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.”

PEARL HARBOR PLUS 80: "DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT"

On January 23, 2010, a retired Air Force officer died in San Diego, age 96. His name was Kermit A. Tyler. For most of his life, he was one of the least understood players in the Pearl Harbor tragedy. On December 7, 1941, Tyler was the officer who told radar operators plotting a large inbound bogey, “Don’t worry about it.” Those four words, spoken in a total information vacuum, led to decades of criticism. 

On that day of infamy, Tyler was a 28­-year-­old first lieutenant. He had grown up in California and enlisted as an aviation cadet in 1936. By late 1941, he had four years’ experience. 

At the time, Tyler was a pilot in the 78th Pursuit Squad­ron at Wheeler Field, north of Pearl Harbor. Wheeler was Oahu’s fighter base, home to eight squadrons. The 78th owned 16 P­-40Bs and three P-­26As—not unknown in that transitional period. 

At 4:00 that Sunday morning, Tyler reported to Fort Shafter to begin learning collateral duties at the interception control center, east of Pearl Harbor. That trip, however, was merely the second time Tyler had seen the facility. His previous visit had been a familiarization briefing that Wednesday. 

Tyler was to go off duty at 8:00 a.m. and, thereby, was caught in an historic time warp, as the bombs began falling at 7:55. But the incident for which he became known occurred nearly an hour previously. The radar station at Opana Point, on Oahu’s north coast, reported a large blip. Tyler was the only officer present; the others were at breakfast or still en route. Knowing little more than zero and unable to consult anybody, he was the one who had to make the decision because senior officers didn’t begin arriving until 20 minutes after the attack began. Consequently, in response to the Opana report, he uttered the apparently damning words, “Well, don’t worry about it.” 

Contrary to many accounts, Tyler suspected but did not know of a flight of B­-17s approaching from the mainland. The fact that a Honolulu radio station was transmitting before 4:00 a.m. was as much indication as he received. Subse­quently he testified that he believed the radar plot referred to friendlies: “I thought they were off course and that they were maybe working out some problem, and it confused me.” Due to inter-service secrecy, he had no information on U.S. Navy or Marine Corps flights, although a scouting mission was inbound from the carrier USS Enterprise. 

Tyler’s most telling testimony came months later: “I did not know what my duties were. I just was told to be there and told to maintain that work.” 

In short, Kermit Tyler inherited an untenable situation. Lacking training and supervision, he was wholly on his own. 

An assessment of the Hawaiian command structure goes a long way toward explaining Tyler’s dilemma. The U.S. Army was primarily responsible for the defense of the islands, under Lt. Gen. Walter Short. But there existed only moderate coop­eration between the Army and the Navy, despite months of growing concern over Japanese ambitions.

The Navy commander was Adm. Husband Kimmel, whose predecessor had been fired by President Roosevelt for opposing the Pacific Fleet’s move from California to Hawaii. Rather than deterring Tokyo, the move merely placed a tempting target within range of Japan’s uniquely capable carrier striking force.  Pacific War historian John B. Lundstrom aptly described Kido Butai’s six carriers as “a 1941 atom bomb.”  Nobody else had anything remotely comparable.

Following the attack, Tyler worked at headquarters of the 18th Pursuit Group and flew scheduled patrols. An inquiry held in 1942 cleared him of any wrongdoing, and like most prewar pilots, he advanced rapidly. Promoted to major only nine months after Pearl Harbor, he assumed command of the 44th Fighter Squadron, serving in the Southwest Pacific until May 1943. While flying P-­40s, he claimed a Zero, probably destroyed. 

After the war, Tyler rose to lieutenant colonel and briefly led a Lockheed F­-94 wing. His final position was with the North American Air Defense Command at Colorado Springs, Colorado. 

Upon retiring in 1961, Tyler returned to California with his wife and four children. He attended college; earned a real­ estate license; and enjoyed golf, tennis, and surfing. 

Tyler still incurred criticism and vitriol among the relatively few people who knew his name. One website even established a whimsical Kermit Tyler award for unpreparedness. The blogger acknowledged, however, that Tyler was not directly responsible for the Pearl Harbor debacle when everyone above him was far more culpable, reaching back to Washington, D.C. 

Tyler was convinced to emerge from obscurity for a Pearl Harbor symposium in 1991, when the public learned more about the actual conditions at Fort Shafter. Although in declining health, he occasionally spoke to reporters who sought his perspective. In 2007, he told the Newark Star-Ledger, “I wake up at night sometimes and think about it. But I don’t feel guilty. I did all I could that morning.” 

At this late date, it’s appropriate to tell Kermit Tyler and his family, “Colonel, don’t worry about it.”

THE RITTENHOUSE TRIAL

Guest appearances are rare on my blog (which is rarely published on schedule) but this contribution requires dissemination.  If you are of a particular vintage, you recall the late Warren Zevon’s hit, Lawyers Guns and Money.  The following analysis is from  "Charles M. Strauss," my attorney friend, shooting partner, and estate planner.  He comments on the Kyle Rittenhouse trial now underway in Wisconsin.

++++++++++

Since you didn’t ask, I will give you my opinion anyway.

 

If facts mattered, the jury would find Rittenhouse not guilty on all counts, except for possession by a minor.  However, facts don’t matter.  If facts mattered, he would not have been charged.  So, there is always the possibility that the jurors are a bunch of nitwits who believe in their hearts that possessing an AR15 is prima facie proof of homicidal intent, or that going into a danger zone with a gun is prima facie proof of homicidal intent. (Except for Grosskreutz, of course.  Rittenhouse’s lawyer never asked him why he brought a gun into the situation.  Why not?)

 

My prediction is that the jury finds not guilty on all counts (except for possession by a minor), for two reasons:

• The verdict needs to be unanimous, and although I believe there are many stupid people in the world, and some on juries, I think it unlikely that all 12 would be that dumb.  So worst case, hung jury, which is the same as acquittal except the prosecutor could refile the charges.  (Unless the judge grants the motion for dismissal at that point.)
• The prosecutor needs to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that Rittenhouse was not acting in self defense.  If a juror says “I think Rittenhouse may not have been acting in self-defense, but I admit it’s at least plausible that he was acting in self-defense,” then that is supposed to be a not guilty verdict.  For a verdict of guilty, the jurors would have to believe “No reasonable person could possibly think this was self-defense.  Self-defense?  That’s crazy talk.  That’s like claiming space aliens pulled the trigger.”

 

However, at the last minute, the prosecutor proposed reduced charges, so jurors could feel sorry for the prosecutor, and want to give him a consolation prize.  Or they could be afraid of rioters/retribution, and want to throw the wolves a bone to take heat off themselves.  Or they could say, “I think he’s not guilty, but surely the DA would not have brought this case if there was nothing there, right?  He must be guilty of something.”  It’s easy for them to say “I don’t think he’s guilty, but let’s give him ‘only’ ten years in prison instead of life in prison.  He’ll only be 28 when he gets out, so no big deal.”

 

About the prosecutor:

It’s hard to believe he is that incompetent.  Any lawyer knows Thou Shalt Not bring up the subject of invoking the right to remain silent.  You can get suspended for that.  And on and on.  This guy is stunningly horrible.  But, is he really that bad, or is he throwing the case on purpose?  It’ll be interesting to see if he brings up verboten material in his closing argument, causing the defense lawyer to object (something rarely done) or more likely, causing the judge to interrupt him.

 

About the defense lawyer:

Not bad, but not great.  Did a good job getting the witnesses to say the right things.  Did a great job prepping Rittenhoue.  (Especially Grosskreutz.)  But there are a couple of things I think he could have done better.

• The self-defense case re Rosenbaum is based on whether a reasonable person could believe that Rosenbaum was (a) grabbing for the gun and (b) would have used it to shoot Rittenhouse if he had gotten it, versus he was not grabbing for the gun, or he was grabbing for the gun just to disarm Rittenhouse and he would not have used the gun himself.  IOW, was the unarmed Rosenbaum defending himself against the armed Rittenhouse?  (Will the prosecutor lay it out like that in his closing argument?)  
• That’s a good argument, because it is not clear “beyond a reasonable doubt” that Rosenbaum was not grabbing the gun or would not have used it.  Nevertheless, the defense should have had a backup plan – having an expert witness dispel the myth that you can’t shoot an unarmed man because an unarmed man does not present “deadly force.”  The expert should have educated the jury that 6-700 people a year are killed by people who are unarmed vs. maybe half that by people with AR15s.  Because the defense did not bring it up, the prosecutor is likely to raise it in his closing argument.
• The prosecutor intends to make a big deal about Rittenhouse using full metal jacket (FMJ) ammunition, which is evidence that he recklessly disregarded the risk of bullets over penetrating and hitting a bystander.  Because the charge of reckless endangerment was added at the last minute, that gives the prosecutor an opening.  The defense lawyer should have gone after that in the argument for jury instructions.  
• “Your honor, there are only two kinds of ammunition: hollow point and non-hollow point.  If a defendant uses hollow point ammunition, the prosecutor can claim that is evidence that the defendant wanted to inflict maximum pain and death.  If a defendant uses non-hollow point ammunition, the prosecutor can claim that the defendant recklessly disregarded the risk of over penetration.  No evidence was presented at trial to show that FMJ ammunition fired from an AR15 penetrates more (or significantly more) than hollow point, so the prosecutor should not be able to make that argument.”  
• Alternatively, the defense lawyer should have gotten an expert to talk about the likelihood of over penetration of that brand of ammunition from that barrel length, in comparison with other types of ammunition.  At the very least, the defense lawyer better be prepared in closing argument to tell the jury that there was no such testimony, but that in any case, they could interpret the use of FMJ as evidence that Rittenhouse did not want to use “more deadly” hollow point ammunition.  
• I remember how Harold Fish got screwed when the prosecutor raised the subject of hollow point ammunition for the first time in his closing argument, and how the judge let it go, and Fish’s lawyer let it go.  I hope the prosecutor doesn’t get away with it this time. See this link: https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=4266 
• There was a better answer to “Why did you have a gun?”  Answer:  “I thought it would be a deterrent.  I thought rioters and arsonists would see people with guns and decide to go somewhere else and leave that business alone.  I never thought I would actually have to shoot somebody.”  
• “Then why did you load the gun?”  “Just in case I ran across some psychotic violent criminals, off their meds, who would be crazy enough to try to kill me while I was carrying a gun.”  “OBJECTION!”  “Sustained.  The jury will disregard the statement about psychotic violent criminals off their meds.”

 

About the judge:

He knows that this is a bullshit case, which should never have been brought.  He has left open the defense motion to dismiss.  I would not be too surprised if, after closing arguments, the judge says “I have made a decision regarding the motion to dismiss.  The prosecutor’s conduct has been so egregious that I grant the motion to dismiss, with prejudice.  Rittenhouse is a free man, and I will be recommending that the Wisconsin Bar investigate the prosecutor’s unethical misconduct.”  I would especially expect that if the prosecutor steps over the line again during his closing argument.

 

The judge really would prefer to pass the buck to the jury, and let them come back with a not guilty verdict.  So, if he reads the jury as being inclined to not guilty, he may let the jury decide the case, knowing that if they do find Rittenhouse guilty, he has an ace in the hole, a judgment notwithstanding the verdict – effectively overruling the jury.  That is almost never used, but I’m thinking this guy is 75 years old.  He is ready to retire, and he is pissed off at what he sees as a gross miscarriage of justice.  “Let the heathen rage” – his pension is secure.  He can move to Florida, and he can supplement that fat pension with consulting expert fees on Fox News and elsewhere.

 

My revised prediction:  The jury finds Rittenhouse guilty on a lesser charge.  IMO, that would be a terrible injustice; this is as clear a case of self-defense as ever there way.  But, sometimes injustice prevails.  Sometimes the bad guys win.

 

Now let’s just wait and see how wrong I was.