• Before posting an article from a specific source, check this list here to see how much the Orange Room trust it. You can also vote/change your vote based on the source track record.

Unrest in Hong Kong

Iron Maiden

Iron Maiden

Paragon of Bacon
Orange Room Supporter
Ba3d chway rah t2oul almawtou linamrika el chaytan ??

HK has been living outside of the chinese bureaucrats grasp since 1997 and they know that as long as HK stay somewhat autonomous, taiwan is out of their reach.
Thise people are cleaning to wateber freedom they can enjoy out if the communists beast’s grasp. At least respect them.
Anything else is just ostrich syndrome and conspiracy theory.

And for someone who criticizes other members’ “preaching”, you sure have a nice sermon on the ready !
I think joining me for a bud would actually do you some good :)
Moore like When China crushes Hong Kong,,,,
Crimea anyone?:cigar:

If China crushes Hong Kong, is Taiwan next?

At the most recent meeting of the Aspen Strategy Group — which includes current and former senators, former senior officials, retired military, leading academics and analysts — a number of the participants expressed considerable doubt about whether the United States could defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese attack, or even whether it would attempt to do so. Behind the concerns voiced at Aspen, Colo., was the shadow of a potentially brutal Chinese paramilitary operation to crush the dissenters in Hong Kong. The fear was that once Beijing’s “one country, two systems” policy toward Hong Kong was terminated, Taiwan would be next.
Moreover, they argued, there is no way Washington could send two carriers into the Taiwan Strait, as it did during the 1996 crisis, causing Beijing to back down from its threat to subjugate the island. Having determined that it never again would be forced to submit to such a humiliating retreat, the Chinese Communist government has spent the past two decades modernizing and expanding its forces to respond to any potential threat of American attack.
Indeed, many analysts doubt whether American carriers could even operate within what has been termed “the first island chain” — Japan, northern Philippines and Taiwan — which is now within the range of Chinese land-based DF-21D and DF 26 anti-ship ballistic missiles. Moreover, given what they view as America’s dismal prospects for defending Taiwan, several participants also argued that aircraft carriers, in general, are so highly vulnerable that the time has come to begin phasing them out of the fleet. At a minimum, they argue the Navy should at least to halt any new construction of these $13 billion mastodons.

It is certainly true that the threat to aircraft carriers is far more serious today than it was in the second half of the 20th century. Moreover, there is little doubt that carrier tactics and operations in support of Taiwan will continue to be far more difficult than in the past. That does not mean, however, that carriers are obsolete, as their critics contend, or that the defense of Taiwan is nothing more than a pipe dream.
To begin with, it is not as if the Navy has just awakened to the existence of the two Chinese anti-ship missiles, or to China’s determined development of its maritime capabilities, including in the cyber realm. The hypersonic DF-21 was first tested over a decade ago; the DF-26 at least two years ago; and analysts, including Chinese analysts, have been describing their capabilities for nearly as long. The Navy has not been sitting still since then, and analysts have been describing some of its countermeasures in open literature for some time.
It is certain, however, that the Navy’s most potent countermeasures have not been described in the public sphere. Nor are they likely to be. Such countermeasures come in two forms. Some are operational and tactical, which incorporate leading-edge technologies that are widely known but are applied in innovative ways.
The second category are countermeasures that remain highly classified — so-called “black programs.” The very classification of these systems renders them less than optimal in wartime, however. This is the case either because they are not incorporated into war games, or because they are unlikely to be employed in battle by sailors unfamiliar with their capabilities.
The inability of war gamers to incorporate these systems in their games is of special concern because, as was noted at the Aspen Strategy meeting, some war games involving Taiwan have resulted in American defeat. Were these “black programs” incorporated into the Navy’s games on a regular basis, the outcomes could well be different. While the details of the games would remain classified (as are most Navy war games), their outcomes could be publicized. Were that the case, Chinese military planners, who otherwise might be buoyed by reports of war games that resulted in American maritime “losses” in a war over Taiwan, would be forced to think again. So, too, would potential defeatists in Taiwan itself.

The United States has been committed to the security of Taiwan since the 1949 communist takeover of the mainland. It has maintained that commitment ever since, the 1979 China Relations Act’s recognition of the People’s Republic by Washington notwithstanding. At a time when American reliability is being questioned around the world, signaling uncertainty about America’s ability to defend Taiwan would further undermine Washington’s standing as a credible ally, especially in East Asia.
On the other hand, reaffirming that Washington’s longtime strategy of deterrence, based primarily on the power of American maritime and air forces, remains solidly intact would signal that Washington’s national security policy is more than just words on paper.
Next time just quote my posts, no need to make @Jo pay extra MB for hotlinking external data.
 
  • Advertisement
  • J

    joseph_lubnan

    Legendary Member
    Moore like When China crushes Hong Kong,,,,
    Crimea anyone?:cigar:

    If China crushes Hong Kong, is Taiwan next?

    At the most recent meeting of the Aspen Strategy Group — which includes current and former senators, former senior officials, retired military, leading academics and analysts — a number of the participants expressed considerable doubt about whether the United States could defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese attack, or even whether it would attempt to do so. Behind the concerns voiced at Aspen, Colo., was the shadow of a potentially brutal Chinese paramilitary operation to crush the dissenters in Hong Kong. The fear was that once Beijing’s “one country, two systems” policy toward Hong Kong was terminated, Taiwan would be next.
    Moreover, they argued, there is no way Washington could send two carriers into the Taiwan Strait, as it did during the 1996 crisis, causing Beijing to back down from its threat to subjugate the island. Having determined that it never again would be forced to submit to such a humiliating retreat, the Chinese Communist government has spent the past two decades modernizing and expanding its forces to respond to any potential threat of American attack.
    Indeed, many analysts doubt whether American carriers could even operate within what has been termed “the first island chain” — Japan, northern Philippines and Taiwan — which is now within the range of Chinese land-based DF-21D and DF 26 anti-ship ballistic missiles. Moreover, given what they view as America’s dismal prospects for defending Taiwan, several participants also argued that aircraft carriers, in general, are so highly vulnerable that the time has come to begin phasing them out of the fleet. At a minimum, they argue the Navy should at least to halt any new construction of these $13 billion mastodons.

    It is certainly true that the threat to aircraft carriers is far more serious today than it was in the second half of the 20th century. Moreover, there is little doubt that carrier tactics and operations in support of Taiwan will continue to be far more difficult than in the past. That does not mean, however, that carriers are obsolete, as their critics contend, or that the defense of Taiwan is nothing more than a pipe dream.
    To begin with, it is not as if the Navy has just awakened to the existence of the two Chinese anti-ship missiles, or to China’s determined development of its maritime capabilities, including in the cyber realm. The hypersonic DF-21 was first tested over a decade ago; the DF-26 at least two years ago; and analysts, including Chinese analysts, have been describing their capabilities for nearly as long. The Navy has not been sitting still since then, and analysts have been describing some of its countermeasures in open literature for some time.
    It is certain, however, that the Navy’s most potent countermeasures have not been described in the public sphere. Nor are they likely to be. Such countermeasures come in two forms. Some are operational and tactical, which incorporate leading-edge technologies that are widely known but are applied in innovative ways.
    The second category are countermeasures that remain highly classified — so-called “black programs.” The very classification of these systems renders them less than optimal in wartime, however. This is the case either because they are not incorporated into war games, or because they are unlikely to be employed in battle by sailors unfamiliar with their capabilities.
    The inability of war gamers to incorporate these systems in their games is of special concern because, as was noted at the Aspen Strategy meeting, some war games involving Taiwan have resulted in American defeat. Were these “black programs” incorporated into the Navy’s games on a regular basis, the outcomes could well be different. While the details of the games would remain classified (as are most Navy war games), their outcomes could be publicized. Were that the case, Chinese military planners, who otherwise might be buoyed by reports of war games that resulted in American maritime “losses” in a war over Taiwan, would be forced to think again. So, too, would potential defeatists in Taiwan itself.

    The United States has been committed to the security of Taiwan since the 1949 communist takeover of the mainland. It has maintained that commitment ever since, the 1979 China Relations Act’s recognition of the People’s Republic by Washington notwithstanding. At a time when American reliability is being questioned around the world, signaling uncertainty about America’s ability to defend Taiwan would further undermine Washington’s standing as a credible ally, especially in East Asia.
    On the other hand, reaffirming that Washington’s longtime strategy of deterrence, based primarily on the power of American maritime and air forces, remains solidly intact would signal that Washington’s national security policy is more than just words on paper.
    The British created the HK problem, they can go figure out how to Brexit from it. Oh wait a second, they already Brexited HK :) Oh well maybe they can create another diaper balloon and protect HK with it!

    The stupid policies of the West towards China for decades got us to where we are today, and idiots blame Trump for trying to begin a process of resetting a little with China...
     
    Dynamite Joe

    Dynamite Joe

    Well-Known Member
    Ba3d chway rah t2oul almawtou linamrika el chaytan ??

    HK has been living outside of the chinese bureaucrats grasp since 1997 and they know that as long as HK stay somewhat autonomous, taiwan is out of their reach.
    Thise people are cleaning to wateber freedom they can enjoy out if the communists beast’s grasp. At least respect them.
    Anything else is just ostrich syndrome and conspiracy theory.

    And for someone who criticizes other members’ “preaching”, you sure have a nice sermon on the ready !
    I think joining me for a bud would actually do you some good :)
    I'm debating with children. Thus, an education is required. Perhaps then Syria was not a conspiracy, ISIS just suddenly crawled out of underground caves armed to the teeth, nor was Ukraine a conspiracy, merely a coincidence that it destabilised exactly at a time when the U.S. effort in Syria was being lost and a U.S. diplomat heard on tape saying they are about to fck up Ukraine. How about something closer to home, U.S. needing Syria's support for the 1st gulf war followed by October 13 in Lebanon. Also, I suppose the Kissinger Plan for the middle east was just a spoof. Then again old Kissinger could have been drinking too much bud light at the time. Not to mention, the U.S. did not sell destructive weapons to both Saddam and Iran during their war, and prior to that they did not install and support the ruthless Shah of Iran. There are all old wives tales from the twilight zone. The coincidences are not constrained to the Middle East you know, the contras experiences their share of of supernatural phenomena. All those brutal dictators in Central America trained in the U.S. just happened to seize power with brute force. In S. America, Chile's Allende who committed the terrible crime of nationalising his country's resources just happened to face a violent coup by the Junta followed by decades of Pinochet's brutal dictatorship. Nevermind that the CIA coordinated the whole thing which is well evidenced, that's just a conspiracy. More recently, it's a mere coincidence anti-U.S. leader Maduro suddenly faces a threat from an opposition who was hardly known to the Venezuelans, yet he was commanding a formidable armed group and populist support. Figure that one. Back to Iraq, where are those weapons of mass destruction, are they still looking for them in underground caverns. Speaking of the Iraq sanctions that killed half a million children in a decade...

    Back to HK, brush up on your history. Rule Britania had a trade deficit with China so they took HK with military might. Now the U.S. has a significant trade deficit with China, something intolerable for an empire. So according to you this is just one of the laundry list of coincidences that HK is now on the verge of exploding. The Chinese army would be within its right to enter HK to quell the riots regardless of the 50 year 'one country two systems' bs imposed by an imperial power. The involvement of the army would be no different than the U.S. armed national guard deploying into the streets of Los Angeles during the 1992 riot; though with one notable difference. In that instance, there was no foreign interference. It was black people protesting against their persecution by white America and its authorities. The reason why the Chinese have not deployed their military yet is sensitivity to Taiwan. For China, HK is already part of China, thus regaining Taiwan takes precedence. Sending military to HK would alienate Taiwan and jeopardise any potential re-integration in the future.
     
    V

    Viral

    Active Member
    The reason why the Chinese have not deployed their military yet is sensitivity to Taiwan. For China, HK is already part of China, thus regaining Taiwan takes precedence. Sending military to HK would alienate Taiwan and jeopardise any potential re-integration in the future.
    You nailed it!
    But Trump needs China more than ever now following today's market crash signaling the beginning of a 2008 like recession and its effect on his re-election.
    He's strategically backtracking all his pervious moves and started selling off by romancing a man by the name Xi
     
    Dynamite Joe

    Dynamite Joe

    Well-Known Member
    You nailed it!
    But Trump needs China more than ever now following today's market crash signaling the beginning of a 2008 like recession and its effect on his re-election.
    He's strategically backtracking all his pervious moves and started selling off by romancing a man by the name Xi
    He's already wavering on the tariffs hike to ensure the September meeting... Trump knows if the economy keeps tumbling ushering in a recession around campaign season, his re-election is doomed. That's one of China's leverage in these negotiations.
     
    V

    Viral

    Active Member
    He's already wavering on the tariffs hike to ensure the September meeting... Trump knows if the economy keeps tumbling ushering in a recession around campaign season, his re-election is doomed. That's one of China's leverage in these negotiations.
    The Chinese are holding him by the balls at least till November. I for one don’t mind a change. Would love to see Tulsi Gabbard in the WH… Unfortunately, so far most Americans think she’s a Hawaiian lollipop. Not too big on a Warren/Sanders ticket. But I can see potential there…
    Back to topic, I find it puzzling how some of us here believe China must have two separate rules of law: One for the rich and another for the poor. They must be under the impression HK seceded from the UK and should get a preferential treatment. I suggest those who don’t like to be under Chinese rule of law move to the UK. It’s simple. Their lease if over!
     
    SeaAb

    SeaAb

    Legendary Member
    Staff member
    Super Penguin
    The Chinese are holding him by the balls at least till November. I for one don’t mind a change. Would love to see Tulsi Gabbard in the WH… Unfortunately, so far most Americans think she’s a Hawaiian lollipop. Not too big on a Warren/Sanders ticket. But I can see potential there
    Back to topic, I find it puzzling how some of us here believe China must have two separate rules of law: One for the rich and another for the poor. They must be under the impression HK seceded from the UK and should get a preferential treatment. I suggest those who don’t like to be under Chinese rule of law move to the UK. It’s simple. Their lease if over!

    Why not? Sanders and Warren are the only ones i would vote for.
     
    Iron Maiden

    Iron Maiden

    Paragon of Bacon
    Orange Room Supporter
    The Chinese are holding him by the balls at least till November. I for one don’t mind a change. Would love to see Tulsi Gabbard in the WH… Unfortunately, so far most Americans think she’s a Hawaiian lollipop. Not too big on a Warren/Sanders ticket. But I can see potential there…
    Back to topic, I find it puzzling how some of us here believe China must have two separate rules of law: One for the rich and another for the poor. They must be under the impression HK seceded from the UK and should get a preferential treatment. I suggest those who don’t like to be under Chinese rule of law move to the UK. It’s simple. Their lease if over!
    U cant see why someone who was living under a democratic system would have a problem to overnight start living under a totalitarian regime ??
    Do you need a powerpoint presentation? ?
     
    V

    Viral

    Active Member
    U cant see why someone who was living under a democratic system would have a problem to overnight start living under a totalitarian regime ??
    Do you need a powerpoint presentation? ?
    Too simplistic Music Man. I think you and I can understand each other better wile drunk listening to your rock music;)
     
    V

    Viral

    Active Member
    Why not? Sanders and Warren are the only ones i would vote for.
    Don't get me wrong. I'm with you but I'm in love with Tulsi. For a more realistic option I'd go for Warren/Sanders ticket without a second thought. It must be Warren for President though to have a chance to win. That's the magic formula.
     
    Dynamite Joe

    Dynamite Joe

    Well-Known Member
    U cant see why someone who was living under a democratic system would have a problem to overnight start living under a totalitarian regime ??
    Do you need a powerpoint presentation? ?

    It’s hard to be democratic when someone is always trying to undermine your sovereignty; topple, exploit, and install puppets in your government. Protectionism or subservience is the inevitable outcome of predatory capitalism. The democratic nations that you parrot don’t have democratic interests in HK or the PRC, nor anywhere else for that matter. The proof is in the pudding. PRC has chosen not to serve, thus the ensuing chaos in HK. This is not to champion PRC internal affairs, just a fact.
     
    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    It’s hard to be democratic when someone is always trying to undermine your sovereignty; topple, exploit, and install puppets in your government. Protectionism or subservience is the inevitable outcome of predatory capitalism. The democratic nations that you parrot don’t have democratic interests in HK or the PRC, nor anywhere else for that matter. The proof is in the pudding. PRC has chosen not to serve, thus the ensuing chaos in HK. This is not to champion PRC internal affairs, just a fact.
    "It’s hard to be democratic when someone is always trying to undermine your sovereignty" - nobody says that democracy shouldn't have teeth.
     
    Iron Maiden

    Iron Maiden

    Paragon of Bacon
    Orange Room Supporter
    Too simplistic Music Man. I think you and I can understand each other better wile drunk listening to your rock music;)
    U’re welcome to join me for a beer and fine tunes anytime you want, in the meantime allow me to question your sometimes unhealthy theories :)

    It’s hard to be democratic when someone is always trying to undermine your sovereignty; topple, exploit, and install puppets in your government. Protectionism or subservience is the inevitable outcome of predatory capitalism. The democratic nations that you parrot don’t have democratic interests in HK or the PRC, nor anywhere else for that matter. The proof is in the pudding. PRC has chosen not to serve, thus the ensuing chaos in HK. This is not to champion PRC internal affairs, just a fact.
    Yes what china is doing in africa is out of their pure good heart :)

    Let us leave the interrests if nations where they belong and focus on the matter at hands, HKers resisting the bureaucrats’ main mise on their oasis of freedom. A commendable fight for anybody preaching abt democratic interests. If these interests seem to align with foreign ideologies that contradict the one true party line, well then its just how its going to be.
     
    O Brother

    O Brother

    Legendary Member
    Would love to see Tulsi Gabbard in the WH…
    Tulsi would probably be more evil combined to trump and the b***h clinton :lol:
    It is crazy that you trust that something good can come out from the WH after all the shit happening!

    The step forward for humanity and the world is for the WH to be in total rubble :p
     
    V

    Viral

    Active Member
    allow me to question your sometimes unhealthy theories :)
    Don't worry about me. I'll be fine:cool:.
    See if you can help Jackie Chan. He doesn't seem to understand the situation:)
     
    Dynamite Joe

    Dynamite Joe

    Well-Known Member
    .
    Yes what china is doing in africa is out of their pure good heart :)

    Let us leave the interrests if nations where they belong and focus on the matter at hands, HKers resisting the bureaucrats’ main mise on their oasis of freedom. A commendable fight for anybody preaching abt democratic interests. If these interests seem to align with foreign ideologies that contradict the one true party line, well then its just how its going to be.
    If you were to juxtapose American and Chinese overseas transgressions, you’d see that your critique of China is as one sided as U.S. aggression. China is hesitating to use its military to quell an insurgency in their own territory. While the U.S. military uses its bombs as often as a chain smoker lights a cigarette. Your bias and lack of objectivity on this issue can be revealed by a simple set of facts. The 800+ U.S. foreign military bases are more than every other country with foreign military bases combined - totalling 30 for 2nd place. It’s military expenditure dwarfs any other country, more than the next 8-9 countries combined. There’s no conspiracy here. If you criticise Chinese domestic or foreign policies, you may find some legitimate grievances here and there as you would with most countries. But to deny foreign interference in their affairs while the trade war is brewing is ludicrous.
     
    Last edited:
    Top