posted
In my Political Science class today we were discussing the conflict between Taiwan and China. My professor mentioned that the US had a lot of influence on whether Taiwan choose to declare independence because Taiwan could not stand up to China on its own. One of the other students replied that Taiwan had to know that no matter what we said, we would still have to protect them if China attacked. When I asked why his only response was, "How couldn't we?"
I am confused by this. I know I'm ignorant about a lot of world politics, but I don't see any pressing reason why we should protect Taiwan against a much larger and more aggressive China if Taiwan chooses to take actions that it knows will precipitate violence.
I know the student who was speaking is a very vehement Republican, and the only other times I've heard this mentioned has been from other Republicans, so I'm thinking this might be a partisan issue. Any thoughts?
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I don't see any pressing reason why we should protect Taiwan against a much larger and more aggressive China if Taiwan chooses to take actions that it knows will precipitate violence."
The simple truth of the matter is that WE don't even recognize Taiwan's right to exist. If China invades, we'll send them a stern letter.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've kinda figured Taiwan would wait until Hong Kong has China good and distracted before formally declaring independance. Which would be good for us since Japan seems to want us off Okinawa. Maybe if we stand behind Taiwan, they'll let us stick a base there.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is absolutely nothing we could do to defend Taiwan from Chinese invasion without requiring our own invasion of the Chinese mainland. Period. I've yet to see a single military analysis that even posits an island-based defense as a credible scenario.
And if you think we're going to invade the Chinese mainland to protect Taiwan, when we haven't even had the guts to call them a sovereign nation, well....
posted
In fairness, aspectre, I don't think China will consider an embargo against the United States until it's completed its trade domination (and economic transformation) of southeast Asia. So we've got about another decade before that becomes a likely scenario.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The pet senario of the only person I've heard give a detailed summary of the situation is: Taiwan declares independence around the time China hosts the Olympics. China is unproportionally obsessed with the Olympics; so when the US and the other Western countries refuse to attend in protest this really upsets China. At this point his senario involves the uS and China going to war, so I'm not sure how we got there, but I've never known enough about the situation to argue with him.
He's an American who was raised in Singapore, so naturally I assume he knows more about the situation than I do.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually since China doesn't have the capability to invade Taiwan there isn't much of an issue. Why should we defend Taiwan if they're attacked? In my opinion because we should always defend free nations from agression by oppressive nations, at least when we are capable of it. In Taiwan's case we are capable even with Iraq and Afgahnistan because we would basically just need to position our navy between the island and the mainland and have our air force bomb China. So I see no reason why a defense of Taiwan must include an invasion of the mainland. As far as Taiwanese independence is concerned, most Taiwanese don't even believe they should be a seperate country.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um, NFL, we should defend Taiwan because we should always defend free nations against oppressive nations, but Taiwan isn't really a free nation?
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"So I see no reason why a defense of Taiwan must include an invasion of the mainland."
If you accept the idea that we could simply interpose our navy between the mainland and Taiwan and let our Air Force bomb the heck out of their ships, then I see why. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blackwolve, I'm not really sure what you're asking, except possibly you mean that Taiwan technically isn't its own "nation." If it is what you're saying, Taiwan has a democratically elected government with whom the US government has relations with, trades with, and provides military assistance to.
Tom, China has virtually no navy. They physically at this point in time can't invade Taiwan. Taiwan itself has a better navy because of what we've given them than China. The only thing China can do is bomb Taiwan, and we can certainly outbomb China because our air force is still superior in every way to every other nation on the globe.
posted
They have no aircraft carriers, they have no sizeable amount of amphibious boats, their few submarines are noisy, and they don't have much else. We could easily destroy what little they do have and many people think Taiwan could in fact defend itself from invasion by itself. Taiwan, by itself however, wouldn't be able to withstand an aerial bombardment without American help.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am in the process of researching peak oil. I am not sure if it is really upon us or if Colin Campbell and his ilk are just the next breed of doom-sayers. However, it has opened my eyes to particular news articles--much like how after you learn a new word, you suddenly see it everywhere. Naysayer
There was an interesting article on BBC about Japan and China's relationship. I believe the article has relevance sheds some light on the issue.
quote:First, he said that "Japan has joined the US in a military alliance that deters China's efforts in unifying with Taiwan." And second, the two countries are competitors for oil resources.
A recent discussion paper prepared for Japan's Defense Agency reportedly warned that either of these issues could trigger a Chinese military attack on Japan.
The discussion paper was dismissed by China as evidence of Japan's "Cold War thinking".
If the two things Japan may get tangled into a war with China over are Taiwan and oil, then our vested relationship with Taiwan may act as a catalyst to get in a War with China someday--and oil may be a motivation.
I am not telling you what I believe, but there is lots of information out there that says Oil will peak, and one of the major consequences will be wars to secure this scarce resource.
I am a fan of America, but a lot of the anti-American feelings stem from other perceptions that our war in Afghanistan and Iraq are a move to secure the oil fields as we enter into a peak.
I thought it was interesting that the BBC article tied Japan and China’s emerging conflict to oil scarcity and Taiwan.
posted
Japan and China have more to fight over than that, even. They're currently in a race to secure Southeast Asia for their own economic interests, since the country that runs Southeast Asia will rule the world in twenty years. Currently, China is winning.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
A war between Japan and China would be a scary thing. I wonder what China would do if North Korea decides to get a little agressive.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Accepting the notion that China has no practical naval force, sustaining a US naval presence in and around Taiwan while under attack from Chinese air and ground-based forces would be...problematic.
And if China really had a yen to invade Taiwan, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest they could probably find a way to do so in relatively short order.
However, in answer to Blacwolve's initial question - the US is under no particular or specific obligation to defend Taiwan should the country decide to declare independence.
I am of the jaded opinion the US supports and encourages the Taiwanese government as a means of irritating the Chinese by proxy.
-Trevor
Edit: If China and Japan ever come to armed conflict, Japan will become a smoking ripple in the water. The Japanese have been restricted from developing an offensive military program since WW2 while China is not under similar restrictions.
Even if we accept the notion they have no practical and/or functional naval presence, Chinese missiles can reach main-island Japan.
posted
From some quick googlewhacking, the Chinese navy appears to be about half the size of the US Navy, and consists primarily of old Russian ships, or old Russian technology. In addition, I don't think they have anything larger than Destroyers.
Not an inconsequential navy, but it wouldn't stand against a concerted US attack.
But, then, why would we want to defend Taiwan? As said before, it is part of China.
Posts: 903 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The U.S. has specifically refused to guarantee that we would defend Tawain, or to deny that we would defent Taiwan. The intent has been to keep both sides guessing, so neither escalates the tension.
posted
Not to mention any prolonged engagement with China would be one massive quagmire with the rest of the world investing in fallout shelters and Rad-X pills.
posted
Japan is now moving toward creating a viable military of it's own, and I suspect that they could get up to speed militarily fairly quickly if they wanted to. If China attacked them today, sure, they'd roll over. In five or ten years, though, they'll probably be capable of putting up more of a fight.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I don't know about that. And of course, there's always the whole spectre of nukes, unless a viable missile defense system were developed in the next ten years.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm still confused about why we would want to defend Taiwan in the first place. It doesn't seem like a very good idea, but as I've said, I'm very ignorant of the situation.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
Although that idealism has faded since the economic collapse of the old USSR.
I think both China and the US realize neither is particularly interested in butting heads in what promises to be either a supremely futile or amazingly messy exchange.
Provided of course, saner minds prevail on both sides of the divide.
As Tom points out, some people do and some people don't.
The "Red Scare" spearheaded by Senator McCarthy exemplifies the hysteria some people can associate with the subject.
As to whether or not the socio-political-economic ideology in question is good or bad, I leave to your personal standards of good and bad.
-Trevor
Edit: And to say Communism isn't bad is to judge it by your standards. There are others, nearly an entire generation, in fact that would disagree. Intensely.
posted
Communism is bad when it manifests itself in the form of countries that wish to subject everyone else to its principles. Its even worse when it violates its own principles by creating a new elite and oppresses everyone not in the elite. I don't think people would be as scared of communism is if were just the USSR by itself and content instead of the whole Comintern thing.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
We support them, don't "recognize" them because to do so would bring the wrath of China. They are so hyper about even the idea of Taiwan breaking away... even.. though.. um.. they have been independent for many decades. We just sold them almost all of our military technology a couple years ago (everything but the Aegis System) to help protect them. And I agree that part of the reason for defending them is that China is still a totalitarian dictatorship. And the more friendly nations we have in that part of the world the better.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except that we don't actually to put our navy very close to Taiwan in order to interpose ourselves between the island and the Chinese navy. Cruise missiles are getting absurdly accurate and can be fired from very far away. Aircraft can strike ships from carriers or from island bases. If an attack were imminent we could destroy most of China's missiles before they were used and ships are not completely vulnerable to missile attacks. Whether or not our navy would be heavily damaged is unimportant as China would still be incapable of actually launching an imphibious invasion.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
For one China does not have Taiwan. They've been working amazingly hard on modernizing their airforce and Naval forces for the Taiwan situation in the first place. Not to mention the fact that the Chinese have the largest, though they honestly do have some pretty old stuff, air force in the known world. They could clog the airspace if they really wanted to. The problem china has for the most part is that it would have to weaken its borders against the Indians (who they still have border issues with) and the Russians. That and though the Chinese are known for the "human wave" method they are quickly getting away from that as they have been reducing the manpower of the PLA and increasing their budget for years. At current time the Chinese navy can amphib about one division worth of infantry etc. in an assault. That is not nearly enough as the United States military , and I'm rather sure so is the Taiwanese, is amazing at coordinated firepower and taking down exposed targets on the ground.
The Chinese navy still mostly uses diesel submarines and even their nuclear attack submarines are Russian which are honestly no match against American level submarines. I would be interested in seeing the hit rate of the silkworm cruise missile against a carrier group protected by Aegis cruisers. That and I'd honestly love to see a Chinese invasion force lit up by American artillery and naval fire.
That and though the Chinese airforce is getting better day by day they are still nothing compared to their western counterparts. The combination of AWACS and American standoff firepower when it comes to aerial conflict might allow a few Chinese sorties get through to Taiwan at first, but not for long. I won't even get into the fact that China would have to deal with a retaliatory strike from the United States Air Force.
Believe me when I could go on and on about how the Chinese military stacks up against the American military, not to mention Taiwans. The main thing is the fact that Taiwan is an immense contributor to the International electronics situation. There are quite a few rather large Fab plants in Taiwan heavily used by American companies and others. Not to mention the fact that if you've ever looked into PC hardware you've heard of Asus, Abit, VIA, etc. I remember when there was a lull in shipments from Taiwan and Best Buy just ran out of who knows how much electronics stuff. Heck Nvidia does almost all their Fab work in Taiwan if I'm correct. It would be a major economic blow against the United States to lose Taiwan or have it badly damaged in a war. Not to mention we would lose a great deal of international prestige to the Chinese in such an action.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh that and most likely the second best navy in the world is the Japanese. To be honest the one nation I wouldn't want to mess with in the world is Japan. They have a great industrial base now, lots of money, and a very modern, though small, self defense force. Their navy has always been the largest part of it all however as it is an Island nation and the amount of maritime traffic that occurs around/in Japan.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As to the why we don't like communism... communism allows for one person to have absolute power, and absolute power corrupts absolutely...
I think the real question is, would china be willing to lose nearly all of there navy and airfoce in order to secure Taiwan. I for one think if they were willing to do that, then they would be able to win such a conflict. I say this only because of the fact that the US does not like loosing large numbers of anything and all china would have to do is put a dent in our forces and we'd cut a deal.
Posts: 1094 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
1)Communism calls for the violent overthrow of all other systems. Well, the Bolshevek version, which is what Maoist Communism was based off of, does.
2)Communism calls for the destruction of all religion. Hence the term "God-less Communists." With the millions upon millions of evangelical Christians in the US supporting President Bush, do you think they would do much less than support Tiawan where Evangelicals are welcome, against China where even a yoga school was considered too religious like when it became popular, and was outlawed and its teachers thrown in jail.
3)Communism calls for taking all of your money and putting you to work in the fields. Mao's Cultural Revolution took all the wealthy, educated, and thoughtful people in the country and put them to work in rice fields until they died. Imagine if President Bush took all the Democrats in this country and turned them into slave labor. Not a good place to vote blue. This is what Mao did 40 years ago, and while his philosophy and style have gone out of favor, do you want to risk your savings, comfy office, and future that it won't come back? So those people who think they will be the first lined up against the wall and shot once the revolution comes, are the first to demand we stop that revolution as far from their suburban homes as possible.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
How much US military forces could we deploy to the area to successfully ward off a Chinese invasion?
If the initial attack isn't blunted and quickly, establishing an effective "beach" head would be difficult, if not impossible.
And while the amphibious capabilities of a forced landing may be lacking, a motivated military could find means of crossing the divide.
Re-equipping would be problematic -> the US forces would be removed from available supplies while the Chinese are practically sitting on their needed stockpiles.
posted
Sure if we didn't destroy every train station leading to the area That and I do not believe the Chinese navy could put any sort of dents into our forces in the area. Believe me when I say the Taiwanese military is actually a rather profecient one. That and the Defense is generally considered the easier position to assume in war.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your assessment of the military situation is a good one - but I remain concerned about the amount of missiles and air support China could throw into the fray.
A third grader with a stick isn't much, but a thousand of his closest buddies with sticks will seriously alter your day.
Not that my oh-so critical opinion on the situation is actually important to anyone involved, but what the hey...
posted
The main problem with China isn't so much their numbers as our arms production ability. Our military is based around systems of equipment that can't be built at a very rapid pace. Heck we have problems enough building enough uparmored humvees for the military.
That and you have to understood the United States Military is designed for mindless hordes of enemy. Thats why we have FOs ( forward observers) LRS-D , etc. Have you ever seen an artillery strike? Thats not even talking about the swirling doomship called the AC-130. MLRS can turn an entire grid square ( one square klick) into a kill zone. That and I've seen first hand what happens to semi exposed enemy infantry when spotted by American Attack helicopters. The fact of the matter is we see the enemy first, we hit from a greater distance, and we hit harder. Its hard enough to inflict casualities on us when we are attacking, its even harder when in the defense. Well at least when it isn't an Asymetric threat Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right, but how much of an armed presence do we have on the ground in Taiwan?
Enough to mount the kind of defense you describe?
And while the Chinese navy couldn't match ours boat for boat, if what forces we do have in the area didn't manage to repel the Chinese from Taiwan's shores, the battle for Taiwan wouldn't last all that long.
Fighting defensive battles are easier than offensive ones, allowing for terrain, weapons and general circumstance, but it also depends on how badly the enemy wants their prize intact.
And would the US forces deployed to assist the Taiwanese military receive enough supplies to continue "sustainable military operations?" That particular quote is paraphrased from a US commanding officer in Iraq complaining about the lack of needed materials to sustain the US forces.
posted
I was taking a break from Hatrack but I just couldn't resist this thread. I grew up in Taiwan and my dad served in an frogman unit defending one of the islands in the Formosa strait.
quote: I don't see any pressing reason why we should protect Taiwan against a much larger and more aggressive China if Taiwan chooses to take actions that it knows will precipitate violence.
In elementary school, my Taiwanese teachers always taught us that America and Taiwan were allies. My teachers taught us that (1) We were allies during the second World War; (2) When the Nationalists were close to defeating the Communists, the United States brokered a peace treaty between the two parties so they can fight Japan together; (3) We were allies during the cold war and we provided Americans with bases and supplies during the Vietnam and Korean wars.
I don't know how accurate this analysis is, but this is what we were taught in Taiwan.
quote:It would be a major economic blow against the United States to lose Taiwan or have it badly damaged in a war.
This is true up to a certain extent. Today, many of Taiwan's top electornic companies are building factories in China. Like the United States, Taiwan simply cannot compete with China's low wages and nonexistent environmental standards.
quote:Not to mention we would lose a great deal of international prestige to the Chinese in such an action.
This is the key point. Would the Neocons allow this to happen? Bush said installing democracies around the world is our best chance at peace. If that applies to Iraq, why should Taiwan be excluded?
From an objective standpoint, I think allowing China to acquire Taiwan is the best thing Americans can do. China already has a growing bourgeoisie class. The acquisition of Hong Kong and Taiwan only adds to that class and will in turn quicken the death of the Communist party.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
That and I do not believe the Chinese navy could put any sort of dents into our forces in the area. Believe me when I say the Taiwanese military is actually a rather profecient one. That and the Defense is generally considered the easier position to assume in war.
