27 ms·

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

201 points by jseliger 5y ago

gd920129 5y ago
defend by nuclear war？
- hn_go_brrrrr 5y ago
  They didn't ask that question. However, there is no defense in a nuclear war, only scorched earth.
- _rpd 5y ago
  With US troops.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 5y 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.
  - time0ut 5y 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.
  - Ancapistani 5y 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.
    - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
      > 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 I agree. It wouldn't be a small escalation. But it still wouldn't merit a strategic nuclear counterstrike. Point is, there is a lot of room for escalation before we go into strategic nuclear war. Or even physically damage on either side's mainland.
      - Ancapistani 5y ago
        > But it still wouldn't merit a strategic nuclear counterstrike. I don't believe this is widely accepted. Consider that the last time the US lost significant naval assets, we committed to a hugely costly war and effectively annihilated the attacker. It was the original impetus for developing nuclear weapons in the first place, and it remains the only time they've been used against an enemy. > Point is, there is a lot of room for escalation before we go into strategic nuclear war. My understanding of the military and political thinking around the use of nuclear weapons is that the use of tactical nuclear weapons inevitably leads to their strategic use. Destroying a US carrier via conventional means would carry significant risk of nuclear retaliation. Doing it through nuclear means effectively guarantees it.
        time0ut 5y ago
        China has a strong no first use policy, at least publicly. Luckily, it is unlikely they'd attack a carrier battle group with nuclear weapons. They also have a strategy of assured retaliation and maintain a countervalue stance. Hopefully, we won't have to find out whether or not they will follow through with it...
        philliphaydon 5y ago
        > China has a strong no first use policy, at least publicly. Luckily, it is unlikely they'd attack a carrier battle group with nuclear weapons. Yeah we know that's false now, it's just something they claimed and will never uphold, after they threatened to obliterate Japan.
a0-prw 5y ago
Dumbasses, literally. But the whole world knows now.
farseer 5y ago
To the extent of sending their children overseas to fight for it? Otherwise it's just empty feelings!
- vkou 5y 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 5y ago
  Not empty, you can send other people's children to fight
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
huibf 5y ago
They just don't learn, do they?
- etaioinshrdlu 5y ago
  Taiwanese people and government would like the help. That’s a big difference from other wars. And the country is unified, stable, and worth defending.
  - bgun 5y ago
    Some would, certainly not all and likely not even most. The same was true for Afghanistan and Vietnam and the list goes on.
    - fighterpilot 5y ago
      "likely not even most." Source? I know the large majority are certainly against the CCP taking over according to polls of civilians there.
      - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
        > the large majority are certainly against the CCP taking over It was even, occasionally, integration leaning. Then Xi screwed the pooch by getting impatient with Hong Kong. There is an alternative universe where Beijing was patient and peacefully absorbed both islands.
        kelnos 5y ago
        Taiwan hasn't leaned toward reuinification for quite some time now. Their current president explicitly rejects the "one country, two systems" concept. The previous president was a member of the opposition party, and barely won with 51% of the votes. As of a year ago, only 12% of the public polled supported reunification. Interestingly, a year prior that number was only 10% (probably within the margin for error, though). A majority (54%) actually do support outright independence, with the rest being a mix of keeping the status quo and not having an opinion. The current Hong Kong mess only kicked off in early- to mid-2019; I think it'd be hard to attribute the 2019 poll's 10% number to Xi getting impatient with HK. Even if it was 20% pre-HK-protests, that's still not a big number, and I think that would still be a stretch to assume. Either way, I expect somewhere close to 0% of Taiwanese people would be ok with China taking over via military invasion. And I do agree that the HK fiasco makes it even less likely that many previously on-the-fence Taiwanese people would fall down on the side of even peaceful reunification.
maybelsyrup 5y 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.
GoodJokes 5y ago
Elites are very unimaginative folks. They have like three moves and one of them is always, more war!
oxymoran 5y 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.
- JumpCrisscross 5y 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.)
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - thesuperbigfrog 5y 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_Taiwan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_US_arms_sales_to_Taiwa...
    - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
      > The US has been selling arms to Taiwan for decades Sorry, I meant strategic weaponry. Long-range weapons that would let Taiwan legitimately threaten e.g. Beijing.
      - thesuperbigfrog 5y ago
        >> Sorry, I meant strategic weaponry. Long-range weapons that would let Taiwan legitimately threaten e.g. Beijing. The US has naval vessels and aircraft that can do that from the strait of Taiwan or elsewhere. Why would the US sell such weapons to Taiwan when the US could employ them directly if needed? In theory the US could position ground-based strategic weapons in Taiwan (Cuban missile crisis-style), but that would be too aggressive and could provoke an attack. Besides, a submarine, ship, or aircraft could employ similar weapons without being a fixed target.
djrogers 5y 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.
- maybelsyrup 5y ago
  Look not to be too cheeky, but we're okay with our own genocidal government (the US's). Wouldn't it be hypocritical to object to theirs?
- Notanothertoo 5y ago
  In addition to the hypocrisy of the US gov, they have already held that switch for some time.
- JumpCrisscross 5y 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 5y ago
    TSMC is worth $500B alone for a reason. To say it'd cost 10s of billions is a pretty crazy idea
    - reidjs 5y ago
      Are you saying he was off by only one order of magnitude?
      - adt2bt 5y ago
        And time. Say we even put $1T into replacing TSMC's capabilities stateside, it would take years, potentially decades, to get the people, knowledge, processes and technology.
GaryTang 5y ago
Why wouldn’t we defend Taiwan?
- Notanothertoo 5y ago
  The cost is paid in blood
- JumpCrisscross 5y 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.
  - f38zf5vdt 5y 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).
    - jessaustin 5y ago
      Afghanistan War (WMDs) I thought WMDs were the lie that justified invading Iraq? The Afghanistan lie was that ObL was hiding in a cave there rather than openly living down the street from the Pakistan Military Academy. I'll admit that as the stories pile up it gets hard to keep them straight. It seems possible that the war pigs have gone a bit overboard with the stories in the last several decades. They've turned the knob so far that it may have broken off. After the "disastrous" aspects of the recent withdrawal have been hyped so much in the war media, I've heard normal red-blooded high-school-educated Ozark hillbilly Americans laughing out loud at e.g. CNN's instant backflip on the performance of Biden as president. It has been made exceedingly clear which interests really decide what's news.
dirtyid 5y 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.
- JumpCrisscross 5y 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.
  - dirtyid 5y 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 5y 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.
- aksss 5y 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 5y 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 5y ago
    A lot of it is power games. Nations not competing for hegemony are not as vested. They will be subservient either way.
- TearsInTheRain 5y ago
  It would probably take over a decade to reshore enough semi-conductor manufacturing to replace TSMC. Chips are incredibly complex to make
  - skinkestek 5y 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 5y 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-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."
- TMWNN 5y 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-b 5y ago
Taiwan is an independent sovereign nation. Full stop.
- amelius 5y ago
  Did you see any Taiwanese at the Olympic games?
  - TheCoelacanth 5y ago
    Yes, though they were competing under the name "Chinese Taipei" due to bullying from China.
    - amelius 5y ago
      Maybe next time we can bully them into changing their name to "US Taipei" or something.
- theandrewbailey 5y ago
  De facto, but not de jure.
praisewhitey 5y ago
I would be very surprised if half of Americans could point to Taiwan on a map
- CincinnatiMan 5y ago
  What is the relevance of this?
  - edwinyzh 5y ago
    Search youtube for this kind of videos.
- amai 5y ago
  The same is true for Afghanistan, Vietnam, Iraq, Syria, Lybia. Doesn't seem to be relevant.
spookybones 5y 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.
- dillondoyle 5y 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.
  - spookybones 5y ago
    Yes, I meant legally on paper, “legally”, as in it is much harder for a foreign power to justify interfering.
- koheripbal 5y 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.
lamontcg 5y ago
Looks like all the lab leak propaganda worked.
hamburgerwah 5y ago
We are in the equivalent of 1935. Xi has fully captured all of the levers of power and dictator for life. They are in mobilization mode. We either get real about stopping Nazi China now or we try to stop them in ten years after they have subjugated half the world at the cost of hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of lives.
m0zg 5y 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.
taylodl 5y 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 5y 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 https://youtu.be/cA8VoY3dUFU
- stale2002 5y 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.
  - taylodl 5y ago
    https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-that-recognize-taiwan 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?
mywittyname 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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.
foolinaround 5y 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 5y ago
  >After the recent debacle The deal was made a year+ ago the then-current Afghan govt wasn't party to the agreement.
xyy688 5y ago
Taiwan is part of China, ok? they speak Chinese, indepent country? your guys seriously? if half of americans favors, let me tell you the real truth, near 99.9999% chinese mainland people won't let it happen, that's not include taiwan people. drop your prejudice, just go to china and taiwan, listen to its own people voice, don't just to watch media and listen to politician，they all have kinds of their own interests and opinions
adultSwim 5y ago
That's terrifying. That would mean nuclear annihilation.
rustdesk 5y ago
I am not sure if half of Americans know Taiwan.
ck2 5y 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
CRConrad 5y ago
If only Britain had had the balls twenty-five years ago.

201 points by jseliger 5y ago

gd920129 5y ago

defend by nuclear war？

hn_go_brrrrr 5y ago
They didn't ask that question. However, there is no defense in a nuclear war, only scorched earth.
_rpd 5y ago
With US troops.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
JumpCrisscross 5y 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.
- time0ut 5y 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.
- Ancapistani 5y 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.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > 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 I agree. It wouldn't be a small escalation. But it still wouldn't merit a strategic nuclear counterstrike. Point is, there is a lot of room for escalation before we go into strategic nuclear war. Or even physically damage on either side's mainland.
    - Ancapistani 5y ago
      > But it still wouldn't merit a strategic nuclear counterstrike. I don't believe this is widely accepted. Consider that the last time the US lost significant naval assets, we committed to a hugely costly war and effectively annihilated the attacker. It was the original impetus for developing nuclear weapons in the first place, and it remains the only time they've been used against an enemy. > Point is, there is a lot of room for escalation before we go into strategic nuclear war. My understanding of the military and political thinking around the use of nuclear weapons is that the use of tactical nuclear weapons inevitably leads to their strategic use. Destroying a US carrier via conventional means would carry significant risk of nuclear retaliation. Doing it through nuclear means effectively guarantees it.
      - time0ut 5y ago
        China has a strong no first use policy, at least publicly. Luckily, it is unlikely they'd attack a carrier battle group with nuclear weapons. They also have a strategy of assured retaliation and maintain a countervalue stance. Hopefully, we won't have to find out whether or not they will follow through with it...
        philliphaydon 5y ago
        > China has a strong no first use policy, at least publicly. Luckily, it is unlikely they'd attack a carrier battle group with nuclear weapons. Yeah we know that's false now, it's just something they claimed and will never uphold, after they threatened to obliterate Japan.

a0-prw 5y ago

Dumbasses, literally. But the whole world knows now.

farseer 5y ago

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

vkou 5y 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 5y ago
Not empty, you can send other people's children to fight
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

huibf 5y ago

They just don't learn, do they?

etaioinshrdlu 5y ago
Taiwanese people and government would like the help. That’s a big difference from other wars. And the country is unified, stable, and worth defending.
- bgun 5y ago
  Some would, certainly not all and likely not even most. The same was true for Afghanistan and Vietnam and the list goes on.
  - fighterpilot 5y ago
    "likely not even most." Source? I know the large majority are certainly against the CCP taking over according to polls of civilians there.
    - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
      > the large majority are certainly against the CCP taking over It was even, occasionally, integration leaning. Then Xi screwed the pooch by getting impatient with Hong Kong. There is an alternative universe where Beijing was patient and peacefully absorbed both islands.
      - kelnos 5y ago
        Taiwan hasn't leaned toward reuinification for quite some time now. Their current president explicitly rejects the "one country, two systems" concept. The previous president was a member of the opposition party, and barely won with 51% of the votes. As of a year ago, only 12% of the public polled supported reunification. Interestingly, a year prior that number was only 10% (probably within the margin for error, though). A majority (54%) actually do support outright independence, with the rest being a mix of keeping the status quo and not having an opinion. The current Hong Kong mess only kicked off in early- to mid-2019; I think it'd be hard to attribute the 2019 poll's 10% number to Xi getting impatient with HK. Even if it was 20% pre-HK-protests, that's still not a big number, and I think that would still be a stretch to assume. Either way, I expect somewhere close to 0% of Taiwanese people would be ok with China taking over via military invasion. And I do agree that the HK fiasco makes it even less likely that many previously on-the-fence Taiwanese people would fall down on the side of even peaceful reunification.

maybelsyrup 5y 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.

GoodJokes 5y ago

Elites are very unimaginative folks. They have like three moves and one of them is always, more war!

oxymoran 5y 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.

JumpCrisscross 5y 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.)
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- thesuperbigfrog 5y 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_Taiwan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_US_arms_sales_to_Taiwa...
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > The US has been selling arms to Taiwan for decades Sorry, I meant strategic weaponry. Long-range weapons that would let Taiwan legitimately threaten e.g. Beijing.
    - thesuperbigfrog 5y ago
      >> Sorry, I meant strategic weaponry. Long-range weapons that would let Taiwan legitimately threaten e.g. Beijing. The US has naval vessels and aircraft that can do that from the strait of Taiwan or elsewhere. Why would the US sell such weapons to Taiwan when the US could employ them directly if needed? In theory the US could position ground-based strategic weapons in Taiwan (Cuban missile crisis-style), but that would be too aggressive and could provoke an attack. Besides, a submarine, ship, or aircraft could employ similar weapons without being a fixed target.

djrogers 5y 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.

maybelsyrup 5y ago
Look not to be too cheeky, but we're okay with our own genocidal government (the US's). Wouldn't it be hypocritical to object to theirs?
Notanothertoo 5y ago
In addition to the hypocrisy of the US gov, they have already held that switch for some time.
JumpCrisscross 5y 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 5y ago
  TSMC is worth $500B alone for a reason. To say it'd cost 10s of billions is a pretty crazy idea
  - reidjs 5y ago
    Are you saying he was off by only one order of magnitude?
    - adt2bt 5y ago
      And time. Say we even put $1T into replacing TSMC's capabilities stateside, it would take years, potentially decades, to get the people, knowledge, processes and technology.

GaryTang 5y ago

Why wouldn’t we defend Taiwan?

Notanothertoo 5y ago
The cost is paid in blood
JumpCrisscross 5y 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.
- f38zf5vdt 5y 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).
  - jessaustin 5y ago
    Afghanistan War (WMDs) I thought WMDs were the lie that justified invading Iraq? The Afghanistan lie was that ObL was hiding in a cave there rather than openly living down the street from the Pakistan Military Academy. I'll admit that as the stories pile up it gets hard to keep them straight. It seems possible that the war pigs have gone a bit overboard with the stories in the last several decades. They've turned the knob so far that it may have broken off. After the "disastrous" aspects of the recent withdrawal have been hyped so much in the war media, I've heard normal red-blooded high-school-educated Ozark hillbilly Americans laughing out loud at e.g. CNN's instant backflip on the performance of Biden as president. It has been made exceedingly clear which interests really decide what's news.

dirtyid 5y 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.

JumpCrisscross 5y 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.
- dirtyid 5y 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 5y 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.

aksss 5y 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 5y 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 5y ago
  A lot of it is power games. Nations not competing for hegemony are not as vested. They will be subservient either way.
TearsInTheRain 5y ago
It would probably take over a decade to reshore enough semi-conductor manufacturing to replace TSMC. Chips are incredibly complex to make
- skinkestek 5y 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 5y 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-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."

TMWNN 5y 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-b 5y ago

Taiwan is an independent sovereign nation. Full stop.

amelius 5y ago
Did you see any Taiwanese at the Olympic games?
- TheCoelacanth 5y ago
  Yes, though they were competing under the name "Chinese Taipei" due to bullying from China.
  - amelius 5y ago
    Maybe next time we can bully them into changing their name to "US Taipei" or something.
theandrewbailey 5y ago
De facto, but not de jure.

praisewhitey 5y ago

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

CincinnatiMan 5y ago
What is the relevance of this?
- edwinyzh 5y ago
  Search youtube for this kind of videos.
amai 5y ago
The same is true for Afghanistan, Vietnam, Iraq, Syria, Lybia. Doesn't seem to be relevant.

spookybones 5y 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.

dillondoyle 5y 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.
- spookybones 5y ago
  Yes, I meant legally on paper, “legally”, as in it is much harder for a foreign power to justify interfering.
koheripbal 5y 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.

lamontcg 5y ago

Looks like all the lab leak propaganda worked.

hamburgerwah 5y ago

We are in the equivalent of 1935. Xi has fully captured all of the levers of power and dictator for life. They are in mobilization mode. We either get real about stopping Nazi China now or we try to stop them in ten years after they have subjugated half the world at the cost of hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of lives.

m0zg 5y 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.

taylodl 5y 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 5y 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 https://youtu.be/cA8VoY3dUFU
stale2002 5y 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.
- taylodl 5y ago
  https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-that-recognize-taiwan 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?

mywittyname 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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.

foolinaround 5y 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 5y ago
>After the recent debacle The deal was made a year+ ago the then-current Afghan govt wasn't party to the agreement.

xyy688 5y ago

Taiwan is part of China, ok? they speak Chinese, indepent country? your guys seriously? if half of americans favors, let me tell you the real truth, near 99.9999% chinese mainland people won't let it happen, that's not include taiwan people. drop your prejudice, just go to china and taiwan, listen to its own people voice, don't just to watch media and listen to politician，they all have kinds of their own interests and opinions

adultSwim 5y ago

That's terrifying. That would mean nuclear annihilation.

rustdesk 5y ago

I am not sure if half of Americans know Taiwan.

ck2 5y 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

CRConrad 5y ago

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