"sheisters" Darth Squirrel, I'm sure you don't mean it in this way, so this is just to inform you. This word, among many, has an anti-Jewish connotation, so it's probably better to pick a different word next time. Otherwise, great post.

Interesting point, but there's another problem with that theory. The instant China attacks a US CVBG interposing itself btwn China and Taiwan, that's pretty much a full scale declaration of war. The moment you do that, the wrath of the entire US military is gonna land on you, and it's gonna hurt. The gloves will come off, and you'll see a few hundred/thousand Tomahawks get fired within a few weeks, absolutely pulverizing China. Which reveals another problem with the S-300 fixed defenses. They're pretty much immobile or at least advertise their presence. It's pretty easy to completely tear through the S-300. When you attack a CVBG with thousands of US servicemen, you're pretty much asking to take on the entire US military. That's VERY different from a little incident with an EP-3.

Oh...and you're right, one CV has only 50-60 top of the line fighters. But that's ONE CV. We have TWELVE. Furthermore, we also have lots of DDGs and CGs that, unlike the S-300s, are very mobile and stealthy(well the DDGs anyway) and can easily nail a bunch of unsuspecting tac aircraft.

My apologies - I had no idea about the origins of the word. I'm an evangelical Christian and I have a great love for the Jewish people and the state of Israel. Sorry - and thanks for alerting me so I don't make that foot-in-mouth a gain.

The US wouldn't go to a full scale war with China. The taiwan strait issue is a huge headache on all sides. The US I believe (and this is a big if) if backed into the wall will not defend Taiwan (at least not directly). They know as soon as they do they have WWIII on their hands. And this war will include Russia, Japan, China the whole of Europe...oh it's going to make WWI+WWII weak in comparison. Now all of this for what? Protecting the small island of Taiwan who the US doesn't even have a formal diplomatic tie with? Not likely. But will China risk this? Not likely. Thats why right now basically everbody is sitting nicely in their respective zones shaking their fists at each other.

On the face of it I would be inclined to agree with you USN. But there are a number of modern historical precedents that suggest otherwise. Consider the Korean "War." Many thousands of Americans are dead because Truman would not hit bridges and staging bases in China. It is difficult to imagine how a US president would view hindering the hundreds of thousands of Chinese regulars (they were called volunteers by China) moving to engage (and overrun completely) US forces as "widening the war," but the actual Chinese intervention and slaughter of American soldiers, like at Chosin, was not seen as overt escalation. And behold, today no one thinks that was a mistake. And look at our current leadership. I think we can agree that Bush is the most hawkish we can hope for. The US was humiliated with the EP-3 incident. Bush repeatedly apologized, while China beamed at the acquisition of brand new American surveillance equipment. And it wasn't even a real secret that once the air collision occurred, the wingman of Wong Way (heh) was ordered to force the US aircraft to land at Hainan. Common sense (and the Washington Times even) tells us that if the plane was airworthy enough to make it to Hainan, it could have made it to a friendly base. Even Vietnam would have been dramatically better. US Navy ships schedule port calls there now. And consider the (undeclared) War on Terror. I am scratching my head at Iraq. The only logical reason to take it was to use it as a staging ground for action against Syria and Iran. Every terrorism expert in the world to the right of the Europeans knows that Iran is the mother of terrorism, and Syria is the evil step-child. Iraq was small fry. Even NOW, there is concrete and plentiful evidence that implicates Iran being behind US woes in Iraq. We do nothing. So we will not deal with Iran in Iraq, we will not deal with Iran as the source of the world's terrorism. Don't forget their proxy army the Hezbollah. We owe them for the Marines in Beirut. What the hell are we doing? And the wishful thinkers need to know - Bush will not deal with Iran after the election. The signs are out, and the consensus is that there would be too much international fallout from taking on Iran, and the Army would need at least another 4 divisions, and so it is not going to be done. And this is what I am saying about the China-Taiwan problem. It's going to be resolved soon. And everything I see and read tells me that the theater will be narrowly defined. The Chinese think this too, otherwise they would not be building war plans around this entire concept. I don't think the US will put carriers in harm's way. Any CVBGs will go on station a couple of hundred miles behind an ASW-AAW picket. No platforms (and certainly no DDGs) carrying anti-ship missiles will get anywhere near th carriers. The US will live with a reduced sortie rate for the benefit of threat reduction. Of course, this is why the Chinese are now acquiring the old Soviet systems (long range ALCMs) - to push the safe-operating distance for CVBGs out of the theater.

The Korean war analogy is an imperfect one. At that time, war did not escalate not b/c we didn't want to involve China(we sure as hell could've...and guess what McA wanted to do to the massed Chinese formations with the USAF's new toy? The reason we didn't push wasn't b/c we were worried about involving China. They were already involved. We wanted to avoid WW3 with the USSR. Today, the Taiwan issue would not necessarily result in the same kind of WW3 scenario-at least not the communist solidarity vs evil capitalist type. For example, the US would naturally call for UN intervention in what is would be a clear act of aggression. The problem with passing the UN resolution would be China's veto rights. Regardless, worldwide public opinion would naturally be in favor of Taiwan(very few countries like the PRC to begin with anyway). Then you're pretty much guaranteed a real coalition (a DS1 type, not a OIF type). With that, even China would probably back down. Now even if we assume the UK/Aussies/ROK/Japan decide to sit it out, America has a promise to protecting Taiwanese sovereignty. IMO, the best prediction of whether or not we will adhere to that should wait for the Iraq scenario to be resolved. If we stay there until the country becomes peaceful, it'll mean we'll probably keep our promises elsewhere. As for the EP-3 incident, the Chinese actually didn't get much. For one thing, Hainan was the closest base, and that EP-3 was pretty damned wrecked. Second, the Chinese didn't get their hands on that much. The EP-3 was kicking documents out the door and magnetizing memory banks. I don't think the Washington Times is an accurate report on the airworthiness of EP-3s after being struck by a jet fighter. As for Hezbollah, IMO the clock has run out on that payback. Political memories are short, esp when they don't involve full scale wars. And Iran, unlike Iraq, Iran has, as far as that region goes, a stable, relatively fair government. While there are probably some who would LOVE going into Iran, the repercussions of that would FAR exceed whatever happened with Iraq.

Happy to, my brother in Christ. I'm also Christian and share your love of the Jews and Israel. I only learned about that connotation to the word after I'd used it off and on for years myself. I wish I'd been told about it sooner, so figured it best to speak up. Sorry guys, back to the thread.

Well I find myself largely disagreeing with your above post =) Ok first, most major defense stories at the Washington Times are scooped by Bill Gertz, the nation's premier defense reporter. He is better connected at the Pentagon than any other journalist that works for a mainstream media outlet. He built these relationships during the Clinton years, when Pentagon staffers were increasingly exasperated at what news the government did not allow to get out - thus Gertz was able to cultivate contacts with high-placed military officials eager to make the public aware of what was really going on. Concerning the EP-3 incident, the Chinese piracy was reported not only in the WT but was also coaborated by other Pentagon-sourced journalists like Hackworth and Oliver North. Oliver North seems to agree with you on the War on Terror. He doesn't think dealing with Syria and Iran is a viable option. But I will not compromise. The next time a terrorist strike occurs in the US, (which the government constantly reminds us is INEVITABLE), maybe it could be my mother that gets killed, our your wife, or maybe Ollie's kids. No one, no president or congressman can seriously suggest that terrorism can be defeated as long as the current governments in Syria, and especially Iran, remain in place. Al-Qaida cannot operate without state sponsorship, however opaque these contacts can be made to appear, and the terrorists killing our countrymen in Iraq could not do so without the direct and open assistance of Syria and Iran. The leadership of both countries are taking brutal measures to stabilize their holds on power. They are not going to fall internally. The same fools making these predictions are the ones also telling us the China will eventually "democratize." It is interesting to point out that the body of dominant intellectual thought in the West adores the Chinese model. Oh, they turn their nose at the atrocities that manage to make it to the media, but the truth is that both the EU and the US are headed, if at a different pace, towards the Chinese model - a market economy where people are allowed to prosper but government control is an absolute. Tangentially, I can point out that you are knowledgable on many subjects but incorrect concerning who the world sides with on China-Taiwan. The EU will soon lift arms sanctions and begin selling weapons to China. The French in particular are dying for a chance to market the Rafale to Bejing. Taiwan, on the other hand, will never get the subs Bush promised them. No country seeks to anger China by doing so - and only piss-ant governments even recognize Taiwan. The international community cannot even pressure China into allowing a UN resolution to make Taiwan a member of the World Health Organization. If the balloon goes up in the Straits, there will be calls for peace and truce in the mainstream Headline News press, but more in-depth commentaries will blame the US for stoking the flames by arming and supporting Taiwan. So look, I think my precedents held. Korea: If China did not want WWIII, then China should not have invaded Korea. If Truman wanted to make this clear to the Chinese, he could have. But what was done to American GIs was dastardly and ignoble. They were put into harms way and set before a powerful enemy whom they could not retaliate against. It was a foreshadowing of Vietnam. And look, they died for nothing. The Chinese-Korean axis is today far more dangerous and the South reviles America. And look at the War on Terror. These are Bush's own words: "A country that aids or harbors a terrorist is just as guilty as a terrorist." But the offices of terrorists are still open in Damascus, and the training of terrorists still takes place in Iran. Bin Laden himself has moved in and out of Iran repeatedly. And the US government is telling that in these countries "regime change is not sought." Well if it is not, we will lose the War on Terror. I already knew we would, when the administration said "The War on Terror will be fought along the lines of the War on Drugs and the War on Poverty."

I agree that it's impossible to stop terrorism as long as there is state sponsorship. But I'd extend that even further to say terrorism, period, is impossible to stop. Completely off the record, my own personal opinion(I'm just a lowly mid-this doesn't reflect the opinions of the USN, etc.), I don't think you can ever completely wipe out terrorism in a democratic society. We already have eco-terrorists who are mostly composed of disaffected college students, and other people with nothing better to do. Religious terrorism is particularly easy to rouse up, fanatics are everywhere. Even if we did go into Syria/Lebanon, think of the efforts we would have to go to to "pacify" those regions. You can't kill/lockup every single one, and then there will always be a new generation as the kids grow up under occupation or under the history of "the Great Satan's" oppression. Even if you removed weapons from the region, they would ALWAYS manage to trickle in. You couldn't possibly stop everybody, even with an uncorrupted totalitarian regime. I disagree on Taiwan. I don't know about world opinion, but common sense tells me that there's nothing wrong with arming an ally against oppression. That goes back to the Truman Doctrine. They're a self-governing country that wants to be independent. As far as I know, that's also something that is theoretically supported by the UN. If anybody criticized US policy you could easily criticize them for being hypocritical jackasses who deserve to live in Stalinist Russia. And while Bush may not take direct action against state sponsorship of terrorism, there are plenty of things we are almost certainly doing behind the scenes to mess with them.