You don't risk nuclear war by shooting a few conventional missiles and establishing a blockade.

(A) China would suffer intensely under a blockade.

(B) A few missiles could ensure chip facilities are surrendered intact.

(C) Even a short conflict where a few missiles hits boats invading Taiwan would ensure the rest of the world never trades with China.

Point being: The US doesn't have to win, don't have to fight with everything, just make the invasion hard and isolate China in a new cold war.

I think establishing a blockade is generally considered an act of war. Possibly a war crime if the intent is to starve civilians? (Not sure, this is way outside my wheelhouse). I’d expect it to be about as escalatory as using US ships to attack the mainland, more or less.

Not a war crime, China has plenty of agriculture.

See the Cuban missile crisis. It is an act of war but certainly not as escalatory as direct attack.

Chinese agriculture is heavily dependent on fertilizer and energy imports. A blockade would easily result in famine.

In fact the history of China is just constant famines.

Is the history of China any more famine stricken than any other region if the world? In recent history (last two centuries) maybe, but before that? Typically you don't become the worlds most populous country by having frequent famines.

US action following a Taiwan invasion could be shoot a few missiles at the invasion fleet.

Declare all coastal areas around China a conflict zone.

Declare anyone trading with China can't trade with the US. If backed by allies, China could perhaps be boxed in.

But, hey, who knows. It's entirely unclear what is possible.

And much depends on whether Taiwan falls in 3 days, or stays in the fight for 3 years.

Or so one would assume.. current administration is proving that they'll abandon freedom at minimal cost.

It’s not so much the people or the land, but rather what they can build. It’s the whole essence of the article. Not sure how far behind the West would fall if TSMC was controlled by the CCP. 5 years? 10?

We’d blow up the fabs ourselves.

But it’s in Taiwans interest for us to continue to provide them arms, training, and build regional alliances to pressure China.

I’m also not as convinced the US wouldn’t respond, but it would depend on South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, and ASEAN nations to call for such action — if they felt threatened enough by China’s actions in taking Taiwan and Philippine islands to declare war themselves.

Edit:

Including article discussing blowing up fabs and Taiwanese response that cutting off ASML and similar would be just as effective.

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-would-destroy-taiwan-semi...

If the key thing is to avoid China getting access to TSMC plants, I'm sure there are ways to do it without risking US troops. The West would have to live with inferior Intel nodes for a while, but it would be better than anything China could produce.

Unless a series of unfortunate accidents occur at the TSMC fabs long before China can put them to use...

I assumed deterrence was in place and the chance of a taiwan invasion was quite low. After this week the chance of a taiwan invasion seems quite likely.

The U.S. absolutely defends Taiwan because losing it isn’t an option!

Taiwan currently produces over 85% of the world’s advanced semiconductors. Letting China take Taiwan would hand the CCP control over the global tech supply chain, crippling the U.S. economy and military. That’s a non starter.

No nation with anything to lose will be using nukes..EVER. The game has been understood for 75 years: mutual destruction means no winners. The U.S. has more nukes, better missiles, and full second-strike capability. China knows this, so nukes aren’t on the table.

The U.S. doesn’t need to invade just stop China’s invasion. Amphibious assaults are the hardest military operation, and China has zero real world experience in them or in fighting hot wars at all. We only need to sink their fleet or disrupt shipping to and from their ports. They know the risk, which is why they haven’t tried.

Now 5 years form now if we are much less dependent on them for semi-conductors that is a different story, but the realities of today. For now? Yeah, we throw down.

Also there is the scenario where China co-opts or influences Taiwans elections such that leadership moves back to a pro China stance. Not impossible, that would really put the US in a bind and I am not sure what would happen then but military engagements would seem much less likely.

Losing Taiwan is an option, and that's exactly the problem. It's not American territory, and China knows they can force America's hand by dominating their navy. If you can neutralize America's will to fight with DF-21s from standoff range, you can bring them to the table for negotiations. American troops have better things to die for than the supply chain of the iPhone 17.

To be honest this is a really immature depiction of the conflict, especially for a site like HN. China has demonstrated their willingness and capability to stage a credible naval assault, if you're still skeptical then I think you're blinded by jingoist ambition. Taiwan is a long ways from home, America can't deter China just with their surface fleet.