Should the US commit to defending Taiwan?

[Cassandra]

No, baiting a nuclear-armed power into a shooting war is insane. Like it or, the US has pursued a policy of "strategic ambiguity" for half a century. We do not have a defense treaty with Taiwan like we have with Japan or the NATO countries. Which puts it in the same basket as Ukraine. I do not condone wars of aggression, of course, but trying to stop China (or Russia) from invading one of their neighbors would lead to a nuclear exchange. How can anyone seriously contemplate that?

[Cassandra]

No, baiting a nuclear-armed power into a shooting war is insane. Like it or, the US has pursued a policy of "strategic ambiguity" for half a century. We do not have a defense treaty with Taiwan like we have with Japan or the NATO countries. Which puts it in the same basket as Ukraine. I do not condone wars of aggression, of course, but trying to stop China (or Russia) from invading one of their neighbors would lead to a nuclear exchange. How can anyone seriously contemplate that?

it would only lead to a nuclear exchange if Russia or the PRC initiated it.  How could either of them seriously contemplate going to war with the greatest military the world has ever seen?  Just so they can invade a weaker neighbor?  No chance.  They aren't suicidal.

And arguments such as yours are the same arguments cowards make when dealing with terrorists.  Which is why you never deal with terrorists.  Threatening nuclear war if you don't get to invade your neighbors is terrorism.

They wouldn't want to initiate it, but Xi may feel it's a choice between that and him losing power, which would happen to any Chinese leader that was seen as capitulating on TW. In that case, he'd choose war.

sure, people usually have good reasons in their head to do terrorism.  That doesn't change how we should deal with the terrorists.  Are we supposed to do just do everything Pooh wants just so he doesn't worry about losing power?  Where do we draw the line?

How about drawing the line where we already have clear defense treaties in place (Japan, South Korea, etc). And if anything, the US is more likely to initiate a nuclear exchange. We would likely have a single carrier group on the region when China invaded Taiwan. That carrier group will certainly punch above it's weight, but should still be overwhelmed by sheer numbers of jets and sas missiles. US force projection is going to be a bigger issue than most commentators realize. Judging from all the recent rhetoric from DC cretins about the utility of tactical nukes and how a nuclear exchange "wouldn't actually cause an apocalyptic nuclear winter," I could absolutely see the Pentagon signing off on "limited nuclear strikes" to soften the Chinese invasion while additional carrier groups are scrambled across the Pacific. Which would be insane, because of course china would retaliate in kind. But that seems to be where we are headed, as far as I can tell.

[Cassandra]

How about drawing the line where we already have clear defense treaties in place (Japan, South Korea, etc).

or, ya know, we don't let terrorists dictate our foreign policy

And if anything, the US is more likely to initiate a nuclear exchange.

maybe, or maybe we don't

We would likely have a single carrier group on the region when China invaded Taiwan.

maybe

That carrier group will certainly punch above it's weight, but should still be overwhelmed by sheer numbers of jets and sas missiles.

maybe

US force projection is going to be a bigger issue than most commentators realize.

we are the best the world has ever seen at it (and it's not close), but maybe you're right

Judging from all the recent rhetoric from DC cretins about the utility of tactical nukes

cite?

and how a nuclear exchange "wouldn't actually cause an apocalyptic nuclear winter,"

a nuclear exchange with the PRC certainly wouldn't, if Russia decided they wanted to play too (and why would they?) it might be a different story

I could absolutely see the Pentagon signing off on "limited nuclear strikes" to soften the Chinese invasion while additional carrier groups are scrambled across the Pacific. Which would be insane, because of course china would retaliate in kind. But that seems to be where we are headed, as far as I can tell.

That is possible, but only if the PLA is competent, and there is zero evidence they will be.

The fact that you're able to say "maybe" to all that instead of just categorically write it off...that doesn't unsettle you at all? I'm not on some pro-Xi kick or whatever, but I really think we ought to be realistic about where our interests lie and what is reasonable to go to war over.