Polls open in about 60hrs.

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/reuters20000316_37.html

-- boo (boo@home.com), March 16, 2000

Answers

Well, the article doesn't really match the headline but I'll go out on a limb and make a prediction - regardless of the results of the election, there won't be a war for the following reasons:

1. China does not covet ruins. It wants Taiwan for the economic and infrastructure improvements it now contains.

2. China needs trade with the rest of the world more than it needs Taiwan, at least for now. War would result in China's isolation from trade.

3. Taiwan's military will give the Chinese a good ass kicking. The Chinese Navy is not prepared for amphibious warfare and Taiwan's air force is more than capable of defeating any Chinese air attacks. The Chinese will not risk war unless they have overwhelming superiority.

You can expect to see more Chines saber rattling but I don't think it will come to much more, at least not for the next few years.

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), March 16, 2000.

FOCUS-China academics back up threats to Taiwan BEIJING, March 16 (Reuters) - Chinese academics said on Thursday that China could give Taiwan a matter of hours to start reunification talks if the island elected a pro-independence candidate in weekend presidential elections. Beijing issued a cabinet policy white paper last month in which it threatened to use military force against Taiwan if the island dragged its feet "indefinitely" on reunification talks, but has not specified a timetable.

Asked to clarify China's deadline, a panel of Taiwan specialists told a cabinet-sponsored news conference it depended on the outcome of the election.

"If you are for peaceful reunification, it could be longer. But if you are moving towards Taiwan independence, it's hard to say. It could be three to five years or there could be a change within 24 hours," Li Jiaquan said.

Li, a research fellow at the Institute of Taiwan Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, was one of seven academics present at a news conference by the cabinet's Taiwan Affairs Office.

Beijing regards Taiwan as a renegade province which must be reunified with the mainland.

"The timetable is in the hands of the mainland, even more so in the hands of Taiwan's new leader, and frankly speaking in the hands of Taiwan voters," said Xu Bodong, director of Taiwan Research at Beijing Lianhe University.

"If they choose a leader who advocates Taiwan independence, this timetable may well not be a question of years but of a few dozen hours."

ZHU SAYS NO SECOND CHANCE

Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji warned Taiwan voters on Wednesday they might not get a second chance if they voted for a pro-independence candidate, but declined to set a deadline for reunification talks.

"Let me advise all these people in Taiwan: do not just act on impulse at this juncture which will decide the future course that China and Taiwan will follow. Otherwise, I'm afraid you won't get another opportunity to regret," Zhu told a news conference.

The threat sparked panic selling in Taiwan stocks on Thursday until state funds poured in to stabilise the market. Mainland shares also lost ground on worries over possible military conflict across the Taiwan Strait.

Zhu did not mention names, but was clearly referring to Chen Shui- bian, standard-bearer of the Democratic Progressive Party, which espouses independence for the island.

Chen is locked in a tight, three-way race and has personally backed away from a previous hardline stand on independence to avoid scaring voters.

But the academics said China would not have interfered in the election if Chen had not appeared to be gaining ground and, they alleged, tried to disguise his pro-independence stance.

"This is not just about the Taiwan election, it is a matter relating to the future development of China-Taiwan relations, and to whether China is united or split," said Guo Zhenyuan, senior research fellow at the China Institute of International Studies.

TAIWAN DISMISSES ZHU

Taiwan Defence Minister Tang Fei said on Thursday the island did not seek war, but neither did it fear conflict.

"The national armed forces will never seek war, but to maintain our democratic politics, they will not resist war either," Tang told reporters.

He said Zhu's comments "lacked new substance and were more bullying in tone."

Taiwan's top official on mainland China, Su Chi, rejected Zhu's warning on Wednesday, saying he had "no right to say anything about our election."

Su also defended Chen's democratic right to advocate independence, even though he and the ruling Nationalist Party "vehemently oppose what Mr Chen says."

U.S. Defence Secretary William Cohen urged China and Taiwan on Thursday to settle their differences peacefully, and said he saw no sign of an imminent military confrontation in waters around the island.

-- suzy (suzy@nowhere.com), March 16, 2000.

Jim,

I can agree with your first two points, but disagree with, "3. Taiwan's military will give the Chinese a good ass kicking. The Chinese Navy is not prepared for amphibious warfare and Taiwan's air force is more than capable of defeating any Chinese air attacks. The Chinese will not risk war unless they have overwhelming superiority."

The Chinese so outnumber the Taiwanese, they *will* win any conflict that ensues.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), March 16, 2000.

China can't mount a full-scale invasion of Taiwan because it doesn't have the sea transport capability. Germany discovered this for themselves in WWII when -- in spite of having the most powerful military machine in Europe -- they were unable to invade Great Britain because they simply didn't have enough ships to do the job. Hitler had to settle for trying to ruin them by air strikes while he turned his attention elsewhere.

Air transport won't support a large-scale invasion. Even if you stack soldiers like sardines into the largest transport planes you can find, you're only going to ferry a few hundred soldiers per plane per trip. It takes a lot of time to move a single division -- and the whole time, the Taiwanese would be (using very good Western-supplied weapons!) bending every effort to shooting those planes down.

Even if they could get the troops over there, the heavy equipment must be transported by sea. Look at Operation Desert Shield/Storm: it took a couple of days to get the 82nd Airborne in place. The other troops (and more importantly, the heavy equipment) took WEEKS to transport.

Saudi Arabia made a convenient and friendly staging area in which to assemble this force. With Taiwan, the Chinese would be landing troops and equipment right in the teeth of battle.

In other words, they'd be mounting a for-real invasion -- something which the Allies in WWII finally, after much trial and error, worked out to a fine art. When invading a relatively-isolated island, the general principles were: (1), destroy the enemy's air power; (2), prepare the immediate landing areas with an intense bombardment (sometimes lasting DAYS); (3), start landing troops and light equipment with constant fire support from naval vessels and aircraft; and (4), start landing the heavy equipment, support personnel and reserves.

This takes time, ships and very careful planning. China simply doesn't have this capability. All of this is just sabre-rattling on China's part, plain and simple. The only real option they'd have would be to try to bomb Taiwan back to the stone age. Not only would that bring an immediate and overwhelming response from Taiwan's allies, see what the other poster said above: China wants Taiwan INTACT. It's of no use to them if it's destroyed.

-- Military Dood (military_dood@somewhere.net), March 16, 2000.

Re. my previous remarks about marxism

totalitarianism is the inevitable consequence of socialism

message for all liberals

NB very good logistical analyses in previous postings

-- richard (richard.dale@onion.com), March 16, 2000.

Germany was not able to invade England even tho they had the superior army.

China will not be able to invade Taiwan.

For a land attack to be able to suceede a minimum ratio of 7 to 1 has to be mainained. In ALL aspects from personal to wappons and supplys.

For an attack on an island a 25-30 to 1 ratio is the minimum required. Again this applies to all thats needed for a war and altho mainland China has all those people mobilizing them and supporting them is a logistic nightmare.

It was not possible during WW2 with the puny distance of 40km (25mi) and it will for sure not happen over a distance of 144km (90mi)

The only way to force Taiwan in a war would be the simultanios (sp) launch of hundreds of rockets to wipe the island clean. Besides that this would not give them what they need (access to Taiwans industry and resources).

I.M.H.O. the only thing China has is...... a big mouth.

-- RickJohn (rickjohn1@yahoo.com), March 16, 2000.

Military Dood,

I agree with most of your comments on chinese invasion being a non starter, however I disagree with your comment that china wants Tiawan intack. It is possible that china would choose to bomb tiawan back in to the stone age and put up a naval blockade. Sure they would have a "cuba" on their door step, but in the long run they would probably get the island back. Getting the island back is the ultimate goal, the chinese think long term, if tiawan gets independence, that goal could slip from thier grasp.

Besides, if they destroy tiawan, they can increase the utilization of the fabs and manufacturing equipment they have been sinking a fair amount of capital into.

It is an explosive mixture, just don't light a match....

-- Helium (HeliumAvid@yahoo.com), March 16, 2000.

Interesting takes on the situation from all concerned.

Frank, even though the Chinese have absolute numerical superiority, they can't swim to Taiwan. Until China develops some real amphibious capability, there's no way they can accomplish a successful invasion.

Helium, the "bombing them back to the stone age" scenario only works if you first destroy Taiwan's air force. Taiwan has over 600 combat aircraft, almost all modern with well trained pilots. Taiwan can not only defend its own airspace but is capable of inflicting damaging air strikes on the Chinese mainland. Civil defense is a big deal in Taiwan with shelters for almost the entire urban population. With the exception of Israel, there's no county on earth as prepared for war as Taiwan.

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), March 16, 2000.

Jim, How many missiles does China have? If they fired off 10-20,000, Taiwan probably wouldn't have any operational airports. The Chinese would just have to send over an armed cleanup crew.

-- John (littmannj@aol.com), March 16, 2000.

Well, if they decide to attack now, it's to our advantage... our odds of kicking China's ass in a show down are a lot better now than they will be in 5-10 years. I think they know that. Chinese are great gamblers, they know how to bluff... they also know when to fold and leave themselves enough to play the next deal...

-- Carl (clilly@goentre.com), March 16, 2000.

John:

The Chinese don't have 10,000 missiles, They don't even have 500 missiles. This article appeared on the website below:

http://www.fas.org/news/china/2000/e-02-28-00-17.htm

Taipei, Feb. 28 (CNA) Mainland China still does not have enough M-9 missiles to destroy even a single missile company of the Republic of China armed forces, according to an evaluation by the Ministry of National Defense (MND).

The MND report said mainland China currently has about 200 M-9 missiles with a range of 600 kilometers, and 16 Dongfeng-21 missiles with a range of 1,800 km.

As a single ROC Hawk missile company can withstand attack by up to 275 M-9 missiles, the report said, mainland China does not have enough to destroy even one.

The MND prepared the evaluation report at the request of the defense and intelligence committee of the watchdog Control Yuan with an aim of giving an understanding of the ROC military's maximum capacity to withstand a mainland Chinese missile attack, and the anti-missile effect of the ROC's Patriot missile defense system.

The report claimed that M-9 missiles are the most reliable and accurate of the missiles owned by mainland China, and added that mainland China's other missiles have an error range of about three kilometers.

According to the report, the intensity of an M-9 missile is equivalent to that of 500 kilograms of traditional explosives, and can cause a 137-square-meter crater.

The report also said the ROC-owned "Patriot PAC-2 Plus" missiles are the upgraded version of the Patriot missile system the United States used in the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Quoting an evaluation by the missile manufacturer -- the US-based Raytheon Co. -- the report said the Patriot PAC-2 Plus system has a hit rate of more than 80 percent.

The report further said mainland China also has about 80 Dongfeng No. 3 missiles with a range of 3,000 km, and 10 each of Dongfeng No. 4 missiles, with a range of 5,500 km to 7,000 km, and Dongfeng No. 5 missiles, with a range of 14,500 km.

The report said mainland China is not expected to attack Taiwan with these long-range ballistic missiles, which are far more expensive than the M-9s. (By Sofia Wu) -------------------------------

As you can see, the Chinese don't have the missile strength needed for a credible attack and the Taiwanese are not defenseless.

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), March 17, 2000.

U.S.: No Sign China Readying to Attack Taiwan By Charles Aldinger

TOKYO (Reuters) - Defense Secretary William Cohen said on Friday he saw no signs that China was preparing to attack Taiwan but he warned Beijing that the use of force was not an acceptable way for the two rivals to settle their differences.

Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji on Wednesday warned the people of Taiwan, which China regards as a maverick province, that the Communist mainland might not give them a second chance if they voted for a pro- independence candidate in Saturday's presidential elections.

He repeated China's longstanding threat to use force to prevent Taiwan from breaking away.

``We do not see any evidence of preparation for attack, any imminent attack. What we do see is a war of words,'' Cohen said in response to a question at a news conference at the end of his three-day visit to Japan.

``They appear to be trying to affect the outcome of the election with a show of words.''

In the past, China had attempted to affect the outcome of Taiwanese elections by a show of force and the fact that now they were limiting themselves to verbal pressure ``showed there has been some progress,'' he said.

Cohen added that he did not think the voters of democratic Taiwan would be affected by cross-strait pressure from Beijing.

He reiterated U.S. warnings to China against using military force and said the United States does not support independence for Taiwan and urges peaceful settlement of the issue.

Increases in China's military forces facing Taiwan ``will only serve to increase pressure'' in the U.S. Congress to sell more defensive arms to Taiwan, said Cohen, on the third leg of a swing through Asia that takes him to South Korea later on Friday.

The United States sells defensive arms to Taiwan under the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act but China has accused it of failing to honor a pledge to reduce the volume of sales.

Asked if Washington would go beyond arms sales to defend Taiwan, Cohen said: ``Our obligation is to provide for the defense needs of Taiwan. What form and fashion that takes remains to be seen.''

Fears about possible Chinese military action against Taiwan were fuelled on February 21 by a government document saying, for the first time, that Beijing might use force if Taiwan dragged its heels indefinitely on reunification with the mainland.

The United States, angered by blunt Chinese threats against Taiwan as it prepares to elect a new president, called in Ambassador Li Zhaoxing on Thursday in Washington to urge Beijing to tone down its rhetoric.

But State Department spokesman James Rubin was careful with his comments, which looked forward to hopes of resolving longstanding differences with Beijing.

``In general we don't think statements of the kind that were mentioned are helpful,'' he said of Zhu's comments. ``Instead, we want to see statements that foster dialogue and make it more likely to resolve this issue peacefully

-- RickJohn (rickjohn1@yahoo.com), March 17, 2000.

So Boo, Who won the war?

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), July 24, 2000.