Conference back40::soapbox

> Since then Taiwan officials have tried to reassure their people that war is 
> not imminent and that the island can defend itself against the rival from 
> which it parted after losing a protracted civil war.

???

Didn't Aesop have a fable about the elephant and the mosquito?

    prediction: violence between China and Taiwan before Jan. 1, 2000.
    
    China is a force to be feared, and barring internal strife, will be THE
    regional power within 10 years.  I mean that economically and
    militarily.  The US & USSR are demilitarizing, focusing internally. 
    The next 4 years in the white house will be retrenching; that leaves
    'Red China' to play the field more.
    IMHO

    The PRC will never use overwhelming military force to repatriate
    Taiwan.  They will bluster and bluff and do a lot of saber rattling
    but they will never invade.  Taiwan is too valuable a prize
    industrially.  Its economy is booming.  It is worth much more to the
    PRC intact than it would be as a pile of rubble.  There will be a
    repatriation but not a violent one and one under circumstances similar
    to HK but with far more freedom and latitude for self rule.  IMO of
    course.

    
    
     I haven't been in 'the box' since late October,...I see it's still
     movin' along.
    
    
     How many miles across is the Formosa Strait between Taiwan and PRC?
    
     If an invasion were to take place can anyone speculate what the
     military response from the 'west' would look like? Could we stop
     a 'conventional' invasion by the PRC with a 'conventional' response?
    
    
     Ed

> 							Could we stop
>     a 'conventional' invasion by the PRC with a 'conventional' response?

Would we even care to? Haven't we learned enough about getting involved
in civil strife in the Orient?

If the PRC and Taiwan decide to mix it up, I wish them well, but I don't
perceive US involvement as a wise course in any event. I think the last
paragraph of the article indicated that was their hope, as well.

    
    
    re: .4
    
    >military response from the 'west'
    
    We'll huff... and we'll puff... and we'll blow your house down!!!
    

    Taiwan has a standing army of about 2 million with another 20 million
    active reservists.  The PRC would not destroy the cities and industrial
    areas as this is what they really want.  It would have to be a land
    assault in extremely rugged and inhospitable terrain.  I believe the
    PRC is showing is making noise wrt forcefully retaking Taiwan.  There
    may be a token show of force with a minimal loss of lives but in the
    end, the unification will take place but on more diplomatic terms with
    a willing Taiwan.  
    
    Brian
    
    

>    
>     How many miles across is the Formosa Strait between Taiwan and PRC?
>    

125 miles.

/john

>    The PRC would not destroy the cities and industrial
>    areas as this is what they really want.  

    Sounds like ideal conditions for what the neutron bomb was designed
    for.

    -- Dave

Prolly true, but isn't 125 miles from the mainland a bit close for comfort?
(The possibility exists that this is the least of their concerns.)
Then there's the general global unrest over Pacific nuclear activities, witness
France's current popularity.
(Of course, then again, the possibility exists that ...)

    that's it! that's it! the PRC could get France to do a little 
    "stray" nuclear testing. 
    
    see, there's a solution to every problem.

    
    The PRC already tried to take Taiwan by force in the early '50's
    or late '40's, right after they consolidated their hold on the
    mainland.  They failed.  The folks in Taiwan have had 40 years
    to get ready.  On the other hand, the original Nationalists are
    gone, and the current generation thinks differently.
    
    My guess is that the old folks in power hope that by saying
    "BOO" load enough, that they will get what they want.  But
    if the folks in Taiwan hold out long enough, the folks running
    things on the mainland will die off and the new generation
    there will be easier to deal with.  So its a big game of
    bluff, and the first one to move loses.

    125 miles is within easy striking range of cruise missles and close to
    the range of an Exocet.  Don't know how far the Silkworm will go. 
    Taiwan is very easily defensible.  The PRC would have to launch a
    sustained air bombardment and then launch a massive landing. 
    Logistically near impossible given their current state of hardware. 
    Taiwan on the other hand has been given Western military technology. 
    They have F-16s in their airforce among other capable aircraft.  They
    have mobilization plans that will allow them to muster several million
    troops inside a very short time with several million more in reserve.  
    
    After visiting last Fall, the general consensus was that the idea of
    reunification was very desirable.  The question was more how and when. 
    It will require the PRC to soften its stance on leadership issues etc. 
    Possibly after Hong Kong transfers to the PRC and they see how it goes.  
    
    Brian

    
    Maybe Taiwan should "allow" their citizens to own weapons.
    
    They don't now, if I am not mistaken.
    
    

    a graduate at Bowie State U just went home last winter to Hong Kong and
    I recently got a note which said that her relatives on Taiwan fear and
    red wave

 eh?

re .18 change the "and" at the end of next to last line to "a" and it all
makes sense.

China _will_ "repatriate" Taiwan.  The only question is "When?".

    ....and how.  

    
      I've seen the red wave at Riverfront Stadium.
    
      bb

    just a matter of time

    
    And the USA will sputter, and stutter, and stamp their feet.. and hold
    their breath... and demand this and that...
    
    and vote China (again) to Most Favored Status...
    

    
>    And the USA will sputter, and stutter, and stamp their feet.. and hold
>    their breath... and demand this and that...
    
     And say "We are outraged" 






       

.. and in the meantime make plans to invade Cuba, to crush evil Castro




       

    
    
    ... or dem Somalians....
    

    China launched three missle this AM off the coast of Taiwan.  Some
    folks are getting nervous.  There have been runs on U.S. currency in
    Taiwanese banks in the last few days.  

    
    	Where were the missiles launched to?
    

    Probably low flying cesnas.

    
    	There are 3 s's in cessnas, Glenn.
    

    China announced two test zones last week and requested the assistance
    of other governments and international bodies in directing other
    traffic away from the areas (all IAW international practise.)  The
    zones are *very* close to Taiwan, one northeast, and one west (see .16).  
    It is considered a deliberate warning, as Taiwan is due for elections 
    soon, and China is telling them that even thinking about independence, 
    much less discussing it in electoral politics, is a bad idea.
    
    DougO

    One of the test zones is 20 miles offshore from Taiwan's busiest
    oceangoing port.  This choice of target area is being interpreted as a
    clear and intentional threat.

    
    	This could be bad then, yes?
    
    	How large is China's military?
    

    About 1.2b, give or take.  

    
    	They're not ALL in the military, are they?
    
    	Hmmm, I guess you're right ... they could be, if needed.
    

    We should provide them with a couple of Patriot missile batteries and
    'conduct tests' in the same area at the same time and pop a couple of
    them out of the sky...
    
    This is absurd. It is just international terrorism.
    
    Steve

    China has a large standing army.  The citizenry is available for
    conscription.  

    China is picking up the ugly aggressor position which the USSR
    abandoned a few years ago...

In NPR this morning: Chinese considers Taiwan as an unfriendly unsinkable
aircraft carrier, and hence this threat

    The 'unsinkable aircraft carrier" was a remark from Douglas McAuthur
    during the Korean war, when the Red Chinese joined the fray.
    
    Residents expect an invasion or shelling of Qemoy, a small island
    several miles off the mainland chinese Coast.  Shellings have gone on
    there in the past - China may up the ante.
    
    /jim

    the U.S. has already dispatched an aircraft to the area. China has
    warned the U.S. not to interfere.
    
    the Chinese have pretty much operated independently even during the
    height of communism in the east. they remind me of the difficult
    2 year old that will always try his/her best to be in disagreement
    and make you life generally miserable for the fun of it.

    
      The 7th Fleet is "observing" the tests, which are without warheads.
    
      I love it the way weapons are used as communications devices.  You
     can fly bombers around, conduct manuevers near a border, etc.  And
     afterwards, you can say it was all just a coincidence.
    
      bb

    We all knew this was going to happen with the expiration of the Hong
    Kong lease. Cina wants the money.

    Where is Jesse Helms when you need him?

    who the h is Cina?

    .43
    
    > The 7th Fleet is "observing" the tests, which are without warheads.
    
    Beginning tomorrow, the exercies will employ LIVE firing of naval guns
    and missiles.  The word LIVE indicates "with warheads."

    So, when the say, coming to you live from Ceasar's Palace, they mean
    with warheads?

    News reports indicate that China has announced that they will be
    shelling (with live rounds) several uninhabited rocks off the shore of
    Qemoy.
    
    /jim

    The creatures on the inhabited rocks will be pleased by this news.

    They make cheap toys.

    
    	Maybe it just needs another set of D batteries.
    

>    	How large is China's military?
    
Last time I heard that they are about three millions and have been putting
every effort to modernize Air and Navy forces.

And, what do _you_ think that the USA should do, Jason?

    Jack:
    
    I think we should review China's application for MFNStatus in light of
    their deployable record with human rights violations and now this
    intimidation of Taiwan.

Well, Ron, but as Jason seems to be our quintessential "cut the defense 
budget to the bone" guy, I figured it would be interesting to get his 
response.

    Sorry I muffed your sneak attack, Jack.

    I with Ron on this one.  CHina should be slapped, hard.  Removing the
    MFN status would be a good first step.  One very large problem we have
    is that CHina could nationalize foregin assets, again.  U.S. companies
    have invested heavily in China so they have instant hostages.  This is
    going to be a tricky situation.  I am glad we have sent the carriers to
    the area.  Taiwan must understand that they are not going to stand
    alone in the face of mainland aggression.  Question is, when will the
    rest of the world ante up?  We cannot and should not bear the burden of
    protecting Taiwan, alone.  
    
    Brian

    >Question is, when will the rest of the world ante up?  
    
     When the horse has been gone from the barn for a long time. It's
    important that the horse get a good head start, doncha know?
    
     Meanwhile, the europeans will strut about and talk about how
    belligerent americans are, wring their hands, go on about their
    superiority, etc...

        The Europeans are too self absorbed, as usual.

    I forgot.  The Euros don't have any assets in Taiwan or Hong Kong.  

    
    We do.  Walkmans.

The US is getting in first?  Well that makes a change.

Chris.

    Yeah, we were real laggards in Kuwait.

>    Yeah, we were real laggards in Kuwait.

I wasn't really making a point, other than toward the rednecks who reckon they 
`saved our asses from a good whupping' in WWII...  fortunately, there's not 
too much of that in here.

Chris.

    We came to the aid of our allies in WWII, as we should have.  We most
    likely should have gotten involved sooner than we did.  

    I hate to be the first to break this to you Chris.  But they saved our
    asses from a whupping in WWII.  A whupping by the the Russians that
    is.  

        Not only that, they practically rebuilt the entire continent.

    If the US had sat the sidelines, the Nazis would have taken
    a poke at Russia anyway.  They would still have been beaten by the
    Russians.
    
    D'yer think Stalin would have stopped at Berlin without the presence of
    the US in Western Europe?
    
    Colin
    

    .67
    
    > But they saved our
    > asses from a whupping in WWII.
    
    It's time you realized that we did not "save your assess from a
    whupping in WWII."  We, the Allied Forces, collectively saved our
    collective asses from a whupping in WWII.

    Yes, something known in corporate upper echelons as `synergy'.

    The allies were also committed to troop engagement.

    The Russians were our allies - yet we eventually conceded Poland to
    them even though the German attack on Poland was the very reason that
    the UK and France originally declared war.  We ended WWII in a
    stand-off with the Russians as our cold war enemy.
    
    Had the US chosen not to participate, (even in lease-lend) the Nazis
    would probably have taken all Europe.  I don't think the mainland US
    would have been under much of a threat from the distant thousand year
    reich, so the US had nothing to "save its ass" from.  I doubt Germany
    could have been self-sustaining in resources to hold Europe for long.
    The reason the Nazis struck at Russia was to capture the oil and
    grain resources in the Urals. At that point in the war Nazi Germany was
    still under-resourced in raw materials.
    
    On the other hand, the Russians did have the resources to hold Europe
    for an extended period, as they demonstrated in the post-war era.
    Whichever way you look at it, the US would have ended up with some kind
    of post-WWII cold war, but that doesn't mean they were ever under any
    direct military threat from any European aggressor.
    
    Colin
    

    
      Um, Colin, clue :  we, the US, didn't declare war on Hitler.
    
      He declared it on us.  Gratuitously.
    
      At least he bothered.  The Japanese just bombed without comment.
    
      bb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Where did I say anything about who declared war?  Although Germany
    "declared" war on the US, that does not mean that the US has to
    choose to participate - there were plenty of options to sue for a
    separate peace, and in the absence of a physical attack plenty of
    Americans who wanted to do that.
    
    Even after formal exchanges of declaration of war, there were no
    immediate fights between the UK and Germany ("The Phony War") and
    many people in the UK also thought that we could come to an agreement.
    
    Colin

    Yes, yes, yes.  Take it to the WWII topic boise.

    the WWII topic is in Idaho?

    Could be.

    i think historical events outline the fact that the Germans pushed the
    British army into the sea early in the war and that the Japanese pushed
    the British army into India early into the war. the only "successful"
    campaign for the British was North Africa.
    
    now, whatever that constitues is entirely up to the reader.
    
    i agree on Hitler's stupidity in Operation Barbarosa...

    
    re .74
    >    Where did I say anything about who declared war?  Although Germany
    >    "declared" war on the US, that does not mean that the US has to
    >    choose to participate - there were plenty of options to sue for a
    >    separate peace, and in the absence of a physical attack plenty of
    >    Americans who wanted to do that.
    
    This is not historically factual. There was no option to sue for a
    separate peace. The AXIS powers had an treaty. Look up AXIS POWERS in
    any history of WWII. 
    
    Once Japan attacked the U.S. there was no 'plenty of Americans' who
    wanted a separate peace. The U.S. declaration of war against Japan
    passed the U.S. Senate with only one opposing vote. You are mistaking
    sentiment against involvment in a European War to the 1939-1941 views
    of pacifists - all of whom changed their views after the attack on
    Pearl Harbor.
        
    >    Even after formal exchanges of declaration of war, there were no
    >    immediate fights between the UK and Germany ("The Phony War") and
    >    many people in the UK also thought that we could come to an
    >	 agreement.
    
    Again, this is not historically factual. The U.K. struck back with
    bombers on German cities. The 'phony' war you describe is a description
    of the Army - not the Navy or Air Services of the U.K. and France.
    
    Also WWII started with the attack on Poland in September of 1939. The
    U.S. did not enter the war until December, 1941.
    
        
    

    I look up lots of things, but I also tend to prefer to write what I
    think rather than repeat the writings of others.   You are 100% right
    in the case of the Phony war vs the Air War, but there were also strong
    pacifist, socialist and Mosely's Blackshirt fascist movements in the UK
    who wanted to sue for peace before all-out war.
    
    In 1939 the US originally proclaimed neutrality, but aided the Allied
    cause with vast amounts of war resources which *provoked* the
    Tripartite Treaty (The AXIS treaty).  It was not until after Pearl
    harbour that the Nazis declared war on the US.  It is the opinion of a
    lot of historians that the US prodded Japan into the war (the cowardly
    attack on Pearl notwithstanding) and it was therefore inevitable that
    the US would come under a declaration of war from Germany. To quote one
    source "A war that could possibly have been avoided now broke out".
    (Richardson, Toland.)
     
    This doesn't detract from the original point.  Germany posed no
    immediate threat to the mainland US. The US did not have to get
    involved in Europe right away, but chose to fight on two fronts. My
    only reason for making this point is in rebuttal to the popularly-held
    view in Europe that the yanks came late and claimed victory.
    
    I'm not sure that you are correct about opposition to the war in
    Europe. As to political viewpoints in the US, there was complete
    polarisation before the attack on Pearl Harbour, with the
    interventionists against the America Firsters, America Peace
    Mobilization, German-American Bund and traditional isolationists.
    However, this position became much less tenable after Pearl, hence the
    unity of congress. At this time, the Allies WERE at war with Germany,
    whil Japan was still only a threat.
    
    Current thought is that the attack on pearl was less of a surprise to
    Roosevelt's administration.  There is evidence that the administration
    knew of the approach of the Japanese carrieer force on Dec 2nd.  Some
    historians imply that Roosevelt saw it as his chance to unify America
    behind all-out war.  His goals were the destruction of Naziism and
    the denmocratisation of all Europe.
    
    Colin
    
    

    RE Germany a threat to America
    
    
    There was the NY Bomber that was to bomb NY on a one way trip from
    France and ditch in the ocean with the crew being picked up by sub.
    The American hysterical affect would have been akin to the Doolittle
    raid on Japan.
    
    
    There was the V3 which was being worked on that could reach the US though
    late in the war.
    
    Steve
    

    Meanwhile, back in Taiwan, China warned that they would not let any
    U.S. ships enter Chinese waters.  Does this include the water
    surrounding Taiwan?

    Oh contraire
    
    The NY bomber would have been VERY successful for psycological (sp)
    reasons. Unlike the Japanese balloon bombs, these would have had an
    impact on moral and political/war decisions. And unlike the balloon
    bombs, it would have been piloted and aimed at a generalised target
    NYC. Just like the Doolittle raid caused the Japanese to push for an
    all or nothing showdown with the US (Midway), the NY Bomber would have
    caused profound effect upon US war fighting policy. 
    
    The Germans were so far ahead of anyone else in rockets it took until
    the early 50's before the US could basically duplicate what they had
    done in WW2. I well remember seeing the 'tests' of the US missiles
    (small ones at that) that most often failed.
    
    
    Steve

    .84
    
    > The NY bomber...
    
    ...would not likely have made it to these coasts.  You are forgetting
    that although the Luftwaffe had some four-engined transports, it had no
    four-engined bombers because bombers that big were considered too large
    and cumbersome for combat service.  The Germans had little reason to
    design aircraft for long-range service, given the geographical
    constraints under which they were conducting their part of the war, and
    as a result they did not well understand the technology required to
    make a long-range bomber.  The Allies had several highly successful
    four-engined bombers, but even after the Germans had seen these planes
    in service and had tasted the devastation of which they were capable,
    there was still no four-engined bomber forthcoming from Germany.
    
    > The Germans were so far ahead of anyone else in rockets...
    
    ...that the V-2 was considered a terror weapon, nothing more.  Of
    course the V-2 did damage in Britain, but with a range of only about 75
    miles and a notoriously inadequate gyroscopic guidance system that had
    to be preset and then just turned loose, it had no military value.  The
    technology of true inertial guidance was not even feasible until the
    development of the transistor in 1948; inertially guided missiles
    would simply have shaken their own computers into nothing during
    launch.  Add to that the fact that the Germans suffered a large number
    of V-2 failures, even during the height of the terror bombing of London
    - the V-2s would simply blow up on the pad, and it took a bloody long
    time to discover that a simple belt around the fuel tank would solve
    the problem.  Getting an ICBM up through the stratosphere, over 3500
    miles of ocean, and down within 100 miles of its target wasn't possible
    until the '50s.  Remember that we built upon the technology that von
    Braun's people brought with them, and even with the Red menace, we
    didn't have a workable ICBM until the Titan II.  (Don't mention the
    Atlas.  I've heard off-the-record remarks by people who served at Atlas
    sites, to the effect that if the button had been pushed while the Atlas
    was our ICBM du jour, exactly zero would have gotten off their pads.)

    The DID design a NY Bomber. I have a picture of the proto in one of my
    books. It would have done EXACTLY what they wanted to; cause a change in
    war fighting policy, just like the Doolittle raid did and just like the
    V1/V2 raids. The Allies went after the V1/V2 launch sites contrary to
    what was the best way to defeat the germans on the ground. The bomber
    was designed for a one way trip. It could easily have made it. Their 4
    engined condor recon planes could probably have made it one way.
    
    RE V2/V3's Lookt at the old news reels of our efforts in the 50's. I
    remember them well in school seeing the rigs blow up on the launch pads
    or going wild and having to be destroyed.
    
    I guess we agree to disagree.
    
    Steve

    i believe thatt the NY bomber was designed for a one-way trip. the
    Condor, which was a converted commercial airplane, could not have made
    the trip (lacked the range).

    The Condors flew out to at least Iceland searching for convoys. The 1st
    P38 kill was a Condor with the P38 flying from Iceland. I am pretty
    sure it could have made it one way. It was however not a bomber.

    Boy, that Binder fellah is GOOD.
    
    For 2 points, where was the US mainland bombed in WWII?

    
      I know, I know  !!  Oregon and Washington state.
    
      bb

    And the man is correct!  I guess severe disruption of the apple supply
    would have brought the US to it's knees.

    Take the WWII stuff to 203.

    
    
    The German bomber looker remarkably like our own B-29...
    

    .86
    
    > The DID design a NY Bomber.
    
    I didn't say they didn't (attempt to) design one.  I said they didn't
    produce one.  A single proto does not a bomber make, and the existence
    of a proto that has not been flown over a long distance does not begin
    to prove that the design will be viable for that sort of mission - even
    if you don't expect it to come back.
    
    It's a LONG way from the first proto (actually more likely a nonflying
    mockup - cf the Space Shuttle Enterprise) to a workable airplane.  The
    first B-29 down the runway augered straight into a Seattle meat packing
    plant on its maiden flight, killing its crew.  Problems of a major
    nature were still being found with the B-29 nearly two years after the
    first successful proto flight (an interesting story in its own right -
    seems they forgot to lower the flaps on takeoff, but she took off
    anyway).
    
    The U-2 is one of the most successful designs ever flown; the very
    first U-2 flew and landed safely, yet it wasn't remotely capable of
    performing its assigned mission until significant changes were made. 
    
    All the trimming and fitting and refitting and redesigning takes time,
    and the Germans had no time.

    the U2 was also one of the most demanding designs to pilot. pilots
    interviewed said you had to fly the thing every second or you'd get
    in trouble.
    
    that think came out of the skunk works, didn't it?

Taiwan, people, Taiwan!

    
    	So it sounds like the U2 was a Bonofide handling nightmare that
    	kept you on the Edge of your seat.  But no sense Mullen over it
    	after all this time, eh?
    

    i believe the military is looking for the second generation U2
    as we speak.

    The U-2 came from Kelly Johnson's Skunk Works.
    
    > i believe the military is looking for the second generation U2...
    
    The U-2 was not, is not, and never has been, a military plane.  The
    U-2s were built for, and owned by, the CIA, which is a civilian agency. 
    NASA, also a civilian agency, now owns some.
    
    But the second-generation U-2 has come and gone.  Also from the Skunk
    Works, the Blackbird began life as the A-11, was quietly renamed the
    YF-12A, and retired honorably from active service as the SR-71A.

 Taisnarf!

    My B29 book tells of Eddy Allen chief Boeing test pilot who radioed
    the Boeing tower that he was trying to make the Boeing field with 3
    engines on fire. He didn't make. He ran into an office building.
    
    You may be thinking of the 1st B17 were they forgot to unlock the
    elevator, took off with a plane load of generals and killed them all.
    
    
    Taiwan people Taiwan:  A carrier group left the Persian Gulf. Will
    Iran or Iraq try something...
    
    Steve

>     YF-12A, and retired honorably from active service as the SR-71A.
                  ^^^^^^^           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I understand they've de-mothballed 3 of them and are cranking them up again.

    .102
    
    Yabba-dabba-do!

    <- Going out to taiwan on in celebration?

    
      I wonder why.  They can see who comes in and out of your house
     by satellite if there's no cloud cover.  And I think they have
     almost full coverage of the whole earth.
    
      bb

    depends on how define "military" her Binder. they were used extensively
    in Viet Nam for military recon...
    
    i looked up info on the Condor hoping to find its range. of course, out
    of the 3000 planes listed with range data, there wasn't any for the Fw
    200G.
    
    it did tell me that it was adopted for use from Lufthansa in 1936 as a
    bomber and fitted with doors. the first year it began to prowl the
    Atlantic (1941 i believe) it did in 260k tons of shipping. as the
    allied air arm gradually improved and could afford more protection to
    convoys, the Condor quickly became an extinct species.

    Musing last night, as I am wont to do, it struck me that all this stuff
    about WWII and weaponry is not entirely off the point.  As the US and
    China both go into a round of sabre-rattling and showing the flag, it's
    worth remembering the outcomes of previous wars.  Poland handed over to
    the Soviets, North Korea still communist, Viet Nam still communist.
    
    China launched a US private comsat a few months ago, indicating that
    they have reached a level of space technology that satisfies die-hard
    wall street bankers and insurers.  They also have nuclear weapons.
    Perhaps the wise thing here is not to get started down that road but
    pursue diplomacy and economic sanctions to the fullest extent.
    
    Colin
                                                       

    But China isn't poised for world domination, Cuba is.

    Oh, yeah - right.  I forgot.

    Sabre rattling w/China reminded me of this...
    
    The air war director for the Gulf War had commercials on NH TV this
    primary season with a depiction of a missile launched from who knows
    where aimed at the US. A USAF general calls the WH and tells the
    person on the other end of the phone that there is an incoming missile.
    The general then answers a question (not heard) from the other end of
    the phone saying 'I can't shoot it down, we HAVE NO missile defense...'
    
    The Gulf general then comes on the tube and says that he previously had
    that job of informing the WH and that we should ask our candidates
    their position on a missile defense.
    
    Steve

    Range of the Focke-Wulf FW 200  C-3 Condor:
    
    3930 miles / 3413 nautical miles with a bomb load of 3310 lbs
    
    hth etc. & Co Ltd  

    -1 thanks...

    China has suspended their testing for the time being due to extremely
    bad weather in the waters off the island.  Taiwanese forces have dug in
    on the outlying islands in anticipation of a possible ground assault by
    the communists.  The effect this seems to be having is to make the
    Taiwanese more contemptuous of the mainland.  

    Taiwanese residents of outlying islands are fleeing by the hundreds to
    Taiwan in fear of an unlikely attack by Mainland forces.  

    
    I think China might take those small islands off the China's
    coast just to save face.  Because so far her military exercise has
    no effect on Taiwan's election.  President Lee is still the favorite
    to win the election.  US is doing the right thing to send fleet
    there at the same time maintain a low key.  In last Sunday's face the
    nation,  Secretary of state Christopher mentioned about China's
    threat on attacking Los Angeles if US takes stand in the dispute.
    Apparently he is not happy about it.
    
    This is a delicate situation.  US sent fleet there but not officially
    taking on a side yet.  I can't believe that President Clinton can behave
    so perfect so far.  It is obvious that US don't want a war with China
    simply because there is no oil under Taiwan.  But US is not ready to
    give away Taiwan so easily.  The most important weapon US has is
    the Most favored nation status to China.   US also can play Russia
    or even Taiwan card.   It is very simple.  Just tell China that
    US-China relationship is based on peaceful resolution of One China
    dispute under the so call three 'Communicates'.  If not so,  US is
    going to have official diplomatic relationship with Taiwan.
    
    I remember US warship visited China port not too long ago.  US
    allowed Chinese to board the ship and take pictures.  But China won't
    allow taking picture of an old warship not too far away.
    
    
                                                              
    Jason

    I had not heard about the threat to LA. Again, what would the US do if
    something came flying over from those crazies or others? Nothing, that
    is what they would do because we cannot do a thing right now.
    
    Some day we may have a 'Pearl Harbor' in LA or NYC or Boston because of
    some crazy/stupid dictator.

    
      Jason - amazing, for once I agree with you !  Sending the fleet,
     and keeping low key are exactly right, and I credit the Clinton
     administration so far.  Christopher is turning out to be OK.
    
      bb

  Z  Some day we may have a 'Pearl Harbor' in LA or NYC or Boston because
  Z  of some crazy/stupid dictator.
    
    I hope it doesn't ever come to this.  But if it does, please let it be
    the Hollywood area.
    
    
    
    

For a change, when something goes right, people do give credit to Clinton.

From a Chinese point of view, we should try to understand that Taiwan was 
a part of China just less than 50 years ago. And apparently 90+% of Chinese
public (source NPR) do strongly believe that its time for Taiwan to unite. Not 
that its aggressive stand is justified, but here in the western world we don't 
get the whole story. I guess China considers Taiwan as something more than an 
added economic benefit. China I guess is worried that one day Taiwan might 
end up to be a cold-war-era-Cuba off its mainland, with missiles pointed towards
Peaking and Hongkong.

-Jk

    
    Taiwan was never part of China. Their claim on it is bogus.
    
    When the Chinese elite fled the mainland communists to the 
    island it was not part of China.
    
    

Yeah, it was Formosa and apparently they din't much appreciate being took
over.

    Taiwan/Formosa was annexed by the Japanese in 1895. At the end of WWII
    it was to be a protectorate of China while the region's sovereignity
    was sorted out.  Unfortunately China's civil war broke out at that time
    and it became unclear who could speak for China.  Chang Kai Sheck and
    the remains of the Kuomintang fled to the island and took over.  It has
    been over 100 years since China owned it.
    
    /jim

    Formosa was named such by the Portugese in 1590.  It was inhabited by
    aboriginal people of Malay descent until the 7th c. when mainland
    Chinese settled there.  The Dutch and Spanish established forts in the
    early 1600's with the Dutch kicking the Spanish off in 1641.  The
    Chinese reconquered in the 1680's and held the island until 1895.  The
    Japanese claimed it after the 1st Sino-Japanese war.  Japan lost it in
    WWII.  The U.S. sent a fleet to the Straits of Formosa in 1953 to
    prevent an invasion.  Taiwan lost the China seat in the U.N. in 1971
    when it was given to the P.R.C.  Carter announced we would no longer
    support Taiwan in 1979 and Congress overrode this by pledging to come
    to their ais in the event of an invasion.  The U.S. agreed with Peking 
    to start reducing military aid in 1982.  
    	
    Brian

Of course, Taiwan was Chinese for as long before 1895 as most other parts
of today's China.  

Both the Communists in Peking and the Nationalists in Taipei agree that
Taiwan is currently part of China.

They disagree on whether the Communists or the Nationalists are the
legitimate government of China.

Lee seeks not formal independence but the ability of the Taiwanese
government to participate on their own behalf in international
organizations until reunification can be accomplished through
peaceful and democratic means.

For example, they don't even officially have a telephone country code!
"886" shows up in all lists as simply "not to be assigned".

/john

    
      Well, the election result was no surprise.  Two days after, the
     PRC quietly "completed naval exercises".  The USA has left two
     carrier groups milling around in the South China Sea, "to demonstrate
     US commitment to peace in the area".
    
      bb

    
    Basically Taiwan should be treated as south Korea or
    west German before reunification.  Currently President Lee
    can not declare Taiwan independence, just because of China's
    threat of invasion.  So he has no choice to keep talking about
    one China.
    
    Even if Taiwan decided to get out of one China circus, China has
    no right to invade.  Do you think Canada will invade Quebac because
    of thier separation.

    .126
    
    > China has
    > no right to invade.
    
    Right?  We don't need no steenkin' rights here.

 Z   Do you think Canada will invade Quebac because
 Z   of thier separation.
    
    If Canada has an ounce of common sense, they wouldn't.  The only thing
    good that came out of there is Scotty Bowman.

    -1 YES!

    RE: .126

>    Even if Taiwan decided to get out of one China circus, China has
>    no right to invade.  Do you think Canada will invade Quebac because
>    of thier separation.

    Do you think that Lincoln had a right to invade the Confederate Union?

    -- Dave

	Yes, they did a bad thing. 

 ZZ    Do you think that Lincoln had a right to invade the Confederate Union?
    
    No, he did not.  The Civil War was an unnecessary event in our history.
    Bloodshed had already been committed by the North before the Fort
    Sumter incident.  Marshall law had been enforced by the North,
    provoking a conflict.  Had the South been allowed to secede, they would
    have eventually realized the futility of their secession and rejoined
    the union.  
    
    -Jack

    .132
    
    > Do you think that Lincoln had a right to invade the Confederate Union?
    
    No.
    
    The 10th Amendment to the Constitution specifically reserves to the
    States, and to the people, all powers not explicitly delegated to the
    federal government or prohibited to the States by the Constitution, and
    the 9th Amendment specifically reserves to the people rights not
    explicitly enumerated in the Constitution.
    
    There is no Constitutional provision disallowing the right of the
    several States to secede from the Union, and in fact there is precedent
    for just such an act in the American Revolution.  The Declaration of
    Independence enshrines the right of a people to separate themselves
    from an onerous government, stating that all governments derive their
    just powers from the consent of the governed.
    
    The Confederate States were within their rights to secede, either
    singly or collectively.  The concern, legally speaking, that arose from
    their secession was the return of movable U.S. property within the
    territory of the Confederacy and just compensation for all immovable
    property.  The proper response, then, would have been a diplomatic one
    to negotiate the terms of such recompense.  Failure of the Confederacy
    to accept a mission of that type could, after due escalation through
    diplomatic channels, be considered cause to go to war.  The United
    States pursued no such diplomatic course; it lallygagged around waving
    provocative violations of Confederate sovereignty in the South's face
    until the Confederates finally fired on Fort Sumter.
    
    The United States was grievously at fault in the entire affair.

re: -.1
>    ...  The Declaration of
>    Independence enshrines the right of a people to separate themselves
>    from an onerous government, ...

So all 50  states could secede from the District of Columbia? Big win!

re: -.2
>    ...  Had the South been allowed to secede, they would
>    have eventually realized the futility of their secession and rejoined
>    the union.  

Upon what do you base this conclusion?

> Upon what do you base this conclusion?

International economic and social pressure would have pretty much forced the
Confederacy to abandon slavery within a couple of decades, anyway.

Maybe so, but after 20 years, they would have their own country, their own
government, bureaucracy (sp?), i.e., lots of intertia for the status quo. 
Re-unification would invoke a lot of transitional upset from what would 
probably be a state of relative stability.

Are there other precedents in history in which this has happened?

(its all just 2nd guessing anyway)

 ZZZ   Upon what do you base this conclusion?
    
    Slavery was pretty much on its way out anyway.  The South did not have
    any strong industry or infrastructure...except for farming and cotton.
    

re .138:

East Germany.

re .139:

What if the South left, slavery failed but the South decided to stay out of the
US because the (rest of the) US passed many laws that would be unpopular in the
South.  Laws that wouldn't have passed Congress with the Southern states still
present. Also they may be afraid of "punishment" by the North for leaving
the Union.  Perhaps they could have stuck it out, as a pariah nation like
South Africa, with slavery legal even if not so popular (perhaps people would
just have a few slave servants even if the plantations with zillions of slaves
went by the wayside)

re: East Germany

To me this comparison does not seem valid. Germany was not a voluntary split
with deep economic and cultural differences at the root.

Seems valid to me.  East and West Germany were split for 40 years, with vast
economic differences (communism vs. capitalism) by the time of reunification,
and while the same culture at the start they were pulled in different
directions for 40 years  One was in the Western European sphere while the other
firmly in the Soviet bloc. 

Taiwan and mainland China has the same economic differences (communism vs.
capitalism) and while I don't know how much cultural differences there was
between Mainland China and Taiwan it probably isn't any more between various
provinces of the mainland.   Also Taiwan was essentially invaded by mainland
supporters of Chang Kai-Shek (apologies for mangling his name so badly) 

    The people of Taiwan speak a different language than those on mainland
    China.  I'd say that's a pretty significant cultural difference.

    The various provinces in China used to speak different languages as
    well, but they were forced to unify to one common language by the
    Communists over the years, pretty much (Mandarin).

    Those in Hong Kong speak a different language, too (Cantonese.)

    According to a friend from Hong Kong, the languages are markedly
    different (although the writing is the same.)

    When the Berlin Wall came down, some Germans said that it was easy
    to spot East Berliners who came over to West Berlin.  They spoke
    perfect German, of course, but they looked completely lost.  (In one
    documentary, some Germans made this comment in a coffee shop and the
    camera turned to the window to show a man standing outside who looked
    like he'd been dropped onto a different planet.  He just stood in one
    spot, looking around in utter confusion.)

    It's got to be easier to unify countries if they still speak the same
    language at least, no?

    The answer is yes.

    Although Canada is officially unified, it is divided linguistically.

    RE: .144  Glenn

    > Although Canada is officially unified, it is divided linguistically.

    Canada is 'unified' as the status quo (and a very fragile status quo,
    at that.)

    If Canada ever divides itself into two countries, the language
    differences would make it more difficult to re-unify later, IMO.

    RE: .133

>	Yes, they did a bad thing. 

    And if in China's eyes Taiwan did a "bad thing" (like declaring their
    independence) then would that justify an invasion by China?


    RE: .139

>    Slavery was pretty much on its way out anyway.  The South did not have
>    any strong industry or infrastructure...except for farming and cotton.

    Aren't you making the [faulty] assumption that slavery was one of the
    main reasons that the South left the Union?

    -- Dave

    Impossible, I would say.
    
    

    Jack, you fairy tale view of what would have happened if armed
    intervention hadn't taken place was very amusing.
    
    so tell me, Jean Dixon give you this?

    Chip:
    
    The exemption of southerners fighting in the civil war was a poultry
    1%.  The reason this one percent was exempt was because they were the
    rich elite of the south who provided funding for armaments. 
    Consequently, they were also the high majority of slave owners in the
    south.  Therefore, it seems reasonable that the passion of soldiers in
    battle had very little to do with slavery, but more to do with states
    rights.  Slavery was becoming an unpopular commodity as it was during
    the early 1860's.  
    
    Bottom line is the infrastructure of the south at that time was cotton
    and farming.  The north had all the industry and therefore, trade with
    the north as a sovereign southern union would most likely have been
    squelched economically...unless attitudes quickly changed or unless
    England and France developed very strong trade policies with the
    south.  Dixie may very well have remained a sovereign nation but they
    would have most likely been a nomad entity.
    
    -Jack

 ZZ    It's got to be easier to unify countries if they still speak the same
 ZZ    language at least, no?
    
    Suzanne, I am delighted that you portray good common sense here.  I
    brought forth this notion in the Bilingual Education topic and the
    naysayers in here...the elitists without credentials (EWC) poo poo'd 
    the very thought.

    
    >England and France developed very strong trade policies with the
    >south.  Dixie may very well have remained a sovereign nation but they
    
    England already had a very strong trade with the South.  The bulk of
    cotton for the Lancashire cotton mills came from England, and England
    initially supported the South's right to secede.  There was very nearly
    a fight over the blockades between England and the North.  
    
    It's quite possible that if the war had ended in stalemate the South
    would still have remained a strong trading partner with England.
    However, as the war progressed and slavery became an issue, English
    abolishionists won the propaganda battle and forced a neutral stance.
    
    Not neutral enough for the Union.  After the war, the US Govt. sued
    England for interference and won, extracting $17million in damages.
    
    Colin
    

    Had the South won the American Civil War, it is highly likely that
    Robert E. Lee would have been elected President of the CSA to succeed
    the unpopular Jefferson Davis.  Lee was, although technically a
    slaveowner, opposed to slavery and in his writings expressed the
    opinion that it would be better done away with.  He would probably have
    offered a "time-release" plan of compensation to slaveowners for their
    losses.  The economy of the CSA would have been rebuilt largely through
    trade with Britain and France, the United States remaining embittered
    and aloof for some time, and it is likely that mechanization would have
    played a large part; clearly, slavery was no longer economical on its
    former scale, nor was it politically sound in the broadening world of
    the last quarter of the 19th century.

    Robert E. Lee was quite a man. Too bad he picked the losing side.
    Instead, the Union Army wound up with McClellan. What a loser he was.
    The war probably could have been won in the first encounter. He didn't
    have the guts to make the big move.

Taiwan, people, Taiwan!

    Lee is a good ol' Taiwanese name.

So Robert E. Lee was from southern Taiwan?

    I'll have to chek.

    Actually, Robert E Lee at one time lead Union troops against a renegade
    extremist abolitionist named John Brown.  Brown was the John Salvi of
    the 1800's.  He attacked and killed members of a town in Missouri whom
    he thought were pro slavery...only to find out later they were mostly
    abolistionists as well.  Brown turned up in Virginia and occupied an
    armory.  Lee lead the charge against Brown.  THis was one of the
    skirmishes that went on before the war broke out.
    
    -Jack

    LED, Jack, LED.  Not lead.
    
    Lee was one of the best generals the US Army had until the ACW forced
    him to choose between fighting for his homeland or fighting for a
    remote government that was attacking his homeland.  As any sane man
    would do in such a dilemma, he chose to protect his homeland.  But he
    did not do so without a great deal of soul-searching.

    I just meant that Lee put lead into Browns gut.  I'm surprised you
    didn't perceive this.

    lee was also wickit handsome.

    RE: .150  Jack Martin

    >> It's got to be easier to unify countries if they still speak the same
    >> language at least, no?
    
    > Suzanne, I am delighted that you portray good common sense here.

    I hope you do realize that I was talking about two separate countries
    trying to unify to become one country.

>    The people of Taiwan speak a different language than those on mainland
>    China.  I'd say that's a pretty significant cultural difference.
>
>    The various provinces in China used to speak different languages as
>    well, but they were forced to unify to one common language by the
>    Communists over the years, pretty much (Mandarin).
>
>    Those in Hong Kong speak a different language, too (Cantonese.)

I believe there are a number of errors here, but I'm too unknowledgable
(and too lazy) to refute them.

 ZZ   I hope you do realize that I was talking about two separate countries
 ZZ   trying to unify to become one country.
   
    Uh huh....multiculturalism....yeah?

>>    The people of Taiwan speak a different language than those on mainland
>>    China.  I'd say that's a pretty significant cultural difference.

Suzzane,

Not quite. India has several languages, with *totally* different alphabets, but
hardly any cultural difference. But may be thats because of a single religion,
which make up most of the culture per se.

But you are absolutely right, in saying unifying is much easier when people 
speak the same language.
-Jk

    .150
    
    > ...the elitists without credentials (EWC) poo poo'd the very thought.
    
    Does this make the EWC's poop factories?

    Privatize poop factories!  Now!

So you're against government support of cats?  Eliminate AFDC (Aid for Families
with Dependent Cats)!

      ___                       ___                                
     /\__\                     /|  |                               
    /:/ _/_       ___         |:|  |           ___           ___   
   /:/ /\  \     /\__\        |:|  |          /\__\         /|  |  
  /:/ /::\  \   /:/__/      __|:|__|         /:/  /        |:|  |  
 /:/_/:/\:\__\ /::\  \     /::::\__\_____   /:/__/         |:|  |  
 \:\/:/ /:/  / \/\:\  \__  ~~~~\::::/___/  /::\  \       __|:|__|  
  \::/ /:/  /   ~~\:\/\__\     |:|~~|     /:/\:\  \     /::::\  \  
   \/_/:/  /       \::/  /     |:|  |     \/__\:\  \    ~~~~\:\  \ 
     /:/  /        /:/  /      |:|__|          \:\__\        \:\__\
     \/__/         \/__/       |/__/            \/__/         \/__/
      ___                       ___           ___     
     /\  \                     /\  \         /\__\    
     \:\  \       ___          \:\  \       /:/ _/_   
      \:\  \     /\__\          \:\  \     /:/ /\__\  
  _____\:\  \   /:/__/      _____\:\  \   /:/ /:/ _/_ 
 /::::::::\__\ /::\  \     /::::::::\__\ /:/_/:/ /\__\
 \:\~~\~~\/__/ \/\:\  \__  \:\~~\~~\/__/ \:\/:/ /:/  /
  \:\  \        ~~\:\/\__\  \:\  \        \::/_/:/  / 
   \:\  \          \::/  /   \:\  \        \:\/:/  /  
    \:\__\         /:/  /     \:\__\        \::/  /   
     \/__/         \/__/       \/__/         \/__/    
      ___           ___           ___           ___           ___     
     /\__\         /\  \         /\  \         /\  \         /\__\    
    /:/ _/_        \:\  \       /::\  \       /::\  \       /:/ _/_   
   /:/ /\  \        \:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\__\     /:/ /\__\  
  /:/ /::\  \   _____\:\  \   /:/ /::\  \   /:/ /:/  /    /:/ /:/  /  
 /:/_/:/\:\__\ /::::::::\__\ /:/_/:/\:\__\ /:/_/:/__/___ /:/_/:/  /   
 \:\/:/ /:/  / \:\~~\~~\/__/ \:\/:/  \/__/ \:\/:::::/  / \:\/:/  /    
  \::/ /:/  /   \:\  \        \::/__/       \::/~~/~~~~   \::/__/     
   \/_/:/  /     \:\  \        \:\  \        \:\~~\        \:\  \     
     /:/  /       \:\__\        \:\__\        \:\__\        \:\__\    
     \/__/         \/__/         \/__/         \/__/         \/__/    

    
    The people of Taiwan and China has the same official speaking and
    written language.   Only the dialects are different.  It is the
    same political ideology separate German, Korea and China.  I heard
    report from China that the communist is so impressed with the American
    aircraft carriers, so the government decided to get one at all costs.

>    I heard
>    report from China that the communist is so impressed with the American
>    aircraft carriers, so the government decided to get one at all costs.

Impressed with American aircraft carriers, or aircraft carriers in general?
If aircraft carriers in general, too bad for them since the ex-USSR was
desparately looking to unload a couple a few years back.

    
    Maybe we should send the whole fleet.
    
    

    
      The Chinese just signed a big aircraft contract with Airbus,
     snubbing Boeing.  It's being interpreted as a foreign policy
     decision, to send us a signal.
    
      bb

    
    Here is some news regarding Taiwan.
    
    James Woods, the former AIT(American Institute in Taiwan) director, had
    news conference couple days ago in Washington accusting many wrong
    doing in AIT office in Taiwan.  The allegations are missing of funds
    (3.5Million), solicit money in return for issuing of US visa, sexual
    harassment of woman(rape) in exchange for issuing of US visa.  Those
    allegations are many years old.  And the previous director denies
    thus things ever happened.  However, Woods was in the process of
    investigating it when he was forced to resign in January.  The
    state department said Woods was involved in soliciting donations
    for Democratic in his Taiwan trips and is under justice department
    investigation.  And said Woods' performance failed to live up to
    the standard of diplomat.
    
    Seems to me all those dirty things happened in the past.  And the
    state department was/is involved in cover-up.  These things really
    make U.S. looks bad aboard.