This is a really good article, and we need a lot more like it,written from both sides of the political spectrum. The public needs to get educated and prepared without it turning into partisan signaling. To get some perspective on how serious this is, I asked chat gpt to estimate the odds. I mean if this was only a few percent likely to come to pass in the next 20 years I was not going to get too excited. However the first pass through It said it was 20-55% by 2035. I looked at how it determined this and to my uneducated military mind it wasn’t unreasonable. If it is anywhere close to this we need to prepare
What it really comes down to is stamina. The goal isn’t to “want a war”. It’s to make China believe that even if it can hurt , it still can’t break the U.S. politically or make us quit. That means a deal with the public knowing what we’re defending, what it could cost, and what we’re doing now so daily life doesn’t unglue if things get ugly.
The piece is pointing in that direction, but it would be even clearer if it separated three different kinds of preparation we need to do;
• prepare to win on the battlefield so they can’t just take Taiwan fast without a lot of pain
• prepare at home so we can keep fuel, goods, power, and basic services running
• prepare with our allies so supply chains stay and China can’t isolate us.
If we’re serious about preventing war, we need all three and most of all we need a united country so China does not believe they can crack us politically.
Thoughtful voters will want to select their candidate for president based on who can most likely prepare such a strong defense and unquestioned willingness to use it, that it discourages invasion. Which democrat party candidate might that be?
This is a solid piece. Thank to TLP for adding Mr Purzycki’s pen (I think I’ve seen him in the comments but never as an author)
Two things we should be doing immediately are arming Taiwan to the teeth to turn her into a prickly porcupine who’s more trouble than she’s worth. Taiwan is a wealthy nation who can afford to pay for the weapons she needs which makes this an easy sell to the public.
The next step as you point out is to decouple our economy from China’s enough so that severing economic ties completely (I.e. halting all trade) will harm them far more than it harms us.
The CHIPS act was a great idea and could have been a huge step in this direction, but the Democrats rendered it practically useless by infecting it with DEI.
The country at large is not nearly as divided and acrimonious as people who spend way too much time online would have us believe. Still convincing Americans we should send troops to fight China absent a direct attack on us will prove a bridge too far. Our best and most reliable weapon against China remains economic and the simple fact that if we stop ceding our manufacturing to them while making it easier to mine for the rare earths we need (which we actually have plenty of here), while making it abundantly clear that we will cease all trade with them should they attempt to take Taiwan by force it will be more than enough. We also need to start treating people with ties to the Chinese Communist party the same way we treated people with ties to the Soviets. I.e. persona non grata.
Forgive me, but for most Americans, the real cost would be the 100K+ American deaths, the US would be required to absorb, to possibly lose to China.
Are US parents, who refuse to allow their children to ride bikes without helmets and track their kid's phones well past 30th birthdays, really going to tolerate a draft and 100K dead, when the US has not been directly attacked ? To say nothing of the endless loss of limbs, and POWS held in the most brutal conditions possible. All to save a tiny island and the stock prices of the Mag 7? Call me crazy, but I think not.
Afghanistan's losses were fewer than 2500 Americans , along with thousands of life altering injuries. Americans are peeved enough over those losses. Now we are expected to smile and wave goodby as 1 or 2 million US Jacks and Jills are sent into battle to save Taiwan, so wealthy Taiwanese children do not perish? War games show US losses of 100K or more. Every time an expensive US air craft carrier sinks, it take 6K souls with it. That might be a hard sell.
Taiwan could be Israel with every person age 18-60 possessing years of military training. They are not. The Taiwan military would fit into a few Rose Bowls, with plenty of room left over. Reserves train 30-120 days. They are more battle ready soldiers in many Texas nursing homes. Taiwan refuses to train their own, because they expect Americans to perish en mass, saving them, assuming such a feat is even possible.
Taiwan's tiny population, only slightly larger than FL, sits less than 90 miles from mainland China and their 2 million man stand military, with millions more in reserves. China has rendered the Taiwanese very, very wealthy. Ethnically Chinese, for 1/2 a century, technically the US has considered Taiwan part of China. Some Taiwanese feel the same way.
Moreover, let's not forget who fights US wars. It is not the children of the Dem ruling class or Environmental Science majors. The moment a draft took Dem children, and not just those in economically disadvantaged Red States, the need to fight Taiwan's battles would cease. China's 1.2 billion population assures China wins any war of attrition. The notion of President Newsom leading the US into battle conjures giggles, not fear by the other side.
The US once made a large portion of all semiconductors on earth. We can do so again. The people running Taiwan fabs were overwhelmingly educated in the US. We have plenty of our own oil and food. Far better for the US to domestically manufacture chips, than 100K bodybags.
I hear your core point about casualties. If the U.S. is not willing to fight for Taiwan, that is a real Option A. It deserves a serious, solution-oriented debate.
But whichever path we choose, Option A (don’t fight), or Option B (fight), or some Option C, we need a united national decision across Democrats and Republicans. And if the probability of this happening is really in the estimated AI estimate of 20-55% in next 10 years ( which is a big IF) we need to start preparing now. Either path comes with real costs and real sacrifices, just in different forms.
If we choose Option A, it isn’t “do nothing” as you noted. It means we still have to rebuild critical production at home/with allies, make supply chains and infrastructure shock-proof, secure shipping/energy. And clearly define the next red line, so we’re not improvising in a crisis.
If we choose Option B, we owe the public straight talk: what we’re defending, what it could cost, and what we’re doing now so the country can endure it.
My ask is simple: if the risk of this happening is really in the 20-55% in next 10 years we start treating it like a strategic choice that requires public consent. Whatever we pick, we should pick it together, and pay the bill deliberately. If it is not then we can coast along and not worry too much. It is the duty of our leaders to clarify which and act
I agree, we must prepare, while never admitting we are not going to war with China, but I am betting that is the reality.
I love this sight. The authors are normally middle of the road enough, I would vote for a few, but in a gross generalization, only a Dem could possibly author the above and never consider the cost of American life.
It is a byproduct of globalization and a two tiered America. That is not a knock on the author. He likely doesn't know anyone in the military, and if he has children, he does not fear their involvement in any war, let alone one with China. Perishing on the battlefield , historically, is the job of poor and/or Rep kids.
Whatever else the outcome of the Trump administration, that era appears to be over. I disagree with Trump more than I agree, and I would literally rather visit the dentist, then listen to him speak, but "rules for thee, but not for we" US governance is over.
The change is not just American. Farage and UK reform lead all parties in England. Not even a lifetime ban on Le Pen, will not quell her disciples. The stoic and well behaved Germans are very likely to elect the AfD leader next, because they are so tired of being force fed policy that kill their living standards, while enriching global elites.
A war with China, when they have not attacked the US directly, would be the ultimate act of sacrificing not just American livelihoods, but lives, for globalization. I do not believe that is a realistic possibility, anymore.
“The SPR came to public attention in 2022, when President Biden tapped into it in response to high oil prices caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.”
Yes, but…. The price of oil had risen in President Biden’s first nine months 82.5% (from $52.16 Jan 2021 to $83.50 Oct 2021). When Russia invaded Ukraine in Feb 2022 the price rose 15% more, to $96.13. Sales of oil from the SPR brought the price of oil down, by the Nov 2022 midterm elections, to $80.48.
Yeah the point of the SPR is to protect Americans from nefarious foreign actors artificially constraining the supply of oil, not to protect Democrats from the voters ire at the very intentional results of their radical green policies
If China attempts to seize Taiwan and fails, the current government will fall, and the CCP itself would be in danger for "losing the mandate of heaven". The CCP is supported/tolerated today not based on its communist ideology, but on its track record of economic and military success in reclaiming China's rightful role in the world. In the event of a major defeat, China could fragment, as it has so often in past centuries.
If China succeeded in invading and seizing Taiwan, the USA would have lost its first ever war against a peer foe, and tens of thousands of soldiers/sailors/airmen will have died in the process. With Taiwan occupied, the US would have no choice but to enter peace talks. The incumbent President and his Party would face electoral wipeout. But our country would go on, in a significantly diminished economic, political, and military state. China would reorganize Asia to suit its own needs, force the closure of many China-forward US military bases, and possibly seek military bases in South America.
IMO China will simply wait on political developments in the USA, which seems intent on tearing itself to pieces over issues unrelated to China.
What's with the left's obsession with war? You do realize that Trump is stopping wars and making deals for the betterment of all involved. If you think the only option is war, time to retire. Trump is not biden and hates war and unnecessary deaths caused by war.
And we are preparing, finally, by one who understands peace through strength. Do you know there are technology companies with new young people and ideas who concentrate on nothing but advanced warfare tools for the future?
Or, maybe I should have read the article. My new of way reading too many too long articles, start with the headlines, assume the writer actually writes an article that pertains to that headline. If not, I'm sure I will hear about it.
This is a really good article, and we need a lot more like it,written from both sides of the political spectrum. The public needs to get educated and prepared without it turning into partisan signaling. To get some perspective on how serious this is, I asked chat gpt to estimate the odds. I mean if this was only a few percent likely to come to pass in the next 20 years I was not going to get too excited. However the first pass through It said it was 20-55% by 2035. I looked at how it determined this and to my uneducated military mind it wasn’t unreasonable. If it is anywhere close to this we need to prepare
What it really comes down to is stamina. The goal isn’t to “want a war”. It’s to make China believe that even if it can hurt , it still can’t break the U.S. politically or make us quit. That means a deal with the public knowing what we’re defending, what it could cost, and what we’re doing now so daily life doesn’t unglue if things get ugly.
The piece is pointing in that direction, but it would be even clearer if it separated three different kinds of preparation we need to do;
• prepare to win on the battlefield so they can’t just take Taiwan fast without a lot of pain
• prepare at home so we can keep fuel, goods, power, and basic services running
• prepare with our allies so supply chains stay and China can’t isolate us.
If we’re serious about preventing war, we need all three and most of all we need a united country so China does not believe they can crack us politically.
Thoughtful voters will want to select their candidate for president based on who can most likely prepare such a strong defense and unquestioned willingness to use it, that it discourages invasion. Which democrat party candidate might that be?
This is a solid piece. Thank to TLP for adding Mr Purzycki’s pen (I think I’ve seen him in the comments but never as an author)
Two things we should be doing immediately are arming Taiwan to the teeth to turn her into a prickly porcupine who’s more trouble than she’s worth. Taiwan is a wealthy nation who can afford to pay for the weapons she needs which makes this an easy sell to the public.
The next step as you point out is to decouple our economy from China’s enough so that severing economic ties completely (I.e. halting all trade) will harm them far more than it harms us.
The CHIPS act was a great idea and could have been a huge step in this direction, but the Democrats rendered it practically useless by infecting it with DEI.
https://thehill.com/opinion/4517470-dei-killed-the-chips-act/
Reversing that should be order number one.
The country at large is not nearly as divided and acrimonious as people who spend way too much time online would have us believe. Still convincing Americans we should send troops to fight China absent a direct attack on us will prove a bridge too far. Our best and most reliable weapon against China remains economic and the simple fact that if we stop ceding our manufacturing to them while making it easier to mine for the rare earths we need (which we actually have plenty of here), while making it abundantly clear that we will cease all trade with them should they attempt to take Taiwan by force it will be more than enough. We also need to start treating people with ties to the Chinese Communist party the same way we treated people with ties to the Soviets. I.e. persona non grata.
Forgive me, but for most Americans, the real cost would be the 100K+ American deaths, the US would be required to absorb, to possibly lose to China.
Are US parents, who refuse to allow their children to ride bikes without helmets and track their kid's phones well past 30th birthdays, really going to tolerate a draft and 100K dead, when the US has not been directly attacked ? To say nothing of the endless loss of limbs, and POWS held in the most brutal conditions possible. All to save a tiny island and the stock prices of the Mag 7? Call me crazy, but I think not.
Afghanistan's losses were fewer than 2500 Americans , along with thousands of life altering injuries. Americans are peeved enough over those losses. Now we are expected to smile and wave goodby as 1 or 2 million US Jacks and Jills are sent into battle to save Taiwan, so wealthy Taiwanese children do not perish? War games show US losses of 100K or more. Every time an expensive US air craft carrier sinks, it take 6K souls with it. That might be a hard sell.
Taiwan could be Israel with every person age 18-60 possessing years of military training. They are not. The Taiwan military would fit into a few Rose Bowls, with plenty of room left over. Reserves train 30-120 days. They are more battle ready soldiers in many Texas nursing homes. Taiwan refuses to train their own, because they expect Americans to perish en mass, saving them, assuming such a feat is even possible.
Taiwan's tiny population, only slightly larger than FL, sits less than 90 miles from mainland China and their 2 million man stand military, with millions more in reserves. China has rendered the Taiwanese very, very wealthy. Ethnically Chinese, for 1/2 a century, technically the US has considered Taiwan part of China. Some Taiwanese feel the same way.
Moreover, let's not forget who fights US wars. It is not the children of the Dem ruling class or Environmental Science majors. The moment a draft took Dem children, and not just those in economically disadvantaged Red States, the need to fight Taiwan's battles would cease. China's 1.2 billion population assures China wins any war of attrition. The notion of President Newsom leading the US into battle conjures giggles, not fear by the other side.
The US once made a large portion of all semiconductors on earth. We can do so again. The people running Taiwan fabs were overwhelmingly educated in the US. We have plenty of our own oil and food. Far better for the US to domestically manufacture chips, than 100K bodybags.
I hear your core point about casualties. If the U.S. is not willing to fight for Taiwan, that is a real Option A. It deserves a serious, solution-oriented debate.
But whichever path we choose, Option A (don’t fight), or Option B (fight), or some Option C, we need a united national decision across Democrats and Republicans. And if the probability of this happening is really in the estimated AI estimate of 20-55% in next 10 years ( which is a big IF) we need to start preparing now. Either path comes with real costs and real sacrifices, just in different forms.
If we choose Option A, it isn’t “do nothing” as you noted. It means we still have to rebuild critical production at home/with allies, make supply chains and infrastructure shock-proof, secure shipping/energy. And clearly define the next red line, so we’re not improvising in a crisis.
If we choose Option B, we owe the public straight talk: what we’re defending, what it could cost, and what we’re doing now so the country can endure it.
My ask is simple: if the risk of this happening is really in the 20-55% in next 10 years we start treating it like a strategic choice that requires public consent. Whatever we pick, we should pick it together, and pay the bill deliberately. If it is not then we can coast along and not worry too much. It is the duty of our leaders to clarify which and act
I agree, we must prepare, while never admitting we are not going to war with China, but I am betting that is the reality.
I love this sight. The authors are normally middle of the road enough, I would vote for a few, but in a gross generalization, only a Dem could possibly author the above and never consider the cost of American life.
It is a byproduct of globalization and a two tiered America. That is not a knock on the author. He likely doesn't know anyone in the military, and if he has children, he does not fear their involvement in any war, let alone one with China. Perishing on the battlefield , historically, is the job of poor and/or Rep kids.
Whatever else the outcome of the Trump administration, that era appears to be over. I disagree with Trump more than I agree, and I would literally rather visit the dentist, then listen to him speak, but "rules for thee, but not for we" US governance is over.
The change is not just American. Farage and UK reform lead all parties in England. Not even a lifetime ban on Le Pen, will not quell her disciples. The stoic and well behaved Germans are very likely to elect the AfD leader next, because they are so tired of being force fed policy that kill their living standards, while enriching global elites.
A war with China, when they have not attacked the US directly, would be the ultimate act of sacrificing not just American livelihoods, but lives, for globalization. I do not believe that is a realistic possibility, anymore.
Méi guānxi Won't happen, too risky, money loser.
“The SPR came to public attention in 2022, when President Biden tapped into it in response to high oil prices caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.”
Yes, but…. The price of oil had risen in President Biden’s first nine months 82.5% (from $52.16 Jan 2021 to $83.50 Oct 2021). When Russia invaded Ukraine in Feb 2022 the price rose 15% more, to $96.13. Sales of oil from the SPR brought the price of oil down, by the Nov 2022 midterm elections, to $80.48.
https://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-chart
Sales of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, by Oct 2022, reduced the SPR to the lowest level in 38 years.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=54359
Yeah the point of the SPR is to protect Americans from nefarious foreign actors artificially constraining the supply of oil, not to protect Democrats from the voters ire at the very intentional results of their radical green policies
If China attempts to seize Taiwan and fails, the current government will fall, and the CCP itself would be in danger for "losing the mandate of heaven". The CCP is supported/tolerated today not based on its communist ideology, but on its track record of economic and military success in reclaiming China's rightful role in the world. In the event of a major defeat, China could fragment, as it has so often in past centuries.
If China succeeded in invading and seizing Taiwan, the USA would have lost its first ever war against a peer foe, and tens of thousands of soldiers/sailors/airmen will have died in the process. With Taiwan occupied, the US would have no choice but to enter peace talks. The incumbent President and his Party would face electoral wipeout. But our country would go on, in a significantly diminished economic, political, and military state. China would reorganize Asia to suit its own needs, force the closure of many China-forward US military bases, and possibly seek military bases in South America.
IMO China will simply wait on political developments in the USA, which seems intent on tearing itself to pieces over issues unrelated to China.
Maybe all the more reason for Iceland to become a U.S. state or territory?
What's with the left's obsession with war? You do realize that Trump is stopping wars and making deals for the betterment of all involved. If you think the only option is war, time to retire. Trump is not biden and hates war and unnecessary deaths caused by war.
And we are preparing, finally, by one who understands peace through strength. Do you know there are technology companies with new young people and ideas who concentrate on nothing but advanced warfare tools for the future?
Or, maybe I should have read the article. My new of way reading too many too long articles, start with the headlines, assume the writer actually writes an article that pertains to that headline. If not, I'm sure I will hear about it.
My take of the title and subtitle amounts to:
Si vis pacem, para bellum
If you want peace you must be prepared for war