Political Crossfire Forums

[Niccolo Machiavelli]

If China wants Taiwan I say we simply let them have it.
Look it at this way if a dog sees a biscuit lying on the floor and a cat comes up and tries to stop it. The cat will most likely be injured badly.
and the dog will get the biscuit. China is the dog and Taiwan is the biscuit and if someone wants to try and stop them they would be the cat. So in trying to stop China from taking Taiwan a country would suffer great losees and would lose. So everyone just needs to let the dog have its biscuit.




Their is no avoiding war it can only be postponed to the advantages of others. Niccolo Machiavelli

[eynon]

well...that's one way of putting it. On the other hand...we let China take Taiwan, the hard line nationalists and communists in this counrty start shouting "See! America did nothing! they have grown weak and will bend to anyone with strength." the Chinese population goes "yeah they're right." Hardliners say "these Liberal reforms and Liberal politicans will weaken China just as they have weakened the Americans...we must stop them to make China strong." So over the next few decades China because a crazy quasi facist state with loads of power...and we pass a real head-ache along to our grand-kids....

or we do the right thing and throw everything we have(short of nukes) into the defence of Taiwan...thereby crushing the Chinese invasion and the political credability of the hardline poltical groups. Then our grand-kids get happy liberal China instead of mean nationalist China...your choice. I just know that it's something I'm willing to fight and die for....

course we'd win...cause right now we're a bigger dog and we want that bisket :twisted:

[Niccolo Machiavelli]

I see where your coming from, but communism in China is going die out in the near future regardless of whether they get Taiwan or not. We may be the bigger dog at the moment but real soon we wont be especially if we try to keep China from taking Taiwan. If we try to stop China no one is going to help us except for maybe England. The UN wont do anything at all except for discussing about whether they should help or not and by the time they decided the conflict/war would be over.

And if in the future our Country wants to go to war with China it would present Taiwan as well as Tibet with the opportunity to free themselves thus giving us the USA help in fighting the next big dog.

So if we let the dog have his biscuit and later on don't want the dog to have it we with the help of the people of the former Taiwan can make the dog spu out the the biscuit.

[eynon]

Niccolo Machiavelli wrote: I see where your coming from, but communism in China is going die out in the near future regardless of whether they get Taiwan or not. We may be the bigger dog at the moment but real soon we wont be especially if we try to keep China from taking Taiwan. If we try to stop China no one is going to help us except for maybe England. The UN wont do anything at all except for discussing about whether they should help or not and by the time they decided the conflict/war would be over.

And if in the future our Country wants to go to war with China it would present Taiwan as well as Tibet with the opportunity to free themselves thus giving us the USA help in fighting the next big dog.

So if we let the dog have his biscuit and later on don't want the dog to have it we with the help of the people of the former Taiwan can make the dog spu out the the biscuit.

love your name btw.....good old Mach.....so why do you think we'd lose a war with China? Personally from where I'm sitting we have a lot...A LOT of advantages, both militarily and socially....but I'd love to hear what you got to say.

btw...yoru right about the commies, they are dying(literally of old age)...China's either gonna become this quasi-facist/nationalist state or happy liberal republic.....in my humble opinion :-D

[Niccolo Machiavelli]

First of all China has roughly 1,298,847, 624 people compared to the United States' population of 293, 027, 571. Which means every American would have to kill about 4.4 people to wipe them out. (I realize the goal is not to wipe them out). Since they so largely outnumber us they could sustain more deaths of soliders than us. If they lost someone they could easily just replace them with more soldiers.
Secondly, China wouldnt have to rally up as much allies than us considering the UN wont do anything. We would have England, maybe south Korea, and dalso maybe Australia. Canada swont help us, they claim to be neutral for some reason, and certainly not France or Germany they both never do anything. China would get Noarth Korea, the country with the little red button close to where our bases would be.
Thirdly, this would give the Islamic countries a perfect ime to attack us and if we're fighting China their is no way we could protect ourselves from them. This is why we would most likely lose.

Please enlighten me on why you believe the opposite.

[battleax86]

This looks like a pretty good debate, so I'll join the discussion:

Niccolo Machiavelli wrote: First of all China has roughly 1,298,847, 624 people compared to the United States' population of 293, 027, 571. Which means every American would have to kill about 4.4 people to wipe them out.
We do not need to wipe them out or even cause more casualties. All we need to do is kill the right people (the invasion force, the leadership, etc.) and take out enough infrastructure to make an invasion of Taiwan impossible.

Niccolo Machiavelli wrote: Secondly, China wouldnt have to rally up as much allies than us considering the UN wont do anything. We would have England, maybe south Korea, and dalso maybe Australia. Canada swont help us, they claim to be neutral for some reason, and certainly not France or Germany they both never do anything. China would get Noarth Korea, the country with the little red button close to where our bases would be.
I honestly don't think that we would need to "rally up" very many allies. Japan, South Korea, and Australia could give us logistical support, but the U.S. and Taiwanese military could probably handle the situation on their own.

Niccolo Machiavelli wrote: Thirdly, this would give the Islamic countries a perfect ime to attack us and if we're fighting China their is no way we could protect ourselves from them. This is why we would most likely lose.
1. Which Islamic countries are we talking about?
2. How and where would they be able to attack us?
3. Considering that only a modest-sized naval and air force would be needed to defend Taiwan, the U.S. military would have plenty of forces leftover to fight off the considerably weaker Islamic nations.

[Niccolo Machiavelli]

First of all in my last post I stated that I knew that we didn't have to wipe them out (its in parentheses). I gave those statistics to point out that they could sustain more attacks and could come up with more soliders.

The USA cant afford to go to war with China, fiancially or with forces, because they are having enough trouble with the Middle Eastern countries.
This would obligate the USA to "rally up allies" in order to fight China.

On the third thing you bring up a good point, but I think Iran would be a country that would take advantage of the situation. They have a decent army and either have or will soon have nuclear weapons. If they didn't I think Islamic terrorist would try to attack once again (and it would most likely be worse than 9-11) and their are not many ways we can protect ourselves while we are fighting China and terrorism.

[battleax86]

Niccolo Machiavelli wrote: First of all in my last post I stated that I knew that we didn't have to wipe them out (its in parentheses). I gave those statistics to point out that they could sustain more attacks and could come up with more soliders.
It's true that they could come up with more soldiers. Probably more soldiers than we would be able to take out without going nuclear. However, we don't need take out all their troops. All that we have to eliminate, primarily, is their means to get those troops over the Taiwan Strait. By this, I mean their naval vessels and facilities. Any troop-filled cargo plane would be a sitting duck for fighter jets, missile-carrying ships, and submarines. Then, to throw them into further disarray, we would simply need to take out their main control centers and military installations. They might have more able-bodied men to call up, but they won't be able to do very much calling.

Niccolo Machiavelli wrote: The USA cant afford to go to war with China, fiancially or with forces, because they are having enough trouble with the Middle Eastern countries.
This would obligate the USA to "rally up allies" in order to fight China.
Not necessarily. Keep in mind, the problems that we are having in the Middle East are primarily because we are maintaining an occupation force there. We would merely need to repel Chinese forces from Taiwan, not occupy China. Hell, we probably could do that with fewer troops than it is taking to occupy Iraq.

Niccolo Machiavelli wrote: On the third thing you bring up a good point, but I think Iran would be a country that would take advantage of the situation. They have a decent army and either have or will soon have nuclear weapons.
They may have a decent army, but how will they get them over here? The only place that they would have a shot of invading would be Israel. Needless to say, that would not go well for them. As for their nuclear weapons, Iranian missiles cannot even reach Israel, let alone the United States.

Niccolo Machiavelli wrote: If they didn't I think Islamic terrorist would try to attack once again (and it would most likely be worse than 9-11) and their are not many ways we can protect ourselves while we are fighting China and terrorism.
You bring up an interesting thought. Could we fight a country like China and still fight the War on Terror? Personally, I think that we could. You see, the home front in the War on Terror is not fought militarily (for the most part), but is fought with security and law enforcement officers. The military component of the homeland defense would only require a few fighter squadrons, maybe a couple naval battle groups (just in case), and no more than two Army divisions. We would need far less to repel any Chinese attempt to take Taiwan.

[eynon]

Nah!
You guys are forgetting that numbers can be deciving....yes the Chinese have a 4 to 1 advantage in population, but remember the 1 child policy...so of people able to bare arms it's more like 3 to 1(lots of old people over here). Considering we killed them at a rate of about 20 to 1 in Korea when our toys were more equal I think we would actually have a numbers game advantage.

Also in terms of a long protracted war the Chinese are going to be much less willing to put up the losses it'll take to win then we are. First they'll be losing kids at double-digit rates to our guys, so moral would be low because of that. Remember the 1 child policy? Yeah well in a counrty like China where the social-security system is, well...less then secure, people count on their kids to take care of em. When thousands of Chinese kids start getting whacked it gonna mean that thousands of parents are now without means of support and even worse that their family lines, often over a thousand years old(at least they claim) will end. Simple truth is that if the gov over here instituted the draft, you'd have millions of chinese parents flipping out, fighting cops, hiding their sons, sending them abroad, screaming and crying while the cops drags thier little boy off to be drowned in the Taiwan straits(full of American and British Subs) or die on some mountain side somewhere.
Not good for moral, either national or military......it's s**t like this that leads to goverments being overthrown.....

[battleax86]

I have no argument with that. 8)

[Locke14]

China is considered a third world country, and yet they are in the perfect position to control half the world's population.
China could make non-aggression pact with Russia (much like the one made in 1938 between Russia and Germany), then easily split Asia between them. China could deploy is military to the south and control Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, Burma and Cambodia in a matter of months. These countries are influenced incredibly by China and there would be no shortage of spies or sabotage. As this is all occurring Russia would press from the North upon Mongolia and Kazakhstan.
The next and only territory with enough to stop China is obviously India. With their incredible numbers, (almost a million and a half) India could hold their own in a defensive war for a few years, but soon the superior technology of the Chinese would prevail, and Asia will be changed into two dominating powers.
And yet you ask where is the United States during this? We all know that China has the U.S. in its enormous economic pocket.

[eynon]

and vice-versa...we feed em...

[Locke14]

The United States benefit more from having trade with the Chinese. The Chinese could easily find other buyers for its goods at the low prices they are selling them. If trade was cut off between China and the United States the prices in the U.S. would soar causing unrest throughout, thus forcing store owners to lower prices and like so the entire economy falls apart.
In China there would be a small drop but none that would cause a market crash. Canada would love to take advantage of the surplus of goods. Many Americans would then cross the border to get the familiar goods at the expected cost.

[eynon]

Locke14 wrote: The United States benefit more from having trade with the Chinese. The Chinese could easily find other buyers for its goods at the low prices they are selling them. If trade was cut off between China and the United States the prices in the U.S. would soar causing unrest throughout, thus forcing store owners to lower prices and like so the entire economy falls apart.
In China there would be a small drop but none that would cause a market crash. Canada would love to take advantage of the surplus of goods. Many Americans would then cross the border to get the familiar goods at the expected cost.

yep.....I like the way you think :-D

[PostMortem]

Isn't China armed with the same 1970's cold war Soviet surplus that Iraq was armed with?

[eynon]

PostMortem wrote: Isn't China armed with the same 1970's cold war Soviet surplus that Iraq was armed with?

mostly...they have some modern units, but the vast majority of their army has pretty shi**y toys....

[Locke14]

It's not how powerful your weapons are, it's who strikes first and how hard.

[PostMortem]

Locke14 wrote: It's not how powerful your weapons are, it's who strikes first and how hard.

Um, no.
Its about how many T-72s it will take to knock out one M1A1 tank.......I'll go ahead and guess first, I say 28 will go before maybe the tread of the M1A1 falls off....

[D@N]

might as well dismantle those tanks and build playgrounds for the children out of them. Unless you wanted to invade Mongolia or a country with a 3rd rate military................sigh, my own country of Canada comes to mind.

[eynon]

Locke14 wrote: It's not how powerful your weapons are, it's who strikes first and how hard.

tell that one to Hitler...the Chinese type-98 is like a T-72 that has been on the show "American Hot-rod", it's pretty cool, but not near the match of a M1A1...plus we have way more M1A1s