Straits Times 00 (“No One Gains In War Over Taiwan”, 6-25, Lexis)
THE DOOMSDAY SCENARIO THE high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale war between the US and China. If Washington were to conclude that splitting China would better serve its national interests, then a full-scale war becomes unavoidable. Conflict on such a scale would embroil other countries far and near and -- horror of horrors -- raise the possibility of a nuclear war. Beijing has already told the US and Japan privately that it considers any country providing bases and logistics support to any US forces attacking China as belligerent parties open to its retaliation. In the region, this means South Korea, Japan, the Philippines and, to a lesser extent, Singapore. If China were to retaliate, east Asia will be set on fire. And the conflagration may not end there as opportunistic powers elsewhere may try to overturn the existing world order. With the US distracted, Russia may seek to redefine Europe's political landscape. The balance of power in the Middle East may be similarly upset by the likes of Iraq. In south Asia, hostilities between India and Pakistan, each armed with its own nuclear arsenal, could enter a new and dangerous phase. Will a full-scale Sino-US war lead to a nuclear war? According to General Matthew Ridgeway, commander of the US Eighth Army which fought against the Chinese in the Korean War, the US had at the time thought of using nuclear weapons against China to save the US from military defeat. In his book The Korean War, a personal account of the military and political aspects of the conflict and its implications on future US foreign policy, Gen Ridgeway said that US was confronted with two choices in Korea -- truce or a broadened war, which could have led to the use of nuclear weapons. If the US had to resort to nuclear weaponry to defeat China long before the latter acquired a similar capability, there is little hope of winning a war against China 50 years later, short of using nuclear weapons. The US estimates that China possesses about 20 nuclear warheads that can destroy major American cities. Beijing also seems prepared to go for the nuclear option. A Chinese military officer disclosed recently that Beijing was considering a review of its "non first use" principle regarding nuclear weapons. Major-General Pan Zhangqiang, president of the military-funded Institute for Strategic Studies, told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington that although the government still abided by that principle, there were strong pressures from the military to drop it. He said military leaders considered the use of nuclear weapons mandatory if the country risked dismemberment as a result of foreign intervention. Gen Ridgeway said that should that come to pass, we would see the destruction of civilisation. There would be no victors in such a war. While the prospect of a nuclearArmaggedonover Taiwan might seem inconceivable, it cannot be ruled out entirely, for China puts sovereignty above everything else.
RMA solves terrorism- long range strikes and information awareness prove
Sloan, 2002 Defence Analyst with the Directorate of Strategic Analysis at Canada's National Defence Headquarters
(Elinor, assistant professor in the Department of Political Science at Carleton University, The Revolution in Military Affairs: Implications for Canada and nato, p. 52)
Simply put, the United States can be expected to speed up those elements of the U.S. military's force transformation program that fit with or advance America's ability to combat terrorism. Many elements are relevant here. They include, above all, developing the smaller, more rapidly mobile, deployable, and lethal ground forces that have figured centrally in RMA doctrine from the outset. A particular emphasis is placed on special operations forces. However the force transformation efforts begun by the U.S. army in 1999 will also be essential. Not surprisingly, the QDR of 2001 calls on the secretary of the army to accelerate the introduction of forward-stationed interim brigade combat teams. In addition, the army is exploring ways it can accelerate the development of its future combat systems.51 Strategic sea and air lift will also be important, as will combat helicopters for battlefield mobility. Heavy platforms, like main battle tanks, are likely to become even more outdated in the new strategic environment. A second key RMA capability central to the war against terrorism is long-range precision strike. Associated platforms and weapons include stealthy 15-2 bombers equipped with satellite-guided joint direct attack munitions, u-i bombers equipped with satellite-guided launched cruise missiles, and submarines equipped with satellite-guided Tomahawk cruise missiles. Short-range tactical aircraft, dependent as they are on overseas bases, carriers, and refuelling aircraft, are less likely to be a platform of choice for military planners and political leaders. Finally, combatting international terrorism will depend to a significant degree on advanced battlespace awareness and control capabilities. "Our highest priority right now is situational awareness," argued one high-level Pentagon official in the weeks following the terrorist attacks of September 2001.51 Unmanned aerial vehicles like the Predator and the Global Hawk will be particularly important, as will advanced command, control communications, computing and intelligence (C41) systems. Consistent with these trends, the Pentagon is using its share of the emergency funding provided after the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington to accelerate the development of unmanned aerial vehicles, precision munitions, and C41 programs.