CHINA THREATEN NEUTRON BOMB ATTACK ON TAIWAN; NUKE SHOWDOWN WITH USAgreenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread |
XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX MON MARCH 20 2000 18:59:07 ET XXXXXCHINA THREATEN NEUTRON BOMB ATTACK ON TAIWAN; NUKE SHOWDOWN WITH USA
A Chinese military newspaper on Tuesday lays out in chilling new detail how China could conquer Taiwan -- by force.
MORE
Beijing's tactics, according to the Haowangjiao Weekly, which is sponsored by the People's Liberation Army, might include a "neutron bomb attack on Taiwan and a nuclear showdown with the United States."
KNIGHT RIDDER circuits are first with details of the Chinese paper's manifesto.
"The United States will not sacrifice 200 million Americans for 20 million Taiwanese,'' predicted one of the articles in a 16-page special issue of Haowangjiao.
The Chinese army publication's "Taiwan special edition" sold briskly at newsstands throughout Beijing, reports KNIGHT RIDDER's Michael Dorgan.
The publication describes in detail how "China has developed new, multiple-warhead long-range missiles" and how China could attack "U.S. satellites and military bases in the Pacific."
"If that was insufficient, the article said, China would fire a nuclear warning shot in the Taiwan Strait and threaten the United States with a nuclear attack if it did not withdraw."
-- Here ya go Jim (@ .), March 20, 2000
They were on cspan2 this evening everyone seemed to down play what is going on. A chinese lady said it was China first and would always be.
-- ET (bneville@zebra.net), March 20, 2000.
Assuming that I must the Jim....First, do you believe a newspaper sponsored by the PLA is reporting the truth? There is zero independent verification of China having a neutron bomb. If you can find some, other than a PLA newspaper, please share it with us.
I've already posted the Chinese missile strength. None of their missiles have MIRV capability, according to all the reliable sources I've seen. Again, if you have a reliable source I haven't seen, I'd like to see it.
Lastly, do you think any public Army publication would describe in detail what is supposedly secret?
The Chinese are doing what's expected in a propaganda war - make themselves as big and bad as possible.
-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), March 20, 2000.
Jim C.,In the U.S., China's not so tough at present due to distance, but if you were in Taiwan, their threats would carry more weight. Remember, China has over 1 BILLION people compared to Taiwan's 20 million. Not exactly a draw if it comes to a fight, even without the threat of nukes.
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), March 20, 2000.
I'm glad you brought this up Jim. I'm not sure who the PLA is/are, but I've been wondering about this "Drudge Report" publication for quite some time. Whenever I've seen their stories quoted on this forum, they always seem to intentionally paint a very dark and exaggerated picture of whatever subject they are discussing. It is never quite to the extreme of a WorldNetDaily or a Y2kNewswire, but it treads very close to crossing into that tabloid territory.Can anybody vouch for how legit/illegit this Drudge Report really is?
Thanks,
-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), March 20, 2000.
CD:The PLA is the People's Liberation Army, AKA The Chinese Army. The newspaper refered to in the Drudge Report is published by the PLA. News Max may not be reliable but it's got the PLA beat by a country mile.
-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), March 21, 2000.
Frank,Yep, I'd certainly be more concerned about China's intentions if I lived in Taiwan. I assume that the Taiwanese are concerned as well since their armed forces are on alert and they have been conducting civil defense drills. None of what I've posted says an attack is impossible, only that the difficulties make it unlikely. The population of China compared to Taiwan remains irrelevant. Unless the PLA can don water wings and start swimming, they still have to get enough ships and logistics to get their troops to Taiwan and they don't have that capability now.
-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), March 21, 2000.
Jim...If I may add my 2" here.Chris Ruddy started NewsMax around the same time as Matt Drudge started the DrudgeReport. Both guys are cut from the same cloth. Ruddy published and lectured on the Vince Foster and Ron Brown murders while Matt Drudge focused upon Whitewater, Rose Law Firm, Mina Arkansas, drugs, Monica, and sex in the White House. They are both good friends with Lucianne Goldburg, George Putnam, Larry Klayman, Larry Nichols, and share sources, beers, and probably, never mind...
I think the only thing that is different about them is that NewsMax has a better webmaster than Drudge, otherwise the info and sources of that info is a wash...
I like them both equally as they are conservative in their spin...
-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), March 21, 2000.
Uncle Bob:Man, I thought George Putnam was dead! I used to watch him in LA in 60's and thought he was old then :^) Do you remember Joe Pyne - now, there was a conservative.
Drudge, News Max, et al are all interesting as you long as you don't take anything they write too seriously. Drudge has stated many times that getting the story first is far more important than getting it right. And scary and first is even better.
Thanks for the info on "the boys".
-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), March 21, 2000.
Just for fun, here is the match up..... with out the US......http://www.emeraldesigns.com/matchup/military.shtml
Enjoy......
-- Netghost (ng@no.yr), March 21, 2000.
ABC News Australia: Taiwan military back on standby after large troop movements reportedThe military in Taiwan has been ordered back onto a state of "heightened alertness", as reports filter in from China of large troop movements.
The turnaround comes less than 24 hours after the status was lifted.
It had been in effect during the weekend's presidential election, which was staged under war threats from China.
A Hong Kong newspaper is reporting that the Chinese Defence Minister has arrived in the south-eastern coastal province of Fujian, facing Taiwan, to inspect a mass assembly of armed forces.
The independent Chinese-language Apple Daily, citing unnamed sources, says patients are being moved from military hospital beds and has described the army assembly as the largest since the 1960s Cultural Revolution.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newslink/nat/newsnat-21mar2000-57.htm
-- Carl Jenkins (Somewherepress@aol.com), March 21, 2000.
Jim,I would agree that by *U.S. standards* they would have trouble mobilizing an army to Taiwan, but by Chinese standards? The same China that sent untrained, barely armed troops to Korea could very well load up their borrowed gravel boats and everything else that floats like slaveships with "troops" and send them over. The nightmare of just *feeding* all the POWs would be a disaster by itself for Taiwan even without any other invasion. Add to that some strategic or not-so-strategic bombing to decrease Chinese losses en route and, well, my money would still be on China.
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), March 21, 2000.
Jim...Putnam has a radio talk show (Ruddy and Drudge are regular guests) from noon till 2pm pacific time on 870KIEV.COM. I think he's 83 years old now and still lives in Chino, Ca.
-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), March 21, 2000.
Frank:Have you ever seen the straits. There would be no POW's because none would survive. I am suprised that the "old chestnut" about population size and war capibilities still has a life, anywhere!
Best wishes,,,,
-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), March 21, 2000.
Frank,You're assuming that all those vessels of whatever type would be making an unopposed crossing of 90 miles of open ocean. Taiwan has 600 combat aircraft, mostly housed in hardened shelters, and an effective navy that presumably won't be on leave the day an invasion begins. The Chinese would still have to contend with the Taiwanese Army to make a landing. I don't know if you mean Taiwanese or Chinese POW's but if it's Chinese then there won't be many POW's take care of since most of them will be at the bottom of the sea.
-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), March 21, 2000.
we need to get the Taiwan point of view about the reality of the threat rather than speculating, they should know, any Taiwanese websites?
-- richard (ohsirrichard@aol.com), March 21, 2000.
Richard,
Here you go...
Taiwan Headlines
Taipei Times
Central News Agency
-- Possible Impact (posim@hotmail.com), March 21, 2000.
thanks
-- richard (ohsirrichard@aol.com), March 22, 2000.
Taiwanese don't seem too worried:
Editorial: Chen has dealt with China
Since Saturday's election of Chen Shui-bian (3/$t+s) to the presidency, a number of prominent analysts have held forth about what the president-elect has to do to make some kind of dubious "breakthrough" in relations with China. Given Chen's radical pro-independence background, there was a natural concern for some kind of reassurance that he was not going to do anything to provoke China's thuggery. This he has done.
Chen has offered talks with a completely open agenda -- even "one China" can be discussed -- but with two quite straightforward conditions: talks must be on an equal basis and "one China" cannot be a principle that Taiwan must accept before talks can be held. Since acknowledgement of the "one China" principle, as Beijing formulates it (there is only one China, which is the PRC, of which Taiwan is a part) amounts to Taiwan's surrender, it is obviously unrealistic to expect Taiwan to enter talks if this is the price of admission.
China's reaction was predictable: it insisted that its "one China" principle is a pre-condition of any talks and that's that.
This standoff prompts a number of comments. First, it is identical to the situation under President Lee Teng-hui ('u5n=w) since 1995. And as Lee himself has been known to point out, five years without talks hasn't done Taiwan any noticeable harm.
Second, China's demands are utterly unreasonable and everyone with Taiwan's interests in mind should be trying to help Beijing's leaders realize this. Taiwan has not been beaten in war. As a result, it is simply not going to negotiate what amounts to surrender terms.
There is a footnote to add here. The "one China" policy originated in the unfinished business of the Chinese civil war, in which each side of the Taiwan Strait claimed to be the "real" China. This is the "agree[ment] that there is only one China" mentioned in the Shanghai Communique. But now the civil war is over. It ended Saturday with one of the two contestants falling from power. But it was the DPP who finally beat the KMT, and in the DPP's view of the world, what "China" is, or means, is open to discussion. To hold the DPP to a formula dating from events largely concluded 37 years before the party's founding is ridiculous.
But instead of telling Beijing to get real, many political commentators are trying to persuade Taiwan to be even more accommodating. Chen is being advised to ditch the "two states" policy, so antagonizing to Beijing, notwithstanding that "two states" is the reality that Beijing should just learn to accept. He is being told not to ditch the Guidelines for National Unification or change the name of the Mainland Affairs Council, which China might see as provocative, notwithstanding that the Guidelines are a KMT policy to which Chen owes no allegiance.
It has even been suggested that Chen cozy up to Beijing with some nonsense about "one Chinese culture," showing a lack of awareness -- or perhaps acceptance -- that the ancien regime is dead and its intellectual underpinnings with it.
Perhaps most importantly, it is simply wrong to think that cross- strait issues must be the most important item on Chen's agenda. The president-elect has made his play for talks with China, they have been rebuffed and that's the end of that -- for a while. There are far more urgent matters requiring Chen's attention, such as domestic political reform -- including the legal management of the dissolution of the KMT's business empire, building a Cabinet that can work with the legislature, and creating a modus vivendi with a civil service stuffed as it is with KMT cadres. These are huge tasks that will occupy the first year and probably more of Chen's presidency. Cross- strait issues can take a back seat.
This story has been viewed 397 times.
-- richard (ohsirrichard@aol.com), March 22, 2000.