Would the US act if China invaded Taiwan?

Nukes are not military weapons to begin with. They are political weapons.

 

That was once a theory, but by the early 1980's it had largely been dismissed. Which was why the US and USSR were both willing to get rid of the majority of their small theater weapons. In truth, there is little to no use for nukes in a military setting. They are almost entirely political weapons that nations use to either prevent other countries from using theirs, or as in the case of North Korea to threaten their neighbors.

 

I remember doing nuclear fire planning in Europe in The Fulda Gap area. The purpose of using the nukes was to bottle any invading forces up into a limited area. Things like "tree blow down" were planned to introduce channeling and extreme use of obstacles. Nuking Moscow was never part of the plan. Such tactics would work today, although, as you say, most small, tactical nukes have been retired.

 

Oh, it would work. Which is why the majority of routes and bridges in South Korea are designed to be blown up and obstructing the route so that North Korea could never use them again in an invasion.

And I was talking about the Fulda Gap, but there are a few other areas. Dropping a few Pershing IIs there and some other places would largely had brought the Warsaw Pact to a standstill. Their equipment was not as well designed to operate in such a situation, and it is known that their NBC gear was very crude, even by the standards of the day.

In 2008 I saw a "Soviet Issue NBC suit" circa 1985. It literally was nothing more fancy than a rubber raincoat. And unlike the stuff rolling off the lines of US factories and being sent to Europe in that era where the crew could operate inside without NBC clothing, theirs had no such allowance and would have to have been operated in full NBC attire.

Imagine trying to fire a T72 tank in full nuclear attire, including gas mask. As an M1 is firing with none of that required as it is built into the tank environmental systems at the factory.

There are many damned good reasons why the Soviets had no problem agreeing with the INF treaty. They knew already that by that time, the US had actually solved most of their problems with operating in a "nuclear battlefield", and they were decades behind. So removing those weapons was of no real issue to us, and removed a huge threat to their plans.

But yes, it was never a part of US-NATO plans to "Nuke Moscow" if the Cold War ever went hot. All the top planners there were still praying it would stay entirely conventional, or at most limited to theater scope weapons. General Sir John Hackett was one of the first to actually wrote out a book involving such a conflict enlarging to a limited nuclear exchange, and from what I understand it scared the piss out of both sides of the Iron Curtain.

And why Tom Clancy in his book "Red Storm Rising" had at the climax an internal coup inside the Kremlin to prevent any such attack as had happened in the other book. By that time, both sides knew that the moment one bomb dropped, it became very likely that the retaliation would not end until all were in ashes.

 

I remember attending a V Corps briefing in the bowels of the IG Farben Building circa 1982. Those who had access to that briefing room will remember stepping across the 2 by fours over the water on the way. The place looked much like the movie representations you saw in productions like "War Games" and "Doctor Strangelove". The briefing that day was the "Nuclear Fire Plan" in case the Russkies came at us. I was there since I Commanded a nuke capable M110A2 battery. I remember watching the map slowly turn red as the plan was explained day by day. It reached well into France. Germany was toast. I remember asking myself what the civilians would say if they had seen this.

 

Wrong. It is US policy to use nuclear weapons first if conventional force is not sufficient to defend our allies.

You have that exactly backwards. You are the one who does not understand nuclear weapons:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-weapons-strike.514485/page-6#post-1073096063

Sure there is. If China invades Taiwan, and if the US cannot dislodge the invasion conventionally, then it will be necessary to use tactical nukes to dislodge the invasion.

That is unlikely to be true. They probably have such weapons.

Not that it matters. It is OK for the US to be the one to use nukes first.

There is no such US policy.

The US would hardly be outcast. No one cares about anti-war protesters.

 

Sure we will. We protect our allies.

I wouldn't mind giving Taiwan a lot more weapons though, so that China might think twice about attacking them.

You can use them to destroy an invading army.

Presumably if we nuked Chinese forces on Taiwanese soil, we'd use a clean nuke that would cause little contamination.

 

“Those Who Do Not Learn History Are Doomed To Repeat It.” George Santayana

China only wants to be reunited with Taiwan – the same as Hitler’s Germany wanted to be reunited with the Sudeten Land - a part of Czechoslovakia..
The Munich Agreement concluded on 30 September 1938, by Germany, the United Kingdom, the French Third Republic, and the Kingdom of Italy. It provided "cession to Germany of the Sudeten Land territory" of Czechoslovakia.
On 30 September 1938, upon his return to Britain, Chamberlain delivered his "peace for our time" speech to crowds in London.

Churchill described this agreement: “The government had to choose between war and shame. They chose shame. They will get war too.”

The WWII started on Sept 1, 1939.

 

Taiwan is our friend, but we have no defense treaty with Taiwan. I'm fine with selling or giving weapons to Taiwan, but I don't think the American people are interested in getting into a war with China over Taiwan.

To those who think we should go to war with China over Taiwan, I suggest you join the Army or Marines and lead the way. And if you're too old to do that, send your sons and daughters, not someone else's.

Been there, done that .... multiple times.

 

The TPP? lol What would that matter if China wanted to break us?

The blunder was not making our own chips. If China takes Taiwan, they will control the entire chip market and in this computerized age, we will be at their mercy. The USA will be done. We either defend Taiwan or give up the world to China.

 

Actually, yes we do.

It is not a "treaty", as we no longer officially recognize Taiwan as a nation. However, we do have an agreement with them. One that is actually a Federal Law.

It is known as the "Taiwan Relations Act", and it is Public Law 96–8, 93 Stat. 14, enacted Passed by the House and ratified in the Senate in March, and signed into law by President Carter on 10 April 1979, and went into effect on 1 January 1980. And the wording of the treaty is very clear.

https://www.ait.org.tw/our-relation...policy-documents-region/taiwan-relations-act/

Above is Section 2, Paragraph B, clauses 3 through 6.

Now one thing that must be realized, is that in "diplo-speech", "grave concern" is essentially a warning that the US will go to war if required to enforce the act. So while technically a true statement, what the US did was to actually put into place a law that mandates the US to act if Taiwan is attacked. And the PRC is well aware of this. And as a law, it actually allows the military to do things immediately if Taiwan is attacked because they have to by law. And if a President refused to honor it, they could actually be impeached for violating the law.

And for 40 years now, the PRC has been screaming that the law is illegal. Yet, there have never been any attempts in Congress nor has a President ever asked for it to be repealed. And it even withstood a Supreme Court challenge in 1979. In fact, it even includes more measures than even the previous Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty had. As things like boycotts or embargos were never mentioned before, but are explicitly stated in the current document.

 

It does not even matter because the TPP is dead. In fact, it never even went into effect as only 3 of the 13 nations involved ever ratified it.

It was replaced by the CPTPP. This time it was ratified, in almost record time as less than 7 months later the sixth nation ratified it.

And to be honest, the TPP was likely to never have gone into effect, even with the US withdrawing. It was signed in February 2016, and when the US withdrew in January 2017, only 2 of the required 6 nations had ratified it (Japan and New Zealand). It had not even been submitted for ratification to Congress. When only 2 of 12 signatory nations even bother to submit a treaty for ratification after almost a year, it is essentially a dead treaty and never would have taken effect no matter what.

 

Well, to answer the question posed in the OP, one would first have to ask what would the US be losing if they did not help Taiwan to thwart China's takeover. If the answer is that the downside poses a major threat to it's future safety and success , then yes, the US will act in it's best interest as it should. I am certain that there is a plan "on paper".

 

"Send"sons and daughters? What son or daughter would stand for "being sent"? The military is all VOLUNTEER today.

 

Good job looking that up. I hadn't known of it before.

Still, the devil is in the details. The document does not commit us to defend Taiwan with our military.

To "consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area" is not a promise to go to war. Nor is "and of grave concern to the United States".

It is more like a statement that we may go to war over this for this reason, but it is not an iron clad commitment to do so. And then this ...

"to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan."

Again, we may "maintain the capacity" to go to war, but that is not the same as the commitment or promise to go to war.

So, I think that law leaves the President and the Congress with the legal wiggle room to choose. And I just don't think the American people want to go to war with China over Taiwan. I just don't. And I know it doesn't seem like it most of the time, and a lot of that is because of our own laziness and apathy, but what we think still matters.

You know, we lost 58,000 service members in Viet Nam in a war against North Viet Nam. And China isn't North Viet Nam.

 

Does that mean they only cause Democrat casualties? An idea whose time has come!

 

Yeah, yeah, I'm well aware of that. Before I explain what I mean, may I ask you if you're a combat vet?

 

I'm no Rambo but I was in a few firefights... so yes.

 

I think you might be surprised. I doubt many in England and France would have wanted to go to war over Poland, yet it still happened.

And I also think enough know about history, and what appeasement has done in the past. Ultimately, it led to even bigger wars. Because that would also be a direct threat to the Philippines, which we do have a defense treaty with as well as Japan. And likely it will not be just the US acting. Japan, UK, Australia, Vietnam, possibly even India and Philippines would also be reacting to such an action.

And it really does not matter what you think, I have actually taken a course in how diplomats use language to state their intentions without sounding threatening. And "grave concern" does indeed mean it is threatening war if it is ignored.

https://odeenishmaeldiplomacy.wordpress.com/2014/02/20/54-challenges-of-todays-diplomatic-language/

https://p2nches.livejournal.com/55626.html

It is also the language the US used in 2014 ("grave alarm") prior to starting bombing missions in Syria. SO I guess you are siding with and rooting for China here, as you simply dismiss it as not a serious threat.

 

Have you looked into what Intel is doing lately?

Although I do think we should defend Taiwan if they are invaded.

War with China will not mean a land invasion of China.

At the worst, US forces would invade occupied Taiwan and liberate them.

 

I'm no Rambo either, but from experience you know that it gets real in combat. And you probably also know that it isn't really real to the general public. It's a news story they can watch from the comfort of their living room, safe and secure, and detached. But to the service members in combat, loss, wounding and death is real, and it is real to their loved ones who hope and pray their loved one comes home alive and hopefully in one piece.

I was a little too young to get drafted and sent to Viet Nam. I served in the volunteer Army from 74-77 and was never in combat. But my son served in the Marines from 2005-2009. He fought and was wounded in Anbar Province, Iraq. We almost lost him. The following year he fought in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. My wife and I attended the funerals of Marines in his unit who were killed, and we wept for them and their loved ones. I found out what it was like to be afraid to come home from anywhere for fear that I would see a vehicle parked in front of my house with a U.S. government plate and men in uniform inside. I found out what it was like to have a nagging, relentless sense of worry for months at a time. Besides our own son, we've been with the wounded. We've been friends with the parents and loved ones of the fallen.

So, you see, this is real. This has left me a changed person in some ways, and it colors my point of view. And perhaps it leaves me just a tad resentful of the 99% who have never served but who are quick to beat their chests and have our young people sent off to war. And it makes me want to tell them to get a rifle and lead the charge if they're so damn sure this is so damn necessary. And it makes me want to tell them that, if they're going to send someone else's children, then they have to contribute one of their children too. Yeah, I want them to have some skin in the game - like a son or daughter. And when it becomes real to them, then we see if this is a war they want, or not.

That's what I meant. Sorry for the rant.

Seth

 

The wild card here is the Afghanistan debacle. For the first time in history, America is characterized as ... "coward"... "untrustworthy"... an "impotent"

 

No, if you knew me, you'd know I wasn't siding with China or rooting for them. My eyes are wide open about China. Trust me on that.

Yes, I realize "grave concern" is threatening war in diplo-speak, but it is still not an iron clad commitment.

I'm fine with arming Taiwan with whatever they need. If the Chinese did attempt an invasion, I would root for Taiwan and hope that they succeeded in repelling it.

If you want to see more about my POV, see Post #46.

 

I was a career Soldier. I lost some friends along the way. The first Was a West Point classmate lost in a helicopter accident. Giving one's life for one's country doesn't have to be in combat. I always thought I'd be gone by now. I never feared death. But life in a wheelchair... or crippled... scared me a lot. Our Wounded Warriors are real heroes. In combat, training takes over. In my limited experience its a conditioned response. But Wounded Warriors who can maintain a positive attitude, continue to contribute and not get lost in self pity show a level of heroism I'm not sure I could measure up to.

 

You are absolutely right.