Boots on the ground is basically the end game. Taiwan has no ability to overcome boots on the ground. They don't even take their defense seriously -- they haven't updated their defense doctrine (e.g., annual Han Kuang) for decades now.
> get real.
Hmm, who is more credible, the literal government of Japan or some rando.
This shift in the balance of power has been on-going for well over 10 years now. I've been following this for many years, so it's jarring to read very un-informed opinions on the balance of power in WESPAC, especially as it relates to PRC and Taiwan.
Read the many warnings from the various heads of INDOPACOM:
China’s Sea Control Is a Done Deal, ‘Short of War With the U.S.’ [1]
OR
"Indeed, the overall balance of conventional military power along China’s borders has shifted dramatically in China’s favor." [2]
By the way, this is against the USA, not just Taiwan, which has a joke of a military.
> China will immediately be sanctioned by all the countries, leading to its collapse
Sorry, but most of this is uninformed gibberish. The PRC and its army (the PLA) have experienced nothing short of a breathtaking modernization for both the country and military.
Most of the points raise are simply wrong.
> 1.) too much corruption within the military. also no real war experience for 40 years
China has corruption, yet is able to modernize and build up the military at a pace exceeding the USA's, which spends at least 2x more.
> 2.) not enough oil to supply all the ships needed for invasion. look at how Russia's column of tanks failed in the early invasion of Ukraine.
China is one of the largest oil producers in its own right. It extracts around 4 million barrels a day. The rest is imported, but primarily used for cars -- China's industry and rail networks do not rely primarily on oil. Due to China's transition to electric vehicles, they may have hit peak imports of oil.
During the US Gulf War, even with the tyranny of distance, the DoD used about 400k barrels a day:
"Even during the peak of US military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and “normal” training activities and force movements, the Defense Department’s daily average fuel use was nearly four hundred thousand barrels per day—an amount equal to slightly more than 10 percent of China’s domestic crude-oil output.38" [1]
China produces about 4 MILLION barrels a day, which is 10x 400k barrels. Also, China would be fighting on the front door step.
3.) China is broke and you need money for a war against US and Japan.
China has MULTIPLE TRILLION dollar funds. Did I say MULTIPLE? [2]
Plus, there's the annual TRILLION dollar trade surplus.
4.) China imports most of its food and oil
China imports a lot, but they are self-sufficiency on a caloric basis. The oil imports are primarily for cars. The country doesn't rely on oil for industry.
5.) Taiwan has very advanced anti-ship missile systems, homegrown and from US. and once a ship is sunk near the landing, that then prevents other ship from landing, basically piling up ship corpses.
Read the Japanese government's assessment: "China’s military has the capability to land ground forces on Taiwan within as little as one week after imposing a naval blockade on the island, according to a Japanese government analysis of Chinese military exercises conducted last year." [3]
It's important to understand what "reunification" means. The PRC is seeking "peaceful development" [1] towards the goal of reunification. To this end, the mainland encourages exchange, including investments and workers from Taiwan -- something like 1 to 2 million Taiwanese work or live in the mainland [2].
"Reunification" DOES NOT mean the absolutely idiotic policy that US "think tankers" imagine of the PRC scheming to invade the island as soon as military might exists. We have idiots in year 2000 writing drivel like "Jiang Zemin’s desire to make reunification his legacy indicate that Taiwan will be attacked soon" [3]. Hint: no such attack took place because this mindset exists nowhere but in the minds of the retarded think-tankers.
Secession of Taiwan is absolutely a red line, but outside of a move towards secession, the peaceful development will continue.
> as if amphibious assault against a country that has been preparing invasion for 70 years
You might want to update your understanding of the balance of forces in Asia.
For example: "China’s military has the capability to land ground forces on Taiwan within as little as one week after imposing a naval blockade on the island, according to a Japanese government analysis of Chinese military exercises conducted last year." [1]
Only the United States military could challenge the PRC in the western Pacific. But even that is not a certainty: "Indeed, the overall balance of conventional military power along China’s borders has shifted dramatically in China’s favor." [2]
It's not the 1900s anymore. The PLA isnt a peasant army. It's every bit as modern, and in some cases more so than even the US military.
This was an interesting discussion when I read about it long ago.
I don't think it's obvious that Marilyn's interpretation is the correct one. Two possible interpretations could be equally valid.
In law we have the "rule of the last antecedent" that says descriptive clauses modify the nearest antecedent noun.
Under this interpretation "which has a goat" modifies the exemplary door "say #3". Same as saying host opens a door, for example door #3 containing a goat. It could have been say door #2 containing a car.
Marilyn's interpretation is that "which has a goat" modifies "host opens another door." Same as saying the door opened by the host always has a goat.
Language is inherently ambiguous. I don't think either interpretation is unreasonable...
> Not only is Marilyn's interpretation grammatically valid
I would consider both interpretations equally valid. If anything, in law we have the "rule of the last antecedent" (phrase/clause modifies nearest antecedent noun) so that the hater's interpretation could be more correct if based only on this rule.
This language is ambiguous: "host ... opens another door, say #3, which has a goat."
The two options are Marilyn's interpretation of the door always containing a goat (invariant version), or that one door he opens (say #3) just happens to contain a goat (hater's version) but it could have contained a car.
As suggested by someone below, a much clearer formation could have said "host opens a door with a goat, say door #3" to avoid this particular ambiguity.
There's also the issue of usage of "which" signifying a non-restrictive non-essential clause.
> get real.
Hmm, who is more credible, the literal government of Japan or some rando.
This shift in the balance of power has been on-going for well over 10 years now. I've been following this for many years, so it's jarring to read very un-informed opinions on the balance of power in WESPAC, especially as it relates to PRC and Taiwan.
Read the many warnings from the various heads of INDOPACOM: China’s Sea Control Is a Done Deal, ‘Short of War With the U.S.’ [1]
OR
"Indeed, the overall balance of conventional military power along China’s borders has shifted dramatically in China’s favor." [2]
By the way, this is against the USA, not just Taiwan, which has a joke of a military.
> China will immediately be sanctioned by all the countries, leading to its collapse
LOL at this absurdly ignorant take.
[1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/20/world/asia/south-china-se...
[2] - https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Media/News/News-Article-View/Articl...