Comments on: Nukes in the Taiwan Crisis http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2008/05/nukes-in-the-taiwan-crisis.php Comments and analyses of important national and international security issues Tue, 14 Feb 2012 22:37:21 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Robert Loo http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2008/05/nukes-in-the-taiwan-crisis.php/comment-page-1#comment-8360 Robert Loo Sat, 31 Oct 2009 00:35:29 +0000 http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/?p=238#comment-8360 China needs the extra capability to deter the US from ever foolishly trying to preempt the PLA nuclear deterrent. You never know. Yes treaties have been signed and torn up when it suits one of the parties to witdraw from it. So you have to be strong in this world and stop the US from imposing its will on China. China's ability to deter the US is minuscule. I believe the US would go to war over Taiwan if the price is worth it but not from now. The price has gone up and will keep on increasing as the PLA tailor its forces to handle any contingency posed by US forces. China is not out to attack the US but it's the other way round. The US is fond of saying it is defending freedom and democracy. Read it as a charade for attacking defenceless countries like Iraq and other Middle Eastern states. The PLA will increase its nuclear deterrent whether the US implements the missile shield. The Pentagon will have to note that US homeland is not immune if the Americans were to attack China. China needs the extra capability to deter the US from ever foolishly trying to preempt the PLA nuclear deterrent. You never know. Yes treaties have been signed and torn up when it suits one of the parties to witdraw from it. So you have to be strong in this world and stop the US from imposing its will on China.

China’s ability to deter the US is minuscule. I believe the US would go to war over Taiwan if the price is worth it but not from now.
The price has gone up and will keep on increasing as the PLA tailor its forces to handle any contingency posed by US forces.
China is not out to attack the US but it’s the other way round. The US is fond of saying it is defending freedom and democracy. Read it as a charade for attacking defenceless countries like Iraq and other Middle Eastern states.

The PLA will increase its nuclear deterrent whether the US implements the missile shield. The Pentagon will have to note that US homeland is not immune if the Americans were to attack China.

]]> By: david korkia http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2008/05/nukes-in-the-taiwan-crisis.php/comment-page-1#comment-7724 david korkia Mon, 01 Jun 2009 17:36:17 +0000 http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/?p=238#comment-7724 [Edited and abbreviated] Given the number of nuclear weapons, China has in comparison to the U.S., I find it hard to believe that they would risk nuclear confrontation. If they chose to invade Taiwan, they would expect U.S. carriers to be deployed their in defense. China could respond by sinking them but that would be too close to inviting a nuclear retaliation. A better option might be simply to damage it for several reasons: 1. A damaged ship might require the assistance of other naval vessels. During this period they are at greater risk since they must slow down or even stop to provide assistance. 2. Commercial firms may be unwilling to enter a combat zone to retrieve the ship, since they may also become targets. Therefore naval vessels may have to tow the stricken ship to safety removing that ship(s) also from its primary mission. In land warfare, it is sometimes better to wound an enemy soldier than kill him. A wounded soldier needs two soldiers to carry him, a dead soldier needs none. [Edited and abbreviated] Given the number of nuclear weapons, China has in comparison to the U.S., I find it hard to believe that they would risk nuclear confrontation. If they chose to invade Taiwan, they would expect U.S. carriers to be deployed their in defense. China could respond by sinking them but that would be too close to inviting a nuclear retaliation. A better option might be simply to damage it for several reasons: 1. A damaged ship might require the assistance of other naval vessels. During this period they are at greater risk since they must slow down or even stop to provide assistance. 2. Commercial firms may be unwilling to enter a combat zone to retrieve the ship, since they may also become targets. Therefore naval vessels may have to tow the stricken ship to safety removing that ship(s) also from its primary mission. In land warfare, it is sometimes better to wound an enemy soldier than kill him. A wounded soldier needs two soldiers to carry him, a dead soldier needs none.

]]> By: Gary M & Jim Meade http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2008/05/nukes-in-the-taiwan-crisis.php/comment-page-1#comment-3728 Gary M & Jim Meade Wed, 03 Sep 2008 04:58:43 +0000 http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/?p=238#comment-3728 [edited] No, it means Air Defense Squadron. Ammunition depots are not squadrons, they're depots. Jim Meade commented on August 31: ADS stands for Air Defense Squadron. <b>Reply: </b>No, they were not Air Defense Squadrons, and neither were they Ammunition Depot Squadrons (my typo); ADS stands for Aviation Depot Squadron, the designated custodian units for nuclear weapons in those days. HK [edited] No, it means Air Defense Squadron. Ammunition depots are not squadrons, they’re depots.

Jim Meade commented on August 31: ADS stands for Air Defense Squadron.

Reply: No, they were not Air Defense Squadrons, and neither were they Ammunition Depot Squadrons (my typo); ADS stands for Aviation Depot Squadron, the designated custodian units for nuclear weapons in those days. HK

]]> By: Samuel Hui http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2008/05/nukes-in-the-taiwan-crisis.php/comment-page-1#comment-3515 Samuel Hui Sun, 20 Jul 2008 06:25:32 +0000 http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/?p=238#comment-3515 Hello sir. Does 3rd ADS and 12th ADS mean Bomber Squadrons? <b>Reply: </b>No, it stand for Ammunition Depot Squadron. HK Hello sir. Does 3rd ADS and 12th ADS mean Bomber Squadrons?

Reply: No, it stand for Ammunition Depot Squadron. HK

]]> By: Wong Shoon Meng http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2008/05/nukes-in-the-taiwan-crisis.php/comment-page-1#comment-3097 Wong Shoon Meng Thu, 29 May 2008 08:37:36 +0000 http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/?p=238#comment-3097 The US maybe the no 1 in the world today. Today, in a war with china, obviously the US could pulverize China. But China is not defenseless like in the past or even ten years ago. The Chinese could inflict significant damage on the US and that will grow by the day, or should I say one minute, as the PLA gets stronger. The US better note - especially the Bush gang - that the day they can attack China with impunity are over. The impunity enjoyed by the US is a thing of the past. <b>Reply: </b>Unless China attacks Taiwan I don't think the US envisions getting involved in a military confrontation with China. China has been capable of inflicting significant damage on the US for decades, so why does it need the extra capability it is building now? Both countries need to be careful not to get entangled in a military posturing that - if it is ever brought to use - would leave no clear winner. HK The US maybe the no 1 in the world today. Today, in a war with china, obviously the US could pulverize China. But China is not defenseless like in the past or even ten years ago. The Chinese could inflict significant damage on the US and that will grow by the day, or should I say one minute, as the PLA gets stronger. The US better note – especially the Bush gang – that the day they can attack China with impunity are over. The impunity enjoyed by the US is a thing of the past.

Reply: Unless China attacks Taiwan I don’t think the US envisions getting involved in a military confrontation with China. China has been capable of inflicting significant damage on the US for decades, so why does it need the extra capability it is building now? Both countries need to be careful not to get entangled in a military posturing that – if it is ever brought to use – would leave no clear winner. HK

]]>