5 ms·

My bet would be that invasion wouldn't look like quick war, but slow control of political power either through light force like economic blackmail, or through s

My bet would be that invasion wouldn't look like quick war, but slow control of political power either through light force like economic blackmail, or through something similar to what US did with Venezuela. Now that US has already opened the gate to labelling nation head as drug seller, this just eases things for China.

conception 23d ago
Also the US has very publicly shown they don’t have the ability to effectively wage war over any period of time.
- sailfast 23d ago
  Yes and no. The Iran war is deeply unpopular and won’t even pass congressional approval for money. It’s being fought from pocket change budgets because they know they can’t pass a funding bill for it. Also not the same kind of war. Any period time? US waged war for 20+ years in Afghanistan. Pretty effectively! To what end? Not an end an army can really achieve so… there you are. But a war that might actually be popular? To save the world from communist dictators and make sure we have chips for our precious devices? I wouldn’t count out the United States. Or nuclear weapons, which still exist and are a thing.
  - wongarsu 23d ago
    And it'd be the kind of war the US is best at. Boots on the ground, against conventional military, with a civilian population that is on the side of the US forces No guerilla warfare, no insurgents, no need for extended beyond-visual-range warfare that depletes missile stockpiles
    - fc417fc802 23d ago
      > no need for extended beyond-visual-range warfare that depletes missile stockpiles Was with you until that last one. If you haven't noticed missiles, drones, and interceptors have played a central role in ukraine.
    - majormajor 23d ago
      How many boots on the ground could you get and how quickly/safely? The supposed opposition here is MUCH closer to the island.
      - KPGv2 23d ago
        The war over Taiwan wouldn't be done by soldiers on Taiwanese soil. So you wouldn't need many boots on the ground in a literal sense. But if you mean in a metaphorical sense, how long until the 7th Fleet could get to Taiwan, the answer is 0 days for first response, 3 days for everything located in Japan, and less than a week for the full mobilization of the 7th Fleet (that's 50+ ships and nearly 30K soldiers). The entire Pacific fleet could be there in a week and a half. (Granted, we're assuming competent US leadership, which is not the current administration.)
    - wasfgwp 23d ago
      > against conventional military, Last time used faced a conventional military that could actually challenge it was in Korea. It won’t have complete areal superiority or entire division surrendering after running into contact with US forces like they in Iraq. “Shock and awe” of course can be very effective just probably not against China. Even now US is running out of materiel against Iran and can’t really sustain a prolonged intense conflict while being able to protect its gulf allies from ballistic missiles and drones.
      - leptons 23d ago
        Iran is not a war funded by congress, so it's really no wonder the US appears inneffective. Trump didn't get the support he thought he would from congress and now he's flailing around trying to save face. Change the leadership (which will happen soon) and when there is actual support from congress to fund and intervene in a conflict in Taiwan, then you will see a vastly different US military response.
  - wasfgwp 23d ago
    > US waged war for 20+ years in Afghanistan That was an occupation and a low intensity “pacification” mission. Waging a prolonged war against a military peer on the other side of the continent is a bit more problematic (considering that US is/was on the brink of running out of advanced weaponry in Iran despite having aerial superiority which they won’t over Taiwan, Japan would have to get involved as well cause otherwise US would have to entirely rely on the fragile carrier fleet). Using tactical nukes (even regardless of the extreme geopolitical downsides that might bring) wouldn’t necessarily give a great tactical advantage either, unless they are willing to do that over Taiwan itself to destroy the landing forces).
  - queenkjuul 22d ago
    Ah yeah that $1T a year for the last forever is just pocket change
r_lee 23d ago
just a gut feeling, but if they had to for some reason, I feel like they'd just go in and bomb as much strategic assets and invade, because in their eyes aside from Taiwan, there isn't much left to "unify" and it'd be historic, not something they'd need to do every decade or even century I feel like Russia thought the same of Ukraine, even though it is way bigger
AtlasBarfed 23d ago
Any country that competently adopts Ukrainian drone technology cannot effectively be invaded currently. And that's for a continental invasion. Taiwan? All surface ships are sitting ducks. Troop transport ships would get absolutely decimated, and then the landing troops would get swarmed by drones all over again, and then they have to maintain logistics to the small minority that land (good luck with that). And that's without naval drones. With naval drones? I have no idea how China gets anything across the strait. And all the above is true for a competently organized Chinese invasion. Which it won't be.
- YetAnotherNick 23d ago
  That's why I said it will be slow. I think it will be decades long political control, not a military invasion. China have more credible threat of bombing economically relevant building like TSMC, or capturing leaders and protestors like they already are doing in Hong Kong.
- wasfgwp 23d ago
  > adopts Ukrainian drone technology cannot effectively be invaded currently The tactical situation in Taiwan is very different though. I think it would come down more to what’s happening in the air since the stalemate in Ukraine is in large because the Russian airforce is almost completely neutralized and can only be used to launch cruise missiles from a safe distance. I doubt China would invade unless they feel they can somehow achieve at least temporary air superiority and achieve their other objectives during that period. Air defenses are probably much more important than drones overall.

conception 23d ago

Also the US has very publicly shown they don’t have the ability to effectively wage war over any period of time.

sailfast 23d ago
Yes and no. The Iran war is deeply unpopular and won’t even pass congressional approval for money. It’s being fought from pocket change budgets because they know they can’t pass a funding bill for it. Also not the same kind of war. Any period time? US waged war for 20+ years in Afghanistan. Pretty effectively! To what end? Not an end an army can really achieve so… there you are. But a war that might actually be popular? To save the world from communist dictators and make sure we have chips for our precious devices? I wouldn’t count out the United States. Or nuclear weapons, which still exist and are a thing.
- wongarsu 23d ago
  And it'd be the kind of war the US is best at. Boots on the ground, against conventional military, with a civilian population that is on the side of the US forces No guerilla warfare, no insurgents, no need for extended beyond-visual-range warfare that depletes missile stockpiles
  - fc417fc802 23d ago
    > no need for extended beyond-visual-range warfare that depletes missile stockpiles Was with you until that last one. If you haven't noticed missiles, drones, and interceptors have played a central role in ukraine.
  - majormajor 23d ago
    How many boots on the ground could you get and how quickly/safely? The supposed opposition here is MUCH closer to the island.
    - KPGv2 23d ago
      The war over Taiwan wouldn't be done by soldiers on Taiwanese soil. So you wouldn't need many boots on the ground in a literal sense. But if you mean in a metaphorical sense, how long until the 7th Fleet could get to Taiwan, the answer is 0 days for first response, 3 days for everything located in Japan, and less than a week for the full mobilization of the 7th Fleet (that's 50+ ships and nearly 30K soldiers). The entire Pacific fleet could be there in a week and a half. (Granted, we're assuming competent US leadership, which is not the current administration.)
  - wasfgwp 23d ago
    > against conventional military, Last time used faced a conventional military that could actually challenge it was in Korea. It won’t have complete areal superiority or entire division surrendering after running into contact with US forces like they in Iraq. “Shock and awe” of course can be very effective just probably not against China. Even now US is running out of materiel against Iran and can’t really sustain a prolonged intense conflict while being able to protect its gulf allies from ballistic missiles and drones.
    - leptons 23d ago
      Iran is not a war funded by congress, so it's really no wonder the US appears inneffective. Trump didn't get the support he thought he would from congress and now he's flailing around trying to save face. Change the leadership (which will happen soon) and when there is actual support from congress to fund and intervene in a conflict in Taiwan, then you will see a vastly different US military response.
- wasfgwp 23d ago
  > US waged war for 20+ years in Afghanistan That was an occupation and a low intensity “pacification” mission. Waging a prolonged war against a military peer on the other side of the continent is a bit more problematic (considering that US is/was on the brink of running out of advanced weaponry in Iran despite having aerial superiority which they won’t over Taiwan, Japan would have to get involved as well cause otherwise US would have to entirely rely on the fragile carrier fleet). Using tactical nukes (even regardless of the extreme geopolitical downsides that might bring) wouldn’t necessarily give a great tactical advantage either, unless they are willing to do that over Taiwan itself to destroy the landing forces).
- queenkjuul 22d ago
  Ah yeah that $1T a year for the last forever is just pocket change

r_lee 23d ago

just a gut feeling, but if they had to for some reason, I feel like they'd just go in and bomb as much strategic assets and invade, because in their eyes aside from Taiwan, there isn't much left to "unify" and it'd be historic, not something they'd need to do every decade or even century I feel like Russia thought the same of Ukraine, even though it is way bigger

AtlasBarfed 23d ago

Any country that competently adopts Ukrainian drone technology cannot effectively be invaded currently. And that's for a continental invasion. Taiwan? All surface ships are sitting ducks. Troop transport ships would get absolutely decimated, and then the landing troops would get swarmed by drones all over again, and then they have to maintain logistics to the small minority that land (good luck with that). And that's without naval drones. With naval drones? I have no idea how China gets anything across the strait. And all the above is true for a competently organized Chinese invasion. Which it won't be.

YetAnotherNick 23d ago
That's why I said it will be slow. I think it will be decades long political control, not a military invasion. China have more credible threat of bombing economically relevant building like TSMC, or capturing leaders and protestors like they already are doing in Hong Kong.
wasfgwp 23d ago
> adopts Ukrainian drone technology cannot effectively be invaded currently The tactical situation in Taiwan is very different though. I think it would come down more to what’s happening in the air since the stalemate in Ukraine is in large because the Russian airforce is almost completely neutralized and can only be used to launch cruise missiles from a safe distance. I doubt China would invade unless they feel they can somehow achieve at least temporary air superiority and achieve their other objectives during that period. Air defenses are probably much more important than drones overall.