escobar
Brigadier
A US first strike IS also suicidal.
China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread
- Thread starter peace_lover
- Start date
- Status
The Americans are delusional enough that it is not a remote possibility by any means, even during the (first) Cold War the US always maintained the option of doing so, and why the Soviets were so worried that Able Archer 83 nearly ended up in a nuclear exchange.
Why would the US station nuclear missiles on taiwan when a columbia class SSBN can reliably hit any target on earth, from any ocean, and without warning? You're completely oblivious to US nuclear policy.
A good point. However, equipping a country with nukes and stationing subs are different in that it means that country effectively has the Nuclear response guaranteed. With the subs however, US can only threaten a response but not guarantee it.
For this reason, Taiwan with nuclear weapons mean a Taiwanese regime having the autonomy and guarantee of using them for a response. Even to this day, US has never guaranteed or demonstrated a willingness of using nukes to defend a third party. Otherwise, nations like Israel wouldn't have needed to develop their own nuclear weapons.
The only way to 100% guarantee a nuclear response is with second strike capability. Israel has to develop their own nuclear weapons because the united states refuses to share offensive nuclear weapons technology, with anybody that isn't the UK. We shut down Taiwan's nuclear project once already.
The whole american posture during the Cold War depended on the Soviet Union firmly believing the US will use nuclear weapons to defend west Germany. Without nuclear escalation, both the US and the Soviet Union believed the Soviet Union would likely to win any conventional war in Europe launched at Soviet discretion in a relative short amount of time.
I remember a few months ago one member (probably from Eastern Europe) mentioned about US had a nuclear guarantee on West Berlin during the Cold War. He believed if the US offered the same guarantee on Taiwan, China would be deterred.
My answer was that Taiwan is completely different from West Berlin. Taiwan is part of Chinese territory that all mainland Chinese (and majority of overseas Chinese) firmly believe in; it is also widely accepted internationally. Current status of Taiwan is the result of unfinished civil war while West Berlin was not part of USSR's territory or even its WWII spoil (it was West's). Stakes are vastly different for China and for the US. MAD will not deter China from reunifying Taiwan regardless whether the US will do or not. Of course, China will have to make sure it can guarantee a MAD with a large enough nuclear arsenal.
The US had threatened PRC multiple times with nuclear weapons during the Cold War including during Korean War; China risked nuclear attack while engaging in border conflict with USSR during the Cold War; China invaded Vietnam in 1979 to punish it for its aggression in Indo-China despite Vietnam's defense treaty alliance with USSR. None of these explicit or implicit nuclear threats deterred China from defending its core national interest fiercely.
It's ultimately the contest of will. I don't believe the US will risk MAD for Taiwan ultimately, but regardless what the US will or will not do. China will do for Taiwan what it will do for Shanghai.
Last edited:
The perceived status of taiwan to the mainland Chinese is really not an extremely important factor in any rational American calculation of the importance of keeping Taiwan out of china’s direct rule. The most important factors to American consideration would be:
1. would letting china gain direct control over taiwan create a precedence that would critically threaten America’s ability to hold an effective line in protecting her own international influence through an effective alliance and effective system of international institutions which has been vital to her international influence hitherto.
2. if america were to commit herself to keeping taiwan out of china’s direct rule, does the probability weighted benefit of success in that endeavor outweigh the probability weighted consequence of failure.
I think the answer America gave herself is yes and yes.
Given fundamental divergence in view regarding the relationship between states and private economic and political interest, there is nothing china can do in the foreseeable future to alter 1.
So the only thing that can potentially change the trajectory of sino-american relation is if china is successful altering 2.
1. would letting china gain direct control over taiwan create a precedence that would critically threaten America’s ability to hold an effective line in protecting her own international influence through an effective alliance and effective system of international institutions which has been vital to her international influence hitherto.
2. if america were to commit herself to keeping taiwan out of china’s direct rule, does the probability weighted benefit of success in that endeavor outweigh the probability weighted consequence of failure.
I think the answer America gave herself is yes and yes.
Given fundamental divergence in view regarding the relationship between states and private economic and political interest, there is nothing china can do in the foreseeable future to alter 1.
So the only thing that can potentially change the trajectory of sino-american relation is if china is successful altering 2.
Last edited:
I think I have already answered to your "American calculation" - rational or otherwise. That is, regardless what American calculation is. Or to be more specific, whether the US will intervene or not, or whether it will go nuclear or not. It might affect the tactics somewhat, but it won't change what China will do ultimately. China's position on Taiwan has always been clear, consistent and unambiguous.
The point being, China will always be willing do more for Taiwan, up to risking MAD. Whether the US will ultimately be willing to do so for Taiwan in order to maintain its "primacy," the US will have to decide. Its decision won't affect China's, which has been pretty clear and consistent from its public statements, laws, constitution and past behaviors.
The point being, China will always be willing do more for Taiwan, up to risking MAD. Whether the US will ultimately be willing to do so for Taiwan in order to maintain its "primacy," the US will have to decide. Its decision won't affect China's, which has been pretty clear and consistent from its public statements, laws, constitution and past behaviors.
Last edited:
Ultimately in final analysis with regards to TW red line, China will do what China will do, and US will do what US will do... neither can stop the other irrespective of one anothers so called calculations...
Unfortunately this may lead to wwiii and MAD/end of world, but that is not the worst case scenario... the worst case is for China to cave and all 1.6 billion Chinese get enslaved by Anglo west while American homeland remains untouched....
- Status