Posted on 10/07/2001 7:27:44 AM PDT by KevinDavis
The elemental lesson to be learned from Sept. 11 is that nothing is unthinkable, although many possibilities are unthought, particularly by peaceful nations. So perhaps now Americans should think about the possibility of a swift, remarkably brutal, conquest of Taiwan by the People's Republic of China.
It is U.S. strategic doctrine that the armed forces should be sufficient to successfully fight two major regional conflicts simultaneously. Forces sufficient for one are being deployed to Southwest Asia. A second such conflict could erupt in Southeast Asia, explains professor Richard L. Russell of the National Defense University. His ''devil's advocate analysis''--written before Sept. 11--appears in Parameters, the U.S. Army War College quarterly.
America's sanguine assumption is that China lacks the necessary force-projection capabilities. It is deficient in amphibious ships and other means of delivering troops by water, particularly given that Taiwan's pilots and aircraft (F-16s and Mirage 2000s) are superior to China's.
But China could confound that assumption using surprise, a ''force multiplier.'' China could use amphibious assaults only as diversions to draw Taiwanese ground forces away from the primary invasion points--air bases. And China could employ unprecedented ruthlessness--tactical nuclear weapons and chemical weapons.
Such surprise and ruthlessness may seem far-fetched--as far-fetched as the idea of using commercial aircraft as bombs to level skyscrapers would have seemed a month ago, had anyone imagined it. However, Russell notes that Pearl Harbor, Germany's attack on the Soviet Union, North Korea's invasion of South Korea, China's intervention in Korea and the 1973 Yom Kippur War were all surprises.
Besides, Russell says, a nation contemplating aggression considers the dangers of peace as well as of war. China sees that time is on the side of Taiwan's improvement of its economic strength, political links to the world and military capacity for self-defense--particularly if Taiwan acquires defenses against ballistic missiles.
Russell says China could secretively increase sealift and air transport capacity, and paratrooper training, for a conflict that would begin with a bolt-out-of-the-blue barrage of hundreds of missiles to ''decapitate'' Taiwan's military by striking command-and-control facilities. China has an estimated inventory of 240 missiles capable of striking Taiwan from the mainland.
Missile warheads loaded with persistent and nonpersistent chemical agents could incapacitate Taiwan's air and air defense forces. Hence Chinese fighter aircraft could escort transport aircraft that would deliver paratroopers. Their drops onto Taiwan's air bases would be timed to coincide with the evaporation of nonpersistent chemical agents that had disabled those bases. Once the bases were secured by Chinese paratroopers, Chinese transports could land more troops.
By striking hard and fast, even with tactical nuclear weapons, China could hope to conquer Taiwan before there could be any U.S. military buildup in the region. And Westerners might be projecting their values on China by assuming that China regards nuclear weapons exclusively as means of deterrence and weapons of last, desperate resort.
There is evidence that Chinese military doctrine, unlike America's, holds that nuclear weapons can be applicable even in wars in which less than national survival is at stake. And Russell writes that the Chinese might argue that the use of weapons of mass destruction would set no international precedent because they would be employed against a province in an ''internal affair.''
Tiananmen Square demonstrated Beijing's readiness to use violence for political objectives against Chinese who challenge it. As for the price China would pay for international disapproval of such ruthlessness, Beijing may be willing to pay the price because it would be transitory: Just 12 years after the Tiananmen Square violence was telecast to the world, China was awarded the 2008 Olympics.
Russell wrote his scenario to emphasize that ''improbable'' is not a synonym for ''impossible,'' and to induce ''a sense of caution and humility about the limits of foresight in knowing the prospects for war.'' On Sept. 11 America received a violent lesson about those limits.
The aggression Russell describes is not unthinkable. Nothing is.
Something to keep to ponder.
First thing to keep in mind. If the PRC attacks Taiwan with weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological, or nuclear), there is a very distinct possibility that they will catch some weapons of mass destruction from us or Taiwan (probably the latter - they worked on nuclear weapons with the Israelis and possibly the South Africans. We know the Israelis and the South Africans both have nukes, so it is possible that Taiwan has them, too).
Second thing to remember is this: Taiwan is an island nation, and as such is more dependant on the sea for sustaining its economy. If the ChiComs are to make a move, it will be a naval blockade, primarily built around a rather large (albeit most of the subs will be old) submarine force.
The worst that can possibly happen is a somewhat more modern version of the 1939-1945 Battle of the Atlantic, when Germany tried to cut off the Brits. It didn't work then, it didn't work in World War I, either. In fact, of the three times unrestricted submarine warfare has been tried, we're the only ones who pulled it off.
It will be ugly, but if the ChiComs were to try anything, they'd get one hell of a bloody nose, and not too much to show for it. They might even lose the Olympics (not too hard to re-award the things, particularly "in light of recent events").
Okay, the Capitol Building in DC may not be a "skyscraper," but I think we can say that such acts were "imagined" when it appeared in one of the bestselling novels of the 90s by an author whose novels tend to be pretty realistic--Tom Clancy.
Please pick your words more carefully. FR haters will pick up on lines like that to 'prove' that the Right is intolerant. The war is against terrorists and the regimes that support them... they'll just happen to be overwhelmingly Muslim for a while, unless or until the IRA and others pick a REALLY bad time to make a 'political statement'.
The Chinese are most likely to continue efforts to isolate Taiwan, that could include blockade and threats against trade inks.
In order to take direct military action they would have to be absolutely convinced, dead certain, that they could do the job without being bloodied too badly and without being hammered diplomatically by a slightly more energized UN, US, et al.
In addition, if this is played properly (by us) China would benefit far more from taking advantage of a world wide terrorist crack down. They have their own internal islamic problem just as do so many other nations around the world.
If I was advising G.W.B. one of the first things I'd suggest would be a back channel message to every known player (governments and terrorist groups alike) telling them that all of the liberal's "humanitarian" rants and use of human rights as foreign policy had gone into the dumpster as a result of the Durban sideshow and September 11th.
A free pass for each and every one to take their own little ethno-terrorist problems to a logical end.
The poster is merely speaking truth a little before it's politic to do so. This is (at its heart) a clash of cultures. The cult called 'islam' will sweep your world away if it gets a chance to, friend, and -given that grim reality- it's utter folly for you to give a rat's ass what 'FR haters' think about us.
If they did this more-or-less simultaneously, what would we do about it?
But since I am not George Will...
--Boris
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.