Sure, but you can also examine recent US defense proposals / thinktank wonks gaming out indo pacific strategy, i.e. AGILE deployment in Japan, hosting IRBMs in region. The overwhelming pattern and prevailing consensus for those that follow the space is that despite proposals being aspirational / borderline geopolitical fantasy, US blobs aren't even pretending to pursue strategies that explicitly defend TW anymore. Force balance has changed so much with PRC military modernization that US simply cannot defend TW against PRC off her shores. So much so that it's barely worth speculating anymore. Focus is on containing PRC which =/= defending TW. Entirely different propositions that normies still try to conflate with TW defense.
Japan would care a lot if China made a move on Taiwan. They recently strengthened defense ties there.
Wouldn't just be the U.S.
Oh, and two of the above mentioned countries have real blue water navies that can go anywhere to cut supply lines like say, oil from the Middle East. One does not.
the thing is Taiwan can't count on the US as we have demonstrated that we aren't willing to help when called on by a nation we have treaty obligations to. The US agreed to defend Ukraine from Russia in event of invasion in exchange for Ukraine getting rid of its nuclear stockpile. Then Russia invaded the Crimean peninsula, part of Ukraine, and the US did nothing.
Why would the US treat Taiwan any differently when China is the US biggest trading partner?
As for Japan, they are constitutionally prevented from declaring war.
So of Taiwans strongest alies, one cant defend them,and one wont defend them.
Cutting oil from the ME would not be enough. China would ration oil and increase imports from Russia massively as well as reactivate domestic oil production, it would be great for the environment, China would carry on, and the US would make a lot of enemies.
The Ryukyus are mostly adjacent to Taiwan, it’s also where most of America’s Japan based military bases are. So in terms of air power brought to bare, China has a huge hill to climb with enemies right next door. The main reason that China has pushed for dominance of the entire South China Sea is simply so that they aren’t easily hemmed in from the rest of the world.
A war between the USA and China would ultimately do no one good, even Chinese wolf warriors should realize that.
No, it really doesn't. Japan doesn't have the capacity to deploy enough air power to affect the invasion. If Japan made the strategic mistake of getting involved militarily before the US, the Chinese would use ballistic missiles to strike Japanese airbases and supply infrastructure and carry on.
I agree it would do no good to have a war between the US and China for anyone. I want Taiwan to stay independent and chose its own destiny. But the reality is that China has an overwhelming advantage in-theater over anyone and it's only getting worse.
If China invaded Taiwan, Europe would stand together with the US on any retaliation. It would be the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait all over again, geopolitically. China would be cut off dead from the global economy, no matter the cost. I don’t think it would be practical to liberate Taiwan, but China would be ruined.
China is not Iraq. It's insane to compare the two.
Europe was okay with the first invasion of Iraq because they frankly had very little to lose and a lot to gain.
Meanwhile suiciding the EU economy by cutting off Chinese exports would hurt the EU a lot more than it would hurt China and certainly much more than the invasion of Kuwait.
In any case I'd recommend reading what Chinese generals write on the subject. For the exact same reason as you cited they don't want to invade Taiwan unless "necessary" until the balance of trade shifts far more into the Chinese side.
Yet when confronted on the possibility of doing it now they make a very solid point. China is the only country in the world that produces everything it needs for daily operations, without a single exception, in one way or another.
That is to say, in the Chinese calculus, the EU and US cutting themselves off of Chinese trade would hurt the former more in the short term and medium term than it would hurt China, and their arguments for it are compelling.
Beyond that, the truth is that there is a lot more to the economy than the EU and the US. China would still trade with Russia, Africa, South East Asia, almost definitely South Korea, and most of Central and South Asia.
The real thing that is at issue in Chinese military planning is not a voluntary embargo, it's a blockade by the US. But even the ability for the US to execute such a maneuver is already questionable and dwindles every year, and it would assuredly royally piss of the entirety of the world and definitely kill millions outside of China from economic dysfunction.
>China is the only country in the world that produces everything it needs for daily operations, without a single exception, in one way or another.
Tell me what I'm missing about their domestic oil industry then, because everything else I'm reading tells me they need to import around 10 million barrels of crude oil a day (primarily to produce gasoline and diesel, so it's very hard to substitute).
Indeed, they do. They still have the domestic capacity to expand internal production to cover most of those 10 million barrels. I didn't say they produce everything they need in sufficient quantities, just that they produce it. It would cause short term trouble and rationing but long term the impact is mitigated.
Looking at the most recent numbers, they produced just under 4 million barrels a day domestically. Oil production isn't something where you can just triple the output over a few months. China has been working to expand their internal production for a while, and it takes billions of dollars and years to do so: https://www.forbes.com/sites/edhirs/2019/06/06/china-is-bett...
Did you read the article? Why would they plan to spend 77 billion over 5 years for a 50% increase in production if they could crank it out of their existing infrastructure in under 100 days?
And even if Russia repudiated every other contract they have in Asia, it doesn't look like they have the pipeline capacity to get that much oil to China, even if the cross border capacity for China to import it existed. So it would have to come on tankers, which would generate some interesting geopolitical brinkmanship.
That's assuming things don't escalate far beyond sanctions or a possible blockade. The risk with a naval confrontation is that it's very easy to quickly generate casualties that would make backing down politically suicidal. Even just a few of the smaller ships getting sunk means hundreds of dead sailors.
77 billion is the price to do it right over 5 years. If you don't care about quality and are willing to spend more you can do it faster. We have historical examples of this.
The pipeline capacity alone from Russia to China is 1.6mbd. Of that, 600 000bd are used, so there is 1mbd of spare capacity just in that pipeline.
It doesn't really matter if the US can or can't back down. It will be disastrous politically and economically to the US and its allies to a level that can scarcely be imagined. Even then, US naval forces have a serious chance of defeat. China is not a small country you can roll over. They have a very well thought out, multilayered, exceedingly technologically sophisticated A2/AD umbrella that means that millions of square kilometers will be in practice off limits to the US. Beyond those zones, China enjoys extremely prompt hypersonic strike capability that has no real counter, which means that in a hot war any US vessel that gets it's rough location leaked running a blockade or running through a strait risks getting sunk straight up.
It's not a war that the US can win. What are the objectives? Take back Taiwan? Literally impossible. Regime change in China? Forget about it. About the only thing that can be done is to hurt the Chinese economy roughly as much as the US economy, enrage the entire rest of the world and destroy any semblance of goodwill the US has, and trigger a recession followed by a restructuring of the US economy that reduces the place of the US in the value chain.
It's simply a stupid move that has no upside. It doesn't matter how the public acts immediately, eventually the US will have to give up.
"China is the only country in the world that produces everything it needs for daily operations, without a single exception, in one way or another."
...produces finished goods. China cannot do this without massive imports of raw materials copper, iron ore, coal, etc. China has effectively colonized Africa for access to said raw materials.
Belt and Road is a way to set up overland routes to avoid any naval blockades.
I live in Africa and I have never been told what to do by a Chinese official or business - or even a local official actin on the instructions of a mandarin.
Unless you have watered 'colonisation' down to 'Chinese interests own some stuff in parts of Africa'.
Which - to indulge my woke hat - pretty offensive to people who lived under actual colonisation.
That's fair, don't understand the downvotes. The thing is colonisation now extends to things like believing western science and liking western music. It's become watered down to just mean any form of developed world influence.
Just a small correction: there is no such thing as Western science.
There is just science.
[Unless people truly believe the Chinese space programme uses its own, different physics, or that the concrete in the new Ethiopian dam on the Nile river has its own chemistry.]
JP/TW had "security" dialogue that basically amounted to JP begging Taiwan for semi fabs. JP isn't going to do shit because like US they're even less capable of defending TW. JP actions has been all rhetoric. It means nothing until they commit to credible but politically expensive actions. Some notional missile force increase on Ryukyu is theatre when what's needed is massive mobilization of main islands (and put every JP civilian in harms way) outside of Okinawa as prescribed in AGILE. It's not going to happen, they can't even commit to land based Aegis Ashore ABM to save themselves from NK nukes.
>One does not.
PRC has blue water Navy that operates up to ME and has been for years. It's also signifantly larger and more capable than Japans. I suspect you need to update understanding from old Zeihan powerpoints.
With respect to US, PRC has 30 CEP ICBMs which means USNavy vessels become scrap the second they pull into port. Even nuclear carriers can't stay at sea forever, nevermind their sustainment / oilers / resupply ships will be long gone. US carrier groups will likely be one-time deployment assets. This is roughly reality now, and and even more dire in the coming years. US can sink every PLAN ship on the waters and PRC can sink every USN ship in port. Or destroy entire east Asian fab supply chain, setting back US industry/tech decades. Or bait US security commitments in Korea / Japan which compels US to send assets within 1st island chain where they are weakest, negating point of blockade outside of 1st island chain. The wank over blockading PRC via Malacca / SLOC overlooks the fact that at minimum PRC can force US to sign a hegemony suicide pact. PRC can make US lose everything even in defeat. And is willing to over TW.
Acknowledging reality is wolf warrior now? Yes, I encourage people to read my comment history on the subject to get sense of current US/PRC strategic thinking and update their model likely formed by bad takes from pop Chinawatching sources. Consensus today is dramatically different than consensus from 5/10 years ago, yet there's still folks pretending TW is hard to invade / easy to defend nonesense arguments from 20 years ago.
