Peter Zeihan - What Will Happen If China Invades Taiwan?

If the US went fully on Taiwan's side, it would be like the Falkland Islands war. The Royal Navy established a higly effective blockade so no ships or planes could reach the island from the mainland, and the war was won promptly. There was very little fighting on land.

I've met some British troops that would say very much otherwise, there was small scale but intense fighting in the hills in several pitched battles...

 
I Remember a balloon that traversed the entire continental US
Yes and we dispatched it with extreme prejudice by the most advanced aircraft ever built (F-22 Raptor). The balloon pilot was captured and has been held at an undisclosed location thoroughly interrogated by out intrepid security agencies. The secrets should be a treasure trove
1683671127988.jpeg

courtesy Lockheed Aviation
 
Sun Tzu- (Chinese warfare doctrine):

"To fight and conquer in all our battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting"

He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared.

In war, prepare for peace; in peace, prepare for war.”
We were not prepared when Japan hit Pearl Harbor. The U.S. then turned on the great industrial machine and the rest is history.
 
I Remember a balloon that traversed the entire continental US much more recently.
Yes-and it was also reported it wasn't the first time. So the fault goes back several years. And we don't talk about what we do above China either.
 
Yes-and it was also reported it wasn't the first time. So the fault goes back several years. And we don't talk about what we do above China either.
I don't believe everything that's 'reported' these days.
 
You must watch that cable news show that's "fairly unbalanced".
You must mean the majority of them that spend most of their time talking about 45 and very little talking about 46.
Very 'unbalanced'.....and with an agenda too.
 
Last edited:
How many has the US won? Winning battles yes, but losing wars.
The only conventional war the United States engaged in over the last 50 years was the most lopsided victory in world history. In Afghanistan and the Second Iraq War, the principle goals of ousting Al Qaeda + regime change in Iraq was achieved. Either war compared to the present one Ukraine make the American military look very favorable.
 
The only conventional war the United States engaged in over the last 50 years was the most lopsided victory in world history. In Afghanistan and the Second Iraq War, the principle goals of ousting Al Qaeda + regime change in Iraq was achieved. Either war compared to the present one Ukraine make the American military look very favorable.

Really.... that's a lopsided view. Insurgency never stopped, and The US couldn't get out of afghanistan quick enough. The US is still present in Iraq (and the second desert storm gave rise to ISIS aswell), though the presence is now dependant on the goodwill of the iraqi government.

Finishing conflicts seems to be a big problem, starting them not so much
 
  • Like
Reactions: pbm
Really.... that's a lopsided view. Insurgency never stopped, and The US couldn't get out of afghanistan quick enough. The US is still present in Iraq (and the second desert storm gave rise to ISIS aswell), though the presence is now dependant on the goodwill of the iraqi government.

Finishing conflicts seems to be a big problem, starting them not so much
Commercial aircraft are flying day and night, around the clock in the USA and the world. This was not the case before the USA military took action after 911.

One may want to take an second look at what the mission was.
 
That was history. Could it be done today?

Neither germany, italy or japan were fighting wars they could win. The outcome was certain from the moment the war started. They did however fight for much longer than even they anticipated. Combined they haven't even got the population of the US (today, but likely not in 1939 either). Had Japan been able to sink the US carrier fleet at pearl harbor (and taken out the resupply and repair facilities there) They might not have been fighting on their own soil by the time nagasaki and hiroshima got vaporized.
 
Are you sure about the Al Qaeda part?
If you're suggesting a few members hiding in homes all day counts as a meaningful presence, by all means enjoy the logic. Al Qaeda was decimated in Afghanistan and it's been neither a staging nor training ground for many years.
Really.... that's a lopsided view. Insurgency never stopped, and The US couldn't get out of afghanistan quick enough. The US is still present in Iraq (and the second desert storm gave rise to ISIS aswell), though the presence is now dependant on the goodwill of the iraqi government.

Finishing conflicts seems to be a big problem, starting them not so much
Al Qaeda, Iraq and ISIS pose almost zero threat collectively to the United States today. War isn't pretty and wars against insurgencies will never have a traditional victory. Not to mention that if we used your logic, we didn't defeat Germany or Japan thanks to our military presence there.

The war in Afghanistan lasted 20 years. "Couldn't get out quick enough" couldn't be further from the truth.
 
If you're suggesting a few members hiding in homes all day counts as a meaningful presence, by all means enjoy the logic. Al Qaeda was decimated in Afghanistan and it's been neither a staging nor training ground for many years.

Al Qaeda, Iraq and ISIS pose almost zero threat collectively to the United States today. War isn't pretty and wars against insurgencies will never have a traditional victory. Not to mention that if we used your logic, we didn't defeat Germany or Japan thanks to our military presence there.

The war in Afghanistan lasted 20 years. "Couldn't get out quick enough" couldn't be further from the truth.

Leaving Aafghanistan looked more like routing than retreating.

Like I said before, winning battles yes, but losing wars.

Unless the mess left nehind was the objective, in that case: job well done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pbm
personally I don't think the Chinese are even going to try. they might act all upset
and throw some planes and ships at Taiwan now and then, just to rattle the cage
but I can't help but think it is a Bridge too Far.
can you imagine trying to get an army across 70 or so miles of open ocean in a Naval Free fire zone?
without any element of surprise, with forces having no experience in amphibious operations
where the defensive enemy knows exactly where the possible landing points are and where the attack is coming from?

good luck.
 
personally I don't think the Chinese are even going to try. they might act all upset
and throw some planes and ships at Taiwan now and then, just to rattle the cage
but I can't help but think it is a Bridge too Far.
can you imagine trying to get an army across 70 or so miles of open ocean in a Naval Free fire zone?
without any element of surprise, with forces having no experience in amphibious operations
where the defensive enemy knows exactly where the possible landing points are and where the attack is coming from?

good luck.

I don't think they will either unless Taiwan goes officially independant. But either China suspects it's coming or they are just reminding Taiwan of the consequences of official independance: either way the PLA seems to be focused on building up for the invasion.

What I do expect to happen is China (gradually over the next decades) stepping up and acting as the worlds policeman in the way the USA has been doing for the last decades. The amphibious and naval aviation capabilities will be usefull in that role.
 
Back
Top