Taiwan - China Brewing Conflict : Discussions

[Ginvincible]

Within this decade, China will still retain a significant inferiority over the US. And this could go on at least until 2035 or so. The Chinese don't have an answer to American SSNs, the B-21, and LRASM, whereas the Americans have an answer to every weapon the Chinese possess.

So even if China takes Taiwan, best case for them could be a Pyrrhic victory, with most of their ships sunk and shipbuilding, logistics, and ports damanged or destroyed.

What works against the Chinese is a lot of their trade is now dependent on high technology trade to non-American countries, so the infra related to that can be attacked.

Post-2035 won't Chinese society be facing massive economic issues as a result of their demographics? What is the realistic timeframe for a Chinese invasion, should they choose. I know they were given the famous 2027 deadline to be ready, but what is actually practical? Even if it is more assured, will they have the capacity to wage a costly war, when they are experiencing economic setbacks and all sorts of societal problems from not having a lot of young people? 10 years for Taiwan to continue to prep is also a hazard.

Xi Jinping will be in his 80s in 2035, do you think he will retain power that long?

Congress gave the Executive some additional powers to deal with insurgencies after 9/11, not conventional warfare.

The president is legally bound to go to war as per the Congress' demands. He can veto it, but Congress can veto his veto. If he refuses even after that, Congress can impeach him. So warfare is not up to the president. While the president can decide on what actions and strategies to use, the finances are determined by Congress.

As for ignoring the WPA, that's after the president has taken action, then Congress issues a joint resolution. Meaning, the president has to inform the Congress about any armed action taken within 48 hours after it was carried out for the resolution to go through. But going to war with a near-peer or even a peer requires massive funding, which only Congress can clear. Which means, if Trump decides to sit on his a**, Congress will decide for him, and that becomes the will of the people.

I get that you’ve watched Schoolhouse Rock, but your take is too basic. I’m talking about how the U.S. actually wages war, not a classroom version. The president has all the practical power to wage war, not congress. There is a reason he is called the Commander-in-Chief.

For the War Powers Act, most Presidents ignore it. The law says that the President must notify congress within 48 hours of deployment and that troops must be withdrawn within 60 days without congressional approval. Yet Clinton in Kosovo, Obama in Libya, and Regan in Lebanon & Grenada all violated the WPA. I was wrong about Trump, by the way, his actions in Syria also violated these limits. None of the above faced any consequences. If Presidents routinely disregard restrictions on military action, why would they suddenly obey a demand to start a war?

Congressional authorization is mostly a formality. Presidents don’t wait for Congress - they deploy forces under vague justifications, create facts on the ground, and put lawmakers in a position where refusing authorization means abandoning troops mid-operation, which is politically impossible. For example George HW Bush in the 1991 Gulf War who had over half a million troops lined up on the border of Iraq and invaded in less than 5 days after Congress formally granted approval. In reality, Congress doesn’t decide when the U.S. goes to war - it rubber-stamps conflicts already in motion.

Now, let’s say Congress did authorize war against the White House’s wishes - the President could delay, stall, or execute it on his terms against Congressional intent. Congress controls funding, sure, but signing off on a war budget doesn’t force the President to act. A full-scale conflict, especially against China or Russia, requires more than just funding - it needs strategy, troop movements, and operational decisions that only the Commander-in-Chief can make. Also, there’s no legal mechanism to compel a President beyond political pressure or impeachment, and impeachment has never removed a president.

And to be clear - Congress has zero authority to deploy or command the military. This isn't some feel good will of the people thing. If a President refuses to escalate a conflict, Congress can’t force the troops to move.

 

[randomradio]

Post-2035 won't Chinese society be facing massive economic issues as a result of their demographics? What is the realistic timeframe for a Chinese invasion, should they choose. I know they were given the famous 2027 deadline to be ready, but what is actually practical? Even if it is more assured, will they have the capacity to wage a costly war, when they are experiencing economic setbacks and all sorts of societal problems from not having a lot of young people? 10 years for Taiwan to continue to prep is also a hazard.

They are using automation to make up for the gap in labor availability.

There is no practical deadline for an invasion, they simply don't have the experience necessary. In terms of hardware, they will probably be prepared in 2027 or 2028 at worst. But preparing is one thing and executing is another. And although they are facing population issues, they also have excessive unemployed men that can be put to use. So China as a military threat will likely be perpetual; excessive men today, combat robots tomorrow.

As for Taiwan's modernization, we know what they are trying to accomplish in the next 2-3 years in preparation for the invasion. We don't have sufficient information on their plans beyond that. For example, their 2022-26 plan was to produce 1000+ missiles of various types every year, and they reached that number last year, 2 years before schedule. They are naturally not going to stop, and could even scale up beyond that. And this does not include imported weapons. Similarly, their F-16 upgrade and new purchases are set to end in 2026. Abrams by 2026. HIMARS by 2026. Harpoons by 2026. PAC-3 MSE by 2026. And so on.

Most of those are for Phase 1. There's also a Phase 2 by 2028, which we are not privy to.

Xi Jinping will be in his 80s in 2035, do you think he will retain power that long?

Depends on how desperate he is to leave a mark in history.

I get that you’ve watched Schoolhouse Rock, but your take is too basic. I’m talking about how the U.S. actually wages war, not a classroom version. The president has all the practical power to wage war, not congress. There is a reason he is called the Commander-in-Chief.

For the War Powers Act, most Presidents ignore it. The law says that the President must notify congress within 48 hours of deployment and that troops must be withdrawn within 60 days without congressional approval. Yet Clinton in Kosovo, Obama in Libya, and Regan in Lebanon & Grenada all violated the WPA. I was wrong about Trump, by the way, his actions in Syria also violated these limits. None of the above faced any consequences. If Presidents routinely disregard restrictions on military action, why would they suddenly obey a demand to start a war?

It depends on how those wars were defined. The president can run some operations without Congress approval.

To wage war against a large adversary, they need to leverage funding versus small operations that they can afford with just their defense budget. Recall how Trump struggled to get some Covid relief passed through Congress which Biden did post elections? The president can't move money at that level.

Congressional authorization is mostly a formality. Presidents don’t wait for Congress - they deploy forces under vague justifications, create facts on the ground, and put lawmakers in a position where refusing authorization means abandoning troops mid-operation, which is politically impossible. For example George HW Bush in the 1991 Gulf War who had over half a million troops lined up on the border of Iraq and invaded in less than 5 days after Congress formally granted approval. In reality, Congress doesn’t decide when the U.S. goes to war - it rubber-stamps conflicts already in motion.

Now, let’s say Congress did authorize war against the White House’s wishes - the President could delay, stall, or execute it on his terms against Congressional intent. Congress controls funding, sure, but signing off on a war budget doesn’t force the President to act. A full-scale conflict, especially against China or Russia, requires more than just funding - it needs strategy, troop movements, and operational decisions that only the Commander-in-Chief can make. Also, there’s no legal mechanism to compel a President beyond political pressure or impeachment, and impeachment has never removed a president.

And to be clear - Congress has zero authority to deploy or command the military. This isn't some feel good will of the people thing. If a President refuses to escalate a conflict, Congress can’t force the troops to move.

That's the opposite of what you are arguing though. As per you, the president can launch an attack and pull the US into a war. Okay, granted. Congress can deem the action illegal though. And if they have enough votes, they can impeach the president.

But if the president plans to be passive in Taiwan, Congress can start the war anyway, and legally the president will be required to go to war.

Impeachment will work in this case. If both the Republicans and Democrats want war and Trump wants to sit out, and the Congress pushes for war via vote and it goes through, that means they have all the votes necessary to impeach Trump. So Congress can can vote to remove the president and install a more pliable leader in his position.

Btw, Gulf War was a defensive war, which the president has the authority to do without Congressional approval.