Taiwan plans to build 500 cruise missiles

I see your point Sampan, however something that has to be noted is that the wording of things is very important. Judging from my experiences, when you hear "One-China" you immediately think of what happened to Hong Kong, and how the mainland backed out of many of its promises regarding autonomy and what not. I'm not going to start a discussion here about how the Taiwanese people themselves view the island and whether or not it should/is/deserves to be independent, but I'm just going to say that I'm guessing people would prefer that talks begin with a blank sheet...

Vowing to abide by One-China is a lot different from dropping an aim for Independence as a pre-req. In the latter there is room for discussion, in the former there is not.

Of course, from this POV a blank sheet means everything's on the table. No One-China, no Taiwan Independence, nothing, a attempt to start from scratch to resolve the problem. If discussions result in Taiwan agreeing to unite without coercion, then okay. If discussions result in Taiwan receiving/confirming independence, then so be it (although since China has nearly all the chips I find it hard to believe the result would be anything but unification)

I'd say the biggest opposition to "One-China" is that the people feel that they aren't being represented, that the mainland (and Taiwan government) is ignoring their wishes. There really ought to be a referendum on this issue, I'd say... of course China would probably protest by saying, "You've got no right to vote on whether or not you want to be unify"... but I digress.

Hong Kong was a big blow against convincing the people to unite peacefully. I mean, sure you can promise that Taiwan will have some autonomy, gets to keep its writing system and what not, but who's to say that these rights/privileges won't be revoked?

Anyway, I'm treading on thin ice here... but I can't really warn myself for going political or off topic...if I have. Time to see where our limits are?

FuManChu said:

Err, surely 500 cruise missiles could make a heck of a lot of difference in a potential war. What exactly did you base that assessment on, Kyli? They won't win a conflict for Taiwan but used properly could give them an edge they currently don't have.

Click to expand...

I don't remember exactly what I wrote two month ago, but I think I am implying that even with around 500 cruise missiles. Taiwan could not gain much offensive advantages to alter the result of war, and I simply don't think Taiwan could able to deploy that many. Taiwan could probably deploy some short range cruise missiles, which could only threaten Fujian and Canton provinces.

see your point Sampan, however something that has to be noted is that the wording of things is very important. Judging from my experiences, when you hear "One-China" you immediately think of what happened to Hong Kong, and how the mainland backed out of many of its promises regarding autonomy and what not. I'm not going to start a discussion here about how the Taiwanese people themselves view the island and whether or not it should/is/deserves to be independent, but I'm just going to say that I'm guessing people would prefer that talks begin with a blank sheet...

Click to expand...

What happened in HK is nothing out of orginal, simply remember HK is a colony that never have much demacratic before handover to China. So why suddenly people make so much fuss, eventhrough HK are giving much more freedom and election that they ever did. I would not imply that HK should not have more, but simply saying China backed out of many promises regarding autonomy is wrong. Did people ever suggested to Great Britain to give HK people free election and elected their own leader and representives? What had happened now was more like distrust of CCP, other than CCP interfere of HK local affair. As far as I am concern, CCP did keeped their interfere as minimal as possible. It is more like a outcry of downfall of Economy, and the opppostions and foreigner powers trying to expose this situations as their advantages. HK people tend to never concern or associate with politics when I lived in HK, but why after the handover they demanded more. I rather think the opppositions are asking too much and too fast from CCP, giving times I would think China and HK will learn to trust each other. I suggested you do not make HK as excuse, since HK never had freedom as Taiwan had. So they don't draw good comparison.

Hong Kong was a big blow against convincing the people to unite peacefully. I mean, sure you can promise that Taiwan will have some autonomy, gets to keep its writing system and what not, but who's to say that these rights/privileges won't be revoked?

Click to expand...

I think you refused to look more open mind on the HK situations before making conclusion. The medias and Taiwan government have play greater roles to discredit the committed and efforts of CCP than What had actual happened, but nevertheless I would not suggest HK is a sucessful and good example for the matters. But either people should find this as failure, frankly there are many people don't agreed upon this. And I am one of them, since I am from HK so my voice do count as much as many HK people that are quick satisfy with Mainland China. Some HK people might still are in favor colony years, but more of them do want this unification.

The rest of your posts, we just have to agree and disagree, BTW we are again off topic. Sorry.

I suggested you do not make HK as excuse, since HK never had freedom as Taiwan had. So they don't draw good comparison.

Click to expand...

This is an interesting point. For one thing, Taiwan has only recently actually achieved true democracy, the memory of martial law and what not is still deep in the minds of the current generation in power, and people aren't exactly eager to give up their hard earned rights and freedom, which makes a Hong Kong situation very undesirable, from a political standpoint.

Anyway, I'll leave it at this here, for fear of going too far off-topic and political.

As you were, gentlemen!

SampanViking said:

Fu Man Chu you should be on the stage

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean, but I guess that's a poor attempt at a jibe

1) The commitment to the One China Policy is the best disavowment of Independance I can think of.

Click to expand...

It's also the best way to start limiting Taiwan's negotiating position. And it's not as if China has offered anything in return. Oh, pandas - well that changes everything

2) The One china Policy is the basis of the agreements reached between PRC and Taiwan in the 90's.

Click to expand...

This has been disputed. Last time I checked no treaties or documents were signed to that effect.

any subsequent discussions and negotiations must start at this position and proceed in whatever direction by mutual consent.

Click to expand...

Why? The KMT government did not have a proper democratic mandate from the people of Taiwan then. Governments change their position all the time if they're not legally bound. And if they are they withdraw from them.

It is not for one party to tear up all previous agreements and recommence on an ad-hoc basis accorsding to their fancy.

Click to expand...

Given that such agreements were not treaties and therefore not legally binding, even if they did exist they're meaningless.

The precondition of the PRC therefore is to continue from the point the last talks concluded.

Click to expand...

No, the precondition of the PRC is that Taiwan admits that it is a part of China, so that it can control the negotiations. The DPP's is that Taiwan is treated fairly and not like they're "in the wrong", which is Beijing's stance. Even if/when the KMT are next elected, things won't be much different. The spin will be a little different, but the negotiating position will be exactly the same. Committing to the one-China principle won't make unification occur - indeed this dispute is just the tip of the iceberg.

------

KYli, my friends in HK are hardly happy with the way things are going. Apart from the sidelining of Cantonese, death threats against pro-democracy radio jockeys and the HK gov's demands that HK's public media group (forgotten its name) push their POV really gets up their goat. The democracy movement started during the GB years - it didn't suddenly appear in 1996. It had been going for decades. Beijing didn't send the stormtroopers in after 1997, but it has tried to undermine HK's democratic attributes on more than one occasion. When HK was under British rule, everyone knew that it was a temporary situation. But HK will probably always be part of China now, so they need to get their own rights set in concrete. This means full elections for the Chief Executive and the Assembly - China is obstructing this. And recent comments about how candidates for election should all be "patriots" by one of the people that drafted the Basic Law is rather worrying as well.

Yes we are all O/T, so let's leave these discussions for now. They're very interesting, and I'm impressed no one has started flaming or anything but that. Let's just be thankful the mods didn't lock the thread.

Back to the missiles. If you mean that they wouldn't be much use because only a few could be used, then that's different. But if they are made in sufficient numbers with the facilities to launch them then they could prove a very useful asset.

Ok, thats rather good way to go....One more post of not related to the 500 cruise missiles and you will see some action...If moderators (that is members whit their name written in red or in deep purple) comes to tell you that drop the off topic subject, there is no excuses to continue the matter after that! Understoood?:nono: :nono:

FuManChu said:

Back to the missiles. If you mean that they wouldn't be much use because only a few could be used, then that's different. But if they are made in sufficient numbers with the facilities to launch them then they could prove a very useful asset.

Click to expand...

*Edited to add additional commentary

Herein lies another problem. Since Taiwan is (in all likelihood) not liable to start a conflict with China, chances are that China would launch a first strike, and it's hard to say if enough missiles and facilities would survive one to make an effective difference.

If it's as a, "You can hit me but you'll suffer consequences" then even only 100 well-aimed missiles will be able to make a statement, but the realistic and military difference would definitely be minimal.

Anyway, something I thought of recently was the value of the "we're hitting them back" mindset. It's not necessarily for the leaders of a country, both political and military, but mainly for the civilian population. Since as a rule regular citizens will be the ones who suffer the most from China's Ballistic Missiles, knowing that they're hitting back and not just being curb-stomped makes the suffering from bearable, and least psychologically.

And that's actually a point that is often missed. This psychological effect should not be overlooked since the number one danger in Taiwan's defense is the population's will to fight. (Or at least, sustain the fight)