THE TAIWAN TRIGGER

 

A potential clash between Communist China (the Peoples Republic or PRC) and the Republic of China (Taiwan, of the ROC) has gained persistent media attention of late.  It’s an old story with legs, as the prospects ebbed and flowed from year to year.  

For a bit of background, readers of this blog may recall my previous comments, including these:

From February 2011

“Beijing has considerable internal problems to address before embarking on the road to conquest.  China’s unemployment rate has remained steady at around 4 percent for over a decade.  That’s the good news.  The bad news: The Middle Kingdom now must find some 30 million new jobs per year to maintain that figure.  That’s essential for for growing the middle class, which is necessary to bolster the internal economy without relying so heavily on foreign markets.  (And if that sounds suspiciously non-communist, you’re right.  Nobody said that politics has to make sense.)

“China’s internal situation is a complex subject owing to economic and demographic concerns.  I already cited the need to generate some 30 million new jobs annually.  That figure keeps popping up.  It’s also the number of young single men who are unlikely to marry owing to the long-term single-child policy.”

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/chinas-30-million-bachelors/story-e6frerdf-1111116459631

“As stated my Aussie mate Peter (an army veteran whose company does business in the PRC), ‘That’s a lot of surplus infantry.’”

However, from September 2014:

“Today the military-industrial complex’s go-to bogeyman is China, which is not about to start a war with its number one trade partner.  That feud would destroy both economies, but the Pentagon and the pols need somebody as an excuse for buying platinum-plated stealth airplanes and submarines.”

However, That Was Then and This Is Now.

China’s massive hacking of U.S. government and industry networks largely has come and gone in public awareness.  Here’s one quick survey:

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/china-another-hack-us-cybersecurity-issues-mount-rcna744

And here's another revelation spanning a three-year period:

https://money.cnn.com/2016/07/13/technology/china-fdic-hack/index.html

America’s erratic China policies have swung on the geopolitical pendulum.  In 1972 Republican President Richard Nixon amazed the world by visiting Mao tse Tung, and in 1979 Democrat Jimmy Carter recognized Beijing.  The Democrat Clinton administration’s contradictory 1990s positions on human rights and most-favored-nation status continued the diplomatic roller coaster.  

https://www.heritage.org/report/the-collapse-clintons-china-policy-undoing-the-damage-the-mfn-debate

For years China has been our number one trade partner, after the European Union.  And what card-carrying capitalist could pass up one-sixth of the world’s population? Especially with low-low manufacturing costs despite transpacific shipping expense.  But President Donald Trump imposed much higher tariffs on Chinese imports to reduce the U.S. trade deficit.  Then America’s lopsided reliance on the PRC belatedly came to the fore with the 2020 pandemic.

Beyond economics, Beijing has spent decades gaining influence in the U.S., positioning itself for broad-based advantage.  As noted, industrial-grade cyber attacks have largely gone unanswered, and Chinese have inserted themselves in business, universities, and government.  Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s communications director was a registered agent of Communist China, and California Senator Diane Feinstein’s driver for 20 years was a Chinese operative.

https://iotwreport.com/top-pelosi-staffer-registered-as-foreign-agent-to-lobby-for-chinese-state-media-outlet/

https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2018/08/01/details-chinese-spy-dianne-feinstein-san-francisco/

Through the decades, Beijing has waged an extremely patient, broad-based approach to expanding its influence.  It’s not always according to diplomatic norms.  Sometimes PRC officials resort to physical force, demonstrating their attitude with incidents against Fiji and New Guinea.  

Meanwhile, the PRC claims international waters as its own, even building islands in the South China Sea while engaged in a massive naval buildup.  Combined with growing influence in Africa and South America, clearly Beijing has a holistic approach to global dominance.

Which returns us to war against Taiwan.

Despite the diplomatic rift, he U.S. has continued political and military connections with Taiwan.  Among my D.C. contacts is a military analyst who has traveled in the PRC and ROC.  He notes the immense importance of “face” in Asian politics, both internal and external.  (America lost enormous “face,” or credibility, with the Afghan debacle last year but continued with business as usual.)  Therefore, it’s almost certain that Beijing would not attack Taiwan with anything less than total commitment; the cost of failure would be unbearable in the PRC.  Some observers opine that it might even upset the Communist Party’s totalitarian grasp.

Would the U.S. and other Pacific nations physically oppose a PRC invasion of Taiwan?  It’s far from certain, though standing by while issuing Strong Diplomatic Objections seems more likely at present.  Certainly the Princes of the Potomac would gauge the public pulse, determining whether the electorate would endorse military action supporting a nation that many Americans could not identify on a world map.

Naval analysts note that the 100-mile stretch of the Taiwan Strait imposes a serious challenge to an invader.  The Peoples Liberation Army Navy (!) is expanding its amphibious capability to accomplish a forced landing against a nation that has been preparing for war since 1949.  However, if Beijing decides to press the trigger anytime soon, probably dedicated ‘phibs would be augmented by non-specialized or modified ships to deliver infantry and armor divisions to Taiwanese beaches.

Regardless of how well planned and coordinated, it’s extremely unlikely that a PRC invasion could achieve surprise.  The necessary buildup of  an invasion fleet would be noticed by “overhead coverage” (read: satellites) almost immediately.  Rating high on China’s priority would be minesweepers—lots of them with constant overhead fighter protection.  Today Taiwan is belatedly investing in more minelayers and attack submarines with fast missile-firing corvettes.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/taiwan-making-major-investment-mines-deter-china-193238

However, considering the huge disparity of forces—notably manpower and airpower—Taiwan probably would face a losing battle, absent outside support.  Even “severe” diplomatic responses such as trade embargoes would be irrelevant during the fighting.  We can expect a unified assault, integrating sea, air, land, and cyber forces toward a common goal.

Aside from completing a seven-decade ambition to “reunite” China, Beijing may envision other benefits.  Taiwan produces a large share of the world’s computer chips.  If the PRC grabs the ROC, Beijing stands to increase its market share.  However, reportedly Taiwan has determined to destroy its production plants in event of invasion.  Meanwhile, TSMC, which controls one-fourth of the global market, is building two microchip factories in the U.S.  

War over Taiwan could adversely affect the PRC in other ways.  Communist china imports huge quantities of crude oil, far more than any nation.  We’ve been there before: in 1941 Japan went to war against the West to secure the petrowealth of the Dutch East Indies.  We know how that turned out.

During a war, and probably sometime thereafter, no tankers could arrive from the Persian Gulf.  China would have to rely on pipelines from Russia, themselves sitting ducks.  Simultaneously, there would be little or no power for coal or gas from abroad.  Meanwhile, Beijing also imports electrical machinery, ores and plastics—all necessary for manufacturing.

Some pundits posit a global coordinated plan with China against Taiwan, Russia against Ukraine, and Iran against anybody.  If they were timed together, the impact would be enormous at every level.

When? 

Well, a retired military officer says, “All our adversaries are strong, ruthless leaders; all can see and assess the weakness in the U.S. leadership.  I remain in my expectation with others that we are going to see turmoil throughout the globe after the Olympics.”  (To be held in China throughout February.)

In domestic U.S. politics, successful invasions of Ukraine and Taiwan, with likely negative impact on the stock market, supply chains and inflation, could drop President Biden's job approval from the present 35 to 40% or even down to VP Harris' 25%, dooming Democrats in both the House and Senate, regardless of long-term fraud dating from Lyndon Johnson’s era.

Is America prepared for the consequences of defending Taiwan—and losing?  The answer is No.  Very few Americans are even aware of the question.

Presumably Pacific nations would not allow the violent conquest of Taiwan, lest it set a long-term pattern.  So: assuming the PRC conquers the island, then what?  Could allied nations organize and mount a forcible return of Taiwan to its rightful owners?  Even assuming so, surely the results would leave most infrastructure destroyed or severely damaged, requiring years to rebuild.  Wargamers can dine out on that scenario for a long time. 

Then let’s think about the unthinkable:

Depending on Beijing’s reading of the geostrategic calculus, limited nuclear use conceivably could be an option—using tactical nukes against hardened targets such as buried command and control centers.  But at what point does the nuclear genie escape the bottle?

China has enough ICBMs to strike the 200 largest U.S. cities (down to Waco, Texas with 138,000).  And the PRC is building 300 more silos plus mobile missiles in 3,000 miles of tunnels.  

Thus, any retaliation would have to be against people, starting with CCP leaders, but unavoidably millions of innocents.  China has many densely populated megacities with eight as big or bigger than New York.  Each of 1,000 US warheads could kill 100 to 500 thousand people, if used against cities.  A quarter to a third of China's 1.4 billion people could die.

https://www.chinahighlights.com/travelguide/top-large-cities.htm

By contrast, the CCP might be able to kill "only" ten million Americans, “mostly Democrats” quipped one Independent observer.

Far more likely, another chip on Beijing’s table is quiet extortion.  Well beyond its massive influence among corrupt American politicians, the PRC could plant radioactive samples throughout the U.S. with notes, “Take your Geiger counters to these places.  Other sites contain backpack weapons.  Now stay away.”

To quote future Senator Fred Dalton Thompson as Admiral Painter in 1990’s The Hunt for Red October, “This business will get out of control.  It will get out of control and we’ll be lucky to live through it.”