Amenhotep7
Spartiate
We can only hope.
China willing to go to war to stop democracy!
- Thread starter Double Barrel
- Start date
We can only hope.
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
In my opinion, no. The situation, as referred to, is akin in certain ways to that of Europe in the first half of the 20th century. It is often bought up whether the US would be willing to trade LA or Chicago for Taipei, in reference to China's two dozen ICBMs. What is a more pertinent question is whether Red China is willing to trade Peking, Shanghai and Nanking for Taiwan; the Taiwanese are not without chemical weapons, at the minimum.
Very blunt talk backed up by strength has worked in the past to relieve tension in the conflict; the movement of carriers to the region in the 1990s, and even more so, the Eisenhower Administration's handling of the Quemoy and Matsu crisis of 1955. There's just a certain something about a US President saying 'A-bombs can be used...as you would use a bullet' publicly, and the CNO saying that the POTUS is planning to destroy Red Chinese military potential, and even predicted when such action would begin.
That gave the Reds pause.
Very blunt talk backed up by strength has worked in the past to relieve tension in the conflict; the movement of carriers to the region in the 1990s, and even more so, the Eisenhower Administration's handling of the Quemoy and Matsu crisis of 1955. There's just a certain something about a US President saying 'A-bombs can be used...as you would use a bullet' publicly, and the CNO saying that the POTUS is planning to destroy Red Chinese military potential, and even predicted when such action would begin.
That gave the Reds pause.
thestonesfan
A Client of Ron Kuby
Originally posted by Amenhotep7
Hmm...So it's a win-lose situation...But if China were to bomb the US, then I think China wouldn't stand a chance...US allies would be attacking China from all sides...WWIII?
I wonder how much international support we would really have.
Great Britain - Surely.
Canada - Yes, but probably wouldn't amount to much.
Australia - Probably.
France and Germany - I wouldn't want to rely on them.
Rest of EU - I'd say yes.
Russia - Probably. A war might do them good, provided they don't get beat up too bad.
Japan - Most probably, but North Korea will no doubt be a worry.
South Korea - See above.
India - They'd definately be on our side, but beyond that, I couldn't guess.
Pakistan - The 8-Ball says ask again later.
Iran - Doubtful.
I'm not sure what other nations would have the ability to make a difference. Do Brazil and Argentina have offensive capability? What's the state of Thailand's military?
People, just because we know (or think we know) that China couldn't invade/won't win/etc does not mean that they realize it.
China may or may not have the capability to fight and win. But to assume that they won't try is a grave mistake.
China may or may not have the capability to fight and win. But to assume that they won't try is a grave mistake.
thestonesfan
A Client of Ron Kuby
Japan is also a big factor. How quickly could they build a formidable military? Would China bomb them before they could?
Sounds odd to say this, but I'd think the area would be a lot more stable with a militarily strong Japan.
Kinniken
Riding with William
Considering that both country invoked NATO's "one for all" article in the days following 9/11 and that France offered troops for Afghanistan (which Rumsfell disdainfully refused), I would say yes without hesitation.
There is a difference between not agreeing with Bush's foreign policy and not honoring an alliance, especially in a war that would be basically the West and democratic East versus China.
As for the military importance of a European contribution, it's hard to say - Simon will know better
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
As quickly as they get the political will. They have large DDHs laid down at the moment which can virtually pass for carriers, and a formidable Self Defence Force focused inwards on defence. Altering this focus outwards to potential offence would take a little retooling, but the fundamentals are there.
The ChiComms could not get through the JAF, and USAAF assets in Japan. Ballistic missiles, with either conventional or special warheads, yes. But they lead to response, and not necessarily just a response in kind. The strategy must be massive retaliation.
That would change the strategic equation for the region quite markedly, and for the better in the intermediate term. In the long term, a strong, assertive Japan with an offensive military force does present a potential rival to US hegemony over the region, and as such a threat. We don't want them to go too far; last time, they only stopped at Midway.
As for Thailand's military, they have a Harrier carrier that is used as the King's yacht.
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
Originally posted by Kinniken
As for the military importance of a European contribution, it's hard to say - Simon will know better
The French can stage an airdrop into Dien Bien Phu to provide a forward log base; they wouldn't have any trouble there, would they?
The Germans, for want of an alternative, can keep to their traditional strategy and advance east through Poland and Russia after EuroForce armoured training exercises in the Ardennes next to the Manstein Expressway and Guderian Rd.
Kinniken
Riding with William
I was more thinking of sending our lone Carrier group, but now that you mention it an airlift in Vietnam sounds fun.
We have unfinished business there - do the Yankees care to join?
We have unfinished business there - do the Yankees care to join?
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
Linebacker III is scheduled for general release in 2005.
As for sending the De Gaulle, only if it doesn't break down, attract elderly OAS snipers, or refuse to hit targets with the heaviest bombs (a la the use of Jean Bart at Suez). And if kept downwind.
As for sending the De Gaulle, only if it doesn't break down, attract elderly OAS snipers, or refuse to hit targets with the heaviest bombs (a la the use of Jean Bart at Suez). And if kept downwind.
thestonesfan
A Client of Ron Kuby
I see the most likely scenario - should China invade in the near future - as this:
China attempts to invade. They can't maintain the sea route to land and supply the enormous number of troops needed. It's a total military disaster, and the 'old guard' of the Communist government are ousted. Surely they would still have the loyalty of the army, however. Civil war ensues.
Probably the best all-around outcome, but not a good one. The use of nukes would destroy Taiwan, but China would then get severely beaten by the Western powers, and then collapse.
Kinniken - I'll take your word for it. Just from my limited knowledge, I would say that either France or Germany would make a considerable difference on the western front - especially if India is unwilling/unable to mount an offensive into China. With Russia involved, not to mention US forces in the area moving in, China would be in serious trouble from that direction.
China attempts to invade. They can't maintain the sea route to land and supply the enormous number of troops needed. It's a total military disaster, and the 'old guard' of the Communist government are ousted. Surely they would still have the loyalty of the army, however. Civil war ensues.
Probably the best all-around outcome, but not a good one. The use of nukes would destroy Taiwan, but China would then get severely beaten by the Western powers, and then collapse.
Kinniken - I'll take your word for it. Just from my limited knowledge, I would say that either France or Germany would make a considerable difference on the western front - especially if India is unwilling/unable to mount an offensive into China. With Russia involved, not to mention US forces in the area moving in, China would be in serious trouble from that direction.
been waiting for this one for a while (I wonder if i will get to partake of tha fine Amercan tradition of commie hunting...)
any way, the only real comment I have is follows-
France, and germany, like most nations, will follow there wallets into war- in the iraq conflict, its obvious this is what happend, and any future conflicts are likely to be similer- them joining a war effort depends not on moral grounds, as at best in these time they dont existit, but are rather nice covers for the blunt truth- their action depends on who they have the stronger economic ties with- China, or Taiwan, if there is a good deal of differnce with either.
in the end, I would not be surprised if they stayed neutral
nihilistic
Intergalatic Delivery Boy
Originally posted by Amenhotep7
Hmm...So it's a win-lose situation...But if China were to bomb the US, then I think China wouldn't stand a chance...US allies would be attacking China from all sides...WWIII?
Ehh ... they probably aren't so dumb as to bomb the US. No, that is a horrible strategy. Impossible.
I disagree. Japan will complain but in the end will probably at least try to stay out of it publically. This is because Japan is the one nation China won't mind nuking if neccesary.
h4ppy
You sir, pineapple?
Well if they want to invade now is the time do do it. (except for the fact they have a bad navy) With the U.S. involved else where at the current time, I don't think that we could prevent the capture of Taiwan if they manage to secure part of the island.
About the Brazilian military:
-We have 2 carriers, but only one them is currently used
-We are developing some nuclear subs, but they will only be ready untill 2010.
-We have an Airforce that is patheticall if compared with the "Big Ones"(although it's by far the largest one in Latin America), but this year we will renew great part of it, with either Mirages 2000 or last generation Sukhois. today we rely basically on the F-5BR and the AMX(a brazilian-italian fighter jet). The F-5 will be retired, but the AMX will remain on duty
-We have about 400,000 regular soldiers and around 55 million reservists.
My conclusion is that our help wouldn't be much. Especially with the current govt., that I doubt very much would send any troops. The last countrys we declared war to were Germany and Italy, in 1942.
nihilistic
Intergalatic Delivery Boy
Absolutely not. There is no urgency for them. Assuming that their goals are to remain in power, prestige, and maintain a good econ, there is no better way of reunification than just letting the current economic trends continue. If they were counting on whether US forces are free or not as a reason to invade, they would have already lost the most important part of their struggle: reunification without a fight. 10 or 20 years down the road, Taiwan would be way too dependant on the mainland to attempt anything funny. It's the Taiwanese seperatists who are desperate at this point.
stratego
Trying to be good.
I said it before and I'll said it again. This war probably isn't only about Taiwan, it about all the rebel areas (Tibet, etc: China already have railroads going there). If China doesn't stand firm against Taiwan's actions, it risk those areas also declaring independence. If China's willing to invest all her military in preventing Taiwan's independence, it's certain that they will use military action against other rebel regions. That's the message that China is sending.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
Invade is the definitive wordd here. One of the big factors in the equation is the fact that the Chinese do not have the capability to cross the straights in force. Taiwan's Air Force is amoung the best in the world, and quite cabable of sinking large numbers of transports. which the Chinese do not have to begin with.
This is, of course, why the situation exists as it does. I am mistified why XIII states flatly that western intervention is what caused teh rift in the first place. That sounds like a party line slogan, rather than a reasoned opinion. Mao could not take the island, and 50 years has not changed that basic fact.
None the less, the US and much of the world, still hold an official one China policy. I have always wondered when THAT would end.
J
This is, of course, why the situation exists as it does. I am mistified why XIII states flatly that western intervention is what caused teh rift in the first place. That sounds like a party line slogan, rather than a reasoned opinion. Mao could not take the island, and 50 years has not changed that basic fact.
None the less, the US and much of the world, still hold an official one China policy. I have always wondered when THAT would end.
J
Desmond Hawkins
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2002
- Messages
- 9,922
Primarily it is not the 3 million man army you have to look at as an indicator. Growing Chinese capability must be viewed in terms of their aquisition of amphibious and naval capability. American/Japanese/ROK naval participation could severely restrict China's ability to do anything for decades to come.
