U.S. Troops Have Been Deployed in Taiwan for at Least a Year

[edwest4]

If the Wall Street Journal reports "secret training" does it stop being a secret? Well, yes.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-tr...-at-least-a-year-11633614043?mod=hp_lead_pos6

​

 

[muttly]

Now to find who told them.

 

[GTX]

Could be a smart move letting this be known as it forces China to 'recalculate'.

 

[DWG]

Now to find who told them.

80% Taiwanese gov
18% US gov
2% Accidental leak

I might have split it 48%/48% US vs Taiwanese governments under normal circumstances, but Taiwan seems to have a publicity campaign going this week and the timing fits that best.

 

[Justo Miranda]

After the shameful withdrawals from Vietnam and Afghanistan, whether or not U.S. troops are present is irrelevant.

 

[Foo Fighter]

Not sure that is so. A redirection of effort would fit with the AUKUS alliance and the change of priority.

 

[Lc89]

Not sure that is so. A redirection of effort would fit with the AUKUS alliance and the change of priority.

Not if those troops have been there for a year, when Aukus didn't even exist.

 

[Foo Fighter]

Correct but, this sort of thing does not happen overnight, does it. How long ago did the UK government announce a change in priority? Talks about talks about anything would have happened before then too.

 

[uk 75]

The most effective US deterrent to a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would be to do what the Callaghan government did in the 70s by warning Argentina that RN SSNs were at sea around the Falklands. I doubt the PLAN has the means to defend an amphibious task group from a few SSNs.

 

[In_A_Dream]

The most effective US deterrent to a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would be to do what the Callaghan government did in the 70s by warning Argentina that RN SSNs were at sea around the Falklands. I doubt the PLAN has the means to defend an amphibious task group from a few SSNs.

And in the forthcoming age of unmanned warfare, unmanned attack submarines.

 

[GTX]

The most effective US deterrent to a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would be to do what the Callaghan government did in the 70s by warning Argentina that RN SSNs were at sea around the Falklands.

I would argue that putting significant US and other allied troops in country would be more effective. It would undoubtedly be provocative but would draw a line in the sand. By having troops there, China would have to consider that any attack would definitely bring the likes of these other allies into the fight whereas right now they could be doing the calculation that an attack only might bring other forces in (i.e. the tough talk from the west might be just rhetoric and when push comes to shove, the west doesn't actually fight).

The same would go for saying there were US/UK SSNs in the region. They are a threat but would the west really use them or is it just a bluff?

 

[GTX]

Not if those troops have been there for a year, when Aukus didn't even exist.

I think we cannot view AUKUS in isolation. It is just one (formal) part of a growing alignment. What would also be interesting if it is just US troops or whether other countries have quietly placed any troops there, if only in a 'exchange' role.

 

[uk 75]

The problem with a West Berlin style deployment of US ground forces (or Marines as in Okinawa) is that such a force is likely to be "too small to use and too large to lose".
It was credible (just) that the US would risk nuclear war for West Berlin because fighting there would have triggered a wider engagement between forces in West and East Germany.
By adroit political or sub-military action China could use the presence of US units in Taiwan to sow unrest there or make the US reluctant to make the definite naval moves.
This paralysis happened to the UK in the Falklands where having a garrison clouded the issue of preempting the 1982 invasion.
The Berlin presence took many years to be credible.

 

[GTX]

Fair point but I still believe that it would cause China to reconsider.