On May 11, 1:28*pm, ScottW wrote:
On May 10, 10:52*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On May 11, 12:28*am, ScottW wrote:
On May 10, 1:15*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On May 10, 2:56*pm, ScottW wrote:
*So your point is..why maintain a deterrent?
No, there are other things that we could do, assuming your earlier
comment was correct.
Because even a US unopposed Chinese invasion of Taiwan is going
to have serious consequences for the US.
Even if we seriously opposed it our chances of success are very
limited. They'd have about 150 miles to travel. We'd have thousands.
Look at a map. Taiwan would largely be on their own.
For a time.
Until we "pulled the trigger" I suppose.
Not gonna happen.
*Hillary would nuke 'em without batting an eyelash.
Really? How well you seem to know her.
Hence our weapons sales to Taiwan.
Indeed. Our tacit admission that they're on their own.
We pulled out
years ago.
Do you really think US trade relations would be unaffected?
The dollar? *Chinese holdings of US bonds?
Where did I say that? However, China taking over Hong Kong was not a
big deal, despite claims that it would lead to a calamity for the
population and world markets.
Peaceful transition. *US policy is to achieve the same for Taiwan.
We cannot do that. We can strive to,
Exactly, and maintaining a credible deterrent is part of
striving.
Duh. 2pid has latched onto another idea.
Go ahead, gnaw your bone. LOL!
we can hope for, but we cannot
*do*. The Taiwanese have a say in it.
The US policy is to maintain a position the gives peacful
negotiated resolution to the problem the only path to solution.
Absolutes are seldom the case in the real world, 2pid. There is no
"only".
China is clearly pursuing the capability to have a military option..
We can make that option much harder to acquire.
No, we can't.
* Yes we can.
How would you propose making the Chinese pursuing a military option
"harder to acquire"?
*By raising the bar both through improving Taiwans self defense and
maintaining a credible and formidable rapid response capability.
And then bitching about (and being alarmed about) China spending more
on their military, I suppose. Off to the races...again!
OK, 2pid: you 'win'.
The F-22 is essential to that role as the strategy to bring
large numbers of aircraft to the battlefield quickly is
simply not realistic.
The F-22, pure and simple, is an anachronism.
They're getting their technology from the Russians,
among others.
*But I was told they don't have an answer for the lowly F-16?
I'm shocked to hear this isn't true....lol.
You're on crack. The F-16 and F-15 can fight with any aircraft out
there right now. That isn't an "answer for".
The argument morphs again. Now no one has an argument
for the F-16 AND F-15. *Do you ever stay with one position?
Do you ever think about what is being said, and not just make stuff
up?
Here, 2pid, let's look at what was actually said:
"(These same individuals will scream bloody murder if you talk about
controlling defense spending, which represents about 60% of the
federal budget. We *need* F-22 and F-35 fighters, when nobody has
really been able to contend with the F-16...)"
Message-ID: 15721f42-9b89-409f-
"The F-15 can handle the Su-27 or Su-30. You worry about 500
MiG-21s that are damned near Korean War vintage. The F-16 can do
circles around those. The R&D is done on both, copies of these
aircraft are 20% of the cost of an F-22, but we need this new
generation and now (according to you) need to be working on the next
one."
"Um, 2pid, we won't be outnumbered any time soon, against any
projected
adversary who is equipped with any more capable aircraft than we had
before."
"No, it was that the F-16 was adequate versus any potential
adversaries. The F-16 is bought and paid for, so new copies don't
requiire the massive R&D spending. You can crank out F-16s at a 5-1
cost savings (actually many, many time less expensive than that since
DOD considers the $100 billion R&D "dead cost" and does not count it
against the cost per aircraft). Ditto F-18s, F-15s, and so on.
So you missed the point, but let's continue."
Message-ID: 15721f42-9b89-409f-
Anyway, I've repeatedly *shown that your statement re the F-16
is false. *For example.http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread43337/pg1
Yes, 2pid, the F-16 will not conted as well as an F-15 against one
type of aircraft the Chinese have. Now rerun your 'computation' with
the F-16 vs. the MiG-17, and the F-15 vs. the Su-27 and 30.
Don't forget to use "air-to-air missiles" and "AWACS" in your answer.
The Mig-29, even with it's short range which is not much of a problem
for the Chinese over the Taiwan straight bests the F-16.
How about the F-15, which is the counterpart and not one of your
apples-to-oranges comparisons?
Nope.
As far as your claim that the F-15 remains dominant,
that is also highly disputed.
2pid, you have missed the point so often that it has become very
boring.
And you have not factored in AWACS and air-to-air missile technology.
http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/exercise...article01.html
Even American fighters, such as Boeing’s F-15, are being sold in
upgraded versions to countries around the world.
Boeing and the others won't like it if we stop this. It is, of course,
the only way to stop fighting ourselves.
and more directly
http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/comparison-f15-su30-1.html
"In certain circumstances, the Su-30 can use its maneuverability,
enhanced by thrust-vectoring nozzles, and speed to fool the F-15's
radar, fire two missiles and escape before the U.S. fighter can
adequately respond. This is according to Air Force officials who have
seen the results of extensive studies of multi-aircraft engagements
conducted in a complex of 360-deg. simulation domes at Boeing's St.
Louis facilities."
What a surprise. Boeing and the Air Force think we should buy F-22s.
LOL!
All we could possibly do is make exercising it a little
more costly. I'd predict at most a token show to save face.
Do you suppose we'd go nuclear over Taiwan? Would we nuke China if
they chose to nuke Taiwan?
* No. *But it would be the end of trade with China for 100 years.
If we aren't willing to go the whole way, we'd better not go at all.
*Lessons learned from Vietnam?
Lessons learned long before that. When would you advocate committing
US lives without seeking total military victory?
* When the objective is not to escalate to all "out war" with China
which risks a nuclear exchange
but to deter a military invasion of Taiwan.
So we'd better not commit any forces under that scenario. It sounds as
though we wouldn't go "all-in". Which isn't much of a deterrent.
Anyway, 2pid, several messages ago (and it HAS been fun watching you
chase your tail...again, but grows boring) I even offered to accept
that your one single Taiwan scenario was valid, just for the sake of
argument.
Does this one single scenario justify us spending $200 billion on a
single aircraft? I don't think that it does. In 2pidspeak: What else
ya got? What other fears do you have that do?