But the only way tp stop a war, at this point, would be to convince China - really convince it - that the U.S. is willing to fight. That doesn’t mean wanting to fight, but it does mean willing to fight, or at least, doing a very good job of pretending to be willing to fight.
Yes, exactly. And they will spread the word on their social media. Often in code. Some of it will be removed and some censored, but that will actually key people in that this is happening. As you say, this isn’t the 50’s, and today’s Chinese people aren’t the little red book thumping fanatics they were then. They have a level of prosperity their parents and grandparents couldn’t imagine, and this is already teetering today. In a war, they aren’t going to be content with an ‘iron rice bowl’ and meekly go back to work at the ‘munitions factory’.
How about this example then. A country that shall not be named takes over the Sudentenland and no country bats an eye. They signed a non-aggressing and cooperation treaty with the USSR. They occupied Austria and annexed Czechoslovakia and no countries intervened. Then, along with the USSR, they invaded Poland…
I think we are at the point where China has pushed their neighbors with border disputes and territorial expansion to our limit. As with the European powers, we could make concessions to keep the peace…in these terms, we could make concessions in the South China Sea region and reign in the various powers there to allow the Chinese to build their bases and make their claims. We could pressure India to allow the salami slicing in the LAC and push them back…to a point. But Taiwan is a whole other level, and I think the American people WILL care about that…a lot. The US doesn’t have to be attacked directly to be on board defending another country. Think Kuwait in the first Gulf War…I’d say the support was pretty heavy to kick the Iraqi’s out on both sides of the political aisle and ran pretty deep with average Americans. And I seriously doubt most Americans ever heard of Kuwait before Saddam’s invasion…most probably had only the vaguest idea who and where Iraq was for that matter.
Well, I’ll do that for you. I have a son in the Navy who is stationed in Japan and another son who is in the Marines and recently stationed in Guam. I worry about them all the time, especially the son who is in the Navy, as his ship regularly does the Freedom of Navigation exercises to keep pressing the point that while China was allowed to build its island fortresses it doesn’t, in fact, own the region.
I don’t want a change in the status quo. No one does. But you sound like you are good if China decides to change that on their whim and conquer a democratically run island of 23 million people just because you don’t want to risk any American lives. I…who actually have family members at risk…feel just the opposite. I also think that such an attitude as you and, sadly a lot of others in our government, is actually much more likely to lead to putting my kids at risk than if we told the CCP that we were not going to allow them to take Taiwan and change the status quo, and if we move substantial forces into the region to ensure they got the message. We seem to be making the same mistakes as just before WWII in not sending a clear message and backing that up with a show of force that we are serious about it.
Give us the clear message that will prevent China frim starting WWIII. It’s been hinted at over and over that we need to be “tougher”, but no specifics on what that might be.
If you are asking me what that should be or look like I can get a few thoughts. First off, drop the strategic ambiguity…clearly state that the US will defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese attack. Then move US assets to Taiwan. Just like we did during the Cold War with the Soviets in Western and Northern Europe. We could move anti-missile batteries to the island and have them set up in a month or so as well as troops and vehicles…and training personnel. Sell the Taiwanese advanced military gear without limits…whatever they want to and can buy. Tanks, APCs, missile systems. Everything we sell to our other allies, make that available to Taiwan. And don’t do any of this alone. The Japanese have already started arming in the Senkaku Islands…assist them in bolstering that, and get them on board with a formal defensive treaty between the US, Taiwan, and Japan. Bring in Australia as well if they are keen (I think they are). Continue to form tighter relations with India as well, and if they want to be on board with this bring them in too. Same with any other power willing to stand up for the status quo. US strength is in our alliances, and a strong alliance is what is needed here.
The idea is to ensure the CCP gets the message that we will not allow a change in the status quo and that an attempt by the CCP to take Taiwan by force would be too costly. At the same time, perhaps hold out a carrot…drop the current trade tariffs or at least reduce them (a phased reduction) based on their behavior…but put automatic systems in place that if the CCP does certain things the tariffs go back on, and can even be ratcheted up based on THEIR actions. Make it clear what the triggers are and what will happen, and that this will be automatic, so them buying off some of our elites won’t really help them. Also, and this won’t be very popular, we need to make it clear to all parties that this isn’t the time for Taiwan to use this to declare independence. Tsai Ing-Wen has repeatedly said she isn’t pushing for this, and that Taiwan doesn’t need to declare something that is patently already the case, so we need to reinforce that both to Taiwan AND to the CCP and mainland Chinese people…this is about maintaining the status quo and ensuring that this continues.
You are 100% correct. I would not put 1 American life on the line for Taiwan. Its time to stop being the policeman. We can’t do it anymore, and haven’t been terribly successful at it while we were trying. The arrogance of thinking we can is staggering. Can you imagine any other country thinking they have the ability or obligation to unilaterally stop all aggression, everywhere in the world?
You may be willing to start WWIII to stop the inevitable ascension of China as the dominant power in Asia. I am not, and would vote against any politician that suggested it.
France and the UK weren’t willing to start WWII over German aggression. How did that work out for them? To me, what you are saying here is more likely to set off a global war than what I’m proposing. As to your vote, well, that is certainly your prerogative and I applaud you for doing what you feel is right. That’s how democracy is supposed to work. If you can get enough voters on your side, I guess we shall see if appeasement works this time. If I get enough on my side we shall see if a direct stance to maintain the status quo still has the CCP reaching for their gun.
And let the world burn? I disagree. It’s time for us to stop being the lone ranger, I’ll grant you that, but if the US just backs out of the world and leaves it to the rest it will, again, be more likely to cause wars as regional powers fill the vacuum. China, for sure, will be at war regionally with several powers if the US took this stance…and India has nuclear weapons too.
We have presided over one of the most unprecedented periods of peace and stability in human history. Not sure how that hasn’t been a success by any measure. There have been no great power conflicts since WWII. You know how rare that is in history? The US hasn’t been terribly successful at lone rangering our foreign policy and building democracies at the point of a gun, but then that hasn’t worked out well for any of the other major powers either.
I can’t imagine any other country that has the power and ability to do that…including China today. As to stopping all aggression, the US has never tried to nor could do that. What we can do is stop great power confrontations and direct conflict. And we can do that in Taiwan too…if we do it. If we don’t, then we are basically allowing Germany to take Czosolvakia and hope that this appeases them and they will stop there. We are basically allowing 23 million people to be forcefully enslaved to a totalitarian/authoritarian regime that is brutal, cruel and, frankly stupid all because we didn’t want to risk one American life or have some idea that we need to stop being a power on the worlds stage.
It is…but I think in a different direction than you seem to think. The arrogance to think we should cut loose 23 million people in a model democracy because it’s too hard and we don’t want to risk any of our citizen’s lives to preserve theirs is…well, it’s staggering and saddening too.
If the U.S. were in fact to make it clear to China that it would intervene, it may be better to do so quietly rather than publicly. To loudly and publicly state, “We will not let China have Taiwan” could actually indirectly goad CCP leaders/officials into being even more aggressive on the matter for the sake of ‘saving face,’ lest they be perceived by the Chinese populace as being afraid of America, or letting a foreign power dictate what China can and cannot do. Image is supremely important.
So maybe America could act very ambiguous in public but very firm in private. I usually loathe Sun-Tzu and the Art of War but the quote about “give your enemy a golden bridge to retreat over” is applicable.
Probably the only way to remove the ambiguity in the situation is for the US to actively take the initiative. Which would really require that a massive force sails into a defensive position around Taiwan, and then Taiwan declares independence. Then ride out the storm.
There is near zero chance this will occur. However it is possibly the best tactic if China becomes intolerably belligerent, but remains short of invading. Any hint would precipitate an invasion. Difficult.
Again, there is a hellish level of brinkmanship and need for steely eyed resolve. The first to blink will lose, and lose badly.
That nuclear powers are involved gets us to a place we have never ventured before, and somewhere that nobody really wants to go. As noted above, since WW2 the world has seen a reduction in conflict and war never before seen in recorded human history. Since WW2, on average, any human alive has less than one fifth the chance of dying in war then any time in recorded history. Things are so quiet that most people cannot even correctly rank the three most deadly wars since WW2 correctly, and most can’t name the worst at all. Despite the misery in our news, we have never had it so peaceful.
I am not going to get off on a tangent about the causes of WWII, but I don’t know how you think WWII would have turned out better for France or the UK if they had declared war on Germany in 1938.
How long do you think that can last? WWII and the cold war created a unique situation in which only the US and the Soviet Union had the ability to project power. After the collapse of the Soviet Union we were the only one left standing. The power vacuum will eventually shift back to the normal situation with regional powers that can can will assert their own will.
I guess my definition of “great power conflicts” must be different than yours. The cold war and its many proxy wars, and 30 years of being on the brink of a nuclear war certainly qualifies as a great power conflict in my book. Our many failures in Africa, the Middle East, Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam all show less than a stellar track record.
Yes, and in 1975 we walked away from Vietnam and allowed millions to be left to a brutal, cruel and frankly stupid authoritarian regime. 45 years later and Vietnam is a large trading partner. If you are making a human rights argument, then we should definitely invade mainland China, where 1 billion people are living under that regime. We cannot stop everything bad in the world. Its time to stop pretending we can.
We left millions under terrible communist repression from 1945 until the fall of the Soviet Union, some of whom were our allies in WWII. Its terrible. We should take all possible steps short of war to stop it. But at the end of the day, we have to realize our limitations and act accordingly.
I’d say it could potentially last at least another decade, maybe two depending on how things play out. Eventually, the US will be at the point you seem to be advocating…i.e. we simply won’t be able to be the strongest superpower backed by the strongest alliance in history. Also, other powers that are even vaguely in the US’s sphere of influence or at least roughly aligned have their own agendas…India is probably the biggest example of this.
So, yes, eventually there will be more assertion by regional powers. But it doesn’t have to be now, today, and I think time is on Taiwan’s side, to get back to this specific example.
I guess it is. I define it as a direct war between great powers. That didn’t happen at any time since WWII. Those conflicts you mentioned, in a historical context, were pretty minor, even Vietnam, compared to earlier historical levels of conflict.
I agree, many of our actions weren’t exactly stellar. Neither were the actions of our competitor, the USSR. But what didn’t happen was a direct war between the US and USSR…or even a direct war between the USSR and China, another possible confrontation, or USSR and Europe, etc. Even if it stayed conventional the casualties would have been 10’s if not 100’s of millions…certainly more than happened in WWII.
No, that would be ridiculous and would be like our lone ranger adventures of the past. I’m not saying we need to overthrow the CCP…I’m saying we need to protect 23 million people who do not want to be under their control and are willing to fight to ensure that. Vietnam was stupid because, frankly, the North Vietnamese were right. We got into that war because of French colonialism and trying to maintain that. The people themselves were divided, and corruption on both sides was endemic. The key was that the Vietnamese people wanted a unified Vietnam, not a divided one. Taiwan is nothing like Vietnam. They DO NOT want to be part of the CCP’s communist wonderland by a huge margin.
We did. We didn’t have a lot of choices, as the Soviets already occupied those regions and, decided on their own to go back on agreements they had made that those places would be able to self-rule eventually. This would be different…this is allowing a power to use military force to conquer what is to all intents and purposes a self-ruled democratically elected state and put them under the CCPs thumb. It’s a completely different set of circumstances. And it’s our choice…we don’t have to let China do this. With the Soviets in Eastern Europe, we certainly had choices, but all of them entailed us attacking them and having to drive them out…something I have my doubts we could have done, certainly not easily or cheaply. This is defending a nation-state that wants to fight and wants to keep their freedom and definitely does not want to be part of the CCPs system. There is a huge distinction between the two.
We clearly see this issue from very different lenses. Hopefully people that have more power and influence than us (assuming you’re not some high level government official posting on the SDMB) will come up with a solution that can maintain the status quo. Best wishes to your sons in the military. I sincerely thank them (and you) for the sacrifices.
I agree completely. This is merely a discussion, and it’s been a good one, IMHO of course. 
I appreciate the views, as even if I don’t agree it lets me see what others are thinking, see things from other perspectives and evaluate my own stances on things. I often modify my positions, at least a bit (sometimes a lot) based on arguments made that are opposed to my own.
I hope those in power and who know more about this will make the right calls and do the right things to maintain peace and stability and the status quo. I hope that for both sides, not just the US.
That’s a rather odd take on it. You do realize that there’s noway even 1% of what you posted there can pass by today in China, I hope.
But the Japanese have not started to militarize the Senkaku Islands. They have in the Okinawa islands but not the Senkaku ones.
From here:
Japan’s defense minister confirmed plans this week to deploy several hundred Self-Defense Force personnel and missiles to another of its southwestern islands to deter and defend against a potential threats from China’s growing military.
Kishi Nobuo told reporters that anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles will be emplaced on Ishigaki-jima sometime in 2022, Japanese defense ministry sources told the Yomiuri Shimbun.
Japan has been laying the groundwork for emplacing missile batteries on Ishigaki since at least 2017.
If you look at where Ishigaki-jima island is, it’s pretty close to the eastern coast of Taiwan.
ETA: And yes, they haven’t started to deploy yet, but they have started to put in the infrastructure.
Again, these are not the Senkaku Islands. Your own cite says that. These are part of the Okinawa island chain and not Senkaku. The are called the Yaeyama Islands and they are not part of the Senkaku Islands.
You may not be aware of the particularities of the dispute between Japan and China, but Japan actually militarizing the disputed Senkaku Islands could lead to a shooting war between the powers.
The reason Japan is placing missiles on the Yaeyama Islands is because they are undisputedly part of Japanese sovereignty, while being close, but not on Senkaku Islands.
The US has declared that it will help Japan if China makes a military move against Senkaku but behinds the scenes undoubtedly is discouraging any escalation there.
Yeah, sorry about that. I was thinking of the Senkaku’s when I typed that on my phone and I didn’t check. I only recalled, vaguely, that they were putting in missile batteries on one of their southern most islands.
I am aware of the dispute, yes. And, yes, thinking about it now it probably would lead to increased tensions, if not a shooting war (the US WOULD defend Japan and it’s territories, for sure, no questions asked, so I doubt China would start a shooting war over it…but they would certainly be pissed, and I could see some harsh economic repercussions for Japan).
Absolutely agree. Same with Taiwan wanting independence from the US’s perspective…we discourage this as it would be an escalation. Sorry for my confusion, like I said when I posted that I was going from memory and posting from my phone while walking around, so I didn’t check. Like I said in hindsight for all the reasons you gave, they wouldn’t put military installations there for fear of escalating tensions already high with China. However, the point I was making was that Japan is placing military installations pretty close to Taiwan…close enough they could be used to help defend Taiwan in the event of an invasion. And some of the things Japan has said lately mean they are at least thinking of the possibility. You would probably know more about Japan’s attitude towards this whole thing and the direction of the current government.
They are as trapped into maintaining the conflict with Japan over that as it has become another symbol of Chinese’s legitimacy and allowing them to be militarized could be political suicide for any leader who allowed that to happen.
It’s similar to Taiwan’s independence. Taiwan is a small country so they can’t really care that much about it, but the symbolism is too powerful. Any leader who were to allow Taiwan, or even a few specks of rocks like Senkaku to slip from their grasp would but into question their whole validity and authority.
If a leader knows their political lives are over, they could be tempted to risk the country. We are certainly familiar with a particular recent US leader who placed himself over anything else.
I was following it a lot more closely when I lived in Japan, but they understand Japan can’t lose Senkaku to China and certainly seeing Taiwan get taken over by China would be really, really bad for Japan. It would be an existential threat so they need to take it seriously.
The problem, of course is that because of that nasty bit of history, it’s a hard sell to the public.
Japan made a deal with America to subjugate itself for security and for the average person, wars, armies, security et al, isn’t really within their world. The world isn’t a dangerous place and they really don’t think or debate about it.
However, I haven’t lived there for a while now, so it may be that things are changing.