Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread

[nULL]

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/FD10Ad02.html   


TAIPEI - If China ever makes the decision to invade Taiwan it is unlikely to be a large-scale Normandy-style amphibious assault. The reality is that China is more likely to use a decapitation strategy. Decapitation strategies short circuit command and control systems, wipe out nationwide nerve centers, and leave the opponent hopelessly lost. As the old saying goes, "Kill the head and the body dies." All China needs to do is seize the center of power, the capital and its leaders.

If China decides to use force to reunify the mainland with what it terms a breakaway province, the window of opportunity is believed to be 2006. This would give China a couple of years to clean up the mess before the 2008 Summer Olympics. Most analysts estimate that China‘s military strength will surpass Taiwan‘s defense capabilities by 2005. So 2006 - the Year of the Dog - is clearly the year to fear.

United States Defense Department officials now are reexamining China‘s military threat to Taiwan. This rethink has caused a dramatic shift in the way many think of defending Taiwan. Traditionally, Taiwan had always feared an amphibious assault - the Normandy scenario - and its defense strategy was always designed to stop such an attack. Now with a potential decapitation strategy believed to be in the works, US defense officials are beginning to think what had once been unthinkable: losing Taiwan in only seven days.

The Taiwan takeover scenario
China‘s deployment of its special forces and rapid-deployment forces, combined with air power and missile strikes, is the most likely formula for successfully taking Taiwan with the least amount of effort and damage. The military acronym KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid!) is in full force here. Special forces, which blend strength with deception and flair, offer China laser cutters rather than sledge hammers for defeating Taiwan‘s armed forces.

An airborne assault directly on Taipei by China‘s 15th Airborne Corps (Changchun), with three divisions (43rd, 44th, 45th) would be the first phase of the assault, with additional paratroopers being dropped in Linkou, Taoyuan and Ilian, to tie up Taiwan‘s four divisions assigned to the 6th Army (North). A Chinese airborne division contains 11,000 men with light tanks and self-propelled artillery. Some intelligence reports have indicated that China was able to airlift one airborne division to Tibet in less than 48 hours in 1988. Today, China‘s ability to transport troops has greatly improved. China is expected to be able to deliver twice that number - 22,000 - in two days.

Taiwan‘s 6th Army has seven infantry brigades: 106, 116, 118, 152, 153, 176, and 178. The 152/153 Dragons and the the 176/178 Tigers are said to be the best. Also a direct assault on the 6th Army‘s 269th motorized brigade, 351st armored infantry brigade, and the 542nd armored brigade would be mandatory for Chinese forces.

Most of the initial fighting would be in the Zhong Zheng District, Taipei, which contains the Presidential Building, the Ministry of National Defense, and the Legislative Yuan. As soon as China‘s troops hit the ground they would have to deal with Taiwan‘s Military Police Command (MPC). The MPC is responsible for protecting key government buildings and military installations. Its personnel are the gatekeepers, holding all the keys and guarding all the doors. They are considered no-nonsense and are humorless when approached. China‘s airborne forces would meet immediate resistance from these Taipei forces. Regular army units, all based outside of Taipei, would take hours, perhaps days, to respond. It would be up to the MPC to hold the Chinese back until reinforcements arrived - which might be never.

Assassins, saboteurs would be prepositioned
Pre-positioned special forces, smuggled into Taiwan months before, would assassinate key leaders, and attack radar and communication facilities around Taiwan a few hours before the main attack. Infiltrators might receive some assistance from sympathetic elements within Taiwan‘s military and police, who are believed to be at least 75 percent pro-Kuomintang (KMT), and hence, pro-unification. Many could use taxis to move about the city unnoticed. Mainland Chinese prostitutes, already in abundance in Taiwan, could be recruited by Chinese intelligence to serve as femme fatales, supplying critical intelligence on the locations of key government and military leaders at odd hours of the night; death is the ultimate aphrodisiac.

<snip>

Why is Taiwan worth fighting for?

To anyone who looks at a map of the region, the reasons are obvious. Taiwan‘s strategic location makes it extremely valuable. The Taiwan Strait is a critical sea lane, and taking Taiwan would allow China to choke off international commercial shipping, especially oil, to Japan and South Korea, should it ever decide to do so. In addition, Taiwan serves as a vital window for US intelligence collection. Taiwan‘s National Security Bureau and the US National Security Agency jointly run a Signal Intelligence facility on Yangmingshan Mountain just north of Taipei (see Spook Mountain: How US spies on China, March 6, 2003). Taiwan‘s inclusion into China‘s military power structure would be unthinkable for Japan.

Of course, this is only a scenario based on selected facts and seasoned with conjecture. Speculation about what China could do and what it will do are rarely comparable. Too many media pundits make mention of a Normandy-style invasion, or an apocalyptic-style missile strike, without seriously considering the fastest way between two points. Of course, China, be warned: "No plan survives the first seconds of combat."

Wendell Minnick is the Jane‘s Defence Weekly correspondent for Taiwan and the author of Spies and Provocateurs: A Worldwide Encyclopedia of Persons Conducting Espionage and Covert Action (McFarland 1992). He can be contacted at janesroc@yahoo.com.


___________________________________________________


When looking at the latest poll figures    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/682137.stm    it doesn‘t seem like the pro-independence Taiwanese have a clear majority. Despite the obvious differences in their creation, I can‘t help but want to draw comparisons between Taiwan and Quebec; were the Parti Quebecois to win the next provincial  election, and decide to pursue unillateral independence (with the support of a larger number of like-minded voters than Taiwan‘s DPP) would Canada be justified in taking military action to force reunification? (Pretend the government would play along!)

The author in the article above seemed to abstain from mentioning China‘s nuclear arsenal in any showdown with the US. If China managed to amass a significant nuclear arsenal, and waited until such time that the Taiwanese government began pushing for independence (against the wishes of the US government) couldn‘t it force the US to back off? I mean, even if the US were able to field an effective missile defence system that would actually work when under attack from another superpower, and not some rogue state, in under 2 years, would that really help it keep up with evolving missile tech? (hypersonic cruise missiles...?)

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040329.wruss0329/BNStory/International/   

Is Taiwan really worth the risk of a large scale world war, especially when such a large segment of the population wants reunification?

EDIT: As a sidenote, don‘t the Chinese Special Forces have the coolest insignia ever?

   

 

[Infanteer]

I can‘t help but want to draw comparisons between Taiwan and Quebec;

I think comparing de facto and de jure notions of independance shoots that analogy down.


I think this scenario goes to pot once the US decides to revoke China‘s trading privledges (WTO, MFN, etc). They‘ve worked too hard to bring their economy to where it is to waste it away for that island.

As for the insignia, I think it is too clutered and cheezey. The coolest cap brass ever has to be the Lancers

 

[Bert]

As Infanteer suggests, the business intertwinings of China and Taiwan are great. The people of Chinese ancestory in Taiwan are well aware of their history they just don‘t like the government in China. Given the various problems China would face invading Taiwan, I doubt they would do it without provocation.

As described, the act and engineering of a Taiwan invasion is possible. Militarily, the wild card of the USA becoming involved and the re-militarization of Japan and South Korea is not desirable. The loss of economic benefits is not desirable. And China itself is not as stable as one would think.

China has a strong central government and it keeps things in line. If China were to invade Taiwan, definitely problems of societal control in Hong Kong, southern areas in China, and areas in the west of China would likely occur. Government corruption would cause problems.

If one remembers the Beijing Tianimen (sp) Square incident in the late 1980s, one Chinese military unit almost fought another military unit over orders to fire on chinese students. A little civil war nearly brew out of it.

The Chinese have a long bitter history fighting amounst themselves and its uncertain how an invasion of Taiwan, where Chinese could fight against Chinese again, would sit with the lower ranks of the PRC military, the general population, as well as the more unstable parts of the country and the government.

If the PRC does go into Taiwan, they are taking the biggest risk themselves.

 

[Bert]

From the Stratfor presses...

Northeast Asia: Nationalism, Football and the Koguryo Kingdom
www.stratfor.com

Summary

As China prepares to host the Asian Cup football final in Beijing, South
Korea has lodged a strong protest urging Beijing to stop laying claim to the
ancient Koguryo kingdom. Like the games themselves, this argument over
geographic heritage exemplifies the nationalism that is such a force in
Northeast Asia, one that continues to shape relations in the region.

Analysis

South Korea lodged a strong protest with China on Aug. 6, urging Beijing to
stop laying claim to the ancient Koguryo kingdom, which was comprised of much
of what is now South Korea, all of what is now North Korea and a slice of
northeastern China from 37 B.C. to A.D. 668. This diplomatic row comes as
more than 6,000 Chinese police and soldiers prepare to deploy near the
Workers' Stadium in Beijing to ensure public order during the Asian Cup
football final between China and Japan.

Nationalism runs deep in North Korea and remains a powerful political force
that can often cause diplomatic spats and undermine bilateral initiatives.
This latest dispute began months ago, when Beijing asserted that the Koguryo
kingdom was a Chinese entity. The assertion appalled both North and South
Koreans, who see the ancient kingdom as an integral part of their own
histories.

The People's Daily in China quoted a Chinese scholar July 2, who described
Koguryo as "a regime established by ethnic groups in northern China some
2,000 years ago, representing an important part of Chinese culture." South
Korean scholars say the Chinese are compelled to claim Koguryo because of
concerns over losing sovereignty of the eastern part of Manchuria -- where
many ethnic Koreans live -- after the Koreas are ultimately unified. Even
North Korea chastised its longtime ally; Pyongyang's state-run newspaper,
Rodong Sinmun, accused Beijing of "manipulating history for its own
interest."

Beijing, probably hoping to put the issue to rest, deleted the description of
Korea's ancient history from its Foreign Ministry Web site Aug. 5. However,
Korean sensibilities are not so easily appeased. The next day, Park Joon-woo,
chief of the South Korean Foreign Ministry's Asia-Pacific Affairs Bureau,
lodged a strong protest with Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Wang Yi and other
senior officials in Beijing.

The historical dispute is so profound in South Korea that it is helping to
heal deep rifts in domestic politics. The same day Park filed his complaint
with Beijing, Rep. Chun Jung-bae, floor leader of the ruling Uri Party,
announced the party has joined with its main opposition, the Grand National
Party, to organize a parliamentary body that will handle the dispute.

As the Koguryo dispute gathers steam, another confrontation fueled by
deep-seated nationalism is about to take place on the football pitch: China
and Japan will face off Aug. 7 for the Asian Cup final. Chinese memories of
Japan's brutal invasion and occupation in World War II still run deep, and
the match is sure to be emotionally charged.

Chinese fans in the southwestern city of Chongqing booed the Japanese team
when it took the field to play Jordan's team Aug. 2. Chinese fans also sat
down during Japan's national anthem and threw garbage at Japanese fans, who
had to be escorted by police out of the stadium after the game. An angry mob
also rushed the Japanese team's bus. Chinese and Japanese fans reportedly
will be confined to separate stands during the match in Beijing, and the
stadium will be packed with Chinese security forces in case a riot breaks
out.

Chinese and Korean sentiments over imperial Japan's militarism in the early
20th century remain an unyielding force, even while their more affluent
neighbor remains one of their largest markets and investment sources. Seoul
and Beijing lodged bitter protests with Tokyo over Japanese textbooks that
gloss over Japanese war crimes, and China and the Koreas voice virulent
opposition to Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's annual visit to the Yasukuni
shrine, a memorial to Japanese war heroes that contains the remains of
several World War II war criminals.

China's sensitivity to Japanese actions was demonstrated in September 2003,
when a hotel orgy involving nearly 400 Japanese male tourists and 500 Chinese
prostitutes sparked outrage in the country and a diplomatic quarrel between
Beijing and Tokyo. The timing of the incident was particularly inopportune,
coming as it did two days before the 72nd anniversary of the Japanese army's
occupation of Northeast China.

Occasional bursts of nationalism in Northeast Asia do not destroy bilateral
ties between nations, but they do color them. For example, the issue of the
Koguryo kingdom during upcoming six-party talks over North Korea's nuclear
program helped set the tone for cooperation between the two Koreas after
relations took a hit from a recent mass defection of North Koreans. At the
same time, nationalism has added to the underlying tensions between China and
North Korea.

Patriotic fervor also has contributed to a Sino-Japanese dispute in the South
China Sea over the mutually claimed Senkaku/Diaoyu islands and nearby
hydrocarbon riches lying under the sea floor.

(c) 2004 Strategic Forecasting, Inc. All rights reserved.

 

[a_majoor]

Given our attention is drawn to the Middle East as WW IV unfolds, and the Tsunami turns our thoughts to Humanitarian issues, China might see this as an opportune moment...

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/tkacik200501100715.asp

The Invasion of Taiwan
A Chinese law would make it legal.

By John J. Tkacik

News that China's National People's Congress Standing Committee has placed an "anti-secession law" on the agenda for next March's NPC session raises the question, "Don't China's lawmakers have anything better to do?" Indeed they do, but as the Argentine colonels reasoned in 1982, it's clearly easier to whip up national opinion over small islands like the Falklands â ” or Taiwan, in China's case â ” than to solve the country's problems. Beijing's top Taiwan-affairs director, Chen Yunlin, was in Washington, D.C., last week to lobby the Bush administration and Congress on the absolute necessity of such a law, and the fact that Taiwanese independence is an existential threat to China's "core national security interests." (This, despite the fact that Taiwan has been de facto independent since 1949, so whatever China's "core" interests are, they have successfully kept for the past half century.)

Although the actual text of the draft "law" has yet to be published, it appears to be a watered-down version of a truly fanatical "Unification Law" advocated by at least one Chinese professor, Yu Yuanzhou of Wuhan University, whose proposed legislation requires the Chinese People's Liberation Army to attack Taiwan as soon as it is able. Yu's legislation, which has been circulating on the Internet for over two years, calls for the PLA to immediately start bombarding Quemoy and Matsu â ” and it "would not be limited to conventional weapons."

Sadly, the kind of nonsense that Prof. Yu touts via the Internet passes for rational legislative discourse in China, and last May, during a tea party for visiting Premier Wen Jiabao with Chinese expatriates in London, an elderly Chinese demanded the premier pass such a law soon. The flustered premier humored the old man, "Your view on unification of the motherland is very important, very important. We will seriously consider it." But before the thoughtful premier had finished his session, his traveling propaganda entourage had it on all the Chinese newswires, and "unification law" became official policy.

Since then, Chinese propaganda departments have changed the name from "unification law" to "anti-secession law" â ” not (as some in the Western press have speculated) as a gesture of moderation, but to avoid any misunderstanding that China might not already be "unified." Perish the thought! No, Taiwan is an integral part of China illegally struggling to be "independent." Therefore, Taiwan is already unified with China, so "anti-secession" it is.

One need not wait until March 5 to see the first draft (which, under the leadership of the Chinese Communist party, will also be the final draft) of the law to know that its goal is not "anti-secession" and that it is not even a "law." It is clear from the official Chinese media that the "law" is supposed to authorize China's military to invade Taiwan immediately upon some future Taiwanese "declaration of independence." But both China's existing National Defense Law and its legislation governing national territory already require that the military defend China's homeland. This new legislation, as with most exercises in Chinese foreign-policy legislation, is a propaganda tool designed for two audiences.

First, it readies the Chinese people for war with Taiwan, and second, it will be trotted out and exhibited as a diplomatic lever whenever Americans point to the U.S. obligation â ” under Section 2(b)(6) of our own domestic legislation, the Taiwan Relations Act â ” to "maintain the capacity to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan."

As such, this proposed Chinese legislation is highly destabilizing. Beijing's leaders believe their bellicosity has already prepared Washington for a Chinese military attack against Taiwan. In December 2003, according to CNN's respected China analyst, Willy Lam, a senior politburo member declared that President George W. Bush's "unambiguous opposition to attempts by Taipei to change the status quo" was such that if "we were to respond militarily, the U.S. can't raise objections let alone interfere." In May, another noted China scholar, Bonnie Glaser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, warned that the U.S. was sending a dangerous message to Beijing. "Some Chinese even believe," she reported, "that the U.S. may acquiesce in a limited use of force by the PLA â ” for example, to seize an offshore island, temporarily impose a limited blockade, or fire a lone missile at a military target on Taiwan." Yet Chinese leaders still think they need a "law" to legitimize their threats.

On the other hand, American leaders get very defensive in the face of China's increasingly strident threats to launch a military attack against Taiwan. Rather than articulate U.S. interests, they lamely point to the Taiwan Relations Act as somehow tying their unwilling hands. As recently as October 25, Secretary of State Colin Powell stammered that "the Chinese leaders who I spoke to today said that [Taiwan] is an internal matter for [China] to determine . . . and I appreciate their position, but nevertheless, that build-up creates a degree of tension and instability across the Straits and puts pressure on the Taiwanese side to seek additional weaponry. And under our law, we have an obligation to see to their self-defense needs." In essence, the State Department's response to China's demands to halt our defense relationship with Taiwan is to claim that U.S. law requires it.

The Chinese, unfamiliar with a true "rule of law," are now prepared to respond with their own "law," one that probably will say, "China shall wage war against an independent Taiwan." This, notwithstanding that Taiwan is already independent in every way â ” including by its own insistence â ” and that Taiwanese have been carrying on their own existence separate from China's for over a century (if one doesn't count the three postwar years of what was legally a Chinese "military occupation" of a former Japanese colonial territory). If the U.S. administration is ruled by principle instead of craven expedience, it will respond to this Chinese ploy with the kind of forceful declaration usually reserved for Taiwan's leaders. So, President Bush should declare explicitly, in terms identical to his jibe at Taiwan's democratically elected president last December, that China's proposed anti-secession legislation "indicates that China may be willing to make decisions unilaterally to change the status quo, which we oppose." This would be a nice bookend to President Bush's overreaction to Taiwan President Chen's rather benign effort last December to legislate a "referendum" of protest against China's undeniable missile threat to the island.

But above all, the United States must be candid with the American people, with our democratic allies and friends in Asia, and above all with the Chinese dictatorship, about the American commitment to help Taiwan defend itself. Although the State Department seems abashed that the U.S. helps defend democratic Taiwan, it could find an eloquent statement of U.S. policy over at the Defense Department. Last April 21, Assistant Secretary of Defense Peter Rodman explained to the House International Relations Committee that "the President's National Security Strategy, published in September 2002, calls for 'building a balance of power that favors freedom.' Taiwan's evolution into a true multi-party democracy over the past decade is proof of the importance of America's commitment to Taiwan's defense. It strengthens American resolve to see Taiwan's democracy grow and prosper." That sums it up nicely.

If Chen Yun Lin can take a healthy dose of reality back to Beijing from his Washington visits, perhaps China's National People's Congress can begin to focus on China's real problems â ” ones like the vast official corruption at all levels of government and party, rural poverty, the collapse of public healthcare, the financial crisis, unsafe mines, AIDS, and the wholesale pollution of its waters and earth.

â ” John J. Tkacik Jr. is a research fellow in the Asian Studies Center of the Heritage Foundation.

 

[Slim]

Excellent article! Mark this as I bet we'll here much more about it...

Slim

 

[vangemeren]

If China where to invade Taiwan, what do you think the American response would be?

 

[shoguny2k]

The author appears to set a double standard for "rule of law". Whereas the so called 'Taiwan Relations Act' can be considered a bona fide piece of legislation that the Americans toss out at every opportunity to justify continuing sales of weapons to Taiwan, China's new anti-secession law is somehow lacking in legitimacy. This smacks of racism and condescending arrogance. Somehow I'm not surprised. Anyone who writes for a right wing mouth piece like the National Review is still nothing more than a frigging redneck - regardless of the eloquence of his expression.

The "facts" this author presents to substantiate Taiwan's claim to sovereignty is shot full with more holes than a CF Sea King helicopter. Taiwan has been part of China's territory since the Ming Dynasty (read: 700 years, folks). It was annexed by Japan during the late Qing Dynasty as part of China's concessions laid down in the Treaty of Shimonoseki. It seriously pisses me off when a bunch of westerners forcefully attempt to alter the intended destiny of a great nation (by selling 'defensive' weapons) under the guise of promoting multi-party democracy. It pisses me off, but again, I'm not surprised. The U.S. seeks to contain China and having Taiwan on their side just adds another fort to the defensive ring.

As far as I'm personally concerned, China should invade Taiwan as soon as it's militarily feasible to do so. The balance of power has already tipped in China's favour. By 2007, China will have about 1500 ballistic missiles pointed at the island. I suggest a blitzkrieg type saturation missile attack - in multiple waves to knock out Taiwan's strategic targets of interest in preparation for an amphibious assault. This must be done within 24-48 hrs at the most to prevent large scale American intervention. If all else fails, WMD's must be considered.

 

[Infanteer]

Wow.

I'm assuming your membership dues to the Party are up to date?

 

[Pieman]

As far as I'm personally concerned, China should invade Taiwan as soon as it's militarily feasible to do so. The balance of power has already tipped in China's favour. By 2007, China will have about 1500 ballistic missiles pointed at the island.

China may try to invade some day, but seriously, are they going to risk it as a growing economic power? I'm sure people think they will, but it is still highly doubtful in my mind. For now anyway...

Taiwan has been part of China's territory since the Ming Dynasty (read: 700 years, folks).

Perhaps you should ask some of the Taiwanese people what they think about being taken over by China. Western ideals are based upon freedom, and the freedom to choose ones own destiny. If you are wondering why Western countries are willing to intervene on Taiwan's behalf, by 'Promoting multy-party democracy', That is the reason. Also, once China does have Taiwan back in it's grip where will her eyes start to wander?  

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Anyone who writes for a right wing mouth piece like the National Review is still nothing more than a frigging redneck - regardless of the eloquence of his expression.

As far as I'm personally concerned, China should invade Taiwan as soon as it's militarily feasible to do so. The balance of power has already tipped in China's favour. By 2007, China will have about 1500 ballistic missiles pointed at the island. I suggest a blitzkrieg type saturation missile attack - in multiple waves to knock out Taiwan's strategic targets of interest in preparation for an amphibious assault. This must be done within 24-48 hrs at the most to prevent large scale American intervention. If all else fails, WMD's must be considered.

Speaking of "rednecks"

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Between that post and the masturbation threads he tried to open might explain these posts, ;D


There were these 2 fat-*** NCM guys manning the post who were less than enthusiastic (to say the least) about promoting Naval MARE Officer positions to me. I just asked for an application package and left. Finally, one of 'em told me I should expect to wait between 6 months to a year prior to receiving any feedback on my application. Huh  They're certainly not treating me like they need me.
and,

Dude,

I'm joining the CF as a MARE Officer in the Navy. And I was told to wait between 6 months - 12 months !!!

These guys certainly don't seem to be taking valued recruits seriously.

.....I'm sure they took the "valued recruits" who came in that day very seriously.

 

[Bograt]

Back on topic, is it a national pride thing, or a resourse issue? Why is China concerned with Taiwan?

From what I understand, the Chineese do not have adaquate amphibious capability to mount a credible invasion of Taiwan. If they want the real estate I don't think they would lob missles into the living room.

Are there land issues between the Indians and the Chinese? Contested territory etc..?

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Bograt,
here are some older threads, maybe the answer is in here.
http://army.ca/forums/threads/2941.0.html
http://army.ca/forums/threads/23356.0.html

 

[Bograt]

This first link was very interesting. I never considered the strategic importance of the straight. Interesting times.

 

[jmackenzie_15]

Re: Yet another theater opening?
« Reply #2 on: Today at 02:25:58 » 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If China where to invade Taiwan, what do you think the American response would be?


I think the invasion of taiwan is inevitable.Right now would seem the opportune time to do it, taking advantage, as the article suggested, of many of the worlds powers focused on tsunami relief and funding, and the United States having their hands tied up a little bit in the middle east.
What it sounds like to me with this 'law' they are trying to pass is, the Chinese are going to washington and telling them theyre taking over taiwan but they dont want to be cut off from economic aid by the states....... in a summarized, theoretical sense lol.

If China just put it out there to everyone that they were going to invade taiwan as opposed to just blitzkrieging them to death all of a sudden, maybe they figure the worlds reaction would be less harsh and drastic that way.

"Hey guys listen, im going to annex your neighbors house and steal his car... maybe his wife too, but it has to be done! Please dont hate me I'll make it up to you later I promise!"

I dunno, im rambling, but one thing is for sure, taiwan is doomed =p

 

[a_majoor]

Re: Yet another theater opening?
« Reply #2 on: Today at 02:25:58 »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If China where to invade Taiwan, what do you think the American response would be?


I think the invasion of taTaiwans inevitable.Right now would seem the opportune time to do it, taking advantage, as the article suggested, of many of the worlds powers focused on tsunami relief and funding, and the United States having their hands tied up a little bit in the middle east.
What it sounds like to me with this 'law' they are trying to pass is, the Chinese are going to washington and telling them ththey'reaking over taTaiwanut they dodon'tant to be cut off from economic aid by the states....... in a summarized, theoretical sense lol.

If China just put it out there to everyone that they were going to invade taTaiwans opposed to just blblitzkrieghem to death all of a sudden, maybe they figure the worlds reaction would be less harsh and drastic that way.

"Hey guys listen, imI'moing to annex your neighbors house and steal his car... maybe his wife too, but it has to be done! Please dodon'tate me I'll make it up to you later I promise!"

I dunno, im rambling, but one thing is for sure, taiwan is doomed =p

Tiawan is only "doomed" if we in the democratic West fail to stand up for it. China's "law" is, as the article says, mostly for internal onconsumptionnd to divert attention from pressing internal problems and concerns. Translating that "law" into action presents many problems, and I believe tha invasion of Tiawan would be a very tough go for the PLA even with the worlds attention distracted for the moment. I need to do a search, but an article in Parameters which I read some time ago pointed out the only way to ensure a "quick" victory before the United States could get engaged would involve the use of WMD and even nuclear weapons to decapitate the military and political leadership of Tiawan, and limit the military response to a series of uncoordinated struggles by the Tiawanese military.

China has not yet developed the force projection capabilities that would allow them to ensure victory in any invasion scenario, with the greatest weakness being the logistical support for the invasion and follow-up occupation. A wild card factor might be Japan contesting China's control of the sea lanes leading to Tiawan (even if the JSDF did not get involved on the ground in China or Tiawan). Certainly, the prospect of China flexing its muscles that way would fill SE Asia with alarm, and the political fallout would be difficult for China to manage.

 

[squealiox]

I'm sure everyone on this board agrees with me when i say we should be increasing our defence spending -- massively. but here is why i think we should be doing it to back up our own interests in the world, and not out of sentimental attachment to the US.

2020 Vision
A CIA report predicts that American global dominance could end in 15 years.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Wednesday, Jan. 26, 2005, at 2:48 PM PT


Who will be the first politician brave enough to declare publicly that the United States is a declining power and that America's leaders must urgently discuss what to do about it? This prognosis of decline comes not (or not only) from leftist scribes rooting for imperialism's downfall, but from the National Intelligence Councilâ ”the "center of strategic thinking" inside the U.S. intelligence community.

The NIC's conclusions are starkly presented in a new 119-page document, "Mapping the Global Future: Report of the National Intelligence Council's 2020 Project." It is unclassified and available on the CIA's Web site. The report has received modest press attention the past couple weeks, mainly for its prediction that, in the year 2020, "political Islam" will still be "a potent force." Only a few stories or columns have taken note of its central conclusion:

The likely emergence of China and India ... as new major global playersâ ”similar to the advent of a united Germany in the 19th century and a powerful United States in the early 20th centuryâ ”will transform the geopolitical landscape with impacts potentially as dramatic as those in the previous two centuries.

In this new world, a mere 15 years away, the United States will remain "an important shaper of the international order"â ”probably the single most powerful countryâ ”but its "relative power position" will have "eroded." The new "arriviste powers"â ”not only China and India, but also Brazil, Indonesia, and perhaps othersâ ”will accelerate this erosion by pursuing "strategies designed to exclude or isolate the United States" in order to "force or cajole" us into playing by their rules.

America's current foreign policy is encouraging this trend, the NIC concluded. "U.S. preoccupation with the war on terrorism is largely irrelevant to the security concerns of most Asians," the report states. The authors don't dismiss the importance of the terror warâ ”far from it. But they do write that a "key question" for the future of America's power and influence is whether U.S. policy-makers "can offer Asian states an appealing vision of regional security and order that will rival and perhaps exceed that offered by China." If not, "U.S. disengagement from what matters to U.S. Asian allies would increase the likelihood that they will climb on Beijing's bandwagon and allow China to create its own regional security that excludes the United States."

To the extent that these new powers seek others to emulate, they may look to the European Union, not the United States, as "a model of global and regional governance."

This shift to a multipolar world "will not be painless," the report goes on, "and will hit the middle classes of the developed world in particular" with further outsourcing of jobs and outflow of capital investment. In short, the NIC's forecast involves not merely a recalibration in the balance of world power, but alsoâ ”as these things doâ ”a loss of wealth, income, and, in every sense of the word, security.

The trends should already be apparent to anyone who reads a newspaper. Not a day goes by without another story about how we're mortgaging our future to the central banks of China and Japan. The U.S. budget deficit, approaching a half-trillion dollars, is financed by their purchase of Treasury notes. The U.S. trade deficitâ ”much of it amassed by the purchase of Chinese-made goodsâ ”now exceeds $3 trillion. Meanwhile, China is displacing the United States all across Asiaâ ”in trade, investment, education, culture, and tourism. It's also cutting into the trade markets of Latin America. (China is now Chile's No. 1 export market and Brazil's No. 2 trade partner.) Asian engineering students who might once have gone to MIT or Cal Tech are now going to universities in Beijing.

Meanwhile, as the European Union becomes a coherent entity, the dollar's value against the euro has fallen by one-third in the past two years (one-eighth just since September). As the dollar's rate of return declines, currency investorsâ ”including those who have been financing our deficitâ ”begin to diversify their holdings. In China, Japan, Russia, and the Middle East, central bankers have been unloading dollars in favor of euros. The Bush policies that have deepened our debt have endangered the dollar's status as the world's reserve currency.

What is the Bush administration doing to alter course or at least cushion the blow? It's hard to say. During Condoleezza Rice's confirmation hearings last week, Sen. Paul Sarbanes, Dâ “Md., raised some questions about the nexus between international economics and political power. Rice referred him to the secretary of the treasury.

The NIC issued the report a few weeks before Bush's inaugural address, but it serves to dump still more cold water on the lofty fantasy of America delivering freedom to oppressed people everywhere. In Asia, the report states, "present and future leaders are agnostic on the issue of democracy and are more interested in developing what they perceive to be the most effective model of governance." If the president really wanted to spread freedom and democracy around the planet, he would (among other things) need to present America as that "model of governance"â ”to show the world, by its example, that free democracies are successful and worth emulating. Yet the NIC report paints a world where fewer and fewer people look to America as a model of anything. We can't sell freedom if we can't sell ourselves.

Fred Kaplan writes the "War Stories" column for Slate. He can be reached at war_stories@hotmail.com.

comments? rants? aneurysms?

 

[Bert]

The report may be slightly alarmist but certainly the concept of emerging regions/countries
and their relation to US dominance is bang on.

With nuclear proliferation, the industrialization of third world regions, the quest for
evermore resources, and the impacts on the environment, the stresses placed
on the world will be increasing.

My great-grandmother was born under British dominance.   I'm familiar with US dominance
and tomorrow it may very well be someone else.   Funny how history and future is.

Anyone read Stephen Baxter's books "Manifold Time" or "Evolution"?   Makes one think.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Ever empire has its day.