mr2mk1g 10
Recommended Posts
mr2mk1g 10
there we go folks - DZ.com's longest single post in history - ah well, brain dump over: I'm off to bed.
I'll be amazed if anyone reads any of it.
I'll be amazed if anyone reads any of it.
I'll be amazed if anyone reads any of it.
Just did. And I'm not surprised about the corner it came from.
bonne nuit, tout le monde.
dudeist skydiver # 3105
Don't forget the Red Chinese will seal the Panama Canal when war breaks out and black mail us with all those nukes they have or will have stored in abandoned US Navy Bases in the Canal Zone. Do you think all those ship containers going through Long Beach contain trinkets for Walmart? By then, if not already, they will have nukes or some kind of bio weapons distributed. They might shut us down without firing a shot.
Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.
billvon 3,008
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>The troop and training quality is unbelivably low compared to even
>European standards.
Yeah, but even a bayonet can really ruin your day if you get in the way of one. I think it is a mistake to say "hey, they're not as good as us, they can't touch us." Untrained insurgents are touching us quite a bit in Iraq with homemade weapons and small arms. Imagine a million man army with twice the training and twice the armament of the Iraqi insurgents.
>Two, we're in the US and so we're used to having relatively secure borders
>That's not the case for China. They are ringed by enemies and cannot just
>strip those borders to regain one wayward province.
You sure about that? They have the manpower to cover a border twice that size. They have the spare resources to put a frigging _space_program_ together, and you can bet that everything they learn there is getting funnelled back into weapons research (just as we did.)
>Also once you get those troops over to Taiwan they will have to be
>resupplied as they fight the Taiwanese ground forces, probably backed by
>Marines and some American Army units. All under hugely unfriendly skies
>for the Chinese. Not happening.
We can't hold the skies there. This isn't like Iraq, where there is effectively no air defense to speak of, and the biggest risk is a lunatic with a Stinger of questionable vintage. 300 miles away from Taiwan there are air bases that will be able to throw thousands of crappy ancient fighters into the air to counter the dozens we will be able to support.
Imagine the following. An entire complement (16) of F-14's takes off from a US carrier to confront 200 incoming F-6's. (the Chinese version of the MiG-19) Each F-14 fires off its complement of Phoenix missiles. The F-6's countermeasures fail miserably and each Phoenix takes out a fighter. Now we're down to 104 F-6's. They engage them in close combat. They down all 104 F-6's and lose only 4 F-14's. A victory for the US!
Now the next wave comes. Fewer F-14's, so it's tougher to stop them this time. And they can do this TWELVE TIMES. After the fourth wave the carrier's air wing is decimated; they have to withdraw or risk losing the carrier group.
It does not pay to underestimate the value of an air force that can fly to combat from their home bases, and that contains some 6000 aircraft.
If they want to take Taiwan they will, and nothing we can do will stop them (outside of nuclear war, and we would suffer as much as they would if that happened.) I have a feeling that it won't come to that; Taiwan will fall under economic and the threat of military intervention. They will capitulate, work out some sort of 'compromise' that lets them save face, and Taiwan will effectively cease to exist as an independent entity.
Anyone who thinks that China will not be the next superpower is kidding themselves. They have the resources, the economy, the people and the military know-how to stand up to us, and they will soon match us. Best prepare for that now.
>European standards.
Yeah, but even a bayonet can really ruin your day if you get in the way of one. I think it is a mistake to say "hey, they're not as good as us, they can't touch us." Untrained insurgents are touching us quite a bit in Iraq with homemade weapons and small arms. Imagine a million man army with twice the training and twice the armament of the Iraqi insurgents.
>Two, we're in the US and so we're used to having relatively secure borders
>That's not the case for China. They are ringed by enemies and cannot just
>strip those borders to regain one wayward province.
You sure about that? They have the manpower to cover a border twice that size. They have the spare resources to put a frigging _space_program_ together, and you can bet that everything they learn there is getting funnelled back into weapons research (just as we did.)
>Also once you get those troops over to Taiwan they will have to be
>resupplied as they fight the Taiwanese ground forces, probably backed by
>Marines and some American Army units. All under hugely unfriendly skies
>for the Chinese. Not happening.
We can't hold the skies there. This isn't like Iraq, where there is effectively no air defense to speak of, and the biggest risk is a lunatic with a Stinger of questionable vintage. 300 miles away from Taiwan there are air bases that will be able to throw thousands of crappy ancient fighters into the air to counter the dozens we will be able to support.
Imagine the following. An entire complement (16) of F-14's takes off from a US carrier to confront 200 incoming F-6's. (the Chinese version of the MiG-19) Each F-14 fires off its complement of Phoenix missiles. The F-6's countermeasures fail miserably and each Phoenix takes out a fighter. Now we're down to 104 F-6's. They engage them in close combat. They down all 104 F-6's and lose only 4 F-14's. A victory for the US!
Now the next wave comes. Fewer F-14's, so it's tougher to stop them this time. And they can do this TWELVE TIMES. After the fourth wave the carrier's air wing is decimated; they have to withdraw or risk losing the carrier group.
It does not pay to underestimate the value of an air force that can fly to combat from their home bases, and that contains some 6000 aircraft.
If they want to take Taiwan they will, and nothing we can do will stop them (outside of nuclear war, and we would suffer as much as they would if that happened.) I have a feeling that it won't come to that; Taiwan will fall under economic and the threat of military intervention. They will capitulate, work out some sort of 'compromise' that lets them save face, and Taiwan will effectively cease to exist as an independent entity.
Anyone who thinks that China will not be the next superpower is kidding themselves. They have the resources, the economy, the people and the military know-how to stand up to us, and they will soon match us. Best prepare for that now.
Etc... Etc...QuoteHalf of you are mad.
It wont be a case of defending Taiwan - it'll be a case of deciding if you want to try and take it back.
There's little chance of the US putting enough assets in the way quick enough - China's not going to send out invitations to their bash - they'll just do it one day when everyone's been told they're holding maneuvers.
And China doesn't have to be a "modern" military to seriously screw over...
Just one quick question: Who are you and what have you done with the REAL Matt?
Given the US Navy's capacity for Sea-Denial (their attack subs) & air-denial (Aegis & Phoenix Vs. transport aircraft), how would the PRC propose to support & supply their invasion force?... Always assuming they actually believe they have the ability to deliver an amphibious force across the Formosa Strait in the first place!
Mike.
Edited to add: 200Km/120 miles (narrowes part of Formosa Strait) is a hell of a long supply route by either sea or air in a hostile environment.
Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.
Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.
Taiwan has 150 F-16s, 60 Mirage 2000s, and 120 indiginous fighters similar to the F-16 in performance. Japan, which is likley but not certain to enter the conflict, has 200 F15s and more than 120 indiginousally produced fighters again similar to the F-16. Plus the USAF would in all likelyhood respond to a war massivly operating out of bases in Japan, Okinowa, and likley in a limited amount Taiwan itself. 2-3 hundred aircraft would be just for starters. That sole aircraft carrier postulated would hardly be alone. (It's full fighter complement includes an additional 24 or so F-18s.) China has no viable anti-submarine capablity, making that a very cost effective way of closing the strait. And don't get me started on the whole China as a superpower possiblity. People have been listening to the CIA too much. Manpower and the ablity to use it are two massively different things. The ability to launch massive stikes to take advantage of their massive numerical superiority in the air requires a capablity in logistics and information systems the Chinese do not have and will not soon.
All aircraft numbers courtesy of globalsecurity.org
All aircraft numbers courtesy of globalsecurity.org
-------------------------------------------------------
"These are the old days, the bad days, the all-or-nothing days. They're back! There's no choice left, and I'm ready for war."
"These are the old days, the bad days, the all-or-nothing days. They're back! There's no choice left, and I'm ready for war."
billvon 3,008
> Taiwan has 150 F-16s, 60 Mirage 2000s, and 120 indiginous fighters
> similar to the F-16 in performance.
New Chinese Jets Superior, Eagle Loses to Flanker
Charles R. Smith
Wednesday, May 26, 2004
China is about to receive 24 advanced Sukhoi Su-30MK2 Flanker fighters from Russia. The new fighter jets are reported to be the naval versions of the Sukhoi Su-30MKK fighter.
The new Chinese fighters are reportedly equipped with enhanced anti-ship strike capabilities including the Kh-31 Krypton supersonic anti-ship missile.
China has already purchased 78 Su-27SK/UBK fighters and 76 Su-30MKK fighters from Russia, and is building 200 more Flanker jets under license from Sukhoi. The PLA Naval Air Corps will deploy the latest batch of Su-30MK2 fighters.
The disturbing news from Beijing adds to recent bad news for the U.S. Air Force. According to an unreleased U.S.A.F. report, the F-15 Eagle - the most advanced U.S. fighter in service - is inferior to the latest versions of the Sukhoi Su-30 Flanker.
The report covers a series of air-combat training engagements earlier this year between Indian air force Su-30MKs and F-15Cs from Elmendorf AFB, Alaska. The U.S. F-15s were equipped with the U.S. latest long-range, high-definition radar systems.
During the air combat exercises the Su-30MKs and F-15 pilots were seeing each other at the same time with their radars, but the Indian pilots were getting off the simulated first shot with their AA-10 Alamo missiles and often winning the long-range engagements.
Flanker Beats Eagle
According to a Richard Fisher, a defense analyst and noted expert on the Chinese military, the Chinese Flanker fighters can beat the U.S. top jet fighters including the F-15 Eagle.
----------------------------------
So 224 Su-30's against 150 of the inferior F-16's? You're right, we have nothing to worry about. Go back to sleep, america! No one can threaten us - unless, of course, they have no WMD's, no army to speak of, no air force, but a whole lot of oil.
> similar to the F-16 in performance.
New Chinese Jets Superior, Eagle Loses to Flanker
Charles R. Smith
Wednesday, May 26, 2004
China is about to receive 24 advanced Sukhoi Su-30MK2 Flanker fighters from Russia. The new fighter jets are reported to be the naval versions of the Sukhoi Su-30MKK fighter.
The new Chinese fighters are reportedly equipped with enhanced anti-ship strike capabilities including the Kh-31 Krypton supersonic anti-ship missile.
China has already purchased 78 Su-27SK/UBK fighters and 76 Su-30MKK fighters from Russia, and is building 200 more Flanker jets under license from Sukhoi. The PLA Naval Air Corps will deploy the latest batch of Su-30MK2 fighters.
The disturbing news from Beijing adds to recent bad news for the U.S. Air Force. According to an unreleased U.S.A.F. report, the F-15 Eagle - the most advanced U.S. fighter in service - is inferior to the latest versions of the Sukhoi Su-30 Flanker.
The report covers a series of air-combat training engagements earlier this year between Indian air force Su-30MKs and F-15Cs from Elmendorf AFB, Alaska. The U.S. F-15s were equipped with the U.S. latest long-range, high-definition radar systems.
During the air combat exercises the Su-30MKs and F-15 pilots were seeing each other at the same time with their radars, but the Indian pilots were getting off the simulated first shot with their AA-10 Alamo missiles and often winning the long-range engagements.
Flanker Beats Eagle
According to a Richard Fisher, a defense analyst and noted expert on the Chinese military, the Chinese Flanker fighters can beat the U.S. top jet fighters including the F-15 Eagle.
----------------------------------
So 224 Su-30's against 150 of the inferior F-16's? You're right, we have nothing to worry about. Go back to sleep, america! No one can threaten us - unless, of course, they have no WMD's, no army to speak of, no air force, but a whole lot of oil.
The F-15 is scheduled to be phased out in favor of the F-22 Raptor, which is as deadly as the Sukhoi. The Lawn Dart (F-16) is to be replaced by the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
We've got the ability to strike the airfields before the aircraft even get airborne.
Believe me, some of the things the Raptor and the Joint Strike Fighter are able to do are staggering.
We've got the ability to strike the airfields before the aircraft even get airborne.
Believe me, some of the things the Raptor and the Joint Strike Fighter are able to do are staggering.
TheAnvil 0
I don't think they will declare independence in the next ten years as you do. I also think you should take a look at how much $$ Taiwanese companies are generating by doing business on/with mainland China.
Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!
billvon 3,008
>Believe me, some of the things the Raptor and the Joint Strike Fighter are able to do are staggering.
I have no doubt we have very capable aircraft. I am amazed, though, how many people here are suggesting we have nothing to worry about when it comes to China. We attacked Iraq because we thought they were an imminent threat; amazing that many think we have nothing to fear from a country that has a much larger military than ours, aircraft that rival ours, a space program, and thermonuclear ICBM's - and has expansionist tendencies.
I have no doubt we have very capable aircraft. I am amazed, though, how many people here are suggesting we have nothing to worry about when it comes to China. We attacked Iraq because we thought they were an imminent threat; amazing that many think we have nothing to fear from a country that has a much larger military than ours, aircraft that rival ours, a space program, and thermonuclear ICBM's - and has expansionist tendencies.
mr2mk1g 10
QuoteWho are you and what have you done with the REAL Matt?
It's me dude, I just don't believe taking on China will be all fun and games. They're real good at making rockets, lots and lots of rockets. We still haven't figured out a reliable way to stop rockets.
Like I said - it's a question of them being onto Taiwan before anyone has time to react. Once they're there you've gotta dislodge them and that's going to take troops on the ground.
Closing the strait does little but starve the indigenous population. I doubt very much a Chinease army will be brought to it's knees by hunger - their commanders don't have quite the same concern for their troops welfare as we do.
mr2mk1g 10
QuoteWe've got the ability to strike the airfields before the aircraft even get airborne.
How do you get close enough to hit airfields on mainland China? SAM's kill even really cool planes - and they're gonna start going bang well before you even see the coast.
Like Drunkmonkey said... "Believe me, some of the things the Joint Strike Fighter are able to do are staggering."
Britain is also committed to the Joint Strike Fighter - At present one of the "amazing things" it CAN'T do is take off with a load. It reminds me of the early days of The Hawker P1127, which in the words of one official "Couldn't carry a cigarette packet across a football field!"
But back to China Vs. Formosa... Or is it Taiwan... Or is it The Republic of China...? Maybe the solution is for the Taiwanese/Formosans/RoC to change their name again! Then when the Peoples Liberation Army come a knockin', they can just say: "Velly solly. RoC move out last week with no forward address. You go 'way now!"
But seriously, I seriously doubt that the PRC can sustain a campaign of invasion on Taiwan. I likened it to the Falklands War because that's the most recent conflict involving an island where neither side gained air superiority over the battlefield... ANd thus the campaign was won by the side which was capable of "Sea-Denial". (Yep. The General Belgrano WAS sunk for a reason - the reason being; "Look what we've got! Wanna send some more ships toward Port Stanley? No..?")
Now. An army in combat goes through "consumables" (food, water, fuel, ammunition spare parts, etc...) at a horrendous rate, and air supply isn't very effective (transport aircraft ARE easy meat for defending fignters) so it comes down to resupply by sea - and hence, sea denial. One way to cut this back in the early days is to stand troops & weapons down into a maintenance cycle before launching a conflict This is a very visible pattern of behaviour as far as intelligence is concerned and thus gives some notice of intent.
Like Napoleon said: "An army marches on it's stomach."
Finally, there is the commercial dimension. Yes, the world DOES get a lot fo cheap goods from both China's, but an invasion & conflict, whether successful or not would effectively end this trade (for example, who would buy a Japanese camera in 1942?) and while the US does presently import chinese goods, if this stopped, then there's plenty of other markets all ready to take up the slack if the US stopped trading with China(s). And let's face it, the PRC needs the foreign exchange that exports to the "West" provide.
So at the end of the day, I doubt that The PRC will invade the RoC.
Mike.
Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.
Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.
Britain is also committed to the Joint Strike Fighter - At present one of the "amazing things" it CAN'T do is take off with a load. It reminds me of the early days of The Hawker P1127, which in the words of one official "Couldn't carry a cigarette packet across a football field!"
But back to China Vs. Formosa... Or is it Taiwan... Or is it The Republic of China...?
Maybe the solution is for the Taiwanese/Formosans/RoC to change their name again! Then when the Peoples Liberation Army come a knockin', they can just say: "Velly solly. RoC move out last week with no forward address. You go 'way now!"
But seriously, I seriously doubt that the PRC can sustain a campaign of invasion on Taiwan. I likened it to the Falklands War because that's the most recent conflict involving an island where neither side gained air superiority over the battlefield... ANd thus the campaign was won by the side which was capable of "Sea-Denial". (Yep. The General Belgrano WAS sunk for a reason - the reason being; "Look what we've got! Wanna send some more ships toward Port Stanley? No..?")
Now. An army in combat goes through "consumables" (food, water, fuel, ammunition spare parts, etc...) at a horrendous rate, and air supply isn't very effective (transport aircraft ARE easy meat for defending fignters) so it comes down to resupply by sea - and hence, sea denial. One way to cut this back in the early days is to stand troops & weapons down into a maintenance cycle before launching a conflict This is a very visible pattern of behaviour as far as intelligence is concerned and thus gives some notice of intent.
Like Napoleon said: "An army marches on it's stomach."
Finally, there is the commercial dimension. Yes, the world DOES get a lot fo cheap goods from both China's, but an invasion & conflict, whether successful or not would effectively end this trade (for example, who would buy a Japanese camera in 1942?) and while the US does presently import chinese goods, if this stopped, then there's plenty of other markets all ready to take up the slack if the US stopped trading with China(s). And let's face it, the PRC needs the foreign exchange that exports to the "West" provide.
So at the end of the day, I doubt that The PRC will invade the RoC.
Mike.
Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.
Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.
mr2mk1g 10
We agree on a lot of points. I just think that China would have effective control of the island before anyone was able to do anything significant about it.
From that point I think that sea denial would work both ways. US subs could prevent re-supply. Chinese missiles would prevent any serious attempt by the US at getting close to the Taiwan with a surface fleet.
I just think that preventing any serious re supply of Taiwan would not kick out an occupation force – only troops on the ground can do that, and you can’t get them there without sailing within range of all those missies.
You end up with stalemate where they’re sat in the castle dieing of disease while US maintain a blockade without ever being able to make any serious strikes past that big ass castellated stone wall of missiles.
Any move by the US to walk up to the China’s door and knock would mean decimation for both sides. You’re looking at something akin to M.A.D. only with conventional weapons and only involving the military forces committed to the battle. M.A.D. with troops is something China’s proven they are quite willing to do. All the way back in Korea they showed that – hell, Pork Chop Hill was just for political wrangling, not even military gain and they still threw thousands at that. I don’t think things have changed all that much.
On the other hand the US can’t stomach casualties – not in those kinds of numbers. Remember an aircraft carrier has something like 3000 sailors sat on board. A couple of little missiles of which china has thousands will make for a really really bad day. Now imagine having half the US task force taken out in one day as an overwhelming strike is what most analysts think is the best tactic against a surface fleet.
Those kinds of losses would make Ypres and the Somme look like a sunny walk in the park, and Verdun look like a pleasant wander round an old French fort.
At the end of the day though, I agree - I doubt that The PRC will invade the RoC. But I think that’ll come down to commercial considerations as opposed to any military concerns.
From that point I think that sea denial would work both ways. US subs could prevent re-supply. Chinese missiles would prevent any serious attempt by the US at getting close to the Taiwan with a surface fleet.
I just think that preventing any serious re supply of Taiwan would not kick out an occupation force – only troops on the ground can do that, and you can’t get them there without sailing within range of all those missies.
You end up with stalemate where they’re sat in the castle dieing of disease while US maintain a blockade without ever being able to make any serious strikes past that big ass castellated stone wall of missiles.
Any move by the US to walk up to the China’s door and knock would mean decimation for both sides. You’re looking at something akin to M.A.D. only with conventional weapons and only involving the military forces committed to the battle. M.A.D. with troops is something China’s proven they are quite willing to do. All the way back in Korea they showed that – hell, Pork Chop Hill was just for political wrangling, not even military gain and they still threw thousands at that. I don’t think things have changed all that much.
On the other hand the US can’t stomach casualties – not in those kinds of numbers. Remember an aircraft carrier has something like 3000 sailors sat on board. A couple of little missiles of which china has thousands will make for a really really bad day. Now imagine having half the US task force taken out in one day as an overwhelming strike is what most analysts think is the best tactic against a surface fleet.
Those kinds of losses would make Ypres and the Somme look like a sunny walk in the park, and Verdun look like a pleasant wander round an old French fort.
At the end of the day though, I agree - I doubt that The PRC will invade the RoC. But I think that’ll come down to commercial considerations as opposed to any military concerns.
rhino 0
QuoteIf their performance in Iraq is anything to go by, I sincerley doubt it.
Remove the rules of engagement and see what heppens then...
mr2mk1g 10
QuoteRemove the rules of engagement and see what heppens then...
An international war crimes tribunal in the Hague?
Quoteamazing that many think we have nothing to fear from a country that has a much larger military than ours, aircraft that rival ours, a space program, and thermonuclear ICBM's - and has expansionist tendencies.
Expansionist tendencies? They have already moved their sphere of influence right into our backyard without a fight. China is really controlling the Panama Canal. This is old 1999 news that a lot of people don't know. Goggle China and the Panama Canal and China/ Long Beach Pier.
Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott recently wrote to Defense Secretary William S. Cohen that a Chinese shipping company is gaining broad authority over the Panama Canal and could deny passage to U.S. ships.
"It appears that we have given away the farm without a shot being fired," the Mississippi Republican said in the Aug. 1 letter requesting Mr. Cohen's security assessment.
It was the first time a congressional leader has raised questions about growing Chinese influence over one of the world's most strategic waterways. Until now, warnings were being raised primarily by a handful of conservative lawmakers, led by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, California Republican, who plans a fact-finding trip to Panama on Monday.
The focus of concern is Hutchinson Whampoa Ltd., a giant Hong Kong-based shipping firm with ties to China's leadership and its armed forces, the People's Liberation Army (PLA).
Under circumstances the U.S. Embassy in Panama called unusual, the government in 1997 awarded Hutchinson a 25- to 50-year contract to run the two major ports on the canal's Atlantic and Pacific entrances.
Moreover, conservatives assert that Panama gave Hutchinson broader powers in legislation known as "Law No. 5."
Al Santoli, an aide to Mr. Rohrabacher, said the law enables Hutchinson to assign the pilots who take control of ships and steer them through the canal. He also said the Chinese company can block passage of ships to meet its business needs.
This contention was challenged by a spokesman for the Panama Canal Commission, a panel of five Americans and four Panamanians who run the waterway. The Panama Canal Commission spokesman said the treaty gives the United States the right to intervene militarily to protect access.
Mr. Lott wrote to Mr. Cohen, "This administration is allowing a scenario to develop where U.S. national security interests could not be protected without confronting the Chinese communists in the Americas. U.S. naval ships will be at the mercy of Chinese-controlled pilots and could even be denied passage through the Panama Canal by Hutchinson, an arm of the People's Liberation Army.
"In addition, the Chinese Communist Party will gain an intelligence information advantage by controlling this strategic chokepoint. It appears that we have given away the farm without a shot being fired."
The senator sent the letter based on an article in Insight magazine, a sister publication of The Washington Times, that detailed Hutchinson's ties to the PLA. The Times first reported in 1997 that Hutchinson had gained control of the port of Balboa on the Pacific and Cristobal on the Atlantic.
The United States is the No. 1 user of the canal that carries 13,000 ships per year.
The U.S. military is abandoning bases in Panama under a 1977 treaty, signed by President Carter, that gives canal ownership to Panama, effective Dec. 31.
Mr. Santoli said the canal is part of a Chinese strategy to move into countries abandoned by the United States and the former Soviet Union. In Cuba, for example, Chinese intelligence officials are helping Cuba build a communications facility, he said.
"They're using Panama as a staging area for the region," Mr. Santoli said. "They're doing a massive amount of construction, a lot of investment. Literally hundreds of mainland Chinese are moving into Panama at all levels."
The Miami Herald on Monday quoted Panama's ousted intelligence chief as accusing his country's president, Ernesto Perez Balladares, of personally demanding visas for 140 Chinese immigrants.
The newspaper said the U.S. Justice Department is investigating a scheme in which Chinese immigrants paid $15,000 each for visas to use Panama as a staging area for illegal entry into the United States.
The Panama debate comes amid broader questions about China's strategic intentions and criticism of President Clinton's pro-Beijing policies from both Democrats and Republicans.
Military experts say a pattern of Chinese actions reveals a long-range strategic plan to dominate Asia and exert influence worldwide. The moves include its forays in Panama, its failed attempt to take over the old Long Beach, Calif., naval base, its suspected spying at U.S. nuclear labs, its illegal injection of campaign cash into Democratic Party coffers and its increased military spending, especially on nuclear weapons.
Reporting on a trip he and outside experts made to Panama in June, Mr. Santoli wrote in a report, "The delegation was concerned about the growing presence of communist China directly at the canal and in the region. Panama has become the central base of operations for communist China in Latin America."
Mr. Santoli said a Hutchinson subsidiary in Panama, Panama Ports Co., is partly owned by China Resources Enterprise, the commercial arm of the Chinese Ministry of Trade.
The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee has identified the Ministry of Trade as a conduit for "espionage -- economic, political and military -- for China."
Mr. Santoli said Li Kashing, chairman of Hutchinson, has served as a middleman for PLA dealings with the West, including satellite purchases from Hughes Corp.
Some downplay potential problems with Hutchinson's role in canal operations. For example, a former staffer to Sen. Jesse Helms, North Carolina Republican, issued a report in 1997 dismissing the company as a security threat.
Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.
***I have no doubt we have very capable aircraft. I am amazed, though, how many people here are suggesting we have nothing to worry about when it comes to China.
I am amazed as well,and am reminded of an experience a friend of mine described to me while he was a Lt. in the Marine Corps during the Korean conflict.
They were on a hill top position,and came under attack by Chinese forces in a human wave assault.Only the front 2 or 3 waves had rifles and/or machine guns (mostly rifles) as the Marines poured fire on the Chinese coming up the hill,the unarmed men behind the armed waves,continued their advance by picking up the rifles from the dead in the front waves![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]")
As some of the Marines began to run out of ammo,artillery support broke the attack......hundreds of dead Chinese troops lay piled up around the Marines' position.....a unnerving example of the resolve of the Chinese military
I am amazed as well,and am reminded of an experience a friend of mine described to me while he was a Lt. in the Marine Corps during the Korean conflict.
They were on a hill top position,and came under attack by Chinese forces in a human wave assault.Only the front 2 or 3 waves had rifles and/or machine guns (mostly rifles) as the Marines poured fire on the Chinese coming up the hill,the unarmed men behind the armed waves,continued their advance by picking up the rifles from the dead in the front waves
As some of the Marines began to run out of ammo,artillery support broke the attack......hundreds of dead Chinese troops lay piled up around the Marines' position.....a unnerving example of the resolve of the Chinese militaryMarc SCR 6046 SCS 3004
It wont be a case of defending Taiwan - it'll be a case of deciding if you want to try and take it back.
There's little chance of the US putting enough assets in the way quick enough - China's not going to send out invitations to their bash - they'll just do it one day when everyone's been told they're holding maneuvers.
And China doesn't have to be a "modern" military to seriously screw over a surface force - the Argies could have taken out the Falklands task force if our Harriers let them get close enough and if they had enough planes/Exocets to throw at us. That was 25 years ago.
They lost the air battle because they ran out of planes and missiles not because we had any really effective way of stopping them - those planes that did get through made short work of any ships they could get a missile off at - just look at the Sir Galahad.
Even Iran's got 300 Exocets waiting for something to point them at - wanna guess how many China's got – that and other similar munitions? Didn't they just buy three massive Russian surface to surface missile ships that were specifically developed to defeat Aegis cruisers?
And Taiwan is no Falklands. It's just off the coast of China. Even 30 year old rocketry can blow the crap out of anything you sail up and down their coast line. You've got to get out of this mentality that you're so superior everything will fall before you. Underestimating an enemy is quickest way to get your words stuffed back down your throat - SunTzu would have a fit if he could read this thread.
Stop running Rambo'esc scenarios through your head where Chuck Norris skydives onto Taiwan and single handedly kills off a million slant-eyed twits to while an American flag waives defiantly over his shoulder. Live in the real world - start thinking about the bad things, not the Hollywood hype of what you'd like to see down the multiplex.
Lets try a real world telling of how it might go.
You wake up one morning to find China already has a foothold on Taiwan. They went in overnight, seizing key infrastructure after coming in on commercial flights – before anyone knew what was happening container ships in the doc were disgorging thousands of troops and tanks were rolling of RORO’s. At sun up news agency’s film the straights of Taiwan are thick with landing craft.
The US administration has still to figure out what it’s going to do about it. What US forces are in the area are told by China that if they come within an exclusion zone they're toast. The Taiwanese military put up a good show of it – after all they’re armed and trained by Yanks. But they simply can’t sink enough ships fast enough and all their key bases were destroyed during the night by stand off weaponry – they lost air superiority before it was even light to hundreds upon hundreds of Mig jets.
China has so much rocketry sat on their coastline that sailing anything within 300 miles can get hit by so much munitions it will make Dresden look like a crappy 4th July party. US planners know this and can’t risk intervening till they have a significant force in the area.
Before anyone can do anything but posture, China's overwhelmed the Taiwanese military through shear weight of numbers. Sure they took huge losses, but who the hell cares when their country still accounts for 1 full sixth of the worlds population.
By the time the US has dispatched a couple of task forces Taiwan is already in complete Chinese control and they're busy bringing their big missiles over to the island to extend their range out over your bases in the Philippines.
So how do you take back Taiwan? By sea? Aegis doesn't work - at least not well enough to counter such a proliferate threat. You lose thousands of men per ship - no govt. can afford to lose even one ship and ever hope to get away with it, besides they cost billions – they Chinese can fire off a dozen sea skimming missiles and no one would ever see them coming.
By air? Give me a break- Douhet’s crap that "the bomber will always get through" died in the 40's and again in the Cold War. Vietnam showed you that even crappy armies can amass such heavy air defenses that flying anywhere near them is tantamount to suicide – Why would Taiwan in 2005 be any different to Hanoi in 1975?
Even if you do manage to obtain air superiority, Iraq and hell, WWII for that matter proved that no one's ever going to win a war through air power alone - face it, Bomber Harris was wrong on that one. You’re still gonna have to put men on the ground. That still means slow lumbering planes taking lightly equipped men onto a tiny island crawling with heavy, mechanized troops or slow lumbering transport ships taking sailing through minefields. Both are highly vulnerable to even basic rocketry – something China’s simply not going to run out of in a hurry.
Taiwan is not a simple question, and it most certainly doesn’t have a simple answer. But one things for sure – real military planners certainly won’t be looking at the situation as if it were a Hollywood blockbuster with big name stars in all the lead rolls. Big name stars don’t die in films – grunts do, and ships sinking don’t come with panavision footage shot from three different angles.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites