Hacker News Reader

Comment by kerneloftruth | Hacker News Reader

   One thing is sure: if China still wants to invade Taiwan, they certainly have postponed their plans by a few years, maybe a decade, maybe even more.

How can you be so certain? This reminds me of people saying just 14 days ago "I don't think Putin is going to invade."

Taiwan is not Ukraine, indeed -- Taiwan would be easier to capture because it is an island. There aren't land borders across which supplies and weapons can be brought. They would have to come by ship or plane, which are easier to defeat. It would be easier, militarily, to take Taiwan. China certainly has the will, and it has learned that the worst it would face would be some sanctions.

View on HN

> some sanctions

Some sanctions? The entire Russian economy has disappeared overnight. The only reason it has not been felt yet is due to inertia. There are still just about enough goods in the pipes to support things for weeks or months. But once computers start breaking, planes start breaking, shelves start to empty, and nothing is arriving to replace them, shit is going to hit the fan.

Indeed. They're being unplugged from the 21st century.

Or have they been? "Unplugged" is a good metaphor, for they currently control the vast majority of energy to all of Europe[1]. We're turning Russia into a gigantic version of North Korea, and with the same major ally, China. What happens if Russia diverts its gas sales to China -- it's Europe that'll be unplugged.

1. https://www.loc.gov/resource/g5701h.ct003365/?r=0.025,0.336,...

Your reference is from 2008.

Certainly recent events have concentrated minds regarding energy security in Europe, and likely self sufficiency (or at least better sources) will be achieved, much as food security was after ww2.

If China is the only available customer, how much do you think China will pay? They will have Russia by the balls. They will pay pennies on the Ruble.

Europe will piss and moan for a while as prices go up, but Europe is rich enough to route around this problem.

I agree though, we're turning Russia into a giant North Korea. What that means for the world, I don't know. In fact, I would say they're getting cut off worse than North Korea. Some of these companies canceling Russia probably operate (with permission) in North Korea.

The worst thing, that you don't mention: China has a much stronger economy than Russia. Currently we're cutting Russia from almost everything, but still (as silently as we can) buy its gas - because it would be very hard for us to stop buying it.

Cutting off China? That would hurt both sides to the point I doubt it's even possible... But then again I wouldn't expect cutting Russia the way we did was possible. Still, even individuals boycotting China would probably hurt more than Taiwan is worth?

Chinese people are more likely to rage at the government if the economy goes bad. I don't know why that is considering the media is much more locked up than Russia's has been until now, but you can see local fury every once in a while where the government is forced to concede because of angry mobs

> Taiwan would be easier to capture because it is an island.

That makes no sense. Being an island is good for you if you are the defender. For it to be a plus to China, China will first have to capture it.

only if you are self sufficient and not facing a opponent that has more that enough fire power to carpet bomb the entire island from a distance or more soldiers than you have bullets.

To counter this claim, I'd ask you to consider which of two similarly sized invasions was easier to achieve: D-Day and the invasion of Western Europe, or Operation Barbarossa and the invasion of Eastern Europe. You may also consider why the Nazis never made it to Great Britain, and why Great Britain has been insulated from the Great Wars of Europe more often than it has taken part in the conflicts.

> To counter this claim, I'd ask you to consider which of two similarly sized invasions was easier to achieve: D-Day and the invasion of Western Europe, or Operation Barbarossa and the invasion of Eastern Europe. You may also consider why the Nazis never made it to Great Britain, and why Great Britain has been insulated from the Great Wars of Europe more often than it has taken part in the conflicts.

It seems that this paragraph is meant to suggest that Barbarossa was easier than D-Day, but this might not be the best example, since Barbarossa failed and D-Day succeeded. (Of course, a lot of things could have gone differently that could have made the outcomes very different, but I still find this example a little unconvincing.)

Perhaps it would have been simply best to note that island nations are generally insulated from invasion in ways that continental nations are not. Great Britain had the long term national security to forge an empire while the continental nations of Europe were engaged in endless back-and-forth wars (often at the instigation of Great Britain). Japan had centuries of peaceful self-imposed isolation while the continental nations of China and Indochina were engaged in endless wars, which was utilized to build up an empire while safely protected by the Sea of Japan. Being an island nation is an immense geostrategic advantage that is apparently not completely obvious to all observers of history.

UK could be resupplied across the Atlantic by world's preeminenant industrial producer while German power projection of era couldn't comprehensively cripple GBR. German Blitz+blockade didn't achieve strategic goals of destroying GBR industries while also being distracted by land war. TW has even less food/resource security and entirely within range of PRC weapon platforms, who has more industrial capacity than US during peak of WW2 production. Also consider UK managed to hold onto Falklands. It's really about industrial capacity to wage attritional war - TW has an initial defensive bonus but massive resupply penalty. If PRC gains air superiority and deter outside intervention, taking over island is only matter of time. Merchant fleet assets alone is enough to ferry 100,000s anywhere on TW if PRC wants to human wave / million man swim in days. Dunkirk moved 350k bodies on 800 ships in a week. PRC has 50-80k fishing boats that can make the journey. It's hard to overstate PRC industrial advantage relative to TW.

It's pretty off-topic, but ...

> Japan had centuries of peaceful self-imposed isolation while the continental nations of China and Indochina were engaged in endless wars, which was utilized to build up an empire while safely protected by the Sea of Japan.

While Japan had a stable border, it also had many periods of feudal lords fighting each other. Also, the reason Japan became an Empire was that it received and internalized Western knowledges much earlier than many other countries (starting with Rangaku "Dutch learnings" in the 17th century), and later was forced to open its ports by Western powers, which resulted in disagreement over the nation's course, a series of bloody civil wars, and the Meiji Restoration, which made the emperor an iron-fisted ruler of a modern nation.

It's not exactly a story of an island enjoying isolated peace and suddenly emerging as a superpower. Korea was a country that enjoyed almost total isolation during the same period (16-19th centuries) and look where it got them.

I don't think an island invasion would be easier than a land invasion, but I agree that "China definitely won't invade Taiwan right now" is overly optimistic. It's probably not in their best interests, but Russia invading Ukraine wasn't in Russia's best interests either and they did it anyways.

Taiwan is more difficult to capture exactly because it is difficult to sustain a well supplied continuous attack on an island 250 miles away.

> the worst it would face would be some sanctions CCP lends its legitimacy on economy. That is one thing most vulnerable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com