Jim Walsh wrote: > On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 00:12:18 +0800, rst0wxyz wrote > (in article > <d64eade5-374f-4c51-a318-cc7ac16e8...@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com>):
>>... The >>closest to the 7th Fleet are Taiwan, Japan, and the Philipines. And >>they are all within range of the Chinese medium range missiles.....
> One hour after a missile hit a ship in the 7th Fleet, Europe, America and > Japan would blockade China. and no exports would go out and no imports would > come in. The Chinese economy would implode.
Cough cough... SO would ours. Everything we use is stamped Made in CHINA.
Jim Walsh wrote: > On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 02:07:59 +0800, rst0wxyz wrote > (in article > <c889ed6f-4b4f-4787-8a87-48fcb5078...@u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com>):
>>On Jun 21, 10:42 am, Jim Walsh <jimNOwalsSPA...@gmNOail.com> wrote:
>>>On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 00:54:03 +0800, rst0wxyz wrote >>>(in article >>><c12cca39-f017-49bc-a0aa-f7a8ad31b...@j1g2000prb.googlegroups.com>):
>>>>What good is a blockade when the 7th Fleet didn't do any good? Do you >>>>think >>>>the U.S. economy will sail right through it?
>>>I am saying something very simple. International commercial shipping into >>>and >>>out of China would cease if there were a battle raging in the Taiwan Strait.
>>Do you think commerce will stay as usual for the U.S.? like in WWII? >>dream on!!!
> No. I am not making that claim. But the US economy would experience much less > dislocation than the Chinese economy because the Atlantic would not be > affected.
Europe does not make anything (They even import soccer players now). This thread is stopped making any sense a long time ago. "Not much of a dislocation"....... Sweet Jesus & Mary, you have got to be kidding.
>Michael Shirley wrote: >> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 16:53:34 -0700, tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.comm> >> wrote:
>>> In article <591d6934-7c11-46b4-a85d-10875d27bd94 >>> @s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, rst0w...@yahoo.com says...
>>>> > The issue is whether the people can project their power across >>>> water. And the >>>> > answer is not yet. China does not have a "blue-water" navy.
>>>> How long did it take the U.S. to build a "liberty" ship, a week?
>>> A liberty ship is not a warship.
>> In World War One, they could build four stackers in two weeks and >> fit them out within a month. And that's back in the bad old days when >> we were talking rivets and tar to hold ships together.
I would like a reference for this claim. For the ships that survived WWII, the fastest laid down to launch I can find is a bit over four months with much more being typical. Laid down to completed seems to be more than 8 months
Jim Walsh wrote: > On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 06:41:09 +0800, Fred J. McCall wrote > (in article <qp0r54l689cfdvfkcoloflbgmla0m5h...@4ax.com>):
>>By using all those ports from Shanghai north, which are well out of the way >>of any battle in the Taiwan Straits, of course.
>>Do buy a map.
> Let's see. Going from Shanghai to Europe, hmm. The Taiwan Strait seems the > direct way. Going from Shanghai to Japan, yep. The Taiwan Strait is out of > the way. But Going from Hong Kong to Japan (and vice-a-versa) looks like the > Taiwan Strait is the shortest route.
> Lets see, invading Taiwan, leaving from Shanghai. Wonder why one would start > the invasion from there. And yes, one avoids the Taiwan Strait that way. Not > the shortest route tho. Wonder why one would do so.
> Let's ask Fred J. McCall.
Cough Cough. Thanks to melting Ice Caps,The NW passage is going to be the way to go. See global Warming is a good thing.......
Jim Walsh wrote: > On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 01:10:26 +0800, rst0wxyz wrote > (in article > <c0783f9b-04bf-4d4d-94f5-c7b4f2a7b...@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>):
>>Mainland China's coastal missiles are not threat to Taiwan but a defensive >>system from invasion from the outside.
> False. They are aimed at Taiwan. And besides there is no enemy planning a sea > invasion of China.
> However, the CCP and the hyper-nationalists have repeatedly threatened an > invasion of Taiwan. The aggressor is the CCP and the hyper-nationalists.
Your confusing political BS artists with reality. They talk tough, but reality is the status quo has held for 59 years. Threats are for show. Cold shower reality is, it's not happening.
>> On Jun 21, 1:57 pm, Gary Renzetti <lizg...@connection.com> wrote:
>>> rst0wxyz wrote:
>>>> On Jun 21, 11:48 am, Jim Walsh <jimNOwalsSPA...@gmNOail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 02:24:03 +0800, rst0wxyz wrote >>>>> (in article >>>>> <67fc1b5b-2791-4d72-accf-c5b4ef974...@a32g2000prf.googlegroups.com>):
>>>>>> The Politburo will not lose power, but.... >>>>>> .... The main power will still be in the Politburo.
>>>>> Do you see any inconsistency between those sentences.
>>>> There is no inconsistency.
>>>>> Anyway, I hope the Chinese people gain power, at the expense of the >>>>> Politburo.
>>>> The CCP and the Politburo will not lose power in China.
>>> Well, certainly they will not lose power today or in the immediate >>> future. But forever is a long time and these things can change very >>> rapidly. If I were you, I would hedge my bets on this one.
>> No one said "forever", but within the forseeable future, they will not >> lose power.
> Don't bet the rent on the "foreseeable future" part, remember the former > Soviet Onion. Or, who would have thought twenty years ago that Latvia, > Lithuania and Estonia would ever be independent nations again. This sort > of sea change can come to pass very quickly. > Don't misunderstand, I'm not predicting such an eventuality or > necessarily hoping for it, but I'm not ruling it out entirely either.
Paul J. Adam wrote: > In message <op.uc5mi9mdra3qj7@schooner-blue>, Michael Shirley > <mi5ke...@att.net> writes >> The thing to keep in mind here is that containerships lend >> themselves to all sorts of modular conversions. Everything from >> Merchant Aircraft carriers to auxilliary cruisers and amphibious >> warfare assets. Back when Vickers came up with the Containerised >> Weapons Fit about 1970 or so, people should have been paying >> attention because you can do more with that than just cobble together >> extemporised escort ships.
> It's one of those nice concepts that doesn't quite work in reality. > Leaving aside all the hardware issues (which aren't insignificant), > where do you magic up a crew with the required training and experience? > Whether in using the assorted containerised systems, or in the more > general skills like damage control, or the tactical skills of the > warfare team, it's no easy matter to produce a skilled, worked-up crew: > while simply herding merchant seamen aboard and giving them a hasty > course of Maritime Warfare 101 isn't going to produce much combat value.
The alternative to damage control is to build a new ship. If US warships can sink 10 containerships before being sunk then the Chinese need to produce 11 times as many ships as are in the US Navy.
Fred J. McCall wrote: > Jim Walsh <jimNOwalsSPA...@gmNOail.com> wrote:
> :On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 10:00:19 +0800, Fred J. McCall wrote > :(in article <hccr54ptvtpri6vk4lrmnc12j9e3og7...@4ax.com>): > : > :> Taiwan is not now independent of Mainland China BY ITS OWN DECLARATIONS. > : > :Of course it is. > : > :How much taxes has the PRC collected in Taiwan? What roads has it built? > :When has the PLA sent a solider to Taiwan? > : > :The answers are ZERO, NONE, and NEVER. > :
> How is any of that relevant?
> The answer is NOT AT ALL.
The place has been non Commie for 59 years. By defacto,they are independent. Let's not play you say tomato, he says tomato.....
In article <g3m2mg$mr...@registered.motzarella.org>, william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk says...
> "Michael Shirley" <mi5ke...@att.net> wrote in message > news:op.uc5ofdghra3qj7@schooner-blue... > > That was a C-802. Assuming that this is the prime armament of the Type > > 022 is a bad assumption. The Sunburn is a more likely choice, especially > > since it's faster, has a better range, and can do more damage when it > > hits.
> It's huge.
> It's as big as a bus.
> You can't launch bus sized missiles from a boat 43 meters long.
Sure you can, once....
--
"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!" - Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond"
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 16:53:34 -0700, tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.comm> > wrote:
> > In article <591d6934-7c11-46b4-a85d-10875d27bd94 > > @s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, rst0w...@yahoo.com says... > >> > The issue is whether the people can project their power across water. > >> And the > >> > answer is not yet. China does not have a "blue-water" navy.
> >> How long did it take the U.S. to build a "liberty" ship, a week?
> > A liberty ship is not a warship.
> In World War One, they could build four stackers in two weeks and fit > them out within a month. And that's back in the bad old days when we were > talking rivets and tar to hold ships together.
Umm, i dont believe they did. "Construction of the six Caldwells proceeded slowly: only three commissioned before the armistice (11 November 1918); Seattle?s lone flush-decker, Gwin, did not complete until 1920 (1001 days after her keel was laid, second-slowest of all the flush-deckers). Fastest to launch of all the flush-deckers was Mare Island Navy Yard?s Ward on an accelerated schedule of 16 days (next-fastest were Squantum?s Reid at 36 days, Quincy?s Maury at 61 days and then 9 more ships?all from Bethlehem yards?in 80?89 days). Average for Wickes- and Clemson-class hulls launched by the seven largest builders before the armistice was 148 days. This slipped to 185 days in the year after the armistice; then to 331 days for the remaining ships. Commissionings began in earnest during the third quarter of 1918; 44 ships entered service through 11 November at an average time from launch of 121 days. This, too, slipped thereafter: to 191 days for 99 ships over the next year; then to 308 days for the final 130 ships."
> Granted that's not going to have all of the high tech electronics one of > our Arleigh Burkes have, but when the Navy has roughly 180 ships that are > actually operational at any given time, auxilliary cruisers built on > containership hulls with the Chinese version of the Vickers Containerized > Weapons Fit, are a possibility, especially if the Chinese manufacture and > store the modules now, and then simply install them when it looks like war.
You keep nattering on about that Vickers fit. Has anyone actually put any into service or is it just another paper design ?
> It doesn't take much of a ship for Sea Control/Sea Denial when what few > ships we have, are tasked for Task Force protection or other Force > Projection operations.
You act like everything will occure in a vacume.
--
"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!" - Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond"
> :On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 16:53:34 -0700, tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.comm> > :wrote: > : > :> In article <591d6934-7c11-46b4-a85d-10875d27bd94 > :> @s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, rst0w...@yahoo.com says... > :>> > The issue is whether the people can project their power across water. > :>> And the > :>> > answer is not yet. China does not have a "blue-water" navy. > :>> > :>> How long did it take the U.S. to build a "liberty" ship, a week? > :> > :> > :> A liberty ship is not a warship. > : > : In World War One, they could build four stackers in two weeks and fit > :them out within a month. And that's back in the bad old days when we were > :talking rivets and tar to hold ships together. > :
> That's rather irrelevant, but I'd like a cite anyway.
See my reply but I will recap here One ship, the Ward was launched in 16 days with a great deal of advance planning. The same kind of stunt as the Liburty Ship buit in a few days in WW2. The next fastest to build took 36 days. One took as long as 1087 from keel laying to commisioning.
--
"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!" - Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond"
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 16:53:51 -0700, tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.comm> > wrote:
> > In article <c889ed6f-4b4f-4787-8a87-48fcb5078ff3 > > @u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, rst0w...@yahoo.com says... > >> On Jun 21, 10:42 am, Jim Walsh <jimNOwalsSPA...@gmNOail.com> wrote: > >> > On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 00:54:03 +0800, rst0wxyz wrote > >> > (in article > >> > <c12cca39-f017-49bc-a0aa-f7a8ad31b...@j1g2000prb.googlegroups.com>):
> >> > > What good is a blockade when the 7th Fleet didn't do any good? Do > >> you think > >> > > the U.S. economy will sail right through it?
> >> > I am saying something very simple. International commercial shipping > >> into and > >> > out of China would cease if there were a battle raging in the Taiwan > >> Strait.
> >> Do you think commerce will stay as usual for the U.S.? like in WWII? > >> dream on!!!
> > Who would hinder it ? > > China surely can't,
> And which sea control assets would we use to try to bottle China up? We > outsourced that to Britain, France, Germany and Japan so that we could > concentrate on Force Projection. And if they decide to cut bait rather > than fish, we've got this big gaping hole in our fleet because it's > anything but balanced.
Outline how the current fleet would be unsuitable for sea control ? Or for that matter why you think it is unbalanced.
--
"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!" - Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond"
> :In article <qqpt54tck9sic5h0qf44mldjvtdqnp6...@4ax.com>, > :fmcc...@earthlink.net says... > :> tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.comm> wrote: > :> > :> :In article <uoar54hdu56s6gtodifinssu57lkh14...@4ax.com>, > :> :fmcc...@earthlink.net says... > :> :> Jim Walsh <jimNOwalsSPA...@gmNOail.com> wrote: > :> :> > :> :> :On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 08:49:14 +0800, Fred J. McCall wrote > :> :> :(in article <698r545edogi73qgsm9fqqu7hisjuis...@4ax.com>): > :> :> :> > :> :> :> Your 'reasoning' for why this would happen is based on the totally false > :> :> :> opinion on your part that all ships going to and from Mainland China must go > :> :> :> through the Taiwan Straits. > :> :> :> > :> :> : > :> :> :No, not all. > :> :> : > :> :> :Most. Some. > :> :> : > :> :> > :> :> Care to try for 'a little'? > :> :> > :> :> : > :> :> :All would be in the vicinity of a battle, and yeah, commercial ships love > :> :> :that. So they would be just chugging along. > :> :> : > :> :> > :> :> For a very large value of 'vicinity'. Which brings us back to that > :> :> 'buy a map' advice I gave you earlier. > :> :> > :> :> Draw a circle 1500 kilometers or so across around Taiwan. Unlikely an > :> :> invasion of Taiwan would affect a larger area of ocean. Now look > :> :> where most of China's commercial ports are... > :> : > :> :There is no gurantee that Taiwan doesn't have plans to "close" those > :> :mainland ports in the event of a conflict.. > :> : > :> > :> In general they cannot reach them. Most of the Mainland ports are out > :> of reach of aircraft from Taiwan. Taiwan has an adequate surface > :> navy, but it's certainly not large enough to repeatedly fight its way > :> in to wreck Mainland China's ports and then fight its way back out > :> again. Taiwan only has 2 submarines, which isn't enough to either > :> blockade or mine all those Mainland ports. > : > :They don't have to lay many mines to spread fear. > :Remember the effort required when Iran let a few loose in the Gulf. > :And remember they may have laid them using merchant ships.. > :
> True, but there's a bit of a difference in the two situations.
> Free floating mines aren't going to do the job in this case. Take a > look at how many ports we're talking about and how long the Chinese > coast is.
Disrupt some of the major ports.
> What percentage of shipping in and out of China goes in > Chinese-controlled shipping?
I don't know. How much of the non-Chinese shipping will hazard entering a potentioally mined port ?
--
"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!" - Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond"
> :In article <2ipt549t7ieibtdtjtuaasnh3jaa2gd...@4ax.com>, > :fmcc...@earthlink.net says... > :> tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.comm> wrote: > :> > :> :In article <7d59fe75-ddca-4f53-815d- > :> :0623a60d5...@w34g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, rst0w...@yahoo.com says... > :> :> > :> :> Today's China is not yesterday's China where they had no factories to > :> :> produce machineries and bombs. Most of today's world market goods are > :> :> produced in China. Each escalation will be matched until the end. > :> :> China is huge, mountainous and with 1.3 billion hard working people. > :> :> Today, China can not be defeated by the U.S. > :> : > :> :Total blockade of any goods shipped from China. > :> :The PRC falls in one month > :> > :> I wouldn't be too sure of that. As long as there are generals in the > :> PLA who are willing to drive tanks over unarmed civilians this simply > :> won't happen. > :> > :> Total blockade of any goods shipped from China. Unrest starts to rise > :> in those 'economic experimentation' areas that currently enjoy the > :> prosperity from this trade. Troops from other regions of the country > :> are brought in and shoot a few hundred people. Revolt over. > : > :Or just the beginning of the next Chinese civil war. > :What happens when the generals who control the regions resist the > :outside troops ? > :
> Pure fantasy. One can make up anything. Look at Tiananmen Square and > how that happened. You see a lot of local military resisting, did > you?
Why did the local troops not put the demonstration down ? Why did the central government have to bring in troops from other provinces ?
> Of course not. And it wouldn't happen this time, either.
Who knows for sure.
--
"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!" - Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond"
> Jim Walsh wrote: > > On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 01:10:26 +0800, rst0wxyz wrote > > (in article > > <c0783f9b-04bf-4d4d-94f5-c7b4f2a7b...@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>):
> >>Mainland China's coastal missiles are not threat to Taiwan but a defensive > >>system from invasion from the outside.
> > False. They are aimed at Taiwan. And besides there is no enemy planning a sea > > invasion of China.
> > However, the CCP and the hyper-nationalists have repeatedly threatened an > > invasion of Taiwan. The aggressor is the CCP and the hyper-nationalists.
> Your confusing political BS artists with reality. They talk tough, but > reality is the status quo has held for 59 years. Threats are for show. > Cold shower reality is, it's not happening.
You oversimplified a very political matter. Before the opening-up of China, the CCP held firm control over not only all the physical resources in China, but also people's minds. They could afford doing all sorts of political blustering without actually going to war. Plus, at that time, they were more interested in competing with US and Soviet Union on a global scale with constant threat of direct invasion by the superpowers. It's only natural they would not place too much real priority on taking back Taiwan. Now is different, China is rich and fast developing all sorts of new weapons, but the government has lost its grip on people's mind, Communism has lost its appeal long time ago, the government doesn't even bother to talk much about Communism any more. The legitimacy of the government comes from its ability to deliver high growth rate, build China back into a global power and regain lost glories. You may not have to worry about threat of war when the regime itself was firmly in control, but to dismiss the same threat at a time a simple deal to buy stuff could ignite a firestorm against the government with millions of 20 somethings accusing the government of selling out the motherland,you are making a grave mistake.
:> :> :In article <qqpt54tck9sic5h0qf44mldjvtdqnp6...@4ax.com>, :> :fmcc...@earthlink.net says... :> :> tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.comm> wrote: :> :> :> :> :In article <uoar54hdu56s6gtodifinssu57lkh14...@4ax.com>, :> :> :fmcc...@earthlink.net says... :> :> :> Jim Walsh <jimNOwalsSPA...@gmNOail.com> wrote: :> :> :> :> :> :> :On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 08:49:14 +0800, Fred J. McCall wrote :> :> :> :(in article <698r545edogi73qgsm9fqqu7hisjuis...@4ax.com>): :> :> :> :> :> :> :> :> Your 'reasoning' for why this would happen is based on the totally false :> :> :> :> opinion on your part that all ships going to and from Mainland China must go :> :> :> :> through the Taiwan Straits. :> :> :> :> :> :> :> : :> :> :> :No, not all. :> :> :> : :> :> :> :Most. Some. :> :> :> : :> :> :> :> :> :> Care to try for 'a little'? :> :> :> :> :> :> : :> :> :> :All would be in the vicinity of a battle, and yeah, commercial ships love :> :> :> :that. So they would be just chugging along. :> :> :> : :> :> :> :> :> :> For a very large value of 'vicinity'. Which brings us back to that :> :> :> 'buy a map' advice I gave you earlier. :> :> :> :> :> :> Draw a circle 1500 kilometers or so across around Taiwan. Unlikely an :> :> :> invasion of Taiwan would affect a larger area of ocean. Now look :> :> :> where most of China's commercial ports are... :> :> : :> :> :There is no gurantee that Taiwan doesn't have plans to "close" those :> :> :mainland ports in the event of a conflict.. :> :> : :> :> :> :> In general they cannot reach them. Most of the Mainland ports are out :> :> of reach of aircraft from Taiwan. Taiwan has an adequate surface :> :> navy, but it's certainly not large enough to repeatedly fight its way :> :> in to wreck Mainland China's ports and then fight its way back out :> :> again. Taiwan only has 2 submarines, which isn't enough to either :> :> blockade or mine all those Mainland ports. :> : :> :They don't have to lay many mines to spread fear. :> :Remember the effort required when Iran let a few loose in the Gulf. :> :And remember they may have laid them using merchant ships.. :> : :> :> True, but there's a bit of a difference in the two situations. :> :> Free floating mines aren't going to do the job in this case. Take a :> look at how many ports we're talking about and how long the Chinese :> coast is. : :Disrupt some of the major ports. :
To do that requires putting the mines in or near the ports and keeping them there. I don't believe Taiwan has that capability from what I read.
: :> What percentage of shipping in and out of China goes in :> Chinese-controlled shipping? : :I don't know. :How much of the non-Chinese shipping will hazard entering a :potentioally mined port ? :
How will it get mined?
Taiwan doesn't have the capability to mine ports that are thousands of kilometers away.
-- "We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm. -- George Orwell
:> :> :In article <2ipt549t7ieibtdtjtuaasnh3jaa2gd...@4ax.com>, :> :fmcc...@earthlink.net says... :> :> tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.comm> wrote: :> :> :> :> :In article <7d59fe75-ddca-4f53-815d- :> :> :0623a60d5...@w34g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, rst0w...@yahoo.com says... :> :> :> :> :> :> Today's China is not yesterday's China where they had no factories to :> :> :> produce machineries and bombs. Most of today's world market goods are :> :> :> produced in China. Each escalation will be matched until the end. :> :> :> China is huge, mountainous and with 1.3 billion hard working people. :> :> :> Today, China can not be defeated by the U.S. :> :> : :> :> :Total blockade of any goods shipped from China. :> :> :The PRC falls in one month :> :> :> :> I wouldn't be too sure of that. As long as there are generals in the :> :> PLA who are willing to drive tanks over unarmed civilians this simply :> :> won't happen. :> :> :> :> Total blockade of any goods shipped from China. Unrest starts to rise :> :> in those 'economic experimentation' areas that currently enjoy the :> :> prosperity from this trade. Troops from other regions of the country :> :> are brought in and shoot a few hundred people. Revolt over. :> : :> :Or just the beginning of the next Chinese civil war. :> :What happens when the generals who control the regions resist the :> :outside troops ? :> : :> :> Pure fantasy. One can make up anything. Look at Tiananmen Square and :> how that happened. You see a lot of local military resisting, did :> you? : :Why did the local troops not put the demonstration down ? :
You have to understand the situation. The local troops weren't ordered to put the demonstration down because the government didn't want to get into a situation where the troops should start running over students and refused.
:Why did the central government have to bring in troops from other :provinces ?
Because the central government wanted to use troops from an area where the people would resent the smartass young city punks, so that if it came to a showdown they wouldn't get one of those situations where the tanks refuse to roll over the demonstration.
Did the local troops try to do anything to stop them? No.
:> Of course not. And it wouldn't happen this time, either. : :Who knows for sure.
How sure do you have to be to be 'for sure'?
I'd bet money on it, which means I'm pretty sure.
-- "The way of the samurai is found in death. If by setting one's heart right every morning and evening, one is able to live as though his body were already dead, he gains freedom in The Way. His whole life will be without blame, and he will succeed in his calling." -- "Hagakure Kikigaki", Yamamoto Tsunetomo
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:57:37 +0800, Fred J. McCall wrote (in article <2apu541dt35ja9p99v09h2agvbpugf0...@4ax.com>):
> Just who is going to declare and enforce this imaginary blockade of Mainland > China?
Europe, Japan, the USA and (probably) India.
-- Love, Jim (I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive crossposts.)
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
>> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 20:38:50 -0700, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> >> wrote:
>>> What percentage of shipping in and out of China goes in >>> Chinese-controlled shipping?
>> Almost all of it and if the PLA-N says sail, they will.
> Which was sort of my point. Taiwan doesn't have an adequate force > structure to stop that.
You are pretending, in spite of endless statements to the contrary, including a law, that the 7th Fleet would not do anything.
Taiwan and the US have made a deal. The US has promised to stop any invasion and in exchange the ROC has not built a force large enough to quash an invasion by itself.
-- Love, Jim (I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive crossposts.)
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
> Fred J. McCall wrote: >> Jim Walsh <jimNOwalsSPA...@gmNOail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 10:12:56 +0800, Fred J. McCall wrote >>> (in article <e7dr54ht838pg6a2c2au1h6paa87he4...@4ax.com>):
>>>>>>>>>> The date of the declaration was Sept. 30, 2007. I'm not looking >>>>> up the details but the name of the couuntry was left as Republic >>>>> of China but it was to be referred to as Taiwan. Taiwan at that >>>>> time and the last vestiges to claims to being the legitimate >>>>> government of mainland China were abandoned.
>>>> Really! I seem to have missed that. I don't suppose you'd have a cite >>>> to >>> it?
>>> Other than calling Taiwan Formosa you claim to be such an expert. >>> Undoubtedly >>> you know that Taiwan no longer claims to be the government of the >>> Mainland, >>> right?
>> <much irrelevant material elided>
>> Nowhere in there was there anything to indicate that Taiwan no longer >> claimed to be the government of the Mainland. They admit to >> 'controlling what they control', right enough. But even you note they >> refer to the "Free Area of China", implying there is a single country; >> China.
> Semantics arguement. Reality? They will never have power over the > mainland. Two nations, one people.
The ROC on Taiwan explicitly and clearly renounced any claim to be the legitimate government of the PRC. That was a positive step.
Now will the CCP renounce the use of force against Taiwan and sign a peace treaty as President Ma has proposed?
-- Love, Jim (I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive crossposts.)
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 11:42:51 +0800, tankfixer wrote (in article <MPG.22ca0d1a7235bda3989...@nntp.earthlink.net>):
> In article <mo6u541m25ish64uon1ud7v3m9j398c...@4ax.com>, > fmcc...@earthlink.net says... >> Pure fantasy. One can make up anything. Look at Tiananmen Square and >> how that happened. You see a lot of local military resisting, did >> you?
> Why did the local troops not put the demonstration down? > Why did the central government have to bring in troops from other > provinces?
Because the local troops knew that the demonstrations were not counter-revolutionary and would not kill. So Deng sent for troops who were carefully prevented from hearing the full story. Those troops were willing to kill.
-- Love, Jim (I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive crossposts.)
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
