Hacker News Reader

Comment by statguy | Hacker News Reader

This has massive strategic implications for the US. The US couldn't protect its bases in the middle east from a middle power like Iran and in fact its bases were the reason that its "allies" in the gulf were attacked. Iran would have no reason to attack those allies otherwise. The US has also shown that Israel is the only ally that it really cares about.

Japan, South Korea, Philippines and Australia are taking notes. Prediction: there is not going to be a war over Taiwan - Taiwan will gradually come to a Hong Kong like agreement with China.

View on HN

Nah. Seeing how China reneged on the "one country, two systems" promise and wrecked Hong Kong has turned the Taiwanese people more firmly against reunification.

Iran would be attacking other nearby states regardless of whether they host US military bases. Iran has a long history of aggression, including sponsoring terrorist groups. Personally I favor a less interventionist US foreign policy but even if we completely disengaged from the Middle East it would still be a violent neighborhood — probably even more so.

> Iran has a long history of aggression, including sponsoring terrorist groups

The US has a longer history of aggression and sponsoring terrorist groups:

Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-pro...

  During the Iran–Iraq War, which began with the Iraqi invasion of Iran on 22 September 1980,[1] the United States adopted a policy of providing support to Iraq in the form of several billion dollars' worth of economic aid, dual-use technology, intelligence sharing (e.g., IMINT), and special operations training.[2] This U.S. support, along with support from most of the Arab world, proved vital in helping Iraq sustain military operations against Iran.[3] The documented sale of dual-use technology, with one notable example being Iraq's acquisition of 45 Bell helicopters in 1985,[4][5] was effectively a workaround for a ban on direct arms transfers; U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East dictated that Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism because of the Iraqi government's historical ties with groups like the Palestinian Liberation Front and the Abu Nidal Organization, among others.[6] However, this designation was removed in 1982 to facilitate broader support for the Iraqis as the conflict dragged on in Iran's favour.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq...

The USA sending support to a state during a war specifically for that war is not supporting terrorism, even if the recipient has supported terrorism in the past.

>This U.S. support, along with support from most of the Arab world, proved vital in helping Iraq sustain military operations against Iran.

How do you ensure they only use it on that war?

Is using chemical weapons on civilian targets in cities and villages not terrorism?

Anyway, there are earlier and more direct instances of the US sponsoring terrorists groups.

>How do you ensure they only use it on that war?

Intelligence agencies. But you can't ensure it.

>Is using chemical weapons on civilian targets in cities and villages not terrorism?

I'm not an expert on the Iran-Iraq war and I'm a bit tired for research ATM but I'm going to assume the USA did not provide it's help for chemical weapons use, and that there was plenty of conventional conflict going on to provide assistance for.

>Anyway, there are earlier and more direct instances of the US sponsoring terrorists groups.

Sure, but we should point to when that happened. Not when the USA supported a government to do something at the same time as they did something bad.

> I'm a bit tired for research ATM but I'm going to assume

Hilarious but sad that this is the state of HN.

After you get some rest consider reading the article. Maybe you can have it read to you like a audiobook, might be easier? Some of the original CIA documents are at the bottom.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-pro...

https://archive.is/XWevr

I pulled some key quotes for you:

  In 1988, during the waning days of Iraq’s war with Iran, the United States learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses. U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein’s military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent.

  The Reagan administration decided that it was better to let the attacks continue if they might turn the tide of the war. And even if they were discovered, the CIA wagered that international outrage and condemnation would be muted

  senior U.S. officials were being regularly informed about the scale of the nerve gas attacks

  declassified CIA documents show that Casey and other top officials were repeatedly informed about Iraq’s chemical attacks and its plans for launching more

  The use of chemical weapons in war is banned under the Geneva Protocol of 1925, which states that parties “will exert every effort to induce other States to accede to the” agreement. Iraq never ratified the protocol; the United States did in 1975.

  By 1988, U.S. intelligence was flowing freely to Hussein’s military. That March, Iraq launched a nerve gas attack on the Kurdish village of Halabja in northern Iraq

The Taiwanese know they can't take on China directly, they now know that Western support is meaningless - in fact it pushes them more into conflict with China. Given a choice, I think the Taiwanese would prefer a Hong Kong like outcome to a Ukraine/UAE like outcome.

AFAIK Iran never directly attacked several countries (e.g. UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi, Bahrain) before this war.

The question you have to ask is, in the story of offense vs defense, can Taiwan mine that srait and deny China access, or does China posses anti-mine technology that counteracts that.

TW gets most of energy and calories from strait shipping. It would be PRC mining/denying TW for lulz if anything. Ultimately TW going to have to look to see if they want to be HKers, who got less retarded after kissing PRC boot (see HK kids going to SZ to party) or whether TW wants to be Gaza who capitulates to Israeli demand, because reality is with sufficient force asymmetry, one can destroy civic life enough to force capitulation. And PRC can do that to TW, trivially, with mainland fires alone. The only hold back is the "family across the strait" narrative.

TW forceful reunification even if depopulated husk basically done deal, the real question is whether PRC wants to do an Iran and push US security out of east Asia, which is ultimate grand strategic goal. And to be blunt TW is perfect casus belli to spark this. PRC would be net worse off long run getting TW peacefully and but still deal with US security in region. Hence whether Iran can squeeze US out of CENTOM (even marginally) will set huge precedence.

The down votes to this suggest that many in the west are in denial. China doesn’t need to fight a hot war with Taiwan, they can incrementally pressure Taiwan while their western allies issue impotent statements.

China also doesn't need to annex Taiwan. Chinese people have been brainswashed by the PCC into thinking that it was a life-or-death issue for the country. It is not, and China could live another millenia without controlling the island.

If anything, Taiwan proves that Chinese people can be perfectly fine and rich without the authoritarian grip of the PCC. That's the most likely reason why the PCC clique wants to invade TW.

It's not an existential issue for China. It's an existential issue for the CPP, because Xi made it so. He made reunification with Taiwan by... 2049 (IIRC, but I admit I'm fuzzy on the exact date) a test of the legitimacy of the CCP. So it's an existential issue for the CCP because Xi ran his mouth, basically.

Taiwan being an existential issue for the CPC was long before Xi took control of the CPC.

First time heard of it,China claim TW since 1949,how they got this reason at 1949

The downvotes suggest that many in the West see it as unconscionable to call people “retarded” for preferring not to be invaded. If someone made a comment like this in my house, I would kick them out immediately and might well never speak to them again.

Isn't a big draw for reunification the advanced manufacturing in Taiwan?

Forced reunification would risk destroying that, either as incidental damage through military operations, or as sabotage.

Far better would be to sit back and allow the US to continue proving itself incompetent and unreliable, until being subsumed like Hong Kong doesn't seem like such a bad deal.

Leading edge semi that's already largely denied to PRC via export controls that overwhelmingly underpins US semi advantage and economy. Glassing TSMC would actually only close advanced semi gap between US and PRC by simply taking most of US semi high end pipeline offline. Meanwhile PRC retains the most complete semi supply chain, they don't have leading edge but they do have almost fully indigenized semi vs decentralized western semi, a lot of which are in PRC missile range.

> doesn't seem like such a bad deal

This fundamentally doesn't address that US would still retain security architecture in region, i.e. TW doesn't host much US hardware anyway - taking tw does not meaningfully shift security balance. The only way to ensure relative geopolitical sanctuary is to boot US forward basing out of East Asia, and to be blunt that is not something done peacefully from PRC side, i.e. unless US voluntarily abdicate from theatre and I don't see that happening. Now maybe PRC can establish overwhelmingly advantageous regional force balance that it's obvious to all US posture no longer security dilemma for PRC, but I wouldn't discount PRC simply wanting to remove US forces from regional equation just to be sure.

TSMC is building US fabs though (or so they claim) so it's not solely a question of denial.

I guess more generally PRC can play a much longer game than the US, which seems intent on destroying its standing with the rest of the world by electing absolute buffoons every 4 years. How many years of this can allies tolerate?

Shutting down the strait of Hormuz for example is extremely damaging to US allies in Asia and we can expect more incompetence over time.

There are many sole source fab suppliers in TW, Arizona fabs will run out of inputs and shut down. There maybe effort to fully indigenize TW semi supply chain outside TW, but I've not heard any credible policy/efforts.

There is scenario where US incompetence will negate security dilemma, but see how hard JP is hedging. I would not put money on it. The additional layer to this is US security architecture of of East Asia is not just US basing, but US hardware in general... forcing region to no longer operate US platforms that gathers intel for US MIC / break region interoperability (including data sharing) with US. PRC unlikely to convince JP/SKR/SG etc to abandon F35s politically (because alternative worse vs PRC), at least within lifespan of platforms. That requires glassing hardware and coercing alternate procurement.

The water between Taiwan and China makes it pretty hard to invade unlike Ukraine or Hong Kong. It's how Taiwan came to be in the first place - the Chinese government retreated there to escape the communist take over and it's held for the last century. If anything modern tech had made things worse for an invading navy if the fate of Russia's Black Sea fleet is anything to go by.

Hong Kong was actually pretty defensible, it is hemmed in by mountains and then water. The problem is that all of Hong Kong’s utilities and food came from the mainland, it just wasn’t a viable city without mainland cooperation.

I think an EU type agreement might be the way to go. Separate countries but in a union. I know Xi would hate it as he wants to be the ruler of all but compare say France and Germany - years of peace under the EU arrangement with Ukraine / Russia with both countries getting wrecked.

That'll be far too close to the 'one country two systems' promise that China broke when it got control of Hong Kong to get Taiwan to voluntarily to sign up to it.

EU style union is voluntary one. So no that cant happen.

> Japan, South Korea, Philippines and Australia are taking notes.

Donny also goes back on his word constantly. Look at all the trade agreements that he signed before 'liberation day'. Look at really everything afterwards too.

Even if Iran wanted to sign something, they can't. It will mean nothing. They know that.

That's a pretty wild prediction - Taiwan is also a middle power and could beef up if it wants to.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com