Article

2005-06-02 China-Japan-Koreas

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve 2005-06-02 12:02|| || Front Page|| [11136 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Maybe they need a couple of nukes, like the ones we sold Israel. That's the only reason Israel is still in existence.

Posted by bigjim-ky 2005-06-02 12:35|| 2005-06-02 12:35|| Front Page Top

#2 If kimmie can do it why can't they?

Posted by bigjim-ky 2005-06-02 12:36|| 2005-06-02 12:36|| Front Page Top

#3 Got any proof the US sold nukes to Israel? Proof that doesn't involve a link to moonbat site?

Posted by Laurence of the Rats">Laurence of the Rats 2005-06-02 12:48|| http://www.punictreachery.com/]">[http://www.punictreachery.com/] 2005-06-02 12:48|| Front Page Top

#4 Maybe we just gave them to Israel, I don't really know which.

Posted by bigjim-ky 2005-06-02 13:04|| 2005-06-02 13:04|| Front Page Top

#5 Israel MADE its own nukes. Ironically with material made from a FRENCH supplied nuclear reactor! Oh, how times have changed!!

Posted by Dave 2005-06-02 13:28|| 2005-06-02 13:28|| Front Page Top

#6 BigJim, I know Dimona doesn't appear on any maps but it DOES exist. Sort of like Area 51.

Posted by Rightwing 2005-06-02 13:50|| 2005-06-02 13:50|| Front Page Top

#7 We're pretty good at math and physics BigJim...

Posted by Hebrew-Barbie 2005-06-02 14:28|| 2005-06-02 14:28|| Front Page Top

#8 Clinton would take a poll

Pardon, but Clinton sent carriers during the last big straights crisis.

Posted by liberalhawk 2005-06-02 14:28|| 2005-06-02 14:28|| Front Page Top

#9 The Taiwanese want to make this clash between Uncle Sam and China. Is it in the US interest to defend Taiwan? I think it is in the US interest to supply Taiwan. Risking American lives over Taiwan is a completely different issue. I believe the Taiwanese hope to avoid fighting altogether, hoping to leave the fighting to American troops. This is the meaning of repeated cuts to Taiwanese defense expenditures even as Chinese defense spending has skyrocketed. The Taiwanese have also criticized the US for the high cost of the weaponry that is being sold to them, even though many of these weapons systems are being sold at or below cost. If the Taiwanese don't believe enough in their own freedom to commit the resources to defend it, it's not clear that American boys should be risking their lives to defend them.

Posted by Zhang Fei">Zhang Fei 2005-06-02 14:30|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-06-02 14:30|| Front Page Top

#10 LH: Pardon, but Clinton sent carriers during the last big straights crisis.

I think that's the one area in which I agree with Clinton's foreign policy. In tactical terms, it was nonsensical in terms of how carriers are normally used*, but it was an indication that Uncle Sam was prepared to go to war, if necessary. I don't know if Clinton would have followed through if the Chinese had upped the ante, but it definitely got the Chinese to calm down.

* There was a possibility that the Chinese could have damaged them using subs or antiship missiles. When a Chinese submarine was detected in the Taiwan Straits, the carriers scurried out of range - carriers are for battering the enemy while staying out of the range of his weapons. Having them show up in the straits was pure in-your-face symbolism, kind of like a guy with a rifle getting within arms length of a knife fighter. (An actual combat deployment would probably have the carriers positioned hundreds of miles east of the Taiwan Straits).

Posted by Zhang Fei">Zhang Fei 2005-06-02 14:43|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-06-02 14:43|| Front Page Top

#11 the Taiwanese want to make this clash between Uncle Sam and China. Is it in the US interest to defend Taiwan? I think it is in the US interest to supply Taiwan. Risking American lives over Taiwan is a completely different issue.

That question becomes academic if China attempts to prevent US resupply and assitance, which I think in the case of an attempt to take over Taiwan, the Chinese would do.

Posted by badanov">badanov 2005-06-02 15:00|| http://www.rkka.org]">[http://www.rkka.org] 2005-06-02 15:00|| Front Page Top

#12 One of the unstated advantages of the rise of long-range precision strike weapons is they make it easier for the US to wage war on China. Previously American options were short-range airstrikes from carriers or USAF from bases that may not be available in Korea and/or Japan.

Posted by Stephen 2005-06-02 15:05|| 2005-06-02 15:05|| Front Page Top

#13 Oh, the joys of living at the headquarters of the PLAN East China Sea Fleet!

Posted by gromky">gromky 2005-06-02 16:33|| 2005-06-02 16:33|| Front Page Top

#14 N.B.: In the D-Day invasion, the assumption was made that if only 10% of the invasion forces survived long enough to establish a beachhead, the invasion would be a success. If the Chinese have made a similar calculation, that they would de facto "win" Taiwan with only 10% of their forces actually landing, then Taiwan, and the US, have a big problem. Practically speaking, if the Chinese can land enough forces by hook or crook, fast enough, even if the US counter-invades, which would be politically extremely difficult, it would be damnably hard to pry the Chinese forces from the Taiwanese population. I am not talking about concentrated enemy forces, but dispersed throughout Taiwan, with emphasis in the cities.

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-06-02 17:40|| 2005-06-02 17:40|| Front Page Top

#15 S: Previously American options were short-range airstrikes from carriers

Carriers are used to stage long-range airstrikes - and did so even during WWII, during the Battle of Midway, when the fleets were 300 miles apart, way beyond direct visual range of each other. Afghanistan was, of course a shining example, with strike fighters flying 500 miles each way through Pakistan, from carriers in the Arabian Sea.

Posted by Zhang Fei">Zhang Fei 2005-06-02 17:43|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-06-02 17:43|| Front Page Top

#16 There are many options.

Posted by Shipman 2005-06-02 18:38|| 2005-06-02 18:38|| Front Page Top

#17 For the Chinese, the ultimate nightmare would be to destroy the Taiwanese air force, send their boats over (four hours transit time) and then get the crap kicked out of their invasion fleet by the USAF. They'd better be sure.

Posted by Zhang Fei">Zhang Fei 2005-06-02 20:22|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-06-02 20:22|| Front Page Top

#18 It would not take much to defend the straits from the amphibious force currently available to the PRC. Still it is quite disappointing to get a glimpse of this idiocy from the Taiwanese legislature. Why have their politicians been continuously floating trial balloons about independence when they have no ammunition?

Posted by Super Hose 2005-06-02 21:12|| 2005-06-02 21:12|| Front Page Top

#19 Old program manager's tactic, SH. Get the customer fired up and spend the money on the big items ... then they pretty much have to go along with an increased budget to cover the expendables .... LOL

Posted by rkb 2005-06-02 21:19|| 2005-06-02 21:19|| Front Page Top

#20 Should add that sometimes the customer wants the pgm mgr to do this (whether it's the govt pgm mgr or the contractor's) in order to overcome political budget hurdles. In this case since the story says Taiwan can afford the stuff, it's clear that the problem is a political one.

Posted by rkb 2005-06-02 21:25|| 2005-06-02 21:25|| Front Page Top

#21 ZF - IMHO it's in our interests to cover the safety of our democratic ally off the coast of the hegemonic wanna-be. We will face each other, sooner or later (unless they collapse). Why not have help. Arm Taiwan. Donate a nuke for Three Gorges Was-A-Dam

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-06-02 22:09|| 2005-06-02 22:09|| Front Page Top

00:01 Frank G
23:58 muck4doo
23:49 Jaiter Whosh4012
23:47 Jame_Retief
23:40 muck4doo
23:34 muck4doo
23:31 muck4doo
23:28 muck4doo
23:27 edmundo4dulce
23:26 Frank G
23:22 muck4doo
23:21 Karl Marx
23:20 muck4doo
23:19 muck4doo
23:15 muck4doo
23:12 Frank G
23:11 Frank G
23:06 Zhang Fei
23:03 Zhang Fei
23:02 Rex Mundi
23:01 Captain America
22:59 Captain America
22:48 bigjim-ky
22:44 Matt