We should not choose to fight a war with China if they invade Taiwan

I didn't make the claim that China will actually invade Taiwan, nor did I make the claim that we would abandon our allies. And spoiler alert, but I didn't write the article that I posted.

 

A pretty thoughtful analysis.

As to the PRC's claim of sovereignty over Taiwan, they have a point. It's a debatable point since the actual population doesn't want to be annexed under the current government, but by the US accepting the One China policy in the 1970's and withdrawing both diplomatic recognition and our defense agreement, the fate of Taiwan was thrown to the wind long ago.

That would have been a moot point if Communist China had collapsed like the Soviets did, and as we seem to have expected at the time. But they didn't so here we are.

 

Heh, a 100%?

 

I assume you mean mutual defense pacts. Spoiler alert, but we no longer have one with Taiwan. Our policy is strategic ambiguity unless Biden gets too much Adderall.

 

Yes I have. President Biden has made that point a couple of times since he's been in office, although the White House has usually walked that back afterwards.

But China doesn't need to start a war. They can simply wait until the West is suitably distracted and issue an ultimatum to Taiwan to accept PRC sovereignty or they will blockade the island.

Then of course the onus is on Taiwan or...us to fire the first shot. I doubt Taiwan could last much more than a month under a blockade, so you can guess what happens.

 

Then why discuss the topic of abandoning Taiwan if you did not make that claim if China invades. The right, the far right, is trying to use WW3 and China as an argument to become isolationist, among other things. This has been expessed by Ramaswamy and others with this argument. The precept of the argument is that China will invade taiwan and our policy is we should not intervene in said conflict.

 

You know, it would be helpful if you actually read the article in the OP because from your comments you seem to have zero understanding of the premise. It seems rather pointless in having a discussion with you on this topic if all you have to add to a discussion are preloaded buzzwords, far right, isolationist...this article isn't about any of that.

 

I did read the article Mike. I read it thoroughly. However, the premise is based on the belief that China would invade Taiwan sooner rather than later. Hence why the talk of "should we defend our allies from invasion such as Taiwan?" Again, the big picture is really the isolationist attitude that is sweeping the far right with countries that the isolationists either don't like or don't think they are worth defending because they are beneath you.

No one really wants war. Governments who decide to make war do so on their assessment on what the other side might or might not do. Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022 is a prime example. : Putin thought that NATO would be divided if he invaded and thought it was an easy target. He was completely wrong. The same with Taiwan. China does want Taiwan to become part of the PRC, but they rather do it politically and not militarily. Their military is based on the premise of protecting the country from one's enemy, including what they consider is the US, and not too much concerned with UK, France, or even Germany. We do the same. We did it with the USSR, with China, and so forth. We even did it with Afghanistan, Iraq, Grenada, and so forth. Even you guys are now considering Mexico and want an invasion.

So, let's go over this one more time, just for you. If China invades Taiwan, we will defend it. China may not use nuclear weapons in that scenario because they have an official policy of not shooting first. We won't because we use our nuclear deterrent on the doctrine of mutual assured destruction and won't launch first either. So, this will be a conventional war with Japan, the US, possibly Australia, and a few other nations defending Taiwan. But we won't invade China. We would need our current army to be at least 3 times the size and the Navy at least 4 times its current size for that to happen. So, the numbers are not there. We do have a lot of assets in the region, mainly Japan since we renegotiated our agreement in 1997. there are more troops stationed in Japan than in Germany right now. Furthermore, Japan was a strategic location for our western Pacific approach to the Middle East, especially to the Persian Gulf. it is quicker to transport from the West Coast than the East Coast.

 

OK if you still think this article is about isolationism, than I just plain do not believe you read that article. Instead you have your own agenda and you want to pontificate on that and ignore the topic or deal with any of it's ramifications.

Continue with your useless buzzwords and talking points.

 

". . . While the United States is thousands of miles from Taiwan, the island’s fate will have major implications for U.S. security and prosperity. What happens in the Taiwan Strait will also bear on fundamental questions of international order and the future of democracy. Our recent Council on Foreign Relations-sponsored Independent Task Force Report, U.S.-Taiwan Relations in a New Era: Responding to a More Assertive China, explains that the United States has vital strategic interests at stake in the Taiwan Strait and examines how the United States should protect these interests. . . . ."
Why Is Taiwan Important to the United States?

Council on Foreign Relations
https://www.cfr.org › blog › why-taiwan-important-un...


Jun 20, 2023 — Politically, Taiwan is one of Asia's few democratic success stories and by some measures the region's freest society. Its open political system ...

". . . American leaders increasingly realize the critical role Taiwan plays for US global interests. Taiwan’s geographic situation in East Asia anchors the First Island Chain, the linchpin to America’s defense of Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines. Further, as Chris Miller explains, the pandemic showed the world the importance of Taiwan’s production of nearly all of the world’s advanced semiconductor chips. The island accounts for 37 percent of all the new computing power in the world—every year. These factors make it increasingly unrealistic that the United States can avoid coming to Taiwan’s defense even if it wanted to. If Washington hopes to avoid a conflict with Beijing over Taiwan, it must act now to increase its deterrent against China. . . . "

American Power and the Defense of Taiwan

Foreign Policy Research Institute
https://www.fpri.org › article › 2023/03 › american-p...


Mar 9, 2023 — For the United States, preserving the status quo in the Taiwan Strait is critical for American security and economic interests—any Chinese ...

 

"If China invades Taiwan, we will defend it. China may not use nuclear weapons in that scenario because they have an official policy of not shooting first. We won't because we use our nuclear deterrent on the doctrine of mutual assured destruction and won't launch first either. So, this will be a conventional war with Japan, the US, possibly Australia, and a few other nations defending Taiwan. But we won't invade China. We would need our current army to be at least 3 times the size and the Navy at least 4 times its current size for that to happen. So, the numbers are not there. We do have a lot of assets in the region, mainly Japan since we renegotiated our agreement in 1997. there are more troops stationed in Japan than in Germany right now. Furthermore, Japan was a strategic location for our western Pacific approach to the Middle East, especially to the Persian Gulf. it is quicker to transport from the West Coast than the East Coast."

This reads like it came from Nimarata Haley or John Bolton's mouth. It's the kind of dumbassery that needs to end. Let the Chinese handle their own ****. What majority ethnic group lives in Taiwan officially known as the Republic of China? Han Chinese. The same as in the People's Republic of China AKA China.

Get the **** out of other people's business!!

Oh oh oh, the big bad US navy gonna send some ships over there? They are now called sitting ducks with the advent of hypersonic missiles. And if China doesn't have their own, I'm sure after we interfered in the ukie disaster that Russia would "help defend" China by giving them whatever they asked for. This is what happens when you stick your ****ing nose where it doesn't belong.

We've got our own damn problems inside our own damn country that need fixing! We don't need to be ****ing around IN ANOTHER WAR WE WILL LOSE WHILE CERTAIN POLITICIANS GET RICH OFF THE BLOOD OF OTHERS.

The only ****ing war we've won in the last 100 years was against Japan, and that took a nuke. Get real warmongers.

 

it is funny when the left points out the rights views in the recent past, they realize how dumbed down those views of theirs really were

So...Congrats?

 

Why then defend South Korea?
Japan?

 

You do not need to invade China to beat China
China's infrastructure is frail. Go after that.
And blockade the ports.

 

What will you block their ports with? Fairy tales? Their infrastructure is not frail. Lay off the fake news.

 

Says the guy who thinks Russia's forces would be more than a late-night snack for NATO.

 

And WTF is nato doing Jacko? Losing.

 

Don't be fooled. China is collapsing. Not even a paper tiger.

 

Thanks for a peek into your alternate universe.

 

No, "the right hates China" has never applied to the right, unless you simply have no idea what the word "hate" means.

 

Defense Treaties?

 

SSNs

M'kay.

 

Put a single destroyer in the Indian Ocean. Sink all the oil tankers. Mass starvation in China after a year.

 

Cancel them.
If we're giving up one friend to China, why not the others?

 

Hit one; the credible threat will stop the rest.