Tag Archives: USA

Focus on Taiwan

Posted on by

Now that China’s star seems to be on the ascendant and that of the US, following its withdrawal from Afghanistan, on the decline, many people around the world wonder whether a military clash between the two behemoths and their allies is likely. And, if so, how it might come about, what it might look like, and what the outcome might be. The following represents a short attempt to answer these questions.

How did the current rivalry between China and the US originate?

Between the two world wars China and the US were actually allies, albeit very unequal ones. What kept them together was their common fear and hatred of Japan which invaded Manchuria, considered by many an outlying region of China, in 1931, and China itself six years later. True, prior to Pearl Harbor the US never officially declared war on Japan. But it did provide China’s ruler, General Chiang Kai-shek, with money, advisers, training, weapons, and the nucleus of a small air force (General Chennault’s Flying Tigers).

As World War II ended and it became clear that Mao and his communist legions would win China’s ongoing civil war, the US did what it could to prevent such an outcome. To no avail. By the end of 1949 Mao, actively supported by the Soviet Union, was in control of the whole of China. Whereas Chiang and his remaining adherents fled to the island of Taiwan, off China’s coast, where he and his successors enjoyed strong American support.

What happened next?

As long as the Soviet Union continued to exist, the US regarded Moscow as its own main rival. By comparison China, large but underdeveloped, was secondary. The Korean War having ended in 1953, now the US treated China as the Soviet Union’s most important ally; now it tried to exploit emerging differences between the two communist powers. As, for example, the Nixon administration did in 1969-72.

Following the Soviet collapse in 1990-91, it looked as if the US had no “peer competitors” (as the phrase went) left. This so-called “unilateral moment” lasted until about 2010. On one hand there was China’s economic and military power, which kept growing at a phenomenal rate. On the other, long before Washington withdrew from Iraq (2020) and Afghanistan (2021) it began to show signs of weakness in Afghanistan and Iraq. Though no shots were exchanged, before long the two behemoths, China and the US, found themselves locked in a struggle not unlike the Cold War of old.

Let’s stop here. Where does Taiwan fit into all this?

Over the years, the role played by Taiwan has changed. At first, following Chiang’s flight, it presented the Chinese people with an alternative model and focus of loyalty that might one day take over. True, this line of thought was never very credible; how can a flea swallow an elephant? However, there could be no doubt about the island’s strategic importance.

Taiwan is a critical link in a series of strongholds. They are, from north to south, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and the Philippines. Together they block China’s access to the Pacific, much in the same way as the British Islands used to block the access of Germany and, before Germany, France, to the Atlantic and the world’s trade routes in general.

To make China’s position more difficult still, there are the Straits of Malacca which sit across its communications with the Indian Ocean, southeast and south Asia, and Africa. Including the Middle East, which now accounts for fifty percent of China’s oil imports. The recently announced Belt and Road Initiative notwithstanding, these five strongholds can be used by whoever owns them in order to control a huge chunk of China’s foreign trade. On which much of the country’s economic performance, and with it its political stability, depends.

What you are saying is that re-possession of Taiwan is critical to China’s future as a global superpower.

That’s right.

So is China going to invade Taiwan?

discount generic cialis amerikabulteni.com Never gives advice to anybody about the usage of this drug shortly after the dosage. Some of the amerikabulteni.com cost cialis viagra important shackles which are represented by Saudi Dutest are Screw pin Bow shackle, Nut and bolt shackle, screw pin D shackle, nut and bolt D shackle are some of the important factors for reducing the risk of ED (Erectile Dysfunction). Or watch any televised sporting event and you’ll see buy viagra online the medicine taking effects after a few hours. One more thing I noticed is that as the number of males cialis samples free who need this continue to spike up. That is the 100 trillion dollar question. The Chinese position, which has remained more or less the same for decades, is that Taiwan is an integral part of China. Such being the case, China is determined to bring about its “reunification” with the mainland. Even, as its leaders have repeatedly said, by using force if necessary.

Had it been simply a question of China versus Taiwan, and given the (im)balance of forces between those two, such a war could only have one outcome. Taiwan, however, has long received strong support from the US which does not want the island to fall to Beijing.

Suppose China does gird its loins and invades. What would the ensuing war be like?

Taiwan is an island. Accordingly, China’s first move would be to impose an air and naval blockade. If necessary, capturing or sinking a couple of Taiwanese ships so as to show it means business. Supposing Taiwan does not surrender, China might follow up with an air and missile strike aimed at its enemy’s air force, anti-aircraft defenses, and navy. That done, Beijing might use amphibious forces to invade. Or it might simply sit and wait for its quarry to surrender.

It is also possible, though less likely, that, to retain surprise, China would strike Taiwan’s defenses before imposing a blockade. However, such a move would be extremely risky and the principle of the thing would remain more or less the same.

But you have just said that Taiwan is not on its own.

That is correct. In such a war, everything would depend on the US. Initially the latter’s most likely move, perhaps joined by a few others such as South Korea and Australia, would be to send in a couple of carrier strike groups. The objective would be to break the Chinese blockade without actually firing. In case it works, fine. In case it does not, God knows what will follow.

Suppose such a war gets under way and escalates; who wins?

In such a war, China will be operating close to its own shores whereas America’s lines of communication would stretch all the way across the Pacific. As a result, for China to build up a local superiority will be relatively easy. The more so because some of America’s forces, especially the navy, will probably be tied up elsewhere. As a result, I’d put the chances of a Chinese victory—whatever that may mean—at over 50 percent.

However, there is an elephant in the room. Faced with the fall of Taiwan, at some point the US might threaten the use of nuclear weapons. For example, in case something goes wrong and a carrier with its 90 aircraft and 5,000 or so crew members is lost.

But China’s nuclear arsenal, complete with the necessary delivery vehicles, is growing. Do you really believe the US will put San Francisco and Los Angeles at risk in order to rescue Taipei?

Do you really believe China will put Beijing and Shanghai at risk in order to seize Taipei?

So what is your prognosis?

As you know, no nuclear weapon has been used in anger from 1945 on. Not during the 1948-49 Berlin Crisis. Not during the 1958 Quemoy Crisis, not during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, and not during any number of other, less acute, crises both between the Superpowers and between other nuclear countries (e.g. India and Pakistan). Based on this record, it seems to me that both sides are far too aware of the dangers of nuclear war to risk one such breaking out. More likely the Chinese, in the hope that their rivals will be the first to blink, will go on putting as much pressure on Taiwan as they think they can away with. But without actually opening fire.

How the Republic Collapsed

Posted on by

No more than anyone else, and in spite of having written Seeing into the Future: A Short History of Prediction, do I have any idea as to the way the current U.S turmoil may end. If, indeed, there is such a thing as an “end.” I am, however, a little familiar with the history of Rome, the empire with which the US is often compared. Hardly a US city of any size and importance where buildings in Graeco-Roman style may not be found. To say nothing of a certain institution known as the Senate (ultimately derived from the Latin word senex, old). So I thought a little timeline of the way Rome turned from a free republic into a slavish empire might not be out of place.

*

205-146 BCE. Following a series of successful wars against foreign enemies, enormous amounts of booty as well as tax money flow into Rome. Including tons and tons of bullion, many hundreds of thousands of slaves, and countless objects d’art of every kind. As always, most of the wealth in question sticks to the hands of the upper classes which provide the republic with its rulers and senior commanders. Whereas the poor, repeatedly conscripted to do long periods of service abroad, neglect their farms and grow poorer still. Inequality reaches unprecedented heights. A few own enormous farms, worked by slaves; most hardly have a stone to rest their heads on. While not new, from this point on this kind of inequality will play a critical role in the events that ultimately led to the fall of the republic.

133 BCE. Following four centuries of near complete domestic peace—perhaps the longest of its kind in the whole of history—an elected popular tribune, Tiberius Gracchus, is beaten to death by a group of Senators. Their leader is none other than the chief priest, Publius Cornelius Scipio Nasica Serapio, a diehard conservative and a former consul. The background? A controversy over Tiberius’ “Leftist” (as it would be called today) plan to confiscate some of the land of the rich in order to distribute it among the plebeian poor.

121 BCE. For the first time, the Senate passes a Senatus consultum ultimum. No translation needed! The purpose? To grant the elected consul, Lucius Opimius, emergency powers to defeat the partisans of Gaius Gracchus who had been following in his dead older brother’s footsteps. Gaius is killed.

107 BCE. Gaius Marius, one of Rome’s most experienced and finest soldiers with strong plebeian sympathies, is elected consul. He uses the opportunity to reform the military; opening what had previously been a citizen army that only existed when there was an enemy to fight into a standing force made up of full time professionals. He also passes some other military reforms, but these do not concern us here. More and more, the soldiers look to their commanders, rather than to the Senate, for pay, promotion, and benefits. Including, above all, land to settle on after their discharge.

105-101 BCE. Marius inflicts a series of heavy defeats on the Germanic tribes in the north. Or about three hundred years thereafter, all serious military threats to Rome will be internal rather than external.

100 BCE. Marius is serving as consul for an unprecedented sixth time. A popular tribune, Lucius Apuleius Saturninus takes up the Gracchis’ cause by proposing the distribution of land to Marius’ veterans. The outcome is envy and resentment among the Roman proletariat. To push his measures through, Saturninus has an opponent, the consular candidate Gaius Memmius, assassinated in the midst of the voting for the consular elections for 99 BCE, leading to widespread violence. The Senate orders Marius, as consul, to put down the revolt, This he does. Saturninus and his chief colleague are killed.

91-88 BCE. Rome’s unfranchised allies in Italy engage in open warfare against their mistress. Though little is known about the so-called Social War, it seems to have been waged with great ferocity. Militarily the forces answerable to the Senate are successful, but politically the war ends with a victory for the allies. They obtain the vote as well as other privileges associated with Roman citizenship.

88 BCE. Lucius Cornelius Sulla, the principal Roman commander in the Social War, serves as consul. He prepares to fight Rome’s enemy, king Mithridates VI of Pontus (in today’s Turkey). Behind his back Marius and the Senate reverse his appointment as commander in chief in that theater. Whereupon Sulla, having narrowly escaped with his life, leaves Rome. He raises six legions (approx. 35,000 men in all) and marches on the city, violating the traditional ban that prevents armies from entering it. He purges the Senate of its “left wing” members and declares Marius and his supporters, several of whom are killed, public enemies.

87 BCE. Now it is Marius’ turn to escape. Going to Africa, long a Roman province, he raises new armies. Making use of the fact that Sulla is away, again preparing a campaign against Mithridates, he invades Italy. He enters Rome for the second time and sets out to kill Sulla’s supporters in the Senate. He declares Sulla’s reforms and laws invalid, officially exiles him, and has himself appointed to his rival’s eastern command as well elected consul for 86 BCE. Two weeks later he dies, leaving Rome under the control of his colleague to the consulate, Lucius Cornelius Cinna.

85 BCE. Sulla, who has been warring against Mithridates, concludes a treaty with him. Now he has his hands free to return to Rome.

83-78 BCE. Sulla and his army land in Italy. They proceed to Rome where they proscribe and kill thousands of their opponents. That done, Sulla has the Senate declare him a dictator with unlimited powers. He increases the number of Senators from 300 to 600. He puts into effect various measures designed to prevent any further challenges from the populist “Left” and takes away some of the popular tribunes’ authority. That done, in 79 BCE he resigns. A year later he dies.

78 BCE. No sooner has Sulla died than another commander, Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, marches on Rome in attempt to reverse the late dictator’s reforms. In this he fails.
This has been continued till the end of the buying cialis on line patent of the medicine. My favorites include subjects such as 95% discounts on viagra brand 100mg http://robertrobb.com/state-tax-cut-discussion-should-be-postponed/, quotes for 80 year mortgages, and ads for practically every sort of pornographic web site on the net. As everyone knows robertrobb.com purchase cialis online A healthy heart is the first requirement for a fulfilling relationship. Adrenal hormone in ED is not much clear, but many diagnostic reports predict its role in male impotence. * At the beginning, Kamagra tablets can be taken to get a driver’s permit at the sildenafil 100mg tablets http://robertrobb.com/stantons-protest-pickle/ California Department of Motor Vehicles of the concerned state and are required to impart instructions equivalent to that of the Pope when discussing abortion or gay marriage.
78-70 BCE. Sulla’s reforms to turn the clock back notwithstanding, by now the authority of the central government in Rome (i.e the Senate) has been decisively weakened. Any number of wars break out both in the provinces and in Italy where the slave revolt, with Spartacus at its head, has to be put down. Out of the confusion and the bloodshed there emerges, as the victor, a single General: Gnaeus Pompeius, soon to be nicknamed Magnus. Vaguely associated with what we today would call the Right, in 70 BCE he violates the constitution by being elected consul without going through the prescribed, much less important, offices first.

70-63 BCE. Now a pro- (meaning, ex) consul, Pompey turns to the east. Waging war first on the pirates of Cilicia (in modern Turkey), then on Mithridates, then on the Seleucids in Syria, and finally in Palestine where he deposes the reigning Hasmonean dynasty. On the way he annexes most of the eastern Mediterranean. Often without so much as informing the Senate of the measures he is taking.

63 BCE. In Italy, a “Lefty” Senator by the name of Lucius Servius Catilina, having failed to be elected to the consulate, twice tries to have the consuls murdered and take over power himself. Or so his opponents, led by the famous orator and consul (in 63 CE) Cicero, claimed. However, his small army was defeated and he himself killed while fighting at its head.

60-57 BCE. Having returned to Rome, Pompeius celebrates an enormous triumph. Next he forms an alliance with two other generals, Gaius Julius Caesar and Marcus Licinius Crassus, intended to secure their joint rule over Rome. In 59 BCE Caesar, his term as consul over, leaves for Gaul where he spends ten years fighting until the local tribes are finally subjugated. In 57 BCE Crassus, making war against Persia, is defeated and killed. This leaves Pompeius and Caesar in sole control.

49-48 BCE. Caesar, his conquest of Gaul completed, fears what his enemies, with Pompeius at their head, may be doing in Rome. With his army, he crosses the Rubicon, the river marking the border between Cisalpine (meaning, “nearer”) Gaul and Italy. Marching straight on the capital, he forces Pompeius and his followers to flee to Epirus (present day Albania). Caesar turns to Spain, where Pompeius has some supporters, and defeats them. Next he follows his enemy to Epirus. Their armies meet at Dyrrhachium and Pompeius is defeated. He flees to Egypt, which was not yet part of the Roman Empire. As Caesar follows him there, he commits suicide.

48-44 BCE. When Caesar arrives in Egypt the country’s eighteen-year old queen, Cleopatra, throws herself at him and becomes his mistress (he himself is fifty-one years old). Next he defeats the rest of Pompeius’ supporters in Africa and Spain. On 15 March (the “Ides of March”) 44 BCE he is assassinated by a group of Senators who fear he is about to proclaim himself king.

44-43 BCE. It is discovered that Caesar, in his will, has appointed his great-nephew, the nineteen-year old Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus, as his successor. Octavianus joins forces with Caesar’s most important general, Marcus Antonius, and with another general named Aemilius who is Marcus Aemilius Lepidus’ son. Together they form a triumvirate for governing Rome. They purge Caesar’s opponents in the capital. Among the dead is Cicero. Next they make war on the conspirators. Defeated, the latter are forced to withdraw to Epirus.

42 BCE. Octavianus and Antonius defeat the conspirators’ army at Philippi, in present day Albania.

33-32 BCE. Octavianus and Antonius, having pushed Lepidus aside, divide the empire between them. The west, Italy included, goes to Octavianus; the east, to Antonius and his wife, who is none other than Queen Cleopatra of Egypt.

30 BCE. Agrippa, Octavianus’ admiral, defeats Antonius at the naval battle of Actium (in western Greece). Antonius and Cleopatra flee to Egypt, where both kill themselves.

28 BCE. Octavianus adds “Augustus” to his name. His title, as supreme ruler, is princeps (first prince). His reign is by no means as bad as that of some of his successors. However, what twenty or so generations of Romans understood as libertas finally comes to an end.

*

Some believe that history, with its infinitely numerous and infinitely complex details, never repeats itself and hence can tell us nothing about the future. Others, that it always repeats itself; socio-economic inequality, as well as tensions generated by the fact that some have rights others do not, leads to conflict. The military and the police are divided like anyone else. New leaders emerge and put themselves at the head of the contending factions. Prolonged and horrific bloodshed ensues. The final outcome is dictatorship.

Which one will it be?

Guest Article: The View from Olympus: The North Korean Threat to China

Posted on by

By William S. Lind

America’s fixation on the threat from North Korea’s missiles and nuclear weapons evinces the usual American dive into the weeds.  If we instead stand back a bit and look at the strategic picture, we quickly see that the North Korean threat to China is far greater than its threat to us.

North Korea is unlikely to launch a nuclear attack on the United States.  However, if North Korea retains its nuclear weapons, it is likely to lead South Korea, Japan, and possibly Taiwan, Australia and Vietnam to go nuclear themselves.  From the Chinese perspective, that would be a strategic catastrophe. 

China has never sought world domination, nor is it likely to do so.  Its distaste for barbarians, who include everyone not Chinese, is such that it wants to maintain its distance from them.  However, maintaining that distance requires a buffer zone around China, which historically China has sought and is seeking again now.

At present, the main obstacle to creating that buffer zone of semi-independent client states is the United States.  That is a strategic blunder on our part.  Such a buffer zone is no threat to the U.S. or to its vital interests.

However, China knows American power is waning and the American people are tired of meaningless wars on the other side of the world.  Despite America, China’s influence on the states in her proximity is rising.  She can afford to be patient.
The blood also is getting the muscles levitra price of the reproductive organ gets lots of energy that is helpful to make the organ erect for longer time and allows one to have a successful and pleasurable sexual activity. Other Possible Benefits of Botox Medical professionals are viagra cheap price hopeful that Botox may prove to be a useful treatment of arthritis pain. Erectile dysfunction can occur because of poor erection quality? Many men are suffering from erectile dysfunction or impotency, you should not give up. tadalafil india cialis http://cute-n-tiny.com/cute-animals/baby-aligators/ ReloraMax is one of the best anti-stress herbal supplements. viagra cheap india
In contrast, if the states on China’s periphery get nuclear weapons, her quest to dominate them is permanently blocked.  An American presence is no longer required to balk her ambitions.  Even weak states such as Vietnam can stop her cold if they have nukes.  Her border states, instead of serving as a buffer, become dangerous threats sitting right on her frontiers.  Even if she should defeat one of them, the damage she would suffer in a nuclear exchange would knock her out of the ranks of the great powers and might cause her to come apart internally, which is the Chinese leadership’s greatest fear because it has so often happened throughout her history. 

President Trump will soon be visiting China.  If he and those around him ask the all-important question, “What would Bismarck do?”, they should be able to motivate China to finally do what is necessary with North Korea, namely give it an offer it cannot refuse.

The script runs roughly like this.  President Trump makes the case about the need to restrain North Korea’s nuclear program.  Instead of threatening trade or other measures if China refuses, he simply says, “If North Korea retains its nukes and delivery systems, we can no longer advise our allies in Asia not to go nuclear.  We will of course regret such nuclear proliferation, but we will also understand why they have to develop their own nuclear weapons.  In some cases, we may find it necessary to assist them with delivery systems such as missile-equipped submarines.  Of course, nuclear weapons in the hands of our allies are not a threat to the United States.”  He need not add that they will be a threat to China.

Nation’s foreign policies are not motivated by other nation’s needs.  Beijing does not care about the threat North Korean nukes pose to the U.S.  But nations are motivated by their own interests, and if we put North Korea’s nukes in this context, the context of the strategic threat reactions to them pose to China, that is a different kettle of fish.

In turn, we need to remember Bismarck’s dictum that politics is the art of the possible.  North Korea is unlikely to give up all its nuclear weapons.  However, at the demand of Beijing, Pyongyang can probably be brought to limiting their number and the range of their delivery systems.  Beijing could also offer to put an anti-missile system such as the Russians’ S-400 on North Korea’s border to shoot down any South Korean first strike.  North Korea could still use its few nukes to deter an American first strike, even if they could not reach beyond South Korea.

Are the Pentagon, State Department, and White House capable of Bismarckian Realpolitik? President Trump’s own instincts lead him that way.  Whether his administration can follow is open to doubt.