Who would win a war between China and the United States over Taiwan?

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

That does not in any way contradict what I posted, nor what every reputable commentary has said on the subject:

To this day, the U.S. “one China” position stands: the United States recognizes the PRC as the sole legal government of China but only acknowledges the Chinese position that Taiwan is part of China. Thus, the United States maintains formal relations with the PRC and has unofficial relations with Taiwan. The “one China” policy has subsequently been reaffirmed by every new incoming U.S. administration. The existence of this understanding has enabled the preservation of stability in the Taiwan Strait, allowing both Taiwan and mainland China to pursue their extraordinary political and socioeconomic transitions in relative peace.

That's the last word about the status US maintains with Mainland China wrt Taiwan.

What is debatable is the extent that PRC will go to exert pressure on Taiwan to submit. The US has enough bilateral defense treaties with Taiwan to make an overt attack unfeasible, but since when have overt military action taken place since the First Gulf War?

Totally irrelevant. The "One China" policy is mute because Taiwan is NOT apart of China and most Taiwanese people want to be officially recognized as "Taiwan" not China.

However, economic and military threats from China has stopped most countries from formally recognizing Taiwan as a separate country.

[Storebought]

That does not in any way contradict what I posted, nor what every reputable commentary has said on the subject:

To this day, the U.S. “one China” position stands: the United States recognizes the PRC as the sole legal government of China but only acknowledges the Chinese position that Taiwan is part of China. Thus, the United States maintains formal relations with the PRC and has unofficial relations with Taiwan. The “one China” policy has subsequently been reaffirmed by every new incoming U.S. administration. The existence of this understanding has enabled the preservation of stability in the Taiwan Strait, allowing both Taiwan and mainland China to pursue their extraordinary political and socioeconomic transitions in relative peace.

That's the last word about the status US maintains with Mainland China wrt Taiwan.

What is debatable is the extent that PRC will go to exert pressure on Taiwan to submit. The US has enough bilateral defense treaties with Taiwan to make an overt attack unfeasible, but since when have overt military action taken place since the First Gulf War?

Totally irrelevant. The "One China" policy is mute because Taiwan is NOT apart of China and most Taiwanese people want to be officially recognized as "Taiwan" not China.

However, economic and military threats from China has stopped most countries from formally recognizing Taiwan as a separate country.

Yes, what the US government says about US government policy is an irrelevance. That is pure sentimentality, not reality.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

*snip*

This Congressional Research Service report from 2007:

1. The United States did not explicitly state the sovereign status of Taiwan in the three US-PRC Joint Communiques of 1972, 1979, and 1982.

2. The United States "acknowledged" the "One China" position of both sides of the Taiwan Strait.

3. U.S. policy has not recognized the PRC's sovereignty over Taiwan;

4. U.S. policy has not recognized Taiwan as a sovereign country; and

5. U.S. policy has considered Taiwan's status as unsettled.

SOURCE: https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=477412

[Storebought]

*snip*

This Congressional Research Service report from 2007:

1. The United States did not explicitly state the sovereign status of Taiwan in the three US-PRC Joint Communiques of 1972, 1979, and 1982.

2. The United States "acknowledged" the "One China" position of both sides of the Taiwan Strait.

3. U.S. policy has not recognized the PRC's sovereignty over Taiwan;

4. U.S. policy has not recognized Taiwan as a sovereign country; and

5. U.S. policy has considered Taiwan's status as unsettled.

SOURCE: https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=477412

The United States did not explicitly state the sovereign status of Taiwan in the three U.S.-PRC Joint Communiques of 1972, 1979, and 1982. The United States 'acknowledged' the 'one China' position of both sides of the Taiwan Strait. U.S. policy has not recognized the PRC's sovereignty over Taiwan; has not recognized Taiwan as a sovereign country; and has considered Taiwan's status as undetermined."

Since 2001, U.S. policymakers have tended to stress continuity in maintaining the “one China” policy. During the George W. Bush Administration, leaders of the House and Senate have stressed support for Taiwan as a democracy, rather than its independent status. Moreover, Members have expressed concerns about cross-strait tensions arising from actions taken not only by Beijing but by Taipei as well.

I'm trying my best not to make a short comment ... but nowhere is it stated that the US supports the independence of Taiwan (Bush in 2001 explicitly ruled that out), or will recognize Taiwan as an independent country apart from China (like South Korea is not a part of Japan). Or that it will make a one-sided decision about the fate of the island which you insist that it has, somehow.

The US, through bilateral treaties that China takes offense to, will support Taiwan as a democracy and will keep the meaning of "a part" of China ambiguous, but it has not changed its position that Taiwan is a part of China.

[PSOL]

The real danger was that the wars against the formidable Sassanid dynasty drained and bankrupted the morale and state coffers of both empires. This allowed a peripheral power such as the Rashidun Caliphate to mop the floor of two destabilized empires.

While in the West, of course, the main issue was that long-term Imperial interference in politics across the Rhine caused, or at least contributed to, major political changes amongst the various German peoples, specifically the development of ever larger confederations of peoples. They were well-organised, well-equipped (which was a new development) and well-led. A small number of these confederations had also taken to horses and the new idea of shock cavalry. Dangerous enough from a Roman perspective, but then you have the general chaos brought by the Huns (quite terrifying themselves, of course) and the resulting mass movement of these now very large confederations of people...

Oh yeah, I was on the wrong time period.

China. The US military resembles the failing, fat and over-stretched Roman Army during the last years of the Empire.

and what does the PLA resemble?  Maybe an untested and under trained bunch of little emperors, using stolen tech that was mostly made in China.

The US technological growth of the late 1800s was built on stolen British and French technology, so it’s not like China isn’t copying a proven model of development.

China does have an issue of not testing their armies in high intensity open combat, which differs greatly from the regular drills they do on their coasts. They have however engaged in naval pursuits and skirmishes against piracy along with the paramilitary wing of the naval militia conducting some action.

[dead0man]

The US technological growth of the late 1800s was built on stolen British and French technology, so it’s not like China isn’t copying a proven model of development.

China does have an issue of not testing their armies in high intensity open combat, which differs greatly from the regular drills they do on their coasts. They have however engaged in naval pursuits and skirmishes against piracy along with the paramilitary wing of the naval militia conducting some action.

I'm sure that will serve them well when facing the US Navy (and the Japanese Navy and the Taiwanese Navy not to mention the various Air Forces).  They're fat and over stretched don'tchaknow.

[PSOL]

The US technological growth of the late 1800s was built on stolen British and French technology, so it’s not like China isn’t copying a proven model of development.

China does have an issue of not testing their armies in high intensity open combat, which differs greatly from the regular drills they do on their coasts. They have however engaged in naval pursuits and skirmishes against piracy along with the paramilitary wing of the naval militia conducting some action.

I'm sure that will serve them well when facing the US Navy (and the Japanese Navy and the Taiwanese Navy not to mention the various Air Forces).  They're fat and over stretched don'tchaknow.

You are severely underestimating their missile capabilities. They have the technology to bombard the East Sea with enough missiles to stop reinforcements from coming near Taiwan.

[dead0man]

The US technological growth of the late 1800s was built on stolen British and French technology, so it’s not like China isn’t copying a proven model of development.

China does have an issue of not testing their armies in high intensity open combat, which differs greatly from the regular drills they do on their coasts. They have however engaged in naval pursuits and skirmishes against piracy along with the paramilitary wing of the naval militia conducting some action.

I'm sure that will serve them well when facing the US Navy (and the Japanese Navy and the Taiwanese Navy not to mention the various Air Forces).  They're fat and over stretched don'tchaknow.

You are severely underestimating their missile capabilities. They have the technology to bombard the East Sea with enough missiles to stop reinforcements from coming near Taiwan.

do they?  And they've been tried against an enemy that was shooting back?  An enemy with air superiority and war proven effective anti-missile systems?

[dead0man]

and before you (or someone else) come back with "but they hypersonic".  science

The United States, Russia, and China are developing an array of hypersonic weapons--maneuverable vehicles that carry warheads through the atmosphere at more than five times the speed of sound. Proponents claim that these weapons outperform existing missiles in terms of delivery time and evasion of early warning systems. Here, we report computational modelling of hypersonic boost-glide missile flight which shows that these weapons travel intercontinental distances more slowly than comparable ballistic missiles flying depressed trajectories, and that they remain visible to existing space-based sensors for the majority of flight. Fundamental physical limitations imposed by low-altitude atmospheric flight render hypersonic missiles an evolutionary--not revolutionary--advancement over established ballistic missile technologies. Misperceptions of hypersonic weapon performance have arisen from social processes by which the organizations developing these weapons construct erroneous technical facts favoring continued investment. The modelling reported here provides a basis for rigorous, quantitative analysis of hypersonic weapon performance.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Neither, the only time we came close to Nuke War was with USSR between 1960/1990 when tensions came to a head after Cuban Missile Crisis

Russia and China are on the UN Security Council and they're not gonna have a nuke war, the biggest threat is climate change, if there is a nuke war, it will be after our lifetimes

[Senator-elect Spark]

Nobody. A war between China and the U.S. would decimate the world economy by disrupting supply chains, cause capital flight, a mass exodus of refugees, and total instability. A war between these countries benefits no one. Taiwan is simply not worth going to war over.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I think people are understating how hard an amphibious assault would be.

[Cassius]

I think people are understating how hard an amphibious assault would be.

Yeah, an invasion of Taiwan is actually a pretty enormous risk for the PRC to take. The Taiwanese Armed Forces are no pushover and the island itself is well defended. I’m guessing the Chinese would probably be able to conquer the island if they threw the kitchen sink at it (assuming minimal American military intervention, which is hardly a given). On the other hand, the PLA hasn’t fought a major conflict since the Sino-Vietnamese War in 1979 (and whilst that was a long time ago it hardly covered itself in glory there), so whilst its capabilities are undoubtedly large we have very little idea of how it will perform in a full scale war. Given the political model of the CCP has very much tended towards the ‘maintain legitimacy by raising living standards and improving China’s prestige’ route, a war with Taiwan that could result in military disaster alongside political and economic dislocation (since I’d assume, at the very least, most Western nations would impose sanctions) would be a pretty significant gamble for a regime that has, for the most part, been fairly risk averse to take.

[Cassandra]

It would be like World War One on the high seas. Modern missile systems will render traditional navies obsolete for coastal operations. Meaning the US navy gets shredded. I don't know what Taiwan's missile systems looks like, but maybe the PLC navy gets equally messed up.

[Bootes Void]

U.S vs China could be a replay of the Soviet Union vs Nazi Germany in the sense that one country is far superior to the other except for a larger population and cheap manufacturing to keep the supply coming in. In a conventional warfare, the conflict would be long and dragged out assuming no nukes or other countries get involved for a WW3

[lfromnj]

U.S vs China could be a replay of the Soviet Union vs Nazi Germany in the sense that one country is far superior to the other except for a larger population and cheap manufacturing to keep the supply coming in. In a conventional warfare, the conflict would be long and dragged out assuming no nukes or other countries get involved for a WW3

Nazi Germany had inferior early tanks early on and no oil supply.


Anyway I think China. They would be more united imo. Along with that we only tied Korea when China was much weaker. I guess advantage's here is the Taiwanese population would have few defectors and there is a small sea for China to cross.  

[OSR stands with Israel]

https://www.wdmma.org/ranking.php

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/7-most-powerful-navies-world-162637500.html

We have the  4 of the 5 strongest air forces in the world and when it comes to our navy we have

The US has 10 aircraft carriers, more than all the other nations combined, which is just one of its many displays of absolute strength. It has 91 destroyers, again more than all the other top 15 nations combined.

Yah we would win this war