What now for Taiwan and China?

[Kagemusha]

I completely agree with you Kommodus.Lets just hope this doesnt go to it.

[BigTex]

You guys realize that war with China would mean draft in United states.And to be honest do you think drafted US troops would be any superior to conscripted Chinese troops?Also the in the US arsenal do you guys believe that the basic equipment for those drafted US troops would be anywhere near advanced to that equipment that is available to active troops in US service.I think that this will be once again more talk less action.And im glad becouse of that.

Main difference would be the tactics. With China having a 2.5 million man army I seriously doubt their infantry tactics have evolved much from Korea. And considering how much better weapons have gotten it could turn into a turkey shoot.

As for China sending off ICBM's to the US, at least we'll get to see if those ICBM interceptor missile's work on a real weapon. Or if the goverment just used the money for another bridge in Alaska.

[BDC]

I'm sure America could pay for its conscripted soldiers to have much better training and equipment than China ever could. Plus I imagine American soldiers would be far more motivated, and supported by a much better command and supply structure.

[Kagemusha]

I'm sure America could pay for its conscripted soldiers to have much better training and equipment than China ever could. Plus I imagine American soldiers would be far more motivated, and supported by a much better command and supply structure.

Im not saying that.Think it like this.If you were drafted now.You would shipped in war on wartime after aprox two months training time. Normal armies that use conscription train their citicen soldiers for 6-18 months normally.And continue training those troops after that.You just dont have much time to learn that much in that time.So it would be bootcamp and deployment after that.

[Papewaio]

What is the current Industrial output of China vs the rest of the players.

And what is it projected to be in 20 years time?

For those who are historians of WWI and II... the winner tends to have the most industrial might...

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

More likely we sink their navy, destroy their air force, starve their economy.

We won't land a boot in China, methinks. Mehopes we aren't that dumb.

[Proletariat]

...the winner tends to have the most industrial might...

Nuclear might helps too.

[Papewaio]

And it is a function of industrial might...

[Proletariat]

Didn't mean to sound contradictory, just clarifying.

[Papewaio]

Likewise

[Papewaio]

Which is why they need to be quashed quickly.

Which means if China doesn't do anything stupid it will be well on the way to upsurping USA's industrial powerbase.

So who gains from rattling sabers in China vs Taiwan. The Chinese and Taiwanese governments as they can blame others for internal problems.

But neither government would gain from an actual war. China could quite possibly find not only being on the losing end but it could set off an internal fracturing of the country. Taiwan would have at least 700 missile craters doted along the west coast and losing a chunk of its industrial capacity.

As for the chinese and taiwanese business men they would lose lots of money... particularly all the taiwanese owned factories in china...

[Papewaio]

Not quite your post showed why others may have an interest in sparking a war there:

Which is why they need to be quashed quickly.

If they are not belligerent there is no need to squash them. However this could mean going back to the dual superpower scenario. It is a bit of a longshot, but some might feel that a war now will save a lot more in the future...

[Papewaio]

Nope, if America does things in a aggresive manner without 'due cause' it will lose more face.

It really wouldn't help if USA ended up on the short side of trade sanctions or tarifs.

China really has to make the first move, and then USA can righteously bitch slap them back into position... aka Japan and Pearl Harbour.

If USA makes the first move, they will appear the aggressor. Which would mean minimal support.

No need to assert military control if you have capital ownership of the industrial base...

[Papewaio]

Why?

At some point the sheer economic prosperity of the nation is going to cause internal change... and the very need to educate the workforce will become apparent once they find that educated workers produce more and they have hit the production limit using uneducated workers...

educated workers + wealth = middle class hence social change.

That and a generation of little emperors... no way do the 4 grandparents to a single grandchild will wish to see their little emperor go off to war.

[Strike For The South]

The goal here is not democracy in China. It's American supremacy on the world stage. A democratic rival is still a rival.

That couldve been worded better now thanks to you the whole world misunderstands us

[Redleg]

Why?

At some point the sheer economic prosperity of the nation is going to cause internal change... and the very need to educate the workforce will become apparent once they find that educated workers produce more and they have hit the production limit using uneducated workers

educated workers + wealth = middle class hence social change.

That and a generation of little emperors... no way do the 4 grandparents to a single grandchild will wish to see their little emperor go off to war.

Damn I didn't see this post prior to my posting - it seems we are alreadly in agreement.

[Redleg]

Which means if China doesn't do anything stupid it will be well on the way to upsurping USA's industrial powerbase.

Yep, but unless something in thier government gives a little more, soon the cost benefit of cheap labor will be exhausated for new investment.

So who gains from rattling sabers in China vs Taiwan. The Chinese and Taiwanese governments as they can blame others for internal problems.

Correct - I need all my fingers and toes to count how many times the two have rattled the sabers in the last 10 years. Seems to me to be the opening for a new round of talks that costs the United States something to ease the rattlings between the two.

But neither government would gain from an actual war. China could quite possibly find not only being on the losing end but it could set off an internal fracturing of the country. Taiwan would have at least 700 missile craters doted along the west coast and losing a chunk of its industrial capacity.

Hince I tend to agree the sabre rattling is about something else.

[Avicenna]

Which is why they need to be quashed quickly.

With that attitude, nobody will support America: just publicly demonstrates to those who don't know what America thinks. I'm sure Chinese Americans wouldn't like this either: they all have relatives in China. Then others, like European Americans who have European relations will see that America will do this to the EU, and they won't help and eventually if this is the attitude America takes it will lose a lot of foreign and American support.

[Watchman]

Can the megalomania. The world doesn't work that simply.

[AntiochusIII]

Ah, GC, I find it contradictory, if not altogether uncommon, that libertarian isolationists can become neoconservative imperialists at the same time, even though the categories, when mixed together, create an oxymoron. But I never thought of you as one.

How, then, do you justify your support of the present-and-recent-past American supremacy on the world stage, that its upholding should come at all cost?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Upon reading what I just wrote, I think I might be a psuedo-Fascist. Whoopsie.

Oh, I don't think pseudo comes into it. You just wrote a pretty decent precis of the arguments of Mein Kampf.

Your forebears and Founding Fathers fought against an Empire that was considered the most unassailable economic/military machine in history. They won, and that empire passed away, because men are willing to die for liberty. My countrymen did the same, for 800 years. Sometimes with little more than sticks, rocks and the shining belief in freedom to be won - the most precious prize there is.

You dishonour your country, your flag and your Constitution.

[Kagemusha]

Cube i think what Haruchai is trying to say is that:The founding fathers fought against those values you are talking about.I dont think that their plan was to become something like the British Empire that lived by exploiting other areas,and i understand that British Empire didnt bring just bad things to those under it.The bottom line is do you think that in order to make lives of US citizens better you need an US hegemonia over the world.If so how much worth that kind of liberty and wellfare is if demands opression of other peoples of the world.My answer would be nothing.But thats just me.

[Banquo's Ghost]

But I did not question Liberty in what I wrote. In fact, the entire premise for it is to increase the level of Liberty in America.

You seem to think only Americans desire or deserve liberty, and that others will accept loss of freedom and subjugation because the US is currently the strongest militarily and economically. Liberty is a universal concept.

All men desire to be free. That is why the USA stands as a beacon to oppressed peoples, and has done since its founding. For a citizen of the US, who enjoys the freedom gained for him by other's blood, to advocate that other peoples are less deserving of freedom, is repulsive.

My point was that your argument of 'lesser humanity' has been used by tyrants throughout history. Not least, by the British Empire of the 18th century, which ruled the world and America by 'Divine Right and Moral Certitude'. The Empire that the Revolutionaries faced was hugely powerful, economically in control - yet did your forefathers sit wringing their hands and accept that they were 'less than true men' because they had inferior muskets?

No, of course they didn't listen to the counsel you champion. If they had followed your philosophy, the USA would not now exist as an inspiration to those who believe that no power can defeat eventual liberty. And if you think the wicked empire that you long for would not be fought against by patriots, just as the British Empire was, then I pity you.

*On the assumption, of course, that Liberty for the entire world is not a viable goal. Prove me wrong, I'd love it

I don't need to prove you wrong, history does. It's the kind of assumption a mullah in Iran, a party leader in China or a concentration camp guard would make to justify their behaviour. From an American, it is an abomination. But one that the Romans, the Mongols, the Third Reich, the Soviet Union, the British and all ephemeral empires embrace at some point.

The great comfort of course, is that you don't represent your nation. Despite mistakes, the US is still the heart of freedom, and its people, in the main, desire to foster liberty in the world rather than impose it. You are the aberration, not the norm.

[Avicenna]

We wouldn't need foreign support if the people in charge would step up to the plate and assert control. Less spending on welfare crap, more spending on military. Less catering to whiny European countries who have long since proven their ingrate nature (what Marshal plan?), and more open power grabbing. I'm talking Empire, dammit. This country should be the epitome of a Republic on the inside, at the expense of everyone on the outside. If the government could prove to the people that what's good for the country is good for everyone in the country (instead of catering only to a select few within the country) then I think the American people could get behind it.

Oh, I'm sure that the other world powers can prevent any American dictatorship. Just think about what happened to Germany before.