IL-18 GOPer supports nukes to Taiwan

[MarkWarner08]

"If China continues to be irresponsible about nuclear proliferation in Iran, we should tell them that if they do not care about proliferation - and since they are enablers of it in Iran - that if they don't change their position, we will sell Pershing nuclear missiles to Taiwan for their defense."

"Non-proliferation will either be enforced universally or not at all - it is their choice," Schock continued. "The Chinese will come around, I have no doubt."
http://www.sj-r.com/Opinion/stories/19687.asp

One doesn't have to be a geopolitical analyst to understand that providing nuclear weapons to Taiwan will be interpreted by the PRC as an act of war. At a time when the Middle Kingdom is enjoying  burgeoning economic growth and growing political clout, why would America seek to arm China's chief enemy in the region?

Most Chinese don't even acknowledge the existence of Taiwan's an autonomous state. An American decision to grant the Taiwanese government the most powerful weapon on earth would show the Chinese government that the U.S does not respect the former's rise to power.

Providing nuclear weapons to Taiwain would undermine China's sovereignty, infuriate a vital trade partner, and ratchet up already rising tensions between our two nations. What if China responds to an America-Taiwan missile deal by abruptly selling its reserves of U.S dollars? The wide-sweeping economic consequences of such a move would likely plunge America into a severe recession, if not a depression.

Aaron Schock's irresponsible and (pardon the pun) shocking rhetoric are sure signs that this young politician is not ready to go to Washington.

[Conan]

"If China continues to be irresponsible about nuclear proliferation in Iran, we should tell them that if they do not care about proliferation - and since they are enablers of it in Iran - that if they don't change their position, we will sell Pershing nuclear missiles to Taiwan for their defense."

"Non-proliferation will either be enforced universally or not at all - it is their choice," Schock continued. "The Chinese will come around, I have no doubt."
http://www.sj-r.com/Opinion/stories/19687.asp

One doesn't have to be a geopolitical analyst to understand that providing nuclear weapons to Taiwan will be interpreted by the PRC as an act of war. At a time when the Middle Kingdom is enjoying  burgeoning economic growth and growing political clout, why would America seek to arm China's chief enemy in the region?

Most Chinese don't even acknowledge the existence of Taiwan's an autonomous state. An American decision to grant the Taiwanese government the most powerful weapon on earth would show the Chinese government that the U.S does not respect the former's rise to power.

Providing nuclear weapons to Taiwain would undermine China's sovereignty, infuriate a vital trade partner, and ratchet up already rising tensions between our two nations. What if China responds to an America-Taiwan missile deal by abruptly selling its reserves of U.S dollars? The wide-sweeping economic consequences of such a move would likely plunge America into a severe recession, if not a depression.

Aaron Schock's irresponsible and (pardon the pun) shocking rhetoric are sure signs that this young politician is not ready to go to Washington.

I'd sell nukes to Taiwan, too. But maybe not letting china know would be better.

[MarkWarner08]

"If China continues to be irresponsible about nuclear proliferation in Iran, we should tell them that if they do not care about proliferation - and since they are enablers of it in Iran - that if they don't change their position, we will sell Pershing nuclear missiles to Taiwan for their defense."

"Non-proliferation will either be enforced universally or not at all - it is their choice," Schock continued. "The Chinese will come around, I have no doubt."
http://www.sj-r.com/Opinion/stories/19687.asp

One doesn't have to be a geopolitical analyst to understand that providing nuclear weapons to Taiwan will be interpreted by the PRC as an act of war. At a time when the Middle Kingdom is enjoying  burgeoning economic growth and growing political clout, why would America seek to arm China's chief enemy in the region?

Most Chinese don't even acknowledge the existence of Taiwan's an autonomous state. An American decision to grant the Taiwanese government the most powerful weapon on earth would show the Chinese government that the U.S does not respect the former's rise to power.

Providing nuclear weapons to Taiwain would undermine China's sovereignty, infuriate a vital trade partner, and ratchet up already rising tensions between our two nations. What if China responds to an America-Taiwan missile deal by abruptly selling its reserves of U.S dollars? The wide-sweeping economic consequences of such a move would likely plunge America into a severe recession, if not a depression.

Aaron Schock's irresponsible and (pardon the pun) shocking rhetoric are sure signs that this young politician is not ready to go to Washington.

I'd sell nukes to Taiwan, too. But maybe not letting china know would be better.

Why? Is helping Taiwan worth risking a major rift with the world's fastest growing economy?

[Jake]

The ROC already has nukes (alledgedly) and selling nukes to Taipei wouldn't really affect the US-China relations, but it's bad policy to support nuclear proliferation and this guy's campaign manager hopefully ripped him a new one. Unless there's a major Chinese expat community, this shouldn't even come up in a congressional campaign.

BTW, are Pershings still built/maintained/operated by the US. I didn't think, but...

[MarkWarner08]

The ROC already has nukes (alledgedly) and selling nukes to Taipei wouldn't really affect the US-China relations, but it's bad policy to support nuclear proliferation and this guy's campaign manager hopefully ripped him a new one. Unless there's a major Chinese expat community, this shouldn't even come up in a congressional campaign.

BTW, are Pershings still built/maintained/operated by the US. I didn't think, but...

It reinforces the frame that Schock is too inexperienced to be elected to Congress. Why should voters trust a 26 year old who thinks the way to place pressure on China is to arm Taiwan with nukes? What would the U.S gain from such a move? Run a cost benefits analysis and find a reason for the U.S to alienate China. When voters in the 18th realize that Schock supports provoking China into a nuclear confrontation, they'll likely second guess whether he's ready to   go to Congress.

[Jake]

It reinforces the frame that Schock is too inexperienced to be elected to Congress. Why should voters trust a 26 year old who thinks the way to place pressure on China is to arm Taiwan with nukes? What would the U.S gain from such a move? Run a cost benefits analysis and find a reason for the U.S to alienate China.

No shit. It's extremely stupid policy because it antagonizes China, not because it "risks a major rift with the world's fastest growing economy". It merely risks a rift with the government of that nation's economy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This hardly would provoke China into a nuclear confrontation, especially when you understand that no one in China would seriously consider acquiring US nukes. The KMT is looking likely to run away with the Presidential Election in 2008; Ma is leading every poll by quite a lot. The idea of China starting nuclear war over arms sales is ridiculous. No one in power is willing to risk the inevitable full scale war that would occur, nor are the willing to risk the economic upheaval nuclear or even conventional war would cause to their economy.

Schock merely was making a (extremely) stupid off the cuff comment; one that he probably believes, but never should've said during a campaign. No worse than Obama's comment on Pakistan.

And to ask a question of the article, who the hell would buy that much US currency right now. China would certainly lose vast amounts of money if they made such a move.

[Cubby]

I will never understand why China is so extremely outraged over Taiwan's moves toward indpendence. They have 1.3 Billion People and over 3 million square miles of land. Why do they need more of either one? China's behavior on this issue is one of their worst qualities.

[Gabu]

I will never understand why China is so extremely outraged over Taiwan's moves toward indpendence. They have 1.3 Billion People and over 3 million square miles of land. Why do they need more of either one? China's behavior on this issue is one of their worst qualities.

If they gave up that part, the same logic could be used to give up other segments of land.  They understandably would prefer to nip such things in the bud.

[CollectiveInterest]

I will never understand why China is so extremely outraged over Taiwan's moves toward indpendence. They have 1.3 Billion People and over 3 million square miles of land. Why do they need more of either one? China's behavior on this issue is one of their worst qualities.

All countries oppose being broken up by a minority wanting to break away.

China is ethnically diverse.

If the PRC sent signals that it was willing to let regions go, it would have many ethnic groups pushing to break away.

[Brittain33]

If the PRC sent signals that it was willing to let regions go, it would have many ethnic groups pushing to break away.

That's one important point. Another issue is that Taiwan is ethnically Chinese, and it undermines China's authority and identity to have a second independent Chinese country, much less one that has made democracy work.

[Jake]

I will never understand why China is so extremely outraged over Taiwan's moves toward indpendence. They have 1.3 Billion People and over 3 million square miles of land. Why do they need more of either one? China's behavior on this issue is one of their worst qualities.

Read up some on the Chinese Civil War. The mere existence of the ROC would be similar to the Confederate States of America being allowed to remain in power in South Carolina (ignoring that South Carolina is not an island).

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

BTW, are Pershings still built/maintained/operated by the US. I didn't think, but...

The Pershings were all dismantled in 1991 as part of the IRNF treaty save for fifteen inert ones for display purposes. (We gave one of them to the Russians in exchange for an SS-20 at the time.)  However, the Hera missile used as a target missile for testing out the missile defense system bolts the guidance system from a dismantled Pershing II on to the top two stages of a retired Minuteman II.  IRNF basically prohibits us from having a missile that the ROC would find useful against the PRC.  However if Putin carries through on his threat to withdraw Russia from the IRNF treaty, I imagine Lockheed Martin has some design studies for a Pershing III that could be put into production fairly quickly (for a Pentagon project that is).

[muon2]

It was a goofy comment. I'm glad to see the candidate had the sense to retract it. The issues on the national political stage often look nothing like those at the state level.

[Cubby]

I will never understand why China is so extremely outraged over Taiwan's moves toward indpendence. They have 1.3 Billion People and over 3 million square miles of land. Why do they need more of either one? China's behavior on this issue is one of their worst qualities.

Read up some on the Chinese Civil War. The mere existence of the ROC would be similar to the Confederate States of America being allowed to remain in power in South Carolina (ignoring that South Carolina is not an island).

I understand. But what if they changed their name. Instead of officially being the Republic of China, they would be just "Taiwan", and drop the ROC title. I know this would piss off the Kuomintang, but if they didn't call themselves Chinese anymore, Red China would have less to get hysterically angry about.

It just seems silly and pointless for both countries to be playing a semantic game 58 years after the fact. We all get it, the Commies won. Let Taiwan go its own separate way.

And as to the comments that these moves would encourage ethnic separatism within mainland China, I see how it could be interpreted that way. But there's a big difference in Taiwan's case, in that its been under other governments for over 5 decades, all the other groups have been under the direct control of Beijing the whole time (for Tibet, since 1959).

[Jake]

It'd still be a loss of face for the Chinese government. They decided ages ago that their policy would be to treat Formosa as a rebellious province. If they back off that now, how do they treat their other provinces who want out?

And to why it's such a big deal, check out the ROC's GDP, their South China Sea claims, and where they sit off the coast. All of that could be the PRC's.

[Stranger in a strange land]

It'd still be a loss of face for the Chinese government. They decided ages ago that their policy would be to treat Formosa as a rebellious province. If they back off that now, how do they treat their other provinces who want out?

And to why it's such a big deal, check out the ROC's GDP, their South China Sea claims, and where they sit off the coast. All of that could be the PRC's.

problem is, no other provinces really want out (except maybe Tibet and Xinjiang, but they were never really part of China until the mid-20th century), especially with the economy booming as it is. China's doing well now; a lot better than it was 15 or 20 years ago, and the leaders in Beijing aren't going to mess that up by trying to retake Taiwan.

[Jake]

problem is, no other provinces really want out (except maybe Tibet and Xinjiang, but they were never really part of China until the mid-20th century), especially with the economy booming as it is. China's doing well now; a lot better than it was 15 or 20 years ago, and the leaders in Beijing aren't going to mess that up by trying to retake Taiwan.

That's a really, really big except. And it doesn't particularly matter whether "they were never really part of China until the mid-20th century"; they're sure as hell part of it now and the PRC is not going to let valuable pieces of its country go. Xinjiang/Tibet contribute ~$44 billion to the Chinese GDP, equivalent to Angola (1.7% of national GDP). Not an extremely significant portion of the national GDP, but big enough. The ROC's GDP is ~$356 billion, a figure that would be 12% of Chinese GDP if the two countries were reunited. That's why the PRC will never accept there being two countries; economics prevents it.

And the last sentence is obviously true. They also are never going to accept a two nations system.

[Stranger in a strange land]

problem is, no other provinces really want out (except maybe Tibet and Xinjiang, but they were never really part of China until the mid-20th century), especially with the economy booming as it is. China's doing well now; a lot better than it was 15 or 20 years ago, and the leaders in Beijing aren't going to mess that up by trying to retake Taiwan.

That's a really, really big except. And it doesn't particularly matter whether "they were never really part of China until the mid-20th century"; they're sure as hell part of it now and the PRC is not going to let valuable pieces of its country go. Xinjiang/Tibet contribute ~$44 billion to the Chinese GDP, equivalent to Angola (1.7% of national GDP). Not an extremely significant portion of the national GDP, but big enough. The ROC's GDP is ~$356 billion, a figure that would be 12% of Chinese GDP if the two countries were reunited. That's why the PRC will never accept there being two countries; economics prevents it.

obviously. and China has the abillity to stop either from taking any steps towards independence, and barring some catastrophic collapse, will for the foreseeable future.

[Хahar 🤔]

Ha ha. Aaron Schock is funny.