Taiwan Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Nobonita Barua said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

“That would pave the way for the U.S. and its allies like Japan and Australia to come into the fight,” Easton said. “In any event, any Chinese invasion of Taiwan would almost certainly involve a long and extremely bloody air war.”


View attachment 68045

Click to expand...

Nobonita Barua said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

“That would pave the way for the U.S. and its allies like Japan and Australia to come into the fight,” Easton said. “In any event, any Chinese invasion of Taiwan would almost certainly involve a long and extremely bloody air war.”


View attachment 68045

Click to expand...

Mt1701d said:

What the hell is this guy talking about?... surely if China is really going all out, they can missile and rocket strike and flatten everything apart from the TSMC fabs... and at the rate in which China can build... everything would be back to what it was like, in like 5 years... apart from the people of course, they dead...

Click to expand...

zgx09t said:

Taiwan and its sovereignty issue will be marginalized in next 10 to 15 years time in most likely case, if they cannot break out of current sorry status quo limbo, getting weaker, greyer and hollowed out, and ultimately slipping into irrelevancy in world politics. China's gradual additions to her side of equation in the balance of terror vis a vis US is only one strand. There are many other different strands that currently hold them down and choking the life blood of Taiwan as they are stuck in current status quo limbo. They need to make a jump for either way, real soon to make any difference, but all they have is a series of lousy leaders who didn't have vision nor political capital to make painful decisions, just empty democracy bravado to get votes. Just a few cases in point, their health care system and foreign reserve. They need to increase the rate to get the healthcare system going, but DPP doesn't have the political capital to make the painful but necessary changes, given their current pork import fiasco. Nobody likes the increase so it's a tough sell but needs to get it done to avoid going bankrupt. They can't have sovereign wealth funds like other tigers, only a token pocket one. Their central bank sits on those reserves getting rates barely above zero fearing for the worst, as there will be no IMF bail out if something went sideways and they end up having a few dollars short to cover for imports, a bop crisis. That's not even talking about their demographics, tech sector and others. They need leaders "like" those on mainland, not the lightweight democracy and rights clowns looking for soundbites and votes.

Click to expand...

​

Nobonita Barua said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"china needs a hundred bombers to punch through an american flattop's defenses"

David axe has spoken.
You better start making making them fast folks.

Click to expand...

Gatekeeper said:

This is why I said Taiwan is delusional. Their ENTIRE existence as an independent country is dependent on one country and one country alone. On top of that it's on a vague promise that it MIGHT come and defend their existence if the push becomes a shove.

All the time KNOWING that when their value to that country diminishes and the cost outweighs the benefits, they are on their own. They are rapidly running out of options. So isn't it best to obtain something rather than nothing?

I know certain people and, indeed members here trying to twist this as China's fault, because China is not talking. It is funny when under Ma's administration, dialogue was in full flow. So let's set the record straight. It is the English vegetable stubbornness in refusing to accept the one China policy that had caused this the first place.

From the very first day, all she got to say is business as usual. But no. She has to play politics and fly off to visit one of her few remaining tiny insignificant diplomatic country, but via a out of the way stop over in the U.S.

This set the tone and the direction she wants to take her tiny 'country'. To take a Chinese saying, and she is Chinese dispite what the MSM trying to say. She speaks Chinese and she studied Chinese history.

A frog in the well.

And I think I'm being unkind to a frog for using that analogy.

Click to expand...

The United States’ list of red lines should be short, focused, and enforceable. China’s tactic for many years has been to blur the red lines that might otherwise lead to open confrontation with the United States too early for Beijing’s liking. For this reason, China does not use its declared strategy to indicate real shifts in its behavior, knowing that doing so is more likely to generate a reaction in US politics than if it keeps quiet. Beijing has learned over many decades that most political debate in Washington occurs around public political rhetoric rather than covert policy behavior. China also has deployed multiple techniques to ensure plausible deniability for what its party-state apparatus is doing around the world, using softer assets rather than hard military assets to assert its interests wherever possible (such as China’s extensive use of its fishing fleet, coast guard vessels, and other craft, rather than naval vessels, in the South China Sea).

Therefore, the United States must be very clear about which Chinese actions it will seek to deter and, should deterrence fail, will prompt direct US intervention. These should be unambiguously communicated to Beijing through high-level diplomatic channels so that China is placed on notice. This communication should only be made public if and when deterrence has failed and US retaliatory action has been initiated. This will be necessary to secure US public opinion and allied buy-in for the US response.

This list of red lines should include these elements:

• any nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons action by China against the United States or its allies, or by North Korea where China has failed to take decisive action to prevent any such North Korean action
• any Chinese military attack against Taiwan or its offshore islands, including an economic blockade or major cyberattack against Taiwanese public infrastructure and institutions
• any Chinese attack against Japanese forces in their defense of Japanese sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands and their surrounding EEZ in the East China Sea
• any major Chinese hostile action in the South China Sea to further reclaim and militarize islands, to deploy force against other claimant states, or to prevent full freedom of navigation operations by the United States and allied maritime forces
• any Chinese attack against the sovereign territory or military assets of US treaty allies

The assets that should be deployed by the United States (and where appropriate, its allies) in support of each of these red lines will vary. These matters should not be advanced in public debate. The policy logic, however, remains clear: in each case, it is to signal the significance of these red lines to Xi’s administration and to deter, and if necessary defeat, any Chinese actions that violate them. China is likely to be stunned by this level of strategic clarity. It has grown accustomed to a United States that has become unwilling to confront it or that does so only episodically and temporarily. Inevitably, China will probe how serious the United States will be in the execution of this new strategy—by identifying the weakest link in the chain. The United States must be prepared for this probing. However, it is important to remember that most of these red lines play directly into current internal debates within the Chinese system on whether Xi has already pushed the United States too far.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...