Things are heating up in Taiwan:
The U.S. is markedly increasing the number of troops deployed to Taiwan, more than quadrupling the current number to bolster a training program for the island’s military amid a rising threat from China.
The U.S. plans to deploy between 100 and 200 troops to the island in the coming months, up from roughly 30 there a year ago, according to U.S. officials. The larger force will expand a training program the Pentagon has taken pains not to publicize as the U.S. works to provide Taipei with the capabilities it needs to defend itself without provoking Beijing.
This is basically a tripwire, a way of changing facts on the ground to ensure that the US will defend Taiwan even if it hasn't made any guarantees in public. If China were to invade Taiwan and kill American troops, everyone knows we'd send in the Seventh Fleet without hesitation—and with enormous public support.
This is the same thing we've done in South Korea, deploying a small number of troops that are militarily unnecessary but decisive for gaining the support of the American public for war.
The Journal says the Pentagon has "taken pains" not to make its Taiwan mission public. Really? A tripwire does little good unless it's extremely public, so it's unlikely they were trying very hard to keep this a secret.
It's the sort of news you'd want to leak out rather than officially announce, since the US does not have an official defense treaty with Taiwan.
I've always maintained that in addition to a tripwire, we should give Taiwan and South Korea independent nuclear deterrent. Not huge, but a couple dozen warheads so as to make a conventional invasion unthinkable (the PRC is never going to trade Beijing for a shot at Taipei).
A deterrent requires 2nd strike capability, so it would have to be submarine based, wouldn’t it?
Absolutely. Land-based ICBMs wouldn't work - too short of a response time between China launching a strike against them and the Taiwanese government giving the order to launch them, and they don't have enough land to realistically build enough to survive for second-strike (same for South Korea vis a vis North Korea, although South Korea could probably build enough land-based missiles to survive for second-strike given how limited the North's nuclear arsenal is).
Bombers could work, but they'd have to have them in the air constantly in rotation, and they'd be more vulnerable than ballistic missile subs.
It's the same situation that the British faced with their nuclear deterrent. They only had about four minutes between warning of a potential Soviet strike and the missiles hitting in the Cold War (unlike the US' 20-30 minutes).
Start making more money weekly. This is valuable part time work for everyone. The best part ,work from the comfort of your house and get paid from $10k-$20k each week . Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. Visit this article
for more details.. https://createmaxwealth.blogspot.com
Yes, no better way to improve the US security situation than drastic escalation towards global nuclear war. FFS.
I’m opposed to proliferation, but I’m wondering: if giving fairly stable democracies nukes is ‘drastic escalation’, how would you describe North Korea and Pakistan acquiring them?
Not huge, but a couple dozen warheads so as to make a conventional invasion unthinkable (the PRC is never going to trade Beijing for a shot at Taipei).
China couldn't realistically "survive" (in any meaningful sense of that word) an attack by many dozens (or several hundred) nuclear weapons. The perverse logic of MAD still holds. (Which is why all out nuclear war, if it occurs, will likely be triggered by mistakes and/or emotion).
But Beijing has long maintained Taipei's acquisition of nuclear weapons (or a concerted effort to do so) is a casus belli. I wouldn't be so sure they'd refuse to back up that claim with action if the Taiwanese arsenal in question is a mere twenty-odd weapons. Not a logical trade, right? But the very idea of risking war to annex that island is utterly bonkers: Adding Taiwan by force would at most increase the PRC's GDP by 7% or so (probably a lot less given the collateral damage); her population would go up by less than 2%. Her territory by less than 1%. Risk armageddon for that*? None of it makes any sense. But issues of national pride seldom do. The Communists are a ruthless bunch of people, and will do anything—and I mean anything—to stay in power. One of their favorite tools is cultivating the Chinese sense of historical grievance.
*One could say the same thing about the US, mind you. Bonkers.
"The whole point of the doomsday machine is lost if you keep it a secret!"
Like +13!
Yup. I was about to quote the same line when I thought that maybe I should page down and read other comments first.
Like your likes & find your plus numbers interesting.
"This is basically a tripwire, a way of changing facts on the ground to ensure that the US will defend Taiwan even if it hasn't made any guarantees in public."
There is no doubt. The US made its guarantee public on the most-watched TV news program in the country.
Sept 2022: Biden says U.S. forces would defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion
https://www.reuters.com/world/biden-says-us-forces-would-defend-taiwan-event-chinese-invasion-2022-09-18/
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."
He's made that vow three times by my count.
If there were a few thousand US troops there, and then China attacked, our US troops would feel like (a) they were part of a legitimate defense force, and (b) they were among a large number of their well-trained buddies, each watching the other's six.
How will those 100-200 troops feel, knowing they are there specifically so that, if they get killed, then we will get serious?
If they weren't more or less okay with it, they might have chosen another line of work, or early retirement. I'm guessing most will understand the "deterrant" message, though. As opposed to "sacrificial lambs."
Hey, "trip wire" wasn't my choice of terminology. But a trip wire sure as hell doesn't mean "deterrent." It means just what it sounds like--break the wire, and all hell will rain down on you. But the wire is very specifically NOT intended to survive.
We have very fine fighting forces. One of the reasons is that they believe in what they are doing--defending their country and defending their buddies. I don't think that the esprit de corps that will enable our fighting folks to accept extreme conditions and extreme risks will long survive in a unit that's been told they are there as the canaries in the mine.
Yet the pretense that they were invading Iraq to protect our own freedom was apparently accepted, despite the Bush family's coziness with the Saudi "royals."
Oh, did we send 100-200 troops to invade Iraq? I thought it was somewhat more than that.
How will those 100-200 troops feel, knowing they are there specifically so that, if they get killed, then we will get serious?
Probably similar to our troops in South Korea, or our forces in West Germany during the Cold War. These situations have always been about deterrence—the nuclear tripwire.
I'm not sure you appreciate the value system prevelant in the military. Great emphasis on the sense of duty, and pride at being at the tip of the spear.
As Putin makes one stupid decision after another, the US seems to be anticipating a stupid decision by Xi - supplying lethal arms to the butcher of Bucha. I don't know if Xi is contemplating a far more idiotic decision, of attacking Taiwan, but I hope this will encourage him to think twice. Military training by the US (or NATO) is not to be underestimated - clearly, Ukraine, with the same Soviet heritage as Russia, has fought far more intelligently and successfully; the Western training they have absorbed since 2014 has contributed as much as the weaponry. None of which minimizes the bravery and resourcefulness of their people.
The idiocy of Putin's choices is clear from the current state of Chechnya, which is wholly dependent on subsidy from Moscow: https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/01/25/chechnya-wont-survive-without-moscows-money-kadyrov-says-a76141
Russia could not possibly afford to sustain, much less rebuild, an occupied Ukraine, far larger and more populous than Chechnya. Yet it is pursuing the same tactics that reduced the latter to rubble. Sheer lunacy. And similarly, were China to attack Taiwan, it could not hope to seize anything but a wasteland with a people yearning for revenge.
the US seems to be anticipating a stupid decision by Xi - supplying lethal arms to the butcher of Bucha.
It would be an evil situation. It's not immediately clear why such a decision by Xi would be stupid, though. The United States stands between the PRC/CCP and its strategic goals. Xi therefore aims to oppose and weaken us.
At a time when China's economic growth is slowing, and has taken a further hit from the Covid-19 surge, supplying weapons to Russia would bring further Western sanctions. Unlike Russia, China has chosen a course of trade and economic power over confrontation. Chinese leaders since Deng have stayed in power by broadly raising living standards; going backwards would be risky, wouldn't it? It's not clear that prolonging Russia's war would weaken the US. China's entry might actually strengthen the alliance Biden has forged.
supplying weapons to Russia would bring further Western sanctions.
Maybe. But it's only "stupid" if Xi values the maximization of economic growth over longer term, geopolitical strategy. A lot of the evidence suggests he does not, in fact, prioritize the former (look at his own war on tech, for instance; or the incredibly destructive Zero Covid policy; this is not your father's cuddly, reformist, pro-capitalism, Deng-style cadre).
Chinese leaders since Deng have stayed in power by broadly raising living standards; going backwards would be risky, wouldn't it?
Yes. Xi is something of a gambler. So is Biden. Joe had better hope his vow to go to war with China over a Taiwan invasion actually prevents (deters) the PRC from launching such an invasion. "Strategic ambiguity" seemed fine to me. Preserving one's options is good!
It's not clear that prolonging Russia's war would weaken the US.
It's also not clear it won't, and from Beijing's perspective there are signs the Ukraine coalition is running into problems. Support for a robust stance on Ukraine is weakening markedly in a number of US allies, and if anything support for Russia in the Global South seems to be rapidly growing:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/02/22/global-south-russia-war-divided/
I think a challenge for Biden is: Xi is probably thinking, what does China have to lose at this point? There's a possibility that recent developments — the Chip War, the Pelosi visit, the balloon hysteria and the cancellation of Blinken's visit (to me it appears abundantly clear Xi had no role in the blatant violation of US airspace*), the growing number of US troops in Taiwan, the prospect of anti-China hearings in Congress this spring, and so on—have led Beijing to conclude there no longer remains any prospect of an improvement in Sino-US relations because Washington either doesn't want an improvement and/or isn't capable of fostering one because of domestic politics. In essence there's no longer any relationship to speak of worth preserving: it's already in tatters. So Xi is feeling emboldened.
*Most of the analysis at this point seems to suggest that China does indeed maintain a robust spy balloon program, and that either that balloon's trajectory wasn't expressly approved by the highest level authorities in the PRC, or that technical problems played a role, or both.
All very good points, and well supported; thanks for your response. The one point I would argue is, were China to begin actively supporting Putin’s war, I believe that Europe and democratic Asia would see that alliance as the greatest danger to free nations since the Cold War. It is one thing to overlook the illegal seizure of a few oblasts, quite another to face dictators believing that might makes right, and able to raise armies from a billion-plus population. The West and the free East would hang together, or risk hanging separately.
I'm sure this will bolster confidence among US allies in East Asia, as it should.
Wasn't there some story about the French and English before World War I. The French wanted the English to send troops to help them. The English said that they were not involved in the war, "Not one English soldier has been killed." The French said, "Send us just one soldier, and we will see that he is killed." (I suppose this story exists for a number of wars.)
Bird flu breakthrough in Cambodia,
https://www.khmertimeskh.com/501244375/after-death-of-girl-yesterday-12-more-detected-with-h5n1-bird-flu/
The tripwire needs to be known to the entity it is meant to deter. That doesn’t require it be public knowledge.
What's the advantage of keeping it from the public? Not that the US public is very aware of what's going on, mind you (because the media isn't covering the big picture), but, if their government has indeed established a new nuclear tripwire, surely they have the right to know.
Asian cultures traditionly place great emphasis on saving face. By doing it quietly, the Chinese will be well aware, but not placed in a position of losing face in public.
That's very true. I wasn't commenting on the effectiveness of a a public vs. non-public tripwire. If anything I expect keeping it quiet provides greater deterrent value: publicizing it could render Xi more vulnerable to domestic politics (and therefore more likely to feel compelled to take action).
Nonetheless, it seems the American people are owed a debate on our drift toward war. Maybe they'll say "go for it" for all I know. But my distinct impression is they're largely oblivious to the change in our strategic positioning.
The Journal says the Pentagon has "taken pains" not to make its Taiwan mission public. Really? A tripwire does little good unless it's extremely public, so it's unlikely they were trying very hard to keep this a secret.
Plus, you know, it was on the front page of the Wall Street Journal. Not trying very hard at all!
Last week a Congressman Gallagher (R-WI) visited Taiwan to consult with their defense officials. He might be the most MAGA dude on the planet for all I know, but I respect the fact that he got in, got his business done, and got out, with a minimum of fuss and zero PR. It seems these days publicly pouring gasoline on the fire is very much a feature, not a bug, for US politicians from both parties. More people in DC should follow his model. Keep calm. Keep our powder dry. And quietly and determinedly go about our business. No need to deliberately rub the CCP's nose in our every move by dunking on them. "Face" is actually a thing in Confucian cultures. Can't wait for the House hearings this spring. Should be some epic showboating going on.
Google paying a splendid earnings from domestic 6,850 USD a week, this is awesome a 12 months beyond I was laid-off in a totally horrible financial system. “w many thank you google every day for blessing the ones guidelines and presently it’s miles my responsibility to pay and percentage it with all and Sunday.
.
.
Proper right here I started————————>>> https://www.join.hiring9.com
"...A tripwire does little good unless it's extremely public..."
A propaganda tripwire against a propaganda threat needs to be public. A genuine tripwire against a genuine threat only needs to be apparent to the adversary. In living memory, every threat has turned out to be propaganda. This one?