Chinese sub plays Marco Polo with US Navy battle fleet... and wins.

[Alinestra Covelia]

Why take Taiwan when the island's economy is already propping up most of the coastal industry in your own?

It's like a squabbling relationship, you know. The guy and girl pretend like they hate each other's guts but you can be sure when the lights are out in the bedroom there's enough exchanges to keep the interest in the relationship.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Dis
Though eventually China will see that we have more to lose by going to war than they do.

I think you seriously underestimate the sort of internal instability the Chinese government would face if the exporting sectors of its economy were stopped on a dime. The word powderkeg comes to mind.

[Dinner]

If the excersize is held in the same location every year (as most military excersizes are) then it would be easy to preplace a sub especially a diesel electric sub which is on average more quiet then nuclear powered subs. Countries like Sweden don't have nuclear powered subs but their diesel electric subs are so quiet even the US navy studies them.

The big problem with diesel electic subs is eventually the batteries need to be recharge so it needs to surface. This means its functional range and the length of its operational duty is limited while a nuclear sub can remain underwater for months on end. Predicting an annual event is easy but predicting a war time location is very hard thus this isn't something to be to worried about.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia
Why take Taiwan when the island's economy is already propping up most of the coastal industry in your own?

It's like a squabbling relationship, you know. The guy and girl pretend like they hate each other's guts but you can be sure when the lights are out in the bedroom there's enough exchanges to keep the interest in the relationship.

Ashame they didn't think that way about Tibet or Xinjiang.

[Alinestra Covelia]

Originally posted by DaShi


Ashame they didn't think that way about Tibet or Xinjiang.

Well, looking at the historical context of the Communist Party's annexation of Tibet, there was no interest in external trade at that time. And even if there was, it's doubtful that Tibet had enough of an industry to contribute anything of worth.

In 1950 China was a deeply introverted nation disinterested in foreign trade and much more interested in securing what it saw as its historical borders.

The same attitude was also in place towards Taiwan, but the combination of geographic inaccessibility and American support for the island dissuaded the Chinese from making good their intent to reunify.

Today, Taiwanese investors and industrialists are singlehandedly supporting the sum industries of thousands of coastal towns in China, a level of economic intercourse that Tibet never offered. (I leave it an open question whether, unannexed, it ever would.) As has been stated earlier in this thread, the destabilizing effect of open war with Taiwan would be immense. Although the mainland's rhetoric is bellicose at times, increasingly it's for internal consumption (in much the same way as Chen Shui Bian resorts to independence speeches to project an image of political resolve domestically, even if it's not particularly popular outside of Taiwan).

As time passes and economic ties become stronger, the possibility of war decreases, not increases.

[Wezil]

I agree with your analysis in general but I think all bets are off if the Chinese economy tanks and political instability results. The CCP can keep a lid on dissent currently but what will happen if the "wheels come off" their overheated economy and hard times return?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Wezil
I agree with your analysis in general but I think all bets are off if the Chinese economy tanks and political instability results. The CCP can keep a lid on dissent currently but what will happen if the "wheels come off" their overheated economy and hard times return?

Even if either economy tanks the two are going to still be extremely dependent on each other.

[Wezil]

Yes but the political uncertainty could cause some strange decisions. How far will the CCP go to maintain control and what sort of "diversions" may help them to do that?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Wezil
Yes but the political uncertainty could cause some strange decisions. How far will the CCP go to maintain control and what sort of "diversions" may help them to do that?

I see your point, but wrecking the economy doesn't seem like the best option.

[Wezil]

Worked wonders for the Repugs in the US.

[Kidlicious]

I'm sure many in China remember Maoist economic policy.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia


Well, looking at the historical context of the Communist Party's annexation of Tibet, there was no interest in external trade at that time. And even if there was, it's doubtful that Tibet had enough of an industry to contribute anything of worth.

In 1950 China was a deeply introverted nation disinterested in foreign trade and much more interested in securing what it saw as its historical borders.

The same attitude was also in place towards Taiwan, but the combination of geographic inaccessibility and American support for the island dissuaded the Chinese from making good their intent to reunify.

Today, Taiwanese investors and industrialists are singlehandedly supporting the sum industries of thousands of coastal towns in China, a level of economic intercourse that Tibet never offered. (I leave it an open question whether, unannexed, it ever would.) As has been stated earlier in this thread, the destabilizing effect of open war with Taiwan would be immense. Although the mainland's rhetoric is bellicose at times, increasingly it's for internal consumption (in much the same way as Chen Shui Bian resorts to independence speeches to project an image of political resolve domestically, even if it's not particularly popular outside of Taiwan).

But that's my point. They simply aren't taking Taiwan because they can't. The same attitude toward historical borders exists, but is held back by more realistic concerns. If the status quo changes, then something might happen. Right now, China simply can't take Taiwan without a major loss.

[Alinestra Covelia]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I'm sure many in China remember Maoist economic policy.

This is true, but it's a fairly polarizing issue. There are many elders in China who think back fondly to Mao's days. Likewise, there are many who think back to them as something to be avoided at all costs.

It is probably safer to generalize younger people who weren't actually born (or at least don't particularly remember) Mao's economic policies. They seem to have very little interest in Maoist economic thought. Occasionally you see an uprush of nationalistic feeling among them, and in those situations Mao can be invoked as a uniter and protector - but as you say, those are hardly economic policies.

Originally posted by DaShi
But that's my point. They simply aren't taking Taiwan because they can't. The same attitude toward historical borders exists, but is held back by more realistic concerns. If the status quo changes, then something might happen. Right now, China simply can't take Taiwan without a major loss.

I agree with what you say here but I would reiterate that the major issue here is not military, it's economic. I'd venture to say that even if America withdrew its military support and Taiwan's electorate cut its defense budget (as many Taiwanese voters expressed support for in the 2004 elections), mainland China still wouldn't want to kill the cash cow that's supporting many of its towns and villages on the coast.

The government occasionally rattles the saber to show its credentials to the hardline stance that brought the Communists to power 60 years ago, but most mainlanders have family in Taiwan (my own family is no exception) and would be much less supportive of military action taken today than they would in, say, the 1950s and 1960s.

Maybe, if Taiwan a) lost all military support from America, b) somehow suffered a catastrophic economic meltdown that made them unable to subsidize Chinese industry, and c) declared independence or something similarly problematic on a political standpoint, then you might talk of war.

Right now, though, both sides are governed by leaderships that are more-or-less rational, and which more-or-less no longer enjoy unfettered freedom from popular sentiment. Both sides are acutely aware of the need to keep good times rolling with their economies. And both sides are well aware that there's a unique symbiotic relationship to be had here that outranks Korea, Japan, and the US for convenience - with investors that speak the language and share the culture with the country they're investing in.

Not to mention the shared jiapu and familial lines...

In a somewhat unrelated development, my final remaining grandparent passed away at her home in Taichung last week. Her five children were able to get to Taiwan quickly without any impediments, and that includes a son from California, a daughter from Hawaii, and my father, who lives in Beijing.

I suspect there's some sort of political statement there about economic ties but I'm frankly too tired to think of one

[Patroklos]

Sea-skimming anti-ship missiles have miniscule radar cross-sections that are almost undetectable due to the effect of the ocean on radar beams. Without radar detection, defense is essentially impossible.

1. SLQ-32

2. Stark did not have phased radar or Aegis.

3. Stark was hit by a missile from a country we were not at war with, why is this so hard for people to understand?

Practical carrier defense relies on shooting down airplanes before they get in range to launch missiles. With China, this will not be possible. No carrier task group is going to be able to take out the Chinese air force.

An absolutely ridiculous statment on your part. What is the best way to shoot down airplanes? WITH OTHER AIRPLANES! Note that if carriers are so vulnerable to land based aircraft what makes you think a cruiser or destroyer would fair any better? I know the answers to that (and have said them at nauseum on this board), but I will wait for you to figure out the flaws in you own comment before saying it again.

As for China's airfoce, wiki it, it would be toast. Not that China would evern be able to engage just ONE carrier, or just naval aviation for that matter. Unless they suprise attack us they will meet the full force of the USN and USAF together, not piecmeal. And the simple reality is that if someone decides to suprise attack us, you could take out any singlar warship even if it had sheilds and photon torpedos.

[Alinestra Covelia]

I think you mean proton torpedoes.

See, I take my faux-scientific Star Wars related military knowledge very seriously.