China will soon be able to defeat the US in a war over Taiwan – they are preparing to invade, warns top US admiral

CHINA will soon be able to defeat the US in a war over Taiwan, a top US admiral has warned.
The chilling warning comes amid fears that China is preparing for a full-scale invasion of the island as it masses warships and submarines.
6
Taiwanese tanks parade the streets in Taipei
Credit: AFP
6
Taiwanese US-made tank during the military exercises on Taiwan's Penghu Islands
Credit: AFP
6
China's aircraft carrier Liaoning during a military drill
Credit: Reuters
6
Commander of the US Indo-Pacific Command, Admiral Samuel Paparo, raised the alarm at the McCain Institute's annual Sedona Forum in Arizona on Friday.
The admiral said that while the US would defeat China in a war over Taiwan now, it may soon lose its advantage, as reported by the Financial Times.
Paparo said: 'The United States will prevail in the conflict as it stands now, with the force that we have right now.'
But he added: 'Our trajectory on . . . really every force element that is salient is a bad trajectory.'
China has ramped up its production of weapons including warships and submarines - and the US doesn't seem to be able to keep up.
According to Paparo, for every 1.8 warships made in the US each year China builds an impressive six.
And for every 1.4 submarines made in the US, it builds two.
The warning comes as China continues to expand its military exercises around Taiwan, as fears of an invasion mount.
Paparo fuelled fears of an attack, saying that Beijing is rehearsing "the full spectrum of military operations" - from a direct invasion of the island to a naval blockade.
This comes as Taiwan reported at least 19 Chinese warships as well as the large Shandong aircraft carrier patrolling nearby last month.
Total blockade, mega-barges & 2 million troops… How Taiwan invasion would unfold as island warns of all-out war by 2027
This marked the biggest number of enemy vessels seen in a 24-hour period since last May - part of China's chilling war games.
But the US admiral hinted that Taiwan wouldn't be on their own if China invaded.
When asked whether the US would support military intervention in Taiwan, he responded: 'A lesson in history is that people are always saying America will never get in a fight, but it's not the track record.'
But if China continues to ramp up its weapons production the US may not be able to protect the island.
And China may have more weapons than previously thought.
Why does China want to invade Taiwan?
TAIWAN insists it is an independent nation after splitting from mainland China amid civil war in 1949.
But China claims Taiwan remains a part of its territory with which it must eventually be reunified - and has not ruled out the use of force to take the island and place it under Beijing's control.
The island, which is roughly 100 miles from the coast of south-east China, sees itself as distinct from the Chinese mainland, with its own constitution and democratically-elected leaders.
Taiwan sits in the so-called "first island chain", which includes a list of US-friendly territories that are crucial to Washington's foreign policy in the region.
This also puts it in an ideal situation to slow a Chinese attack on the West.
And with tensions between the two nations high, Taiwan is likely to aid China's enemy if it means keeping its independence.
Taiwan's economy is another factor in China's desperation to reclaim the land.
If China takes the island, it could be freer to project power in the western Pacific and rival the US, thanks to much of the world's electronics being made in Taiwan.
This would allow Beijing to have control over an industry that drives the global economy.
China insists that its intentions are peaceful, but President Xi Jinping has also used threats towards the small island nation.
Google Maps images exposed China's secret submarine fleet back in April.
The shocking pictures showed six nuke boats massed at a Chinese base.
These included two of the deadly Type 091 submarines, two Type 093A and one chillingly unidentified submarine.
The base - dubbed the First Submarine Base - is located 18km east of Qingdao in the Yellow Sea, meaning there's easy access to the East China Sea and the Sea of Japan.
Australian independent naval analyst Alex Luck posted the shocking images to X.
In the post, he said that five nuclear-powered subs seen on the base were conventionally armed.
Taiwan insists it is an independent nation after splitting from mainland China amid civil war in 1949.
But China claims Taiwan remains a part of its territory with which it must eventually be reunified - and has not ruled out the use of force to take the island and place it under Beijing's control.
China insists that its intentions are peaceful, but President Xi Jinping has also waged a "war of words" on the small island nation.
In this years New Year's address, President Xi said that the people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait are one family.
And he has previously called the independence of Taiwan a futile effort and that annexation by Beijing is a "historical inevitability".
6
Taiwanese soldiers in front of inscriptions reading 'immediate action'
Credit: AFP

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

New Statesman​

7 minutes ago

• New Statesman​

How Donald Trump plunged America into a blind war

Photo by Daniel Torok/The White House via Getty Images One minute after midnight on 21 June, a small group of US B-2 Spirit bombers took off from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri heading west across the Pacific. They were picked up shortly afterwards by flight tracking accounts on social media, prompting breaking news alerts that multiple American bombers capable of carrying the type of heavy ordinance that would be needed to destroy Iran's nuclear sites were airborne as journalists frantically traced their trajectory. In fact, this was a decoy. The real strike group was flying east across the Atlantic, with seven B-2 bombers joined by US fighter jets as they reached the Middle East, which escorted them into Iranian airspace. In the early hours of 22 June local time, they dropped a total of 14 GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators (MOPs), 30,000-pound guided bombs known as 'bunker busters', on Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordo and Natanz. A US Navy submarine fired more than two dozen Tomahawk missiles at a third site in Isfahan as part of what the Pentagon called 'Operation Midnight Hammer'. By now, most people will have seen Donald Trump's address to the nation in the hours that followed, flanked by his distinctly uncomfortable-looking vice-president JD Vance along with secretary-of-state-turned-national-security-adviser Marco Rubio and defence secretary Pete Hegseth. Trump, predictably, pronounced the whole operation a 'spectacular military success', declaring that Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities had been 'completely and totally obliterated', which he could not possibly have known at the time and has yet to be confirmed. 'Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace,' Trump intoned. 'If they do not, future attacks would be far greater and a lot easier.' Appearing to veer from his script towards the end, he added, 'I want to just say, we love you, God.' In the best-case scenario for those who support these strikes, Trump has acted decisively, ordering the use of military force where successive previous presidents had equivocated, and setting back the Iranian nuclear programme for years, perhaps even for good. He has finally neutered a regime that has long been defined by its rallying cry, 'Death to America', and delivered Israel from the existential threat that would have been posed by a nuclear-armed Iran, which one former Iranian president is said to have described as a 'one-bomb country'. According to this rendering, Trump has taken advantage of a moment of profound weakness for Tehran, whose most notorious proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, have been eviscerated by the Israeli military campaign over the last 18 months, and whose most senior military commanders and nuclear scientists have been assassinated. He has forced a reckoning for the Iranian regime – that will be quietly welcomed by many in the region and beyond – abandon your nuclear ambitions, or cease to exist. In the process, he has also proved the TACO theory (Trump Always Chickens Out) wrong. Perhaps some even see him delivering on his election campaign mantra that he would deliver 'peace through strength'. This is all, theoretically, possible. We should be clear, less than 24 hours at the time of writing from the US strikes, that nobody – not Trump, not the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and not Iran's supreme leader Ali Khamenei – knows for certain where this will lead, or how this war will end. (Trump has already called it a 'war' on social media.) But the history of recent US military campaigns in the region does not bode well. The exception often noted is the first Gulf War in 1991, where the coalition military effort known as Operation Desert Storm lasted than two months and succeeded in forcing Saddam Hussein to withdraw his troops from Kuwait, although the Iraqi dictator was permitted to remain in power. The problem with the optimistic case this time is, to quote the former US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld on the subsequent invasion of Iraq, the 'known unknowns', and the 'unknown unknowns'. In the short term, the known unknowns include what capabilities Iran retains to retaliate, both in terms of its proxies abroad (including the Houthis in Yemen and militias in Iraq), the remaining stockpiles of missiles and drones in Iran, which Israel has repeatedly targeted in recent days, and its ability to disrupt shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, where almost a third of the world's seaborne oil transits. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Ayatollah Khamenei, who is 86 and said to be in faltering health, is reportedly sheltering in a bunker, according to the New York Times, avoiding electronic devices for fear of revealing his location and communicating only through a trusted aide, where he has listed several clerics who could replace him if he is killed, along with substitutes for the military chain of command. We do not yet know how Khamenei will respond to these attacks and whether he will assess – as many commentators have insisted – that he must now retaliate in some meaningful form if he hopes to restore Iran's deterrence and remain in power. We do not know whether Tehran can be induced to resume negotiations on a nuclear deal with Washington, as many European leaders have now urged. We do know, however, that Iran had previously negotiated a nuclear deal – known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – with the United States, the UK, France, China, Russia, and the EU in 2015, which Trump abandoned during his first term in 2018. It is not clear that any Iranian government would entrust its future to a new deal that could be similarly torn up by the next US administration. (Trump has also launched trade wars against Canada, Mexico and China since returning to power despite signing much-hyped trade deals with them during his previous term.) Meanwhile, the example of the Kim dynasty in North Korea, which has pursued nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them despite the significant costs, and is not currently being bombed by the US, might well suggest to the Iranian regime that the surer course for survival would have been to race for a bomb while it still could, and, if it has the opportunity, to try again. We also know that despite the repeated messaging via US backchannels in the hours after the strike that this was a 'one-and-done' operation – a limited campaign to target the nuclear facilities and nothing more, certainly not the prelude to regime change – Trump and Netanyahu have delivered starkly contradictory signals. Netanyahu openly urged the Iranian people to 'stand up' against the regime after launching the Israeli military campaign on 13 June. Trump has demanded 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER' from Iran on social media and threatened to kill Khamenei. 'It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change???' Trump wrote in a Truth Social post on the evening of 22 June. 'MIGA!!!' Given these statements, it is not hard to see why the Iranian government might conclude that the US and Israel have, in fact, launched a war that aims to overthrow them, and, therefore, that this is not merely a negotiating ploy that could yet end in a new nuclear deal, but an existential fight that justifies any means. Then there are the unknown unknowns. We do not know, for instance, whether there could be other Iranian nuclear facilities that had not yet been identified, and what steps the regime might have taken to ensure the survival of key personnel, equipment and material. We do not know how secure the regime's grip on power is and whether Khamenei could yet be sidelined, or simply replaced, by hardliners from within the Iranian Revolutionary Guard or former high-ranking officials. 'Tehran is now full of such plots,' one anonymous source, who claimed to be part of a plan to replace the ageing supreme leader, told The Atlantic after the strikes. 'Everybody knows Khamenei's days are numbered.' If the regime does fall, it is far from clear what type of government would take its place, and what that would mean for the region, and well beyond. Recent examples – such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria – suggest liberal democracy is an unlikely outcome. 'The US is now entangled in a new conflict, with prospects of a ground operation looming on the horizon,' taunted Dmitry Medvedev, the former Russian president and current deputy chair of the country's security council, who is now probably best known for his bellicose social media threats. He then claimed that a 'number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads.' (It is worth bearing in mind that his main role these days seems to be garnering attention and provocative headlines.) With the Russian military tied down in Ukraine, Vladimir Putin is unlikely to offer much in the way of meaningful help in the short term, but he will certainly capitalise on what appears to be a flagrant breach of international law and what he will present as yet more evidence of American hypocrisy. (Putin, too, claims to have attacked Ukraine in part to stop the country developing nuclear weapons and threatening Russia's national security.) Moscow also stands to benefit from a rise in the price of oil if Iran threatens the Strait of Hormuz or targets other oil-producing facilities in the region. Beijing has strongly condemned the US attack, which the foreign ministry said, 'seriously violate the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and international law'. China is Iran's largest trading partner, which supplied around 15 percent of the oil the country imported last year, and will not welcome the prospect of a massive spike in oil prices if the conflict escalates at a time when the Chinese economy is already slowing. But the prospect of the US getting drawn into another interminable war in the Middle East and deferring, yet again, the mythical 'pivot to Asia', with its focus on deterring a Chinese assault on Taiwan, offers other potential benefits to Beijing. The reverberations of Trump's gamble will be felt far beyond the borders of Iran. Flanked by Vance, Rubio, and Hegseth as he delivered his speech in the hours after the attack, the impression was less a show of unity than a president who is keenly aware of the domestic political risk this involves – and the vehement opposition already emanating from parts of his Maga base – and determined to show that his top lieutenants were all on board. Perhaps that was why Vance in particular, who has built his political brand on his opposition to US military intervention overseas, looked so perturbed. Trump has plunged the US into a war with Iran, with no apparent strategy, and objectives that appear to be evolving, in real time, on social media. Maybe the best-case scenario will yet transpire, and the Middle East will emerge from this conflict more stable and prosperous, but recent history cautions against too much optimism. [See also: The British left will not follow Trump into war] Related

The Herald Scotland

29 minutes ago

• The Herald Scotland

Hope for 100s of Scots jobs hit by bus firm plan to go to England

And it has emerged that the SNP-led Scottish Government and the Labour-led UK Government have agreed to establish a joint working group to discuss options to find a solution and avert job losses. They are looking at how far they 'can push' the UK 'state aid' rules set out in the Subsidy Control Act 2022 to create a support package to save the 400 jobs. The second meeting of that working group was held on Monday last week and it is due to meet again this week. An Alexander Dennis source said that they are engaging with both governments "in good faith on the possibility of any intervention" and stressed that a final decision on the move had not yet been made. Read more: The Scottish Government came under fire after the deputy first minister Kate Forbes pledged to leave "no stone unturned" in securing a future for ADL. Kate Forbes (Image: Colin Mearns) Ministers have said there was "cause of hope in terms of looking at a way through the challenges". A row erupted in the Scottish Parliament in the wake of revelations in the Herald over the depth of the public funding for Scottish jobs over the past ten years - and even while it was cutting back its workforce by a third five years ago. The Herald also revealed how the First Minister was warned of Alexander Dennis concerns last summer a year before announcing plans last week to relocate to England putting 400 jobs at risk. Alexander Dennis, which has factories in Falkirk and Larbert, said it was considering moving manufacturing to a site in Scarborough. The plans would see work at the Falkirk site discontinued, while the Larbert site would be closed after current contracts are completed. The company said it was facing strong competition from Chinese electric bus manufacturers whose share of the market had risen from 10% to 35%. Alexander Dennis, which manufactures single and double decker buses, said the new proposed structure would lower costs and increase efficiency. Calls have been made to claw public money back money if Alexander Dennis follows through with its plans. The Herald revealed that the row between ministers and ADL emerged over levels of support and had its roots in Scottish Government schemes launched from 2020 to accelerate the use and manufacture of zero and low emission buses in Scotland and 'help drive a green recovery out of the Covid pandemic" which have been worth a total of £155.8m to date. The SNP launched their financial case for Scottish independence at Alexander Dennis (Image: Newsquest) Frustrations emerged after May 2023 when Alexander Dennis hosted the second phase of the Scottish Government's Zero Emissions Bus Challenge Fund (ScotZEB) which was to have funding worth £58m. It also showcased its Enviro100EV concept, a lightweight single-deck zero-emission bus with new in-house battery powertrain confirmed that grant backing accelerated its development. In a scathing letter seen by The Herald, Paul Soubry, president and chief executive of Alexander Dennis's parent company NFI, told John Swinney that recent developments had 'regretfully left [them] with the impression that the Scottish Government has little regard for domestic bus manufacturing jobs in Scotland'. The First Minister was also told they had already been 'forced' to offshore certain manufacturing functions to China. But a Scottish Government memo said that ADL had received orders for 363 zero-emission buses from ScotZEB more than any other manufacturer benefitting from the schemes. A separate briefing states that Alexander Dennis was awarded only 17% or 44 buses from second phase of the programme. A significant grant through the ScotZeb 2 programme was awarded to Zenobe, and its consortium of bus and coach operators to support the transition of bus fleets to electric. ADL, which incurred total losses over three years of £44.9m between 2021 and 2023, made its own bid to the programme but was unsuccessful. While ADL was a supplier to the successful consortium it was not a formal part of it. An Alexander Dennis spokesman said: 'Our focus remains on ensuring our people are supported during our consultation process. "This is a challenging time, and we are grateful for the active engagement from the Scottish and UK Governments and other political parties and stakeholders to discuss options and possible interventions. "It is clear there is a shared ambition to ensure the Scottish and UK manufacturing industry is protected and can thrive and we hope that we can encourage a cross-nation, collaborative approach as we continue to progress these important discussions.' The Scottish Government has said that policy interventions had been designed to "accelerate uptake of zero emission buses in the Scottish market". According to Scottish ministers, ADL secured orders for more than 360 vehicles through Scottish Government funding programmes. And they say the route to providing further support involves looking at ADL's cost base, considering what additional support can be provided to help with productivity and to lower costs and to look at how an order book can be developed for the company. They to say that there is "cause for hope" and that there were "solutions" that can be delivered through the collaborative process. While they say they have to abide by public procurement regulations and subsidy controls, but were working on a "support package" for the company.

Telegraph

an hour ago

• Telegraph

Even a visit to Putin won't save Iran's regime

Now Iran really is alone. For decades, the Islamic Republic's ruthless leaders dedicated themselves to preparing for the moment when America would attack their nuclear plants. Today, the crisis long foretold has finally arrived – and Iran has seldom had fewer options for striking back. No one in Tehran would have relied on any other country to come to their aid against the US. Iran has a 'strategic partnership' with Russia, and Abbas Araghchi, the Islamic Republic's foreign minister, is expected in Moscow on Monday. True enough, Vladimir Putin was always happy to buy Iran's drones and fire them at Ukrainian cities, but there is zero chance that he will risk war with the US for the sake of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's regime. Whatever else he is in Moscow for, Mr Araghchi will not be expecting any material help from Russia. The same applies to China, no matter how publicly critical Xi Jinping, the country's president, might be of Donald Trump's attack on Iran. Beijing called the strikes a 'violation of international law'. China was always willing to import Iran's sanctioned oil at a knock-down price, but Mr Xi is not going to fight America to save the Ayatollahs in Tehran. Khamenei has always known that Iran has no real friends among the nations – hence his great project was to build his own axis of non-state allies by arming and funding terrorist groups across the Middle East.