Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lifting Self-Imposed Restrictions on the U.S.-Taiwan Relationship

state.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 212 posts

Re: Lifting Self-Imposed Restrictions on the U.S.-Taiwan Relationship

#151

Post by snowwrestler »

geofft wrote: post #21
michannne wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see why this would be related. What is the difference if this was enacted in a Trump presidency vs a Biden presidency?

The Trump presidency is much more comfortable with antagonizing China than the Biden presidency. (To be clear, I don't mean this as a judgment of either strategy, just an answer to the question of why it matters.)

If the Trump administration was comfortable with this change, they would have done it years ago. They are doing it on the way out the door to drop the fallout on the next administration.

Re: Lifting Self-Imposed Restrictions on the U.S.-Taiwan Relationship

#152

Post by someperson »

fuoqi wrote: post #128
someperson wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An annexation of Taiwan would have big implications for the security of US and allies like South Korea, Japan, Thailand, (formerly) the Philippines. Taiwan is an unsinkable aircraft carrier that has immense strategic value. Vietnam and other countries (including Russia) are worried about China's territorial expansionism and annexing the South China Sea. Public policy experts are worried about the failed policy of "ap…

Russia does not care much about Spratly Islands and it will gladly trade recognition of China's sovereignty over them for recognition of Crimea/South Osetia/Abkhazia or even for smaller geopolitical favors. As for Taiwan, Russia's official stance has always been that it's part of the mainland China, so I doubt it will do anything beside raising pointless "concerns" in the event of its military occupation. If anything…

I was talking about the Russian sparsely populated far-East. The city of Vladivostok is in Qing China territory and was acquired in the Treaty of Aigun (which is considered an "unequal treaty").

In the area the Russian population is dwindling and the Chinese population is increasing, so those watching the region are expecting China to 'salami slice' its way to control over that massive amount of land.

It would also bolster China's claim of being a 'near-Arctic state', so it's almost a foregone conclusion that they'll be moving to do this.

Re: Lifting Self-Imposed Restrictions on the U.S.-Taiwan Relationship

#153

Post by magicsmoke »

totetsu wrote: post #121
adventured wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US placates Beijing to try to delay or avoid Beijing just going ahead and invading and taking it by force (if China ultimately believes there is no other path). The US can't stop China from taking Taiwan. 20 or 30 years ago it would have been very difficult to stop that, today it's impossible. The US isn't even ready yet for that confrontation, it needs to deploy a massive number of ballistic missiles along the i…

I find it hard to reconcile this prospect of inevitable conflict with how genuinely easy to get along and reach mutual understanding with, all the people from China and Taiwan I have taught, lived/studied/worked with over the years have been. Maybe there's a big domestic base of nationalists that we don't get to interact with in the Anglosphere..

1. Have you explicitly asked them about their thoughts on the status of Taiwan?

2. Did they give polite noncommittal answers or their actual thoughts?

In the workplace, you don't usually have coworkers interrogating other coworkers about their geopolitical views around the watercooler and basing their future professional interactions on those views.

Re: Lifting Self-Imposed Restrictions on the U.S.-Taiwan Relationship

#154

Post by njarboe »

caycep wrote: post #68
someperson wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I used to think it was inevitable that China will be able to successfully invade Taiwan, but its almost impossible to pull of an amphibious invasion. Taiwan's geography makes this particularly difficult.

This. I think if China wanted to go all out, it could take Taiwan via massive force but it would be extremely costly for them and I don’t think the calculus of risk vs benefit adds up for them politically or practically. They certainly can maybe sink an American carrier, maybe, if their missiles are as good as they say, but that’s a big If.

I'm not sure how China sinks a US carrier killing thousands of US soldiers and the situation does not escalate to a nuclear exchange. Sometimes I think a whole generation has forgotten that we still live under the threat of global annihilation in under 15 minutes.

The schools used to have duck and cover drills to prepare for nuclear attacks. This may have made people too afraid of the word nuclear and thus nuclear power is not possible in the US. Now there are "stranger on campus" drills instead. I wonder how that is warping the minds of the present generation.

Re: Lifting Self-Imposed Restrictions on the U.S.-Taiwan Relationship

#155

Post by JumpCrisscross »

blackrock wrote: post #139
s1artibartfast wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The US can't stop China from taking Taiwan. Can’t or won’t? Certainly the US do a lot of damage to the mainland if they chose to engage in a hot total war. A nuclear barrage of Chinese military facilities and supply lines would shut down an amphibious assault. I imagine that the US can still do tremendous damage with conventional bombing and ballistics as well, though not without cost. Both of these are basically MA…

> A nuclear barrage of Chinese military facilities Do you really want to entertain this ridiculous idea? A nuclear assault on Chinese soil, would invite a nuclear retaliation on American soil. Do you really want to lose Los Angeles or New York City, to a nuclear ICBM? And if it comes that, then both sides should just launch all their nukes, and see who is left afterwards to pick up the pieces. America is now a nuclea…

> Do you really want to entertain this ridiculous idea?

Yes. Of course. Xi invading Taiwan would involve killing Americans, including American soldiers. It’s an attack on America and on our ally. If they use nuclear weapons and we demur, it’s a failure of deterrence. America has given its word to come to Taiwan’s defence. If we don’t like the implications of that promise, we should withdraw it.

Keep in mind: a nuclear barrage (or ersatz nuclear, with nuclear-scale tonnage from non-nuclear warheads) of military assets is different from bombing Beijing. And being open to nuclear retaliation is different from attacking with nuclear weapons. Appeasement didn’t work for Hitler. I don’t see why we think this time would be different[1].

Nobody wants this. But a Chinese invasion of Taiwan with nuclear weapons would be clear escalation by Beijing. Hopefully, level heads prevail.

[1] Not equating Xi with Hitler. I don’t think Beijing seriously plans on invading Taiwan. But if Xi does, we’ve miscalculated somewhere. And these comparisons become more apt.

Re: Lifting Self-Imposed Restrictions on the U.S.-Taiwan Relationship

#156

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC »

sudosysgen wrote: post #78
someperson wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I used to think it was inevitable that China will be able to successfully invade Taiwan, but its almost impossible to pull of an amphibious invasion. Taiwan's geography makes this particularly difficult.

Modern weapons make a successful amphibious invasion much easier. If the invading party can assert total air superiority, then the only bottleneck left is actually crossing the sea, which is not that big of an issue as long as the distance is low. The waters of the strait are also shallow enough that submarines are not that effective. Basically, it is certainly possible to pull of such an amphibious assault, and the…

> If the invading party can assert total air superiority

That is the hard part. Not only would you have to deal with US carrier based air assets, but also air assets from bases in Japan and South Korea. In addition, Aegis based cruisers also have a heavy anti-aircraft armament.

Re: Lifting Self-Imposed Restrictions on the U.S.-Taiwan Relationship

#157

Post by magicsmoke »

someperson wrote: post #113
magicsmoke wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's certainly not illegal or violates site guidelines if you can put forward a reasonably argued position. I personally think a future where China annexes Taiwan would bring about a more stable and peaceful geopolitical relationship between China and the US because of three reasons. 1. The US is not threatened by China. The Pacific prevents any invasion of the America's, and China cannot blockade the US given its tw…

An annexation of Taiwan would have big implications for the security of US and allies like South Korea, Japan, Thailand, (formerly) the Philippines. Taiwan is an unsinkable aircraft carrier that has immense strategic value. Vietnam and other countries (including Russia) are worried about China's territorial expansionism and annexing the South China Sea. Public policy experts are worried about the failed policy of "ap…

Taiwan does have major benefits for the US today given the current power balance between the US in China. But in the future when the power balance continues shifting as it has the continued defense of Taiwan will be a major liability. I don't believe the US should unilaterally withdraw from Taiwan tomorrow, but I do believe that it should plan for a more stable and peaceful future where it does not have to defend a sphere of influence off the coast of a China even stronger than today, what path should be taken to reach that future balance without creating a second Pacific war, and if a war is necessary how to minimize casualties and damage.

As for the worry about appeasement, that policy failed with Nazi Germany because the geopolitical balance of Europe required that they annex the land and agricultural capacity needed to become a major power. Any strategist could foresee that Germany would not have stopped at Austria and Czechoslovakia while leaving the farmlands of Poland and Eastern Europe. Appeasement was also to buy time for Britain to rearm after a devastating WW1. I do not believe this to be the case for China because there are no valuable agricultural lands to annex around them, and because modern technology has changed the nature of power projection where the winner is not the one with the bigger army but the one with the smarter army. Annexing economically unproductive land with unfriendly inhabitants is a very dumb move, unless it's holy land for the nationalist rhetoric of reunifying the Chinese nation and rejecting foreign pressure.

Lastly, China's neighbors have every right to be worried. But how does spending for their defense benefit your typical American citizen who's more interested in sending their kids to college than sending them to die for the maintenance of an overseas empire?

Re: Lifting Self-Imposed Restrictions on the U.S.-Taiwan Relationship

#158

Post by ojbyrne »

jonathannat wrote: post #115
beerandt wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Carter's decision to recognize the mainland at the expense of Taiwan seems more and more like it's one of the most consequential unilateral decisions ever made (as in single person, not single nation). It's hard to know "what could have been," but what aspect of current life/ society/ the world wouldn't be significantly different today?

What could have been: If Nixon hadn't started the process, if carter hadn't recognize the communist government of China. - Offshoring/globalization may not have been the boom it is today, due to the lack of a major source of cheap/obedient labor force. In the 70s offshoring occured in Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and others SE Asia countries but they didn't have enough cheap labors to continue. American companies would…

This seems like cherry-picking. Creating a narrative where some recent events are dependent on a political event from the seventies seems suspect. Just to pick a specific example, the US has had depressions/recessions almost from inception, most of which make 2008 look mild. Also you left out that in your alternative narrative you would probably be typing on a larger, slower and heavier phone (or laptop).

Re: Lifting Self-Imposed Restrictions on the U.S.-Taiwan Relationship

#159

Post by 99_00 »

_cs2017_ wrote: post #140

No American administration ever thought "let's placate Beijing because we are too scared of them getting angry". Every time the decision to compromise with Beijing was made based on a certain trade-off. This is no different today. The US military and civilian experts believe that if Taiwan declares independence, Beijing will use its military to take control of Taiwan, regardless of the US involvement. US presidents d…

>The US military and civilian experts believe that if Taiwan declares independence, Beijing will use its military to take control of Taiwan

Taiwan considers its self to be China. What are they going to declare themselves independent from?

Re: Lifting Self-Imposed Restrictions on the U.S.-Taiwan Relationship

#160

Post by marcusverus »

trynumber9 wrote: post #144
blackrock wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn’t the Southern States do exactly this? And formed the Confederate States of America. Where did that end up?

They had a civil rights issue (slavery) the remainder of the states could not ignore. It is another false equivalency as the PRC has never ruled over Taiwan. And the CSA did not enfranchise their populace fairly. Any such referendum was not an expression of the will of the people but merely the slave holding classes.

> They had a civil rights issue (slavery) the remainder of the states could not ignore.

It is not true that the United States waged the war to end slavery. Though of course slavery is why the Southern states seceded, the North prosecuted the war to preserve the Union. After all, the institution of slavery remained legal in the US at the outset of the war in '61, with no end in sight--Lincoln had been selected by the Republicans specifically because he was not a radical abolitionist. Only after the North struggled to defeat the South in a timely manner (in large part due to the fact that slave labor allowed the South to field ~80% of able bodied free men) did Lincoln put out the Emancipation Proclamation in '63--expressly as a matter of military necessity. The document gave only a cursory nod to it being "believed to be an act of justice", and it only freed Southern slaves.[0]

Slavery remained legal in the United States until 1865.

[0] https://www.historynet.com/emancipation-proclamation-text

Post reply on HN