"China declares that it has completed preparations to attack Taiwan!"

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

No time table, but it is getting messy......

http://www.stratfor.com/hotspots/chinataiwan/default.htm

1143 GMT, 990818 China/Taiwan/United States  China's Global Times, a weekly publication of the Peoples' Daily, warned China has completed preparations to attack Taiwan, and that foreign intervention would not save Taiwan. An August 19 article entitled "USA, do not mix in" said, "The Chinese government has always been devoted to a peaceful resolution of the Taiwan issue, but if the Taiwan authorities think the mainland can only launch a propaganda or psychological war, they are mistaken.  If Taiwan authorities think they can depend on the shelter of external forces, they are mistaken." The article further said, "At present, mainland China has already finished all preparations for any use of force against Taiwan. Military mobilization, troop movements, combat-readiness training, logistics support and other aspects are already arranged." The article cautioned against U.S. involvement, saying, "Although China has set a development strategy centered on economic construction and the United States the world's strongest military power, history will not forget that Chinese are never afraid of warfare ... or of difficult wars." It suggested China was prepared to use all means available to defend Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan, saying, "China's neutron bombs are more than enough to handle aircraft carriers."

-- helium (heliumavid@yahoo.com), August 19, 1999

Answers

Oh Boy!!!

-- (cannot-say@this.time), August 19, 1999.

Sigh, the bamboo rattling is just as serious as the sabre rattling.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), August 19, 1999.

China's neutron bombs are more than enough to handle aircraft carriers."

That may be true, but they will never get close enough to any US aircraft carriers to deliver them, whether they attempt it by missile, plane, ship, or sub. Delivering them to targets on land though is another story.



-- Tom Knepper (thomas_knepper@intuit.com), August 19, 1999.

bring,s back memories, of korean war.when the bugles we,re blown, wave after wave of DRUGGED chinese ,came like a wall of flesh.there we,re not enough bullet,s.

-- demon-army. (dogs@zianet.com), August 19, 1999.

For the sake of discussion, what do you think our country's response would be to a Chinese military attack on Tiwan?

What do you think Clinton's response would be?

What do you think the news media's responses would be?

What do you think Joe & Mary sixpack/401K's response would be?

Do you think Mr. & Mrs. Sixpack would support U.S. military involvement?

I'm thinking not. I'm thinking they would say "why should we go to war with China over Tiwan?"

I'm thinking they would wonder about WHATEVER Clinton did or said in light of the allegations of scandal involving China's campaign contributions and espionage. What do you think?

-- .-. (WONDERIN@HERE.NOW), August 19, 1999.



The Chicoms now have a complete dossier on our president. He took many millions in dirty money from them to stay in the white house and finance Demo campaigns in 96. He sold them our most sensitive nuke secrets and has allowed billions in sensitive sattellite tech to be sold to Peking. The fix is in on Taiwan. Clinton will not make a move to stop the Chinese because the have his balls in a Mason jar on the General Secretary's desk. The Chinese will retake Taiwan this year by threatening them with nukes and America will do nothing. Remember Neville Chamberlain and his sellout of Checkoslovakia. BTW, lets hope Taiwan is all our Treasonous president has pissed away to China. It could be even worse.

-- doktorbob (downsouth@dixie.com), August 19, 1999.

It will get worse before it gets better...... http://www.stratfor.com/asia/specialreports/special55.htm

-- helium (heliumavid@yahoo.com), August 19, 1999.
http://www.stratfor.com/asia/specialreports/special55.htm

China Cautions U.S. Not to Interfere 2404 GMT, 990819

Summary:

China has once again raised the level of its threats against Taiwan, warning in an article in the Global Times that, "If the Taiwan authorities think the mainland can only launch a propaganda or psychological war, they are mistaken." Included in the article, entitled "USA, do not mix in," China claimed that it "has already finished all preparations for any use of force against Taiwan." In addition to threatening Taiwan, however, China also warned that no external force could protect Taiwan, and, in a statement directed at the United States, that, "Chinas neutron bombs are more than enough to handle aircraft carriers." China is now clearly signaling to the United States that it intends to act over Taiwan President Lee Teng-Huis state-to-state comments. More importantly, China is also informing Washington that, if the U.S. interferes, China will not hold back as it did in 1996. For the United States, Chinas warnings necessitate a careful calculation of its potential responses to a variety of possible Chinese actions and the ultimate consequences of those responses for both the U.S. and China.

Analysis:

China raised the level of its threats toward Taiwan August 19, warning "At present, mainland China has already finished all preparations for any use of force against Taiwan. Military mobilization, troop movements, combat-readiness training, logistics support and other aspects are already arranged." The statement was made in an article entitled "USA, do not mix in" in the Global Times, a weekly magazine from the official Peoples Daily. In the article, China threatened a military response to the perceived separatist statements of Taiwan President Lee Teng-Hui, saying, "if the Taiwan authorities think the mainland can only launch a propaganda or psychological war, they are mistaken." Along with re-emphasizing Chinas commitment to action, the article cautioned Taiwan not to rely on external support for help.

The article also cautioned the United States against trying to interfere with whatever action China takes. The article stated, "Although China has set a development strategy centered on economic construction and the United States the world's strongest military power, history will not forget that Chinese are never afraid of warfare ... or of difficult wars." More directly, in an obvious reference to the U.S. decision to send two carrier battle groups to the Taiwan Strait in 1996, the paper said, "China's neutron bombs are more than enough to handle aircraft carriers."

While the notion of China detonating a neutron bomb over the USS Kitty Hawk is more propaganda than clear and present danger, the message to the United States is crystal clear. China will take military action against Taiwan, and if the U.S. intervenes, U.S. lives will be lost. In a contest for Taiwan itself, the calculation is relatively straightforward. The U.S. can not allow the chain encircling China to be broken. No matter, China does not have what it takes to stage a serious amphibious assault on Taiwan. The problem arises with the consideration of potential U.S. responses to a Chinese gambit short of an invasion of Taiwan.

As Stratfor has discussed previously, one likely option for China is to launch an attack on Quemoy and Matsu, Taiwanese islands close to the mainland. In taking these islands, China would not only satisfy domestic concerns by proving that the central government is still in charge and that separatists will be stopped, it would also gain a military option the U.S. will be hard-pressed to counter. With Quemoy and Matsu as primarily military outposts, China taking the islands without threatening the main island of Taiwan would require the U.S. to seriously assess the risks and benefits of offering military support in such forward areas.

China has determined that the benefits of its military action are of such import that American casualties are acceptable. However, in the interest of avoiding such a contingency, China has given the U.S. notification that it should not interfere. This is the situation which the U.S. must now assess. If U.S. lives are lost in an attempt to defend the forward islands of Taiwan, U.S. public sentiment will require retaliation. While the U.S. may be willing to go to war with China over the Taiwan island, the loss of Quemoy and Matsu may not warrant such drastic actions. The U.S. instead would be left with wide-ranging economic sanctions against China in response to Chinese action against the U.S. military.

In the Global Times article, China addressed this very issue, pointing out that the U.S. has as much to lose from economic sanctions as China. The article said, "Everyone knows that US economic and strategic interests in the mainland are greater than those in Taiwan." In fact, the claim that the U.S. would lose as well on broad sanctions is not far off the mark. According to the U.S. department of commerce, U.S. foreign direct investment in China rose from US$0.93 billion in 1996 to US$1.49 billion in 1998. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation places the numbers substantially higher, at US$3.44 billion in 1996 and US$3.91 billion in 1998. This investment would effectively be lost were China to shut its borders, both literally and financially, in response to U.S. sanctions. As well, in 1998, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. exports to China amounted to US$14.2 billion, ranking 12, while imports from China were US$71.2 billion, ranking 4.

Besides the loss of investments in China, the psychological effect of suddenly being unable to import Chinese goods to the U.S. would be tremendous. Everything from clothing to pens to toys would be affected, causing initial shortages and a rapid rise in prices. The losses by major U.S. companies investing in China would also send a ripple through the U.S. stock markets. While China would undoubtedly suffer from no longer having the U.S. as an export market, the U.S. would be impacted as well, albeit on a different level.

Washington must now decide first if China is serious and second if it is worth risking economic consequences or even a potential all out war over a Chinese move that falls short of an invasion of Taiwan proper. Stratfor does not view the Chinese threats of a military action lightly, and the threats against the U.S. are equally serious. As China raises the level of its rhetoric and the level to which it is willing to escalate the potential conflict with Taiwan, it makes not only its intentions but also its warning very clear to the United States: this is not 1996 and China will strike.

-- helium (heliumavid@yahoo.com), August 19, 1999.


As I read the above posts, I thought about our own country's Civil War. From what I've read on other threads here, I agree that our Civil War was fought over the right to suceed from the Union. Slavery was a "litmus test" of whether you were "Unionized", I'm thinking.

With all the Civil Wars, and with the U.S. trying to be the world's policeman, I'm wondering if we really have the right to interfere. I hate communism. I'm all for freedom and democracy. However, I keep thinking "what if some foreign country jumped into our country's Civil War back in the 1860's? Would they have any business doing so? Even over such an evil as slavery?

How about now. With US as the meddling foreign power who knows best. I DO think our ideals ARE better -- but do we have the right to meddle. Even in the ethnic hatred wars such as Kosovo. I don't know. I'm hoping some of you will share your thoughts. Often several of you make points that cause me to think a lot. Often about an aspect I hadn't considered.

Do we really have the right to step into what in essence is a situation I see very much like our own Civil War? It seems to be this -- does Tiwan have the right to suceed from mainland China? Even over a litmus test of "freedom" instead of "slavery"? This question is troubling to me. I'm all for freedom. My sympathyies lie with those yearning to be free from oppressive governments everywhere. But I also think about the fact that the world is as it is. I can't change my neigborhood -- can my country change the world? Just as I don't have the right to apoint myself policeman or vigilante of my neighborhood, I'm wondering if the U.S. should apoint itself policeman or vigalante or "peacekeeper" abroad.

And another thing. Beside the issue of what the right thing to do is, how about the question of what we CAN do. The serbs and albanians don't seem to be having too many love fest or group hugs. At least I don't see any on the news. I wonder what will really change with our presence. What will happen this winter. Are our resources going to be bled to death with peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts abroad -- especially this winter in places like Kosovo, that our ability to take care of ourselves will be so diminished that our country becomes "anemic"? I'll consider your thoughts and comments. Thanks for sharing them. This topic really makes me wonder what is RIGHT.

My intelect and feelings are not in sync here. I'm wonerin'

-- .-. (wonderin@here.now), August 19, 1999.


STUDY=BIBLE-PROPHECY,S.---IT,S ALL THERE.-OF COURSE IT TAKES SOME REAL-DILIGENT STUDY.---FOR SHORT-COURSE CHECK OUT WHAT=JESUS-SAID[PROHECY] TO THE MAX.

-- YU,REALLY WANT TO KNOW? (dogs@zianet.com), August 19, 1999.


1) "SECEED" not "Succeed" 2) We are HISTORICALLY COMMITTED to protecting Taiwan, Quemoy and Matsu by a series of treaties older than Billy Jeff. We back off from these, what others do we back off from??? If it's inconvenient in the geopolitical sense, can we just abrogate?? What do WE do if another treaty partner decides that OUR criteria for abrogation can be applied to THEIR abrogation.

Chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), August 20, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ
0STRATSPECIALR.jpg (3271 
bytes)


China Cautions U.S. Not to Interfere
2404 GMT, 990819

Summary:

China has once again raised the level of its threats against Taiwan, warning in an article in the Global Times that, "If the Taiwan authorities think the mainland can only launch a propaganda or psychological war, they are mistaken." Included in the article, entitled "USA, do not mix in," China claimed that it "has already finished all preparations for any use of force against Taiwan." In addition to threatening Taiwan, however, China also warned that no external force could protect Taiwan, and, in a statement directed at the United States, that, "China’s neutron bombs are more than enough to handle aircraft carriers." China is now clearly signaling to the United States that it intends to act over Taiwan President Lee Teng-Hui’s state-to-state comments. More importantly, China is also informing Washington that, if the U.S. interferes, China will not hold back as it did in 1996. For the United States, China’s warnings necessitate a careful calculation of its potential responses to a variety of possible Chinese actions and the ultimate consequences of those responses for both the U.S. and China.

Analysis:

China raised the level of its threats toward Taiwan August 19, warning "At present, mainland China has already finished all preparations for any use of force against Taiwan. Military mobilization, troop movements, combat-readiness training, logistics support and other aspects are already arranged." The statement was made in an article entitled "USA, do not mix in" in the Global Times, a weekly magazine from the official Peoples’ Daily. In the article, China threatened a military response to the perceived separatist statements of Taiwan President Lee Teng-Hui, saying, "if the Taiwan authorities think the mainland can only launch a propaganda or psychological war, they are mistaken." Along with re-emphasizing China’s commitment to action, the article cautioned Taiwan not to rely on external support for help.

The article also cautioned the United States against trying to interfere with whatever action China takes. The article stated, "Although China has set a development strategy centered on economic construction and the United States the world's strongest military power, history will not forget that Chinese are never afraid of warfare ... or of difficult wars." More directly, in an obvious reference to the U.S. decision to send two carrier battle groups to the Taiwan Strait in 1996, the paper said, "China's neutron bombs are more than enough to handle aircraft carriers."

While the notion of China detonating a neutron bomb over the USS Kitty Hawk is more propaganda than clear and present danger, the message to the United States is crystal clear. China will take military action against Taiwan, and if the U.S. intervenes, U.S. lives will be lost. In a contest for Taiwan itself, the calculation is relatively straightforward. The U.S. can not allow the chain encircling China to be broken. No matter, China does not have what it takes to stage a serious amphibious assault on Taiwan. The problem arises with the consideration of potential U.S. responses to a Chinese gambit short of an invasion of Taiwan.

As Stratfor has discussed previously, one likely option for China is to launch an attack on Quemoy and Matsu, Taiwanese islands close to the mainland. In taking these islands, China would not only satisfy domestic concerns by proving that the central government is still in charge and that separatists will be stopped, it would also gain a military option the U.S. will be hard-pressed to counter. With Quemoy and Matsu as primarily military outposts, China taking the islands without threatening the main island of Taiwan would require the U.S. to seriously assess the risks and benefits of offering military support in such forward areas.

China has determined that the benefits of its military action are of such import that American casualties are acceptable. However, in the interest of avoiding such a contingency, China has given the U.S. notification that it should not interfere. This is the situation which the U.S. must now assess. If U.S. lives are lost in an attempt to defend the forward islands of Taiwan, U.S. public sentiment will require retaliation. While the U.S. may be willing to go to war with China over the Taiwan island, the loss of Quemoy and Matsu may not warrant such drastic actions. The U.S. instead would be left with wide-ranging economic sanctions against China in response to Chinese action against the U.S. military.

In the Global Times article, China addressed this very issue, pointing out that the U.S. has as much to lose from economic sanctions as China. The article said, "Everyone knows that US economic and strategic interests in the mainland are greater than those in Taiwan." In fact, the claim that the U.S. would lose as well on broad sanctions is not far off the mark. According to the U.S. department of commerce, U.S. foreign direct investment in China rose from US$0.93 billion in 1996 to US$1.49 billion in 1998. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation places the numbers substantially higher, at US$3.44 billion in 1996 and US$3.91 billion in 1998. This investment would effectively be lost were China to shut its borders, both literally and financially, in response to U.S. sanctions. As well, in 1998, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. exports to China amounted to US$14.2 billion, ranking 12, while imports from China were US$71.2 billion, ranking 4.

Besides the loss of investments in China, the psychological effect of suddenly being unable to import Chinese goods to the U.S. would be tremendous. Everything from clothing to pens to toys would be affected, causing initial shortages and a rapid rise in prices. The losses by major U.S. companies investing in China would also send a ripple through the U.S. stock markets. While China would undoubtedly suffer from no longer having the U.S. as an export market, the U.S. would be impacted as well, albeit on a different level.

Washington must now decide first if China is serious and second if it is worth risking economic consequences or even a potential all out war over a Chinese move that falls short of an invasion of Taiwan proper. Stratfor does not view the Chinese threats of a military action lightly, and the threats against the U.S. are equally serious. As China raises the level of its rhetoric and the level to which it is willing to escalate the potential conflict with Taiwan, it makes not only its intentions but also its warning very clear to the United States: this is not 1996 and China will strike.