Reactions To General Zhu's Comments?
Diablus
Join Date: 2003-03-31 Member: 15080Members
Join Date: 2003-03-31 Member: 15080Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">regarding taiwan</div> <a href='http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050715/wl_nm/china_taiwan_warning_dc' target='_blank'>This article</a> basically reads on a comment that one of the top Chinese Generals has made regarding the "take back" of Taiwan. He claims that China is willing to use military force to re-take the self decomiratic government of taiwan and IF the United States would interfeer with these actions that China will be willing to use its nuclear capabilities on the US itself.
I don't really know if or how the chinese governent will respond to his statement as well as the worlds views on this. It could be nothing and will fade, or in a sense could be the start of another conflict. What do you think?
I don't really know if or how the chinese governent will respond to his statement as well as the worlds views on this. It could be nothing and will fade, or in a sense could be the start of another conflict. What do you think?
Comments
But...they <i>could</i> do it, and so this very much becomes a game of chicken. They want to invade Taiwan, we want them not to invade Taiwan. They threaten to nuke us, we threaten to nuke them, they move armies close to Taiwan, we move armies close to Taiwan.
If their armies actually make the move and invade Taiwan, would we take the leap and start firing back? Or would we let them do it? I don't know. Once they've made a move, its our turn to escalate or deescalate--do we counterinvade and risk them making good on their promise of nuclear retaliation? Its a tricky question.
Well the Chinese seem pretty determined on taking back Taiwan. You see the way Huang Chen put it, it all seems to stem from them not wanting to see what happened to the USSR happen to China. They've lost quite a lot of 'their land' from breakaway communities which have become nations. Huang Chen seemed like a fairly intelligent guy, but when I said that China attacking Taiwan was not needed, I saw a different, much more patriotic (even blindly so) side to him. If that's true for most Chinese people, or more importantly the ones in power, then a war would seem quite likely.
As for US intervention: China is plowing money into the military and also recently developed a new missile (called <i>Eastern Wind</i> or something) and is bugging the Europeans for targetting systems which they'll never give, but still they aren't gonna be picky about who they buy from...
It's not worth it economically.
They'd have to go through South Korea and Japan to accomplish that (Not to mention Russia might step in and lend us a hand).
Also, if they invade us we've got NATO to back us up. We'll be fine.
China has a large army, true but the key thing in any war is logistics. They have many many troops but how can they move them all? How would they launch this invasion against the US? From Mexico? Canada?
We have a fair amount of military hardware floating in the oceans around there already. We could fight--and maybe even win--a naval engagement there. But we have no way to reinforce the ships there without making drastic recalls of our power in other parts of the world. So if there was any prolonged engagement there, China would eventually win and take over Taiwan.
However, they would lose an awful lot of stuff along the way. A single carrier battlegroup can field a huge amount of firepower, and would cause quite a bit of damage to the Chinese forces. So it still devolves back to the game of chicken. Are they willing to sustain those losses? Are we willing to sustain the losses we'd take by fighting back?
Unfortunately, I rather suspect China has the edge in this game. Neither of us wants to escalate to nuclear power, and they can move conventional firepower into the area much more easily than we can. I suspect they are more willing to sustain losses than we are, too. So Taiwan's future is not real bright at this stage.
And lets not forget that atm the Chinese army is being reformed. They are in fact reducing its size but increasing its training. They have said themselfs that they want China to be a major world military power, so anything is posssible in the future.
But seriously, Taiwan doesn't have the ability to militarize itself and the US doesn't have the ability to fight China near their own country. Right now, the cards are in China's hands, but if Taiwan just keeps its own nationalist forces under control, the most realistic outcome is eventual "annexation" (officially, Taiwan is a territory of China) and turning it into an economic autonomous zone such as Macao and Hong Kong.
Honestly, I would rather the Nationalists who decided to flee to Taiwan just died in their sleep, it'd save us a lot of tension right now, that's for sure. But on the other hand, we wouldn't have gotten all these awesome OEMs in the computer hardware industry!
I'm sorry... but the US's army is leagues ahead of China's. If we went to war with them, we'd pull out of other countries and refocus priorites to defeating China. Not only do we have more nuclear capability than them, but we have more nukes; China would be slaughtered. And so would 1/6 of the worlds population.
China talks tough, but they are not dumb enough to fight. They simply bluff at Taiwan to see if they can scare anyone into obeying them.
China would even lose in a standard military engangement. People give China way too much credit and underestimate the US by a severe amount.
Our military is what, almost 1.5 million, and we do not even have a draft, nor is it fully mobilized?
Versus, the big, bad Chinese:
<a href='http://www.comw.org/cmp/fulltext/iddschina.html' target='_blank'>http://www.comw.org/cmp/fulltext/iddschina.html</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->China maintains one of the largest militaries in the world, based on its inventory of major weapon systems. 4 However, the bulk of China's holdings are old in both physical age and technology. Many weapon systems which came into service in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s remain in the inventory today; and all of those systems use 1950s-era technology originally imported from the Soviet Union. While China is modernizing its conventional forces, the new systems are entering are a low rate compared with the overall size of the older forces. As a result over the next decade, as the oldest weapon systems are fully retired, the size of China's conventional forces will shrink dramatically.
The People's Liberation Army (PLA) is moving toward an overall reduction and reorganization of personnel and equipment with the goal of creating a more modern and mobile army. In 2000, the total estimated personnel strength of the Chinese military is 2.5 million, of which 1.8 million are in service with the PLA (ground forces).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow, 2.5 million soldiers out of 1 billion people. That's pathetic. They would get wasted so fast in conventional total war it would be a giant bloodbath. Seriously; if our aims were not to conquer, but simply to crush the Chinese like we did to Saddam in the Gulf War; you'd see another repeat except, this time it would be in China. I wouldn't know the losses but with air support from Japan they would be flattened in a matter of months.
Sorry to burst everyone's threatening image-bubble of China. It does not exist.
Neither is theirs. They have compulsory military service, almost 300 million men manpower. GDP 7 trillion and worlds fastest growing as opposed to USA's 11. They are not so much behind financially. Not to mention russia is eagerly selling their military tech to China for easy profit.
And lastly, USA has a long way to come. It takes what, a month or a year to organize a fleet large enough to confront China? Their full military strength on their own coast? I don't know about the result but it's not a walk in the park like you're making it out to be. Concider how much resources and money USA spent on Iraq and Afghanistan...or Vietnam for that matter. Then compare China to those nations and you'll see the scale of the conflict.
Neither is theirs. They have compulsory military service, almost 300 million men manpower. GDP 7 trillion and worlds fastest growing as opposed to USA's 11. They are not so much behind financially. Not to mention russia is eagerly selling their military tech to China for easy profit.
And lastly, USA has a long way to come. It takes what, a month or a year to organize a fleet large enough to confront China? Their full military strength on their own coast? I don't know about the result but it's not a walk in the park like you're making it out to be. Concider how much resources and money USA spent on Iraq and Afghanistan...or Vietnam for that matter. Then compare China to those nations and you'll see the scale of the conflict. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
A month or a year is a pretty big margin of error. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Increasingly, we're moving our military toward rapid, small unit deployment. We've never been set up to move 100,000 soldiers overseas in a matter of months, but that probably wouldn't be required.
A recent American calling card has been airpower, and, as someone said ealier, a carrier task force carries quite a wallop. A wallop capable of devestating a good deal of ground threat. This air power would keep the Chinese occupied hopefully long enough to bring in our own ground forces.
And let's not forget the divisions of marines which can be stationed on those ships.
Also, on the whole air power thing, america has a huge advantage, but you can't take or defend a location with air power, you need ground troops aswell.
As for the equipment thing, don't dismiss the equipment just because it's old, a 1950's gun can kill you just as dead as a 2000 era gun.
Really, it comes down to the fact that the US can inflict savage losses a conflict happened, but if china's moral is high enough that it can take those losses and keep going, amercia couldn't stop them.
Getting back on topic, it's a moot point though. This sounds like the general got asked a question he wasn't prepared for, and as such replied off the top of his head what he thought should happen.
I haven't seen a transcript of the interview (anyone find it?), but with everyone on both sides downplaying it, it sounds like a slip on the tongue on the generals part rather then a change in china's policy/opinion regarding taiwan.
Diazo
It was intentional. A year would be more like it, seeing how long it took to prepare for the previous wars.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A recent American calling card has been airpower, and, as someone said ealier, a carrier task force carries quite a wallop.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's true, but then againg I believe China would be equipped with enough ground-to-air and ground-to-sea missiles to make attacking using aircraft and ship-bombardment only rather costly. Compare the prices of one a-a missile and F18. Like Diazo said, USA would need infantry and a safe place to repair, re-fuel and rearm ships and airplanes. Continual maintenance across the ocean would be a nuisance. Even if Japan and South-korea(which would throw N-K pretty soon in to the play, just for the fun of it) lends a hand.
China has now officially rejected the General's comments, renewing its standing policy to not use nuclear weapons unless someone else nukes them first.
Also, on the whole air power thing, america has a huge advantage, but you can't take or defend a location with air power, you need ground troops aswell.
As for the equipment thing, don't dismiss the equipment just because it's old, a 1950's gun can kill you just as dead as a 2000 era gun.
Really, it comes down to the fact that the US can inflict savage losses a conflict happened, but if china's moral is high enough that it can take those losses and keep going, amercia couldn't stop them.
Getting back on topic, it's a moot point though. This sounds like the general got asked a question he wasn't prepared for, and as such replied off the top of his head what he thought should happen.
I haven't seen a transcript of the interview (anyone find it?), but with everyone on both sides downplaying it, it sounds like a slip on the tongue on the generals part rather then a change in china's policy/opinion regarding taiwan.
Diazo <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are incorrect.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->First, on the subject of a US vs China conflict, it comes down to 2 things. China has more men, Amercia has better equipment, a pretty straight up Quality vs. Quantity equation. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They do not have more men. They cannot afford to equip all of their population into the miltary. If they spent all of their money into drafting an enourmous military, and if the USA did the same thing, they would outnumber us by maybe 1 million men. That means jack, considering the other huge advantages the US has over China.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, on the whole air power thing, america has a huge advantage, but you can't take or defend a location with air power, you need ground troops aswell.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Air power takes a small unit force of men and makes it more effective than numbers five times their size. Today's battles are won and lost in the skies.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for the equipment thing, don't dismiss the equipment just because it's old, a 1950's gun can kill you just as dead as a 2000 era gun.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can take 10 men with some muskets, and I'll take a US marine solider with an m16 anyday. Technology counts. 1950's weapons lack the range, accuracy, and stopping power of today's weapons. You may as well as arm them with rocks.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Really, it comes down to the fact that the US can inflict savage losses a conflict happened, but if china's moral is high enough that it can take those losses and keep going, amercia couldn't stop them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You don't understand that bodies do not outnumber bullets, no matter cheap life is in China. They could never beat the US in their current state. They would need probably almost 15 years of military buildup while the US does nothing in order to even come close to competing with America. While its fun to pretend that America's military could somehow lose, for those of us grounded in reality; we do not pretend.
I am NOT looking at this in terms of a prolonged, all-out war between the US and china.
Comments follow.
<!--QuoteBegin-NGE+Jul 21 2005, 08:14 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NGE @ Jul 21 2005, 08:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
You are incorrect.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->First, on the subject of a US vs China conflict, it comes down to 2 things. China has more men, Amercia has better equipment, a pretty straight up Quality vs. Quantity equation. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They do not have more men. They cannot afford to equip all of their population into the miltary. If they spent all of their money into drafting an enourmous military, and if the USA did the same thing, they would outnumber us by maybe 1 million men. That means jack, considering the other huge advantages the US has over China.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Total military sizes, including active, reserve, guard, etc.:
Amercia: 2.6 Million
<a href='http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_army_051705,00.html' target='_blank'>source</a>
China: 4.6 Million <a href='http://www.comw.org/cmp/fulltext/iddschina.html' target='_blank'>source</a>
Now, neither side would be able to bring anything close to those full numbers to a battle, but the battle ground in question (taiwan) is almost on china's doorstep while it is an ocean away from the US, so China would be able to bring a larger percentage of it's forces to a battle, and so numbers are on China's side.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, on the whole air power thing, america has a huge advantage, but you can't take or defend a location with air power, you need ground troops aswell.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Air power takes a small unit force of men and makes it more effective than numbers five times their size. Today's battles are won and lost in the skies.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I do agree that in terms of inflicting damage, an air-to-ground attack unit is more effective, but that air unit can't defend or capture a posistion, it can only destroy things. Say that column of enemies captures a fuel depot, how exactly is that air unit going to recapture it?
Because of this, I dispute your comment about them being won or lost in the skies. Being able to fly your planes in the sky just means that you can inflict losses on the enemy faster, air superiority alone won't win you the battle.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for the equipment thing, don't dismiss the equipment just because it's old, a 1950's gun can kill you just as dead as a 2000 era gun.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can take 10 men with some muskets, and I'll take a US marine solider with an m16 anyday. Technology counts. 1950's weapons lack the range, accuracy, and stopping power of today's weapons. You may as well as arm them with rocks.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Okay, this example doesn't really work. By today's standards, a musket has zero military effectiveness. In comparison, a 1950's era rifle is still militarily effective today. Yes, a 2000's era rifle is more effective then a 1950's rifle, but the difference is not great enough to say that the 1950's rifle is useless on the battlefield.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Really, it comes down to the fact that the US can inflict savage losses a conflict happened, but if china's moral is high enough that it can take those losses and keep going, amercia couldn't stop them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You don't understand that bodies do not outnumber bullets, no matter cheap life is in China. They could never beat the US in their current state. They would need probably almost 15 years of military buildup while the US does nothing in order to even come close to competing with America. While its fun to pretend that America's military could somehow lose, for those of us grounded in reality; we do not pretend.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This comes back to my point about quantity vs quality. Looking at the number I listed for the size of their militaries, the chinese force would outnumber an american force significantly, but the chinese force would take much heavier losses then the american force.
Which is why the determining point in the battle is the chinese moral. Can the chinese force push through and win despite the losses, or will the losses be heavy enough to cause the chinese to break and retreat.
Diazo
This can be bypassed by funding "communist" insurgents in Taiwan. The United States is that "at war" with the insurgents, trying to overthrow the Taiwanese government, rather than with China. In this case, the United States would not want to use nuclear weapons, as there would be too much collateral damage. China is not "officially" at war at all.