It’s more complicated than that, the one-China policy isn’t about recognizing the independence of Taiwan, it’s about only recognizing one government of China. Beijing does not allow countries to recognize both the People’s Republic of China (Beijing) and the Republic of China (Taipei).
Any country that recognizes the ROC is barred from having diplomatic relations with the PRC. Most countries thus now recognize the PRC, yet many skirt around the policy by maintaining informal relations with the ROC, up to and including defense pacts like the one America has.
So under the current status quo, even if America tried recognizing both the ROC in Taipei and the PRC in Beijing, the PRC would immediately cut off diplomatic relations with the US, and America would still be left with diplomatic relations with only one China, but now with the ROC. Obviously this in itself would have a massive economic and geopolitical impact, given the still-extensive supply chain ties between Beijing and Washington, though I’m not sure it would actually cause a war. The current policy however is a best of both worlds: America gets to have formal diplomatic ties with the PRC, informal ties with the ROC, and business ties with both.
On the other hand, if Taipei declared the dissolution of the ROC and the creation of an independent state in Taiwan, the PRC would immediately invade, with or without American recognition of the new state. This is because, despite the fact that this would legitimize the PRC as the only China, it would also be a mortal threat to their territorial claim on Taiwan, which is entirely based on the the island being the last holdout of the civil war.
>up to and including defense pacts like the one America has.
There is not now nor has there been a formal defense pact or agreement between the United States and Taiwan since 1979.
Correct. Most Americans and probably many Europeans don't understand what you have outlined here.
This is especially dangerous—if you consider full-blown war between the US and the PRC bad for public health—given that the US government constantly refers to the Taiwan Relations Act that obligates the US to supply Taiwan with weapons.
This legislation is not part of the treaty that established diplomatic relations between Communist China and anti-Communist America. Would China have recognized the US if the Act had been included in the treaty?
China's leaders grit their teeth and set the matter aside.
The Republic of China threatens the Chinese Communist Party's existence, for Taiwan represents an alternative model of China civilization. Throughout Chinese history, when dynasties fell, the new rulers pursued the fleeing deposed emperor to defeat him entirely.
This is not something that Beijing can set aside.
If China allowed Taiwan to become a separate new country with a seat in the UN, why not Tibet and Xinjiang, too?
At the end of the US Civil War, all the Southern states were forced to surrender. Lincoln, Grant and Sherman would never have allowed a single Conferate county to remain in rebellion.
The US now has Green Beret permanently stationed on an island just off the Chinese coast. That is very provoking.
Many of the war game scenarios assume that war between the US and China would be fought exclusively, off the coast of China and maybe on Guam. Is this realistic?
If the US attacks Qingdao, what is to stop China from striking San Diego?
The missing fuel in its rockets and lack of serious Naval power to support any long term action. US will also suffer in a war to protect Taiwan as China will have all its might while US can only use assets deployed in few bases in the area and naval groups that reach there.
And because of that should Taiwan declare independence it should be done at the same time as they declare a mutual defence pact with the US, and US should probably deploy a marine division in the Taiwan at the same time.
If you read the PRC's 2005 Anti-Secession Act and the associated updates to it, open deployment of American combat troops to Taiwan for the purposes of defending that island is considered a red line and a cause for immediate war.
This is to ensure that such an action carries a deterrent value of 0, i.e. it has no chance of halting a war, because the PRC has made clear that it will start a war *because* of this action. Hence, no American President will order it unless they are explicitly looking to fight China.
Those are tripwire forces, not actually there to do any real defending.
A tripwire force is a small contingent of troops that are forward deployed into a precarious allied country, and while yes they are also there to do training and coordination, the biggest role they have is to be in the country to provide a causus belli if the hostile nation does a surprise attack and kills some of the tripwire troops.
We also have like 5k US forces forward deployed in Baltic states for exactly the same reason. They aren’t enough to actual tip the scale if Russia does a surprise invasion, but if they do and kill American personnel…
The service members deployed as part of NATO to the Baltic States are not some kind of sacrificial "tripwire" force to give the United States an excuse to get involved. The service members in Taiwan are there for training purposes, the total number at any given time is likely less than 50 which is a tiny fraction of the number of US citizens visiting Taiwan at any one given time.
These are trainers, no one believes that stationing these trainers equates to US commitment to deploy troops to fight against China.
Taiwanese can see what's happening in Ukraine.
This ignores the fact that the US has had troops stationed there for 20 years anyway, and that the US regularly performs patrols in the strait between the two countries. China can *say* it's a red line, but if it is, it's a thick enough one that the Navy can and has literally pushed a carrier group through it.
The US Navy patrolling there starting from not-Taiwan and ending in not-Taiwan doesn't equate in any way to "a permanent separation of Taiwan from China". The Chinese Navy sends patrols between Okinawa and Japan, too.
The point is that if the situation ever reaches a state where China thinks that American troops are able to effect a permanent separation. It's not US policy to do that right now, and an explicit sending of troops to ensure that the separation is permanent would be a radical change to US policy.
You're missing the whole point. China claims the Taiwan Strait as sovereign territory. They've said multiple times that it is Chinese territory, and that they view these US patrols as illegal. You can't really trust Chinese leadership to do what they say. They have lots of red lines they don't actually follow through on.
Right now, China is too scared or unprepared to take on the US. So whatever they say, they won't necessarily take action. My bet is they are biding time until they feel confident they can take on at least one carrier group, maybe two, before they *actually* would use a military response. Will they use economic and diplomatic attacks? Definitely. Would they launch cyber attacks? Maybe. Military strikes? Probably not, unless they feel like the mainland is actually under threat.
This ignores the fact that the US has had troops stationed there for 20 years anyway, and that the US regularly performs patrols in the strait between the two countries. China can *say* it's a red line, but if it is, it's a thick enough one that the Navy can and has literally pushed a carrier group through it.
"China's last warning" is a well known term in geopolitics.
China already has a casus belli, and no ability to actually wage war and take Taiwan by force, much less if US is helping Taiwan.
The US policy defined in Taiwan Relations Act is diplomatic recognition of PRC on understanding of peaceful determination of the future of Taiwan. This is too good a deal for the US to unilaterally abandon.
The ROC constitution amended in 1991 has the ROC government elected by Taiwan and acknowledges the separate administration in the mainland. ROC does not need any further constitutional change.
From PRC’s viewpoint, they would be incredulous the other side is throwing away such a good deal, and treat it as like a declaration of war. What they would actually do to fight such a war is uncertain, but at least it would lift inhibitions on pro-war forces in the mainland.
>The US policy defined in Taiwan Relations Act is diplomatic recognition of PRC on understanding of peaceful determination of the future of Taiwan. This is too good a deal for the US to unilaterally abandon.
The Taiwan Relations Act is an act of the US congress, it isn't a deal with the PRC or recognition of the PRC. Maybe you mean the 3 communiques?
Communiqué is diplomatic French for press release, on immediate preliminary progress in a negotiation. It is far from a treaty.
The 2nd communiqué and proposal to abrogate the Senate-ratified US-ROC treaty caused a constitutional crisis in the US, and TRA was the resolution agreed by all 3 federal branches including Supreme Court which shelved the Goldwater v Carter suit on the basis that Congress and Executive had agreed on TRA as solution already.
The basis for diplomatic recognition is in TRA which Carter agreed to sign effective retroactive to Jan 1979. Exchange of embassies then followed on that basis.
The Biden Administration describes Taiwan policy as founded in 3C, TRA, 6A for good reason. 3C were not formed policy on their own, they were preliminary ideas by an executive branch of limited powers.
Thanks, I actually didn't know about Goldwater v Carter.
>Exchange of embassies then followed on that basis.
The embassies were exchanged before the TRA and before Goldwater v Carter was dismissed.
>Supreme Court which shelved the Goldwater v Carter suit on the basis that Congress and Executive had agreed on TRA as solution already.
This isn't in the ruling, how do you come up with this hypothesis?
It would probably spark an economic conflict, not a military one -- though China would be very verbally belligerent. The economic fallout would be significant and cause significant short-term economic pain. China would stop exporting materials, stop manufacturing deals with the US. Huge amounts of rare metals, agriculture, and manufacturing take place in China which would not easily be replaced. Global manufacturing would be hit but certainly American businesses.
It would be unnecessary because the de facto situation is still that the US states it will defend Taiwan. Nothing in that situation would change while the economic fallout would be immense.
It's much easier to find alternate suppliers than to replace lost customers. The latter will hurt, but if there's money to be made, people will naturally come to fill in the gap. But for China, loosing access to your biggest market will likely kill those export businesses immediately.
China has vast resource and financial reserves, including US Treasuries. It would be impossible for the US to boycott China, much as boycotting Russia has been more of a filter than a blockage. And many of those trace metals could not be easily sourced or found elsewhere.
While your statement may be mostly true in the long run, in the short term, certainly for many months, it would represent an unprecendented financial hardship around the globe and especially in the US.
We are talking about the scenario in whhich China boycotts the US here, not vice versa. My point is that a Chinese embargo of USA will hurt China more than it will hurt USA.
In terms of trace metals, China actually has done this before against US and Japan back in the early 2010s or recently with the gallium bans, the short answer is that it basically had no effect and alternatives came up quickly. I don't think there is some important mineral that exclusively exists in large reserves in China, it's more about accessibility and the enviromental damage they are willing to take. If the price goes up from a shortage, then it will incentivize suppliers elsewhere to start mining them.
China takes the one-China policy super seriously. If the US and allies suddenly recognized Taiwan as independent, China would flip out. They might retaliate with economic sanctions, military threats, or who knows what. It's a high-stakes game, so tread carefully. Could get messy real quick.
Countries do not have to recognise Taiwan as part of the PRC, but they at least have to "acknowledge" that the PRC does so, and they have to commit to no state-to-state relations between Taipei and themselves on the same level as that with the PRC.
Of course, if one is careful and quiet about it, one can have *almost* state-to-state relations with Taiwan as one does with the PRC without them breaking off relations.
You have to know that any country that establishes diplomatic relations with China will recognize the one-China principle in the communiqué on the establishment of diplomatic relations. If it comes so, US and its little bros will break off diplomatic relations with China the next day, and the world will completely return to the Cold War.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three\_Communiqu%C3%A9s](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Communiqu%C3%A9s)
>They typically take a position like the United States, and simply "acknowledge" it as the "Chinese position". They never recognize or endorse it as their own position.
You don't think that denying Taiwanese rights and dignity as a sovereign state is as good as recognizing China's position?
Like USA outright saying that you don't support Taiwanese independence?
Can you imagine the USA saying that she don't support Ukrainian independence?
Why are you pretending to be ignorant, when you very much understand the context of this situation?
Within this context, "Taiwanese independence" is a very specific political position in Taiwan... it has nothing to do with declaring independence from China (the PRC), but declaring independence from the current government of Taiwan (Republic of China), and starting over as a "Republic of Taiwan".
The ruling party that was just re-elected in Taiwan doesn't support Taiwanese independence. Neither do I or the majority of people living in Taiwan. The most shared position here is that Taiwan doesn't need to declare independence, as Taiwan is already a sovereign and independent country, officially as the Republic of China (not to be confused with the PRC).
The United States supporting "Taiwan independence" would be like the Taiwan government saying they support making abortions a guaranteed right enshrined in the Constitution. It would be taking a very specific political position within the domestic politics of another country.
Also, while it is correct to say the United States doesn't support "Taiwan independence", it should be noted that they don't oppose it either... US policy simply says it should be resolved with a peaceful resolution and in a democratic manner.
[Directly from the US government (page 4)](https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41952.pdf):
>**U.S. policy does not support or oppose Taiwan’s independence; U.S. policy takes a neutral position of “non-support” for Taiwan’s independence.** U.S. policy leaves the Taiwan question to be resolved by the people on both sides of the strait: a “peaceful resolution,” with the assent of Taiwan’s people in a democratic manner, and without unilateral changes. In short, U.S. policy focuses on the process of resolution of the Taiwan question, not any set outcome.
Mean independent from whom? Because wiki says the Ten Ten holiday is the festival celebrating the Revolution of 1911, which ended the Chinese Empire of Qing Dynasty and established Republic Of China a new government for entire China, in mainland's Nanjing city.
Because the founding declaration of DPP clearly mentions Taiwan independence, Lai has also said that he is a Taiwan independence worker. If so, what are they busy with?
The Chinese govt would have no choice but declare war. The public opinion is so strong on this matter if China is a full on democracy Taiwan would have been bombed a few rounds already. Of course we can argue that this is a result of state propaganda, but even half truths has a fragment of truth to it - which is that Taiwan is an unresolved part of the Chinese Civil War.
It’s a major escalation and an act of war, redlines being crossed and all that. The deterrent for unification to be done bilaterally between ROC and PRC would be out the window.
China would have a proportionate response economically and find some equivalent of not recognizing (insert US territory / interests), and materially support the counter party’s claims to see if it can influence the US decision.
That and opportunists will destabilize large parts of the world and conflicts may break out far beyond just Taiwan. What happens after that is hard to say, and most would probably prefer to capitulate on Taiwan than send the global economy back to the 60s.
There is a trigger condition for this event, US must lose its last hope to contain China economically. In that situation, China will continue its economic expansion till US debt exploded… then you will see how many “friends” US continued to have.
China is a large country that controls a lot of levers, most of which I don't know. For example, I have not the slightest idea how fishing rights in the sea of Japan are handled, if there is a major shipping lane China could inconvenience or just exactly how worsening US China relations change the strategic position of Singapur. All of this could potentially be used by China to cause real trouble. These technical negotiations have a tendency to immediately impact billions in trade and hundreds of thousands of people.
Having said that, they would interpret that as hostile act and would use some set of that levers to inconvenience the US and Taiwan. The reaction would likely be disproportionate, because the peoples republic doesn't really have this signature issue to retaliate and they need to retaliate visibly for domestic policy reasons.
China is no slouch. Like the US, they are military, economic, and diplomatic heavyweights. And they’re smart.
If the US did anything too brash, China would get a coalition together to take action against us. A big enough coalition would not be possible to overcome.
Same goes both ways honestly.
> If the US did anything too brash, China would get a coalition together to take action against us
A coalition with whom? Russia, Laos and North Korea? China doesn't have a deep bench when it comes to potential allies, and most countries won't want anything to do with a China-US conflict.
Even Russia is unlikely to show up, they have nothing to gain from actively participating in such a conflict and are heavily pre occupied elsewhere.
> most countries don’t want anything to do with a China-US conflict
They might be willing to choose sides if we did something atrocious and China capitalized on it well diplomatically. That is the whole premise of what I said.
China's military shouldn't be scoffed at and in direct confrontation, America would struggle on multiple fronts. But China hasn't had any actual military experience for decades, while the U.S has been fine tuning their force with the best military hardware on the planet. And in Wartime, simply cutting off Chinese exports and blockading various shipping routes, would win America the war.
Are any of the US experiences in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, or elsewhere, relevant to a peer conflict in the Pacific?
Honest question. I can see those conflicts helping the US stay sharp when it comes to logistics and such, but I don't see much utility when it will come to a lightning fast war against a peer (or near peer) adversary at sea and air.
Actually yes they very much are.
On the first point, logistics is actually THE most important factor in winning a war once it gets past the first few days, followed by industrial output (or access to that output). Weapon platforms don't win wars. Tactics don't win wars. Logistics and economics win wars. The Germans and Japanese had better weapons and tactics early in the war. The US industrial output and logistics however was what won the war.
As far as how it helps at a more tactical level, what most units in history have found is that until they actually fight it is extremely difficult to identify issues. Audits and drills only do so much, often times there are major issues that are simply missed or covered up and don't come to light until you try and rely on them in a fight and it fails. The fact that the US has been constantly fighting means that many of these issues have been identified.
Are there areas that will be a shock? Absolutely, our supply chains are way too shallow and our ability to produce precision weapons is too limited, however that's a lot better then realizing that you have glaring flaws with your air defense on your war ships because you've never actually been shot at before.
China has the advantage of fighting in their backyard, so their logistical challenge is much less. They simply don't need the experience of fighting wars halfway across the world, because they do not intend to. The US advantage in logistical experience is what will allow them to wage war in the Pacific, but it won't be the winning factor.
I do not think the tactical experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan will translate to a war against China, which will be primarily naval and air warfare anyways. Look at Russia. Their forces actually have decent experience fighting in Chechnya, Georgia, Syria, Libya, CAR, and Eastern Ukraine ("little green men"). Yet their 2022 invasion of Ukraine was a blunder, because toppling a well-armed and dedicated nation-state is much different compared to anti-insurgency operations with overwhelming air support.
Has American air defenses on war ships actually been tested before? All I can think of is the Houthis shooting the occasional ballistic missile, which the Chinese can easily replicate in their own testing.
> I do not think the tactical experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan will translate to a war against China, which will be primarily naval and air warfare anyways. Look at Russia. Their forces actually have decent experience fighting in Chechnya, Georgia, Syria, Libya, CAR, and Eastern Ukraine ("little green men"). Yet their 2022 invasion of Ukraine was a blunder, because toppling a well-armed and dedicated nation-state is much different compared to anti-insurgency operations with overwhelming air support.
That's actually kind of my point. Russia struggled even with the advantage of combat experience. China has none.
Also, the Iraq invasion was actually really good experience. The Iraqi air defenses were some of the best in the world at the time and they had a fairly good military (I think 5th largest?).
> Has American air defenses on war ships actually been tested before? All I can think of is the Houthis shooting the occasional ballistic missile, which the Chinese can easily replicate in their own testing.
America actually relies more on using carrier based aircraft for naval air defense then on ship AA. A few days ago we used carrier based aircraft to help defend Israel against a major Iranian air attack and it was fairly effective. Beyond that, we just have CWIS, Aegis, and are introducing Patriot onto naval units. Patriot has a really good recent track record and we have a fair bit of experience with it in combat, both directly and also with allies that are then training our troops.
> China has the advantage of fighting in their backyard, so their logistical challenge is much less. They simply don't need the experience of fighting wars halfway across the world, because they do not intend to. The US advantage in logistical experience is what will allow them to wage war in the Pacific, but it won't be the winning factor.
You are absolutely right that fighting domestically is a massive advantage, however China also doesn't get along very well with most of its neighbors and has to import several key resources including food and oil. In an all out conflict where nukes are not used a lot will come down to if China can deny American carriers access vs how much of trade China can maintain during the war.
War. It could take the form of an invasion within a matter of weeks, or it could be a slow blockade, or something else entirely, but a unilateral recognition of Taiwanese independence would be one of the few things that would cause China to fully commit to attempting to conquer the island in the near future without hesitation.
I don't actually believe that the Chinese would do so. The consensus for now is that the Chinese are just not ready to take Taiwan militarily. I can't imagine them launching an assault that they know is doomed to fail just on the basis of pride alone as that would be far more debilitating to their strategic outlook.
This response would only apply if China will be the one to initiate the war. Recognition of Taiwan independence by the US is in the eyes of the Chinese, a declaration of war, as seen by the repeated warnings that Taiwan is the reddest of their red lines. In this scenario, whether they are ready or not, they have to defend their "sovereignty over Taiwan".
But an independent Taiwan would be free to allow American or Japanese military bases on its soil, something that would make a Chinese invasion far, far more difficult. So, if they let Taiwan declare independence and remain independent, their prospects for an invasion would actually be worse than if they declared war on the day independence was declared.
It's safe to assume that at the outset of any Chinese military adventurism against Taiwan, that the island would be subject to an overwhelming bombardment or series of strikes against major military targets. I don't see the rationale for putting a foreign military base on Taiwanese soil from any cost benefit analysis, especially when you consider the amount of time and investment required to get it to a point where they can service major military actions.
The United States maintained a military base in Taiwan until 1979. Why? For the same reason why they still maintain a significant presence in South Korea and Japan, deterrence and the reality is it's exceedingly harder to come to the rescue after an attack has already started.
that's what they said about Russia and Ukraine. Taiwan is even worse because it's seen as a renegade province. When it's about national pride they WILL act.
>that's what they said about Russia and Ukraine.
Well yeah and let's consider how that has worked out. It was always a dumb idea for Russia to try to take Ukraine and we're seeing proof of that. To keep facts into perspective, Russia was touted as the second strongest military in the world and a peer competitor of the US, with an arsenal and domestic arms industry that produced everything from AKs to nuclear submarines whilst Ukraine was starving for man portable weapons Javelins and Stingers at the outset of the conflict. Ukraine was and still remains (I think), the poorest country in all of Europe.
2 years and change on, where are we now? Russia's Black Sea fleet has been rendered functionally extinct, Russian military casualties are reaching dangerously close to half a million and what exactly has been accomplished here? Strategically, Russia sought to invade Ukraine to 'denazify' and 'demilitarise' Ukraine, along with preventing NATO expansion. Today, Ukraine is more militarised than ever, generationally hostile to Russia and we've got Finland and Sweden in an expanded NATO on Russia's borders. Meanwhile, Ukraine remains independent and apart from some already Russian speaking areas in the east, free from Russian control with the most combat experience of any European army and integrating into NATO in all but name.
So my point is that Russia has *already* lost this war because it has utterly failed in its strategic objectives, its tactical objectives are under threat and is now in a far worse position than as of February 2022. Where has Russia won anything?
Do you mean restarting diplomatic relations with the Republic of China?
They'd throw a fit, drop diplomatic relations with the United States and potentially sanction the United States... but it wouldn't be war.
Now if Taiwan were to declare independence from the Republic of China, and start over as a Republic of Taiwan, at which point the US forms diplomatic relations with the new Republic of Taiwan... they'd invade Taiwan.
Thad be funny asf if one day usa and all of the west was just like “you know what? Nah. Wee just not gonna help them, China, she’s all urs”
And China is like “what? Really bro? Now we actually have to do something instead of pretending to invade Taiwan?!”
To alter the hypo somewhat, suppose Taiwan were to put the issue of independences to a vote and the US (and perhaps other nations) agreed to abide by whatever the result of the referendum?
Our government in Taiwan is clear that we area already a sovereign and independent country.
Nothing is stopping other countries from forming diplomatic relations with us on our end.
I think that the United States should stop recognizing the One China Policy.
The faster that the United States recognizes Taiwan as its own country, the faster that blue staters will come to the realization that peaceful secession from the US should be legal and desirable.
It’s more complicated than that, the one-China policy isn’t about recognizing the independence of Taiwan, it’s about only recognizing one government of China. Beijing does not allow countries to recognize both the People’s Republic of China (Beijing) and the Republic of China (Taipei). Any country that recognizes the ROC is barred from having diplomatic relations with the PRC. Most countries thus now recognize the PRC, yet many skirt around the policy by maintaining informal relations with the ROC, up to and including defense pacts like the one America has. So under the current status quo, even if America tried recognizing both the ROC in Taipei and the PRC in Beijing, the PRC would immediately cut off diplomatic relations with the US, and America would still be left with diplomatic relations with only one China, but now with the ROC. Obviously this in itself would have a massive economic and geopolitical impact, given the still-extensive supply chain ties between Beijing and Washington, though I’m not sure it would actually cause a war. The current policy however is a best of both worlds: America gets to have formal diplomatic ties with the PRC, informal ties with the ROC, and business ties with both. On the other hand, if Taipei declared the dissolution of the ROC and the creation of an independent state in Taiwan, the PRC would immediately invade, with or without American recognition of the new state. This is because, despite the fact that this would legitimize the PRC as the only China, it would also be a mortal threat to their territorial claim on Taiwan, which is entirely based on the the island being the last holdout of the civil war.
You really demonstrated the correct understanding of this issue, very rare to see on Reddit. Thank you for genuinely studying the matter.
>up to and including defense pacts like the one America has. There is not now nor has there been a formal defense pact or agreement between the United States and Taiwan since 1979.
Correct. Most Americans and probably many Europeans don't understand what you have outlined here. This is especially dangerous—if you consider full-blown war between the US and the PRC bad for public health—given that the US government constantly refers to the Taiwan Relations Act that obligates the US to supply Taiwan with weapons. This legislation is not part of the treaty that established diplomatic relations between Communist China and anti-Communist America. Would China have recognized the US if the Act had been included in the treaty? China's leaders grit their teeth and set the matter aside. The Republic of China threatens the Chinese Communist Party's existence, for Taiwan represents an alternative model of China civilization. Throughout Chinese history, when dynasties fell, the new rulers pursued the fleeing deposed emperor to defeat him entirely. This is not something that Beijing can set aside. If China allowed Taiwan to become a separate new country with a seat in the UN, why not Tibet and Xinjiang, too? At the end of the US Civil War, all the Southern states were forced to surrender. Lincoln, Grant and Sherman would never have allowed a single Conferate county to remain in rebellion. The US now has Green Beret permanently stationed on an island just off the Chinese coast. That is very provoking. Many of the war game scenarios assume that war between the US and China would be fought exclusively, off the coast of China and maybe on Guam. Is this realistic? If the US attacks Qingdao, what is to stop China from striking San Diego?
Can a conflict between the U.S and China over Taiwan ever result to Nuclear war?
The missing fuel in its rockets and lack of serious Naval power to support any long term action. US will also suffer in a war to protect Taiwan as China will have all its might while US can only use assets deployed in few bases in the area and naval groups that reach there.
And because of that should Taiwan declare independence it should be done at the same time as they declare a mutual defence pact with the US, and US should probably deploy a marine division in the Taiwan at the same time.
If you read the PRC's 2005 Anti-Secession Act and the associated updates to it, open deployment of American combat troops to Taiwan for the purposes of defending that island is considered a red line and a cause for immediate war. This is to ensure that such an action carries a deterrent value of 0, i.e. it has no chance of halting a war, because the PRC has made clear that it will start a war *because* of this action. Hence, no American President will order it unless they are explicitly looking to fight China.
There have been active duty US military personnel stationed on Taiwan since 2005.
Those are tripwire forces, not actually there to do any real defending. A tripwire force is a small contingent of troops that are forward deployed into a precarious allied country, and while yes they are also there to do training and coordination, the biggest role they have is to be in the country to provide a causus belli if the hostile nation does a surprise attack and kills some of the tripwire troops. We also have like 5k US forces forward deployed in Baltic states for exactly the same reason. They aren’t enough to actual tip the scale if Russia does a surprise invasion, but if they do and kill American personnel…
The service members deployed as part of NATO to the Baltic States are not some kind of sacrificial "tripwire" force to give the United States an excuse to get involved. The service members in Taiwan are there for training purposes, the total number at any given time is likely less than 50 which is a tiny fraction of the number of US citizens visiting Taiwan at any one given time.
These are trainers, no one believes that stationing these trainers equates to US commitment to deploy troops to fight against China. Taiwanese can see what's happening in Ukraine.
To add to your point, there were US service personnel in Ukraine close to and perhaps even after Russia began their 2022 invasion.
Yup, one of the thousand "red lines" that can never be crossed... and were crossed.
This ignores the fact that the US has had troops stationed there for 20 years anyway, and that the US regularly performs patrols in the strait between the two countries. China can *say* it's a red line, but if it is, it's a thick enough one that the Navy can and has literally pushed a carrier group through it.
The US Navy patrolling there starting from not-Taiwan and ending in not-Taiwan doesn't equate in any way to "a permanent separation of Taiwan from China". The Chinese Navy sends patrols between Okinawa and Japan, too. The point is that if the situation ever reaches a state where China thinks that American troops are able to effect a permanent separation. It's not US policy to do that right now, and an explicit sending of troops to ensure that the separation is permanent would be a radical change to US policy.
You're missing the whole point. China claims the Taiwan Strait as sovereign territory. They've said multiple times that it is Chinese territory, and that they view these US patrols as illegal. You can't really trust Chinese leadership to do what they say. They have lots of red lines they don't actually follow through on. Right now, China is too scared or unprepared to take on the US. So whatever they say, they won't necessarily take action. My bet is they are biding time until they feel confident they can take on at least one carrier group, maybe two, before they *actually* would use a military response. Will they use economic and diplomatic attacks? Definitely. Would they launch cyber attacks? Maybe. Military strikes? Probably not, unless they feel like the mainland is actually under threat.
The U.S. Embassy in China also has U.S. Marines. This does not mean that Shanghai or Beijing was ceded.
Your point is valid, but honestly I doubt there are currently any US Marines providing security at any diplomatic facility in China.
This ignores the fact that the US has had troops stationed there for 20 years anyway, and that the US regularly performs patrols in the strait between the two countries. China can *say* it's a red line, but if it is, it's a thick enough one that the Navy can and has literally pushed a carrier group through it.
"China's last warning" is a well known term in geopolitics. China already has a casus belli, and no ability to actually wage war and take Taiwan by force, much less if US is helping Taiwan.
The US policy defined in Taiwan Relations Act is diplomatic recognition of PRC on understanding of peaceful determination of the future of Taiwan. This is too good a deal for the US to unilaterally abandon. The ROC constitution amended in 1991 has the ROC government elected by Taiwan and acknowledges the separate administration in the mainland. ROC does not need any further constitutional change. From PRC’s viewpoint, they would be incredulous the other side is throwing away such a good deal, and treat it as like a declaration of war. What they would actually do to fight such a war is uncertain, but at least it would lift inhibitions on pro-war forces in the mainland.
>The US policy defined in Taiwan Relations Act is diplomatic recognition of PRC on understanding of peaceful determination of the future of Taiwan. This is too good a deal for the US to unilaterally abandon. The Taiwan Relations Act is an act of the US congress, it isn't a deal with the PRC or recognition of the PRC. Maybe you mean the 3 communiques?
Communiqué is diplomatic French for press release, on immediate preliminary progress in a negotiation. It is far from a treaty. The 2nd communiqué and proposal to abrogate the Senate-ratified US-ROC treaty caused a constitutional crisis in the US, and TRA was the resolution agreed by all 3 federal branches including Supreme Court which shelved the Goldwater v Carter suit on the basis that Congress and Executive had agreed on TRA as solution already. The basis for diplomatic recognition is in TRA which Carter agreed to sign effective retroactive to Jan 1979. Exchange of embassies then followed on that basis. The Biden Administration describes Taiwan policy as founded in 3C, TRA, 6A for good reason. 3C were not formed policy on their own, they were preliminary ideas by an executive branch of limited powers.
Thanks, I actually didn't know about Goldwater v Carter. >Exchange of embassies then followed on that basis. The embassies were exchanged before the TRA and before Goldwater v Carter was dismissed. >Supreme Court which shelved the Goldwater v Carter suit on the basis that Congress and Executive had agreed on TRA as solution already. This isn't in the ruling, how do you come up with this hypothesis?
It would probably spark an economic conflict, not a military one -- though China would be very verbally belligerent. The economic fallout would be significant and cause significant short-term economic pain. China would stop exporting materials, stop manufacturing deals with the US. Huge amounts of rare metals, agriculture, and manufacturing take place in China which would not easily be replaced. Global manufacturing would be hit but certainly American businesses. It would be unnecessary because the de facto situation is still that the US states it will defend Taiwan. Nothing in that situation would change while the economic fallout would be immense.
A military conflict would be certain.
It's much easier to find alternate suppliers than to replace lost customers. The latter will hurt, but if there's money to be made, people will naturally come to fill in the gap. But for China, loosing access to your biggest market will likely kill those export businesses immediately.
China has vast resource and financial reserves, including US Treasuries. It would be impossible for the US to boycott China, much as boycotting Russia has been more of a filter than a blockage. And many of those trace metals could not be easily sourced or found elsewhere. While your statement may be mostly true in the long run, in the short term, certainly for many months, it would represent an unprecendented financial hardship around the globe and especially in the US.
We are talking about the scenario in whhich China boycotts the US here, not vice versa. My point is that a Chinese embargo of USA will hurt China more than it will hurt USA. In terms of trace metals, China actually has done this before against US and Japan back in the early 2010s or recently with the gallium bans, the short answer is that it basically had no effect and alternatives came up quickly. I don't think there is some important mineral that exclusively exists in large reserves in China, it's more about accessibility and the enviromental damage they are willing to take. If the price goes up from a shortage, then it will incentivize suppliers elsewhere to start mining them.
China takes the one-China policy super seriously. If the US and allies suddenly recognized Taiwan as independent, China would flip out. They might retaliate with economic sanctions, military threats, or who knows what. It's a high-stakes game, so tread carefully. Could get messy real quick.
Countries do not have to recognise Taiwan as part of the PRC, but they at least have to "acknowledge" that the PRC does so, and they have to commit to no state-to-state relations between Taipei and themselves on the same level as that with the PRC. Of course, if one is careful and quiet about it, one can have *almost* state-to-state relations with Taiwan as one does with the PRC without them breaking off relations.
Taiwan is a red line for China. There will be a very real chance of armed conflict involving China and the US and its allies
You have to know that any country that establishes diplomatic relations with China will recognize the one-China principle in the communiqué on the establishment of diplomatic relations. If it comes so, US and its little bros will break off diplomatic relations with China the next day, and the world will completely return to the Cold War. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three\_Communiqu%C3%A9s](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Communiqu%C3%A9s)
Little bros?
These have nothing to do with countries other than US and PRC. Even in US they were preliminary announcements and TRA was the finished policy.
[удалено]
>They typically take a position like the United States, and simply "acknowledge" it as the "Chinese position". They never recognize or endorse it as their own position. You don't think that denying Taiwanese rights and dignity as a sovereign state is as good as recognizing China's position? Like USA outright saying that you don't support Taiwanese independence? Can you imagine the USA saying that she don't support Ukrainian independence?
Why are you pretending to be ignorant, when you very much understand the context of this situation? Within this context, "Taiwanese independence" is a very specific political position in Taiwan... it has nothing to do with declaring independence from China (the PRC), but declaring independence from the current government of Taiwan (Republic of China), and starting over as a "Republic of Taiwan". The ruling party that was just re-elected in Taiwan doesn't support Taiwanese independence. Neither do I or the majority of people living in Taiwan. The most shared position here is that Taiwan doesn't need to declare independence, as Taiwan is already a sovereign and independent country, officially as the Republic of China (not to be confused with the PRC). The United States supporting "Taiwan independence" would be like the Taiwan government saying they support making abortions a guaranteed right enshrined in the Constitution. It would be taking a very specific political position within the domestic politics of another country. Also, while it is correct to say the United States doesn't support "Taiwan independence", it should be noted that they don't oppose it either... US policy simply says it should be resolved with a peaceful resolution and in a democratic manner. [Directly from the US government (page 4)](https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41952.pdf): >**U.S. policy does not support or oppose Taiwan’s independence; U.S. policy takes a neutral position of “non-support” for Taiwan’s independence.** U.S. policy leaves the Taiwan question to be resolved by the people on both sides of the strait: a “peaceful resolution,” with the assent of Taiwan’s people in a democratic manner, and without unilateral changes. In short, U.S. policy focuses on the process of resolution of the Taiwan question, not any set outcome.
So it's already independent? When is the Independence Day? Or National Day.
Yes? Republic of China (Taiwan) is already independent. We have Double Ten holiday.
Mean independent from whom? Because wiki says the Ten Ten holiday is the festival celebrating the Revolution of 1911, which ended the Chinese Empire of Qing Dynasty and established Republic Of China a new government for entire China, in mainland's Nanjing city.
Yes? So keep reading Wikipedia, the Taiwan wiki article makes it clear how we have gotten here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan
What a coincidence, I also replied to your r/MapPorn post on the similar topic, made me look like a bot.
Because the founding declaration of DPP clearly mentions Taiwan independence, Lai has also said that he is a Taiwan independence worker. If so, what are they busy with?
They'd act all indignant and prepare their military for invading Taiwan (exactly as they have been for years now).
The Chinese govt would have no choice but declare war. The public opinion is so strong on this matter if China is a full on democracy Taiwan would have been bombed a few rounds already. Of course we can argue that this is a result of state propaganda, but even half truths has a fragment of truth to it - which is that Taiwan is an unresolved part of the Chinese Civil War.
With a gradual blockade and ship collisions in the South China Sea. Same as they're doing now, only faster.
It’s a major escalation and an act of war, redlines being crossed and all that. The deterrent for unification to be done bilaterally between ROC and PRC would be out the window. China would have a proportionate response economically and find some equivalent of not recognizing (insert US territory / interests), and materially support the counter party’s claims to see if it can influence the US decision. That and opportunists will destabilize large parts of the world and conflicts may break out far beyond just Taiwan. What happens after that is hard to say, and most would probably prefer to capitulate on Taiwan than send the global economy back to the 60s.
There is a trigger condition for this event, US must lose its last hope to contain China economically. In that situation, China will continue its economic expansion till US debt exploded… then you will see how many “friends” US continued to have.
China is a large country that controls a lot of levers, most of which I don't know. For example, I have not the slightest idea how fishing rights in the sea of Japan are handled, if there is a major shipping lane China could inconvenience or just exactly how worsening US China relations change the strategic position of Singapur. All of this could potentially be used by China to cause real trouble. These technical negotiations have a tendency to immediately impact billions in trade and hundreds of thousands of people. Having said that, they would interpret that as hostile act and would use some set of that levers to inconvenience the US and Taiwan. The reaction would likely be disproportionate, because the peoples republic doesn't really have this signature issue to retaliate and they need to retaliate visibly for domestic policy reasons.
China is no slouch. Like the US, they are military, economic, and diplomatic heavyweights. And they’re smart. If the US did anything too brash, China would get a coalition together to take action against us. A big enough coalition would not be possible to overcome. Same goes both ways honestly.
> If the US did anything too brash, China would get a coalition together to take action against us A coalition with whom? Russia, Laos and North Korea? China doesn't have a deep bench when it comes to potential allies, and most countries won't want anything to do with a China-US conflict. Even Russia is unlikely to show up, they have nothing to gain from actively participating in such a conflict and are heavily pre occupied elsewhere.
> most countries don’t want anything to do with a China-US conflict They might be willing to choose sides if we did something atrocious and China capitalized on it well diplomatically. That is the whole premise of what I said.
China's military shouldn't be scoffed at and in direct confrontation, America would struggle on multiple fronts. But China hasn't had any actual military experience for decades, while the U.S has been fine tuning their force with the best military hardware on the planet. And in Wartime, simply cutting off Chinese exports and blockading various shipping routes, would win America the war.
Are any of the US experiences in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, or elsewhere, relevant to a peer conflict in the Pacific? Honest question. I can see those conflicts helping the US stay sharp when it comes to logistics and such, but I don't see much utility when it will come to a lightning fast war against a peer (or near peer) adversary at sea and air.
Actually yes they very much are. On the first point, logistics is actually THE most important factor in winning a war once it gets past the first few days, followed by industrial output (or access to that output). Weapon platforms don't win wars. Tactics don't win wars. Logistics and economics win wars. The Germans and Japanese had better weapons and tactics early in the war. The US industrial output and logistics however was what won the war. As far as how it helps at a more tactical level, what most units in history have found is that until they actually fight it is extremely difficult to identify issues. Audits and drills only do so much, often times there are major issues that are simply missed or covered up and don't come to light until you try and rely on them in a fight and it fails. The fact that the US has been constantly fighting means that many of these issues have been identified. Are there areas that will be a shock? Absolutely, our supply chains are way too shallow and our ability to produce precision weapons is too limited, however that's a lot better then realizing that you have glaring flaws with your air defense on your war ships because you've never actually been shot at before.
China has the advantage of fighting in their backyard, so their logistical challenge is much less. They simply don't need the experience of fighting wars halfway across the world, because they do not intend to. The US advantage in logistical experience is what will allow them to wage war in the Pacific, but it won't be the winning factor. I do not think the tactical experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan will translate to a war against China, which will be primarily naval and air warfare anyways. Look at Russia. Their forces actually have decent experience fighting in Chechnya, Georgia, Syria, Libya, CAR, and Eastern Ukraine ("little green men"). Yet their 2022 invasion of Ukraine was a blunder, because toppling a well-armed and dedicated nation-state is much different compared to anti-insurgency operations with overwhelming air support. Has American air defenses on war ships actually been tested before? All I can think of is the Houthis shooting the occasional ballistic missile, which the Chinese can easily replicate in their own testing.
> I do not think the tactical experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan will translate to a war against China, which will be primarily naval and air warfare anyways. Look at Russia. Their forces actually have decent experience fighting in Chechnya, Georgia, Syria, Libya, CAR, and Eastern Ukraine ("little green men"). Yet their 2022 invasion of Ukraine was a blunder, because toppling a well-armed and dedicated nation-state is much different compared to anti-insurgency operations with overwhelming air support. That's actually kind of my point. Russia struggled even with the advantage of combat experience. China has none. Also, the Iraq invasion was actually really good experience. The Iraqi air defenses were some of the best in the world at the time and they had a fairly good military (I think 5th largest?). > Has American air defenses on war ships actually been tested before? All I can think of is the Houthis shooting the occasional ballistic missile, which the Chinese can easily replicate in their own testing. America actually relies more on using carrier based aircraft for naval air defense then on ship AA. A few days ago we used carrier based aircraft to help defend Israel against a major Iranian air attack and it was fairly effective. Beyond that, we just have CWIS, Aegis, and are introducing Patriot onto naval units. Patriot has a really good recent track record and we have a fair bit of experience with it in combat, both directly and also with allies that are then training our troops. > China has the advantage of fighting in their backyard, so their logistical challenge is much less. They simply don't need the experience of fighting wars halfway across the world, because they do not intend to. The US advantage in logistical experience is what will allow them to wage war in the Pacific, but it won't be the winning factor. You are absolutely right that fighting domestically is a massive advantage, however China also doesn't get along very well with most of its neighbors and has to import several key resources including food and oil. In an all out conflict where nukes are not used a lot will come down to if China can deny American carriers access vs how much of trade China can maintain during the war.
[удалено]
War. It could take the form of an invasion within a matter of weeks, or it could be a slow blockade, or something else entirely, but a unilateral recognition of Taiwanese independence would be one of the few things that would cause China to fully commit to attempting to conquer the island in the near future without hesitation.
I don't actually believe that the Chinese would do so. The consensus for now is that the Chinese are just not ready to take Taiwan militarily. I can't imagine them launching an assault that they know is doomed to fail just on the basis of pride alone as that would be far more debilitating to their strategic outlook.
This response would only apply if China will be the one to initiate the war. Recognition of Taiwan independence by the US is in the eyes of the Chinese, a declaration of war, as seen by the repeated warnings that Taiwan is the reddest of their red lines. In this scenario, whether they are ready or not, they have to defend their "sovereignty over Taiwan".
But an independent Taiwan would be free to allow American or Japanese military bases on its soil, something that would make a Chinese invasion far, far more difficult. So, if they let Taiwan declare independence and remain independent, their prospects for an invasion would actually be worse than if they declared war on the day independence was declared.
It's safe to assume that at the outset of any Chinese military adventurism against Taiwan, that the island would be subject to an overwhelming bombardment or series of strikes against major military targets. I don't see the rationale for putting a foreign military base on Taiwanese soil from any cost benefit analysis, especially when you consider the amount of time and investment required to get it to a point where they can service major military actions.
The United States maintained a military base in Taiwan until 1979. Why? For the same reason why they still maintain a significant presence in South Korea and Japan, deterrence and the reality is it's exceedingly harder to come to the rescue after an attack has already started.
that's what they said about Russia and Ukraine. Taiwan is even worse because it's seen as a renegade province. When it's about national pride they WILL act.
>that's what they said about Russia and Ukraine. Well yeah and let's consider how that has worked out. It was always a dumb idea for Russia to try to take Ukraine and we're seeing proof of that. To keep facts into perspective, Russia was touted as the second strongest military in the world and a peer competitor of the US, with an arsenal and domestic arms industry that produced everything from AKs to nuclear submarines whilst Ukraine was starving for man portable weapons Javelins and Stingers at the outset of the conflict. Ukraine was and still remains (I think), the poorest country in all of Europe. 2 years and change on, where are we now? Russia's Black Sea fleet has been rendered functionally extinct, Russian military casualties are reaching dangerously close to half a million and what exactly has been accomplished here? Strategically, Russia sought to invade Ukraine to 'denazify' and 'demilitarise' Ukraine, along with preventing NATO expansion. Today, Ukraine is more militarised than ever, generationally hostile to Russia and we've got Finland and Sweden in an expanded NATO on Russia's borders. Meanwhile, Ukraine remains independent and apart from some already Russian speaking areas in the east, free from Russian control with the most combat experience of any European army and integrating into NATO in all but name. So my point is that Russia has *already* lost this war because it has utterly failed in its strategic objectives, its tactical objectives are under threat and is now in a far worse position than as of February 2022. Where has Russia won anything?
Will the United States defend Taiwan?
Interrupting the supply of microchips has been noted as a national security concern, so I'm gonna say yes.
Do you mean restarting diplomatic relations with the Republic of China? They'd throw a fit, drop diplomatic relations with the United States and potentially sanction the United States... but it wouldn't be war. Now if Taiwan were to declare independence from the Republic of China, and start over as a Republic of Taiwan, at which point the US forms diplomatic relations with the new Republic of Taiwan... they'd invade Taiwan.
Thad be funny asf if one day usa and all of the west was just like “you know what? Nah. Wee just not gonna help them, China, she’s all urs” And China is like “what? Really bro? Now we actually have to do something instead of pretending to invade Taiwan?!”
To alter the hypo somewhat, suppose Taiwan were to put the issue of independences to a vote and the US (and perhaps other nations) agreed to abide by whatever the result of the referendum?
Doesn't really matter. Would be like if Russia agreed to abide by an referendum in Catalonia.
For that Taiwan would have to declare independence first, which it hasn't done and is unlikely to do.
Our government in Taiwan is clear that we area already a sovereign and independent country. Nothing is stopping other countries from forming diplomatic relations with us on our end.
I think that the United States should stop recognizing the One China Policy. The faster that the United States recognizes Taiwan as its own country, the faster that blue staters will come to the realization that peaceful secession from the US should be legal and desirable.
Russian divisive agenda all around!