China on Track to Be Ready for Taiwan Invasion by 2027, US Says
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
The big surge in pro-independence sentiment 2019 was due to the Hong Kong National Security Law. Nothing the US does is likely to move the needle nearly as much.
Seems to me that invasion of foreign countries is pretty provocative.
Except that The Peoples' Republic of China and the Republic of China are recognised by 95% (or thereabouts) of the world, including the US, as 'One China'.
An 'invasion' of China by China makes as much sense as the US 'invading' the US island of Manhattan. Why would China , or the US for that matter, invade themselves and damage valuable infrastructure, commercial property and manufacturing capacity?
The only reason for China to take military action against one of their islands is if that island declares Independence. You know, like the Southern Confederate States did in 1861. I remember the North didn't bother to take any military action then.
"The breakdown in representative surveys https://esc.nccu.edu.tw/PageDoc/Detail?fid=7801&id=6963 is more like 8.4% for unification now or later (mostly later), 25.3% for independence now or later (mostly later), 61.1% for not moving in either direction for now or forever"
These numbers will change considerably if China invades against China. The 61.1% are people who merely hope nothing changes ... they're in a bit of denial in other words.
Hong Kong is not particularly happy with what the Chinese did ... there's no second system there.
- PRC: risks WW3 if they invade Taiwan
- Taiwan: in turn risks WW3 if they fight back
- USA: in turns risks WW3 if they help Taiwan fight back…
The hell in both places wasn't created by "ordinary people". And if China and Taiwan go to war, I'd be stunned if the citizens on both sides would support if they knew what comes next. The leaders on the one making the first move will of course go to great lengths to ensure they don't, until it becomes "us or them".
(1) What if China were to believe the war was "winnable" eg, they could take over so quickly due to overwhelming military power or due to being welcomed by some of the population or something, as to avoid huge damage. Then it wouldn't matter. BTW, this is what is meant by "deterrence", and in US domestic policy, the china-related fearmongering is clearly aimed at increasing deterrence.... which could only possibly decrease the chance of conflict even more, so what's the problem?
(2) What if China's leadership were to believe a distraction is necessary from domestic politics? Then, also, these mutual investments wouldn't matter.
Japan in 1940 was a very different beast to Japan in 1950, and it would be misguided to think Japan would launch another war in the 1950s just because "they" recently did that. "They" (values, democratic governance, free press, etc) change over time. You should go straight to an analysis of the values and system of the current people that live there, instead of whatever their ancestors did.
If a country starts talking like Japan did in the 1930s, even if they have no history of war, then I will assign a high probability that they will start behaving like Japan of the 1940s. They are humans just like the Japanese were humans and will produce the same behavior given the same bad ideas and circumstances.
Modern China is a revisionist power (much like Russia) with the capability to challenge the US. For these reasons, them launching an invasion of Taiwan is plausible. It is against their economic self-interest, but that doesn't completely deter nations from launching wars. National security concerns and national pride can trump economic concerns.