China Threatens U.S. Alliances - Page 5

**Officer of Engineers** · 04-04-2005, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by parihaka

Interesting piece of history, thanks for pointing it out, here's the NZ view of it.

And here is a Chinese perspective though alot of their facts contradict ours, namely we count far more bodies than a single battalion could have.

Quote:

According to the Chinese account, the unit facing the Canadians and the British in this battle was not a division, but a single BATTALION.

It's the 3rd battalion, 354th regiment, 118th division. The rest of 118th div was NOT involved in the battle.

I believe I have the right battle. The date (April 23-24, 1951), the place (refered to as Jia Ping in Chinese), the enemy (described as Brit 27th Bgd and the Canadian 25th Bgd) all fit.

The 3rd btn was the vanguard unit of the 118th div. Penetrating deep behind UN lines during the 1st phase of the 5th campaign, the btn had lost contact with the main body of the PVA forces when it ran into the Brits and Canadians in Jia Ping (or KapYong). The battle is described in Chinese accounts as a valiant fight by the understrength Chinese btn (around 500 men) against superior enemy forces. The 3rd battalion did suffer heavy casualties. The chief of staff of the 354th Reg., who was with the battalion, was killed in action.

This was NOT considered an important battle in the PVA accounts.

The PVA thinks the battle which turned the tide against them was the battle of Di Ping Li (Feb 13-16, 1951) during the 4th campaign, where the US 23rd infantry Reg, 2nd Div and the French Btn, plus supporting artillery and armour units, held off repeated assaults by 4 PVA infantry regiments. It's considered the first PVA defeat of the war, and forced the PVA back on the defensive.

bull · 04-04-2005, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asim Aquil

I read somewhere that it'll take about 30 days for the US carriers to arrive in Taiwan.

Would Taiwan last 30 days? I don't think the US would launch an attack once its Chinese occupied territory.

There is a perception especially among asians that with the rise of chineese and indian econmy the rest of the world would be dependant on asia for existance.Except for japan there is no single economy in asia which is mature enough to create ripples around the world.China and India are future stories not present.Both are nowhere compared to developed economies of US and Germany.These 2 economies thrive on exporting cheper labour nothing more nothing less.
And i strongly believe that a primary concern before any invasion in the present scenario would be the economical impact that it would cause.And china cannot harm US economy on the other hand if conflicts happen chineese economy will take the casualities and crude prices are going to come down tumbling to USD35-40 a barrel which is good for other countries.
So dont compare US with any country around the world,they are way ahead of rest of the world militray wise and also economically.

**Parihaka** · 04-04-2005, 14:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

And here is a Chinese perspective though alot of their facts contradict ours, namely we count far more bodies than a single battalion could have.

I find it remarkable that the Canadians called down fire on their own positions rather than retreat. Had they bought the land or something?

**Officer of Engineers** · 04-04-2005, 19:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by parihaka

I find it remarkable that the Canadians called down fire on their own positions rather than retreat. Had they bought the land or something?

Pride, stubborness, confidence, stupidity - take your pick. The bn cmdr LCol JR Stone made a big fuss of not going onto the line without intensive training for the bn, going against the expressed wishes of his American superiors. He was determined to show that the training paid off.

In retrospect, had the Canadians abandon their position, the next line of defence was Pusan.

It must be said something about the battle. The Chinese at this time had outran their own artillery and was now mainly an infantry force. Had their 4 artillery divisions somehow managed to keep up with the infantry, there would not have been a Kapyong to remember (or as a heroic last stand).

Selective · 04-04-2005, 21:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

I said that they were in a stronger position vis-a-vi the Chinese. 3 RAR was not in a position of being overrunned.

The timeline is the difference. 3 RAR did their job (and extremely well) and the Chinese turned their attention towards the Canadians. Had 3 RAR collapsed, there would have been no need for the Canadians to make a stand. For whatever reasons, the final push was against the Canadians.

You're absolutely correct that I should have given more credit where credit is due but I lived and served besides those ******** most of my field career. 2 PPCLI was my battle group. Emotional blindness.

hehe, I can understand the "emotional blindness". Having served in 6RAR and hearing from the 3RAR boys bout kapyong each day b4 anzac day but... 6RAR got their glory in vietnam anywayz, the battle of long tan. In both battles the chinese and vietnamese learnt a valuable lesson about human waves against aussies... don't do it.

Enzo Ferrari · 04-15-2005, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keshto patel

What is safer option?
To save taiwan or LA?

What is safer option?

Unification or cease to exist?

Ray · 04-15-2005, 16:46 PM

Quote:

‘Encircling’ China

Because of China’s dependence on the US market - as well as Beijing’s desire to acquire US technology - the Hu-Wen leadership will continue to bend over backwards to avoid a direct confrontation with America.

By Willy Lam for The Jamestown Foundation (14/04/05)

One of Beijing’s worst nightmares seems to be coming true. Having apparently steadied the course in the Middle East, the George Bush administration is turning to Asia to tame its long-standing “strategic competitor”. While this particular term has been shelved since 9/11 - and Sino-US relations have improved thanks to China’s cooperation with Washington's global anti-terrorist campaign - there are signs at least from Beijing's perspective that Washington is spearheading multi-pronged tactics to contain the fast-rising Asian giant. In the eyes of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leadership, the new doctrine of encirclement and containment was spelled out during a visit by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Tokyo, part of a recent tour through Asia. Echoing President Bush’s State of the Union address, which pushed a foreign policy predicated upon “spreading democracy”, Rice noted in a speech at Sophia University that “even China must eventually embrace some form of open, genuinely representative government”. And she dropped hints that the US would somehow bring about a democratic China through joint actions with its Asian allies. “I really do believe the US-Japan relationship, the US-South Korea relationship, the US-India relationship - all are important in creating an environment where China is more likely to play a positive role than a negative role,” she added.
Great architect of US foreign policy

It did not help that Rice saluted in her Sophia speech the father of the anti-Soviet containment policy George Kennan - who had just passed away - as one of the “great architects of American foreign policy”. Kennan had written in a celebrated 1947 Foreign Affairs piece that “the main element of any United States policy toward the Soviet Union must be that of a long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies”. The Chinese must be very nervous about the possibility that Rice - and Bush - will simply substitute PRC for USSR. After all, it was Rice who coined the phrase “strategic competitor” in a 2000 Foreign Affairs article about the need to adequately take on a fast-emerging China. “It is important to promote China's internal transition through economic interaction while containing Chinese power and security ambitions,” she wrote.
The US-Japan statement

A Beijing source close to the Chinese foreign-policy establishment said the leadership under President Hu Jintao was not surprised by Rice’s less-than-subtle remarks about revving up the anti-PRC containment juggernaut. This was despite the fact that in an apparent goodwill gesture, the State Department had announced shortly before her arrival in Beijing that Washington would this year not sponsor a motion condemning China at the UN Subcommittee on Human Rights in Geneva. The source said the CCP leadership saw the joint US-Japan defense statement in February as a turning point in China-US relations. The US-Japan statement referred to the looming threat of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and, most irksome for Beijing, it cited for the first time the maintenance of peace in the Taiwan Strait as a “common strategic objective” of the allies. “[The] meeting may mark the end of the extended Beijing-Washington honeymoon which came about because of 9/11,” the source said. “Even now, of course, Washington requires Chinese help or acquiescence in its dealings with countries including Iran and North Korea. But Bush seems to have picked up his pre-9/11 agenda of containing China, or at least slowing down its progress toward quasi-superpower status.” And the Chinese are well aware that Rice, who had advised former president George H.W. Bush on ways to sink the Soviet Empire, was instrumental in shaping then-presidential candidate Bush’s relatively hostile posture towards China.
‘Spreading democracy’

Moreover, the explosive events in Kyrgyzstan last month have been interpreted by a number of advisers to President Hu as yet another manifestation of Bush's aggravated policy of “spreading democracy”. This is despite the fact that in official press briefings, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokespeople merely expressed the wish that stability be restored to the former Soviet state as soon as possible - and that the work of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), of which both China and Kyrgyzstan are members, will not be affected. More sophisticated observers such as National Defense University academic Jin Yinan have drawn the difference between the “Tulip revolution” in Kyrgyzstan on the one hand, and the “Rose” and “Orange” insurrections in Georgia and Ukraine. Jin told the Chinese media that should Bishkek fall under the influence of Muslim fundamentalists, “it’s the Americans who would be hurt most”. At the same time, the strategy professor pointed out that Washington's tendency to target pariah and dictatorship states had “departed from the [principle of] global democracy and engendered ill will in other [countries]”.
Killing several birds with one stone

Other commentators have noted how Washington could kill several birds with one stone should it manage to control the new Kyrgyz government. Given the 1’100-kilometer border between Kyrgyzstan and China - and Washington's already considerable foothold in nearby Uzbekistan and Tajikistan - the fall of the China-friendly government of disgraced president Askar Akaev would be no small victory for the “containment policy”. A pro-US Bishkek may be much less zealous in cooperating with the Chinese in rooting out Kyrgyz Muslim organizations that are reportedly funneling weapons and material to anti-Beijing, pro-independence elements in the Xinjiang Autonomous Region (XAR). Moreover, US preponderance in central Asia could pose a threat to the giant oil pipeline that is being built between Kazakhstan and the XAR. And last but not least, the viability of the SCO, which set up an anti-terrorism center in Bishkek not long ago, is now in doubt. In a discussion of whether the three allies cited by Rice - Japan, South Korea, and India - would play an effective role in the Washington-led anti-China game plan, a panel of People’s Daily experts and journalists expressed optimism that “the US plot to encircle China will come to no avail”. The specialists reckoned that only Japan would faithfully do Washington's bidding. Korean expert Shen Lin noted that Seoul “will not damage its ties with China because of the US”. Shen added that South Korean politicians and opinion leaders had expressed reservations about Washington’s plans to use Korean-based US military facilities to promote American interests in northeast Asia.
Strategic partnerships

New Delhi-based People’s Daily journalist Ren Yan indicated that “India will not blindly follow the lead of the US” because the strategic partnership that Washington wanted to forge with the South Asian country was “centered on American interests”. One purpose of Premier Wen Jiabao’s trip to India this month is to consolidate China-Indian cooperation through means including resolving the decades-old border dispute between the two countries. A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman said Beijing was keen to push Sino-Indian relations to a “new high”. Analysts said despite the suspicion between the two neighbors - as well as Beijing's warm ties with Islamabad - the CCP leadership is confident that dramatic improvement in ties with India the past few years would at least persuade New Delhi not to become a pawn in America's anti-China machinations. Indeed, Beijing is upbeat that China's fast-expanding global clout - and especially the vast China market - has better enabled the country to drive a wedge between the US and quite a few of its traditional allies. Take Australia, which was one of the staunchest supporters of Washington's war against Iraq. Earlier this year, Prime Minister John Howard made it clear that Canberra would not join in the US effort to lobby the EU to persevere with its embargo on arms exports to China. And last summer, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer indicated that despite the Australia-US joint defense agreement, Canberra could remain neutral if American forces were involved in a war over the Taiwan Strait. Immediately afterwards, Singapore, another close friend of the US, made known a similar stance of neutrality regarding a possible US-China military conflict over Taiwan.
The North Korean card

In any event, Rice’s unusually candid statements in Tokyo have convinced President Hu, who is deemed within Chinese political circles as much less “pro-US” than former president Jiang Zemin, that he is right to treat Washington with extreme caution. Outwardly, of course, Hu will still cleave to late patriarch Deng Xiaoping's dictum that as far as the US is concerned, Beijing should “avoid confrontation and boost cooperation”. Because of China’s dependence on the US market - as well as Beijing’s desire to acquire US technology - the Hu-Wen leadership will continue to bend over backwards to avoid a direct confrontation with America. However, Beijing’s suspicion that Bush may adopt a harsher China policy during the rest of his presidency could predispose the Hu leadership to be even more determined to boost China’s military arsenal. Hu and his colleagues are also expected to play the "North Korean card” for whatever its worth. The Chinese president and commander-in-chief is due to visit Pyongyang next month for high-level talks with DPRK dictator Kim Jong-il. While Hu will at least go through the motions of persuading Pyongyang to return to the six-party talks, the Chinese supremo will also explore ways to use China's still-formidable clout with the Hermit Kingdom as a diplomatic weapon against the US - and Japan.
Toward a vicious cycle

Indeed, another unfortunate result of growing tension between Beijing and Washington is that Sino-Japanese relations are fast heading toward a vicious cycle. Given the intensification of the US-Japanese military alliance - as well as joint US-Japan efforts to persuade Brussels to hold on to its anti-China arms embargo - Beijing is close to giving up hope that it could turn around worsening China-Japan ties in the foreseeable future. This is despite the overture made by Prime Minister Wen last month that both sides should “enthusiastically” create conditions for the resumption of high-level exchanges. Top-level visits between the two neighbors were stopped after Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi’s first visit to the controversial Yasukuni Shrine in 2001. In the past fortnight, a campaign launched by nationalistic Chinese websites to prevent Japan from being made a permanent member of the UN Security Council has developed into a boycott of Japanese products in a number of coastal cities.

Willy Wo-Lap Lam is a Senior Fellow at The Jamestown Foundation as well as a Hong Kong-based journalist and analyst.

This article originally appeared in China Brief, published by The Jamestown Foundation in Washington, DC., at (www.Jamestown.org). The Jamestown Foundation is an independent, nonpartisan organization supported by tax-deductible contributions from corporations, foundations, and individuals.

http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?ID=11107

glow · 04-15-2005, 22:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

Not at all. We were able to win in every one of those situations, and there was no danger of any of those conflicts escalating into a great power conflict, much less a great power conflict that the US would lose. China could not beat Taiwan much less take it, and they would run a great risk of drawing in a number of other powers capable of crushing them (US, Japan, India, Russia).

We have the strength, and are not directly imposing on any great power's interests... China fulfills neither of those criteria.

I think you are really underestimating China here. The US has lost Vietnam war, never finished the Korean war, Never finished in Afganistan and doesn't seem like Iraq just caved as easy as the US thought it would. But lets see both Korea and Vietnam were way underpowered compared to the US and still held their ground. You think China would give up so easy?

**ZFBoxcar** · 04-15-2005, 22:55 PM

In a naval war China stands NO chance against the US glow.

glow · 04-15-2005, 23:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZFBoxcar

In a naval war China stands NO chance against the US glow.

Thats in a naval war. What do you think it's going to do otherwise. It's not like US troops can patrol downtown Bejing like Iraq and try and get a couple billion people to bend over and just agree with what America wants. China always could point a few hundred of those missiles pointed at Taiwan offshore. If China did go to war with Taiwan I would be surprised if the US did much at all actually.

How many ships are protecting Taiwan now anyways?

**ZFBoxcar** · 04-15-2005, 23:27 PM

But the war against Taiwan would be NAVAL war. China could fire their missiles and kill some Taiwanese civillians, but their military power would not be reduced significantly unless the Chinese used nukes.

I don't know the exact number of ships defending Taiwan, but its a decent number, and the USN would be around to protect them too.

MIKEMUN · 04-16-2005, 00:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glow

Thats in a naval war. What do you think it's going to do otherwise. It's not like US troops can patrol downtown Bejing like Iraq and try and get a couple billion people to bend over and just agree with what America wants. China always could point a few hundred of those missiles pointed at Taiwan offshore. If China did go to war with Taiwan I would be surprised if the US did much at all actually.

How many ships are protecting Taiwan now anyways?

The last time I checked,Beijing was in China and not in Taiwan. Read the whole discussion so that you can find out what the scenario was......You read it,didn't you??

glow · 04-18-2005, 16:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MIKEMUN

The last time I checked,Beijing was in China and not in Taiwan. Read the whole discussion so that you can find out what the scenario was......You read it,didn't you??

Yeah, did you read my response? As I am saying here it's not like the US can just go into downtown China and enforce them to not take pot shots here and there into Taiwan. It's not like China doesn't have the technology to take out the targets it wants.

**ZFBoxcar** · 04-18-2005, 17:30 PM

But the war would only be a naval war since the US has no reason to invade China. Its China that wants to conquer Taiwan. Since Taiwan is an island there would have to be a naval campaign. And Hitler had a better chance of getting into heaven than China has of winning a naval war against Taiwan and the US.

lwarmonger · 04-18-2005, 18:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glow

Yeah, did you read my response? As I am saying here it's not like the US can just go into downtown China and enforce them to not take pot shots here and there into Taiwan. It's not like China doesn't have the technology to take out the targets it wants.

We aren't trying to go into downtown China. We would be destroying their ability to force project, cutting them off from the rest of the world, and then waiting for them to say uncle. They are attacking Taiwan, and our goal is to defend Taiwan, and damage the Chinese enough militarily and economically that they decide they have had enough. We are not trying to occupy China here. If we were, we would nuke their major cities (and probably a lot of minor ones too), and then occupy the rubble (much like the Soviets had planned, and prepared to execute, in the 1970's).

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
New China. New crisis	Ray	Political Discussions	15	02-20-2007 22:54 PM
U.S. Election: Respect People's 2004 Verdict + Real Issues. No Fake Iraq Hypocrisy !	mcdelroy	Political Discussions	9	11-07-2006 18:17 PM
Iran's oil gambit - and potential affront to the US	Parihaka	The Iranian Question	2	10-15-2005 18:04 PM
@ I don't think US should be the leader of the world..	MIKEMUN	Political Discussions	17	03-16-2005 01:41 AM
Why the U.S. must withdraw from Iraq	lulldapull	The War in Iraq	56	01-04-2005 14:20 PM

04-15-2005, 22:55 PM	#69 (permalink)
ZFBoxcar Moderator Join Date: 08-03-03 Location: Montreal, Canada Posts: 2,129 Country:	In a naval war China stands NO chance against the US glow.

04-15-2005, 23:27 PM	#71 (permalink)
ZFBoxcar Moderator Join Date: 08-03-03 Location: Montreal, Canada Posts: 2,129 Country:	But the war against Taiwan would be NAVAL war. China could fire their missiles and kill some Taiwanese civillians, but their military power would not be reduced significantly unless the Chinese used nukes. I don't know the exact number of ships defending Taiwan, but its a decent number, and the USN would be around to protect them too.

04-18-2005, 17:30 PM	#74 (permalink)
ZFBoxcar Moderator Join Date: 08-03-03 Location: Montreal, Canada Posts: 2,129 Country:	But the war would only be a naval war since the US has no reason to invade China. Its China that wants to conquer Taiwan. Since Taiwan is an island there would have to be a naval campaign. And Hitler had a better chance of getting into heaven than China has of winning a naval war against Taiwan and the US.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)