A little Chinese sabre rattling

[welsh]

Looks like the Chinese are renewing and making vocal the old threat that the US will pay to protect Taipai with Los Angeles.

Interesting when you think how many nuclear secrets they stole from us.

How will Europe respond
- I predict... with great silence.

Chinese General Threatens Use of A-Bombs if US Intrudes
By Joseph Kahn
The New York Times

Friday 15 July 2005

Beijing - China should use nuclear weapons against the United States if the American military intervenes in any conflict over Taiwan, a senior Chinese military official said Thursday.

"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," the official, Maj. Gen. Zhu Chenghu, said at an official briefing.

General Zhu, considered a hawk, stressed that his comments reflected his personal views and not official policy. Beijing has long insisted that it will not initiate the use of nuclear weapons in any conflict.

But in extensive comments to a visiting delegation of correspondents based in Hong Kong, General Zhu said he believed that the Chinese government was under internal pressure to change its "no first use" policy and to make clear that it would employ the most powerful weapons at its disposal to defend its claim over Taiwan.

"War logic" dictates that a weaker power needs to use maximum efforts to defeat a stronger rival, he said, speaking in fluent English. "We have no capability to fight a conventional war against the United States," General Zhu said. "We can't win this kind of war."

Thus nuclear weapons are the great equalizer.

Whether or not the comments signal a shift in Chinese policy, they come at a sensitive time in relations between China and the United States.

The Pentagon is preparing the release of a long-delayed report on the Chinese military that some experts say will warn that China could emerge as a strategic rival to the United States. National security concerns have also been a major issue in the $18.5 billion bid by Cnooc Ltd., a major Chinese oil and gas company, to purchase the Unocal Corporation, the American energy concern.

China has had atomic bombs since 1964 and currently has a small arsenal of land- and sea-based nuclear-tipped missiles that can reach the United States, according to most Western intelligence estimates. Some Pentagon officials have argued that China has been expanding the size and sophistication of its nuclear bombs and delivery systems, while others argue that Beijing has done little more than maintain a minimal but credible deterrent against a nuclear attack.

Thus the logic of the Chinese position- they will initiate nuclear war against the US although they probably lack the capability of wiping out the US first strike, and doubtfully the US second strike.

Thus US responds in retaliation of a dozen major US cities with most of China vaporized in radioactive fires.

Aftermath of the war- US becomes a second or third rate power that takes years to overcome nationwide nuclear disaster. China reverts to another round of warring states.

All this for Taiwan? Are they kidding?

Beijing has said repeatedly that it would use military force to prevent Taiwan from becoming a formally independent country. President Bush has made clear that the United States would defend Taiwan.

Many military analysts have assumed that any battle over Taiwan would be localized, with both China and the United States taking care to ensure that it would not expand into a general war between the two powers.

That's called wishful thinking based on the notion of a ladder of escalation. In fact war is a carnivorous irrational beast that consumes everything and will only return to hibernation when there is nothing left to eat.

But the comments by General Zhu suggest that at least some elements of the military are prepared to widen the conflict, perhaps to persuade the United States that it could no more successfully fight a limited war against China than it could against the former Soviet Union.

"If the Americans are determined to interfere, then we will be determined to respond," he said. "We Chinese will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all the cities east of Xian. Of course the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese."

I hope the Chinese are digging giant tunnels in Tibet. Hundreds of cities in the US- perhaps overstates the Chinese case. Enough said, that the destruction of a dozen US cities would be devestating.

Oh but wait- Remember when Kruschev bagged his shoe and said, "We will bury you!"

Fuck you!

General Zhu's threat is not the first of its kind from a senior Chinese military official. In 1995, Xiong Guangkai, who is now the deputy chief of the general staff of the People's Liberation Army, told Chas W. Freeman, a former Pentagon official, that China would consider using nuclear weapons in a Taiwan conflict. Mr. Freeman quoted Mr. Xiong as saying that Americans should worry more about Los Angeles than Taipei.

Foreign Ministry officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment about General Zhu's remarks.

General Zhu said he had recently expressed his views to former American officials, including Mr. Freeman and Adm. Dennis C. Blair, the former commander in chief of the United States Pacific Command.

The Chinese suck. This is stupid sabre rattling.

[/quote]

 

[Brother None]

How will Europe respond
- I predict... with great silence.

Ey, mon, they're not declaring war on us, why should we care?

NATO, tho'

 

[Hovercar Madness]

Thus the logic of the Chinese position- they will initiate nuclear war against the US although they probably lack the capability of wiping out the US first strike, and doubtfully the US second strike.

Thus US responds in retaliation of a dozen major US cities with most of China vaporized in radioactive fires.

Aftermath of the war- US becomes a second or third rate power that takes years to overcome nationwide nuclear disaster. China reverts to another round of warring states.

All this for Taiwan? Are they kidding?

And you're wondering why Europe'd remain silent? We're waiting for you two to duke it out so we can have all the spoils. Yarr.

 

[Dapper Dan Man]

Honestly, America and China should jsut carve up Europe into little spheres of influence all over again. What good is Europe except for fighting proxy wars in anyways? It is hardly like we "need" it as a network of disparate countries. They are getting waaay too complacent.

Might as well give the people what they want: true imperialism. Send the marines in, and see Europe become a hell of a lot more docile. After all, we have this huge military, why not use it and go for the land grab?

 

[Brother None]

fter all, we have this huge military, why not use it and go for the land grab?

Uhm, because you'd lose? You hardly have the manpower to keep a hold of Iraq, try occupying, not beating, but occupying, Europe.

Sucker.

 

[John Uskglass]

Yeah, but Arabs are determined, strong people with lots of guns. French no longer even has a word for guns or wining in battle.

 

[Brother None]

Yeah, but Arabs are determined, strong people with lots of guns. French no longer even has a word for guns or wining in battle.

Victoire? Pistolet?

Not really accurate, though, the French military is still fairly good, even if they don't go over to Iraq to prove it, that has nothing to do with their ability. It's the German military that's in a bad state. A lot of our bigger powers (Poland, France, UK and Spain) still have decent armies. And that's not counting Russia

Nothing comparable to the US, but we wouldn't be trying to occupy the US.

 

[Maphusio]

Yeah, but Arabs are determined, strong people with lots of guns. French no longer even has a word for guns or wining in battle.

The Arabs ancestors are perfect examples of the strength of their resolve when it comes to foreign occupations... How many years did the Christians occupy them? Rape their land and their people? How many times did they "turn the other cheek" and allow people of all religions live with them in peace? It's too bad things become less simplistic over time. So many shades of gray.

I love your depiction of the French though, if only the world could be cool enough to stay out of that fire.

 

[WarMonger]

ummm, nuking LA? sounds like a good idea anyway

 

[Zaij]

The Arabs ancestors are perfect examples of the strength of their resolve when it comes to foreign occupations... How many years did the Christians occupy them? Rape their land and their people?

That's a little one sided, isn't it?

 

[caban]

How will Europe respond? I think that the biggest allies of USA which helped them in Iraq will also help them in this situation, but I am afraid it isn't much. What about other countries? They will try to resolve it in a peaceful way.

Honestly, America and China should jsut carve up Europe into little spheres of influence all over again. What good is Europe except for fighting proxy wars in anyways? It is hardly like we "need" it as a network of disparate countries. They are getting waaay too complacent.

I must say Kharn is in 100% percent right in this situation. You can't kill nationalities. You have problems in Iraq and you think you would have any chance in Europe? I don't think so. For example lets take the war in Vietnam. Why did you lose? Because they were fighting for freedom of their country and you were fighting only for some political stuff.

Bush is making same mistake as all earlier presidents of USA. I would suggest to learn the history for new presidents.

 

[Bradylama]

Welsh is right, this is 100% sabre-rattling on the part of the Chinese. They've grown too fat on Western wealth, and the ruling elite would rather be hailed as economic reformers than putting a possibly indefinite end to the greater China.

"We can't fight the US conventionally" is misleading. The Chinese are perfectly capable of fighting a conventional war with America, they just can't do it over Taiwan. As the state of the Chinese navy is, it'd be impossible for them to get an invasion force past the US task forces. What better way to keep the American navy out of the picture than to threaten the use of nukes?

General Zhu is correct. The Chinese would have to use Nuclear arms to take on the United States, and it's a bluff that Beijing hopes we can't afford to call.

 

[Maphusio]

The Arabs ancestors are perfect examples of the strength of their resolve when it comes to foreign occupations... How many years did the Christians occupy them? Rape their land and their people?

That's a little one sided, isn't it?

That’s really the only side I have been able to agree with. Tell me reasons why I should be less lenient toward one side over the other? And don’t mention the church that burned. A result of one mad man that was dealt with properly.

 

[Bradylama]

Wait a second. So which side is it that you're agreeing with? That Christians rape Arabs, or that everybody rapes everybody?

 

[Maphusio]

Wait a second. So which side is it that you're agreeing with? That Christians rape Arabs, or that everybody rapes everybody?

lol since you put it like that the second option.

 

[Zaij]

Er. So Muslim attacks on Europe mean squat? Ever heard of the Ottoman Empire?

 

[Maphusio]

In the eighteenth century, the Ottomans fought a series of wars with European powers. Between 1714 and 1718, they fought with the small country of Venice; between 1736 and 1739, they fought with Austria and Russia in order to stop the expansion of these powers into Muslim territories. The Russians in particular continued to aggressively expand their state into Muslim territories in Central Asia; these small Muslim states had no place to turn to except the Ottomans. War with Russia, in fact, dominates the Ottoman scene from much of the eighteenth century; the two states clashed between 1768 and 1774, and again between 1787 and 1792. In all these wars of the eighteenth century, there were no clear victors or losers.

Ottoman history in the nineteenth century was dominated by European wars and expansion. The Europeans madly scrambled for territory throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth century. Some of this was European territory, but far and away, the bulk of the territory that Europeans desired was non-European. Human history has never seen such rapid and frenetic annexation of territory as occurred in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The end result for the Ottomans was the loss of Empire, and, finally, the loss of the Ottoman dynasty itself.

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/OTTOMAN/OTTOMAN1.HTM

good read on that

 

[Bradylama]

You realize he's referring more to the Moors and Spain, right?

 

[Zaij]

Exactly Bradylama. And Maphusio, you may also try to go a bit further back (God, I really need Jebus here for this) to the first siege of Vienna, etc.

 

[Max Demian]

Beijing plays down general's threats
By Richard McGregor in Beijing and Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington
Published: July 15 2005 19:50 | Last updated: July 15 2005 19:50
Beijing on Friday distanced itself from comments by a senior Chinese general that China could use nuclear weapons against the US in the event of any military conflict with America over Taiwan. “What he talked about were just his personal views,” said Shen Guofang, an assistant minister of foreign affairs.

In an interview with foreign reporters in Beijing on Thursday, Major General Zhu Chenghu, who is also a dean at China’s National Defence University, said Beijing should respond with nuclear weapons if the US targeted Chinese territory. “We Chinese will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all cities east of Xian [in central China], he said. Of course the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese.”

Taiwan on Friday criticised his remarks but steered clear of blaming the Chinese government. Michael You, vice-chairman of the mainland affairs council, Taipei's cabinet-level China policy body, said: “The statement reveals the ferocious face of the hawks in China. It should be condemned and the person making it should apologise.”

Chinese government officials emphasised that Gen Zhu's remarks were seen as a minority opinion and being the first to use nuclear weapons would contradict Beijing's military strategy.

Gen Zhu, who is understood to have made similar comments in the past, said his remarks were his personal opinion and not government policy. But his comments come at a sensitive time for US-China military relations.

The Pentagon is next week expected to release its annual report on the Chinese military, which is likely to take a more hardline stance than previous years. A string of US officials have raised concerns about the rise of the Chinese military recently. Gen Zhu's comments are also likely to further inflame anti-China sentiment in Washington. Lawmakers have complained of unfair trade practices, allegations of currency manipulation, and opposition to a bid by CNOOC, a state-owned Chinese oil company, for US-owned Unocal.

“This one sentence from a PRC general has probably nuked any remaining possibility that CNOOC will succeed in its bid for Unocal,” said Andy Rothman, a China strategist with CLSA, a brokerage, in Shanghai.

Some Washington analysts caution that Gen Zhu's comments should not be read as official Chinese policy. But Michael O'Hanlon, defence analyst at the Brookings Institution, said Gen Zhu stated a reality that cannot be ignored. “He was right on the merits, but as a policy statement it was a stupid thing to say.” Mr Shen played down any conflict with the US emerging over Taiwan, saying Washington had consistently recognised Beijing's claim to sovereignty over the island.

“We don't wish to see any dispute or disagreement between the US and China, or any scenario of conflict with the US,” he said.

China has long vowed to retake Taiwan by force, should its government declare formal independence from Beijing, a scenario under which the US may use its military to defend the island from attacks.

Mr Zhu's claim that China might destroy hundreds of US cities might be beyond the capability of the country's nuclear forces at the moment, according to a paper published last month by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Quoting “the intelligence community”, the paper said China would increase its strategic nuclear warheads from “18 to 75-100” over the next 15 years, primarily targeted against the US.

Additional reporting by Kathrin Hille in Taipei


Related link: http://news.ft.com/cms/s/4062b908-f561-11d...000e2511c8.html

I sincerely doubt any of this was accidental at all... people need to be reminded every so and a while that the threat of a nuclear armaggedon is still all to real, if nothing but to make them more prone to further propaganda. That's just one of the ways governements shape public perception, which is even more crucial in todays "democracies". Anyways, chances are far more in favor of wintessing another Cold War, rather than a Thermonuclear one.
Don't worry to much. Stress is not good for ya.