7 ms·

It can be easy to lose sight of in this new era of America intervening and starting conflicts of our own choice throughout the world, but the U.S. is still 100%

It can be easy to lose sight of in this new era of America intervening and starting conflicts of our own choice throughout the world, but the U.S. is still 100% committed to total defense of both Taiwan and South Korea. I'm not talking about Afghanistan or Iraq levels of commitment (~100k troops for a few months, 3-4 carrier strike groups), I'm talking full mobilization of the reserves (1 million U.S. troops in uniform), commandeering the entire civil aviation fleet, every Marine, every ship in the Navy, every aircraft in the Air Force heading to the Western Pacific, fighting-to-the-last-man-like-it's-World-War-Two level of commitment. All decisions on U.S. military force structure, including the number of aircraft carriers in the fleet, flow down from what is required to fight those two conflicts.

mercer 10y ago
Could you elaborate on why this is the case? Or point me in the right direction?
- cjslep 10y ago
  The Korean War has technically not achieved a final peace, only reached an armstice [0]. There's been many incidents along the border [1], notably the Axe Murder Incident [2]. The Korean war was a conflict primarily between North Korea and China versus South Korea and the United States. However, a relative was in the CIA at the time and I have the distinct impression from them that the US was also shooting down Russian airplanes, as they were shooting down ours, in the conflict. Should conflict restart, there's no telling who would get involved again. Taiwan has a complicated history where Japan had gotten China to cede the island in the 19th Century, then tried to leverage it to take over China during WWII, then when WWII was over and the Chinese Civil War went into full swing the losing Republic of China (which had replaced the Qing dynasty) fled millions of people to the island. The ROC government remains there governing Taiwan defacto, but the PRC considers it part of its borders in a dejure fashion. Since recognizing Taiwan as an independent nation would 100% surely anger China, the US has not done so [3]. The disparity between reality and theory has yet to be rectified and resolving it would definitely take armed conflict. This would destabilize the region and threaten a significant amount of the world's shipping [4]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Armistice_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Armistice_Agreement [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_border_incidents_involving_North_Korea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_border_incidents_invol... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axe_murder_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axe_murder_incident [3] http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35855.htm http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35855.htm [4] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/Shipping_routes_red_black.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/Shipping...
  - studentrob 10y ago
    > The disparity between reality and theory has yet to be rectified and resolving it would definitely take armed conflict I'm not sure anything is definite. Neither side has made any real moves to resolve the conflict, just feints. The rest of the world seems to support easing tensions when they arise rather than exacerbating them.
    - cjslep 10y ago
      Historically, neither side has made real moves and no one wants to increase tension precisely because of each side understands their opponent is still highly committed to defending their way of life. The US does not want to attempt to get China to back down because that would just anger them. And the US does not want to lose a possible ally in Taiwan in getting them to back down. China does not want to overtly bully Taiwan because it does not want US relations to degrade. So with diplomacy out, neither side wants to resort to "forceful diplomacy"/"military persuasion"/whatever newspeak. So both sides have, until recently, acted paralyzed in the status quo. But I disagree with the "just feints" notion in present day. The nine-dash-line strategy means China is no longer acting paralyzed in the region. I'm not qualified to guess whether it is part of a long Taiwan game or something different, but I would assert it certainly is not a feint and not easing tensions.
      - studentrob 10y ago
        > But I disagree with the "just feints" notion in present day Maybe saying "feeling each other out" would be better than "feints". At any rate, that's just my perception. I'm also not qualified to say what's what. Countries continue to trade with each other, and there are diplomatic ties between the US, China and Russia. They continue to have some common goals, in spite of some differences. I think overall that's a positive thing. I trust our leaders to decide how to deal with various strategies put forth by other countries. History was pretty interesting and tense at times. So is the present. I believe the ties are better these days among nations than they were 40-70 years ago. Monarchies used to send family members to each other to keep the peace. We try to do the same with diplomacy where possible.
- studentrob 10y ago
  Start with WW II up until now. Korean war, Taiwan strait crises, and the re-opening of China. Kissinger is a good story teller and has written many books. The latest is called "World Order". He lived through all of it and was involved in a lot of our foreign policy moves. He's given a few talks at Google, e.g. [1]. There are a lot of other videos of him on Youtube. He answers tough questions about state decisions, including POW's in Vietnam, for which he is often accused of being a war criminal. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eM_z4vRxrA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eM_z4vRxrA
- simonh 10y ago
  North Korea is still actualy in a state of War with South Korea and has nuclear weapons. They are expressly committed to incorporating South Korea, a country Anerica has already fought one war to defend, under their control. Similarly China considers Taiwan part of their territory. A commitment to defend either of those has to be total in order to be at all meaningful. The slightest indication of a weakening of resolve would open space for a political and military wedge that would inevitably prize the US and its allies apart. In contrast, in Europe there is no similar explicit and imminent territorial threat to US allies. Yes Russia makes no bones about their attitude to Ukraine, but Ukraine isn't a NATO member and the US doesn't have as clear a treaty obligation to protect it. The Russian governent are dangerous assholes, but their threat is piecemeal and opportunistic while the claims of China and the DPRK are existential.
  - exar0815 10y ago
    Yes and no. France and Great Britain guaranteed Ukraine's territorial integrity, when they agreed to return the ex-soviet nuclear weapons to Russia after the fall of the Iron Curtain. Somehow, they weaseled themselves out.
    - simonh 10y ago
      Well, Russia guaranteed their territorial integrity as well but nobody saw the annexation of Crimea coming. We were caught flat footed and presented with a fait accompli. But in any case I don't think we had any military obligation under the treaty. No such excuse in SE Asia.
      - kahnpro 10y ago
        Nor any desire. Ukraine is unstable and Crimea contains the Sevastopol base. Obama probably fist-bumped Putin and said "it's all good bro".
        xixi77 10y ago
        Ugh how so? I have a lot of issues with Obama, but just because he believes that a direct military intervention is not the best way to deal with the problem, doesn't mean that he "fist-bumped Putin". He does see Russian antics as a threat (other than a few delusional paleocons, pretty much everyone does), but just as it was with Soviet Union, Russian greatest weakness today is economic, which is where the pressure is applied. It's not nearly as effective as it could be due to the boneheaded attitudes of a few people, but hopefully that changes soon enough...
semi-extrinsic 10y ago
Presumably there are similar obligations wrt. NATO which are also influencing decisions?
- hudibras 10y ago
  Absolutely. But (speaking in very broad terms here), the potential conflicts which would involve NATO in Europe today are dwarfed by the requirements for the Western Pacific conflicts. This may not have been the case in, say, 1985, but it is now.
  - xixi77 10y ago
    I guess you mean in the context of the Navy specifically? Because otherwise I am not sure this is the case...
    - Frompo 10y ago
      Well, there isn't much use for a navy in a land war with Russia anyway.
      - dctoedt 10y ago
        > Well, there isn't much use for a navy in a land war with Russia anyway. Read Tom Clancy's 1980s novel Red Storm Rising, which seemed pretty realistic to me. (Former U.S. Navy carrier officer here.)
      - ArkyBeagle 10y ago
        Navies are mighty handy for keeping shipping going. And you don't know how resupply & logistics will play out for any given conflict. Boomers were also the force of last resort in MAD.
- gspetr 10y ago
  Actually those obligations are very carefully worded to allow US to weasel out of it if necessary. Consider Articles 5 and 6: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm# http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm# "At the drafting of Article 5 in the late 1940s, there was consensus on the principle of mutual assistance, but fundamental disagreement on the modalities of implementing this commitment. The European participants wanted to ensure that the United States would automatically come to their assistance should one of the signatories come under attack; the United States did not want to make such a pledge and obtained that this be reflected in the wording of Article 5."
cm2187 10y ago
There is a good reason why these all out wars are something of the past. The weaker party will always be tempted to escalate and there is no scenario where you don't end up using nuclear weapons. No one wants that, and I doubt even aggressive countries like Russia or China will take such a gamble.
- acqq 10y ago
  That is old logic, now some consider that the US can attack first, search for the "Nuclear Primacy."
  - cm2187 10y ago
    Obama will not even risk bombing Syria. I think nuclear powers are safe.
    - lsaferite 10y ago
      The equation is different if faced with a direct conflict with another nuclear power.
    - losteric 10y ago
      No President remains in office indefinitely. Let's not dismiss the threat of an aggressive warmongering President... the potential alone could raise serious tensions.
- xixi77 10y ago
  I can definitely see such scenarios -- one is of course the case where the defending side is winning. And you may be right about the gamble, hopefully you are -- but this is only true as long as we ourselves stand ready to escalate as well, and the opponents know that. It seems that part of the establishment is beginning to forget this.
Nokinside 10y ago
>U.S. is still 100% committed to total defense of both Taiwan and South Korea. US is not committed to defend Taiwan. US-Taiwan relations act is carefully grafted to avoid commitment. It's not solid defense pact like US has with South Korea or Japan. US position is called strategic ambiguity. US has the freedom to determine how much it want's to assist Taiwan to defend itself. ps. US don't even have formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan. China is more important to US interests than Taiwan.
- hudibras 10y ago
  Maybe. You might be right, who knows?
- exar0815 10y ago
  Exactly. As far as I remember, I read an article that Taiwan desperately wants to buy new Submarines, but nobody wants to sell. US doesn't have the Know-how to build them, Germany doesn't want to risk relations with China. So, it's either gonna be Japan or Russia.
  - DavidHm 10y ago
    The US doesn't know how to build submarines?
    - LoSboccacc 10y ago
      probably he means not ones USA can export (as in, non nuclear) like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbel-class_submarine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbel-class_submarine
    - douche 10y ago
      We don't build diesel-electrics like they would be probably most interested in. Something like the Russian Kilo class[1] is more in line with their needs than a Los Angeles attack sub or a boomer. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilo-class_submarine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilo-class_submarine
_pmf_ 10y ago
Thankfully not (or only in the way they are 100% committed to bring peace to the middle east, i.e. by providing lip service, vague promises and performing some maneuvers in the general vicinity). Letting China occupy Taiwan is better for everyone (including the Taiwanese people) than the 3rd World War.
- prodmerc 10y ago
  Heh, you're downvoted but I think that's exactly what would happen if China were to decide to annex Taiwan - everyone else would stay out of full scale military conflict. Sure, they'd do everything else possible, like they did with Russia, but Taiwan would not be worth a war. That is unlike South Korea and Japan, and in the case of South Korea, it would be China that would not go to full war on North Korea's side. If anything, they'd use that opportunity to get Taiwan back.
clarkmoody 10y ago
Pretty concise example of an "entangling alliance" [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Doctrine_of_Unstable_Alliances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Doctrine_of_Unstabl...

mercer 10y ago

Could you elaborate on why this is the case? Or point me in the right direction?

cjslep 10y ago
The Korean War has technically not achieved a final peace, only reached an armstice [0]. There's been many incidents along the border [1], notably the Axe Murder Incident [2]. The Korean war was a conflict primarily between North Korea and China versus South Korea and the United States. However, a relative was in the CIA at the time and I have the distinct impression from them that the US was also shooting down Russian airplanes, as they were shooting down ours, in the conflict. Should conflict restart, there's no telling who would get involved again. Taiwan has a complicated history where Japan had gotten China to cede the island in the 19th Century, then tried to leverage it to take over China during WWII, then when WWII was over and the Chinese Civil War went into full swing the losing Republic of China (which had replaced the Qing dynasty) fled millions of people to the island. The ROC government remains there governing Taiwan defacto, but the PRC considers it part of its borders in a dejure fashion. Since recognizing Taiwan as an independent nation would 100% surely anger China, the US has not done so [3]. The disparity between reality and theory has yet to be rectified and resolving it would definitely take armed conflict. This would destabilize the region and threaten a significant amount of the world's shipping [4]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Armistice_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Armistice_Agreement [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_border_incidents_involving_North_Korea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_border_incidents_invol... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axe_murder_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axe_murder_incident [3] http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35855.htm http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35855.htm [4] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/Shipping_routes_red_black.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/Shipping...
- studentrob 10y ago
  > The disparity between reality and theory has yet to be rectified and resolving it would definitely take armed conflict I'm not sure anything is definite. Neither side has made any real moves to resolve the conflict, just feints. The rest of the world seems to support easing tensions when they arise rather than exacerbating them.
  - cjslep 10y ago
    Historically, neither side has made real moves and no one wants to increase tension precisely because of each side understands their opponent is still highly committed to defending their way of life. The US does not want to attempt to get China to back down because that would just anger them. And the US does not want to lose a possible ally in Taiwan in getting them to back down. China does not want to overtly bully Taiwan because it does not want US relations to degrade. So with diplomacy out, neither side wants to resort to "forceful diplomacy"/"military persuasion"/whatever newspeak. So both sides have, until recently, acted paralyzed in the status quo. But I disagree with the "just feints" notion in present day. The nine-dash-line strategy means China is no longer acting paralyzed in the region. I'm not qualified to guess whether it is part of a long Taiwan game or something different, but I would assert it certainly is not a feint and not easing tensions.
    - studentrob 10y ago
      > But I disagree with the "just feints" notion in present day Maybe saying "feeling each other out" would be better than "feints". At any rate, that's just my perception. I'm also not qualified to say what's what. Countries continue to trade with each other, and there are diplomatic ties between the US, China and Russia. They continue to have some common goals, in spite of some differences. I think overall that's a positive thing. I trust our leaders to decide how to deal with various strategies put forth by other countries. History was pretty interesting and tense at times. So is the present. I believe the ties are better these days among nations than they were 40-70 years ago. Monarchies used to send family members to each other to keep the peace. We try to do the same with diplomacy where possible.
studentrob 10y ago
Start with WW II up until now. Korean war, Taiwan strait crises, and the re-opening of China. Kissinger is a good story teller and has written many books. The latest is called "World Order". He lived through all of it and was involved in a lot of our foreign policy moves. He's given a few talks at Google, e.g. [1]. There are a lot of other videos of him on Youtube. He answers tough questions about state decisions, including POW's in Vietnam, for which he is often accused of being a war criminal. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eM_z4vRxrA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eM_z4vRxrA
simonh 10y ago
North Korea is still actualy in a state of War with South Korea and has nuclear weapons. They are expressly committed to incorporating South Korea, a country Anerica has already fought one war to defend, under their control. Similarly China considers Taiwan part of their territory. A commitment to defend either of those has to be total in order to be at all meaningful. The slightest indication of a weakening of resolve would open space for a political and military wedge that would inevitably prize the US and its allies apart. In contrast, in Europe there is no similar explicit and imminent territorial threat to US allies. Yes Russia makes no bones about their attitude to Ukraine, but Ukraine isn't a NATO member and the US doesn't have as clear a treaty obligation to protect it. The Russian governent are dangerous assholes, but their threat is piecemeal and opportunistic while the claims of China and the DPRK are existential.
- exar0815 10y ago
  Yes and no. France and Great Britain guaranteed Ukraine's territorial integrity, when they agreed to return the ex-soviet nuclear weapons to Russia after the fall of the Iron Curtain. Somehow, they weaseled themselves out.
  - simonh 10y ago
    Well, Russia guaranteed their territorial integrity as well but nobody saw the annexation of Crimea coming. We were caught flat footed and presented with a fait accompli. But in any case I don't think we had any military obligation under the treaty. No such excuse in SE Asia.
    - kahnpro 10y ago
      Nor any desire. Ukraine is unstable and Crimea contains the Sevastopol base. Obama probably fist-bumped Putin and said "it's all good bro".
      - xixi77 10y ago
        Ugh how so? I have a lot of issues with Obama, but just because he believes that a direct military intervention is not the best way to deal with the problem, doesn't mean that he "fist-bumped Putin". He does see Russian antics as a threat (other than a few delusional paleocons, pretty much everyone does), but just as it was with Soviet Union, Russian greatest weakness today is economic, which is where the pressure is applied. It's not nearly as effective as it could be due to the boneheaded attitudes of a few people, but hopefully that changes soon enough...

semi-extrinsic 10y ago

Presumably there are similar obligations wrt. NATO which are also influencing decisions?

hudibras 10y ago
Absolutely. But (speaking in very broad terms here), the potential conflicts which would involve NATO in Europe today are dwarfed by the requirements for the Western Pacific conflicts. This may not have been the case in, say, 1985, but it is now.
- xixi77 10y ago
  I guess you mean in the context of the Navy specifically? Because otherwise I am not sure this is the case...
  - Frompo 10y ago
    Well, there isn't much use for a navy in a land war with Russia anyway.
    - dctoedt 10y ago
      > Well, there isn't much use for a navy in a land war with Russia anyway. Read Tom Clancy's 1980s novel Red Storm Rising, which seemed pretty realistic to me. (Former U.S. Navy carrier officer here.)
    - ArkyBeagle 10y ago
      Navies are mighty handy for keeping shipping going. And you don't know how resupply & logistics will play out for any given conflict. Boomers were also the force of last resort in MAD.
gspetr 10y ago
Actually those obligations are very carefully worded to allow US to weasel out of it if necessary. Consider Articles 5 and 6: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm# http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm# "At the drafting of Article 5 in the late 1940s, there was consensus on the principle of mutual assistance, but fundamental disagreement on the modalities of implementing this commitment. The European participants wanted to ensure that the United States would automatically come to their assistance should one of the signatories come under attack; the United States did not want to make such a pledge and obtained that this be reflected in the wording of Article 5."

cm2187 10y ago

There is a good reason why these all out wars are something of the past. The weaker party will always be tempted to escalate and there is no scenario where you don't end up using nuclear weapons. No one wants that, and I doubt even aggressive countries like Russia or China will take such a gamble.

acqq 10y ago
That is old logic, now some consider that the US can attack first, search for the "Nuclear Primacy."
- cm2187 10y ago
  Obama will not even risk bombing Syria. I think nuclear powers are safe.
  - lsaferite 10y ago
    The equation is different if faced with a direct conflict with another nuclear power.
  - losteric 10y ago
    No President remains in office indefinitely. Let's not dismiss the threat of an aggressive warmongering President... the potential alone could raise serious tensions.
xixi77 10y ago
I can definitely see such scenarios -- one is of course the case where the defending side is winning. And you may be right about the gamble, hopefully you are -- but this is only true as long as we ourselves stand ready to escalate as well, and the opponents know that. It seems that part of the establishment is beginning to forget this.

Nokinside 10y ago

>U.S. is still 100% committed to total defense of both Taiwan and South Korea. US is not committed to defend Taiwan. US-Taiwan relations act is carefully grafted to avoid commitment. It's not solid defense pact like US has with South Korea or Japan. US position is called strategic ambiguity. US has the freedom to determine how much it want's to assist Taiwan to defend itself. ps. US don't even have formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan. China is more important to US interests than Taiwan.

hudibras 10y ago
Maybe. You might be right, who knows?
exar0815 10y ago
Exactly. As far as I remember, I read an article that Taiwan desperately wants to buy new Submarines, but nobody wants to sell. US doesn't have the Know-how to build them, Germany doesn't want to risk relations with China. So, it's either gonna be Japan or Russia.
- DavidHm 10y ago
  The US doesn't know how to build submarines?
  - LoSboccacc 10y ago
    probably he means not ones USA can export (as in, non nuclear) like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbel-class_submarine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbel-class_submarine
  - douche 10y ago
    We don't build diesel-electrics like they would be probably most interested in. Something like the Russian Kilo class[1] is more in line with their needs than a Los Angeles attack sub or a boomer. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilo-class_submarine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilo-class_submarine

_pmf_ 10y ago

Thankfully not (or only in the way they are 100% committed to bring peace to the middle east, i.e. by providing lip service, vague promises and performing some maneuvers in the general vicinity). Letting China occupy Taiwan is better for everyone (including the Taiwanese people) than the 3rd World War.

prodmerc 10y ago
Heh, you're downvoted but I think that's exactly what would happen if China were to decide to annex Taiwan - everyone else would stay out of full scale military conflict. Sure, they'd do everything else possible, like they did with Russia, but Taiwan would not be worth a war. That is unlike South Korea and Japan, and in the case of South Korea, it would be China that would not go to full war on North Korea's side. If anything, they'd use that opportunity to get Taiwan back.

clarkmoody 10y ago

Pretty concise example of an "entangling alliance" [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Doctrine_of_Unstable_Alliances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Doctrine_of_Unstabl...