Posted on 02/10/2004 7:04:20 PM PST by Dr. Marten
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?
They know they'd lose if the USN shows up. It is all predicated on us staying out, whether because they have the right kind of coward in the White House, or there is enough trade money on the line, or they can threaten to hit a few of even our ships, or LA for that matter, or we are too busy dealing with the proxy troublemakers they've set in our path and armed (from North Korea to the Sudan). If they think we might not, they won't go. Not for cost reasons, but because they know they'd get their tails kicked.
Just Taiwan, on the other hand, they are gearing up to be able to take. The land force "we are all Japanese in coral bunkers who will fight to the last man" line is silly. The Chicoms aren't worried about that and they've no real reason to be. The question is does their shipping get sunk or does it get enough men over and keep them supplied.
As for their conventional warhead missiles, they have no military significance. They make for saber rattling, that's all. They aren't accurate enough to hit e.g. an airfield, as opposed to a whole city. Missiles that inaccurate either use nukes or do next to nothing. They don't need 500 of them to use nukes.
As for the idea they can't try it or won't, that might be naive. Dictators do dumb things all the time, that lose and get them smacked. Being surrounded by apple polishers is not conducive to rational assessment of risks, people make mistakes, some don't care what happens to those they shovel around.
The thing to focus on is making sure if they go, they get sunk in the Taiwan strait and lose. If that is clear enough that they don't go, great. If they go anyway, so sorry, sink their fleet, Taiwan survives. The target is not their will in the matter but their capabilities. Outmatch those and the worst that happens is they break a lance for the stupidity of tyrants.
IRBM strikes: ineffective unless you're using nukes. And if you're using nukes, the rest of the invasion CONOPS is worthless.
Air drops: expensive way to put troops into place
Hovercraft: there's a reason that the USMC doesn't use LCACs (Landing Craft Air Cushion) for forcible entry (i.e., hitting a hostile beach that actually has troops defending it). That reason is that when a fifty-caliber machine-gun stitches the skirt, that LCAC is going to stay where it is--and an LCAC is an extremely expensive way to drop off troops on a one-way mission.
Boats arriving in seized ports: Well, yes...with all of the dock facilities blown up.
As I've pointed out to you more than once, if your CONOPS requires tactics that do not work (conventional IRBM strikes, large-scale airborne drops, etc.), or tactics that the defender's active help in order to work (i.e., not doing anything to oppose the assault, such as blowing up the port facilities, or not attacking and destroying the one and only main supply route available to the attacker), then your idea is, to put it mildly, pretty stupid.
Please give us a dissertation on Clausewitz's concept of friction and how it would affect a complicated endeavor such as an amphibious assault
For a "neo-Clausewitzian," you sure seem to have a tenuous grasp of the concept of friction, which was one of the central elements of Clausewitz's work.
Israel has never officially stated that they have nuclear weapons.
But everyone knows that they do.
Taiwan doesn't have to formally announce that they have nukes.
But, given that they worked with the Israeli nuclear program for 20+ years, they really don't have to.
On the other hand, optimist me thinks China would be so different in 20 years they would not want to take Taiwan by force.
If China becomes democratic (if a large enough middle class develops it will probably happen!) then Taiwan may ask to rejoin China on their own...
I think what the Maoist fossils in Beijing are hoping for is a hyper jimmuh carter type president who gives up Taiwan to the China like Chamberlain and the weak willed Europeans gave up the Sudetenland to Germany in 1938...
Since the population of China is not "thousands of millions," this statement is false.
Second, "getting there is half the fun."
China doesn't have a navy worthy of the name.
Absent absolute naval supremacy (over the Taiwanese AND the US Navy), the ChiComs will run out of shipping long before they run out of soldiers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.