Page 12 of 15 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 147

Thread: Senator: F-16 deal with Taiwan might bypass Obama

  1. #111
    Bohemian Revolutionary
    Demon of Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    03-07-17 @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,095

    Re: Senator: F-16 deal with Taiwan might bypass Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    Is this all you have? You have no idea what you are talking about. The comments I have made regarding the bahavior of Chinese tourists here are widely held by those dealing with those tourists. You should hear the things Taiwanese hoteliers have said about the Chinese tourists who have come here. I have dealt with their behavior first hand in hotels and at Sun Moon Lake. Sorry, but telling the truth does not make one racist, no matter how you like to characterize it.
    I was hardly referring merely to some comment about tourists.

    You make racist comments like this in reference to my family and I will report you for it.
    Are you accusing me of making racist comments?

    No, it was not a treaty. It was an armistice pending the peace treaty. The final status of Taiwan was determined in the peace treaty. The western powers all regarded Taiwan's status as undetermined following the signing of the armistice pending the peace treaty. History and law do not defend your argument. Nice try parroting the legal rationale of the butchers in Beijing, though. And... even if your legal rationale were valid, if you followed legal reasoning of the ICJ in recent decades, you would understand the notion of effective control in modern international law. I have discussed this matter with more than a dozen scholars of international law and NOT ONE OF THEM agreed with your point of view on the matter. It also goes against basic principles in an introductory textbook of public international law or what is taught in public international law classrooms.
    Your personal anecdotes are quite meaningless to me. Also, this argument is pointless if you cannot even grasp the basic concept that a legally-binding agreement between two or more countries is a treaty, regardless what name it goes by or whether it implements a ceasefire or a permanent peace. Unless these "international law scholars" are novices or blatantly biased towards Taiwanese independence I sincerely doubt they told you such an agreement is not a treaty under law. On the other hand, that is at best a linguistic argument because the fact is it had a legally-binding effect on Japan regardless.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  2. #112
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Senator: F-16 deal with Taiwan might bypass Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    There is so much nonsense being spouted in this post. While many of the short and medium range ballistic missiles can be armed with nuclear warheads, it is unlikely any actually are save for maybe a few that are probably not even aimed at Taiwan. Now, maybe some are near Taiwan in the event of conflict, but that is probably for the more obvious reason that the United States is a nuclear power and has pledged to defend Taiwan. It is to be expected they would have some preparation for the possibility that the U.S. would intervene and turn it into a nuclear conflict.
    I didn't mean that the PRC is arming its missiles with nukes. And it doesn't make sense to nuke an island where you are likely to get fall out from. My point is that having thousands of conventionally armed missiles aimed at a relatively small area results in the same kind of imminent annihilation problem that the USSR and USA had during the cold war. One nuke vs five thousand high yield conventional warheads on a single city basically results in the same outcome.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  3. #113
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Senator: F-16 deal with Taiwan might bypass Obama

    ludahai, since when did F-16s have the same takeoff capabilities as the SAAB Gripen? The Gripen was specifically designed to take off from civilian roads in the event of a Soviet attack on airbases. The F-16 was never designed for that kind of take off and landing. So unless the Taiwanese have been retrofitting their F-16s for that kind of work, it's not really a valid comparison to say that using roads as runways alleviates the issue of losing airbases.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  4. #114
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: Senator: F-16 deal with Taiwan might bypass Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    ludahai, since when did F-16s have the same takeoff capabilities as the SAAB Gripen? The Gripen was specifically designed to take off from civilian roads in the event of a Soviet attack on airbases. The F-16 was never designed for that kind of take off and landing. So unless the Taiwanese have been retrofitting their F-16s for that kind of work, it's not really a valid comparison to say that using roads as runways alleviates the issue of losing airbases.
    Training to land and take off from highways is a part of the annual Hanguang Military exercises. I remember one year I have to detour to another expressway on a drive to Taipei due to these drills. It was a pain in the butt, but a small price to pay to make sure our flyboys have adequate training in case the bullies in red decide to try to take our freedoms away from us.
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  5. #115
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: Senator: F-16 deal with Taiwan might bypass Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    I Your personal anecdotes are quite meaningless to me. Also, this argument is pointless if you cannot even grasp the basic concept that a legally-binding agreement between two or more countries is a treaty, regardless what name it goes by or whether it implements a ceasefire or a permanent peace. Unless these "international law scholars" are novices or blatantly biased towards Taiwanese independence I sincerely doubt they told you such an agreement is not a treaty under law. On the other hand, that is at best a linguistic argument because the fact is it had a legally-binding effect on Japan regardless.
    Actually, they would be professors. You have no idea what you are talking about. Not even the Republic of China government has EVER recognized the Instrument of Surrender as the legal mechanism for transfer. It regards the Treaty of Taipei as the mechanism for transfer, as is taught in every relevant textbook used in junior high and high schools in the country.

    You have no idea what you are talking about and you have on several occasions failed to cite even a SINGLE example where territory from one state to another state was transferred via a armistice. The major western states of the day did NOT regard the territory as transferred in the late 1940s and the United States does not and never has recognized unratified treaties as having the same status as ratified treaties. This is why the U.S. is not party to the 1969 Law on Treaties.
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  6. #116
    Bohemian Revolutionary
    Demon of Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    03-07-17 @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,095

    Re: Senator: F-16 deal with Taiwan might bypass Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    I didn't mean that the PRC is arming its missiles with nukes. And it doesn't make sense to nuke an island where you are likely to get fall out from. My point is that having thousands of conventionally armed missiles aimed at a relatively small area results in the same kind of imminent annihilation problem that the USSR and USA had during the cold war. One nuke vs five thousand high yield conventional warheads on a single city basically results in the same outcome.
    A ballistic missile fitted with a conventional warhead would inflict essentially the same damage as a 2,000 pound JDAM. The United States dropped nearly fifty such bombs on Libya in the first day. Also, China does not have anywhere near five thousand ballistic missiles. Estimates tend to put its arsenal within range of Taiwan at around 1,500. Were China to do something as ridiculous as fire every last one of those missiles they would not be able to "destroy" a single major city. They could do some serious damage for sure, but they could do just as much using bombers. Ballistic missiles are really more effective weapons when you are penetrating an air defense network. That is why I think China would most likely use these to target Taiwan's air defense capabilities, including airbases and radar installations.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    ludahai, since when did F-16s have the same takeoff capabilities as the SAAB Gripen? The Gripen was specifically designed to take off from civilian roads in the event of a Soviet attack on airbases. The F-16 was never designed for that kind of take off and landing. So unless the Taiwanese have been retrofitting their F-16s for that kind of work, it's not really a valid comparison to say that using roads as runways alleviates the issue of losing airbases.
    Highways can be specially constructed to accommodate aircraft. Of course, it still doesn't alleviate the issue as only certain specific stretches of highway are suitable for such purposes, as I mentioned already. Ludahai just refuses to acknowledge that Taiwan doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of so much as delaying China in the air or at sea. Its army could certainly cause some serious grief for any Chinese ground forces, but with the loss of air and naval power it would not be much of a fight and like hell the U.S. would assist an otherwise doomed military force by embarking on a full-fledged war with a nuclear power.

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    Training to land and take off from highways is a part of the annual Hanguang Military exercises. I remember one year I have to detour to another expressway on a drive to Taipei due to these drills. It was a pain in the butt, but a small price to pay to make sure our flyboys have adequate training in case the bullies in red decide to try to take our freedoms away from us.
    Oh don't worry, I'm sure your the United States will be more than happy to take back one of its white brethren. No need to worry about what "your" flyboys can or cannot do.

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    Actually, they would be professors. You have no idea what you are talking about. Not even the Republic of China government has EVER recognized the Instrument of Surrender as the legal mechanism for transfer. It regards the Treaty of Taipei as the mechanism for transfer, as is taught in every relevant textbook used in junior high and high schools in the country.

    You have no idea what you are talking about and you have on several occasions failed to cite even a SINGLE example where territory from one state to another state was transferred via a armistice. The major western states of the day did NOT regard the territory as transferred in the late 1940s and the United States does not and never has recognized unratified treaties as having the same status as ratified treaties. This is why the U.S. is not party to the 1969 Law on Treaties.
    Since you seem to consistently ignore what I actually say I should note here that I never said the Japanese Instrument of Surrender transferred territory. However, as a legally-binding agreement it does designate Taiwan as sovereign Chinese territory that is to be returned to China. When Japan recognized the PRC as the legitimate successor government to the ROC it reiterated in yet another legally-binding agreement its commitment to that end. Your argument that Taiwan is not Chinese territory is thus invalid and "effective control" works against you as it was the legally-recognized government of China that assumed effective control of Taiwan after Japan formally renounced its title.

    Also, the reason the U.S. does not recognize all legally-binding international agreements as treaties is because there is a specific approval process required for passing treaties. Were the U.S. to adopt the Law of Treaties it would be the law of the land, meaning international agreements like NAFTA would unavoidably have to be regarded as treaties under the Constitution and thus would have to be passed by a two-thirds majority in Congress.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  7. #117
    Guru
    Ben K.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,717

    Re: Senator: F-16 deal with Taiwan might bypass Obama

    Ludahai, DoL probably ain't worth it. Seems to support Ron Paul but supports peace at any cost in the Taiwan/China case, big government consequences be damned. He also seems to baselessly call people racists when it comes to China, even though he bemoans racial sensitivity in America.

  8. #118
    Sage
    Lord Tammerlain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:56 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    10,432

    Re: Senator: F-16 deal with Taiwan might bypass Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    A ballistic missile fitted with a conventional warhead would inflict essentially the same damage as a 2,000 pound JDAM. The United States dropped nearly fifty such bombs on Libya in the first day. Also, China does not have anywhere near five thousand ballistic missiles. Estimates tend to put its arsenal within range of Taiwan at around 1,500. Were China to do something as ridiculous as fire every last one of those missiles they would not be able to "destroy" a single major city. They could do some serious damage for sure, but they could do just as much using bombers. Ballistic missiles are really more effective weapons when you are penetrating an air defense network. That is why I think China would most likely use these to target Taiwan's air defense capabilities, including airbases and radar installations.

    Highways can be specially constructed to accommodate aircraft. Of course, it still doesn't alleviate the issue as only certain specific stretches of highway are suitable for such purposes, as I mentioned already. Ludahai just refuses to acknowledge that Taiwan doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of so much as delaying China in the air or at sea. Its army could certainly cause some serious grief for any Chinese ground forces, but with the loss of air and naval power it would not be much of a fight and like hell the U.S. would assist an otherwise doomed military force by embarking on a full-fledged war with a nuclear power.
    The areas in bold would of course be the targets of the 1500 missles or so that China has in the region. The Chinese stealth fighter is of a size that many believe it to be focused more towards being a bomber then a fighter. Meaning it would also be used in attacking Taiwan.

    Of course China would rather not actually attack Taiwan, but use economic and political pressures to cause it to first not declare actual independance, and eventually rejoin China

  9. #119
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Senator: F-16 deal with Taiwan might bypass Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    Training to land and take off from highways is a part of the annual Hanguang Military exercises. I remember one year I have to detour to another expressway on a drive to Taipei due to these drills. It was a pain in the butt, but a small price to pay to make sure our flyboys have adequate training in case the bullies in red decide to try to take our freedoms away from us.
    That's not what I was talking about. The Gripen was specifically designed to take off from basically any half decent paved civilian roadway as they knew that the Soviets would bomb any major usable stretch of highway. Not hardened highways. In the event of a PRC invasion, the highways will be targeted to restrict the movement of Taiwanese equipment. You will not have access to those highways.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  10. #120
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Senator: F-16 deal with Taiwan might bypass Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    A ballistic missile fitted with ay conventional warhead would inflict essentially the same damage as a 2,000 pound JDAM. The United States dropped nearly fifty such bombs on Libya in the first day. Also, China does not have anywhere near five thousand ballistic missiles. Estimates tend to put its arsenal within range of Taiwan at around 1,500. Were China to do something as ridiculous as fire every last one of those missiles they would not be able to "destroy" a single major city. They could do some serious damage for sure, but they could do just as much using bombers. Ballistic missiles are really more effective weapons when you are penetrating an air defense network. That is why I think China would most likely use these to target Taiwan's air defense capabilities, including airbases and radar installations.
    Fair enough, but considering the point of view from a civilian, 1,500 ballistic missiles raining death down on their city within 10 minutes is somewhat analogous to the kind of imminent death aka cold war. AS for using ground based missile platforms to launch attacks on Taiwanese defenses, doesn't it make more sense to use mobile platforms? The Taiwanese basically know where the Fujian based missiles are. Any any attack will involve massing of troops, so the Taiwanese will basically have a heads up on when the attack is coming. IMO it makes more sense to use non-Fujian based assets to attack Taiwanese defenses. Or at least in conjunction with them.

    Highways can be specially constructed to accommodate aircraft.
    And these highways will be one of the next targets rendering the Taiwanese Air Force basically dead once they run out of fuel. This is the beauty of the Saab Gripen. It can operate from roads that no one would ever consider to be a usable landing strip. To the enemy, it's impossible to destroy every civilian improved and unimproved road. Taiwan relying upon hardened highways is rather idiotic as those will be targeted. Sure you have this asset, but when it's on the hit list and you cannot defend it, it's not really a usable asset.

    Of course, it still doesn't alleviate the issue as only certain specific stretches of highway are suitable for such purposes, as I mentioned already. Ludahai just refuses to acknowledge that Taiwan doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of so much as delaying China in the air or at sea.
    Without nukes, there's no way. Considering the assets that China has bought from Russia, mainly guided missile cruisers, the naval forces Taiwan has are outclassed. Furthermore, the increase in quiet subs and the sheer number will overpower Taiwanese submarine assets.

    Its army could certainly cause some serious grief for any Chinese ground forces, but with the loss of air and naval power it would not be much of a fight and like hell the U.S. would assist an otherwise doomed military force by embarking on a full-fledged war with a nuclear power.
    Absolutely. Especially in today's red ink.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

Page 12 of 15 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •