Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
You can't compare one single region to the rest of the country as a whole, because the capital (by far the richest region) is going to skew that tremendously.

Of course you can compare different regions of a country and note which areas are rich and which areas are poor. That one area might be much richer than others doesn't mean you can't compare, in fact that comparison is the very purpose of the process.

You have to look at the region and then compare it to all the other regions individually. And comparing to other countries makes GDP even more meaningless. $1 will buy you much more in Ukraine than it will in Mississippi.

That the US is a different country doesn't make the comparison invalid, because the point is to have people understand the scale of the difference in each country, and how Crimea sits relative to national income.

I was born in Ukraine. Trust me if I say that I know how the economic situation was. Crimea was a relatively well-off area, especially Sevastopol and the coastal resort area. There was plenty of economical migration to here from the western parts of Ukraine. The interior of Crimea was more poor, and mostly rural, but not as poor as the area to the north of Crimea (Kherson) and the west of the country.

Yes, exactly. Sevastopol is quite wealthy but not that big, and the rest of the Crimea is quite poor. So why you're trying to dispute my initial statement that Crimea was a fairly poor region of the Ukraine is beyond me.

Kiev and the cities in the east (Dnipropetrovsk, Kharkov, Donetsk) had stronger economies due to all the industries they inherited from the Soviets.

Yes, exactly. Those are rich regions of the Ukraine. While Crimea is a poor region. So all at once you're disputing the Crimea is a poor region, while posting multiple times that you recognise Crimea was a poor region.

Taiwan (or rather the Republic of China, its official name) is not actually a widely recognised nation. It was expelled from the UN in 1971, and there is only a few (minor) countries left that continue to recognise it.

There is a vast difference between accepting the current political grey area in which Taiwan exists, and China putting troops on its shores.

Anyways, invading and annexing a sovereign nation is entirely different from invading and establishing control over one of your country's provinces that has come under control of a rival government. The first one is a war of conquest, the second is a civil war. That is a pretty big difference for international law.

Lots of parts of the world used to be controlled by lots of other countries. A large chunk of France used to be under the British crown. Does that mean the UK can drop troops in Normandy tomorrow, arguing its a province that came under the control of a rival government?

The mindset you've arguing for is very fething dangerous, and opens the door for a return to the bad old days of old historical grievances being used to justify wars of conquest, behaviour that frequently lead to escalation and fights between major powers, a situation we cannot have in this nuclear age. That people like you think thoughts like that is exactly why the global community must be committed to protecting the sovereignty of international borders.

 sebster wrote:
A large chunk of France used to be under the British crown.

What? Please. The Plantagenent's are descended from the nobility of Anjou, and by all rights were subjects of the French crown. If anything the Forces Armees Francaises should be crossing the channel and bringing this rebellious kingdom into line! Bend the knee or burn I say!

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
The US has been padding it's budget by selling guns under the table to Taiwan for some time. I have little doubt they'd move to protect such a valuable trade partner in illicit weapons.

Not exactly much under the table about it. We're very open about our arms sales to Taiwan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_US_arms_sales_to_Taiwan

And the four Kidd class ships? The three freighter-loads of AK-47 knock offs hilariously made in mainland China and then shipped to Taiwan? Your list is a bit short.

It doesn't really need to be an exhaustive list. The last big sale of military ships to Taiwan was 2015, and reported on by the BBC among others, and China knew about it (and complained).
The point is, like the Kidd class ships you mention, it isn't illicit or under the table. Everyone knows.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35115507
Wackily, a proposal mentioned in the article is not to stop arm sales because they hack off China, or to hide them in any way, but to normalize the sales, so they don't cause any unexpected diplomatic problems.
So, yeah. Open.

 LordofHats wrote:
What? Please. The Plantagenent's are descended from the nobility of Anjou, and by all rights were subjects of the French crown. If anything the Forces Armees Francaises should be crossing the channel and bringing this rebellious kingdom into line! Bend the knee or burn I say!

See everyone, this is what happens when you make an historical reference when LordofHats is around. You lose and he wins.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:
It doesn't really need to be an exhaustive list. The last big sale of military ships to Taiwan was 2015, and reported on by the BBC among others, and China knew about it (and complained).
The point is, like the Kidd class ships you mention, it isn't illicit or under the table. Everyone knows.

I think we should agree on a general rule that if there's a list of it on wiki, it probably isn't a national secret.

 LordofHats wrote:


What? Please. The Plantagenent's are descended from the nobility of Anjou, and by all rights were subjects of the French crown. If anything the Forces Armees Francaises should be crossing the channel and bringing this rebellious kingdom into line! Bend the knee or burn I say!

The Plantagenets are long extinct. The current British monarch belongs to the House of Windsor, which has its roots in Saxony. Doesn't that mean Germany has the stronger claim?

Anyone in favour of british annexation by Germany say "Aye".
<.<

Seriously though, what used to belong to a country should have no bearing on its current borders. If you *really* insist on changing things, let the people that actually live there decide. And by decide, I do *not* mean what happened in Crimea... its hardly a fair vote when theres a guy behind you holding a gun...

 Cream Tea wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:


What? Please. The Plantagenent's are descended from the nobility of Anjou, and by all rights were subjects of the French crown. If anything the Forces Armees Francaises should be crossing the channel and bringing this rebellious kingdom into line! Bend the knee or burn I say!

The Plantagenets are long extinct. The current British monarch belongs to the House of Windsor, which has its roots in Saxony. Doesn't that mean Germany has the stronger claim?

But what is the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha but a cadet branch of House Wettin? These feudal lords have too long considered their crowns the ultimate power, and it is up to the Esercito Pontificio to show the arrogant pricks that there is only one real power, and only one true crown!

See everyone, this is what happens when you make an historical reference when LordofHats is around. You lose and he wins.

Then again, William the Conqueror was a descendant of Norse raiders, right? Shouldn't that give us Scandinavians a claim to Britain too?

Given what we know about early hominds we should probably give the entire world to the Sotho Peoples and be done with it.

 feeder wrote:
Given what we know about early hominds we should probably give the entire world to the Sotho Peoples and be done with it.

As the earliest known primates are also from Africa, that continent certainly has a strong claim. Further back we know less about where our ancestors first appeared, and the geography of the world becomes less and less recognisable, so making origin claims becomes more difficult.

Go Africa?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Then again, William the Conqueror was a descendant of Norse raiders, right? Shouldn't that give us Scandinavians a claim to Britain too?

Technically the House of Normandy owed fealty to the French crown, and no one else. Rollo, first Duke of Normandy, swore such when the crown ceded the lands that became Normandy to him and his brigands on the condition that they stop pillaging and start anti-pillaging. See Rollo and his buddies weren't quite the visionaries that Roger II and his brats ended up being. They saw Sicily and they were like "feth I don't need your permission" *burns everything to the ground, and begins eying Greece*

Of course, it wouldn't be the first time a country ignored petty details for a land grab

 LordofHats wrote:

 Cream Tea wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:


What? Please. The Plantagenent's are descended from the nobility of Anjou, and by all rights were subjects of the French crown. If anything the Forces Armees Francaises should be crossing the channel and bringing this rebellious kingdom into line! Bend the knee or burn I say!

The Plantagenets are long extinct. The current British monarch belongs to the House of Windsor, which has its roots in Saxony. Doesn't that mean Germany has the stronger claim?

But what is the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha but a cadet branch of House Wettin? These feudal lords have too long considered their crowns the ultimate power, and it is up to the Esercito Pontificio to show the arrogant pricks that there is only one real power, and only one true crown!

See everyone, this is what happens when you make an historical reference when LordofHats is around. You lose and he wins.

Germans have a long history of ignoring Roman authority. Kaiser > Papst.

And there you have it people. A simple three post explanation of Medieval European power politics

There are three reasons to believe this scenario, in the next ten years, is at least as likely as war between the United States and North Korea. For one, the goal of “liberating” Taiwan is the paramount foreign policy concern of Beijing. And it has been a top concern since the end of the 1945–1949 civil war between Mao Zedong’s Communists and Chiang Kai-Shek’s Nationalists,

That the author believes the Chinese Civil War has ended is kinda amusing, because it hasn't any more than the Korean War has ended - there's no actual agreement saying that the war is over.

IMO, as long as Taiwan follows the script, all will be well. If Taiwan declares independence, then China will treat them the way the United States treated the Confederacy, and the way the Turks treat the Kurds. Ultimately, Taiwan will unify under China. It's just a matter of when and how, and how many people need to die in the process.

ETA - I need to add that the "when" could be *centuries* from today. As HK and Macau demonstrated in the 90s, China is nothing if not patient.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

ETA - I need to add that the "when" could be *centuries* from today. As HK and Macau demonstrated in the 90s, China is nothing if not patient.

They need to be, since in both of the mentioned cases their 'return' has been about as popular as athletes foot. Indeed, the issue is becoming pressing enough that their puppet actually spoke on the subject instead of it not being mentioned at all.

However, an interesting thing has been the steady devolution of powers to regional governments that Beijing is now trying, a bit late, to reverse. i think that the reason that the Central Committee has been watching HK and Macao so closely is that if their power is really slipping, these will be the first places to go.

 sebster wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
You can't compare one single region to the rest of the country as a whole, because the capital (by far the richest region) is going to skew that tremendously.

Of course you can compare different regions of a country and note which areas are rich and which areas are poor. That one area might be much richer than others doesn't mean you can't compare, in fact that comparison is the very purpose of the process.

You have to look at the region and then compare it to all the other regions individually. And comparing to other countries makes GDP even more meaningless. $1 will buy you much more in Ukraine than it will in Mississippi.

That the US is a different country doesn't make the comparison invalid, because the point is to have people understand the scale of the difference in each country, and how Crimea sits relative to national income.

It does, because money has a totally different worth in Ukraine. That makes it actually very bad for having people understand the scale of difference. A poor person in the US probably makes a lot more money than the average Ukrainian does, but the average Ukrainian might enjoy a higher standard of living because with his little money he is able to buy more things in Ukraine than the poor American can buy in the US. Rich and poor are relative, and not relative to income, but to purchasing power.
Income is totally meaningless.

 sebster wrote:

I was born in Ukraine. Trust me if I say that I know how the economic situation was. Crimea was a relatively well-off area, especially Sevastopol and the coastal resort area. There was plenty of economical migration to here from the western parts of Ukraine. The interior of Crimea was more poor, and mostly rural, but not as poor as the area to the north of Crimea (Kherson) and the west of the country.

Yes, exactly. Sevastopol is quite wealthy but not that big, and the rest of the Crimea is quite poor. So why you're trying to dispute my initial statement that Crimea was a fairly poor region of the Ukraine is beyond me.

Kiev and the cities in the east (Dnipropetrovsk, Kharkov, Donetsk) had stronger economies due to all the industries they inherited from the Soviets.

Yes, exactly. Those are rich regions of the Ukraine. While Crimea is a poor region. So all at once you're disputing the Crimea is a poor region, while posting multiple times that you recognise Crimea was a poor region.

Don't you get it? Crimea is both poor and rich. This is why lumping together different economical areas arbitrarily into one economical region and then comparing those arbitrary regions to other arbitrary regions doesn't work.
You basically have two very different areas in Crimea: the Black Sea coast (including Sevastopol), then there is a mountain range and beyond the mountains are the large steppe plains of Crimea's interior (here is the capital of Simferopol and lots of grass). The coastal area has always been very rich by Ukrainian standards. Loads of wealthy and famous people live there, there is big houses and hotels all along the coastline. Basically, there is lots of tourism and work and salaries are high (the whole crisis in 2014 did cause an economical disruption here, but it has since recovered). Beyond the mountains, in the interior the situation is very different. This is a rural area where outside of a few interesting sights tourists rarely come and which is mostly dependent on agriculture and the few heavy industries and government jobs in Simferopol. This area is really poor, and salaries and work are low. These two very different areas together are Crimea. So if you fuse a rich and a poor region together, you get an average region, which is what Crimea is when compared to Ukraine as a whole. And when I say Crimea is rich, I have the coastal area in mind.

 sebster wrote:

Taiwan (or rather the Republic of China, its official name) is not actually a widely recognised nation. It was expelled from the UN in 1971, and there is only a few (minor) countries left that continue to recognise it.

There is a vast difference between accepting the current political grey area in which Taiwan exists, and China putting troops on its shores.

Anyways, invading and annexing a sovereign nation is entirely different from invading and establishing control over one of your country's provinces that has come under control of a rival government. The first one is a war of conquest, the second is a civil war. That is a pretty big difference for international law.

Lots of parts of the world used to be controlled by lots of other countries. A large chunk of France used to be under the British crown. Does that mean the UK can drop troops in Normandy tomorrow, arguing its a province that came under the control of a rival government?
The mindset you've arguing for is very fething dangerous, and opens the door for a return to the bad old days of old historical grievances being used to justify wars of conquest, behaviour that frequently lead to escalation and fights between major powers, a situation we cannot have in this nuclear age. That people like you think thoughts like that is exactly why the global community must be committed to protecting the sovereignty of international borders.

France is not Britain. The Republic of China and the People's Republic of China are both China. They are the same country, just locked in a frozen civil war between rival governments, of which only one is widely recognised as being a legitimate government internationally. You totally can not compare that with Britain and France, both of which have been seperate, recognised and independent states since the moment states became a thing.
Britain and France are different countries. China and Taiwan are not different countries. Taiwan is not a country. It is an island that is part of China and has never been an independent country. Huge difference. What you are arguing simply does not apply, the PRC/ROC situation is pretty unique in the world. If China were to land troops on Taiwan tomorrow, it would not violate international law or set bad precedents for anything. It simply would be a continuation of a civil war that began in the 1920's. When the PRC took Hainain from the ROC in 1950, nobody argued that it would set a precedent for Britain invading France. Why would it be different if the PRC took Taiwan from the ROC? What makes Taiwan so different from Hainan?

 Iron_Captain wrote:
The Republic of China and the People's Republic of China are both China. They are the same country, just locked in a frozen civil war between rival governments, of which only one is widely recognised as being a legitimate government internationally.

Britain and France are different countries. China and Taiwan are not different countries. Taiwan is not a country. It is an island that is part of China and has never been an independent country. Huge difference. What you are arguing simply does not apply, the PRC/ROC situation is pretty unique in the world. If China were to land troops on Taiwan tomorrow, it would not violate international law or set bad precedents for anything. It simply would be a continuation of a civil war that began in the 1920's. When the PRC took Hainain from the ROC in 1950, nobody argued that it would set a precedent for Britain invading France. Why would it be different if the PRC took Taiwan from the ROC? What makes Taiwan so different from Hainan?

This is basically correct. The PRC and ROC are still engaged in a civil war that's been "on hold" since 1949. I believe they still fire shells across the strait at each other on schedule, so it's technically a "hot" war of sorts.

The current analogy would be something like Kurds declaring independence from Turkey. Turkey is supposedly a democratic NATO country. How well did it go for the Kurds, again?

I don't know about China militarily. China is scared, playing up to the Japs as they now increase their military and it isn't like Taiwan is some wimp military wise either. China itself while having a large military is not that well off and still lacks the navy for naval dominance. Economic wise yes they could try so but that may even backfire.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You could say the Korean conflict is, lukewarm, huh?

China is setting up to defend their portion of the Pacific which just happens to overlap Japan, Korea and especially Taiwan. As for who they're planning to defend against? That would be the most active and interventionist military in the world.

It's no accident that China is working on systems to detect, track and destroy CVNs at a moment's notice. If they are serious about protecting and defending their interests, then flattening a USCG has to be an absolute top priority.

After that, it's the ability to take and hold Taiwan, which is largely a foregone conclusion if the US can be kept out.

Much, much farther down on their list of concerns are places like India, Korea, Vietnam, etc.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

It's no accident that China is working on systems to detect, track and destroy CVNs at a moment's notice. If they are serious about protecting and defending their interests, then flattening a USCG has to be an absolute top priority.

More than one Carrier Group. They tend to come in groups of groups for this sort of thing.

I'm a bit torn on this, as it would be a battle between China's anti ship weapon systems, which are numerous, but gak, against the US fleet, which is also numerous, but gak. Damage Control has really become a lost art in most modern fleets, as the assumption is that if the ship is hit, the ship is dead, and a lot of ship design now actually revolves around this.


Also, their underestimating of India in this is a very bad idea. Anyone who builds their own SSBNs (granted, very similar to the Akula's they're 'renting') is not to be treated as a minor player.

It's not only Chinese Navy but their army isn't all that to begin with. There's a reason they've been playing to China these days as they build up military now.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

It's no accident that China is working on systems to detect, track and destroy CVNs at a moment's notice. If they are serious about protecting and defending their interests, then flattening a USCG has to be an absolute top priority.

More than one Carrier Group. They tend to come in groups of groups for this sort of thing.

I'm a bit torn on this, as it would be a battle between China's anti ship weapon systems, which are numerous, but gak, against the US fleet, which is also numerous, but gak. Damage Control has really become a lost art in most modern fleets, as the assumption is that if the ship is hit, the ship is dead, and a lot of ship design now actually revolves around this.

Also, their underestimating of India in this is a very bad idea. Anyone who builds their own SSBNs (granted, very similar to the Akula's they're 'renting') is not to be treated as a minor player.

No, just one would be enough. If China obliterates that first USCG, or even just the CVN (and only the CVN, and nothing but the CVN), that'll be the sort of message that gets the other USCGs *completely* out of Chinese waters while the Pentagon figures out what to do without starting WW3. The USN isn't going to risk losing the entire PACFLT over Taiwan.

Quite frankly, the US Navy *loves* that China is stepping up to finally properly defend their territorial waters. It gives them a reason to ask for more money, and they don't have to lie (as much) when doing so. The better the Chinese AA/AD is (or is supposed to be), the more money the USN can ask for to defeat it. The interesting thing is whether the US starts dumping a LOT more resources into SSBNs & SSGNs -- those would be the smart call to counter the Chinese AA/AD defenses instead of something stupid like the Ford and the F-35.

India isn't underestimated at all. They're a 3rd tier player (like Russia) to China's 2nd tier force. Except that Russia directly threatens NATO interests in Europe, whereas nobody in the US (or China) would bat an eye if India occupied Pakistan tomorrow.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:


No, just one would be enough. If China obliterates that first USCG, or even just the CVN (and only the CVN, and nothing but the CVN), that'll be the sort of message that gets the other USCGs *completely* out of Chinese waters while the Pentagon figures out what to do without starting WW3. The USN isn't going to risk losing the entire PACFLT over Taiwan.

Oh, how China has forgotten the 55 days. I hope someone there understands that sinking a US carrier would lead to the annihilation of every major Chinese city within about four hours of that carrier sinking. Not joking, there are already standing orders to prepare to launch in that circumstance.

As if China wouldn't launch their nukes in response... :eyeroll:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
As if China wouldn't launch their nukes in response... :eyeroll:

Are we trying to make the Fallout series reality? because this is how you make the Fallout series a reality

I dunno. Ask the idiot Cheeto.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
As if China wouldn't launch their nukes in response... :eyeroll:

I'd be impressed if they did, as China's nuclear forces currently are not capable of 'second strike' capabilities beyond 10-12 truck launched DF-31A and DF-41 ICBMs in northern China. PLAN's Type 094A can launch, but it can, at most, hit the US west coast. China lacks a long range nuclear bomber, and the silo housed ICBMs they do have, such as the DF-5, require lengthy fueling times and are vulnerable to a US first strike.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Are we trying to make the Fallout series reality? because this is how you make the Fallout series a reality

They have to invade Alaska first.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
As if China wouldn't launch their nukes in response... :eyeroll:

I'd be impressed if they did, as China's nuclear forces currently are not capable of 'second strike' capabilities beyond 10-12 truck launched DF-31A and DF-41 ICBMs in northern China. PLAN's Type 094A can launch, but it can, at most, hit the US west coast. China lacks a long range nuclear bomber, and the silo housed ICBMs they do have, such as the DF-5, require lengthy fueling times and are vulnerable to a US first strike.

As far as I'm aware, they only have about as many nukes as we do here in Britain (two hundred and fifty or so). Of those, only about fifty or so can hit the States. Once you factor in misses, malfunctions, stuff smashed before it can launch, and missile defences, the Chinese would be lucky to get half of that through to the States, and half of that again to drop where they wanted it to. I think the States could probably suck up a dozen targeted nukes without being particularly impeded in any kind of retaliation.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Are we trying to make the Fallout series reality? because this is how you make the Fallout series a reality

They have to invade Alaska first.

No way. Alyaska belongs to Mother Russia. We are the only ones allowed to invade.
And on the subject of nuking China, do you guys really think Russia is going to allow that? If the US launches its nukes, the US is going to die, simple as that. Having nuclear weapons is great, but actually using them is a big no-no. Such a thing could simply not be allowed. The US is never going to launch any nukes, not even if its entire navy were destroyed. Nor is China or Russia. They are suicide weapons. The cost of using nuclear weapons simply far outweighs any possible benefits. The only reason countries have nuclear weapons is so that other countries with nuclear weapons can't use them.

I basically agree with that. We've been over this in the cold war. Everyone loses in nuclear war. We (that is, the population of earth) must do everything possible, diplomatically and otherwise, to prevent this.