US plan to defend Taiwan against China

It’s really ironic that it’s us “Commies” who get accused of being brain-washed.

The United States does NOT have a no-first-use policy for its nuclear arsenal. The United States has consistently refused to rule out the option of a preemptive nuclear strike. The United States is honest in that regard, even if it never advertises this fact and confuses some of its more naive citizens into thinking otherwise.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-first-use

[quote]Secondly China has been the one threatening to nuke other nations. Even during the cold war, no Russian generals have gone out to say “we’ll nuke the US” while some from China have.[/quote]You’re right, a Chinese general threatened to nuke the US. He’s a soldier, not a policy maker, and doesn’t have the authority to make any such decision.

In contrast, in the US, it’s the policy makers that actually have the authority to launch nuclear attacks that have always maintained their “threat” to nuke other nations.

[quote=“cctang”][quote=“ShrimpCrackers”]
Why? The US promises not to do preemtive nuclear strikes.
[/quote]
It’s really ironic that it’s us “Commies” who get accused of being brain-washed.[/quote]
I don’t think I wrote that in the post that you were replying to. Doesn’t it show something if you’re claiming that I wrote something isn’t there?

As for the promise, I’m certain I heard it from certain key politicians, and not from a state controlled school, but then again your posts seem to think that the CCP rules over Taiwan and that race matters so…

[quote=“cctang”]The United States does [b]NOT[/b[ have a no-first-use policy for its nuclear arsenal. The United States has consistently refused to rule out the option of a preemptive nuclear strike. The United States is honest in that regard, even if it never advertises this fact and confuses some of its more naive citizens into thinking otherwise.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-first-use

[/quote]
Actually that is correct, I mean to say it would look terrible if the US did a preemptive nuclear strike, and most politicians would not agree to a preemptive strike anyway since the idea of MADD is so popular in the USA. In addition China did say that if anyone shot its dam or possibly threatened to shoot its dam, it would consider preemptive nuclear strike. Keep in mind, SinoTV in USA was showing a 6 hour special on how TAIWAN’s supposed strategy would not work on the dam and that Taiwan should be damned for suggesting such an idea. Odd because it came from the DOD. Scapegoat anyone?

[quote]Secondly China has been the one threatening to nuke other nations. Even during the cold war, no Russian generals have gone out to say “we’ll nuke the US” while some from China have.[/quote]You’re right, a Chinese general threatened to nuke the US. He’s a soldier, not a policy maker, and doesn’t have the authority to make any such decision.

In contrast, in the US, it’s the policy makers that actually have the authority to launch nuclear attacks that have always maintained their “threat” to nuke other nations.[/quote]
[b]

  1. Show me instances where US generals said they would nuke specific nations in the last 20 years.

  2. One of those Chinese generals that threatened to preemptive-nuke the USA is chief DEFENSE MINISTER CHI HAOTIAN and yet you say he doesn’t make policy?!?
    [/b]

Well, it’s very reassuring that you heard it from “certain key politicians”. I’m sure you’ll be able to find quotes from these “key politicians” confirming that the US has a no-first-use nuclear policy.

I’ll be waiting.

Oh, ok, you didn’t really mean the US didn’t have a non-first-use policy… you just meant that it would look bad, and that “most” politicians wouldn’t agree.

But in the middle of your mental justification here… could you just answer two questions for me?

  1. Does the United States have a declared no-first-use policy?
  2. Why doesn’t the United States have a declared no-first-use policy?

Let me guess, did you also hear that from “certain key politicians”? Any chance you have a quote or link to back up this comment that Chi Haotian threatened a pre-emptive nuclear strike on the US?

Read more, talk less:
nti.org/e_research/e3_70.html

NYTimes just published this article:

nytimes.com/2006/06/07/world … ref=slogin

"China’s efforts to field an early-warning aircraft that could help it project power far beyond its borders, and challenge American intervention in any conflict with Taiwan, were dealt at least a temporary blow by the crash of a surveillance aircraft on Sunday, defense specialists in the region said.

The aircraft, described by two government-controlled newspapers in Hong Kong as a Chinese-made airborne warning and control system, or Awacs, plane, slammed into a hillside in central Anhui Province, killing all 40 technicians and crew members on board.

The crash was described as one of the worst disasters in the history of the Chinese Air Force. The Chinese news media said that Guo Boxiong, a top military official in Beijing, was supervising the investigation into the accident.

The two Hong Kong newspapers, Ta Kung Pao and Wen Wei Po, carried articles on Monday that described the crash in more detail than did the rest of the Chinese news media. They did not identify the model of the plane, but regional experts suggested that it was most likely the KJ-2000, an early-warning aircraft that was developed using mostly technology developed in China.

In addition to the loss of the aircraft, one of four of its kind that China has built, experts said the deaths of the 40 people on board, including 35 electronics and avionics technicians, could hinder one of China’s most pressing military modernization programs.

“We don’t know the cause of the crash and can’t say for certain how much of a problem it will prove to be,” said Allen Behm, an expert on the Chinese military and a former chief strategist in Australia’s Defense Department. “But to lose that much expertise really does hurt.”

The United States has a sophisticated fleet of Awacs aircraft that it sees as giving its naval forces a decisive advantage in sea battles.

China needs such technology if it intends to project force far from its shores. Without the technology, it would face tactical disadvantages in a conflict with Japan or Taiwan.

China has repeatedly threatened to attack Taiwan if the island declares formal independence. The United States has said it would come to Taiwan’s defense if China mounted an attack. Japan, an American military ally, uses American-made Awacs aircraft.

Chinese officials tried for years to purchase Awacs technology from Israel, France, Britain and Russia. But the United States strongly opposed the sales, and Beijing has been forced to develop its own version.

The KJ-2000 is a conversion of a Russian-made IL-76 transport plane into an Awacs aircraft. The Chinese Air Force has also mounted sophisticated radar systems on its own Yun-8 transport planes.

Mr. Behm said the number of people on board Sunday’s flight suggested that China was conducting a test of the aircraft. The plane may have carried three dozen technicians because China wanted to conduct the tests without transmitting the plane’s operating data to the ground.

It might take that precaution because the United States could intercept air-to-ground signals from a Chinese Awacs plane and gauge the country’s progress in developing the technology, Mr. Behm said.

Lin Chong-pin, a former defense official in Taiwan, said China had pushed hard to develop early-warning aircraft and probably would not be deterred by the accident.

“They have the resolve and they have the money,” Mr. Lin said. But he added that China might be somewhat less likely to pursue a risky military confrontation with Taiwan if it felt its Awacs aircraft was unprepared for wartime operation. "

[quote=“reztrop”]NYTimes just published this article:

nytimes.com/2006/06/07/world … ref=slogin

"China’s efforts to field an early-warning aircraft that could help it project power far beyond its borders, and challenge American intervention in any conflict with Taiwan, were dealt at least a temporary blow by the crash of a surveillance aircraft on Sunday, defense specialists in the region said.[/quote]

Johnny Neihu would probably point to this as an example of the way the foreign press uses seemingly impartial phraseology to misstate the facts. “Intervention” connotes unwanted interference and excludes the Taiwanese point of view. “Conflict with” should read “an invasion of.” It’s an easy game. Anyone can play.

And I would point to this as an example of the way the foreignER uses farcical props like Johnny “TP Times” Neihu to make a ham-fisted point.

War cannot solve problems. While China becomes a normal country, no threat any more, this day is coming.

I don’t know what you mean by normal country. Maybe worsening human rights and civil liberties, the rise of nationalism, and facism, is turning normal for you as in “its normal for countries to turn into Italy under Mousollini”.

Not like the USA hasn’t been accused of any of the above human rights abuse since the start of the “War on Terror.”

well, US for sure is not the best case in the world as far as human rights can go…

“So unlike Ukraine, to be clear, sir,” Pelley said, “U.S. forces, U.S. men and women would defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion?”

“Yes,” the president said.

5 Likes

Wow. Good on Joe. :+1:

1 Like

There is a bit of nuance there. He said he would assist in the case of unprecedented attack. Taiwan declaring independence goes against the whole status quo thing that has been going for decades.

Isn’t that the third time he’s given a pretty straight answer to this question? Sure, the WH or State will have to flip-flop and obfuscate to maintain ambiguity and allow the CCP to save face, but that’s a positive signal for us!

Sure. If Taiwan makes a big deal about formal independence, then the US had an open door away from the problem. So, the Taiwanese government would be wise to simply maintain the status quo for now. No need to poke the dragon, especially when by its own actions the world is slowly turning on China anyways. Right?

3 Likes

I would agree with that statement yes.
Although the turning on China part might be premature. We’ll see if the west puts it’s money where it’s mouth is.

1 Like

There’s a whole thread on the topic. Australia has put their money ob the line, Canada had not. Europe is a mixed bag, US is walking the line (which i think is smart). Japan economically I’m not sure, but they’re putting money down on a major military rearmament

Yes, good.

He probably forgot the first three times he said it and that his aids told him each time not to say that.

The only other way it could make sense is if they were being deliberately ambiguous, like it was some kind of diplomatic strategy :thinking:

The new strategic ambiguity: left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing.

1 Like

I find it difficult to believe that WW3 hinges on Biden’s senility, but perhaps America is in much worse shape than I thought