Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

Smart Bombs: Military, Defense and National Security

Why Joe Biden Must Avoid A U.S.-China War Over Taiwan

USS George H.W. Bush
STRAIT OF HORMUZ (April 28, 2014) A small vessel transits in front of the aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77) as it transits the Strait of Hormuz as seen from the guided-missile cruiser USS Philippine Sea (CG 58). The George H.W. Bush Carrier Strike Group is supporting maritime security operations and theater security cooperation efforts in the U.S. 5th Fleet area of responsibility. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Abe McNatt/Released) 140428-N-PJ969-027

Editor’s Note: This is part two of a two-part series. You can read part one here.

If China finally decides to use force to reunify Taiwan, its objectives will not be to engage in an all-out war with the United States – nor any other country in the region – but to subdue Taiwan with the least cost and least escalation. What follows is an assessment of the cost-benefit calculations that would have to be made in Beijing, Washington, and the capitals of U.S. allies in the region should China’s forceable attempt to reunify Taiwan include taking out specific U.S. military targets in Japan.

In this scenario, Chinese President Xi Jinping chose to take a major risk by launching devastating, large-scale attacks on the U.S. airbase at Kadena on Okinawa and the Sasebo Naval Base in southwest Japan that they could convince Japan, South Korea, and Australia that Beijing had the ability and the will to attack other bases – but that if the three countries agreed merely to deny the U.S. permission to attack China from its bases, no further actions would be taken. This put all three nations under enormous pressure.

Washington immediately called on all three capitols to make good on their mutual security agreements to come to our aid. Many in each country felt obligated to make good on the treaty and argued for their governments to declare war on China. But there were other, major considerations and domestic pressures on the governments of each state.

None were militarily prepared for war. None had ammunition and logistical stocks sufficient to sustain combat for more than a few weeks of high-intensity conflict; all were undermanned. Domestic politics also exerted pressure to stay out. China had not declared war against the U.S., some argued, but only against the forces that could influence the fight on Taiwan.

To go to war now, unprepared, would cause great destruction to fall on their ships, port facilities, air forces, and industrial sectors – not to mention potentially tens of thousands of their citizens; it would take decades to recover. Though each had a security agreement with the United States, the language was sufficiently vague as to give each an out in this situation.

There is an identical phrase in the three treaties signed by the U.S. and South Korea, Japan, and Australia. Each party agreed that if another signatory to the agreement were attacked, it would “be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes.”

Despite what some believe, there is no automatic trigger that an attack on one requires the others to fight. If their “constitutional processes” results in the government leaders and legislatures concluding that there would be greater harm in fighting now than in refraining at present, they will not come to our aid.

South Korea, Australia, and Japan Choose to Live and Fight Another Day

In the end, South Korea calculated it could not risk a two-front war with China and potentially North Korea, and in any case, could not sustain the hit their economy would face from war with China. Australia said it was with great regret and shame, but that it could also not come to our aid because its armed forces were insufficient prepared; however honorable it would be to make good on its guarantees, Canberra felt they could not bring destruction on their country when there was little chance of success.

Even Japan, with the wounds it suffered at Kadena and Sasebo, opted to refrain from going to war with China, for most of the same reasons as South Korea and Australia; they calculated their lack of readiness would result in great loss and give them little chance of success. Yet all three nations – and many others in the region – all recognized the urgency of going on an all-out rearmament program because they could no longer trust that they would not one day be China’s next target.

China would be significantly weakened by its attacks against Taiwan and the U.S. forces in the region and would not be in any shape to launch another attack for many years into the future.  Japan, South Korea, and Australia would take advantage of the time and launch an urgent arms race. As tough as the fight/no-fight decisions had been for those three states, however, the situation for the U.S. Government were even more fraught.

Biden’s No-Win Options

The U.S. Constitution and 1973 War Powers Act gave Biden authority to respond to the surprise attack immediately. To expand beyond that, however, and wage an all-out fight would require a Congressional declaration of war.  While the rally-round-the-flag emotions of an illegal and immoral attack of U.S. Forces had many shouting for full scale war in retaliation, Biden knew that he had to carefully weigh his options, because some of them carried the risk of turning a bad situation into a catastrophic one.

In the immediate aftermath of the Kadena and Sasebo attacks, the U.S. Military had suffered the loss of several ships, dozens of aircraft, and hundreds of casualties. But the majority of the Pacific fleet was still intact. No other bases had been hit, no aircraft carriers sunk, and all the rest of the troops alive. Military advisers were already recommending an attack on Chinese mainland targets where the missiles had originated – and Beijing had already warned Biden that any attack on their home soil would be answered in kind with attacks on American soil. They intentionally left unstated whether those retaliatory strikes would be conventional or nuclear.

Yet Biden realized that it wasn’t as simple as choosing to respond or not. There was also the matter of capacity. Prior to Desert Strom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, the U.S. had undergone many months of preparation and pre-positioning of war matériel so the U.S. could successfully engage in a sustained and protracted fight. We had none of those advantages now.

To choose to fight would mean the remainder of our troops would enter combat with insufficient training, inadequate amounts of ammunition, and a shortage of fuel and other logistics necessary to sustain combat operations. Sending the U.S. to fight under these suboptimal conditions would result in losing men, ships, and planes at an alarming rate. It would be a real risk that to accept the fight would severely gouge our military forces in the Pacific, would not prevent China’s capture of Taiwan, and leave America’s security at home and other parts of the world compromised.

At that moment, Biden had to decide whether to retaliate against the Chinese aggression and risk a full-scale war that could result in a major military loss – and potentially escalate to a nuclear exchange – or preserve our combat power and live to fight another day. To do the former could result in damage to our country from which we might never recover; to do the latter would expose Biden to unimaginable pressure from a vocal part of the population that would be screaming for revenge and accuse him of being this generation’s Neville Chamberlain.

Biden would be in a no-win situation.

Hard Assessment of the Cold Facts – and the one path that could preserve our power

I’ve heard many argue that this is like 1938 and China successfully taking Taiwan would be analogous to Hitler’s conquest of Czechoslovakia or Poland; let Beijing successfully capture Taiwan, and like Hitler before him, Xi will then roll over the rest of Asia in a conquest spree. That is a badly flawed analogy and ignores whole categories of major differences.

The argument implies that the United States should choose to fight to prevent Taiwan’s fall so that we don’t have to fight a larger war later. But that is a badly misplaced aspiration and exposes the advocates’ significant lack of understanding of the military fundamentals involved.

As this article has shown, fighting China over Taiwan gives every military advantage to Beijing and exposes our every disadvantage: our supply lines are thousands of miles long; China’s are virtually non-existent. We would have only a small portion of our combat power to battle China while their entire navy, air, and missile forces would be pitted against us. China would be fighting for a highly-charged emotional issue; many in America would ask why we’re paying such a premium price to defend someone else’s country.

However, if we retain the idea of strategic ambiguity and give China reason to believe that we would not fight them over Taiwan, Beijing would be more likely to avoid directly attacking U.S. military targets in the opening salvo. In that case, China would still eventually wear down Taiwanese defenses and succeed, but in the aftermath, their forces would be considerably weakened from their current state.

In addition to directly attacking the invading Chinese military, Taiwan’s defense plans call for directly attacking Chinese military bases and facilities directly on the mainland, further weakening China’s armed forces; it would take them decades to recover from the losses.

Our entire force, however, would remain at full strength, which would have the net effect of giving us the significant military advantage again over the PLA. They would not be capable, for decades, to mount any attack beyond Taiwan, and we would no doubt go on a multi-year increase to our Indo-Pacific territories, ensuring that our security would remain fully assured indefinitely.

In short, all the advantages go to preserving American power and security by avoiding a fight with China over Taiwan. As unpalatable as it is, we must not engage in a fight we can’t win simply because we would hate to see Taiwan fall. The cost to America could be the permanent loss of our place in global affairs.

Daniel L. Davis is a Senior Fellow for Defense Priorities and a former Lt. Col. in the U.S. Army who deployed into combat zones four times. He is the author of “The Eleventh Hour in 2020 America.” Follow him @DanielLDavis1.

Written By

Daniel L. Davis is a Senior Fellow for Defense Priorities and a former Lt. Col. in the U.S. Army who deployed into combat zones four times. He is the author of “The Eleventh Hour in 2020 America.” Follow him @DanielLDavis1.



  1. Peter

    April 6, 2021 at 1:59 pm

    If we allow China to take Taiwan without a fight, we might as well pack it in and leave Asia. The only successful path forward is deterrence – we must be prepared for a Chinese assault on Taiwan and our regional bases. If we yield, we will lose our position of world dominance, and soon will find ourselves in a major war, or giving up most of our influence abroad. The world will be a darker, worse place as the tyrannical Chinese Communist Party asserts its control and enslaves everyone it can.

  2. William Perry

    April 6, 2021 at 3:10 pm

    You have also not taken into account the reason for China’s truly aggressive actions. The Chinese Communist Party’s perception that Joe Biden is a very weak compromised leader. The CCP gave money to Hunter Biden and though Hunter to Joe Biden. More importantly, the CCP was behind the fraud that helped elect Joe Biden President. See the Deep Rig by Patrick Byrne, which goes into great detail as the evidence of the fraud and the final conclusion that China was behind it.

    The CCp believes that it owns Joe Biden. That explains the dismissive attitude of the CCP diplomats in Alaska and also why they told the US government officials that the US is no longer a Democracy. Why? Because the CCp was behind the fraud that got Biden elected.

    Chinese friends have told me that their Taiwan friends want to leave Taiwan because they are afraid that China will bomb Taiwan. We are on the cusp of war against China because of Taiwan. Elections do have consequences.

  3. JS

    April 6, 2021 at 5:28 pm

    Invite Taiwan to become a U.S. Territory/Protectorate. THEN the U.S. would have a legitimate reason to protect Taiwan with its forces and personnel. In the present arrangement, Americans see American dollars and men going to a distant land and nothing to gain from it. High time America got something for its dead.

  4. Your A loser

    April 6, 2021 at 6:36 pm

    sir, you should be ashamed of yourself and your loser mentality. how much money do you get from the chicoms to write these articles?

  5. Christian M Smith

    April 6, 2021 at 6:43 pm

    A nuclear Taiwan would be a hard pill for China to swallow. The entire arguement made by the author would be moot.

  6. Mike

    April 6, 2021 at 9:22 pm

    The US refusing to defend Taiwan not only means the US would lose all its influence in Asia it also means the dollar would lose its reserve currency status as nations around the world would flock to the Yuan. The long term economic ramifications would prohibit us from maintaining most of our defense commitments and we’d go from global power to regional power in a few years. With current Chinese industrial capacity they could replace any losses suffered from a Taiwanese invasions in months. If US forces came under attack our only realistic choice would be to band together with our regional allies by forcing reluctant ones to go along or lose US nuclear deterrent. The response would have to be overwhelming.

    A Chinese invasion of Taiwan is literally a die in place scenario for the US unless we want to look like Ukraine.

  7. Mike

    April 6, 2021 at 9:53 pm

    One addition note: the Chinese population puts up with a repressive government because they see progress in their day to day lives. Take that carrot away and the population will only see the stick the CCP uses to keep them in line. Taking that carrot away means unrestricted naval warfare against all Chinese shipping in the event of an invasion of Taiwan. A naval blockade of all food, fuel and raw materials into China. As formidable as Chinese industry is it would grind to a halt without Iranian fuel, Australian iron ore and natural gas, Brazilian soy beans, etcetera. The shock to the Chinese economy and population would cause significant unrest if it went on longer than the CCP could repress it via propaganda and arrests. Every Chinese merchant vessel would be seized or sunk. Every ship headed to China would be blocked.

    If you are serious about not directly responding to Chinese’s forces invading Taiwan this is the only option.

  8. Lance Benson`

    April 7, 2021 at 4:05 pm

    It’s been demonstrated that Taiwan has had very powerful anti-shipping missles for at least a decade. With further investment, they could attain the ability to sink every mainland vessel within 500 miles.

    But that shoe could fit on the other foot. China could declare a missle-enforce blockade on Taiwan, and prevent all shipping from arriving. U.S. military vessels would not be targeted, and nothing else but shipping would be targeted.

    For how long could Taiwan feed itself? Is there any possibility that the U.S. military could protect convoys in sufficient numbers to sustain the population, much less to maintain the Taiwanese economy?

    This would indeed produce a quandary in many nations.

    (In the article, China’s short logistics chain is mentioned, but that’s only with respect to an invasion of Taiwan–China remains vulnerable to interdiction at sea of fuel and of its exports.)

  9. R. Hart

    April 8, 2021 at 12:05 am

    The author of this tripe is a disgrace to his purported service in the U.S. Army …

    The author has absolutely ZERO concept of duty, honor, commitments, code, and Country.

    I am glad I never had to serve with “him” … he dishonors his former uniform and all those who wore it and came before him.

  10. Dave Nelson

    April 8, 2021 at 12:43 am

    There might be another path available to us: How fast can we transfer advanced naval mines to Taiwan? Torpedoes that sit silently waiting for the right noise? Advanced anti-air capabilities? Taiwan will fight and the greater cost they apply to the PLA the better, especially if it results in Xi getting the boot. Afterall, he is the real problem here.

  11. Stefan Stackhouse

    April 11, 2021 at 12:43 pm

    Taiwan’s future is ultimately up to the people living there, and not to us. The US does not have a mutual defense treaty with them, and so if they fail to do what it takes to keep the peace with the mainland, then they are going to have to fend for themselves. The US should not intervene, and we should clarify it for both sides NOW that this will be our policy.

    On the other hand, I don’t care what sort of fancy calculations are made, I can guarantee you that the minute the blood of Americans is shed and US military assets are destroyed, the overwhelming majority of the American people will be baying for blood. There is no way that such a “bolt out of the blue” attack can go unanswered. Care should be taken to make the response a true “tit-for-tat” and to avoid any appearance of escalation. Care should also be taken to very explicitly communicate to the Chinese leadership that this is what we are doing, and no more. If there is any further exchange between us, that will be on THEIR initiative, and they can count on an immediate and proportional response.

    Of course, given the hundreds of billions we are spending annually for “defense” – and hundreds of billions more than anyone else – I would expect that we would at least have the capabilities (at the ready) to make good on this. If we don’t, then people need to be asking why we don’t.

    • Slack

      May 4, 2021 at 7:23 am

      US intervening in Taiwan would be the same as Germany intervening in Sudetenland in the 1930s.
      Moreover, the US ruthlessly crushed Puerto Rican independence activists in the 1970s and nobody intervened despite Puerto Rico being somewhat physically far off from US.

      • Slack

        May 4, 2021 at 7:34 am

        The US worked ruthlessly against Puerto Rican activists in 1940s and 1950s and the last ones were snuffed out in 70s.

        • Slack

          May 4, 2021 at 9:56 am

          Puerto Ricans’ desire started very early during colonial era, ran through the 1930s,’40s and effectively crushed when US in ’70s arrested FALN/Macheteros members and gave them long jail sentences for conspiracy, violence and sedition. Carmen Valentin got 90 years.

  12. morgathrax5038

    June 7, 2021 at 10:13 pm

    If the CCP would go to war over Taiwan declaring independence, then they would definitely go to war over the US declaring it a territory. The Legislative Yuan might not be too happy either, as their goal is independence and not vassalage.
    Please take a break from spamming your worthless opinions on you Chinese-made computer and take a brief course on logical thinking.
    Thank you 🙂

  13. Robert Smith

    July 2, 2021 at 5:01 pm

    There has to be a stand against the relentless squash of democracy. So many people have died to defend the right of self determination and so we must stop the unacceptable imposition of force on any country They must be allowed to choose their own self determination. No nation has the right to impose itself on a neighbouring nation. We may all have to pay the ultimate price.

  14. Chrisentiae Saint-Piaf

    September 9, 2021 at 8:15 am

    Two articles written from a foundation of ignorance and trolling.

    Australia would stand with the USA against Chinese aggression.

    We are currently undergoing significant military upgrades and preparedness.

    To think Australia would just abandon the USA like some coward is an insult to the Australian people and ignores history.

    I cannot speak for other allies, but the USA would have a massive and overwhelming coalition if the CCP starts a war.

    Economically, the CCP would become a basket case.

    Yes the CCP could kill thousands, but millions of their people would needlessly die. You have to be insane to start WWIII as China or anyone else.

    Hypothetically if the USA were losing, then it becomes nuke time.

    WWIII is called MAD for a reason.

    Xi and the CCP need to behave like adults and leave in peace and harmony.

    People die in wars. Real, actual people. Who wants to go down in history as the monster that started WWIII?!

    Live peacefully and with dignity.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *