If this keeps up we may be looking for a new center. Top Chinese general warns US over attack By Alexandra Harney in Beijing and Demetri Sevastopulo and Edward Alden in Washington Published: July 14 2005 21:59 | Last updated: July 15 2005 00:03 China is prepared to use nuclear weapons against the US if it is attacked by Washington during a confrontation over Taiwan, a Chinese general said on Thursday. “If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons,” said General Zhu Chenghu. Gen Zhu was speaking at a function for foreign journalists organised, in part, by the Chinese government. He added that China's definition of its territory included warships and aircraft. “If the Americans are determined to interfere [then] we will be determined to respond,” said Gen Zhu, who is also a professor at China's National Defence University. “We . . . will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all of the cities east of Xian. Of course the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds . . . of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese.” Gen Zhu is a self-acknowledged “hawk” who has warned that China could strike the US with long-range missiles. But his threat to use nuclear weapons in a conflict over Taiwan is the most specific by a senior Chinese official in nearly a decade. However, some US-based China experts cautioned that Gen Zhu probably did not represent the mainstream People's Liberation Army view. “He is running way beyond his brief on what China might do in relation to the US if push comes to shove,” said one expert with knowledge of Gen Zhu. “Nobody who is cleared for information on Chinese war scenarios is going to talk like this,” he added. Gen Zhu's comments come as the Pentagon prepares to brief Congress next Monday on its annual report on the Chinese military, which is expected to take a harder line than previous years. They are also likely to fuel the mounting anti-China sentiment on Capitol Hill. In recent months, a string of US officials, including Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, have raised concerns about China's military rise. The Pentagon on Thursday declined to comment on “hypothetical scenarios”. Rick Fisher, a former senior US congressional official and an authority on the Chinese military, said the specific nature of the threat “is a new addition to China's public discourse”. China's official doctrine has called for no first use of nuclear weapons since its first atomic test in 1964. But Gen Zhu is not the first Chinese official to refer to the possibility of using such weapons first in a conflict over Taiwan. Chas Freeman, a former US assistant secretary of defence, said in 1996 that a PLA official had told him China could respond in kind to a nuclear strike by the US in the event of a conflict with Taiwan. The official is believed to have been Xiong Guangkai, now the PLA's deputy chief of general staff. Gen Zhu said his views did not represent official Chinese policy and he did not anticipate war with the US. Additional reporting by Richard McGregor in Beijing LINK
I DOUBT USA would attack China if China invaded Taiwan. More likely, the US will respond by initiating trade sanctions and the EU would probably also levy trade sanctions.
I just would like to make sure that this is a single military individual within the government. Governments, especially when you cross agency boundries, consist of people with different ideas and differing experience. To put this into context, [ulr=http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/]You can view the declassified documents around Operation Nortwoods[/url] circa 1962 regarding "the Cuba problem" in which the Joint Chiefs of Staff forwarded recomendations which included staging actual terrorist attacks against american cities and blaming it on Cubans in order to justify a full scale war/invasion. I would feel a bit better if there was true democracy in China, as elections prevent the entrenchment of gerontocrats who loose touch with the real world, but even so this is hardly what could be considered a political level anouncement. This perhaps reflects a lack of press savy which will come after a few years of experience with a more open press. It's a PR gaffe. I'm sure that there are plenty of Generals with the USAF Space Command who've been sitting in some bunker for 20 years who believe we should nuke China, but it's become understood that such things are not wise to say in public. Another example would be the way (IIRC) that we have plans drawn up for nuclear war with basically every independent entity in the world, and we update those yearly. If someone went around discussing the differences between our plans to nuke Scotland, and our plans for the UK as a whole, it'd be bad PR. Like Dr. Falken's Joshaua said, "Shall we play a game?"
People like Basso should understand this general perfectly. I do not believe China would attack unless Taiwan declares independence.
I dunno - I would expect this to be the position of their (and most other) goverment. All he basically said was that if we attack them, they will use everything they have to fight back. I'm sure if they attacked us, we'd respond with nuclear weapons too.
Actually, reading it again, I'm not sure I interpreted it correctly. I assumed: <I>“If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons,” </I> To mean we attack Chinese terrority, but I guess it could mean if we position our military on Taiwan as well. That would be a whole different story.
In all honesty, I would be terribly ashamed of my country if China forcibly invaded Taiwan, and we did nothing. In fact, I'm sure that I would at least explore the possibility of becoming the equivalent of an "American menhaden". It's not that I love Taiwan or hate China, (in fact I generally have more respect for Mao Tse-Tung who was at least a very idealistic crusader in his earliest years than I do for the corrupt, incompetent and self-serving Chiang Kai-shek) but the US essentially gave what amounts to the modern political equivalent of t'ien ming ( 天命 ), AKA The Mandate of Heaven when we extended protection to the KMT in Taiwan. In the 1970's, much to my shame, the Rat known as Nixon, and his band of duplicitous backstabbers essentially went about 1/2 way to selling out our commitment to Taiwan by agreeing to measures which removed all legal political legitimacy of Taiwan as an entity, and giving it to the PRC. Things like the seat for "China" on the UN was removed from Taiwan and given to PRC, and the US agreed to champion the 1 China 2 systems concept which implies inevitable reunion. This was done in order to secure a split (which in truth already existed) between the CCCP & the PRC. In effect, Nixon decided to sell out a friend who we'd promised to protect (albeit a weak one) in order to weaken his enemy. I have nothing bad to say about the PRC in this process, but find the actions of my own government in these dealings to be as dishonorable as anything I can imagine. Flash forward 20 years and China is suddenly seen as a frontier for economic growth. 15 years ago, an invasion of Taiwan would have been met by US forces without a second thought, Now that we can make money by being tight with China; however, maybe it’s not so important to honor our commitment. Great. If anybody can see this as anything other than a cold, economic balancing of the worth of our pseudo-sacred commitment obligation towards Taiwan vs. the cash we make from China, I’d like to here it. In a world where everything’s for sale, how much would it cost for Osama bin Laden to pay us to force all American women into burkas and launch a nuclear strike Israel? Some things are too sacred to be valued in economic terms. (BTW I do understand and respect the terms underwhich this doesn't apply. If the Tiawanese pass an amendment legaly declaring a seperate state, I don't feel compelled to defend them. If a plebecite by the Taiwanese (according to rules which I don't know but are codified) vote to reintegrate with China, good for them, and I couldn't be happier. I don't oppose China integrating Taiwan, only if it occurs under forcable conditions that we've promised to prevent. I also have a great deal of respect for the current leadersip of the PRC, who are about as benevolent as is possible under the current political system, which historically has't bred benevolance.)
No Way! It's a bunch of talk.. no way in hell is China gonna attack the U.S. and theres no way in hell the U.S. is gonna attack China. The two countries are too dependent on each other. Can you imagine the economic impact of this? the whole world would collapse... Both of these countries are too smart to **** up with they have right now and this would **** everything up.. now North Korea on the otherhand...
Reply to Ottoman: (didn't want to take up space by copying your post) To attack China just to defend some anachronical pledge to defend Taiwan is stupid. Sure, in principle, we should defend Taiwan, but, in reality, attacking China will just instigate World War III. Plus, it's not like China is going to enslave the Taiwanese people. Taiwan might, in fact, be governed similarily to Hong Kong. USA would be stupid to fight over such an incident.
Again, China reaquired Hong Kong through negotiation and perfectly legal means. Though I have no problem with that, even though it's turning out that the Chinese weren't quite truthful in the way they claimed to govern. If the Taiwnanese give themselves to Anschluss with China, I couldn't be more overjoyed. What I speak of is a full scale military invasion. How would you feel if you were taken hostage by some mass murderer and the poliece showed up, saw that the bad guy has bad @ss weapons which out gunned him, and said, "Srew this, hostage, I'm getting the h@ll out of here!", or if firefighters at the World Trade center knew they could save a few lives, but realized that there was a reasonable chance thy might die as well and decided to leave and let everybody burn. Finally, what if the rules of war were altered so that everybody were allowed, without respect for the fact that they've willingly and knowingly joined the military, were allowed to decide by individual choice, whether they wanted to fight when called upon to do so. These jobs are so vital and sacred that when you agree to do them, you do so with the understanding that you don't get to pick and choose the easiest, safest, or most personally benificial ones. Those are the terms under which I see the pledge of one country to defend another, and would view the country in the same light that I'd view soldiers, firemen, or policemen who walked away from their job because they had evaluated the cost/benifit of their duty and found it lacking.
Those examples don't really apply. You speak of the obligation of US to it's pledge to defend Taiwan. How about the obligation of the US to do what is best in the interests of its citizens? I doubt attacking China would be in the best interests of the citizens of the US and around the world.
Lemie guess... You're Chinese. The reason I say this is that you are resorting to rhetorical and logical sophistry to make your point. Take your arguement and apply it to any other case in the history of the world of a country breaking it's obligations under this logic? Perhaps the French and English should have just let Hitler have Poland? I'm not trying to convince you. I'm sure many Americans feel the way you say. Furthermore, I think it's pretty reasonable that the US government would take the moderate position advocated earlier. The will of the majority doesn't guide my internal sense of right or wrong. There are very few things that would drive me do become a violent person, and if my government broke what I considered to be a pledge of this import, I would feel obligated to do my best to compensate for my government's shame. The reason I post is that I often see people of China and America argue that it'd essentially be not an issue of critical import for China to invade Taiwan. I, (and as far as I know only I) am an example of one American who feels violently diffferently. IMHO, nothing could be worse than a hypothetical situation in which China invades Taiwan expecting the United States to do no more than frown and shake their finger, when in fact the US has planned to use every nuclear, chemical, and biological weapon we can find on Mainland China in response. I don't expect that that's the case, but it does nobody any good to say that all Americans would think sanctions to be appropriate when in fact I can guarantee that at least 1 of us, and maybe more, wouldn't view it that way.
I see your point, but the reality is, the US will act according to the will of its people and will not invade China, rightfully so. Would you endanger your child's life to rescue a stranger from a kidnapper? Most people would answer no, rightfully so. Hitler was looking to conquer the world (eventually). China is looking to reunify with Taiwan. I never said sanctions would be 'appropriate'. I'm just saying that would be the likely response.
People from all sides need to rid themselves of the rhetorics and face the reality. First, overwhelming majority in Taiwan don't want the situation in Taiwan Strait escalate into military conflict just because a small number of Taiwan Independence advocates are stirring the pot. Maintaining the status quo is the prevailing sentiment among Taiwaneses, while the idea of eventual peaceful reunification with the Mainland are agreeed by most. Second, China is not run by a few military hawks, the equivalence of neocons in US. The quote by General Zhu Chenghu, is just completely nuts. If you don't know where Xian is, take a look at the China's map: The east of Xian in China comprises two thirds of Chinese population and as much of China's economy, if not more. Never in a million year would China be willing to pay such a heavy price for a little island of Taiwan, no matter how strategically important and historically significant it is to China. As much as the Mainland Chinese (government and ordinary citizens alike) want Taiwan to be united with the motherland, no sane people would consider a destructive war involving nukes a viable option. Translation: not even Chinese people would support such action. Third, the stakes for US is equally high to engage in an all out war with the most populous country on earth with nukes. Fantasize in your self-righteous fanfare with wars all you want. As I said in another thread, US direct military involvement in Taiwan Strait conflict between the Mainland China and Taiwan would likely expand a region confrontation to a global war, and a World War III is not out of sight. Ideals and principles are great, but the world affairs are more than just that. Here is the report by Reuters on this matter (link):
I guess it's a difference of cultural background, but were I the PRC I think that they could essentially "sell" the Taiwanese on unification and everybody would be happy, and Taiwan could be brought back into the fold. The natural reaction, however, seems to bluster and threaten which seems to drive Taiwan away and concern people interested in the benefit Taiwan. As an example to show the type of thing I speak of, let me include a bit of two articles from the Motley Fool which describe a company I own a small bit of called China Yuchai, which is a holding company which in a very complicated way owns quite a bit of diesel engine manufacturer Yuchai. Followed several weeks later by: For the record I received a $.39/share dividend in China Yuchai roughly two weeks ago, so the deal seems to have held. I view this dispute as emblematic of everything surrounding Taiwan. I'm sure that during the formative years of the top people in the military and the party, as well as the top people at Yuchan, the initial reactions to China Yuchai's concerns would have squashed the grumbling. People are formed by the lessons and techniques they learn in childhood. Unfortunately (in my estimation) the nature of the nature of authority and society as a whole in the PRC has changed since the Yuchai board or General Zhu developed their core conflict management skills perhaps? I don't believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that people of authority can anymore easily force their decisions on others without respect for how it will be taken by people in general.
SO... in conclusion With that in mind, what follows is my humble suggestion for the tact that China should take to Taiwanese reintegration #1 - Try and understand what the average Taiwanese person thinks and how they would react. Think about how the Chinese people reacted to a single US Spy Plane, and then extrapolate that to massive simulated invasions. If the US was practicing the invasion of mainland China from bases in Taiwan, how do you think the average Chinese person would feel? The Taiwanese are ethnically mostly Han, but for 50 years they've been culturally separate. In this way, they are like a species of animals which begins do diverge. To simplify this separate population and think of them as just as the same type of Han Chinese as you are doesn't help your ability to properly analyze the situation. They've spent 50 years integrating Japanese, American, and other cultures. #2 - The Chinese need to start selling the Taiwanese like a mother trying to nurture her child. Make them feel loved and a (more or less) equal part of the family. Listen to what they are concerned about when it comes to returning to China and try and accommodate their concerns. I would imagine that something which resembles the Hong Kong special agreements. Make sure Taiwan thinks mother China loves them. Given past Chinese military posturing around Taiwan, recent issues regarding delayed elections in Hong Kong, and the public demonstrations regarding Japan, who believe it or not Taiwan feels closer to than the PRC, it would probably be a slow and frustrating agreement; one that removes elements of independence in steps, but I really believe that, despite the American strategic military value in keeping Taiwan separate, a plebiscite Taiwanese would eventually reintegrate with the mainland willingly if they didn't feel like they were doing it at gunpoint.
Additional thoughts on my part - Has anybody with the language skills actually heard the statements to make sure there wasn't some form of misenterpretation? Case in point the famous Nikita Khrushchchev "threat" We Will Burry You! several times? It recounted in many ways - According to serveral sources he said to american ambasadors in Moscow Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you! We will bury you. Our rockets could hit a fly over the United States. I also saw a couple of sites attribute the same statement to the UN where he supposedly banged his shoe on the gavel, or in a phone conversation with the British PM. According to one source, however, what was actually said was: My vav pokhoronim. We will survive you, be present at your funeral. not My vas zakopaem. we will bury you. Then there's the famous JFK moment when he said, Ich bin ein berliner. which is still translated as and still thinks was: I am a resident of Berlin. but actually means I am a jelly-donut. Which would have made me as a resident of Berlin wonder if JFK was on LSD. Finaly, theres the 神舟 space capsule from what I understand is translated into the least flattering english meaning. Of course, I don't really understand the details. I just spent with a mechanical translator and the various related terms to try and remember the slightly less derogotory term, and I accidentally fell into theological ontologocal philosophy ( 地神小 ) before I could make any sense. Oh well...
