9 ms·

> Is 'separation' a euphemism for 'preventing invasion'? Because threat of that is #1 thing keeping cross-strait relations tense. Mainland China could easily of

> Is 'separation' a euphemism for 'preventing invasion'? Because threat of that is #1 thing keeping cross-strait relations tense. Mainland China could easily offer Taiwan a better deal than they get by being closely aligned with the US. Their reluctance to do so keeps US influence in the region, and after a while one can't help if it's deliberate. I don't quite follow. Are you saying China purposely gives Taiwan a raw deal just to deliberately spite the US? Why would they do that? I think I'm misunderstanding you. > Also Israel gets a much better deal than Taiwan. The US gives military aid to Israel, where as Taiwan has to petition the US government - their only significant supplier - for the right to even buy weapons. Better hardware too, despite Israels poor track record in passing US military tech to China. Yeah, for sure. But our support of both countries (and others like them) pisses other countries off. IMO we have no business being either world police or world arms market, especially in some of the most volatile quagmires in the world. We make our own enemies because of our supposed friends. These places only have strategic value to us so long as we desire to remain the global hegemon, with tentacles everywhere. Let go of that weird military-industrial-hentai complex, and there's no reason for us to artificially prop up these countries. Especially Israel. The IDF can more than take care of themselves. Taiwan is going to fall sooner or later anyway, but why is that our business? We force our enemies to go on eternal arms races against us because we've shown them we're incapable of minding our own business after WW2. It should not be our responsibility to provide world security using our people, our equipment, our money.

LAC-Tech 5y ago
I don't quite follow. Are you saying China purposely gives Taiwan a raw deal just to deliberately spite the US? Why would they do that? I think I'm misunderstanding you. I mean the whole situation is incredibly contrived. The 'sacred chinese territory' narrative feels completely hollow if you consider how long ago they stopped claiming other Qing dynasty possessions like Mongolia. My guess is that it serves a domestic narrative, and that they've backed themselves into a corner by staking their core legitimacy on annexing Taiwan for so long. So yes, by offering Taiwan a better deal than they get from the US, they could remove a lot of influence from the region. But it never happens. Yeah, for sure. But our support of both countries (and others like them) pisses other countries off. IMO we have no business being either world police or world arms market, especially in some of the most volatile quagmires in the world. We make our own enemies because of our supposed friends. These places only have strategic value to us so long as we desire to remain the global hegemon, with tentacles everywhere. Let go of that weird military-industrial-hentai complex, and there's no reason for us to artificially prop up these countries. Especially Israel. The IDF can more than take care of themselves. Taiwan is going to fall sooner or later anyway, but why is that our business? We force our enemies to go on eternal arms races against us because we've shown them we're incapable of minding our own business after WW2. It should not be our responsibility to provide world security using our people, our equipment, our money. The US withdrawing from East Asia would be a global disaster. This wouldn't be a small land skirmish, it would be a massive amphibious invasion in Japans backyard - which knows it's southern territories would be next on the menu. It would also take place in one of the busiest shipping routes in the world, causing a massive disruption of global trade. Not to mention the semi conductor angle, now abandoned US allies pursuing their own nuclear weapons agendas.. etc etc. You could argue the US should not have been interfering there in the first place. Which is very principled and all, but the USSR was going to be there either way. And now the US is very much the force in that region keeping war from breaking out. Arming South Korea, Taiwan and Japan does not make these places more volatile. It makes them much, much less.
- technobabbler 5y ago
  > My guess is that it serves a domestic narrative, and that they've backed themselves into a corner by staking their core legitimacy on annexing Taiwan for so long. > So yes, by offering Taiwan a better deal than they get from the US, they could remove a lot of influence from the region. But it never happens. I doubt this is actually as much a cultural issue for the CCP as it was for past emperors. They've long since abandoned that model and instead observed/emulated the successes and failures of the West, including our love of creating enslaved vassal states under the guise of nation-building. Long game, they probably want Taiwan to become another Hong Kong or Tibet. Short term, Taiwan is a useful bargaining chip for them to focus American attention towards, and the mere threat of war there can back the US into our corner while China focuses on domestic infrastructure and continues to leapfrog us across the sectors and years. Never interrupt your enemy while they're making a mistake, etc. China knows they'll win by default while we blindly obsess over our colonies, and if they really need to (unlikely), it's a lot cheaper to sink a carrier group than to build and maintain one. IMO we're their ultimate target, not Taiwan in and of itself. It's like an abusive, manipulative spouse using a kid as collateral against the other parent (us). Once the other parent is taken care of, they're free to do with the kid as they please. > The US withdrawing from East Asia would be a global disaster. This wouldn't be a small land skirmish, it would be a massive amphibious invasion in Japans backyard - which knows it's southern territories would be next on the menu. Sorry, by who? Are you saying South Korea will invade Japan if we pull out...? How? And why is that our problem to solve? > It would also take place in one of the busiest shipping routes in the world, causing a massive disruption of global trade. Not to mention the semi conductor angle, now abandoned US allies pursuing their own nuclear weapons agendas.. etc etc. So, kinda like Covid? Eh, fewer Xboxes and new cars for a few years, global GDP repressed for a bit. The world will survive and move on and adapt. As for nuclear weapons agendas, the US is still the only one to have used them, and still one of the most imperialist countries in the modern era, and the one who tends to create the biggest enemies out of our misadventures. South Korea and Japan and Taiwan aren't going to nuke each other, even if there's historical animosity there. Maybe the Koreas themselves will break out into war, but that was probably an inevitability anyway, unless the removal of US attention and sanctions allows NK to grow and transform. > You could argue the US should not have been interfering there in the first place. Which is very principled and all, but the USSR was going to be there either way. So let China take over that role for that region of the globe. Let a resurgent Russia have its piece of the pie. Maybe it's time for US power to wane. > And now the US is very much the force in that region keeping war from breaking out. Arming South Korea, Taiwan and Japan does not make these places more volatile. It makes them much, much less. This makes no sense. With US involvement, Taiwan and South Korea become proxy wars with China. Without us, they become regional conflicts affecting a few million people, not WW3.

LAC-Tech 5y ago

I don't quite follow. Are you saying China purposely gives Taiwan a raw deal just to deliberately spite the US? Why would they do that? I think I'm misunderstanding you. I mean the whole situation is incredibly contrived. The 'sacred chinese territory' narrative feels completely hollow if you consider how long ago they stopped claiming other Qing dynasty possessions like Mongolia. My guess is that it serves a domestic narrative, and that they've backed themselves into a corner by staking their core legitimacy on annexing Taiwan for so long. So yes, by offering Taiwan a better deal than they get from the US, they could remove a lot of influence from the region. But it never happens. Yeah, for sure. But our support of both countries (and others like them) pisses other countries off. IMO we have no business being either world police or world arms market, especially in some of the most volatile quagmires in the world. We make our own enemies because of our supposed friends. These places only have strategic value to us so long as we desire to remain the global hegemon, with tentacles everywhere. Let go of that weird military-industrial-hentai complex, and there's no reason for us to artificially prop up these countries. Especially Israel. The IDF can more than take care of themselves. Taiwan is going to fall sooner or later anyway, but why is that our business? We force our enemies to go on eternal arms races against us because we've shown them we're incapable of minding our own business after WW2. It should not be our responsibility to provide world security using our people, our equipment, our money. The US withdrawing from East Asia would be a global disaster. This wouldn't be a small land skirmish, it would be a massive amphibious invasion in Japans backyard - which knows it's southern territories would be next on the menu. It would also take place in one of the busiest shipping routes in the world, causing a massive disruption of global trade. Not to mention the semi conductor angle, now abandoned US allies pursuing their own nuclear weapons agendas.. etc etc. You could argue the US should not have been interfering there in the first place. Which is very principled and all, but the USSR was going to be there either way. And now the US is very much the force in that region keeping war from breaking out. Arming South Korea, Taiwan and Japan does not make these places more volatile. It makes them much, much less.

technobabbler 5y ago
> My guess is that it serves a domestic narrative, and that they've backed themselves into a corner by staking their core legitimacy on annexing Taiwan for so long. > So yes, by offering Taiwan a better deal than they get from the US, they could remove a lot of influence from the region. But it never happens. I doubt this is actually as much a cultural issue for the CCP as it was for past emperors. They've long since abandoned that model and instead observed/emulated the successes and failures of the West, including our love of creating enslaved vassal states under the guise of nation-building. Long game, they probably want Taiwan to become another Hong Kong or Tibet. Short term, Taiwan is a useful bargaining chip for them to focus American attention towards, and the mere threat of war there can back the US into our corner while China focuses on domestic infrastructure and continues to leapfrog us across the sectors and years. Never interrupt your enemy while they're making a mistake, etc. China knows they'll win by default while we blindly obsess over our colonies, and if they really need to (unlikely), it's a lot cheaper to sink a carrier group than to build and maintain one. IMO we're their ultimate target, not Taiwan in and of itself. It's like an abusive, manipulative spouse using a kid as collateral against the other parent (us). Once the other parent is taken care of, they're free to do with the kid as they please. > The US withdrawing from East Asia would be a global disaster. This wouldn't be a small land skirmish, it would be a massive amphibious invasion in Japans backyard - which knows it's southern territories would be next on the menu. Sorry, by who? Are you saying South Korea will invade Japan if we pull out...? How? And why is that our problem to solve? > It would also take place in one of the busiest shipping routes in the world, causing a massive disruption of global trade. Not to mention the semi conductor angle, now abandoned US allies pursuing their own nuclear weapons agendas.. etc etc. So, kinda like Covid? Eh, fewer Xboxes and new cars for a few years, global GDP repressed for a bit. The world will survive and move on and adapt. As for nuclear weapons agendas, the US is still the only one to have used them, and still one of the most imperialist countries in the modern era, and the one who tends to create the biggest enemies out of our misadventures. South Korea and Japan and Taiwan aren't going to nuke each other, even if there's historical animosity there. Maybe the Koreas themselves will break out into war, but that was probably an inevitability anyway, unless the removal of US attention and sanctions allows NK to grow and transform. > You could argue the US should not have been interfering there in the first place. Which is very principled and all, but the USSR was going to be there either way. So let China take over that role for that region of the globe. Let a resurgent Russia have its piece of the pie. Maybe it's time for US power to wane. > And now the US is very much the force in that region keeping war from breaking out. Arming South Korea, Taiwan and Japan does not make these places more volatile. It makes them much, much less. This makes no sense. With US involvement, Taiwan and South Korea become proxy wars with China. Without us, they become regional conflicts affecting a few million people, not WW3.