Pete Hegseth: US will go to war to stop China from taking Taiwan

[Daniel Nenni]

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the U.S. would take military action to stop China from invading Taiwan, outlining a defense policy that shifts strategic focus from Europe to Asia to deter what he called “an imminent threat” from Beijing.

Speaking at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore on Sunday, Hegseth said the Trump administration is prioritizing the Indo-Pacific region as part of its effort to counter China’s growing military influence.

Indo-Pacific defense pivot
“President Trump has said that Communist China will not invade Taiwan on his watch,” Hegseth said. “So, our goal is to prevent war … and we will do this with a strong shield of deterrence …

But if deterrence fails, and if called upon by my commander-in-chief, we are prepared to do what the Department of Defense does best – fight and win — decisively.

Hegseth accused China of building up military capabilities at high speed and training regularly for an invasion of Taiwan. He cited intelligence that President Xi Jinping has directed the People’s Liberation Army to be ready for such an operation by 2027. He warned that any attempt to forcibly take Taiwan would have severe consequences for regional and global security.

China fires back
Chinese officials at the forum reiterated Beijing’s position on Taiwan, emphasizing that any attempt to separate the island from China would be met with firm opposition. Rear Adm. Hu Gangfeng, vice president of China’s National Defense University, dismissed U.S. accusations, calling them “attempts to provoke trouble, incite division and stir up confrontation to destabilize the Asia-Pacific region.”

“Hegseth’s remarks were filled with provocations and intended to sow division. China deplores and firmly opposes them and has protested strongly to the U.S.,” the ministry said.

Defense spending
At the summit, Hegseth further called on Indo-Pacific allies to significantly increase their defense budgets, suggesting targets of up to 5% of GDP. He emphasized the need for regional militaries to match China’s rapid modernization and deter potential aggression. He also warned against economic dependence on China, arguing it leaves countries vulnerable to coercion.

Citing NATO’s defense spending benchmarks, Hegseth urged partners to follow suit in Asia. The U.S. has reportedly asked Australia to raise its defense budget to 3.5% of GDP. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese responded that Australia would determine its own course, pointing to a 10 billion Australian dollars ($6.46 billion) military investment and a target of 2.4% by 2033–34.

Pete Hegseth: US will go to war to stop China from taking Taiwan

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the U.S. would take military action to stop China from invading Taiwan, outlining a defense policy that shifts strategic focus from Europe to Asia to deter what he called “an imminent threat” from Beijing. Speaking at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore on...

www.yahoo.com

 

[Barnsley]

Is this good or bad?

 

[hist78]

Is this good or bad?

It's good. Trump’s ambiguity about US policy toward CCP aggression against Taiwan is dangerous and could lead to a miscalculation by the CCP.

 

[Daniel Nenni]

Personally I think the semiconductor industry is worth protecting but that is just me. The positive about having an unpredictable president is that he is unpredictable. I remember Ronald Reagan's bomb Russia joke:

Before the speech, while Reagan was joking with NPR's audio engineers during a soundcheck, he riffed on his own speech, saying,

My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.[2]

This sort of levity was common for Reagan; he injected his humor into soundchecks, outtakes, and downtime throughout his careers in show business and politics.[3]

He was the first president I voted for when I turned 18. I thought he was hilarious! Do you remember Reaganomics? We called it Ramenomics in college because we had to eat Top Ramen to survive the budget cuts. The good old days...

 

[hist78]

Personally I think the semiconductor industry is worth protecting but that is just me. The positive about having an unpredictable president is that he is unpredictable. I remember Ronald Reagan's bomb Russia joke:

Before the speech, while Reagan was joking with NPR's audio engineers during a soundcheck, he riffed on his own speech, saying,

This sort of levity was common for Reagan; he injected his humor into soundchecks, outtakes, and downtime throughout his careers in show business and politics.[3]

He was the first president I voted for when I turned 18. I thought he was hilarious! Do you remember Reaganomics? We called it Ramenomics in college because we had to eat Top Ramen to survive the budget cuts. The good old days...

What Reagan did or said may not be suitable for today’s world. We’re not in Kansas anymore, and the US is no longer dealing with a weakened USSR. Instead, it’s facing a relatively strong CCP/PRC.

There is no longer room for strategic ambiguity.

 

[Daniel Nenni]

What Reagan did or said may not be suitable for today’s world. We’re not in Kansas anymore, and the US is no longer dealing with a weakened USSR. Instead, it’s facing a relatively strong CCP/PRC. There is no longer room for strategic ambiguity.

I remember practicing hiding under our desks in elementary school in case Russia bombed us. We built pretend fallout shelters. Seriously, this was in the 1960s and we were all pretty scared. This was in California by the way, not Kansas. Baby boomers, am I right?

 

[DaRAGingLunatic]

It's all BS. China can't invade Taiwan without war with everyone. Also. Taiwan have missiles aimed at the three gorges damn. China have said that if anyone attacks that damn to bring it down, it will retaliate with nukes. So unless China want's to lose their big damn, lose a huge amount of electrical power, lose a huge amount of lives, then nuke the place they want to invade with a nuke, and think they'll get away with attacking a sovereign nation, that produces 80% of the worlds chips, without having any other nation attack it, then they are vastly mistaken. There is a large amount of nations preparing for war for this and have been preparing for many years due to this very issue, and it's bullying tactics.

 

[coldsolder215]

The drunkest dog in DC barks, many such cases.

 

[Arthur Hanson]

As they used to say, the next war after a nuclear war will be fought with sticks and stones. Some of the big nukes can take out an entire state. This comes from an engineer who worked in this area.

 

[sonchoy]

Peace is the absence of war; countries exist in a delicate balance-of-power.

As long as TSMC stays ahead of Intel, my take is that there will be no war between China and the US over Taiwan. TSMC staying ahead means our way-of-life in the West remains within China's grasp.

It's when TSMC starts to fall behind (if ever) or Intel reaches parity with TSMC in scale and technology, that I'd start to worry. This lessens Taiwan's utility and the West's willingness to defend Taiwan.

Legally though, everyone is already in agreement that Taiwan is a part of China. Trump just recently re-affirmed the One China policy. One China policy stipulates that Taiwan should be re-united with China via "peaceful means." This wording has never been defined though. Is a blockade a peaceful method? How about a cyber attack? What happens if Chinese sabotage makes TSMC's yield go to zero? What would be Taiwan's utility then?

Ultimately I think Taiwan will be re-united with China just like Hong Kong was. Chinese military and economic strength became so overwhelming that for Britain, after 156 years, Hong Kong simply wasn't worth defending any more.

 

[MKWVentures]

Peace is the absence of war; countries exist in a delicate balance-of-power.

As long as TSMC stays ahead of Intel, my take is that there will be no war between China and the US over Taiwan. TSMC staying ahead means our way-of-life in the West remains within China's grasp.

It's when TSMC starts to fall behind (if ever) or Intel reaches parity with TSMC in scale and technology, that I'd start to worry. This lessens Taiwan's utility and the West's willingness to defend Taiwan.

Legally though, everyone is already in agreement that Taiwan is a part of China. Trump just recently re-affirmed the One China policy. One China policy stipulates that Taiwan should be re-united with China via "peaceful means." This wording has never been defined though. Is a blockade a peaceful method? How about a cyber attack? What happens if Chinese sabotage makes TSMC's yield go to zero? What would be Taiwan's utility then?

Ultimately I think Taiwan will be re-united with China just like Hong Kong was. Chinese military and economic strength became so overwhelming that for Britain, after 156 years, Hong Kong simply wasn't worth defending any more.

When Hong Kong was re-united, did all the Hong Kong businesses go away? Lots of Social political incidents. what was the impact to businesses? (I really dont know)

 

[TICin852]

Ultimately I think Taiwan will be re-united with China just like Hong Kong was. Chinese military and economic strength became so overwhelming that for Britain, after 156 years, Hong Kong simply wasn't worth defending any more.

Not completely that - Legally, Britain couldn't actually do anything because they'd be in the wrong if they didn't hand back the portion of Hong Kong that was leased to them for 99 years - Taiwan seems a different case, because they interpret themselves as the "One China", while with the British they actually acknowledged the 99 year lease (China's military strength definitely played a role, especially when they informed Britain they would not renew the lease - but legally, the British had no true recourse and everyone knew it). They really tried to see if it was possible to hold onto only the land that was ceded to them permanently, but ultimately it was too difficult and unfeasible (and also, China could simply roll in with its military - as they did allude to at the start of negotiations - but we never reached that point, and I believe would have created a situation similar to one we would see if China invaded Taiwan). China did not yet have the economic strength. Military strength, yes, they had enough bodies (and nukes) to take back Hong Kong. Ultimately, everyone realized that splitting Hong Kong in two was not possible and China had every right to take Hong Kong back - but China wanted to make sure to do this in a way that showed the world they were developing and moving forward - otherwise it would have spooked foreign investment.

China during the 90s was still a rising superpower and Hong Kong equated to 10-15% of its total GDP - and the sanctions that the rest of the world could wield upon them could have definitely blocked their industry expansion. The meteoric, exponential growth was only just beginning - and would have been stopped right in its tracks. The world would go somewhere else for cheap labor - China had not moved up the value chain yet at that time, so the possibility for sanctions and the end of all foreign investment in China was very real and would have had massive impacts. (Not saying sanctions on China wouldn't work today, but they would hurt the countries doing the sanctioning a lot more)

Nominal GDP of different countries by year: (look at 1997)

The other SAR, Macau, was ceded indefinitely, but China used a grey tactic - starting riots during the Cultural Revolution that the Portuguese were unable to control, which forced them to negotiate secretly and gave China de-facto control, and it was eventually returned (the Portuguese also wanted to return it earlier, but that's another story).

The Taiwan question has different interpretations of the One-China policy, that allows for legal ambiguity. The Hong Kong problem was very clear and laid out. Everyone agreed that you had a 99 year lease that was expiring. The British even acknowledged it when they first went to Beijing to get an extension. The ROC and PRC claim different things about who is the "One China".

We still have 11 countries and the Holy See recognizing Taiwan as the "One China". It certainly helps that there is a large strait between Taiwan and China, that Taiwan has a military that would fight back, Taiwan is the center of semiconductor manufacturing, and the US have a defense treaty with them.

I do wonder how things would have played out if Hong Kong had a 150 year lease - would China try to take it back early? I do think so, though they would try to use different justification (false flag attack, maybe), and be forced to use military and economic means - but it definitely could leave a bad taste in everyone's mouth (Hong Kong before the 90s was partially free, but not democratic - though the people there appreciated the additional freedoms they had over China - and I do wonder whether and when the UK would have actually initiated a democratic transition if there was a 150 year lease) and cause a whole lot of headaches - and in this universe, I think it would completely prevent them from taking Taiwan, who would invest even more heavily in their military after seeing what happened.

 

[sonchoy]

The one thing I worry about is that China is unquestionably the world's Industrial/Manufacturing Superpower today. Wars are fought with Goods and some Services, and China has superiority in Goods production today (below).

WWII experience showed that while Germany had qualitative superiority over the Allies, US industrial production and Soviet manpower ultimately won the war. As Lenin said, "Quantity has a quality of its own."

With the re-industrialization drive in the West - e.g. Biden's Chips act, Trump's tariffs to re-shore production etc. - this window of industrial superiority that China has will be closing in perhaps ~10 years. One has to wonder how much this factors into Chinese calculation regarding Taiwan.

 

[Mooredaddy]

It's all BS. China can't invade Taiwan without war with everyone. Also. Taiwan have missiles aimed at the three gorges damn. China have said that if anyone attacks that damn to bring it down, it will retaliate with nukes. So unless China want's to lose their big damn, lose a huge amount of electrical power, lose a huge amount of lives, then nuke the place they want to invade with a nuke, and think they'll get away with attacking a sovereign nation, that produces 80% of the worlds chips, without having any other nation attack it, then they are vastly mistaken. There is a large amount of nations preparing for war for this and have been preparing for many years due to this very issue, and it's bullying tactics.

Exactly it’s WW3 in this scenario so it’s not even worth seriously modelling

 

[Mooredaddy]

Personally I think the semiconductor industry is worth protecting but that is just me. The positive about having an unpredictable president is that he is unpredictable. I remember Ronald Reagan's bomb Russia joke:

Before the speech, while Reagan was joking with NPR's audio engineers during a soundcheck, he riffed on his own speech, saying,

This sort of levity was common for Reagan; he injected his humor into soundchecks, outtakes, and downtime throughout his careers in show business and politics.[3]

He was the first president I voted for when I turned 18. I thought he was hilarious! Do you remember Reaganomics? We called it Ramenomics in college because we had to eat Top Ramen to survive the budget cuts. The good old days...

I’d argue unpredictability is bad for business investment and even worse for geopolitics

 

[tooLongInEDA]

Peace is the absence of war; countries exist in a delicate balance-of-power.

As long as TSMC stays ahead of Intel, my take is that there will be no war between China and the US over Taiwan. TSMC staying ahead means our way-of-life in the West remains within China's grasp.

It's when TSMC starts to fall behind (if ever) or Intel reaches parity with TSMC in scale and technology, that I'd start to worry. This lessens Taiwan's utility and the West's willingness to defend Taiwan.

Legally though, everyone is already in agreement that Taiwan is a part of China. Trump just recently re-affirmed the One China policy. One China policy stipulates that Taiwan should be re-united with China via "peaceful means." This wording has never been defined though. Is a blockade a peaceful method? How about a cyber attack? What happens if Chinese sabotage makes TSMC's yield go to zero? What would be Taiwan's utility then?

Ultimately I think Taiwan will be re-united with China just like Hong Kong was. Chinese military and economic strength became so overwhelming that for Britain, after 156 years, Hong Kong simply wasn't worth defending any more.

Not wanting to get into politics here, but Hong Kong was only held by the UK on a 99 year lease which expired in 1997. It most definitely was not a case of "not defending it any more". Legally it had to be returned. The only thing up for debate was the details of how the transition was managed. There is no parallel to the Taiwan situation here.

 

[Xebec]

It's good. Trump’s ambiguity about US policy toward CCP aggression against Taiwan is dangerous and could lead to a miscalculation by the CCP.

I was curious what the take was here on this; the US has been 'strategically ambiguous' for decades on this topic; is this the first time the US is actually taking a formal stance?

I think it's the right thing to do, but China will see it as an escalation.

Policy of deliberate ambiguity - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[sonchoy]

Not wanting to get into politics here, but Hong Kong was only held by the UK on a 99 year lease which expired in 1997. It most definitely was not a case of "not defending it any more". Legally it had to be returned. The only thing up for debate was the details of how the transition was managed. There is no parallel to the Taiwan situation here.

Agree that legally HK had to be returned and it's not an exact parallel to the Taiwan issue. But I'd argue that the big boys (US, China, Russia etc.) always re-write the "legal" rules when they don't like it. HK was taken in by the British Empire and returned by a much weakened UK.

Latest example of re-writing the rules is Ukraine - Russia, US and a few others guaranteed its borders in a 1994 agreement if only it de-nuclearized (Ukraine had the 3rd largest nuclear arsenal in the world at the time - ex-Soviet nukes). It did and now the agreement is nowhere to be found.

 

[Xebec]

It's all BS. China can't invade Taiwan without war with everyone. Also. Taiwan have missiles aimed at the three gorges damn. China have said that if anyone attacks that damn to bring it down, it will retaliate with nukes. So unless China want's to lose their big damn, lose a huge amount of electrical power, lose a huge amount of lives, then nuke the place they want to invade with a nuke, and think they'll get away with attacking a sovereign nation, that produces 80% of the worlds chips, without having any other nation attack it, then they are vastly mistaken. There is a large amount of nations preparing for war for this and have been preparing for many years due to this very issue, and it's bullying tactics.

Don't overestimate the value that communist governments place on civilian lives.

 

[hist78]

I was curious what the take was here on this; the US has been 'strategically ambiguous' for decades on this topic; is this the first time the US is actually taking a formal stance?

I think it's the right thing to do, but China will see it as an escalation.

Policy of deliberate ambiguity - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

President Biden had said several times publicly through his presidency that US will intervene with force if CCP/PRC attacks Taiwan.

In terms of possible escalation, there is no such issue because CCP/PRC keeps sending fighter jets, bombers, and navy vessels into areas adjacent to Taiwan, Japan, Australia, and Philippines. US must demonstrate the will and tell CCP the serious consequences unambiguously.