"China deterrence" Topic

With the US current usage rate of precision weapons in Iran, the ability of the US to deter any aggression within the Asia Pacific region looks to be reduced in in the short to medium term. There are two reasons that are leading me to this conclusion.
1) Stockpiles.
The usage of both defensive missiles (THAAD, PAC3, SM2, SM3, SM6 etc) and offensive missiles (AGM-158 JASSM, Tomahawk etc) has been very high with stock significantly depleted. In some cases missiles have been moved from other theaters and other nations have been asked to provide supplies.
Production lines currently do not have a large capacity, even though ramp up plans are being investigated. In many cases, depending upon the missile, the time to replace pre-war inventory is estimated to be between three and five years.

2) Required stock of missiles for China conflict.
With stocks significantly depleted with a five week engagement against Iran, which is not a peer enemy, one has to wonder what the usage rate would be against China. I would argue that the usage rate would be significantly higher per day and that the conflict would have the potential to extend for a longer period of time. What the Iran conflict has demonstrated is that even if missile stocks were back at pre conflict levels, they may have been woefully insufficient.

These two factors together have probably not gone un-noticed by China. I would argue that the primary role of deterring China from aggression is probably in a worse position now than it was last year.

China also had to see that defending against missiles and drones is expensive, just as the US is finding out. It looks offense is better than defense when it comes to missiles and drones. If you can't defend effectively is the option then to use what you can on offense so there's nothing left of the enemy to defend against?

I would argue that the primary role of deterring China from aggression is probably in a worse position now than it was last year.

I would argue otherwise.

1. China is seeing that it's SAMs and SSMs are crap against US systems. Their entire air defense network, except for the ground fire Golden BBs that have taken down a few US jets, is crap. Their SSMs could not penetrate US fleet defenses. Their radars unable to spot US stealth planes. So bad the CCP has executed at least one lead designer on their own stealth fighter project.

2. The CCP is in an internal civil war, a power struggle between Xi and other factions. Democrats in the US are fulminating over Trump's fairly normal firing of senior officers -- Obama fired scores, nobody cared. The CCP struggle has seen almost 60% of senior officers wiped out! Arrested, executed for "corruption," etc. Not a couple dozen, 6 of 10 generals and admirals! The purges have also wiped out 3,000 command level officers -- ship captains, batallion leaders, wing leaders, etc.

3. The US is getting hands-on war experience against a foe using all the same tactics and equipment China will use. A crash course in multi-environment drone warfare, large scale deployments and sustained fleet and air operations, you name it. The US has made 13,000 sorties! That's an incredible tempo of operations. And re-learning just how fast you expend munitions in combat, re-emphasizing the need to spin up our domestic munitions capacity again.

In my opinion:

We have tipped our hand and exposed a weakness. I have said much the same about China watching us on another thread. I am concerned about the US global strategic vision during the past year. Tirpitz used the "fleet in being" concept to stabilize and deter, implying that risk may be too great for other powers to attack. For the US every day of war that passes now degrades this strategic asset. We are less scary as we run low on expensive weapons.

And we have not addressed corruption and waste in our procurement process. This includes Congress. Probably not a job for Hesgeth, or Musk either apparently. I believe we used to spend more money per capita on the military than all other nations combined. May still be true. The next defense budget will be enormous, leaving no chance to reduce the deficit for years. As always, getting rich drives the ruling class. At some point we may not be able to spend our way back into having a fully supplied force if our deployments continue as they have.

"Fleet in being" is a strategic gambit that keeps the enemies guessing and hesitating. Not about how good we are, they know we are top quality. Now they can watch to see how long they will have to wait until we are low enough on supplies to take us on. Skilled negotiations, covert ops, sanctions, outsmarting the foes – this one especially – need effective management to make actually going to war the best option.

+1 SB, all true. But we have gotten experience for a lot less expenditure. We are the best at what we do, but we need to keep the threat fully stocked. And China presents a very different challenge in a war.

I believe the Secretary of the Navy flat out stated that weapons stocks are significantly depleted and it will be quite a while before production can make up the shortfall. Of particular shortage are Tomahawks and THAAD. I suspect PAC-3 Patriots and SM-3 and SM-6's are in short supply. The problem with modern wars is that it is far easier to expend sophisticated weapons than it is to produce them.

I believe the PRC is enjoying a bit of a diplomatic resurgence as they are busy playing peacemaker instead of their usual heavy handed economic threats and as such are not in a hurry to start shooting at Taiwan.

Not only that but we are using them up at a big cost of money.

"I believe the PRC is enjoying a bit of a diplomatic resurgence as they are busy playing peacemaker instead of their usual heavy handed economic threats and as such are not in a hurry to start shooting at Taiwan."

I think there's a fair bit of truth in that but it's also worth looking at the longer arc.

The PRC has traditionally played a very long game;far longer than most Western political cycles allow. What looks like a "diplomatic resurgence" will simply be a shift in emphasis rather than a change in intent. Presenting itself as a peacemaker costs little, builds influence, and, crucially, creates contrast.

At the same time, recent missteps by United States—tariff policies that irritated partners as much as rivals, and the fallout from conflict with Iran—have arguably strained relations with allies and neutral states alike. That creates space for China to step in diplomatically, even if only superficially, and present itself as a more stable or predictable actor.

I'd expect Beijing to continue probing for opportunities to play both sides—offering economic carrots here, diplomatic reassurances there—while carefully avoiding outright confrontation over Taiwan unless conditions become overwhelmingly favourable.eg support for the US from its allies vanishes.

That said, none of this should be mistaken for a fundamental shift in behaviour. China's track record, whether in the South China Sea, economic coercion, or internal policy, remains consistent. The tone may soften, but the underlying strategic objectives won't have changed. So it would be wise to remember that China is not to be trusted.

In short: a change in presentation, not direction—and a reminder that appearances in international politics are often tools, not truths.

We have tipped our hand and exposed a weakness. I have said much the same about China watching us on another thread. I am concerned about the US global strategic vision during the past year. Tirpitz used the "fleet in being" concept to stabilize and deter, implying that risk may be too great for other powers to attack. For the US every day of war that passes now degrades this strategic asset. We are less scary as we run low on expensive weapons.

I don't think all of that is completely true. And regardless with all the assets the Chicoms have in the US legally or illegally. And those assets have increased markedly in the past 4 years of the previous Admin in the WH. They may know a lot more than some may think they do.

We see with the current birthright of those born in the US question. Which was never really meant to have anything to do with alien children. The Chicoms have for decades has sent some of their people in their gov't, intel and military, etc. purposely. To have a child in the US, to have them get US Citizenship. For just being born here. The Chicoms have an entire industry to do this type of "tourism".

The newly born/minted Americans in name only then at 18 comebacks to the US. The place where they were born. As a Chicom indoctrinated asset. They are no more an American than an imported block of cheese from Italy.

The Chicoms once again used a loophole in our open society to try to get another advantage over the US. And foolishly some in the US gov't are fighting the attempts to stop this invasive and destructive tactic.

I sady think they know a lot about the USAs' capabilities. E.g. the Chicom ballon flying West to East over the US before it was shot down. Transmitting intel back to China all along the way. Another massive blunder inflicted on the US by a POTUS and Admin that fathered the Iran Debacle, Open Border fiasco, the corrupted Go Green initiatives, etc., etc.

I still believe they don't know everything about the USA's military's capabilities but had the last POTUS or his VP not been voted out. They would continue to probe for more and more intel. Even more so than they are doing now. As at least this Admin is preventing some of it … after the gates have already been opened …

The problem with modern wars is that it is far easier to expend sophisticated weapons than it is to produce them.

In the end it may just come down to logistics. We even discussed if the Cold War went hot in Western Europe in the '80s. Within e.g. about 6 months based on the pace of modern combined arms maneuver warfare. Most of the forces on both sides would suffer from many supply shortages, among other things. The war could be ending by running out of ammo and equipment more so than troops.
But I think the consideration of the Chicoms being short on oil supplies, etc. may be telling. With the Raid on Venezuela and now this long overdue conflict between the US/Israel vs. militant Islamo-fascists. The Chicoms may not have the oil to do as much as what has to be done … to go to war.

Verses the US who has vast stocks of oil based on the POTUS's ending the idiotic "war on fossil fuels" … With technologies that are not ready … at least not yet.

And yes we all know the Chicoms play the long game. Many in the West are playing Chess[or Checkers as in the previous Admin] while the sons of Sun Tzu are playing "GO".

However, the term "many in the West"/NATO comes down to only the US and Israel are in the fight.

Regardless of the resupply of ammo, etc. concerns. Which are critical as well. And this is trying to remedy this situation. But this will take time. Time is also a critical part of this equation.

I know I don't have the answers. But I'd think those very well above my former paygrade and modern science may have some solutions.

But as we know in all modern warfare resupply of fuel will dictate what may happen next. So do the Chicoms have the fuel supplies/reserves to actually go to war. Or will they wait until that situation has changed. Which as our enemies know that may happen every 4-8 years in the US.

I believe the PRC is enjoying a bit of a diplomatic resurgence as they are busy playing peacemaker instead of their usual heavy handed economic threats and as such are not in a hurry to start shooting at Taiwan.

Yes exactly … and they know that Sun Tzu said something e.g to paraphrase, " … the ultimate victory comes without going to war and still gaining your objectives …" I know that is not exactly what he said. But I think that his intent is there … Someone correct me …

Better to find out we need to ramp up our production now against Iran than to find out later against a peer or near peer enemy. Yes, those same potential enemies may see that their missile systems are lacking but changing them and upgrading them isn't always an easy or fast process.

I believe they are attempting to ramp up production. But I'm not sure at what point that is ? But it has to become a priority. As we see we are not just fighting an enemy at the gate … but the 5th Column from within.

China Creates New Aviation Mystery With Offshore Warning Zones

link

China Tests New Type 055 Destroyer Anqing in First Combat-Style Live-Fire Exercise Near Taiwan

link

DEFENDING GLOBAL ORDER AGAINST CHINA'S MARITIME INSURGENCY

cimsec.org/64316-2

Armand

China Has a Battle Plan to Defeat the U.S. Army

link

Armand

Of course they do … I'd think no one would doubt it … But will it work ? When they have no recent combat experience. Especially in naval/amphib ops. Never underestimate your enemy either.

China's strengths lay in the consideration to never fight a land war on China's mainland. It is huge. Plus their ever-present massive numbers of their population. They are 20% of the world's denizens.

Their nukes are a given …

Chinese doctrine calls for prepping the battlefield a week before the Chinese heavy brigade begins its attack. Special forces teams would infiltrate American lines and launch small drones to locate the defender's positions, while artillery, missiles and commandos would strike U.S. supply dumps, command posts and artillery positions.

H-Hour would kick off the actual ground assault, which would attempt to destroy the U.S. brigade within 24 hours. The attack would commence with a feint of two or three heavy combined arms battalions, with 30 to 50 Type 96 main battle tanks and Type 04A troop carriers, and supported by 120-mm mortars, kamikaze drones, air defense weapons, and attack helicopters. This force would seek to divert American attention from the real point of attack.

By H + 8, if all goes according to plan, U.S. troops will be pinned down, their artillery suppressed, communications disrupted, and drones neutralized. That's when the main attack force begins its assault.

I guess, if:

1) China has taken Space and Air superiority, otherwise all of the Chinese unit's moves are known to the US (satellites, Globalhawks, etc).

2) If the US side just hunkers down in place and cedes momentum to China, and does not have it's own assault prep – special forces, counter-ops teams, drones, ECM, jamming, spoiling attacks, deep fire logistics strikes, and so on.

3) The Chinese unit has a *competent* leader who is loyay to Xi who has survived waves of political purges AND is not overridden by his Political Officer in the field.

So if we're deaf, dumb, blind and stupid they can win??

"…The Chinese unit has a *competent* leader who is loyay to Xi who has survived waves of political purges AND is not overridden by his Political Officer in the field.

So if we're deaf, dumb, blind and stupid they can win??…"

Well… the Rusians did in WW2…

Armand

China's first Type 076 amphibious assault ship Sichuan heads to S.China Sea for trials and training, showing smooth, rapid progress: expert

link

Armand

This is a first step toward being able to invade Taiwan, Pacific islands. It was a rapid build as well.

SBm +1

This is a first step toward being able to invade Taiwan, Pacific islands. It was a rapid build as well.

They are building up to increase their military.

But they have no real-world recent combat experience. Nor have they ever done a very complex operation like a beach assault.

Their real strength is their numbers … so too mitigate that we don't attack them on their own land/home turf …

China Is Remaking the South China Sea With a Return to Island-Building

link

Armand

Legion +1 …we have said this many times.And it is common knowledge that this ship was being built…because China knows and addresses its shortcomings. But it is a first step. Years to go before their capacity for amphibious operations no longer requires their naval militia of civilian craft.

Expanding Frontiers: China's Military Push Beyond the First Island Chain

link

Armand

Years to go before their capacity for amphibious operations no longer requires their naval militia of civilian craft.

The Chicoms know how to play the long game …

Warning Signs: How China Normalises Its Presence

"A major strategic shift in the Indo-Pacific is happening quietly: China's presence in seas and ports far from its coast is becoming routine. The frequency of its appearances has been rising for about a decade. Now it's approaching a point where China's military presence has become normal and expected, not aggressive.

This is another example of China's familiar tactic of salami slicing, seen also, for example, in its progressive attempts at dominating the South China Sea: it takes a little, then a little more, and hopes eventually to have the whole salami.

Expect Chinese ships to keep turning up in waters near other Indo-Pacific countries with ever increasing frequency. Expect its ships to moor in their ports, too…"

link

Armand

China's Massive Stealth Flying Wings Spotted Together At Secretive Test Base

"Satellite imagery has emerged showing China's two massive stealthy flying-wing high-altitude, long-endurance (HALE) unmanned aircraft at its secretive test base near Malan. TWZ first identified both of the previously unseen aircraft last year in Planet Labs archived imagery of the airfield, which is known to be on the leading edge of the PLA's unmanned combat aircraft development efforts. However, this is the first time both have been captured outside their hangars simultaneously, or on the main apron at all. Overall, the image, dated March 26th, 2026, underscores the major uptick of very advanced drone testing activity at the installation…"

link

Armand

Hmmm ? Wonder where they got that idea ?

Maybe not as stealthy as claimed…"previously unseen"

Well they can disguise it as big balloon … That proved to be fairly effective. At least for a little while … But that really was an anomaly. Any really capable CinC, admin, etc. would have blown it out of the sky before it even got close to Alaska or Canada.

Just a reminder … of what incompetence looks like …

Russia Sold To China 24 ‘Elite' Su-35 Fighter Jets And The U.S. Air Force Isn't Happy

"In 2015, China shocked the defense world by signing a $2.5 USD billion deal to buy 24 Russian Su-35 fighters from Moscow—the first foreign customer ever to receive Russia's most advanced fourth-generation jet. Many speculated that Beijing wanted to reverse-engineer the powerful Saturn engines, which have long been Russia's strongest aerospace export, but the truth turned out to be more complicated…"

link

Armand

China Sharpens Rapid Deployment and Low-Altitude Penetration Capabilities with New Z-20T Assault Helicopters

"The drills highlight a more advanced air assault model built around rapid troop movement, terrain-masked flight, and fast-roping into restricted landing zones. Operating alongside Z-10 attack helicopters, the Z-20T adds organic firepower and situational awareness, enabling tighter integration between aviation and infantry in high-tempo operations…"

link

Armand

China: The Next Aircraft Carrier Superpower

link

Armand

China unveils J-35AE stealth fighter to challenge US F-35 dominance as new buyers emerge

link

China officially deploys new Type 100 tank

link

Armand

With the POTUS, etc. in Chicom land right now … I think we may know a little more about the CCP's deterrence.

Or not…the WH team appears to be a bunch of US business oligarchs and the Chinese have that investment agenda.

China's "Bohai Sea Monster" Reappears With Apparent Weapons Hardpoints

"Less than a year after we got our first proper look at China's wing-in-ground effect (WIG) craft, dubbed the ‘Bohai Sea Monster,' the aircraft has appeared again, with evidence that it has a combat role, likely including launching weapons. We can also confirm that, contrary to some earlier assessments, the craft is powered by four turboprop engines, rather than turbofans. This confirms our original analysis that the craft may have propeller engines as opposed to jets.

The Bohai Sea Monster was first identified by submarine warfare analyst HI Sutton in June 2025. The aircraft, with its distinctive flying-boat hull and joined v-tail, was spotted on a pier on the Bohai Sea, at the northwestern end of the Yellow Sea. The following month, better imagery appeared, showing the craft on the water, but without its propellers fitted, adding to speculation that it might be jet-powered…"

link

link

Armand

Xi's Twelve-Year Sentence

link

Armand

New Large Chinese Submarine With Very Unique Feature Just Caught On Satellite Imagery

link

Armand

It certainly looks like they are prepping for something major …

It is looking like the US would not be able to directly respond for the foreseeable future if China decided to try to retake Taiwan.

We have seen what happens when in Kiev recently when you run out of ballistic missile interceptors. The Ukrainians are stopping the majority of drones at the moment, but virtually all of the ballistic missiles are getting through.

China has a huge number of DF.21 with a range out to 1500km. These would make the carriers highly vulnerable when guided by SAR satellites or OTH radar, making approach within 1500km highly dangerous.
The number of DF.26 and DF.27 capable of hitting Guam is probably over 500 missiles. If all of the available PAC-3s and THAAD still available were deployed on Guam, it may still not be enough, especially considering the 2 to 1 firing strategy. This also does not include the number of missiles needed to defend Japanese and South Korean bases.
The number of SM3 and SM6s is also no-where near enough.
China is still increasing its ballistic missile capability, while the US is still expending ABM assets. I wouldn't be surprised if China accelerates its ballistic missile program. It doesn't need carriers to have a sea denial strategy.
China would just fire ballistic missiles against static and carrier targets until all ballistic missile interceptor missiles are gone. Then the damage would be huge.

The only sensible option if China moved against Taiwan would be to sit on the side lines and impose economic sanctions.
Even a long distance blockade by submarines would risk a counterstrike against Guam.

If this is indeed the "actual case", the "Broken Nest" strategy, would be the correct strategy to use if an eminent Chinese invasion of Taiwan was determined to be happening.

Of course that strategy like an "opposed" Chinese invasion strategy, both end up in a massive world wide economic depression. Probably unlike any we've seen before.

If we are indeed as low as some claim, we would have been unable to oppose China for long anyway. Even if those missiles used in Iran were still in the US arsenal. Iran is not a full fledged war against an adversary as powerful as China, which probably has 5 times or more missiles than Iran. Drones as well. (Especially in their home turf).

Add to that, they can replace them much more quickly. We and the west have "given" them the new factories and technology, in exchange for slave labor and profits.

One really cannot deny that if we are indeed out of defensive missiles and tomahawks, there is no way in "he##" we would not have been out of them much quicker in a direct confrontation with China off Taiwan.

What does that say for the work of past presidents and Congress leaving us this vulnerable and the lack of preparation?

Of selling these weapons or giving them to allies when we "might" need them?

The sad fact is: If we are indeed this low, after a limited conflict with Iran and of course sending "600" Patriots to the Ukraine, we have been truly betrayed by our administrations… and not just the current.

If we are "indeed" out now. We would have been out in 2 weeks confronting China on their home turf…. True?

In a direct, high-intensity conflict with China over Taiwan, the United States would run out of key precision munitions, including Tomahawk cruise missiles, within less than one week. Independent wargames and recent defense analyses indicate that a Pacific war features a vastly higher "burn rate" than the current conflict in Iran.

…

Even if the United States had not fired a single missile in the Middle East and still possessed 100% of its pre-war stockpiles, comprehensive CSIS wargames demonstrate that the U.S. would still run out of all its primary long-range offensive missiles—most notably the Tomahawk and JASSM—within less than seven days of a direct conflict with China.The pre-existing American stockpile was fundamentally unequipped for a peer-versus-peer Pacific conflict, long before the recent depletion in Iran.

…

The "Broken Nest" strategy directly answers the exact munition shortfalls identified by wargames, but it remains a highly controversial and debated approach rather than universally accepted U.S. policy.

So wring our hands about the usage in Iran, we would have been screwed anyway.

All Presidents and Congress have failed us.

I was trying to keep this a purely military/strategic assessment of where we are now.
I purposely did not go to who is responsible for low pre-Iran stocks and production capability. Also I did not go to whether the Iran conflict was a good idea – there is plenty of discussion on that in other threads.
I also didn't want to discuss the political side of the Ukraine supply, where my comments on PAC-2 vs PaC-3 patriots have been made on other threads.

My opinion in this thread is that the current low stocks significantly impact the strategic options concerning any Chinese threat to Taiwan.

As you correctly point out, the Iran conflict does indeed highlight that the pre-war stocks of ballistic missile interceptors was insufficient for any conflict with China. I also agree with your assessment that China can (and probably will) build a lot more new ballistic missiles than the US will build interceptors.

So what can be done. I think that there are a number of actions:
1) Guam needs hardened shelters – a glaring need that keeps being overlooked. Also other strategic bases in Japan and S.Korea need increased hardening.
2) A low cost, rapid production ballistic missile interceptor needs to be designed. Maybe laser or microwave.
3) While the SM.2 stocks are not low, so most drones can (as in Ukraine) be taken care of, the threat and quantity is going to increase. So again a low cost solution needs to be implemented. Ideally the cost per kill would need to come down to below the cost of a drone to redress the balance.
4) a counter to SAR satellites and OTH radar needs to be developed to protect naval assets.

Just a few thoughts.

Martyn

My points:

1) really did not matter if we used them in Iran or gave them away to the Ukrainians. If we are indeed this low already (that can well be debated), we could never have "stopped" China.
2) Based on above being true, our only current solution (short of nukes) is the "broken nest".
3) again, "if true", every president and congress since these weapons were developed, let us down.
4) wargames show, we cannot win a direct confrontation over Taiwan on Chinas home turf.

Yes, You may not have been casting blame, but from reading ultramodern and the MSM, you know others "have" been casting blame… and specifically.

Yes new faster and cheaper solutions need to be developed, I agree.

I believe they are being pursued… as fast as our bloated bureaucracy and political infighting will allow.

We also need to win the AI war! Because the Chinese otherwise will and they have no qualms in its usage.

For once! We must keep on top.

I know many don't like the big new AI centers going up, nor the big new chip manufacturing centers going up, but we need it here. Not in Taiwan or some other vulnerable Asian country.

I know I'm already paying the cost in higher utility bills here in my State.

If China "would" attack Taiwan, win or lose, the world pays the price.

This information is already outdated:

1. Immediate GDP Collapse [1]
* Massive Economic Contraction: A war over Taiwan involving the destruction of its tech infrastructure would contract China's GDP by an estimated 16.7% to nearly 25% within the first year. This translates to a direct domestic loss of roughly $2.8 USD trillion. [1, 2, 3]
* Manufacturing Freeze: China is the "factory of the world," but its manufacturing lines rely entirely on Taiwanese semiconductors to build smartphones, electric vehicles, medical devices, and home appliances. Without these "golden screw" components, China's massive export economy would instantly stall. [1]

2. Crippling the Domestic Tech and AI Sectors
* Losing Advanced AI Infrastructure: China is aggressively pursuing leadership in Artificial Intelligence. However, training its AI models relies heavily on advanced chips fabricated primarily by TSMC. Losing this supply line would paralyze China's tech giants (like Huawei, Tencent, and Alibaba) and freeze its algorithmic advancements. [1, 2, 3, 4]
* Exposure of Domestic Vulnerabilities: Despite pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into its "Big Fund" and "Made in China" initiatives, China still falls short of its self-sufficiency goals. Its domestic fabs (like SMIC) remain generations behind TSMC and cannot produce advanced sub-7nm chips at the volume China requires. [1, 2, 3, 4]

3. Absolute Diplomatic and Trade Isolation
* Draconian Western Sanctions: The deliberate destruction of an industry that enables $10 USD trillion of global GDP would trigger coordinated, severe economic sanctions from the US, the European Union, Japan, and South Korea. [1, 2, 3]
* Seizure of Foreign Reserves: Western nations would likely freeze China's trillions of dollars in foreign currency reserves and sovereign bonds held abroad. China would be abruptly cut off from the SWIFT international banking network, crippling its ability to conduct external trade. [1]

4. Severe Internal Social Instability
* Mass Unemployment: With factories unable to source chips and ports choked off by a wartime blockade, tens of millions of Chinese manufacturing and tech workers would lose their jobs. [1]
* The "Social Contract" Broken: For decades, the Chinese public has largely accepted the authoritarian rule of the Communist Party in exchange for consistent economic growth and rising living standards. A sudden, violent regression into economic depression, rationing, and isolation would severely test the party's domestic stability.
Ultimately, by forcing the issue and allowing the chip industry to be destroyed, China would be choosing a "pyrrhic victory"—gaining the physical island of Taiwan but plunging itself into a deep, prolonged economic dark age

Yes, these regional nations have infinitely more to lose than the United States, as a Chinese victory over Taiwan would fundamentally threaten their direct physical, economic, and sovereign survival.While a war would severely damage the U.S. economy, for regional allies, the consequences would be an existential catastrophe [1, 2].
The stakes are much higher for America's allies due to several immediate vulnerabilities:

1. Japan's Literal Lifeline is Threatened
Japan imports over 90% of its energy and the vast majority of its food via the shipping lanes that run directly through the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea.
* The Existential Threat: If China controls Taiwan, Beijing gains a legal and military chokehold over Japan's maritime supply lines.
* The Island Chain Collapse: Taiwan sits at the center of the First Island Chain. Its fall would place Chinese military bases just 70 miles from Japan's southernmost populated islands (like Yonaguni), putting Japanese territory directly on the front lines of potential future Chinese aggression.

2. Taiwan Faces Total Absorption
For Taiwan, the loss of a war does not just mean a change in government; it means the end of its democratic society, its sovereignty, and its way of life. Taiwanese citizens would face forced integration, political re-education, and the complete dismantling of their economic independence.

3. The Philippines Becomes Encircled
The northernmost islands of the Philippines are located less than 200 miles south of Taiwan.
* The Security Threat: If Beijing positions its military assets on Taiwan's south coast, the Philippines would be completely cut off from northern allied reinforcements.
* The Territorial Threat: China already aggressively contests Philippine islands in the South China Sea; a victorious China would have unhindered maritime power to seize those disputed territories permanently.

4. Australia Loses Its Security Buffer
While physically further away, Australia relies entirely on a free and open Indo-Pacific for its trade-based economy. If the U.S. is pushed out of East Asia, Australia is left geographically isolated in a region dominated entirely by an assertive, authoritarian superpower with a blue-water navy.

The Paradox: Why Don't They Spend More?
Given that they have everything to lose, it seems illogical that these countries do not spend 5% or 10% of their GDP on defense. This paradox exists because of two main factors:
* The "U.S. Trap": For decades, these nations assumed the U.S. military would always be there to save them. This created a cycle of dependency where they prioritized domestic social spending over massive military hardware.
* Political Hurdles: Japan has strict pacifist constitutional limits left over from World War II, making rapid military expansion highly controversial among its voters. The Philippines, as a developing nation, simply lacks the massive financial capital to build a high-tech navy overnight, regardless of its percentage goals.
The shift we are seeing now—with Japan doubling its budget and Taiwan pushing past 3%—is a direct result of these countries finally realizing that they can no longer take American protection for granted.