A Proposal to Avert the Outbreak of a Second Sino-American War over Taiwan

My latest China-Taiwan peace proposal would help ensure Taiwan's continued self-rule and control of its armed forces with an EU-style solution that might be acceptable to the PRC

President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping shake hands at the G-20 summit in Osaka, Japan in June 2019

Editor’s Note—This article is an updated version of a proposal I first published nearly a year ago. Here is the link to my original peace proposal. Here is a link to a interview I did on the Rob Maness show outlining the merits of my updated proposal. Just as a clarification to my remarks in the interview, Taiwan would retain its self-rule but not “independence” under the terms of my proposed reunification agreement.

President Donald J. Trump has campaigned for re-election on a platform of no new wars and averting the outbreak of direct wars with Russia and China in particular. The following proposal could provide him a useful template to negotiate a peaceful diplomatic settlement with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) that might be mutually acceptable to both sides in averting an unnecessary war between our two nuclear superpowers. 

The Chinese Civil War between the Nationalist and Communist Chinese, which began in 1927, ended with the proclamation of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) on October 1, 1949 following the evacuation of Chiang Kai Shek’s National Revolutionary Army to Taiwan’s main island of Formosa after the US drastically reduced its military support to the Nationalists. Scarcely a year later, China launched a massive attack on US forces in northern Korea, heralding the start of a Sino-American War which cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops and 35,000 US troops. Due to the fact that the war ended in June 1953 without a peace treaty, the US remains technically in a state of war with the People’s Republic of China and Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

Nearly three-quarters of a century after China’s victory in its civil war, Chinese President Xi Jinping has declared China will achieve renunciation with Taiwan in the near future, thus eliminating the last potential legitimate challenge to Chinese Communist Party rule over mainland China. While Chinese leaders would clearly prefer not to fight a war against the United States to reunify with Taiwan by force, they have expressed a willingness to do so if it does not agree to a timeline for peaceful reunification very soon. Beijing is believed to be planning to take major military action against Taiwan within the next few years.

For most of the past century, China was weak militarily in comparison to the United States. Since then, the military balance in the Pacific has shifted dramatically in favor of the PRC. Today, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) boasts the largest army, navy, coast guard and nuclear capable ballistic missile force in the world. It is a nuclear superpower on par with the United States and is on track to exceed the US in terms of operationally deployed strategic nuclear weapons this year with a recently released unclassified USAF intelligence briefing stating that at current building rates China will have 4,000 nuclear warheads by the end of the decade

China is amassing an increasing number of powerful nuclear-capable weapon systems that could serve to deter US military intervention including hypersonic cruise missiles and both land and air-launched anti-ship ballistic missile systems. While many US policymakers express confidence the US would prevail in a war with China, all US military wargames conducted during the past two decades show the US losing badly in a war over Taiwan thanks to China’s increasing theater conventional military and nuclear superiority. US allies have declined to commit to join in defending Taiwan against Chinese aggression for fear of Chinese retribution raising the possibility that if the US went to war against China, it might have to fight the PRC alone.

In July 2001, Russia and China became formal allies and now overmatch the US in a number of key military technological areas, most importantly in terms of unconventional weapon systems. China’s GDP now exceeds America’s by twenty percent while its manufacturing industrial base is over seventy percent larger with an ability to build ships 232 times faster than the US and produce modern weapon systems five to six times faster. America’s increasingly risky policy of exerting overlapping spheres of influence with Russia and China and deploying US military forces along their borders and adjacent seas while fighting an ever-escalating proxy war with Russia in Ukraine has pushed Russia into an even closer alliance with China. Continuing this dangerous policy risks the outbreak of an unnecessary and avoidable Third World War which could result in a catastrophic and unprecedented loss of innocent lives that would make the humanitarian losses stemming from the Second World War pale in comparison.

Map showing the increasing size and power of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which covers approximately eighty percent of the Eurasian supercontinent. Russian President Vladimir Putin has described it as “a reborn Warsaw Pact.” Belarus has since joined the SCO as a full-member.

Meanwhile, tensions between the US, the PRC and Taiwan are continuing to escalate. In May 2022, there were leaked reports that the PRC had begun mobilizing its economy and its military for war against the US over Taiwan. Since that time, the PRC has engaged in an unprecedented number of military exercises in the Taiwan Straits and the South China Sea, including increasingly frequent and historically unprecedented crossings of the Median Line by a large number of PLA Navy warships and PLA Air Force combat aircraft likely in preparation for an attack on Taiwan.

Is Taiwan Defensible Against a Chinese Invasion?

If China attacked Taiwan and President Joe Biden made good on his repeated pledges to defend it militarily, China would almost certainly enjoy escalation dominance over the US given Taiwan is its number one vital interest. Contrary to prevailing opinion, the loss of Taiwan would not do much to change the military balance in the Indo-Pacific and US policymakers might not be willing to trade Los Angeles for Taipei. Additionally, China would enjoy an immense advantage with much shorter supply lines given Taiwan is located eighty-five times closer to the Chinese mainland than the US mainland with few US supply bases in the region, all of which are highly vulnerable to pre-emptive strikes by China’s large stockpile of nuclear-capable hypersonic missiles. According to former Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Roughead (U.S. Navy, ret.), China has sixty-two times more merchant ships than the US has which would make it extremely difficult for the US to keep our military forces supplied in a Pacific war. In 2022, US intelligence estimated that China is spending over $700 billion a year on its defense budget in nominal terms making it roughly equal to US defense spending while it has reportedly doubled the size of its nuclear-capable missile arsenal during the past few years.

The US missed its best chance to deter a Chinese invasion of Taiwan by supplying nuclear weapons to Taiwan in the 1990’s and encouraging Taipei to deploy them atop Short-Range Ballistic Missiles to hold China’s southern coastal cities at risk. If the US were to station nuclear B-52 bombers in Taiwan today, it would likely trigger war with China, as Beijing would likely act swiftly to pre-empt them using conventional or even nuclear-armed hypersonic missiles.

Snapshot of my interview with Col. Rob Maness to discuss this peace proposal.

A wargame conducted in late 2022 showed that if a Taiwan war escalated to the nuclear level, the US lost, whether it or China escalated to the use of nuclear weapons first. This is likely due in large part to the fact that the US, which once boasted 1,200 nuclear weapons in Okinawa alone during the Cold War, currently has no tactical nuclear weapons stationed in the region aside from a handful of W-76-2 warheads on our two Ohio nuclear ballistic missile submarines operating in the Western Pacific at any given time.

However, if the US launched a Trident II SLBM with a trajectory taking it anywhere near the PRC, it would undoubtedly be assumed to be a US nuclear first strike likely triggering a full- scale nuclear exchange. Since as General Glen Van Herck, who heads up US Northern Command (NORTHCOM) has stated, US policy is not to defend the US against Russian or Chinese nuclear missile attack and since the US has virtually no capability to do so, the US homeland could very possibly be obliterated by a Chinese nuclear first strike depending on whether they opted to undertake a counterforce/decapitation or countervalue attack. Even if a US nuclear retaliatory strike caused tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of Chinese deaths, Chinese leaders have stated they would be willing to lose up to half of their population to win a war against the U.S as they would still have 700 million citizens left.

While the official US policy of strategic ambiguity has served Taiwan well, China’s strategic forbearance appears may have come to an end following the inauguration of pro-independence Taiwanese President William Lai. President Xi has directed the People’s Liberation Army to be ready for war. Realistically, no US pledge to defend Taiwan, increased weapon shipments to Taiwan or expanded US naval deployments to the South China Sea will likely be sufficient to deter Beijing from achieving its paramount goal of national unification with Taiwan, which they have waited seventy-five years to achieve. Accordingly, the US faces increasingly stark and unattractive choices when it comes to Taiwan, which is widely believed to be the most dangerous potential flashpoint in the world--a ticking time bomb waiting to explode--that threatens to engulf the US and its allies in a catastrophic and very possibly existential conflict that could erupt as early as this fall.

Map showing August 2022 PLA Navy Joint Air and Naval Blockade exercise zones along with possible invasion routes. Some experts believe that a full-scale air and amphibious invasion of Taiwan could succeed in capturing the Taiwanese capital of Taipei within as little as two to three weeks.

The US currently has four options. First, it can opt to retain its policy of strategic ambiguity and wait until the PRC blockades and invades Taiwan with some experts predicting China might succeed in capturing Taipei and force Taiwan to capitulate within two weeks of an invasion if not much sooner. A few years ago a couple of former top US military officials estimated China could force Taiwan’s surrender within a few days before the US could respond, effectively forcing a US President to accept a fait accompli. Second, the US could establish the same strategic clarity with China and Taiwan that it provided to Russia with regards to Ukraine before the Russian invasion in February 2022 by stating while the US would continue to provide Taiwan with the arms it needs to defend itself, it would not defend Taiwan militarily. That would compel Taiwan to negotiate a diplomatic compromise agreement with Beijing to avoid being invaded, but if it did so without US mediation the terms would likely be much more one-sided.

The Costs and Benefits of Risking an Existential War with China over Taiwan  

Third, the US could declare it will defend Taiwan militarily, which would be far more likely to provoke a Chinese invasion than to deter it. Then, we could fight a global war with China over Taiwan which could begin with a counterspace first strike on all US satellites and a massive pre-emptive cyberattack and on the US homeland, likely escalating to the super Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP)/nuclear level within a few weeks, taking a dangerous gamble that would risk America’s very existence as a country. While the US is believed to have a powerful space-based clandestine counterspace weapon system, space warfare heavily favors the aggressor so if China struck first without warning it might be disabled before it could be utilized.

North Korea, a longtime Chinese vassal state, would almost certainly invade South Korea with a massive barrage of North Korean artillery and rockets decimating US troops along the DMZ while US military forces in Japan would be decimated by Chinese hypersonic missile strikes potentially resulting in tens of thousands of US casualties during the first week of a Second Sino-American War. Meanwhile, Russia might join the fight, under the terms of its military alliance with Beijing. US intelligence has assessed that Russia would likely aid China in such a war by conducting largescale cyberattacks against US critical infrastructure and massing large numbers of troops along NATO’s borders to pressure the US to deploy larger military forces in Eastern Europe as a hedge to a Russian invasion.

A recent Pentagon funded study revealed that the US is woefully unprepared to respond to potential Chinese non-strategic nuclear strikes against US military assets and allies in the Western Pacific region due to the fact that the US has virtually no non-strategic nuclear weapons stationed in the region giving China increasingly pronounced theater nuclear superiority. The US Navy has been unable to prevent attacks on international shipping by the Houthis after several months of combat operations with one of its three-star admiral saying that the US will not succeed in defeating them militarily and will have to employ international diplomacy to resolve the crisis. Not even the recent deployment of over one-third of the US Navy’s aircraft carrier strike groups to the Middle East leaving has enabled us to prevail over them. Accordingly, how could we hope to defend the PLA Navy which is infinitely more capable with naval superiority over the US in the Pacific? Disturbingly, the US currently has no aircraft carriers deployed in the Pacific Ocean for the first time in fifteen years at a time, leaving China to dominate the seas at a time when a Chinese attack on Taiwan seems increasingly imminent.

With its military capabilities seriously depleted by recent massive weapons transfers to Ukraine and an ongoing war against Iranian proxies in the Middle East, the US would be unable to successfully fight, let alone win, a three-front war with its nuclear-armed adversaries, all of which are allied against us. In fact, the bipartisan Commission on the National Defense Strategy published a report at the end of last month assessing the US might lose a future war with Russia or China if it did not revise its national defense strategy, massively increase its defense budget and rebuild its undersized defense industrial base which could take years to accomplish.

Map showing the range of Chinese nuclear-capable bomber, hypersonic cruise missiles and anti-ship ballistic missile systems

Even if such a conflict remained entirely conventional, a recent wargame conducted by the United States House Select Committee on Strategic Competition between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party found that in a war with China alone the US would run out of long-range precision guided munitions within a week of intense combat. What is the US plan for what the US Navy will do after it runs out of anti-ship missiles and surface-to-air missiles necessary to the defense of our carrier strike groups, scarcely a week into a hot war with China over Taiwan which some experts have forecasted could last several months if not a couple of years? US leaders would then be compelled to order the withdrawal of US Navy warships out of Chinese anti-ship ballistic missile range and focus on employing limited airpower resources in a futile effort to repel a Chinese invasion of Taiwan using airpower alone. The other option they could pursue would be to escalate to the non-strategic nuclear level in the hope of getting China to break off the attack. However, that would risk a further escalation to a full strategic nuclear exchange, which could end with the entire destruction of the US homeland.

US policymakers have consistently demonstrated an unwillingness to seriously think through such difficult questions and may be willing to take the US to war without providing the means to give US military servicemembers a realistic chance to prevail in such a cataclysmic conflict. They might do so in the belief that even a futile and failed attempt to defend Taiwan, a formal US ally for nearly three decades during the Cold War, from Chinese aggression would be preferable to allowing China to conquer Taiwan unopposed. They might prefer all-out war with the PRC rather than restricting ourselves to severe economic sanctions against Beijing to ensure the survival of the US and its Pacific treaty allies that would be threatened with utter devastation in such a war. However, they fail to realize that there is virtually nothing that would do more to weaken the US than a disastrous military defeat at China’s hands even if the US survived the conflict. The aftermath of such a harrowing loss would likely be world changing as it would likely see China replace the US as the world’s perceived global hegemon much as Nazi Germany’s defeat at the end of the Second World War that saw the Soviet Union replace it as the dominant military power in continental Europe.

If indeed, the US military is not currently equipped with sufficient munitions to win such an all-out war with China, might it not be better to engage in unconventional thinking to come up with a workable diplomatic solution that offers realistic hope of preventing such a disastrous military defeat that could threaten America’s very existence?  President Donald Trump’s statements last month suggest he is concerned about whether fighting a world war with China in a likely unsuccessful defense of Taiwan most likely to result in a US military defeat would be in America’s best interests given his overriding focus on preventing the outbreak of an existential war with Russia and China.

An excellent article published in Foreign Affairs by Jonathan D. Caverley entitled “The Taiwan Fallacy,” makes a compelling case that US national security does not rest on a single, small island a little larger than Moldova and that a decision to risk thermonuclear war with China to defend Taiwan when we would have such a low chance of success would be in manifest opposition to US national security interests. As Caverley notes, even a full Chinese takeover of Taiwan would not serve to alter the military balance in the Pacific region because the US only has a few hundred troops stationed there and the US conducts no military planning or coordination with Taiwan. However, he suggests that China could use a blockade or invasion of Taiwan to entrap the US into feeling compelled to fight an unwinnable war which could deal a devastating and potentially catastrophic blow against the US military, if not the US homeland itself. Such a defeat would, in all likelihood, minimally include the loss of the US Seventh Fleet giving the PLA Navy unquestioned naval superiority in the Pacific, while permanently changing the global geopolitical balance of power in China’s favor.

The conventional argument that if China were to breach the so-called “First Island Chain” by taking control of Taiwan, then it could then threaten America’s Pacific Treaty allies such as Japan, the Philippines and Australia with invasion does not hold water. The truth is that neither the “First Island Chain” or “Second Island Chain” pose any substantive geographical barrier that could conceivably prevent Chinese naval and amphibious forces from seizing control of Pacific Island nations in war due to the fact that exceptionally few of the islands along these island chains boast US military forces. Ultimately, the only hope for the US to prevent China from becoming the global hegemon is if the US and its treaty allies survive to continue this new US-China Cold War fight, a strategic imperative that would be gravely imperiled in the event of an all-out war with the PRC that could quickly escalate to the nuclear level. 

The Diplomatic Option to Avert War with China

The fourth option would be for the US to mediate a peace agreement which aims to meet China’s minimum requirements for reunification that preserves Taiwan’s freedoms, secured by the retention of its armed forces. This last option is probably the least objectionable. The case for pursuing a policy of peaceful co-existence has not been so compelling since the end of the Cold War given the increasing risk of a nuclear apocalypse with China and its allies--Russia and North Korea.

Ultimately, the only way to prevent a Chinese blockade and/or invasion of Taiwan at some point during the next few years would be to negotiate a diplomatic compromise agreement that recognizes the national interests of both sides of the conflict. From a US perspective, the primary objective is for Taiwan to remain free from direct Communist control whereas for China the paramount objective is reunification with Taiwan based on the concept of “One China-Two Systems.” These two objectives may not be as unalterably opposed as they may seem at first glance. Former Chinese President Deng Xiaoping declared his support for reunification on this basis, stating that Taiwan could keep its political and economic system and even retain its own armed forces if it recognized Beijing’s sovereignty over Taiwan.

The United States could mediate such an agreement to prevent a potential war between the nuclear superpowers and ensure Taiwan retains a substantial level of self-determination. The key would be how to structure a reunification agreement to best ensure Taiwan retains its self-rule in perpetuity. Initial confidence building measures that could be taken would include the signing of a PRC-Taiwan Free Trade Agreement, the departure of all its estimated 300 US troops from Taiwan, which serve as little more than a nuclear tripwire to tie the hands of US presidents to wage war against the PRC if it attacks Taiwan, with the US committing to the principle of “non-interference” in cross-strait Chinese affairs.

In addition, the US and the PRC would commit not to deploy their major surface combatants, strategic bombers or stratospheric balloons, within 200 kilometers of each other with the US ending all naval warship sorties in the Taiwan Strait in order to avoid unnecessary and destabilizing provocations that do nothing to enhance US national security. Direct US military assistance to Taiwan would cease except for parts needed for Taiwan to maintain its existing military weapon systems. The US would sign a non-aggression pact with the PRC committing both nations not to go to war with each other as long as both sides refrain from attacking each other’s allies. In addition, Taiwan would change its official name from the Republic of China to Taiwan.

One promising solution to resolve the conflict would be a gradual economic integration of the PRC and Taiwan along the lines of the European Union allowing Taiwan to retain most of its sovereignty but without the implementation of a common currency. This proposed solution was first raised by former Taiwanese Vice President Annette Lu a few years ago, which she repeated in May 2022 following the Russian invasion of Ukraine although I was not aware of it until I was almost finished writing this article. Chinese leaders have not expressed any specific opposition to her proposal suggesting they might be willing to consider it. This would be followed by the negotiation of a common market and customs union between the PRC and Taiwan as well as the signing of a “National Unification Treaty” creating a new supranational entity, perhaps known as “the Chinese Union” (CU) or the Union of Chinese Republics (UCR). The Treaty would also provide for common citizenship between the PRC and Taiwan while preserving the right of Taiwanese citizens to emigrate if they so choose. There would be a firm near-term timeline set for the finalization of this new Chinese Union between 2025-2029. A mutual security agreement would also be signed between the PRC and Taiwan in conjunction with this treaty.

Leaders of Taiwan’s modern-day Pan-Blue Coalition with the historic Kuomantang Blue Sky White Sun symbol in the center

The new union could be headquartered in Hong Kong or Shanghai. In view of its substantially larger population, the PRC could have a 60-40% majority in a newly elected Chinese Union Congress with certain key decisions requiring a two-thirds vote with the exception of the election of a Chinese Union President (presumably Xi Jinping) with powers approximating the President of the European Commission that could be elected with a sixty percent vote. All Taiwanese representatives in the Union Congress would hail from the Kuomintang (KMT) Party, and its “Pan-Blue coalition” partners, which Chinese leaders view much more favorably than the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) which has traditionally supported Taiwanese independence because most KMT politicians support the 1992 ‘One China’ consensus. A new flag would be created for the Union combining the symbols of the PRC and Taiwan flags demonstrating unity and solidarity between the two entities replacing Taiwan’s current national flag.  Both sides would agree to issue international maps showing the PRC and Taiwan as parts of the new supranational Chinese Union state.  

A Union Council, with a much more equitable representation of PRC and Taiwanese leadership, chaired by the Union President, could coordinate joint foreign and defense policy as well as joint economic investment and research and development projects. Perpetual self-rule for Taiwan would be guaranteed under the Treaty and it would continue to have its own free market based economic, education, legal and immigration system with guaranteed religious freedoms with continued control of its state and local police forces, monetary and tariff policy. The power to tax and spend would remain exclusively in the hands of each side. There would continue to be free, democratic, multi-party elections but all all candidates and parties that advocate independence comprising the “Pan-Green coalition” would be banned from participating in the elections likely resulting in the KMT returning to being the ruling party. Taiwan could also continue to negotiate international commercial, economic and trade agreements.

This National Reunification Treaty would include provisions for mutual defense and security providing for increased PRC-Taiwan military cooperation and intelligence sharing. The Chinese Union could have a joint air and missile defense system and would conduct small-scale joint military exercises once a year or so but there would be no permanent PLA military presence or bases on Taiwan’s main island other than a single joint naval base in Kenting, located at the southern most tip of the island. Taiwan’s armed forces would continue to exist as a separate entity from the PLA.

This proposed agreement would only be undertaken in conjunction with the implementation of a broader US grand strategy designed to peacefully counteract China’s bid for global hegemony. Furthermore, the U.S. would only agree to mediate this Chinese reunification agreement with Taiwan in exchange for the PRC transferring control of its Panama Canal ports to the United States as well as closing its spy facilities and cutting off all military aid to Communist Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. The US would acknowledge Taiwan as part of China’s sphere of influence in exchange for a major reduction of Chinese influence in the Western Hemisphere. Such an agreement would serve to fully restore US hegemony in its own geopolitical backyard and prevent China from shutting down the Panama Canal in the event of a major conflict, while making the US much more safe and secure in the process by averting an unnecessary and destructive war over Taiwan.

It would also allow Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited (TSMC) to relocate its manufacturing plants to the United States in advance of reunification along with its human capital if they chose to do so. The U.S. should act proactively to ensure continued access to advanced Taiwanese semiconductor chips by providing very lucrative financial and tax incentives for TMSC to relocate its main manufacturing facilities to the U.S. as expeditiously as possible.

The agreement would also provide that in the event Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) opted to remain in Taiwan, rather than relocate to the US, it would continue to sell advanced semiconductors to the US and its allies unhindered and unimpeded by the PRC. In the event China materially violated the terms of this agreement in a way that seriously infringed on Taiwan’s self-governance or if it invaded another country, the US could respond by completely decoupling its economy from China. The US would also strive to form a US-led trade bloc to counter the PRC not only with our western allies but with Russia and India as well after negotiating an peace agreement with Russia ending the war in Ukraine and signing a mutual security agreement with them to neutralize the Sino-Russian military alliance.

Optionally, such a reunification deal could also be linked to a mutually acceptable diplomatic resolution of the Korean conflict. In exchange for North Korea freezing the size of its nuclear arsenal, destroying its nuclear weapons production facilities and crashing its two super-EMP satellites orbiting over the United States greatly reducing the existential threat of North Korean super-EMP attack to the US homeland, the US would lift economic sanctions on North Korea and would mediate the signing of a peace treaty ending the Korean War. This could be followed by a full withdrawal of US troops from the Korean peninsula while maintaining the US nuclear guarantee to defend South Korea along with Japan, the Philippines and Australia. It would then be possible for the liberalization of relations between North and South Korea as well, including normalized diplomatic and trade relations.

Lest Chinese leaders delude themselves into believing US agreement to conclude a negotiated settlement to prevent war over Taiwan constituted an act of weakness, the US would act swiftly to massively expand the size and strength of its nuclear deterrent by following Russia in suspending the New START Treaty while reassembling and redeploying all 2,000 strategic nuclear warheads in reserve. The US would also put all of its nuclear-capable B-52H nuclear bombers back on 24 hour strip alert, double the number of US nuclear bombers by converting all 60 of its B-1 bombers, and over 30 additional B-52H bombers, back to the nuclear role, quadruple the number of our submarine launched nuclear warheads and triple the number of land-based nuclear warheads. Furthermore, we would redeploy nuclear warheads on all US Navy aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers and attack submarines to re-establish deterrence with China with regards to America’s Pacific treaty allies.

In addition, the US would replace Presidential Decision Directive (PDD)-60 with its “launch on impact” nuclear posture with a “launch on warning” posture, increase our nuclear alert level to DEFCON 3 (roughly equivalent to Russia’s lowest nuclear alert status) until the crisis over Ukraine and Taiwan have been resolved, while increasing the number of our nuclear ballistic missile submarines in the Pacific by fifty percent. Finally and perhaps most importantly, the US would build a comprehensive, multi-layered national missile defense system with over 5,000 ABM interceptors and harden our electrical power grid against super EMP attack in accordance with the recommendations of a book I recently co-authored entitled, “Catastrophe Now-America’s Last Chance to Prevent an EMP Disaster.”

An Interim Solution Might Also Avert War

It’s possible that the PRC might be satisfied with the adoption of some but not all the recommendations outlined above as an interim solution while a permanent resolution of Taiwan’s status is still being negotiated. The most important way to avoid a catastrophic war likely to include the US and some or all of its Treaty allies would be some kind of mutual security agreement with China that would minimally include a non-aggression pact along with a US commitment to a policy of non-interference in Taiwan and the Taiwan Straits perhaps in return for a reciprocal Chinese concession in the Western Hemisphere (including Cuba, Nicaragua and/or Venezuela).

This could be accompanied by a commitment by both sides to pursue a policy of peaceful co-existence possibly including a US commitment to the peaceful negotiation of the PRC’s claims over parts of the South China Sea. As part of such an agreement, the US would commit to effectively end its security relationship with Taiwan (including a suspension of major arms sales) in return for certain assurances from Beijing and accept a new status-quo leading to some mutually agreed upon level of political, economic and/or security alignment with the PRC.

Unfortunately, there is a profound bias against the kind of strategic out-of-the-box thinking outlined above within today’s neo-imperialist foreign policy establishment in both US major political parties that rewards national security experts for conventional thinking that stays within proscribed restraints but disparages constructive proposals to resolve international conflicts without war as “appeasement.” The prevailing misconception that such a Nixonian strategic accommodation that successfully averts a potentially existential and unnecessary war, and thereby helps to protect and preserve the lives of over 285 million American citizens, would somehow constitute an act of appeasement is a myth that must be actively rebutted by America First foreign policy realists and restrainers.

While such proposed Sino-Taiwanese and Korean peace agreements would be far from ideal, it would go a long way towards ending the increasing threat of nuclear war that now confronts the US and its allies both over the China-Taiwan conflict and the conflict between North and South Korea. I believe it is imperative that US leaders be willing to entertain imaginative solutions entailing robust diplomatic options with our nuclear adversaries to come up with such a new strategic framework that would facilitate a peaceful resolution of both international disputes. Doing so would be the best hope the US and its allies have to avoid a potentially catastrophic nuclear conflict that could potentially cost hundreds of millions of lives.

© David T. Pyne 2024

David T. Pyne, Esq. is a former U.S. Army combat arms and Headquarters staff officer, who was in charge of armaments cooperation with the former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Africa and the Americas from 2000-2003, with an M.A. in National Security Studies from Georgetown University. He currently serves as President of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security and as a member of the Committee on the Present Danger-China. He recently served as Defense and Foreign Policy Advisor to former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy. He has also co-authored the best-selling new book, “Catastrophe Now--America’s Last Chance to Avoid an EMP Disaster” and his new book “Restoring Strategic Deterrence” will be published in early fall 2024. He serves as the Editor of “The Real War” newsletter at dpyne.substack.com and previously served as a contributor to “The National Interest”. Here is a link to his interview archive. He may be reached at emptaskforce.ut@gmail.com.

Recent Interviews

July 22nd—Interview with Nima Alkhorshid on the Dialogue Works podcast to discuss my new ten-point peace plan to end the war in Ukraine, transform Russia from an adversary to a strategic partner, end its threat to the US and NATO and deter Chinese aggression by neutralizing its alliance with Russia. Here is a link to the interview.

July 22nd—Interview with Pascal Lottaz on his Neutrality Studies podcast to discuss my new peace plan to end the war in Ukraine, transform Russia from an adversary to a strategic partner, end its threat to the US and NATO and deter Chinese aggression by neutralizing its alliance with Russia. Here is a link to the interview.

July 23rd—Interview with Jon Twitchell on Talk with Jon on KTALK AM 1640 to discuss the Republican National Convention, the attempted Trump assassination and how Biden’s decision to drop out and endorse Kamala Harris for President will effect the outcome of the November 2024 presidential election. Here is a link to the interview.

July 26th—Interview with Brannon Howse on Patriot TV to discuss the Trump assassination and the threat from 80 missing Russian suitcase one kiloton nuclear weapons. Here is a link to the interview.

August 6th—Interview with Jon Twitchell on Talk with Jon on KTALK AM 1640 to discuss the Republican National Convention, the attempted Trump assassination and Kamala Harris’ decision to choose Tim Walz as her vice presidential running mate. Here is a link to the interview.

August 13th—Interview with Col. Rob Maness on the Rob Maness Show to discuss my new Ukraine War peace plan showing how Trump could end the war within 24 hours of his inauguration. Here is the link to the interview.

August 14th—Interview with Brannon Howse to discuss my new Ukraine War peace plan showing how Trump could end the war within 24 hours of his inauguration as well as Kamala Harris’ Manchurian vice presidential running mate, Gov. Tim Walz, who is a far left extremist enamored with the murderous Communist Chinese terror regime. Here is the link.

August 20th—Interview with Jon Twitchell on Talk with Jon on KTALK AM 1640 to discuss Kamala Harris’ decision to choose Tim Walz as her Manchurian vice presidential candidate and my latest plan to end the Ukraine War. Here is a link to the interview.

Upcoming Interviews

August 26th—Interview with Col. Rob Maness on the Rob Maness Show to discuss whether the US could win a full-scale war with China and talk about my latest China-Taiwan peace plan detailing how the US could negotiate a resolution to the conflict that would allow Taiwan continued self-rule and continued control of its armed forces.