And furthermore, the government on Taiwan (ROC) is the one that lost the civil war for China. They still claim all of China as their territory (and actually a bit more than the PRC). Even the US officially accepts Taiwan is a part of China.
Majority public opinion in Taiwan is still that it’s a part of China (however that is defined), although that is slowly changing.
Can you really not separate coerced opinion from opinion?
"Do you want to claim independence [and potentially be killed or economically punished for doing so]?" "Do you prefer the status quo [knowing that any change will be punished harshly]"?
Seeing China fully colonize Hong Kong sent shivers through Taiwanese society. President Lai was largely considered a rejection of China.
Arguing for border changes based on history can justify any border change. It's not functionally any different from "might makes right" because the invaded is unlikely to agree with that historical interpretation, nor are outside observers.
If you have a reason based system for determining what is right or wrong, then you would have to look at what the citizens in Taiwan want otherwise you are violating people who committed no crimes against China and are experiencing threats to their way of life.
You are literally talking about killing people for their land.
You're on a forum that's largely American. Read the declaration of independence and see if it's confusing to you why an American would want to help Taiwan. The french helped us with our own independence. By the same logic America still belongs to the British. Any papers involved may as well just be "historical documents that no longer have any practical significance."
Like many other islands in the Pacific, Taiwan was mostly inhabited by Austronesian speakers until the arrival of European colonizers. In 1624, the Dutch East India company set up a colony on Taiwan (then called Formosa) as an outpost for trade with the Ming dynasty, encouraging Chinese workers to immigrate. At the time, the Ming were under pressure from the Jurchens (later Manchus), who ended up conquering China and establishing the Qing dynasty. In 1662, Ming remnants fleeing the mainland defeated the Dutch and conquered the island, subsequently being defeated and conquered in turn by the Qing in 1684. And in 1895 Taiwan was seized by Japan.
That's barely more than 200 years of being tied to the mainland, nowhere close to 5000.
If you go by duration of historical possession, Taiwan would have to be ruled by a minority aristocracy of indigenous peoples, about 3% of the population.
I feel this to be a balanced headline if we put on an editor’s hat: The subject of the sentence is "China." From China’s standpoint, Taiwan was always theirs. Hence, from this viewpoint, it is a "reclaim."
Thinking about this social form of the nation, what makes it particularly tricky, is that the nation once it exists, lays claim to the past.
The nation didn't already exist, but once it comes into existence, it tells a story about the past... This new social form has a story about how it's very old.
> If you want to play silly word games, the CCP have never held power in Taiwan, while one of the parties in Taiwan, the KMT, have held power on the Chinese mainland so ‘reclaim’ could only go the other direction.
It's a lecture that explores questions about what a nation is, how that relates to governments, and how governments lay claim to a history, such as the history of China.
Here you point out that part of the KMT's history is rule over China, while CPC/CCP claim that same history yet Taiwan is not a part of CPC history, they never ruled it, only a part of "Chinese" history.
It wasn't a rebuttal or anything, I legitimately thought you might enjoy it since it questions some base assumptions about what a country/nation is and what your history is. Snyder loves word games and frequently references the deeper meanings of words as well as their unstated implications.
The Tao of Deception: Unorthodox Warfare in Historic and Modern China by Ralph Sawyer.
I am not sure I would listen to anyone but Ralph Sawyer at this point in English on the subject.
China is not going to invade Taiwan the way the US would invade Hawaii in the same situation.
That is just not how China conducts warfare.
Taiwan is another level with all this. What matters is the PLA views it as reclaiming. They have to win by soft power and not "win" like the US going in and blowing the shit out of Iraq.
Disturb the water and catch a fish.
In that context, something like DeepSeek is a much bigger deal as far as the objectives. 1000X more than this decoy.
what you said is how China planed before 2019, reality's development makes it impossible to act as previously planned, now, there's 0 chance that the CCP can take back Taiwan without bombs
however, it really depends on the definitions of 'reclaim' and 'win'
China's purpose is not only to take the land, but also to 'reunite' taiwanese people, so you're right about they are going to need to use soft power to achieve this, so yes, it will not be like what the US did to Hawaii and Iraq
btw, I briefly looked through the book you mentioned and was surprised to find that, compared to other Westerners, the author has a very good understanding of China's war history and philosophy. Although it is somewhat one-sided, Chinese military philosophy is very different before and after the Han Dynasty
It's pretty funny that Westerners are still going on about this largely invented issue after underwriting a brutal genocide in Gaza for almost 18 months. Won't someone please think of the oppressed Muslims!
This seems like quintessential whataboutism. I think expanding on how that concern is "largely invented" would serve your point better. I, at least, would be interested.
It shows up so naturally that one may think it is not whataboutism at work, even though the reasoning is often not well argued. We could choose to see it not as a moral judgement, but as questioning the justification of efforts pushing for conflicts with China.
100 RMB army will be the first to be turned into landfill when China gets a bit more ambitious. Much like what is currently happening to their North Korean counterparts in the north of my country.
China built several -- several, like 8+ -- landing ships designed to support an amphibious assault. if soft power was their goal and primary method they wouldn't have spent the resources.
while they may not ever do it, a very direct, very violent invasion is absolutely on the table. Taiwan may only even be a secondary objective, since #1 would be sinking the US Navy and shifting the hegemonic balance; they'll get to Taiwan when they can after that.
that's why i said 'weird', it's very abnormal for the economist, looks like someone had gone astray in his thinking, fortunately, it has now been corrected
> The place we commonly refer to as China is not the Republic of China, but the People's Republic of China.
???
No kidding. ROC = Taiwan.
The ROC were the Chinese government, went into exile in Taiwan after they lost the civil war and still claim all of China, which is why they're not claiming to be a separate country from mainland China, which is currently governed by the PRC...
"...a single Chinese state-owned shipbuilder produced a larger tonnage of commercial vessels in 2024 than America has built since the second world war."
Of course, due to the 1920 US "Job's Act" (the irony) there wasn't much ship building left.
64 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 130 ms ] threadMajority public opinion in Taiwan is still that it’s a part of China (however that is defined), although that is slowly changing.
Can you really not separate coerced opinion from opinion?
"Do you want to claim independence [and potentially be killed or economically punished for doing so]?" "Do you prefer the status quo [knowing that any change will be punished harshly]"?
Seeing China fully colonize Hong Kong sent shivers through Taiwanese society. President Lai was largely considered a rejection of China.
If you have a reason based system for determining what is right or wrong, then you would have to look at what the citizens in Taiwan want otherwise you are violating people who committed no crimes against China and are experiencing threats to their way of life.
You are literally talking about killing people for their land.
You're on a forum that's largely American. Read the declaration of independence and see if it's confusing to you why an American would want to help Taiwan. The french helped us with our own independence. By the same logic America still belongs to the British. Any papers involved may as well just be "historical documents that no longer have any practical significance."
That's barely more than 200 years of being tied to the mainland, nowhere close to 5000.
If you go by duration of historical possession, Taiwan would have to be ruled by a minority aristocracy of indigenous peoples, about 3% of the population.
You would probably enjoy this lecture titled "the genesis of nations" from his history of Ukraine lecture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LaEmaMAkpM&list=PLh9mgdi4rN...
Thinking about this social form of the nation, what makes it particularly tricky, is that the nation once it exists, lays claim to the past.
The nation didn't already exist, but once it comes into existence, it tells a story about the past... This new social form has a story about how it's very old.
It's a lecture that explores questions about what a nation is, how that relates to governments, and how governments lay claim to a history, such as the history of China.
Here you point out that part of the KMT's history is rule over China, while CPC/CCP claim that same history yet Taiwan is not a part of CPC history, they never ruled it, only a part of "Chinese" history.
It wasn't a rebuttal or anything, I legitimately thought you might enjoy it since it questions some base assumptions about what a country/nation is and what your history is. Snyder loves word games and frequently references the deeper meanings of words as well as their unstated implications.
The Tao of Deception: Unorthodox Warfare in Historic and Modern China by Ralph Sawyer.
I am not sure I would listen to anyone but Ralph Sawyer at this point in English on the subject.
China is not going to invade Taiwan the way the US would invade Hawaii in the same situation.
That is just not how China conducts warfare.
Taiwan is another level with all this. What matters is the PLA views it as reclaiming. They have to win by soft power and not "win" like the US going in and blowing the shit out of Iraq.
Disturb the water and catch a fish.
In that context, something like DeepSeek is a much bigger deal as far as the objectives. 1000X more than this decoy.
however, it really depends on the definitions of 'reclaim' and 'win'
China's purpose is not only to take the land, but also to 'reunite' taiwanese people, so you're right about they are going to need to use soft power to achieve this, so yes, it will not be like what the US did to Hawaii and Iraq
btw, I briefly looked through the book you mentioned and was surprised to find that, compared to other Westerners, the author has a very good understanding of China's war history and philosophy. Although it is somewhat one-sided, Chinese military philosophy is very different before and after the Han Dynasty
this is the real soft power
this is the power makes you believe there're genocide in xinjiang without any solid evidence
this is the power makes every discussion about gaza were flagged here
the real power, it's soft, but it's so strong
wonderful, isn't it?
China built several -- several, like 8+ -- landing ships designed to support an amphibious assault. if soft power was their goal and primary method they wouldn't have spent the resources.
while they may not ever do it, a very direct, very violent invasion is absolutely on the table. Taiwan may only even be a secondary objective, since #1 would be sinking the US Navy and shifting the hegemonic balance; they'll get to Taiwan when they can after that.
you can still see the word in the url
that's why i said 'weird', it's very abnormal for the economist, looks like someone had gone astray in his thinking, fortunately, it has now been corrected
Even as far back as the 1960s the Pentagon considered it a lost cause hence there are no US bases in the island.
but Taiwan is a mountainous, forested island. it'll be an ugly, expensive occupation.
That is like saying that Republic of Congo and the Democratic Republic of Congo are the same country because they both end in Congo.
???
No kidding. ROC = Taiwan.
The ROC were the Chinese government, went into exile in Taiwan after they lost the civil war and still claim all of China, which is why they're not claiming to be a separate country from mainland China, which is currently governed by the PRC...
Belize
Eswatini
Guatemala
Haiti
Holy See (Vatican City)
Marshall Islands
Palau
Paraguay
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Tuvalu
I can see that propaganda line working!
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2025/01/china-suddenly-...
Surely the D-day is coming
Raised? Ship Bridges, with ship feet! These are a whole new thing. Equally interesting. The political implications are incidental.