5 ms·

The main deterrent against a Chinese escalation in Taiwan is that this is an existential issue for the United States, which undoubtedly along with allies would

The main deterrent against a Chinese escalation in Taiwan is that this is an existential issue for the United States, which undoubtedly along with allies would go to war to defend Taiwan. If China invaded and militarily defeated the U.S. in Asia here it’s the end of American hegemony and the United States would basically be kicked out of Asia. But it’s a great risk to China to attempt something like this, too great of a risk, which is why it won’t happen. Both sides are pretty satisfied with saber rattling. For China and the CCP it makes much more sense to just wait and perhaps play the soft power game. Although they screwed up with Hong Kong and turned a lukewarm-friendly Taiwan back into an anti-CCP Taiwan. They should have (from the CCP perspective) went after Taiwan first. They’ve had two great opportunities and didn’t take either (HK takeover timeframe and March 2022)

mytailorisrich 5y ago
> that this is an existential issue for the United States, which undoubtedly along with allies would go to war to defend Taiwan. On the contrary, this is not an existential issue for the US and they would not intervene directly against China (they've always been very careful never to commit to intervening). It's similar to the situation in Ukraine. The US are helping Ukraine but they do not want to intervene directly and certainly do not want to start a war with Russia. Well, China is a much more formidable adversary than Russia and the US will never effectively declare war against them. For China the issue is (1) they could not afford to lose an invasion attempt (domestically it might mean the end of the regime), which is quite a big undertaking, and (2) the fallout on the world stage may be too big politically and economically. And so the military option has not been a good one so far and the status quo suits everyone.
- ericmay 5y ago
  > On the contrary, this is not an existential issue for the US and they would not intervene directly against China (they've always been very careful never to commit to intervening). There’s no benefit to verbally committing so you don’t need to do that. Better to keep China guessing. But there is 0 doubt that the US would intervene. This is an existential issue because if China invaded Taiwan successfully it shows the U.S. military can be defeated, and greatly diminishes their security guarantees and ability to project power in Asia. It’s similar to if Russia defeated the U.S. and forced military presence out of Europe. There is little doubt here. It’s not at all similar to Ukraine. Like in any way whatsoever. If you have any specific questions I could probably answer those as to why it’s not similar.
  - mytailorisrich 5y ago
    > But there is 0 doubt that the US would intervene I think the consensus is pretty much what I wrote in my previous comment: The US would not start WWIII over Taiwan, obviously, and thus would not attack China but would help Taiwan (supply of weapons, intelligence, and other aid like in Ukraine). The US would only start a war against China in case of 'existential' threat, indeed. But that would mean China attacking the US, which they obviously won't do for the same reason. > This is an existential issue because if China invaded Taiwan successfully it shows the U.S. military can be defeated How would that show that he US military can be defeated if the US did not intervene directly? And how would that be existential? Also the US military has effectively been defeated a number of times before. Even directly against China the US did not fare that well during the Korean War and that was when the gap between the two countries was arguably at its greatest.
    - ericmay 5y ago
      > I think the consensus is pretty much what I wrote in my previous comment: The US would not start WWIII over Taiwan, obviously, and thus would not attack China but would help Taiwan (supply of weapons, intelligence, and other aid like in Ukraine). > The US would only start a war against China in case of 'existential' threat, indeed. But that would mean China attacking the US, which they obviously won't do for the same reason. I don't think that's the consensus at all. It's what I'd call "status quo" thinking. You are reasoning by analogy which doesn't apply here. Why do you think the US has all of these bases, is training Taiwanese troops and selling them weapons, and patrolling the South China Sea? Without US intervention there's nothing preventing China from attacking and taking over Taiwan. You're not understanding the strategic implications here. The U.S. isn't playing around here and building up all of this stuff for no reason, it will defend Taiwan for the foreseeable future. Not doing so flies in the face of pretty much all US policy and military actions. I don't find that to be compelling whatsoever. This actually reminds me of people who thought that the US wouldn't defend the Baltics. You're projecting your own calculations and reasoning onto what the US as a nation state would do and it just doesn't work here. > How would that show that he US military can be defeated if the US did not intervene directly? And how would that be existential? Also the US military as effectively been defeated a number of times before. Even directly against China the US did not fare that well during the Korean War and that was when the gap between the two countries was arguably at its greatest. I can't think of a time that the US has genuinely been defeated, militarily, in a war. There have been more so political statements, but the US has not faced a peer or near-peer adversary and lost so far and these types of wars are entirely different ball games. People like to cite Vietnam or Afghanistan but those are not similar. The last war we've fought against an industrial nation was World War 2. Nothing else is very comparable. > How would that show that he US military can be defeated if the US did not intervene directly? Because the US would intervene to start with. But if the US doesn't intervene it brings into doubt the ability of the US to check Chinese military power in the Pacific. It completely rearranges security agreements and economic ties to the detriment of the US.
- CogitoCogito 5y ago
  > On the contrary, this is not an existential issue for the US and they would not intervene directly against China (they've always been very careful never to commit to intervening). They've also never committed not to intervene and made many implications that they might. No one really know what the US would do.
aNoob7000 5y ago
If China invaded Taiwan, wouldn't it lead to other Asian countries fearing the same fate and push them towards alliances with other western countries?
- ericmay 5y ago
  Not necessarily. A U.S. defeat in Taiwan makes China the dominant economic and military power in the region, so those countries would court stronger military and economic ties to China in order to keep from being invaded or punished, since the U.S. would be proved incapable of doing anything.

mytailorisrich 5y ago

> that this is an existential issue for the United States, which undoubtedly along with allies would go to war to defend Taiwan. On the contrary, this is not an existential issue for the US and they would not intervene directly against China (they've always been very careful never to commit to intervening). It's similar to the situation in Ukraine. The US are helping Ukraine but they do not want to intervene directly and certainly do not want to start a war with Russia. Well, China is a much more formidable adversary than Russia and the US will never effectively declare war against them. For China the issue is (1) they could not afford to lose an invasion attempt (domestically it might mean the end of the regime), which is quite a big undertaking, and (2) the fallout on the world stage may be too big politically and economically. And so the military option has not been a good one so far and the status quo suits everyone.

ericmay 5y ago
> On the contrary, this is not an existential issue for the US and they would not intervene directly against China (they've always been very careful never to commit to intervening). There’s no benefit to verbally committing so you don’t need to do that. Better to keep China guessing. But there is 0 doubt that the US would intervene. This is an existential issue because if China invaded Taiwan successfully it shows the U.S. military can be defeated, and greatly diminishes their security guarantees and ability to project power in Asia. It’s similar to if Russia defeated the U.S. and forced military presence out of Europe. There is little doubt here. It’s not at all similar to Ukraine. Like in any way whatsoever. If you have any specific questions I could probably answer those as to why it’s not similar.
- mytailorisrich 5y ago
  > But there is 0 doubt that the US would intervene I think the consensus is pretty much what I wrote in my previous comment: The US would not start WWIII over Taiwan, obviously, and thus would not attack China but would help Taiwan (supply of weapons, intelligence, and other aid like in Ukraine). The US would only start a war against China in case of 'existential' threat, indeed. But that would mean China attacking the US, which they obviously won't do for the same reason. > This is an existential issue because if China invaded Taiwan successfully it shows the U.S. military can be defeated How would that show that he US military can be defeated if the US did not intervene directly? And how would that be existential? Also the US military has effectively been defeated a number of times before. Even directly against China the US did not fare that well during the Korean War and that was when the gap between the two countries was arguably at its greatest.
  - ericmay 5y ago
    > I think the consensus is pretty much what I wrote in my previous comment: The US would not start WWIII over Taiwan, obviously, and thus would not attack China but would help Taiwan (supply of weapons, intelligence, and other aid like in Ukraine). > The US would only start a war against China in case of 'existential' threat, indeed. But that would mean China attacking the US, which they obviously won't do for the same reason. I don't think that's the consensus at all. It's what I'd call "status quo" thinking. You are reasoning by analogy which doesn't apply here. Why do you think the US has all of these bases, is training Taiwanese troops and selling them weapons, and patrolling the South China Sea? Without US intervention there's nothing preventing China from attacking and taking over Taiwan. You're not understanding the strategic implications here. The U.S. isn't playing around here and building up all of this stuff for no reason, it will defend Taiwan for the foreseeable future. Not doing so flies in the face of pretty much all US policy and military actions. I don't find that to be compelling whatsoever. This actually reminds me of people who thought that the US wouldn't defend the Baltics. You're projecting your own calculations and reasoning onto what the US as a nation state would do and it just doesn't work here. > How would that show that he US military can be defeated if the US did not intervene directly? And how would that be existential? Also the US military as effectively been defeated a number of times before. Even directly against China the US did not fare that well during the Korean War and that was when the gap between the two countries was arguably at its greatest. I can't think of a time that the US has genuinely been defeated, militarily, in a war. There have been more so political statements, but the US has not faced a peer or near-peer adversary and lost so far and these types of wars are entirely different ball games. People like to cite Vietnam or Afghanistan but those are not similar. The last war we've fought against an industrial nation was World War 2. Nothing else is very comparable. > How would that show that he US military can be defeated if the US did not intervene directly? Because the US would intervene to start with. But if the US doesn't intervene it brings into doubt the ability of the US to check Chinese military power in the Pacific. It completely rearranges security agreements and economic ties to the detriment of the US.
CogitoCogito 5y ago
> On the contrary, this is not an existential issue for the US and they would not intervene directly against China (they've always been very careful never to commit to intervening). They've also never committed not to intervene and made many implications that they might. No one really know what the US would do.

aNoob7000 5y ago

If China invaded Taiwan, wouldn't it lead to other Asian countries fearing the same fate and push them towards alliances with other western countries?

ericmay 5y ago
Not necessarily. A U.S. defeat in Taiwan makes China the dominant economic and military power in the region, so those countries would court stronger military and economic ties to China in order to keep from being invaded or punished, since the U.S. would be proved incapable of doing anything.