I don’t think China has any history of launching invading armies for conquest – it is their way to defend, and to absorb neighbors who attempt to invade them.
Some people from Tibet might disagree.
Taiwan is a major investor in China-and China invests in Taiwan. I think China likes to keep Taiwan as a convenient “whipping boy”, and brigs up the “province of China” thing every so often.
Such a conflict makes no sense of any kind, and the Chinese are practicable people.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
In the post WW2 world, China has one of the worst military aggression track record. Tibet, Manchuria, Mongolia, Xinjiang, Korea, Nepal, India, Viet Nam, and not to mention sea claims that stretch for thousands of miles south of the most southern point of China and others.
Historically, it’s true that the Han Chinese outlasted many invaders (Tibetans, Mongolians, Manchurians, etc) by sheer numbers. I wouldn’t call it their “way” but more akin to bear it until the other guys gets tired of beating you up.
Plus, it’s highly likely that Taiwan has the bomb and capability to wipe out at least a couple of major cities like Shanghai.
Its the Homer Simpson boxing strategy!
But has China ever actually launched an army bent on conquest? It seems to me that in Korea and Vietnam they were assisting allies with self defense. The situation with Tibet is complicated, but I really don’t think they have attempted a total military takeover through a war of aggression, have they?
I’m not saying they don’t fight wars; I’m saying I don’t think they have a history of imperialist aggression. I have only done casual reading on the history of China and am certainly not expert on this matter so I could be completely wrong.
I don’t think they would actually happen to invade. From my understanding of the physics, if all the Mainlanders simply jumped up simultaneously, the collective THUD would cause a tsunami that would wipe out Taiwan. Then it’s theirs for the taking.
XT and I have had this debate before and we disagree. I think that without American assistance, it would be possible for China to conquer Taiwan if they were willing to pay the price for it.
People talking about amphibious invasions tend to focus too much on how Americans do it. American military doctrine is to plan things out, load up on equipment, and minimize friendly casualties. That may be the best system if you’ve got the resources but it’s not the only way to do an amphibious invasion.
If you’ve got a lot of troops and a halfway decent amount of equipment and you don’t care how many of them and how much of it you might lose, you can throw a lot of troops across the water.
People forget that the Nationalists originally controlled two big islands, Taiwan and Hainan, after the communist victory on the mainland in 1949. But the communists invaded Hainan in 1950. They basically loaded up over a hundred thousand soldiers on civilian boats and sailed them across the strait.
Now I’ll grant this wasn’t the same situation. But I don’t think the differences are insurmountable. Crossing a hundred miles is more difficult than crossing ten miles - but they’re comparable (the hardest part is that first mile). The Taiwanese navy and air force are better equipped than they were in 1950 - but so are the Chinese navy and air force.
China would not see this as a war of aggression. They have always adamantly maintained that Taiwan is part of China.
More to the point, they consider Taiwan a renegade province, and the Taiwanese consider the government of mainland China to be illegitimate, so from that perspective they would be doing nothing but killing their own people, as it were.
The saber-rattling is exactly that, and nothing more. The PRC will never invade Taiwan. That they can’t only makes the decision not to massacre a substantial part of their population (on both sides) that much easier. There will eventually be a resolution, and that will come when mainland China gives up on the last remnants of Maoism/Communism. They’ve already gone most of the way with their embrace of capitalism, the rest will come either through internal political collapse or an outright coup. Once the Taiwanese perceive that they might be able to make a move politically via elections they’ll reunite. That’s my opinion, anyway. Who’s to say? But there will be no war.
Tibet, Manchuria, Inner Mongolia and Xinjiang are all examples of total military takeovers in the post WW2 era.
The Chinese invasion on Viet Nam circa 1979. Kinda got their ass handed to them.
“Han” China or core China is actually pretty small and clustered around the Yellow and Yangzi rivers. The Han Chinese basically pushed out from these areas and expanded what is now modern China by about 3x the land mass. As I keep harping on, Tibet, Manchuria, Inner (and Outer Mongolia) and Xinjiang were never really part of core Han China (gross oversimplification) except as vassel States at varying times with varying amounts of control.
If Taiwan were to use nukes on Chinese cities, there’s a fair chance that it would kill more of its reserve forces than the PLA would.
China has repeatedly let Taiwan know that as long as Taiwan doesn’t declare independence, then China is fine with the status quo. Knowing that, it’s hard to picture a scenario where Taiwan decides to cross that line.
China’s major problem is that the US has declared it will not tolerate aggression, so China has been building up PLN capacity in an attempt to slow down the US response. A few years back, during a China saber rattling missile test off Taiwan, the US sent the 7th fleet through the straits to remind China that the USN owns the China Seas.
While their used carrier is pretty useless for the moment, and their antiship missile technology isn’t future improvements in sub technology may get the US to slow down its cavalry charge to the rescue.
But for now, I can’t see how China could concentrate its forces without tipping off the US. Even with the mere 282 ships at its command, the US would stop the invasion before it landed.
China has said very clearly that there are two things that would cause it to forcibly occupy Taiwan: any attempt to declare independence as a separate country or any attempt to develop nuclear weapons.
Other than that, China has never officially renounced the possibility of forcibly occupying Taiwan (which, as stated above, it would regard as a domestic matter not an international issue) but it has stated that it chooses to work on bringing Taiwan back under mainland control via peaceful means.
Equally convoluted is American policy over Taiwan. The United States can’t openly declare that it would oppose China’s forcible occupation of Taiwan because China has said it would regard such a public declaration as an unacceptable foreign interference in China’s internal affairs. The closest thing to an American commitment to Taiwan is the statement that the United States has “an abiding interest and concern that any resolution be peaceful” and will oppose any unilateral attempt to change the status quo. (So, in theory, the United States is also opposed to a Taiwanese declaration of independence.)
Nemo - you have a cite on the developing nukes? I’ve never heard it before and would like to be educated.
Second, US commitment is kinda sorta maybe spelled out in the Shanghai Communique. Wiki: Shanghai Communiqué - Wikipedia
I would disagree that it’s because of China’s view on “unacceptable foreign interference.” Go back to the Shanghai Communique and the full back story there if you’re interested.
Many. Modern China is partially the result of an 17th-18th century conquest state. In 1450 Ming China at its height controlled ~6.5 million sq. kilometers ( it shrunk a bit thereafter ). By 1820 the Qing had expanded that to ~13 million sq. kilometers vastly increasing the size of the empire. Modern China, cut back a bit in size = 9.6 million sq. kilometers.
Nor is that the only example, witness the T’ang expansion into Central Asia in the early Middle Ages.
Chinese imperial passivity is a much exaggerated meme. One with a kernel or two of truth, but still exaggerated. Some Chinese regimes were very defense-minded and non-expansionist. Others were quite aggressive. It just depends on the period.
But Tamerlane, the Qing wasn’t really China. It was the Manchurian empire that included China, no?
And Tang China was rivaled in size and power by the Nanzhao Kingdom of SW China and Burma. (It’s the big chunk of your China map link that isn’t part of what is now mainly SW China). But I’ll concede the point that Tang China went west big time into Central Asia although notably not Tibet.
I’m familiar with the Shanghai Communique (and the other two communiques). Also the Taiwan Relations Act, the Six Assurances, and the Three No’s. They’re all marvels of carefully worded ambiguity that allow America to convey to China what its policy is regarding Taiwan while allowing China to claim that America has no policy regarding Taiwan.
As an example of the careful wording, I was wrong when I stated the United States is “opposed” to Taiwanese independence. The official American position is not that it “opposes” independence - it “does not support” independence. Nor does the United States “acknowledge” the mainland’s claim to Taiwan - it “recognizes” that claim.
Finding an official cite on China’s policy regarding a Taiwanese nuclear program is more difficult. I did find this wikipedia cite: “The People’s Republic of China has announced that any Republic of China possession of nuclear weapons is grounds for an immediate attack. Attempts by ROC officials to form a dialogue with the PRC on the subject of WMDs have been rebuffed.” But I realize that’s hardly an authoritative source. I’ll look around to see if I can find a better one.
I’m somewhat inclined to argue otherwise for much the same reason there are only ~70 speakers of Manchu alive today. While both the Yuan and the Qing made real attempts to inhibit Sinicization, in the end the Qing pretty much completely failed. Certainly by the waning days of the regime they were just as thoroughly Chinese as the Ming had ever been.
But really even if you toss the Qing ( and Yuan ) imperial examples, one can find others besides the T’ang. The early Ming themselves were quite aggressive, making a determined effort to carry the war to their former Mongol overlords on the steppe. And really the existence of an independent Nanzhao/Dali in what is now just considered part of “China,” kinda proves the point ;).
Of course. That goes without saying. The point is that China had declared Tawan’s independence as its line in the sand. Invading Taiwan in only the second worst scenario for China. The worst is for Taiwan to declare independence, China to do nothing and then watch Tibet and other areas decide they want to join the party.
Except no one apparently got around to mentioning this to Mr. Bush.
The US intent is well understood
I would argue that the meme is based mostly on a single factor: that China was coninuously exposed to military pressure from the steppe nomads.
No settled civilization was ever, until modern times, able to deal with the nomads permanently on a military basis. At best, they exercised a sort of ephemeral overlordship. More often, they relied on a combination of fixed defenses, cultural pressure, bribery (sometimes offering the nomad chiefs delectable Chinese princesses as a sweetener - one can only imagine what said princesses thought of that prospect!) and divide-and-rule meddling by offering ranks and titles to “friendly” nomads and setting them on the “unfriendly” (it is an amusing fact that the future Ghenghis Khan, when still merely Temujin, was awarded the Chinese title of “Vice-Commissioner for Peace in the Border Regions”! Never was a title less appropriate … 
).
This sort of strategy is simply pragmatic, as it is cheaper and (usually!) more effective than actually physically ruling the nomads … but it looks a lot more “passive”.