6 ms·

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 mi

by 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.
  - dirtyid 5y ago
    US trade GDP is 27%. Most major OECD countries' trade GDP is 60%+. PRC is relatively well insulated at "only" 37%, closer to US which is generally considered as self-sufficient. Covid19 demonstrated even worse disruptions are survivable short term. Essentially every major trading country is going to lose more than PRC if they support a US led blockade, which isn't guaranteed. Almost no one wants the US to unilaterally disrupt global trade over TW. Thanks to wolf warrior counter sanctions, even non-US sanctions aren't guaranteed. As for copper, there's a strategic reserve, and again PRC will be on a time limited war economy. PRC currently has 80% share of rare earth and a monopoly on processing that will take decades to erode. Again, it hurts everyone else more. As for imports, while PRC imports a lot to sustain the normal economy, PRC also produces enough for a massive war economy. Domestic petroleum, iron ore production, RE + reserves is sufficient to field assets multiple times the size of USN. The US simply can't starve the PRC strategically like Japan. BRI hype is mostly theatre / exporting excess infra capacity, it will take decades to cultivate alternate routes and still won't rival shipping via water. The numbers don’t add up. Almost every country with PRC supply route is subject to US bombing in full scale war - US think tanks already proposed landing missiles in SCS islands even if against wishes of SCS nations if shit hits the fan. The US will have no problem bombing infra in the Stans to contain the PRC. Only viable secure route is via Russia due to nuclear deterrence but again land routes are simply insufficient longer term alternatives. Ultimately US-PRC confrontation / PRC breaking US containment for good will be decided in the waters. In case of the USN attempting a blockade on PRC (legally an act of war), the battles will be decisive, with existential consequences. PRC has options to undermine blockade like bait the USN into defending Japan / Korea, or counter blockade of everything in the 1st island chain from the US. Or destroy all east Asian semi supply chains which set back US manufacturing for decades. Or massive crippling cyber attacks. There are multiple domains of MAD, not just nuclear that makes prolonged confrontation unfavorable. PRC is not just going to sit there and take it. Also, even if the US sinks the entire PLAN fleet, PRC may still force pyrrhic costs on the US. Every ship in the USN fleet has to dock eventually, including nuclear powered, PRC has enough conventionally tipped ICBMs to hit them without complex kill chain considerations. Destroying the oilers and replenishment ships while in port and the nuclear USCGs that’s hiding out at sea become useless. People aren't fathoming scenarios where both sides lose terribly, but ultimately the US loses more because she started so far ahead. A US unable to honor her global security commitments because she lost so much assets to the PRC loses her hegemony. Is TW worth that? All interest calculus points to no. Especially considering PRC is much easier to contain once she takes over TW. Most countries in the region will become MORE willing to US assets to contain PRC once the TW conundrum is resolved, because they want to deter PRC, but not at the cost of being dragged into war over TW.
mikem170 5y ago
So your justification is that so we can continue to dominate and bottle-up China, because we are good and they are bad? Do you really think they have plans to attack the west? Remember that they were colonized/humiliated by the west, then occupied by Japan, up until Mao secured their independence. The foreign supported force fled to Taiwan. Do you think they might look at their situation differently than we do? EDIT: changed 'foreigner force' to 'foreign supported force'
- ChemSpider 5y ago
  "The foreigners fled to Taiwan" - What foreigners? The KMT, also known as the Chinese Nationalist Party, fled to Taiwan. It is China that is bullying Taiwan, not other countries bullying China.
  - mikem170 5y ago
    Thanks, that was a mistake, I meant to say 'foreign supported'. I edited my comment. > It is China that is bullying Taiwan, not other countries bullying China. That's not their perspective. Hard to argue effectively against someone without understanding where they are coming from.
    - stale2002 5y ago
      > That's not their perspective. Hard to argue effectively against someone without understanding where they are coming from. So what? Who cares? I have no delusions that they are going to be convinced of what is wrong with wanting to invade and take over a country. Why bother trying to convince them of anything? Country to country interactions, in the context of war and invasions, aren't really solved in the marketplace of ideas, of rousing debate, to totally prove that the other side is wrong. Instead, such problems are solved with power. The way to stop an invasion from china, is to put in disincentives. Arm up opposing forces, establish treaties, trade relations, and economic sanctions, such that an invasion would cause china a huge of amount of damage, if they did decide to do that. And if they ignore that, and go through with the invasion, then you follow through on your threat, and actually cause as much damage, in terms of economics, PR, and lives as you can get away with, while reducing the same from your own side.

by cynusx 5y ago

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.
- dirtyid 5y ago
  US trade GDP is 27%. Most major OECD countries' trade GDP is 60%+. PRC is relatively well insulated at "only" 37%, closer to US which is generally considered as self-sufficient. Covid19 demonstrated even worse disruptions are survivable short term. Essentially every major trading country is going to lose more than PRC if they support a US led blockade, which isn't guaranteed. Almost no one wants the US to unilaterally disrupt global trade over TW. Thanks to wolf warrior counter sanctions, even non-US sanctions aren't guaranteed. As for copper, there's a strategic reserve, and again PRC will be on a time limited war economy. PRC currently has 80% share of rare earth and a monopoly on processing that will take decades to erode. Again, it hurts everyone else more. As for imports, while PRC imports a lot to sustain the normal economy, PRC also produces enough for a massive war economy. Domestic petroleum, iron ore production, RE + reserves is sufficient to field assets multiple times the size of USN. The US simply can't starve the PRC strategically like Japan. BRI hype is mostly theatre / exporting excess infra capacity, it will take decades to cultivate alternate routes and still won't rival shipping via water. The numbers don’t add up. Almost every country with PRC supply route is subject to US bombing in full scale war - US think tanks already proposed landing missiles in SCS islands even if against wishes of SCS nations if shit hits the fan. The US will have no problem bombing infra in the Stans to contain the PRC. Only viable secure route is via Russia due to nuclear deterrence but again land routes are simply insufficient longer term alternatives. Ultimately US-PRC confrontation / PRC breaking US containment for good will be decided in the waters. In case of the USN attempting a blockade on PRC (legally an act of war), the battles will be decisive, with existential consequences. PRC has options to undermine blockade like bait the USN into defending Japan / Korea, or counter blockade of everything in the 1st island chain from the US. Or destroy all east Asian semi supply chains which set back US manufacturing for decades. Or massive crippling cyber attacks. There are multiple domains of MAD, not just nuclear that makes prolonged confrontation unfavorable. PRC is not just going to sit there and take it. Also, even if the US sinks the entire PLAN fleet, PRC may still force pyrrhic costs on the US. Every ship in the USN fleet has to dock eventually, including nuclear powered, PRC has enough conventionally tipped ICBMs to hit them without complex kill chain considerations. Destroying the oilers and replenishment ships while in port and the nuclear USCGs that’s hiding out at sea become useless. People aren't fathoming scenarios where both sides lose terribly, but ultimately the US loses more because she started so far ahead. A US unable to honor her global security commitments because she lost so much assets to the PRC loses her hegemony. Is TW worth that? All interest calculus points to no. Especially considering PRC is much easier to contain once she takes over TW. Most countries in the region will become MORE willing to US assets to contain PRC once the TW conundrum is resolved, because they want to deter PRC, but not at the cost of being dragged into war over TW.

mikem170 5y ago

So your justification is that so we can continue to dominate and bottle-up China, because we are good and they are bad? Do you really think they have plans to attack the west? Remember that they were colonized/humiliated by the west, then occupied by Japan, up until Mao secured their independence. The foreign supported force fled to Taiwan. Do you think they might look at their situation differently than we do? EDIT: changed 'foreigner force' to 'foreign supported force'

ChemSpider 5y ago
"The foreigners fled to Taiwan" - What foreigners? The KMT, also known as the Chinese Nationalist Party, fled to Taiwan. It is China that is bullying Taiwan, not other countries bullying China.
- mikem170 5y ago
  Thanks, that was a mistake, I meant to say 'foreign supported'. I edited my comment. > It is China that is bullying Taiwan, not other countries bullying China. That's not their perspective. Hard to argue effectively against someone without understanding where they are coming from.
  - stale2002 5y ago
    > That's not their perspective. Hard to argue effectively against someone without understanding where they are coming from. So what? Who cares? I have no delusions that they are going to be convinced of what is wrong with wanting to invade and take over a country. Why bother trying to convince them of anything? Country to country interactions, in the context of war and invasions, aren't really solved in the marketplace of ideas, of rousing debate, to totally prove that the other side is wrong. Instead, such problems are solved with power. The way to stop an invasion from china, is to put in disincentives. Arm up opposing forces, establish treaties, trade relations, and economic sanctions, such that an invasion would cause china a huge of amount of damage, if they did decide to do that. And if they ignore that, and go through with the invasion, then you follow through on your threat, and actually cause as much damage, in terms of economics, PR, and lives as you can get away with, while reducing the same from your own side.