quote:

Regardless of treaties, our reputation, and what we have said for years, I do not believe there is any situation which would cause us to go to war with China over Taiwan. No one in our Country has the stomach to pay the cost to fight China, if, as a matter of their national pride, they decide to take back Taiwan by force. There is nothing we might "win" which would be worth the cost.

I agree.
Which is why ensigmatic is right about this:

quote:

Which is why, if I were Taiwan, I'd be pursuing some amalgam of the Swiss model and the U.S. RKBA: Arm, supply and train every able-bodied individual in the country.
Make it too expensive to even consider.

But it won't happen. China will take Taiwan by force. No one will stop them.

quote:

Originally posted by sig2392:
Only if they try to take Taiwan by force.

They won't have to.

The old guard of the KMT are mostly gone and their influence on the policies of modern Taiwan is fading fast. The new generation of leaders see the lack of trade with their closest neighbor is a death spiral for their economy.

Reunification is as inevitable as the reunification of Germany. I would think that it would likely follow the Hongkong model as a Special Administrative District...unless it is sabotaged by the American government

The Soviets have the super missiles now, and the Chinese have said they have the technology to overwhelm our ship missile defenses, they are building up their military forces to new levels comparable to the US, maybe not quite on the same level yet but catching up at a threatening pace, so what would likely happen....if a confrontation occurs and they sink a US carrier?

We're at war with China already. China is in the long game for global domination. They will take whatever they believe they can as long as the repercussions are minimal and acceptable.

They have been attacking on economic, global and political fronts. Some explicit, some not. When they believe than can win on a militaristic front, they will make that explicit as well.

We think that there is nothing to be gained by it. But that's wholly besides the point. I agree with Reloader.

China will use force - it's just a matter of when they have the confidence that they will win.

Forget the whole trade reasoning for why there WON'T be a war. Suppose the USA defaults on all that debt the ChiComs hold? Or if they decide eliminating us as an obstacle to their control of various places in the world is worth the loss of trade with us?

I think it depends on our political leaders. Someone like Trump as president, NO. They won't push the button. Someone like Obama probably not because he would not push the button.

quote:

Originally posted by YooperSigs:
The last WWIII scenario I read involved the US vs. China after the Chinese attempted to attack the Philippines.
It was largely an air and naval battle, akin to the Battle of Midway.
I forget where I read it. Maybe Dale Brown?
Since history repeats itself, war with anyone would not surprise me.

Ian Slater WWIII series, maybe?

0-0

The chinese (or Japan - they hold over a trillion too) could tank our economy overnight if they decide to sell the USA debt on the world markets. The dollar would be worthless.
When they decide that exporting goods to the states is no longer in their best interest, the debt they hold is a stronger bomb than anything measured in kilotons.

They don't have to fire a single shot to take out the US.

I think it is more likely that the next war involving multiple countries will start in a small, unrelated area of contention that makes no connective sense.

Not China, DPRK, nor Pakistan/India.

It will be some dispute that will unwittingly involve the main players ... think more like Arch Duke Ferdinand, Serbians and WW1.

My thoughts are currently to Venezuela.

China as a country and a culture is over 3,000 years old. I'll let that sink in. They think in centuries, not the next election. Will China be here when the US is not? The odds are good, historically. Will that mean a face-to-face armed conflict between the US and China? I will just point out that the game of chess, if not originating in China which it well may have, indisputably spread globally along the Silk Road.

They will wear us down economically, like wind and sand against a rock.
I don't believe we have the will power or resolve anymore to stand up. Our next generations, as they gain power, will ultimately speed up the process.
No shots will be fired.

quote:

Originally posted by Doc H.:
China as a country and a culture is over 3,000 years old. I'll let that sink in. They think in centuries, not the next election. Will China be here when the US is not? The odds are good, historically. Will that mean a face-to-face armed conflict between the US and China? I will just point out that the game of chess, if not originating in China which it well may have, indisputably spread globally along the Silk Road.

You do realize that what you wrote is a lot more patronizing than it is informative, right?

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:

quote:

Originally posted by Doc H.:
China as a country and a culture is over 3,000 years old. I'll let that sink in. They think in centuries, not the next election. Will China be here when the US is not? The odds are good, historically. Will that mean a face-to-face armed conflict between the US and China? I will just point out that the game of chess, if not originating in China which it well may have, indisputably spread globally along the Silk Road.

You do realize that what you wrote is a lot more patronizing than informative, right?

Not intended to be. Point being, as others noted, they don't need a hot war to dominate the globe, and in fact trading partners like the US are critical to their national interests, as I'm certain most here know, and they are prepared to take a very long view. Very. I know a little about the Chinese and our former best pals the Russians, and have several years of Pentagon experience behind me, as well as formal strategic studies. China is our biggest national security threat in the long run, and it may well be a long run. Your opinion and experience may differ.

In the next decade? No. The world has chosen to allow China to expand into the South China Sea without doing squat about it. In return, China has chosen (for now) to leave Taiwan alone. I predict China will continue to do some sabre-rattling over Taiwan every once in awhile to keep everyone guessing.

11 years and beyond? All bets are off. But keep in mind those bases in the South China Sea will be bigger and better fortified to operate from and expand military influence. And quite close to major shipping lanes.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
But it won't happen. China will take Taiwan by force. No one will stop them.

Who could stop them? Nobody.

In a full-on all out war, could we beat China? Perhaps, but it would mean millions dead on both sides...or more.

I don't think anyone wants that scenario.

Taiwan is their's for the taking. It is Putin's Ukraine. We couldn't stop him and we won't stop them.

Hell no.

It is very dangerous to predict the results of potential conflict, especially if you're an outside observer like most of us are. Most of us are not soldiers or sailors, nor do we live anywhere close to the action, so to speak. As the saying goes, most people who know what is going on are not talking, and most people who are talking don't know what is going on.

With that said...the Chinese under communism have a giant chip on their shoulder. They've literally been told for decades that the West has held them down, and is still actively suppressing them. We can rest assured that if war comes, it WON'T be because of trade or anything "simple" like that.

Americans have also been raised on a diet of hate. Right now we are told to hate each other...but start a war and we could easily turn all that hate onto someone else. The Japanese found that out the hard way.

3 entities vie for world domination, islam, Russia, and China. I'm thinking the final crusade will be after Christian nations are defeated.

If you have two enemies, the best situation is to promote war between them, to weaken them both, then attack when the winner is most depleted. Maybe those two enemies of China are Europe allied with America, and islam.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: pbslinger,

quote:

Originally posted by reloader-1:
Yes.

Forget the economics. Japan and Germany both declared war on their major trade partners last century, I’ve never understood the trade = peace equation. Throughout history, trade = war at the point that one trading partner can conquer or subjugate the other....

Dont think that is a good comparison. Both Japan and Germany in late 30's early 40's were in a 19th century mind set (as were all the countries) as it related to war. They knew the "cost" of war based on WW1. They entered a war that was, in many areas, still fought using horses and carriages and their countries (Japan especially) was "untouchable". By '45 all the counties had long range bombers and....nukes. Nukes change everything.

You can rebuild cities after conventional bombing no matter how devastating, not after nukes unless you wait 15,000 years. Proxy wars, yes, but doubt a full on shooting war, mano a mano.

quote:

Originally posted by pbslinger:
If you have two enemies, the best situation is to promote war between them, to weaken them both, then attack when the winner is most depleted. Maybe those two enemies of China are Europe allied with America, and islam.

Maybe there's another way to look at it. Russia and China have fought a number of border conflicts over the years, and Russia sided with Vietnam when China tried to invade across the Vietnamese border. Both Russia and China have fought Islamists, and are forced to continue to see them as a viable threat. Perhaps the better answer is to focus on getting Russians, Chinese and Islamists to go after each other until they're all depleted. One place to start might be the lopsided oil and gas contracts Russia was forced to sign with China due to Western sanctions, and that are fed through pipelines crossing Islamist territories.