It's not so much that cruise missiles used on civilian targets in South Korea or Japan would not be a reason to start WW3, more that it would be less tempting.
The primary reason that we're concerned about semiconductor fab concentration in Taiwan is that China has consistently stated that it is going to invade Taiwan at some point (and that could be 2049 or in a few years for all we know). This is completely outside of any hypothetical scenarios of who lobs cruise missiles at who during WW3.
You can make the point that relying on semiconductor manufacturing outside of your country/coalition is a bad idea for military self-sufficiency, and I would agree, but that's a much more diffuse risk than the very specific scenario that is driving the CHIPS act and concern about fab concentration in Taiwan.
Japan ? They're as threatened by China as India, and nobody in China is planning for administrative take over of 130 millions Japanese anytime soon. And Japan has so many problems to solve already, they're not looking at bothering China enough to risk missiles.
They want Taiwan not a war with the entire west all at once.
That only works if the rest of the world hasn't already decided to intervene.
And sure - NATO isn't "the rest of the world"; but militarily, it might as well be.
I think China is out of there mind here. They either are A. willing to smash Taiwan to rubble and call it a victory or B. completely overestimate their chance of success.
I think China's real hope is that they can threaten their way to an advantageous position and take Taiwan without firing a bullet, but so far no one is blinking and the west is fed up with autocrats threatening warfare to get their way.
The US has made multiple unclear statements. What one president may say, another may walk back or reverse. Or the US might simply not do what they said, or adopt some face-saving half-measure.
Killing US troops stationed in Japan, OTOH, would force a very strong response; even if the government wanted to deescalate, the public wouldn't let them.
Japan is very able to defend itself against China and the Chinese know that. That doesn't mean the Japanese would win a war with China, but who knows? Who would think Ukraine could take on Russia? If China seriously went to war with the US and Japan China could be blockaded.
The history of the last fifty years suggest the Chinese are pretty measured in their use of force. I'm sure they would try to capture Taiwan if they were confident they could with acceptable losses. But they realize time is on their side and they are not crazy gamblers like Putin.
As important as TW is to rejuvenation narrative, it's ultimately the consolation prize versus dismantling US east asian security architecture and securing regional+ hegemony. That's the grand finale battle for the lightcone of future PRC security/prosperity.
>Japan is very able to defend
Japan (and SKR, and TW, and even PH) like most US allies in island chain are are heavily dependant on energy and calorie imports. They can defend themselves against invasion, but they can't defend against PRC turning them into Yemen by wrecking critical infra (cut internet cables, destroy power nodes, mine ports etc). Stuff that make them non viable as a modern economy/society. The flip side of trying to contain PRC during peace is if they try to contain PRC during war, they're stuck in the island chain with a much more autarkic PRC who can spoil region indefinitely. And because US has security commitments, it maybe in PRC interest to draw US to defend allies where PRC forces balance is strongest.
I also think while CCP obviously prefers low cost reuninfication (even if armed), I personally would not be surprised if things escalate much broader because there are larger (and worthwhile) goals / targets. If Australia is going to contribute to even supporting US efforts in TW scenario, then destroying US military infra in AU (Pinegap, Geraldton, Exmouth) will cripple US Indo Pac operation. If anything, there may come a point of favourable future PRC power balance mixed with levels of percieved US antagonism where PRC will be eager for excuses to eliminate US regional/global military infra.
>The issue is in such a war China is also cut off
The Malacca dilemma was based on assumption that US had unilateral power to blockade PRC imports with impunity due to being domestically energy secure - it was an argument/strategy also based on asymmetric vunerability.
But that's increasingly not true, the TLDR is PRC rocket force likely already has capability or will in short term to _conventionally_ strike major US energy infra... US is existentially dependant on ~150 refineries - they are as dependant on these refineries as PRC is on maritime energy shipping. People conflate resource security as having more resources in your soil but it's really about the ability to protect the critical extraction/delivery infra. Otherwise Saudi wouldn't bribe US for security. Obviously conventional CONUS strikes is also a prelude to MAD, but it is also an equation for PRC establishing mutual vunerability with US, which greatly constrains US actions. Not to mention such capability also functionally dismantles US naval supremacy via port strikes (both capital and support assets) that underpins US global power projection.
My feeling is that the chance of US blockading PRC when she becomes as (conventionally) vunerable as PRC is increasingly remote. It's hard to understate how much geostrategic calculations must change once a relatively autarkic industrial power as massive as PRC is able credibly bring actual war to US homefront. It will be first time in modern history where conventional fires can penetrate CONUS to meaningfully degrade US society. US will have to assess whether it wants to fight a possibly existential war (possibly at best a pyrrhic one where she might not uphold her hegemony after) or abandon East Asia where PRC preponderance is increasingly difficult to match or deter, especially with respect to TW.
This is completely different from the mutual defense agreement that Japan has with the USA, where it has been made very clear that the USA will protect Japan.
I understand you want to have a critical opinion, but you need to look at the facts.
Firstly, completely dismissing Japan as a sovereign state. Complete disrespect.
Secondly, nuclear warfare is the dumbest solution possible. Who ever fires first must accept potentially losing the trust of all nations. No matter who fires for whatever reason. Barring an alien attack or something of that magnitide.
Thirdly, the US power does not come from its military - but diplomacy. Allies in strategic places captured by the flow of capital. The military maintains the status quo but isn't invincible. If it were, Russia would not exist. China would not become a superpower.
These are basics.
Having a critical view of the world is a great thing, and I can only commend you for that. But you need to look into the facts first.
In the case of Japan and South Korea, those are not sovereign states but protectorates of the US. At least because they were occupied by the US post WWII and limited military autonomy because of US directives.
My point being the US is an imperial state masquarading as a cheerleader of democracy. The only reason no one says anything is because the US has the biggest stick in the room and anyone refusing to bend over to be shafted is public enemy number 1 ie. China, Russia and the levant.
Its surprising how weak Europe is considering how much experience they have in warfare but it is what it is.
China. Japan cooperates with AUKUS [1]. If Xi invades Taiwan, it's going to pull in America, Britain, Australia and–in all likelihood–Japan.
That said, we're more likely to see a recapitulation of the Ukraine playbook than direct intervention by American and Japanese forces.
China has said that they believe that, in the event of hostilities over Taiwan, they will be obligated to strike US forces everywhere in the region -- and the US Navy still has a strong presence in Japan. Also S. Korea and the Philippines.
This means potentially launching missiles at these countries too, and the Chinese have made it very clear to all involved that they will consider and/all US allies in the region as potential belligerents and act accordingly. AKA military action against Japan and SK, and possibly Australia and NZ. It is just another part of the Taiwan political calculus.
Point is: moving the fabs out of Taiwan doesn't mean shit if they're still in a country that China could strike, and in the case of Japan, would likely strike, in the event of hostilities.
Do you have a source for this? I haven't heard this stated before, but I'm not an expert here.
Even taking this as true, I think it's a big leap to go from striking US military bases in Japan, to striking civilian infrastructure in those countries.
It seems quite clear to me that the opening salvo you are hypothesizing (attacking multiple military bases and civilian targets) would be an act of war against the USA and Japan. This would certainly provoke all-out war with the US, and they have a first-use policy that could entail a nuclear response.
Frankly the whole scenario above seems extremely unlikely to me, and I think Ukraine is the better example to model here. Essentially, China occupies Taiwan, and dares the US to strike in retaliation, knowing that their retaliation would be the thing that triggers armageddon, and betting that the US is not actually willing to escalate militarily over Taiwan. I predict that China would take an effort to avoid attacking any US military personnel stationed in Taiwan (I gather this is just an unofficial presence), because the rational play is to give the US as little excuse as possible to escalate in response.
In other words, China MUST offer the US a path to de-escalation/capitulation in order to take Taiwan without a war with the USA. It's much easier to take Taiwan without a full war with the USA (obviously, IMO).
They're not even remotely capable of doing that before US intervenes. Taiwan is a heavily fortified island with unfriendly geography and a massive high tech army.
FWIW on the likelihood of this specific claim, my impression is that the Pentagon considers it likely that they will try to annex Taiwan at some point in the next decade, e.g. see yesterday's headlines from Blinken (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-10-17/blinken-s...).
I don't have any particular domain knowledge to judge how hard it would be for China to occupy Taiwan (or how much more military power China would need to tip the balance in its favor), but I'm interested in any hard analysis that you can share on the subject. The general reading I've seen has suggested that they would be able to do so in the next 10-20 years if current trends in military growth pan out.
This would be starting World War III. It would be akin to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, with the main difference being, we have thousands of nukes and China does not. This course of action is so profoundly stupid that I cannot imagine China taking it.
Countries that have actively threatened Japan with nuclear bombs: China, Russia, North Korea, and the US (which literally dropped a bomb but have yet to make threats since).
Well that was a sarcastic joke at the end. The US has not made any threats to Japan since after the bombing. The other countries listed are a different story though.
Russia: I think you have forgotten that the Kuril Islands are still contested territory between Japan and Russia. Russia's same policy is there that they will retaliate if their territories are "attacked." The exact same line with Ukraine. Putin has suggested he would take out Japan and (South) Korea quickly as they are the US's main launching points of an attack. Getting them out of the war quickly gives Russia a serious advantage and the US a serious disadvantage. This is ongoing and has been in discussion since the Cold War. Policies have not shifted on this. Russia has actively been violating international nuclear armament treaties and this has been big news since 2014. So, current.
China: Has been much more explicit and aggressive, stating that they will nuke Japan until they unconditionally surrender if they even send a single troop to defend Taiwan[1]. This video is 2021. They have also made similar threats to Australia after a deal with the US for nuclear powered subs (which would not have nuclear weapons) saying that any nuclear nation is not immune from nuclear attack.
North Korea: idk, last week when they launched their test missile directly over Japan?
I get that searching with respect to Russia might be difficult right now because everything is focused on Ukraine and Google overfits search results. But this has been in military discussion for decades. Maybe it is just saber rattling, but these are still things that have been said.
[1] https://twitter.com/jenniferzeng97/status/141497128516000563...
It would take a matter of days until they had massive internal protests. Hungry people topple governments in hours.
Yet, it is EXACTLY what Xi repeatedly said in his new-term-inauguration speech
The dictator of China has effectively declared, as publicly as possible, and very specifically, that he intends to invade Taiwan if it does not willingly abandon it's democracy and come under China's rule
He obviously thinks he can get away with doing so without consequences, including those you suggest.
Yet, leaders make such mistakes all the time. Putin just made one on 24-Feb-2022.
It is up to the western world to ensure that Xi sees that such an action would result in bad consequences for him, and deter him from his stated course.
But the fact that it is bonkers is no assurance whatsoever that it won't happen.
That gives us good reason to hope that China will keep behaving that way. We can keep up the deterrence, China can keep on blustering, and nothing bad actually happens. That would indeed be a great result.
Indeed, seems like a most likely scenario.
I think you misunderstand deeply the current equilibrium in the world.
Most of Africa, a significant part of South East Asia, some countries in Eastern Europe would definitely align with China. A significant part of South America would be neutral.
The USA is losing allies nearly as fast as China is making them.
China can get much further than Russia can in that amount of time.
If chip fabs are at the top list of your worries, your perspective of war is probably overly informed by being on the side that undertakes imperial adventures against people who can't shoot back. Direct war against an actual superpower is horrific.