Hello, perpetual war for perpetual peace. If this is true, tangling with China over Taiwan could be disastrous for several reasons:
#1 Our armed forces are stretched thin.
#2 U.S. public support. A majority of Americans are regretting the Iraq War currently. Plus, due to #1, we’d might need a draft to fight China.
#3 Cost. We’re already trillions of dollars in debt, a miltary adventure with China will only add to that.
#4 Taiwan doesn’t have oil/WMDs/terrorists. What reason would Bushco try to spin?
The timing is a little fishy for me: clash with China just as the DNC gets underway. I’m a little confused why we’d rush to Taiwan’s aid? Do we have a mutual defense treaty? Doesn’t anyone in the Administration study history (hello WWI)?
Not in a sense that is relevant to this situation. Not using many B2 stealth bombers or carrier battle groups in Iraq or Afghanistan these days. May as well use them to help protect a young democracy, no? After all, we sure as hell aren’t planning to commit major ground forces to that fight, stretched thin or not. Just not feasible given the situation.
See #1 above. If there is a war over Taiwan, we won’t be able to get more than token ground forces there anyways. There will be no draft, since this potential conflict wouldn’t involve invading mainland PRC. It’ll be an air and naval war for us, assuming ROC doesn’t fold fast. No need to draft troops if we ain’t sending them over.
Sure won’t be cheap, I’ll agree with you there.
Defending ROC from PRC in and of itself doesn’t strike you as a good enough reason?
Clash?!? Unless I missed something, we are not in a shooting war. Nor will we likely be. To those who didn’t pay attention to the news in the past, I suppose news that we are going to hold a ‘counter-exercise’ would be all scary and confusing. Of course, we have been doing this pretty much since ROC was formed, on a yearly basis. We used to do the same with the Warsaw Pact; They hold Exercise A, we hold Exercise B, and vice-versa. Nothing unusual there.
Why are US’ers so obsessed with war?
Is it because it always happens outside your own nation or what is it that makes people in the US so obsessed with all matters concerning army, invasions, destruction, killings?
I am sorry, but I can not close this post with wishing you peace since you clearly do not long for peace. You talk about war brought on other people, killing other people, destroying other people and their nations in a way that makes it clear that you find it absolutely normal that the US would wage war on yet an other nation.
We might say that we’re “holding exercises” but Taiwanese troops will join us in these exercises. How will China view that? We might have many peaceful and noble intentions (which I highly doubt), but if we are perceived as threatening to China there will be repercussions, unfortunately. Can you cite how many U.S. military exercises invite foreign forces to participate?
Aldebaran, I’m sorry that you feel that Americans want yet another war. I don’t and I doubt many of us here want another war. We’re just stuck with this war-mongering Administration. Hopefully, they’ll get kicked out in November. Educating the masses will help.
Anyone remember a few years back when the US sent 2 carrier groups to the Taiwan straits following a PRC live fire exercise just before a Taiwanese election? How about the recent French/Chinese exercises off Taiwan? No?
This exercise shows that a China/US conflict over the nebulous state of Taiwan would be a poor choice by Beijing. China would loose, Taiwan would remain in it nebulous states and the US would win. The US actions actually provide a means to maintain the status quo. What might be worrying is that it requires 7 carrier groups to do it.
I clearly misread your OP (and your mindset behind it).
Please accept my apologies.
Yet my question still stands: Why it it that so many people are so obsessed with army, war, weapons etc… in the USA. (But maybe that is something to start my own thread on. )
Salaam. A
Bit of a hijack, isn’t it? I suggest you try opening another thread if you believe the above to be true about “US’ers” in general.
Meanwhile, the linked article provides what I think is a fairly reasonable rationale (at least to the military) for carrying out an exercise of this type, and these displays are clearly aimed more at preventing a potential conflict than inciting one.
That said, I’m beginning to wonder whether the US might not face a serious conflict with China sometime in the next 10-20 years, either over Taiwan directly or with Taiwan as a surrogate for a larger struggle concerned with declining hydrocarbon resources.
What makes you so sure China would lose? They do have a hell of a lot of people. The US can barely beat Iraq, let alone a country that hasn’t been suffering from sanctions for 10 years.
Personally, I could see it going either way. I think some sabre-rattling by the US Navy will generally keep China out of Taiwan. It seems to me that Taiwan puts the US in a bit of a tight spot–we can’t just abandon an ally, but we can’t get into a full-blown war with China either, not that I see the US trying to put ground troops into mainland China or anything. I think that there is too much of an economic interdependency for both countries to really risk war at the moment.
However, the only way I see the US as an ally of China would depend on how the War on Terror goes and whether or not a full-blown Islamic world vs. Western world (which in this case would probably include India and China) war actually happened. That would be something to see. Not fun, but something to see. How about a American-Russian-Chinese-Indian alliance against most of the Middle East, Pakistan, Chechnya, and whoever-it-is that China has had problems with?
The US doesn’t have to win; they simply have to deny China airspace and naval access. A million man army sitting on the opposite beach is pretty useless.
You seem to think that the US needs to conquer China. Why would they? It has a stable government that they can deal with to arrange terms in the event of an incident. Decimate China’s amphibious forces and keep their air force out of the air and a Chinese takeover of Taiwan becomes remote to the extreme. The parties then sit down and negotiate a treaty that deals with the emerging democratic movement with Taiwan.
I’m not a specialist of military matters in any way, but a lot of aknowledgeable people seem to think that China wouldn’t be able to invade Taiwan even without Taiwan receiving foreign support, because its military isn’t adapted to such a situation. Having “a lot of people” doesn’t help much if they can’t approach the coast of Taiwan, you can’t transport them there, etc… China didn’t devellop a power projection power. It’s navy, AFAIK, isn’t geared towards force projection but intended to control the nearby seas. For instance, no carrier, but a lot of subs. 10 millions soldiers won’t help if you lack the logisitcs, the equipment, etc…to use them to invade a foreign country.
If a war over Taiwan was to break up, what would be the definition of China “loosing”? That probably wouldn’t involve mainland China being invaded. Rather, her renouncing to its invasion attempt.
Of course, a way of loosing could involve a nuclear exchange, in a worst case scenario…
As for a clash being China and the USA hapenning within 10, 20 or 30 years that might be possible. A military clash between the rising dominant power and the former dominant one woudln’t be unheard of. Contradicting interests are likely to appear at some point.
Generalize much? I don’t see anyone asking about the Muslim obsession with decapitating people with those big curved swords.
How do you figure we can “barely beat” Iraq. If our intention was to beat the crap out of a little country you can bet that Iraq would be well beaten. Since our objective is not to “beat” anyone but to build a self-sufficient nation and since it is always harder to create than destroy, your analogy is…well…stupid.
We could certainly beat China in the sense of denying them the ability to invade Taiwan. There may be a billion screaming Chinamen waiting to pour into Taipei but they are all stuck on the mainland as long as we maintain naval and air superiority in the region. We would not need to invade China at all.
Not that any of this would happen in the near future anyway. Sounds like just the usual saber rattling to me.
Quick answer: It’s not going to happen. China isn’t going to attack Taiwan, and, even if they did, the US would NOT get into a major conflict with China.
I could be wrong, it happens often enough, but since there is already sabre rattling and people predicting a potential war between US-China based on Taiwan, don’t you think China may build up its forces to make use of it large population, and render the potential US naval superiority negligent? I don’t think they would need as many fancy ships and planes to be effective just many ships and planes. The US may sink a whole lot of the troop carriers, but it is doubtful they could get them all. I doubt Taiwan has the population to withstand even a small number of Chinese forces getting through. Andsince this is doubtful to happen for 10-30 years it seems to me likely that China would build up its forces to make an invasion of Taiwan possible. However this is all conjecture, but so is most of this thread.
I don’t think the US would have to invade China, but wouldn’t they have to defend Taiwan with some ground forces if China got their ground forces there?
As to my anaolgy being stupid, wouldn’t the US be attempting to build a nation in Taiwan much like they are doing in Iraq? Of course 1 difference might be that the people of Taiwan actually want a democracy, which I’m not convinced the people of Iraq do. And the US is doing a great job of nation building in Iraq so far. I read an article in the Toronto star yesterday about the Iraqi police forces and how they can’t even get ammunition, badges, proper communication equipment because the US is afraid it will fall into the insurgents hands. Doesn’t seem like a very effective way to build a nation to me. A nations citizens must be protected from its own internal criminals before they can worry about who to vote for.
And whether or not the idea behind the War in Iraq was to beat anyone or to build a nation, I’m not convinced it wasn’t to beat Iraq. And in turn take control of the oil that is there.
The thing is, the assets required for occupying Iraq and the assets required for foiling an amphibious invasion of Taiwan are completely different.
If China tried to invade Taiwan, it would seem to me that the US would win if we foiled the invasion, right? And invading Taiwan wouldn’t exactly be easy. China would have to airlift or ship everything. Those planes and ships would likely be easy prey for our navy and air force. We wouldn’t need to commit many ground troops, the Taiwanese defense forces would fill that role. Then we’d get good use out of those high-tech weapons systems that aren’t much good at foiling car bombs and kidnappers, but do great against tank columns, airplanes, and ships. And don’t forget that Britain, France, Australia, Japan, Russia, South Korea, and pretty much any country that borders China would have an interest in seeing the invasion fail, even if they weren’t willing to commit troops.
Our military is designed to destroy other armies. The problems the US is encountering in Iraq would be reversed if China invaded Taiwan, in that case it would be China trying to occupy and pacify Taiwan. I don’t think China would be able to get many forces across the strait, and those that did get across would have to operate without logistical support. And pretty soon their tanks and troops would be without food, without fuel, without ammunition, the US would control the strait, and the remnents of the invading force would be mopped up.
So yes, the US and Taiwan would probably win easily, if by “win” you mean that when the cease-fire is signed China doesn’t occupy Taiwan. Of course, there’d be huge losses of life, economic devastation, ruined cities, ecological damage, and a shredded international order. I have no doubt that if China thought they could win easily they’d invade tomorrow. But since they know they can’t win easily, and would likely suffer a humiliating defeat, and suffer enormous economic damage from the loss of trade with the US and Europe and Japan, I don’t think any invasion is likely any time soon.
For the foreseeable future, the next fifty years or so, a war between the US and PRC would be a major policy disaster for both nations. While wars do happen between unwilling nations, it is a rare event.
So, there will be no war between those two in the near- and mid-terms.
Well the point of the exercise is to ensure that the 10-30 years happens. Besides China’s inability to keep a large army in the field with its logistics train shattered by carrier/sub groups is the part of the deterent.
[quote=cdnguy**As to my anaolgy being stupid, wouldn’t the US be attempting to build a nation in Taiwan much like they are doing in Iraq? Of course 1 difference might be that the people of Taiwan actually want a democracy, which I’m not convinced the people of Iraq do. And the US is doing a great job of nation building in Iraq so far. [/QUOTE]
OK, well the Iraq digression not withstanding, Taiwan has 25 million people with an $18k (US) GDP per capita ratio. They are democratic in that they’ve had at least two elections. There is no need for the US to nation build Taiwan, they’ve done it themselves. The question now is one of independence. The US has a one china policy; however it has historic ties to an independent Taiwan. China seeks reunification, while Taiwanese debate the merits of such actions. China has used threats of force to intimidate the direction of votes.
The question is one of maintaining the status quo. The perception that an invasion is unworkable maintains that status quo.