3 ms·

> 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 co

> 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.
  - mytailorisrich 5y ago
    The Us are training Taiwanese troops and selling them weapons for the reason I have stated: They are helping them. But I'd repeat that the serious consensus is that they are vanishingly unlikely to intervene directly because that'd mean WWIII. I think one thing that you and others in the US should realise is that the US won't be able to check Chinese military power in the Pacific indefinitely. The historical trend is that the US have found a country that is bigger than that they are and that is starting to have the means to assert its own interests. The US' "ownership" of the Pacific is the legacy of US imperialism in the region, but "this too shall pass". And, maybe, if one day the mainland decides to take over Taiwan militarily it will mean a watershed moment when this becomes visible in facts as they will have no doubt calculated that the US will have no choice but yield.
    - ericmay 5y ago
      > I think one thing that you and others in the US should realise is that the US won't be able to check Chinese military power in the Pacific indefinitely. I agree, well, in theory. But anything can happen. The US could dissolve. China could have a revolution. China could stop caring. Who knows? But for the foreseeable future I think that this is the case (US can check China in the Pacific). But to your point, it seems inevitable that the US will maintain interests but likely lose its current foothold in Asia. But that just lends credit to my statements that China won't invade Taiwan. There's no point when you can just wait for the inevitable. They rushed it in Hong Kong and delayed this inevitability by scaring the Taiwanese who were lukewarm toward China and increasingly warming up via economic ties and Chinese influence on Taiwanese politicians. But similarly to Hong Kong, if China were to invade not only is there a serious chance that they would be defeated by the US and allies, if that fail to take Taiwan in a meaningful strategic sense they'd likely just cause themselves harm internally and further delay what appears to me to be an eventual loss of US presence.

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.
- mytailorisrich 5y ago
  The Us are training Taiwanese troops and selling them weapons for the reason I have stated: They are helping them. But I'd repeat that the serious consensus is that they are vanishingly unlikely to intervene directly because that'd mean WWIII. I think one thing that you and others in the US should realise is that the US won't be able to check Chinese military power in the Pacific indefinitely. The historical trend is that the US have found a country that is bigger than that they are and that is starting to have the means to assert its own interests. The US' "ownership" of the Pacific is the legacy of US imperialism in the region, but "this too shall pass". And, maybe, if one day the mainland decides to take over Taiwan militarily it will mean a watershed moment when this becomes visible in facts as they will have no doubt calculated that the US will have no choice but yield.
  - ericmay 5y ago
    > I think one thing that you and others in the US should realise is that the US won't be able to check Chinese military power in the Pacific indefinitely. I agree, well, in theory. But anything can happen. The US could dissolve. China could have a revolution. China could stop caring. Who knows? But for the foreseeable future I think that this is the case (US can check China in the Pacific). But to your point, it seems inevitable that the US will maintain interests but likely lose its current foothold in Asia. But that just lends credit to my statements that China won't invade Taiwan. There's no point when you can just wait for the inevitable. They rushed it in Hong Kong and delayed this inevitability by scaring the Taiwanese who were lukewarm toward China and increasingly warming up via economic ties and Chinese influence on Taiwanese politicians. But similarly to Hong Kong, if China were to invade not only is there a serious chance that they would be defeated by the US and allies, if that fail to take Taiwan in a meaningful strategic sense they'd likely just cause themselves harm internally and further delay what appears to me to be an eventual loss of US presence.