Tensions between the US and China continue to escalate, with the Taiwan issue at the heart of potential conflict.
The US-based RAND Corp think tank on Wednesday published a report titled Thinking Through Protracted War With China, which analyzed the forms a US-China war could take. The report envisions nine potential scenarios — ranging from proxy wars to direct conflict — two of which directly involve Taiwan.
In the first scenario involving Taiwan, China attempts to seize Taiwan through a naval blockade and launches an amphibious invasion. After the US intervenes, the armed conflict reaches a stalemate; both sides see catastrophic losses and are unable to achieve victory through military means.
As a result, US President Donald Trump orders symbolic attacks against targets on Chinese territory to demonstrate US resolve. China does the same in turn, striking targets in the US. With both sides lacking sufficient conventional power to decisively defeat the other, the war evolves into a “conflict of resolve.”
Washington and Beijing then use reusable missile systems to attack civilian infrastructure and cultural monuments to force concessions. While this scenario does not involve the use of nuclear weapons, it devolves into a protracted war of attrition.
Taiwan faces enormous pressure, its infrastructure damaged by airstrikes, with prolonged conflict posing challenges to its energy and material stores. To survive a protracted war of attrition, Taiwan must strengthen its anti-missile defense systems, enhance self-sufficiency and ensure continued support from allied nations, the report says.
The second scenario involving Taiwan is a Chinese air and maritime blockade aiming to force Taiwan into accepting unification. The US provides Taiwan with supplies via airlift — the scale surpassing that of the 1948 Berlin Airlift — and cooperates with allied nations to pressure China by blockading oil shipments entering the South China Sea, thereby weakening China’s economic and military capabilities. A low-intensity war of attrition begins, testing the military capabilities, economic resilience and strategic patience of all parties.
The report says that the key to Taiwan’s survival in such a scenario lies not only in military defense, but also in long-term resource supply and societal adaptability. If such a war drags on — whether through the weakening of military power or economic pressure — it could alter the strategic landscape of the Taiwan Strait, or even the globe.
Thus, Taiwan must strengthen its wartime supply capabilities and ensure self-sufficiency in order to handle a prolonged blockade, the report says.
The report indicates that, while the US has traditionally assumed that wars would end relatively quickly, the emerging strategic environment and changes in technology might lead to significantly prolonged armed conflicts.
If neither the US nor China holds an advantage in conventional military power, economic competition or strategic patience, the war could evolve into a protracted stalemate.
Neither the US nor China would be able to achieve a decisive victory in the short term, and the conflict’s duration could far exceed initial expectations.
Moreover, decisions made in the early stages of an armed conflict would have a profound impact on subsequent developments. Whether China attempts a blockade, the US chooses to airlift supplies, or both sides launch symbolic strikes on the other, all could cause the war to evolve into a protracted armed confrontation.
Advancements in technology are also changing the nature of warfare. The application of emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, uncrewed aerial vehicles and cyberwarfare would make future wars very different.
New technology would not only increase the duration of conflicts, but would also make them more difficult to predict. Against this backdrop, Taiwan must prepare by ensuring the adaptability of its defense systems to the challenges of modern warfare.
Through collaboration with allied nations and technological innovation, Taiwan can enhance its strategic resilience in the event of protracted conflict.
Liao Ming-hui is an assistant researcher at the Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
RSS