War for Taiwan?

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

5 minutes ago, QuarterCenturyVet said:

Do you support nuclear war for anything? 

If not for a sovereign, peace loving nation like Taiwan, then what? 

Hong Kong? 

Japan? 

Hawaii? 

Mainland USA? 

All of the blackheads in China? 

 

What??? 

 

I would chance turning 7.8B people into glass statues if it meant China was wiped from the earth. 

 

Yes. Let's have this war. Get on with it. 

 

In support of Genocide...

 

 

Edited November 14, 2020 by Enthalpic

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,537]

4 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

In support of Genocide...

 

 

I see you are finally renting a heater for that Igloo, the brain freeze is dissipating..Albiet slowly yet it is there.

[QuarterCenturyVet + 312]

15 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

In support of Genocide...

 

 

Mutually assured destruction. I would have thought a green sycophant like yourself would be giddy at the thought of gaia regaining her natural state without the human parasite. I guess not? Weird.

 

Vote for Trudeau or the NDP more though. 

[Boat + 1,315]

5 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

Makes you wonder what the "shelf life" of a A-bomb is... how many of these were made decades ago and now need to be taken apart at huge expense?

I think there is potential for a extremely high security bombs-to-energy power plant where they use the weapon grade enriched fractions.

If you just want a global kill switch one super massive hydrogen bomb would be enough.

https://www.npr.org/2013/12/11/250007526/megatons-to-megawatts-russian-warheads-fuel-u-s-power-plants

 

This may interest you. Warheads to energy.

[Wombat + 1,028]

20 hours ago, Hotone said:

The trade deficit that the US has with China is based on misleading statistics.  Some American companies like GM and Yum brands generate more sales in China than in the US, but these sales are not counted in the trade balance, since their products are made and sold in China. E.g. Apple generated $48 billion in revenue from China in 2016, mostly from the sale of iPhones. But these iPhones cannot be found in US-China bilateral trade figures. 

Instead of making products in America for export, U.S. firms compete in the world marketplace through foreign-affiliate sales, i.e. making products overseas for sales globally - and they are extremely successful with this approach.  Because of this, there is no way for China, or many other countries, to balance the merchandise trade deficit with America - unless US firms move their production home.  

If you count the US affiliate sales in China, then trade is actually balanced between the two countries.  Here it is explained on CNBC

 

One word: Jobs?????

[Wombat + 1,028]

14 hours ago, Boat said:

That was an informing video. Of course all countries should adhere to the same standard when counting trade imbalance. It would be interesting to see those numbers. You have them? Are Chinese companies in the US counted in the imbalance as well?
Now show me the video of how China is not claiming the South China Sea. 
Strength is the high road of truth and fairness. Something the US an the world are very weak at. 

The US is the guarantee of world function since WWII and its time for all countries to work towards common standards. If a country decides it’s in their best interests not to do so then trade should end with the rest of the world. Does China really want to be N Korea?

I think the answer is yes! That is precisely what they want, to be like North Korea. Just as ruthless and deadly, only on a far greater scale. They want to turn the whole world into one giant NK, with them at the centre of it. Had you not noticed?

[frankfurter + 562]

1 hour ago, Boat said:

https://www.npr.org/2013/12/11/250007526/megatons-to-megawatts-russian-warheads-fuel-u-s-power-plants

 

This may interest you. Warheads to energy.

some of us have known about this for a decade.  it is proof there is more to be gained for the peoples of this planet by cooperation than by aggression.  note; I say peoples, not the oligarchs.

[Wombat + 1,028]

13 hours ago, Uvuvwevwevwe Onyetenyevwe Ugwemuhwem Osas said:

 

They were probably tears of joy that their comrade Biden stole the US election?!?

[frankfurter + 562]

4 minutes ago, Wombat said:

I think the answer is yes! That is precisely what they want, to be like North Korea. Just as ruthless and deadly, only on a far greater scale. They want to turn the whole world into one giant NK, with them at the centre of it. Had you not noticed?

your hysteria is taking control of you.  China wants to be NK?  geez.

[Michael Sanches + 187]

On 11/12/2020 at 8:20 PM, frankfurter said:

So, you would support a nuclear war?

The Allies needed 7000 ships AND 2 floating ports to invade a much less powerful French coast on D-Day. China has neither.

Nuclear war? You mean like the nuclear war that occurred when we armed Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion?

Or, are you talking about the nuclear war that occurred when we embargoed Cuba?

Or, all the nuclear missiles exploding right now on the China/India border?

Perhaps you are talking about the nuclear war when China invaded Vietnam?

Any conflict with Taiwan will be conventual weapons only. China cannot win that way. So, war won't happen.

[frankfurter + 562]

13 minutes ago, Michael Sanches said:

The Allies needed 7000 ships AND 2 floating ports to invade a much less powerful French coast on D-Day. China has neither.

Nuclear war? You mean like the nuclear war that occurred when we armed Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion?

Or, are you talking about the nuclear war that occurred when we embargoed Cuba?

Or, all the nuclear missiles exploding right now on the China/India border?

Perhaps you are talking about the nuclear war when China invaded Vietnam?

Any conflict with Taiwan will be conventual weapons only. China cannot win that way. So, war won't happen.

The spectre of nuclear conflict is that between USA and China.  China-Taiwan would unlikely be nuclear, assuming the USA sells no nuclear weaponry to Taiwan.

This thread is about the willingness/unwillingness of Americans to start a war against China, in the event China occupies Taiwan by force. Such war may start with conventional weapons, but would become a nuclear one near instantly.  So far, the scale appears to tip heavily to the willingness side.

 

 

[Michael Sanches + 187]

23 hours ago, frankfurter said:

The spectre of nuclear conflict is that between USA and China.  China-Taiwan would unlikely be nuclear, assuming the USA sells no nuclear weaponry to Taiwan.

This thread is about the willingness/unwillingness of Americans to start a war against China, in the event China occupies Taiwan by force. Such war may start with conventional weapons, but would become a nuclear one near instantly.  So far, the scale appears to tip heavily to the willingness side.

 

 

As pointed out, China CANNOT occupy Taiwan, at least by military means. No one here has explained how that is remotely possible.

Saying, "If China were to occupy Taiwan," is no more realistic than saying, "If China were able to teach all their Panda bears to fly, make them invisible, could China take over the U.S.?" Possibly. But, I simply don't consider that within the realm of reality.

[frankfurter + 562]

1 hour ago, Michael Sanches said:

As pointed out, China CANNOT occupy Taiwan, at least by military means. No one here has explained how that is remotely possible.

Saying, "If China were to occupy Taiwan," is no more realistic than saying, "If China were able to teach all their Panda bears to fly, make them invisible, could China take over the U.S.?" Possibly. But, I simply don't consider that within the realm of reality.

I'm curious to know why you believe China could not take Taiwan. 

[Rob Plant + 2,600]

5 hours ago, frankfurter said:

I'm curious to know why you believe China could not take Taiwan. 

How do you propose they could via conventional warfare?

Taiwan is 81 miles from the coast of China and therefore China would need to amass a fleet to attempt this which would be seen instantly via satellite by the US and the West before it sailed.

China could just bomb Taiwan flat, but what would be the point? and would that constitute "taking Taiwan?"

You are also forgetting the Guam US naval base which isnt that far away which could react fairly quickly if required.

I think @Michael Sanches is spot on!

[NickW + 2,714]

5 hours ago, frankfurter said:

I'm curious to know why you believe China could not take Taiwan. 

I'm sure it could but the cost would be very high. Taiwan has a pretty formidable air force and large stockpile of Subsonic and ballistic missiles which can hit Chinas coastal cities. 

It also has a very big stockpile of artillery and anti ship missiles which would make an invasion uncomfortable. 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

42 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

How do you propose they could via conventional warfare?

Taiwan is 81 miles from the coast of China and therefore China would need to amass a fleet to attempt this which would be seen instantly via satellite by the US and the West before it sailed.

China could just bomb Taiwan flat, but what would be the point? and would that constitute "taking Taiwan?"

You are also forgetting the Guam US naval base which isnt that far away which could react fairly quickly if required.

I think @Michael Sanches is spot on!

I have never agreed with this supposition: that China could not/has not built a fleet of troop carriers capable of landing 100k men simultaneously.  It would seem quite easy to hide such production from satellite view.  From what I have read on military estimations, nobody discounts China's ability to do it.  5,000 small craft with 20 men on board each can't be that big of a hill to climb.  Just sayin.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

1 minute ago, NickW said:

I'm sure it could but the cost would be very high. Taiwan has a pretty formidable air force and large stockpile of Subsonic and ballistic missiles which can hit Chinas coastal cities. 

It also has a very big stockpile of artillery and anti ship missiles which would make an invasion uncomfortable. 

China is known for its willingness to sacrifice 100 million people and more during a nuclear attack, and you think Taiwan's capabilities bother it?

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/06/25/chinas-secret-navy-spratlys-southchinasea-chinesenavy-maritimemilitia/

 

[Rob Plant + 2,600]

2 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

China is known for its willingness to sacrifice 100 million people and more during a nuclear attack, and you think Taiwan's capabilities bother it?

I'm sure the CCP will sacrifice more if it was to their own benefit.

Forgive my ignorance in this but I just dont see what the CCP have to gain by making such a sacrifice with what amounts to be a land grab.

Whats in it for them in the long run?

Taiwan to my knowledge has no natural resource that China wants/needs, its offers no strategic advantage geographically, so what is the need to conquer it by force?

Frankfurter is asking Americans if they would go full out nuclear war over it, WHY???

[Rob Plant + 2,600]

7 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/06/25/chinas-secret-navy-spratlys-southchinasea-chinesenavy-maritimemilitia/

 

Haha Dan you post a full page article on China's "secret navy" 

Looks like its not so secret then 😂

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

18 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

I'm sure the CCP will sacrifice more if it was to their own benefit.

Forgive my ignorance in this but I just dont see what the CCP have to gain by making such a sacrifice with what amounts to be a land grab.

Whats in it for them in the long run?

Taiwan to my knowledge has no natural resource that China wants/needs, its offers no strategic advantage geographically, so what is the need to conquer it by force?

Frankfurter is asking Americans if they would go full out nuclear war over it, WHY???

I have brought the following article to the forum before for discussion.  It is an eye opener.  It shows how China could quite literally take out U.S. bases and military forces, not to mention Taiwan's defenses in the process.  Check out who the authors are, and what positions they hold and have held.  Read it and then we can chat again.

FIRST STRIKE China’s Missile Threat to U.S. Bases in Asia

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, Dan Warnick said:

China is known for its willingness to sacrifice 100 million people and more during a nuclear attack, and you think Taiwan's capabilities bother it?

When I said costly I wasn't referring to lives. I was more thinking industrial / strategic infrastructure. 

[Rob Plant + 2,600]

14 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

I have brought the following article to the forum before for discussion.  It is an eye opener.  It shows how China could quite literally take out U.S. bases and military forces, not to mention Taiwan's defenses in the process.  Check out who the authors are, and what positions they hold and have held.  Read it and then we can chat again.

FIRST STRIKE China’s Missile Threat to U.S. Bases in Asia

I will thanks!

I still come back to WHY? though

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

14 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

I will thanks!

I still come back to WHY? though

The argument is that Taiwan is much more valuable to the U.S. militarily than to China, and therefore China sees every reason to reverse the value back to their favor.  I don't know where I've stashed the well-written analysis on that, so I apologize in advance for that.  I will keep digging around and hope to find it.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

It's interesting how much Peter Zeihan got right from this presentation in 2012: