We've pledged time after time to defend Taiwan in case of Chinese attack. If an attack comes, we can't simply say "Sorry, we were just bluffing".
Greatest post ever. What a wondrous unconscious evocation of why Vietnam was a stupid war. 1. In Alex' world, once you knock out one anthill, your problem is solved. Because obviously, new ants won't come into your yard. 2. The deliciously tuned racism of the imagery. 3. The overkill of using a whole freakin' can of pesticide. 4. The complete ignorance of the consequence of having your children play in a yard where you unloaded a whole can of pesticide on one anthill. I mean, he just rendered superfluous whole doctoral dissertations with the pithiest statement about the uselessness of the Vietnam War I've ever seen.
I have an article from the Journal of Strategic Studies around here somewhere that details just how badly the US underestimated Hanoi's air defense, with quotes from a number of ex-pilots referring to the place as "the center of hell." Let me see if I can dig that up...
Turns out it's not from the JSS, but instead from George Herring's book "America's Longest War." Unfortunately, the link to it is broken.
We haven't pledged 'time after time' to defend Taiwan from attack. The first instance of the US ever openly declaring such was shortly after Bush took office, when, in his zeal to show those pinko commie bastards who was boss, he made the first of his innumerable stupid foreign policy blunders. There's a very good reason we've paid lip service to the One China policy and deliberately left the status of Taiwan ambiguous since 1972 - it didn't lock us into anything and allowed us flexibility in any possible response. But Bush put us between a rock and a hard place by stupidly declaring outright the administration's intent to defend Taiwan, because he's now staked American credibility on exactly that. If the PRC makes a move towards Taiwan, we're only left with two possible options now - not intervene and lose credibility, or actively intervene and get into a potentially catastrophic conflict with China. To answer speedcake's question, the Chinese nuclear arsenal, while not very large, does contain ICBM capability. The idea that China will "get it" is not only wishful thinking, it's misguided and ignorant and shows a clear lack of understanding of the Chinese government. There is no question at all in the minds of the PRC's leaders (and for that matter quite a chunk of the population itself as well) that Taiwan is irrevocably theirs. And if you know anything at all about the "century of humiliation," or Maoist nationalism, you know that the Chinese will never willingly surrender territory. Ever. Under any circumstances.
Count me as one who "doesn't get it." If China wanted Taiwan bad enough to invade it, they would take it. The whole Taiwan "policy" is built on a bluff, which is impressively backed by our navy. We are stuck with the bluff because, to reneg on our "commitment" would increase the possibility for war in East Asia and an Asian arms race. However, though we are stuck with maintaining a bluff, it should be recognized as a bluff. If push came to shove, we would be forced to back down and, rightly, would not get into a full shooting war with China over Taiwan. China would have hell to pay economically if it invaded Taiwan and would be isolated for about 100 years, so it's a moot point for now.
China can destroy Taiwan, but they can't invade it. We can destroy China, but we can't occupy it. Both sides either know this, or learn this after studying the matter. Hence, Taiwan's status doesn't worry me.
Well, didn't they surrender Taiwan to Japan? And again to the GMD (KMT)? I'm not sure how big a blunder Bush's declaration was (hadn't we pledged to defend Taiwan in the 50s via treaty?), I just think it's a shame that we don't formally recognize a democratic country where the majority of citizens vote just because we $ee business opportunities in China. I know it's not that simple, but a shame nonetheless, IMO.
What were the circumstances that led to Tawain breaking away? And what relationship as Tawain historically had with China? Just wondering.
Briefly, before WWII, Taiwan was under Japan's control (for about 50 years). After the war, the Allies agreed to let Chiang Kaishek's troops occupy Taiwan. After Chiang Kaishek's army lost the war on the mainland, they fled to Taiwan. Mao planned an invasion at that time, but I believe U.S. sent assistance or pledged assistance and they called it off. Incidentally, Chiang was a brutal leader, but one positive thing of his flight to Taiwan is that he took with him thousands of historical artifacts and thus preserved them from Mao's Cultural revolution. Chiang Kaishek's party continued to believe that his government was the legitimate government of China and many in Taiwan may still believe this. I guess it depends on who you ask -- many Chinese would say it's always been a part of China, where some Taiwanese might argue that it's only officially been under mainland control for under 20 years. When I was there, I believe the population in Taiwan was fairly evenly split with those who believed that Taiwan was part of China and considered themselves Chinese, and those who considered themselves Taiwanese (although most Taiwanese at this point I believe would be considered ethnicly Han Chinese - there is a small indigenous population that is not). Ludahai has said that resentment towards China and Nationalism is higher these days, in part because of the SARS outbreak.
speedcake, educate yourself about China's nuclear weapons here. "The Pentagon recently predicted that the number of Chinese ICBMs capable of hitting the United States "could increase to around 30 by 2005 and may reach up to 60 by 2010."
Not if they're too busy in their own yard. I wasn't aware that Vietnamese Communists were recognized as their own race. It's an analogy. I never said it was perfect. And in any event I never said we needed to use the whole can of pesticide. The "can of pesticide" was not meant to represent nuclear or chemical weapons, it's simply an easy way of killing a lot of ants/Communists at once.
Do you know why Hanoi's air defense was so strong? Because after disabling SAM and AAA sites, the military was not allowed to bomb them again as they were being repaired; instead they were forced to wait until the defenses were fully operational again and fully capable of killing American pilots before taking them out again. Do you know why the military had to wait? Because politicians in Washington were afraid that if we bombed the sites while they were under construction, we would kill Soviet military advisors and "escalate the conflict". Do you know where the North Vietnamese got the air defense equipment from? From Eastern Bloc ships transporting missiles and other equipment to Haiphong Harbor, which the US military was not allowed to bomb and the Navy was not allowed to blockade because politicians in Washington were afraid that if we did so, we would kill Soviet, East German, and Czech military advisors and "escalate the conflict". Do you know why politicians in Washington enacted these policies? Because they were stupid.
Seriously - stop calling "Vietnamese Communists" - or any other group of people - ants that should be exterminated.
AFAIK, there were about 1million Chinese who escaped to the island of Taiwan in the 1950. This is in comparison to a population of 6million at the time. So mainland China has two points. First that the Island territory is theirs and second that a significant percentage of the population was always mainland Chinese. But more surprisingly, Not only does Dan provide a rare serious reply but I also agree with it. My original post expressed the relief that China understands that they can’t invade Taiwan after studying the result in Iraq.
? I'm not sure I follow this logic. Mainland China believes it's theirs because of the Nationalists they were fighting against and who claimed to be the rightful gov't fled there (and were viewed with hostility by the majority of people living in Taiwan at the time)? AFAIK, Mainland China believes Taiwan is theirs because they have felt this way long before WWII and probably before some Emperor officially declared it Chinese property.
I wouldn't say Vietnamese Communists would fit that description today, they're mostly harmless now (except to their own people). I would say that Islamofascists are ants who need to be extermina...nah, that's unfair to ants.
That is so cool. I had no idea people actually used that word. I thought it was just an exaggeration/malapropism made up by leftist cartoonists to make ol' GWB look even sillier. Outstanding!
That isn't anything remotely resembling true (aside from the last 2 sentences). Ever since 1972, a succession of US administrations has, in many cases explicitly, pledged to defend Taiwan from unprovoked Chinese aggression. The only difference with Bush was that, shortly after taking office, he used language that implicitly stated the US might defend Taiwan even if China attacked in response to a Taiwanese declaration of independence (which, to the State Department, would make a Chinese attack no longer unprovoked). While one could make the argument that Bush's statement could embolden Taiwan to declare independence, it hasn't happened yet (and Bush said that 3 1/2 years ago). I wish I could disagree with this, but I can't. But the fact remains--at the end of the day, no matter what the Chinese think about Taiwan, they don't have the amphibious capability, when viewed in comparison to Taiwanese air and naval assets (let alone US naval and air power), to land a single soldier on Taiwanese soil. And as long as they don't, any attempted invasion would be little more than a turkeyshoot. The US would have no choice but to help Taiwan--if they asked for our help. They won't ask for it unless they need it, and until China makes serious strides in their amphibious and air superiority capabilities, Taiwan won't need our help (other than in continuing to provide them with top-class equipment).
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/4/25/121034.shtml "Bush's comments mark the first time ever that a U.S. president has publicly said the United States would defend Taipei from Beijing..." Oh, and more things from your side of the fence that disagree: http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-09-01.html http://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb-066es.html
China would never admit it, but they are perfectly okay with the stalemate and the US presence in the region - as long as no shots are fired. It's not so much the firepower as it is just being there. The US, as long as there's no aggressive movement, is almost like a keystone that holds everything in place. At least that's my theory.
I've got to agree that China digs how things are. They can't act with instant and overwhelming direct physical force. They have almost no power projection (even into the South China Sea). They can fight, can't be occupies or occupying, can inflict damage, but are no offensive threat. By the way, why do "we" care if all of coastal Asia (save Japan) is a Chinese colony. To say the truth, the pro-dev., pro-trade running dogs in power there these days are more "free market" development-thinking then almost anyone over there that is not on some little irrelevant (in a geo-political, strategic sense) island(s)
What about the red ants? In answer to your serious question, the claim China has against the Taiwanese government is that it is the government (or its ancestor) that was battling the red army. They see it not only as their territory but also ruled by the ancestors of 1 million of their own mainland rebels.
I don't see any reasons for fighting China or vice versa. There's no benefits on both sides. Besides, I don't see why some of you guys want New York City or Beijing be reduced to rubbles by nuclear bombs just for the sake of showing that you are a tough cowboy. Stop taking drugs, people.