solarz
Brigadier
I don't know about that, the Taiwan situation seems pretty tense.
Miscellaneous News
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
I don't know about that, the Taiwan situation seems pretty tense.
I don't know, maybe it's because I grew up in America since I was a baby, I can spot American Bullshit posturing from miles away.
US won't do jack shit to defend Taiwan. If anything, Americans will be the FIRST to condemn Taiwanese for their cowardice, low morale, and quick surrender, just like how Americans quickly admonished Afghanistan puppet gov't, or South Vietnamese puppet gov't for their "Weak will to fight on"... (Basically "Blame Losers" technique). US has zero balls to actually defend Taiwan, US will shed no blood, it's all posturing and rhetoric aimed at domestic audience and Korea/Japan to appear tough for allies. The blame will be on Taiwan at the end for not fighting hard enough to worth shedding US blood or sacrifice. Also, the balance of power is firmly in China's favor with rapid modernization, US/Taiwan knows that too. At best, you can see some US intel sharing/recon/ammo, anti-China media circle jerk, moral support, and token symbolic sanctions. US won't shed blood for Taiwan.
Last edited:
I think the probability is 50/50
"The United States abandoned Taiwan" --- it is a hypothesis based on what happens in vietnam and Afghanistan. That makes me remember mistakes that Japan, India and the United States in the past.
1Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, from the Japanese point of view, it was a rational decision based on the experience and success of the wars against China and Russia. But this time the Japanese shot themselves in the foot, their strategy didn't work.
2. Nehru used the forward policy to encroach on Chinese territory. At that time, China was isolated economically and politically by many countries. Sino-Soviet relations were divided, and China had to maintain a huge number of soldiers and military equipment in the north to defend against the Soviet Union. Compared with China, India has more advantages. But Nehru's "reasonable" decision backfired and India received the most terrible BIG-L in history. The 1962 war hit India's leadership in the face.
3. After the Korean War, the Americans learned their lesson, they decided to change their strategy, avoiding direct conflict with China, so they maintained American troops in South Vietnam, using a defensive strategy. and bombing to stop North Vietnam. This strategy did not work, it failed to protect South Vietnam and cost America more than the Korean War.
Only 40% of Taiwanese believe America will defend it (the lowest amongst supposed "US Allies"), so how is your estimate even more optimistic than Taiwanese themselves, who are regularly fed bullshit US propaganda too?
If Trump or another crazy Republican was in charge, the best case scenario is 50/50. If it's Biden, he would 80-90% chance he blame Taiwan for low morale/cowardice, and slap some token sanctions on China and call it a day.
It's based on US refusal to sell Taiwan it's most modern weaponry: F-35 that it reserves for Israel/NATO/Korea/Japan. Taiwan is not a real ally, based on action, not talk.
It's also based on TRA's strategic ambiguity words, which allows US to opt out of defense if the situation changes, like balance of power tilts away from US favor.
It's based on US regular abandonment of "US allies" when the costs overweights the benefits (Afghanistan and South Vietnam).
1941? China wasn't even born yet, still in Civil War/Foreign Invasion/Occupation.
1962? China didn't even have nuclear bombs yet. Maybe nuclear weapons is an important factor in whether US would intervene.
1950? China was piss-poor and military backwards then (yet still stalemated US). If anything, the experience of stalemating Korea led to US inaction in Vietnam (refusal to cross the 17th parallels into North Vietnam for fear of Chinese intervention a la Korea) which ultimately lead to US and South Vietnamese defeat. And that's against a backward-ass/poor China. The modernization of Chinese military has increased so much that the balance of power is firmly in China's favor now on conflicts at it's coastline/door step.
US will abandon Taiwan just like it abandoned the Kurds, Afghanistan, and South Vietnamese because the Costs outweighs the Benefits.
Does the US give up Taiwan? The future will answer. Nothing is sure, everything is possible
solarz
Brigadier
I mostly agree with your assessment, but I think the risk of an American miscalculation (intervention) is still significant. It's just that the potential consequence (i.e. nuclear war) is so disastrous, even a minute risk needs to be taken seriously.
The danger I see right now is that Americans still mostly believe they can win a war against China over Taiwan. The likelihood of war is greatest when both sides believe they can win.
So why doesn't US sell F-35s to Taiwan for fear of pissing off China? Is it because Taiwan is so infiltrated by Chinese spies? Or is it because if Taiwan gets conquered, PLA will get a first-hand model of US most valueable asset? Either way, it means US has zero confidence in Taiwan, and it's a strategic liability, not an asset. Actions speak louder than words.
For domestic consumption purposes and for Korea/Japan allies, you have to talk strong and be overconfident. That is the American style or culture (Similar to Dunning-Krueger effect, overestimate on ability but for domestic consumption). US talked very strong about defend Afghanistan Kabul until the very last minute. Same with South Vietnam, they talk strong until the situation changes, then they throw their allies under the bus and blame the victim. That is the American style.
