short answer The U.S. Navy Wants to Show China Who’s Boss By Dan De Luce December 14, 2015 6:50 AM In war game scenarios in which China seeks to seize military control of Taiwan or to stage other action in the South China Sea, U.S. air and naval forces – concentrated on carriers and a few large bases in Japan or Guam — have proven vulnerable to Chinese missiles. By the time American forces establish the upper hand in the air, it could be too late as the Chinese have already achieved their goal, said Ochmanek, now a defense analyst at RAND Corp. think tank. http://news.yahoo.com/u-navy-wants-show-china-115057865.html other excerpts from the article Worried about China’s increasing naval might, the U.S. Navy is scrambling to buy new anti-ship missiles for the first time in decades, and throwing out its old playbook for war strategy in the Pacific. Since the end of the Cold War, the American military has enjoyed unrivaled dominance on the high seas, with no other navy posing a serious threat. But over the past decade, China has rapidly built up a naval force to be reckoned with, spending tens of billions of dollars annually to produce dozens of new warships of every size, and a formidable arsenal of missiles aimed at undercutting America’s naval reach. Naval officers are also recognizing that the United States can no longer assume it will rule the waves or avoid significant casualties in a possible conflict with China. The old idea of a methodical campaign to take out air and other defenses is being replaced by a scenario in which U.S. forces move quickly and more stealthily, countering an adversary without necessarily achieving outright victory. The impressive number and range of China’s anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles mean the U.S. military can no longer assume it will have unfettered access to the western Pacific in a conflict. Missiles in China’s military have an effective range from 100 to up to 900 nautical miles, which could potentially keep the U.S. Navy pinned down or locked out of a contested area in the Pacific. The Pentagon is particularly worried about the so-called “carrier killer” Dongfeng DF-21D ballistic missile, which was on public display at a September military parade commemorating China’s victory over Japan in 1945. And China has started to deploy a supersonic YJ-18 cruise missile that is expected to be installed on submarines as well. Both missiles could undercut the ultimate symbol of America’s military might, the aircraft carrier, possibly forcing the huge ship and its fighter jet wing to stay at an impractically long distance from a battle zone. That means the old American approach of spending days knocking out an adversary’s air defenses and then enjoying free reign in the air and at sea is no longer feasible, said David Ochmanek, a former senior Pentagon official.
The problem with forward strategy is that it requires a tremendous amount of resources and persistent aggressive strategic national thinking, something that the US historically never did well with, and something that the Chinese Communist Party is rather expert at. Whether it's border aggression across the Amur River against the Russians, or in the Kashmir against the Indians, Chinese strategic interest is always one of conquest and land acquisition. Given the amount of national investment into the South China Sea, Chinese maritime martial interests, if anything, are going to be growing leaps and bounds in years to come. The only way that the US can counter such commitment is to likewise give its forward assets the same type of military hardening, while also co opting as many West Pac allies into the fold as possible. Why is the US in this position? Because after WW2, it failed on several fronts. Taiwan, which had been given away by the Qing to Japan, after WW2 was given to China by the Americans. That alone was a huge mistake. The US should have kept Japan's colony of Taiwan as spoils of war, like it did with the colonial possessions like Guam, The Philippines, Puerto Rico, et cetera, after the Spanish American war. Further, it never should have granted independence to the Philippines either. Imagine the geo political consequences had the US kept those two? Forward strategic thinking Americans like William H. Seward (US Secretary of State who purchased Alaska from the Russians) and Thomas Jefferson (who orchestrated the Louisiana Purchase), are a rarity in the halls of US government power. That leaves the US at a tremendous disadvantage in future years to come and despite its military might, would eventually cause grave harm to US national interests.
As early as the Cairo Declaration in 1943 Taiwan's return to China was set in stone. Taiwan is the key though, if the US can't maintain an anti PRC government, there is going to be giant gaping hole in the first island chain. Even worse that giant hole would split two US allies (Jpn and PH) from each other. To be realistic, your position can replace Taiwan with Okinawa, which the US did in fact control as war booty from Japan and which hosts US troops to this day, to the never ending joy of the Okinawan locals I might add. The Philippines has tried to invite the US military back to the Philippines, use bases there. It's effectiveness is severely limited because China already controls the Paracel islands in totality and has an existing heavy presence in the heart of the Spratly islands. Philippines and other close bases can save fuel costs in the American FONOP operations (which only end up finding Chinese presence all over the area), but as for the islands themselves, that ship has sailed. A U.S. warship in late October challenged territorial limits that China is asserting around its new man-made island bases in the Spratly archipelago. But Beijing may already have established "facts on the ground" in securing military control of the South China Sea, some officials and experts say. "We may delay the inevitable, but that train left the station some time ago," a senior U.S. military source familiar with Asia told Reuters, on condition he was not identified because he was not authorized to talk to the media. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-military-china-exclusive-idUSKBN0U107220151218 Anyway, anything within the first island chain is already too close. The US is actually doing the opposite and strengthening places like Guam and Australia.
LOLZ You are kidding right? Taiwan is nothing Taiwain > China USA > China Hong Kong > China USA = World. Get it?
Actually, the Cairo Declaration essentially stated that Japan would be stripped of territory acquired after WW1, and that any land taken from China by the Japanese, will be returned. But in fact, Taiwan was never taken, it was given by the Qing government in 1895 under the Treaty of Shimonoseki, well before WW1. Thus, according to Cairo, Taiwan remained Japanese territory.
Actually it was explicitly named in the declaration and the WW2 treaties reversed the Treaty of Shimonoseki. "and that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and The Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China." Further, in the Potsdam Declaration Japan's sovereign territory is also explicitly laid out and limited to 4 main islands. Anything else must be "determined" by "we" (US, Britain and China). On July 26, the United States, Britain, and China released the Potsdam Declaration announcing the terms for Japan's surrender, with the warning, "We will not deviate from them. There are no alternatives. We shall brook no delay." For Japan, the terms of the declaration specified:[1] that the "Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku, and such minor islands as we determine,"
Hmmm... for some reason, DA isn't letting me edit. It goes into an endless loop of waiting, but consider this vis a vis Cairo: http://www.civil-taiwan.org/cairo-potsdam.htm
The source is the documents themselves... http://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/e/shiryo/01/002_46/002_46tx.html http://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/e/etc/c06.html I know very tell the hoops pro Taiwan independence use, it has nothing to do with Taiwan being Japanese territory. Suffice to say the subsequent treaties all say the same thing. Treaty of San Francisco, Treaty of Taipei and the Japan China Joint Communique all explicitly state Japan's lack of claim over Taiwan. The most recent document is the Japan China Joint Communique. From Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs: 3. The Government of the People's Republic of China reiterates that Taiwan is an inalienable part of the territory of the People's Republic of China. The Government of Japan fully understands and respects this stand of the Government of the People's Republic of China, and it firmly maintains its stand under Article 8 of the Postsdam Proclamation. http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/china/joint72.html fyi, article 8 of Potsdam is where Japan's sovereignty is limited to those four main islands, anything else is determined by "we" (USA, Britain and China).
So, we're in agreement that Taiwan belongs to the Republic of China, as the PRC didn't exist until 1949? LOL... Seriously, I was arguing against what the US did way back in 45 as lack of political and strategic foresight. Not the current status of Taiwan as it exists today. But, since you're obviously a very pro-PRC arguer; the PRC's efforts in the SCS is aggressive and Obama had, by lack of foresight, allowed them to literally take large portions of international open ocean under sovereignty claim. The US, and indeed other nations, have several options. That is, to literally do the same exact thing under international law. That is, send boots on the ground and set up camp on those islands as it is considered open ocean. Or use diplomatic channels to force China out, which I don't think would ever happen. Or, if push comes to shove, threaten the Chinese and use military force to make those island unusable, something which one of Trump's aide's alluded to with her, use 'em or lose 'em comments. The moral of this story is, when one plays poker, one has to be prepared to lose. I'm just wondering, if the US fails to repay the trillion dollar debt it owes China (for whatever reasons), and stops being China's best customer, what would happen to the state of the Chinese economy? Again, going back to the previous discussion, the US should have never given up the Philippines either. If it wasn't because of American politics, that island area would have remained in the US sphere and the amount of influence there would have prevent such a PRC move. Good fodder for revisionist theory but rather moot now.
The facts are clear on Japan's (non existent) claim on Taiwan. There is nothing in 1945 or since where the US could have Taiwan as its territory. Building on pre existing islands and land reclamation was done by other nations in the Spratlys before China. In the 1970s and 1980s, the Philippines and Malaysia conducted limited land reclamation projects on disputed features, with Vietnam and later Taiwan initiating efforts. At the time, the Philippines constructed an airfield on Thitu Island, with approximately 14 acres of land reclamation to extend the runway. Malaysia built an airfield at Swallow Reef in the 1980s, also using relatively small amounts of reclaimed land. Between 2009 and 2014, Vietnam was the most active claimant in terms of both outpost upgrades and land reclamation. It reclaimed approximately 60 acres of land at 7 of its outposts and built at least 4 new structures as part of its expansion efforts. Since August 2013, Taiwan has reclaimed approximately 8 acres of land near the airstrip on Itu Aba Island, its sole outpost. http://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Do...curitY_Strategy-08142015-1300-FINALFORMAT.PDF They just can't match China's scope. If anything was short sighted it was giving China an excuse. “When we cause ripples, they create a storm,” Custodio told the Inquirer in a recent interview. “China’s responses always have a great impact,” he said. http://globalnation.inquirer.net/104641/ph-must-prepare-for-china-response As for the rest, I don't care to speculate about what ifs.
