How Trump Can Avoid World War Three with China Over Taiwan

US should pre-empt a looming Chinese blockade by offering to mediate immediate "unification" negotiations for an EU style confederation & end the Ukraine War to split the Sino-Russian alliance.

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 in September 2023. Here is the link to my original peace proposal.

Executive Summary

President Donald J. Trump campaigned for re-election on a laudable platform of no new wars and averting the outbreak of direct wars with Russia and China in particular. Since he returned to the White House, he has been working hard to negotiate a cease-fire and peace agreement with Russia ending the war in Ukraine. However, the principal threat of a direct war between the US and another nuclear superpower is likely not with Russia over Ukraine. Rather, it is with the People’s Republic of China over its 75-year claim to sovereignty over Taiwan, which the Trump administration has not yet addressed.

Chinese President Xi Jinping has made clear that he is willing to use force if necessary to reunite Taiwan with the Chinese mainland by the end of this year or 2027 at the latest. As I warned would likely occur a few weeks ago, the People’s Liberation Army has begun what one national security analyst is referring to as a “pre-invasion operation.” This Joint Air-Naval Blockade Exercise is involving the PLA Army, Navy, Coast Guard, Air Force and Strategic Rocket Forces which are practicing a coordinated seizure of the sea and airspace around Taiwan, blockading Taiwanese sea lanes and launching attacks against maritime and ground targets.

The PLA Navy is now surrounding the island of Taiwan from multiple directions, an undertaking that could be converted into a full-blockade with little warning. A potential conflict between the US and the PRC over Taiwan that would likely escalate to the nuclear level should the US opt to defend Taiwan militarily from a Chinese blockade and/or invasion could be mere months, weeks, or even days away.

The Trump administration should act to pre-empt this looming Chinse blockade and potential nuclear crisis with the PRC by either declaring the US will not defend Taiwan militarily or that it is willing to mediate immediate “unification” negotiations on the basis of an EU-style confederation between the PRC and Taiwan along the lines of my peace proposal below. At the same time, the US should threaten to implement harsh economic sanctions against the PRC if they attack Taiwan and reiterate that the US will defend its Pacific Treaty allies and that all options will be on the table in the event they are attacked.

Given the increasing threat of a US-China military clash over Taiwan, it is urgent that the Trump administration act to weaken China’s increasingly powerful military alliance system and prevent Russia from potentially joining the PRC in a multi-front world war against the US and its allies. The best way to do so and the best hope of deterring China from invading Taiwan would be for President Trump to accelerate the realization of his signature foreign policy objective to negotiate a durable and enduring peace ending America’s proxy war with Russia in Ukraine. To do so, the Trump administration should immediately agree to Russia’s main peace terms in exchange for their agreement to an immediate 30-day cease-fire while pressuring Ukraine to accept those terms to end the conflict.

Then, President Trump can implement his planned, brilliant “Reverse Nixon” maneuver and pursue a grand strategic partnership for peace with Russia which would effectively neutralize its military alliance with the PRC. A successful resolution of the Russo-Ukrainian conflict would allow us to surge tens of thousands of troops from Eastern Europe to the Western Pacific to deter Chinese aggression. It would also allow us to redeploy them to the US homeland to take control of the Panama Canal if China stages an amphibious invasion of Taiwan in furtherance of Trump’s new national security strategy.

The proposal below could provide the Trump administration with a useful template to negotiate a peaceful diplomatic settlement with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) that could preserve Taiwan’s self-rule, political and economic freedoms, as well as its control over its armed forces. Such a negotiated compromise agreement might be mutually acceptable to both sides in averting the outbreak of an unnecessary and cataclysmic war between the two nuclear superpowers that both sides would prefer to avoid. It would also avert a massive disruption in US-China trade that could result in a severe US economic recession and provide us with additional time to relocate TSMC’s advanced semiconductor production facilities to the U.S.

The Correlation of Forces Has Shifted Dramatically Over the Past Few Decades

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 reunification 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 alarming number of powerful nuclear-capable missile systems far in excess of our own 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. Meanwhile, 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 nearly twice as large as ours and 3.8 times larger by Purchase Power Parity 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 the Trump administration made the decision to defend it militarily, China would almost certainly enjoy escalation dominance over the US given Taiwan is its number one vital interest while its loss would not be a game changer for us. 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, but in terms of Purchase Power Parity, China now spends nearly twice as much on its military than the US does. Furthermore, 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 Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missile (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 month.

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 or else attempt to retake Taiwan with a US amphibious invasion conducted thousands of miles from US shores. Second, the US could establish the same strategic clarity with China and Taiwan that President Joe Biden 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 likely 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 determined by the PRC.

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 and, even worse, invite a massive Chinese pre-emptive attack against US military bases in the region. 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. Meanwhile 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 if the Trump administration proves unwilling to agree to its main peace terms which it has said must be accepted in any peace agreement ending the war in Ukraine in order to help ensure its neutrality in such a conflict. US intelligence has assessed that Russia could aid China in 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. Furthermore, the PRC could potentially use its theater nuclear supremacy to compel the US to accept their peace terms in the event of an outbreak of a direct war between our two superpowers.

Meanwhile, the US Navy continues to use up its extremely limited supply of long-range precision guided munitions combatting secondary, or perhaps even tertiary, threats in the Middle East. During the Biden administration, the US Navy was unable to prevent attacks on international shipping by the Houthis after several months of combat operations with one three-star admiral conceding that the US will not succeed in defeating them militarily and will have to employ international diplomacy to resolve the crisis. Not even the deployment of over one-third of the US Navy’s aircraft carrier strike groups to the Middle East enabled us to prevail over them. Victory remains elusive for the US against the Houthis even following a couple of weeks of sustained and intense bombing strikes. Accordingly, how could we hope to defend the PLA Navy which is infinitely more capable with naval superiority over the US in the East and South China Seas? Disturbingly, the US recently diverted one of its carrier strike groups from the Western Pacific to the Middle East region, increasing the chances that the PLA Navy could be successful in dominating the seas inside the Second Island Chain 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 or even a four 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 several years to accomplish even after President Trump leaves office.

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 resources in a futile effort to repel a Chinese invasion of Taiwan using airpower alone. The other option US leaders 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 devastating 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 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. Some of the more hawkish members of the Trump administration might prefer all-out war with the PRC rather than being restricted 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 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? Thankfully, President Donald Trump’s statements during his campaign suggest he is concerned about whether fighting a world war with China in an attempted defense of Taiwan most likely resulting 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. He notes that a decision to risk thermonuclear war with China to defend Taiwan when we would have such a low prospect 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 while reiterating our policy of strategic ambiguity in order to maintain our negotiation leverage. 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, North Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

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 if necessary 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 might 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. In addition, the US and the PRC would commit not to deploy their major surface combatants, strategic bombers or stratospheric balloons within two-hundred kilometers of each other’s borders with the US ending all “freedom of navigation” US naval sorties through the Taiwan Strait to avoid unnecessary and destabilizing provocations that do nothing to enhance US national security. The US could also firmly express its opposition to any moves on the part of Taiwan to exert its independence. 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 massively larger population, the PRC might have a 65-35% 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-five 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. Taiwan would continue to hold 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 Unification 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 could 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. could agree to mediate this Chinese unification agreement with Taiwan in exchange for the PRC transferring control of its Panama Canal ports to the United States once the agreement is finalized 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 Moscow 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. Reports indicate that President Trump is already planning a US military withdrawal of all US troops in the Korean peninsula. 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. We would follow 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, double the number of land-based nuclear warheads and more than double the number of our submarine-launched 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) or at least DEFCON 4 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 “Golden Dome” national missile defense system with over 5,000 mostly space-based ABM interceptors. We should also 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 or even if the Trump administration were to opt not to mediate peace talks for a new supranational Chinese confederation. The US could negotiate some kind of mutual security agreement with China that would minimally include a non-aggression pact committing both nations not to go to war with each other as long as both sides refrain from attacking each other’s treaty allies. The US would commit to the principle of “non-interference” in cross-strait Chinese affairs. As part of such an agreement, the US could commit to effectively end its security relationship with Taiwan and accept a new status-quo for Taiwan leading to some mutually agreed upon level of political, economic and/or security alignment with the PRC. Direct US military assistance to Taiwan would cease except for parts needed for Taiwan to maintain its existing military weapon systems. These measures could be taken to defuse the increasing possibility of the outbreak of an all-out war between the US and the PRC.

The US would only do so in return for reciprocal Chinese concessions in the Western Hemisphere with China committing to a policy of non-interference in the Western Hemisphere including most importantly a withdrawal of all PLA troops from the Panama Canal ports and transferring them to US control. 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.

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 those who dare to offer constructive proposals to resolve international conflicts without war as “appeasers.” 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 286 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 preventing a dangerous escalation spiral that could soon confront 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 2025

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 is the former President and current Deputy Executive Director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security. He also serves 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 July 2025. 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 also posts multiple times a day on X at @AmericaFirstCon. He may be reached at emptaskforce.ut@gmail.com.

Recent Interviews

March 1st—Interview with Greg Allison on his show to discuss the Trump-Zelensky feud, the prospects for a peace deal ending the war in Ukraine, the increasing fissures between the US and EU and whether it would be better for US national security to pull the US out of NATO entirely.

March 3rd—Panel Interview with Brannon Howse, COL Rob Maness and Leo Hohmann on Brannon Howse Live to discuss the fiery aftermath of the Trump-Zelensky meeting at the White House, the prospects for peace, the growing fissures between the US and its European “allies” and the threats I am most worried about materializing in the next few months.

March 3rd—Interview on the Dr. Maria show on Lindell TV to discuss the ramifications of Friday’s Trump-Zelensky shouting match in the Oval Office on the upcoming US-Russia peace deal ending the war in Ukraine.

March 5th—Interview with Nima Alkhorshid on his Dialogue Works podcast to discuss President Trump’s decision to cut off all military aid to Ukraine. We will also discuss the future of Europe whose leaders are doing everything they can to join Zelensky in supporting his efforts to sabotage Trump’s noble effort to negotiate peace and a new strategic partnership with Russia.

March 6th—Interview with Brannon Howse on Brannon Howse Live to discuss Trump’s latest comments that he will only defend NATO countries that pay their fair share making America’s Article V security guarantee conditional rather than "“ironclad.” We will also discuss Trump’s efforts to replace Zelensky, China’s plan to send troops to fight in Ukraine and Trump’s efforts to get Britain or France to replace the US as the military leader of NATO.

March 7th—Interview with Brannon Howse on Brannon Howse Live to discuss Trump’s latest comments that Zelensky is much harder to negotiate with, his plans to send a US delegation to negotiate a peace framework with Ukraine in Saudi Arabia next week and Russia’s February 18th offer for a temporary truce after a peace framework not involving NATO peacekeeping troops in Ukraine had been substantially agreed upon.

March 13th—Interview with Brannon Howse on his Worldview Weekend Radio Show to discuss the latest development with regards to peace negotiations with Russia and Ukraine to end the war including Ukraine’s cease-fire terms and Putin’s response.

March 17th—Interview with Brannon Howse on Brannon Howse Live to discuss growing reports that the US is preparing to engage in joint US-Israeli missile strikes on Iran as the Trump administration continues to ramp up attacks on the Houthis as well as Chinese preparations to invade Taiwan as early as April.

March 18th—Interview with Brannon Howse on his Worldview Weekend Radio Show to discuss the latest developments with regards to US and Israeli air and missile strikes on Yemen, Gaza, Lebanon and Syria and the chances it may lead to a direct war between the US and Israel that could bring in Russia and China.

March 18th—Interview with Brannon Howse on Brannon Howse Live to discuss the outcome of the three-hour long Trump-Putin phone call and the chances it could lead to a permanent end to the war in Ukraine. We will also discuss how America’s alliances don’t make us safer but rather put Americans at far greater risk of World War Three than if the US were to commit not to intervene militarily in Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Taiwan.

March 20th—Interview with Brannon Howse on Brannon Howse Live to discuss the ramifications of the Ukrainian drone attack on Russia’s Engels air base which may have damaged some of Russia’s T-160 “Blackjack” nuclear bombers and his continuing attempts to get the US and NATO into a direct war with Russia. We will also discuss reported Russian military buildups in Belarus and Kaliningrad and how they may relate to China’s preparations to blockade and/or invade Taiwan as early as next month.

March 21st- Interview on the Dr. Maria show on Lindell TV to discuss the ramifications of the Ukrainian drone attack on Russia’s Engels air base which may have damaged some of Russia’s T-160 “Blackjack” nuclear bombers and his continuing attempts to get the US and NATO into a direct war with Russia.

March 21st—Interview with KUTV 2 News reporter David Ochoa about the Rep. Mike Kennedy and Rep. Celeste Malloy townhall in which they were booed and heckled by boisterous liberal protesters calling for them to impeach President Trump for DOGE cuts and defying judicial orders to bring back criminal gang members to the U.S.

March 21st—Interview with Brannon Howse on Brannon Howse Live to discuss the ramifications of the fire at London’s Heathrow Airport which stopped all flights at the UK’s largest airport as well as the US decision to move a carrier strike group from the Western Pacific to the Middle East at a time that China may be on the verge of invading Taiwan.

March 25th—Interview on Main Street Radio with Jon Twitchell to discuss the progress of US and Russian negotiations on a peace deal to end the war in Ukraine and form a US-Russia grand strategic partnership for peace as well as the chances that China will blockade Taiwan in early April.

March 25th—Interview with Brannon Howse on Brannon Howse Live to discuss the leak of imminent plans for US military strikes on the Houthis in a Signal group between top Trump administration national security officials to a leftwing news magazine editor and whether any of the officials responsible should face disciplinary measures from President Trump including dismissal.

March 26th—Interview with Brannon Howse on Brannon Howse Live to discuss a US intelligence official’s assertion that National Security Mike Waltz lied about knowing Atlantic news magazine’s Jeffrey Goldberg and that he was a source for Goldberg’s articles while he was on the US intelligence committee as well as Deputy National Security Advisor Alex Wong’s family ties to the CCP.

March 31st—Interview with Brannon Howse on Brannon Howse Live to discuss the leak of the DoD guidance memo saying NATO can not expect the US to defend them, ending all war planning to fight Russia at a time the Trump administration is surging US troops and even US nukes to NATO’s eastern border to threaten Russia.

Upcoming Interviews

April 2nd—Interview with Brannon Howse on Brannon Howse Live to discuss whether China’s Joint Exercise Strait Thunder-2025A is a prelude to a full blockade of Taiwan and whether China would benefit from a Trump decision to start a new war against Iran and bomb Iranian nuclear sites.

April 4th—I will be giving a 75-minute presentation at the Highland Community Center at 5378 West 10400 North in Highland, Utah at 7pm followed by a 30-minute question and answer session. It will include all my latest US national security and foreign policy updates especially Trump’s chances of negotiating an end to the war in Ukraine.

April 15th—Interview on Main Street Radio with Jon Twitchell to discuss the latest developments with regards to Trump’s drive to end the war in Ukraine, his threats to bomb a nuclear-armed Iran and potentially start World War Three and the chances that China will blockade Taiwan in April.