Posted on 02/14/2004 8:35:39 PM PST by milestogo
Nope, not over Taiwan, but over threatening American cities with annihilation. That was the scenario you posited, that they threatened us. Take them out.
This is not the playground, we're way past that threshold. We're already doing that to each other, have been for a while. Matter of fact, we did it first.
Unlike the Soviet Union, China does not have parity in the nuke department, so you can not think in terms of MAD. Come out of the Cold War. Since our existance is not being threatend, our willingness to end someone else's is less. And rightly so.
All nations must either possess a capable strategic nuclear weapon arsenal that can withstand a first strike and respond massively or possess no nuclear arsenal at all for MAD to work. Its not all or nothing in this scenario. China does not possess the capapbility to annihalate us. In addition to governing a police-state the lack of that capability gives China the better hand.
I'll be blunt about it: "I am not willing to give all this up for Taiwan, and my leaders answer to me." And of course they do. And of course China knows this.
...and black Muslims in prisons. We're in a world of hurt.
BLOAT.
Agreed, so let's have free trade with them. Outsource all of our manufacturing know how. That'll teach them!!!
Actually, it isn't.
Now we have this Taiwan thing. Is Taiwan worth pulling that trigger? There is no guarantee we will sucessfully hit all thier missles.
We're likely to hit all of the missiles that can actually reach the US mainland.
However, even if we don't, there IS a guarantee that we will vaporize a large chunk of China in return--and that will probably deter them from making a truly moronic threat in the first place.
It's called "escalation dominance."
Our foremost interest in the Pacific Rim is stability. A ChiCom invasion of Taiwan would threaten that stability. Among other things, it would encourage Japan to go nuclear--something that is likely to scare a lot of the countries (Korea, Vietnam, and the Phillippines come to mind) in the region, and impel them to either go nuclear as well, or to seek an alliance with a nuclear power.
addition to all the potential infrastructure we could lose (cities, sattelites, people), we will have no friends in the world. None, not even the Brits.
Oh, we'll have friends.
People generally respect strength and fortitude.
Doesn't China's behavior with Hong Kong factor in to this too?
Nope. It was a completely different situation--in the case of Hong Kong, British sovereignty ended on a long-predetermined and mutually agreed date. Taiwan's sovereignty over Taiwan has no such end date.
Do we have any reason to believe that Taiwan will turn it into East Berlin?
Yes. The Taiwanese really no longer view themselves as Chinese--and they wish to remain independent from China. To overcome that, the ChiComs will come down hard on Taiwan. A better model for what would happen is Tibet.
Is it even in China's interest to do so? Of course not.
It's in their interest to let sleeping dogs lie; I just don't expect them to fully understand that without some prospect of grievous national damage if they wake the dogs up.
They are just tired of being humilited by the political posturing in Taiwan. It is afterall, as a matter of US policy, their island.
I think that policy is a grievous error. It supports despotism at the expense of a freely-elected government--which, if I read US overall foreign policy goals correctly, is contrary to our stated national policy. We should simply encourage Taiwan to renounce all claim to mainland China; once that is done, we should establish state-to-state relations with Taipei and a mutual defense pact.
Now, suppose we let China take Taiwan? Think to yourself all the likley repercussions of this, and there a few bad ones, and how it effects you and the United States. Is it worth it?
Yes, it's worth it, unless you really want the Northeastern Pacific turned into a repeat of the late and unlamented Cold War, with its attendant dangers. The other nations in the region will not react calmly to the prospect of China running amok. Japan may opt for preventive warfare, even if we don't.
Do you remember that after the Senate briefings regarding 9-11, one Senator stated that there was another state involved in the assault ? Many here believed he was referring to Saudi Arabia, but I've always thought it was China.
Actually, most of our missiles are not targeted on any one spot.
We could, if we were willing to largely disarm ourselves, give China one hell of a nuking.
We, the American people, do not want to vaporize a large chunk of China.
Quite true. We didn't want to vaporize the XUSSR, either.
All bets are off when China threatens America with nuclear attack over Taiwan, though. The national mood will change swiftly.
We will not likely hit all thier missles. How can you possibly claim otherwise?
Because they only have 20 missiles that can actually hit the United States, and they sit in silos. We know exactly where those silos are, and they are not mobile targets.
We will not have friends. Everyone will fear us or detest us. Cooperation and respect are completely different things.
Ahem. "Let them detest us, so long as they fear us more."
Fear engenders a great deal of respect and cooperation. Witness Libya.
So you are suggesting that we abandon the current policy of respecting China's claim to Taiwan in favor of bestowing soverignty on Taiwan.
We would not be "bestowing" sovereignty on Taiwan--they already have it.
We would merely be recognizing reality.
What if we're the only country that recognizes this?
It would be enough.
What if Taiwan refuses to renouce its claim to mainland China?
They're likely to do that anyway in the next few years--the old-line Nationalists who oppose renouncing claims to the mainland are dying out.
The relation to Hong Kong is about economics. China is not dumb, they want the wealth that Taiwan has and they want it to continue to be properous. Thats what were seeing in Honk Kong.
Again, the situations are not analogous.
Hong Kong was always more Chinese than Taiwan ever was--and Taiwan has gradually become less and less Chinese than they were in 1949. The Taiwanese natives--and ethnic Chinese who have no memory of China as it was under Chiang Kai-Shek--are now gaining political ascendancy.
The one did not object to reunification with China--the other most likely will, with every weapon at its disposal. And those weapons probably include nuclear warheads.
You say our goal is stability. But that is not China's goal.
Actually, they want regional stability as well--only on their terms.
That enables them to force us into a choice of less stable (they take Taiwan) or complete destruction of the region.
If they try it, they may get the latter without any input from us.
We may wind up being what keeps Taiwan from using nukes.
It ties our hands not theirs.
It may tie our hands to an interventionist posture,
You said "A ChiCom invasion of Taiwan would threaten that stability." But a nuclear attack would destroy everything.
No, it wouldn't.
It would change the entire political and economic state of the world.
And nobody in their right mind would support the ChiComs when they were the ones threatening nuclear force, or provoking a first use by doing so.
They are betting that we would rather have a little less but still stable economic parters (China, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, etc) than a nuclear wasteland over there. And they are correct.
OK. Gut-check time for you. In this scenario, you are the President of the United States.
The ChiComs launch their invasion...and the President of Taiwan calls you and says, "Mister President, we are not going to go quietly into that good night. You have two choices: either send large amounts of military aid, or we will launch a nuclear strike on Beijing and Shanghai, and several other cities where American companies have major investments. As you say in America, 'your move, Bubba.'"
What is your decision?
Very well. China, therefore, is threatening us with nukes.
2. But the USSR was threatening us with total annihialtion, China is not and thus we are less keen on using nukes against them. Again, MAD is at play here. We were quite willing to destroy the USSR if they tried to destroy us.
And we're quite willing to destroy China if they threaten us with nukes.
3. As far as their nuclear arsenal, my confidence in our intelligence is not as high as yours. In light of recent events, I have every reason to doubt its accuracy.
Since we're likely to go after ChiCom command and control assets as well as their ICBMs, any surviving missiles are unlikely to be launched.
4. Caligula does not rule this country. And, regardless I'm not talking about Libya and their like, I'm talking about the UK, Australia, Canada and the rest of our friends.
Cut and run, and you won't have those friends for long.
5. Taiwan is not soverign. From the US State Department: "With the establishment of diplomatic relations with China on January 1, 1979, the US Government recognized the People's Republic of China as the sole legal government of China and acknowledged the Chinese position that there is only one China and that Taiwan is part of China." Nor is Taiwan a member of the United Nations.
Frankly, I don't give an airborne fornication at a rolling doughnut what the UN thinks of Taiwan's sovereignty--and while we, at present, do not recognize that sovereignty, the Taiwanese actually do have sovereignty. Possession, after all, is nine points of the law.
6. Taiwan does not have nuclear weapons.
You go off on a tear about how China's nuclear arsenal is bigger than I think and that our intelligence is lousy, and then you come out with THAT piece of stupidity.
Taiwan has nukes. They worked with South Africa and Israel in the 1970s to develop and produce nuclear weapons.
If we gave them nukes, we are in direct violation of the Non-proliferation treaty.
We didn't.
If they developed them on their own and introduced them into the strategic situation without telling us, then screw them. (More on that later)
Trust me, the US knows about the Taiwanese nuclear arsenal.
7. Yes, a nuclear attack would destroy everything we are trying to keep stable. I know enough about nukes to know that a limited strike is not catastrophic, that was not my arguement. The effect would be catastrophioc from an economic and political view.
Yup. Now, which way are you going to jump, goombah?
8. We cannot launch a first strike. We do not have a policy that guarantees Taiwan soverignity with US nuclear weapons.
I wasn't talking about US nukes as the first and only option.
Simply employing US maritime supremacy would be sufficient. Any invasion must cross water to land troops, and to sustain those troops.
Quite the contray really, since we don't even recognize their soverignity.
As I pointed out, that is an erroneous posture on our part.
This is critical to world opinion in the aftermath of a first strike by the United States.
I wasn't talking about using nuclear weapons.
If we hit them hard, and they dont hit us (soverign US territory) at all - we will lose all credibility in the world.
Quite the contrary. Everyone would quickly figure out that threatening a nuclear strike on the US is probably a really f***ing stupid idea.
If we'd gone with my first impulse after 9/11 (nuclear strikes on Damascus, Baghdad, Tripoli, Teheran, and other major urban areas in terrorist-sponsoring states), I guaran-damn-tee you, we would not have a terrorist problem anymore.
9. Now with all that in mind, I'll address your scenario exactly as you presented it. "Mr. President, go ---- yourself."
OK, I'll give you the subsequent events.
No punk politician of an island smaller than Maryland is going to decide when America goes to war by giving the Preisdent of the United States a ultimatum. That is nuclear blackmail with a different face.
All the President of Taiwan is saying is that Taiwan will go nuclear against China.
You basically indicated that you didn't give a damn about what happened next.
Subsequent events: Best Case
What happens is that, first, there is a nuclear exchange over Taiwan, with the world demanding to know how the hell that happened. Second: eventually, the conversation leaks out.
When the world finds out that the US told Taiwan to go to hell, The US will discover that it has no friends--exactly what you feared would happen. The world would blame America's refusal to intervene with conventional forces for the subsequent nuclear exchange.
India would probably decide on a "limited nuclear strike," of 50 warheads or so, to take care of their Pakistan problem--because you've just demonstrated that America will not restrain Pakistan when push comes to shove. Pakistan decides to do exactly the same to India, because America has just demonstrated that they won't restrain India.
Australia and New Zealand would be likely to terminate the ANZAC alliance and cut a deal with China--because we've just demonstrated that we're cowards. The Strait of Malacca would be closed to US warships--Singapore and Malaysia are NOT going to bet their sovereignty on America's willingness to help them. Japan and Korea are likely to do this as well--US forces will be forced out of those countries. Congratulations, you will be remembered as the President who got America kicked out of the Western Pacific and the Indian Ocean.
A Chinese invasion of Taiwan would be the most marginal military operation in the history of mankind.
If you will not fight them in that event, when victory is easy...you never will fight them. You will always find another reason to concede, no matter how great the concession. Eventually, you will go on television, holding up a copy of Mao's Red Book and telling the American people that it's far better to be Red than Dead.
Subsequent events: Worst Case
The Taiwanese nuclear strike takes place. The Chinese retaliate. Taiwan falls.
A few weeks later, a satellite is placed into orbit by an unidentified commercial customer.
As the satellite passes over Toledo, Ohio, it detonates with a yield of approximately three megatons.
The subsequent electromagnetic pulse covers a region extending from Chicago in the west to New York and Washington in the east. Canada's most densely inhabited region also gets zapped. This region is thrust back into the 19th century.
In a microsecond, trillions of dollars simply disappear, and some of the world's largest cities simply stop working. Millions of people who cannot live without the support of a 21st century infrastructure are suddenly left to their own devices.
The ensuing global depression destroys the United States as any sort of viable nation-state--along with everyone else. Life will increasingly resemble the movie "Mad Max."
A note is found taped to the White House fence.
It simply says, "We saved one warhead as a special gift for you. Mister President, go f*** yourself. Sincerely, the now-deceased President of Taiwan."
But, in addition to just being snide, you are attempting to present conjecture as fact to advance your arguement. It is useless to debate with someone who disagrees on the facts.
In addition, if you still believe that your first impulse after 9/11 (nuking every muslim city in the world) would have been our best policy. Then you and I have no common ground on which to discuss.
And I'm uncomfortable with the private messsage I sent you, after reading this response because it was based on my belief that you and I share a common vison for our future. This was clearly a misjudgement on my part.
However I cannot resist addressing one of your conjectures, becuase it seems to invalidate your entire arguement.
If indeed Taiwan possesses a nuclear capapbility, why on earth do they require US protection?
Because China may be willing to take a few nuclear warheads' worth of damage--losing Beijing and Shanghai, for example--in return for gaining control of Taiwan. Taiwan's arsenal is very small. It can, at most, get revenge.
And in a situation where all is lost, that revenge might be inflicted on the poltroons who enabled China's aggression, instead of or in addition to China.
The United States can actually stop China from being able to successfully invade Taiwan, by making China unable to sustain its forces on Taiwan.
Taiwan does not have a Navy on a par with the US 7th Fleet, and will not for the foreseeable future. That is what they would need to reasonably secure in their ability to stop a ChiCom invasion after 2010 or so. After that, it's hope that China is as sane as you are. They may be that reasonable. But they may not.
Nuclear weapons, unless deployed in quantities similar to those maintained at the height of the Cold War, are not war-winning options. They merely serve to make winning extremely costly--or give a pitifully small amount of comfort to the loser.
Conventional force is the war-winning option.
As for your private reply--yes, you should be uncomfortable with it. Craven surrender to aggression that can be easily defeated is not a conservative trait. It is the trait of a John F***ing Kerry or Hillary Rodham Clinton. If you will not fight when it is easy to do so, you will find any one of a number of reasons to avoid fighting later on--until you've surrendered everything.
"Nuclear weapons, unless deployed in quantities similar to those maintained at the height of the Cold War, are not war-winning options."
This statement signals your lack of a thourough understanding of Mutually Assured Desrtuction. The quanities of nuclear weapons employed by the Soviet Union and the United States created a war-losing situation not a war-winning situation. And thus prevented us from going to war. Which is why I stated in an earlier post that MAD only works if both nations can annihilate each other. This is why it does not apply to China and the US, or China and Taiwan.
And you're right soverignty doesnt come from the UN or even the wish to be independent. Soverignty, as defined by history, comes from your ability to deter a potential aggresor. I believe Taiwan lacks this capability, because I believe they do not have a nuclear arsenal. However you believe that they do. And if they do, then they have an effective deterrent against an aggressor that wishes to rule them, and does not require our protection. When a nation fields a nuclear force they are annoucing, "This We will defend."
China's goal is control of Taiwan, not its destruction. Doesn't Taiwan's small nuclear arsenal serve as an effective deterrent? In accordance with its goals, China's only option is diplomacy or a conventional invasion. The latter is ruled out by Taiwan's nuclear arsenal. Taiwan can prevent an invasion with a small nuclear arsenal. I'm not sure I follow the logic of Taiwan striking Chinese cities, and thus inviting retaliation against its cities. Certainly the Chinese might respond to a nuclear strike against its invasion fleet by nuking the island, but that betrays its goals. All of this taken together suggests that neither nuclear strike nor conventional attack fulfills China's goal. So why would China follow a path that can not satisfy its goals?
Why are you so eager to be an active participant in the defense of Taiwan. Is not the best policy available to you the one that allows Taiwan to defend itself? If they have nukes, you should be satisfied. If they don't you should advocate it. But why embroil the Unites States directly in this conflict? Is it simply a need to have people dependent upon you for your own gratification?
My postion is not cowardice. It is rooted firmly in my patriotism and my belief that people have the right to self-determination. If Taiwan wants to claim immortal independence from China, then they must be prepared to defend it - alone. Anything less is just illusion.
It's fair comment. You were too cowardly to say it in public. Its content makes it clear that you are one who seeks to accomodate tyrants.
China's goal is control of Taiwan, not its destruction. Doesn't Taiwan's small nuclear arsenal serve as an effective deterrent?
Maybe it does.
Maybe it doesn't.
It depends on whether China is being rational by our standards.
They might not be.
In accordance with its goals, China's only option is diplomacy or a conventional invasion. The latter is ruled out by Taiwan's nuclear arsenal.
How so?
Taiwan can prevent an invasion with a small nuclear arsenal.
Please give me a viable CONOPS that absolutely guarantees that.
I'm not sure I follow the logic of Taiwan striking Chinese cities, and thus inviting retaliation against its cities.
OK, then you're talking about Taiwan nuking its own territory.
Certainly the Chinese might respond to a nuclear strike against its invasion fleet by nuking the island, but that betrays its goals.
An invasion fleet is less of a viable nuclear target than you think--and when you only have a small arsenal, the only viable use is countervalue targeting, which means targeting the enemy's cities.
All of this taken together suggests that neither nuclear strike nor conventional attack fulfills China's goal.
Gosh, you sure are glib in making that assumption.
Not everybody out there is content to sing "Kumbaya" with you.
So why would China follow a path that can not satisfy its goals?
Because they might not be as perfectly rational as you believe them to be.
Why are you so eager to be an active participant in the defense of Taiwan.
Because, unlike you, I'm not in the business of dropping trou, bending over, and greasing up for every totalitarian thug out there.
If they have nukes, you should be satisfied.
Again, the ChiComs may not be as perfectly rational as you wish them to be.
But why embroil the Unites States directly in this conflict?
Because, goombah, China seeks global hegemony. They really believe that the rest of the world should follow your example and kowtow to them.
Is it simply a need to have people dependent upon you for your own gratification?
Nope. It's grounded in an understanding that free people had best hang together, lest we all get hung separately.
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.