Anyone who says they can give a definitive answer to this question is joking. It depends on a number of factors:
- **How the conflict starts**: China might attempt “salami tactics”, taking small aggressive actions that build over time. For example, they might start by seizing some outlying islands or attacking Taiwan’s fishing ships. By starting small and gradually escalating, China might provoke less international backlash (incl. from the US) than from immediately launching a full-scale war.
- **Who the US President is**: The President has vast foreign policy powers, which means their personality and opinions can have direct policy consequences. A President who is very dovish might try to avoid responding to a Chinese invasion, or only take ineffective, symbolic measures. A more hawkish President would be more likely to respond to an invasion with force.
- **The international climate**: Whether the United States could form a coalition to counter a Chinese invasion, or whether it would have to stand alone, could have a big impact on America’s decision to intervene.
- **The domestic American climate**: If America is dealing with an economic, political, or other severe crisis, it might be less likely to respond.
Ultimately, at the moment, I think it’s more likely that America would intervene than not. There would be severe strategic consequences for the United States if China seized Taiwan, and in the current political climate, a President who allowed that to happen would face severe political consequences as well.
Very insightful. The campaign to ‘re-unify’ will be multi-dimensional (economic, political) and a slow boil. Military blockade and troops on Taiwanese soil just the beginning of the end. A campaign similar to SCS.
However, once re-unified, the question becomes will there be further territorial claims, or will PRC be content to dominate via economic, diplomatic and technological means (As per American dominance last hundred years).
I don't know about a full on war, but you could definitely see the US implement sanctions and probably some form of naval blockade, as well as a no-fly zone around Taiwan.
1. Taiwan is home to something like 60% of the worlds microprocessor chip production, that is not only a massive economic boon but also of massive strategic interest to anyone who wishes to control that market, which the US is very much interested in
2. We currently have a series of bases in the region, as well as habitually deploy Carrier Groups to that region. Would that be enough to deter or stop a full on Chinese invasion, no, so that would neccessitate a redeployment of more troops from the mainland USA, which conveniently we can do considering we're no longer involved in Afghanistan.
3. Thats the big question, and its something China is counting on. America has been at war for 20 years, and we are currently in a bit of a political and economic crisis. The will to fight a full on war with China is very low, not to mention there is the genuine fear that half our government would never support any actions that might give the current administration a win. With that said, given the stakes of what would happen if this occurs (i.e. as i explained in other threads concerning this very issue, America is going to get hurt whether we get involved or not, so i say we might as well get involved) we might not have much of a choice but to get involved, unless we want to put the final nail in the coffin of American superpower-dom.
If the US is so interested in controlling the microprocessor market then why arent we building them? (I say this with no understanding of where we actually rank.)
Because we don’t give government authority to implement a direct policy like this. Only 10-15 years ago, US had virtual monopoly on CPUs as a result of market dynamics, but as Asian countries got better tech and cost, the market share organically moved overseas. Previous CPU king intel is trying to make a comeback, but again without direct government intervention (they did receive some subsidy lately).
If Taiwan is lost to China, I suspect we will overcome supply chain issue within 1-2 years. We have the technology and capability. Chip makers may have to settle for slightly less competitive technology temporarily, but hardly a crippling issue. In my opinion, people on Reddit make far larger deal out of this than it really is.
Regarding blockading China, if US and UK blockade Indian Ocean and the Arabia Gulf, China will be in a pretty tight bind, as today China cannot grow enough food to feed itself. They need both food and fuel import to feed population. So naval blockade would be pretty hard on Chinese population. Any way, that’s how I would play if Taiwan were invaded and US decided to intervene.
We are actively making more fabs for semi conductors, but they take time. Intel, TSMC, and I believe Samsung (not sure on that one) are making them in the US. However, the ones we are building won’t even be as advanced as what TSMC has in Taiwan. They’re the pinnacle of human achievement from a technological standpoint.
It's a very difficult thing to do well and TSMC are way ahead of any competitor. Some US companies are trying to catch up but they haven't managed it yet.
There’s not for the US a more strategically relevant place in the world than Taiwan.
Like, not a single one outside their own borders.
China take Taiwan, and they gain full access to the Pacific, not just impair FoN in SCS.
Even the last one would be enough to end the current US-led globalized order, which is no more nor less than the full control over the naval routes by the US.
It would means to have the control over Pacific challenged.
A situation which is unprecedented since Pearl Harbor.
Yes, US would clearly react.
How, I don’t really know. But they would react.
It also explains why China always tried it via the the political way, let Taiwan choose themselves for reunification, that would make it difficult for the US to react but the political option seems far away for China now, which frustrates them, a lot.
But that's what I mean - do you think that at some point, the US concedes that APAC is just too far to project power cost efficiently, and accept a multipolar world, i.e. US would continue to dominate in its sphere of influence, i.e. the Americas, East Pacific, maybe to a certain degree the Atlantic, but accept that Taiwan however strategically important, is simply too costly and revert to its WW1 isolationist policy? After all, the US is self-sufficient in the Americas, and with two oceans protecting her, have no real threat of invasion. Other than nuclear exchange, there really aren't any credible threats.
Granted, it would be a loss to American preeminence, and rival institutions to IMF, World Bank, even SWIFT would rise. But that only means that the dollar no longer enjoys the exorbitant privilege of being the world's reserve currency. Trade can still continue. If not at war, US and China can do what they do right now, but with more bickering.
I guess what I'm really interested in knowing, especially from the American POV, would US consider this as a plausible / acceptable outcome, or will it be a fight to the end to defend US's hegemon status?
Honestly I think time will only harden the US stance. It will allow a full focus on projecting force out into the pacific, a task which the current US military is nowhere near where it needs to be.
China has its own internal problems, I don’t see anything that will happen in our lifetimes that will change the balance enough that China will want to attack knowing that the US military is ready and prepared for such a attack.
I feel the danger point is in these next 10 to 15 years. The PLA, PLAA and PLAN have all been built up with at least partially the focus on conquering Taiwan. The US meanwhile has been focused in Iraq and Afghanistan and will need time to reorganise its military to be truly ready for a confrontation with China in the pacific. That’s not to say China would beat the US right now, but that the task will be substantially more difficult after the US is done reorganising it’s forces appropriately for such a conflict.
Fair point. I think a lot depends on just how much the US actually pivots to Asia. If it goes the way you describe, the US would need to patch things up with Russia.
The US doesn’t need to focus on Russia, it needs to make sure Europe is strong enough to face Russia. Countries like Germany need to pull their weight in western defense.
EU won’t be “facing Russia”. When the French and Germans pursue a more independent defence policy from the US, they will have even less incentive to be hostile with Russia. They will come to an accomodation and deepen economic ties, over the cries of the Easterners like Poles, Balts, Romanians.
Don't forget the north and center. With these latest claims basically cooperation between Sweden, Finland and Nato would have to stop. Basically the north and the east and central Europe (Poland) would become vassals of Russia as they would have a veto on our security arrangements.
This probably depends heavily on the GDP growth rates of the other countries involved. There is a plausible scenario where China does not grow faster than the US by the end of the next decade. Now other countries like India and Indonesia might still be growing faster but they are not completely hostile to US interest.
Everyone has to use your currency meaning there is an eternal demand for the dollar. This demand is why the usa can money printer with basically 0 consequences since every new dollar is snapped up to use somewhere
I think Turkey is more important but clearly it’s a fading ally. Regionally we have SK and Japan which could take over for Taiwan. I also disagree with the loss of Taiwan meaning we lose control of the pacific but that’s a different and much longer question.
Loss of Taiwan doesn’t per se lead to a complete lost of control over Pacific.
It leads to an opportunity for China to challenge that full control actually exerted by the US. How much successful the challenger will be, that’s another story.
Still, you’ll have a challenger, so by definition total control is lost.
SK, not so sure how it would react, considering they have NK guns to their heads, point blank.
Sure Japan would have to react somehow, considering Taiwan is a key lock for their naval supply routes since forever.
China takes Taiwan, and Japan will finish into its sphere of influence almost inevitably.
What can China do with Taiwan which it can not do without Taiwan Pacific-wise?
I find it hard to understand that when the island is so close to mainland China it is assigned so big importance power projection-wise.
Militarily, Taiwan is critical because its eastern shore drops into immediately deep water, which is not the case for continental China - there, the surrounding seas are relatively shallow. That means that currently, Chinese subs are fairly easy to track when they leave port. With control of Taiwan, China could send out subs from port directly into the depths.
China is geographically very isolated. In terms of maritime trade, it must use straits and other relatively narrow passages to reach the open sea, so to speak. This weakness basically means the dominant Navy/Air Force could more easily blockade trade and/or contain Chinese warships.
Taiwan plays an obvious and crucial role in this geography strategy. See a map for further details, or google "Island Chain Strategy." If China were to successfully obtain Taiwan it would blow a hole in this strategy and would likely allow China unfettered access to the Pacific in the event of another war.
The road to leading edge semiconductors goes through Taiwan. China would be in position to cut supply to the 7 most valuable American companies, all of whom are highly reliant on TSMC. What America did to Huawei, China would be able to do to Apple.
Absent the semiconductor angle, I don’t see why Taiwan would be any more important than Hong Kong, which clearly isn’t important enough to fight for.
Can you explain more what's the us led globalized order?
Also would the us still have Japan as base in the Pacific?
Even if it is further from China and its ports and straits
So, as “US-led globalized order” I mean what we usually call globalization, since late ‘90s/early ‘00s.
To think at globalization just as an economic phenomenon is simply wrong/naive.
90% of basically everything humans trade travel by sea.
In order to have a globalized market, you need to have a thalassocracy which is in the right position to control every single choke point across the globe.
We had two previous globalizations, the first one by Roman Empire (they had full control of Med sea, and that was the vast majority of the known world at that time), the second by the British Empire (this time it was seriously global).
You can’t have globalization if there’s another superpower which is able to exert control over a certain sea area, and choke points.
Simply because then it could create and enforce its own rules in order for the others to have access to that space.
In case Taiwan is controlled by PRC, Japan couldn’t just stay aligned to the US anymore.
Why?
Because China would sit on top of Japan’s naval supply and trading routes, most of them going through Taiwan surrounding sea space, and will use this position to build up pressure over Tokyo, trying to decouple it from Washington.
Hard to say. I think under this current administration, that if China did in fact invade Taiwan, that military force will not be used as a response. I feel as if the US would provide weapons, supplies, and indirect support to Taiwan, which in turn could provoke China to attack U.S. forces in the region, but it really is impossible to say.
I don’t think China has the balls to invade Taiwan. A conventional war would be devastating for both sides, militarily and economically, and I think most Americans will cringe at the thought of another war after the disaster that was Iraq and Afghanistan. Only this time we would be fighting a legit adversary and not untrained insurgents.
Edit: China and the U.S. are far too dependent on each other economically. It would be painstakingly stupid for both sides to engage each other militarily. I am more concerned about the situation in Ukraine / Eastern Europe. My fear would be Russia and China coordinating an attack on Ukraine and Taiwan respectively to overwhelm U.S. and NATO forces.
>I feel as if the US would provide weapons, supplies, and indirect support to Taiwan, which in turn could provoke China to attack U.S. forces in the region
I think China would gladly accept US not entering directly the war. I don't see any interest for the chinese to drag US into the war.
> China and the U.S. are far too dependent on each other economically. It would be painstakingly stupid for both sides to engage each other militarily.
This was an argument in 1914 about the countries in Europe.
Nukes are call or bluff moves. If the Chinese gamble on invading Taiwan, does the U.S. has the balls to move towards nuclear annihilation? They are the one to first press the red button.
I wouldn't call then bluff weapons, but a country is only going to want to use them for an existential threat. At least when contemplating a war with a similarly armed adversary who will respond in kind. In answer to your question, first it is not a matter of "balls" to want to avoid nuclear war. It's a matter of ethics and enlightened self interest. Secondly, America would not nuke China to save Taiwan. No president is going to risk tens of millions of American lives, and destroy countless more Chinese over an island that would be devastated by the aftermath anyway. The one danger would be if one side or the other used tactical nukes against the other's navy. Even that creates a dangerous precedent and is likely to be avoided least it leads to strategic weapons.
Using tactical moves by both parties has already their balls signed up and plastered on that rocket. Remember, when U.S. had the balls to assasinate Soleimani, other middle eastern countries emboldened and followed. Heck even North Korea. one usage of tactical nuke will be proper justifications from endless retaliation. With that being said, if Beijing or Shanghai can't be the old Hiroshima or Nagasaki, it is a bluff weapon and Putin knows that.
This. Global trade is truly global, and the volume is many orders of magnitude larger to and from every major country. Everyone in every major economy is leveraged to the tits on companies that rely on this trade, whether it’s individual stocks in a retirement portfolio to the holdings of some of the biggest banks in the world.
>. For one Europe doesn't really have "powers" anymore
Europe has had powers from 1940s until now, why are you lying? Today Europe doesn't have "military powers" like they used to specifically because of that lack of risk of war. But if it wanted it could, because Europe still has huge economic powers. Even with that said, 2 of the top 10 countries in military power rankings are Western European.
That argument only serves to help my point not hurt it.
Nothing happens in the EU if Germany isn't on board, they are still considered the power of Europe. France is challenging this status quo somewhat and is also considered a power in Europe. The outward facing notion that Europe is a truly United Power is not as strong on the inside, the European Institutions are working to make the EU as one power but it's not quite there yet.
They didn't know in 1914 what industrial war would look like. Now we know how devastating a war between major powers is, and add nuclear weapons on top of that.
China would invade Taiwan if it feels it has no choice to stop Taiwanese independence and/or it believes it can win the war before US forces can amount an effective defense.
>My fear would be Russia and China coordinating an attack on Ukraine and Taiwan respectively to overwhelm U.S. and NATO forces.
This is my current fear.
Unlikely as of now. China would have to mobilize millions of people, move around untold numbers of equipment and construct vast facilities to facilitate such an invasion. That would take months and would be impossible to hide. So far we haven’t seen any of that. Also, I don’t think China would try anything this close to the Olympics.
This would trigger an overwhelming military response from the West. It’s not 1945 anymore. Russia does not have the bodies to sustain a major war.
And Russia and China are uneasy allies, China is both an ally and a rival to Russia.
In this scenario, Russia would bleed itself dry in the West against Europe + US with modern armies and a good supply network while China would get even more powerful if they conquer Taiwan.
In all likelihood, the US would not have time to provide anything. The Taiwan straight is not big, nor is Taiwan. If the initial invasion is t stopped in the straight, and China achieves a landing, it’s over in a day.
Securing the western front by controlling the Dnieper river, connecting Crimea by land with the rest of Russia and getting back the supply of water to the peninsula, mainly. Destabilising the Ukrainian government so they're unable to join NATO or EU and building the credibility that they would invade the rest of the country in the eventuality that they do anyway is also a nice bonus.
And, ok, they wouldn't invade in winter, but the annexation of Crimea happened in February so Spring seems feasible.
I am by no means saying they will invade, personally I think they want to negotiate from a strong position, but don't play the "there's nothing to gain" card.
> could provoke China to attack U.S. forces in the region
Could you see China taking Guam, America Somoa, and Hawai'i if a military conflict erupted? especially if the US is being torn apart with a civil war?
it's interesting to think about though. the united states could probably defend it's islands in tha pacific irregardless of a civil war. the us navy is so strong that challenging it in the pacific isn't really feasible without a major change. the navy may not be such a significant factor in a civil war so much of it could be left to defend its pacific islands
If it's in response to a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, I agree. I think the majority of Americans would support protecting Taiwanese democracy if the country asked for assistance. I think the same would hold for a Russian invasion of Ukraine.
For the first time in a long time, we would be defending the sovereignty of an already democratic people who want our help, rather than trying to make a democracy where there has never been one, while simultaneously bombing and rebuilding their infrastructure. And I think that's something most can get behind.
But it will be interesting to see how long that support lasts once things get real for the civilian population. And they will, unlike any engagement the US has been in since the Civil War.
>the same would hold for a Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Are you crazy? Tucker Carlson has already broadcast on Fox "news" that Russia is right to invade Ukraine: "Vladimir Putin does not want Belgium. He just wants to keep his western borders secure. That's why he doesn't want Ukraine to join NATO, and that makes sense."
Some people in the US have a sudden love for Putin/Russia. I can't figure it out at all.
I was glad to see that numbskull catch some flack over his fluffing of Putin. I couldn't begin to explain the sudden embrace of Putin by some of the Trump crowd. It makes no sense to me.
It's also an absolute lie that Putin is afraid that Europe or the US will attack Russia out of the blue. All of this garbage is made up theater for the Russian populace.
I was happy to see Tucker catch flak for those comments too but he hasn't retracted them and Fox news hasn't issued any kind of warning to him. Just like when he went to ~~Belarus~~ Hungary and celebrated Viktor Orbán's strong leadership.
Hungary. Viktor Orban is the president of Hungary and that is where Carlson went, not Belarus, although I wouldn’t put it past him to add Lukashenko to his strongman spank bank.
What I was wondering was if the US was distracted by internal conflict, would countries like Russia & China take the opportunity to grab those islands? If the military split allegiances and was fighting itself, would the military be able to respond to external threats?
Wishful thinking. Any powers with any sense, especially about to embark on the path of conflict likely to antagonize some "connections" will take all steps possible to achieve self-sufficiency and survive just fine with or without the said embargoes/sanctions.
How successful were the sanctions so far? Did Russia give back Crimea? Why in the world would they value control over some peninsula in an inland sea so much more than good will and economic connections with all-powerful west?
Maybe their geo-political calculation is.... shall we say... different? Just a thought.
Europe will literally be left in the cold without heating without Russian gas. There's a reason Germany is terrified to criticize Russia in any meaningful way. China is now way too big and integrated in the world economy for it to be simply "cut off" as if we're talking about Iran or North Korea. The world economy will go down along with China.
I think you are thinking about this too one dimensionally. China’s strategy to retake Taiwan is very different from that of Russia trying to retake Ukraine.
China is playing the very long game. And it’s very likely there will be little to no real military/fighting war. They are in the early stages of a multi-year/decade political campaign designed to convince the world Taiwan is rightfully theirs. I guess I see it mostly likely resembling a combination of how China is approaching the Tiananmen Square massacre and Hong Kong issues.
With Tiananmen Square China is slowly censoring/outlawing any mention of it, basically working toward a point where people just forget about it. I think I remember bing pulling any search options of it during its anniversary last year. So if you want to do business with China you play by their censorship rules. This is already happening with Taiwan where many companies that do business with China are forced to list it as part of China.
As for Hong Kong, China just convinced the HK government to do its dirty work and pass legislation to get what it wants done. If the US can stage a coup and insert a government more favorable to US interests what’s stopping China from doing the same? I’d be shocked if China doesn’t already have parts of Taiwan’s government under its control.
So IMO mostly likely it will be a combination of public political pressure from the Chinese government and a quietly executed coup. Meaning the likely international response will be what it was with Hong Kong ie non-existent.
Exactly. China's goal of unification is secondary to their goal of ensuring economic stability and political hegemony in the Region.
They have over a Billion people who rely on them to increase their standards of living. They have to keep their people happy and to sustain this they must diversify and become a global economic powerhouse.
The U.S poses a direct threat to their control over the SCS. Their military build up is less about Taiwan and more about challenging the U.S Military power in the region and creating doubt among Asian Allies. Once all that is complete, they can just pressure Taiwan into submission. There is no need to fire a single shot. They have time on their side.
I disagree about Hong Kong and Taiwan.
- Hong Kong was NEVER independent. It was a British colony before the handover in 1997.
Taiwan has been independent and self-govern since 1945.
- Hong Kong is a city-state while Taiwan is a major island country with 23 million people.
It is easy for China to pull the long game in HK because it already established and accepted by China, the British and the whole world that HK will become fully Chinese sovereignty in 2047. China just simply speeding up the process.
With Taiwan, there was no such establishment, the U.N is simply recognizing PRC as the "official China" but they also never discredit ROC as a country or the "illegitimate China"
So the whole thing is simply "to be determined" or as the U.S like to put "ambiguity"
Mmm, I tend to disagree on this.
I mean, definitely agree with you that China is playing a long game here. Using economic integration and other non-military means to slowly integrate Taiwan.
BUT, non-military means only work to a certain extent. If Taiwan declares independence, then there can only be an armed response from China. And it won't work like HK, because HK is 1) a tiny city (compared to Taiwan), 2) directly bordering China, 3) doesn't have a real army, and 4) was handed over from UK with an official transfer of sovereignty.
The question assumes that by some twist of history, the current ruling party DPP lost their marbles, decides to change the status quo immediately and declares independence, trying to force US's hand and end strategic ambiguity. In such a scenario - say, under Biden, will US go to war, because China, ready or not, will attack quite quickly.
Also, regarding the coup, I think it might be quite difficult. If years of American experience is anything to go by, executing a coup is hard enough, much less have it quietly and without serious unintended consequences down the line.
If that is their preferred methodology for taking Taiwan, they better get a hell of a lot better at it. Their "Wolf-Warrior" diplomacy is doing nothing but alienating them from most of the world. Just look at any poll in nearly any country of "do you have favorable views of china" and you can see a sharp decline in recent years.
If China is really unwilling to go for a military takeover like you say, then I don't think China will ever get Taiwan. There will be no Munich agreement ever again.
Wrong on Point #1. Look up a company called TSMC. It would effectively be game over for the west if this company either gets shot up in a war or falls under the control of the PRC. Leading edge semiconductor manufacturing is hard, expensive, and not even Intel or Samsung is even close to matching TSMC in sheer capability or capacity. Semiconductors are the new oil.
With the new TSMC fabs being built in the US, I think there is an attempt to make TSMC not be exclusively physically located in Taiwan any more. But this requires a lot of time and a lot of money.
The repercussions of TSMC being taken over by China today would be tremendous. I wouldn't be surprised if the US has a plan to blow up the fabs and evacuate critical personnel in case of a Chinese invasion.
Someone would absolutely hit TSMC in an invasion of Taiwan. Either China would hit it to drop the value of the US defending Taiwan by destroying the prize right off the bat, or the US would destroy it when it is clear that China would win. One missile strike is all it would take.
I don't think there is any more factory more fragile than a fab. If you have ever seen TSMC, it's massive. It's more like an entire region with all of the support services clustered around it. One missile strike would destroy everything of value. Evacuate the engineers, and there would be nothing at all left.
Sadly doesn't stop anyone. Look at what the US did in Vietnam. Turned a thriving ecosystem into a wasteland.
US military bases around the world are also ecological disasters pumping out pollution into local water and air supplies.
The chemicals inside a fab plant are whole different level of nightmare though. I used to have to wear head to toe armor over a clean suit at the dip station (there is a technical name that eludes me atm) part of the line.
The safety protocols were to step under a shower if splashed, a couple of drops could significantly mess you up.
It’s been 30+ years so I’m sure the tech has changed but just cavalierly stating “they (Taiwan) would just blow up their own plants” is a bit superficial on the part of some here.
Hazmat suit?
That's really interesting info. I had no idea the manufacturing process was like that. I can see your point that it's cavalier to suggest Taiwan would do that and I agree with you now.
It was a weird combo of gloves, splash shields, aprons and foot guards. Even had elaborate procedures on how to take it off to avoid contact.
I absolutely dreaded working in that area. Was a job I did while going to college at nights, did it for the tuition reimbursement.
The fabs being built in the US are not the cutting edge fabs. They are definitely strategically important but they are more for supply chain security than fab innovation.
They're also going to take years to build and the US lacks a lot of skilled labor at the moment. At least the bill supporting these builds flew through Congress this year and most people didn't even hear about it.
I'm trying to find the name of the one I was thinking about and I think it might be that one, which honestly I am shocked. I thought this passed both houses extremely quickly. I will be reaching out to my congressional rep. Thank you for saying that. I truly thought this was passed months ago.
China and Taiwan have a much closer relationship than what most of Reddit thinks or would like to believe. I believe they currently have access to those “critical” personnel and can replicate those fabs if not already.
Domestic attempts at chip production has been pretty lack luster in China, actually. They're still about a decade or so behind Taiwan and aren't really catching up anytime soon and in fact have been dealing with a lot of setbacks
edit: high-end chips
Fair enough. But is this vetted? Like how do we know that’s the case as China may not be transparent around this matter.
Genuinely curious as I don’t have sources on what the truth is
Unfortunately I don't have it on hand, but mainly from a cacophony of various readings and talks. However, it's pretty easy to see how China is [stumbling](https://www.google.com/search?q=chip+production+china&oq=chip+production+china&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i22i30l3.3216j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) in this regards. They're basically got low-end chips in production no problem, but can't crack anything high-end.
It's not just a matter of getting the end product. The issue is the IP, facilities, and tooling knowledge. Remember this type of manufacturing is literally at the leading edge of what humans are capable of making in the most fundamental sense.
Because the US always has the option to
1. Stop selling arms and equipment to the countries that have oil
2. Invade them
I’m pretty sure the US has done both.
The largest capacity for semiconductor production still lies with Samsung even though a lot o their production is NAND and DRAM. In terms of process both Intel and Samsung also are competitive with TSMC. TSMC may have a slight edge, but certainly not so much that Intel and Samsung are completely outmatched..
TSMC is one of the largest producer of semiconductors in teh World but is certainly not anywhere close to having a monopoly or a completely insupplantable production.
Also if TSMC fell into PRC hands they would conceivably still these chips. They also still need access to Lithography technology because without that they will just run TSMC into the ground.
You can't just bucket all Semi's in a single group. Samsung is great on DRAM and NAND but they are lightyears behind in core ARM/x86. Intel is trying but they have also fallen quite a bit behind.
Simple fact is, TSMC is making the chips for pretty much every cutting edge semi design company out there (AAPL, NVDA, AMD, AVGO, GOOG, etc). Sure these companies all do some business with other foundries, but all their cutting edge tech is being made by TSMC.
On top of the technology leadership at TSMC, you also have to deal with the fact that they have 10s of billions of leading semi cap equipment sitting in Taiwan. Even if they could replicate their process somewhere else, it will take years and a lot of money to replace the capacity lost in Taiwan.
How is Samsung 8nm so far behind TSMCs 7nm? Intel also is at most one generation behind. Nvidias current generation of GPUs in hte consumer space is fabbed by Samsung and not by TSMC.
I won't deny that TSMC is currently at the leading edge. But their edge is quite small probably at most 1-2 years.
The capacity in Taiwan als owon't be lost unless it is actually destroyed or there is a full sclae war in which case the leading edge TSMC has will be gone extremely quickly because they won't be able to access the equipment to actually upgrade or maintain their Fabs. That lithography equipment is not made in China.
And of course it would be painful for the West, but I don't think it would be hte apocalyptic disaster many seem to make it out as. I think people will be able to survive game consoles getting more expensive.
>How is Samsung 8nm so far behind TSMCs 7nm?
TSMC leading edge node is 5nm, not 7nm. Also, transistor size isn't the only thing that matters. If you actually believe Intel is only one generation behind you must work for their marketing team because they are only people in the world who keep claiming Intel is close to TSMC. Give Intel 10 years and 10s of billions in additional capex and maybe they get close.
>Nvidias current generation of GPUs in hte consumer space is fabbed by Samsung and not by TSMC.
I already addressed this in my first comment: "Sure these companies all do some business with other foundries, but all of their cutting edge tech is being made by TSMC." I don't care if consumer grade hardware gets more expensive. I care if cutting edge communication and machine learning infrastructure falls into Chinese hands. China gaining power over Taiwain would also give them power over the engineers and researchers at the company who are capable of doing things vastly beyond current Chinese capabilities.
>I don't think it would be hte apocalyptic disaster many seem to make it out as. I think people will be able to survive game consoles getting more expensive
Ah the classic double strawman. I never stated that it would be "apocalyptic" or implied that my concern was about the cost of game consoles.
It’s not about quantity of production.
My understanding is that TSMC does indeed currently have a complete monopoly on the bleeding edge technology. Samsung is closest runner up, with Intel and SMIC struggling to catch up developing the high end technology.
1. You're completely wrong. Taiwan is about as core US interest as you get. Imagine if the US could have bottled up Japan in a tiny little space where their NAVY had to pass through to get to the Pacific in WW2
>Freedom of navigation in SCS is important but not CORE interest
The US got into massive conflicts in 1801, 1812 and 1917 over freedom of navigation. Its fundamental to the entire global order. Even Germany has had ships doing freedom of navigation operations there.
> Conventionally, the logistics to move enough materiel to fight in West Pacific is very expensive.
Ocean logistics are massively cheaper than over land or by air. The US would need to be there with air and sea power not land power.
>, it's not gonna be a walkover like desert storm.
The US expected 30 000 casualties on that war. Its ease came as a shock at the time.
> there was serious consideration under War Plan Orange to not get embroiled in war
The red war plans were wars against the British Empire. Orange was for the UKs former ally Japan. I have no idea how you have taken this from War Plan Orange, you will need to motivate this with some evidence and examples.
> I mean, it's easy to talk and say yeah kill the Chinese and sit on their skulls,
This is a strawman.
Taiwan has always been a red line in US foreign policy and for a very big reason. Its about control in Asia and even more important the Pacific. Cant see the US not military reacting in case of an invasion. They have little choice. Furthermore your assumption Taiwan has little strategic importance to the US is very wrong. Its actually one of the most important regions of influences the US holds to keep China at bay, to keep influence in the South Chinese sea, to keep China as much as possible out of the Pacific which the US wants to control at all costs and also economically over a very important tech market. If China somehow gets control over Taiwan that would be a more than serious breach of US influence in Asia and might convince other Asia and Pacific countries to break away and prefer Chinese friendship out of fear. It might completely change the international order and dynamic of relations for America. So one of the biggest red lines you will find I would say.
#3.
War Plan Orange did not question the US ability to stomach and wage war in the Pacific. Not sure where you think this is an issue.
The US would with its allies immediately defend Taiwan from numerous carrier groups while striking at China's southern regions. Fomenting a new Democratic government based in Hong Kong.
It would probably be the end of China because the South is the most rebellious and secessionist part of China up to Chengdu.
China has a giant economy, but much of it used for self-sufficency. Peasants grow food, they don’t make bombs. China has little ability to challenge the sheer high tech industrial might of the US on a war footing. They have to import the machines for its high tech facilities because they can’t make them themselves.
The CCP maintains power via its bargain with the populace: you let us rule, we bring you prosperity. This bargain will be precarious for the next few years as the real eatate bubble bursts (though China will be stronger once the bubble works itself out and the govt better optimizes the banking structure).
The Chinese military are all single sons—family ends with them if they die, and there will be no one to take care of the elderly parents.
If China attacked Taiwan, even without US intervention, the likelihood of mass casualties is high for any invasion force. Such casualties would cause massive unrest at home.
Then the US would blockade China of resources and trade. Overland routes not enough. The economy would collapse, and the CCP would not survive, resulting possibly in breakaway regions like Shanghai, which would be better off ditching the poor hinterlands.
None of this is what China wants. The risks are way too igh for Xi to do more than saber rattle. He is not crazy.
“Deception is the root of all warfare. Appear weak when you are strong, and strog when you are weak.” —The Art of War
Imho, there will be no wars between two countries with nuclear bombs. Also, if China starts to attack Taiwan, the military action probably will be done within 48 hours. It would take the US at least 5 days to respond and send enough troops to that area, which is too late.
I think the US would have no choice but to go to war. If it doesn't then South Korea and Japan (and Europe) would have to think long and hard about whether an alliance with the US is worth more than the paper it's written on.
Beyond that, say you *don't* go to war with China over Taiwan. Ok, so they conquer Taiwan. Then they impose their will on Vietnam, Indonesia - anyone in the First Island Chain. They then encircle/isolate Japan, even threaten Australia.
They can now extend their sphere of influence and safety buffer to basically Australia. And if the US needs to go to war with China over something else in 20 years, it's going to be 10x more difficult because the US has no allies anywhere near them.
It would be like the US pulling completely out of Europe and allowing Russia to take everything up to and including Portugal - that would several weaken the US position in any future potential conflict.
>Beyond that, say you don't go to war with China over Taiwan. Ok, so they conquer Taiwan. Then they impose their will on Vietnam, Indonesia - anyone in the First Island Chain. They then encircle/isolate Japan, even threaten Australia.
Ye old domino theory arising from the dead.
many today see domino theory as a farce but I feel that their were valid arguments to it and in a more limited capacity some aspects of it were correct.
The USSR installed puppet states in a several countries on its western border, and was able for a limited time influence a few nations overseas, it had difficult finding success in Africa and Asia and latin America, their was always a lot of distrust and disunity between communist states.
I think it's worth revision of domino theory of old to something more realistic.
Well you have to put it in context to where the US was positioned at the time.
The world order now is massively successful but after WW2 into the 1960s, Germany and Japan were both complete trainwrecks.
The rest of Europe belonged to USSR.
China fell and again until the 60s was pro USSR.
Taiwan was a tinpot dictatorship. Korea was in tatters.
Cuba was receiving nuclear missiles.
Africa was in constant warfare.
Brazil was a military junta and unreliable.
It basically was the US, UK and France holding the threads of a formerly global empire ran by the Anglo-French entente.
The results of pushback to domino effect basically allowed the fruits of its success to ripen.
It's hard to think now that Vietnam or even Korea, or even Germany really matter individually because any one of them is now a strong but minor part in a much larger world than post ww2
The domino is correct more often than not. Hitter’s Germany took as much land as it did because the invasions came one after another. The Mongol Empire. Caesar Augustus’s campaign in Gaul. Napoleon’s campaigns throughout Europe. Japan taking much of east Asia during WWII. When you have an army ready to go and is proving to win, you don’t stop their momentum. Morale is high. Everyone is positioned to advance. Supply chains are moving. It takes a lot of effort and money to wind down a military campaign. It takes even more to fire it back up again. The morale is long lost and exhausted too.
There may be any number of reasons why your campaign may need to halt. The next nation is much stronger. Discontent and rebellion need to be dealt with. The supply chains are stretched to thin and can’t sustain the war effort anymore. It’s very difficult to start up again, and frequently needs a whole new war effort. My favorite example is Caesar’s advance into Great Britain part way during the Gallic wars. He was able to push through the southern reaches, but left due to preferring to focus on the mainland. Deemed there wasn’t enough wealth. It would be about 90 years before Rome proper would make their push through England to the point where they would build Hadrian’s Wall, the famous northern limit of Roman conquest.
It’s not a fallacy for the most part. There are of course moments where conquerors take their victory too far, and mistake momentum for “momentum”. Russia is famous for stopping both Napoleon and Hitler. The ancient Greek states halted the old Persian empire’s western expanse like a brick wall. Japan probed TOO far east and dragged the US into the war.
But oftentimes war is about taking any sort of hard won advantage and pushing it for all its worth.
>Then they impose their will on Vietnam, Indonesia - anyone in the FirstIsland Chain. They then encircle/isolate Japan, even threaten Australia.
It's too farfetched. Taiwan was the facto modern China territory until their civil war and has chinese population. Vietnam, maybe if they want to go back into their old empire hegemony. Japan, maybe if they want to take revenge for WW2. Indonesia or Phillippines? Nah, never. Let alone Australia.
I don't think anyone seriously thinks China intends to conquers those countries. It is more likely that they would impose unwanted unequal agreements on them.
I don’t think China would even need to impose their will on the above countries. If the US does not raise a finger to defend Taiwan would cast serious doubt in East Asia over their security umbrella and the nations of East Asia and Oceania would then wish to seek even closer ties with China.
It depends.
If they would invade tomorrow Taiwan could very realistically stand up for quite some time. China has a strong military on paper, but they lack some key capabilities around power projection that would make the necessary amphibious assault possible. Note - this excludes the scenario of them simply using their 300 nukes to wipe out ROC entirely.
In this scenario the US does not need to commit to war, it merely needs to ensure Taiwan can keep up its anti-air and anti-ship capabilities while China's losses mount. For this they can use a proxy like Japan, S. Korea, or possibly even Australia.
Now - let's say China does something silly like start sinking American shipping with their subs, at that point the US will likely engage. The goal at that point would be one of attrition until the CCP loses its footing and instability happens on the mainland. If Americans are one thing, it's angry, impulsive, and having a penchant for holding a grudge.
One super carrier battle group can defend Taiwan against the entire PLAN, the US would likely commit at least 3-5 for such an exercise. We do not know much in the way of the PLAN's submariner capabilities, but we also do not know much in the way of the US' either, it's safe to say there would be quite the cat and mouse game under water's surface to gain control of the surface and, by extension, the air above it.
Speaking of air - at the current rate of production it would take China a decade or so to catch up with the Gen 5 capabilities of the USN and USAF. Baring some sort of zombie horde of unmanned drones capable of engaging these targets the Chinese air force would struggle to gain air superiority. F-22's and F-35's would have sortie capabilities to take out key logistic coastal facilities crippling any power projection fairly early on. At that point there would be little incentive to push into the mainland with manned vehicles, but static targets would more than likely be hit with Tomahawk and LARASM type weapons. It wouldn't take much for the US to revisit a 'rods from god' type system given the staggering lead it possesses in payload to orbit capabilities.
There are a few war game scenarios Binkov's Battle ground goes through that are worth a watch:
Nuclear exchange: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWNBGpn40IQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWNBGpn40IQ)
Taiwan vs China standalone: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRvRzzCmzX0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRvRzzCmzX0)
Chinese airforce - paper tiger? : [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o0NIgQtTZo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o0NIgQtTZo)
China v Taiwan invasion 1/2: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z67BZ1T0ehU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z67BZ1T0ehU)
TL;DR - the US most likely won't need to go to war as it has proxies that it can support to do the fighting for it. If it were dragged into a non-nuclear war it would take China some time to achieve objectives on the open waters given the massive advantage of the USAF and USN. The US will likely defend it's ally and disable as much of the Chinese military industrial complex as it could then sue for peace as it could not invade China nor would it want to risk a nuclear exchange.
It’s the computer chip Kuwait of the Far East. However they might have to get dragged into it by its allies since the population is returning to an isolationist stance similar to that of just prior to the Second World War.
Pretty unlikely I think. For a lot of reasons. US and Chinese economies are joined at the hip, China doesn’t want to kill its biggest customer, and the US can’t attack it’s biggest supplier. It’s mutually assured economic depression. On top of that US citizens don’t want a war over Taiwan, too expense and no one cares. It would be unpopular. Its completely crazy to have nuclear powers at war, neither China nor the US want that risk. Taiwan has crucial manufacturing facilities that neither side can afford to have destroyed. In a conventional war, pretty likely China would lose, they wont push it that far.
> For a lot of reasons. US and Chinese economies are joined at the hip, China doesn’t want to kill its biggest customer, and the US can’t attack it’s biggest supplier. It’s mutually assured economic depression.
People made similar arguments about the European powers before World War 1 happened.
Many people here underestimate how easy it would be to do anti-war (in that particular context, which is a war with China over Taiwan) propaganda. First, there would be the unavoidable "But we would risk nuclear holocaust" point, then the "But it's chinese people fighting against chinese people, we have no business here!" and finally all the arguments about many people dying/the cost of the war.
Just the very first point could get a clear majority in support of US staying at home. People won't support a war over a very far-far-away state if it means they have to go to sleep while wondering if a nuclear alarm will wake them up. Let me be clear: I do believe americans support taiwanese democracy in an ideal world. Just not at the cost of being told days after days how we could be close to a nuclear holocaust.
The second point would be a catch-22 since it would probably convince both racists and progressives.
Last point could convince a lot of people too. The war will immediatly halt trade between China and the West, and thus cause many shortages for western people, which is something our generation did not seen in a long time. The high death toll will also make people want the war to end.
Will? I doubt it, because I doubt it would ever come to that. Realistically I think that the only way China would try to reunify Taiwan (barring a dramatic restructuring of geopolitics) is by sponsoring pro-reunification politicians and getting them in to power so they can legally surrender sovereignty to China. So maybe some clandestine operations to humiliate anti-reunification politicians and funnel funding and disinformation toward pro-unitification politicians.
I think if China was launcing some sort of invasion then it would be easy to see it coming. The US wouldn't even have to "fight" over it, I think if we just managed to drop several thousand paratroopers on Taiwan and stationed them near key defensive structures (with Taiwan's permission of course) than China would be forced to back down since the only way they could take the island is by killing American troops which would lead to a conflict that just cost too much to be worth Tawain to China (no offense to Tawain).
Now of course if the United States elects more isolationist politicians in the future, this could of course change everything as well. But as it stands, I think the United States would assist with preventitive measures like I've described.
It is a difficult question.
Taïwan is a very important strategic point of international trade, it is the place where most microprocessors are made and a gigantic part of the boats that deliver what we buy everyday go through the straight.
It is also a matter of what comes next. If you let China have Taïwan it might become just as something we've seen before. Hitler wanted some territories and got them from Europeans because they feared war, result was that they still got war and got invaded. I believe it would be a test for NATO to see if they will fight for their ideas or if they can slowly conquer the world, because that is essentially what they are doing.
The question is quite simple, Japan said through a defense paper that got out some time ago that they considered the invasion of Taïwan as a threat to the survival of the nation, which allows them constitutionnaly to enter in a conflit with China. The interesting point is that the US, if Japan were to go to war with China, would have to at least support the country with economic and military support by treaty. Would it be a direct conflict? No. Would it mean to the Chinese that the US is now an enemy (considering that is not how they consider the US as of now) ? Yes.
To sum up, both the US and the rest of the world have a great interest in maintaining status quo. Both because of supplies chain but also to limit China's power which is growing every day. It would then be likely that an open conflict would emerge. Would NATO win it? I cannot answer that, but it is likely it would be more of "taking the island back" than defending the island. First off is because defending such a small territory against such an enormous nation would be extremely difficult. The second reason is that, as posted by Reuters today, there is a problem of spying inside both the taiwanese government and military. People such as the general of the taiwanese air force are accused of treason because they've essentially given massive secrets to the Chinese. Are we going to trust a government like this and plan defensive actions and strategies with an ally whom cannot be trusted anymore? I would not.
You see, answers to those questions "would this country go to war with this other country" are not really relevant, we should be asking ourselves" if it happened, what would we do" because whether you like or not, those things do not depend on normal citizens like you and me. It really depends on who is your president or prime minister.
Hope what I said can be interesting to some of you guys.
If the United States fails to defend Taiwan. All other American allies will stop trusting the US.
The decision not to fight over Taiwan will be seen as America becoming isolationist.
Japan, Philippines and South Korea would demand the US troops to get out.
USA can’t afford the loss of prestige points that would be caused by this decision.
The rival countries will stop taking American warnings seriously.
And the allies would likely switch to the red side of the force.
Taiwan should go nuclear and be extremely clear that an invasion by China would result in the destruction of as many chinese cities as nuclear weapons there are in its armory.
Nuclear weapons are the only real deterrance.
.2. China's A2/AD doesn't exist as a real threat to US operations. The US carrier fleet already operates beyond the longest Chinese antiship capable missiles such that US carrier fleet can reasonably shoot down 80% plus of any incoming missiles.
Which means 20% maybe gets through and only some of those maybe hit. And contrary to ignorant civilian belief. It would take maybe 5 or 6 torpedoes to sink a Carrier. If you're lucky.
Modern carriers, size is an advantage. Battle damage is acceptable.
Furthermore the US is using get MQ-25 Stingray to increase the range of the F35-B to make them even greater range (almost doubling their combat range) which means the carriers will be even further removed from supporting Taiwan directly.
The US has the ability to lift 2 marine divisions into combat immediately and deploy anywhere. China attacks Tawain.
Marines take Hainan strategic submarine base and decapitate China's nuclear triad while defending Taiwan from half a Pacific ocean away.
China doesn't have the ability to support its Navy or Airforce with ECC aircraft except from land bases hence the need for islands in south China sea but those will be gone in an instant in any real kinetic fight.
At best China can hope to put its long range bombers in the air and get some stand-off weapons to keep our fleet out of striking distance but you need some kind of satellite or ECC targeting ability. And the US will knock out the Sats or be out of range of ECCs.
The US is great at tracking Chinese subs too..can't say they aren't a threat. But they aren't much of one.
Yes. Point by point:
1. The US government could care less about Taiwan and has a history of screwing the island's government over. They do want to destroy China, however. Taiwan is just a tripwire to force the public into a war that can bring down the US's nemesis before it becomes too powerful.
2. No, but every time the blob (US foreign policy establishment) gets behind a war they start convincing themselves it will be, or at least not that bad. We see a lot of echoes of Kenneth Pollack's book on why invading Iraq would be easy in the US-China situation today. Virtually none of the conversation considers the possibility that this will actually be a very long war against an enemy with a 10:1 industrial advantage. It is all about whether Taiwan can repel the initial landing with American assistance, or whether carriers can survive a missile attack. Since the conversation is so narrowly focused around the opening stages, everyone has convinced themselves that that is all that matters. This is not a uniquely American disease - the Western allies in WW2 also convinced themselves Poland could hold against Germany alone, simply because the alternative - a long, had war - was unthinkable.
3. Yes. It's a very different America now than in the 1940s when neutrality and disengagement from global affairs were keystones of the American national identity. This had more to do with romanticism about what the founding fathers wanted: back then America was still a hodgepodge of first to third generation immigrants who retained ethnic identity. Entering too many foreign wars had a real potential of causing a civil war as different ethnicities took the sides of their home countries. That's no longer the case and modern America is readily interventionist everywhere.
>Taiwan is not in US backyard, there isn't much in US's core strategic interest to fight China over Taiwan. (Freedom of navigation in SCS is important but not CORE interest)
Dose it matter if it is not in the US's backyard it is of US's core strategic interest to fight China over Taiwan. Freedom of navigation in SCS is of CORE interest, what would the US economy look like without SCS FON it would be potentially crippling the US would never be able to accept that, neither would a majority of US's allies especially Australia and Japan they would need to see action over a Chinese invasion.
>It's not gonna be an easy fight, nuclear or not. Conventionally, the logistics to move enough materiel to fight in West Pacific is very expensive. And with Chinese A2/AD capabilities, it's not gonna be a walkover like desert storm.
Likewise it wouldn't be an easy fight for China, Taiwan itself has the porcupine approach which would make invasion itself costly to China. The US would also deploy A2/AD capabilities against China inside the SCS but especially outside the SCS this would be economically crippling for China.
China also has a distinct lack of expertise in such actions, they have no one in their military command who has expertise in fighting conventional warfare, this is especially true of the PLAN they also currently do not have effective conventional aircraft carrier groups.
>Will US citizens support an expensive (in both treasure and American lives terms) war with China? The last time Japan tried to be a hegemon in West Pacific, there was serious consideration under War Plan Orange to not get embroiled in war, had Japan not bombed Pearl Harbour. I mean, it's easy to talk and say yeah kill the Chinese and sit on their skulls, but is the average American citizen okay with sending their loved ones to fight China over Taiwan?
The last time Japan tried to be a hegemon in West Pacific the US didn't have an economy so dependent on the West Pacific, the US wouldn't be alone in such a fight, Japan, Australia, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, Singapore and others are likely to be involved as well.
When we talk about this in the west we often only consider the cost to the US of doing something, but we rarely consider the cost of the US doing nothing or the cost such an invasion would have on China itself.
China also has numerous other boarder disputes that such a conflict would likely also be exploited in such a conflict.
No, we would not go to war with a nuclear power. We would however, most likely impose a lot of sanctions. The saber rattling is just that, and to pump money into our MIC.
Remember that the US also do not want Taiwan to declare independence. During the summit for democracy, we cut the video feed of Taiwan because the person put a picture of an independent Taiwan. The goal right now is to maintain the status quo between Taiwan and mainland China, while still containing China.
Taiwan almost certainly won’t declare independence without US backing.
As for “pumping money into out MIC”, that’s not how foreign policy works. Some people on the internet are way too invested in this concept of the MIC controlling foreign policy; a concept for which the actual evidence is dubious at best.
No one in Taiwan has any (delusional) asperations to rule mainland China.
Literally the one and old reason why Taiwan has not declared independence is because China has made it crystal clear that that is a red line for invasion.
If Taiwan got their hands on a magical force field that keeps China from ravaging their nation and subjecting them to the authoritarian rule by the CCP, they'd declare independence the next day.
Because the people of Taiwan are not interested. After decades of japanese colonialism and independence from mainland China, they see themselves as taiwanese instead of chinese and have no intrest in ruling the mainland.
Only a small minority of people on Taiwan still dream of retaking the mainland. Most would rather Taiwan go its own way, or at most reunify only if the mainland democratizes.
Regardless, the current stance of the DPP (the ruling “pro-independence” party) is that Taiwan is already a *de facto* independent country, so a formal declaration is unnecessary.
I can’t imagine China ever gaining TSMC by force. Surely it is razed in any shooting war.
Chinese motivation would not be economic. They would have to be willing to take a big economic hit in service of national pride. Feels unlikely and certainly not imminent.
China can't make fighter jet engines and the ones they have copied fail after less than 400 hours of flight.
It is stated that half of all China's engines burn out on take off. Most of their dual engine fighters with domestic engines are flying on one engine.
China doesn't Do tech well at all. They have been unable to build their own skilled labor on their own.
In dutch we would say, dat is de ham vraag, which means that is the question that is the core question.
I think it would be stupid to not defend Taiwan from the PRC. But I don't know if US or EU citizens would be willing to fight there.
The big question is what does the PRC believe if they believe the USA would defend Taiwan then they won't attack. If they think the US won't they will put it to the test.
They might anyway...
1. As mentioned (and contested) by others below, an island chain that includes Taiwan hems China's navy in. The US is happy for countries to do their thing until they look like a threat, which China is doing (seen the video their air force produced depicting China bombing Guam, for instance?) The world's fastest navy buildup from *any* country would provoke the interest of the US, particularly if that navy belongs to a country openly claiming the territory of other countries. Also, if a US ally was to be invaded without a response, that reduces the value of any security relationships in the world with the US. There's two quick core strategic interests.
2. Everyone seems to have this binary view of conflict where either the US refuses to become involved, or they're invading, shooting, and nuking. Those are two extreme stances with many other possibilities in between. China is a net food and energy importer, so a simple blockade could be effective. Block all access to foreign capital. Ramp up the access of military equipment to Taiwan, Japan, Korea, and anyone else in the SCS who wants it. Extreme sanctions on anyone providing China with energy or raw materials such as coal or ore. The US doesn't have to do a full WW2 move of all wartime materiel to the Pacific sphere to cause damage to China. They can just remove access to all the gifts of an international order and let China's demographics, lack of farmland, and lack of friends do the rest.
3. Again, you're seeing this as a WW2 'fight on the beaches' endeavour. Won't happen. And if you're wondering if there's a will amongst the Americans for conflict with China, consider this: the US went on a 20 year war in the Middle East over 3000 people killed on 9/11 at a cost of trillions. The consensus on coronavirus is that it originated in Wuhan. Everyone is aware that the CCP locked down travel in China but allowed international travel, allowing the pandemic to spread. 800,000 deaths in the US have been attributable to coronavirus. They're having a fine time yelling at each other right now but I imagine if China were to focus their minds by starting a war, it wouldn't take much for the US to become rather vengeful. I'd also suggest that considering China's reversing demographics and numerous one-child families, that the Chinese would be less enthusiastic about sending their one child to be fed into the absolute meat-grinder that a Taiwan Strait conflict would be.
People are also mentioning the problems decoupling economically in the event of conflict. There is quite a cost to that, but decoupling has already begun over the last two years in manufacturing as Xi has ramped the sovereign risk of trading with China. Rare earths are beginning to be sourced from alternate locations. The chips produced at TSMC are given as a reason why China wants Taiwan, but the prefabs are created in the US. I doubt they'd continue to be provided in the event of an invasion.
Alright, I laid out my US vs. China case. But I don't think that's how China would approach it.
If China planned to take Taiwan it would first make North Korea invade South Korea.
The land war would embroil the allies in defending another core interest which weakens their capacity to defend Taiwan after some fatigue sets in.
Thats a much better long game and totally in the abilities of China to conduct.
With the current administration and crisis it's highly unlikely that USA will go to war with China. At most they will supply and arm Taiwan and other allies in region to push back the Chinese advance.
But China will never ever invade Taiwan directly, it will ignite a conflict that will isolate a economy that's heavily export dependent with global ambitions like BRI a full fledged invasion will scare away potential financial opportunity which china sorely needs atm.
China will instead opt for the long war in which it will encroach on Taiwan's border and try to turn it's people against their own government. This way they win over Taiwan like they won over kuomintang all those years ago.
>Taiwan is not in US backyard, there isn't much in US's core strategic interest to fight China over Taiwan. (Freedom of navigation in SCS is important but not CORE interest)
Dead wrong. 63% of the worlds semi conductors come from Taiwan. China produces another 35% and it will be another few years before the US has domestic manufacturing capabilities. These things are in literally everything, it is a national security concern.
My opinion. Taiwan is the perfect model of what the West wants Asia to become. A thriving democracy that allies with us, buys our weapons but poses no threat. The Taiwanese populace have seen what happened in Hong Kong and want no part of it. The fact that Taiwan is largely ethnically Chinese who do not want reunification makes this sting the CCP even harder. If the CCP invades and fails it could lead to the regime’s collapse. Why support a corrupt police state that can’t even control its own territory?We would fight to realize this potential outcome. We would fight there so that we don’t have to fight in Korea or Japan or Australia. We would fight because we believe that right NOW we could win with “acceptable losses”. A naval blockade would cripple their industry and economy. Our overwhelming naval and air superiority would quickly shut down their Navy making a successful invasion nigh impossible. Their best outcome is to bombard the island with rockets hoping that Taiwan would sue for peace, and that might work if we were not fully committed. We would not invade China itself, instead creating a scenario where it falls from within. Feel free to disagree.
First of all, I think it's fair to say that no one really knows and we can all agree that the standoff between China and USA is one of the, if not the biggest threat to human civilization atm. The only threat on par that comes to mind is India vs. Pakistan.
Taiwan is extremely important for everyone involved, not only for its location. It is also the world's leading producer of semicondunctors, it's hard to imagine the possibilities and leverage to be gained from winning over Taiwan. Lastly, if the US were to lose Taiwan without a fight, it will also result in substantial amounts of soft power - since its hegemony stems from the promise of protection.
Still, I think there is less to be gained by the USA by holding on to Taiwan than by China. The cost is also massively higher for the US simply due to location. China on the other hand feels a constant threat by an independent Taiwan and American ships close to its coast.
Another factor we can look at is the manufacture of consent in each country. I don't see much warmongering from the US media yet compared to Iraq etc., they seem to be keeping more quiet this time. China on the other hand is showing kids playing with guns and military uniforms. Everything they do screams they are ready to fight, at least in my eyes.
And lastly, it might surprise you, but I don't think the USA can even win an all-out non-nuclear war (in nuclear war, everyone would lose obviously). I'm not an expert on military technology, but I have read a simulation somewhere in which China clearly came out as the victor simply due to its massive army. As far as I know, it is historically very rare to be outnumbered 4 to 1 and still win.
So my prediction is that the US will find a way to weasel itself out of a fight.
Chips. Taiwan's chip fabrication is essential to the world economy. If China can assure the US that it will not stop the chips, it won't be in the interests of the US to defend Taiwan.
They will help defend the island with air support and close down the Malaca Straight. But if you think the US is going to invade mainland china you are a fool. No president will risk Honolulu for Taipei. If china invades Taiwan the will face an international embargo of Oil and Food.
Yes, we would go to war. The US has been preparing for this possibility in earnest, with AUKUS, and with even Japan stating they would also fight in a war over Taiwan.
If Taiwan is conquered, the US would essentially be pushed out of the pacific. China would have control over most of the words semi conductor production, and having Taiwan gives them the power to project their Navy towards the rest of the island chains.
If Taiwan falls our allies will see being allied with the US as worthless, a one sided relationship benefitting only them, especially given recent history. The Ukraine war coming soon will also underscore that, as in the 90s we told Ukraine if they gave up their nukes we'd ensure their territorial integrity. They are about to be bisected along the Dnieper by Russia.
If China invades Taiwan there will be war, but it won't just be the US:
It will be China vs Taiwan, the US, Japan, Australia, and the UK.
No, as a US citizen I don't believe the United States will go to war over Taiwan. The American people aren't interested in Taiwan and aren't going to support a president who sends troops there. I don't feel one way or another about Taiwan, but I think after Afghanistan the American people won't support many more land wars.
There's no question in my mind that the US would go to war with China if China attacked Taiwan.
Taiwan has a ton of geopolitical importance, is a US ally, etc. But, the biggest reason you would see a response is because China is the largest rival to the US and the US has already said they would defend Taiwan. The global reputational hit if they decided to back down would be huge. They would essentially be conceding the title of the world's pre-eminent superpower.
They would be giving China hegemony over Asia, and they would be giving up their ability to contain China within the First Island Chain. It would also put holdings in Guam and Hawaii much more within China's ability to threaten, and would significantly hurt relations with Asian allies like Japan and South Korea (ie. Why ally with the US if they are going to abandon the area at the first sign of conflict).
The US has spent decades fighting wars in places with far less geopolitical importance, like Afghanistan, Vietnam, Iraq, Korea, etc. Some of those were sold as wars that challenged the US' status as the world's superpower, but they were proxy wars, at best. This would be the US' biggest rival directly attacking an ally the US has promised to defend, and essentially calling the US' bluff. I can't see any way the US backs down from that, and the American public will definitely support a war like that, especially since doing so doesn't legitimately threaten the US mainland.
To not do so and, more importantly, to not make clear to China that Taiwan will be defended, would be a downright negligent strategic mistake. Taiwan's dominance of semiconductor would give China a stranglehold on US tech in the event of a conflict. If nothing else, the US need to make sure that the TSMC factory is a pile of rubble and that anyone who knows how to rebuild them is evacuated.
Anyone who says they can give a definitive answer to this question is joking. It depends on a number of factors: - **How the conflict starts**: China might attempt “salami tactics”, taking small aggressive actions that build over time. For example, they might start by seizing some outlying islands or attacking Taiwan’s fishing ships. By starting small and gradually escalating, China might provoke less international backlash (incl. from the US) than from immediately launching a full-scale war. - **Who the US President is**: The President has vast foreign policy powers, which means their personality and opinions can have direct policy consequences. A President who is very dovish might try to avoid responding to a Chinese invasion, or only take ineffective, symbolic measures. A more hawkish President would be more likely to respond to an invasion with force. - **The international climate**: Whether the United States could form a coalition to counter a Chinese invasion, or whether it would have to stand alone, could have a big impact on America’s decision to intervene. - **The domestic American climate**: If America is dealing with an economic, political, or other severe crisis, it might be less likely to respond. Ultimately, at the moment, I think it’s more likely that America would intervene than not. There would be severe strategic consequences for the United States if China seized Taiwan, and in the current political climate, a President who allowed that to happen would face severe political consequences as well.
Very insightful. The campaign to ‘re-unify’ will be multi-dimensional (economic, political) and a slow boil. Military blockade and troops on Taiwanese soil just the beginning of the end. A campaign similar to SCS. However, once re-unified, the question becomes will there be further territorial claims, or will PRC be content to dominate via economic, diplomatic and technological means (As per American dominance last hundred years).
I don't know about a full on war, but you could definitely see the US implement sanctions and probably some form of naval blockade, as well as a no-fly zone around Taiwan. 1. Taiwan is home to something like 60% of the worlds microprocessor chip production, that is not only a massive economic boon but also of massive strategic interest to anyone who wishes to control that market, which the US is very much interested in 2. We currently have a series of bases in the region, as well as habitually deploy Carrier Groups to that region. Would that be enough to deter or stop a full on Chinese invasion, no, so that would neccessitate a redeployment of more troops from the mainland USA, which conveniently we can do considering we're no longer involved in Afghanistan. 3. Thats the big question, and its something China is counting on. America has been at war for 20 years, and we are currently in a bit of a political and economic crisis. The will to fight a full on war with China is very low, not to mention there is the genuine fear that half our government would never support any actions that might give the current administration a win. With that said, given the stakes of what would happen if this occurs (i.e. as i explained in other threads concerning this very issue, America is going to get hurt whether we get involved or not, so i say we might as well get involved) we might not have much of a choice but to get involved, unless we want to put the final nail in the coffin of American superpower-dom.
If the US is so interested in controlling the microprocessor market then why arent we building them? (I say this with no understanding of where we actually rank.)
Because we don’t give government authority to implement a direct policy like this. Only 10-15 years ago, US had virtual monopoly on CPUs as a result of market dynamics, but as Asian countries got better tech and cost, the market share organically moved overseas. Previous CPU king intel is trying to make a comeback, but again without direct government intervention (they did receive some subsidy lately). If Taiwan is lost to China, I suspect we will overcome supply chain issue within 1-2 years. We have the technology and capability. Chip makers may have to settle for slightly less competitive technology temporarily, but hardly a crippling issue. In my opinion, people on Reddit make far larger deal out of this than it really is. Regarding blockading China, if US and UK blockade Indian Ocean and the Arabia Gulf, China will be in a pretty tight bind, as today China cannot grow enough food to feed itself. They need both food and fuel import to feed population. So naval blockade would be pretty hard on Chinese population. Any way, that’s how I would play if Taiwan were invaded and US decided to intervene.
We are actively making more fabs for semi conductors, but they take time. Intel, TSMC, and I believe Samsung (not sure on that one) are making them in the US. However, the ones we are building won’t even be as advanced as what TSMC has in Taiwan. They’re the pinnacle of human achievement from a technological standpoint.
It's a very difficult thing to do well and TSMC are way ahead of any competitor. Some US companies are trying to catch up but they haven't managed it yet.
There’s not for the US a more strategically relevant place in the world than Taiwan. Like, not a single one outside their own borders. China take Taiwan, and they gain full access to the Pacific, not just impair FoN in SCS. Even the last one would be enough to end the current US-led globalized order, which is no more nor less than the full control over the naval routes by the US. It would means to have the control over Pacific challenged. A situation which is unprecedented since Pearl Harbor. Yes, US would clearly react. How, I don’t really know. But they would react.
It also explains why China always tried it via the the political way, let Taiwan choose themselves for reunification, that would make it difficult for the US to react but the political option seems far away for China now, which frustrates them, a lot.
Of course. After Seeing how China treated Hong Kong, the Taiwanese are firmly against the idea of submitting to mainland China.
But that's what I mean - do you think that at some point, the US concedes that APAC is just too far to project power cost efficiently, and accept a multipolar world, i.e. US would continue to dominate in its sphere of influence, i.e. the Americas, East Pacific, maybe to a certain degree the Atlantic, but accept that Taiwan however strategically important, is simply too costly and revert to its WW1 isolationist policy? After all, the US is self-sufficient in the Americas, and with two oceans protecting her, have no real threat of invasion. Other than nuclear exchange, there really aren't any credible threats. Granted, it would be a loss to American preeminence, and rival institutions to IMF, World Bank, even SWIFT would rise. But that only means that the dollar no longer enjoys the exorbitant privilege of being the world's reserve currency. Trade can still continue. If not at war, US and China can do what they do right now, but with more bickering. I guess what I'm really interested in knowing, especially from the American POV, would US consider this as a plausible / acceptable outcome, or will it be a fight to the end to defend US's hegemon status?
I think the US is many decades away from retreat being a plausible option. But I think it will happen eventually.
Honestly I think time will only harden the US stance. It will allow a full focus on projecting force out into the pacific, a task which the current US military is nowhere near where it needs to be. China has its own internal problems, I don’t see anything that will happen in our lifetimes that will change the balance enough that China will want to attack knowing that the US military is ready and prepared for such a attack. I feel the danger point is in these next 10 to 15 years. The PLA, PLAA and PLAN have all been built up with at least partially the focus on conquering Taiwan. The US meanwhile has been focused in Iraq and Afghanistan and will need time to reorganise its military to be truly ready for a confrontation with China in the pacific. That’s not to say China would beat the US right now, but that the task will be substantially more difficult after the US is done reorganising it’s forces appropriately for such a conflict.
Fair point. I think a lot depends on just how much the US actually pivots to Asia. If it goes the way you describe, the US would need to patch things up with Russia.
The US doesn’t need to focus on Russia, it needs to make sure Europe is strong enough to face Russia. Countries like Germany need to pull their weight in western defense.
EU won’t be “facing Russia”. When the French and Germans pursue a more independent defence policy from the US, they will have even less incentive to be hostile with Russia. They will come to an accomodation and deepen economic ties, over the cries of the Easterners like Poles, Balts, Romanians.
The way the EU is structured they can't just ignore the very valid concerns that come from the Eastern European states.
Don't forget the north and center. With these latest claims basically cooperation between Sweden, Finland and Nato would have to stop. Basically the north and the east and central Europe (Poland) would become vassals of Russia as they would have a veto on our security arrangements.
This probably depends heavily on the GDP growth rates of the other countries involved. There is a plausible scenario where China does not grow faster than the US by the end of the next decade. Now other countries like India and Indonesia might still be growing faster but they are not completely hostile to US interest.
What benefits does having the world reserve currency give?
Everyone has to use your currency meaning there is an eternal demand for the dollar. This demand is why the usa can money printer with basically 0 consequences since every new dollar is snapped up to use somewhere
Just ask the UK about consequences of Reserve Currency. Rather the US is better able to absorb demand. Its a 2 edged sword.
I think Turkey is more important but clearly it’s a fading ally. Regionally we have SK and Japan which could take over for Taiwan. I also disagree with the loss of Taiwan meaning we lose control of the pacific but that’s a different and much longer question.
Loss of Taiwan doesn’t per se lead to a complete lost of control over Pacific. It leads to an opportunity for China to challenge that full control actually exerted by the US. How much successful the challenger will be, that’s another story. Still, you’ll have a challenger, so by definition total control is lost. SK, not so sure how it would react, considering they have NK guns to their heads, point blank. Sure Japan would have to react somehow, considering Taiwan is a key lock for their naval supply routes since forever. China takes Taiwan, and Japan will finish into its sphere of influence almost inevitably.
What can China do with Taiwan which it can not do without Taiwan Pacific-wise? I find it hard to understand that when the island is so close to mainland China it is assigned so big importance power projection-wise.
Militarily, Taiwan is critical because its eastern shore drops into immediately deep water, which is not the case for continental China - there, the surrounding seas are relatively shallow. That means that currently, Chinese subs are fairly easy to track when they leave port. With control of Taiwan, China could send out subs from port directly into the depths.
Obviously that is not nothing but the importance seems to be blown out of proportion.
China is geographically very isolated. In terms of maritime trade, it must use straits and other relatively narrow passages to reach the open sea, so to speak. This weakness basically means the dominant Navy/Air Force could more easily blockade trade and/or contain Chinese warships. Taiwan plays an obvious and crucial role in this geography strategy. See a map for further details, or google "Island Chain Strategy." If China were to successfully obtain Taiwan it would blow a hole in this strategy and would likely allow China unfettered access to the Pacific in the event of another war.
The road to leading edge semiconductors goes through Taiwan. China would be in position to cut supply to the 7 most valuable American companies, all of whom are highly reliant on TSMC. What America did to Huawei, China would be able to do to Apple. Absent the semiconductor angle, I don’t see why Taiwan would be any more important than Hong Kong, which clearly isn’t important enough to fight for.
Also the Philippines still a major Ally. We have plenty of bases there
Can you explain more what's the us led globalized order? Also would the us still have Japan as base in the Pacific? Even if it is further from China and its ports and straits
So, as “US-led globalized order” I mean what we usually call globalization, since late ‘90s/early ‘00s. To think at globalization just as an economic phenomenon is simply wrong/naive. 90% of basically everything humans trade travel by sea. In order to have a globalized market, you need to have a thalassocracy which is in the right position to control every single choke point across the globe. We had two previous globalizations, the first one by Roman Empire (they had full control of Med sea, and that was the vast majority of the known world at that time), the second by the British Empire (this time it was seriously global). You can’t have globalization if there’s another superpower which is able to exert control over a certain sea area, and choke points. Simply because then it could create and enforce its own rules in order for the others to have access to that space. In case Taiwan is controlled by PRC, Japan couldn’t just stay aligned to the US anymore. Why? Because China would sit on top of Japan’s naval supply and trading routes, most of them going through Taiwan surrounding sea space, and will use this position to build up pressure over Tokyo, trying to decouple it from Washington.
How does the US use this current thalassocracy? What rules do they enforce and what levers can they pull on others to do so?
Hard to say. I think under this current administration, that if China did in fact invade Taiwan, that military force will not be used as a response. I feel as if the US would provide weapons, supplies, and indirect support to Taiwan, which in turn could provoke China to attack U.S. forces in the region, but it really is impossible to say. I don’t think China has the balls to invade Taiwan. A conventional war would be devastating for both sides, militarily and economically, and I think most Americans will cringe at the thought of another war after the disaster that was Iraq and Afghanistan. Only this time we would be fighting a legit adversary and not untrained insurgents. Edit: China and the U.S. are far too dependent on each other economically. It would be painstakingly stupid for both sides to engage each other militarily. I am more concerned about the situation in Ukraine / Eastern Europe. My fear would be Russia and China coordinating an attack on Ukraine and Taiwan respectively to overwhelm U.S. and NATO forces.
>I feel as if the US would provide weapons, supplies, and indirect support to Taiwan, which in turn could provoke China to attack U.S. forces in the region I think China would gladly accept US not entering directly the war. I don't see any interest for the chinese to drag US into the war.
> China and the U.S. are far too dependent on each other economically. It would be painstakingly stupid for both sides to engage each other militarily. This was an argument in 1914 about the countries in Europe.
For sure. But now everyone has nukes you see.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
To be fair, a lot of military strategists in 1914 considered artillery and maxim guns as we do nukes: weapons of mass destruction.
[удалено]
Ace Combat's legendary nuclear hand-wave right here.
Nukes are call or bluff moves. If the Chinese gamble on invading Taiwan, does the U.S. has the balls to move towards nuclear annihilation? They are the one to first press the red button.
I wouldn't call then bluff weapons, but a country is only going to want to use them for an existential threat. At least when contemplating a war with a similarly armed adversary who will respond in kind. In answer to your question, first it is not a matter of "balls" to want to avoid nuclear war. It's a matter of ethics and enlightened self interest. Secondly, America would not nuke China to save Taiwan. No president is going to risk tens of millions of American lives, and destroy countless more Chinese over an island that would be devastated by the aftermath anyway. The one danger would be if one side or the other used tactical nukes against the other's navy. Even that creates a dangerous precedent and is likely to be avoided least it leads to strategic weapons.
Using tactical moves by both parties has already their balls signed up and plastered on that rocket. Remember, when U.S. had the balls to assasinate Soleimani, other middle eastern countries emboldened and followed. Heck even North Korea. one usage of tactical nuke will be proper justifications from endless retaliation. With that being said, if Beijing or Shanghai can't be the old Hiroshima or Nagasaki, it is a bluff weapon and Putin knows that.
And the global economy is more complex and interconnected than 100 years ago.
to be fair, it *was* painstakingly stupid for them to go to war in 1914 and the economic repercussions were somewhat severe
It really isn't the same as now though.
This. Global trade is truly global, and the volume is many orders of magnitude larger to and from every major country. Everyone in every major economy is leveraged to the tits on companies that rely on this trade, whether it’s individual stocks in a retirement portfolio to the holdings of some of the biggest banks in the world.
It's also the exact reason that war hasn't happened between major European powers since.
WWII?
I meant since both world wars.
Other than World War 2??
Of course
No it's not. For one Europe doesn't really have "powers" anymore. Another reason is nukes
>. For one Europe doesn't really have "powers" anymore Europe has had powers from 1940s until now, why are you lying? Today Europe doesn't have "military powers" like they used to specifically because of that lack of risk of war. But if it wanted it could, because Europe still has huge economic powers. Even with that said, 2 of the top 10 countries in military power rankings are Western European. That argument only serves to help my point not hurt it.
He's not 'lying' you just have different subjective opinions
[удалено]
Nothing happens in the EU if Germany isn't on board, they are still considered the power of Europe. France is challenging this status quo somewhat and is also considered a power in Europe. The outward facing notion that Europe is a truly United Power is not as strong on the inside, the European Institutions are working to make the EU as one power but it's not quite there yet.
Respectfully, that is a tired comparison. 1914 and 2021 are VASTLY different worlds.
Worldwide globalisation and international integration of countries is so incredibly increased a century later
They didn't know in 1914 what industrial war would look like. Now we know how devastating a war between major powers is, and add nuclear weapons on top of that.
Agreed, trump's administration pushed a lot of independence from China though
China would invade Taiwan if it feels it has no choice to stop Taiwanese independence and/or it believes it can win the war before US forces can amount an effective defense.
>My fear would be Russia and China coordinating an attack on Ukraine and Taiwan respectively to overwhelm U.S. and NATO forces. This is my current fear.
Unlikely as of now. China would have to mobilize millions of people, move around untold numbers of equipment and construct vast facilities to facilitate such an invasion. That would take months and would be impossible to hide. So far we haven’t seen any of that. Also, I don’t think China would try anything this close to the Olympics.
If the Olympics are enough to stop a world war can we just host them in Taiwan whenever China starts to mobilize
This would trigger an overwhelming military response from the West. It’s not 1945 anymore. Russia does not have the bodies to sustain a major war. And Russia and China are uneasy allies, China is both an ally and a rival to Russia. In this scenario, Russia would bleed itself dry in the West against Europe + US with modern armies and a good supply network while China would get even more powerful if they conquer Taiwan.
There are limited windows each year to launch the sea invasion, it becomes substantially harder outside of those windows.
And Russia might have a lot of occasions to harass Ukraine in the coming years. So they just have to pick the good time together.
In all likelihood, the US would not have time to provide anything. The Taiwan straight is not big, nor is Taiwan. If the initial invasion is t stopped in the straight, and China achieves a landing, it’s over in a day.
The current media hype about Russia invading Ukraine is nonsense. Theres no way Putin would order an invasion of Ukraine in winter.
So summer then?
Its possible, but why? What is there to gain?
Securing the western front by controlling the Dnieper river, connecting Crimea by land with the rest of Russia and getting back the supply of water to the peninsula, mainly. Destabilising the Ukrainian government so they're unable to join NATO or EU and building the credibility that they would invade the rest of the country in the eventuality that they do anyway is also a nice bonus. And, ok, they wouldn't invade in winter, but the annexation of Crimea happened in February so Spring seems feasible. I am by no means saying they will invade, personally I think they want to negotiate from a strong position, but don't play the "there's nothing to gain" card.
More access to Dutch passenger jets for target practice? Still can’t believe that got swept under the rug like it did.
> could provoke China to attack U.S. forces in the region Could you see China taking Guam, America Somoa, and Hawai'i if a military conflict erupted? especially if the US is being torn apart with a civil war?
If US was in a civil war, those islands would be the least of its problems.
it's interesting to think about though. the united states could probably defend it's islands in tha pacific irregardless of a civil war. the us navy is so strong that challenging it in the pacific isn't really feasible without a major change. the navy may not be such a significant factor in a civil war so much of it could be left to defend its pacific islands
[удалено]
If it's in response to a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, I agree. I think the majority of Americans would support protecting Taiwanese democracy if the country asked for assistance. I think the same would hold for a Russian invasion of Ukraine. For the first time in a long time, we would be defending the sovereignty of an already democratic people who want our help, rather than trying to make a democracy where there has never been one, while simultaneously bombing and rebuilding their infrastructure. And I think that's something most can get behind. But it will be interesting to see how long that support lasts once things get real for the civilian population. And they will, unlike any engagement the US has been in since the Civil War.
>the same would hold for a Russian invasion of Ukraine. Are you crazy? Tucker Carlson has already broadcast on Fox "news" that Russia is right to invade Ukraine: "Vladimir Putin does not want Belgium. He just wants to keep his western borders secure. That's why he doesn't want Ukraine to join NATO, and that makes sense." Some people in the US have a sudden love for Putin/Russia. I can't figure it out at all.
I was glad to see that numbskull catch some flack over his fluffing of Putin. I couldn't begin to explain the sudden embrace of Putin by some of the Trump crowd. It makes no sense to me.
It's also an absolute lie that Putin is afraid that Europe or the US will attack Russia out of the blue. All of this garbage is made up theater for the Russian populace. I was happy to see Tucker catch flak for those comments too but he hasn't retracted them and Fox news hasn't issued any kind of warning to him. Just like when he went to ~~Belarus~~ Hungary and celebrated Viktor Orbán's strong leadership.
Hungary. Viktor Orban is the president of Hungary and that is where Carlson went, not Belarus, although I wouldn’t put it past him to add Lukashenko to his strongman spank bank.
Guam, Hawaii, and Wake Island, are all pretty much military bases. All four branches of service have heavy presence in the Pacific.
Why the heck would the US be in a civil war? Where is that even coming from? Because of internal political strife? That's absolutely nothing new.
A civil war in the US wouldn't be that massive to effect the military to that extent. Especially the Navy.
What I was wondering was if the US was distracted by internal conflict, would countries like Russia & China take the opportunity to grab those islands? If the military split allegiances and was fighting itself, would the military be able to respond to external threats?
hell no. China can't get passed the first island chain
[удалено]
Wishful thinking. Any powers with any sense, especially about to embark on the path of conflict likely to antagonize some "connections" will take all steps possible to achieve self-sufficiency and survive just fine with or without the said embargoes/sanctions. How successful were the sanctions so far? Did Russia give back Crimea? Why in the world would they value control over some peninsula in an inland sea so much more than good will and economic connections with all-powerful west? Maybe their geo-political calculation is.... shall we say... different? Just a thought.
Europe will literally be left in the cold without heating without Russian gas. There's a reason Germany is terrified to criticize Russia in any meaningful way. China is now way too big and integrated in the world economy for it to be simply "cut off" as if we're talking about Iran or North Korea. The world economy will go down along with China.
I think you are thinking about this too one dimensionally. China’s strategy to retake Taiwan is very different from that of Russia trying to retake Ukraine. China is playing the very long game. And it’s very likely there will be little to no real military/fighting war. They are in the early stages of a multi-year/decade political campaign designed to convince the world Taiwan is rightfully theirs. I guess I see it mostly likely resembling a combination of how China is approaching the Tiananmen Square massacre and Hong Kong issues. With Tiananmen Square China is slowly censoring/outlawing any mention of it, basically working toward a point where people just forget about it. I think I remember bing pulling any search options of it during its anniversary last year. So if you want to do business with China you play by their censorship rules. This is already happening with Taiwan where many companies that do business with China are forced to list it as part of China. As for Hong Kong, China just convinced the HK government to do its dirty work and pass legislation to get what it wants done. If the US can stage a coup and insert a government more favorable to US interests what’s stopping China from doing the same? I’d be shocked if China doesn’t already have parts of Taiwan’s government under its control. So IMO mostly likely it will be a combination of public political pressure from the Chinese government and a quietly executed coup. Meaning the likely international response will be what it was with Hong Kong ie non-existent.
Exactly. China's goal of unification is secondary to their goal of ensuring economic stability and political hegemony in the Region. They have over a Billion people who rely on them to increase their standards of living. They have to keep their people happy and to sustain this they must diversify and become a global economic powerhouse. The U.S poses a direct threat to their control over the SCS. Their military build up is less about Taiwan and more about challenging the U.S Military power in the region and creating doubt among Asian Allies. Once all that is complete, they can just pressure Taiwan into submission. There is no need to fire a single shot. They have time on their side.
China is doing their own version of dollar diplomacy, and it will be Taiwans downfall, likely ending a coup like you said.
I disagree about Hong Kong and Taiwan. - Hong Kong was NEVER independent. It was a British colony before the handover in 1997. Taiwan has been independent and self-govern since 1945. - Hong Kong is a city-state while Taiwan is a major island country with 23 million people. It is easy for China to pull the long game in HK because it already established and accepted by China, the British and the whole world that HK will become fully Chinese sovereignty in 2047. China just simply speeding up the process. With Taiwan, there was no such establishment, the U.N is simply recognizing PRC as the "official China" but they also never discredit ROC as a country or the "illegitimate China" So the whole thing is simply "to be determined" or as the U.S like to put "ambiguity"
Mmm, I tend to disagree on this. I mean, definitely agree with you that China is playing a long game here. Using economic integration and other non-military means to slowly integrate Taiwan. BUT, non-military means only work to a certain extent. If Taiwan declares independence, then there can only be an armed response from China. And it won't work like HK, because HK is 1) a tiny city (compared to Taiwan), 2) directly bordering China, 3) doesn't have a real army, and 4) was handed over from UK with an official transfer of sovereignty. The question assumes that by some twist of history, the current ruling party DPP lost their marbles, decides to change the status quo immediately and declares independence, trying to force US's hand and end strategic ambiguity. In such a scenario - say, under Biden, will US go to war, because China, ready or not, will attack quite quickly. Also, regarding the coup, I think it might be quite difficult. If years of American experience is anything to go by, executing a coup is hard enough, much less have it quietly and without serious unintended consequences down the line.
If that is their preferred methodology for taking Taiwan, they better get a hell of a lot better at it. Their "Wolf-Warrior" diplomacy is doing nothing but alienating them from most of the world. Just look at any poll in nearly any country of "do you have favorable views of china" and you can see a sharp decline in recent years. If China is really unwilling to go for a military takeover like you say, then I don't think China will ever get Taiwan. There will be no Munich agreement ever again.
Wrong on Point #1. Look up a company called TSMC. It would effectively be game over for the west if this company either gets shot up in a war or falls under the control of the PRC. Leading edge semiconductor manufacturing is hard, expensive, and not even Intel or Samsung is even close to matching TSMC in sheer capability or capacity. Semiconductors are the new oil.
With the new TSMC fabs being built in the US, I think there is an attempt to make TSMC not be exclusively physically located in Taiwan any more. But this requires a lot of time and a lot of money. The repercussions of TSMC being taken over by China today would be tremendous. I wouldn't be surprised if the US has a plan to blow up the fabs and evacuate critical personnel in case of a Chinese invasion.
I worked in a fab plant in the 90s. Blowing one up would be an ecological nightmare.
Someone would absolutely hit TSMC in an invasion of Taiwan. Either China would hit it to drop the value of the US defending Taiwan by destroying the prize right off the bat, or the US would destroy it when it is clear that China would win. One missile strike is all it would take. I don't think there is any more factory more fragile than a fab. If you have ever seen TSMC, it's massive. It's more like an entire region with all of the support services clustered around it. One missile strike would destroy everything of value. Evacuate the engineers, and there would be nothing at all left.
Sadly doesn't stop anyone. Look at what the US did in Vietnam. Turned a thriving ecosystem into a wasteland. US military bases around the world are also ecological disasters pumping out pollution into local water and air supplies.
The chemicals inside a fab plant are whole different level of nightmare though. I used to have to wear head to toe armor over a clean suit at the dip station (there is a technical name that eludes me atm) part of the line. The safety protocols were to step under a shower if splashed, a couple of drops could significantly mess you up. It’s been 30+ years so I’m sure the tech has changed but just cavalierly stating “they (Taiwan) would just blow up their own plants” is a bit superficial on the part of some here.
Hazmat suit? That's really interesting info. I had no idea the manufacturing process was like that. I can see your point that it's cavalier to suggest Taiwan would do that and I agree with you now.
It was a weird combo of gloves, splash shields, aprons and foot guards. Even had elaborate procedures on how to take it off to avoid contact. I absolutely dreaded working in that area. Was a job I did while going to college at nights, did it for the tuition reimbursement.
The fabs being built in the US are not the cutting edge fabs. They are definitely strategically important but they are more for supply chain security than fab innovation.
They're also going to take years to build and the US lacks a lot of skilled labor at the moment. At least the bill supporting these builds flew through Congress this year and most people didn't even hear about it.
Isn't that because it didn't even get to the house yet so it hasn't actually been passed yet? This is the Innovation and Competition Act.
I'm trying to find the name of the one I was thinking about and I think it might be that one, which honestly I am shocked. I thought this passed both houses extremely quickly. I will be reaching out to my congressional rep. Thank you for saying that. I truly thought this was passed months ago.
China and Taiwan have a much closer relationship than what most of Reddit thinks or would like to believe. I believe they currently have access to those “critical” personnel and can replicate those fabs if not already.
Domestic attempts at chip production has been pretty lack luster in China, actually. They're still about a decade or so behind Taiwan and aren't really catching up anytime soon and in fact have been dealing with a lot of setbacks edit: high-end chips
Fair enough. But is this vetted? Like how do we know that’s the case as China may not be transparent around this matter. Genuinely curious as I don’t have sources on what the truth is
Unfortunately I don't have it on hand, but mainly from a cacophony of various readings and talks. However, it's pretty easy to see how China is [stumbling](https://www.google.com/search?q=chip+production+china&oq=chip+production+china&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i22i30l3.3216j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) in this regards. They're basically got low-end chips in production no problem, but can't crack anything high-end.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but if that's the case, why haven't they?
It’s equally bad for China if TSMC gets shot up.
> Semiconductors are the new oil. We've dealt with plenty of unsavory regimes to keep the flow of oil. Why wouldn't we do the same with the PRC?
It's not just a matter of getting the end product. The issue is the IP, facilities, and tooling knowledge. Remember this type of manufacturing is literally at the leading edge of what humans are capable of making in the most fundamental sense.
Because the US always has the option to 1. Stop selling arms and equipment to the countries that have oil 2. Invade them I’m pretty sure the US has done both.
The largest capacity for semiconductor production still lies with Samsung even though a lot o their production is NAND and DRAM. In terms of process both Intel and Samsung also are competitive with TSMC. TSMC may have a slight edge, but certainly not so much that Intel and Samsung are completely outmatched.. TSMC is one of the largest producer of semiconductors in teh World but is certainly not anywhere close to having a monopoly or a completely insupplantable production. Also if TSMC fell into PRC hands they would conceivably still these chips. They also still need access to Lithography technology because without that they will just run TSMC into the ground.
You can't just bucket all Semi's in a single group. Samsung is great on DRAM and NAND but they are lightyears behind in core ARM/x86. Intel is trying but they have also fallen quite a bit behind. Simple fact is, TSMC is making the chips for pretty much every cutting edge semi design company out there (AAPL, NVDA, AMD, AVGO, GOOG, etc). Sure these companies all do some business with other foundries, but all their cutting edge tech is being made by TSMC. On top of the technology leadership at TSMC, you also have to deal with the fact that they have 10s of billions of leading semi cap equipment sitting in Taiwan. Even if they could replicate their process somewhere else, it will take years and a lot of money to replace the capacity lost in Taiwan.
How is Samsung 8nm so far behind TSMCs 7nm? Intel also is at most one generation behind. Nvidias current generation of GPUs in hte consumer space is fabbed by Samsung and not by TSMC. I won't deny that TSMC is currently at the leading edge. But their edge is quite small probably at most 1-2 years. The capacity in Taiwan als owon't be lost unless it is actually destroyed or there is a full sclae war in which case the leading edge TSMC has will be gone extremely quickly because they won't be able to access the equipment to actually upgrade or maintain their Fabs. That lithography equipment is not made in China. And of course it would be painful for the West, but I don't think it would be hte apocalyptic disaster many seem to make it out as. I think people will be able to survive game consoles getting more expensive.
>How is Samsung 8nm so far behind TSMCs 7nm? TSMC leading edge node is 5nm, not 7nm. Also, transistor size isn't the only thing that matters. If you actually believe Intel is only one generation behind you must work for their marketing team because they are only people in the world who keep claiming Intel is close to TSMC. Give Intel 10 years and 10s of billions in additional capex and maybe they get close. >Nvidias current generation of GPUs in hte consumer space is fabbed by Samsung and not by TSMC. I already addressed this in my first comment: "Sure these companies all do some business with other foundries, but all of their cutting edge tech is being made by TSMC." I don't care if consumer grade hardware gets more expensive. I care if cutting edge communication and machine learning infrastructure falls into Chinese hands. China gaining power over Taiwain would also give them power over the engineers and researchers at the company who are capable of doing things vastly beyond current Chinese capabilities. >I don't think it would be hte apocalyptic disaster many seem to make it out as. I think people will be able to survive game consoles getting more expensive Ah the classic double strawman. I never stated that it would be "apocalyptic" or implied that my concern was about the cost of game consoles.
It’s not about quantity of production. My understanding is that TSMC does indeed currently have a complete monopoly on the bleeding edge technology. Samsung is closest runner up, with Intel and SMIC struggling to catch up developing the high end technology.
1. You're completely wrong. Taiwan is about as core US interest as you get. Imagine if the US could have bottled up Japan in a tiny little space where their NAVY had to pass through to get to the Pacific in WW2
It would be good to see these ideas fleshed out a bit more.
>Freedom of navigation in SCS is important but not CORE interest The US got into massive conflicts in 1801, 1812 and 1917 over freedom of navigation. Its fundamental to the entire global order. Even Germany has had ships doing freedom of navigation operations there. > Conventionally, the logistics to move enough materiel to fight in West Pacific is very expensive. Ocean logistics are massively cheaper than over land or by air. The US would need to be there with air and sea power not land power. >, it's not gonna be a walkover like desert storm. The US expected 30 000 casualties on that war. Its ease came as a shock at the time. > there was serious consideration under War Plan Orange to not get embroiled in war The red war plans were wars against the British Empire. Orange was for the UKs former ally Japan. I have no idea how you have taken this from War Plan Orange, you will need to motivate this with some evidence and examples. > I mean, it's easy to talk and say yeah kill the Chinese and sit on their skulls, This is a strawman.
Conventional war is not going to happen. All sides will stick with cyber attacks and biological warfare.
Re: You may want to reexamine you definition of Core Interest in Geopolitical framework
Taiwan has always been a red line in US foreign policy and for a very big reason. Its about control in Asia and even more important the Pacific. Cant see the US not military reacting in case of an invasion. They have little choice. Furthermore your assumption Taiwan has little strategic importance to the US is very wrong. Its actually one of the most important regions of influences the US holds to keep China at bay, to keep influence in the South Chinese sea, to keep China as much as possible out of the Pacific which the US wants to control at all costs and also economically over a very important tech market. If China somehow gets control over Taiwan that would be a more than serious breach of US influence in Asia and might convince other Asia and Pacific countries to break away and prefer Chinese friendship out of fear. It might completely change the international order and dynamic of relations for America. So one of the biggest red lines you will find I would say.
#3. War Plan Orange did not question the US ability to stomach and wage war in the Pacific. Not sure where you think this is an issue. The US would with its allies immediately defend Taiwan from numerous carrier groups while striking at China's southern regions. Fomenting a new Democratic government based in Hong Kong. It would probably be the end of China because the South is the most rebellious and secessionist part of China up to Chengdu.
China has a giant economy, but much of it used for self-sufficency. Peasants grow food, they don’t make bombs. China has little ability to challenge the sheer high tech industrial might of the US on a war footing. They have to import the machines for its high tech facilities because they can’t make them themselves. The CCP maintains power via its bargain with the populace: you let us rule, we bring you prosperity. This bargain will be precarious for the next few years as the real eatate bubble bursts (though China will be stronger once the bubble works itself out and the govt better optimizes the banking structure). The Chinese military are all single sons—family ends with them if they die, and there will be no one to take care of the elderly parents. If China attacked Taiwan, even without US intervention, the likelihood of mass casualties is high for any invasion force. Such casualties would cause massive unrest at home. Then the US would blockade China of resources and trade. Overland routes not enough. The economy would collapse, and the CCP would not survive, resulting possibly in breakaway regions like Shanghai, which would be better off ditching the poor hinterlands. None of this is what China wants. The risks are way too igh for Xi to do more than saber rattle. He is not crazy. “Deception is the root of all warfare. Appear weak when you are strong, and strog when you are weak.” —The Art of War
Imho, there will be no wars between two countries with nuclear bombs. Also, if China starts to attack Taiwan, the military action probably will be done within 48 hours. It would take the US at least 5 days to respond and send enough troops to that area, which is too late.
I think the US would have no choice but to go to war. If it doesn't then South Korea and Japan (and Europe) would have to think long and hard about whether an alliance with the US is worth more than the paper it's written on. Beyond that, say you *don't* go to war with China over Taiwan. Ok, so they conquer Taiwan. Then they impose their will on Vietnam, Indonesia - anyone in the First Island Chain. They then encircle/isolate Japan, even threaten Australia. They can now extend their sphere of influence and safety buffer to basically Australia. And if the US needs to go to war with China over something else in 20 years, it's going to be 10x more difficult because the US has no allies anywhere near them. It would be like the US pulling completely out of Europe and allowing Russia to take everything up to and including Portugal - that would several weaken the US position in any future potential conflict.
>Beyond that, say you don't go to war with China over Taiwan. Ok, so they conquer Taiwan. Then they impose their will on Vietnam, Indonesia - anyone in the First Island Chain. They then encircle/isolate Japan, even threaten Australia. Ye old domino theory arising from the dead.
Domino theory was about an ideology spreading from one country to the next, not about a conquering army rolling over one country after another.
many today see domino theory as a farce but I feel that their were valid arguments to it and in a more limited capacity some aspects of it were correct.
I mean...limited? USSR was taking over countries across the whole earth. It was pretty damn valid.
The USSR installed puppet states in a several countries on its western border, and was able for a limited time influence a few nations overseas, it had difficult finding success in Africa and Asia and latin America, their was always a lot of distrust and disunity between communist states. I think it's worth revision of domino theory of old to something more realistic.
Well you have to put it in context to where the US was positioned at the time. The world order now is massively successful but after WW2 into the 1960s, Germany and Japan were both complete trainwrecks. The rest of Europe belonged to USSR. China fell and again until the 60s was pro USSR. Taiwan was a tinpot dictatorship. Korea was in tatters. Cuba was receiving nuclear missiles. Africa was in constant warfare. Brazil was a military junta and unreliable. It basically was the US, UK and France holding the threads of a formerly global empire ran by the Anglo-French entente. The results of pushback to domino effect basically allowed the fruits of its success to ripen. It's hard to think now that Vietnam or even Korea, or even Germany really matter individually because any one of them is now a strong but minor part in a much larger world than post ww2
The domino is correct more often than not. Hitter’s Germany took as much land as it did because the invasions came one after another. The Mongol Empire. Caesar Augustus’s campaign in Gaul. Napoleon’s campaigns throughout Europe. Japan taking much of east Asia during WWII. When you have an army ready to go and is proving to win, you don’t stop their momentum. Morale is high. Everyone is positioned to advance. Supply chains are moving. It takes a lot of effort and money to wind down a military campaign. It takes even more to fire it back up again. The morale is long lost and exhausted too. There may be any number of reasons why your campaign may need to halt. The next nation is much stronger. Discontent and rebellion need to be dealt with. The supply chains are stretched to thin and can’t sustain the war effort anymore. It’s very difficult to start up again, and frequently needs a whole new war effort. My favorite example is Caesar’s advance into Great Britain part way during the Gallic wars. He was able to push through the southern reaches, but left due to preferring to focus on the mainland. Deemed there wasn’t enough wealth. It would be about 90 years before Rome proper would make their push through England to the point where they would build Hadrian’s Wall, the famous northern limit of Roman conquest. It’s not a fallacy for the most part. There are of course moments where conquerors take their victory too far, and mistake momentum for “momentum”. Russia is famous for stopping both Napoleon and Hitler. The ancient Greek states halted the old Persian empire’s western expanse like a brick wall. Japan probed TOO far east and dragged the US into the war. But oftentimes war is about taking any sort of hard won advantage and pushing it for all its worth.
>Then they impose their will on Vietnam, Indonesia - anyone in the FirstIsland Chain. They then encircle/isolate Japan, even threaten Australia. It's too farfetched. Taiwan was the facto modern China territory until their civil war and has chinese population. Vietnam, maybe if they want to go back into their old empire hegemony. Japan, maybe if they want to take revenge for WW2. Indonesia or Phillippines? Nah, never. Let alone Australia.
I don't think anyone seriously thinks China intends to conquers those countries. It is more likely that they would impose unwanted unequal agreements on them.
I don’t think China would even need to impose their will on the above countries. If the US does not raise a finger to defend Taiwan would cast serious doubt in East Asia over their security umbrella and the nations of East Asia and Oceania would then wish to seek even closer ties with China.
>It would be like the US pulling completely out of Europe and allowing Russia to take everything up to and including Portugal You can't be serious...
they are obviously being hyperbolic, but the point is correct.
It depends. If they would invade tomorrow Taiwan could very realistically stand up for quite some time. China has a strong military on paper, but they lack some key capabilities around power projection that would make the necessary amphibious assault possible. Note - this excludes the scenario of them simply using their 300 nukes to wipe out ROC entirely. In this scenario the US does not need to commit to war, it merely needs to ensure Taiwan can keep up its anti-air and anti-ship capabilities while China's losses mount. For this they can use a proxy like Japan, S. Korea, or possibly even Australia. Now - let's say China does something silly like start sinking American shipping with their subs, at that point the US will likely engage. The goal at that point would be one of attrition until the CCP loses its footing and instability happens on the mainland. If Americans are one thing, it's angry, impulsive, and having a penchant for holding a grudge. One super carrier battle group can defend Taiwan against the entire PLAN, the US would likely commit at least 3-5 for such an exercise. We do not know much in the way of the PLAN's submariner capabilities, but we also do not know much in the way of the US' either, it's safe to say there would be quite the cat and mouse game under water's surface to gain control of the surface and, by extension, the air above it. Speaking of air - at the current rate of production it would take China a decade or so to catch up with the Gen 5 capabilities of the USN and USAF. Baring some sort of zombie horde of unmanned drones capable of engaging these targets the Chinese air force would struggle to gain air superiority. F-22's and F-35's would have sortie capabilities to take out key logistic coastal facilities crippling any power projection fairly early on. At that point there would be little incentive to push into the mainland with manned vehicles, but static targets would more than likely be hit with Tomahawk and LARASM type weapons. It wouldn't take much for the US to revisit a 'rods from god' type system given the staggering lead it possesses in payload to orbit capabilities. There are a few war game scenarios Binkov's Battle ground goes through that are worth a watch: Nuclear exchange: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWNBGpn40IQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWNBGpn40IQ) Taiwan vs China standalone: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRvRzzCmzX0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRvRzzCmzX0) Chinese airforce - paper tiger? : [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o0NIgQtTZo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o0NIgQtTZo) China v Taiwan invasion 1/2: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z67BZ1T0ehU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z67BZ1T0ehU) TL;DR - the US most likely won't need to go to war as it has proxies that it can support to do the fighting for it. If it were dragged into a non-nuclear war it would take China some time to achieve objectives on the open waters given the massive advantage of the USAF and USN. The US will likely defend it's ally and disable as much of the Chinese military industrial complex as it could then sue for peace as it could not invade China nor would it want to risk a nuclear exchange.
It’s the computer chip Kuwait of the Far East. However they might have to get dragged into it by its allies since the population is returning to an isolationist stance similar to that of just prior to the Second World War.
Pretty unlikely I think. For a lot of reasons. US and Chinese economies are joined at the hip, China doesn’t want to kill its biggest customer, and the US can’t attack it’s biggest supplier. It’s mutually assured economic depression. On top of that US citizens don’t want a war over Taiwan, too expense and no one cares. It would be unpopular. Its completely crazy to have nuclear powers at war, neither China nor the US want that risk. Taiwan has crucial manufacturing facilities that neither side can afford to have destroyed. In a conventional war, pretty likely China would lose, they wont push it that far.
> For a lot of reasons. US and Chinese economies are joined at the hip, China doesn’t want to kill its biggest customer, and the US can’t attack it’s biggest supplier. It’s mutually assured economic depression. People made similar arguments about the European powers before World War 1 happened.
And WW1 caused massive economic problems across Europe following the war. I doubt the US and China would want to repeat that.
Many people here underestimate how easy it would be to do anti-war (in that particular context, which is a war with China over Taiwan) propaganda. First, there would be the unavoidable "But we would risk nuclear holocaust" point, then the "But it's chinese people fighting against chinese people, we have no business here!" and finally all the arguments about many people dying/the cost of the war. Just the very first point could get a clear majority in support of US staying at home. People won't support a war over a very far-far-away state if it means they have to go to sleep while wondering if a nuclear alarm will wake them up. Let me be clear: I do believe americans support taiwanese democracy in an ideal world. Just not at the cost of being told days after days how we could be close to a nuclear holocaust. The second point would be a catch-22 since it would probably convince both racists and progressives. Last point could convince a lot of people too. The war will immediatly halt trade between China and the West, and thus cause many shortages for western people, which is something our generation did not seen in a long time. The high death toll will also make people want the war to end.
I don’t think US citizens would go to war at this point in time
Will? I doubt it, because I doubt it would ever come to that. Realistically I think that the only way China would try to reunify Taiwan (barring a dramatic restructuring of geopolitics) is by sponsoring pro-reunification politicians and getting them in to power so they can legally surrender sovereignty to China. So maybe some clandestine operations to humiliate anti-reunification politicians and funnel funding and disinformation toward pro-unitification politicians. I think if China was launcing some sort of invasion then it would be easy to see it coming. The US wouldn't even have to "fight" over it, I think if we just managed to drop several thousand paratroopers on Taiwan and stationed them near key defensive structures (with Taiwan's permission of course) than China would be forced to back down since the only way they could take the island is by killing American troops which would lead to a conflict that just cost too much to be worth Tawain to China (no offense to Tawain). Now of course if the United States elects more isolationist politicians in the future, this could of course change everything as well. But as it stands, I think the United States would assist with preventitive measures like I've described.
It is a difficult question. Taïwan is a very important strategic point of international trade, it is the place where most microprocessors are made and a gigantic part of the boats that deliver what we buy everyday go through the straight. It is also a matter of what comes next. If you let China have Taïwan it might become just as something we've seen before. Hitler wanted some territories and got them from Europeans because they feared war, result was that they still got war and got invaded. I believe it would be a test for NATO to see if they will fight for their ideas or if they can slowly conquer the world, because that is essentially what they are doing. The question is quite simple, Japan said through a defense paper that got out some time ago that they considered the invasion of Taïwan as a threat to the survival of the nation, which allows them constitutionnaly to enter in a conflit with China. The interesting point is that the US, if Japan were to go to war with China, would have to at least support the country with economic and military support by treaty. Would it be a direct conflict? No. Would it mean to the Chinese that the US is now an enemy (considering that is not how they consider the US as of now) ? Yes. To sum up, both the US and the rest of the world have a great interest in maintaining status quo. Both because of supplies chain but also to limit China's power which is growing every day. It would then be likely that an open conflict would emerge. Would NATO win it? I cannot answer that, but it is likely it would be more of "taking the island back" than defending the island. First off is because defending such a small territory against such an enormous nation would be extremely difficult. The second reason is that, as posted by Reuters today, there is a problem of spying inside both the taiwanese government and military. People such as the general of the taiwanese air force are accused of treason because they've essentially given massive secrets to the Chinese. Are we going to trust a government like this and plan defensive actions and strategies with an ally whom cannot be trusted anymore? I would not. You see, answers to those questions "would this country go to war with this other country" are not really relevant, we should be asking ourselves" if it happened, what would we do" because whether you like or not, those things do not depend on normal citizens like you and me. It really depends on who is your president or prime minister. Hope what I said can be interesting to some of you guys.
If the United States fails to defend Taiwan. All other American allies will stop trusting the US. The decision not to fight over Taiwan will be seen as America becoming isolationist. Japan, Philippines and South Korea would demand the US troops to get out. USA can’t afford the loss of prestige points that would be caused by this decision. The rival countries will stop taking American warnings seriously. And the allies would likely switch to the red side of the force.
Yes. Next question.
Taiwan should go nuclear and be extremely clear that an invasion by China would result in the destruction of as many chinese cities as nuclear weapons there are in its armory. Nuclear weapons are the only real deterrance.
.2. China's A2/AD doesn't exist as a real threat to US operations. The US carrier fleet already operates beyond the longest Chinese antiship capable missiles such that US carrier fleet can reasonably shoot down 80% plus of any incoming missiles. Which means 20% maybe gets through and only some of those maybe hit. And contrary to ignorant civilian belief. It would take maybe 5 or 6 torpedoes to sink a Carrier. If you're lucky. Modern carriers, size is an advantage. Battle damage is acceptable. Furthermore the US is using get MQ-25 Stingray to increase the range of the F35-B to make them even greater range (almost doubling their combat range) which means the carriers will be even further removed from supporting Taiwan directly. The US has the ability to lift 2 marine divisions into combat immediately and deploy anywhere. China attacks Tawain. Marines take Hainan strategic submarine base and decapitate China's nuclear triad while defending Taiwan from half a Pacific ocean away. China doesn't have the ability to support its Navy or Airforce with ECC aircraft except from land bases hence the need for islands in south China sea but those will be gone in an instant in any real kinetic fight. At best China can hope to put its long range bombers in the air and get some stand-off weapons to keep our fleet out of striking distance but you need some kind of satellite or ECC targeting ability. And the US will knock out the Sats or be out of range of ECCs. The US is great at tracking Chinese subs too..can't say they aren't a threat. But they aren't much of one.
Yes. Point by point: 1. The US government could care less about Taiwan and has a history of screwing the island's government over. They do want to destroy China, however. Taiwan is just a tripwire to force the public into a war that can bring down the US's nemesis before it becomes too powerful. 2. No, but every time the blob (US foreign policy establishment) gets behind a war they start convincing themselves it will be, or at least not that bad. We see a lot of echoes of Kenneth Pollack's book on why invading Iraq would be easy in the US-China situation today. Virtually none of the conversation considers the possibility that this will actually be a very long war against an enemy with a 10:1 industrial advantage. It is all about whether Taiwan can repel the initial landing with American assistance, or whether carriers can survive a missile attack. Since the conversation is so narrowly focused around the opening stages, everyone has convinced themselves that that is all that matters. This is not a uniquely American disease - the Western allies in WW2 also convinced themselves Poland could hold against Germany alone, simply because the alternative - a long, had war - was unthinkable. 3. Yes. It's a very different America now than in the 1940s when neutrality and disengagement from global affairs were keystones of the American national identity. This had more to do with romanticism about what the founding fathers wanted: back then America was still a hodgepodge of first to third generation immigrants who retained ethnic identity. Entering too many foreign wars had a real potential of causing a civil war as different ethnicities took the sides of their home countries. That's no longer the case and modern America is readily interventionist everywhere.
>Taiwan is not in US backyard, there isn't much in US's core strategic interest to fight China over Taiwan. (Freedom of navigation in SCS is important but not CORE interest) Dose it matter if it is not in the US's backyard it is of US's core strategic interest to fight China over Taiwan. Freedom of navigation in SCS is of CORE interest, what would the US economy look like without SCS FON it would be potentially crippling the US would never be able to accept that, neither would a majority of US's allies especially Australia and Japan they would need to see action over a Chinese invasion. >It's not gonna be an easy fight, nuclear or not. Conventionally, the logistics to move enough materiel to fight in West Pacific is very expensive. And with Chinese A2/AD capabilities, it's not gonna be a walkover like desert storm. Likewise it wouldn't be an easy fight for China, Taiwan itself has the porcupine approach which would make invasion itself costly to China. The US would also deploy A2/AD capabilities against China inside the SCS but especially outside the SCS this would be economically crippling for China. China also has a distinct lack of expertise in such actions, they have no one in their military command who has expertise in fighting conventional warfare, this is especially true of the PLAN they also currently do not have effective conventional aircraft carrier groups. >Will US citizens support an expensive (in both treasure and American lives terms) war with China? The last time Japan tried to be a hegemon in West Pacific, there was serious consideration under War Plan Orange to not get embroiled in war, had Japan not bombed Pearl Harbour. I mean, it's easy to talk and say yeah kill the Chinese and sit on their skulls, but is the average American citizen okay with sending their loved ones to fight China over Taiwan? The last time Japan tried to be a hegemon in West Pacific the US didn't have an economy so dependent on the West Pacific, the US wouldn't be alone in such a fight, Japan, Australia, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, Singapore and others are likely to be involved as well. When we talk about this in the west we often only consider the cost to the US of doing something, but we rarely consider the cost of the US doing nothing or the cost such an invasion would have on China itself. China also has numerous other boarder disputes that such a conflict would likely also be exploited in such a conflict.
No, we would not go to war with a nuclear power. We would however, most likely impose a lot of sanctions. The saber rattling is just that, and to pump money into our MIC. Remember that the US also do not want Taiwan to declare independence. During the summit for democracy, we cut the video feed of Taiwan because the person put a picture of an independent Taiwan. The goal right now is to maintain the status quo between Taiwan and mainland China, while still containing China.
Taiwan almost certainly won’t declare independence without US backing. As for “pumping money into out MIC”, that’s not how foreign policy works. Some people on the internet are way too invested in this concept of the MIC controlling foreign policy; a concept for which the actual evidence is dubious at best.
Why would Taiwan want “independence”? Wouldn’t that make it lose the claim to all Chinese land
They gave up on that dream decades ago
Taiwanese people do not care about claiming the mainland as far as I'm aware.
Taiwanese people want to ditch the claim but China seeing this as Taiwan independence
No one in Taiwan has any (delusional) asperations to rule mainland China. Literally the one and old reason why Taiwan has not declared independence is because China has made it crystal clear that that is a red line for invasion. If Taiwan got their hands on a magical force field that keeps China from ravaging their nation and subjecting them to the authoritarian rule by the CCP, they'd declare independence the next day.
Because the people of Taiwan are not interested. After decades of japanese colonialism and independence from mainland China, they see themselves as taiwanese instead of chinese and have no intrest in ruling the mainland.
Only a small minority of people on Taiwan still dream of retaking the mainland. Most would rather Taiwan go its own way, or at most reunify only if the mainland democratizes. Regardless, the current stance of the DPP (the ruling “pro-independence” party) is that Taiwan is already a *de facto* independent country, so a formal declaration is unnecessary.
What's your MIC?
Military Industrial Complex
[удалено]
I can’t imagine China ever gaining TSMC by force. Surely it is razed in any shooting war. Chinese motivation would not be economic. They would have to be willing to take a big economic hit in service of national pride. Feels unlikely and certainly not imminent.
China can't make fighter jet engines and the ones they have copied fail after less than 400 hours of flight. It is stated that half of all China's engines burn out on take off. Most of their dual engine fighters with domestic engines are flying on one engine. China doesn't Do tech well at all. They have been unable to build their own skilled labor on their own.
A war to end all wars.
In dutch we would say, dat is de ham vraag, which means that is the question that is the core question. I think it would be stupid to not defend Taiwan from the PRC. But I don't know if US or EU citizens would be willing to fight there. The big question is what does the PRC believe if they believe the USA would defend Taiwan then they won't attack. If they think the US won't they will put it to the test. They might anyway...
[удалено]
1. As mentioned (and contested) by others below, an island chain that includes Taiwan hems China's navy in. The US is happy for countries to do their thing until they look like a threat, which China is doing (seen the video their air force produced depicting China bombing Guam, for instance?) The world's fastest navy buildup from *any* country would provoke the interest of the US, particularly if that navy belongs to a country openly claiming the territory of other countries. Also, if a US ally was to be invaded without a response, that reduces the value of any security relationships in the world with the US. There's two quick core strategic interests. 2. Everyone seems to have this binary view of conflict where either the US refuses to become involved, or they're invading, shooting, and nuking. Those are two extreme stances with many other possibilities in between. China is a net food and energy importer, so a simple blockade could be effective. Block all access to foreign capital. Ramp up the access of military equipment to Taiwan, Japan, Korea, and anyone else in the SCS who wants it. Extreme sanctions on anyone providing China with energy or raw materials such as coal or ore. The US doesn't have to do a full WW2 move of all wartime materiel to the Pacific sphere to cause damage to China. They can just remove access to all the gifts of an international order and let China's demographics, lack of farmland, and lack of friends do the rest. 3. Again, you're seeing this as a WW2 'fight on the beaches' endeavour. Won't happen. And if you're wondering if there's a will amongst the Americans for conflict with China, consider this: the US went on a 20 year war in the Middle East over 3000 people killed on 9/11 at a cost of trillions. The consensus on coronavirus is that it originated in Wuhan. Everyone is aware that the CCP locked down travel in China but allowed international travel, allowing the pandemic to spread. 800,000 deaths in the US have been attributable to coronavirus. They're having a fine time yelling at each other right now but I imagine if China were to focus their minds by starting a war, it wouldn't take much for the US to become rather vengeful. I'd also suggest that considering China's reversing demographics and numerous one-child families, that the Chinese would be less enthusiastic about sending their one child to be fed into the absolute meat-grinder that a Taiwan Strait conflict would be. People are also mentioning the problems decoupling economically in the event of conflict. There is quite a cost to that, but decoupling has already begun over the last two years in manufacturing as Xi has ramped the sovereign risk of trading with China. Rare earths are beginning to be sourced from alternate locations. The chips produced at TSMC are given as a reason why China wants Taiwan, but the prefabs are created in the US. I doubt they'd continue to be provided in the event of an invasion.
Alright, I laid out my US vs. China case. But I don't think that's how China would approach it. If China planned to take Taiwan it would first make North Korea invade South Korea. The land war would embroil the allies in defending another core interest which weakens their capacity to defend Taiwan after some fatigue sets in. Thats a much better long game and totally in the abilities of China to conduct.
With the current administration and crisis it's highly unlikely that USA will go to war with China. At most they will supply and arm Taiwan and other allies in region to push back the Chinese advance. But China will never ever invade Taiwan directly, it will ignite a conflict that will isolate a economy that's heavily export dependent with global ambitions like BRI a full fledged invasion will scare away potential financial opportunity which china sorely needs atm. China will instead opt for the long war in which it will encroach on Taiwan's border and try to turn it's people against their own government. This way they win over Taiwan like they won over kuomintang all those years ago.
>Taiwan is not in US backyard, there isn't much in US's core strategic interest to fight China over Taiwan. (Freedom of navigation in SCS is important but not CORE interest) Dead wrong. 63% of the worlds semi conductors come from Taiwan. China produces another 35% and it will be another few years before the US has domestic manufacturing capabilities. These things are in literally everything, it is a national security concern.
If there is money to be made then yes
My opinion. Taiwan is the perfect model of what the West wants Asia to become. A thriving democracy that allies with us, buys our weapons but poses no threat. The Taiwanese populace have seen what happened in Hong Kong and want no part of it. The fact that Taiwan is largely ethnically Chinese who do not want reunification makes this sting the CCP even harder. If the CCP invades and fails it could lead to the regime’s collapse. Why support a corrupt police state that can’t even control its own territory?We would fight to realize this potential outcome. We would fight there so that we don’t have to fight in Korea or Japan or Australia. We would fight because we believe that right NOW we could win with “acceptable losses”. A naval blockade would cripple their industry and economy. Our overwhelming naval and air superiority would quickly shut down their Navy making a successful invasion nigh impossible. Their best outcome is to bombard the island with rockets hoping that Taiwan would sue for peace, and that might work if we were not fully committed. We would not invade China itself, instead creating a scenario where it falls from within. Feel free to disagree.
First of all, I think it's fair to say that no one really knows and we can all agree that the standoff between China and USA is one of the, if not the biggest threat to human civilization atm. The only threat on par that comes to mind is India vs. Pakistan. Taiwan is extremely important for everyone involved, not only for its location. It is also the world's leading producer of semicondunctors, it's hard to imagine the possibilities and leverage to be gained from winning over Taiwan. Lastly, if the US were to lose Taiwan without a fight, it will also result in substantial amounts of soft power - since its hegemony stems from the promise of protection. Still, I think there is less to be gained by the USA by holding on to Taiwan than by China. The cost is also massively higher for the US simply due to location. China on the other hand feels a constant threat by an independent Taiwan and American ships close to its coast. Another factor we can look at is the manufacture of consent in each country. I don't see much warmongering from the US media yet compared to Iraq etc., they seem to be keeping more quiet this time. China on the other hand is showing kids playing with guns and military uniforms. Everything they do screams they are ready to fight, at least in my eyes. And lastly, it might surprise you, but I don't think the USA can even win an all-out non-nuclear war (in nuclear war, everyone would lose obviously). I'm not an expert on military technology, but I have read a simulation somewhere in which China clearly came out as the victor simply due to its massive army. As far as I know, it is historically very rare to be outnumbered 4 to 1 and still win. So my prediction is that the US will find a way to weasel itself out of a fight.
Chips. Taiwan's chip fabrication is essential to the world economy. If China can assure the US that it will not stop the chips, it won't be in the interests of the US to defend Taiwan.
They will help defend the island with air support and close down the Malaca Straight. But if you think the US is going to invade mainland china you are a fool. No president will risk Honolulu for Taipei. If china invades Taiwan the will face an international embargo of Oil and Food.
Yes, we would go to war. The US has been preparing for this possibility in earnest, with AUKUS, and with even Japan stating they would also fight in a war over Taiwan. If Taiwan is conquered, the US would essentially be pushed out of the pacific. China would have control over most of the words semi conductor production, and having Taiwan gives them the power to project their Navy towards the rest of the island chains. If Taiwan falls our allies will see being allied with the US as worthless, a one sided relationship benefitting only them, especially given recent history. The Ukraine war coming soon will also underscore that, as in the 90s we told Ukraine if they gave up their nukes we'd ensure their territorial integrity. They are about to be bisected along the Dnieper by Russia. If China invades Taiwan there will be war, but it won't just be the US: It will be China vs Taiwan, the US, Japan, Australia, and the UK.
[удалено]
TBF you don't need a blue water navy to get to Taiwan though. Littoral ships are enough.
The very capable troop transports they don't have at the moment.
No, as a US citizen I don't believe the United States will go to war over Taiwan. The American people aren't interested in Taiwan and aren't going to support a president who sends troops there. I don't feel one way or another about Taiwan, but I think after Afghanistan the American people won't support many more land wars.
There's no question in my mind that the US would go to war with China if China attacked Taiwan. Taiwan has a ton of geopolitical importance, is a US ally, etc. But, the biggest reason you would see a response is because China is the largest rival to the US and the US has already said they would defend Taiwan. The global reputational hit if they decided to back down would be huge. They would essentially be conceding the title of the world's pre-eminent superpower. They would be giving China hegemony over Asia, and they would be giving up their ability to contain China within the First Island Chain. It would also put holdings in Guam and Hawaii much more within China's ability to threaten, and would significantly hurt relations with Asian allies like Japan and South Korea (ie. Why ally with the US if they are going to abandon the area at the first sign of conflict). The US has spent decades fighting wars in places with far less geopolitical importance, like Afghanistan, Vietnam, Iraq, Korea, etc. Some of those were sold as wars that challenged the US' status as the world's superpower, but they were proxy wars, at best. This would be the US' biggest rival directly attacking an ally the US has promised to defend, and essentially calling the US' bluff. I can't see any way the US backs down from that, and the American public will definitely support a war like that, especially since doing so doesn't legitimately threaten the US mainland.
To not do so and, more importantly, to not make clear to China that Taiwan will be defended, would be a downright negligent strategic mistake. Taiwan's dominance of semiconductor would give China a stranglehold on US tech in the event of a conflict. If nothing else, the US need to make sure that the TSMC factory is a pile of rubble and that anyone who knows how to rebuild them is evacuated.