plawolfThere will not be any AA refueling over Taiwan during a war since slow lumbering tankers will never have a chance in hell of surviving in such a high threat area. The fighters performing the refueling manuver will also be horribly exposed during that period. That is why tankers never go where they might be exposed to any kind of hostile attack.
Any refueling will most likely take place over the mainland, where it is safe, just to top up on some of the birds that might not have enough to get back to base after some intense manovers. However, with the straits only 110~150km wide, and with PLAAF air bases dotting the region, I don’t really see the PLAAF needing refueling much. They might have a couple of tankers circling behind the safety of some S300s and fighter support to give emergency top-ups when needed.
The likes of the flanker will have zero problems staying on station over Taiwan for hours on end with just internal fuel, however, the PLAAF would be unlikely to send them in on full tanks as that would drastically degrade their agility, but even at normal combat load, they will still have more then enough fuel to not have to worry about loter time. The limiting factor will be the number of weapons they can carry.
The J8 is the only other type within the PLAAF inventor that is capable of A-A refueling, and they are the only type that is likely to actually need it. The planes that really need the extra legs refueling will give them are the J7s, but they are not equiped for it.
plawolfDid Israelis use Chobham on their Merkavas?
plawolfThe Battle of Britain scenario does not hold so much because of other factors. Let’s say Germany had V-1s and V-2s in that scenario. Now that is much more closer to the scenario Taiwan faces.
Even then its still fundamentially flawed. The biggest problem the Germans faced in BoB was the lack of range of its fighters. Even then, the British fighter command only barely survived because instead of delivering the deciding blow, the Germans switched from targeting air fields to terror bombing cities at the eleventh hour.
If you must equate China-Taiwan to the BoB, then imagine the Lufwaffer with drop tanks and P51s.
plawolfThat’s why I say if the US were serious about helping them they’d offer them 6 – 8 retired 688s (refurbished of course) armed with TLAM-Ns. Of course if the US did that they might find Iran armed with Chinese nukes and maybe AQ gets one or two also. Maybe Taiwan needs to develope nukes independantly but I don’t know that they’d be able to hide the effort from the world. Do they have any nuclear power plants?
Even LAs would be of limited use. SSNs do not enjoy that many advanatges over SSKs in litorals, in fact, SSKs tend to be quieter. Operating in the straits would be a very bad idea as that would put them smake bang in the middle of the PLAN and land based ASW assets as well as being badly outnumbered by SSKs. Even if the PLAN can’t detect them sneaking around, the moment they let loose a fish or Harpoon, they’d be swamped, and last time I checked, nothing can hide from active sonar pinning.
SSNs are best suited to attacking out in the open oceans, but the only thing they will find out there are freighters. Attacking those ships will see Taiwan loose what little international support it have pretty fast, and 6~8 LAs are hardly going to come close to bringing China’s economy to its knees, especially since it’ll be all be impossible for those subs to re-arm once open hostilities break out.
I still think a medium carrier or two for the F35Bs with maybe a couple of LAs apiece as esscorts will cause Beijing more headaches.
As for nukes, well as already pointed out, there is no way Taiwan will be able to keep something that big from Beijing and the world. Trying to develop one now would be as good as declearing independence, because everyone will know that that’s the next step. What more, it Taiwan is caught developing nukes, then the US will have a hard time justifying its support for the island, what with all its rhetoric and actions on Iraq, Iran and NK lately.
plawolfApparently your idea of “debating” is just stating the other views to be “unlikely to happen” and end it with a period. Who cares if you are mirror-imaging, who cares if there are other relevant view, all different views must be “charater assassination” on you. No one needs to state any reasons, predictions of what’s “unlikely” will count as “logic”.
Right, you go ahead and keep thinking that.
Wow, a lack of memory as well. Are you active trying to be a cliche? :rolleyes: So according to you, calling people a ‘self-appointed prophet’ is not a poor attempt at attacking someone’s charater? :rolleyes:
If you bother going back, you will see that I have supported all my points with arguments based on logic and reason. Something you have failed to do for any of your assertions. An old saying regarding a kettle and a pot comes into mind right now. :rolleyes:
I have explained and defended my views from the start and throughout. You are the one coming up with the kind of unlikely scenarios that appear in the cheaper kind of fiction and insisting that they be taken seriously based on nothing more then your say so. You have not provided any factal evidence or logical arguements to support how likely extreme instances like the PRC falling into such internal conflict that the CCP’s power is fundermentally threatened or Taiwan falling into all out civil war could occur. Instead you ask me to do your work for you and prove how unlikely they are. How is that any different from basing a scenario on an asterio hitting and then demanding others dispove it by proving that an asterio will not hit? :rolleyes:
Its pretty clear that you have full blinders on that protect you from the truth, that, or you have major issues with understanding english properly, which I doubt. Either way, I have wasted enough time on a closed mind like yours. I have made my points pretty clear, and frankly, I couldn’t care less what you think. You can have the last word if you must, rest asured I will not be replying.
plawolfWhat ever happen to the proposal to purchase AV-8B Harriers from the US??? Seems like even a small number equipped with APG-65 Radars and AMRAAM’s would be very valuble to tiny Tawain…………… :rolleyes:
From what I gathered, the planes are a bit too old now, and its not like the Marines were using them sparingly. So all in all, it was decided that the better solution was to bet on China not attacking for a few years and wait for the F35B. That way, they don’t need to set up the whole support, training and operations infrastruture for a fighter type that will only be useful for 5, 10 years. Hell, it’ll probably take them a good 5 years or so to get everything up and running.
plawolfHow convenient. Just use rhetorical comparison like “happen if an asterio hits Taiwan” to claim any other scenarios to be far-fetched. That’s not “logic”, it’s fallacy using false analogy and begging the question.
Repeatedly implying that any major changes other than Taiwan independence is impossible by saying they’re improbable isn’t “arguments are based on plain facts, logic and reason”, that’s another fallacy called Proof by Assertion. All you did was stating your assumptions over and over, without any analysis of “why” something is “unlikely” to happen – That’s exactly what a self-appointed prophet would always do.
Ha, I don’t need to prove anything since it is you who is the one dreaming up far-fetched fansical scenarios to prove a point that was not even contest. All you have done is invent scenario after scenario whereby something so drastic happens that it compeletly ulters the current balance regardless of how likely it is to happen. Your first and only critiera is ‘does it make China more likely to attack Taiwan’. When someone points out the blindingly obvious fault that such events are extremely unlikely to happen, what do you, do you defend your propostrus claims with logic, reason and facts? No, you just go after the one asking the difficult questions with pathetic attempts at charater assassination with wild, baseless claims and deliberate attempts to twist what has been said so it suits your own agenda. Thats not called debating, its BSing, and its sad.
plawolfEven hand held MGs in open firing areas on aircraft were found fairly early on to be of limited use in gunfights. Look at hand held Lewis guns vs fixed forward firing guns in WWI. The reality is that in a real dogfight stearing the whole aircraft at the target and manouvering to get into a good firing position and then concentrating multiple guns on one target at once make much more sense than a trainable gun… no matter how easily it can be aimed.
And how is that not a technical issue? Gunfighters prefer speed and agility over a turret because the turret’s weapons are not powerful enough to outweigh the performance pentalties having one imposes on the flight charateristics of a plane. However, if they had the option of fitting modern 20/30mm attack helo cannon turrets on WWII fighters, do you thing any designer would not want to have one on their fighters? Yet thats the situation attack helo designers find themselves in.
For the same or a tiny (relative) bit more, they can have a trainable turret instead of a fix gun. Thus far, everyone except the Russians have gone with a trainable turret for their dedicated attack helos, even the Russians chose a trainable turreted helo over a fixed gun one (although that would have only been one factor amongst many).
Against ground targets a moveable gun is worth while because it means the gunner and the pilot can each do their own thing… within reason… the pilot can fly to avoid enemy fire, while the gunner can select the most dangerous targets and change targets easily.
Not to meantion far better reaction time.
I disagree. It will the the guy who sees the other first that has the advantage whether they have a trainable gun or not.
Agreed, but thats not comparing the different design philosophies is it? :diablo: Assuming they both see each other at the same time.
For air to air more powerful fixed guns are better than underpowered movable guns. In the case of the Hind they had to make a choice between moveable gun mount in 50 cal or fixed gun with greater range and much greater hitting power… they chose the fixed gun. In the case of both replacement options (Havoc and Hokum) they used moveable guns of the same power as the fixed gun used in the Hind.
Isn’t that a technical issue you just described? They chose the fixed gun because the trainable ones available at the time were not as powerful. However, with technological advancement, they were able to develop a trainable gun with the same performance as the fixed one, and lone behold, the next design used the trainable gun (the Hokum chose a semi-fixed position for reasons other then power, and it lost the Russian competion).
The Havoc has a proper turret, whereas the Hokum has elevation capabilities and only minor 15 degree or so traverse capabilities. The reason for this was that the coaxial rotor design allows pedal turns at almost any speed to the helo can be pointed at the target in almost any situation. This means the gun can be fitted near the centre of gravity of the aircraft which means it is much more accurate than most other helo mounted guns and is less effected by recoil with regards to accuracy.
Thanks for that bit of info, however, I am spectical as to whether the Hokum can turn faster then the Havoc’s turret.
plawolfIf there are serious internal problems that could challenge Chinese Communist Party’s power, a war against Taiwan would greatly enhance CCP’s legitimacy and allows it to stay in control. The ruling party’s power’s interest and survival is always above the national interest in authoritarian systems like PRC.
And is that remotely likely to happen in the forseeable future? What next, what would happen if an asterio hits Taiwan? :rolleyes:
“Foreign intervention” is as it is, a vague phrase ensures maximum flexibility. It includes but not limited to military alliance. Severely limiting the phrase to your interpretation and declare it unlikely doesn’t make it more real.
Did I write the ‘motivation’ part of my last post in some strange alien code? :rolleyes:
I’ll recap for those who seems to have reading problems. The *fundamental key* issue is motivation. If the PRC wants to invade Taiwan, they can manufacture any number of excuses to justify it. However, there is zero reason for the PRC to attack as things stand without a major change in the current situation since time is firmly on the PRC’s side here. The longer they wait, the greater the chance that Taiwan will reunite peacefully. Even if a miliary solution is ultimately needed, the longer they wait, the more overwhelming the PLA’s advantage will be, which equals less PLA losses, shorter war and reduced chance of foreign intervention. But thats decades away at least.
Internal conflict in Taiwan is not unimaginable, look at the 2004 election result and the events since then. The identity crisis in Taiwan has polarized the politics. Saying “Taiwan internal conflict” is not a good time to attack Taiwan is only stating your own view, it doesn’t reflect or change clearly stated official position.
Again, one wonders about your reading abilities. What part of ‘optimist clause for the PLA to take advanatge of any internal conflict on the island‘ reads as ‘Taiwan internal conflict is not a good time to attack Taiwan’ to you? :rolleyes:
The ground is cleared for the PLA to move in and take advanatge of any major internal conflict on the island (read full blown civil war), as a) Taiwan’s economy is majorly threatened, and b) it is a golden opportunity for the PRC to take Taiwan with minimal losses in the shortest possible time without as much international hooha as if the PLA attacked without ‘provocation’.
However polarised the island is, full blown civil war is far from likely, thus it can be safely discounted as a likely cause of war.
That seems like a pattern here: you kept insisting all other scenarios unlikely based on your personal opinions, not PLA or CCP’s.
No, I am using logic and reason to discount obviously improbably causes of war in the starits. On the other hand, you are just dreaming up increasingly far fetched scenarios where something other then Taiwan declearing independence might cause war while not even bothering/able to properly read what has been written. Most the time you are arguing with an imaginary opponent based on your own misreadings, the rest of the time you are just making things up.
Who are you to say there won’t be “a major and unfavourable change in the present course of things”? Are you now an all-knowing prophet?
Unable to understand plain english again, suprise suprise. :rolleyes:
If you are going to quote me, at least try not to take mere fragments that distort the original meaning as you have been doing every time now. :rolleyes:
My original words were, ‘there is no justifiable motivation for the PRC to attack Taiwan as long as there isn’t a major and unfavourable change in the present course of things’.
As for your question. Well I’m no prophet, and I don’t need to be. My argeuments are based on plain facts, logic and reason, there is nothing magical, and if you take more time to read and understand what has been written, purhaps you’d be able to see that.
plawolfOf course “can” doesn’t necessarily mean “will”. Yet when anyone says PRC will invade Taiwan if Taiwan declares Independence, nobody would respond with “PRC can attack independent Taiwan doesn’t mean PRC will”.
Thats just circular reasoning and has zero substance. It doesn’t even make sense.
It’s all about probability, motivation, rate of success, and past history.
So how about you come up with some reasonable motivation for the PRC to attack Taiwan? What would be so important for the PRC to risk and loose so much for when all the indication is that a) Taiwan will very likely reunite with the mainland peacefully some time in the future, and b) The island will be easier to take for less losses and risk the longer the PRC waits, so why rush?
We could pretend my previous message doesn’t support anything, but even then:
We don’t have to pretend. :diablo:
On motivation alone there were several discussed, including the aforementioned official PRC positions.
The other scenarios were included for very specific reasons. The foreign intervention/invasion clause was put there for the benefit of the US, the meaning is very clear. ‘Set up based on Taiwan and we attack’. As for the internal chao, well thats an optimist clause for the PLA to take advanatge of any internal conflict on the island. Neither scenario is even remotely likely, thus irrelevent.
It’s clear no one should claim “Taiwan Independence” is the “only” scenario that would lead to war (see #35 & #60). Once this is accepted, then all other mistakes are obvious.
And who exactly has claimed that Taiwan declearing independence is the only *possible* scenario? :rolleyes:
Go back and re-read if you must, but we have stressed right from the start that Taiwan declearing independence is the only remotely *likely* scenario.
As you have so pointlessly demonstrated, there are an almost infinate number of excuses any nation can use to declear war on any other. So what? If we are to attempt to list and discount them all, then we would be here forever. The critical factor is that all of those possible scenarios whereby there might be war is so unlikely to occur that it is simply pointless to discuss them.
The key issue here is motavation. With the motavation to attack, China can use any excuse they want to start a war with Taiwan at any time. But there is no justifiable motivation for the PRC to attack Taiwan as long as there isn’t a major and unfavourable change in the present course of things.
plawolfI don´t know the quality of chinese cruisemissiles or other stand-off weapons, but is´nt these kind of weapons a bit overrated? I certainly don´t think they are the ultimate airbase-killers. And how many of those does China have in its inventory?
I’d be extremely suprised if the PLA would waste all its expensive, metre accurate long range weapons to crater runways. These weapons, if used to target airbases, will be aiming for the fighter shelters, fuel stores, weapons deports etc. The SRBMs are better suited at mud moving. At most, the PLA might spare a few percision weapons per runway during the opening attack to make sure that the airbases are not launching and recovering planes during those critical hours and to maximise the chances that the expensive jets are still on the ground when the missiles start hitting.
To keep the bases off line, the PLA have very long range MLRS. While even the newest and longest ranged versons (there are reports of 200km ranged QW2s) still don’t have enough range to hit much of Taiwan from the mainland, there have been pictures of excerises where they are shown firing their rockets while loaded on flat-top ships.
If just the Taiwanese airforce could survive the first waves of cruisemissiles (wich I believe they would) they would have a big chance of encountering the following waves of chinese fighter/bombers together with its SAM´s…
It really depends on the context of the battle. If Taiwan triggers the war by declearing independence, then they should be ready for the PLA attack. If they hide all their jets in the mountain shelters, it will be hard for the PLA to hit them. However, unless these shelters have mile long runways inside with a 50m wide entrance, no jets will be operating from them if the runway outside resembles the surface of the moon.
If the planes are outside for whatever reason, then they are in real trouble. You can’t keep them all in the air for long for obvious reasons. Even if you can manage to keep 1/3 aloft at all times with the rest on standby, Taiwan will only get a few minutes of advanced warning of SRBM launch, maybe a little longer for cruise missiles since they should be easy to spot as they cross the strait. Then you are faced with a tough choice. Launch everything? It’ll be a hell of a task to get that many planes in the air at such short notice, but even if the ROCAF manages it (which I seriously doubt it can), they’d still be serious screwed, especially if the PLAAF doesn’t actually send any planes over.
The missiles and rockets will still be coming, and the majority would likely get through, quite a number of which would be heading for the airfeilds. Even if they are empty, the runways will still almost certainly be taken out. What are all those planes in the air going to do in a few hours when their fuel runs out? If by some miracle there is one runway open and you can land the planes, it’ll still take hours to recover and refuel them. During which time, they’d be sitting ducks, and what are the odds that the PLA is going to just sit back and let them get on with it? Hell, if I was planning an attack on Taiwan, I’d leave one or two runways open on purpose, and then just go nuts and plaster the place with a hundred or two of SRBMs once most of the planes are on the ground.
Keep the planes on the ground would not be a much better choice as they are likely to be destroyed on the ground.
As for SAMs, well any PLAAF strike package heading to Taiwan will be supported by EW and anti-radiation assets, so their effect should not be overestimated.
I surely don´t think China could destroy the Taiwanese airforce only with cruisemissiles and that Taiwan would waste of all its SAMs by trying to shot down these missiles.
With even simple tactics like the one I briefly outline above, the PLA can cause serious problems for the ROCAF. Do I think the PLA can destroy the entire ROCAF on the ground? No. However, I can easily see the PLA taking out a significant proportion of Taiwan’s planes without even needing to send in fighters of their own. The ROCAF is outclassed in quality and quantity at its full strength, with a significant part of its force destroyed, exiled or grounded for no PLAAF losses, it’ll take some seriously stupid mistakes on the PLA side for them not to gain air dominance over the straits and Taiwan itself.
plawolfDistraction must be proportional to the domestic problem. Anti-Japanese and nationalism rallies are only good enough for small problems during peacetime. When there is a true crisis, then “historical responsibility of recovering holy territories of Motherland” would do very nicely.
Iraqi were fighting a ‘patriotic’ war against Kuwait when it attempts to recover territories that is rightfully theirs. Germans were ‘patriotic’ when they supported Hitler and Germany’s expansion. Americans were quite ‘patriotic’ for supporting the invasion of Afghan to punish enemy for 9/11. There is no escape for “do it for your country” and “for the motherland”.
PRC’s non-intervention appearance is just a tool to restrict other major nations’ powers and to reduce the likelihood of foreign nations helping Taiwan or intervene in other internal affairs. No modern powers would point finger at itself. USSR didn’t call itself expansionist, US didn’t call itself imperialistic. There are always excuses, PRC is exactly the same. Attacking Tibet? Tibet is historically part of China! Attacking Vietnam? It’s only to punish them for their betrayal! Sino-India War? Those Indian *******s try to steal our borders! Sino-Soviet War? Damn Russian are taking our land! You could write the same type of defense for US. War against Mexico? Hey we were only integrating the independent Texas republic! War against Vietnam? We were only trying to prevent the spread of commies! Kosovo War? We were there for humanitarian purpose!
The record does speak for itself, China is as “peace loving” as any of the major powers. If we want to talk about pre-PRC times, then look at the old Chinese empire history: it’s full of stories about “conquering the barbarians”. The “we suffered in the past” excuse does not change other actions. Japan was facing the same type of Western colonialism before WWII, Iraqi had to deal with problems under Ottoman Empire and UK, Germany suffered from Treaty of Versailles, US had Pearl Harbor and 9/11. What does this mean to the Jews killed by Hitler? What does it mean to the Chinese killed by Japanese in Nanjing?
War isn’t impossible because someone says China is a non-imperial non-expanionist peace-loving nation with proven records and heavy sufferings in the past. The reality is unfortunately different.
But what does that have to do with Taiwan? :confused:
There are a number of points that I disagree with, but I think we shouldn’t digress any futher.
All this started because you suggest that Taiwan declearing independence is not the most and only likely scenario which might lead to war in the strait in the forseeable future. How does any of the above support that notion? Any nation *can* use pretty much any excuse to start a war with any other. Doesn’t mean that they *will*.
plawolfThat is a 100% CG picture that was posted on this very forum some months ago. The originals were much sharper and quite clearly CGI. Someone merely blured them a little to produce this image to try and make it look more real.
plawolfYet the most common solution for fighters was fixed guns and manouverable fighters, or surprise slashing attacks.
Thats more a result of technological limitations than a capabailies issue. WWII turrets were large, man-operated and damn heavy. What more, you’d need major beefing up of the structural strength around the turret if you want to mount anything meaningfully powerful in it.
To add a not too effective machine gun turret would require the added weight from the turret, the extra gunner, the extra support. This would result in reduced speed, range, turn rate, climb rate etc. Just not a good trade in.
However, thats not such a huge issue on modern attack helos. The advanatges of having a trainable turret as opposed to a fixed cannon is similar to the difference between normal AAMs and high off-broadside HMS trained AAMs.
A threat like an enemy helo would warrant your full attention. Turning your helo to fire would not be a huge penalty. Firing purpendicular to your flight axis greatly reduces the accuracy of the gun and generates uncommanded roll effects on flight… ie the recoil upsets the helos flight performance, firing from large angles is unlikely to be very accurate. As mentioned the 30mm apache round is designed for ground targets and targets within about 1.2km. The 30mm gun of the Hind is accurate beyond 1.5km.
Well I think its a little confusing to try and describe all AA combat scenarios since the two designs have differing advanatges and disadvantages visa ve each other depending on range.
If the two helos detect each other at long range (ie outside of effective weapons range) and turn for a head-on engagement, then its quite obvious that the fixed 30mm of the Hind would be far superior to the gun of the Apache and the inability to train it is pretty much irrelevent.
However, if it was a chance encounter with the two pilots spotting each other by chance at close range, say in a valley region or when operating in cities, then the Apache’s trainable gun will mean it is likely to get first shot off since it takes a lot less time to tune one’s head then turning the helo. Me thinks being pummeled by multiple 30mm shells, even low-vol ones will cause a great deal more handling problems then firing the thing at an uncomfortable angle.
In an ambush scenario, the helo mounting the ambush will have the obvious advantage regardless of fixed or trainable, but if you are the one who is being ambushed, then having a trainable gun with its greater reaction time could make a whole world of difference.
Overal, I think its pretty clear that for attack helos at least, the trainable gun is better then the fixed one. As demonstrated by the fact that almost all modern attack helos have trainable cannons while only a couple of Russian designs don’t (who, incedently, lost the Russian attack helo contract to one that had a trainable gun).
plawolfFalse assumption by both of you in the first place, it shows lack of understanding on the issue. Many people pointed out this mistakes before.
Like any major power in the past, the best way to distract domestic population from an internal crisis is to launch a war against a third party, preferably a “holy war” or “Patriotic War”.
Expansionist or imperial powers are also likely to invade to gain resources or strategic positions when the smaller powers are weak. US-Mexican War, Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, PLA’s attack of Tibet, German expansion under Hitler, US-Iraq war of 2003, any of these historical example and many others all happened precisely because one side lacks enough deterrence against the major power.
That’s easily two unofficial scenarios that would lead to war, other than declaration of independence. According to China official positions, other attacking conditions include “Taiwan domestic unrest” and “foreign intervention”.
I suggest you lack a thorough enough understanding of China to make such generalistic assumption.
Distracting the population? Some documentries on WWII and the Japanese oppupation would do that and more. No need to launch a costly and potentially damaging war to achieve the same goal. China is officially athiest and strickly ‘mind thy own business’ when it comes to international affairs, it has been bashed because of it enough times in the west, so you should at least have a passing familiarlity. But anyhow, holy and idiological crusades are just not Chinese. And when was that last time anyone launched a ‘patriotic’ attack on another nation? :confused:
I think that China’s actions alone in the last few decades have more then proved that its anything but expansionist or emperial. In fact, anyone who knows much about China should realise that China has suffered so much at the hands of expantionist and empiral powers in the past that the terms are more dirty in China then in the west. China has ceaded more land to expansionalist neighbours then the size of most European countries combined. China fought for Tibet because it has historically been a de facto part of China, and only became an independent state because the Bristish wanted a buffer between China and its jewl of the Empire. China has merely taking back what belonged to it that was taken unjustly. Since then, the PRC government has signed treaties which saw it give up the vast majority of the land it lost for peace with its neighbours. The time for territorial adjustments have by and large passed with only a few notible exceptions. Ie, China will not be using the history reason to start any wars with the vast majority of its neighbours.
And unlike your middle-east examples, Taiwan is valuable not because of its nature resources, but because of its economy and infrastructure. Things that will be destroyed in the flames of war, unlike oil, ironically. As for its strategic value, well its far more strategically valuable for the US then China, thats why the US is showing such keen interest.
China, like all major powers, will inevatably be forced to play the ‘great game’ to survive and prosper. But it takes two major powers to play, and the ‘pawn’ nations that get caught in the middle are often drawn in percisely because of their military power. The Korean war, Iran-Iraq, Lebannon/Hezbollah-Israel…
PS, I think you should note that in the post you are quoting, I was not arguing for a ‘defenceless’ Taiwan, but a reasonably armed one to minimise the chances of war.
Sign In
