| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| China-Japan-Koreas | ||
| US on attack over Taiwan's defence | ||
| 2005-10-21 | ||
| Concerned by China's rapid military buildup but During a visit to China this week the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, restated US worries about Beijing's intentions - and the secrecy cloaking its military spending. "It raises some questions about whether China will make the right choices, choices that will serve ... regional peace and stability," he said. But the biggest question for Washington concerns Taiwan, which China regards as a "renegade province" and which the US is legally bound to defend under the Taiwan Relations Act. US pressure on Taipei is being exerted less publicly but with growing forcefulness. The main irritant is the internal political deadlock over a $10bn US arms sale that Washington is urging Taiwan to accept. But peace-building moves by the pro-reunification opposition Kuomintang (KMT) party, which is pursuing a rapprochement with China in defiance of the independence-minded president, Chen Shui-bian, have also upset traditional US calculations. "If Taiwan is not willing to properly invest in its own self-defence, why should we, the US, provide for it?" Edward Ross, a senior Pentagon official, asked in a speech at the US-Taiwan Business Council last month. "At a time when young American men and women are in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan - countries not nearly as developed or politically evolved as Taiwan - an increasing number of Americans are asking hard questions about how much we are willing to sacrifice for the security and democracy of others." While not explicitly threatening to withdraw US guarantees, Mr Ross demanded that Taiwan increased its defence spending, "hardened" its military posture, and did "not simply rely on the US's capacity to address a threat in the Taiwan Strait". Taiwanese officials play down the warnings, and ascribe the arms sale deadlock to political "bickering". "The US feels a bit upset about the arms sales. But it is also upset about the KMT relationship with China," a senior official said. "The US is not backing off. The US has no recourse but to defend Taiwan, and the same is true for Japan."
Many Taiwanese worry that new weapons could upset the fragile status quo; others believe it is pointless to try to match Beijing's military might; and still others feel the money would be better spent on social programmes.
Widening domestic divisions and US hectoring are producing contrary responses. One such response came from the former president and fierce advocate of independence, Lee Teng-hui. He said the main problem with the arms sale was that the defensive weapons on offer were not good enough. In his view, only serious military hardware will guarantee Taiwan's future. Another reason, perhaps, why Mr Rumsfeld's attempt to stop China building weapons and to sell arms to Taiwan looks likely to self-destruct. | ||
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #10 how could the US fend off 100,000 cheap suicide aircraft, each carrying a 500 lb bomb and a pilot? Don't underestimate the ability of our fighter aircraft to down large numbers of such planes per US fighter. Were Taiwan or the US to do the same, they could be equally cheap, but use a GPS-guided brain instead of a human suicide pilot. UCAVs are already tested, starting with Predators armed with JDAMs and working out towards other capabilities. IMO the article is probably correct to say that considerations other than simple issues of the selection of equipment for the mission are at work here. Both Taiwan and South Korea are going to have either to overcome their cultural dislike of direct confrontation or stand on their own a whole lot more than they are doing now. |
| Posted by: anon 2005-10-21 21:48 |
| #9 bigjim-ky: Taiwan is probably willing to fight, but they feel they can't do it the US *way*, that is, with reliance exclusively on high-tech weapons. Truthfully, the US is very focused on technology in more ways than it should be, and itself needs to be willing to think in lower-tech terms. And for the same reason as Taiwan. China can produce vast numbers of low-tech weapons. At some point, they will overwhelm even the most advanced high-tech weapons with sheer numbers. As an impractical comparison, how could the US fend off 100,000 cheap suicide aircraft, each carrying a 500 lb bomb and a pilot? Aircraft literally designed for a one-way trip. China could easily afford weapons of this type in quantity, and could build them discreetly. Such aircraft could be mass produced in a car factory, producing perhaps a thousand a day. Were Taiwan or the US to do the same, they could be equally cheap, but use a GPS-guided brain instead of a human suicide pilot. The end result would be the same. Vast destruction, almost impossible to defend against. And that's the point. To some degree, you have to meet sheer numbers with sheer numbers. If China launches 30,000 cheap aircraft, and Taiwan in turn launches 10,000 to fight them, it reduces the number getting through to a point where Taiwan's air defenses can be effective. So Taiwan isn't really snubbing the US. It just suggests that maybe $11 Billion might be spent more effectively. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-10-21 21:09 |
| #8 the message was also meant for So Korea |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-10-21 18:29 |
| #7 They may not want to fight, but would they be willing to defend themselves? The majority of Americans did not want to go to war on December 6, 1941, or September 10, 2001. |
| Posted by: Jackal 2005-10-21 17:03 |
| #6 If they don't want to fight for themselves, then what the fuck can we do to help them? We have made this mistake before, and it didn't work out well at all. Doubt we will fall for that one again. Either grow up and fight for yourself or go back to china. Does anyone out there see any other alternative? |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2005-10-21 12:31 |
| #5 Ironically, in a conflict, Taiwan is in the position towards China that China is to the US. China cannot take on the US directly, because of US technological superiority, so it has chosen to engage by other means. Taiwan's technology cannot make up for China's overwhelming superiority of numbers, so practically speaking, it must also rely on other means. Since Taiwan is on a defensive footing, they have several goals. While they have no viable option to "win", they must be able to effectively stalemate, while preserving as much of their economy as possible. China, for its part, is willing to continue on with a conflict for many years, to wear the Taiwanese down, but the Taiwanese have as their ace-in-the-hole the ability to quickly build nuclear weapons. If they can maintain this capability despite what will be a concerted effort by the Chinese to destroy it, then they will have achieved military deterrence after a few weeks. This will leave China no alternative but to wage an economic war. In that circumstance, the Taiwanese will be forced to project some force, to damage the Chinese economy in return. This can only be done by reducing the Chinese merchant marine. In turn, this means that they must engage and defeat a sizeable portion of the Chinese navy. Both sides have significant espionage penetration into the others military, political and economic organization; so both will suffer consequences in the event of a conflict. China will have also had to engage the US in the war, opening a far more important front. Their plan to do so involves distracting the US long enough for a quick grab of Taiwan, which will then be ultimately defensible against any US counter-attack. But this also requires a tight timetable, as if the US is able to bring a full response against China, they will be a ruin. All of this leads back to what Taiwan's strategy is reliant on. The US is focused on US technology, so that is what Rumsfeld emphasizes. But Taiwan must balance ever-advancing and ever more expensive technology against what it sees as the non-conventional means it can use to defend itself. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-10-21 10:32 |
| #4 A recent poll reported in the Taipei Times indicated that 65% of male university students, who are subject to compulsory military service, "don't want to go to war with China". So does that mean that 35% do? I wonder what the question really was. |
| Posted by: Laurence of the Rats 2005-10-21 08:47 |
| #3 I do NOT believe that any Chinese first strike ags Taiwan will be limited to only Taiwan, as Taiwan currently has more than enough firepower to make any Chicom attack very bloody for the Chicoms. Rummy's message also holds for the Philippines and any other nations in China's strategic direction of attack(s). |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2005-10-21 02:38 |
| #2 That activist was later found not only alive, he wasn't even seriously injured. |
| Posted by: Elmenter Snineque1852 2005-10-21 02:17 |
| #1 The Guardian recently reported that a Chinese political activist had been killed by hired thugs. Note that this was based on firsthand reporting by a Guardian journalist. If that's the kind of thing the Guardian generates based on first hand reporting, just how good is the quality of its analysis, which relies on second- and third-hand sources? Note that this is the same Guardian that made a big thing out of the so-called brutal Afghan winters during the Afghan campaign. |
| Posted by: Elmenter Snineque1852 2005-10-21 02:15 |