US plan to defend Taiwan against China

[smell_the_glove]

Interesting article about Oplan 5077 in today’s Taipei Times:

[url]http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2006/06/05/2003311784[/url]

[quote]“The Pacific command developed a new `strategic concept’ for the Taiwan contingency in December 2002, and an updated plan was produced in July 2003. Last year, based upon new 2004 guidance from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the Joint Chiefs of Staff … a final Taiwan defense plan was published,” Arkin wrote.

The plan now includes “air, naval, ground amphibious, and missile defense forces and excursions' to defend Taiwan. Options include maritime intercept operations in the Taiwan straits [sic], attacks on Chinese targets on the mainland, information warfare and non-kinetic’ options, even the potential use of American nuclear weapons,” Arkin wrote.[/quote]

And a related article on the PRC fifth column in Taiwan’s military:
[url]http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2006/06/05/2003311785[/url]

[Sean_Su]

Do you have another source? Even the direct sources? Sorry for asking but Taipei Times won’t appease our beloved comrades whom insist that the United States will never defend Taiwan even though the United States has multiple times in history. (The editorials in TaipeiTimes are also usually biased).

So you’ll just have to get the source itself.

As for “Fifth Column”, I would say that its been established that there are a few here in Taiwan as well as in the forums already; some of whom have no purpose but to basically reword and repeat what their comrades say in a posting-blitz.

[mr_boogie]

I think that even the Taiwanese Military predict that the fifth column operatives will be planting some bombs in the transportation system to try to infuse panic in the population in case of war (they include this in their own simulations).

[smell_the_glove]

@ShrimpCrackers

Do you have another source?

Here ya go:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2006/05/americas_new_china_war_plan.html
As you might expect from the state of things here in the good ole TP forum, the comments appended to Arkin’s piece are endlessly entertaining.

[4nr]

The story was also posted in the washington post a few days ago:

blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywar … _plan.html

Edit, i see the link was just posted. I too was going to make a comment section.

[zeugmite]

@smell the glove

[quote=“ShrimpCrackers”]Do you have another source?

Here ya go:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2006/05/americas_new_china_war_plan.html
As you might expect from the state of things here in the good ole TP forum, the comments appended to Arkin’s piece are endlessly entertaining.[/quote]

Why go so far as the comments, it’s interesting you don’t mention the conclusion drawn by Arkin himself at the end of his piece despite (or rather because of) this alleged plan:

Does the United States “need” a war plan for China? Under what circumstances would the U.S. risk World War III to defend Taiwan? Without harming U.S. operational security or compromising U.S. secrets, surely this is a debate worth having. Surely by assuming eventual war with China we are also making it a tiny bit more likely. It seems a shame that we don’t choose the Russia path for a country that shows far more prospect as a partner for the future.

And the Russia path he mentioned earlier in the article is

Symbolic steps were taken at the end of the Cold War – to “de-target” American nuclear missiles, to build communications systems and procedures for crisis control, to invite Russia to the NATO consultation table – that over the years have suppressed the military dimensions of the relationship…The triumph of U.S.-Russian relations is the set of confidence building measures begun under the first Bush administration and continuing through the current one. In theory and practice, treating Russia like a friend has its own benefits and rewards. Sure there are right wingers and nationalists in Russia who would love an American enemy to increase domestic power and reverse course, but Moscow and Washington have nicely built a cooperative system that survives the ebbs and flows and disagreements, removing military confrontation from the equation.

Now, incidently, I disagree with Arkin’s rosy assessment of US intentions toward Russia. Regardless, having this plan or that plan doesn’t really matter. Plans are necessary and prudent, and plans are always there to invade Canada. The decision to execute plans is what matters and I don’t see how that has changed at all.

[zeugmite]

@ShrimpCrackers

…even though the United States has [defended Taiwan] multiple times in history.

First of all, the defense was provided to the then-recognized government of China, not to some loony-tunes TI/ers. If you insist that it was “Taiwan,” then by the same token, the US has also abandoned “Taiwan” in favor of Beijing multiple times, so will you draw the same conclusions of future action based on past history?

[smell_the_glove]

@zeugmite

Why go so far as the comments, it’s interesting you don’t mention the conclusion drawn by Arkin himself at the end of his piece despite (or rather because of) this alleged plan

You’re right – I didn’t quote the articles or comments in full. That’s what I posted the links for. Arkin criticizes OPLAN. He also describes OPLAN (hence the title of this thread):

[quote]The 5077 plan to defend Taiwan from a Chinese attack dates back from the Reagan administration, and has been successively updated and expanded over the years. Until 2001, the plan was what was called a “CONPLAN,” which is an operations plan in concept only. This means that the general American courses of action were identified but the plan itself was only kept in abbreviated form, lacking either the assignment of forces or much of the details of logistics and transport needed for implementation.

In August 2001, “Change 1” to the previous CONPLAN 5077 upgraded the contingency to a full OPLAN, with assigned forces and more detailed annexes and appendices. The Pacific Command developed a new “strategic concept” for the Taiwan contingency in December 2002, and an updated plan was produced in July 2003. Last year based upon new 2004 guidance from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and after two conferences worked out the assignment of U.S. forces in detail, a final Taiwan defense plan was published. [/quote]

@zeugmite

Regardless, having this plan or that plan doesn’t really matter. Plans are necessary and prudent, and plans are always there to invade Canada.

Canada, China. Hmm. I think the US Department of Defense sees the two in a somewhat different light. There may indeed be multiple plans to defend countries against aggressors, but China is viewed as a genuine threat requiring the contingency of a war plan. Since you seem to prefer that I quote more material from Arkin, here you go:

[quote] Contrast U.S.-Russian relations with U.S.-China: The Bush administration has built a new full fledged war plan for China, the first new conventional war plan since the end of the Cold War.

Yesterday, the Pentagon released its annual report to Congress on China’s military power, a report that sees an increased buildup.

The People’s Liberation Army “is engaged in a sustained effort to interdict, at long ranges, aircraft carrier and expeditionary strike groups that might deploy to the western Pacific,” the report said. Long-term trends in China’s development of nuclear and conventional weapons “have the potential to pose credible threats to modern militaries operating in the region.”
China’s military buildup and power projection capabilities, the report says, are still focused primarily on Taiwan, and the country has positioned as many as 790 ballistic missiles opposite the island.

“The balance between Beijing and Taiwan is heading in the wrong direction,” Assistant Secretary of Defense Peter Rodman says, adding that “maybe our job is to be the equalizer if a contingency arises.” [/quote]

@zeugmite

The decision to execute plans is what matters and I don’t see how that has changed at all.

It hasn’t. Yet.

[cctang]

I personally had enough respect for the US military to always assume it had an operational plan for a defense of Taiwan. To assume otherwise is idiocy.

[mr_boogie]

10 tomahawks pointed at the 3 Gorges Dam and you get a hell of a dissuasive effect on China. Did anyone ever calculated the danger of blowing that thing up? Would it have a more or less devastating efect than a nuclear bomb, no?

[cctang]

1. Yes, people have analyzed the risks of a military attack on the 3GD. AAA aside (and ignoring the fact that it’s in the middle of the country), it’d take a direct nuclear attack to hurt the 3GD. 10 Tomahawk’s or a few truck bombs wouldn’t represent enough explosive power to bring the dam damn.

2. It takes less than a week to drain the reservoir behind the 3GD; this would have to be a sneak attack of ultimate proportions.

3. There’s a reason China has built a minimum deterrent of nuclear weapons.

[LA1]

People actually think US will risk a WWIV for Taiwan (WWIII is the war on terror, of course)? I don’t think so. Maybe send supplies to Taiwan, but fight for Taiwan? Nope.

[Jive_Turkey]

@mr_boogie

10 tomahawks pointed at the 3 Gorges Dam and you get a hell of a dissuasive effect on China. Did anyone ever calculated the danger of blowing that thing up? Would it have a more or less devastating efect than a nuclear bomb, no?

Which is exactly why the US would never do it. If I were the leader of the PRC and the US desroyed the 3G dam, thus killing millions of people, I would nuke’em.

[mr_boogie]

that is why I would use it as a deterrent plan.

[cctang]

[quote=“mr_boogie”]that is why I would use it as a deterrent plan.[/quote]Why? Why wouldn’t the US just nuke Beijing instead?

[Sean_Su]

@cctang

[quote=“mr_boogie”]that is why I would use it as a deterrent plan.[/quote]Why? Why wouldn’t the US just nuke Beijing instead?

Why? The US promises not to do preemtive nuclear strikes.

Secondly China has been the one threatening to nuke other nations. Even during the cold war, no Russian generals have gone out to say “we’ll nuke the US” while some from China have.

[H5N1]

Here is an excerpt from an article about competition for naval supremacy among Asian nations.
http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=439&language_id=1
Taiwan’s importance is explained as follows:

@PINR

While the issue of Taiwan is the primary driver of China’s naval military modernization, the accomplishment of its primary goal is not mutually exclusive to achieving its secondary goals. Some Chinese military analysts have highlighted that control of Taiwan would allow China to expand its maritime defense perimeter, increase its control over sea lines of communication and expand its naval power projection capabilities. As General Wan Zongren, Political Commissar of the P.L.A. Academy of Military Science, has stated, the Taiwan Strait dispute is of “far reaching significance to breaking the international forces’ blockade against China’s maritime security…Only when we break this blockade shall we be able to talk about China’s rise.”

There are some other articles on this site which talk about The modernization of China’s navy, cooperation with the also growing Indian navy, and recent incidents with the Japanese navy.

[Marvin]

@ShrimpCrackers

[quote=“cctang”][quote=“mr_boogie”]that is why I would use it as a deterrent plan.[/quote]Why? Why wouldn’t the US just nuke Beijing instead?

Why? The US promises not to do preemtive nuclear strikes.

Secondly China has been the one threatening to nuke other nations. Even during the cold war, no Russian generals have gone out to say “we’ll nuke the US” while some from China have.[/quote]

The Chinese general who said that did come across as nuts, and what he said is unnecessarily provocative, but let us not be naive. What he said is definitely along the line of what every country with nukes is thinking, except they didn’t say it explicitly like he did.

The US doesn’t say it would nuke anyone. It only made itself the absolutely number one nuclear country in terms of both quantity and quality. And it’s still pumping billions of dollars every year to upgrade and advance its nuclear weapons. This is all in the context of no country on the surface of the Earth would have a chance of the US military or invading the US.

[zeugmite]

What the general said was perfectly sane. He didn’t “threaten” to “use” nuclear weapons any more than DoD officials “threaten” to “destroy” China. Whatever he said though, you can be sure ShrimpCrackers doesn’t actually know.

[Lord_Lucan]

@mr_boogie

10 tomahawks pointed at the 3 Gorges Dam and you get a hell of a dissuasive effect on China. Did anyone ever calculated the danger of blowing that thing up? Would it have a more or less devastating efect than a nuclear bomb, no?

Playing right into the CCP’s hands. They don’t mind a few dead people. They’d use it as an excuse to nuke Taipei or somewhere then build another damn. Dam. Ahem. Damned thing will probably fall down of its own accord soon enough anyway. Where’s my dinner?