Soldiers operate an M10 tank destroyer during a military exercise at an army base in Kaohsiung County, southern Taiwan. Reuters/Pichi Chuang
Gordon G. Chang, National Interest: The World Should Take China's War Threats Seriously
The risk the world faces is the one Xi has promised: a Chinese takeover of Taiwan.
Taiwan’s national-security and counterespionage chief, in a question-and-answer period at the national legislature, this week warned that China might invade the island republic.
“Beijing is prepared to retaliate forcibly once senior U.S. officials touch down on the island,” the National Security Bureau’s Director-General Peng Sheng-chu said, referring to visits encouraged by the Taiwan Travel Act, which recently became U.S. law.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: I have been watching China for almost 35 years .... and I have never seen the rhetoric from its leadership as threatening as it is now. What concerns me is that they have not only raised expectations among their own population that China will assert its territorial claims, but they have also expanded their claims to not only include Taiwan but even Japan's claim to Okinawa .... China Continues To Lay Claims To Okinawa (May 16, 2013). If China did not have the military that it has now .... I would ignore their rhetoric. But they have been developing for the past decade the means to enforce territorial claims with a military that most countries in Asia cannot match .... and this trend of Chinese military superiority is only escalating.
5 comments:
They are idiots. This is a red line they cannot cross unless we want to look back from the future wishibg we had stopped them at Taiwan.
Jim,
This is your "red line." As for the "world," the "world" does not care about Taiwan any more than the "world" cares about America. My "red line," if you will, for any alliance is to ask does it add value to America and Americans. For example, does the alliance enhance our national security? Doe the alliance help grow our economy? Does the alliance help preserve our territorial integrity and preserve our unique culture?
As for Taiwan the answers to these questions are none of the above. Any "alliance" with them is going to be enormously costly with no upside benefit to us. When I see Okinawa, I'm thinking our Japanese "allies" are going to expect us to defend their territorial claims all for a people who don't like, don't respect us, and hold us in utter contempt all for something that does not advance our interests anyway and actually undermines them.
On the day that the users and abusers of America that make up Japan and Taiwan will agree to help us defend America when we are invaded, then I might consider an alliance with them worthwhile. This will never happen. Alliances with these people are like a bad marriage. the sooner we get a divorce from these people the better.
DJT correctly called out Japan during the campaign. Unfortunately Taiwan was not called out. I should also point out that China is one of the world's most powerful countries. If the US is to get around and function in the world, reasonable working relations with countries like China are going to be a must. As for Taiwan and Japan, there is nothing there worth endangering this for us.
In sum: withdraw from alliances with our allies and stay within "fortress America" as though we are back in 1912,sans globalization, sans missiles, and nukes and growing threats from enemy or potential enemy nations...it worked so well back then
Fred,
Read the posts please. I did not suggest withdrawing from the world as you appear to think I did.
Some alliances will be kept, others discarded others will need to be changed, some may need to be added, and still other existing ones will likely need to be expanded. We CANNOT be a global policeman. Even if we could, it wouldn't be advisable.
Alliances are just that. We NEED TO BE GETTING SOMETHING FROM THEM. As with any business relationship, one derives a benefit, minimizes a costs, and things of that nature. For many of these the costs to us outweigh the benefits. As I pointed out, ask the following: "does the alliance enhance our national security or does it help grow our economy?" The answers to these questions with regards to many of these alliances is a resounding NO!!
Now getting off topic, if you wish to fight Russia for example, GO STRAP IT ON!! Better yet, send your kids, your grandchildren!! Poland and Ukraine are looking for some cannon fodder. We Americans make a nice delicacy for them. Who knows your heroism may even be noticed. They may sing songs about you glorifying your bravery or that of the kinfolk you so selflessly send over. GO STRAP IT ON!!
Go to Okinawa, go to Taiwan, on we fight as we must for the territory and wealth of others. This is what we do. Is it ideology or just plain stupidity on the part of the leadership? I think it s a combination. Other are happy to have us serve as their pawns.
I haven't used the term "fortress America" to the best of my knowledge. What I have stated is we need to have our troops and military assets properly deployed to maximize the ability of these forces to properly defend the US mainland.
To be specific, I would suggest a foreign policy similar to that of Australia, Canada, or New Zealand. These countries are more secure than America and their citizens enjoy a lifestyle that most Americans never realistically expect to have in the current situation.
"Fortress America?" No. I think you have become so used to talking points that you didn't bother to read.
By the way you mention nukes. As I have suggested elsewhere on this site, how but an upgrade and expansion of our aging arsenal? It is much needed. Now POTUS said the first thing he did upon taking office was to fix this problem. Hopefully he really did. It is what I would do. Next step trim down these alliances to those that as an anonymous poster here recently put it "carry their weight." I would use the terms "add value" but from the context it appears the idea is basically the same.
Also, it is prudent to ask, does an arrangement ("alliance") make it more or less likely that we are going to suffer a nuclear attack? In this context, going out of our way to stoke conflict with Russia does not seem like a particularly bright idea!!
You can think of proper national security in this manner. Let's say you want to defend a piece of property. You install security systems on the property, if needed you put security guards on and around the property where they are best able to respond to any threats to the property, and you may arrange for off site monitoring to alert you to a potential problem.
You DO NOT position your guards off site where they are unable to properly monitor the property. Furthermore you do not arrange to have the off site monitoring focusing on other areas essentially ignoring the property needing to be protected or where they are unable to make protecting this property the primary focus.
AJ: I communicate serious things. I take American national security VERY seriously. Mu goals in posting here are several fold to have frank and serious dialogue, to look at things from multiple angles, and to learn. I find this forum helpful in all these ways. It is NOT to keep you entertained.
Now if you want to discuss something in particular that I posted or if you find a flaw in something I posted here, I am happy to discuss this with you. I might even learn something!! I am VERY busy and will not be able to check this website until some time tomorrow afternoon. By this time our prolific editor will have posted so much that this tgread will be off the front page.
I will make it a point to check back. If you have something constructive to add, please do so. Frank dialogue is always appreciated. I'm all eyes!!
Post a Comment