Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread

[Rushrules]

If China invaded Taiwan, there's nothing the US could do about it.  China has nukes, so that rules out any response. 

 

[Torlyn]

If China invaded Taiwan, there's nothing the US could do about it.  China has nukes, so that rules out any response. 

How do you figure?  If there was an invasion (Which the story, had you read it, was against) the economic hardships that the Chinese would face would be catostrophic to them.  They are trying to build themselves in to a superpower, and if the Chinese are anything, it's patient.  If and when they move, it won't be any time soon, and it'll most likely be a non-military take over.

And the Nuke comment is a fallacy.  The Americans have nukes, and they support taiwan, so with your logic, the Chinese wouldn't invade for that reason, right?

T

 

[Baloo]

The Chinese won't let the island of Taiwan go without a fight, and that is the final answer. We can speculate about damage to their economy and the rest of it, but at the end of the day, if Taiwan declared sovereignty, you can be sure that the missiles would start flying. And you can be sure as s*** that the Americans will not threaten a nuclear war over that move. Sure, they would deploy a fleet, but the American public and government is NOT going to risk an all out nuclear exchange over the Republic of China.

 

[oyaguy]

I think the threat of an Imperial China is somewhat exaggerated.

Since the end of the Second World War, we have lived in one of the "great peaces" of the history of the world. For all the bad stuff that happens around the world, all the cruelty, we have not witness a "great power melee"{Gwynne Dyer, I love how he sums up a World War}.

For example, considering all the news coverage Osama Bin Laden gets, he cannot, by himself, destabilize the fabric of civilization. Only the world's great powers can, and only if they choose to.

For all of China's bulk, 1.3 billion and counting, any war that China fights, will be to the cost of all involved and they have more people to loose..

As stated before, we are living in one of the "great peaces" of our time because of the Nuclear Deterrent. As the aptly formed acronym, M.A.D., spells out, Mutually Assured Destruction, the next great power conflict is the last.

The Chinese can do the math, and the math spells out M.A.D. There is no getting past those three letters. The Chinese might be able to squeak a few things by, {I personally believe Taiwan is one of them} but at the end of the day, they will still have those letters to contend with.

You can't have your cake, and eat it too if both you and the cake are slag.

Then their is my opinion that China is a ticking time bomb that isn't going to explode, but implode on itself.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

If I was China, I'd be sending a lot of "businessmen" in via legitimate channels prior to the invasion.

They would all be trained to sabotage electric and communications lines.

I would also use the new direct flights between the mainland and Taiwan as my very first strike.  In essence, I would line up (4-5) 747's in a row loaded with elite troops and get them landed at Taiwan's main airport....then I would start my sabotage, followed by staged "Reunification Rallies" (with pre-prep'd news releases) and then push on with a conventional invasion.

The biggest problem is if it doesn't look like Taiwan can stop the first wave of attacks, I think the USA/Japan back out due to the economic leverage I mentioned previously.

JMHO,



Matthew.

 

[onecat]

"Sure, they would deploy a fleet, but the American public and government is NOT going to risk an all out nuclear exchange over the Republic of China"

Taiwan is and has been since 1949 an independent nation, only China doesn't see that way.  With its new found strenghths it realized it can get want it wants if it pushes hard enough.  I don't see the US coming to help Taiwan, although the way I see it, if Taiwan was invaded by China its no different then Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990.  The only difference is that fight between Taiwan and China won't be pretty and the US stands a good chance of losing if it gets involved, so it won't take that risk.  And China knows it.

 

[Nielsen_Noetic]

I agree the U.S. would more than likely lose; China's shear numbers for one reason. As well China has been upgrading it's forces, building more technologically advanced naval vessels and aircraft. The only advantage the U.S. has is it's technology, once that's trumped the U.S. will not have what it takes to take on a nation such as China.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Taiwan is and has been since 1949 an independent nation, only China doesn't see that way.

This is not accurate: many (most?) coountries (including the one we live in) do NOT recognize Taiwan as a sovereign country ... Taiwan was only admitted to the WTO in 2002 and STILL has not been admitted to the UN!

It would be nice to think that our (and other Western) governments would take a stand against Chinese totalitarianism but the reality is that they do not.  :'(

A small backgrounder here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Taiwan#Position_of_other_countries_and_international_organizations

 

[onecat]

"
This is not accurate: many (most?) coountries (including the one we live in) do NOT recognize Taiwan as a sovereign country ... Taiwan was only admitted to the WTO in 2002 and STILL has not been admitted to the UN!"

That's true but from my understanding, things ahve changed alot in the last 20 04 30 years.  As China was allowed into the UN and other groups, ithas slowwly been putting  pressure on other nations to remove Taiwan from them.  And as their economy grows they con't to put stress on nations to support their position on Taiwan.

If western nations do valve sovereign nations they should be making it clear now that China's actions will not be allowed.  Of course their only looking at the dollar valve of things.. and in that Taiwan loses out.

 

[Dare]

I agree the U.S. would more than likely lose; China's shear numbers for one reason. As well China has been upgrading it's forces, building more technologically advanced naval vessels and aircraft. The only advantage the U.S. has is it's technology, once that's trumped the U.S. will not have what it takes to take on a nation such as China.

China wouldn't stand a chance. They'd be mostly on the defence in what would be a war on several of it's fronts they would have to move in and engage NATO forces in Afghanistan as well which would certainly engage the whole region, South Korea and Japan would likely get into the mix as well. This equals an eventual loss. As for China breaking out technologically, I would have to say it's very unlikely considering it is still buying from Russia, who itself is quite a bit behind the U.S. It's also begging everyone to let it out of the European arms embargo.That's not to say China is not gaining ground in some areas, but I venture to say that it's quite a bit behind the U.S. and will remain so for quite some time yet. Their unweidly infrastructure of beaurocrats weighs everything down. Their numbers are not an asset, they are a disadvantage. They are trying to cut the fat on their military. Any war with China would not be a repeat of the Korean war, where a human wave pushes the west out. It would be a very fast paced war. It ultimately comes down to China having invade and hold ground in the U.S. to win the war. I suspect many of China's plans included a Vietnam sort of propaghanda campaign of demoralizing the citizenry. Post-Bush Doctrine, I am sure that sort of tactic will no longer be efficient. What China depends on is a huge manufacturing base already controlled by the military.  I do not think they would risk a strategic nuclear strike on the U.S. for the obvious reason, but tactical nuclear strikes I think would be regular on both sides. Is China a serious threat to democracy and the west? Yes. Would it be a difficult challenge? Yes. Will they win? No.

Also, keep in mind this does not take into account a Chinese fifth column and the damage communist sympathizers could conceivably do, especially in terms of European allies.

 

[daniel h.]

I think the threat of an Imperial China is somewhat exaggerated.

Since the end of the Second World War, we have lived in one of the "great peaces" of the history of the world. For all the bad stuff that happens around the world, all the cruelty, we have not witness a "great power melee"{Gwynne Dyer, I love how he sums up a World War}.

For example, considering all the news coverage Osama Bin Laden gets, he cannot, by himself, destabilize the fabric of civilization. Only the world's great powers can, and only if they choose to.

For all of China's bulk, 1.3 billion and counting, any war that China fights, will be to the cost of all involved and they have more people to loose..

As stated before, we are living in one of the "great peaces" of our time because of the Nuclear Deterrent. As the aptly formed acronym, M.A.D., spells out, Mutually Assured Destruction, the next great power conflict is the last.

The Chinese can do the math, and the math spells out M.A.D. There is no getting past those three letters. The Chinese might be able to squeak a few things by, {I personally believe Taiwan is one of them} but at the end of the day, they will still have those letters to contend with.

You can't have your cake, and eat it too if both you and the cake are slag.

Then their is my opinion that China is a ticking time bomb that isn't going to explode, but implode on itself.

So does Canada not having nuclear weapons say something about our state of independence, considering we helped invent the things?...Anyone think we should have them?

 

[dutchie]

So does Canada not having nuclear weapons say something about our state of independence, considering we helped invent the things?...Anyone think we should have them?

We should NOT have nuclear weapons. According to McNamara, and I agree, nuclear weapons have no military value whatsoever. Their only function is to deter your opponent from using theirs. As no sane leader would ever use them, possesing them doesn't protect you from those States. That was written in the 80's regarding the Big Bad Soviet Bear. Of course the enemy is different today, but I think you can extrapolate the following from his original statement: As no insane leader would be deterred by our possesion of nukes, possesion does not protect us form those groups/States either.

With the exception of Total War, like the war in the Pacific, Nukes could never be used. They destroy the land you attack, along with the infrastructure, the people (ours and theirs), and all life within a certain radius. By using them, you remove the possibility of meaningful victory.

I see no value to expanding the World's nuclear arsenal.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Caesar, I don't think your rationale applies to tactical nukes ... besides, the corollary to your argument is that if you don't have nukes, you have nothing to deter those that do, ergo the sanity argument becomes irrelevent: the sane "enemy" might well attack a nation (by conventional means) with no nuclear deterrent but not attack the same nation with a nuclear deterrent (this was the essence of NATOs Cold War strategy).

 

[dutchie]

I can see how this thread will get split in about 4 or 5 posts, but here goes.....

Caesar, I don't think your rationale applies to tactical nukes ...

Well, it does, but I didn't explain how it does. I'll use the Soviets as the example, because that's how McNamara described it. The US military in the 60's and beyond determined that their Nuclear strategy did not allow for Tactical nukes to be used without an exchange of Strategic nukes resulting shortly thereafter. Basically, IIRC, the theory was that we would trade tactical nukes, but of course they are used merely as a way of destroying defences and enemy troops so that conventional forces can succeed. Any massive attack by either side would escalate the exchange, resulting in the exchange of Strategic nukes, out of fear of losing the ability to respond with them later. Kind of a "If we don't launch our strategic nukes, we run the risk of having our launch sites destroyed by their strategic nukes.....let's launch first." IIRC, it was actually policy that a launch of tactical nukes must be answered with Strategic nukes. Whether the US would have actually launched them is another matter. Keep in mind that all along, there were always some who believed the US had a first strike capability, something that has been largely dismissed then, and especially now in hindsight. There was always a core group, a la Dr. Strangelove, that courted a nuclear exchange...all this according to Blundering towards Disaster by McNamara.

the sane "enemy" might well attack a nation (by conventional means) with no nuclear deterrent but not attack the same nation with a nuclear deterrent (this was the essence of NATOs Cold War strategy).

The theory refuting this is that the sane enemy knows that you will never use those nukes, so they are not a deterrent. Nuclear weapons were developed during Total War, and their usefullness is limited to that scenario. The US will never initiate a Nuclear exchange. Ever. In fact, only an attack with nuclear weapons will allow a response with nuclear weapons. Again, according to policy.
Basically, McNamara makes the argument that Nuclear weapons are not Military weapons because they serve no military purpose. Their use, no matter how limited, would likely result in the destruction of the state that launches them. He argues that possesion of them doesn't increase your security, it lowers it. I tend to agree. I normally hate basing an argument on another theories, but the theories are sound, and I was just a youngen when they were developed.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Any massive attack by either side would escalate the exchange, resulting in the exchange of Strategic nukes, out of fear of losing the ability to respond with them later.

That logic leads inescapably to the conclusion that any massive "hot" confrontation would escalate into a strategic exchange, regardless of whether tactical nukes were ever used or not!

... the sane enemy knows that you will never use those nukes, so they are not a deterrent. Nuclear weapons were developed during Total War, and their usefullness is limited to that scenario.

MAD only works when BOTH sides have that deterrent!  To use a more current example, the US did not lead the invasion of Iraq because they believed Saddam had nukes: they believed he was (or would be) trying trying to develop them (among other reasons, but not opening that can of worms)!  Had Saddam already built an arsenal of strategic nuclear weapons, the United States, fearing total destruction, would not have invaded ... conversely, the United States is reluctant to confront North Korea head-on out of fear that they may already have nukes.

I can see that in an abstract sense, strategic nuclear weapons are "not military weapons" insofar as they prevent major wars and are thus merely political or geopolitical 'tools' (although this is veering into a purely sematic argument).  But again this is only the case when the mutual deterrent exists: if your enemy has the bomb and you don't, you have the fear of total destruction to prevent you from attacking him, but he has no fear of attacking you.

Getting back to daniel h.'s original point, it IS a question of sovreignty: we didn't get into a conventional war against the USSR because we didn't have a big nuclear arsenal, but rather because our allies DID!

 

[Nielsen_Noetic]

Some of what you said is accurate; your assertion however that China would lose I truly believe is nothing but speculation. China is a powerful nation, it is the second largest military spender on the face of the earth after the United States. It has the largest population of any nation in existence, and has gawking power over it's people.
It is one of the fastest growing(economically) nations, it is a nuclear power, and I truly believe if it had to would use that power so as no one wins.
here is a link to the military spending stats of 170 nations, these are CIA stats.
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2067rank.html
these are China's exclusive military stats, and the United States.
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html#Military
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ch.html#Military

 

[Brad Sallows]

A three-division air assault spread out over several days, eh?  China must have a kick-ass SEAD plan.

All that backed up by air and missile strikes and victory is certain, eh?  The Americans will have to pay attention and learn; they've never been able to get quite that much mileage out of air and missile strikes.

 

[dutchie]

That logic leads inescapably to the conclusion that any massive "hot" confrontation would escalate into a strategic exchange, regardless of whether tactical nukes were ever used or not!

In the Cold War, that was the case. Not now, of course.

MAD only works when BOTH sides have that deterrent!...Had Saddam already built an arsenal of strategic nuclear weapons, the United States, fearing total destruction, would not have invaded ... conversely, the United States is reluctant to confront North Korea head-on out of fear that they may already have nukes.

I can see that in an abstract sense, strategic nuclear weapons are "not military weapons" insofar as they prevent major wars and are thus merely political or geopolitical 'tools'. But again this is only the case when the mutual deterrent exists: if your enemy has the bomb and you don't, you have the fear of total destruction to prevent you from attacking him, but he has no fear of attacking you.

Wow! I think were in total agreement here. You have pretty much summarized most of the rest of McNamara's book. He never advocated an imbalance, as it would cause the scenario you described.

Anyhow, back on track.

 

[Acorn]

Some of what you said is accurate; your assertion however that China would lose I truly believe is nothing but speculation. China is a powerful nation, it is the second largest military spender on the face of the earth after the United States. It has the largest population of any nation in existence, and has gawking power over it's people.

Insert "USSR" for China, and change the bit about population (not sure what "gawking power" is though), and you could be a voice from the mid-80s.

But hell, bean counting has always been a popular method of analysis. Why stop now?

Acorn

 

[from darkness lite]

Totally agree with ACORN, and not just because we're the same MOC.  China, on paper, looks unstopable (just like the Warsaw Pact, lots of tanks, lucky if 10% actually worked).  However China has f**k all for sea-lift capability.  By the time the Chinese turn their surviving ships around, go back for the 2nd wave (then 3rd then 4th, then 5th.......), those unlucky souls on the beach will be dead or POW.  For those who "bean count" check China's sea-lift capability out on Janes, etc

cheers..