4 ms·

“Anti war/friendliness with China” is a very nice way of saying it’s the “let China seize control of the country” party.

roenxi 2y ago
China: 1 Billion people, GDP ranking: #1 or #2 depending Taiwan: 0.02 Billion people, GDP ranking: Not even top 10, location: literally part of China. How do you see the future playing out where China doesn't get to do what it likes to Taiwan? It is all but set in stone at this point, literally the only path Taiwan has to get a good outcome is to negotiate it with China. We've seen in Ukraine what will happen to them if they rely on the US in a military way. There will be mass deaths, the island will be levelled and China will likely seize control anyway. I wouldn't want the CCP seizing control, but a policy of serious independence is being taken off the table due to China's sheer size. There isn't a backer available to Taiwan that is big enough to stop the mainland from getting what it wants. War is pointless for Taiwan; they'd even be better off going out Hong-Kong style.
- blibble 2y ago
  > How do you see the future playing out where China doesn't get to do what it likes to Taiwan? if Taiwan carried out its former plan of using nuclear power stations to build the bomb it wouldn't have to worry about China again (or fickle US support)
- nitwit005 2y ago
  If the bigger country always won, the world would be one giant stable empire ruling over everyone for the last ten thousand years. Ukraine is fighting Russia without other nation's armies directly joining them. Taiwan's allies have most of the globe's naval power.
  - roenxi 2y ago
    It isn't a question of whether China would win, it is the certainty that Taiwan would lose. And regardless, that isn't the reason why large empires are unstable. Through history big countries tend to win but large agglomerations tend to dissolve for economic concerns. That is what happened in the largest imperial dissolutions in history (British, Mongols) which weren't because of a defeat by an external power or because they had any trouble conquering small powers. Or the most recent with things like the USSR. Large empires tend to lose through military victories and bad economic strategy.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  I take it you're not a fan of the expression "Live free or die". But not everyone agrees with you. Some understand why "liberty or death" is actually a reasonable way to live and die - that liberty is in fact worth fighting and dying for. Because if you're not willing to fight for liberty, sooner or later someone will make you either fight or become a slave, and if you won't fight, slavery is all that's left. As for the actual practical situation: Sailing enough troops to conquer Taiwan across 90 miles of ocean, to land on a very small number of workable beaches, that have been known to be the only workable beaches for decades and therefore have highly prepared defenses... yeah, that's not something that China is guaranteed success at. Xi has looked at what happened to Russia, and may be less certain of Taiwan rolling over, and less certain of success. So no, it's not inevitable. Stop counseling despair.
  - winter_blue 2y ago
    With regards to “live free or die”, I’d say it only makes sense if the enemy want to genocide you. Like in the case of the Nazis, I would say fighting them is best (if you’re not “aryan”), since they’d murder you anyways. But you have to be intelligent about it in other circumstances, and consider whether it’s actually worth throwing your life away, if the enemy isn’t genoicidally murderous like the Germans under the Nazi party. Consider African Americans under Jim Crow laws — should they have fought violently? That only would have led to them murdered, even potentially in large numbers. African Americans have survived in the U.S. and not been mass murdered partially due to not fighting (and also by moving to more hospitable areas during the Great Migration). To quote https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-cas...: >It was in these early years that Ross began to understand himself as an American—he did not live under the blind decree of justice, but under the heel of a regime that elevated armed robbery to a governing principle. He thought about fighting. “Just be quiet,” his father told him. “Because they’ll come and kill us all.” Basically don’t fight the enemy that’s enslaving you, unless you’re strong enough to win; otherwise you endanger suffering ethnic cleansing / genocide of your people.
  - roenxi 2y ago
    > Some understand why "liberty or death" is actually a reasonable way to live and die If there is a choice, sure. If there isn't a choice, then living is also a good option. Losing liberty isn't a reason to commit suicide. > Stop counseling despair. What despair? Why would Taiwan have to despair? China already controls something like 10% of the human race, the 10% that has seen the biggest improvement in living standards over the last 50 years. Signing up with that would be unpleasant. But it seems like a better option than a war with the world's greatest industrial superpower that Taiwan is quite likely to lose. We've had a bunch of countries choose war with the US and they'd almost uniformly have been better off surrendering and arguing for liberty in a diplomatic way.
teractiveodular 2y ago
It's nowhere near that straightforward. The party in question is the Kuomintang (KMT), who fought against the CCP in the civil war and founded the Taiwanese state. However, their position matches the PRC's in that there is "one China", and they assert that the Green/independence movement will break the status quo and basically force the PRC to invade.
- jncfhnb 2y ago
  The PRC is not forced to invade. That’s obvious bullshit
  - teractiveodular 2y ago
    The PRC has repeatedly stated that a declaration of independence by Taiwan would amount to an act of war and they would be "forced" to invade to stop it. Obviously the forcing is in quotes, because it's just the PRC forcing itself, but the PRC has painted itself into a corner here and nobody has dared to call their bluff yet.
    - maeil 2y ago
      The PRC is very well known for "repeatedly stating things" [1]. Finally, after decades, the West has started to catch on to this. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%27s_final_warning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%27s_final_warning
      - teractiveodular 2y ago
        Sure, they may be bluffing, but we don't know since Taiwan has not actually declared independence. What is certain that if they do, and the PRC blinks (does not invade), the PRC's government will suffer from massive loss of face.
    - jncfhnb 2y ago
      Yes, forcing should be in quotes because it is complete bullshit. The KMT implying China owning Taiwan as the status quo is also complete and utter bullshit. Taiwan overtly called their bluff when they just elected the other party in a democratic election because they want China to fuck off. So again, no. The KMT is not the anti war / friendliness party. It’s the party in favor of letting China seize everything. Refusing to spread your butt cheeks against an imperialistic nation’s ambitions is not “pro war”.

roenxi 2y ago

China: 1 Billion people, GDP ranking: #1 or #2 depending Taiwan: 0.02 Billion people, GDP ranking: Not even top 10, location: literally part of China. How do you see the future playing out where China doesn't get to do what it likes to Taiwan? It is all but set in stone at this point, literally the only path Taiwan has to get a good outcome is to negotiate it with China. We've seen in Ukraine what will happen to them if they rely on the US in a military way. There will be mass deaths, the island will be levelled and China will likely seize control anyway. I wouldn't want the CCP seizing control, but a policy of serious independence is being taken off the table due to China's sheer size. There isn't a backer available to Taiwan that is big enough to stop the mainland from getting what it wants. War is pointless for Taiwan; they'd even be better off going out Hong-Kong style.

blibble 2y ago
> How do you see the future playing out where China doesn't get to do what it likes to Taiwan? if Taiwan carried out its former plan of using nuclear power stations to build the bomb it wouldn't have to worry about China again (or fickle US support)
nitwit005 2y ago
If the bigger country always won, the world would be one giant stable empire ruling over everyone for the last ten thousand years. Ukraine is fighting Russia without other nation's armies directly joining them. Taiwan's allies have most of the globe's naval power.
- roenxi 2y ago
  It isn't a question of whether China would win, it is the certainty that Taiwan would lose. And regardless, that isn't the reason why large empires are unstable. Through history big countries tend to win but large agglomerations tend to dissolve for economic concerns. That is what happened in the largest imperial dissolutions in history (British, Mongols) which weren't because of a defeat by an external power or because they had any trouble conquering small powers. Or the most recent with things like the USSR. Large empires tend to lose through military victories and bad economic strategy.
AnimalMuppet 2y ago
I take it you're not a fan of the expression "Live free or die". But not everyone agrees with you. Some understand why "liberty or death" is actually a reasonable way to live and die - that liberty is in fact worth fighting and dying for. Because if you're not willing to fight for liberty, sooner or later someone will make you either fight or become a slave, and if you won't fight, slavery is all that's left. As for the actual practical situation: Sailing enough troops to conquer Taiwan across 90 miles of ocean, to land on a very small number of workable beaches, that have been known to be the only workable beaches for decades and therefore have highly prepared defenses... yeah, that's not something that China is guaranteed success at. Xi has looked at what happened to Russia, and may be less certain of Taiwan rolling over, and less certain of success. So no, it's not inevitable. Stop counseling despair.
- winter_blue 2y ago
  With regards to “live free or die”, I’d say it only makes sense if the enemy want to genocide you. Like in the case of the Nazis, I would say fighting them is best (if you’re not “aryan”), since they’d murder you anyways. But you have to be intelligent about it in other circumstances, and consider whether it’s actually worth throwing your life away, if the enemy isn’t genoicidally murderous like the Germans under the Nazi party. Consider African Americans under Jim Crow laws — should they have fought violently? That only would have led to them murdered, even potentially in large numbers. African Americans have survived in the U.S. and not been mass murdered partially due to not fighting (and also by moving to more hospitable areas during the Great Migration). To quote https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-cas...: >It was in these early years that Ross began to understand himself as an American—he did not live under the blind decree of justice, but under the heel of a regime that elevated armed robbery to a governing principle. He thought about fighting. “Just be quiet,” his father told him. “Because they’ll come and kill us all.” Basically don’t fight the enemy that’s enslaving you, unless you’re strong enough to win; otherwise you endanger suffering ethnic cleansing / genocide of your people.
- roenxi 2y ago
  > Some understand why "liberty or death" is actually a reasonable way to live and die If there is a choice, sure. If there isn't a choice, then living is also a good option. Losing liberty isn't a reason to commit suicide. > Stop counseling despair. What despair? Why would Taiwan have to despair? China already controls something like 10% of the human race, the 10% that has seen the biggest improvement in living standards over the last 50 years. Signing up with that would be unpleasant. But it seems like a better option than a war with the world's greatest industrial superpower that Taiwan is quite likely to lose. We've had a bunch of countries choose war with the US and they'd almost uniformly have been better off surrendering and arguing for liberty in a diplomatic way.

teractiveodular 2y ago

It's nowhere near that straightforward. The party in question is the Kuomintang (KMT), who fought against the CCP in the civil war and founded the Taiwanese state. However, their position matches the PRC's in that there is "one China", and they assert that the Green/independence movement will break the status quo and basically force the PRC to invade.

jncfhnb 2y ago
The PRC is not forced to invade. That’s obvious bullshit
- teractiveodular 2y ago
  The PRC has repeatedly stated that a declaration of independence by Taiwan would amount to an act of war and they would be "forced" to invade to stop it. Obviously the forcing is in quotes, because it's just the PRC forcing itself, but the PRC has painted itself into a corner here and nobody has dared to call their bluff yet.
  - maeil 2y ago
    The PRC is very well known for "repeatedly stating things" [1]. Finally, after decades, the West has started to catch on to this. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%27s_final_warning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%27s_final_warning
    - teractiveodular 2y ago
      Sure, they may be bluffing, but we don't know since Taiwan has not actually declared independence. What is certain that if they do, and the PRC blinks (does not invade), the PRC's government will suffer from massive loss of face.
  - jncfhnb 2y ago
    Yes, forcing should be in quotes because it is complete bullshit. The KMT implying China owning Taiwan as the status quo is also complete and utter bullshit. Taiwan overtly called their bluff when they just elected the other party in a democratic election because they want China to fuck off. So again, no. The KMT is not the anti war / friendliness party. It’s the party in favor of letting China seize everything. Refusing to spread your butt cheeks against an imperialistic nation’s ambitions is not “pro war”.