So, I was watching some stuff earlier where Biden came out with an unqualified statement of support by the US for Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion. Sadly, this was walked back by the White House fairly rapidly, but I thought it might make an interesting topic for discussion.
So, what level of support do you think the US should give to Taiwan in the event of an invasion? This isn’t about debating if an invasion happens or doesn’t happen, this is…what should the US do if China attempts to use force of arms to take Taiwan? Should we support Taiwan militarily? Just protest politically? Use economic measures to show our displeasure? All of the above? Something else?
While we are at it, it’s today, right now. There is no invasion happening right now. What should the US be doing right now? Is it different than what we are actually doing? Should we, for instance, be giving Taiwan more military aid? Direct military training? Basing troops and weapons systems on Taiwan? Making our position, whatever it is clear…or going with this will they, won’t they approach?
As with most things, it’s not black and white, nor is it just about political support for Taiwan.
One of the things that has exacerbated China’s increased fervor to reunite Taiwan with China is Taiwan’s economic presence and position in the global semiconductor industry. TSMC, in Taiwan, is the world’s leading chip manufacturer. There has been speculation for over a year that China may invade Taiwan, just to nationalize TSMC.
The semiconductor industry is considered to be a national security issue for the US as well as by many other western nations, not so much as controlling it, but preventing China from controlling it.
I don’t believe that we want to start an all out war with China over Taiwan, so I expect our countries position will be some sort of moderated position.
How would that work in the invasion scenario? I guess I don’t understand what you are getting at. China invades…the US does what, IYHO?
As to the semi-conductor thing, it’s certainly a factor, especially in light of several spectacular failures by the CCP to build a homegrown industry that is a world leader. But I don’t think it’s the main reason the CCP will or wants to invade…more a bonus. Regardless, we are just talking about them invading and what the US would/should or even could do…and, perhaps what we should do in the interim right now.
Off the top of my head, strategic ambiguity. And if (in the event of an attempted invasion) a bunch of ambiguous submarines happened to park in the strait and ambiguously sink any Chinese war and troop vessels trying to cross, that would be ambiguously helpful to Taiwan.
It’s less about what we should do, and what we will do, which will be more politically motivated. I believe that our citizens are less favoring of military conflict after decades occupation in the Middle East. Lawmakers will consider that in deciding action, as they are always more concerned about being reelected than they are about doing the right thing.
I’m sure that we would move the fleet closer to Taiwan while staying in international waters. Taiwan being 2 times the size of New Jersey and being an island, means the strategy would be entirely different than boots on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq.
My main issue with strategic ambiguity is that I think that the US and the CCP often talk past each other, and misunderstand what the other is actually saying or thinking. I believe that in the past SA had a place, but I think that for a while now it’s actually made things more unstable and more likely to spiral into war…and this would be a war that the US and Taiwan certainly don’t want. I actually don’t think the CCP is being rational either, and the war they would get is not what they think it would be and certainly won’t be good for China either. But it might happen anyway, because of SA and a miscalculation by one or both parties thinking they are being clear while the other side sees and hears something completely different. I’ve used this example in the past, but sort of like how Iraq and Saddam et al heard the US tell them it was cool if they invaded Kuwait, while the US thought we were warning them off. This is actually my main worry. While I don’t really see a downside to, at this time, being completely clear and straightforward wrt Taiwan and our willingness to defend them IF they are attacked.
We can still keep the whole ‘Taiwan isn’t really a country’ thing going, can still discourage Taiwanese independents and all that. Just make clear that the US will not allow a change in the status quo through direct military means (i.e. we won’t allow the CCP to invade and conquer Taiwan…the CCP is still free to do what it’s been trying, which is to coerce the Taiwanese into ‘peacefully’ surrendering and joining the CCP mainland paradise).
Yes. We should be doing what we can now to discourage Beijing from invading Taiwan. That includes arming Taiwan to the teeth. I don’t see any downside to that – it only serves to protect the status quo. We have a range of constructive options available at present, but if the PRC ever does invade Taiwan, then all of our options – including non-intervention – are highly risky ones.
My personal opinion is that we should respond to a Chinese invasion of Taiwan the way we responded to the North Korean invasion of South Korea and the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. I would support the use of the American military to reverse such an invasion.
I think this can be a mistake in a situation like this. Too often, one country will ignore any ambiguous signals that another country is sending it. It’s very easy for countries to see what they want to see.
This is something I’ve been wondering - ISTM that Taiwan would be one of the most submarine-favorable scenarios imaginable. American surface warships would be vulnerable to Chinese antiship missiles (and Aegis has never been used in real life before,) but U.S. submarines are much more difficult for China to detect and sink, and put few American lives at risk (even thirty SSNs combined have fewer crewmembers, combined, than the crew of a Nimitz carrier.) The only difficulty would be that the Strait is pretty shallow, typically less than 200 feet.
The consequences of China attacking Taiwan would be severe for China (even if successful) and the consequences for America of Taiwan being conquered are not as dire as assumed
A Chinese invasion of Taiwan would not springboard China to further conquests of its Asian neighbors the way Hitler’s annexation of the Sudetenland and Poland did for conquest of Europe; in fact, it represents a “crippling dead end” for Beijing and all of China’s neighbors would ramp up their defense spending and the United States’ position would likely be strengthened in the region, not weakened
A formal U.S. defense commitment to Taiwan could invite China to use “grey-zone” tactics where it only uses tiny pinpricks to prod or poke Taiwan, thus falling just below the clear threshold of “does this warrant intervention or not?”
If the U.S. committed full-in on Taiwan’s defense in advance, but lost a war (it is possible, albeit not likely, that America would lose,) then the damage to U.S. credibility would be worse than if it had used ambiguity and not really committed.
If the U.S. committed to strategic clarity first, but then went through a contentious, heated debate in wartime in Congress as to whether it actually ought to intervene or not, then that would undermine U.S. credibility rather than enhance it.
Well, you hit the reason why it’s not that much of a submarine-friendly environment right there at the end…it’s too shallow and constrained for submarine operations to be optimal. This isn’t to say it can’t and won’t be used that way, but it’s not the best area for subs.
I agree the consequences would be severe even if the CCP prevails, but no idea how they can say it wouldn’t be dire for all involved. We are talking about a shooting war in one of the biggest trade routes in the world, where vast amounts of resources flow through, especially wrt supply chain and production, involving the Chinese mainland, a country that currently is heavily involved in trade with pretty much the entire world (which would be disrupted by, you know, the shooting war), and Taiwan…the largest and most advanced supplier of advanced chips. Even today, without a war we are having supply chain issues and chip shortages…with a shooting war? How could it be less dire? And this doesn’t even get into Taiwan getting bombed with all of the consequent civilian deaths and then the military losses on both sides.
No idea where these guys are getting this, but I disagree with this…and so does Japan. Seriously, how can they say it wouldn’t be a springboard, as it would break the first island chain…for sure…and allow the Chinese to extend their reach, threatening Japan directly. I’d say…and again, the Japanese seem to agree…that this is a near existential threat to Japan, and IF Taiwan falls then , eventually, Japan will fall into the Chinese direct sphere of influence.
They are doing this already, so I don’t see where they are coming from. The CCP is already stretching Taiwan’s military to the breaking point. These incursions aren’t ‘pinpricks’ and haven’t been for a while. And I don’t see how a formal US commitment would do anything more than, perhaps, allow the US to base assets there and use them to help with intercepts and such. Just like what we did in Europe wrt the Soviets when they were doing this same stuff. This didn’t lead to an escalation of ‘grey zone tactics’ by the Soviets, since, as the CCP they were there already. It just allowed the US more flexibility in helping out.
If the US didn’t commit to assisting then basically no country would…or should…trust us to have their back. If the US committed to defending Taiwan and lost, well, no one could say we didn’t try or we left an ally to their own devices. I have to say, I’m not really impressed by any of these. A lot of these sound like what Beijing is saying, to be honest.
This is an easy one…simply sign a treaty. That ends the debate. I actually don’t think there would be a huge, contentious debate in Congress if China attacked Taiwan…and I seriously doubt the American people would be divided over this either. It would be naked aggression of a small state being attacked by a large power, which is something that I think both political parties would abhor. The only real contention would be those of our own elites that are captured by the CCP, but I have to believe that the number of those is relatively small, and they won’t want to risk the blowback by standing in the way. As I said, I think this is easy…you sign a formal treaty. That commits the US by law to the said treaty and ends the debate. And I think that right now both parties would be open to this, especially if the CCP keeps pushing.
I don’t even think this is true of the CCP. You seem to think that China is some monolith and everyone is in lockstep. That’s not even true within the CCP, let alone the Chinese people as a whole. The CCP is riddled with factions, and some of those factions want things from ‘the West’, while others don’t. Xi’s faction itself wants things from the West, but they seem to be willing to have a break if it comes to that. Personally, I think that’s the way towards economic suicide for the CCP, but I won’t shed any tears for them…merely for the Chinese people.
I agree. Plus, the CCP is clearly the aggressor, while Taiwan just wants to get along and not be ignored by the world.
Well…I’d have to say that the US is actually the 800-pound gorilla. As for 1000’s of years, while that’s kind of true the CCP pretty much destroyed a lot of that history and deliberately broke the Chinese people from the continuum of that flow, breaking down their society and reforming and rebuilding it pretty much from scratch. you can see the effect of this just on how their society is today and things like the 1 child policy. Looking at it that way, China today…mainland China (ironically, Taiwan still IS connected to that 1000 year tradition and continuum) is less than 100 years old. Less than even the 1949 victory in the civil war, as it took Mao et al years to break down the Chinese culture and people and reform it in the image they wanted.
I think from every perspective…moral, ethical, pragmatic, etc…the US should support and defend Taiwan. I honestly believe that if we made this clear to the CCP…clear so they really grasped it…that it would do a lot to avoid a war that seems more likely to me now than at any time in the past decade or so.
BTW…welcome to the 'dope! Glad to have you, and thank you for the response.
To be very selfish, what is the benefit to America to going to war with a huge opponent like the PRC to defend Taiwan? I certainly can understand the moral and ethical arguments, and don’t want to dismiss them, but IMHO that is not enough to risk the overwhelming cost it would take in both lives and money to defend Taiwan if China decided it was worth the risk to attack. Hainan Island initially avoided a communist takeover but fell in 1950. It frankly seems like an accident of history and geography that Taiwan wasn’t absorbed by the PRC around the same time. After the immediate shock of China’s invasion wore off, would America notice any change? I think America should treat it like Russia’s annexation of Crimea. Something we shake our fist at, maybe even put on some sanctions to make it feel like we are doing something, but not worth risking war over.
The US has a ton of very selfish benefits of keeping the status quo. From the perspective of going to war with the PLA over Taiwan, the biggest is geopolitical. Basically, the US demonstrates that it is a strong ally that has the back of its various allies around the world. The US’s power is built on its alliances. This runs contrary to the narrative that the US wastes resources and such supporting allies and building these alliances (basically, the Trump era thinking). If the US doesn’t defend Taiwan then it puts this into direct question…can our allies believe we’d support them if we don’t support Taiwan.
From there, a shooting war in Taiwan and the political fallout would have a direct, very negative impact on the US. This is win or lose. However, the fall of Taiwan to the CCP would have impacts on the US at nearly every level, from economic to the aforementioned geopolitical. It would absolutely push the US out of any sort of containment of the CCP in the South and even East China Seas region. It would directly threaten Japan and markedly reduce our alliance with them…and our ability to then support them going forward would be reduced. The conquest of Taiwan would also potentially have a long-term impact on high tech and resources such as advanced chips, shifting that directly to the CCP…which, again and purely from a selfish perspective has a very negative impact on the US. There are other things, such as the psychological impact on our own people of the US doing nothing while Taiwan burns, and the political impact of whoever is in power at that time and made that call…that will probably be career-ending and potentially have an impact on whichever political party (or parties if they are both agreeing on this, which I don’t see) makes this call.
It would be a fundamental change, IMHO of course. I can’t even imagine what wouldn’t change with this.
No. Crimea was and is a relatively obscure area and isn’t connected or involved in much of the world’s system. They haven’t been a long-time US ally. We didn’t and don’t have any ties to them. They aren’t on the cutting edge of high-tech or advanced chip manufacturing. ETA: They aren’t and weren’t a model democracy. They aren’t in a key area of trade, many of our allies aren’t in dispute with Russia over territory in the Black Sea…it goes on and on. Crimea is nothing like Taiwan, especially from the US’s perspective.
I didn’t say Crimea was like Taiwan, I said I think the response should be like the takeover of Crimea. I am sure the financial impact of a takeover of Taiwan would be greater than the takeover of Crimea.
Every single other impact you mentioned would pale in comparison to the consequences of having a shooting war with China. I agree that our inaction would trouble our allies. So would losing 2 or 3 of our carriers to Chinese missiles. Losing our trade with Taiwan would be troublesome. Losing our trade with China would shut down our economy.
Submariner Dopers like robby and iiandyiiii can comment in much greater detail, but AIUI an American intervention on Taiwan’s behalf would actually be remarkably low-cost, in terms of lives and money. In fact, this would be a war that might be won with only a tiny fraction of the assets and resources spent on a war like Iraq or Afghanistan.
Unlike murky, unclear, vague wars like Iraq, Vietnam or Afghanistan that dragged on forever against an unclear and hard-to-identify foe, a Taiwan war would be as clear-cut and simple as it gets: Prevent Chinese forces from crossing the Strait. It would be as stark and simple as a mission could be.
If the U.S. were to send the two Pacific-based SSGNs (USS Michigan and USS Ohio,) that would be 308 Tomahawks that could be fired at targets in China. If the U.S. were to send a dozen Pacific-based SSNs, that would be 400+ torpedoes, missiles, etc. The effect that that would have on Chinese naval shipping would be immense, especially given that Chinese invasion ships wouldn’t have the luxury of taking much evasive action - they would be functioning as shuttles ferrying invasion troops from Point A to Point B as quickly as possible, then going back and repeating, back and forth back and forth, in entirely predictable straight-line routes. Which in turn would mean that all American subs would have to do would just be to lie in wait in ambush and sink the Chinese ships when they passed by. B-1 Lancer bombers each carry 24 LRASM antiship missiles apiece, too. While all this was going on, Taiwan would be using its own hundreds of antiship missiles and lots of tube and rocket artillery, mines, etc. as well - to say nothing of anything Japan might be doing.
If no surface warships or ground troops were deployed - only bombers and submarines - this might be a war that might be measured in a few hundred American lives lost vs. hundreds of thousands for China (one Newsweek article cited sources projecting up to 500,000 Chinese combat deaths in a Taiwan war, although that publication was way back in 2005.) And again, even thirty American submarines combined have fewer crewmembers in total than a single U.S. aircraft carrier.
But I welcome anyone poking holes in my thoughts; I’m just spitballing ideas here.
