4 ms·

US military presence is sort of a paradox for Taiwan. It both protects Taiwan, as well threatens it, in the sense that China feels threatened by the US military

US military presence is sort of a paradox for Taiwan. It both protects Taiwan, as well threatens it, in the sense that China feels threatened by the US military and thus is incentivized to militarize out of self-defense. Taiwan's geography makes it a natural fortress, and even Taiwan's own military can defend the island pretty well entirely on its own. A mainland invasion will be very, very expensive, so it won't happen that easily. Economically, Taiwan is in decline. China basically doesn't need Taiwan for economic reasons. So the only reason to invade Taiwan, would be to appeal to the nationalist sentiment of reunification. But the chances of that happening is less than what many think, both because of the military cost, and because the CCP are actually moderates; there are many Chinese people who are far more radical, and if it's up to them then they would have launched an invasion a decade ago. This probably sounds unbelievable, or even propagandistic, to many people here on HN. You don't have to take my word for it. See Kishore Mahbubani, ex-Singapore diplomat & ex-head of UN Security Council, who wrote a book on China.

vxNsr 6y ago
This is obviously false on its face. China would have invaded Taiwan from the get for if not for the US. And blaming china’s self defense fears on their building up the military is just communist apologist nonsense
- FooBarWidget 6y ago
  Based on what sources do you make your claims, and what makes you so sure Mahbubani is wrong? Also, regarding "communist"... they're not really communist, haven't been for a long time now. 80% of the businesses in China are privately owned, and people have private property. Though socialist elements still exist; my wife's grandparents recently received new houses from the government, as reimbursement for tearing down their old houses (which were in much worse shape than the new ones) for redeveloping the land. As Mahbubani says, the CCP is more accurately described as the Chinese Civilization Party.
  - aww_dang 6y ago
    Yes, 'private' enterprises that are required to have party members in positions of control. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-congress-companies/exclusive-in-china-the-partys-push-for-influence-inside-foreign-firms-stirs-fears-idUSKCN1B40JU https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-congress-companies/...
    - FooBarWidget 6y ago
      The larger ones do. Smaller ones don't. And for sure, houses are not owned by the government. The land is, although that is not a uniquely communist thing: in Amsterdam, all land is owned by the city government. But that really has got nothing to do with ownership. It has got to do with national security, and ensuring that the company does not conflict with public interests. Whether you agree with such reasons is another matter: the point is that it's not about ownership.
      - aww_dang 6y ago
        A distinction without a difference. Party affiliation is a requirement before a business can even become large. Perhaps you can call them private in the nominal sense. It is reminiscent of the National Socialist's command economy. Private individuals may own a company on paper, but the party will dictate what is done with it. Look at the case of Jack Ma.
  - vxNsr 6y ago
    > Also, regarding "communist"... they're not really communist, haven't been for a long time now. Right, but communism has never been communism where it has been tried, that's the paradox of communism. trying to continually redefine the term to fit your narrative to that it's still pure is a boring exercise in bike-shedding.
    - FooBarWidget 6y ago
      I don't know where you got the idea from that I'm 'redefining' communism. Communism refers to an economic system, where one of the properties is that everything is state owned. And that is no longer true. Communism also refers to the Soviet model, and China is no longer using that. If I say that today's China's mostly capitalist system is a new form of communism, then you would be right than I am redefining it. So I am very confused by what you mean when you accuse me of redefining communism. It seems more like that you are redefining communism to mean whatever system China is using today.
- aww_dang 6y ago
  https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3980268 https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3980268 “Taiwan’s ‘silicon shield’ makes it the 51st [US] state,” FT quoted Dan Hutcheson, a chip analyst and chairman of VLSI research, as saying. He stressed the need for the U.S. to protect Taiwan, saying “it can’t afford to lose it to China.”

vxNsr 6y ago

This is obviously false on its face. China would have invaded Taiwan from the get for if not for the US. And blaming china’s self defense fears on their building up the military is just communist apologist nonsense

FooBarWidget 6y ago
Based on what sources do you make your claims, and what makes you so sure Mahbubani is wrong? Also, regarding "communist"... they're not really communist, haven't been for a long time now. 80% of the businesses in China are privately owned, and people have private property. Though socialist elements still exist; my wife's grandparents recently received new houses from the government, as reimbursement for tearing down their old houses (which were in much worse shape than the new ones) for redeveloping the land. As Mahbubani says, the CCP is more accurately described as the Chinese Civilization Party.
- aww_dang 6y ago
  Yes, 'private' enterprises that are required to have party members in positions of control. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-congress-companies/exclusive-in-china-the-partys-push-for-influence-inside-foreign-firms-stirs-fears-idUSKCN1B40JU https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-congress-companies/...
  - FooBarWidget 6y ago
    The larger ones do. Smaller ones don't. And for sure, houses are not owned by the government. The land is, although that is not a uniquely communist thing: in Amsterdam, all land is owned by the city government. But that really has got nothing to do with ownership. It has got to do with national security, and ensuring that the company does not conflict with public interests. Whether you agree with such reasons is another matter: the point is that it's not about ownership.
    - aww_dang 6y ago
      A distinction without a difference. Party affiliation is a requirement before a business can even become large. Perhaps you can call them private in the nominal sense. It is reminiscent of the National Socialist's command economy. Private individuals may own a company on paper, but the party will dictate what is done with it. Look at the case of Jack Ma.
- vxNsr 6y ago
  > Also, regarding "communist"... they're not really communist, haven't been for a long time now. Right, but communism has never been communism where it has been tried, that's the paradox of communism. trying to continually redefine the term to fit your narrative to that it's still pure is a boring exercise in bike-shedding.
  - FooBarWidget 6y ago
    I don't know where you got the idea from that I'm 'redefining' communism. Communism refers to an economic system, where one of the properties is that everything is state owned. And that is no longer true. Communism also refers to the Soviet model, and China is no longer using that. If I say that today's China's mostly capitalist system is a new form of communism, then you would be right than I am redefining it. So I am very confused by what you mean when you accuse me of redefining communism. It seems more like that you are redefining communism to mean whatever system China is using today.
aww_dang 6y ago
https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3980268 https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3980268 “Taiwan’s ‘silicon shield’ makes it the 51st [US] state,” FT quoted Dan Hutcheson, a chip analyst and chairman of VLSI research, as saying. He stressed the need for the U.S. to protect Taiwan, saying “it can’t afford to lose it to China.”