What's new

Do Young Taiwanese want to Reunify With China?

the main question is how long will this present chinese govt survive, i have conacts with many chinese students and they all dislike the present govt..

if the chinese establish a new capitalistic, liberal western orientated govt, that the matter of taiwanese becoming part of china is trivial one

it's just like how americans all say "obama is not an american citizen", "obama is a corrupt communist radical muslim black terrorist", "he'll drag the country down", "if this keeps up i'm moving to canada" etc. but if the US suffered a nuclear bombing they'll rally behind their leader.

do keep in mind that the people who go overseas to study are two types: those who are extremely motivated, and thus have scholarships, or those who are rich. that is a form of sample bias.
 
.
Do they have a choice not to?

No. The website of the U.S. Department of State is very clear.

The United States has de-recognized Taiwan and "terminated its Mutual Defense Treaty with Taiwan." Furthermore, "the United States recognized the Government of the People's Republic of China as the sole legal government of China and acknowledged the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China. The Joint Communiqué also stated that within this context the people of the United States will maintain cultural, commercial, and other unofficial relations with the people on Taiwan." "Maintaining diplomatic relations with the P.R.C. has been recognized to be in the long-term interest of the United States by seven consecutive administrations...." (See Taiwan (10/09))

The only reason that Taiwan hasn't already been reunified is due to American military power and insistence on peaceful reunification. However, China's military power has been growing significantly. It is an open question as to how much longer that the U.S. can keep China at bay.

RAND study: Now China wins Taiwan Straits air war - The DEW Line

"RAND study: Now China wins Taiwan Straits air war

By Stephen Trimble
on August 4, 2009 7:57 PM

Nearly 10 years after a RAND study predicted the US side easily beats China in an air war over the Taiwan Straits, the think-tank has published a new monograph online today that reverses its former opinion.

Now, a People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) bristling with a newly acquired arsenal -- including Su-27 and J-10 fighters, AA-12 and PL-12 missiles, and short-range ballistic missiles -- defeats the US side. Moreover, the PLAAF defeats the US side with or without F-22s, with or without access to Kadena Air Base in Okinawa and with or without the participation of two US carrier battle groups, according to the monograph.

RAND's analysis "suggests that a credible case can be made that the air war for Taiwan could essentially be over before much of the Blue air force has even fired a shot. Threats to Blue air bases and a more evenly matched qualitiative balance combine to paint a very troubling picture."

Personally, I would be careful to trust any military analysis that states -- on two occasions -- the US Marine Corps flies F/A-18E/Fs (... er, no, not in this lifetme). But the overall facts in RAND's air war scenario appear very persuasive, at least to this observer.

In a war over Taiwan, China may think twice about striking sovereign Japanese territory on Okinawa, or sovereign US territory on Guam. But RAND's analysts are prudent to assume that the PLAAF's strategy would seek to maximize its chances of success in a battle over the future of Taiwan.

The scenario assumes a 27:1 kill ratio for the F-22, 4.5:1 kill ratio for the F-15 and a 2.6:1 kill ratio for carrier-based F/A-18E/Fs, which seems to reflect conventional wisdom. But that's not hardly enough. By striking Kadena and Taiwan air bases with missile attacks, the PLAAF can generate 3.7 times more sorties than the blue forces. On the first day, the PLAAF loses 241 jets compared to 147 jets for the Blue forces, including one F-22. But the PLAAF still dramatically outnumbers Blue forces and wins the war of attrition.

Interestingly, the new RAND monograph is not critical at all of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Last year, John Stillon, a senior RAND analyst was fired after he put the think-tank in an awkward position. Stillon's presntation on the results of the Pacific Vision wargame, which were leaked to the press and posted on this blog, noted the F-35 "can't turn, can't climb and can't run". In the new study, RAND says "the F-22 and the still-to-come F-35 can expect to offer meaningful aircraft-on-aircraft technological advantages over what the PLAAF will bring to the fight"."
 
Last edited:
.
the united China should have two parties which is CPC and nNationalists like USA

then China is doomed.

for me, i don't care who is ruling china, be it CCP,DDP or EEP, as long as there is only one . otherwise, every president will spent and squeezed whatever he can within his presidency like USA or even worse Thailand.
 
.
<No. The website of the U.S. Department of State is very clear.>

Exactly, my point.

It's a waste of energy for the Taiwanese to resist the inevitable outcome.

It's a waste of money and manpower for the Taiwanese government to spend billions of dollars on military.

What the Taiwanese and Taiwanese government should do is to look at the big picture in how to integrate themselves with China.

BACKGROUND:
If North Vietnam can liberate South Vietnam (even though it was backed by the US). What makes the Taiwanese think that they would not be liberated by China if China decides to take military action?

Facts:
1. The US acknowledged Taiwan is part of China
2. China is much more powerful than North Vietnam
3. China has the ability to inflict major destruction on the US military bases and the US mainland
4. It's true that in the past the US used nuclear blackmail card on China to prevent China from liberating Taiwan but that card is no longer applicable
 
.
<No. The website of the U.S. Department of State is very clear.>

Exactly, my point.

It's a waste of energy for the Taiwanese to resist the inevitable outcome.

It's a waste of money and manpower for the Taiwanese government to spend billions of dollars on military.

What the Taiwanese and Taiwanese government should do is to look at the big picture in how to integrate themselves with China.

BACKGROUND:
If North Vietnam can liberate South Vietnam (even though it was backed by the US). What makes the Taiwanese think that they would not be liberated by China if China decides to take military action?

Facts:
1. The US acknowledged Taiwan is part of China
2. China is much more powerful than North Vietnam
3. China has the ability to inflict major destruction on the US military bases and the US mainland
4. It's true that in the past the US used nuclear blackmail card on China to prevent China from liberating Taiwan but that card is no longer applicable

The current status of peace talks on Chinese reunification is as follows:
..........
BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | China offers Taiwan peace talks

"Page last updated at 02:27 GMT, Thursday, 5 March 2009

China offers Taiwan peace talks

Wen Jiabao addressing National People's Congress - 5/3/2009
Any peace talks would be held under the "one-China policy", Mr Wen said

China is ready to talk to Taiwan about ending hostilities, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao has said at the start of the annual session of China's parliament.

Mr Wen said China was ready to "create conditions for ending the state of hostility" with the island.

Beijing claims sovereignty over Taiwan, which split from the mainland at the end of the Chinese civil war in 1949.

Relations between the two have improved since last year when a new president, Ma Ying-jeou, was elected in Taiwan."
..........
Taiwan to China: remove missiles before peace talks | World | Reuters

"Taiwan to China: remove missiles before peace talks
Tue Apr 6, 2010 3:51pm IST

TAIPEI (Reuters) - Taiwan President Ma Ying-jeou demanded on Tuesday that China remove missiles aimed at the island before any peace talks, comments that could slow recent momentum in relations, including two-way trade that has reached $109 billion."
 
.
Ma's demands are reasonable.

place the ballistic missiles on trucks and drive them away.

in event of a war we simply drive back up to the coast in 3 hours and make it rain metal in taiwan.
 
.
The scenario assumes a 27:1 kill ratio for the F-22, 4.5:1 kill ratio for the F-15 and a 2.6:1 kill ratio for carrier-based F/A-18E/Fs, which seems to reflect conventional wisdom. But that's not hardly enough. By striking Kadena and Taiwan air bases with missile attacks, the PLAAF can generate 3.7 times more sorties than the blue forces. On the first day, the PLAAF loses 241 jets compared to 147 jets for the Blue forces, including one F-22. But the PLAAF still dramatically outnumbers Blue forces and wins the war of attrition.

do you noticed, the numbers didn't match.
27:1, 4.5:1, 2.6:1 all of them > 241:147

which means,
a) it's(the number) fake or
b) many US non-combat planes, like E-3 or EA-6 etc, were shot down.(not likely neither)
 
.
number's fake. F-15's are inferior to Su-30's and J-11B, but let's just SAY they're comparable but that's a lie since for same range as F-15 on full fuel (flying from japan), Su-30's and J-11B only have to carry 40% fuel, reducing weight significantly and therefore increasing payload and agility. F-18's aren't even that good in air to air combat due to their low thrust-weight ratio and low payload. I think in fact the F-18 would suffer a 2.8:1 LOSS ratio against china.
 
.
do you noticed, the numbers didn't match.
27:1, 4.5:1, 2.6:1 all of them > 241:147

which means,
a) it's(the number) fake or
b) many US non-combat planes, like E-3 or EA-6 etc, were shot down.(not likely neither)

c) "Moreover, most of the U.S. and Taiwanese planes lost, are destroyed on the ground by barrages of Chinese ballistic missiles."

Think Tank: China Beats U.S. in Simulated Taiwan Air War | Danger Room | Wired.com

"Think Tank: China Beats U.S. in Simulated Taiwan Air War

* By David Axe
* August 5, 2009

ChinaIn 2000, the influential think thank RAND Corporation crunched some numbers regarding a possible Chinese invasion of Taiwan, and concluded that “any near-term Chinese attempt to invade Taiwan would likely be a very bloody affair with a significant probability of failure” — especially if the U.S. raced to the island nation’s defense. But nine years later, a new, much-updated edition of the RAND study found that China’s improved air and missile forces “represent clear and impending dangers to the defense of Taiwan,” whether or not the U.S. is involved.

“A credible case can be made that the air war for Taiwan could essentially be over before much of the Blue [American and allied] air force has even fired a shot,” the monograph notes.

It’s a potentially controversial assertion — and one that might have fueled the (now-resolved) debate over whether the U.S. Air Force should buy more F-22s. RAND found that F-22s flying from the relative safety of Guam could be surprisingly effective in blunting a Chinese air assault.

Still, with or without F-22s, the Chinese air and missile force “dramatically outnumbers [U.S. and Taiwanese] forces and wins the war of attrition,” according to Steve Trimble’s summary of the RAND study. The Chinese lose 241 jets on the first day of fighting, while the U.S. and Taiwan together lose 147, but this lopsided kill ratio doesn’t matter, when China has hundreds more planes to put into the air. Moreover, most of the U.S. and Taiwanese planes lost, are destroyed on the ground by barrages of Chinese ballistic missiles. (It’s not for no reason that the U.S. Air Force is working hard to win new friends, each with juicy new bases, all over the Pacific.)"
 
.
in 2000 it would still have been over in weeks.
in 2010 it'll be over in days.

do they really think F-15's can down 5 chinese planes? maybe 5 J-7's. That's OK, we'll throw more at them. but 5 J-11s or J-10s? or even J-8? lol. 2.8 planes per F-18? i think it'll be 2.8 F-18s per chinese plane.

but let the US dream about F-15s downing 5 chinese planes, when the ratios are actually reversed, their leadership will lose confidence and panic like they did in korea and vietnam, then the war will be over.
 
.
number's fake. F-15's are inferior to Su-30's and J-11B, but let's just SAY they're comparable but that's a lie since for same range as F-15 on full fuel (flying from japan), Su-30's and J-11B only have to carry 40% fuel, reducing weight significantly and therefore increasing payload and agility. F-18's aren't even that good in air to air combat due to their low thrust-weight ratio and low payload. I think in fact the F-18 would suffer a 2.8:1 LOSS ratio against china.
If you are going to make up 'facts' and 'analysis' like these, at least try to do it with some credible sources.
 
.
in 2000 it would still have been over in weeks.
in 2010 it'll be over in days.

do they really think F-15's can down 5 chinese planes? maybe 5 J-7's. That's OK, we'll throw more at them. but 5 J-11s or J-10s? or even J-8? lol. 2.8 planes per F-18? i think it'll be 2.8 F-18s per chinese plane.

but let the US dream about F-15s downing 5 chinese planes, when the ratios are actually reversed, their leadership will lose confidence and panic like they did in korea and vietnam, then the war will be over.

&#27665;&#20027;&#30340;&#19968;&#26550;&#39134;&#26426;&#21487;&#20197;&#24178;&#25481;5&#26550;&#37034;&#24694;&#19987;&#25919;&#30340;&#65292; &#36825;&#24456;&#27491;&#24120;&#12290;&#12290;&#12290; :partay: :partay:

Of course a plane flown by a democratic pilot can take on 5 single-party authoritarian ones, the same logic goes for missiles, tanks, soldiers etc, you name it ;-)
 
.
&#27665;&#20027;&#30340;&#19968;&#26550;&#39134;&#26426;&#21487;&#20197;&#24178;&#25481;5&#26550;&#37034;&#24694;&#19987;&#25919;&#30340;&#65292; &#36825;&#24456;&#27491;&#24120;&#12290;&#12290;&#12290; :partay: :partay:

Of course a plane flown by a democratic pilot can take on 5 single-party authoritarian ones, the same logic goes for missiles, tanks, soldiers etc, you name it ;-)

:rofl::rofl:Very funny statements.
But democratic soldiers didnt do very well when they were in Korea and Vitnam war, they dispointed their militory analysts very much.
 
.
&#27665;&#20027;&#30340;&#19968;&#26550;&#39134;&#26426;&#21487;&#20197;&#24178;&#25481;5&#26550;&#37034;&#24694;&#19987;&#25919;&#30340;&#65292; &#36825;&#24456;&#27491;&#24120;&#12290;&#12290;&#12290; :partay: :partay:

Of course a plane flown by a democratic pilot can take on 5 single-party authoritarian ones, the same logic goes for missiles, tanks, soldiers etc, you name it ;-)
You mean like how communist propaganda used to say how communism will take over the world...:lol:
 
.
the united China should have two parties which is CPC and nNationalists like USA

You are being too naive on this. No communist party will or can share the power with any non-communist party because those two systems (communism and capitalism) simply cannot co-exist at the same time.

The situation is quite clear. Given the circumstances, below 5&#37; of the Taiwanese will accept an immediate reunification. That is almost no Taiwanese (including KMT) will buy One-Country-Two-Politic-Systems policy offered by the CCP. And as long as the CCP has the power over mainland China I don't think there is any chance to reach a practical solution that is acceptable by the Taiwanese for reunification.
 
Last edited:
.
Back
Top Bottom