in the act. Therefore, the law is domestic, and also, not to mention, has no international standing.Looking at this, I think you are confusing "domestic 'law'" with "international 'law'". Because the TRW deals with a foreign country, it is NOT domestic. It's a guideline of how the US will treat Taiwan.
Second, I'm not sure how this "violates" China sovereignty. China says it is one China and it's the legit government. Taiwan says IT is. Just because the US recognizes Beijing, does that mean it's "international law"? What about the period before 1972, when it recognized Taiwan as the legit government? Does that mean Beijing was "illegimate"?
Ura: As for anti-missile defences, I doubt they are truly as efficent as you portray. This is simply because if they were that efficent, no one would use old missiles anymore. However, keep in mind that none of these systems have truly been tested against a major power's weapons. (tests against any third world nations don't count.)Having in mind the foregoing statements of both sides, the United States Government states that it does not seek to carry out a long-term policy of arms sales to Taiwan, that its arms sales to Taiwan will not exceed, either in qualitative or in quantitative terms, the level of those supplied in recent years since the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and the United States, and that it intends gradually to reduce its sale of arms to Taiwan, leading, over a period of time, to a final resolution. In so stating, the United States acknowledges China's consistent position regarding the thorough settlement of this issue.