Trump Officials Announce More Than $11 Billion in Arms Sales for Taiwan

东风夜放花千树 said:
Comrade, we share the same belief: China will prevail! I am waiting for the call of the nation; I am the most suitable person for the country's Road and Bridge Corps. During my university studies, the requirement of my major was 'if you encounter a mountain, open a road to ensure personnel can pass safely; if you encounter a river, build a bridge to ensure personnel can pass safely.' You should already know which school I graduated from.

I admit that military action requires training, and I underwent one month of training. I deeply regret not qualifying for reserve service due to my vision problem.
Click to expand...
Let me ask you this

Would you be able to shit in a box and sleep while 3 surround sound system blaring at you, and that is if you can ever sleep at all days in and days out.

I was an Army Officer for 7 years, I been deployed twice to Iraq and Afghanistan, you are basically transported from your civilised home into a war zone where normal rules and normal things do not apply, forget about 3 square meals a day, forget about indoor plumbing, forget about getting used to getting stuff just by ordering it online. I had 3 months basic training, 6 months Advanced Infantry Training, 6 weeks Airborne Training, and 20 weeks Ranger course, and I still wouldn't fit into a war.
 
Ali_Baba said:
No, it cannot become China's "Ukraine".. Taiwan is an island state, that is a little over 100miles from Chinese mainland. China can enforce a complete blockade both aerial and sea based, and starve them out.
Click to expand...
..........I can tell you that I studied about 5000 years of warfare, siege alone never works in any battle, and you can't really blockade Taiwan even the US was not involved, because the PLAN would need to deal with Taiwan A2/AD, Sea Control, and maintaining the supply line, you need a lot of fleet arms to complete all these for an island, this is not going to be accomplished with just 3 Carrier Battle Group alone especially when Taiwan is a near peer enemy with China and technological advance adversary.

There is a reason why China never even tried to blockade Taiwan regardless of how bad their relationship would be, becuase the Chinese knows it wouldn't work, I mean you are looking at US blockade Cuba, Israel blockade Gaza and now Venezeula being Blockaded by the US again, and none of those are on par vis-a-vis China and Taiwan, it wouldn't really work...
 
In 2025, more than a hundred countries declared their support for the One-China Principle at conferences held with China. Among the 183 countries that have established diplomatic relations with China, their diplomatic documents clearly pledge support for the One-China Principle. Currently, Japan, Australia, EU institutions, and some European countries are provoking China regarding its internal affairs. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs has pointed out that this behavior is very hypocritical, and China's internal affairs should not be interfered with.

Japan claims, 'If something happens in Taiwan, it concerns Japan.'

The United States has the 'Taiwan Relations Act' and the 'United States-Taiwan Mutual Defense Treaty.'

However, when the Chinese military conducts exercises in Taiwan Province, we do not see Japanese or American forces fulfilling their commitments.

The United States and the Philippines signed the 'United States-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty.' When Chinese maritime police took law enforcement actions against Filipino crew members within China's territorial waters, we did not see the United States fulfill its commitment.

In December 1994, Ukraine decided to give up and destroy its nuclear weapons in exchange for guarantees of its national security and independence from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia. The four parties eventually reached an agreement and jointly signed the 'Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances.' When Russia launched military actions against Ukraine, we did not see the United States or the United Kingdom fulfill their commitments.

This is the nature of the political promises of the United States and Western countries. The signed documents are like worthless paper.

The Chinese Coast Guard posted a notice clearly showing the process of inspecting and seizing the Evergreen cargo ship suspected of transporting equipment such as HIMARS to Taiwan.

If other countries attempt to interfere in China's internal affairs, I suggest turning verbal support into practical action. The best solution is to eliminate foreign forces interfering in China's internal affairs, and we hope for the peaceful return of Taiwan Province.
 
j_hungary said:
Let me ask you this

Would you be able to shit in a box and sleep while 3 surround sound system blaring at you, and that is if you can ever sleep at all days in and days out.

I was an Army Officer for 7 years, I been deployed twice to Iraq and Afghanistan, you are basically transported from your civilised home into a war zone where normal rules and normal things do not apply, forget about 3 square meals a day, forget about indoor plumbing, forget about getting used to getting stuff just by ordering it online. I had 3 months basic training, 6 months Advanced Infantry Training, 6 weeks Airborne Training, and 20 weeks Ranger course, and I still wouldn't fit into a war.
Click to expand...
The war systems vary depending on each country's circumstances.

The form of war between Russia and Ukraine is similar to the trench warfare of World War II, with large numbers of soldiers and armored weapons as the main force. The difference is the introduction of drones and long-range firepower. This is the type of war with the highest number of casualties.

The form of war between Pakistan and India is closer to a modern warfare system. Pakistan employed beyond-visual-range combat and achieved a crushing victory.

The military strength of Russia and Ukraine is greater than that of Pakistan and India, but their style of warfare is not as effective as Pakistan's.

The use of gunpowder overwhelms the bow and arrow, which was an advantage of colonizers. Because with only a short period of training, a person using a gunpowder weapon could kill someone who has trained for a long time to use a bow and arrow, and at a very low cost. This is similar to Pakistan's victory.

With different war systems, the training methods of soldiers are also different.
 
东风夜放花千树 said:
The war systems vary depending on each country's circumstances.

The form of war between Russia and Ukraine is similar to the trench warfare of World War II, with large numbers of soldiers and armored weapons as the main force. The difference is the introduction of drones and long-range firepower. This is the type of war with the highest number of casualties.

The form of war between Pakistan and India is closer to a modern warfare system. Pakistan employed beyond-visual-range combat and achieved a crushing victory.

The military strength of Russia and Ukraine is greater than that of Pakistan and India, but their style of warfare is not as effective as Pakistan's.

The use of gunpowder overwhelms the bow and arrow, which was an advantage of colonizers. Because with only a short period of training, a person using a gunpowder weapon could kill someone who has trained for a long time to use a bow and arrow, and at a very low cost. This is similar to Pakistan's victory.

With different war systems, the training methods of soldiers are also different.
Click to expand...
Well, I used to believe in the way you believe, coming from a military family, my Grandfather served in WW2 and the Korean War, Dad served in Nam, my brother served in Desert Storm, and I myself served in OIF and OEF. Wars are going to be different than what my parents and my grandfather went through.

I want to think today's war are clean and stand off, but that wouldn't mean anything, you would think you can just win a war firing a few missiles and dropping a few bombs? Well, I can tell you that if people are going to give up that easily, you won't be in a war to begin with.

I was with the US Army, I trained as a cavalryman, I rode a tank and APC to war, but do you know what the best army in the world on the first day of going to war with Iraq told me?

"Glad that you are here, but your armor is not, and we will be using you as an infantry"

Why can't we just win a war in Iraq by dropping a bomb? That's what I had been asking before I had my sorry ass dragged in line, giving me a rifle and telling me to do stuff that I had not done in 2 years before when I was trained as a Bradley Commander. And that is the US Army and we were fighting Iraq. Do you think yours can be better?

I can tell you the hardest part in war is not to kill people and be killed, that's the easy part, the hardest part of a war is to get a smoke when you want to, and take a crap when you had to. And there are no way you will know how hard is those things to be done unless you were in the thick of it.
 
j_hungary said:
Well, I used to believe in the way you believe, coming from a military family, my Grandfather served in WW2 and the Korean War, Dad served in Nam, my brother served in Desert Storm, and I myself served in OIF and OEF. Wars are going to be different than what my parents and my grandfather went through.

I want to think today's war are clean and stand off, but that wouldn't mean anything, you would think you can just win a war firing a few missiles and dropping a few bombs? Well, I can tell you that if people are going to give up that easily, you won't be in a war to begin with.

I was with the US Army, I trained as a cavalryman, I rode a tank and APC to war, but do you know what the best army in the world on the first day of going to war with Iraq told me?

"Glad that you are here, but your armor is not, and we will be using you as an infantry"

Why can't we just win a war in Iraq by dropping a bomb? That's what I had been asking before I had my sorry ass dragged in line, giving me a rifle and telling me to do stuff that I had not done in 2 years before when I was trained as a Bradley Commander. And that is the US Army and we were fighting Iraq. Do you think yours can be better?

I can tell you the hardest part in war is not to kill people and be killed, that's the easy part, the hardest part of a war is to get a smoke when you want to, and take a crap when you had to. And there are no way you will know how hard is those things to be done unless you were in the thick of it.
Click to expand...
Pakistan used a few missiles to stop the war because Pakistan's demands were simply to defend national security and eliminate India's threat to Pakistan's water resources. This is a reasonable demand.

The wars waged by the United States lack justice and honor. For example, in the Iraq War you participated in, the United States did not obtain authorization from the United Nations. The purpose of the United States was to occupy other countries, destroy the governments of other countries, seize the resources of other countries, and maintain the dominance of the dollar.

Wherever the US military goes, innocent people lose their lives and loved ones. Those who have lost family members often become forces opposing the US military. Then the United States falls into long-term counterinsurgency conflicts and eventually withdraws.

Since the founding of China, the wars it has engaged in with other countries have been caused by violations of its territory and sovereignty by other countries, resulting in Chinese casualties. China has never fought wars similar to those of the United States, so there are no comparable cases for reference. As for your performance during your service, the Iraqi people have the right to speak.
 
What are the flaws in CSIS stimulation China attack on Taiwan?

The 2023 CSIS "First Battle of the Next War" simulation of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan has been critiqued for several flaws and limitations, primarily focusing on its
methodological assumptions, lack of political considerations, and potential for misleading interpretations.

Methodological and Operational Assumptions
  • Assumption of US forces already in place: The simulation assumes U.S. ground forces are already deployed in Taiwan and that resupply for these forces can be maintained, which may not be a realistic starting condition in a sudden conflict.
  • Selective Chinese force utilization: To achieve operational surprise, the wargame assumes the bulk of Chinese forces would come only from the Eastern Theater Command, with minimal contributions from other commands. Critics argue this underestimates the total force China could bring to bear if it chose to forgo the element of total surprise.
  • Favorable US/Taiwanese air and anti-ship capabilities: The simulation was criticized for making generous assumptions about the effectiveness of U.S. and Taiwanese air forces and anti-ship missiles, potentially overstating their attritional advantages and hit rates against Chinese vessels and aircraft.
  • Neglect of key Chinese capabilities: The simulation largely ignored Chinese anti-submarine warfare (ASW) capabilities in local airspace, and also made heavy assumptions about Chinese resupply issues after a landing, while assuming Taiwan's forces would not experience similar issues.
  • Logistical challenges: The scenarios often did not adequately model the significant logistical challenges and transit times for U.S. submarines and other assets traveling from distant bases like Hawaii.

Political and Scope Limitations
  • Exclusion of political dimensions: A major criticism is that the wargame largely ignores the complex political calculus, political assurances, and diplomatic dynamics that would heavily influence China's decision to use force or the U.S. response, focusing instead on a purely military scenario.
  • No nuclear scenario: The simulation specifically excluded the use of nuclear weapons, which would fundamentally change the nature and outcome of any such conflict.
  • Focus on invasion vs. other options: While the report acknowledged other possibilities, the media coverage and main findings focused on a full-scale invasion, potentially downplaying other likely Chinese actions like a blockade or gray zone pressure, which carry different dynamics.
  • Wargames are for learning, not prediction: Experts caution that wargame results are highly dependent on their design and purpose (often learning/identifying issues rather than precise prediction) and should not be treated as an accurate forecast of whether the U.S. or China would "win".

Interpretation and Public Perception
  • Media misrepresentation: Some media coverage was criticized for being misleading by focusing on flashy headlines or surface-level comparisons (e.g., equating Taiwan with Ukraine), which may have inaccurately hyped concerns about an immediate invasion or U.S. unwillingness to intervene.
  • "Pyrrhic Victory" framing: While the U.S./Taiwan/Japan coalition generally "won" in the simulations, the immense costs in lives and materiel led to a "Pyrrhic victory," a framing that critics argue might question the U.S. global role without offering alternative strategies for achieving U.S. interests.
 
I understand that President xi used the phrase 'reunification with Taiwan' rather than the normal '..peaceful reunification with Taiwan.'
 
Nan Yang said:
I wonder if China can board and sieze these ships carrying weapons to Taiwan. After all, they are breaking Chinese sanction laws and are thus illegal.
Click to expand...
it would require balls of steel from China, so not happening because seizing a weapon shipment from US means a direct war with US.
 
Ali_Baba said:
I disagree with your assertion that Taiwan can "pull in other" countries, the nature of all countries is fundamentally to not get involved in wars, especially other peoples wars. We can see this example in Western Europe in the Ukrainian war.
Click to expand...

...and Iran apparently
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Pakistan Defence Latest

Country Watch Latest

Latest Posts

Share this page

Back
Top