[mLuby]

2) A giant smokescreen? Creeping (missile) barrage of the beach? There are plenty of ways to make it hard to target anything on a beach. Air cover and missile defense will be a big deal.

3) You mean the civilian population will fight to the death? Absolutely no way that's true. Russia showed the way in Crimea: offer incentives to those who support the "liberation"; it both erodes defender support and gives the attackers more legitimacy.

5) Headlines for days, sure, but recently the West has shown that its "red lines" are more crossable than they might appear.

If the PRC ever manages to take even momentary control of Taiwan, there's no way they let it slip away again. And remember that the ocean supply lines heavily favor China over the US (even from Japan or South Korea) for any sort of protracted conflict. The only wild card is nuclear weapons, and all we can do is hope that neither side is insane enough to use them, "tactically" or "strategically."

Pacific NATO was called SEATO. We might be surprised at how few committed and capable allies we'd have. It'd be in most countries' interest to stay neutral in an uncertain war between the current and future economic superpowers. I'd also wager that there'll be much less domestic support for sending hundreds of thousands of Americans to die over Taiwan than there was as a response to Pearl Harbor.

[chrononaut]

> I'd also wager that there'll be much less domestic support for sending hundreds of thousands of Americans to die over Taiwan than there was as a response to Pearl Harbor.

The US was interfering in Japan's affairs (particularly hampering access to oil) in the lead up to late 1941, even though support for either war was in the low 60%s prior to Pearl Harbor (amazingly as low as 7% when the Netherlands, Belgium, and France were invaded).[0] The US government, in some respects, forced the Japanese's hands in a stretched gamble by attacking it first. In a hypothetical confrontation, given the historical support US (among others) have shown Taiwan, even the existing interference alone could force China's hands to take some action that causes a drastic increase in domestic support.

In other words, my wager is that you're probably correct, but the probability of a forced action after some aggression has taken place, which subsequently causes an increase of domestic support would be more likely to occur.

[0] https://exhibitions.ushmm.org/americans-and-the-holocaust/us...

[jjaammee]

Not sure US baiting Japan for Pearl harbor, but nowadays US is not the country 80 years ago. Politicians, military leaders are not as capable, more critically the industrial base is crippled. The king almost naked.

[jollybean]

2) If you've seen these type of landings, you know that 'smoke screens' are not an area cover, just some very local cover. They can be accounted for.

Missiles barrages are not particularly useful unless they have some kind of targeting ability that we don't know about. There are not enough missiles, same for artillery. They will be able to hit communications centres and established defences, but as I said, if there is a '2 man team weapon' - and Taiwan can actually deploy them, the landings will be painful.

3) I don't agree with the Crimea Taiwan comparison.

  a) 1/2 of Crimeans were pro-Russian, the rest not necessarily nationalist, or prepared. There was no material military defence of Crimea, Ukraine is poor, corrupt, and uncoordinated. Crimea is fairly sparsely populated, and nobody in the world cares about it, other than the fact it was 'taken'.

  b) Taiwan is a rich, highly populated country, a strong sense of identity even if their a Pro Mainland nationalists, there are millions otherwise. They wealthy, very well prepared, very well organized. They have weapons, training a political cause. Taiwan is a mid-sized economy 'that matters'.

If CCP completely overruns Taiwan in a very heavy-handed way, with visible footprint everywhere (tanks rolling through most areas), then there might be a lack of an uprising.

But if there is any coordinated attempt by Taiwan to prepare for that, and any material ability for fighters to operate, there will be ongoing fighting.

5) I think you're misunderstanding the 'reaction'.

Yes, if CCP did 'Take Taiwan' - then there's probably no way anyone would uproot them directly. Unless there was an ongoing civil uprising etc. - then it's going to belong to China.

But there would be a 1) Geopolitical re-orientation like there never has been and 2) Americans do not rollover when there is blood involved. If China 'sinks a US ship' then 'they will pay' probably a disproportionately heavy price.

'Asian NATO' will form under completely new auspices: India, Vietnam, Philippines, Japan, Korea etc. are now witnessing the China Dragon with a military conflict and so their fear escalates.

To your point about 'Neutrality' - Singapore might be, but not others, like India, Japan, Korea, and Arab countries which the US has incredible power over.

The 'South China Sea' probably becomes the forum for retribution, and I can see a multinational force, led by the US declaring that area 'open seas' and basically attacking any Chinese forces there. That'd be one way for the US to get their 'pound of flesh' to save face.

Pan Pacific Trade v2 would surely happen for the same reasons - it was going to happen, the only reason it did not was Trump, and now that he's killed it, it's just too hard to get going again. But a Taiwan invasion would trigger that. The 'possibly neutral' countries on the military side would more likely join this - their 'neutrality' is mostly based on fear of China, not fear of the West.

A Taiwan invasion might probably mean immediate trade war between the US and China, with the rest of the world dragged in.

And the more global geopolitical repercussions would be a little bit similar to the Cold War. The US/EU/UK/India/Japan/Korea+Others 'side' would put immense pressure on the system to try to isolate China.

Again, yes, I think China would end up keeping Taiwan, but it's the 'realignment' outside China that is the real impact.

Anyhow - direct invasion of Taiwan would be a big deal.

[nl]

I think you are radically underestimating the soft power China has in Asia. Countries like Vietnam and the Philippines are far from Chinese allies, but have little faith in US commitment to the region and have to survive in the region.

There's probably a number of people in leadership positions in the region who accept the realpolitik that is isn't worth fighting China over Taiwan.

> Americans do not rollover when there is blood involved.

Plenty of recent evidence says otherwise.

[jollybean]

Your point about Vietnam and Philippines wavering on direct conflict is well taken but I did hint at that.

I didn't say 'they would be going to war over Taiwan' - I would agree with you there there.

In the geopolitical realignment, they'd be in a difficult situation, and though they might not join the Asian NATO, they'd join the new Trade Pact.

Neither Sweden nor Finland nor Austria belong to NATO either, but there's a fair degree of coordination still.

But Japan, S. Korea, India would, and that's the start of a fairly powerful coalition - some of which would probably engage the Chinese Navy in S. China sea, and maybe be involved in blockades.

"Americans do not rollover when there is blood involved Plenty of recent evidence says otherwise. :

I don't know what you mean. 9/11 resulted in two major wars and that was a non-state actor.

China sinking a couple of US ships is definitely an act of war, the only question would be 'how' the US would respond. It would be in blood, not just 'sanctions'.

[nl]

> I don't know what you mean. 9/11 resulted in two major wars and that was a non-state actor.

As I said elsewhere: In the last few years the US has been run out of Iraq by Iran, Syria by Russia and Afghanistan by the Taliban. I don't see much appetite for going back to any of those.

Or more starkly: The US lost both those wars and the US population is sick of it.

If China sank a couple of US ships, I'm sure the US would declare war. But China would be 100% committed to winning an invasion of Taiwan, no matter what the cost.

The US.. not so much.

> Japan, S. Korea, India would, and that's the start of a fairly powerful coalition - some of which would probably engage the Chinese Navy in S. China sea, and maybe be involved in blockades.

Note that none of these countries have every said they would defend Taiwan in the event of an invasion. That's statement is conspicuously absent from anyone at all, actually.

As for a blockade, I think you are - again - overestimating support Taiwan has, and underestimating the realpolitik that would happen.

Where are the blockades over Chinese behaviour in Hong Kong? Or diplomatic protests? Or...anything at all other than newspaper articles?

[jollybean]

The US was not run out of Iraq by Iran, not was it run out of Syria by Russia. That's a total misrepresentation of the situation.

The US lost the political will to stay in Afghanistan. It wasn't actually that difficult or costly, just not worth it.

There was no appetite for war after Vietnam, and yet Iraq 1, Iraq 2 and Afghanistan all happened.

If China invaded Taiwan, then the 'appetite for war would change' and if a couple of American ships were sunk, then the 'appetite for war' would be at 100%.

Sometimes I think I'm debating young people with no living memory of how these things change over time and how Americans absolutely do not tolerate direct attacks.

Pearl Harbour, 9/11, both had devastating consequences.

[nl]

I'm 46.

America was run out off Syria by Russia. There was lots of other things going on too, but Russia got a deep water port in the Mediterranean - something that both the British and American empires tried to stop for hundreds of years - before the Crimean war.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/10/08/after-five-years-of-fig...

https://www.news18.com/news/opinion/after-10-years-of-syrian...

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/trump-applauds-russia-vic...

I mean Turkish forces shelled a US post in Syria at one point and laughed about it. That's how worried the rest of the world is about US appetite for war.

https://www.militarytimes.com/2019/10/13/us-troops-believe-t...

Iran has run America out of Iraq.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/18/leaked-cables-...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/18/leaked-cables-...

Where was any appetite to do anything about China's actions in HK?

[kenneth]

> As I said elsewhere: In the last few years the US has been run out of Iraq by Iran, Syria by Russia and Afghanistan by the Taliban. I don't see much appetite for going back to any of those.

As was said elsewhere here, the Afghanistan war was won quickly. Afghanistan was also easily kept. And that's fighting against an opponent using guerilla tactics. What failed was nation-building. But that's not the goal with a confrontation with China. The goal is symmetric warfare to hold back an invasion. Defensive warfare is easier than offensive, so the cost would be far higher on China invading than Taiwan/US defending.

[nl]

At what point was the Taliban defeated?

There was perhaps a short period before the Iraq war where they were close to defeat but from memory there was never a point they stopped fighting.

[mLuby]

Second time you've mentioned this mysterious "2-man team weapon" that can make hostile amphibious landings "nary [sic] impossible" or "painful."

Care to share a link? All I can think of is https://pacificrim.fandom.com/wiki/Jaeger XD