Hacker News Reader

I thought the Chinese bullying of Australia has been largely recognised as a failure. Australia just exported to elsewhere (e.g. a lot more coal to India).

If China invades Taiwan then most likely the USA goes to war over it. Anything else is to accept the final end of US leadership in the world. If we're going to end the world and kill billions then I guess it might as well be over something as honourable as Taiwanese freedom and in the broader name of freedom, human rights and democracy. Human civilisation could end in a far more banal way.

> Australia has been largely recognised as a failure. Australia just exported to elsewhere

Not only that, but the loss of coal imports from Australia led directly to massive power outages in the northeastern provinces this fall. Though it's possible that the people aren't aware of that causal connection.

> Anything else is to accept the final end of US leadership in the world

There is some sense in which the US is willing to relinquish its "leadership in the world" and "take some me-time"; it's just too much of a pain in the ass. This has been a trend since 2001, when george bush was elected on a "humble foreign policy" platform (but not delivered upon), skipped obama's cabinet (though he was famously aloof during high level diplomatic meetings), through Donald Trump, who hasn't started any new foreign adventures, and Biden has actually withdrawn from Afghanistan. I think that we are emerging into an zeitgeist where the US doesn't really care to be number one, it's just so stupid and so much of a waste of time.

But even in context of deliberately disengaging from the world, the US still goes to bat for Taiwan.

> Not only that, but the loss of coal imports from Australia led directly to massive power outages in the northeastern provinces this fall.

This myth has been repeated so many times, how about: https://www.worldometers.info/coal/coal-production-by-countr...

The outage was caused by misguiding policy incentive (clean air etc), which was seen as a huge blunder, rightfully so, but it had nothing to do with Australian coal.

Reuters claims that Australia used to be the #2 foreign supplier of thermal coal behind Mongolia.

"what should we have done then, when the Chinese invaded Taiwan?"

"anything at all besides what you did"

- On the Beach (2000)

We've seen what happens when authoritarian governments which start locking minorities up in concentration camps progress to inventing historical grievances to start seizing territory. Appeasement doesn't work.

Your description matches American labour camps / private prisons. So, what happens?

I am concerned about an authoritarianism in America, even more so if the president started saying stuff like: "Canada and the US are essentially the same people and should be one country. The Canadian government has always been propped up by foreigners to weaken us. Reunification must happen, by force if necessary."

> Unify China and importantly, face down America and show the world who’s #1.

I think this is why the war weariness would matter little.

Americans may be many things, but liberal or conservative, they’re all proud as fuck.

They won’t initiate a war, but barring a complete takeover of Taiwan in the course of a day (e.g. Crimea), they’ll fight.

The same is more or less true for Japan, which really just needs an excuse.

>> Why would they give up on this “charade” as you put it? They’re closer than ever to annexing Taiwan in 2021. They hold every card.

Except how the rest of the world would react.

It seems like a recipe for war.

The rest of the world is scared of even offending China by calling Taiwan a country. You really think they’re going to go to war over Taiwan?

They’re not really scared of offending China, they’re scared of triggering that war. If China triggers that war all the hesitancy will be gone.

That said, I’d expected more of a reaction to the annexation of Hong Kong too.

Hong Kong was not "annexed". It returned to China's control from the UK by treaty.

"One country, two systems" is being curtailed early, but that is harder to argue against without a foreign power there to do anything about it.

Ok, down-voters.

How is my statement about the Sino-British Joint Declaration incorrect?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-British_Joint_Declaration

>> The rest of the world is scared of even offending China by calling Taiwan a country. You really think they’re going to go to war over Taiwan?

Yes.

War with China is not possible because of nuclear weapons. China can do anything to Taiwan. And China size will make sanctions essentially useless (especially because half of the world will not join those sanctions).

> They’re closer than ever to annexing Taiwan in 2021

> 2020 and 2021 has made the world realise exactly how important Taiwan is to the world economy.

These two statements are exclusive.

If China would invade Taiwan, the economic downfall and the reactions from most western countries, which, on the other hand, are essential partners for China to continue its manufacturing dominance, would be catastrophic.

This is a bit of a shallow understanding of things. They were a lot closer 6 years ago to annexing Taiwan than they are now.

Diplomatic: Official allies matter less and less. The deepening unofficial ties with the US and Japan (I can cite examples here if you like) are much, much more important. If the current trend continues, ties between Taiwan and the US will be unofficial by name only. Dual recognition by stealth.

Militarily: Taiwans problems here are well known. But Taiwan has a free and very critical press, and will gladly tear into their military for clicks. This is not the case for China, god knows what problems it has (though the skirmish with India probably gives you some clues). You call the US military war weary, I call it highly experienced at waging war.

Economic: China is completely dependent on global trade. To act otherwise is laughable.

The US military isn’t war weary. The US public is. And ultimately any US politician who launches yet another war will likely lose their job very quickly.

Obviously China is dependent on world trade. What’s laughable is not reading what I wrote, in that China can afford to lose trade ties with one or two nations, although not all at the same time. Whereas no single country can afford to lose China. That gives China the high ground - it can threaten any single country with a boycott. And it has done so successfully.

Any US conflict with China over Taiwan is not going to be a 20 year occupation of a territory that doesn't want them there. It would be primarily a naval/air conflict, and over rather quickly.

Which Chinese economic boycott was successful in achieving their goals? You surely can't point to the Australian one.

China could take Taiwan and I don't think anyone would stop them.

But the aftermath would be pretty terrible. The US and EU would lock them out of the their economies, as would basically every country in the region except NK. Economic collapse would ensue and that would likely lead to a revolution: the CCP have basically ruled on a "give up freedom and get economic opportunity" ticket. If they can't deliver...

There is also a pretty big US air force base there which would be hard to... Invade around?

>> China could take Taiwan and I don't think anyone would stop them.

I am inclined to believe that it would look similar to Iraq invading Kuwait, only 100000 times bigger and bloodier.

I think the US, UK, Australia, Japan, and many EU nations would strongly disapprove and take military action.

China has a military strong enough to credibly take on the US, the UK, Australia and Japan in their backyard. That is because, as you'll note, these powers are all thousands and thousands of kilometers away from the theater, which gives China a massive advantage.

The best they could realistically do if the invasion does succeed is try to force an embargo. This will be massively unpopular, kill tens of thousands in third countries that will be sanctioned as collateral damage, and crash the world economy, and still might not work.

>> these powers are all thousands and thousands of kilometers away from the theater, which gives China a massive advantage.

The past 100 years of wars and military conflicts have shown that military logistics can overcome great distances if needed.

Great distances and economic consequences did not stop past wars. I doubt they would stop a war caused by the invasion of Taiwan.

>> This will be massively unpopular, kill tens of thousands in third countries that will be sanctioned as collateral damage, and crash the world economy, and still might not work.

The damage would be incredible, likely as bad as World War 2, or possibly worse.

The past 100 years of wars have show precisely the opposite to the observant.

Great distance stopped many, many wars. It is the reason the US is so rich, right now.

Economic consequences did not stop actual wars, yes. But in the event that an embargo is the only realistic alternative, it is a very powerful factor.

> The past 100 years of wars and military conflicts have shown that military logistics can overcome great distances if needed.

> Great distances and economic consequences did not stop past wars.

Yeah, the wars of German invasion of North America -- sub-theaters of WW1 and WW2 -- were over so quickly hardly anyone even noticed them.

None of us know exactly what different leaders are planning so you may well be right.

I do wonder though: if that is the USs plan, why not say so? The US has formal alliances with NATO, Japan etc. They're public, because making them public dissuades the chance of an attack. If you're going to risk getting into a war, why not minimise the risk at no cost by being upfront about it? Instead the US maintains a position of "strategic ambiguity".

It would also be hard because China isn't Iraq. It's a nuclear nation with a bigger stronger army and much better morale. And Taiwan is an Island. You can't mass your troops 100m from the border and then march over when ready. The allies would need to do an amphibious landing less than 200 miles from the Chinese coast (aka air force), under fire from subs and against a fortified target.

Strategic ambiguity makes sense because they don't want to encourage Taiwan to declare independence by saying they'll 100% back them to the end. Blank cheques are great ways to start wars.

That's a fair point but then why not just tell Taiwan that? why not agree that publicly.

Strategic ambiguity means china is emboldened and that Taiwan cannot rely on any US support whatever secret deals have been made no?

There is no US Air Force base in Taiwan. There are 3 in South Korea (Kunsan, Osan, Sasebo) and 3 in Japan (Kadena, Yokota, Misawa). That’s it.

No country would lock China out of their economies. It would be the most painful suicide imaginable. China is already the source of most components in most industries. A China that annexed Taiwan would also be the main source of the world’s semiconductors.

And that’s even before getting into how companies cut off from the second largest market in the world would struggle to survive against competitors that weren’t.

13 percent of US trade is with china. 20 percent of EU trade. And that's trade, not percent of economy.

I think you might be over estimating how indispensable they are.

This is one of (not the only reason) China is so hungry to move into harder to replace industries (cutting edge chip manufacturing for instance, infrastructure like 5G).

And of course Chinese markets are mostly closed to Western goods and services already...

You've read Norman Angell's The Great Illusion?

You post really shows the power and danger of nationalism. You sound like Germany 1938.

> You sound like Germany 1938.

The author was just pointing out China's incentives. Any negotiator, a person analyzing international relation theory, or any policy maker must do this.

He doesn't sound like Germany 1938. He sounds like a person trying to analyze a power dynamic.

The Congressional Research Service tries to boil down complicated issues for Congressional members in public, short reports. Here is the one on Taiwan that discusses Taiwan and China in two pages (and has Lithuania).

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10275

They do talk about China's perspective on the second page. They do not ignore it. They do not sound like Germany 1938.

No that person does genuinely sound creepily jingoistic and chauvinistic about it all.