5 ms·

Well, living in Taiwan, I feel that "remarkably short distance" is too large for me already.

by imrehg 13y ago

EliRivers 13y ago
On the plus-side, China's current lack of a serious anti-submarine capability means any seaborne invasion of Taiwan can essentially only happen with the permission of the US. It's not so far from China to Taiwan on the map, but it's a hell of a long way in a warship :)
- a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
  I doubt the US has the nerve to risk all out war for Taiwan. Tens or hundreds of thousands of American dead for what?
  - EliRivers 13y ago
    I could say the same thing about the most recent Iraq war and subsequent occupation; that still happened.
    - DominikR 13y ago
      Iraq never had any capabilities to attack the US, you can't compare that to nuclear armed China.
  - Pxtl 13y ago
    I think the US economic ties to China would be a stronger disincentive for the Powers That Be to anger China, moreso than any number of dead soldiers.
  - myrandomcomment 13y ago
    It is not a matter of risk. If the USA fails to liveup to its obligations we are done as a world power, period. There is no calculation here in which we would back down.
    - a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
      I think a high casualty count and domestic food shortages would finish the USA as a world power even in victory. The American people have only ever weakly supported the global policeman imperial project. Americans would gladly go right back to being a continental power if the going got tough.
      - ForHackernews 13y ago
        There wouldn't be food shortages. The US in a net exporter of foodstuffs, and produces about 50% of the world's grain. I agree that the US people are mostly not interested in being an empire, and massive economic disruption plus high casualties would mean a very very unpopular war.
        a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
        International shipping would shut down and oil would go up 20X. Domestic transport would be problem very quickly. The shock to the financial system would mean most people were broke and the food production/distribution system runs on credit, which wouldn't exist. A jackbooted rationing system would probably dole out enough gruel to keep people from starving.
        ForHackernews 13y ago
        The US is on track to be the world's largest oil producer this year[1] and it has an outstanding freight rail system for moving bulk goods like corn or wheat. Don't get me wrong, a US-China war would be absolutely catastrophic in both humanitarian and economic terms, but the average US citizen wasn't exactly starving even during WWII. Unless the war seriously damaged domestic infrastructure, (which it very well could) people would get by with ration coupons and price controls. [1] http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/01/12/will-the-united-states-really-export-oil-heres-wha.aspx http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/01/12/will-the-un...
        EliRivers 13y ago
        International shipping would shut down As a general rule of thumb, that's not true. From time to time I work with merchant shipping, particularly in times and areas of serious risk (such as warzones) and they don't stop. They happily traversed the straits of Hormuz while missiles were being fired across it. They kept serving Libya during the civil war, with shipping companies literally calling ahead to check which port to head for. They won't stop unless someone starts attacking them specifically, and even then they'll just be going around. China doesn't have the global reach to threaten shipping beyond what is, on the global scale, a small range, and threatening the shipping in their own waters would harm them more than anyone else.
  - ForHackernews 13y ago
    Maybe. But it's not just about Taiwan. If the US is publicly seen to be abandoning an ally like Taiwan, what message does that send to the rest of the world? How will that play in Tokyo or Seoul? Or hell, in London or Jerusalem? If the US does go to war over Taiwan, it will be to maintain its credibility with international allies.
  - potatolicious 13y ago
    For the same reason the US went into Vietnam - the fear that if it falls it will embolden the opponent and be the first in a domino chain of Asian countries to fall to hostile influence. Korea and Japan are largely safe because there's a massive US chip on the table. Ditto the minor Southeast Asian powers. If the US doesn't come to Taiwan's aid in a shooting war, that chip is now off the table and China will have free reign to do whatever along the Pacific Rim with impunity. Now, whether or not domestically it would be a good idea to get into another war (with China at that) is a whole 'nother story. But in terms of regional stability, there are many good arguments for intervention.
    - a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
      > China will have free reign to do whatever along the Pacific Rim with impunity So what? The intermediate term impact would be massive capital flight to the Americas. Asia as a reliable place for manufacturing would be over. Americans would think hard about what's really at stake.
      - potatolicious 13y ago
        The same "so what" as Vietnam, and the same "so what" as Japan circa WW2: the US does not want to see a pan-Asian superpower, either officially (see: annexation of territories by Japan in WW2) or unofficially (see: Soviet vassal stating of Vietnam). As a superpower the US's interests are necessarily long-term, strategically. Sure, the immediate reaction of China jack-booting all up and down the Pacific Rim would be economic and political turmoil. It's the long-term possibility: Chinese hegemony over the entirety of the Pacific coastline, that scares the shit out of the US. Bear in mind that the USSR, despite not being an export power (like, ever) was still able to pose an enormous threat to the existence of the USA. China losing its preferred-manufacturer status wouldn't be consequence free, but it also wouldn't de-claw them.
  - cmdkeen 13y ago
    The difference is there is no need for a ground occupation. It would be a solely naval (and possibly Air Force) campaign - so the number of potential casualties and time scales is much lower. China's naval power is massively far behind the US, as long as surface vessels stay out of range of Chinese surface to surface missiles they are safe. US submarines are pretty free to act, and scare the hell out of Chinese sailors, in the Taiwan straight. I doubt there is an American naval battleplan more developed than China attempting to cross the Taiwan straight. China's hopes rest more on missile attacks on Taiwan forcing surrender than an invasion. Subduing populaces by ariel attacks is surprisingly hard and counter productive, and nothing is more likely to turn pro-China Taiwanese away from their views quicker than that.

Well, living in Taiwan, I feel that "remarkably short distance" is too large for me already.

by imrehg 13y ago

Well, living in Taiwan, I feel that "remarkably short distance" is too large for me already.

On the plus-side, China's current lack of a serious anti-submarine capability means any seaborne invasion of Taiwan can essentially only happen with the permission of the US. It's not so far from China to Taiwan on the map, but it's a hell of a long way in a warship :)

a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
I doubt the US has the nerve to risk all out war for Taiwan. Tens or hundreds of thousands of American dead for what?
- EliRivers 13y ago
  I could say the same thing about the most recent Iraq war and subsequent occupation; that still happened.
  - DominikR 13y ago
    Iraq never had any capabilities to attack the US, you can't compare that to nuclear armed China.
- Pxtl 13y ago
  I think the US economic ties to China would be a stronger disincentive for the Powers That Be to anger China, moreso than any number of dead soldiers.
- myrandomcomment 13y ago
  It is not a matter of risk. If the USA fails to liveup to its obligations we are done as a world power, period. There is no calculation here in which we would back down.
  - a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
    I think a high casualty count and domestic food shortages would finish the USA as a world power even in victory. The American people have only ever weakly supported the global policeman imperial project. Americans would gladly go right back to being a continental power if the going got tough.
    - ForHackernews 13y ago
      There wouldn't be food shortages. The US in a net exporter of foodstuffs, and produces about 50% of the world's grain. I agree that the US people are mostly not interested in being an empire, and massive economic disruption plus high casualties would mean a very very unpopular war.
      - a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
        International shipping would shut down and oil would go up 20X. Domestic transport would be problem very quickly. The shock to the financial system would mean most people were broke and the food production/distribution system runs on credit, which wouldn't exist. A jackbooted rationing system would probably dole out enough gruel to keep people from starving.
        ForHackernews 13y ago
        The US is on track to be the world's largest oil producer this year[1] and it has an outstanding freight rail system for moving bulk goods like corn or wheat. Don't get me wrong, a US-China war would be absolutely catastrophic in both humanitarian and economic terms, but the average US citizen wasn't exactly starving even during WWII. Unless the war seriously damaged domestic infrastructure, (which it very well could) people would get by with ration coupons and price controls. [1] http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/01/12/will-the-united-states-really-export-oil-heres-wha.aspx http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/01/12/will-the-un...
        EliRivers 13y ago
        International shipping would shut down As a general rule of thumb, that's not true. From time to time I work with merchant shipping, particularly in times and areas of serious risk (such as warzones) and they don't stop. They happily traversed the straits of Hormuz while missiles were being fired across it. They kept serving Libya during the civil war, with shipping companies literally calling ahead to check which port to head for. They won't stop unless someone starts attacking them specifically, and even then they'll just be going around. China doesn't have the global reach to threaten shipping beyond what is, on the global scale, a small range, and threatening the shipping in their own waters would harm them more than anyone else.
- ForHackernews 13y ago
  Maybe. But it's not just about Taiwan. If the US is publicly seen to be abandoning an ally like Taiwan, what message does that send to the rest of the world? How will that play in Tokyo or Seoul? Or hell, in London or Jerusalem? If the US does go to war over Taiwan, it will be to maintain its credibility with international allies.
- potatolicious 13y ago
  For the same reason the US went into Vietnam - the fear that if it falls it will embolden the opponent and be the first in a domino chain of Asian countries to fall to hostile influence. Korea and Japan are largely safe because there's a massive US chip on the table. Ditto the minor Southeast Asian powers. If the US doesn't come to Taiwan's aid in a shooting war, that chip is now off the table and China will have free reign to do whatever along the Pacific Rim with impunity. Now, whether or not domestically it would be a good idea to get into another war (with China at that) is a whole 'nother story. But in terms of regional stability, there are many good arguments for intervention.
  - a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
    > China will have free reign to do whatever along the Pacific Rim with impunity So what? The intermediate term impact would be massive capital flight to the Americas. Asia as a reliable place for manufacturing would be over. Americans would think hard about what's really at stake.
    - potatolicious 13y ago
      The same "so what" as Vietnam, and the same "so what" as Japan circa WW2: the US does not want to see a pan-Asian superpower, either officially (see: annexation of territories by Japan in WW2) or unofficially (see: Soviet vassal stating of Vietnam). As a superpower the US's interests are necessarily long-term, strategically. Sure, the immediate reaction of China jack-booting all up and down the Pacific Rim would be economic and political turmoil. It's the long-term possibility: Chinese hegemony over the entirety of the Pacific coastline, that scares the shit out of the US. Bear in mind that the USSR, despite not being an export power (like, ever) was still able to pose an enormous threat to the existence of the USA. China losing its preferred-manufacturer status wouldn't be consequence free, but it also wouldn't de-claw them.
- cmdkeen 13y ago
  The difference is there is no need for a ground occupation. It would be a solely naval (and possibly Air Force) campaign - so the number of potential casualties and time scales is much lower. China's naval power is massively far behind the US, as long as surface vessels stay out of range of Chinese surface to surface missiles they are safe. US submarines are pretty free to act, and scare the hell out of Chinese sailors, in the Taiwan straight. I doubt there is an American naval battleplan more developed than China attempting to cross the Taiwan straight. China's hopes rest more on missile attacks on Taiwan forcing surrender than an invasion. Subduing populaces by ariel attacks is surprisingly hard and counter productive, and nothing is more likely to turn pro-China Taiwanese away from their views quicker than that.