18 ms·

Could the U.S. Lose a War with China over Taiwan?

43 points by 1cvmask 5y ago

systemvoltage 5y ago
For those who have forgotten, the US won Operation Desert Storm in the most overkill way. It was so insane and completely overwhelming. I highly recommend watching this series about it, no one has dug into history like the Operations Room channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxRgfBXn6Mg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxRgfBXn6Mg
WalterGR 5y ago
Dupe. By same submitter 3 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29048675 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29048675
Clubber 5y ago
I think the US government wasted any political will to fight someone else's war over the last 20 years.
- namelessoracle 5y ago
  Taiwan builds all the toys that keep the American masses placated
  - RobRivera 5y ago
    potential return to Hecho en México
    - thatcat 5y ago
      do you think chip fabs could effectively be moved there though?
      - ekianjo 5y ago
        Chip fabs need massive access to water these days, so the number of locations where you can build them is fairly limited.
        tafda 5y ago
        Access to water must be why TSMC is building a $12 billion facility in Phoenix — keep the strategic importance of Taiwan up when the Colorado River dries up.
        angelzen 5y ago
        Within the realm of possibility that the TSMC facility in Phoenix is just a late empire blunder.
1cvmask 5y ago
I wonder if there are others who see a war footing to "attack" China through the Taiwan proxy by reneging on the One China policy and the three communiques signed and talking of Taiwan joining the UN. What potential is there for a war to break out and when? Will it be localized or should those in the Bay area be concerned? Or is this just typical bluster?
- kbelder 5y ago
  "Should those in the Bay Area be concerned?" Wow. That's such a strange question. How about the guys in Seattle? The residents of Kansas City? Should the good citizens of Detroit be concerned, or will the weight of the conflict land on Cleveland?
  - pcwalton 5y ago
    I guess the parent poster is referring to the fact that oil fields near Santa Barbara, California and the Columbia River in Oregon were attacked during WWII. But this has negligible relevance to the current US-China tensions.
butwhenwhynot 5y ago
Well it lost a war to shoeless illiterate cave folk. Wondering how it would fare against China, the second largest economy and a country with overwhelming manufacturing power. And nuke armed and a major supplier of goods for pretty much the while world. I am quite sure the would be taught a lesson it would never forget, sadly. And its quite upsetting the state the us has come to. Of course the us could make allies with europe. But we’ve had enough fighting your ill managed wars.
- nxmnxm99 5y ago
  What exactly would Europe do? Europe is a museum. An economy that hasn't grown in over a decade and a people that would likely lose a war of any meaningful attrition to the vastly poorer Russia. Europe is increasingly irrelevant to the future of geopolitics.
  - simonblack 5y ago
    Europe is increasingly irrelevant to the future of geopolitics. The West is increasingly irrelevant to the future of geopolitics. It may not happen overnight, but it will happen. The West is broke. It is becoming weaker and poorer by the day. It will be like Japan or Germany in WW2 in many ways. It will be unable to replace losses of war-materiel fast enough to maintain its strength. After a few years, there won't be enough fighters, bombers, ships, soldiers, etc. to maintain a workable defence.
    - edgyquant 5y ago
      The “west” comprises 3-4 entire continents (3 if you count South America) and over a billion people. The US alone accounts for 35% of the entire worlds military expenditure. There will never come a day, at least until man has colonized other worlds or the political and cultural map of the world is completely unrecognizable, when the “west,” taken as a whole, is geopolitically irrelevant. This is like saying Asia will be geopolitically irrelevant. It just can’t happen due to how much of the Earths landmass and resources it takes up.
  - 5y ago
StanislavPetrov 5y ago
It would be trivial for China and the U.S. to send each other back to the stone age with atmospheric EMP blasts. In such a scenario both countries lose.
ekianjo 5y ago
The US has never "won" a proxy war against a large power anyway in recent history, so this is not news. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan...
- greedo 5y ago
  This really wouldn't be a proxy war. And none of your examples are proxy wars either. Proxy wars are when you have someone else fight in your place. US troops fought in all three conflicts you've listed.
  - LeifCarrotson 5y ago
    The enemy (the USSR or Russia in those examples) was fighting the US through a proxy. In this case, it would likely be Taiwanese troops fighting the proxy war with the PRC using US equipment and funding.
    - greedo 5y ago
      In Korea, both Chinese troops fought as well as Soviet pilots. In Vietnam, Soviet troops helped manned SAM batteries and were advisors. In Afghanistan, the only other party that could be claimed to be using the Mujahideen as a proxy were the Pakistanis, who were nominally our ally. Since US troops were fighting in all three conflicts, there was no proxy fighting in our place. And with Taiwan, there's no realistic way the Taiwanese military could survive in the long run without direct US intervention, and it's arguable that we don't have the ability to project enough power to prevent defeat even in that case.
      - kyboren 5y ago
        > In Vietnam, Soviet troops helped manned SAM batteries and were advisors They also provided hundreds of MiG-21s, trained ~40 pilots/yr in the USSR, and,as you say, trained North Vietnamese pilots in-country[4][5]. But their direct involvement was minimal compared to the Chinese. China gave the North Vietnamese dozens of MiG-17s[0] and MiG-19 variants and instructors[4], provided air surveillance information directly to Hanoi's Air Situation Center beginning in 1964[1], rotated "over 300,000" troops (180,000 in country at peak[4]) and technical experts through North Vietnam during the war[2], many of them directly manning AAA batteries, and acted as a "safe zone" for North Vietnamese pilots to avoid American attacks[3]. Interestingly, while both the Soviets and the Chinese avoided flying combat missions directly, but the North Koreans were eager to jump into combat. However, it didn't go very well for them... they lost 3 Mig-17s in the first two engagements (against zero American losses), and then four more in the next two. They upgraded to Mig-21s and had more success, downing an F-105, an F-4C, and an F-4D while losing only one MiG-21. But they left in 1969 and don't seem to have played any sort of major role[5]. [0]: Spartans in Darkness: American SIGINT and the Indochina War, 1945 - 1975, p. 240. https://www.nsa.gov/portals/75/documents/news-features/declassified-documents/cryptologic-histories/spartans_in_darkness.pdf https://www.nsa.gov/portals/75/documents/news-features/decla... [1]: Ibid, p. 236 [2]: Ibid, p. 246 [3]: Ibid, p. 252 [4]: Ibid, p. 261 [5]: Ibid, p. 262
mikewarot 5y ago
China was a third world nation when Nixon opened trade in the 1970s to try to offset the Soviet Union. Ever since the globalization of trade, and the massive offshoring and loss of manufacturing, this was slowly become inevitable. There is no effective way the US could stop China from taking back Taiwan. We just lost two wars to the local populations who simply wanted us gone. I fail to see how we could win a war against a peer in conventional military strength with our supply chains already in tatters.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  The issue is not that we would go to war over Taiwan, or at least I hope not. What we would do is: 1. Seize all Chinese and Taiwanese foreign currency reserves - that's $3.7 Trillion gone in a poof. 2. Seize all Chinese and Taiwanese investment in the U.S - another several trillion in a poof. 3. Start a global trade war, and Europe would also join in, locking China out of exporting to the western democracies or participation in the dollar system. All those nations that owe debts to china because of Belt and Road? Those can't be paid, as they are transacted in dollars, and China can't touch a dollar now. From now on, China has to trade via a barter system with Russia. China is already hated due to blowing off the CO2 targets, then throw in an unprovoked invasion and occupation of a democratic state -- the Europeans eat that stuff up. Meanwhile, what does China get? A population of 23 million people that hate it. A destroyed economy in which 40% of its GDP vanishes overnight. Loss of all foreign currency reserves and an inability to purchase the energy and food that it needs. Remember China is not even able to feed itself without dollars. Yes, the US will have a shortage of cheap TVs and it will hurt our supply chain, but we can migrate that supply chain to vietnam, Brazil, India, Mexico, etc. We have the rest of the world to keep outsourcing jobs to. China would have only Russia. Moreover China needs foreign coal, oil, soybeans, and pork in mass quantities every single year. Absolutely none of that requires that even a single shot be fired. It would be ludicrous to engage in a shooting war with China.
  - angelzen 5y ago
    Shortage of cheap TVs, electronic components (top 3 exporters: HK, China, Taiwan) or antibiotics (China: 90% of global market). Nothing of consequence. No gains whatsoever. Other than proving that US is an obsolete paper tiger that is incapable of defending its allies and its overseas strategic interests. Note to the whole of SE Asia, including SK and Japan. Trillions of dollars gone in a poof: World, it's past time to move to a more stable currency. The British Empire failed to hold the Suez Canal in 1956. The Americans stood at ready to blow the UK fleet to smithereens and closed the deal by threatening a run on the British pound. In the aftermath, US raised to the role of global superpower and UK was relegated to the has-been rubbish pile. There is a distinct possibility that China may just walk into Taiwan with no open US opposition. Or they may think they can. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_integrated_circuit_exports https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_integrate... https://www.marketwatch.com/story/china-has-cornered-the-market-on-antibiotics-so-the-u-s-must-rebuild-its-manufacturing-capacity-11619640612 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/china-has-cornered-the-mar... https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2657873/Uncovered-American-duplicity-finally-explodes-myth-Special-Relationship-How-US-discussed-blasting-hell-UK-forces-Suez-Crisis-shameful-betrayals-historic-alliance.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2657873/Uncovered...
BXLE_1-1-BitIs1 5y ago
Switzerland deterred Germany in WWI and WWII. The Finns made Stalin's minor territorial gains seriously expensive. Taiwan has the advantage of a hundred mile wide moat. The two principal dangers are paratroops (which took over Crete in short order) and amphibious landings. Taiwan certainly does need the missile capability to take out aircraft and shipping. Taiwan would do well to create a citizen army trained and equipped to make life very difficult for an invading army as did the Swiss: Total Resistance by Hans von Dach: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Resistance_(book) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Resistance_(book)
- systemvoltage 5y ago
  This is the advantage of having 1.2 firearms per capita in the US. If there are paratroopers landing in Boise, they're gonna have a bad landing and it won't be because of the parachute.
- antman 5y ago
  Paratroops taking Crete was a huge failure. The British chose not to defend in depth so as to hide they have broken the German codes. Still the losses inflicted during that landing made Germany hesitant of using paratroopers ever again.
- bitxbitxbitcoin 5y ago
  A T91 in every Taiwanese home!
simonblack 5y ago
Nobody in the US that is under the age of about 40-45 has personal experience of a time when the US was not "Number One". Consequently they think the US being "Number One" is a forever thing. It isn't a forever thing. Some of us who are old enough can remember the shock to the Nation's psyche when the Soviets launched the first satellite, and then again when the Soviets launched the first man in orbit. The cycle has turned. The US is not all-powerful any more, and the sooner the leaders of the country acknowledge that, the less likely it is that the US will be sent down in flames. But, being so self-deluded, the US will take on an adversary that has not only 4 times the number of military-age men but also has a far greater manufacturing capacity. The outcome will mirror what happened when the all-conquering Wehrmacht took on a Soviet Union that was twice its size in population and had far greater manufacturing capacity.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- powerapple 5y ago
  US' GDP per capital is more than 6x than China's GDP per capital. China has a bigger population, and when China's GDP is the same as US, its per capital GDP will still be 1/4 or 1/5 of US. Even it loses the first seat as a country, its people are still better off than others.
  - simonblack 5y ago
    "Better off" is no consolation when your country is being rolled over by a more powerful adversary. The British were richer than the Germans in 1940. That didn't prevent Dunkirk. The Americans and British were richer than the Japanese in 1941. That didn't prevent Pearl Harbor, Manila, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc.
- LurkingPenguin 5y ago
  > But, being so self-deluded, the US will take on an adversary that has not only 4 times the number of military-age men but also has a far greater manufacturing capacity. The number of military-age men is irrelevant in modern warfare and the type of conflict that the US and China would be engaged in. As for greater manufacturing capacity, the Japanese had excellent manufacturing capacity too. And just like Japan, China has major energy problems that will make it hugely vulnerable if there's a military conflict. https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/10/07/china-energy-crisis-electricity-coal-pricing-renewables/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/10/07/china-energy-crisis-ele... https://www.bbc.com/news/business-59059093 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-59059093 https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/01/economy/china-manufacturing-pmi-covid-intl-hnk/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/01/economy/china-manufacturing-p... While the US has no shortage of its own problems, the image of a rising China is not quite an accurate one. Just like the Japanese in the run-up to WW2, China's growing political and military aggression in the region, which not only targets Taiwan but other countries like Japan, the Philippines, India and Australia, is a sign of China's problems, not its strength. https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/09/24/china-great-power-united-states/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/09/24/china-great-power-unite... > The outcome will mirror what happened when the all-conquering Wehrmacht took on a Soviet Union that was twice its size in population and had far greater manufacturing capacity. This is the strangest part of your comment. The US isn't seeking conflict with China, and the US is not trying to invade China or any other country. The US is simply pushing back against Chinese aggression and flagrant violations of international law. It has mutual defense treaties with a number of countries in the region (Japan, Philippines, South Korea) and has a huge economic interest in ensuring that freedom of navigation continues in international waters that are home to some of the world's most important shipping lanes. The "self-deluded" US doesn't have "wolf warriors"[1], doesn't threaten on the daily peaceful, democratic neighbors with violent "reunification", isn't claiming vast international waters and the territory of other countries (as determined by international courts) as its own, doesn't respond to military partnerships between other countries with promises to punish them with "no mercy" and make sure their soldiers are the first to die[2], and so on. If there's a war between China and the US it will be started by China. And it will almost certainly become a war between China and the US, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Philippines, etc. because other countries in the region know what's at stake if the CCP is allowed to take over the Eastern hemisphere. China has fewer allies than even the Nazis. It is increasingly isolated and appears to recognize that it screwed the pooch[3] in terms of its global image. Its overlevered, house of cards economy is showing major cracks[4] as it approaches a demographic cliff caused in large part by one-child. So yeah, the US isn't all-powerful. But don't delude yourself into believing that China is more powerful. If China was as powerful as some people appear to believe, it wouldn't be acting the way it is. [1] https://www.brookings.edu/techstream/how-chinas-wolf-warrior-diplomats-use-and-abuse-twitter/ https://www.brookings.edu/techstream/how-chinas-wolf-warrior... [2] https://www.usnews.com/news/world-report/articles/2021-09-16/china-fires-back-at-aukus-alliance-with-violent-rhetoric-australian-troops-would-be-the-first-to-die https://www.usnews.com/news/world-report/articles/2021-09-16... [3] https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3135672/xi-jinping-wants-isolated-china-make-friends-and-win-over https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3135672/xi... [4] https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2021/10/evergrande-china-us/620360/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2021/10/ev...
ufhghfggf 5y ago
Five minute video compares military recruitment ads for (1.) China, (2.) Russia, (3.) USA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kfe6d6MzeLM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kfe6d6MzeLM Summary: Chinese and Russian ads focus on discplined men training themselves for war. The USA ad is about a girl raised by two lesbian mothers who joins because, in her own words, "...I need my own adventures...." There's pure comedic gold in the comments. 'Russian soldier also has two mothers: biological mom, and MOTHER RUSSIA!!!'
- chinanumba1 5y ago
  This has nothing to do with the article and it comes off as you taking a jab at "woke" people who you presumably dislike.
- randyrand 5y ago
  The US has ads targeted at men as well. It seems obvious that men and women are targeted differently
  - ufhghfggf 5y ago
    > obvious that men and women are targeted differently But men see the ads targeted at women. "We sleep safely at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would harm us." If the rough men the USA needs see that ad they might have second thoughts about military service being a fit.
    - sterlind 5y ago
      If these "rough men" can be put off of military service by seeing lesbians in an ad not targeted to them, how the hell are they tough enough to stay cool under enemy fire?
      - ufhghfggf 5y ago
        For every 100 men that would volunteer to endure enemy fire, how many of those 100 would volunteer to have the young girl in the video discipline them for their lack of microagression awareness? How many of those 100 will assume she will be promoted to higher paygrades than they ever will? How many of those 100 will get the impression that girls like her will be deciding which foxholes they lay in while guided Chinese smart munitions rain down? Rather than speculate I would love this study to actually be done. Randomly sample 200 men who show up in recruitment centers. Show one group of 100 the "my two moms" cartoon and the other group of 100 a video more like the Chinese or Russian one. Then see how many of each group of 100 afterwards say, "Ya' know, on second thought, training to be a carpenter or plumber ain't so bad."
entropicgravity 5y ago
When the KMT left China for Taiwan they carried a (figurative) boat load of Chinese Cultural Masterpieces with them. Those objects are still in Taiwan and China (I'm not a fan of the current administration) deserve to have them returned. Why trade those objects back to China in return for independence?
- mc32 5y ago
  Had they left them behind, there's a good Chance Mao's PLA, red guards, or workers' unions would have destroyed 'symbols of oppression' or 'symbols of bourgeois' or 'anti-proletarian symbols'. In any event, they would have been symbols of the Four Olds [旧思想旧文化旧风俗 & 旧习惯)] which needed to be extirpated. They went so far as denounce, burn and destroy historic statues of emperors, buddhas, etc. So... maybe not.
dirtyid 5y ago
It's not so much US can lose, rather perhaps US simply can't win against PRC anymore. In Clausewitz "war is politics by other means" sense, even the worst case scenario for PRC, China still has the capability to destroy US hegemony / domestic security by attacking regional US protectorates and demonstrating US security commitiment to be meaningless at massive costs to US serenity (semi destruction / cyberwarfare). It's not a conflict US can insulate citizens againts. PRC is approaching or has exceeded in developing capabilities that could credibly threatening US military primacy, especially in her neighbourhood - US may still "defeat" PRC but at the cost of her empire. The same way most allied EU powers won WW2 but lost much of their global holdings and influence. Perhaps in US calculations, it maybe preferrable to not even try. The fallout from trying but failing to defend TW is much worse than simply not defending TW in the first place, which seems to be where recent US strategic thinking is pointing towards. Ultimately, PRC has grown to a point where even in defeat she will remain simply too powerful a regional actor. This is the point that PRC collapsist miss, PRC is too large, too developed, and too self sufficient (in context of war economy) to be constrained with-IN the region anyway. I would also watch out for further PRC ICBM/hypersonic developments over the next few years in the realm of refining accuracy. PRC rocket force with sub 100CEP ICBMs essentially fully deters US conventionally barring huge leaps in ABM defense. There's already evaluations of using AI to calibrate bespoke missile hardware that will increase accuracy by orders of magnitude. Imagine PRC with the capability of conventionally sinking USN capital ships in ports, more or less rendering entire US military projection structure useless. Which still isn't existential for US who can always retreat to safety of fortress America, whereas for PRC, breaking out of first island chain is a matter of survival at any cost.

43 points by 1cvmask 5y ago

For those who have forgotten, the US won Operation Desert Storm in the most overkill way. It was so insane and completely overwhelming. I highly recommend watching this series about it, no one has dug into history like the Operations Room channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxRgfBXn6Mg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxRgfBXn6Mg

WalterGR 5y ago

Dupe. By same submitter 3 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29048675 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29048675

Clubber 5y ago

I think the US government wasted any political will to fight someone else's war over the last 20 years.

namelessoracle 5y ago
Taiwan builds all the toys that keep the American masses placated
- RobRivera 5y ago
  potential return to Hecho en México
  - thatcat 5y ago
    do you think chip fabs could effectively be moved there though?
    - ekianjo 5y ago
      Chip fabs need massive access to water these days, so the number of locations where you can build them is fairly limited.
      - tafda 5y ago
        Access to water must be why TSMC is building a $12 billion facility in Phoenix — keep the strategic importance of Taiwan up when the Colorado River dries up.
        angelzen 5y ago
        Within the realm of possibility that the TSMC facility in Phoenix is just a late empire blunder.

1cvmask 5y ago

I wonder if there are others who see a war footing to "attack" China through the Taiwan proxy by reneging on the One China policy and the three communiques signed and talking of Taiwan joining the UN. What potential is there for a war to break out and when? Will it be localized or should those in the Bay area be concerned? Or is this just typical bluster?

kbelder 5y ago
"Should those in the Bay Area be concerned?" Wow. That's such a strange question. How about the guys in Seattle? The residents of Kansas City? Should the good citizens of Detroit be concerned, or will the weight of the conflict land on Cleveland?
- pcwalton 5y ago
  I guess the parent poster is referring to the fact that oil fields near Santa Barbara, California and the Columbia River in Oregon were attacked during WWII. But this has negligible relevance to the current US-China tensions.

butwhenwhynot 5y ago

Well it lost a war to shoeless illiterate cave folk. Wondering how it would fare against China, the second largest economy and a country with overwhelming manufacturing power. And nuke armed and a major supplier of goods for pretty much the while world. I am quite sure the would be taught a lesson it would never forget, sadly. And its quite upsetting the state the us has come to. Of course the us could make allies with europe. But we’ve had enough fighting your ill managed wars.

nxmnxm99 5y ago
What exactly would Europe do? Europe is a museum. An economy that hasn't grown in over a decade and a people that would likely lose a war of any meaningful attrition to the vastly poorer Russia. Europe is increasingly irrelevant to the future of geopolitics.
- simonblack 5y ago
  Europe is increasingly irrelevant to the future of geopolitics. The West is increasingly irrelevant to the future of geopolitics. It may not happen overnight, but it will happen. The West is broke. It is becoming weaker and poorer by the day. It will be like Japan or Germany in WW2 in many ways. It will be unable to replace losses of war-materiel fast enough to maintain its strength. After a few years, there won't be enough fighters, bombers, ships, soldiers, etc. to maintain a workable defence.
  - edgyquant 5y ago
    The “west” comprises 3-4 entire continents (3 if you count South America) and over a billion people. The US alone accounts for 35% of the entire worlds military expenditure. There will never come a day, at least until man has colonized other worlds or the political and cultural map of the world is completely unrecognizable, when the “west,” taken as a whole, is geopolitically irrelevant. This is like saying Asia will be geopolitically irrelevant. It just can’t happen due to how much of the Earths landmass and resources it takes up.
- 5y ago

StanislavPetrov 5y ago

It would be trivial for China and the U.S. to send each other back to the stone age with atmospheric EMP blasts. In such a scenario both countries lose.

ekianjo 5y ago

The US has never "won" a proxy war against a large power anyway in recent history, so this is not news. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan...

greedo 5y ago
This really wouldn't be a proxy war. And none of your examples are proxy wars either. Proxy wars are when you have someone else fight in your place. US troops fought in all three conflicts you've listed.
- LeifCarrotson 5y ago
  The enemy (the USSR or Russia in those examples) was fighting the US through a proxy. In this case, it would likely be Taiwanese troops fighting the proxy war with the PRC using US equipment and funding.
  - greedo 5y ago
    In Korea, both Chinese troops fought as well as Soviet pilots. In Vietnam, Soviet troops helped manned SAM batteries and were advisors. In Afghanistan, the only other party that could be claimed to be using the Mujahideen as a proxy were the Pakistanis, who were nominally our ally. Since US troops were fighting in all three conflicts, there was no proxy fighting in our place. And with Taiwan, there's no realistic way the Taiwanese military could survive in the long run without direct US intervention, and it's arguable that we don't have the ability to project enough power to prevent defeat even in that case.
    - kyboren 5y ago
      > In Vietnam, Soviet troops helped manned SAM batteries and were advisors They also provided hundreds of MiG-21s, trained ~40 pilots/yr in the USSR, and,as you say, trained North Vietnamese pilots in-country[4][5]. But their direct involvement was minimal compared to the Chinese. China gave the North Vietnamese dozens of MiG-17s[0] and MiG-19 variants and instructors[4], provided air surveillance information directly to Hanoi's Air Situation Center beginning in 1964[1], rotated "over 300,000" troops (180,000 in country at peak[4]) and technical experts through North Vietnam during the war[2], many of them directly manning AAA batteries, and acted as a "safe zone" for North Vietnamese pilots to avoid American attacks[3]. Interestingly, while both the Soviets and the Chinese avoided flying combat missions directly, but the North Koreans were eager to jump into combat. However, it didn't go very well for them... they lost 3 Mig-17s in the first two engagements (against zero American losses), and then four more in the next two. They upgraded to Mig-21s and had more success, downing an F-105, an F-4C, and an F-4D while losing only one MiG-21. But they left in 1969 and don't seem to have played any sort of major role[5]. [0]: Spartans in Darkness: American SIGINT and the Indochina War, 1945 - 1975, p. 240. https://www.nsa.gov/portals/75/documents/news-features/declassified-documents/cryptologic-histories/spartans_in_darkness.pdf https://www.nsa.gov/portals/75/documents/news-features/decla... [1]: Ibid, p. 236 [2]: Ibid, p. 246 [3]: Ibid, p. 252 [4]: Ibid, p. 261 [5]: Ibid, p. 262

mikewarot 5y ago

China was a third world nation when Nixon opened trade in the 1970s to try to offset the Soviet Union. Ever since the globalization of trade, and the massive offshoring and loss of manufacturing, this was slowly become inevitable. There is no effective way the US could stop China from taking back Taiwan. We just lost two wars to the local populations who simply wanted us gone. I fail to see how we could win a war against a peer in conventional military strength with our supply chains already in tatters.

rsj_hn 5y ago
The issue is not that we would go to war over Taiwan, or at least I hope not. What we would do is: 1. Seize all Chinese and Taiwanese foreign currency reserves - that's $3.7 Trillion gone in a poof. 2. Seize all Chinese and Taiwanese investment in the U.S - another several trillion in a poof. 3. Start a global trade war, and Europe would also join in, locking China out of exporting to the western democracies or participation in the dollar system. All those nations that owe debts to china because of Belt and Road? Those can't be paid, as they are transacted in dollars, and China can't touch a dollar now. From now on, China has to trade via a barter system with Russia. China is already hated due to blowing off the CO2 targets, then throw in an unprovoked invasion and occupation of a democratic state -- the Europeans eat that stuff up. Meanwhile, what does China get? A population of 23 million people that hate it. A destroyed economy in which 40% of its GDP vanishes overnight. Loss of all foreign currency reserves and an inability to purchase the energy and food that it needs. Remember China is not even able to feed itself without dollars. Yes, the US will have a shortage of cheap TVs and it will hurt our supply chain, but we can migrate that supply chain to vietnam, Brazil, India, Mexico, etc. We have the rest of the world to keep outsourcing jobs to. China would have only Russia. Moreover China needs foreign coal, oil, soybeans, and pork in mass quantities every single year. Absolutely none of that requires that even a single shot be fired. It would be ludicrous to engage in a shooting war with China.
- angelzen 5y ago
  Shortage of cheap TVs, electronic components (top 3 exporters: HK, China, Taiwan) or antibiotics (China: 90% of global market). Nothing of consequence. No gains whatsoever. Other than proving that US is an obsolete paper tiger that is incapable of defending its allies and its overseas strategic interests. Note to the whole of SE Asia, including SK and Japan. Trillions of dollars gone in a poof: World, it's past time to move to a more stable currency. The British Empire failed to hold the Suez Canal in 1956. The Americans stood at ready to blow the UK fleet to smithereens and closed the deal by threatening a run on the British pound. In the aftermath, US raised to the role of global superpower and UK was relegated to the has-been rubbish pile. There is a distinct possibility that China may just walk into Taiwan with no open US opposition. Or they may think they can. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_integrated_circuit_exports https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_integrate... https://www.marketwatch.com/story/china-has-cornered-the-market-on-antibiotics-so-the-u-s-must-rebuild-its-manufacturing-capacity-11619640612 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/china-has-cornered-the-mar... https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2657873/Uncovered-American-duplicity-finally-explodes-myth-Special-Relationship-How-US-discussed-blasting-hell-UK-forces-Suez-Crisis-shameful-betrayals-historic-alliance.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2657873/Uncovered...

BXLE_1-1-BitIs1 5y ago

Switzerland deterred Germany in WWI and WWII. The Finns made Stalin's minor territorial gains seriously expensive. Taiwan has the advantage of a hundred mile wide moat. The two principal dangers are paratroops (which took over Crete in short order) and amphibious landings. Taiwan certainly does need the missile capability to take out aircraft and shipping. Taiwan would do well to create a citizen army trained and equipped to make life very difficult for an invading army as did the Swiss: Total Resistance by Hans von Dach: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Resistance_(book) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Resistance_(book)

systemvoltage 5y ago
This is the advantage of having 1.2 firearms per capita in the US. If there are paratroopers landing in Boise, they're gonna have a bad landing and it won't be because of the parachute.
antman 5y ago
Paratroops taking Crete was a huge failure. The British chose not to defend in depth so as to hide they have broken the German codes. Still the losses inflicted during that landing made Germany hesitant of using paratroopers ever again.
bitxbitxbitcoin 5y ago
A T91 in every Taiwanese home!

simonblack 5y ago

Nobody in the US that is under the age of about 40-45 has personal experience of a time when the US was not "Number One". Consequently they think the US being "Number One" is a forever thing. It isn't a forever thing. Some of us who are old enough can remember the shock to the Nation's psyche when the Soviets launched the first satellite, and then again when the Soviets launched the first man in orbit. The cycle has turned. The US is not all-powerful any more, and the sooner the leaders of the country acknowledge that, the less likely it is that the US will be sent down in flames. But, being so self-deluded, the US will take on an adversary that has not only 4 times the number of military-age men but also has a far greater manufacturing capacity. The outcome will mirror what happened when the all-conquering Wehrmacht took on a Soviet Union that was twice its size in population and had far greater manufacturing capacity.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
powerapple 5y ago
US' GDP per capital is more than 6x than China's GDP per capital. China has a bigger population, and when China's GDP is the same as US, its per capital GDP will still be 1/4 or 1/5 of US. Even it loses the first seat as a country, its people are still better off than others.
- simonblack 5y ago
  "Better off" is no consolation when your country is being rolled over by a more powerful adversary. The British were richer than the Germans in 1940. That didn't prevent Dunkirk. The Americans and British were richer than the Japanese in 1941. That didn't prevent Pearl Harbor, Manila, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc.
LurkingPenguin 5y ago
> But, being so self-deluded, the US will take on an adversary that has not only 4 times the number of military-age men but also has a far greater manufacturing capacity. The number of military-age men is irrelevant in modern warfare and the type of conflict that the US and China would be engaged in. As for greater manufacturing capacity, the Japanese had excellent manufacturing capacity too. And just like Japan, China has major energy problems that will make it hugely vulnerable if there's a military conflict. https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/10/07/china-energy-crisis-electricity-coal-pricing-renewables/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/10/07/china-energy-crisis-ele... https://www.bbc.com/news/business-59059093 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-59059093 https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/01/economy/china-manufacturing-pmi-covid-intl-hnk/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/01/economy/china-manufacturing-p... While the US has no shortage of its own problems, the image of a rising China is not quite an accurate one. Just like the Japanese in the run-up to WW2, China's growing political and military aggression in the region, which not only targets Taiwan but other countries like Japan, the Philippines, India and Australia, is a sign of China's problems, not its strength. https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/09/24/china-great-power-united-states/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/09/24/china-great-power-unite... > The outcome will mirror what happened when the all-conquering Wehrmacht took on a Soviet Union that was twice its size in population and had far greater manufacturing capacity. This is the strangest part of your comment. The US isn't seeking conflict with China, and the US is not trying to invade China or any other country. The US is simply pushing back against Chinese aggression and flagrant violations of international law. It has mutual defense treaties with a number of countries in the region (Japan, Philippines, South Korea) and has a huge economic interest in ensuring that freedom of navigation continues in international waters that are home to some of the world's most important shipping lanes. The "self-deluded" US doesn't have "wolf warriors"[1], doesn't threaten on the daily peaceful, democratic neighbors with violent "reunification", isn't claiming vast international waters and the territory of other countries (as determined by international courts) as its own, doesn't respond to military partnerships between other countries with promises to punish them with "no mercy" and make sure their soldiers are the first to die[2], and so on. If there's a war between China and the US it will be started by China. And it will almost certainly become a war between China and the US, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Philippines, etc. because other countries in the region know what's at stake if the CCP is allowed to take over the Eastern hemisphere. China has fewer allies than even the Nazis. It is increasingly isolated and appears to recognize that it screwed the pooch[3] in terms of its global image. Its overlevered, house of cards economy is showing major cracks[4] as it approaches a demographic cliff caused in large part by one-child. So yeah, the US isn't all-powerful. But don't delude yourself into believing that China is more powerful. If China was as powerful as some people appear to believe, it wouldn't be acting the way it is. [1] https://www.brookings.edu/techstream/how-chinas-wolf-warrior-diplomats-use-and-abuse-twitter/ https://www.brookings.edu/techstream/how-chinas-wolf-warrior... [2] https://www.usnews.com/news/world-report/articles/2021-09-16/china-fires-back-at-aukus-alliance-with-violent-rhetoric-australian-troops-would-be-the-first-to-die https://www.usnews.com/news/world-report/articles/2021-09-16... [3] https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3135672/xi-jinping-wants-isolated-china-make-friends-and-win-over https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3135672/xi... [4] https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2021/10/evergrande-china-us/620360/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2021/10/ev...

ufhghfggf 5y ago

Five minute video compares military recruitment ads for (1.) China, (2.) Russia, (3.) USA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kfe6d6MzeLM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kfe6d6MzeLM Summary: Chinese and Russian ads focus on discplined men training themselves for war. The USA ad is about a girl raised by two lesbian mothers who joins because, in her own words, "...I need my own adventures...." There's pure comedic gold in the comments. 'Russian soldier also has two mothers: biological mom, and MOTHER RUSSIA!!!'

chinanumba1 5y ago
This has nothing to do with the article and it comes off as you taking a jab at "woke" people who you presumably dislike.
randyrand 5y ago
The US has ads targeted at men as well. It seems obvious that men and women are targeted differently
- ufhghfggf 5y ago
  > obvious that men and women are targeted differently But men see the ads targeted at women. "We sleep safely at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would harm us." If the rough men the USA needs see that ad they might have second thoughts about military service being a fit.
  - sterlind 5y ago
    If these "rough men" can be put off of military service by seeing lesbians in an ad not targeted to them, how the hell are they tough enough to stay cool under enemy fire?
    - ufhghfggf 5y ago
      For every 100 men that would volunteer to endure enemy fire, how many of those 100 would volunteer to have the young girl in the video discipline them for their lack of microagression awareness? How many of those 100 will assume she will be promoted to higher paygrades than they ever will? How many of those 100 will get the impression that girls like her will be deciding which foxholes they lay in while guided Chinese smart munitions rain down? Rather than speculate I would love this study to actually be done. Randomly sample 200 men who show up in recruitment centers. Show one group of 100 the "my two moms" cartoon and the other group of 100 a video more like the Chinese or Russian one. Then see how many of each group of 100 afterwards say, "Ya' know, on second thought, training to be a carpenter or plumber ain't so bad."

entropicgravity 5y ago

When the KMT left China for Taiwan they carried a (figurative) boat load of Chinese Cultural Masterpieces with them. Those objects are still in Taiwan and China (I'm not a fan of the current administration) deserve to have them returned. Why trade those objects back to China in return for independence?

mc32 5y ago
Had they left them behind, there's a good Chance Mao's PLA, red guards, or workers' unions would have destroyed 'symbols of oppression' or 'symbols of bourgeois' or 'anti-proletarian symbols'. In any event, they would have been symbols of the Four Olds [旧思想旧文化旧风俗 & 旧习惯)] which needed to be extirpated. They went so far as denounce, burn and destroy historic statues of emperors, buddhas, etc. So... maybe not.

dirtyid 5y ago

It's not so much US can lose, rather perhaps US simply can't win against PRC anymore. In Clausewitz "war is politics by other means" sense, even the worst case scenario for PRC, China still has the capability to destroy US hegemony / domestic security by attacking regional US protectorates and demonstrating US security commitiment to be meaningless at massive costs to US serenity (semi destruction / cyberwarfare). It's not a conflict US can insulate citizens againts. PRC is approaching or has exceeded in developing capabilities that could credibly threatening US military primacy, especially in her neighbourhood - US may still "defeat" PRC but at the cost of her empire. The same way most allied EU powers won WW2 but lost much of their global holdings and influence. Perhaps in US calculations, it maybe preferrable to not even try. The fallout from trying but failing to defend TW is much worse than simply not defending TW in the first place, which seems to be where recent US strategic thinking is pointing towards. Ultimately, PRC has grown to a point where even in defeat she will remain simply too powerful a regional actor. This is the point that PRC collapsist miss, PRC is too large, too developed, and too self sufficient (in context of war economy) to be constrained with-IN the region anyway. I would also watch out for further PRC ICBM/hypersonic developments over the next few years in the realm of refining accuracy. PRC rocket force with sub 100CEP ICBMs essentially fully deters US conventionally barring huge leaps in ABM defense. There's already evaluations of using AI to calibrate bespoke missile hardware that will increase accuracy by orders of magnitude. Imagine PRC with the capability of conventionally sinking USN capital ships in ports, more or less rendering entire US military projection structure useless. Which still isn't existential for US who can always retreat to safety of fortress America, whereas for PRC, breaking out of first island chain is a matter of survival at any cost.