5 ms·

The risk isn’t war between China and the US, but China and Taiwan, which China has 100% chance of winning. That then makes the the US extremely dependent on Chi

The risk isn’t war between China and the US, but China and Taiwan, which China has 100% chance of winning. That then makes the the US extremely dependent on China for semiconductor supply.

_-david-_ 5y ago
China only has 100% chance of winning in a war with Taiwan if the west and allies do not join.
- smithza 5y ago
  From some commentaries I read, China has a near 100% chance of winning in war with Taiwan even if US and allies join. This is mostly to do with mainland China's relative proximity to Taiwan and the few relative number of air bases US has on Japan and how far away Hawaii is.
  - _-david-_ 5y ago
    Wars are not single battles. If China were to attack (and capture) Taiwan the war would not just be over. The West could attack mainland China and attempt to retake Taiwan.
    - voidfunc 5y ago
      Attacking mainland China seems like a great way to end up in a very bad Nuclear conflict.
      - Arrath 5y ago
        China declared decades ago that they follow a No First Use policy in regards to nuclear weapons. Of course, whether that holds true if boots land on their soil, who knows.
        chii 5y ago
        declarations are pointless, but the US is unlikely to put boots on land in china. The last Korean war, the US decided not to do it (invade into chinese territory), and china was much weaker back then.
    - christkv 5y ago
      To take Taiwan China will need air supremacy as well as naval supremacy lack of either one will make it close to impossible. Think about what it took to do d day possible and that was a much shorter crossing and the combined resources of the allies with full air and naval supremacy.
  - threeseed 5y ago
    You do know that there is the concept of carrier strike groups which involve you putting a bunch of planes on an aircraft carrier and sailing it to the region. Just like UK's HMS Queen Elizabeth is doing as we speak. Also there are US air bases in Phillipines, Singapore, South Korea, Australia, Guam etc. This is going to be a regional conflict not just between US and China. Again. Anyone who says there is a 100% chance of winning is delusional and ignores the history of war on this planet.
    - SkyMarshal 5y ago
      Carriers are dead, thanks to hypersonic missiles. As carriers obsoleted battleships in WWII, hypersonics have obsoleted carriers in the 21st century.
    - hadlock 5y ago
      China's DF-21/DF-26, assuming they work half as good as they're claiming, will likely largely nullify the advantages of carrier strike groups. Being able to sink any hostile warship within 2000 miles of the Spratly Islands is a significant deterrent to external military intervention in the region.
randmeerkat 5y ago
You’re making the assumption that the U.S. would just let China attack Taiwan unchallenged. There’s an enormous risk of war between China and the U.S., if China invaded Taiwan.
- voidfunc 5y ago
  10 years ago I would agree without challenge that the US would defend Taiwan if necessary. Less sure about that these days. Even if we would go to war, its probably a war we would prefer not to have to fight even if the weapons used stay conventional. It's the kind of situation that changes the course of history in a big way for the loser. Nobody wants to be the Spanish after the defeat of the Armada of the 21st century.
  - threeseed 5y ago
    US world order centres around its word. If allies can't depend on US to defend them then it opens up all sorts of possibilities none of which are in the best interests of the US or those that value democracy. For example closest allies like Australia for example would have no choice but to capitulate and bow down to China's whims. This would include ending the Five Eyes security arrangement and allowing Huawei to operate the 5G backbone infrastructure.
    - chii 5y ago
      > US world order centres around its word. Crimea begs to differ...
threeseed 5y ago
The idea that China has a 100% chance of winning is laughable and plain wrong. There are so many dynamics involved e.g. Japan needing to defend the Senkaku Islands, India, UK and EU member states being involved and the fact that you an increasingly united front within APAC. Also China's military is a lot of smoke and mirrors. They simply can't match the F-22 and F-35 in the air or the Ford class aircraft carriers in the sea. And US is looking to build a missile defence system on Guam to prevent long range attacks. There are simply too many factors in play to give any percentage of winning.
- WillPostForFood 5y ago
  The US hasn't even committed to defending Taiwan. I doubt the US would militarily intervene. The risk of escalation is too high. If China is committed to taking it, they will get it. The response would be economic, and I'm not confident enough of the world cares, or isn't already beholden to China for it to matter. >Ford class aircraft carriers Isn't there only one Ford class carrier? And it is still not fully ready, and it is in the Atlantic, so at this point is not ready to play a part in any South China Sea conflict.
  - threeseed 5y ago
    At this point there is very little economic sanctions US could impose on China that Trump didn't already either try or talk about. And anything with teeth will never work whilst US companies build everything in China. So for me a short military dispute is more likely. No one is expecting war this year. There will be 3 Ford Class carriers by 2030 and 5 by 2040. As well as the Nimitz class which are still better than what China has today.
    - redis_mlc 5y ago
      >At this point there is very little economic sanctions US could impose on China that Trump didn't already either try or talk about. This is incorrect. Trump/Pompeo would have instituted US capital market controls (and pension fund disinvestment) had they been re-elected. That destroyed the USSR, and would have shattered China in a matter of 24 months. At a high level, BRI/etc. rely on a few trillion USD from New York. What Biden needs to do is re-enforce the Trump actions that were rolled back, and continue the capital controls. However, the Biden family is involved in CCP corruption, and Biden's Chief of Staff is a CCP lobbyist. In addition, CCP assets can be seized globally for the Wuhan corona - I think $10 million per death plus $100,000 each for the remainder of the globe would work.

The risk isn’t war between China and the US, but China and Taiwan, which China has 100% chance of winning. That then makes the the US extremely dependent on China for semiconductor supply.

_-david-_ 5y ago

China only has 100% chance of winning in a war with Taiwan if the west and allies do not join.

smithza 5y ago
From some commentaries I read, China has a near 100% chance of winning in war with Taiwan even if US and allies join. This is mostly to do with mainland China's relative proximity to Taiwan and the few relative number of air bases US has on Japan and how far away Hawaii is.
- _-david-_ 5y ago
  Wars are not single battles. If China were to attack (and capture) Taiwan the war would not just be over. The West could attack mainland China and attempt to retake Taiwan.
  - voidfunc 5y ago
    Attacking mainland China seems like a great way to end up in a very bad Nuclear conflict.
    - Arrath 5y ago
      China declared decades ago that they follow a No First Use policy in regards to nuclear weapons. Of course, whether that holds true if boots land on their soil, who knows.
      - chii 5y ago
        declarations are pointless, but the US is unlikely to put boots on land in china. The last Korean war, the US decided not to do it (invade into chinese territory), and china was much weaker back then.
  - christkv 5y ago
    To take Taiwan China will need air supremacy as well as naval supremacy lack of either one will make it close to impossible. Think about what it took to do d day possible and that was a much shorter crossing and the combined resources of the allies with full air and naval supremacy.
- threeseed 5y ago
  You do know that there is the concept of carrier strike groups which involve you putting a bunch of planes on an aircraft carrier and sailing it to the region. Just like UK's HMS Queen Elizabeth is doing as we speak. Also there are US air bases in Phillipines, Singapore, South Korea, Australia, Guam etc. This is going to be a regional conflict not just between US and China. Again. Anyone who says there is a 100% chance of winning is delusional and ignores the history of war on this planet.
  - SkyMarshal 5y ago
    Carriers are dead, thanks to hypersonic missiles. As carriers obsoleted battleships in WWII, hypersonics have obsoleted carriers in the 21st century.
  - hadlock 5y ago
    China's DF-21/DF-26, assuming they work half as good as they're claiming, will likely largely nullify the advantages of carrier strike groups. Being able to sink any hostile warship within 2000 miles of the Spratly Islands is a significant deterrent to external military intervention in the region.

randmeerkat 5y ago

You’re making the assumption that the U.S. would just let China attack Taiwan unchallenged. There’s an enormous risk of war between China and the U.S., if China invaded Taiwan.

voidfunc 5y ago
10 years ago I would agree without challenge that the US would defend Taiwan if necessary. Less sure about that these days. Even if we would go to war, its probably a war we would prefer not to have to fight even if the weapons used stay conventional. It's the kind of situation that changes the course of history in a big way for the loser. Nobody wants to be the Spanish after the defeat of the Armada of the 21st century.
- threeseed 5y ago
  US world order centres around its word. If allies can't depend on US to defend them then it opens up all sorts of possibilities none of which are in the best interests of the US or those that value democracy. For example closest allies like Australia for example would have no choice but to capitulate and bow down to China's whims. This would include ending the Five Eyes security arrangement and allowing Huawei to operate the 5G backbone infrastructure.
  - chii 5y ago
    > US world order centres around its word. Crimea begs to differ...

threeseed 5y ago

The idea that China has a 100% chance of winning is laughable and plain wrong. There are so many dynamics involved e.g. Japan needing to defend the Senkaku Islands, India, UK and EU member states being involved and the fact that you an increasingly united front within APAC. Also China's military is a lot of smoke and mirrors. They simply can't match the F-22 and F-35 in the air or the Ford class aircraft carriers in the sea. And US is looking to build a missile defence system on Guam to prevent long range attacks. There are simply too many factors in play to give any percentage of winning.

WillPostForFood 5y ago
The US hasn't even committed to defending Taiwan. I doubt the US would militarily intervene. The risk of escalation is too high. If China is committed to taking it, they will get it. The response would be economic, and I'm not confident enough of the world cares, or isn't already beholden to China for it to matter. >Ford class aircraft carriers Isn't there only one Ford class carrier? And it is still not fully ready, and it is in the Atlantic, so at this point is not ready to play a part in any South China Sea conflict.
- threeseed 5y ago
  At this point there is very little economic sanctions US could impose on China that Trump didn't already either try or talk about. And anything with teeth will never work whilst US companies build everything in China. So for me a short military dispute is more likely. No one is expecting war this year. There will be 3 Ford Class carriers by 2030 and 5 by 2040. As well as the Nimitz class which are still better than what China has today.
  - redis_mlc 5y ago
    >At this point there is very little economic sanctions US could impose on China that Trump didn't already either try or talk about. This is incorrect. Trump/Pompeo would have instituted US capital market controls (and pension fund disinvestment) had they been re-elected. That destroyed the USSR, and would have shattered China in a matter of 24 months. At a high level, BRI/etc. rely on a few trillion USD from New York. What Biden needs to do is re-enforce the Trump actions that were rolled back, and continue the capital controls. However, the Biden family is involved in CCP corruption, and Biden's Chief of Staff is a CCP lobbyist. In addition, CCP assets can be seized globally for the Wuhan corona - I think $10 million per death plus $100,000 each for the remainder of the globe would work.