3 ms·

I don't think these campaigns are very comparable. During WW2 we were island hopping, which created an urgency to all actions. With Taiwan, China has a single i

I don't think these campaigns are very comparable. During WW2 we were island hopping, which created an urgency to all actions. With Taiwan, China has a single isolated target. They also have major geographic advantages. Taiwan is 80 miles from China, and nearly all of their important infrastructure is not only coastal but also on the Chinese facing side of the island - most of Taiwan being uninhabited mountainous regions. They are also a very non self-sufficient island in many forms of production, including food. If China wanted to attack Taiwan, they'd likely just carry out a naval blockade, and it'd probably be unstoppable. In WW2 this was not [regularly] possible, because blockades can take months to years to achieve victory. But when they can be done, they're relatively cheap and extremely effective. But I doubt China wants a military solution, even if they are 100% certain they would be victorious - because that would not solve the underlying problem, and could even exasperate it. War will probably only happen if Taiwan declares its independence or starts pursuing nukes or relationships that would grant them defacto access to nukes, like e.g. joining NATO. And neither of those seems likely.

msabalau 3y ago
Would you say that a blockade "inevitably" leads to "victory"? Because it was really the "inevitability" notion of the OP that I was pushing back on. A blockade is one potential option that the PRC has, and it comes with risks and uncertainties. If your "probably" is genuinely modifying the "unstoppable" then we are only disagreeing about the odds, rather than about "inevitability" But generally, I agree with your assessment that pursuing a military solution is not in China's interests. But autocrats surrounded by yes men sometimes can mistake their interests, just as voters in democracies sometimes want really stupid things with bad consequences. The (hopefully) remote risk of war happening seems reasonable for TSMC and its customers to want to hedge against.
- somenameforme 3y ago
  Nothing is ever inevitable. But if anything were inevitable, I would say that China's victory would be. They're the greatest manufacturing power in the world by a wide margin, have one of the largest populations in the world by a wide margin, and they'd be engaged in a war that's right on their own border. They could have the entire strait heavily mined and patrolled by subs, surface based defenses, and more in a matter of days. Actually, I just looked up the numbers and was somewhat unsurprised to see that both Russia and China both have more subs than the US, with the rest of the world being a rounding error. [1] And Russia will 100% back up China. And the nature of this combat would also mean China would basically be in a defensive war. And in war, but especially modern warfare, defense is just infinitely easier than offense. A tangent here, but I also think the distinction between autocracy and democracy, in this regard, is farcical. Voters don't decide to go to war, politicians do - and then they convince the average masses that they supported the war through endless propaganda, lies, and misrepresentations. When the endless propaganda ends, and people can see what they did, many will outright deny they ever supported the war. Polls in Iraq are the best example of such. Just at the start of the war, when the propaganda was at its peak, 72% of people supported the war - and more than 90% thought it likely we'd find WMD. Only 13% of people opposed the war. [2] Now modern polls shows a small minority claim to have ever supported the war - they are lying to themselves. There's enough naive individuals that we could turn Canada into the next great threat to the world, at least in the eyes of a US plurality, if we really wanted to. [1] - https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/submarines-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/submarine... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_in_the_United_States_on_the_invasion_of_Iraq#Invasion_of_Iraq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_in_the_United_S...

msabalau 3y ago

Would you say that a blockade "inevitably" leads to "victory"? Because it was really the "inevitability" notion of the OP that I was pushing back on. A blockade is one potential option that the PRC has, and it comes with risks and uncertainties. If your "probably" is genuinely modifying the "unstoppable" then we are only disagreeing about the odds, rather than about "inevitability" But generally, I agree with your assessment that pursuing a military solution is not in China's interests. But autocrats surrounded by yes men sometimes can mistake their interests, just as voters in democracies sometimes want really stupid things with bad consequences. The (hopefully) remote risk of war happening seems reasonable for TSMC and its customers to want to hedge against.

somenameforme 3y ago
Nothing is ever inevitable. But if anything were inevitable, I would say that China's victory would be. They're the greatest manufacturing power in the world by a wide margin, have one of the largest populations in the world by a wide margin, and they'd be engaged in a war that's right on their own border. They could have the entire strait heavily mined and patrolled by subs, surface based defenses, and more in a matter of days. Actually, I just looked up the numbers and was somewhat unsurprised to see that both Russia and China both have more subs than the US, with the rest of the world being a rounding error. [1] And Russia will 100% back up China. And the nature of this combat would also mean China would basically be in a defensive war. And in war, but especially modern warfare, defense is just infinitely easier than offense. A tangent here, but I also think the distinction between autocracy and democracy, in this regard, is farcical. Voters don't decide to go to war, politicians do - and then they convince the average masses that they supported the war through endless propaganda, lies, and misrepresentations. When the endless propaganda ends, and people can see what they did, many will outright deny they ever supported the war. Polls in Iraq are the best example of such. Just at the start of the war, when the propaganda was at its peak, 72% of people supported the war - and more than 90% thought it likely we'd find WMD. Only 13% of people opposed the war. [2] Now modern polls shows a small minority claim to have ever supported the war - they are lying to themselves. There's enough naive individuals that we could turn Canada into the next great threat to the world, at least in the eyes of a US plurality, if we really wanted to. [1] - https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/submarines-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/submarine... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_in_the_United_States_on_the_invasion_of_Iraq#Invasion_of_Iraq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_in_the_United_S...