Article

2003-11-19 East Asia

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2003-11-19 12:32:28 AM|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 "Taiwan independance means war". Hey weenies!!!

Posted by Lucky 2003-11-19 12:49:25 AM|| 2003-11-19 12:49:25 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 A thought occurred (sp) to me.

Wouldn't it be kind of hard for China to focus on Taiwan if their borders were overrun w/starving Norks??????

Posted by Anonymous 2003-11-19 1:04:37 AM|| 2003-11-19 1:04:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Yawn... My 'Shock Meter' didn't budge.

Posted by Yosemite Sam 2003-11-19 10:11:28 AM|| 2003-11-19 10:11:28 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Good point re the Norks, Anon.

The Red chinese certainly DO have a right to engage in conflict to prevent the secession of any part of China: That was what OUR Civil War was all about. WINNING is a different matter alltogether, and it is perfectly within OUR rights to support one side or the other. I say we support Taiwan, and if they move onto the mainland and start whupping the Red Chinese, more power to them. (BIG if, naturally, but don't threaten a fight if you can't win, and don't secede if you're going to lose.)

Posted by Ptah 2003-11-19 10:32:24 AM|| [http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2003-11-19 10:32:24 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Taiwan doesn't have the capability of projecting power to the mainland. If war breaks out, the PRC will roll over Taiwan within a few days without U.S. intervention. The Taiwanese could last longer, but their military would be completely destroyed, thousands of civilians would be killed and their country would be in ruins. The Taiwanese have said that they will fight to the death if they know the U.S. is coming to their aid. The PRC will keep running their sucks about war if independence is declared, but it is all show. In order to take Taiwan, the PRC has to solve their problem that has prevented them from doing anything for the past 40 years: amphibious lift.

Posted by MURTAH 2003-11-19 11:12:12 AM|| 2003-11-19 11:12:12 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Ptah, your analogy falls short since Tiawan was barely part of China prior to the Nationalists taking over. Before that it was controlled by Japan for a long time. It's part of historical China in the way the Phillipines are.

Murtah, the Chinese could not currently take Taiwan militarily without nukes. Too much water to cross, and the PRC does not have enough landing craft or the means to defend them. All China can hope to do is apply pressure using blockades and political manuevers.

Posted by Yank 2003-11-19 11:33:29 AM|| 2003-11-19 11:33:29 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 However, the PRC has enough short and medium range missiles pointed at Taiwan to make a mess should they decide to do so. If the Taiwanese do declare independence, the PRC can 1) announce that Taiwanese ports are closed, thus driving martime insurance in the region sky-high, 2) throw a bunch of missiles at Taiwan to attrit the latter's missile defense and communications, 3) make threatening ~~faces~~ noises at the US to keep us back and 4) run some air and special ops at Taiwan.

All that combined would collapse the Taiwanese economy and perhaps its political structure as well. The PLA then can com over on tourist ships. It's not a bad strategy if your belief is that in the end, the US won't intervene -- as in, a Democrat is President.

Posted by Steve White 2003-11-19 11:50:13 AM|| 2003-11-19 11:50:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 The Red chinese certainly DO have a right to engage in conflict to prevent the secession of any part of China: That was what OUR Civil War was all about.

WINNING is a different matter alltogether, and it is perfectly within OUR rights to support one side or the other.

Ah, the complete and despicable moral relativism which says that two completely opposed courses of action are both in the moral right, just because the *actors* are different.

I, on the other hand, am a moral absolutist:

If it's China's moral right to stop the so-called "secession" of Taiwan by force, then America doesn't have any right to intervene by supporting the Taiwanese.

If it had been Saddams's moral right to torture his people, fund terrorists, build WMDs, add-justification-of-the-week, then America would have likewise no moral right to invade Iraq.

The Civil War's moral quality would have been altogether different if the abolition of slavery hadn't been the primary issue at stake there.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2003-11-19 12:09:01 PM|| 2003-11-19 12:09:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Try again Aris, slavery was not the primary issue at stake in the Civil War. If I may invoke Lincoln, it was he who said, if I can maintain the Union and free all slaves I would do it. If I can maintain the Union and free some slaves, I would do that. If I can maintain the Union and free no slaves, I would do that as well. Not an exact quote, but as even an idiot such as you can see, the Civil War was solely about preserving the Union. As for US interfering in a 'Chinese Civil War', damn straight we will. The Taiwanese have asked us to protect them, we said, 'yes'. There is a reason we maintain a Carrier Task force in the area. And don't claim to be a 'moral absolutist', or did you mean an 'amoral absolutist'? You wouldn't know morality if I was beating you over the head with it.

Posted by Swiggles 2003-11-19 12:47:03 PM|| 2003-11-19 12:47:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Now, Swiggles, just as I was going to point out to Aris that the CW's major point was not seceding from the union, Aris on that point was not an idiot. He's not an American. Why would he know, especially since a lot of Americans think the same?

Posted by Anonymous 2003-11-19 12:51:23 PM|| 2003-11-19 12:51:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 My own beliefs are personal, based on the same beliefs that provide the basis for our government - that any group of people have the right to decide for themselves how and by whom they will be governed. If the people of Taiwan wish to live freely and independently, with their own form of government, it isn't the People's Republic's (what an oxymoron) business to say "no". The same type of thougth applies to the Kurds in northern Iraq. At the moment, they appear to be willing to accept a blanket government that's inclusive, rather than trying to go it alone. Many of the former Soviet Union's members felt otherwise.

It would be extremely expensive for the People's Republic of China to conquer Taiwan - so expensive the nation may never recover. They cannot afford, at this time, to concentrate their efforts against Taiwan because of separatists in their own midst - Tibetans, Muslims in the "Western" provinces, etc., and the troubling problem of North Korea. There's also the little matter of SARS, and a few other worrisome economic signs that indicate the PRC may be in dire straits â¢ economically, politically, and even militarily. The force projection into the Spratleys is costing them dearly, with little gain so far, and little world backing.

If China doesn't rein North Korea, Japan may well rebuild its military to the point where it could challenge a weak, unfocused China, possibly even with the development of nuclear weapons and the means of delivering them.

With all that in mind, I see the current bit of rhetoric from the PRC as mere sabre-rattling, the same old pre-election garbage that's been dumped on Taiwan since the early 1950's.

Posted by Old Patriot 2003-11-19 1:04:11 PM|| [http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm] 2003-11-19 1:04:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 MURTAH - You underestimate defenses of Taiwain. You also ignore some very serious issues in the ability of the Chinese to project power. As it stands they could move no more than a division across the straight at a time, unless they use commericail boats (One big turkey shoot). Plus the fact that China would exhaust its suppy of short range missles in the openeing few slavo's. Hundreds would be needed to deny Taiwain use of ports, airfields and c2 capabilities. Plus the fact that Taiwain could very quickly have 40k plus troops on top of any chinesse divisions that managed to get ashore. Currently the Chinese would be very hard pressed - but 10 years from now will be a different story.

Aris - study american history then come back and comment.

Posted by Dan 2003-11-19 1:10:41 PM|| 2003-11-19 1:10:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Steve, your comments re Taiwan also apply to RPC as well. China itself is so heavily trade dependant that any attempts to blockade Taiwan would probably close chinese ports as well, resulting in mutual economic disaster. Course if it went on long enough it would hurt Wal-Mart.

Posted by john 2003-11-19 1:23:22 PM|| 2003-11-19 1:23:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Fact is the Civil War was another era. If a part of the US wanted to leave the Union peacefully they would be let go without a fight. We're practically pushing Puerto Rico to get them to make a decision one way or the other.

Does anyone think Canada would go to war to keep Quebec from leaving if they truly voted to go? It would be more a matter of legal wrangling over which side the Mohawks fall into and how to split the National Debt.

Even North Ireland, which never had a true majority voting for independence. The British sent troops in to stop both sides from killing each other, not to crush anyone.

Even Israel entertains Palestinian independence claims and is more concerned with how dangerous a Pal state would be to Israel and how to get the Pals to accept 97% of their own stated demands.

Only dictatorships talk about smashing their own citizens for talking about independence. The PRC is sick.

Posted by Yank 2003-11-19 1:55:22 PM|| 2003-11-19 1:55:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 The Civil War's moral quality would have been altogether different if the abolition of slavery hadn't been the primary issue at stake there

Jeeez... Aris is right. It wasn't until after Sharpsburg and the Emancipation Proclimation that the war was framed as a moral crusade against slavery. But it was so framed and it did change the tenor of the war.

Posted by Shipman 2003-11-19 2:15:24 PM|| 2003-11-19 2:15:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Swiggles> "the Civil War was solely about preserving the Union."

Pfft. The only reason the Southern states had for wanting to secede was that they wanted the right to impose slavery on millions of black-skinned people.

Yes, *Lincoln's* primary motive was preserving the United States. He did the right thing for all the wrong reasons. So what? It still remains that the only reason the Southern states wanted to depart was that they wanted to keep slavery. Why are you only examining Northern motives for the war and not the Southern ones?

And as Shipman says, once the Emancipation Proclamation was issued the moral quality of the war completely changed, turning IMAO from a morally ambiguous war into a clear-cut fight between good and evil, as much as so as World War II later was.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2003-11-19 2:33:16 PM|| 2003-11-19 2:33:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Dan> study american history then come back and comment

Wanna bet that I know far more American history than you do? You and others here seem to have fallen to the PC fallacy of wanting to see all sides in a war as morally equal.

It's a pretty fantasy, and sweetly revisionistic -- if we can pretend that the Southern States's decision to secede had nothing whatsoever to do with slavery (regardless of the fact that the Confederation constitution *demanded* that all these states keep slavery) then we share the blame equally between the two sides.

Here's the moral quality of the Confederacy! -- and the moral quality of their war of secession:

Article I, Section XI "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed. "

Article IV, Section II. "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired. "

Article IV, Section III. "In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States."

---
And here's the moral quality of the Northern side of the war, *once* the Emancipation Proclamation was made:

"...I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States and parts of States are, and henceforward shall be, free; and that the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons."

--

Keep on treating knowledge as ignorance and the issue of slavery as trivial, Dan. It's very PC of you, but I'm sure it eases Southern guilt.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2003-11-19 3:13:29 PM|| 2003-11-19 3:13:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 "Does anyone think Canada would go to war to keep Quebec from leaving if they truly voted to go? "

No, but theyd have the right too under international law.

Re Chinas right and US right to support Taiwan - IIUC international law does grant a sovereign the right to fight a rebellion - however if the sovereign is unable to maintain de facto control, others do have the right to aid the rebels i believe. I think this is one area where international law allows for war to take place with NEITHER side being formally the aggressor - anyone know the relevant international law?

A lot depends on de facto independence. While Taiwan has certainly been governed seperately for decades, its govt has NEVER claimed to be an independent Taiwan (claiming instead to be the true govt of all China - though in recent years that claim has been not only impractical, but insincere) So the clock would start ticking as soon as Taiwan declared its independence - Taiwan would then be de facto independent - and China would need to re-conquer it before that de facto independence lasted long enough to become de jure, and make Chinas activities aggression. Meanwhile the US could assist de facto independent Taiwan, without committing aggression against China, as long as China had no de facto control. International lawyers please correct me.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-11-19 3:32:03 PM|| 2003-11-19 3:32:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 i found this

"No rule of international law forbids secession from an existing state; nor does any rule exist which forbids the mother state from crushing the secessionary movement, if it can.

Ã Whatever the outcome of the struggle, it will be accepted as legal in the eyes of international law.

Â§ These propositions may need modification when one side is acting contrary to the principle of self-determination, but the principle of self-determination has a limited scope and the propositions remain true in most cases.

Â· But, so long as the mother states is still struggling to crush the secessionary movement, it cannot be said the that the secessionary authorities are strong enough to maintain control over their territory with any certainty of permanence.

Â¨ Intervention by third states is prohibited, according to Malanczuk [a contributor to âopinio jurisâ (BD)].

Ã Traditionally, therefore, states have refrained from recognizing secessionary movements as independent states until their victory has been assured; for instance, no country recognized the independence of the southern states during the American civil war.

Ã In recent years, however, states have used (or abused) recognition as a means of showing support for one side of the other in civil wars of s secessionary character; thus in 1968 a few states recognized Biafra as an independent state after the tied of war had begun to turn against Biafra, recognition was intended as a sign of sympathy.

Â§ Particularly controversial in the context of the Yugoslavian conflict has been the drive for early recognition of Slovenia and Croatian, which Germany and Austral justified as being an attempt to contain the civil war, but which was seen by the other states as premature action which actually stimulated it."

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-11-19 3:40:46 PM|| 2003-11-19 3:40:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#20
Dan- You didn't read the last line of my comment in regards to the PRC's big problem: AMPHIBIOUS LIFT.
The PRC has more than enough Theatre Ballastic Missiles to handle Taiwan's Airfield's and ports, with more left over. 10 Years? More like 3-4 before they have enough LST variants and assault craft. When I made my comment about rolling over the Taiwanese in a few days, I forgot to mention that it would be when they had sufficient amphib capability to move the required forces and IF the US doesn't intervene. Yes, the ROC military is quite capable, but it can't handle the sheer weight of a suprise (2-3 days notice) PRC invasion. Again, this assumes the PRC has the amphib capability. Every year the PRC holds a major exercise in the Straits. When the PRC decide to go for it, that exercise will turn real. If the Taiwanese doubt or are told we aren't coming, then it will be over in a few days because the ROC will surrender rather than watch as their country is destroyed. Yes, I have spoken to Taiwanese officers about the matter.

Posted by MURTAH 2003-11-19 5:12:11 PM|| 2003-11-19 5:12:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Whoa! Golden Oldie! Major amphibious asault running under an exercise!

You heard it here first.
Mines. They work. Ask JH or SH.

Posted by Shipman 2003-11-19 6:58:32 PM|| 2003-11-19 6:58:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 Shipman,
I had a friend that was offered Beach Master School for orders. He decided to get out of the service instead. As I remember, my detailers may have offered me a Forward Observer billet. I consider both sets of orders to be a death sentence in actual comabt. In an opposed landing the Beach Master is the guy who gets to stay on the beach and direct traffic.

In order to perform an opposed landing in this day in age you would need to have the following conditions:
1. Total surpise
2. Immediate destruction of all enemy sub assets.
3. The ability to clear mines quick enough to get boots on the beach before total surprise is lost.
4. Complete air superiority

A formation of large amphibs would be a turkey shoot for a wolf pack of diesel sumarines. You could also easily mount harpoon launchers on fast patrol boats like the PHM class of hydrofoils we used to have. The sea would be red with blood.

Posted by Super Hose 2003-11-19 7:57:32 PM|| 2003-11-19 7:57:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 Uh, Aris?

Actually, the American Civil War was over State's Rights.

At that time and place, the Southern states were gradually being outnumbered in both Houses of our Congress. The election if Abraham Lincoln was the tipping point. If a vote to make slavery illegal took place, the South would have lost by a slim - but very real - margin. They KNEW this.

That's what the real question came down to... who had the _FINAL_ say over what's legal in America, and what's not.

The Southern states wanted it to be the individual state. ie, if Virginia made slavery legal and a neighboring state didn't like that, the neighboring state and the federal government could just get fucked.

Basically, they wanted each state to be an individual mini-nation, loosely connected. The Federal government, in their eyes, existed only to control interstate commerce and the like. Anything that DID NOT cross a state border wasn't to be subject to the Federal government's say-so, or so they felt. Anything that did cross a state border was - the South reluctantly admitted - might be subject to Federal control.

(Rather like the earliest stages of the European Union, eh?)

The Northern states wanted final authority to rest in the Federal government. ie, Washington says so, the states salute and obey.

Slavery was just the issue that finally pushed it to the point of all out war. Once the anti-slavery leagues in the Northern states outnumbered the South, they could take their votes and FORCE the South to bow to their greater numbers. (Majority rule, you see...)

The South was outnumbered, didn't want to accept that, and finally it came to blows.

Even if slavery hadn't been an issue, the War was inevitable. The South NEVER liked having to bow to the voting pressure of the richer and more populated North. But, as I said, the North had more voters, and majority rules, eh?

Ed Becerra.

Posted by Ed Becerra 2003-11-19 8:47:09 PM|| 2003-11-19 8:47:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 Ed, good post. I grew up in the North but have spent the last 7 years of my life down South. Mainly in the Carolinas but also Virginia. Northern and Southern arguments on the war are as sharply divided as are their accents. Aris is correct in that the war turned from just saving the union to the formal abolition of slavery as well w/the Emancipation Proc. This was a couple years into the war. Although most northern soldiers & the northern populace at large said that slavery was a minor point, the major issue was keeping the union together. Lincoln made numerous statements to the same. Matter of fact, a good portion of the northern populace didn't even agree w/the war. Sounds familiar. There were some very vocal abolitionist groups that made slavery the central point. A lot of these groups had rich backers that could influence northern politicians in the capitol. The south knew this as well.

Ed points out a lot of the southern frustration at the outset of the war. The politics underneath so to speak. Another part of it was the determination of future states as slave states or free states. Kansas was a focal point of that argument. If I recall right, the Federal Gov't w/the northern majority declared Kansas and all future territories as WILL be free territories, the south countered that slavery (as Ed states) was up to the state to decide. The south was worried that other "states rights" issues would also be eroded in time as slavery was just the tip of the iceberg. South Carolina, which was the richest state in the union at the time had the most to lose if slavery was abolished. As we know, they were the first to get outta the union and the first to implement hostilities. The south felt that if the north finally took control of both houses, they would be further weakened economically. I'm in no way trying to justify their actions or slavery, just citing the southern argument as I have heard it related to me by many southerners. Thankfully the war's history, the north prevailed, slavery was abolished, and we are a whole nation. I would say that if the south had been succesful in its endeavor we would not be the super power we are today. World history from the 1860s on would be extremely different.

Posted by Jarhead 2003-11-19 10:33:25 PM|| 2003-11-19 10:33:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 Jarhead, for one person's opinion as to how different world history would have been take a look at Harry Turtledove's on-going series about the American South, starting with "So Few Remain". It assumes that the South won the war (actually captured Washington and Lincoln in 1862) and goes from there.

What is disturbing is that he shows how America would have become Europe.

Posted by Steve White 2003-11-19 11:31:29 PM|| 2003-11-19 11:31:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 Actually, the major factor triggering the war wasn't so much slavery as trade and tarriffs. The South was getting screwed economically by the richer North, and couldn't get anyone to change their minds. I had an FSU professor in Panama that gave us about a dozen books to read with each class. One of those was "The Economic Root of War". Don't remember the author, but his book explained how economic policy usually triggered warfare in one way or another. The Civil War was only one of many (including the Revolutionary War, WWII, the Spanish-American War, the War of the Roses, etc. - long list!) he disected. Apparently, Northern bankers had developed the capability of manipulating cotton prices to the detriment of Southern growers. Slavery played a VERY peripheral part in the Civil War, but was elevated when the South appeared to be winning.

It's ancient history now, but some of the same points apply: China is not economically able to engage in a long, costly war (even a short one may be too costly in the long run). Some of China's internal policies are going to come home to roost in ten or fifteen years, making it even LESS likely they'll be able to project sufficient force to "retake" Taiwan. The only hope for a union of mainland and Taiwanese forces would have to depend on major changes in the government of the PRC, specifically liberalization of the rights of the individual and reduction of the role of government in daily living. The PRC may be forced to make those changes just to continue to survive. Socialist countries make too many wrong moves, have too slow a response to stimulae, and just plain cannot allow free thought without sowing the seeds of their own destruction. It'll be a noisy collapse but I predict China will collapse before Taiwan is forcefully "united" with mainland China.

Posted by Old Patriot 2003-11-20 12:11:47 AM|| [http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm] 2003-11-20 12:11:47 AM|| Front Page Top

#27 Ed> "American Civil War was over State's Rights"

Once again the only State's Right it was over was the right to slavery.

"The Southern states wanted it to be the individual state."

I've already PROVEN to you all that this is entirely FALSE. The Confederacy didn't give to individual states the right to decide whether they would keep or abolish slavery, its constitution DEMANDED that they keep slavery.

If the war had truly been about "State's Rights", you'd expect the right of each state to decide on its own should have been enshrined, shouldn't it? Instead of the institution of slavery itself.

On the issue of slavery, each of the Confederate States of America had fewer "rights" than while they were in the Union -- the Union *at that time* was a wimp, allowing each state to make an individual choice on the slavery issue.

Confederacy didn't offer them that choice at all. They *had* to keep slavery and that's that.

Once again it's a lie that this is about "State's Rights".

"Even if slavery hadn't been an issue, the War was inevitable. "

You'll be surprised at how many things *are* evitable, when their primary cause is taken away. Slavery wasn't just "an" issue, it was the primary issue for South's desire to secede.

---

"Another part of it was the determination of future states as slave states or free states."

Also about slavery.

"South Carolina, which was the richest state in the union at the time had the most to lose if slavery was abolished. As we know, they were the first to get outta the union and the first to implement hostilities."

What a coincidence that the first to getta outta the union was the state having more to lose if slavery was abolished.

But oh no, it was never about slavery, never at all. And I'm a stupid and ignorant idiot for claiming that it was.

You there Swiggles, Dan?

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2003-11-20 10:54:35 AM|| 2003-11-20 10:54:35 AM|| Front Page Top

10:54 Aris Katsaris
09:30 Raptor
08:07 B
00:19 Old Patriot
00:11 Old Patriot
00:05 tu3031
00:01 absentee ballot
23:53 Old Patriot
23:36 tu3031
23:33 tu3031
23:31 Steve White
23:29 Old Patriot
23:24 tu3031
23:18 tu3031
23:18 Robert Crawford
23:14 Robert Crawford
23:13 tu3031
22:53 Alaska Paul
22:50 Jarhead
22:48 Jarhead
22:47 tu3031
22:44 Alaska Paul
22:43 PBMcL
22:33 Jarhead