[quote=“sofun”]Below is a 3 step plan to to achieve eventual strategic victory.
Step 1. The first is to have both sides of the Pacific to enter into an agreement. US will come, on the condition that Taiwan drops the ROC military namesake and initiate reforms to adopt the name “Taiwanese Military”. [/quote]
lol…No. Plan fail.
Good idea, buts the USA, as Taiwan’s only strategic friend, will thwart this type of action plan
Quite a big stretch, definitely thinking outside the box, but I like the way you think. Though these ideas are way out there in terms of do-ability, stretching the mind and concepts are what the US and Taiwan government need to do.
The “US military is already on Taiwan” doesn’t really mean much if it isn’t more than 20 or 30 people. The “US military will be in Taiwan when needed” is what the CCP and PLA needs to understand.
Good try, but that agreement has absolutely nothing to do with defense… “in promoting and enacting smart policies, and in acting as a compass in challenging our private sectors”. It’s economics and business. Don’t mix apples and oranges.
Don’t forget the Taiwan Relations Act: “to consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States; to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character; and to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan.”
Vague, but clear.
My bad. I had assumed you were of the school that the enemy of my enemy… Shouldn’t have made assumptions.
This is a truly horrible plan if it is contingent upon that.
Unless Taiwan unilaterally starts or causes something, the US will come. Maybe not with military, but with other diplomatic tools. The military is by US diplomatic SOP… the last option.
You misunderstood. I meant to point out that there is an agreement between U.S. and Taiwan, which Taiwan can use it as a basis for making internal reform in general, assuming that Taiwan signs its name as “Taiwan.”
I did not say anything about this US.-Taiwan agreement being something of a defence treaty.
It is not a contingent plan.
If the only scenario you could image is US comes steaming at t=0, (where 0 is the time China attacks) then you begin to question US resolve and turn the discussion into a game of guessing.
However, if you picture a plan where US makes its presence gradually, contiuously at various points t<0, then China will not be able to reach t=0.
This is a truly horrible plan if it is contingent upon that.[/quote]
Unless Taiwan unilaterally starts or causes something, the US will come. Maybe not with military, but with other diplomatic tools. The military is by US diplomatic SOP… the last option.[/quote]
That’s not the point. The idea that the “US will come, on the condition that Taiwan drops the ROC military namesake and initiate reforms to adopt the name “Taiwanese Military”. Flags, insignias, emblems, culture will have to fully modernize and localize” is far-fetched and completely outside the realms of reality. That basically amounts to a US recognition of a “nation of Taiwan.” Something that will NOT happen. The US pitches a fit every time TI-advocates rock the boat over here. Why in the world would anyone think that they would be down with a complete “rebranding” of Taiwan?
[quote=“Dog’s_Breakfast”]
And you suggested that I was the one advocating provocative moves? But anyway, mini-subs are a start, and I’m not opposed. Is there anyone in the DPP who has said this? Is there a plan to build it? To the best of my knowledge, Taiwan has never built a single submarine. I think that even the tourist sub they had in Green Island for viewing the coral reefs was imported. For an “island nation,” Taiwan sure doesn’t have much of a seafaring culture.
To be fair, the KMT doesn’t have a rational military plan either. But then again, they aren’t hellbent on declaring independence. In a war, their plan is to surrender.[/quote]
I see where you are coming from. The survivability factor is key, and nuclear subs would fit the bill, though just not a feasible option.
I think one of the key components of the DPP defense plan is to build diesel subs domestically - there actually appears something resembling cross-party consensus on this. taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/ … 2003601235
As you are right to point out, Taiwan has zero experience building subs. Even if they are able to pull off a miracle and hit all the targets, the plan calls for building 8, one every 5 years, with the first one hitting the water in 2025; what’s the point?
Mini subs have been fielded by Iran and North Korea, and it would appear that the technical barrier to building these is much more manageable. You could build more, actually have multiple bases to field them from (if China destroys the naval bases, a fleet of subs would be dead in the water), and have a wider area of coverage to take advantage of what experts say is the PLN’s achilles heel, anti-submarine warfare.
This is a truly horrible plan if it is contingent upon that.[/quote]
Unless Taiwan unilaterally starts or causes something, the US will come. Maybe not with military, but with other diplomatic tools. The military is by US diplomatic SOP… the last option.[/quote]
That’s not the point. The idea that the “US will come, on the condition that Taiwan drops the ROC military namesake and initiate reforms to adopt the name “Taiwanese Military”. Flags, insignias, emblems, culture will have to fully modernize and localize” is far-fetched and completely outside the realms of reality. That basically amounts to a US recognition of a “nation of Taiwan.” Something that will NOT happen. The US pitches a fit every time TI-advocates rock the boat over here. Why in the world would anyone think that they would be down with a complete “rebranding” of Taiwan?[/quote]
Agree, thats what I meant by “Unless Taiwan unilaterally start or causes something”.
There are many countries that are not state, such as the British Virgin Islands and Jersey. US has no problem referring to Taiwan as “Taiwan.”
To initiate necessary changes, little mechanisms can be built into a contract, such as bilingual text. For example Taiwanese Military will correspond to 台灣軍. With a contract like this, out of necessity Taiwan will reform its military.
What it amounts to is up to your own personal interpretation. Legal councils in the US Depart of State know how to word an agreement. If it is a treaty of mutual recognition between two states, then the treaty would expressly say so and save you the guessing. If it’s not, then it’s not.
Again, US has no problem referring to Taiwan as Taiwan.
[quote]I am honored to be here today to witness the launch of the new U.S.-Taiwan Global Cooperation and Training Framework Agreement, which will not only support broader U.S.-Taiwan cooperation, but will also give us a strong platform to enhance our joint engagement in the Asia Pacific region and the world…
state.gov/e/eb/rls/rm/2015/243096.htm[/quote]
Tell me what makes you so confident the US will aid Taiwan; I haven’t seen it in the past few decades. In fact, the US has always lent not-so-silent support to the party that is pushing for closer ties with China…
There are many countries that are not state, such as the British Virgin Islands and Jersey. US has no problem referring to Taiwan as “Taiwan.”
To initiate necessary changes, little mechanisms can be built into a contract, such as bilingual text. For example Taiwanese Military will correspond to 台灣軍. With a contract like this, out of necessity Taiwan will reform its military.
What it amounts to is up to your own personal interpretation. Legal councils in the US Depart of State know how to word an agreement. If it is a treaty of mutual recognition between two states, then the treaty would expressly say so and save you the guessing. If it’s not, then it’s not.
Again, US has no problem referring to Taiwan as Taiwan.
[quote]I am honored to be here today to witness the launch of the new U.S.-Taiwan Global Cooperation and Training Framework Agreement, which will not only support broader U.S.-Taiwan cooperation, but will also give us a strong platform to enhance our joint engagement in the Asia Pacific region and the world…
state.gov/e/eb/rls/rm/2015/243096.htm[/quote][/quote]
I can’t help but laugh at how much you can divorce yourself from reality in all of this. The U.S. will never (at least in the foreseeable future) recognize a “Taiwanese Military” force, a newly designed Taiwanese flag, or anything like that on any sort of official level. Why? Because China would throw a ridiculous temper tantrum.
Quoting a speech by a State Dept. official proves absolutely nothing. I absolutely guarantee that if you pressed Mr. Rivkin about what he is referring to when he uses the term “Taiwan,” he would be obliged to answer that he is referring to Taiwan the province of China. Why? Because that is the U.S. gov’t line. They cannot and will not recognize a state of Taiwan. End of story.
[quote=“Taiwanguy”]
I can’t help but laugh at how much you can divorce yourself from reality in all of this. The U.S. will never (at least in the foreseeable future) recognize a “Taiwanese Military” force, a newly designed Taiwanese flag, or anything like that on any sort of official level. Why? Because China would throw a ridiculous temper tantrum.
Quoting a speech by a State Dept. official proves absolutely nothing. I absolutely guarantee that if you pressed Mr. Rivkin about what he is referring to when he uses the term “Taiwan,” he would be obliged to answer that he is referring to Taiwan the province of China. Why? Because that is the U.S. gov’t line. They cannot and will not recognize a state of Taiwan. End of story.[/quote]
Really? Then explain why there’s a US law requiring to help a “Chinese province” maintain a sufficient level of self-defense capabilities?
Such statement isn’t even factual, let alone in touch with realities. According to the Taiwan Relations Act, the US’s position on Taiwan is “governing authorities on Taiwan,” which certainly isn’t “Taiwan, province of China.”
The US’s official position is that they understands China’s position on Taiwan, but maintains that Taiwan’s sovereignty is undetermined.
[quote=“hansioux”][quote=“Taiwanguy”]
Quoting a speech by a State Dept. official proves absolutely nothing.[/quote]
The US’s official position [/quote]
I can quote Legal Advisor of the Department of State, but what’s even better is if I quote a court decision after the judge heared what the former said previously in the same case. In doing so, I hope members of this forum can refrain from perpetuating a lie told a thousand times. I suggest readers bookmark the following:
You didn’t get the memo?
A lot of things have happened in the past few decades and it’s easy to miss what happened in the past few years. People change, national interest change, but something never changes, such as the 2 rules of real estates. The first rule is Location, Location, Location. The second rule is, If it’s worth a lot to you, then it is also worth a lot to me.
Rules of Acquisition 199, and 239, as I recall.
Anyway, I believe unless China faces collapse, the US would love to see the status quo continue. So if Taiwan tips over too much to one side, they would say something to tip Taiwan over to the other side. It’s a dangerous game, but it’s the only way to delay actual confrontation with the Chinese. If the US doesn’t come when an invasion happens, it would mean that the US is giving up all its interests in East Asia, SEA and the Pacific. The reason being giving up Taiwan and then try to contain China elsewhere would be like giving up China and then try to contain communism elsewhere. Things will get real ugly if Chinese expansionism isn’t put to an end before it starts. Look at what China is doing in the East Sea and the South China Sea. If expansionism gains the upper hand in China, they are not going to stop with Taiwan. It would be much worse than Germany and Japan during WW2.