6 ms·

Taiwan is basically "captured" by: 1) Being too close and too dependent on China mainland 2) Enjoying a huge amount of surplus with China (it overweights ever

Taiwan is basically "captured" by: 1) Being too close and too dependent on China mainland 2) Enjoying a huge amount of surplus with China (it overweights everything else combined, and almost doubled) IMO, there is really no point for China to invade Taiwan, even if Taiwan declares independence. The best move of China, when and if that happens, is to simply grab Jinmen and Mazu (the two small islands close to Xiamen), and then start a economic debacle of some sort. They don't even have to put up a physical debacle -- the only thing they need to do is to remove that surplus by removing all economic preferential policies. The best move for Taiwan, is always to be on the brink of independence without actually getting into it. After all, it is independent in all other ways and it's fine as long as US is strong enough. Now the real point is: Can China put military equipment in Taiwan to break through the so-called first island chain? I think it's a Yes given enough time. I guess that's why NATO has been busily working on the second chain.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> there is really no point for China to invade Taiwan Which is why, historically, it didn’t. But Xi isn’t rational: he’s a dictator. It wasn’t rational for him to force his way onto Hong Kong; the territory would automatically become China in a few decades. Same for his corruption/loyalty purges and decimation of China’s tech sector. Irrational, short-term sacrifices of China’s long-term potential for his short-term politics.
- hnfong 3y ago
  > It wasn’t rational for him to force his way onto Hong Kong When that happened, Hong Kong was involved in ongoing riots and people were proclaiming (Hong Kong) independence on the streets for months. The legislature was stormed in an event that was not unlike Jan 6 Capitol Hill in the US (we sure did feel the awkward resemblance of the two events...) Everyone can have their views on whether suppressing the riots was morally justified, but Xi had to do something to assert the CCP's sovereignty over Hong Kong. It was the only rational move unless they were prepared to give up Hong Kong. > the territory would automatically become China in a few decades Not sure which place you're talking about. Hong Kong is already part of China at least since the 1997 handover. And Taiwan will never become under CCP rule if status quo is preserved. Don't think there's any mechanism for "automatically" taking over Taiwan. I don't know how familiar you are with the history, but long-term thinking and patience was essentially the reason China was able to gain back control Hong Kong from the Brits, pretty much on China's terms. They took advantage of the 99-year lease on the New Territories, waited until the Brits started developing on the leased (as opposed to ceded) land, and caught them with their pants down when they realized they had no feasible plan to partially hand back the territory when the lease expired. Hong Kong has always been a template (in the CCP's mind at least) for taking back Taiwan, I don't know how you'd come to the conclusion that they would forego long term potential for short term gains. It's like you're talking as if they already invaded Taiwan and you're shaking your head over the stupidity of it. (No, it hasn't happened yet.) The threat of course always seem real enough. It's all a game of chicken. The one who seems most crazy wins. Back then during the 1970s, China also threatened to invade Hong Kong if the Brits didn't hand it back to them. They want you to think the leadership is irrational. Makes them harder to predict.
  - throwaway2990 3y ago
    China was forcing HK to accept China laws and HK didn’t want it. They protested. Don’t try and and make it sound like HK were just randomly protesting nothing.
    - gggmaster 3y ago
      HK is part of China.
      - throwaway2990 3y ago
        And it was part of 1 country 2 systems. Which proved there is no such thing. Because the CCP still has their foot in HK and making sure there is no 2 systems.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Hong Kong was involved in ongoing riots Because Xi ham-fistedly forced through a badly-written security law [1] and intervened in its politics [2]. It’s like stupid Tiannamen Square. > long-term thinking and patience was essentially the reason China was able to gain back control Hong Kong from the Brits China was rational under the CCP. It’s myopic under Xi. > don't know how you'd come to the conclusion that they would forego long term potential for short term gains They already did. Hong Kong’s mess was avoidable. Most Taiwanese identifying as Taiwanese and not Chinese was avoidable [3]. The trade wars, and China being reëclipsed in manufacturing by U.S. + Japan + Deutschland, were avoidable [4]. The bank losses on overseas loans were avoidable [5]. The corruption in the rocket forces, which guarantees no Taiwan action until China’s military strength is past its relative nadir, was avoidable [6]. All of these missteps would not have happened under proper CCP leadership. They are expressions of Xi’s personal hubris. China sacrificed the immortality of its state for the favour of its mortal dictator; it’s possibly the luckiest geopolitical stroke for America after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. > during the 1970s, China also threatened to invade Hong Kong if the Brits didn't hand it back to them. They want you to think the leadership is irrational But they didn’t. That’s rational. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Hong_Kong_extradition_bill https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Hong_Kong_extradition_b... [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-56264117 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-56264117 [3] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/01/16/most-people-in-taiwan-see-themselves-as-primarily-taiwanese-few-say-theyre-primarily-chinese/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/01/16/most-peop... [4] https://www.safeguardglobal.com/resources/top-10-manufacturing-countries-in-the-world-2023/ https://www.safeguardglobal.com/resources/top-10-manufacturi... [5] https://www.ft.com/content/da01c562-ad29-4c34-ae5e-a0aafddd377c https://www.ft.com/content/da01c562-ad29-4c34-ae5e-a0aafddd3... [6] https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chinas-military-rocket-force-uncovers-shortcomings-pla-daily-2023-09-15/ https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chinas-military-rocket-f...
- vkou 3y ago
  > But Xi isn’t rational: he’s a dictator. This is a non-sequitor. There's no reason, a priori, to believe a dictator is any less, or more rational than a popular idiot (and we've elected quite a few of those). (You also don't stay a dictator for very long by being a madman or an idiot, whereas an elected official usually at least gets to finish their term.)
  - bee_rider 3y ago
    Leaders serve the interests of those that have a say in whether or not they stay in power—in democratic countries with wide enfranchisement, that’s the population in general, in other systems it might be a combination of the military, party, international supporters, and the populace. I think what people mean when they say a country “acts rationally” or doesn’t is that decisions are made that vaguely make sense in when analyzed by applying the rationalism framework to ”the country,” usually used as a shorthand for the populace. But of course, this would only make sense if the leaders decide that the best way to stay in power is to serve the interest of the populace. Which isn’t the case in a non-democratic country. Rationalism is a framework in international relations, and it makes sense that some terms-of-art will sneak out into informal English. Unfortunately, in English, “irrational” is also, basically, a fancy way of saying somebody makes stupid decisions. And lots of countries that are, broadly, antagonistic toward the US are not representative democracies*. So it seems to have basically morphed into a way of saying that my country’s adversaries are stupid. An unfortunate end for an otherwise interesting term. * not to say that we haven’t been willing to morally compromise ourselves and ally up with dictators or overthrow democracies.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > no reason, a priori, to believe a dictator is any less, or more rational than a popular idiot (and we've elected quite a few of those) Dictators are less constrained and longer serving. The latter is particularly damning, since it means the need to save face prevents course corrections.
ajmurmann 3y ago
I'm concerned that Xi might be more concerned with leaving a legacy than with practical goals when it comes to Taiwan. The civil war was never fully won and resolving that seems important to him. I hope it's just posturing. On the feasibility of an invasion: there was a very good episode of the Sinica podcast on wargaming this: https://thechinaproject.com/2023/08/17/wargaming-a-taiwan-invasion-scenario/ https://thechinaproject.com/2023/08/17/wargaming-a-taiwan-in... Very scary for everyone and especially the US. Think several lost carriers within the first 24-36 hrs Edit: important to note that at the end of the episode they discuss that the wargaming exercise assumed < 100 dedicated amphibian landing boats, but Chinese officials have previously said that they'd use their merchant marine which would mean we are talking about thousand of ships! The whole thing is unfathomable and clearly unprecedented since WWII
- hnthrowaway0328 3y ago
  I don't think anyone is going to come to Taiwan's aid if a major invasion comes up. There will be material and intelligence support, for sure, but sending troops? Not so sure. I agree that Xi probably wants some legacy coined to him, but he is only 70 and looks pretty healthy (as far as I see) so I guess he can still wait it out. I still don't believe there is going to be an invasion of Taiwan happening in the next few years, but if it does, I think it's going to be a lot bigger than just Taiwan. From this perspective, it is scary.
  - ethbr1 3y ago
    Declaring closed straits to Chinese military surface vessels on the Taiwan-Philippines and Taiwan-Japan gaps, along with resupply of Taiwan from the east, seems a reasonable response for the US (and possibly Japan). China's calculus changes if they have to strike Japanese and Philippine sovereign territory (even if it's hosting US forces) in order to accomplish their goals. And it's unclear if even Xi is willing to send as many ships and bodies as it would take to the bottom of Taiwanese straits to get an invasion force across. (Which then faces a guerrilla insurgency in mountainous terrain) If Xi sees Taiwan as a gateway to Pacific hegemony, maybe that math is worth it... But asking a populace to support that in the face of economic weakness and high youth unemployment is a tall order. The COVID lockdown riots demonstrated that even China's social control is a fine line.
X6S1x6Okd1st 3y ago
But you also need consider that the Chinese demographics are basically only going to get worse from here. Their dependeny ratio is going to get really bad, like it could be 1.5 retirement age people per 1 working age person. Are they gonna try and fight a war while the average soldier has more then one aging parent back on the mainland? Who would do the domestic production to support the effort? If China ever wants to do it they need to do it in the next couple decades https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/12/05/key-facts-about-chinas-declining-population/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/12/05/key-facts...
- hnthrowaway0328 3y ago
  I actually don't think they want a war. They are preparing for a war, that's for sure, but to start one, with NATO? That's not a good idea. Time is China's friend at least for the next decade as you mentioned.
  - foobarian 3y ago
    Where is NATO in this picture? There is no alliance trigger with a Taiwan invasion.
    - bluGill 3y ago
      There isn't in the case of Ukraine either, but NATO has mostly stepped up anyway. Sure we are not putting troops on the ground (yet???) but NATO has provided a lot of support. Countries like South Korea, Japan, Philippians, and Australia are likely to get scared if China does too much and send some form of help.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > Where is NATO in this picture? Nowhere. The relevant alliances are AUKUS [1] and the Quad [2]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUKUS https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUKUS [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrilateral_Security_Dialogue https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrilateral_Security_Dialo...
- deleted 3y ago
berserk1010 3y ago
> Being too close and too dependent on China mainland This is changing quickly. New investments in China by Taiwanese companies declined 10.4 percent year-on-year in the first quarter of the year (2023) to US$758 million...That follows an almost 14 percent decrease in such investment last year.https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2023/04/21/2003798341 https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2023/04/21/2... Exodus of Taiwanese businesses from China: push and pull factors amidst trade and tech tensions https://english.cw.com.tw/article/article.action?id=3573 https://english.cw.com.tw/article/article.action?id=3573
- hnthrowaway0328 3y ago
  We are going to see when the 2024 report is out. AFAIK the huge trade surplus is still there.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> there is really no point for China to invade Taiwan Which is why, historically, it didn’t. But Xi isn’t rational: he’s a dictator. It wasn’t rational for him to force his way onto Hong Kong; the territory would automatically become China in a few decades. Same for his corruption/loyalty purges and decimation of China’s tech sector. Irrational, short-term sacrifices of China’s long-term potential for his short-term politics.

hnfong 3y ago
> It wasn’t rational for him to force his way onto Hong Kong When that happened, Hong Kong was involved in ongoing riots and people were proclaiming (Hong Kong) independence on the streets for months. The legislature was stormed in an event that was not unlike Jan 6 Capitol Hill in the US (we sure did feel the awkward resemblance of the two events...) Everyone can have their views on whether suppressing the riots was morally justified, but Xi had to do something to assert the CCP's sovereignty over Hong Kong. It was the only rational move unless they were prepared to give up Hong Kong. > the territory would automatically become China in a few decades Not sure which place you're talking about. Hong Kong is already part of China at least since the 1997 handover. And Taiwan will never become under CCP rule if status quo is preserved. Don't think there's any mechanism for "automatically" taking over Taiwan. I don't know how familiar you are with the history, but long-term thinking and patience was essentially the reason China was able to gain back control Hong Kong from the Brits, pretty much on China's terms. They took advantage of the 99-year lease on the New Territories, waited until the Brits started developing on the leased (as opposed to ceded) land, and caught them with their pants down when they realized they had no feasible plan to partially hand back the territory when the lease expired. Hong Kong has always been a template (in the CCP's mind at least) for taking back Taiwan, I don't know how you'd come to the conclusion that they would forego long term potential for short term gains. It's like you're talking as if they already invaded Taiwan and you're shaking your head over the stupidity of it. (No, it hasn't happened yet.) The threat of course always seem real enough. It's all a game of chicken. The one who seems most crazy wins. Back then during the 1970s, China also threatened to invade Hong Kong if the Brits didn't hand it back to them. They want you to think the leadership is irrational. Makes them harder to predict.
- throwaway2990 3y ago
  China was forcing HK to accept China laws and HK didn’t want it. They protested. Don’t try and and make it sound like HK were just randomly protesting nothing.
  - gggmaster 3y ago
    HK is part of China.
    - throwaway2990 3y ago
      And it was part of 1 country 2 systems. Which proved there is no such thing. Because the CCP still has their foot in HK and making sure there is no 2 systems.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Hong Kong was involved in ongoing riots Because Xi ham-fistedly forced through a badly-written security law [1] and intervened in its politics [2]. It’s like stupid Tiannamen Square. > long-term thinking and patience was essentially the reason China was able to gain back control Hong Kong from the Brits China was rational under the CCP. It’s myopic under Xi. > don't know how you'd come to the conclusion that they would forego long term potential for short term gains They already did. Hong Kong’s mess was avoidable. Most Taiwanese identifying as Taiwanese and not Chinese was avoidable [3]. The trade wars, and China being reëclipsed in manufacturing by U.S. + Japan + Deutschland, were avoidable [4]. The bank losses on overseas loans were avoidable [5]. The corruption in the rocket forces, which guarantees no Taiwan action until China’s military strength is past its relative nadir, was avoidable [6]. All of these missteps would not have happened under proper CCP leadership. They are expressions of Xi’s personal hubris. China sacrificed the immortality of its state for the favour of its mortal dictator; it’s possibly the luckiest geopolitical stroke for America after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. > during the 1970s, China also threatened to invade Hong Kong if the Brits didn't hand it back to them. They want you to think the leadership is irrational But they didn’t. That’s rational. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Hong_Kong_extradition_bill https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Hong_Kong_extradition_b... [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-56264117 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-56264117 [3] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/01/16/most-people-in-taiwan-see-themselves-as-primarily-taiwanese-few-say-theyre-primarily-chinese/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/01/16/most-peop... [4] https://www.safeguardglobal.com/resources/top-10-manufacturing-countries-in-the-world-2023/ https://www.safeguardglobal.com/resources/top-10-manufacturi... [5] https://www.ft.com/content/da01c562-ad29-4c34-ae5e-a0aafddd377c https://www.ft.com/content/da01c562-ad29-4c34-ae5e-a0aafddd3... [6] https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chinas-military-rocket-force-uncovers-shortcomings-pla-daily-2023-09-15/ https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chinas-military-rocket-f...
vkou 3y ago
> But Xi isn’t rational: he’s a dictator. This is a non-sequitor. There's no reason, a priori, to believe a dictator is any less, or more rational than a popular idiot (and we've elected quite a few of those). (You also don't stay a dictator for very long by being a madman or an idiot, whereas an elected official usually at least gets to finish their term.)
- bee_rider 3y ago
  Leaders serve the interests of those that have a say in whether or not they stay in power—in democratic countries with wide enfranchisement, that’s the population in general, in other systems it might be a combination of the military, party, international supporters, and the populace. I think what people mean when they say a country “acts rationally” or doesn’t is that decisions are made that vaguely make sense in when analyzed by applying the rationalism framework to ”the country,” usually used as a shorthand for the populace. But of course, this would only make sense if the leaders decide that the best way to stay in power is to serve the interest of the populace. Which isn’t the case in a non-democratic country. Rationalism is a framework in international relations, and it makes sense that some terms-of-art will sneak out into informal English. Unfortunately, in English, “irrational” is also, basically, a fancy way of saying somebody makes stupid decisions. And lots of countries that are, broadly, antagonistic toward the US are not representative democracies*. So it seems to have basically morphed into a way of saying that my country’s adversaries are stupid. An unfortunate end for an otherwise interesting term. * not to say that we haven’t been willing to morally compromise ourselves and ally up with dictators or overthrow democracies.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > no reason, a priori, to believe a dictator is any less, or more rational than a popular idiot (and we've elected quite a few of those) Dictators are less constrained and longer serving. The latter is particularly damning, since it means the need to save face prevents course corrections.

ajmurmann 3y ago

I'm concerned that Xi might be more concerned with leaving a legacy than with practical goals when it comes to Taiwan. The civil war was never fully won and resolving that seems important to him. I hope it's just posturing. On the feasibility of an invasion: there was a very good episode of the Sinica podcast on wargaming this: https://thechinaproject.com/2023/08/17/wargaming-a-taiwan-invasion-scenario/ https://thechinaproject.com/2023/08/17/wargaming-a-taiwan-in... Very scary for everyone and especially the US. Think several lost carriers within the first 24-36 hrs Edit: important to note that at the end of the episode they discuss that the wargaming exercise assumed < 100 dedicated amphibian landing boats, but Chinese officials have previously said that they'd use their merchant marine which would mean we are talking about thousand of ships! The whole thing is unfathomable and clearly unprecedented since WWII

hnthrowaway0328 3y ago
I don't think anyone is going to come to Taiwan's aid if a major invasion comes up. There will be material and intelligence support, for sure, but sending troops? Not so sure. I agree that Xi probably wants some legacy coined to him, but he is only 70 and looks pretty healthy (as far as I see) so I guess he can still wait it out. I still don't believe there is going to be an invasion of Taiwan happening in the next few years, but if it does, I think it's going to be a lot bigger than just Taiwan. From this perspective, it is scary.
- ethbr1 3y ago
  Declaring closed straits to Chinese military surface vessels on the Taiwan-Philippines and Taiwan-Japan gaps, along with resupply of Taiwan from the east, seems a reasonable response for the US (and possibly Japan). China's calculus changes if they have to strike Japanese and Philippine sovereign territory (even if it's hosting US forces) in order to accomplish their goals. And it's unclear if even Xi is willing to send as many ships and bodies as it would take to the bottom of Taiwanese straits to get an invasion force across. (Which then faces a guerrilla insurgency in mountainous terrain) If Xi sees Taiwan as a gateway to Pacific hegemony, maybe that math is worth it... But asking a populace to support that in the face of economic weakness and high youth unemployment is a tall order. The COVID lockdown riots demonstrated that even China's social control is a fine line.

X6S1x6Okd1st 3y ago

But you also need consider that the Chinese demographics are basically only going to get worse from here. Their dependeny ratio is going to get really bad, like it could be 1.5 retirement age people per 1 working age person. Are they gonna try and fight a war while the average soldier has more then one aging parent back on the mainland? Who would do the domestic production to support the effort? If China ever wants to do it they need to do it in the next couple decades https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/12/05/key-facts-about-chinas-declining-population/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/12/05/key-facts...

hnthrowaway0328 3y ago
I actually don't think they want a war. They are preparing for a war, that's for sure, but to start one, with NATO? That's not a good idea. Time is China's friend at least for the next decade as you mentioned.
- foobarian 3y ago
  Where is NATO in this picture? There is no alliance trigger with a Taiwan invasion.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    There isn't in the case of Ukraine either, but NATO has mostly stepped up anyway. Sure we are not putting troops on the ground (yet???) but NATO has provided a lot of support. Countries like South Korea, Japan, Philippians, and Australia are likely to get scared if China does too much and send some form of help.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Where is NATO in this picture? Nowhere. The relevant alliances are AUKUS [1] and the Quad [2]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUKUS https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUKUS [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrilateral_Security_Dialogue https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrilateral_Security_Dialo...
deleted 3y ago

berserk1010 3y ago

> Being too close and too dependent on China mainland This is changing quickly. New investments in China by Taiwanese companies declined 10.4 percent year-on-year in the first quarter of the year (2023) to US$758 million...That follows an almost 14 percent decrease in such investment last year.https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2023/04/21/2003798341 https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2023/04/21/2... Exodus of Taiwanese businesses from China: push and pull factors amidst trade and tech tensions https://english.cw.com.tw/article/article.action?id=3573 https://english.cw.com.tw/article/article.action?id=3573

hnthrowaway0328 3y ago
We are going to see when the 2024 report is out. AFAIK the huge trade surplus is still there.