China threat to Taiwan closer than most think: U.S. admiral

All China "needs" is a few bombs over the Three Gorges Dam.

The Three Gorges Dam is a Sword of Damocles hanging over China's head.

Everyone with a little bit of strategic military sense can see it.

Taiwan will not be a roll over like Hong Kong. I hope there are some cooler heads in the PLA who can see this.

The American empire was powerless to stop Russia's invasion and annexation of Crimea in 2014 but now we're expected to believe that they'll stop a far more potent military force from taking Taiwan? All this bluster from the generals and hawks in congress is just going to add to the humiliation.

At least in Crimea you had the majority of UN members condemning Russia's actions and recognising Ukrainian sovereignty over Crimea. Taiwan is the opposite situation. The vast majority of UN members recognise China's sovereignty over Taiwan. Taiwan itself doesn't even claim to be an independent nation and is unlikely to ever do so.

Pointing billions and billions of American missiles at China doesn’t really help matters...

Of course the US is an expert on the matter of invading countries, it does it every few years.

And the interesting notion that China establishing clear sovereignty over what even the rebels acknowledge is Chinese territory constitutes an 'invasion', yet somehow the Saudi assaults on Yemen aren't shows where the threat to a 'rules based world' lies.

I di not know what "most people" think, but with the new CCP-friendly admin in the US it is closer than ever.

In the event, expect rather something like blockade than a direct invasion. Remember,. Taiwan is within the "9-dot line" that our elites are increasingly accepting. And with no outside help, Taiwan is doomed.

I don't understand one thing. On the one hand, China talks about peace and says it wants to improve its bilateral relations with every country. On the other hand, it invades and meddles in the internal affairs of other countries.

The American empire was powerless to stop Russia's invasion and annexation of Crimea in 2014 but now we're expected to believe that they'll stop a far more potent military force from taking Taiwan? All this bluster from the generals and hawks in congress is just going to add to the humiliation.

Unlike the situation in Ukraine, the US has direct access to Taiwan through the sea and air without having to gain permission from anyone else in the region to move US forces The US has forces in the region with direct access to Taiwan and plans to use them. During the Russian war against Georgia Turkey would not allow a US Navy amphibious ready group to pass through the Dardanelles, calling the big LHA an "aircraft carrier" prohibited from passing through by The Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits, which restricts passage of naval vessels of nations not bordering the Black Sea. The same situation existed during the Ukraine invasion. Because of the terms of the 1997 NATO-Russia Foundiing Act NATO does not have forces permanently stationed in the countries bordering Ukraine. The US would have had to rail and air ship their troops, vehicles, tanks and artillery to the Ukraine over a period of weeks to build up sufficient combat strength. Ukraine was also not a NATO ally and the US had no formal commitment to defend Ukraine. There were elements in the US that didn't like or trust Ukraine either, viewing it as corrupt and authoritarian. That is emphatically not the case with Taiwan. Defending Taiwan has broad support from both major political parties and across the political spectrum. The US has also stated in indirect terms over multiple administrations that the US would defend Taiwan from a Chinese attack. US credibility was not on the line with Ukraine and Russia was not trying to conquer the whole country. With Taiwan the situation is completely different and the credibility of the US would be directly on the line. I have no doubt the US would go to war to defend Taiwan.

I don't understand one thing. On the one hand, China talks about peace and says it wants to improve its bilateral relations with every country. On the other hand, it invades and meddles in the internal affairs of other countries.

Non-intervention and peaceful pursuit of prosperity was mostly the case with China until Xi Jinping became CCP General Secretary and PRC President. Remember it was not like this when Hu Jintao was General Secretary and PRC President. Xi's belligerence has changed everything internal and external to China. In the long run I suspect Xi's aggressive behavior and that of some of his "diplomats" are going to so alienate Chinas business partners and nations disposed to be friendly to them that China's economy will suffer. Nations are turning against China rapidly. Their cyber espionage angers everyone. It's foolish too because at some point nations are going to turn against China and ban their companies. You don't let the thief back in the store, do you? Likewise his internal policies are creating enemies within the CCP and within the larger Chinese business community. Large swaths of the CCP now live in fear for their lives and the lives of their families. Turning on Jack Ma has put their wealthy business community on alert for coming repression. Investors will not take risks with China if they have to worry about losing everything on the whim of an unpredictable dictator.

In the event, expect rather something like blockade than a direct invasion. Remember,. Taiwan is within the "9-dot line" that our elites are increasingly accepting. And with no outside help, Taiwan is doomed.

That is not true. No maritime nation accepts the Nine Dash Line claim. Germany, UK and France all have or are now sending ships into the South China Sea to exercise their right to freedom of navigation and defy China's claims. US, Australian, Japanese and Indian Navy ships have been doing these Freedom of Navigation Operations or FON-OPS, for many years. The RNs new aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth's first operational deployment will be through the SCS, with half her air wing composed of USMC F-35Bs (the other half will be RAF versions) and a US destroyer will join the British task force. The force will then operate with the Japanese SDF. UK is also looking to establish a base in the region, most likely in Singapore, to allow it to regularly patrol the SCS. Your claim is fact free ad hominem.

Pointing billions and billions of American missiles at China doesn’t really help matters...

That is quite literally the opposite of the truth. Because of the 1988 Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty the US military has no intermediate range ballistic missiles or land based long range cruise missiles with either conventional or nuclear warheads. The last such missiles in the US and Russian arsenals were decommissioned in 1991. By comparison the Chinese have thousands of intermediate range conventional and nuclear warhead armed ballistic missiles and land based cruise missiles with ranges out to 2400 km. So the true situation is the Chinese can hit Guam, Philippines, Taiwan, Okinawa and the Japanese mainland with conventional or nuclear IRBMs fired from the Chinese mainland but the US has no similar weapons to employ against China. That will change in the coming years but has not yet happened. In fact one of the major reasons the US abandoned the INF treaty is that China was not a signatory and was free to deploy weapons the treaty forbid the US from having. The US has conventional cruise missiles on surface ships but those ships have to get pretty close to China to hit targets there, close enough to come under heavy and sustained attack from Chinese forces based on the mainland. China has built up significant air defenses that make operating within 1500 km of the Chinese coast dangerous while the Chinese can launch things at its neighbors with great security.

All China "needs" is a few bombs over the Three Gorges Dam.

The Three Gorges Dam is a Sword of Damocles hanging over China's head

Everyone with a little bit of strategic military sense can see it.

The 1997 Geneva Conventions specifically prohibits targeting water infrastructure during a war. Blowing Chinese dams would be a war crime.

That should be the 1977, not 1997, Geneva Conventions outlaws targeting water infrastructure. Sorry for the fat finger mistake.

During the Russian war against Georgia Turkey would not allow a US Navy amphibious ready group to pass through the Dardanelles, calling the big LHA an "aircraft carrier" prohibited from passing through by The Montreux Convention

Oh, of course. There's always a plausible excuse to explain why the most powerful military force in the world falls flat so often.

I have no doubt the US would go to war to defend Taiwan.

Defend Taiwan from what exactly? From the internationally recognised sovereign exercising control over their own territory? The majority of the UN and the Security Council recognise Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan.

The US has also stated in indirect terms over multiple administrations that the US would defend Taiwan from a Chinese attack.

The Chinese are unlikely to launch a D-day invasion of Taiwan. All they need to do is issue a statement announcing that any international flights and ships bound for Taiwan must now arrive in Fuzhou or Xiamen to clear customs and immigration before heading onward to Taiwan. 99.9% of commercial carriers will comply or cease operations in Taiwan. China can take effective control of Taiwan with the stroke of a pen.

The Chinese are unlikely to launch a D-day invasion of Taiwan. All they need to do is issue a statement announcing that any international flights and ships bound for Taiwan must now arrive in Fuzhou or Xiamen to clear customs and immigration before heading onward to Taiwan. 99.9% of commercial carriers will comply or cease operations in Taiwan. China can take effective control of Taiwan with the stroke of a pen.

If that were really the case China would have done so decades ago. The fact is any such directive is completely unenforceable and would be ignored.

Defend Taiwan from what exactly? From the internationally recognised sovereign exercising control over their own territory? The majority of the UN and the Security Council recognise Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan.

Nations played nice with PRC hoping it would change, while their businesses salivated at the prospect of a middle class market of over half a billion families. Maybe someday China would democratize and there could be a mutually acceptable reunification. But reunification by force was never considered acceptable then or now and I am surprised you are not aware of this.

Nations played nice with PRC hoping it would change, while their businesses salivated at the prospect of a middle class market of over half a billion families. Maybe someday China would democratize and there could be a mutually acceptable reunification. But reunification by force was never considered acceptable then or now and I am surprised you are not aware of this.

Never acceptable to whom and by what standard? By the standards of international law adopted by the United Nations who's members overwhelmingly recognise the PRCs sovereignty over Taiwan? Or by the arbitrary standards of one of the most persistent violators of international law in the world today, the United States? Whether or not China's political system is democratic enough to make you happy has absolutely zero bearing on the sovereignty question.

If that were really the case China would have done so decades ago.

Obviously China didn't have the same economic power decades ago.

The fact is any such directive is completely unenforceable and would be ignored.

Why would global airlines and shipping companies (which already comply with every new Chinese regulation) ignore this new one? The cost of compliance would be very small while the cost of non-compliance would be enormous, especially if it meant being banned from operating on the mainland. The shareholders of global transport companies probably aren't as interested in the fate of Taiwan as you imagine.