On May 11, 11:02=A0pm, ScottW <Scott...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 11, 5:50=A0pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> <artygu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > On May 11, 1:28=A0pm, ScottW <Scott...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > On May 10, 10:52=A0pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > <artygu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > On May 11, 12:28=A0am, ScottW <Scott...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 10, 1:15=A0pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > > <artygu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > > > On May 10, 2:56=A0pm, ScottW <Scott...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > =A0So your point is..why maintain a deterrent?
>
> > > > > > No, there are other things that we could do, assuming your
earli=
er
> > > > > > comment was correct.
>
> > > > > > > Because even a US unopposed Chinese invasion of Taiwan is
goin=
g
> > > > > > > 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
thousa=
nds.
> > > > > > Look at a map. Taiwan would largely be on their own.
>
> > > > > For a time.
>
> > > > Until we "pulled the trigger" I suppose.
>
> > > > Not gonna happen.
>
> > > =A0Hillary would nuke 'em without batting an eyelash.
>
> > Really? How well you seem to know her.
>
> Her history and role in the bombing of Serbia
> gives one a glimpse into her potential for knee jerk reactions.
"Potential" is a long, long way from "would".
Duh.
> > > > > 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? =A0Chinese holdings of US bonds?
>
> > > > > > Where did I say that? However, China taking over Hong Kong was
n=
ot a
> > > > > > big deal, despite claims that it would lead to a calamity for
th=
e
> > > > > > population and world markets.
>
> > > > > Peaceful transition. =A0US policy is to achieve the same for
Taiwa=
n.
>
> > > > 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!
>
> =A0 Intellectual surrender noted.
Fact as stated. You have made up your 'mind'. No intellectual
surrender, just surrender to enabling a dog chasing its tail.
> > > > 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
op=
tion.
> > > > > > > We can make that option much harder to acquire.
>
> > > > > > No, we can't.
>
> > > > > =A0 Yes we can.
>
> > > > How would you propose making the Chinese pursuing a military
option
> > > > "harder to acquire"?
>
> > > =A0By raising the bar both through improving Taiwans self defense
and
> > > maintaining a credible and formidable rapid response capability.
>
> > And then *****ing about (and being alarmed about) China spending more
> > on their military, I suppose. Off to the races...again!
>
> > OK, 2pid: you 'win'.
>
> =A0 That is obvious.
No, it isn't.
> > > 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.
>
> =A0 =A0IYO already shown to be based upon falsehoods and
> misconceptions.
Based upon its being based in Cold War thinking, which I have proven
to be the case.
> > > > > > They're getting their technology from the Russians,
> > > > > > among others.
>
> > > > > =A0But 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. =A0Do you ever stay with one position?
>
> > Do you ever think about what is being said, and not just make stuff
> > up?
>
> =A0It's your words.
> > 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...)"
>
> =A0No mention of F-15, and wrong.
Later, my dear dummy.
> > Message-ID: <15721f42-9b89-409f-
> > b78b-9b9958132...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> > "The F-15 can handle the Su-27 or Su-30.
>
> =A0Wrong
Fact.
> > 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."
>
> Wrong
Sorry, correct. Your link that "in some cases based on vector
controls, blah blah, blah might blah blah blah" merely shows what
every soldier or airman or sailor could tell you: no weapon has
superiority in every case at every time. It is not worth $200 billion
to try to ensure it does.
> You may wish to repeat yourself endlessly,
No, as I said, for the said for the sake of argument, let's assume
your weak Taiwan scenario is correct.
Is that worth $200 billion? No? What other scenarios do you have?
> I do not. =A0I've posted links which have shown your statements are
> wrong. =A0 Constant repetition won't change that.
So 2pid? What do you have? You keep cutting that question, which does
not make it go away, but does make it apparent you "got nothing" or
are afraid to answer it.
|
