[jariel]

Those are not really 'options' because they have existential consequences.

'Missiles'? Really? Anyone can theoretically use 'missiles' to knock out the production capacity of some competitor's fabs.

It would be fatal to China's ambitions in everything because the world's reaction would be quite strong.

China has a lot of people upset around the world, but a lot of voices are muted because of perceived repercussions, but something 'over the top' would encourage all of those voices to come out at once.

Even Russia would have to 'think again' about their relationship.

[riku_iki]

Actually Iran used missiles strikes against Saudi Arabia oil facilities very recently as an argument in negotiation. No strong world reaction.

[selectodude]

The US executed Iran’s top general three months later. While it wasn’t directly related, I would be stunned if it wasn’t at all related.

[ardy42]

> Actually Iran used missiles strikes against Saudi Arabia oil facilities very recently as an argument in negotiation. No strong world reaction.

But didn't they do so through proxies, which gives them at least a little deniability?

[riku_iki]

They said it was proxies, but many signs say they executed attack themself.

[akoster]

You make a point but what I think the author is alluding to the fact that the US and allies have countered Chinese military actions (building bases in international territory) with words. If that track record holds, we may also use words to counter a missile strike on a TSMC fab.

[myrandomcomment]

If China attacks Taiwan it would lead to a war. If the USA backs down they are done as a power, the dollar would crash and the US debt would become unsubstantiated. Given that the war would escalate and China has an advantage of being close, the effort the USA would have to put in would cause a great deal of casualties, which would piss off then public in a Japan Pearl Harbor way so we could never back down. The logical course of action given the difference in ICBMs would be for the the USA just to nuke China after they fire the first missile. That’s the real world math. It’s highly likely the USA could destroy China without a great deal of damage. The Russians would sit it out hoping to become stronger after. Not making a moral judgement, just a military & economic one.

Feel free to disagree. I expect a storm of downvotes. Oh well.

[sho]

Do you honestly think the USA would be willing to suffer even one city nuked for any reason at all, let alone to protect some small island in Asia most americans couldn't even find on a map? In my estimation there is absolutely no way they would; the question is laughable. China has over 50 ICBMs. The USA is not going to get into a nuclear exchange for Taiwan.

And it's pretty questionable whether the USA could even do much to stop a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. They could perhaps harass it a little, at great distance to avoid the otherwise inevitable loss of their carriers, but the success or failure of any invasion would largely depend on Taiwan's military and political/national will.

[myrandomcomment]

Is is possible the USA could wipe out the 50 ICBMs before they are launched. It would take around 15-20 minutes for an ICBM from the USA to reach China. A sub off the coast would take that down to less than 5 minutes. If the President gave the order to launch from the subs as soon as the first Chinese missiles hit Taiwan it would be seen as an acceptable risk. The real politic of this has nothing to do with Taiwan per se, but everything to do with the fact that everything is priced in dollars. Allowing China to invade Taiwan without doing anything places the dollar as the world currency in jeopardy. The ability of the USA to borrow money to fund its government and economy is key. Loosing that would pull everything down. So yes, I do believe the US would trade a city or 2 in order to ensure its place at the top of the world order.

[sho]

Lol, no it is not possible. That is not how any of this works. You see to think the location of China's nuclear arsenal is on Google Maps or something. It is not.

In addition to its estimated 10-15 road-mobile DF-31 ICBMs, China has 6 active submarines with 12 missiles each. Even assuming a 50% reliability rate that's 30 cities. The USA would be utterly devastated.

Russia might then decide to simply finish the job.

Your ideas are just so ridiculous I don't need to argue further.

[myrandomcomment]

15 mobile launchers which the US spends a ton of satellite time tracking anything that looks like one. There are 1152 warheads just on the current US SSBN. They would target anything that even looks like a launcher. Assuming half are on Atlantic patrol, that is still 576 warheads. 15 real targets and 561 guesses. The odds are pretty good.

As to the subs the latest China sub is the type 094 which cannot reach the continental US with their current load of JL-2 (7200km) in their current patrol zone. Also they are pretty noise and easily tracked. JL-3 (9000KM) are not in wide service.

The US has a further 10600 or so warheads on ICBM. China’s total count is around 400.

The logical game theory response is for the US to go full nuclear day 0. That is what every general and every theorist in the pentagon will advise the president. I am not saying it’s a good idea, but the logic is sound if you except the fact that the US would be unwilling to allow the dollars position to be challenged.

The leadership of China is pretty damn smart and they know this. I applauded them in playing the long game, something which the last few American governments have forgotten how to do. Our inability to think long term will bring us down, not China.

[AtlasBarfed]

If China is overly militaristic, then Japan will arm itself.

China may hate Japan historically for the atrocities in WW2, but they also fear them for the same reasons.

[jonplackett]

I remember a while back an Adbusters pastiche poster supposedly from Nestlé which read:

Go on then, boycott us! I bet you can't, we make EVERYTHING.

China is Nestlé on steroids. What is anyone really going to do to China? What country can continue to function without Chinese manufacturing?

[m-ee]

The factories are in China, but they're making parts for American or multinational companies. And the CMs themselves may or may not be Chinese. Foxconn is Taiwanese, Flextronics is legally Singaporean but headquartered in the US. Those two alone might be close to a million jobs in China. How can Chinese manufacturing and the Chinese economy function without customers?

[Spooky23]

How long can China last without orders? Or oil? Or minerals from Australia?

If the Chinese political situation broke down to the point that they were bombing fabs in Taiwan, there will be plenty of ways to destabilize their efforts.

[microcolonel]

> 'Missiles'? Really? Anyone can theoretically use 'missiles' to knock out the production capacity of some competitor's fabs.

Yeah but PRC would totally do it. They already gave the go-ahead to their allies to attack U.S. partners with missiles, a first-party strike is really not hard to imagine.

[Synaesthesia]

Looking at history and the strategic positioning of the forces I’d say the US is more likely to strike first.