Some of our military top brass are concerned that we’re not fit to square off against China’s glorified coast guard … https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2023/12/05/the_navy_dead_in_the_water_996793.html
If that happens, even without a US military response, the US economy gets wrecked and the potential for millions to lose their jobs. Just in the semiconductor industry, in Taiwan are TSMC and WIN. The world's largest Si Foundry and the world's largest GaAs Foundry. If an invasion leads to disruptions in economic activity in Taiwan, even temporarily, everything from Apple and Google, military contractors like Lockheed and Raytheon, to GM/Ford, to GE Medical Systems to practically every open market product sold in places from Walmart to Best Buy are impacted. Even companies like Samsung who make their own chips outside China, source numerous electronic components from China and Taiwan to manufacture, as well as from TSMC and WIN. Not to mention, the less talked about consequence, but if China seizes Taiwan and "Nationalizes" TSMC and WIN, the treasure trove of IP and chip designs would jump forward 20+ years over night and pretty much leave the entire world reliant on China
That was the reasoning behind the Administration’s strategic initiative on chips. But that will take years. Chinas economy would also suffer. Hopefully that will deter. To paraphrase Sting, I hope the Chinese love their economy too. So many factors
I would ask you, what war do we not get involved in? I do not think we can win but I also don't think China can win. Taiwan could punish some of China's major cities with long-range missiles. If true, and China's defense system could not stop those missiles then I doubt China would be willing to take that risk today. I think Taiwan and its allies are a big challenge for a country that has zero experience at war. Xi has been telling us China is going to take Taiwan. Fortunately for Taiwan, they elected the right person to hold off Xi as long as possible. You elect a China flunky and it might happen a lot sooner. Kill them from within. Sound familiar.
I understand the concern. And, of course, you can usually assume that Gaetz, Boebert et al will oppose whatever the President does by instinct even it was a policy to keep them from personally being gang raped (they would cry out it was a states rights issue or some BS). But on the whole, just like I described above with IR theory, this is a rare issue where the interests of both parties align. Besides, as I alluded to earlier, it will be difficult to oppose the President politically after American have already been killed and more are in harm’s way. Congress traditionally has attacked the President in such circumstances by going after their pre-war policy of military readiness in hearings after the war is over or when it has settled in its course.
That we can deter with economic, diplomatic, and informational measures alone (the canard of “integrated deterrence”) was one of Jake Sullivan’s failed assumptions that led to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. I hope we can deter China from invading Taiwan, though I’m not sure we can. But if we do it’s only going to be if China truly believes we will intervene and that we can prohibitively interfere with their operation.
I just corrected you on that. And yet you’re repeating an anachronistic claim. Once again, I’m telling you this is not 1950, 1996, or even 2010. China has a very capable navy now, including a very capable amphibious fleet. It has the ability to impose local maritime superiority. Now that doesn’t mean we can’t beat them. Our air and naval forces are still the best in the world. But we are talking about a very determined, very innovative enemy. And we have the tyranny of distance to compete with while they would be fighting in their own waters under the cover of their land-based SAM umbrella. You would be very wise not to contemptuously dismiss them as some Americans chose to do with the Japanese in 1941.
You just aptly described a main reason why the realists will demand we bleed for Taiwan even while they advocate abandoning Ukraine to its fate. Such an invasion would be catastrophic to the balance of power.
I do not think the average person understands how long a process that is going to be. We can build fabs in the US, but substrates, SMDs, mold compound, etc....everything to goes into packaging a chip is almost exclusively made in China. Worse, the mask-shops who make multi-$million mask sets to run photolithography are almost all exclusively made in China. I mean, I work for a company that is working with the US government to bring final test and assembly out of China. Think about that, we might fab our chips for things like government spy satellites or US missile systems, but still pay money to ship them to places in China for final assembly and test. We are more than a decade away from reasonable separation, and that $65Billion that the Republicans balked at will literally build just 3 US fabs and nothing else. The amount of investment needed is staggering....and I agree with Republicans to an extent that the tax payer should not be bailing out these companies, but if we want electronics, a military and jobs, there has to be a partnership to defray costs. It sucks, but it must be done.
We strongly disagree on whether the US has been foregoing military deterrence in either theatre. QUAD, TPP and pre-existing NATO strengthening which the Russians falsely claimed was their justification. It takes military deterrence but not only military deterrence. Edited to add. Not every action by an adversary could have reasonably been prevented by something we did or did not do. Not every foreign development is the result of US policy failure. Sometimes countries do things for their own reasons and ways we cannot hope to control or deter.
The truth is, because it is difficult to prove a negative, we never are quite sure when deterrence succeeds. But we are certain when deterrence fails. And it failed with Ukraine. In my opinion, this was partially due to the U.S. signaling and then coming right out and stating that we would not intervene militarily. Even if we had no intention of doing so, removing that ambiguity was clearly a mistake. But I agree that all instruments of national power have to be included in deterrence strategy. I just disagree with those who think you can deter realist, authoritarian powers without at least some element of conventional military deterrence.
Turns out the folks at the Pentagon were the cooler heads. They knew that intervention would have been disastrous.
With in-laws in Taiwan (MIL, FIL, BIL, SIL) it's kinda sad to read people glibly discuss a Chinese invasion. I don't fault y'all for it, but I think about one poster mentioned not wanting to see unnecessary death and suffering. A Chinese invasion would cause a great amount of stress/agony for our family.
I understand your thinking here and agree with its historical precedents, however I don't share your optimism. I don't think anything short of a continental invasion would get the extremes to fall in line. Even then I have my doubts. I like to consider myself optimistic, but it's hard to imagine universal support.
No, I don’t either. But we don’t need the extremes. We need the larger center to embrace itself instead of its two extremes. That’s far more likely in the event China starts a war and kills Americans.
MSN I obviously still have problems posting links but the one above is an article talking about the corruption in the Chinese military. Their rockets have been drained of fuel and refilled with water.