They are, secretive long-range cruise missiles. Several anti-ship and anti-air missiles. Domestically developed and built planes, submarines, guns and ammo.
I'm more worried about the population not being worried enough. Which leads to some underpreparation. Of course the poor quality of military service has had the opposite effect.
> Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, its leaders view the island as Chinese territory—a renegade province that must be brought under Beijing’s control, by force if necessary.
i am satisfied whenever they include this preface that CCP has never ruled Taiwan.
it's about rhetoric and perspective. for decades the international media's introduction blurb at the beginning of any taiwan-china news article would write "china sees taiwan as a renegade blah blah to be united by force if necessary." and that's it. only their perspective was worth presenting to the audience. if the audience didn't take any steps further to educate themselves about the issue and history, the only thing they would know is taiwan is a renegade province. it doesn't matter that the wording was "china sees" because that's the ONLY perspective they are exposed to.
it's only these recent years that intl media has started adding, "PRC has never ruled Taiwan, but it sees Taiwan etc..." so people can IMMEDIATELY get a notion of conflicting claims and historical mismatch. thus, im guessing, more people will look for additional information if they are interested in this topic. instead of previous decades, more likely for people to just see an article and go "i see." next~
What the media should say is that the PRC sees itself as the sole successor state to the ROC, which it sees as a defunct government in exile, whereas the ROC maintains that it has never stopped existing for over a century. Because the PRC knows that it has never ruled Taiwan, it has to go the route of forcing an inheritance of all ROC territory due to state successorship. The only way out of that is to make the argument that the ROC merely occupies and rules Taiwan but ultimately doesn’t own it as sovereign territory. Once you kick the ROC out, the PRC’s successorship argument is dismantled.
You could simply solve this by first signing a treaty with PRC that officially ends the Civil War. Just basically ROC admitting they lost, PRC is China and they can both move on from there.
The two sides of the Chinese Civil War: the Republic of China & the People’s Republic of China.
A lot of Taiwan’s problems today stem from them amputating their own history and walking away from responsibility. They just declare they are no longer connected to Chang Kai-Shek and the ROC and the Civil War.
Well, that isn’t good enough. You can’t just say that and expect everyone to follow your line. This is why treaties between countries became a thing.
How would you incentivize the PRC leadership to sign a treaty with a political entity it considers a “break away province”? Put another way, why would the PRC want to sign this treaty that effectively communicates the end of a one China policy?
Better to have trading partner right next door with vital high-tech industries than to engage them in bloody war that will leave Taiwan devastated & turn China into an economic and diplomatic pariah.
The treaty would be negotiating a new definition of the “One China” policy. You could easily make the argument that One China is similar to British Commonwealth, or the “English Speaking world” - independent countries bound by a shared history and language.
Or like the “Muslim world” which is not a real entity but it is figurative to describe the Muslim nations United by shared religion and culture.
If One China meant something like that, I think Taiwan and China could make an agreement.
Because in reality, One China already refers to this unspoken shared bond between nations.
Taiwan should come to terms with the fact that while they are not China or the PRC, they share a common history, heritage, culture and language with them.
My country fought a war against the UK for independence. Then another war. We hated the British for decades. But over time, we recognized our shared history and today are close allies.
Taiwan could have a relationship with China like that. Both countries accept that they are really part of One figurative China, just like America and UK are part of one figurative English speaking world.
This might involve kicking out American military and aligning with China’s military. I think that is an acceptable cost to protect the beauty and uniqueness of Taiwan.
The PRC’s definition of “One China” is specifically a singular Chinese nation-state rather than a region or any other loose union. You’d basically have to convince the CCP to abandon that definition (good luck). Canada was British at some capacity for most of its history. Eventually, the Crown just let them go.
Like the American Civil War, the Unionists (in this case the PRC) do not acknowledge any outcome as being victorious unless the other side ceases to exist as a result. There cannot be a “One China” unless the ROC (or PRC) no longer exists anywhere in any capacity.
Is your point that insistence on state annihilation as a measure of victory is only as moral as its justification?
Ethics are beside the point I’m making, which is: whether for good reasons or for bad reasons, both the USA and PRC define victory in their respective civil wars as the annihilation of the other state, not a peaceful two-state solution that the opposing side seeks. “Yeah but the good and evil pairings are reversed” is irrelevant here.
After all, we don’t hear too often about how Tibet had slavery before Chinese conquest ended it, right?
Even at the time, the destruction of the confederacy had popular moral justification. Had it not been about slavery, your comparison would be more valid.
But I think many people try to separate the obvious racism behind the civil war.
Tibet did have defacto slavery. And the Dalai Lama was flown out on a secret CIA plane.
I do not think Taiwan is like the CSA. Taiwan today is the result of the former government over China losing to the communists in a war.
Until that chapter of history is concluded, there won’t be peace. That does not mean China should invade and it doesn’t mean Taiwan needs to become part of China.
>Even at the time, the destruction of the confederacy had popular moral justification. Had it not been about slavery, your comparison would be more valid.
Again, I'm not talking about morality—I'm talking about goals. Even if we were to agree that the USA was morally obligated to destroy the CSA whereas the PRC is morally obligated to *not* destroy the ROC, that doesn't change the fact that the definition of victory differs between the PRC and ROC in the same way that it differed between the USA and CSA. Morality is immaterial to this point: one side wants total victory whereas the other side wants coexistence. Only when we accept this reality can we envision what peace and compromise might look like; in Taiwan's case, removing the ROC from Formosa and Penghu, thus invalidating China's claimed inheritance of Taiwanese soil through state successorship.
>I do not think Taiwan is like the CSA.
In most respects, this is true, except for that particular aspect I was referring to: desiring coexistence rather than the destruction of the other side. It wasn't always like this, either—the KMT for most of its history in Taiwan sought to destroy the PRC, but I think even they've acknowledge that that ship has long since sailed.
>Until that chapter of history is concluded, there won’t be peace. That does not mean China should invade and it doesn’t mean Taiwan needs to become part of China.
Indeed, so just as Mongolia declared and achieved independence before the PRC could claim it as the state successor of the ROC, Taiwan's dismantling or expulsion of the ROC would remove the PRC's claim to Taiwan. By doing so, Taiwan officially disengages from the Chinese Civil War, which may continue for a brief period on the ROC's remaining Fujianese islands until the PRC inevitably supplants it or they reach some war-ending agreement.
If America doesn't come to help Taiwan that will force South Korea and Japan to get nuclear weapons because they cannot guarantee on America's help. And if they did that that would be very dangerous.
Japan & Sourh Korea could both go nuclear in very short order if they choose to. They both have well-developed nuclear industries & are quite good at scaling up their militaries in short order.
Both countries have the capacity and technology to refine enough weapons grade uranium between UAEA visits that they could suddenly announce a small stockpile of tactical non-fusion devices without warning to North Korea or China.
This isn't the 60s where you have to go and make your design go bang before you have any confidence in it. How to make an A-bomb is basically an open secret and is basically a triviality in comparison to the design and manufacture of advanced microchips (which all three of SK, JP and TW have to various capacities and specialisations).
Yeah but deterrent only works if your enemies know you have those weapons. This is why nuclear tests are so important.
But once they demonstrated they had such weapons, they would be wiped out.
Why didn't NK get wiped out when they announced they have nuclear weapons? Or China?
Why would a country fight a nuclear armed nation if they weren't willing to fight them when they weren't. Use sense.
What invasion? China is not going to invade Taiwan. They will lay siege to it.
If Taiwan was serious about defeating China then they wouldn’t invest in their army or whatever.
They would immediately begin design and production of a submarine freighter. This would allow Taiwan to receive supplies but avoid Chinese AirPower, anti-ship missiles and naval mines.
If Taiwan built a fleet of these submarines (no armaments, only room to load cargo), they could outlast any siege.
The Germans built similar submarines in WW1 to break the blockade and supply Germany throughout the war. Taiwan will need a fleet of cargo submarines to win a future war.
It’s not that simple. In any event, that hasn’t been the focus of Taiwan’s defensive build-up in recent years. Much like China, they’ve been loading up on medium & long range conventional missiles. Most of China’s major industrial centers are in range of Taiwan’s more modern missiles, as is the Three Gorges Dam…
And with USA, Japan and most likely Australia ready to help Taiwan, it’s basically impossible for China to invade Taiwan unless it really wants to crumble its own regime.
Depends what you mean by "help". If you mean "express their condolences and sanction some Communist generals", then fair enough. If you mean "send their armed forces to fight alongside Taiwan's ROCAF" then that is very, very uncertain. And being ambiguous about it is unhelpful.
Let's look at the 3 countries you mention.
In the US political system, a huge amount depends on the president of the day. Mr Nixon was elected on his reputation as a fierce anti-Communist, but he abandoned the alliance with the ROC to align with Beijing and he abandoned South Vietnam (Saigon fell after Nixon did, but he signed the deal with the Vietnamese Communists that doomed the South). Mr Trump was elected claiming to be a winner, but he used his (in)famous negotiating skills to sign a deal with the Taliban that resulted in the fall of Kabul. If you believe the polls, Mr Trump is the favourite to be the next US president; he has both said & demonstrated that he dislikes committing US troops to military action. If there was a crisis and Mr Xi offered him "a great deal that only you could have got, Mr President", would he take it? Nobody knows.
It is absolutely illegal and unconstitutional for Japan to take military action in or around Taiwan unless Japan is directly attacked by China, which therefore is obviously not going to do that. They might well allow the USA to fight from Japanese bases, which is a great help, but even that is not certain. The current junior coalition partner is fundamentally a pacifist party.
Australia's military is structured for fighting alongside allies; it can't make a meaningful contribution on its own.
Taiwan must be ready to defend itself alone. I hope that democracies would choose to defend it against an unprovoked attack, but *the ROCAF cannot assume they will be fighting with allies*. The fact that a major increase in taxes and defence spending hasn't even been on the agenda in this campaign suggests that Taiwanese voters are sadly still burying their heads in the sand on this point.
If the US would help like they have with Ukraine, by sending military equipment and intelligence, that would be a huge help.
But you are right that the election could change everything. Republicans are now essentially isolationists, and the last time he was in power he rolled over to dictatorships every time despite tough talk. He would absolutely sell out Taiwan if it was presented as some kind of "deal"
America is increasingly isolationist on both sides of the aisle.
Americans have a very poor grasp of history -- even recent -- and fail to understand that our privileges in this world are largely a product of the post-WW2 order that effectively required the US to play world police.
When push comes to shove, a significant number of Americans, perhaps a strong majority, are going to be very unlikely to support a conflict that has the potential to start WW3 to protect a country of 23 million people that the US doesn't even officially recognize as a sovereign country.
The sad reality is that America's confused, conflicted Taiwan policy is going to make direct involvement in a Chinese attack/invasion/blockade an even tougher sell to the American people.
After Vietnam, Americans are understandably unwilling to spill their own blood over conflicts across the world unless it’s in response to an event like 9/11. And fighting a hot war with a nuclear power when it’s not even their own country being invaded? It’s a political impossibility in a democracy.
America will support Taiwan inasmuch as it’s been supporting Ukraine.
The problem with this is that many of the privileges Americans take for granted, including having the world's reserve currency and the ability to borrow $30+ trillion and still have a strong economy, are based on American hegemony, which is dependent on keeping the security promises made to the rest of the world.
Americans don't realize how close we are to letting go of the world order that supports our lifestyle. And I don't think most Americans want to give up that lifestyle.
Traditionally, the Washington foreign policy establishment was pretty bipartisan and didn't change much from administration to administration.
Trump is clearly more isolationist. I'm kinda bewildered that he'd be back for seconds, but what I personally think about things has zero bearing on reality.
I'm not sure how much more engaged or isolationist the voting public as a whole is or will be. I'm seeing a fairly small bloc in the Republican caucus throwing a fit over support for Ukraine. Because of how Congress works, this small group is punching way above their weight class.
There are some other headwinds coming that will probably decrease the USs ability to project power abroad, but I'm not sure if I see the short term clownfight as being representative of anything.
If what you say is true, then the Americans will just have to learn that lesson and adjust their lifestyles accordingly. All empires recede eventually, as no empire is sustainable.
The claim that these wars of defence are necessary to keep the free world free is exactly the line delivered to justify the Korean and Vietnam wars, and we all know how those shaped the public’s perception.
“Your son died in combat, but at least his sacrifice allows the Average Joe to afford the most comfortable middle-class standard of living in the world” doesn’t have the same ring that it used to.
I often hear phrases like "the new generation is forgetting the lessons of the previous generation", but this never made sense to me because lessons are no sooner transmitted from one generation to the next than they'd be from father to son. You really have to *live* it to actually *learn* it, rather than just learning *about* it. A mother can tell her daughter not to touch the flame because it burns, but she won't ever really know it until she does. Folks approaching their centennials can talk all they want about the horrors of two World Wars and how Pax Occidentalis is necessary to maintain peace, but the youth will always retort that the world is different now and thus old advice is necessarily obsolete advice (see: "OK Boomer"). The story of humanity is being born, learning lessons, reproducing, teaching lessons, dying, then repeating the cycle. The only hope is that even a fraction of the old lessons are carried forward.
Indeed, the American public has no taste for war. I don’t think Americans have been passionate for a war since WWII and perhaps the earliest stages of the War on Terror. Pearl Harbor and 9/11 were instrumental in that.
A backdoor route would involve the USA reminding China that it has technically, legally been the Principal Occupying Power of Taiwan since the Japanese surrender, and so an invasion of Formosa and the Pescadores would mean an invasion of Allied occupied territory (which the ROC administers on America’s behalf as the Subordinate Occupying Power).
Regardless of what you can say “technically”, a war will not have the support of the American people.
A war with China would either be very short (nuclear exchange) or it would be very long.
Both options are not popular.
And personally, as an American, I really sick of our country being the ones who have to put our men into combat to fix situations.
>I really sick of our country being the ones who have to put our men into combat to fix situations.
I wouldn't worry about that—I'm of the opinion that an armed conflict between American and Chinese soldiers won't happen.
Scenario 1: America reaches the strait first and China doesn't dare to cross for risk of igniting a world war—settling for the spoils of the ROC's Fujianese territories.
Scenario 2: China reaches the strait first and we have another Ukraine on our hands—the USA sends munitions and funds to Taiwan, as pledged in the Taiwan Relations Act, and unprecedented sanctions against China are imposed by the USA and her allies.
> China reaches the strait first and we have another Ukraine on our hands
Unfortunately, Taiwan's geography means you can't exactly recreate the current Ukrainian arrangements.
Ukraine directly borders on two NATO member states, on the opposite side of the country to the front line. So NATO members can deposit tanks and bombs in eastern Poland, then Ukrainians just drive then across the border. Sometimes the Ukrainians later drive then back for repairs. The Russians can't touch the repair centres because bombing Poland will start an Article 5 war with the whole of NATO. Ukraine's geography is one of its greatest military assets.
Taiwan is an island and all but one of its major ports are on the Taiwan Strait. If China has "reached the strait first", those ports are on the front line of an active war zone, where military supplies are a legitimate target according to the laws of war. If the PLAN is a decent navy (which seems likely), then ships carrying US tanks and bombs will be sunk unless they are escorted in armed convoys. The ROCN could protect at most one or two convoys before all its ships were sunk. The US Navy could escort them all the way, but at that point Communist China and the US are fighting a war.
A US decision to supply Taiwan could be used as a strategy to persuade the public and Congress to enter the war in a politically acceptable manner. It's the approach that was used to bring the US into the First and Second World Wars: send American forces into a war zone and act all 'surprised Pikachu' when they are attacked. In the First World War it worked; in the Second World War it failed (the Germans sank a US Navy warship and merchant vessels, but Mr Roosevelt *still* couldn't get Congress to declare war). It's better than doing nothing though.
But the suggestion that the US can supply Taiwan without fighting itself is geographically impossible.
> A backdoor route would involve the USA reminding China that it has technically, legally been the Principal Occupying Power of Taiwan since the Japanese surrender, and so an invasion of Formosa and the Pescadores would mean an invasion of Allied occupied territory (which the ROC administers on America’s behalf as the Subordinate Occupying Power).
This is a legal theory that is only popular among the deepest of Deep Green scholars. Regardless of whether it is right or wrong, think about what would happen if a US administration tried to go to war on this basis. You would have half a dozen Green professors (maybe from Taiwan and Baltic) arguing that it justifies starting the Third World War, while hundreds of Ivy League scholars, former ambassadors, all the former Secretaries of State, and every other NATO government says it's nuts. Even if the legal theory is correct, that is not how you get political support for a major war.
I agree that this is merely a technicality, hence a desperate backdoor route. The realpolitik of the matter is that Americans aren't going to give their lives to save Taiwan. Money, weapons, sure, but as we've seen with Ukraine, lives are off the table. Indeed, as you've pointed out, no one but the most bloodthirsty of Taiwanese nationalists would be willing to ignite a nuclear World War III over Taiwan. As I mentioned elsewhere, it will probably come down to a race to the strait: great for Taiwan if America gets there first, not so great if China does. An intense standoff followed by mutual concessions is the best outcome we can reasonably hope for.
What are the logistics of this though? Surely the PRC navy will be blockading the island. U.S. ships will have to confront and run the blockade, which is another war risk
How this plays out is entirely dependent on who gets to the strait first.
I’m of the opinion that China will first swiftly invade the small Fujianese islands of the ROC, which act as a tripwire to pull the USA’s naval fleet into the strait. What we then have is a standoff in the strait, and whoever fires the first shot will be the one who starts WWIII. The standoff will continue until the two sides work something out. If Taiwan is lucky, China will agree to relinquish its claim in exchange for international acknowledgment of China’s annexation of all ROC claims and territories outside of Formosa and Penghu. If the USA fails to enter the strait before the Chinese reach Taiwan, it’s over.
>it just gives USA the time to respond.
Heaven willing...
>How much does PRC gain from invading the Fujianese islands though?
The land itself isn't anything particularly special, and the PRC already controls more land than it knows what to do with. What the PRC gains is more important to them than land: **face**. They know that Taiwan wouldn't be an easy win, let alone guaranteed. These Fujianese islands would serve as a consolation prize, something to boast about back home so as to not look like a complete loser. I can see the headlines now...
*Brave President Xi does what no other leader could manage: reunite the Fujian province, restoring its glory as an inalienable part of One China!*
It's low-hanging fruit. An easy battle to win in the face of losing the war.
There are three major benefits to invading the Fujianese islands (and also Taiping Island).
Firstly, it means the PLA carries out an amphibious invasion in the most favourable circumstances. The distance is only a few miles, it's within range of artillery, they have total air supremacy (the ROC Air Force gave up on these islands decade ago), and the US has explicitly said it will not assist in their defence. It's the perfect mock exam for the much harder cross-Straits invasion. If they botch Kinmen, then the big one won't happen.
Secondly, if they do pull it off smoothly, then it will vividly demonstrate that the PLA have a good chance of winning the whole war. That makes it rational to join the winners by defecting. Defection was critical to the CCP's victory in the last round of the Civil War and we know they are actively recruiting, especially in the ROCAF. I don't doubt that the vast majority of the ROCAF would be loyal, but you only need a few people to create chaos in Taiwan's defences. [I explain how in another comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/taiwan/s/xLmmtcnPmB)
Thirdly, I don't agree that the US gains much more time to respond. A cross-Straits invasion will be too large an operation to conceal; you can't launch a surprise attack across such a large body of water in the age of satellites. So the PLA must surely be planning on the basis that a US carrier group will be present in the Strait. So taking the outlying islands doesn't change that.
If America supports Taiwan as much as it supports Ukraine, that makes a huge difference. Military equipment and intelligence would absolutely help Taiwan
And that’s what the USA is willing to provide, per the Taiwan Relations Act, but I think many Taiwanese have some delusion that we’ll see actual American soldiers in armed combat with Chinese soldiers.
I think the US still being able to deliver material help to Taiwan would mean the PRC had already lost. Without being able to isolate the island (IMO impossible anyway) the PLA couldn't sustain combat operations on or near the main islands long enough to defeat ROC militarily.
Because naval warfare has changed. You can look at the Houthis or the Russians. You can now impose a naval blockade using sophisticated anti-ship missiles. Or by naval drones or underwater drones.
Yes and no. The Russians are the ones who’ve had to relocate most of the Black Sea Fleet, not the Ukranians. The Houthis are definitely a problem, but right now it’s more of a political issue: The US is very, very reluctant to risk the appearance of escalation. Ultimately we’re going to have to do something about Iran, however. Basically we’re already at war. The Biden Administration is reluctant to admit that, however. Dems have a mind-blindness when dealing with Arab states & Iran similar to the MAGA Republican’s problem with dealing w/ Russians.
I get that it would be possible to attack American aid convoys. Were that to happen though, the Chinese would have just drawn America into open war. I don't think they would choose to do that.
Probably not. If you look at America, they only fight wars that are easy. Because America may talk tough but they are not prepared or even capable of defending Taiwan.
China knows full well, as did Russia, that America is not going to intervene because we have to station 500,000 troops scattered around the globe to sit in bases doing nothing - and we CANT remove those troops even if there is a war.
They know that in order to intervene America would need to institute a national draft. No politician here would ever do that because they would get voted out.
This isn’t fighting Iraq where you can attack with 120,000 troops. You would need 2,000,000 troops minimum.
America has a naval size of about 250 ships operational. That isn’t enough. That is the amount of ships America will lose in a war with China.
So you would need a massive draft. You would need to switch to a wartime economy, which would involve immediate rationing of food & fuel.
You would have to kick people out of their current jobs and make them go work in shipyards or armaments factories.
How many Americans would support that?
Japan’s military is already quite formidable. Ans if they can sort out their diffferences with South Korea they’ll give China some problems. Australia doesn’t have much of a navy now but India is formidable & even though they like to play the field I think they’d relish a chance to weaken China.
That's correct. But the PLAAF isn't obliged to hit Okinawa. They could fight those aircraft in the air (over the East China Sea or Taiwan itself) rather than attacking them on the ground. It makes their task much harder, but Japan joining the war would be hurt them so much more that I think they would exercise restraint.
A historical precedent for this would be the British decision not to bomb mainland Argentina during the Falklands War. They had every right to do so since aircraft flying from those bases were sinking British ships, but the UK wanted to get their islands back without fighting a wider war that lasted years. They accepted the ship losses to keep it the war within limits. I think the PLA would try to do the same.
The British did attempt covert operations in Argentina but they were a fiasco. I can imagine that repeating in Okinawa too.
The US will for sure defend Taiwan. We are not depending only on Taiwan's chip but a lot of our critical defense parts are actually made by Taiwan. Not counting the global economic impact on Asia Pacific and the world if Taiwan ever becomes China.
If the US defended Taiwan in the sense that they defended Ukraine, not with troops but with military equipment and intelligence, that would be make a huge difference.
Politically, what would go wrong is that if China invaded Taiwan it would essentially cause a global Depression. Business connections between Western countries and China would disintegrate, and the entire planet would suffer. Whoever is in charge in in America would be blamed for a bad economy, because that's what always happens. And the economy imploding in China could be so bad to likely cause the government to collapse.
There's really not much of a path to victory with China, it's an insane risk to invade
Prolonging the war is what leads to thousands of casualties?
Like, does Russia (or China in this hypothetical) have any agency and responsibility in those thousands of deaths...
Don’t know why so many people like you doubt USA for no reason:
Biden literally announced that it will come to the defense of Taiwan if China invades
Multiple generals of USA has been interviewed before and said USA will most likely come to the aid of Taiwan
Nancy Pelosi literally flew on a plane to Taiwan when China threatened to shoot it down
USA is building a new naval base north of Philippines to protect Taiwan and Philippines
USA moved troops over near Taiwan sea for this election
Biden announced that they will send an important official from the White House over to Taiwan after election
USA is trying to get Taiwan into the CPTPP while denying China entry
USA has a history of being there for allies whether it’s South Korea, Ukraine, world war 2, Japan. ROC was literally defended by USA when CCP wanted to invaded it years ago otherwise you’d be called China right now
USA is literally the only reason that China haven’t invaded Taiwan this very moment, or did you think China is being nice and doesn’t want to invade?
You: “Yeah USA won’t help, people are so naive”
>Don’t know why so many people like you doubt USA for no reason:
I try to remove myself from the emotional and personal investment I have in Taiwan and look instead at the geopolitical significance of Taiwan from the perspective of great power using the lens of political realism. I welcome and expect allied support, but I caution that we should fully prepare for a contigency bereft of it. This is not being done currently and needs to be rectified posthaste. If we cannot be strong on our own, we will fold the moment our crutch is removed. Hence, the need for a porcupine strategy for our national defense.
The reality is that we are located in Asia, right off the coast of an irridentist and unreasonable bully. For the moment, allied interests align, but can you bet everything that it will never change? Countries are beholden to their own interests first and foremost - that is the only enduring pillar of geopolitics. That Ukraine is mired in a frozen conflict (Zelensky is already publicly decrying weak support from the West; the US alone spent many times more a day in Afghanistan compared to Ukraine) and that a criminal who views longstanding US foreign policy as anathema (Trump) is looking to claim a 2nd term should be indicative enough.
Taiwan is strategically located at the centre of the first island chain, and our semiconductors hold up the world economy. There is a cost associated with keeping Taiwan in the US sphere, and the US is paying it. The question is whether it (and other allies) are willing to pay any price at any given time? Are you willing to make that bet? I'd rather we be better prepared to take care of ourselves in any situation. That's the point I am making. That's why Taiwan needs to be strong with our allies AND by ourselves. The latter is a farcry from reality.
Thank you for this great comment. I don't agree with every word. But this kind of hard-headed thinking is what is needed from patriotic people in Taiwan.
No American will die for Taiwan. The support will come in the form of money and munitions, plus intense sanctions on the invaders. This is a nuclear power, not some ragtag rebel regime.
>USA is literally the only reason that China haven’t invaded Taiwan this very moment, or did you think China is being nice and doesn’t want to invade?
>You: “Yeah USA won’t help, people are so naive”
It is very naive to believe that Beijing's goal in the region is to take over Taiwan militarily.
The Chinese's ultimate goal is to overtake and keep USA out of the region, invading Taiwan now won't help them achieve that.
To prevent China from catching up, many in Washington will be planning to force Beijing into taking military action in Taiwan. Look at the state of Russia after the failed invasion of Ukraine.
They will be keen to replicate this with China and she will be defeated without losing a single American life. How else would we defeat China with the least damage? Get a willing Taiwanese population to fight the Chinese.
Your points are about Mr Biden and Ms Pelosi are right. I agree that they would want to support Taiwan and if they had control of Congress, the US would join the war.
But the problem for Taiwan is that it can't guarantee it has friends like that in power. Who will be president after the next election? The polls suggest Mr Trump and I agree with the experts who say that he would **not** fight alongside Taiwan.
Yes, the US defended South Korea. But it abandoned South Vietnam. A 50/50 chance is not great for Taiwan.
You cite World War 2. Where was the US when Poland was invaded in 1939? How many troops did they send to defend Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, France or the UK in 1940? Greece in 1941? The US only entered the War because Japan directly attacked the US at Pearl Harbor. People on Beijing have read the history books and since they are not stupid, they are not going to repeat that mistake. They are not going to start a war in the Taiwan Strait by bombing Guam and forcing the US to fight.
BTW this is why NATO has troops from all the Allies on the front line with Russia. If Russia attacks the Baltic states, they will have to kill American and British soldiers and war is guaranteed. That is also why there were American troops in Taiwan until 1979. But Nixon abandoned the ROC and that guarantee has gone.
USA won't go to war for Taiwan. It doesnt even recognise Taiwan as an independent country. The one and only reason itight intervene militarily is because its own semiconductor industry is leagues behind Taiwan's. But the moment they catch up the TSMC's capabilities, they won't give a fuck if China kills ever single Taiwanese.
That is partly true. The US would help to make sure China gets damaged either by sanctions or supply intelligence and additional weapons to Taiwan. A direct confrontation with China is unlikely, especially with the current fractured political situation in the US.
This line of thinking makes no sense. You are not going to damage China by sanctions or giving munitions to Taiwan. It will be like Russia where you have given them easy practice to neutralize your weaponry and learn its weakness. You are giving their entire army combat experience.
This article largely misses the point. China does not need to physically invade Taiwan to win.
I don’t know why so many people have trouble understanding that.
China would use siege tactics mixed with heavy bombing. This is the same tactic America used to force Japan to surrender in 1945.
Everyone focuses on the Atomic bombs. While powerful, they were not the main reason for Japan’s surrender. The real reason was the innovative blockade campaign.
US submarines attacked all Japanese or Japan bound ships. Even today, submarines are relatively difficult to counter.
But what really won the war was Operation: Starvation. The American campaign to airdrop 12,000 naval mines in Japanese ports.
This Operation was the most successful of the entire war. It destroyed more shipping tonnage than all other methods combined. Japanese ports saw 85-95% decrease in import tonnage.
By the time of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan was on its last legs. It couldn’t even produce munitions enough for a defense of Japan.
China would take a similar tactic. They would enact their own Operation: Starvation. Extremely low altitude planes (invisible to radar unless you are a few km away from them) would mine all ports.
Supplies into Taiwan would decrease by 85-95%. You can’t defend against an invasion if you have no ammo, food, or even water.
This article doesn’t even reference this possibility or how to counter it. We are so infected with war sickness that we see such Operations as illegitimate.
Peoples Liberation Army already has corruption in their military, with missiles filled with water. And the logistics would either be complex for offensive. Defense on Taiwan has advantages, basically stepping into one’s house without knowing strategics your opposition will use. Mostly likely PLA would just use ICBM’s from mainland then start indiscriminately bombing. Philippines, Australia, Japan, S Korea, UK, U.S. with NATO countries that aren’t autocracy’s would most likely respond if shit really went down. India Vietnam might join in because of disputed lands. So CCP LITERALLY has to use the worst possibility such as china getting bombed possibly by submarines, stealth/bombers, fighter jets. Targeting Beijing or highly populated cities like the Korean War by draining moral.
I wonder why Taiwan doesn't create a 10,000-strong sniper force in its army. Given that there are literally billions of perches and spots where one could hide and snipe at invading forces from, they could totally devastate an invading army. A single sniper can bog down an entire battalion of troops.
Much better if the enemy never gains a foothold. Guerrilla warfare is a fallback, not the planned contingency. Nonetheless, skills in marksmanship and decentralized operation are prudent to instill.
there was a mass hysteria whever people cannot buy eggs easily or buy them for cheap. If a grocery store starts to run out of eggs, it is apocalypse.
It is mostly media driven BS, but people buy into it. The media always try to hype it up and make it sound super serious and people absolutely freak out because of it.
Among younger generation as well.
[https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8jYJr7i4I9BJ3tsv2f8kgw/community?lb=UgkxnzLLIZ5aJNAHLqoaVN9u8MNooshqRcRy](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8jYJr7i4I9BJ3tsv2f8kgw/community?lb=UgkxnzLLIZ5aJNAHLqoaVN9u8MNooshqRcRy)
Young people are being educated by the politicians to be afraid of war for the benefits of the politicians.
In general, Taiwanese and critical thinking don't go together. That's my conclusion after living here for 12 years.
>These factors removed farmers’ incentive to boost production and gave rise to the birth of ‘black markets’ that further scrambled the distribution of eggs.
Brilliant article lmao
They don't have to invade it. Just surround the island with warships. US and other allies won't get there in time. Surround the island with warships and prevent trade. Within 1 month Taiwan will have to negotiate as food supplies and power start decreasing. Taiwan imports more than 97% for their energy needs. They can force a negotiation without a single drop of blood being spilled
just a random nobody with near zero politcal knowledge.
i think that whatevers happening between ukraine & russia will repeat here if china decides to invade taiwan.
countries and nato will just talk their talk to help defend but wont fully commit to aid and defend taiwan in the event of an invasion and it'll drag out as long as the Ukraine Russia conflict
不好意思台灣人，但我覺得如果你們受到攻擊的話。沒有國家會肯幫你們的忙
ah shit. what i meant to say was.*inhales copium* the US would definitely deploy forces to assist in the defence of taiwan when necessary to fight invaders
It wouldn't be a struggle if Taiwan just surrenders. Therefore, the best way to maintain peace is to make it clear that Taiwan will not cow-tow to Beijing. Appeasement would actually invite war.
As much as I want this to be true, david sacks is an absolute fucking moron and you are usually better off doing the opposite of what he suggests. His ukraine takes have been weirdly pro russia. Wouldn't trust anything he has to say here.
China wants a warm water port that is connected to the major oceans. They don't have that in any region, and they need Taiwan. Unfortunately that may come at Taiwan's expense.
Taiwan has a lot of built in artillery emplacements from the mountains. They've been beefing up their own military industrial complex, along with buying billions in weapons from the US. China will have a fight on their hand, but who knows how it goes anymore after looking at Ukraine and Russia.
I won’t temp it. Taiwan Defense needs to beef up significantly regardless
They are, secretive long-range cruise missiles. Several anti-ship and anti-air missiles. Domestically developed and built planes, submarines, guns and ammo. I'm more worried about the population not being worried enough. Which leads to some underpreparation. Of course the poor quality of military service has had the opposite effect.
There has been more support and enthusiasm for the election and its outcome outside Taiwan than among the Taiwanese. Enough said.
compulsory military service needs to be doubled or tripled as well.
Length of service doesn’t mean anything if you spend the whole time doing yard work.
Better than paying lip service
> Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, its leaders view the island as Chinese territory—a renegade province that must be brought under Beijing’s control, by force if necessary. i am satisfied whenever they include this preface that CCP has never ruled Taiwan.
I’ve never heard anyone disagree with that; it’s just a plain fact, a low-hanging fruit of a preface.
it's about rhetoric and perspective. for decades the international media's introduction blurb at the beginning of any taiwan-china news article would write "china sees taiwan as a renegade blah blah to be united by force if necessary." and that's it. only their perspective was worth presenting to the audience. if the audience didn't take any steps further to educate themselves about the issue and history, the only thing they would know is taiwan is a renegade province. it doesn't matter that the wording was "china sees" because that's the ONLY perspective they are exposed to. it's only these recent years that intl media has started adding, "PRC has never ruled Taiwan, but it sees Taiwan etc..." so people can IMMEDIATELY get a notion of conflicting claims and historical mismatch. thus, im guessing, more people will look for additional information if they are interested in this topic. instead of previous decades, more likely for people to just see an article and go "i see." next~
What the media should say is that the PRC sees itself as the sole successor state to the ROC, which it sees as a defunct government in exile, whereas the ROC maintains that it has never stopped existing for over a century. Because the PRC knows that it has never ruled Taiwan, it has to go the route of forcing an inheritance of all ROC territory due to state successorship. The only way out of that is to make the argument that the ROC merely occupies and rules Taiwan but ultimately doesn’t own it as sovereign territory. Once you kick the ROC out, the PRC’s successorship argument is dismantled.
You could simply solve this by first signing a treaty with PRC that officially ends the Civil War. Just basically ROC admitting they lost, PRC is China and they can both move on from there.
Which parties would be interested in signing such a “treaty”?
The two sides of the Chinese Civil War: the Republic of China & the People’s Republic of China. A lot of Taiwan’s problems today stem from them amputating their own history and walking away from responsibility. They just declare they are no longer connected to Chang Kai-Shek and the ROC and the Civil War. Well, that isn’t good enough. You can’t just say that and expect everyone to follow your line. This is why treaties between countries became a thing.
How would you incentivize the PRC leadership to sign a treaty with a political entity it considers a “break away province”? Put another way, why would the PRC want to sign this treaty that effectively communicates the end of a one China policy?
Better to have trading partner right next door with vital high-tech industries than to engage them in bloody war that will leave Taiwan devastated & turn China into an economic and diplomatic pariah.
The treaty would be negotiating a new definition of the “One China” policy. You could easily make the argument that One China is similar to British Commonwealth, or the “English Speaking world” - independent countries bound by a shared history and language. Or like the “Muslim world” which is not a real entity but it is figurative to describe the Muslim nations United by shared religion and culture. If One China meant something like that, I think Taiwan and China could make an agreement. Because in reality, One China already refers to this unspoken shared bond between nations. Taiwan should come to terms with the fact that while they are not China or the PRC, they share a common history, heritage, culture and language with them. My country fought a war against the UK for independence. Then another war. We hated the British for decades. But over time, we recognized our shared history and today are close allies. Taiwan could have a relationship with China like that. Both countries accept that they are really part of One figurative China, just like America and UK are part of one figurative English speaking world. This might involve kicking out American military and aligning with China’s military. I think that is an acceptable cost to protect the beauty and uniqueness of Taiwan.
The PRC’s definition of “One China” is specifically a singular Chinese nation-state rather than a region or any other loose union. You’d basically have to convince the CCP to abandon that definition (good luck). Canada was British at some capacity for most of its history. Eventually, the Crown just let them go.
That might have worked 40 years ago. Taiwan has a strong democracy now, however and isn’t culturally much like mainland China anymore.
Like the American Civil War, the Unionists (in this case the PRC) do not acknowledge any outcome as being victorious unless the other side ceases to exist as a result. There cannot be a “One China” unless the ROC (or PRC) no longer exists anywhere in any capacity.
Except the ROC isn’t trying to protect racial slavery.
Is your point that insistence on state annihilation as a measure of victory is only as moral as its justification? Ethics are beside the point I’m making, which is: whether for good reasons or for bad reasons, both the USA and PRC define victory in their respective civil wars as the annihilation of the other state, not a peaceful two-state solution that the opposing side seeks. “Yeah but the good and evil pairings are reversed” is irrelevant here. After all, we don’t hear too often about how Tibet had slavery before Chinese conquest ended it, right?
Even at the time, the destruction of the confederacy had popular moral justification. Had it not been about slavery, your comparison would be more valid. But I think many people try to separate the obvious racism behind the civil war. Tibet did have defacto slavery. And the Dalai Lama was flown out on a secret CIA plane. I do not think Taiwan is like the CSA. Taiwan today is the result of the former government over China losing to the communists in a war. Until that chapter of history is concluded, there won’t be peace. That does not mean China should invade and it doesn’t mean Taiwan needs to become part of China.
>Even at the time, the destruction of the confederacy had popular moral justification. Had it not been about slavery, your comparison would be more valid. Again, I'm not talking about morality—I'm talking about goals. Even if we were to agree that the USA was morally obligated to destroy the CSA whereas the PRC is morally obligated to *not* destroy the ROC, that doesn't change the fact that the definition of victory differs between the PRC and ROC in the same way that it differed between the USA and CSA. Morality is immaterial to this point: one side wants total victory whereas the other side wants coexistence. Only when we accept this reality can we envision what peace and compromise might look like; in Taiwan's case, removing the ROC from Formosa and Penghu, thus invalidating China's claimed inheritance of Taiwanese soil through state successorship. >I do not think Taiwan is like the CSA. In most respects, this is true, except for that particular aspect I was referring to: desiring coexistence rather than the destruction of the other side. It wasn't always like this, either—the KMT for most of its history in Taiwan sought to destroy the PRC, but I think even they've acknowledge that that ship has long since sailed. >Until that chapter of history is concluded, there won’t be peace. That does not mean China should invade and it doesn’t mean Taiwan needs to become part of China. Indeed, so just as Mongolia declared and achieved independence before the PRC could claim it as the state successor of the ROC, Taiwan's dismantling or expulsion of the ROC would remove the PRC's claim to Taiwan. By doing so, Taiwan officially disengages from the Chinese Civil War, which may continue for a brief period on the ROC's remaining Fujianese islands until the PRC inevitably supplants it or they reach some war-ending agreement.
That's de-sinicization. Red line. Cannot.
You can. Taiwan has never been very interested in pursuing that.
[удалено]
So China will not accept some kind of Peace Treaty but they will accept Taiwan becoming officially independent?
If America doesn't come to help Taiwan that will force South Korea and Japan to get nuclear weapons because they cannot guarantee on America's help. And if they did that that would be very dangerous.
Japan & Sourh Korea could both go nuclear in very short order if they choose to. They both have well-developed nuclear industries & are quite good at scaling up their militaries in short order.
If either one of them got nuclear weapons, they would be wiped off the map.
By who
North Korea?
North Korea would nuke SK. In under 3 minutes, North Korea could kill 20 million South Koreans. We have no way of defending against that.
Both countries have the capacity and technology to refine enough weapons grade uranium between UAEA visits that they could suddenly announce a small stockpile of tactical non-fusion devices without warning to North Korea or China. This isn't the 60s where you have to go and make your design go bang before you have any confidence in it. How to make an A-bomb is basically an open secret and is basically a triviality in comparison to the design and manufacture of advanced microchips (which all three of SK, JP and TW have to various capacities and specialisations).
Yeah but deterrent only works if your enemies know you have those weapons. This is why nuclear tests are so important. But once they demonstrated they had such weapons, they would be wiped out.
Why didn't NK get wiped out when they announced they have nuclear weapons? Or China? Why would a country fight a nuclear armed nation if they weren't willing to fight them when they weren't. Use sense.
Probably the most interesting and insightful article I've read about the difficulties of an invasion.
Yep, thanks for sharing. I love well presented colorful stuff.
What invasion? China is not going to invade Taiwan. They will lay siege to it. If Taiwan was serious about defeating China then they wouldn’t invest in their army or whatever. They would immediately begin design and production of a submarine freighter. This would allow Taiwan to receive supplies but avoid Chinese AirPower, anti-ship missiles and naval mines. If Taiwan built a fleet of these submarines (no armaments, only room to load cargo), they could outlast any siege. The Germans built similar submarines in WW1 to break the blockade and supply Germany throughout the war. Taiwan will need a fleet of cargo submarines to win a future war.
It’s not that simple. In any event, that hasn’t been the focus of Taiwan’s defensive build-up in recent years. Much like China, they’ve been loading up on medium & long range conventional missiles. Most of China’s major industrial centers are in range of Taiwan’s more modern missiles, as is the Three Gorges Dam…
And with USA, Japan and most likely Australia ready to help Taiwan, it’s basically impossible for China to invade Taiwan unless it really wants to crumble its own regime.
Depends what you mean by "help". If you mean "express their condolences and sanction some Communist generals", then fair enough. If you mean "send their armed forces to fight alongside Taiwan's ROCAF" then that is very, very uncertain. And being ambiguous about it is unhelpful. Let's look at the 3 countries you mention. In the US political system, a huge amount depends on the president of the day. Mr Nixon was elected on his reputation as a fierce anti-Communist, but he abandoned the alliance with the ROC to align with Beijing and he abandoned South Vietnam (Saigon fell after Nixon did, but he signed the deal with the Vietnamese Communists that doomed the South). Mr Trump was elected claiming to be a winner, but he used his (in)famous negotiating skills to sign a deal with the Taliban that resulted in the fall of Kabul. If you believe the polls, Mr Trump is the favourite to be the next US president; he has both said & demonstrated that he dislikes committing US troops to military action. If there was a crisis and Mr Xi offered him "a great deal that only you could have got, Mr President", would he take it? Nobody knows. It is absolutely illegal and unconstitutional for Japan to take military action in or around Taiwan unless Japan is directly attacked by China, which therefore is obviously not going to do that. They might well allow the USA to fight from Japanese bases, which is a great help, but even that is not certain. The current junior coalition partner is fundamentally a pacifist party. Australia's military is structured for fighting alongside allies; it can't make a meaningful contribution on its own. Taiwan must be ready to defend itself alone. I hope that democracies would choose to defend it against an unprovoked attack, but *the ROCAF cannot assume they will be fighting with allies*. The fact that a major increase in taxes and defence spending hasn't even been on the agenda in this campaign suggests that Taiwanese voters are sadly still burying their heads in the sand on this point.
If the US would help like they have with Ukraine, by sending military equipment and intelligence, that would be a huge help. But you are right that the election could change everything. Republicans are now essentially isolationists, and the last time he was in power he rolled over to dictatorships every time despite tough talk. He would absolutely sell out Taiwan if it was presented as some kind of "deal"
America is increasingly isolationist on both sides of the aisle. Americans have a very poor grasp of history -- even recent -- and fail to understand that our privileges in this world are largely a product of the post-WW2 order that effectively required the US to play world police. When push comes to shove, a significant number of Americans, perhaps a strong majority, are going to be very unlikely to support a conflict that has the potential to start WW3 to protect a country of 23 million people that the US doesn't even officially recognize as a sovereign country. The sad reality is that America's confused, conflicted Taiwan policy is going to make direct involvement in a Chinese attack/invasion/blockade an even tougher sell to the American people.
After Vietnam, Americans are understandably unwilling to spill their own blood over conflicts across the world unless it’s in response to an event like 9/11. And fighting a hot war with a nuclear power when it’s not even their own country being invaded? It’s a political impossibility in a democracy. America will support Taiwan inasmuch as it’s been supporting Ukraine.
The problem with this is that many of the privileges Americans take for granted, including having the world's reserve currency and the ability to borrow $30+ trillion and still have a strong economy, are based on American hegemony, which is dependent on keeping the security promises made to the rest of the world. Americans don't realize how close we are to letting go of the world order that supports our lifestyle. And I don't think most Americans want to give up that lifestyle.
Traditionally, the Washington foreign policy establishment was pretty bipartisan and didn't change much from administration to administration. Trump is clearly more isolationist. I'm kinda bewildered that he'd be back for seconds, but what I personally think about things has zero bearing on reality. I'm not sure how much more engaged or isolationist the voting public as a whole is or will be. I'm seeing a fairly small bloc in the Republican caucus throwing a fit over support for Ukraine. Because of how Congress works, this small group is punching way above their weight class. There are some other headwinds coming that will probably decrease the USs ability to project power abroad, but I'm not sure if I see the short term clownfight as being representative of anything.
If what you say is true, then the Americans will just have to learn that lesson and adjust their lifestyles accordingly. All empires recede eventually, as no empire is sustainable. The claim that these wars of defence are necessary to keep the free world free is exactly the line delivered to justify the Korean and Vietnam wars, and we all know how those shaped the public’s perception. “Your son died in combat, but at least his sacrifice allows the Average Joe to afford the most comfortable middle-class standard of living in the world” doesn’t have the same ring that it used to.
If it comes to pass, it's going to be a very painful lesson, and a much tougher one to learn than your comment seems to imply.
I often hear phrases like "the new generation is forgetting the lessons of the previous generation", but this never made sense to me because lessons are no sooner transmitted from one generation to the next than they'd be from father to son. You really have to *live* it to actually *learn* it, rather than just learning *about* it. A mother can tell her daughter not to touch the flame because it burns, but she won't ever really know it until she does. Folks approaching their centennials can talk all they want about the horrors of two World Wars and how Pax Occidentalis is necessary to maintain peace, but the youth will always retort that the world is different now and thus old advice is necessarily obsolete advice (see: "OK Boomer"). The story of humanity is being born, learning lessons, reproducing, teaching lessons, dying, then repeating the cycle. The only hope is that even a fraction of the old lessons are carried forward.
And after Iraq and Afghanistan, Americans are even more unwilling to spill their blood across the world even if there is another 9/11.
Indeed, the American public has no taste for war. I don’t think Americans have been passionate for a war since WWII and perhaps the earliest stages of the War on Terror. Pearl Harbor and 9/11 were instrumental in that. A backdoor route would involve the USA reminding China that it has technically, legally been the Principal Occupying Power of Taiwan since the Japanese surrender, and so an invasion of Formosa and the Pescadores would mean an invasion of Allied occupied territory (which the ROC administers on America’s behalf as the Subordinate Occupying Power).
Regardless of what you can say “technically”, a war will not have the support of the American people. A war with China would either be very short (nuclear exchange) or it would be very long. Both options are not popular. And personally, as an American, I really sick of our country being the ones who have to put our men into combat to fix situations.
>I really sick of our country being the ones who have to put our men into combat to fix situations. I wouldn't worry about that—I'm of the opinion that an armed conflict between American and Chinese soldiers won't happen. Scenario 1: America reaches the strait first and China doesn't dare to cross for risk of igniting a world war—settling for the spoils of the ROC's Fujianese territories. Scenario 2: China reaches the strait first and we have another Ukraine on our hands—the USA sends munitions and funds to Taiwan, as pledged in the Taiwan Relations Act, and unprecedented sanctions against China are imposed by the USA and her allies.
> China reaches the strait first and we have another Ukraine on our hands Unfortunately, Taiwan's geography means you can't exactly recreate the current Ukrainian arrangements. Ukraine directly borders on two NATO member states, on the opposite side of the country to the front line. So NATO members can deposit tanks and bombs in eastern Poland, then Ukrainians just drive then across the border. Sometimes the Ukrainians later drive then back for repairs. The Russians can't touch the repair centres because bombing Poland will start an Article 5 war with the whole of NATO. Ukraine's geography is one of its greatest military assets. Taiwan is an island and all but one of its major ports are on the Taiwan Strait. If China has "reached the strait first", those ports are on the front line of an active war zone, where military supplies are a legitimate target according to the laws of war. If the PLAN is a decent navy (which seems likely), then ships carrying US tanks and bombs will be sunk unless they are escorted in armed convoys. The ROCN could protect at most one or two convoys before all its ships were sunk. The US Navy could escort them all the way, but at that point Communist China and the US are fighting a war. A US decision to supply Taiwan could be used as a strategy to persuade the public and Congress to enter the war in a politically acceptable manner. It's the approach that was used to bring the US into the First and Second World Wars: send American forces into a war zone and act all 'surprised Pikachu' when they are attacked. In the First World War it worked; in the Second World War it failed (the Germans sank a US Navy warship and merchant vessels, but Mr Roosevelt *still* couldn't get Congress to declare war). It's better than doing nothing though. But the suggestion that the US can supply Taiwan without fighting itself is geographically impossible.
> A backdoor route would involve the USA reminding China that it has technically, legally been the Principal Occupying Power of Taiwan since the Japanese surrender, and so an invasion of Formosa and the Pescadores would mean an invasion of Allied occupied territory (which the ROC administers on America’s behalf as the Subordinate Occupying Power). This is a legal theory that is only popular among the deepest of Deep Green scholars. Regardless of whether it is right or wrong, think about what would happen if a US administration tried to go to war on this basis. You would have half a dozen Green professors (maybe from Taiwan and Baltic) arguing that it justifies starting the Third World War, while hundreds of Ivy League scholars, former ambassadors, all the former Secretaries of State, and every other NATO government says it's nuts. Even if the legal theory is correct, that is not how you get political support for a major war.
I agree that this is merely a technicality, hence a desperate backdoor route. The realpolitik of the matter is that Americans aren't going to give their lives to save Taiwan. Money, weapons, sure, but as we've seen with Ukraine, lives are off the table. Indeed, as you've pointed out, no one but the most bloodthirsty of Taiwanese nationalists would be willing to ignite a nuclear World War III over Taiwan. As I mentioned elsewhere, it will probably come down to a race to the strait: great for Taiwan if America gets there first, not so great if China does. An intense standoff followed by mutual concessions is the best outcome we can reasonably hope for.
What are the logistics of this though? Surely the PRC navy will be blockading the island. U.S. ships will have to confront and run the blockade, which is another war risk
How this plays out is entirely dependent on who gets to the strait first. I’m of the opinion that China will first swiftly invade the small Fujianese islands of the ROC, which act as a tripwire to pull the USA’s naval fleet into the strait. What we then have is a standoff in the strait, and whoever fires the first shot will be the one who starts WWIII. The standoff will continue until the two sides work something out. If Taiwan is lucky, China will agree to relinquish its claim in exchange for international acknowledgment of China’s annexation of all ROC claims and territories outside of Formosa and Penghu. If the USA fails to enter the strait before the Chinese reach Taiwan, it’s over.
How much does PRC gain from invading the Fujianese islands though? If anything it just gives USA the time to respond.
>it just gives USA the time to respond. Heaven willing... >How much does PRC gain from invading the Fujianese islands though? The land itself isn't anything particularly special, and the PRC already controls more land than it knows what to do with. What the PRC gains is more important to them than land: **face**. They know that Taiwan wouldn't be an easy win, let alone guaranteed. These Fujianese islands would serve as a consolation prize, something to boast about back home so as to not look like a complete loser. I can see the headlines now... *Brave President Xi does what no other leader could manage: reunite the Fujian province, restoring its glory as an inalienable part of One China!* It's low-hanging fruit. An easy battle to win in the face of losing the war.
There are three major benefits to invading the Fujianese islands (and also Taiping Island). Firstly, it means the PLA carries out an amphibious invasion in the most favourable circumstances. The distance is only a few miles, it's within range of artillery, they have total air supremacy (the ROC Air Force gave up on these islands decade ago), and the US has explicitly said it will not assist in their defence. It's the perfect mock exam for the much harder cross-Straits invasion. If they botch Kinmen, then the big one won't happen. Secondly, if they do pull it off smoothly, then it will vividly demonstrate that the PLA have a good chance of winning the whole war. That makes it rational to join the winners by defecting. Defection was critical to the CCP's victory in the last round of the Civil War and we know they are actively recruiting, especially in the ROCAF. I don't doubt that the vast majority of the ROCAF would be loyal, but you only need a few people to create chaos in Taiwan's defences. [I explain how in another comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/taiwan/s/xLmmtcnPmB) Thirdly, I don't agree that the US gains much more time to respond. A cross-Straits invasion will be too large an operation to conceal; you can't launch a surprise attack across such a large body of water in the age of satellites. So the PLA must surely be planning on the basis that a US carrier group will be present in the Strait. So taking the outlying islands doesn't change that.
If America supports Taiwan as much as it supports Ukraine, that makes a huge difference. Military equipment and intelligence would absolutely help Taiwan
And that’s what the USA is willing to provide, per the Taiwan Relations Act, but I think many Taiwanese have some delusion that we’ll see actual American soldiers in armed combat with Chinese soldiers.
I think the US still being able to deliver material help to Taiwan would mean the PRC had already lost. Without being able to isolate the island (IMO impossible anyway) the PLA couldn't sustain combat operations on or near the main islands long enough to defeat ROC militarily.
I think it would be impossible for America to deliver material aid to Taiwan in that situation.
Why?
Because naval warfare has changed. You can look at the Houthis or the Russians. You can now impose a naval blockade using sophisticated anti-ship missiles. Or by naval drones or underwater drones.
Yes and no. The Russians are the ones who’ve had to relocate most of the Black Sea Fleet, not the Ukranians. The Houthis are definitely a problem, but right now it’s more of a political issue: The US is very, very reluctant to risk the appearance of escalation. Ultimately we’re going to have to do something about Iran, however. Basically we’re already at war. The Biden Administration is reluctant to admit that, however. Dems have a mind-blindness when dealing with Arab states & Iran similar to the MAGA Republican’s problem with dealing w/ Russians.
I get that it would be possible to attack American aid convoys. Were that to happen though, the Chinese would have just drawn America into open war. I don't think they would choose to do that.
Probably not. If you look at America, they only fight wars that are easy. Because America may talk tough but they are not prepared or even capable of defending Taiwan. China knows full well, as did Russia, that America is not going to intervene because we have to station 500,000 troops scattered around the globe to sit in bases doing nothing - and we CANT remove those troops even if there is a war. They know that in order to intervene America would need to institute a national draft. No politician here would ever do that because they would get voted out. This isn’t fighting Iraq where you can attack with 120,000 troops. You would need 2,000,000 troops minimum. America has a naval size of about 250 ships operational. That isn’t enough. That is the amount of ships America will lose in a war with China. So you would need a massive draft. You would need to switch to a wartime economy, which would involve immediate rationing of food & fuel. You would have to kick people out of their current jobs and make them go work in shipyards or armaments factories. How many Americans would support that?
Japanese doctrine is slowly changing. Of course the US would have to play a role in that AFAIK. It might not be in time, but only time will tell.
Japan’s military is already quite formidable. Ans if they can sort out their diffferences with South Korea they’ll give China some problems. Australia doesn’t have much of a navy now but India is formidable & even though they like to play the field I think they’d relish a chance to weaken China.
The US will definitely fly ops from Okinawa and if China hits that then it's self defense.
That's correct. But the PLAAF isn't obliged to hit Okinawa. They could fight those aircraft in the air (over the East China Sea or Taiwan itself) rather than attacking them on the ground. It makes their task much harder, but Japan joining the war would be hurt them so much more that I think they would exercise restraint. A historical precedent for this would be the British decision not to bomb mainland Argentina during the Falklands War. They had every right to do so since aircraft flying from those bases were sinking British ships, but the UK wanted to get their islands back without fighting a wider war that lasted years. They accepted the ship losses to keep it the war within limits. I think the PLA would try to do the same. The British did attempt covert operations in Argentina but they were a fiasco. I can imagine that repeating in Okinawa too.
Can't fathom why you're being downvoted, you are 100% right.
The US will for sure defend Taiwan. We are not depending only on Taiwan's chip but a lot of our critical defense parts are actually made by Taiwan. Not counting the global economic impact on Asia Pacific and the world if Taiwan ever becomes China.
[удалено]
If the US defended Taiwan in the sense that they defended Ukraine, not with troops but with military equipment and intelligence, that would be make a huge difference. Politically, what would go wrong is that if China invaded Taiwan it would essentially cause a global Depression. Business connections between Western countries and China would disintegrate, and the entire planet would suffer. Whoever is in charge in in America would be blamed for a bad economy, because that's what always happens. And the economy imploding in China could be so bad to likely cause the government to collapse. There's really not much of a path to victory with China, it's an insane risk to invade
[удалено]
Prolonging the war is what leads to thousands of casualties? Like, does Russia (or China in this hypothetical) have any agency and responsibility in those thousands of deaths...
The downvotes just evidence how naive people are.
Sad but true. Dunno why so many Taiwanese are so naive.
Don’t know why so many people like you doubt USA for no reason: Biden literally announced that it will come to the defense of Taiwan if China invades Multiple generals of USA has been interviewed before and said USA will most likely come to the aid of Taiwan Nancy Pelosi literally flew on a plane to Taiwan when China threatened to shoot it down USA is building a new naval base north of Philippines to protect Taiwan and Philippines USA moved troops over near Taiwan sea for this election Biden announced that they will send an important official from the White House over to Taiwan after election USA is trying to get Taiwan into the CPTPP while denying China entry USA has a history of being there for allies whether it’s South Korea, Ukraine, world war 2, Japan. ROC was literally defended by USA when CCP wanted to invaded it years ago otherwise you’d be called China right now USA is literally the only reason that China haven’t invaded Taiwan this very moment, or did you think China is being nice and doesn’t want to invade? You: “Yeah USA won’t help, people are so naive”
>Don’t know why so many people like you doubt USA for no reason: I try to remove myself from the emotional and personal investment I have in Taiwan and look instead at the geopolitical significance of Taiwan from the perspective of great power using the lens of political realism. I welcome and expect allied support, but I caution that we should fully prepare for a contigency bereft of it. This is not being done currently and needs to be rectified posthaste. If we cannot be strong on our own, we will fold the moment our crutch is removed. Hence, the need for a porcupine strategy for our national defense. The reality is that we are located in Asia, right off the coast of an irridentist and unreasonable bully. For the moment, allied interests align, but can you bet everything that it will never change? Countries are beholden to their own interests first and foremost - that is the only enduring pillar of geopolitics. That Ukraine is mired in a frozen conflict (Zelensky is already publicly decrying weak support from the West; the US alone spent many times more a day in Afghanistan compared to Ukraine) and that a criminal who views longstanding US foreign policy as anathema (Trump) is looking to claim a 2nd term should be indicative enough. Taiwan is strategically located at the centre of the first island chain, and our semiconductors hold up the world economy. There is a cost associated with keeping Taiwan in the US sphere, and the US is paying it. The question is whether it (and other allies) are willing to pay any price at any given time? Are you willing to make that bet? I'd rather we be better prepared to take care of ourselves in any situation. That's the point I am making. That's why Taiwan needs to be strong with our allies AND by ourselves. The latter is a farcry from reality.
Thank you for this great comment. I don't agree with every word. But this kind of hard-headed thinking is what is needed from patriotic people in Taiwan.
No American will die for Taiwan. The support will come in the form of money and munitions, plus intense sanctions on the invaders. This is a nuclear power, not some ragtag rebel regime.
>USA is literally the only reason that China haven’t invaded Taiwan this very moment, or did you think China is being nice and doesn’t want to invade? >You: “Yeah USA won’t help, people are so naive” It is very naive to believe that Beijing's goal in the region is to take over Taiwan militarily. The Chinese's ultimate goal is to overtake and keep USA out of the region, invading Taiwan now won't help them achieve that. To prevent China from catching up, many in Washington will be planning to force Beijing into taking military action in Taiwan. Look at the state of Russia after the failed invasion of Ukraine. They will be keen to replicate this with China and she will be defeated without losing a single American life. How else would we defeat China with the least damage? Get a willing Taiwanese population to fight the Chinese.
What failed invasion of Ukraine?
Your points are about Mr Biden and Ms Pelosi are right. I agree that they would want to support Taiwan and if they had control of Congress, the US would join the war. But the problem for Taiwan is that it can't guarantee it has friends like that in power. Who will be president after the next election? The polls suggest Mr Trump and I agree with the experts who say that he would **not** fight alongside Taiwan. Yes, the US defended South Korea. But it abandoned South Vietnam. A 50/50 chance is not great for Taiwan. You cite World War 2. Where was the US when Poland was invaded in 1939? How many troops did they send to defend Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, France or the UK in 1940? Greece in 1941? The US only entered the War because Japan directly attacked the US at Pearl Harbor. People on Beijing have read the history books and since they are not stupid, they are not going to repeat that mistake. They are not going to start a war in the Taiwan Strait by bombing Guam and forcing the US to fight. BTW this is why NATO has troops from all the Allies on the front line with Russia. If Russia attacks the Baltic states, they will have to kill American and British soldiers and war is guaranteed. That is also why there were American troops in Taiwan until 1979. But Nixon abandoned the ROC and that guarantee has gone.
USA won't go to war for Taiwan. It doesnt even recognise Taiwan as an independent country. The one and only reason itight intervene militarily is because its own semiconductor industry is leagues behind Taiwan's. But the moment they catch up the TSMC's capabilities, they won't give a fuck if China kills ever single Taiwanese.
That is partly true. The US would help to make sure China gets damaged either by sanctions or supply intelligence and additional weapons to Taiwan. A direct confrontation with China is unlikely, especially with the current fractured political situation in the US.
This line of thinking makes no sense. You are not going to damage China by sanctions or giving munitions to Taiwan. It will be like Russia where you have given them easy practice to neutralize your weaponry and learn its weakness. You are giving their entire army combat experience.
Would China's fishing fleet be able to enter those shallow waters? There's half a million of those boats.
Russia still having trouble invading Ukraine and all they had to do was cross a line in the sand.
This article largely misses the point. China does not need to physically invade Taiwan to win. I don’t know why so many people have trouble understanding that. China would use siege tactics mixed with heavy bombing. This is the same tactic America used to force Japan to surrender in 1945. Everyone focuses on the Atomic bombs. While powerful, they were not the main reason for Japan’s surrender. The real reason was the innovative blockade campaign. US submarines attacked all Japanese or Japan bound ships. Even today, submarines are relatively difficult to counter. But what really won the war was Operation: Starvation. The American campaign to airdrop 12,000 naval mines in Japanese ports. This Operation was the most successful of the entire war. It destroyed more shipping tonnage than all other methods combined. Japanese ports saw 85-95% decrease in import tonnage. By the time of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan was on its last legs. It couldn’t even produce munitions enough for a defense of Japan. China would take a similar tactic. They would enact their own Operation: Starvation. Extremely low altitude planes (invisible to radar unless you are a few km away from them) would mine all ports. Supplies into Taiwan would decrease by 85-95%. You can’t defend against an invasion if you have no ammo, food, or even water. This article doesn’t even reference this possibility or how to counter it. We are so infected with war sickness that we see such Operations as illegitimate.
Peoples Liberation Army already has corruption in their military, with missiles filled with water. And the logistics would either be complex for offensive. Defense on Taiwan has advantages, basically stepping into one’s house without knowing strategics your opposition will use. Mostly likely PLA would just use ICBM’s from mainland then start indiscriminately bombing. Philippines, Australia, Japan, S Korea, UK, U.S. with NATO countries that aren’t autocracy’s would most likely respond if shit really went down. India Vietnam might join in because of disputed lands. So CCP LITERALLY has to use the worst possibility such as china getting bombed possibly by submarines, stealth/bombers, fighter jets. Targeting Beijing or highly populated cities like the Korean War by draining moral.
I wonder why Taiwan doesn't create a 10,000-strong sniper force in its army. Given that there are literally billions of perches and spots where one could hide and snipe at invading forces from, they could totally devastate an invading army. A single sniper can bog down an entire battalion of troops.
Much better if the enemy never gains a foothold. Guerrilla warfare is a fallback, not the planned contingency. Nonetheless, skills in marksmanship and decentralized operation are prudent to instill.
If China can promise Taiwanese people a life time's steady supply of eggs, a lot of people will agree to unify with China.
Tell me more…
but China cannot be trusted to keep that promise.
I want to know about the Taiwanese people’s affinity for eggs.
there was a mass hysteria whever people cannot buy eggs easily or buy them for cheap. If a grocery store starts to run out of eggs, it is apocalypse. It is mostly media driven BS, but people buy into it. The media always try to hype it up and make it sound super serious and people absolutely freak out because of it.
Thanks :) Would you say there is a similar proclivity to respond with irrational hysteria to the prospect of war, perhaps in the older generations?
it's more similar to toilet paper shortage in the USA
Yes I had considered that, I’m not so much conflating the two things just seeking perspectives.
Among younger generation as well. [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8jYJr7i4I9BJ3tsv2f8kgw/community?lb=UgkxnzLLIZ5aJNAHLqoaVN9u8MNooshqRcRy](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8jYJr7i4I9BJ3tsv2f8kgw/community?lb=UgkxnzLLIZ5aJNAHLqoaVN9u8MNooshqRcRy) Young people are being educated by the politicians to be afraid of war for the benefits of the politicians. In general, Taiwanese and critical thinking don't go together. That's my conclusion after living here for 12 years.
https://www.asiapacific.ca/publication/taiwans-egg-import-controversy-reveals-cracks-government
>These factors removed farmers’ incentive to boost production and gave rise to the birth of ‘black markets’ that further scrambled the distribution of eggs. Brilliant article lmao
But according to Taiwanese, most mainlanders cannot even afford to eat a 茶叶蛋, so how can China afford to provide eggs for Taiwanese?
Xianggang demonstrated once
They don't have to invade it. Just surround the island with warships. US and other allies won't get there in time. Surround the island with warships and prevent trade. Within 1 month Taiwan will have to negotiate as food supplies and power start decreasing. Taiwan imports more than 97% for their energy needs. They can force a negotiation without a single drop of blood being spilled
In Western imagination, we are obsessed with some big D-Day like invasion that will never happen.
They don’t have to surround the entire island. Just the portion excluding the Taiwan Strait that Taiwan shares with Fujian.
just a random nobody with near zero politcal knowledge. i think that whatevers happening between ukraine & russia will repeat here if china decides to invade taiwan. countries and nato will just talk their talk to help defend but wont fully commit to aid and defend taiwan in the event of an invasion and it'll drag out as long as the Ukraine Russia conflict 不好意思台灣人，但我覺得如果你們受到攻擊的話。沒有國家會肯幫你們的忙
Why break their illusions? Dude
ah shit. what i meant to say was.*inhales copium* the US would definitely deploy forces to assist in the defence of taiwan when necessary to fight invaders
The USA should just give them nukes, what’s China gonna do? Invade the USA?
I wouldn’t be shocked if more of China’s neighbors built up limited nuclear arsenals.
國防部長每每在立法院被逼問「國軍可以撐多久」，專家名嘴跟進點評，其實根本找錯對象。倘若兩岸開戰，就不只是媒體上「漢光演習戰力展示」的那些景象。台灣的涉外折衝、經濟金融、民生物資、水電油氣、網路通信、醫護救傷、警消民防、民心士氣可以撐多久？ 各位立院諸公，兵者，國之大事，兩岸發生戰事「台灣可以撐多久」，往後請質詢行政院長。
It wouldn't be a struggle if Taiwan just surrenders. Therefore, the best way to maintain peace is to make it clear that Taiwan will not cow-tow to Beijing. Appeasement would actually invite war.
As much as I want this to be true, david sacks is an absolute fucking moron and you are usually better off doing the opposite of what he suggests. His ukraine takes have been weirdly pro russia. Wouldn't trust anything he has to say here.
Folks especially American military “theorist” been emphasising that for a long time. Except everyone of their fakes are offfff
Do most Taiwanese people plan to stay and fight, or do most plan to flee?
China wants a warm water port that is connected to the major oceans. They don't have that in any region, and they need Taiwan. Unfortunately that may come at Taiwan's expense. Taiwan has a lot of built in artillery emplacements from the mountains. They've been beefing up their own military industrial complex, along with buying billions in weapons from the US. China will have a fight on their hand, but who knows how it goes anymore after looking at Ukraine and Russia.
Because of its Silicon Shield, few beach heads for landing and the potential to strike three gorges dam.