As of 2003, China was the United States 6th largest export market, and the United States was China’s largest export market. As long as those are the economics of the situation, there isn’t going to be any war.
Taiwan has a standing Army of some two hundred thousand, with about one and a half million reservists. And I don’t guarantee much, but I guarantee that PRC ain’t putting 3 million or so of their (fairly poorly trained and equiped) troops on Taiwan. Moving that many people would be a major feat in peacetime with nobody shooting at you; With the American and ROC navies and air forces zipping around, it becomes impossible. The situation is not very dissimilar from the one that Germany and Britain faced back in WW2. Sure, in theory, they have the troops to do it, but they can’t just miracle their asses across, you know.
Regardless, the PLA is about 2.5 million, with another 1.5 million ‘reservists’. (Not in the western sense; They get no refresher training and certainly don’t have decent gear.) They would have to commit pretty much their entire active army, just to achieve numerical parity, and Taiwan has the incredible advantage of sitting on the other side of the straits, with all of the associated logistical benifits of defending.
Also, I am rather interested in learning how a large population would negate American naval supremecy. Lots of PLA troops in life-preservers with rifles? Sure, one or two wouldn’t mean much, but 3 million PLA troops floating their way to victory? Well, now there is a plan worthy of Clausewitz.
But still, it ain’t gonna happen. Since 1945 we have been engaging in ‘Exercise/Counter-Exercise’ with some country or other. They are useful training aids, but when you think about, are pretty much the worst possible times to launch an attack. Kinda hard to achieve suprise when seven carrier battle groups are ‘exercising’ to sink your ass.
Why? Are you saying that some obscure third world nation is NOT the most likely location of the next war?
There is no way in hell we would go to war over Taiwan, not now, not ever. Simple reason: Nuclear weapons. We could vaporize China, but we can’t tolerate even one nuclear strike on a major US city. The war would start conventionally, on the Island of Taiwan, but the US would basically have to strike the mainland to prevent perpetual sorties and bombardment from a safe distance ashore. The minute we head for the mainland, China has nothing that could stop up fully except nukes. And nukes would stop us fully.
Hence, it will never, ever happen.
Asked and answered:
Pacific Command
Central Command
European Command
Southern Command
Northern Command
No, because Americans know d*ck about the world byond Canada and Mexico.
I think it’s more plausible the current war in Iraq will expand to include Iran.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3854921.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3864229.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3842723.stm
Then there is the story where Iranian border guards apparently moved their line into Iraq and the US commander ordered British troops to attack them. The subordinate British commander apparently refused the order, stating something to the effect, “You want me to start World War III?”
Bah, China only has 20 CSS-4 ICBMs, and those only have a single warhead. Granted, 2 megaton warhead, but just one.
Curtis Lemay would not be impressed.
I suspect he would have been had one landed on his doorstep. Well, for a very, very, very, very few fractions of a second, anyway.
Americans know more then d*ck about Canada? News to me.
Loopydude I agree that the chance of a war happening is remote, but I would base it more on economic reasons. China will become possible the export of good across the globe over the next 20 years. A global embargo would cripple their economy an economy they need to pay for any war.
Besides the US and Taiwan need only keep the PLA out and the shipping lanes clear. Why devastate China when you can simply shut them out, wear them down and bankrupt them?
Things change a lot over the course of 50 years. I wouldn’t make such long-term predictions. For all I know, in 2054, the USA could be a ruined and barely relevant country, China broken down in several independant states, or being a right-wing fascist dictatorship, the way of waging a war could have totally changed, Taiwan maight be part of the Federal Union of Pacific States, its main competitor and potential ennemy being the USA and american people being worrried about Taiwanese anti-matter bombs or war nano-machines being dropped on its territory, etc…
50 years, in my opinion, is really too long a term for any projection or prediction to be meaningful.
The 20 largest US cities being wipped out doesn’t impress you? You’re a though guy, then.
Seriously, you don’t need a lot of nuclear warhead to convince someone that letting you alone is in his best interest…
Amen to that. I think what people are forgetting is that there are economic reasons to wage and not wage war. Germany and France were not with the USA on Iraq because they would be losing contracts that they had with the now former government to USA companies. It was bad form in the economic world for the USA to take that away from Germany and France. Because China is such a huge trade partner and keeps getting “Most Favored Nation” trade partner status even though China has irked the USA over human rights violations, it is just further proof that the USA and China are not going to war over Taiwan.
<Hijack>
What will be interesting is to see who will emerge to check the USA’s current power in the world. China is a possibility, they are growing in economic might. The EU might do so in a few years. Nature abhors a vacuum. </HIJACK>
No no no, mon ami, it wouldn’t impress the late General Curtis E. Lemay. The good general frequently advocated launching everything we have at the Soviet Union, now. Especially in the early years of the Cold War, he felt that we could exchange nukes with the ruskies and surive. A colorful character.
I am of the opinion that war between the US, China, and Taiwan is incredibly unlikely. Much postering, little actual danger. Still, some National Missle Defense couldn’t hurt our odds.
Like I said, we can’t handle one city, much less twenty. I wish I had the cite (anybody know more about this?), but from what I understand based on some earlier reading, nuking the top ten US cities will destroy our economy. The USA, as we know it, would cease to exist from that time forward. With even a modest number of ICBMs, M.A.D. logic still holds for a US vs. China conflict. It’s a lose-lose situation.
Which means it would take a hell of a lot more than Taiwan to make it worth our while. I’m not sure we would get into a war even over Japan. As far as the world is concerned, Taiwan is part of China. If Taiwan tried to go its own way, and China asserted its sovereignty over it, the worst they could expect would be some sanctions, which would probably be lifted if Taiwan was eventually given the level of autonomy they have now.
I think, even if China decided to invade Japan, the result would be economic isolation of China, sort of on the lines of Iraq prior to GWII. Nukes make any straightforward war unlikely in the extreme.
Sorry but Iraq is a craphole. Afghanistan is a craphole. The Balkins are a craphole. Haiti is a craphole. Somalia is a craphole. Wars do not break out in places like the south of France or Miami Beach, FL (although Vietnam is supposed to be very pretty).
I bet you know a lot about foreign policy.
As subtle an analysis as saying "Bush waged war on Irak just in order to be able to hand out juicy oil contracts to his friends.
I’ve already written a couple times at least what were the main reasons for France not supporting the war in Irak, but these “contracts” were most certainly of the last reasons. Your forgetting a major element : by the time France eventually decided not only not to join in (since for several months it was envisionned and prepared) , but also to oppose the war, it was 100% certain that the US would wage this war regardless and 100% certain that it would win it.
As a result, these “contracts” would be lost. While if France had supported this war, at the contrary, french companies could have got rebuilding contracts and the french government would have had a say in the matter. The purely economical interest should have led, given the circumstances, to join in the Iraki war.
The bussiness world, generally speaking, lobbied for the government to take a softer stance regarding Irak, and certainly not to fight tooth and nail the US position. They wanted to get they share of the cake (or to make sure that they would keep it) after the war. And that would have meant being on the side of the US.
Sorry. The reference was lost on me…
The US will not go to war with China, since that would severely impact our import of cheap consumer goods across the spectrum. This is merely token saber-rattling to show that the US is still supporting Taiwan. A war with Venezuela or Iran is more likely than a war with China.
What I still don’t get is why China even wants Taiwan to begin with. Sure, there’s national pride and a desire to show other “rogue provinces” that attempts to break away will be pimp-smacked, but from a purely economic and military standpoint, Taiwan offers nothing to China that it doesn’t already have.