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.
This does nothing to disprove what Iron Captain (and myself) have said in regard to you saying the US has a legal obligation. Sure, the US has an interest, but no legal obligation. Its pretty likely that if China ever wanted Taiwan, the US would just be presented with a fait accompli. Why set the world on fire over Taiwan? The US hasn't been willing since 1979. The TTSC is an entirely different context and time than any potential future actual attempt.
'Legal' is certainly a loose term. The US is not obligated to send troops to Europe if Russia invades either despite NATO (all it calls for is that it would provide assistance), yet it is assumed it would happen. Nor are any other NATO members obligated to send troops to the US if the US was invaded, just 'assistance'. So you can bend arguments all around you want, but the point is that you guys say the US wouldn't militarily support Taiwan when it already recently has shown that it would, despite the wording of their agreement.
What did Taiwan have back in 1996 anymore than it does now? Nothing. Neither does Japan, South Korea, the Philippines. And China isn't going to set the world on fire for Taiwan anymore than the US would. It will be a air/naval campaign. Once China realizes that it cannot physically seize Taiwan the conflict will end. If China wanted to obliterate Taiwan into submission, they could also do that now. And if they actually attacked America, the US could call in NATO for support, further complicating things for China.
So no, one is going to set the world on fire for Taiwan.
This does nothing to disprove what Iron Captain (and myself) have said in regard to you saying the US has a legal obligation. Sure, the US has an interest, but no legal obligation. Its pretty likely that if China ever wanted Taiwan, the US would just be presented with a fait accompli. Why set the world on fire over Taiwan? The US hasn't been willing since 1979. The TTSC is an entirely different context and time than any potential future actual attempt.
'Legal' is certainly a loose term. The US is not obligated to send troops to Europe if Russia invades either despite NATO (all it calls for is that it would provide assistance), yet it is assumed it would happen. Nor are any other NATO members obligated to send troops to the US if the US was invaded, just 'assistance'. So you can bend arguments all around you want, but the point is that you guys say the US wouldn't militarily support Taiwan when it already recently has shown that it would, despite the wording of their agreement.
What did Taiwan have back in 1996 anymore than it does now? Nothing. Neither does Japan, South Korea, the Philippines. And China isn't going to set the world on fire for Taiwan anymore than the US would. It will be a air/naval campaign. Once China realizes that it cannot physically seize Taiwan the conflict will end. If China wanted to obliterate Taiwan into submission, they could also do that now. And if they actually attacked America, the US could call in NATO for support, further complicating things for China.
So no, one is going to set the world on fire for Taiwan.
But NATO is an actual legally binding treaty, even though article 5 is pretty vague on what needs to be committed. Taiwan has had nothing since 1979. The issue we took is that you said "Actually, the US President is required, by law, to defend Taiwan." Now you're trying to bend the argument into "oh the US will militarily support Taiwan" which is entirely different from being legally obligated to do so, which again the US is not. Why the US would want to is obvious, letting China just take Taiwan has serious implications both in the region and the wider world, which is why the US still sends over a boatload of weapons. No, China would be stupid to provoke a war now. It needs to build up significantly more if it would. With a more advanced military in a few decades Taiwan's lifespan during an invasion might be as little as a few days if China is going to invest enough to get up to par with the US. Of course this is all just guess work as we have no idea what developments will happen in the future. The only way China will try is if it can end it fast enough before the US intervenes or the US no longer cares/is distracted. But as you say, China has no interest in obliterating Taiwan. A war is extremely unlikely to ever happen.
KTG17 wrote: And if they actually attacked America, the US could call in NATO for support, further complicating things for China.
This is actually false, any hostile action by China against the US in East Asia isn't covered by NATO:
Article 6 (1) For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack: • on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer; • on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.
Even Hawaii falls outside of article 5 technically speaking. Europe might be pushed to do Korea 2.0
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2018/08/02 19:30:10
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
This does nothing to disprove what Iron Captain (and myself) have said in regard to you saying the US has a legal obligation. Sure, the US has an interest, but no legal obligation. Its pretty likely that if China ever wanted Taiwan, the US would just be presented with a fait accompli. Why set the world on fire over Taiwan? The US hasn't been willing since 1979. The TTSC is an entirely different context and time than any potential future actual attempt.
'Legal' is certainly a loose term. The US is not obligated to send troops to Europe if Russia invades either despite NATO (all it calls for is that it would provide assistance), yet it is assumed it would happen. ... ... .
Regardless of the legal terminology, the USA has large numbers of troops in Europe. It's a strong "boots on the ground" demonstration that the USA would fulfil its treaty obligations in the highly unlikely event of an invasion by some 3rd party.
Disciple of Fate wrote: [But NATO is an actual legally binding treaty, even though article 5 is pretty vague on what needs to be committed. Taiwan has had nothing since 1979. The issue we took is that you said "Actually, the US President is required, by law, to defend Taiwan." Now you're trying to bend the argument into "oh the US will militarily support Taiwan" which is entirely different from being legally obligated to do so, which again the US is not.
* The Taiwan Relations Act does not guarantee the USA will intervene militarily if the PRC attacks or invades Taiwan nor does it relinquish it, it primary purpose is to ensure the US's Taiwan policy will not be changed unilaterally by the president and ensure any decision to defend Taiwan will be made with the consent of Congress. The act states that "the United States will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capabilities". However, the decision about the nature and quantity of defense services that America will provide to Taiwan is to be determined by the President and Congress. America's policy has been called "strategic ambiguity" and it is designed to dissuade Taiwan from a unilateral declaration of independence, and to dissuade the PRC from unilaterally unifying Taiwan with the PRC. *
This is all you need for a President to go to war to defend Taiwan.
Right from James A. Kelly, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs in 2004 - "Viewing any use of force against Taiwan with grave concern, we will maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion against Taiwan. " in political speak means we will go to war to defend Taiwan.
I brought up Clinton sending two carrier battlegroups during the Taiwan Straight Crisis, but even Bush confirmed US support when he said has made clear that the United States would defend Taiwan in 2005.
Just because the treaty doesn't specify that the US will send X troops to Taiwan in an invasion (as the NATO treaty doesn't either), it lays out clearly that it gives the President power to do so and as he sees fit, by Congress. All NATO's article 5 states is that the members will provide assistance as they each see fit, which is really no difference than that the Taiwan Relations Act essentially does. In both cases where the US could be dragged into a war, our contribution could be as little as sending a postcard saying 'Hang in there' to fully committing to the war with boots on the ground. That is a fact. Now, if you want to argue and say well of course the US would defend the Netherlands, fine, but don't think the US wouldn't do the same for Taiwan. The Taiwan Relations Act is a carefully worded document basically saying to the Chinese, back off from invading Taiwan, and we won't promote their independence. So long as they do not and do not attack the mainland, we will defend them.
KTG17 wrote: And if they actually attacked America, the US could call in NATO for support, further complicating things for China.
This is actually false, any hostile action by China against the US in East Asia isn't covered by NATO:
I didn't say attack 'the US in East Asia'. I cannot find the article I read some time ago, but when the Chinese approached a US diplomat in regards to what the US response would be if China went to war with Taiwan, and got a carefully worded response, meaning that the US would defend Taiwan so long as they were not the aggressor, to which a Chinese General asked even if it meant the destruction of L.A., and he said yes.
So in this case, it would be in North America, and the US would rope in NATO. And I hardly think the Chinese wouldn't try to attack the US mainland in some way if we were hitting targets in mainland China. This is why Putin himself stated that a war in North Korea would lead to another third world war, as it would only be a matter of time before NATO got involved. I don't necessarily agree with that, but that seems to be the consences if China got involved defending North Korea.
I'll try to find the article about the exchange with the US diplomat, but it was pretty eye opening. And part of the reason we did the 60-40 pivot to Asia under Obama.
And considering I have included a few Presidents here, you can add up that its essentially a policy, and not some knee jerk reaction to the threat that pops up every now and then.
EDIT: Found something like that article:
In 1995, Xiong Guangkai, who is now the deputy chief of the general staff of the People's Liberation Army, told Chas W. Freeman, a former Pentagon official, that China would consider using nuclear weapons in a Taiwan conflict. Mr. Freeman quoted Mr. Xiong as saying that Americans should worry more about Los Angeles than Taipei.
Disciple of Fate wrote: [But NATO is an actual legally binding treaty, even though article 5 is pretty vague on what needs to be committed. Taiwan has had nothing since 1979. The issue we took is that you said "Actually, the US President is required, by law, to defend Taiwan." Now you're trying to bend the argument into "oh the US will militarily support Taiwan" which is entirely different from being legally obligated to do so, which again the US is not.
* The Taiwan Relations Act does not guarantee the USA will intervene militarily if the PRC attacks or invades Taiwan nor does it relinquish it, it primary purpose is to ensure the US's Taiwan policy will not be changed unilaterally by the president and ensure any decision to defend Taiwan will be made with the consent of Congress. The act states that "the United States will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capabilities". However, the decision about the nature and quantity of defense services that America will provide to Taiwan is to be determined by the President and Congress. America's policy has been called "strategic ambiguity" and it is designed to dissuade Taiwan from a unilateral declaration of independence, and to dissuade the PRC from unilaterally unifying Taiwan with the PRC. *
This is all you need for a President to go to war to defend Taiwan.
Right from James A. Kelly, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs in 2004 - "Viewing any use of force against Taiwan with grave concern, we will maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion against Taiwan. " in political speak means we will go to war to defend Taiwan.
I brought up Clinton sending two carrier battlegroups during the Taiwan Straight Crisis, but even Bush confirmed US support when he said has made clear that the United States would defend Taiwan in 2005.
Just because the treaty doesn't specify that the US will send X troops to Taiwan in an invasion (as the NATO treaty doesn't either), it lays out clearly that it gives the President power to do so and as he sees fit, by Congress. All NATO's article 5 states is that the members will provide assistance as they each see fit, which is really no difference than that the Taiwan Relations Act essentially does. In both cases where the US could be dragged into a war, our contribution could be as little as sending a postcard saying 'Hang in there' to fully committing to the war with boots on the ground. That is a fact. Now, if you want to argue and say well of course the US would defend the Netherlands, fine, but don't think the US wouldn't do the same for Taiwan. The Taiwan Relations Act is a carefully worded document basically saying to the Chinese, back off from invading Taiwan, and we won't promote their independence. So long as they do not and do not attack the mainland, we will defend them.
The Taiwan Relations Act does not have a legal obligation for the US president to defend Taiwan. That wikipedia quote(?) Even says so. Furthermore the President needs approval of Congress in the case of Taiwan as stated in Article 3 section C:
(c) The President is directed to inform the Congress promptly of any threat to the security or the social or economic system of the people on Taiwan and any danger to the interests of the United States arising therefrom. The President and the Congress shall determine, in accordance with constitutional processes, appropriate action by the United States in response to any such danger.
But again, I never denied that the US has convincing reasons in the international system to defend Taiwan. What I took issue with is you stating the US was legally obligated, which it hasn't been since '79, when the defensive treaty got replaced by the relations act. NATO on the other hand is a clear defensive alliance that never clarified what you're expected to send over to help. The Taiwan Relations Act lacks both of those parts as well as US troops on the island.
KTG17 wrote: And if they actually attacked America, the US could call in NATO for support, further complicating things for China.
This is actually false, any hostile action by China against the US in East Asia isn't covered by NATO:
I didn't say attack 'the US in East Asia'. I cannot find the article I read some time ago, but when the Chinese approached a US diplomat in regards to what the US response would be if China went to war with Taiwan, and got a carefully worded response, meaning that the US would defend Taiwan so long as they were not the aggressor, to which a Chinese General asked even if it meant the destruction of L.A., and he said yes.
So in this case, it would be in North America, and the US would rope in NATO. And I hardly think the Chinese wouldn't try to attack the US mainland in some way if we were hitting targets in mainland China. This is why Putin himself stated that a war in North Korea would lead to another third world war, as it would only be a matter of time before NATO got involved. I don't necessarily agree with that, but that seems to be the consences if China got involved defending North Korea.
I'll try to find the article about the exchange with the US diplomat, but it was pretty eye opening. And part of the reason we did the 60-40 pivot to Asia under Obama.
And considering I have included a few Presidents here, you can add up that its essentially a policy, and not some knee jerk reaction to the threat that pops up every now and then.
EDIT: Found something like that article:
In 1995, Xiong Guangkai, who is now the deputy chief of the general staff of the People's Liberation Army, told Chas W. Freeman, a former Pentagon official, that China would consider using nuclear weapons in a Taiwan conflict. Mr. Freeman quoted Mr. Xiong as saying that Americans should worry more about Los Angeles than Taipei.
This is where we get into fantasy land. If China nukes LA (the only way they have to reach the US mainland) then NATO doesn't matter anymore because about 6 hours later we're all piles of radioactive ash. The Korea example is doubtful, Putin says a lot but much of it is hyperbole. Yes China finds NK useful, but useful enough to risk itself over? 1950 was an entirely different situation for China, war has become much more risky there are better alternatives for China, plus the idea that the US will go to war is also highly doubtful given that it risks immense devastation to allies. Any NATO involvement would be up to the willingness of individual states to go along as they did in Iraq.
The Asia Pivot under Obama made geopolitical sense. It was already on the works for a while because the US knew after 1991 China was going to be the next happening thing. GW Bush damaged the approach by his singleminded focus on the War on Terror, losing sight of the overal geopolitical situation. China made a lot of soft power gains in the Bush presidency which is why in part Obama officially announced the geopolitical pivot in part as a signal in the region. Obama fixed some of Bush's neglect, Xi's elephant in a China shop destroyed a lot of Hu's soft power gains and Trump is a bit wishy washy on continuing the coherent Obama era policies. Luckily for the US (and Trump) Xi is behaving so badly that East Asia can overlook Trump being wishy washy, but Trump really needs to get his diplomatic ducks in a row, because we're looking at another potential 8 year Bush like diplomacy gap.
As for the general's statement, welcome to China's views on everything it deems Chinese. You get this over the top ludicrous response filled less with logic and more with nationalism. Its on the level of Mao not minding a nuclear war because there were enough Chinese to survive anyway. But the CCP is rational, they spew out this nationalistic vitriol to the public but in private they are far more careful. China has plenty of time, it can see if political reunion is an option, otherwise it can just wait until the balance of power tips in its favor for a quick and decisive action which would be far far in the future anyway. China isn't going to unleash nuclear war over Taiwan, because then we're all dead anyway.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/08/03 06:21:49
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
As for the general's statement, welcome to China's views on everything it deems Chinese. You get this over the top ludicrous response filled less with logic and more with nationalism. Its on the level of Mao not minding a nuclear war because there were enough Chinese to survive anyway. But the CCP is rational, they spew out this nationalistic vitriol to the public but in private they are far more careful. China has plenty of time, it can see if political reunion is an option, otherwise it can just wait until the balance of power tips in its favor for a quick and decisive action which would be far far in the future anyway. China isn't going to unleash nuclear war over Taiwan, because then we're all dead anyway.
If you are asking me, China is waiting for the same kind of opportunity with Taiwan that Russia was waiting for with Crimea. They'll wait until there is a lot of internal turmoil and then Chinese soldiers will suddenly land everywhere and take the island over before anyone can respond. The US will be really mad, but there is little they can do against a fait accompli.
As for the general's statement, welcome to China's views on everything it deems Chinese. You get this over the top ludicrous response filled less with logic and more with nationalism. Its on the level of Mao not minding a nuclear war because there were enough Chinese to survive anyway. But the CCP is rational, they spew out this nationalistic vitriol to the public but in private they are far more careful. China has plenty of time, it can see if political reunion is an option, otherwise it can just wait until the balance of power tips in its favor for a quick and decisive action which would be far far in the future anyway. China isn't going to unleash nuclear war over Taiwan, because then we're all dead anyway.
If you are asking me, China is waiting for the same kind of opportunity with Taiwan that Russia was waiting for with Crimea. They'll wait until there is a lot of internal turmoil and then Chinese soldiers will suddenly land everywhere and take the island over before anyone can respond. The US will be really mad, but there is little they can do against a fait accompli.
That's an opportunity they can wait a long time for. Internal turmoil on the scale of Ukraine is unlikely to happen and there is no significant group of pro-PRC symphatizers like Russia could rely on. Furthermore the Taiwanese army is bigger, better trained and equipped and there are no PRC bases on Taiwan. Plus its not just a short hop across, its going to take some prep work. We're talking about a scenario likely decades into the future, or the US must really drop the ball.
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
As for the general's statement, welcome to China's views on everything it deems Chinese. You get this over the top ludicrous response filled less with logic and more with nationalism. Its on the level of Mao not minding a nuclear war because there were enough Chinese to survive anyway. But the CCP is rational, they spew out this nationalistic vitriol to the public but in private they are far more careful. China has plenty of time, it can see if political reunion is an option, otherwise it can just wait until the balance of power tips in its favor for a quick and decisive action which would be far far in the future anyway. China isn't going to unleash nuclear war over Taiwan, because then we're all dead anyway.
If you are asking me, China is waiting for the same kind of opportunity with Taiwan that Russia was waiting for with Crimea. They'll wait until there is a lot of internal turmoil and then Chinese soldiers will suddenly land everywhere and take the island over before anyone can respond. The US will be really mad, but there is little they can do against a fait accompli.
That's an opportunity they can wait a long time for. Internal turmoil on the scale of Ukraine is unlikely to happen and there is no significant group of pro-PRC symphatizers like Russia could rely on. Furthermore the Taiwanese army is bigger, better trained and equipped and there are no PRC bases on Taiwan. Plus its not just a short hop across, its going to take some prep work. We're talking about a scenario likely decades into the future, or the US must really drop the ball.
I'm not sure if I'd say there's no pro-PRC individuals. I was listening to NPR and they had a really interesting piece about China building investment sites with research/production facilities and capital to attract Taiwanese youth. It seems to be working and they have a lot of pro-China/pro-reunification stuff built in (for ex. Taiwanese citizens can take advantage of these places because they're considered Chinese by the PRC etc).
if nothing else it's going to put a drain on Taiwanese entrepreneurship, but it seems like it's also a way to groom pro-PRC sentiment easily.
I prefer to buy from miniature manufacturers that *don't* support the overthrow of democracy.
I don't know enough to comment about the cost vs usefulness. But it is an ugly plane. Looks like an F-18 that really let itself go.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
This project was a huge waste of funds. For it's cost we could have built a few thousand f-22's. Some models of f-35's cost as much as an f-22!
We only built about 200 f-22 because they are "so expensive". At least with the f-22 you know you have the most superior aircraft in the world. The F-35 - you have an under-powered / unreliable / low yield aircraft / with a much larger radar signature. It can do a lot of jobs and perform in many arenas so it will be a good fit for armies with small air-forces - but for the US - it's a freaking disaster project. I hope we just sell them all off put all that money into drones.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
As for the general's statement, welcome to China's views on everything it deems Chinese. You get this over the top ludicrous response filled less with logic and more with nationalism. Its on the level of Mao not minding a nuclear war because there were enough Chinese to survive anyway. But the CCP is rational, they spew out this nationalistic vitriol to the public but in private they are far more careful. China has plenty of time, it can see if political reunion is an option, otherwise it can just wait until the balance of power tips in its favor for a quick and decisive action which would be far far in the future anyway. China isn't going to unleash nuclear war over Taiwan, because then we're all dead anyway.
If you are asking me, China is waiting for the same kind of opportunity with Taiwan that Russia was waiting for with Crimea. They'll wait until there is a lot of internal turmoil and then Chinese soldiers will suddenly land everywhere and take the island over before anyone can respond. The US will be really mad, but there is little they can do against a fait accompli.
That's an opportunity they can wait a long time for. Internal turmoil on the scale of Ukraine is unlikely to happen and there is no significant group of pro-PRC symphatizers like Russia could rely on. Furthermore the Taiwanese army is bigger, better trained and equipped and there are no PRC bases on Taiwan. Plus its not just a short hop across, its going to take some prep work. We're talking about a scenario likely decades into the future, or the US must really drop the ball.
I'm not sure if I'd say there's no pro-PRC individuals. I was listening to NPR and they had a really interesting piece about China building investment sites with research/production facilities and capital to attract Taiwanese youth. It seems to be working and they have a lot of pro-China/pro-reunification stuff built in (for ex. Taiwanese citizens can take advantage of these places because they're considered Chinese by the PRC etc).
if nothing else it's going to put a drain on Taiwanese entrepreneurship, but it seems like it's also a way to groom pro-PRC sentiment easily.
Pro-PRC in the context of an invasion like Crimea. Just because they stand positively towards the PRC doesn't mean they are going to favor the PRC during an invasion of China. That's a soft power approach, good will easily squandered with a hostile invasion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: This project was a huge waste of funds. For it's cost we could have built a few thousand f-22's. Some models of f-35's cost as much as an f-22!
We only built about 200 f-22 because they are "so expensive". At least with the f-22 you know you have the most superior aircraft in the world. The F-35 - you have an under-powered / unreliable / low yield aircraft / with a much larger radar signature. It can do a lot of jobs and perform in many arenas so it will be a good fit for armies with small air-forces - but for the US - it's a freaking disaster project. I hope we just sell them all off put all that money into drones.
But what is the point of having thousands of F-22s when they are designed as an air superiority fighter? The F-35 is meant for an entirely different role.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/08/03 18:52:41
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
As for the general's statement, welcome to China's views on everything it deems Chinese. You get this over the top ludicrous response filled less with logic and more with nationalism. Its on the level of Mao not minding a nuclear war because there were enough Chinese to survive anyway. But the CCP is rational, they spew out this nationalistic vitriol to the public but in private they are far more careful. China has plenty of time, it can see if political reunion is an option, otherwise it can just wait until the balance of power tips in its favor for a quick and decisive action which would be far far in the future anyway. China isn't going to unleash nuclear war over Taiwan, because then we're all dead anyway.
If you are asking me, China is waiting for the same kind of opportunity with Taiwan that Russia was waiting for with Crimea. They'll wait until there is a lot of internal turmoil and then Chinese soldiers will suddenly land everywhere and take the island over before anyone can respond. The US will be really mad, but there is little they can do against a fait accompli.
That's an opportunity they can wait a long time for. Internal turmoil on the scale of Ukraine is unlikely to happen and there is no significant group of pro-PRC symphatizers like Russia could rely on. Furthermore the Taiwanese army is bigger, better trained and equipped and there are no PRC bases on Taiwan. Plus its not just a short hop across, its going to take some prep work. We're talking about a scenario likely decades into the future, or the US must really drop the ball.
I'm not sure if I'd say there's no pro-PRC individuals. I was listening to NPR and they had a really interesting piece about China building investment sites with research/production facilities and capital to attract Taiwanese youth. It seems to be working and they have a lot of pro-China/pro-reunification stuff built in (for ex. Taiwanese citizens can take advantage of these places because they're considered Chinese by the PRC etc).
if nothing else it's going to put a drain on Taiwanese entrepreneurship, but it seems like it's also a way to groom pro-PRC sentiment easily.
Pro-PRC in the context of an invasion like Crimea. Just because they stand positively towards the PRC doesn't mean they are going to favor the PRC during an invasion of China. That's a soft power approach, good will easily squandered with a hostile invasion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: This project was a huge waste of funds. For it's cost we could have built a few thousand f-22's. Some models of f-35's cost as much as an f-22!
We only built about 200 f-22 because they are "so expensive". At least with the f-22 you know you have the most superior aircraft in the world. The F-35 - you have an under-powered / unreliable / low yield aircraft / with a much larger radar signature. It can do a lot of jobs and perform in many arenas so it will be a good fit for armies with small air-forces - but for the US - it's a freaking disaster project. I hope we just sell them all off put all that money into drones.
But what is the point of having thousands of F-22s when they are designed as an air superiority fighter? The F-35 is meant for an entirely different role.
Technically it is an air superiority fighter. It can carry all sorts of load-outs though. Aircraft's abilities are pretty much only limited by what kinds of weapons they can carry.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Have they actually ironed out the problems already? IIRC as late as 2015 the F-35 project was mentioned to have massive maintenance and support problems with contractors said to use "unacceptable shortcuts" to get the things in the air at all. A fighter that is as likely (or more) to kill your pilot as the enemy isn't really a good thing even if you look at it just from the point of fighting morale.
Xenomancers wrote: Technically it is an air superiority fighter. It can carry all sorts of load-outs though. Aircraft's abilities are pretty much only limited by what kinds of weapons they can carry.
Practically speaking it is as well, the F-22 was never adapted for either carrier use or air support. The F-35 is made carrier capable and can carry more ordinance. The F-22 production was stopped because it was getting way too expensive for ac more niche aircraft, with production costs still higher than that of the F-35. Programs to adapt the F-22 were cancelled because of the projected costs. Its no less likely the F-22 would have ended up an expensive mess if it needed to fulfill all the roles the F-35 has to. Plus you can actually sell the F-35.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/03 20:31:10
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
I'm not sure if I'd say there's no pro-PRC individuals. I was listening to NPR and they had a really interesting piece about China building investment sites with research/production facilities and capital to attract Taiwanese youth. It seems to be working and they have a lot of pro-China/pro-reunification stuff built in (for ex. Taiwanese citizens can take advantage of these places because they're considered Chinese by the PRC etc).
if nothing else it's going to put a drain on Taiwanese entrepreneurship, but it seems like it's also a way to groom pro-PRC sentiment easily.
The fun part is, if China really wants Taiwan back this is the way for them to do it. Play the long game (and the Chinese play the long game like no one else in the world) and make the prospect of reunification a pleasant one.
I think that a lot of the Chinese rhetoric about Taiwan is just that - rhetoric. They'll talk about Taiwan being part of China because they want it back, and they don't want anyone encouraging Taiwan to go their own way. But the real goal seems to be voluntary reunification, not conquest.
Which isn't to say America should not keep a close eye on things. If China thinks they can conquer Taiwan without destroying it (why kill the goose that lays golden eggs?) they'll do it in a heartbeat. But they can read the balance of power just as well as we and the Taiwanese can, and as things stand for the immediate future, conquest will not get them what they want and they know it.
KTG17 wrote: So I have been following the development of this fighter since the beginning with a mix of excitement and dismay. We’ve all heard the negatives about this aircraft: it can’t fly, limited internal hardpoints, too expensive, jack of all trades yet superior in nothing, etc etc. Nevermind the way the US military acquired the early models. A lot of people have something to gain from the jet either failing or succeeding, so you really have to consider the source when reading the reviews. And while I was apprehensive about the F-35, it looks like it’s going to turn out to be a pretty amazing component in the US military system. Keep in mind nothing operates in a void anymore. Everything is connected and the most important weapon in the tool box is information, and this jet will not only be able to acquire it, but also help manage it and take action with it. I am starting to believe this is a really revolutionary aircraft not necessarily for what it specifically can do, but it will lay the template down for what all US aircraft will do for the foreseeable future.
I think there are rightfully some concerns, many actually, but those will be worked out. What is of great concern is how the production and assembly was divided up between multiple countries, which I think will actually play a part in how long this jet remains in service in the US military, since I have no doubt that stealing everything that makes this jet tick will be pretty easy. Eventually the Chinese and Russians will duplicate much of it. The US is already in the early stages of developing the next air superior fighter to replace the F-22, and much of the technology for that will come from what has been developed and learned from the F-35. My neighbor works for Centcom, and knows a lot about this jet, and says over all it’s an ok aircraft, maybe even a little bit of a disappointment as it won’t be everything that sold it, but the tech in it is pretty amazing.
For those that don’t know, the aircraft is still going through improvements and the software block that really unleashes the aircraft comes out next year. The frame has been built for 9gs and Lockheed has deliberately been holding it back while it continues to work out the kinks. I saw a video last night that caught my eye:
3:50 mark. That hard left turn where the plane looks like it skids, and you can see the software work the flaps before it starts going vertical is pretty cool. And this is still with the software deliberately limiting what the pilot can do. Everyone knocks this plane as one that won’t be able to dog fight, but since the pilot can see through the plane in his helmet and launch a missile at a target in another direction, I don’t think this plane will have to do that for some time. The 9gs will prob come in handy more for dodging attacks than making them.
I am all for being skeptical, but I guess more credit should have been given to Lockheed than initially was. For a company that has produced the U2, SR71, Nighthawk, and the F-22, they have a pretty impressive track record. I do think trying to build 3 jets in one design does hurt the overall design and was probably too ambitious and even foolish, but I don’t doubt the US military is going to do some impressive things with this jet. But what is going to be even more impressive is when they take everything they learned between this and the F-22 and build something really scary.
I have read they have a SR72 waiting to be built, so one can only imagine what they have lined up 20 years out. Keep in mind Have Blue flew in 77. I imagine if Kelly Johnson were still alive today, he’d have some pretty insightful thoughts on aircraft design that would still be relevant today.
EDIT: And this won’t seem like much, but using the same airframe, the F-35B comes by to say hi. To me the slowing down and hovering isn’t so much the big deal, but going back into fighter mode and flying off is pretty cool. Even tho it’s this function that has held back the plane’s overall performance.
I just don't understand, does the EA-18G do everything this plane does, at half the cost? And, I believe the EA-18G is actually flight tested and in limited service now, in fact about the only thing it can't do is match the payload of the F-35, but then again, the EA-18G has full spectrum radar jaming capabilities and the F-35, as I understand it only has single spectrum.
Vulcan wrote: Of course, if you load the F-35 up with more than four small-diameter weapons it's no longer stealthy....
Yeah... but, by then any anti-aircraft assets would be destroyed by the time the F-35s are loaded up with munitions.
At which point why bother sending an F-35? Send an A-10 or F-16 or F-15E or even a BUFF, and carry a lot more ordinance for significantly less operational cost per ton delivered.
The F-35 - or something like it - is absolutely needed for dealing with air defenses. But once the air defenses are dealt with, non-stealthy bomb trucks are the way to go.
Surely the air force is clever enough to realise this and send an F35 to do the cunning stunts it is supposed to be good at, and something better at carrying bombs to do the bombing.
Kilkrazy wrote: Surely the air force is clever enough to realise this and send an F35 to do the cunning stunts it is supposed to be good at, and something better at carrying bombs to do the bombing.
In theory, yes. In practice, look at the continuing efforts to scrap the A-10.
Kilkrazy wrote: Surely the air force is clever enough to realise this and send an F35 to do the cunning stunts it is supposed to be good at, and something better at carrying bombs to do the bombing.
In theory, yes. In practice, look at the continuing efforts to scrap the A-10.
What you mean that vehicle that is only still used because of the lack of AA defense of the enemies we are fighting?
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Co'tor Shas wrote: What you mean that vehicle that is only still used because of the lack of AA defense of the enemies we are fighting?
Yep. And in a world where the only plausible wars are ones against enemies with no AA defenses the A-10 is a valuable tool with much lower operating costs than the alternatives. If we aren't going to take the A-10's role seriously enough to build a proper replacement then the A-10 needs to stay in service.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Kilkrazy wrote: Surely the air force is clever enough to realise this and send an F35 to do the cunning stunts it is supposed to be good at, and something better at carrying bombs to do the bombing.
In theory, yes. In practice, look at the continuing efforts to scrap the A-10.
What you mean that vehicle that is only still used because of the lack of AA defense of the enemies we are fighting?
I think you're slightly underestimating the A-10's capability to say "feth you" to AA defenses.
That was a direct hit from a missile, aircraft made it home just fine.
Took 450 hits from an AA gun.
Severe engine damage, and hydraulics nearly shot out, and still flew back.
It's an aircraft explicitly designed to take damage, and keep flying. It's been baptized in plenty of AA fire, and has acquitted itself better then any other aircraft out there.
Co'tor Shas wrote: What you mean that vehicle that is only still used because of the lack of AA defense of the enemies we are fighting?
Yep. And in a world where the only plausible wars are ones against enemies with no AA defenses the A-10 is a valuable tool with much lower operating costs than the alternatives.
We aren't going to war with China anytime soon, but it's only a matter of time before out meddling in the middle east gets us involved in another war. in 1991 that cost us 5 planes. And the A-10 hasn't gotten any better and not getting shot down. Where as their ability to shoot them down has increased dramatically
If we aren't going to take the A-10's role seriously enough to build a proper replacement then the A-10 needs to stay in service.
You mean close air support? Advances in precision guided weaponry means CAS vehicles don't need to be "low and slow".
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
If we aren't going to take the A-10's role seriously enough to build a proper replacement then the A-10 needs to stay in service.
You mean close air support? Advances in precision guided weaponry means CAS vehicles don't need to be "low and slow".
Everyone in the military, outside of the Fighter Jocks* at the top of the Air Force disagrees with you.
*Generals raised through the ranks in an F-16/F-15 who have never been in an A-10, and never truly served the "real" CAS role that the A-10 does. Ask any ground pounder who they'd rather have providing their CAS, an F-15, or an A-10, and your answer will 10 times out of 10 be the A-10.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/05 01:58:30
Kilkrazy wrote: Surely the air force is clever enough to realise this and send an F35 to do the cunning stunts it is supposed to be good at, and something better at carrying bombs to do the bombing.
In theory, yes. In practice, look at the continuing efforts to scrap the A-10.
What you mean that vehicle that is only still used because of the lack of AA defense of the enemies we are fighting?
I think you're slightly underestimating the A-10's capability to say "feth you" to AA defenses.
Spoiler:
That was a direct hit from a missile, aircraft made it home just fine.
Took 450 hits from an AA gun.
Severe engine damage, and hydraulics nearly shot out, and still flew back.
It's an aircraft explicitly designed to take damage, and keep flying. It's been baptized in plenty of AA fire, and has acquitted itself better then any other aircraft out there.
It's tough, it ain't *that* tough. There's a reason it doesn't come out until after any enemy aircraft and SAM sites have been dealt with.
But regardless, why send a pilot, when a drone does just as good as job.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Co'tor Shas wrote: We aren't going to war with China anytime soon, but it's only a matter of time before out meddling in the middle east gets us involved in another war. in 1991 that cost us 5 planes. And the A-10 hasn't gotten any better and not getting shot down. Where as their ability to shoot them down has increased dramatically.
Another war, but against who? Who in the middle east has a sufficient air defense network to survive the initial air strikes targeting it and continue to operate through the years of mopping up random "military age males" with AK-47s and suicide bombs? We've already seen how this works, the high-intensity fighting lasts for a few days until the organized military is destroyed and then we spend years pretending to be a police force with bigger guns against targets that can't shoot back.
Also, a whole five planes? TBH, who cares? That's five people dead, at most. Cost of doing business, there's no point in spending obscene piles of cash to save that few lives. Throw a bunch of expendable A-10s or A-10 equivalents at the problem and accept the losses.
You mean close air support? Advances in precision guided weaponry means CAS vehicles don't need to be "low and slow".
They don't need to, but they certainly want to, or at least the slow part. Going fast costs money, both in initial purchase price and operating costs. The viable replacement for the A-10 is the various cheap and simple turboprop aircraft with a couple of hardpoints bolted on, not a supersonic fighter jet with $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ costs attached.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
1750 pts Blood Specters
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
