JSouthworth wrote:
Recent military exercises and belligerent language from Chinese government officials seem to indicate a possibility that at some time in the future China may try to occupy Taiwan by force.

Could you POSSIBLY be any MORE equivocal?

BUT, I certainly hope you have communicated your conclusions to the relevant defense leadership in the US and Taiwan; they may not have thought of this.

Focuspuller wrote:
Could you POSSIBLY be any MORE equivocal?

BUT, I certainly hope you have communicated your conclusions to the relevant defense leadership in the US and Taiwan; they may not have thought of this.

It's not a simple question of whether or not the Chinese plan to invade Taiwan. They may be looking to draw in the US Navy and decisively defeat them before they launch the invasion. In military terms that would be easier than doing both simultaneously. It's also possible that their objective is simply to pressurise the Taiwanese leadership.

DCurtis wrote:
one way for the US to not defend defend Taiwan is to involve itself in a war, on the side with Ukraine and against Russia - that it or they cannot win. the outcome will only make the US look weak.

TDR said, 'speak softly - and carry a big stick. Hunter Biden's father is talking loudly and carrying a limp stick.

Ah yes.  The famous Trump / Pro-Putin line...

As in "Just let Putin take whatever he wants in Europe.  No big deal (well, ignoring the massive worldwide negative economic impact, major food shortages and negative political impact that it would have).

And it would "punish" Ukraine for not agreeing to Trump's demands to manufacture fake "evidence" during the last campaign in exchange for releasing Congress's American military support (remember his "perfect" phone call?).  Plus Trump most certainly would have kept Putin "happy" as a result.
   
Not that letting Putin "loose" on Europe would EVER encourage China to also go ahead and take Taiwan, or anything like that...

Trump logic at its finest.

DCurtis wrote:
one way for the US to not defend defend Taiwan is to involve itself in a war, on the side with Ukraine and against Russia - that it or they cannot win. the outcome will only make the US look weak.

TDR said, 'speak softly - and carry a big stick. Hunter Biden's father is talking loudly and carrying a limp stick.

On the contrary, six months into a war that was supposed to have taken the mighty Russian army three days, it is Putin who looks weak, with an ill-trained, ill motivated, and ill-led military, purging ineffective generals and resorting to war crimes against civilians.

As to Xi, "Hunter Biden's father" told him exactly what aiding Russia would cost China, and just sent two missile cruisers into the Taiwan Strait with barely a peep from China.

"Hunter BIden's father" is doing just fine. Certainly better than the Orange Blowhard Buffoon and Putin stooge he soundly defeated in 2020 would have done.

DCurtis wrote:
one way for the US to not defend defend Taiwan is to involve itself in a war, on the side with Ukraine and against Russia - that it or they cannot win. the outcome will only make the US look weak.

TDR said, 'speak softly - and carry a big stick. Hunter Biden's father is talking loudly and carrying a limp stick.

With Taiwan the problem is how to demonstrate a willingness to assist Taiwan in combating any Chinese military aggression without (a) provoking China or (b) exposing US forces to excessive risk.

JQuest wrote:
There was never a New Jersey class of battleships in the US Navy. The USS New Jersey (BB-62) was an Iowa Class Battleship. Only four of six Iowa class battleships were completed and all four have since been decommissioned, and stricken from the Navy's rolls, donated to non-profits and are serving as maritime museums. The USS New Jersey (SSN-796) is a Virginia Class attack submarine expected to be delivered to the Navy later this year.

One wonders how much other stuff you could get wrong since the information above is so readily available online. Granted I am making an assumption that you were referring to the battleship USS New Jersey BB-62 and not the battleship USS New Jersey BB-16 which was a Virginia class battleship decommissioned in 1920 and sunk in 1923.

I doubt seriously that the US Navy has any plans to defend Taiwan with four museum pieces.

Well, there goes the job at the Taiwan National Defense Ministry.

JSouthworth wrote:
The Chinese need to know that even if they can gain air superiority and control of the Taiwan Strait, it's going to be very difficult and costly to put troops ashore and capture the territory of the island itself.

OR, that the international repercussions in terms of various levels of economic retaliation in terms of "Trade" (the heart of what makes China "tick" these days), has enough impact that they might at least think twice about it.

That economic threat might turn out to be not enough, but it is the strongest hand that the West realistically has available to "play".   Which is also why Russia was hit so hard on the economic front.   China was watching the West's reaction very carefully and was, reportedly, "surprised" at both the West's unity and determination...

JSouthworth wrote:
The factor which limits the US Navy's options for defending Taiwan is the operational radius of the F/A 18 fighter, about 500 miles. If they'd chosen to deploy a developed version of the Northrop Grumman X47 Pegasus UCAV, they'd be able to carry out effective strikes on targets at double that range and that would give them more targeting options while improving the survivability of their aircraft carriers. As things stand, the Chinese air forces have an advantage both in numbers and in operating from land bases. The US Navy Carrier Air Wings cannot deploy all their aircraft on offensive strike or air superiority missions at any given time, because some must always be available to defend the carriers.

It's worth remembering that the most intense ground combat in the Pacific during World War Two occurred after the Japanese Navy and naval air forces had been decisively defeated in the battles of Midway and the Coral Sea, with casualties reaching peak levels during the battle of Okinawa in 1945. The Chinese need to know that even if they can gain air superiority and control of the Taiwan Strait, it's going to be very difficult and costly to put troops ashore and capture the territory of the island itself.

Do let us know how your basement battlefield Sino-US War goes, assuming of course that you have finished replaying WWII.

LightDreams wrote:

OR, that the international repercussions in terms of various levels of economic retaliation in terms of "Trade" (the heart of what makes China "tick" these days), has enough impact that they might at least think twice about it.

That economic threat might turn out to be not enough, but it is the strongest hand that the West realistically has available to "play".   Which is also why Russia was hit so hard on the economic front.   China was watching the West's reaction very carefully and was, reportedly, "surprised" at both the West's unity and determination...

What the Chinese absolutely know is that an actual WAR with the US would destroy China's manufacturing sector, FOR STARTERS, making the largest middle-class in the world UNEMPLOYED.

JSouthworth wrote:
What if Taiwan invaded China? Until 1990 they were planning for this apparently.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_National_Glory

Good question. Why don't you run along and game that out on your basement battlefield and be sure to let us know. Bye.

LightDreams wrote:

OR, that the international repercussions in terms of various levels of economic retaliation in terms of "Trade" (the heart of what makes China "tick" these days), has enough impact that they might at least think twice about it.

That economic threat might turn out to be not enough, but it is the strongest hand that the West realistically has available to "play".   Which is also why Russia was hit so hard on the economic front.   China was watching the West's reaction very carefully and was, reportedly, "surprised" at both the West's unity and determination...

To an extent that's a valid argument, but Taiwan is viewed as an economic competitor by China, particularly in the microelectronics sector. A successful invasion would solve that problem as well as settling on old territorial claim.

LightDreams wrote:
OR, that the international repercussions in terms of various levels of economic retaliation in terms of "Trade" (the heart of what makes China "tick" these days), has enough impact that they might at least think twice about it.

That economic threat might turn out to be not enough, but it is the strongest hand that the West realistically has available to "play".   Which is also why Russia was hit so hard on the economic front.   China was watching the West's reaction very carefully and was, reportedly, "surprised" at both the West's unity and determination...

The economy is key to avoid a war which is why it is essential to decouple our dependence on China and stop being deferential  to China and stop policies that make us more dependent on them ( premature rush to EV and Solar)

No it will not be enough, to have peace, prepare for war. Need both

Bob Helm Photography wrote:
(Re: China)  They have a long term strategy, we have two year election cycle where one party spends money on the military, the other on social programs.

The point about China taking a long view while the U.S. has generally been taking a shorter view (regardless of administration), is right on the money.

And I agree about the need to reduce our dependency on China.  Steps such as the (just passed) "CHIPS and Science Act of 2022" that includes $52.7 billion to increase DOMESTIC semiconductor production.


Now, to correct some misinformation...

Yes, if you go back further in time, Democrats have generally spent less than Republicans on the Defense Budget.   But that claim is getting pretty OLD now as, in recent administrations...

Obama spent more on Defense than Bush, and Biden is spending more on Defense than Trump.  Of course, that doesn't stop Republicans from FALSELY suggesting otherwise (as we've seen repeated here).

---

Some ACTUAL "back to back" yearly numbers, just for those that care:
(Note that all Defense spending comparison numbers below are in $Millions i.e.  the 2022 Defense Budget is $715 TRILLION)

2009 Defense Budget (George Bush - Republican):  $824,461
2010 Defense Budget (Obama - Democrat):  $843,860

2021 Defense Budget (Trump - Republican):  $703,723
2022 Defense Budget (Biden - Democrat):  $715,000 (requested budget)  - Note that was BEFORE Russia's invasion of the Ukraine, the actual number will end up being MUCH higher.

Bob Helm Photography wrote:
The best defense is success in the Ukraine to buy time till the window of opportunity is closed ( ie Joe gone)

It's a well established fact, that Trump kept publicly questioning whether he would honor the U.S.'s NATO commitments should Russia go into Europe.  Trump also tried everything he could to avoid sending military aid to the Ukraine (despite bipartisan legislation passed by Congress and the Senate), and he also repeatedly tried to make the Ukraine "the bad guys" compared to Russia.

With the Ukraine and our NATO allies Biden has made very clear where HE stands, and with real world "actions".  Unlike Trump, he flat refused to let Putin "just take" whatever he wanted.  And, so far, his actions have been paying off.

If Putin had continued with his plans and his pre-invasion rhetoric about "restoring ancestral Russian lands" (i.e.  invading some NATO countries), and warning about his "nukes" should anyone "interfere", we'd have had a DIRECT U.S. / NATO vs Russia war.

Instead we have a "proxy war", where Russia has been given a surprisingly strong "bloody nose" and the battle has heavily drained Russia's military resources.  And, more importantly, dramatically reduced Russia's appetite to continue on beyond the Ukraine.

From the point of view of NATO and the west, the operation to contain Russia to this Ukrainian "Proxy War" has been quite successful.  And FAR LESS "costly" (in every way imaginable) than it would have been compared to a "DIRECT" NATO vs Russia war.

Although I don't want to downplay the suffering and the toll in human lives, that the Ukrainian war has cost.

JSouthworth wrote:

To an extent that's a valid argument, but Taiwan is viewed as an economic competitor by China, particularly in the microelectronics sector. A successful invasion would solve that problem as well as settling on old territorial claim.

Absurd. Any invasion of Taiwan, especially if perceived as ECONOMICALLY driven by the international community would isolate China and hasten the exodus of world manufacturing from China to countries vying for the opportunity, like Viet Nam. Like India. Like Indonesia. Like Malaysia. Like Mexico. Maybe not on your basement battlefield, but in the real world.

Bob Helm Photography wrote:
We defend Taiwan by having a consistent policy and not speaking out of both sides of our mouth...
The best defense is success in the Ukraine to buy time till the window of opportunity is closed ( ie Joe gone)

Because Donnie Dumbass' "foreign policy" was so consistent? Consistently pro-Russian, you mean? "Joey" effectively prevented a Putin stooge from completely destroying American foreign policy in effect since the end of WWII. For that, you should be grateful. Why aren't you?

Bob Helm Photography wrote:
About 20 years ago on a layover I was looking for something to read in an airport store. With my interest in history and things military I cam across a British magazine on Navies of the world and started reading it.

One of the articles was about a speech that one of Chin's top Generals gave , think Jint Chiefs level, where he discussed how China was preparing for war with the United States, target year was 2025. For us that is an eternity , for China a short term goal. They have a long term strategy, we have two year election cycle where one party spends money on the military, the other on social programs.

We defend Taiwan by having a consistent policy and not speaking out of both sides of our mouth, One day Joey criticizes previous US policy on China and the next ( on a Friday of course) extends the Trump Tarriffs. Then he forgets that we no longer have a treaty obligation to defend Taiwan(we did when he was a Senator).

You are basing your political opinion regarding a complex relationship on a magazine article you read 20 years ago and assertions that are from biased narratives that you pick up out of the gutter along the way?

As an American citizen, don't we have an obligation to better informed than that?  It isn't like the only credible information you have available to you was a 20 year old magazine article that you are recollecting.  Certainly, your biased media sources aren't reliable, as other posters have demonstrated.  But then, why should anyone bother doing any research when they are comfortable being spoon fed putrid information from the right wing garbage pit?

There is, to some, a disadvantage in the American system in that we are constantly changing leadership- not just the presidency, but in Congress, and that does impact the ability to have a consistent policy.  Of course we aren't alone in that.  Other countries have parliaments that are more chaotic than our system.  You would think that maybe over the decades that the United States has been a world leader, that maybe our allies and foes alike would have some idea about how our system works, wouldn't you?  For instance, Putin was able to wait four years during trump's term until trump kept his promise to Putin that the United States would withdraw from NATO.  Good thing for us, Europe, and especially Ukraine, that trump got kicked to the curb, isn't it?  Or did you forget all the stress trump put on our allies with his absurd policy changes?   Yes, if you want to talk about mood swings in policy, who has been more moody and reversed policies more often than trump?  Should we start a list for you of trump's foreign and domestic policy debacles?

Being the history buff you are, Bobby, isn't it a damn good thing that Roosevelt didn't change the previous policy about getting involved in the second world war?  It is also a good thing that England never had to adjust to the fact that some of her colonies demanded autonomy or freedom.  Thank God that trump stayed the course in Afghanistan and that he was successfully able to implement his plan to win the war in10 days was nothing short of amazing!

Our system does allow our policy to grow and change according to how our people and the situation evolves.  Or, do you prefer having a dictator so policy can remain the same for generations like it does in North Korea? 

Everything would be fine with the USA and China if only Xi had written trump a love letter like Kim did.  Right?  trump was so freaking easy for other despot leaders to manipulate!  Isn't that true, Bobby?

Since you specifically criticized our president for extending trump's tariffs, then maybe you should have also criticized trump for his massive change of policy toward China and existing trade agreements?  Not only did trump do what you are lamenting about, but he hamstrung our country in the easy to win tariff war which he lost.  In addition to giving China free rein to expand their influence, because trump, like the fool he is, backed out of The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement and blew up diplomacy around the world. 

At least trump has been very consistent with the caviler way he has handled classified documents and his attitude of being above the law.  That's cool, isn't it Bobby?

Ultimately, it is a good thing we can change leadership after four years when so many Americans lack the cognitive skills to see trump for what he is.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
There is, to some, a disadvantage in the American system in that we are constantly changing leadership- not just the presidency, but in Congress, and that does impact the ability to have a consistent policy..

Which is precisely why US foreign policy has been historically bipartisan, except of course when republicans call Democrats communists, start a war over fabricated nuclear threats, or a freak moronic Putin pawn in the Oval Office decimates the State Department and destroys 75 years of painstaking work building alliances and protecting US interests.

Instead we have a "proxy war", where Russia has been given a surprisingly strong "bloody nose" and the battle has heavily drained Russia's military resources.  And, more importantly, dramatically reduced Russia's appetite to continue on beyond the Ukraine.

From the point of view of NATO and the west, the operation to contain Russia to this Ukrainian "Proxy War" has been quite successful.  And FAR LESS "costly" (in every way imaginable) than it would have been compared to a "DIRECT" NATO vs Russia war.

Although I don't want to downplay the suffering and the toll in human lives, that the Ukrainian war has cost.

It isn't a "proxy war" between NATO and Russia, except in the view of Kremlin propagandists. It's a war between Russia and Ukraine. The Russians do not perceive NATO as a threat, they know that it's democratic nature would preclude it's engaging in an aggressive war against Russia. They perceive this as a basic weakness in NATO's strategic position; in chess terms, it means they always get to play white, they can always have the first move.

The term "proxy war" is more appropriately applied to, for example, the 1973 Arab-Israeli War in which the US was backing Israel and the Soviet Union was the backer of Egypt, Syria and Jordan. Officially, there was no direct involvement of the US or Soviet armed forces in the fighting.

JSouthworth wrote:
It isn't a "proxy war" between NATO and Russia, except in the view of Kremlin propagandists. It's a war between Russia and Ukraine. The Russians do not perceive NATO as a threat, they know that it's democratic nature would preclude it's engaging in an aggressive war against Russia.

[EDIT]  Never mind.  There's no point bringing up Putin's statements (on the day he invaded Ukraine) blaming NATO, or the Russian's repeated insistence prior to, and after, the invasion as to the "existential" threat that NATO supposedly represented to Russia.  Or his claims that Russia doesn't think it's in a "proxy war" with NATO.  Or, apparently, "vice versa".

I should know better than to ever bother with any of JSouthworth's absurdities.

LightDreams wrote:
[EDIT]  Never mind.  There's no point bringing up Putin's statements (on the day he invaded Ukraine) blaming NATO, or the Russian's repeated insistence prior to, and after, the invasion as to the "existential" threat that NATO supposedly represented to Russia.  Or his claims that Russia doesn't think it's in a "proxy war" with NATO.  Or, apparently, "vice versa".

I should know better than to ever bother with any of JSouthworth's absurdities.

I agree with you completely with regard to the pointlessness of quoting Putin. Putin categorically denied any intention of invading Ukraine, a matter of days before doing exactly that. I'm not convinced that he has a clear idea in his own mind, of what exactly Russian soldiers are dying for in Ukraine in terms of military objectives or strategic objectives, although he has made speeches in the past promising to expand Russia's territory. I think he sees territorial expansion primarily as a means to a political end, the perpetuation of his personal rule over the people of Russia.

Putin may well like to compare himself with Ivan IV, maybe also Josef Stalin. Both were known for expanding Russia's territory and sphere of influence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_the_Terrible

JSouthworth wrote:
I agree with you completely with regard to the pointlessness of quoting Putin. Putin denied any intention of invading Ukraine, a matter of days before doing exactly that. I'm not even convinced that he has a clear idea in his own mind, of what exactly Russian soldiers are dying for. in terms of military objectives or strategic objectives, although he has made speeches in the past promising to expand Russia's territory.

There is "no proxy war" (according to you) and, Russia "doesn't" feel threatened by NATO?

That's GREAT NEWS for the U.S.  They DIDN'T actually spent $13.9 BILLION on the Ukraine war because, you know, they're not involved.  Nor have they been providing real time war intelligence to the Ukrainians.  Not to mention the massive amount of money, weapons and military training provided by the UK and other NATO countries.  It just didn't happen.

What complete bullsh*t.

Just stop it.

LightDreams wrote:

There is "no proxy war" (according to you) and, Russia "doesn't" feel threatened by NATO?

That's GREAT NEWS for the U.S.  They DIDN'T actually spent $13.9 BILLION on the Ukraine war because, you know, they're not involved.  Nor have they been providing real time war intelligence to the Ukrainians.  Not to mention the massive amount of money, weapons and military training provided by the UK and other NATO countries.  It just didn't happen.

What complete bullsh*t.

Just stop it.

The expenditure is for weapons and equipment for the Ukrainian armed forces, to be used for defensive purposes. And yes, they are providing the Ukrainians with satellite imagery.

Bob Helm Photography wrote:
As for Trump "inconsistency" he had a policy of strategic ambiguity, he was a negotiator so pay attention to what he does, not what he says

Strategic ambiguity. OMFG that is rich! Trump as a master strategist. Pardon me while I clean up the coffee I just spit all over my desk 😂.

You are referring to a tactic known in diplomatic circles as  "Madman Theory" wherein a leader feigns irrationality to confuse and befuddle an enemy into ineffective responses. The only problem with applying Madman Theory to Donnie Dumbass is that the leader can't ACTUALLY BE irrational. And it doesn't work anyway:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/08/22/tr … w-sciutto/

Bob Helm Photography wrote:
Yes the article is 20 years old but if you look at the actions of China they have a consistent history of working towards that goal' So the article is far from the ONLY evidence. Why would they develop and anti carrier torpedo or construct a moving life-size carrier if they weren't planning attack capabilities. 

As for Democrats spending more 44 on defense the budget policy is automatic increases so when Washington says they make a cut it is actually decreasing the rate of increase so say 35 increase instead of a 5% increase. not to mention the affect of inflation.

If you read Gates book he went to Obama with the weapons systems he wanted to eliminate but wanted a commitment that Obama wouldn't have additional defense cuts. Obama made that commitment but went on to make additional cuts claiming the political pressure was too great within his party.

As for Trump "inconsistency" he had a policy of strategic ambiguity, he was a negotiator so pay attention to what he does, not what he says. Biden OTOH says one thing on one day only to have staff reverse it, ie we would respond "in KIND" to use of nuclear weapons only to have it "clarified" by staff that we would not, he would send Aircraft to the Ukraine and then he would not.

Read Gates book"Duty"for specifics also Hillary also stated every time Obama asked for military recommendations for troop levels he delayed , checked with his political advisors and cut it in half. He also played games with the numbers--he sent a Marine aviation unit to a war zone . a unit consists of aircraft, air crew and ground crew but the deployed without ground crew using contractors instead to keep under the self imposed troop limits.

Follow actions not words fromALL politicians

Why does anybody develop attack capabilities?  Attack capabilities allow one to defend one's self.  Being capable of attack is a defense.  It does not mean they have plans to attack.  Militaries are built to do what militaries do.  The United States, Russia and China all have nuclear armed ICBMs.  None of the countries that have them, including North Korea, has attacked.  Attacking another country is damn good way to get yourself into a war and most leaders do not want the consequences that come with a war- especially a war with the United States. 

Why would China "construct a moving life-size carrier if they weren't planning attack capabilities?"  It is possible the Chinese understand a carrier that is not life size or movable doesn't do much for defense or aggression capabilities. Do you think that the recently launched Chinese carrier was China's first carrier?

You list a whole lot of Obama and trump did this and that.  You say this is what went on and that happened.  But you never get into facts and you never get into citing facts.  You want us to read Gates' entire book to find out what Gates actually wrote because you can't find quotes anywhere on the internet?  Twice you have referred to a flip flop by Biden but you have yet to say what all of the elements were.  Not even a link to the story?  Are you talking about his staff walking Biden's comments back?  Let's see, did trump ever have to walk back any of his comments?  Asking about trump's simliar experiences isn't whataboutism, but you are making a big deal about consistency, so we should see if it is really a matter of consistency or your political bias.  Without quotes or citations, it is like you are making it up.  You probably are.  Or your sources are.  The right is known for that.  Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, right?  Maybe it is like trump stealing documents and creating lie after lie to justify his criminal behavior and the right wing media and 'off their rocker' rightist politicians jumped on and amplified every lie.

Another place trump was inconsistent with prior administrations- something you have said is important and that he failed to be- was his debacle with Iran.  Is Iran closer to having the bomb after trump's ili-advised actions?  If we look at what trump said and did regarding Iran, he screwed up big time.

You also don't bring up the role of congress which is where budgets are hashed out and spending bills originate.  I understand the right likes to lie and claim that Obama had "total control" of congress from 2009 to 2011, but it is a lie.  It certainly doesn't explain why people blame Obama when a Republican dominated congress decreased military spending.  Is it because facts don't matter to the right?

What happens when you take a look at defense spending, GDP and control of congress during the Obama years?  How about breaking down the budget process in each year to support your position?  What amendments did each side offer to the budget? 

Your argument that spending is "consistency" isn't valid. Nor is it well defined. Are you trying to use the dollar amount independent of GDP?  Why isn't the percentage of the GDP just as valid? 

Should the only factor regarding defense spending be that it should be more than the year before?  When the war was demanding more personnel and material, spending was up.  When the war was less demanding, spending was down.  Does that means there was an inconsistent message because spending went down?

Your previous post was a bitch session about inconsistency.  Now you are you praising trump for being erratic?  Make up your mind, but don't make excuses for him.  trump couldn't stay on subject within a sentence.  It wasn't an act.  It wasn't a policy device.  trump was/is incompetent.  Cabinet members don't call the president a moron because the president is on the ball. 

Paying attention to what trump did and ignoring what he said, is an absurd comment.  What he did, includes what he said!  What he said was often rabble rousing.  What he did was often stupid.  What he did was to ignore his experts and to accept advice from those who told him what he wanted to hear.  What trump claimed was he could win the war in Afghanistan and what he did was lose the war.  If people ignored what he said and looked at what he did, then all they should have ever seen was a failed and corrupt businessman- and the loser he is.  No, your logic is faulty because it was what he said that made people think he was successful. They cheered him for claiming he would build a wall and Mexico would pay for the wall well before he screwed up building the wall and before Mexico refused to pay for it.   Therefore and once again, what he said is part of what he did.  What he said got him elected.

BTW, a decrease in the rate of increase is still an increase.  If you want to make a claim that inflation caused an increase to be a decrease, then back it up with something more than your musings.  Don't give me any crap about the current (2022) rate of inflation because you made the comment relative to past budgets.  Show me the numbers.

Finally, yes, your source was 20 years old and yes there is other evidence of China's consistency in building a military.  So what?  Your source is still 20 years old, un-cited, unquoted and without credibility. The rest of your evidence is cherry picked innuendo and/or conjecture and/or propaganda.  If you can remember facts from a 20 year old article and statements from a book written by Gates, or anyone else, you are also capable of coming up with quotes and citations from credible sources, instead of telling us what your take away was.  Pointing out Obama's inconsistency also points out the failure of his successor to be consistent with his predecessor, per your stated standard.  But you voted for trump because he was going to shake up the way things are done.  Not because he was going to be consistent.  Right?  Part of your whining about inconsistency is a vehicle for you to arbitrarily decide who was right in their course of action and who was wrong- which is nothing more than your opinion. 


https://www.newsweek.com/china-type-003 … 20classes.

https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/new … 985146007/

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/U … nse-budget

https://www.npr.org/2016/04/29/47604802 … e-military

JSouthworth wrote:
Returning to Taiwan, It seems to me that the Taiwanese military are handicapped in some ways by their traditional dependency on the US for military hardware. With it comes a military doctrine which places excessive reliance on the tactical use of manned combat aircraft, in which which the PRC can overmatch them.

Probably what they need to do is develop a small, stealthy autonomous combat drone or UCAV with a turbofan engine, high subsonic top speed, a wingspan of 5-6 m and maximum weight of 1000-2000kg, with an operational radius of about 150-200 miles which can be used in multiple roles; tactical strike, anti-shipping, close air support, air to air combat. This could be mass produced in large numbers and launched from catapult systems or using rocket boosters, thereby eliminating the dependency on vulnerable fixed bases which is a major disadvantage of conventional manned aircraft.

"Probably what they need to do...."? Just do it. It's YOUR basement. YOUR tabletop battlefield. YOUR toy soldiers. YOUR toy jets and drones. DO IT. Be sure to let us know how it turns out for you.

Meanwhile, IN THE REAL WORLD, Taiwan will suffer with American military hardware as Ukraine is now suffering against Russia.

Focuspuller wrote:
"Probably what they need to do...."? Just do it. It's YOUR basement. YOUR tabletop battlefield. YOUR toy soldiers. YOUR toy jets and drones. DO IT. Be sure to let us know how it turns out for you.

Meanwhile, IN THE REAL WORLD, Taiwan will suffer with American military hardware as Ukraine is now suffering against Russia.

At the moment the US government is quite willing to sell F35 aircraft to Western European NATO members, but not to Ukraine. It's probably just as well, if they'd last about as long in combat as Russia's Sukhoi Su35s. Manned tactical fighter aircraft are in the process of becoming obsolescent, they're too vulnerable to modern air defence systems to be cost-effective, if they were ever cost-effective in the first place, which was debateable even during the Vietnam War.

Meanwhile the Ukrainians have achieved considerable success with the Baykar Bayraktar TB2 UCAV, made in Turkey. This was actually developed in response to a US government ban on exporting unmanned aircraft to Turkey.

Taiwan's F16 fighters are not superior to recent Chinese aircraft like the J10, and Taiwan's airbases are potentially vulnerable to Chinese missile strikes.

JSouthworth wrote:

Manned tactical fighter aircraft are in the process of becoming obsolescent, they're too vulnerable to modern air defence systems to be cost-effective, if they were ever cost-effective in the first place, which was debateable even during the Vietnam War.

"in the process of becoming obsolescent"

Says you, therefore a dubious assertion, and even if true, gasoline engine-powered automobiles are also "in the process of becoming obsolescent" but, like manned AI-aided jet fighters, will be around for YEARS.

And as far as not being cost-effective, that is the LAST metric any nation at WAR considers, unless of course you are fighting a table-top faux war in your basement and can't afford all the new toys available online.