How? Another war? I'm having a hard time believing the economic elite in the US will be in favor of loosing business in China.
Economically HK isn't that big of a deal compared to the rest of China at this point.
> But the Hong Kong government can only welcome the stock listing opportunity to reinforce Hong Kong as the world’s premier IPO destination, especially at a time when the introduction of the national security law has raised concerns about maintaining the city as a global financial hub.
[1]: https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3145952/why-chi...
The US’s capital markets support international trade in a somewhat similar way, and are thus innately valuable even without accounting for the productivity of American workers.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-protests-finance...
In CN there are largely three types of listings A shares, B shares and H shares. A & B are listed on SZ and SH exchange and are not freely traded like you know it from the west. H shares are listed on HK exchange and are freely traded using the Hong Kong Dollar.
This is why companies like Tencent are dual listed on Shanghai and Hong Kong exchange, to facilitate foreign investment that wouldnt be possible in the same way if Tencent was only listed as B class on Shanghai exchange.
We should also note that with the growth of Shenzhen and other mega cities, HK isn't that important to China anymore. That's part of why they've become more aggressive in the situation.
until what point?
inaction is generally one of the biggest causes of death and suffering in historical warfare.
Beyond just Taiwan, the last cold war kept the third world in a constant state of proxy war between the major powers, costing millions of lives in the short-term and delaying development in the long term.
Worth considering if you're in favor of more of that in the name of human rights.
And the alternative might have been "let the Soviets win." That choice would have definitely been a way to avoid war and achieve a kind of "peace."
We had to support one-way helicopter rides under Pinochet and contras gunning down nuns? Or else the soviets win?
If it's about national pride and staying on top, fine, but don't tell me it's human rights with that record. The Chinese haven't acted with force outside of what they consider their soil/sea in like 40 years. Xi is pretty worrying but until he starts doing that, let's not agitate for killing a bunch of people just in case.
The world is a messy place and at many times it may be impossible to pursue that goal in an entirely consistent manner.
There's also the other factor of self-preservation. It's not a good strategy to cede advantages to your opponent and hope a deus ex machina saves you in the end.
> The Chinese haven't acted with force outside of what they consider their soil/sea in like 40 years. Xi is pretty worrying but until he starts doing that, let's not agitate for killing a bunch of people just in case.
Who's advocating for a bunch of killing? I think the main (perhaps only) thing I'm seeing advocated for here is diplomatic recognition.
Xi has been pushing the limits internally and maybe one day that turns external but people here are talking about pre-emptive cold war.
EDIT: diplomatic recognition is a purely symbolic move, and in this case the symbol is a middle finger to China. I'd argue the upsides are limited, but I was more objecting to the general theme of china hawkishness that points towards a new cold war.
What it IS, is a grievous insult to our insistence on being the last word in international affairs.
That's not a great look, and will probably eventually end with our allies either defeated or heading for the exits.
Being a reliable ally seems like it'd be pretty important to self-defense. China has a pretty big population, it's unified, and may have the patience to chip away at things and outlast us.
> What it IS, is a grievous insult to our insistence on being the last word in international affairs.
I suppose it's always an option to withdraw and leave our allies become tributaries of the new empire. Maybe we can eventually become one ourselves and our grandkids can gave peace under the emperor.
Hundreds of thousands were massacred by the Viet Cong after the US left, and hundreds of thousands more died in the ensuing refugee crisis.
It would be a global political shitstorm, but even mainland China would not be stupid enough to invade after that.
Nuclear proliferation may be bad for all sorts of reasons, but MAD really does appear to work.
Also Taiwan already has nuclear power plants, so it's not that crazy. They are capable of developing nuclear weapons on their own if they really wanted to.
US would never do that, it would violate Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Some non-nuclear NATO countries do host US nuclear weapons, but they are legally and physically under US control. In an actual nuclear war, the US would release these nuclear weapons to their allies – at which point the US would have indeed violated the treaty, but in a nuclear war who cares?
So in principle the US could station US-controlled nuclear weapons in Taiwan, and publicly announce they have done so. But it would be an extremely risky move – basically the Cuban Missile Crisis all over again, but this time with the US playing the role of the Soviet Union.
Given the extreme risk of such a move, I doubt the US is going to make it.
The US unlikely to be enormously bothered about violating treaties if it finds doing so in its interest.
> Given the extreme risk of such a move
What exactly is China going to do? Try to break the US-led world order? They're doing that already!
The US cares greatly about the NPT because it wants a world in which only a small number of countries have nuclear weapons, not a world in which dozens of them do.
NPT limits nuclear weapons to 5 countries only - China, France, Russia, UK, US. Four nuclear states refuse to give up their weapons as the treaty demands (and hence refuse to join it) - India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan. But a world with 9 nuclear weapons states is preferable to one with 90
> What exactly is China going to do?
Attack Taiwan? China would likely try to call the US nuclear bluff with a massive conventional attack. The ensuing loss of human life and economic damage would be enormous.
The treaty doesn't ensure that in any way. It's an empty letter.
> NPT limits nuclear weapons to 5 countries only - China, France, Russia, UK, US. Four nuclear states refuse to give up their weapons as the treaty demands (and hence refuse to join it) - India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan.
Exactly. The NPT does fuck-all against this, and it's going to be of equally fuck-all use against the next bunch of countries that really want to get nukes. (Also, BTW, fuck knows if your four shouldn't be a five: how certain are you, really, that South Africa doesn't have them?)
> But a world with 9 nuclear weapons states is preferable to one with 90
Maybe. (Yeah: I'm not even all that sure about that, any more.) But that has fuck-all to do with the NPT, since that is of absolutely no use in ensuring the former in stead of the latter.
IIRC, that's one of the PRC's red lines to trigger an invasion.
Also, I'm not sure if Taiwan could get to the point of having a survivable nuclear arsenal that's large enough to guarantee MAD.
Personally, I think they'd go for it. They've been itching to take over Taiwan by force anyway.
I don't believe this is true. IIRC they've implied they would invade if Taiwan declared itself independent.
If there were sizable numbers of US troops on Taiwan, I don't think they'd attack. They don't want a major confrontation, at least not yet.
There's a decent chance at this point that all those troops would do is hold the airport for a rushed evacuation mission.
US sails ship through South China Sea days after China institutes new maritime ID rules [1]
[1]: https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/08/politics/us-south-china-sea-m...
The US does care about Taiwan, because of real economic interests.
Eh. I think there are plenty of American decision-makers who are motivated to figure out a rationale for swallowing a loss like that.
China would strike as soon as US troops officially settle in China in a military and not police/security/training/sales capacity.
China's unfree speech would actually be a strong asset in such a conflict.
Makes you think
1. Would Americans be in favor of (relatively) short term destruction in favor of long term prosperity for their children and future generations?
2. Would the US be able to win a conventional war against China?
I believe the answer to #1 is no. I don't think anybody knows the answer to #2.
On 2, there is no conventional war with a nuclear power.
True. But maybe there can be a purely conventional war between two nuclear powers.