… does that sound suspiciously like the promise to the Ukraine in 1994? Or is it a step up from that?
Biden says US willing to respond ‘militarily’ in event of Chinese attack on Taiwan
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/23/politics/biden-taiwan-china-j…
intercst
The China conflict has been penciled in for 2027.
https://discussion.fool.com/appears-the-pentagon-has-a-china-con…
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/23/world/asia/biden-taiwan-c…
**Biden’s own administration watching in the room did not expect him to promise such unvarnished resolve. Taiwan has never been granted the same U.S. security guarantees as Japan, South Korea or America’s NATO allies. The United States has historically warned China against using force against Taiwan while generally remaining vague about how far it would go to aid the island in such a circumstance.**
**The White House quickly tried to deny that the president meant what he seemed to be saying. “As the president said, our policy has not changed,” the White House said in a statement hurriedly sent to reporters. “He reiterated our One China Policy and our commitment to peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. He also reiterated our commitment under the Taiwan Relations Act to provide Taiwan with the military means to defend itself.”...**
**Taiwan, however, has never been granted the same U.S. security guarantees as Japan, South Korea or America’s NATO allies, and so the comment was seen as significant. ... Indeed, the president has made a habit of disregarding the cautions his staff would prefer he take in confronting overseas adversaries. ...** [end quote]
Of course, the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. On the other hand, Biden has a way of tossing out emotional statements of his personal opinion which run counter to the long-standing carefully-curated diplomatic stance of the State Department and which they quickly try to walk back.
There’s also the pesky War Powers Act.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution
**The War Powers Resolution (also known as the War Powers Resolution of 1973 or the War Powers Act) (50 U.S.C. ch. 33) is a federal law intended to check the U.S. president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States congressional joint resolution. It provides that the president can send the U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization", or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces".**
**The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States.**
This is confusing to me…not to mention our adversaries, who are autocrats without checks and balances.
Since a shooting war with China would have immense Macroeconomic and geopolitical impacts, we have to wonder: would the U.S. really engage in a hot war with China over Taiwan? A war which an internal Pentagon war-games study showed that the U.S. would lose?
I don’t want to make this political, obviously. But there is a difference between what the President says and what the diplomats have worked out over years. Which would make the final decision?
Wendy
The United States has historically warned China against using force against Taiwan while generally remaining vague about how far it would go to aid the island in such a circumstance.
I would suspect previous USian vagueness was for the benefit of the rope sellers. Now that trade relations with China are not so rosy, a POTUS is allowed to speak plain and simple truth: Chinese military action against Taiwan is not acceptable.
Putin would not have invaded Ukraine, if there were USian troops on the ground in that country. USian troops have increasingly been exercising on Taiwan, laying down a marker. I have no problem with that.
WASHINGTON, Oct 7 (Reuters) - Small numbers of U.S. special operations forces have been rotating into Taiwan on a temporary basis to train with Taiwanese forces, two sources familiar with the matter said on Thursday, speaking on condition of anonymity.
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/us-troops-rotating-into-…
US Nearly Doubled Military Personnel Stationed in Taiwan This Year
https://www.voanews.com/a/pentagon-us-nearly-doubled-militar…
Steve…does not accept the proposition that the US needs to withdraw from the world, so the likes of Xi and Putin can be unfettered.
Our stance on Taiwan has always been vague on purpose, so as to not piss off either China or Taiwan, both of whom we rely heavily on.
Would we actively engage to defend Taiwan? I don’t know. But I do know if they were invaded, and it got violent and started impacting things like chip foundries, watch out…
(Intel and Samsung can’t build new fabs here fast enough)
(Intel and Samsung can’t build new fabs here fast enough)
But you also need to look back up the supply chain.
Japan makes the largest percentage of the silicon ingots, but China produces the most raw silicon.
Just guessing, but I doubt there are big stockpiles of either.
https://semiengineering.com/more-silicon-wafer-consolidation…
https://www.imarcgroup.com/top-silicon-wafer-manufacturing-c…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_silicon_producers
Mike
But you also need to look back up the supply chain.
I’ve stopped believing in a “supply chain”.
That is, unless you append the words “link fence”.
Our oil supplies are dependent on food and metals. Our food supply is dependent on oil and metals. Our metal supply is dependent on food and oil. Our wood supply is dependent on all of those, and all of them except maybe oil are dependent on our wood supply.