It’s wild though isn’t it, the buzzword these days really is self-sufficiency. Globalisation is a busted flush by the looks of it.
Theres talking about, theres doing it, and theres not ending up like North Korea.Posted 2 months ago
Globalisation is a busted flush by the looks of it.
Possibly not entirely but there is certainly a lot more interest in diversification and ensuring that you have a couple of different sources for anything important.Posted 2 months ago
I think comparing Taiwan to Ukraine in a military sense is probably limited tbh?
I think in the sense that lots of small countries who border large sometimes belligerent regional powers turn themselves into “porcupine” states; Ukraine and Taiwan are similar They realise that ultimately they can’t defeat the power in any conventional sense, but they can make themselves pretty unpalatable to try to swallow.
But yeah, Taiwan and Ukraine are very different otherwisePosted 2 months ago
Theres talking about, theres doing it, and theres not ending up like North Korea.
Seems to be somewhat of a strength of the Chinese looking at the last 30 years, identify a problem and go and fix it. They aren’t really the types to sit and mull over a problem.Posted 2 months ago
Well, maybe. Sometimes their attempts to “fix” things dont go so well.
Im not really making any calls on how its going to go fir good or bad, my crystal ball fell off the dining table last week and refuses to tune in anymore.
*yes I know, outside your given timeframePosted 2 months ago
One thing to keep in mind here is that this dispute is happening because the Chinese leadership chose to have it, just like the Ukraine war happened because Putin chose to have it. Taiwan has been a separate country to China for over 70 years, it’s a prosperous liberal democracy. The Taiwanese people clearly do not want to be annexed by China and re-educated to be Chinese, especially after seeing the Hong Kong democracy advocates being crushed and thrown into jail. The Chinese leadership have pushed the line that an independent Taiwan is a national humiliation for China because it served their nationalistic purposes, it gets Chinese citizens rallying around the flag. China could have just brushed the Pelosi visit aside, but they chose to react very belligerently.
Talk of China imposing a blockade is talk of China starting a war. A blockade has to be enforced and blockading Taiwan would mean being prepared to fire on ships from the U.S. or other allies of Taiwan if they tried to sail to Taiwan. Guam is a couple of hours flight time from Taiwan and has a large airbase. On top of that, the U.S. has a very powerful Pacific fleet with aircraft carriers, hundreds of advanced aircraft, and submarines. If the Chinese fired on U.S. warships, any U.S. president would have to react with military force. I’m sure the Chinese would cause a lot of damage to the U.S. Navy, but I think the U.S. would utterly destroy the Chinese surface fleet.
So, that would only happen because the Chinese leaders chose it, they would be the ones to push things to armed conflict. It’s not impossible that their dreams of a Greater Chinese Empire will cloud their judgement and lead them to make a catastrophic mistake, but if they are pragmatic, they will make a lot of noise and then get back to worrying about their economic situation.Posted 2 months ago
If push came to shove do you think Biden would react? he’s under an awful lot of pressure over Ukraine, I expect in a similar state with China.Posted 2 months ago
Taiwan has been a separate country to China for over 70 years, it’s a prosperous liberal democracy.
Pretty contentious tbh, there’s only about 14 countries actually recognise them as such at the UN. Taiwan also claim to be the legitimate gov of PRC. It’s not really really as simple as taking the ukraine template and applying it to Taiwan. Which is what you seem to be trying to do.Posted 2 months ago
If push came to shove do you think Biden would react? he’s under an awful lot of pressure over Ukraine, I expect in a similar state with China.
I don’t think any U.S. president could not support Taiwan. There’s a long history of pressure from Congress on it, presidents are usually trying to tell congress to ease up, exactly as has happened with Pelosi. It doesn’t mean the U.S. would declare war directly but I can’t see the U.S. being deterred from supporting Taiwan with arms deliveries, intelligence and targeting information, etc.Posted 2 months ago
Pretty contentious tbh, there’s only about 14 countries actually recognise them as such at the UN.
There have been two governments for over 70 years. Nothing contentious about that, it’s historical fact.Posted 2 months ago
The ROC was recognised by the US up til 1979, after that the PRC is the one that was recognized. It’s entirely contentious and the root of the whole issue. They both claim sovereignty over the other.Posted 2 months ago
They both claim sovereignty over the other.
Exactly. They are two independent governments. That’s why China is so angry. If Taiwan wasn’t run by an independent government, China wouldn’t be angry.Posted 2 months ago
This is a question of ideology v reality though. China actually have legal documents that state if the peaceful unification policy is unworkable it’s under obligation to invade. So Taiwanese independence is a dangerous dangerous game.
It’s not like I’m not sympathetic to Taiwanese independence. I’m an ardent supporter of Scottish independence. So I get it. But my independence quest does not come with an automatic invasion from England.
And don’t bet on the US being willing to enter the fight, they are done with that. If they weren’t we’d be fighting Russia right now.Posted 2 months ago
The Anti-Secession Law (Chinese: 《反分裂国家法》) is a law of the People’s Republic of China, passed by the 3rd Session of the 10th National People’s Congress. It was ratified on March 14, 2005, and went into effect immediately. President Hu Jintao promulgated the law with Presidential Decree No. 34. Although the law, at ten articles, is relatively short, Article 8 formalized the long-standing policy of the PRC to use military means against Taiwan independence in the event peaceful means become otherwise impossible. The law does not explicitly equate “China” with the People’s Republic of China (referred to in the law as “the State”).
FYi.Posted 2 months ago
For me, Taiwan’s best strategy would be to maintain the status quo indefinitely and hope that the Chinese demands wain over time.
US posturing isn’t really conducive to that. Particularly if they take an approach of actively encouraging independence. That’s a disaster waiting to happen for Taiwan.Posted 2 months ago
China actually has legal documents that state if the one country 2 systems policy is unworkable it’s under obligation to invade.
I think you mean “legal” documents. If they had any legal standing, China would have applied to whatever court of international law they were lodged in for permission to invade. China can trot out whatever bogus documents it wants, it doesn’t change the reality that they have been two countries for 70 years.Posted 2 months ago
They have legal standing in China. International courts are irrelevant.Posted 2 months ago
For me, Taiwan’s best strategy would be to maintain the status quo indefinitely and hope that the Chinese demands wain over time.
China has rejected that. The U.S. position is ambiguity over it all, in order to maintain the status quo. The country that’s trying to change the status quo is China. That’s why China’s military has modernized with the specific mission of invading Taiwan. Right now, they are firing missiles into Taiwanese sea and airspace, as well as Japanese territory. Not the actions of a country with any interest in maintaining the status quo.Posted 2 months ago
The Chinese military isn’t getting specifically built up to invade Taiwan. It’s getting specifically built up to dominate the US.Posted 2 months ago
International courts are irrelevant.
Then there is no basis for accusing any country of committing a war crime. Any country can do anything it wants as long as it can get away with it.Posted 2 months ago
Not the actions of a country with any interest in maintaining the status quo.
Yip, agreed they don’t but they are patient and leaders change over time. It’s a perilous position Taiwan is in.Posted 2 months ago
Then there is no basis for accusing any country of committing a war crime. Any country can do anything it wants as long as it can get away with it.
Can accuse people all you like, actually trying them is another issue. See Vlad Putin.Posted 2 months ago
The Chinese military isn’t getting specifically built up to invade Taiwan. It’s getting specifically built up to dominate the US.
Nope. Their military buildup is specifically planned for an invasion of Taiwan. That’s why the Chinese navy has ro-ro vessels. They can ship troops and vehicles to Taiwan. They don’t have the range to ship them to California.Posted 2 months ago
They aren’t going to invade the US it’s about domination of the Indo Pacific(and beyond no doubt) and protection of their interests. Taiwan is a side issue to that, not the reason for their military build up. Google belts and roads.Posted 2 months ago
The U.S. isn’t in Asia so dominating the Indo-Pacific isn’t dominating America. It think what you mean is that China wants to dominate its neighbours and doesn’t want America to help them defend themselves. What justification are you going to pull out next, that some Chinese court ruled that Japan is historically a part of China because Japan using Chinese pictographs to write?
The reality is that Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea are liberal democracies with close ties to the U.S. The status quo is stable, but China resents the status quo. The only country trying to destabilize the status quo is China.Posted 2 months ago
i’m not justifying anything. just explaining the realities as I see them. You’re the idealist here that thinks it’s about democracy.
I just want peace. And Peace isn’t going to come from challenging China.Posted 2 months ago
If push came to shove do you think Biden would react?
During a press conference in Tokyo on May 23, a reporter asked President Joseph Biden, “Are you willing to get involved militarily to defend Taiwan if it comes to that?” Biden responded: “Yes . . . that’s the commitment we made.”Posted 2 months ago
i’m not justifying anything. just explaining the realities.
The reality is that Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea are close friends of the U.S. and other democracies. An attack by China on those countries will provoke a war. You can’t claim to be a realist and then say “I just want peace” in denial of the reality of Asian politics. If you want peace, you need to do everything you can to deter China (and Russia) from attacking their neighbours.Posted 2 months ago
You’re in denial of the juggernaut that is China.Posted 2 months ago
I just want peace. And Peace isn’t going to come from challenging China.
Peace does not come from looking the other way at the behaviour of an increasingly belligerent autocratic dictatorship.Posted 2 months ago
Peace doesn’t come from the 2 world powers going head to head either. Agree it’s somewhat of a catch 22 situation.Posted 2 months ago
So just give up then?Posted 2 months ago
Give up what though? The move towards entrenched positions that will kick off something truly horrible?
We need to find a way through this current batch of belligerent and incompetent politicians with as little conflict as possible.
I doubt bringing the issue of Taiwan to a head as quick as possible is the wisest route through that.Posted 2 months ago
You’re in denial of the juggernaut that is China.
China is a major power but it also has some huge weaknesses. It may overcome them and become a juggernaut, it may just remain a regional power, it’s too early to know. One of the huge indicators of Chinese (and Russian) weakness is that their elites send their children overseas for education and hide their money overseas. American and European students don’t flock to Chinese universities to study physics and engineering, they stay home, but Chinese families mortgage their futures on getting their kids into foreign universities. If you want to study at a world-class university, you look to the U.S., Europe, etc. It’s the same with money. Nobody in the West sends their money to China for safekeeping but Chinese billionaires send their money to the U.S. and Europe. China won’t be a juggernaut until Chinese people trust their universities and financial system enough to keep their children and money in China.Posted 2 months ago
A rapidly changing situation, they’ll overtake the US in about 10-15 years, potentially sooner, if not by then, they certainly will in 20-25 years, so well within our lifetimes(touch wood we live that long and beyond!).
Anyhow, we’ve had enough back on forth on this yin. I’ll step back and let others comment. 😆 i think my thoughts are out there. Compromise would be my keyword.Posted 2 months ago
The US Taiwan Relations Act 1978 “consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States”Posted 2 months ago
It doesn’t specify war but we’ll see you in the International Courts 🙂
Edit – too angry.Posted 2 months ago
China is not ready yet until they have 70+ aircraft carriers. When they have more aircraft carriers that’s the time we see war.
If China goes to war now their strengths will be put back 100 years and CCP will be in trouble. But if they continue to build up their strength without going to war, then in 50 years time there will be a major naval war in that region. No land war because that is logistically a headache.
Many people in the far east have been talking about Pelosi’s visit but deep down they know that China is not ready yet. They are all watching very closely at the Ukraine/Russia war at the moment.Posted 2 months ago
China is not ready yet until they have 70+ aircraft carriers.
That would be a rather overkill number, pardon the pun, and somewhat risky and unnecessary given their current apparent ambitions. The unsinkable carriers they are currently building on would be far superior in what they seem to want their area of operations is.
Carriers are only good if you want to project force somewhere you have no decent land bases.
China has a whole bunch of demographic timebombs waiting for it which are going to be problematic for the party to solve and potentially for everyone else as well so fifty years time is a tricky projection.Posted 2 months ago
70+ aircraft carriers sounds like a good idea – they could link them nose to tail and they would probably be about halfway to Taiwan.Posted 2 months ago
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Sign up as a Singletrack Member and you can leave comments on stories, use the classified ads, and post in our forums, do quizzes and more.
Join us, join in, it’s free, and fun.