China preparing for an invasion of Taiwan?

I "might" argue that dropping the atomics on Japan was a mistake because it set a precedent of using them in war that was set by the US. (big deal? maybe... maybe no) But to say they were even the SINGLE (as in one act occuring over a day or two) worst act in WW2 is disingenious. Ask the Germans about Dresden or Hamburg. Ask the survivors of the fire-bombing of Tokyo (as was mentioned)... we (we being us and our allies) did as bad or worse in terms of casualties during the last World War.

Just keep the facts straight.

 

I just have an open question to lay out that is connected to many of these posts. What exactly IS the Bush Doctrine?

And I'm not looking for a newspaper answer like, "The Bush Doctrine of preemption states that we reserve the right to use force to attack states which we feel are a menace to us or harbor terrorists." That, to me is vague beyond belief.

What constitutes a menace to us? What are the "rules" to preemption? This doctrine obviously must be well defined, or else it serves no purpose. I never really questioned this until today, when Senator Biden came to work and gave a speech (it's on C-SPAN also, I think). A big part of the speech was about the fact that although preemption may be a valid stance, it is undefined, and therefore both un-serving and potentially dangerous.

Just so this doesn't get dismissed by posters on one side of the aisle or the other, this same question has been posed by Biden's Republican counterpart on the Senate Foreign Affairs committee Dick Lugar (and I think Chuck Hagel as well). None of them are entirely sure what the doctrine of preemption really says.

I've done a bit of research, and the fact of the matter is, the Bush administration has never really spelled out the grounds for preemption. Hence, the "Bush Doctrine" is ill defined and as such, it's application cannot be justifed until it is clearer.

Anyway, I just want to know what you guys have in mind when you quote doctrines of preemption, because to me, it's a VERY sketchy area.

 

Thinking of the record of such a hard-line approach makes me think the closest historical precedent is early 20th century hegemonic struggle between England, France and Germany. England and especially France tried to deny Germany the international power the might of their country could earn and 2 world wars resulted. Forget the particulars about Taiwan. China is an ascendant world power whose place in the world the US is trying to deny. This is a hegemonic struggle between the US and China. Taiwan is nothing more than another Archduke Franz Ferdinand. And, if we take a belligerent attitude towards China, we could end up in the same position England and France found themselves in not long ago -- except we won't have a son from the other side of the world return and win the war for us as the English had.

 

Not sure how you can say 'forget the particulars' and 'the closest historical precedent' at the same time. A better precedent is the struggle between the US and Soviet Union, where the escalation of an arms race and a more hardline approach brought the Soviet Union to its knees.

Trying to deny? How so? We've been pursuing 'contructive engagement' for more than a decade with the PRC. We've given them MFN, assuring the growth of their economy while eating the negative affects to our own economy. We've been instrumental in getting the PRC into the WTO. Hardly the big bad US trying to keep the PRC down. What we are trying to deny is the PRC's potential to invade a democratic state (Taiwan) and replace their system with a totalitarian one. What we are trying to do is maintain stability in East Asia, which will not be served by an aggressive PRC (either in the South China Sea, or in the Taiwan Straits).

Again your analogy fails you. First, Germany was much closer in proximity than the PRC is. Second, do you really think the PRC is going to invade the US? Third, Germany's efforts to build a navy to compete with Britain failed miserably, as the PRC's efforts to do so will in comparison to the US. They are buying old Soviet subs and aircraft carriers, which will not come close to competing with our navy, the newest component of which is (ironically) the Ronald Reagan. Fifth, any real conflict between the PRC and the US will crush China's economy, and the reverse is not true.

Again the most likely outcome of a harder military policy toward the PRC, coupled with the trade/economic parts of 'constructive engagement,' is the continued transition of the PRC from a totalitarian state into a more liberalized form of government. That may not look like a 'western democratic state,' but it will be sufficiently engaged in the globalized economy that the chances of conflict will be minimized. In the meantime the US military will continue to serve as a deterrent to the PRC's aggression.

 

I "might" argue that dropping the atomics on Japan was a mistake because it set a precedent of using them in war that was set by the US. (big deal? maybe... maybe no) But to say they were even the SINGLE (as in one act occuring over a day or two) worst act in WW2 is disingenious. Ask the Germans about Dresden or Hamburg. Ask the survivors of the fire-bombing of Tokyo (as was mentioned)... we (we being us and our allies) did as bad or worse in terms of casualties during the last World War.

Just keep the facts straight.

OK Germany and Japan deserved every thing they got
we didn't attack them they attacked us they did more
damage to the world then we could ever dream of
yes we killed a lot of their people but that is war as far as dropping the bomb we were in our rights we had two choices

if we decided not to use it we would have lost a million solders and Japan
could have lost millions of people because they would have fought
to the last man when in war the most important thing to do is end it ASAP.

 

ROCKETS1972, when you quote someone you should attribute the source. My father served in the Pacific Theatre prior to Truman's decision, btw, and saw combat... up close and personal.

Deckard.

 

yes china is in the early stages of being a nation. they've been one for about 50 years. i don't think what you china was before the communists was anything like a nation. yes china is still in the early stages of being a nation...the nation-state is a relatively new phenomenon if you didn't know.

yes the US did great things stemming from WWII. they got rid of the nazis and they turned japan and germany from war-states to peaceful states. i'd have to call those pretty significant accomplishments. yes millions died, but how many millions more would have died if the US would have simply ended the war and left and allowed Japan and Germany to rebuild on their own sort of like what went on after WWI. also at that time we were not in the age of smart weaponry and the tactics of terrorizing civilian populations were an accepted way of trying to win wars. it has only been a extremely recent development for armies to avoid attacking civilian populations. i'm pretty sure if we had the technology we do now and we fought a war against an army 40 years behind us technologically then it would be a lot less bloody, kind of like what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan since the opponents would be so inferior. But when you have armies that are of almost equivalent technology then millions are going to die if you are trying to destroy a society that needs to be destroyed. You know you can't just pick out numbers and say how horrible we were in WWII because we killed millions. We also liberated millions and saved millions more.

 

Sorry...If I wasn't clear I meant to imply that we have not simply attacked every country or threat to us nor do we have the will or means to. If we had then you would see a lot more fighting still going on. Saddam led a rogue nation who was a threat to us by his links to Al-Qaida (sp?) and terrorism. You act as if there was no basis for us invading Iraq after 13 years of warning them and having no other way to bring them under control. I believe Saddam was a major threat. I believe any nation who develops WMDs and won't let others at least account for them is a significant threat especially if they have deep ties to terrorism and have been an enemy of us for more than a decade.

 

No Worries...you really don't understand China if you think a scenario like that is even remotely plausible. The Chinese government does not even execute political prisoners which are disliked by the government therefore it is even more remote that they would kill innocent obedient Chinese in order to have an excuse to attack Taiwan. Your conspiracy theories from AMERICAN pop culture do not apply in the same fashion as they would in China. Also, I don't even know if any radical groups exist in Taiwan that want to bomb and terrorize the mainland. Maybe someone from Taiwan could enlighten me on this.

You cannot compare Iraq and US to China and Taiwan. Taiwan has not declared itself independent of China. That is the only thing that would lead to war between the two...if Taiwan declares independence. It has been stated many many many times. Right now China feels it can peacefully integrate Taiwan back under its control. Taiwan is a part of China at this time, but not under control of it. You have to remember that.

Also...your comparison of your scenario to that of one about US lying about nukes is not the same. The only comparable scenario would be that if the US planned 9/11 and executed it to start the war on terror. The reasoning is because we already had tensions with Saddam and Osama before that time and we would be attacking ourselves in a conspiracy so that we would have an excuse to goto war in Afghanistan and Iraq which we would not have had before the attacks. If my reasoning is flawed then please explain it to me.

 

either way...Jr's policy has been much better in basically every aspect and that is undeniable.

 

There is a pretty good argument that the Japanese regime was worse than the Nazi one.

You are using revisionist history when you talk about how nuking Japan was the worst thing to happen. It showed the world the power of nuke weaponry and the horrors of it and may have saved us from nuclear annihilation in the Cold War. If it had not been used in Japan then it might have been used against China in Korea leading to even great atrocities. I'm sorry to make it sound as if they were merely guinnea pigs, but in the long run the nuclear attacks probably saved many more lives than they cost. Also, at the time of the attacks there was the belief by the American military that the Japanese would never give up fighting. We did not know that they were at the point of exhaustion. We only believed that the Japanese would fight and die like little automatons if their emperor told them to. While this was incorrect there was no other way for us to know any better especially when the enemy seems to have no fear at running suicide missions in airplanes. You have to think about things from that point in time and not our point in time. Also, these nukes served as giant exclaimation points on the continuious bombing of Japan which was probably worse than the nukes themselves. We did not think the Japanese were going to give up after the first one so we used the 2nd one. We didn't merely use them for fun...we used them out of what we thought was necessity to end the war.

 

Despite being told not to quibble about the specifics of the scenario I gave and to concentrate on the general thesis ...

My general thesis is that the PRC could trump up reasons to invade Taiwan, based on the preemptive war doctorine. The PRC could tell the international community that they were in imminent danger and had no other choice but to invade, referencing the precedent set by the US. I am not stating this is probable, just possible.

I am sure that the US would not stand for it. But in doing so, the US will have to take back the Bush Doctorine of Preemptive War. If the US still has in the cards a preemptive invasion of Iran and/or Syria, the Bush Doctorine will then have to change to "The World's Only Superpower Can Do Whatever It Likes, Whenever It Likes" Doctorine. This label in truth is probably closer to reality.

 

But you are missing the point...China would not do that. It is "possible" like me winning the lottery is "possible". It is also "possible" that we decide to invade China over their human rights and communism, but it's not going to happen. China is not stupid and they do not want war. They are trying to make money and each side, Taiwan and China, does not want war. Also, if you don't want me to quibble about the scenario then don't give scenarios that will allow for quibbling. Just state what you stated in your post this time.

China does not follow along on the "pre-emptive war" with Taiwan stance that you think Bush has taken. They are not trying to start a war with Taiwan. You don't understand the situation if you think they are going to. Money is the main concern now, not military hegemony. The China of today is not the China of Mao. I don't know any other way to put it. China is concerned with integrating Taiwan back under Chinese control and they will only excercise military options if Taiwan declares independence from China. China will not simply try to trump up charges to invade something that is already apart of it in its eyes. Taiwan is a part of China. You have to remember that. China will also not try to forcefully take back Taiwan or forcefully manipulate talks between Taiwan and China with military threats because the U.S. will not stand for it and that has been made clear under Bush. While some viewed his actions as rash by sending arms to Taiwan they were really the right actions to take to remind China that the use of military threats was not an acceptable way to have talks with Taiwan. Even so the military threats does not mean that China would actually attack Taiwan. It would be like us attacking Britain in a sense. The people of Taiwan do not hate the people of the mainland and vice versa. Their ties have become closer as the civil war has become more a thing of the past. I doubt their would be a willingness to actually goto war if there was no reason to. The only reason for military action to be considered is if Taiwan declares independence and it seems unlikely to do that any time soon since both sides are acting rationally.

I know you are probably going to harp on that and say the hypocrisy of us trying to stop the use of military threats and then doing the same to Iraq, Syria, and Iran, but those situations are completely different. We are not trying to control those regions and we are also trying to get them to stop their harboring of terrorists who have hostility towards us. As long as their governments are not cooperating with terrorists then there is not a problem. I don't understand how this is pre-emptive. We have already been attacked by Al-Qaida and we are try to find them and get rid of them. It is a war and the war has already started. I don't understand how you can have preemption in something that has already begun. Al-Qaida has done pre-emptive attacks against us. I didn't know that we had done any against them. I think all of our attacks have been in response to their attacks, haven't they? Also, you have to realize threats are very different from actual actions. Just because a threat has been made doesn't mean it will be carried out.

Also, Iraq was not a pre-emptive war. I thought the war in Iraq stemmed from Saddam's unwillingness to account for his WMDs, his unwillingness to cooperate with the treaty signed after the 1st Gulf War, and for his ties to Al-Qaida. It seemed more like a war that was simply a continuation from the 1st one based on the actions Saddam took. I dunno maybe I am wrong on that, but that is the feeling I got.

 

Sorry, I went home on you before finishing the argument. I think part of our disagreement stems from a different understanding of history.

For one, I did think of the USA-USSR conflict, but I don't think it is as good a comparison. While the USSR was an ascendant power, the USA was actually widening the gap during the Cold War. And, the USSR was losing its dynamism in the period. China, I would say, is closing the gap and, if anything, increasing in dynamism recently (admittedly a hard thing to prove if you won't agree).

Second, your theory that the Reagan arms race defeated the USSR is a very common one but I believe one that is wrong, or at least wholly inadequate. The USSR did suffer a heavy military burden for a long time, but it could have continued to drag itself along for some time to come under that burden. The main reason it collapsed was because Gorbachev saw that the system was sick and had been for a long time and attempted a very radical reform and he lost control in the process. It was an internally-motivated collapse. Again, obviously if we can't agree on what destroyed the USSR we can't agree on whether repeating American policy would be effective. In my own opinion, I think Reagan and the whole world was very lucky to have Andropov and later Gorbachev sitting across the table from him during his presidency.

I don't see how constructive engagement, the WTO, and Most Favored Nation status has much to do with the argument. I'm not talking about economies, I'm talking about power. During the Cold War, any Chinese attempt at international politics were met with invasions by the US (Korea, Vietnam). Meanwhile, the US is free to play imperialist all over the globe. Not now perhaps, but certainly within my lifetime, China will have the military might, economic might, and political might to break the US containment. If the US doesn't want to let it go (and that includes the protection of Taiwan), I think it could be very ugly.

Analogies, especially in history, are imperfect. History doesn't repeat itself. But, I do think the WWI analogy fits closely enough and I don't think your criticisms of it bear much merit. One, proximity is less important because of greater global integration, better transportation, and, well, intercontinental missiles. Besides, in WWI, France's proximity to Germany made war convenient, but what they were upset about was being cut out of colonialism in Africa and Asia, half a world away. Second, as I've said, I do think the Chinese attacking the US is a possibility in the future; I don't see why you'd think it wasn't even possible. Third, though Germany's fleet could not match England's, the only thing that really saved England was that the big fish Germany was swallowed up by the bigger-yet fish of the US and USSR, the true hegemons. Besides that, just because the English won doesn't mean the US will. Fourth and fifth, I'm not talking about today with Chinese still nascent economy and military machine; I'm talking about within the next several decades if China continues the ascent I see them now taking. Do you think a war in 2030 would crusg the Chinese economy? I don't think we can say.

China is liberalizing somewhat, but they learned from the collapse of the Soviet Union and are trying to liberalize their economy while maintaining firm political control. You can hope for the best, I suppose, but I wouldn't bank my own future on a political change in China. You also seem to depend on this theory that economic integration deters war. I think it is true to an extent. But, simple integration isn't sufficient; China will need to feel that it gets what it deserves. All the anti-imperialist wars of the 20th century occured because colonies were well- but unprofitably-integrated into the economies of their mother-country. China, finally, seems to be doing better in that regard. But, you can't ignore the political entirely for the economic. The Chinese won't be satisfied with only the economic gains the US allows them to have. Just as the US had done in the 20th century, when China has the power to take something, they'll take it.

 

JuanValdez,

You deserve the props for having a very knowledgable and educated view on sensitive world issues like this one. I hope those who "will pick up a gun and kick some Chinese ass" types will at least think a little more about an issue as serious as this.

I found some interesting trend lately in the US-Taiwan-China triangle. The US side has recently repeatedly warned or cautioned the president of Taiwan not to provoke China for the sake of provocation on the subject of referendum. It's a stark contrast to what it was in the early days of the Bush presidnecy. Meanwhile, most of the conservative stalwarts still view China as the [potential] enemy number one.

So, nothing is new or surprising here on this issue -

 

The PRC is closing the gap (if true, which I don't think it is militarily) by moving CLOSER to the US system. By liberalizing its getting the hard cash to modernize it military, but it is liberalization itself that is the key part of the equation of modernization. Without it modernization cannot happen. So while there was no hint of an end of ideologies between the US and USSR, there is clearly one between the PRC and the US. Which will happen first, the liberalization to a point where the PRC will not seek aggressive expansion or the modernization of their capability (around 2025 is a oft-quoted timeframe). I think it is the former, as two generations of leaders will have come through liberalization, and the last vestiges of the paranoid Mao/Deng era communists will be gone. The dynamism you key is important, but it is leading away from conflict, not toward it.

More good timing than luck. The drive by Reagan to build a 600 ship Navy, and to develop SDI (for example) had a huge part to play in the Soviet leadership recognizing they could not spend the resources to compete in an escalated arms race. That the leadership (Andropov and Gorbachev) had a bigger interest in stability than expansion was timely but the conclusions would have been the same anyway. A the same time the leadership in the PRC has started to come to the same conclusions. The collapse of Eastern Europe and the USSR absolutely terrified the PRC leadership. The last thing they wanted was to end up like Ceaucescu (spelled wrong ). So they started liberalization economically in hopes of maintaining political control (sound familiar).

Uh, North Korea invaded South Korea, in case you missed that. And Vietnam and the PRC have been historical enemies. Our view (the US's) that the PRC and Vietnam were closely link by their communism was one of the main reasons we didn't just invade N Korea, but in the end turned out to be false, and the domino theory with it. I think your historical view is a bit off kilter.

However, the whole point of Bush Sr's 'constructive engagement' policy was to more closely link the PRCs economics with the world economy, making them less likely to be adventurous as their internal conditions became more susceptible to disruption from outside forces at the same time their internal political situation was liberalizing to allow more power outside the communist party. Your claim was the we are trying to deny the PRC its rightful place as a global power. How can it NOT be relevant that we are actually facilitating its rise to greatness by enabling their economic expansion with things like MFN status and entry into the WTO? Again, it is a race to see which happens first, the liberalization of the PRC to the extent they won't be grabbing for land, or whether they will become militarized on par with the US and then grab for land. The Bush Doctrine is well suited to this scenario as Reagan's ideology was well suited for US/USSR relations. It is a clear statement that we will maintain our military superiority in the face of rising powers, so the avenue to being a great power is economically open, not militarily.

The only imperial expansion possible now for the Chinese is economic, which is the point. There is greater global integration, true. But that serves to block PRC expansion, not further it. Yes, there are ICBMs, but they have zero chance of attaining superiority in that realm, which makes it irrelevant unless they want to engage in scenarios that gauge survivability, where again they come up massively short in comparison to the US. Other than lobbing ICBMs at the US, they simply don't now, nor will they in the future have the conventional capability to tango with the US military. Remember that they have Russia and India on their borders, so those are not areas they will be aggressively annexing. The scenarios we are talking about are seaward, where their capabilities have no chance to match the US Navy's. Especially not if the US leadership clearly indicates it will not allow such an equalling to take place.

Well, they are modernizing by buying old Soviet weapons systems. That is not going to give them the capability of attacking the US, pure and simple.

You can't both contend that China is becoming MORE integrated in the world economy AND that disrupting that integration would not crush their economy. At the same time I CAN contend that each step into the world economy the PRC takes is a force for the economic and political liberalization of the PRC.

Your last statement is the exact reason the US should take a hardline approach to PRC military aggression. The leadership now is more likely to take that approach than the leadership in the future (by say 2025). You cannot liberalize the economy without loosening the political controls. This is true in the PRC currently, where the political apparatus is significantly less intrusive than it was pre-liberalization. You can say I am 'hoping for this outcome,' but your view, which is that the PRC will grab power when it is able means confrontation is INEVITABLE. Even if we maintained softline policies, in your worldview, the PRC would still grab Taiwan and the Spratly's anyway. That hardly seems a prudent path to take.

 

Don't know what's changed since the early days of the Bush Presidency. They never advocated Taiwan declaring independence. And it doesn't seem to be only conservatives that view the PRC as a potentially destablilizing force in East Asia. Ask Taiwan or Japan what they think. Ask the Philippines or Malaysia or Indonesia or a multitude of other East Asian countries who are already seeing a creeping Chinese military grab territory. In the absence of the USSR who else would be the most likely 'enemy number 1'? Botswana?

 

The question is whether the fact that our morale highground is gone is due to actions of the Bush administration or is it due to the actions of members of the European Union who saw last year's Iraq debate as a chance to try and separate their interests by the U.S. and create a more effective union. The facts are not available to the public, but it sure seemed that the French and the Germans, the two EU members the U.S. was most worried about getting support from for their campaign in Iraq, gave Powell the impression or straight up acknowledgement that they would not block a U.S. action against Iraq before only days later doing the exact opposite at the U.N. catching Powell with his pants down (Powell having pushed the Bush administration to go to the UN based on his anticipated support of the French and the Germans). One thing's for sure the action of the French and Germans at the UN earlier this year had nothing to do with whether they thought America was in the wrong enough. It is simply bad politics to be so bold in the face of a country like America so I've got to believed they tried to take this situation and use it to create a rift between Europe and America hoping to unify Europe and strengthen the abilities of the European Union so that the EU could have similar worldwide influence to the influence America currently has. Well, they're plan backfired as they underestimated how divided Europe remains even in the 21st century. Bottom line, I think people who point their fingers at Bush for destroying American credibility abroad need to look a little deeper at every single little detail of what transpired leading up to Powell making his case at the UN. Europe, specifically France and Germany are the assholes here and Bush is taking the fall.

 

Where are you MacBeth??? So often you claim your own objectivity, and yet we still only see you post on the anti- side. Clearly Juan Valdez is disputing one of your own sacrosanct claims to fame of objectivity, that Reagan's role was responsible for the capitulation of the USSR? Where have the good times gone? Hello......hello........hello....is there anybody out there? Here we have someone clearly saying you are incorrect but as of yet no response from you? What is it the guy from Princess Bride used to say? "Inconceivable!!!"