China improving its military potence rapidly

[Skybird]

http://www.defense.gov/pubs/pdfs/China_Military_Power_Report_2009.pdf

Executive Summary

China’s rapid rise as a regional political and economic power with growing global influence has significant implications for the Asia-Pacific region and the world. The United States welcomes the rise of a stable, peaceful, and prosperous China, and encourages China to participate responsibly in world affairs by taking on a greater share of the burden for the stability, resilience, and growth of the international system. The United States has done much over the last 30 years to encourage and facilitate China’s national development and its integration into the international system. However, much uncertainty surrounds China’s future course, particularly regarding how its expanding military power might be used.

The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is pursuing comprehensive transformation from a mass army designed for protracted wars of attrition on its territory to one capable of fighting and winning short-duration, high-intensity conflicts along its periphery against high-tech adversaries – an approach that China refers to as preparing for "local wars under conditions of informatization." The pace and scope of China’s military transformation have increased in recent years, fueled by acquisition of advanced foreign weapons, continued high rates of investment in its domestic defense and science and technology industries, and far-reaching organizational and doctrinal reforms of the armed forces. China’s ability to sustain military power at a distance remains limited, but its armed forces continue to develop and field disruptive military technologies, including those for anti-access/area-denial, as well as for nuclear, space, and cyber warfare, that are changing regional military balances and that have implications beyond the Asia-Pacific region.

The PLA’s modernization vis-à-vis Taiwan has continued over the past year, including its build-up of short-range missiles opposite the island. In the near-term, China’s armed forces are rapidly developing coercive capabilities for the purpose of deterring Taiwan’s pursuit of de jure independence. These same capabilities could in the future be used to pressure Taiwan toward a settlement of the cross-Strait dispute on Beijing’s terms while simultaneously attempting to deter, delay, or deny any possible U.S. support for the island in case of conflict. This modernization and the threat to Taiwan continue despite significant reduction in cross-Strait tension over the last year since Taiwan elected a new president.

The PLA is also developing longer range capabilities that have implications beyond Taiwan. Some of these capabilities have allowed it to contribute cooperatively to the international community’s responsibilities in areas such as peacekeeping, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, and counter-piracy. However, some of these capabilities, as well as other, more disruptive ones, could allow China to project power to ensure access to resources or enforce claims to disputed territories.

Beijing publicly asserts that China’s military modernization is "purely defensive in nature," and aimed solely at protecting China’s security and interests. Over the past several years, China has begun a new phase of military development by beginning to articulate roles and missions for the PLA that go beyond China’s immediate territorial interests, but has left unclear to the international community the purposes and objectives of the PLA’s evolving doctrine and capabilities. Moreover, China continues to promulgate incomplete defense expenditure figures and engage in actions that appear inconsistent with its declaratory policies. The limited transparency in China’s military and security affairs poses risks to stability by creating uncertainty and increasing the potential for misunderstanding and miscalculation. The United States continues to work with our allies and friends in the region to monitor these developments and adjust our policies accordingly.

[Skybird]

http://blog.usni.org/?s=DF-21

A few of us (here (http://steeljawscribe.com/category/blog/missile-defense) (http://www.stumbleupon.com/url/http://steeljawscribe.com/category/blog/missile-defense) and over at Galrahn’s site (http://www.informationdissemination.net/)) have been banging the drum for the last few years re. the potential threat posed by China’s ASBM (Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile) which appears to be a variant of the DF-21 (itself, an apparent derivative of the Pershing II MRBM). There has been limited releasable (e.g., unclassified) information from DoD agencies, most of it in the annual DoD report on China’s capabilities. What little else can be gleaned from the open press is primarily Chinese in origin and oft times, in Chinese. Most of the extensive writings have tended to be more generalistic as a result, focusing at the strategic-political level on the implications and challenges such a weapon would pose in a future Taiwan Straits scenario (or some other that takes place at or inside the first island chain). Chief focus has been on the aspect of sea denial to US carriers (http://steeljawscribe.com/2009/05/27/bmd-from-the-sea-its-not-just-for-swos) (http://www.stumbleupon.com/url/http://steeljawscribe.com/2009/05/27/bmd-from-the-sea-its-not-just-for-swos)and the attendant impact that would have on providing tactical airpower in the face of land-based PLAAF forces conducting bluewater ASUW and land attack strikes. The most recent open press article was that found in the May 2009 issue (https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/story.asp?STORY_ID=1856) (http://www.stumbleupon.com/url/https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/story.asp?STORY_ID=1856) of the Naval Institute’s Proceedings

With the autumn 2009 issue of the Naval War College Review (http://usnwc.edu/Publications/Naval-War-College-Review/2009---Autumn.aspx) (http://www.stumbleupon.com/url/http://usnwc.edu/Publications/Naval-War-College-Review/2009---Autumn.aspx), that body of knowledge has been significantly expanded via two articles. The first, “Using the Land to Control the Sea? (http://usnwc.edu/getattachment/f5cd3bb5-a1d1-497d-ab70-257b9502d13e/Using-the-Land-to-Control-the-Sea--Chinese-Analyst) (http://www.stumbleupon.com/url/http://usnwc.edu/getattachment/f5cd3bb5-a1d1-497d-ab70-257b9502d13e/Using-the-Land-to-Control-the-Sea--Chinese-Analyst)” (link directly downloads a PDF of the article) addresses the larger technical and political challenges, opening with an argument is a familiar to readers of this and the aforementioned blogs:
For China, the ability to prevent a U.S. carrier strike group from intervening in the event of a Taiwan Strait crisis is critical. Beijing’s immediate strategic concerns have been defined with a high level of clarity. The Chinese are interested in achieving an antiship ballistic missile (ASBM) capability because it offers them the prospect of limiting the ability of other nations, particularly the United States, to exert military influence on China’s maritime periphery, which contains several disputed zones of core strategic importance to Beijing. ASBMs are regarded as a means by which technologically limited developing countries can overcome by asymmetric means their qualitative inferiority in conventional combat platforms, because the gap between offense and defense is the greatest here.
Today, China may be closer than ever to attaining this capability. In addition to numerous outside reports suggesting Chinese efforts in this area, technical and operationally focused discussions on the topic are appearing in increasing numbers and in a widening array of Chinese sources, some clearly authoritative. This suggests that China may be close to testing and fielding an ASBM system—a weapon that no other country currently possesses, since the United States relinquished a distantly related capability in 1988. In the view of Chinese and Western analysts, even the mere perception that China might have realized an ASBM capability could represent a paradigm shift, with profound consequences for deterrence, military operations, arms control, and the balance of power in the western Pacific.

Discussion that follows is worth the read, but of particular interest is the end analysis where the authors contemplate the impact a range of US responses would have, spanning from indifference to measured and then major response,and what the implications would be if the Chinese were to go ahead and conduct an operational tes:

Responding to the unprecedented strategic challenge presented by an ASBM capability would require the American military and civilian leadership to face hard truths, and continue to develop innovative new capabilities. The United States has many options here, and it must be prepared to exercise them. The most perilous approach would be to neglect such military innovation while continuing to insist that the United States maintained its ability to keep the peace, when in fact the military capabilities that underpin that ability were diminishing, at least in a relative sense. Such a discrepancy between rhetoric and reality would erode America’s regional credibility and fuel Chinese overconfidence. The prospect of documenting that discrepancy publicly might motivate China to conduct a demonstration of an ASBM; a successful test could create the impression that American power projection capabilities—and the regional credibility that depends on them—had been dramatically diminished. Managing the proper response to this potential “game changer” will demand close scrutiny from scholars, analysts, and policy makers alike, as it will critically influence America’s place in the Pacific for decades to come.

Two events point to the efficacy of such a scenario: one, the operational ASAT test conducted in 2007 and the other (and used by the authors) – the bombing tests off the VACAPES prompted by General Billy Mitchell and carried out by Army and Navy aircraft against stationary capital ship targets. In the case of the former, it clearly illuminated not only China’s tchnological capabilities, but some have said that it also demonstrated a certain ascendancy of the military and its ability to veto civilian policy makers who were not favoring an operational test. In the case of the latter – there were major budgetary, policy and even changes in tactics as the nascent Army Air Corps received substantive funding boosts, the Navy began to seriously investigate the use of dive bombers as a means to attack ships and other nations, notably Japan, began to redraw their force structures.

But what of the system itself? How much of it is real and how much is just vaporware? Maskirovka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_deception) designed to confuse and direct US allocation of forces and funding down blind alleys? The second article, “China’s Antiship Ballistic Missile: Developments and Missing Links (http://usnwc.edu/getattachment/bdcf4031-4fb7-48a8-a029-5c116969c35c/China-s-Antiship-Ballistic-Missile--Developments-a) (http://www.stumbleupon.com/url/http://usnwc.edu/getattachment/bdcf4031-4fb7-48a8-a029-5c116969c35c/China-s-Antiship-Ballistic-Missile--Developments-a)” (same warning as above re. the hyperlink) takes a systemic approach to assessing this ’system of systems’ by an extensive analysis of available open-press Chinese literature. It is worth noting that when conducting a content analysis, one not only focuses on what is found in the body proper of individual texts, but as that body grows, there are larger trends and directions that can be ascertained and from which, judgments as to the status and progress of a program may be made – even absent declaratory supporting statements. As the authors point out, for example, early literature tends to view the problems presented in the complex kill chain of an ASBM with a wider aperture, with wide-ranging, generalist discussions that identify problem areas. As sub-groups of supporting literature grow in number while parsing ever-finer details, say in developing algorithms used to detect, identify and track large surface vessels using space-based assets, or there is wider discussion of the problems associated with exo-atmospheric maneuvering while maintaining targeting (as is the case in the civilian space program and the problems associated with unmanned docking), the fact that such bodies of literature exist lends credence to assessments of the state of development and deployment of a weapons system.
Beyond the ASBM, the authors see far-reaching
impacts on the larger military capabilities and force structure. Developing, building and deploying an operational ASBM with all of the technical, operational and even political challenges posed along the way would have reverberating effects throughout – from Command and Control, to multi-spectral imaging, rapid re-targeting, battle assessment and more – every bit a modern revolution in military affairs and industry as the US experienced in the late 80’s and 90’s with technology crossovers from the space and micro-computer industries.
Points to ponder while working on a “balanced” approach to forces (http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/63717/robert-m-gates/a-balanced-strategy)

[Skybird]

Beware: January 2008

http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/jxx.asp

Home (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/../../default.asp) > Air Forces (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/../default.asp) > Aircraft (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/../aircraft.asp) > J-XX 4th-Generation Fighter Aircraft
China is believed to have been conducting preliminary research on its fourth-generation fighter aircraft since the late 1990s. The fighter, codenamed by Western intelligence as J-XX or XXJ, was described as an advanced F-22-class twin-engine stealth fighter with extensive radar cross section (RCS) reduction features such as internal weapon bay. So far very little information regarding the project has been revealed, though it is understood that the two primary fighter aircraft design institutes of the China Aviation Industries Corporation (AVIC) – Shenyang Aircraft Design Institute (601 Institute) and Chengdu Aircraft Design Institute (611 Institute) – have both been working on their own designs to bid for the PLA’s contract.
China is believed to have been conducting preliminary research on its fourth-generation fighter aircraft since the late 1990s. The fighter, codenamed by Western intelligence as J-XX or XXJ, was described as an advanced F-22-class twin-engine stealth fighter with extensive radar cross section (RCS) reduction features such as internal weapon bay. So far very little information regarding the project has been revealed, though it is understood that the two primary fighter aircraft design institutes of the China Aviation Industries Corporation (AVIC) – Shenyang Aircraft Design Institute (601 Institute) and Chengdu Aircraft Design Institute (611 Institute) – have both been working on their own designs to bid for the PLA’s contract.

In 1997, the U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) reported that an advanced F-22-class twin-engine stealth fighter XXJ was being developed by 601 Institute and Shenyang Aircraft Corporation (SAC). In 2001, an Internet source photo showed a F-22-like aircraft model was being tested in a wind tunnel at 601 Institute. At the same time, it was revealed that 611 Institute was also working its own advanced fighter aircraft design, possibly based on the design and technology of its J-10 fighter.
Despite intensive media interest, it is very likely that the fighter programme is still in its early theoretical evaluation (论证) and programme definition (方案) stage, during which various technologies are examined to meet operational requirements. Theoretical evaluation of the programme and development of key technologies and sub-systems would also be carried out in these stages. While China may be able to benefit from some “off-the-shelf” dual-use technologies available in the commercial market, it will almost definitely seek assistance from its traditional military technology supplier such as Russia, as well as some Western countries.
There has been speculations China’s fourth-generation fighter could enter service as early as 2015. However, designing and developing a fighter of this class will involve huge amount of investment and technology advancement across many fields, including new materials, high-performance aero-engine, avionics, flight control software, stealth technology, computer-aid design and manufacture (CAD/CAM). Only very few countries in the world nowadays possess the capability of designing and developing a modern high-performance fighter aircraft independently, and a project of this scale could last decades before the aircraft finally enters service.
Russian Sukhoi Company (JSC), which has developed close ties with Shenyang over the licensed co-production of its Su-27SK fighter as J-11, has been reportedly working with Shenyang in developing the next-generation fighter technology and sub-systems. Although Russia has yet been able to develop an operational stealth fighter, the J-XX project may benefit from its technologies in two particular areas: thrust vectoring engine and stealth design. Additionally, China may also seek potential partners from Russia, Israel and Europe to co-develop avionics and weapon suites for its 4th-generation fighter aircraft.
Last update: 3 January 2008

There was a great theft of computer data regarding the F-35 project some time ago. Pentagon and Air Force always refused to comment much on it.

[Skybird]

Dark Sword:

http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/424/

Chinese researchers break through the mysteries of UAVs and UCAVs
06:45 GMT, October 14, 2009 defpro.com | Larry Dickerson, senior unmanned systems analyst for Forecast International, recently stated that the international demand for unmanned aircraft is rapidly growing, with the United States continuing to be the key driver of this trend. According to Dickerson, U.S.-based companies will account for more than 60 per cent of the market's value. However, western European countries and Israel are keeping up with the pace and spawning domestic development of such systems, which in some cases could already achieve more or less significant export successes (particularly Israel) with their industrial solutions. With respect to the obvious boom of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) development and export programmes in western countries, China, as much as Russia, still lag somewhat behind.


Catching up with world-leading standards

Nevertheless, the gap is quickly closing as the military’s requirement for state-of-the-art reconnaissance UAVs is becoming increasingly important in both countries. However, the activities are principally still focused on analysing (and often enough copying) already existing and fielded systems, such as the United States’ Global Hawk, Predator and Reaper as well as Israel’s Harpy and Heron. Completely domestic and unprecedented solutions emerge in only very few cases, of which many are too ambitious to make it into series production, let alone introduction into service.

In the case of China, the effort to increasingly use unmanned systems, as well as the capability to domestically develop and produce such aircraft, is publicly and proudly demonstrated, as could recently be seen on the occasion of the 60th anniversary celebration of the People's Republic of China. A total of ten short- and mid-range tactical reconnaissance UAVs mounted on their launching rail on the back of a truck, took part in the National Day parade (see http://www.defpro.com/news/details/10219/). “The ten UAVs of three different models have been [provided] to the PLA's special forces to carry out various reconnaissance missions,” Wang Baorong, captain of the UAV formation, told the state-run Xinhua press agency on that occasion.

According to the assessment of Professor Tan Kaijia, a weaponry expert with the PLA's National Defense University, this latest display shows that “China has made substantial progress in intelligent control systems, precise measuring-controlling systems and computer information processing for military uses.” Even more far-reaching concepts, such as the “Dark Sword” or the “Xianglong”, prove this assessment to be true, as the focus and the development is quickly going beyond small propeller-driven tactical UAVs towards high-altitude, long-endurance (HALE) UAVs and unmanned combat air vehicles (UCAV). The recent spotting of two probable HALE UAVs in front of their hangars at a Chinese air base suggests that such a system is already (near-to) operational.


Still many challenges ahead

However, as Andrei Chang, a Chinese military analyst with the Kanwa Information Centre in Toronto emphasised, it still is puzzling for what reason “the plethora of UAV models on display at Zhuhai do not go into production.” China is having difficulty mastering the technical complexity of operating UAVs in real time, he recently told Defence News. Chang suggests that many of the companies and institutions do not have an actual prototype and are simply looking for a foreign investor for their concept.

In an interview in early 2007 published by sina.com.cn, Tu Jida, chief designer of the Aviation Industries of China (AVIC), said that UCAVs are still at an early development stage in China and current efforts may lead to a successful aircraft system in approximately ten years. He further emphasised that for any such effort, China will be on its own and will have to “rely on its own strength and self-reliance.” The interview also left the impression that China is still working on the development of more secure and resistant control and communication links for the operation of UAVs to prevent enemies from interfering with the control of UAVs and the transmission of reconnaissance information.

Although the extension of China’s military satellite network allows the use of HALE UAVs over long ranges and in operations abroad, China is fully aware of dangers and the importance of satellite communications in modern UAVs. “Without military satellites, the commanders sitting in the United States could not operate their Predator UAVs, which are thousands of miles away on the other side of the globe,” Prof. Chen Hong of the Chinese Air Force's Command College correctly observed. Further statements published by Xinhua (see http://www.defpro.com/news/details/10187/) acknowledge that China’s push in all fields of defence technology proves that the country is prepared to show strength in the air as well as in space and will make sure its networks will be working when their antagonists’ resources are down.
[...)

[Skybird]

Plus cyberwarfare division. Twice as many satellite starts per year than all europe. Tank developement.missile develoepment. Ambitious plans to modernise their fleet of submarines.

Already two or three years bago it was put in question that the US Navy still could dominate in a war near Taiwan/China, and that it'S fleet of submarines can survive in a war scenario near Chinese waters. I think the balance is shifting more in faovur of the Chinese - but doing so with increasing pace. They will not need to take that much time for learning and developement than the Us had to in the past. Technical standards have generally risen globally, there are more options and possibilities to benefit from stolen data, and do espionage via cyberwarfare.

[Snestorm]

China is now the leading economic power (Thanks to the profit driven elite's practice of exporting jobs). Unless that changes, she will eventualy be the leading military power.

[CaptainHaplo]

China has been preparing for a regional conflict for over a decade. However, if you look at their development - they are not moving toward force projection capability outside their own theatre.

This gives them a large advantage over the US in any regional conflict, as force projection is costly and difficult even for a country that has been doing it for half a century.

The real goal of China militarily is to be able to strike hard at specific targets (lets say taiwan as an example), and then fight a DEFENSIVE action to hold onto the gains. Its also important to note that while many people see a future china/us conflict as the most likely due to taiwan, the reality is that china has its eye on other resource areas, and make no mistake, the is no great love between the Russians and the Chinese.

[antikristuseke]

Wouldn't be the first Russia-China boarder conflict, thats for sure.

[Oberon]

http://readertoreader.com.au/images/Clancy,%20Tom%20-%20The%20Bear%20and%20the%20Dragon.jpg

[Skybird]

China has been preparing for a regional conflict for over a decade. However, if you look at their development - they are not moving toward force projection capability outside their own theatre.

This gives them a large advantage over the US in any regional conflict, as force projection is costly and difficult even for a country that has been doing it for half a century.

The real goal of China militarily is to be able to strike hard at specific targets (lets say taiwan as an example), and then fight a DEFENSIVE action to hold onto the gains. Its also important to note that while many people see a future china/us conflict as the most likely due to taiwan, the reality is that china has its eye on other resource areas, and make no mistake, the is no great love between the Russians and the Chinese.

From the main text'S summary:


The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is pursuing comprehensive transformation from a mass army designed for protracted wars of attrition on its territory to one capable of fighting and winning short-duration, high-intensity conflicts along its periphery against high-tech adversaries – an approach that China refers to as preparing for "local wars under conditions of informatization." The pace and scope of China’s military transformation have increased in recent years, fueled by acquisition of advanced foreign weapons, continued high rates of investment in its domestic defense and science and technology industries, and far-reaching organizational and doctrinal reforms of the armed forces. China’s ability to sustain military power at a distance remains limited, but its armed forces continue to develop and field disruptive military technologies, including those for anti-access/area-denial, as well as for nuclear, space, and cyber warfare, that are changing regional military balances and that have implications beyond the Asia-Pacific region.


They may not want to play the role of a world policeman, but they surely install the means to monitor and protect their vital shipping lanes (oil) globally, and their eyes are fixiated on Taiwan. Also, we see an increasing willingness to contribute to what the West calls humanitarian military efforts. It buys them allies and sympathies by investing into this form of soft power.

[Oberon]

I do ponder when they'll make their final move with Taiwan, they're patient, I'll give them that, and they plan faaaar ahead, but I can't see their patience lasting forever, particularly when they finish their naval plans.
The make or break question is, what does the US do? I don't think there's a lot they can do, although it would be a political disaster to lose Taiwan to the PRC and not have the US attempt to support Taiwan because it would signal to all the little independence movements within China which have been suppressed over the years (Tibet comes to mind) that the ally they bank all their hopes on will not and cannot support them. The myth of American invincibility will be shattered and give great encouragement to all the US's enemies.
If the US does protect though, it's going to be hit hard and it knows it. :hmmm:

[Skybird]

I think the Us tries to buy time, and by supporting Taiwan hopes to increase the chances that Taiwan and China unite peacefully and in a manner that at least on the surface allows the US to save it'S face. Washington would be very incompetent if they do not see that the balance is shifting against them and in favour of the Chinese military.

A war over Taiwan wpuld be fought at the terms of the Chinese, who also chose the timing, and are close to their supply bases. Both the growing strength of the chinese military and the battleground itself puts the US Navy at disadvantage, I think. With every year passing, this shift in balance becomes more decisive.

maybe one should seek a Hongkong-like solution. Even more so since we see since months that the chinese are loosing their shyness and preference for indirect methods, but challenge - successfully - Washington and the West more and more openly and aggressively. They are too strong already as if they must maintain an overly cautious attitude. Americas position ragarding military conflict with China is in no way comparable with America'S stand towards the soviets during the cold war. also, economic conditions are different, favouring the Chinese.

[Oberon]

Indeed, and I think that the powers that be in Washington are becoming increasingly aware that the window of opportunity is closing. However, how does one sell such a trade-off to the general public after years of low but obvious support for Taiwan without making it look as though they are selling out to China?
It's definitely going to be a damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they do, the right will damn them for selling out to China, and if they don't then the left will accuse them of dragging them into a war that they cannot win. Trouble is, both sides are right. :damn:

[PhantomLord]

*bump for important update!*

Chinese military proudly presents... chinese secret weapon (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b60OZhrTB6o) :haha:

[Schroeder]

The link is dead for me.:06:

[PhantomLord]

*fixed* sorry i was laughing too hard

btw this tool is nice... but unluckily not available in europe at this time.

[Schroeder]

If I had not been convinced before that it is impossible to win a war against China I surely would be now.:DL

[CaptainHaplo]

China is becoming more direct and challenging in its dealings with Washington. That has little to do with the tactical or strategic matters of Taiwan (Formosa), and much to do with the person sitting in the chair as President.

China would have little struggle taking Taiwan, it would simply have a hard time holding on to it - IF the US followed through on its obligations. I for one think China could invade and the current administration would make alot of noise, but do nothing.

[Jimbuna]

China is becoming more direct and challenging in its dealings with Washington. That has little to do with the tactical or strategic matters of Taiwan (Formosa), and much to do with the person sitting in the chair as President.

China would have little struggle taking Taiwan, it would simply have a hard time holding on to it - IF the US followed through on its obligations. I for one think China could invade and the current administration would make alot of noise, but do nothing.

Agreed, but that military footage was quite impressive.

[TLAM Strike]

http://readertoreader.com.au/images/Clancy,%20Tom%20-%20The%20Bear%20and%20the%20Dragon.jpg

LOL I'm reading that right now! Soooo.... don't spoil it I'm at the part where the PLA has just started to cross the Russian border and the US is moving the armored troops on the trans-Siberian railway.

I do ponder when they'll make their final move with Taiwan, they're patient, I'll give them that, and they plan faaaar ahead, but I can't see their patience lasting forever, particularly when they finish their naval plans.
The make or break question is, what does the US do? I don't think there's a lot they can do, although it would be a political disaster to lose Taiwan to the PRC and not have the US attempt to support Taiwan because it would signal to all the little independence movements within China which have been suppressed over the years (Tibet comes to mind) that the ally they bank all their hopes on will not and cannot support them. The myth of American invincibility will be shattered and give great encouragement to all the US's enemies.
If the US does protect though, it's going to be hit hard and it knows it. :hmmm:

Well their naval building has not focused on increasing the number of Anphibs much rather on increasing their capability. China has been getting rid of a lot of its older ships lately rather than hanging on to them when they have newer ships in the fleet.

This is an interesting read on the subject of China invading Taiwan: (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG888.pdf)
www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG888.pdf (http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG888.pdf)
^use direct link and not the linked text.

[Task Force]

@ PhantomLord
Wow, the swiss army knife of shovels.

[Oberon]

LOL I'm reading that right now! Soooo.... don't spoil it I'm at the part where the PLA has just started to cross the Russian border and the US is moving the armored troops on the trans-Siberian railway.



Well their naval building has not focused on increasing the number of Anphibs much rather on increasing their capability. China has been getting rid of a lot of its older ships lately rather than hanging on to them when they have newer ships in the fleet.

This is an intresting read on the subject of China invading Taiwan. (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG888.pdf)

I won't say anything other than I was slightly disappointed with the ending, but otherwise not too bad. Not RSR level though.
Thanks for the link, although you might want to knock the radio-room link off the front of it because at the moment it's sending to Subsim front page, I managed to twig the link you meant to post though :salute: I will have a read through of that in a bit. :yeah:

Oh...and...DAMN I WANT one of those shovels NOW!! :rock:

[Weiss Pinguin]

I won't say anything other than I was slightly disappointed with the ending, but otherwise not too bad. Not RSR level though.
Been wanting to get some new books for a while, I may have to try to catch up with Jack Ryan :hmmm:

[Oberon]

Been wanting to get some new books for a while, I may have to try to catch up with Jack Ryan :hmmm:

You might want to check out The Third World War by General Sir John Hackett as well if you haven't already. Good reading, a bit heavy in some places but good.


I've thought of another use for that shovel. Cooking Pan. I've seen Russian soldiers use their shovels in that way before, so it shouldn't be too difficult to do the same thing. Heck, steam train drivers in the UK cooked (and still cook) with their coal shovels, so if they can, the Chinese sure can too! :yep:

[Ducimus]

Personally, i think we'll eventually be at war with Iran, or china, or both at some point in the future. China is becoming a superpower, and it's going to flex its muscle at some point.

China is also, from what i can tell, the industralized nation that the US was during WW2. If we were in an open war with them, they'd probably outproduce us both in warm bodies, and war material from all the manufactering capability that used to be here, but is now there. Yeah we'll be strong in our conviction that because were America we'll endure and prevail, but the thing is America was bought, sold and traded for years ago, and China owns a good portion of it.

[Jimbuna]

Personally, i think we'll eventually be at war with Iran, or china, or both at some point in the future. China is becoming a superpower, and it's going to flex its muscle at some point.

China is also, from what i can tell, the industralized nation that the US was during WW2. If we were in an open war with them, they'd probably outproduce us both in warm bodies, and war material from all the manufactering capability that used to be here, but is now there. Yeah we'll be strong in our conviction that because were America we'll endure and prevail, but the thing is America was bought, sold and traded for years ago, and China owns a good portion of it.

Not challenging what you say but I hope the US will continue to prevail.

[Platapus]

China would have little struggle taking Taiwan, it would simply have a hard time holding on to it - IF the US followed through on its obligations. I for one think China could invade and the current administration would make alot of noise, but do nothing.

How many American lives is Taiwan worth?

[CaptainHaplo]

Platypus - its not really a question of how many "American" lives is Taiwan worth.....

What matters is we are obligated under treaty to protect and defend Taiwan.

The question should thus be - How many lives are worth America honoring its treaty obligations......

[Platapus]

What matters is we are obligated under treaty to protect and defend Taiwan.



Which treaty is this?

The Mutual Defense Treaty was ended by the United States in 1980
http://www.taiwandocuments.org/mutual01.htm

The Taiwan Relations Act is not a treaty but a federal law. The wording of the act is an example of the art of obfuscation and ambiguity. Nowhere in the act, nor in the Six Assurances, does it legally obligate that the United States will engage the PRC in military action if the PRC invades Taiwan.

The TRA is a delicate balancing act concerning our relationships with both sides. It leaves just enough ambiguity not to get the Chinese spun up too much, but just enough clarity to keep the Taiwanese spun-down.

I suppose I should not resist making a pun about being caught between a ROC and a hard place. :D

The TRA does obligate the US to sell defensive arms to Taiwan.

Few Presidents, Republican or Democratic, seem eager to back themselves into a most unpleasant corner on this issue.

This article gives a pretty good summation of the issue:
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2010/02_taiwan_defense_huang.aspx

All the TRA does is give the President the option of taking military action, but since he already has that power, that portion of the TRA is moot as it, in no way, legally obligates the President to take military action.

[Ducimus]

How many American lives is Taiwan worth?

Is Taiwan, really any of our business to begin with? :O:

[Platapus]

Is Taiwan, really any of our business to begin with? :O:

Well considering that in my opinion there is only one justification for going to war and that is that winning the war furthers a national policy, agenda, or goal, this is a very cogent question. :yep:

[TLAM Strike]

Is Taiwan, really any of our business to begin with? :O:

Safe assumption that many of the chips in your computer were manufactured in Taiwan. A lot of computer hardware is manufactured in Taiwan (the basic stuffs like microchips, transistors, semiconductors, while the cards and boards are assembled in Singapore or Mexico etc), that's why Taiwan called the Silicon Island. :salute:

The Interwebs... made in Taiwan :03:

[UnderseaLcpl]

China is now the leading economic power (Thanks to the profit driven elite's practice of exporting jobs). Unless that changes, she will eventualy be the leading military power.

I think you have been mislead, my friend. China isn't anywhere near being the world's leading economic power. By most measures it's a distant third, with economic output measuring roughly half of what the EU and the US produce.

China is indeed a developing superpower, but her time is not yet. As of now, she depends far to heavily on Western economies. Barring some radical political change, it will be at least two more decades before China picks herself up by her bootstraps and becomes a truly modern nation. If she ever reaches that point, there will be no reason to fear her. Affluent nations have no reason to wage irrational wars.


How many American lives is Taiwan worth?
How many Taiwanese lives is China worth? If we don't protect them, the answer is all of them. The Chinese Communist party will steal everything the Taiwanese have worked so hard to achieve over the past half-century. I don't particularly care about Taiwan because I'm a practical person who doesn't believe that the US has any business or real ability to enforce its will upon the world other than being a haven for the poor and disenfranchised, but can you accept responsibility for the fate of Taiwan? Will you vote to protect Taiwan? Will you fight for her? Will you do nothing to save all those people?

Is Taiwan, really any of our business to begin with? I don't know. Were the Jews enduring the Holocaust any of our business to begin with? Were the Koreans or the Vietnamese or the Somalians or Kuwaitis or the Iraqis or the Kurds or the Bosnians any of our business to begin with?

It all boils down to whether or not you think the wealthiest nation in the world has any kind of moral obligation to the rest of the world. I think it doesn't because I already know that there is nothing the US can do to rectify the rest of the world's problems. No amount of money will fix a genocide, and no amount of military intervention will correct religious hatred. It doesn't work like that. The only thing that will make people co-exist in relative peace is wealth brought about by capitalism and the resultant non-conflct over resources of any kind. You can choose to believe that or not while the wealthiest nations in the world spend their time fighting on behalf of other nations for silly political reasons.

[Skybird]

If you worry about chips from Taiwan, then for the same reason you also have to worry about general electronics parts from Foxcon, located inside the special economy zone of Shenyang, China. you'll meet them as often in your computers and electronics, as you meet those Taiwanese chips - if not more often.

[TLAM Strike]

If you worry about chips from Taiwan, then for the same reason you also have to worry about general electronics parts from Foxcon, located inside the special economy zone of Shenyang, China. you'll meet them as often in your computers and electronics, as you meet those Taiwanese chips - if not more often.

Apparently Foxconn is leaving the mainland. (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=zh-CN&tl=en&u=http://orientaldaily.on.cc/cnt/china_world/20100609/00178_001.html&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com)

[Skybird]

That would put the Foxconn factories even more at risk. The Chinese would not bomb their own factories or foreign factories they can simply seize, own and use, but Taiwan they would flood with missiles and destroy industrial high value assets, if they cannot overrun and seize the island quite qickly. I mean it is hard to image that the importance of Foxconn for Western high tech escapes their attention.

[TLAM Strike]

That would put the Foxconn factories even more at risk. The Chinese would not bomb their own factories or foreign factories they can simply seize, own and use, but Taiwan they would flood with missiles and destroy industrial high value assets, if they cannot overrun and seize the island quite qickly. I mean it is hard to image that the importance of Foxconn for Western high tech escapes their attention.

Well in the article they said they may move them to India and Vietnam, so I don't think they would be at risk. India has the most powerful military in South Asia, not to mention the bomb so I don't think China would be able to conduct a military action against Foxconn's factories there without starting WWIII, (India and the US against China? How much would they charge on Pay Per View for that fight?). Vietnam perhaps they could bomb them and not fear much retaliation, attacks against Chinese's held islands in the Spratly's would be a possible counter strike for Vietnam or sub attacks against PRC shipping with their North Korean provided Yugo type subs or those new Kilos they are buying. Seizing Foxconn factories in Vietnam would be fair more difficult, remember the last time China sent troops in to Vietnam? It was a debacle.

[Skybird]

A, I missed the part on Vietnam and India. The translation reached me after waiting over one minute, and then in mutilated form only and with many §$% and ?#! passages. I believed they would move to Taiwan.

[Skybird]

Seizing Foxconn factories in Vietnam would be fair more difficult, remember the last time China sent troops in to Vietnam? It was a debacle.
Ypou mean the third Vietnam war when chinese intervention stopped the march of the vietnamese? The losses were high on both sides, but Vietnam took a nasty beating, being stopped and pushed back to their own land. They went a long way since then, milutarily. Today, they probably would decide a war with Vietnam much more decisively.

It is a story that tells everybody in the West that the Chinese do not shy away from conflict even if that means losses much higher than western nation's people would tolerate.

However, chinese history also shows that china does not favour military aggression for expansion beyond its borders. They use Ferengi diplomacy, not Klingon confrontation. Taiwan they set their eyes on not to conquer something foreign, but because they live by the honest belief that it legitimately is part of One-China.

[Ducimus]

>>The Interwebs... made in Taiwan

If it wasn't Taiwan, it would be in india, or somewhere else. Either way, the worlds corporations would find some country with cheap labor to manufacture their goods in.

>>It all boils down to whether or not you think the wealthiest nation in the world has any kind of moral obligation to the rest of the world.

Hell no! What i want to know is where is it written we have to involve ourselves in other peoples problems? Use whatever euphism you want, but who died and left us to be the worlds F**king policeman? Or did we just appoint ourselves? Or is there some law written somewhere that we must? We pour money and people into other countries, and all too often they piss down our backs, spit in our face. or take pot shots at us. Screw that, we need to look out for our own people for a change. If the problem is not in our country, it is not our problem. You know that old joke about "If patton were president"? That pretty much sums up my belief in this matter.

[AVGWarhawk]

>>The Interwebs... made in Taiwan

If it wasn't Taiwan, it would be in india, or somewhere else. Either way, the worlds corporations would find some country with cheap labor to manufacture their goods in.

>>It all boils down to whether or not you think the wealthiest nation in the world has any kind of moral obligation to the rest of the world.

Hell no! What i want to know is where is it written we have to involve ourselves in other peoples problems? Use whatever euphism you want, but who died and left us to be the worlds F**king policeman? Or did we just appoint ourselves? Or is there some law written somewhere that we must? We pour money and people into other countries, and all too often they piss down our backs, spit in our face. or take pot shots at us. Screw that, we need to look out for our own people for a change. If the problem is not in our country, it is not our problem. You know that old joke about "If patton were president"? That pretty much sums up my belief in this matter.


I wonder what the world would think if the US screamed, "ISOLATIONISM!" :hmmm:

[Ducimus]

They'd hate us anyway for not getting the "hand outs" they're accustomed to.

[Dimitrius07]

Is Taiwan, really any of our business to begin with? :O:

So how much left from the "freedom of speech", not much in real life and you now start with STFU on the boards :nope:. My country is also non of anyone business, but that doesn`t mean you can`t criticize it any time you want attention ^^ (in a real desperate ways^^) :woot:

[Ducimus]

So how much left from the "freedom of speech", not much in real life and you now start with STFU on the boards :nope:. My country is also non of anyone business, but that doesn`t mean you can`t criticize it any time you want attention ^^ (in a real desperate ways^^) :woot:

I have no idea what your rambling about. I suspect your barking up the wrong tree.

[Factor]

So how much left from the "freedom of speech", not much in real life and you now start with STFU on the boards :nope:. My country is also non of anyone business, but that doesn`t mean you can`t criticize it any time you want attention ^^ (in a real desperate ways^^) :woot:


Wow, that made a whole lot of no sense.

[Dimitrius07]

I have no idea what your rambling about. I suspect your barking up the wrong tree.

It was not addressed to you in specific, its just a some sort of connection between what you sad and behavior of some individuals here (jajaja boys and so on) you know. Tree is ours now, have a good day:salute:

[MH]

It was not addressed to you in specific, its just a some sort of connection between what you sad and behavior of some individuals here (jajaja boys and so on) you know. Tree is ours now, have a good day:salute:

Take it easy man.

[Ducimus]

>>ts just a some sort of connection between what you sad and behavior of some individuals here (jajaja boys and so on) you know.

Well, i still don't get what your driving at. I just happen to have isolationist tendencies that developed sometime when i got out of the military. I just don't express it very often. :haha: .

[MH]

They'd hate us anyway for not getting the "hand outs" they're accustomed to.

World owes a lot to USA when looking at history.
Israel too.
Middle East and Iraq-sorry logic doesn't work here.
If USA declared ho;;y jihad on Iraq it might work but it would not be civilized.

As for Taiwan i guess if you want to be a super power(which is beneficial in all ways)economically and politically you have to have as much friends or dependent countries as you can.

Still world is a global jungle as it seems so showing a weakness is not a good thing to do.
Better to be international policeman and keep trouble away from home.

[Platapus]

How many Taiwanese lives is China worth? If we don't protect them, the answer is all of them. The Chinese Communist party will steal everything the Taiwanese have worked so hard to achieve over the past half-century.

Or they will treat it like Hong Kong and keep the money rolling in? The Chinese are many things but stupid they aint. The Chinese would have nothing to gain by "stealing everything" and everything to gain buy allowing business as usual and the PRC skims off a healthy slice of profits.

I don't particularly care about Taiwan because I'm a practical person who doesn't believe that the US has any business or real ability to enforce its will upon the world other than being a haven for the poor and disenfranchised, but can you accept responsibility for the fate of Taiwan?

I don't accept any responsibility for Taiwan. Not my problem, not even a US problem. As far as I am concerned this is between China and Japan


Will you vote to protect Taiwan? Will you fight for her? Will you do nothing to save all those people?

Since you asked

no
no
yes

Before we all get maudlin about "saving" Taiwan, we need to be clear on what exactly we are "saving" them from. Please realize that it has only been relatively recent that they have had "free" elections (free with a very large *). The KMT, which is in power again, does not have clean hands. :nope:

In analyzing this issue, it is folly to presume that one side is the white hatted "good guys" and the other side the black hatted "bad guys". Both sides are wearing very very dark gray hats.

Here is a question for you. Can you look a military member in the eyes and say, "you need to sacrifice your life for Taiwan. Your life is not as valuable as a trade agreement?" I sure couldn't.

I am pretty stingy about throwing away American lives these days. American lives are pretty valuable to me. I have not seen anything in Taiwan that would be worth American's dying over.

Just one old guy's worthless opinion. :salute:

[TLAM Strike]

Ypou mean the third Vietnam war when chinese intervention stopped the march of the vietnamese? The losses were high on both sides, but Vietnam took a nasty beating, being stopped and pushed back to their own land. They went a long way since then, milutarily. Today, they probably would decide a war with Vietnam much more decisively.

It is a story that tells everybody in the West that the Chinese do not shy away from conflict even if that means losses much higher than western nation's people would tolerate.

However, chinese history also shows that china does not favour military aggression for expansion beyond its borders. They use Ferengi diplomacy, not Klingon confrontation. Taiwan they set their eyes on not to conquer something foreign, but because they live by the honest belief that it legitimately is part of One-China.
From what I read the PRC failed its objective of kicking Vietnam out of Cambodia. But your right both sides lost a lot of troops and material, the PLA got it worse but they of course could absorb the loss.

As for not favoring military aggression for expansion, ask Tibet! However that was done during the rule of Mao and I think the PRC has come a ways since then.

[Skybird]

From what I read the PRC failed its objective of kicking Vietnam out of Cambodia. But your right both sides lost a lot of troops and material, the PLA got it worse but they of course could absorb the loss.

As for not favoring military aggression for expansion, ask Tibet! However that was done during the rule of Mao and I think the PRC has come a ways since then.
Like Taiwan they see Tibet as historically belonging to China. We in the West must understand that our views differ massively from theirs, over Tibet. For us it always is Tibetan buddhist and the Dalai Lama. But most Chinese do not even know of - or do not care for - the Dalai Lama. For them they have a national problem of more than 50 different regional subgroups claiming independence from China, which would mean major breakup uf China as the national entity that it is. Tibet just runs as one amongst these other 50 regional incursions.

You will not find examples for a trdition of military conquest beyond the borders of the Chinese empire(s) that equals to that of the European kingdoms, the ancient Greek, Rome, the British or the American ampire. They had plenty of military clashes - but internally between rivalling kingdoms, or when being invaded from the outside.

the traditional way to expand their influence, is clever trading and forming economic bionds, even tricking others into economic or financial dependiencies. For that reason, historically Chinese traders are admired for their skill but are feared and often despised at the same time. But militarioly, there empire's history is rlateively harmless, compared to modern America, Britain or European colonialism.

[TLAM Strike]

Like Taiwan they see Tibet as historically belonging to China. We in the West must understand that our views differ massively from theirs, over Tibet. For us it always is Tibetan buddhist and the Dalai Lama. But most Chinese do not even know of - or do not care for - the Dalai Lama. For them they have a national problem of more than 50 different regional subgroups claiming independence from China, which would mean major breakup uf China as the national entity that it is. Tibet just runs as one amongst these other 50 regional incursions. Ahh they see it as part of China because a Chinese Empire conquered it in the past... albeit after Tibet invaded them and took their capital. :hmmm:

You will not find examples for a trdition of military conquest beyond the borders of the Chinese empire(s) that equals to that of the European kingdoms, the ancient Greek, Rome, the British or the American ampire. They had plenty of military clashes - but internally between rivalling kingdoms, or when being invaded from the outside. Rivaling Kingdoms in China? So its not military conquest when its in the same geographic region? Must be the geographic region since some of those empires had no political or ethnic ties to the Han Chinese. The Han Chinese (the PRC's "dominate" ethnic group) effectively doubled their territory between 610 and 1800 and brought in many different ethnic and religious groups in to what is now the PRC. In 1200 years no Chinese empire gained (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_Asia_during_the_Tang_Dynasty) or tried to gain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goguryeo-Sui_Wars) territory though military might?

Considering the current PRC controls territory bigger or equal to all of Europe I would say they certainly have been just as effective in military conquest as Europeans or Americans.

Very interesting discussion Skybird. :up:

[Skybird]

As was ndicated in the Gaza thread, at one point in time you simply have to give up to make constant claims for ancient gepgraphic condtions from a long time ago, else oyu end up with Indians demanding the white man to leave, Aborigines kicking out the Brits, italians forming up the roman empire, or, like in that other thread, Palestinians wanting Israel being deleted and clocks set back by two generations. Not to mention Germany demanding back it'S now Polish and Czech territories, and South America being freed from Spanish influence. And... and... and... You get the argument, I'm sure!

The first Chinese dynasties formed up almost 4000 years ago, and the first territorial configuration that - separated into various rivaling Chinese kingdoms - covered most of modern China's territory today, roughly matches the middle time of the Roman empire (I know I know, it is a very short summary of history only, ignoring plenty of details on various dynasties). Different to Rome, the Chinese are still there today, after almost 4 thousand years.

I do not know of any serious, large-scaled military aggression and attempt of conquest beyond this roughly outlined territorial border. In fact China repeatedly fell victim to foreign aggression, namely the Mongoles, and Japanese, and also the West that exploited it's long-lasting stagnation. To what degree the Koreans (somewhat relatives of the japanese) also could be listed as invaders, I am not fully aware of. However, China expanded by trade influence, and also demograohic prerssure. The chinese migration movement into the Russia's (demographically emptying) south-eastern regions near China makes the Russian being able to sing a worried song about that. the vacuum the shrinking Russian population there has created, gets filled with Chinese. And again, it is the traders forming the spearhead.

In the end, the Great Wall was no offensive, but defensive measurement, different to the Roman Hadrian's wall which was build to defend conquests made by the Romans, the chinese wall was build on chinese territory that was with China since long.

[TLAM Strike]

However, China expanded by trade influence, and also demograohic prerssure. The chinese migration movement into the Russia's (demographically emptying) south-eastern regions near China makes the Russian being able to sing a worried song about that. the vacuum the shrinking Russian population there has created, gets filled with Chinese. And again, it is the traders forming the spearhead. At least according to Heinlein all wars are fought over demographic pressures. :03: Whom I consider my source for all knowledge. :O:

Interesting the "Traders" going in to Siberia now, lots of illegal logging going on according to a BBC report I saw a few months ago. All done by Chinese corporations.

The question is does an "Empty" area claimed as a territory truly belong to the claimer. Or to those who go in and take it as their own. :hmmm:

After some more research I will have to coincide to you, on your point on wars of conquest in relation to China. :salute:

[UnderseaLcpl]

Or they will treat it like Hong Kong and keep the money rolling in? The Chinese are many things but stupid they aint. The Chinese would have nothing to gain by "stealing everything" and everything to gain buy allowing business as usual and the PRC skims off a healthy slice of profits.

That's my hope, but I'm not sure they will treat it the same way as Hong Kong. Taiwan is the last refuge of the Chinese Nationalist Party, and I expect there will be some purges.

I don't accept any responsibility for Taiwan. Not my problem, not even a US problem. As far as I am concerned this is between China and Japan
I tend to agree, but it isn't a popular persepctive.





Since you asked

no
no
yes

What will you do to save them or help them?

Before we all get maudlin about "saving" Taiwan, we need to be clear on what exactly we are "saving" them from. Please realize that it has only been relatively recent that they have had "free" elections (free with a very large *). The KMT, which is in power again, does not have clean hands. :nope:

I wouldn't call the idea of helping Taiwan "maudlin" at all, just as I would not dismiss the fate of Israel without serious thought. The KMT may not have clean hands, but it beats the hell out of the Communist party, and the standard of living in Taiwan is a lot higher than it is the Western part of China.

In analyzing this issue, it is folly to presume that one side is the white hatted "good guys" and the other side the black hatted "bad guys". Both sides are wearing very very dark gray hats. I don't presume that one side is good and the other is bad, but I apologize if I led you to believe that. What I believe is that communism or any strong state is harmful to prosperity. That's why I always go off on those libertarian rants about our own government.


Here is a question for you. Can you look a military member in the eyes and say, "you need to sacrifice your life for Taiwan. Your life is not as valuable as a trade agreement?" I sure couldn't.

I can, and I wouldn't feel bad about it at all. I didn't fight in Iraq because I honestly thought they had WMDs and the delivery systems they needed. I fought for the Kurds and for the fact that America stood to benefit from conrtrol of the Iraqi oil supply. Those reasons are more than enough excuse for me to put my life in jepoardy. Those reasons cost the lives of many of my comrades, but they all died honorably, knowing that they had put their lives at risk for people they didn't know. Yes, I will risk my life so you can pay ten cents less at the pump. That's what it means to me to be a soldier.

I see the welfare of my nation and the welfare of oppressed peoples the world over as being a cause worth fighting and dying for.

I am pretty stingy about throwing away American lives these days. American lives are pretty valuable to me. I have not seen anything in Taiwan that would be worth American's dying over.
Then why fight for anyone? Why not let genocides continue unabated? Would you simply let them die? I wouldn't, which is why I have fought.

Just one old guy's worthless opinion. :salute:
Don't be like that. I respect your opinions and so do a lot of other subsimmers. I just don't understand why you would willingly consign a nation of millions to their fate at the hands of a government that we know will kill people just to save the lives of Americans who are willing to fight and die for their cause. We knew what we signed up for, and if we signed up for something else then we don't belong in the ranks. That's just one young guy's worthless opinion:salute:

[Skybird]

The question is does an "Empty" area claimed as a territory truly belong to the claimer. Or to those who go in and take it as their own. :hmmm:
I did not wish to imply that. I just wanted to say that there is big migration movement going on, coupled with a historically established tradition to not so much militarily conquer new places, but gaining influence over them by settling peacecully after according "preparation" by trading with the place first.

Big migration movements have formed all of history. Such movements formed empires, and brought other empires to fall. Sometimes such migration started with the intention to conquer new living space, sometimes it just was the result of existential pressure, often it was a mixture of both.

In the present, we have mass migration patterns taking place periodically. We call it summer holidays. :D

[TLAM Strike]

I did not wish to imply that. I just wanted to say that there is big migration movement going on, coupled with a historically established tradition to not so much militarily conquer new places, but gaining influence over them by settling peacecully after according "preparation" by trading with the place first.

Big migration movements have formed all of history. Such movements formed empires, and brought other empires to fall. Sometimes such migration started with the intention to conquer new living space, sometimes it just was the result of existential pressure, often it was a mixture of both.

In the present, we have mass migration patterns taking place periodically. We call it summer holidays. :D

Kinda reminds me of a Russian joke about the Chinese:

"During the Damansky Island incident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict) the Chinese military developed three main strategies: The Great Offensive, The Small Retreat, and Infiltration by Small Groups of One to Two Million Across the Border."I guess the PRC is current engaging in the 3rd strategy right now... I guess Mexico is too! :D

[Skybird]

Kinda reminds me of a Russian joke about the Chinese:



:haha: Good one!