China Military and Taiwan : Not even a challenge
It seems like news is getting more and more silly by the day.
In the latest news about the China military buildup, Reuters reported : China military build-up still driven chiefly by Taiwan
In this bumbling and rambling article, they use that statement as a “attention grabbing headline” prior to the body of the article and then back the statement only with : Taiwan, the self-ruled island that China claims as a renegade province to be recovered by force, if required, “remains the principal focus and driver of much of China’s military investment,” the report said.
The idea that China needs to add one single bullet to its military in order to deal with Taiwan is like saying that the US military needs one extra bullet in our military to deal with Cuba.
A war with Taiwan would last no more than a few hours before China completely dominated the Island country. While the global firepower website ranks China at 2 and Taiwan at 14, the global security website shows a more one sided image of the comparison towards China What these Reuters reporters and any other website or report that shows that Taiwan has any sort of true defense against china forgets is the sheer power of numbers that China has at its disposal. Just study the Korean war for a few minutes and you will understand that Taiwan has no chance against a Chinese offensive. We are not even talking days, but rather hours before the Chinese military would overrun every part of the Island of Taiwan.
Everyone in China and Taiwan already know this. It takes jokers from Reuters to try to convince the world that China needs to increase its military because of Taiwan. The other subject in the article was about the China aircraft carrier. Again this is laughable. China has just started to modernize its military and is moving much more slowly than America is when it comes to budget percentages towards weapons of mass destruction. America has the monopoly on the ability to kill millions. Lately it has been exercising that ability. Maybe Reuters should focus more on that story.