Would the US act if China invaded Taiwan?

I also am a careerist. And I also have studied history.

Does anybody seriously think that China would be happy with just grabbing Taiwan back?

Myself, I bet they would just keep pushing, and grabbing more territory. They have already annexed one other country, and has territorial disputes in 17 others. Including North Korea, South Korea, Singapore, Brunei, Malaysia, India, Laos, Mongolia, Philippines, Nepal, and others. And in the last 3 decades they have gained quite a bit of land from Russia, in exchange for settling their long standing border dispute. Three treaties between China and Russia, all promising that it was the "final resolution. In 1991, 1994, and finally in 2005. Each time saw Russia losing more land.

And we all know what happened to Tibet.

This should sound familiar to anybody that has studied history. They will just keep pushing and pushing, and tossing out any previous agreements as it suits them. And I for one would rather see a conflict sooner rather than later. Because if they go as far as to attack Taiwan, I have no doubts that will embolden them even more, and they will push their other border disputed militarily. Because the odds will increase that they will Findlandize at least a few other countries and force them to fight with them.

 

Spot on. Its obvious to the most casual observer that China is on the march. They have finally achieved the economic, technical, and military wherewithal to expand. Kublai Kahn was Genghis Khan's grandson and ruled China. There have been many great dynasties in China that conquered and ruled vast areas. I fully believe that the expansion is on again... this time with bombers, aircraft carriers and massive land warfare formations.

 

~ The current administration would indeed "act " ‐ they would pretend concern and put on a show but only after China accomplished their mission. China has too many undisclosed ties with American politicians including the president - and with other nations as well.
I vote " No " ... ✖

 

After Biden’s debacle in Afghanistan, I don’t want that moron leading us into any wars.

Nope ... No wars on his watch, please.

 

So the outcome would have been different if Trump was in charge. And no I'm not 'fan boying' Biden I'm asking what grounds there are to think that had Trump still been in charge the outcome would have been significantly different.

Afghanistan was always a **** sandwich & as such there were only two viable outcomes. One, stay for decades more and continue efforts at 'nation building' (keep chewing). Two, withdraw and watch the place fall over again (spit, throw away and gargle).

 

Trump would never have allowed our forces to sneak out of Kandahar in the middle of the night. That would have kept the larger airfield open and available for evacuations. Fewer, maybe no Americans and allies would have been left behind. With that airport open and a WILL TO SAVE AMERICAN CIVILIANS (something Biden clearly lacked)... those Americans and allies would be in the states today. We would have had more air capacity to evacuate equipment as well as citizens.
Yes, you are right that Afghan was a tough problem. My concern, and something I believe kept us there as long as we stayed, is the fact that the Taliban has demonstrated over and over that they can successfully raid Pakistan... from police stations to military facilities... even their military academy. And Pakistan has nukes. Our presence kept the Taliban in check. Now I'm waiting to read about the Taliban grabbing a Paki nuke.

 

This is one of those cases I think where geography rules. So a lot depends on the response of US allies and other nations in the region. To be clear no nation (long term US Allies or not) in South East Asia is going to be 'happy' about an attempted Chinese takeover of Taiwan. The long term military/political implications are too stark. The question however is to what extent they are prepared (overtly or covertly) to oppose the move. You have to bet China will be making all kinds of threats to both publicly and privately to it's immediate neighbors once fighting commences.

But assuming the US's main allies in the theater (Japan and Korea) come on board China has a huge long term problem even if the US is not prepared to mount an immediate counter invasion/relief operation. And that's a blockage of Chinese ports. Nothing moves into or out of the East China Sea, South China Sea or the Philippines Sea without Allied approval - for however long it takes. So it becomes a matter of containing their navy. Combined with international sanctions (which would happen) and assuming the political will is there on the Allied side to 'stay the course' China would be forced to withdraw on terms that make it appear (for domestic consumption at least) that some of its political objectives have been obtained.

 

You paint a very POSSIBLE picture, but I fear it is overly optimistic. China has wangled its way into global commerce to the extent that the world is dependent on it for medicines (yes, even the USA) and countless goods. The economies of some other nations would be crushed by a blockade. But we will see... I fear.

 

None of which really changes the final outcome though does it. Perhaps Trump would have done as you've suggested, he might even have said so (I wouldn't know). But even if he did say much of the above after the event? Well I'll just note that hindsight is a wonderful thing and there's a huge difference between saying & doing.

Getting more American citizens out before would have been good but it doesn't change anything about the big picture. Hell, lets wave a magic wand and get them all out it. Everything the US and its allies tried to achieve in the past 20 years is still toast regardless. For that matter given time and negotiation it might still be possible to get the vast majority of dual Afghani citizens out. But again nothing else changes.

The nuke thing won't happen either. The moment it does Pakistan is done and their military leadership knows it. Even China will drop them and walk away form the consequences of that decision. I

 

All true, but that's the thing about war (as I'm sure you know). Whatever you do it costs, and none of your choices are ever 'good'. There's only the 'least bad'. A military blockade will damage the global economy but that's going to happen anyway when the invasion commences. And in this case the a large chunk of the 'harm' is short/medium term economic damage and in those terms at a minimum China suffers at least as much of that as everyone else (possibly more so). Plus at least this way the US and its allies use 'local' geography to their advantage and play to their military (naval) strengths not China's. I also provides some time for the worlds major economies to institute a war (rationing) economy. But as I said its still at best a 'least bad' option.

 

Oh, it would be more than that. Australia for one, Philippines, and even India would likely get involved. As well as the UK and France. And possibly other nations that have an interest in the area, like the Dutch.

But there would be no actual "blockade", all trade will flee the area as it always does during a possible war. Merchant ships do not want to get caught in the middle of a war zone, and will avoid the entire region until it is over. And many nations will likely conduct an internal embargo (sanction), but that is something very different.

But the other countries would not do a blockade, that actually is an act of war which is why they are almost never used other than in an actual war itself.

 

~ You certainly will not hear about it in the mainstream press ...

~ It most certainly does if you are the one left behind ...

 

Well for a start a 'blockade' would be necessary to contain Chinese naval forces inside the contested zone, especially it's submarine forces. Then China also has a large (huge) merchant marine which the government would be 'nationalized' (as if it's not already) at least in part for no other reason than to support the invasion. But beyond that China wouldn't recognize any blockade on its national carriers that wasn't actively enforced (who would). So the Allies would be forced to impose an active blockade - and China of course would have no option but to resist it using naval and air power or else compromise and withdraw from Taiwan.

 

Maybe I'm too traditional in my thinking, but U-Boats couldn't bring Britain to its knees. Blockade runners kept the Confederacy alive. Japan didn't surrender because of anything our Navy did. It's like Air Power alone never won a war either (without a nuke or two). It takes a Soldier with a bloody bayonet standing in enemy territory to win a conflict.

 

We may only speculate as to how Trump would have managed the withdrawal. It really doesn’t matter, though. Biden is the President now, and we found out what level of military competence he possesses, which appears to be zero.

I hate the thought of this President leading the nation into war. What a historic disaster that would be.

I’m fine with giving him a sack of plastic Army men to play with on his desk ...

 

Letting Chinese submarines 'escape' would permit China to threaten Allied maritime trade and ports. IMO (for whats that worth) this does not mean China would necessarily attack US ports or shipping directly (although they certainly could) but there's nothing to stop them setting an example and 'punishing' vital allies by attacking their shipping/ports. (I'm assuming at this point BTW that we're only talking about a naval blockade and the US has not yet attacked Chinese ports or merchant ships yet, save any that tried to run the blockade.)

Above all all China would be seeking to crack the allied consensus on the blockade strategy and leave the US isolated and alone. Japan and Korea especially would be put under enormous pressure to do so. So if the Allies are going to disrupt their ability to import vital raw materials and trade goods it makes a certain sense for them to at least threaten some form of similar retaliation, even if its only directed at key allies.

But beyond that, even if China decides not to pursue that strategy it's subs represent are a clear and present danger to every allied surface vessel involved in the blockade -which would be most/all of them. So for that reason alone I would argue the subs need to be kept bottled up. Of course the same goes for their surface fleet and long range Chinese strike/reconnaissance air power as well. The big unknown (for me) anyway is how effective their land based anti shipping missiles would be, you know the supposed 'carrier killers'. How many do they have, how accurate/effective are they and do they have enough to start targeting smaller allied warships or even critical merchant ships like oil tankers.

 

I don't think that's really a fair criticism of any President regardless of political persuasion. Presidents aren't supposed or required to be 'experts' military or otherwise. After all Trump was no military genius and its hardly fair to criticize Biden for not being one either. What is required of Presidents is that they listen to and act on advice given by their military experts. But even that's on case by case basis pending advice received from other 'expert' sources. Most of the time yes, you would expect military advice on specific military issues to be followed but most is not always.

 

~ If China were to do anything militarily now would be the time . This is the window of opportunity for a strike against USA and/or its' allies. A weakened militarily in a state of compromise with Generals giving a heads-up to the enemy ; a blundering "president " and pathetic administration that basically hates America ; a Covid paranoid and distracted dumbed-down populace ; allied nations fearful of standing alone in leadership against the CCP and giving in to their dictatorial behavior .
The quiet storm may very well get very loud in the near future ...

 

Also regarding the above I would point out that Germany had no significant surface fleet to back up it's attempted blockade of the UK, didn't have air superiority over British cities/ports and had no overseas bases covering the strategic approaches to the British Isles from which to operate it's U boat fleet. But even then and allowing for all of that, for a critical period during the battle of the Atlantic it was a close run thing!

As for the Pacific? The US had all of those things. By the end of 1944 Japan had lost the war. The US surface fleet dominated the approaches to Japan. It submarines had sunk something like 75% of Japans pre war merchant tonnage and the US had occupied strategic bases/locations around the Home islands which let them bomb and mine major cities and ports more or less at will. Japan had literally run out of oil, food and time.

 

It took nukes to get them to quit. No matter what else may or may not have happened... what DID happen is that it took nukes.
Unoccupied enemy territory is still... enemy territory.

 

~ From whom many consider "reliable historians" this is exactly the reason the USA was unsuccessful in North Korea and in Vietnam. The administrations were afraid to use nuclear weapons.

 

My point was that Japan had already lost the war because of the blockade etc not that the blockade was what forced them to surrender (albeit ultimately that may well have happened also if the war had continued without the use of nuclear weapons.) Point being the context of of this thread i.e. a Chinese invasion of Taiwan an effective blockage/embargo of China could well be a viable, war winning option for the Allies.

 

Not only do I have no confidence in this President to prosecute a war against China, but I strongly suspect that Chinese Intelligence has dirt on the Biden family that they are simply keeping secret ... until they need it. Furthermore, I strongly suspect that Biden knows it. THIS is why you don’t elect a man to the presidency who compromised his office to a foreign adversary when he was the Vice President. But we did that, and we knew it, but we didn’t care.

The man is not competent. He is compromised. His Secretary of Defense and top generals are mealy mouthed sycophants.

And you think this crew should lead a war against a nuclear power?

 

Since by your own admission all you have to back up your claims are your own 'suspicions' (i.e. zero evidence) you'll forgive me if I place little weight on your claims, if only because it hardly matters what your (or for that matter my) opinion on the subject is.

But that point aside to the best of my knowledge ALL current members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff were appointed during Trumps term in office. Presumably they weren't (to use your words) 'mealy mouth sycophants' back then when the Republican's ran the show. So that means it must have happened 'magically' the moment a Democrat walked into the Oval Office. Who knew?

 

China hasn't yet gotten their military forces built up to the point where they want them for a confrontation with the US.