According to the Financial Times a "top Chinese general" has suggested that China should respond with nuclear strikes if American "position-guided munitions" are used on Chinese territory (or against Chinese ships and aircraft). People's Liberation Army General Zhu Chenghu, a professor at China's National Defense University, admitted that his view was not official policy. Even so, he was speaking before a group of foreign journalists. "If the Americans are determined to intervene [in China's internal affairs] we will be determined to respond." According to the Financial Times he also said, "We ... will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all the cities east of the Xian. Of course the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds ... of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese."
To understand why Gen. Zhu made this statement it might be helpful to imagine an American general making a similar statement: "If the Chinese invade Taiwan, the United States should respond with nuclear attacks. We will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all cities West of the Mississippi. Of course the Chinese will lose hundreds of cities."
It is unimaginable that an American general would make a similar statement. In the first place, no American leader would use nuclear weapons to preserve Taiwan's independence. Second, Americans would never prepare for the destruction of their own cities. During a decades-long nuclear standoff with Russia, the United States never adopted a serious program of civil defense. No meaningful provisions have ever been made for the destruction of U.S. cities. Any such provision, in American thinking, would be pointless. The American economic and political system is entirely predicated on economic optimism - on peaceful conditions, uninterrupted commercial activity, material progress and development. An expectation of peace and progress is basic to American psychology.
An American general who spoke after the fashion of Gen. Zhu might be considered a crazy person. Certainly, he could be listed as someone who doesn't understand his own country. But can we say the same of Gen. Zhu? Is he a crazy person by Chinese standards? It must be admitted that Chinese historical experience is different than America's. Economic optimism does not prevail in a country that has known decade after decade of starvation or subsistence for the vast majority. China was invaded by Japan in the 1930s, and the suffering of China during that period - and during the period of European imperialism - is hard for Westerners to imagine. There was also a loss of China's self-conception, and this was psychologically destructive. It was something akin to the end of the world for an empire that conceived of itself as the world's core. In 1839 the Chinese commissioner Lin Tse-Hsu wrote to Queen Victoria: "Magnificently our great Emperor soothes and pacifies China and the foreign countries, regarding all with the same kindness. If there is profit, then he shares it with the peoples of the world; if there is harm, then he removes it on behalf of the world. This is because he takes the mind of heaven and earth as his mind." Even more incomprehensible to a Westerner, Lin wrote: "The kings of your honorable country by a tradition handed down from generation to generation have always been noted for their politeness and submissiveness."
It is doubtful that the kings of England were ever "submissive" to China, but such was China's self-conception. China was large compared to England. China was ancient. China's culture was imitated throughout the East. But the West never submitted. It was, for China, a "confounding" experience. In 1844 a Chinese official reported to the emperor that, "the barbarians commonly lay great stress on their women. Whenever they have a distinguished guest, the wife is certain to come out to meet him. For example, the American chief Parker and the French chief Lagrené both brought their wives along with them, and on occasion ... these wives have rushed out and saluted [Chinese officials]. Your slave was confounded and ill at ease, while they on the other hand were deeply honored and delighted. Thus in fact the customs of the various Western countries cannot be regulated according to the ceremonies of the Middle Kingdom. If we should abruptly rebuke them, it would be no way of shattering their stupidity and might give rise to their suspicion and dislike."
To understand the situation, one must consider the sordid circumstances attending the West's ascendancy. In 1839 the opium trade became a problem for China, so the Chinese attacked and destroyed Western opium stocks without offering compensation. This triggered the so-called First Opium War, which ended when the Chinese emperor was forced to accept the Treaty of Nanjing (1842). This treaty opened the ports of Guangzhou, Xiamen, Fuzhou, Ningbo and Shanghai to international trade. The Island of Hong Kong was given to England and used as a base. The humiliation brought in its wake a crisis of self-conception for China. Even if the West has forgotten the history of this period, Chinese statesmen and generals remember. The once glorious Middle Kingdom is gone. In its place a communist empire has emerged, predicated on avenging the past, rebuking the "imperialists," and building Chinese power by adopting capitalist methods. A Chinese general might, therefore, talk about the eradication of cities. After all, China has already experienced eradication. The Chinese mind has touched and tasted destruction. It is only natural, on some level, for a Chinese general to think in destructive terms.
In Eastern religion we find the concept of karma, which refers to "action, effect and destiny." The past creates the future, for good or ill. The events of the 1840s might seem like ancient history, but the law of cause of effect continues to operate. And now we find ourselves in the Nuclear Age. Intercontinental missiles can carry thermonuclear warheads from one side of the planet to the other. The destruction of cities, the elimination of prosperity, the extermination of tens of millions of human beings is now possible in a matter of hours. You might say that nuclear war is "insane." Applying a psychiatric label doesn't change the fact that nuclear weapons have been developed, built, tested and deployed. When we consider Gen. Zhu's statement, we should not dismiss his ideas because they sound impractical or crazy. The perspective of the Western consumer is hardly a universal perspective. The perspective of a Chinese general might reasonably set little store by the survival of American cities or the continuance of American prosperity. China paid the price of a subsistence economy before, so China can pay this price again. Poverty and civilization have often coexisted.
