The Prospects for War with China
chrisblattman.com
chrisblattman.com
Nevertheless, after USA has not remained content to try to cripple the Chinese semiconductor manufacturing industry, but now it pressures Taiwan to stop manufacturing integrated circuits for China, I have become worried for the first time that a Chinese invasion is no longer impossible.
If Taiwan does not manufacture Chinese ICs any more, then Taiwan is no longer valuable for China and they do not have any reason to care whether the Taiwanese industry is destroyed, because such a destruction will not change anything for them. This removes one of the most important costs of an invasion decision.
I've already come to the conclusion China has won this fight, because the economic cost will be too great for the West to bare.
My advice to the Biden Administration would be to deprecate the relations with Taiwan to lower expectations of an intervention.
Cast your mind back 150 years or so. The Union only declared war and invaded the Confederacy because of the same reason.
No side wins in a Civil War.
Incidentally, the Chinese Civil War is a frozen conflict, but still ongoing even though a Truce is in effect. It's almost exactly the same thing as the ongoing Korean War that's never been concluded after 70-odd years.
I feel like most of the escalation is coming from the West though. They're the ones tossing around sanctions and national-security noise on speculation-- China might invade Taiwan. Are they willing to upset the order that's maintained stability for decades, and likely derail their economic miracle, over a symbolic chunk of rock? We can't ignore the "economic miracle" angle when comparing with, say, Russia/Ukraine-- Russia can justify an invasion by tossing around a "we've been abused and mocked since 1991, what do we have to lose" narrative, while China's star has been continually rising, so there's no need to recover lost prestige. Ironically, more sanctions and reduced detente could actually encourage an invasion, by reducing the economic ties and stoking fresh hostility, getting closer to the "what do we have to lose" moment.
I feel like the problem is much more on a philosophical level. We're still remixing the Cold War. The current Western/Private Enterprise ecosystem needs to be able to say "THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE. NOTHING ELSE WILL EVER WORK. IT'S HUMAN NATURE." If we start successfully exploring alternatives, there's a risk of dislodging entrenched wealth. So if a state-capitalist or outright socialist state becomes competitive, the West instinctively responds with full (metaphoric) guns blazing to hobble it. The last thing the current ruling classes want is for people to start saying "Things are actually better off in China" and start asking "so how are they achieving that? Did it involve putting Jack Ma on a tighter leash than we give Elon Musk?"
I personally want to see China succeed. Domestically, they're too big to fail. It's not like we have a way to peacefully and seamlessly transition a country of 1.4 billion people to some shiny new alternative. (Airdropping a fait-accompli democracy is a proven-terrible strategy). On an international-affairs level, we need a more multi-polar world-- we've seen (Iraq, Afghanistan) what happens when we have a single superpower with no real checks to its impunity. On a philosophical level, we shouldn't be packing all the eggs in the Western-Style Free Market/Democracy basket, because we're approaching, if not in a major transition point. We know these systems work somewhat in an age of bounty (cheap fossil fuels, absorbing and consuming an entire new hemisphere in 500 years, slashing of communications costs and latency) but will they still function smoothly in a coming age of scarcity (resource exhaustion, climate change)?
China is free to anytime declare their intention of never invading Taiwan. China is free to anytime officially recognize the fact that the PRC and the ROC are two separate governments of two separate countries. China is free to anytime clarify to the world that they truly value peace. But really it doesn’t seem that they do.
The US is free at any time to stop invading other countries, trying to overthrow other countries, and enter into conflicts thousands of miles from their borders. But really, it doesn't seem that they do.
The US has invaded or attacked over 120 countries since 1991[1]. Absolutely none of them were a threat to the United States. How many countries has China invaded in the same period? How many has it bombed? Imposed sanctions on? Occupied?
Now if, for some reason, Taiwan declares independence, then it will be up to other nations to recognize that declaration of independence or not. But that has not happened.
Let me ask you, did you recognize the independence of Donetsk People's Republic, Lugansk People's Republic, South Ossetia, Kurdish Republic in Iraq, or The Republic of Tigray? Each of these had de facto control -- they have their own police, flag, they control their territory, etc. Some even have oil. These actually declared independence whereas Taiwan never did.
But you will respond, other nations didn't recognize their independence, to which I will ask, who recognizes Taiwanese independence? Not even Taiwan. So what we have here is the phenomenon of a "breakaway region". That is, territory in one nation that is not under the control of the central government, but under local control in that territory, but which no one recognizes as an independent nation. There are many such breakaway regions in the world. Usually the central government tries to conquer the breakaway region, and sometimes it fails. This is generally not considered an "invasion".
Do you think it was an invasion when Georgia tried to reconquer South Ossetia, or when Ukraine attacked the DNR and LPR or when Ethiopia attacked Tigray? Or did you view that as an internal matter, of putting down a rebellious breakaway region? Think carefully before you answer, as we are looking for consistency. What about Serbia and the province of Kosovo? Moldova and Transnistria?
It does seem like there is a whole lot of cherry picking going on here, where if there is an enemy of the U.S. fighting a breakaway region, then we have to honor the bold independence movement, but when there is a friend of the US fighting a breakaway republic, then we condemn the evil separatists. In both cases, the US ends up fighting on one side of what is really a civil war we have no business involving ourselves in, and because we choose sides purely based on friend/enemy distinctions and not according to any consistent principles, it sure looks a lot like more international meddling.
Therefore I reject any moral impetus that forces the US to get itself involved in trying to support or oppose separatist movements half way around the world, or to pick sides in civil wars. We lack the military capability, we lack popular support, and we need to stop adopting these self-destructive and globally destructive policies.
The US has never recognized PRC claims to Taiwan. The US “One China Policy” does not include “Taiwan is part of PRC territory”.
But I’ll admit the US policy is a bit vague and confusing so many people (including apparently you) don’t understand US policy in this matter.
The U.S. does not have to do that to do what the GP says -
"> According to official US policy, which is the One China policy, Taiwan and mainland China are the same country, and any disputes between the mainland and Taiwan is an intra-chinese dispute, not a dispute between two separate countries"
- rather they have historically recognized the ROC's claims to Taiwan, and to the mainland as well, which of course is a diplomatic fig leaf at this point.
So I’m not really sure what your point is. Is your point that US policy states that Taiwan is part of the PRC? If you’re not staying that, you’re not disagreeing with me.
That's precisely how the One China policy works. That's literally what strategic ambiguity is about.
In a 1972 joint communiqué with the PRC, the United States "acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China" and "does not challenge that position."
So it's talking about a hypothetical sovereign authority that extends over both the Chinese mainland and Taiwan. At present, the U.S. government recognizes the ROC, based in Taipei, as that government. It's a legal fiction, yes, but one that remains unchanged since 1972.
> Is your point that US policy states that Taiwan is part of the PRC?
The point is U.S. policy states that mainland China is part of the ROC!
Notes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy_of_deliberate_ambiguity...
This is like saying "i accept that you think the sky is neon yellow".
This is false. And the US also promised to remove all military forces and installations, which they have never done. There are today US troops in Taiwan. The constant lying to China by the U.S. matches the lying about the Minsk 2 agreements to Russia, and this has created a huge blow to American credibility as a negotiating partner.
Here is the Shanghai communique:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Shanghai_Communiqu%C3%A9
"11. The Chinese side reaffirmed its position: the Taiwan question is the crucial question obstructing the normalization of relations between China and the United States; the Government of the People's Republic of China is the sole legal government of China; Taiwan is a province of China which has long been returned to the motherland; the liberation of Taiwan is China's internal affair in which no other country has the right to interfere; and all US forces and military installations must be withdrawn from Taiwan. The Chinese Government firmly opposes any activities which aim at the creation of "one China, one Taiwan", "one China, two governments", "two Chinas", an "independent Taiwan" or advocate that "the status of Taiwan remains to be determined".
12.The US side declared: The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States Government does not challenge that position. It reaffirms its interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves. With this prospect in mind, it affirms the ultimate objective of the withdrawal of all US forces and military installations from Taiwan. In the meantime, it will progressively reduce its forces and military installations on Taiwan as the tension in the area diminishes. The two sides agreed that it is desirable to broaden the understanding between the two peoples. To this end, they discussed specific areas in such fields as science, technology, culture, sports and journalism, in which people-to-people contacts and exchanges would be mutually beneficial. Each side undertakes to facilitate the further development of such contacts and exchanges."
It is already independent because of those facts, no matter what words are written on a piece of paper.
And, it is related, because china constantly makes threats to invade Taiwan.
Threatening to try to dissuade the Chinese from invading is the only thing Biden can do. When Xi finally gives the "go" he'll make up some excuse not to intervene militarily. He'll slap sanctions on China, for sure , but those will merely be a pinprick.
The position of the US has never changed. It has always maintained that any unification must be peaceful and that Taiwan cannot be forced. It gets to decide for itself.
Taiwan has changed in the last 100 years. Majority of the ROC is gone, those here now have no desire to be part of China, don't consider themselves as part of China or Chinese. They just want to continue to live their lives as they are now.
The US does not consider Taiwan as part of China. The One China Policy states that they acknowledge the position of China that Taiwan is part of it. The equiv of me saying to you "i accept that you think the sky looks like the inside of a watermelon".
All of this ignores that Mao and the CCP considered Taiwan an independent nation and nationality prior to Taiwan being handed to the ROC.
The original post you were replying to was attacking China for it's threats to invade, and was defending sanctions.
That point is valid.
So yes, sanctions against china are justified, which was the original context, and they are justified because of the points about China threatening to invade.
> is the only thing Biden can do
Actually, the US can continue what we have been doing for a while, which is continue to sell more and more weapons to Taiwan.
The more weapons we give to Taiwan, the more invaders will die in any invasion.
Maximizing their ability to increase invader death numbers, by continuing to do this, is also a good plan.
It feels like any sort of restrictive foreign-policy promise is a no-win. A "no invasion" promise would be a license for every seperatist element to push their agenda, which feels like losing a huge amount of influence. It also seems like it could tie their hands in an actual crisis (i. e. a terrorism scenario where the Taiwanese government refused to cooperate in investigation/prosecution)
Taiwan literally wants to do exactly what you proposed. They want to renounce having anything to do with China.
They do not want to take over china, and they do not claim that china belongs to them.
Instead, what is happening is that they are not clarifying this stance publicly, because if they clarify that they are not part of china, then china will threaten military action against them.
Taiwan is already independent, has no intention of unifying with china, and instead just has to play this game because china threatens them.
Preservation of national sovereignty is one of the touchiest issues in modern Chinese politics.
This has to do with Chinese history. For China, the modern era essentially began when British gunboats arrived in 1840 and forced the Qing dynasty to open up its ports to the opium trade. There followed a series of conflicts in which China was progressively humiliated and ever more dominated by foreign powers - the Europeans and Japanese. China had to allow opium in, had to exempt Europeans from Chinese law on Chinese territory, and had to give the Europeans and Japanese enclaves and spheres of influence within China. The British took Hong Kong, the Germans took Jiaozhou Bay, various countries took parts of Shanghai. When Chinese peasants rebelled against foreign influence and started killing Europeans, a eight-nation army landed at Tianjin,[0] marched to Beijing, burned down the Summer Palace, and forced China to pay a massive indemnity. After the Chinese people overthrew the imperial system, the new republic was, in fact, controlled by various local warlords. The Japanese progressively took more of China, before launching a full-blown invasion of the rest of China in the 1930s. A core goal of both the Nationalist and the Communist parties was to re-establish Chinese national sovereignty.
What put an end to all of this was the end of the Chinese Civil War and the establishment of the "New China," as the Chinese call their post-1949 state.
Because of this history, the issue of national sovereignty is incredibly sensitive in China. It's easy to say, "China should just give up its claim to Taiwan," but that would be an incredibly explosive suggestion in China, especially if it were something that China was forced to do under outside pressure.
Finally, I'll add that in China, the ROC is not seen as a separate country from the PRC. Taiwan is seen as the last redoubt of the old Chinese government. This is also how the ROC understood itself until fairly recently. For most people in China, asking them to cede Taiwan is asking them to cede part of China, which is a non-starter.
0. A portrait of soldiers from the eight nations (plus Australia and the British Raj, minus Russia): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-Nation_Alliance#/media/F...
They could, for all I care, invade Taiwan and relocate all the Chinese to China and leave Taiwan well alone.
You don't have to go back to 1895, though. In 1971, the PRC was given "China's" UN Security Council seat, which had previously been held by the ROC. Most countries withdrew their recognition of the ROC, and recognized the PRC as the sole legitimate representative of China.
> Taiwan has never been part of the country today known as “China”.
Countries continue to exist, even after they have revolutions or civil wars. In the view of international law, "China" has never ceased to exist. The 1911 revolution didn't extinguish it, nor did the end of the civil war in 1949, nor did the international recognition of the PRC as the sole legitimate representative of China in the 1970s.
Taiwan becoming an independent state would be a revolution of sorts. You may support that change, but to pretend that it's not a change? China is not going to be fooled by that.
Your post is correct other than for this point. It would not be a revolution, it would a reconciling of governments into the de facto reality since 1949, that Taiwan has been able to self-govern apart from the mainland (even though its economy has since then gotten quite coupled with it over the past few decades).
It might be revolutionary from a legal standpoint, but the PRC/ROC distinction is truly a one-off in modern geopolitics, akin to the Korean War still technically not yet over but instead legally being a frozen conflict for seventy years. The reason why Taiwan's status has not caught up with reality yet is because of course no party is willing or able to resolve this deadlock.
"Whether you like it or not, America and Europe have a strategic interest in fueling the Ukraine conflict for reputation-building purposes (in addition to any ideological motives). Frankly, this is why I think the US ought to escalate support for Ukraine."
The think tankers they fund: “Kill them all”
The think tankers they fund: “Kill them all”
One letter. No difference!
> tlear 19 days ago | parent | context | un‑favorite | on: Intel and the $1.5T chip industry meltdown
> [China can't retake Taiwan], not even remotely close any time in the next 20 years at least. Can you imagine what a landing beach would look like being pounded by drone spotted artillery? See war in Ukraine. Forget the approach, anti ship missiles, mines, sheer volume of logistics needed. Stepping on the landing beach is a suicide without absolutely astronomical advantage in air power and ability to suffer huge attrition, even then.. 155mm hidden under camo/thermal nets, DJI drone rigged with magazines of small bombs.. Kyiv, Kharkiv, Kherson Childs play, this would make Diep and Galipoli look like walk in the park.
> I would go as far as to say that US Army + Marines + Navy could not land on Taiwan without suffering multiple brigades of attrition AFTER at least a year long blockade and air campaign. It is that hard.
> PRC has to surpass US in GDP, then spend 10-20 years of US level military spending, then maybe.
They U.S. spends most of its military resources on force projection. Not homeland defense so military spending comparisons are not simple IMO. China has been acutely focused on Taiwan and its military resources reflect that.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sebastienroblin/2022/10/29/vide...
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/ukraine-unleashes-mass...
Following that assumption, the conflict could be instantly defused if some compromise about Taiwan's status on the unification/independence scale could be reached (or where any option to change the status quo would be more costly for all sides than keeping it)
I worry that the situation could really be the inverse - that Taiwan is just a flashpoint in a larger US/West vs China conflict which is already well on the way. Another consequence of China's explosive economic growth that the article didn't go into was that China is now becoming a US rival and is openly challenging the international system and the "liberal international order". They are increasingly setting up counter institutions, such as the Silk Road or the SCO and the West sees itself pressured to react to that.
As such, I think Biden's "autocracy vs democracy" line was at least getting the scale of the conflict right.
Would not go that far, but I agree that more PRC narrows military gap with US, the more TW becomes a stretch goal to the greater strategic aim of eroding/pushing out US presence in Asia and more broadly US primacy in general. At end of the day cross strait drama is one sustained by US power post WW2, which sufficiently deterred or destroyed would open up many options for reuninfication.
Ultimately the prospect for war is real, but timing is differs.
On paper, US wants war sooner (before 2030) to take out pacing competitor as force balance is shifting towards PRC favour every year while PRC's nuclear deterrence still not sufficient. It explains much of recent US behaviours, which is not to say admin is actively engineering war, but actors are not actively constraining policies that could lead to one.
For PRC even taking TW doesn't dramatically improve PRC geostrategic posture - Yonaguni is basically where TW is and can be militarized with US hardware, as well as other regional fence sitters that want to hedge against PRC containment but only after TW damocles is off the table. But not if PRC substantially dismantles US military presence in Asia and make examples of US partners that participate in broader campaign which will also include destorying military infra in the region (i.e. Pinegap). The worst thing US can do is try to defend (non security guarantee) TW and fail, the next worst is succeeds pyrrhicly but lose so much hardware that honoring other defense commitments becomes impossible to hide. For PRC, this is like a 2030+ effort. Which is not to say PRC would not prefer a relatively isolated TW campaign with minimal US intervention, but they're war planning assumes US intervention and if that comes to pass, IMO PRC won't be content with just stopping immediate US intervention goals, but their abliity to intervene in Asia going forward.
The PRC will be adamant that Taiwan not receive AI (battlefield mgmt. software, communications, sensors) aid similar to Ukraine.
China would have to fire on US military ships to enforce any such blockage.
They aren't going to start a war with the US.
Ideally for PRC before it goes hot, PRC will try to assert control over TW civil aviation, prevent flights from landing or redirect flights to PRC first to process. No person/thing is going in and out TW without PRC supervision, including foreign or TW nationals PRC wants to hold for leverage.
IMO above is significant but not discussed topic, there are 750k and growing foreign nationals on TW that PRC has leverage over if things turn ugly. 750k "illegally" working on TW without PRC consent, some directly with the ROC government to undermine PRC interests (technically spies). PRC making air space too dangerous = only viable exfiltration is evacuation across maritime routes, one determined by PRC via changing what is / is not accessible with mines. There's going to be international pressure to setup evacuation routes which gives PRC an "in" onto the island, We're talking about thousands of ships moving 750k bodies... the way to TW filled with PLA, the way back filled with civilians, the entire strait satuated with civilian activity that makes targetting an embedded invasion fleet and other outside interventions difficult, i.e. is JP going to restrict US access to basing if means 20k JP nationals get last pick on evacuation priority.
> 750k "illegally" working on TW without PRC consent, some directly with the ROC government to undermine PRC interests (technically spies).
This doesn't make any sense. If they are collaborating with the ROC government, why would they want to be sent back to the mainland? Are you saying the PRC would demand them back as spies? Strange sticking point to bring up during a blockade, which is tantamount to wartime. Feels like there would be bigger fish to fry at that point.
Repatriating 750k people would be a bureaucratic paperwork nightmare, let alone a logistical one, and it is not a feat that either government would take seriously.
At most the PRC would demand it and the ROC might humor them as an attempted concession/negotiating move but no way would they attempt to send hundreds of thousands of people in a single year, let alone at once.
> things turn ugly
PRC's leverage start after shooting starts (like TSMC), when PRC closes air and maritime space and specifies repatriation corridors will stop first on mainland for processing. International community sees all the cratered TW runways and entire TW coast except some West locations are saturated with mines and conclude, there's no other choice - can't airlift or merchant fleet into what's not accessbile. The process will be an abbreviated shitshow done as quickly as possible (Dunkirk style) because foreign nationals are already trapped in a warzone (like in openning of UKR war).
Countries take repatrioting thier citizens seriously, and since PRC has ultimate veto over entry/egress to island, they have leverage, especially if there is a timer ticking down to when the island will run out of water and food. No one wants their nationals trapped and dying on hunger game island. Unless TW starts holding foreign nationals hostage, they maybe compelled by international pressure to agree to PRC coordinated evacuation points, which may include beach heads under PRC occupation (or relunctantly surrendered to PLA), where every ship that arrives to pickup evacuees is going be loaded with PLA. It's an undertaking that will require thousands of ships over weeks of intensive activity that will make the strait not engagable to defenders or outside meddlers due to intermiggling of civilian and military activies. Imagine fallout if a TW / US missile sinks a boat full of Philippinos (or imagine if PRC engineers false flag of that). Maybe international community can also convince PRC not to do this, but what incentive is there for PRC to listen? The one's that will sanction will sanction anyways and get last dibs and buy PRC some time, the ones who cooperate will get priority. Of course all speculation, but there are many exploitable dynamics inherent in TW being an island with unrecognized sovereignty.
Couldn't the U.S. planes drop aid packages, as in other conflicts?
> Countries take repatrioting thier citizens seriously, and since PRC has ultimate veto over entry/egress to island, they have leverage, especially if there is a timer ticking down to when the island will run out of water and food.
Are you talking about foreign nationals unrelated to China and Taiwan? Your prior post makes it sound like there were 750k Chinese nationals working for the ROC. One would that expect that even in the event of a blockade, the PRC would give them ample time prior to evacuate the island beforehand. Or otherwise, risk an extremely delicate diplomatic situations with dozens upon dozens of nations.
> Imagine fallout if a TW / US missile sinks a boat full of Philippinos (or imagine if PRC engineers false flag of that).
Any such fallout would fall upon the PRC as well, as it would be seen that they started the blockade and created the situation in the first place.
Actually, that raises an interesting point as well- how would TW attempts at fighting back at the blockade with force be received by the PRC? What if that missile strike sinks an actual PLAN vessel? Would that be seen as a casualty of war, or a dangerous escalation? What would the retaliation be?
> Maybe international community can also convince PRC not to do this, but what incentive is there for PRC to listen?
Undoing everything that past decades of soft power diplomacy has achieved?
> unrelated to China and Taiwan
Yes. Foreign nationals operating on what PRC considers to be Chinese territory under rival governemnt without CCP assent. Many of whom working in NGOs/agencies specifically to undermine PRC interests. I don't how international law will categorizes them, but PRC has good argument for "not civilians".
> give them ample time prior ... > sinks an actual PLAN vessel
There's going to be time/opportunites assuming graduated escalation process, but TBH I presume chance of inciting spark that pushes things to 100% more likely and preferrable for PRC. Even in a blockade scenario I think PRC will preemptively destroy major TW military targets that could threaten back, which PRC can do so without much telegraphing via air/rocketry. Lesson from RU/UKR is no half measures. Blockade = PRC is starving the island and not invading, but doesn't mean it won't defang TW first, PRC won't give TW the chance for fair fight or maintain ability fight back. As far as taking hits, it would be resumption of civil war and losses would be expected including mainland strikes by TW missiles.
> delicate diplomatic situations ... > undoing diplomacy
Look at RU vs LIO relations now, it's unsalvageable regardless of how mild the war started. And with respect to PRC/TW the countries that plan to sanction PRC are simultaneously trying to increase TW cooperation to undermine PRC interests while their genpop perception of PRC is already in gutters, so even less reason the cooperate, regardless of why shitshow started (i.e. LIO MSM will fault PRC even if PRC responding to provocations). And third parties that cultivate relationship with TW inspite of PRC warnings are in better position to compel TW into concessions anyway. IMO another lesson from RU/UKR war is just how little diplomacy is possible between active belligerants when strong outside actors are involved, i.e. RU isn't going to convince UKR to talk, but US might.
The US has sold Taiwan quite a lot of weapons already and continues to do so.
And the fact that china has been threatening to invade the country of Taiwan for 70 years, and yet haven't done so, actually more proves that it is all just talk in the first place.
What's more likely is they they will just continue to saber rattle and not do anything. It's mostly just internal propaganda, and not a real plan.
They don't want those hundreds of thousands or millions of their own citizens to die either.
Not even the most hardcore Taiwanese independence advocate calls China "West Taiwan" because nobody in Taiwan wants to invade China (Except for some of the older generation and they call China "The Republic of China").
The idea of "West Taiwan" is so preposterous but I know it came as a natural byproduct of the "TAIWAN #1" meme, just to piss of Chinese people that were taught to look down on Taiwan. I can assure you that there were Taiwanese people getting in on that original joke.
It just seems like the only people that refer to "China," as "West Taiwan" are essentially rooting to watch a war from across the ocean and clearly have zero skin in the game.
Source: I'm a mod of /r/taiwanindependence - you're welcome to join us there :).
What Biden says about intervening is just bluff. And China knows this.
And then there's the prospect of the Taiwanese not even WANTING to fight their own brethren. Sure, they want to remain independent if they can, but if China decides to invade their armed forces will simply throw away their arms and go home. Do we want our soldiers to lose their lives for a people that hasn't even demonstrated their will to fight for their independence? Fuck that!
China is attempting to put its tentacles everywhere, making it extremely costly for Western nations to completely decouple from China economically.
For example: Apple is so deep in bed with China that if an invasion were to occur the company would simply go bankrupt. Bankrupt! We're talking about a company with a market valuation of almost $2 trillion!! It would be very hard for the Biden Administration to make that choice. And that's just one U.S. company. There are probably dozens like them in the same boat.
From what I gather Volkswagen would face an existential threat if it were banned from selling its cars in China. No way, the Germans would allow that, no matter what the U.S. says.
No, there will not be a nuclear war over Taiwan. Merely a few pinpricks in terms of sanctions.
You talk about defending yourself, but you can just keep still and do nothing. As I expect you will.
A nuclear war is a certainty when there's a confrontation between nuclear armed powers. If we lose, we use nukes. If they lose, they'll use nukes. Ergo: it's inevitable there will be an all-out nuclear exchange.
Were you referring to the Taiwanese people? The Taiwanese army? The Taiwanese government? The specific person that said they would defend themself?
Do you also feel that a nuclear war is inevitable between Russia and the US because of what is happening currently in the Ukraine?
Whether the US joins the fight is very much still up for debate. Whether “the Taiwanese” will fight - is probably better left for actual Taiwanese people to comment on.
A nuclear war is not inevitable in Ukraine because the U.S. isn't a combatant. But I do believe this conflict could easily spiral out of control and lead to a nuclear confrontation between Russia and NATO.
If the U.S. were to intervene in Taiwan it would mean a direct confrontation between two nuclear armed powers which, as I claimed before, will inevitably lead to an all-out nuclear exchange.
While this is the official stance, we all know that in practice, the US sees Taiwan as an independent country to not escalate the situation.
> And then there's the prospect of the Taiwanese not even WANTING to fight their own brethren. Sure, they want to remain independent if they can, but if China decides to invade their armed forces will simply throw away their arms and go home. Do we want our soldiers to lose their lives for a people that hasn't even demonstrated their will to fight for their independence? Fuck that!
For the US, the war over Taiwan is not about Taiwan. It is essential to understand this. It is why the US will definitively go to war. If China takes Taiwan, US influence and interest in the entire region falls like dominoes.
The threat to US hegemony is more important than the market value of a few companies.
Losing Taiwan may give us a bloody nose, but it's certainly not an existential threat.
…
> And then there's the prospect of the Taiwanese not even WANTING to fight their own brethren.
You make a lot of confident assumptions here which you cannot know for sure.
Not to mention given that China has been at peace for decades now, to disrupt their economic growth and prosperous gains in standards of living to go to war would be a hard sell to the average Chinese citizen, regardless of how much control the government might exert over drumming up support for war. One could speculate that they would at least make it seem like a defensive conflict.
And Xi has sworn to unite Taiwan with the mainland at whatever the cost. We have to decide whether it's worth fighting a nuclear war over because the invasion is going to happen between now and 2027.
> And Xi has sworn to unite Taiwan with the mainland at whatever the cost.
In that, he is no different from every single Chinese leader since 1949.
2027 is a red herring borne out of inaccurate intel and failed understanding:
He's trying to do something about it at least, but Apple has already signaled that only 25% of iPhones will be made outside of China by 2025. That will leave the company completely vulnerable if were to be cut-off from its Chinese suppliers. I predict the company will simply go bankrupt if that were to happen.
So he's bluffing to prevent China from invading, that's only logical. If push comes to shove, however, he'll pull back from the brink. Taiwan simply isn't worth fighting over, even if it would mean losing influence in Asia.
And I've become convinced the Taiwanese will not fight their own kind, no matter how much they hate the Communists.
That's the second time you've made that claim, and it's just as implausible as it was the first time. Companies go bankrupt because of debt. Apple has approximately zero debt, and approximately one gazillion dollars of assets. Losing China's manufacturing would cripple Apple's income. Bankrupt them? No, that's not a logically plausible outcome.
> And I've become convinced the Taiwanese will not fight their own kind, no matter how much they hate the Communists.
That's the second time you've made that claim, too, with no more supporting evidence than you gave the first time. You're convinced? Great, it's good for you to know your own mind. But the rest of us care whether your claim corresponds to reality, and how convinced you are is not supporting data.
Putin has claimed all along that Ukrainians were "their own kind", but the Ukrainians didn't see it that way...
There's no company that could survive such a financial shock. Yes, they have some money in the bank, but that won't save them.
Look, it would be very damaging. I don't deny it. Bankruptcy, though? No. You're being an alarmist.
> And I've become convinced the Taiwanese will not fight their own kind, no matter how much they hate the Communists.
Well I guess all we can do is wait and see if these predictions of yours come through.