China getting uppity over Taiwan again... hardliner invokes the 'N' word

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/28cfe55a-f4...00e2511c8.html

Quote:

---

China ‘ready to use N-weapons against US’
By Alexandra Harney in Beijing
Published: July 14 2005 21:59 | Last updated: July 14 2005 21:59

China is prepared to use nuclear weapons against the US if it is attacked by Washington during a confrontation over Taiwan, according to a senior Chinese military official.

“If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons,” Zhu Chenghu, a major general in the People's Liberation Army, said at an official briefing.

Mr Zhu, who is also a professor at China's National Defence University, was speaking at a function for foreign journalists organised, in part, by the Chinese government. He added that China's definition of its territory includes warships and aircraft.

“If the Americans are determined to interfere [then] we will be determined to respond,” Mr Zhu said. “We Chinese will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all of the cities east of Xian. Of course the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds. . . of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese.” Mr Zhu is a self-acknowledged “hawk” who has warned previously that China could strike the US with long-range missiles. But his threat to use nuclear weapons in a conflict over Taiwan is the most specific by a senior Chinese official in nearly a decade.

Rick Fisher, a former senior US congressional official and an authority on the Chinese military, said the specific nature of the threat “is a new addition to China's public discourse”.

China's official doctrine has called for no first use of nuclear weapons since its first atomic test in 1964. But Mr Zhu is not the first Chinese official to refer to the possibility of using such weapons first in a conflict over Taiwan.

Chas Freeman, a former US assistant secretary of defence, said in 1999 that a PLA official had told him China could respond in kind to a nuclear strike by the US in the event of a conflict with Taiwan.

“In the end you care more about Los Angeles than you do about Taipei,” Mr Freeman quoted this official as saying. The official is believed to have been Xiong Guangkai, now the PLA's deputy chief of general staff.

The rationale for the new threats is unclear. China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs could not be reached for comment.

Mr Zhu, who has risen from the rank of colonel over the past five years, insisted he was expressing his personal views, and that they did not represent the policy of the Chinese government. Nor was he anticipating war between China and the US.

But he said that, because China did not have the capability to fight a conventional war against the US, the threat to escalate might be the only way to stop a war.

His comments could provide insight into the thinking among some in the PLA amid growing anxiety in Washington about its capabilities. Last month, Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, voiced concern about China's military build-up.


Additional reporting by Edward Alden in Washington

---

So now firing on 'sovereign territory' like ships and aircraft merits a nuclear response. It's one thing to bleed the US slowly in a 'low intensity' conflict like Vietnam, another thing entirely to threaten to huck a nuke towards one of our major cities because we don't care for their geopolitical interpretation of Taiwan's status. We may be on the slippery slope of decline into obsolesence and outright wussification but we're not there yet. If the cold war with China ever got hot via the use of nukes they'd fare a hell of alot worse than us. I guess they forgot the lesson Japan learned when they tried the same crap in the East and South East Pacific 60+ years ago.

Really so the Japanese had nukes to threaten FDR with? That's news to me. ~;)
Truth is China needs to threaten to use their nukes. Their amry while huge is mostly poorly trained conscripts. Their are maybe 400 or 500 thousand elire troops that are on a par with US forces. Forces that couldn't easily be replaced if depleted.

Still the smart thing for the PRC to do would get Krazy Kim and the Korean Kommie Klub to have a little party in Seoul. That way the US would be too preoccupied to say boo to who about anything they did in Taiwan. Rather than gesticulate with their missiles.

Shouldn't we judge just how much these comments are meant for internal consumption? I am by no means an expert on Chinese politics, but I can understand how the leaders would need to look tough in the face of international criticism in front of their own people.

Is someone merely trying to make political capital ?

Interesting that the reason the hawk states for the escalation is a surprising one:

Quote:

---

But he said that, because China did not have the capability to fight a conventional war against the US, the threat to escalate might be the only way to stop a war.

---

I always thought that a conventional defensive war on the mainland was a stalemate. I suppose the Chinese have figured out how bad their ships are when one of their best submarines was tracked in Japanese waters.

Quote:

---

“If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons,” Zhu Chenghu, a major general in the People's Liberation Army, said at an official briefing.

---

I would immediately bring in the Chinese ambassador and ask for what they are going to do with this loose cannon teaching at their Defence University. And then I would mention things like trade, trade and oh trade. Get rid of him and open up your markets or keep him and go down a few notches in preferred trading status.

Quote:

---

China is prepared to use nuclear weapons against the US if it is attacked by Washington during a confrontation over Taiwan, according to a senior Chinese military official.

---

They can try.. America has more cababilities in the field of nuclear offense and defense than she lets on.. ~;)

Realy ??

Forgive my ignorance - genuine question - what is nuclear defence ?

Quote:

---

Forgive my ignorance - genuine question - what is nuclear defence ?

---

Popping those puppies before they hit their intended targets.

Although new technology suggests that their internal mechanisms can be stopped, either while on the ground or in mid flight, so there wouldnt even be a detonation.

The US is always one step ahead of the technology it presents to the general public.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

Really so the Japanese had nukes to threaten FDR with? That's news to me.
Truth is China needs to threaten to use their nukes. Their amry while huge is mostly poorly trained conscripts. Their are maybe 400 or 500 thousand elire troops that are on a par with US forces. Forces that couldn't easily be replaced if depleted.

---

C'mon now. Japan flipped out when we imposed our oil embargo on them. They used it as an excuse to go berzerk in the Pacific and hit us as hard as they could.

True, China needs to play the nuclear card whenever they can but a 'trip wire' nuclear option isn't so cut and dry in this geopolitical scenario. NATO played that ace card during the Cold War when West Germany gave the US the green light to station quick response, medium range Pershing nuclear missiles on its territory. At least then NATO was fully justified because it wasn't rattling its saber about East Germany and Poland being oppressed under Soviet rule. As far as the Warsaw Pact was concerned, if they were geniunely serious about protecting their allies from invasion by capitalist pigs and were not the slightest bit interested in invading the west then there was no need to worry about those Pershing missiles. However China knows the world doesn't buy its bulls--t about Taiwan so they're trying everything possible to work the equation in their favor. Now that China's hardliners have declared their planes and ships as sovereign territory I'm waiting for them to declare that any US forces stationed in or around Taiwan as being an equally aggregious offense and and an act worthy of nukage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

I would immediately bring in the Chinese ambassador and ask for what they are going to do with this loose cannon teaching at their Defence University. And then I would mention things like trade, trade and oh trade. Get rid of him and open up your markets or keep him and go down a few notches in preferred trading status.

---

Exactly. We'll have to see how the Chinese government handles this rabble rouser. Although I have no doubt many saber rattling hardliners are exchanging high fives slapping each other on the backs after seeing this story break in the west.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spino

C'mon now. Japan flipped out when we imposed our oil embargo on them. They used it as an excuse to go berzerk in the Pacific and hit us as hard as they could.

---

Acrually you got it backwards. FDR was counting on the Japanese going to war with the US over the oil embargo. Their is very little I would put past FDR pulling to get the US into WW2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spino

True, China needs to play the nuclear card whenever they can but a 'trip wire' nuclear option isn't so cut and dry in this geopolitical scenario. NATO played that ace card during the Cold War when West Germany gave the US the green light to station quick response, medium range Pershing nuclear missiles on its territory. At least then NATO was fully justified because it wasn't rattling its saber about East Germany and Poland being oppressed under Soviet rule. As far as the Warsaw Pact was concerned, if they were geniunely serious about protecting their allies from invasion by capitalist pigs and were not the slightest bit interested in invading the west then there was no need to worry about those Pershing missiles. However China knows the world doesn't buy its bulls--t about Taiwan so they're trying everything possible to work the equation in their favor. Now that China's hardliners have declared their planes and ships as sovereign territory I'm waiting for them to declare that any US forces stationed in or around Taiwan as being an equally aggregious offense and and an act worthy of nukage.

---

You realize that the PRC and Taiwan are, like the Koreas, the remenant of an early cold war civil war? China is not full of shit claiming Taiwan is a rebellious province. The allies gave Formousa (Taiwan) to China after WW2, the fact that China split into a commie/crapitalist civil war was and is beside the point. The commies won we have to live with that. The nationalists ceased to speak for China when they were driven out of it. Taiwan belongs to China irregardless of what type of government it has.

Thats like saying the US belongs to the brits :furious3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

Taiwan belongs to China irregardless of what type of government it has.

---

Agreed. And the Sudetenland belonged to Germany as of 1933.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

Taiwan belongs to China irregardless of what type of government it has.

---

Actually it would work the other way round. KMT used to rule China and Taiwan. Communist China has never ruled Taiwan. Hence KMT has claim to China and Taiwan. The only 'justification' would be based on racial lines that all Chinese must be ruled by Communist China, which I'm sure Singapore would disagree with.

However KMT doesn't even rule Taiwan anymore. Taiwan is a fledgeling democracy now and has the a Green party President. He doesn't claim that China belongs to Taiwan or the other way round.

China is acting like a bully that is being denied someone elses toy. As such the bully should be put in its place. To give Taiwan to China would be the same as giving Yugoslavia to Nazi Germany. In fact it would be worse as this act of appeasement would be done justified not on morals but markets.

Agreed. Their claim over Taiwan is as feeble as it was over Tibet in the 40's.

You don't appease totaliterian regimes, you depose totaliterian regimes.

I actually started a thread along these lines simultaneously. Mine has a poll, but I think I've got the answers I expected/desired anyway, so if you want to merge the other thread in here, that probably makes sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roark

Agreed. Their claim over Taiwan is as feeble as it was over Tibet in the 40's.

---

50's, truth is I'm for China's annexation of Tibet. They brought some sembelance of the modern world to a backward hill kingdom. And before anyone says what I'm supporting I already know (in a fair ammount of detail, but feel free to enlighten me if you wish), and I don't care. The PRC is stong and willful enough to have Tibet and they are their fore entitled to it. Even if Tibet hadn't been taken over by China they probably would have had a communist uprising and be as bad off as outer Mongolia is now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Actually it would work the other way round. KMT used to rule China and Taiwan. Communist China has never ruled Taiwan. Hence KMT has claim to China and Taiwan. The only 'justification' would be based on racial lines that all Chinese must be ruled by Communist China, which I'm sure Singapore would disagree with.

However KMT doesn't even rule Taiwan anymore. Taiwan is a fledgeling democracy now and has the a Green party President. He doesn't claim that China belongs to Taiwan or the other way round.

China is acting like a bully that is being denied someone elses toy. As such the bully should be put in its place. To give Taiwan to China would be the same as giving Yugoslavia to Nazi Germany. In fact it would be worse as this act of appeasement would be done justified not on morals but markets.

---

See the genis of the PRC claim is that Taiwan was given to the Chinese state. When that mean't the KMT the world was willing and ready to go along with it. When that came to mean the PRC, suddenly their is a huge problem. In one instant it goes from Taiwan is part of China to no it's not your dirty godless commies you can't have it. so saying the PRC has no right to Taiwan is horse shit, their never having ruled doesn't enter into it. Taiwans leaders need to be served 3 scoops of reality flavored ice cream with wake and smell the coffe sprinkles. Their continued health and properity depends on the mood the PRC is in when they take over the place. They need to abandon all hope of independence and settle for Hong Kongs deal, it's the best they're going to get.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

50's, truth is I'm for China's annexation of Tibet. They brought some sembelance of the modern world to a backward hill kingdom. And before anyone says what I'm supporting I already know (in a fair ammount of detail, but feel free to enlighten me if you wish), and I don't care. The PRC is stong and willful enough to have Tibet and they are their fore entitled to it. Even if Tibet hadn't been taken over by China they probably would have had a communist uprising and be as bad off as outer Mongolia is now.




See the genis of the PRC claim is that Taiwan was given to the Chinese state. When that mean't the KMT the world was willing and ready to go along with it. When that came to mean the PRC, suddenly their is a huge problem. In one instant it goes from Taiwan is part of China to no it's not your dirty godless commies you can't have it. so saying the PRC has no right to Taiwan is horse shit, their never having ruled doesn't enter into it. Taiwans leaders need to be served 3 scoops of reality flavored ice cream with wake and smell the coffe sprinkles. Their continued health and properity depends on the mood the PRC is in when they take over the place. They need to abandon all hope of independence and settle for Hong Kongs deal, it's the best they're going to get.

---

One of the big reasons we're still there protecting Taiwan is they won't ever get Hong Kong's deal. From day 1, it was always going to be about punishing the Taiwanese for branching off in the first place. There ain't going to be no 'with Malice towards none' reunification, it's going to make Reconstruction look like a walk in the park in comparison. The Chinese (when they'll discuss it at all) are pretty clear on this. Some are in favor of it, some don't like it, but all agree, it will be hell on Earth in Taiwan when the PLA takes over. Look at what they did in Tibet, and Tibet wasn't even a rebellious province, they just resisted 'incorporation' too long. Taiwan's government is viewed as traitors, and any Taiwanese w/ half a brain & some cash should have a 'get off the island plan' when things start going South.

Oh, and by the way, the Chinese are pretty clear that in their minds, Mongolia is a province too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

50's, truth is I'm for China's annexation of Tibet. They brought some sembelance of the modern world to a backward hill kingdom. And before anyone says what I'm supporting I already know (in a fair ammount of detail, but feel free to enlighten me if you wish), and I don't care. The PRC is stong and willful enough to have Tibet and they are their fore entitled to it. Even if Tibet hadn't been taken over by China they probably would have had a communist uprising and be as bad off as outer Mongolia is now.

See the genis of the PRC claim is that Taiwan was given to the Chinese state. When that mean't the KMT the world was willing and ready to go along with it. When that came to mean the PRC, suddenly their is a huge problem. In one instant it goes from Taiwan is part of China to no it's not your dirty godless commies you can't have it. so saying the PRC has no right to Taiwan is horse shit, their never having ruled doesn't enter into it. Taiwans leaders need to be served 3 scoops of reality flavored ice cream with wake and smell the coffe sprinkles. Their continued health and properity depends on the mood the PRC is in when they take over the place. They need to abandon all hope of independence and settle for Hong Kongs deal, it's the best they're going to get.

---

Taiwan was part of Japan and then after WWII KMT acquired it. At no point has Communist China ruled Taiwan.

Your analogy with Tibet is very poor. As is the one with Hong Kong. Hong Kong was leased by Britain and it made a deal with Mainland China that it would have the right to democracy under the parent communist state. Communist China has reneged on those deals.

Maybe PRC should realise that its continued existence relies on it being a faithful trading partner to the west and that attempted invasions of democracies will not be tolerated with appeasement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Oh, and by the way, the Chinese are pretty clear that in their minds, Mongolia is a province too.

---

Ruling a place for 200 or 300 years will give you that attitude. I honestly think that the US trade deal is the only thing keeping PLA forces out of Mongolia. I can't and won't believe for one second that the PRC gives flying fork what the rest of the world thinks of what they do.

Well, they never ruled Indochina, and that's on their radar screen as well. They've never gotten over Vietnam invading & taking their guy out in Kampuchea. The Chinese people are great, friendly, warm and very industrious. But their government seems like it's from another planet. Incredibly expansionist, and it wouldn't surprise me to learn that they have a few plans for North America (and the rest of the globe for that matter).

Maybe as more & more business tycoons develop, they'll get enough pull to keep the party officials & generals in line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

50's, truth is I'm for China's annexation of Tibet. They brought some sembelance of the modern world to a backward hill kingdom. And before anyone says what I'm supporting I already know (in a fair ammount of detail, but feel free to enlighten me if you wish), and I don't care. The PRC is stong and willful enough to have Tibet and they are their fore entitled to it. Even if Tibet hadn't been taken over by China they probably would have had a communist uprising and be as bad off as outer Mongolia is now.

---

Wow...

I find that really... repellent.

1.25 million deaths. Many under torture.

Still, you're certainly entitled to your "might is right" opinion (as a white male who lives in a first-world country under zero threat of invasion).

I appreciate that you had the guts to speak your mind honestly about it, though...

Well, if you ever visit the Canal Zone in Panama, you'll notice that (literally) about nine in ten of the little restaurants and stores are owned and staffed by recent Chinese immigrants. And there are more coming all the time. I haven't done the research, but I do not believe this is a coincidence.

If you ask me, China is not too likely to take over anything by overt force. They threaten force with Taiwan, the idea being that in ten or twenty years they'll get it peacefully (I find this pretty likely).

Their policy of putting peasants into the towns and cities near the Panama Canal, though to our orthodox thinking it seems baffling, seems to me a perfect way to have an ethnic and economic claim to the area if it should they ever feel a need to "intervene", say, 20 or 30 years down the road.

I say the PRC is patient, and takes Sun Tzu's principles on soft-touch victory literally. Just look how they bribed WJC.

DA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Well, they never ruled Indochina, and that's on their radar screen as well. They've never gotten over Vietnam invading & taking their guy out in Kampuchea. The Chinese people are great, friendly, warm and very industrious. But their government seems like it's from another planet. Incredibly expansionist, and it wouldn't surprise me to learn that they have a few plans for North America (and the rest of the globe for that matter).

Maybe as more & more business tycoons develop, they'll get enough pull to keep the party officials & generals in line.

---

Most of the PRC territorial assertions are based on this.
https://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y2...h/china-12.gif

It's a map of Ch'ing (pronounced Qing or Manchu if you prefer) dynasty China before it's weakness (or backwardness) led the european powers and Japan eat it for lunch. As you can see Taiwan, outer Mongolian, and Tibet are all part of the fold. Now I have no idea why the borders of the Manchu dynasty are something to aim for by the PRC but that seems to be their goal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roark

Wow...

I find that really... repellent.

1.25 million deaths. Many under torture.

Still, you're certainly entitled to your "might is right" opinion (as a white male who lives in a first-world country under zero threat of invasion).

I appreciate that you had the guts to speak your mind honestly about it, though...

---

And most of you assume that Tibet wouldn't have had those 1.25 million deaths if they had been independent. You assume that Tibet could have managed it's own affairs with that worhtless theocrate on his throne. Tibet was aching for someone to come along and give it the right good kicking it needed, the PRC just got there before a home grown someone could come emerge.

And BTW might always makes right (no matter how it is cloaked).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

Most of the PRC territorial assertions are based on this.
https://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y2...h/china-12.gif

It's a map of Ch'ing (pronounced Qing or Manchu if you prefer) dynasty China before it's weakness (or backwardness) led the european powers and Japan eat it for lunch. As you can see Taiwan, outer Mongolian, and Tibet are all part of the fold. Now I have no idea why the borders of the Manchu dynasty are something to aim for by the PRC but that seems to be their goal.




And most of you assume that Tibet wouldn't have had those 1.25 million deaths if they had been independent. You assume that Tibet could have managed it's own affairs with that worhtless theocrate on his throne. Tibet was aching for someone to come along and give it the right good kicking it needed, the PRC just got there before a home grown someone could come emerge.

And BTW might always makes right (no matter how it is cloaked).

---

"if they hadn't done it, someone else would have"
absurd defense

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

"if they hadn't done it, someone else would have"
absurd defense

---

Absurd maybe, probably. Can you completely discount it, no. Look no further than Nepal for evidence of what I'm saying.

It doesn't matter a tinker's fart to the dead, the raped, and the tortured what might have happened in a hypothetical "what if?" situation that doesn't involve China.

Their behaviour was deplorable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

And BTW might always makes right (no matter how it is cloaked).

---

No it doesn't only a gutless bully believes that. Might only gives the ability to get away with being an a###hole for longer. However at some point someone else whom is more powerful comes along. So unless you want to pay for crimes with interest, then it is best to set a good example.

Justice may take a while but violent countries find it a lot harder to stay large then ones that are fairer.

The might is right idea makes for a very unstable government, this is what happened in South Vietnam and in the end they collapsed againsts a united North Vietnam.

Also the economic strength of a free country is normally far more better then a despot regime. The only time such a country can do well is by making enemies so that the people pull together rather then tear down the government.

China needs external enemies to distract its people from its poor performance so does Taiwan btw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roark

It doesn't matter a tinker's fart to the dead, the raped, and the tortured what might have happened in a hypothetical "what if?" situation that doesn't involve China.

Their behaviour was deplorable.

---

Well maybe. But you (and those of like minded opion) are throwing around the belief that if China had stayed home they would be alive. Both our positions can't be proved.

And as to their behavior, well the Tibetans wouldn't tow the line. You can hardly expect a murderous despotic regime not to act like a murderous despotic regime when challenged now can you.

Quote:

---

No it doesn't only a gutless bully believes that. Might only gives the ability to get away with being an a###hole for longer. However at some point someone else whom is more powerful comes along. So unless you want to pay for crimes with interest, then it is best to set a good example.

Justice may take a while but violent countries find it a lot harder to stay large then ones that are fairer.

The might is right idea makes for a very unstable government, this is what happened in South Vietnam and in the end they collapsed againsts a united North Vietnam.

Also the economic strength of a free country is normally far more better then a despot regime. The only time such a country can do well is by making enemies so that the people pull together rather then tear down the government.

China needs external enemies to distract its people from its poor performance so does Taiwan btw.

---

I may be those things and more (I'm also violent sadistic and cruel with an abiding hatred for my fellow man). But we're not talking about me. Even free countries need external threats to keep them together. The PRC however has decided to trick it's people. By giving them economic freedom and the ability accumilate wealth. They are using modern conveniences to distract them from the fact that the government is a mirderous despotic regieme. So far it's working. It will continue to work so long as the PLA agrees with them.

Wow. Again, thanks for the honesty.

If you are these things, then I have no interest in maintaining any kind of dialogue with you. You represent that which I am against.

I'm glad it's been civil though... :embarassed:

Fairly standard posturing by China. The Chinese are quite savvy and they keep probing, testing for weakness in US resolve. The important thing is to reaffirm each time that we will do whatever necessary to turn mainland China into a smoking hole if they go after Taiwan. (Technically, with all their underground coal fires they are already a smoking hole, but I digress.) Say things nicely and diplomatically, but remain firm. If we ever fail to respond appropriately, then I suspect the Chinese will carry out their threats vs. Taiwan.

I also get the impression that China uses Taiwan as a way to stir up nationalist sentiment and externalize some enemies. Sort of the same as Iran uses the US as the "Great Satan", or autocratic Arab nations use the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

China knows they can't knock out U.S. nuclear capabilities, so a nuclear fight is the end of China.