[taylodl]

I don't think that's obvious. There's some thought that it may be best to confront China now before they become a superpower, because afterward it would be obviously "No." Taiwan is more critical than you may think. Both Japan and South Korea have assurances of US defense as part of our non-nuclear proliferation pact. If they see us drop the ball on Taiwan, then they know that assurance means nothing. North Korea also knows it can take more aggressive action once the US has revealed its hand. This is not a position the US wants to be in. In the end, I think the US would be forced to aid Taiwan against China much like it has been doing with the Ukraine against Russia. Which is one of the many reasons why the Ukraine is so important.

[mytailorisrich]

Well it is obvious. The US struggled against the PRC in the Korea War and that was when the PRC was at its weakest. Now any direct war betwen the PRC and the US would be unthinkable as that would be catastrophic for both sides and the world (and the PRC is stronger than the USSR ever was).

So there is a lot of rhetoric and strategic fuzziness in public statements but the US are not starting WWIII over Taiwan.

> US would be forced to aid Taiwan against China much like it has been doing with the Ukraine against Russia

Of course they would aid Taiwan and they do now. This is not the same at all.

[taylodl]

I’m not talking about rhetorical support or diplomatic gestures. I’m talking about real aid - military, logistical, and strategic support in the face of actual Chinese aggression. If Japan and South Korea see that the US will not materially aid Taiwan’s defense, then the credibility of US security assurances collapses. That would effectively cede East Asia to China.

So - the US can't be seen as doing nothing because that has disastrous consequences. At the same time, as you point out, the US can't go all-out in defense of Taiwan for fear of igniting widespread conflict. The US needs to be very careful in how it responds.

Good thing this administration is renowned for subtlety and nuance! :)

[mytailorisrich]

> I’m talking about real aid - military, logistical, and strategic support

So do I.

> That would effectively cede East Asia to China.

Not at all. Taiwan is Chinese territory as recognised by everyone. The dispute is the continuation of the Chinese Civil War, i.e. which side controls Taiwan.

China has no expansionist views in East Asia, and the last occurence was when they invaded Korea in 1636 (taking into account that this was right after the Manchu seized control of the whole of China). In fact, the last invasion of East Asia (that continues to this day) was by the US...

[taylodl]

> Taiwan is Chinese territory as recognised by everyone.

Most countries do not recognize Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan. However, they also don't officially recognize Taiwan as an independent country. This is the position of strategic ambiguity. Even the UN has failed to recognize China's sovereignty over Taiwan. Taiwan's status is an unresolved issue in international law.

As for the idea that China has no expansionist views in East Asia, that's not supported by the facts. From Taiwan to the South China Sea to the Senkaku Islands, China has made aggressive territorial claims and has conducted coercive actions below the threshold of war to assert control. These actions aren't defensive - they're strategic moves to reshape the regional order. If the US fails to respond meaningfully, it risks undermining its alliances and ceding East Asia to Chinese dominance.

Bottom line: The U.S. must carefully consider how much political capital it’s willing to spend to prevent Chinese hegemony in East Asia and what the fallout will be if it fails.

[mytailorisrich]

> Most countries do not recognize Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan

That's not true. Most, if not all, countries recognise that Taiwan is a Chinese territory. Taiwan even held the Chinese seat at the UN until 1971. Taiwan is the only Chinese territory still under the control of the Republic of China (ROC). The issue is which side of the Chinese civil war, so PRC vs ROC.

Of course, the issue is weaponised against China in the West by pushing the narrative that Taiwan has nothing to do with China at all... Divide and conquer. That's obvious BS that uses the public's thr ignorance of Chinese history.

> that's not supported by the facts.

Well, it is. When did China threaten to invade Korea or Japan? Again, both of which were invaded by the US.

Taiwan is a Chinese affair and the South China sea (which is not East Asia) is China trying to assert itself, over uninhabited reefs, against undefined borders or borders that were drawn by Western colonial powers without China...

I understand that every country looks after its own interests, and the US are ferocious at it, but in the interest of intellectual curiosity on HN, let's skip over the various propagandas...

In any case, the US are still not going to attack China, nor is China going to attack the US. This would be madness. Proxy wars exist as safety buffers.

[taylodl]

You're right that Taiwan held the China seat at the UN until 1971, and that the ROC and PRC are rival claimants from the Chinese Civil War. But it's important to clarify that most countries do not formally recognize PRC sovereignty over Taiwan. They acknowledge the PRC's claim under the One China Policy, but do not endorse it as a legal fact. This is a deliberate posture of strategic ambiguity, not recognition of sovereignty.

> When did China threaten to invade Korea or Japan?

China has not threatened to invade Korea or Japan in the modern era, but the US also did not invade those countries in the way you're implying. The US occupied Japan after its surrender in WWII and intervened in Korea under a UN mandate to repel North Korean aggression. And just to be clear - Japan attacked the US first and declared war, not the other way around.

> Taiwan is a Chinese affair...

That’s the PRC’s position, but it’s not universally accepted. Taiwan has its own government, military, and democratic institutions. Whether one sees it as a "Chinese affair" depends on whether one prioritizes historical claims, self-determination, or geopolitical stability. All three are valid lenses, but they lead to different conclusions.

> South China Sea... uninhabited reefs, undefined borders...

The South China Sea disputes are governed by international maritime law, particularly UNCLOS. In 2016, the Permanent Court of Arbitration ruled that China’s Nine-Dash Line has no legal basis. The issue isn’t just about reefs - it’s about exclusive economic zones, freedom of navigation, and militarization of contested areas. China’s posture in the region is increasingly assertive and cannot reasonably be described as peaceful.