林中斌 部落格 / Blog Chong-Pin Lin

我們的女影星經常看書嗎？

accessed Sep 14, 2020

我們的女影星經常看書嗎？

明星、健美家、反越戰領袖 珍芳達談閱讀（紐約時報2020.9.12）：

■“我11-15歲時，最喜歡坐在大櫸樹枝上看書，下面是墳地。我一直喜歡背靠墓碑看書。”

■您最近看的最有趣的書是那本？“講樹彼此溝通，互相警告危險，而其彼此照顧。”

■那類書您最喜歡讀？“我偶而讀古典名作像托爾斯泰等。我不看愛情小說，或恐怖小說。許多年來，我看基督教的書，包括靈知派聖經（強調靈修打坐 被認為異端）。”

中美貿易戰下的台灣戰略地位與策略

accessed Sep 7, 2020

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1354ZAxmu5mapq3Orzu-zoNfDiWvU9N9E/view

林中斌稱兩強較勁 陸已決定避戰

accessed Sep 7, 2020

中時新聞網

呂昭隆／台北報導

2020年8月31日 上午4:10

https://www.chinatimes.com/newspapers/20200831000411-260118?chdtv

2020.9.8

前國防部副部長、前陸委會副主委林中斌接受本報專訪表示，「蔡習會」在習第二任期（中共20大前）有可能實現。（陳柏廷攝）

美陸在南海與台海軍事較勁，蔡英文總統也擔心會擦槍走火。前國防部副部長林中斌說，我方早有管道得知，美陸軍事較勁，大陸表面不示弱，但早已決定避戰，另美軍方與川普有間隙，陸美兩國國防部長通話，美軍方似乎擔心川普挑釁的做法，而尋求與共軍合作避免失控。

林中斌上周在一場演說中做上述表示。林中斌說，8月11日《南華早報》報導「不要開第一槍」指出，中國已通過各種管道與美國溝通要求軍隊不開第一槍」。林中斌透露，我方某位教授有通北京管道，在蔡總統520就職前即說，川普因美國疫情嚴重，經濟衰退，連任情勢不利，將在南海非理性的升高軍勢動作，中國在關鍵時刻將避戰。

林中斌說，中國疫情及經濟在今年2月中自谷底彈升，第二季度起中國相對美、歐、日成長亮麗。美國商會4月民調顯示，8成中國外商選擇留下，6月民調，7成香港外商選擇留下。林中斌說，台灣宜採避險策略，未雨綢繆。在經濟領域，台美中三贏並非不可能。

至於兩岸軍事情勢，林中斌說，大陸對台似冷卻武統熱潮，收斂戰狼外交態度；北京對台，在2019年是只用硬手，2020年則恢復軟硬兩手。他說，5月1日，以《超限戰》成名的鷹派解放軍將領喬良發表「台灣問題不可輕率急進」論文，以冷卻武統派的狂熱，該文隨即於5月4日轉載於有政策影響力的「大國策智庫」下。「大國策智庫」附屬於「國防金融研究會」為2015年時任國防大學政委的劉亞洲上將所成立。

永豐金控 主題演講

accessed Aug 27, 2020

Five hundred had registered to attend, the organizer told me before I entered a perhaps 99% packed hall. Thanks to my invited friends who came to boost my morale. Eight days of preparation kept me busy up to my last revision at 5-6 am this morning. Courtesy James Chen and 張譯丰 for the great photos.

Professor Lin Chong-pin tells story of his life's journey

accessed Aug 31, 2020

Professor Lin Chong-pin tells story of his life's journey

11/12/2009 02:51 PM

By Lillian LinCNA Staff Write

https://focustaiwan.tw/news/200911120012

My deep gratitude is due Ms.Lillian Lin, a truly cultured and professional international journalist for the Central News Agency for unearthing my dusted past. I wish to thank Mr.Guo 中翰, senior CNA journalist, for finding this article I have completely forgotten.

Chong-Pin Lin August 31, 2020

感謝林琳小姐的盛意以精到的筆法和典雅的英文轉化在下迷茫探索的過去成為以下的文字。

也感謝中央社郭中翰先進發掘塵埋已久連在下都全然忘確的資料。

林中斌 2020.8.31

Professor Lin Chong-pin tells story of his life's journey

11/12/2009 02:51 PM

By Lillian Lin CNA Staff Writer

In Taiwan, Professor Lin Chong-pin, 67, is one of the most quoted scholars in the field of international affairs, and in particular cross-Taiwan Strait relations. But while most people know him as a military strategist and China expert, many may not be aware of his extraordinary experience as a geologist and his talent as a photographer.

In his new book, "Notes from an Earthly Journey, " Lin reveals some of the less well-known turns his life took in his pursuit of his artistic interests and his academic degrees -- one bachelor's, three master's and one doctorate.

The perceptions he acquired through his parents -- a brass-hat father with extensive international experience and a mother who taught Chinese literature at top universities -- led to a keen interest in travel and foreign languages.

He became fluent in English and also learned to speak German, French, Spanish, Russian and some Portuguese.

"When I was applying for university entry, I was hoping to study humanities, but my mother suggested that I take physical sciences," he said.

He therefore studied geology at National Taiwan University from1960 to 1965 then went on to Bowling Green State University in Ohio 1966- 1969 to obtain a master's degree in the same field.

The autobiographical essays in Lin's book reveal some interesting parallels between his life and his father's.

For example, his father held two bachelors degrees – in geosciences and economics -- that he had earned at National Tsinghua University in Beijing before gaining entry to Chienchao Air Force School in 1932.

Working as a geologist apprentice and later as a geologist, Lin traversed the mountains, valleys, lakes and forests of the U.S. states of Oklahoma, Kansas, Wisconsin, Michigan, Colorado, and Montana, and British Columbia in Canada.

On those explorations, which began in 1967 and lasted a decade, he recorded his close encounters with nature, taking numerous extraordinary photographs of tarn lakes, glaciers, valleys shrouded in mist, snowy valleys and icy rocks.

"Photography had long been a habit of mine, and I was using very simple equipment," said Professor Lin.

A believer in synchronicity, he also affirmed the importance of "catching the very moment."

His photographs won him honors in U.S. photography contests in1977. Many years later in Taiwan, when he was serving as deputy minister of national defense in 2003, he exhibited selected works in Taipei, Tainan, Keelung and Hualien. Many of the people who viewed the exhibitions were impressed by his professional touch.

In 1975, at a time when business administration was emerging in the U.S. as the most popular subject for study, Lin earned an MBA from University of California Los Angeles (UCLA).

His studies in finance helped him to make the shift from his job as a senior geologist in the Denver-based Manville Corp. to a financial analyst at a mining company (CPL: the same company Manville Corp.). But as an enthusiastic music and art lover, Lin said, he felt that something was missing in his life.

He began looking for new pursuits, and in 1978 made what proved to be a pivotal decision. The following year, at the age of 37, he quit his job and went back to school, this time with the intention of studying something related to his interests.

"I had a romantic perception of international relations, dreaming that with my language ability, I'd get to meet more people of different nationalities who shared my interests, " the professor said with a smile, as he recalled his years at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C.

The eight years of hard work and "subhuman existence, " as Lin described them in his book, also brought rewards. He was awarded a distinction grade for his doctorate thesis on "China's Nuclear Weapons Strategy" and the thesis was published by Lexington Books in 1988.

Lin's recollections of his Washington years include lectures by Henry Kissinger on his "absolute security" theory and the experience of working with former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Jeane J. Kirkpatrick.

As a scholar at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute and professor at Georgetown University between 1987 and 1995, Lin established his standing as an expert in China affairs.

However, in 1995, his life took another major turn when he got married and returned to Taiwan to work for the government. As vice chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council and deputy minister of defense, Lin's analyses and forecasts on mainland affairs and U.S.-Taiwan-China relations were highly valued by academicians and the international media.

Today, Lin is a professor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Tamkang University, a position he has held since 2004.

Free from the weight of public office, he can now give more attention to his beloved photography, music and contemporary arts.

"In the many countries I have visited, I have met politicians, scholars, scientists, and people from all walks of life who embrace music and fine arts to enrich their lives," said the professor.

Quoting Swedish statesman Dag Hammarskjold, Lin said "the longest journey is the journey inwards, " adding that his own appreciation of music and fine arts is his journey inwards.

"Looking inward, I visualize further exploration of beauty and grace as the journey of life continues," he said.

Enditem/pc

arrow_forward_ios前往頁面

Powered by

GliaStudio

"首戰即決戰"的來源

accessed Aug 25, 2020

兩百年來罕見的文學預言才女

accessed July 31, 2020

■1816年16歲的瑪麗˙雪萊創造了《科學怪人》。寓言是未來科技可能摧毀了創造它的人類，就像科學怪人最後摧毀了發明它的人。正是今日人類面臨核子大戰威脅的寫照。

■1826年26歲的她又創作了另一本小說《最後一個人》。內容描述瘟疫將席捲全球人類只剩一位生存者。也正是今日世界陷入冠狀病毒災難的惡夢。

請看下面兩篇

1. 妙齡女創造科學怪人

聯合報 20180829 A15

2. Mary Shelley Created ‘Frankenstein,’ and Then a Pandemic

Her novel ‘The Last Man’ predicted the political causes of and collective solutions for global plague.

By Eileen Hunt Botting

• New York Times March 13, 2020

●一八一六是歐洲歷史上「無夏日之年」。六月中某晚，在陰雨綿綿的瑞士日內瓦湖畔，一座考究的別墅內，五位英國俊男美女，應景當時詭異的氣氛，比賽講恐怖故事。

妙齡女創造科學怪人

聯合報 20180829 A15

二○一八是小說《科學怪人》(Frankenstein)問世兩百周年。

故事：一位科學家在實驗室中意外的創造出聰明、醜陋的巨人。科學家在親人一一為怪物殺害後也步上被毀滅的後塵。

這本小說從未絕版過，而且它版本之多為所有小說之冠。一三年英國《衛報》 (Guardian)列它為世界一百本最佳小說中第八名。改編成無數舞台劇之外，至今它已拍成五十六部電影，下一部明年將上映。它反映出每一個世代人們對科技創新的不安和期望。

它的魅力跨越時間，以及空間。二○一四年，在戰火摧殘的敘利亞，居然出現得獎的阿拉伯文小說《巴格達的科學怪人》(Frankenstein in Bagdad)。

今年年初，紀念《科學怪人》兩世紀的生日，已有四本專書出版，研究它文學、心理、哲學、社會的意義。

它被譽為現代科幻小說之鼻祖，其影響力甚至跨入科學。今年美國National Science Foundation特地資助印行為科學家、工程師、和所有創新者所編的版本(Frankenstein: Annotated for Scientists, Engineers, and Creators of All Kinds)。科學期刊Science也在今年一月出版特刊及專文(The Long Shadow of Frankenstein)討論此書至今為何仍為科學家所必讀。無情冰冷的科學如何和有情熱血的人類共處？人類的科學發明又如何不會毀滅人類？這些議題隨了人工生命、基因改造、機器人等的出現愈形重要。

小說《科學怪人》如何誕生？

一八一六是歐洲歷史上「無夏日之年」。那是一七九○至一八三○年「道爾頓小冰河期」(Dalton Minimum)寒冷的極致。剛好又碰上印尼火山(Tambora Mount)爆發，火山灰長期遮蔽太陽，各地長久不見天日。六月中某晚，在陰雨綿綿的瑞士日內瓦湖畔，一座考究的別墅內，五位英國俊男美女，應景當時詭異的氣氛，比賽講恐怖故事。

出題目的是廿八歲的主人拜倫男爵，浪漫派大詩人，當時已經享譽歐陸。

在座的另一位是拜倫好友廿四歲的雪萊，浪漫派名詩人和作家。

第三位是廿歲的醫生，拜倫仰慕者(John Polidori)。

第四位是十八歲的瑪麗˙高德溫。她文雅秀麗，思想前瞻，十六歲已與雪萊私奔巴黎，一八一六年底將成為雪萊妻子。

第五位是瑪麗的繼妹Clare Claremont。

這比賽產生了兩本傳世的小說：Polidori醫生的《吸血鬼》(The Vampire) 和瑪麗˙雪萊的《科學怪人》。後者當時贏得比賽。

瑪麗的父親是新潮哲學家William Godwin。母親是女權運動先驅Mary Wollstonecraft，曾憧憬法國大革命，前往巴黎目睹恐怖的暴民，失望而歸。家庭環境自幼薰陶，妙齡瑪麗的智慧早已超越了一般的想像。母親生下瑪麗後，染病而亡，種下瑪麗心靈上的陰影。創造她的母親因她而死，有如創造怪人的科學家毀於怪人之手。巴黎街頭的叛亂和仇恨，由瑪麗的筆注入怪人的性格。

「我本善良，因醜而受苦，淪為惡魔。請設法使我快樂，我會回歸純潔。」怪人告訴科學家。後天環境決定我們的善惡，這才是作者的深意。

《科學怪人》最初用筆名發表。一八三一年第三版才用真名，竟然引起評論家駁斥說此傑作不可能為女性所寫！

那時，離日內瓦湖畔講恐怖故事之夜已十六寒暑。對瑪麗而言，世事全非。拜倫七年前赴希臘參戰而病死。雪萊已辭世九年。她將守寡一生直至一八五一，享年五十四。

作者為前華府喬治大學外交學院講座教授，曾任國防部副部長

Mary Shelley Created ‘Frankenstein,’ and Then a Pandemic

Her novel ‘The Last Man’ predicted the political causes of and collective solutions for global plague.

By Eileen Hunt Botting

Ms. Botting is a professor of political science at Notre Dame.

• New York Times March 13, 2020

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/13/opinion/mary-shelley-sc-fi-pandemic-novel.html accessed July 31, 2020

The world teeters in collective anxiety in the midst of a pandemic. A novel and lethal plague spreads its tentacles around the earth. It ravages human populations and simultaneously undermines their interconnected economic and political systems. An elite group of political leaders gathers to ask, What should be done in the face of a worldwide public health crisis?

This story line should sound familiar. But I am not summarizing the news headlines about Covid-19. I am recalling the plot of a great work of literature. It is Mary Shelley’s futuristic novel about a global plague, “The Last Man” (1826).

Shelley saw that the disaster of a pandemic would be driven by politics. This politics would be deeply personal yet international in scope. The spiraling health crisis would be caused by what people and their leaders had done and failed to do on the international stage — in trade, war and the interpersonal bargains, pacts and conflicts that precede them.

As we heed scientists’ warnings that we are entering “the age of pandemics,” we can benefit from reading “The Last Man” as the first major post-apocalyptic novel. In her second great work of science fiction after “Frankenstein” (1818), Shelley — the child of two philosophers — gave her readers an existential mind-set for collectively dealing with the threat of a global man-made disaster.

“The Last Man” is set in the year 2100. The novel’s driving conflict is a highly contagious disease. Like the coronavirus, the novel’s plague spreads by a combination of airborne particles and contact with carriers. In both cases, it has been incubated, exacerbated and left unchecked by destructive human behavior.

“The Last Man” has been so influential that you are already familiar with its basic plot even if you have not read it yet. It presents the history of the ostensible sole survivor of a global plague. Much like “Frankenstein,” “The Last Man” has repeatedly been remade in the science fiction and horror genres — from the works of Edgar Allan Poe to countless zombie apocalypse movies inspired by the 1964 film “The Last Man on Earth.” The latter starred none other than the king of horror, Vincent Price. He played the last human left alive on the globe after a virulent contagion turned other people into vampires.

In Shelley’s novel, it is a man named Lionel Verney who finds himself in this extreme and precarious position. In her allegorical reworking of biblical narratives of the fall and rebirth of humankind, Verney is a humble shepherd boy who marries into the royal family at Windsor Castle. He quickly ascends to the top of the leadership ranks. He serves as a trusted adviser to lords, ministers and legislators as the plague breaks out in Constantinople then creeps toward London.

After Verney leads a failed expedition of plague survivors from the crumbled republic of England to the vacant coast of Italy, he is left alone in Rome to contemplate the future. He climbs to the top of the dome of St. Peter’s Basilica and carves the year — 2100 — in the stone. From that sublime vantage, he surveys the remains of human civilization. He summons the hope that there must be other survivors somewhere on the planet. In the final frame, Verney departs on an epic sea journey to discover them. For companions, he brings some signs of his humanity: his mutt, and the works of Homer and Shakespeare. Although Verney is not certain that he will find fellow humans, he discerns a deeper obligation to himself and the whole planet to act upon that hope.

In other words, Verney realizes that even if he is the last man on Earth, he must live as though he is not. He must sustain humanity by acting upon his profound sense of the interconnectedness of his fate with other forms of life — human or not.

Shelley completed “The Last Man” when she was a 28-year-old widow. She was grieving the loss of her husband, the poet Percy Bysshe Shelley, and three of their children. Her first baby girl was born prematurely and survived less than two weeks, the next daughter died of a fever, and her firstborn son died of malaria. Then her young husband drowned in a sailing accident at the peak of his career. Writing “The Last Man” was her attempt to reconcile herself to the tragedies of life without losing hope in humanity itself.

Shelley located the human roots of her fictional plague in a centuries-long war between Greece and Turkey. Scientists think that the spread of the new coronavirus grew from a toxic mix of economic, political and environmental factors surrounding the largely unregulated market for wild animal meat in China and beyond. It has since percolated into an irresponsible game of blame among nations, whose leaders spread rumors that the coronavirus is a foreign bioweapon or even deny the seriousness of the public health crisis within their own borders. As with the coronavirus outbreak, travelers in “The Last Man” disperse the deadly disease across continents, infecting their own families and communities.

Much like Shelley’s first novel, “Frankenstein,” “The Last Man” proves to be a work of political science fiction. “Frankenstein” shows how a scientist’s abandonment of his artificially made creature brings ripple effects of suffering to them and the community. The teenage Shelley may have identified with Victor Frankenstein’s so-called monster, for her birth had killed her own mother, Mary Wollstonecraft, via a surgically transmitted infection.

Similarly, “The Last Man” originates in the author’s experience of devastating personal loss. After Shelley suffered a mental crisis about whether she could live after the loss of almost everyone she loved, she wrote a cosmopolitan answer to this existential question. The unexpectedly hopeful ending of “The Last Man” suggests that all disasters — however threatening to particular individuals or countries — are ultimately about humanity’s responsibility to the world as a whole.

Wise beyond her years, Shelley reminds us through the heroic voice of Verney that we should always act upon hope for retaining what makes us loving, humane and connected to others, even in the face of total catastrophe.

Reading the story lines about the escalating coronavirus outbreaks around the world, we feel worry — even fear — especially for ourselves and our loved ones. But like Shelley and her avatar Verney, we should summon the strength to look beyond that fear with an attitude of hope and collective problem-solving. Only then might we humanely work together to fight the spread of Covid-19, instead of contributing to yet another international epidemiological disaster.

Eileen Hunt Botting (@BottingHunt) is a political theorist whose latest book, “Artificial Life After Frankenstein," is forthcoming from Penn Press in late 2020.

拜登制中 剛主柔輔 漸趨調適

accessed Aug 11, 2020

林中斌
聯合報 2020年8月11日 A13
交稿日期：20200806 文字數：1100 目標字數:1100

七月廿三日美國務卿蓬佩奧說美國與中國「瞎眼交往」50年，結果一事無成。這說法最權威論述來自一八年三/四月《外交事務》期刊的〈盤點我們的中國政策〉(The China Reckoning)。

七月四日美國在國慶日出動兩艘航空母艦在南海舉行六年以來最大的演習，挑戰解放軍七月一日開始在西沙群島進行的五天演習。而最早建議美國積極在南海展示軍力以遏止中國勢力擴展是一七年七/八月《外交事務》的〈路線該換〉(Course Correction)。

意外的是，這兩篇對中國強硬的建議都來自於目前在野民主黨總統候選人拜登的長期幕僚。雖然拜登一度給人對中軟弱的印象。

瑞特納(Ely Ratner)博士曾任拜登副總統的國安會副顧問，更早做過拜登參議員的助理，任職過國務院中國蒙古事務科，目前是拜登總統競選團隊的諮議。他四十三歲，華裔妻子的父親是上海的創投企業家。拜登諮詢的外交政策團隊裡，包括Susan Rice、Anthony Blinken、Kurt Campbell，瑞特納雖年輕，應算中國問題專家。

更意外的是，他那兩篇對中強硬的文字發表時，正當川普對中蜜月期。一七年五月，美國兩黨議員呼籲川普恢復南海巡弋，川普沒理。同時，川普擱置對台軍售以示好北京。六月，川普表態願參加一帶一路，並邀請中國參加美國環太平洋軍事演習。七月，川普在漢堡表態「永不放棄」與習近平合作。一八年三月初，蓋洛普民調顯示五成三美國人對中國好感，是近卅年來首次過半！川普今日強硬反中做法不能否認來自於瑞特納的啟發，但是忽略了後者對中柔軟的一面。

如果拜登當選總統，要預探他中國政策，近來瑞特納頻繁發表的言論是最好的根據。特點如下(括弧中為筆者淺見)：
●支持台灣：加強美國與台灣在外交及安全方面的關係。
●遏止共軍：協助南海島嶼聲索國強化軍力抵制中國。美國不打前鋒。(菲律賓並未配合)
●不憂開火：相信北京會避戰 (“deeply risk-averse”)。
●邁向脫鉤：減少美中經濟互相依賴的程度。他相信兩國可脫鉤。(美國大公司如Tesla仍依賴中國製造)
●重視同盟：重建被川普破壞的美國與盟友關係，包括「跨太平洋夥伴協定」。
●絕無冷戰：堅信冷戰不可能發生，因為沒有壁壘分明而且經濟斷絕的兩大陣營。
●謀求合作：主張與中國共同處裡氣候變遷、傳染病擴散、金融不穩定、反恐、反核子擴散等問題。

七月卅日皮尤民調顯示七成三美國人不喜歡中國。在此民意環境下，當選總統的拜登更會持續川普對中強硬的做法。不同在於：
●川普為連任個人利益；拜登為國家利益。
●川普政策擺動大；拜登政策持續性高。
●川普全硬；拜登剛主柔輔。

川普發動中國不願打的貿易戰，傷敵七，自傷三。雙方比吃苦耐勞，自由民主的美國，贏不了非民主的中國。何況，美國第二季GDP負成長卅二點九趴，破歷史紀錄。中國PMI於七月已連續增長五個月，達九年半新高。貿易戰無法持續。中美兩大國有許多利益重疊。未來各自為己，將逐漸互相調適。

作者為前華府喬治大學外交學院講座教授，曾任國防部副部長，新書《偶爾言中II》作者

菲律賓最近在親中與親美之間擺盪

accessed July 29, 2020

菲律賓最近在親中與親美之間擺盪。

●菲律賓2020年6月初開親近美國，計畫購買武裝直升飛機。

●6月中，美菲疏遠的關係逆轉，馬尼拉加強與美軍事合作。

●7月中，菲律賓外長及國防部長同時要求中國遵守2016年的南海仲裁，無談判空間。 (杜特蒂曾於2016當選總統後宣布無限期擱置)

●7月底，杜特蒂說在南海打不過中國，疫情也得求援北京。

以上所爬梳的事件顯示馬尼拉施展兩手策略，或是

杜特蒂與菲國親美的將領及外交官較勁？（時間恰好是美國國務卿在運作反中聯盟之時）

■2020.7.28 杜特蒂：南海打不過陸 疫情也得求援

■2020.6.15 南海局勢緊張 菲美關係逆轉

■2020.6.1 菲加強海防應對南海衝突 (菲律賓計畫向美購買武裝直升飛機)

■20190915 菲總統第五次訪華 中菲擬合作開發油氣

■20190710 杜特蒂嗆美 拒當誘餌 別把菲律賓當蚯蚓

“美國能成功地擊退中國攻台嗎？”《國家利益雜誌》2020年8月6日

accessed Aug 13, 2020

“美國能成功地擊退中國攻台嗎？”《國家利益雜誌》2020年8月6日

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/skeptics/can-america-successfully-repel-chinese-invasion-taiwan-166350

作者Daniel L. Davis為2015年以美國陸軍中校退伍的智庫學者。曾四次參加戰鬥，並獲勳數次。2012年他從阿富汗回國公開揭露軍事高層說戰事順利其實不然。那年他獲得說真話獎Ridenhour Prize for Truth-telling .

重點摘錄如下，全文隨後：

●最近美國國防部和蘭德公司所做的兵推顯示中美為為台灣軍事衝突的結果是美國戰敗。

Recent wargames jointly conducted by the Pentagon and RAND Corporation have shown that a military clash between the United States and China, especially over the Taiwan issue, would likely result in a U.S. defeat.

●中國要拿台灣不會打機場，而是打海上航空母艦、打美國衛星。

If China committed all-out to seize Taiwan, RAND analyst David Ochmanek explained, then it could accomplish its objective “in a finite time period, measured in days to weeks.” The reason, he said, is because it’s not, “just that they’ll be attacking air bases in the region. They’ll be attacking aircraft carriers at sea . . . They’ll be attacking our sensors in space. They’ll be attacking our communications links that largely run through space.”

●也許美國最後能抵抗中國攻台，但如此的勝利代價太大。除了人員損失、飛機被擊落、軍艦下沉以外，美國要花數千億美元建造防禦工事以防中國再犯台。

Perhaps America could eventually repulse China’s assault on Taiwan. Such a “victory,” however, would have a staggeringly high price for the country.

In addition to the cost to America in terms of lives lost, ships sunk, and airplanes shot down, the United States would then have the unenviable obligation to build a massive military presence on Taiwan and build up bases throughout the region to secure the country and prevent the next Chinese attempt to retake it. America would have to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on perpetually maintaining such defenses and constantly be at risk of a new attack.

●台灣到中國大陸的距離相當於美國佛羅里達州到古巴，而美國大陸到台灣的距離是6千海里。

Taiwan is roughly the same distance from the Chinese mainland as Cuba is from the tip of Florida; it’s almost six thousand nautical miles from Taiwan to the U.S. mainland.

●總之，美國若敗於中國，結果是災難；美國若為台灣打贏，結果是破產。

In short, losing a war with China would be catastrophic while “winning” a war over Taiwan would bankrupt America.

●美國最好遏止中國拿台灣的方法是鼓勵盟國包括台灣強化自己的防禦。

The best way America can help Taiwan and dissuade China from using force is to encourage all the friendly countries of the Asia-Pacific region—not only Taiwan—to engage in a buildup of its own self-defense capabilities.

●台北應以A2/AD “反介入與區域拒止”強化自己。

Taipei should continue to bolster its defenses through an A2/AD strategy of its own

August 6, 2020

Can America Successfully Repel a Chinese Invasion of Taiwan?

Few leaders in “establishment Washington” have taken the time to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the capabilities of the U.S. Armed Forces and the Chinese People’s Liberation Army.

by Daniel L. Davis Follow @DanielLDavis1 on TwitterL

https://nationalinterest.org/…/can-america-successfully-rep… accessed August 13, 2020

There has long been heated debate over whether the United States should defend Taiwan in the case of a Chinese invasion, but little consideration to whether it successfully can. An unemotional assessment of the military capabilities of both China and the United States reveals the odds are uncomfortably high that the U.S. forces would be defeated in a war with China over Taiwan. What’s worse, even achieving a tactical victory could result in a devastating strategic loss. That’s not to say, however, that there aren’t alternative strategies to effectively preserve U.S. interests and at an affordable cost.

Few leaders in “establishment Washington” have taken the time to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the capabilities of the U.S. Armed Forces and the Chinese People’s Liberation Army. Instead, decisionmakers routinely engage in seemingly cost-free rhetorical declarations about U.S. political preferences devoid of context. Policymakers have long argued to jettison the idea of “strategic ambiguity” that has underscored decades of America’s Asia policy, and outright declare that the United States would militarily defend Taiwan in the event of an attack.

Former Pentagon official Joseph Bosco reflected the desire of many this summer when he argued that Congress should pass the Taiwan Defense Act because “it will move U.S. policy just one step short of an open defense commitment to Taiwan.”

If signed into law, the act would obligate the U.S. government to “delay, degrade, and ultimately defeat an attempt by the People’s Republic of China to [use military force to seize control of Taiwan].” It would be useful to stop and consider what those confident words would mean for America in practical terms on the ground, on and under the seas, and in the skies of the Asia-Pacific region. It doesn’t take long to realize it would be bad for the United States.

Any act or treaty the United States enters into should unequivocally have the net result of a more secure America, preserving (or expanding) the country’s ability to prosper. It is obviously not in America’s interest to tie itself to another state or entity if America must absorb all the risks and costs while the other party reaps the majority of the benefits. Extending a security guarantee to Taiwan fails in the first requirement and thoroughly meets the second.

Recent wargames jointly conducted by the Pentagon and RAND Corporation have shown that a military clash between the United States and China, especially over the Taiwan issue, would likely result in a U.S. defeat. In simulated wargames between the United States and China, RAND analyst David Ochmanek bluntly said America got “its ass handed to it.”

If China committed all-out to seize Taiwan, Ochmanek explained, then it could accomplish its objective “in a finite time period, measured in days to weeks.” The reason, he said, is because it’s not, “just that they’ll be attacking air bases in the region. They’ll be attacking aircraft carriers at sea . . . They’ll be attacking our sensors in space. They’ll be attacking our communications links that largely run through space.”

Perhaps the wargames underestimate America’s ability to counterattack or overestimate China’s ability to perform the operations. Perhaps America could eventually repulse China’s assault on Taiwan. Such a “victory,” however, would have a staggeringly high price for the country.

In addition to the cost to America in terms of lives lost, ships sunk, and airplanes shot down, the United States would then have the unenviable obligation to build a massive military presence on Taiwan and build up bases throughout the region to secure the country and prevent the next Chinese attempt to retake it. America would have to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on perpetually maintaining such defenses and constantly be at risk of a new attack.

Moreover, the geography would be a problem. Taiwan is roughly the same distance from the Chinese mainland as Cuba is from the tip of Florida; it’s almost six thousand nautical miles from Taiwan to the U.S. mainland. At a time when defense budgets are already causing more strain owing to the economic effects of coronavirus, it would cripple America were its defense budget to explode to cover a war with China. In short, losing a war with China would be catastrophic while “winning” a war over Taiwan would bankrupt America. Clearly, Washington needs a better way to compete with Beijing. Fortunately, there is a superior alternative.

The best way America can help Taiwan and dissuade China from using force is to encourage all the friendly countries of the Asia-Pacific region—not only Taiwan—to engage in a buildup of its own self-defense capabilities. China has famously hardened its defenses against the United States by means of anti-access, area-denial (A2/AD) which would impose a severe cost on the United States for any attack against China. Taiwan should do the same.

Taipei should continue to bolster its defenses through an A2/AD strategy of its own so that the cost of forcible unification by China would be so significant—and ultimate success would not be guaranteed—that the Communist Party leaders in Beijing would not risk the potential loss. Even that, it must be admitted, would be no guarantee that China would never attack Taiwan. But for American policy, it doesn’t make sense to risk military defeat or financial ruin when our interests are not directly threatened.

Daniel L. Davis is a senior fellow for Defense Priorities and a former lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army who retired in 2015 after twenty-one years, including four combat deployments. Follow him @DanielLDavis1.