U.S. Helping Taiwan Improve Defense - Paper
Thu October 30, 2003 02:00 AM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. military representatives are currently involved in dozens of programs in Taiwan aimed at improving the island's ability to guard against China, The Washington Post reported on Thursday.

U.S. officers are advising Taiwan's military at all levels in what U.S. and Taiwanese officials acknowledged is a major departure from long-standing U.S. policy limiting military relations with Taiwan to avoid a confrontation with China.

The U.S. military is involved in both classroom seminars and training in the field and the two militaries have established a communications hotline for emergencies.

Hundreds of Taiwanese military personnel are being trained and educated in the United States.

Officials described the effort as a crash course intended to help Taiwan keep up with China's rapid military modernization and to avoid being bullied by Beijing if bilateral talks resume.

Again citing U.S. and Taiwanese officials, the newspaper reported that the ambitious U.S. plan was foundering because Taiwan's leaders were reluctant to foot the enormous bill and force change on the island's highly politicized and conservative military.

Chinese nationalists fled to Taiwan in 1950 when the Communists took control of the mainland and have since established a flourishing free-market democracy on the island. But the Communists in Beijing consider Taiwan a renegade province and have vowed to reunify the country, by force if necessary.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whilst i'm all for Taiwan staying independent as is her will (I'm half Taiwanese myself and have many close relatives there still) i'm dubious as to why the US Suddenly seems to want to help Taiwan become strong enough to stand up to China to some degree (Apart from the huge bills they are chucking at Taiwan).

I guess given that China is now rising quite quickly on the world scene America is looking to secure an *sic* ally of some form that can give China something to think about whilst America does whatever it is America will do?

Or is this just a case of:

A) America being a Philanthrapist (spelling?)
B) America sensing a quick buck in selling some training to Taiwan to make them feel more secure Vis a vis China?

The US has been defending Taiwan since the 1950's, for instance the US gave the Taiwanese protection against Mao:

Protection against Mao (http://globalsecurity.org/military/ops/quemoy_matsu.htm)

The Formosa Resolution passed both houses of Congress on 29 January 1955. The Resolution pledged the US to the defense of Taiwan, authorizing the president to employ American forces to defend Formosa and the Pescadores Island against armed attack, including such other territories as appropriate to defend them

---

And the following day President Eisenhower publicly stated that "A-bombs can be used...as you would use a bullet." These public statements sparked an international uproar, and NATO foreign ministers opposed atomic attack on China. Nonetheless, on 25 March 1955 US Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Robert B. Carney stated that the president is planning "to destroy Red China's military potential," predicting war by mid-April.

For the US they represent a China that they would want to see. The Chinese have offered Taiwan a "one state - two party" *don't quote* solution, that the Taiwanese have been rejecting. The Us officially didn' recgonize Taiwan as China in I believe 1979 and from there the US had stopped militarisitc support. The US began to support taiwan again in the 90's when they gave them F-16's. The Taiwanese are getting A lot of US arms and even US funded arms (because the US dosen't produce what Taiwan needs, priniciply the Dissel class subs.) But the US has refused to give the Taiwanese their most wanted weapon, the Aegis class ships. The question that must be asked "is America wiling to have LA nuked, for Taiwan?"

Originally posted by nico
The question that must be asked "is America wiling to have LA nuked, for Taiwan?" Not even a question. What evidence do you have that China would consider using a nuclear weapon? Do you believe that Chinese leaders haven't considered the retaliatory strike they would suffer - even if non-nuclear? China has virtually no deepwater navy so it's capacity to project power to other continents is very limited. As a result, they would be reduced to defending their own territory. This makes for a siege, in essence, and not a pleasant position to be in during war.

The real question is about economic potential. China is no lightweight due to sheer size mostly, but they will remain outside the greater powers due to cultural and economic disparities. If you've ever been to HK or Taiwan, you'll see how truly compatible capitalism is with Chinese culture. Unleash that in the PRC, throw in a dollop of political reform, and you've got a country that could easy rival any in the west in a generation. If China continues to Westernize its economic policy, improves technology, etc., there's no question it'll be a major player on the world stage if only because it's a gigantic market (the biggest one out there) and it's just now opening up to all the people who'd like to sell.

:m: Peace.

Ahh didn't realise the US had been giving millitary support to Formosa (Taiwan) for that length of time, my bad, being too lazy to check my history i guess, my apologies ^_^.

I thought the anouncment that they were providing (or trying to apparently) training and or equipment to Taiwan at this point of time was slightly coincidental with China's recently renewed comments towards Formosa/Taiwan and here up coming on the world scene.

Not even a question. What evidence do you have that China would consider using a nuclear weapon?

Beijing's military strategists argued that the first-use of nuclear weapons on Chinese territory would not have violated its NFU pledge. Similarly, Johnston unearths evidence in Chinese military writings that loosely interprets the NFU pledge to possibly advocate launch-on-warning or launch-under-early-attack policies

---

Like Russia, China seeks to decouple the United States from its allies in the region, especially Japan and South Korea, by using the threat of theater nuclear weapons[. In recent years, this threat has become particularly important in a Sino-US conflict over Taiwan, which could escalate to the point that it threatens to split the US-Japan defense alliance.



Albeit that China has a No first use policy, China considers Taiwan part of China and thus not in violation of the NFU, thus if China were attack Taiwan with a nuke (which is very easy to do), the US would in my estimation attack China as well... do we disagree? And thus China is defense would attack against the US. It is a very likely scenario.

Do you believe that Chinese leaders haven't considered the retaliatory strike they would suffer - even if non-nuclear?

Have American leaders considered the breadth of Chinese military power now... with the massive modernization of the Chinese armed forces? Man you thought NK was bad...

China has virtually no deepwater navy so it's capacity to project power to other continents is very limited

What does a Blue navy have to do with it really? China has a green water I believe navy at this point, her amphibious landing capabilities are quite weak but China is starting to develop some Aegis class ships! I would fathom the closet China would invade Taiwan would after the naval modernization program is well underway, or sufficient enough to secure the Formosa Straight it really doesn’t matter if a carrier is near Guam does it Goofy?

. As a result, they would be reduced to defending their own territory.

Are you saying that the US would actually invade China? :bugeye:

Originally posted by nico
… if China were attack Taiwan with a nuke (which is very easy to do), the US would in my estimation attack China as well... do we disagree?Absolutely.

Additionally, you are changing the nature of our discussion. You originally asked “is America wiling to have LA nuked, for Taiwan?" This would be an act of aggression, not defense. As you asked Spyke in another thread, I now ask you: can you substantiate the threat that China would use nuclear weapons by independent sources?Have American leaders considered the breadth of Chinese military power now... with the massive modernization of the Chinese armed forces? Even if the Chinese started tomorrow with a massive naval build up, it would be decades before the US would have to take notice. The Chinese having more ships doesn't equate to having a better navy than the US by any stretch. The US isn't about having more... it’s about having better. We've seen over and over again that having more of something (tanks, soldiers, planes, ships, etc) doesn't equate to victory...it just gives a super high tech enemy more targets to kill, unfortunately. How long do you suppose it will take the Chinese to get to the level of technology that the US has today? And when they get there, where do you suppose the US will be by then? The US is constantly innovating its technology, making it more deadly every day. They are constantly revising their tactics, they are constantly training their military (training being the key, when coupled with super high technology).

Currently the US annual military budget, is around $400 billion. China is spending around $47.0 billion. In order for the Chinese to even BEGIN to close the gap, they would first have to increase their military budget by approximately $ 350 billion dollars annually. And all THAT would do for them would be to maintain their current gap with the US. In order to CLOSE the gap, they'd have to spend MORE than the US annually. Their current economy could not support that spending.

Besides which, why does everyone suppose the China would want to square off against the US anyway? If China is to become this superpower surmised by many people, it will have to do it economically. To do so, it will have to open up its markets, change/reform its government radically, and open up its citizens fully to the information age. With a new more open government in place, why would China need to have a military comparable to the US, who will, most likely, be its biggest trading partner!

It makes no sense to me that a reformed and free China would want or need to have a massive military on the order of the US military. To what end would they want to spend the kind of money it would take just to catch up to where we are today in 10 or 20 years?? I could see it if they remain with their present government, but if they do so, they have zero chance of becoming either a superpower OR a real military rival to the US.Are you saying that the US would actually invade China?As a counter attack? Most certainly.

:m: Peace.

Additionally, you are changing the nature of our discussion. You originally asked “is America wiling to have LA nuked, for Taiwan?"

And the question re-mains, Taiwan is attacked with a nuclear weapon in response the Americans attack China, and they attack LA. The question is valid, since Taiwan is under the US nuke umbrella we can safely assume that China would attack LA.

This would be an act of aggression, not defense.

Attacking LA would be a reciprocal attack.. I never said defense or offensive in nature, did I?

can you substantiate the threat that China would use nuclear weapons by independent sources?

I already did.

Even if the Chinese started tomorrow with a massive naval build up,

How about... 15 years ago.

it would be decades before the US would have to take notice.

The US is taking a sharp eye on the modernization of the Chinese navla forces.

The Chinese having more ships doesn't equate to having a better navy than the US by any stretch.

It all depends on which playing field you are talking about out in the ocean ,there is no doubt who would win, and even in the straights themselves it would be US dominated battle, but when China invades Taiwan when she has achieved some form of naval offensiveness the Straight could very much be a issue. I think your stuck in the good ole North Sea days of the Cold war.

We've seen over and over again that having more of something (tanks, soldiers, planes, ships, etc) doesn't equate to victory

That doesn't your right.

it just gives a super high tech enemy more targets to kill, unfortunately.

Hey I could have a huge mainframe computer, but the person is not trained to do it, it's shit. Do we disagree. What makes the difference in war is soldier training, and agility to adapt.

The US is constantly innovating its technology, making it more deadly every day.

I deny this? I am un-aware of this?

China is spending around $47.0 billion

$63 billion

In order for the Chinese to even BEGIN to close the gap, they would first have to increase their military budget by approximately $ 350 billion dollars annually.

Not necessarily remember that large portions of that defense expenditure is wages and stuff for the soldiers, China already has that down. So really China would need to boost from ^65 billion to what? $250 billion, by which 2015 China could easily do.

And all THAT would do for them would be to maintain their current gap with the US. In order to CLOSE the gap, they'd have to spend MORE than the US annually.

Wrong, they just have to beat the US levels of R&D (in which Russia already helps out with), and procurement.

Besides which, why does everyone suppose the China would want to square off against the US anyway?

It's only natural for the two hegemons to come on a collision course. Taiwan is why, either the US pulls it's support for Taiwan or China gives up on Taiwan. Do you see these things happening? I don't

If China is to become this superpower surmised by many people, it will have to do it economically.

CONSERVATIVE! estimations put China's economy at about $24 trillion by 2020 or so, and by 2007-2015 China's GDP will surpass that of the US.

With a new more open government in place,

And why? Why do westerners insist on China adopting western practices... sounds like a Bush thought "freedom" :rolleyes: Let's avoid the western centrism please.

It makes no sense to me that a reformed and free China would want or need to have a massive military on the order of the US military.

Now ur talking in fantasy land seriously. What are you talking about Free China?

I could see it if they remain with their present government, but if they do so, they have zero chance of becoming either a superpower OR a real military rival to the US.

Right... quite the opposite, quite the opposite. If they had your "freedom" they wouldn't be militarily as strong as the US because they would have to deal with protests from political groups (iew lobbyists). No the PRC is the best thing that could have happened to China, it brought stability and growth to China that was never experienced in Chinese history.

As a counter attack? Most certainly.


LMFAO... invasion of CHINA!!! OMG I AM DYING HERE!

We can counter back and forth regarding GDP and military strength and never come to an agreement. My point in the beginning was merely that throwing “is America willing to take a nuke” into a discussion when there is absolutely no reason to assume this would happen merely serves to sensationalize. It is speculating on a supposition, and not really worthwhile, IMHO.

Do you work for Fox News? ;)

:m: Peace.

The current U.S. policy on the defense of Taiwan is called strategic ambiguity. This policy means that the United States is committed to the defense of Taiwan under the TRA. The United States has never, however, specified the precise conditions under which it will aid Taiwan during a conflict or the scope of that assistance, which might range from increased arms sales to full U.S. military intervention. This policy is intended to deter China from attacking Taiwan and to deter Taiwan from declaring independence in the expectation that the United States would come to its defense. If a conflict over Taiwan erupted and U.S. forces intervened in the fighting, there is a limited possibility the situation could escalate to the use or threatened use of nuclear weapons. Chinese analysts claim that no Chinese leader could remain in power if he lost Taiwan. Given massive U.S. conventional superiority over Chinese forces, China might threaten the United States with the use of nuclear weapons if it risked defeat during a conflict and faced the prospect of losing Taiwan permanently. Unofficial statements by Chinese military officials and civilian analysts suggest that Chinese strategists have considered such a possibility. This scenario is a worst-case assessment, however. It is not likely that the United States or China would allow the conflict to escalate to that level.


Are we done?

The current U.S. policy on the defense of Taiwan is called strategic ambiguity. This policy means that the United States is committed to the defense of Taiwan under the TRA. The United States has never, however, specified the precise conditions under which it will aid Taiwan during a conflict or the scope of that assistance, which might range from increased arms sales to full U.S. military intervention. This policy is intended to deter China from attacking Taiwan and to deter Taiwan from declaring independence in the expectation that the United States would come to its defense. If a conflict over Taiwan erupted and U.S. forces intervened in the fighting, there is a limited possibility the situation could escalate to the use or threatened use of nuclear weapons. Chinese analysts claim that no Chinese leader could remain in power if he lost Taiwan. Given massive U.S. conventional superiority over Chinese forces, China might threaten the United States with the use of nuclear weapons if it risked defeat during a conflict and faced the prospect of losing Taiwan permanently. Unofficial statements by Chinese military officials and civilian analysts suggest that Chinese strategists have considered such a possibility. This scenario is a worst-case assessment, however. It is not likely that the United States or China would allow the conflict to escalate to that level.I know I am.

:m: Peace.

It is not likely that the United States or China would allow the conflict to escalate to that level.

But it is a possiblity, and my question is still a very valid one. Care to answer?

Given massive U.S. conventional superiority over Chinese forces,

I denied this? Re-read what I wrote, China must develop her naval forces so they can have a effective offencive posture... I don't see why you are pointing this out?

:confused:

Originally posted by nico
But the US has refused to give the Taiwanese their most wanted weapon, the Aegis class ships.Unnecessary. Every time the Chinese get frisky and rattle their sabre, we send a carrier battle group through the Taiwan Strait. If the US feels like denying a Chinese presence at sea, we most certainly can do so. The Taiwanese focus on static defenses of their shorelines, and air defense - although neither is as important, given that the PLAN would never make it across the Strait alive.
The question that must be asked "is America wiling to have LA nuked, for Taiwan?" I visited your planet with a box of sandwiches and a telescope, and I was still unable to observe an Earth where such an event would transpire.

I was still unable to observe an Earth where such an event would transpire.

Well I agree with the assertion that it is going to be very rare if it does happen. But the question rests on China's willingness to nuke Taiwan, which is very possible. If Chinese forces are loosing China could use her nukes on Taiwan. Then what? Just because it most likely won't happen, doesn’t mean it won't. It's still a valid question; otherwise I don't know why China even has an ICBM capability.

If the US feels like denying a Chinese presence at sea, we most certainly can do so.

I agree... for now. Chinese forces now are woefully inadequate compared to US forces. But within the next 10 years the situation will be different, albeit China won't be able to go outside of the Strait, they would be able to mount a effective offence against Taiwanese and American forces. Now I think that American confidence would be shaken if China and NK invade their neighbors at the same time.

Unnecessary.

I don't think you know why Taiwan wants Aegis class ships. It's not really for the sea aspect of combat, what she wants it for is the ability to shot down Chinese DF-11's, and other cruise missiles, or Ballistic missiles.