Would the US act if China invaded Taiwan?

If war breaks out, it is safe to assume that US bombers will be pummeling Chinese ground targets.

China's strategic nuclear weapons are sure to be the first targets to be hit, but the US Air Force will get around to destroying their ports at some point.

Keep in mind that Chinese anti-ship missiles have a finite range. The US Navy can easily blockade China from beyond the range of those missiles.

Chinese diesel submarines also will not operate well far from Chinese shores. They have to surface for air now and again. That leaves China's nuclear attack submarines as the only real threat to the US Navy far from shore, and I'm sure the Navy will be doing their best to hunt them down.

Also, a close in blockade does not have to rely on the US Navy to implement it. F-35 fighters in stealth mode and loaded with anti-ship missiles can fly out of Japanese air bases and easily seal off the East China Sea from the rest of the Pacific Ocean merely by patrolling the Ryukyu Islands.

 

The mealy mouthed sycophants didn't surrender in Afghanistan until Biden took over. They didn't reduce military manpower with COVID mandates until Biden took over. They didn't abandon billions of dollars of warfighting equipment to terrorists until Biden took over. They didn't abandon American citizens and allies to terrorists until Biden took over.
Under Trump they remained dormant... a "mealy mouthed sleeper cell" if you wish.

 

~ Unfortunately it does appear that "we " did indeed vote for this idiot . However ... there is still the possibility electronic voting systems & software were hacked and false ballots were cast in favor of one candidate.
Let us hope ...

 

I'll only note that your vastly oversimplifying a very complex strategic and tactical scenario, one that is fraught with risk for all concerned. For a start attacks on Chinese soil, invite retaliatory strikes by China on US soil. Now, depending at what stage of the war such an attack was launched by the US (and a lot of other complex variables) China may or may not have the capacity to strike back directly against the US. But even if they don't they will certainly retrain the capacity the capability to strike against key US allies (think Korea and Japan). And to be absolutely clear, the US needs those two counties to say on board as key planks in any embargo strategy.

Secondly the F-35 is not equipped for maritime strike operations. Apart form a limited payload of guided bombs it is not equipped with anti-ship or anti-submarine payloads. In short it is carries none of the missiles needed to impose a maritime blockade on China or fight a purely 'naval' war. What it can do is intercept Chinese aircraft bent on breaching/ending that blockade but that is entirely different to the types of payloads needed to facilitate the imposition of a naval blockade. Basically they're two entirely different things.

Lastly I would argue that in broad terms the idea is to 'let' China have the South China (and Eastern China ) seas. What the US and its allies would be committed to doing in the scenario I outlined is; (A) prevent them from leaving those seas or the airs above them. And (B) protect the Philippines and Korea/Japan from attack or occupation i.e. fight to keep them in the alliance so that the US has access to their territories for military operations and China doesn't.

 

Look, your are (by your one claim) a former military officer. If you really hold the current generation of senior leadership in the US Army and other branches of the United States Armed Forces in such contempt why don't you contact them and express your opinion of their character directly instead complaining about it here, since as far as I am aware none of the joint chiefs or their direct staff are members of PF. (Happy to be proven wrong on that point BTW)

Furthermore, as I've noted before regardless of whether or not Trump was still in the oval office the withdrawal from Afghanistan was still going to go ahead (remember Trump was the one signed the deal with the Taliban making it possible after all).So the only position that leaves you with is trying to argue that Afghanistan wouldn't have fallen so soon if Trump had been in charge when the allies pulled out!

Which we both know is BS. The whole rotten deck of cards was always going to fold the moment US troops (and US money) exited stage left - no matter who was in charge back home. Or do you disagree with that analysis?

 

~ No really. Just a few "super bombs " in the right place and it's all over ...

{ And don't forget we have stealth drones now too ! }

 

The F-35 will be able to carry two of these internally:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Strike_Missile#Joint_Strike_Missile

It will also be able to carry four of these externally:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158C_LRASM

Although since external carriage ruins stealth, I'd rather put those four larger ones on a non-stealth fighter-jet and save the F-35s for stealth missions.

 

~ I think Japan has this also ... ?

 

I'm not sure. But I wouldn't be surprised.

And Japanese territory is perfectly situated for cutting the East China Sea off from the Pacific Ocean. All they need to do is patrol the Ryukyu Islands with fighter jets carrying anti-ship missiles.

 

When dealing with China you have to understand that the US is directly responsible for the rise of China, and this rise occurred due to trade. As soon as China makes a hostile move that so much as scratches the paint on the US military vessel, their ships will be turned around. Good bye China economy.
Also, a half dozen of those container ships can be sunk in their harbors closing them up.
China has little oil, and lots of fuel dumps as targets.
The Chinese islands are sitting ducks.
Our offensive cyber capabilities are kept secret.
Chinese untested soldiers are not known for valor in battle.
Chinese hardware in most classes has been hurriedly built and unstressed.
Xi Jinping has a lot of opposition in China because China’s goodwill efforts are failing due to CCP management’s “Stick and carrot” approach to world affairs.

 

1.) My West Point Class will have its 50th reunion in 2025. We're mostly "loaded for bear" and wondering if Lloyd Austin will show up. Swhat precludes me from discussing Army leadership HERE? This is one of many forums. They are not mutually exclusive. We can voice our opinion here... there... anywhere. I know libs hate that.
2.) Trump's deal disappeared and was REPLACED with a Biden plan. Trump's Afghan deal ENDED when the first quid pro quo of a ceasefire did not happen. At that point Trump's "deal" disappeared.... gone....left the building. Biden's totally new plan changed everything from the departure dates, to the conditions, to the strategy.... everything. The Afghan debacle is ALL BIDEN.
3.) Anyone that expected the Afghan Army to stand strong when we left is totally unfamiliar with how military operations work in the region. My experience is with the NEW Iraqi Army but its similar. No patriotism, not nationalism no motivation to do much of anything.

 

That attitude is what our enemies are counting on.

 

So you agree that Biden's cowardice and confusion is exactly what our enemies are counting on? Yes... exactly.

 

~ Sad but true ... This is the window of opportunity for a strike against USA and/or its' allies. A blundering excuse of a "president " and pathetic administration that basically hates America. However in China's weakness and inability to think logically and Japan , India and Taiwan willing to fight they may hasten their own demise.

 

If a blockade went into place virtually every platform in the US Navy and Airforce arsenal would come into play (including high performance drones). The F35 would definitely play a role but naval strike missions wouldn't necessary be a top priority for it.

 

And since there is no implication that the US would use nukes, this would be very-very stupid. As the launching of any ICBMs by China against the US would start a thermonuclear war.

Even if they managed to pry their submarines away from the ports long enough to put them to sea, the response would likely be the same. SSBNs are nuclear weapon carriers, any such launches would immediately be reacted to as if that is what they were.

And this is not a discussion about a nuclear war, but a conventional one. Because other than nuclear missiles, China has nothing it can attack the US with.

But the F-35 is not on the carrier to attack other ships, that is the job of the F-18s. The role of the F-35 is recon and anti-air missions. It is really only recently that our carriers have only had a single type of fighter on board. Traditionally, they had 2-3 different kinds of fighters, for different missions.

Think of the F-35C as the modern version of the F-14 Tomcat. Those could not launch anti-ship missiles either. So this entire line of discussion is pointless.

I really have no idea what you mean in that. But another of our critical allies is the Philippines. And Australia. And many other islands in the region in addition to Taiwan. An attack on Taiwan would start to destabilize the entire region, likely leading to Findlanization of many.

 

It would not be a priority for it at all. Once again, that is the job of the F-18.

 

A man who knows ... ​

~*~​

 

My point (which I thought obvious) was that, unless the situation changes radically the strategy is to deny China access to the Pacific and Indonesian Archipelago i.e. to contain them. Initially at least that theoretically lets you contain any fighting to the seas around China itself and doesn't require direct assaults on the Chinese mainland. This is important because it both limits potential casualties on both sides, contains the theater of operation AND sends a message to the Chinese at the same time regarding attacks on allies. (We haven't attacked your nation directly,..... yet.) It also means of ground forces are deployed defensively i.e. in the Philippines and elsewhere as required. So again unless the Chinese 'push things' you are limiting the scope of hostilities. Which is a generally considered a good thing.

Already addressed in another post. I simply see no reason to pick out the F-35 for in particular attention. Its role will be vital but so will the role of all the other pieces on the board. That's why their there after all.

Since it wasn't clear I'll clarify. The strategy I posited was based on the idea blockading Chinese civil and military assets within the South China Sea and elsewhere. That means holding the choke points into and out of the East and South China seas. If China doesn't challenge the blockade (fat chance) technically there's no shooting war at all. In reality subs, planes and surface vessels would have to be intercepted well back towards the China's coast before reaching those choke points but the idea is still to minimize the number of allied air and sea assets in either sea at any one time, while keeping ALL of china's assets in there. So 'letting' the Chinese 'have' those seas simply means keeping all their 'stuff' bottled up inside those seas, hugging their own coastline. Allied assets only enter when necessary and don't loiter (except for subs and drones of course). You simply don't want to fight a war of the Chinese Coast if at all avoidable.

 

Are you seriously telling me you didn't get one single vaccination during your entire career in the army as a medical requirement for a particular posting? Then are you suggesting all of the equipment given to the Afghans was going to be removed as part of the exit draw down. Because (A) it wasn't. And (B) Given the country was always going to fall over once the US left that means the non-classified gear was always going to be stay in place with the Afgan defense forces. Which pretty much amounts to giving all to the Taliban no matter what else happened. And that's because (once again) the US pulling out was always going to mean a Taliban 'win'. Even under the best of circumstances, based on events as they unfolded the Taliban would be in Kabul within a year or so.
Finally write to them and tell them to their face what you think of them. I'm sure they'll be pleased to hear from you. As its stands your just dishing them behind their backs. Or don't they deserve the same courtesy you'd expect if someone wanted to challenge your decisions/role in a particular military operation.

 

Who mentioned vaccinations in the Army? I received bunches. Years later, after retiring, on my way through Benning on my way to Iraq as a contractor... I got a whole bunch more (new ones like anthrax and lots of the older ones which had expired). What are you talking about?
Most of the equipment abandoned to the Taliban would have been brought back, especially weapons and associated stuff. Its true that often noncombatant stuff like unarmed vehicles are left behind, it being less expensive to do that than transport it home. But weapons? Nope... that stuff is always scheduled to come home, although its sometimes impossible to bring it back. No system is perfect and its expected that some equipment will be lost... but not the MASSIVE amount left for the Taliban.
I'm sorry you have no clue about the nature of armies in the Middle East. I trained the NEW Iraqi Army in their beginning days. We graduated the First Battalion of the NEW Iraqi Army from basic training at KMTB (Kir Kush Military Training Base) on 3 October 2003. Remember, the nations in the Middle East were essentially established by a bunch of old men with stubby pencils drawing on a map in London after WWI. The people in the region have no nationalism steeped in tradition. Their loyalty is to religion, family and community. Their education is poor, and that contributes too. Ask anyone that has worked side-by-side forces in the region.

 

Which is illegal and therefore a declaration of war.

Why is it that so many people think that a blockade of China is the answer? Do you all actually want to start a war? Because that is how you start a war. And if we were stupid enough to do so, then they would have every right to declare war on us.

As far as the F-35C, you are the one that keeps bringing up that it can not attack ships. If you stop bringing that silly point up, I will not have to comment on it again. The fact it can not attack ships does not matter, neither could the F-14. But did anybody go around whining that the F-14 was worthless because of that reason?

 

Forgive me, I'm an Army guy and have limited knowledge of "Navy stuff". I was unaware that an F-14 and now an F-35C could not attack ships. Can you expand on that? It has always been my understanding that such aircraft could carry a variety of weapons on their wing stores. It would seem to me that a JDAMS would be a fine weapon to carry when attacking a ship. The Joint Direct Attack Munition System was designed to be a "JOINT" weapon for use by all services. I just thought that the ability to attack anything was based on the weapons carried by an aircraft, not the airframe itself. Heck, I knew CW3 Graylon C. Worster, an Army Aviator that attacked an Iranian minelayer with Hydra 70 rockets... very successfully (first combat use of Hydra 70). I guess my question is "Why can't an F-35 carry a JDAMS, which was designed for JOINT use?" I'm not trying to be a wiseguy, I'd really like to know.

 

If you are going against little more than speedboats by third world countries, sure. The F-35C can indeed use many laser guided bombs.

However, in order to use it they would have to literally fly right over it. Certain death if the nation is the US, Russia, China, UK, France, Germany, Japan, or any other military that has significant air defenses on the ship being attacked.

Even the UK learned about that at "Bomb Alley" in the Falklands, when they got jumped by 90 Argentina A-4 aircraft with dumb bombs. Losing 1 of 2 destroyers, as well as 2 of 7 frigates. And most of the other ships were heavily damaged. That was the last major air engagement of surface ships that this could have happened at, because the Brits had damned few anti-air assets that could be used against the inbound fighters.

Trying that today would see most of those 90 fighters destroyed, because of the advancement in the last 40 years of the defensive systems on the ships (plus the Navy would not be so stupid to put them in such a position to be jumped like that).

But the F-35C was not designed to go after ships, even though it is a "multi-role aircraft". It's primary mission is anti-air, with ground attack (not sea attack) as its secondary mission. While there are anti-ship missiles in development, it has not been a priority as that can still be done by the Hornet. At this time it is expected to be in service for at least another 15 years, primarily for that reason. Plus, sometimes it is a good thing to actually not have stealth aircraft.

But yes, the F-14 never had any anti-ship capability. It was purely an air superiority fighter, although later in life they did start to mount bombs on them (and a future "Bomb Cat" upgrade was to have expanded that as well as mount anti-ship missiles before it was retired).

And also why after the punitive attack on Libya in 1986 after the Berlin Disco Bombing, the attack was made not by the Navy (which had a carrier in the Med at the time), but by Air Force F-111 aircraft. The Tomcat was still not a bomber at that time, but the F-111 was a fighter-bomber. In fact, it was also a nuclear bomber.

As I said, traditionally the Navy had at least 2 or 3 classes of fighters on their carriers. One a dedicated air superiority fighter, the other a surface attack one (ground and sea). However, for the first time that ended in 2006 when the Tomcat was retired, leaving them only with a single multi-role fighter to handle both roles. And they used to have even more diverse "fighters", often as tankers (A-6), or recon-electronic warfare aircraft. But during the 90's most of those were retired.

And traditionally, the Navy does most of the air to air and air to ship jobs, while the Marine fighters on board take care of the air to mud roles. But all Naval Aviators are trained to do all missions if needed.

 

The background is a supposed Chinese invasion of Taiwan and a US response (in this case via the mobilization of US armed forces to impose a blockade). In what universe would this not be considered a state of war?

Already answered but to restate;

1) Geography makes it possible (look at a map of the region);
2) It plays to US military strengths (it's large and experienced blue water navy in particular) not Chinese ones and keeps the bulk of US military personnel at a distance from mainland China - which is a good thing;
3) Its a natural force multiplier. The Chinese navy has to fight through choke points and US ground forces are deployed defensibly with Chinese ground forces being the ones who have to stage marine landing operations onto hostile shores (or advancing south through NK which is hardly much better from their perspective).
4) It offers the chance to minimize casualties including civilian casualties on both sides because no-one necessarily has to engage in large scale ground combat amongst civilian populations. China is the one who has to make that choice.
5) If successful it will force China to withdraw from Taiwan but in circumstances that give it the opportunity to save 'face'.
6) No one has to go all 'Dr Strangelove' on the world because the Chinese Central Government's authority and control over mainland China has not been threatened.
7) Large scale damage to infrastructure and hence post war rebuilding costs is minimized (except of Taiwan of course)
It could well work!

I said what I said because that mission is not what it was originally designed or equipped for. It has recently been or is in the process of being modified so it can to perform that role in a pinch but, as you noted only at the cost of losing much of its stealth capability and even then the payload capacity isn't great - compared to other options. I never said the plane was worthless. I did say that in this scenario it didn't have a prominent role to play in air to surface engagements which is true (unless other options aren't immediately available).