Ed,

They think so because of the noise the fellow-travelling left spouts here. The Chinese know quite well that we were beating the North Vietnamese on the battlefield, but lost because our left wing media and left wing political elites quit supporting the war effort and then actively brought down a President that was successfully prosecuting the war.

If the Chinese stole ideas from Warfighting, it would only be fair -- after all, we pretty much lifted half that stuff straight from Sun Tzu.

It was Lao Tzu.

It is increasingly likely in the next few years that at some point China will try to invade and conquer Taiwan. The question is, given our need to fight Islamic Fascism and the lack of willingness among both political parties to order national mobilization, could we successfully defend Taiwan?

Remember, China would choose the time and place of the attack. I would imagine an offensive something like the German invasion of Norway in 1940 rather than the D-Day landings, with dispersed forces using surprise, local agents, airborne and special forces, and air and naval forces to quickly attack several key points, seize and reinforce them. US intervention would be facing hordes of Chinese airpower plus submarine and naval forces, not to mention the possibilities of sabotage, cyber attack, covert minelaying in harbors, etc.

If one or two carriers were sunk or crippled at the outset by mines, frogmen, missiles or subs, Taiwan might be conquered and occupied before much could be done. At that point, would the American people support a war to liberate Taiwan? With China offering an immediate cease-fire once her objectives were met? IHMO, very doubtful.

Smash and Chuck, I think it was both.

Warfare quotes Sun Tzu three times in chapter headings, three times more than any other author. The note on him states:

Sun Tzu, The Art of War, trans. S. B. Griffith (New York:Oxford University Press, 1982) p. 85. Like On War, The Art of War should be on every Marine officer’s list of essential reading. Short and simple to read, The Art of War is every bit as valuable today as when it was written about 400 B.C..

BattleofthePyramids,

I think it will depend on how many American deaths there are. The American public might well yawn if there are no American casualties. But sink a carrier or otherwise kill a couple thousand US sailors and the terrible swift sword will not be long in coming.

Mrs. Davis,

Good note on the quotes. One of the early US translators of The Art of War was Samuel Griffith, I think, who later became a Marine general.

Sinking one of our carriers would be a declaration of war. It's one thing for a nonstate actor to do so and claim credit, it's another thing for a nation to do so. Giving us a "Pearl Harbor" propaganda moment, is not really wise.

China does not want a war with the United States, it just wants a sphere of control around themselves, for national security and perhaps empire building.

Our military is racking up the most precious of all commodities, actual combat experience in Iraq. I can't remember the last time the Chinese fought a war. It's a military secret that veterans are much more useful than rookies. Or maybe it's just too obvious to pay any attention to, a mistake.

The Chinese would pretty much telegraph any attempts to make war on us, instead of just trying to get us out of the way to Taiwan, by changing how they conduct their propaganda. If the Chinese start propagandizing how we blew up one of their embassies on purpose, then you will know that China wants a war that it thinks it can win. Since it doesn't think it can win, our two forces are just too separated by combat experience, logistical support, power projection, quantitative and qualitative levels, China won't risk a war with the US over Taiwan.

They will invade Taiwan, if China thinks we will let it go with a few skirmishes.

That is the all important factor in all situations before a war, letting the other side know what you will do. Don't give China false positives or transparent bluffs.

China is in fact counting on their cultural and national-patriotic strength, to be greater than the patriotic-national and cultural strength of the United States. That way, they can rest assured that sentiments like BattleofthePyramids will reign as the policy of the US in a future conflict over Taiwan. It would benefit China to not have to fight a war it can allow unconfident individuals leery of China's so called "strength" to do the prevention for them.

The more people who are scared of China, and dismissive of American retaliation, the more chance of China invading Taiwan. The more threats the US provides in the context of blood, iron, and nuclear retaliation, the less chance China will invade Taiwan.

The danger is simple. That China will see the weak sentiments of those who lack psychological perspective, and believe the US will not interfere. But in truth, those sentiments were a false positive, and the real truth was being obscured.

This would mean that China would invade Taiwan with the assumption that people like BattleofthePyramids were controlling policy, but in actual fact people like Chester were controling policy, which means the US will fight with China and the conflict will turn from a "limited strategic aim" to a China vs South Korea/Australia/Japan/US thing.

Same thing happened in the Gulf War I. The more you appear ready to use your power, the less you have to use it in actual reality. THe more scared you appear of the enemy's strength, the more damage you will take.

But this time, China won't fall as easily as Iraq. Nor will China suddenly "give up", too much pride going on there. And there's no democratic process for the people to demand a surrender.

Many of the most bloody wars were started with the idea that it would be a "Short and Victorious War". But in the end, it was neither short nor victorious. Or in some cases, short and victorious for the other side.

Civil War, WWI, Arab-Israeli war.

As some Marine General said in a discussion about how best to improve the Marine Corps, the act of acting selflessly, becomes in reality combat effectiveness. A specifically conditioned behavior model, then becomes not behavior but reality.

Such a thing is possible in war, to make perceptions into reality. You could believe you've already lost, but if u ignore that perception and you keep on fighting, you might win. The changing of perception into fact.

I had a dream about this issue:

In that neighborhood the weather rules.

So China waits until a weather event degrades Guam or Taiwan itself.

Then, North Korea makes a crisis on the DMZ. (Could be shortly before the weather event.)

Then, China attacks by taking the Batan Islands (100 miles south of Taiwan) and uses them as a platform for a primary attack from the south, supported by an attack across the strait.

Then, I wake up before I find out what happened!

That was a most intriguing post Chester. You may have bested the Belmont on that score.

I was in China (PRC) in the late spring of this year. I went to Chinese friend of my US relative to have dinner (the usual 9 course meal with the rotating table top and many different types of food). The HD TV was on and there was an in-depth discussion of Taiwan (ROC) and China (PRC) normalizing relationships with each other. The Chinese friend translated the discussion for me.

Apparently, the PRC has now allowed direct passenger flights to occur between Taiwan and China to facilitate business (I don't know the exact date or other details or how many flights are allowed and the visa requirements). But, the PRC is very keen on equalizing the economic progress of the PRC verses ROC.

The ROC has greatly benefited from it's American connections and is home to some of America's high tech chip fabrication facilities. What concerns the PRC is the possibility that the ROC may dominate the PRC economically. Thus, the China straits saber rattling. Further, complicating the situation is the fact that the PRC has played a role in the political system of the ROC. So the situation is quite complex.

I am not an expert on the defense pack between the USA and the ROC. So, maybe some expert on the subject would bring me up to speed on this defense pact and it's implications (particularly how far does the US have to go? The entire nuclear Umbrella - or just supplying war materials?).

Other posters have good war game theories on how a China attack would play out. I agree with Chester and others that if the PRC really wanted to storm the ROC it would be necessary to attack the US base in Japan which would have horrible repercussions.

My theory that the battle would probably first take place at the economic level where the PRC grabs all monetary and physical assets of the ROC in China. Then the reciprocal expropriation would then occur in the ROC. This would clearly set the US and the world no notice that there would be war. The US would impose sanctions and/or expropriates the PRC assets within its reach. By, then the US would have moved it's military assets within range to counter this buildup to war. The element of surprise would be lost.

Now as how a full blown shooting war would go - I would guess that China would be severely crippled. In that case, China would simply pull back and try a war of attrition. This would prove very costly for them and may end up in a stalemate.

There is a worse scenario where the PRC somehow gains absolute political over the ROC. The two China's merge in a single front against the US. Then the military assets and strategic location of the two could be used against the US with effect. That would be a hard nut to crack.

But, stepping back, I think none of the above will happen anytime soon. As some political pundits note: The US is a stabilizing force in the region for the 3 major countries (China, Taiwan, and Japan). Further, the three are economically tied together. So, military action is not all that likely.

Chester, Yamarsakar, et al:

I am in no way a dove, but if I was planning a PRC invasion of Taiwan I would have no reason to believe the US public would support a war. Look at our current situation: There is eroding support for our current war against Islamic Fascism and this is after the bloodiest assault by a foreign enemy on our soil in a hundred years or more. Remember all the calls to find out "why they hate us" and the anti-war demonstrations which continue to this day? Why should anyone believe the US has the guts to fight a major war when we obesss over less than two thousand KIA in a war that has been thrust upon us by an enemy every bit as viscious (if less well organized) than Nazi Germany?

Would we have launched Operation Iraqi Freedom or even the liberation of Afghanistan, if a Democrat had been in the White House? Or would we have launched a few more cruise missiles and called it a day?

Does anyone at this website think the US will act to preempt an Iranian nuclear threat? Neither do I. If we are not willing to act when a rogue terrorist state is acquiring nuclear weapons, why should we act against an attack on Taiwan? If losing less than 2,000 troops is prompting calls to withdraw from Iraq, shouldn't losing the crew of a carrier or two prompt calls for a cease fire in an PRC-US war?

IF I was a PRC war planner, what reason would I have, based on US actions since the end of WWII, to think the US had the will to fight after suffering more than at most a few thousand casualties?

BattleofthePyramids,

Don't worry, I know you were just playing devil's advocate.

What you describe is what Niall Ferguson refers to as the clay feet of our colossus. I think failure to buttress public support for the war is the key failing of the administration. It is hurting us big time. I still think though, that the American people would rally.

In fact, I think it is similar to the grassroots support for 'porkbusting' that we are seeing this week. The base of the Republican party is more or less sending a signal to the GOP in DC: get back to the basics of conservatism, one of which is fiscal responsibility. If we were to lose several hundred or thousand troops and a Republican administration did nothing, there would likely be a grass roots response equally as strong.

Now as to your question about a Democratic administration, there's the rub . . .

Ledger, I'll have to address your comments tomorrow.

If the Chinese could be persuaded to steal ideas from the American constitution as well as from the strategy booklets, there would be no problem. Taiwan would happily reunite with a democratic mainland.

The best defence agaist an attack on Taiwan is to help the Chinese to get out of the political trap they have been left in by the history of the Communist party. At present, they dare not allow any freedom for fear of vengeance by Chinese citizens who suffered in the Cultural Revolution and earlier.

How to get from where we are to a free China without a disastrous violent revolution? It's the same problem as in Egypt, but much bigger.

How to get from where we are to a free China without a disastrous violent revolution?

Ain't goin to happen. China has too much history of violent upheaval to bring political change. All those unmarried men out in the boondocks are going to discover they aren't going to get a wife and they aren't going to be part of the economic miracle on the coast. They will be what you call tinder when the next Mao comes along. The question will be how to keep the violence spreading beyond China.

The Chinese own about $7*10^11 of US government securities. If they do something really stupid. Those will be forefit.

china got its ass kicked by the nva in 1976
they arent shit and they know it. kung fu this.
think about this really really hard for two seconds. what is china's military legacy?killing its own army like they are f*cking ants,that's what. so why act like youre going to attack an island?
sothat the ruling military elite looks like they are actually doing something ,that's what!!
you have to know more about the way china 'works'. the businesses that you see getting going in china are all there becuase some general told his colonel son that he could have acompany. its ALL connected to the PLA. (norinco is owned by whom?)
so you get this dynamic of an 800 lb gorilla sitting in the room that can't do anything but be the owner. what do you do with him? let him act like he's going to attack taiwan, duuuh.
in the US we gotall bummed out and left after 50,000 troops died in VN.
the nva lost that many in TET.
what if anyting does becoming modern means to the average chinese than that they won't have to dissappear in some new adventure of the elite military?
soifthey decide to throw a few hundred thousands souls into the effing pacific to do exactly what? do you actually think that there willnot be a response from the BILLION people in China!!!
you cant be that stupid.

The word is notice. you don't judge the situation right off, you sit back an NOTICE it. China is like a dog that could bite someone if it got out of its yard. What keeps itin there?NOT FEAR OF US!! Thats just stupid and egotistical. China is kept back becuase its people are broke and they live in the frickin stone age. Every day that the PLA gets more powerful with all of their newfangled doctrine,stolen aegis, rebuilt sukhois, whatever, their population becomes at the same time less controllable.(they had to ask yahoo for help persecuting their own people!!)
If that wasnt true they'd have taken over the whole east asia long ago.
They are hamstrung by geography, by their political legacy of hypocritical elitism and the evolution of their population from rice farmers to you-and-me's.
give it up, this is not macarthur's china.
They are not anywhere near the menace people think they are. You should go over there and make boatloads of money helping their people get out of the stone age and by the time you get done they will be like europe or singapore.
But instead you can hold on to the past fears and phantoms and think that they wnat some more of us. not.

people with anxiety disorders fixate on the snarling dog behind the fence. but its behind a fence, moron.

how china will break out: the old people will die.
how the US will break out in China: the babyboomers will finally shut up in washington and let us make everybody rich.

if capitalism didnt work, how did you get to read this?

everybody thinks political opinion is America's achilles heel. I say bullshit to that, its our greatest strength,adaptability,plurality and communications. We only see it as a bad thing because the Sheehans piss in the pool.

What about China's achilles heel? China only has one public opinion and that is that the government sucks and is barely tolerable. Think about the riots and tianamens that would go down if they suddenly decided to attack the US and Japan? Do you really think that the PLA has as much control over the people as in 1950?

the biggest problem with China is that their population all lives along its eastern coastline.
They know that and so does the nsa. if they even thought of dicking around and started something fun we could wipe out their command and control and they'd have a gigantic problem because the people would be so concentrated and pissed their police and military would disappear.
they are NOT spread out like us.

Taking an amateur's viewpoint, how does this scenario sound:

The fundamentals of the Chinese economic situation are not as strong as people think; there are plenty of problems with income disparity, social structure, pollution, and unrest. There are alot of far east blogs and news sources that cover these problems in depth. Many analysts think that there will need to be massive changes in China by 2010, when the income disparity will become too great, and civil disorder becomes more likely.

I don't believe that the PRC would try anything before 2008, after the olympics are over. This is to be a showcase event for the PRC. Further, the US presidential campaign will be in full swing by that point. With the US distracted by the election, a lame duck president, and the Olympics finished, a likely time frame for an invasion would be the fall of 2008.

The US could easily strangle China's economy with a naval blockade, focusing on the use of submarines in the narrow shipping lanes that the Chinese would have to use. Basically, the US would wage an economic war while the Chinese would wage a military one.

As I said, I'm an amatuer, but how does this scenario sound?

RPL, I am an amatuer too, but I am not sure how relevant economic warfare would be in a short war, which is what China is probably trying to achieve. Sun Tzu tells us to know our enemy as well as we know ourselves, and "to fight 100 battles and to win 100 battles is not the supreme skill. The supreme skill is to win without fighting". China could make us an offer we couldn't refuse (verified North Korean disarmament enforced by Chinese economic sanctions, lets say) in exchange for a free hand in Taiwan. Or, instead of a carrot how about a stick? China holds a LOT of economic pressure if they want to use it. Would an American president risk a major recession (in an election year) over Taiwan? China could also encourage Iran or North Korea to start a local war to distract us.

It's true that China's shipping lanes are vulnerable to attack, but then again so are ours. I think a Chinese company has some interest in the Panama canal - how hard would it be for a Chinese ship (under a Liberian flag, perhaps) to "accidentally" sink and block the canal?

In any event, it boils down to a question of will? Do we have the national will to fight for Taiwan, even if this means significant US losses and perhaps economic pain at home? The fact that our leaders are waging as painless (to the public) a war as possible suggests the answer. What would a PRC war planner think? THAT is the important question.

What a great thread! Excellent comments from all. This is what makes blogging fun.

Ymarsakar: I agree with you that regardless of their capabilities, the Chinese military has no combat experience to speak of. Also, that keeping an eye on their propaganda is one way to know what is coming.

Rich: Interesting dream. I think it would be hard to plan an invasion around the weather if your actions are dependent upon it. There are a lot of typhoons down there though . . .

Ledger: Thanks for the compliment!
You raise an interesting point: perhaps the PRC covets ROC's military equipment more than anything else . . . in that case, rather than going head to head against it, perhaps they'd like to peacefully unite and then own it.
As far as the details of our defense pact with Taiwan, I think those are purposefully ambiguous. We've basically said we'll defend them and we've sold and are trying to sell more weapons. But beyond that everything is kept quiet as to the extent of our commitment.

Dan and Mrs. Davis: political reform in China seems possible, but unlikely without serious political leadership on our end involved.

Playertwo: I don't think I agree with your take that if China attacked the US, its populace would revolt. Where's that one coming from? The PRC has the ability to whip its folks into a frenzy if it wants (bombing of embassy in Yugo, Hainan EP-3 incident, anti-Japanese sentiment and riots). No, I think that it is more likely that the leaders will calculate that fanning the flames of nationalism will be easier with some military action involved.

On another note, please save profanity for your own blog, thanks.

RPL: Your notion on the timing of an attack -- in or around the US elections in 08 -- is very intriguing. This would exploit one of our political seams in terms of decisionmaking and our response -- but it might have the effect of rallying our nation together; I can see the political class stopping their chatter to say, goodness, our debates are puny compared to what has happened in Taiwan. Well, if not the politicos, then the US people.

Another interesting tangent: how would Europe, or the UK, or the UN respond to the attack? I don't mean militarily. They have no means there. I mean rhetorically. I don't have a lot of faith that they would quickly condemn it.

Robert: Good point on the fact that the PRC is one major creditor. Certainly there would be a clamor to cancel payment on the loans they've made us if they've attacked us. And I think that would be the right move. But it would have a pretty bad effect on the dollar. My understanding of economics is too weak to be specific, but I think there would be some ugly consequences, even though I'm all for it.

Final thought: do we have a rhetorical leg to stand upon in terms of confronting China's political culture? I'm no fan of Clinton, but at least he tried to tie human rights abuses to MFN status, which raised awareness of Chinese brutality.

We've largely abandoned any attempts to counter China's brutality these days. So, if we are attacked, or if China attempts an invasion of Taiwan without attacking us, it will be all the more difficult for a US president to justify our involvement. This is a weakness.

Great comments!

sorry 'bout the cussin'. back to the point.
oneof the things that amazes me about americans is that they believe so much subtle mythology. blacks are poor because of white people, therefore the hurricanesare racist etc..
another one is that the communists ESPECIALLY in vietnam were some kindof super warriors that fought so valiantly becuase of a belief in their revolution. Its all so much bs.(ha!) and doesnt take into account the actually writings of the communist leaders themselves. Gen Giap told Uncle HO time and time again that the north was going to lose the war if Ho squandered the control the party had on the people by getting them all killed. Surethe academy grads coming out of china are all gung-ho and rabid, but the troops themselves are not into it. So when the central commitee decides to throw THIS CHINA OF 2005 into a war against the US that most of these peopleare sending the fruits of their labors to it would be like filling a room with gas and then lighting a cigarette.
Chinese people arent as isolated as most americans think. the protesters you saw at Sasser's house were portable. The reason the tsquare protesters made a statue of liberty wasnt lost on the PLA.
I grew up on a mil base at heidelberg with everybody's dad in the command. Many had just fled Iran and were korea vets. They saw China as a completely different picture than the folks back home. Its like an austro-hungarian empire all over again and its leaders are all so drunk off of western money that they are just letting it ride.These people have been dogged by the government their whole lives and don't take their paychecks home and think "gee, I wonder how god of a party member I can be", they are all trying to get over.
That'swhy I think that the chicoms HAVE to play on our fears about tiawan. Its just too convenient and our misperceptions create the opportunity FOR THEM.
Its a glengarry glen ross thing where going back over the facts again and again can reveal what was sitting there the whole time. Chinese peasants have seen geometric income growth in the last ten years and there's really nothing to stop it from continuing to grow other than resources and politics. Resources are a pain to get one's hands on if they arent around but politics...