4 ms·

Taiwan is not critical for Chinese defense. Who wants to pick a fight with a giant well funded army?

by wbl 8y ago

adventured 8y ago
> Who wants to pick a fight with a giant well funded army? History is littered with modern examples. The US Colonies (British Empire). Latin America (Spain, Portugal, Netherlands, British, French). The Viet Cong (US, France). Finland (Russia). Iraqi resistance groups (US). The Taliban, Mujahideen (US, Russia). North Korea (UN). Ukraine (Russia). Hezbollah (Israel). Yugoslavia (NATO). Emus (Australia). Every giant well funded army has also lost at some point. For China, it's ideal to remove Taiwan as a staging ground that could be held by any opposition. Consider a scenario where it's NATO countries + Japan + South Korea + Taiwan, + Australia + New Zealand vs China in a massive conflict (or any similar variation). It would be far better to wholly control the island of Taiwan than not.
- wbl 8y ago
  Is taking China worth losing LA? Or Seattle? They have nukes.
macspoofing 8y ago
Just look at the map. If Taiwan were to become independent and an American ally, that would mean the entire Chinese pacific coast would be encircled by American allies - South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Philippines.
- CogitoCogito 8y ago
  The ROC and the PRC _are_ independent countries. They don't say they are, but clearly they are. The PRC already basically (that qualifier probably isn't necessary) is an ally of the United States. I don't disagree with your point (Chinese fears of encirclement), but the way you present. It's already the case and China is trying to invade Taiwan to change it. It's all consistent with China's attempt to phrase Taiwan as being separatist as opposed to the truth which is that China is being militaristic and imperialistic. It's dangerous double-speak and needs to stop.
  - macspoofing 8y ago
    >The ROC and the PRC _are_ independent countries. You know that's not true. >They don't say they are, but clearly they are. So why don't they say that? >The PRC already basically (that qualifier probably isn't necessary) is an ally of the United States. And what is the United States' position on the independence of Taiwan? >It's dangerous double-speak and needs to stop. Sometimes language can reflect reality, and the reality is that Taiwan is quasi-independent.
    - CogitoCogito 8y ago
      > You know that's not true. The PRC and the ROC have separate economies, militaries, governments, currencies. They engage in interational trade separately, organize telecommunications separately, they issue their own passports and they are recognized separately. The land controlled by the PRC and the land controlled by the ROC have been stable for 70 years. Those two landmasses have been united under one government for about 4 years in the last 125. To say that they are not two separate countries is totally delusional. > And what is the United States' position on the independence of Taiwan? What does that matter? The facts on the ground are that they are separate countries. The US position that the PRC wasn't a country in the 50s and 60s didn't magically make it the case. > Sometimes language can reflect reality, and the reality is that Taiwan is quasi-independent. You clearly don't live in reality.
      - macspoofing 8y ago
        This is getting silly. You're being disingenuous and I don't know why. Everything you said is true, and yet you know that isn't the entire story. You know that Taiwan is special. It isn't like other sovereign states as it has no UN representation and is not recognized by the vast majority of states and it is claimed by PRC as its dependent. The political status of Taiwan is complicated (to put it mildly). The status quo is somewhat tolerated by all parties, but I wouldn't bet that you'll have another 70 years of it. As China grows into a superpower, I doubt Taiwan will be able to maintain whatever independence it has now - but we'll see. Your line of argument also doesn't actually address the original point, which is that China tolerates the independence of Hong Kong because it has its sights set on Taiwan - which is the real prize. From that perspective, it doesn't matter how Taiwan sees itself.

Taiwan is not critical for Chinese defense. Who wants to pick a fight with a giant well funded army?

by wbl 8y ago

Taiwan is not critical for Chinese defense. Who wants to pick a fight with a giant well funded army?

> Who wants to pick a fight with a giant well funded army? History is littered with modern examples. The US Colonies (British Empire). Latin America (Spain, Portugal, Netherlands, British, French). The Viet Cong (US, France). Finland (Russia). Iraqi resistance groups (US). The Taliban, Mujahideen (US, Russia). North Korea (UN). Ukraine (Russia). Hezbollah (Israel). Yugoslavia (NATO). Emus (Australia). Every giant well funded army has also lost at some point. For China, it's ideal to remove Taiwan as a staging ground that could be held by any opposition. Consider a scenario where it's NATO countries + Japan + South Korea + Taiwan, + Australia + New Zealand vs China in a massive conflict (or any similar variation). It would be far better to wholly control the island of Taiwan than not.

wbl 8y ago
Is taking China worth losing LA? Or Seattle? They have nukes.

macspoofing 8y ago

Just look at the map. If Taiwan were to become independent and an American ally, that would mean the entire Chinese pacific coast would be encircled by American allies - South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Philippines.

CogitoCogito 8y ago
The ROC and the PRC _are_ independent countries. They don't say they are, but clearly they are. The PRC already basically (that qualifier probably isn't necessary) is an ally of the United States. I don't disagree with your point (Chinese fears of encirclement), but the way you present. It's already the case and China is trying to invade Taiwan to change it. It's all consistent with China's attempt to phrase Taiwan as being separatist as opposed to the truth which is that China is being militaristic and imperialistic. It's dangerous double-speak and needs to stop.
- macspoofing 8y ago
  >The ROC and the PRC _are_ independent countries. You know that's not true. >They don't say they are, but clearly they are. So why don't they say that? >The PRC already basically (that qualifier probably isn't necessary) is an ally of the United States. And what is the United States' position on the independence of Taiwan? >It's dangerous double-speak and needs to stop. Sometimes language can reflect reality, and the reality is that Taiwan is quasi-independent.
  - CogitoCogito 8y ago
    > You know that's not true. The PRC and the ROC have separate economies, militaries, governments, currencies. They engage in interational trade separately, organize telecommunications separately, they issue their own passports and they are recognized separately. The land controlled by the PRC and the land controlled by the ROC have been stable for 70 years. Those two landmasses have been united under one government for about 4 years in the last 125. To say that they are not two separate countries is totally delusional. > And what is the United States' position on the independence of Taiwan? What does that matter? The facts on the ground are that they are separate countries. The US position that the PRC wasn't a country in the 50s and 60s didn't magically make it the case. > Sometimes language can reflect reality, and the reality is that Taiwan is quasi-independent. You clearly don't live in reality.
    - macspoofing 8y ago
      This is getting silly. You're being disingenuous and I don't know why. Everything you said is true, and yet you know that isn't the entire story. You know that Taiwan is special. It isn't like other sovereign states as it has no UN representation and is not recognized by the vast majority of states and it is claimed by PRC as its dependent. The political status of Taiwan is complicated (to put it mildly). The status quo is somewhat tolerated by all parties, but I wouldn't bet that you'll have another 70 years of it. As China grows into a superpower, I doubt Taiwan will be able to maintain whatever independence it has now - but we'll see. Your line of argument also doesn't actually address the original point, which is that China tolerates the independence of Hong Kong because it has its sights set on Taiwan - which is the real prize. From that perspective, it doesn't matter how Taiwan sees itself.