seahawkso? even in a ‘not so free’ society as china people still gets to voice their opinions. and there is no such thing as ‘taiwanese’ as a nationality, the people of taiwan are the same as the people on the other side of the strait in all intents and purposes. the only difference is the way of government. ‘taiwan nationalism’ is a recent creation by the people who has the most to gain from the island’s formal independence.
the two sides might live under different forms of government, but that doesnt make the two sides two different nations and peoples, and if there is to be a vote, then all the people on both sides should be included. but i guess the will of the people shouldnt apply there, cos…well cos we are talking about the ‘evil commy chinese’ here. :rolleyes:
That would depend on your definition of a nation. Is Austria a part of Germany then, as the people there a practical the same living in both countries. Even the form of the government is the same.
So if the people in Germany and Austria would vote and the majority of the peoe would vote to make Austria german, then it should happen. 😉
That is not the way things are happening today. China can only choose to take Taiwan by force (it is a shame that they did not achieve it yet, after all those years) or wait until the people of Taiwan want to reunite peacefully.
seahawkPit, a very interesting post. Yet CONUS forces were not the most important first level reinforcements for NATO. CONUS would sent helicopters and fighters and those would be in place in large numbers within 7-14 days. Manpower would come from the mobilisation of the Bundeswehr (FRG) and the other european NATO members. Britain for example would sent forces over the channel and into Northern Germany. And those troops would be there quite quickly.
CONUS forces (apart from those with prepositioned equippment) were the second or even third line of reenforcements for NATO. First line would be the forces in germany. Second line would be french and spanish. Third would be CONUS.
All in all it will always depend on the level of surprise the WarPAc could achieve. If they can attack in less then 14 days before NATO starts mobilisation, then tey will win. there can be no serious doubt about it.
But I personally doubt that they could achieve this. A war in western europe would need much longer preparations and not only in the millitary. The whole economy would have to adjust. The distribution of fuel, energy, food and all other stuff would have to be changed. Reserves would have to be made ready. Equipment checked and made ready. Nuclear forces bought to higher readiness.
With the constant spying going on from both sides, I very much doubt that one side believed to achieve the element of surprise. And without surprise those war would quickly turn into a new WW1 slugfest and that would quickly turn nuclear. A war neither side would have won in the end.
seahawkPretty much, though on the ground, the war would also be much different. Though undoubtly NATO tanks were better but the Warpact tanks were no joke either. But the biggest problem for NATO on the ground would’ve been
1)Lack of Air Superiority, without NATO air superiority, WarPact would’ve quickly overwhelmed NATO groundforces, this is where all those Warpact bombers and strikers would come in, notably the Frogfoots and etc
2)NATO was outnumbered, and as WP lead in aircraft 3:1, in armor 4:1, artillery 11:1, approximately 2:1 manpower advantage, this would’ve gone in massive disadvantage against NATO.
The ground war would have depended on one thing imho. Would NATO ATGM systems work – or not ??
If they would work they would at least equalize the superiority in armor fot the WarPac. If they would not work, well that is easy.
Germany for example placed mot of the defensive on the ATGM teams, mobile ATGM vehicles and ATGM tank hunters. The real MBTs would only be used for local counter attacks or to close gaps in the defensive line.
When it comes ot close air support, I think NATO would be really doing CAS, while the WarPac would prefer to do battlefield interdiction. The direct support of the ground troops would be given to the helicopters and artillery of the army.
seahawkBut we already know that you 2 love eachother.
seahawkArthur you are right, but you also assume that NATO would have been forced to fight without reeinforcements from CONUS. Then they fight would have been very one sided.
With F-4s, F-15s, F-16s, F18s and even 2 squadrons of F-14s (there were plans to use 2 squadrons to cover the AWACS against MiG25 attacks) things would look very different.
E-3 would probably be flying from France, Spain or even Portugal, like some German Tornados / Phantoms and other assets that would relocate to avoid the first strike of the WarPac.
I think we can say, that if the WarPac would have surprised NATO, the war would be very one.sided. If NATO could reinforce before the outbrake, then it would have been much closer.
But the airwar would have been of no importance to the outcome of the war. And the groundwar would be even more in favor of the WarPac.
seahawkIs that what the F-16I designed to do? anyway with superior Radar and
missiles, i don’t think syrian Mig-29s have a chance.
Well that is not certain. Syrian pilots have shown many times that they are very capable of inflicting serious losses to the IDF/AF. If ambushed correctly, the plane can be quickly killed by a well flown R-73 armed MiG-29.
There is more to air-to-air combat then the pure specification of the airplane.
And a R-77 armed MiG-29 would further change the game.
seahawk🙂
But two wingtanks, 1 belly tank, conformal and no weapons? Are they testing the range…
ferry configuration
seahawkOh my god. Will this never stop ?? (not your love to Anna, just the threads about it)
seahawkalso missing the point. i was rebuffing the taiwanese propaganda about how bad it would be under chinese rule to show that its nowhere near as bad some taiwanese independence advocates would claim.
of course taiwan has a more free society, no-one was disputing that. however taiwan would keep most of the freedoms if already has under reunification. but even that is missing the point. as i said before, the current tensions did not arise as a result of china saying ‘reunify with the mainland or else’, it is arising from a minority within taiwan trying to push for formal independence.
As you said Taiwan is a free society. In a free society people can voice their opinion. If people on Taiwan think they should declare formal independence (they are a own state defacto already), then I see no reason why they should not do so.
If the majority of the people there should vote to be independent then why not ?
seahawkand how many years have you spent in china? :rolleyes:
I don´t need to have visited China to see that, if the Taiwanese people would consider living und the rule of the PRC would be better for them, then they would vote for a reunification. They are not doing this, so they obviously prefer to be politcaly independent.
And as you said, life in Taiwan is better then life in the PRC.
– politcal freedom
– religious freedom
– better human right records
I think that is enough to prefer Taiwan over the PRC.
seahawkpeople in east germany werent too happy about living under communits rule mainly because of all the propaganda films they saw. (not saying communist rule was good, just not as bad as the west made it out to be).
anyways, that example is inappropriate here because beijing is not asking taiwan completely convert to chinese rule, and nor is chinese rule communist rule in any sense of the term and of the steriotypes associated with it. :rolleyes:
Well compared to the West. life in Eastern Germany was medicore. Human rights and personal freedom were much more reduced.
And that is the the same with Taiwan and China. China is no longer really communist, yet the personal freedom and the human rights are worth then in Taiwan. So why should Taiwan want to reunite with Chian, when the people there would actually give up some of their freedom ??
Same with Sk and Western Germany. People won´t support reunification if that means having less freedom.
In the end I see the solution that worked so well for HongKong. Taiwan becomes part of the PRC, but remains the status of a “self controlled” province. That would mean practicall no chances to the average person in Taiwan.
seahawkWell I just give the link to my personal F-4 archive :
http://www.seahawkgfx.de/Aircraft/F4/f4pics.htm
and one of the best special color schemes ever – imho
seahawkI really fail to see the sense in buying the expensive Mirage. The have bought the MiG-29K and the MiG-29M would just fit perfectly.
Thge IAF has way to many aircraft types in operation anyway. They should aim to come to a pure, MiG-29, SU-30, LCA fleet.
seahawkTests showed after the cold war that the Mig-29 with R-27s was very comparable to F-15s with Sparrows. We are led to believe from data from Indian exercises that the Flankers did very well with R-27s as well. With HMS and R-73s the F-16 was not able to defeat German Mig-29s in WVR combat and the flares used by Mig-29s were found to be very effective against the contemporary model sidewinder.
Really ?? I have seen a report about the test done with Dutch F-16 vs. the MiG-29. At first the F-16 flyers were very surprised at the effects of the HMS. And the MiG-29 won most fights. After 3 flights however the ratio turned in favor of the F-16s.
But they were made in clear conditions over the North Sea under clear conditions. Later test revealed that the R-73 did work much worse at low-level and over land. Then the AIM-9L normaly achieved a lock-on in a head on egagement 2-5 seconds before the R-73 did.
The flares were very effective that is right, but western flares did work as good against the R-73.
I think in the first days of the war the MiG-29 would really have been a very nasty surprise to NATO flyers.
I however concur with your conclusion. Neither side would have an easy time.
In regard to the F-117. To search with IRST and not with the radar would have required the WarPac to know about the F-117 and to know how to detect them. Would they have known in the 80ies ?? Would they have believed that the F-117 did work ??
seahawkbad examples cos there are no good examples. both germany and korea were superated as a result of foreign military intervention and the speration is against the wishes of all the native pupulation.
The first is correct,the later not. I guess most people in Germany were not eager to reunite under the rule of communist Eastern Germany. So in a way Germany was also divided in the politcal system.
Reunification did happen only after the communist regime in the east fell and the eastern part did become a democracy like the west. Then both states were similiar enough to reunite.
Honestly speaking, I believe if the PRC would become a free and democratic state, then a reunification with Taiwan would be surely to follow.
Sign In
