If China invades Taiwan, should the US intervene militarily?

Politics Taiwan Politics
,
#1

If China invades Taiwan, should the US intervene militarily?

  • Only if it’s an unprovoked invasion
  • Not if Taiwan provoked the invasion with formal TI
  • Not at all. Let the Taiwanese defend themselves
  • No, the cost of intervening would be too great for US
  • Yes, regardless of the circumstances.

0 voters

Do you support the US intervening militarily on behalf of Taiwan if the PRC invades?

I think the PRC has built up area denial capabilities over the last decade that could easily sink a US aircraft carrier. If war breaks out between the PRC and the US over Taiwan, the PRC is likely to use assymetrical warfare, targeting electrical grids, telecommunications, and transportation networks in the US with cyber-warfare.

Arguably, the PRC’s cyberwarfare defenses are better prepared than US cyberwarfare defenses. Every year, hackers from the PRC target DoD and intelligence networks in the US. President Obama admitted that current US cyberdefenses are weak.

President Clinton sent two carrier groups into the Taiwan Strait in 1996. A bold action like that is unlikely to happen again considering the PRC’s growing military capabilities. In 2007, a Chinese submarine surfaced next to the USS Kitty Hawk unnoticed. The PRC also has developed a DF-21 cruise missile that can strike a moving target at sea at supersonic speed.

Considering the changing dynamic, do you think the US should still intervene militarily on behalf of Taiwan?

#2

‘should’ - yes.

But they won’t. Actually, they probably can’t anymore.

#3

just write off all bonds held by China. that would hit them where it hurts.

America has no contract to defend Taiwan, but to supply them with the means to do so themselves.

Would they like to fight the Chinese army over Taiwan? Yes and No, I guess. They still Could, I believe, unlike Tomthorne, but the political will might be lacking. Still, it would be one way to get rid of many if those aging minuteman missiles that require so much expensive upkeep.

#4

[quote=“tomthorne”]‘should’ - yes.

But they won’t. Actually, they probably can’t anymore.[/quote]

Sure they could. But it would be a real nasty fight. The US would basically have to bomb the shit out Chinese military bases on the mainland, and do some nuclear brinkmanship. It’s hard to see why they would do that for Taiwan. On the other hand, the war would probably mark the end of the career of many senior CCP leaders and put China back 10 years economically, what with the disruption of trade and investment flows, not to mention social unrest due to loss of jobs. It’s hard to see why they’d risk that for Taiwan, however there are some hotheads in the PLA.

#5

[quote=“tomthorne”]‘should’ - yes.

But they won’t. Actually, they probably can’t anymore.[/quote]

The Taiwan Relations Act of 1972 stipulates that the U.S. is required to “provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character”, and “to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan.” Meanwhile, the Taiwan Relations Act does not require the U.S. to intervene militarily if the PRC attacks or invades Taiwan, and the U.S. has adopted a policy of “strategic ambiguity” in which the U.S. neither confirms nor denies that it would intervene in such a scenario.

In the late 1990s, Congress passed a non-binding resolution stating that relations between Taiwan and the U.S. will continue to be honored through the TRA, and was signed by President Bill Clinton.

So in other words, they can and they will (e.g. are you not paying attention to the military drills in S. Korea?). Strategic ambiguity (muscle-flexing) is what the U.S. does best. However, given the current economic and political instability in the U.S., added to myriad foreign affair contingencies, it’s very hard to imagine anything more than a couple of flotillas in the Taiwan Strait acting merely as a “bodyguard” for Taiwan.

All that said, even more unlikely is a PRC “invasion” of Taiwan.

  • some of the above wording is direct from Wikipedia.
#6

[quote=“reztrop”]The PRC also has developed a DF-21 cruise missile that can strike a moving target at sea at supersonic speed.
[/quote]
Not tested yet. The range of estimates on when they will test it range from within a year to as far as ten years from now. This is a truly scary weapon, though. Even though the Soviets had the same disadvantage as the PRC on the high seas against carrier groups, there was agreement during the coldwar that anti-ship ballistic missiles would not be developed. The reasoning was that during the relatively high states of alertness and nuclear brinkmanship of the time, it would be assumed that any ballistic missile launched at a carrier in the open ocean would be nuclear armed. Conventional warheads would not have made sense then because any attack on a carrier would have been the prelude to, or part of, a nuclear strike or counterstrike. Nuclear warheads would also have ensured that the job got done on the first strike, which was necessary given that the over-the-horizon and space-based radars used to provide targeting information to the missile would have been destroyed within 30 minutes of a war breaking out. The perception was that these sorts of missiles would serve as part of a decapitation strategy, which under MAD theory was considered extremely destablizing.

In the present situation, there isn’t the same assumption that any DF-21 launched at a carrier group would be nuclear armed. This is tricky for the US. If a conventional warhead hits a carrier at 8 times the speed of sound, that carrier will probably go to the bottom with most of its crew of 5,000. Can the US threaten to respond to such a conventional attack with nukes in order to deter? It seems highly unlikely that these missiles could be intercepted. The only real protection from them is strikes against the soft targets that provide targeting data for the missiles. That would mean taking the time to destroy over-the-horizon radars and space-based sensors before sending a carrier anywhere near Taiwan. There would still be the risk that recon jets or subs could provide good enough data for a missile to be launched and then correct its trajectory on re-entry as it detects the carrier with optical sensors.

#7

I assmue the OP is referring to invasion by military force, no? That seems like
a waste of time, money, and international reputation for the PRC. Unless
Taiwan or a foreign nation(US, Japan, Liechtenstin, or whatever) unilaterally
declared independence or start a cross-strait war, I think the risk of a full
military confrontation as quite unlikely.

However…

What if the PRC manages to coerce Taiwan into a political shotgun marriage?
(i.e. forced annexationi without firing a single shot… sort of like how Japan
managed to annex Korea a hundred years ago?) Does the US or its allies have
any justification to come to Taiwan’s aid in such a scenario?

#8

no

#9

If there is a military attack by the PRC/CCP upon the island of Taiwan and it lasts longer than 36 hours the US military will respond. Current estimation is that it will not last that long.

[quote]Arguably, the PRC’s cyberwarfare defenses are better prepared than US cyberwarfare defenses.[/quote]Wrong.[quote]Every year, hackers from the PRC target DoD and intelligence networks in the US.[/quote]And they are discovered, thwarted and rendered neutral. Thats the way the game is played. We do the same to them.[quote] resident Obama admitted that current US cyberdefenses are weak.[/quote] And this is supposed to mean…what? This putz also bows to mohammedan tyrants… :loco:

#10

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]If there is a military attack by the PRC/CCP upon the island of Taiwan and it lasts longer than 36 hours the US military will respond. Current estimation is that it will not last that long.

I got to agree with TC on these two: the US government and military have good reasons to keep unadvertised their total cyberintelligence and attack capabilities, and to let their “failures” be advertised: it keeps would-be attackers off-balance and misinformed, it lures the bastards into traps, and it keeps the intelligence and military budgets high and continuous. Let’s not forget that in all three “theaters” it is generally only the failures we hear about - and even then probably only a small portion of them - and nearly none of the successes.

Right, and W and Clinton and Bush were SO TOUGH on the Saudis and the Iranians. Christ, if you call how Obama handles the Middle East “bowing”, then I’m sure you’d consider what W did for 8 years to the Saudis nothing short of bending over and letting them give him what fer. And negotiations are the equivalent of bowing? That’s bright: how can you go mystical behind-the-scenes on cyberwarfare, intelligence, and military power, but so simplistic on Obama and how he handles foreign policy?

#11

maybe… if the PRC attacks TW , all the China Chinese would rise up and vote to become Taiwanese? This way they could send their kids to mostly empty TWnese universities? They could tour TW without visa? etc and et al.

(and i could get all the six numbers right)

#12

[quote=“Jive Turkey”][quote=“reztrop”]The PRC also has developed a DF-21 cruise missile that can strike a moving target at sea at supersonic speed.
[/quote]
Not tested yet. The range of estimates on when they will test it range from within a year to as far as ten years from now. This is a truly scary weapon, though. Even though the Soviets had the same disadvantage as the PRC on the high seas against carrier groups, there was agreement during the coldwar that anti-ship ballistic missiles would not be developed. The reasoning was that during the relatively high states of alertness and nuclear brinkmanship of the time, it would be assumed that any ballistic missile launched at a carrier in the open ocean would be nuclear armed. Conventional warheads would not have made sense then because any attack on a carrier would have been the prelude to, or part of, a nuclear strike or counterstrike. Nuclear warheads would also have ensured that the job got done on the first strike, which was necessary given that the over-the-horizon and space-based radars used to provide targeting information to the missile would have been destroyed within 30 minutes of a war breaking out. The perception was that these sorts of missiles would serve as part of a decapitation strategy, which under MAD theory was considered extremely destablizing.

In the present situation, there isn’t the same assumption that any DF-21 launched at a carrier group would be nuclear armed. This is tricky for the US. If a conventional warhead hits a carrier at 8 times the speed of sound, that carrier will probably go to the bottom with most of its crew of 5,000. Can the US threaten to respond to such a conventional attack with nukes in order to deter? It seems highly unlikely that these missiles could be intercepted. The only real protection from them is strikes against the soft targets that provide targeting data for the missiles. That would mean taking the time to destroy over-the-horizon radars and space-based sensors before sending a carrier anywhere near Taiwan. There would still be the risk that recon jets or subs could provide good enough data for a missile to be launched and then correct its trajectory on re-entry as it detects the carrier with optical sensors.[/quote]

The US Navy should have a high-powered laser weapon that can shoot down fast moving ASMs. Surely the DoD would not want to release to the public the latest version of its anti-missile laser weapon…

Also what about the Aegis defense system? Can they setup a defense perimeter around an aircraft carrier with the capability to shoot down these missiles?

The US should be prepared to disconnect its electrical grid from the Internet if war breaks out with the PRC. Also break up the electrical grid into smaller decentralized units. That way electricity in the US won’t be affected by cyberwarfare.

#13

[quote=“reztrop”]

The US Navy should have a high-powered laser weapon that can shoot down fast moving ASMs. Surely the DoD would not want to release to the public the latest version of its anti-missile laser weapon…

Also what about the Aegis defense system? Can they setup a defense perimeter around an aircraft carrier with the capability to shoot down these missiles?[/quote]
I am reminded of a conversation about this that I had with my dad a couple of weeks ago. He just insisted that the US Navy MUST already have a way of defending a carrier from these ballistic missiles. Some people just can’t fathom that a huge weapon system like a US carrier could potentially be so vulnerable.

Do you remember all the hype about the “Scud busting” capabilities of the Patriot Missile in Gulf War I? It later turned out that hardly any of those Scud warheads were hit, and they weren’t travelling at anything near the speed that a DF-21 warhead would be moving at. It is extremely difficult to hit a warhead that is moving so damn fast, even if there are no decoys falling with it. The closure rate between the warhead and its interceptor would be nearly mach 10. Even if some kind of laser could be trained on one of these warheads, atmospheric vapor and pollution, along with sheilding and speed would make it difficult for a laser to destroy its target.

#14

[quote]It is extremely difficult to hit a warhead that is moving so damn fast, even if there are no decoys falling with it. The closure rate between the warhead and its interceptor would be nearly mach 10.
[/quote]

Well, it was done in 1960 with Sprint ABM. (nuclearabms.info/Sprint.html)
It had nuclear warhead but had to be detuned to avoid striking directly at the target.

On the other hand deploying 3.5 tonne missile accelerating at 100g on a ship would be expensive.

BTW it is amazing what a right motivation (threat of nuclear destruction) and good funding can achieve:
youtube.com/watch?v=5vq4mWyYl2Y

#15

within the next 5 to 7 years, PRC will have enough submarines to carry out a full-scale blockade of the Taiwan Strait,
as well as the deep waters east of Taiwan.(which are known for being really, really deep)

if I were a PRC submarine commander, my strategy may be to just find a deep spot, shut everything off, and wait.
don’t even need one of them fancy new carriers from Russia… a quiet old diesel-electric will do just fine… :slight_smile:
in order for a U.S. CVBG to be effective, it still must sail reasonably close to Taiwan in order to launch an attack
on PRC forces(either the mainland, or an invasion force that had already landed on Taiwan) The US carrier will
have very little chance of detecting a submarine that’s just sitting there waiting, like a bear trap. When the carrier
is within a couple of nautical miles on top of me, I’ll launch as many torpedoes as I can and get the hell out of
there. Obviously the chances of chances of actually sinking a carrier is 50% at best, but disabling the carrier
is just as useful.

Oh… in the above-mentioned scenario, my crew and I will probably not make it out alive, so it’ll be more or less
a kamikaze mission… :frowning: Last, but not least, no carrier can survive a nuclear attack from the PRC. While the
PRC has always stated their no-first-use policy, it’s always very carefully-worded. They only promised not to
be the first one to use nuclears on foreign soil. Notice how the PRC generals always use the word “soil”
and always emphasizing it? Call me Judy and spank my Euro wild boars, but I intepret that as the PRC leaving
open first-use nuclear attack option over/under water(against warships and especially US CVBGs).

#16

alternatively, I was thinking about the Japanese factor. in the even that China invades Taiwan,
Japan should probably stay out of any US military action. letting Japan participate will no
doubt enrage the PRC into a nationalistic frenzy beyond belief.

#17

I’ve been told that if China gets Taiwan, it’ll be able to control the South China Sea. That means China will have its boot on the most direct line of supply of oil for Japan and South Korea (and probably have some impact on same for the US). Then China would probably start making more forceful claims to other parts of other countries and gradually draw them into its orbit.

Some people seem to think the US would just stand by and let that happen. I don’t think so. Uncle Sam (and somewhere in the dark misty background, I bet, Perfidious Albion) will have already made plans about this (and economy be damned, money will be found). The Americans (and Brits) continue their military research and there are rumours of new weapons in the pipeline (a few years ago there were a handful of drones in Afghanistan now there are several thousand). Don’t forget how America mobilized in WW2. China is too big a threat to ignore.

So yes, the US is going to try to avoid a fight with ‘strategic ambiguity’ but if push comes to shove if they have to fight to stop China taking over the South China Sea they’ll do it and I bet the Chinese know it.

#18

[quote=“Taiwanlight Zone”]I’ve been told that if China gets Taiwan, it’ll be able to control the South China Sea. That means China will have its boot on the most direct line of supply of oil for Japan and South Korea (and probably have some impact on same for the US). Then China would probably start making more forceful claims to other parts of other countries and gradually draw them into its orbit.

Some people seem to think the US would just stand by and let that happen. I don’t think so. Uncle Sam (and somewhere in the dark misty background, I bet, Perfidious Albion) will have already made plans about this (and economy be damned, money will be found). The Americans (and Brits) continue their military research and there are rumours of new weapons in the pipeline (a few years ago there were a handful of drones in Afghanistan now there are several thousand). Don’t forget how America mobilized in WW2. China is too big a threat to ignore.

So yes, the US is going to try to avoid a fight with ‘strategic ambiguity’ but if push comes to shove if they have to fight to stop China taking over the South China Sea they’ll do it and I bet the Chinese know it.[/quote]

I think we have a relatively good track record at keeping our word. Belgium in 1914, Poland in '39. Obviously, both times we had to do it pretty much on our own.

#19

Well, would Taiwan intervene if China invaded the US? I think not.

#20

I think it would be similar to Czechoslovakia '68. A big, very dangerous opponent invades a neighbour it has a spurious claim over. UN does nothing because big power casts veto. USA is tied up in an ill-conceived war elsewhere. USA sensibly decides to do nothing.

Only difference is the much higher difficulty in invading Taiwan compared to Czechoslovakia. Can’t just roll the tanks in.