I would imagine that one of the biggest concerns associated with China taking over Taiwan is that China would gain control over some of the most significant semiconductor manufacturing facilities in the world.
Yeah, but I imagine in such a scenario most of the talent that built that world-class semiconductor manufacturing would be resettled to Western Powers - most likely the United States.
When your country becomes a warzone and your workplace becomes a pile of rubble, other countries start to look a lot more attractive. If China tried to take Taiwan, I could see them losing a lot of the brains that built those fabs.
China will invade Taiwan, seize their IP, and then approve exit visas for the best scientists/engineers from the conquered country? Seems pretty unlikely.
I definitely believe Taiwan would rather burn it than see it in the hands of their greatest adversary. Rigged to blow seems silly but I expect they would bomb it to dust.
Bombing is not necessary. Ceasing supplies will turn it into dust in a moment of time, irreversibly. Consider Samsung factories in Texas that are still stalling, caused by quite short electric power outage.
Coincidently, I was independently wondering about this too.
The same measure is taken for other valuable targets. For example, many major bridges in the US are rigged to self-destruct in the event of capture during land invasion. You won't find much information about this online. All I can say is, there's a reason why many jobs at the US DOT require a security clearance. If you want to read up on another real world example of this, here's an article about how Switzerland implemented this: https://99percentinvisible.org/article/designed-for-demoliti...
There is an interesting theory by Dimitry Khalezov concerning 9/11. He states that this was also done for the NYC World Trade Center and the Chicago Sears Tower. He claims the event occured because a bad actor gained control of this demolition system for the WTC, and that the planes were part of a cover story. It's an interesting explanation. Check it out if you're interested: https://youtu.be/IU7KRHOdnuo
Well, some public here tend to think about TSMC as something solid and uniform, one can possess and/or takeover. Heck, no! TSMC is a complex organism consisting of thousands of talented engineers and scientists, top-notch equipment that require servicing, thousands of suppliers, software and IP modules bound by licensing and servicing agreements with hundreds of western companies. A faint hint of military action around Taiwan will ruin TSMC in a second, which by the way will have far far extending chain of events effecting the global high-tech industry. And I bet it's going to be far worse than covid-19 pandemic we are currently facing. The world we built is way too fragile. We must negotiate, not to fight, if we want to get going.
This rumor could have been propagated by Taiwan itself, The economic fallout from the loss of TSMC for the aggressor is high enough that this could indeed be a credible deterrent.
Primarily it would be a bloody conflict with significant loss of life. If China is victorious they would gain control over dirt that the world's best electronics industry used to exist on top of. The whole world loses.
I think this is negligible compared to the “era” that it would start. Taiwan is seen as a more westernized country and an attack on Taiwan would start a cold war-like era with China and the western world.
It would be good for the rest of the world to start having an alternative source of chip development. It's really not a good idea to have such dependence on one producer you can trust.
i wish i could share the link, but i havnt bookmarked it, there was a considerable discussion[s] regarding small scale chip fabrication in a garage just for the "shizenschpiel"
[ADNDM] turns out i can share the link after a brief search here is one of them :
If you're to follow local media in China, the rhetoric around taking back Taiwan has grown stronger. Winnie the pooh also got a time limit extension on CCP leadership on the platform of a fully unified China. The signs are all there, though I just don't see how anything resembling a conventional warfare can happen there. The potential lives at risk are quite high and if the toll is that high it will be difficult to stop other countries from getting involved on various grounds. Also it's not like Crimea annexation where the aggressor had local support.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find even a "bunch" of people in Taiwan who want to be under Beijing's rule, or would even consider that a tolerable compromise position. Certainly the country is far from unified on the idea of independence (though that particular movement has gotten stronger over the past couple decades), but culturally and politically, China and Taiwan are quite different and incompatible.
From my second hand laymen sources, there are in fact pro China advocates in Tiawan. Also surprisingly enough, there was a sizable loyalist group in the American 13 colonies who supported continued British colonialism.
One obvious reason to support the British is that the British don't have slavery. Sure enough, those slaves who fought for the British and were evacuated with British troops became free men.
Fighting for the colonists genuinely could mean you won, and then they said that's great, now back to the fields 'cos you won freedom for us not for you. Your great grandchildren might see freedom (after the Civil War) but you would not.
I'm not sure what history books you are reading, but Britain did, in fact, have slavery, and traded in slaves during the American Revolution. Trade of slaves was not outlawed in Britain until 1807 and ownership of slaves was not outlawed in Britain until 1833.
History books about things that happened rather than, say, squinting hard to rationalise unhappy truths?
Britain didn't have slavery†. The 1833 act abolishes slavery in the Colonies, not in Britain itself. The existence of slavery in the colonies is why there were slaves in America to seek freedom by fighting for the British there.
So like I said, the British freed those on their side, while the colonists unsurprisingly did not do likewise. This is a recorded motivation for the thing we're talking about, fighting for the British in the revolutionary war.
†Britain didn't have chattel slavery, which is what we're talking about here, but it did have serfdom - which today we would consider a type of slavery - until the late middle ages or so when it ceased to make economic sense.
Another fun fact (I'm full of them today): while chattel slavery has never existed at a meaningful level in Britain, the specific act of holding someone in slavery wasn't technically made illegal here until 2009: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coroners_and_Justice_Act_200...
No? Britain didn't have slavery, it didn't have it before that 1833 Act, and it still didn't have it afterward. The Act's title begins: "An Act for the Abolition of Slavery throughout the British Colonies" because it's about abolishing slavery in the colonies. By this time of course Americans - who still want slavery - have successfully rebelled and are independent and so this law does not affect the millions of slaves in the United States of America.
The Colonies weren't Britain. Their people weren't (on the whole) British citizens, if you knew a bit more history that year might stand out more. 1833 is just after Great Reform, the country has become more small-D democratic, expanding the franchise (the right to vote) to more men and eliminating "Rotten boroughs" which were often in practice controlled by rich people, including slaveowner colonists abroad.
Sure, you're not going to find everyone having the same opinion on something, but it's hard to compare Crimea, which has a sizeable pro-Russia population, possibly even a majority, with Taiwan, with only some smaller fringe groups wanting to reunify with China on Beijing's terms.
And that's also a point to consider: there are some people in Taiwan who want to reunify, but not anywhere near under the terms Beijing would impose. You could call those people "pro unification", but they're very very different from people who would accept Chinese rule as it is now.
>Also it's not like Crimea annexation where the aggressor had local support.
Although very much like Crimea, there will be practically zero popular appetite for igniting an open war between two nuclear armed nation states. We can only hope for a diplomatic resolution, but I would strongly doubt that military action will be responded to in kind by the west. A much more likely scenario is what we've seen play out in Hong Kong for the last 30 years.
Nuclear powers don't really have kinetic wars. I think the only one that happened was a small skirmish between India and Pakistan in 1999. The Kargil War.
Proxy wars are more likely.
And even more likely than that, would be severe economic sanctions.
Which in this instance would hit home to many more Americans than an actual war.
If the invasion of Taiwan set in motion a series of escalating sanctions and freezes in trade, well that could get much worse than people think.
>"That makes it seem like you want China to take Taiwan uncontested."
I, like any sane person, would like to avoid WWIII.
It's easy to play armchair general with no skin in the game. But the reality is that there would be no support in the US for sending American soldiers to die for Taiwan. Let alone the nuclear ramifications. If Beijing decides to take it, we will sit here and watch. The same way we do currently as they commit massive genocide in their own country.
I think there will be very significant economic escalation. US + EU and probably some local countries (India, Vietnam Indonesia) will just ban all Chinese trade, maybe force Japan and SK do the same. China may get some Taiwanese fabs, but it's only single cell in supply chain, and may be rendered useless without integration into global economy.
This can’t be done without triggering a depression and causing massive shortages. The economies are too connected. We could add more sanctions, increase tariffs look at better trade deals to encourage buying non China. But the idea of just banning Chinese trade is fantasy.
US export to China represents only 6% of total (100B out of 1.5T) and import is 18% (439B out of 2.38T).
Most of import is likely not critical and can easily be substituted by domestic manufacturers, or manufacturers from other countries.
I believe there would be strong domestic support in the US for committing the full strength of the US military to Taiwan’s defense. It’s not sending American soldiers to die for for Taiwan, its sending American soldiers to fight for western values and allies that America is legally obligated to defend.
There is no legal obligation to defend Taiwan. And all obligations are as good as nothing until there is an enforcement present. Good luck trying to enforce US.
>"fight for western values" - you mean risking WWIII to make sure that few fat cats do not loose their investments? How's that protection of western values went in places like Yemen?
Well, to take TW, Mainland must send navy, which is easily intercepted by US. The island isn’t actually that close to the mainland. This is different from the human rights issues in China where the PLA is already there.
Call me optimistic, but the mere risk of US involvement is enough to deter a military takeover.
> Well, to take TW, Mainland must send navy, which is easily intercepted by US. The island isn’t actually that close to the mainland.
Taiwan is a little over 100km off the coast of mainland China. That's nothing, and the Chinese navy could easily get there without any interference from anyone.
They wouldn't even have to; if they just wanted to cause damage, they could start firing missiles from the mainland without sending any ships or planes.
> no support in the US for sending American soldiers to die for Taiwan
There could also be support in the US for keeping China from expanding its power to the point where it can rival the US. That is, fighting against China rather than for Taiwan.
I'm not saying that would necessarily be enough either, but people are more willing to die to protect their own country's interests than to help someone else.
EDIT: Not sure of the reason for downvotes. I'm not advocating for this. I'm just saying it is something that could happen. To the extent that American soldiers went to Korea and Vietnam willingly, it wasn't because they wanted to help the people there. It was because they wanted to stop the USSR.
There are powerful voices working behind the scenes within the US military industrial complex who believe that an eventual conflict with China is inevitable. So they would prefer to provoke that conflict sooner rather than wait for China to grow stronger. (I don't agree with this approach, I'm just pointing out that it is one school of thought.)
Regardless of US public opinion, if an invasion starts then the US Navy will likely get involved. It might be very limited to start, but inevitably there will be an incident with significant US casualties. And then we'll retaliate and the conflict will escalate.
And while we've been asleep focusing on tearing ourselves apart with political divides, China's been preparing for exactly that. The reason war is likely is because they're ready for it. They think like Go players, not like Chess players.
They mostly live in Southern Taiwan, so I wouldn't be surprised if foreigners (and many Taiwanese natives as well) don't regularly see pro-CCP Taiwanese citizens.
If it means that Taiwan is indeed a province of 'China' then probably. If it means supporting the People's Republic of China and Communist Party then I'm very doubtful.
There's recognizing and "recognizing". Everyone knows Taiwan is a separate country. But for political reasons (helping China save face, keep making money from China) they don't openly acknowledge it. It's totally different from Crimea situation.
Not recognizing Taiwan doesn't make any sense unless you fear retaliation from China, which is exactly the point.
People say US will save Taiwan from China? I call bullshit. If that was true US should have no trouble recognizing Taiwan which would be hopefully be start of the process of getting legitimacy Taiwan needs.
I fully expect US to do nothing if China invades Taiwan.
Heavily armed Taiwan can make China think twice before launching full scale attack. The US also makes money on those arms sales. And Taiwan can keep producing chips. And sell some of those chips to China for mutual benefit. Win win so far.
However if for whatever reasons China would go full scale on Taiwan I doubt the US would respond in kind. There is just too much risk of conflict turning into WWIII. The West may try to isolate China instead.
I think your guess is pretty likely. It would be very hard for the US to get into a direct shooting war with China, especially over an island that is 100km off the coast of mainland China. Strategically it just seems like an impossible task to keep Taiwan out of China's hands if that's what China decided to do.
More likely the US (and West) would attempt to punish China economically for its behavior, though I have a hard time believing that would work either. Even if an agreement is later reached and sanctions lifted, I doubt Taiwanese independence would be a part of that.
Unless there is a huge shift in sentiment toward Taiwan in China's leadership, I am really afraid that it's inevitable that Taiwan ends up being taken by force at some point in the not-too-distant future.
Not recognizing Taiwan makes a lot of sense when you wish not to cause an escalation that could lead to an invasion of Taiwan, this is why Taiwan itself has never declared independence, something most people forget.
There are people in Taiwan who agree with the "one China" policy, and claim that the government of Taiwan is the ruler of that one China. Declaring independence means renouncing their claim on the rest of China.
Now, in the real world, that claim plus six bucks will get you a latte at Starbucks. But politically, letting go of it might cost more than any political party is willing to pay. Thus both sides of the straights cling to the "one China" fiction.
Yes there are, however even if there weren’t any and today the majority would likely support independence the reality is that the threat from China due to such a declaration is a far greater factor in why Taiwan still maintains the one China policy.
I think your information is a bit out of date; the party currently in power in Taiwan (the DPP, which has controlled the presidency and legislative branch since 2016) is pro-independence, and the people are strongly not in favor of reunification.
A quick look at Wikipedia suggests that (as of 2019), about 49% of citizens supported independence (though 21% believes that now is not the time due to the political climate), with 31% supporting the status quo. Only 10.3% outright support reunification.
In 2020, support for independence increased, to 54%, though support for reunification also increased to 12.5%.
I think it's pretty safe to say that an overwhelming majority of people in Taiwan do not actively want reunification with China. The DPP has never held that position, and the KMT dropping it would surely splinter their supporters[0], though possibly not a majority of them. Obviously on the PRC side of the equation, allowing Taiwan its independence is a non-starter.
[0] Anecdotally, it does seem that KMT support skews older, so I expect new and future generations to continue to lean more toward independence.
Very different situation. Just analyze them from a realpolitik perspective and not the “international law” one:
- Crimeans are predominately Russian speakers and so the annexation was somewhat popular. Very little bloodshed or ongoing resistance. An invasion of Taiwan would not be popular among the Taiwanese.
- Crimea and Ukraine are geopolitically not very useful. Taiwan is extremely useful, especially if it allows defense access to e.g. American warships.
- Crimea is mostly a resort economy. Taiwan is the center of chip production.
>Crimea and Ukraine are geopolitically not very useful. Taiwan is extremely useful, especially if it allows defense access to e.g. American warships.
A large reason for the annexation of Ukraine was the question of control of Russia's only warm-water seaport at Sevastopol. I doubt Russia would have bothered (given the international consequences, i.e. sanctions and potential military intervention) if their access to the Black Sea wasn't threatened by Ukraine's increasing ties with the West.
Yes but if you were Russia and Ukraine was signaling that it wishes to join the EU and NATO at that point how long would you be able to rely on that lease?
This is the same reason why Russia got involved in Syria, it has only a handful of warm water ports and essentially all of them are at a precarious position where they ship need to traverse potentially hostile choke points.
Yes I’m just saying that from a realpolitik perspective, nothing really changed for the rest of the world when Russia annexed Crimea. Russia leased the port before, now they own it. Hence the lack of real response other than some sanctions.
I think the point is that Taiwan being free of Beijing has a lot of strategic importance to other countries (basically all of the West). Crimea is really only important to Russia and Ukraine.
No one may formally recognize Taiwan, but lots of major countries have done a lot more to arm and prepare to protect Taiwan from China than anyone ever did Ukraine from Russia pre-Crimea.
Recognition isn't nothing, but concrete support without recognition is more valuable than the reverse.
The anti-China rhetoric and propaganda in the USA has been steadily ramping up over the last 3-5 years as well, for better or worse. I don't think this is an accident or happenstance.
If China decided to take Taiwan in a small and local (and, let's be honest: extremely quick) action, there would be broad domestic support in the US for the US interfering.
Will Americans perceive that or will they see it as more foreign adventurism a la the Middle East to defend people that aren’t Americans in a hopeless forever war quagmire?
And do Americans take that threat seriously enough to put actual lives on the line in a conflict that would incur serious costs to the US? We spent a lot of money in the Middle East, but in terms of lives lost it hasn’t been significant.
And in terms of economic impact, it would be devastating. I don’t know if Americans are prepared to go for years without electronics, or really anything else, to enable a protracted war. The stakes would be far greater for the US. And the cost to China is coming down with their emphasis on internal consumption and building a stable self-reliant economy.
Americans don’t like China, but not enough to not use TikTok, not enough to not buy Chinese, and certainly not enough to send their friends and family to die while they live through a massive economic recession and product shortages that make covid look like a joke. And that’s assuming Americans fully understand the politics in the region and why they should even care about China invading Taiwan, which feels like a big assumption considering (the more hawkish) half of the population will tell you our election was stolen by the party currently in power.
> The anti-China rhetoric and propaganda in the USA has been steadily ramping up over the last 3-5 years as well, for better or worse. I don't think this is an accident or happenstance.
Yeah, it's really strange that negative rhetoric has been ramping up against a government that is now running full-blown ethnic concentration camps in Xinjiang, is flagrantly stomping on the democratic rights of the people of Hong Kong, and is of course still completely ignoring its own citizens' human rights. Really strange.
It appears to have worked well for its intended purpose.
For the record, the US imprisons its ethnic minorities in inhumane conditions (including labor camps and forced sterilization, just like China) at a per-capita rate 17x higher than China does.
I think the disparity in public perception (in the US; I can't speak to China as I'm not there) of the two superpowers is telling.
The disparity is ridiculously large as someone who reads zhihu for Chinese practice. It's like looking at two alien worlds.
The biggest difference at least to me is that US social media really drinks the coolaid on how human rights and liberal ideas are the main drivers behind America's political decisions, that America should be a force for good that has a responsibility to vanquish evil around the world, and that everyone naturally wants to live under America's image for the world. Chinese social media leans towards the world as a place where might makes right and ideals are just a cover for power games. The most popular posts I've seen are ones that point out American hypocrisy in their words and deeds. But more interestingly, every charitable action the US has taken towards China is portrayed as something that is ultimately self serving, and China's portrayed as a country that's been forced to accept the rules the US has imposed because of its historical weakness and is only now gaining the strength to push back against a global hegemon.
Of course, the ultimate decisions for war and peace lie with their leaders, but if you brought the populations of China and the US into the same room there would probably be a brawl in 15 minutes.
I feel like these stories of inevitable civilizational conflict have to be weighed against the reality that the US has millions of Chinese-born immigrants who get along just fine. Immigrants are of course not a randomly selected population, but the idea that China is civilizationally incapable of believing in universal ideals or getting along with Americans seems like a CCP self-defense mechanism more than a truly defensible thesis.
That's great - now go to China and start publicly posting on the Internet about China's human rights violations (or better yet, actively campaigning against them) and see how long you last.
I'm not even gonna pick up this insane digression. First of all, the US doing something isn't an excuse. Second, at least injustices in the US are considered injustices. People speak out. There is debate and protests. In China? Yeah try holding a ULM (Uighur Lives Matter) protest in China and get back to me.
> For the record, the US imprisons its ethnic minorities in inhumane conditions (including labor camps and forced sterilization, just like China) at a per-capita rate 17x higher than China does.
LOL!!!! We imprison people of ANY ethnicity who commit crimes. Some prisons have ways where the people there can earn wages through work, though most don't. You can maybe stretch the definition of what "labor camp" means to include that, but I wouldn't. And we DEFINITELY do not do forced sterilization rofl.
If you're going to go around spreading fake propaganda, invent some better stuff next time.
I used current tense. Not past tense. There was all sorts of weird stuff that happened around the time of Nazism in Germany, including strong proponents of Nazism in the US at that time. Lest we not forget the internment of Americans of Japanese descent civilians during WW2. Again, these are unfortunate things that happened in the past.
None of that justifies any other country doing anything in modern day. It's like saying "Oh Germany had Nazis during WW2 so having Nazis today is okay."
There have been accusations that ICE has performed forced sterilizations, but for now it remains at the level of conspiracy theory. It's easy to talk about how "unfortunate" US atrocities were and insist they're "in the past" after the cover-up campaigns have successfully concluded. But why would these institutions change when they succeeded at their aims and no one was ever held accountable? Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay are not in the distant past.
Those wages you are thinking of? Frequently they are well under one dollar per hour, sometimes as low as two cents per hour, and pay of any kind is not legally required:
> We imprison people of ANY ethnicity who commit crimes.
Police and prosecutorial discretion means that this isn't true, statistically. As I mentioned, the US imprisons ethnic minorities at a rate of 17x higher than China per capita, despite the farcical claim that all citizens have equal protection under the law. If they did, the number of people of different ethnicities imprisoned would roughly match the distribution of ethnicities in US society. They do not.
"If they did, the number of people of different ethnicities imprisoned would roughly match the distribution of ethnicities in US society. They do not."
So all ethnicities are the same, especially in terms of aggression and compliance, and it's law enforcement that makes all the difference?
>According to a survey conducted by the Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Institute in December 2019, one-fifth of Hong Kong's population supported Hong Kong independence, while 56% of Hongkongers opposed it.
Please forgive me if I misunderstand the Hong Kong issue, but I thought that it was just the more extreme people who support Hong Kong independence, and the main purpose of the protest was the "five demands, not one less?" I found this on Wikipedia:
> Reuters conducted polls in December 2019,[617] March 2020,[618] June 2020[619] and August 2020. The last poll showed that an increasing number of Hongkongers support the pro-democracy goals since the national security law was implemented. More than half of the respondents opposed the national security law. 70% wanted an independent commission of inquiry that looked into how the police handled the protests. 63% wanted universal suffrage. The support for amnesty of all arrested protesters rose to 50%. More than half of people still wanted Carrie Lam to resign. The number of people who opposed the pro-democracy demands went down to 19%. The majority (60%) still opposed Hong Kong independence, 20% supported the idea.[620]
Anyway: All Chinese citizens are being denied their democratic natural rights. That's a battle that's not gonna be won anytime sokn, I recognize that. But the citizens of HK are now being denied their agreed upon, on-paper, legal democratic rights by the CCP pigs.
Possibly. It would take a strong economic interest for the US government to do anything. Losing TSMC to China might be enough. We live in interesting times.
China has squashed the virus, its placing a major emphasis on consumption, its navy now rivals the US. Taiwan is home to the largest semiconductor fab in the world and there is a worldwide shortage of semiconductors. Other countries around the world are struggling to get the virus under control and they are dealing with stuttering economies. The US is in the midst of a culture war where nobody can agree over economics vs virus protection or interventionism vs isolationism. The dollar is in a shaky position between massive stimulus and the increasing interest in crypto. I’d say China sees this as their best opportunity to make a move with little opposition.
My bad but that's the impression I have had from international media. Russian forces didn't face any significant resitance and the local russian speaking population wasn't too keen on continuing with Ukraine. Happy to hear from a crimean what really went down.
The news we got could have had more to do with the international community trying to save face and spreading a narrative, rather than a large number of actual locals wanting to be part of Russia.
There were also opinion polls done by Western polling firms that showed majority support for joining Russia. And Ukraine responded by cutting off the region's electricity supply, so presumably support for them fell after that.
I meant that you can hardly call Russia an “aggressor” when the locals have been dreaming of becoming part of Russia since 1991. Also aggressor doesn’t invest into education, healthcare and overall quality of life.
As even the non-war (well, war on the pandemic) issues have shown is an issue across multiple industries.
This is an implicit issue highlighted by in-sourcing or physically closer ally production in the report from a month or two ago. https://www.nscai.gov/2021-final-report/
Or "US Admirals in the Pacific use threat of Chinese attack on Taiwan to justify receiving billions more dollars." What a crock of shit.
edit one of their given reasons for "fearing attack" is that Russia invaded Ukraine shortly after the Winter Olympics, and China has the Winter Olympics soon. The ulterior motive couldn't be more obvious.
Yes, the Pacific navy forces want a higher budget, and they're playing on the fears of Chinese attack to get it. Your list of training exercises and US reports claiming China couldn't invade Taiwan aren't really changing my opinion.
>There's a stated intent to enforce a "One China Policy" and that's not going to happen without a large-scale troop movement.
Or they enforce it by pretending Taiwan doesn't exist, like they have so far.
This has been the talk for a long time, but nothing has become of it. Nothing in the article made me think this will change. It's like the doomsday people saying every year will be the last. Well, they will be right one year at least.
This would be an exceptionally impatient move. If China’s economic machine continues to grow + mainland culture becomes more appealing, I could see Taiwan wanting to reunite in a few decades.
It’s the same situation with Hong Kong. Had they initiated the changeover more slowly, there would be far less resistance. Instead, they ignited a movement that will probably never go away.
Xi’s downfall will be his inability to wait patiently.
There is a pretty big generational divide among the Taiwanese with the older generation still identifying as Chinese while the younger generation is adamantly identifying as Taiwanese. It's hard to imagine how a peaceful reunification can happen as more time goes on. Culturally the divide is becoming starker over time.
This increasingly aggressive posturing makes me question China’s strength and its government’s political longevity. The difficult thing and the great thing about democracy is the stability that comes from a constant transition of power. China doesn’t have that tradition and Xi doesn’t have an “heir”. I suspect what’s really happening here is that Xi has a mandate to reunify China, which if forced, may ironically destroy China’s political ambitions.
China's economic growth has been fueled by demographics such as a young labor force. Due to the one child policy and low birth rates, they are facing a demographic collapse in the next few decades [1] as more people retire that are replaced by younger workers. If China is ever going to take over Taiwan, they would want to do so when they will be strongest which will be within the next ten years or so.
Unfortunately, I do not doubt that China will try to take Taiwan, the bigger question is how is the West going to react?
I just hope we are not going to do the detrimental appeasement policy like with letting Hitler take the Sudets.
I do wonder if there is a politician in the west with the stomach to confront CCP.
I just cannot help but congratulate the CCP on their well played long game of chess. China has transformed immensely in the last 40 years, and we got no one to blame but ourselves.
We literally check-mated ourselves. I guess this will go on the long list of Nixon's failure.
The day the west started bowing down to China without setting up rules is the day we lost.
Sometimes I do wonder what would have happened had MacArthur executed his plan...
Now is the most favorable time for China to strike. With everyone reeling from the pandemic, a centralized government can temporarily move faster than everyone else and consolidate faster than everyone else. A chance like this won't come again, so I'd be pretty surprised if they didn't make their move this year.
Appetite is exceptionally low for ill advised forever wars... defending an ally against the CCP however is something that many Americans would likely be in favor of.
Due to the one child policy, China is going to experience a demographic collapse this decade as more people retire than are available to replace them in the workforce. So the 2020s is the pivotal decade as China nears the height of its power. The CCP is aware of this and knows that if they are ever going to take Taiwan, it would ideally be this decade. Politically, it will also need a victory as the Chinese economy inevitably slows down due to the demographic collapse.
I fear that if the CCP manages to take Kinmen island without a devastating US response then it will be the Austria moment of our century. Obviously, a strong US response would be damaging to both countries, but the only way to deter an attack on Taiwan is to make the cost of attacking so high for the CCP that it is not worth it. While it will be difficult to justify in the short term, the US must push back strongly when China is "testing the waters" or else it will only escalate from there. If there is only a weak US response, it will embolden the CCP to continue pushing the boundaries until they do something that requires either full scale war or surrender (such as invasion of Taiwan main island).
Taiwan did have a nuke program until the 80s(?). Of course starting to finalize a nuke program next to a nuclear power that doesn't like you sounds like a surefire way of forcing a decision now if you get caught.
China would intervene if they started a nuclear program. I was mostly being facetious. But it would be rather satisfying after China has spent the past few decades propping up North Korea and letting them develop nuclear weapons. If Taiwan all of a sudden was a nuclear power, that would pose a serious threat to China.
Do you remember the Cuban Missile Crisis? As that's exactly the Cuban Missile Crisis. I think giving Taiwan nukes would force them to invade rather than risk being attacked with nukes.
Little known face is that Denmark had access to nukes during the cold war. They were not per se on Danish territory, but could be "collected" and deployed at very short notice.
LMAO HN China expert at it again, without even personally visit China for once in their lifetime!
> Due to the one child policy, China is going to experience a demographic collapse this decade as more people retire than are available to replace them in the workforce.
Population growth is slowing down, but it's still far higher than any other developed nations. Population growth slow down does not translate to slowing catch up of China's economy, military, and political power. US has less than 4mm new born, EU has less than 5mm. China has 10mm in 2020.
And not mentioning Chinese new born are generally getting better education and more useful education because of the effective management and control by the government.
> Obviously, a strong US response would be damaging to both countries, but the only way to deter an attack on Taiwan is to make the cost of attacking so high for the CCP that it is not worth it.
A strong US operation should be fostering the peaceful transition of Taiwan into the one China system and ensure the long term peace and prosper of the region. It's not about adopting one system or another, it's about the people's well-being.
If the democracy works best, China should adopt it ad well. Show the Chinese people that there has been example of American democracy lifted a large nation out of poverty. Not some national capitalism.
Oh, there has no such example of prosper in so many experiments of American democracy?!
Sorry, then I suppose it should be the better system prevail?
They probably will have demographic problems, but a collapse this decade seems a bit of an aggressive schedule.
Pulling up some numbers here (don't know much about the subject):
"In 2050, the proportion of Chinese over retirement age will become 39 percent of the total population. At that time, its dependency ratio will rise to 69.7%"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging_of_China
Assuming this is referring to the total dependency ratio, China in 2050 is expected to be exactly where Japan is today (69%), and Japan hasn't collapsed yet.
Relative to where it was in the 80s, Japan has collapsed. It has gone from over half of the United States' GDP to under a quarter. It's still doing well because when you start out in that strong of a position there's a lot of room to fall and still be healthy. If China follows the same arc as Japan did, China of 2050 will have significantly less influence on the world than China has today.
Fun fact: satellite photos of China's largest military base show that it contains a detailed, lifesize replica of a part of downtown Taipei including the presidential palace.
I wonder what the soldiers on that base might be training for?
Maybe it's a disinformation campaign to weaken Taiwan's defenses by tricking us into redeploying half our troops to Paris because we're not sure where the attack will be.
All the American companies that choose to censor the word Taiwan and call it part of China are directly complicit with this. No rational person in a position of responsibility could have thought that this wasn’t the long term intention
Which intentional treaty denied Taiwan being part of China?
BTW, it's totally fine for people living on the Taiwan island to form an independent country, like what Jewish people did. But please, do not annex my home country's sovereign land.
> China forgot about Taiwan, treated it as part of a foreign country and even regarded its people as part of a separate Taiwanese nation. This remained true for almost half a century, from the loss of the island in 1895 until the “rediscovery” of the island by China’s Nationalist government in 1942.
Anecdata: A Taiwanese expat coworker told me that Kai-Shek’s arrival, with the remains of his KMT army, felt much like an invasion to the natives — such as his own parents. This was not because they had CCP sympathies, rather because they felt historically closer to Japan. This despite his family being of Han ethnicity themselves.
A turning point came when a non-KMT candidate won the presidency. If Taiwan’s internal rift continues to heal, Beijing will feel more urgency than ever.
Sorry bud, but didn't Taiwan lose China; not the other way around?
If anything, Taiwan has a claim on China as sovereign land.
This is Stupid, yes, but but it would (very roughly) be like if in 1066 the Normans had lost -- and then they kept claiming "Britain is ours!" Years later. Uhhh... No. Britain would be the Anglo-Saxon's. No question.
Call me out if my logic is off -- but this seems more reasonable at a glance.
> It would be accurate if the UK today were claiming northern France as an integral part of England.
The ROC aka Taiwan does officially claim the rest of China as an integral part of its territory, and the CCP would get pissed and probably start a war if it didn't.
This shit is complicated. When it comes to the issue of Taiwan, the de facto and de jure positions are often completely contradictory.
Hilariously, the Normans that conquered Britain lost the fight for their home lands in Normandy, and England retained claims over parts of France for centuries. I think it lasted until the Treaty of Utrecht?
Is not censoring the word 'Taiwan' or allowing its flag equivalent to annexation of another nation's land?
Forgive my ignorance but wasn't modern Taiwan founded by the remnants of the Chinese republic that preceded the CCP. If so wouldn't the burden be citing an international treaty recognizing the CCP as the government of Taiwan?
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
> Not even the American government officially recognizes Taiwan as a sovereign nation.
Kinda sorta. The US treats Taiwan as a de facto sovereign nation, but doesn't give it de jure recognition because of the complications caused by the PRC's conditions for diplomatic relations. So focusing on "official recognition" is pretty misleading in this exceedingly weird case.
China has been slowly biding their time and consolidating their soft and firm power throughout the world. They’re taking over institutions, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re not actively cultivating power here in the USA among elected officials. The tip of the iceberg?
We (the USA) does this sort of stuff all of the time. When we will stop pretending that China doesn’t?
"An invasion of Taiwan, the self-governed island claimed by Beijing, would force the U.S. to decide whether to go to war with China to defend an implicit ally."
The U.S. and its allies have two choices:
1. Officially recognize Taiwan as a country and make it an explicit ally.
2. Give Xi the green light to annex Taiwan.
I don't see any middle ground here. Failure to do #1 is functionally the same as #2.
Currently the US is not choosing either of these because they both have downsides. In (1), this may embolden Taiwan to take risky and provocative actions such as declaring themselves an independent country. (2) is obviously not in US interests.
Instead, the current US position is strategic ambiguity. It is clear there is probably a line somewhere after which the US will intervene, but it is not clear to either side where this is. The goal is that this will deter both sides from changing the status quo, but as China becomes increasingly aggressive it may be necessary for the US to make its position more explicit.
Taiwan already officially considers itself an independent country, and maintains a large, sophisticated military for the purpose of defending this status.
What I meant is declare themselves independent from mainland China (dropping the claims on the mainland). This would provoke China by violating the Anti-Secession Law [1].
From the sounds of it, Taiwan doesn't want to declare its independence nor signal there is no hope of peaceful reunification with mainland China because either of these would trigger an attack mandated by PRC law.
It really does seem as though Taiwan is between a rock and a hard place here. To gain formal status as a country and enter formal mutual defence treaties, they'd have to trigger a Chinese attack. If they don't have formal treaties, they could be absorbed at any time without anyone doing anything. It's either certain attack or risk an attack with no allies.
Talk about being held hostage. There should be more international pressure on the PRC to eliminate Article 8.
PRC/ROC dynamic is formally an unfinished civil war, it's diplomatically a domestic issue between two governments representing one China, where recognition is mutually exclusive. The current peace / détente is held together by a bunch of incongruous agreements, i.e. article 8 & 92 consensus between PRC/ROC, three communiqués between PRC/US, TW relations act between ROC/US to make the current arrangement somewhat workable. I don't think even "peaceful" legal options exist at UN anymore, article 18 can add new members with 2/3 vote, but resolution 2758 that changed UN recognition from ROC to PRC precludes Taiwanese politicians from joining as they are technically representatives of a Chinese province. There would need to be overhaul of UN, modern IR and Westphalian sovereignty system for TW to exist as a separate country from PRC which isn't likely to happen with PRC influence. Formal TW recognition (and derecognition of PRC) by outside parties still does not change civil war dynamic which can't be ended unilaterally by one party or outside parties. There's no way out but to fight and win for TW, and win sufficiently to be able to dictate terms to PRC and have PRC surrender agreed formally so as to enable the creation two separate sovereign states. Even then it doesn't change underlying PRC desire to regain Taiwan, whether that's resumption of civil war, via illegal war, or declaration of legal war. TW independence is a military problem, I think people are deluding themselves if they belief there's a political two country solution, especially by third parties.
Did you see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26569477? If you continue to ignore our repeated requests we are going to have to ban you. I don't believe that you're posting in bad faith but you're abusing the site by violating its intended purpose this badly.
I forgot about it and just found opportunity to read it in full. My tone in referenced reply was uncalled for. I would edit for civility if I could. I'll filter my posts on topic for pejorative language in the future. I appreciate the the effort you put into explanation. By abuse, do you mean focus on one flamewar topic? I engage in topics I'm well read on, or rather I get engaged on topics where I have dissenting opinion. Most of my comments on other topics typically don't get any replies so I find most of my followups / replies to centre around Chinese topics. I will incorporate your two guidelines going forward to avoid engaging in ways that bias towards flamewar.
Not really. Taiwan officially calls itself "Republic of China" and awkwardly claims that they actually own China mainland. (Since the time of Chiang Kai Shek.)
This position is (also awkwardly) preferable to People's Republic of China, since they see it as better negotiating position for reunification, rather than Taiwan independence.
I think this article essentially misses the mark. China isn't flirting with taking Taiwan because the leader is willing to take risks; China is flirting with taking Taiwan because it now has overwhelming military superiority over Taiwan.
The United States has bases thousands of miles away while Chinese bases are literally right there. China's capital spending on military capabilities (new + direct research & development) is almost certainly higher than the United States which is burdened by personnel spending and world spanning commitments. China can afford to focus its gigantic military preparations on a single objective; its preparations are literally mind-blowing.
As for when China will seek or threaten a military solution it depends on tradeoffs that only the leadership knows. Does China want a provocation to unify its society in a war? What margin of military superiority does it require to avoid long term economic damage to Taiwan's economic prospects? Will the world become more dependent on Taiwanese semiconductors or less? Most importantly, how does CCP view the benefits of ruling a unified China as opposed to the costs of a war?
I think you are forgetting that there are nuclear missile submarines within striking distance of every major Chinese city. This is a game of chicken, not a game of "who has better logistics."
After reading this I had a sad chuckle when I realized that as described these events would actually play pretty darned well with a large swath of the electorate :/
Unfortunately, I can think of voter demographics that wouldn't mind having those four cities wiped off the map as well. We haven't had a total war in so long that we're like a child that doesn't know how much touching a hot stove could hurt.
I doubt the US would launch a nuclear countervalue first strike against Chinese cities. A more likely scenario would be that the Chinese use a tactical nuclear weapon to knock out a US Navy carrier, and then the US retaliates against a Chinese military base, and then the situation escalates from there.
I doubt it. North Korea doesn't have the military or the economy to do this. The story I read is China provides North Korea enough support so there isn't a refugee crisis, but that's it. North Korea is a thorn in everyone's side, and they're all happy to maintain the status quo.
Whenever I see articles like this, my gut reaction is to think of every damn foreign conflict the U.S. has been involved in post-WWII. Have we not learned our lessons yet? Is it really in our best interests to get involved in yet another far flung military conflict? What will the return on lives lost and trillions of $$$ spent be?
The CCP must be stopped. If China takes Taiwan and we do not stop them our children and grandchildren will look upon us in the same manner we looked upon Neville Chamberlain and his policy of appeasement to avoid a conflict with Nazi Germany, and if the US stands up to the CCP I will gladly sign up to carry a gun. This isn't because I think America is perfect it isn't because I think that we are the 100% blameless good guys but it's because I know for certain that there are things that are evil in this world and that it is worth it to die to stop that kind of evil.
>"The CCP must be stopped. If China takes Taiwan and we do not stop them our children and grandchildren will look upon us in the same manner"
No country in their right mind will ever directly attack the US. Your children would be safe and would not give rat's ass about some country (is that a country?) far away. I am curious how many US kids are even aware about its existence and status.
What the US might loose is the ability to tell everyone how high they should jump. Well the US will still be very rich and advanced country and not gonna go hungry. They might even still be a world leader if instead of playing god in middle east and other places they would concentrate on something productive.
We never should’ve done business with China in the first place and every day we don’t cut ties completely is a day we are complicit in the CCP’s oppression and genocide. We are ultimately creating a monster that will be too strong to be contained.
There's a lot of conflation of US domestic politics with Chinese domestic politics. Xi's comment on TW during his Fujian trip this week:
> “We should focus on promoting integration by means of communication, benefit, and emotions, and have the courage to explore new ways of cross-strait integration and development.”
There's no PRC pressure to make military moves on TW for a while. Not until after 2035, post military modernizations, most of which do not suggest focus on invasion at all. The two sessions trolling of highway / bridge to Taiwan is 15 years away, after which timing and politics is much better for US/PRC since TW silicon shield would have evaporated.
Btw in the article, "implicit ally" links to pre Biden Cato article during dramatic time that Pompeo could grant Taiwan security guarantee. That never happened. Alaska meeting last week reaffirmed "one china" framework, both parties seems to be fine with not dealing with potential TW conflict in next 4-8 years. People need to remember no one, not US/PRC/EU likes TSMC having semi dominance, it's pure happenstance due to bad industrial policy on everyone's part that TW semi could cause this much friction. It's bad for all factions, no one wants to rock the boat until semi moves out of TW... which is happening.
I don't think a lot of people in this thread seem to understand the gravity of what this would mean (perhaps because many here didn't live through the Cold War), but this would not be Crimea all over again - it would be a standoff between two nuclear armed powers.
The US at one time (up until 1980) actually had an explicit mutual defense pact with Taiwan, guaranteeing that either would go to war if the other were attacked. The policy since then has been 'deliberate ambiguity' [1] but it's generally understood that there would be some kind of intervention.
235 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 297 ms ] threadThe same measure is taken for other valuable targets. For example, many major bridges in the US are rigged to self-destruct in the event of capture during land invasion. You won't find much information about this online. All I can say is, there's a reason why many jobs at the US DOT require a security clearance. If you want to read up on another real world example of this, here's an article about how Switzerland implemented this: https://99percentinvisible.org/article/designed-for-demoliti...
There is an interesting theory by Dimitry Khalezov concerning 9/11. He states that this was also done for the NYC World Trade Center and the Chicago Sears Tower. He claims the event occured because a bad actor gained control of this demolition system for the WTC, and that the planes were part of a cover story. It's an interesting explanation. Check it out if you're interested: https://youtu.be/IU7KRHOdnuo
Primarily it would be a bloody conflict with significant loss of life. If China is victorious they would gain control over dirt that the world's best electronics industry used to exist on top of. The whole world loses.
or after initial action, US will refuse actively engage, and Taiwanese government surrender to safe own people lives.
The most recent episode of the podcast ChinaTalk, "China's Chip Dreams", dated March 26, 2021, is relevant.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-and-chip-makers-including...
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/15/tsmc-to-build-us-chip-factor...
[ADNDM] turns out i can share the link after a brief search here is one of them :
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24604093
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23fTB3hG5cA
and credit where credit is due:
http://sam.zeloof.xyz/category/semiconductor/
No one really knows how this is all going to play out..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Taiwan
Fighting for the colonists genuinely could mean you won, and then they said that's great, now back to the fields 'cos you won freedom for us not for you. Your great grandchildren might see freedom (after the Civil War) but you would not.
Britain didn't have slavery†. The 1833 act abolishes slavery in the Colonies, not in Britain itself. The existence of slavery in the colonies is why there were slaves in America to seek freedom by fighting for the British there.
So like I said, the British freed those on their side, while the colonists unsurprisingly did not do likewise. This is a recorded motivation for the thing we're talking about, fighting for the British in the revolutionary war.
†Britain didn't have chattel slavery, which is what we're talking about here, but it did have serfdom - which today we would consider a type of slavery - until the late middle ages or so when it ceased to make economic sense.
The Colonies weren't Britain. Their people weren't (on the whole) British citizens, if you knew a bit more history that year might stand out more. 1833 is just after Great Reform, the country has become more small-D democratic, expanding the franchise (the right to vote) to more men and eliminating "Rotten boroughs" which were often in practice controlled by rich people, including slaveowner colonists abroad.
And that's also a point to consider: there are some people in Taiwan who want to reunify, but not anywhere near under the terms Beijing would impose. You could call those people "pro unification", but they're very very different from people who would accept Chinese rule as it is now.
Although very much like Crimea, there will be practically zero popular appetite for igniting an open war between two nuclear armed nation states. We can only hope for a diplomatic resolution, but I would strongly doubt that military action will be responded to in kind by the west. A much more likely scenario is what we've seen play out in Hong Kong for the last 30 years.
That makes it seem like you want China to take Taiwan uncontested.
I hope for either no conflict at all, or for Taiwan's allies to help defend it.
Proxy wars are more likely.
And even more likely than that, would be severe economic sanctions.
Which in this instance would hit home to many more Americans than an actual war.
If the invasion of Taiwan set in motion a series of escalating sanctions and freezes in trade, well that could get much worse than people think.
A chain reaction of unseen consequences.
I, like any sane person, would like to avoid WWIII.
It's easy to play armchair general with no skin in the game. But the reality is that there would be no support in the US for sending American soldiers to die for Taiwan. Let alone the nuclear ramifications. If Beijing decides to take it, we will sit here and watch. The same way we do currently as they commit massive genocide in their own country.
I think there will be very significant economic escalation. US + EU and probably some local countries (India, Vietnam Indonesia) will just ban all Chinese trade, maybe force Japan and SK do the same. China may get some Taiwanese fabs, but it's only single cell in supply chain, and may be rendered useless without integration into global economy.
This can’t be done without triggering a depression and causing massive shortages. The economies are too connected. We could add more sanctions, increase tariffs look at better trade deals to encourage buying non China. But the idea of just banning Chinese trade is fantasy.
US export to China represents only 6% of total (100B out of 1.5T) and import is 18% (439B out of 2.38T). Most of import is likely not critical and can easily be substituted by domestic manufacturers, or manufacturers from other countries.
Source of data: https://oec.world/en/profile/country/usa
How can anyone take this seriously after early 2020’s hysteria around mask and ventilator construction
>"fight for western values" - you mean risking WWIII to make sure that few fat cats do not loose their investments? How's that protection of western values went in places like Yemen?
Call me optimistic, but the mere risk of US involvement is enough to deter a military takeover.
Taiwan is a little over 100km off the coast of mainland China. That's nothing, and the Chinese navy could easily get there without any interference from anyone.
They wouldn't even have to; if they just wanted to cause damage, they could start firing missiles from the mainland without sending any ships or planes.
There could also be support in the US for keeping China from expanding its power to the point where it can rival the US. That is, fighting against China rather than for Taiwan.
I'm not saying that would necessarily be enough either, but people are more willing to die to protect their own country's interests than to help someone else.
EDIT: Not sure of the reason for downvotes. I'm not advocating for this. I'm just saying it is something that could happen. To the extent that American soldiers went to Korea and Vietnam willingly, it wasn't because they wanted to help the people there. It was because they wanted to stop the USSR.
If it means that Taiwan is indeed a province of 'China' then probably. If it means supporting the People's Republic of China and Communist Party then I'm very doubtful.
No large power recognizes Taiwan as sovereign country, not even US. The largest country that recognizes Taiwan is Guatemala.
I don't see how it is out of the question that China just sails to Taiwan and takes it while everybody else stands and watches.
People say US will save Taiwan from China? I call bullshit. If that was true US should have no trouble recognizing Taiwan which would be hopefully be start of the process of getting legitimacy Taiwan needs.
I fully expect US to do nothing if China invades Taiwan.
Mark my words.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_China_Army#Equipme...
However if for whatever reasons China would go full scale on Taiwan I doubt the US would respond in kind. There is just too much risk of conflict turning into WWIII. The West may try to isolate China instead.
More likely the US (and West) would attempt to punish China economically for its behavior, though I have a hard time believing that would work either. Even if an agreement is later reached and sanctions lifted, I doubt Taiwanese independence would be a part of that.
Unless there is a huge shift in sentiment toward Taiwan in China's leadership, I am really afraid that it's inevitable that Taiwan ends up being taken by force at some point in the not-too-distant future.
Now, in the real world, that claim plus six bucks will get you a latte at Starbucks. But politically, letting go of it might cost more than any political party is willing to pay. Thus both sides of the straights cling to the "one China" fiction.
A quick look at Wikipedia suggests that (as of 2019), about 49% of citizens supported independence (though 21% believes that now is not the time due to the political climate), with 31% supporting the status quo. Only 10.3% outright support reunification.
In 2020, support for independence increased, to 54%, though support for reunification also increased to 12.5%.
I think it's pretty safe to say that an overwhelming majority of people in Taiwan do not actively want reunification with China. The DPP has never held that position, and the KMT dropping it would surely splinter their supporters[0], though possibly not a majority of them. Obviously on the PRC side of the equation, allowing Taiwan its independence is a non-starter.
[0] Anecdotally, it does seem that KMT support skews older, so I expect new and future generations to continue to lean more toward independence.
- Crimeans are predominately Russian speakers and so the annexation was somewhat popular. Very little bloodshed or ongoing resistance. An invasion of Taiwan would not be popular among the Taiwanese.
- Crimea and Ukraine are geopolitically not very useful. Taiwan is extremely useful, especially if it allows defense access to e.g. American warships.
- Crimea is mostly a resort economy. Taiwan is the center of chip production.
A large reason for the annexation of Ukraine was the question of control of Russia's only warm-water seaport at Sevastopol. I doubt Russia would have bothered (given the international consequences, i.e. sanctions and potential military intervention) if their access to the Black Sea wasn't threatened by Ukraine's increasing ties with the West.
Ultimately Crimea is of limited strategic value for anyone other than Russia. The same cannot be said for Taiwan.
This is the same reason why Russia got involved in Syria, it has only a handful of warm water ports and essentially all of them are at a precarious position where they ship need to traverse potentially hostile choke points.
Also US political ties to Taiwan are far stronger than to Ukraine these date back to WW2 and even earlier technically.
Friendships made this way are very weak.
Recognition isn't nothing, but concrete support without recognition is more valuable than the reverse.
https://www.voanews.com/europe/eve-russia-invasion-anniversa...
Hint: the sales are probably not to make money.
If China decided to take Taiwan in a small and local (and, let's be honest: extremely quick) action, there would be broad domestic support in the US for the US interfering.
And do Americans take that threat seriously enough to put actual lives on the line in a conflict that would incur serious costs to the US? We spent a lot of money in the Middle East, but in terms of lives lost it hasn’t been significant.
And in terms of economic impact, it would be devastating. I don’t know if Americans are prepared to go for years without electronics, or really anything else, to enable a protracted war. The stakes would be far greater for the US. And the cost to China is coming down with their emphasis on internal consumption and building a stable self-reliant economy.
Americans don’t like China, but not enough to not use TikTok, not enough to not buy Chinese, and certainly not enough to send their friends and family to die while they live through a massive economic recession and product shortages that make covid look like a joke. And that’s assuming Americans fully understand the politics in the region and why they should even care about China invading Taiwan, which feels like a big assumption considering (the more hawkish) half of the population will tell you our election was stolen by the party currently in power.
Yeah, it's really strange that negative rhetoric has been ramping up against a government that is now running full-blown ethnic concentration camps in Xinjiang, is flagrantly stomping on the democratic rights of the people of Hong Kong, and is of course still completely ignoring its own citizens' human rights. Really strange.
For the record, the US imprisons its ethnic minorities in inhumane conditions (including labor camps and forced sterilization, just like China) at a per-capita rate 17x higher than China does.
I think the disparity in public perception (in the US; I can't speak to China as I'm not there) of the two superpowers is telling.
The biggest difference at least to me is that US social media really drinks the coolaid on how human rights and liberal ideas are the main drivers behind America's political decisions, that America should be a force for good that has a responsibility to vanquish evil around the world, and that everyone naturally wants to live under America's image for the world. Chinese social media leans towards the world as a place where might makes right and ideals are just a cover for power games. The most popular posts I've seen are ones that point out American hypocrisy in their words and deeds. But more interestingly, every charitable action the US has taken towards China is portrayed as something that is ultimately self serving, and China's portrayed as a country that's been forced to accept the rules the US has imposed because of its historical weakness and is only now gaining the strength to push back against a global hegemon.
Of course, the ultimate decisions for war and peace lie with their leaders, but if you brought the populations of China and the US into the same room there would probably be a brawl in 15 minutes.
LOL!!!! We imprison people of ANY ethnicity who commit crimes. Some prisons have ways where the people there can earn wages through work, though most don't. You can maybe stretch the definition of what "labor camp" means to include that, but I wouldn't. And we DEFINITELY do not do forced sterilization rofl.
If you're going to go around spreading fake propaganda, invent some better stuff next time.
No? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_Board_of_North_Caro... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study
None of that justifies any other country doing anything in modern day. It's like saying "Oh Germany had Nazis during WW2 so having Nazis today is okay."
https://talkpoverty.org/2017/08/23/u-s-still-forcibly-steril...
https://www.vice.com/en/article/93578d/staggering-number-of-...
https://www.thedailybeast.com/not-just-ice-a-california-pris...
Those wages you are thinking of? Frequently they are well under one dollar per hour, sometimes as low as two cents per hour, and pay of any kind is not legally required:
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/09/prison-...
> We imprison people of ANY ethnicity who commit crimes.
Police and prosecutorial discretion means that this isn't true, statistically. As I mentioned, the US imprisons ethnic minorities at a rate of 17x higher than China per capita, despite the farcical claim that all citizens have equal protection under the law. If they did, the number of people of different ethnicities imprisoned would roughly match the distribution of ethnicities in US society. They do not.
So all ethnicities are the same, especially in terms of aggression and compliance, and it's law enforcement that makes all the difference?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_independence
> Reuters conducted polls in December 2019,[617] March 2020,[618] June 2020[619] and August 2020. The last poll showed that an increasing number of Hongkongers support the pro-democracy goals since the national security law was implemented. More than half of the respondents opposed the national security law. 70% wanted an independent commission of inquiry that looked into how the police handled the protests. 63% wanted universal suffrage. The support for amnesty of all arrested protesters rose to 50%. More than half of people still wanted Carrie Lam to resign. The number of people who opposed the pro-democracy demands went down to 19%. The majority (60%) still opposed Hong Kong independence, 20% supported the idea.[620]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_Hong_Kong_prot...
Anyway: All Chinese citizens are being denied their democratic natural rights. That's a battle that's not gonna be won anytime sokn, I recognize that. But the citizens of HK are now being denied their agreed upon, on-paper, legal democratic rights by the CCP pigs.
China would not end up with TSMC following a takeover of Taiwan.
As a crimean, I find the way you write “Crimea wanted to become part of Russia” extremely funny.
This is an implicit issue highlighted by in-sourcing or physically closer ally production in the report from a month or two ago. https://www.nscai.gov/2021-final-report/
edit one of their given reasons for "fearing attack" is that Russia invaded Ukraine shortly after the Winter Olympics, and China has the Winter Olympics soon. The ulterior motive couldn't be more obvious.
You haven't explained it well enough to claim it's obvious. You think it's a money grab (of some sort)? or that the operations which were barely telling in 2015 (https://thediplomat.com/2015/08/satellite-imagery-from-china...) but of questionable efficacy in 2019 (https://news.usni.org/2019/05/03/report-china-cant-execute-m...) might all be a misunderstanding?
The danger is real enough (https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3980026, which may be a rumor) but Taiwan is sure enough to spend money on exercises (https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3076947/tai...) and the movements https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/china-simulates-island-in... which promoted a legitimate fear, that there would be an operation during the US election. https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4034710, obv that didn't happen.
There's a stated intent to enforce a "One China Policy" and that's not going to happen without a large-scale troop movement.
>There's a stated intent to enforce a "One China Policy" and that's not going to happen without a large-scale troop movement.
Or they enforce it by pretending Taiwan doesn't exist, like they have so far.
It’s the same situation with Hong Kong. Had they initiated the changeover more slowly, there would be far less resistance. Instead, they ignited a movement that will probably never go away.
Xi’s downfall will be his inability to wait patiently.
[1] https://www.dw.com/en/global-population-decline-will-hit-chi...
He is 67. His time is limited.
I just hope we are not going to do the detrimental appeasement policy like with letting Hitler take the Sudets.
I do wonder if there is a politician in the west with the stomach to confront CCP.
I just cannot help but congratulate the CCP on their well played long game of chess. China has transformed immensely in the last 40 years, and we got no one to blame but ourselves.
We literally check-mated ourselves. I guess this will go on the long list of Nixon's failure.
The day the west started bowing down to China without setting up rules is the day we lost.
Sometimes I do wonder what would have happened had MacArthur executed his plan...
The appetite of the US public for another conflict, especially one directly against a superpower, is exceptionally low.
I fear that if the CCP manages to take Kinmen island without a devastating US response then it will be the Austria moment of our century. Obviously, a strong US response would be damaging to both countries, but the only way to deter an attack on Taiwan is to make the cost of attacking so high for the CCP that it is not worth it. While it will be difficult to justify in the short term, the US must push back strongly when China is "testing the waters" or else it will only escalate from there. If there is only a weak US response, it will embolden the CCP to continue pushing the boundaries until they do something that requires either full scale war or surrender (such as invasion of Taiwan main island).
Meaning the Anschluss:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anschluss
> Due to the one child policy, China is going to experience a demographic collapse this decade as more people retire than are available to replace them in the workforce.
Population growth is slowing down, but it's still far higher than any other developed nations. Population growth slow down does not translate to slowing catch up of China's economy, military, and political power. US has less than 4mm new born, EU has less than 5mm. China has 10mm in 2020.
And not mentioning Chinese new born are generally getting better education and more useful education because of the effective management and control by the government.
> Obviously, a strong US response would be damaging to both countries, but the only way to deter an attack on Taiwan is to make the cost of attacking so high for the CCP that it is not worth it.
A strong US operation should be fostering the peaceful transition of Taiwan into the one China system and ensure the long term peace and prosper of the region. It's not about adopting one system or another, it's about the people's well-being.
If the democracy works best, China should adopt it ad well. Show the Chinese people that there has been example of American democracy lifted a large nation out of poverty. Not some national capitalism.
Oh, there has no such example of prosper in so many experiments of American democracy?!
Sorry, then I suppose it should be the better system prevail?
Pulling up some numbers here (don't know much about the subject):
"In 2050, the proportion of Chinese over retirement age will become 39 percent of the total population. At that time, its dependency ratio will rise to 69.7%" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging_of_China
Assuming this is referring to the total dependency ratio, China in 2050 is expected to be exactly where Japan is today (69%), and Japan hasn't collapsed yet.
I wonder what the soldiers on that base might be training for?
BTW, it's totally fine for people living on the Taiwan island to form an independent country, like what Jewish people did. But please, do not annex my home country's sovereign land.
Anecdata: A Taiwanese expat coworker told me that Kai-Shek’s arrival, with the remains of his KMT army, felt much like an invasion to the natives — such as his own parents. This was not because they had CCP sympathies, rather because they felt historically closer to Japan. This despite his family being of Han ethnicity themselves.
A turning point came when a non-KMT candidate won the presidency. If Taiwan’s internal rift continues to heal, Beijing will feel more urgency than ever.
If anything, Taiwan has a claim on China as sovereign land. This is Stupid, yes, but but it would (very roughly) be like if in 1066 the Normans had lost -- and then they kept claiming "Britain is ours!" Years later. Uhhh... No. Britain would be the Anglo-Saxon's. No question.
Call me out if my logic is off -- but this seems more reasonable at a glance.
The ROC aka Taiwan does officially claim the rest of China as an integral part of its territory, and the CCP would get pissed and probably start a war if it didn't.
This shit is complicated. When it comes to the issue of Taiwan, the de facto and de jure positions are often completely contradictory.
Edit: no, it lasted until the Revolution, seven centuries after 1066. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_claims_to_the_French...
Forgive my ignorance but wasn't modern Taiwan founded by the remnants of the Chinese republic that preceded the CCP. If so wouldn't the burden be citing an international treaty recognizing the CCP as the government of Taiwan?
Here's how it works. You paste a link you found, like so:
https://www.businessinsider.com/which-companies-have-changed...
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan%E2%80%93United_States...
Kinda sorta. The US treats Taiwan as a de facto sovereign nation, but doesn't give it de jure recognition because of the complications caused by the PRC's conditions for diplomatic relations. So focusing on "official recognition" is pretty misleading in this exceedingly weird case.
We (the USA) does this sort of stuff all of the time. When we will stop pretending that China doesn’t?
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/08/10/thiessen-sen-dianne-f...
https://spectator.us/topic/eric-swalwell-honeypot-china-ccp-...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/27/world/asia/china-linkedin...
The U.S. and its allies have two choices:
1. Officially recognize Taiwan as a country and make it an explicit ally.
2. Give Xi the green light to annex Taiwan.
I don't see any middle ground here. Failure to do #1 is functionally the same as #2.
Instead, the current US position is strategic ambiguity. It is clear there is probably a line somewhere after which the US will intervene, but it is not clear to either side where this is. The goal is that this will deter both sides from changing the status quo, but as China becomes increasingly aggressive it may be necessary for the US to make its position more explicit.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Secession_Law
From the sounds of it, Taiwan doesn't want to declare its independence nor signal there is no hope of peaceful reunification with mainland China because either of these would trigger an attack mandated by PRC law.
It really does seem as though Taiwan is between a rock and a hard place here. To gain formal status as a country and enter formal mutual defence treaties, they'd have to trigger a Chinese attack. If they don't have formal treaties, they could be absorbed at any time without anyone doing anything. It's either certain attack or risk an attack with no allies.
Talk about being held hostage. There should be more international pressure on the PRC to eliminate Article 8.
This position is (also awkwardly) preferable to People's Republic of China, since they see it as better negotiating position for reunification, rather than Taiwan independence.
The United States has bases thousands of miles away while Chinese bases are literally right there. China's capital spending on military capabilities (new + direct research & development) is almost certainly higher than the United States which is burdened by personnel spending and world spanning commitments. China can afford to focus its gigantic military preparations on a single objective; its preparations are literally mind-blowing.
As for when China will seek or threaten a military solution it depends on tradeoffs that only the leadership knows. Does China want a provocation to unify its society in a war? What margin of military superiority does it require to avoid long term economic damage to Taiwan's economic prospects? Will the world become more dependent on Taiwanese semiconductors or less? Most importantly, how does CCP view the benefits of ruling a unified China as opposed to the costs of a war?
It would also be the third time the US unilaterally used nuclear weapons first which I'm sure has no international political implications.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/whats-next-us-china-military-rel...
>Taiwan’s envoy to the United States called for "high alert" over Beijing's maritime coercion in the wake of the Coast Guard Law.
No country in their right mind will ever directly attack the US. Your children would be safe and would not give rat's ass about some country (is that a country?) far away. I am curious how many US kids are even aware about its existence and status.
What the US might loose is the ability to tell everyone how high they should jump. Well the US will still be very rich and advanced country and not gonna go hungry. They might even still be a world leader if instead of playing god in middle east and other places they would concentrate on something productive.
> “We should focus on promoting integration by means of communication, benefit, and emotions, and have the courage to explore new ways of cross-strait integration and development.”
There's no PRC pressure to make military moves on TW for a while. Not until after 2035, post military modernizations, most of which do not suggest focus on invasion at all. The two sessions trolling of highway / bridge to Taiwan is 15 years away, after which timing and politics is much better for US/PRC since TW silicon shield would have evaporated.
Btw in the article, "implicit ally" links to pre Biden Cato article during dramatic time that Pompeo could grant Taiwan security guarantee. That never happened. Alaska meeting last week reaffirmed "one china" framework, both parties seems to be fine with not dealing with potential TW conflict in next 4-8 years. People need to remember no one, not US/PRC/EU likes TSMC having semi dominance, it's pure happenstance due to bad industrial policy on everyone's part that TW semi could cause this much friction. It's bad for all factions, no one wants to rock the boat until semi moves out of TW... which is happening.
The US at one time (up until 1980) actually had an explicit mutual defense pact with Taiwan, guaranteeing that either would go to war if the other were attacked. The policy since then has been 'deliberate ambiguity' [1] but it's generally understood that there would be some kind of intervention.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy_of_deliberate_ambiguity...