Miscellaneous News
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
Just more garbage of one anti-china funded group interviewing another anti-china group sponsor by the obvious. They purposely create these group with official sounding name or imply official sounding names , like this one was advertise as UK Uyghur Tribunal.. it is set in the UK but the UK gov has nothing to do with it and "Tribunal" makes it sound legal/professional but it is not.
The US cannot defend Taiwan, and China knows it
By Scott Ritter, 09 OCT 2021
The author is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer, he served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf’s staff during the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector.
The US is playing a dangerous game of putting a public face on a policy of defending Taiwan from China, for which it has zero capability to implement.
Following a recent escalation of tensions between Beijing and Taipei, Chinese President Xi Jinping vowed on Saturday to pursue “reunification” with Taiwan by peaceful means and warned foreign nations about meddling in the issue.
For the past several years, the air force of the People’s Republic of China has been flying sorties into Taiwan’s Air Defense Identification Zone, or ADIZ, as a means of sending a signal to Taipei that China does not recognize its claims of independence and, as such, any notion of an ADIZ is null and void. These incidents, which have been escalating over the years, recently reached a crescendo: China, according to Taipei, flew 38 aircraft in two waves into Taiwan’s ADIZ on October 1, 39 more on October 2 (also in two waves), and 16 the following day.
In response, the US State Department spokesman Ned Price issued a statement. “The United States is very concerned by the People’s Republic of China’s provocative military activity near Taiwan, which is destabilizing, risks miscalculations, and undermines regional peace and stability. We urge Beijing to cease its military, diplomatic, and economic pressure and coercion against Taiwan.”
China’s Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hua Chunying replied “Taiwan belongs to China and the US is in no position to make irresponsible remarks. The relevant remarks by the US side seriously violate the one-China principle and the stipulations of the three China-US joint communiqués and send an extremely wrong and irresponsible signal.”
On October 4, Taipei said that China sent its largest wave of aircraft yet into Taiwan’s ADIZ, some 56 in total, including 36 J-16 and Su-30 fighter jets, 12 nuclear-capable H-6 bombers, 2 Y-8 anti-submarine warfare (ASW) aircraft and two KJ-500 airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft.
Alarmed by these developments, Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen declared that “Taiwan does not seek military confrontation. It hopes for a peaceful, stable, predictable, and mutually beneficial coexistence with its neighbors. But Taiwan will also do whatever it takes to defend its freedom and democratic way of life.”
‘Whatever it takes’, however, is an infinite concept backed up by the finite reality that Taiwan has a military of about 165,000 active-duty troops and about 1.6 million reserve soldiers which has been equipped with billions of dollars of advanced American-made military equipment.
While Taiwan’s military may look good on paper, it is ill-prepared for the realities of the kind of full-scale combat that will be directed at them if China ever decides to go through with an invasion. As the world learned in Afghanistan, impressive numbers on paper do not automatically translate into an impressive fighting force on the ground. And China would be delivering violence on a scale several orders of magnitude above what the Taliban could ever contemplate.
If China ever decided to invade Taiwan, the working assumption would be that it had conducted an extensive intelligence-based assessment of its chances of victory, which would have to be near-certain in order for China to undertake an action that would bring with it the condemnation of much of the world. China would have located with pin-point precision the garrisons and deployment locations of every major Taiwanese ground combat unit. It would have done the same with every combat-capable aircraft in the Taiwanese inventory. And it would have identified the logistics bases used by Taiwan to sustain its frontline combat forces. All of these would be subjected to extensive pre-assault bombardment by the Chinese air and ballistic missile forces.
Any surviving Taiwanese units would then be faced with the daunting task of repelling a massive invasion which would likely comprise a combination of amphibious and air assault forces. Assuming enough units survived the pre-assault bombardment to put up a competent defense, they would rapidly run through their on-hand stocks of ammunition, fuel, and food. Units that were cut off from resupply would begin to surrender, and the notion of surrender would become contagious. Pockets of die-hard defenders could survive to fight on for a period, but the reality is that Taiwan would fall in less than a week.
Much has been made about the US ability to come to Taiwan’s defense. While the US may have made great waves sailing its navy through the Taiwan Strait, such a maneuver would be suicidal in a time of conflict. The US Navy would be relegated to standing by far to the east of Taiwan, out of the range of China’s deadly ballistic missile capability, launching aircraft which would have limited combat capability given fuel and weight limitations. The same holds true for the US Air Force. The fact is, any aircraft the US dispatched to defend Taiwan from a Chinese invasion would be rapidly attritted, with no replacements available in a time frame that could change the course of the battle on the ground in Taiwan.
Much has been made about media reports concerning the presence of US forces in Taiwan for the purpose of training the Taiwan military. These forces are not part of any formal alliance or defense pact, but rather part of what is known as “foreign internal defense” training missions, in this case involving a few dozen US Special Forces and US Marines doing small-unit training. This is not the kind of large-scale operational training undertaken by formal alliances such as NATO, where interoperability is essential for any joint combat operations.
The best the US could hope to do when it comes to defending Taiwan would be to modify existing war plan for the reinforcement of South Korea. This war plan, known as OPLAN-5027, has a subsection known as a Time-Phased Force and Deployment List, or TPFDL, which has identified the forces and equipment necessary to reinforce South Korea in time of war. At one time, the TPFDL had earmarked 690,000 troops, 160 Navy ships, and 1,600 aircraft for deployment from the US to South Korea within 90 days of a war breaking out on the Korean peninsula.
Two things come to mind—by the time the US cavalry was ready to arrive in Taiwan, they would be about 83 days too late. And, more importantly, China would have consolidated its hold on Taiwan making any US effort to retake it suicidal. OPLAN-5027 envisions US forces flowing into South Korean ports that are controlled by the South Korean government. It is not an amphibious assault plan, and any effort to transform it into one would fail.
This is the reality-based state of play today when it comes to the defense of Taiwan by the US. The only alteration that could be made would be for the US to use nuclear weapons in defense of Taiwan. This, of course, would trigger a general nuclear war with China, and the US is not prepared to commit national suicide for a nation it doesn’t even have a formal defensive pact with.
Ned Price might want to keep all of this in mind the next time he approaches the microphone to speak about defending Taiwan. He and the rest of the US government are writing checks with their mouths neither Taiwan nor the US military can cash. A better course of action would be to work with China and Taiwan toward the goal of peaceful unification which preserves intact the democratic system of government that exists in Taiwan.
By Scott Ritter, 09 OCT 2021
The author is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer, he served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf’s staff during the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector.
The US is playing a dangerous game of putting a public face on a policy of defending Taiwan from China, for which it has zero capability to implement.
Following a recent escalation of tensions between Beijing and Taipei, Chinese President Xi Jinping vowed on Saturday to pursue “reunification” with Taiwan by peaceful means and warned foreign nations about meddling in the issue.
For the past several years, the air force of the People’s Republic of China has been flying sorties into Taiwan’s Air Defense Identification Zone, or ADIZ, as a means of sending a signal to Taipei that China does not recognize its claims of independence and, as such, any notion of an ADIZ is null and void. These incidents, which have been escalating over the years, recently reached a crescendo: China, according to Taipei, flew 38 aircraft in two waves into Taiwan’s ADIZ on October 1, 39 more on October 2 (also in two waves), and 16 the following day.
In response, the US State Department spokesman Ned Price issued a statement. “The United States is very concerned by the People’s Republic of China’s provocative military activity near Taiwan, which is destabilizing, risks miscalculations, and undermines regional peace and stability. We urge Beijing to cease its military, diplomatic, and economic pressure and coercion against Taiwan.”
China’s Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hua Chunying replied “Taiwan belongs to China and the US is in no position to make irresponsible remarks. The relevant remarks by the US side seriously violate the one-China principle and the stipulations of the three China-US joint communiqués and send an extremely wrong and irresponsible signal.”
On October 4, Taipei said that China sent its largest wave of aircraft yet into Taiwan’s ADIZ, some 56 in total, including 36 J-16 and Su-30 fighter jets, 12 nuclear-capable H-6 bombers, 2 Y-8 anti-submarine warfare (ASW) aircraft and two KJ-500 airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft.
Alarmed by these developments, Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen declared that “Taiwan does not seek military confrontation. It hopes for a peaceful, stable, predictable, and mutually beneficial coexistence with its neighbors. But Taiwan will also do whatever it takes to defend its freedom and democratic way of life.”
‘Whatever it takes’, however, is an infinite concept backed up by the finite reality that Taiwan has a military of about 165,000 active-duty troops and about 1.6 million reserve soldiers which has been equipped with billions of dollars of advanced American-made military equipment.
While Taiwan’s military may look good on paper, it is ill-prepared for the realities of the kind of full-scale combat that will be directed at them if China ever decides to go through with an invasion. As the world learned in Afghanistan, impressive numbers on paper do not automatically translate into an impressive fighting force on the ground. And China would be delivering violence on a scale several orders of magnitude above what the Taliban could ever contemplate.
If China ever decided to invade Taiwan, the working assumption would be that it had conducted an extensive intelligence-based assessment of its chances of victory, which would have to be near-certain in order for China to undertake an action that would bring with it the condemnation of much of the world. China would have located with pin-point precision the garrisons and deployment locations of every major Taiwanese ground combat unit. It would have done the same with every combat-capable aircraft in the Taiwanese inventory. And it would have identified the logistics bases used by Taiwan to sustain its frontline combat forces. All of these would be subjected to extensive pre-assault bombardment by the Chinese air and ballistic missile forces.
Any surviving Taiwanese units would then be faced with the daunting task of repelling a massive invasion which would likely comprise a combination of amphibious and air assault forces. Assuming enough units survived the pre-assault bombardment to put up a competent defense, they would rapidly run through their on-hand stocks of ammunition, fuel, and food. Units that were cut off from resupply would begin to surrender, and the notion of surrender would become contagious. Pockets of die-hard defenders could survive to fight on for a period, but the reality is that Taiwan would fall in less than a week.
Much has been made about the US ability to come to Taiwan’s defense. While the US may have made great waves sailing its navy through the Taiwan Strait, such a maneuver would be suicidal in a time of conflict. The US Navy would be relegated to standing by far to the east of Taiwan, out of the range of China’s deadly ballistic missile capability, launching aircraft which would have limited combat capability given fuel and weight limitations. The same holds true for the US Air Force. The fact is, any aircraft the US dispatched to defend Taiwan from a Chinese invasion would be rapidly attritted, with no replacements available in a time frame that could change the course of the battle on the ground in Taiwan.
Much has been made about media reports concerning the presence of US forces in Taiwan for the purpose of training the Taiwan military. These forces are not part of any formal alliance or defense pact, but rather part of what is known as “foreign internal defense” training missions, in this case involving a few dozen US Special Forces and US Marines doing small-unit training. This is not the kind of large-scale operational training undertaken by formal alliances such as NATO, where interoperability is essential for any joint combat operations.
The best the US could hope to do when it comes to defending Taiwan would be to modify existing war plan for the reinforcement of South Korea. This war plan, known as OPLAN-5027, has a subsection known as a Time-Phased Force and Deployment List, or TPFDL, which has identified the forces and equipment necessary to reinforce South Korea in time of war. At one time, the TPFDL had earmarked 690,000 troops, 160 Navy ships, and 1,600 aircraft for deployment from the US to South Korea within 90 days of a war breaking out on the Korean peninsula.
Two things come to mind—by the time the US cavalry was ready to arrive in Taiwan, they would be about 83 days too late. And, more importantly, China would have consolidated its hold on Taiwan making any US effort to retake it suicidal. OPLAN-5027 envisions US forces flowing into South Korean ports that are controlled by the South Korean government. It is not an amphibious assault plan, and any effort to transform it into one would fail.
This is the reality-based state of play today when it comes to the defense of Taiwan by the US. The only alteration that could be made would be for the US to use nuclear weapons in defense of Taiwan. This, of course, would trigger a general nuclear war with China, and the US is not prepared to commit national suicide for a nation it doesn’t even have a formal defensive pact with.
Ned Price might want to keep all of this in mind the next time he approaches the microphone to speak about defending Taiwan. He and the rest of the US government are writing checks with their mouths neither Taiwan nor the US military can cash. A better course of action would be to work with China and Taiwan toward the goal of peaceful unification which preserves intact the democratic system of government that exists in Taiwan.
1) I got no idea. Repeat, I got no idea.
2) My opinion is that this is Chairman Mao time!
We have to remember some of the old time history. Chairman Mao tried to establish relations with the Americans that were rebuffed, so America was an enemy of China. After the Sino-Soviet split, the USSR was an enemy of China. After the 1962 border war with India, then India was an enemy of China.
I still remember what that professor said. In those early years of the 1960's, that they had the following.
China was enemy of America, who was the leader of the free world.
China was enemy of the USSR, who was the leader of the socialist world.
China was enemy of India, who was the leader of the developing world.
The professor said you really would have to work at that to be the enemy of the free world, socialist world, and developing world, all at once.
That was so funny! It was kind of true too, but that is why people love Chairman Mao. He did not give shit about the enemy, what is right is right mofos. F-- you. Chairman Mao is simply great figure in Chinese history. Long live Chairman Mao!
There was a massing of naval forces in the South China Sea consisting of 2 American carriers, 1 British carrier, 1 Japanese carrier, and the PLAAF sends up their own training exercise with bombers who should be carrying loaded anti-ship missiles.
It was not just one bomber, it was one bomber per carrier, and they did two waves of that. This was a real run, this is how to attack carrier groups, via the air. Anti-ship missiles work. Those carriers will be hit.
Then they release pictures of that clashing in the Galwan valley.
CCP still does not give a bleep of who you are. China will be enemy of India, and China will be enemy of America and its boot licking minions, if they pull more shit. What is right is right. Bleep you.
China being enemy of India and China being enemy of America at the same time, we have seen that before. Long live Chairman Mao!
I watched this video a few times. I can see what an enlightened and rich ethic Chinese can do in a white world. You are articulate and you have nothing to prove. That is when those white human beings really pay attention.
That is gross and that is human. When you sense someone is going to beat you in your own game, that is the worse type of losing. And human defensive nature takes over from that point on.
The entente not so cordiale: Anglo-French relations are at their lowest ebb for decades thanks to Brexit (09 OCT 2021)
By Dr. Karin Kneissl, Austria's former minister of foreign affairs
Small wonder, then, that Johnson and his government are neither liked nor trusted in Paris. Some analysts believe Anglo-French relations may well be the worst seen in more than 100 years.
“They’re as bad as I can remember,” Peter Ricketts, Britain’s ambassador to France from 2012 to 2016, told British newspapers. “My sense is the French have just totally lost confidence in the UK as an ally, and in the British government as something to depend on.
“It’s not just a short-term row. It’s a deep loss of respect and trust . . . At the beginning, Macron was intrigued by Johnson after his victory. But now they [the French] have simply concluded that he’s untrustworthy and not a serious person.”
This view was echoed by Sylvie Bermann, France’s ambassador to Britain from 2014 to 2017. She told the Financial Times that Franco-British relations “have never been this tense, this inimical. In Paris there is a real absence of trust – a feeling that Britain no longer honours the agreements it signs”.
By Dr. Karin Kneissl, Austria's former minister of foreign affairs
Small wonder, then, that Johnson and his government are neither liked nor trusted in Paris. Some analysts believe Anglo-French relations may well be the worst seen in more than 100 years.
“They’re as bad as I can remember,” Peter Ricketts, Britain’s ambassador to France from 2012 to 2016, told British newspapers. “My sense is the French have just totally lost confidence in the UK as an ally, and in the British government as something to depend on.
“It’s not just a short-term row. It’s a deep loss of respect and trust . . . At the beginning, Macron was intrigued by Johnson after his victory. But now they [the French] have simply concluded that he’s untrustworthy and not a serious person.”
This view was echoed by Sylvie Bermann, France’s ambassador to Britain from 2014 to 2017. She told the Financial Times that Franco-British relations “have never been this tense, this inimical. In Paris there is a real absence of trust – a feeling that Britain no longer honours the agreements it signs”.
We already know his feelings on China… how does he feel about Kyrie Irving??
From what I read w.r.t. the Nets, he is a hands-off owner. He paid top dollars for the ball club. He paid top dollars for the big 3. But we all know that vast majority of pro players are just rich whining babies. Very few players are like MJ or Kobe or Lebron. Those big 3 are top talents, but none of them is top leader. So, he is rich and owns a pro team. The rest I could care less
