No U.S. Navy Aircraft Carriers Deployed in the Pacific

[Mushroom]

The invasion will be multi-pronged, intense and over-whelming.

Well, that will be the intent at least.

But to be honest, I think it would rather quickly bog down, as did the invasions of South Korea and Ukraine. China simply does not have the logistical ability to stage an overwhelming attack with a nation they do not share a land border with. They lack the air assets to stage a large air assault, and the naval assets to stage a large amphibious assault. They might try to control the air and sea lanes around Taiwan, but I can't see them keeping it up for very long.

When one looks at the capabilities of the PLAAF and the PLAN, that is where the huge problems are seen. The California Air National Guard has more airlift capability than the entire Chinese military. And their entire sealift capability is around a single Infantry Division. Nowhere near enough manpower to take on the Taiwan Army. Meanwhile, Taiwan can expect actual support with combat forces from the US, France, UK, Australia, and Japan. South Korea might assist, that would largely depend on conditions between them and North Korea at the time. And while there have been some issues between Taiwan and Philippines, I think they would at a minimum conduct increased naval patrols and insist that China stay out of their territorial waters.

Multi-pronged and intense I do see, but I can't really see it as being "over-whelming" with what little China has capable to bring forces to Taiwan. Them invading Taiwan is not like walking into Mordor. Sorry, like invading Vietnam.

 

[Picaro]

Uhm, the military has not really done their "Own R&D" for something like 7 decades now. Not sure where you have been, or what actual experience you may have in this area.

That's what I said; try reading when you're sober. I've been right here the whole time.

 

[Mushroom]

That's what I said; try reading when you're sober. I've been right here the whole time.

Right, whatever.

 

[PeterPilot]

Oh what a hunk of coprolite.

When exactly did Ukraine join NATO? And when are forced elections after an invasion ever legal? If part of Canada decided they wanted to join the US, does that mean the US is entitled to invade Canada and seize it?

There is no "high moral ground", unless you are one of those that justifies invading other nations and taking their territory.

And notice, the last nations to join NATO until 2023 that were in the "East" was way back in 2004. In case you did not realize that is two decades before Russia started invading and annexing chunks of Ukraine. So you honestly expect us to believe this is in retaliation to NATO? Which Ukraine does not even belong to?

For a person who cannot distinguish between right and wrong, for a person incapable of critical thinking and viewing from multiple perspectives, no. Those folks do not let moral perspective enter into their calculations.

 

[Mushroom]

For a person who cannot distinguish between right and wrong

So what exactly is "right" about invading a nation multiple times and annexing their territory?

 

[PeterPilot]

So what exactly is "right" about invading a nation multiple times and annexing their territory?

Are you aware of the "promise" made by Reagan, Baker and others to Russia about no further encroachment eastward?

Are you aware of the diplomatic efforts made by Russia during the last 15 years? Did you know that US types like McCain, Biden, Nuland, Graham overthrew the legitimately elected government of Yanukovych?

 

[Mushroom]

Are you aware of the "promise" made by Reagan, Baker and others to Russia about no further encroachment eastward?

What in the hell does that have to do with Ukraine?

You are aware that the last "Eastern" nation to join NATO was all the way back in 2004, right? In case you can't count, that was 20 years ago (18 years before the latest Invasion of Ukraine).

Well, that of course does not count the addition of Finland in 2023, which was in direct response to Russian aggression in the past decade.

So tell me, exactly what does actions between other nations and NATO have to do with invading Ukraine?

And even more funny, what in the hell does President Reagan have to do with any of this? You really are just throwing out random crap, and hoping some of it sticks somehow. President Reagan left office in 1989, when the Soviet Union was still dominant in Eastern Europe. And at that time there had only been one nation to join NATO since 1955, and that nation was Spain. The next nations to join would not be until 1999, over a decade after he left office.

Your post really is a nonsensical mess when compared to reality. And not a damned thing in any of it justifies the invasions of Ukraine. Or Georgia. Or any of the other annexations and expansions of Russia in the last decades.

 

[whitehall]

About 80 years ago the FBI would come knocking on your door for disclosing information like that and you might be facing the hot seat. Apparently there are no secrets left in the age of information.

 

[Picaro]

Are you aware of the "promise" made by Reagan, Baker and others to Russia about no further encroachment eastward?

Russia has broken every agreement it ever made. So what? You think we should give a crap what pisses them off? They're thugs, period. It isn't Ukraine having tantrums and threatening to nuke everybody.

 

[PeterPilot]

What in the hell does that have to do with Ukraine?

You are aware that the last "Eastern" nation to join NATO was all the way back in 2004, right? In case you can't count, that was 20 years ago (18 years before the latest Invasion of Ukraine).

Well, that of course does not count the addition of Finland in 2023, which was in direct response to Russian aggression in the past decade.

So tell me, exactly what does actions between other nations and NATO have to do with invading Ukraine?

And even more funny, what in the hell does President Reagan have to do with any of this? You really are just throwing out random crap, and hoping some of it sticks somehow. President Reagan left office in 1989, when the Soviet Union was still dominant in Eastern Europe. And at that time there had only been one nation to join NATO since 1955, and that nation was Spain. The next nations to join would not be until 1999, over a decade after he left office.

Your post really is a nonsensical mess when compared to reality. And not a damned thing in any of it justifies the invasions of Ukraine. Or Georgia. Or any of the other annexations and expansions of Russia in the last decades.

Have you heard what McCain, Biden, Nuland, Graham and others did in 2014 in Ukraine? Nuland's phone conversation was recorded and made public. She and the rest overthrew Yanukovych, the legitimately elected guy. As we did in Iran in 53 and so many other countries around the world, they installed a puppet Poroshenko. So you approve of overthrowing elected officials?

 

[KissMy]

Yes, he didn't suck up to him, he threatened to wipe Putin's ass out. But you now think Trump's policy will be to abandon them, and you support Biden's' foot dragging? Talk about cognitive dissonance. That's what happens when you rely on tard sites like FreeRepublic and Town Hall for a peer group.

First Russia took Chechnya. Then Putin annexed most of Georgia under Bush. Then he started on Crimea & Ukraine. Trump praised Putin. Trump didn't make Putin leave any of those territories.

Biden is the only president to push Russia back. Biden has crossed 34 Russian red lines & had Ukraine recapture much of their land & now taking a bunch of Russian land.

Biden also has Finland & Sweden in NATO, with Georgia, Ukraine, Crimea & Bosnia begging to join.

 

[Mushroom]

Have you heard what McCain, Biden, Nuland, Graham and others did in 2014 in Ukraine? Nuland's phone conversation was recorded and made public. She and the rest overthrew Yanukovych, the legitimately elected guy. As we did in Iran in 53 and so many other countries around the world, they installed a puppet Poroshenko. So you approve of overthrowing elected officials?

Once again, nut case talk that has not a damned thing to do with the topic.

Therefore, flushed,

 

[PeterPilot]

Once again, nut case talk that has not a damned thing to do with the topic.

Therefore, flushed,

A little too uncomfortable for you to consider, eh?

 

[Mushroom]

A little too uncomfortable for you to consider, eh?

What in the hell does what is going on in Ukraine have to do with the US Fleet in the Pacific?

I have no idea, and I can only assume by this point that like many others you are only here to spin in circles and discuss other things. If that is the case, then go post this kind of stuff there. Or make your own thread. This is not the place for it.

 

[Stryder50]

For the first time in over 100 years.

Not quite that much.
US Navy's first aircraft carrier, CV-1 USS Langley wasn't in the Pacific until;
.... ] In 1924, Langley participated in more maneuvers and exhibitions, and spent the summer at Norfolk for repairs and alterations, she departed for the West Coast late in the year and arrived in San Diego, California, on 29 November to join the Pacific Battle Fleet.
....

USS Langley (CV-1) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Would be a couple of years before the next two, Lexington and Saratoga would also be there.

On 25 October 1936, she put into Mare Island Navy Yard, California for overhaul and conversion to a seaplane tender. Though her career as a carrier had ended, her well-trained pilots had proved invaluable to the next two carriers, Lexington and Saratoga[5] (commissioned on 14 December and 16 November 1927, respectively).

 

[Doc7505]

Well, that will be the intent at least.

But to be honest, I think it would rather quickly bog down, as did the invasions of South Korea and Ukraine. China simply does not have the logistical ability to stage an overwhelming attack with a nation they do not share a land border with. They lack the air assets to stage a large air assault, and the naval assets to stage a large amphibious assault. They might try to control the air and sea lanes around Taiwan, but I can't see them keeping it up for very long.

When one looks at the capabilities of the PLAAF and the PLAN, that is where the huge problems are seen. The California Air National Guard has more airlift capability than the entire Chinese military. And their entire sealift capability is around a single Infantry Division. Nowhere near enough manpower to take on the Taiwan Army. Meanwhile, Taiwan can expect actual support with combat forces from the US, France, UK, Australia, and Japan. South Korea might assist, that would largely depend on conditions between them and North Korea at the time. And while there have been some issues between Taiwan and Philippines, I think they would at a minimum conduct increased naval patrols and insist that China stay out of their territorial waters.

Multi-pronged and intense I do see, but I can't really see it as being "over-whelming" with what little China has capable to bring forces to Taiwan. Them invading Taiwan is not like walking into Mordor. Sorry, like invading Vietnam.

~~~~~~
On the contrary:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/21/china/china-taiwan-quarantine-intl-hnk-ml/index.html

**********​

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/31/asia/china-taiwan-invasion-scenarios-analysis-intl-hnk-ml/index.html

**********​

Why China could win the new global arms race

China has a long-term plan to rival the world's biggest military powers.

www.bbc.com

 

[Mushroom]

~~~~~~
On the contrary:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/21/china/china-taiwan-quarantine-intl-hnk-ml/index.html

**********​

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/31/asia/china-taiwan-invasion-scenarios-analysis-intl-hnk-ml/index.html

**********​

Why China could win the new global arms race

China has a long-term plan to rival the world's biggest military powers.

www.bbc.com

Here is the problem with most reports like those, they are laughably bad.

Almost entirely propaganda, and almost entirely from the viewpoint of "If China gets everything they want, absolutely nothing goes wrong, and no nation helps Taiwan."

You know, the same thing would have been said a few years ago about Ukraine if Russia invaded, how has that turned out?

Oh, and "quarantine" as the one article tries to make it out is actually illegal and an act of war. If China tried that, I can see multiple nations banding together to defy it, and their own trade and economy crashing down as the result would be an international embargo.

People do not seem to understand how China is almost completely dependent on foreign trade. Remove a big chunk of that, and their economy collapses. Especially as much of that trade is not even their goods, but goods they make for hire from foreign nations. They are dependent on that income, as their own high tech is generally seen as backwards and inferior.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Still does not eliminate the fact that they would be far too busy doing other missions.

And two, for the entire Pacific? Wow, color me impressed.

What other missions? They are an Amphibious Readiness group. What else would Marines be doing? Note I said at least two. There are 7 LHDs and 2 LHAs currently in the Navy. We had one more ship, but the LHD-6 burned.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Are you aware of the "promise" made by Reagan, Baker and others to Russia about no further encroachment eastward?

Are you aware of the diplomatic efforts made by Russia during the last 15 years? Did you know that US types like McCain, Biden, Nuland, Graham overthrew the legitimately elected government of Yanukovych?

They made the promise to the USSR, not Russia. The USSR and Warsaw Pact do not exist anymore, so the so-called promise is moot.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

About 80 years ago the FBI would come knocking on your door for disclosing information like that and you might be facing the hot seat. Apparently there are no secrets left in the age of information.

Huh? It helps to quote what you are talking about!