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

could have fooled me

 

Forward that idea to the Biden administration. I'm sure they will give it a serious look over.

 

That's not exactly a big trick.

 

Hey, if defending one of our friends from China is too much, then defending any of our friends is too much.

 

Well that doesn't make any sense, particularly with the very specific particulars of US Taiwan policy. I agree that we could consider Taiwan a "friend' but we don't officially recognize them as a country, and in fact officially recognize Taiwan as part of the PRC. We used to have a defense treaty with Taiwan, and now no longer do.

What's the rationale for defending Taiwan from a country that we officially recognize that they are a part of? What's our legal basis for doing so?

 

I think the summary of this is that if we fight China, we lose, even if we win.
How does that not apply to SK or japan?

 

South Korea's threat is North Korea. A totally different scenario.

And don't think Japan is really on China's invasion radar, unless you have read something I'm not familiar with. I mean, theoretically, anyone could invade anyone, but China-Taiwan seems far more likely.

 

China threat prompts plan to double military spending

BBC
https://www.bbc.com › news › world-asia-64001554


Dec 16, 2022 — Japan has announced it will double its military spending in the next five years, citing threats posed by China and North Korea.

 

China invaded NK to get to SK. Not a totally different scenario.

Irrelevant to the point made.

 

That’s what I thought, it’s only a matter of time, even if we’re only involved in the very smallest way possible.

 

That’s probably not gonna be the win you think it’ll be.

 

While war with China would in fact be extremely problematic, that is not a reason to abandon the notion of peace through strength.

I say we achieve peace by taking a strong stance and being clearly willing to fight that war if it ever came to that. This alone will avert the war because China doesn't want a war with us any more than we want a war with them. China only attacks Taiwan because they believe we will not fight that war.

If we back off this war, there will be more in the future. If we stay strong, we will avoid those future wars.

 

I don't consider mass starvation to be a win. However, it will be a loss for China.

China is heavily dependent on the Global economic system. They aren't energy or food independent. They lack a navy which can go more than 1000 miles. Most of the ships in the fleet can fit into the room I'm in right now. Things might change but it's unlikely because Winnie the Pooh has murdered anyone who brings him bad news and he's a dunce.

Unemployment is high, poverty is high, corruption is high, the birth rate has fallen faster than any country anywhere in recorded history. Only people who have fallen for Chinese agitprop are thinking China is the future.

 

And you think they won’t retaliate in other ways?

 

The biggest problem of course is if they decide to fire nukes. How accurate and devastating those nukes will be is a ? I don't know about.

I don't see that as likely but, when some nutso's trade nuclear secrets to Stalin and other communists, it's always a possibility. However, one can't bend over and take it up the rear every time some Communist says "I'll nuke you!" You simply have to make it clear that they won't exist anymore.

 

If you cannot debate the topic at hand, then don't.

And yes, the article was about isolationism. One does not have to lead you to the watering hole, give you the bucket, and then describe in great detail on how to drink from the watering hole in order to get a drink. In that analogy, why else would an article about not coming to Taiwan's aid if they are actually invaded is not about isolationism? That is the core of foreign policy isolationism. We don't go and help others, period, we just keep to ourselves. You even admitted on this forum that you would prefer isolationism than anything else. And you agree with the article because it agrees with your politics and point of view, does it not?

So, please, stop trying to pay dumb here and pretend you don't know the article is not based on isolationism. The article is making the idea that the US does not honor commitments to our allies because we don't want to get hurt. Oh please, that idea went out with the stone age. Tjos article does set bad precedent and our allies will be less inclined to trust us when we actually need them. But then again, you don't care about that either, do you?

 

This would mean firing on any and all ships that leave the port. And that too is an act of war. But my guess is we do have one or two SSN Virginia class subs in the area doing recon patrols and intelligence gathering there. We don't advertise it, but I bet my entire fortune that they are there to begin with. But a blockade of all ports, and there are quite a number of them from Hong Kong to Tianjin and everything in between is an old-fashioned pre-WW1 strategy that does not work in the 21st century, especially a country like China. Nice on paper, but not practical. And China does not have the resources to blockade china.

 

Or try to enter port.
Just a couple, to create a credible threat.
If the threat is credible, ship owners will stop sending ships.

In WW1, we had slow-moving surface ships with guns that might reach the horizon. Might.
In 2023, we have virtually undetectable SSGNs with dozens of cruise missiles that can be remotely targeted.
Far more practical than 100 years ago as a single unit can cover several ports.

 

@Alwayssa

""And China does not have the resources to blockade china.""

Why do you think one of the world's richest country do not have the resources?

 

The Chinese do have a very capable navy to detect submarines if the submarine is close to the shore. The further away those SSGNs are from those ports you intend, the greater the difficulty in the said blockade. But if they are within, say, 25 nautical miles from the port, in shallow water, they can be very effective, but the risk of detection is also greater than 100 or even 125 nautical miles away.

In WW1, it was the U-boats that were the most dangerous. However, the point is that blockading ports is an old tactic. Two ports in China come to mind, port of Shanghai and the port of Ningbo-Zhoushan. SSGNs are big, former SSBNs of the Ohio class. Cruise missiles are accurate with land-based targets. Ship targets require ship-to-ship missiles and although cruise missiles can be programmed that way, but you will still need to program to anticipate where that vessel would be if you fired upon it. And that is by any definition an act of war.

As I said, we already have a couple of Virginia-class submarines in the area. We don't advertise, but I bet they are there. And they have cruise missile capability as well, along with other capabilities to conduct surveillance and intelligence.

 

Three reasons:
1. China has a limitation to use force projection on Taiwan.
2. China has a very small blue water navy. Their Type 52d destroyers are comparable to the Arleigh Burke Class Destroyer of the US, but only have 25 of them in total in three flotiillas. These are the only surface warfare ships in the Chinese navy than can do sustained blue water navy operations under any condition and any mission. The other destroyers are more like the old Spruance class destroyers in technology. Two aircraft carriers. One a former USSR aircraft carrier wih only 45 aircraft max and their own, the Shendong, which also has about 45 aircraft total. These are not the big huge carriers that can change the course of the battlefield although they are developing one or two of these now. And these won't be ready until 2025 at the earliest.
3. China is dependent on world trade and the global economic system. This in turn makes the Chinese middle class very important by the CCP to keep them happy. Manterialism is very popular in China, and that is the catalyst of their economy, on the consumer side. And they don't have any alternatives to help them in such a case. Likewise, the countries that have Chinese trade would see huge drops in their GDP, unemployment, possible political unrest, and so forth. so it is a catch 22 for China, and the US.

 

The SSGNs are ex-boomers who make their living by disappearing; the Tomahawk-ASM has a range of 250 miles.
China has about 2000 mile of coastline; I am not familiar with the capacities of their various port cities, but it is fair to figure the minor ports cannot handle as much traffic the major ports do.

Old doesn't mean it is invalid or ineffective.
Shutting down China's seaborne commerce with little risk of loss? Yes please.

The T-ASM uses wild/tame boar targeting - they use their INS/GPS to fly to a spot and their active sensors to find their target once they get there.
The target 'spot' is determined based on remote satellite and radar information; cargo ships are big and slow.

The US is presumably already at war with China; if you try to run a blockade, you do so at your own risk.

Likely so.

 

China does not dare scratch the paint on a US vessel.
China's entire economy depends on US import policy. If they attack Taiwan there are seven big issues at play:
Chinese do not like the idea of "Chinese killing Chinese".
The chip factories will surely be destroyed.
The US will surely curtail or shut down Chinese imports. Their economy is already in trouble.
Lastly is a sleeper:The role of "first born sons" in Chinese culture. In short and simple terms, the loss of a first born son is a catastrophe. The population will not support them dying in a pissing match for Xi Jinping.
And the practical: Google earth Taiwan: (take a look at the terrain, shallow water, and lack of access.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=google+earth+taiwan&t=ipad&ia=web
An invasion will not be a walk in the park.
Xi JinPing is weakening due to high unemployment, falling exports, and a home made real estate debacle.

 

The point of my previous post to you was that you don't understand the topic at hand. You are talking about isolationism, which nobody but you is discussing. That doesn't mean you can't post about it to your heart's content, but it has nothing to do with my posts or this thread.

 

Cheaper labor elsewhere.