3 ms·
> That sounds remarkably unlikely and irrational. If China touched the US mainland it would mean immediate full-scale war, the opposite should be assumed. Then
by dragontamer 5y ago
> That sounds remarkably unlikely and irrational. If China touched the US mainland it would mean immediate full-scale war, the opposite should be assumed.
Then your assumptions need to be set appropriately.
That is: China will have its full set of highways and railroads in-tact to deliver missiles to the US Navy. That will be the US Navy fighting at a severe disadvantage.
Furthermore, US Marines will largely be sitting around doing nothing. Having additional troops from a separate branch of the military doing __SOMETHING__ would at least help even the odds. (Marines do have some ships, but the Marines specialized in Sea vs Land situations, not sea vs sea kinds of battles)
-------
In any case, the Taiwan situation is a very difficult fight to think about. US Navy will be at a severe disadvantage in almost every concievable scenario, and its difficult to see how other branches (US Army, US Air Force, or US Marines) can help in a significant manner. (Sure, some islands here and there can station some US Air Force, US Army can also station some troops in Taiwan. But is it enough to make a big difference?)
- dahdum 5y agoWe have no defense pact with Taiwan, and are not obligated to engage. Our official stance is strategic ambiguity, but Ukraine has showed how unlikely we are to join the fight. We will try to follow much of the same sanctioning, intelligence, and providing arms playbook, but with less international support. Your scenario presumes we are in open conflict with Chinese troops, in which case landing marines is merely an escalation of a war that’s already begun.