The rest of the world knows that continuing to rely so heavily on Taiwan for crucial components is not viable.
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/09/china/china-aircraft-carrier-...
Every time U.S. aircraft carriers enter a discussion, the reams of developments in anti-ship missile and swarming tactics with aerial or maritime drones (or fast boats) comes up.
In contrast, the weapon-platforms of Taiwan / US Navy are simply more constrained. Sure, US Destroyers / Cruisers are good missile platforms and US Aircraft Carriers / F35 fighters are also good delivery mechanisms for anti-ship missiles...
But China has the advantage of land-based missiles, land-based air force, AND sea-based naval forces to triple-team up against the US Navy.
-------
Chinese Carriers hanging around the Straight of Taiwan and hugging their coastline (under protective cover of Chinese missile-forces / Chinese air-forces) is the expectation.
We're not concerned about Chinese Carriers trying to say, attack Hawaii (which would be the opposite situation: US Air Force supporting US Navy in defense). The near-term threat is the gross geographical advantages of the China-Taiwan fight.
There's a mild expectation that if a Chinese / Taiwan fight were to occur, US Marines might be forced to make landings in the Chinese mainland to destroy Chinese land-based missile forces and even the odds.
Point is if China leans into its fleet for fire support (it’s currently not clear if they will do this or rely on land-based or aerial firing platforms), there are anti-ship missile systems Taiwan could be outfitted with to compensate for far cheaper than those ships cost.
That sounds remarkably unlikely and irrational. If China touched the US mainland it would mean immediate full-scale war, the opposite should be assumed.
Agree landing marines is aggressive. But missiles strikes should be assumed.
China would be the aggressor. And the things being attacked would be directly militarily relevant. If China retaliated by hitting Guam, I would call that fair play. (Hawai’i, for historical reasons, would be a stupid thing to hit.)
Russia is currently the aggressor and Ukraine has far more Western support than Taiwan could reasonably expect. Still no Western countries are "closing the skies" or attacking Russian military assets. China is a far stronger opponent than Russia, so I don't see why that would change.
The US would be going it comparatively alone against China in a Taiwan conflict. I believe the best way to protect them is helping them arm themselves to the teeth such that China sees only a brutally pyrrhic victory as a possibility.
AUKUS and the Quad are explicitly aimed at changing this.
China is a weaker strategic threat despite being a stronger local conventional threat. That would seem to me to make outside direct intervention more likely (though not necessarily more likely than not.)
> The US would be going it comparatively alone against China in a Taiwan conflict
There is nothing as centralized as NATO or the EU in the region, but there are numerous US bilateral and a few small multilateral security arrangements, and China is one of the main things motivating those arrangements.
Kendall, Air Force Secretary, said “When you look at it objectively, China is a much greater strategic threat than Russia is”.[1]
1. https://spacenews.com/air-force-secretary-were-worried-about...
-----
What about a Marine WASP-class assault ship launching helicopters to do the same thing (except cheaper)?
----
What about a few Marine Special Ops units infiltrating the beaches under the cover of darkness to support those helicopters? If they're discovered, they could be "plausible deniability" units and arguably the USA never even landed in China.
----
What about the regular Marine infantry establishing a beach-head to support those Special Ops units, but never advancing further than just the beach?
Etc. etc. Its a smooth and slippery slope. Its not exactly clear where or how to draw a line. In any case, the Chinese missile forces are going to be a severe issue. I expect at a minimum, F35B fighters from Carriers to be utterly destroying any missile-site they discover. That absolutely means attacks on the Chinese mainland.
Something like this is almost a necessity, so that US Marines could do "something" to support the US Navy. Its probably too much to ask the US Navy to solo all of China by themselves.
> Something like this is almost a necessity, so that US Marines could do "something" to support the US Navy. Its probably too much to ask the US Navy to solo all of China by themselves.
We aren’t striking Russian forces despite their deliberate targeting of civilians and numerous war crimes. Why would we attack a far more dangerous adversary first? The moral argument is clearly not enough, and we have no defense pact.
We’d risk giving them their Pearl Harbor moment, and facing the carefully directed rage of a 1.4 billion population command economy under single party authoritarian rule.
Isn't that scenario already happening, just with barely plausibly deniability?
This isn't an accurate understanding of current US military or foreign policy thinking.
https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/JIPA/Display/Article/249127...
> Military strategists, planners, and force requirements developers should anticipate America’s civilian leadership needing effective military options short of mainland attacks on China. RAND analysts seem to appreciate the risks of homeland attacks, suggesting that “as low as the probability of Chinese first [nuclear weapons] use is, even in the most desperate circumstances of a prolonged and severe war, the United States could make it lower still by exercising great care with regard to the extensiveness of homeland attacks and by avoiding altogether targets that the Chinese could interpret as critical to their deterrent.”
Attacks against the mainland are certainly possible, depending on circumstances, but it's neither the default nor expected.
Then your assumptions need to be set appropriately.
That is: China will have its full set of highways and railroads in-tact to deliver missiles to the US Navy. That will be the US Navy fighting at a severe disadvantage.
Furthermore, US Marines will largely be sitting around doing nothing. Having additional troops from a separate branch of the military doing __SOMETHING__ would at least help even the odds. (Marines do have some ships, but the Marines specialized in Sea vs Land situations, not sea vs sea kinds of battles)
-------
In any case, the Taiwan situation is a very difficult fight to think about. US Navy will be at a severe disadvantage in almost every concievable scenario, and its difficult to see how other branches (US Army, US Air Force, or US Marines) can help in a significant manner. (Sure, some islands here and there can station some US Air Force, US Army can also station some troops in Taiwan. But is it enough to make a big difference?)
Your scenario presumes we are in open conflict with Chinese troops, in which case landing marines is merely an escalation of a war that’s already begun.
If Taiwan is loaded with anti-ship missiles, cruise missiles, naval mines, loitering munitions, artillery, modern fighter jets, etc., any Chinese invasion is at the very least going to come at very steep cost in life/military hardware.
And then the economic costs (to everyone in the world) are going to be extreme.
1. As you said, and China is aware, a war between Taiwan and China will harm both countries and strengthen the US.
2. The world would react extremely negatively (more so than the Ukraine response) if half the world's semi-conductors supply disappeared.
3. Taiwan has cruise missiles that can reach Shanghai, Wuhan, Shenzhen, etc. Most of China's development is in the East. [1]
What I do believe might happen is China will reach the point that they can economically bully Taiwan until Taiwan decides it's best to play ball.
Better than nothing, but the Chinese mainland has literal highways and railroads to deliver more-and-more missiles.
When all else is equal, the winner is decided by logistics. Who can "deliver" more missiles to a location first? I'm willing to bet that Chinese highways and Chinese railroads have superior logistics / delivery than Ishigaki Island or the Batanes.
That is: the winner will be decided by "number of missile deliveries to the Strait of Taiwan". (A lot of people get caught up in thinking about the "last mile" of delivery: F35 jets or Destroyers or MLRS systems. But the "first mile" of railroads / highways is just as important, and leans severely to a Chinese advantage)
> If Taiwan is loaded with anti-ship missiles, loitering munitions, artillery, modern fighter jets, etc., any Chinese invasion is at the very least going to come at very steep cost in life/military hardware.
Putin just proved to the world that "Just because its a bad idea" doesn't mean it won't stop the autocratic dictator from doing something stupid.
China attacking the world-capital of semiconductor manufacturing would piss off the world for sure. But "pissing off the world" doesn't seem to enter into the calculus of these leaders. EDIT: I'm also willing to bet that Xi Jinping cares about Chinese soldier's life only a _little_ bit more than Putin cares about Russian soldier lives.
That's an interesting point.
One on hand, rail/highways are superior to anything ocean-going for transport, and cargo ships are easily taken out and would need extremely effective escorts.
On the other hand, rail/highways are much harder to protect because of their length.
If cargo ships could still reach Taiwan with escorts, I wonder if Taiwan could have enough supplies to deny China access to their rail/highway systems such that it negated their numerical advantages.
Which is why it’s almost public policy that the opening salvos of this war would involve raining down missile fire on those logistical chains.
The Chinese need not resort to mere land batteries. The Chinese have a fleet of well over 200 Xian H-6 strategic bombers to launch whatever anti-ship standoff PGM they can mount to the wings or fuselage. And the new H-6N is aerial refueled.
A few years from now when these are operationally armed with sufficient quantities of supersonic/hypersonic/flocking/maneuvering/whatever anti-ship missiles China will have absolute control of the sea around Taiwan; foreign war ships, cargo ships and anything else that isn't a submarine will be permitted to remain in the area at China's pleasure.
There is a reason that foundries are rapidly being built in the US, Europe, etc.: the shot callers at the top of these semiconductor manufacturers know that one day in the not too distant future Taiwan will be blockaded in China's play to reunify and there is nothing the West can do about it without risking the destruction of capital ships full of propulsion reactors.
The US has had a very close relationship w/ Taiwan for decades including military training and access to newer military hardware.
Also discussions about china attacking a US ship are rather silly since that would be an outright declaration of war. The amount of firepower available to the US would level mainland cities.
Too much to lose for them to make an invasion likely.
Even the Taiwanese F-16V will be able to obtain air superiority in the present, 10 years is awfully short for it to master jet engine manufacturing.
In 10 years it would be lucky if CCP survives internal issues due to a dwindling economy and inability to service and maintain much of its core infrastructure rather than an external one.
I could definitely see Xi taking some of the islets close to its coast line but doing so would give the US justification to station its airbase permanently and start a Russian style sanction.
> and start a Russian style sanction
Unlike the Russian sanctions, a broad sanction on the Chinese economy would deeply impact the US economy. It's not a viable strategy.
They've repeatedly signaled and backed this up with a real aircraft carrier that sails between the straits. They aren't doing this just for show. The ball is in CCP's court, if they venture too far past their coastline they are going to face USN + JSDF.
Again, Taiwan is NOT ukraine. It's semiconductor supply is critical to national security and the economy.
US also signaled they would hit China with sanctions and I don't think it's a bluff. China needs US more than US needs it.
USN hasn't had the balls to sail carriers through the strait in 20+ years even under Mike Pompeo at the nadir of US/PRC relations since Nixon. Clinton sent 2 during last TW strait crisis for shits and giggles. Strait transits are down to DDGs and coast guard vessels now.
PRC doesn't even need Navy to venture outside the first island chain to destroy East Asia semi, or conduct massive crippling cyber warefare on CONUS. Reality is US has very limited options protecting East Asia interests and US is now existentially vulnerable in multiple domains that can't be solved with biggest military budget and 20 aircraft carriers.
PRC is moving to sanction proof economy and decoupling anyway, eating sanctions for taking back TW is built into the equation.
The US + allies aren't exactly worried here. It possesses complete air superiority in the region as well as early warning radar.
I mean if a small country like Taiwan could lodge missiles at the Three Gorges dam that would completely flood the mainland, think what Korea or Japan can do without even the US helping.
The PLA is a paper tiger and this angers a great deal of PRC nationalists and sympathizers but its the truth. There's very little chance it could enter into a prolonged war with QUAD + South Korea, Taiwan.
I don't know what this sanction proof economy is about but it clearly isn't working out for Russia with Ukraine.
Also PRC won vietnam strategically, the kind of victory that matters. Wars are beyond K:D ratios. Plus fought US/UN, USSR when both were nuclear powers and PRC agrarian shitshow and still managed to secure strategic objectives, all of which less significant than TW, while PRC was more ill-equipped. There is 100% chance PRC would fight prolonged war over Taiwan, because it has never not fought over redlines. And like Ukraine, very little chance of substantive outside support simply because everyone else is as or more vulnerable.
Sanction proof = unlike RU, or most PRC trade partners, PRC is comparable to US in terms of trade dependency (not much). And unlike regional US partners, sufficient in domestic resource production to weather war economy for a long time. As well as have enough supply chain dependency over strategic resources like rare earth and leverage over threatening east Asia semi to deter prolonged war at least a few decades. If there's a broader war in East Asia, I would bet against everyone. Including US. Difference is, as with Vietnam, PRC has track record for accepting existential fights.
Last time it happened was during the Taiwan straight crisis where the PRC fired missiles - which a defector in the PRC told Taiwan had no warheads - deliberately near Taiwanese cities.
Why respond with a crisis level military show of force when - thankfully - there's no crisis?
Which neglects the point that USN aren't using CVNs to conduct FONOP in PRC SCS features that US does not recognize. There's no explanation other than being risk averse considering other developments.
>PRC has not initiated another crisis since '96
The crisis in 96 was US initiated when House passed bill to allow TW president Lee to visit Cornell after first denying him. Current rekindling of US/TW relations have not gone that far, i.e. US haven't renamed Taipei representative office, consistently reasserted One China Policy, maintained strategic ambiguity, the upgrading of diplomatic contact with TW still adheres to PRC redline (not meeting TW Foreign Minister in DC reserved for representative of sovereign states).
Though US is inching closer. Time will tell if cooler heads will prevail, with PRC domestic propaganda now talking about preparing for war if/when US plays TW card. Granted it's retired HuXiJin, but it's not good sign when he escalates spiels from "warning US" mode of last few years to "prepare the country for war", specifically describing "real sense of crisis" over current developments.
- phone call between Trump and Ingwen
- confirming US military presence in Taiwan (alleged PRC red line)
- Officially released videos showing US military training with ROC forces in Taiwan
- Higher and higher level US officials visiting Taiwan
- Vice presidents of respective countries seen talking together
The things you list that the US still is not doing, I fully expect them to start doing. It would be in the framework of the US one china policy, but it would continue the trend of salami slicing their way to dual recognition. It would probably be in PRCs interest to negotiate the status of Taiwan with Taiwan directly to save face before this happens.
Not sure why you're so pre-occupied with the lack of aircraft carrier transit. Let's say one was targeted by PRC missiles while transiting in international waters. Do you think that would be the end of it? The repercussions of that would hurt the PRC more than vice versa.
Re: carriers, I was highlighting to OP that there are constraints to US actions imposed by PRC, both militarily and in other examples, i.e. politically. You insinutate it's not US caution but PRC fear, which makes no sense in context of how careful US is shifting TW policy, because force balance is not disproportionate like during 3rd strait crisis anymore, US repercussions are approaching existential as well. As for who loses more, up for debate, but IMO a reigning hegemon has more to lose.
And with respect to the Type 003, where is the J-35 or whatever they're calling it? Still not ready. The only plane they've got for these ships is the J-15, which has the RCS of a barn. Carriers without planes are like tigers without teeth. Furthermore the PLAN's lack of operational experience with carriers is stark, to put it mildly. Those ships will be good at one thing: being reefs.
I wonder what it would take to get that to stick until we grow up enough as a species to cease having countries and instead have a united single government like Star Trek.
This would require everyone to think very alike which we will never be. there's simply too much diversity.
why not aim for more of a everyone have it their own way kind of model where more of the power is sent to local governments? this way there would be less conflict and more happy people, rather than only one way for everyone (one size does not fit all)
A single governing body is the only chance at equal justice and opportunity for all; assuming it isn't corrupt, but with that assumption failed there is no justice anyway.