15#
lirelou
Location: Lutz
Quote:
To get back on topic, would Taiwan be able to fend off the Chinese (mainland)? Initially, maybe. Ultimately, no.
The answer to the first part demands the reasoned opinion of someone with recent experience observing and evaluating Taiwan's armed forces. The last time I was there, 2006, the opinion of a 48 year old ROC veteran was that today's ROC Army is no longer what it was in terms of the warrior spirit. I have no idea how valid that observation is.
As to the implied inevitable PRC victory, I would not rule out the unforeseen element. Taking on an island nation of 19 million across 100 miles of rough water is no easy task if the population is dead set against being taken. We must not rule out the 'Falklands factor'. The people of China have been weaned on the image of the invincible PLA. A serious defeat, especially at the hands of the 'Republic of China', could have serious unintended consequences for China's leadership.
They are certainly building toward the day when they can take Taiwan by force, but I expect that their actions will be a bit more conservative than their rhetoric. After all, friendly relations will convince more Taiwanese than confrontation, which simply reinforces why the ROC left the mainland in the first place.
引用14#
第一部分的答案需要有近期监测和评估台湾兵力经验的人给予理由充分的意见。我上次在那里,2006年,一个48岁ROC老兵的想法是今天的ROC军队已经没有多少遵循战士精神了。我不知道这个观察有多少根据。
关于暗示PRC必然胜利这点,我不会排除未知的因素。如果民众竭力反对被带走,那么接纳一个一亿九千万人口的岛国穿过100英里汹涌的海面并不是一个容易的任务。我们不能排除“福克兰群岛精神”的因素。中国人民已经习惯于PLA无敌的形象。一个严重的挫败,特别是在“ROC”手中,会对中国领导人造成严重的意想不到的后果。
(注:福克兰群岛精神,指面对危机,全民一心,不屈服的精神。前英国首相撒切尔夫人于福克兰战役时所倡)
他们肯定为了能以武力夺取台湾的那天而建设许久,但我认为他们的行动将比他们的修辞更保守一点。毕竟,友好关系会使更多的台湾人信服而不是反抗,否则仅仅支持了为什么当初ROC离开大陆。--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16#
Sino Invasion
Location: Malaysia
Hmmm...
My take is it depends what physical state China wants Taiwan to be in when the war's over. They have over a thousand missiles aimed at Taiwan; not much defense to that. So if a Taiwan in smoldering ruins with a dead leadership is acceptable then I don't see much stopping them.
I also doubt the US would be able to do much. I give the Chinese credit for cunning. Unlike our military that is so ponderous and deadly predictable; I believe they would aim for maximum surprise. That would eliminate an effective US contribution to Taiwan's defense. And as others have mentioned; how much is the US ready to risk for a country that we agree is part of China? My bet, nothing significant.
And China is crazy on this topic. I lived there for a while and was always taken aback by the ferocity of the response when that question came up. And that was among the young, educated, yuppie types. Just imagine what the senior political and military types think. If they decide to attack Taiwan they will stop at nothing to win. It wouldn't be pretty.
嗯……
这取决于中国希望台湾在战争结束后是什么状态。他们有超过一千枚导弹瞄准台湾;而台湾对此没有多少防御。所以如果台湾随着死去的领导人变成一片冒烟的废墟是可以接受的,那么我看不到什么能阻止他们的因素。
我还怀疑美国能够做什么。我给中国的评价是狡猾。不像我们的军队那样沉闷呆板并且好猜得要命;我相信他们会以最大限度的奇袭为目标。那将排除美国有效帮助台湾的防守,就像其他人提到的那样;美国准备为一个我们同意是中国一部分的国家冒多少风险?我打赌,不会太重要。
而且中国对这个话题很狂热。我在那儿住了一段时间,总是惊讶当这个问题出现时恶狠狠的回应。而且是在年轻人中,受过教育的,中上阶层的年轻专业人士。只要猜猜地位较高的政派和军方人士想什么。如果他们决定攻打台湾他们将不惜一切代价。这一点也不美好。
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17#
GMan88
Location: manila
Quote:
Originally Posted by lirelou
The answer to the first part demands the reasoned opinion of someone with recent experience observing and evaluating Taiwan's armed forces. The last time I was there, 2006, the opinion of a 48 year old ROC veteran was that today's ROC Army is no longer what it was in terms of the warrior spirit. I have no idea how valid that observation is.
As to the implied inevitable PRC victory, I would not rule out the unforeseen element. Taking on an island nation of 19 million across 100 miles of rough water is no easy task if the population is dead set against being taken. We must not rule out the 'Falklands factor'. The people of China have been weaned on the image of the invincible PLA. A serious defeat, especially at the hands of the 'Republic of China', could have serious unintended consequences for China's leadership.
They are certainly building toward the day when they can take Taiwan by force, but I expect that their actions will be a bit more conservative than their rhetoric. After all, friendly relations will convince more Taiwanese than confrontation, which simply reinforces why the ROC left the mainland in the first place.
Thank you for your reply.
1) I've been there. I've seen them. I don't know about their "fighting spirit", but i believe the mettle of a soldier can only truly be tested, not seen. What i can say, though, is that their training is first rate.
2) It is my opinion that ultimately, the PRC will prevail. Again, my opinion only.
3) While I would not rule out the unforeseen element either, it's a smaller assumption to make that a larger, stronger, military will win over a smaller one, than it is to assume that the population (meaning a majority) is "dead set against being taken", when we all know that the pro-"taiwan independence" party had been soundly beaten the last national elections in taiwan.
4) I'm just curious, in your opinion/knowledge, why did the ROC leave the mainland in the first place?
引用15#
谢谢你的回复。
1) 我曾去过那儿。我曾见过他们。我不知道关于他们的“战斗精神” ,但是我相信一个士兵的勇气只能真实的经受考验,而不是看出来。我能够说的是,他们的训练是第一级别的。
2) 这是我根本上的观点,PRC会赢。再说一次,我唯一的观点。
3)然而我也不会排除任何一个不可预测的因素,当我们都知道支持“台湾独立”的政党在上次台湾大选中彻底落败,比起假设民众(意味着大多数人)都“竭力反抗被带走”,做出一个更大更强的军队赢了一个更小的军队是更可能的假设。
4) 我只是好奇,在你的观点/认识里,当初ROC为什么离开中国大陆?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18#
GMan88
Location: manila
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sino Invasion
My take is it depends what physical state China wants Taiwan to be in when the war's over. They have over a thousand missiles aimed at Taiwan; not much defense to that. So if a Taiwan in smoldering ruins with a dead leadership is acceptable then I don't see much stopping them.
I also doubt the US would be able to do much. I give the Chinese credit for cunning. Unlike our military that is so ponderous and deadly predictable; I believe they would aim for maximum surprise. That would eliminate an effective US contribution to Taiwan's defense. And as others have mentioned; how much is the US ready to risk for a country that we agree is part of China? My bet, nothing significant.
And China is crazy on this topic. I lived there for a while and was always taken aback by the ferocity of the response when that question came up. And that was among the young, educated, yuppie types. Just imagine what the senior political and military types think. If they decide to attack Taiwan they will stop at nothing to win. It wouldn't be pretty.
I absolutely agree. And yeah, it wouldn't be pretty.
I just hope it really doesnt reach that point. The last thing this world needs is another war.
引用16#
我完全同意。是啊,这不会太美好。
我只希望不会真的到了这个地步。这个世界最不需要的就是又一场战争。
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19#
les Brains
Location: not here
What 'would' happen. I can't really say that, way too many variables.
What 'should' happen though might be simpler. Might be.
I would wonder, what effect it would have on China, if we told them, the second they attack all of the debt they have purchased is considered immediately paid off. The US would simply write off all the debt owed to them as 'paid in full'.
Not legal you say? That's an idiotic reply though. I can't picture the US supporting the attack, I can't see the US permitting the attack, I can't picture the US being able to send forces into the combat zone. So what precisely would the US wish to do?
The US is currently stretched to the limit and I can't imagine them sending aid to Taiwan. But if suddenly all that debt was gone, well it would sure change things.
If someone possessed a lot of my IOUs and then tomorrow tried top break into my best friends home, I would not have any trouble telling that person, get out immediately, or the IOUs are void.
And let's face it the US could sure use a lot of debt being eliminated eh.
I'd tell the Chinese, sorry but all of our trade is ceasing.
Let the Chinese keep all those Chinese workers happy. Yeah that massive military would shortly be needed for internal problems.
“将会”发生什么。 我不能确切的说出,毕竟方法上存在太多变数。
尽管可能更简单,但“应该会”发生什么。可能吧。
我想知道的是,对中国有什么影响,如果我们告诉他们,他们攻击的那一秒他们购买的所有国债就马上被认为已付清。美国就能简单的把属于中国的国债一笔勾销。
你说这不合法?那是愚蠢的回答。我不能想象美国支持中国动手,我不认为美国允许中国动手,我不能想象美国将会派遣兵力进入战区。这不恰恰是美国所期待的吗?
美国当前被拉伸到了极限,我不能想象他们支援台湾。但是如果突然间所有的债务消失了,一切当然改变。
如果有人掌握了我许多欠条,而且明天打算闯入我好朋友的家门,告诉人们马上离开,或欠条无效,我将不会有任何麻烦。
让我们面对现实,美国当然可以使用正在被淘汰的债务啊。
我要告诉中国人,抱歉但是我们所有的交易结束了。
让中国人保持所有中国工人愉快。没错,大量的兵力马上需要用于(解决中国的)内部问题。
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20#
Sino Invasion
Location: Malaysia
To briefly answer your question...
"4) I'm just curious, in your opinion/knowledge, why did the ROC leave the mainland in the first place?
After China's last emperor fell; Dr. Sun Yat Sen took charge. Originally despised by the communists; he's now hailed as the father of modern Chinese nationalism. I can proudly say that I had the honor of being yelled at by his granddaugther when I lived there! But he soon kicked the bucket and his protegee, Chiang Kai Shek, took over.
He hated the communists and did all he could to totally kill them off. This included chasing them, and damn near eliminating them; on what became known in commie myth and legend as "The Long March". Mao survived, rallied the peasants, and counter-attacked eventually driving CKS and his followers to the island of Formosa. During all this Japan was attacking China. Occassionally the two sides would try to fight the Japanese, but they seemed to prefer fighting each other. Not surprisingly with little success.
So that's a real brief overview of 20th century China. Real brief.
简略的回复你的问题……
引用17#
中国最后一个皇帝下台后;孙中山先生掌管大权。他起初被共产党轻视;他现在被称赞为中国现代民族主义之父。我可以骄傲的说,当我住在那儿的时候,我有幸让他的孙女训斥过!然而孙很快踢到铁板。常凯申接管了政权。
他憎恨共产党员,尽其所能屠杀他们。这包括追赶他们,谴责亲信,消除他们;这在共产党党史中很出名,还成就了“红军长征”这样的传奇。毛坚持下来,团结了农民,并且还击,最终把常凯申和他的追随者推进到了福尔摩沙。在此期间日本正在攻打中国。有时双方试图努力联合对抗日本,但他们似乎更喜欢互殴。抗日收效甚微也不足为奇。
所以这是一个真正简短的二十世纪中国的概述。真的很短。
译注:北京清华大学历史系副主任王奇在一部学术专著中将蒋介石(Chiang Kai-shek)翻译成“常凯申”,成为中国名校制造的又一起学术笑料。与当年将孟子翻译成“门修斯”如出一辙。滑天下之大稽,毁清华百年之声誉。
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
原创翻译:龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com 翻译:该用户已注册 转载请注明出处
21#
Alatriste
Location: Texas
I opine the US would not come to Taiwan's aid.
我认为美国不会涉及台湾的援助。
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
22#
AdrianE
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnbn75
now what nobody realizes is all the taiwanese companies have moved thier factories to china for the cheap labor.
No they haven't. The Taiwanese government is very sensitive about allowing state of the art manufacturing to go to the mainland. IIRC UMC's president went to jail for violating this law.
引用6#
不,他们不会。台湾政府对允许关键技术制造业公司转移到大陆非常敏感。联华电子公司的董事长因违反这条法令而入狱。
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23#
GMan88
Location: manila
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sino Invasion
"4) I'm just curious, in your opinion/knowledge, why did the ROC leave the mainland in the first place?
After China's last emperor fell; Dr. Sun Yat Sen took charge. Originally despised by the communists; he's now hailed as the father of modern Chinese nationalism. I can proudly say that I had the honor of being yelled at by his granddaugther when I lived there! But I stray. But he soon kicked the bucket and his protegee, Chiang Kai Shek, took over.
He hated the communists and did all he could to totally kill them off. This included chasing them, and damn near eliminating them; on what became known in commie myth and legend as "The Long March". Mao survived, rallied the peasants, and counter-attacked eventually driving CKS and his followers to the island of Formosa. During all this Japan was attacking China. Occassionally the two sides would try to fight the Japanese, but they seemed to prefer fighting each other. Not surprisingly with little success.
So that's a real brief overview of 20th century China. Real brief.
Haha yeah that's a real brief overview. The long and short of it is that the 2 sides really hated each other. And while I won't argue the merits of either side (that's for another thread), all i can say is that the KMT at that time was so corrupt and its own soldiers so demoralized there were even documented instances when their soldiers had to be chained during marches just so that they won't desert during the night.
Anyway, the reason i asked my question why ROC left china in the first place, was because in lirelou's post he writes "After all, friendly relations will convince more Taiwanese than confrontation, which simply reinforces why the ROC left the mainland in the first place." While i agree with the first part, I just wanted to know in what context he writes the last part of that sentence.
引用20#
哈哈,没错,是一个很短的概述。基本上双方的确互相憎恨。然而我不是想讨论任何一方的功绩(那是另一个话题了),我所能说的是国民党当时太腐败而且士兵们士气低迷,甚至有文件资料记录当他们的士兵不得不被困在边境地区时,士兵们不想趁夜逃走。
总之,我会问当初ROC离开中国这个问题的原因是因为lirelou(15#)说“毕竟,友好关系会使更多的台湾人信服而不是反抗,否则仅仅支持了为什么当初ROC离开了大陆。” 虽然我同意第一部分,但我想知道有关他写的最后一部分里那句话的来龙去脉。
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24#
GMan88
Location: manila
errr... so i guess simply unilaterally declaring that one's debts will no longer be honored is a smart move? it'll really make other creditors real confident on the papers they're holding? and i guess next time the US wants/needs to borrow more credit, will the creditors come in droves, specially when they know they'll be at the whim of the US whether they'll get paid?
呃……所以我想只是单方面宣称某人的债务将不再被兑现是一个聪明的行为吗?真的能让其他债权人对他们正拿着的欠条信心十足?我想下次我们想要/需要借到更多的钱,债权人会成群结队到来,特别是当他们想知道在我们一时兴起时是否能得到报酬?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25#
lirelou
Location: Lutz
Gman88, My apologies for not addressing your question sooner. While the obvious answer for the move to Taiwan is that they (the KMT) were losing the war, I see that as the catalyst, not the reason itself. While some who picked up and moved to Taiwan may have merely been following orders, my take is that the great majority were sincere anti-communists. They truly believed that to remain was to risk extermination. Those who were wishy-washy on that subject did remain in China and took their chances (unwisely, for many). History has not proven them wrong. A China willing to risk war over Taiwan is not to be trusted by Taiwanese of any political persuasion.
Gman88,我为没有早点回复你的问题道歉。而答案显而易见,当他们(国民党)转移到台湾就失去了这场战争的胜利,我认为那是一个刺激因素,而不是原因本身。有人被带走并转移至台湾可能仅仅遵从命令,但我认为,绝大多数是真正的反共分子。他们确实相信留下来需冒着斩草除根的风险。那些人在留在中国和碰运气(很不明智,对许多人来说)这个问题上软弱无力。但历史还没有证明他们错了。中国愿意承担对台湾宣战的风险是不被任何一个台湾政治派系相信的。
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
26#
GMan88
Location: manila
Hi lirelou nice to hear from you.
Thanks for your reply, I appreciate the well-thought out and reasoned post. its a real pleasure to exchange thoughts and opinion with people like you (and some others here too), and while i won't always agree with what you write, I'd just like to say this now, i do appreciate the time taken to write, the civility,and the intelligence in the words that are posted (and also by the posts of others in this forum).
That said, however, I'd also have to say, yes, i guess some KMT civilians were realistic enough to know that the victors will not always be merciful to the losers. If the situation had been reversed and the KMT were winning, that would also be true. Specially in a war as bitterly fought as that civil war. This has happened throughout world history, and sadly will happen again.
War should never be the answer.
Hi lirelou,很高兴收到你的回复。
谢谢你的回复。我欣赏考虑周详并且理由充分的发言。很高兴与像你这样的人(还有这里另一些人)交流想法和观点,然而我不那么同意你所写的,我现在就要说这个,我欣赏你花时间去写,在发言中有礼貌有脑袋(当然也来自论坛里其他人的留言)。
也就是说,无论如何,我也不得不说,没错,我认为一些国民党平民足够实事求是,懂得胜者不总是对失败者仁慈,如果情况反过来,国民党赢了,那也是正确的。特别是一场像内战那样痛苦的战争。世界史上曾经发生过,并且将再次痛苦的发生。
战争从来不是答案。
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27#
les Brains
Location: not here
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMan88
errr... so i guess simply unilaterally declaring that one's debts will no longer be honored is a smart move? it'll really make other creditors real confident on the papers they're holding? and i guess next time the US wants/needs to borrow more credit, will the creditors come in droves, specially when they know they'll be at the whim of the US whether they'll get paid?
You missed including the context.
Unilaterally declaring the debts were voided AFTER a 'hostile action' was taken against them or a friend is a big deal different than just saying they ain't paying.
I'd have no beef if a nation unilaterally punished an aggressor like that. Wouldn't make the debtor suddenly look bad at all.
Frankly if you want to get paid a debt I owe you, NOT attacking me or my friends is a good idea.
Because otherwise the gloves are off and honouring a debt no longer interests me. Hey, if I'm willing to shoot at you I'm ok with ripping up your debt too.
24#
你漏了背景。
在一次对付他们或者朋友的“敌对行动”之后,单方面的宣布债务被废弃比起只是说不还了有很大的不同。
如果一个国家这样单方面惩罚侵略者,我不会有怨言。不会让借债方突然看起来糟糕。
坦白讲,如果你想我还债,不要攻击我或者我的朋友是一个好注意。
否则甩开膀子大干和承诺兑现债务就不再使我感兴趣了。嘿,如果我愿意对你开火,撕毁债务也没问题。
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
28#
GMan88
Location: manila
sadly, i didn't miss your context. I got your context the first time around.
And that's the big question, isn't it? Would the US risk a shooting war with China? (and vice versa, of course).
The bottom line though, is, here you have a creditor who holds a portion of your debt. On the other hand you have a debtor who, of course, in the course of borrowing, promised to pay. Now, what you're saying is that, since the creditor has some "beef" with someone else, whom you say is your "friend", you can now say, "hey if you don't let him off i won't pay my debt to you."
Now, where in the creditor/debtor agreement does that friend come in? don't you think the debtor's unilateral inclusion of a condition (be it political or whatnot) affect that debtor's credit rating?
遗憾的是,我没有漏掉背景。我第一时间就理解你所说的前后关系。
然而这是最大的问题,对吧?美国愿意承担和中国来一场热战(注:真枪实弹的战争,与冷战对应)的风险?(当然,反过来也一样)。
然而本质内容是,你有一个持有你部分债务的债主。另一方面来说你是一个借方,当然,在借钱的期间许诺会偿还。如今,你说的是这个意思吧,自从债主对那些你说是你的“朋友”的人有了些“抱怨”,你现在就可以说,“嘿,你不能放过他,否则我不还钱。”
现在,在借贷协议里朋友起作用了?你不认为借方单方面默认这样一个条件(政治上的或者其他不可说的)会影响借方的信用评级吗?
|