Should the US intervene militarilly in Taiwan?

<<post deleted>>
(Edited by Pete on 3/23, 9:20pm)

Post 1

Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 9:20pm

(Please forgive the typo! Any way I can change that?)

Post 2

Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 10:46pm

Would the Chinese risk it? I doubt it. What they may be doing is stamping their feet in the hope they can extort better trading terms from the timorous Asian and European governments. I'd say the Chinese government's biggest fear would be that their army would get so badly banged up that there would be nothing left to defend the politicians against their own populace.

Should the USA defend Taiwan? If a shooting war was unavoidable - most definitely. Hard-nosed diplomacy would be my preferred option to begin with. You can't escape the fact that a sizeable chunk of the US military and its equipment (both front line and supply) is devoted to supporting operations in Iraq.
In my book, hard-nosed diplomacy would include selling Taiwan all the AEGIS-class destroyers it wants. Hell, if I had my way I'd chuck in the USN's 8 old Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruisers, patriot missiles and any other weapon system that the US wants to make a buck from.

The idea is that US gives the Taiwanese the tools to sink an invasion force at sea - US troops won't be needed. All the US will be required to do is counter-act the Chinese nuclear arsenal. Something that will be easier to do if the ABM shield ever gets up and running.

In any case, short of all out nuclear warfare I can't see how the Chinese Navy could support an invasion of Taiwan in the face of Allied air and sea power.

The US Navy and airforce could smoother the PLA navy with stand-off guided missiles from a hundred miles away. The PLA navy is huge - but mostly a brown water navy (http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/china/). It has maybe a dozen boats bigger than a frigate capable of carrying a moderate SAM armament. They have no aircraft carriers and so must depend on land-based radar and air-cover. All of the USNs anti-ship missiles can be fired from over the horizon. This means that the Chinese would never see their attackers - just a swarm of guided robots with 500 lb warheads.

One also has to remember that the Chinese haven't been good neighbours all these years. They have taken land from or picked fights with India, Tibet, and Vietnam to mention a few. If China did get into a full on war with the USA it would be hamstrung by the need to continue to defend all of its borders least their ex-victims decide to put the boot in while China had its hands full.

(Edited by Robert Winefield on 3/23, 10:59pm)

Post 3

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 2:26am

Robert,

Interesting and enlightening analysis. A few notes:

1) My understanding is that the PLA has embarked on a massive modernization campaign and that China is working on building a viable blue water navy. The fact that they don't have the capability to take on the US right now doesn't mean they won't in a decade or four.

2) Until they are capable of taking Taiwan, even with the US supporting Taiwan's defenses, they seem to be adopting a belligerent posture in the hope of weakening the US commitment to Taiwan's security. Removing the US from the equation by throwing around economic/trade muscle would, if it could be accomplished over time, bring the day when they're ready to invade closer.

3) Totalitarian societies in general, and China historically whatever its form of government, tend to xenophobia and to acquiring -- or even creating -- external enemies in order to promote unity of purpose among their slave populations. Even in a freer society such as the US, it can't have escaped your notice that an external conflict tends to cause people to "close ranks" in support of their government (which, of course, is the right thing to do if the enemy is real and their country is right). That's a tendency which can be, and often is, exploited.

Whether or not it ever comes down to actual war or not, there are a number of reasons for the Chinese Comminist government to court the aura of conflict. They seem to be doing so.

Regards,
Tom Knapp

Post 4

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 6:15am

Tom, your point 3 was something that kept coming up again and again when I was reading history about the USSR. You're right that it seems to be a tactic used by totalitarian societies. This may be an oversimplification, but it seems the only way to justify the economic consequences of their policies is to be constantly on the aggressive if not outright at war.

Makes the claim by collectivists that "capitalism thrives on war" kind of funny, doesn't it? And I don't mean amusing.

Jason

Post 5

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 9:24am

Failing to prevent communist thugs from forcibly dominating the millions of relatively free Taiwanese would be a dreadful mistake. It will embolden those thugs, for starters. Singapore is majority ethnic Chinese. Will Singapore be the next country that the communists long to be �reunited� with?

The other disastrous effect would be that Japan, Korea and others would find out that America really does not intend to hold China back and maintain its status of dominance and guarantor of peace and open shipping lanes, as it has for the last sixty years. Japan and South Korea would either go nuclear or run into the arms of China. The long-term dangers of these outcomes would be terrible.

We should arm Taiwan so that her missile response capability is at least triple to China�s. We should maintain a presence in the region that is at all times three-to-sixteen times over China�s capability. We should boldly declare that any invasion force would be promptly and joyously destroyed.

Jon

Post 6

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 12:39pm

Correct me if I am wrong - but I thought that it was actually an amendment in the US constitution that if Taiwan is ever under threat, then the USA will defend her.

I read that in an article once. But then they went on to say that it may be up for debate what "under threat" actually means - and no one is actually sure if the USA would actually intervene. However, I don't see how they cannot, other than it being a peaceful anschluss, which is not likely.

Post 7

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 1:20pm

Marcus,

It certainly is not in our constitution. What you read was that our congress has passed some kind of �shall support Taiwan, shall not allow an attack on her to succeed� law. That was, I don�t know, maybe ten-twenty five years ago.

Jon

Post 8

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 1:35pm

In the US Defense community, the threat of China vis-a-vis Taiwan is being used as an excuse to create a "near peer" in China as the major threat, when in reality it is highly unlikely. It is not impossible, but it would not be in China or US interest to fight over Taiwan. Both our Nations are now integrating economically in an ever-tightening way, and any such conflict would be an economic catastrophe for both Nations. In addition, as you said, I doubt China will want South Korea and Japan going for Nukes in reaction, either. The key is to defuse the situation and not add to any rhetoric. The Communists do use this to help keep power, and the cold warriors over here use it to justify military spending in excess of what is actually needed in these high-priced weapon systems, at the expense of the low-tech stuff we need to win the peace in Iraq, for instance. The whole thing will be moot as long as we can integrate China, because those leaders won't be around in 20 years. China is changing, and only stupidity will stop that change. Instead, we need closer ties, maybe even some rhetorical way to back off on Taiwan (which is like Cuba for us - how would the US like China dictating terms about Cuba?) in exchange for help in getting rid of Kim Jung Il.

That way - China saves face and is recognized as a great power, which also means it has to start obeying the rules, too, and we get rid of Kim, and so do they, and we can work on a regional defense partnership like a NATO for Asia. China's changes are already taking place, and we can finish them off by engagement, unlike containment that was needed for Russia. meanwhile, Taiwan will do just fine - they won't be suddenly "under the boot" they will integrate slowly most likely just the way China integrates back into the world right now. Then, the Koreans can save the people under true and utter despotism up in North Korea and we save ourselves a hell of a lot of grief all the way around.

Post 9

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 1:35pm

Marcus,

I probably misspoke. I think it�s more like only: �shall support Taiwan.� You are correct that what we would actually do in the case of an attack is ambiguous�dangerously so. That�s why I believe we should announce brightly that we would prevent the success of China�s force.

The �shall support� law does not mean that the commander-in-chief would be compelled to act. Rather, that law clears the way for weapons sales and expresses friendship with Taiwan and warning to China that the commander would enjoy the backing of US law if he chooses to act.

Jon

Post 10

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 3:22pm

If the average American were to subscribe to the Washington Times and the Washington Post, most of the content would be totally irrelevant to their daily lives. We had a coupon for the Sunday New York Times. So I bought one. It was a waste of $2.50. Does it even matter to New Yorkers whether or not Michael Bloomberg sells his company? It certainly does not matter to me. My point is that it is too easy to confuse "China" with the government in Beijing. China is a big place and central control is always an illusion.

One of the lessons from the Cold War is that the government in Washington magnified the efficacy of the government in Moscow in order to maintain their control over us. It is not clear to me that Beijing poses a threat to Taiwan. Several someones just want us to think it does. Most of them are incredibly old men waving at a line of trucks carrying tubes painted to look like missiles.

As for Taiwan, I am happy to hear that their recent experiments with free and open elections have been successful. Independence may be an option for them. However, SOLOists need to understand that Taiwan was a one-party state until just recently. (See http://www.asiasociety.org/publications/taiwan_elections.html) I found it interesting that they brought over from the Mainland, the political structure of the Mainlaind, with "elected" officials "representing" districts they had not seen in 10 ... 20... 30... years, while the actual people of Taiwan had little representation. What I found most curious is that talk of independence was considered treason on the same level as advocating communism. That has changed now, of course.

Before passing judgment on this, ask yourself what you would advocate the US government to do if Bolivia invaded Peru.

Post 11

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 3:36pm

Michael M. writes: �Before passing judgment on this, ask yourself what you would advocate the US government to do if Bolivia invaded Peru.�

If Bolivia was totalitarian while Peru was relatively free, and if many other �Perus� in the region were holding off on an arms race in exchange for our promise to keep peace and open shipping in the region, and if disturbance of said open shipping could reasonably be expected to cause global economic disturbance with even a hint of likelihood of affecting my income prospects�then I would say we should threaten Bolivia with consequences that will make it regret it�s choice of belligerence for the rest of its short life and hope that it chooses wisely.

Jon

Post 12

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 3:57pm

In the US Defense community, the threat of China vis-a-vis Taiwan is being used as an excuse to create a "near peer" in China as the major threat, when in reality it is highly unlikely.

Didn't the CCP just vote on resolution that states if Taiwan ever declares independence China will take Taiwan by force?
That is quite a high risk. (That's probably what started this thread to begin with).

Post 13

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 7:57pm

Marcus, they did. Probably in response to the recent US statement made jointly with Japan supporting Taiwan. It is sabre rattling on both sides. I just think that unless insane people take over, it won't happen. China has too much to lose, too little to gain. The US should also stop using it as a threat, too, because the Cold War is over and we won it. What is the point of starting a new one?
(Edited by Kurt Eichert on 3/24, 7:57pm)

Post 14

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 8:18pm

Kurt,

Who is starting a new cold war? The totalitarians who aim to subjugate a whole new people, or the U.S. who says, �that was last century, no more!�?

You say we should back off of the threats�do you think that will keep the peace? I think the opposite would ensue. I think we can keep the peace by explaining to them that force against Taiwan will yield them deep, deep regrets.

Jon

Post 15

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 9:23pm

I tend toward the non-interventionist prescription in most cases (for example, I opposed the Iraq war).

However, in a situation where the US has guaranteed the security of another nation for half a century, there's a good case to be made for either continuing to do so or for drawing down the material implementation of that guarantee over a specified period so that the nation in question has the opportunity, should it choose, to replace US assets dedicated to its defense with assets of its own.

The status quo may not be great, but it's superior to issuing engraved invitations to would-be invaders -- and if it isn't going to be kept, its beneficiaries should at least be given a chance to craft their own copy of it.

Tom Knapp

Post 16

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 10:29pm

I'm more worried about mainland Asia then Taiwan. China's navy is a joke, its not even seperate from their army. But it is big and is capable of getting only bigger. Now being so small Taiwan may not be able to construct a navy to match them but it can certaintly afford one. We sell Taiwan 3 or 4 Los Angeles class subs that we're retiring (they are still good) and China would nothing to match them. A few Aegis destroyers, Ticonderoga or Arleigh Burke class like what we sell to Japan and Taiwan will have a navy only second to Japan in the Western Pacific.

Any war over Taiwan will be a navel and air war and that is where we have to help them the most. Politically, Japan will have to get involved if just to stop China from spreading its influence. I agree that a war there won't affect the US that much but China must not be allowed to expand farther. The country may be changing but as this recent law show, its leaders are not and our actions must reflect the current reality, not what may be years down the line.

Worst case is a war bad enough around Taiwan would get North Korea thinking the US is distracted and launch a war there. South Korea is just gaining in strength and North Korea has to realize that if they are to be united, their government has to either fall or conquer the South. Their best chance is with the US army AND navy involved heavily somewhere else. And if the US is at war with China, that would garentee Chinese support on the ground in Korea which now isn't so certain.

I'm prob making this into an alternate history story (I type more on those forums then on this one) but if the above happens, what's stopping other nations getting involved in this too? Everyone is seeing that China and the US is 'distracted' over Taiwan and Korea and might start making moves elsewhere. I doubt this would turn into WWIII but it might be a sizable regional war with other wars poping up elsewhere since the US prob won't be able to help. Chinese Kashmir is wanted by Pakistan and China itself is a powder keg with seperatist movements in both the far West and of course Tibet.

Oh and Michael, it really doesn't matter what Taiwan and South Korea were, it matters what they are, full participatory democracies. Those nations are on the front lines of a massive dictatorship wanting to conquer them and there is no one else who can help them. Helping them is helping ourselves, the whole reason America fights overseas is to avoid fighting in Texas or over the skies of NYC.

Post 17

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 11:52pm

Kurt, I won't go into all my disagreements with your slant on Taiwan and the United States, but I do want to mention one of them. You wrote: " I just think that unless insane people take over, it won't happen.� China has too much to lose, too little to gain."

There is something you are overlooking, something that the West commonly overlooks when it plans the strategy it will employ when dealing with a dictatorship. We in the West generally take actions that are -- or at least that we believe are -- in our self-interest; and we assume that all nations do the same.�But is not true that dictatorships are always concerned with their own self-interest; other considerations often move them. Consider, for instance, Hitler's insistence on invading Russia, and his refusal to back away even when he clearly was losing the battle. He had his reasons for this, but the reasons were not the welfare of the German people.

Thus I believe it is a mistake to assume that because China "has too much to lose, too little to gain," she necessarily will stop before antagonizing America by invading Taiwan. She may or she may not. But we would be foolish to assume that consideration of what is objectively best for China will motivate her leaders. It is a mental set that can be disastrous for us.

Barbara

Post 18

Friday, March 25, 2005 - 1:18am

Barbara,

"[W]e would be foolish to assume that consideration of what is objectively best for China will motivate her leaders."

Precisely.

Or, as another author* put it in a recent article on whether China is becoming "freer than the West" --

"While China has in recent years given property rights and enterprise some nominal due, it remains an authoritarian society under the sway of a party with totalitarian aspirations; and while the loss of liberty in the West is both tragic and measurable, the tools for setting things right remain at hand, however rusty from disuse they may have become. The differences between China and the West are not differences of degree, but of kind."

Regards,
Tom Knapp

* Yes, that author was me.

Post 19

Friday, March 25, 2005 - 8:39am