Hacker News Reader

Comment by hudibras | Hacker News Reader

It can be easy to lose sight of in this new era of America intervening and starting conflicts of our own choice throughout the world, but the U.S. is still 100% committed to total defense of both Taiwan and South Korea. I'm not talking about Afghanistan or Iraq levels of commitment (~100k troops for a few months, 3-4 carrier strike groups), I'm talking full mobilization of the reserves (1 million U.S. troops in uniform), commandeering the entire civil aviation fleet, every Marine, every ship in the Navy, every aircraft in the Air Force heading to the Western Pacific, fighting-to-the-last-man-like-it's-World-War-Two level of commitment.

All decisions on U.S. military force structure, including the number of aircraft carriers in the fleet, flow down from what is required to fight those two conflicts.

View on HN

>U.S. is still 100% committed to total defense of both Taiwan and South Korea.

US is not committed to defend Taiwan.

US-Taiwan relations act is carefully grafted to avoid commitment. It's not solid defense pact like US has with South Korea or Japan. US position is called strategic ambiguity. US has the freedom to determine how much it want's to assist Taiwan to defend itself.

ps. US don't even have formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan. China is more important to US interests than Taiwan.

Maybe. You might be right, who knows?

Exactly. As far as I remember, I read an article that Taiwan desperately wants to buy new Submarines, but nobody wants to sell. US doesn't have the Know-how to build them, Germany doesn't want to risk relations with China. So, it's either gonna be Japan or Russia.

The US doesn't know how to build submarines?

probably he means not ones USA can export (as in, non nuclear) like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbel-class_submarine

We don't build diesel-electrics like they would be probably most interested in. Something like the Russian Kilo class[1] is more in line with their needs than a Los Angeles attack sub or a boomer.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilo-class_submarine

I am hoping that was the intention of the statement; not wanting to build something because of interests doesn't mean the knowledge to build it doesn't exist.

"Don't know how to build" doesn't mean we don't have the theory for building it, but there is a lot of institutional knowledge that comes from having built something several times already.

I have no doubt we have the theory and knowledge to build such things, we just have little reason.

We haven't built a diesel-electric submarine in decades. Our nuclear subs are top notch, but Taiwan does not want to operate nuclear subs, it's too expensive.

Taiwan is not going to get F-35's either. They are lucky to get newest F-16 blocks.

Taiwan has lost spy war with China. Their military can't be trusted with secrets. Highest ranking spies include army general (electronic communications and information bureau chief), defense attaché to the United States, vice admiral and presidential aide.

I don't know how effective Taiwanese counterintelligence is, but if we assume that they capture just small percentage of spies, Taiwan is open book for China.

>They are lucky to get newest F-16 blocks.

Would that we were also so lucky, rather than lighting trillions on fire for an aircraft that's going to turn out inferior to the 1980s era craft we're already flying.

Opinions about the F-35 vary. I believe the critics undervalue the idea that the F-35 is not supposed to be playing the same game as, say, the F-16. Though about as maneuverable, stealth and avionics make the F-35 superior to the predecessors.

Okay, to reply to the people asking about "No know how". Yes, the US still have a very capable Submarine-fleet, but those Units are from the 1980s. Look at modern diesel-electric Subs, like mainly the german 212A class. Basically a black hole in the water, capable of staying submerged without any noise at all for a month on its fuel-cells, launching a drone submerged or Shooting down ASW-Helicopters, making US-ASW tactics basically obsolete.The now 30 year old precursor of the 212As, the 209, managed to "sink" a Nimitz class carrier in a NATO-Exercise undetected. You are not going to build a ship that is capable of taking on a 212A without any institutonal and tactical knowledge newer than the 50.

Presumably there are similar obligations wrt. NATO which are also influencing decisions?

Absolutely. But (speaking in very broad terms here), the potential conflicts which would involve NATO in Europe today are dwarfed by the requirements for the Western Pacific conflicts. This may not have been the case in, say, 1985, but it is now.

I guess you mean in the context of the Navy specifically? Because otherwise I am not sure this is the case...

Well, there isn't much use for a navy in a land war with Russia anyway.

> Well, there isn't much use for a navy in a land war with Russia anyway.

Read Tom Clancy's 1980s novel Red Storm Rising, which seemed pretty realistic to me. (Former U.S. Navy carrier officer here.)

Navies are mighty handy for keeping shipping going. And you don't know how resupply & logistics will play out for any given conflict.

Boomers were also the force of last resort in MAD.

Actually those obligations are very carefully worded to allow US to weasel out of it if necessary.

Consider Articles 5 and 6: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm#

"At the drafting of Article 5 in the late 1940s, there was consensus on the principle of mutual assistance, but fundamental disagreement on the modalities of implementing this commitment.

The European participants wanted to ensure that the United States would automatically come to their assistance should one of the signatories come under attack; the United States did not want to make such a pledge and obtained that this be reflected in the wording of Article 5."

Maybe. But the wording you mention[0] is generally thought to avoid having relatively minor and perhaps disputed border conflicts, such as what we're seeing now between Turkey and Syria, from dragging the entire alliance into the fight. The other members saying, in essence, that the border conflict does not threaten the security of the North Atlantic area.

But it definitely wasn't intended as a loophole to allow the U.S. and Canada to weasel out from participating in a major land war with the Soviet Union. This would have been hard to do in any case, what with having two Army corps permanently deployed in Europe during the Cold War...

[0]In italics: The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

The deployment of forces in theatre close to a potential aggressor is a deliberate strategic process designed to ensure that the alliance will get involved politically. That is why units have been sent to the Baltic states recently. The American, Canadian or British public might not go to war for Estonia, but they will if that initial attack on Estonia involves casualties on their forward deployed forces.

The thinking is in turn that those troops therefore deter aggression because they act as their nation's guarantee of involvement. A similar principle was seen during the age of gunboat diplomacy, especially with the Pax Britannica.

They call(ed) these forces a `tripwire'.

> Actually those obligations are very carefully worded to allow US to weasel out of it if necessary.

The only reason the US keeps 30 000 troops so close to the DMZ in South Korea, is so that they won't be able to weasel out. Make no mistake, those boys and gals' are there as hostages.

If the DPRK decides to launch an attack, under pretty much any scenario those troops will be engaged in battle within 24h and I doubt that the US public would be okay with leaving them there to fend for themselves.

There is a good reason why these all out wars are something of the past. The weaker party will always be tempted to escalate and there is no scenario where you don't end up using nuclear weapons. No one wants that, and I doubt even aggressive countries like Russia or China will take such a gamble.

That is old logic, now some consider that the US can attack first, search for the "Nuclear Primacy."

Obama will not even risk bombing Syria. I think nuclear powers are safe.

The equation is different if faced with a direct conflict with another nuclear power.

No President remains in office indefinitely. Let's not dismiss the threat of an aggressive warmongering President... the potential alone could raise serious tensions.

I can definitely see such scenarios -- one is of course the case where the defending side is winning.

And you may be right about the gamble, hopefully you are -- but this is only true as long as we ourselves stand ready to escalate as well, and the opponents know that. It seems that part of the establishment is beginning to forget this.

Could you elaborate on why this is the case? Or point me in the right direction?

The Korean War has technically not achieved a final peace, only reached an armstice [0]. There's been many incidents along the border [1], notably the Axe Murder Incident [2].

The Korean war was a conflict primarily between North Korea and China versus South Korea and the United States. However, a relative was in the CIA at the time and I have the distinct impression from them that the US was also shooting down Russian airplanes, as they were shooting down ours, in the conflict. Should conflict restart, there's no telling who would get involved again.

Taiwan has a complicated history where Japan had gotten China to cede the island in the 19th Century, then tried to leverage it to take over China during WWII, then when WWII was over and the Chinese Civil War went into full swing the losing Republic of China (which had replaced the Qing dynasty) fled millions of people to the island. The ROC government remains there governing Taiwan defacto, but the PRC considers it part of its borders in a dejure fashion. Since recognizing Taiwan as an independent nation would 100% surely anger China, the US has not done so [3]. The disparity between reality and theory has yet to be rectified and resolving it would definitely take armed conflict. This would destabilize the region and threaten a significant amount of the world's shipping [4].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Armistice_Agreement

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_border_incidents_invol...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axe_murder_incident

[3] http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35855.htm

[4] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/Shipping...

> The disparity between reality and theory has yet to be rectified and resolving it would definitely take armed conflict

I'm not sure anything is definite. Neither side has made any real moves to resolve the conflict, just feints. The rest of the world seems to support easing tensions when they arise rather than exacerbating them.

Historically, neither side has made real moves and no one wants to increase tension precisely because of each side understands their opponent is still highly committed to defending their way of life. The US does not want to attempt to get China to back down because that would just anger them. And the US does not want to lose a possible ally in Taiwan in getting them to back down. China does not want to overtly bully Taiwan because it does not want US relations to degrade. So with diplomacy out, neither side wants to resort to "forceful diplomacy"/"military persuasion"/whatever newspeak. So both sides have, until recently, acted paralyzed in the status quo.

But I disagree with the "just feints" notion in present day. The nine-dash-line strategy means China is no longer acting paralyzed in the region. I'm not qualified to guess whether it is part of a long Taiwan game or something different, but I would assert it certainly is not a feint and not easing tensions.

> But I disagree with the "just feints" notion in present day

Maybe saying "feeling each other out" would be better than "feints". At any rate, that's just my perception. I'm also not qualified to say what's what.

Countries continue to trade with each other, and there are diplomatic ties between the US, China and Russia. They continue to have some common goals, in spite of some differences. I think overall that's a positive thing. I trust our leaders to decide how to deal with various strategies put forth by other countries.

History was pretty interesting and tense at times. So is the present. I believe the ties are better these days among nations than they were 40-70 years ago. Monarchies used to send family members to each other to keep the peace. We try to do the same with diplomacy where possible.

Start with WW II up until now. Korean war, Taiwan strait crises, and the re-opening of China. Kissinger is a good story teller and has written many books. The latest is called "World Order". He lived through all of it and was involved in a lot of our foreign policy moves. He's given a few talks at Google, e.g. [1]. There are a lot of other videos of him on Youtube. He answers tough questions about state decisions, including POW's in Vietnam, for which he is often accused of being a war criminal.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eM_z4vRxrA

North Korea is still actualy in a state of War with South Korea and has nuclear weapons. They are expressly committed to incorporating South Korea, a country Anerica has already fought one war to defend, under their control. Similarly China considers Taiwan part of their territory. A commitment to defend either of those has to be total in order to be at all meaningful. The slightest indication of a weakening of resolve would open space for a political and military wedge that would inevitably prize the US and its allies apart.

In contrast, in Europe there is no similar explicit and imminent territorial threat to US allies. Yes Russia makes no bones about their attitude to Ukraine, but Ukraine isn't a NATO member and the US doesn't have as clear a treaty obligation to protect it. The Russian governent are dangerous assholes, but their threat is piecemeal and opportunistic while the claims of China and the DPRK are existential.

Yes and no. France and Great Britain guaranteed Ukraine's territorial integrity, when they agreed to return the ex-soviet nuclear weapons to Russia after the fall of the Iron Curtain. Somehow, they weaseled themselves out.

Well, Russia guaranteed their territorial integrity as well but nobody saw the annexation of Crimea coming. We were caught flat footed and presented with a fait accompli. But in any case I don't think we had any military obligation under the treaty. No such excuse in SE Asia.

Nor any desire. Ukraine is unstable and Crimea contains the Sevastopol base. Obama probably fist-bumped Putin and said "it's all good bro".

Ugh how so? I have a lot of issues with Obama, but just because he believes that a direct military intervention is not the best way to deal with the problem, doesn't mean that he "fist-bumped Putin". He does see Russian antics as a threat (other than a few delusional paleocons, pretty much everyone does), but just as it was with Soviet Union, Russian greatest weakness today is economic, which is where the pressure is applied. It's not nearly as effective as it could be due to the boneheaded attitudes of a few people, but hopefully that changes soon enough...

He's also a well known puppy killer.

Surely you mean the US and the UK?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit... http://www.dw.com/en/ukraines-forgotten-security-guarantee-t...

France wasn't a signatory.

Yeah, sorry, had that somehow mixed up.

Pretty concise example of an "entangling alliance" [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Doctrine_of_Unstabl...

Thankfully not (or only in the way they are 100% committed to bring peace to the middle east, i.e. by providing lip service, vague promises and performing some maneuvers in the general vicinity).

Letting China occupy Taiwan is better for everyone (including the Taiwanese people) than the 3rd World War.

Heh, you're downvoted but I think that's exactly what would happen if China were to decide to annex Taiwan - everyone else would stay out of full scale military conflict.

Sure, they'd do everything else possible, like they did with Russia, but Taiwan would not be worth a war.

That is unlike South Korea and Japan, and in the case of South Korea, it would be China that would not go to full war on North Korea's side. If anything, they'd use that opportunity to get Taiwan back.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com