Until very recently, I did not believe that there is any chance that China will attempt to invade Taiwan in the near future.
Nevertheless, after USA has not remained content to try to cripple the Chinese semiconductor manufacturing industry, but now it pressures Taiwan to stop manufacturing integrated circuits for China, I have become worried for the first time that a Chinese invasion is no longer impossible.
If Taiwan does not manufacture Chinese ICs any more, then Taiwan is no longer valuable for China and they do not have any reason to care whether the Taiwanese industry is destroyed, because such a destruction will not change anything for them. This removes one of the most important costs of an invasion decision.
It should be pretty clear in 2022 that wars can be started despite the negative economic gain, so whether China is interested in Taiwan industry or not can bear very little weight for the decision makers.
I think China’s goal of annexing Taiwan is more due to principle/propaganda and military/strategic reasons than anything economic. Presumably they’d rather avoid destroying Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, but I doubt that’s their main concern.
China will invade Taiwan regardless because their "Great Leader" has made it the center of his foreign policy. Now that there's no more opposition to his rule we can only wait for the ax to fall.
I've already come to the conclusion China has won this fight, because the economic cost will be too great for the West to bare.
My advice to the Biden Administration would be to deprecate the relations with Taiwan to lower expectations of an intervention.
I've come to the opposite conclusion that China won't invade the Republic of China because China has won this fight already. Unless they really, really have to because the Republic of China has declared independence from China. They have stated this many, many times already.
Cast your mind back 150 years or so. The Union only declared war and invaded the Confederacy because of the same reason.
No side wins in a Civil War.
Incidentally, the Chinese Civil War is a frozen conflict, but still ongoing even though a Truce is in effect. It's almost exactly the same thing as the ongoing Korean War that's never been concluded after 70-odd years.
I wish we could just de-escalate the situation with China. Dial back some of the economic squabbling as well as the military posturing. The West and China need each other economically, and both Biden and Xi are smart enough-- and old enough to remember nuclear terror-- to not want WWIII.
I feel like most of the escalation is coming from the West though. They're the ones tossing around sanctions and national-security noise on speculation-- China might invade Taiwan. Are they willing to upset the order that's maintained stability for decades, and likely derail their economic miracle, over a symbolic chunk of rock? We can't ignore the "economic miracle" angle when comparing with, say, Russia/Ukraine-- Russia can justify an invasion by tossing around a "we've been abused and mocked since 1991, what do we have to lose" narrative, while China's star has been continually rising, so there's no need to recover lost prestige. Ironically, more sanctions and reduced detente could actually encourage an invasion, by reducing the economic ties and stoking fresh hostility, getting closer to the "what do we have to lose" moment.
I feel like the problem is much more on a philosophical level. We're still remixing the Cold War. The current Western/Private Enterprise ecosystem needs to be able to say "THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE. NOTHING ELSE WILL EVER WORK. IT'S HUMAN NATURE." If we start successfully exploring alternatives, there's a risk of dislodging entrenched wealth. So if a state-capitalist or outright socialist state becomes competitive, the West instinctively responds with full (metaphoric) guns blazing to hobble it. The last thing the current ruling classes want is for people to start saying "Things are actually better off in China" and start asking "so how are they achieving that? Did it involve putting Jack Ma on a tighter leash than we give Elon Musk?"
I personally want to see China succeed. Domestically, they're too big to fail. It's not like we have a way to peacefully and seamlessly transition a country of 1.4 billion people to some shiny new alternative. (Airdropping a fait-accompli democracy is a proven-terrible strategy). On an international-affairs level, we need a more multi-polar world-- we've seen (Iraq, Afghanistan) what happens when we have a single superpower with no real checks to its impunity. On a philosophical level, we shouldn't be packing all the eggs in the Western-Style Free Market/Democracy basket, because we're approaching, if not in a major transition point. We know these systems work somewhat in an age of bounty (cheap fossil fuels, absorbing and consuming an entire new hemisphere in 500 years, slashing of communications costs and latency) but will they still function smoothly in a coming age of scarcity (resource exhaustion, climate change)?
> I feel like most of the escalation is coming from the West though. They're the ones tossing around sanctions and national-security noise on speculation-- China might invade Taiwan.
China is free to anytime declare their intention of never invading Taiwan. China is free to anytime officially recognize the fact that the PRC and the ROC are two separate governments of two separate countries. China is free to anytime clarify to the world that they truly value peace. But really it doesn’t seem that they do.
The US is free at any time to stop invading other countries, trying to overthrow other countries, and enter into conflicts thousands of miles from their borders. But really, it doesn't seem that they do.
The US has invaded or attacked over 120 countries since 1991[1]. Absolutely none of them were a threat to the United States. How many countries has China invaded in the same period? How many has it bombed? Imposed sanctions on? Occupied?
The article is about prospects of war between the US and China. According to official US policy, which is the One China policy, Taiwan and mainland China are the same country, and any disputes between the mainland and Taiwan is an intra-chinese dispute, not a dispute between two separate countries, and not anything that involves the U.S. at all.
Now if, for some reason, Taiwan declares independence, then it will be up to other nations to recognize that declaration of independence or not. But that has not happened.
Let me ask you, did you recognize the independence of Donetsk People's Republic, Lugansk People's Republic, South Ossetia, Kurdish Republic in Iraq, or The Republic of Tigray? Each of these had de facto control -- they have their own police, flag, they control their territory, etc. Some even have oil. These actually declared independence whereas Taiwan never did.
But you will respond, other nations didn't recognize their independence, to which I will ask, who recognizes Taiwanese independence? Not even Taiwan. So what we have here is the phenomenon of a "breakaway region". That is, territory in one nation that is not under the control of the central government, but under local control in that territory, but which no one recognizes as an independent nation. There are many such breakaway regions in the world. Usually the central government tries to conquer the breakaway region, and sometimes it fails. This is generally not considered an "invasion".
Do you think it was an invasion when Georgia tried to reconquer South Ossetia, or when Ukraine attacked the DNR and LPR or when Ethiopia attacked Tigray? Or did you view that as an internal matter, of putting down a rebellious breakaway region? Think carefully before you answer, as we are looking for consistency. What about Serbia and the province of Kosovo? Moldova and Transnistria?
It does seem like there is a whole lot of cherry picking going on here, where if there is an enemy of the U.S. fighting a breakaway region, then we have to honor the bold independence movement, but when there is a friend of the US fighting a breakaway republic, then we condemn the evil separatists. In both cases, the US ends up fighting on one side of what is really a civil war we have no business involving ourselves in, and because we choose sides purely based on friend/enemy distinctions and not according to any consistent principles, it sure looks a lot like more international meddling.
Therefore I reject any moral impetus that forces the US to get itself involved in trying to support or oppose separatist movements half way around the world, or to pick sides in civil wars. We lack the military capability, we lack popular support, and we need to stop adopting these self-destructive and globally destructive policies.
> The article is about prospects of war between the US and China. According to official US policy, which is the One China policy, Taiwan and mainland China are the same country, and any disputes between the mainland and Taiwan is an intra-chinese dispute, not a dispute between two separate countries, and not anything that involves the U.S. at all.
The US has never recognized PRC claims to Taiwan. The US “One China Policy” does not include “Taiwan is part of PRC territory”.
But I’ll admit the US policy is a bit vague and confusing so many people (including apparently you) don’t understand US policy in this matter.
> The US has never recognized PRC claims to Taiwan. The US “One China Policy” does not include “Taiwan is part of PRC territory”.
The U.S. does not have to do that to do what the GP says -
"> According to official US policy, which is the One China policy, Taiwan and mainland China are the same country, and any disputes between the mainland and Taiwan is an intra-chinese dispute, not a dispute between two separate countries"
- rather they have historically recognized the ROC's claims to Taiwan, and to the mainland as well, which of course is a diplomatic fig leaf at this point.
U.S. policy officially considers it as a part of China (i.e. the ROC). That is de facto not a viable reality for many decades now, but it is the de jure legal fiction. As such, your criticism of the GP is incorrect. Because they were correct in asserting "According to official US policy, which is the One China policy, Taiwan and mainland China are the same country", Washington just disagrees with Beijing which that same country is.
You seem to refer to some fictional country when you use “China”. Basically all people refer to an actual country that does exist: the PRC. So when I say the US policy is not that Taiwan is part of China, I mean that US policy is not that Taiwan is part of the PRC.
So I’m not really sure what your point is. Is your point that US policy states that Taiwan is part of the PRC? If you’re not staying that, you’re not disagreeing with me.
> You seem to refer to some fictional country when you use “China”.
That's precisely how the One China policy works. That's literally what strategic ambiguity is about.
In a 1972 joint communiqué with the PRC, the United States "acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China" and "does not challenge that position."
So it's talking about a hypothetical sovereign authority that extends over both the Chinese mainland and Taiwan. At present, the U.S. government recognizes the ROC, based in Taipei, as that government. It's a legal fiction, yes, but one that remains unchanged since 1972.
> Is your point that US policy states that Taiwan is part of the PRC?
The point is U.S. policy states that mainland China is part of the ROC!
> The US has never recognized PRC claims to Taiwan.
This is false. And the US also promised to remove all military forces and installations, which they have never done. There are today US troops in Taiwan. The constant lying to China by the U.S. matches the lying about the Minsk 2 agreements to Russia, and this has created a huge blow to American credibility as a negotiating partner.
"11. The Chinese side reaffirmed its position: the Taiwan question is the crucial question obstructing the normalization of relations between China and the United States; the Government of the People's Republic of China is the sole legal government of China; Taiwan is a province of China which has long been returned to the motherland; the liberation of Taiwan is China's internal affair in which no other country has the right to interfere; and all US forces and military installations must be withdrawn from Taiwan. The Chinese Government firmly opposes any activities which aim at the creation of "one China, one Taiwan", "one China, two governments", "two Chinas", an "independent Taiwan" or advocate that "the status of Taiwan remains to be determined".
12.The US side declared: The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States Government does not challenge that position. It reaffirms its interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves. With this prospect in mind, it affirms the ultimate objective of the withdrawal of all US forces and military installations from Taiwan. In the meantime, it will progressively reduce its forces and military installations on Taiwan as the tension in the area diminishes. The two sides agreed that it is desirable to broaden the understanding between the two peoples. To this end, they discussed specific areas in such fields as science, technology, culture, sports and journalism, in which people-to-people contacts and exchanges would be mutually beneficial. Each side undertakes to facilitate the further development of such contacts and exchanges."
The U.S. betrayed Taiwan 50 years ago by accepting China's rule over Taiwan and ceasing to recognize it as an independent nation.
Threatening to try to dissuade the Chinese from invading is the only thing Biden can do. When Xi finally gives the "go" he'll make up some excuse not to intervene militarily. He'll slap sanctions on China, for sure , but those will merely be a pinprick.
The US voted against replacing the ROC with PRC in the UN.
The position of the US has never changed. It has always maintained that any unification must be peaceful and that Taiwan cannot be forced. It gets to decide for itself.
Taiwan has changed in the last 100 years. Majority of the ROC is gone, those here now have no desire to be part of China, don't consider themselves as part of China or Chinese. They just want to continue to live their lives as they are now.
The US does not consider Taiwan as part of China. The One China Policy states that they acknowledge the position of China that Taiwan is part of it. The equiv of me saying to you "i accept that you think the sky looks like the inside of a watermelon".
All of this ignores that Mao and the CCP considered Taiwan an independent nation and nationality prior to Taiwan being handed to the ROC.
The original post you were replying to was attacking China for it's threats to invade, and was defending sanctions.
That point is valid.
So yes, sanctions against china are justified, which was the original context, and they are justified because of the points about China threatening to invade.
> is the only thing Biden can do
Actually, the US can continue what we have been doing for a while, which is continue to sell more and more weapons to Taiwan.
The more weapons we give to Taiwan, the more invaders will die in any invasion.
Maximizing their ability to increase invader death numbers, by continuing to do this, is also a good plan.
Do other powers have to make these promises? Does anyone pester Rishi Sunak for guarantees they won't he won't try to retake Massachusetts?
It feels like any sort of restrictive foreign-policy promise is a no-win. A "no invasion" promise would be a license for every seperatist element to push their agenda, which feels like losing a huge amount of influence. It also seems like it could tie their hands in an actual crisis (i. e. a terrorism scenario where the Taiwanese government refused to cooperate in investigation/prosecution)
Do you understand that Taiwan would love to do exactly that, but that China would take such a statement as a declaration of independence and would engage in military action?
Taiwan literally wants to do exactly what you proposed. They want to renounce having anything to do with China.
They do not want to take over china, and they do not claim that china belongs to them.
Instead, what is happening is that they are not clarifying this stance publicly, because if they clarify that they are not part of china, then china will threaten military action against them.
Taiwan is already independent, has no intention of unifying with china, and instead just has to play this game because china threatens them.
Preservation of national sovereignty is one of the touchiest issues in modern Chinese politics.
This has to do with Chinese history. For China, the modern era essentially began when British gunboats arrived in 1840 and forced the Qing dynasty to open up its ports to the opium trade. There followed a series of conflicts in which China was progressively humiliated and ever more dominated by foreign powers - the Europeans and Japanese. China had to allow opium in, had to exempt Europeans from Chinese law on Chinese territory, and had to give the Europeans and Japanese enclaves and spheres of influence within China. The British took Hong Kong, the Germans took Jiaozhou Bay, various countries took parts of Shanghai. When Chinese peasants rebelled against foreign influence and started killing Europeans, a eight-nation army landed at Tianjin,[0] marched to Beijing, burned down the Summer Palace, and forced China to pay a massive indemnity. After the Chinese people overthrew the imperial system, the new republic was, in fact, controlled by various local warlords. The Japanese progressively took more of China, before launching a full-blown invasion of the rest of China in the 1930s. A core goal of both the Nationalist and the Communist parties was to re-establish Chinese national sovereignty.
What put an end to all of this was the end of the Chinese Civil War and the establishment of the "New China," as the Chinese call their post-1949 state.
Because of this history, the issue of national sovereignty is incredibly sensitive in China. It's easy to say, "China should just give up its claim to Taiwan," but that would be an incredibly explosive suggestion in China, especially if it were something that China was forced to do under outside pressure.
Finally, I'll add that in China, the ROC is not seen as a separate country from the PRC. Taiwan is seen as the last redoubt of the old Chinese government. This is also how the ROC understood itself until fairly recently. For most people in China, asking them to cede Taiwan is asking them to cede part of China, which is a non-starter.
Taiwan was never Chinese to begin with and never has been. Just because the Nationalists fled there doesn't give them the right to invade or lay claim to the island.
They could, for all I care, invade Taiwan and relocate all the Chinese to China and leave Taiwan well alone.
Taiwanese indigenous peoples are 2% of the island's population. Many of the pre-1949 Chinese settlers have some aboriginal ancestry, however. I don't suppose you know the difference between benshengren and waishengren, nor care to know.
The China of 1895 no longer exists. There are now three successor countries: Taiwan/ROC, China/PRC and Mongolia. Taiwan has never been part of the country today known as “China”.
The PRC is the only internationally recognized successor state to the China of 1895.
You don't have to go back to 1895, though. In 1971, the PRC was given "China's" UN Security Council seat, which had previously been held by the ROC. Most countries withdrew their recognition of the ROC, and recognized the PRC as the sole legitimate representative of China.
> Taiwan has never been part of the country today known as “China”.
Countries continue to exist, even after they have revolutions or civil wars. In the view of international law, "China" has never ceased to exist. The 1911 revolution didn't extinguish it, nor did the end of the civil war in 1949, nor did the international recognition of the PRC as the sole legitimate representative of China in the 1970s.
Taiwan becoming an independent state would be a revolution of sorts. You may support that change, but to pretend that it's not a change? China is not going to be fooled by that.
> Taiwan becoming an independent state would be a revolution of sorts.
Your post is correct other than for this point. It would not be a revolution, it would a reconciling of governments into the de facto reality since 1949, that Taiwan has been able to self-govern apart from the mainland (even though its economy has since then gotten quite coupled with it over the past few decades).
It might be revolutionary from a legal standpoint, but the PRC/ROC distinction is truly a one-off in modern geopolitics, akin to the Korean War still technically not yet over but instead legally being a frozen conflict for seventy years. The reason why Taiwan's status has not caught up with reality yet is because of course no party is willing or able to resolve this deadlock.
This guy is smart. Many people profit from cold (and hot) war.
"Whether you like it or not, America and Europe have a strategic interest in fueling the Ukraine conflict for reputation-building purposes (in addition to any ideological motives). Frankly, this is why I think the US ought to escalate support for Ukraine."
Curious what anyone thinks of this tactical assessment:
> tlear 19 days ago | parent | context | un‑favorite | on: Intel and the $1.5T chip industry meltdown
> [China can't retake Taiwan], not even remotely close any time in the next 20 years at least. Can you imagine what a landing beach would look like being pounded by drone spotted artillery? See war in Ukraine. Forget the approach, anti ship missiles, mines, sheer volume of logistics needed. Stepping on the landing beach is a suicide without absolutely astronomical advantage in air power and ability to suffer huge attrition, even then.. 155mm hidden under camo/thermal nets, DJI drone rigged with magazines of small bombs.. Kyiv, Kharkiv, Kherson Childs play, this would make Diep and Galipoli look like walk in the park.
> I would go as far as to say that US Army + Marines + Navy could not land on Taiwan without suffering multiple brigades of attrition AFTER at least a year long blockade and air campaign. It is that hard.
> PRC has to surpass US in GDP, then spend 10-20 years of US level military spending, then maybe.
D-Day like beach invasions are unlikely. Blockades and targeted strikes on infrastructure are likely. How long can Taiwan reasonably last without energy and food imports?
They U.S. spends most of its military resources on force projection. Not homeland defense so military spending comparisons are not simple IMO. China has been acutely focused on Taiwan and its military resources reflect that.
The article rests on the assumption that Taiwan really is the center of the conflict and the West only defends it out of the goodness of their hearts (or to defend some local economic/strategic advantages such as access to TSMC or an open South China Sea).
Following that assumption, the conflict could be instantly defused if some compromise about Taiwan's status on the unification/independence scale could be reached (or where any option to change the status quo would be more costly for all sides than keeping it)
I worry that the situation could really be the inverse - that Taiwan is just a flashpoint in a larger US/West vs China conflict which is already well on the way. Another consequence of China's explosive economic growth that the article didn't go into was that China is now becoming a US rival and is openly challenging the international system and the "liberal international order". They are increasingly setting up counter institutions, such as the Silk Road or the SCO and the West sees itself pressured to react to that.
As such, I think Biden's "autocracy vs democracy" line was at least getting the scale of the conflict right.
Would not go that far, but I agree that more PRC narrows military gap with US, the more TW becomes a stretch goal to the greater strategic aim of eroding/pushing out US presence in Asia and more broadly US primacy in general. At end of the day cross strait drama is one sustained by US power post WW2, which sufficiently deterred or destroyed would open up many options for reuninfication.
Ultimately the prospect for war is real, but timing is differs.
On paper, US wants war sooner (before 2030) to take out pacing competitor as force balance is shifting towards PRC favour every year while PRC's nuclear deterrence still not sufficient. It explains much of recent US behaviours, which is not to say admin is actively engineering war, but actors are not actively constraining policies that could lead to one.
For PRC even taking TW doesn't dramatically improve PRC geostrategic posture - Yonaguni is basically where TW is and can be militarized with US hardware, as well as other regional fence sitters that want to hedge against PRC containment but only after TW damocles is off the table. But not if PRC substantially dismantles US military presence in Asia and make examples of US partners that participate in broader campaign which will also include destorying military infra in the region (i.e. Pinegap). The worst thing US can do is try to defend (non security guarantee) TW and fail, the next worst is succeeds pyrrhicly but lose so much hardware that honoring other defense commitments becomes impossible to hide. For PRC, this is like a 2030+ effort. Which is not to say PRC would not prefer a relatively isolated TW campaign with minimal US intervention, but they're war planning assumes US intervention and if that comes to pass, IMO PRC won't be content with just stopping immediate US intervention goals, but their abliity to intervene in Asia going forward.
I expect a permanent blockade of Taiwan to prevent inbound sensors and shooters and outbound advanced tech within one year. Today Taiwan and U.S. military are not integrated the way the U.S. is with other Allies and partners: Korea, Japan, NATO, etc. Ukraine is case and point how valuable that integration can be.
The PRC will be adamant that Taiwan not receive AI (battlefield mgmt. software, communications, sensors) aid similar to Ukraine.
At minimum, they'll start doing dangerous intercepts with blockade runners, which PLAN already does with USN in SCS. Around TW, it will be 1,000s of militia ships to make the navigation exceptionally dangerous. They're going to dare US to start war with PRC. There's also simply mining and cratering TW waters + runways to make substantial resupply impossible. US has no solution to a motivated PRC blockade of TW.
I think likely, but depends on how things escalate, if shooting war commercial aviation will stop anyways. There might be grayzone shenanigans like chaffing ELINT planes trying to support TW. Basically all the perks UKR has access to, PRC will attempt deny to TW.
Ideally for PRC before it goes hot, PRC will try to assert control over TW civil aviation, prevent flights from landing or redirect flights to PRC first to process. No person/thing is going in and out TW without PRC supervision, including foreign or TW nationals PRC wants to hold for leverage.
IMO above is significant but not discussed topic, there are 750k and growing foreign nationals on TW that PRC has leverage over if things turn ugly. 750k "illegally" working on TW without PRC consent, some directly with the ROC government to undermine PRC interests (technically spies). PRC making air space too dangerous = only viable exfiltration is evacuation across maritime routes, one determined by PRC via changing what is / is not accessible with mines. There's going to be international pressure to setup evacuation routes which gives PRC an "in" onto the island, We're talking about thousands of ships moving 750k bodies... the way to TW filled with PLA, the way back filled with civilians, the entire strait satuated with civilian activity that makes targetting an embedded invasion fleet and other outside interventions difficult, i.e. is JP going to restrict US access to basing if means 20k JP nationals get last pick on evacuation priority.
Just imagining the U.S. trying to send supply planes as a Berlin airlift 2. Also Elon Musk making empty social media boasts to send humanitarian aid via SpaceX suborbital rocket deliveries. As with the Ukrainian drone attacks on Russian Black Sea blockade boats, would be interesting to see how TW and external forces try to workaround a blockade.
> 750k "illegally" working on TW without PRC consent, some directly with the ROC government to undermine PRC interests (technically spies).
This doesn't make any sense. If they are collaborating with the ROC government, why would they want to be sent back to the mainland? Are you saying the PRC would demand them back as spies? Strange sticking point to bring up during a blockade, which is tantamount to wartime. Feels like there would be bigger fish to fry at that point.
Repatriating 750k people would be a bureaucratic paperwork nightmare, let alone a logistical one, and it is not a feat that either government would take seriously.
At most the PRC would demand it and the ROC might humor them as an attempted concession/negotiating move but no way would they attempt to send hundreds of thousands of people in a single year, let alone at once.
PRC's leverage start after shooting starts (like TSMC), when PRC closes air and maritime space and specifies repatriation corridors will stop first on mainland for processing. International community sees all the cratered TW runways and entire TW coast except some West locations are saturated with mines and conclude, there's no other choice - can't airlift or merchant fleet into what's not accessbile. The process will be an abbreviated shitshow done as quickly as possible (Dunkirk style) because foreign nationals are already trapped in a warzone (like in openning of UKR war).
Countries take repatrioting thier citizens seriously, and since PRC has ultimate veto over entry/egress to island, they have leverage, especially if there is a timer ticking down to when the island will run out of water and food. No one wants their nationals trapped and dying on hunger game island. Unless TW starts holding foreign nationals hostage, they maybe compelled by international pressure to agree to PRC coordinated evacuation points, which may include beach heads under PRC occupation (or relunctantly surrendered to PLA), where every ship that arrives to pickup evacuees is going be loaded with PLA. It's an undertaking that will require thousands of ships over weeks of intensive activity that will make the strait not engagable to defenders or outside meddlers due to intermiggling of civilian and military activies. Imagine fallout if a TW / US missile sinks a boat full of Philippinos (or imagine if PRC engineers false flag of that). Maybe international community can also convince PRC not to do this, but what incentive is there for PRC to listen? The one's that will sanction will sanction anyways and get last dibs and buy PRC some time, the ones who cooperate will get priority. Of course all speculation, but there are many exploitable dynamics inherent in TW being an island with unrecognized sovereignty.
> can't airlift or merchant fleet into what's not accessbile
Couldn't the U.S. planes drop aid packages, as in other conflicts?
> Countries take repatrioting thier citizens seriously, and since PRC has ultimate veto over entry/egress to island, they have leverage, especially if there is a timer ticking down to when the island will run out of water and food.
Are you talking about foreign nationals unrelated to China and Taiwan? Your prior post makes it sound like there were 750k Chinese nationals working for the ROC. One would that expect that even in the event of a blockade, the PRC would give them ample time prior to evacuate the island beforehand. Or otherwise, risk an extremely delicate diplomatic situations with dozens upon dozens of nations.
> Imagine fallout if a TW / US missile sinks a boat full of Philippinos (or imagine if PRC engineers false flag of that).
Any such fallout would fall upon the PRC as well, as it would be seen that they started the blockade and created the situation in the first place.
Actually, that raises an interesting point as well- how would TW attempts at fighting back at the blockade with force be received by the PRC? What if that missile strike sinks an actual PLAN vessel? Would that be seen as a casualty of war, or a dangerous escalation? What would the retaliation be?
> Maybe international community can also convince PRC not to do this, but what incentive is there for PRC to listen?
Undoing everything that past decades of soft power diplomacy has achieved?
Airlift (airdrop even less) isn't remotely enough to sustain 24M people, that requires maritime bulk cargo and available port infra.
> unrelated to China and Taiwan
Yes. Foreign nationals operating on what PRC considers to be Chinese territory under rival governemnt without CCP assent. Many of whom working in NGOs/agencies specifically to undermine PRC interests. I don't how international law will categorizes them, but PRC has good argument for "not civilians".
> give them ample time prior
...
> sinks an actual PLAN vessel
There's going to be time/opportunites assuming graduated escalation process, but TBH I presume chance of inciting spark that pushes things to 100% more likely and preferrable for PRC. Even in a blockade scenario I think PRC will preemptively destroy major TW military targets that could threaten back, which PRC can do so without much telegraphing via air/rocketry. Lesson from RU/UKR is no half measures. Blockade = PRC is starving the island and not invading, but doesn't mean it won't defang TW first, PRC won't give TW the chance for fair fight or maintain ability fight back. As far as taking hits, it would be resumption of civil war and losses would be expected including mainland strikes by TW missiles.
Look at RU vs LIO relations now, it's unsalvageable regardless of how mild the war started. And with respect to PRC/TW the countries that plan to sanction PRC are simultaneously trying to increase TW cooperation to undermine PRC interests while their genpop perception of PRC is already in gutters, so even less reason the cooperate, regardless of why shitshow started (i.e. LIO MSM will fault PRC even if PRC responding to provocations). And third parties that cultivate relationship with TW inspite of PRC warnings are in better position to compel TW into concessions anyway. IMO another lesson from RU/UKR war is just how little diplomacy is possible between active belligerants when strong outside actors are involved, i.e. RU isn't going to convince UKR to talk, but US might.
They won't take Taiwan without hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of their own citizens dying.
The US has sold Taiwan quite a lot of weapons already and continues to do so.
And the fact that china has been threatening to invade the country of Taiwan for 70 years, and yet haven't done so, actually more proves that it is all just talk in the first place.
What's more likely is they they will just continue to saber rattle and not do anything. It's mostly just internal propaganda, and not a real plan.
They don't want those hundreds of thousands or millions of their own citizens to die either.
Not even the most hardcore Taiwanese independence advocate calls China "West Taiwan" because nobody in Taiwan wants to invade China (Except for some of the older generation and they call China "The Republic of China").
The idea of "West Taiwan" is so preposterous but I know it came as a natural byproduct of the "TAIWAN #1" meme, just to piss of Chinese people that were taught to look down on Taiwan. I can assure you that there were Taiwanese people getting in on that original joke.
It just seems like the only people that refer to "China," as "West Taiwan" are essentially rooting to watch a war from across the ocean and clearly have zero skin in the game.
Source: I'm a mod of /r/taiwanindependence - you're welcome to join us there :).
I love the Spartan response to his invaders with overwhelming numbers. Taiwan is no match for the PRC army but they are a sovereign country and should stand up to the bully.
Your analysis is flawed. The U.S. will not risk a nuclear war over an island it doesn't even recognize as an independent state and has no security treaties with.
What Biden says about intervening is just bluff. And China knows this.
And then there's the prospect of the Taiwanese not even WANTING to fight their own brethren. Sure, they want to remain independent if they can, but if China decides to invade their armed forces will simply throw away their arms and go home. Do we want our soldiers to lose their lives for a people that hasn't even demonstrated their will to fight for their independence? Fuck that!
China is attempting to put its tentacles everywhere, making it extremely costly for Western nations to completely decouple from China economically.
For example: Apple is so deep in bed with China that if an invasion were to occur the company would simply go bankrupt. Bankrupt! We're talking about a company with a market valuation of almost $2 trillion!! It would be very hard for the Biden Administration to make that choice. And that's just one U.S. company. There are probably dozens like them in the same boat.
From what I gather Volkswagen would face an existential threat if it were banned from selling its cars in China. No way, the Germans would allow that, no matter what the U.S. says.
No, there will not be a nuclear war over Taiwan. Merely a few pinpricks in terms of sanctions.
This is 100% your own opinion, and no one has said anything about 'nuclear' war. Of course no one wants to fight, if it came down to it, many, including me, would have to defend ourselves.
From what I've seen I've come to the conclusion the Taiwanese will not fight.
You talk about defending yourself, but you can just keep still and do nothing. As I expect you will.
A nuclear war is a certainty when there's a confrontation between nuclear armed powers. If we lose, we use nukes. If they lose, they'll use nukes. Ergo: it's inevitable there will be an all-out nuclear exchange.
Please tell us what exactly you have seen that makes you come to the conclusion that “the Taiwanese” will not fight?
Were you referring to the Taiwanese people? The Taiwanese army? The Taiwanese government? The specific person that said they would defend themself?
Do you also feel that a nuclear war is inevitable between Russia and the US because of what is happening currently in the Ukraine?
Whether the US joins the fight is very much still up for debate. Whether “the Taiwanese” will fight - is probably better left for actual Taiwanese people to comment on.
I've seen Taiwanese making petty preparations for an invasion, Taiwanese soldiers complaining about poor equipment, insufficient ammunition and poor leadership and Taiwanese citizens and politicians criticizing the U.S. instead of China.
A nuclear war is not inevitable in Ukraine because the U.S. isn't a combatant. But I do believe this conflict could easily spiral out of control and lead to a nuclear confrontation between Russia and NATO.
If the U.S. were to intervene in Taiwan it would mean a direct confrontation between two nuclear armed powers which, as I claimed before, will inevitably lead to an all-out nuclear exchange.
> What Biden says about intervening is just bluff. And China knows this.
> And then there's the prospect of the Taiwanese not even WANTING to fight their own brethren. Sure, they want to remain independent if they can, but if China decides to invade their armed forces will simply throw away their arms and go home. Do we want our soldiers to lose their lives for a people that hasn't even demonstrated their will to fight for their independence? Fuck that!
For the US, the war over Taiwan is not about Taiwan. It is essential to understand this. It is why the US will definitively go to war. If China takes Taiwan, US influence and interest in the entire region falls like dominoes.
The threat to US hegemony is more important than the market value of a few companies.
And a nuclear war will not deprecate U.S. influence in Asia and worldwide? We would simply cease to exist as a nation with 80% of the populace dead, dying from wounds / radiation and starvation.
Losing Taiwan may give us a bloody nose, but it's certainly not an existential threat.
On the flip side for the second point, it can just as easily go into the reverse. It’s all very well for the mainland government to declare the island to be a rogue province in revolt, but that just means a war between the two would entail bloodshed between countrymen. That might give at least some Chinese pause, not unlike the contemporary antiwar protests in Russia.
Not to mention given that China has been at peace for decades now, to disrupt their economic growth and prosperous gains in standards of living to go to war would be a hard sell to the average Chinese citizen, regardless of how much control the government might exert over drumming up support for war. One could speculate that they would at least make it seem like a defensive conflict.
You seem to forget that ordinary Chinese citizens have no say in all this. They've just given their leader dictatorial powers for life. Basically everything that happens in China is dependent on the mental constitution of one single man.
And Xi has sworn to unite Taiwan with the mainland at whatever the cost. We have to decide whether it's worth fighting a nuclear war over because the invasion is going to happen between now and 2027.
Any war will require at least some popular mandate no matter how dictatorial the regime, not to mention the consent of the actual fighting forces involved.
> And Xi has sworn to unite Taiwan with the mainland at whatever the cost.
In that, he is no different from every single Chinese leader since 1949.
2027 is a red herring borne out of inaccurate intel and failed understanding:
Biden knows what I know: that it's too costly for the U.S. to disengage economically from China.
He's trying to do something about it at least, but Apple has already signaled that only 25% of iPhones will be made outside of China by 2025. That will leave the company completely vulnerable if were to be cut-off from its Chinese suppliers. I predict the company will simply go bankrupt if that were to happen.
So he's bluffing to prevent China from invading, that's only logical. If push comes to shove, however, he'll pull back from the brink. Taiwan simply isn't worth fighting over, even if it would mean losing influence in Asia.
And I've become convinced the Taiwanese will not fight their own kind, no matter how much they hate the Communists.
> Apple has already signaled that only 25% of iPhones will be made outside of China by 2025. That will leave the company completely vulnerable if were to be cut-off from its Chinese suppliers. I predict the company will simply go bankrupt if that were to happen.
That's the second time you've made that claim, and it's just as implausible as it was the first time. Companies go bankrupt because of debt. Apple has approximately zero debt, and approximately one gazillion dollars of assets. Losing China's manufacturing would cripple Apple's income. Bankrupt them? No, that's not a logically plausible outcome.
> And I've become convinced the Taiwanese will not fight their own kind, no matter how much they hate the Communists.
That's the second time you've made that claim, too, with no more supporting evidence than you gave the first time. You're convinced? Great, it's good for you to know your own mind. But the rest of us care whether your claim corresponds to reality, and how convinced you are is not supporting data.
Putin has claimed all along that Ukrainians were "their own kind", but the Ukrainians didn't see it that way...
Apple would lose its ability to produce and sell products if a complete boycott of China were to ensue. This would mean Apple's revenue and income would shrivel to almost zero overnight. Its stock valuation would drop 99% or more.
There's no company that could survive such a financial shock. Yes, they have some money in the bank, but that won't save them.
Baloney. It's revenue would drop almost to zero. It would stay there until Apple arranged alternate manufacturing, and then it would come back - probably not to where it currently is, because the alternate manufacturing would not initially have the same capacity. Stock dropping 99%? No way. Others can see that Apple has a way back, the same as I can.
Look, it would be very damaging. I don't deny it. Bankruptcy, though? No. You're being an alarmist.
> So he's bluffing to prevent China from invading, that's only logical. If push comes to shove, however, he'll pull back from the brink. Taiwan simply isn't worth fighting over, even if it would mean losing influence in Asia.
> And I've become convinced the Taiwanese will not fight their own kind, no matter how much they hate the Communists.
Well I guess all we can do is wait and see if these predictions of yours come through.
_that_fought_against_the_Boxer_Rebellion_in_China,_1900._From_the_left_Britain,_United_States,_Australia,_India,_Germany,_France,_Austria-Hungary,_Italy,_Japan._(49652330563).jpg){kind=link}
Nevertheless, after USA has not remained content to try to cripple the Chinese semiconductor manufacturing industry, but now it pressures Taiwan to stop manufacturing integrated circuits for China, I have become worried for the first time that a Chinese invasion is no longer impossible.
If Taiwan does not manufacture Chinese ICs any more, then Taiwan is no longer valuable for China and they do not have any reason to care whether the Taiwanese industry is destroyed, because such a destruction will not change anything for them. This removes one of the most important costs of an invasion decision.