Posted on 06/28/2005 6:58:53 AM PDT by Esther Ruth
Russian forces help China in mock conflict
Feb 2002 - China's military is covertly buying U.S. commercial satellite photographs of Taiwan that U.S. intelligence officials say will be used to target the island with the mainland's growing arsenal of cruise and ballistic missiles. Satellite photographs of most of the island are being purchased by China through a South Korean company, U.S. intelligence officials say.
Nov 2003 - a tough statement, the Vice-Minister at Beijing's Taiwan Affairs Office Wang Zaixi said Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian's recent pro-separatist activities had crossed Beijing's "red line" and that they "run the risk of triggering a war" with the mainland. "War will break out if the island declares formal independence," state media on Wednesday quoted Wang as saying.
July 26, 2004 - About 18,000 Chinese troops using their country's most advanced weapons systems last week rehearsed coordinated air, sea and ground attacks on Dongshan, an island in the South China Sea that resembles Taiwan in terrain and weather.
Feb 7, 2005 - Quietly, with almost no notice taken in the U.S. media, Russia and China have just stepped up their military cooperation to a level not seen in half a century since the end of the Korean War.
Mar 8, 2005 — China unveiled a law Tuesday authorizing an attack if Taiwan moves toward formal independence, increasing pressure on the self-ruled island while warning other countries not to interfere.
China is building its military forces faster than U.S. intelligence and military analysts expected, prompting fears that Beijing will attack Taiwan in the next two years, according to Pentagon officials. U.S. defense and intelligence officials say all the signs point in one troubling direction: Beijing then will be forced to go to war with the United States, which has vowed to defend Taiwan against a Chinese attack.
Anyone else hear a drum beat?
If you guys want some fun I found a cool Chinese military site that has a bunch of ChiCom nationalists from the Mainland. Most now live in the US or Canada now and they are wacked communists that believe in workers paradise. I'm trying to debate some sense into them but I suspect there are 1 or 2 plants from the Mainland in there. I suspect this because they don't have any knowldege of captialism or private property owernship. They can't live in the US with this ignorance.......so if you want some fun, the message board for General Military (alot of political threads) is here :
http://p098.ezboard.com/fsinodefenceforumfrm2
There are also specific forums for Chinese airpower, and Chinese naval power, Intel, landpower etc. Very iteresting and informative site and a rare chance to dialogue for some real Chinese apologists and true believers. Ill warn you that I'm outnumbered about 15:2, and I keep it moderate so I don't get booted by the PRC monitors. But I get my licks in for capitalism, freedom, and democracy (they are just getting the democracy part so I spare them republican government at this point).
And this brings us the the crux of the matter...
Is real nature of the Chinese threat nuclear, or does it take a different form? We can all agree that their short term goal is to gain control of Taiwan, and to reduce risk of attack from neighboring nation-states. As to the world hegemonic plans of China, there is no doubt that they intend to dominate economically and perhaps even politically.
The Chinese military is proudly kept in a state of readiness--it's a matter of "face", if nothing else.
What would be the possible unforeseen results of our decision to defend or not to defend Taiwan when China makes its move?
If we were to defend Taiwan, we would naturally follow up on the military action with reparations and payouts to China, which would obviously abet China's longterm goal of being the world's leading economic power.
On the other hand, a failure to defend Taiwan could result in a "loss of face" for the US. China would continue pushing us on every conceivable issue until we would be forced to respond to some incident that directly damages the US.
Which brings us back to your point: China may be planning to force our hand one way or another.
I believe we have an alternative. First of all, our actions in Iraq are a show of force that is at least postponing China's activities in the Taiwan. Now given that our continuing trade with China creates a dependency that is not "face saving" for the Chinese, we could easily demonstrate, with a temporary closing of our ports to Chinese goods, that we cannot be toyed with. A well-planned strike of dock workers on the West Coast, for instance, would serve the same purpose without having the appearance of a US government action.
R U Chinese?
I think their build up is open for interpertation and, seems to others, to be a bit more than simple posturing and surface "glam".
"Defending TAIWAN is not in the best interests of the U.S."
And not to do so is? What message does that send to our "allies" and our "enemies"? (Your "save face point")
What kind of credibility would the U.S. have then in regard to our constant mantra of defending the freedom and liberty of innocent people? (I think you understand this, as that ou have noted the possibility, but haven't weighted it's importance accordingly)
I beg to differ, we defend TAIWAN because it's in the best interest of free people everywhere (and our "national" interests. To not do so sets a dangerous precedent and is remiscent of "containment" and "appeasment" approaches that have failed to prevent conflict over the centuries.
One of the previous post details china's drum beat to war well.
As a prelude to any Chinese assualt on TAIWAN, sure I agree...any means that may bring about a peaceful solution should/must be tried but, honestly, we should always let CHINA know...aggresive action on their part, will be met in kind.
Sadly, force is the only political instrument tyranny's like China understand. Don't let the subterfuge of their "open" economy fool you. China is a tyranny. The chinese government only beleive in its " free market economy", as much as such an economy allows them to perpetuate their Moaist Regime, and/or use as a weapon against us. If CHINA eventually comes to a conclusion, running the numbers...that TAIWAN is more of a national threat than losing trade with us...(or that we simply won't respond with force as you suggest)
They'll attack TAIWAN. And that is a bad day for everyone.
I think prudence, and procedure, demands that he strike right away.
As I understand it...it's a systemic response, that upon a nuclear event against the U.S. the POTUS makes a decision quickly based not only on retaliating against the aggressor, but averting the very relevant point you make.
His reaction, if nuclear, shouldn't be put up for debate in the house and senate. To do so, would compromise his status as CINC. And then we'd be paralyzed by running a war by committee. (I know seems like that happens now)
However, nuclear attacks are quite different. Many speculate what, besides launch codes, are in the football. I bet there's a nuclear response card key for just about every conceivable situation. That's a guess though.
Gut tells me, Bush hit's them with a nuke...and debates the libs about it later. He'll have fifty-years of pre-established SOP to debate them with.
One other thing.
China's the aggressor in this nuke (war) scenario...thus I can't see the U.S. being the nation state paying reparations, that would fall on CHINA. So China doesn't attain any goal, other than being a larger pariah than it is.
The small man war.
Why would they want to eliminate their best customers?
Doesn't make sense does it? On the other hand, their generals brag about how they can blow up any American city anytime they like with that missile guidance technology that they developed that just happens to be identical in every respect to our own. They've threatened to invade Taiwan. Their ally has threatened to start a nuclear war on the Korean penninsula, and has launched ICBMs over Japan.
They do a lot of things that don't seem particularly logical.
I wouldn't worry if China's ruling Cadre simply saw things that simply, and that true, but their actions would appear they do not.
I really took a nap.
Did the Small Man War happen between the Korean War and the Nam War?
Japan was the aggressor as well, yet reparations we did pay.
It sends the same message as not liberating all the citizens of Mainland China. They are not free!
If our national mission was to militarily free all oppressed people of the world, shouldn't we be looking aid the citizens of Venezuela, Cuba, Mainland China, North Korea, Zimbabwe and Iran?
Sadly, force is the only political instrument tyrannies like China understand.
Too true...
Trusting the intentions of a Commie is always a mistake. They'll try to rob you at every turn. Killing their own people, so what's the problem?
"Mutually-assured destruction is a highly effective nuclear policy, IMHO."
Ahh, the policy of Madelaine Halfbright.
The Marshall Plan and monies paid stableizing Japan...are not war "reparations". Look up the definition to reparation.
"If our national mission was to militarily free all oppressed people of the world, shouldn't we be looking aid the citizens of Venezuela, Cuba, Mainland China, North Korea, Zimbabwe and Iran?"
Yes.
One point, and it's a BIG ONE, your missing..."TAIWAN" is already free, right?
Protecting them, defending an ally, would be stopping the aggression of a belligirent nation, right? (Please don't confuse the arguement by changing the discussion facts.)
Don't know how you equate that to the "national mission" you mention in your post. Seems they are quite different.
But if it was our "national mission" to free already oppressed people, by both military and political options...
then the answer would be "yes"
Again...in the proposed hypothetical war scenario we are "DEFENDING" a free nation state against a biligerent nation (Taiwan (free) and China (Tyranny))...Similar to defending Kuwait against Iraq. The other nations you mention are already tyrannys and are not allies to be defended. There's no equivocating the fact pattern, alright? That's a liberal tactic for avoiding the truth of the original arguement.
Less than twenty acres,,,I wouldn't want to be one of those tens of thousands crammed into such a small area....where are the other tens of MILLIONS of residents going to stay???? The Dodger Stadium parking is a packed mess after a game with only fifty thousand on more than twenty acres.... blufffff...
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.