7 ms·

Why wouldn’t we defend Taiwan?

Notanothertoo 5y ago
The cost is paid in blood
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> Why wouldn’t we defend Taiwan? It would cost American lives. We're war weary--I don't think we've fought a legitimate war in generations. That takes a lot to get over. It's, ironically, similar to the situation that led to European appeasement the last time this happened.
- f38zf5vdt 5y ago
  No, Americans love a good war. If they want one and high approval ratings for their elected officials, it just needs a catalyst of some sort. Spanish American War (USS Maine), WW2 (Pearl Harbor), Vietnam War (Gulf of Tonkin), Afghanistan War (9/11), Iraq War (WMDs). Catalyst can be real or imagined. It seems there is a lot of well-deserved mistrust in China by the West, so a war with China wouldn't be surprising even if only by proxy (Cold War).
  - jessaustin 5y ago
    Afghanistan War (WMDs) I thought WMDs were the lie that justified invading Iraq? The Afghanistan lie was that ObL was hiding in a cave there rather than openly living down the street from the Pakistan Military Academy. I'll admit that as the stories pile up it gets hard to keep them straight. It seems possible that the war pigs have gone a bit overboard with the stories in the last several decades. They've turned the knob so far that it may have broken off. After the "disastrous" aspects of the recent withdrawal have been hyped so much in the war media, I've heard normal red-blooded high-school-educated Ozark hillbilly Americans laughing out loud at e.g. CNN's instant backflip on the performance of Biden as president. It has been made exceedingly clear which interests really decide what's news.
  - whoaisme 5y ago
    WMDs have nothing to do with Afghanistan or the justification for invading Afghanistan. It's wild you can talk so confidently while being less knowledgeable than literal children. You criticize Americans but the way you bullshit you seem indistinguishable from the dumbest lot of them.
  - gataca 5y ago
    > Afghanistan War (WMDs) 9/11 was catalyst for this, nothing to do with WMDs
    - f38zf5vdt 5y ago
      Oh, yeah lol. That was Iraq, so many I'm misremembering. I'll edit in both. As far as "war weary", I don't remember the Cold War ending when the Vietnam War ended. It was just a foreign intervention the Americans lost, like the Soviets lost Afghanistan.
  - breckenedge 5y ago
    Bogus WMDs was the excuse for the second war in Iraq, not Afghanistan. We invaded Afghanistan because they wouldn’t hand over Bin Laden. Historically, American public sentiment has swung between periods of imperialism and isolationism. Based on the last few years, I think we’re swinging back towards isolationism. But yea, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a near-future President looking for an easy military victory (e.g. Panama).
Mizza 5y ago
I don't really want the world to end just to say we tried to save a tiny island that exists mostly to produce video game parts.
- cozos 5y ago
  Taiwanese people are human beings, not video game parts gremlins. And then what if it doesn't stop there? (South China Sea, Japan, Philippines, etc)
  - Mizza 5y ago
    I very much sympathize with Taiwan and have known some wonderful Taiwanese people in my life who will suffer greatly if there is a war. I just don't think America should get into a hot war with China over the island. We didn't for Tibet, Macau, Hong Kong, etc. The reason the hawks care more about Taiwan rather than Tibet is because of semiconductor manufacturing. I also think we should host a sovereign election and ask the Taiwanese people what they think we should do.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      No, they care because it would allow the MIC to make bank once more.
    - neartheplain 5y ago
      >I also think we should host a sovereign election and ask the Taiwanese people what they think we should do. Taiwan already has a democractically-elected President. Instead of holding a "sovereign election," you could just listen to her: >Tsai expressed her solidarity with Hong Kong protesters, remarking that Taiwan's democracy was hard-earned and had to be guarded and renewed. Pledging that as long as she was Taiwan's president, she would never accept "one country, two systems", Tsai cited what she considered to be the constant and rapid deterioration of Hong Kong's democracy over the course of 20 years. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsai_Ing-wen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsai_Ing-wen
  - newfriend 5y ago
MikeTheGreat 5y ago
Can I ask a genuine question? Why would we defend Taiwan? It's on the other side of the world from the US, there's no particular economic / strategic US interest in defending it, and on top of that it's current arrangement with China seems to be working for everyone. I find the notion that China would invade and that the US should then step in to be mystifying.
- foobarian 5y ago
  Because of TSMC. Once there are copies of it elsewhere it will get less strategically important.
- cynusx 5y ago
  There is actually great strategic interest in Taiwan. China is mostly contained by seas that are surrounded by island groups, which means that almost all its military and external trade passes close by potential hostile islands. With Taiwan part of China, it has direct access to the pacific ocean and a naval blockade will be much less effective. Most of Chinese GDP relies on external trade and a naval blockade would cut it off from vital resources to be able to conduct war against western targets.
  - dirtyid 5y ago
    PRC already has direct access to pacific ocean / SCS, and is more or less dominating waters within second island chain despite USN efforts. Any attempt of blockade being discuss right now is outside of 1st island chain where TW isn't. The last "strategic" benefit of denying PRC SSBNs from direct access to deep waters is being rapidly invalidated by PRC's new ICBM silo build up. Also PRC, along US has the LEAST trade:GDP dependency among major countries in the world. And PRC, unlike Japan has enough domestic resource production to be more or less self sufficient to run a war economy to support a military multiple it's current size.
    - cynusx 5y ago
      37% of China GDP is reliant on foreign trade and it lacks significant domestic resources like rare-earth metals, copper and oil. All which have to be imported. The Chinese belt & road initiative is a huge project to reduce the reliance on the china sea with a hallmark project opening a new main economic corridor to Karachi & Gwadar in Pakistan. That would allow for an alternative import-route through less hostile waters and dramatically increase the cost of a blockade. China is very interested in Afghanistan because it provides a route for an oil-pipeline to Iran and has large mineral deposits, reducing their dependency on the seas. Maybe it could military counter-blockade some of these islands, but that would not prevent the US from enacting an efficient naval blockade in the chinese seas.
standardUser 5y ago
Because of the high likelihood of catastrophic loss of life. And the high chance of complete failure.
goostavos 5y ago
A few reasons which hop to mind: 1. we just finished a 20 year war with nothing to show for it. Jumping into a new war is probably worth some cost/benefit analysis beyond "well, why not?" 2. correct if wrong, but I assume the projection of power backing your usage of "we" actually means "policed by others, who are not me" I'm not sure I want to see a new generation of kids slurped up into another war (formally declared or otherwise) on the other side of the globe to dubious end effect.
dirtyid 5y ago
Bluntly because the US can't. No one is going to say it out right, but the PRC’s military has modernized sufficiently that the US is likely incapable of defending TW anymore. Which is ultimately secondary to the goal of containing PRC that the US still could accomplish in other ways. It's simply not in US interest outside of short term semiconductor concerns that's rapidly being reshored stateside to potentially embarrass itself failing to defend TW. Worse if formal promises or commitments are made, and catastrophic if the US loses trying. e: account throttled, last reply for this thread @Ekaros I think in case of war prior to TSMC productions shifting off island, the survival of those fabs would be the only point of agreement and deconfliction between the mexican standoff. The idea that US would negotiate conceding TW to PRC over fab sharing access / where US controlled supply chains ultimately determine the fabs viability is not inconcievable. The US is fucking negotiating with the Taliban over civilians. Thre are tons of US civilians AND economic interests in TW worth preserving, even if it means handing TW over to PRC, as long as said economic interest has US leash. Which TSMC supply chains are absolutely tethered to. Why would TW agree? Because they're a developed country who doesn't want to be Yemen if conflict gets seroius, it's their only short term barginning chip.
- Ekaros 5y ago
  Also whole semiconductor thing is kinda pointless in this context... If there was war those would likely be on the first list to go or suffer... If not intentionally then unintentionally...
  - sct202 5y ago
    Plus the highly educated skilled workers who run those companies will probably find a ton of countries welcoming them with open arms.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      Depends what you mean by "run". If you mean the actual workers in TSMC's clean rooms, then maybe not: Where would they go, where they'd be needed -- when the whole problem in the first place is that the world is dependent on TSMC because there are no chip factories anywhere else?
elihu 5y ago
The risks involved in going up against a nuclear power are very high, the costs involved (both monetary and in lives) would be high, and success isn't guaranteed. I could well imagine Biden consulting with his military advisors and coming to the conclusion that it just isn't worth it. We saw a similar thing play out with Obama and Crimea. The winning strategy for the U.S. right now seems to be to convince China we would defend Taiwan so they don't attempt an invasion in the first place. But that's hard to do when it looks like the U.S. has pretty compelling reasons to stay out of it if it came to that. (This is all assuming that Taiwan asks for our help. I don't know why they wouldn't, but I feel like it's an important caveat that we shouldn't involve ourselves in conflicts we aren't invited into by at least one party.)

The cost is paid in blood

> Why wouldn’t we defend Taiwan? It would cost American lives. We're war weary--I don't think we've fought a legitimate war in generations. That takes a lot to get over. It's, ironically, similar to the situation that led to European appeasement the last time this happened.

f38zf5vdt 5y ago
No, Americans love a good war. If they want one and high approval ratings for their elected officials, it just needs a catalyst of some sort. Spanish American War (USS Maine), WW2 (Pearl Harbor), Vietnam War (Gulf of Tonkin), Afghanistan War (9/11), Iraq War (WMDs). Catalyst can be real or imagined. It seems there is a lot of well-deserved mistrust in China by the West, so a war with China wouldn't be surprising even if only by proxy (Cold War).
- jessaustin 5y ago
  Afghanistan War (WMDs) I thought WMDs were the lie that justified invading Iraq? The Afghanistan lie was that ObL was hiding in a cave there rather than openly living down the street from the Pakistan Military Academy. I'll admit that as the stories pile up it gets hard to keep them straight. It seems possible that the war pigs have gone a bit overboard with the stories in the last several decades. They've turned the knob so far that it may have broken off. After the "disastrous" aspects of the recent withdrawal have been hyped so much in the war media, I've heard normal red-blooded high-school-educated Ozark hillbilly Americans laughing out loud at e.g. CNN's instant backflip on the performance of Biden as president. It has been made exceedingly clear which interests really decide what's news.
- whoaisme 5y ago
  WMDs have nothing to do with Afghanistan or the justification for invading Afghanistan. It's wild you can talk so confidently while being less knowledgeable than literal children. You criticize Americans but the way you bullshit you seem indistinguishable from the dumbest lot of them.
- gataca 5y ago
  > Afghanistan War (WMDs) 9/11 was catalyst for this, nothing to do with WMDs
  - f38zf5vdt 5y ago
    Oh, yeah lol. That was Iraq, so many I'm misremembering. I'll edit in both. As far as "war weary", I don't remember the Cold War ending when the Vietnam War ended. It was just a foreign intervention the Americans lost, like the Soviets lost Afghanistan.
- breckenedge 5y ago
  Bogus WMDs was the excuse for the second war in Iraq, not Afghanistan. We invaded Afghanistan because they wouldn’t hand over Bin Laden. Historically, American public sentiment has swung between periods of imperialism and isolationism. Based on the last few years, I think we’re swinging back towards isolationism. But yea, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a near-future President looking for an easy military victory (e.g. Panama).

Mizza 5y ago

I don't really want the world to end just to say we tried to save a tiny island that exists mostly to produce video game parts.

cozos 5y ago
Taiwanese people are human beings, not video game parts gremlins. And then what if it doesn't stop there? (South China Sea, Japan, Philippines, etc)
- Mizza 5y ago
  I very much sympathize with Taiwan and have known some wonderful Taiwanese people in my life who will suffer greatly if there is a war. I just don't think America should get into a hot war with China over the island. We didn't for Tibet, Macau, Hong Kong, etc. The reason the hawks care more about Taiwan rather than Tibet is because of semiconductor manufacturing. I also think we should host a sovereign election and ask the Taiwanese people what they think we should do.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    No, they care because it would allow the MIC to make bank once more.
  - neartheplain 5y ago
    >I also think we should host a sovereign election and ask the Taiwanese people what they think we should do. Taiwan already has a democractically-elected President. Instead of holding a "sovereign election," you could just listen to her: >Tsai expressed her solidarity with Hong Kong protesters, remarking that Taiwan's democracy was hard-earned and had to be guarded and renewed. Pledging that as long as she was Taiwan's president, she would never accept "one country, two systems", Tsai cited what she considered to be the constant and rapid deterioration of Hong Kong's democracy over the course of 20 years. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsai_Ing-wen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsai_Ing-wen
- newfriend 5y ago

MikeTheGreat 5y ago

Can I ask a genuine question? Why would we defend Taiwan? It's on the other side of the world from the US, there's no particular economic / strategic US interest in defending it, and on top of that it's current arrangement with China seems to be working for everyone. I find the notion that China would invade and that the US should then step in to be mystifying.

foobarian 5y ago
Because of TSMC. Once there are copies of it elsewhere it will get less strategically important.
cynusx 5y ago
There is actually great strategic interest in Taiwan. China is mostly contained by seas that are surrounded by island groups, which means that almost all its military and external trade passes close by potential hostile islands. With Taiwan part of China, it has direct access to the pacific ocean and a naval blockade will be much less effective. Most of Chinese GDP relies on external trade and a naval blockade would cut it off from vital resources to be able to conduct war against western targets.
- dirtyid 5y ago
  PRC already has direct access to pacific ocean / SCS, and is more or less dominating waters within second island chain despite USN efforts. Any attempt of blockade being discuss right now is outside of 1st island chain where TW isn't. The last "strategic" benefit of denying PRC SSBNs from direct access to deep waters is being rapidly invalidated by PRC's new ICBM silo build up. Also PRC, along US has the LEAST trade:GDP dependency among major countries in the world. And PRC, unlike Japan has enough domestic resource production to be more or less self sufficient to run a war economy to support a military multiple it's current size.
  - cynusx 5y ago
    37% of China GDP is reliant on foreign trade and it lacks significant domestic resources like rare-earth metals, copper and oil. All which have to be imported. The Chinese belt & road initiative is a huge project to reduce the reliance on the china sea with a hallmark project opening a new main economic corridor to Karachi & Gwadar in Pakistan. That would allow for an alternative import-route through less hostile waters and dramatically increase the cost of a blockade. China is very interested in Afghanistan because it provides a route for an oil-pipeline to Iran and has large mineral deposits, reducing their dependency on the seas. Maybe it could military counter-blockade some of these islands, but that would not prevent the US from enacting an efficient naval blockade in the chinese seas.

standardUser 5y ago

Because of the high likelihood of catastrophic loss of life. And the high chance of complete failure.

goostavos 5y ago

A few reasons which hop to mind: 1. we just finished a 20 year war with nothing to show for it. Jumping into a new war is probably worth some cost/benefit analysis beyond "well, why not?" 2. correct if wrong, but I assume the projection of power backing your usage of "we" actually means "policed by others, who are not me" I'm not sure I want to see a new generation of kids slurped up into another war (formally declared or otherwise) on the other side of the globe to dubious end effect.

dirtyid 5y ago

Bluntly because the US can't. No one is going to say it out right, but the PRC’s military has modernized sufficiently that the US is likely incapable of defending TW anymore. Which is ultimately secondary to the goal of containing PRC that the US still could accomplish in other ways. It's simply not in US interest outside of short term semiconductor concerns that's rapidly being reshored stateside to potentially embarrass itself failing to defend TW. Worse if formal promises or commitments are made, and catastrophic if the US loses trying. e: account throttled, last reply for this thread @Ekaros I think in case of war prior to TSMC productions shifting off island, the survival of those fabs would be the only point of agreement and deconfliction between the mexican standoff. The idea that US would negotiate conceding TW to PRC over fab sharing access / where US controlled supply chains ultimately determine the fabs viability is not inconcievable. The US is fucking negotiating with the Taliban over civilians. Thre are tons of US civilians AND economic interests in TW worth preserving, even if it means handing TW over to PRC, as long as said economic interest has US leash. Which TSMC supply chains are absolutely tethered to. Why would TW agree? Because they're a developed country who doesn't want to be Yemen if conflict gets seroius, it's their only short term barginning chip.

Ekaros 5y ago
Also whole semiconductor thing is kinda pointless in this context... If there was war those would likely be on the first list to go or suffer... If not intentionally then unintentionally...
- sct202 5y ago
  Plus the highly educated skilled workers who run those companies will probably find a ton of countries welcoming them with open arms.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    Depends what you mean by "run". If you mean the actual workers in TSMC's clean rooms, then maybe not: Where would they go, where they'd be needed -- when the whole problem in the first place is that the world is dependent on TSMC because there are no chip factories anywhere else?

elihu 5y ago

The risks involved in going up against a nuclear power are very high, the costs involved (both monetary and in lives) would be high, and success isn't guaranteed. I could well imagine Biden consulting with his military advisors and coming to the conclusion that it just isn't worth it. We saw a similar thing play out with Obama and Crimea. The winning strategy for the U.S. right now seems to be to convince China we would defend Taiwan so they don't attempt an invasion in the first place. But that's hard to do when it looks like the U.S. has pretty compelling reasons to stay out of it if it came to that. (This is all assuming that Taiwan asks for our help. I don't know why they wouldn't, but I feel like it's an important caveat that we shouldn't involve ourselves in conflicts we aren't invited into by at least one party.)