This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
A blockade isn't as easy as it sounds on paper. Under international law, a blockade is considered an act of war, and China would be under immediate pressure to clarify whether it is indeed at war with Taiwan. If it says yes, then it implicitly recognizes the independence of Taiwan. If it says no, then other countries are free to ignore the blockade. But formalities aside, I would expect that the Chinese come up with some sophisticated rigamorole to dodge the issue, and that the US doesn't buy it. The US and its allies would try to resolve the situation diplomatically while moving the entire Pacific fleet into the area. If the issue isn't resolved, then the US would take a stance that the blockade is illegal and start escorting resupply convoys into Taiwan's harbors. This puts the Chinese in a real jam—if it allows the ships to pass then it it effectively capitulates and is exposed as a paper tiger; if it tries to enforce the blockade it risks starting World War III. And US involvement in Taiwan's defense is practically guaranteed since the opening shots were fired at a US vessel and not Taiwan itself. A blockade just gives the US time to build up a presence in the area and presents a risk that an actual shooting war will be against the US and not Taiwan. I'm not saying that this necessarily will happen, but the blockade strategy seems inherently more risky than just invading all at once while the US is preoccupied elsewhere and hope they don't get involved militarily.
PRC + TW legally in ongoing civil war experiencing a period of detente.
It's almost trivially easy.
Practically, PRC can simply mine TW ports, crater run ways, via overwhelming glide mines and MLRS all within PRC borders (that can hit anywhere in TW + adjacent). US + co doesn't remotely have the demining, sealift or airlift capacity to logistically support TW off PRC waters. Nor will they convince any commercial fleet/insurers to go on suicide mission of... invading One China territory. It's like how Operation Starvation crippled JP during WW2. Except TW is much smaller than JP and PRC is a much larger industrial power than US during wartime. PRC can unilaterally render TW inaccessible - it can blockade TW with basically zero sustained naval or air effort and shift risk to US actions. And really if US/JP try to run the blockade they're legally invading into Chinese sovereign territory and it's WW3 anyway. TW may have chance to survive a PLA invasion, but IMO no chance of breaking a PRC blockade. Folks are grossly underestimating the proponderous of advantages PRC has off her coast.
You just put more assets within PRC A2D2 bubble. Safe distance for US surface fleet is beyond 1st island chain right now.
There's also the political dimension of A) wanting to favourable localized war with US where PRC has advantage. B) worthwhile to gamble US inaction which will reverabate within region on status of US capability/commitment.
If your "blockade" requires lobbing missiles at your opponent just to get it off the ground, then I think you've already gotten to the hot war stage. And this isn't "trivially easy"; Taiwan has hundreds of missiles capable of hitting the Chinese mainland, and they're ramping up production as we speak. If Taiwan starts getting hit you can bet your bottom dollar that there will be retaliatory strikes against the Chinese mainland, regardless of whether the US intervenes or not. Even still, once China takes any action the effect on shipping isn't going to be limited to Taiwanese ports; all cargo in the area is going to become uninsurable. China will be hit with sanctions, but it probably won't matter since their biggest ports will be out of commission anyway.
Blockade IS a hot war already. The concern isn't hot war with TW, but hot war with US by deterring US intervention. Start with mining to disable harbours which is grayscale enough not to be considerd "kinetic" but more than enough to stop bulk energy/calorie goods. Shifts onus on TW to escalate to homeland strikes. Cratering runways is just exta level of petty that prevents strategic materials from being Berlin airlifted.
Why would PRC hit shipping not bound for TW, i.e. engage in commercial ships within 12nm of TW/PRC territorial waters? There were old studies about redirecting shipping east of TW outside of Chinese EEZ with increased fuel + insurance costs measured in low double digit percentages. As someone who followed this space for 20+ years, the narrative that war in TW strait or adjacent will ruin regional shipping was propaganda for giving TW greater significance prior to semiconductors.
...
As with resumption of PRC TW hotwar, having mainland hit by TW is assumed. In Syria, US launched ~100 cruise missiles / TLAMs for 8 small targets, of which non trivial amounts were intercepted using antiquated RU anti air systems. Estimates for # of missiles needed to degrade PRC's SCS bases is high several 100s, i.e. significant % of USN's deployed VLS in region. Extensive concrete infra soaks a lot of hits. In UKR almost 4000? (have not kept up to date) RU missiles did managable damage on UKR war capacity. UKR has fraction of a fraction worth of targest relative to PRC and even less ability to recover. You're grossly overestimating the damage potential of TW stockpiles.
Just from a weaponeering perspective, TW has minimal capacity to take out an impactful amount of PRC infra, especially huge ports, which PRC can repair rapidly because TW can't generate high volume of fires in a single salvo, while their stockpiles even with projected acquistions are still paltry, which wouldn't survive PRC retaliatory fire anyway. Assuming the they can launch a surprise salvo without being discovered - there's limited places on a small island that is heavily monitored to bunker/prep launchers. TW can crank defense spending to 10% of GDP and island still won't have capacity to conventionally degreate PRC in any meaningful or prolonged way. The quantity (and current quality) differential is just that great, i.e. PRC aviation can drop 1000s of mines on TW ports in one sortie. It's not the preferred blockade scenario in terms of strategic flexibility, but in terms of blockading the island into sealed crypt, it is that trivially easy.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
They can say it's a 'police action' (the US version of the 'special military operation'). Nobody declares wars anymore. The US last declared war on Romania in WW2.
The US has traditionally tried to be ambiguous on its Taiwan strategy as part of a mixed strategy. The Chinese have a tonne of ballistic missiles they'd use to attempt to destroy US forces on Yokohama, Guam and so on at the start of the war. But that obviously brings US and Japan into the war. If the Chinese just attack Taiwan first, then they risk the US pacific fleet intervening in good order. US would prefer that they don't get struck first so they retain those forces - but they don't want to say that they won't defend Taiwan and then betray that word. Thus the word-games
Imagine a naval war between the US and Chinese fleets. Food and fuel isn't being shipped in to Taiwan during that time. Even as the oceans are contested, it's still an effective blockade. Perhaps the Chinese don't want to risk a disastrous marine landing until they've secured total naval and air superiority, that could take a while.
I don't know that a Pearl Harbor style preemptive attack on a powerful country you aren't at war with is a great strategy. An ambivalence among the American public about entering a war to defend Taiwan is going to go out the window after missile attacks on US territory. It also opens the door to retaliatory strikes on the Chinese mainland; every Chinese naval base between Macau and Shanghai would be at risk. It also pretty much guarantees international sanctions against China, at a time when one of the most-traveled shipping lanes in the world is effectively shut down. It would be tough, but the rest of the world can afford to take that hit. The Chinese economy can't, given that it's almost entirely export-based. You're right to say that gaining air and naval superiority could take a while, but that's the problem, and given that blockades in general take a while to get results, it leads me to believe that China won't try this. I'm not saying that a blockade necessarily won't work, mind you, but simply that it's not the obvious slam dunk that some people on the internet make it out to be.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You're forgetting the One China Policy. States which do not recognize Taiwan also cannot officially recognize that China is at war with Taiwan. Blockading the island is, formally, merely an internal police matter. You're probably right that the US would ultimately run the blockade, though.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link