Why Beijing will not attack Taiwan

Brookes News ^ | Peter Zhang

[Dr. Marten]

Why Beijing will not attack Taiwan

Peter Zhang
BrookesNews.Com
Monday 9 February 2004

Beijing's continued sabre rattling should be seen for what it is — sabre rattling. Beijing has no intention of launching an attack on Taiwan, at least not for some considerable time. The name of one almost forgotten island tells it all — Iwo Jima.

That battle will never be forgotten by the United States Marine Corps. In 1945 the US launched a force of 110,000 personnel against a tiny island defended by 21,000 Japanese troops. Thirty-six days later it was over and 20,000 Japanese soldiers were dead. These defenders inflicted 25,000 casualties on the American forces.

What went wrong? It was supposed to be a pushover. The US gave the island the most sustained aerial bombardment of the war. As Admiral Nimitz said: "No other island received as much preliminary pounding as did Iwo Jima."

The problem was that the Japanese had dug themselves so far into the mountain and underground that the bombing scarcely touched them. Moreover, the troops were incredibly fanatical and almost fought to the last man forcing the Americans to take the island inch-by-inch.

Jump nearly 60 years into the present and we find not tiny Iwo Jima but Taiwan, an island of 20 million people with a highly advanced economy. This brings us to vital facts that journalists have overlooked.

No matter how many missiles the mainland launches at Taiwan it still won't be able to breach its underground defences nor destroy its military communications systems. Even if Beijing eventually controlled the air the PLA has still to cross the straits where there is no doubt it would suffer enormous losses.

The PLA’s troubles would really start once it reached Taiwan. Facing it would be a highly trained patriotic army of 400,000 troops equipped with the latest gear, backed by cutting-edge technology and supported by a colossal reserve army of about 800,000 men. The PLA would be running up against something like 1000,000 heavily armed troops in heavily fortified positions.

Imagine how it would have been on Iwo Jima if there had been 50,000 Japanese troops, all of them as well equipped, if not better, than the Americans and backed up with the latest in heavy ordinance, etc., and entrenched in impregnable positions? This is what an invading PLA force would be facing if it tried to invade Taiwan.

One needs to recall that though China has about 2.5 million troops, much of their equipment is still largely obsolete. Furthermore, analysts believe that not even this many troops could take Taiwan.

Beijing fully understands that the longer such an attacked continued the more likely it would be that public opinion in America would swing behind government action to help Taiwan. And of course there is still the United States 1979 Taiwan Relations Act which would allow America to supply the island with the necessary assistance to defend if attacked. This is something that Beijing has not forgotten.

Any assault on Taiwan would involve losses so massive that no government could survive the public reaction, especially if the war was lost. And that's the one point that Beijing clearly understands, even though Western journalists can't seem to grasp it. It has to be stressed that this is no longer Mao's China where the leadership can throw away 1000,000 troops as if they were rag dolls and get away with it.

So if an attack on Taiwan would be political suicide, why the threats and posturing? The regime uses the Taiwan card very much the way America's Democratic Party uses the race card: to mobilise its supporters and demonise its enemies. It's also a means to not only test a new administration's mettle but the political temperament of the Democrats and the media.

Both have responded in ways that pleased Beijing, blaming not the bullying actions of the regime for the situation but President Bush's measured response. If patriotism is not yet dead in the Democratic Party it's only because it's still in a terminal state. (No wonder Beijing was desperate for the Democrats to control both Houses and the White House).

Finally, militaristic strutting is a crude attempt to intimidate the Taiwanese and any others who would be rash enough to support their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Sadly, this squalid tactic has worked with respect to Australia.

Several years ago, Malcolm Fraser, a former 'conservative' Australian prime minister, supported Beijing’s demands and argued that Australia should not support America over Taiwan whatever the situation. I have been told, however, that Fraser would still expect America to help defend Australia if attacked by any Asian country.

The Australian Labour Party also weighed in on Beijing's side, as one would expect from a party with a powerful anti-American faction. By and large, the Australian media also blamed Bush, as did America’s mainstream media. Beijing puts great faith in the Western media, which should tell us a great deal about most so-called Western journalists.

I'm referred to Australia because Chinese officials were particularly pleased that powerful Australian influences sided with Beijing by blaming Bush. They think that if the Australian Labour Party wins the next election, which my editor thinks is a distinct possibility, they will be able to intimidate it into supporting a more influential role for China in the region.

This, in the regime's view, would be specially important because of Australia's close ties with the US. It would also signal to the rest of Asia with whom its future really lies.

It seems impossible to underestimate the short-sightedness and stupidity of some Australian politicians (American politicians like Senator Kerry are even worse). Asian politicians are under no illusions regarding Beijing’s integrity or long-term political ambitions so what's the problem with the Australian Labour Party? Doesn’t it realise that Beijing's warlords have only contempt for those who kowtow to them?

 

[Quix]

I agree.

[Quix]

Perhaps they think they could just pile bodies sufficient for a bridge across the strait.

. . . not totally fingers in cheek.

[Quix]

Some truth to that, imho.

HOWEVER, Assme all 3 decide to collude to shred USA's economic, political and military might . . . planning AFTER that to deal with the remaining two of them. . . .

[Quix]

HOWEVER,

I know dozens and dozens of Mid-level Party leaders who are planning to end up with a much more democratic, much less tyrannical, despotic country. They have been shopping around, chewing, endlessly discussing precisely what form of government would be BEST FOR CHINA. These are serious, patriotic people not at all naive to the Party's flaws.

These people are gaining power and position year by year. And, actually, that trend has been largely sanctioned, chosen even by the Central Committee in Beijing.

[Quix]

Doesn't sound like a stupid plan at all.

[Quix]

I think that AT LEAST

it is FAR

from an AUTOMATIC given.

[Quix]

I agree.

But again . . . the quickness with which it was slapped down, related, IMHO, to the old issue of

WEAKNESS in leadership vs STRENGTH and perceived strength.

[Quix]

I haven't put out a call for them!!!

Don't plan to, either!

[Quix]

I have often laughed at that fact.

They are CERTAINLY NATURAL BORN CAPITALISTS!

Ruthless capitalists, too many of them!

[Quix]

You are quite right!

Thanks for the link.

[Quix]

Clever idea but I doubt it would hide much for long.

[risk]

Neither have I. But they'll find it. Any moment they'll tell us that we can't have opinions about national security because one or more of us isn't in uniform. Posers.

Anyway, ask the average Americans on the street if Taiwan should be defended at America's risk, and they'll think for a minute, forget the precise subject of the question, and retort, "Better not be putting Taiwan at risk, there'll be hell to pay!"

[Teacher317]

Conquest seems like a waste of effort if you destroy Taiwan's high-tech infrastructure. What have you gained?

CONTROL. That's all they care about.

[Cronos]

Assme all 3 decide to collude to shred USA's economic, political and military might . . . planning AFTER that to deal with the remaining two of them.

Neither India nor Russia trust China -- they're applying the old m,ilitary rule that your neighbour is your enemy. They won't collude to knock out the US, unless they can reduce China to vassal status and that isn't going to happen. They would rather associate with the US and were doing so, except for the short-sightedness of some of the cold war dinosaurs we've still got hanging about.

[Cronos]

I'm sory, please copy the comments you're replying to, it gets a bit confusin!

[Quix]

LOL.

Actually, it's a rare thing if the man on the street in the USA has a clue where Taiwan is.

Too few Americans care a twit what's beyond their network, neighborhood, city, state and certainly national boundaries.

[Quix]

Furthermore, the Taiwanese navy isn't that great either. The Chinese have air power advantage. THey blow up Taiwanese ships and just need troop carriers to take a couple of million militia (spare young men) across to quell the Taiwanese military. Then, they send in the experienced troops.

That doesn't sound like a bad plan at all.

Though I'm sure Poohbah could find plenty of flaws in it.

[Quix]

I run into very, very few people who realize this is a very SERIOUS factor, a very REAL factor in Chinese politics and military thinking.

To some degree, it is even a broadly held gestalt in the populace.

[painter]

"Maybe if Kerry were elected."

Kerry would call the cops on them.Then the PRC would be in real trouble!

[GOP_1900AD]

I am well aware of friction. The biggest mistake Western analysts make in viewing scenarios of the PRC conquering Taiwan is overly couching it as "an amphibious invasion." A more likely model would be Norway 1940.