http://news.ft.com/cms/s/28cfe55a-f4a7-11d...000e2511c8.html

What do you think America should do about this threat?
Is it a threat?
Should the international community get involved?

For now, nothing. This seems like nothing more than bravado coming from a single Chinese general. If you want a parallel, lookup Al Haig.

Even Zhu admitted this was theoretical for the most part, from the same article:

Admittedly, this is a touchy situation for the US, but in the end this is posturing, not much else.

Internationally, I don't expect much of a response, maybe from Blair but otherwise I doubt you'll see much in the way of outrage.

Doc

China has nothing to gain by attacking us, and lots to lose.
I would be willing to bet that the first government to use nuclear weapons against us would cease to exist very shortly afterwards.

A/B. It isn't a threat, it is only a response to something we do. It is saying "don't do this or we'll do this" instead of "I'm going to do this".

C. I don't see why. Its like two adults yelling and any country saying "hey guys stop yelling" would be the equivalent of a four year old saying that, possibly except for Britain.

I don't even see why China is even saying this. It is like an acquaintance saying "If you consider throwing water balloons at me this summer I'll take a firehose out on you." And the person he says it to is thinking "Since when are we going to consider throwing water balloons?"

Has anyone heard of any US plan to do anything like was mentioned?

What do you think America should do about this threat?
Is it a threat?
Should the international community get involved?


Isn't that the point of having nuclear weapons? I daresay that even America's close allies - let's speculate the UK - would at the least attempt to retailiate with nuclear weapons against America if for some reason America became actively hostile to British soil or territories.

Of course that's a lot harder to imagine than action against Chinese territory or interests, because of the complications in Taiwan, but even then, it would be much more surprising if the Chinese said they wouldn't really mind if America stomped all over their backyard, officially or otherwise, and with or without any kind of justification.

I think the "threat" itself is more a statement of the obvious than anything new to worry about.

(my emphasis)
This implies that such threats have been made before, so whatever was an appropriate response then should work equally well now. Publicly, my recollection is that such threats we not referred to - they were ignored. That should be enough again now. (There may well have been discussions on strategy in private, which is only prudent.)


So even the guy who is making the "threat" admits that he is only talking hypothetically and from his own personal opinion as to what should happen if America attacks China? So what does that equate to? A Bill O'Reilly rant? Should other countries policy towards America be determined by the personal opinions of a single General? Can't see it myself.

I think the only reason America should be looking to pick a fight with China now is that if you wait another 50 years, you'll lose it. If you feel you have to have a fight with them, do it now, while you might win it. Of course, the multi-million - possibly billion-plus - death toll and world crisis that would be precipitated so America can still feel like the world's strongest country would be a big drawback, but at least you would win the urination contest if you start off sooner rather than later.

What should we do? The whole reason that Clinton and Bush brought China into the global economy was to have some real influence over them that we couldn't have if they were an isolated, and nuclear armed adversary.

We should make it clear to China that any military action toward Taiwan will result in the immediate pullout of all US companies from China and a boycott of all goods produced there.

We should encourage the EU to take the same stance.

The rapid rise of the China economy is due to the export of goods manufactured there to the US and EU. Their internal market is still immature.

If we stop sending our money to them, their economy will collapse. It would hurt us too, but it would kill them.

In addition, we should continue the banning of military related technology to that country. They've already stolen many of our nuclear secrets when Clinton was asleep at the switch for 8 years. There is no use giving them any more free rides in that area.

Julian
.......so America can still feel like the world's strongest country would be a big drawback, but at least you would win the urination contest if you start off sooner rather than later.

Seems to me that we should be the super power, or would you prefer that title go to some other country? Is so, which would you pick? Why?

lordhelmet
We should make it clear to China that any military action toward Taiwan will result in the immediate pullout of all US companies from China and a boycott of all goods produced there.

Yea verily, at the very least. If they want to enjoy the fruits of their labor, they reallly should be careful about irritating their customers.

The point of having nuclear weapons is to have a powerful deterrent against any invasion or enemy attack. If United States decide to invade Chinese territory, it's only natural that they would at least threaten to use nuclear weapons. What's the point of having them if you can not even use them as a deterrent?
Answering the question, we should do nothing. Chinese were pretty much stating the obvious; if we attack them, they will defend themselves.

Why should we meddle into China's internal affairs? Taiwan is not a member of United Nations, and the majority of nations, including United States, recognize Taiwan as part of mainland China. It's up to Chinese to decide how to deal with separatists, not for us.

And we should stand by and do nothing if they attack Taiwan?

Taiwan is not part of China IMO. Taiwan is a functioning democracy. I agree that the US should do nothing about this statement until China invades Taiwan. Once that happens, then it is time to do something regardless of whether they are part of the UN or not. China will not nuke anyone. If they do, the world is basically destroyed because the US response will be swift and severe.

I edited my reply and replied to your question there.
United States has a "one country" policy, just as China. If I remember correctly, last time states wanted to secede we had a Civil War over it. There's no mechanism for a state to secede from the Union; our nation is "indivisible". If Hawaiians decide tomorrow to secede then I could very well imagine a few divisions of our brave Marines landing on the island to quell any separatist notions.

Why do you deny the same right to China? Why can't their nation be "indivisible"?

Heh.

Because China sure as heck doesn't have "liberty and justice for all".

Jokes aside (I almost resisted) that is the rub of the matter. Theoretically according to China's sovereign rights. There is nothing we can or should do to interfere.

Seen in a practical light this may well doom millions of Tawain's people to control by the despicable police state that is "The People's Republic".

Including some rather unsavory revenge imprisonments I would guess.

The humanitarian concern is a sticking point.

But I agree there is nothing we can do except accept all offers of asylum we can handle.

The US has had a policy since WWII of protecting democracy from communism is why we deny China that 'Right'. It's time for a little Taiwan history.




Taiwan is an independent nation with a government of it's own that the US has spend billions in economic and military aid developing as a partner. China attacking it is equivalent to Iraq attacking Kuwait.

So we say to China "have the political system that we approve and then you'll have a right to your own land"? That's absurd. Why did you put the word "right" in quotes? I assume when you have a political system which you don't approve the country loses all of its rights? British honorably handed over Hong Kong to Chinese even though they could have said "we need to protect Hong Kong from communism"; they didn't. Hong Kong is doing really not that bad, last time I checked.
Taiwan, an "independent nation" is recognized only by a handful of world's governments; not a member of United Nations; doesn't even have an embassy in the United States. Come on...

Edited to Add: Your quote on Taiwan history conveniently starts in 1950s; Taiwan was part of China for generations prior to that.

You oversimplify of course.

China does not merely have a political system which "we" do not approve. For the person of conscious familiar with its method it in unapprovable, insupportable, a great stain on what should be a great nation.

I agree that we shouldn't intefere but let's not candy-coat what's about to go down here, it won't be pretty.

English Horn it sounds here that you are supporting China in their endeavors to acquire Taiwan. I am curious do you agree with their civil liberties as well?

Like I said, Hong Kong really is in not such bad of a shape. The picture you are trying to paint, the city would look like one of North Korean cities.
China came a long way from the times of Mao, purges, and "cultural revolution". Let's not overdramatize the current Chinese society; it is "communist" only on paper. I have several coworkers who go back to Beijing every year and they are astonished how much China has changed. Actually, a significant number of Chinese professionals return to China to work there after studying and working in United States - and this number grows year after year. But all this is really doesn't matter since even if they were staunchly communist to that day they still have rights to their own land.



I don't really support China's efforts to reunify with Taiwan, but I recognize that China has the last word on that one, and I strongly object to our meddling in other country's internal affairs. What I think is really irrelevant since I am not a Chinese national.
As for civil liberties, I absolutely don't see what it has to do with the topic in hand.

It's really not communism I object to in principle. Frankly I couldn't care less about what economic model they chose so long as it could support China's people.

China is a toltalitarian police state and that includes Hong Kong. They may have local freedoms but no one touches to national government. Surely you have heard of the recent complain of Microsoft and other companies supplying China with software equipped to maintain there censorship regime?

Surely you don't think that political prisoners are not still taken, tortured and killed?

It may not be so bad as North Korea, but then again almost nothing is.

The Chinese takeover of Taiwan will be something I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy however. Of that you can be sure,

What do you think America should do about this threat?

Publicly ignore it and then put on some sort of quiet military display of power that clearly illustrates American military superiority to any threat of Chinese nuclear attack.


Is it a threat?

Almost certainly it is a clear decleration of Chinese intent in the light of any possible American military intervention. As such, it is technically a threat, but I think in truth its probably either just one man's bluster blown out of proportion or a calculated feint designed to gauge the response.


Should the international community get involved?

At this point in proceedings? No. Perhaps if more such comments are made then other nations should air the possibility of economic sanctions.

We are straying away from the topic at hand, IMHO. Debating our China policy goes far beyond the scope of the debate questions...especially considering the viewpoint expressed here by several people that the comments in question are essentially nothing more than a stating of the obvious. Given that...what reason is there to adjust our China policy at all? If that question can't be answered, then discussing changes in said policy (or discussing the policy at all) doesn't really have any basis.

1) It's this policy called containment. Harry Truman instituted it after World War II to prevent the spread of communism. If you don't agree with it, fine. But ask anyone from South Korea how they feel about containment, or East Germany, or Italy. The policy helped win the Cold War vs the Soviets. Allowing China to spread it's dictatorship is directly counter to 60 years of US policy.

2) Actually Japan had Taiwan the decade before that. The point is if Texas seceded from the Union and 60 years later the United States claimed a "right" to reunify - that would be absurd. I put right in quotations because it is not a right to invade another country for no reason. Why doesn't Mexico have the 'right' to retake Southern California since it was taken from the them a few hundred years ago? What gives China the "Right" to invade the sovereign nation of Taiwan?

Editted to add: Sorry Hobbes. Already wrote this one, but I agree. The US policy of containment is in place. China threatening nuke usage if we interfere is just talk and we should ignore it for now.

Take an example of West Germany re-unifying with East Germany; the fact that the Germany was divided for 40+ years doesn't make the unification efforts illegal.
And I guess we both know full well that chances of Texas to secede from the Union are close to nil.
Taiwan was never an integral part of another nation, so your example with Southern California is incorrect. What makes Taiwan "sovereign" if they are not recognized by overwhelming majority of nations?

You are correct. German reunification was not illegal. Why was German reunification OK? Possibly because both sides wanted to reunite. Is that the case with China and Taiwan? If China has to use military force to 'reunite', then the answer seems to be a clear no.


What makes Taiwan "sovereign"? Well, lets look at the word. Sovereign means independent. Other synonyms include self-governing and autonomous. Do those words not describe Taiwan for the past 60 years?

Let's all gain some perspective.
First off, Taiwan's official name is the Repbulic of China. Why is that? It's because when the Nationalists were running from the communists, they kept moving their government, until finally they settled in Taiwan.
Second of all, the Nationalists had full intentions of uniting all of China. They were even planning invasions of the mainland during the 50s and 60s. Unfortunately, they never carried out their plans due to fear of the Soviets. The Nationalists policy of unification of China has never changed. However, they are currently in a position similar to the Democrats.
Furtheremore, many people in Taiwan support reunification with China. There is even a tiny island in the Taiwan Strait that even has a humongous sign that calls for reunification. If you looked at the election fiasco that happened in Taiwan last year, you would realize that around 50% of Taiwan's population supports reunification. All the pre election polls, showed that the leader who supports unification with China was going. However, after the big fiasco, it was Chen Shui Bien, supporter of indenpendence, who won, thus causing massive protests.

Now, China would only nuke this great nation, if, and only if, we were to intervene in Taiwan. Unfortunately, this nation has a semi-imperialistic foreign policy where we place troops in foreign countries (for example, Germany and Japan) to keep them under control.

How exactly is it unfortunate that Taiwan has freed itself from the communist government of China? That's almost like saying it's unfortunate Saddam was circumvented from successfully taking over Kuwait.

Get your history straight. Taiwan never freed itself from the Communist government. The Nationalists were kicked out of the mainland by the Communists. They were in power, they were at the time authoritarian like every government that has been in China, and they became extremely corrupt, thus causing a civil war that led to them being kicked out. Taiwan was just a good location the Nationalists found to relocate.

I disagree with your assessment here. A vote for Lien Chan was not a vote in favor of unification under a Communist China, it was a vote in favor of maintaining the status quo. Considering the risk of all-out war for declaring independence, I can't say I blame them. The fact that Chen was the first Democratic progressive party candidate to win the presidency (at least I think so, if memory serves) would indicate to me that the country favors independence more than ever. If you poll the South Koreans, you would likely find that they favor EVENTUAL reunification with the North as well. That isn't a vote in favor of government under Kim Jong Il.

Also, though it's nice to be informed of the history involved, it doesn't have much baring on the way things stand today. Taiwan today is much different than the Taiwan of the 1950s (thank goodness), just as China is different today than it was under Mao.

Per the questions to be debated, I don't know what we should do about this. I vote against going to war with China over Taiwan, as much as I'd hate to see a repressive Communist government take over a Democratic one, I don't think Taiwan is worth facing a nuclear winter.

What do we do about the "threat?"

First, we tell the South Koreans that we want to amend our defense pact with them to include a support obligation for them with respect to any action we take concerning Taiwan. If they balk, then we notify them that we'll be leaving soon and then we'll all see just what the North does.

We should also do the same with Japan.

We also tell the Filipinos that we want to modify our mutual self-defense treaty as well, to include the stated obligation, else we give the required one year's notice to terminate the treaty.

And we tell India that unless we have their help as well, then they can forget about all those computer programming and other jobs that we've sent their way.

Lastly, if we wanted to bluster as much as our friend, then we should come right out and simply say that any aggression against Taiwan will be considered an attack on the United States of America and as such, an act of war. That ought to grab their attention.

And is it a "threat?" Who cares, since we can simply call it a statement of future intention instead. Either way, the underlying reality is the same, to wit, China wants to be THE pre-eminent power in East Asia and to do so must project sufficient force in the east Pacific. The first stage is to control the Korea-Japan-Mindanao-Celebes-Malacca Straight ring [as it were]. And then will come what I will call the bulge expansion in the middle out to the Marianas and the Palau Group. And the best evidence for the existence of that intention is simply that the Chinese Navy is doing everything it can to expand and modernize such that while it might not be able to defeat the US Navy on a global basis, it will be able to make it rather costly for us to maintain a presence in the eastern Pacific in the face of Chinese Navy opposition [think their ever expanding inventory of submarines, complete with an ever increasingly lethal anti-ship cruise missile capability].

In that case, the South Koreans would thank us for our help, wish us well, and say goodbye. The South Korean army is more than capable of stopping the North Koreans cold. Over the years it has been steadily modernized, while the North Korean army has had difficulty keeping fuel in its trucks. The North Koreans have built a gigantic network of tunnels just north of the DMZ, but the minute they come out into the open, the South Korean air force would do to them pretty much what the American Air Force did to the Iraqi Army in Gulf War I.

Moreover, US forces in Korea have been nothing more than a trip wire since at least the 1960s. They currently number less than 40,000, and have been pulled back from the DMZ. At this point, the only threat that the North poses to the South lies in its ability to pound Seoul with artillery -- and a nuclear weapon would not be necessary to inflict unacceptable casualties. Moreover, the South continues to provide aid propping up the North Korean regime. And there's no way China would permit a North Korean attack.

Given the current state of anti-American feeling in Korea just now, it is unlikely that the Koreans will be respond favorably to blackmail. According to the Pew Global Attitudes Survey, 50% of all Koreans have an unfavorable view of the USA already, and 71% of the young hold an unfavorable view, so time is working against us. Moreover, only 28% of South Koreans regard North Korea to be a great danger to the region, compared with 38% of Americans; they're not that worried about North Korea.


While the Japanese are not as strongly anti-American as the South Koreans, they would likely respond to our blackmail in much the same way. They are very concerned about foreign entanglements, and cramming a foreign entanglement down their throat is not likely to win their approval. Moreover, Japan has been steadily shifting its diplomatic stance closer to China. If we demand that they choose between us and China, they will likely choose China.


The Filipinos might be blackmailed, especially if we approached them alone before approaching the others. But if this blackmail were carried out in conjunction with similar attempts against South Korea and Japan, it is likely that these countries would form their own mutual defense pact.


Guaranteed to fail. The Indians think well of us, but our outsourcing is an insignificant fraction of their GDP. Playing hardball with the Indians will likely generate hardball coming right back at us. The Indians have never been friends of the USA and have always held us at arm's length.


Given that the United States does not formally recognize the government of Taiwan, this would certainly represent a remarkable development. Remember, the US has always been prudent enough never to provide any other country with an absolute nuclear guarantee. We didn't give West Germany one during the Cold War, nor did we ever give Israel one. Why should we reverse 60 years of clear policy? And why should Americans lay their bodies on the line to protect Taiwan?

Eras:

To start with your last first, i.e., why change, well, we either believe in the things that we claim to believe in, and otherwise put our lives and our money where our mouth is, or we rightly stand accused of being insincere, hypocritical blowhards. And who knows, maybe an unflinching, unhesitating stand in that part of the world will have the same effect that our unflinching, unhesitating decision to send the fleet to the east end of the Med during the Yom Kippur War had on the Arab/Muslim view of the US.

Re Japan, are you certain about improved relations? Haven't there been any number of anti-Japanese demonstrations in China [Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong, etc.]? And didn't some climb up and reduce to ruins the billboards for Sony and Epson [in Guangzhou and Shenzhen]? The explanation for the demonstrations, as near as I can discern, are: (1) Japan's failure to acknowledge its atrocities in China, (2) the dispute over the Senkaku/Tiao Yu Tai Islands [with Japan having more at stake in the matter since the home islands are very nearly devoid of natural resources, and the disputed islands are home not only to waters abundant in fish, but oil is apparently to be found there as well], (3) the need to create an "enemy" for the Chinese populace, since with the slow fade being put on communism there need be something to unite that nation, and that something is nationalism and patriotism [and so the Chinese government whips up anti-Japanese sentiment, and such also deflects blame away from the Chinese government], and (4) to otherwise make clear just who is top dog. In addition to the Sony and Epson billboard ruination, protestors went around smashing windows, attacking business assumed to be Japanese owned, etc. As Counterpunch reports, the English version of some of what was said was "Japanese pigs get out!", "Kill the Japanese dogs," etc. We are otherwise pushing for Japan to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council, while China opposes that move and wants India instead.

Please see:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/FC27Dh01.html

"Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuo Fukuda was less tactful, however, simply stating, "In terms of both history and international law, there can be no doubt that the Senkaku Islands are Japanese territory. We regret that foreigners illegally landed on one of them."

Beijing took an equally firm line, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan saying, "The Diaoyu Islands have been China's territory from time immemorial." Commenting on the arrest of the Chinese activists, he said, "We think this is an illegal action that breaks international law, and moreover it is a serious provocation against China's sovereignty and territory and Chinese citizens' human rights." On Wednesday and Thursday Chinese protesters gathered outside the Japanese Embassy in Beijing, where they burned Japanese flags and held up Chinese banners that read: "The Diaoyu Islands are China's territory."

And see also:

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/world/20050810TDY04002.htm

"Shanghai Serchina Information Consulting Co., surveyed 2,000 Chinese across the country on sentiment toward Japan in March, before anti-Japanese demonstrations in April, and in June, after the demonstrations.

The survey results give an indication of what young people think, as about 1,200 of the respondents were aged 34 or younger.

There was a 5.3 percentage point increase to 63.6 percent in the June survey from the March survey in respondents who thought the bilateral relationship was either shaky or very bad."

And see also:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/senkaku.htm

"Last year, there were reportedly some 47,000 demonstrations in China. Nearly all took place outside Shanghai and Beijing and were aimed at local - not central - authorities. China's provincial officials therefore have good reason to capitalize on anti-Japanese sentiment and to channel growing social discontent toward Tokyo. ... Local officials are now competing against one another to over-supply China with nationalist fury at Japan.
***
China-bashing is simply a winning formula in Japanese domestic politics. That's part of why Japan has now expressed a clear interest in Taiwan's security, pushed the envelope on territorial disputes with Beijing, and aligned its position on North Korea's nuclear program more closely with Washington's."
***
After a November 2004 incursion of a Chinese nuclear submarine into Japanese territorial waters, Japan responded in February 2005 with a declaration of formal possession of the Senkaku Islands. This declaration resulted in China sending a warning for Japan to back off or "take full responsibility" on April 14. The extremely strained relations between China and Japan helped to fuel the anti-Japanese demonstrations in April 2005."

And see further:

http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/2612.html

Lastly re Japan, it is precisely because Japan wants to be a "normal country" and so do we [hence our support for Japan becoming a permanent member of the UN Security Council], that Japan will lean towards us and not China.

Re Korea, well, if the South Koreans feel they can take or hold their own against the North, then more power to them. It would sure save us a bunch of money if that were true and we could bring our people home. But it isn't true. And there are two items of concern here. First, as the IDF learned during the Yom Kippur War, while they might have better equipment and better trained and motivated troops, when quantity gets large enough, it has a qualitative effect. And second, there is this to consider [at http://atimes.com/atimes/Korea/FI10Dg01.html]:

"According to Joseph Bermudez's book The Armed Forces of North Korea, a definitive guide to North Korean military capabilities, the North has more than 100,000 such troops [special forces], the largest group of its kind in the world. In a conflict, they would be used to capture and destroy vital South Korean infrastructure and installations, while confusing the responding defense forces. It is widely speculated that these forces wearing South Korean uniforms will infiltrate the South in order to exacerbate the chaos. The number of North Korean special operatives now in the South is unknown, but is thought to be substantial.
***
Kinder, gentler approach of South to North State-run media has softened its rhetoric, no longer reporting the jingoistic tendencies of the northern reclusive state with dramatic effect. In the closing days of the World Cup competition in 2002, a North Korean naval vessel attacked and sank a South Korean navy ship inside South Korean territorial waters. Two years later, not one politician from either the ruling or opposition camps attended the memorial for the six South Korean sailors who perished, and most of the nation's media outlets relegated the story to the back pages, if they covered it at all.

Many South Koreans, whether civilians or in uniform, no longer consider the North to be a threat - rapprochement policies have been a success, at least in South Korea. Unfortunately the North has not moderated its belief in unification by force, making the South vulnerable. As North Korea's military hardware is deployed in close proximity to Seoul, rapid reaction is the key to defense. But political engagement policies, designed to reduce South Korean's fear of North Korea, have reduced the nation's mental preparedness. After the naval skirmish in 2002, one young South Korean sailor confessed that he "didn't think the North would attack us". North Korea is no doubt well aware of this perceptual change, and no amount of military hardware is going to change the way the North is perceived. Timing is everything, a few minutes of confusion is all that is needed to carry out a crippling assault on South's infrastructure, military and otherwise."

And see also:

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2000/korea09122000.html

"4. Despite mounting difficulties, including diminishing food production, serious regional food shortages, summer flooding, and resource shortages, the military threat posed by the DPRK remains significant. The DPRK has a clear numerical advantage over the ROK in major conventional weapons systems and can mount a major attack against the ROK with minimal additional preparation, although at great risk. The ROK is confronted by the immediate proximity of a heavily armed, million-man plus DPRK force, the majority of which is forward deployed in fortifications near the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ). Over the past two decades, the DPRK has gradually deployed its combat forces forward so that the majority of North Korea’s active duty combat forces are now close to the DMZ in advantageous attack positions. This trend continued in 1999 with the additional forward deployment of numerous artillery systems to hardened sites located along the DMZ. Readiness for key elements of the force, to include artillery, Special Operations Forces (SOF), and mechanized units has been improved through an ambitious training cycle over the past twelve months, highlighted by the most robust Summer and Winter Training Cycles (STC/WTC) in a decade.

5. The DPRK’s unconventional capabilities are equally significant. They have extensive stockpiles of chemical weapons, suspected nuclear weapons capable of missile delivery, and the capability to produce biological weapons. Additionally, progress continues in the development of short, medium, and long range ballistic missiles.
***
10. The North Korean military threat remains formidable despite worsening economic problems, and continues to destabilize Northeast Asia. The ROK has expended considerable effort to enhance its military capability. A clear US commitment remains essential to ROK security and peninsular stability. The way to block Pyongyang's military option is to insure that the ROK-US alliance is healthy and responsive. A strong and credible ROK-US military alliance provides the foundation of deterrence supporting the increasing pace of diplomatic activity with the DPRK.
***
2. The ROK - US security alliance remains central to the South's overall defense. Additional weaponry can enhance ROK combat power, but it cannot provide the strategic deterrent supplied by a credible US military presence on the Korean Peninsula and timely reinforcement capability."

And see further:

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Nov2003/n1..._200311181.html

"SEOUL, South Korea, Nov. 18, 2003 – With 1.2 million people under arms, the North Korean military is "a very credible conventional force," the U.S. general in charge of defending against that force said.

"They have the largest submarine force, the largest special operating force and the largest artillery in the world," Army Gen. Leon LaPorte, commander of U.S. forces in South Korea said. He noted that North Korea has 120,000 special operations forces.
***
[and back to what I said about numbers being so large that they have a qualitative effect] The sheer size of their military makes them a threat, even if their equipment isn't as up to date as it could be. "Much of their equipment is aged, but they have a lot of it," LaPorte said." [oh, and recall Hackworth's About Face, wherein he reports on his conversation with a German POW, wherein he asks the POW, how come, if you guys are so great, you are my prisoner, to which the German POW replied that he was part of an anti-tank battery/unit and that he and his pals had knocked out every US tank coming in their direction until they had run out of "ammunition", i.e., the sheer number of our tanks offset the German superiority in anti-tank capability]

You are correct, or partly so, re the South Korean attitude. The older generation now in power knows the reality, but wants to take that soft tone in the hope that such will appease the North. The younger generation, with no knowledge/ experience of the war, simply does not, for the most part, believe that the North is much of a threat. So in line with my prior remarks, I would simply urge the government in the South to wake up and smell the reasons [they have gained next to nothing by way of their soft tone and appeasement, so what's the point, and never mind that the North needs the threat of Southern invasion to keep the regime in power]. So they should start teaching the younger ones about the ever present reality. And that actually accounts for the opinion among the young, i.e., our more hardline approach versus the South Korean good for nothing and appeasing Sunshine approach. So we are seen as interlopers getting in the way of a successful resolution of the matter [i.e., if we were not in country, the North would be more amicable], and given our war on terror [i.e., Iraq], the attitude of the young in Korea has indeed gotten harder. Lastly, it appears that it is the high school and college kids who are the problem [at http://www.rand.org/news/press.04/03.12.html]:

"One of these challenges is the fact that sizable percentages of South Koreans with college educations and those in their 20s said in polls last year that they hold an unfavorable view of the United States and believe that America poses a greater threat to their country than North Korea. People with only a junior high school education and those older than 50 said exactly the opposite."

Oh, side note, ever hear one of us Republican conservatives complain to the high heavens about the radical leftist chic education provided by our public colleges? Witness South Korea's college youth, since they confirm that people are alike all over. And hence Rand's further recommendation:

"Determine whether South Korea’s educational system constitutes a structural source of anti-American sentiment, and look to the role of the South Korean media in shaping attitudes. The report notes that, among young people (the so-called “democracy generation”), as many as 20 percent say they get their news from Internet sources, rather than from the traditional media."

Time for me to otherwise go home for the day, so I'll post tomorrow [hopefully] on the India and Philippines aspect.

KivrotHaTaavah, the mountain of information you provide is irrelevant to the question at hand. You proposed that we blackmail the South Koreans and Japanese into supporting us on Taiwan. I argued in response that the South Koreans and Japanese would probably not buckle under our threats. Your response was that China hates Japan and the North Korea can attack South Korea. So what? The issue in both cases is what South Koreans think, not what North Koreans might do; and what Japanese think, not what Chinese think. My claims that Japan and South Korea will not yield to blackmail remain untouched.


Many Americans believe that the Chinese yuan is still undervalued; should we launch nuclear missiles at China to demonstrate our sincerity? Many Americans believe that Iran is being deceitful about its nuclear activities; is it time to show that we are not hypocritical blowhards by vaporizing Teheran? Should American policy be a simple matter of "everything we want, we back up with the threat of nuclear annihilation"?

What do you think America should do about this threat?

Nothing...see below.

Is it a threat?

No, it isn't. Even disregarding that these statements were made by a military blowhard, known for making such statements...the statement itself is non-news. What country has nuclear missles with no intention of ever using them? Isn't the whole point of having them the implied threat of using them? So, how does having some military blowhard state the obvious constitute some dramatic event that would need to be dealt with? Especially considering that it is mere bluster...using the threat of nuclear weaponry to their advantage.

Should the international community get involved?

To do what, exactly? To tell China to pretend to hide their well-known nuclear capability? To shroud their intentions in secrecy, so the international community can feel better about themselves? Or perhaps, to ratchet up tensions so that this irrelevant statement gets turned into a battle of wills, making the event itself more likely to happen? I don't see anything the international community either could or should do here.

I would add, however, that some sort of conflict with China is probably as great an issue for us as terrorism. There are strong similarities between China's situation now, and Japan's leading up to WWII. China wants to control East Asia, and is probably likely to push hard to achieve it. I don't think they're willing to risk a military confrontation now...but that will likely change in the future. As much as people decry it, the solution to this type of situation is the ability to defend ourselves against a missle attack. Such a defense doesn't have to be fool proof...its mere existence would be enough. What country would risk nuclear annihilation to test it?

Eras:

What do the Japanese think? Well, from the Japan Times:

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/geted....o20050817a1.htm

"In that meeting, Australians, Singaporeans and Japanese asserted that an alliance with America, whether formal or informal, was vital to their national security and should be enhanced. Malaysians and Indonesians, citizens of predominately Islamic nations, urged the U.S. to pay more attention to them even though many Muslims are anti-American."

And from the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Feb17.html

"TOKYO, Feb. 17 -- The United States and Japan will declare Saturday for the first time in a joint agreement that Taiwan is a mutual security concern, according to a draft of the document. Analysts called the move a demonstration of Japan's willingness to confront the rapidly growing might of China.
***
Although it is likely to anger China, the move is being welcomed by Taiwan, which, despite having been occupied by Japan from 1895 to 1945, maintains an empathy for the Japanese that is rare in Asia. Elderly Taiwanese, for instance, still show delight in Japanese language and culture. Last month, Taiwan inaugurated its $3 billion, Japanese-built bullet train, which can reach speeds of almost 200 miles per hour. And in December, Japan angered China by granting a tourist visa to former Taiwanese president Lee Teng-hui, who was educated in Japan and had an emotional reunion here with a former professor.
***
"It would be wrong for us to send a signal to China that the United States and Japan will watch and tolerate China's military invasion of Taiwan," said Shinzo Abe, the acting secretary general of Japan's ruling Liberal Democratic Party who is widely considered a likely successor to Junichiro Koizumi as prime minister. "If the situation surrounding Japan threatens our security, Japan can provide U.S. forces with support."
***
"I think the biggest challenge to Japan is going to be how it arranges its relationship with China," the U.S. ambassador to Japan, Howard H. Baker Jr., said on Wednesday. "But how they do that is going to say a lot about stability in this region for years to come. . . . Japan is a superpower; China is on its way to being a superpower. They are both rich, they both have a history and tradition in this region, and they don't much like each other, I think."
***
"We consider China a friendly country, but it is also unpredictable," a senior Japanese government official said. "If it takes aggressive action, Japan cannot just stand by and watch."

And, lastly, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan:

http://www.mofa.go.jp/announce/press/2005/2/0222.html#4

"Q: I would like to change the topic and to talk about the US-Japan security alliance and the common strategic objective concerning Taiwan. Can you clarify what has been detailed in the agreement on what Japan can and will do if Taiwan is actually attacked?

Mr. Takashima: The Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between Japan and the United States of America (Japan-U.S. Security Treaty) has what we call the "Far East" clause. The Far East is understood to cover the area in the vicinity of Japan, which would include the Korean Peninsula, the area around Taiwan and north of the Philippine archipelago.
***
What will happen to that statement in a situation such as you mentioned in your hypothetical question, I would rather like to refrain from making any comment, other than to say that there are arrangements between Japan and the United States to support US activities in order to maintain the peace and stability in this area when the United States takes any necessary actions to keep peace and stability. So there will not be any change in that arrangement one way or the other. It is a kind of statement to confirm the existing arrangement.
***
Q: Reports from Dubai quoted a Japanese Foreign Ministry spokesman saying that "Taiwan is now considered a common security issue, allowing the Japanese military to fight alongside US forces." Can you comment on that?

Mr. Takashima: As I said, there is no possibility that the JSDF would implement any sort of combat action outside of Japan."

No possibility now because the Japanese constitution does not permit the same. So let me add what I should have said before, we need to provide all the encouragement we can to get the Japanese to amend their constitution so that they may have something more than a "self-defense" force and we should otherwise help them rearm.

And one more from the Japan Times, and let me just say, well, you can see for yourself from what I just said above:

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/print/opini...o20050307fc.htm

"In Chinese eyes, there is a distinct danger that Japan will be America's military ally in Asia, just as Britain is its ally in Europe. In addition, Beijing fears that the U.S. will use a militarized Japan to help it contain a rising China. Political analysts in Beijing have pointed out that the focus of the mutual security treaty has shifted from defending Japan to safeguarding peace and security in the Asia-Pacific region."

If we can say one thing about the Chinese, it's that they are not entirely dim.

And neither are the Japanese, from the Daily Yomiuri:

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/world/20050815TDY03002.htm

"What is China's intention of strengthening its military power?

Does China really have no intention of causing friction in the East China Sea?

China has to match its words with deeds to win the trust of the Japanese."

And from a Daily Yomiuri article of 1998, courtesy of the Okazaki Institute:

http://www.okazaki-inst.jp/okazaki.taiwan2.html

"During the March 1996 disturbance in the Taiwan Strait, Japanese television broadcast the reaction of Taipei's citizens every day. When China started to launch missiles, the reactions were fear and concern about China's intentions. After the arrival of U.S. aircraft carrier groups, a new reaction emerged against China's provocation: ‚so intimidate a democratic election with military force is unforgivable. This was freedom of speech at the grassroots level. The U.S. carriers saved Taiwan's freedom of speech. This freedom has been permanently lost in Hong Kong. Since no one wishes to take unnecessary risks, the people of Hong Kong have turned silent."

Oh, and Hisahiko Okazaki was ambassador to Thailand and Saudi, and his father was ambassador to the former USSR and the Court of St. James. So, to borrow those words some of us know all too well, when he talks, people listen.

Hopefully, the above answers your concern over what the Japanese think.

KivrotHaTaavah, you have once again succeeded in providing a mountain of information that does not advance your case. Remember, you were arguing that we should blackmail the Japanese into supporting us on Taiwan. I argued that the Japanese would likely not respond to blackmail. Now you argue that the the Japanese are already inclined toward such an arrangement -- completely undermining your original claim that blackmail is appropriate.

So here's where we stand: you claim that we should blackmail the South Koreans, Japanese, Filipinos, and Indians into joining us in a mutual defense pact with Taiwan. You have provided mountains of evidence that do nothing to suggest that this act of blackmail would accomplish anything. I ask: what can you offer to suggest that this blackmail would accomplish anything positive?

Eras:

When have I ever used the word "blackmail?" I am not otherwise suggesting that we threaten to disclose something disreputable or criminal unless we get our way [which would be blackmail]. I am simply suggesting that we tell them in kind, polite, and oh so certain terms that you gals and guys need to amend your Constitution to permit the formation and use of a regular standing armed force, and you and we need to join together in planning and preparing a combined military strategy in case China decides to realize its ambitions in something other than a peaceful manner. And we also remind them of the animosity and the competition for "local" natural resources. And we lastly tell them that while one could debate forever the matter of the damage, or lack thereof, to US interests if we simply pulled out of Japan and otherwise abandoned East Asia to China, that their position becomes nearly infinitely worse without our "local" presence, and since such a pull out would most certainly require them to amend and rearm, why not simply do so while we are still in the vicinity and can otherwise join with them. I otherwise trust that the Japanese understand that if they couldn't bring the so-called "China Incident" to a successful conclusion last time round, when China was far less stable and Japan otherwise enjoyed an overwhelming military/technological superiority, that they would have no hope of doing so now, unless, of course, they had some rather valuable help from their friends. And, lastly, the "threat" [I prefer, statement of intention], takes us from the "inclined towards us" to the "fightling alongside us," i.e., it provides the incentive to remove the only hurdle that prevents the "inclined towards" from becoming the "fighting alongside," which is that provision in the Constitution of Japan that provides:

Article 9: Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.

In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

So, we state our intention, and trust that the Japanese will exercise the brains that God gave them, and put to appropriate use this provision of their Constitution:

Article 96. Amendments to this Constitution shall be initiated by the Diet, through a concurring vote of two-thirds or more of all the members of each House and shall thereupon be submitted to the people for ratification, which shall require the affirmative vote of a majority of all votes cast thereon, at a special referendum or at such election as the Diet shall specify.

Amendments when so ratified shall immediately be promulgated by the Emperor in the name of the people, as an integral part of this Constitution.

Eras:

Re anything positive, I would suggest that you spend less time with the mathematicians and the physicists and instead spend some time studying the behavior of predator and prey in the animal kingdom. We are otherwise simply going to be sending a rather simple message, to wit, essentially we are strong, so it would be most foolhardy to try and violate us.

You're right, you have never used that word. However, you seem to be dancing all around it. On the one hand, you talk about convincing them of the merits of an arrangement whereby they join us in a mutual defense pact with Taiwan. On the other hand, you suggest that we should make sure that they do indeed go along with this, and if they refuse, then you would have us remove all our troops from Japan. Maybe that's not blackmail, in the sense that it's not a criminal threat. But it's still playing hardball, and I very much doubt that the Japanese are willing to alter their constitution to accomodate us. That article in the constitution is brought up routinely and the Japanese people seem quite adamant that they are not willing to change it. However, if you have some polling data indicating otherwise, I'd love to see it.


Um, what were you referring to? This seems to be a fugitive from another topic. Was there some point relevant to this topic that you are making here?

LOL, America beat up Rodney King? One person's comment does not represent the policy of a nation, especially after that person has stated that it is a personal comment, kapeesh?



Sit down with Chinese leaders and get the ROE straight, things like what targets are off-limits, what weapons can be used, in a case of war.


Don't think he's the first to say "if you mess with my mama, i'm gonna shove a sharp object up your ---."
So yah, you can call that a threat.


Didn't expect to see ANY reactions from ANYONE, and... I was RIGHT.