For First Time, Half of Americans Favor Defending Taiwan If China Invades

https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/research/public-opinion-survey/first-time-half-americans-favor-defending-taiwan-if-china-invades

by jseliger • 5 years ago

201 260 5 years ago

thechicagocouncil.org

gd920129• 5 years ago

defend by nuclear war？

hn_go_brrrrr• 5 years ago

They didn't ask that question. However, there is no defense in a nuclear war, only scorched earth.

_rpd• 5 years ago

With US troops.

JumpCrisscross11• 5 years ago

defend by nuclear war?

Beijing is not stupid and the Taiwan question is not existential to Xi or the CCP. There would be no reason for this conflict to escalate to either country's homeland, let alone into strategic nuclear war. (Tactical nukes hitting e.g. carrier groups may be on the table.)

The U.S. has plenty of West Pacific purely-military assets which would be in play for China should the Taiwan Strait require U.S. protection.

time0ut3• 5 years ago

A war where nuclear weapons are used on the battlefield would be a nuclear war by definition. It is also one of the more realistic scenarios leading to a broader nuclear war.

Ancapistani3• 5 years ago

Tactical nukes hitting e.g. carrier groups may be on the table.

The US can - and should - respond to such an attack with overwhelming force.

Destroying a US carrier group means the death of tens of thousand of American troops and the destruction of tens of billions of dollars of materiel.

farseer• 5 years ago

To the extent of sending their children overseas to fight for it? Otherwise it's just empty feelings!

vkou• 5 years ago

No, they also aren't interested in war coming to their soil.

As long as war is something that can be done to other people, though, it's an easy sell.

s1artibartfast• 5 years ago

Not empty, you can send other people's children to fight

maybelsyrup2• 5 years ago

There's a bunch to say about this, not much of it all that good.

First, consider the source. The mere fact that this polling is conducted by a think tank should give anyone - regardless of political party or ideological position - some pause, as think tanks are explicitly "state-external agents of change". Advocacy organizations, in other words. This is fine, such as it is, but as think tanks of all stripes present themselves as anything but ideological or partisan (including this one, the Chicago Council on Foreign Affairs) and often seek to couch themselves in the ostensibly more dispassionate language of science and academia, there's frequently a bit of a trick being played. I think we should watch out for that. It's cheesy to say, maybe, that "these people have an agenda", but these people have an agenda. They're not a university (which, yes, is also occupied by human beings who are biased), but they'd be happy if you thought they were.

Second, and relatedly, we need to look at what a think tank's interest is. Twelve seconds of Googling shows that the Chicago Council's current President was for 4 years the Permanent US Representative to NATO -- not exactly someone with a disinterested relationship to American empire and how this country treats the rest of the world, Taiwan/China or otherwise. (And NATO is nothing if not expansionist, continuing to grow -- hell, to exist -- long after its raison d'etre, the USSR, ceased to be.) I'm editorializing / speculating here, but these are the same ghouls who start every American war, the same guys at the UN handing slides to Colin Powell about non-existent (which they knew) Iraqi WMD.

Lastly there's the poll itself. I don't have time to dig into the details, but in my view the poll's results -- or anyway, the headline of its results -- fits perfectly in the steady drumbeat, growing ever louder, of civilizational confrontation with China, and the manufacturing of American consent for such a project. In my view there's some pretty straightforward Chomskian stuff happening in the zeitgeist around this, and this poll headline only serves to further it: "See? Americans are okay with confronting China aggressively!" Which of course gives elites permission to push more for these stances, a nice feedback loop. With headlines like these, they're laying the groundwork for bloodshed in the not-too-distant future. They know this full well, and they're okay with it, because neither they nor their children will be sent to die for this paranoia.

My wish for HN readers looking at this would be to be critical, even suspicious, of things like these, regardless of what one thinks about Taiwan. There's a method here.

EDIT: And, in case anyone's feeling rah-rah themselves about "defending" Taiwan, know that we'd get our shit absolutely rocked in a war with China over Taiwan. It'd be bloody, it'd be long, and we'd lose. Not to be critical of think tanks only to turn around and cite one, but plenty of entities, including RAND and the US military itself, have done war games and simulations about this scenario and it does not end well for the US. Easily googleable.

reducesuffering2• 5 years ago

And NATO is nothing if not expansionist, continuing to grow -- hell, to exist -- long after its raison d'etre, the USSR, ceased to be

You say this like there hasn't been multiple unprovoked invasions by Russia in just the last 7 years...

a0-prw6• 5 years ago

Ok, name them. But remember Russia has never involved itself where it does not have deep cultural ties. Or where it's actually been invited, like Syria.

maybelsyrup2• 5 years ago

We could go on for a decade about this without convincing each other. Probably not productive.

So I'll just say that if the situation were inverted -- if e.g. Russia was sitting in Mexico "promoting democracy" -- we'd be engaging in "multiple unprovoked invasions" too. Reagan and NATO told Gorbachev pre-collapse that there'd be no NATO expansion in the future. They lied. We've forgotten that. You think the Russians have? Should they?

Furthermore, the situation was inverted -- look at the Cuban missile crisis. Does anyone say that the US shouldn't have threatened to vaporize the island to get the Russians out of there? It's our backyard! Surely we were justified in feeling threatened.

I don't care for the Russian regime whatsoever, and Putin's a little Napoleon-complex turd. A weak, insecure little man. But I'm sorry pal, we're the ones threatening these people in their neck of the woods. NATO should've disbanded the day the hammer and sickle stopped flying over the Kremlin.

My claim is that you'd behave in the exact same way.

bigbillheck2• 5 years ago

Have you seen how many countries the US has bombed in just the last 7 years?

djrogers2• 5 years ago

know that we'd get our shit absolutely rocked in a war with China over Taiwan

This is at best debatable, it’s definitely not a forgone conclusion. A war for Taiwan would be a largely naval and aerial confrontation, and the US holds an incredibly significant qualitative lead in those two areas.

aksss4• 5 years ago

If you believe the military on this, and I’m not saying you necessarily should, none of the war games paint a good picture for our success in Taiwan. There are many reasons for that - response time being a big one. China could physically occupy the territory rapidly before we could show up to present a serious defense. Then you’re not repelling them from the island but rooting them out. Next to their logistical home base. With significant trade interruption. It’s not a sparsely populated Falkland Island scenario.

So given that the military says it would suck, I’m would not agree that it’s at best debatable. A good outcome is doubtful to start with based on war game exercises to test out this specific subject. It’s an upward fight to get it into “debatable” territory, though I’d be interested in hearing more about your reasoning.

AYBABTME• 5 years ago

I'm not expressing any position here but it should be noted that the strait between Taiwan and China's mainland is not that wide and any navy would be hard pressed to defend itself against land based anti-ship missiles. It's just very asymmetrical.

aksss4• 5 years ago

Most surveys you encounter are published to either change your mind (see, your view is a weird minority take) or reinforce your viewpoint (see, smart people think the same way, you must be smart).

Taiwan is a shit show. If we had a magic wand, of course they should be defended from ChiCom aggression. We don’t have a magic wand. We don’t have the political or cultural willpower to get into winnable kinetic conflict with China. Witnessing the buffoons running the military/intelligence apparatus in the US today, who would want to entrust their kids’ lives to it in a new land war in Asia? The best this country could do is unshackle Japan and Korea and let the chips fall where they may, hoping if things got bad enough that India had some influence in the outcome as well.

Sad, but if the world did nothing as the Crimean peninsula was annexed, or as Hong Kong was blatantly steamrollered, I have a hard time putting faith in any western power going to the mat for Taiwan, whether France, Germany, or UK. Nobody’s in the global empire business anymore for all intents and purposes, even China. China’s has an increasing level of influence in the world but it’s territorial interests, while expansive, are all close to home.

CRConrad14• 5 years ago

"Nobody’s in the global empire business anymore for all intents and purposes, except China."

There, FTFY.

ilaksh2• 5 years ago

I agree with most of that. To me the most terrifying thing is the intense uninhibited popularity of articles describing some of China's activities as genocide. This to me is the type of ultimate 'rationale' that will be used to motivate hundreds of millions of Americans to work hard to attempt to murder hundreds of millions of Chinese. And visa versa, American wartime activities will be used to motivate the Chinese to murder us.

But I believe if the strategic advantages the US enjoys, such as shipping lanes and the relationship with Taiwan manufacturing, are disrupted, then the US dollar could lose more than half of it's value and therefore drastically reduce the wealth of more than a billion people. This is the real thing that will motivate WWIII, with all of the propaganda about what monsters the other side is used to dehumanize and make the mass killing seem moral.

lostlogin8• 5 years ago

describing some of China's activities as genocide

How would you describe what’s going on with the Uyghurs (or Tibet for that matter)?

lp0_on_fire• 5 years ago

What exactly would you call what China is currently doing to the Uighurs if not genocide?

mikem17012• 5 years ago

Yep, lots of countries mistreat lots of their people. I question why we are told more about some than others.

supperburg2• 5 years ago

Upvoted but how could anyone have known whether or not iraq had or was about to have WMDs if they actively resisted and subverted all of the internationally sanctioned inspections? Perhaps they could have attached some probability to each possibility but I have yet to find good evidence that they knew.

Second, in a war with China wouldn’t the elites and their families be just as dead as everyone else after nuclear bombs land on major US cities? I can imagine elites or private companies encouraging political movements toward war or tangential to war but I can’t imagine them wanting war to actually happen.

the-dude• 5 years ago

how could anyone have known whether or not iraq had or was about to have WMDs if they actively resisted and subverted all of the internationally sanctioned inspections?

Blix said they were clean :

https://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/30/world/meast/iraq-weapons-...

Also, as far as I remember, Scott Ritter claimed the same.

mikem17012• 5 years ago

how could anyone have known whether or not iraq had or was about to have WMDs

Powell, on behalf of the U.S. government, said they were certain, and was wrong. I guess one could wonder if it was on purpose or not, but credibility is damaged either way.

handrous3• 5 years ago

Upvoted but how could anyone have known whether or not iraq had or was about to have WMDs if they actively resisted and subverted all of the internationally sanctioned inspections? Perhaps they could have attached some probability to each possibility but I have yet to find good evidence that they knew.

At the time, an awful lot of current and past weapons inspectors who'd worked in Iraq, including US nationals, said US claims were complete bullshit.

[EDIT] Oh and then there's how they relaxed their resistance to inspections in the face of imminent invasion, such that we'd have been able to uncover anything they'd somehow managed to hide, but disarming them was never the point, invasion was, so we withdrew the inspectors and invaded anyway. If anyone had any doubts left, that should have erased them.

autosharp4• 5 years ago

know that we'd get our shit absolutely rocked in a war with China over Taiwan

Then we should make haste to station more military in Taiwan. A significant, sustained increase of presence on the island itself, instead of only aircraft carriers.

Once that has been accomplished, recognize Taiwan's independence. 2 months later, hold a referendum in Taiwan on becoming a US state with a few special rights. This is done with half the fleet there, plus the very heavy presence on bases on the island.

Taiwan free, China contained. Plus the US have a good base to project power in the future.

SoylentYellow2• 5 years ago

None of this will ever happen. CCP leadership has been very clear that any US troops in Taiwan will instantly trigger an invasion.

pasabagi5• 5 years ago

I've listened to a few US military strategists talk about it, and they generally say that forward deployment is a good way to lose all your forward deployed forces in the early hours of an engagement. So deploying loads of troops would probably not be a good tactic.

The other side of this is the Chinese would view it as intolerably provocative, just as the US would if China started deploying a ton of troops in Cuba, if Cuba was a good deal closer. So you'd massively increase the likelyhood of a war.

I think realistically speaking, China won't ever invade Taiwan unless they are forced to do so by domestic political forces. That is way more likely to happen if they feel already in a cold-war situation. The best protection for Taiwan would be therefore if all the aforementioned US military strategists that go on panels and talk up war just went on holiday for a few months or years or honestly, decades.

kelnos4• 5 years ago

My wish for HN readers looking at this would be to be critical

It's a bit disingenuous to suggest that after saying:

I don't have time to dig into the details

So essentially you're attempting to discredit this poll while at the same time admitting you don't feel like expending the effort to do any more than what amounts to ad hominem and just-so arguments.

Not saying you're wrong -- you may be right! -- but your argument is pretty low on substance here.

pasabagi5• 5 years ago

Thanks for writing this. I've been noticing the same disturbing trend - and I hate it because people don't realize how easy it is to end up in a dumb war by accident.

If you have a whole load of talking heads talking war, politicians feel like they have to forward deploy troops on both sides, then there's some stupid accident, and suddenly you're in WW3. There is no rational reason for China to invade Taiwan, and there is absolutely no realistic military way for the US to defend Taiwan, especially when you start thinking about stuff like missile bombardments or blockades.

The most likely outcome from talking tough on either side is that Xi Jiping, or the US president, gets forced into unwise strategic decisions by domestic political pressure. Then you get one of the aforementioned accidents, then all hell can break loose.

oxymoran• 5 years ago

I think that we should be helping Taiwan now and doing whatever it take so that it doesn’t get to that. Defending Taiwan with troops is world war three even if it is the right thing to do.

JumpCrisscross11• 5 years ago

we should be helping Taiwan now and doing whatever it take so that it doesn’t get to that

If you look at the questions asked, the most support is for these measures. Signing a free-trade agreement, recognizing Taiwan and supporting its international recognition, et cetera.

At the point we get to even selling arms to Taiwan, the split become even, mirroring the support for sending troops. (In defence of that divergence, sending troops would presumably be in response to a Chinese offensive. Sending arms is a provocation in itself.)

thesuperbigfrog2• 5 years ago

> At the point we get to even selling arms to Taiwan, the split become even, mirroring the support for sending troops. (In defence of that divergence, sending troops would presumably be in response to a Chinese offensive. Sending arms is a provocation in itself.)

The US has been selling arms to Taiwan for decades:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_US_arms_sales_to_Taiwa...

wesleywt• 5 years ago

It would be WWIII whether the US defends it or not. Because it gives China free reign to invade other areas, such as the disputed South China Sea. This will lead to conflict with Vietnam and the Phillipines. The dominoes will continue to fall until the US intervenes eventually to protect de facto NATO countries Australia and New Zealand.

lostlogin8• 5 years ago

and New Zealand.

New Zealand will cave and sell out, long before any war comes along. It’s bad for business to have principles, and we have stuck to that course over multiple China issues and multiple governments. ‘Our’ politicians (are they ours or Chinas?) have had financial interests in China throughout their terms and there was even a Chinese communist party member and trained Chinese intelligence member in our parliament.

We picked our side.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/300054428/parliamentary-inqui...

https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/122094310/jian-yang-...

vmception2• 5 years ago

Although Vietnam keeps its head down and is welcoming and nice to US, they're still a single party system named the Communist Party dabbling in marxist and modern state capital systems. They still predictably squash dissent and put them in gulags/reducation camps, and the lack of this news only points to them being too small and insignificant for us to care.

Do we really care if two Communist Parties attack each other?

alkonaut3• 5 years ago

So is helping Estonia after a Russian invasion. And that’s already part of NATO Article V. “Whatever it takes so it doesn’t happen” is a long laundry list of things, but number one is always to convince the attacker that the invasion would cost more than could be gained.

Saying that Taiwan will definitely be defended and hesitating after the fact is much better than hesitating in policy.

jacquesm5• 5 years ago

Lithuania would get invaded long before Estonia, after all, once Lithuania is 'done' the rest of the Baltics will be cut off from Western Europe by land.

Note that it is only a very tiny strip of land that separates the Russian enclave at the Baltic sea from Belarus, a country very much friendly to Russia. I'd happily bet that there are many different plans on how to occupy that strip in a hurry should it come to that and just as many plans on how to deal with those attempts.

https://www.google.com/maps/@54.2105194,22.8701257,10.42z

All it would take is to take out two highways, one major, one minor and it's done.

ajay-b2• 5 years ago

I think there are two mindsets here. Russia is a gangster, brutal and clumsy, yet rational. However Russia is also barely hanging on to first world status, they are not a global balance of power threat. China is a threat to shifting the balance of power decisively towards China and away from America and the West. They mean it when they say this will be the China century.

btilly2• 5 years ago

The problem is that your opponent also knows this. And therefore will discount the fact that you said it and make their own judgment about whether you actually would respond.

Large wars happen when antagonists misjudge how protagonists will react.

Therefore it is extremely important to only say that you will do things that you absolutely know that you will do, to take the guessing out of it for your opponents. Because if they credibly think you might have bluffed, at some point they will call with drastic results. (And every time you're caught in a bluff, your credibility goes down for the next conflict. See the German invasion of Austria.)

rasz• 5 years ago

Taiwan will go down like Ukraine. Security Guarantees are toilet paper.

robbedpeter2• 5 years ago

China initiating military invasion of Taiwan would start WWIII, the US has no choice but to defend. The world is likely more than a decade away from any sort of reliable chip infrastructure with parity to the current south Asian concentration. China is driving the world to nuclear conflict, especially with the first strike noises they've been making in recent months.

bee_rider• 5 years ago

From a development point of view, I suspect taking step back to the previous semiconductor node would be preferable to a nuclear WWIII. However, humanitarian concerns and international obligations seem to be a better framework for analyzing this sort of decision, and thankfully that's all over my head. Hopefully it doesn't come up.

dillondoyle3• 5 years ago

Do you have anything I can read about their first strike posturing? I haven't read anything about that.

I have read about this war of super super sonic weapons which is scary to me.

m0zg6• 5 years ago

Defend _how_ though? How do you defend against an adversary with ICBMs, fleet, and air force who, on top of that, can draft an army that exceeds the entire population of the US? "Nuclear conflict" only works as a deterrent when the situation is one-sided. That is very much not the case here.

bserge2• 5 years ago

Are they? Words are cheap, even meaningless these days.

djrogers2• 5 years ago

I wonder how many of the people that wouldn’t support it understand just how critical Taiwan’s semiconductor industry is. Not only critical to our national interest, but to their day-to-day lives.

Look at what the current semiconductor shortage is doing to our internal manufacturing industry. I don’t think many Americans would be OK with a genocidal dictatorship holding a switch that could literally turn our economy off and on at will.

Notanothertoo2• 5 years ago

In addition to the hypocrisy of the US gov, they have already held that switch for some time.

JumpCrisscross11• 5 years ago

how critical Taiwan’s semiconductor industry is

This is a bad reason to go to war. It would be cheaper, to say nothing of cost fewer lives, to spend the tens of billions of dollar it would cost to replicate that capacity in America.

jayparth• 5 years ago

TSMC is worth $500B alone for a reason. To say it'd cost 10s of billions is a pretty crazy idea

Ancapistani3• 5 years ago

We're doing that.

https://pr.tsmc.com/english/news/2033

dirtyid8• 5 years ago

critical Taiwan’s semiconductor industry is

This seems to be a popular talking point but also completely wrong.

It's the least critical bits of the east asian semi supply chain, i.e. not essential to military and majority of established industries. Leading edge TSMC fabs gets destroyed, we lose a few nodes and some industries / gamers get set back 10 years. Start a broader war with PRC over TW, PRC will start hitting semi supply chains in Korean / Japan where US assets are and basically global semi infra get set back decades. The difference is a few high tech US industries collapsing versus essentially all of US high tech manufacturing / way of life collapsing for decades. Semi capability is so rare and concentrated in east Asia that PRC has the button on silicon mutually assured distruction. At the end of the day, US/west who has broad leadin IC loses much more than PRC in a semi MAD scenario.

standardUser2• 5 years ago

China can already cause a much economic harm as it pleases, when it pleases.

GaryTang• 5 years ago

Why wouldn’t we defend Taiwan?

Notanothertoo2• 5 years ago

The cost is paid in blood

JumpCrisscross11• 5 years ago

Why wouldn’t we defend Taiwan?

It would cost American lives. We're war weary--I don't think we've fought a legitimate war in generations. That takes a lot to get over. It's, ironically, similar to the situation that led to European appeasement the last time this happened.

f38zf5vdt2• 5 years ago

No, Americans love a good war. If they want one and high approval ratings for their elected officials, it just needs a catalyst of some sort. Spanish American War (USS Maine), WW2 (Pearl Harbor), Vietnam War (Gulf of Tonkin), Afghanistan War (9/11), Iraq War (WMDs). Catalyst can be real or imagined. It seems there is a lot of well-deserved mistrust in China by the West, so a war with China wouldn't be surprising even if only by proxy (Cold War).

Mizza2• 5 years ago

I don't really want the world to end just to say we tried to save a tiny island that exists mostly to produce video game parts.

cozos• 5 years ago

Taiwanese people are human beings, not video game parts gremlins. And then what if it doesn't stop there? (South China Sea, Japan, Philippines, etc)

bloodyplonker22• 5 years ago

Video game parts? This is probably the most naïve comment I've read on Hacker News. Have you heard about what is happening with cars now and everything else with microchips?

MikeTheGreat• 5 years ago

Can I ask a genuine question?

Why would we defend Taiwan?

It's on the other side of the world from the US, there's no particular economic / strategic US interest in defending it, and on top of that it's current arrangement with China seems to be working for everyone.

I find the notion that China would invade and that the US should then step in to be mystifying.

foobarian• 5 years ago

Because of TSMC. Once there are copies of it elsewhere it will get less strategically important.

cynusx5• 5 years ago

There is actually great strategic interest in Taiwan. China is mostly contained by seas that are surrounded by island groups, which means that almost all its military and external trade passes close by potential hostile islands.

With Taiwan part of China, it has direct access to the pacific ocean and a naval blockade will be much less effective.

Most of Chinese GDP relies on external trade and a naval blockade would cut it off from vital resources to be able to conduct war against western targets.

zepto• 5 years ago

Do you know about semiconductor manufacturing?

iso1210• 5 years ago

For the last 70 years America, it's politicians, media, and cultural exports (holywood) has claimed to be the "leader of the free world", the "global policeman", a defender of democracy, a champion of liberty, a knight in shining armour against the hoards of commumism/terrorism

We've seen in the last few weeks in Kabul that that era is over, but that would be an answer to "why"

Ekaros2• 5 years ago

Also could USA defend Taiwan? Looking at numbers and map makes that rather questionable. Also I wonder how fast the sentiment would change as soon as goods stop rolling in the shops...

JohnJamesRambo• 5 years ago

Because it is the right thing to do. You don't need more of a reason than that.

_-david-_• 5 years ago

there's no particular economic / strategic US interest

TSMC is one of the most important companies for the US.

standardUser2• 5 years ago

Because of the high likelihood of catastrophic loss of life. And the high chance of complete failure.

goostavos• 5 years ago

A few reasons which hop to mind:

1. we just finished a 20 year war with nothing to show for it. Jumping into a new war is probably worth some cost/benefit analysis beyond "well, why not?"

2. correct if wrong, but I assume the projection of power backing your usage of "we" actually means "policed by others, who are not me"

I'm not sure I want to see a new generation of kids slurped up into another war (formally declared or otherwise) on the other side of the globe to dubious end effect.

dirtyid8• 5 years ago

Bluntly because the US can't. No one is going to say it out right, but the PRC’s military has modernized sufficiently that the US is likely incapable of defending TW anymore. Which is ultimately secondary to the goal of containing PRC that the US still could accomplish in other ways. It's simply not in US interest outside of short term semiconductor concerns that's rapidly being reshored stateside to potentially embarrass itself failing to defend TW. Worse if formal promises or commitments are made, and catastrophic if the US loses trying.

e: account throttled, last reply for this thread

@Ekaros

I think in case of war prior to TSMC productions shifting off island, the survival of those fabs would be the only point of agreement and deconfliction between the mexican standoff. The idea that US would negotiate conceding TW to PRC over fab sharing access / where US controlled supply chains ultimately determine the fabs viability is not inconcievable. The US is fucking negotiating with the Taliban over civilians. Thre are tons of US civilians AND economic interests in TW worth preserving, even if it means handing TW over to PRC, as long as said economic interest has US leash. Which TSMC supply chains are absolutely tethered to. Why would TW agree? Because they're a developed country who doesn't want to be Yemen if conflict gets seroius, it's their only short term barginning chip.

Ekaros2• 5 years ago

Also whole semiconductor thing is kinda pointless in this context... If there was war those would likely be on the first list to go or suffer... If not intentionally then unintentionally...

elihu• 5 years ago

The risks involved in going up against a nuclear power are very high, the costs involved (both monetary and in lives) would be high, and success isn't guaranteed.

I could well imagine Biden consulting with his military advisors and coming to the conclusion that it just isn't worth it. We saw a similar thing play out with Obama and Crimea.

The winning strategy for the U.S. right now seems to be to convince China we would defend Taiwan so they don't attempt an invasion in the first place. But that's hard to do when it looks like the U.S. has pretty compelling reasons to stay out of it if it came to that.

(This is all assuming that Taiwan asks for our help. I don't know why they wouldn't, but I feel like it's an important caveat that we shouldn't involve ourselves in conflicts we aren't invited into by at least one party.)

dirtyid8• 5 years ago

US PR campaign against PRC finally digging itself into a corner. Wonder if polling will change post Afghanistan withdrawal shenanigans.

Essentially all of PLA modernization is designed to mitigate US intervention in TW scenarios, especially near PRC shores. Current planning on both sides largely dismiss the possibility of US being able to defend TW on island proper or within the 1st island chain where force balance does not favor the US. The workable strategy is to blockade PRC at SLOC choke points and push confrontation to the 2nd island where PRC has relatively weaker projection capabilities. But even that advantage will diminish each year, especially until the 2030s where the USN procurement timeline is about to get very depressing. The TLDR is the US can still contain PRC, but the US cannot defend TW anymore. Hence strategic ambiguity / lack of security guarantee, because bluntly PRC has too much capability now for the US to make impossible promises. Recent shifts in policy / think tanks / blob circles outside the most fervent China Hawks are pushing the “porcupine” model where the US provides TW arms but does not commit explicitly to defense.

Now US has riled up it's own domestic sentiment against PRC sufficiently that domestic politics could influence unwanted confrontations in PRC's favor. It's a recipe for potential disaster and embarrassment that could further undermine US interests / hegemony. If US had to intervene, PRC would like nothing more than a near shore slog with US where she is strongest. Keep in mind PRC fought a nuclear US and USSR when she wasn't a nuclear power over sovereignty issues much less significant than TW.

JumpCrisscross11• 5 years ago

planning on both sides largely dismiss the possibility of US being able to defend TW

First I'm hearing of this. Occupying Taiwan would require massive Chinese troop transport. That, and every re-supply, are naval and aerial projects the U.S. is capable of making super, super costly in terms of materiel.

dirtyid8• 5 years ago

PRC doesn't need to occupy TW to destroy it and demonstrate US security commitments are hollow.

TW is an island 5% the size of Yemen off the coast of the PRC military umbrella. Mainland rocket and air forces can glass TW with impunity with assets on the mainland and the US likely wouldn't do shit because hitting PRC territory opens up US CONUS soil as well. Not to mention PRC nuclear forces are entangled with conventional forces, there's no way to hit Chinese assets without risking nuclear escalation, by design.

PRC invading TW with an unprecedented amphib campaign is based on PRC capabilities from before the 90s. Before PLA modernization where Chinese military was weak by even WW2 standards. Times have changed, US blob is finally recognizing the PRC is looking at Desert Storm, not Normandy. Think blockades, and other forms of coercion short of direct invasion. PLA amphib acquisitions in the past 10 years have shown very little investment in sealift capabilities. Almost all resources dedicated to countering USN in blue water theatres. If an invasion were to happen, the island's defenses would already have been crushedand the PLA would be using civilian assets which are built to military standards.

jaqalopes• 5 years ago

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company is the keystone of our entire digital economy. The US should probably diversify supply chains in ways that make an island vulnerable to Chinese takeover not the keystone of our modern way of life. Until we do that, you'd better believe America has an interest in defending Taiwan—probably more of an interest than any other single place on the globe right now.

aksss4• 5 years ago

A significant interest may be more indicative of strategic failure in supply chain management than it it would have any bearing on the wisdom of getting into a kinetic conflict with China.

TazeTSchnitzel• 5 years ago

Doesn't every other country which cares about having modern technology also have an interest in defending RoC control of Taiwan for the same reason?

(If you mean the US would lose out particularly because it hosts so many large technology companies, I agree.)

tmn• 5 years ago

A lot of it is power games. Nations not competing for hegemony are not as vested. They will be subservient either way.

TearsInTheRain• 5 years ago

It would probably take over a decade to reshore enough semi-conductor manufacturing to replace TSMC. Chips are incredibly complex to make

skinkestek• 5 years ago

So better get started immediately then..!

I mean, your comment might be correct but I cannot read it except in a defeatist way.

drocer88• 5 years ago

Japan is strengthening ties to Taiwan : Taiwan says security talks with Japan focused on TSMC investment ( https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Taiwan-says-security-talks-... ).

... "The comments were made at the first ever regional security dialogue between the ruling parties of Taiwan and Japan -- a meeting, already condemned by Beijing, that comes amid growing Chinese aggression in the region."

TMWNN2• 5 years ago

Korea, too. One of the funny things about a regional war with China is that it would at a stroke end the historical Korea-Japan rivalry/feuds.

ajay-b2• 5 years ago

Taiwan is an independent sovereign nation. Full stop.

amelius2• 5 years ago

Did you see any Taiwanese at the Olympic games?

TheCoelacanth• 5 years ago

Yes, though they were competing under the name "Chinese Taipei" due to bullying from China.

theandrewbailey• 5 years ago

De facto, but not de jure.

praisewhitey• 5 years ago

I would be very surprised if half of Americans could point to Taiwan on a map

CincinnatiMan• 5 years ago

What is the relevance of this?

edwinyzh• 5 years ago

Search youtube for this kind of videos.

amai• 5 years ago

The same is true for Afghanistan, Vietnam, Iraq, Syria, Lybia. Doesn't seem to be relevant.

spookybones2• 5 years ago

Another approach China is taking that no one seems to mention here is taking over Taiwan by taking over its internal politics and media. This would allow them to do it legally by persuasion and voting, avoiding bloodshed. Granted, Hong Kong shows that this isn't a smooth process.

dillondoyle3• 5 years ago

I don't think 'legally' is a good term to describe what happened with Carrie Lam and the Hong Kong ruling local government.

As a whole the West does not generally believe that tactics of barring opponents from running, criminalizing dissent, disappearances, soft violence and threats is a fair Democracy or election, if it even meets the definition at all.

While perhaps technically 'legal' on paper, my point is that once the Law is coopted by one person (or CCP as an entity) with total control, the Law becomes the Emperors will and not a legitimate legal system by our norms.

spookybones2• 5 years ago

Yes, I meant legally on paper, “legally”, as in it is much harder for a foreign power to justify interfering.

koheripbal• 5 years ago

Sun Tzu. It is better to take an enemy over whole, through subterfuge, than to wage war and conquer a city in flames.

War is of vital importance to the state. If victory is certain, you MUST attack.

m0zg6• 5 years ago

Half of Americans are confirmed imbeciles then, who should have their voting rights withdrawn. There's nothing whatsoever we can do if China really wants to take Taiwan other than impose self-destructive and ineffective economic sanctions. We couldn't even do anything about the Taliban, let alone a nuclear armed country 4.5 times the size of the US, with a _million_ active service men and reasonably modern weaponry.

At the moment Taiwan would be wise to wire their chip fabs to blow, like those Swiss mountain tunnels.

taylodl3• 5 years ago

Chinese takeover? The United States has officially recognized Taiwan as part of China since 1972. Documents declassified nearly 20 years ago reveal that Nixon promised China the United States would neither suppress nor support a Taiwanese uprising. Talking about China "invading" Taiwan sounds as ridiculous to me as talking about the United States "invading" Puerto Rico. That we've allowed Taiwan to become a critical part of our economy is a result of our own short-sightedness. Seems crazy we'd want to start a war with China at a time when we're wrapping up a 20 year misadventure in Afghanistan.

filereaper• 5 years ago

The United States has officially recognized Taiwan as part of China since 1972.

Its a bit more subtle than this.

Something along the lines of the US recognizes the One-China policy but doesn't accept it leaving the whole situation in a limbo status.

I think this video tries to explain it: https://youtu.be/cA8VoY3dUFU

stale200211• 5 years ago

Talking about China "invading" Taiwan sounds as ridiculous to me as talking about the United States "invading" Puerto Rico.

No, that is nonsense.

Taiwan is already its own country. It has its own laws, taxes, borders, and army, and it has been that way, for decades. That makes it a country, no mater what china says on the matter.

That is a much different situation than puerto rico.

What makes something a country, is not some document somewhere. Instead, what makes something a country is the facts on the ground of the situation.

IE, who controls the laws, taxes, borders, and military. All of which, are clearly not controlled by china.

taylodl3• 5 years ago

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries...

This isn't our fight. Never mind we gave China our word we wouldn't interfere. Does our word mean nothing anymore?

CRConrad14• 5 years ago

Taiwan is already its own country.

Yup. And to the question whether China should be reunited under a single regime... Sure, OK, let's discuss that.

The default position is of course that if this were to happen, it would be under the legitimate government in Taipei, not the usurpers in Peking. Right?

sershe• 5 years ago

To be fair, the misadventure was in nation building. I don't support either (ok, I kinda-but-not-really support the Chinese case because I'm hyper anti-communist, but even I'm not sure the human cost is worth it), but if US can somehow destroy the Chinese govt as effectively as we destroyed the Taliban government (or Iraqi, or Libyan), that would be more than sufficient to defend Taiwan. No rebuilding necessary.

mywittyname3• 5 years ago

I wonder how many of these people also understand, and are willing to accept the fact, that defending Taiwan against an invasion will almost certainly involve successful attacks on USA soil.

China is in a whole other league from the adversaries that the country has faced in generations. The have a world class air force, navy, and ground force complete with advanced aircraft, tanks, aircraft carriers, submarines, missiles, satellites, etc.

Given how poorly the country fared in the pandemic, I'm not so sure the country could hold together in the event of an attack. There's a reasonable chance that Americans will use the opportunity to destroy the government from within.

I support Taiwanese independence, but I'm not sure I support it with my life.

hnarn• 5 years ago

I'm not so sure the country could hold together in the event of an attack

I'm not American, but if anything I would think that nothing would unify the US like the threat of an external invader. I have a hard time thinking people would care about who's democrat or who's republican if a foreign nation is dropping paratroopers in your neighborhood.

There's a reasonable chance that Americans will use the opportunity to destroy the government from within.

I seriously doubt it. Even the most fervent, gun-loving, militant libertarians realize that sabotaging your own government during a war is not in your self interest.

I support Taiwanese independence, but I'm not sure I support it with my life.

If the US declares war, it doesn't really matter. It's not like the US involvement in WW2 or Vietnam was put to a referendum, if your country is at war, you are at war, unless you have enough money to flee the country: but realistically a war between China in the US would be a world war, or at the very least (best case) a Nato - China war, which is why it's _extremely_ unlikely to happen. Neither the US nor China has anything to gain from an all out war. And even if China is a formidable opponent, it would certainly tank their entire economy.

dbsmith83• 5 years ago

I'm not American, but if anything I would think that nothing would unify the US like the threat of an external invader. I have a hard time thinking people would care about who's democrat or who's republican if a foreign nation is dropping paratroopers in your neighborhood.

This is a great point. Look at how united America was after 9/11. George W. Bush's approval rating soared. While politics are bitterly divided here, when it comes to an external threat, those divisions will still get put aside (at least for a while). Not much unites a country like a (non-civil) war.

Ajay-p• 5 years ago

I disagree to the threat on the American mainland. A Chinese assault on Taiwan would have to be an all out invasion against a standing army of 170,000[1]. Plus I count about 6 million citizens of capable fighting age, Taiwanese batteries at the ocean[2], plus the eyes-in-the-sky of Japan, Australia, America, India, and quite possibly Vietnam. To invade you would need at least a million, possibly more. If the USA etc. saw that kind of preparation and launch, all hell would break loose. China doesn't have to just worry about a street by street battle for Taiwan, while the media rains holy hell in High Definition TV. Not many will just sit by, and it won't be a quick victory, nor do I expect India and Vietnam to not take a shot or two at a Chinese frigate.

All that to say, that's a lot of money, death, destruction, and for what? China is a capitalist country now, and they really like the money flowing in. An invasion of Taiwan could disrupt the spigot and cause another Tiananmen Square.

1] https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/taiwan/#mil...

2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2020/10/26/to-thwart-i...

foolinaround• 5 years ago

After the recent debacle in Afghanistan, the US is seen as weak as ever.

Having abandoned allies also will make future engagements with local allies that much more difficult to accomplish because of trust issues.

All these will embolden actors like China, Russia, etc to see who will blink first.

This perception is very important

cma• 5 years ago

After the recent debacle

The deal was made a year+ ago the then-current Afghan govt wasn't party to the agreement.

adultSwim• 5 years ago

That's terrifying. That would mean nuclear annihilation.

rustdesk• 5 years ago

I am not sure if half of Americans know Taiwan.

ck2• 5 years ago

Oh yes, let's get in a 100 year war with China while 99% of our manufacturing is based there and their military is four times our size

I bet at least half of everything on a US military base has "made in china" stamped on its parts

Mandatory draft for every single adult in America in a front-line unit on a rotating basis, then this will have my support, what the hell is with people volunteering others to die

So when are we liberating North Korea? Because it's 100 times worse than Afghanistan, definitely worse than Taiwan and the people there are suffering and tortured daily with work camps

CRConrad14• 5 years ago

If only Britain had had the balls twenty-five years ago.

For First Time, Half of Americans Favor Defending Taiwan If China Invades

Related Stories