US guarantees Taiwan security. Now what?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Dimlee said:
A good reminder, thanks. I always wondered about the long-term intentions of the PRC in the first two Strait crises in the 1950s. Did Beijing plan to go further - beyond the group of small islands...
Click to expand...

It's always seemed clear to me that China would try to retake Taiwan long-term -- and preferably through peaceful means, by their own planning. But their abrogation of their agreement with Hong Kong has, I think, put the Taiwanese on notice that a peaceful resolution will still mean subjugation. In that sense, PRC has tipped its hand.

As an American, whose country has given support to Taiwan for many decades now, I think we have a moral obligation to support them if this issue should come to blows. I also think that we Americans should be willing to fight for democracies elsewhere, either by direct military support, or by supplies of weaponry and training as is the case with Ukraine. Even if we do not commit troops we can still be the arsenal of democracy.
 

WASHINGTON, Sept 18 (Reuters) - U.S. President Joe Biden said U.S forces would defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion, his most explicit statement on the issue, drawing an angry response from China that said it sent the wrong signal to those seeking an independent Taiwan.

Asked in a CBS 60 Minutes interview broadcast on Sunday whether U.S. forces would defend the democratically governed island claimed by China, he replied: "Yes, if in fact, there was an unprecedented attack."


Asked to clarify if he meant that unlike in Ukraine, U.S. forces - American men and women - would defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion, Biden replied: "Yes."

Biden says U.S. forces would defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion

U.S. President Joe Biden said U.S forces would defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion, his most explicit statement on the issue, drawing an angry response from China that said it sent the wrong signal to those seeking an independent Taiwan.
www.reuters.com
 
Last edited:
I was just reading an article about the simulations of a Chinese attack on Taiwan.
There were several dozen results based on variables and in a few, yes, the USN did suffer significant losses, however, in each scenario, China lost - one of which showed China losing 90% of their surface naval assets at the cost of 10 USN submarines (out of 54).

The bulk of the scenarios played out were solely USN versus Chinese Navy. Once the USAF was factored into the situation, Chinese naval asset survivability became close to zero.
 
To paraphrase Secretary Lehmans famous comment to the Select Committee

'In a conformation with the United States Navy, the Peoples Liberation Army Navy would have a short, but very exciting war'
 
I was thinking about a U.S.-China conflict. The losses of U.S. CVNs in the scenario were troubling. The long lead time for new carriers and the loss of some flight decks had me wondering if the U.S. should semi-retire whichever CVNs are to be replaced instead of scrapping them. I know that those ships may have been ridden hard and put away wet. I can see a need for flight decks which can't be quickly replaced. I was thinking that those carriers due for replacement be kept in a "ready reserve", not necessarily with their own air groups. I view them as a kind of emergency airstrip.
Running a carrier battle group around the 'Horn from the Atlantic or being forced to travel through other choke points would take a lot of time.
 
The USN currently has eleven fleet carriers with another currently undergoing sea trials.
It also has nine smaller carriers (LHA/LHD) carriers in service with two in reserve.

China has two fleet carriers and three smaller carriers (LHD) in service.

The balance of USN submarines (all types) in service dwarfs China's fleet.

Factor in USAF assets and it becomes clear that China would not do well to provoke a response from the US.
 
But if conflict does happen I believe we will lose a carrier or two. I think an F-35C might have problems landing on an LHA/LHD. Do those things even have arrestor cables?
I agree that the U.S. has significant advantages over PLAN. Not expecting significant losses never seemed to work out that way historically. That's why I think it would be prudent to have some emergency runways behind the fleet. A museum Essex just won't cut it.
I got conflicted about never underestimating your enemy and Russia's dismal performance. I would make the same mistake twice and say that China is probably better than we think and we might not be as great as we think.
Then again, if this does happen, nothing is getting scrapped.
 
That's why I'm thinking of back-up flight decks. If a CVN is lost her aircraft could use a friendly field. E-2s might also need a nice big flat spot.
 

Additional to this, I hope we're upgrading our defenses against hypersonics.

I haven't read the study to garner the specifics, but that has to be a major concern going forward, what with China's strategy of using said missiles for A²/AD purposes.
 
SaparotRob said:
I believe we will lose a carrier or two
Click to expand...
That, i believe would be very optimistic. China has no naval fighting expierence. None.
It's putting (lets be gentle) a body builder against a Mike Tyson in his prime.
No contest. He looks good but will he will be bleeding in a corner after 30 seconds not to get up. And that is with a referee.
No i think the chinese navy is not ready to fight any one on equal therm let alone the united states navy. And i think they know.
 
Thumpalumpacus said:
Additional to this, I hope we're upgrading our defenses against hypersonics.

I haven't read the study to garner the specifics, but that has to be a major concern going forward, what with China's strategy of using said missiles for A²/AD purposes.
Click to expand...
That's assuming that China can get their HSWs into play before their weapon platforms are taken out.

One of the key factors here, is the USN is not only numerically superior, but on a par technologically.
 

The issue is not the PLAN warships, it's the missiles they've deployed to deny the area around Taiwan to surface combatants or resupply shipping. The hypothetical naval war here will not be about crossing Ts or whose guns have more range, it will be about land- and air-launched missiles forcing the USN to either maintain a safe distance or risk its ships to said missiles.

As noted above, and as we saw in the Pacific War, USN carrier strength will be vital, and in that sense you're very right; we have a huge lead in the doctrinal and operational aspects of carrier warfare, not to mention a big numerical superiority. But carriers make tempting targets for a missile barrage that could likely overcome the missile-defense systems of any carrier task force we could float, which is why I think those defenses urgently need upgrading in both numbers and quality.
 
GrauGeist said:
That's assuming that China can get their HSWs into play before their weapon platforms are taken out.
Click to expand...

Many of those are land-based and inside China. Would we be willing to strike the Chinese mainland and risk nuclear war?

ETA: I'm skimming the report now, and saved it for in-depth study. But it's obvious that CSIS considers this a big issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

M
What Is The Point Of This?
Replies
3
Views
694
SaparotRob
A
The coming $26 billion windfall for the Canadian Armed Forces. What to buy?
2 3
Replies
51
Views
2K
Luft.4
L
US Military Aircraft Names
Replies
15
Views
1K
Venomstick121
M
US Firm To Build World’s Largest Commercial Transport Plane
2
Replies
23
Views
2K
ThomasP
T
Tanks post-2022: what now?
12 13 14
Replies
266
Views
17K
GrauGeist
Menu
Log in
Register