Julie

LOL....

Blademaster

You know what's funny? US is threatening a nuclear strike if somebody tries to take out a carrier force and we are supposed to take their word for it but when it comes to US taking out a naval force or an invasion force, they can't use nuclear weapons against US?

Look, Americans (I'm an American by the way), when we talk about using nuclear weapons in response to an attack against CVBG, don't expect the other side to sit quietly when the US takes out or attacks their naval forces.

A cat for a hat, a hat for a cat.

Anon

Who said we'd nuke someone for conventionally attacking a CVBG?

We wouldn't, at least not under any circumstances i can imagine.

Antelope:

What did you do in your Chemical unit?

"You however show what kind of person you are by making personal attacks instead of having a friendly discussion of peoples opinions."

Troung made the personal attacks. I just think you're clueless, but i was (uncharacteristically) nice about it.

But if i hurt your feelings, don't talk to me.

dalem

Ray-

First, again, I want to make it clear that I am not a vet, I am not an analyst, I am not a professional expert on any of these topics. But I am fairly bright, reasonably well-read, a decently aware military and historical enthusiast, and willing to call 'em as I see 'em.

Like I said, I'm a mouthy amateur.

Now, from what I do know of China's current military capability, their political egotism, and their history, I really don't think they are any sort of military threat to anyone bigger than Tibet these days. I subscribe to the "tehy are bluffing" school of thought, although I admit that that does require them to be rational actors. I believe this to be true: I think they are deluded as to their role and capabilities, to a degree, but I do not think their Politburo is stupid or irrational.

If I am right about that, then I think I can also safely state that, assuming your encirclement strategy is played out, China will not attempt to beat it by entering in the kind of arms race the Soviets did. Another reason is that I don't see the kind of institutional and cultural paranoia that the Soviets had as being in play; I think the Chinese are more smug than afraid. If true, then I would expect a more rational and practical response instead of a bankrupting one.

But again, that's all just my opinion.

-dale

Ray

Dalem,

It would be wrong to feel that the Chinese are a pushover. True that there armed forces are not comparable to the US and will not be comparable for sometime to come, but their political leadership is very astute and intelligent.

While the Colonel may have good reason that the Chinese dragon is a worm, but I look at it this way that the Chinese leadership (in their true characteristic) is presenting a worm facade so that there is no apprehension about the Dragon.

In fact, I am trying to lay my hand on the annual report of the DOD to the Congress on the State of the PRC military.

The little that I know of the Chinese, it is their aim to always make the 'enemy' complacent and then strike when the 'enemy' is off guard.

If one observes. while all the countries finally agree with the US, the Chinese are the only one who couldn't care less and in fact makes the US always agree to whatever they want. So, obviously, the Chinese, though may want to project a worm like demeanour, they do exactly what they want to do and also makes others do exactly what they want the other to do.

So......

dalem

Ray-

Leaving aside the "bluff/not-bluff" aspect, I don't think China would intentionally drive down a road the Soviets already died on. I don't know exactly what China wants to do, but I don't think it will be a spiralling arms race like we got into with the Sovs.

Me go sleep now.

-dale

Ray

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/newse/20050318wo05.htm

http://www.indiareacts.com/nati2.asp...3217&ctg=World

I presume nothing serious, but interesting.

Japan is also flexing its muscle. They want to graduate from Self Defence Force to Regular!

Anon

"but their political leadership is very astute and intelligent. "

Coulda fooled me Ray.

RogerBenno

Encircling China has been US state policy since 1949.

Nothing new here.

China's foreign policy is playing the long game. They think in terms of centuries, whereas the West thinks in decades. Their plan is to control or have a big influence on world trade by 2050 or so.

Whoever controls world trade will control everything else. China does not need to throw it's weight around - it is a large enough country on it's own, and with the new energy deals being struck with Russia, it has it's energy supply pretty much guaranteed now (unlike the US )
The US is trying to provoke confrontation with China now because it knows that China is breaking out. But this will ultimately fail, because whether the US likes it or not, we are witnessing a change in the global balance of power. It is now up to the next sensible US administration (it won't be this one) to formulate a realistic policy towards China, and moves to accomodate it and it's new importance in global trade and the balance of power.

All this excitement over the Chinese military and Taiwan is a red herring.
The Chinese were only reacting to Japan sticking its nose into the Taiwan debate last month. (Japan changed its defence doctrine to include the area around Taiwan for the first time last month)
China, by passing this new law on Taiwan was effectively sending a shot across the bows of Japan, and ultimately the US. The US after all does effectively control the foreign policy of Japan. All this is is a US instigated provocation - and one that is doomed to fail.
The Japanese should be ashamed that they are being used as proxies by the US. For a country so reliant on imports and exports, Japan does not need any trouble with its powerful neighbour China.

Anon

LOL, the delusion just keeps coming in never ending streams.

Is this board linked to militaryidiotsRus.com or something?

RogerBenno

no - its a political discussion board.

the military board you want is next door.

see for yourself.

Anon

One cannot discuss the implications of US/PRC policy without first examining each nation's respective ability to acheive their aims via military force.

Of course you know that, eh Herr Klausewitz?

antelope

I was the 1st platoon (decon) platoon leader. My platoon was sliced to 1st Briagde 1st AD (which was actually 3rd Bde/3 ID). My platoon primarily travelled as an element of the BSA which also corresponded to where a large part of the divisions artillery package was. We never had to execute our real mission which was to provide chemical decontamination obviously. Unknown to us (and just about everyone else in the Army it appears) it turns out that a chemical decontamination platoon is one of the heaviest armed platoons that operates in the BSA. With only 21 people authorized (and only 14 actually assigned) we had 3 M-60s, 6 AT-4s. 3 M203s in addition to your individual M-16s and grenades. With the average company size unit in the BSA likely to have just 2 M-60s guess who got assigned to clear suspected enemy dismounts in our area? Most of the time we were fortunate to simply watch battles in the distance or watch outgoing artillery. On the last night of the ground war however we were involved in an engagement with an enemy BMP that had apparantly been accidentally bypassed and was roaming in our area. No one in our company was killed in action (or our division for that matter) although our company did have 4 WIA including one soldier who permanently brain damaged. All my soldiers came home without a scratch.

Since that time I have served as a Battalion Chemical Officer in the 1/319 AFAR and served as an O/C in the reserve and as the HHC Commander in a Signal Battalion. I have completed CAS3. Although I loved the military my financial position in the civilian world forced me to make that tough decision to leave the reserve.

On your tone: Take it for what it's worth. Your sarcasm, name calling on this and other threads, and falsely impuning people's credibility only undermines your own credibility and opinion. In general I agree with most of what you post. This appears to be one of the subjects we have a difference of opinion. I stated mine. You stated yours. I posted the facts I thought relevant. You posted yours. I think you are wrong. You think I am wrong. It's not a big deal. When you boil this and other related threads down it comes to this:

If I read your statements right: You think China can't invade Taiwan. You think America WILL intervene if the attack you say won't happen happens. You think such intervention poses no real dangers to America.

I think China may one day invade Taiwan. I think America may or may not intervene if such an invasion happens. I think such intervention poses the possibility of real dangers to America such that they should be considered prior to such an intervention occurring. I do not support American intervention in a China-Taiwan War.

Are those two statements really worth your comments calling people idiots etc.?

I assume your opinions are based on the facts you know and your personal philosophy that molds these facts into your opinion. If my facts are wrong you're welcome to point it out. If my opinion is wrong however it is still just my opinion.

I think the stated U.S. government policy of "strategic ambiguity" exist specifically because the government recognizes the inherent dangers involvement in such a conflict entails. As such the threat of American force that is likely never to actually be used acts as a deterrent to a Chinese invasion. In the event China ever calls this bluff this policy gives us an out without saying we promised to defend Taiwan.

Ray

Roger,

Any links?

Julie

Redrafting the 1996 joint declaration on bilateral security, Tokyo for the first time dispensed with its usual political ambiguities regarding Taiwan and stated firmly that it would work together with Washington for "the peaceful resolution of issues concerning the Taiwan Strait." It also joined the U.S. in pledging to "encourage China to improve transparency of its military affairs."

http://www.antiwar.com/ips/bezlova.php?articleid=4922