I would be cautious. With a top notch chip factory there is no need to defend Taiwan against China.
Taiwanese independence is primarily about containing China's naval power projection and their ability to keep unimpeded shipping lanes open during times of war.
China can currently be easily blockaded, and within a few weeks of such blockades, their supplies of food and energy will be put under tremendous strain. That's why it's so important to the US Navy that China does not obtain Taiwan.
Fighting a war with a superpower that has that kind of Achilles heel is much easier.
China will eventually get Taiwan without firing a shot. Pretending that the US can defend an island next to a Chinese border is a pipe dream.
China needs to win this quickly, because any sort of kinetic war is going to put freeze the global economy and likely cause a mass recession, while the USA (& India) can blockade China's supply and oil chains from the Middle East beyond their force projection. Russian-Chinese infrastructure in Siberia isn't well developed and could also easily destroyed with strategic weapons from Alaska. Not to mention the sheer logistics of sending and maintaining millions of men across the strait. One missile and those troops sink into the ocean.
Trying to do a blockade on Taiwan premature isn't a good idea either, because it's conversely giving the USA the first move to organize it's forces out of harm's way, and basically turns a signficant chunk of the PLAN into sitting ducks out at the sea. Most Chinese victories are predicated on the China quickly wiping out US assets in Japan, Korea and Guam, if they don't manage to do that and fail to achieve air superiority, their troop carriers are going to sitting ducks for drones and fighters in the air.
Anyway, the whole thing won't require a single shot. The island and the mainland have close economic ties; people that determine taiwanese policy are heavily invested in China. All the tough words that are being said are for public consumption.
A regional conflict over Taiwan is highly unlikely to result in ICBMs headed for NYC and DC, because China knows that’s effectively the end of modern China. And sinking carriers would also be a very risky escalation given the ability of the US and other allies to retaliate.
I do think you’re right that Taiwan will ultimately lose without much warfare, because Trump is a world-class coward and rolls over for every autocrat who looks in his direction.
That’s not really how war works.
So how does war work? Only one side gets to fight?
Here is my suggestion to people who want the US to play part in Taiwan/China affair: they should take their broomsticks and volunteer. And that includes the war in Ukraine, too.
If that was how it worked, why wouldn’t China declare all their transport boats sacrosanct?
If we think our retaliation to getting a carrier sunk would be to end the world, we should probably not use them.
You are right that Taiwan makes it harder for China to project its navy, but chips are by far more important now. Building fabs in the US means we don’t have to defend Taiwan, because it’s looking less and less possible.
Also, China has a huge internal border, including a shared border with Russia. Even with a total naval blockade it would only increase food and energy costs. And sanctions won’t work, they didn’t even work with Russia and China is the number 1 trade partner globally.
And blockade options go both ways: China could blockade Taiwan? They have more and more attack submarines and anti-aircraft missiles - which may be good enough.
Back in the day we used to add [citation needed] to statements like that.
Sure, if anyone tried to blockade continental China (coastline from Vietnam to Korea!), controlling Taiwan would be helpful, but chances are it would not really make all that much of a difference. It's not exactly Gibraltar or the Bosporus.
China's interest in Taiwan is ideological. It is not at all determined by whether the Taiwanese destroy their own fabs in the event of an invasion.
It's a complete misreading of the situation; the US is in fact actively undermining Taiwan's national security, both 1) by coercing Taiwan to transfer its technology and human capital and 2) by banning chip trade between Taiwan and China.
It's a complete misreading of the situation; the US is in fact actively undermining Taiwan's national security, both 1) by coercing Taiwan to transfer its technology and human capital and 2) by banning chip trade between Taiwan and China.
My apologies, I should have been more clear. Here is my read of the situation:
China doesn't care in the sense that the threat of destroying fabs isn't going to factor into the Chinese leadership's desire to reunify. The issue of reunification is ideological; many Chinese people themselves view Taiwan as a break-away province.
China also does care, at least a little bit, in the sense that having access to Taiwanese chips will free up some economic resources within China itself that could be used in another strategically important industry instead. Allowing chip trade between Taiwan and China also encourages some Chinese economic dependence on Taiwan, though still not a decisive factor in whether China wants to reunify (by force if needed). But it buys Taiwan a bit more time, at least for now.
Banning chip trade between China and Taiwan weakens Taiwan's national security because it immediately removes even that smidgen of Chinese economic dependence on Taiwan (thus possibly accelerating Chinese plans for reunification), and it makes Taiwan much more dependent on the US, which has in recent weeks thoroughly proven itself to be an unreliable partner.
Is there anything I'm missing?
(My comment should not be read as an endorsement of the CCP's willingness to force Taiwan into a reunification.)
Pointing this out always looks like endorsement of the CPC as it’s always a point that is pointed out as justification to claim Taiwan is part of China.
My previous comment was meant to provide some context. It was not an endorsement of China's stance.
This is to re-secure the advanced chip supply in case a conflict actually breaks out in the pacific.
For China, taking Taiwan isn't really about TSMC. It's an ideology that stems from the century of humiliation. Furthermore, once they take Taiwan, SK, Japan, PH will eventually bow as well.
The US had military bases in the Philippines at the time. They did and still have military bases in Japan. Taiwan was right in the pincers of the US, and China, having all the power and development of a mid-tier African country, would have no hope of taking the country without absolutely massive losses and possibly collapsing their government.
Now China is undoubtedly the most powerful country in Asia, in terms of both military strength and economic power. They could blockade Taiwan, fire a few missiles in strategic spots, and fight a war of attrition against the import-dependent island without having to put a single boot on the ground.
Ukraine made protection guarantees with the west in exchange for giving up a key aspect of its defense (nuclear weapons). Russia had collapsed and people assumed they weren't a major threat anymore. Now Ukraine has nothing to wield against Russia and the US is saying "Give us your minerals, and not in exchange for defense. Just give us your resources." Russians are dying by the thousands but their leadership still considers it worth the cost.
Now imagine the Chinese government. They see Taiwan giving the US government their most valuable resources. They see the US government having no interest in helping countries that they've partnered with for decades. They realize they don't have to shove tens of thousands into a meat grinder to get what they want. They realize that the one thing Taiwan could wield to make the world support their cause (chips and the risk of the global tech industry falling into chaos should manufacturing be interrupted) might be moved outside their borders. Not taking advantage of this opportunity would be China ignoring a huge sign that says "It's free real estate."
Taiwan Is Getting Its U.S. Weaponry—but Years Behind Schedule: https://www.wsj.com/world/asia/taiwan-is-getting-its-u-s-wea...
U.S. delivered "wet and moldy body armor" to Taiwan, Pentagon watchdog says: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-wet-moldy-body-armor-to-tai...
The US has not been a good partner to Taiwan, truth be told. If you browse social media that are popular among the Taiwanese, you'll discover that there is quite a bit of resentment towards the US, because they see the US as coercing them into transferring their much-needed human and intellectual capital in world-class semicon technology. (E.g. ~50% of the staff now working at the Arizona fab are TSMC engineers who moved from Taiwan, because American workers allegedly do not have the requisite skills or work ethic.) And yet the US is not willing to reciprocate by transferring its military technology.
I'm sure Trump's disastrous meeting with Zelenskyy has greatly damaged confidence among the Taiwanese. At some point more and more Taiwanese might just decide that a mob boss who speaks their language is better than a mob boss who doesn't.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10256
Sounds like we've been a great partner with Taiwan. Also, wanting to trade on "business I.P." would make more sense if you mentioned we're already doing around $158 billion in business with them. Each side's businesses have a lot of mutual dependence where you'd want a higher production of chips that each side could trust. We had a supply shortage with fabs not long ago, too.
Whereas, military tech is a strategic advantage we owe to nobody. They can buy it or not. I'd rather they not be ripped off in the process. Helping us make cutting edge chips here is different than giving people weapons.
For example, I'm American. I'm allowed to have business, but not military, technology. I can probably license and operate a fab. I can't buy fighter jets at all. That's despite how Harrier jets as a solution to traffic congestion could boost my personal productivity.
I'm not clear why you think the two are different from an ability to wheel and deal standpoint other than because that's big bros narrative?
For the Taiwanese, their semiconductor prowess is a strategic advantage for them. It's even informally known as the Silicon Shield. Taiwan's hope/expectation that US reciprocates with strategically important technology is perfectly reasonable.
The Silicon Shield is something the US is actively trying to undermine by coercing Taiwan to transfer its technology. In addition, every TSMC engineer that moves from Taiwan to the US is someone who isn't contributing to Taiwan's local Silicon Shield. And yes, "coercing" is the right word when you are a mafia-like superpower threatening 100% tariffs -- though at this stage I am not sure why the Taiwanese should hold out any hope that the US is a reliable or trustworthy guarantor of their security.
> They can buy it or not.
Obviously Taiwan cannot. The US refuses to sell F35 fighters to Taiwan. And even countries that do buy these weapons do not have full operational control -- e.g., the U.S. has the capability to remotely disable or restrict the functionality of F-35 fighter jets purchased by other countries.
> I'd rather they not be ripped off
Taiwan is getting ripped off. 1) Delivering equipment years behind schedule as well as 2) delivering moldy dilapidated equipment are forms of ripping off your customer. And in this case America's customer is too afraid to dare offend it.
The play is to create trouble to the PRC, to bar open access to Pacific and to control trade routes to Japan/Korea.
The US do not care about Taiwan beyond its "usefulness".
I think that ship has sailed under the current administration.
Serious question.
It was that way for most of our existence (and empire building). The whole world police thing came after WWII.
I don't necessarily believe maintaining a ludicrously strong military for the purposes of defending our homeland is a bad idea. Maybe I'm just being silly, but like, why would you not want the strongest military you could possibly muster to defend your nation?
Maybe I'm thinking about it wrong? But I don't think so.
(I'm wondering about this after reading today's NYT article about the escalating use of drone warfare in Ukraine.)
The same will happen here. I guarantee you, the American military will be among the best in the world at employing the services of satellites, autonomous ordinance and surveillance, and cyber offensives.
You have concerns about our facility with drones? Be assured, we'll be able to work out how to create nightmarish swarms just as well as Europeans or Chinese can. We'll have the same facility with working with countermeasures and mitigating countermeasures as well.
Actually, it did. At the beginning of its intervention, US weaponry and tactics were way below their European counterparts, even in nuclear research. The difference was made through sheer power of scale and speed of adaptation, not pre-war innovation.
In the same way, the US military is currently as good as it is precisely because it sees significant deployments very frequently (Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq), which means they learn hard lessons and develop technologies solving real problems, at a rate that no other military can match.
But hey, if you believe it, my pointing out the flaws in the arguments is not likely to change your mind. So I’ll just politely disagree with you.
You have a good evening sir or ma’am.
Because it comes at the opportunity cost of other things we could spend money on. For example, you could cut education to fund military even more, but it would eventually catch up to us.
Laughs in Barbary Wars and Monroe Doctrine
Given that we would be forced to 'participate,' with isolationism no longer being an option, it was logical enough for us to strive for domination.
That actually worked pretty well, considering that we were the only genuine superpower left on earth at the dawn of the 21st century. It worked until our enemies figured out how to attack us from within by playing a literal Trump card.
“And so I come full circle on this response and just want to encourage you with some substance that we are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.”[1]
[1] https://apnews.com/article/project-2025-trump-american-revol...
>Are you implying that only people serving in the military should have a say in foreign policy?
No, I'm implying before people rah rah to defend Taiwan, they actually understand what that means; it probably won't mean sending only active duty and reserves after a year or two and that a draft will most likely occur.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_global_manpower_fit_fo...
Even with a full, aggressive draft, we'll need allies who are also willing to draft their citizens.
If China has us completely militarily outmatched then of course we can’t afford to provoke them, but it’s not my sense that we’re ready to accept that currently.
Like you said, we haven't had a draft in decades. People might think we won't ever have one, and those people would be mistaken.
The US alone would lose in that as well, because its shipbuilding capacity is minimal. But together with South Korea and Japan, it could compete against China on a level ground.
We’re also at risk of losing strategic depth: how many more years of provocations from Washington do you think it would take a South American, Mexican or the Caribbean country to start letting Chinese drones, ships and missiles on their territory? (How confident are you in our intelligence community that this hasn’t already happened?)
Just being realistic. Americans were committed to these things because leadership committed us to these things and would make it illegal for us to get out of it. Given an actual choice, not many Americans would have willingly gone to, say, Vietnam. Maybe a few brainwashed anti-communists, but the average American thought, "Hey, not my circus, not my monkeys." I suspect even fewer would be willing to go fight for Taiwan.
The average American's attitude is, "Call me when they attack Hawaii." Until that point, most genuinely don't care. That's why Trump's current moves in Europe will be applauded by his base. Because people have severely overestimated the desire of the American every-man and -woman to defend foreign nations.
You can't give people a choice. If given a choice, they'll always say no.
That's just the sort of macho thinking that has caused so many military endeavors to fail throughout history. Maybe the politics is about soundbites like that one? I don't know? I'm not a politician. But the actual prosecution of a military conflict is about outcomes. Not soundbites.
Will there be a good outcome or not?
I mean, if it makes you feel any better, you can think of it this way. Our past has taught us that, without question, it is best to fight far away, but only after an enemy has been weakened by others.
I know how that sounds to many non-US citizens. But I'm just being honest about how the thinking in America has developed historically.
Letting Ukraine fall will embolden Russia who will continue their march across Europe until it is necessary to spill American blood.
Similarly we may not have a choice in Taiwan. Japan and The Philippines at least aren’t keen to have an emboldened imperialist China in their backyards. If they intervene US aid at least will be in our best interest.
Isolationism is not a guaranteed ideal strategy in all situations. Looking only at boondoggles like Vietnam, Iraq 2, and Afghanistan doesn’t mean all US intervention is harmful to the national interest.
The only choice is whose.
After seeing people convinced to send their children to the Middle East for more nebulous reasons, I wouldn't be surprised if a significant portion of the country can be found willing.
>If so, take a guess what WW1 and WW2 would have looked like if everyone had that opinion.
WWI Would have been merely a local conflict between Austria and Serbia. WWII would have been about the same as it was historically, if it happened at all, see previous answer on WWI.
As an aside and ironically, both Wilson and FDR campaigned on not getting us into WWI and WWII.
A draft is highly unlikely.
A draft is highly unlikely.
The last war fought on American soil was in 1815 ignoring the civil war and fights against native Americans.
Was Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan or either Iraq war about American interests?
> 1815 ignoring the civil war and fights against native Americans.
Why would you ignore those?
Also WWII was fought on American soil in the pacific. The various guano atolls, as well as the islands of the Phillipines.
> Over 60 percent of 2016 enlistments came from neighborhoods with a median household income between $38,345 and $80,912. The quintiles below and above that band were underrepresented, with the poorest quintile providing 19 percent of the force and the richest Americans enlisting at a rate of 17 percent. The modern force comes predominantly from the middle-class households highlighted in Reeves’ article.
I can personally tell you that minorities don’t join the military because they think the country has been so great to them. This goes back to how the military treated Black Americans during WWII (The Tuskegee experiment) and when they came back they were still subjected to Jim Crow laws and how White upper class Americans avoided the draft at a much higher percentage.
The idea that “no Vietcong ever called me ni%%%” was pervasive.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/black-americans-are-much-...
All of the recruiters who come to minority majority high schools and colleges don’t mention “patriotism”. They mention job and education opportunities.
and it was also get downvoted
I have to say, americans love wars, it's some kind of american spirit
wars made american great, wars will make american great again
I'm a chinese living in china, i'm interest topics abt china, how strange
instead of reading some 'analysis reports' by sponsored medias and think tanks, now you leant to read ones by LLMs, such a progress
Do I look like a devil that tempts innocent Americans/Westerners to be corrupt to you?
be vigilant, we're everywhere
Only a fool would expect America to come to their aid now, and we'd better hide our oil/minerals lest we get a double dose of dictator-flavoured freedom...
And the Europeans are helping. Trump is not getting the straight forward quick foreign policy wins that he was chasing. Europe is going to keep sticking their "European peacekeeper" (however you want to characterize it) proposal into the Ukraine mix, and Putin is going to have a hard time swallowing that deal.
When the EU tariffs come, you can bet that EU is going to try to make it sting as much as possible.
But ultimately it's up to Americans to make the best of these opportunities.
The US abandoning European allies can be perceived through the lens of general isolationism (or even an outright support for fascism) but it can also be perceived as part of this pivot to Asia.
Time will tell. Elon Musk has so much of his net worth tied up in China, however, that I would bet more on abandonment. If Elon was out of the picture I'd bet more on support.
No comment on Korea, but Vietnam wasn't exactly popular.
Once that is even partly done. There is no reason Trump will send US troops to defend Taiwan.
Further more, China doesn't care about TSMC. It's a nice bonus. But re-taking Taiwan is an ideology.
Didn't Trump terminate the Chips act?
> The Inspector General also warned that $489 million in humanitarian food aid was at risk of spoiling due to staff furloughs and unclear guidance. The Office of Presidential Personnel fired the Inspector General the next day, despite a law requiring 30 days notice to Congress before firing an Inspector General.
What about the other rules? The ones protecting you and the country? Is due process not valuable any more? What protects us from people with bad or selfish intentions?
Example 1 - Trying to take $20 billion from Citi: https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/5161849-inflat...
Example 2 - The pause preempting the defunding of USAID: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/reev...
Example 3 - CHIPS act would have had funding withheld if a Federal Court hadn't stepped in, but it's unclear what enforcement mechanism can force the funding to resume: https://archive.is/BxjHw
But DOGE has been trying to do effectively that for the past month, and has been distressingly successful at it. (For all that conservatives whined about the existence of an unaccountable deep state override elected officials making laws, that's basically an accurate description of DOGE.)
Trump is ignoring the law now.