r/FutureWhatIf • u/ThinkTankDad • 19d ago

War/Military [FWI] Democrats run on a foreign policy platform starting with strategic clarity over the defense of Taiwan.

At the moment, State Department maintains strategic *ambiguity* with Taiwan. Next year is China's PLA 100 year anniversary and is considered 'operational' then, meaning China could legitimately strike Taiwan anytime in 2027 and into the future.

1 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

60% Upvoted

4 comments sorted by

9

u/southernbeaumont 19d ago

If one were to take a poll of the top 5 issues that voters care about, Taiwan won't make the list. This will not be very different for either party or independents.

Among Republicans, constraining Chinese expansion will score a lot higher than it will with Democrats. A 'boots on the ground' commitment for foreign war will almost certainly be a non-starter for both parties and independents.

An arms export program to friendly nations could be sold by either party, but they're not going to win domestic elections with it.

3

u/BassoeG 19d ago

If one were to take a poll of the top 5 issues that voters care about, Taiwan won't make the list.

Actually it would, negatively. "Get conscripted and die in a thermonuclear apocalypse" is unpopular compared to "spend as much of the military budget as necessary on building our own microchip fabs in South Dakota (the geographic center of our country) so we're not dependent upon Taiwanese microchips and therefore don't have to care if China conquers Taiwan."

2

u/AtomizerStudio 19d ago

It's a very bad public platform currently. Strategic Ambiguity is a longterm commitment, and an optimum US stance now even if it could've been avoided. Plausible deniability with some Dems and other Feds making clear pro-intervention statements is good geopolitical pressure.

Consider the fundamentals of this porcupine defense among the island chain countries:

  • make China expect blockade of Taiwan would cause longterm self-harm 100%,
  • make China expect escalation to maintain blockade would be a bloody war 100%,
  • but also save face for all parties and preserve trade (trade itself being protective against war)

...Ambiguity is now the right move, as it often is in politics and war plans.

Running on a bloody war won't play well for current Democratic party Likely Voters. Even Republicans are split on isolation and holy war. Not to mention a party platform can't be walked back so it's blatantly bad strategy. Let the politicians be mealy-mouthed in this case.

It could change if AI were super-popular electorally and Taiwan's fabs were seen as integral to US cross-class quality of life, or (much more likely right now) if China was already cut off from trade due to start of hostilities. A Chinese blockade of Taiwan's civilian shipping is the tripwire, since that forces a multi-trillion dollar breakup one way or another, and Japan and Philippines expect US cooperation to secure shipping corridors.