Spikes placed on the coast of Taiwan's Kinmen islands - located just 3.2 kms (two miles) from mainland China - to help prevent a military invasion. © Sam Yeh
AFP: In 1958 US considered nuclear strike on China over Taiwan: documents
US military planners pushed for nuclear strikes on mainland China in 1958 to protect Taiwan from an invasion by Communist forces, classified documents posted online by Daniel Ellsberg of "Pentagon Papers" fame show.
US planners also assumed that the Soviet Union would aid China and retaliate with nuclear weapons -- a price they deemed worth paying to protect Taiwan, according to the document, first reported by the New York Times.
Former military analyst Ellsberg posted online the classified portion of a top-secret document on the crisis that had been only partially declassified in 1975. Ellsberg, now 90, is famous for his 1971 leak to US media of a top-secret Pentagon study on the Vietnam war known as the Pentagon Papers.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: It was a very different time then.
17 comments:
About a week ago a blogpost, where someone stated that the air incursions showed it was the worst it has ever been between Taiwan and China.
I had thought that artillery day or month long artillery duels between the Chinese and Taiwanese in the 1950s were worse. It was very kinetic. No one has died in the air incursions so far and won't unless the CCP orders it or a jet jockey gets rambunctious and becomes prop bait.
The editor comment that times are different now is a massive understatement!! If these documents are "classified" then it seems it would be illegal to release them which begs the question of why is Mr. Ellsberg not in prison. With that said I think this is something that needs to be known. I'm glad this has been released. At least I think I am.
What the article leaves unanswered is what is the strategic importance of Taiwan to America's leadership class. Why were they so eager to risk the survival of America as well as the lives of 10s of millions of Americans over Taiwan in 1958? Are they still willing to do this? What is the strategic importance of Taiwan to them? Today I suspect the Taiwanese government is manipulating them.
Of course the Soviet Union was going to get involved over Taiwan in 1958 as Russia would come to the aid of China today. A key difference today is China and Russia appear to me to be much closer.
In 1958 our government was willing to sacrifice the lives of 10s of millions of Americans in a war to defend Taiwan. Keep in mind this is a war that we might not have been able to win, the costs and risks associated with it are literally astronomical, and should we "win" what strategic value do we gain? The same thing applies today. I suppose in some ways thing never change!!
Another key difference today is Americans are now virulently anti-war and will not hesitate to punish any member of the leadership class who foists this on them. I'm not really sure the leadership class fully grasps this.
I'm expecting Taiwan to try and pull some kind of "wag the dog" incident to try and manipulate us. Also, should Biden need a distraction or should his team feel a need to prove how tough they are they may miscalculate. Additionally China and other major world powers think we are weak which may lead them to miscalculate. Finally, US leadership tends to both overestimate our capabilities while underestimating those of adversaries and potential adversaries making this a very dangerous situation all the way around.
I would like to know what the strategic value of Taiwan is to our leadership class. Perhaps they are simply enamored by them much like a school girl experiencing her first crush. Given the behavior patterns of our leadership class this would not surprise me.
Lol the soviet union also nearly once nukes China. Wnu forgets?
"Of course the Soviet Union was going to get involved over Taiwan in 1958 as Russia would come to the aid of China today. A key difference today is China and Russia appear to me to be much closer."
The US was considering nuking Chinese in 1958.
The Russians were considering nuking the Chinese in 1969.
What is is the common denominator? Gee, I dunno. It is a poser.
"In 1958 our government was willing to sacrifice the lives of 10s of millions of Americans in a war to defend Taiwan"
(Blah) (Blah) (Blah) ... Mega smoochies to the butt.
Our government was willing to sacrifice the lives of 10s of millions of Americans in a war to defend Poland.
"I would like to know what the strategic value of Taiwan is to our leadership class."
Must be one of them new fangled Derrr Trolls. Pretty sure Derrr reads all the comments. there were one to 3 plus maybe a blog post that covered how important Taiwan was to electronics manufacturing. There is not an electronics supply chain for American citizens without Taiwan, The US military should be okay. Well not really.
Taiwan is the the free flow of electronics
as
Kuwait is to the free flow of oil.
It takes 40 times to memorize something according to psychologists. The caveat was off a person is really interested, it may only take once.
For Derrr Trolls increase that by a factor of 10 to the 3rd.
The strategic value to the Derrr troll is the computer it is trolling on, its iPhone, The chips in the electronic in its home, the EPROM in its vehicle, etc.
Maybe it is not strategic that Derrr Troll gets any electricity from wind turbines. Funny thing wind turbines. Like man electrical or mechanical devices, they tear themselves apart, if they do not have a governor.
Look it up. Wind Turbine have governors. You also could look up feed back loop too. You obviously do not know what one of those are.
" Also, should Biden need a distraction or should his team feel a need to prove how tough they are "
In which case you beat on Russia instead of China or so the thinking goes. Barring the use of nuclear arsenals, Russia is weaker.
Russia was weak from 2003 to 2011. Two clients fell, Iraq and Libya, and all Russia could do was sit and watch except for putting a flies in the ointment. Putin signaled in 2015 no más. Putin did more than signal, he put muscle behind it. You could put the no más date to 2014 and the Ukraine troubles.
But look at it. Obama was a dovish butter over guns candidate and it was proven out. Putin took Eastern Ukraine and Crimea. He went into Syria. Dominoes Iraq and Libya fell but Syria would not.
Now in Obama's third term, if the US gets wishy washy on Taiwan, there will be a war. Sins of being a dove.
Anon 11:38 and 11:51,
Thanks for the reply, very interesting insights even though the insults you hurl at me are a distraction. In the future, I would suggest posting your insights without the insults. Its more productive that way.
Admittedly the electronics issue is a key concern. A war would end up destroying this anyway. As for our dependence on this, the leadership class has known about this for decades. More effort should have been made to develop our own domestic supply chains on this. I suppose its not to late. Even if its cut off we will adapt. I still nothing in Taiwan that is worth the enormous costs that are associated with it.
"Kuwait is to the free flow of oil." Oil is mission critical to the functioning of even a semi modern economy let alone a modern one and each nation, if acting prudently, would do well to do all they can to ensure that they and their citizens have access to a stable and reasonably priced supply of this. The same would apply to electronics as well. President Trump had the right idea in seeking make us less dependent upon foreign sources for this.
The leadership class has known about the problems associated with reliance on others who are often hostile to us for these things. They didn't act accordingly. I would say this is bad leadership on their part. We can adapt to the loss of these things and we would do so. There's NOTHING so far that I see with regards to Taiwan that is worth the costs associated with it.
As for Taiwan, I have suggested elsewhere on this site what steps I believe they should take. Step 1 would obviously be to arm themselves with a very robust nuclear deterrent. Also, in the event of war, they should expect to be blockaded by China and its allies. I would also expect America to be blockaded as well meaning nothing or no one is getting in or out without their approval. Perhaps China won't succeed in this but I see little cause for optimism. As a Taiwanese planner, this is what I would be prepared for meaning essentially American weapon systems are going to be of no value. As I recall, Taiwan has embarked on a domestic fighter jet development program. I would say this is a baby step in the right direction.
You ask about a common denominator between 1958 and 1969.. I was unaware of the 1958 situation. I have been aware of the 1969 situation you mention for years. These are obviously different time periods and different situations and should be understood this way. As for commonalities, I will need to study the 1958 situation more. I'm certainly not a common denominator and very respectfully that doesn't even seem like a serious analysis.
When Iraq and Libya were knocked over, this created an unstable situation that was worse than the previous situation. This hardly seems something to be proud of. As I patiently tried to explain to our leaders, Assad wasn't going anywhere. Had they listened they would not have expended so much futile energy on that which couldn't be achieved and we would have had these resources to use elsewhere.
Additional problems were created with the decisions to knock over Iraq and Libya. In the case of Iraq, essentially this made Iran the de facto dominant power there and exponentially contributed to the death and suffering in that region as Al Qaeda and ISIS were allowed a foothold there only mitigated somewhat because ISIS overreached. In the case of Libya, they agreed to not develop nuclear weapons and they would be left alone. Something went wrong here and this agreement was not kept. Essentially these foreign policies "successes" don't seem like anything we should be proud of.
Sorry about multiple posts here. I want to ensure all relevant points are addressed. Whether in 1958 or today any war to defend Taiwan is going to cost 10s of millions of American lives and based upon the geo political alignment of the era it seems almost certain to me that the Soviet Union would have sided with China. If you are going to place the lives of my loved ones in danger, there better be A VERY GOOD REASON FOR IT!! Thus far, the leadership class has yet to present this. Furthermore, if you are going to ask someone to undertake a very costly endeavor that is fraught with enormous risk and carries a very real possibility of failure you need to be explaining what the benefits are and they need to be worth this risk. So far, the leadership class has failed to do this as well. To say that your flippant dismissal of these very legitimate concerns is unhelpful is an understatement.
You did not reply for a while, so I thought you were living your convictions and gave up your computer with Taiwanese components rather than risk being one of those 10s of millions.
Your reply speaks volumes.
GIVE US an "H".
"H"
"Admittedly the electronics issue is a key concern. A war would end up destroying this anyway."
It would destroy it for China as well. Plus china would have 10s of millions problem as well. A MAD strategy is the best way to go.
GIVE US an "Y".
"Y"
You never discussed the British and French ultimatum and the invasion of Poland.
Suppose the US did not enter WW2 until 1942, 1943 or later, because they did not want 10s of millions of Americans dying.
Would not American lose 10s of millions , when New York went all glowy?
The world was fortunate that there were leaks in the NAZI nuclear program before the war started and it appears to have been internally sabotaged.
Without lend lease, would Britain have folded? It would have been closer to folding. Without those 50 extra destroyers, what would the British convoy and supply system looked like? Without Britain what would have been America's chances?
GIVE US an "P".
"P"
Two examples of large powers ignoring smaller powers as they gobbled up states. Afterwards, the smaller powers gobbled up the larger powers, who were now not so formidable.
Sargon and the Ottomans come to mind.
Butt keep um that butt smooching defeatism or grey warfare talk.
GIVE US an "O".
"O"
"These are obviously different time periods and different situations and should be understood this way. As for commonalities, I will need to study the 1958 situation more. I'm certainly not a common denominator and very respectfully that doesn't even seem like a serious analysis."
1969 - 1958 = 11 years
Sure different time periods. 11 days apart is different time periods also. Same Chinese leadership.
GIVE US an "C".
"C"
"without lend lease would Britain have folded?" Probably not. If the US enters WW2 later or not at all Germany still likely loses WW2. Perhaps it takes longer and the casualties are higher. What would Europe under much more control and influence of the Soviet Union would have looked like might have been a different story and not a good prospect to contemplate. As for Nazi Germany actually winning WW2, that never was really going to be a realistic possibility.
Also, for the WW2 endeavor we had much more reliable allies as opposed to the combination of users, abusers, and grifters we would have in a major conflict now. On the other side, our leadership class are complete idiots!! If there is a major war, we would not be in a position to lead it. Perhaps Australia can step up!! Furthermore German capabilities relative to America in the WW2 era were much less than those of China and their allies are today meaning 10s of millions of dead Americans at the hands of Nazi Germany was never going to be a real possibility and the leadership class did a much better job of explaining to the American people why this needed to be done even taking the time and making the effort to get an actual declaration of war.
I am glad that apparently German nuclear efforts perhaps got sabotaged. With as many foreign agents and anti-Americans as there operating in positions of power in the United States this type of thing is something a leader in America would have to be concerned with in any major conflict today. If this doesn't figure into the calculations, those doing the planning would be negligent. At a minimum, I don't think any "allies" are going to trust us with sensitive information. As I stated, we are simply not in a position to lead such an effort.
Minimum costs of a conflict with China: 1.) 10s of millions of Americans dead, 2.) probable blockade by China and its allies meaning nothing gets in or out without their approval, and a probability of ultimate victory of 50/50, probably less. In such a conflict, once Taiwanese vessels and those supplying them start getting sunk, I would anticipate the world growing very tired of that conflict very fast, it will be nearly impossible to find crews willing to risk their lives to supply Taiwan or to deliver the products either by air or sea, and no one will want to insure the cargo.
Maybe if Taiwan develops a robust nuclear deterrent they can make the cost high enough for China that they won't launch the invasion in the first place. You may call this defeatism. I prefer to think of it as a realistic assessment of the costs and the risks associated with such an endeavor. In order to make sound decisions, leaders must have good information. Once the costs have been counted, the risks assessed, and the benefits properly analyzed, good decision making is possible. To date, our leadership class has not presented us with a compelling enough reason for this. When your loved ones and those closest to you have faced the brunt of certain government decisions, perhaps you will be more circumspect about such things.
I'm not saying don't defend Taiwan. Simply supply us with a good reason for such a policy. Personally I prefer the words of John Adams as policy. Essentially the United States can and should support liberty everywhere but we can ultimately only guarantee our own. Now, if Taiwan is important to you, perhaps you can go there and fight alongside them. Someday they may even sing songs about you celebrating your heroism.
"Minimum costs of a conflict with China: 1.) 10s of millions of Americans dead, 2.) probable blockade by China and its allies meaning nothing gets in or out without their approval"
The Chinese are going to blockade the East West and Gulf Coasts?
"without lend lease would Britain have folded?" Probably not. If the US enters WW2 later or not at all Germany still likely loses WW2. Perhaps it takes longer and the casualties are higher. What would Europe under much more control and influence of the Soviet Union would have looked like might have been a different story and not a good prospect to contemplate. As for Nazi Germany actually winning WW2, that never was really going to be a realistic possibility."
You do realize that Anwar Sadat was working with the Germans? I've read where battles in North Africa tuned on supply boats. Take out Malta Gibraltar and consider the supply situation.
Honestly dude, you are a professional troll or you breathe methane. You are quite the contortionist.
I suspect China and their allies will blockade the east and west coasts. This needs to be part of the planning. Essentially expect to be blockaded. Perhaps we or our allies will be able to run the blockade and beat it. Essentially I would expect extreme hardships for us. At a minimum, our government needs to prepare for this and prepare the American people for it.
Anwar Sadat or no, I doubt he is going to turn the war in Nazi Germany's favor. Without US involvement the war probably takes longer and casualties are probably higher but Nazi Germany actually winning WW2 was never going to be a realistic possibility. In the sense that our involvement shored up Western Europe and acted as a buffer against Soviet expansion as well as sped up the process of ending the war likely saving lives in the process our involvement had utility here.
Not sure about the last sentence. It really isn't necessary. Your analysis does not need this.
No one pays me to post here nor would I want them to. I truly believe my insights are based upon careful observation and have value. Perhaps I am wrong. Nonetheless my positions are well thought out with careful research and analysis. I spelled out for you in stark terms what the costs are going to be of war with China. You refuse to take any of this seriously. Instead part of your primary approach is childish insults. Once you or a loved one is adversely affected by war, you may approach this differently. Maybe we do need to defend Taiwan. The government needs to do a much better job of explaining why this is so. After all Taiwan won't even do a most basic thing such as develop a nuclear deterrent.
A bit off topic. Perhaps you did not notice US (un)Intelligence is celebrating the loss on the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. I certainly would not want to be led by any of these idiots in a military conflict. I'm pretty sure any allies we may have are not amused by such stupidity either. As I have pointed out elsewhere, our leadership class is incapable of leading in a major military conflict. As such, by necessity these allies will force us out of any leadership roles. I'm assuming they want to survive even if our leaders are to blinded by ideology and their own stupidity to think clearly. Maybe the Aussies are ready to step up. Maybe Japan is.
Anwar Sadat or no, I doubt he is going to turn the war in Nazi Germany's favor. Without US involvement the war probably takes longer and casualties are probably higher but Nazi Germany actually winning WW2 was never going to be a realistic possibilitt,,,
Yeah, Anwar Sadat acted alone. Sure thing bucko. With more fuel and ammo, if Rommel had taken Alexandria, there might have been an uprising.
When yo look at British forces in Africa, you notice one helluva lot of M3s.
Post a Comment