China gears up for showdown, ball in Taiwan's court

AlertNet ^ | July 5, 2004 | Benjamin Kang Lim

[twntaipan]

China gears up for showdown, ball in Taiwan's court 05 Jul 2004 06:05:03 GMT

By Benjamin Kang Lim

BEIJING, July 5 (Reuters) - When China holds war games on Dongshan island off its southeastern coast this month, its SU-27 fighters will battle for air superiority and back up an amphibious landing in a mock invasion of Taiwan.

Convinced that Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian will push for statehood during his second four-year term, China is readying for a showdown with the island which Beijing has claimed as its own since the end of the Chinese civil war in 1949.

Booming China wants to avoid conflict, analysts say. The ball is in Taiwan's court -- whether conflict breaks out hinges on how far Chen pushes the envelope.

"They do not wish to use force...This is not their preferred course of action. But they are preparing for worst-case scenarios," said David Shambaugh, an expert on the People's Liberation Army (PLA) at George Washington University.

"I've been coming to China every year for the last 25 years, I have never sensed a higher level of anxiety over the Taiwan issue than at the present time."

Chen's predecessor, Lee Teng-hui, has played down the threats and likened China to a "barking dog that won't bite".

Taiwan has apparently been emboldened by U.S. President George W. Bush's pledge to do whatever it takes to help the self-ruling democratic island defend itself, but analysts said it may be miscalculating Beijing's resolve.

"The danger of war truly exists," said Wang Jisi, director of the Institute of International Strategy at the Central Party School, which trains Communist apparatchiks.

PAPER TIGER?

"We're not a paper tiger. We're a real tiger," he said, adding that China needs to "strengthen the credibility" of its longstanding threat to attack if Taiwan declares statehood.

Lee dismissed Chinese threats after war games following his landmark U.S. visit in 1995 mellowed into little more than a war of words when he, and later Chen, pushed for independence.

Taiwan's leaders are betting that China will not risk breakneck growth, which is needed to create enough jobs, avert social unrest and perpetuate Communist Party rule.

Military conflict would certainly invite a boycott of the 2008 Beijing Olympics and diplomatic isolation worse than in the years after the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests were crushed.

Instability would drive away foreign investors and Taiwanese who have poured $100 billion into China since the late 1980s. It would also rattle the global chip industry and financial markets.

Taiwan, armed to the teeth with U.S. and French jet fighters and warships, is counting on U.S. help in the event of conflict. Washington switched diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing in 1979, but remains Taiwan's biggest arms supplier and ally.

"The chances of a full-scale invasion of Taiwan before 2012 are very low" because the PLA is incapable of taking on the United States, said Chong-Pin Lin, a former Taiwan deputy defence minister. He did not rule out more sabre rattling.

But Kenneth Lieberthal, a Sinologist at the University of Michigan, said Taiwan is wrong when it assumes Beijing is "all bluff when it talks about the use of force".

"The second assumption is: if the first assumption is wrong, then Chen nevertheless has a military blank cheque from the United States...I believe both assumptions are wrong," he said.

Washington has no desire to be dragged into a conflict with China over Taiwan. But the three are faced with a potentially vicious circle: Taiwan flirts with independence, leading to Chinese invasion threats which force the United States to back the island which in turn further emboldens Taipei.

Chen appears determined to adopt a new constitution in 2008, a move seen by Beijing as a formal declaration of independence.

China on the other hand has painted itself into a corner by beating the drums of war. No Chinese leader can afford to be seen as weak by giving in on the mission of reunification.

Beijing does not trust Chen, but he believes it will eventually deal with him. "The chances of dialogue resuming will be high after the year-end parliamentary elections and the U.S. elections," a senior Taiwan government source told Reuters. (Additional reporting by John Ruwitch and Juliana Liu)

[endthematrix]

Great post! That is some sad stats for the USA, I hold the belief as well that we are less capable of the "two fronts" our military says it can achieve. Any war with China will escalate to nukes. If conventional, the Chinese have to go somewhere and we hold supremacy over air and sea. They ain't gonna para drop 1,000,000 over Iowa! We aren't gonna do the same over the mainland either.

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

You forget we have still have the capacity currently to produce all our own steel. Most of the nations steel plants are running under well under capacity. Cheap foreign steel is the reason.

[struwwelpeter]

Wars nowadays are "come as you are".

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

But the PRC is building its military at a rapid rate - in terms of missiles, aircraft, and ships.

*Ross Perot voice* - Hear that sucking sound? That's the sound of money being sucked into China and turned into military hardware.

[Poohbah]

Taiwan is toast. They don't realize it, but they are.

The U.S. won't back them at all.

If the ChinComs attempt to invade Taiwan, then either we will intervene very robustly against the ChiComs, or the Taiwanese government will use nuclear weapons in a last-ditch effort to maintain their sovereignty--or wreak final vengeance for its loss.

Now, given those facts...who's toast, again?

[neutrino]

Now, given those facts...who's toast, again?

That depends on the underlying assumptions. You assume we will intervene against the ChiComs. I assume we will not. Let's hope that we never obtain a definitive answer.

[Poohbah]

That depends on the underlying assumptions. You assume we will intervene against the ChiComs. I assume we will not. Let's hope that we never obtain a definitive answer.

OK, which more accurately reflects US foreign policy:

1. Allow a regional war to escalate to a medium-sized nuclear exchange and hope nobody does anything crazy.

2. Intervene robustly against the aggressor.

(Start "Final Jeopardy" Theme...)

[neutrino]

OK, which more accurately reflects US foreign policy:

None of the above. We send the Secretary of State to the region, who engages in a frenetic round of shuttle diplomacy. We then write checks to both sides so they will settle down.

Ahh, but what happens of offshoring has rendered us too poor to write those checks? Now there's the rub.

[Poohbah]

None of the above. We send the Secretary of State to the region, who engages in a frenetic round of shuttle diplomacy. We then write checks to both sides so they will settle down.

"Shuttle diplomacy" only works if neither side really wants a war. Your whole premise is that the ChiComs really do want a war.

Now that we've ruled out the impossible in your scenario, I'll give you a Mulligan. Which more accurately reflects US foreign policy:

1. Allow a regional war to escalate to a medium-sized nuclear exchange and hope nobody does anything crazy.

2. Intervene robustly against the aggressor.

(Restart "Final Jeopardy" Theme...)

[neutrino]

None of the above. We send the Secretary of State to the region, who engages in a frenetic round of shuttle diplomacy. We then offer to write checks to both sides so they will settle down.

This time they don't settle down. The future administration considers the economic and military costs of opposing China and does...nothing.

For an example, see Tibet.

[Poohbah]

This time they don't settle down. The future administration considers the economic and military costs of opposing China and does...nothing.

And, of course, this hypothetical future administration ignores the economic, political, and military costs of doing nothing and having a regional war escalate to a good-sized nuclear exchange--i.e., a hundred warheads apiece.

Of course, you're also expecting the ChiComs to completely ignore the economic, political, and military costs of provoking a nuclear exchange.

For an example, see Tibet.

Tibet didn't have its own nuclear weapons. Taiwan does. That changes the rules considerably.

Now, given that the two options we have are (a) intervene robustly against China (the aggressor in your scenario), or (b) do nothing and watch a nuclear exchange get started, which one more closely emulates US national policy?

A or B. One or the other. Which one is it?

[chilepepper]

you are right, we cannot fight WWII against China anymore

but what you miss is that we don't need the same quantities of steel, oil and other goods you mention...

The biggest danger of war is if the Chinese actually believe your arguments about goods.

the US manufacturing/design infrastructure is one or several quantum levels above China's -- we still have a manufacturing base, of *very* high tech systems and machinery. if it came to war, we have a sufficient base to wipe up the floor with China, believe me.

Anyone who thinks that the US can't win because the taiwanese motherboard companies have all been destroyed doesn't understand either motherboards or technology, and most certainly doesn't understand wartime economy -- they should look at what Nazi Germany was able to accomplish manufacturing wise during WWII. I assure you the US scenario planners know what needs to be done

lack of chips and motherboards might disrupt BestBuy's sales of computers, but only in the short term. God forbid it should ever happen, you will be absolutely amazed how quickly the gap is filled from other sources...

[neutrino]

Now, given that the two options we have are (a) intervene robustly against China (the aggressor in your scenario), or (b) do nothing and watch a nuclear exchange get started, which one more closely emulates US national policy?

A or B. One or the other. Which one is it?

The US would choose B. Anything else might interfere with profits, and we can't have that, now, can we?

[Poohbah]

The US would choose B. Anything else might interfere with profits, and we can't have that, now, can we?

OK. You are seriously arguing that we would do nothing to prevent a nuclear exchange, and that we would merely hope nobody does anything that is both stupid and crazy, and that a nuclear exchange would not interfere with profits.

If you're wondering why nobody takes the Marxist-Buchananists seriously, wonder no more...

[neutrino]

OK. You are seriously arguing that we would do nothing to prevent a nuclear exchange, and that we would merely hope nobody does anything that is both stupid and crazy, and that a nuclear exchange would not interfere with profits.

Hmm? And what would you do? If the US gets involved at the conventional level, we'll certainly take losses. Do you suppose that the public will accept that?

Probably, the Chinese would seize US holdings within China. That means that US corporations - the very ones that put short term profits ahead of American workers - would lose money. They would do their best to persuade any administration not to get involved.

And then there is the craziness factor. In such a conflict, there is a risk - small, but present - that someone will fire a few nukes at U.S. cities. We'd probably retaliate (not certainly, but probably). We'd also lose millions of people and tens of billions of dollars worth of assets. The risk of that happening would further deter the U.S. from getting involved.

Additionally, you use the term "nothing". We'd try diplomacy, of course. We'd offer to write checks, certainly. We might well threaten. But we won't risk getting into a war with China.

[jpsb]

Lets say that the Chinese mass an invasion fleet and it's purpose remains undetected until it sails. How long to cover 100 miles at 20kts? 5 hours? Of course, missiles rain down on Taiwan all during those 5 hours while the Chicom AF attempts to take control of the air space over Taiwan and of course, air borne troops will attempt to take control of critical facilities too.

Given the above scenario there is very little the US could do to prevent an invasion and defeating an invasion force already on in Taiwan is beyond our ability due to the troop commitment in Iraq.

I'd say that it will be up to Taiwan to defend Taiwan.

[RightWhale]

How long to cover 100 miles at 20kts?

They will take Quemoy and Matsu, which are heavily defended but in range of coastal guns. That will destroy half of Taiwan's military right there. Taiwan itself can wait until China rebuilds its military from that very costly battle.

[Poohbah]

Hmm? And what would you do? If the US gets involved at the conventional level, we'll certainly take losses. Do you suppose that the public will accept that?

Yes.

Probably, the Chinese would seize US holdings within China. That means that US corporations - the very ones that put short term profits ahead of American workers - would lose money. They would do their best to persuade any administration not to get involved.

"Excuse me, Mister Corporate Bigwig, but in case you didn't notice, Taiwan's about to nuke your factories in Shanghai if we don't get involved!"

But let's suppose the ChiComs seize US factories.

How well does China's banking system work when the US response is to suspend payment of T-bills held by China, and impound ChiCom funds in the US, plus announce that we'll implement Cuban-style sanctions on anyone who tries to profit from their use?

And then there is the craziness factor. In such a conflict, there is a risk - small, but present - that someone will fire a few nukes at U.S. cities.

And that is exactly why we would be intervening--because the risk of such an event increases without US intervention. Once Taiwan pops off the nukes, China's liable to blame Bush, like everyone else does.

We'd probably retaliate (not certainly, but probably).

We'd also lose millions of people and tens of billions of dollars worth of assets.

Waitaminute, I thought all those assets were now in China. Will you please try to keep your story straight?

The risk of that happening would further deter the U.S. from getting involved.

As I pointed out, letting a nuclear exchange start without any effort to prevent it is more likely to precipitate a nuclear attack on the United States than a robust response. Look up "escalation dominance."

Additionally, you use the term "nothing".

In the scenario you laid out, those were the only two choices--go to war, or not go to war. Now you're whining because I took your scenario seriously.

We'd try diplomacy, of course. We'd offer to write checks, certainly. We might well threaten. But we won't risk getting into a war with China.

If the price tag of inaction is higher than acting, we will.

[neutrino]

Waitaminute, I thought all those assets were now in China. Will you please try to keep your story straight?

We still have some real estate; just no factories. Nukes spoil property values.

If the price tag of inaction is higher than acting, we will.

(Chuckle) Yes, I'm sure that's exactly the analysis that will be applied. It's why we won't act.

You see, you've convinced me that the worshippers of the God of Free Traitin' care about nothing but costs versus profits.

[Poohbah]

Lets say that the Chinese mass an invasion fleet and it's purpose remains undetected until it sails.

In other words: "Let's pretend that every intelligence agency sees the fleet massing opposite Taiwan in the overhead imagery, but is as idiotic as I need them to be."

To quote Rumsfeld: "Hope is not a method."

SUBGRU 7 would quietly leave Yokosuka and take up stations in the Taiwan Strait.

How long to cover 100 miles at 20kts? 5 hours?

Thereabout. Of course, to assume that they will actually sustain 20 knots is downright silly.

Of course, missiles rain down on Taiwan all during those 5 hours while the Chicom AF attempts to take control of the air space over Taiwan and of course, air borne troops will attempt to take control of critical facilities too.

And, of course, the USAF elements on Okinawa just sit there and do nothing...

Given the above scenario there is very little the US could do to prevent an invasion and defeating an invasion force already on in Taiwan is beyond our ability due to the troop commitment in Iraq.

Kindly look up the specs on a 688I and get back to me. Troops that are trying not to get eaten by sharks are not going to be fighting on the beaches of Taiwan...

I'd say that it will be up to Taiwan to defend Taiwan.

At which point Taiwan nukes Shanghai. Uh-oh. Now what?