"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
Kevin Brooks wrote:
http://militarynewswatch.blogspot.co...rpedo-dam.html
Now, did the articles in
question use the DoD report as their basis for the Three Gorges scenario
or
not?

Yes.

My interpretation? How do you get anything other than the noting that
some
Taiwanese have stated they think Taiwan should have a capability to
strike
mainland HVT's, with Three Gorges offered as an example, from that?

If the DoD didn't think the treat was realistic why did they bring it up?

Nice example of typical Cobbian doublespeak, Henry. Let's look again at the
*exact* wording of what you believe to be a claim that they can/should be
able to breach Three Gorges:

"Taipei political and military leaders have recently suggested acquiring
weapon systems capable of standoff strikes against the Chinese mainland as a
cost-effective means of deterrence. Taiwan's Air Force already has a latent
capability for airstrikes against China. Leaders have publicly cited the
need for ballistic and land-attack cruise missiles. Since Taipei cannot
match Beijing's ability to field offensive systems, proponents of strikes
against the mainland apparently hope that merely presenting credible threats
to China's urban population or high- value targets, such as the Three Gorges
Dam, will deter Chinese military coercion." (from pp. 52-53 of the DoD
report)

Now, does it say Taiwan has such a capability? Nope. Does it say that Taiwan
is planning to develop such a capability? Nope. All it says is that some
Taiwanese officials believe they should develop a capability of posing
"credible threats to China's urban population or high- value targets", with
TG being offered as an example. Now, if they instead had used an example
like "such as the PRC petroleum industry", would that by definition mean
they had to destroy outright every tankfarm in the PRC, or might it also
accept merely taking out some major pipelines and disrupting their refining
operations? YOU are the guy who leaped to the conclusions that (a) the
example of TG was some sort of sacrosanct pillar of this new strategy, and
(b) posing a "credible threat" to TG requires physically breaching the dam,
and would not be satisfied by merely cutting off its generating capacity, or
destroying its associated locks, etc. The DoD report did not reach those
conclusions--YOU did; and as usual, your analysis is sorely wanting for a
taste of reality, and your willingness to take a statement completely out of
context to suit your own strange views remains as strong as ever.


Do they know something that you don't or are they trying to spin a
non-story to
the media and if so for what reason?

No, you are doing all of the spinning in this case--they said what they
said, and it does not have any resemblance to what you have concocted it as
saying.

Brooks


-HJC