This is like Kevin Heart warning Mike Tyson. LOL, just funny and stupid.
China actually can challenge US in the Pacific theatre.
Besides, it’s a matter of how far each side is ready to go. Taiwan is important for the US, but vital for China. US will back down and avoid escalation sooner.
Also, when you have nuclear states on each side, situation always gets very precarious.
So do not underestimate the leg China has here.
How is Taiwan crucial for China? Locality? There’s nothing there of value aside from subjugation and a raw land grab.
The terrain makes it fairly defensible on the west coast. The economy would tank. Businesses of real value would implode.
The people don’t want to be “reunified” and will not tow the line so easily. China has never had to endure longterm modern asymmetrical warfare.
I just don’t see how it would benefit them vs the cost in the short and near term. If they could pull it off over 50 years then maybe but I don’t think it would play out that way.
Taiwan has a big political significance for China; taking it over would mean putting an end to Kuomintang and concluding the war, emerging victorious. No more little neighbor undermining credibility of the Party.
Aside from that, Taiwan is home to the most advanced chipmaking factory in the world, and US has made sure mainland China is cut off from advanced computing technologies, forcing it to lag behind in some of the most important modern industries, as well as military. By capturing Taiwan, China could greatly change the balance of power - either by successfully overtaking TSMC, or by destroying it. Both will work, really.
They would almost certainly lose today, though it’d be costly to everyone involved. Provided the Philippines doesn’t elect another Duterte-type government, their nearby position will likely be enough to keep Taiwan supplied with air cover, if nothing else.
They don’t have a lot of carriers, or the long experience of the US Navy with them, and they’re still ramping up production of fifth generation fighters (the J-20). Hypersonic missiles give them an edge, but they’re not the wonder weapons they’re sometimes made out to be.
Ukraine has had two Patriot missile batteries for most of the past year–they just got a third–and they practically shut down Russian missile attacks. Taiwan has seven, and they need to cover a much smaller amount of land.
It’s more a question of where the Chinese military will be in 4 years. However, after 8 years, demographics in the country–long term effects of the One Child policy–are likely to strangle their ability to have a military on equal footing. Too many old people and not enough young people to take care of them. It’s possible this window of opportunity is already closed.
There’s a lot of classic US sandbagging going on. “We’re falling behind, we need a 1,000 ship navy to keep up with China”. Truth is, we only need to lay out the right pieces and the invasion will never happen. We don’t need to fund an even bigger navy and feed all that more money into the military-industrial complex.
The pieces are already there, all around China.
On one thing you’re right - any war in the region will be super costly and will end an awful lot of human lives. There is a reason, thereby, for US holding strategic ambiguity in the matter.
Can they outperform China militarily? Potentially yes, though at that point we’ll get to the nuclear danger. Anyways, even the traditional warfare directly held between two countries will be a disaster - for China, for US, and for the world.
And while US has the option to back down, China - barely so. If they begin, they will put it to end or be destroyed. US has an option to not get involved or retreat - and they will likely use it in order to not have their entire military destroyed over one island.
This is not Vietnam. This is not Korea. This is not yet another proxy war. This is like if Kamchatka separated from USSR during the Cold war and tried to get US protections. It would turn out very, very bad, regardless of who emerges victorious.
If US wanted to go this far to solve Taiwan question to its benefit, they’d simply station nukes in there. But the consequences of provoking severe backlash from China are big enough so that they’ll never do that. US doesn’t need this war, and it will likely back down should severe escalation happen.
That’s some dangerous speculation for a country that spent 20 years fighting terrorists in the Middle East whose main demand was, “Yankees go home.”
Sure, but the enemy wasn’t China but rather some militarily weak Middle Eastern countries.
It wasn’t that big of an effort to project power in there.
