Follow us on social

Shutterstock_518940985-scaled

War with China over Taiwan won't end well for anyone

As talk of defending Taipei militarily against invasion heats up in Washington, a new wargame offers a dose of reality.

Analysis | Reporting | Asia-Pacific

What would it look like if China invaded Taiwan in 2026? That is the question that a wargame report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, tries to answer.

The outcome is quite harrowing for all parties, according to “The First Battle of the Next War: Wargaming a Chinese Invasion of Taiwan,” which was released on Monday. The wargame simulated an amphibious invasion of Taiwan 24 times, accounting for possible scenarios ranging from a quick Chinese defeat to a protracted stalemate, to a Chinese victory.

The large majority of the outcomes do not foresee a Beijing victory. In any of the tested scenarios, however, an invasion of Taiwan would exact massive costs on the island itself, China, the United States, and Japan. 

“A conflict with China, would be fundamentally unlike the regional conflicts and  counterinsurgencies that the United States has experienced since World War II, with casualties exceeding anything in recent memory,” the report warns. “The high losses would damage the United States’ global position for many years.”

The report suggests that those who argue that China now has clear military superiority in the Taiwan Strait and thus is on the verge of attacking the island should think again. This study, and an earlier study conducted by the Quincy Institute, indicate that any military attack on Taiwan would be an enormous gamble for Beijing and likely to result in a Chinese defeat. It is an option that Beijing would likely only take if provoked, for example by Washington abandoning the One China policy or deploying combat forces to Taiwan. At the same time, the costs of a war over Taiwan would be enormous for all sides and certainly no easy win for the United States.  

The report warns that once China launches an invasion — and if the United States decides the best option is to defend Taiwan — there is no “Ukraine model” for Taiwan; the United States could not simply send supplies, it would also have to send troops directly into combat, and do so immediately to limit casualties. And the results would still be catastrophic. 

The CSIS wargame estimates that the United States would lose 3,200 troops in the first three weeks of combat with China. That number is nearly half of all the American troops that died in two decades of war in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. 

In an event launching this report on Monday, Becca Wasser, lead of The Gaming Lab at the Center for a New American Security, noted that the American public has not yet come to grips with the potential consequences of such a scenario.

“Is the United States ready as a nation to accept losses that would come from, say, a carrier strike group sunk at the bottom of the Pacific?,” she asked. “We have not had to face losses like that as a nation for quite some time. And it would actually create broader societal change that I’m not sure we’ve totally grappled with.”

The consequences are similarly high for China. In the base scenario, CSIS estimates that China would suffer 155 combat aircraft losses and 138 ship losses (compared to 270 and 17 losses for the United States, respectively). This scenario also estimates 7,000 Chinese ground casualties, “roughly a third of whom are assumed killed. Another roughly 15,000 soldiers were lost at sea, with half assumed killed.”

Even though most outcomes conclude with Taiwan successfully fighting off China’s invasion, the repercussions are disastrous for the island, as well. The Taiwanese military, says the report, “is severely degraded and left to defend a damaged economy on an island without electricity and basic services.” In most outcomes, Taiwan’s entire navy was destroyed and army casualties averaged about 3,500. 

Given the high stakes involved in any full-blown Sino-U.S. conflict over Taiwan, one cannot dismiss the possibility that either Beijing or Washington might employ nuclear threats or signaling, or even deploy tactical nuclear weapons to avert an impending defeat. The report recognizes this possibility, although it does not examine it. The possibility of nuclear conflict reinforces further the need to avoid a Taiwan conflagration at virtually all costs,

The results of the simulations, and the recommendations offered in the report, in general reflect those found in the Quincy Institute’s earlier Active Denial report. Simulations conducted for that study produced similar results, and its recommendations were virtually identical, stressing the need for the United States to harden bases in Japan, employ smaller carriers, increase inventories of anti-ship missiles, and deploy more submarines and bombers equipped with missiles, among other things.

But even these actions will not by themselves ensure that China would be deterred from attacking Taiwan, if Washington backs Beijing into a corner. The ultimate lesson of these and other war games is that credible political and diplomatic assurances by the United States and China regarding, respectively, One China and the possibility of peaceful unification, are essential for keeping peace in the Taiwan Strait.   

The CSIS report does not suggest policy prescriptions or take a position on whether the  United States would or should become directly involved in a conflict over Taiwan. But it is clear eyed about the high costs, and, as a result, the importance of avoiding a direct confrontation to begin with.


Taipei, Taiwan - October 02, 2016: Taiwanese soldiers wearing various style, ceremonial uniforms on Liberdade square in Taiwan. Editorial credit: Nowaczyk / Shutterstock.com
Analysis | Reporting | Asia-Pacific
US Marines
Top image credit: U.S. Marines with Force Reconnaissance Platoon, Maritime Raid Force, 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, prepare to clear a room during a limited scale raid exercise at Sam Hill Airfield, Queensland, Australia, June 21, 2025. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Alora Finigan)

Cartels are bad but they're not 'terrorists.' This is mission creep.

Military Industrial Complex

There is a dangerous pattern on display by the Trump administration. The president and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth seem to hold the threat and use of military force as their go-to method of solving America’s problems and asserting state power.

The president’s reported authorization for the Pentagon to use U.S. military warfighting capacity to combat drug cartels — a domain that should remain within the realm of law enforcement — represents a significant escalation. This presents a concerning evolution and has serious implications for civil liberties — especially given the administration’s parallel moves with the deployment of troops to the southern border, the use of federal forces to quell protests in California, and the recent deployment of armed National Guard to the streets of our nation’s capital.

keep readingShow less
Howard Lutnick
Top photo credit: Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick on CNBC, 8/26/25 (CNBC screengrab)

Is nationalizing the defense industry such a bad idea?

Military Industrial Complex

The U.S. arms industry is highly consolidated, specialized, and dependent on government contracts. Indeed, the largest U.S. military contractors are already effectively extensions of the state — and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is right to point that out.

His suggestion in a recent media appearance to partially nationalize the likes of Lockheed Martin is hardly novel. The economist John Kenneth Galbraith argued for the nationalization of the largest military contractors in 1969. More recently, various academics and policy analysts have advocated for partial or full nationalization of military firms in publications including The Nation, The American Conservative, The Middle East Research and Information Project (MERIP), and The Seattle Journal for Social Justice.

keep readingShow less
Modi Trump
Top image credit: White House, February 2025

Trump's India problem could become a Global South crisis

Asia-Pacific

As President Trump’s second term kicked off, all signs pointed to a continued upswing in U.S.-India relations. At a White House press conference in February, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi spoke of his vision to “Make India Great Again” and how the United States under Trump would play a central role. “When it’s MAGA plus MIGA, it becomes a mega partnership for prosperity,” Modi said.

During Trump’s first term, the two populist leaders hosted rallies for each other in their respective countries and cultivated close personal ties. Aside from the Trump-Modi bromance, U.S.-Indian relations have been on a positive trajectory for over two decades, driven in part by mutual suspicion of China. But six months into his second term, Trump has taken several actions that have led to a dramatic downturn in U.S.-India relations, with India-China relations suddenly on the rise.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.