Garry k wrote:
Empires Grow, Reach their Peak (often over expanding ) then Decline (due to inner strife and/or outer conflict )

China and The US are at different points in this process

Modern History shows us that the US does not always come to the aid of its Allies in a timely manner . For example it took the US 2 years to enter WW2 Militarily to support Britain ( and only after being attacked by Japan ‘ However US support for South Korea was far quicker when South Korea was attacked by the North

Some People would view the defence of  (edit ) Taiwan as the Morally Right thing to do on the part of the US -but a full blown war there would have devastating consequences to the People of the Island

Further Can the US afford another War at this time with a Major Recession Looming , Already locked into a Proxy War in with Russia in the Ukraine and Running Trade Huge Trade Deficits with China ?

"Empires Grow, Reach their Peak (often over expanding ) then Decline (due to inner strife and/or outer conflict"

And YOU accuse ME of "stating the obvious?" Thanks for  the ninth grade history lesson.

" ...it took the US 2 years to enter WW2 Militarily to support Britain ( and only after being attacked by Japan ‘ However US support for South Korea was far quicker when South Korea was attacked by the North"

The US supported England with Lend Lease, and ENGLAND, UNLIKE SOUTH KOREA was not being invaded at the time.

"Some People would view the defence of  (edit ) Taiwan as the Morally Right thing to do on the part of the US -but a full blown war there would have devastating consequences to the People of the Island"

Morality has nothing to do with it. It's a matter of US national interest in opposing Chinese militarism in the region, as I keep saying and you keep refusing to address. And you imply letting China just take Taiwan is better for the people of Taiwan? They might just differ with you on that.

"Can the US afford another War at this time with a Major Recession Looming , Already locked into a Proxy War in with Russia in the Ukraine and Running Trade Huge Trade Deficits with China ?"

Nonsense. The US is not anywhere NEAR at "WAR"; the cost of aiding Ukraine is minimal and the Russians are on their way to an ignominious defeat, with little cost to the US. The American economy is actually doing quite well, thank you, despite your ominous "recession" prediction, and the trade deficit with China has been a fact of life for years with NO real effect on the health of the US economy.

Garry k wrote:
Well, I’ve been reading more and more on Social Media about the banning of books in your country - so I was wondering if they had started banning the History books as well ( joke )

Oh and I don’t know if You have heard of The Battle of Britain.  if not You might be interested in reading about it

Maybe you didn't hear? England DEFEATED the Luftwaffe in The Battle of Britain in the first great loss Germany suffered.in WWII and demonstrated that the Nazis were not invincible. Was there a point you were trying to make?

Garry k wrote:
I think You are somewhat correct about the US costs to aid the Ukraine so far

Only $13.5 B compared to the estimated $8 Trillion Spent on the War on Terror in the Middle East over the past 20 years ( Brown University )

Cheap in comparison

Somebody should do an Analysis on how that $8 Trillion if saved could have affected Americans Quality of Life

But I digress

Yes. You do.

Focuspuller wrote:
"For your therapist perhaps? Your name isn't Focuspuller, it's leg puller."

Oh sooo funny. British humor? But no. Waiting for YOUR military strategy expertise such that when you say, 'Obviously they could launch.." and "...would probably have the objective...." and "This is a possibility ..." anybody would care what you opine or how many field manuals you crib from.

And you demonstrate your staggering ignorance by suggesting a Chinese invasion of Taiwan could be suddenly launched from the mainland without a MASSIVE buildup in planes, rocket launchers, ships, and troops, easily spotted in advance. Do you have satellite surveillance in your battlefield?. Spies? The US does. Your simplistic regurgitation of hardware specs and other metrics is symptomatic of the myopic vision which contributed to the US defeat in Vietnam.

You referred to a surprise attack, not a surprise invasion. There's a big difference. Remember Pearl Harbor in 1941? That was a surprise attack.

Understand that I'm not interested in debating tedious points of logic with you. Try to  stick to the thread topic

JSouthworth wrote:
You referred to a surprise attack, not a surprise invasion. There's a big difference. Remember Pearl Harbor in 1941? That was a surprise attack.

Understand that I'm not interested in debating tedious points of logic with you. Try to  stick to the thread topic

-
-
The previous comment  that was under discussion was, "My point is that if China were to suddenly attack Taiwan- ..."  That is not the same as a "surprise attack."  "To suddenly attack Taiwan" does not leave me with the impression that the attack would be an air raid only.  Nor would it necessarily involve an air raid.  A sudden attack could mean many things.  However, it is important to note for context that the immediate reply to the comment that "if China were to suddenly attack," was "It would be quite difficult to launch a surprise invasion of Taiwan."  Consequently, if the poster that broached the subject felt that an invasion was outside of the scope of his comment, he should have made the distinction at the time.  It is not up to you to try to clarify the comment of someone else many posts later.

Furthermore, after the Pearl Harbor attack, American forces were on alert because the raid may have been a precursor to an invasion force, for all they knew.

Contrary to your statement, I have the impression from your posts that all you want to debate is tedious points of logic, if what your posts express is at all logical.  Your posts do not present your counter arguments in a format consistent with rational debate.  Your posts do not present fact for background or support.  Your posts express your opinion over and over again in a very tedious manner. 

Nor do you seem to be the appropriate person to suggest that someone stays on the topic of the thread.  Your posts do not seem to be indicative of the habit of doing so when your post persistently ignored other OP's entreaties to stay on topic.

Just saying, ya know.

JSouthworth wrote:
You referred to a surprise attack, not a surprise invasion. There's a big difference. Remember Pearl Harbor in 1941? That was a surprise attack.

Understand that I'm not interested in debating tedious points of logic with you. Try to  stick to the thread topic

So the resident self-appointed military expert thinks a "surprise attack" by China on Taiwan on the scale of the Japanese  attack on Pearl Harbor would not be detectable. Utter garbage. So much for your military expertise.

And OF COURSE you don't want to debate "tedious points of logic," but you are quite happy to debate tedious points of semantics. Nevertheless, understand your arguments contain no logic or support other than your own phantasms.

STILL WAITING FOR YOUR MILITARY STRATEGY CV's.

Bob Helm Photography wrote:
Hunter I think you sound a lot like Neville Chamberlain, I guess you are a big fan of his.

China's military , like Russia's is primarily deployed for defense (most likely from their own population) but the recent expansion of their navy seems offensive. When you are the 800lb gorilla in the region who are you defending against?

IN the recent combined arms war game with Russia the projected size was about 60 ships, compared to 200+ a few years ago. The actual number was EIGHT, none larger than a frigate, and included a supply ship and an electronic data ship.

IMO their intentions and capabilities are vastly different

Terribly sorry, Bob, that I missed this post until today.  (Last post on page 1.)  I ran into this post while going back to look for something silly someone said in their previous post.  Now I have another entire response to offer before even getting to my previous goal.

I notice that you have four paragraphs of one or two sentences and in each and every paragraph, you do not support your opinions with anything that resembles facts.   It is a short and empty post. You "seem" to make a lot of subjective conclusions based on what "seems" and "appears" to be and you admit you do some guessing.  These kids and their "twitter" mentality.  Oh well.  The post still bears a response, even though ....

If I "seem" to be a fan of Chamberlain, then you could have quoted the sentences that I used to support your contention.  Since you did not, it "seems" that you are a fan of obfuscation.  As we know, while "[a]t Munich, Chamberlain got an international agreement that Hitler should have the Sudetenland in exchange for Germany making no further demands for land in Europe. Chamberlain said it was ‘Peace for our time’. Hitler said he had ‘No more territorial demands to make in Europe." [1]  Why does that sound familiar in recent history?  Could it have been trump's surrender to the Taliban?  Could it have been trump pulling out of Syria and letting Russia have free sway?  Could it have been trump falling in love with Kim and giving Kim the ability to develop better nuclear delivery systems?  Could it have been trump using extortion against Ukraine which benefited Russia?  And, oh, how helpful was trump to the Iranian nuclear program?  trump had a classified document at his country club, of all places, that laid out the nuclear capabilities of which country?  To which country did he give that document?  I understand why you are confused about appearances, given who your hero is.

Unfortunately, for your accusation to make any sense, you would have to point out where China has made a military move against Taiwan or others, that can't be settled by diplomacy and which requires immediate military reprisal, and then show us where I have indicated that appeasement would be appropriate.  I haven't noticed you providing such evidence.  If you look through the body of my writing, something you are very unlikely to do, you will see that I do not agree with the China's treatment of the Uyghurs [7] and Hong Kong.[8]  You would see that I would favor trade restrictions against countries who's records are lacking in the area of human rights and environmental protection.  You would see, if you looked far enough back, where I talked about American friends who were lucky to be alive because they got out of China when they did.  You would find the mention of one friend who's grandfather was killed in China's cultural revolution.  She left China as a very young woman because there was no future for her in China, being the granddaughter of an enemy of the state.  "An enemy of the state!"  You know, that comment that trump likes to make.  (You would meet more interesting people if you weren't afraid to leave your studio.)

But, all of that, and any effort to be rational in your discussion, is just too much effort.  It is much easier to make up silly condemnations.  I will also point out, though there were many voices that disagreed with Chamberlain in his time, it was ultimately only because of hindsight that Chamberlain was proved wrong. Just like hindsight is going to make trump supporters look bad to their grandchildren and their grandchildren. 

China may be aspiring to be the 800 pound gorilla in the Asian and Pacific Island room.  Even Africa.  They are certainly giving some of their neighbors some problems.  But, are there other massive gorilla's thumping their chests there?  Is China's perspective of the United States as a dominating threat in the region wrong simply because they don't have the American perspective?  Is China required to lay back and let other countries dominate them?  Do you think that China learned nothing from being overrun by the Japanese and enduring things like the rape of Nanjing? [4][5][6] Do you think that China has learned nothing from the subjugation they received from England and the impact of the opium wars?  Do you think that China might have learned what a threat another country's naval fleet could be from British attacks in the 1840s?[2]

It seems like it was you that said, "No it will not be enough, to have peace, prepare for war. Need both" (page 1) Yet this sage advice you offer is good for we, but not for thee?  Isn't your position just a bit, or more, hypocritical since it "seems" that you are calling for the United States to be the 8,000 lb gorilla if China aspires to be the 800 lb gorilla?  Isn't there possibly some balance to be had in other forms of superiority and economic cooperation or isolation?  Maybe diplomacy? Or, is the only option, from your perspective, to actively tear each other limb from limb?

It "appears" that you have the imperialist attitude that other countries are not sovereign and that we should attack first whenever a country "seems" to be getting too strong or might have weapons we don't like.  Such as Iraq?   But, need I remind you, that China has had nukes and ICBMs for a number of years and they have been restrained from using them.  They have built a space program that has been as peaceful as ours.  Is that a problem?  So, what evidence do you have, other than what it "seems" like to you, that China's navy is being expanded specifically for an aggressive venture to be conducted in the near future?  Perhaps you could also list for us the foreign wars that China has engaged in and initiated in the past 100 years?

What is it that is said about diplomacy as opposed to bullets?  Do you prefer the use of bullets over diplomacy?  If Roosevelt was right when he offered to speak softly and carry a big stick, are you saying no other country should also have a stick to back up their polite conversation over a diplomatic matter?  "Words are as powerful as bullets."[9] If you call for bullets when diplomacy is a viable option, wouldn't it "appear" that you are a war monger?

"Quiet diplomacy is far more effective than public posturing."
"If you don't want war, then you had better be an advocate for diplomacy with muscle."
"You learn, just as you learn good manners, how to approach things with a certain amount of diplomacy."
"In a world of complex threats, our security and leadership depends on all elements of our power - including strong and principled diplomacy."
"There are no military solutions - dialogue and diplomacy are the only guarantee of lasting peace."
"Diplomacy: the art of restraining power."
"I believe in much more diplomacy, not less."
"Preemption is the right of any nation in order to preserve its National Security; however, preemptive war is a tactic, not a strategy. When used as a strategy preemption dilutes diplomacy, creates an atmosphere of distrust, and promotes regional instability."
"There is nothing fast or easy about diplomacy. I have no illusions about that."
"Force is not inevitable. Diplomacy is still the desired means. Pressure is an element of the means."
"The relationship with China has become more important, not only in terms of economic cooperation but also for strategic cooperation for the peaceful resolution of the North Korean nuclear issue. That is why I am pursuing a balanced diplomacy with the U.S. as well as China."
"Talking and diplomacy is often seen as a concession in America, in a way that it is not in other places."
[10].  But, I "guess" you know better than all of the people responsible for those quotes?  (I intentionally left off the names of the speakers/writers.  The value of the quote should supersede the party or nation of the person to whom it is attributed.)

"US President Donald Trump announced on Monday that his budget plan for fiscal year 2018 would include a historically-high $54 billion bump on defense spending ,while cutting a similar amount from the State Department and foreign aid — but his own Secretary of Defense James Mattis may not agree with that strategy."

"The budget plan reflects Trump's often expressed desire to rebuild a military that he categorizes as "crumbling" and "depleted," but may go against wisdom expressed by Mattis, who said in 2013 that funding to the State Department prevents war."

"“If you don’t fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition ultimately," Mattis said, before members of Congress at a National Security Advisory Council meeting, the US Global Leadership Coalition notes."

""So I think it’s a cost-benefit ratio. The more that we put into the State Department’s diplomacy, hopefully the less we have to put into a military budget as we deal with the outcome of an apparent American withdrawal from the international scene,” Mattis continued."[11]




I would address your war games paragraph, but, I am sorry, it is incoherent.  Perhaps you would rephrase and cite some references so I can read a comprehensive article about it instead of two sentences.  (I "guess" you are loath to do that, but please?)

Finally, I understand that you want to project your opinions as if they are fact.  You are certainly entitled to your opinions, right or ignorant.  But, if you want to have a discussion in which you are going to define a nation's capabilities and intentions, it "seems" you ought to have something to say other than, oh, expressions of fear-mongering?  Perhaps you could actually make a statement as to what their intentions and capabilities are?  In a previous post, it "seems" you were beside yourself about China having an aircraft carrier because that meant something nefarious.  Now you are talking about war games that had only 8 ships?  I don't know who had 8 ships, but you "seem" to indicate that that is a lack of capability.  I had, however, given you a link to information about China's Navy that was current.  It "seems" you didn't bother to look at it.

Being that you are a history and military aficionado, I am dismayed that you are not offering a detailed analysis of China's military motivations with due consideration of their history and culture, instead of using what "seems" like right wing talking points.

I also notice that I challenged you to provide facts to back up your previous assertions in our previous exchange and you didn't.     Bummer.  I "guess" you don't have any.

[1] https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/edu … %20Europe.
[2} https://www.britannica.com/topic/Wester … Opium-Wars
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution
[4] https://www.britannica.com/event/Second … panese-War
[5] https://www.britannica.com/event/First- … -1894-1895
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanjing_Massacre
[7] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-22278037
[8] https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/hong-k … -crackdown
[9] https://prologue.blogs.archives.gov/201 … civil-war/
[10) https://www.brainyquote.com/topics/diplomacy-quotes
[11] https://www.businessinsider.com/mattis- … ion-2017-2

Focuspuller wrote:
So the resident self-appointed military expert thinks a "surprise attack" by China on Taiwan on the scale of the Japanese  attack on Pearl Harbor would not be detectable. Utter garbage. So much for your military expertise.

And OF COURSE you don't want to debate "tedious points of logic," but you are quite happy to debate tedious points of semantics. Nevertheless, understand your arguments contain no logic or support other than your own phantasms.

STILL WAITING FOR YOUR MILITARY STRATEGY CV's.

Oh dear, let me see if I can explain it for you. A surprise attack, like that of 7 December 1941, is an attack without warning, hence "surprise". Obviously, if the attack wasn't detectable there wouldn't really be any surprise would there?

In reality though I don't think it's likely that the Taiwanese would fail to notice large numbers of Chinese bombs and missiles landing on their island.

JSouthworth wrote:

Oh dear, let me see if I can explain it for you. A surprise attack, like that of 7 December 1941, is an attack without warning, hence "surprise". Obviously, if the attack wasn't detectable there wouldn't really be any surprise would there?

In reality though I don't think it's likely that the Taiwanese would fail to notice large numbers of Chinese bombs and missiles landing on their island.

". Obviously, if the attack wasn't detectable there wouldn't really be any surprise would there? "

WHAT? Do you even know whaat you write in your dream state?

STILL WAITING FOR YOUR MILITARY STRATEGY CV's

JSouthworth wrote:
What the Taiwanese military, and to some extent the US Navy need to do is to think creatively about defending Taiwan instead of fixating on the idea that they're going to have a big air/sea battle like the Coral Sea in the Second World War, which they're going to win and everybody's going to live happily ever after. The war in the Pacific proved, among other things, that aircraft carriers were vulnerable particularly when operating within range of shore-based aircraft. In any case, solutions which are specific to Taiwan's defense needs should be sought. The problem of defending Taiwan is different from the problem of defending the United States.

It's worth studying some of the defensive military expedients resorted to by the Axis powers in World War Two. In addition to the well known Japanese "Kamikaze" aircraft, both the Japanese and Germans developed midget submarines and explosive motor boats which could be launched from shore facilities to attack an invasion fleet. Their effectiveness was limited by the extreme demands they placed on the human element. Today the military can employ robotic systems to perform combat missions which would otherwise be suicidal, whether explicitly so or by implication.

The Japanese also trained thousands of fukuryu (crouching dragon) frogmen to defend Japan's beaches. Their equipment consisted of a loose fitting suit, resembling an old-fashioned diving suit with a helmet, and a large backpack containing oxygen rebreathing equipment and a supply of liquid food. If his equipment worked properly (a big if, as it was unreliable and failures resulted in numerous fatal accidents) the fukuryu could remain submerged at a depth of 50 ft for as long as 10 hours. When an Allied landing craft approached, he could employ his weapon, a 15kg explosive charge on the end of a long pole, hopefully sinking the landing craft and in all probability sacrificing his life for the emperor in the process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukuryu

"What the Taiwanese military, and to some extent the US Navy need to do is to think creatively about defending Taiwan..."

So your "advice" to Taiwan for the defense of the homeland is suicide frogmen submerged off the beaches. I think it's time for your meds.

STILL WAITING FOR YOUR MILITARY STRATEGY CV's

JSouthworth wrote:
"In order to successfully invade Taiwan the Chinese military would have to..."

STILL WAITING FOR YOUR MILITARY STRATEGY CV's

Hunter  GWPB wrote:

Terribly sorry, Bob, that I missed this post until today.  (Last post on page 1.)  I ran into this post while going back to look for something silly someone said in their previous post.  Now I have another entire response to offer before even getting to my previous goal.

I notice that you have four paragraphs of one or two sentences and in each and every paragraph, you do not support your opinions with anything that resembles facts.   It is a short and empty post. You "seem" to make a lot of subjective conclusions based on what "seems" and "appears" to be and you admit you do some guessing.  These kids and their "twitter" mentality.  Oh well.  The post still bears a response, even though ....

If I "seem" to be a fan of Chamberlain, then you could have quoted the sentences that I used to support your contention.  Since you did not, it "seems" that you are a fan of obfuscation.  As we know, while "[a]t Munich, Chamberlain got an international agreement that Hitler should have the Sudetenland in exchange for Germany making no further demands for land in Europe. Chamberlain said it was ‘Peace for our time’. Hitler said he had ‘No more territorial demands to make in Europe." [1]  Why does that sound familiar in recent history?  Could it have been trump's surrender to the Taliban?  Could it have been trump pulling out of Syria and letting Russia have free sway?  Could it have been trump falling in love with Kim and giving Kim the ability to develop better nuclear delivery systems?  Could it have been trump using extortion against Ukraine which benefited Russia?  And, oh, how helpful was trump to the Iranian nuclear program?  trump had a classified document at his country club, of all places, that laid out the nuclear capabilities of which country?  To which country did he give that document?  I understand why you are confused about appearances, given who your hero is.

Unfortunately, for your accusation to make any sense, you would have to point out where China has made a military move against Taiwan or others, that can't be settled by diplomacy and which requires immediate military reprisal, and then show us where I have indicated that appeasement would be appropriate.  I haven't noticed you providing such evidence.  If you look through the body of my writing, something you are very unlikely to do, you will see that I do not agree with the China's treatment of the Uyghurs [7] and Hong Kong.[8]  You would see that I would favor trade restrictions against countries who's records are lacking in the area of human rights and environmental protection.  You would see, if you looked far enough back, where I talked about American friends who were lucky to be alive because they got out of China when they did.  You would find the mention of one friend who's grandfather was killed in China's cultural revolution.  She left China as a very young woman because there was no future for her in China, being the granddaughter of an enemy of the state.  "An enemy of the state!"  You know, that comment that trump likes to make.  (You would meet more interesting people if you weren't afraid to leave your studio.)

But, all of that, and any effort to be rational in your discussion, is just too much effort.  It is much easier to make up silly condemnations.  I will also point out, though there were many voices that disagreed with Chamberlain in his time, it was ultimately only because of hindsight that Chamberlain was proved wrong. Just like hindsight is going to make trump supporters look bad to their grandchildren and their grandchildren. 

China may be aspiring to be the 800 pound gorilla in the Asian and Pacific Island room.  Even Africa.  They are certainly giving some of their neighbors some problems.  But, are there other massive gorilla's thumping their chests there?  Is China's perspective of the United States as a dominating threat in the region wrong simply because they don't have the American perspective?  Is China required to lay back and let other countries dominate them?  Do you think that China learned nothing from being overrun by the Japanese and enduring things like the rape of Nanjing? [4][5][6] Do you think that China has learned nothing from the subjugation they received from England and the impact of the opium wars?  Do you think that China might have learned what a threat another country's naval fleet could be from British attacks in the 1840s?[2]

It seems like it was you that said, "No it will not be enough, to have peace, prepare for war. Need both" (page 1) Yet this sage advice you offer is good for we, but not for thee?  Isn't your position just a bit, or more, hypocritical since it "seems" that you are calling for the United States to be the 8,000 lb gorilla if China aspires to be the 800 lb gorilla?  Isn't there possibly some balance to be had in other forms of superiority and economic cooperation or isolation?  Maybe diplomacy? Or, is the only option, from your perspective, to actively tear each other limb from limb?

It "appears" that you have the imperialist attitude that other countries are not sovereign and that we should attack first whenever a country "seems" to be getting too strong or might have weapons we don't like.  Such as Iraq?   But, need I remind you, that China has had nukes and ICBMs for a number of years and they have been restrained from using them.  They have built a space program that has been as peaceful as ours.  Is that a problem?  So, what evidence do you have, other than what it "seems" like to you, that China's navy is being expanded specifically for an aggressive venture to be conducted in the near future?  Perhaps you could also list for us the foreign wars that China has engaged in and initiated in the past 100 years?

What is it that is said about diplomacy as opposed to bullets?  Do you prefer the use of bullets over diplomacy?  If Roosevelt was right when he offered to speak softly and carry a big stick, are you saying no other country should also have a stick to back up their polite conversation over a diplomatic matter?  "Words are as powerful as bullets."[9] If you call for bullets when diplomacy is a viable option, wouldn't it "appear" that you are a war monger?

"Quiet diplomacy is far more effective than public posturing."
"If you don't want war, then you had better be an advocate for diplomacy with muscle."
"You learn, just as you learn good manners, how to approach things with a certain amount of diplomacy."
"In a world of complex threats, our security and leadership depends on all elements of our power - including strong and principled diplomacy."
"There are no military solutions - dialogue and diplomacy are the only guarantee of lasting peace."
"Diplomacy: the art of restraining power."
"I believe in much more diplomacy, not less."
"Preemption is the right of any nation in order to preserve its National Security; however, preemptive war is a tactic, not a strategy. When used as a strategy preemption dilutes diplomacy, creates an atmosphere of distrust, and promotes regional instability."
"There is nothing fast or easy about diplomacy. I have no illusions about that."
"Force is not inevitable. Diplomacy is still the desired means. Pressure is an element of the means."
"The relationship with China has become more important, not only in terms of economic cooperation but also for strategic cooperation for the peaceful resolution of the North Korean nuclear issue. That is why I am pursuing a balanced diplomacy with the U.S. as well as China."
"Talking and diplomacy is often seen as a concession in America, in a way that it is not in other places."
[10].  But, I "guess" you know better than all of the people responsible for those quotes?  (I intentionally left off the names of the speakers/writers.  The value of the quote should supersede the party or nation of the person to whom it is attributed.)

"US President Donald Trump announced on Monday that his budget plan for fiscal year 2018 would include a historically-high $54 billion bump on defense spending ,while cutting a similar amount from the State Department and foreign aid — but his own Secretary of Defense James Mattis may not agree with that strategy."

"The budget plan reflects Trump's often expressed desire to rebuild a military that he categorizes as "crumbling" and "depleted," but may go against wisdom expressed by Mattis, who said in 2013 that funding to the State Department prevents war."

"“If you don’t fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition ultimately," Mattis said, before members of Congress at a National Security Advisory Council meeting, the US Global Leadership Coalition notes."

""So I think it’s a cost-benefit ratio. The more that we put into the State Department’s diplomacy, hopefully the less we have to put into a military budget as we deal with the outcome of an apparent American withdrawal from the international scene,” Mattis continued."[11]




I would address your war games paragraph, but, I am sorry, it is incoherent.  Perhaps you would rephrase and cite some references so I can read a comprehensive article about it instead of two sentences.  (I "guess" you are loath to do that, but please?)

Finally, I understand that you want to project your opinions as if they are fact.  You are certainly entitled to your opinions, right or ignorant.  But, if you want to have a discussion in which you are going to define a nation's capabilities and intentions, it "seems" you ought to have something to say other than, oh, expressions of fear-mongering?  Perhaps you could actually make a statement as to what their intentions and capabilities are?  In a previous post, it "seems" you were beside yourself about China having an aircraft carrier because that meant something nefarious.  Now you are talking about war games that had only 8 ships?  I don't know who had 8 ships, but you "seem" to indicate that that is a lack of capability.  I had, however, given you a link to information about China's Navy that was current.  It "seems" you didn't bother to look at it.

Being that you are a history and military aficionado, I am dismayed that you are not offering a detailed analysis of China's military motivations with due consideration of their history and culture, instead of using what "seems" like right wing talking points.

I also notice that I challenged you to provide facts to back up your previous assertions in our previous exchange and you didn't.     Bummer.  I "guess" you don't have any.

[1] https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/edu … %20Europe.
[2} https://www.britannica.com/topic/Wester … Opium-Wars
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution
[4] https://www.britannica.com/event/Second … panese-War
[5] https://www.britannica.com/event/First- … -1894-1895
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanjing_Massacre
[7] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-22278037
[8] https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/hong-k … -crackdown
[9] https://prologue.blogs.archives.gov/201 … civil-war/
[10) https://www.brainyquote.com/topics/diplomacy-quotes
[11] https://www.businessinsider.com/mattis- … ion-2017-2

As I mentioned previously this is a discussion forum for discussion of opinions, not a  a term paper forum . One requires proof, the other does not.

I based my opinion and analysis of the defensive nature of Russian and China's military on several factors.

First looking at the map of both country that cover a massive territory  with long boarders that need to be defended from neighbors that have a history of conflict. coupled with a knowledge other respective hhistory.

Second a lifelong study of history, especially military history starting in High school when I read  Gen Heinz Guderian 'w "Panzer Leader" the architect of the blitzkrieg ( plant originally developed by British and French General post WWI but rejected by their governments) and Pappy Boyington's  Black Sheep biography and his time with the Flying Tigers and a POW camp in Japan. My library has about 200 books on History  including Otto Carius's "Tigers in the Mud" ( he was one of Germany's ,most successful, and decorated Tank unit commanders with service on both Russian and wester front)

Third the extensive analysis by Gen Jack Keane ( Four Star) and chairman of the Institute for the study of war where he pointed out Russia plan was did not have sufficient manpower for the complex plan they had along with his explanation of why their loss of high ranking officers ( Col and Generals)

Fourth the demonstrated incompetence of Russian military, Army and AirForce due primarily to poor training of at all levels and the lack of both pilots and advanced smart bombs and missiles ( they own them but not in sufficient numbers to use them) and their tactic of using mass artillery rather than the directed artillery the US uses, one is for large areas like troops ninth field or destroying cities the other for specific military targets.

Lastly Youtube has plenty of reasons why Russian performance has been so bad with a lot of news coverage not seen in the US and explanations of why the they have the problems they so. Of course Youtube information varies in accuracy, much like US network and cable new.

Now for the defense of Taiwan. That ship has sailed  and China is in control. There is IMO no military option for us.

Congress has approved more military supplies for them but the delivery dates are not till after 2025, most likely too late.

Second our supply lines are too long, China's short. Our national policy is determined by politicians China by a dictator. Ours even with incompetent leaders is IMO better government , their is better for getting things done

Taiwan is an island that can easily be cut off from resupply by sea or air should they choose to do so. China has built up a large Blue water Navy that is impressive on paper but never tested in battle and I hope never will be because the outcome may not be one we like.

I've already exceeded the time I have allocated for today on MM.

Bob Helm Photography wrote:
"As I mentioned previously this is a discussion forum for discussion of opinions, not a  a term paper forum . One requires proof, the other does not."

If you want your opinions to be constantly and consistently demonstrated to be bogus, then your perspective is correct.  Just because you have an opinion, does not mean it is aligned with facts and refusing to demonstrate that your opinion is aligned with facts is as good as extending an open invitation to fact check the associated opinions for validity.  Even well known world events, such as your lame Chamberlain comparison, are complicated by pesky facts, and without due consideration of the history, then the superficial and nonchalant use of historical innuendo hurts your credibility.  In today's political world, it is the rightist who's opinions fail to align with facts, because the facts aren't important.

I don't care how many books are on your selves.  I don't care what you have read.  The probability that we have both read the same sources over the years is small- is that then not reason enough to share your knowledge if your previous readings support your opinions?  What is on your shelves and what you have read, does not give you credibility just because you say you have them.   Credible sources do.  Making credible arguments does.  Why should anyone take your word, especially when what you have said, so many times, doesn't withstand scrutiny?  Your choice, if you enter into a discussion, is to be credible, or not to be credible.  Facts demonstrate your lack of credibility, like when you blamed Philly's crime rate on the Philly DA.

I have so many books that I have them boxed up in the attic and basement.  So what?  There is a doctoral thesis sitting on my computer table which I need for research and yet I have not gained a single insight from the book in all of these days since I recovered it from a box and plopped it down, because i have yet to open it.  I do not find osmosis to be a very effective way of gaining information from books and there are no youtube videos on what I need that thesis for.  In the past, I have read the Bible cover to cover more times than I can remember, but I do not consider myself a theologian and if I want to recite a verse, I look it up.  I don't do it from memory even if I think I remember it verbatim.  Because I may not.  Likewise, for current events and a broad range of data, both inside and outside of my areas of expertise, when I am forming my opinions, I use the search engine at my finger tips.  I am reading and referencing normally credibility sources.  The writer's credentials are often listed at the beginning or end of an article.  The authors can be googled to see what is in their past and evaluations regarding their credibility are often available.  They often cite sources themselves.  The sources can be fact checked.  Using credible sources helps me to align my thoughts with reality and puts someone on the opposing side of a discussion in a position where they must discredit my sources.  Or, they can troll or melt down- spouting irrelevant defenses like the number of books on their shelves.  I note that you have not indicated that you are an expert on the subject(s), you do not reference material- you claim competency solely on what you read years ago.  Hardly sufficient.  That is better for right wing social media and forums where the only thing that matters is that you agree with the refuse that use those sites.

I see no reason to pretend that I am brain dead, intellectually incapable, or that the people who are reading what I am writing are insufficiently able to discern bullshit from plausible opinions and facts.  Just because I am not getting a grade and earning credits does not mean that what I take the time to write can be invalid because the format doesn't require credibility, honesty, accuracy or thought.  Humph, I get continuing education credits each year for a lot less effort then I put into some of my posts. 

In the process of researching the facts and separating the bullshit out, people accomplish amazing things.  They learn.  They develop the ability to adjust to information as it emerges.  They become far less likely to get sucked in by liars, blow hards and charlatans.   They don't believe every piece of crap on right wing anger media.  They become happier people. 

If a person is interested in the truth and wants to convey their message honestly, then research is practical, if not demanded- regardless of it being in the forums or for a term paper.  What then is the big deal about suppling a citation?  Once you have googled and done the reading, all you have to is cut and paste the material and cite the address.  Why would anyone who is competent in expressing themselves not do this?  The answer is easy.  They aren't competent.  The truth is less important than their opinions.  They are lazy.  They are the suckers that are buying into authoritarianism, worthless conspiracies theories and ignorance.  You could be living in North Korea or China and everything you have access to read is only what the government allows you to see.  Instead, you are in the land of the free and you chuck out the ability to discern the truth because you aren't writing a term paper?

After Jonathan Turley quotes the federal statute defining kidnapping, which occurs when an offender “unlawfully seizes, confines, inveigles, decoys, kidnaps, abducts, or carries away and holds for ransom or reward or otherwise any person.” He said, “There is nothing unlawful in conveying individuals who are lawfully in the country pending their immigration hearings,” he writes. “The trips are voluntary, and most migrants appear eager to accept free passage to cities like New York or Chicago.”[1] In order to come to that conclusion, he must, and does, ignore the words "inveigles" and "decoys."  This is today's rightist.  No amount of dishonesty is too much as long as they are the people being dishonest.  Few on the right care because they are brainwashed enough to dismiss fact.  Opinions supersede fact.

Looking at Jonathan Turley, despite his achievements, he does not align his opinions with the facts and his reputation, outside of those immersed in rightist media, has been trashed.  As stated before, you have the right to your opinions, be they right or ignorant.  Time and time again the books you have read and the books you have on your shelf have failed to give you a perspective that aligned with the facts.  Consequently, and humbly, in my opinion, your method sucks.

[1] https://ballsandstrikes.org/legal-cultu … for-shame/

Bob Helm Photography wrote:
As I mentioned previously this is a discussion forum for discussion of opinions, not a  a term paper forum . One requires proof, the other does not.

I based my opinion and analysis of the defensive nature of Russian and China's military on several factors.

First looking at the map of both country that cover a massive territory  with long boarders that need to be defended from neighbors that have a history of conflict. coupled with a knowledge other respective hhistory.

Second a lifelong study of history, especially military history starting in High school when I read  Gen Heinz Guderian 'w "Panzer Leader" the architect of the blitzkrieg ( plant originally developed by British and French General post WWI but rejected by their governments) and Pappy Boyington's  Black Sheep biography and his time with the Flying Tigers and a POW camp in Japan. My library has about 200 books on History  including Otto Carius's "Tigers in the Mud" ( he was one of Germany's ,most successful, and decorated Tank unit commanders with service on both Russian and wester front)

Third the extensive analysis by Gen Jack Keane ( Four Star) and chairman of the Institute for the study of war where he pointed out Russia plan was did not have sufficient manpower for the complex plan they had along with his explanation of why their loss of high ranking officers ( Col and Generals)

Fourth the demonstrated incompetence of Russian military, Army and AirForce due primarily to poor training of at all levels and the lack of both pilots and advanced smart bombs and missiles ( they own them but not in sufficient numbers to use them) and their tactic of using mass artillery rather than the directed artillery the US uses, one is for large areas like troops ninth field or destroying cities the other for specific military targets.

Lastly Youtube has plenty of reasons why Russian performance has been so bad with a lot of news coverage not seen in the US and explanations of why the they have the problems they so. Of course Youtube information varies in accuracy, much like US network and cable new.

Now for the defense of Taiwan. That ship has sailed  and China is in control. There is IMO no military option for us.

Congress has approved more military supplies for them but the delivery dates are not till after 2025, most likely too late.

Second our supply lines are too long, China's short. Our national policy is determined by politicians China by a dictator. Ours even with incompetent leaders is IMO better government , their is better for getting things done

Taiwan is an island that can easily be cut off from resupply by sea or air should they choose to do so. China has built up a large Blue water Navy that is impressive on paper but never tested in battle and I hope never will be because the outcome may not be one we like.

I've already exceeded the time I have allocated for today on MM.

The feeling I have is that if it was possible in 1940 to prevent Hitler's forces from invading the UK across 21 miles of the English Channel, it should in principle, be possible to prevent China from invading Taiwan accross the 125 miles of the Taiwan Strait.

The opposed amphibious landing is regarded as the most dangerous type of military operation with the exception of airborne landings in enemy territory, when they go wrong they can end in total failure as with the Dieppe operation in 1942.

The Chinese military doesn't yet have the overwhelming superiority of forces that would enable it to be confident about the outcome of an invasion attempt.

Good point there about the German Blitzkrieg tactics originating in the British Army, JFC Fuller's Plan 1919 is often regarded as the starting point.

Bob Helm Photography wrote:
snip

I based my opinion and analysis of the defensive nature of Russian and China's military on several factors.

First looking at the map of both country that cover a massive territory  with long boarders that need to be defended from neighbors that have a history of conflict. coupled with a knowledge other respective hhistory.

Second a lifelong study of history, especially military history starting in High school when I read  Gen Heinz Guderian 'w "Panzer Leader" the architect of the blitzkrieg ( plant originally developed by British and French General post WWI but rejected by their governments) and Pappy Boyington's  Black Sheep biography and his time with the Flying Tigers and a POW camp in Japan. My library has about 200 books on History  including Otto Carius's "Tigers in the Mud" ( he was one of Germany's ,most successful, and decorated Tank unit commanders with service on both Russian and wester front)

Third the extensive analysis by Gen Jack Keane ( Four Star) and chairman of the Institute for the study of war where he pointed out Russia plan was did not have sufficient manpower for the complex plan they had along with his explanation of why their loss of high ranking officers ( Col and Generals)

Fourth the demonstrated incompetence of Russian military, Army and AirForce due primarily to poor training of at all levels and the lack of both pilots and advanced smart bombs and missiles ( they own them but not in sufficient numbers to use them) and their tactic of using mass artillery rather than the directed artillery the US uses, one is for large areas like troops ninth field or destroying cities the other for specific military targets.

Lastly Youtube has plenty of reasons why Russian performance has been so bad with a lot of news coverage not seen in the US and explanations of why the they have the problems they so. Of course Youtube information varies in accuracy, much like US network and cable new.

Now for the defense of Taiwan. That ship has sailed  and China is in control. There is IMO no military option for us.

Congress has approved more military supplies for them but the delivery dates are not till after 2025, most likely too late.

Second our supply lines are too long, China's short. Our national policy is determined by politicians China by a dictator. Ours even with incompetent leaders is IMO better government , their is better for getting things done

Taiwan is an island that can easily be cut off from resupply by sea or air should they choose to do so. China has built up a large Blue water Navy that is impressive on paper but never tested in battle and I hope never will be because the outcome may not be one we like.

I've already exceeded the time I have allocated for today on MM.

-
-
What you are saying with those paragraphs is that your expertise is derived from books you have read over many decades and you can extrapolate the discussions in those books, regarding events in other parts of the world, into opinions regarding Taiwan.  You are coupling your book expertise with easily observable events from the news about Russia invading Ukraine, and you can postulate from that, that Taiwan is toast already and there is no point in defending Taiwan and the US will be powerless to intervene.  Have I summed up your statements about right?

You put a lot of weight on the Russian Ukraine conflict in that opinion- most of the observations I do not disagree with- but you do nothing to tie those observation into your conclusions regarding the potential conflict between China and Taiwan.  How does Russia's loss of officers; Russia's poorly trained personnel; Russia's poor planning for the invasion, extrapolate to China's success?   Why doesn't the determination of the Ukrainian people translate into stiff resistance against the Chinese?  Why don't other conflicts, so many conflicts, where a stronger power was eventually displaced from lands they occupied by a determined and patient population?

You admit that it is not a done deal that China's navy can defeat the American allied ships that become involved.  You admit that training and lack of battle experience are a factor. How does that still lead you to the idea that China is in control and "the ship has sailed" regarding Taiwan?  That sounds like a worse philosophy than Chamberlain's appeasement.  It sounds like a surrender to perceived futility without effort.  (BTW, Chamberlain's "appeasement" was also the result of a significant outmaneuvering of Hitler.  Had hitler not been so bruised but the accords with Chamberlain and had he not been determined to resort to war, Chamberlain's reputation may not have been tarnished.  Either way, a war with Germany was inevitable.  Which is not always the case when diplomacy is applied.)

It is true that current defense armaments that Taiwan has ordered from the US are backlogged.  Some of the previous military weapons orders have been backlogged as well.  The US has not prioritized the defense of Taiwan for a long time.  But, the Taiwanese are not sitting there without military capabilities.  You have not discussed the existing capabilities of the island.  You have not provided evaluations of Taiwanese training.  "Most likely too late," is certainly a possibility, but not a foregone conclusion.

Our supply lines are long, but that is not an insurmountable task.  Your history books ought to be illustrative of the possibility that logistical problems can be overcome.  I have serious reservations regarding the possibility that the military planners around the world have not been creating logistical plans to supply Taiwan in the case of a Chinese attack.

Also, an attack changes everything as far as commitments to get supplies to our allies.  After a little foot dragging regarding Ukraine, there has been a flow of weapons that are ever more sophisticated.  The defense industry has ramped up production to help replenish stockpiles.  Why do you believe that the flow of weapons to Taiwan could not increase or that an increase in flow is not already occurring from us and our allies?  There is not currently a blockade.

I know you hate references, but:
'TAIPEI, Taiwan — China appeared to be rehearsing an invasion just miles away. World leaders issued forceful condemnations. But as Beijing’s military sent missiles and jets over their heads in a display of fury, many residents of Taiwan remained unmoved by what outside observers fear is a rising threat of war.

“We grew up with this,” said Rui Hao, a 40-year-old resident of Taipei, the capital, shrugging off the potential for conflict.

When he was a boy, his parents considered emigrating from their home in Taiwan to escape the threat of war with China. Three decades later, they still live here.

“I don’t think China will attack because our rockets can also reach Beijing and Shanghai,” Rui said. “There will be mutual destruction. We’re just a small island, but they are the ones who have much more to lose.”

"The majority of Taiwan’s almost 24 million people say they have no desire to become a part of China, preferring to maintain the status quo whereby the island runs independently but does not make any official claims of independence. In an opinion poll published this week by Taiwan’s Chinese Association of Public Opinion Research, 60 percent of respondents said they were either not that worried or not worried at all about a war between Taiwan and China.

Beijing’s aggression may end up backfiring, alienating even elements in Taiwan that have long supported “reunification” with China while leaving the broader public more skeptical than ever."
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/is-t … -rcna41964


Taiwan is an island and that complicates both a defense from outside sources and an invasion.  We also know that the people have some resolve and I personally do not have any reason to believe that they will go quietly into the night and submit to the oppression of China.

We concur that our form of government is better, even when inept leaders are in charge-  it is a bit worse when we have rampant corruption in the oval office like when trump was there then we are when it is simply Republicans calling a President who is a Democrat inept simply because he is a Democrat, a liberal, or a black man.  But you claim that China has an advantage for getting things done.   Bill Maher made such an assertion about how quickly they built an entire hospital when the pandemic came and my friends in China have sent me the link to that, which China seems to like to tout as evidence of their superiority.  But, what Bill Maher and the Chinese do not realize is that our reticence isn't a lack of will.  It is the result of the rule of law and the principle of the equality of the people. Personally, I am thankful that our government must go through procedures to do things.  We would have no rights otherwise.  Much like those in China.

Furthermore, we have seen how trump got some things waived to build a tiny portion of his wall during his demonstrably inept and corrupt administration and he also revealed how his government was willing to disregard the rights of people.

What the Chinese and some Americans do not consider is the willingness of Americans to put aside some issues and come together in dire times and work together for our common goal.  I would think that such a time would occur if China attacked Taiwan.  But who knows, especially considering the Republican tendency to be isolationists when it suits them politically.

I doubt the veracity of your opinions on the subject.  You are biased and unable to see events clearly as you demonstrated when you disparaged Biden for his comments about Taiwan and the subsequent walk backs from the administration.  Biden showed resolve while maintaining strategic ambiguity.   Biden issued what are warnings and I bet the Chinese know it.

What  happens to Taiwan will be revealed when it happens.  If Taiwan wins or losses, if the USA and other democracies become involved, that will be known when it happens.  Ultimately, our difference in opinion may grow from own attitudes.  I don't hide in my studio because of fear of the possible.  I don't give up because the path is blocked with insurmountable odds.  I think that knowledge results in better decisions and actions.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
What the Chinese and some Americans do not consider is the willingness of Americans to put aside some issues and come together in dire times and work together for our common goal.  I would think that such a time would be if China attacked Taiwan.  But who knows, especially considering the Republican tendency to be isolationists when it suits them politically

I wonder how many Americans under 30 have even heard of Taiwan ?
I also suspect Most Americans would not identify with the Taiwanese they way they Identify with Ukrainians.
(Some Western Media coverage(https://nypost.com/2022/02/26/cbs-news- … ghanistan/) clearly shows this

Brooklyn Bridge Images wrote:
I wonder how many Americans under 30 have even heard of Taiwan ?
I also suspect Most Americans would not identify with the Taiwanese they way they Identify with Ukrainians.
(Some Western Media coverage(https://nypost.com/2022/02/26/cbs-news- … ghanistan/) clearly shows this

"I wonder how many Americans under 30 have even heard of Taiwan ?"

Pure speculation on your part, of course, but whatever the number, you seriously believe it would prevent the US from pursuing its national interest in defending Taiwan? Seriously? How many Americans under 30 ever heard of Iraq or Afghanistan before we invaded those countries?

"I also suspect Most Americans would not identify with the Taiwanese they way they Identify with Ukrainians."

And as evidence you cite an instance of ONE JOURNALIST who compared Afghanistan and Iraq unfavorably to Ukraine? Again, SERIOUSLY?

Tony From Syracuse wrote:
Oh it would be SO GOOD to degrade Chinas military like is being done to Russias now and like Russia, take them down a couple notches in arrogance on the world stage. our 2 main military enemies.  you see how the world is treating Putin now as if he's Rodney Dangerfield. he's not the brilliant chess player we all thought he was.

Russia and Chinas militaries crippled....it would buy us a good 10-15 years while they had to rebuild. and Russia's military was wrecked without even a direct confrontation by us.  these proxy wars seem the way to go in the modern day. so if China does attack I hope whoever our leader is see's the mid to long term benefits. 

this is the perfect time because China is really amassing quite the military and especially their navy...but...their economy is on the edge.

and while I cant really know.....something tells me China's military would suffer the same fate Russias military is experiencing.
because China unlike the US, isnt really battle tested. the US gets lots of practice and I suspect that our main weapon we would give to Taiwan  is battlefield data, locations of enemies.etc . not to take away from the Ukrainians, but ...info... is winning that war.

Definitely do not believe Xi would risk the internal political repercussions in a war with the US over Taiwan. The CCP remains in power because in exchange for total political hegemony it allows a capitalist economy and the largest middle class in the world. It's a sleeping tiger the Chinese may not have counted on when they embarked on the "capitalist road." A severely economically sanctioned and damaged China could break the compact between the CCP and the people.

Brooklyn Bridge Images wrote:
I wonder how many Americans under 30 have even heard of Taiwan ?
I also suspect Most Americans would not identify with the Taiwanese they way they Identify with Ukrainians.
(Some Western Media coverage(https://nypost.com/2022/02/26/cbs-news- … ghanistan/) clearly shows this

The best response that I can give you is that we are a nation of laws.  Our laws, per "[t]he TRA [Taiwan Relations Act] requires the United States to have a policy "to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character", and "to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan."   The law doesn't seem to be encumbered by prescripts regarding the intellectual abilities of the portion of the population under 30 or a deference to any group of uninformed people.

rxz wrote:
A land invasion of Taiwan by China doesn't make any sense.  To me China is more interested in a peaceful acquisition of Taiwan's  economy versus a military land grab.

So why the massive Chinese military maneuvers involving hundreds of ships and aircraft?

JSouthworth wrote:

So why the massive Chinese military maneuvers involving hundreds of ships and aircraft?

You tell me.
But, it's what they do - including Russia, No & So Korea, US, and lots of other countries with smaller militaries.

rxz wrote:

You tell me.
But, it's what they do - including Russia, No & So Korea, US, and lots of other countries with smaller militaries.

Maybe one of their objectives was to test US public opinion on Taiwan.

JSouthworth wrote:

So why the massive Chinese military maneuvers involving hundreds of ships and aircraft?

CHINA MILITARY EXERCISES LIVE: TAIWAN BEGINS OWN DRILLS AS CHINA EXTENDS MANEUVERS

https://www.newsweek.com/taiwan-china-l … si-1732069

"Taiwan's Defense Ministry said it tracked SEVERAL DOZEN WARPLANE SORTIES and 10 CHINESE NAVAL VESSELS AROUND THE ISLAND as of 5 p.m. local time, a statement said. AT LEAST 16 SORTIES WERE CONDUCTED east of the Taiwan Strait median line, the unofficial Cold War buffer that Beijing now argues doesn't exist."

Wow. So "massive". Maybe on your tabletop.

And for such a self-proclaimed military strategist you have never heard of:

Showing the flag

Show of force

Aggressive posturing

All of which are optics only meant to intimidate and in many cases, bluff a prospective opponent. Strategy 101. You should at least audit the course.

STILL WAITING: Your military strategy credentials.

JSouthworth wrote:
Maybe one of their objectives was to test US public opinion on Taiwan.

A useless metric to anyone making strategic decisions. As it has done before, the US will pursue a perceived vital national interest regardless of a snapshot of "public opinion". The Chinese know that, even if naive amateurs don't.

Tony From Syracuse wrote:
what I've always been curious about is, lets say China attacked the US in the future....when your economies are so entwined, is there some sort of international law that says, no matter what happens with war, the debts or economic issues are a totally separate issue and remain in play, OR...can being attacked give a country the ability to write off anything owed or to reverse legit bought land by the attacking enemy.

I think the Chinese would be committing economic and military suicide if they attacked the US. I think countries would pare off and sort of pick who they are sticking with. I dont know that there are that many who would choose China over the US.

I mean now that Russia is on its way to North Koreaville I dont think China has many friends, at least ones that have status.

A list of some of the bigger companies:
Foreign companies in China include Coca Cola, Pepsi Cola, Nike, AT&T Corp., Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., Citibank, Morgan Stanley & Co., Volkswagen AG, Unilever, Toshiba Corp., Matsushita Electrical Industrial Co., General Motors, France's Citreon, Philips Electronics, Cisco, Microsoft, Motorola, Samsung Electronics, NEC.