4 ms·

You don't risk nuclear war by shooting a few conventional missiles and establishing a blockade. (A) China would suffer intensely under a blockade. (B) A few m

by jopsen 2y ago

You don't risk nuclear war by shooting a few conventional missiles and establishing a blockade. (A) China would suffer intensely under a blockade. (B) A few missiles could ensure chip facilities are surrendered intact. (C) Even a short conflict where a few missiles hits boats invading Taiwan would ensure the rest of the world never trades with China. Point being: The US doesn't have to win, don't have to fight with everything, just make the invasion hard and isolate China in a new cold war.

bee_rider 2y ago
I think establishing a blockade is generally considered an act of war. Possibly a war crime if the intent is to starve civilians? (Not sure, this is way outside my wheelhouse). I’d expect it to be about as escalatory as using US ships to attack the mainland, more or less.
- upbeat_general 2y ago
  Not a war crime, China has plenty of agriculture. See the Cuban missile crisis. It is an act of war but certainly not as escalatory as direct attack.
  - pembrook 2y ago
    Chinese agriculture is heavily dependent on fertilizer and energy imports. A blockade would easily result in famine. In fact the history of China is just constant famines.
    - geysersam 2y ago
      Is the history of China any more famine stricken than any other region if the world? In recent history (last two centuries) maybe, but before that? Typically you don't become the worlds most populous country by having frequent famines.
- jopsen 2y ago
  US action following a Taiwan invasion could be shoot a few missiles at the invasion fleet. Declare all coastal areas around China a conflict zone. Declare anyone trading with China can't trade with the US. If backed by allies, China could perhaps be boxed in. But, hey, who knows. It's entirely unclear what is possible. And much depends on whether Taiwan falls in 3 days, or stays in the fight for 3 years. Or so one would assume.. current administration is proving that they'll abandon freedom at minimal cost.

by jopsen 2y ago

bee_rider 2y ago

I think establishing a blockade is generally considered an act of war. Possibly a war crime if the intent is to starve civilians? (Not sure, this is way outside my wheelhouse). I’d expect it to be about as escalatory as using US ships to attack the mainland, more or less.

upbeat_general 2y ago
Not a war crime, China has plenty of agriculture. See the Cuban missile crisis. It is an act of war but certainly not as escalatory as direct attack.
- pembrook 2y ago
  Chinese agriculture is heavily dependent on fertilizer and energy imports. A blockade would easily result in famine. In fact the history of China is just constant famines.
  - geysersam 2y ago
    Is the history of China any more famine stricken than any other region if the world? In recent history (last two centuries) maybe, but before that? Typically you don't become the worlds most populous country by having frequent famines.
jopsen 2y ago
US action following a Taiwan invasion could be shoot a few missiles at the invasion fleet. Declare all coastal areas around China a conflict zone. Declare anyone trading with China can't trade with the US. If backed by allies, China could perhaps be boxed in. But, hey, who knows. It's entirely unclear what is possible. And much depends on whether Taiwan falls in 3 days, or stays in the fight for 3 years. Or so one would assume.. current administration is proving that they'll abandon freedom at minimal cost.