Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis

Status
Not open for further replies.
ZeEa5KPul

ZeEa5KPul

Colonel
Registered Member
lych470 said:
From the 2019 Defence White Paper:

"中国始终奉行在任何时候和任何情况下都不首先使用核武器、无条件不对无核武器国家和无核武器区使用或威胁使用核武器的核政策，主张最终全面禁止和彻底销毁核武器，不会与任何国家进行核军备竞赛，始终把自身核力量维持在国家安全需要的最低水平。中国坚持自卫防御核战略，目的是遏制他国对中国使用或威胁使用核武器，确保国家战略安全。"

Translation:


"China has always pursued the nuclear policy of no first use of nuclear weapons at any time and under any circumstances, and unconditionally not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States or nuclear-weapon-free zones; it advocates the eventual complete prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons; it will not engage in a nuclear arms race with any country; and it has always maintained its nuclear forces at the minimum level required for national security. China adheres to a self-defense nuclear strategy aimed at deterring the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons by other countries against China and ensuring national strategic security."

The white paper says that Chinese nuclear forces will be maintained at the minimal level for national security, in order to deter others from using nuclear weapons against her.

Straight from the horses' mouth.
Click to expand...
You do know that every single one of these terms is defined at China's sole discretion, right? China "has always pursued..." is an observation, not an affirmation of the policy or a continued commitment to it. Even if taken at face value, when China develops a complete LoW system and fires its weapons as soon as it detects an enemy attack in progress, that's completely consonant with NFU.

Another definition to pay close attention to is "non-nuclear weapon state" - what exactly does that mean? Is a state under a nuclear umbrella like Japan a nuclear weapons state or not?

"[China] will not engage in a nuclear arms race" is also another vacuous statement. What's an arms race? If China sprints toward parity with the US, is that an arms race? Not in China's telling; that's just it engaging in a completely reasonable build up to maintain its self defense.

We come to the most important phrase: "minimum level required for national security". What's that? Is it 350 warheads? 500? 5000? The answer is "minimum level" is exactly what China says it is. If China decides that "minimum level" means parity with the US then that's what it means.

If this document was ever written in good faith then those days are past. It still serves a useful diplomatic function in gaslighting people about China's nuclear expansion, but we should be shrewder than that. Ultimately, this policy should be viewed as something like
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
RedMetalSeadramon

RedMetalSeadramon

Junior Member
Registered Member
Sleepyjam said:
Its possible but it would depend on their assessment of PLA strength as well as other factors whereas in your scenario they would be already in a protracted war with China with no choice in the matter. One is a guarantee the other is optional. Even if it happens it would still likely be restricted to the border dispute whereas in an all out war the stakes are a lot higher. Again Taiwan is the weaker opponent not India, India can be sustained for far longer. How exactly are you going to wipe India off the board? It would require a prolonged major scale war not some small scale defensive campaign. Turn what is essentially a border skirmish into a protracted large scale war? US is still ambiguous on the defense of Taiwan and there is no telling if China goes to war with India especially as the offending side the US wouldn’t come to their defense either(it would be a much better justification since they are a sovereign nation and more nations will side with India).
Click to expand...
Typically when another country wants to jump into an ongoing conflict to take advantage they try and ensure their target has already fairing poorly. If China can keep it short, contained and of course victorious India will not instigate.
 
Y

yrydzd

Banned Idiot
Registered Member
Sardaukar20 said:
One, this gives the US an off-ramp to stay out of the reunification war. Two, this allows China to call the US's bluff over it's commitment to defend Taiwan. Three, China can concentrate on finishing off the regime in Taiwan ASAP.

So, it's very likely that there will be a hot conflict after Pelosi makes her Taiwan visit. But it will be on China's own terms and timetable. This will allow control on the escalation ladder. A sudden war with the US is not easy to control.
Click to expand...

A war at this moment is very well on China's timetable.

One, why would China want the US to stay out of the reunification war? So it can stay comformably at home and rally its allies to sanction China? Drag the US into this war, let it suffer the casulties and consequences of the war. If China is hurt by this war, the US has to be hurt too.

Two, everyone knows the US is bluffing over its commitment already, when they left the Kurds, left Afgan, and stayed out of Ukraine. China gains nothing by proving it again.

Three, China can't finish off Taiwan independence sensation, if the US is still the global hegemony. Even if China forcibly took Taiwan, it would just be like HK again with civil unrest in decades to come. But if China defeats the US military in west pacific, then a "peaceful" reunification with Taiwan is very sound. Taiwan was never the key problem in cross-strait relationship, the US is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top