• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senator: F-16 deal with Taiwan might bypass Obama

Taiwan is ever vigilant in watching. If there really were an attack coming, they would get the planes up.

Your comments on this cause me to believe you have no understanding of military strategy whatsoever. Having all planes in the air is a feat in itself, never mind having all planes in the air at exactly the right moment. It simply would not be doable for Taiwan. China would not build up its force and strike the moment it was ready since that would make defensive planning way too easy for Taiwan. Either they would attack suddenly with those forces in theater that can be used immediately for just such a purpose or build up their forces and keep them on standby for a given time period. In both cases Taiwan would have no real way to avoid a scenario where a substantial number of their aircraft are caught on the ground.

Also, China can't destroy all of the highways with its missiles.

Not every stretch of highway would be suitable for use as an airstrip if that is what you are suggesting. There are certain requirements regarding the dimensions of the highway and its path. Curved highways do not make good airstrips for obvious reasons. You also have to have infrastructure in place for it to be a viable airstrip. China would first go after those highway strips that have specifically been designed and intended for use as an airstrip and then target the most viable alternatives. This would not insure that there are no places for a plane to touch down, that would just be an absurd expectation. However, China would not have to act on the expectation that no plane in the air could land. Instead, it would be looking to cause enough logistical difficulties to seriously impede Taiwan's ability to wage a continued air war. Even if a plane is able to land successfully it still needs to be resupplied and have a viable takeoff route.

Many Western countries allow successionist parties.

"Many"? Does that not also mean to say "not all"? Also, if you note, I specifically mentioned not allowing such a party to hold political power. This would not impede the ability of groups or individuals to express this view in Taiwan.

Taiwan is far higher political rights

Like I said, that is an automatic result of its political system. Because of limitations on public elections Hong Kong is regarded as partly free despite the level of actual political freedom in Hong Kong.

Freedom House ranks Taiwan as free with a score of 24 (a score that has dropped slightly during the KMT administration) and Hong Kong as Partly free with a score of 33. And if you read through the RSF (Reporters Without Borders) site, it is clear that Taiwan has better press freedoms than Hong Kong has.

I saw that about press freedom. I also saw the part where South Korea has the same rating on press freedom.

Except that there is no record of this with the Chinese government. The fact is that Taiwan has rights under international law. We have an open, free-wheeling political process here that Hong Kong does not have. Comparing political freedom between Hong Kong and Taiwan is an utter joke. Of course Taiwan is more free. And we like it that way.

The difference is that Hong Kong had not been under such a process before being handed over to Chinese rule.

Given the military build up of China currently and in the future, Taiwan without external support would lose (perhaps not today, but within 10 years ).

Oh no, Taiwan without external support would lose in any military scenario under the present circumstances even if China attacked this very moment. Taiwan's leaders are well aware of this fact and so they make all their military plans under the assumption that they only need to hold off China long enough to allow foreign support to arrive. Any scenario that does not include foreign support leads to China's rapid victory.
 
While I don't think we should be protecting ANYBODY other than our own country; congress certainly can overrule him.
 
Your comments on this cause me to believe you have no understanding of military strategy whatsoever. Having all planes in the air is a feat in itself, never mind having all planes in the air at exactly the right moment. It simply would not be doable for Taiwan. China would not build up its force and strike the moment it was ready since that would make defensive planning way too easy for Taiwan. Either they would attack suddenly with those forces in theater that can be used immediately for just such a purpose or build up their forces and keep them on standby for a given time period. In both cases Taiwan would have no real way to avoid a scenario where a substantial number of their aircraft are caught on the ground.

Just as your comments on Taiwan's international legal status vis a vis China lead me to believe that you know little about international law. Notice you ignored my calls for examples of similar transactions of land from one state to another state.


"Many"? Does that not also mean to say "not all"? Also, if you note, I specifically mentioned not allowing such a party to hold political power. This would not impede the ability of groups or individuals to express this view in Taiwan.

But as the majority of Taiwan's people do not consider Taiwan to be a part of China, this WOULD be a significant restriction on the choices of Taiwan's people. What is it about freedom you hate so much?

Like I said, that is an automatic result of its political system. Because of limitations on public elections Hong Kong is regarded as partly free despite the level of actual political freedom in Hong Kong.

Taiwan is more free than Hong Kong. Only the truly delusional would deny that simple fact.

I saw that about press freedom. I also saw the part where South Korea has the same rating on press freedom.

And South Korea is relevant... how? Before Ma took office, Taiwan had the same press freedom rating as Japan.

The difference is that Hong Kong had not been under such a process before being handed over to Chinese rule.

And it is too bad that the U.K. made the decision to return Hong Kong to China, but that was the right of the British government as the legal sovereign over Hong Kong island. Who is the legal sovereign over Taiwan? Taiwan's people, not a foreign government.

Oh no, Taiwan without external support would lose in any military scenario under the present circumstances even if China attacked this very moment. Taiwan's leaders are well aware of this fact and so they make all their military plans under the assumption that they only need to hold off China long enough to allow foreign support to arrive. Any scenario that does not include foreign support leads to China's rapid victory.

There are many smaller nations who would lose to larger neighbors in the event of a military conflict. I suppose they should all surrender without challenging those larger neighbors. That would bring us back to the era of empires, except that, with the exception of China and Russia, most of the more powerful states don't have it in their designs to invade and annex neighbors.
 
But as the majority of Taiwan's people do not consider Taiwan to be a part of China, this WOULD be a significant restriction on the choices of Taiwan's people. What is it about freedom you hate so much?

How do you take from me saying barring politicians from pushing secession is not a serious infringement on liberty that I "hate freedom"? Is it really that unreasonably restrictive for a country to bar its territories from secession and, by extension, barring people from government who would pursue that end?

Taiwan is more free than Hong Kong. Only the truly delusional would deny that simple fact.



And South Korea is relevant... how? Before Ma took office, Taiwan had the same press freedom rating as Japan.

I doubt you are fear-mongering over the idea that Taiwan will end up as free as South Korea.

And it is too bad that the U.K. made the decision to return Hong Kong to China, but that was the right of the British government as the legal sovereign over Hong Kong island. Who is the legal sovereign over Taiwan? Taiwan's people, not a foreign government.

China is the legal sovereign over Taiwan.

There are many smaller nations who would lose to larger neighbors in the event of a military conflict. I suppose they should all surrender without challenging those larger neighbors. That would bring us back to the era of empires, except that, with the exception of China and Russia, most of the more powerful states don't have it in their designs to invade and annex neighbors.

Taiwan would be free to try and resist. I am saying it would be futile. What I am most concerned with is peace and that cannot happen through Taiwan attempting to secede. Eventually it will have to reunify with China. Doing so voluntarily would allow Taiwan to retain its system of government and current level of liberty. If it tries to secede and is forcefully reunified it will be treated less like Hong Kong and more like Tibet.
 
How do you take from me saying barring politicians from pushing secession is not a serious infringement on liberty that I "hate freedom"? Is it really that unreasonably restrictive for a country to bar its territories from secession and, by extension, barring people from government who would pursue that end?

Well, you often seem to take the side of the dictators of the world. Also, as Taiwan is not part of China, politicians arguing for Taiwan's legitimate rights is part of free speech. You would like to deny such a fundamental freedom. It exists in the U.S. and most other civilized countries.

I doubt you are fear-mongering over the idea that Taiwan will end up as free as South Korea.

In many respects, Taiwan is more free than South Korea... and the people here would like to keep it that way.

China is the legal sovereign over Taiwan.

In your mind and the mind of Chinese dictators. Not in the reality of international law. You have not been able to show that territory can be transferred from one state to another state by any means other than a ratified and executed treaty among states.

Taiwan would be free to try and resist. I am saying it would be futile. What I am most concerned with is peace and that cannot happen through Taiwan attempting to secede. Eventually it will have to reunify with China. Doing so voluntarily would allow Taiwan to retain its system of government and current level of liberty. If it tries to secede and is forcefully reunified it will be treated less like Hong Kong and more like Tibet.

Taiwan would not be able to keep its current political system with a merger with China, as you yourself have already admitted. The overwhelming majority of Taiwanese have no desire for such a political merger between the two countries. China has no rights in Taiwan. China ceded Taiwan in a ratified and executed treaty in 1885 and has not engaged in one following that to regain rights here. The PRC has NEVER for one minute had sovereignty over this island country.
 
Well, you often seem to take the side of the dictators of the world. Also, as Taiwan is not part of China, politicians arguing for Taiwan's legitimate rights is part of free speech. You would like to deny such a fundamental freedom. It exists in the U.S. and most other civilized countries.

There's that word again. Also, it has nothing to do with what I would "like" to do. I just think it is a reasonable restriction on political activity. Politicians do not have unlimited rights to do or say what they like while in office. Restricting the actions of politicians on a single non-essential issue is not a serious infringement on general liberty, especially when the restriction is one that is perfectly consistent with the security interests of a country.

In many respects, Taiwan is more free than South Korea... and the people here would like to keep it that way.

Even if Taiwan under Chinese rule were only able to be as free as South Korea would you seriously view that as some horrific catastrophe?

In your mind and the mind of Chinese dictators. Not in the reality of international law. You have not been able to show that territory can be transferred from one state to another state by any means other than a ratified and executed treaty among states.

Except the whole principle under international law is that Japan coerced China into surrendering Taiwan to it and that, as a result, the first transfer was declared illegitimate. The ROC already agreed that the terms of all past treaties, including the one concerning the transfer of Taiwan to Japan, were no longer valid. In other words, the original transfer of territory no longer applied.

Taiwan would not be able to keep its current political system with a merger with China, as you yourself have already admitted. The overwhelming majority of Taiwanese have no desire for such a political merger between the two countries.

Where did I say they would not able their current political system? I said politicians would not be allowed to pursue secession. That you see such a thing as the end of Taiwan's political system speaks to your own radical hostility towards China.

China has no rights in Taiwan. China ceded Taiwan in a ratified and executed treaty in 1885 and has not engaged in one following that to regain rights here. The PRC has NEVER for one minute had sovereignty over this island country.

It was 1895 and, as I just said, the treaty was declared an unequal treaty and thus its terms are no longer valid. Japan already agreed, in the Instrument of Surrender, that Taiwan is Chinese territory. Your insistence that it is not a treaty is simply because of your own ignorance of international law. Someone who understands international law knows that a treaty need not be called a treaty to be one. Any agreement between two parties that has a legally-binding effect is considered a treaty under international law. The Japanese Instrument of Surrender was such a document.
 
There's that word again. Also, it has nothing to do with what I would "like" to do. I just think it is a reasonable restriction on political activity. Politicians do not have unlimited rights to do or say what they like while in office. Restricting the actions of politicians on a single non-essential issue is not a serious infringement on general liberty, especially when the restriction is one that is perfectly consistent with the security interests of a country.

I used the word to forestall any possibility that you would find a single counter-example to try to invalidate my argument. You can't change the fact that in many Western countries, separation talk is permitted -- including the US, Canada, France, U.K. and many others.

Even if Taiwan under Chinese rule were only able to be as free as South Korea would you seriously view that as some horrific catastrophe?

Yes, I would. Taiwan is under the control of Taiwanese and Taiwan is, despite imperfections in the system here, one of the freest countries in Asia.

Except the whole principle under international law is that Japan coerced China into surrendering Taiwan to it and that, as a result, the first transfer was declared illegitimate. The ROC already agreed that the terms of all past treaties, including the one concerning the transfer of Taiwan to Japan, were no longer valid. In other words, the original transfer of territory no longer applied.

Not true. There was nothing illegal or illegitimate about the Treaty of Shimonoseki. The fact is that nearly every treaty of peace is, by definition, an unequal treaty. Under international law as it has been practiced since the days of Hugo Grotius until WWII, such treaties were perfectly legal. Sure, China declared them illegal, but that unilateral declaration has no bearing under international law. If it had, then Hong Kong would have simply reverted back to China without an agreement being signed between them. There are so many other examples that would apply as well. Sorry, your argument has no bearing under international law and would be laughed out of about any international law classroom in Western universities.

Where did I say they would not able their current political system? I said politicians would not be allowed to pursue secession. That you see such a thing as the end of Taiwan's political system speaks to your own radical hostility towards China.

My hostility is toward the Chinese government, which is a threat to the freedoms that I, my family, and 23 million others, enjoy. It would be very natural and normal for me and others to be hostile to that.

It was 1895 and, as I just said, the treaty was declared an unequal treaty and thus its terms are no longer valid. Japan already agreed, in the Instrument of Surrender, that Taiwan is Chinese territory. Your insistence that it is not a treaty is simply because of your own ignorance of international law. Someone who understands international law knows that a treaty need not be called a treaty to be one. Any agreement between two parties that has a legally-binding effect is considered a treaty under international law. The Japanese Instrument of Surrender was such a document.

Untrue. China declared it an unequal treaty, but that declaration did not make it invalid. Also, the Japanese Instrument of Surrender was an armistice, not a treaty. That was signed in 1951 and ratified in 1952. It takes a signed, ratified, and executed treaty to transfer territory from one state to another state. I challenged you before to find a similar situation in which territory was tranferred from one state to another with anything short of such a ratified and executed treaty and you have not been able to find it. You are making a citation from the 1969 Law of Treaties, but that is not accpted by everyone (including some signatories to that 1945 armistice), thus it does not have the status of a treaty. Furthermore, that 1969 law specifically states that it does not apply to agreements signed before it. So, sorry, you don't have a strong case at all under international law.
 
Not true. There was nothing illegal or illegitimate about the Treaty of Shimonoseki. The fact is that nearly every treaty of peace is, by definition, an unequal treaty. Under international law as it has been practiced since the days of Hugo Grotius until WWII, such treaties were perfectly legal. Sure, China declared them illegal, but that unilateral declaration has no bearing under international law. If it had, then Hong Kong would have simply reverted back to China without an agreement being signed between them. There are so many other examples that would apply as well. Sorry, your argument has no bearing under international law and would be laughed out of about any international law classroom in Western universities.

Do you realize that it was not only China that declared those treaties void?

My hostility is toward the Chinese government, which is a threat to the freedoms that I, my family, and 23 million others, enjoy. It would be very natural and normal for me and others to be hostile to that.

I could point to a number of comments you have made that suggest your hostility does not merely extend to the government and no matter how many times you play the "I married a yellow woman" card it is not going to change the revealing things you say about Chinese people in general. Back in the day many white colonists in North America regarded the natives as subhuman, but that did not keep them from knocking up a few. Same goes for white slave-owners (Do not make the ridiculous assumption I am saying you are exactly like those people, because I am only noting that the contempt you show for the people of China in general is not mitigated by the fact it is not universal and absolute contempt).

Also, the Japanese Instrument of Surrender was an armistice, not a treaty. That was signed in 1951 and ratified in 1952. It takes a signed, ratified, and executed treaty to transfer territory from one state to another state. I challenged you before to find a similar situation in which territory was tranferred from one state to another with anything short of such a ratified and executed treaty and you have not been able to find it. You are making a citation from the 1969 Law of Treaties, but that is not accpted by everyone (including some signatories to that 1945 armistice), thus it does not have the status of a treaty. Furthermore, that 1969 law specifically states that it does not apply to agreements signed before it. So, sorry, you don't have a strong case at all under international law.

The Japanese Instrument of surrender was a treaty. Just because it established a ceasefire and not a permanent peace, does not mean it did not have legally-binding effect between nations. A legally-binding agreement between two or more countries is, by definition, a treaty. The content of the instrument indicates that it was clearly intended to have legally-binding effect. So when Japan declared a commitment to fulfill the demands of Potsdam Declaration, they made a legally-binding commitment that Taiwan was China's sovereign territory and that Taiwan was to be returned to China.
 
Do you realize that it was not only China that declared those treaties void?

Who, then, declared those treaties void? You do know that when subsequent treaties refer to "voiding" a treaty, it only refers to those provisions that are continuining. Those clauses that are executed are not included. A basic principle of international law.

I could point to a number of comments you have made that suggest your hostility does not merely extend to the government and no matter how many times you play the "I married a yellow woman" card it is not going to change the revealing things you say about Chinese people in general. Back in the day many white colonists in North America regarded the natives as subhuman, but that did not keep them from knocking up a few. Same goes for white slave-owners (Do not make the ridiculous assumption I am saying you are exactly like those people, because I am only noting that the contempt you show for the people of China in general is not mitigated by the fact it is not universal and absolute contempt).

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. You make racist comments like this in reference to my family and I will report you for it.


The Japanese Instrument of surrender was a treaty. Just because it established a ceasefire and not a permanent peace, does not mean it did not have legally-binding effect between nations. A legally-binding agreement between two or more countries is, by definition, a treaty. The content of the instrument indicates that it was clearly intended to have legally-binding effect. So when Japan declared a commitment to fulfill the demands of Potsdam Declaration, they made a legally-binding commitment that Taiwan was China's sovereign territory and that Taiwan was to be returned to China.

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.

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.

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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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

Indeed. The PRC plan these days is to use Taiwan as an excuse to expand its military budget and basically devour it slowly over time by economic integration. The last thing the PRC wants is an actual shooting war.
 
I would like to see them also knock out all of the highways in Taiwan that can also be used as runways. Annual drills are even held to prepare for this eventuality. The expressways are DESIGNED to allow for fighter landings in the case of an emergency...

Easy. Use cluster bombs over roadways. The PRC doesn't need to destroy them. It merely needs to render them unusable to planes that aren't designed like the Gripen. How many fighters can land and take off from runways that are full of craters? Not even the Gripen can do that, it relies on the audacity to force the enemy to bomb every single road. improved and otherwise. And relying upon highways that will be rendered unusable as your plan is planning to fail.
 
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. ^^


.
A few points

I doubt the missles China currently has in Fujian are meant to be the only assets used to take on Taiwan, but more of a strong deterent to Taiwan declaring formal independance. The only time I expect China to attack Taiwan would be if it declared formal independance.

.
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.


.
The Gripen is an ideal plane for Taiwan and most countries that do not have massive budgets or much in the way of strategic depth. Being a 4.5 gen plane on a 4 gen budget it is one I wish Canada would look at before the F 35. I just dont think 65 F35s will be enough to replace the over 100 F18 that Canada originally bought. At the price of the F 35 Canada really cant afford more

.
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.



Absolutely. Especially in today's red ink.
 
A few points

I doubt the missles China currently has in Fujian are meant to be the only assets used to take on Taiwan, but more of a strong deterent to Taiwan declaring formal independance. The only time I expect China to attack Taiwan would be if it declared formal independance.

Fujian's missile assets would be the first salvo. Taiwan is outclassed in basically everything. But that said, Fujian assets are known. So in a sense relying upon them isn't the best tool.


The Gripen is an ideal plane for Taiwan and most countries that do not have massive budgets or much in the way of strategic depth. Being a 4.5 gen plane on a 4 gen budget it is one I wish Canada would look at before the F 35. I just dont think 65 F35s will be enough to replace the over 100 F18 that Canada originally bought. At the price of the F 35 Canada really cant afford more

Well, the issue with the Gripen is that isn't really a comparable fighter to stop waves of Shenyang J-11s (basically Sukhoi 27s which is an outstanding air superiority plane) and J-10s. The Gripen would work well in harassing and basically griefing the PRC, but in terms of actually stopping a full scale air assault, that is not the plane to rely on.

As for the F-35, honestly, no can really afford it anymore. Cost overruns are ridiculous...which is expected considering the sheer number of requirements that plane is expected to do. Everything from replace A-10s to Harriers. It's interesting how we've basically abandoned specialized air craft roles and built a plane that can do mostly everything. I suspect the F-35 will be a jack of all trades, a master of none. As for Canadian air requirements, I'm not entirely sure why you guys need to replace your F-18s in the first place.
 
Fujian's missile assets would be the first salvo. Taiwan is outclassed in basically everything. But that said, Fujian assets are known. So in a sense relying upon them isn't the best tool.




Well, the issue with the Gripen is that isn't really a comparable fighter to stop waves of Shenyang J-11s (basically Sukhoi 27s which is an outstanding air superiority plane) and J-10s. The Gripen would work well in harassing and basically griefing the PRC, but in terms of actually stopping a full scale air assault, that is not the plane to rely on.

As for the F-35, honestly, no can really afford it anymore. Cost overruns are ridiculous...which is expected considering the sheer number of requirements that plane is expected to do. Everything from replace A-10s to Harriers. It's interesting how we've basically abandoned specialized air craft roles and built a plane that can do mostly everything. I suspect the F-35 will be a jack of all trades, a master of none. As for Canadian air requirements, I'm not entirely sure why you guys need to replace your F-18s in the first place.

The F 18 we have are now around 30 years old or older having been bought in the 80s. They are getting somewhat close to the due date for replacement, We could go with new F18, or F15s.


As for Taiwan, any airforce it is going to have is going to be outclassed by that of China. No difference then any airforce Canada could have would be outclassed by that of the US. Or any airforce of Sweden being outclasse by that of the USSR, at least Sweden would have the benifit of other European airforces to assist. Taiwan would only have the US military and China is working on making US intervention a costly affair, hoping to deter such an act
 
Back
Top Bottom