It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can China Invade Taiwan?

page: 67
1
<< 64  65  66    68  69  70 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 01:17 AM
link   
hehe..he goes on to toilet paper because he can't really contribute on anything else...Its no big deal really..for me its like a kid throwing a temper tantrum!!




posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 01:27 AM
link   
China can very well invade taiwan,but thats not what it wants,wait for the political side to become clear.The US is against Taiwan's independence,but if China invades,the US will defend Taiwan.

proteinx:
You are kind of a shame to China,flaming people with nonsense when you have no argument.



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 01:29 AM
link   
And oh yes,China does not want to "control" Taiwan,it wants Taiwan to be part of China,something like Hong Kong,Taiwan will belong to China but still have its own rules and democracy.



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by engineer

Originally posted by ATSTT
China has one of the powerful military in the world. The modern military of China matches that of the US, with better weaponry and technology.

Lol, how old are you?

China has no Bluewater Navy.
China's Airforce is outdated.
China's missile capabilities are questionable.
China's land forces are outdated.
China has a huge infantry, which has to be equipped, trained, fed, etc.
China has no expeditionary capability.

Technologically, China is 15-20 years behind the west wrt military.

I am not bashing China, but your statement is pretty outlandish, to say the least.






ARE YOU RETARDED?!?!?! Get your facts straight before you make a fool out of yourself. No Blut Water navy? No expeditionary capability? Outdated military? Do a little Google search or something! Here's a website to disapprove all that you have said:
www.sinodefence.com



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 04:56 PM
link   
actually in terms of missile technology China is one of the most advanced countries in the world with some of the best trained operators.

can't say the same for the rest of the armed forces though
... though the navy has performed well in the past



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATSTT

Originally posted by engineer

Originally posted by ATSTT
China has one of the powerful military in the world. The modern military of China matches that of the US, with better weaponry and technology.

Lol, how old are you?

China has no Bluewater Navy.
China's Airforce is outdated.
China's missile capabilities are questionable.
China's land forces are outdated.
China has a huge infantry, which has to be equipped, trained, fed, etc.
China has no expeditionary capability.

Technologically, China is 15-20 years behind the west wrt military.

I am not bashing China, but your statement is pretty outlandish, to say the least.






ARE YOU RETARDED?!?!?! Get your facts straight before you make a fool out of yourself. No Blut Water navy? No expeditionary capability? Outdated military? Do a little Google search or something! Here's a website to disapprove all that you have said:
www.sinodefence.com


Engineer is not "retarded". China doesnt have a blue water navy (yet): China cannot power project with her navy far from home like for example the US.

From your own recommended link:


From Sinodefence
... The PLA Navy has been reportedly seeking to acquire an aircraft carrier force as a part of its ambition to achieve a blue-water naval capability for over a decade.
www.sinodefence.com...



See other sources, e.g. :
www.globalsecurity.org...

Blobber


[edit on 15-12-2004 by Blobber]


Nox

posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by engineer
Technologically, China is 15-20 years behind the west wrt military.

I am not bashing China, but your statement is pretty outlandish, to say the least.

Oh God,

Are you really an engineer? Engineers of all people should understand the exponential growth of technology. It's not just a coincidence that every few years microprocessors have been speeding up by a factor of 2.

You're trying to rationalize on an exponential model (technological growth) with linear models? Technological growth is not time invariant.

To say that any country as large and significant as China is definitely 15-20 years behind Western military is a betrayal of ignorance.

The fact that the US already developed some of this technology that China lacks ALREADY contributes to China's development of that technology. Inventions and technologies are MUCH easier to implement when given concrete protocols and postconditions. You of all people, an engineer, should know that. I don't even have to mention reverse engineering, which presently is legal (even in America).

Just because the it took the US 20 years to develop some technology does NOT mean China will take as long. It's always more difficult to be first. It takes much less energy to catch up to first place.

[edit on 15-12-2004 by Nox]



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nox

Originally posted by engineer
Technologically, China is 15-20 years behind the west wrt military.

I am not bashing China, but your statement is pretty outlandish, to say the least.

Oh God,

Are you really an engineer? Engineers of all people should understand the exponential growth of technology. It's not just a coincidence that every few years microprocessors have been speeding up by a factor of 2.

You're trying to rationalize on an exponential model (technological growth) with linear models? Technological growth is not time invariant.

To say that any country as large and significant as China is definitely 15-20 years behind Western military is a betrayal of ignorance.

The fact that the US already developed some of this technology that China lacks ALREADY contributes to China's development of that technology. Inventions and technologies are MUCH easier to implement when given concrete protocols and postconditions. You of all people, an engineer, should know that. I don't even have to mention reverse engineering, which presently is legal (even in America).

Just because the it took the US 20 years to develop some technology does NOT mean China will take as long. It's always more difficult to be first. It takes much less energy to catch up to first place.

[edit on 15-12-2004 by Nox]


Engineer shown mariad amounts of ignorant statements in his previous posts. Read his posts in the Aircraft forum and you'll see.

True that China lacks operational CVNs but CVNs are not top priority in China's needs. To better achieve its goals, airforce, submarine and SAM sites and equipments are more important than CVNs and carriers without enough protection is simply a sitting target worth quite a lot of money and lives. China's top priority is Taiwan, and Taiwan requires no carriers. Fighters and bombers can easily cross the gulf in minutes of time (around 20 if the figher is flying at 600-700 kilometers per hour). In case of WWIII if it should ever happen then the first thing China shall do is equip its carriers bought for study until better ones can be built.



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 07:08 PM
link   
China's military does not match that of the U.S.'s at the current moment; as to how advanced their military tech is, it depends on how you look at it. Some of their new, small boats and ships probably have far more advanced technology in terms of electronics and computers on them then the U.S. military's ships had in the 1980s (not sure though); however, the Chinese Navy still isn't as strong as the U.S. Navy was in the 1980s. The majority of China's battletanks still wouldn't even match up against the 1980s versions of the M1 Abrams tanks the U.S. had, and China has no forward power projection yet, as stated above.

In terms of aircraft, the avionics in China's aircraft are probably equal to what the U.S. had in the 1980s I'd guess; maybe more so even, but they are still behind what is currently in the U.S. planes. Maneuverability-wise though, their planes are (the Sukhoi ones anyhow) are damn good.

As for Taiwan and Hong Kong, China is already messing around with the democratic type of stuff in Hong Kong. China should just leave Taiwan alone I say. They need to get over it. Taiwan formed from anti-Communist people 50 years or so ago, it is a new country. You can say what you want on paper, but those people are not part of China. They are Taiwanese, not Chinese.

The only reason China wants Taiwan is because it will remove part of the United States Pacific air capability and provide China with that, as well as a forward island, so they cna then be a pain to Japan.

The stinker is the U.S. military is thinking of working jointly with Japan to have a base only like 40 miles away from Taiwan, because the U.S.'s Okinawa base is being heavily critisized and the Japanese don't like it there. At the same time, however, they don't want the U.S. completely desert the area, especially with China becoming more powerful and wanting Taiwan.

So I mean IF Taiwan does fall to China, that is going to be pretty intense, if there is a U.S.-Japanese fighter plane base 40 or so miles right off of Taiwan.



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hawkssss
I will take the honor of having reply no. 1000.

The americans will tell you it's about liberty and freedom while the truth is containment of a potential rival.


What's wrong with that?



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 07:24 PM
link   
It is more likely that China will invade Pakistan and Russia will invade Iran.


Nox

posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Broadsword20068

Originally posted by Hawkssss
I will take the honor of having reply no. 1000.

The americans will tell you it's about liberty and freedom while the truth is containment of a potential rival.


What's wrong with that?


Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with it, but Hawkssss is just trying to detail the truth to Taiwanese.

I too think Americans don't care about Taiwanese independence unless there's something to be gained or lost. Just look at Tibet. I don't see the American population rising in uproar about that.
I don't see American media garnering support for Tibet independence.

I guess I'm insensitive enough to say I see nothing wrong with a country with self-interests.

However, I'm seriously hoping some of my friends in Taiwan see this for the truth. A lot of them still believe America values freedom above everything else.



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Actually that is a very good observation by Hawkssss, but it is not just about containment.

It is about China realizing that being a superpower has no real meaning in today's world as the US plays the 'Poster Child' for the role of 'SuperPower' status(which doesn't effect the US because the American people will put the brakes on world domination attempts by our government, not like Nazi Germany) , and being a player according to it's abilities would be in China's, China's peoples best interests.

That is the aim.




[edit on 12/15/2004 by bodebliss]


Nox

posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 11:19 PM
link   
Enough about Chinese expansionism.

All of that is just ridiculous.

These days it's nearly impossible to take over a country without HEAVY media manipulation and propaganda to cover up the facts. The US could afford to attack Iraq and get away with it because it has the strongest media in the world (and even THEN it still antagonized the rest of the world).

Chinese, affecting the thoughts and the opinions of the rest of the world as they covertly absorb Asian countries around them? Don't make me laugh, nearly all of Asia would be alarmed at the slightest military action by China. There's no way China has the slightest possibility of shining a positive light on Chinese aggression the same way America does for its own aggression. In effect, if China started absorbing Taiwan, Mongolia, Korea, Vietnam, etc, etc, don't you think the rest of the world would NOTICE? How does China even have the resources to govern these other countries (who will obviously all be hostile to China even after being conquered)?

America, after taking over a country can still have the claim of wanting to improve the country, and providing the country "freedom". What guarantees does China have? None. It would need to maintain constant surveillance over its colonies.

An imperialistic China is very unlikely right now.

Besides which, I already pointed out numerous times the fallacy of comparing China to Nazi Germany. Nazi Germany, before WW2 was destitute and on the verge of break. China's on the rise.

[edit on 15-12-2004 by Nox]



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nox

Originally posted by Broadsword20068

Originally posted by Hawkssss
I will take the honor of having reply no. 1000.

The americans will tell you it's about liberty and freedom while the truth is containment of a potential rival.


What's wrong with that?


Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with it, but Hawkssss is just trying to detail the truth to Taiwanese.

I too think Americans don't care about Taiwanese independence unless there's something to be gained or lost. Just look at Tibet. I don't see the American population rising in uproar about that.
I don't see American media garnering support for Tibet independence.

I guess I'm insensitive enough to say I see nothing wrong with a country with self-interests.

However, I'm seriously hoping some of my friends in Taiwan see this for the truth. A lot of them still believe America values freedom above everything else.


Finally, a mind I can have a civilized conversation with. I too agree that the United States has it's own agenda (look at Iraq). Nobody is blind to that fact. However, as Taiwanese see it, the U.S.'s Taiwan Agenda (Defining power in the South Asian Region through Taiwan) seems to be a shield for Taiwanese, so we won't argue with it.

So I guess their alterior motive is in line with the interests of Taiwanese people. So we just sit back and don't complain. I don't preach "American Freedom" as the reason the U.S. would protect Taiwan, but I do love the freedoms. We have been separated for over 50 years now and we have come to enjoy our way of life. You can call it freedom, you can call it democracy, or you can call it an old habit, but whatever you call it we sure do love it and as all humans do, will resist change. So China might invade Taiwan and "reclaim" it, but I anticipate MANY decades of instability. The one country two systems is falling apart in Hong Kong so I don't know how well it would fare in Taiwan.

There is no doubt that Taiwan developed very well even for a fledgling democracy, and there is no doubt that China is now a rapidly growing capitalistic country. But it's just that. Capitalistic. Money.... Doesn't equate to human freedoms. I guess if China were more like America the Taiwanese wouldn't have reservations about reuniting. You have to look at the root cause of why Taiwanese don't want to reunite. A change in the way of life, and in our view.... for the worse. Now who in their right mind would want that? If Taiwan were just a bunch of villages and China was a democratic super power, then that would be a change for the better. See the difference?

Of course if that were the case I AM WILLING TO BET that China wouldn't make such a big issue out of reunification, as they could have EASILY chased the nationalists across the straight right into Taiwan and take them out during the communist revolution 50 years ago.

My two cents.



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 11:38 PM
link   
If China were to concentrate on improving the situation in China. Increasing democratic institutions, someday the opportunistic Taiwanese will join them.

My guess, at the current rate of improvement, is in 50 years they may get back together.

China should not rush the gate. This only makes the Taiwanese feel China is not ready.


Nox

posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by bodebliss
China should not rush the gate. This only makes the Taiwanese feel China is not ready.


100% agreement



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 12:18 AM
link   
Actually, when I said, "What's wrong with that?" I meant, "What's wrong with containing a potential threat?"

As for freedom, it is not the U.S.'s job to go and help every country on the Earth. Just because there are lots of struggling countries out there doesn't mean that the U.S. doesn't care about freedom. But that doesn't mean that it always does care about freedom either. When the genocides were taking place in Africa, it was by the rules of the U.N. that they were to go in and stop it. So what happens? At the U.N. conference on the genocides, EVERY COUNTRY makes sure not to use the word "genocide" because that would require a military commitment from them all. So all the countries have their own agendas too.

But I just mean I see nothing wrong with trying to keep China from attaining something that could give it any more power in the future. Never make assumptions about the future of war or what a country will do. If you can keep a country that could become a serious threat from acquiring an asset, do so.



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 12:36 AM
link   
The US cares less about containment, than it does about cooperation from major players to end conflicts and end potential threats to world peace.


Nox

posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 12:57 AM
link   
Trust me,

America is less passionate about "cooperation" as they are about "domination", particularly "American domination".

You have to admit, that is the goal of most countries if they had the opportunity.

They DO care about containment, as long as it ensures American domination. I'm fine with that, since I live in America, but I do admit that countries like China and India are being slighted.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 64  65  66    68  69  70 >>

log in

join