Ignore the rhetoric, China won't attack Taiwan

Asian Times ^ | 2-11-04 | Daniel McCarthy

[tallhappy]

Ignore the rhetoric, China won't attack Taiwan
By Daniel McCarthy

Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have their say. Please click here if you are interested in contributing.

Over the past several years, reports of China threatening to attack Taiwan have become commonplace. The Chinese government has repeatedly and consistently pronounced that it would attack Taiwan under several conditions:

• If Taiwan declares independence.
• If foreign troops are present on Taiwan.
• If Taiwan develops a nuclear device.
• If Taiwan delays "reunification".
  
  The stridency of China's threats against Taiwan is impressive indeed. The message comes through loud and clear in the English-language media, and it is even more pointed in the domestic Chinese media, in which photographs of Chinese jet fighters and tanks accompany articles warning that Taiwan's leaders are heading into the abyss of war. On the surface, all of this could be quite convincing - China intends to use military force against Taiwan if any of the above conditions are met. But looks can be very deceiving.
  
  Most of China's conditions for war against Taiwan have already been met - and there is even plausible speculation about a nuclear device. But no war has occurred, nor is it likely to take place. Here is an examination of China's four conditions.
  
  Declaration of independence
  With regard to declaring independence, when Lee Tung-hui was president of Taiwan, he stated that Taiwan was an independent and sovereign entity. China ignored that statement. Only when Lee stated that the relationship between Taiwan and China should be "special state-to-state" relations did China react. The reaction was vociferous and fierce, but it eventually quieted down.
  
  The current Taiwanese president, Chen Shui-bian, and Vice President Annette Lu have also stated very publicly that Taiwan is already an independent and sovereign nation. Recently Chen even stated that there are three countries on both sides of the Taiwan Strait that arose from the old Republic of China: Taiwan, China and Mongolia. Apart from polemic insults against President Chen and Vice President Lu, the reactions of Chinese leaders to these statements have been amazingly muted.
  
  It would seem that these statements asserting Taiwan's independence and sovereignty, as well as its separateness from China, would satisfy anyone's definition of a declaration of independence - but not China's.
  
  The leaders of China work very hard to ignore the substance of those statements because if they were to acknowledge the statements as a declaration of independence, China's bluff would have been called and it would be forced to start a war with Taiwan or lose face. We are left to wonder what, if any, type of statement coming from Taiwan would be seen as a declaration of independence sufficient to satisfy China's condition and initiate a war. It is definitely clear that Taiwan has repeatedly declared and asserted its independent status.
  
  To justify its inaction in the face of these statements of independence, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) on the one hand takes the position that although Taiwan may not be part of the People's Republic of China (PRC), it is still part of China. But on the other hand the CCP states that the PRC is the sole representative of China, and because Taiwan is part of China, the PRC has sovereignty over Taiwan. It is hard to understand the purpose of this close parsing of words, other than allowing the CCP to hide from the fact that Taiwan openly, publicly and repeatedly has asserted the readily apparent fact that it is not part of China.
  
  On the Taiwan side of the equation, a formal written document or plebiscite declaring that Taiwan is independent from the PRC is difficult to imagine. It would be nonsensical for any country to write a declaration of independence from another country that it has never been part of. There is no reason for Italy to declare independence from France, and likewise there is no reason for Taiwan to declare independence from the PRC, other than for sheer provocation.
  
  Instead of a declaration of independence, the reasonable and prudent course that we can expect Taiwan's politicians to take is to reform and rename Taiwan's institutions and legal structure to reflect the realities on the ground. That would include several key changes. For example, the Mainland Affairs Council will need to be moved bureaucratically into the Foreign Ministry to reflect accurately that dealings with the PRC are dealings with a foreign nation. The name of the nation also should be changed, eliminating the word "China", thus preventing confusion of foreigners and depriving the PRC of the use of Taiwan's name (Republic of China, ROC) for political purposes.
  
  And the constitution of the Republic of China, which was thrust upon Taiwan by a despotic dictator from China named Chiang Kai-shek, will need to be scrapped and replaced by a constitution that reflects the democratic mechanisms of governance implemented by the people of Taiwan, Jinmen, Matsu, Orchid Island, Green Island and Penghu.
  
  Since the various public declarations by Taiwan's elected government that Taiwan is an independent and sovereign entity have not resulted in an attack by China, it is unlikely that institutional reforms to reflect realities on the ground would precipitate an attack either. Even if one were to accept the PRC's position that Taiwan is part of China, if Beijing can write the PRC's constitution and a new Basic Law for Hong Kong, then Taiwan's democratically elected legislature can write a new constitution for Taiwan.
  
  Presence of foreign troops
  Another action that the PRC threatens will precipitate a war is the stationing of foreign troops on Taiwan. That condition has been true since the end of World War II, and so the basis for war appears already to exist. Although the 1970s saw the dismantling of formal US military bases on Taiwan, US troops and intelligence officers out of uniform have been consistently present on Taiwan and can be found there today.
  
  Military cooperation between the United States and Taiwan is at an all-time high, and it does not occur via long-distance telephone calls. US troops are on the ground helping Taiwan's military to procure new equipment, train its troops to use new hardware and technology, design and implement defense plans, and to integrate their defensive actions with those of other nations participating in the US defense umbrella.
  
  So what can the PRC mean when it says the presence of foreign troops on Taiwan will precipitate a war? From time to time the CCP articulates its paranoid view that Taiwan is an unsinkable aircraft carrier that the US will use to attack China, and perhaps the CCP is warning against a buildup that would precede such an attack.
  
  It is hard to imagine why the US would ever contemplate such an attack. The PRC has greatly contributed to US economic prosperity by providing very low-cost goods in numerous areas, including textiles and electronics - and the benefits flow both ways. Economically and politically the PRC is headed in the general direction that the US wants, although the glacial rate of political change in the PRC is retarded compared with the rate of political change in Western nations that once embraced communism.
  
  But if the PRC is intending to warn against a US military buildup on Taiwan that would precede a fantasy US attack on the PRC, we can safely ignore that eventuality ever coming about. If that were the warning the PRC intended to issue, it could have been given with greater lucidity and specificity..
  
  Instead, it appears that the PRC is using these words to shift blame to the United States for a war against Taiwan started by the PRC. In the event that it becomes apparent that the PRC intends to attack Taiwan, or if such an attack commences, it is highly likely that within 48-72 hours, US troops would be on Taiwan deploying additional anti-missile shields, as well as shoulder-fired and mobile anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles. Once those US combat troops are on Taiwan, the PRC can proclaim that its prohibition against the presence of foreign troops on Taiwan has been violated, and claim justification for its belligerence and subsequent actions.
  
  The solution to this dilemma for Taiwan seems to be the same solution that the PRC has employed with respect to a declaration of independence: ignore it. If a war erupts between Taiwan and China, it will really not matter who started it or what political propaganda surrounds it, as long as the damage to Taiwan is minimized and as long as the ships and planes that would attempt to bring troops to Taiwan can be stopped across the ocean before reaching Taiwan proper. That will involve US and probably Japanese troops, as their interests mandate maintaining a free Taiwan.
  
  Development of a nuclear device
  A couple of years ago the PRC announced that among the provocations that would incite a war against Taiwan was Taiwan's acquisition of a nuclear weapon. That statement came more than 20 years too late, since Taiwan had an active nuclear-weapons program in the 1970s. The PRC was not very concerned about Taiwan's nuclear program at the time, so it does not make sense to be concerned about it now.
  
  Probably the PRC statement warning against Taiwan's building a nuclear weapon was prompted by the PRC's own assistance with North Korea's active nuclear program. The PRC did not want a parallel between a nuclear Korea and a nuclear Taiwan. However, this ignores some important realities.
  
  Taiwan has the money, the scientists, the technology and the nuclear plants to build a nuclear weapon in very short order - in three to four months, according to some experts. To the extent that Taiwan has refrained from doing so reflects the tendency of Taiwan to avoid controversy and provocation. But of course no one can be absolutely sure that Taiwan has not built nuclear weapons already. Rumors abound that it has a handful of nuclear warheads that it can reliably deliver to Shanghai, and as far away as Beijing if the PRC's air defenses are severely damaged.
  
  Further, a few nuclear devices are missing from the former Soviet Union, and it is not known where those devices have gone. If they had gone to the Middle East, we can be certain that they would have been used on either Israel or the United States by now. Neither Eastern nor Western European nations have an interest in contraband nuclear weapons, and most of the rest of the world lacks the money and technological support to make use of a nuclear weapon effectively.
  
  It is reasonable to conclude that Taiwan may be the recipient of one or more former Soviet nuclear devices - given Taiwan's rich economy, freewheeling capitalism, experience in trading with all the far-flung nations of the world, and success in obtaining sophisticated weapons to defend itself from China in the face of weapons embargoes from some quarters.
  
  Of course, Taiwan would want to keep such acquisition secret unless a defensive disclosure is absolutely necessary. In the face of imminent attack by the PRC, Taiwan could declare itself a nuclear power and let the PRC know that the consequences of an invasion of Taiwan would be the destruction of key cities of the PRC, including both political centers and trading ports.
  
  At this point, uncertainty about Taiwan's nuclear program probably works to Taiwan's benefit so that Taiwan can avoid offending the United States' anti-proliferation sensibilities. But if China pushes Taiwan to the brink, then declaring itself a nuclear power could be an effective last-ditch effort to stop an ill-conceived war of Chinese aggression.
  
  Delayed 'reunification'
  The PRC also proclaims that Taiwan cannot delay "reunification" indefinitely, and if Taiwan does not move toward reunification, then war may result. Although the PRC refuses to give a timetable, one government spokesman has made the shrill and emotional claim that no timetable is too short for "reunification" - not even 24 hours.
  
  First, we must pause at the word "reunification". Since Taiwan has never been a part of the People's Republic of China, the term "reunification" is a misnomer. It would be better to call it "unification", a "merger", or some other descriptive term. China objects to such a concept, because unless an alliance with Taiwan is classified as reunification, China's claims of sovereignty and moral superiority are entirely without basis.
  
  But if we follow Beijing's lead in assuming that unification is ever to take place, there would need to be some discussions to iron out the details. Former president Jiang Zemin (now chairman of the Central Military Commission) has assured us that such discussions will not ever occur by demanding that Taiwan accept Beijing's so-called "one-China principle" as a precondition for any official contact between the governments of Taiwan and the PRC.
  
  Beijing's one-China principle goes something like this: "There is only one China in the world. Taiwan is an inalienable part of China. All references to 'China' mean the People's Republic of China." In the face of such an obnoxious precondition, no government in Taiwan will ever be able to have discussions with the PRC about the relationship between the two countries, no matter how sincere Taiwan may be about resolving this dispute. So while the PRC is insisting that Taiwan cannot delay the vaunted unification with the motherland, the PRC is simultaneously preventing any discussions from taking place between the governments.
  
  In contrast to Beijing's one-China principle, Washington has a one-China policy. That policy: Since Chinese on both sides of the Taiwan Strait think there is only one China, the US will recognize only one China as long as neither side uses force or coercion against the other. The US one-China policy was always based on a false assumption, since the will of the Taiwanese people was never consulted during the reign of Chiang Kai-shek when the policy was formulated. Further, with the PRC continually threatening war and certainly preparing for one, the other condition to Washington's one-China policy is also seen not to exist. Washington maintains this relic of former secretary of state Henry Kissinger's false steps in foreign policy hoping that eventually there will be a rational government in Beijing. So far, there appears to be little ground for such hope.
  
  Beijing's demands for unification with Taiwan coupled with the one-China principle, which is impossible for Taiwan to accept, create an irresolvable conflict. What can the PRC mean by such contradictory policies? It is very likely that the higher levels of government in the PRC know that the chance that Taiwan would ever choose a political union with China is infinitesimally small. Therefore, to avoid discussions with Taiwan that would not result in unification, the PRC has created a precondition (delay) that Taiwan cannot ever accept so as to blame Taiwan for delays in both the discussions and the unification.
  
  This is nothing more than a bad-faith political gambit by the PRC to shift blame for a dispute and crisis of its own creation. Yet this is one more of Beijing's conditions for war that is already satisfied - yet no war has started.
  
  Beijing would lose a war
  The rhetoric from the PRC about waging war against Taiwan is based on the following assumptions:
• The PRC would win such a war and as a result of winning such a war, the PRC would take over Taiwan.
• The CCP would remain in power after the conclusion of such a war. These assumptions bear examination in some detail.
  
  Western military analysts have said that during the next two years, China is likely to achieve military parity with Taiwan. Military parity, however, does not equate to winning a war or, much more important, mounting a successful invasion of Taiwan. The PRC military has long been known to be outrageously bureaucratic, inefficient, poor in communications and far from skilled in maintaining its equipment.
  
  Even when China achieves military parity with Taiwan, that does not mean it would be able to use its equipment to match Taiwanese soldiers on the battlefield. China would be fighting a war of conquest and invasion. Such a war requires a military to take and hold territory at a distance, using the air force and navy, and the current People's Liberation Army (PLA) has no experience with that kind of warfare.
  
  The common view at the Pentagon is that for China to successfully invade Taiwan, it would need to achieve complete air and naval superiority over the Taiwan Strait and over Taiwan itself, and then quickly land a million men on Taiwan for the land battle. If the million men were landed too slowly, they would be killed before they could mass in great enough numbers to be militarily effective.
  
  Even in World War II, after the United States had achieved clear naval and air superiority over Japan, General Douglas MacArthur thought he would need to land at least half a million men on Taiwan to invade successfully. At the time the US had 12 million men at arms, but even so MacArthur was not convinced of short-term success on Taiwan, so he bypassed it and went to the Japanese islands instead.
  
  China is not anywhere close to achieving complete air and naval superiority over Taiwan, not is it likely to achieve it at any time in the foreseeable future. Only a handful of mobile missile launchers on Taiwan could prevent an air- or sea-borne invasion force from setting foot on the island. And China only has amphibious transport for 10,000 men (assuming that none of the transports is sunk), not even enough to create a respectable beachhead. Therefore a Chinese invasion of Taiwan is an impossible task, and will remain impossible for the foreseeable future.
  
  Air and naval blockades would fail
  Another option is for the PRC to try to enforce a naval and air embargo of Taiwan. An air embargo would not be effective, since Taiwan's air force has more skilled pilots who would be operating in their home territory, while the PLA's less experienced flyers would be operating at nearly the limits of their fuel supply to prevent shipments reaching Taiwan. An air embargo would likely cost the PLA hundreds of jet fighters for little benefit.
  
  A naval blockade might sound intimidating, but considering the vulnerability of PRC ships to attack from missiles, planes and submarines, such an embargo would be unlikely to last more than a week or two. Even if the embargo were unopposed, the PRC does not have a blue-water navy and does not have supply ships that can maintain the navy away from home ports for extended periods. So it seems a naval blockade of Taiwan is not practical.
  
  A third option is for the PRC to attempt a surgical strike against Chen Shui-bian and Annette Lu. This option faces numerous hurdles, including the PLA's inexperience with such tactics, Taiwan's effective defenses that would probably foil any targeted attack, and the likelihood that such an attack, if successful, would permanently alienate the people of Taiwan and harden their views to the extent that the fight with China would be a fight to the last man.
  
  The CCP has also openly discussed kidnapping Chen and Lu and taking them to Beijing for trial on charges of treason. How a person could be tried for treason against a country of which he or she is not a citizen is difficult to comprehend. But even if such an adventure were undertaken, the PLA commandos landing in Taiwan to carry it off would not be likely to reach the leaders and could certainly never take off from Taiwan to return to Beijing. In short, it would be a suicide mission.
  
  The US would have to intervene
  All of this discussion ignores one important point - US involvement.
  
  Maintaining a free and democratic Taiwan is important to US security interests in Asia. If Taiwan falls to China, that will send a message that resonates throughout Asia that the United States is only marginally relevant and China is the party to be reckoned with. Asian governments would step back from the democracies that the US has encouraged them to create and would model themselves on the corrupt authoritarian Chinese model.
  
  US influence in the region would be minimal, and the shipping lanes through the South China Sea would no longer be international waters; rather, they would be controlled by China. Such considerations mandate that the US would step in to help defend Taiwan from any attack.
  
  The United States has a long history of fighting naval and air battles from a great distance with very few casualties. US ships would stay out of the range of the Chinese missiles in Fujian province, while US planes and cruise missiles reduced the Chinese air force and naval capabilities from 1,000 miles' distance. If the hostilities continued for more than a few days, US forces would begin to target key installations inside China itself. At that point, the only thing Taiwan would need to do to prevail in the war would be to fire rounds at incoming planes and ships, and refuse to surrender.
  
  The US has issued its own not-so-subtle warning to China. President George W Bush has declared that he will do "anything it takes" to defend Taiwan, and those words were recently reiterated to Premier Wen Jiabao at the White House. After Bush's first pronouncement of his intention to defend Taiwan, the Pentagon leaked a defense planning memo that stated tactical nuclear weapons might be used to defend Taiwan from China. The only purpose of such a leak would be to warn the PLA that there are no conditions under which it could successfully take Taiwan, notwithstanding the high level of confidence the PLA may have in its Russian-made weapons.
  
  A secondary purpose of the leaked memo may have been a tit-for-tat response to the statements that came out of the PLA in 1999 implying the possibility of using nuclear weapons against the US mainland in case of a conflict over Taiwan.
  
  Even if the PLA won some battlefield victories against Taiwanese forces, without an act of surrender by the government of Taiwan, the PRC would be forced to face the fact that it had lost the war.
  
  In a Taiwan conflict, the CCP would lose
  The CCP has spent decades indoctrinating Chinese in the concept that Taiwan is an inalienable part of China that must be unified with China at all costs. Regardless of whether one buys into such propaganda, if the PRC fought a war to take Taiwan that resulted in Taiwan remaining separate from China, then the CCP would lose its legitimacy as the government of China.
  
  China and the CCP also face drastic economic consequences of a war, such as a trade embargo, tens of millions of unemployed factory workers as a result, a severely damaged infrastructure, and political unrest across the nation. At the very least, there would be a change of government in China in the months following the war.
  
  It is also conceivable that regions of China might break away from the center. Since the CCP's principal goal is to remain in power at all costs, and since the PRC is likely to lose a war with Taiwan and therefore be forced out of power in China, the CCP will choose political survival over losing a war of military conquest.
  
  The final consideration in evaluating whether China would attack Taiwan is to compare the CCP's past statements against its past actions. In many circumstances, the CCP says one thing and does another. The CCP feels that it must speak words faithful to Marxist and Maoist ideology in the economic arena, but its actions are often pragmatic and contradictory to Marxist and Maoist doctrine. Likewise, the CCP's bellicose words for Taiwan may belie its pragmatism. A simpler view: the stridency and shrillness of the CCP's rhetoric about a war with Taiwan may be a not-so-subtle clue that the CCP has absolutely no intention of attacking Taiwan with arms, and therefore feels unrestrained in attacking Taiwan with words. After all, it is useful for politicians to have an external scapegoat.
  
  If the best revenge is living right, then perhaps the best path to de jure independence is behaving as an independent state rather than talking about it. Taiwan's leaders need to stop making the statement that the upcoming referendum is not about independence and instead assert that Taiwan is an independent and sovereign nation that has never been part of the People's Republic of China, and any change to that status quo would require a vote by all of Taiwan's people.
  
  President Chen will need courage to stand by his principles and to stand by the Taiwanese people no matter how threatening China appears. In the end, China will not attack, and Taiwan will continue to enjoy its independent status.
  
  Daniel McCarthy is a lawyer in Salt Lake City, Utah. He has lived in Taiwan, has traveled extensively in China and represents both US and Chinese businesses in international and domestic transactions. He is a student of military affairs and of US-China-Taiwan relations. He can be reached at dmccart@xmission.com.
  
  (Copyright 2004 Daniel McCarthy.)
  
  Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have their say. Please click here if you are interested in contributing.

[John H K]

Really well-reasoned article, but the FR "The PRC Military is GODLIKE all thanks to KLINTON AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH!!!" crowd won't like it.

I'd welcome any Chinese attempt to "invade" Taiwan, as its inevitable failure would mean the collapse of the the PRC government.

[bobo1]

President George W Bush has declared that he will do "anything it takes" to defend Taiwan,

There you have it. Walk softly, but carry a big stick. Excellent article.

Blessings, bobo

[The Old Hoosier]

Their military is not god-like, but it is so large and its commanders are so ruthless and willing to kill civilians that I would not be confident about any of this.

[VaBthang4]

Title should read:

"Ignore the rhetoric, China physically incapable of attacking Taiwan"

[Gorjus]

"Ignore the rhetoric, China physically incapable of attacking Taiwan"

Sorry, but this is too simplistic. For example, the idea of a sea blockade assumes only one form of that blockade - a distant cordon of ships/planes that don't allow ships to reach Taiwan. That's not required. There are only three real ports in Taiwan (north, west, and south), and ships in all three would be vulnerable after they reach port. It doesn't take a distant blockade. Mine the ports, or attack ships in the ports, and commercial ships stop coming. Total subjugation won't happen until there are 'boots on the ground', but Taiwan is very vulnerable to crippling attacks before an actual invasion. And there is no guarantee that a "US forces will only be used with UN permission" President won't abrogate our obligations to Taiwan. (After all, PRC is on the UN Security Council and would obviously veto any UN authority to use force.)

It is more consistent with international law to accept that the PRC has - via revolution - taken over the political entity known as 'China' than to assume, as this article does, that the PRC is a new entity that has sovereignty only over the mainland. The political entity known as 'China' did indeed include Taiwan just as the current political entity known as 'The United States' includes Hawaii (though at one point Hawaii was independent). So the argument that Taiwan was never part of the entity currently known as 'China' and currently controlled by the PRC is also wrong. (I've been to Taiwan too, and most of the people there are of mainland heritage, not indigenous to the Island. They think Taiwan is part of China. They just think they are the 'real' China. The current generation is more pragmatic and may accept independence, but it would be considered a change, not the current de jure condition.)

What should be done? Probably more of the same. Taiwan needs to maintain a strong defense, and a strong economy. The contradictions of state socialism will bring the socialists down in time. History is on Taiwan's side. And when re-unification occurs, the political system is more likely to be capitalist (Taiwan) than socialist (PRC).

[GigaDittos]

Here is what the Chinese say.

[tallhappy]

The political entity known as 'China' did indeed include Taiwan

Wrong. Not accurate.

Taiwan was ceded to Japan in 1895. Japan renounced sovereignty over it in 1951.

[tallhappy]

Here is what the Chinese say.

Read the second paragraph of #6 and you'll also know what the communists say.

[Gorjus]

Taiwan was ceded to Japan in 1895. Japan renounced sovereignty over it in 1951.

1683 - Manchus (Tartars) led by Shilang . . annexed Taiwan to Chinese Empire.

October 1945 - Chiang Kai-Chek appointed General Chen-Yi to take over Taiwan.

There have been many claims to authority over Taiwan. Some were both de facto and de jure, others were de facto only (as in the period between 1945 and 1951). Most of the changes of authority were grudging and the result of a lost battle or war. (As in 1895, and in 1945 - nothing unusual in that, of course) The culture and self-identity seldom tracked that of the nominal sovereign authority. While the Portugese claimed it, for example, the people did not consider themselves Portugese.

Bottom line: The dominant culture on both the mainland and on Taiwan itself consider Taiwan to be part of 'China'. They just have a differing opinion who has the best claim to be the 'real' China. And on whether Taiwan being part of 'China' is a good thing or a bad thing.

My own position is that all disputed territorial claims should be considered moot after ten years without active, effective effort to resolve the dispute. It makes no more sense to me to have China (PRC) claim Taiwan - or for the self-styled 'Republic of China' to claim the mainland - than to have Argentina claim the Falklands despite a hundred years of British 'rule.' But it's not my choice to make. I was just reporting on the attitude of the actual people involved.

[tallhappy]

Your history is not right.

It's kind of right, but just not.

For example in 1945 that was the allied occupation of Japanese territory. Chiang then established that day, October 25, as Retrocession day, which is a holidat in Taiwan to this day. But it was not a transfer of sovereignty (although the Chinese tried to claim it was) and more than our occupation of Japan transferred Japan's soverignty to us.

Suffice to say you have received bogus info or representation of history. One of the problems on this issue is that this Chinese centered half truth presentation is all that most people know.

Facts of the matter indicate otherwise.

Taiwan after WWII much more fell in to the status of former colony than anything else.

As mentioned, Japan's surrender of sovereignty over Taiwan did not occur until 1951.

Taiwan was part of Japan when the Emeperor fell (1911) and when the civil war began in the 1920's and throughout WWII. Taiwan had nothing to do with the Chinese civil war.

[tallhappy]

My own position is that all disputed territorial claims should be considered moot after ten years without active

I agree.

[David1]

It can be as large as a billion soldiers. They still need to put those soldiers on Taiwanese soil. I don't think the Chinese can.

[David1]

Pity The Poor Chinese Navy
http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/defense/030915b.asp

[David1]

Read post #14 for somemore info

[The Old Hoosier]

All it would take is a few ships. I find it to be a scary possibility.

[David1]

It will take more tan a few ships. But they still have to cross the straits. There they will come under immense attacks. I don't think the Chinese can do it.

[Poohbah]

Their military is not god-like, but it is so large and its commanders are so ruthless and willing to kill civilians that I would not be confident about any of this.

Killing large quantities of civilians does not win you wars. It merely guarantees that their loved ones will be motivated to keep fighting.

[Poohbah]

All it would take is a few ships. I find it to be a scary possibility.

"Never take the counsel of your fears" -- Stonewall Jackson.

It would take a LOT of ships--far more than the ChiComs actually have that can support forcible entry operations.

The initial lodgement would have to be quite large to prevent the Taiwanese from defeating it in detail, lest the PLA merely serve itself up in convenient bite-size pieces.

[Fishing-guy]

Base on your stay in Taiwan, do you find most people consider themselves ethnically Chinese or do they see themselves ethnically different?

No one has ever clearly explained the motives behind the Taiwan independence movement. After all, the current Republic of China (ROC) is de facto independent from PRC, so what is the motivation for an independence movement? Furthermore, this movement and name changing do not seem to have popular support, so who is pushing it behind the scene?