Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Multani, Apr 12, 2001.
Yeah, I read it too in the Post and Baltimore Sun. What a bunch of babies...
You wanna play ball?! Let's play ball then.
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...
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....
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.
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....
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.
As for that article....my bad. I was pissed yesterday, and I only was able to glaze over it. My fault.
All I asked was clarification, and you clarified it. End of issue.
Read the TRA and you'll know exactly what I mean....
Okay, 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....
Ah, but notice how China ISN'T making the remarks...
I'm not so sure about that.
Besides, in real life, I'm probably surrounded by China bashers....
Bush will start a war, because he has only to gain from it.
Business thrives in war. The Republicans will be able to make a lot of money from it, and make it look like they did a good thing. They will make it seem that they were the only ones brave enough to start a holy war against China. This might well get him reelected.
Just for the weekend...
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.
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?
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.
Tell me when I'm being burned so I know...
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>
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.
The Communique seems to say "final resolution", not "until stopped". And we all know how tricky diplomatic language can be... so I guess I need a better summary of the Communique, not a one-liner from what it looks like an editorial to convince me.
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 enough
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 I know they're better, period? Please... talk about "blind faith in the homeland"
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.
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.
TICM: Being a cynical person, I'd say a war would be just the thing to help boost Bush. Whether he'd intentionally start one is another matter, I guess we'd have to see.
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....
Two words will put holes in your bubble. Domestic Law. Two more words will burst it. International issue.
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...
As for faith, I know I'm not as blind as many of your fellow American Patriots are. Just look at Mr. USA
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".
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....
Broadly speaking, anything "nuclear" and "missiles" together are non-conventional.
Can you elaborate on why 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??
Another question: Why can't you provide this international law that the US is so-called breaking?
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.
Well, here I have to admit that MrUSA does seem rather fanatic...
<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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
2.) The international law is the communique I gave you. When two countries jointly sign a communique, it means something.
Here's another link to the communique.
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.
Start it anyway. We can have two things going on at once.
Hmm, I think it IS a big enough difference. I guess we'll never know until it happens...
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).
<shrug> Once again, you have your confidence in China, while I have mine in the US.
And combat INITIALLY favors numbers. Quality will usually win out over quantity (as numerous wargamers will attest to).
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"?
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.
I also see the US recognizes that "Chinese on both sides of the Strait say there is one China and Taiwan is part of China". I see nothing stating which government is the ruling one or whatever you're trying to say in your last sentence.
So I see the US is not violating ANYthing in the communique.
BTW, thanks for providing the links (since I'm always asking for sources from you) <thumbs up>
Ahh work is a stinky toe* sometimes isn't it? Anyways, thats why I haven't spoken in a few days and there is so much to reply to too.
A: Correct, they won't work, all current tests of these proposed systems have been far less then stellar.
B: Russia is actually very concerned about its development as is most of Europe and Canada and China is absolutely against the idea.
I actually got a couple of great articles from the most recent copy of the Globe & Mail about just this subject at work and photo-copied them to scan, but I forgot them there so I'll pick them up tomorrow and put them up online.
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.
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.
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.
Actually this wouldn't work, at least on the naval vessles, the plane's pilots better hope they're insured nicely.
Why? Because all major US navy ships are equipped with anti-missle weapons systems designed for the sole purpose of shooting down incoming enemy missles in large amounts. For instance:
The Sea Vulcan 30:
Anti-missle gun mount built around the GE 7-barrel GAU-8/A Gatling
Fires 70 30mm rounds per second in a low dispersion pattern using anti-missle APDS ammo.
Has the ability to track and target up to 20 different targets simultaneously by itself and can swivel a full 360 degrees while it can elevate it's barrel to 85 degrees. This makes it ideal for shooting down surface skimming missiles as well as fire upon high-performance attack aircraft.
note: I've got a great picture of a cruise missile test dummy that got the crap shot out of it by this exact weapon system. Pure swiss cheese.
Other weapon based defensive systems include, the Goalkeeper automated gun system (this thing is really cool), the Sagem SAMOS, and Thomson-CSF Satan.
Non-weapon based defensive systems:
The Mk33 and Mk34 RBOC (Rapid Bloom Offboard Countermeasures) system is a rocket based system that is comprised of a cluster of motar launchers firing special chaff round decoy cartridges, specifically the Mk171 chaff and the Gemini chaff/IR. This system fires the chaff round to a max range of 12,000m in distraction mode and max range of 5000m in seduction mode. The difference being that in seduction mode the system fires the Gemini chaff/IR rounds insted of the other as they use Infra Red guidence to intercept the targets that like to try and dodge such as the cruise missle the US is paranoid about that I mention in a previous post. Overall, torpedos would be much more effective when launched from a submersible of some kind. I've got stats for a new torpedo the Chinese bought off of the Russians too somewhere that is giving the US the jitters. I'll see if I can find them.
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.
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.
Simply put, if you wanted to sink a typical US air-craft carrier using only missles, you'd have to fire about 100 or so of them at a time to get through and do enough damage to sink the thing, and thats only if your lucky ir the air-craft carrier is by itself, which doesn't happen in hostile waters very often.
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.
Thats all I'll type or now, my fingers hurt and its time for sleepies. Night night.
Oh yeah, all my statistical data this post came from the following sources.
Naval Combat Craft and their equipment. Supplement to International Defense Review Vol. 18/7
Published by: Interavia Publishing Group.
The Encyclopedia of Modern Warplanes, the development and specifications of all active military aircraft.
Published by: Prospero Books 1985-1995
Copyright held by Aerospace Publishing Limited.
No Multani reply? I know you were on...
And Ura's back!
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.
Are you a wargamer by chance? Your knowledge of weapons seems to indicate this is so... or is this just an interest?
Wow - a whole new thread to engage in. This is great! I saw my name thrown about once or twice – it’s nice to know I was remembered in spirit. I can almost hear the groans coming from some of you.
Ura: Right on about your stats on weapon systems. You really know your stuff.
True and fair enough.
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.
Though in reference to why my knowledge of weapons systems is rather extensive its because I'm a military manuvers and strategics "expert". Note this is in quotations just because I think I'm really good at it, not because I'm actually certified by anyone. I've had a hobby for years since I first started role-playing games with good old D&D on theoretical combat situations and responses. Thus I suck up information from everywhere about it, from all time periods both medevil and modern.
But you never got into wargames? Like Titan or Axis and Allies or any of the SSI games? Too bad...
hehe, the only SSI games I ever played were the ones on computer and nintendo. All the AD&D titles.
Axis and Allies...I think I have played that one before, it was the one with the little wooden rectangle blocks marked by flags or insignias to represent various factions in the armies? If so, I didn't think it was to bad but really didn't like that when moving two enemy armies could walk right by each other and take over each other territory without so much as a shot fired, so to speak.
Of course, I could be thinking about a different game altogether.
Some fule for the fire perhaps.
Just the article and stuff I mentioned earlier.
I meant Avalon Hill games...
No, I don't think that's Axis & Allis from what I remember. I played the original version (don't know how much it's changed), but it used to be a bunch of mini-poker chips under a figurine representing the army. And you couldn't move without attacking something.
I didn't get your link; for some reason only 1 image showed up, the rest were X'ed out. I'll try again later.
Ahh, ok. I haven't played anything have Avalon Hill that I know of.
Yeah, its Crosswinds server being a P.O.S. as usual.
I already wrote them an e-mail asking wtf is going on. I can send the scans to anyone who wants them via e-mail or ICQ. Its 4 jpgs nothing to big at all.
As far as this is concerned the US has a MASSIVE advantage.
Sure, an F-18 vs. MiG-31 is close, but an F-22 vs. MiG-31 isn't. If this did escalate enough, the US would win because of its Pacific Islands installations. If needed
F-117s could be used. Ad don't tell me that's not an advantage.
Ahh yes, the F-22, the new stealth fighter design from Lockheed-Martin.
hmm, well lets see, it is superior to the F-18 and the MiG-31, however since there are only 9 TEST planes built and the actual fighters aren't slated to be put into production until 2003, if they can get the US congress to authorize funding for it. Congress is not at all liking the $200 million each price tag and has been debating whether its needed that badly.
When it comes down to the fact that planes basically don't exist in the sense of being able to use them it makes the point of them being better pointless.
Unless of course they get someone to throw rocks from the cockpit of the test planes at the enemy fighters.
As for the F-117's, yes they would be an advantage if they would actually get used. The problem with them is that 1) They suck something awful at dog fighting, and 2) they're bombers, what is the US going to bomb? Taiwan? They won't go after mainland China because that would be a full scale declaration of war, which the US doesn't want, where as defending Taiwan wouldn't be. Thats the difference between war and peacekeeping, one is about attacking outright and the other is about defending in a war like fashion.
The other problem with the F-117 is that almost all of them are stationed in the mainland US or in the Atlantic fleet which is a little occupied with places in the middle east like Iraq.
You can't even send a fighter escort with the F-117 either because that would just toss the entire idea of stealth out the window. In which case they may as well just use another aircraft all together and save themselves some money.
The Pacific Island installations mean very little other then the one at Okinawa because they can't support the fleet directly without the fleet going back to them or running small transport craft all the time which would be pointless as they can't carry enough fast enough to make it worth the while. At best they could just be way points for fresh fighter aircraft being sent in. If the US still had an installation in Taiwan then it would be a different story but since its closest one is in Japan and I think they have one around the Phillipines still though I'm not sure off the top of my head.
Haven't been here in awhile. Expect to see Multani's PC: 6 next week.
Throughout all this, I would just like to state that Taiwan still belongs to China, and that the U.S. has admitted that the PRC is the legitimate government of China, so can somebody please remind me why the U.S. has the right to "defend" Taiwan?
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.
Korea: Not what I hear. I heard that there was more of a stalemate going on in the last 2 years of the war at the 38 and a half parallel. The fact that the U.S. didn't completely crush enemy forces despite technological superiority indicates that technology will not always generate a sufficent upper hand.
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.
1st question: yes
2nd question: Yep. Before U.S. recognized Beijing, it was the illigimate governemnt of China in the eyes of the U.S.
Also, about the communique: I'll look over it again. Still you don't think it's wrong that the U.S. is selling weapons to another province of another country? I ask you this: How would the U.S. react to China selling weapons to Hawaii assuming Hawaii wants independence from the U.S.?
As for the fact that the U.S. said nothing about arm sales to Taiwan in the first communique, my mistake. It was actually stated in the second communique with China, signed in 1982
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.)
I truly doubt if the missile defences have more than a 50% kill rate, and even then, I'll be throuoghly shocked. Also, missiles can be guided on their last stage in order to penetrate missile defences. Personally, I think specs are exaggerated. Well, guess we have to see how effective they truly are only in combat.
As for war-games, I've learned they're not completely reliable, and are to a degree biased.
I have the second book about modern warplanes...
Personally, I don't think the U.S. is truly willing to use military action to protect Taiwan. If you ask me, Bush is bluffing on the part about U.S. forces interveneing. Oh well, just my opinions...
Separate names with a comma.