4 ms·

4% is 4%. They are paying the expenditures to maintain their military. Why would they not be looking for a return on their investment? It's strange we're even a

4% is 4%. They are paying the expenditures to maintain their military. Why would they not be looking for a return on their investment? It's strange we're even arguing about this given that their official position is that they will invade in due time if Taiwan does not unconditionally surrender. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/china-taiwan-invasion-military-exercise/2020/10/12/291f5d86-0c58-11eb-b404-8d1e675ec701_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/china-taiw... "In its annual work report this year, the Chinese government removed the word "peaceful" from long-standing references to "reunification" with Taiwan."

xtian 6y ago
Their official position is that they will invade if any of a few specific things occur. And China's military spending is less than 4% of their GDP last I checked. That seems pretty good to me given all the geopolitical aggression they're receiving from the country that makes up 38% of global military spending.
- chitowneats 6y ago
  The U.S. guaranteeing the independence of a free democracy is not "geopolitical aggression". Claiming sovereignty over land you have not controlled for an entire human lifetime quite certainly is. I'll end my participation in this discussion with a quote from the Taiwanese: "We fill fight a war if we need to fight a war, and if we need to defend ourselves to the very last day, then we will defend ourselves to the very last day" https://www.businessinsider.com/taiwan-warns-fight-to-end-conflict-with-china-2021-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/taiwan-warns-fight-to-end-co...
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    >The U.S. guaranteeing the independence of a free democracy is not "geopolitical aggression". So it was geopolitical aggression for the 40+ years Taiwan couldn't even pretend to be a free democracy? I don't understand how the internal government can be the decider over whether it's aggressive.
    - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
      > So it was geopolitical aggression for the 40+ years Taiwan couldn't even pretend to be a free democracy? Yes, it was still aggression. The US opposed it then under the grounds of "containing Communism" rather than "defending democracy". > I don't understand how the internal government can be the decider over whether it's aggressive. If you invade somewhere to take it over against the wishes of the locals, that's aggressive. How is that hard to understand?
      - boomboomsubban 6y ago
        >If you invade somewhere to take it over against the wishes of the locals, that's aggressive. How is that hard to understand? I have no idea what part of my post made it seem like I wouldn't find an invasion aggressive, it clearly would be. I wasn't discussing an invasion at all.
        AnimalMuppet 6y ago
        Then I clearly misunderstood this line: > I don't understand how the internal government can be the decider over whether it's aggressive. Would you explain what you meant by it? (And, my apologies for the yelling. I in fact thought that you were saying that an invasion would not be aggression, which... yeah. We both agree that such an idea is wrong.
        boomboomsubban 6y ago
        That providing substantial military support to a nation bordering an empire is an aggressive act no matter the form of government the border nation has.
        AnimalMuppet 6y ago
        Yes, kind of, but also no. Yes, it riles up the empire. They don't like it. They certainly regard it as a hostile, aggressive act. But you're not providing enough military support for the smaller nation to invade and conquer the empire. It makes it more expensive (perhaps prohibitively so) for the empire to conquer the other country. That's only "aggressive" if the empire was intending to conquer the other country, and only because it removed from them an option that they really wanted to use. They don't lose a foot of ground. All they lose is the option of themselves invading.
  - wonnage 6y ago
    Taiwan was run by a military dictatorship until 1986 *edit: 1986 was a long time ago, but the point is that the KMT was a corrupt and unpopular government which lost to the Communists, but the US held its nose and propped it up for 30+ years until Nixon needed a counterweight to the USSR and opened relations with China.
  - f6v 6y ago
    > The U.S. guaranteeing the independence of a free democracy is not "geopolitical aggression". This is a naïve view of geopolitics. Check out where Kurds ended up by counting on the US.
    - chitowneats 6y ago
      I never said the U.S. was likely to uphold their promise to prevent an invasion. The U.S. is however providing the Taiwanese with advanced military equipment. And their threat of defending Taiwan, no matter how hollow you judge it to be, is perhaps the only reason Taiwan is still an independent nation in 2021.
    - 8note 6y ago
      The US has interests in Taiwan, and none in Kurdistan. Some of those interests are economic, and Taiwan knows not to give them up. Others are geographic, and won't go away unless china finds another way to the ocean
      - f6v 5y ago
        > The US has interests in Taiwan, and none in Kurdistan. So they stayed in Syria just for fun? Middle East invasion is about pressuring Iran, as much as Taiwan is about Mainland China.

xtian 6y ago

Their official position is that they will invade if any of a few specific things occur. And China's military spending is less than 4% of their GDP last I checked. That seems pretty good to me given all the geopolitical aggression they're receiving from the country that makes up 38% of global military spending.

chitowneats 6y ago
The U.S. guaranteeing the independence of a free democracy is not "geopolitical aggression". Claiming sovereignty over land you have not controlled for an entire human lifetime quite certainly is. I'll end my participation in this discussion with a quote from the Taiwanese: "We fill fight a war if we need to fight a war, and if we need to defend ourselves to the very last day, then we will defend ourselves to the very last day" https://www.businessinsider.com/taiwan-warns-fight-to-end-conflict-with-china-2021-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/taiwan-warns-fight-to-end-co...
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  >The U.S. guaranteeing the independence of a free democracy is not "geopolitical aggression". So it was geopolitical aggression for the 40+ years Taiwan couldn't even pretend to be a free democracy? I don't understand how the internal government can be the decider over whether it's aggressive.
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    > So it was geopolitical aggression for the 40+ years Taiwan couldn't even pretend to be a free democracy? Yes, it was still aggression. The US opposed it then under the grounds of "containing Communism" rather than "defending democracy". > I don't understand how the internal government can be the decider over whether it's aggressive. If you invade somewhere to take it over against the wishes of the locals, that's aggressive. How is that hard to understand?
    - boomboomsubban 6y ago
      >If you invade somewhere to take it over against the wishes of the locals, that's aggressive. How is that hard to understand? I have no idea what part of my post made it seem like I wouldn't find an invasion aggressive, it clearly would be. I wasn't discussing an invasion at all.
      - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
        Then I clearly misunderstood this line: > I don't understand how the internal government can be the decider over whether it's aggressive. Would you explain what you meant by it? (And, my apologies for the yelling. I in fact thought that you were saying that an invasion would not be aggression, which... yeah. We both agree that such an idea is wrong.
        boomboomsubban 6y ago
        That providing substantial military support to a nation bordering an empire is an aggressive act no matter the form of government the border nation has.
        AnimalMuppet 6y ago
        Yes, kind of, but also no. Yes, it riles up the empire. They don't like it. They certainly regard it as a hostile, aggressive act. But you're not providing enough military support for the smaller nation to invade and conquer the empire. It makes it more expensive (perhaps prohibitively so) for the empire to conquer the other country. That's only "aggressive" if the empire was intending to conquer the other country, and only because it removed from them an option that they really wanted to use. They don't lose a foot of ground. All they lose is the option of themselves invading.
- wonnage 6y ago
  Taiwan was run by a military dictatorship until 1986 *edit: 1986 was a long time ago, but the point is that the KMT was a corrupt and unpopular government which lost to the Communists, but the US held its nose and propped it up for 30+ years until Nixon needed a counterweight to the USSR and opened relations with China.
- f6v 6y ago
  > The U.S. guaranteeing the independence of a free democracy is not "geopolitical aggression". This is a naïve view of geopolitics. Check out where Kurds ended up by counting on the US.
  - chitowneats 6y ago
    I never said the U.S. was likely to uphold their promise to prevent an invasion. The U.S. is however providing the Taiwanese with advanced military equipment. And their threat of defending Taiwan, no matter how hollow you judge it to be, is perhaps the only reason Taiwan is still an independent nation in 2021.
  - 8note 6y ago
    The US has interests in Taiwan, and none in Kurdistan. Some of those interests are economic, and Taiwan knows not to give them up. Others are geographic, and won't go away unless china finds another way to the ocean
    - f6v 5y ago
      > The US has interests in Taiwan, and none in Kurdistan. So they stayed in Syria just for fun? Middle East invasion is about pressuring Iran, as much as Taiwan is about Mainland China.