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?

 

[GOP_1900AD]

The role of any airborne troops in a Taiwan conquest would likely be quite limited. The WW-II analogy is not correct. How confident are you in your assessment regarding air superiority? And why do you assume that the PLAAF would be the only force in play from the attacking side?

[GOP_1900AD]

However the effects of complete vaporization by nuclear warheads is undeniable. Removal. The only question is, what is to be removed.

[ZULU]

Beijing may be unwilling to face the economic fallout that would occur if they attacked Taiwan. They are raking in millions and millions from the U.S. which is turning into an economc serf of the Red Devil. They could lose this over a small island.

Profit may trumph pride in the Red Chinese mind - for now.

[GOP_1900AD]

Think Norway 1940, with a few assymetrical attacks thrown into the mix. Think DF-21s with radiation enhanced warheads. How would DF-21s with radiation enhanced warheads make subsequent invasion worthless? For that matter, how would DF-21s, with other nuclear warheads of low yield (but ones perfectly capable of destroying an airfield, or, critical C4I) preclude invasion? Let's assume something even worse - big city busters applied to Taipei (but not Hsichu). Still, an invasion could proceed and the PRC still gets the gold. So what if a bunch of peasants die from rad poisoning 2 days after invasion? Do you think that the PLA is infested with diversity trainers, occupational health specialists and lawyers?

[GOP_1900AD]

Guess what the "technology" was which the Red Army used to clear minefields! ;)

[GOP_1900AD]

"the use of the weapon would invite an immediate and massive response in kind from us. "Would it? How sure are you? How confident are you of the Western will to use WMDs? And what impact would all the MoveOn and International ANSWER types have? Could you even be sure that, for example, the US presidency would *not* be occupied by a Maoist?

[GOP_1900AD]

They are natural born Nazis.

[Jim Cane]

...yet.

We already sold them the rope, but they still need to steal purchase some western technology from us in order to complete the scaffolding.

Within eight years, free Taiwan will be just a memory, and neither the pubs nor dems will do a dang thing about it.

[GOP_1900AD]

I must challenge this orthodoxy. It is not unthinkable that we now stand on the verge of a 21st century version of the Yuan Dynasty. Obvious modifications being that the confederation is not one of the Chinese with northern "barbarians" who have invaded China and settled in, but one of the Chinese with the northerners in situ. Theoretically, given well publicized geopolitical partnerships since 1990, the confederation could actually also include a number of states to the West and Southwest, and match the greatest extent of the Great Hoarde almost exactly. If such a confederation challenges the West, we are facing a challenge not seen for over 500 years.

[tallhappy]

a war that could somehow be started at a time when the Coalition is "too busy elsewhere" to respond would be high on the PRC's list of desirables

Which is why the communists in Beijing are behind so much of the proliferation that takes place and support terrorist sponsoring regimes.

[Cronos]

The Yuan Dynasty was the Mongol dynasty. This happened when China was conquered by the Mongols -- it wasn't eh Chinese seeking Empire, but the Mongols with the Chinese subordinate to them. the Chinese weren't the ones who moved west, the Mongols did.

Russia and China, neither will want to be subordinate to the other, ditto for india and China. Why would the Russians ally themselves with the greatest threat to their existence? Why would the Indians ally themselves to a culture they consider inferior? It wouldn't work. Neither side trusts the other.

[Fee]

I would not use that argument for Taiwanese independence, because an avid proChinese person familiar with US History can counter that since California, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona were never part of the US prior to 1848, you would not oppose Mexico's right to arm and support Latino separatist in US to rebel and declare those states independent from US? I think the real issue is not that Taiwan is part or not part of China. The Chinese can argue that Taiwan was part of Ming Dynasty since 1621. The native Taiwanese will argue that they were separate and distinct before Ming rule. The Taiwanese Chinese debate will become like many territorial disputes, how far back in history does one want to go? I think the main issue for us is what is in the US interest and can we strategicly back our position. Taiwan wants independence, can the US back such a move and what is the strategic price? I think there are military/strategic realities that will prevent support. We are in the beginning of a war with the Islamic world. It is possible that the war can degenerate into a war between civilizations (US versus Islamic non government forces supported by private Islamic manpower and money). This is not a minor undertaking, and it will require alot of US time, money and resources. Do we have the strength and resources to fight Islamic terrorist and take on Chinese reaction if we support Taiwan independence. Remember China may back down against US forces, but she can restart her support of liberation movements in South America and Africa against US interests.

[Dr. Marten]

I suppose one could make the arguements that you state. However they would be groundless.

It doesn't matter how long the Ming possessed Taiwan because the fact remains that China lost possession of the island in 1895 when it was legitimately ceded to Japan by the Shimonoseki Treaty. The "PRC" has never held possession of Taiwan. Period!

[paul51]

Why Beijing will not attack Taiwan

Two words. Trident submarines

[Fee]

This is why there is a conflict between Mainland China and Taiwan. Both sides feel strongly about who owns Taiwan, and each side can armed themselves with historical info. China did not willingly give Imperial Japan Taiwan. China was defeated in a war with Japan as she attempted to defend Korea against a Japanese invasion. Many historians will tell you that this was a war deliberately provoked by Japan in order to establish a Japanese Empire which unchecked grew large enough to attack the US in 1941. China did not "legitimately" give Taiwan to Japan. You make it sound like the act was a benign one. To the Chinese (Communist and nonCommunist), the treaty was unfair, coerced, humiliating and immoral. It is one thing if China started a war with Japan and lost Taiwan, but it is another when Japan started the war and got Taiwan. I do know a number of Nationalist Chinese who do not support Communist China but believe Taiwan is historically part of China. The net result is the nationalistic feelings of the Chinese and native Taiwanese are creating the potential for a military clash that can drag the US in. The question still remains, do we get involve and what are the consequences? I do not think our leaders have a definite answer. The Taiwanese politician needs to know what that answer is before they go out and make declarations for independence. We freepers need to know what that answer is before we go out and encourage Taiwanese to declare indpendence. Remember Finland were wronged by the Soviets, but they had to survive in post World War II and Cold War. They hated the Russians, but they knew they can not provoke the Soviet Union, because NATO can not reach them to save them. They found a way to live free with the Soviets as their neighbor. Some freepers may say where is your compassion, my response is look what happened to the Kurds and Shiites in 1991 when the US encouraged them to rebel against Saddam without calculating our ability to support them. In the end our Arab allies and UN reminded that the US is there to free Kuwait and not enter Iraq. Net result, alot of dead Kurds and Shiites.

[Brian Allen]

<< [The psychopathologically-hesperophobic Peking-based predatory pack of invading, colonizing, enslaving, lying, looting, thieving, mass-murdering gangster bastards that so grandiosely calls itself "china"] will retake [FRee Republic of China's] Taiwan when it perceives that The United States of America is no longer a threat ... >>

Blah blah blah.

1. In its wildest delusional fantasies it will.

Invade and conquer, that is, for it cannot "retake" that which has never belonged to it.

Any attempt by that gang to invade the FRee Republic of China will see the scrawny arses of its gutless babykillers in-soldier-suits kicked all the way to Kunming -- or even to chicom-occupied Tibet!

2. Insofar as any further aspirations are concerned to add even one square inch of the territories of the FRee Republic of China's, Taiwan, to the more than two and a half million square miles of other Peoples' lands and states and territories and Nations it already criminally occupies and colonizes -- the Peking gang also known as "china" and its billion or so subsisting on less than a Dollar a Day medieval serfs and slaves and baby-killer "armed forces" are concerned -- the United States of America, technologically effectively fifty to one hundred years in advance of peking's gang -- is forever a threat!

Our Amed Forces could put Peking's out of business in one week.

And Peking's '"man" in Washington' doesn't run its messages any more!

[Poohbah]

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.

Ahem, you are crossing a large water obstacle. That's an amphibious invasion. The Marine Corps may use air assets to lift troops and gain vertical envelopment, but it's still "amphibious warfare."

[Poohbah]

Think Norway 1940, with a few assymetrical attacks thrown into the mix. Think DF-21s with radiation enhanced warheads. How would DF-21s with radiation enhanced warheads make subsequent invasion worthless? For that matter, how would DF-21s, with other nuclear warheads of low yield (but ones perfectly capable of destroying an airfield, or, critical C4I) preclude invasion?

Because you're still destroying infrastructure needed to sustain the invasion force. The PLA's logistics are, to put it charitably, about as inept and divorced from the realities of combat as your proposed war plans are. The only way the ChiComs will be able to sustain their forces is to capture INTACT logistics infrastructure on Taiwan--which is unlikely in the extreme, especially if they're nuking it.

Also, there will be real consequences to the ChiComs. Remember that treaty between China and Russia that you like to crow about? It'll be dead and buried--probably under the ejecta from multiple Russian warheads landing on Beijing.

If the ChiComs are willing to use nukes on Taiwan, where ELSE might they be willing to use nukes? Vladivostock?

[Poohbah]

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.

How do the militia men get to Taiwan? Swim?

[Poohbah]

I think it would be foolish to believe that the United States would respond with a nuclear retalliation against China for using it's nuclear arsenal on Taiwan.

You're probably right.

But the Russians likely WOULD, because the ChiComs also have irredentist claims on Siberia.