If the PRC were to do it, I would imagine you would try to do it under the Trump administration as he is anti-interventionist and sees the world as a series of regional fiefdoms led by the strongest regional player--Asia, to him, is China's region. This is in sharp contrast to every prior US administration and with the Biden administration in particular coming out with the strongest rhetoric regarding any potential invasion.
The action on Iran proves otherwise, especially since his entire anti-interventionist wing was squealing that World War III would start if he did bomb the nuclear sites.
Those around the president have been pretty clear that the US will defend Taiwan until the US is capable of its own supply of leading edge semi conductors. Taiwan is very easy to defend with the harsh ocean separating them, especially since North Korea gives the US an excuse to plant massive amounts of long range missiles in SK.
There are no surprises when attacks start in the era of real time world video satellites.
I think the limited actions in Iran are not at all comparable to the commitment and risks involved in directly defending Taiwan from invasion or naval / aerial blockade. With that said, I do think that the US is likely to intervene in some capacity regardless of admin, but slightly less so with the current admin.
I am pretty sure the US is investing hard into naval drones. There's a reason Russia cannot use it's naval fleet in Ukraine as cheap torpedos and drones destroy ships.
Ships are basically sitting ducks if they are within range of drones. I am surprised better anti drone weaponry hasn’t been deployed. I would think bird shot cannons would be highly effective.
There's been a spike in news articles on the invasion the last couple of weeks. Given that the US appears to not hold on to any alliances or assurances, and ~~incontinent~~ incompetent in chief is on the helm, it seems that they've the perfect opportunity. Europe's busy with Russia, US is busy with itself, so honestly, why not?
Because it might not work out so well for them? Let's not kid ourselves, this would be an invasion by sea against an opponent who's prepared for many years, has a modern defense force, and has explicitly designed a defense protocol to inflict as much damage as possible. This is not Russia stepping over fields they already encircle that are governed by a dysfunctional government. And it's not Isreal being allowed to bomb impoverished children with impunity either. And neither of those scenarios have worked out splendidly for them either.
A state's security doctrine, in compressed form, needs to be "assume the worst".
Slightly less compressed, it should be "When a nearby state keeps saying they own you, then take the credible threat seriously and pretty much pretend they're going to act on that, even if you think it would be stupid of them to do that, because history is full of examples of states doing this kind of thing. Prepare accordingly".
