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

The Prospects for War with China

chrisblattman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 87 posts

Re: The Prospects for War with China

#61

Post by Apocryphon »

dirtyid wrote: post #60
Apocryphon wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just imagining the U.S. trying to send supply planes as a Berlin airlift 2. Also Elon Musk making empty social media boasts to send humanitarian aid via SpaceX suborbital rocket deliveries. As with the Ukrainian drone attacks on Russian Black Sea blockade boats, would be interesting to see how TW and external forces try to workaround a blockade. > 750k "illegally" working on TW without PRC consent, some directly with…

It's a consideration for: > things turn ugly PRC's leverage start after shooting starts (like TSMC), when PRC closes air and maritime space and specifies repatriation corridors will stop first on mainland for processing. International community sees all the cratered TW runways and entire TW coast except some West locations are saturated with mines and conclude, there's no other choice - can't airlift or merchant flee…

> can't airlift or merchant fleet into what's not accessbile

Couldn't the U.S. planes drop aid packages, as in other conflicts?

> Countries take repatrioting thier citizens seriously, and since PRC has ultimate veto over entry/egress to island, they have leverage, especially if there is a timer ticking down to when the island will run out of water and food.

Are you talking about foreign nationals unrelated to China and Taiwan? Your prior post makes it sound like there were 750k Chinese nationals working for the ROC. One would that expect that even in the event of a blockade, the PRC would give them ample time prior to evacuate the island beforehand. Or otherwise, risk an extremely delicate diplomatic situations with dozens upon dozens of nations.

> Imagine fallout if a TW / US missile sinks a boat full of Philippinos (or imagine if PRC engineers false flag of that).

Any such fallout would fall upon the PRC as well, as it would be seen that they started the blockade and created the situation in the first place.

Actually, that raises an interesting point as well- how would TW attempts at fighting back at the blockade with force be received by the PRC? What if that missile strike sinks an actual PLAN vessel? Would that be seen as a casualty of war, or a dangerous escalation? What would the retaliation be?

> Maybe international community can also convince PRC not to do this, but what incentive is there for PRC to listen?

Undoing everything that past decades of soft power diplomacy has achieved?

Re: The Prospects for War with China

#62

Post by Apocryphon »

CogitoCogito wrote: post #58
rsj_hn wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article is about prospects of war between the US and China. According to official US policy, which is the One China policy, Taiwan and mainland China are the same country, and any disputes between the mainland and Taiwan is an intra-chinese dispute, not a dispute between two separate countries, and not anything that involves the U.S. at all. Now if, for some reason, Taiwan declares independence, then it will be u…

> The article is about prospects of war between the US and China. According to official US policy, which is the One China policy, Taiwan and mainland China are the same country, and any disputes between the mainland and Taiwan is an intra-chinese dispute, not a dispute between two separate countries, and not anything that involves the U.S. at all. The US has never recognized PRC claims to Taiwan. The US “One China Po…

> The US has never recognized PRC claims to Taiwan. The US “One China Policy” does not include “Taiwan is part of PRC territory”.

The U.S. does not have to do that to do what the GP says -

"> According to official US policy, which is the One China policy, Taiwan and mainland China are the same country, and any disputes between the mainland and Taiwan is an intra-chinese dispute, not a dispute between two separate countries"

- rather they have historically recognized the ROC's claims to Taiwan, and to the mainland as well, which of course is a diplomatic fig leaf at this point.

Re: The Prospects for War with China

#63

Post by UltraViolence »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #53
UltraViolence wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Biden knows what I know: that it's too costly for the U.S. to disengage economically from China. He's trying to do something about it at least, but Apple has already signaled that only 25% of iPhones will be made outside of China by 2025. That will leave the company completely vulnerable if were to be cut-off from its Chinese suppliers. I predict the company will simply go bankrupt if that were to happen. So he's blu…

> Apple has already signaled that only 25% of iPhones will be made outside of China by 2025. That will leave the company completely vulnerable if were to be cut-off from its Chinese suppliers. I predict the company will simply go bankrupt if that were to happen. That's the second time you've made that claim, and it's just as implausible as it was the first time. Companies go bankrupt because of debt . Apple has appro…

Apple would lose its ability to produce and sell products if a complete boycott of China were to ensue. This would mean Apple's revenue and income would shrivel to almost zero overnight. Its stock valuation would drop 99% or more.

There's no company that could survive such a financial shock. Yes, they have some money in the bank, but that won't save them.

Re: The Prospects for War with China

#64

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

CogitoCogito wrote: post #57
DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taiwan was part of China from 1683 onwards. It became a Japanese colony in 1895, and then was given back to China at the end of WWII, in 1945.

The China of 1895 no longer exists. There are now three successor countries: Taiwan/ROC, China/PRC and Mongolia. Taiwan has never been part of the country today known as “China”.

The PRC is the only internationally recognized successor state to the China of 1895.

You don't have to go back to 1895, though. In 1971, the PRC was given "China's" UN Security Council seat, which had previously been held by the ROC. Most countries withdrew their recognition of the ROC, and recognized the PRC as the sole legitimate representative of China.

> Taiwan has never been part of the country today known as “China”.

Countries continue to exist, even after they have revolutions or civil wars. In the view of international law, "China" has never ceased to exist. The 1911 revolution didn't extinguish it, nor did the end of the civil war in 1949, nor did the international recognition of the PRC as the sole legitimate representative of China in the 1970s.

Taiwan becoming an independent state would be a revolution of sorts. You may support that change, but to pretend that it's not a change? China is not going to be fooled by that.

Re: The Prospects for War with China

#65

Post by UltraViolence »

bitxbitxbitcoin wrote: post #47
UltraViolence wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I've seen I've come to the conclusion the Taiwanese will not fight. You talk about defending yourself, but you can just keep still and do nothing. As I expect you will. A nuclear war is a certainty when there's a confrontation between nuclear armed powers. If we lose, we use nukes. If they lose, they'll use nukes. Ergo: it's inevitable there will be an all-out nuclear exchange.

Please tell us what exactly you have seen that makes you come to the conclusion that “the Taiwanese” will not fight? Were you referring to the Taiwanese people? The Taiwanese army? The Taiwanese government? The specific person that said they would defend themself? Do you also feel that a nuclear war is inevitable between Russia and the US because of what is happening currently in the Ukraine? Whether the US joins the…

I've seen Taiwanese making petty preparations for an invasion, Taiwanese soldiers complaining about poor equipment, insufficient ammunition and poor leadership and Taiwanese citizens and politicians criticizing the U.S. instead of China.

A nuclear war is not inevitable in Ukraine because the U.S. isn't a combatant. But I do believe this conflict could easily spiral out of control and lead to a nuclear confrontation between Russia and NATO.

If the U.S. were to intervene in Taiwan it would mean a direct confrontation between two nuclear armed powers which, as I claimed before, will inevitably lead to an all-out nuclear exchange.

Re: The Prospects for War with China

#66

Post by CogitoCogito »

Apocryphon wrote: post #62
CogitoCogito wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The article is about prospects of war between the US and China. According to official US policy, which is the One China policy, Taiwan and mainland China are the same country, and any disputes between the mainland and Taiwan is an intra-chinese dispute, not a dispute between two separate countries, and not anything that involves the U.S. at all. The US has never recognized PRC claims to Taiwan. The US “One China Po…

> The US has never recognized PRC claims to Taiwan. The US “One China Policy” does not include “Taiwan is part of PRC territory”. The U.S. does not have to do that to do what the GP says - "> According to official US policy, which is the One China policy, Taiwan and mainland China are the same country, and any disputes between the mainland and Taiwan is an intra-chinese dispute, not a dispute between two separate cou…

If we’re all clear that US policy does not consider Taiwan a part of China (i.e. the PRC), I don’t have more to add.

Re: The Prospects for War with China

#67

Post by Apocryphon »

CogitoCogito wrote: post #66
Apocryphon wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The US has never recognized PRC claims to Taiwan. The US “One China Policy” does not include “Taiwan is part of PRC territory”. The U.S. does not have to do that to do what the GP says - "> According to official US policy, which is the One China policy, Taiwan and mainland China are the same country, and any disputes between the mainland and Taiwan is an intra-chinese dispute, not a dispute between two separate cou…

If we’re all clear that US policy does not consider Taiwan a part of China (i.e. the PRC), I don’t have more to add.

U.S. policy officially considers it as a part of China (i.e. the ROC). That is de facto not a viable reality for many decades now, but it is the de jure legal fiction. As such, your criticism of the GP is incorrect. Because they were correct in asserting "According to official US policy, which is the One China policy, Taiwan and mainland China are the same country", Washington just disagrees with Beijing which that same country is.

Re: The Prospects for War with China

#68

Post by Apocryphon »

DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #64
CogitoCogito wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The China of 1895 no longer exists. There are now three successor countries: Taiwan/ROC, China/PRC and Mongolia. Taiwan has never been part of the country today known as “China”.

The PRC is the only internationally recognized successor state to the China of 1895. You don't have to go back to 1895, though. In 1971, the PRC was given "China's" UN Security Council seat, which had previously been held by the ROC. Most countries withdrew their recognition of the ROC, and recognized the PRC as the sole legitimate representative of China. > Taiwan has never been part of the country today known as “C…

> Taiwan becoming an independent state would be a revolution of sorts.

Your post is correct other than for this point. It would not be a revolution, it would a reconciling of governments into the de facto reality since 1949, that Taiwan has been able to self-govern apart from the mainland (even though its economy has since then gotten quite coupled with it over the past few decades).

It might be revolutionary from a legal standpoint, but the PRC/ROC distinction is truly a one-off in modern geopolitics, akin to the Korean War still technically not yet over but instead legally being a frozen conflict for seventy years. The reason why Taiwan's status has not caught up with reality yet is because of course no party is willing or able to resolve this deadlock.

Re: The Prospects for War with China

#69

Post by CogitoCogito »

Apocryphon wrote: post #67
CogitoCogito wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we’re all clear that US policy does not consider Taiwan a part of China (i.e. the PRC), I don’t have more to add.

U.S. policy officially considers it as a part of China (i.e. the ROC). That is de facto not a viable reality for many decades now, but it is the de jure legal fiction. As such, your criticism of the GP is incorrect. Because they were correct in asserting "According to official US policy, which is the One China policy, Taiwan and mainland China are the same country", Washington just disagrees with Beijing which that s…

You seem to refer to some fictional country when you use “China”. Basically all people refer to an actual country that does exist: the PRC. So when I say the US policy is not that Taiwan is part of China, I mean that US policy is not that Taiwan is part of the PRC.

So I’m not really sure what your point is. Is your point that US policy states that Taiwan is part of the PRC? If you’re not staying that, you’re not disagreeing with me.

Re: The Prospects for War with China

#70

Post by Apocryphon »

CogitoCogito wrote: post #69
Apocryphon wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

U.S. policy officially considers it as a part of China (i.e. the ROC). That is de facto not a viable reality for many decades now, but it is the de jure legal fiction. As such, your criticism of the GP is incorrect. Because they were correct in asserting "According to official US policy, which is the One China policy, Taiwan and mainland China are the same country", Washington just disagrees with Beijing which that s…

You seem to refer to some fictional country when you use “China”. Basically all people refer to an actual country that does exist: the PRC. So when I say the US policy is not that Taiwan is part of China, I mean that US policy is not that Taiwan is part of the PRC. So I’m not really sure what your point is. Is your point that US policy states that Taiwan is part of the PRC? If you’re not staying that, you’re not disa…

> You seem to refer to some fictional country when you use “China”.

That's precisely how the One China policy works. That's literally what strategic ambiguity is about.

In a 1972 joint communiqué with the PRC, the United States "acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China" and "does not challenge that position."

So it's talking about a hypothetical sovereign authority that extends over both the Chinese mainland and Taiwan. At present, the U.S. government recognizes the ROC, based in Taipei, as that government. It's a legal fiction, yes, but one that remains unchanged since 1972.

> Is your point that US policy states that Taiwan is part of the PRC?

The point is U.S. policy states that mainland China is part of the ROC!

Notes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy_of_deliberate_ambiguity...

Post reply on HN