Is a China/Taiwan conflict brewing?

[jofg]

I know this is not a scientific question (well, may political science or world science? :) ), but with the diverse and intelligent membership here, I’m very curious what your opinions are on this.

As most probably know, China is making noises about Taiwan again with the introduction of the bill authorizing military force against Taiwan. Is China making a statement here – “We’re taking Taiwan back and everyone stay out of our way”? or are they just posturing?

If China does force the issue and invades Taiwan, what options do the Taiwanese allies (US, Australia, others?) have??

One last question (and the one that has me most worried) – China moves on Taiwan and the US (and others)provide military support (of some sort) for Taiwan. What’s to stop China form saying – OK US, you’ve attacked us, so we’re nationalizing all companies/businesses in China – thereby allowing China to take control of all US or non-China owned factories, inventories, technology, etc. Many US companies have and continue to pour millions upon millions of dollars into building Chinese factories. What would it do to the US economy if China were to take control of these factories? I would expect many companies to be forced into bankruptcy.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

[Moose]

Posturing.

You need only ask one question: how does mainland China get its troops across the straights?

There's only one country in the world with the shipping to land even a small invasion force into a resisting country. And that ain't China.

An economic war wouldn't be much better. Yes, it would hurt for a while, but Walmart would eventually be able to buy it's cheap... er... "fine goods" from other south-asian countries.

[Edit to add a paragraph]

[Hutch]

Now--posturing. Mainland China may, just may, be able to get troops across the water but sustaining them would be beyond their current capabilites, IMHO.

Later--say 20 years from now, if the status quo hasn't changed dramatically, then it might be a real possibility.

And it could happen today if Taiwan was to declare Independence, the Mainland Government might feel that it has no choice but to invade or look weak and foolish, especially to it's population.

A war there makes no sense economically or politically to any of the possible involved parties (China, Taiwan, US, Japan), but then again, when has War ever made much sense?

[Argos]

Wouldn´t China invading Taiwan be like the US invading Hawaii, or Britain invading the Falklands? 8-[

[kucharek]

Wouldn´t China invading Taiwan be like the US invading Hawaii, or Britain invading the Falklands? 8-[

That's how China would see the issue, but not the rest of the world. Though I've no idea how the rest of the world would react. But I don't think that China really would risk a war, the Chinese are pretty rational in their politics. And Taiwan lives pretty well with the status quo. What could Taiwan gain by declaring independence?

Harald

[tmosher]

China invading Taiwan would result in China shooting itself in the foot economically. Trade between Taiwan and China is around $65 billion per year and Taiwan has invested around $80 billion in Chinese projects.

IMHO, I think mainland China is posturing - they don't want to look weak to their citizens and are trying to prove who is the dominant power in the region.

[Fram]

Wouldn´t China invading Taiwan be like the US invading Hawaii, or Britain invading the Falklands? 8-[

That's how China would see the issue, but not the rest of the world. Though I've no idea how the rest of the world would react. But I don't think that China really would risk a war, the Chinese are pretty rational in their politics. And Taiwan lives pretty well with the status quo. What could Taiwan gain by declaring independence?

Harald

I don't know what they would gain (but symbols are important to people), but thety would risk losing the treasures of the Sierra Madre, err, the Forbidden City. Those are partly in Taiwan (about one fifth in quantity, I believe, but many of the best parts are in Taiwan), but China can hardly demand that they be returned to China, as that would mean for them to acknowledge that Taiwan is not a part of China. So for now, Taiwan can keep them and use them as touristic fundraisers (I hope you know what I mean).

[hewhocaves]

I believe the US has a mutual defense treaty with Taiwan - so if China goes to war with Taiwan, it may wind up being a US-Sino affair.

there's an interesting book out called "Future Wars" which talks about the trouble spots of the world and how they might erupt into shooting wars. The original came out in the early 90s, i think. Tehre's probably a few clones of it out by now. So pick your poison.

John

[tofu]

One of the reasons China periodically threatens Taiwan is to remind Chinese citizens that the Chinese government is powerful. It helps to prevent Tiananmen Square type incidents.

As other people have said though, China does not have a strong enough navy (by several orders of magnitude) to get an invasion force anywhere near Taiwan. Where do you think all those submarines that the US built during the cold war are right now? Enough of them are near Taiwan at any given time to make a sea-borne invasion impossible.

They could airdrop troops, or even just bomb the island, but there's no way they could bring enough combat power to actually hold it. Furthermore, knowing that the US can handle the water approaches, the Taiwanese government has spent its money build up air defenses. China can expect heavy, heavy aircraft losses if they try anything - and aircraft loses are very expensive.

They could try nuking Taiwan, but that would open up a whole new can of worms that they probably don't want to deal with. The only remaining military option would be a terrorist campaign, and like going nuclear, I don't really see what the point would be.

[Musashi]

Here is a question though. Is Taiwan worth a war with China, for the US? Also, I can't remember where I read it, but maybe around 4-6 months ago I remember that a lot of the countries in the area were saying that they would not get involved if China took action regarding Taiwan. I don't remember many specifics, but I seem to remember Australia was one of those countries.

[hewhocaves]

Here is a question though. Is Taiwan worth a war with China, for the US? Also, I can't remember where I read it, but maybe around 4-6 months ago I remember that a lot of the countries in the area were saying that they would not get involved if China took action regarding Taiwan. I don't remember many specifics, but I seem to remember Australia was one of those countries.

i think it becomes (if nothing else) a matter of principle and reputation for us. back in the cold war we swore on a stgack of bibles that we would defend tiawan to trhe death against mainland china.

given our current state of diplomatic disrepair, we probably can't afford not to defend the taiwaneese.

remember, WWI started in part because the russians woulnd't back down as the protector of Serbia. the reason the central powers initiated the crisis was that russia backed down the couple of times before. going to the well too many times is massively dnagerous in globalpolitics

John

[tofu]

Here is a question though. Is Taiwan worth a war with China, for the US?

But China has to ask itself, given that 1) we can't possibly win the island, and 2) this is going to be very expensive, can *we* afford a war with the US?

After all, since Taiwan could be defended with just submarines that the US isn't using anyway, there is a near 100% chance that the US would defend it. What could China do in response? I guess they could fire (hopefully conventional) ballistic missiles at us, but soon we'll have a reasonable effect defense system against that.

I just can't bring myself to the place where I believe China is this stupid.

[Argos]

Also, there´s the Russia factor. China has received modern weapons from Russia in recent years: submarines, destroyers, Su-27 and Su-30 fighters and surface-to-air missiles. Would Russia remain impassible with such developments in a region that is also of its interest?

[Captain Kidd]

Perceptions of honor can cause illogical reactions.

China has stated time and again that they'll not let Taiwan go. If Taiwan does declare independance, it'll force China's hand.

Either they do nothing and, even if it's just to themselves, be shown as weak-willed to the global community and lose face. Or they act to prevent it even though they know it's a no-win situation with a vast potential for negative PR.

Another option is Taiwan doesn't delcare independance, but works with China until at some point in the future, there's a good-willed parting of ways.

[Makgraf]

Posturing.

You need only ask one question: how does mainland China get its troops across the straights?
Hovercrafts! (http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=HTAMPH.HTM)

Note- I have no idea how well this would work in practice. But I think that Hovercrafts are cool (is that even the plural of Hovercraft?).

I agree though that this current action is just posturing.

[Doodler]

Here is a question though. Is Taiwan worth a war with China, for the US?

But China has to ask itself, given that 1) we can't possibly win the island, and 2) this is going to be very expensive, can *we* afford a war with the US?

After all, since Taiwan could be defended with just submarines that the US isn't using anyway, there is a near 100% chance that the US would defend it. What could China do in response? I guess they could fire (hopefully conventional) ballistic missiles at us, but soon we'll have a reasonable effect defense system against that.

I just can't bring myself to the place where I believe China is this stupid.

Don't bet the farm on the ABM shield just yet, and given how much the US softshoes on Taiwan, China smells an opening. Lets face it, SARS ravaged Taiwan pretty much unchecked early on because China blocked WHO from assisting. I don't put much beyond their capacity for, and tolerance of, inflicting human suffering there.

Not only is China posturing on Taiwan, they've actually gone and insinuated to Australia that it should reconsider its military ties to the US, because they may end up in conflict with China because of them. Somebody care to sound off on that little gem of diplomatic brinksmanship?

Big picture, folks, this is a bit more than posturing, this is saber-rattling.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22110-2005Mar9.html

[paulie jay]

“We’re taking Taiwan back and everyone stay out of our way”? or are they just posturing?
Posturing. But the posturing will be enough.

I remember that a lot of the countries in the area were saying that they would not get involved if China took action regarding Taiwan. I don't remember many specifics, but I seem to remember Australia was one of those countries.
It is Australia's ties to the USA via the Anzus treaty that will see our involvement in a conflict in Asia. Basically, if the USA get involved, we get involved - our current Prime Minister seems intent on getting onto George Bush's christmas card list.

Australia is currently striking a free trade deal with China, and politically it would be pretty stupid to get involved in a conflict over Taiwan out of a desire to play with the big boys - but that's what we've been doing for years and I don't see that changing.


edited to add last thought

[gethen]

My Chinese history is rusty, but isn't it true that the island of Taiwan has historically been part of China? It was only after the last wave of dueling warlords (the Communists vs. the Chiang Kai-shek group) that the losers (Chiang's folks) retreated to Taiwan and the winners, (who can be seen as the next dynasty) have been trying to root them out ever since. Without U.S. support for Taiwan, they would have been successful a long time ago. I'm not expressing support for either side, just saying that China has a long history of upheaval--the dynasty in power gets senile, the peasants revolt, the warlord with the most support and biggest army becomes the new emperor, and the masses go back to work. I would guess that those in power in China see it that way anyhow.

[paulie jay]

Not only is China posturing on Taiwan, they've actually gone and insinuated to Australia that it should reconsider its military ties to the US, because they may end up in conflict with China because of them. Somebody care to sound off on that little gem of diplomatic brinksmanship?

Makes sense to me. It's a regional dispute, and Australia is in the region. We should be forging relationships with our neighbours rather than racing halfway around the world to fight wars we don't believe in. If Australia gets involved in a dispute over Taiwan it should be because we truly believe we should be there, not out of some percieved loyalty to the USA.

[Jpax2003]

One of the reasons we had planned to defend Taiwan ROC is that we were counterbalancing the spread of communism. Global communism has essentially collapsed and those communistic countries remaining have a lot of capitalism in them now. I'm less concerned with the communism aspect of China PRC and more worried about the growing capitalism. With an increasing economy the PRC is becoming a rival to the US. China's imports of petroleum and other resources is going to strain global resources and raise prices for US consumers. This will lead to war. Taiwan is simply a lever to be used to instigate hostilities when China (or the US) feels ready. The PRC know this as does the US, NATO, Russia, and just about everybody, even though they may not publically admit it. North Korea is another potential trigger. In fact, I suspect NK will create a diversion allowing for a real or feigned attack on Taiwan ROC to force a move by the US.

True to Sun Tzu the PRC is trying to wedge our alliances, like ANZUS, apart. But to our credit we've got Pakistan nominally on our side when the PRC would prefer it was their counterbalance to India which is a thorn in their side. Russia seems to be on their side as they sell weapons to the PRC, but Russia sells weapons to anyone... and Russia has always been ill at ease with the overpopulated PRC next to their underpopulated and resource rich siberian territory.

In the Line of Fire are Taiwan ROC, Japan, and South Korea which have adequate defenses but would probably need to be buttressed by the US in the event of a concerted attack. The potential enemies of our potential enemy are Russia and India. India might be countered by Pakistan and Russia's ability to mount a viable defence along China's border is iffy. So how do three countries defend against or defeat a massive land army if they can't get enough men and equipment into the theater of operations? [Jack Ryan voice]How do you get three nuclear powers to stop China...[/Jack Ryan voice]

So China's posturing and saber-rattling is probably nothing more than a dry run for a prelude to global thermonuclear war. :D Have a nice day.

[farmerjumperdon]

Agreed. Taiwan would be a prelude to a China conflict the way slavery was a prelude to the U.S Civil War. It really wasn't the cause, just one of the hot-point manifestations of the debate over states rights that was never settled after the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

As China's economy grows, and hence as their influence on all issues worldwide grows, the issue of recource allocation is going to be forced. And almost all wars are about resources nowadays. China will get what they need, or they will get more and more pushy, and more and more difficult to deal with peacefully.

The noise they are making about Taiwan is positioning. Positioning on all sides is taking place all the time. If it is positioning that has suddenly become more prominent, or is getting a lot more attention, then THAT is significant. If you've read any of my long-winded rants on previous threads, then you might remember my prediction that China will become the next great superpower. They will get a turn at the top next. That much seems pretty certain given their growing economy and the momentum their population will create. History proves nobody stays on top forever. Not believing that is just a manifestation of ego- and ethno-centrism.

With China on deck, the real question is: Who's in the hole?

[Jpax2003]

Agreed. Taiwan would be a prelude to a China conflict the way slavery was a prelude to the U.S Civil War. It really wasn't the cause, just one of the hot-point manifestations of the debate over states rights that was never settled after the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

As China's economy grows, and hence as their influence on all issues worldwide grows, the issue of recource allocation is going to be forced. And almost all wars are about resources nowadays. China will get what they need, or they will get more and more pushy, and more and more difficult to deal with peacefully.

The noise they are making about Taiwan is positioning. Positioning on all sides is taking place all the time. If it is positioning that has suddenly become more prominent, or is getting a lot more attention, then THAT is significant. If you've read any of my long-winded rants on previous threads, then you might remember my prediction that China will become the next great superpower. They will get a turn at the top next. That much seems pretty certain given their growing economy and the momentum their population will create. History proves nobody stays on top forever. Not believing that is just a manifestation of ego- and ethno-centrism.

With China on deck, the real question is: Who's in the hole?I agree with your analysis but not with your conclusion. China PRC wants to be the next big superpower, but I don't think it will happen. I know there is the old hypothesis about world empires blooming from east to west and that China may be next, but I don't agree with it. I think China had a chance to emerge as a world power long ago and did so in their region but limited their ambitions for one reason or another. Therefore I feel the hypothesis or prophesy will not hold.

More to the point, I think that the world is at such a point now that there can not be another bipolar split (cold-ware style) or the emergence of a new superpower. We wouldn't be fighting for hearts and minds or over vast unexplored and unexploited resources like in the cold war. We'd be fighting for real possession of more limited resources. Heck, all this posturing over Taiwan may be a diversion for a future incursion into Siberia. Some people are making comparisons to WWI... ok, but think of it as WWI with nukes. There might not be much left to be a superpower over afterwards.

Maybe after a nuclear war there will be a power vacuum that China PRC can move into, but right now there isn't. The entire globe is administered and there is no room for expansion. There are no weak governments to expand into which are not either inconsequential or bulwarked by more powerful allies.

For all its problems, I think the world might prefer the US as an economic superpower. People immigrate to the US in search of opportunity and freedom. Does anyone think this paradigm would hold true for a Chinese Superpower? How many mexicans will China allow into their society to work low paying jobs so they can send that money home to Mexico? How many Poles or Nigerians will China allow in? None, I suspect. The rest of the world has a vested interest in preventing or restricting Chinese dominance and hegemony. China PRC knows this and they feel beset on all sides by enemies. I do not envy their position. They cannot succeed and will not, without some great international tragedy. I think they will only reach global dominance through global thermonuclear war. And I suspect that whatever is left of China will be almost unrecognizable from it's current government.

I think there may be one chance to prevent that conflict if we establish a new international system, but China would and will only ever reach a parity, but not a rivalry, with the dominant powers. Any other path leads to misery.

[mike alexander]

And since this is a science board as well, if China is just patient for a few million years Taiwan will eventually accrete on the mainland as a terrane.

[Moose]

And since this is a science board as well, if China is just patient for a few million years Taiwan will eventually accrete on the mainland as a terrane.

"To the PRC.

Keep your shirts on. We're coming.

ROC."

[Doodler]

Maybe we should rename Taiwan to "Sudeten Island" and let the Maoists reunite their "lost province"? Cripes, Neville Chamberlain would look at this burlesque show we're putting on and applaud with tears of joy in his eyes.

Maybe, someday in the future, they can be reunified, but not today. Not with China as it is now. This idea that China can be manipulated into becoming a productive and trusted member of international society without a complete regime change is utterly bizarre thinking to me. All you get with a wealthy dictatorial regime is a regime that can afford to stay in power. The Soviets went down because they went bankrupt. Even as a new generation of dictators try rising to power in Eastern Europe, they're being toppled and stymied in most cases because they're broke. This idea that being flush with money is going to make the Communists into Capitalists is laughable idealism and its going to earn us a well deserved sucker punch if we dare buy into it. If you think for a minute the Maoists are interested in preserving any element of capitalism, read up a few recent articles on the shuffling of power going on in Hong Kong. Let China have Taiwan back if you think that's where it will stop. Put the blinders on to what happened to Tibet and what's happening to Nepal. Try to imagine that if you just give them that little piece of land they want, they will stop there and ask for no more.

If anyone comes looking for me, I'll be at the bar with George Satayana, mourning the lost lessons of history.

[CTM VT 2K]

If anyone comes looking for me, I'll be at the bar with George Satayana, mourning the lost lessons of history.

Not all the Government Analysts and advisors have lost the lessons of history. We may be fighting an uphill battle, but some of us do know our history.

edit: correct a tag

[Jpax2003]

Maybe we should rename Taiwan to "Sudeten Island" and let the Maoists reunite their "lost province"? Cripes, Neville Chamberlain would look at this burlesque show we're putting on and applaud with tears of joy in his eyes.Are you responding to someone in particular or is that apropos of nothing?

[Doodler]

Maybe we should rename Taiwan to "Sudeten Island" and let the Maoists reunite their "lost province"? Cripes, Neville Chamberlain would look at this burlesque show we're putting on and applaud with tears of joy in his eyes.Are you responding to someone in particular or is that apropos of nothing?

Well, since the world at large seems to have forgotten exactly what the nature of the beast we're dealing with is, it seems appropriate to the nauture of this thread. I mean, it seems like most people here would gladly hand the PRC the keys to the executive suite among normalized nations in spite of its actions. The occupation of Tibet is accepted so quietly because governments bought into the idea that its the result of a 'popular uprising' within that nation, despite the Chinese fingerprints all over the crime scene. As far as the appropriateness of that line, lets look at history. The German motivation for invading Poland and the demands for the Sudetenland strike me as a direct parallel to this recent legislation by the PRC. Its nothing less than political justification for an invasion at any time they feel momentum is gaining for Taiwanese independence. Its appropriate because if the world is so deeply afraid of holding China accountable for its actions and desperate to give them whatever they want to get on their good side, the world might as well go the whole nine yards.

[Musashi]

There is one important difference.

[Jpax2003]

Maybe we should rename Taiwan to "Sudeten Island" and let the Maoists reunite their "lost province"? Cripes, Neville Chamberlain would look at this burlesque show we're putting on and applaud with tears of joy in his eyes.Are you responding to someone in particular or is that apropos of nothing?

Well, since the world at large seems to have forgotten exactly what the nature of the beast we're dealing with is, it seems appropriate to the nauture of this thread. I mean, it seems like most people here would gladly hand the PRC the keys to the executive suite among normalized nations in spite of its actions. The occupation of Tibet is accepted so quietly because governments bought into the idea that its the result of a 'popular uprising' within that nation, despite the Chinese fingerprints all over the crime scene. As far as the appropriateness of that line, lets look at history. The German motivation for invading Poland and the demands for the Sudetenland strike me as a direct parallel to this recent legislation by the PRC. Its nothing less than political justification for an invasion at any time they feel momentum is gaining for Taiwanese independence. Its appropriate because if the world is so deeply afraid of holding China accountable for its actions and desperate to give them whatever they want to get on their good side, the world might as well go the whole nine yards.Oh, I thought you might have been responding to me which didn't make sense to me. I suspect we'll nuke them within a decade for one reason or another. I also don't think that Russia will complain and so the rule that if "one flies they all fly" may be proven false.

[Doodler]

There is one important difference.

Let me in on the secret, I don't like having heartburn over the news if I'm that far off. :)

[Doodler]

Maybe we should rename Taiwan to "Sudeten Island" and let the Maoists reunite their "lost province"? Cripes, Neville Chamberlain would look at this burlesque show we're putting on and applaud with tears of joy in his eyes.Are you responding to someone in particular or is that apropos of nothing?

Well, since the world at large seems to have forgotten exactly what the nature of the beast we're dealing with is, it seems appropriate to the nauture of this thread. I mean, it seems like most people here would gladly hand the PRC the keys to the executive suite among normalized nations in spite of its actions. The occupation of Tibet is accepted so quietly because governments bought into the idea that its the result of a 'popular uprising' within that nation, despite the Chinese fingerprints all over the crime scene. As far as the appropriateness of that line, lets look at history. The German motivation for invading Poland and the demands for the Sudetenland strike me as a direct parallel to this recent legislation by the PRC. Its nothing less than political justification for an invasion at any time they feel momentum is gaining for Taiwanese independence. Its appropriate because if the world is so deeply afraid of holding China accountable for its actions and desperate to give them whatever they want to get on their good side, the world might as well go the whole nine yards.Oh, I thought you might have been responding to me which didn't make sense to me. I suspect we'll nuke them within a decade for one reason or another. I also don't think that Russia will complain and so the rule that if "one flies they all fly" may be proven false.

Russia has a very full plate on its hands right now with its old satellite nations, I really don't think they could meaningfully get involved in China/Taiwan other than to be a voice in the choir. If China tries anything funny in Siberia, then the balance changes dramatically.

As concerned as I am about the prospect of a military action in this case, I'm almost absolutely certain it will not be nuclear unless something truly outrageous escalates it, that is, unless someone lobs a nuke at the invasion army. Remember, this is territory China considers its own, they want it back and subjugated, not completely uninhabitable.

[Musashi]

There is one important difference.

Let me in on the secret, I don't like having heartburn over the news if I'm that far off. :)

Think of the consequences of preventing the takeover of the Sudent and the consequences of preventing the takeover of Taiwan.

[kg034]

[snip...]
The entire globe is administered and there is no room for expansion. There are no weak governments to expand into which are not either inconsequential or bulwarked by more powerful allies.

That is, until more Weapons of Mass Destruction are found....err, pardon, alleged 8)


For all its problems, I think the world might prefer the US as an economic superpower.

I'm sure the Brits had very similar self-reflections when they had their empire.
And why are people so trigger-happy on the nuclear, or should I say, nuKular, button? Relax, people, the US with its robot armies is here to defend freedom, liberty and justice for all, right? 8)

[Archer17]

China is just posturing . For all their bluster, the Chinese are a basically a third-world country right now and are incapable of seizing Taiwan without going nuclear. Vietnam bloodied their noses back in the late 70's and it wasn't a fluke.That is, until more Weapons of Mass Destruction are found....err, pardon, alleged 8)We know Iraq never had WMD right? :^o I'm sure the Brits had very similar self-reflections when they had their empire.
And why are people so trigger-happy on the nuclear, or should I say, nuKular, button? Relax, people, the US with its robot armies is here to defend freedom, liberty and justice for all, right? 8) The difference being, the Brits had an empire. The US of A isn't about to come tumbling down any time soon and last time I looked, nuclear weapons weren't used in combat since 1945.

[Stuart]

My Chinese history is rusty, but isn't it true that the island of Taiwan has historically been part of China?

Not really. Taiwanese history is actually quite interesting. Some anthropological evidence suggests that Taiwan's indigenous population come from the same basic groups that gave rise to the Burmans (not the Burmese), the Balinese and the Malayans. However, there are also strong linguistic links to the Polynesian Islands cultures and they apparently share many customs and cultural features with Polynesian groups such as tattooing, gerontocracy, spirit worship, and indoor burial.

The first really significant occupation was by Dutch and Spanish traders (who had a quiet little war in Formosa all to themselves that nobody ever hears about). In 1622, the Dutch East India Company established a military base on the Pescadores Islands but were forced out by the Chinese and moved to the much larger island of Taiwan in 1624, where they established a colonial capital and ruled for the next 38 years. Two years later, the Spanish also occupied northern Taiwan to counter-balance the Dutch expansion, building Keelung and Danshuei as their bases for trade and Christian missions, but were ousted by the Dutch in 1642. To increase the trade surplus, the Dutch induced the Chinese to migrate to Taiwan in the 1630s to grow sugarcane and rice.

This 1630s date is significant because it marks the first Chinese mainland population move to Formosa (the Portuguese name for the Island - meaning "beautiful island.) While the Dutch were colonizing Taiwan, China was in the middle of one of its endless series of civil wars, these being the ones that followed the Manchu invasion and eventually established the Ching dynasty. As part of the fighting the Manchu Navy (aka pirates) repeatedly ravaged coastal towns. The endless wars, famines, and robberies severely disturbed the Chinese peasantry (having your farm burned down, your wife raped and your children sold into slavery can ruin your whole day). Consequently, thousands of people, especially from the coastal provinces of Fuchien and Guangdong migrated across the Formosa Strait to Formosa in order to live under Dutch protection. About 40,000 Chinese were living in Taiwan in 1662

As Manchu troops poured into northern China, many Ming loyalists escaped to the south. One of the most celebrated was Jheng Cheng-gong who forced the Dutch out in 1662 and made Taiwan his base for counter-attacks on the Manchus until 1683. Jheng's son and grandson ruled Taiwan for 22 years before surrendering control of the island to the Manchus in 1683. Taiwan was then ruled by the Manchus for 212 years until 1895. During this period, Formosa's resources attracted international attention, and some countries even attempted to occupy Taiwan. Japan occupied southern Formosa for a short period in 1874, and the French attacked northern Formosa in 1884-85. This was about the same time as the brutal and unprovoked French attack on Vietnam, a coincidence that the Ching Dynasty did not see as coincidental. As a response to these incursions, the Ching dynasty made Taiwan its 22nd province. Formosa became Taiwan and was fully integrated into the Chinese empire, with numerous Taiwanese attending traditional academies and passing civil service examinations.

Taiwan was ceded to Japan in 1895 under the Treaty of Shimonoseki. During its 50-year rule of Taiwan, Japan basically structured Taiwan to act as a supply base for the Japanese empire, providing agricultural products, and creating demand for Japanese industrial goods. Taiwan also provided living space for emigrants from an increasingly overpopulated home country. The Chinese on Taiwan were forced to adopt Japanese names, wear Japanese-style clothing, eat Japanese food, and observe Japanese religious rites. Chinese dialects and customs were discouraged and Chinese language schools closed. People were taught to see themselves as Japanese instead of Chinese, and in fact, during the Second World War, tens of thousand joined the Japanese military. Liberation from colonial rule came only with the defeat of Japan in 1945 and Taiwan's return to China. In 1949, the central government of the Republic of China, on the Chinese mainland, lost its battle against the Chinese Communist, and relocated to Taiwan.

Do the Chinese have a real ability to invade Taiwan? Answer is no, their amphibious lift could put about 10,000 - 15,000 men on the shore (at the expense of gruesome casualties that would deny them the amphib lift needed to resupply and support them). The invasion beach would simply be a large PoW camp. It will be many years before China develops an invasion capability - if it ever does. There doesn't seem to be a major amphibious lift construction program at present; although they are building LSTs and LPDs and converting some old destroyers to transports, these are essentially replacing older units; the actual lift remains unchanged. Some of the Chinese amphib lift consists of old US Navy LSTs from the Second World War.

Although the Chinese have bought a fair amount of Russian equipment of late (2 + 2 destroyers, 4 + 8 submarines, numerous Su-27 and 30 aircraft etc) they have extreme problems keeping this stuff servicable, Qualitatively, they are far inferior to the Taiwan Air Force,

So what are the Chinese options and what are they up to. They can launch a nuclear assault on Taiwan and effectively turn the place into a parking lot. Problem is, they know very well that a few minutes later every major city in China would get the same treatment. They could bombard Taiwan with conventional missiles but that won't achieve very much. In fact, there isn't very much the Chinese can do to Taiwan that doesn't involve terrible risks. What they can do is try to inflict economic damage and I think that is their objective here. These threats and sabre-rattling escapades create an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty that acts against future investment. That puts a limiter on Taiwanese economic growth and their ability to maintain themselves as a quasi-independent country.

There's another factor; there is a very vocal element in the Taiwanese population (mostly the original Taiwanese who, as we have seen are not Chinese in any meaningful sense) who want independence and their own national state that they can occupy as Taiwanese. Every election sees their strength growing - most significantly with growing support from the Chinese-Taiwanese young who adopt original-Taiwanese ways as a means of asserting an identity. I think another mainland motivation is to discourage that abandonment of Chinese cultural norms in Taiwan.

In short, I don't think we're going to see a full-scale war out there yet unless somebody really makes a total pig's breakfast of the political gamesmanship. We may see a lot more brinksmanship though.

[A Thousand Pardons]

Is a China/Taiwan conflict brewing?
It's been simmering a long time, seems like it is always threatening to boil over. It's not just a tempest in a tea pot.

[adamp]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=516&e=4&u=/ap/china_legislature

China's parliament enacted a law Monday authorizing force to stop rival Taiwan from pursuing formal independence, sparking outrage on the self-governing island and warnings that the measure would fuel regional tensions.


Does this really change the current situation?

[Argos]

With its (usual) vague phraseology, it only sets the political background for a possible invasion; it inserts that directive into the party´s discourse and orthodoxy; it indicates a shift in the previous condescending attitude and legitimates future steps towards war.

[kg034]

snip...That is, until more Weapons of Mass Destruction are found....err, pardon, alleged 8)We know Iraq never had WMD right? :^o

Actually, Archie :), you are aware that under closer scrutiny, the issue of WMD reveals itself to be irrelevant, right?


I'm sure the Brits had very similar self-reflections when they had their empire.
And why are people so trigger-happy on the nuclear, or should I say, nuKular, button? Relax, people, the US with its robot armies is here to defend freedom, liberty and justice for all, right? 8) The difference being, the Brits had an empire.

My observation/hypothesis was on what Brits were thinking during their empire days.
I never implied anything about the potential duration of the American empire :).


The US of A isn't about to come tumbling down any time soon and last time I looked, nuclear weapons weren't used in combat since 1945.
used in combat?.....Oh, you mean when they were used to obliterate not one, but two cities?

.................................................. ./me runs and ducks 8-[


(stretches neck to say that: yes, all of this might be irrelevant to the topic of China posturing, but whenever somebody mentions nukeing, it sends shivers down my spine)

[Jpax2003]

(stretches neck to say that: yes, all of this might be irrelevant to the topic of China posturing, but whenever somebody mentions nukeing, it sends shivers down my spine)That was probably me talking about nukes. However, I'm not saying we should nuke china, or anyone, but I think we will nuke China PRC within ten years. Call it 80% probability, but I'm just guestimating. I can think of ways to avoid such a disaster that may yet play out.

[Archer17]

snip...That is, until more Weapons of Mass Destruction are found....err, pardon, alleged 8)We know Iraq never had WMD right? :^o

Actually, Archie :), you are aware that under closer scrutiny, the issue of WMD reveals itself to be irrelevant, right?You brought it up. What's with the "Archie?"
I'm sure the Brits had very similar self-reflections when they had their empire.
And why are people so trigger-happy on the nuclear, or should I say, nuKular, button? Relax, people, the US with its robot armies is here to defend freedom, liberty and justice for all, right? 8) The difference being, the Brits had an empire.

My observation/hypothesis was on what Brits were thinking during their empire days.
I never implied anything about the potential duration of the American empire :).Where do you get "potential duration" from? My point is we don't have a empire like the Brits had. What's this have to do with China-Taiwan anyway?The US of A isn't about to come tumbling down any time soon and last time I looked, nuclear weapons weren't used in combat since 1945.used in combat?.....Oh, you mean when they were used to obliterate not one, but two cities?

.................................................. ./me runs and ducks 8-[


(stretches neck to say that: yes, all of this might be irrelevant to the topic of China posturing, but whenever somebody mentions nukeing, it sends shivers down my spine)It was irrelevant. A shivering spine is no excuse to mention WMD in your context and your perceived correlations between the British Empire and this country.

If you don't have anything relevant to add here, don't add anything at all.

[dvb]

A little off topic.

But does anyone think China is on the brink of becoming a democracy anytime soon? I would think that with China's economy growing, and increased usage of the internet among citizens, it will become increasingly harder for the Chinese government to oppress the public.

I'm not well versed in world politics, but it's my understanding that most democracies are born through society becoming more educated, and media aware. Though the Chinese government keeps strict firewalls on what content can and can't be accessed on the internet, with its increased usage, this will become harder and harder to enforce. I also recall reading that one of the most searched for terms on Google in China is the word proxy. A proxy, or proxy server as many know, is a method used to circumvent firewalls, and/or hide ones identity on the internet by relaying your connection through a different server.

Of course, this is just my idea of things, and I'm sure it gets more complicated than this.

Please enlighten me. :D

[W.F. Tomba]

I don't think a democratic revolution in China is out of the question, but I sure haven't seen any signs of one starting. And since the current leadership seems very determined to retain absolute power (even at the cost of abandoning communism), I don't see China becoming a democracy without a long and catastrophic civil war.

[Doodler]

A little off topic.

But does anyone think China is on the brink of becoming a democracy anytime soon? I would think that with China's economy growing, and increased usage of the internet among citizens, it will become increasingly harder for the Chinese government to oppress the public.

I'm not well versed in world politics, but it's my understanding that most democracies are born through society becoming more educated, and media aware. Though the Chinese government keeps strict firewalls on what content can and can't be accessed on the internet, with its increased usage, this will become harder and harder to enforce. I also recall reading that one of the most searched for terms on Google in China is the word proxy. A proxy, or proxy server as many know, is a method used to circumvent firewalls, and/or hide ones identity on the internet by relaying your connection through a different server.

Of course, this is just my idea of things, and I'm sure it gets more complicated than this.

Please enlighten me. :D

As long as the Chinese government is willing to mow down democracy supporters with tanks in the middle of the street while the world looks on and does nothing, the People's Republic of China will never be anything other than an inhuman dictatorship.

Those kids in Tiannamen Square thought much as you did, and a lot of them paid for their idealism with their lives.

[Archer17]

I actually thought China was ripe for change leading up to Tiannamen Square but obviously things didn't work out that way. For China to shake their quasi-third world status they have to change. They should worry about feeding their masses instead of obsessing over Taiwan. I actually support Taiwanese independence. Let's face it, they are independent in everything but name only and earned it IMO although now isn't the best time for them to make an official independence proclamation. For all of China's bluster, I do think they would respond if Taiwan did such a thing now. Hopefully China changes. I think part of China's reason for harping on Taiwan is they consider the island's economic success an embarrassment.

[Jpax2003]

I'm not so sure that democracy in China would be a good thing. At least the authoritarian regime is mostly rational. If China PRC becomes an open and free democracy they may want to vote for themselves bread and circuses. The problem may erupt when they decide that since they are about 1/5 of humanity they should posess 20% of everything. Before you know it, they'll be after our bread and our circuses. The current regime is a limiting factor on Chinese commercialism and consumerism which is advantageous for us in many ways. Imagine the appetite of the US with the population and semi-homogeneity of China. The US is balanced by its varied immigrant population, but China would not have that setup. In fact, the regional differences in culture may create conflict in China not currently envisioned.

With a mild nuclear war in China PRC the reduction in population and industrial capacity might allow for a free and open democracy to develop in china without the pressures for dominance described above. It might take 20 years or more for China to reach parity by which time the rest of the world might be ready to accept them fully. The issue is getting China to start a nuclear war so that the rest of the world will not be blamed by the survivors allowing for full diplomatic integration after the prescribed interval.

Granted the above is not a pretty scenario, but it is better than global thermonuclear war after China reaches parity uncontested. I still believe that full integration could occur without any war, but I am not yet confident of that solution's execution.

[Doodler]

Ehm, I may not be a member of the PRC pep squad, but I wouldn't wish a nuclear civil war on them for all the tea they grow. The people aren't the problem, its the government. The only way I would ever want to see China brought down would be a method that isn't inherently destructive to the people.

The old cold war contain-and-bankrupt scenario worked nicely before without a mushroom cloud to its credit, and that's all I've ever suggested. Even a conventional war needs to be avoided at all costs. Why so? Simple, China wants normalized relations more than anything, their control is based on their ability to be incredibly productive thanks to trade with the rest of the world. Choke the money supply that empowers those in control and let them fall like the Soviets. Like the Soviets, their control comes from a well financed military, once those paychecks start bouncing, or they start getting paid in food and barterables, the polish of being a "productive member of the party" wears off fast. The Chinese aren't afraid of internal revolutions, they've done it before. What's hindering change now is the fact that the West seems more interested in maintaining the status quo and propping the government up with trade relations in spite of their record.

Therein lies the difference in the fate of the bear and the panda.

The Soviets had no trade relations with the West to prop them up. They lived by monopolized control of their satellite nations. The problem with that system is that it was extremely inefficient, and required intense levels of police control. You can only wring so much out of a population before there's nothing left to draw. Once military spending reached the critical threshold, they went bankrupt.

China has a fairly reliable, if stumbling, cash cow in the form of Hong Kong, along with most favored trade relations from the US. As a part of Nixon's wedge strategy in the 70's, the Chinese Communists gained a lifeline in the form of an open door policy with the largest superconsumer population on the planet. It served its purpose in stretching the link between Beijing and Moscow, but what was then a necessity is now a crippling liability. Its free life without any accountability for having it.

Beyond that, the question remains, does the PRC need to be 'brought down'? Do we even need to take those steps to strangle them?

I can only ask in return, what makes China different from the Soviet Union? Why is what they do more tolerable than what the Russians did?

I think that goes beyond the question of China/Taiwan, but how far we go to defend Taiwan or not also begs the question of how do we address the mainland.

[Jpax2003]

how do we address the mainland.Rebel Scum!
I'm joking here, but we could go back to the Taiwanese-ROC-is-the-only-legitimate-Chinese-government position, re-labeling the mainland as insurgents.

I agree that the government is the current problem, but once they are dealt with the people may become a bigger problem. The west is notorious for fighting one battle without preparing for the next battle. The only thing more dangerous than a military dictatorship/oligarchy is a militant democracy. This is witnessed by the american desire for war after the events of both 9/11/2001 and 12/7/1945. Before WWII the US was a sleeping giant. The vast population of China may also be a sleeping giant. If we remove the authoritarian restraint of their current government we need to be prepared to restrain their population through our own means.

The difference with the current situation and the cold war was that Russia/USSR was expansionist but not expanding. Some believe that the Russian population was exaggerated and thus no real possibility of a war for Leibensraum. An unrestrained China would probably be not only expanding but also expansionist. This leads to war. This may be why we treat China differently. With Russia, we played chess, with China we will wrestle.

[Doodler]

*whistle* Dang, that would be a wicked policy shift. (Taiwan as the legitimate Chinese government, the Maoists as the rebels). Someone call Harry Turtledove STAT!!

As to the rest, I think you've tapped one of the biggest reasons why I think some kind of non-military solution to constraining the Chinese is needed. They have a very militant government, a steady undercurrent of pro-democracy activists, and a population that pretty much willing to do what the government demands, except in extremis.

If the toppling of the Chinese government comes in the form of a military disruption, you're going to have lingering resentments to the conquerers. Lets face it, its the most important lesson the US learned in Iraq. Yes, we may have done the "right" thing in toppling Saddam, but that doesn't mean that the violent disruption of Iraqi lives is going to be appreciated. Saddam made their world miserable, we all but up and destroyed it. Doing the wrong thing for the right reason is not doing a good thing.

When the Soviet government collapsed, it was not the west that did it. We created conditions that continually drained the Soviets of resources through indirect engagement, but it was they who destroyed themselves by convincing themselves they had to keep up. When the end came, the anger of the populace was aimed squarely at their government, not the west. It was the "right" way to do the "good" thing.

A war in China that starts over Taiwan could potentially kill millions, the fall of the Soviet Union came almost bloodlessly. Which was the right answer?

Note about the italics: I think I found a new siggy.

[dvb]

An unrestrained China would probably be not only expanding but also expansionist. This leads to war. This may be why we treat China differently. With Russia, we played chess, with China we will wrestle.

What about an unrestrained India, as it currently is a democracy, and being the second most populated country in the world. They don't seem to be bent on expanding into other territory, and their economy is really starting to pick up as well. Maybe time will tell, but if we are to learn what may become of China, I think India will be a good example to learn from in the time to come. I also realize that most of India is still very much in poverty, much like the Chinese population.

[Jpax2003]

An unrestrained China would probably be not only expanding but also expansionist. This leads to war. This may be why we treat China differently. With Russia, we played chess, with China we will wrestle.

What about an unrestrained India, as it currently is a democracy, and being the second most populated country in the world. They don't seem to be bent on expanding into other territory, and their economy is really starting to pick up as well. Maybe time will tell, but if we are to learn what may become of China, I think India will be a good example to learn from in the time to come. I also realize that most of India is still very much in poverty, much like the Chinese population.India does have border troubles with Pakistan in Kashmir, and issues in Sri Lanka, although I don't know if these would be considered expansionist. Since India recently gained independence from the UK last century we may not have had enough time for extrapolation of future politics. India was under British rule for quite some time and may not think of themselves in a superior fashion since someone's boot was at their necks so recently. China, on the other hand, seems to have a tradition of superior self-imagery (possibly balanced by an inferiority complex) that has never been completely vanquished even by foreign incursions last century, but I'm not an expert on this. China has also illustrated expansionist policies with Mongolia and Tibet and continued posturing over Taiwan. But you are correct, we need to keep our eyes on India as well. There may be more potential for conflict between India and China. India is balanced by a nuclear Pakistan and a nuclear China. China is balanced by a nuclear India and a nuclear Russia. I'm not sure than the US is effectively balanced by anyone, but Stuart would know more about that than me.

[Doodler]

The Maoists have only been in China since the 50's, I believe. They're barely older in terms of independence than India.

[Jpax2003]

The Maoists have only been in China since the 50's, I believe. They're barely older in terms of independence than India.Yeah, I know they are new, but I was referring to their history more than the durations of their serial governments.

[kg034]

[snip] If China PRC becomes an open and free democracy they may want to vote for themselves bread and circuses. The problem may erupt when they decide that since they are about 1/5 of humanity they should posess 20% of everything. Before you know it, they'll be after our bread and our circuses. The current regime is a limiting factor on Chinese commercialism and consumerism which is advantageous for us in many ways. Imagine the appetite of the US with the population and semi-homogeneity of China.

So, lemme get this straight.....its not good for the rest of the world to be inspired to achieve the American standard of living, unless they live in America? Or, put it another way, 5% of the world population should have a unchallenged right to 20% (or whatever the number is) of world's wealth? Clearly, you see that this is not an equilibrium solution. Furthermore, if defended, this is and will be a source of conflicts in the future.
Or put yet another way, an American is worth how many Chinese? This echos of the past....



The US is balanced by its varied immigrant population....


And this has stoped the US in bombing/invading exactly how many countries in the past?

With a mild nuclear war in China PRC the reduction in population and industrial capacity might allow for a free and open democracy to develop in china without the pressures for dominance described above.

A) So, China should be nuked for their own good?


Granted the above is not a pretty scenario, but it is better than global thermonuclear war after China reaches parity uncontested. I still believe that full integration could occur without any war, but I am not yet confident of that solution's execution.


So, assuming A), this implies that China should be nuked right now, since time is running out?

Considering the above, I would think Archer17, that my previous post had relevance to the topic.

[Archer17]

[snip] If China PRC becomes an open and free democracy they may want to vote for themselves bread and circuses. The problem may erupt when they decide that since they are about 1/5 of humanity they should posess 20% of everything. Before you know it, they'll be after our bread and our circuses. The current regime is a limiting factor on Chinese commercialism and consumerism which is advantageous for us in many ways. Imagine the appetite of the US with the population and semi-homogeneity of China.

So, lemme get this straight.....its not good for the rest of the world to be inspired to achieve the American standard of living, unless they live in America? Or, put it another way, 5% of the world population should have a unchallenged right to 20% (or whatever the number is) of world's wealth? Clearly, you see that this is not an equilibrium solution. Furthermore, if defended, this is and will be a source of conflicts in the future.
Or put yet another way, an American is worth how many Chinese? This echos of the past....



The US is balanced by its varied immigrant population....


And this has stoped the US in bombing/invading exactly how many countries in the past?

With a mild nuclear war in China PRC the reduction in population and industrial capacity might allow for a free and open democracy to develop in china without the pressures for dominance described above.

A) So, China should be nuked for their own good?


Granted the above is not a pretty scenario, but it is better than global thermonuclear war after China reaches parity uncontested. I still believe that full integration could occur without any war, but I am not yet confident of that solution's execution.


So, assuming A), this implies that China should be nuked right now, since time is running out?

Considering the above, I would think Archer17, that my previous post had relevance to the topic.I'll let Jpax respond to your cherry-picking of his posts but I don't think it's an oversight that you haven't even mentioned the problems between Taiwan and China. The fact is you could care less. All you brought to this thread is a pathetic attempt at anti-Americanism that violates the rules for this forum.Considering the above, I would think Archer17, that my previous post had relevance to the topic.No, your attempts to hijack a thread and turn it into a indictment against this country is not relevant.

[Jpax2003]

kg034, You are confusing what I think will happen for what I want to happen. I stated more than once that I think there is a peaceful solution still possible. However, the human mind is amazing in its capacity for rationalizing the destruction of large numbers of innocent or guilty civilians. As for the rest of your post, it can be explained by "meus et tuus."

[kg034]

kg034, You are confusing what I think will happen for what I want to happen. I stated more than once that I think there is a peaceful solution still possible. However, the human mind is amazing in its capacity for rationalizing the destruction of large numbers of innocent or guilty civilians. As for the rest of your post, it can be explained by "meus et tuus."

Jpax2003, my statements are directed towards you inasmuch as you are the person predicting a certain scenario of events. All I want to do is to understand the motivation and assumptions why you think such a scenario will happen. I completely agree with you on the frightening, but true "rationalizing capability" commment, and am trying to understand why we'd even come to such a point.

Archer17, the US, along with other south-east Asian nations, is a factor in the China-Taiwan relationship. And a big factor at that.

[Jpax2003]

kg034, You are confusing what I think will happen for what I want to happen. I stated more than once that I think there is a peaceful solution still possible. However, the human mind is amazing in its capacity for rationalizing the destruction of large numbers of innocent or guilty civilians. As for the rest of your post, it can be explained by "meus et tuus."

Jpax2003, my statements are directed towards you inasmuch as you are the person predicting a certain scenario of events. All I want to do is to understand the motivation and assumptions why you think such a scenario will happen. I completely agree with you on the frightening, but true "rationalizing capability" commment, and am trying to understand why we'd even come to such a point.

Archer17, the US, along with other south-east Asian nations, is a factor in the China-Taiwan relationship. And a big factor at that.Well, I have not come to such a point, but I suspect others can and will. I could give lots of potential reasons that may lead or be used to claim reason for an early nuking of China. However, the simpler explanation may be that a small nuking now will prevent a large nuking later. Once you reach that point it's simply a matter of numbers: sacrifice tens of millions to save billions. Taiwan will probably be used as a premier trigger, sooner or later.

[Archer17]

..Archer17, the US, along with other south-east Asian nations, is a factor in the China-Taiwan relationship. And a big factor at that.I disagree. Tell me how.

The US is currently obliged to defend Taiwan from Chinese invasion but the recent saber-rattling from Beijing and/or Taiwanese independence aspirations have nothing to do with the US or regional south Asian countries.

I also don't believe there will be military conflict between the two. As I've pointed out and Stuart elaborated on, China is militarily incapable of seizing Taiwan with conventional forces at this time and I don't think the Taiwanese need to officially declare independence right now anyway. They already are in everything but name only. The only way a China-Taiwan conflict could turn nuclear is if the Chinese initiate it, which I doubt they would.

[kg034]

Well, I have not come to such a point, but I suspect others can and will. I could give lots of potential reasons that may lead or be used to claim reason for an early nuking of China. However, the simpler explanation may be that a small nuking now will prevent a large nuking later. Once you reach that point it's simply a matter of numbers: sacrifice tens of millions to save billions. Taiwan will probably be used as a premier trigger, sooner or later.

Yes, I understand: nuke, nuke, nuke....but the question I still have is: why? why? why?

As much as this discussion is interesting, I think I'll leave it as it stands now....potential responses will be read, but I think I am done.....the questions that I have will lead into a further geopolitical debate, and I don't want McCarthy* coming along :P

*edited to say that McCarthy doesn't refer to the BA

[Jpax2003]

Well, I have not come to such a point, but I suspect others can and will. I could give lots of potential reasons that may lead or be used to claim reason for an early nuking of China. However, the simpler explanation may be that a small nuking now will prevent a large nuking later. Once you reach that point it's simply a matter of numbers: sacrifice tens of millions to save billions. Taiwan will probably be used as a premier trigger, sooner or later.

Yes, I understand: nuke, nuke, nuke....but the question I still have is: why? why? why?

As much as this discussion is interesting, I think I'll leave it as it stands now....potential responses will be read, but I think I am done.....the questions that I have will lead into a further geopolitical debate, and I don't want McCarthy coming along :PMcCarthy? Are you referring to the BA?

Maybe you should ask more specific questions. You earlier questions were were asking for ethical support to my analysis. My point is that the there may be none. It's like the difference between explanations and excuses. If accused of wrongdoing I may offer an explanation, it may or may not be an excuse depending on whether the listener excuses the offense or not.

But to answer your question to some degree: Why nuke? Because nukes are efficient. If the geopolitical and socio-political restrictions on their use are removed there is no reason not to use them, especially if occupation is not an end-game. A Nuclear explosion is like a regular explosion except with an interesting side-effect. Once we are past the point of inducing fatalities, what does it matter how they are induced?

The best defense against nuclear war seems to be popular ignorance. Political pressure against nuclear war is the result. However, a looming future energy crisis and the long-shot possibility of an Orion Spacecraft Propulsion system will educate people on the truth about nuclear technology. The more people learn the less they will fear nuclear technology and weapons. They will realize that nukes are not doomsday weapons and that survival is not only possible but probable with proper expedient measures. They will learn that Nuclear Winter is a myth. If the populations of other nuclear powers learn the same then the political resistance to their use may diminish to a point that they will not fight someone else's fight, especially if it is in their best interests. This could create an atmosphere where a limited regional nuclear bombardment is politically feasible. That is the setup. The next step is to determine who is likely to be the first potential target...

[Lianachan]

It's an extremely complicated situation, with roots in history and economics. China is already a powerful military power, is the fastet growing economy and the oldest constant civilisation in the world. After centuries of isolation, it is starting to emerge as potentially the largest superpower on the planet.

The link below is to an essay which explores the China/US/Japan/Taiwan situation in considerable detail. I don't always agree with the points the author makes, and his slant on things is cleary attributable to his agenda, but the facts that he puts forward (about treaties, about the history of the second world war, etc..) are inarguable. It's a long read, but if anybody is seriously interested in this subject it's worth a look.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/031505H.shtml

[kucharek]

It's an extremely complicated situation, with roots in history and economics.
I'm really glad that in this case, the most irrational root for trouble - religion - is not involved. It's already complicated enough.
History has it's surprises. If you would have asked people at the beginning of the Eighties about German reunification and the USSR not longer existing within a dozen years, no one would have believed that this would happen so silently. The USSR was supposed to stay or going down in a big blaze, but not simply deflating. There is hope that the relations between China and Taiwan may develop to a point, where the issue becomes pointless.

[Lianachan]

I'm really glad that in this case, the most irrational root for trouble - religion - is not involved. It's already complicated enough.

Did Yassar Araft not say "We're all killing each other over who has the best imaginary friend" ? I may have paraphrased that, but I'm pretty sure that's close to his quote. I very much agree about the religion thing - it's probably been the cause of more conflict in the history of human civilisation than anything else.

[Lycus]

Did Yassar Araft not say "We're all killing each other over who has the best imaginary friend" ? I may have paraphrased that, but I'm pretty sure that's close to his quote.
A Google search is telling me that it was Ricard Jeni (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=killing+each+other+better+imaginar y+friend&btnG=Search).

[Lianachan]

A Google search is telling me that it was Ricard Jeni (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=killing+each+other+better+imaginar y+friend&btnG=Search).
I've seen the quote attributed to Yasser Araft, even on the search results you link to, but wikiquote doesn't list it among his quotes - and that's good enough for me.

[Captain Kidd]

China attempts to alter joint anti-terrorist military excerise with Russian to pratice invading Tiawan. (http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3rc.htm)

The initial plans were to practice operational teamwork in combating terrorism during the exercise. However, Beijing, skillfully changing the format of the exercise, has tried to re-orient the two countries' armies to practicing an invasion of Taiwan.

[snip]

Beijing is trying to use Russia as an additional lever of pressure on the disobedient island to show it that its policy is also causing dissatisfaction in Russia, from which the Taiwanese are expecting assistance in their dialogue with Beijing and bid to join the WTO and the UN.

[farmerjumperdon]

It's almost difficult to believe some of what is showing up here. That there is no reason not to use nuclear weapons once the political restrictions are lifted. How about the avoidance of death and destruction. I guess that would not matter once you have devalued human lives to being just another commodity, and the way they are taken as just another rule by which to play the game.

And why in the world would you ever want people to not be afraid of nuclear weapons? Someone made a comment about people's fears of nuclear weapons diminishing once they know more about them. The only way my fear of nuclear weapons diminishes is if they no longer exist.

These kinds of ideas, and the fact that many world leaders probably share them in common, are a very good reason the world's current problems will not end anytime soon. For too many people, it is a matter of winning (manifesting itself as greed), instead of a matter of peaceful resolution (manifesting itself as equitable distribution of resources).

Speaking of which: Why isn't each human on the planet entitled to an equal share of the planets resources? Why does being born in one place or another entitle or take-away a humans right to the resources needed to live a long and healthy life?

I can see the ad now, nuclear weapons proponents trying to convince us not to be afraid, or to be less afraid:

"No more dangerous than your average 4-slice toaster, and actually with a better safety record. That's right kids, did you know that more people were killed by faulty toasters in the last 50 years than by nuclear weapons? And how many homes have been stunk up by a faulty sensor on a nuclear weapon? That's right, NONE. Nuclear weapons - your friend, your neighbor, your future."

[farmerjumperdon]

In very much the same way that most of us now consider it bad form to keep fellow humans as slaves; at some point in the future, humans will be aghast at the ancient attitude that nuclear weapons were once considered an acceptable method for killing large numbers of people as a means of establishing dominance in the fight to hoard resources.

It is most unfortunate that civility does not evolve at the same rate everywhere.

[teddyv]

And why in the world would you ever want people to not be afraid of nuclear weapons? Someone made a comment about people's fears of nuclear weapons diminishing once they know more about them. The only way my fear of nuclear weapons diminishes is if they no longer exist.

I haven't read all the posts but I think that comment may have been about nuclear power for electricity generation (I saw it on a different thread). Otherwise I would agree with you.

[Doodler]

In very much the same way that most of us now consider it bad form to keep fellow humans as slaves; at some point in the future, humans will be aghast at the ancient attitude that nuclear weapons were once considered an acceptable method for killing large numbers of people as a means of establishing dominance in the fight to hoard resources.

It is most unfortunate that civility does not evolve at the same rate everywhere.

Man, if it weren't a taboo subject on this board, I'd love to have a thread on the balance of human rights to national sovreignty.

[farmerjumperdon]

Is it really taboo? From reading many of the threads I'd never have guessed so. In fact, the ones that I find the most enlightening and interesting (and sometimes the most disagreeable), are the threads that touch on politics, ethics issues, and the like.

[Doodler]

Is it really taboo? From reading many of the threads I'd never have guessed so. In fact, the ones that I find the most enlightening and interesting (and sometimes the most disagreeable), are the threads that touch on politics, ethics issues, and the like.

Given that a general thread would have to draw on politics as direct source material, I think it would be square in forbidden territory, plus considering what the subject would cover, it would be a VERY hotbutton issue that might trigger more heat than the BA would be comfortable with. Its possible it could stay clear, but speaking for myself, I'd be hard pressed to hit the submit button. Some lines you don't cross, some lines you don't let the dust in your wake get near, know what I mean? At least here, somewhere more appropriate for that kind of thing, I'd be game for it.

[Jpax2003]

It's almost difficult to believe some of what is showing up here. That there is no reason not to use nuclear weapons once the political restrictions are lifted. How about the avoidance of death and destruction. I guess that would not matter once you have devalued human lives to being just another commodity, and the way they are taken as just another rule by which to play the game.

And why in the world would you ever want people to not be afraid of nuclear weapons? Someone made a comment about people's fears of nuclear weapons diminishing once they know more about them. The only way my fear of nuclear weapons diminishes is if they no longer exist.

These kinds of ideas, and the fact that many world leaders probably share them in common, are a very good reason the world's current problems will not end anytime soon. For too many people, it is a matter of winning (manifesting itself as greed), instead of a matter of peaceful resolution (manifesting itself as equitable distribution of resources).

Speaking of which: Why isn't each human on the planet entitled to an equal share of the planets resources? Why does being born in one place or another entitle or take-away a humans right to the resources needed to live a long and healthy life?I wrote earlier in my post, to which I think you are responding, that my analysis is not based on morality. I don't want to see megadeaths resulting from any type of bombardment. But as I said above, once the killing starts, it starts. Nuking a city or firebombing a city with conventional incendiaries will offer similar results. In fact, the bomber's costs in men and materiel may well be less with nuclear weapons, thus reducing the need for resources and the need to acquire them. But anyways, the bomber's issue at war may not be the acquisition of resources but the maintenance of them. If the target country is not greedy for the same resources then the bombing country may not feel the need to attack. Perhaps the onus is upon China to be happy with what it has.

BTW, life valued as a commodity is still valued and has little to do with the calculus of nuclear war. It may be the point where (enemy) life is meaningless as it may be an obstacle to the life of the attacker. Life might be considered a commodity if the attacker intends to subdue, conquer, occupy and enslave the enemy; but not if the attacker merely wants to exterminate or reduce them. For a better on the difference between life as commodity and life as worthless read what W.B. Yeats and others had to say about the state of Irish peasants v. antebellum slaves in the southern US. The jewish holocause may also illustrate the difference.

Do you fear nuclear weapons or do you fear their use? Nuclear technology including explosive devices can be used for many peaceful purposes. I fear not having nuclear weapons. What would we do to stop an inbound comet or asteroid? A nuclear device goes bang just like any other explosive. Are you afraid of all things that go bang? Nuclear fearmongering may surve a beneficial purpose by maintaining political and social pressure against military usage, however it also maintains pressure against positive (non-destructive) applications. Alfred Nobel had the same quandary.

What is an equitable distribution of resources? It's not the same as equal distribution. Equitable means fair, so it would be fair for me to take your money because I may do something more beneficial with it than you may, otherwise you are letting it go to waste. Do you want communal sharing of resources, that is equal. But capitalism is based on inequality, even if it is just a mom & pop shop.

I can see the ad now, nuclear weapons proponents trying to convince us not to be afraid, or to be less afraid:

"No more dangerous than your average 4-slice toaster, and actually with a better safety record. That's right kids, did you know that more people were killed by faulty toasters in the last 50 years than by nuclear weapons? And how many homes have been stunk up by a faulty sensor on a nuclear weapon? That's right, NONE. Nuclear weapons - your friend, your neighbor, your future."You may be onto something. I don't have the numbers but I am willing to bet that more people died from toaster-related accidents than nuclear weapons-related accidents over the last 50 years.

[Jpax2003]

Man, if it weren't a taboo subject on this board, I'd love to have a thread on the balance of human rights to national sovreignty.I don't know if the BA would consider the topic as forbidden, but I suspect it would quickly devolve into forbidden territory. The initial idea would be a debate regarding comparative theories of governance, but when practicle examples are applied it could easily become an issue of partisan politics. This is especially true if the thread attracts those can't tell the difference governance v politics and hypotheticals v pragmatics.

[collegeguy]

Thread bump.

I know this thread is old, but I wanted to post this here as it is related to the topic. a declaration of a chinese official warning they will use nukes if the US atacks China over taiwan:

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/28cfe55a-f4a7-11d9-9dd1-00000e2511c8.html

I hope a conflict does not occur.

[Archer17]

Just sabre-rattling .. don't lose sleep over it collegeguy. This kind of rhetoric isn't exactly new.

[collegeguy]

Just sabre-rattling .. don't lose sleep over it collegeguy. This kind of rhetoric isn't exactly new.

Yeah, I know the rhetoric isn't new. I tend to get nervous when someone mentions nukes specially the possibility of cobalt bombs.

[Manchurian Taikonaut]

Just sabre-rattling .. don't lose sleep over it collegeguy. This kind of rhetoric isn't exactly new.

Yeah, I know the rhetoric isn't new. I tend to get nervous when someone mentions nukes specially the possibility of cobalt bombs.

Just some ranting and hot air from old-school freaks in Mainland China, if there was anyone that wanted to attack Taiwan it would have been done under the kind of dicatorship that Mao had set, back then General Chiang kai shek was not a man Mao liked they were close mindest to do it.
Today China is more open and does lots of free Trade with Europe and America, such an attack would cause an embargo and maybe make the Chinese economy implode, it would also greatly affect the West worse than the Arab oil shock. The whole Taiwan Vs China is totally over-played and fuel is added to the propaganda fire from political extremists on both sides. An Asian conflict could come from anywhere but most likely where one least expects it, Taiwan versus the Japanese over terrorial dispute and fishermen only a few weeks ago they were sending warships to greet each other thorugh the barrel of a gun, India versus Pakistan can occur they have fought three major wars in the past, trouble from Religious nuts in Indonesia, Sri Lanka trouble going to other areas, former Soviet areas can be trouble, conflict in Burma/Myanmar spreading, or Japan versus Russia over history and island disputes....trouble in Asia could come from any place. Yes its true there's a lot of difference between leaders in China and Taiwan but if they wanted to fight each other, they would have done it back in the 70s when there were a lot more nutcases, dictators and generals around, China are doing some posturing today and Taiwan are still doing a little ranting.

[Archer17]

collegeguy, I came across this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4688471.stm) while perusing the BBC world news which should reduce your anxiety level somewhat.

[collegeguy]

Thanks for the link, it is good to know those comments seem to be only his opinion.

[Jpax2003]

Lou Dobbs, on CNN, has been playing up the chinese general's comments too. But Lou Dobbs is also playing up any news about China as a prelude to conflict. He thinks their play for Unocal is an attempt to conquer US strategic resources of oil and rare earth materials. He thinks that Boeing is selling contraband materials to China. He thinks that the US Congress chose money over security by not passing a resolution to sanction other countries that sell weapons tech to China. But his gripes almost always seem to come back to China's unwillingness to allow US investment or ownership in their media outlets. Perhaps he is biased in his views since he works for a media giant that could make lots of money in China if allowed access to chinese mass media markets.

[Launch window]

There is one important difference.

Let me in on the secret, I don't like having heartburn over the news if I'm that far off. :)

it could be just more hard talk from China-Taiwan, if you listened to the US admin's call for 'Regime Change' at Havana or Castro's rants, you'd think the USA and Cuba were about to declare war

[collegeguy]

Lou Dobbs, on CNN, has been playing up the chinese general's comments too. But Lou Dobbs is also playing up any news about China as a prelude to conflict. He thinks their play for Unocal is an attempt to conquer US strategic resources of oil and rare earth materials. He thinks that Boeing is selling contraband materials to China. He thinks that the US Congress chose money over security by not passing a resolution to sanction other countries that sell weapons tech to China. But his gripes almost always seem to come back to China's unwillingness to allow US investment or ownership in their media outlets. Perhaps he is biased in his views since he works for a media giant that could make lots of money in China if allowed access to chinese mass media markets.

I am going to look for some of that info in Lou Dobbs in CNN. :-k