For those who think a China invasion / attack on Taiwan is inevitable, what year does it happen?

Milley: China Wants Capability to Take Taiwan by 2027, Sees No Near-term Intent to Invade

“Their assessment is based off a speech by President Xi that challenged the People’s Liberation Army to accelerate their modernization programs to develop capabilities to seize Taiwan and move it from 2035 to 2027… If Adm Aquilino and Adm. Davidson said that China had an intent, has made a decision, and they intend to invade and seize Taiwan then I do disagree with that. I see no evidence of that actual intent or decision-making. What I’m talking about is capability,” he said in response to Rep. Elaine Luria (D-Va.) during the hearing.

--

Well...after all the CAPABILITY analysis...I will concur.

2022-2025 near ZERO percent chance
2026 - increasing chance [mid point of next US President's term, 2024-2028]
2027 - end of Xi Jinping's presumed 3rd term

I think Xi gets elected for a 4th term...in 2027...which would then place the invasion in 28/29 near the beginning of his next term!

China can counter any Taiwan submarines and they'll live with missiles Taiwan is acquiring.

Want to start a thread on scenarios of how US would intervene during an invasion/attack.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: rigel4
a reply to: dontneedaname

For many reasons ... i think they will never attack Taiwan.
For other purposes .. Strategically they will do it next year .. Why?

Good chance of Russia invading Ukraine... Sleepy joe will have his hands full with that if it comes to pass.

Spring time 22 is the start of the Window the Chinese have with the sea conditions in the Taiwan straight to land an invasion fleet.

Likely all wrong but its my best assessment.

Id say April as the weather will allow it. And the clock is ticking they know they want Joe Biden in office so it will be soon. Even Putin figured out Joe is useless so expect the rest of Ukraine to fall also. When you have a president that is hiding from the press and can't read a teleprompter they know its safe.

Exactly Right

a reply to: dontneedaname

Would fighting a war with china make it easier to get those semiconductors?

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: dontneedaname

Would fighting a war with china make it easier to get those semiconductors?

Do you want to be dependent on an "enemy" for such a critical thing? Can see the market issues re: lack of semiconductor chips right now on auto supply, auto prices, etc...

China won't bomb Chinese cities too much if at all I think. Keeping focus on military / some political related assets.

Then there is the image perception. If the USA did nothing against a China attack, the USA might as well just leave the whole area. Now Japan in theory could get involved w/o USA. But I'm just reading about the QUAD agreement.

Nice video from Hindustan Times.

US caught off guard by nuclear build up in China.

Sometimes helps to see the same thing in different ways. The 2049 date is bandied about. That's when China wants to be a WORLD class overall power (#1 presumably) - not just military. You can't be WORLD class unless you are at least REGIONAL class, which China is not now in terms of the ability to take Taiwan.

Then there is the 2035 date. That's the date for a WORLD class military.

www.business-standard.com...

And the 2035 date just got moved to 2027 as a target.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: dontneedaname

Would fighting a war with china make it easier to get those semiconductors?

I've read the 65%....but for the most advanced chips it's like 90%? Nice summary video above. [Learning as I type]


Inside TSMC, the Taiwanese chipmaking giant that’s building a new plant in Phoenix

www.cnbc.com...

TSMC alone was responsible for 24% of the world’s semiconductor output in 2020, up from 21% in 2019, according to the company. When it comes to the most advanced chips used in the latest iPhones, supercomputers and automotive AI, TSMC is responsible for 92% of production while Samsung is responsible for the other 8%, according to research group Capital Economics.

“It’s become almost a monopoly at the leading edge, and all of those manufacturing operations, for the most part, are out of Taiwan, Hsinchu. That becomes a matter of national importance for the United States, but not only the United States, but the Western world,” said Christopher Rolland, Susquehanna’s senior semiconductor analyst.


NOTE: it's a little confusing, I read 65%, 20% of semiconductor global share...I think the definitions are a little different. But regardless, it's a lot and the most tech intensive chips are from Taiwan.
---

sounds like kind of a pickle. just a disclaimer here...my father was born in China (Grew up in Taiwan, fled before communists took over), my mother is from Taiwan, I was born in the USA. I just picked up a Taiwan passport for various reasons.

So I have had in part the mindset of both sides. Have extensive strategic military background - but not recent, but that's really another story. Also in the end times camp (Not Jesus camp though)...so this fits right in.

a reply to: dontneedaname

The first mistake?
Is to "think/believe", your enemy needs, your resources or tools, to do the same kind of "mission" you would plan for. You couldn't understand the task, threat, because you couldn't understand the limited resources of the "plan". But they do.

Never underestimate your foe.

The only good reason for "a plan" and silly tacticool training?... Is so you'll know, what ain't going to happen.

I often wonder why the leading powers: the US, Russia, China, NATO, EU, no longer even discuss ways to ban war, ban thermonuclear WMDs or at least control them with the goal to eliminate them. Even Nixon did more during his reign than these present politicians.

Strange, the two American presidents who did or wanted to do the most to diminish WMDs and tone down the cold war— one got assassinated, and the other, Nixon, got thrown out of office.

We forget when we so glibly talk about war with China or Russia and the mass stockpiling of these insane weapons what can easily be the end of the human race.

We've been desensitized to this issue.

originally posted by: peaceinoutz

I often wonder why the leading powers: the US, Russia, China, NATO, EU, no longer even discuss ways to ban war, ban thermonuclear WMDs or at least control them with the goal to eliminate them. Even Nixon did more during his reign than these present politicians.

Strange, the two American presidents who did or wanted to do the most to diminish WMDs and tone down the cold war— one got assassinated, and the other, Nixon, got thrown out of office.

We forget when we so glibly talk about war with China or Russia and the mass stockpiling of these insane weapons what can easily be the end of the human race.

We've been desensitized to this issue.

How are video game sales going these days?

How is sports participation going?

OFFENSE, DEFENSE, STRIKE, STRIKER, ATTACK, GOAL, SCORE, HIT, STEAL, DEFEND, SHOOT, INTERCEPT...

Sports is the language of war....it's endemic....to fully get rid of it will require something totally different.
Words from basketball, baseball, soccer, football, etc...

which is coming...but darkness before light.

a reply to: dontneedaname

In my opinion, there's a bit of a disconnect between this:

originally posted by: dontneedaname
So...China cannot go to war over Taiwan until mid-2020s, as they do not have the right equipment. NOT ENOUGH:

- amphibious assault ships
- not enough advanced fighters to counter US F-35 / F-22
- nuclear deterrent not enough (In their eyes)

And this:

originally posted by: dontneedaname
I think too much importance is placed on who is US President. If you don't have the military might, it doesn't matter who is US president for the most part.

It matters a lot. If China calculates that a given US president lacks the will to intervene on behalf of Taiwan, then it doesn't matter whether China has enough advanced fighters and nuclear deterrent. Who the US President is can significantly change the requirement of how much military might they need to pull it off.

originally posted by: peaceinoutz

I often wonder why the leading powers: the US, Russia, China, NATO, EU, no longer even discuss ways to ban war, ban thermonuclear WMDs or at least control them with the goal to eliminate them. Even Nixon did more during his reign than these present politicians.

Strange, the two American presidents who did or wanted to do the most to diminish WMDs and tone down the cold war— one got assassinated, and the other, Nixon, got thrown out of office.

We forget when we so glibly talk about war with China or Russia and the mass stockpiling of these insane weapons what can easily be the end of the human race.

We've been desensitized to this issue.

You're forgetting about Reagan. He wanted to do away with nuclear weapons, enough that he seriously pissed off the European allies because without nuclear deterrent they were at a serious disadvantage to the Soviets in conventional forces.

Whether you like them or not, nuclear weapons are the reason there hasn't been a major power war in over 75 years.

Also, full-blown nuclear war would not end the human race. That's a myth. Since you're unlikely to believe me, you can read more about why that wouldn't be the case here.

Edit to add: The wiki article on nuclear winter is even better. The history of nuclear winter discussion has been full of hype and scaremongering, kind of like climate science today.

originally posted by: dontneedaname

originally posted by: peaceinoutz

I often wonder why the leading powers: the US, Russia, China, NATO, EU, no longer even discuss ways to ban war, ban thermonuclear WMDs or at least control them with the goal to eliminate them. Even Nixon did more during his reign than these present politicians.

Strange, the two American presidents who did or wanted to do the most to diminish WMDs and tone down the cold war— one got assassinated, and the other, Nixon, got thrown out of office.

We forget when we so glibly talk about war with China or Russia and the mass stockpiling of these insane weapons what can easily be the end of the human race.

We've been desensitized to this issue.

How are video game sales going these days?

How is sports participation going?

OFFENSE, DEFENSE, STRIKE, STRIKER, ATTACK, GOAL, SCORE, HIT, STEAL, DEFEND, SHOOT, INTERCEPT...

Sports is the language of war....it's endemic....to fully get rid of it will require something totally different.
Words from basketball, baseball, soccer, football, etc...

which is coming...but darkness before light.

You make a good point. Our nature as it stands is all about conflict. Sports, entertainment, etc. reflect it.

I have no solution to what I posted, only observing it for what it is. Probably the seeds of our doom.

a reply to: face23785

Whether you like them or not, nuclear weapons are the reason there hasn't been a major power war in over 75 years.

Maybe. How can we really know that? But, I'll concede the ironic possibility that WMDs may be a key to maintaining peace of the big powers, though at a risk to the survival of humanity---considering madmen at the helm, accidents, which BTW has already happened and almost caused the worse scenario imagined.

As for Reagan, he did give lip service to that and tried to talk to Brezhnev, while trying to start as you recall star wars to repel nukes.

Also, a full-blown nuclear war would not end the human race. That's a myth. Since you're unlikely to believe me, you can read more about why that wouldn't be the case here.

I wouldn't call it a myth in that most understand that nuclear conflagration doesn’t have to destroy the planet immediately, it all depends on how many nukes they fling toward each other. Sure, a few might only kill 200 thousand to half a billion people, but then those left alive might pray for death considering, as your link testifies to, the nuclear winter and other unknown and known environmental catastrophes facing those left.

But one has to concede, in theory, humans have the capacity to annihilate all life on the planet with not much effort!

originally posted by: peaceinoutz
a reply to: face23785

Maybe. How can we really know that?

Of course, there's no way to know for certain. But if you look at history, and the frequency of great power wars right up until the invention of nuclear weapons, and then great power wars suddenly ceased happening, it's a pretty safe conclusion. The US and Soviets nearly went to war on a number of occasions during the Cold War.

As for Reagan, he did give lip service to that and tried to talk to Brezhnev, while trying to start as you recall star wars to repel nukes.

I think you need to read more about Reagan. It was much more than lip service. His conversations with allied leaders made that very clear. And Star Wars does not disprove that notion in any way.

I wouldn't call it a myth in that most understand that nuclear conflagration doesn’t have to destroy the planet immediately, it all depends on how many nukes they fling toward each other. Sure, a few might only kill 200 thousand to half a billion people, but then those left alive might pray for death considering, as your link testifies to, the nuclear winter and other unknown and known environmental catastrophes facing those left.

Again, it doesn't look like you read far enough. I understand people don't always have a lot of free time on their hands, but the two articles I sent you aren't that long, you should finish them when you have time. If you read them in their entirety, the general theme you're going to come away with is that the concepts of nuclear winter and general nuclear war annihilating humanity were based on primitive models and some were even selectively programmed to produce the absolute worst results. Since then, the more we learn about it, the more we learn those early predictions were wrong, as often happens in science. It's become more of an ideological belief than a scientific one, because as the science has marched on, some refuse to let go of their belief in the doomsday scenario, often for political reasons.

But one has to concede, in theory, humans have the capacity to annihilate all life on the planet with not much effort!

Not really, not with the current stockpiles and our current understanding of the science. Don't get me wrong, open nuclear war would be a catastrophe. The death toll would probably be in the billions, between the immediate effects and the longer-term climactic effects and famines. But humans are the most adaptable species this planet has ever seen. In our millions of years of evolution, we've survived the kinds of climate swings that are predicted by the worst-case-scenario nuclear winter scenarios. It's a complete failure of logic to think that primitive hominids could have survived such things, but modern man with all our technology and knowledge would go extinct. We would survive as a species and repopulate.

Pushing overhyped and sensationalized theories that have since been called into serious question is not gonna help the cause of trying to get people more concerned about nuclear weapons. Climate change alarmists suffer from the same problem. People take a real problem and blow it up into something the public knows is bull# and then wonder why they can't convince anyone.

Taiwan will become united with China the year that the country reverts back to the name Formosa

it became Taiwan in 1945

Nuclear Autumn not Winter.

Nice video I saw the other day from NY Times

Lots of testing in the 1960s - above ground. Did that change the climate in any measurable way?

Not sure if it's related...but just looking at this now. This conversation reminded me of this.

We see a big snow spike year in Seattle.

www.seattleweatherblog.com...

EDIT: I see no obvious relationship..

dhmontgomery.com...

a reply to: St Udio
"Formosa" was the Spanish name for the island. People in the West were sill using it as late as 1970. It is unlikely that anyone will bring it back to displace the native "Taiwan".

a reply to: face23785

Actually, I've read that article long before this thread, and other venues dealing with this issue. Also, I don't think it's any huge difference of opinion here ( matter of degrees) since the idea of a massive nuclear war is not universally agreed on the outcome by experts. It all would depend on the number of WMDs used.

Also, it's somewhat superfluous disputing what we can only speculate about save if for example thousands of those WMDs were used you could bet serious trouble for the human race.

You are perfectly welcome to more or less downplay this but that I don't agree with at all. On the other hand, I'm not a fanatic about it since obviously, the PTB wants these weapons, therefore, its little universal opposition expressed( particularly in comparison to say, global warming) to them in the public arena, believe it or not.

a reply to: scraedtosleep

China will have a strangle hold over semiconductor capabilities with Taiwan's acquisition, the question now to ask is can we afford to NOT fight them over Taiwan.

Do I want WW3 of course not, an avoided war is better in most cases, BUT if you are going to fight, fight like the third monkey on the path to the ARK and its started to Rain.

Problem is we wont if we fight and that is problematic.

The third Chinese carrier is still under construction. China is not expected to operate 6 carriers until the 2030s time frame. Invasion is still a long time off, maybe decades.