Is China Preparing for War?

[David Floyd]

The US won't launch a nuclear first strike, but the US would respond. A nuclear first strike is the only real response China would have to US intervention in Taiwan, and I just don't think they would do it.

And, AFAIK, China doesn't have enough ICBMs with the range to totally take out the US. It's a question of partial destruction/major damage vs. absolute annihilation.

[Main_Brain]

Chance of Conventional US Intervention seem slim to me.
Overstrechted US & Chinese Military Technology vastly improving?

[David Floyd]

I certainly don't think the US SHOULD intervene, just that if it did, there's no way China could win.

[Alinestra Covelia]

If China attacks Taiwan, there is no way that the PRC can "take and hold" cities and urban areas. Their navy and troops support is inferior and their air force is passable. The mainland does not yet possess the ability to win a war without the utter destruction of the Taiwan island. China doesn't want this because then it gains nothing. Taiwan doesn't want this for obvious reasons. America also doesn't want this because a collapse in either economy would result in substantial problems for the US economies.

Right now all you're hearing from all sides concerned is a load of hot air. If war breaks out, Taiwan would go up in flames after the mainland's initial missile barrage, well before anybody could do anything about it. Then you'd see the mainland having to deal with several US carrier fleets heading across the Pacific to assign severe retribution, which the Chinese military would be ill equipped to counter.

For its part, China is far too vast for any hostile force to police in any meaningful way. A war against China, regardless of who wins, would destabilize the region immensely.

The Chinese Communist Party may not be the best of neighbors and it may be a prickly customer for the Americans to deal with, but given the monopoly on political power it holds, it is nevertheless the only organization currently able to come close to administering the nation. A breakdown on that leadership level would be disastrous for everybody. Think Soviet breakup, but multiply the amount of short-term human misery by ten and you've got it.

Taiwan also provides the mainland with its most convenient trading partner. The thousands of factories popping up in the south of China are largely administered by Taiwanese businessmen who use their familiarity of culture, language, and history to a far greater degree of personal familiarity than the Westerners. Many come from families who have, like the displaced Palestinians in the Middle East, deepseated memories of their hometowns (frequently a history that goes back dozens of generations... like my own family, for example). There are definitely Taiwanese citizens who would love to see a complete political break from the mainland, but don't forget that there are some who favor the status quo; and the fact that they can ride back to their homelands after two generations' absence like wealthy barons probably has something to do with it.

There are many more reasons why war between the aforementioned territories is highly unlikely. What you're hearing is a form of political masturbation on all sides - saber-rattling largely intended to give the impression of strength, power, and decisiveness in a situation that is currently actually highly desirable to most people concerned. (The above goes just as well for the Chinese Communist Party as it did for Bush in the 2000 election, and I'm sure nobody is going to deny that President Chen probably has his eyes firmly on the polls when he weighs his own political announcements.)

So essentially the chances of war breaking out are very slim (barring some sudden bout of extreme isolated leadership-level stupidity/heroics). Even if it did break out, the consequences would be severe for everybody involved, uncontainable. Furthermore, the extreme imbalance of military forces (clearly Taiwan < China < USA) means that each successive level of actual fighting would be pretty much over fairly quick, but the various inabilities of any given power to actually administrate the territories of the other would make for a chaotic and unsuccessful aftermath.

But it would sure make for an interesting Civ2 scenario!

[Alinestra Covelia]

I just read through that above post and realized it's uncharacteristically badly edited. But today's Valentine's Day so I'm sure you can guess the excuse I'd use...

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
From a cost benefit point of view China would have very little to gain from launching an invasion. The economy is doing nicely, foreign investments is pouring in, there is a growing middle class. If the war is lost the communist leadership would be in serious trouble.

People are not rational economic creatures. China will attack Taiwan because it is a matter of pride. Whether or not the US will be able to/have the will to respond is another matter.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by The Templar


I wouldn't count on it. If the Chinese leadership were to say, "How many cities are you willing to lose for Taiwan? We're willing to lose three or four ..." then it's over for Taiwan. No president will trade Honolulu and/or Los Angeles for Taipei.

Besides, the business community has too much invested in China to let Bush and those neocons get too hot about Taiwan. What would probably happen is China would offer some economic concessions (maybe letting their currency rise) and abandon North Korea to the US in exchange for the US backing off.

Even the Chi-coms aren't that crazy, with the SDI stuff we are bringing on line we can ensure total annihilation of Chinese leadership targets, and there is no way they will be able to do the same.

[Barinthus]

Whoha, forgive me if I misunderstood you but didn't you just contradicted yourself?

[Hagbart]

USA won't attack China (even if they occupy Taiwan). China is not just another Iraq.

1 out of 5 people in the world is chinese.

BTW: If the US attacks china don't expect any danish help like in iraq. The danish navy wont come to your rescue this time, neither the sub the Seal or Olfert the frigate.

[Chemical Ollie]

The Swedish ambassador in China defined the Chinese system as "Stalinist Thacherism"

[David Floyd]

China is not just another Iraq.

Good point. We wouldn't even need ground troops to hand China's ass to them on a platter.

[Imran Siddiqui]

USA won't attack China

Yep.. no need to start WW3.

[Shi Huangdi]

We wouldn't need to occupy China to defeat them. The goal would to be defend Taiwan, which we could do. But even if China did manage to quickly take over Taiwan and fortify it(a dubious prospect in itself), we could devestate China without landing a soldier. China is so connected to the world economy a blockade would devestate them, and we would be able to use airpower to severly cripple the Chinese economy.

Crippling the Chinese economy would place the Communist Party's hold on leadership in question. Which is why the PRC won't invade.

[joncha]

Sometimes over-blown rhetoric can paint a country's leadership into a corner. What do you think the PRC's leadership would do, after all their posturing and sabre-rattling, if one of the Taiwanese nationalists, in a similar bout of posturing, actually goes ahead on the long-standing threat of a referendum on independence? What do you think the PRC's leadership would do if the people of Taiwan actually voted for outright independence? Do they back down and risk looking like a "paper tiger"? I think there would be some in the inner circle that would see the risk of conflict with the US as being less that the risk of losing control of their own country. At least they'd go down "in control" if the US decided to intervene... and (added bonus) the US may decide not to intervene.

Now, all that said, I don't think the PRC will go to war over Taiwan, but I do think its a definite possibility. If it does happen, I don't think even the chickenhawks in the Whitehouse would end up doing more than imposing sactions or, at most, using limited airstrikes. But again, it is a possibility. If that happens, we're likely all screwed.

jon.

[Patroklos]

There is no reason this war would have to turn nuclear. Hell, half the Cold War Europe scenarios were non nuclear. There is only really one reason why any side would use nuclear weapons, and that is to defend its own existance. A Tiawanese war would be conventional. The USA would not try to invade China, just repel them from the island.

That is why there was some question of the US nuclear umbrella for Europe in the Cold War. Would the US be willing to nuclear strike Soviet Union if one of the European allies folded? Risk the destruction of the US over a third party? I think West Germany was exempted from the overrun rule because it was accepted that we should expect a Soviet push to make it that far before bieng halted.

Now after France and Britian got their nuclear arms up the question was mute. If France was on the verge of collapse they would nuke Russia, and though they had relatively few nukes they had enough to triger armagedan from everyone else.

So bottom line, niether China nore the US would use nukes over a none treaty obligated thrid party. And in that case China would fail, as they just don't have power projection and the US Navy is far from streched. Remember we are not on a total war footing, so we are only stretched from that standpoint . If we went to war with China it would be a total mobilization scenario, conventional wise.