NationStates Jolt Archive

http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=1004006&tw=wn_wire_story

Well, what do you all think? More of the same political bickering that goes nowhere, or a real change preluding a war of Chinese consolidation? What will the US do, if anything? WWIII on the horizon, yeh neh?

Personally I think this is a taste of things to come. China doing whatever the fuck it wants and everyone else sitting with their thumbs in their asses. Starting with this forum no one seems to want to realize that.

This has been china's policy for some time. All they did was make it official. They still can't pull off an invasion of Taiwan, but they're working on it.

Personally I think this is a taste of things to come. China doing whatever the fuck it wants and everyone else sitting with their thumbs in their asses. Starting with this forum no one seems to want to realize that.

Sort of like the US, eh?

This new development doesn't change anything. China and Taiwan have both been posturing warlike for the past few decades with no real effect on anything. China will probably never invade Taiwan, because Taiwan will most likely never declare independence. Instead what we will see is two mutually exclusive self-governing regimes in Mainland China and Taiwan coexisting indefinitely, neither daring to provoke the other. A war over Taiwan would be far too costly for China, Taiwan, USA, and the entire world. A war would wreck China's economy because Japan and USA will interfere on behalf of Taiwan and hurt China's exports. In turn the entire world's economy would be thrown in chaos given the interdependence of nations. Taiwan would never declare independence because any consequences may be too bloody to imagine. All the countries involved are too scared of war.

By the way, this topic has been beaten to death in many many other threads around here... this particular piece of 'anti-secession' legislation by China was announced weeks ago.

Sort of like the US, eh?

Sort of. A US with three or five times the population, a power mad communist faction, a power mad capitalist faction, a continent of nearby third world states to conquer...

I'm not trying to be a China scaremonger, but the potential is all there for... well, anything. More so than the US, because we've still got some malleability from the republican system of government.

Personally I think this is a taste of things to come. China doing whatever the fuck it wants and everyone else sitting with their thumbs in their asses. Starting with this forum no one seems to want to realize that.

Not in this case. If China attacks Taiwan, Japan and the United States will intervene. The Brits will come in on the US side as well as NATO. China would be very stupid to invade Taiwan.

Sort of. A US with three or five times the population, a power mad communist faction, a power mad capitalist faction, a continent of nearby third world states to conquer...

I'm not trying to be a China scaremonger, but the potential is all there for... well, anything. More so than the US, because we've still got some malleability from the republican system of government.

For military purposes, it's not the numbers.

It's the type of forces, and how they work together.

They don't have the ability to project power much beyond their borders. And they could only take Taiwan by destroying most of it.

It's hard to do what the US does if you lack the high-tech precision capabilities.

For military purposes, it's not the numbers.

It's the type of forces, and how they work together.

They don't have the ability to project power much beyond their borders. And they could only take Taiwan by destroying most of it.

It's hard to do what the US does if you lack the high-tech precision capabilities.

Granted, but how long does it take to develop that? With an economy on the rise I don't see that it'll be much of a problem in the mid term. This is a clear sign that they desire that kind of power projection, and are working on developing it, and that if they had it, they probably WOULD consider invading Taiwan.

As for the ramifications of the US coming to save Taiwan's ass... well let's remember, that the USA might very well be entangled in some war in the middle east. And just because it doesn't make sense to start some major war only means we'll have to wait for the "right" people in Chinese government to exert their influence, just as we had to wait for the "right" Germans to build up and deploy Nazi Germany.

Talk to any European on this forum, or any Canadian.

They would say:

The US should not interfere when China invades Taiwan, until and unless the UN Security Council authorizes any action.

Which should be never, as China is one of the Permanent Members.

They do this every year when the National Congress meets. Taiwan kicks around the idea of declaring independence, and China responds by "leaking" reports of what their plans are if Taiwan declares independence. It's all just posturing.

They do this every year when the National Congress meets. Taiwan kicks around the idea of declaring independence, and China responds by "leaking" reports of what their plans are if Taiwan declares independence. It's all just posturing.

In this case, its more real than just posturing.

Talk to any European on this forum, or any Canadian.

They would say:

The US should not interfere when China invades Taiwan, until and unless the UN Security Council authorizes any action.

Which should be never, as China is one of the Permanent Members.

I wish you weren't right but you are Whispering Legs.

They've been threatening to take military action for years now.

If I'm correct, US is legally tied to intervene and help Taiwan. (Am I right?)

Now we all know Bush.....


IMo this doesn't look good.

They've been threatening to take military action for years now.

If I'm correct, US is legally tied to intervene and help Taiwan. (Am I right?)

Now we all know Bush.....


IMo this doesn't look good.

Yes we are tied to invervene and help China. So is Japan now. If anything starts, it'll be China's fault for starting it.

In this case, its more real than just posturing.

Because they passed a bill saying they would attack Taiwan if they declared independence? That doesn't change the status quo of the region. Taiwan always knew that China would invade if they declared independence. This changes nothing except now it is official. And it's really just a ploy by China to scare away any ideas of Taiwanese independence talks.

They've been threatening to take military action for years now.

If I'm correct, US is legally tied to intervene and help Taiwan. (Am I right?)

Now we all know Bush.....


IMo this doesn't look good.


To borrow a pet phrase from those who claim to be European and Canadian on this forum, "The US, if it interferes anywhere overseas without a resolution from the UN Security Council, will be committing an illegal act of war."

Since China is a Permanent Member of the Security Council, and would veto any action, the US cannot take any action.

Or so it would seem...

Because they passed a bill saying they would attack Taiwan if they declared independence? That doesn't change the status quo of the region. Taiwan always knew that China would invade if they declared independence. This changes nothing except now it is official. And it's really just a ploy by China to scare away any ideas of Taiwanese independence talks.

I guess then it hasn't done much good considering they're still talking about it.

I guess then it hasn't done much good considering they're still talking about it.

What does that mean? Do you believe Taiwan will actually declare independence?

Talk to any European on this forum, or any Canadian.

They would say:

The US should not interfere when China invades Taiwan, until and unless the UN Security Council authorizes any action.

Which should be never, as China is one of the Permanent Members.

I'm European, British. I thin if a sovereign country is invaded then it is the rest of the worlds duty to respond and defend it. I think Iraq should have been left to the UN though. But if Taiwan was invaded then the rest of the world should step in.

Talk to any European on this forum, or any Canadian.

They would say:

The US should not interfere when China invades Taiwan, until and unless the UN Security Council authorizes any action.

Which should be never, as China is one of the Permanent Members.

What a nice generalisation you have come up with there! As a European myself, I would say that the US is bound to help Taiwan, and should do, if it is ever invaded by China.

I am sick and tired of people like you generalising against anyone who is not American.

I'm European, British. I thin if a sovereign country is invaded then it is the rest of the worlds duty to respond and defend it. I think Iraq should have been left to the UN though. But if Taiwan was invaded then the rest of the world should step in.
Taiwan isn't universaly regarded as a soverign country. It would be a convenient cop-out for many nations to simply ignore a Chinese invasion on the grounds that they think Taiwan is simply a breakaway Chinese province.

I'm European, British. I thin if a sovereign country is invaded then it is the rest of the worlds duty to respond and defend it. I think Iraq should have been left to the UN though. But if Taiwan was invaded then the rest of the world should step in.
Not if we're to respect the authority of the United Nations.

Of course the US should help Taiwan, and as a European I find it offensive when people say we all bow down slavishly to the UN on international matters.

Bah. Taiwan and China say this every year. It's just the leaders saying what the people want to hear. If they didn't say it, they'd lose face. It doesn't mean anything's going to happen though.

People who talk about war over Taiwan have unrealistic expectations about the political and military situation in China and Taiwan. This may stem from an ignorance about the actual facts and happenings in that part of the world. Nothing has changed and the status quo will be preserved for a long long time. Token political threats and even little military exercises have been carried out by both China and Taiwan for years without effect. War is far too heavy a price to pay and would destablize both Taiwan and China. If China's economy fails due to American manipulations, the government will fall because economic growth is the only thing that allows the Chinese Communist Party to hold power... the mainland people are definitely not unquestingly loyal to the CCP. War is a lose-lose situation for everyone. This so called anti-Secession law is just another move in the games both sides are used to playing. One side makes a threat and the other side will give some tiny symbolic concessions. In response to the Secession law Taiwanese President Chen Shui Bian publically committed to reunification with China, although he stated that the mainland must first have democracy and economic conditions similar to Taiwan. This reminds me of the Taiwan Strait missile crisis a few years ago, when Taiwan strongly reaffirmed its democratic principles in the national election China had no choice but to acknowledge that their missile tests could not intimidate Taiwan to embrace immediate reunification. This sort of piecemeal give-and-take can sustain peace for a long time, so don't expect any WWIII to arise from the Taiwan situation.

Of course the US should help Taiwan, and as a European I find it offensive when people say we all bow down slavishly to the UN on international matters.

I believe that was the criticism offered to US activity without the benefit of a Security Council resolution.

People who talk about war over Taiwan have unrealistic expectations about the political and military situation in China and Taiwan. This may stem from an ignorance about the actual facts and happenings in that part of the world. Nothing has changed and the status quo will be preserved for a long long time. Token political threats and even little military exercises have been carried out by both China and Taiwan for years without effect. War is far too heavy a price to pay and would destablize both Taiwan and China. If China's economy fails due to American manipulations, the government will fall because economic growth is the only thing that allows the Chinese Communist Party to hold power... the mainland people are definitely not unquestingly loyal to the CCP. War is a lose-lose situation for everyone. This so called anti-Secession law is just another move in the games both sides are used to playing. One side makes a threat and the other side will give some tiny symbolic concessions. In response to the Secession law Taiwanese President Chen Shui Bian publically committed to reunification with China, although he stated that the mainland must first have democracy and economic conditions similar to Taiwan. This piecemeal give-and-take can sustain peace for a long time, so don't expect any WWIII to arise from the Taiwan situation.


Dude, all of that just to say I'm ignorant?

It CAN sustain peace... it CAN also lead to a rise of hostilities and war. You don't know the future, nor do I. This is something to watch out for. And my point wasn't so much about Taiwan as it was about China. Replace Taiwan with... I don't know, Tibet - and you have the same situation as described in my second post. Just because the light burns long does not mean it's going to be a mild campfire.

Dude, all of that just to say I'm ignorant?
All of that to fill people in about what's going on. I'm not just going to accuse people of not knowing something without telling them what they are missing, you know. There are lots of people who focus on attack subs, nukes, and the like without even knowing the name of Taiwan's president, his policies, or any background information about this situation. Past evidence and present circumstances strongly suggest that war is highly unlikely. And these circumstances include political and economic ones, not just military.

It CAN sustain peace... it CAN also lead to a rise of hostilities and war. You don't know the future, nor do I. This is something to watch out for. And my point wasn't so much about Taiwan as it was about China. Replace Taiwan with... I don't know, Tibet - and you have the same situation as described in my second post. Just because the light burns long does not mean it's going to be a mild campfire.
Definitely, though I'm not betting on China to be hyperaggressive. The government has a unsound base of following among the people, and ordinary CHinese people are not going to be willing to risk massive casualties for campaigns in other parts of Asia that would most likely end up in utter failure, just like China's bloody and failed invasion of Vietnam in 1979.

Or so it would seem...

Precisely. :D

One thing I like/dislike about Bush is that he's not the type that would like to negotiate and make buddy buddy with everybody.

If China Goes to war with Taiwan, and Clinton was in Presidency, you can almost bet your life on it, that US is going to sit quite and talk it over while China overruns Taiwan.

Not too sure about Bush.

What does that mean? Do you believe Taiwan will actually declare independence?

Push comes to shove, yes they will.

Push comes to shove, yes they will.
There is no incentive for Taiwan to declare independence. All that would bring is hardship and war. Taiwan is doing very well for itself now, and there's no reason to ruin good times.

Push comes to shove, yes they will.

China won't be the one pushing, though. If there's a "push", it will be Taiwan provoking China by declaring independence. There is no reason to declare independence except to intentionally provoke China. The status quo is an independent Taiwan in all but name. What reason would they have to declare independence officially?

Taiwan should take china by complete surprise and invade the mainland. Nobody would expect that.

All the talk about what the U.S. would or should do if Taiwan declares independence fails to recongnize that the American military is not ready for anything more than a few brush fire wars against the Iraqs of the world. Its military is not the burgeoning machine it was even in the Reagan era, and I blame the fairly recent decision to downsize the miltary from a win-win policy to win-hold policy.

The U.S. can go in and bully small countries without much of a military infrastructure, but when faced with a country that's at least reasonably close to it in military strength, it will have mega problems.

What the U.S. should be doing is increasing the strength of its military, improve its equipment and hardware to make it the best in the world, and then deal with China by conducting military exercises aimed at repulsing an invision of Taiwan.

Besides that, if I were President, I would tell Congress that I want China's most favored nation status revoked. I would even start making noises about expelling the Chinese ambassador and recalling the American ambassador.

We should just drop a few nukes on the mainland and be done with it.

No! You need a UN resolution for that.

No! You need a UN resolution for that.

See? I told you a European would show up and say we had to have a committee meeting before taking any action to save Taiwan.

By their way, Taiwan would be a smoulering radioactive ruin with no inhabitants while we discussed it in the Security Council.

And of course, the Chinese would veto.

See? I told you a European would show up and say we had to have a committee meeting before taking any action to save Taiwan.

By their way, Taiwan would be a smoulering radioactive ruin with no inhabitants while we discussed it in the Security Council.

And of course, the Chinese would veto.

We actually talked about this in my Intro the Global Politics class. It was interesting. What if China boycotts the UN Vote? After all, the USSR did when the North Koreans invaded the South. Not to mention, TAIWAN was the permament member and not Mainland China.

Frankly, US has the ability to project its naval and air strength in the region so we can mess up China badly and stall them till help for Taiwan comes because no one will wait for a UN Resolution to help.

China won't boycott the UN vote.
The Soviets never forgot how stupid that was.

UN action against China is impossible, by design.

I think Taiwan should remain part of China for now. Then once the Communist Party loses power(20-30 years) and a more peaceful government is in place it would be possible to declare independance. But at that point would it really be neccessary?

See? I told you a European would show up and say we had to have a committee meeting before taking any action to save Taiwan.

By their way, Taiwan would be a smoulering radioactive ruin with no inhabitants while we discussed it in the Security Council.

And of course, the Chinese would veto.


That was sarcasm, irony, a joke if you want. Have a sense of humor for God’s sake.

The thing is (as I understand) that the opposition party in Taiwan wants to officially declare independence. It all depends on the next election.

The press release was a release in prep for war. It reminded me so much of the Bush administration's releases before the war in Iraq.

The thing is (as I understand) that the opposition party in Taiwan wants to officially declare independence. It all depends on the next election.

The press release was a release in prep for war. It reminded me so much of the Bush administration's releases before the war in Iraq.
Opposition parties claim to support Taiwanese independence but this is only so they can have a point of contention with the ruling party, not because the opposition is sincerely interested in independence. If a pro-independence opposition party is voted in, they will have to realistically re-evaluate their positions since any bold statements concerning independence could bring trouble to the country. This has already happened with the current ruling party, which used to be strongly pro-independence but has had to change once it became the national government. Likewise, the current main opposition party, KMT, used to be strongly pro-unification and would revert to this position if voted in.

Not in this case. If China attacks Taiwan, Japan and the United States will intervene. The Brits will come in on the US side as well as NATO. China would be very stupid to invade Taiwan.

Two things.

One: The US would most likely NOT step up to the plate. They are fine with small regimes... but I doubt they would offer anything more than token aid... like weapons to the insurgents AFTER the Chinese invasion.

That's the profile so far... look at the former Soviet Union.

Two: The US would be incredibly hypocritical to go to war against ANY other nation for 'refusing the right' to secede....

As scary, terrible, and interesting as that is. I know I will be volunteering instead of getting drafted. ( I am American....)

by the way, we have any Chinese in the General forum?

Two things.

One: The US would most likely NOT step up to the plate. They are fine with small regimes... but I doubt they would offer anything more than token aid... like weapons to the insurgents AFTER the Chinese invasion.

Doubtful! US is obligated to assist Taiwan and Japan is obligated too. That goes with a security pact that was signed in regards to Taiwan. The US will do whatever it can to stop the Chinese invasion. So will Japan and NATO.

That's the profile so far... look at the former Soviet Union.

Different time, different sort of circumstances.

Two: The US would be incredibly hypocritical to go to war against ANY other nation for 'refusing the right' to secede....

How?

I doubt that China would ever attempt a hostile takeover of Taiwan. If China ever were to re-incorporate Taiwan, it would probably be something similar to what they did with Hong-Kong. The Taiwanese government is planning to write a new constitution in 2008 I believe, and I bet that this new Chinese law was made just to make sure that Taiwan doesn't try to declare independence.

How?
United States Civil War 1861-1865

United States Civil War 1861-1865

Did you know that Britain and France was going to help the Confederate States of America?

Did you know that we and NATO assisted Kosovo? Was that hypocritical? Did you know that the US itself Seceded from the British Empire? France helped us too. We have an agreement with Taiwan to come to her aide in the event that China decides to invade Taiwan. Japan signed an agreement with the US to do the same.

Also, did you know that the Confederate States started the war? They also had their own government, Constitution, Army, and Currency. So was it really a civil war or a war between two soveriegn states?

Well first of UN approval. Of course you can intervine in another country without a approval if you can back it up. For example if you go in and defend a soverign country under atack or you defend during a genocie. Like for exampel the Kosovo action that didn't have UN mandate but was seen as a sucess and got little criticism.

But if you for example atacks a country on ground of wmd but don't find any, you kill thousands of people in the process including civilians, have very hard time to establish rule of law and defend the lifes of civilians and the property almost two years after the atack and all of this without a UN mandate, you can expect to get some criticism.

Then it comes to Taiwan status was it formed by the old dictaturship, that took over the Chines Island Taiwan that has been before taking by Japan but giving back after the second world war. There the Taiwanesien dictatorship seemed to become more democratic then China and finally democratic. Therefore I think it's good that Taiwan don't become a part of China until China is democratic. And even then I think it should be up to the people to decide. But at the same time democratic or not it easy to see why China wants to keep the China together, it is a desire of most nationstates to keep the teritory together, look just at Lincon and the American civil war. So the best thing is maybee just stick to the middle road there Taiwan is formally apart of China but in reallity have indipidence.

And if you check it out in CIA worldfactbook or some where else you can see that Taiwan is getting more and more dependent on trade with China, while China don't have the same dependency. So it may just be enough for China to threathen with a tradewar, if Taiwan want to have a real indipendence. And at the same time it is very hard to see China wanting to take over Taiwan or have the ability. So therefore it is pretty likely that Taiwan will still be apart of China officially but in reallity have ther indipence like today.

I do not see how that is hypocritical. The U.S. seceded from an Empire that was pushing quite a bit on it(the U.S.). We came out for the better after we seceded, look at what we have done (both good and terrible)

I do not see how that is hypocritical. The U.S. seceded from an Empire that was pushing quite a bit on it(the U.S.). We came out for the better after we seceded, look at what we have done (both good and terrible)

Actually - i don't think a colony can 'secede'... what the US did was form an insurgency against what they perceived as an oppressive regime.

(Strange that sounds SO familiar...)

Worth noting, also - that the uprising was not a popular uprising, and MOST residents of the colony, at that point, opposed the 'revolution'.

Actually - i don't think a colony can 'secede'... what the US did was form an insurgency against what they perceived as an oppressive regime.

(Strange that sounds SO familiar...)

Worth noting, also - that the uprising was not a popular uprising, and MOST residents of the colony, at that point, opposed the 'revolution'.

Actually, we did secede. If you look at it, it was a Civil War. We just call it the War for Independence or the Revolutionary War. The Civil War is also called the 2nd American Revolution or the 2nd War for Independence.

As for opposing it, thats not really true either. Most people were neutral.

Did you know that Britain and France was going to help the Confederate States of America?

Did you know that we and NATO assisted Kosovo? Was that hypocritical? Did you know that the US itself Seceded from the British Empire? France helped us too. We have an agreement with Taiwan to come to her aide in the event that China decides to invade Taiwan. Japan signed an agreement with the US to do the same.

Also, did you know that the Confederate States started the war? They also had their own government, Constitution, Army, and Currency. So was it really a civil war or a war between two soveriegn states?

First - not true... the Confederacy THOUGHT that Britain and France would support them.. and Britain ALMOST did, but managed to resolve their 'kidnapping' incidents diplomatically.

The US didn't 'secede', did it... it wasn't part of the nation. It was a colony, and it 'revolted'.

It is also only your opinion that the Confederacy started the war. Their first 'action' was firing on troops illegally stationed in sovereign territory... or do you mean they started war by seceding?

Either way... the US will not put troops in Taiwan the minute it 'secedes'... and it will not put troops in Taiwan if Taiwan opens fire on Chinese troops in Taiwan... Neither parralel applies. Would you even say that Taiwan doing either of those thigs was Taiwan 'starting the war'?

As far as I'm concerned, the so-called Civil War WAS a war between sovereign powers.. the Southern States being illegally invaded for attempting to secede from Northern Tyranny.

Actually, we did secede. If you look at it, it was a Civil War. We just call it the War for Independence or the Revolutionary War. The Civil War is also called the 2nd American Revolution or the 2nd War for Independence.

As for opposing it, thats not really true either. Most people were neutral.

No - incorrect, I'm afraid.

A Civil War is a war between two factions of a single nation - either geographical sections, or political 'sections'. The American 'war of independence' was a revolution perhaps.. maybe even a secession... but not a civil war.

Doubtful! US is obligated to assist Taiwan and Japan is obligated too. That goes with a security pact that was signed in regards to Taiwan. The US will do whatever it can to stop the Chinese invasion. So will Japan and NATO.


Security Pact or not, I don't see that America would dare to oppose China directly, in the theatre of war.

They have carefully pussy-footed around Korea for years, for just that reason.

In either circumstances, the loses would be tragic. Taiwan could just hit the three gourges dam, which will basically destroy all tech for China. Yet Taiwan's expected stand is around...5 days (ironically, longer than france's during WW2).

It doesn't matter. China will never invade Taiwan as long as Americans are there. Yes, our army is war torn. But we got 3000 navy ships in 9 months after pearl harbor. You have to remember, America has already proved itself to make a ton of shit in a small amount of time.

Taiwan really should have it's own independence. I mean, the only reason to take over Taiwan, is to attack China. And nobody wants Taiwan. Maybe except Japan, since Taiwan has the largest semiconductor market. And we all know Japan hates China.

I say, let them seceed. If your going to fight, I'll be first in line for the draft.


Oh, and Japan REALLY wants Taiwan to not be a part of China. Were talking China, who already has a really large trade thingy going on, getting the next largest one when it comes to electronics. Japan will be pissed. America will attack. Why? There's a fleet there. And Americans dont like loosing ships.

Ah, and you chinese people, do you actually see a value in Taiwan?

First - not true... the Confederacy THOUGHT that Britain and France would support them.. and Britain ALMOST did, but managed to resolve their 'kidnapping' incidents diplomatically.

True but Britain did have eyes into helping the Confederate States. They didn't because of 1. Slavery and 2. Gettysburg.

The US didn't 'secede', did it... it wasn't part of the nation. It was a colony, and it 'revolted'.

You can make a case that we did. After all, the Colonial Government was formed (that'll be the 1st and 2nd Continental Congress) and it was in the 2nd one when a Declaration of Independence was written and approved. So you can make a case that we did secede from the British Empire.

It is also only your opinion that the Confederacy started the war. Their first 'action' was firing on troops illegally stationed in sovereign territory... or do you mean they started war by seceding?

Did you also know that Lincoln stated to South Carolina that all he was going to do was send food down to them? There was no way that Fort Sumter posed a threat. There wasn't anything there. If there was, don't you think that the Fort would've returned fire instead of ducking for 36 hours? Yes, the South did start the war and that is a known and historical fact.

Either way... the US will not put troops in Taiwan the minute it 'secedes'... and it will not put troops in Taiwan if Taiwan opens fire on Chinese troops in Taiwan... Neither parralel applies. Would you even say that Taiwan doing either of those thigs was Taiwan 'starting the war'?

How do you know that we won't put troops on the ground? We have troops in Soel South Korea AND in Okinawa Japan. We have fighters and bombers in the area that'll reach China and back. The only way Taiwan fires on Chinese forces is in Self Defense.

As far as I'm concerned, the so-called Civil War WAS a war between sovereign powers.. the Southern States being illegally invaded for attempting to secede from Northern Tyranny.

Not bad. You actually saw which direction I was going. That is why I continue to bring up the Civil War when discussing military history. It literally changed the art of war.

No - incorrect, I'm afraid.

A Civil War is a war between two factions of a single nation - either geographical sections, or political 'sections'. The American 'war of independence' was a revolution perhaps.. maybe even a secession... but not a civil war.

Then in that case, you just negated my complement to you. By this logic, then the Civil War was just that! Not a war between Soveriegn powers.

Security Pact or not, I don't see that America would dare to oppose China directly, in the theatre of war.

They have carefully pussy-footed around Korea for years, for just that reason.

We can afford to pussyfoot with North Korea. We have a cease-fire with them.

As for China, yea I can see us helping Taiwan. We will too.

Calm down everyone. There is not going to be war. Taiwan isn't going to secede - it has no reason to. Taiwan is politically and economically independent... who cares if the issue of sovereignty is ambiguous? China won't attack, the US and allies won't need to do anything. All sides are fine with the status quo.

You know, Taiwan should be their own nation. They already fought a war on China's grounds, and lost.

Why do you think they're on that tiny little islands?

Yes, and theres an S. Theres like 2 islands of Taiwan.

You know, Taiwan should be their own nation. They already fought a war on China's grounds, and lost.

Why do you think they're on that tiny little islands?

Yes, and theres an S. Theres like 2 islands of Taiwan.

Taiwan=Formosa.

There is only ONE Taiwan Island. Care to point where the 2nd one is?

Taiwan=Formosa.

There is only ONE Taiwan Island. Care to point where the 2nd one is?
Taiwan has some military bases on the islands of Quemoy and Matsu just a few miles off the coast of China.

Taiwan=Formosa.

There is only ONE Taiwan Island. Care to point where the 2nd one is?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v470/RainyRaver/taiwan.gif

Heres a map of Taiwan's possessions just miles from the mainland... its a wonder that the communists have tolerated the existence of Taiwanese bases so close to their soil.
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9603/china_taiwan/19/t_beats_c/achilles.jpg

Apparently, Chiang Kai Sheck was smarter than he looked.

He not only took Taiwan, but some strategic islands. ;) :D

True but Britain did have eyes into helping the Confederate States. They didn't because of 1. Slavery and 2. Gettysburg.


There were many reasons why the UK didn't get involved... but the greatest among them was a singular refusal by the British government, to accept the South as sovereign... in the same fashion as Lincoln's North.

If those politicians that had lobbied the issue had SUCCEEDED, the UK WOULD have invaded on behalf of the Confederacy... and it came close to that, with the 'attack on British citizens'.

Luckily for the North, it was dealt with diplomatically.


You can make a case that we did. After all, the Colonial Government was formed (that'll be the 1st and 2nd Continental Congress) and it was in the 2nd one when a Declaration of Independence was written and approved. So you can make a case that we did secede from the British Empire.


Actually - if there was a 'secession', it was the point at which a Colonial Government was formed... not the point at which Independence was formally declared, I believe.


Did you also know that Lincoln stated to South Carolina that all he was going to do was send food down to them? There was no way that Fort Sumter posed a threat. There wasn't anything there. If there was, don't you think that the Fort would've returned fire instead of ducking for 36 hours? Yes, the South did start the war and that is a known and historical fact.


Fort Sumter was armed troops in sovereign territory. The value of the threat was unclear to those around Sumter, and it was KNOWN that Northern troops were moving to support Sumter (in what capacity, seems unclear).

I agree - firing on Sumter was the wrong thing to do, overall... but it was seen as unavoidable, and better than letting reinforcements bolster the ranks.

And, the issue of a foreign power holding a military fortification on sovereign land... gives a pretty good case for self defence.


How do you know that we won't put troops on the ground? We have troops in Soel South Korea AND in Okinawa Japan. We have fighters and bombers in the area that'll reach China and back. The only way Taiwan fires on Chinese forces is in Self Defense.


It seems unlikely that the US would immediately land troops when Taiwan seceded. Similarly, it seems unlikely that the US would instantly place troops if Taiwan fired shots of self-defence.

China could argue that American troops landing in a 'seceding state' were invaders, and argue that the US had initiated acts of war. It would be political suicide for the US to pre-empt Chinese aggression.


Not bad. You actually saw which direction I was going. That is why I continue to bring up the Civil War when discussing military history. It literally changed the art of war.

It's propoganda, whichever way you look at it. Your 'civil war' is my invasion... my 'terrorists' are your 'freedom fighters'.

First I've heard of those islands to be honest but everything I'm seeing online is that it is saying the Island (notice that there isn't an s?) of Taiwan.

Thats because people are ignorant.

This could be the start of something real ugly. Japan and the US have already made their concerns known. I think Japan should send part of their Maritime Defense Force aka the fourth largest navy in the world into the Taiwan Straights. This is bullshit. China says they want a unified China. They just want control of Taiwans economy. If China is allowed to continue down this road the Taiwanese people and their way of life, far superior to that of Chinese Communism, will be destroyed. San Francisco, Seattle, and Vancouver BC should be prepared for a large influx of Taiwanese immigrants seeking refuge.
Communism sucks!

Thats because people are ignorant.

It isn't just that. They just never mentioned by anyone. Also, most people focus where the people are. The Island of Tiawan.

Taiwan itself is an island, but the old KMT government possesses several of the surrounding islands.

Taiwan=Formosa.

There is only ONE Taiwan Island. Care to point where the 2nd one is?

Are Taiwan not currently in a state of dispute with Japan over two little islands, one holding a Taiwanese military base... in the Sea of Japan?

(With excellent fishing resources... which I supsect is the REAL motivation for THAT conflict).

Are Taiwan not currently in a state of dispute with Japan over two little islands, one holding a Taiwanese military base... in the Sea of Japan?

(With excellent fishing resources... which I supsect is the REAL motivation for THAT conflict).

I thought that was China itself and not Taiwan. Could be wrong though. I don't follow fishing disputes but if Taiwan isn't independent then how are they able to dispute something?

First I've heard of those islands to be honest but everything I'm seeing online is that it is saying the Island (notice that there isn't an s?) of Taiwan.
True, there is only one *island* called Taiwan but the *nation* of Taiwan has bits of land here and there. Everything outside of the main island of Taiwan is basically worthless pieces of rock though... Chiang Kai Shek actually tried to invade China in the 1950s with tens of thousands of soldiers stationed in Quemoy and Matsu, but the land was vulnerable and the mainlanders drove the Taiwanese off with some heavy artillery fire and airstrikes.

This could be the start of something real ugly. Japan and the US have already made their concerns known. I think Japan should send part of their Maritime Defense Force aka the fourth largest navy in the world into the Taiwan Straights. This is bullshit. China says they want a unified China. They just want control of Taiwans economy. If China is allowed to continue down this road the Taiwanese people and their way of life, far superior to that of Chinese Communism, will be destroyed. San Francisco, Seattle, and Vancouver BC should be prepared for a large influx of Taiwanese immigrants seeking refuge.
Communism sucks!

The same is true of the secession of the US states, though?

The North just wanted to control the South... and they destroyed the South's 'culture' to do it.

Regarding Communism... why do you think communism sucks?

And - what model of organisation would be better, for a nation the size of China, controlling more than a billion people?

I thought that was China itself and not Taiwan. Could be wrong though. I don't follow fishing disputes but if Taiwan isn't independent then how are they able to dispute something?
They can still get into international disputes because every nation, including mainland China, have been willing to meet with representatives from Taiwan (as long as there is no talk of indpendence). You are correct that the fishing rights struggle with Japan involves mainland CHina, not Taiwan. But Taiwan is currently having disputes with Malaysia, Vietnam, and some other nations over tiny little islands in the South China Sea.

I think it is no big deal. It is the same hard-liner rhetoric we've been hearing for decades. If anythiong, this should be positive, as it represents a shift in Beijing to more legislative power.
And not only that, but this is a thin law, and no where is there a clause obligating China to attack Taiwan, but rather use "military means". This may mean simple coersion, or seizing a few smaller islands of Taiwan's. Perhaps it may be like Yugoslavia in the nineties: a small air attack on strategic positions in Taiwan.

The same is true of the secession of the US states, though?

The North just wanted to control the South... and they destroyed the South's 'culture' to do it.
Lots of good things have come out of the American Civil War... at least slavery was abolished and it put the USA on track to more civil rights. China would likely whittle away at Taiwan's rights if there is immediate reunification. Although 30 years from now, CHina will probably be more democratic and unification can come on more favorable terms.


Regarding Communism... why do you think communism sucks?

And - what model of organisation would be better, for a nation the size of China, controlling more than a billion people?
Actually centralized control doesn't work as well on such a huge nation... it is hard for a centralized government to keep in touch with more than a billion ordinary folk. The Chinese Communist Party has alienated hundreds of millions of people in the past few decades with its callous handling of economic liberalization. There is nothing to police the communist party, which leads to massive corruption. The top levels of China's government have been implicated in massive fraud and graft, and all they did was execute some provincial governors as scapegoats. The fundamental problems in the one party state have not been addressed. If China had more decentralization, local self rule, and democracy, things would run much more smoothly. Demands for reform have become very loud, especially after the corruption trials in the northeast and the government's unlawful confiscation of tens of thousands of peoples' property in Beijing.

I think it is no big deal. It is the same hard-liner rhetoric we've been hearing for decades. If anythiong, this should be positive, as it represents a shift in Beijing to more legislative power.
And not only that, but this is a thin law, and no where is there a clause obligating China to attack Taiwan, but rather use "military means". This may mean simple coersion, or seizing a few smaller islands of Taiwan's. Perhaps it may be like Yugoslavia in the nineties: a small air attack on strategic positions in Taiwan.

Thats still attacking. And Taiwan should be it's own independent country. Besides, why should Beijing have more Legislative power? China is strong enough.

Lots of good things have come out of the American Civil War... at least slavery was abolished and it put the USA on track to more civil rights. China would likely whittle away at Taiwan's rights if there is immediate reunification. Although 30 years from now, CHina will probably be more democratic and unification can come on more favorable terms.



Slavery wasn't abolished 'because' of the Civil War.

Lincoln said that if he could have won that war without freeing a single slave, he would have.

Slavery wasn't abolished 'because' of the Civil War.

Lincoln said that if he could have won that war without freeing a single slave, he would have.

Because he wanted to preserve the Union. He would've done whatever it took to preserve it and if that ment that slavery stayed in the South, he would've accepted it.

Slavery wasn't abolished 'because' of the Civil War.

Lincoln said that if he could have won that war without freeing a single slave, he would have.
Sure it was abolished because of the Civil War. The Emancipation Proclamation was a *war tactic* - to demoralize the southern economy and encourage slave insurrection. The momentum for total abolition eventually caused the 13th Amendment to be enacted. The Civil War may not have been started in order to free the slaves and its main purpose was national unity and not abolition, but abolition was most definitely one of the direct effects of the war. The civil rights movement also began after the blacks were freed. Therefore the Civil War had these positive results. Slavery would probably exist longer if the Civil War hadn't been fought when it did.

I can't see how Taiwan can benefit in terms of social and political freedom if it is conquered by China.

Moreover, we are using a false analogy. We are not talking about a portion of a country proclaiming secession virtually overnight from the rest of the country. Taiwan has been for all intensive purposes a self-governing state since 1949, and is now a functioning liberal democracy. Which would mean that a Chinese attack on Taiwan would be at its most basic level, a Totalitarian Communist (though now only in name, now more of a Corporate State along Facist lines) invading a Democratic nation with its own government, people, and culture, which has been independent for nearly three generations in all things save official recognition. It would be akin to India or Pakistan invading the other based on the claim that they were both once part of British India pre-1948. Taiwan has never been ruled by the Communist government, and any attempt at force reunification would be a war of extermination (in the political sense) against an independent democratic nation launched by its larger neighbor. Like Germany invading Poland in 1939, or Germany's occupation of Czechoslovakia in 1938.

Moreover, we are using a false analogy. We are not talking about a portion of a country proclaiming secession virtually overnight from the rest of the country. Taiwan has been for all intensive purposes a self-governing state since 1949, and is now a functioning liberal democracy. Which would mean that a Chinese attack on Taiwan would be at its most basic level, a Totalitarian Communist (though now only in name, now more of a Corporate State along Facist lines) invading a Democratic nation with its own government, people, and culture, which has been independent for nearly three generations in all things save official recognition. It would be akin to India or Pakistan invading the other based on the claim that they were both once part of British India pre-1948. Taiwan has never been ruled by the Communist government, and any attempt at force reunification would be a war of extermination (in the political sense) against an independent democratic nation launched by its larger neighbor. Like Germany invading Poland in 1939, or Germany's occupation of Czechoslovakia in 1938.
Excellent points.

I'm actually worried on this one. Although the possibility of Taiwan pushing for independence in the nearby future is perhaps remote, a communist country making a push against a US ally could be the spark for a far nastier regional conflict.

Imagine if you will - Taiwan begins posturing as if it's about to declare independence. Ruse or not, the natural counter move from the ChiComms will be to escalate military readiness - ruse or not, thats a crapload of soldiers and aircraft. So, the US also postures, putting ships around Taiwan - the usual stuff, mess with our mate and you mess with us.

So America has deployed a lot of assets around Taiwan. It's armies are pretty stretched (balance of likelihood the Middle East is gonna tie 'em down a while) and the cupboard is fairly bare.

Now what happens if North Korea makes it's move at this point? They could launch a missile at USN assets, or just launch themselves across the DMZ - either way, the US is now in big trouble. The Eastern Pacific is now a warzone, theres one twitchy communist nation with it's finger on the trigger and a million troops ready to do Korean War: Round 2 to support an even twitchier, more psychotic state. Or if not to support, certainly to take advantage. Even a grab at some small Taiwanese islands could set off something huge with the US fleet in the region. Ground troops are tied down, but the US is honour/treaty bound to the defence of South Korea AND Taiwan.

Nasty little scenario, hmm? Even if it doesn't play out exactly like this, the potentiality must be making some strategic planners loose a lot of sleep.

Well, what I'm thinking is going to happen is North Korea is they might ally with China. From there, America will mobolize everything. Pushing out tons of equipment, troops, and things, and push back China out of Taiwan, and enough to tell them to back off.

Thats a good scenerio when it comes to war.

Bad scenerio?
Both sides start flinging nukes.

Possible solution to end a war quickly.
We should put a bunch of Aegis cruisers in the Taiwan Straites, and have cruise missles pointed at the nuclear missle silos for both China and North Korea. If China every attacks Taiwan, the missles should destroy all silos, and the Aegis Cruisers should be able to hold the missle barrage long enough to the point where damage will be small. From there, neither China nor North Korea can attack Taiwan/America, because A. Nukes are gone, and B. Neither side have a decent navy.

The Japanese ballistic missle Umbrella should be up in time to protect Taiwan from a missle barrage, and their army will probably be involved somehow. Taiwan should put two missle lasers on all the islands, so if missles are launched, it would hit and scramble the missles...sending them back down. Haha, commie bastards.


I'm sorry, but I really think this will cause the next world war.

A few things to be considdered...

US policy since the 1945 has been to contain Communism wherever possible. It takes a lot to break that, and there are still plenty of Cold Warriors left in the District of Columbia. Also, the newly-minted "Bush Doctrine" of preemption and strongarm tactics against potential threats to the US stands against it.

The US government and a large percentage of the US population doesn't care about the UN and its decisions. If it comes to protecting a US ally against a Communist agressor, no security council veto will do anything. It would be phenominally easy to generate popular support, too. The memory of anti-communist propaganda will be easy to raise.

Both the US and China would suffer tremendously from ending trade with one another. Neither side has the capability to blocade enemy ports from the outset, but in the open seas, Chinese shippers will be at the mercy of the US navy. There is little chance of China winning a naval war.

The Tainwanese people are strongly against unification with China. It would be easy to finance a guerrilla movement like Vietnam or Afghanistan.

The Chinese government regards and always has regarded Taiwan as a rogue province and a hostile government. The US government for a long time regarded Taiwan as the legitimate Chinese government and not Beijing. Taiwan for a long time considdered itsself the Chinese government-in-exile.

Anti-missile defence systems are not highly effective. Also, given the relatively short ranges involved, balistic missiles would not be needed.

If North Korea "Makes its move" without China's help, it gets steamrolled. Tanks can't roll for long on grass, which is what they'll be burning for fuel after a few weeks of sustained fighting. NK just doesn't have the economy to keep up a long war without direct support from China. And if China helps overtly, all hell breaks loose with the international community.

The US, in a few months once it withdraws from Iraq and rebuilds, will have nearly its entire military having passed the baptism of fire, something that China doesn't have. Conversely, the Chinese military is growing at an increasing rate, as is their economy. If the US is going to have a war with China, they had best provoke one before too long, while they still have the advantage.

Feil is smart, I like the way you presented that.

Why doesn’t the US just sell Taiwan about 15 medium range nukes and some Nuclear Armed subs so Taiwan will have the ability of a second strike in case China Nukes them first. Once Taiwan has the nuclear weapons they should do a nuclear test. Then one hour after the nuclear test Taiwan should declare their independence. China would never invade Taiwan if Taiwan were a nuclear power, just like the U.S will not invade North Korea. Why should we (the US) get involved in this conflict? It would be much easier to give Taiwan nuclear weapons to defend their selves with. Taiwan, South Korea and Japan are responsible enough to be Nuclear powers and provide their own defense from China and North Korea instead of depending on the United States.

Why doesn’t the US just sell Taiwan about 15 medium range nukes and some Nuclear Armed subs so Taiwan will have the ability of a second strike in case China Nukes them first. Once Taiwan has the nuclear weapons they should do a nuclear test. Then one hour after the nuclear test Taiwan should declare their independence. China would never invade Taiwan if Taiwan were a nuclear power, just like the U.S will not invade North Korea. Why should we (the US) get involved in this conflict? It would be much easier to give Taiwan nuclear weapons to defend their selves with. Taiwan, South Korea and Japan are responsible enough to be Nuclear powers and provide their own defense from China and North Korea instead of depending on the United States.

true dat

Why doesn’t the US just sell Taiwan about 15 medium range nukes and some Nuclear Armed subs so Taiwan will have the ability of a second strike in case China Nukes them first. Once Taiwan has the nuclear weapons they should do a nuclear test. Then one hour after the nuclear test Taiwan should declare their independence. China would never invade Taiwan if Taiwan were a nuclear power, just like the U.S will not invade North Korea. Why should we (the US) get involved in this conflict? It would be much easier to give Taiwan nuclear weapons to defend their selves with. Taiwan, South Korea and Japan are responsible enough to be Nuclear powers and provide their own defense from China and North Korea instead of depending on the United States.
Because China doesn't care, in case of a second strike, say good by to Taiwan

Why doesn’t the US just sell Taiwan about 15 medium range nukes and some Nuclear Armed subs so Taiwan will have the ability of a second strike in case China Nukes them first. Once Taiwan has the nuclear weapons they should do a nuclear test. Then one hour after the nuclear test Taiwan should declare their independence. China would never invade Taiwan if Taiwan were a nuclear power, just like the U.S will not invade North Korea. Why should we (the US) get involved in this conflict? It would be much easier to give Taiwan nuclear weapons to defend their selves with. Taiwan, South Korea and Japan are responsible enough to be Nuclear powers and provide their own defense from China and North Korea instead of depending on the United States.

Thats what we need! More Nuclear capable nations!

Then China can say good bye to Shanghai, Beijing and at least 10 other Major Metropolitan Areas. There is no way China would risk that much for Taiwan not even North Korea is that crazy.

Thats what we need! More Nuclear capable nations!
The above countries are just a responsible if not more than the U.S so why should they not be able to defend themselve and not be dependant on the U.S

Personally I think this is a taste of things to come. China doing whatever the fuck it wants and everyone else sitting with their thumbs in their asses. Starting with this forum no one seems to want to realize that.
The problem here is that George Bush gave China a blank cheque when the US invaded Iraq. The only problem here is that China has more legitimacy going into Taiwan than the US did in going into Iraq.

I can see Bush yelling: Hey Yu, Yu can't do that!!

I can see Yu saying back: Watch me!!

The problem here is that George Bush gave China a blank cheque when the US invaded Iraq. The only problem here is that China has more legitimacy going into Taiwan than the US did in going into Iraq.

What about Clinton? He gave China technology. And what blank check if I may ask did Bush give to China?

I can see Bush yelling: Hey Yu, Yu can't do that!!

I can see Yu saying back: Watch me!!

And watch missiles land on China as well as bombs when the USN and USAF counter-attack.

Nah, China has a lot of people, but if Taiwan nukes it with more than just a couple nukes (as in 5-15), the people of China will definitely not be happy. And what about Bejing? What if that got nuked?

What about Clinton? He gave China technology. And what blank check if I may ask did Bush give to China?
Still attacking Clinton huh? The US should be grateful for the current trade with China or the US economy would be kinda sluggish right now?

And watch missiles land on China as well as bombs when the USN and USAF counter-attack.

In your dreams my friend!! :eek:

Still attacking Clinton huh? The US should be grateful for the current trade with China or the US economy would be kinda sluggish right now?

Clinton gave China Missile technology so yea I can attack him for that. You however, didn't answer my question. What blank check, pray tell, did Bush gave China due to the Iraq War?

In your dreams my friend!! :eek:

You sir, have underestimated the US Air and Naval Strength. They will attack with a Presidential Order and I know that will happen. The US will NOT let China take Taiwan by force.

Clinton gave China Missile technology so yea I can attack him for that. You however, didn't answer my question. What blank check, pray tell, did Bush gave China due to the Iraq War?
Straight exchange....US takes Iraq....China takes Taiwan. The US has changed the way the "sovereignity" business is conduvted. Another reason why Iraq was a HUGE mistake!!


You sir, have underestimated the US Air and Naval Strength. They will attack with a Presidential Order and I know that will happen. The US will NOT let China take Taiwan by force.
Do you really believe that the US would risk nuclear war by attacking China? I don't!!

Straight exchange....US takes Iraq....China takes Taiwan. The US has changed the way the "sovereignity" business is conduvted. Another reason why Iraq was a HUGE mistake!!

Last time I checked, Iraq was a sovereign nation so that blows that right out of the water

Do you really believe that the US would risk nuclear war by attacking China? I don't!!

If it goes nuclear, it'll be China's fault because the US won't start it.

Neither side will risk nuclear war. No matter how subservant the people of China are, they are still people and will rise up against the current administration if nuclear war ensues. And we Americans are not half as subservant as them Chinese, so we are even more likely to rise up in rebellion if nuclear war goes on. Soooo both sides will have to stick to convential tactics. Oh yeah, in a nuclear war, no side wins.

They might have people, but they don't have resources.

While the US was busy burning oil in Iraq, China went around and bought oil wells all over the world, as well as agricultural land in Kazachstan and Africa.

For infrastructure they need iron ore, which they don't have, as well as nickel, which they don't have, and oil and food (there are no plants growing on streets and factories).

Last time I checked, Iraq was a sovereign nation so that blows that right out of the water
Well Iraq was "sovereign" until Bush invaded it and continues to occupy it. Hurray for the Operation Iraqi Liberation!!

If it goes nuclear, it'll be China's fault because the US won't start it.
But mommy.....he started it!! LMAO!!! :eek:

Well Iraq was "sovereign" until Bush invaded it and continues to occupy it. Hurray for the Operation Iraqi Freedom!!

Sorry, but its what I changed it too. Your right it was a soveriegn nation but a soveriegn nation that violated 17 UN Resolutions and a Cease-fire.

But mommy.....he started it!! LMAO!!! :eek:

Grow up.

But mommy.....he started it!! LMAO!!! :eek:

China won't nuke us, U.S. won't nuke China. They don't want mommy to get angry and beat the living daylights out of them.

The only "blank" check that was given was the context of "Pre-emptive" Action. That is the current US Foreign Policy so China could technically invade Taiwn pre-emptively on the same grounds to protect the security of the People's Republic of China. We invaded Iraq to keep them from getting to the point where they would potentially use weapons of mass destruction. The potential was there. Anything is potentially possible. So the US Foreign Policy was to pre-emptively invade Iraq to stem the potential threat of weapons of mass destruction. (It's all in the wording, gotta love Politics)

China does have the capability to level Taiwan using WS-1, WS-1B, and WS-2 conventional rockets launched from the penisula that is right across the straight from Taiwan(I can't think of the name at the moment.) Referance when China declared misssile test into international waters all around Taiwan and just randomly launched rockets into the ocean effectively stopping shiping to and from Taiwan. They don't even have to directly attack Taiwan to be effective.

What China does lack do to it's lethargic military is an effective logistical support system. It's greatest strength being it's large numbers of equipment and personel are also it's biggest weakness. Notice when the US talks about it's carrier capabilities, it is always stated that the carrier "parks" off the coast to "maintain" a US presence. It isn't just the capability to destroy that is important, it is the ability to be able to consistently destroy and be able to stay where we want at will and still be able to support our forces abroad for a long duration of time. Many a nations were capable of succesfully invading Iraq, not many are capable of occupying another nation for years.

Now what China does have is a very strong defensive capability. It's numbers create a very strong advantage defensively where they are a weakness in power projection.

I'm kinda bored now so I'll wait for a few comments and make a response.

One more thing, the UN is Anti-soveriegn nations by making individual nations bow down to it's demands which stem from other nations. World governments don't equal individual sovreignty either. So ya'll are hypocrites when you are all "Pro-sovreignty" when you critize the US for acting in it's own sovreign interest. Stop infringing on our sovreign interest too.

No! You need a UN resolution for that.

See? I told you a European would show up and say we had to have a committee meeting before taking any action to save Taiwan.

By their way, Taiwan would be a smoulering radioactive ruin with no inhabitants while we discussed it in the Security Council.

And of course, the Chinese would veto.

Oh my God, you really don't have a sense of humour do you Whispering Legs? Grow up and stop whitewashing groups of people as being one and the same.

The US should give more money (about $84 billion) to Taiwan and they should send 220 submarines to patrol the sea equiped with 400 nuclear warheads, 670 battle ships and 350 Fighting planes along with 435 000 soldiers. They should give the nuclear weapons to Taiwan as well and launch 17 satellites to spy on China. They should call Rambo back into service.

Regarding Communism... why do you think communism sucks?

And - what model of organisation would be better, for a nation the size of China, controlling more than a billion people?


China is not communist. It's Authoritarian Nationalist.

China is not communist. It's Authoritarian Nationalist.

Indeed - used to be Communist, but reality sank in, and the Party figured out how to make a whole lot of money...

You know, the people that Psylos says will be looking out for the good of everyone - well, they're looking out for themselves...

You know, the people that Psylos says will be looking out for the good of everyone - well, they're looking out for themselves...When did I say that?

When did I say that?

It's an essential part of socialist government.

It's an essential part of socialist government.
The dictatorship of the proletariat is not the dictatorship of the politicians.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is not the dictatorship of the politicians.

The Party is supposed to educate and guide the proletariat.

You'll notice that they're doing a bang up job in China.

The Party is supposed to educate and guide the proletariat.

You'll notice that they're doing a bang up job in China.The workers of China should dictate their will. They have the means to do that.

I think people are far overestimating the strength of the Chinese military. It is not nearly as powerful as one may think.

First off, there is the sheer issue of logistics. China does not have a Strategic Petroleum Reserve like the United States; if a war were to begin, they would not be able to weather the high gas prices that would accompany such a conflict. Furthermore, the subsequent coalition blockade of China's ports would shut down its entire economy as oil was cut off and production ground to a halt. The onyl way China can "stop" Taiwan is through the use of nuclear weapons, but this completely overrides the point of stopping their secession in the first place; China only wants Taiwan for its economic strength. They'd be inheriting a large amount of rapidly cooling glass.

Secondly, there is the issue of troop transports. China has very few landing craft. Their amphibious assault capabilities are close to none. Current doctrine suggests that a mass invasion utilizing cargo aircraft would be required, which would be a foolish waste.

Third, we must consider the military strength of China itself. I believe that recent numbers suggest that China has a standing army of over 8 million. To be sure, this is a huge number of troops. However, we must also realize that these men are not extremely well-trained or disciplined. The ratio of armor and infantry vehicles to infantry is also very low, while the quality of these vehicles is not very high. This also brings us back to the issue of amphibous assaults: none of China's transport aircraft can carry a Main Battle Tank, and their could only carry a small number; furthermore, I doubt that China has a way to effectively deliver these tanks onto a beach. China's Navy would have trouble getting past Taiwan's, much less the 7th Fleet; Chinese submarines are notoriously badly maintained and captained, and the USN would have little trouble taking them out.

Then, there is the PLAN-Air Force. It has a tremendous number of aircraft. However, these are mostly obsolete fighters. The vast majority of these aircraft are MiG-17's, MiG-19's, and MiG-21's. The Chinese derivatives of these aircraft are extremely shoddy and badly maintained. The small complement of Su-27's that China flies are in a similiar condition, and their pilots are not trained nearly well enough. There is also the issue of supply lines and munitions. The USAF (operating off of Diego Garcia) and the USN's CVBGs could virtually demolish China's Military Infrastructure with impunity.

Finally, we must consider the international response. The United States and Japan have repeatedly said that they would act to defend Taiwan from Chinese aggression. Japan is a massive regional power, and the United States maintains the most powerful fleet in the world. The NATO countries would come flocking to help defend Taiwan, and I would not be surprised if a coalition of Pacific Nations led by Japan and Australia came to help. There is even the issue of Russian assistance; relations have never been very good between the two former Communist states, and a move to prevent Taiwan from seceeding would be an insult to Russia after all of the time it has spent in the UN trying to justify its operations in Chechnya.

Faced with all of these factors, China would really have no choice in the matter. With a coalition bearing down on them and their lines of supply cut, conditions would rapidly worsen in the country. If they chose to launch an all-out nuclear salvo against opposing nations, China would seal its own fate.

Of course, nobody wishes for something like this to happen. The destruction of China would raise prices across the globe, and result in a hideous death toll. Furthermore, it would destabilize the situation on the Korean Peninsula, where China has essentially held Kim Jong-Il in check.

In the first place, this is like a huge game of chess. Think a few moves ahead and the Chinese know they will be screwed. China invades Taiwan. America, which will intervene, comes to Taiwans aid. In turn, the Chinese lose their biggest business partner, thus their economy goes to hell. America, on the other hand, is not as dependent on others for economic progress (think WWII and post-depression). America will lose small due to uncertainty in the American stock market, only to recover, while the Chinese, who will come under intense military/political pressure, will lose big time.

Now put yourself into the shoes of the Chinese. Poised to take the lead in the worlds economy within our lifetime, would you risk all of that over a nation of 20 million people. 20 million is nothing in a nation of 1.3 billion. World security and economic progress is not worth it.

This is just sabre rattling and lot of "talk the talk" with no "walk". They've been doing this for years.

Sure it was abolished because of the Civil War. The Emancipation Proclamation was a *war tactic* - to demoralize the southern economy and encourage slave insurrection. The momentum for total abolition eventually caused the 13th Amendment to be enacted. The Civil War may not have been started in order to free the slaves and its main purpose was national unity and not abolition, but abolition was most definitely one of the direct effects of the war. The civil rights movement also began after the blacks were freed. Therefore the Civil War had these positive results. Slavery would probably exist longer if the Civil War hadn't been fought when it did.

I can't see how Taiwan can benefit in terms of social and political freedom if it is conquered by China.

'Connection' is not the same as 'Cause'.

"I believe that recent numbers suggest that China has a standing army of over 8 million." -Ancient and Holy Terra

Just to place emphasis on your appraisal of the Chinese military, there is no way that the Chinese have a standing military of this size. Perhaps with reserves they have an active force of this many men, but according to very reliable sources, the standing military of China is around 1.8 to 2.2 Million. And mobility and logistical problems make the use of only a fraction of these forces possible in a shootout.

"I believe that recent numbers suggest that China has a standing army of over 8 million." -Ancient and Holy Terra

Just to place emphasis on your appraisal of the Chinese military, there is no way that the Chinese have a standing military of this size. Perhaps with reserves they have an active force of this many men, but according to very reliable sources, the standing military of China is around 1.8 to 2.2 Million. And mobility and logistical problems make the use of only a fraction of these forces possible in a shootout.

Not to mention the fact that most of their forces are non-mechanized infantry - infantry on foot.

China is not communist. It's Authoritarian Nationalist.

Totally missed the point.

I didn't SAY that China was communist... I asked what was wrong with communism..

THEN, I asked what would be a better form of government for a nation the size and population of China.

None of that SAYS China IS Communist... because, as far as I know, nobody has yet achieved a pure 'communism'... anymore than anyone has achieved a pure 'democracy'.

(Certainly not on a national scale).

My point was to draw people out, to point out that China ISN'T a 'communism', any more than Russia was. And also - to point out that a form of government that works for ONE nation, might NOT be the best form of government for a DIFFERENT nation, with different needs.

Well, Australian Prime Minister has been dodging questions about the ANZUS alliance being used to pull Australia into the possible Taiwan conflict when China clashes with the US.

Here, after a little thought... is how I think it might go:

China to US: "Hey, George... how about we put a few hundred thousand men in North Korea, and shut down their operations? In exchange - you withdraw support from Taiwan... or at least, don't HELP them be any more independent".

US to China: "No more nukular weapons in North Korea? erm... OK".

Game over.

Here, after a little thought... is how I think it might go:

China to US: "Hey, George... how about we put a few hundred thousand men in North Korea, and shut down their operations? In exchange - you withdraw support from Taiwan... or at least, don't HELP them be any more independent".

US to China: "No more nukular weapons in North Korea? erm... OK".

Game over.

I have another idea:

Central Commitee of Chinese Communist Party: Anybody give a shit about Taiwan?
Old dude: those GMD bastards killed my granddad - I say nuke 'em
Central Commitee of Chinese Communist Party: er, erm

(ten years later)

Central Commitee of Chinese Communist Party: Anybody give a shit about Taiwan?
Old dudes: we're all dead, we don't give a shit about anything
Central Commitee of Chinese Communist Party: cool. hey Zhang, wanna join me in buying a huge share in Gigabyte? (and every other major taiwanese corporation)

"I believe that recent numbers suggest that China has a standing army of over 8 million." -Ancient and Holy Terra

Just to place emphasis on your appraisal of the Chinese military, there is no way that the Chinese have a standing military of this size. Perhaps with reserves they have an active force of this many men, but according to very reliable sources, the standing military of China is around 1.8 to 2.2 Million. And mobility and logistical problems make the use of only a fraction of these forces possible in a shootout.

www.nationmaster.com


Definition: Total armed forces (2000)
1. China 2,810,000

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2003/pla_and_china_transition.pdf

Mulvenon and other analysts conclude that the majority of the 100 army divisions are likely to remain low- to medium-tech forces that lack weapons
with the range and precision to be used in an offensive mode against modern
armies.


It is interesting to note that most Chinese ground divisions are not armored or mechanized. There are a substantial number that are pure foot infantry with no transport, and some that are motorized (truck mobile).

Against a modern army, most of those forces would be annihilated, and unable to maneuver to counter their own destruction.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2003/pla_and_china_transition.pdf


It is interesting to note that most Chinese ground divisions are not armored or mechanized. There are a substantial number that are pure foot infantry with no transport, and some that are motorized (truck mobile).

Against a modern army, most of those forces would be annihilated, and unable to maneuver to counter their own destruction.

currently the chinese military-industrial combine is making pcs and cars. I don't think it would take long to switch it to tanks and apcs

currently the chinese military-industrial combine is making pcs and cars. I don't think it would take long to switch it to tanks and apcs

The problem is the expense. The Chinese economy is doing well. Any European will tell you that large scale spending on the military for equipment is a drain on your economy (well, the US doesn't seem to suffer as greatly as the Europeans predict).

Will the Chinese spend the money?

Additionally, the key to the US success is not the individual pieces of equipment, but how they gain synergy when they are used together.

A fancy fighter plane is just a fancy target - unless it's networked into a larger system that allows it to see what satellites and radar picket aircraft and even a man on the ground can see. The US is unique in having that capability today for its combat aircraft and its more modern ground vehicles.

Even the common foot soldier on the ground is a couple of switches away from talking to the people in the War Room at the Pentagon.

The synergy effect is what makes the US so overwhelming. It's something that other nations have yet to invest in - and it's not cheap.

'Connection' is not the same as 'Cause'.
The Civil War is the cause of slavery being abolished in America when it did. We didn't fight the American Civil War to have Abraham Lincoln killed, but Lincoln's assassination was a direct consequence of the war. Disgruntled Southerners plotted to kill him because they were unhappy with the outcome of the war. Likewise Slavery was also a direct consequence of the war. The USA started the process of abolition in order to undermine the Southern economy during the war. Lincoln would never have issued the Emancipation Proclamation out of the blue if we weren't fighting the civil war. Eventually this series of events led to full abolition with 13th amendment.

The problem is the expense. The Chinese economy is doing well. Any European will tell you that large scale spending on the military for equipment is a drain on your economy (well, the US doesn't seem to suffer as greatly as the Europeans predict).

Will the Chinese spend the money?

Additionally, the key to the US success is not the individual pieces of equipment, but how they gain synergy when they are used together.

A fancy fighter plane is just a fancy target - unless it's networked into a larger system that allows it to see what satellites and radar picket aircraft and even a man on the ground can see. The US is unique in having that capability today for its combat aircraft and its more modern ground vehicles.

Even the common foot soldier on the ground is a couple of switches away from talking to the people in the War Room at the Pentagon.

The synergy effect is what makes the US so overwhelming. It's something that other nations have yet to invest in - and it's not cheap.


Of course China would spend the money if it had to. And it has a huge amount of money to spend. And technology isn't all it's cracked up to be. Remember vietnam?

Talk to any European on this forum, or any Canadian.

They would say:

The US should not interfere when China invades Taiwan, until and unless the UN Security Council authorizes any action.

Which should be never, as China is one of the Permanent Members.

why shouldn't the US interfere? Taiwan is a democratic nation, with a capitalist economy, that espouses human rights, and is peacefully trading with its neighbors and the world, essentially minding its own business, and all it wants is formal independence from its rather large and authoritarian neighbor which has a really bad history of civil rights abuses, and is currently oppressing severely another neighbor it swallowed up (Tibet).

Now seems to me that if nothing else, the entire West, including Europe and Canada, has an obligation morally to defend Taiwan and should say so in order to deter China from attacking and preventing the war to begin with.

or is it simply that since they are on the other side of the world Europe and Canada simply don't care?

Of course China would spend the money if it had to. And it has a huge amount of money to spend. And technology isn't all it's cracked up to be. Remember vietnam?

You need technology to go on the offensive. If your troops can't move, you're effectively done.

One of the lessons we learned in Vietnam was that the VietCong were smart. They practiced a strategy called "hold onto the belt buckle". That means that when the US infantry engaged them, they would get as close as possible to the US troops, so that the US could not use bombs and artillery to help.

This made things rather fair, as Americans were not bulletproof, and the American bombs and artillery were not very precise.

We have made substantial improvements.

First, the typical American infantryman is nearly bulletproof - you have to hit him in the face, or the extremities. Hit him in the torso from the front or back, and any rifle bullet will bounce off.

You can try the "hold onto the belt buckle" strategy, but you'll take enormous casualties while you waste bullets. So far, the tradeoff in insurgents to US infantry in close combat is around 50 to 1 - 50 insurgents killed for every US soldier. Compare that to Israel's record with Hezbollah - where 10 Israelis died for every 1 Hezbollah.

Additionally, the precision weaponry is much more precise. The AC-130 can hit individual people with a single shell from the 25mm or 105mm guns on board - even if they are running.

The troop on the ground can communicate instantly with the AC-130 - unlike the old days when only a few men had a radio - now everyone is on the Net.

It suddenly becomes impossible to repeat the Viet Cong success.

It suddenly becomes impossible to repeat the Viet Cong success.

Your faith in technology is touching.

You need technology to go on the offensive. If your troops can't move, you're effectively done.

One of the lessons we learned in Vietnam was that the VietCong were smart. They practiced a strategy called "hold onto the belt buckle". That means that when the US infantry engaged them, they would get as close as possible to the US troops, so that the US could not use bombs and artillery to help.

This made things rather fair, as Americans were not bulletproof, and the American bombs and artillery were not very precise.

We have made substantial improvements.

First, the typical American infantryman is nearly bulletproof - you have to hit him in the face, or the extremities. Hit him in the torso from the front or back, and any rifle bullet will bounce off.

You can try the "hold onto the belt buckle" strategy, but you'll take enormous casualties while you waste bullets. So far, the tradeoff in insurgents to US infantry in close combat is around 50 to 1 - 50 insurgents killed for every US soldier. Compare that to Israel's record with Hezbollah - where 10 Israelis died for every 1 Hezbollah.

Additionally, the precision weaponry is much more precise. The AC-130 can hit individual people with a single shell from the 25mm or 105mm guns on board - even if they are running.

The troop on the ground can communicate instantly with the AC-130 - unlike the old days when only a few men had a radio - now everyone is on the Net.

It suddenly becomes impossible to repeat the Viet Cong success.

All good points WL.

It is hard to draw parallels between the Vietnam War and a hypothetical war with China.

Vietnam was an impoverished country where the ordinary people had nothing in life to lose in terms of material possessions. The Vietnamese were also uneducated and ignorant, and the Viet Cong manipulated them using nationalism and promises of agrarian reform. That is why the USA was in such a quagmire, because all the Vietnamese civilians were effectively consolidated by the VC.

In contrast, the Chinese government does not have such loyalty from its people, both poor and rich. The wealthier modern Chinese, who have increasingly tasted economic prosperity, lose their willingness to support a war that can destroy their lifestyles, and the poorer modern Chinese are pissed off at the government anyways for its corruption and abandonment of socialist principles.

If the US bombs the hell out of CHina's infrastructure, especially in the rich southern coastal provinces, then China's economy will collapse and the people in mainland China will revolt. The CCP's hold on power is based solely on support by the middle class for its economic policies, and if the middle class suffers then the communists will be kicked out real quick. China's leaders are not going to risk this. War over Taiwan will most likely never happen.

Your faith in technology is touching.

If you've ever worn the IBA and been shot, you would have that kind of faith, also.

Hit twice right on the chest plate, with an AK-47. Not a scratch - not even a dent - didn't knock me down - didn't even slow me down.

I believe that the other people in the military who experience the synergy and the firepower and the ability to fight at night do have this faith.

It has to be terrifying to be in darkness, out of communication with your superiors or other units, being hit by weapons that are fired from platforms out of your range of sight, without any warning. And to know that even if you close with the Americans, that you'll lose all of your men, and you won't even kill as many Americans as you lose men.

That's why people resort to roadside bombs, and hitting civilian targets. Because attacking the troops is suicidal, and non-productive.

The Civil War is the cause of slavery being abolished in America when it did. We didn't fight the American Civil War to have Abraham Lincoln killed, but Lincoln's assassination was a direct consequence of the war. Disgruntled Southerners plotted to kill him because they were unhappy with the outcome of the war. Likewise Slavery was also a direct consequence of the war. The USA started the process of abolition in order to undermine the Southern economy during the war. Lincoln would never have issued the Emancipation Proclamation out of the blue if we weren't fighting the civil war. Eventually this series of events led to full abolition with 13th amendment.

Abolitionists were a growing force everywhere (and not just in America), even before Lincoln's little war. If the North hadn't invaded the South, trends would probably have led to Suthern Emancipation ANYWAY - if for no other reason than the political strength.

The Emancipation Proclamation was a political move... a gesture. Lincoln was on the verge between two forces there - those trying to free slaves, and those trying to preserve the old order. Lincoln chose to side with those who were gaining power, the emancipationists.

And - the reason the North didn't call for emancipation earlier - was because it would have entitled coloureds to equal voting.. and then the North would have lost it's political advantage.

Don't kid yourself - the US was going to emancipate anyway - because that was the direction that the 'civilised' world was headed.

why shouldn't the US interfere?

I think the words you are looking for are "No Oil".

Abolitionists were a growing force everywhere (and not just in America), even before Lincoln's little war. If the North hadn't invaded the South, trends would probably have led to Suthern Emancipation ANYWAY - if for no other reason than the political strength.

The Emancipation Proclamation was a political move... a gesture. Lincoln was on the verge between two forces there - those trying to free slaves, and those trying to preserve the old order. Lincoln chose to side with those who were gaining power, the emancipationists.
If the civil war had not happened, Lincoln would not have sided with the emancipationists so readily. Only because the south seceded and Lincoln no longer had to deal with such pro-slavery conservatives in his own government and country, it was much easier to ban slavery. All the political and economic circumstances of the civil war made it possible for a quick and politically justifiable emancipation.

And - the reason the North didn't call for emancipation earlier - was because it would have entitled coloureds to equal voting.. and then the North would have lost it's political advantage.
That doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the civil war caused slave abolition.

Don't kid yourself - the US was going to emancipate anyway - because that was the direction that the 'civilised' world was headed.
That's irrelevant. It's pointless to talk about a hypothetical alternate history where the US peacefully ends slavery. Sure it could have happened. Alternate history is very interesting, but here we're quantifying real history. And in real life, the American Civil War was a direct and immediate cause of abolition in the south. What can be more immediate then Union soldiers ransacking southern plantations and freeing slaves? Your semantic argument about the difference between "connection" and "cause" also doesn't make any sense... the Civil War fulfills the dictionary definition of "cause" in this discussion. THe southern economy was dismantled during the war, and this included freeing slaves.

It also formally cemented the Federal authority over the States.
It also made secession illegal (even though the Constitution says nothing about it).

I think the words you are looking for are "No Oil".
The US government and people would back Taiwan simply because Americans don't want China to be too powerful. There is paranoia among Chinese toward the US and among Americans toward China. Superpowers are always suspicious of other superpowers. Though I doubt this dispute will ever be brought to the point of war.

If the civil war had not happened, Lincoln would not have sided with the emancipationists so readily. Only because the south seceded and Lincoln no longer had to deal with such pro-slavery conservatives in his own government and country, it was much easier to ban slavery. All the political and economic circumstances of the civil war made it possible for a quick and politically justifiable emancipation.


That doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the civil war caused slave abolition.


You just argued against you OWN point. "If the civil war had not happened, Lincoln would not have sided with the emancipationists so readily" and then "That doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the civil war caused slave abolition".

Lincoln WOULDN'T side with Emancipationists WHILE THE SOUTH was part of the Union - because his party stood to lose out, politically, if Blacks WERE FREED and given the vote.


That's irrelevant. It's pointless to talk about a hypothetical alternate history where the US peacefully ends slavery. Sure it could have happened. Alternate history is very interesting, but here we're quantifying real history. And in real life, the American Civil War was a direct and immediate cause of abolition in the south. What can be more immediate then Union soldiers ransacking southern plantations and freeing slaves? Your semantic argument about the difference between "connection" and "cause" also doesn't make any sense... the Civil War fulfills the dictionary definition of "cause" in this discussion. THe southern economy was dismantled during the war, and this included freeing slaves.

You seem to forget that the North ALSO owned slaves, and that, in general, they were treated worse than the Southern slaves.

Now - I'm not saying the South was 'good' in it's slavery, but Southern freed slaves frequently took up arms against the Northern aggressors.

And- just because there WAS a 'war' and slaves were freed.. doesn't mean the one caused the other.

The US government and people would back Taiwan simply because Americans don't want China to be too powerful. There is paranoia among Chinese toward the US and among Americans toward China. Superpowers are always suspicious of other superpowers. Though I doubt this dispute will ever be brought to the point of war.

Sorry - I didn't see that referendum... can you cite the source?

We should just drop a few nukes on the mainland and be done with it.
Doesn't that kind of ignore the fact that China has incontinental ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads?

The US government and people would back Taiwan simply because Americans don't want China to be too powerful. There is paranoia among Chinese toward the US and among Americans toward China. Superpowers are always suspicious of other superpowers. Though I doubt this dispute will ever be brought to the point of war.

Problem with the superpower analogy. China isn't a super power.

Sorry - I didn't see that referendum... can you cite the source?

Where in the world did this come from?

Doesn't that kind of ignore the fact that China has incontinental ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads?

And most of those can be knocked down.

Doesn't that kind of ignore the fact that China has incontinental ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads?

24 ICBMs, and 24 SLBMs

Given the presence of SM-3 equipped ships in the area, it is unlikely that any of these would reach their targets.

Additionally, the Chinese ICBMs are not kept in a ready status. They must be moved, erected, and fueled - something that takes them days to accomplish.

No - incorrect, I'm afraid.

A Civil War is a war between two factions of a single nation - either geographical sections, or political 'sections'. The American 'war of independence' was a revolution perhaps.. maybe even a secession... but not a civil war.
But we were a single nation. The American colonies were part of the British Empire and the colonists were subjects of the Crown. Benjamin Franklin proudly considered himself an Englishman for a large portion of his life.

24 ICBMs, and 24 SLBMs

Given the presence of SM-3 equipped ships in the area, it is unlikely that any of these would reach their targets.

Additionally, the Chinese ICBMs are not kept in a ready status. They must be moved, erected, and fueled - something that takes them days to accomplish.

And gives the US time to take them out BEFORE they are launched :D

Where in the world did this come from?

Sorry - didn't mean to be confusing...

Trilateral Commission said " ... the US... people would back Taiwan simply because Americans don't want China to be too powerful"...

I assumed that he/she must have some reason to base that on... otherwise it is, surely, just wishful thinking?

You just argued against you OWN point. "If the civil war had not happened, Lincoln would not have sided with the emancipationists so readily" and then "That doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the civil war caused slave abolition".
How did I argue against my own points? It's obvious that emancipation can come in a variety of packages. Just because other methods, peaceful or not, could have abolished slavery doesn't mean that the Civil War didn't abolish slavery. Out of many possible outcomes and scenarios, the scenario that actually happened - the American Civil War - was the immediate catalyst and cause of abolition.

Lincoln WOULDN'T side with Emancipationists WHILE THE SOUTH was part of the Union - because his party stood to lose out, politically, if Blacks WERE FREED and given the vote.
What??
Are you referring to Lincoln's Republican Party which was founded by the abolitionist soldier John C. Fremont with the political slogan "free soil, free labor, free speech, free men"? If the blacks were freed, they would be for a long time loyal to the party that freed them, as is what happened in real life. From the 1870s til 1930s southern blacks always voted as a bloc for the Republicans.

You seem to forget that the North ALSO owned slaves, and that, in general, they were treated worse than the Southern slaves.
Four northern-controlled border states owned slaves, that isn't the whole "North." Also show some proof that border states' slaves were uniformly more abused than deep south slaves. But the point you are trying to make is irrelevant anyways.

Now - I'm not saying the South was 'good' in it's slavery, but Southern freed slaves frequently took up arms against the Northern aggressors.
We're getting off-topic. I'm not arguing about the morality of the north or the south here. The point I'm making is that the Civil War caused slaves being freed, and for all of the North's ills - ie war profiteering and banker speculation - the civil war did yield this positive result of causing abolition and leading to the civil rights movement.

And- just because there WAS a 'war' and slaves were freed.. doesn't mean the one caused the other.
Yes it did. Look up the word "cause." Northern soldiers are fighting a war, they sack plantations and free slaves. Obviously those slaves were freed due to the war.

But we were a single nation. The American colonies were part of the British Empire and the colonists were subjects of the Crown. Benjamin Franklin proudly considered himself an Englishman for a large portion of his life.

Empire does not equate to nation.

Canada is still part of the Commonwealth (the remains of the Empire) - but is DEFINITELY a sovereign nation... even though it owes some residual 'subjectivity' to the crown.

24 ICBMs, and 24 SLBMs

Given the presence of SM-3 equipped ships in the area, it is unlikely that any of these would reach their targets.

Additionally, the Chinese ICBMs are not kept in a ready status. They must be moved, erected, and fueled - something that takes them days to accomplish.
I'll give you the latter point, as long as we were to engage them in a first strike without warning, which I submit we're not hugely likely to do. As to the former, I don't have a lot of faith in our missile defense platforms in this respect, certainly not to the point of betting the lives of major American cities on them twenty-four times.

Empire does not equate to nation.

Canada is still part of the Commonwealth (the remains of the Empire) - but is DEFINITELY a sovereign nation... even though it owes some residual 'subjectivity' to the crown.

In this case it does. We were under the British the Crown. Subject to British Law. Proud to do so too then Mad King George blew it.

So Zombi is correct when he said "But we were a single nation. The American colonies were part of the British Empire and the colonists were subjects of the Crown. Benjamin Franklin proudly considered himself an Englishman for a large portion of his life."

Sorry - I didn't see that referendum... can you cite the source?
I'm making conjectures, since none of these events have happened. It's the future of course. We can't "prove" that the Chinese people would rush to war in Taiwan, and we can't "prove" that the Americans would rush to war either. But I suspect it is likely ordinary AMericans are willing to do this, it is a similar concept to the "silent majority" which kept us in the Vietnam War for all those years even after it was clear we lost. Win or lose, Americans have historically not been too compromising and do not like to make too many concessions to large communist nations.

How did I argue against my own points? It's obvious that emancipation can come in a variety of packages. Just because other methods, peaceful or not, could have abolished slavery doesn't mean that the Civil War didn't abolish slavery. Out of many possible outcomes and scenarios, the scenario that actually happened - the American Civil War - was the immediate catalyst and cause of abolition.


What??
Are you referring to Lincoln's Republican Party which was founded by the abolitionist soldier John C. Fremont with the political slogan "free soil, free labor, free speech, free men"? If the blacks were freed, they would be for a long time loyal to the party that freed them, as is what happened in real life. From the 1870s til 1930s southern blacks always voted as a bloc for the Republicans.


Four northern-controlled border states owned slaves, that isn't the whole "North." Also show some proof that border states' slaves were uniformly more abused than deep south slaves. But the point you are trying to make is irrelevant anyways.


We're getting off-topic. I'm not arguing about the morality of the north or the south here. The point I'm making is that the Civil War caused slaves being freed, and for all of the North's ills - ie war profiteering and banker speculation - the civil war did yield this positive result of causing abolition and leading to the civil rights movement.


Yes it did. Look up the word "cause." Northern soldiers are fighting a war, they sack plantations and free slaves. Obviously those slaves were freed due to the war.

1) No - slaves 'freed' during the Northern theft of Southern foodstuffs were freed DURING the process... not by it.

2) Emancipation was already happening. It is ridiculous to ignore that, and claim that the war of Northern Aggression CAUSED it.

Empire does not equate to nation.

Canada is still part of the Commonwealth (the remains of the Empire) - but is DEFINITELY a sovereign nation... even though it owes some residual 'subjectivity' to the crown.
Canada is hardly equivalent to the colonies, however. A better analogy might be the Northwest Territories' relationship with Canada. Partly representative, partly appointed government, partly self-governing, but clearly, in the end, part of Canada.

The colonies were settled by subjects of the Crown, and the colonies were ruled by the British monarch and subject to the laws of Parliament. Land grants were established under the laws of the Crown. Heck, Lord Baltimore founded Maryland and named it after the wife of Charles I under a charter from that selfsame king.

Problem with the superpower analogy. China isn't a super power.
Superpower or not... that's just semantics. Whether someone or not is a superpower is somewhat based on opinions. The US is clearly percieving China as the most powerful rival in this world today. Many Americans fear CHina, and for all practical purposes we tend to treat them with the same caution and suspicion that we treated the USSR. Americans did not care when some insignificant country like Sudan was oppressing and fighting its secessionist states, but they do care about China's secession issue. Why? Because no one wants China to be more powerful.

The US should give more money (about $84 billion) to Taiwan and they should send 220 submarines to patrol the sea equiped with 400 nuclear warheads, 670 battle ships and 350 Fighting planes along with 435 000 soldiers. They should give the nuclear weapons to Taiwan as well and launch 17 satellites to spy on China. They should call Rambo back into service.

Don't be a fool. Making up random (hugely inflated) numbers doesn't make you look smart.

Regarding giving nuclear weapons to Taiwan...
If they don't have them already (which they might, I don't know...) I'd guess that the US is trying to use its own military to maintain Taiwan, rather than introducing another unknown into the game.

As far as Taiwanese use of nuclear weapons goes, Taiwan stands to gain a bit from having them, since it would make the Chinese leery of attacking, and low kiloton-range warheads could potentially be used on attacking Chinese fleets. However, a Taiwanese equivalent of the Israeli 'Jericho(spelling?) project' would be useless for them; the Chinese are not trying to drive Taiwan into the sea, they are trying to eliminate a threat to their power and to gain economically.

As far as the US being greedy and only going to war for economic interests. While I would argue that that's largely false, discussion of its falsehood is unneccessary. Open trade with Taiwan and having Taiwan independant from China is far more proffitable than any Iraqi oil reserves would have been.

In this case it does. We were under the British the Crown. Subject to British Law. Proud to do so too then Mad King George blew it.

So Zombi is correct when he said "But we were a single nation. The American colonies were part of the British Empire and the colonists were subjects of the Crown. Benjamin Franklin proudly considered himself an Englishman for a large portion of his life."

Mad King George thought that 'America' was an island off the coast of France... can't really hold him accountable...

Zombi is wrong, I'm afraid... a Nation more than being part of the same Empire, or being subject to the same laws. The colony was not a stable, historical part of England. It shared no Territory, and no economic life (except through taxation).

It was a colony (an independant settlement, still governed by the native state), loyal to the crown - originally... not part of the same 'nation'.

Canada is hardly equivalent to the colonies, however. A better analogy might be the Northwest Territories' relationship with Canada. Partly representative, partly appointed government, partly self-governing, but clearly, in the end, part of Canada.

The colonies were settled by subjects of the Crown, and the colonies were ruled by the British monarch and subject to the laws of Parliament. Land grants were established under the laws of the Crown. Heck, Lord Baltimore founded Maryland and named it after the wife of Charles I under a charter from that selfsame king.

I am curious about where you think Canada 'came from'...

Don't be a fool. Making up random (hugely inflated) numbers doesn't make you look smart.

Hmm Phylos sounds like he's just kidding

Mad King George thought that 'America' was an island off the coast of France... can't really hold him accountable...

No one said he was a smart cookie.

Zombi is wrong, I'm afraid... a Nation more than being part of the same Empire, or being subject to the same laws. The colony was not a stable, historical part of England. It shared no Territory, and no economic life (except through taxation).

Actually, you might be surprised regarding the economic life. It did share Territory. It was mostly stable except for Mass. It was considered part of England otherwise, they wouldn't have called themselves ENGLISHMEN!!!!

Now that its 1:00, I'm out of this office and going to grab lunch and head back to my dorm!

Sorry - didn't mean to be confusing...

Trilateral Commission said " ... the US... people would back Taiwan simply because Americans don't want China to be too powerful"...

I assumed that he/she must have some reason to base that on... otherwise it is, surely, just wishful thinking?

I think 50 years of Cold War history and the US policy of containment versus the Soviet Union is a pretty good basis for that assumption? Wouldn't you agree?

In addition, the US has a history dating back to 1949 of promises to defend Taiwan from Chinese attack. Including over the last few years frequent visits by the US 7th Fleet whenever the Chinese decide to lob a few missiles in a "test area" located very close to Taiwan.

I suspect a poll (I think there is one, but can't cite one of hand) would show most Americans would agree that defending Taiwan was not only morally right, but also in the best interest of the United States. I could be wrong, but I don't have those numbers off hand.

The bottom line is this however. Most historians agree that the US foreign policy in the 20th (and now 21st Century) has been to ensure that no dominant power controlled Europe or Asia to the point where it could economically dominate either continent to that point where it could then build a navy big enough to be a serious threat to North America or the Western Hemisphere. A Chinese seizure of Taiwan would either absorb or destroy one of the larger global trading states (in economic strength, not numbers), and would be viewed almost certainly as a direct threat to Japan and South Korea, which likely to see a Japanese decision to arm itself with nuclear weapons for its own security.

Not something ANYONE, especially the Japanese and the remainder of Asia (who remember a militaristic Japan from World War 2) want to see.

The US should again guarantee Taiwans security, and the Europeans and Canadians should also. Not to threaten China, but to deter it.

1) No - slaves 'freed' during the Northern theft of Southern foodstuffs were freed DURING the process... not by it.
Of course slaves weren't freed by the process of stealing food. Food is stolen by the process of stealing food. Slaves were freed by the process of freeing slaves. :rolleyes: might as well be arguing about what the definition of "is" is.

Cause: Union soldiers' war objective is to ransack a particular plantation.
Effect: Food is stolen, property destroyed, and slaves freed.

2) Emancipation was already happening. It is ridiculous to ignore that, and claim that the war of Northern Aggression CAUSED it.
Not the only cause. It was a cause, an immediate cause, and an important cause.

It shared no Territory, and no economic life (except through taxation).
I was rather under the impression that the American colonies had a rather strict economic relationship with England, trading their raw materials and agricultural products in exchange for refined and manufactured products sent back from England to the colonies. Maybe I'm out of date on that?

I am curious about where you think Canada 'came from'...
To quote the Simpsons, "Really? You see, I have been living on Mars for the past decade, in a cave, with my eyes closed and my fingers in my ears."

British Canada's origins aren't dissimilar, but the origins of its independence were. It did not come into its independence through a secessionist war but through the gradual relaxation and granting of autonomy within the British Empire from the last half of the nineteenth to the first half of the twentieth century (Statute of Westminster). They just happened to split apart slowly and amicably, whereas we went for the "shooting people" option.

I was rather under the impression that the American colonies had a rather strict economic relationship with England, trading their raw materials and agricultural products in exchange for refined and manufactured products sent back from England to the colonies. Maybe I'm out of date on that?

You are correct. America could only legally import from England and export to England. Non-English merchant ships were banned from American ports. There was a great deal of smuggling though.

Canada... prior to the American Revolution
during the French and Indian Wars, British forces drive out the French Arcadians (from what are now the Maritime provinces), and the British also settle the remainder of the maritimes, while the French lose eventually and the British end up with 2 Canadas... a French part and a British part.

After the revolution, a large number of American loyalists moved to Ontario creating what became known as upper and lower Canada for a time (with the Maritimes administered seperately). Eventually unified (except for Labrador if I remember correctly) when Canada became a Dominion (along with the rest of Western Canada) with Labrador joining Canada officially if I recall correctly after World War 2. The Canadians, except for Rial and his men, never fought a war to leave the British Empire, but then, they didn't really have too. Would they have been forced too if there hadn't been an American Revolution? Hard to say, depends if the British had kept the same policies that led to the American Revolution to begin with.

US Civil War was fundamentally about slavery. Without slavery, there wouldn't have been the Southern dependence on low tariffs that bothered the Northern industrialists, and the South probably would not have been so economically poorly developed. On the other hand, without slavery Virginia and the other southern colonies might not have been economically viable during the early Colonial period and might have collapsed.

The War was not initially about freeing the slaves. Lincoln himself said that if he could restore the Union by "Freeing all the slaves, none of the slaves or just part of the slaves" it made no difference. He just wanted to ensure a unified United States. But it quickly became obvious that no matter what, a Union victory was going to destroy slavery, as even before the Emencipation Proclamation slaves were fleeing the South whereever Union armies were there to flee too (and they were initially called contriband). After 1862, they fled in huge numbers to the nearest Union Army, everwhere and in all campaigns. The refugee slave death toll was probably huge by the way but hasn't been thoroughly investigated because the hard data is apparently nonexistent.

With the enrollment of tens of thousands of former slaves and free Blacks into Union regiments in 1863 -64, the war aims were clear. The South would be conquered, slavery ended at the point of a gun, and the economic and political power of the Southern slaveholding elites would be destroyed forever.

Didn't work out entirely that way, but pretty close.

Canada... prior to the American Revolution
during the French and Indian Wars, British forces drive out the French Arcadians (from what are now the Maritime provinces), and the British also settle the remainder of the maritimes, while the French lose eventually and the British end up with 2 Canadas... a French part and a British part.


a stupid part, and a British part...

You are correct. America could only legally import from England and export to England. Non-English merchant ships were banned from American ports. There was a great deal of smuggling though.

a huge amount of smuggling. John Hancock got very rich that way, and the first real armed clash occured when locals seized by force a British revenue cutter that had been particularly zealous about catching smugglers.

Smuggling was rife in England during this time too, and continued well into the 19th Century.

Perhaps a more enlightened British economic policy would have been helpful. However, Adam Smith was the only real economic theory anybody had and learning from experience seems to be the British historical tradition.

I think 50 years of Cold War history and the US policy of containment versus the Soviet Union is a pretty good basis for that assumption? Wouldn't you agree?

No.

Different country.. different time.

Of course slaves weren't freed by the process of stealing food. Food is stolen by the process of stealing food. Slaves were freed by the process of freeing slaves. :rolleyes: might as well be arguing about what the definition of "is" is.

Cause: Union soldiers' war objective is to ransack a particular plantation.
Effect: Food is stolen, property destroyed, and slaves freed.


Not the only cause. It was a cause, an immediate cause, and an important cause.

Off-Topic: Though I am non-partisan... I DO believe that the 'definition of "is" argument' is one of the greatest pieces of political art I have seen, anywhere.

The Emancipation Movement was what 'caused' emancipation. The 'civil war' had factors about it which contributed to that cause... but the war was not the Cause, itself.

No.

Different country.. different time.

what about the rest of the arguement? A simple "no" doesn't begin to cover all the points I made.

The fact that containment worked for the most part, and prevented a war that would have made World War 2 look like a snowball fight between 3 year olds argues that it was a successful policy. Along with the fact that the Soviet Union isn't around any more.

There is little reason to assume that Red China is anymore stable than the Soviet Union. The ethnic divisions are similarly large, the disparity in economic development between coastal and interior China are something to ponder, and the fact that a growing (in spite of repression) pro democracy movement continues to be a concern to the Communist leadership are all things to consider. As is the very real possibility of China reverting to warlordism and balkanization. All of these things are possible in China, as is the possibility that it could very well become a 2nd Superpower within the next generation.

Containment may very well return, along with engagement (trade being the primary motivator). Preventing war through deterrence and alliances would seem the way to go to ensure that China doesn't become dangerously aggressive.

Off-Topic: Though I am non-partisan... I DO believe that the 'definition of "is" argument' is one of the greatest pieces of political art I have seen, anywhere.

The Emancipation Movement was what 'caused' emancipation. The 'civil war' had factors about it which contributed to that cause... but the war was not the Cause, itself.

How about this, Grave - Let's say we hate each other to the point that I would like nothing more than to hit you in the face. You come up to me and spit in my face so I hit you. I'm almost positive that my punching you has more than a connection to the spit. I think everyone who witnessed it would say I punched you in the face beCAUSE you spit in my face. That I already wanted to punch you does not change that fact.

You're just trying to be difficult because you don't agree with the Civil War and don't want to admit there were some good, some great effects of that war (I happen to believe in state's rights which of course suffered greatly due to the war). More to the point, I hardly think a group of people who were represented equally in the larger government until they chose not to be, i.e. the south, can be compared to Taiwan and its relationship to China. If the southern states wanted to have the right to secede they should have included it in the constitution like Texas and a few other states did. How about we stop playing "I can keep you from have a useful discussion by arguing semantics" and come to the table with some useful and poignant information not aimed at hijacking the discussion.

Containment may very well return, along with engagement (trade being the primary motivator).
(personal opinion)
As it should. My father always used to say that America's greatest weapon was its ability to export itself and that trade was our best weapon. He always used to say that trade embargoes weakened our ability to influence the embargoed nation more than it weakened the embargoed nation itself. You should keep the option for war, of course, and a strong military... but trade is our forte.

Economically, Chinese communism is already crumbling badly at the hands of Chinese capitalism, and that that same capitalism will erode the underpinnings of autocratic rule. I think if we're patient enough, an increasingly sophisticated workforce will eventually supplant their dictatorship, the way the South Koreans finally tossed out their own military dictators under their own steam and turned into an authentic democracy with a strong economy that would allow them to maintain it.

If you look at countries where we've done the opposite like Cuba and North Korea, where we've cut off trade and treated them as unengageable enemies... those are the few Communist countries that have managed to persist! It's like handing them a rallying point for regime support, high grade internal information control and a scapegoat for economic woes all in one nice, neat little package, without even impoverishing the leaders of the regimes themselves.
(/personal opinion)

(personal opinion)
As it should. My father always used to say that America's greatest weapon was its ability to export itself and that trade was our best weapon. He always used to say that trade embargoes weakened our ability to influence the embargoed nation more than it weakened the embargoed nation itself. You should keep the option for war, of course, and a strong military... but trade is our forte.

Economically, Chinese communism is already crumbling badly at the hands of Chinese capitalism, and that that same capitalism will erode the underpinnings of autocratic rule. I think if we're patient enough, an increasingly sophisticated workforce will eventually supplant their dictatorship, the way the South Koreans finally tossed out their own military dictators under their own steam and turned into an authentic democracy with a strong economy that would allow them to maintain it.

If you look at countries where we've done the opposite like Cuba and North Korea, where we've cut off trade and treated them as unengageable enemies... those are the few Communist countries that have managed to persist! It's like handing them a rallying point for regime support, high grade internal information control and a scapegoat for economic woes all in one nice, neat little package, without even impoverishing the leaders of the regimes themselves.
(/personal opinion)

well put