Taiwan Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

zgx09t

Junior Member
Registered Member
Pro-secessionists here are talking as if Taiwan will remain intact when a nuclear exchange happens between US and China over Taiwan war.

I'm sure the minute an H bomb hits a Chinese city, the whole island of Taiwan will be gone in a big blaze of glory, 22 millions and all.
No PLA general would allow any foreign troops to set foot on non-radioactive Taiwanese soil.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
To be fair, I think China using the possibility of nuclear escalation could be advantageous to its position, but in more limited circumstances. I was thinking of:

1. Warning that US attacks on Chinese mainland military facilities could provoke the use of nuclear weapons, such a directed at US bases in the Pacific like Wake Island that currently China cannot reliably take out with conventional weapons.

2. A US president that was clearly weak and looking for a way to not get involved. The spectre of nuclear war might give him/her the cover to sit the war out.

Whereas I don't think it would work on a Cold War veteran like Biden.

I mean, my idea is fundamentally related to what you described in no. 2, but specifically I don't think it is in relation to a "weak" president or a "strong" president.

The intended goals would be the same, and the statements would be conveyed regardless of how strong or weak they were perceived IMO.
 

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
The most dangerous thing going on is how Taiwanese and Hong Kongers and anyone else of like minds in Asia seem not to bat an eye when it comes to how many American lives it will cost the US to fight China for them. Remember how the Bush Administration had to tell Chen Shui Bian to shut up because he was going to push the US into a conflict with China over his rhetoric? When you think someone else will do your dirty work and pay the price for you, that can get dangerous. Do you think Americans care if they kill hundreds of millions of Chinese in a war? No. What they do care about is they don't want to see a lot of American casualties. One nuke on a US city is going have them experience a loss they never experienced before. The US lost 50,000 soldiers in the Vietnam War. The Vietnamese lost 2 million. Do you see Americans think about those lives? Their minuscule losses in comparison was enough for what was called the Vietnam Syndrome where Americans were afraid of going to war. The Persian Gulf War made them feel confident again but the difference with China is that the US just can't rely on letting air support and stand-off weapons soften and beat the enemy. All it takes is one nuke to hit the US. What are the chances of China getting one nuke past? Pretty good and not just one. That's all it takes to make them think twice. They didn't even take on North Korea which their missile defenses were made for against countries with limited intercontinental capabilities. Even before North Korea's first nuke, they thought about all the casualties North Korea can inflict and made them think twice. Some reading this will think it's an insult to American bravery and resolve. No, it's fact or else the US would already gone to war with China and North Korea.

Everything else comes down to the law of averages. The US can inflict a lot of casualties but it's how many they think they will lose is what makes them think twice about whether going to war or not. Yeah the US can nuke China but how many of their allies in Asia become collateral damage from the fallout? The more nukes, the more the US's allies suffer. Maybe it's acceptable because they beat China... said the US... until the fallout reaches the US and Europe afterwards. Give nukes to Japan and South Korea and if they use them, the fallout blows right back at them. The US can sell all the advanced weaponry to allies in Asia it wants but what good is it if they think China is the one that will start the war where China will take most of it out? It's only at it's most usefulness when they start the war in a sneak attack so it can be used and not wasted waiting for China to start it. But if they start the war, China will have no holds barred in on what it can do to the aggressor. Maybe the US will argue to China that it's the bad guy so even if the US and allies started the war, China will be obligated to do none to little in self-defense and if China doesn't obey, the US will ban Chinese 5G. If only the world operated like how they think and of course they would always win. But because the world doesn't, that's why they're hesitant and everyone on their side expects the other to do all the dirty work for them.

They always think China is itching for a war. No, they are. They want an excuse to stop China immediately. They say it themselves where China gets stronger and will be harder to stop everyday they do nothing. Yeah and why would China be itching for a war...? China wins without war. Saying China wants to start a war is to scare everyone into starting a war against China. It's not like they can say China is going to find the cure to cancer. The West and its allies must stop this treachery.

Taiwan is not going to sacrifice themselves so China can be punished for the good to get the world gang-up against China. What's dangerous is Taiwan might spark a conflict fully thinking the US will come to rescue hence why they could care less how Americans lives will be lost.
 

supersnoop

Major
Registered Member
Hu Xijin at it again.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This is not really news and mostly hot air, but it is an interesting point.

I think we can all agree that sending fatsack Pompeo is a "Red Line".

1. Does anyone here think the Trump admin would really go that far with just a few weeks left in power? His team is still filing lawsuits and I get the feeling that most people don't think things are actually settled until Biden is sitting in the Oval Office.
2. Does anyone think that Tsai Ing Wen would be crazy enough to accept this kind of visit? Such a provocation would be moot if she just refused it.

The other complicating factor would be, what is the exact nature of such a visit? If it is to establish formal diplomatic relations, it would technically be declaring independence, right? This would technically require constitutional amendment. If I understand the political procedure correctly, it would also require over 50% of all eligible voters (not just simple vote majority) to be in favour before even going to Legislative Yuan.

Otherwise they could try to characterize this as informal visit like "vacation" to just see how far they can push the button.
 

Mr T

Senior Member
I think we can all agree that sending fatsack Pompeo is a "Red Line".

You mean like an Obama red line, or a declaration of war red line?

I understand that he's a lot more senior than the cabinet members who have travelled to Taiwan before, but the visit itself wouldn't actually change anything in US-Taiwan relations, especially with a new US administration only weeks away. It might poison the well with Sino-American relations for the next four years, of course.

Does anyone here think the Trump admin would really go that far with just a few weeks left in power?

It's unlikely, and as you say Trump has other things to worry about. Anything's possible with Trump, but I think this is Global Times posturing rather than because they actually think he's likely to do it.

Does anyone think that Tsai Ing Wen would be crazy enough to accept this kind of visit? Such a provocation would be moot if she just refused it.

If this happened, I think it would depend on Biden. If Biden got in touch with her to ask her not to accept the visit or have her Vice President do the meetings, then she'll look to cooperate by doing him a favour.

Whereas if Biden decided to send over a senior cabinet member during his term of office, then I think she would accept it because refusing it would be a huge snub to her main allies.

If it is to establish formal diplomatic relations

I doubt that is on the cards, and I don't think Tsai would go for it if it was offered in the current circumstances. She wants 4 more years of good relations with the US, not a victory Biden could easily take away. Biden would have to be on board with it for a start, and there's no reason to believe this is in his game-plan for China and Taiwan.

it would technically be declaring independence, right? This would technically require constitutional amendment. If I understand the political procedure correctly, it would also require over 50% of all eligible voters (not just simple vote majority) to be in favour before even going to Legislative Yuan.

It's actually the other way around. First you need 2/3 of the legislative voting for it, then it needs to go to a referendum with >50% turnout and majority support.

Just as a thought experiment, if the US ever recognised Taiwan it would almost be as the ROC, and the US would say it is just mirroring what countries like China do in having diplomatic relations with North and South Korea despite the fact they each claim to be the sole legitimate government of Korea. Then there's the fact that the PRC would break off diplomatic relations with a country that recognised Taiwan/the ROC anyway, presumably including the US, so it wouldn't really matter.

Maybe Pompeo is looking for asylum?

In that case he needs to fly to Russia. :D
 
Last edited:

weig2000

Captain
Taiwan's contribution to the US MIC goes beyond the arms purchase, but also includes buying the thinking tank industry.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


June 17, 2020

Written by
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


The conditions for a Cold War–style entanglement with China were set. COVID-19’s origins in Wuhan, the global economic downturn stemming from the novel coronavirus, and a presidential election in five months created a perfect storm.

The Trump administration, seeking to deflect blame for its slow response to the pandemic, fueled baseless theories about the origins of “
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
,” threatened a new trade war, and labeled the Democratic nominee “Beijing Biden,” accusing him of being too weak on China. Joe Biden, for his part, ran a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
television commercial claiming that Trump “rolled over for the Chinese.”

Pushing back on bellicose statements from both parties requires credible policy advice from experts, many of whom are based at Washington research institutes. But five of the capital’s most prominent think tanks have been producing policy papers urging closer U.S. ties with Taiwan — a territory locked in an uncertain legal status that threatens to be a flashpoint between Beijing and Washington. These seemingly impartial research institutions are pushing for expanded arms sales and trade agreements with Taiwan without widely disclosing their high-level funding from the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office (TECRO), Taiwan’s equivalent to an embassy.

The five think tanks — the Brookings Institution, the Center for American Progress*, the Center for a New American Security, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and the Hudson Institute — all disclose their funding from TECRO but bury it deep on their websites or annual reports.

None of their researchers disclose the potential conflict of interest between Taiwanese funding and advocating for more security guarantees for and trade with Taiwan.

“Taiwan is an interesting case because we know Taiwan gives a good amount of money to think tanks, and we know they have a good amount of influence around town,” said Ben Freeman, director of the Foreign Influence Transparency Initiative at the Center for International Policy.

“For most people in this town, Taiwan doesn’t have the scarlet letter that funding from Saudi Arabia or China would, but it begs the question, why not just disclose at the front of a report, ‘We get funding from this government,’” said Freeman, who authored “
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
,” a recent report. “I don’t see the reasons you’d just keep this under wraps.”

And yet, while urging greater U.S. economic and security commitments to Taipei, Washington’s most influential think tanks do just that.

What Taiwan’s money buys

When
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
for the Taipei Times in December about the importance of bipartisan support in both Taiwan and the U.S., it appeared to be an impartial op-ed. Nowhere in the article was the Taiwan government’s funding for Brookings and its scholars disclosed.

One would have to go to Brookings’s 2019
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to see that TECRO provides between $250,000 and $499,999 to the think tank.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, Hass, again writing for the Taipei Times, urged policymakers in Washington and Taipei to counter potential economic risks to Taiwan in a U.S.-China technology competition by “pursu[ing] a U.S.-Taiwan trade agreement that includes chapters covering trade in goods and services, as well as e-commerce, investment rules, and possibly other areas.” Again, no disclosure.

Brookings did not respond to a request for comment about whether the institution had a conflict-of-interest policy and whether Brookings scholars have an obligation to disclose potential conflicts of interest when publishing analysis ostensibly about a funder.

Likewise the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank with close ties to the Clinton and Obama administrations, collected between $50,000 and $99,999 from TECRO in 2019. That information was only
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in an “annual honor roll recognizing supporters who make gifts of $5,000 or more.”

It was not disclosed when CAP senior fellow Trevor Sutton published a March column in
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, in which he posited that strengthening U.S.-Taiwan relations would assist in “defeating” the “narrative” by “illiberal movements” to portray “democratic governance” as “messy, corrupt, and ineffective.” Nor was TECRO’s funding disclosed when CAP senior fellow Michael H. Fuchs published a September 2019 report on “
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
,” and offered direct recommendations about what U.S. policymakers should do to “robustly support Taiwan.”

“CAP’s support of democracy around the world is fundamental to our mission and has nothing to do with any financial support,” a spokesperson for the think tank said. “CAP strongly supports greater transparency regarding foreign government funding sources across all think tanks. In fact, CAP’s most recent China strategy calls for the Internal Revenue Service to incorporate foreign funding sources as a mandated reporting requirement for all think tanks in the Form 990.”

The Center, it might be noted, received between $500,000 and $999,999 in annual funding from the United Arab Emirates, a sovereign constitutional monarchy, in 2014, 2016, and 2017, and produced a 2016
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
encouraging “partnership” with undemocratic “long-standing” allies like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman.

-------------------

To be continued ...
 

weig2000

Captain
... Continued

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Similarly, the Center for a New American Security, whose mission is to “develop strong, pragmatic and principled national security and defense policies that promote and protect American interests and values,” was also a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in CNAS’s most recent fiscal year.

CNAS scholars, like their peers, did not disclose their funding from Taiwan when providing their Washington audience with advice on “
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
,” a 2020 report. CNAS experts suggested a number of changes in U.S. policy that would benefit Taiwan’s security and economy. They wrote that the U.S. “can do much to strengthen its diplomatic and security relationship with Taiwan” and urged policymakers to “prioritize” a bilateral investment and trade agreement with Taiwan.

When asked about CNAS’s decision not to proactively disclose the potential conflict of interest, a spokesperson said that it “rigorously adheres to and publicly emphasizes its Intellectual Independence Policy on all reports,” which is available on its
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

That policy details the ways in which CNAS claims independence and editorial control over its research products. But the guidelines provide no guidance about disclosing potential conflicts of interest between funders and the reports produced by the organization.

Even the Center for Strategic and International Studies, ranked by the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
as the top think tank in the United States in 2019, followed the same trend, over
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
from TECRO. CSIS fails to mention the funding source when its scholars analyze U.S.-Taiwan relations in the media.

Last month, CSIS published
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
by Kurt Tong, a senior nonresident adviser, in which he argued for a U.S.-Taiwan trade agreement, concluding with an argument that Taiwan’s positive reputation in Washington, and a need for the U.S. to exhibit “leadership” in Asia, justifies the policy shift. “olstered U.S. leadership in Asia” would be one of the benefits of such an agreement, according to Tong.

CSIS did not respond to a request for comment about their publication of analysis that appeared to benefit the interests of one of their top funders without providing any disclosure. (After publication of this article, a CSIS staffer noted that a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
on Taiwan disclosed its foreign ministry as a funding source.)

Then there’s the Hudson Institute, a right-leaning think tank with a long-standing hawkish anti-China posture. Hudson received over $100,000 from TECRO in 2018, according to their
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

Without disclosing the potential conflict of interest, last month Hudson scholars Patrick M. Cronin and Ryan Neuhard
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
selling “cluster-munitions or incendiary weapons” so “Taiwan could credibly threaten non-military targets that have significant political value to [Chinese Communist Party] leadership,” effectively suggesting that Taiwan be encouraged to threaten non-military targets in China, a potential violation of international law.

Cronin and Neuhard also urged U.S. policymakers to “clarify its commitment to stand up to aggression” and “remove some of the ambiguity about what they think privately; namely, that an unprovoked attack on the people of Taiwan would trigger a US military response,” an escalatory measure, if made public, that could bring the U.S. closer to a cold war posture toward China.

Hudson took their policy suggestions even further, encouraging U.S. policymakers to pursue policies that would directly benefit the ruling Pan-Green coalition in Taiwan, effectively benefiting the political decision-makers in Taiwan who oversee TECRO’s budget and funding of think tanks, including Hudson.

Writing on Hudson’s website last month, Seth Cropsey, the director of the Center for American Seapower at Hudson, urged U.S. policymakers to recognize “an autonomous or independent Taiwan,” a move that Cropsey admits “will enrage the CCP.” Doing so would “bolster Taiwan’s clearly anti-Beijing Pan-Green Coalition,” wrote Cropsey, effectively urging the U.S. to take sides in Taiwan’s internal politics.

Hudson did not respond to a request for comment about their pattern of publishing materials beneficial to Taiwan’s current government without disclosing their funding from TECRO.

Why not disclose?

Hudson may be the most extreme in its policy proposals, but the consistent behavior from the five think tanks is unmistakable: General support funding from Taiwan’s government is never disclosed when experts, whose salaries may well be partially funded by TECRO dollars, offer policy recommendations regarding U.S.-Taiwan relations.

“My philosophy is that if you’re producing any report, you should put right up front in an acknowledgment section that lists the specific funders, including general-support funders, that helped make this report possible and list any potential conflict of interest with the funders,” said Freeman of the Foreign Influence Transparency Initiative. “Let the reader judge for themself whether there’s a conflict of interest.”

Though the appearance or possibility of a conflict of interest does not mean that the funding flows from Taiwan influenced the work products produced by the think tanks, the decision not to prominently disclose the funding may undermine otherwise valuable analysis and policy proposals.

“It seems like because they hid it, they have something to hide,” said Freeman. “When the public trust in government is at all-time lows and people think D.C. is so corrupt, it’s even more important for think tanks and think tank scholars to put this information out there and try and restore the trust of the American public.”

Indeed, as acceptance of a cold war posture toward China becomes ever more accepted as a foregone conclusion by Washington influencers, one of them actually highlighted the danger of foreign funding going largely undisclosed.

CNAS’s 2020 report that advocated for a U.S.-Taiwan trade agreement warned of think tanks receiving “substantial funding from Beijing that is often targeted at shaping views and discourse on China.” CNAS recommended “higher degrees of transparency” to help “ensure that this funding is not generating hidden forms of foreign lobbying, self-censorship, or other activities that undermine core U.S. democratic principles.”

That self-awareness about the potential influence of foreign funding, and the ethical arguments for greater transparency, does not appear to extend to the omnipresent funding stream from Taipei to think tanks across the Beltway.

*In the interest of full disclosure: Eli Clifton, the author of this article, and Ben Armbruster, the managing editor of Responsible Statecraft, are former employees of the Center for American Progress.
 

Gatekeeper

Brigadier
Registered Member
1. Does anyone here think the Trump admin would really go that far with just a few weeks left in power? His team is still filing lawsuits and I get the feeling that most people don't think things are actually settled until Biden is sitting in the Oval Office.
2. Does anyone think that Tsai Ing Wen would be crazy enough to accept this kind of visit? Such a provocation would be moot if she just refused it.
Anything its possible with a dying king. He'll do anything to cling on to power, or vent his anger at the country that took him down. Remember, he was riding high in the poll until this "China virus" came along and completely knocked him off his perch.

And as for the English Vegetable woman, well she is hell bent to break away,, even enlisting foreign help just like a true Hanjian.
 

Gatekeeper

Brigadier
Registered Member
If this happened, I think it would depend on Biden. If Biden got in touch with her to ask her not to accept the visit or have her Vice President do the meetings, then she'll look to cooperate by doing him a favour.

Whereas if Biden decided to send over a senior cabinet member during his term of office, then I think she would accept it because refusing it would be a huge snub to her main allies.

Just like a True lapdog!
 
Top