Your assumption that US military actions must and must only derive from public sympathy towards Taiwan, that assumption is false.
US military actions can also be based on hostility expressed by a hostile regime toward US.
For example, US military actions on Iran are not based on US public’s sympathy on the issue of Human Rights in Iran.
Actually, I noticed this: Perhaps the Socialist Left in US and the West at large fundamentally fail to see China as a concrete threat to themselves. The Left lacks the common sense and ability to perceive threats can also come from non-white hostile powers.
(Like Biden said, “China is not a threat, Come on man.” )
I do not agree with the false impression that US military actions require public support that is based on compassion and sympathy. More often than not, military actions are motivated by rivalry, threat, and hostility.
Yeah, and how does China sending troops to Taiwan constitute hostility towards the US? It would be much easier if activism and journalism already installed that general awareness in the American public when the time comes to act. Any military action requires the public’s support.
Island chain strategy dictates that Taiwan must be protected. That’s the only reason China hasn’t taken it as already. They don’t want a big conflict with major powers.
Don’t underestimate China, the CCP has clear and well thought out plan for the future.
China sending troops to Tibet obviously did not necessitate the kind of threat to US we are talking about.
Therefore the CORRECT answer to your question in the Taiwan context is simply because of the intrinsic hostility/tension or geostrategic rivalry between US and China. Taiwan happens to be in the geography that matters.
Taiwan was a part of China that was taken away from them by force and that they think should have been returned to them, and that’s why they claim it . Most Taiwanese think Taiwan has developed into its own separate country and want independence. It’s bad enough without spinning geopolitical fantasies.
The CIA mobilized and trained Tibetan insurgents, and sent loads of aids to them. It’s just that there were too few of them compared to the PLA which can pour through the Chinese Tibetan border at will.
But thats the thing, they need those landing sites. There are only 3 possible landing sites for the PLA. The North west, South West, and the North East.
The North East would be the most difficult as they would have to go through mountainous terrain to get to Taipei and other major cities. And more losses going around from Taiwan sinking those ships. But then again…the PLA has a history of success of hiding in the mountains.
Would they be landing on beaches until everything is taken out before hand?
Surely parachute regiments would be better after taking out all threats.
How long would the people accept it if the electric grid alone was taken out?
Risky business, very hard to take out all military threats that could contest parachute landings. Hard to land in force or with equipment. It might be possible to capture an airfield and then force in more equipment and men, but everyone will be expecting it.
I don’t think that would be an issue at that point.
Could very well be that you always regurgitate false and shallow analysis of others. Consider this:
The same national character of China that caused it to claim Taiwan, the same national character that makes China inevitable an enemy of US.
Since the 1950 Korean War, China can’ help but be hostile and belligerent toward all its neighbours, one at a time. This is China’s national character.
And how would one describe this national character? Revisionism. You can cal it deception and jealousy. Criminal mentality.
The source of this national character is Marxist doctrine.
Marxists claim themselves being the oppressed in order to justify theft.
Using Marxists doctrine China considers US or Whites or the West is the oppressor.
In conclusion, Taiwan is not the reason why China behaves certain ways.
landlocked mountainous regions in Eurasia, scarcely populated ——> No value to US national security interest.
You cannot say that the prerequisite for US military actions is “public support” and that such public support must have at its root concern for an oppressed people far away.
Concerns for human rights are things a small circle of people interested in politics DO, like a workout habit, a routine. Human Rights are never the factor when powerful people make decisions.
“Taiwan is historically part of China that was ripped away from us, first by Japan, and then by the U.S.” That the national character you’re talking about?
Suppose the U.S. had a civil war, and the Left Coast was defeated by the Heartland and retreated to Hawaii and claimed, with the backing of China, to be the legitimate government of the whole of America. Seventy years pass, and Hawaii claims to have developed its own culture and be a separate country- I’d be inclined to give it to them, but I can see how the U.S. would be pissed off, and still claim it.
From 1895 to 1941 the government of China was perfectly fine with Taiwan being a part of Japan. The Chinese republic was not founded on an ideology of historical revisionism or anti-Japan sentiment.
Things started to change after socialism ( basically just a form of communism) got introduced into China. It’s after that the Chinese began its Grievance Culture.
I argued that this grievance culture has its marxist origin. And Marxism has become what today’s China is, nothing else.
Therefore you can’t just treat China’s claim on Taiwan as an isolated demand of limited and reasonable scope. You can’t predict that once China annexes Taiwan, all their grievances will have been addressed and resolved. They won’t. Because, their grievances didn’t originate from the Taiwan issue.