"...it would have to be able to attack the continental United States. If you know anything about geography and military strategy, you will know this is basically impossible."
I somewhat disagree as China will launch a massive cyber warfare attack hoping to cripple America's infrastructure, which is why hardening IT infrastructure is critical, but it is relatively easy and inexpensive to accomplish.
True, it is something to consider. But if you can’t project hard power on the continental United States, cyber warfare can only take you so far in a war.
I think we need to look at scenarios in the gray zone around what constitutes a blockade of Taiwan by the PRC.
It's easier for the PRC to deploy ships around Taiwan then it is for the US to counter, and the logistics are all in the PRC's favor. Thus their optimal strategy would be to exhaust the US ability to replenish naval forces around Taiwan in a way that doesn't commit them to an invasion.
The right strategy is not to fight the United States for control of the waters around Taiwan, it's to wear the American people down to the point that they see sending ships to defend a Taiwan that isn't being attacked as boring and costly. Once the will of the American people is broken, in the way that it was in Afghanistan in a different kind of forever war, the United States will withdraw and the PRC can move in at their leisure.
The PRC also has the ability to make military and coercive economic moves to unsettle potential Taiwan allies in the region and to crash the Taiwan economy. Again, these don't need to take the country to the brink of war, they only need to be bad enough to create a failed economy and disinvestment. If the people of Taiwan are forced to live for a few years in economic misery then the invasion calculus may get easier as more Taiwanese become apathetic or the PRC creates a fifth column movement.
What vitiates against all this is that a logical strategy for the PRC to reclaim Taiwan does not intersect at all with Xi's personal agenda or actuarial timetable. It's highly likely that if Xi it's going to pull the trigger then he'll choose a manufactured crisis and an accelerated timeline.
Wow I hadn’t taken that idea as seriously before seeing this comment. I think you’re probably right, if I were to write a post about the most likely ways China goes about this, this would probably have the highest probability. If this occurred, then it would become a full on slugfest between the Japanese, U.K., and American navies vs China’s. I’m not educated enough on modern naval warfare to say what the most likely outcome would be, but I certainly wouldn’t discount your hypothesis that China would win long term. They do have the manufacturing advantage after all.
No, we don’t. It’s not our country and not our business. We officially recognise the One China concept. Hopefully the days are over of our policing other countries’ borders.
Basically my argument in the blog is that in the short term, China could achieve naval superiority over at least the strait for long enough to ship men and supplies across for a naval invasion. This is because, even though China and the U.S. are roughly evenly matched, China of course has all of its naval power concentrated in the region. The U.S. is spread thin and only has the 7th fleet in range. However in the mid-term, once the U.S. brings its other naval forces to bear, and to a lesser extent the Japanese and English navies, this changes the probabilities. In my eyes, a contested strait seems the most likely outcome. So a naval blockade by either side would not be tenable. It’s a very different situation from say, Great Britain in the napoleonic wars or Great Britain in the two world wars. Their navy was basically unchallenged. Here it’s much more of a toss up. Now you could argue that China’s manufacturing power will win them the war in the long run, but I address that point in the essay. It’s a fair critique though and one I don’t completely discount.
Tens of thousands of land based bombers and missiles is going to rather rapidly put an end to the USN's ability to break a blockade. Not to mention drone swarms.
They would need to project that power all the way to the eastern coast of Taiwan though. In the strait sure, they have a huge advantage. But there farther you get from those land based missiles and bombers the more their advantage Deteriorates. I think contested waters east of Taiwan is the most likely.
What if the Chinese were able to mount a rapid and massive attack against Taiwan? Let's say they sent in 250k troops to simultaneously attack the North, South, and middle of the island. Wouldn't the Taiwanese defenses be too thinly spread out to repel that level of force?
There are a small number of potential landing points in Taiwan (4?) and as the author alluded to, amphibious invasions, especially contested landings, are very difficult to pull off, even moreso if you are attacking many places at once.
The odds of China succeeding in an invasion of Taiwan are 0% no matter what the US does. In the event war went badly we would use nuclear weapons to defend Taiwan.
Like Eisenhower and the Soviets, it's better to choose butter over guns and rely on nuclear deterrent. We defeated the Soviets without firing a shot by having a better economy in the long run.
I think the nuclear deterrent argument is good but the vast majority of U.S. politicians would not be willing to go into nuclear war over Taiwan. Maybe conventional war but not nuclear. And China knows that. On the other hand, we could give nuclear weapons to Taiwan, and they would be likely to use them if under attack. But I don't think arming Taiwan would be possible without China doing something insane in response. So traditionally arming Taiwan is in my opinion the best option for deterrence, basically upping the preexisting 'porcupine' strategy to the next level.
The vast majority of US politicians would rather fire a nuke than lose a direct conventional war against a superpower. Just like we would rather have fired a nuke than let the Soviets tank blitz to the Atlantic.
It's not like we are going to open with firing hundreds of missiles at Chinese cities. We are going to nuke naval forces in the straight. Who cares who has more ships if they are swallowed in nuclear fire.
If need be whatever portions of Taiwan they hold can get the same treatment (just like we were going to nuke parts of West Germany if the Soviets broke through the Fulda Gap). The "best case" scenario for China is that Taiwan ends up a nuclear wasteland. What a prize.
"...it would have to be able to attack the continental United States. If you know anything about geography and military strategy, you will know this is basically impossible."
I somewhat disagree as China will launch a massive cyber warfare attack hoping to cripple America's infrastructure, which is why hardening IT infrastructure is critical, but it is relatively easy and inexpensive to accomplish.
True, it is something to consider. But if you can’t project hard power on the continental United States, cyber warfare can only take you so far in a war.
I think we need to look at scenarios in the gray zone around what constitutes a blockade of Taiwan by the PRC.
It's easier for the PRC to deploy ships around Taiwan then it is for the US to counter, and the logistics are all in the PRC's favor. Thus their optimal strategy would be to exhaust the US ability to replenish naval forces around Taiwan in a way that doesn't commit them to an invasion.
The right strategy is not to fight the United States for control of the waters around Taiwan, it's to wear the American people down to the point that they see sending ships to defend a Taiwan that isn't being attacked as boring and costly. Once the will of the American people is broken, in the way that it was in Afghanistan in a different kind of forever war, the United States will withdraw and the PRC can move in at their leisure.
The PRC also has the ability to make military and coercive economic moves to unsettle potential Taiwan allies in the region and to crash the Taiwan economy. Again, these don't need to take the country to the brink of war, they only need to be bad enough to create a failed economy and disinvestment. If the people of Taiwan are forced to live for a few years in economic misery then the invasion calculus may get easier as more Taiwanese become apathetic or the PRC creates a fifth column movement.
What vitiates against all this is that a logical strategy for the PRC to reclaim Taiwan does not intersect at all with Xi's personal agenda or actuarial timetable. It's highly likely that if Xi it's going to pull the trigger then he'll choose a manufactured crisis and an accelerated timeline.
Wow I hadn’t taken that idea as seriously before seeing this comment. I think you’re probably right, if I were to write a post about the most likely ways China goes about this, this would probably have the highest probability. If this occurred, then it would become a full on slugfest between the Japanese, U.K., and American navies vs China’s. I’m not educated enough on modern naval warfare to say what the most likely outcome would be, but I certainly wouldn’t discount your hypothesis that China would win long term. They do have the manufacturing advantage after all.
“Now the United States has to respond.”
No, we don’t. It’s not our country and not our business. We officially recognise the One China concept. Hopefully the days are over of our policing other countries’ borders.
I think we need to report this to the CCP to get positive social points
Why would they need to take it when they can just blockade it?
Basically my argument in the blog is that in the short term, China could achieve naval superiority over at least the strait for long enough to ship men and supplies across for a naval invasion. This is because, even though China and the U.S. are roughly evenly matched, China of course has all of its naval power concentrated in the region. The U.S. is spread thin and only has the 7th fleet in range. However in the mid-term, once the U.S. brings its other naval forces to bear, and to a lesser extent the Japanese and English navies, this changes the probabilities. In my eyes, a contested strait seems the most likely outcome. So a naval blockade by either side would not be tenable. It’s a very different situation from say, Great Britain in the napoleonic wars or Great Britain in the two world wars. Their navy was basically unchallenged. Here it’s much more of a toss up. Now you could argue that China’s manufacturing power will win them the war in the long run, but I address that point in the essay. It’s a fair critique though and one I don’t completely discount.
Tens of thousands of land based bombers and missiles is going to rather rapidly put an end to the USN's ability to break a blockade. Not to mention drone swarms.
They would need to project that power all the way to the eastern coast of Taiwan though. In the strait sure, they have a huge advantage. But there farther you get from those land based missiles and bombers the more their advantage Deteriorates. I think contested waters east of Taiwan is the most likely.
What if the Chinese were able to mount a rapid and massive attack against Taiwan? Let's say they sent in 250k troops to simultaneously attack the North, South, and middle of the island. Wouldn't the Taiwanese defenses be too thinly spread out to repel that level of force?
There are a small number of potential landing points in Taiwan (4?) and as the author alluded to, amphibious invasions, especially contested landings, are very difficult to pull off, even moreso if you are attacking many places at once.
The odds of China succeeding in an invasion of Taiwan are 0% no matter what the US does. In the event war went badly we would use nuclear weapons to defend Taiwan.
Like Eisenhower and the Soviets, it's better to choose butter over guns and rely on nuclear deterrent. We defeated the Soviets without firing a shot by having a better economy in the long run.
I think the nuclear deterrent argument is good but the vast majority of U.S. politicians would not be willing to go into nuclear war over Taiwan. Maybe conventional war but not nuclear. And China knows that. On the other hand, we could give nuclear weapons to Taiwan, and they would be likely to use them if under attack. But I don't think arming Taiwan would be possible without China doing something insane in response. So traditionally arming Taiwan is in my opinion the best option for deterrence, basically upping the preexisting 'porcupine' strategy to the next level.
The vast majority of US politicians would rather fire a nuke than lose a direct conventional war against a superpower. Just like we would rather have fired a nuke than let the Soviets tank blitz to the Atlantic.
It's not like we are going to open with firing hundreds of missiles at Chinese cities. We are going to nuke naval forces in the straight. Who cares who has more ships if they are swallowed in nuclear fire.
If need be whatever portions of Taiwan they hold can get the same treatment (just like we were going to nuke parts of West Germany if the Soviets broke through the Fulda Gap). The "best case" scenario for China is that Taiwan ends up a nuclear wasteland. What a prize.