Ask anything Thread


azretonov

Junior Member
Registered Member
If China were to reunite with Taiwan through military means, is it possible for the US to form a coalition and strike back like they did with Iraq's invasion of Kuwait?
What you asked is impossible at this point. There aren't many commonalities between these two cases, to begin with, and the political landscape is entirely different. These punitive coalitions are demanding endeavors, one requires tremendous investments of political capital. Back in 1991, it was relatively easier to muster the support necessary to propagate the idea of military intervention was necessary, as Iraq was in clear violation of the UN Charter. The coalition of 2003 however, was an entirely different story, one that is hardly legitimate. The justification was vague and the UNSC unconvinced, both France and Russia in clear opposition to the decision. By taking unilateral action on questionable legal grounds, America ended up with a deteriorating image.

Being the sole global power doesn't always absolve one from the international norms. Despite its' position fortified by the fall of the Soviet Union, the US had to invest politically to sell these coalitions to other nations. Deploying carrier strike groups might intimidate one or two nations but convincing them is another matter.

Can American leadership convince the neighbors of China to take action to keep Taiwan independent? I'd say the chances are next to none.

Firstly, China is China and always has been while Iraq is a post-colonial nation, never weighted much importance or posed much of a threat to the West. Secondly, unlike Taiwan, Kuwait is an independent nation and a member of the UN since 1963. The Nations entertaining closer relations (that's about the whole world) with Beijing were expected to commit to One-China Policy. Damaging ties in this manner with China would have consequences in multiple dimensions. Does Taiwan worth taking that risk? The US treaty allies in that particular region; Japan and S. Korea have bilateral trades with China, valued at $330 bln and $285 bln respectively.
 

davidau

Junior Member
Registered Member
What you asked is impossible at this point. There aren't many commonalities between these two cases, to begin with, and the political landscape is entirely different. These punitive coalitions are demanding endeavors, one requires tremendous investments of political capital. Back in 1991, it was relatively easier to muster the support necessary to propagate the idea of military intervention was necessary, as Iraq was in clear violation of the UN Charter. The coalition of 2003 however, was an entirely different story, one that is hardly legitimate. The justification was vague and the UNSC unconvinced, both France and Russia in clear opposition to the decision. By taking unilateral action on questionable legal grounds, America ended up with a deteriorating image.

Being the sole global power doesn't always absolve one from the international norms. Despite its' position fortified by the fall of the Soviet Union, the US had to invest politically to sell these coalitions to other nations. Deploying carrier strike groups might intimidate one or two nations but convincing them is another matter.

Can American leadership convince the neighbors of China to take action to keep Taiwan independent? I'd say the chances are next to none.

Firstly, China is China and always has been while Iraq is a post-colonial nation, never weighted much importance or posed much of a threat to the West. Secondly, unlike Taiwan, Kuwait is an independent nation and a member of the UN since 1963. The Nations entertaining closer relations (that's about the whole world) with Beijing were expected to commit to One-China Policy. Damaging ties in this manner with China would have consequences in multiple dimensions. Does Taiwan worth taking that risk? The US treaty allies in that particular region; Japan and S. Korea have bilateral trades with China, valued at $330 bln and $285 bln respectively.
Look at the past decades with different presidents who fail to keep promise of the one China-US communiques[ by selling arms etc], US policy on Taiwan is a two-bob bet on each side, with the ultimate aim to stir up shits so to have material gains and political leverage. US policy, to say the least mildly, is as cunning as a shithouse rat!
 
Last edited:

gadgetcool5

Junior Member
Registered Member
What are the real capabilities of the SM-3 IIA and its potential future derivatives?

Could this actually give the US a chance to defeat China's nuclear deterrent the future? That seems to be an aim.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

quantumlight

Junior Member
Registered Member
What are the real capabilities of the SM-3 IIA and its potential future derivatives?

Could this actually give the US a chance to defeat China's nuclear deterrent the future? That seems to be an aim.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Which is why China cannot afford to take any chances, brute force it a numbers game, just needs 10000 nukes to be safe(r)
 

tamsen_ikard

Junior Member
Registered Member
I recently read in an article that Taiwan has air force bases where the planes are stored inside reinforced tunnel inside a mountain. What can China do to destroy such heavily protected planes?

For China, the best option in a Taiwan war is to destroy as many planes as possible either with missiles or air strikes. With these air bases, the only option for PLA it seems is to literally wait for them to bring out the planes and destroy them on the tarmac.
 

crash8pilot

Junior Member
Registered Member
I recently read in an article that Taiwan has air force bases where the planes are stored inside reinforced tunnel inside a mountain. What can China do to destroy such heavily protected planes?

For China, the best option in a Taiwan war is to destroy as many planes as possible either with missiles or air strikes. With these air bases, the only option for PLA it seems is to literally wait for them to bring out the planes and destroy them on the tarmac.
... Or you could just take out the tarmac+runway and the planes are grounded
 

supersnoop

Junior Member
Registered Member
Been following PLA/China for a while now.
In the late 90's/early 00's there were a lot of "women in the military" pictures that were more focused on publicity, i.e. Parading/drill.

Nowadays, there seem to be a lot more in practical situations and leadership positions. Just wondering if people think the reason for this is driven primarily by one-child policy, socialist philosophy, or general social progress? Maybe someone is aware of any special programs.

Just kind of interesting contrast with the Western experience which is really program/quota-driven.

Not to get too much into politics, but I think it's kind of funny that the western world sees itself as the benchmark of social progress for women's equality, but I think China is really overlooked in this regard.
 

nlalyst

Junior Member
Registered Member
Not to get too much into politics, but I think it's kind of funny that the western world sees itself as the benchmark of social progress for women's equality, but I think China is really overlooked in this regard.
It's not a matter of bragging, but facts.

According to the 2019 UN report, the top 10 countries with the lowest Gender Inequality Index are all in Western Europe. PRC is ranked 39 which is well above average. The weaknesses are the educational gender disparity and high maternal mortality rate. ROC was not included in the report, but it "self-assessed" itself and found out it would rank 6 worldwide and first in Asia.

However, PRC ranked far worse in the Global Gender Gap report, ranking 106 out of 153.
 

ougoah

Colonel
Registered Member
It's not a matter of bragging, but facts.

According to the 2019 UN report, the top 10 countries with the lowest Gender Inequality Index are all in Western Europe. PRC is ranked 39 which is well above average. The weaknesses are the educational gender disparity and high maternal mortality rate. ROC was not included in the report, but it "self-assessed" itself and found out it would rank 6 worldwide and first in Asia.

However, PRC ranked far worse in the Global Gender Gap report, ranking 106 out of 153.

It's funny the RoC considers itself ranked 6th. Funny because anyone who knows anything about Taiwan and its culture, knows that females are relegated to a lower social class and far more "sexualised" and relegated to being objectified that way. It's hard to measure these things but it is definite that mainland's tidbits and remnants of socialist mindsets, both in Marxist and Trotskyist derived atitudes, may have been partially responsible for whatever improvements in overall gender equality, Taiwan is thoroughly old world in every way except surface cosmetics. This is both a good and bad thing depending on personal beliefs but it's still hilarious they rank themselves at 6th. Maybe in workplace representation and income metrics and similar things like that but I know for a fact that even these two things are entirely untrue, so makes one wonder on what basis they rank themselves so highly. Women are expected to go into certain fields and almost definitely earn much less than male counterparts in Taiwan. It's not horrible, but it ain't 6th.
 

Top