China China's meritocracy: Selection and election of officials

McCool

Contributor
Messages
685
Reactions
1,907
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
They train everyday, China has the best training facilities and sufficient funds to have daily drills and exercises, 仗可以十年不打,兵不可以一日不练 is PLA 's principle, you can use youtube to see how hard they train under different terrains and conditions. Most countries don't have this luxury. Chinese PLA delegates also tops the world military Games in total medals and gold medals.
They are shit or not, who dares to try them?

Yup and those training facilities are commandeered by people the like of Mao Xinyu. :ROFLMAO:


China has only very recently uses realistic training in its curriculum.

But this is the fact, China's crack down on corruption in PLA lasted for several years, now PLA is a highly professional formidable force according to US and other foreign researches and studies. US conducts mock wars with China every year and they lost every one of them till now.

More like an artificial fact, yes it is a fact, but the modus operandi behind those arrest are artificial. You see, the military is a high society which ranks are revered, you just don't talk shit to your superiors.

If it is true that Liu Yuan acted the way he did, pointing fingers and goes on to threaten his superiors. That means Liu Yuan is confident enough that his actions will not be punished because there will be people behind him who will protect him.

In the context of the CCP, where cliques exist inside the party. This kinds of behavior by Liu Yuan makes sense, as he's part of a cliques (Xi Jinping clique) trying to get rid of other cliques.

We all know these anti corruption purge are actually intra clique rivalry, so yeah good luck PLA soldier getting led by princelings.
 

Viva_vietnamm

Contributor
Moderator
Vietnam Moderator
Messages
556
Reactions
2 454
Nation of residence
Vietnam
Nation of origin
Vietnam
China never intends to have a long term occupation , but US did.
Actually Mao wanna occupy the whole sub Mekong region but failed.

No surprise when many ASEAN nations hate CN.
--------------------------
I said [to the Chinese]: “Yes, yes! I will do that. I will only fight at the level of one platoon downwards.” After we had fought and China realized that we could fight efficiently, Mao suddenly had a new line of thinking. He said that as the Americans were fighting us, he would bring in [Chinese] troops to help us build roads. His essential aim was to find out about the situation in our country so that later he could strike us, and thereby expand into Southeast Asia. There was no other reason. We were aware of this matter, but had to allow it [the entry of Chinese troops]. But that was OK. They decided to send in their soldiers. I only asked that they send personnel, but these troops came with guns and ammunition. I also had to countenance this.

Later, he [Mao Zedong] forced us to permit 20,000 of his troops to come and build a road from Nghe Tinh into Nam Bo [the Vietnamese term for southern Vietnam]. I refused. They kept proposing, but I would not budge. They pressured me into permitting them to come, but I did not accept it. They kept on pressuring, but I did not agree. I provide you with these examples, comrades, so that you can see their long-standing plot to steal our country, and how wicked their plot is.


- After the Americans had introduced several hundred thousand troops into southern Vietnam, we launched a general offensive in 1968 to force them to de-escalate. In order to defeat the US, one had to know how to bring them to de-escalate gradually. That was our strategy. We were fighting a big enemy, one with a population of 200 million people and who dominated the world. If we could not bring them to de-escalate step-by- step, then we would have floundered and would have been unable to destroy the enemy. We had to fight to sap their will in order to force them to come to the negotiating table with us, yet without allowing them to introduce more troops.

When it came to the time when they wanted to negotiate with us, Ho Wei wrote a letter to us saying: “You cannot sit down to negotiate with the US. You must bring US troops into northern Vietnam to fight them.” He pressured us in this way, making us extremely puzzled. This was not at all a simple matter. It was very tiresome every time these situations arose [with the Chinese].

We decided that it could not be done that way [referring to Ho Wei's advice not to negotiate with the US]. We had to sit back down in Paris. We had to bring them [the US] to de-escalate in order to defeat them. During that time, China made the announcement [to the US]: “If you don’t attack me, I won’t attack you. However many troops you want to bring into Vietnam, it’s up to you.” China, of its own accord, did this and pressured us in this way.

They [the Chinese] vigorously traded with the Americans and compelled us to serve as a bargaining chip in this way. When the Americans realized that they had lost, they immediately used China [to facilitate] their withdrawal [from southern Vietnam]. Nixon and Kissinger went to China in order to discuss this matter.
- Before Nixon went to China, [the goal of his trip being] to solve the Vietnamese problem in such a way as to serve US interests and to lessen the US defeat, as well as to simultaneously allow him to entice China over to the US [side] even more, Zhou Enlai came to visit me. Zhou told me: “At this time, Nixon is coming to visit me principally to discuss the Vietnamese problem, thus I must come to meet you, comrade, in order to discuss [it with you].”

I answered: “Comrade, you can say whatever you like, but I still don’t follow. Comrade, you are Chinese; I am a Vietnamese. Vietnam is mine [my nation]; not yours at all. You have no right to speak [about Vietnam's affairs], and you have no right to discuss [them with the Americans]. Today, comrades, I will personally tell you something which I have not even told our Politburo, for, comrade, you have brought up a serious matter, and hence I must speak:
- In 1954, when we won victory at Dien Bien Phu, I was in Hau Nghia [province]. Bac [Uncle] Ho cabled to tell me that I had to go to southern Vietnam to regroup [the forces there] and to speak to the southern Vietnamese compatriots [about this matter]. I traveled by wagon to the south. Along the way, compatriots came out to greet me, for they thought we had won victory. It was so painful! Looking at my southern compatriots, I cried. Because after this [later], the US would come and massacre [the population] in a terrible way.

Upon reaching the south, I immediately cabled Bac Ho to ask to remain [in the south] and not to return to the north, so that I could fight for another ten years or more. [To Zhou Enlai]: “Comrade, you caused me hardship such as this [meaning Zhou's role in the division of Vietnam at Geneva in 1954]. Did you know that, comrade?”

Zhou Enlai said: “I apologize before you, comrade. I was wrong. I was wrong about that [meaning the division of Vietnam at Geneva].” After Nixon had already gone to China, he [Zhou Enlai] once again came to Vietnam in order to ask me about a number of problems concerning the fighting in southern Vietnam.
However, I immediately told Zhou Enlai: “Nixon has met with you already, comrade. Soon they [the US] will attack me even harder.” I am not at all afraid. Both sides [the US and China] had negotiated with each other in order to fight me harder. He [Zhou Enlai] did not as yet reject this [view] as unfounded, and only said that “I will send additional guns and ammunition to you comrades.”

Then he [Zhou Enlai] said [concerning fears of a secret US-Chinese plot]: “There was no such thing.” However, the two had discussed how to hit us harder, including B-52 bombing raids and the blocking of Haiphong [harbor]. This was clearly the case.


- If the Soviet Union and China had not been at odds with each other, then the US could not have struck us as fiercely as they did. As the two [powers of China and the Soviet Union] were in conflict, the Americans were unhampered [by united socialist bloc opposition]. Although Vietnam was able to have unity and solidarity both with China and the USSR, to achieve this was very complicated, for at that time we had to rely on China for many things. At that time, China annually provided assistance of 500,000 tons of foodstuffs, as well as guns, ammunition, money, not to mention dollar aid. The Soviet Union also helped in this way. If we could not do that [preserve unity and solidarity with China and the USSR], things would have been very dangerous. Every year I had to go to China twice to talk with them [the Chinese leadership] about [the course of events] in southern Vietnam. As for the Soviets, I did not say anything at all [about the situation in southern Vietnam]. I only spoke in general terms. When dealing with the Chinese, I had to say that both were fighting the US. Alone I went. I had to attend to this matter. I had to go there and talk with them many times in this way, with the main intention to build closer relations between the two sides [meaning Chinese and Vietnamese]. It was precisely at this time that China pressured us to move away from the USSR, forbidding us from going with the USSR’s [side] any longer.

They made it very tense. Deng Xiaoping, together with Kang Sheng, came and told me: “Comrade, I will assist you with several billion [presumably yuan] every year. You cannot accept anything from the Soviet Union.”

I could not allow this. I said:
“No, we must have solidarity and unity with the whole [socialist] camp.”

In 1963, when Khrushchev erred, [the Chinese] immediately issued a 25-point declaration and invited our Party to come and give our opinion. Brother Truong Chinh and I went together with a number of other brothers. In discussions, they [the Chinese] listened to us for ten or so points, but when it came to the point of “there is no abandonment of the socialist camp,” they did not listen…Deng Xiaoping said, “I am in charge of my own document. I seek your opinion but I do not accept this point of yours.”

Before we were to leave, Mao met with Brother Truong Chinh and myself. Mao sat down to chat with us, and in the end he announced: “Comrades, I would like you to know this. I will be president of 500 million land-hungry peasants, and I will bring an army to strike downwards into Southeast Asia.” Also seated there, Deng Xiaoping added: “It is mainly because the poor peasants are in such dire straits!”

Once we were outside, I told Brother Truong Chinh: “There you have it, the plot to take our country and Southeast Asia. It is clear now.” They dared to announce it in such a way. They thought we would not understand. It is true that not a minute goes by that they do not think of fighting Vietnam!

I will say more to you comrades so that you may see more of the military importance of this matter. Mao asked me:

In Laos, how many square kilometers [of land] are there?

I answered:
About 200,000 [sq. km.].

What is its population? [Mao asked]:

[I answered]: Around 3 million!

[Mao responded:] That’s not very much! I’ll bring my people there, indeed!

[Mao asked:] How many square kilometers [of land] are there in Thailand?.

[I responded]: About 500,000 [sq. km.].

And how many people? [Mao asked].

About 40 million! [I answered].

My God! [Mao said], Szechwan province of China has 500,000 sq. km., but has 90 million people. I’ll take some more of my people there, too [to Thailand]!

As for Vietnam, they did not dare to speak about moving in people this way. However, he [Mao] told me: “Comrade, isn’t it true that your people have fought and defeated the Yuan army?” I said: “Correct.” “Isn’t it also true, comrade, that you defeated the Qing army?” I said: “Correct.” He said: “And the Ming army as well?” I said: “Yes, and you too. I have beaten you as well. Did you know that?” I spoke with Mao Zedong in that way. He said: “Yes, yes!” He wanted to take Laos, all of Thailand – as well as wanting to take all of Southeast Asia. Bringing people to live there. It was complicated [to that point].


 

xizhimen

Experienced member
Messages
7,391
Reactions
384
Nation of residence
China
Nation of origin
China
In the context of the CCP, where cliques exist inside the party. This kinds of behavior by Liu Yuan makes sense, as he's part of a cliques (Xi Jinping clique) trying to get rid of other cliques.

We all know these anti corruption purge are actually intra clique rivalry, so yeah good luck PLA soldier getting led by princelings.
Some people do say this, but if you are totally free of corruption, you don't have to worry about it.
The taste of pudding is in the eating, US brags a lot, but it has no guts to take on China head on. They don't even has to guts to take on North Korea , North Korea keep provoking US with new nuclear tests and missile launches, US acts like a house cat though, they just can't afford to potentially mess with China.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

xizhimen

Experienced member
Messages
7,391
Reactions
384
Nation of residence
China
Nation of origin
China
If one likes to find out how competent Chinese military commanders are, check out what their civil counterparts achieved in economic development, they are hand in hand, getting the positions through the same selection procedures.
 

McCool

Contributor
Messages
685
Reactions
1,907
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
If one likes to find out how competent Chinese military commanders are, check out what their civil counterparts achieved in economic development, they are hand in hand, getting the positions through the same selection procedures.

Yes, I just figure out that another competent Chinese military leader. Maj. General Peng Liyuan rose up to the ranks by being a singer and wife of Xi Jinping

20111029-China.org%20xijinping%20wife%20pengliyuan.jpg


LAMAO

the PLA are full of these people :poop::poop::poop::poop::poop::poop::poop:
 

McCool

Contributor
Messages
685
Reactions
1,907
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Nobody understand this more than former Secdef James Mattis when he warned his Chinese counterpart Wei Fenghe.

Mattis continued: “Look if you want to fight, I’ll fight. I’ll fight anybody. I’ll fight frigging Canada, OK. But I’ve had enough of fighting. I’ve written enough letters to mothers. I don’t need to write any more. And you don’t need to write them, either.”

“I’ll just tell you,” Mattis said to Wei,
“the country I would most be willing to fight would be one whose entire officer corps had never heard a shot fired at them. War is so different from training that a shock wave will go through them. I’ve got – probably 80 per cent of my officers have been shot at in one form or another. But I’d prefer not to put them through another war.

 

xizhimen

Experienced member
Messages
7,391
Reactions
384
Nation of residence
China
Nation of origin
China
Yes, I just figure out that another competent Chinese military leader. Maj. General Peng Liyuan rose up to the ranks by being a singer and wife of Xi Jinping

20111029-China.org%20xijinping%20wife%20pengliyuan.jpg


LAMAO

the PLA are full of these people :poop::poop::poop::poop::poop::poop::poop:
You don't seem to know China has 文艺兵 and 体育兵, they are PLA art performance and sports troupes. If you really think this poorly of PLA, how about challenging them directly or ask your master US to do it? cheerleaders are wiilling, but the master is weak, lol..
 

xizhimen

Experienced member
Messages
7,391
Reactions
384
Nation of residence
China
Nation of origin
China
Yes, I just figure out that another competent Chinese military leader. Maj. General Peng Liyuan rose up to the ranks by being a singer and wife of Xi Jinping

20111029-China.org%20xijinping%20wife%20pengliyuan.jpg


LAMAO

the PLA are full of these people :poop::poop::poop::poop::poop::poop::poop:
I don't know if it is also true in Indonesia, but PLA is a very comprehensive entity in China, not everyone wearing PLA uniforms is assigned to fight, many high ranking PLA officials are scholars, researchers, engineers, doctors, actors, athletes, PLA has its own hospitals, universities, performance troupes, sports teams, sometime when you see Chinese athletes saluting to the Chinese flag in the awarding ceremonies after winning gold medals in international competitions, it means they are from PLA sports teams, they wear PLA uniforms and they have ranks, but they are not part of combat units, generals in these non combat units are just like department chiefs and university presidents.


Lin dan, long time world champion and Olympic champion in badminton, he is from PLA badminton team, rank Colonel, the guy with Lin dan in the 2nd photo is an actor, from PLA performance unit, rank major general
Img403006993.jpg

1152-fycnyhk7732795.png


Liu ming. a dancer from PLA performing unit, rank Major General
20070614113404.jpg

a0wvyx28377180217310.jpg


Only fools will think they are going to lead PLA troops to fight wars.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

xizhimen

Experienced member
Messages
7,391
Reactions
384
Nation of residence
China
Nation of origin
China
Russia and North Korea also have army performing troupes

North Korean army troupe sing Chinese volunteer army battle song
 

McCool

Contributor
Messages
685
Reactions
1,907
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
You don't seem to know China has 文艺兵 and 体育兵, they are PLA art performance and sports troupes. If you really think this poorly of PLA, how about challenging them directly or ask your master US to do it? cheerleaders are wiilling, but the master is weak, lol..
Actually I've been waiting for the PLA to make their move in Taiwan strait. Too bad the CCP knows that they cant rely on those men to face the US military. Especially not with people like Mao Xinyu offering his expertise as a high ranking Major general :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:

I don't know in what is it in Indonesia
China is in the league of Indonesia when it comes to nepotism meritocracy. YES.

But hey, I haven't seen any singer become a major general in the Indonesian military.
 

xizhimen

Experienced member
Messages
7,391
Reactions
384
Nation of residence
China
Nation of origin
China
Actually I've been waiting for the PLA to make their move in Taiwan strait. Too bad the CCP knows that they cant rely on those men to face the US military. Especially not with people like Mao Xinyu offering his expertise as a high ranking Major general :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
I guess you won't see it as long as Taiwan doesn't change its official name Republic of China, Xi reiterated what had been said many times by his predecessors, Chinese don't fight Chinese.
Facing US military? Do you really think they will come to fight for Taiwan? Even Taiwan people don't believe it how come Indonesians do?
 

xizhimen

Experienced member
Messages
7,391
Reactions
384
Nation of residence
China
Nation of origin
China
But hey, I haven't seen any singer become a major general in the Indonesian military.
I don't think PLA needs to copy Indonesia, a communist army is never short of courage to fight, be them Russians, Chinese, Vietnamese or Koreans.
 

xizhimen

Experienced member
Messages
7,391
Reactions
384
Nation of residence
China
Nation of origin
China
China now likely to call America’s bluff over Taiwan, chances for US to win are very low, US allies won't make much difference

HUGH WHITE
11:00PM NOVEMBER 21, 2021

The question no longer seems hypothetical. Last year the Prime Minister compared the dangers today to those of the late 1930s. This year Defence Minister Peter Dutton has repeatedly warned of the risk of war with China over Taiwan. Whether war breaks out is now, he has said, “a question for the Chinese”. If China attacks Taiwan, there seems little doubt – at least in Joe Biden’s mind – that America will go to war. If America goes to war, Dutton says he thinks it “inconceivable” that Australia would not follow. So it seems the decision is already made: if China attacks Taiwan, we will follow America to war with China.

One hopes our political leaders are taking this as seriously as they should. We are in an acute strategic crisis. They acknowledge that the risk of war between America and China over Taiwan is quite high, and they seem to understand that the implications for Australia are exceptionally grave. Why aren’t they doing more to try to reduce the risk?

The answer lies in a deeper understanding of the source of the current crisis, which lies much deeper than the Taiwan issue itself. The future of Taiwan, important though that is in itself, has become the focus of something much bigger – the strategic contest between America and China over which of them will be the primary strategic power in East Asia over the decades ahead. Last week’s virtual summit between presidents Xi Jinping and Biden did nothing to resolve this contest. Beijing wants to take control of Taiwan to assert its position as the leading power in East Asia, and America wants to assert its claims to that position by preventing Beijing from doing so. The one that backs down or loses over Taiwan will concede the contest for regional leadership.

China has ceased to accept America’s longstanding position as the primary power in Asia. It wants to push America out of the region and take its place. China is doing precisely what rising powers throughout history have done.

China’s ambitions raise big, and in some ways unprecedented, questions for Australia about the international setting in which we operate, and about what we can do to shape it. Since 1788 our place in the region has always been framed by the predominant power of our Anglo-Saxon allies – first Britain then America. For the first time now we face a future in which the region’s, and indeed the world’s, most powerful state is not Anglo-Saxon, and is not our ally. It is the biggest shift in Australia’s international setting since British settlement, and it makes new demands on our foreign and strategic policy making.

For as long as Australia has had a foreign policy, our first priority and primary focus has been to do whatever we can, in peace and war, to support the regional preponderance of our “great and powerful friends”. That has been, overall, rather successful for us in the past, and so today our political leaders – on both sides of politics – are seeking to take the same approach. Behind the talk of “the rules-based order” and “a free and open Indo-Pacific” is a simple, almost primal objective – to resist China’s growing power and ambition by encouraging and supporting Washington to defend and perpetuate its regional primacy. If necessary, it seems, by going to war with China.

Of course, no one in Canberra or Washington wants a war, or expects one. They hope and expect that the mere threat of war will make China back off. But China is playing the same game, hoping that its threats of war will make America back off. Both sides assume the other is bluffing. That is a dangerous assumption. Probably neither side is quite sure whether they themselves are bluffing or not, but in an escalating crisis countries often find it harder to admit that they have been bluffing than they expected, and decide that going to war is the less-bad option. Usually this turns out to be very wrong. This is how wars between great powers have often started in the past, when neither side wanted to fight.

So we in Australia would be unwise to join this game unless we are clear in our own minds whether we are bluffing or not. We need to ask ourselves whether going to war with China to defend the US-led order in Asia would be the right and prudent thing to do. And just to be clear, the question is not whether we prefer to live in a US-led order or a Chinese-led order. I think it is perfectly clear that we would and should prefer US leadership. But should we be willing to go to war with China for it?

There are different ways to approach this issue, but let’s start with the quintessential policymaker’s question: will it work? Can Australia secure a stable regional order conducive to our interests and values by going to war with China at America’s side? And the first step to answering that question is to ask what kind of war would it be and will we win it?

If it goes beyond a mere skirmish, a war between America and China over Taiwan would be the first between major powers since 1945, and the first between nuclear-armed states. It would be primarily a maritime war and, until quite recently, America would have been sure of a swift, cheap victory because maritime war is America’s forte. But in the past 25 years China has developed formidable air and naval capabilities specifically to counter US forces in the Western Pacific, so now the most likely outcome is a costly and inconclusive stalemate.

The scale of forces on both sides means it would swiftly become the biggest war since 1945. After a few days or weeks both sides would have lost a lot of ships and aircraft and suffered a lot of casualties, but neither side would have inflicted enough damage on the other to force it to concede. Both sides would then consider threatening to use nuclear weapons to break the stalemate, and no one could be sure whether or when those threats might be fulfilled. On balance one would have to say that the chances of the war going nuclear are quite high. The chances of America winning such a war are very low – and whether Australia, or even Japan, joins the fight makes very little difference.

That has two implications. First, going to war with China will not work to preserve US leadership in Asia; indeed, it will more likely destroy it. That means we in Australia cannot expect to preserve the regional order we’d prefer by going to war for it. Once war starts that order would probably be utterly destroyed.

Second, America’s dwindling chances of winning make its threats to fight less credible in Beijing, which makes it more likely that the Chinese will provoke a crisis to call America’s bluff. All this means that threatening war is not a prudent policy, and actually going to war would be a very big policy mistake. The cost of such a war, in both blood and treasure, would be almost unthinkably large. The costs of war would probably be far higher than the costs of living under a new Chinese-led regional order.

But what of our values? A Chinese-led order in Asia would put at risk fundamental moral precepts which many would argue should never be compromised at any cost. It is credible, for example, to argue that Taiwan’s robust democracy should not be subjugated to Beijing’s increasingly authoritarian rule under any circumstances. But those who see the question this way should be clear about the scale of the costs involved in acting on that basis. There is a mortal imperative to avoid war, and perhaps especially to avoid nuclear war, which must be balanced against the imperative to support democracy against authoritarianism. We have not yet begun seriously to debate the competing claims of these seemingly incompatible imperatives.

Australia today needs to start debating these questions, which are perhaps comparable to the challenge of climate change in their importance for our future, and may prove to be even more urgent. Things are moving fast, as the recent AUKUS decision shows, and events could force a once-and-for-all decision on our governments literally at any time.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/co...n/news-story/286511e9587c240c05901a6d1d504a8e
 

xizhimen

Experienced member
Messages
7,391
Reactions
384
Nation of residence
China
Nation of origin
China

xizhimen

Experienced member
Messages
7,391
Reactions
384
Nation of residence
China
Nation of origin
China
Why not ? their foe are led by no other than the great Mao Xinyu
Are you US military commander? can you convince US on this?

But what they believe is...
China now likely to call America’s bluff over Taiwan, chances for US to win are very low, US allies won't make much difference
 

xizhimen

Experienced member
Messages
7,391
Reactions
384
Nation of residence
China
Nation of origin
China
“We have immense power, but so do they”. Would US defend Taiwan militarily?
May 5, 2021

“We have immense power, but so do they”
War games simulating a US-China military conflict over Taiwan make two things perfectly clear: 1) The fight would be hell on earth, potentially leading to hundreds of thousands of casualties, and 2) the US might not win it.

Experts say the first thing Beijing would most likely do is launch cyberattacks against Taiwan’s financial systems and key infrastructure, possibly causing a water shortage. US satellites might also be targets since they can detect the launch of ballistic missiles.

Then China’s navy would probably set up a blockade to harass Taiwan’s fleet and keep food and supplies from getting to the island. Meanwhile, China would rain missiles down on Taipei and other key targets — like the offices of political leaders, and ports and airfields — and move its warplanes out of reach of Taiwan’s missile arsenal. Some experts believe Beijing would move its aircraft carrier out of Taiwan’s missile range since Chinese fighter jets could just take off from the mainland.



And then comes the invasion itself, which China wouldn’t be able to hide even if it wanted to. To be successful, Xi would have to send hundreds of thousands of troops across the Taiwan Strait for what would be a historic operation.

“The geography of an amphibious landing on Taiwan is so difficult that it would make a landing on Taiwan harder than the US landing on D-Day,” said Ross, the Boston College professor.

Many of Taiwan’s beaches aren’t wide enough to station a big force, with only about 14 beaches possibly hospitable for a landing of any kind. That’s a problem for China, as winning the war would require not only defeating a Taiwanese military of around 175,000 plus 1 million reservists, but also subduing a population of 24 million.

For these reasons, some experts say Taiwan — with US-sold weapons — could thus put up a good fight. China’s military (known as the People’s Liberation Army, or PLA) “clearly would have its hands full just dealing with Taiwan’s defenders,” Michael Beckley, a fellow at Harvard University, wrote in a 2017 paper.

Others agree. Sidharth Kaushal, a research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute in the UK, told CNN in 2019 that “the Taiwanese air force would have to sink around 40 percent of the amphibious landing forces of the PLA” — around 15 ships — “to render [China’s] mission infeasible.” That’s a complicated but not impossible task.

What’s more, the island’s forces have spent years digging tunnels and bunkers at the beaches where the Chinese might arrive, and they know the terrain better than the invaders do.

“Taiwan’s entire national defense strategy, including its war plans, are specifically targeted at defeating a PLA invasion,” Easton told CNN in 2019. In fact, in his book he wrote that invading Taiwan would be “the most difficult and bloody mission facing the Chinese military.”

Even so, most experts told me China would have a distinct advantage in a fight. It has 100 times more ground troops than Taiwan and spends 25 times more on its military. Even former top Taiwanese soldiers worry about the island’s defenses.

“From my perspective, we are really far behind what we need,” Lee Hsi-min, chief of the general staff of Taiwan’s military until 2019, told the Wall Street Journal in April. (It’s for this reason that Taiwan’s government consistently requests more weapons as laid out in the TRA.)

Because of China’s power, proximity to Taiwan, and Taiwan’s weaker forces, most analysts I spoke with say Beijing would come away with a victory. “It’s more or less impossible to stop. Taiwan is indefensible,” said Lyle Goldstein of the US Naval War College. “I think China could go tomorrow and they’d be successful.” When there’s just over 100 miles for a stronger nation to get across, “good luck to the small island,” he added.

This is why the question of America’s support in such a war is so big, and why a decision for Biden would be so weighty. Knowing all this, Biden — or any American president — would likely have to decide whether to intervene to keep Taiwan from losing.


That’s risky, because many believe the US might not succeed at fending off an invasion. China has advanced its missile arsenal to the point that it’d be difficult to send fighter jets and aircraft carriers near the war zone. US bases in the region, such as those in Japan hosting 50,000 American troops, would come under heavy fire. US allies and friends like Australia, South Korea, or even the Philippines could offer some support, but their appetite for large-scale war might not be so high.

It’s a troubling scenario — one in which thousands of Americans could die — that US defense and military officials see over and over again in simulations.

“You bring in lieutenant colonels and commanders, and you subject them for three or four days to this war game. They get their asses kicked, and they have a visceral reaction to it,” David Ochmanek of the Pentagon-funded RAND Corporation told NBC News in March. “You can see the learning happen.”

The best-case war game I found, reported on by Defense News in April, found that the US could stop a full invasion of Taiwan. But there’s a big catch: America would succeed only in confining Chinese troops to a corner of the island. In other words, Beijing would have still pulled off a partial takeover despite the US intervention.

That’s partly why Hagel, the former Pentagon chief, cautions against the US entering such a fight. “I was never sanguine, nor would I be today, about a showdown with the Chinese in that area,” he told me. “We have immense power, but so do they. This is their backyard.”

And, lest we forget, there’s little to no chance that a war over the island wouldn’t spill over to the rest of the world.

“I think it would broaden quickly and it would fundamentally trash the global economy in ways that I don’t think anyone can predict,” Kurt Campbell, Biden’s “Asia czar” in the White House, said on Tuesday.

What would Biden do?
Despite these dire predictions, some analysts I spoke to said the US would simply have no choice but to come to Taiwan’s defense. It might not be mandated by law — the US commitment is ambiguous, after all — but America’s reputation would take a major hit if it let China forcibly annex the island.

“How would other countries see the United States if we don’t come to Taiwan’s aid?” Glaser of the German Marshall Fund said. “We would lose all credibility as a leader and an ally,” especially if Washington didn’t act to support a fellow democracy.

There are some moves short of all-out war Biden could choose, said Schriver, who was also the top Pentagon official for Asia in the Trump administration and is now chair of Project 2049, an Asia-focused think tank.

The US could provide intelligence, surveillance, and logistics support to Taiwan; try to break China’s naval blockade of the island, assisting with logistics and supplies; and deploy its submarine force to augment Taiwan’s naval capabilities.

“It would be an aberration of history if we did nothing, and the PLA would make a mistake to assume that we will do nothing,” Schriver told me.


The US very well might do something, and the president may even be able to get congressional support for such a war given the strong bipartisan support for Taiwan.

Still, Biden would be the decider about whether or not to put US troops in harm’s way. The responsibility, at least for the next four years, lies with him — and no one is really sure what he’d do.

“Would the US come to Taiwan’s defense? The honest answer is that nobody knows,” said Abraham Denmark, a former top Pentagon official for Asia issues now at the Wilson Center think tank in Washington, DC. “It’s only up to one person. Unless you’re talking to that person, it’s never going to be clear. That’s been true since the late 1970s.”

Biden has a long record on Taiwan, but it’s as ambiguous as America’s Taiwan policy.

As a senator, he voted in favor of the Taiwan Relations Act, the law that establishes security cooperation between the US and Taiwan. But in 2001, Biden wrote a Washington Postopinion article arguing that the law doesn’t require the US to come to Taiwan’s defense. In fact, it left that matter ambiguous, he said.

“The act obliges the president to notify Congress in the event of any threat to the security of Taiwan, and stipulates that the president and Congress shall determine, in accordance with constitutional processes, an appropriate response by the United States,” Biden wrote. “The president should not cede to Taiwan, much less to China, the ability automatically to draw us into a war across the Taiwan Strait.”

Still, a senior Biden administration official told me there are many reasons to believe that America’s support for Taiwan remains ironclad.

“You hear the president consistently talk about how democracies deliver,” the official said. “Taiwan is a leading democracy in the region” and “an example of addressing the pandemic, the Covid crisis, in a way that is consistent with democratic values.”

There’s also an economic imperative: Taiwan is the world’s key manufacturer of semiconductors used in products, from tablets to cars to sex toys, that account for 12 percent of America’s GDP. If China were to usurp Taiwan, Beijing would have a firm grip on that supply chain and thus more influence on the future of the US and global economies.

So would a Biden administration come to Taiwan’s defense? Unsurprisingly, America’s stance on the issue remains ambiguous so far, which is why experts and officials in Taiwan remain on high alert.

“We have to hope for the best and prepare for the worst,” said the Taiwanese source close to the current administration, speaking about the general mood on the island. “That’s our basic philosophy.”

 

xizhimen

Experienced member
Messages
7,391
Reactions
384
Nation of residence
China
Nation of origin
China
Seems cheerleaders need to do a lot of persusion work to convince their master, lol..
 

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom