[echelon]

Why not?

China and Russia are ramping up on military presence, maneuvers, and armament. Our top businesses are constantly under attack by nation state actors. I've witnessed a few attacks directly.

I'd be willing to bet that there will be some action taken in Ukraine and Taiwan within the decade, possibly simultaneously.

[fallingknife]

I feel like the best way to prevent a Taiwan situation is to give them nukes. China would never invade if it meant losing their 10 largest cities. And when they throw a fit just say "but China, you already had nukes. Which part of China they are in is no concern of ours."

[Eelongate]

Japan, South Korea and Taiwan are all considered latent nuclear powers; they each operate numerous nuclear reactors and likely have the material and expertise on hand to create nuclear weapons in a matter of months (if they ever chose to.)

[dividedbyzero]

Wouldn't Taiwan need a credible second strike capability as well? The US probably can't credibly guarantee their safety, so they'd need to be able to do that themselves, otherwise the threat is empty and useless.

But say the US really did arm Taiwan with first and second strike capabilities, I don't even think the US could stomach the reaction to that. How long could they hold out if embargoed by the PRC?

[kelnos]

Wouldn't a PRC embargo of the US hurt the PRC nearly as much as the US?

[fallingknife]

More. Exports to the US are a much greater % of Chinese GDP, than Chinese imports are of US GDP.

[Eelongate]

The US Navy could block all Chinese exports and imports by sea around the world, not only those between China and America. This is why China's "Belt and Road Initiative" (aka the 'New Silk Road') is so important to China. It's meant to decrease China's reliance on shipping for international trade, by opening up land routes across Eurasia.

[randomopining]

I always said the same thing. Give those 3 nukes and then declare defensive strike doctrine. My military friend says “it’s not a good idea” but I don’t see why. Call their bluff.

[dirtyid]

>I don’t see why

Because simply PRC has never been deterred by nukes over sovereignty issues. It has fought with nuclear US, USSR and India over core interests less interest than TW. Former two while PRC wasn't nuclear power herself.

Also because TW is thoroughly infiltrated by PRC spies, and TW even hinting nuclearizing gives PRC legitimate casus belli to go to war with relatively few consequences due to proliferation concerns. Not to mention US would be arming weapons of mass destruction to CCP's antagonist in domestic Chinese civil war. PRC would likely treat any nuclear US on TW's part as direct US nuclear launch. If it's going to trade Taipei for Shanghai, it's going to make sure US loses NYC as well for participating.

Reality is nuclear deterrence doesn't actually deter when core security interests are involved, i.e. USSR HAD nukes on Cuba during the crisis and US was still willing to invade.

[randomopining]

So you’re saying CCP doesn’t care about getting nuked or doesn’t think Taiwan would use in a hot war.

Maybe they didn’t care about nukes in the 50’s and 60’s because they were just in the midst of war and suffering, and Mao was a fervent ideologue.

Plus Taiwan isn’t any material threat to the mainland. It’s not a core security concern, as seen by the mainlands transformation from 1970-now. If it was, and the US was using it to choke off and destroy the CCP - it would have done so decades ago.

I think their whole Taiwan thing is trash and we need to call their bluff on it. Arm all 3 and declare defensive use.

[TheOtherHobbes]

Year.

Possibly month.

[senectus1]

yeah I rarely believe things that the US military industrial and political complex says. Bu this is not a hard thing to belive.