Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bilow who wrote (120689)	11/29/2003 10:32:17 PM
From: h0db	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Thanks for the reply, Carl. I seem to recall that before WWII, the United States was Japan's largest trading partner (one of the reasons that oil and scrap steel embargos bit so hard). And Taiwan does have a modern airforce, but it is hard to generate combat sorties if SRBMs with submunition warheads are raining down on your airfields. I hope we never find out, and I also hope that economic integration across the Strait convinces pragmatists on either side that accommodation is preferable to any alternatives.

To: Bilow who wrote (120689)	11/30/2003 1:03:31 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

over the short term, Taiwan has enough of an air force that it is unlikely that China could invade. That all depends on if the Taiwanese are able to preserve their airfields in the face of a Chinese missile assault. I would concur that it would currently be difficult for Bejing to take Taiwan by force, but don't rule out the ingenuity and power of the mainland Chinese. After all, though you conveniently note that Hitler and Churchill "glowered" at one another for years before an invasion was possible by either side, it ignores the fact that Hitler's Luftwaffe nearly achieved air superiority over Britain in 1940. Had he not decided to switch from bombing British airfields to bombing cities (in retalitation for a British bombing of Berlin) the RAF would likely have been overwhelmed and wiped out in that aerial war of attrition. In such an event the British Navy would have been ineffective in thwarting a German invasion of the UK. The British army had been rendered combat ineffective at Dunkirk, lacking weapons and equipment to repel invaders. In sum, I don't discount the threat as much as you do, but I also recognize that Bejing knows it has FAR too much to lose economically were it to attempt a military invasion. Hawk

To: Bilow who wrote (120689)	11/30/2003 6:35:56 AM
From: Sam	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

re: Taiwan and China Carl, Parts of the Republican Party have been predicting a Chinese invasion and/or missle attack on Taiwan for years now. If one goes to Asia Thread in SI back in '98 and '99 when it was claimed that Clinton was 'in bed" with the murderers in China, they were saying that it was only a matter of months before China would lob missles at Taiwan and the US would do nothing about it because of a "backroom" deal with Clinton (i.e., the Chinese would funnel money to the treasonous Democrats in return for "getting" Taiwan back). It was all absurd. When I said it was absurd, I was challenged to "prove" my contention. When nothing happened and the Asia monetary crisis cleared up, the talk mostly subsided. I think it is all a residue of the "Who lost China" fury of the 50s. I visited Taiwan and China in the 80s, and had both friends and relatives who lived there for some years and did a lot of business in Taiwan back then, as well as China in the 90s. They all say basically that things are now as both sides want it. Taiwan provides a great of needed organizational and entrepreneurial talent to the mainland, which the Chinese govt gratefully accepts. As you say, the Taiwanese want to see how Hong Kong goes, but most of them basically want to be part of China. They are, for the most part, Chinese at this point, the natives of Taiwan have been pretty much overshadowed by this point. The two countries are in a way taking each other over, blending their skills and capitalist advantages, preparing to be an economic powerhouse not all that unlike the US was in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Which is one reason why the Bush doctrine of preemption is a stupid long term policy for this country to enunciate and pursue and why we should be using this time to build strong multilateral institutions and precedents. We won't be the preeminent economic and military for too many more decades, and will find it mighty inconvenient to have that doctrine followed by other countries, without strong precedents and habits/institutions of international cooperation in place.