China starts large military drills around Taiwan

[ai268]

"would the US and its allies risk general war over Taiwan if not for TSMC? "

Will USA occupy Taiwan before China going to invade? Would China risk general war over Taiwan with USA? US did bomb Taiwan and thought about invading Taiwan, Operation Causeway, Nimitz vs Macarthur, during WWII.

"But Operation Causeway was unrealistic without further significant reinforcements in the Pacific theater ; instead, Spruance proposed "Iwo Jima - Okinawa".

 

[soAsian]

While you're concerned about Taiwan, consider the more pressing threat from North Korea, which has already demonstrated its aggression by blowing up a peace road between the two Korea.

China and North Korea have military exercises, but North Korea's actions are more alarming. The US has a treaty with South Korea, obliging American troops to intervene in case of war.

In contrast, the US-Taiwan agreement only guarantees infalted second hand arms sales, with no assurance of military intervention. The US has a military base in South Korea, but none in Taiwan.

China would need time to prepare a cross-strait invasion, providing ample warning. North Korea, however, has tunnels reaching Seoul, within artillery range, making a surprise attack feasible.

Other hot zones, like Israel, pose greater risks. US taxpayers fund Israel, and the US has already deployed carriers to defend against rocket attacks and protect the shipping lane. A broader Middle Eastern conflict would put many American lives at risk.

The US wants to avoid war and losing its citizens in foreign conflicts. With more pressing hot zones requiring US troop commitments, why prioritize Taiwan, where the US has no binding obligations beyond arms sales?

Considering global affairs, I'm more concerned about regions where the US is likely to deploy troops, such as the Korean Peninsula and Middle East.

A China/Taiwan conflict would be tragic. However, Intel, Globalfoundries and Samsung have the capacity to produce chips, mitigating the impact

 

[DepthFirst]

The Patriot also supposedly shot down those Scuds in the 1990s. Until the leaks came out with the actual interception rate.
They cannot even protect Israel 100%, which is a postage stamp of a place to defend with the biggest concentration of air defenses in the entire planet, against Iranian missiles. Israel asked the US to take the Patriot batteries there back. And you think they can defend an area the size of the continental US against Chinese missiles?

The PAC-1's used in Desert storm are massively different than PAC-3 MSE's which the US currently fields. As for the Israel, they are retiring their old batteries Patriot batteries which they have never upgraded since delivery in the early 90's. The US wants those to give those to Ukraine. But why are you even talking about patriot missiles when it comes to ICBM's? You may as well be talking about how 5.56 isn't penetrating a Type 99. That's not the correct platform. GBI, SM-3's SM-6's, and THAAD, are the layered ballistic missile defense which applies to ICBM's. THAAD specifically was requested by Israel to enhance their defense against Iran.

But when it comes to Chinese ICBM's that's not the main one. That would be the Minuteman III, which within 8 minutes of those DF-41's launching would be on their way to kill half a billion Chinese in 30 minutes, and hundreds of millions more in the coming weeks.

 

[DepthFirst]

The US wants to avoid war and losing its citizens in foreign conflicts. With more pressing hot zones requiring US troop commitments, why prioritize Taiwan, where the US has no binding obligations beyond arms sales?

Considering global affairs, I'm more concerned about regions where the US is likely to deploy troops, such as the Korean Peninsula and Middle East.

The US has no binding obligations, but it sent an entire carrier strike group through the straight when the Chinese got upitty back in '95. US foreign policy for 70 years has been to ensure a free and independent Taiwan, even if Taiwan can not actually declare itself so without Beijing starting new conflict. Taiwan is a cork which keeps the PLA in the first island chain bottle, and it is the linchpin of US strategy in the region. It is enormous importance to the US and has been long before any analyst or journalist was using the term "Silicon Shield".

 

[samwilde]

Not sure the facts support that. There are thousands of Chinese flying into South America and traveling thousands of miles overland to get into the US. Not much flow in the other directions.

It is way harder to get Chinese citizenship. And those thousands are just a tiny fraction of their population.
There is still a lot of poverty in rural areas in China. I do not think anyone debates that.

In United States, the average life expectancy is 81 years (78 years for men, 83 years for women) as of 2022. In China, that number is 76 years (74 years for men, 81 years for women) as of 2020.

You swapped the numbers around. And even then you did not get them right.

FastStats

FastStats is an official application from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) and puts access to topic-specific statistics at your fingertips.

www.cdc.gov

World Bank Open Data

Free and open access to global development data

data.worldbank.org

In United States, approximately 5.2 children (per 1,000 live births) die before they reach the age of one as of 2022. In China, on the other hand, 6.8 children do as of 2022.

Nope.

World Bank Open Data

Free and open access to global development data

data.worldbank.org

United States, 3.6% of adults are unemployed as of 2022. In China, that number is 5.0% as of 2022.

Sure. But the US typically has higher unemployment.

World Bank Open Data

Free and open access to global development data

data.worldbank.org

 

[tooLongInEDA]

Is anyone else wondering exactly what this particular discussion is doing on SemiWiki now ?

We seem to have reached a personal opinion:technical content/relevance ratio of >>> 1.0 and it seems to be meandering off into irrelevance.

 

[Barnsley]

Is anyone else wondering exactly what this particular discussion is doing on SemiWiki now ?

We seem to have reached a personal opinion:technical content/relevance ratio of >>> 1.0 and it seems to be meandering off into irrelevance.

Once its established as news, then that likely end of the required info.

My Dads bigger than your dad with respect to the various navies and relative weapon capacity prollt should be elsewhere.

 

[Daniel Nenni]

US Navy SEAL Team 6 Special Forces Prepares to Support Taiwan Amid Escalating China Tensions

US Navy SEAL Team 6 Special Forces Prepares to Support Taiwan Amid Escalating China Tensions

www.armyrecognition.com

Now China is in trouble!

 

[Paul2]

You don't need microchips during the war, nor the ability to manufacture them, as well as lion share of civilian consumption. As we see now, Ukrainian defence enterprises run off small gensets in between bombings. Military materiel is like 1% the size of what the civilian economy produces. You can fight a few wars off existing microchip stocks easily.

And the reverse is true too, and that's what Western planners don't see. PRC can activate a much, much higher portion of its civilian industry for the military needs, many times bigger than say America. All big enough manufacturing enterprises are legally required to have supplies for "civil defence" purposes, which is an euphemism for war. PRC's industry will be much harder to knock out. Much of it was explicitly planned for wartime production.

Now, take a look how much Ukraine can produce under repeated blackouts, despite losing much of USSR's defence production over 30 years before the war. Ukraine would be nowhere near the biggest industrial economy, but see just how much these "few percents" of their industrial output are. Half of Ukrainian ammo is still coming from country's own military industry. PRC, and DPRK maintain far bigger portion of their industry ready for the switch from civilian to military production. Taking out their military industry entirely would not be possible.

Considering global affairs, I'm more concerned about regions where the US is likely to deploy troops, such as the Korean Peninsula and Middle East.

Consider US sent its defence secretary to Seoul to say that "you will lose US security guarantees if you move on NorKo." And after that, all murmur about sending SK arms in response to NK's shipment of missiles to Russia suddenly died out. And this is not without a precedent, Obama quietly told Duterte that he will not back him invoking the US-Philippines defence treaty, when Duterte was about to evict PRC from the island it squatted. Both SK, and Philippines are the most clear defence treaty partners, with even more explicitly worded defence defence obligations on the US part than in the NATO treaty.

But when it comes to Chinese ICBM's that's not the main one.

When it comes to ICBM's, you have to destroy them before they fire. After they fire, firing back at empty launchers, and silos is pointless.

 

[DepthFirst]

When it comes to ICBM's, you have to destroy them before they fire. After they fire, firing back at empty launchers, and silos is pointless.

The poster I was replying to was talking about patriot missiles defending against ICBM's launched at continental US. In the event of Chinese ICBM's heading for the US, it would not be executing a counter force strike at empty silos but a counter value one.

 

[Paul2]

The poster I was replying to was talking about patriot missiles defending against ICBM's launched at continental US. In the event of Chinese ICBM's heading for the US, it would not be executing a counter force strike at empty silos but a counter value one.

I mean, unless you strike preemptively, a big part of bases, industry, government, will be gone, and you fight attrition warfare, in which an opponent with more industry, resources, workers, and soldier wins. All major powers have far more people than their ability to arm, and supply, and far more industry to be feasible to destroy through brute force in one go.

After a certain critical mass of missiles is accumulated, any missile defence not on the scale of SDI, or excess counterstrike ability will have diminishing returns. The only thing you could do after is attack, attack, attack, and WW1 attrition warfare. Beijing's goal now is to reach that ratio after which, when they press the red button, will guarantee their victory in WW1 style transpacific war.

 

[OneEng]

I certainly don't want to argue about the relative military capabilities of the US vs China as this is not fruitful. I know what I know from first hand experience and have no inclination to prove or disprove my assertions.

I will say that already Xi and the Chinese media are backing off the rhetoric as more US war ships and submarines (as well as other western countries) start sailing back and fourth through the Taiwan straight. Should Xi up the threat more, I suspect a virtual blockade to Taiwan will be created.

I have every faith that there will not be a conflict. I do not believe for one moment that the US carrier group that is there is any kind of a bluff. More importantly, as I read the politics of the situation, I believe that Xi understands this as well.

Now, sadly, I also believe that in the future, as IP indolence from Taiwan becomes reality in Europe and the US, the situation may not be so secure. This will like be 10 years or more in the future though.

 

[OneEng]

US Navy SEAL Team 6 Special Forces Prepares to Support Taiwan Amid Escalating China Tensions

US Navy SEAL Team 6 Special Forces Prepares to Support Taiwan Amid Escalating China Tensions

www.armyrecognition.com

Now China is in trouble!

Ever met a Seal? They are not there to fight in a meat grinder war. A group of them road the sub I was stationed on. If the seal team has been assigned a task, it is generally not anything that will be covered in the news .... in fact, it is unlikely that anyone will ever know they were even there.

I suspect that they are there to train the Taiwan special forces. If that is true, then China has a great deal to be worried about. You would be very surprised to know how much a team of 5 Seals can accomplish behind enemy lines in a couple of weeks. A hundred such teams with US backing and training would be a nightmare for any country.

The most important part of this announcement, is that the US WANTS China to know they are doing it. Do you think that it is normal for people to KNOW where a Seal team is sent? This is a warning, and it is a personal warning to those in power.

Again, I think Xi understand the scope of the game he plays. I also don't believe he is willing to give up his cushy existence for the reaping he would receive from ignoring these warnings.

 

[C-4]

Are the Taiwanese genuinely worried about the situation at the moment? Their defense spending is only at 2.5% GDP - just above the minimum requirements of NATO membership (though it is increasing above inflation at < 10% per year). Source: https://www.cfr.org/blog/taiwans-latest-defense-budget-risks-falling-further-behind-china . Also I heard Taiwan import > 90% of their energy, and only have days - few months of key energy stockpiles, and are in the process of phasing out nuclear power.

If anyone lives in the region, maybe you have a more accurate take on what is happening there.