• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Technically true, but collectively nonsense

No offense, but this thread hasn’t been about you for quite a while.

We are builders in a constant struggle with destroyers. let’s win this.

We cannot abandon the truth and remain a free nation.

Wow, I can’t imagine what it was like to comment in morse code.

Let’s delete this post and never speak of this again.

Their boy Ron is an empty plastic cup that will never know pudding.

There are some who say that there are too many strawmen arguments on this blog.

Boeing: repeatedly making the case for high speed rail.

Glad to see john eastman going through some things.

Prediction: the gop will rethink its strategy of boycotting future committees.

… riddled with inexplicable and elementary errors of law and fact

Do not shrug your shoulders and accept the normalization of untruths.

It’s easier to kill a dangerous animal than a man who just happens to have different thoughts/values than one’s own.

I’d try pessimism, but it probably wouldn’t work.

There is no compromise when it comes to body autonomy. You either have it or you don’t.

White supremacy is terrorism.

Come on, media. you have one job. start doing it.

If West Virginia and San Francisco had a love child.

If you are still in the gop, you are either an extremist yourself, or in bed with those who are.

Motto for the House: Flip 5 and lose none.

A democracy can’t function when people can’t distinguish facts from lies.

Trump makes a mockery of the legal system and cowardly judges just sit back and let him.

Books are my comfort food!

Mobile Menu

  • Four Directions Montana
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2024 Elections
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Foreign Affairs / I’ll Take “Future Conflicts” For $500, Alex

I’ll Take “Future Conflicts” For $500, Alex

by Tim F|  September 30, 20079:39 am| 73 Comments

This post is in: Foreign Affairs

FacebookTweetEmail

Oy.

Taiwan’s ruling party passed a resolution Sunday asserting the island’s separate identity from rival China and calling for a referendum on Taiwan’s sovereignty, the latest in a series of moves aimed at strengthening the island’s de-facto independence.

The resolution — passed after heated debate at a boisterous party congress — calls for making the island’s formal name ”Taiwan,” without specifically abolishing its current official name, the ”Republic of China.” It also calls for the enactment of a new constitution, but gives no specific deadline for either that or the referendum.

China has grown a superpower’s sense of “backyard” (e.g., Burma) but it never had much interest in empire per se, preferring investment, trade and convenient vetoes at the Security Council to direct intervention. China hasn’t had a Vietnam war, an Iraq war or an Afghanistan, its first aircraft carrier remains years off at best. When it comes to territorial border security, however, China comes very close to fanatic. For many the bitterness at Japan, for example, remains fresh, vivid and raw.

While it is a relief to see that Chinese Taiwan policy has moved perceptibly from threats to diplomacy, don’t mistake that for a softened stance in general. If and when Taiwan pulls the trigger China stands ready to do everything in its considerable power to subdue the island. As I recall Lincoln took about the same position.

Maybe it’s a bad thing that Iraq has downgraded our military to the point that we could do little more than sit back and watch. Then again, at this point only our ground forces are broken and, after all, who in their right mind thinks that we should engage the Chinese army on the ground? From the start our only best option was to park a couple of carrier groups in the Taiwan Strait and hope the Chinese don’t show up to dance, and as far as I know we can still do that. Complicating a complicated picture, China and Taiwan both own sizable chunks of our national debt, which happens right now to be leveraged farther over a cliff than a NINJA loan. As a fun little bonus, bolstering the Taiwan Strait would force us to give up pretensions of threatening Iran. And in the best of cases we might still lose that carrier group if China wants to push the issue badly enough.

In general I see a bloody mess with no good options for us. But hey, that just means I’m plagued with non-neoconservative concepts like nuance and worst-case-scenario planning. How do you suppose moral clarity would deal with the situation?

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Oversight!
Next Post: Steelers-Cards Open Thread »

Reader Interactions

73Comments

  1. 1.

    Jackmormon

    September 30, 2007 at 10:16 am

    Taiwan seems like a nice place and all, but I’ve never understood why it’s any of our business to get between it and China.

  2. 2.

    Andrew

    September 30, 2007 at 10:17 am

    China hasn’t had a Vietnam war

    Um, yes they have, in the quite literal sense of the phrase.

  3. 3.

    demimondian

    September 30, 2007 at 10:24 am

    Umm, Tim? You need to rethink your history. China was (quite literally) the first Imperial power. The Son of Heaven was meant to rule ALL men, not just the Han Chinese.

  4. 4.

    Tim F.

    September 30, 2007 at 10:30 am

    Andrew, while you’re technically right (and China did contribute materially to our actual Vietnam war), I have a very hard time analogizing that month-long border skirmish with our engagement there.

  5. 5.

    Tim F.

    September 30, 2007 at 10:34 am

    China was (quite literally) the first Imperial power. The Son of Heaven was meant to rule ALL men, not just the Han Chinese.

    Demi, you know that I mean modern China. Unlike their SOviet neighbors the Chinese reds have never shown interest in expansion or colonizing.

    Also, don’t forget Zheng He. Chinese attitude towards expanding its horizons beyond China proper has always been love-hate at best. That doesn’t count the Mongolian emperors who obviously had their own perspective on things.

  6. 6.

    The Pirate

    September 30, 2007 at 10:45 am

    The nice thing (comparatively speaking) about the situation you suggest is that it at least plays to our strengths. You’ve got a clear, limited objective (“defend Taiwan”) and a battleground (sea and air) in which America is overwhelmingly superior, and you’ve also got a means to compel the other side to come to terms (punitive bombing- sure, it didn’t work in Vietnam or Germany, but those were wars of annhilation, which a war for Taiwan definitely won’t be).

    But I doubt it will ever come to that because the Chinese economy is just as closely tied to the American economy as the our economy is tied to theirs.

    As for having to give up threatening Iran…well, that’s probably not such a bad idea anyway.

  7. 7.

    Enlightened Layperson

    September 30, 2007 at 11:25 am

    Don’t forget, before 9-11, while one neocon faction was pushing for us to invade Iraq, another was doing its best to start a war with China, preferably over Taiwan. Maybe they will have their way yet.

  8. 8.

    Enlightened Layperson

    September 30, 2007 at 11:27 am

    PS: On the subject of Chinese imperialism, don’t forget Tibet.

  9. 9.

    Tim F.

    September 30, 2007 at 11:40 am

    PS: On the subject of Chinese imperialism, don’t forget Tibet.

    I haven’t. The Tibet campaign was prefaced on a claim that Tibet lies within China’s territorial borders. The historical paperwork is pretty shaky (I believe it rests on a thousand-year-old mutual defense treaty with a Dalai Lama) but at least from the leadership’s perspective it does not involve territorial expansion per se.

  10. 10.

    Dan the Man

    September 30, 2007 at 12:44 pm

    This is just a party congress vote, not a Taiwanese Parliament vote – since the Taiwanese Parliament is controlled by the opposition. It’s not that big of deal since that’s been the position of the “pan-Green” coalition for a long time.

    But even if war happens, the US doesn’t need to fight the PRC (mainland China) to have China defeated. All the US has to do is let the PRC invade and take over Taiwan, and then the US (and Japan) funds and arms an insurgency among the native Taiwanese population who would kill thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of PRC soldiers. There’s no way the PRC could defeat the insurgency. If a war happens, this would actually be the best option for the US, even though it would be horrible for Taiwan.

  11. 11.

    demimondian

    September 30, 2007 at 12:50 pm

    I would argue that China’s involvement in North Korea during the Korean Conflict is absolutely a case of direct imperial action within its sphere of influence, and its continued support is intended as a direct threat to South Korea. I’d argue that the Chinese support for the Khmer Rouge was a classic imperial proxy war. I’d argue that the current subjugation of Mongolia…you get the picture.

    The PRC is a modern post-imperial hegemonist, just as the United States is.

  12. 12.

    craigie

    September 30, 2007 at 1:24 pm

    How do you suppose moral clarity would deal with the situation?

    Easy. We bomb Iceland tomorrow!

  13. 13.

    poppinfresh

    September 30, 2007 at 2:02 pm

    China simply cannot take Taiwan yet, not without losing hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions, of troops (which would probably topple the PRC). The fact that America has a foreward-deployed carrier group in Okinawa specifically for this purpose doesn’t help matters- China is a long way off from being able to fight that kind of firepower. They have no navy with which to get troops onto Taiwan, especially given how well trained the RoC army is in shore defense.

    When I was in Hualien in 2005, I got a big kick out of watching Taiwanese F-16s fly fully-armed CAPs pretty much 24 hours a day, and wondering what shitty post-Soviet MiG could compete with that.

    Answer: none.

  14. 14.

    Justin Slotman

    September 30, 2007 at 3:02 pm

    I kind of think this is exactly the right time for Taiwan to start pushing these kinds of issues, China has much less room to do something violent with the Olympics coming up.

    And reading this thread, especially what poppinfresh just said, it seems like it would be idiotic for China to do something violent at any point in the near future. And Taiwan probably knows this, they’re just choosing not to poke the bear too much because who knows what will happen if they do. The Taiwan independence-in-name forces (Taiwan is already de facto independent, after all, they just have to pretend they’re not during international sporting events) seem to be doing the smart (and patient) thing by chipping away at the status quo.

  15. 15.

    TenguPhule

    September 30, 2007 at 4:17 pm

    When I was in Hualien in 2005, I got a big kick out of watching Taiwanese F-16s fly fully-armed CAPs pretty much 24 hours a day, and wondering what shitty post-Soviet MiG could compete with that.

    Doesn’t matter how shitty the MIGs are, China can simply throw them at Taiwan until the F16s run out of ammmo.

    Quantity can trump quality, and China is *very* good at that.

  16. 16.

    TenguPhule

    September 30, 2007 at 4:18 pm

    Shorter Jackmormon: I don’t know jack!

  17. 17.

    TenguPhule

    September 30, 2007 at 4:22 pm

    The nice thing (comparatively speaking) about the situation you suggest is that it at least plays to our strengths.

    Uh, not really. Our military has demonstrated time and again that it sucks at playing defense. And sending carrier groups into an area the enemy knows they *must* defend is asking for a lot of sunken hulls.

    We have the best offense in the world, but playing in China’s backyard is asking for a bloody spanking.

    and you’ve also got a means to compel the other side to come to terms (punitive bombing- sure, it didn’t work in Vietnam or Germany, but those were wars of annhilation, which a war for Taiwan definitely won’t be).

    Provided you move to the US base in Japan for a front row seat to the counterattack….or did you forget that kind of thing works *both* ways?

  18. 18.

    Tim F.

    September 30, 2007 at 4:34 pm

    China’s naval strategy centers around essentially one circumstance: the US parks a carrier in the Taiwan strait and the PRC needs to make it go away. They would suck at taking Midway, for example, but the one thing they equipped and trained for (check that wikipedia link from the post) is not the situation in which we want to find ourselves.

  19. 19.

    The Pirate

    September 30, 2007 at 4:43 pm

    Tengu, what are you talking about? The Chinese air force is absolutely outclassed in every conceivable way against the United States, let alone against a USAF-Taiwanese tag-team. If they attacked Japan, they would also have to deal with the JSDF.

    The Chinese will never, ever risk a military confrontation over Taiwan because they know they would be raped.

  20. 20.

    The Pirate

    September 30, 2007 at 4:48 pm

    Anyway, we might lose a carrier, but ask yourself- what’s more important, a carrier, or Taiwan? This isn’t Vietnam War ambiguity. In this situation we basically have a choice between acting or letting a stable, prosperous democracy be destroyed.

    And, again, it would never happen, because even if we lose a carrier the Chinese know they’d lose much, much more.

  21. 21.

    TenguPhule

    September 30, 2007 at 5:20 pm

    The Chinese will never, ever risk a military confrontation over Taiwan because they know they would be raped.

    And this shows you know absolutely nothing about the situation.

    China has enough rockets to turn large parts of Japan into smoking craters. Should US forces bomb China, they *will* retaliate with enough firepower to reduce our regional forces there to ash. China’s airforce that we know about is outclassed in terms of quality, but quantity is a quality of its own. Coordinated with bombardments on military sites, they have the potential to inflict horrific damage even if they take heavy losses. Do you really think people on both sides don’t know this? Why do you think we’ve been playing this balancing act for so long? Your dreams about ‘easy’ are as stupid as the Neo-cons on Iraq. Respect the Chinese military or it will eat you alive.

    And, again, it would never happen, because even if we lose a carrier the Chinese know they’d lose much, much more.

    You know nothing about the concept of face. Taiwan is to China what Iraq is to Bush, its stupid but they’ll do it anyway. Our only consolation is China at least isn’t completely fucking insane.

    China can afford to lose more then the US in a fight over Taiwan and would still come out ahead. Their entire military has been spending decades building for this, and while I agree we won’t have a choice but to honor our defense treaty with Taiwan, I also have no illusions that it will be anything but a bloody mess when we do.

  22. 22.

    J. Michael Neal

    September 30, 2007 at 5:30 pm

    To be honest, China’s legal claim to Taiwan isn’t that great. Until 1683, it was ruled by the Dutch, with almost no Han population at all. The Qing Dynasty then took it over, and China ruled until 1895, when they lost Taiwan to Japan. For almost a hundred years after that, it was illegal for Han Chinese to emigrate to Taiwan.

    It’s been 112 years since mainland China was the government of Taiwan. Before that, it had only been 212 years that they did control it, and only about 130 years during which they actually populated it.

    Now, I realize that legal claims are often irrelevant to the behavior of countries in these sorts of situations, and China sure as hell isn’t going to let any of this sort of analysis get in their way. Still, it’s worth keeping in mind as we think about it. It is absolutely the case that any analogy between Taiwan independence and the secession of the Confederacy is silly.

  23. 23.

    TenguPhule

    September 30, 2007 at 5:35 pm

    It is absolutely the case that any analogy between Taiwan independence and the secession of the Confederacy is silly.

    Not when it comes to the lengths China will go to make sure Taiwan doesn’t get away.

  24. 24.

    The Pirate

    September 30, 2007 at 6:13 pm

    Tengu, you clearly know nothing about military technology. “Quantity has a quality all its own” is a concept which has been slowly going out of date since 1914. Why do you think we’ve sunk so much money into the F-22? It doesn’t matter how many planes the Chinese throw at it, they’ll never hit it.

    I am well aware of the Chinese missile emplacements lining the straits of Taiwan. It doesn’t change the fact that the USAF-Taiwanese air force would have absolute air supremacy, which is absolutely critical in a conflict like this.

    I am also well aware that the Chinese insist Taiwan is an indivisible part of the mainland. I am well aware that it is a “point of honor” or “face” or whatever you want to call it. That’s totally irrelevant. They want it, but they know they can’t have it.

    Who knows how the balance of power will shift in the future, but it’ll be at least 20 years before China has even the ghost of a hope of conquering Taiwan.

  25. 25.

    poppinfresh

    September 30, 2007 at 6:22 pm

    What he said. The Japanese military could also utterly crush the Chinese in the air and on the seas (the only places that matter in this conversation) for the forseeable future, let alone with the U.S. and Taiwan helping. The JSDF is quite capable of turning all those shiny coastal factories and towns into so much rubble.

    As Pirate says, this will doubtlessly change in the coming decades, but right now China can do very little to project power towards Taiwan or Japan that wouldn’t be met with a disasterous response.

  26. 26.

    JWW

    September 30, 2007 at 6:38 pm

    Am I allowed a comment? Just checking.

  27. 27.

    grumpy realist

    September 30, 2007 at 6:42 pm

    Actually, I remember back in the late 90s when one of the Japanese ministers made some comments about Japan having an even better right to Taiwan….

  28. 28.

    J. Michael Neal

    September 30, 2007 at 6:47 pm

    From my reading on the subject, the Chinese military has advanced to the point that they will sink some of our ships if it came to war. It won’t be a bloodless victory any longer. It will be a victory. The question China will be asking itself is whether the US is willing to pay the price it would take to win the war.

  29. 29.

    Justin Slotman

    September 30, 2007 at 6:58 pm

    Well–at least we’ve convinced China we have no problem getting involved in incredibly stupid wars, so maybe they’ll stay on their toes.

    But I can’t imagine two nations as tied economically as we and they are coming to blows. Bluster isn’t just their best weapon, it’s their only weapon.

  30. 30.

    JWW

    September 30, 2007 at 7:20 pm

    Tengu,

    Could you give me a phonetic on that. I will agree with most of the above against your pitiful argument. You really haven’t the slightest idea of what you are talking about. It is really sad that you choose too make such a fool of yourself.

    Tim,

    Your comment (Maybe it’s a bad thing that Iraq has downgraded our military to the point that we could do little more than sit back and watch. Then again, at this point only our ground forces are broken and, after all, who in their right mind thinks that we should engage the Chinese army on the ground?)

    Our ground forces are broken, you should really get a grip. Our ground forces could sweep that nation in 120 days from Kuwait to Turkey if given the order. Do not not act a fool and underestimate what they can do, if given the order too do so.

    China,
    Taken by air or sea alone, not without a current revolution within. Going back to the ground forces, they would be the deciding factor in a war with a nation, not just its leader. If we went to war as a nation against a nation, you would be suprised at how good we really are.

  31. 31.

    TenguPhule

    September 30, 2007 at 7:21 pm

    “Quantity has a quality all its own” is a concept which has been slowly going out of date since 1914. Why do you think we’ve sunk so much money into the F-22?

    I’ll refrain from the obvious point that the Raptor is a military boondoogle used to make contractors lots of money.

    The kind of quantity China throws around can negate quality because the Taiwan/US airplanes would run out of missiles before the Chinese ran out of planes in an attack. And what will our planes return to? Bombed out airfields and sunken carriers. Our forces are better, but they can only be in one place at one time and playing defense gives them the worst of both worlds. When the balloon goes up China will be ready, we won’t. There will be no steady Kuwait buildup, and reinforcing the area will be bitch.

    I am well aware of the Chinese missile emplacements lining the straits of Taiwan. It doesn’t change the fact that the USAF-Taiwanese air force would have absolute air supremacy, which is absolutely critical in a conflict like this.

    Planes are only as good as long as they have someplace to return to rearm and refuel. Think about it.

    That’s totally irrelevant. They want it, but they know they can’t have it.

    Perhaps you should tell them that, because China seems to disagree with you.

  32. 32.

    TenguPhule

    September 30, 2007 at 7:23 pm

    You really haven’t the slightest idea of what you are talking about. It is really sad that you choose too make such a fool of yourself.

    JWW’s Irony of the Day! Round of Applause for the BJ Jester!

  33. 33.

    TenguPhule

    September 30, 2007 at 7:24 pm

    But I can’t imagine two nations as tied economically as we and they are coming to blows. Bluster isn’t just their best weapon, it’s their only weapon.

    Never Underestimate Human Stupidity.

    Or national pride.

  34. 34.

    Justin Slotman

    September 30, 2007 at 7:33 pm

    But I can’t imagine two nations as tied economically as we and they are coming to blows. Bluster isn’t just their best weapon, it’s their only weapon.

    Never Underestimate Human Stupidity.

    Or national pride.

    That’s also good to keep in mind.

  35. 35.

    TenguPhule

    September 30, 2007 at 7:40 pm

    The Japanese military could also utterly crush the Chinese in the air and on the seas (the only places that matter in this conversation) for the forseeable future, let alone with the U.S. and Taiwan helping. The JSDF is quite capable of turning all those shiny coastal factories and towns into so much rubble.

    We are talking about the same post-WW II Japanese SDF, aren’t we? The one that exists in reality, not happy-fun-time world?

  36. 36.

    JWW

    September 30, 2007 at 7:42 pm

    Tim,

    Not that I totally disagree with the point of view. In our own country, around 1993 or 1994 we had a president that had a notion of recognizing gangs in CA and WA. They were recocnized by name and allowed to have representative speakers meet with federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. The law enforcement agencies cited the law, the gangs cited their law. We’ve found no solution to gang violence. The gangs have found no reason but too do business as usual. Seems as though that pours over to the current conflict. If we all knew what it takes to win a war, and agree that it’s not pretty, but something we will have to live with. It would have been done some time ago.

  37. 37.

    TenguPhule

    September 30, 2007 at 7:50 pm

    Shorter JWW: Clenis! Look at my big distracting Clenis!

  38. 38.

    JWW

    September 30, 2007 at 8:02 pm

    Tengu,

    You being a jester and all, I understand. The Russian’s for years out numbered our military, man for man, tank for tank, jet for jet. They also planned to have the war on thier own ground. You have no real spine. Just a mouth of polluted water, a glimpse of a mind, and a heart so shallow the sun couldn’t cast a shadow on it from any angle.

  39. 39.

    TenguPhule

    September 30, 2007 at 8:15 pm

    The Russian’s for years out numbered our military, man for man, tank for tank, jet for jet. They also planned to have the war on thier own ground.

    Shorter JWW: I use words, but I don’t understand what they mean.

  40. 40.

    JWW

    September 30, 2007 at 8:20 pm

    Tengu,

    I don’t know what I should say. You have so impressed me. Should I bow, step to the side and be ever so humble? Maybe I should seek assistance by hiring a military advisor. No, that would be a waste of my money, especially when addressing the likes of you. Common sense and a decent upbringing and education has by far surpassed anything you can say.

  41. 41.

    TenguPhule

    September 30, 2007 at 8:24 pm

    JWW says: I don’t know what I should say.

    We know, JWW. We know.

  42. 42.

    JWW

    September 30, 2007 at 8:32 pm

    K, Phule(aka, Fool)

    You really have no point. Just want to be an ass and it shows. You run your mouth, spew shit and can’t give an answer to anyone who opposes you. You haven’t a mind of your own, your mind is brought and payed for. But it bought with somebody else’s money, and paid for with your sole. I really would like to see your face in person, have a good debate of matters. But, I fear your would run, the same as you have run with each post entered with your name as the intended reader. You have as yet, too respond with other than BS. Find your balls, no, go look in the mirror and check your lipstick and eye lashes.

  43. 43.

    TenguPhule

    September 30, 2007 at 8:49 pm

    JWW says: Just want to be an ass and it shows.

    We know JWW, we know.

  44. 44.

    TenguPhule

    September 30, 2007 at 8:52 pm

    But hey, that just means I’m plagued with non-neoconservative dirty hippie liberal concepts like nuance and worst-case-scenario planning.

    Corrected for FOX viewers.

  45. 45.

    MNPundit

    September 30, 2007 at 9:12 pm

    I’d be more open to fighting China over Iran because China is actually more of a god damn threat to us.

  46. 46.

    JWW

    September 30, 2007 at 9:21 pm

    Oh Tengu,

    You really are quick, and so funny. That does not give you an excuse to avoid having too own up to your own statements. Maybe you will just continue and evade. You are giving everyone the impression that you have been talking BS. Own up or keep your mouth shut. Just be yourself and throw BS.

  47. 47.

    poppinfresh

    September 30, 2007 at 9:26 pm

    Good god, you really don’t have any idea what the fuck you are talking about. The F-22 can’t be HIT by any modern competitor, making infinite numbers of Chinese planes(or anyone else, for that matter) FUCKING IRRELEVANT. This is the lovely thing about gross technical superiority in matters military. Those of us who exit our own rectums now and again for fresh air are familiar with this as the “Cortez in the Americas” Doctrine.

    Quoth wikipedia on the subject:

    “In June 2006 during Exercise Northern Edge (Alaska’s largest joint military training exercise), the F-22A achieved a 144-to-zero kill-to-loss ratio against F-15s, F-16s and F/A-18s simulating MiG-29 ‘Fulcrums’, Su-30 ‘Flankers’, and other current front line Russian aircraft, which outnumbered the F-22A 5 to 1 at times.[21][34] The small F-22 force of 12 aircraft generated 49% of the total kills for the exercise, and operated with an unprecedented reliability rate of 97%.[30]”

    As for Japan… I mean, just… wow. I guess the fact that they’re spending something like $50 billion a year on defense spending versus China’s 65-some, without a need to maintain a giant army or refit ancient equipment on a huge scale, makes them total rollover pussies. And, I mean, its not like the Japanese are known for their technological sophistication or nothin’, I bet they’re using sticks and rocks over there.

    Ass.

  48. 48.

    Justin

    September 30, 2007 at 9:29 pm

    The Pirate says

    Tengu, you clearly know nothing about military technology. “Quantity has a quality all its own” is a concept which has been slowly going out of date since 1914. Why do you think we’ve sunk so much money into the F-22? It doesn’t matter how many planes the Chinese throw at it, they’ll never hit it.

    I’m not overly impressed with Tengu’s appraisal, but this is just a mind-bogglingly stupid thing to say. Tengu’s correct that the F-22 (and the F-35) fires missiles and needs a place to land now and then, neither of which are limitless. The Chinese understand saturation warfare very well.

  49. 49.

    poppinfresh

    September 30, 2007 at 9:30 pm

    Oh, and as for the ‘Taiwanese and Americans having nowhere to land’ meme you spouted (presumably from all those well-tested, highly accurate Chinese cruise missiles), the Taiwanese practice landing their F-16s on the highways inland, and the American air force is based out of Okinawa, which is slightly more secure than a nun’s undies and would require Japan being totally beaten into submission while America sat back and did nothing.

    Try again?

  50. 50.

    TenguPhule

    September 30, 2007 at 9:40 pm

    The F-22 can’t be HIT by any modern competitor, making infinite numbers of Chinese planes(or anyone else, for that matter) FUCKING IRRELEVANT.

    And what you seem to fail to grasp is the Chinese airforce *DOESN’T* *NEED* to be able to hit one in the air.

    They simply need to throw enough planes that the Raptors RUN OUT OF AMMO and get bombed to hell on the ground when they land to reload.

    Yes, the Raptor has no equals in the air, but in this kind of warfare, that doesn’t matter one little bit if its killed on the ground.

  51. 51.

    Justin

    September 30, 2007 at 9:40 pm

    which outnumbered the F-22A 5 to 1 at times.

    What happens if they’re outnumbered 20 to 1?

  52. 52.

    TenguPhule

    September 30, 2007 at 9:43 pm

    the Taiwanese practice landing their F-16s on the highways inland, and the American air force is based out of Okinawa, which is slightly more secure than a nun’s undies

    Landing on highways is all well and good, and you plan to reammunition and refuel them there too?

    As for Okinawa, China can hit it. I’d like to think they wouldn’t be crazy enough to use nukes, but enough of the regular stuff will still be enough to turn the runways and hangers into large holes in the ground.

  53. 53.

    poppinfresh

    September 30, 2007 at 9:44 pm

    I…

    You…

    Words fail.

    I could talk about how Taiwan is basically the world’s largest SAM installation, from underground installations right up to shoulder-fired missiles, or how the support of a non-enraged military is the cornerstone of the Communist party’s dominance and would be irreparably harmed if they took severe casualties, or even about how an amphibious assault with little to no naval support would absolutely NEED unmolested air cover, but I feel like maybe one of us is having this conversation while huffing modeling glue.

    I mean, its just a guess. Could be kerosene.

  54. 54.

    Justin

    September 30, 2007 at 9:46 pm

    the Taiwanese practice landing their F-16s on the highways inland

    I wonder what the refuel/re-arm turnaround time is in this case.

    You’re all arguing this like it’s going to be a series of gentleman’s duels in the air where some F-22s just hang around defeating all comers. I suspect that Chinese generals understand things a little differently.

  55. 55.

    Justin

    September 30, 2007 at 9:50 pm

    Of course, those of you beating up on Tengu could simply point out that China doesn’t have much an air force at all, if Wikipedia’s numbers are to be believed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLAAF

  56. 56.

    TenguPhule

    September 30, 2007 at 9:51 pm

    As for Japan… I mean, just… wow. I guess the fact that they’re spending something like $50 billion a year on defense spending versus China’s 65-some, without a need to maintain a giant army or refit ancient equipment on a huge scale, makes them total rollover pussies.

    You’ve stated it right there, Japan’s forces are a DEFENSE force, we helped design it that way. They’re purposely not built for offensive operations.

    As for China’s military spending, everyone lies about their own. So color me unimpressed by the official numbers. They’ve got a lot of junk from the Russians, but need I remind you what a lot of even older junk is doing to our best and brightest in Iraq?

  57. 57.

    TenguPhule

    September 30, 2007 at 10:00 pm

    I could talk about how Taiwan is basically the world’s largest SAM installation, from underground installations right up to shoulder-fired missiles,

    And China has enough missiles and rockets pointed at it to render a lot of that hardware so much rubble. Taiwan can hurt China badly, but their game plan has always been to try and hold out long enough for a rescue before they’re overrun.

    or how the support of a non-enraged military is the cornerstone of the Communist party’s dominance and would be irreparably harmed if they took severe casualties,

    After all the spindoctoring you see in the US, you don’t think China can blame it on someone else? The first wave of Casualties tend to get nations deeper into wars, not out of them.

    If I can see how China can neutralize a lot of our advantages in a no holds barred fight for Taiwan, they can too. Assuming we can take them without getting the buzzsaw treatment in return is the same kind of stupid thinking that helped contribute to the mess in Iraq. Do not underestimate the Chinese military.

  58. 58.

    TenguPhule

    September 30, 2007 at 10:02 pm

    but I feel like maybe one of us is having this conversation while huffing modeling glue.

    I mean, its just a guess. Could be kerosene.

    Maybe if you read the label before you sniff it next time….

  59. 59.

    The Pirate

    September 30, 2007 at 10:05 pm

    Tengu, you need to stop posting because you are shooting your mouth off about things you know nothing about. There is no way the PRC air force makes it past the F-22s, the carriers, the rest of the USAF, the Taiwanese air force, the JSDF, the Taiwanese antiaircraft defenses, and the Japanese antiaircraft defenses to “bomb the runways into craters” and destroy every basing location for allied aircraft. Period

    You’ve stated it right there, Japan’s forces are a DEFENSE force, we helped design it that way. They’re purposely not built for offensive operations.

    This doesn’t even make sense. How is stopping Chinese aircraft from bombing American bases in Japan or Taiwan NOT a defensive operation? America will lose because it’s geared towards offense, Japan will lose because it’s geared towards defense…you aren’t even bothering to reconcile your arguments.

  60. 60.

    TenguPhule

    September 30, 2007 at 10:08 pm

    You’re all arguing this like it’s going to be a series of gentleman’s duels in the air where some F-22s just hang around defeating all comers. I suspect that Chinese generals understand things a little differently.

    Well I’m trying to humor them.

    Personally, I’d expect a couple hundred missiles hitting the Taiwan airfields at Mach 2 to kill the planes on the ground first, followed by anti-ship missiles taking out any carrier group in the area launching in support.

    By the time anything else got there, the invasion force would already be on the ground and too closely engaged for accurate airsupport. Anything getting too close to the ground would be greeted by portable SAMS.

    And then possession becomes 9/10ths of the law.

  61. 61.

    JWW

    September 30, 2007 at 10:12 pm

    Sorry but an aircraft that never gets off the ground is not an aircraft. Don’t think for a moment, not even a fleeting thought that this area of operation has not been covered. ICBM and BM does not always mean nuke. Targets are targets. Military aircraft have a limited number of places to land, refuel, and most of all rearm. Targets are targets. Every nations has the same issue. We have carriers, they don’t, we have Europe, they don’t, we have portions of Asia, they don’t. They may own or rule parts of Asia, but they trust and support themselves only from the homeland. That means, China proper has all the targets.

  62. 62.

    The Pirate

    September 30, 2007 at 10:12 pm

    What is wrong with you? Do you think the Chinese will teleport across the straits?

    Pile onto magical ghost ships that will sail THROUGH the carriers?

    I don’t even understand the world you’re living in….where there’s no such thing as radar…or early-warning systems…or surveillance…where a PRC invasion force can just materialize without anyone noticing it was being put together…

  63. 63.

    TenguPhule

    September 30, 2007 at 10:15 pm

    How is stopping Chinese aircraft from bombing American bases in Japan or Taiwan NOT a defensive operation?

    The JSDF is quite capable of turning all those shiny coastal factories and towns into so much rubble.

    I was referring to popinfresh’s silly idea that the JSDF was an offensive force. I have no doubt that Japan’s SDF can hold its own on the ground against an enemy plane attack.

    Missile attacks are a different story.

    There is no way the PRC air force makes it past the F-22s, the carriers, the rest of the USAF, the Taiwanese air force, the JSDF, the Taiwanese antiaircraft defenses, and the Japanese antiaircraft defenses to “bomb the runways into craters” and destroy every basing location for allied aircraft

    Enough long range missiles will do the trick, *then* the planes start coming in. When you have about 35 seconds from contact to impact, there’s not really much you can do. Killing planes on the ground is always the best way to get rid of them.

  64. 64.

    TenguPhule

    September 30, 2007 at 10:20 pm

    Pile onto magical ghost ships that will sail THROUGH the carriers?

    What carriers? You mean the ones sinking into the ocean after eating a couple of anti-ship missiles?

    where there’s no such thing as radar…or early-warning systems…or surveillance

    Tell me how many craft we can get into the air in under a minute before the missiles hit.

    where a PRC invasion force can just materialize without anyone noticing it was being put together.

    Stranger things have happened.

  65. 65.

    TenguPhule

    September 30, 2007 at 10:24 pm

    Sorry but an aircraft that never gets off the ground is not an aircraft.

    Military aircraft have a limited number of places to land, refuel, and most of all rearm.

    JWW says the words, but the meaning still escapes him.

  66. 66.

    TenguPhule

    September 30, 2007 at 10:35 pm

    Those of us who exit our own rectums now and again for fresh air are familiar with this as the “Cortez in the Americas” “Lennington vs the Ants” Doctrine.

    Fixed.

  67. 67.

    rachel

    September 30, 2007 at 11:02 pm

    But I can’t imagine two nations as tied economically as we and they are coming to blows. Bluster isn’t just their best weapon, it’s their only weapon.

    I’ve something like that before. What was it? Oh, yes:

    When we say war is impossible we mean that is is impossible for the modern State to carry on war under the modern conditions with the prospect of being able to carry that war to a conclusion by defeating its adversary by force of arms on the battlefield. No decisive war is possible. Neither is any war possible that will not entail upon the victorious power the destruction of its resources and the breakup of society. War, therefor has become impossible except at the price of suicide

    From IS WAR IMPOSSIBLE?; The Conclusions Arrived At After Elaborate Study by the Late Jean de Bloch.*(pdf). This was written in 1902, twelve years before WWI got off to a rousing start in Sarajevo.

  68. 68.

    Justin Slotman

    October 1, 2007 at 1:04 am

    Well then. Time to dig out that army surplus gas mask…

  69. 69.

    BIRDZILLA

    October 1, 2007 at 8:58 am

    What will CHINA do now send in its starm troopers to take over china and what will this rotten UN do about it?

  70. 70.

    Gary Farber

    October 1, 2007 at 10:44 am

    “China hasn’t had a Vietnam war,”

    Tim, this is a triumph of metaphor over reality. You’re saying they didn’t have our metaphoric experience.

    But what they did have — and perhaps you’re too young to remember it, was an invasion of Vietnam that had people in hysterics that WWIII would be beginning the next week.

    They had an actual Vietnam War.

    I recall the day China invaded Vietnam extremely vividly, and I recall many folks who pay attention to geopolitics in an absolutely panic. Many Americans were running around like chickens with their heads cut off, at what it seemed to portend. OMG! OMG! was the theme of the day.

    That in retrospect, we know it ended after a month, doesn’t mean anyone had a clue it would play like that at the time, and that it would not proceed into the full-scale Soviet-Sino War that had been feared as looming for a number of years, and thus an all-out nuclear exchange.

    Instead, though, Vietnam kicked China’s butt, and that was also a geopolitical revelation to many: the clearest possible demonstration of the fact that the theory under which America fought the Vietnam War for all those years was wrong: there was no monolithic Communist bloc, and instead, nationalism trumped ideology. Morever, the world’s largest country (by population), could be stopped in its tracks by an even lower technologically/economically capable, vastly smaller, power.

    This was a huge thing to the world. Even if it wasn’t an “analogy” to the American experience. Not everything is actually about the American experience.

    Maybe you don’t remember this, and can brush it off. It’s a staggering phrase to read, though, given how shocking the actual Sino-Vietnamese War was to Americans at the time. That it was brief is irrelevant. Hiroshima took only a moment, but it mattered more than anything.

    It’s like reading “France never actually fought Germany.” Stops one in one’s tracks to read that “China hasn’t had a Vietnam war,” and pops one’s eyes out, and causes one to write a comment, it does.

  71. 71.

    grumpy realist

    October 1, 2007 at 1:17 pm

    Heck, China doesn’t have to drag out any of its military hardware. It can simply say “by the way, the next time you put out all those crappy US gov’t bonds for sale? We’re not going to buy them.”

    Don’t forget that if China wanted to get really nasty–it could demolish most Japanese production and populace with 7 nukes. Heck, just dropping a large nuke on Tokyo takes out millions of people. You forget how compact the place is.

  72. 72.

    JWW

    October 1, 2007 at 8:33 pm

    Tengu,

    Sorry but an aircraft that never gets off the ground is not an aircraft.

    Military aircraft have a limited number of places to land, refuel, and most of all rearm.

    JWW says the words, but the meaning still escapes him.

    I didn’t think I needed to start with “See Spot Run”

    China, like every other nation has known airbases, the aircraft on the tar or returning will be under constant fire. Within 48 hours the tar is disabled.

  73. 73.

    TenguPhule

    October 4, 2007 at 1:58 am

    *Taiwan* and *America* like every other nation has known airbases, the aircraft in the region on the tar or returning will be under constant fire.

    Fixed for illiterate JWW.

    Because China can deploy faster in that region then anyone else, and if JWW tries to claim ICBMs are going to be used without provoking a nuclear war, I’m going to laugh at JWW yet again.

    Combat works both ways.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Recent Comments

  • Jay on I Am All For This! (Apr 17, 2024 @ 5:27pm)
  • japa21 on I Am All For This! (Apr 17, 2024 @ 5:27pm)
  • Ruckus on I Am All For This! (Apr 17, 2024 @ 5:27pm)
  • Asparagus Aspersions on Arizona In The Crosshairs (Apr 17, 2024 @ 5:26pm)
  • Baud on I Am All For This! (Apr 17, 2024 @ 5:25pm)

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Balloon Juice Meetups!

All Meetups
Talk of Meetups – Meetup Planning
Proposed BJ meetups list from frosty

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8
Virginia House Races
Four Directions – Montana
Worker Power AZ
Four Directions – Arizona
Four Directions – Nevada

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
Positive Climate News
War in Ukraine
Cole’s “Stories from the Road”
Classified Documents Primer

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Political Action 2024

Postcard Writing Information

Balloon Juice for Four Directions AZ

Donate

Balloon Juice for Four Directions NV

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2024 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!