Hacker News Reader

Comment by xtian | Hacker News Reader

That article is vague even by the standards of Western reporting about China. This Reuters article about the same event is more specific: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-taiwan-defence-idUSKBN2BU...

It says Chinese fighters flew inside Taiwan's air defense identification zone. Here's a map which shows Taiwan's ADIZ: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/JADIZ_an...

You can make your own judgement as to whether that action constitutes an escalation of threat. As far as I'm aware, China's stance on what actions would trigger a military response regarding Taiwan has not changed in decades.

View on HN

That stance being: we own Taiwan and we will depose their government by force if necessary, eventually. China senses this moment as one of profound weakness for the West. What makes you think they aren't preparing to strike while the iron is hot?

Top brass in the U.S. military is saying an invasion is likely within the decade: https://www.newsweek.com/top-commander-fears-taiwan-could-in...

Edit: I fail to see how China invading Taiwan could be considered a "military response", rather than a blatantly illegal land grab according to international law.

Edit 2: The international law in question is the one forbidding annexation: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/07/israelopt-10-...

> we own Taiwan and we will depose their government by force if necessary, eventually.

Until very recently this was Taiwan's stance on China.

What exactly would China gain from invading Taiwan? My understanding is that their main goal is preventing the expansion of US military presence and bases in the region, which Taiwan's pro-independence party supports.

Response to your edit: China invading Taiwan would not be an annexation according to international law. A small minority of nations recognize Taiwan's sovereignty, and historically it is not a sovereign nation. Taiwan represents the losing side of a Chinese civil war that recently decided it wants to be a sovereign nation as its hopes of retaking the mainland have evaporated.

A propaganda coup, first of all. They have been promising their increasingly nationalistic populace this prize for nearly a century.

Second: They eliminate a very important forward operating base for any future containment of China by Five Eyes & Co.

Third: It's 23 million people who have built an advanced economy. Being able to siphon that wealth will be a massive boon for the CCP and other parts of China.

The rationale for invasion is clear. Particularly if they have calculated they can't or won't be stopped. I know more than a few mainlanders and they all strongly believe that Taiwan and China will be "reunified" within their lifetime.

Edit: Does anyone here care that none of the Taiwanese want to be part of China? Yes, they are the "losing side" of a civil war from almost a century ago. That's completely irrelevant given how long they have had sovereignty at this point. That they are not more widely recognized in the international community is a tragedy. The U.S. is correct to continue to support their independence.

> Third: It's 23 million people who have built an advanced economy. Being able to siphon that wealth will be a massive boon for the CCP and other parts of China.

Ah yes, the filthy lucre of siphoning an economy with 4% of their own GDP.

4% is 4%. They are paying the expenditures to maintain their military. Why would they not be looking for a return on their investment? It's strange we're even arguing about this given that their official position is that they will invade in due time if Taiwan does not unconditionally surrender.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/china-taiw...

"In its annual work report this year, the Chinese government removed the word "peaceful" from long-standing references to "reunification" with Taiwan."

Their official position is that they will invade if any of a few specific things occur. And China's military spending is less than 4% of their GDP last I checked. That seems pretty good to me given all the geopolitical aggression they're receiving from the country that makes up 38% of global military spending.

The U.S. guaranteeing the independence of a free democracy is not "geopolitical aggression". Claiming sovereignty over land you have not controlled for an entire human lifetime quite certainly is. I'll end my participation in this discussion with a quote from the Taiwanese:

"We fill fight a war if we need to fight a war, and if we need to defend ourselves to the very last day, then we will defend ourselves to the very last day"

https://www.businessinsider.com/taiwan-warns-fight-to-end-co...

>The U.S. guaranteeing the independence of a free democracy is not "geopolitical aggression".

So it was geopolitical aggression for the 40+ years Taiwan couldn't even pretend to be a free democracy? I don't understand how the internal government can be the decider over whether it's aggressive.

> So it was geopolitical aggression for the 40+ years Taiwan couldn't even pretend to be a free democracy?

Yes, it was still aggression. The US opposed it then under the grounds of "containing Communism" rather than "defending democracy".

> I don't understand how the internal government can be the decider over whether it's aggressive.

If you invade somewhere to take it over against the wishes of the locals, that's aggressive. How is that hard to understand?

>If you invade somewhere to take it over against the wishes of the locals, that's aggressive. How is that hard to understand?

I have no idea what part of my post made it seem like I wouldn't find an invasion aggressive, it clearly would be. I wasn't discussing an invasion at all.

Then I clearly misunderstood this line:

> I don't understand how the internal government can be the decider over whether it's aggressive.

Would you explain what you meant by it?

(And, my apologies for the yelling. I in fact thought that you were saying that an invasion would not be aggression, which... yeah. We both agree that such an idea is wrong.

That providing substantial military support to a nation bordering an empire is an aggressive act no matter the form of government the border nation has.

Yes, kind of, but also no.

Yes, it riles up the empire. They don't like it. They certainly regard it as a hostile, aggressive act.

But you're not providing enough military support for the smaller nation to invade and conquer the empire. It makes it more expensive (perhaps prohibitively so) for the empire to conquer the other country. That's only "aggressive" if the empire was intending to conquer the other country, and only because it removed from them an option that they really wanted to use. They don't lose a foot of ground. All they lose is the option of themselves invading.

>But you're not providing enough military support for the smaller nation to invade and conquer the empire.

The fear isn't that the border country tried to invade, the fear is that the country providing the arms will use them as a stockpile to invade. A buildup of arms along the border has been seen as an aggressive provocation for millennia.

Bringing this back to the specific instance at hand: China sees the buildup of arms in Taiwan as a stockpile for the US to invade mainland China? No way. (I mean, yes, they might be paranoid enough to see it that way, but it's completely divorced from reality. There is exactly zero chance that the US would do so. What's much more likely is that they would use it as an excuse to move to "counter US aggression".)

>I mean, yes, they might be paranoid enough to see it that way, but it's completely divorced from reality

It began in ~1950, when it had been less than a decade since the latest of the several times the US has invaded China. It's not unreasonable to worry that the US would lead a new Eight Nation Alliance to return the Kuomintang to power.

It's less likely now, but it could still be used in some kind of proxy war somewhere like Korea. Arming the border does far more than just prevent China from invading.

Unless you succeed, in which case you become the locals and kicking you out is aggression

Taiwan was run by a military dictatorship until 1986

*edit: 1986 was a long time ago, but the point is that the KMT was a corrupt and unpopular government which lost to the Communists, but the US held its nose and propped it up for 30+ years until Nixon needed a counterweight to the USSR and opened relations with China.

> The U.S. guaranteeing the independence of a free democracy is not "geopolitical aggression".

This is a naïve view of geopolitics. Check out where Kurds ended up by counting on the US.

I never said the U.S. was likely to uphold their promise to prevent an invasion. The U.S. is however providing the Taiwanese with advanced military equipment. And their threat of defending Taiwan, no matter how hollow you judge it to be, is perhaps the only reason Taiwan is still an independent nation in 2021.

The US has interests in Taiwan, and none in Kurdistan.

Some of those interests are economic, and Taiwan knows not to give them up.

Others are geographic, and won't go away unless china finds another way to the ocean

> The US has interests in Taiwan, and none in Kurdistan.

So they stayed in Syria just for fun? Middle East invasion is about pressuring Iran, as much as Taiwan is about Mainland China.

> Does anyone here care that none of the Taiwanese want to be part of China?

It would probably help if Taiwan had nuclear weapons. China wouldn't risk an invasion. That or maybe I don't know enough about Asia.

> Third: It's 23 million people who have built an advanced economy. Being able to siphon that wealth will be a massive boon for the CCP and other parts of China.

Right, who's going to buy from China-occupied Taiwan? In this scenario, there's going to be a massive disruption of Taiwanese economy. By the time it's over, someone else will outcompete them. It's not 17th century, capturing land doesn't guarantee any advantages.

> Edit: Does anyone here care that none of the Taiwanese want to be part of China?

I get you. Crimeans don't want to be a part of Ukraine either, yet the "international community" pretends they do. Life isn't fair, and Taiwanese not wanting something isn't going to change anything.

> Crimeans don't want to be a part of Ukraine either, yet the "international community" pretends they do.

I don't think the international community pretends any such thing. It just doesn't oppose it strongly enough to start a shooting war with Russia.

> Right, who's going to buy from China-occupied Taiwan?

We've been buying from China-occupied China, including Xinjiang. Color me skeptical that international trade with China will fundamentally change in response to an invasion, ahem, "reunification". Taiwan's largest trading partner right now is mainland China. That will only accelerate with annexation and can offset export losses elsewhere.

> I get you. Crimeans don't want to be a part of Ukraine either, yet the "international community" pretends they do.

The U.S. is also correct to oppose the annexation of Crimea and further destabilization of the Donbass.

It's none of their business, tbh.

>Does anyone here care that none of the Taiwanese want to be part of China?

Who cares what they want? The confederacy succeeded from the Union and the Union invaded it.

Access to the ocean.

Right now, America owns China's coast, with the aim of making sure China has to get America's permission to get to ocean shipping routes.

A PRC Taiwan gives china a free access point to the Pacific.

Which international law would China be violating by invading Taiwan?

Taiwan fits all criteria under international law for a country. Plus CCP would kill hundreds of thousands or millions during a forceful invasion of Taiwan.

Laws always have loopholes. It's clear that the CCP would be doing something evil by attacking a peaceful island nation. They want control.

> Plus CCP would kill hundreds of thousands or millions during a forceful invasion of Taiwan.

> They want control.

Does not add up. Who're they going to control if they kill millions? I mean, why do they even have to start a military offensive when they can eventually outcompete Taiwan? Just think how many top-rated universities China has.

> Does not add up. Who're they going to control if they kill millions?

Their citizens on the mainland. The CCP believes that if they don't look good, their days are numbered and revolution will be inevitable.

A survey conducted by the Harvard Kennedy School found that satisfaction with the central government in China rose from 86.1% in 2003 to 93.1% in 2016: https://ash.harvard.edu/publications/understanding-ccp-resil...

Is the US government's abysmal approval rating by comparison a sign of our free thinking and freedom, or do you think we'll have a revolution here soon?

This is laughable. Chinese citizens are required to approve of their government, lest they run afoul of the national social credit system. That the study was conducted by a Western organization is irrelevant. Chinese citizens know that their communications with the West are not private, and perhaps even especially subject to monitoring and intrusion from their government.

Edit: I usually don't call out blatant CCP astroturfing on this site. But I want to draw everyone's attention to the video that u/xtian just shared in the comment below. It's clearly Chinese Communist Party propaganda. It's tagged #serpentza and #laowhy86 because those are the two most famous Western streamers who have lived in China for decades. The CCP specifically targets people who watch their videos for counter programming. I'm done interacting with this "person", but will respond to comments from others.

Check out serpentza's youtube for the truth about China:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCl7mAGnY4jh4Ps8rhhh8XZg

Yeah true the only way to know their real interests is to listen to the West. That's why when native Chinese people say the social credit system doesn't exist I call them liars. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaPvnGhbj9A

Edit: chitowneats, if you don't believe I'm a real person message me on Keybase. We can discuss whatever you'd like. Or just keep believing it's impossible for any real person to have political views that fall outside the boundaries set by NATO propaganda.

Anyone here with any technical literacy knows that the fact that you have a keybase account, and associated pseudonym, does not prove anything.

Edit: Response to the comment below. Being rate limited.

The West is past the point of naively believing that the CCP does not have multi-decade information ops being conducted against their governments and citizenry.

Also, that was exactly your assertion. What would be the point of bringing up your irrelevant keybase account if it was not an attempt to mislead me and others on this site?

Thank you for your insightful comments and sorry for the hate you receiving by not towing the NATO line!

> This is laughable. Chinese citizens are required to approve of their government, lest they run afoul of the national social credit system.

It’s your word against someone else’s. I only know about China from personal anecdotes. And you know what, whenever I ask my Chinese colleague if these things are true she tells me it’s bs. So what do I believe?

And when you resort dehumanizing your opponent is when you start loosing the argument. When you say that guy is on CCP payroll, you basically claim it’s impossible for a person to have an opinion that differs from yours. Which is ironic since you’re bashing China for being an evil dictatorship.

Because the people who answer the survey cannot freely express their mind, otherwise another mysterious group of people will start to kill them and their families. Everyone knows CCP controls these assassins through their seat at the High Table. Free tip: you can hide inside the Continental Hotel where these assassins cannot kill you on that ground.

Don’t forget organ harvesting and rape squadrons.

They're going to remain in control of the mainland population, by giving them a big patriotic victory. (And by delivering on what they said, over and over, that they were going to do.)

It's about more than the population of Taiwan or the strategic importance of its chips: it means control of the South Chinese Sea. Between the US Navy and Taiwan's alliance, China's broader ambitions for economic and military control of the region are stymied.

> Taiwan fits all criteria under international law for a country.

Taiwan claims that they're not separate from China. Their disagreement is over who should be in charge, not whether they're the same country currently engaged in a power struggle between regions.

Sure, they claim that. Try traveling from one to the other (either direction) without crossing border control. Or, try to find the common point of authority in the command structures of their respective militaries. They're two countries, no matter what they say they are.

You're confusing two things. The context of the discussion was International Law. You're talking about practical reality which is almost orthogonal to international law.

Yeah because if they claimed they were separate they would cross the CCP's "red line".

The Taiwan populace doesn't want to take over the mainland.

There's literally no way you can spin this that makes sense besides the CCP wants control of a physical island to push out the US/Japan.

It's not peaceful to play host aggressive armies and navies.

That would be https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/chapter-7 if I'm not mistaken. It is neither authorized or self-defense.

In practice, international law only applies to small countries with small militaries.

Correct

Sometimes, not even them.

>"The international law"

The law is only as good as there is an entity capable and willing to impartially enforce it. Meanwhile as it stands now any reasonably capable country can show big fat middle finger to that concept which makes it but a mockery.

Nuclear weapons + huge economy = I do whatever I want.

> Top brass in the U.S. military is saying an invasion is likely within the decade

So you're saying if China/Russia/Iran did not have any plans whatsoever, the US generals would just say "Alrighty, you can now defund us!". Those guys will cry wolf any day to get those sweet $billions.

I agree with you - it's an awful article, it was just the first one I found searching for the quote I was looking for. And you are right, more in the last four years Western and specifically in the US, coverage of China have been dubious, particularly some media entities. But I don't think the Strait of Taiwan tensions and the recent South China Sea escalations are anything that I need to find an article to document, though.

If China can drastically weaken the semi industry in Taiwan by hiring away their top talent to sit around and do nothing, it would be a stunningly inexpensive way to help achieve this long term strategic objective. They would be foolish not to try, and it's understandable and correct Taiwan would see it in this light.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com