The possibility for Australia involing in TaiwanStrait Conflict

[Schumacher]

I guess you've never been involved with Govt at a tier 1 level then?

Yes, sometimes those things are buried because other govts will try and work their way through the issues without publicly humiliating the host country.

A good example is when the chinese embassy was being built in canberra. The embassy was so "radio'd up" that staff in the british high commission and NZ High commission were becoming sick. They were so sick that the british decided to evacuate all their staff and relocate them into the old parliament house complex.

at that point the brit high commission was gutted and rebuilt with tempest rated shielding.

was it in the chinese press? No. was it common knowledge on the embassy circuit? you betcha. the emission count was high, directional and obviously purposeful. It was actually hilighted in the Canberra Times but de-emphasised in subsequent releases as an international incident was to be avoided at all costs. the answer was that every western embassy within the emission range was tempest uprated or at a minimum "emission treated". UK, NZ and Canada were targetted. The US embassy was so shielded that it hardly made any difference.

people who use public press announcements as evidence to support their own arguments have no idea how it works in the real world. Politics in the real world is far different from google searches.

The australian reports however, will make interesting reading in 2019 when they become public access.

The Chinese Embassy is knicknamed "Radio Shack" - thats because it has more electronics under those pagoda rooves than all of Radio Shack.

See, the difference between anecdotal evidence and primary evidence is that the latter involves first hand presence. I've been involved.

I'll pick my involvement over anecdotal evidence any day of the week.
In an oblique sense, anyone in CCP intelligence can easily validate what I've said as there are key points in my statements that have never been in the public domain.

You've guessed right, I've never work with Govt.
Too bad we have to wait to 2019. I really hope we can see this 'evidence' which you rely upon. But as you said, that's not how things work.

 

[gf0012-aust]

You've guessed right, I've never work with Govt.
Too bad we have to wait to 2019.

The difference is that in a democracy like australia, classified data is secured for 30 years and then released. China (for example) has none of the openness of access even on this level of data.

I really hope we can see this 'evidence' which you rely upon.

You're being selective in your quotes. Its not what I've said. Govts like australia make decisions based on bodies of evidence. Do I believe the evidence made available by a govt that governs a closed society, where freedom of speech is limited and controlled, where even google is filtered? Or do I believe photographic evidence, reports by people on the ground, by my own interviews etc...?

I sure as heck know who I trust.

But as you said, that's not how things work

The 30 year rule is pretty much standard fair in all democratic countries. Or are you unaware of it?

what country are you from? you're don't come across as german at all.

 

[Schumacher]

The difference is that in a democracy like australia, classified data is secured for 30 years and then released. China (for example) has none of the openness of access even on this level of data.

You're being selective in your quotes. Its not what I've said. Govts like australia make decisions based on bodies of evidence. Do I believe the evidence made available by a govt that governs a closed society, where freedom of speech is limited and controlled, where even google is filtered? Or do I believe photographic evidence, reports by people on the ground, by my own interviews etc...?

I sure as heck know who I trust.



The 30 year rule is pretty much standard fair in all democratic countries. Or are you unaware of it?

what country are you from? you're don't come across as german at all.

I'm from Singapore, can't you tell from my IP ? Schumacher is from the great German driver who sadly retired too early I think.
You're really getting this the wrong way big time. I just lament the fact that we have to wait 30 yrs, that's all.
Why do you bring in the fact that China is not a democracy & Aust is ? or even Tiananmen in the first place ?
As I said, that were totally not necessary. That's why I questioned if that affected your China analysis.
You have impressive credentials, & I always like to read your posts on weapons systems especially subs. But on China policies, I'll wait for 2019.
If you think S'pore or many nations including Aust will base their China policies on Tiananmen, you're mistaken.
Did I say a single word to defend or deny Tiananmen one way or the other ?
I merely said one is hard pressed to judge the scale of the incident with public info. As you said, the major info are off public domain until 2019.
I accept what I don't know. Too many make judgements on prejudice rather than hard facts.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I'm from Singapore, can't you tell from my IP ?

I didn't check your IP address. I only do that when I'm about to ban someone.

As for Tiananmen defining how australia will react (or singapore for that matter), its not the single issue of assessment.

australias relations with china have moved on from that time. It does not however mean that its not remembered in some circles.

Never met schumacher - but I have met senna...

 

[Schumacher]

........

Never met schumacher - but I have met senna...

Must be in Melbourne or Adelaide where F1 was held ? They're trying to bring F1 here next year. Maybe Schumacher will be here as a 'consultant' for Ferrari.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Adelaide.

I ran night time security for 5-6 years as the Sierra Oscar for the Adelaide GP site. One of the supp roles was being assigned to guard Sennas helmet alonside the MSS SO1. I used to take LSL on half pay so that I could do PT work at the GP. It was a brain numbing job.

As for Senna, nice bloke, even though he was a bit volatile at times. Prost was the gentleman of all the drivers. Never acted like a prima donna - unlike some who thought that they were Lords of the Manor wherever they stood...

Needless to say, I find GP's absolutely dull and boring now. :unknown

Must be in Melbourne or Adelaide where F1 was held ? They're trying to bring F1 here next year. Maybe Schumacher will be here as a 'consultant' for Ferrari.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I'm in melbourne, you could hear the cars today at my place which is a fair way away from the track. I've never been let alone met a driver.

Shumacher if you look at the above posts you'll see that Manfred brought up tianamien in support of his argument that china could invade taiwan (come on Manfred, you know thats what it was no one else did. And i think GF brought up the democracy thing in order to outline the diffierence in policies dealing with classified information, which you brought up. So i wouldn't read too much into peoples analysis just because they have a sertain view on past events, especially if their argument is logical and factual.

 

[Schumacher]

I'm in melbourne, you could hear the cars today at my place which is a fair way away from the track. I've never been let alone met a driver.

I didn't even bother to turn on the TV for the race today. First time that has happened in more than 10 years. No prize for guessing the reason.

Shumacher if you look at the above posts you'll see that Manfred brought up tianamien in support of his argument that china could invade taiwan (come on Manfred, you know thats what it was no one else did. And i think GF brought up the democracy thing in order to outline the diffierence in policies dealing with classified information, which you brought up. So i wouldn't read too much into peoples analysis just because they have a sertain view on past events, especially if their argument is logical and factual.

Yes, apologies to GF if I have misunderstood somewhere. I've always been cynical especially of international diplomacy. I don't believe much in good vs bad analysis.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

If Argentina's government invaded the Falklands to maintian thier power, how far-fetched is it that the CCP would do the same to Taiwan?

I dont see the situation as that unlikely, especially if things get dicey for the CCP, however i do think PROC's chances of sucsess are unlikely. And unlike the Falklands, Taiwan is HEAVILY defended with the worlds most powerfull navy backing them up, it is an entirely different beast.

How many surface ships could be sent to Taiwan? Where would the Aircraft sent to cover them be based?

A Hobard class AWD and a couple of upgraded ANZACS would not be out of the question if this occured in 5+ years, if not then substiute the AWD for an Adelade class FFG. And the air cover would come from a Nimitz class carrier, because there would be no task force without US envolvement. If it was just us and PROC then i'd think that all our assets would be in home waters.

 

[Tasman]

I dont see the situation as that unlikely, especially if things get dicey for the CCP, however i do think PROC's chances of sucsess are unlikely. And unlike the Falklands, Taiwan is HEAVILY defended with the worlds most powerfull navy backing them up, it is an entirely different beast.



A Hobard class AWD and a couple of upgraded ANZACS would not be out of the question if this occured in 5+ years, if not then substiute the AWD for an Adelade class FFG. And the air cover would come from a Nimitz class carrier, because there would be no task force without US envolvement. If it was just us and PROC then i'd think that all our assets would be in home waters.

If we look at RAN involvement in recent conflicts the largest commitments have been a couple of surface combat vessels together with a support ship.

I think a likely initial RAN commitment if conflict developed would be a Hobart class AWD or an upgraded FFG. If the situation flared further then I agree with the suggestion that a couple of upgraded Anzacs could be added. They would most likely be joined by an AOR. These ships would almost certainly be integrated with USN assets. The deployment of a couple of Collins class SSKs would also be possible. I can't see that an RAN contribution larger than this could be sustained.

I can't think of any scenario where a conflict would involve just Australia and China. However, in the hypothetical situation that this did occur I agree with you that all of Australia's naval assets would be in home waters, with the possible exception of the submarine force which just might be given a licence to 'go hunting'.

Cheers

 

[tphuang]

Personally i'd be inclined to believe GF, beceause unlike the rest of us in the forum, he has seen primary and secondary evidence, heard eye witness accounts, and been part of a federal level investigation.

I can tell you that I've talked to plenty of people from Beijing who was there when the TAM happened. I've talked to a man who was a student in the movement. This guy had friends that ended up in jail for a few months. He stopped trains for a day by tying himself on a major bridge. He told this as part of sharing and had no incentive to lie about anything. I'd think very few middle aged and educated people in major northern college cities do not know what really happened.

 

[exported_kiwi]

Hmmmmm

Hi folks, I'm a long time lurker, first time poster. I've been reading this thread with interest. I'm a Kiwi who's been living in China for the past 4 years and i can tell you now, there's not much here that gives me any "goosebumps" regarding Chinas intentions towards Taiwan. I'll post some links for you to read from an English language Chinese newspaper forum that I belong to. You'll be unpleasantly surprised what some Chinese folks are saying, even my own fiancee said the same thing while we were together, not nice!

I dunno if you'd feel so easily after reading these 2 links, have a look, it's not as "softly softly" as you might think that is prevalent here!

Ok, I can't post links according to the rules, kinda silly but there ya go! Check "China daily bbs" Taiwan issues and also the Americas threads

 

[csubaicai]

Since 1989's navie emotion,I think many chinese people has gradually regconized the hypocrisy of which US goverment provoked at that moment and formulated their own understanding of democracy,which is significantly different from that of western country's. Moveover,I don't think the people who long-lived in western developed countries might actually grasp the idea what we (chinese people nowdays) really need--"steadly developing country and continuous improving people's living level",I want to tell everyone that read this text that Chinese people nowdays is the people who dislike war mostly in the world,developing is the first mission of China and it is also the first one of each chinese individual,what we need is nothing but steady.However,Back to the topic itself,anyone who care about the issue of Taiwan should get to learn the history of China,get to learn how the current complex situation of Taiwan formulated before you make your own conclusion.In my view,the issue of Tainwan is neither simply a calculation of how many advanced weapons we have nor how many "they" have,and I think "Unify" is kernel stream in chinese 5000-years history,and in nowdays any leader who lost Taiwan would be regarded by people as the coward emperor of feudal Qing dynasty,which at last be overtaken by the Repblic of China,which is driven to Taiwan in 1949.In Chinese history Taiwan is always part of China and the separation of Taiwan nowdays is result of the civil war over 50 years ago,which is not finished yet in theory.At last,I don't believe Aus will get any benifit from intervening a civil war of China.

 

[Simster]

Firstly in regard to the defence accord between Australia and Japan I find in highly unlikely that Japan would be drawn into any conflict revolving around Taiwan, as very few benefits would be aquired through such intervention. But also Japan is in a potentially worse situation due to its geographical location, which could leave the possibility of retalitory action, if it were to intervene.

Secondly what plausible reasons would China have for using military means for unification with Taiwan?

1. If re-unification were to occur it would probably occur through a similar way to Hong Kong, through the 'one China, two systems' approach.
2. But also China has a lot to gain from an independent Taiwan, Taiwan as an industrialised state requires substantial trade with China to maintain its economy.
3. Does China posses at this time the required logistics to even attempt a land invasion, and if it does what is likely probability that the required troop numbers would actually reach the shores of Taiwan?

 

[Gripenator]

Firstly in regard to the defence accord between Australia and Japan I find in highly unlikely that Japan would be drawn into any conflict revolving around Taiwan, as very few benefits would be aquired through such intervention. But also Japan is in a potentially worse situation due to its geographical location, which could leave the possibility of retalitory action, if it were to intervene.

Secondly what plausible reasons would China have for using military means for unification with Taiwan?

1. If re-unification were to occur it would probably occur through a similar way to Hong Kong, through the 'one China, two systems' approach.
2. But also China has a lot to gain from an independent Taiwan, Taiwan as an industrialised state requires substantial trade with China to maintain its economy.
3. Does China posses at this time the required logistics to even attempt a land invasion, and if it does what is likely probability that the required troop numbers would actually reach the shores of Taiwan?

The 'defense agreement' between Australia and Japan is only a MoU, not a fully fledged treaty, meaning Australia is not obliged to intervene. However, if the US asked Australia to, as the USA's main ally in the AP region Australia may send support/logistics assistance as Australia does not wish to damge trading relations with the PRC. However I have little doubt that RAN SSKs will be active in gathering intelligence and quite possibly sinking PLAN surface combatants and SSK/SSNs because by their very nature submarines are 'deniable' weapons.

Japan on the other hand would almost certainly have factored in PRC retaliation into any decision to intervene in the Taiwan Strait. Japan as you may know, is assured a 'nuclear umbrella' by the USA and any nuclear PRC attack on Japan would ensure that quite simply, Mainland China would cease to exist as an entity. Yes, Japan is in a disadvantageous geographical position due to crude/processed oil having to traverse the Taiwan Strait-if Taiwan was to fall then the PRC would 'hold complete leverage' over Japan's energy supply chain unless tankers were diverted east of Taiwan-but driving up costs massively. In addition public sentiment in Japan is overwhemingly, as it is in the USA, in Taiwan's favor and this would encourage an intervention but does not assure it. Even so, if Japan and the USA did not intervene and Taiwan is left to fall then in my opinion based on my information, Japan would almost certainly abandon Article 9 and rearm. This could most certainly trigger a Sino-Japanese conflict over the East Sea gas/energy deposits as access to energy would have been pushed to the fore in this situation.

Secondly, your assertions:

1) I agree with, this is the CCP's current strategy, reunfication by interdependent economies-but only if the Taiwanese people will it, very unlikely atm.

2) Yes, as a trade partner, the ROC/Taiwan is currently the single largest investor on the Mainland (c.31%)

3) No. The PLAN's amphibious forces are critically weak and could be disrupted by intensive ROC/US/Japanese strikes.

 

[LazerLordz]

Since 1989's navie emotion,I think many chinese people has gradually regconized the hypocrisy of which US goverment provoked at that moment and formulated their own understanding of democracy,which is significantly different from that of western country's. Moveover,I don't think the people who long-lived in western developed countries might actually grasp the idea what we (chinese people nowdays) really need--"steadly developing country and continuous improving people's living level",I want to tell everyone that read this text that Chinese people nowdays is the people who dislike war mostly in the world,developing is the first mission of China and it is also the first one of each chinese individual,what we need is nothing but steady.However,Back to the topic itself,anyone who care about the issue of Taiwan should get to learn the history of China,get to learn how the current complex situation of Taiwan formulated before you make your own conclusion.In my view,the issue of Tainwan is neither simply a calculation of how many advanced weapons we have nor how many "they" have,and I think "Unify" is kernel stream in chinese 5000-years history,and in nowdays any leader who lost Taiwan would be regarded by people as the coward emperor of feudal Qing dynasty,which at last be overtaken by the Repblic of China,which is driven to Taiwan in 1949.In Chinese history Taiwan is always part of China and the separation of Taiwan nowdays is result of the civil war over 50 years ago,which is not finished yet in theory.At last,I don't believe Aus will get any benifit from intervening a civil war of China.

The Chinese you speak of may not necessarily represent the views of ethnic Chinese in other parts of the world or Taiwan.

I'm all for peaceful reunification, but if China fires the first salvo, she has lost her legitimacy in calling the shots.

Simply put, China has to choose whether to follow the modern Westphalian notion of statehood and right to self-determination. There is no place for the Middle Kingdom mentality in these times, I'm afraid. If development is the key goal for the Chinese authorities, then they should not pursue policies detrimental to this.

 

[csubaicai]

The Chinese you speak of may not necessarily represent the views of ethnic Chinese in other parts of the world or Taiwan.

I'm all for peaceful reunification, but if China fires the first salvo, she has lost her legitimacy in calling the shots.

Simply put, China has to choose whether to follow the modern Westphalian notion of statehood and right to self-determination. There is no place for the Middle Kingdom mentality in these times, I'm afraid. If development is the key goal for the Chinese authorities, then they should not pursue policies detrimental to this.

I could responsiblely tell those who are concerned a lot about the futrue of China that my view might represent most of chinese people whatever his ethnic is or wherever they are living now.As everyone in the world has seen that nowdays China with his people are on the way to developing their economy,almost everyone around me has his own individual plan for his own futrue,so we are conerned a lot about the steady.Please believe me that what chinese people actully need is neither a war against someone,nor an acute polictical reform just like what has happened in Russia 1990's.Only Steadily economical improvment and harmonious social promotion are what we are pursue nowdays.The key point of Taiwan issue is not who fire first but is that no country in the world including Australia could accept any rebellion in his landscape. Here,I just tell you which my goverment always tell us that any formal declaration of independence of Taiwan means immediate restarting of the civil war which was suspended over 50 years ago,which chinese people deemed seriously and honestly.Above all,I think I should suggest those who takes care of Taiwan to read the news concerning Taiwan in recent years,you will find how corrupted and how autocratic the current leader of Tainwan-ChenShuiBian,whom you are trying to protected is and how pessimistic the people living in Taiwan are-according to the news of Taiwan televsion,it is reported 20,000 suicide cases in recent years, thus more and more people start to realize that ChenSB actually need a war so that he could keep his autocratic power after his last presidency,otherwise he will probably be thrown into jail after the May 22nd,2008 which day is his last day of his presidency,I can't imagine any "democratic" countries are willing to be a ChenSB's private "corruption-protector ",once the unfortunately war really happen.
About the issue that whether China will choose to follow the modern Westphalian notion of statehood and right to self-determination or not,Only one word I have-wait and see.

 

[Gripenator]

I could responsiblely tell those who are concerned a lot about the futrue of China that my view might represent most of chinese people whatever his ethnic is or wherever they are living now.As everyone in the world has seen that nowdays China with his people are on the way to developing their economy,almost everyone around me has his own individual plan for his own futrue,so we are conerned a lot about the steady.Please believe me that what chinese people actully need is neither a war against someone,nor an acute polictical reform just like what has happened in Russia 1990's.Only Steadily economical improvment and harmonious social promotion are what we are pursue nowdays.The key point of Taiwan issue is not who fire first but is that no country in the world including Australia could accept any rebellion in his landscape. Here,I just tell you which my goverment always tell us that any formal declaration of independence of Taiwan means immediate restarting of the civil war which was suspended over 50 years ago,which chinese people deemed seriously and honestly.Above all,I think I should suggest those who takes care of Taiwan to read the news concerning Taiwan in recent years,you will find how corrupted and how autocratic the current leader of Tainwan-ChenShuiBian,whom you are trying to protected is and how pessimistic the people living in Taiwan are-according to the news of Taiwan televsion,it is reported 20,000 suicide cases in recent years, thus more and more people start to realize that ChenSB actually need a war so that he could keep his autocratic power after his last presidency,otherwise he will probably be thrown into jail after the May 22nd,2008 which day is his last day of his presidency,I can't imagine any "democratic" countries are willing to be a ChenSB's private "corruption-protector ",once the unfortunately war really happen.
About the issue that whether China will choose to follow the modern Westphalian notion of statehood and right to self-determination or not,Only one word I have-wait and see.

I assure you we know what the PRC's position on this issue and that President Chen doesn't hold a monopoly on corruption.

Stick to the topic at hand and leave the politics.

 

[csubaicai]

I assure you we know what the PRC's position on this issue and that President Chen doesn't hold a monopoly on corruption.

Stick to the topic at hand and leave the politics.

It is certainly that ChenSB doesn't hold a monopoly on corruption,but maybe he is the unique one in the world who want to start a war in order to escape the punish for his corruption,we also need not take care of his corruption,but we need care about what probably will cause the war,and As we all know, the next year is the dandgous period of Taiwan strait,I think the reason is Chen's fear of jail and Chen's rogue personality,and I believe if you will,you could easily find many evidence from Taiwan's media,not from PRC's goverment.Are Aus willing to become a corruption-protector?

 

[Gripenator]

It is certainly that ChenSB doesn't hold a monopoly on corruption,but maybe he is the unique one in the world who want to start a war in order to escape the punish for his corruption,we also need not take care of his corruption,but we need care about what probably will cause the war,and As we all know, the next year is the dandgous period of Taiwan strait,I think the reason is Chen's fear of jail and Chen's rogue personality,and I believe if you will,you could easily find many evidence from Taiwan's media,not from PRC's goverment.Are Aus willing to become a corruption-protector?

Don't be ridiculous. There are far greater considerations than mere 'corruption' issues influencing a possible Australian intervention if you've read previous posts. In fact, allegations of corruption (note CSB was not convicted) don't even factor in a possible Australian intervention-it hinges on the moral expectation Australia will stand with its greatest ally again in the AP region to put it simply.