Why Beijing will not attack Taiwan

Brookes News ^ | Peter Zhang

[Dr. Marten]

Why Beijing will not attack Taiwan

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?

 

[Dr. Marten]

Ping!

[GeronL]

I read this at their site last night... I still think it should end with 'I hope'.

[Quix]

THIS MAKES A LOT MORE SENSE than some other noise on the topic "heard" hereon recently.

I am somewhat skeptical, however, having talked to a number of people on Taiwan involved in such matters . . . how really trained and prepared how many of their military are. The main hope there is that the Mainland troops seem to be worse in training and preparedness.

The other issue is--what happens IF Beijing decides to use a neutron or other atomic set of weapons against Taiwan. They are not exactly above that in 'morality.'

Thanks for an article that presented more than I've seen before on the topic.

[joesnuffy]

Why China Will Not Attack Taiwan
Famous last words?

[Pan_Yans Wife]

ping

[ZOOKER]

Conquest seems like a waste of effort if you destroy Taiwan's high-tech infrastructure. What have you gained?

I'm hoping, too, but I think the Chinese will blink if you make the cost high enough.

[CzarNicky]

Imagine how formidable Taiwan would be if they let all their citizens own guns.

[Dr. Marten]

"what happens IF Beijing decides to use a neutron or other atomic set of weapons against Taiwan."

I know that China has said it will take Taiwan at any cost, but I do not believe that they would use nuclear weapons to do so as that would defeat their purpose and the people on the mainland would not even support such actions.

[Mr.Clark]

China will never even bother invading Taiwan, what do they gain? They have a small chance of success, and even if they do, the infrastructure will be destroyed and they'll probably have to get through the US to do it. When dealing with the Chinese, just ask, what is profitable? The Chicom military just uses Taiwan as an excuse to puff up their own budget, they won't even have the capability to attempt a landing for a decade or so, if then.

[Dr. Marten]

Ironically the Olympics will be there in time to have the billion man swim :)

[Poohbah]

I am somewhat skeptical, however, having talked to a number of people on Taiwan involved in such matters . . . how really trained and prepared how many of their military are. The main hope there is that the Mainland troops seem to be worse in training and preparedness.

Exactly. Martial skill and ability is a relative thing.

The other issue is--what happens IF Beijing decides to use a neutron or other atomic set of weapons against Taiwan. They are not exactly above that in 'morality.'

They might.

The real question in that situation is "what happens next?"

I don't believe that Taiwan would go quietly into that good night...

...and they've worked with the Israeli and South African nuclear weapons programs.

Faced with national destruction, the Taiwanese leadership will probably decide that, as long as they're going to Hell, they might as well send some ChiComs ahead of them as sideboys.

[Fee]

In order for a region or province to successfully breakaway from its "mother" country, it must have three things. One- a military capable of resisting the central government forces sent to put down the "rebellion", two- a population committed to independence, and finally the most important, recognition by a super power (which opens the door for military and economical aid). Taiwan has the first two, but the last and most critical component is not assured. China has not demanded Taiwan to surrender or die but rather declared that if Taiwan declares independence China will attack her. Reason is simple, China figures that as her economical strength grows, Taiwan's leverage on foreign countries will decrease. The leadership of Taiwan knows that, thus she can not remain under the status quo of no war (and no peace). She has to make her move now, or China will grow too influential (thru economics more than military power) and suffocate her existance. It is a high risk gamble for Taiwan, because China has 500 launchers aimed at Taiwan. The rockets are free fall systems with mechanical fused warheads (cannot be jammed). I think China will fire simultaneously at the major infrastructures of Taiwan's packed cities. The Chinese military leaders are not Maoist human wave advocates anymore. They had a rude awakening during the war with Vietnam in 1980, and understand the lessons of the US Gulf War. I think they will resort to long range rockets. The Taiwan military can withstand the barrages, but her civil population has inadequate Civil Defence measures. Even if Taiwan can discourage China from invasion, her civil population, economy and etc will take major damage. This is the brinksmanship game being played by Taiwan with China, and let us hope Taiwan does not trigger a war at the wrong time for our interests. Great powers do not let small countries decide when to fight another war against another large power. Despite my emotional feelings against Communism, we must not forget this rule because we are caught in our own war against Islam. Being a student of the Cold War, one lesson is that sometimes we face hard choices, but the premier principle is our immediate strategic interests must come first over our emotional ones.

[Quix]

Yes, I think your assessment is apt.

But, I think first, Taiwan will have to disabuse itself that Beijing will never do anything significant militarily. Toooooo many are passive to blind to dismissive to wallowing in rank denial that there is any serious issue involved at all. Such mentalities only aid Beijing, IMHO.

[Poohbah]

But, I think first, Taiwan will have to disabuse itself that Beijing will never do anything significant militarily.

Actually, they don't.

Taiwan has their "strategic forces."

If push comes to shove, they'll use them.

China, on the other hand, has to weigh the prospect of how much face they'll lose if they try to take Taiwan...

...and fail.

[Quix]

I believe that the masses on the Mainland would not approve any more than they approved Tienanmen.

However, an alarming number of them for some time believed the Mainland's tales on Tienanmen and tried justifying the deaths up one side and down the other.

I think the particular contingencies at the time may be very critical regarding how much the masses tolerate destruction of Taiwan or not.

There used to be jokes that Mainland PLA personnel would rush to attack Taiwan and once there, change clothes and turn around and defend Taiwan. But that was when Taiwan was the rich place and Manland areas poverty ridden. The tables have turned somewhat.

[Quix]

I HOPE Taiwan's strategic forces include secret nukes.

I am skeptical that China will weigh sufficiently that they may lose. Too many yes men may congratulate each other and their superiors that nothing can defeat the great MOTHERLAND'S PLA.

[Poohbah]

I am skeptical that China will weigh sufficiently that they may lose. Too many yes men may congratulate each other and their superiors that nothing can defeat the great MOTHERLAND'S PLA.

The PLA is most likely to try to get out of actually fighting a war. They KNOW just how inept and corrupt they are--and amphibious warfare is probably the most demanding type of warfare there is.

[GOP_1900AD]

When ever I read this sort of stuff, and then imagine the day of the eventual attack, I am reminded of a lyric from a certain Tool song.... "dumbfounded dip$#*(".... ! ;)

[GOP_1900AD]

"Peace in our time" bump. Neville Chamberlain bump.

[GOP_1900AD]

The answers, land, geopolitical position, psychological impact on distant great powers ... Got Von Clausewitz? Got Sun Tzu?

[skinkinthegrass]

In order for a region or...first over our emotional ones.thanks...interesting points.

[GOP_1900AD]

How important might it be to have a submarine base with direct access to deep water? How important might it be to occupy land within Japan's unwritten sphere of influence? I know this type of thinking is quite foreign for those of us in the Post 1945 generations. But that doesn't mean such thinking does not exist.

[GOP_1900AD]

Or, in time for IRBM attacks, followed by air drops, followed by hovercraft, followed by plain old boats full of troops docking in seized ports.

[Gefreiter]

First: A Chinese invasion of Taiwan might be considered the "million-man swim", considering the lack of a credible Chinese navy, the presence of a formidable Taiwanese one, and the US Pacific Fleet.

Second: A pick to nit. I don't believe the phrase occurs in this article, but it's really annoying when the press talks about missiles being "aimed" at Taiwan; or any other country for that matter. Some indeed are aimed, sort of, like Saddam's raggedy Scud-series unguided rockets that he pointed west and hoped landed somewhere in Israel; not terrifically effective. Modern missiles though aren't aimed in that sense; "aiming" them is a software question, not a question of which direction to point the launcher.

Another example of the press, not understanding the equipment at issue, assuming the worst and writing it up for dramatic effect. And that passes for news.

[Quix]

i HOPE you are right.

But I still say that deeply endemic, visceral, conscious and unconscious arrogance is a major flaw in leadership of both Party and Military--and in large measure . . . of the Chinese individual mentalities far too commonly. . . . an arrogance of enough intensity to be blinding in more than a few ways.

[Arkinsaw]

If you see the Chinese purchasing large amounts of snorkels and fins or they corner the market on inner tubes then their might be a problem. But until then, they are not going to invade Taiwan.

[Dr. Marten]

"In order for a region or province to successfully breakaway from its "mother" country"

Sorry Fee, you lost me after this sentence. Taiwan has not been a part of China since it was ceded to the Japanese in an 1895 treaty. After the Japanese defeat in 1945, the allies ceded control of the Taiwan island to the Kuomintang. Therefore, by all intensive purposes, the very same government that was given contorl of the island, still maintains that control today. :)

[Frohickey]

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.

No thanks to Clinton. :(

[Taylor42]

What's with the Australians?

They all can't have their heads up their a$$

[XBob]

4 & 9 - "The other issue is--what happens IF Beijing decides to use a neutron or other atomic set of weapons against Taiwan. They are not exactly above that in 'morality.' "


Youall skipped over a very important point: "The problem was that the Japanese had dug themselves so far into the mountain and underground that the bombing scarcely touched them."

Think - Chyanne Mountain is tiny.

[Charles H. (The_r0nin)]

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?

OK, if this author doesn't know the difference between "ordinance" and "ordnance," I have a hard time taking his opinion on a military conflict seriously...

[John H K]

OK, if this author doesn't know the difference between "ordinance" and "ordnance," I have a hard time taking his opinion on a military conflict seriously...

Well, it's far better than all the pants-wetting nonsensical articles overhyping every aspect of the PRC military that are routinely posted on FR.

[John H K]

A bit of a pet peeve but "intensive purposes" actually is "for all intents and purposes."

You're correct about the status of Taiwan. People often get really confused.

CURRENTLY, the government of Tawain (Republic of China) claims to be the legitimate government of ALL of China, including the mainland.

However, some wish Taiwan to stop claiming this, but proclaim itself independent of the rest of China as a separate country.

Somewhat inscrutably from a psychological standpoint, it would bother the PRC more for Taiwan to declare itself independent than it would for Taiwan to keep claiming it's the legitimate government of all of China.

[John H K]

A dirty little secret of World War II is that large-scale airdrops generally weren't effective and entailed massive casualties, and all countries have pretty much abandoned the idea of paradroping divisional-sized units. However, "paratroops" developed a lot of elan and cachet, so we still have "paratroops" that don't actually paratroop into combat (the brigade drop in Iraq was a farcical show, not a combat drop.)

I can only imagine the hilarious (and bloody) failure of a wildly inexperienced military like mainland China attempting paradrops over a place that they likely can't achieve air superiority over, such as Taiwan.

[John H K]

The Taiwan military can withstand the barrages, but her civil population has inadequate Civil Defence measures. Even if Taiwan can discourage China from invasion, her civil population, economy and etc will take major damage

Throughout history the effect of semi-accurate convetional bombardment on civilian morale and economic production has consistently been wildly overestimated. In 1944 German military production INCREASED under massive firebomb attacks at night from the British and American attempts at pinpoint bombing by day, amounts of ordnance that the Chinese couldn't even begin to approach by simply lobbing conventional missles into Taiwan.

[searchandrecovery]

China will retake Taiwan when it perceives that america is no longer a threat. This may happen in 15-25 years when our manufacturing base has been absorbed by the communists.

The chinese plan for strategic activities farther out than the current quarter (unlike the u.s.).

[tallhappy]

People who use terms like 'she" and "her" for nations generally expound pompously and emptily. I see no exception in your post here.

There's no brinkmanship. There is sincere and open move to be recognized and not live under the shadow of China's irrational claims.

It is straightforward and honest, not games and reflects public sentiment.

How callous, jaded and puffed up so many have become.

[tallhappy]

CURRENTLY, the government of Tawain (Republic of China) claims to be the legitimate government of ALL of China, including the mainland.

Not accurate. The consistution has been amended since 1991 to modify this and recognize that mainland China is legitimately ruled by another government. There is no more take back the mainland from the communist bandits.

Yet, interestingly, to the extent that the ROC says China is part of their territory (although under a different governmental jurisdiction at this time) what ostensibly will make the communists attack is that taiwan wants to officially say they are not the legitimate government of all China and don't want to be.

It's crazy. A country says they will attack another country if that country stops saying they want to take it over.

usually that means a peace treaty. The communists want war because Taiwan says they don't want war. But if Taiwan said they will take back the mainland from the communist bandits, the communist bandits are happy.

The communist's whole policy and threat is that they will attack taiwan if Taiwan says we don't want to attack you and destroy your regime and take over your land.

[JasonC]

There is no point in keeping a nuclear deterrent secret. It doesn't deter anybody if they don't know you have it. Having nukes but not saying so is the quickest way to an actual nuclear exchange, through miscalculation.

[JasonC]

Actually I don't think they give a rat's rump about the cost. The variable they are looking at is their chance of success. The reason they didn't invade yesterday is they think they'd lose, not that they'd win but it would be expensive.

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.

[risk]

TH, I think we have to assume you are right: a war that could somehow be started at a time when the Coalition is "too busy elsewhere" to respond would be high on the PRC's list of desirables. Above that on the list would be a bloodless takeover signed by the Coalition and spineless (read: traitorous) elements of the Taiwanese leadership.

[risk]

bttt

[Brian Allen]

<< .... what's the problem with the Australian Labour Party? Doesnt it realise that [Peking's thuggees] have only contempt for those who kowtow to them? >>

Self-loathing, psychopathologically-hesperophobic, envy-motivated and rage-engined and hatred-driven "Labour" potty members -- and "DemocRATS" -- love it when they're treated to the Peking predators' contempt.

Except for their [Girly] boys nights out in Kings Cross, Saint Kilda -- and Georgetown's [The mama-san-kkkli'ton place, eg] -- leather, chains, whips and bondage salons, that's the only time the bastards feel noticed.

[Dr. Marten]

"OK, if this author doesn't know the difference between "ordinance" and "ordnance," I have a hard time taking his opinion on a military conflict seriously..."


I would be more inclined to believe that it has more to do with English not being his native languge rather than his lack of knowledge on the subject.

[Poohbah]

Or, in time for IRBM attacks, followed by air drops, followed by hovercraft, followed by plain old boats full of troops docking in seized ports.

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.

[Poohbah]

The answers, land, geopolitical position, psychological impact on distant great powers ... Got Von Clausewitz? Got Sun Tzu?

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.

[Poohbah]

There is no point in keeping a nuclear deterrent secret. It doesn't deter anybody if they don't know you have it. Having nukes but not saying so is the quickest way to an actual nuclear exchange, through miscalculation.

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.

[JasonC]

You are wrong. People involved in the strategic planning do not think Taiwan has them, certainly not with any confidence. Israel has acknowledged it does, just not formally so as not to invoke IAEA inspections and what-not, and the French have even explained how they helped them get them. If Taiwan does and is just keeping it a secret, it is a dangerous miscalculation. Personally, I don't think they are that stupid and so don't believe they do.

[chilepepper]

I think that China could at some point in the future take Taiwan by force, maybe twenty years from now.

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...