Would the US act if China invaded Taiwan?

Discussion in 'Warfare / Military' started by Dirty Rotten Imbecile, Nov 4, 2021.

?

Does the USA, and the west, still have what it takes?

  1. Yes

    11 vote(s)
    52.4%
  2. No

    10 vote(s)
    47.6%
  1. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Right. Trying to blockade over 9,000 miles of coastland, and at the same time keep them at a distance.

    No, you put a quarantine zone around Taiwan, you do not try to block off China from the world.

    Especially as you are trying to put the cart before the horse. When is this going to be put in place, before or after they invade Taiwan? Because if they are about to invade or already invading, what good will it do at that time to blockade China? That makes about as much sense as blockading the Japan after it invaded the Philippines. Or blockading Germany after it invaded Poland.

    But somehow, the US is going to blockade almost 10 thousand miles of Chinese coast, from what, hundreds of miles away? We could not even have done that during WWII, when we had almost 7,000 ships. The US Navy is only a fraction of that today. Not even possible.
     
  2. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    4,517
    Likes Received:
    3,138
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What part of the concept of 'choke points' do you not understand? Again look at the map. You might not be able to disrupt China's land based trade routes (at least not easily) but you sure as hell can turn the amount of seaborne trade it engages in to a minimum. An this is the important point - the vast bulk of China's imports and extorts are seaborne. And again obviously this is after any invasion of Taiwan. Its a hypothetical response to hypothetical aggression by China. In what world is anyone going to start a war with China for no reason?

    Also if an invasion has started (and depending on the amount of forewarning there is) it may not be possible to intervene with significant force quickly enough before large numbers of Chinese troops get ashore. Obviously in this case the downside of my option is that there would only be limited military support by the US and its allies to Taiwan directly. But as I keep noting the alternative (and apparently your favored option) is direct intervention by positioning US military forces on and around Taiwan itself. With the commensurate butchers bill since, as I noted before the US and it's allies would be playing directly into China's strengths by positioning its forces close to the Chinese mainland. It also effectively forces US and allied forces to attack targets on the Chinese mainland (for the sake of sheer survival) which is something the option I suggested limits the need for.

    The down side of my suggested option is that yes, China may occupy the island. The upside is that an effective embargo won't let them keep it. It takes longer than your option of fighting on and around Taiwan itself but achieves the same result with far, far less risk and cost. I am also very conscious of the fact that when discussing hypotheticals like this I am not going to be one of the soldiers whose life is being put on the line carrying out whatever it is I've suggested. (Hypothetical is easy when your life isn't on the line.) So when I do make suggestions I try to do it from the perspective of someone who is going to be at risk. My suggestion, I believe has as much, if not more chance of success as yours with far less risk/cost, even if it takes longer to achieve the same end result. And you only get one shot at saving Taiwan.
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2022
  3. Toggle Almendro

    Toggle Almendro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2016
    Messages:
    2,928
    Likes Received:
    721
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not if we never pulled out of Afghanistan to begin with.

    We haven't pulled out of Japan or Germany or South Korea. Why should we have pulled out of Afghanistan?
     
    James California likes this.
  4. James California

    James California Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2019
    Messages:
    11,335
    Likes Received:
    11,469
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ~ Interesting point. I wonder what would have come of Vietnam had we "stayed in place" as we are in S. Korea .. ?
     
    Toggle Almendro likes this.
  5. Toggle Almendro

    Toggle Almendro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2016
    Messages:
    2,928
    Likes Received:
    721
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    South Vietnam would be another Japan/South Korea/Taiwan right now and would be providing the world with marvelous technology.
     
    James California likes this.
  6. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    4,517
    Likes Received:
    3,138
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I've thought that myself from time to time. The key problem was that even if you withdrew all your combat forces and only left training staff, technical support specialists and perhaps a small amount of special forces etc your still committing large numbers of personnel, equipment and money for at least a generation. And that's on top of all the financial and technical support your giving to every other arm of the Afghani government,not just the military. You are literally going to be thee for another 20 years or more.

    Point is there's no easy option. Stay and your there more or less permanently (and is that worth it?) Go, and the place falls over quickly. And to be honest even if the withdrawal had been much, much, better organized than it was I can't see the Afgan government, as inept and corrupt as it was lasting more than one to two years tops before for it collapsed. Even if it wasn't facing internal resistance via the Taliban the government was a kleptocracy and it's treasury would have run dry sooner rather than later.
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2022
  7. Toggle Almendro

    Toggle Almendro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2016
    Messages:
    2,928
    Likes Received:
    721
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't see why this would be a problem. It wasn't a problem for us to stay in South Korea, Japan, and Germany.


    Yes. Very much worth it. We were losing fewer than 20 people a year in Afghanistan, except for a couple of bad years when the toll jumped to 26 people that year.

    How many police officers are killed every year in the US?
     
  8. Toggle Almendro

    Toggle Almendro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2016
    Messages:
    2,928
    Likes Received:
    721
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Blockades are acts of war, but acts of war (including blockades) are not illegal.

    It would not be a declaration of war because war will have already been declared.


    I for one do not favor using a blockade alone. I favor combining a blockade with massive bombardment of China by the US Air Force.


    The war will have already have been started by China. The blockade (and in my proposal, bombardment as well) of China are our response to China's war against the west.


    No. That we defend ourselves from Chinese acts of war does not legitimize those Chinese acts of war.


    The F-35 is capable of carrying two small anti-ship missiles internally and attacking ships with them.

    Whether this is better than a non-stealth fighter carrying four larger anti-ship missiles with longer range is an interesting question.


    We would certainly try to dislodge a Chinese invasion of Taiwan with a massive conventional counter invasion of Taiwan before we ever considered using nuclear weapons.

    But if it transpired that we were unable to dislodge a Chinese invasion of Taiwan conventionally, we would use tactical nukes to dislodge it.


    Ugh. F-35s are terrible at dogfighting at the moment.

    They might get better in a few years if we put larger and more powerful engines in them.


    It is not a good idea to give an air-to-air role to a plane that sucks at dogfighting.


    Is there some reason why the US Navy cannot interdict Chinese vessels in the middle of the ocean?


    Blocking China from the world puts a lot of pressure on their economy.


    After, of course.


    It places tremendous pressure on their economy.


    Those moves both make a lot of sense.


    Is there some reason why the US Navy is unable to interdict Chinese vessels in the middle of the ocean?
     
  9. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    4,517
    Likes Received:
    3,138
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    South Korea, Japan and Germany were historically unified, cohesive states with industrial bases that eventually (even if not immediately) came to appreciate the benefits of US occupation. Afghanistan was and is neither unified or cohesive. Japan and Germany had the Marshal Plan. (Korea didn't but the net effect of integration into the western economies during the 50s and 60s had the same effect.) Afghanistan didn't get a Marshal plan (It got the 'Marshal' part of the deal i.e. the dollars. It just never got the 'plan' bit) and it certainly never had an industrial base to build a modern economy off.
    .
    Your forgetting the billions of dollars being spent to prop up every other aspect of the 'modern Afghani State from healthcare and education through to roads and plumbing. Military spending was only part of the picture.

    How many Afghani's vote in US elections?
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2022
  10. Toggle Almendro

    Toggle Almendro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2016
    Messages:
    2,928
    Likes Received:
    721
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The industrial base would have come in time.

    I still don't see the problem with staying there indefinitely. We should also be occupying Iraq and Libya indefinitely as well.


    I'm still not seeing any problem.


    I have no idea. Why?
     
  11. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    4,517
    Likes Received:
    3,138
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    1) The industrial base will never come. Industry requires a stable government, a coherent legal system, an educated workforce, supporting infrastructure (efficient national road rail and air systems & local utilities, a stable economy, and a robust finance and banking system.) Afghanistan has none of these and wont for generations.

    2) The 'problem' is paying for it, it both lives and dollars. Are you willing to pay the taxes required and/or risk the lives of loved ones required for the investment?

    3) Because self interest and the demands/expectations of potential voters always trumps the interests and expectations of foreigners (who don't). Many if not all Americans have little or no interest in the countries you have named. A large % couldn't even find them on map! They also have relatively short attention spans and little or no interest in the long term geopolitical impacts of strategic decisions made now. Don't get me wrong, the US is not unique in this respect by any means, most western countries are prone to this flaw to. We've all had it too good for far too long to start thinking long term and 'big picture'. That said they do seem to excel at it.
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2022
  12. Toggle Almendro

    Toggle Almendro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2016
    Messages:
    2,928
    Likes Received:
    721
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    All of that would have come in time if we had not abandoned Afghanistan.


    Yes.

    And note again we were losing fewer than 20 people a year, except for occasional spikes where we would lose 26 people in a year.


    Our politicians should strive to look at the big picture and disregard the will of the voters when the voters are wrong.
     
  13. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Which by itself is an act of war. Why do that, when the idea is to keep them off of Taiwan? Why not just put a defense zone up around Taiwan? Does that not make a hole hell of a lot more sense?

    Are you trying to stop a war, or expand it? And if all of our forces are trying to block off CHina (which can still get and send out supplies via air and land), what is defending Taiwan?
     
  14. Toggle Almendro

    Toggle Almendro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2016
    Messages:
    2,928
    Likes Received:
    721
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That is appropriate, since we would be at war.


    Because crippling the enemy economy helps to defeat them.


    No.


    How about: win it.


    If the Air Force is pummeling China from the air, that can curtail those avenues of shipping.

    Besides, how much would China be able to get from the air or over land?


    Hopefully blockade and air bombardment will be enough to make China back down. If not, perhaps the US will need to counter-invade Taiwan. If that doesn't work, then tactical nukes will probably be necessary to dislodge the invasion.
     
  15. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    4,517
    Likes Received:
    3,138
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2022
  16. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    4,517
    Likes Received:
    3,138
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    As I've already stated a couple of times the strategy I outlined is a response to a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, it is not preemptive. And declaring a 'defense zone' around Taiwan is thousands of times easier to say than it is to do given the time available. Assuming little or no warning of the commencement of hostilities there almost certainly wouldn't be time to get significant ground and air support in place on Taiwan.

    I am ‘trying’ to win the war! Apart from whatever material assistance can be transported to Taiwan on short notice (at the risk of being intercepted) the Taiwanese will have to undertake the bulk of the fighting in and around their country alone. Even with advance notice of Chinese intentions placing significant numbers of US forces in Taiwan would take to long. Given short notice only token ground support could be offered, so whats the point? And I remind you that a failure of any counter invasion by the US leaves tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of US military personnel in the hands of the Chinese.

    Lastly neither China or the US have unlimited sea lift capacity. The difference is that the Chinese only have to cross about 200 kilometers or so of ocean to reach Taiwan. The US has to cross what 15000 kilometers of oceans to reach Taiwan from the continental USA. AND, here's the important point.

    Once your sea lift capacity is committed to an invasion its committed. Doesn't matter if your only crossing 10K of water or thousands of K. The strategy I outlined forces China to choose between fully supporting their seaborne invasion of Taiwan with everything they have while ignoring allied defensive operations in their region in places like the Philippines or reducing their commitment in Taiwan from the get go and holding a portion of their sea lift capacity back to support other operations elsewhere. From their perspective both options suck. Which is exactly the situation you want your opponent to be in. And I remind you that under the strategy I outlined all allied troop landings are on 'friendly' territory while every Chinese landing is in hostile territory. Who do think that gives a massive advantage to?
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2022
  17. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You are aware that our largest air base in the region is less than 500 miles away, right?

    And trust me, there will be plenty of warning. We will spot their assembling forces long before they could act with them. They lack the assets to do any kind of major airborne operation, and they could never hope to assemble their naval assets without it being seen days in advance.

    Strategically, the best response is to get the closest carrier group and park it on the east side of the island, as assets from Okinawa and Guam are moved to the area. Assets that include among other things a Marine Division. Use those to bolster the forces on the ground as more assets are moved into place. Then as the second carrier arrives, place it on the west side of Taiwan, between the island and China.

    And there is a hell of a lot of firepower in the area. We have several bomber groups within 2 hours flight time of Taiwan (Diego Garcia and Guam), as well as enough equipment to build two divisions, just add soldiers to operate it. If it looked like China was serious about invading, as they were still assembling their assets we could have three divisions already on the island, multiple fighter wings, and a hell of a lot more.

    It is no longer 1941, there is no way China could even hope to keep such an attack a secret. They would have to start to assemble the units weeks before such an attack, as many of their bases are far from the ports, and their ports have no facilities to house the divisions that would be needed. And the ships would be seen moving, you can't hide those things at all. So why you would think there would be any surprise in this at all I have no idea.
     
  18. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    4,517
    Likes Received:
    3,138
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    A pre invasion military build up would be noticed, so would a build up for large scale 'military exercises'. But .... the US can't push the 'go' button on any active defense of Taiwan until the China actually launches the invasion. Not before it does, until it does. Its that or place most of the US navy in permanent rotation off the coast of Taiwan indefinitely.

    Apart from that all your other points have been addressed you want to push US and allied air assets into mainland Chinese airspace, place most of the US Navy's assets in the south china sea and defend large scale landings by allied forces in Taiwan directly under the nose of the Chinese.

    OK fine, go right ahead. Just as long as your the first person charging onto the beach.
     
  19. Toggle Almendro

    Toggle Almendro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2016
    Messages:
    2,928
    Likes Received:
    721
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How do you prevent China from sinking our carriers?
     
  20. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Oh nonsense. You can't seriously believe that.

    It does not even require putting "most of the US navy in permanent rotation off the coast of Taiwan indefinitely". There is always a carrier in that area, just place it nearby. And fighters can be sent to Taiwan as well as Infantry from Okinawa for "training exercises" in the same way.

    And do you really think that "military exercises" would involve entire divisions of Infantry, and all of their equipment and supplies loaded up onto the ships? And moving most of the PLAN into position close to Taiwan? Do you really think that?

    They are nothing alike, and I have taken part in both training exercises as well as the real thing. The difference is like night and day, they are not even close. All you need is a deterrent, not placing massive assets in place. Because I seriously doubly you even know what would be needed to invade Taiwan. Taiwan has 10 Divisions of soldiers. And following traditional doctrine, China would have to move in at least 20 Divisions. Yes, the PLA has 75 Divisions, but it takes a hell of a lot to move just a single one.

    And a Division occupies a large footprint. Each one is roughly 15,000 men. That means moving 300,000 men, and their equipment. Nobody, and I mean nobody ever trains at that kind of scale. Hell, Regimental (1/3 Division strength) sized exercises is about the largest you will ever see. That is around 4-5,000 men. And you think they are going to move almost a third of a million without it being seen, or confused with a "training exercise"?

    You really do not know how any of this works, do you? I have been trying to talk some reality into you, but you simply fail to grasp reality. You for some reason think that China can do all of that without being seen, there is nothing that can be done to protect Taiwan, and the only reaction is that for some reason the US blockades their ports. I can tell you what, that would be about as pointless as trying to blockade the SOviet Union once they invaded Afghanistan. Silly, pointless, and beyond any kind of reason.

    But I am done, there is a reason why I generally hate when people that have no grasp of military reality decide they have all the answers.
     
  21. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    4,517
    Likes Received:
    3,138
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So your advocating what exactly ? A preemptive strike on China in the event it 'looks like' they might be going to attack? So does the US declare war of just 'Pearl Harbour' them?

    And you believe 1 aircraft carrier and locally based squadrons would be enough to stop the invasion invasion?

    The Chinese are free to call troop deployments whatever they want, regardless of the real intentions behind them. Likewise the US, Taiwan and Allied states are perfectly capable of seeing those preparations for what they actually are (or seem likely to be) and calling them on it. The problem remains however that until such time as China actually initiates its attack the US Taiwan and China are not at officially at war . The question then becomes whether the US (A) has the time to reinforce Taiwan with significant forces (probably not if China is serious) and (B) is prepared to take the risks involved on deploying large numbers of troops into Taiwan as you advocate or considers 'other' options more viable. They can also try to supply Taiwan with key equipment on the fly of course but the same logistics assets they need for that operation would also be required for their own deployments into the region and time would be short if China decided they could not afford to wait.

    I am aware of the scale/complexity/footprint of divisional and corps sized military mobilizations which is why preparations for an invasion of Taiwan would be detected. The problem is that the Allied response then becomes a race us vs them, how quickly can each side get into their start positions. Again look at a map. You tell me who has the head start. And as I noted before there is no invasion still the first shots are fired. So are you suggesting that should be the US?

    As for Afghanistan? That is a poor analogy. Russia was and is not reliant on seaborne trade for its economic lifeblood, China is. Russia's main exports are oil and gas which travels via pipeline. Those can be turned off but Europe is as dependent on those gas supplies as Russia is on the income that gas generates. China imports all its oil and gas (again almost exclusively by sea) China also imports most of the raw materials it needs for its industries again by sea. Russia imports little if any raw materials. China is heavily reliant on the export trade in manufactured goods to generate jobs and income. Care to guess how they're exported? Again Russia is..... not.

    In summery China is particularly vulnerable to any long term blockade of it seaward approaches. Russia is not. Perhaps you can now seem why I emphasize the potential utility of the blockade strategy. Yes it takes longer and yes it may result in a Chinese occupation of Taiwan (at a huge cost) but it is far far less risky for the US and it's allies and would (within a year) force China to choose between remaining in control of the island or accepting economic collapse. And please note I would infinitely prefer neither option was required, that is far and away my preferred military strategy - don't fight at all.

    Self loathing?
     
  22. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    When did I ever say that? Have I not said deterrence?

    And no, China is not "particularly vulnerable" to blockades. Because for one, the moment they made a hard move on Taiwan all of their trade would stop. Plus they have a hell of a lot of land routes. And setting up a blockade is an act of war. There are a hell of a lot better things to do with your forces then have them sitting off the coast.

    Hell, we could not do it even if we wanted to! We lack the ships needed, we do not even have the number of ships we had during the Civil War. You idea of a blockade is guaranteed to start or expand a conflict, and is impossible anyways.
     
  23. Toggle Almendro

    Toggle Almendro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2016
    Messages:
    2,928
    Likes Received:
    721
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sure they are. Blockading them would cripple their economy.


    That's perfectly OK considering the fact that we'd be at war with them.


    Who needs ships? The East China Sea can be cut off from the Pacific with fighter jets flying out of Japan.

    But the US Navy is more than able to interdict Chinese shipping in the middle of the ocean should any ships make it past the inner blockades.
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2022
  24. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    4,517
    Likes Received:
    3,138
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You may not believe me but you can look it up. The vast majority of China's trade is seaborne. It certainly imports almost all its oil gas, iron ore etc via ship and most of its export carry is handled the same way. Again the map tells the picture. It has the 'Stans' to its West which are small economies with poor infrastructure, then the Himalayas to the South which make land transport difficult and Russia to its North with whom they do trade but again the Eastern Russia/Siberia is the poorest, lowest population density part of Russia Country and physical goods then have to shipped westward by rail. Finally their biggest trading partners are far and away in North America, Europe and Korea/Japan/South East Asia and again most of that moves by sea.

    As for the blockade idea itself? Geography gives you the natural choke points which reduce the amount of sea you have to cover and at the same time plenty of allied airfields to operate aircraft from. And no-one would seriously suggest using sea power alone, if only because of the need to counter Chinese air power. And on top of that of course your land forces are deployed defensibly, protecting the bases and territories needed to contain China.

    Finally we both agree the Allies are in no real position to act until an invasion commences and that we would have advance warning of the buildup, being at least be partially prepared, as a result. The issue I have with direct intervention in Taiwan is that once the fighting starts it literally becomes a race between the Allies and China to see who can get land and air forces onto the ground in Taiwan first. And that's a race where they have certain advantages - again see the map.

    If we act preemptively and move military assets into Taiwan before the fighting starts China can just 'stop the clock' and wait the Allies out (the reinforcements we sent have to leave sometime) then start it again as soon as they do. Alternately, once the fighting starts even with some forces still deployed in the region it still takes time to 'surge' all the assets needed for the war 'back' to Taiwan. Only now we would have to move it into Taiwan under fire. (And even with the most optimistic of projections that means our forces would take losses, including ground troops etc during the transfer process before even getting into the fight). So it stays a race, we'd probably win, but we might not, and if we lose that race we lose big time, with lots of men and equipment at the bottom of the South China Sea. Even winning it would potentially come at a heavy cost.

    Which is not to say it isn't doable. Taiwan would certainly buy time for such an operation. I just think the potential cost is too high, particularity as we would have to strike at targets on the Chinese mainland opposite Taiwan just out of self defense - which ratchets up the potential risks of the war enormously.

    Finally nothing says a blockade strategy is passive. Historically it's never been that way. Once the blocking forces are in place they are free co-ordinate with the Taiwanese and attack Chinese air, sea and ground targets on or near Taiwan itself and throughout the South China Sea. They just do so from a distance.
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2022
  25. Toggle Almendro

    Toggle Almendro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2016
    Messages:
    2,928
    Likes Received:
    721
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It may still be a good idea to do that if we see China building up. After we draw down, as soon as China restarts the clock and begins to build back up again, if we are vigilant we can start moving forces back into Taiwan once again.

    If we are vigilant about moving forces into Taiwan every time China tries to ready themselves for invasion, we might prevent that invasion from ever happening.

    Doing this might be tedious, and it might not work in the end. But if it prevents China from ever attacking Taiwan (and thereby prevents the war from ever starting to begin with) to me that makes it worth trying.

    If the above strategy fails and China does invade Taiwan, we can still then mount a blockade like you favor (or blockade and bombardment as I favor).
     

Share This Page