I think that we should be helping Taiwan now and doing whatever it take so that it doesn’t get to that. Defending Taiwan with troops is world war three even if it is the right thing to do.
New Zealand will cave and sell out, long before any war comes along. It’s bad for business to have principles, and we have stuck to that course over multiple China issues and multiple governments. ‘Our’ politicians (are they ours or Chinas?) have had financial interests in China throughout their terms and there was even a Chinese communist party member and trained Chinese intelligence member in our parliament.
We picked our side.
https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/300054428/parliamentary-inqui...
https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/122094310/jian-yang-...
Perhaps you couldn't say the same thing about Vietnam (I don't know enough about it), but you definitely could about Philippines.
Do we really care if two Communist Parties attack each other?
China and Vietnam have fought a war with each other more recently than either has fought the US.
In our lifetime we will again see the US Navy based at Cam Ranh Bay, and the USAF based at Tan Son Nhut. (Same with Subic and Clark in the Philippines.)
If you look at the questions asked, the most support is for these measures. Signing a free-trade agreement, recognizing Taiwan and supporting its international recognition, et cetera.
At the point we get to even selling arms to Taiwan, the split become even, mirroring the support for sending troops. (In defence of that divergence, sending troops would presumably be in response to a Chinese offensive. Sending arms is a provocation in itself.)
The US has been selling arms to Taiwan for decades:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_US_arms_sales_to_Taiwa...
Sorry, I meant strategic weaponry. Long-range weapons that would let Taiwan legitimately threaten e.g. Beijing.
The US has naval vessels and aircraft that can do that from the strait of Taiwan or elsewhere.
Why would the US sell such weapons to Taiwan when the US could employ them directly if needed?
In theory the US could position ground-based strategic weapons in Taiwan (Cuban missile crisis-style), but that would be too aggressive and could provoke an attack. Besides, a submarine, ship, or aircraft could employ similar weapons without being a fixed target.
Saying that Taiwan will definitely be defended and hesitating after the fact is much better than hesitating in policy.
Note that it is only a very tiny strip of land that separates the Russian enclave at the Baltic sea from Belarus, a country very much friendly to Russia. I'd happily bet that there are many different plans on how to occupy that strip in a hurry should it come to that and just as many plans on how to deal with those attempts.
https://www.google.com/maps/@54.2105194,22.8701257,10.42z
All it would take is to take out two highways, one major, one minor and it's done.
- Napoleon Bonaparte
Large wars happen when antagonists misjudge how protagonists will react.
Therefore it is extremely important to only say that you will do things that you absolutely know that you will do, to take the guessing out of it for your opponents. Because if they credibly think you might have bluffed, at some point they will call with drastic results. (And every time you're caught in a bluff, your credibility goes down for the next conflict. See the German invasion of Austria.)
Oh, please. Anschluss isn't even remotely comparable to the possible China - Taiwan situation. If you meant that about the reaction of other countries i think you can't really draw any meaningful parallels there either.
The fact that Britain and France failed to enforce the Treaty of Versailles after Hitler's violations demonstrated to Hitler that he could continue violating the treaty and nobody would stand up to him.
That is why, when Germany decided to invade Poland, they didn't expect that Britain and France would actually fight. And the cowardice that they had seen displayed left them convinced that Britain would quickly sue for peace when put to the test.
Furthermore HAD Britain and France responded with force in 1938, Germany wasn't ready and would have backed down. In fact the big reason why Germany wanted Austria was to secure Austrian steel that Germany needed for war manufacturing.
If you put a line in the sand and your enemy crosses it without consequence, you shouldn't expect that they will believe your next line in the sand, no matter how strongly worded your statement is.
I don’t think the party leaders in China believe that massive sanctions would be balanced by the nationalistic boost of invading Taiwan.
I have read about this war of super super sonic weapons which is scary to me.
Of course if China wanted to just bombard Taiwan into rubble, there is nothing Taiwan could do about that. But the cost/benefit of such an action is really bad.
* At least three big landings in the Gallipoli campaign in WW1
* Dozens of huge naval landings in all theatres in WW2. The Med, North Africa, the Baltic, Rangoon, Pacific island hopping, you name it. Besides D-Day, the battle of Anzio was also huge with 100s of thousands participating.
* The naval invasion of Hainan in 1950 is particularly pertinent, pitting the Chinese communists against the Republic of China.
* Battle of Inchon in Korean War. Big, decisive, victorious naval landing.
And yes there were sizeable successful opposed naval landing operations in every sizeable war since - Suez, Vietnam, Falklands, Iran-Iraq, Gulf Wars 1 and 2. There only weren’t any in Afghanistan because it is landlocked and at 10k feet altitude…