6 ms·

Off-topic as far as the article above goes, but do you think it's more likely for global(-ish?) war to erupt because of Europe/Middle East compared to Taiwan? A

Off-topic as far as the article above goes, but do you think it's more likely for global(-ish?) war to erupt because of Europe/Middle East compared to Taiwan? A lot of the discussion around global war pre-2022 was for the late 2020s when China attempts to invade Taiwan. I personally doubt the major global powers will allow the conflicts in Israel and Ukraine to escalate to Western countries actually engaging in combat (but they do seem to want to personally defend Taiwan).

sudjdkdn 2y ago
The most likely reason for war is to move the competition with China onto a military footing rather than an economic one. The US would win the first, and that result would help the second. If you’re seeing western powers gear up for war, it might be to secure their economic future rather than a just intervention
- FpUser 2y ago
  So they would start a war and kill people for economy's sake? In this case what make them any different from any other war criminals?
  - knodi 2y ago
    Ya just don’t buy EU or UK would start ww3. There are much smarter and better economics and influence strategies to play out that are much less bloody to its own population.
    - h18483djdj 2y ago
      It may not make WW status and they might not be directly involved in fighting it
  - h18483djdj 2y ago
    I think that’s the point. I’m old enough to remember Bush and Blair wanting UN support for Iraq but ditched the idea when they wouldn’t get it. And young enough that my parent’s generation have never seen a war and so don’t remember why the UN was created in the first place. We live in dangerous times with very poor leaders and politics
    - benterix 2y ago
      Yeah Bush seemed surprised nobody wants to join his war. "You forgot Poland!"
groby_b 2y ago
Some major global powers (i.e. China) have a vested interest in that escalation. Having the US tied down in two other conflicts means significantly less resources. Which means Middle East and Ukraine are already part of a global-ish war. Proxy wars, so far, but in service of a larger goal. (No, I don't think China necessarily instigated, but they're sure supporting ongoing conflict) As part of that, I'd also assume that the US nudged the UK to maybe consider their supply chain in case the US can't cover Europe's ass. (They can't, not if they expect a Taiwan conflict)
- cue_the_strings 2y ago
  I'm under the impression that time is actually working for China and that they don't really require a war; they'll catch up economically soon enough (5-10y) that a war doesn't benefit them at all, and only the US would benefit from one right now, while they still have a chance of nipping their primacy in the bud.
  - SllX 2y ago
    If Nationalism weren’t a factor, there is essentially zero reason for the PRC to ever invade Taiwan. Nationalism is a factor and the PRC is a totalitarian dictatorship. They’re going to go after what they consider their “rogue province” sooner or later, and whether it benefits them economically or not is a footnote.
    - cue_the_strings 2y ago
      Them being a totalitarian dictatorship doesn't necessarily mean they're stupid. I doubt they would risk their economy just because of Taiwan. They may go after it at some point in the future when the odds are in their favor (because they're obviously not right now), but I doubt it'll be soon.
      - groby_b 2y ago
        > Them being a totalitarian dictatorship doesn't necessarily mean they're stupid. No, but it does mean that they are significantly more prone to irrational decisions. And Xi's not exactly ultra-rational to start with.
csomar 2y ago
War is momentum based. If the US gets dragged in a war with Iran and is also supplying Ukraine with weapons, China might perceive this particular moment as an advantage to start their Taiwan campaign. From there, more countries will see the chaos as an advantage to settle their border disputes. And there you have it, a global world war.
- benterix 2y ago
  > From there, more countries will see the chaos as an advantage to settle their border disputes. I doubt it. Look at what a "border dispute" did to Russia - they became a global pariah. And modern countries cannot really function in a vacuum, even most stupid/populist leaders know it. Local wars in Africa and the Middle East will continue, that's for sure, but they don't have the potential to become global, at least not now.
_heimdall 2y ago
I have been expecting that, if another world war were to kick off, theaters of war would exist both in Europe/Africa/East Asia as well as the Pacific. A big risk for Taiwan, at least in my amateur view, is China feeling emboldened both by seeing an anemic response to other major conflicts and a West that is already distracted by said major conflicts. I grew up with the story that Hong Kong was just as off limits to China as Taiwan was. No one came to Hong Kong's defence though, even the British who should be on the hook for that situation just sat by in silence while the Chinese took complete control of HK and installed their own puppet government to manage the transition.
- whimsicalism 2y ago
  > I grew up with the story that Hong Kong was just as off limits to China as Taiwan was Not sure when you grew up but that has been obviously false for at least 40 years
  - PHGamer 2y ago
    the brits gave up hong kong in the 90s. as soon as that happened no one was expecting them to back the case. however, i suppose the brits were optimistic so they didnt have to have regret about losing a colony. i think taiwan might get some defense but only cause shit is made there and the west cant pretend the chinese wont flex their power
    - youngtaff 2y ago
      With the New Territories due to be handed back at the end of their 99yr lease, Britain decided it wasn’t viable to keep the rest of Hong Kong

sudjdkdn 2y ago

The most likely reason for war is to move the competition with China onto a military footing rather than an economic one. The US would win the first, and that result would help the second. If you’re seeing western powers gear up for war, it might be to secure their economic future rather than a just intervention

FpUser 2y ago
So they would start a war and kill people for economy's sake? In this case what make them any different from any other war criminals?
- knodi 2y ago
  Ya just don’t buy EU or UK would start ww3. There are much smarter and better economics and influence strategies to play out that are much less bloody to its own population.
  - h18483djdj 2y ago
    It may not make WW status and they might not be directly involved in fighting it
- h18483djdj 2y ago
  I think that’s the point. I’m old enough to remember Bush and Blair wanting UN support for Iraq but ditched the idea when they wouldn’t get it. And young enough that my parent’s generation have never seen a war and so don’t remember why the UN was created in the first place. We live in dangerous times with very poor leaders and politics
  - benterix 2y ago
    Yeah Bush seemed surprised nobody wants to join his war. "You forgot Poland!"

groby_b 2y ago

Some major global powers (i.e. China) have a vested interest in that escalation. Having the US tied down in two other conflicts means significantly less resources. Which means Middle East and Ukraine are already part of a global-ish war. Proxy wars, so far, but in service of a larger goal. (No, I don't think China necessarily instigated, but they're sure supporting ongoing conflict) As part of that, I'd also assume that the US nudged the UK to maybe consider their supply chain in case the US can't cover Europe's ass. (They can't, not if they expect a Taiwan conflict)

cue_the_strings 2y ago
I'm under the impression that time is actually working for China and that they don't really require a war; they'll catch up economically soon enough (5-10y) that a war doesn't benefit them at all, and only the US would benefit from one right now, while they still have a chance of nipping their primacy in the bud.
- SllX 2y ago
  If Nationalism weren’t a factor, there is essentially zero reason for the PRC to ever invade Taiwan. Nationalism is a factor and the PRC is a totalitarian dictatorship. They’re going to go after what they consider their “rogue province” sooner or later, and whether it benefits them economically or not is a footnote.
  - cue_the_strings 2y ago
    Them being a totalitarian dictatorship doesn't necessarily mean they're stupid. I doubt they would risk their economy just because of Taiwan. They may go after it at some point in the future when the odds are in their favor (because they're obviously not right now), but I doubt it'll be soon.
    - groby_b 2y ago
      > Them being a totalitarian dictatorship doesn't necessarily mean they're stupid. No, but it does mean that they are significantly more prone to irrational decisions. And Xi's not exactly ultra-rational to start with.

csomar 2y ago

War is momentum based. If the US gets dragged in a war with Iran and is also supplying Ukraine with weapons, China might perceive this particular moment as an advantage to start their Taiwan campaign. From there, more countries will see the chaos as an advantage to settle their border disputes. And there you have it, a global world war.

benterix 2y ago
> From there, more countries will see the chaos as an advantage to settle their border disputes. I doubt it. Look at what a "border dispute" did to Russia - they became a global pariah. And modern countries cannot really function in a vacuum, even most stupid/populist leaders know it. Local wars in Africa and the Middle East will continue, that's for sure, but they don't have the potential to become global, at least not now.

_heimdall 2y ago

I have been expecting that, if another world war were to kick off, theaters of war would exist both in Europe/Africa/East Asia as well as the Pacific. A big risk for Taiwan, at least in my amateur view, is China feeling emboldened both by seeing an anemic response to other major conflicts and a West that is already distracted by said major conflicts. I grew up with the story that Hong Kong was just as off limits to China as Taiwan was. No one came to Hong Kong's defence though, even the British who should be on the hook for that situation just sat by in silence while the Chinese took complete control of HK and installed their own puppet government to manage the transition.

whimsicalism 2y ago
> I grew up with the story that Hong Kong was just as off limits to China as Taiwan was Not sure when you grew up but that has been obviously false for at least 40 years
- PHGamer 2y ago
  the brits gave up hong kong in the 90s. as soon as that happened no one was expecting them to back the case. however, i suppose the brits were optimistic so they didnt have to have regret about losing a colony. i think taiwan might get some defense but only cause shit is made there and the west cant pretend the chinese wont flex their power
  - youngtaff 2y ago
    With the New Territories due to be handed back at the end of their 99yr lease, Britain decided it wasn’t viable to keep the rest of Hong Kong