I guess a new book is out on the subject, and this has prompted some media coverage. The book seems to have accessed some fairly "juicy" documents from the PLA to add to its case.
There are three reasons to believe this scenario, in the next ten years, is at least as likely as war between the United States and North Korea. For one, the goal of “liberating” Taiwan is the paramount foreign policy concern of Beijing. And it has been a top concern since the end of the 1945–1949 civil war between Mao Zedong’s Communists and Chiang Kai-Shek’s Nationalists, when Chiang and his people fled to the island, setting up what the West viewed as China’s legitimate government until the 1970s. (Because Beijing insists Taiwan is part of China, it does not call Taiwan an international issue.)
Taiwanese reunification and independence is such a sensitive topic on the mainland that any polling on the issue is suspect. Anecdotally, however, in the dozens of conversations I’ve had with Chinese citizens about Taiwan over the last 15 years, many of them supported reunification—some with force, if necessary. The Communist Party ties some of its legitimacy to its ability to follow through on its long-standing promise to re-absorb Taiwan—it risks a loss of legitimacy if it continues to fail. A healthy democracy of 24 million people, Taiwan belies the party’s implicit argument that Chinese people need an authoritarian government in order to flourish.
Secondly, the benefits to China of successfully absorbing Taiwan far supersede the benefits of the United States of neutralizing North Korea. It’s very unlikely that North Korea would ever strike the United States: Its leaders seem rational enough to realize that an attack on U.S. soil, however small, would be an act of regime suicide. If the United States successfully replaced Kim with a regime more supportive of U.S. interests, or even more advantageously, facilitated the reunification of the Korean peninsula under a Western-friendly government in Seoul, that would improve the United States’ ability to project power in Asia and constrain the rise of China. Still, North Korea is a distraction, not an existential issue, for China.
Beijing’s successful occupation of Taiwan, on the other hand, would greatly improve its prospects for regional domination, and undermine the United States’ position in Asia by removing America’s democratic ally Taiwan and weakening Japan. And it would ensure Beijing’s ability to maintain its trade links in the Western Pacific in the face of a U.S.-organized blockade.
Easton cites a line from the restricted Chinese document on Japanese air defenses: "As soon as Taiwan is reunified with Mainland China, Japan's maritime lines of communication will fall completely within the striking range of China's fighters and bombers." Because of the mutual enmity between Japan and China—and the persistent desire for revenge from the Chinese public for the atrocities Japan committed in China during the 1930s and 1940s—another war between China and Japan over the next few decades is not as far-fetched as it may sound. And if Taiwan were occupied, its strategic location in the East China Sea would greatly aid Beijing’s ability to harry southern Japan. (During World War II, U.S General Douglas MacArthur called the island an “unsinkable aircraft carrier.”)
ADVERTISING
inRead invented by Teads
What could set off a Chinese invasion? Beijing has long threatened to invade if Taiwan declares independence—though what exactly that means, like many issues involving Taiwan’s status, is murky and open to interpretation. The ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), one of Taiwan’s two main parties, skirts this by claiming in a 1999 resolution there is no need to declare independence because “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent country.” Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen reiterated this phrase in October 2016, prompting China’s Taiwan Affairs Office to retort, “all secessionist attempts to seek ‘Taiwanese independence’ are doomed to failure.” On Sept. 26, Taiwan’s newly appointed Premier William Lai said he “advocates Taiwan independence,” and repeated Taipei’s stance that the Republic of China, as Taiwan is officially known, was already independent, and thus there is no need for him to declare it. If it so chooses, Beijing could start considering statements like Tsai’s and Lai’s as de facto declarations of independence—and respond with military force. Chinese military experts I spoke with said that if war does come, it will likely be after Beijing has at least several more years of improving its military capabilities—possibly sometime around 2021, the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Chinese Communist Party. (These experts stress it’s impossible to predict if and when Beijing would actually go to war with Taiwan.)
Or Beijing could wait for a moment of relative calm. PLA doctrine, Easton writes, likely favors “a minimal warning, rapid invasion campaign that employs deception and surprise to land on the island and overrun Taipei, securing the government’s capitulation before U.S.-led coalition forces could decisively engage.”
While the United States, along with nearly all Western powers, doesn’t have formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan, the United States has long had a close relationship with the island. The United States continues to sell Taiwan weapons, including a planned $1.42 billion arms sale announced in June. And it maintains a posture of strategic ambiguity about whether it would defend Taiwan in the face of a Chinese attack.
Since some Military folks put the likelihood of a North Korea conventional conflict around 20%, with Nuclear becoming involved at 10%; I wonder what the chances of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan are?
They have been building up their amphibious operations capabilities in the last decade and working on anti-ship missiles to sink aircraft carriers. In addition, the China Sea airspace claims all are good starting points for their Re-unification Policy. I think this could form the basis of some good paperback Mil-Thrillers ala Red Storm Rising (Yes, I know they are all ready out there).
China won't risk it, unless they are damn near certain of getting away with it (i.e. without an American response). Most of their "modern" hardware is mostly for propaganda and export, and can't match the capabilities of Western military equipment (although they are catching up). Their power projection and nuclear capabilities are not on par with that of the United States (The RoC's best buddy).
Besides, Beijing (and their cronies) is enjoying all that money rolling in. They are not going to screw that up over a "rebellious" island nation off their coast. They'll keep making threats and sabre rattling. But I don't expect much else out of them regarding Taiwan for the foreseeable future unless something major changes.
I doubt that mainland China will risk it They might even join US in knocking off North Korea and after that conflict is resolved the two nations will return to status quo, which despite all the posturing is oddly enough mutually beneficial for both US and PRC..
I'd say within ~50 years the political landscape of mainland China will have reformed enough and shed off the lingering marxist chaff to make a peaceful reunification possible.
The probability is pretty high I think. They have always been very determined to get Taiwan under their control. Definitely something they are willing to push even if it costs them something. The US won't be able to do much to prevent it, outside of full-scale war with China or economic sanctions that will hurt the US at least as much as not more. If China really wants it they could get away with it. They are by far the strongest power in that region, and might makes right as they say. If Russia can take Crimea and get away with it, then China can take Taiwan. And even better, should the US and China ever go to war over this, Russia can use the opportunity to take the Ukraine and Baltic states back. Yay empire.
Extended family living in Taiwan also extended family from the Mainland.
As it is right now, the chance of a military reclamation of the island is almost nil. Who can say in 20+ or 50+ years though?
I think the Mainlanders are more content to take a risk averse approach to the unification and let economic realities do the work. For example, their economies are heavily intertwined, the infamous Foxconn of the iPhone suicides is a Taiwanese company. Another instance is the Chinese response to Tsai's statement was limiting visas for Chinese tourists to Taiwan (big business) as economic "punishment" and to hurt the DPP.
The DPP response is to avoid the economic entanglements that give China leverage over Taiwan by diversifying it's trading partners. China responds by using it's economic clout to leverage countries into non-recognition of Taiwan or to scuttle trade deals. It's a constant game.
I think the outcome of Hong Kong will be a barometer of the desire for unification in Taiwan. The Chinese made all sorts of half promises about self governance to the HKers but in practice only provided the illusion of choice. It's not something that goes unnoticed on the island.
LordofHats wrote: Why invade when they can barter North Korea for Taiwan?
Well, I am all for realpolitik, but that seems cynical even for the US. I don't think they would be willing to make such a deal?
Don't know. China however is totally that cynical, and I actually could see the US in 10 to 20 years saying "screw Taiwan, this North Korea gak is tiring." Or maybe not. What is real is not necessarily what will be. China knows that it gets a lot out of bartering Taiwan's safety. Invade and they can't do that anymore, even if the US doesn't retaliate militarily.
If Russia can take Crimea and get away with it, then China can take Taiwan.
Russia had extensive forces and infrastructure in place, an extensive friendly and actively cooperating population, excellent and short supply lines, and many other advantages with regards to Crimea. China is powerful on mainland Asia, but Taiwan is not on mainland Asia. China has no forces in place in Taiwan, a hostile population to contend with, and over a hundred miles of ocean to cross where the US Navy holds supremacy. These are very different situations.
Until 1979 the US and Taiwan had a treaty in place that said the US would come to the aid of Taiwan in the event it was attacked. That treaty was cancelled in 1979, as Carter formalised relations with China. The replacement treaty with Taiwan says "the United States will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capabilities". What that's meant in practice is Taiwan is given access to buy high end US weapons, but no-one has any clue what that actually means in the event of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, which is likely the point of it. The US wants China to know that it can and maybe will come to the defense of Taiwan, but at the same time it isn't obligated to (whether this was to make nice with China or because the US actually wants the flexibility to choose not to help Taiwan is anyone's guess).
Iron_Captain wrote: The US won't be able to do much to prevent it, outside of full-scale war with China or economic sanctions that will hurt the US at least as much as not more.
Taiwan's military is insufficient to stop China, but it's enough to shift the Chinese invasion from a simple occupation and instead in to a sustained campaign. While that campaign is under way it will require a lot of logistics, and the ships carrying that to Taiwan will get slaughtered by US planes.
Of course, that relies on whether China tips their hand as to their intent before they invade, giving the US time to bring sufficient forces in to the region, and whether the US chooses to undertake such a defense of Taiwan.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: Russia had extensive forces and infrastructure in place, an extensive friendly and actively cooperating population, excellent and short supply lines, and many other advantages with regards to Crimea. China is powerful on mainland Asia, but Taiwan is not on mainland Asia. China has no forces in place in Taiwan, a hostile population to contend with, and over a hundred miles of ocean to cross where the US Navy holds supremacy. These are very different situations.
Yeah, also a factor is the Ukraine isn't an economic powerhouse in general, and the Crimea was one of the real economic backwaters of the country. Even if people weren't happy to let the region go, there was at least a feeling that it wasn't a disaster to lose it. It's like if Mexico rolled over the border and occupied Arizona, the first response would be 'how dare they', but then as you spent a day or two getting the tanks and planes together, you think about and think 'maybe this is better for us'.
sebster wrote: Of course, that relies on whether China tips their hand as to their intent before they invade, giving the US time to bring sufficient forces in to the region, and whether the US chooses to undertake such a defense of Taiwan.
My gut feeling is that the US would immediately decide "those are Chinese problems".
sebster wrote: It's like if Mexico rolled over the border and occupied Arizona, the first response would be 'how dare they', but then as you spent a day or two getting the tanks and planes together, you think about and think 'maybe this is better for us'.
Absolutely outrageous. The only way I could possible see us conceding Arizona to Mexico is if they also agree to take Florida.
sebster wrote: Of course, that relies on whether China tips their hand as to their intent before they invade, giving the US time to bring sufficient forces in to the region, and whether the US chooses to undertake such a defense of Taiwan.
My gut feeling is that the US would immediately decide "those are Chinese problems".
Yeah... mine too.
sebster wrote: It's like if Mexico rolled over the border and occupied Arizona, the first response would be 'how dare they', but then as you spent a day or two getting the tanks and planes together, you think about and think 'maybe this is better for us'.
Absolutely outrageous. The only way I could possible see us conceding Arizona to Mexico is if they also agree to take Florida.
Nah... we'd like to keep Florida. Mexico can have California instead.
Ouze wrote: My gut feeling is that the US would immediately decide "those are Chinese problems".
My complete guess on the issue is that it would depend on whether the 'business uber alles' group or the 'military dominance uber alles' group holds more sway at that particular point in time, and how well China conceals it as an occupation. They wuold have to do a much more convincing job than Russia managed in the Ukraine.
Absolutely outrageous. The only way I could possible see us conceding Arizona to Mexico is if they also agree to take Florida.
What about all the bits of Texas that aren't Dallas, Austin or an oilfield?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Nah... we'd like to keep Florida. Mexico can have California instead.
I know you're just running on a 'boo hiss liberal California thing', but seriously CA is like 1/6 of the US economy. It's one of the cash cows that keeps the whole thing going.
sebster wrote: Yeah, also a factor is the Ukraine isn't an economic powerhouse in general, and the Crimea was one of the real economic backwaters of the country. Even if people weren't happy to let the region go, there was at least a feeling that it wasn't a disaster to lose it. It's like if Mexico rolled over the border and occupied Arizona, the first response would be 'how dare they', but then as you spent a day or two getting the tanks and planes together, you think about and think 'maybe this is better for us'.
Actually, while being economically backwards compared to Russia or most of the rest of Europe, Crimea (especially the city of Sevastopol) was one of the more powerful economic regions of Ukraine, along with Kiev, Dnipropetrovsk and the Donbass. Furthermore, Sevastopol was Ukraine's most important sea port. Losing these 2 regions has made the Ukrainian economy really, really crappy (and it already was far from being great).
I use to think there was no way, because America was bulwarking the safety of Taiwan. Now, I am not so sure. That uncertainty is dangerous and allows all sorts of dangerous and deadly games to be played.
Look at our recent policy towards NATO, Ukraine, and the Crimea for why China might think they have an opportunity.
The ROChas spent decades turning their island into a fortress, and there really is no reason for China to push it now, especially considering who the US president is right now. what we may see in the next 20-50 years is a political reunification, assuming China heads toward more democratic reforms.
There is no good reason to feth around about invading Taiwan. First, the PRC rather than the ROC is internationally recognized as China. Even the US does not maintain formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan. Second, even the DPP wants to maintain the status quo regardless of disclaiming the 92 Consensus. Third, the ambiguity of Taiwan's status creates an interesting bridge for a still-developing PRC to developed countries such as South Korea, Japan, and the US. Fourth, military action would be necessarily counterproductive to actually settling the controversy; it would actually only create an even worse controversy. Fifth, the PRC can look with some confidence into the future beyond the immediate horizon to a peaceful reunification premised on its own developing prosperity and global leadership.
Iron_Captain wrote: Actually, while being economically backwards compared to Russia or most of the rest of Europe, Crimea (especially the city of Sevastopol) was one of the more powerful economic regions of Ukraine, along with Kiev, Dnipropetrovsk and the Donbass. Furthermore, Sevastopol was Ukraine's most important sea port. Losing these 2 regions has made the Ukrainian economy really, really crappy (and it already was far from being great).
The GDP per capita in the Crimea is $3,500 a year. In the Ukraine as a whole its $6,700 a year. People in the Crimea made half as much as people in the rest of the Ukraine. If anyone wants some context for that, GDP per capita in the US is $51,000. There is not one single state in the US that is half the national average. The poorest is Mississippi, at $32,000. So if you think of Mississippi as part of the US, well Crimea is poorer than that compared to the rest of the Ukraine. And Iron Captain is claiming the Crimea is one of the richest parts.
You are right about the sea port, it is a key strategic asset, and also much richer than the rest of the region. But that wealth was nowhere near sufficient to drag the rest of the area in to being anything more than an economic backwater.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: The only reason the US may go to the mat for Taiwan is to curb China's efforts to claiming the whole of the South Sea.
Curbing China would be important, but the much bigger reason is international law. Just try and think of what the world would be after China just straight up annexed a sovereign nation - internationally recognised borders will mean nothing, and the only way anyone could be confident of their ability to continue as a nation will be with military alliances and/or nuclear weapons.
Even Russia's actions had limits, as they already had a foot in the door in Crimea, and always played that 'Ukrainian separatists' nonsense in Ukraine. A Chinese invasion of Taiwan would have no cover, it would require Chinese warships landing troops in Taiwan, a clear annexation.
Not saying the US would do fight to defend Taiwan. I'm just saying what the real reason would be for the US to do it.
Even Russia's actions had limits, as they already had a foot in the door in Crimea, and always played that 'Ukrainian separatists' nonsense in Ukraine. A Chinese invasion of Taiwan would have no cover, it would require Chinese warships landing troops in Taiwan, a clear annexation.
China could of course use Alexander The Great's solution and simply institute a land reclamation project across the Taiwan strait seeing that at its deepest it's only 70 meters.
The US has been padding it's budget by selling guns under the table to Taiwan for some time. I have little doubt they'd move to protect such a valuable trade partner in illicit weapons.
BaronIveagh wrote: The US has been padding it's budget by selling guns under the table to Taiwan for some time. I have little doubt they'd move to protect such a valuable trade partner in illicit weapons.
Not exactly much under the table about it. We're very open about our arms sales to Taiwan.
avantgarde wrote: Extended family living in Taiwan also extended family from the Mainland.
As it is right now, the chance of a military reclamation of the island is almost nil. Who can say in 20+ or 50+ years though?
I think the Mainlanders are more content to take a risk averse approach to the unification and let economic realities do the work. For example, their economies are heavily intertwined, the infamous Foxconn of the iPhone suicides is a Taiwanese company. Another instance is the Chinese response to Tsai's statement was limiting visas for Chinese tourists to Taiwan (big business) as economic "punishment" and to hurt the DPP.
The DPP response is to avoid the economic entanglements that give China leverage over Taiwan by diversifying it's trading partners. China responds by using it's economic clout to leverage countries into non-recognition of Taiwan or to scuttle trade deals. It's a constant game.
I think the outcome of Hong Kong will be a barometer of the desire for unification in Taiwan. The Chinese made all sorts of half promises about self governance to the HKers but in practice only provided the illusion of choice. It's not something that goes unnoticed on the island.
I study the region in school, and quite frankly I agree with your assessment. Military reclamation and annexation would be political suicide for the Chinese state, and Xi Jinping knows this. Although is establishes dominance in that area, it will gather the attention of the US since a lot of our other Asian allies are close to Taiwan. Which would potentially lead to a war that would cripple both powers.
Instead, economic dominance would be China's MO in dealing with re-unification with Taiwan. Which also puts the ball in America's court, since using Military Action in that context would be illegitimate (which would be very unlikely of course, but still....)
BaronIveagh wrote: The US has been padding it's budget by selling guns under the table to Taiwan for some time. I have little doubt they'd move to protect such a valuable trade partner in illicit weapons.
Not exactly much under the table about it. We're very open about our arms sales to Taiwan.
And the four Kidd class ships? The three freighter-loads of AK-47 knock offs hilariously made in mainland China and then shipped to Taiwan? Your list is a bit short.
BaronIveagh wrote: The US has been padding it's budget by selling guns under the table to Taiwan for some time. I have little doubt they'd move to protect such a valuable trade partner in illicit weapons.
US arms sales to Taiwan are about $2b a year. It's a nice earner for a lot of US weapons manufacturers, but the risk of losing a $2b client is not the kind of thing that'd push the US in to war with a nuclear power. Making that $2b isn't even the reason the US sells those weapons - they do it because the US considers it in their best interest to have an effectively armed Taiwan able to give effective resistance against China.
Argentina's military rulers were also greedy, not crazy, but when the economy is toppling and the ruling party is losing its authority, then a nice little war to recapture lost territories and right perceived historic grievances can be very tempting. I'm not saying an invasion of Taiwan will happen, just that it might, and if it does it won't be crazy, but probably some cynical politics.
Grey Templar wrote: Argentina had a lot less to lose trying to take those islands than China does trying to take Taiwan.
Argentina isn't a decision making entity, and nor is China. Decisions are made by people, who concern themselves not just with the national interest but their own priorities and political survival. China as a whole would have far more to risk in provoking the US than Argentina did in provoking Britain, but does that mean General Galtieri's personal decision was that different to the decision facing President Xi or any other future Chinese president? When the ruling party starts to lose authority and control, and the options become do nothing and lose power, or do something and maybe keep power, a lot of folk choose the latter. It isn't too hard to envision a scenario where the party might believe that a quick, decisive war could be achieved, and afterwards things would return fairly quickly to normal order, including trade with America.
Now, it's a fair point that there's more special interests in China than there had been in Argentina, but while that makes a Chinese attack on Taiwan less likely, it doesn't remove the possibility entirely. The influence of special interests only goes so far, and there are plenty of circumstances where they won't oppose war, and might even support it. Afterall, the circumstances that might drive a Chinese president to war, such as where China's bicycle economy tipped over, then many special interests interests would be facing the exact same pressures as the party leadership, and would likely come to the conclusion that the risks were worth it if there was a decent chance the party could win a quick, nationalistic war.
And again, I'm not saying this will happen. It is quite unlikely, for lots of reasons. But it is possible.
Iron_Captain wrote: Actually, while being economically backwards compared to Russia or most of the rest of Europe, Crimea (especially the city of Sevastopol) was one of the more powerful economic regions of Ukraine, along with Kiev, Dnipropetrovsk and the Donbass. Furthermore, Sevastopol was Ukraine's most important sea port. Losing these 2 regions has made the Ukrainian economy really, really crappy (and it already was far from being great).
The GDP per capita in the Crimea is $3,500 a year. In the Ukraine as a whole its $6,700 a year. People in the Crimea made half as much as people in the rest of the Ukraine. If anyone wants some context for that, GDP per capita in the US is $51,000. There is not one single state in the US that is half the national average. The poorest is Mississippi, at $32,000. So if you think of Mississippi as part of the US, well Crimea is poorer than that compared to the rest of the Ukraine. And Iron Captain is claiming the Crimea is one of the richest parts.
You are right about the sea port, it is a key strategic asset, and also much richer than the rest of the region. But that wealth was nowhere near sufficient to drag the rest of the area in to being anything more than an economic backwater.
You can't compare one single region to the rest of the country as a whole, because the capital (by far the richest region) is going to skew that tremendously. You have to look at the region and then compare it to all the other regions individually. And comparing to other countries makes GDP even more meaningless. $1 will buy you much more in Ukraine than it will in Mississippi. I was born in Ukraine. Trust me if I say that I know how the economic situation was. Crimea was a relatively well-off area, especially Sevastopol and the coastal resort area. There was plenty of economical migration to here from the western parts of Ukraine. The interior of Crimea was more poor, and mostly rural, but not as poor as the area to the north of Crimea (Kherson) and the west of the country. Kiev and the cities in the east (Dnipropetrovsk, Kharkov, Donetsk) had stronger economies due to all the industries they inherited from the Soviets.
whembly wrote: The only reason the US may go to the mat for Taiwan is to curb China's efforts to claiming the whole of the South Sea.
Curbing China would be important, but the much bigger reason is international law. Just try and think of what the world would be after China just straight up annexed a sovereign nation - internationally recognised borders will mean nothing, and the only way anyone could be confident of their ability to continue as a nation will be with military alliances and/or nuclear weapons.
Taiwan (or rather the Republic of China, its official name) is not actually a widely recognised nation. It was expelled from the UN in 1971, and there is only a few (minor) countries left that continue to recognise it. Even the US does not officially recognise Taiwan as a being a sovereign state. And as I understand it, whether Taiwan should actually become an independent nation or remain part of China is a heated topic within Taiwanese politics. Anyways, invading and annexing a sovereign nation is entirely different from invading and establishing control over one of your country's provinces that has come under control of a rival government. The first one is a war of conquest, the second is a civil war. That is a pretty big difference for international law.
It's funny (Especially considering some of the earlier comments in the thread) that I read the title as 'Chinese Re-unification with Texas'...Had to do a double take...
Iron_Captain wrote: You can't compare one single region to the rest of the country as a whole, because the capital (by far the richest region) is going to skew that tremendously.
Of course you can compare different regions of a country and note which areas are rich and which areas are poor. That one area might be much richer than others doesn't mean you can't compare, in fact that comparison is the very purpose of the process.
You have to look at the region and then compare it to all the other regions individually. And comparing to other countries makes GDP even more meaningless. $1 will buy you much more in Ukraine than it will in Mississippi.
That the US is a different country doesn't make the comparison invalid, because the point is to have people understand the scale of the difference in each country, and how Crimea sits relative to national income.
I was born in Ukraine. Trust me if I say that I know how the economic situation was. Crimea was a relatively well-off area, especially Sevastopol and the coastal resort area. There was plenty of economical migration to here from the western parts of Ukraine. The interior of Crimea was more poor, and mostly rural, but not as poor as the area to the north of Crimea (Kherson) and the west of the country.
Yes, exactly. Sevastopol is quite wealthy but not that big, and the rest of the Crimea is quite poor. So why you're trying to dispute my initial statement that Crimea was a fairly poor region of the Ukraine is beyond me.
Kiev and the cities in the east (Dnipropetrovsk, Kharkov, Donetsk) had stronger economies due to all the industries they inherited from the Soviets.
Yes, exactly. Those are rich regions of the Ukraine. While Crimea is a poor region. So all at once you're disputing the Crimea is a poor region, while posting multiple times that you recognise Crimea was a poor region.
Taiwan (or rather the Republic of China, its official name) is not actually a widely recognised nation. It was expelled from the UN in 1971, and there is only a few (minor) countries left that continue to recognise it.
There is a vast difference between accepting the current political grey area in which Taiwan exists, and China putting troops on its shores.
Anyways, invading and annexing a sovereign nation is entirely different from invading and establishing control over one of your country's provinces that has come under control of a rival government. The first one is a war of conquest, the second is a civil war. That is a pretty big difference for international law.
Lots of parts of the world used to be controlled by lots of other countries. A large chunk of France used to be under the British crown. Does that mean the UK can drop troops in Normandy tomorrow, arguing its a province that came under the control of a rival government?
The mindset you've arguing for is very fething dangerous, and opens the door for a return to the bad old days of old historical grievances being used to justify wars of conquest, behaviour that frequently lead to escalation and fights between major powers, a situation we cannot have in this nuclear age. That people like you think thoughts like that is exactly why the global community must be committed to protecting the sovereignty of international borders.
sebster wrote: A large chunk of France used to be under the British crown.
What? Please. The Plantagenent's are descended from the nobility of Anjou, and by all rights were subjects of the French crown. If anything the Forces Armees Francaises should be crossing the channel and bringing this rebellious kingdom into line! Bend the knee or burn I say!
BaronIveagh wrote: The US has been padding it's budget by selling guns under the table to Taiwan for some time. I have little doubt they'd move to protect such a valuable trade partner in illicit weapons.
Not exactly much under the table about it. We're very open about our arms sales to Taiwan.
And the four Kidd class ships? The three freighter-loads of AK-47 knock offs hilariously made in mainland China and then shipped to Taiwan? Your list is a bit short.
It doesn't really need to be an exhaustive list. The last big sale of military ships to Taiwan was 2015, and reported on by the BBC among others, and China knew about it (and complained).
The point is, like the Kidd class ships you mention, it isn't illicit or under the table. Everyone knows.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35115507 Wackily, a proposal mentioned in the article is not to stop arm sales because they hack off China, or to hide them in any way, but to normalize the sales, so they don't cause any unexpected diplomatic problems.
So, yeah. Open.
LordofHats wrote: What? Please. The Plantagenent's are descended from the nobility of Anjou, and by all rights were subjects of the French crown. If anything the Forces Armees Francaises should be crossing the channel and bringing this rebellious kingdom into line! Bend the knee or burn I say!
See everyone, this is what happens when you make an historical reference when LordofHats is around. You lose and he wins.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Voss wrote: It doesn't really need to be an exhaustive list. The last big sale of military ships to Taiwan was 2015, and reported on by the BBC among others, and China knew about it (and complained).
The point is, like the Kidd class ships you mention, it isn't illicit or under the table. Everyone knows.
I think we should agree on a general rule that if there's a list of it on wiki, it probably isn't a national secret.
What? Please. The Plantagenent's are descended from the nobility of Anjou, and by all rights were subjects of the French crown. If anything the Forces Armees Francaises should be crossing the channel and bringing this rebellious kingdom into line! Bend the knee or burn I say!
The Plantagenets are long extinct. The current British monarch belongs to the House of Windsor, which has its roots in Saxony. Doesn't that mean Germany has the stronger claim?
Anyone in favour of british annexation by Germany say "Aye".
<.<
Seriously though, what used to belong to a country should have no bearing on its current borders. If you *really* insist on changing things, let the people that actually live there decide. And by decide, I do *not* mean what happened in Crimea... its hardly a fair vote when theres a guy behind you holding a gun...
What? Please. The Plantagenent's are descended from the nobility of Anjou, and by all rights were subjects of the French crown. If anything the Forces Armees Francaises should be crossing the channel and bringing this rebellious kingdom into line! Bend the knee or burn I say!
The Plantagenets are long extinct. The current British monarch belongs to the House of Windsor, which has its roots in Saxony. Doesn't that mean Germany has the stronger claim?
But what is the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha but a cadet branch of House Wettin? These feudal lords have too long considered their crowns the ultimate power, and it is up to the Esercito Pontificio to show the arrogant pricks that there is only one real power, and only one true crown!
See everyone, this is what happens when you make an historical reference when LordofHats is around. You lose and he wins.
feeder wrote: Given what we know about early hominds we should probably give the entire world to the Sotho Peoples and be done with it.
As the earliest known primates are also from Africa, that continent certainly has a strong claim. Further back we know less about where our ancestors first appeared, and the geography of the world becomes less and less recognisable, so making origin claims becomes more difficult.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Then again, William the Conqueror was a descendant of Norse raiders, right? Shouldn't that give us Scandinavians a claim to Britain too?
Technically the House of Normandy owed fealty to the French crown, and no one else. Rollo, first Duke of Normandy, swore such when the crown ceded the lands that became Normandy to him and his brigands on the condition that they stop pillaging and start anti-pillaging. See Rollo and his buddies weren't quite the visionaries that Roger II and his brats ended up being. They saw Sicily and they were like "feth I don't need your permission" *burns everything to the ground, and begins eying Greece*
Of course, it wouldn't be the first time a country ignored petty details for a land grab
What? Please. The Plantagenent's are descended from the nobility of Anjou, and by all rights were subjects of the French crown. If anything the Forces Armees Francaises should be crossing the channel and bringing this rebellious kingdom into line! Bend the knee or burn I say!
The Plantagenets are long extinct. The current British monarch belongs to the House of Windsor, which has its roots in Saxony. Doesn't that mean Germany has the stronger claim?
But what is the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha but a cadet branch of House Wettin? These feudal lords have too long considered their crowns the ultimate power, and it is up to the Esercito Pontificio to show the arrogant pricks that there is only one real power, and only one true crown!
See everyone, this is what happens when you make an historical reference when LordofHats is around. You lose and he wins.
Germans have a long history of ignoring Roman authority. Kaiser > Papst.
There are three reasons to believe this scenario, in the next ten years, is at least as likely as war between the United States and North Korea. For one, the goal of “liberating” Taiwan is the paramount foreign policy concern of Beijing. And it has been a top concern since the end of the 1945–1949 civil war between Mao Zedong’s Communists and Chiang Kai-Shek’s Nationalists,
That the author believes the Chinese Civil War has ended is kinda amusing, because it hasn't any more than the Korean War has ended - there's no actual agreement saying that the war is over.
IMO, as long as Taiwan follows the script, all will be well. If Taiwan declares independence, then China will treat them the way the United States treated the Confederacy, and the way the Turks treat the Kurds. Ultimately, Taiwan will unify under China. It's just a matter of when and how, and how many people need to die in the process.
ETA - I need to add that the "when" could be *centuries* from today. As HK and Macau demonstrated in the 90s, China is nothing if not patient.
ETA - I need to add that the "when" could be *centuries* from today. As HK and Macau demonstrated in the 90s, China is nothing if not patient.
They need to be, since in both of the mentioned cases their 'return' has been about as popular as athletes foot. Indeed, the issue is becoming pressing enough that their puppet actually spoke on the subject instead of it not being mentioned at all.
However, an interesting thing has been the steady devolution of powers to regional governments that Beijing is now trying, a bit late, to reverse. i think that the reason that the Central Committee has been watching HK and Macao so closely is that if their power is really slipping, these will be the first places to go.
Iron_Captain wrote: You can't compare one single region to the rest of the country as a whole, because the capital (by far the richest region) is going to skew that tremendously.
Of course you can compare different regions of a country and note which areas are rich and which areas are poor. That one area might be much richer than others doesn't mean you can't compare, in fact that comparison is the very purpose of the process.
You have to look at the region and then compare it to all the other regions individually. And comparing to other countries makes GDP even more meaningless. $1 will buy you much more in Ukraine than it will in Mississippi.
That the US is a different country doesn't make the comparison invalid, because the point is to have people understand the scale of the difference in each country, and how Crimea sits relative to national income.
It does, because money has a totally different worth in Ukraine. That makes it actually very bad for having people understand the scale of difference. A poor person in the US probably makes a lot more money than the average Ukrainian does, but the average Ukrainian might enjoy a higher standard of living because with his little money he is able to buy more things in Ukraine than the poor American can buy in the US. Rich and poor are relative, and not relative to income, but to purchasing power. Income is totally meaningless.
I was born in Ukraine. Trust me if I say that I know how the economic situation was. Crimea was a relatively well-off area, especially Sevastopol and the coastal resort area. There was plenty of economical migration to here from the western parts of Ukraine. The interior of Crimea was more poor, and mostly rural, but not as poor as the area to the north of Crimea (Kherson) and the west of the country.
Yes, exactly. Sevastopol is quite wealthy but not that big, and the rest of the Crimea is quite poor. So why you're trying to dispute my initial statement that Crimea was a fairly poor region of the Ukraine is beyond me.
Kiev and the cities in the east (Dnipropetrovsk, Kharkov, Donetsk) had stronger economies due to all the industries they inherited from the Soviets.
Yes, exactly. Those are rich regions of the Ukraine. While Crimea is a poor region. So all at once you're disputing the Crimea is a poor region, while posting multiple times that you recognise Crimea was a poor region.
Don't you get it? Crimea is both poor and rich. This is why lumping together different economical areas arbitrarily into one economical region and then comparing those arbitrary regions to other arbitrary regions doesn't work. You basically have two very different areas in Crimea: the Black Sea coast (including Sevastopol), then there is a mountain range and beyond the mountains are the large steppe plains of Crimea's interior (here is the capital of Simferopol and lots of grass). The coastal area has always been very rich by Ukrainian standards. Loads of wealthy and famous people live there, there is big houses and hotels all along the coastline. Basically, there is lots of tourism and work and salaries are high (the whole crisis in 2014 did cause an economical disruption here, but it has since recovered). Beyond the mountains, in the interior the situation is very different. This is a rural area where outside of a few interesting sights tourists rarely come and which is mostly dependent on agriculture and the few heavy industries and government jobs in Simferopol. This area is really poor, and salaries and work are low. These two very different areas together are Crimea. So if you fuse a rich and a poor region together, you get an average region, which is what Crimea is when compared to Ukraine as a whole. And when I say Crimea is rich, I have the coastal area in mind.
Taiwan (or rather the Republic of China, its official name) is not actually a widely recognised nation. It was expelled from the UN in 1971, and there is only a few (minor) countries left that continue to recognise it.
There is a vast difference between accepting the current political grey area in which Taiwan exists, and China putting troops on its shores.
Anyways, invading and annexing a sovereign nation is entirely different from invading and establishing control over one of your country's provinces that has come under control of a rival government. The first one is a war of conquest, the second is a civil war. That is a pretty big difference for international law.
Lots of parts of the world used to be controlled by lots of other countries. A large chunk of France used to be under the British crown. Does that mean the UK can drop troops in Normandy tomorrow, arguing its a province that came under the control of a rival government? The mindset you've arguing for is very fething dangerous, and opens the door for a return to the bad old days of old historical grievances being used to justify wars of conquest, behaviour that frequently lead to escalation and fights between major powers, a situation we cannot have in this nuclear age. That people like you think thoughts like that is exactly why the global community must be committed to protecting the sovereignty of international borders.
France is not Britain. The Republic of China and the People's Republic of China are both China. They are the same country, just locked in a frozen civil war between rival governments, of which only one is widely recognised as being a legitimate government internationally. You totally can not compare that with Britain and France, both of which have been seperate, recognised and independent states since the moment states became a thing. Britain and France are different countries. China and Taiwan are not different countries. Taiwan is not a country. It is an island that is part of China and has never been an independent country. Huge difference. What you are arguing simply does not apply, the PRC/ROC situation is pretty unique in the world. If China were to land troops on Taiwan tomorrow, it would not violate international law or set bad precedents for anything. It simply would be a continuation of a civil war that began in the 1920's. When the PRC took Hainain from the ROC in 1950, nobody argued that it would set a precedent for Britain invading France. Why would it be different if the PRC took Taiwan from the ROC? What makes Taiwan so different from Hainan?
Iron_Captain wrote: The Republic of China and the People's Republic of China are both China. They are the same country, just locked in a frozen civil war between rival governments, of which only one is widely recognised as being a legitimate government internationally.
Britain and France are different countries. China and Taiwan are not different countries. Taiwan is not a country. It is an island that is part of China and has never been an independent country. Huge difference. What you are arguing simply does not apply, the PRC/ROC situation is pretty unique in the world. If China were to land troops on Taiwan tomorrow, it would not violate international law or set bad precedents for anything. It simply would be a continuation of a civil war that began in the 1920's. When the PRC took Hainain from the ROC in 1950, nobody argued that it would set a precedent for Britain invading France. Why would it be different if the PRC took Taiwan from the ROC? What makes Taiwan so different from Hainan?
This is basically correct. The PRC and ROC are still engaged in a civil war that's been "on hold" since 1949. I believe they still fire shells across the strait at each other on schedule, so it's technically a "hot" war of sorts.
The current analogy would be something like Kurds declaring independence from Turkey. Turkey is supposedly a democratic NATO country. How well did it go for the Kurds, again?
I don't know about China militarily. China is scared, playing up to the Japs as they now increase their military and it isn't like Taiwan is some wimp military wise either. China itself while having a large military is not that well off and still lacks the navy for naval dominance. Economic wise yes they could try so but that may even backfire.
Automatically Appended Next Post: You could say the Korean conflict is, lukewarm, huh?
China is setting up to defend their portion of the Pacific which just happens to overlap Japan, Korea and especially Taiwan. As for who they're planning to defend against? That would be the most active and interventionist military in the world.
It's no accident that China is working on systems to detect, track and destroy CVNs at a moment's notice. If they are serious about protecting and defending their interests, then flattening a USCG has to be an absolute top priority.
After that, it's the ability to take and hold Taiwan, which is largely a foregone conclusion if the US can be kept out.
Much, much farther down on their list of concerns are places like India, Korea, Vietnam, etc.
It's no accident that China is working on systems to detect, track and destroy CVNs at a moment's notice. If they are serious about protecting and defending their interests, then flattening a USCG has to be an absolute top priority.
More than one Carrier Group. They tend to come in groups of groups for this sort of thing.
I'm a bit torn on this, as it would be a battle between China's anti ship weapon systems, which are numerous, but gak, against the US fleet, which is also numerous, but gak. Damage Control has really become a lost art in most modern fleets, as the assumption is that if the ship is hit, the ship is dead, and a lot of ship design now actually revolves around this.
Also, their underestimating of India in this is a very bad idea. Anyone who builds their own SSBNs (granted, very similar to the Akula's they're 'renting') is not to be treated as a minor player.
It's not only Chinese Navy but their army isn't all that to begin with. There's a reason they've been playing to China these days as they build up military now.
It's no accident that China is working on systems to detect, track and destroy CVNs at a moment's notice. If they are serious about protecting and defending their interests, then flattening a USCG has to be an absolute top priority.
More than one Carrier Group. They tend to come in groups of groups for this sort of thing.
I'm a bit torn on this, as it would be a battle between China's anti ship weapon systems, which are numerous, but gak, against the US fleet, which is also numerous, but gak. Damage Control has really become a lost art in most modern fleets, as the assumption is that if the ship is hit, the ship is dead, and a lot of ship design now actually revolves around this.
Also, their underestimating of India in this is a very bad idea. Anyone who builds their own SSBNs (granted, very similar to the Akula's they're 'renting') is not to be treated as a minor player.
No, just one would be enough. If China obliterates that first USCG, or even just the CVN (and only the CVN, and nothing but the CVN), that'll be the sort of message that gets the other USCGs *completely* out of Chinese waters while the Pentagon figures out what to do without starting WW3. The USN isn't going to risk losing the entire PACFLT over Taiwan.
Quite frankly, the US Navy *loves* that China is stepping up to finally properly defend their territorial waters. It gives them a reason to ask for more money, and they don't have to lie (as much) when doing so. The better the Chinese AA/AD is (or is supposed to be), the more money the USN can ask for to defeat it. The interesting thing is whether the US starts dumping a LOT more resources into SSBNs & SSGNs -- those would be the smart call to counter the Chinese AA/AD defenses instead of something stupid like the Ford and the F-35.
India isn't underestimated at all. They're a 3rd tier player (like Russia) to China's 2nd tier force. Except that Russia directly threatens NATO interests in Europe, whereas nobody in the US (or China) would bat an eye if India occupied Pakistan tomorrow.
No, just one would be enough. If China obliterates that first USCG, or even just the CVN (and only the CVN, and nothing but the CVN), that'll be the sort of message that gets the other USCGs *completely* out of Chinese waters while the Pentagon figures out what to do without starting WW3. The USN isn't going to risk losing the entire PACFLT over Taiwan.
Oh, how China has forgotten the 55 days. I hope someone there understands that sinking a US carrier would lead to the annihilation of every major Chinese city within about four hours of that carrier sinking. Not joking, there are already standing orders to prepare to launch in that circumstance.
JohnHwangDD wrote: As if China wouldn't launch their nukes in response... :eyeroll:
I'd be impressed if they did, as China's nuclear forces currently are not capable of 'second strike' capabilities beyond 10-12 truck launched DF-31A and DF-41 ICBMs in northern China. PLAN's Type 094A can launch, but it can, at most, hit the US west coast. China lacks a long range nuclear bomber, and the silo housed ICBMs they do have, such as the DF-5, require lengthy fueling times and are vulnerable to a US first strike.
JohnHwangDD wrote: As if China wouldn't launch their nukes in response... :eyeroll:
I'd be impressed if they did, as China's nuclear forces currently are not capable of 'second strike' capabilities beyond 10-12 truck launched DF-31A and DF-41 ICBMs in northern China. PLAN's Type 094A can launch, but it can, at most, hit the US west coast. China lacks a long range nuclear bomber, and the silo housed ICBMs they do have, such as the DF-5, require lengthy fueling times and are vulnerable to a US first strike.
As far as I'm aware, they only have about as many nukes as we do here in Britain (two hundred and fifty or so). Of those, only about fifty or so can hit the States. Once you factor in misses, malfunctions, stuff smashed before it can launch, and missile defences, the Chinese would be lucky to get half of that through to the States, and half of that again to drop where they wanted it to. I think the States could probably suck up a dozen targeted nukes without being particularly impeded in any kind of retaliation.
Are we trying to make the Fallout series reality? because this is how you make the Fallout series a reality
They have to invade Alaska first.
No way. Alyaska belongs to Mother Russia. We are the only ones allowed to invade.
And on the subject of nuking China, do you guys really think Russia is going to allow that? If the US launches its nukes, the US is going to die, simple as that. Having nuclear weapons is great, but actually using them is a big no-no. Such a thing could simply not be allowed. The US is never going to launch any nukes, not even if its entire navy were destroyed. Nor is China or Russia. They are suicide weapons. The cost of using nuclear weapons simply far outweighs any possible benefits. The only reason countries have nuclear weapons is so that other countries with nuclear weapons can't use them.
I basically agree with that. We've been over this in the cold war. Everyone loses in nuclear war. We (that is, the population of earth) must do everything possible, diplomatically and otherwise, to prevent this.
JohnHwangDD wrote: As if China wouldn't launch their nukes in response... :eyeroll:
I'd be impressed if they did, as China's nuclear forces currently are not capable of 'second strike' capabilities beyond 10-12 truck launched DF-31A and DF-41 ICBMs in northern China. PLAN's Type 094A can launch, but it can, at most, hit the US west coast. China lacks a long range nuclear bomber, and the silo housed ICBMs they
Aren't they like #3 in the world in nuke submarines? There's your 'second strike'...
As WOPR stated... best way to play the game, is not to play.
sebster wrote: Lots of parts of the world used to be controlled by lots of other countries. A large chunk of France used to be under the British crown. Does that mean the UK can drop troops in Normandy tomorrow, arguing its a province that came under the control of a rival government?
The mindset you've arguing for is very fething dangerous, and opens the door for a return to the bad old days of old historical grievances being used to justify wars of conquest, behaviour that frequently lead to escalation and fights between major powers, a situation we cannot have in this nuclear age. That people like you think thoughts like that is exactly why the global community must be committed to protecting the sovereignty of international borders.
France is not Britain. The Republic of China and the People's Republic of China are both China. They are the same country, just locked in a frozen civil war between rival governments, of which only one is widely recognised as being a legitimate government internationally. You totally can not compare that with Britain and France, both of which have been seperate, recognised and independent states since the moment states became a thing.
Britain and France are different countries. China and Taiwan are not different countries. Taiwan is not a country. It is an island that is part of China and has never been an independent country. Huge difference. What you are arguing simply does not apply, the PRC/ROC situation is pretty unique in the world. If China were to land troops on Taiwan tomorrow, it would not violate international law or set bad precedents for anything. It simply would be a continuation of a civil war that began in the 1920's. When the PRC took Hainain from the ROC in 1950, nobody argued that it would set a precedent for Britain invading France. Why would it be different if the PRC took Taiwan from the ROC? What makes Taiwan so different from Hainan?
This is very much underestimating current international relations in East Asia. You're also underestimating the PRC being the legitimate international government versus not recognizing the ROC or Taiwan as a separate independent entity. Yes technically the PRC is the only official government, mostly because of China's One China policy, which forces countries to cut loose Taiwan for political and economic considerations. This would not at all mean that the PRC can just invade and kill off Taiwan as a separate entity. Other countries such as Israel in the current day, were or aren't universally internationally recognized. That does not mean the international community is open to the idea of letting them get invaded or wiped out. Most countries still have plenty of informal relations with Taiwan.
The PRC/ROC situation was never that unique, the only unique part is the sheer size and economic power China can wield internationally. A number of countries that fell to civil war or were divided due to civil war did not have an immediate and final conclusion, with both parts managing to exist. North and South Korea, West and East Germany, Sudan and (the new) South Sudan or North and South Vietnam. Civil wars can easily remain frozen or entirely put on ice, that does not mean the international community wouldn't blink an eye at a sudden hostile action undertaken by one side, especially in such a diplomatically volatile region as East Asia. Most countries just accept the One China policy because it is beneficial, but they wouldn't just roll over to aggressive annexation of an 'informally' independent country. It would set an incredibly bad precedent internationally to just let China take over Taiwan. Now no country in the region would feel safe from China. The South China Sea Disputes are already increasing tensions and leading to a (semi) arms race in the region. The annexation of Taiwan would really set things off.
What Sebster is arguing does apply. International politics and laws are really about feelings or 'the spirit' of the laws for independent countries. It doesn't mean that once China invades Taiwan they will look at the laws and go ''well that doesn't violate anything'' and walk away whistling. It opens it up to all kinds of exceptions and back door actions. Mongolia used to be a 'part' of China and broke off just like Tibet after the fall of the Qing. The only thing that saved Mongolia from the fate of Tibet was its relation with the Soviet Union and it being communist. What if China would suddenly decide if Mongolia was just a breakaway province in a civil war that was a core part of what constitutes 'China'? What if China starts expanding the One China doctrine to include parts it considers historically Chinese? This is what China basically did with Taiwan, use its power to refuse international recognition, which critically it did use to have. If this is followed by hostile annexation of Taiwan in the current day, what country neighbouring China will not get nervous? What if they are next in line for being pushed out? International law means nothing for countries if they are next to a belligerent neighbour who just violently annexed another independent neighbour, regardless of any weird international limbo.
Hainan is different because it was on the tail end of a successful PRC victory and the Cold War. But the PRC victory was almost 70 years ago and the last 'real' conflict (Second Taiwan Strait Crisis) almost 60 years. That is the difference between Hainan and Taiwan. Times and expectations change, the Cold War is over, Mao is dead, war would be a massive departure from the semi peaceful relations in East Asia for the last few decades.
And on the subject of nuking China, do you guys really think Russia is going to allow that?
Yes, particularly if China starts off by sinking a carrier.
I have a hard time picturing even Vladimir Putin saying 'We strongly oppose the US response to China murdering thousands of Americans in a preemptive strike. It's clear that China is entirely justified in this act of blatant aggression! We hereby join China in a suicide pact to ensure that Russia also dies."
Particularly if it's the difference between an intact Moscow where it's tyranny as usual and one where it's Metro 2033. Do you honestly think that Russia will sacrifice itself to join China under the bus or that they'd let the Americans and China destroy each other than then take over the rest of the world with conventional weapons? Seems like a smarter plan to me.
Aren't they like #3 in the world in nuke submarines? There's your 'second strike'...
China may operate a fleet of 68 subs, but most are fairly conventional non nuclear boats. They only have 5 ballistic missile subs atm, and their detection range is hideous. As in they can be detected leaving port from Hawaii (they hope to correct this in the Type 096 currently under development). China also has 6 nuclear powered subs that are not ballistic missile capable.
Considering each sub to leave base is trailed by a US sub.... well, I'd not be hoping on a second strike there.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Other countries such as Israel in the current day, were or aren't universally internationally recognized. That does not mean the international community is open to the idea of letting them get invaded or wiped out. Most countries still have plenty of informal relations with Taiwan.
Israel is an actual country, recognized and defended by the United States.
Taiwan is not an independent country, has never declared independence. The status quo of being a breakaway province under civil war still applies, as stated by *both* the ROC and PRC - recall that the ROC claimed sovereignty over mainland China, as the government in exile. Should Taiwan declare independence, that would force China's hand to retake it by force. Whether other countries agree or not, no longer matters, as it changes to a question of Chinese sovereignty, which is a non-negotiable red line for China. China would no more accept US intervention in Taiwan than the US would if China were to take Hawaii, or Russia Alaska. I believe China would sooner sink the island of Taiwan than allow its independence, and I believe they are more than willing to accept any consequences accordingly.
While it would be nice if Taiwan were to reunify under China peaceably, the reality is that Taiwan will be repatriated at some point. It's just a question of when and how.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Other countries such as Israel in the current day, were or aren't universally internationally recognized. That does not mean the international community is open to the idea of letting them get invaded or wiped out. Most countries still have plenty of informal relations with Taiwan.
Israel is an actual country, recognized and defended by the United States.
Taiwan is not an independent country, has never declared independence. The status quo of being a breakaway province under civil war still applies, as stated by *both* the ROC and PRC - recall that the ROC claimed sovereignty over mainland China, as the government in exile. Should Taiwan declare independence, that would force China's hand to retake it by force. Whether other countries agree or not, no longer matters, as it changes to a question of Chinese sovereignty, which is a non-negotiable red line for China. China would no more accept US intervention in Taiwan than the US would if China were to take Hawaii, or Russia Alaska. I believe China would sooner sink the island of Taiwan than allow its independence, and I believe they are more than willing to accept any consequences accordingly.
While it would be nice if Taiwan were to reunify under China peaceably, the reality is that Taiwan will be repatriated at some point. It's just a question of when and how.
Taiwan is an actual country. Once recognized and defended by the United States just as Israel. If the US withdrew these two things from Israel, would it cease to be a country?
This status quo could apply to many a country, South Korea is considered as such by North Korea. Yet I would not think the international community would appreciate another war. Furthermore the ROC used to consider Mongolia a break away province as well, yet we would certainly frown on the annexation of Mongolia.
The issue at hand that I was discussing however, was not if the opinion of other countries matter on an invasion. It certainly would not if it came to that. What countries care about is an invasion without any protest or action undertaken. This represents a problem as any country might possibly be next. This is why it matters, as no response would mean anarchy. It hooks onto the theory of Realism, anarchy and it would feed the 'security dilemma'. The insecurity would lead to an arms race as countries would arm themselves to not be next on China's list. China is not stupid, it recognizes the consequences of a violent conflict for Taiwan. Its incredibly risky, might lead to a wider war and certainly its neighbours getting closer to the US or developing nuclear weapons. The China-Taiwan conflict is complicated, neither would consider declaring independence or cutting loose, they view themselves as legitimate. But to state that it would have no repercussions for the international community or create worse tendencies is wrong, which is the point I was adressing in that comment.
I agree it is likely just a matter of when, if nothing else than the fact that the CCP is unlikely (hard to say how long but decades likely) to last forever, which might help reconcilliation. Taiwan and China still view themselves as one.
JohnHwangDD wrote: I love how people think that the US taking a dozen nukes is no big deal. Are you guys drinking Trump's Kool-Aid?
Not quite what I said. Generally speaking, it is best to actually read a comment before making a snarky retort to it. Otherwise it leaves you looking somewhat wrongfooted.
Ketara wrote:. I think the States could probably suck up a dozen targeted nukes without being particularly impeded in any kind of retaliation.
As a cursory glance reveals, my comment was specifically talking about the US capability to retaliate against a Chinese nuclear strike (either first or second). The US has many nuclear military installations, capabilities, and large cities. A dozen successful nuclear hits on the US by China would not even remotely impede the US counterstroke from utterly ravaging China.
As things stand, America has over four hundred land based ICBM's which can target China that are spread across several dozen sites. Even if we assume that every single one of the fifty odd Chinese weapons gets through and destroys an American nuclear weapons installation completely, the odds are that the US will retain just as many to throw back purely from land sites. Once you combine that with over 300 Trident missiles from American nuclear submarines, and over 300 air based nukes?
A dozen nukes may well kill a lot of Americans, and do a fair amount of damage. Fifty nukes more still. Yet both are utterly inconsequential to and will no way impede the devastating power of the US nuclear counterblow.
Iron_Captain wrote: It does, because money has a totally different worth in Ukraine. That makes it actually very bad for having people understand the scale of difference. A poor person in the US probably makes a lot more money than the average Ukrainian does, but the average Ukrainian might enjoy a higher standard of living because with his little money he is able to buy more things in Ukraine than the poor American can buy in the US. Rich and poor are relative, and not relative to income, but to purchasing power.
Income is totally meaningless.
You still don't get it. Scale is what is being measured. You said Crimea was rich. It isn't. I pointed out that Crimea is actually a poorer part of Ukraine, relative to average income, than the poorest US state is to the average US state. That the US and Crimea are very different is irrelevant. I might as well have compared cherry blossom trees to oaks, because the point had nothing to do with money, it was just about scale.
You are pretending to be confused about this because the alternative is to admit you were wrong when you said the Crimea was rich. The Crimea is actually a poor part of the Ukraine, and all your noise about how the US and Crimea are different places doesn't change that.
Don't you get it? Crimea is both poor and rich. This is why lumping together different economical areas arbitrarily into one economical region and then comparing those arbitrary regions to other arbitrary regions doesn't work.
It existed as one region, and when Russia occupied it they took the whole region. That there was some small islands of relative wealth amidst a sea of backwards agriculture changes nothing, means nothing.
And when I say Crimea is rich, I have the coastal area in mind.
And that's why you were 100% completely fething wrong. Because if someone says 'Crimea is poor', it makes zero sense to say 'a bit of it is rich and has some famous people in it'.
France is not Britain. The Republic of China and the People's Republic of China are both China. They are the same country, just locked in a frozen civil war between rival governments, of which only one is widely recognised as being a legitimate government internationally.
Taiwan has operated as a government fully independent from mainland China for more than 70 years. There's a bunch of legal and diplomatic nonsense layered on top of that, but the reality is what it is.
You totally can not compare that with Britain and France, both of which have been seperate, recognised and independent states since the moment states became a thing.
"Since the moment states became a thing" is an incredible thing, and hints at a very strange worldview of which I am morbidly curious. Please do tell of this moment in which states became a thing. Perhaps start by telling me states were before that moment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnHwangDD wrote: I love how people think that the US taking a dozen nukes is no big deal. Are you guys drinking Trump's Kool-Aid?
A few people's comments sounded a little blase, but from my reading none of them were saying it was okay for the US to take a dozen nukes. That'd be millions dead. It'd be horrible. And other missiles would likely land on Japan and other places supporting US operations, so on a humanitarian level it'd be horrific.
The point, by my reading, is how that impacts the power balance and which country is then more wary of escalating up to a nuclear conflict. The US would be wary of that escalation, because it doesn't want a dozen cities blown up, but China would be far more concerned because it doesn't want all of its cities, its entire nation, and society wiped from history.
Note I'm not commenting on whether that is the actual limit of Chinese nuclear capability, I don't know. But if it is what people said, then while the result would be bad for both sides, it'd be much worse for China and that impacts how this plays out, and who backs down and when.
JohnHwangDD wrote: I love how people think that the US taking a dozen nukes is no big deal. Are you guys drinking Trump's Kool-Aid?
It's never OK to cities to evaporate, but the fact is that the US response to killing a carrier would be escalation, not backing down. The fastest path to a violent and unreasonable retaliation from the US is to kill a few thousand Americans.
sebster wrote: Lots of parts of the world used to be controlled by lots of other countries. A large chunk of France used to be under the British crown. Does that mean the UK can drop troops in Normandy tomorrow, arguing its a province that came under the control of a rival government?
The mindset you've arguing for is very fething dangerous, and opens the door for a return to the bad old days of old historical grievances being used to justify wars of conquest, behaviour that frequently lead to escalation and fights between major powers, a situation we cannot have in this nuclear age. That people like you think thoughts like that is exactly why the global community must be committed to protecting the sovereignty of international borders.
France is not Britain. The Republic of China and the People's Republic of China are both China. They are the same country, just locked in a frozen civil war between rival governments, of which only one is widely recognised as being a legitimate government internationally. You totally can not compare that with Britain and France, both of which have been seperate, recognised and independent states since the moment states became a thing.
Britain and France are different countries. China and Taiwan are not different countries. Taiwan is not a country. It is an island that is part of China and has never been an independent country. Huge difference. What you are arguing simply does not apply, the PRC/ROC situation is pretty unique in the world. If China were to land troops on Taiwan tomorrow, it would not violate international law or set bad precedents for anything. It simply would be a continuation of a civil war that began in the 1920's. When the PRC took Hainain from the ROC in 1950, nobody argued that it would set a precedent for Britain invading France. Why would it be different if the PRC took Taiwan from the ROC? What makes Taiwan so different from Hainan?
This is very much underestimating current international relations in East Asia. You're also underestimating the PRC being the legitimate international government versus not recognizing the ROC or Taiwan as a separate independent entity. Yes technically the PRC is the only official government, mostly because of China's One China policy, which forces countries to cut loose Taiwan for political and economic considerations. This would not at all mean that the PRC can just invade and kill off Taiwan as a separate entity. Other countries such as Israel in the current day, were or aren't universally internationally recognized. That does not mean the international community is open to the idea of letting them get invaded or wiped out. Most countries still have plenty of informal relations with Taiwan.
The PRC/ROC situation was never that unique, the only unique part is the sheer size and economic power China can wield internationally. A number of countries that fell to civil war or were divided due to civil war did not have an immediate and final conclusion, with both parts managing to exist. North and South Korea, West and East Germany, Sudan and (the new) South Sudan or North and South Vietnam. Civil wars can easily remain frozen or entirely put on ice, that does not mean the international community wouldn't blink an eye at a sudden hostile action undertaken by one side, especially in such a diplomatically volatile region as East Asia. Most countries just accept the One China policy because it is beneficial, but they wouldn't just roll over to aggressive annexation of an 'informally' independent country. It would set an incredibly bad precedent internationally to just let China take over Taiwan. Now no country in the region would feel safe from China. The South China Sea Disputes are already increasing tensions and leading to a (semi) arms race in the region. The annexation of Taiwan would really set things off.
What Sebster is arguing does apply. International politics and laws are really about feelings or 'the spirit' of the laws for independent countries. It doesn't mean that once China invades Taiwan they will look at the laws and go ''well that doesn't violate anything'' and walk away whistling. It opens it up to all kinds of exceptions and back door actions. Mongolia used to be a 'part' of China and broke off just like Tibet after the fall of the Qing. The only thing that saved Mongolia from the fate of Tibet was its relation with the Soviet Union and it being communist. What if China would suddenly decide if Mongolia was just a breakaway province in a civil war that was a core part of what constitutes 'China'? What if China starts expanding the One China doctrine to include parts it considers historically Chinese? This is what China basically did with Taiwan, use its power to refuse international recognition, which critically it did use to have. If this is followed by hostile annexation of Taiwan in the current day, what country neighbouring China will not get nervous? What if they are next in line for being pushed out? International law means nothing for countries if they are next to a belligerent neighbour who just violently annexed another independent neighbour, regardless of any weird international limbo.
Hainan is different because it was on the tail end of a successful PRC victory and the Cold War. But the PRC victory was almost 70 years ago and the last 'real' conflict (Second Taiwan Strait Crisis) almost 60 years. That is the difference between Hainan and Taiwan. Times and expectations change, the Cold War is over, Mao is dead, war would be a massive departure from the semi peaceful relations in East Asia for the last few decades
.
While I agree with your analysis on the difference between Hainan and Taiwan, as well as on the fact that the international community wouldn't just accept a Chinese invasion on Taiwan (despite it being fully legal according to established international law.), I do have to dispute you saying that the PRC/ROC situation isn't unique. In those other situation you mention (North and South Korea, East and West Germany etc.) both sides of the conflict have become widely and officially recognised as being legitimate states, and their governments are fine with being separate states for the moment even if their desire is to eventually re-unite with the other. The PRC and ROC do not want to re-unite ever, because they have never been apart. According to both of them, there is only one single country called China and they are its legitimate government. The ROC views the territory of China as indivisible and has no desire to ever become a separate state from the PRC. The PRC and ROC are rival governments within the same state, and that is a pretty unique situation to last for so long. Instead of comparing it to North and South Korea, it would be better to compare it to Syria or Yemen or any other place where you got multiple governments claiming authority over the same state. The unique aspect of the PRC/ROC conflict is the duration of the conflict and the way it has 'gone cold'.
Iron_Captain wrote: It does, because money has a totally different worth in Ukraine. That makes it actually very bad for having people understand the scale of difference. A poor person in the US probably makes a lot more money than the average Ukrainian does, but the average Ukrainian might enjoy a higher standard of living because with his little money he is able to buy more things in Ukraine than the poor American can buy in the US. Rich and poor are relative, and not relative to income, but to purchasing power.
Income is totally meaningless.
You still don't get it. Scale is what is being measured. You said Crimea was rich. It isn't. I pointed out that Crimea is actually a poorer part of Ukraine, relative to average income, than the poorest US state is to the average US state. That the US and Crimea are very different is irrelevant. I might as well have compared cherry blossom trees to oaks, because the point had nothing to do with money, it was just about scale.
You are pretending to be confused about this because the alternative is to admit you were wrong when you said the Crimea was rich. The Crimea is actually a poor part of the Ukraine, and all your noise about how the US and Crimea are different places doesn't change that.
Don't you get it? Crimea is both poor and rich. This is why lumping together different economical areas arbitrarily into one economical region and then comparing those arbitrary regions to other arbitrary regions doesn't work.
It existed as one region, and when Russia occupied it they took the whole region. That there was some small islands of relative wealth amidst a sea of backwards agriculture changes nothing, means nothing.
And when I say Crimea is rich, I have the coastal area in mind.
And that's why you were 100% completely fething wrong. Because if someone says 'Crimea is poor', it makes zero sense to say 'a bit of it is rich and has some famous people in it'.
By your logic, you might call every place in the world poor just so because it happens to contain some poor people. The US would be poor because it has poor people living in dirty trailers that have no healthcare. You are not making any sense, and your comparison is still ridiculous.
As I said, when I talk about 'Crimea' I might not mean the whole peninsula and every single person in it. I might be just saying 'Crimea' as short for 'that part of the Crimea that is directly relevant to me and to what I am trying to say'. Same way as in when you say 'I went to Russia' when you actually only went to one specific little part of Russia. Or that you can say 'Russia is poor.' instead of 'large parts of Russia are poor but in it there are also a lot of people who are well-off, some who are rich and some who are very rich.'. Aka, it is a generalisation. Generalisations are a common part of daily language, and you understand them well enough. You are only seeking an argument here for the sake of arguing.
When I said that the Crimea was one of the richer regions of Ukraine, I obviously only meant that area of the Crimea that actually was one of the richer areas of Ukraine. And if you still do not believe the area is relatively rich, I would like to invite you to buy a plane ticket to Ukraine and visit Kiev and Lvov, then travel to Yalta and see for yourself. Because I bet you have never actually been anywhere near Crimea.
France is not Britain. The Republic of China and the People's Republic of China are both China. They are the same country, just locked in a frozen civil war between rival governments, of which only one is widely recognised as being a legitimate government internationally.
Taiwan has operated as a government fully independent from mainland China for more than 70 years. There's a bunch of legal and diplomatic nonsense layered on top of that, but the reality is what it is.
No. The government on Taiwan is the Republic of China, which is the government of mainland China. You will never get the Republic of China to admit that it is in fact a separate, independent nation from 'China'. The PRC and ROC both agree that Taiwan is China and that China is indivisible. They just disagree on who should rule China (all of it, not just Taiwan). The only thing that makes Taiwan special and different from other Chinese provinces is that it is the last area that remains under the de-facto control of the ROC.
You totally can not compare that with Britain and France, both of which have been seperate, recognised and independent states since the moment states became a thing.
"Since the moment states became a thing" is an incredible thing, and hints at a very strange worldview of which I am morbidly curious. Please do tell of this moment in which states became a thing. Perhaps start by telling me states were before that moment.
Okay, I'd love to. I really like talking about this kind of stuff. First of all, 'the moment' really is a figure of speech. States of course did not just spring up in one exact moment, but it was a gradual development. States evolved in the Early Modern period out of the feudal realms that evolved in the course of the Middle Ages out of tribal kingdoms (at least, that is the origin of modern European states. If you go further back there were also states in the Classical period and even earlier, as well as states that evolved outside of Europe such as in South and Central America). The biggest difference between the early modern states and the preceding feudal realms was that territory became bound to an immaterial, social construct (the state) rather than to an individual like in feudalism. The second biggest difference was that power became centralised. It was transferred from feudal lords to the ruler, who instead of devolving power to individual feudal lords now devolved it to institutions. Again, this is not something that happened suddenly, but rather gradually as the balance of power between rulers and feudal lords shifted.
sebster wrote: Lots of parts of the world used to be controlled by lots of other countries. A large chunk of France used to be under the British crown. Does that mean the UK can drop troops in Normandy tomorrow, arguing its a province that came under the control of a rival government? The mindset you've arguing for is very fething dangerous, and opens the door for a return to the bad old days of old historical grievances being used to justify wars of conquest, behaviour that frequently lead to escalation and fights between major powers, a situation we cannot have in this nuclear age. That people like you think thoughts like that is exactly why the global community must be committed to protecting the sovereignty of international borders.
France is not Britain. The Republic of China and the People's Republic of China are both China. They are the same country, just locked in a frozen civil war between rival governments, of which only one is widely recognised as being a legitimate government internationally. You totally can not compare that with Britain and France, both of which have been seperate, recognised and independent states since the moment states became a thing. Britain and France are different countries. China and Taiwan are not different countries. Taiwan is not a country. It is an island that is part of China and has never been an independent country. Huge difference. What you are arguing simply does not apply, the PRC/ROC situation is pretty unique in the world. If China were to land troops on Taiwan tomorrow, it would not violate international law or set bad precedents for anything. It simply would be a continuation of a civil war that began in the 1920's. When the PRC took Hainain from the ROC in 1950, nobody argued that it would set a precedent for Britain invading France. Why would it be different if the PRC took Taiwan from the ROC? What makes Taiwan so different from Hainan?
This is very much underestimating current international relations in East Asia. You're also underestimating the PRC being the legitimate international government versus not recognizing the ROC or Taiwan as a separate independent entity. Yes technically the PRC is the only official government, mostly because of China's One China policy, which forces countries to cut loose Taiwan for political and economic considerations. This would not at all mean that the PRC can just invade and kill off Taiwan as a separate entity. Other countries such as Israel in the current day, were or aren't universally internationally recognized. That does not mean the international community is open to the idea of letting them get invaded or wiped out. Most countries still have plenty of informal relations with Taiwan.
The PRC/ROC situation was never that unique, the only unique part is the sheer size and economic power China can wield internationally. A number of countries that fell to civil war or were divided due to civil war did not have an immediate and final conclusion, with both parts managing to exist. North and South Korea, West and East Germany, Sudan and (the new) South Sudan or North and South Vietnam. Civil wars can easily remain frozen or entirely put on ice, that does not mean the international community wouldn't blink an eye at a sudden hostile action undertaken by one side, especially in such a diplomatically volatile region as East Asia. Most countries just accept the One China policy because it is beneficial, but they wouldn't just roll over to aggressive annexation of an 'informally' independent country. It would set an incredibly bad precedent internationally to just let China take over Taiwan. Now no country in the region would feel safe from China. The South China Sea Disputes are already increasing tensions and leading to a (semi) arms race in the region. The annexation of Taiwan would really set things off.
What Sebster is arguing does apply. International politics and laws are really about feelings or 'the spirit' of the laws for independent countries. It doesn't mean that once China invades Taiwan they will look at the laws and go ''well that doesn't violate anything'' and walk away whistling. It opens it up to all kinds of exceptions and back door actions. Mongolia used to be a 'part' of China and broke off just like Tibet after the fall of the Qing. The only thing that saved Mongolia from the fate of Tibet was its relation with the Soviet Union and it being communist. What if China would suddenly decide if Mongolia was just a breakaway province in a civil war that was a core part of what constitutes 'China'? What if China starts expanding the One China doctrine to include parts it considers historically Chinese? This is what China basically did with Taiwan, use its power to refuse international recognition, which critically it did use to have. If this is followed by hostile annexation of Taiwan in the current day, what country neighbouring China will not get nervous? What if they are next in line for being pushed out? International law means nothing for countries if they are next to a belligerent neighbour who just violently annexed another independent neighbour, regardless of any weird international limbo.
Hainan is different because it was on the tail end of a successful PRC victory and the Cold War. But the PRC victory was almost 70 years ago and the last 'real' conflict (Second Taiwan Strait Crisis) almost 60 years. That is the difference between Hainan and Taiwan. Times and expectations change, the Cold War is over, Mao is dead, war would be a massive departure from the semi peaceful relations in East Asia for the last few decades
.
While I agree with your analysis on the difference between Hainan and Taiwan, as well as on the fact that the international community wouldn't just accept a Chinese invasion on Taiwan (despite it being fully legal according to established international law.), I do have to dispute you saying that the PRC/ROC situation isn't unique. In those other situation you mention (North and South Korea, East and West Germany etc.) both sides of the conflict have become widely and officially recognised as being legitimate states, and their governments are fine with being separate states for the moment even if their desire is to eventually re-unite with the other. The PRC and ROC do not want to re-unite ever, because they have never been apart. According to both of them, there is only one single country called China and they are its legitimate government. The ROC views the territory of China as indivisible and has no desire to ever become a separate state from the PRC. The PRC and ROC are rival governments within the same state, and that is a pretty unique situation to last for so long. Instead of comparing it to North and South Korea, it would be better to compare it to Syria or Yemen or any other place where you got multiple governments claiming authority over the same state. The unique aspect of the PRC/ROC conflict is the duration of the conflict and the way it has 'gone cold'.
It being fully legal under international law is basically worthless though, that's the point. No country around China is going to care that the annihilation of an independent neighbour was technically legal.
Widely and officially recognized? Taiwan once was a lot more widely and officially recognized before China started pushing through its One China policy. Taiwan even held China's place on the Security Council until 1971. Furthermore, countries such as North Korea and North Vietnam never accepted the existence of their Southern counterpart. Neither were fine with it, as 1950 and 1975 had shown. They were as fine with it as the PRC is with the ROC/Taiwan existing. They don't like it, but any conflict would spectacularly backfire. The PRC and the ROC do want to re-unite, they just have different ideas about that reunification in mind. Germany was actually the unique case in that sense, as both countries voluntarily came back together. If you ask North Korea for example, you won't get them to recognize South Korea as the legitimate government, just as the PRC doesn't recognize the ROC.
The key difference is that China had the economic power to push Taiwan out of diplomatic recognition, a power North Korea never managed to wield. The general public views North and South Korea as separate countries, just like it views Taiwan and China as separate countries. The legal and diplomatic wrangling is mostly for show, as their are plenty of contacts and economic interaction with Taiwan. So no, it is not very unique, the only way we see it as unique is because of the fact that Taiwan can never let the pretense of being together fall, as it would mean Chinese invasion. West Germany and South Korea could, as there were plenty of US troops stationed in both countries to protect them. But US protection is not a guaranteed certainty Taiwan has the luxury of having. For all other intents and purposes it is the same as other divided countries.
And no, comparing it to Syria or Yemen is not really that great, they are both relatively new civil wars fought for entirely different reasons and stil ongoing. The PRC/ROC conflict fits much better in the context of the Cold War conflicts in the region between the ROV/SROV and between the DPRK/ROK. None of the three civil wars in these East Asian countries were solved peacefully and have similar histories. All neighbours tried to forcefully annex the US supported counterpart. The only difference is that the SROV managed to win its war in the long term in 1975. The PRC hoped that with the end of the Cold War and reduced commitments by the US to the ROC it might imitate the succes of the SROV and tested the waters so to speak, yet the US was still prepared to hold up the status of Taiwan in the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis. So no, I don't think Syria or Yemen are a good comparison. Neither opposition group in Yemen or Syria has had the length of being practically independent, the stability and construction of independent institutions that Taiwan has had. The PRC/ROC and DPRK/ROK conflicts have both been frozen for the good part of 60 years with some 'minor' incidents. Both the DPRK and PRC developed nuclear weapons, while their US supported counterparts felt relatively secure not to have to. The US has supported both the ROC and ROK with military support. The only really big difference is the succes of the One China policy in getting the world to 'think' that Taiwan is not a 'real' country. If North Korea had the economic power China did, we might now not be thinking of South Korea as a 'real' country.
sebster wrote: Lots of parts of the world used to be controlled by lots of other countries. A large chunk of France used to be under the British crown. Does that mean the UK can drop troops in Normandy tomorrow, arguing its a province that came under the control of a rival government? The mindset you've arguing for is very fething dangerous, and opens the door for a return to the bad old days of old historical grievances being used to justify wars of conquest, behaviour that frequently lead to escalation and fights between major powers, a situation we cannot have in this nuclear age. That people like you think thoughts like that is exactly why the global community must be committed to protecting the sovereignty of international borders.
France is not Britain. The Republic of China and the People's Republic of China are both China. They are the same country, just locked in a frozen civil war between rival governments, of which only one is widely recognised as being a legitimate government internationally. You totally can not compare that with Britain and France, both of which have been seperate, recognised and independent states since the moment states became a thing. Britain and France are different countries. China and Taiwan are not different countries. Taiwan is not a country. It is an island that is part of China and has never been an independent country. Huge difference. What you are arguing simply does not apply, the PRC/ROC situation is pretty unique in the world. If China were to land troops on Taiwan tomorrow, it would not violate international law or set bad precedents for anything. It simply would be a continuation of a civil war that began in the 1920's. When the PRC took Hainain from the ROC in 1950, nobody argued that it would set a precedent for Britain invading France. Why would it be different if the PRC took Taiwan from the ROC? What makes Taiwan so different from Hainan?
This is very much underestimating current international relations in East Asia. You're also underestimating the PRC being the legitimate international government versus not recognizing the ROC or Taiwan as a separate independent entity. Yes technically the PRC is the only official government, mostly because of China's One China policy, which forces countries to cut loose Taiwan for political and economic considerations. This would not at all mean that the PRC can just invade and kill off Taiwan as a separate entity. Other countries such as Israel in the current day, were or aren't universally internationally recognized. That does not mean the international community is open to the idea of letting them get invaded or wiped out. Most countries still have plenty of informal relations with Taiwan.
The PRC/ROC situation was never that unique, the only unique part is the sheer size and economic power China can wield internationally. A number of countries that fell to civil war or were divided due to civil war did not have an immediate and final conclusion, with both parts managing to exist. North and South Korea, West and East Germany, Sudan and (the new) South Sudan or North and South Vietnam. Civil wars can easily remain frozen or entirely put on ice, that does not mean the international community wouldn't blink an eye at a sudden hostile action undertaken by one side, especially in such a diplomatically volatile region as East Asia. Most countries just accept the One China policy because it is beneficial, but they wouldn't just roll over to aggressive annexation of an 'informally' independent country. It would set an incredibly bad precedent internationally to just let China take over Taiwan. Now no country in the region would feel safe from China. The South China Sea Disputes are already increasing tensions and leading to a (semi) arms race in the region. The annexation of Taiwan would really set things off.
What Sebster is arguing does apply. International politics and laws are really about feelings or 'the spirit' of the laws for independent countries. It doesn't mean that once China invades Taiwan they will look at the laws and go ''well that doesn't violate anything'' and walk away whistling. It opens it up to all kinds of exceptions and back door actions. Mongolia used to be a 'part' of China and broke off just like Tibet after the fall of the Qing. The only thing that saved Mongolia from the fate of Tibet was its relation with the Soviet Union and it being communist. What if China would suddenly decide if Mongolia was just a breakaway province in a civil war that was a core part of what constitutes 'China'? What if China starts expanding the One China doctrine to include parts it considers historically Chinese? This is what China basically did with Taiwan, use its power to refuse international recognition, which critically it did use to have. If this is followed by hostile annexation of Taiwan in the current day, what country neighbouring China will not get nervous? What if they are next in line for being pushed out? International law means nothing for countries if they are next to a belligerent neighbour who just violently annexed another independent neighbour, regardless of any weird international limbo.
Hainan is different because it was on the tail end of a successful PRC victory and the Cold War. But the PRC victory was almost 70 years ago and the last 'real' conflict (Second Taiwan Strait Crisis) almost 60 years. That is the difference between Hainan and Taiwan. Times and expectations change, the Cold War is over, Mao is dead, war would be a massive departure from the semi peaceful relations in East Asia for the last few decades
.
While I agree with your analysis on the difference between Hainan and Taiwan, as well as on the fact that the international community wouldn't just accept a Chinese invasion on Taiwan (despite it being fully legal according to established international law.), I do have to dispute you saying that the PRC/ROC situation isn't unique. In those other situation you mention (North and South Korea, East and West Germany etc.) both sides of the conflict have become widely and officially recognised as being legitimate states, and their governments are fine with being separate states for the moment even if their desire is to eventually re-unite with the other. The PRC and ROC do not want to re-unite ever, because they have never been apart. According to both of them, there is only one single country called China and they are its legitimate government. The ROC views the territory of China as indivisible and has no desire to ever become a separate state from the PRC. The PRC and ROC are rival governments within the same state, and that is a pretty unique situation to last for so long. Instead of comparing it to North and South Korea, it would be better to compare it to Syria or Yemen or any other place where you got multiple governments claiming authority over the same state. The unique aspect of the PRC/ROC conflict is the duration of the conflict and the way it has 'gone cold'.
It being fully legal under international law is basically worthless though, that's the point. No country around China is going to care that the annihilation of an independent neighbour was technically legal.
Widely and officially recognized? Taiwan once was a lot more widely and officially recognized before China started pushing through its One China policy.
That is wrong. Taiwan has never been recognised by anyone as a country. China is recognised as a country, not Taiwan. I know you are just using Taiwan as an alternative name for the ROC and that I am just being a nazi on semantics here, but it is a very important distinction to make. And the One China policy isn't just a PRC thing either. It is used by the ROC as well.
Again, it is important to use names properly here. Taiwan has never been on the security council, it is not even a country. China's seat has only ever been held by China. The only thing that changed is which Chinese government sat on the chair. The PRC usurped the seat from the ROC just like Russia usurped the seat from the Soviet Union. Same state, different government.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Furthermore, countries such as North Korea and North Vietnam never accepted the existence of their Southern counterpart. Neither were fine with it, as 1950 and 1975 had shown. They were as fine with it as the PRC is with the ROC/Taiwan existing. They don't like it, but any conflict would spectacularly backfire. The PRC and the ROC do want to re-unite, they just have different ideas about that reunification in mind. Germany was actually the unique case in that sense, as both countries voluntarily came back together. If you ask North Korea for example, you won't get them to recognize South Korea as the legitimate government, just as the PRC doesn't recognize the ROC.
Yeah, I may have worded that poorly. What I meant is that they implicitly or explicitly recognised there being such a thing as South and North Korea or East and West Germany, and both sides got widely recognised by the rest of the world. In contrast, here there is no North and South China, or Mainland and Taiwan China (maybe in Western media only). To both PRC and ROC there is simply one indivisible Chinese state with one single government, not two states with each their own government within a single country such as with Korea and Germany.
Disciple of Fate wrote: The key difference is that China had the economic power to push Taiwan out of diplomatic recognition, a power North Korea never managed to wield. The general public views North and South Korea as separate countries, just like it views Taiwan and China as separate countries. The legal and diplomatic wrangling is mostly for show, as their are plenty of contacts and economic interaction with Taiwan. So no, it is not very unique, the only way we see it as unique is because of the fact that Taiwan can never let the pretense of being together fall, as it would mean Chinese invasion. West Germany and South Korea could, as there were plenty of US troops stationed in both countries to protect them. But US protection is not a guaranteed certainty Taiwan has the luxury of having. For all other intents and purposes it is the same as other divided countries.
Yes and no. You are forgetting the One China policy was an ROC thing as much as it was a PRC thing. It is only recently that both have begun to soften up a little bit. But regardless of how the PRC came to be the widely recognised Chinese government, the fact that there is only one recognised Chinese government makes it different from Korea, Vietnam and Germany where there are or were two widely recognised governments.
Disciple of Fate wrote: And no, comparing it to Syria or Yemen is not really that great, they are both relatively new civil wars fought for entirely different reasons and stil ongoing. The PRC/ROC conflict fits much better in the context of the Cold War conflicts in the region between the ROV/SROV and between the DPRK/ROK. None of the three civil wars in these East Asian countries were solved peacefully and have similar histories. All neighbours tried to forcefully annex the US supported counterpart. The only difference is that the SROV managed to win its war in the long term in 1975. The PRC hoped that with the end of the Cold War and reduced commitments by the US to the ROC it might imitate the succes of the SROV and tested the waters so to speak, yet the US was still prepared to hold up the status of Taiwan in the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis. So no, I don't think Syria or Yemen are a good comparison. Neither opposition group in Yemen or Syria has had the length of being practically independent, the stability and construction of independent institutions that Taiwan has had. The PRC/ROC and DPRK/ROK conflicts have both been frozen for the good part of 60 years with some 'minor' incidents. Both the DPRK and PRC developed nuclear weapons, while their US supported counterparts felt relatively secure not to have to. The US has supported both the ROC and ROK with military support. The only really big difference is the succes of the One China policy in getting the world to 'think' that Taiwan is not a 'real' country. If North Korea had the economic power China did, we might now not be thinking of South Korea as a 'real' country.
You have some good points, but I still won't say the PRC/ROC situation is similar to other Cold War divisions (and not just because it actually predates the Cold War). Before 1970 the situation was indeed quite similar, but after that it became pretty much unique. Again, there we had 2 different, both recognised and internationally supported states facing off. Here we have a government fighting against a rebel movement consisting of loyalists to the previous regime (or a government fighting communist rebels if you will). A well-organised rebel movement, but like ISIS or the Kurds in Syria and Iraq (which also have official institutions and state-like organisation) not a recognised, separate state. If Syria had never seen foreign intervention (or foreign intervention on both sides), we might have very well seen a seperate development as in China, where the civil war slows down and eventually freezes entirely, leading to different, relatively stable governments ruling in different parts of the same state. Libya is actually pretty close to that already. It just lacks the stability, but that may come in time just as it did in China. As you say, the only big difference may be that the ROC is not a real country, but to me that seems indeed a pretty big difference that makes this situation unique.
JohnHwangDD wrote: I love how people think that the US taking a dozen nukes is no big deal. Are you guys drinking Trump's Kool-Aid?
Catastrophic yes.
Total Annihilation? Not even close. Only Russia has the nuclear arsenal to wipe out the US.
As mentioned, China's nukes would only reach the western half of the US. And with only a dozen to play with, you'll looking at only destroying 12 metropolitan centers. And thats if they all make it without any technical difficulties.
And realistically, many cities would take several nukes to actually destroy. San Francisco+Oakland would take 3 or so. One for north San Fran, one for further south because that part is shielded by some mountains from the north part. One for Oakland. One more if you want to hit San Jose too. One for Sacramento. 3-4 for Los Angeles and it's surrounding cities. That's 8-9 nukes already and you're only hitting California. You still have Washington, Oregon, Alaska, and a bunch of other states.
12 nukes along the West Coast would be enough to ruin that half of the US. It might not be actually blown up, but it is highly irradiated and unlivable.
sebster wrote: Lots of parts of the world used to be controlled by lots of other countries. A large chunk of France used to be under the British crown. Does that mean the UK can drop troops in Normandy tomorrow, arguing its a province that came under the control of a rival government? The mindset you've arguing for is very fething dangerous, and opens the door for a return to the bad old days of old historical grievances being used to justify wars of conquest, behaviour that frequently lead to escalation and fights between major powers, a situation we cannot have in this nuclear age. That people like you think thoughts like that is exactly why the global community must be committed to protecting the sovereignty of international borders.
France is not Britain. The Republic of China and the People's Republic of China are both China. They are the same country, just locked in a frozen civil war between rival governments, of which only one is widely recognised as being a legitimate government internationally. You totally can not compare that with Britain and France, both of which have been seperate, recognised and independent states since the moment states became a thing. Britain and France are different countries. China and Taiwan are not different countries. Taiwan is not a country. It is an island that is part of China and has never been an independent country. Huge difference. What you are arguing simply does not apply, the PRC/ROC situation is pretty unique in the world. If China were to land troops on Taiwan tomorrow, it would not violate international law or set bad precedents for anything. It simply would be a continuation of a civil war that began in the 1920's. When the PRC took Hainain from the ROC in 1950, nobody argued that it would set a precedent for Britain invading France. Why would it be different if the PRC took Taiwan from the ROC? What makes Taiwan so different from Hainan?
This is very much underestimating current international relations in East Asia. You're also underestimating the PRC being the legitimate international government versus not recognizing the ROC or Taiwan as a separate independent entity. Yes technically the PRC is the only official government, mostly because of China's One China policy, which forces countries to cut loose Taiwan for political and economic considerations. This would not at all mean that the PRC can just invade and kill off Taiwan as a separate entity. Other countries such as Israel in the current day, were or aren't universally internationally recognized. That does not mean the international community is open to the idea of letting them get invaded or wiped out. Most countries still have plenty of informal relations with Taiwan.
The PRC/ROC situation was never that unique, the only unique part is the sheer size and economic power China can wield internationally. A number of countries that fell to civil war or were divided due to civil war did not have an immediate and final conclusion, with both parts managing to exist. North and South Korea, West and East Germany, Sudan and (the new) South Sudan or North and South Vietnam. Civil wars can easily remain frozen or entirely put on ice, that does not mean the international community wouldn't blink an eye at a sudden hostile action undertaken by one side, especially in such a diplomatically volatile region as East Asia. Most countries just accept the One China policy because it is beneficial, but they wouldn't just roll over to aggressive annexation of an 'informally' independent country. It would set an incredibly bad precedent internationally to just let China take over Taiwan. Now no country in the region would feel safe from China. The South China Sea Disputes are already increasing tensions and leading to a (semi) arms race in the region. The annexation of Taiwan would really set things off.
What Sebster is arguing does apply. International politics and laws are really about feelings or 'the spirit' of the laws for independent countries. It doesn't mean that once China invades Taiwan they will look at the laws and go ''well that doesn't violate anything'' and walk away whistling. It opens it up to all kinds of exceptions and back door actions. Mongolia used to be a 'part' of China and broke off just like Tibet after the fall of the Qing. The only thing that saved Mongolia from the fate of Tibet was its relation with the Soviet Union and it being communist. What if China would suddenly decide if Mongolia was just a breakaway province in a civil war that was a core part of what constitutes 'China'? What if China starts expanding the One China doctrine to include parts it considers historically Chinese? This is what China basically did with Taiwan, use its power to refuse international recognition, which critically it did use to have. If this is followed by hostile annexation of Taiwan in the current day, what country neighbouring China will not get nervous? What if they are next in line for being pushed out? International law means nothing for countries if they are next to a belligerent neighbour who just violently annexed another independent neighbour, regardless of any weird international limbo.
Hainan is different because it was on the tail end of a successful PRC victory and the Cold War. But the PRC victory was almost 70 years ago and the last 'real' conflict (Second Taiwan Strait Crisis) almost 60 years. That is the difference between Hainan and Taiwan. Times and expectations change, the Cold War is over, Mao is dead, war would be a massive departure from the semi peaceful relations in East Asia for the last few decades
.
While I agree with your analysis on the difference between Hainan and Taiwan, as well as on the fact that the international community wouldn't just accept a Chinese invasion on Taiwan (despite it being fully legal according to established international law.), I do have to dispute you saying that the PRC/ROC situation isn't unique. In those other situation you mention (North and South Korea, East and West Germany etc.) both sides of the conflict have become widely and officially recognised as being legitimate states, and their governments are fine with being separate states for the moment even if their desire is to eventually re-unite with the other. The PRC and ROC do not want to re-unite ever, because they have never been apart. According to both of them, there is only one single country called China and they are its legitimate government. The ROC views the territory of China as indivisible and has no desire to ever become a separate state from the PRC. The PRC and ROC are rival governments within the same state, and that is a pretty unique situation to last for so long. Instead of comparing it to North and South Korea, it would be better to compare it to Syria or Yemen or any other place where you got multiple governments claiming authority over the same state. The unique aspect of the PRC/ROC conflict is the duration of the conflict and the way it has 'gone cold'.
It being fully legal under international law is basically worthless though, that's the point. No country around China is going to care that the annihilation of an independent neighbour was technically legal.
Widely and officially recognized? Taiwan once was a lot more widely and officially recognized before China started pushing through its One China policy.
That is wrong. Taiwan has never been recognised by anyone as a country. China is recognised as a country, not Taiwan. I know you are just using Taiwan as an alternative name for the ROC and that I am just being a nazi on semantics here, but it is a very important distinction to make. And the One China policy isn't just a PRC thing either. It is used by the ROC as well.
I'm afraid it isn't. Its just engaging in useless semantics. Following your logic China was never officially recognized as its true name is the People's Republic of China. China as a country does therefore technically not 'exist' just like Taiwan. Taiwan, or the ROC if you want to stand on useless semantics, did use to have international recognition. The ROC or Taiwan is the same entity, just because it would one day possibly refer to itself by a different name does not mean it ceases to be a country.
And I did mention that the ROC also considers themselves the legitimate China, that's why they used to claim Mongolia. Taiwan is just too small relatively speaking to properly enforce its One China policy. Although in cases like the South China Sea they actually kind of work together by acknowledging both their claims are valid under the One China policy.
Again, it is important to use names properly here. Taiwan has never been on the security council, it is not even a country. China's seat has only ever been held by China. The only thing that changed is which Chinese government sat on the chair. The PRC usurped the seat from the ROC just like Russia usurped the seat from the Soviet Union. Same state, different government.
Again, useless semantics. The ROC was pushed out in favor of the PRC, it was never a transition like the SU-Russia seat, The SU ceased to exist, Taiwan/ROC is still very much alive and kicking. The seat of 'China' has been held by both the ROC and the PRC. Different states, same territorial claims. For all intents and purposes Taiwan was recognized and held a seat on the Security Council. International politics and diplomacy forced out Taiwan. That begs the question though, does UN recognition make a country? I would argue that there is more to it, yet it does help to illustrate that it is bonkers to act as if Taiwan does not exist as a country. Did China/PRC not exist before 1971?
Disciple of Fate wrote: Furthermore, countries such as North Korea and North Vietnam never accepted the existence of their Southern counterpart. Neither were fine with it, as 1950 and 1975 had shown. They were as fine with it as the PRC is with the ROC/Taiwan existing. They don't like it, but any conflict would spectacularly backfire. The PRC and the ROC do want to re-unite, they just have different ideas about that reunification in mind. Germany was actually the unique case in that sense, as both countries voluntarily came back together. If you ask North Korea for example, you won't get them to recognize South Korea as the legitimate government, just as the PRC doesn't recognize the ROC.
Yeah, I may have worded that poorly. What I meant is that they implicitly or explicitly recognised there being such a thing as South and North Korea or East and West Germany, and both sides got widely recognised by the rest of the world. In contrast, here there is no North and South China, or Mainland and Taiwan China (maybe in Western media only). To both PRC and ROC there is simply one indivisible Chinese state with one single government, not two states with each their own government within a single country such as with Korea and Germany.
Yes and the reason North and South Korea and others had such recognition was the Cold War. The 'West' for all intents and purposes does not like to withdraw recognition all that easily. Taiwan had the same kind of recognition during the Cold War that was only later withdrawn for geopolitical importance. If the 'West' withdraws recognition of North Korea does it stop being a country? Because that is basically what happened to Taiwan. When it was kicked from the UN not every country just stopped recognizing them, the US only did so in 1979. So did that mean two China's existed between 1971-1979 or is international recognition just a terrible metric for statehood? Its like the PRC is arguing that if we believe hard enough then Taiwan does not exist anymore. But it did and it still does, even though internationally states tend to look the other way. North Korea treats the South very much in the same way, yet internationally we don't care about North Korea, so South Korea gets to be a country. If China was not this giant economy the international community would have a much easier time ignoring the One China policy.
This also avoids the issue of Taiwanese independence, plenty of Taiwanese believe Taiwan should just declare itself independent. But they realistically can't because the last time those sentiments were possibly rising the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis showed that China was still very much belligerent over it. If the Taiwanese government declared itself independent tomorrow, would you recognize it as a country?
Disciple of Fate wrote: The key difference is that China had the economic power to push Taiwan out of diplomatic recognition, a power North Korea never managed to wield. The general public views North and South Korea as separate countries, just like it views Taiwan and China as separate countries. The legal and diplomatic wrangling is mostly for show, as their are plenty of contacts and economic interaction with Taiwan. So no, it is not very unique, the only way we see it as unique is because of the fact that Taiwan can never let the pretense of being together fall, as it would mean Chinese invasion. West Germany and South Korea could, as there were plenty of US troops stationed in both countries to protect them. But US protection is not a guaranteed certainty Taiwan has the luxury of having. For all other intents and purposes it is the same as other divided countries.
Yes and no. You are forgetting the One China policy was an ROC thing as much as it was a PRC thing. It is only recently that both have begun to soften up a little bit. But regardless of how the PRC came to be the widely recognised Chinese government, the fact that there is only one recognised Chinese government makes it different from Korea, Vietnam and Germany where there are or were two widely recognised governments.
I wasn't though, plenty of countries have held to the idea that both parts are indivisible. Even South Korea still has government agencies that are 'running' the area under the control of North Korea. The only exceptional part is that Taiwan still holds to it today so strongly. But as mentioned earlier this is also partly about the desire not to commit national suicide over a meaningless difference about having 'independence' when Taiwan is already independent in all but name.
Again, the recognition makes very little difference. If everyone withdraws recognition from Russia and gives some random guy the title of head of the real government, does Russia stop existing as the entity that occupies the current territory? All the other countries are doing is paying lip service to the PRC, in the big picture it barely makes a difference. There is plenty of trade and interaction with the 'illegal' government on Taiwan.
Disciple of Fate wrote: And no, comparing it to Syria or Yemen is not really that great, they are both relatively new civil wars fought for entirely different reasons and stil ongoing. The PRC/ROC conflict fits much better in the context of the Cold War conflicts in the region between the ROV/SROV and between the DPRK/ROK. None of the three civil wars in these East Asian countries were solved peacefully and have similar histories. All neighbours tried to forcefully annex the US supported counterpart. The only difference is that the SROV managed to win its war in the long term in 1975. The PRC hoped that with the end of the Cold War and reduced commitments by the US to the ROC it might imitate the succes of the SROV and tested the waters so to speak, yet the US was still prepared to hold up the status of Taiwan in the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis. So no, I don't think Syria or Yemen are a good comparison. Neither opposition group in Yemen or Syria has had the length of being practically independent, the stability and construction of independent institutions that Taiwan has had. The PRC/ROC and DPRK/ROK conflicts have both been frozen for the good part of 60 years with some 'minor' incidents. Both the DPRK and PRC developed nuclear weapons, while their US supported counterparts felt relatively secure not to have to. The US has supported both the ROC and ROK with military support. The only really big difference is the succes of the One China policy in getting the world to 'think' that Taiwan is not a 'real' country. If North Korea had the economic power China did, we might now not be thinking of South Korea as a 'real' country.
You have some good points, but I still won't say the PRC/ROC situation is similar to other Cold War divisions (and not just because it actually predates the Cold War). Before 1970 the situation was indeed quite similar, but after that it became pretty much unique. Again, there we had 2 different, both recognised and internationally supported states facing off. Here we have a government fighting against a rebel movement consisting of loyalists to the previous regime (or a government fighting communist rebels if you will). A well-organised rebel movement, but like ISIS or the Kurds in Syria and Iraq (which also have official institutions and state-like organisation) not a recognised, separate state. If Syria had never seen foreign intervention (or foreign intervention on both sides), we might have very well seen a seperate development as in China, where the civil war slows down and eventually freezes entirely, leading to different, relatively stable governments ruling in different parts of the same state. Libya is actually pretty close to that already. It just lacks the stability, but that may come in time just as it did in China. As you say, the only big difference may be that the ROC is not a real country, but to me that seems indeed a pretty big difference that makes this situation unique.
No, you're ignoring the fact that both in Vietnam and Korea the insurgencies led by Ho and Il-sung predated the Cold War. Yet both North Korea and North Vietnam are included in the context of the Cold War and the Taiwan-China split is also an inherent part of the Cold War. The only difference you keep hammering on is international recognition, which is basically meaningless. Again, you could withdraw it from any country tomorrow, then what? You're describing every communist insurgency, Mao was fighting the state, Ho was fighting the state and so was Il-Sung. Taiwan used to be internationally recognized, it is a country. Comparing them to ISIS or the Kurds brings with it massive historical blind spots on how it used to be. ISIS never had international recognition and neither have the Kurds (although less clear cut than ISIS). If we withdraw international recognition from Assad tomorrow, he doesn't suddenly turn into a 'well-organised rebel movement', they will be the old state, no longer recognized but still in existence. Also to add, the Taiwan-China conflict froze like this exactly because of foreign intervention. US aid really saved the ROC after it got beaten and had to retreat to Taiwan. When you make this comparison for Syria-Taiwan 'civil war slows down and eventually freezes entirely', you're also describing South Korea and South Vietnam. They were frozen due to foreign intervention that has saved South Korea to survive until this day, although lack of support led to one Vietnam. The comparison to Libya and Syria really loses the essence of the PRC-ROC conflict put into the context of the Cold War. The comparisons to the Koreas and Vietnams really serves to make a better comparison, both as a time in history, politically and geographically.
This narrow focus on international recognition leads to dangerous tendencies of exceptions and reasoning why the other isn't a state. You forget my use of air quotes around 'real'. For all intents and purposes Taiwan is a real country, the only thing it doesn't have is other countries saying it is, which is a terrible metric and has been used by aggressive states throughout history to wipe out their newly formed neighbours.
feeder wrote: 12 nukes along the West Coast would be enough to ruin that half of the US. It might not be actually blown up, but it is highly irradiated and unlivable.
Portions would still be fine. Hiroshima and Nagasaki aren't exactly nuclear hellholes. Even accounting for these being much larger bombs, the devastation wouldn't be as bad as post-apocalyptic video games and movies would lead us to believe.
You'd really just be looking at a hundred or so miles around each blast zone, with modifications for terrain. Mountains are good shields. Fallout damage is bad and causes cancer, but it's a relatively minor threat. Chernobyl is actually a thriving ecosystem(with a higher mutation and cancer rate for the flora and fauna of course, but they're getting along OK)
Radiation is bad, but its not as bad as video games and Hollywood says it is. The Fallout games should be lush ecosystems, with a lot of mutations.
sebster wrote: Lots of parts of the world used to be controlled by lots of other countries. A large chunk of France used to be under the British crown. Does that mean the UK can drop troops in Normandy tomorrow, arguing its a province that came under the control of a rival government?
The mindset you've arguing for is very fething dangerous, and opens the door for a return to the bad old days of old historical grievances being used to justify wars of conquest, behaviour that frequently lead to escalation and fights between major powers, a situation we cannot have in this nuclear age. That people like you think thoughts like that is exactly why the global community must be committed to protecting the sovereignty of international borders.
France is not Britain. The Republic of China and the People's Republic of China are both China. They are the same country, just locked in a frozen civil war between rival governments, of which only one is widely recognised as being a legitimate government internationally. You totally can not compare that with Britain and France, both of which have been seperate, recognised and independent states since the moment states became a thing.
Britain and France are different countries. China and Taiwan are not different countries. Taiwan is not a country. It is an island that is part of China and has never been an independent country. Huge difference. What you are arguing simply does not apply, the PRC/ROC situation is pretty unique in the world. If China were to land troops on Taiwan tomorrow, it would not violate international law or set bad precedents for anything. It simply would be a continuation of a civil war that began in the 1920's. When the PRC took Hainain from the ROC in 1950, nobody argued that it would set a precedent for Britain invading France. Why would it be different if the PRC took Taiwan from the ROC? What makes Taiwan so different from Hainan?
This is very much underestimating current international relations in East Asia. You're also underestimating the PRC being the legitimate international government versus not recognizing the ROC or Taiwan as a separate independent entity. Yes technically the PRC is the only official government, mostly because of China's One China policy, which forces countries to cut loose Taiwan for political and economic considerations. This would not at all mean that the PRC can just invade and kill off Taiwan as a separate entity. Other countries such as Israel in the current day, were or aren't universally internationally recognized. That does not mean the international community is open to the idea of letting them get invaded or wiped out. Most countries still have plenty of informal relations with Taiwan.
The PRC/ROC situation was never that unique, the only unique part is the sheer size and economic power China can wield internationally. A number of countries that fell to civil war or were divided due to civil war did not have an immediate and final conclusion, with both parts managing to exist. North and South Korea, West and East Germany, Sudan and (the new) South Sudan or North and South Vietnam. Civil wars can easily remain frozen or entirely put on ice, that does not mean the international community wouldn't blink an eye at a sudden hostile action undertaken by one side, especially in such a diplomatically volatile region as East Asia. Most countries just accept the One China policy because it is beneficial, but they wouldn't just roll over to aggressive annexation of an 'informally' independent country. It would set an incredibly bad precedent internationally to just let China take over Taiwan. Now no country in the region would feel safe from China. The South China Sea Disputes are already increasing tensions and leading to a (semi) arms race in the region. The annexation of Taiwan would really set things off.
What Sebster is arguing does apply. International politics and laws are really about feelings or 'the spirit' of the laws for independent countries. It doesn't mean that once China invades Taiwan they will look at the laws and go ''well that doesn't violate anything'' and walk away whistling. It opens it up to all kinds of exceptions and back door actions. Mongolia used to be a 'part' of China and broke off just like Tibet after the fall of the Qing. The only thing that saved Mongolia from the fate of Tibet was its relation with the Soviet Union and it being communist. What if China would suddenly decide if Mongolia was just a breakaway province in a civil war that was a core part of what constitutes 'China'? What if China starts expanding the One China doctrine to include parts it considers historically Chinese? This is what China basically did with Taiwan, use its power to refuse international recognition, which critically it did use to have. If this is followed by hostile annexation of Taiwan in the current day, what country neighbouring China will not get nervous? What if they are next in line for being pushed out? International law means nothing for countries if they are next to a belligerent neighbour who just violently annexed another independent neighbour, regardless of any weird international limbo.
Hainan is different because it was on the tail end of a successful PRC victory and the Cold War. But the PRC victory was almost 70 years ago and the last 'real' conflict (Second Taiwan Strait Crisis) almost 60 years. That is the difference between Hainan and Taiwan. Times and expectations change, the Cold War is over, Mao is dead, war would be a massive departure from the semi peaceful relations in East Asia for the last few decades.
While I agree with your analysis on the difference between Hainan and Taiwan, as well as on the fact that the international community wouldn't just accept a Chinese invasion on Taiwan (despite it being fully legal according to established international law.), I do have to dispute you saying that the PRC/ROC situation isn't unique. In those other situation you mention (North and South Korea, East and West Germany etc.) both sides of the conflict have become widely and officially recognised as being legitimate states, and their governments are fine with being separate states for the moment even if their desire is to eventually re-unite with the other. The PRC and ROC do not want to re-unite ever, because they have never been apart. According to both of them, there is only one single country called China and they are its legitimate government. The ROC views the territory of China as indivisible and has no desire to ever become a separate state from the PRC. The PRC and ROC are rival governments within the same state, and that is a pretty unique situation to last for so long. Instead of comparing it to North and South Korea, it would be better to compare it to Syria or Yemen or any other place where you got multiple governments claiming authority over the same state. The unique aspect of the PRC/ROC conflict is the duration of the conflict and the way it has 'gone cold'.
It being fully legal under international law is basically worthless though, that's the point. No country around China is going to care that the annihilation of an independent neighbour was technically legal.
Widely and officially recognized? Taiwan once was a lot more widely and officially recognized before China started pushing through its One China policy.
That is wrong. Taiwan has never been recognised by anyone as a country. China is recognised as a country, not Taiwan. I know you are just using Taiwan as an alternative name for the ROC and that I am just being a nazi on semantics here, but it is a very important distinction to make.
And the One China policy isn't just a PRC thing either. It is used by the ROC as well.
I'm afraid it isn't. Its just engaging in useless semantics. Following your logic China was never officially recognized as its true name is the People's Republic of China. China as a country does therefore technically not 'exist' just like Taiwan. Taiwan, or the ROC if you want to stand on useless semantics, did use to have international recognition. The ROC or Taiwan is the same entity, just because it would one day possibly refer to itself by a different name does not mean it ceases to be a country.
And I did mention that the ROC also considers themselves the legitimate China, that's why they used to claim Mongolia. Taiwan is just too small relatively speaking to properly enforce its One China policy. Although in cases like the South China Sea they actually kind of work together by acknowledging both their claims are valid under the One China policy.
Again, it is important to use names properly here. Taiwan has never been on the security council, it is not even a country. China's seat has only ever been held by China. The only thing that changed is which Chinese government sat on the chair. The PRC usurped the seat from the ROC just like Russia usurped the seat from the Soviet Union. Same state, different government.
Again, useless semantics. The ROC was pushed out in favor of the PRC, it was never a transition like the SU-Russia seat, The SU ceased to exist, Taiwan/ROC is still very much alive and kicking. The seat of 'China' has been held by both the ROC and the PRC. Different states, same territorial claims. For all intents and purposes Taiwan was recognized and held a seat on the Security Council. International politics and diplomacy forced out Taiwan. That begs the question though, does UN recognition make a country? I would argue that there is more to it, yet it does help to illustrate that it is bonkers to act as if Taiwan does not exist as a country. Did China/PRC not exist before 1971?
Disciple of Fate wrote: Furthermore, countries such as North Korea and North Vietnam never accepted the existence of their Southern counterpart. Neither were fine with it, as 1950 and 1975 had shown. They were as fine with it as the PRC is with the ROC/Taiwan existing. They don't like it, but any conflict would spectacularly backfire. The PRC and the ROC do want to re-unite, they just have different ideas about that reunification in mind. Germany was actually the unique case in that sense, as both countries voluntarily came back together. If you ask North Korea for example, you won't get them to recognize South Korea as the legitimate government, just as the PRC doesn't recognize the ROC.
Yeah, I may have worded that poorly. What I meant is that they implicitly or explicitly recognised there being such a thing as South and North Korea or East and West Germany, and both sides got widely recognised by the rest of the world. In contrast, here there is no North and South China, or Mainland and Taiwan China (maybe in Western media only). To both PRC and ROC there is simply one indivisible Chinese state with one single government, not two states with each their own government within a single country such as with Korea and Germany.
Yes and the reason North and South Korea and others had such recognition was the Cold War. The 'West' for all intents and purposes does not like to withdraw recognition all that easily. Taiwan had the same kind of recognition during the Cold War that was only later withdrawn for geopolitical importance. If the 'West' withdraws recognition of North Korea does it stop being a country? Because that is basically what happened to Taiwan. When it was kicked from the UN not every country just stopped recognizing them, the US only did so in 1979. So did that mean two China's existed between 1971-1979 or is international recognition just a terrible metric for statehood? Its like the PRC is arguing that if we believe hard enough then Taiwan does not exist anymore. But it did and it still does, even though internationally states tend to look the other way. North Korea treats the South very much in the same way, yet internationally we don't care about North Korea, so South Korea gets to be a country. If China was not this giant economy the international community would have a much easier time ignoring the One China policy.
This also avoids the issue of Taiwanese independence, plenty of Taiwanese believe Taiwan should just declare itself independent. But they realistically can't because the last time those sentiments were possibly rising the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis showed that China was still very much belligerent over it. If the Taiwanese government declared itself independent tomorrow, would you recognize it as a country?
Disciple of Fate wrote: The key difference is that China had the economic power to push Taiwan out of diplomatic recognition, a power North Korea never managed to wield. The general public views North and South Korea as separate countries, just like it views Taiwan and China as separate countries. The legal and diplomatic wrangling is mostly for show, as their are plenty of contacts and economic interaction with Taiwan. So no, it is not very unique, the only way we see it as unique is because of the fact that Taiwan can never let the pretense of being together fall, as it would mean Chinese invasion. West Germany and South Korea could, as there were plenty of US troops stationed in both countries to protect them. But US protection is not a guaranteed certainty Taiwan has the luxury of having. For all other intents and purposes it is the same as other divided countries.
Yes and no. You are forgetting the One China policy was an ROC thing as much as it was a PRC thing. It is only recently that both have begun to soften up a little bit. But regardless of how the PRC came to be the widely recognised Chinese government, the fact that there is only one recognised Chinese government makes it different from Korea, Vietnam and Germany where there are or were two widely recognised governments.
I wasn't though, plenty of countries have held to the idea that both parts are indivisible. Even South Korea still has government agencies that are 'running' the area under the control of North Korea. The only exceptional part is that Taiwan still holds to it today so strongly. But as mentioned earlier this is also partly about the desire not to commit national suicide over a meaningless difference about having 'independence' when Taiwan is already independent in all but name.
Again, the recognition makes very little difference. If everyone withdraws recognition from Russia and gives some random guy the title of head of the real government, does Russia stop existing as the entity that occupies the current territory? All the other countries are doing is paying lip service to the PRC, in the big picture it barely makes a difference. There is plenty of trade and interaction with the 'illegal' government on Taiwan.
Disciple of Fate wrote: And no, comparing it to Syria or Yemen is not really that great, they are both relatively new civil wars fought for entirely different reasons and stil ongoing. The PRC/ROC conflict fits much better in the context of the Cold War conflicts in the region between the ROV/SROV and between the DPRK/ROK. None of the three civil wars in these East Asian countries were solved peacefully and have similar histories. All neighbours tried to forcefully annex the US supported counterpart. The only difference is that the SROV managed to win its war in the long term in 1975. The PRC hoped that with the end of the Cold War and reduced commitments by the US to the ROC it might imitate the succes of the SROV and tested the waters so to speak, yet the US was still prepared to hold up the status of Taiwan in the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis. So no, I don't think Syria or Yemen are a good comparison. Neither opposition group in Yemen or Syria has had the length of being practically independent, the stability and construction of independent institutions that Taiwan has had. The PRC/ROC and DPRK/ROK conflicts have both been frozen for the good part of 60 years with some 'minor' incidents. Both the DPRK and PRC developed nuclear weapons, while their US supported counterparts felt relatively secure not to have to. The US has supported both the ROC and ROK with military support. The only really big difference is the succes of the One China policy in getting the world to 'think' that Taiwan is not a 'real' country. If North Korea had the economic power China did, we might now not be thinking of South Korea as a 'real' country.
You have some good points, but I still won't say the PRC/ROC situation is similar to other Cold War divisions (and not just because it actually predates the Cold War). Before 1970 the situation was indeed quite similar, but after that it became pretty much unique. Again, there we had 2 different, both recognised and internationally supported states facing off. Here we have a government fighting against a rebel movement consisting of loyalists to the previous regime (or a government fighting communist rebels if you will). A well-organised rebel movement, but like ISIS or the Kurds in Syria and Iraq (which also have official institutions and state-like organisation) not a recognised, separate state. If Syria had never seen foreign intervention (or foreign intervention on both sides), we might have very well seen a seperate development as in China, where the civil war slows down and eventually freezes entirely, leading to different, relatively stable governments ruling in different parts of the same state. Libya is actually pretty close to that already. It just lacks the stability, but that may come in time just as it did in China. As you say, the only big difference may be that the ROC is not a real country, but to me that seems indeed a pretty big difference that makes this situation unique.
No, you're ignoring the fact that both in Vietnam and Korea the insurgencies led by Ho and Il-sung predated the Cold War. Yet both North Korea and North Vietnam are included in the context of the Cold War and the Taiwan-China split is also an inherent part of the Cold War. The only difference you keep hammering on is international recognition, which is basically meaningless. Again, you could withdraw it from any country tomorrow, then what? You're describing every communist insurgency, Mao was fighting the state, Ho was fighting the state and so was Il-Sung. Taiwan used to be internationally recognized, it is a country. Comparing them to ISIS or the Kurds brings with it massive historical blind spots on how it used to be. ISIS never had international recognition and neither have the Kurds (although less clear cut than ISIS). If we withdraw international recognition from Assad tomorrow, he doesn't suddenly turn into a 'well-organised rebel movement', they will be the old state, no longer recognized but still in existence. Also to add, the Taiwan-China conflict froze like this exactly because of foreign intervention. US aid really saved the ROC after it got beaten and had to retreat to Taiwan. When you make this comparison for Syria-Taiwan 'civil war slows down and eventually freezes entirely', you're also describing South Korea and South Vietnam. They were frozen due to foreign intervention that has saved South Korea to survive until this day, although lack of support led to one Vietnam. The comparison to Libya and Syria really loses the essence of the PRC-ROC conflict put into the context of the Cold War. The comparisons to the Koreas and Vietnams really serves to make a better comparison, both as a time in history, politically and geographically.
This narrow focus on international recognition leads to dangerous tendencies of exceptions and reasoning why the other isn't a state. You forget my use of air quotes around 'real'. For all intents and purposes Taiwan is a real country, the only thing it doesn't have is other countries saying it is, which is a terrible metric and has been used by aggressive states throughout history to wipe out their newly formed neighbours.
Essentially, what you are saying is that international recognition is not important. International recognition however is hugely important for any country. It is what separates actual countries like Britain or the Netherlands from places like Transdnistria, Abkhazia or the ROC which exist in a sort of grey area and total jokes like the Principality of Sealand. A country is a purely social construct that only exists by virtue of being recognised by other countries as existing. Without being recognised, a country can not officially engage in diplomacy and relations with other countries or treat with them on an equal level. As you can imagine, this really prevents a country from actually being a country. Most of these places that aspire to being countries but do not have widespread recognition only can survive because they are supported by a powerful country.
Furthermore, recognition is not bestowed by the UN. Every country in the world individually has to recognise every other country in the world. That means that a country can exist for some countries, but not for others. For example, Paraguay does not recognise the People's Republic of China to be a country, while most of the world does. Does not being recognised by Paraguay mean that the PRC is not a country? Of course not. But in the hypothetical scenario that every single country in the world would stop recognising the PRC, then it would effectively stop existing as a country since it no longer would be able to do the things that countries are supposed to be doing. Of course, this would not mean that the PRC would disappear. It would still have control over its claimed territory. But not being recognised, it would be little different from a rebel movement or paramilitary group or any non-state actor holding territory, and them holding that territory would be illegal according to the customs of international law (which means a nice excuse for anyone wanting to do something about it). Of course, we all know that international law is usually just abandoned in favour of realpolitik, but at the moment it supports a great power's actions, then the great power is not going to ignore the opportunity. And this is why the whole legal status of Taiwan and all the semantics surrounding it matter. Because it provides China with a justification and a pretext for invading Taiwan, and because it makes it a lot harder for the US to do anything against it.
The comparison to the Koreas, Germanies and Vietnams doesn't work because while there were always two of those, there is only one China. Like it or not, but in terms of international law and diplomatic possibilities, that means a huge difference. The Cold War context is completely meaningless, since the Cold War is long since history. That goes for China, but also for Korea. You can't look at those in a Cold War context anymore, simply because they no longer are in a Cold War context. The Chinese and the Korean conflicts share a lot of similarities, yes. But more than there are similarities there are differences. Saying they are similar is simply not true.
sebster wrote: Lots of parts of the world used to be controlled by lots of other countries. A large chunk of France used to be under the British crown. Does that mean the UK can drop troops in Normandy tomorrow, arguing its a province that came under the control of a rival government?
The mindset you've arguing for is very fething dangerous, and opens the door for a return to the bad old days of old historical grievances being used to justify wars of conquest, behaviour that frequently lead to escalation and fights between major powers, a situation we cannot have in this nuclear age. That people like you think thoughts like that is exactly why the global community must be committed to protecting the sovereignty of international borders.
France is not Britain. The Republic of China and the People's Republic of China are both China. They are the same country, just locked in a frozen civil war between rival governments, of which only one is widely recognised as being a legitimate government internationally. You totally can not compare that with Britain and France, both of which have been seperate, recognised and independent states since the moment states became a thing.
Britain and France are different countries. China and Taiwan are not different countries. Taiwan is not a country. It is an island that is part of China and has never been an independent country. Huge difference. What you are arguing simply does not apply, the PRC/ROC situation is pretty unique in the world. If China were to land troops on Taiwan tomorrow, it would not violate international law or set bad precedents for anything. It simply would be a continuation of a civil war that began in the 1920's. When the PRC took Hainain from the ROC in 1950, nobody argued that it would set a precedent for Britain invading France. Why would it be different if the PRC took Taiwan from the ROC? What makes Taiwan so different from Hainan?
This is very much underestimating current international relations in East Asia. You're also underestimating the PRC being the legitimate international government versus not recognizing the ROC or Taiwan as a separate independent entity. Yes technically the PRC is the only official government, mostly because of China's One China policy, which forces countries to cut loose Taiwan for political and economic considerations. This would not at all mean that the PRC can just invade and kill off Taiwan as a separate entity. Other countries such as Israel in the current day, were or aren't universally internationally recognized. That does not mean the international community is open to the idea of letting them get invaded or wiped out. Most countries still have plenty of informal relations with Taiwan.
The PRC/ROC situation was never that unique, the only unique part is the sheer size and economic power China can wield internationally. A number of countries that fell to civil war or were divided due to civil war did not have an immediate and final conclusion, with both parts managing to exist. North and South Korea, West and East Germany, Sudan and (the new) South Sudan or North and South Vietnam. Civil wars can easily remain frozen or entirely put on ice, that does not mean the international community wouldn't blink an eye at a sudden hostile action undertaken by one side, especially in such a diplomatically volatile region as East Asia. Most countries just accept the One China policy because it is beneficial, but they wouldn't just roll over to aggressive annexation of an 'informally' independent country. It would set an incredibly bad precedent internationally to just let China take over Taiwan. Now no country in the region would feel safe from China. The South China Sea Disputes are already increasing tensions and leading to a (semi) arms race in the region. The annexation of Taiwan would really set things off.
What Sebster is arguing does apply. International politics and laws are really about feelings or 'the spirit' of the laws for independent countries. It doesn't mean that once China invades Taiwan they will look at the laws and go ''well that doesn't violate anything'' and walk away whistling. It opens it up to all kinds of exceptions and back door actions. Mongolia used to be a 'part' of China and broke off just like Tibet after the fall of the Qing. The only thing that saved Mongolia from the fate of Tibet was its relation with the Soviet Union and it being communist. What if China would suddenly decide if Mongolia was just a breakaway province in a civil war that was a core part of what constitutes 'China'? What if China starts expanding the One China doctrine to include parts it considers historically Chinese? This is what China basically did with Taiwan, use its power to refuse international recognition, which critically it did use to have. If this is followed by hostile annexation of Taiwan in the current day, what country neighbouring China will not get nervous? What if they are next in line for being pushed out? International law means nothing for countries if they are next to a belligerent neighbour who just violently annexed another independent neighbour, regardless of any weird international limbo.
Hainan is different because it was on the tail end of a successful PRC victory and the Cold War. But the PRC victory was almost 70 years ago and the last 'real' conflict (Second Taiwan Strait Crisis) almost 60 years. That is the difference between Hainan and Taiwan. Times and expectations change, the Cold War is over, Mao is dead, war would be a massive departure from the semi peaceful relations in East Asia for the last few decades.
While I agree with your analysis on the difference between Hainan and Taiwan, as well as on the fact that the international community wouldn't just accept a Chinese invasion on Taiwan (despite it being fully legal according to established international law.), I do have to dispute you saying that the PRC/ROC situation isn't unique. In those other situation you mention (North and South Korea, East and West Germany etc.) both sides of the conflict have become widely and officially recognised as being legitimate states, and their governments are fine with being separate states for the moment even if their desire is to eventually re-unite with the other. The PRC and ROC do not want to re-unite ever, because they have never been apart. According to both of them, there is only one single country called China and they are its legitimate government. The ROC views the territory of China as indivisible and has no desire to ever become a separate state from the PRC. The PRC and ROC are rival governments within the same state, and that is a pretty unique situation to last for so long. Instead of comparing it to North and South Korea, it would be better to compare it to Syria or Yemen or any other place where you got multiple governments claiming authority over the same state. The unique aspect of the PRC/ROC conflict is the duration of the conflict and the way it has 'gone cold'.
It being fully legal under international law is basically worthless though, that's the point. No country around China is going to care that the annihilation of an independent neighbour was technically legal.
Widely and officially recognized? Taiwan once was a lot more widely and officially recognized before China started pushing through its One China policy.
That is wrong. Taiwan has never been recognised by anyone as a country. China is recognised as a country, not Taiwan. I know you are just using Taiwan as an alternative name for the ROC and that I am just being a nazi on semantics here, but it is a very important distinction to make.
And the One China policy isn't just a PRC thing either. It is used by the ROC as well.
I'm afraid it isn't. Its just engaging in useless semantics. Following your logic China was never officially recognized as its true name is the People's Republic of China. China as a country does therefore technically not 'exist' just like Taiwan. Taiwan, or the ROC if you want to stand on useless semantics, did use to have international recognition. The ROC or Taiwan is the same entity, just because it would one day possibly refer to itself by a different name does not mean it ceases to be a country.
And I did mention that the ROC also considers themselves the legitimate China, that's why they used to claim Mongolia. Taiwan is just too small relatively speaking to properly enforce its One China policy. Although in cases like the South China Sea they actually kind of work together by acknowledging both their claims are valid under the One China policy.
Again, it is important to use names properly here. Taiwan has never been on the security council, it is not even a country. China's seat has only ever been held by China. The only thing that changed is which Chinese government sat on the chair. The PRC usurped the seat from the ROC just like Russia usurped the seat from the Soviet Union. Same state, different government.
Again, useless semantics. The ROC was pushed out in favor of the PRC, it was never a transition like the SU-Russia seat, The SU ceased to exist, Taiwan/ROC is still very much alive and kicking. The seat of 'China' has been held by both the ROC and the PRC. Different states, same territorial claims. For all intents and purposes Taiwan was recognized and held a seat on the Security Council. International politics and diplomacy forced out Taiwan. That begs the question though, does UN recognition make a country? I would argue that there is more to it, yet it does help to illustrate that it is bonkers to act as if Taiwan does not exist as a country. Did China/PRC not exist before 1971?
Disciple of Fate wrote: Furthermore, countries such as North Korea and North Vietnam never accepted the existence of their Southern counterpart. Neither were fine with it, as 1950 and 1975 had shown. They were as fine with it as the PRC is with the ROC/Taiwan existing. They don't like it, but any conflict would spectacularly backfire. The PRC and the ROC do want to re-unite, they just have different ideas about that reunification in mind. Germany was actually the unique case in that sense, as both countries voluntarily came back together. If you ask North Korea for example, you won't get them to recognize South Korea as the legitimate government, just as the PRC doesn't recognize the ROC.
Yeah, I may have worded that poorly. What I meant is that they implicitly or explicitly recognised there being such a thing as South and North Korea or East and West Germany, and both sides got widely recognised by the rest of the world. In contrast, here there is no North and South China, or Mainland and Taiwan China (maybe in Western media only). To both PRC and ROC there is simply one indivisible Chinese state with one single government, not two states with each their own government within a single country such as with Korea and Germany.
Yes and the reason North and South Korea and others had such recognition was the Cold War. The 'West' for all intents and purposes does not like to withdraw recognition all that easily. Taiwan had the same kind of recognition during the Cold War that was only later withdrawn for geopolitical importance. If the 'West' withdraws recognition of North Korea does it stop being a country? Because that is basically what happened to Taiwan. When it was kicked from the UN not every country just stopped recognizing them, the US only did so in 1979. So did that mean two China's existed between 1971-1979 or is international recognition just a terrible metric for statehood? Its like the PRC is arguing that if we believe hard enough then Taiwan does not exist anymore. But it did and it still does, even though internationally states tend to look the other way. North Korea treats the South very much in the same way, yet internationally we don't care about North Korea, so South Korea gets to be a country. If China was not this giant economy the international community would have a much easier time ignoring the One China policy.
This also avoids the issue of Taiwanese independence, plenty of Taiwanese believe Taiwan should just declare itself independent. But they realistically can't because the last time those sentiments were possibly rising the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis showed that China was still very much belligerent over it. If the Taiwanese government declared itself independent tomorrow, would you recognize it as a country?
Disciple of Fate wrote: The key difference is that China had the economic power to push Taiwan out of diplomatic recognition, a power North Korea never managed to wield. The general public views North and South Korea as separate countries, just like it views Taiwan and China as separate countries. The legal and diplomatic wrangling is mostly for show, as their are plenty of contacts and economic interaction with Taiwan. So no, it is not very unique, the only way we see it as unique is because of the fact that Taiwan can never let the pretense of being together fall, as it would mean Chinese invasion. West Germany and South Korea could, as there were plenty of US troops stationed in both countries to protect them. But US protection is not a guaranteed certainty Taiwan has the luxury of having. For all other intents and purposes it is the same as other divided countries.
Yes and no. You are forgetting the One China policy was an ROC thing as much as it was a PRC thing. It is only recently that both have begun to soften up a little bit. But regardless of how the PRC came to be the widely recognised Chinese government, the fact that there is only one recognised Chinese government makes it different from Korea, Vietnam and Germany where there are or were two widely recognised governments.
I wasn't though, plenty of countries have held to the idea that both parts are indivisible. Even South Korea still has government agencies that are 'running' the area under the control of North Korea. The only exceptional part is that Taiwan still holds to it today so strongly. But as mentioned earlier this is also partly about the desire not to commit national suicide over a meaningless difference about having 'independence' when Taiwan is already independent in all but name.
Again, the recognition makes very little difference. If everyone withdraws recognition from Russia and gives some random guy the title of head of the real government, does Russia stop existing as the entity that occupies the current territory? All the other countries are doing is paying lip service to the PRC, in the big picture it barely makes a difference. There is plenty of trade and interaction with the 'illegal' government on Taiwan.
Disciple of Fate wrote: And no, comparing it to Syria or Yemen is not really that great, they are both relatively new civil wars fought for entirely different reasons and stil ongoing. The PRC/ROC conflict fits much better in the context of the Cold War conflicts in the region between the ROV/SROV and between the DPRK/ROK. None of the three civil wars in these East Asian countries were solved peacefully and have similar histories. All neighbours tried to forcefully annex the US supported counterpart. The only difference is that the SROV managed to win its war in the long term in 1975. The PRC hoped that with the end of the Cold War and reduced commitments by the US to the ROC it might imitate the succes of the SROV and tested the waters so to speak, yet the US was still prepared to hold up the status of Taiwan in the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis. So no, I don't think Syria or Yemen are a good comparison. Neither opposition group in Yemen or Syria has had the length of being practically independent, the stability and construction of independent institutions that Taiwan has had. The PRC/ROC and DPRK/ROK conflicts have both been frozen for the good part of 60 years with some 'minor' incidents. Both the DPRK and PRC developed nuclear weapons, while their US supported counterparts felt relatively secure not to have to. The US has supported both the ROC and ROK with military support. The only really big difference is the succes of the One China policy in getting the world to 'think' that Taiwan is not a 'real' country. If North Korea had the economic power China did, we might now not be thinking of South Korea as a 'real' country.
You have some good points, but I still won't say the PRC/ROC situation is similar to other Cold War divisions (and not just because it actually predates the Cold War). Before 1970 the situation was indeed quite similar, but after that it became pretty much unique. Again, there we had 2 different, both recognised and internationally supported states facing off. Here we have a government fighting against a rebel movement consisting of loyalists to the previous regime (or a government fighting communist rebels if you will). A well-organised rebel movement, but like ISIS or the Kurds in Syria and Iraq (which also have official institutions and state-like organisation) not a recognised, separate state. If Syria had never seen foreign intervention (or foreign intervention on both sides), we might have very well seen a seperate development as in China, where the civil war slows down and eventually freezes entirely, leading to different, relatively stable governments ruling in different parts of the same state. Libya is actually pretty close to that already. It just lacks the stability, but that may come in time just as it did in China. As you say, the only big difference may be that the ROC is not a real country, but to me that seems indeed a pretty big difference that makes this situation unique.
No, you're ignoring the fact that both in Vietnam and Korea the insurgencies led by Ho and Il-sung predated the Cold War. Yet both North Korea and North Vietnam are included in the context of the Cold War and the Taiwan-China split is also an inherent part of the Cold War. The only difference you keep hammering on is international recognition, which is basically meaningless. Again, you could withdraw it from any country tomorrow, then what? You're describing every communist insurgency, Mao was fighting the state, Ho was fighting the state and so was Il-Sung. Taiwan used to be internationally recognized, it is a country. Comparing them to ISIS or the Kurds brings with it massive historical blind spots on how it used to be. ISIS never had international recognition and neither have the Kurds (although less clear cut than ISIS). If we withdraw international recognition from Assad tomorrow, he doesn't suddenly turn into a 'well-organised rebel movement', they will be the old state, no longer recognized but still in existence. Also to add, the Taiwan-China conflict froze like this exactly because of foreign intervention. US aid really saved the ROC after it got beaten and had to retreat to Taiwan. When you make this comparison for Syria-Taiwan 'civil war slows down and eventually freezes entirely', you're also describing South Korea and South Vietnam. They were frozen due to foreign intervention that has saved South Korea to survive until this day, although lack of support led to one Vietnam. The comparison to Libya and Syria really loses the essence of the PRC-ROC conflict put into the context of the Cold War. The comparisons to the Koreas and Vietnams really serves to make a better comparison, both as a time in history, politically and geographically.
This narrow focus on international recognition leads to dangerous tendencies of exceptions and reasoning why the other isn't a state. You forget my use of air quotes around 'real'. For all intents and purposes Taiwan is a real country, the only thing it doesn't have is other countries saying it is, which is a terrible metric and has been used by aggressive states throughout history to wipe out their newly formed neighbours.
Essentially, what you are saying is that international recognition is not important. International recognition however is hugely important for any country. It is what separates actual countries like Britain or the Netherlands from places like Transdnistria, Abkhazia or the ROC which exist in a sort of grey area and total jokes like the Principality of Sealand. A country is a purely social construct that only exists by virtue of being recognised by other countries as existing. Without being recognised, a country can not officially engage in diplomacy and relations with other countries or treat with them on an equal level. As you can imagine, this really prevents a country from actually being a country. Most of these places that aspire to being countries but do not have widespread recognition only can survive because they are supported by a powerful country.
Furthermore, recognition is not bestowed by the UN. Every country in the world individually has to recognise every other country in the world. That means that a country can exist for some countries, but not for others. For example, Paraguay does not recognise the People's Republic of China to be a country, while most of the world does. Does not being recognised by Paraguay mean that the PRC is not a country? Of course not. But in the hypothetical scenario that every single country in the world would stop recognising the PRC, then it would effectively stop existing as a country since it no longer would be able to do the things that countries are supposed to be doing. Of course, this would not mean that the PRC would disappear. It would still have control over its claimed territory. But not being recognised, it would be little different from a rebel movement or paramilitary group or any non-state actor holding territory, and them holding that territory would be illegal according to the customs of international law (which means a nice excuse for anyone wanting to do something about it). Of course, we all know that international law is usually just abandoned in favour of realpolitik, but at the moment it supports a great power's actions, then the great power is not going to ignore the opportunity. And this is why the whole legal status of Taiwan and all the semantics surrounding it matter. Because it provides China with a justification and a pretext for invading Taiwan, and because it makes it a lot harder for the US to do anything against it.
The comparison to the Koreas, Germanies and Vietnams doesn't work because while there were always two of those, there is only one China. Like it or not, but in terms of international law and diplomatic possibilities, that means a huge difference. The Cold War context is completely meaningless, since the Cold War is long since history. That goes for China, but also for Korea. You can't look at those in a Cold War context anymore, simply because they no longer are in a Cold War context. The Chinese and the Korean conflicts share a lot of similarities, yes. But more than there are similarities there are differences. Saying they are similar is simply not true.
No, what I am saying is that its incredibly dangerous to accept countries strong-arming others into withdrawing recognition that was once there and then pretend its not a country anymore. Its an incredibly dangerous road to go down. Taiwan critically did use to have that recognition, unlike those you listed. It is also different, as that is Russia strong-arming other nations into accepting enclaves on their sovereign territory of Russian influence. Its not comparable. Taiwan was an actual country that was suddenly dropped due to politics. You're really doing Taiwan a disservice by comparing it to those examples. Taiwan is just as capable of surviving against China alone as Vietnam or Mongolia are, yet we consider them nations. Its just a false equivalence that leads to survival of the strongest if the only metric for survival of a nation is if it has support by a bigger country.
Recognition is indeed not bestowed by the UN, yet it is part of international recognition. but recognition alone does not a country make. You're undermining your own argument however, as you say Paraguay does not recognize the PRC yet it is a country. But the ROC is a country regardless of that recognition as well. Again, international recognition alone is a terrible metric for statehood that is open to a host of abuses as the aggressive pursuit of the One China policy by the PRC shows. International law only applies as far as it is reasonable, we have to guard against abuse inside of it. The status of Taiwan is a clear cut case of abuse that is being obfuscated by arguing about semantics. What China did to Taiwan might happen to any smaller country.
Again, there are only two of those because we say there was. Once we also said there were two Chinas. Like it or not, that is just the historical reality. International law and diplomatic possibilities are full of holes and errors that countries are too lazy or inactive to correct. It is not the end all decider. You shouldn't discount the Cold War, that is ridiculous. Just because it is history does not mean the consequences do not reverberate through history. North Korea and Taiwan are some of those consequences. Ignoring the historic context leads to nowhere. There are many more differences between Libya-Syria and Taiwan than Vietnam and the Koreas. Saying those similarities don't exist is simply just ignoring the decades of Cold War politics that led to the current situation.
feeder wrote: 12 nukes along the West Coast would be enough to ruin that half of the US. It might not be actually blown up, but it is highly irradiated and unlivable.
Portions would still be fine. Hiroshima and Nagasaki aren't exactly nuclear hellholes. Even accounting for these being much larger bombs, the devastation wouldn't be as bad as post-apocalyptic video games and movies would lead us to believe.
You'd really just be looking at a hundred or so miles around each blast zone, with modifications for terrain. Mountains are good shields. Fallout damage is bad and causes cancer, but it's a relatively minor threat. Chernobyl is actually a thriving ecosystem(with a higher mutation and cancer rate for the flora and fauna of course, but they're getting along OK)
Radiation is bad, but its not as bad as video games and Hollywood says it is. The Fallout games should be lush ecosystems, with a lot of mutations.
I recall reading in history books Mao talking about how China was the only country that could "survive" a nuclear war due to their geography, topograph, and demographics. People were not pleased by such discussions at the time.
Iron_Captain wrote: By your logic, you might call every place in the world poor just so because it happens to contain some poor people. The US would be poor because it has poor people living in dirty trailers that have no healthcare. You are not making any sense, and your comparison is still ridiculous.
No, my argument isn't that Crimea has some poor people therefore it is poor, my argument is that Crimea has lots of poor people and a low average income by Ukrainian standards, therefore it is poor. This is a simple and obvious thing, and you are pretending to be confused about because you don't want to admit your original claim that Crimea was rich was a simplistic view, based on only being aware of the wealthy port region.
As I said, when I talk about 'Crimea' I might not mean the whole peninsula and every single person in it.
Okay, so when you say Crimea you don't mean Crimea, you actually just mean whatever bit of Crimea it is that would make your statement correct. This is a fun game.
"Dogs have no bones."
"Yes they do, here is a dog skeleton."
"No, when I say dog I don't mean always mean all of the dog, in this case I just meant the bit of the dog that isn't skeleton."
You are only seeking an argument here for the sake of arguing.
Let's go back to the original posts that started this. I said "Crimea was one of the real economic backwaters of the country." You argued that, saying "Actually, while being economically backwards compared to Russia or most of the rest of Europe, Crimea (especially the city of Sevastopol) was one of the more powerful economic regions of Ukraine"
You clearly aren't talking about only a bit of Crimea. If you were, you wouldn't specify one little bit of the country in your answer. That would mean you were saying "Actually, while being economically backwards compared to Russia or most of the rest of Europe, the rich part of Crimea(especially the rich part of Crimea) was one of the more powerful economic regions of Ukraine"
It's obvious gibberish, so stop.
When I said that the Crimea was one of the richer regions of Ukraine, I obviously only meant that area of the Crimea that actually was one of the richer areas of Ukraine.
When I said that all letters were vowels, obviously I only meant that only the letters that are actually vowels are vowels.
And if you still do not believe the area is relatively rich
I know the port region is rich. I've stated it several times. What I am explaining to you is that the area is not so big, or so wealthy, as to offset the economic wasteland surrounding it. You are pretending you don't understand this, because otherwise you would have to admit you got something wrong.
No. The government on Taiwan is the Republic of China, which is the government of mainland China. You will never get the Republic of China to admit that it is in fact a separate, independent nation from 'China'.
You are still getting caught up on the legalistic and diplomatic nonsense, and missing the reality of a self-sufficient, self-determining government in Taiwan running the country for 70 years. Government is not the treaty, its the organisation that sets the laws, collects the taxes to pay for defense, infrastructure etc.
sebster wrote: Lots of parts of the world used to be controlled by lots of other countries. A large chunk of France used to be under the British crown. Does that mean the UK can drop troops in Normandy tomorrow, arguing its a province that came under the control of a rival government?
The mindset you've arguing for is very fething dangerous, and opens the door for a return to the bad old days of old historical grievances being used to justify wars of conquest, behaviour that frequently lead to escalation and fights between major powers, a situation we cannot have in this nuclear age. That people like you think thoughts like that is exactly why the global community must be committed to protecting the sovereignty of international borders.
France is not Britain. The Republic of China and the People's Republic of China are both China. They are the same country, just locked in a frozen civil war between rival governments, of which only one is widely recognised as being a legitimate government internationally. You totally can not compare that with Britain and France, both of which have been seperate, recognised and independent states since the moment states became a thing.
Britain and France are different countries. China and Taiwan are not different countries. Taiwan is not a country. It is an island that is part of China and has never been an independent country. Huge difference. What you are arguing simply does not apply, the PRC/ROC situation is pretty unique in the world. If China were to land troops on Taiwan tomorrow, it would not violate international law or set bad precedents for anything. It simply would be a continuation of a civil war that began in the 1920's. When the PRC took Hainain from the ROC in 1950, nobody argued that it would set a precedent for Britain invading France. Why would it be different if the PRC took Taiwan from the ROC? What makes Taiwan so different from Hainan?
This is very much underestimating current international relations in East Asia. You're also underestimating the PRC being the legitimate international government versus not recognizing the ROC or Taiwan as a separate independent entity. Yes technically the PRC is the only official government, mostly because of China's One China policy, which forces countries to cut loose Taiwan for political and economic considerations. This would not at all mean that the PRC can just invade and kill off Taiwan as a separate entity. Other countries such as Israel in the current day, were or aren't universally internationally recognized. That does not mean the international community is open to the idea of letting them get invaded or wiped out. Most countries still have plenty of informal relations with Taiwan.
The PRC/ROC situation was never that unique, the only unique part is the sheer size and economic power China can wield internationally. A number of countries that fell to civil war or were divided due to civil war did not have an immediate and final conclusion, with both parts managing to exist. North and South Korea, West and East Germany, Sudan and (the new) South Sudan or North and South Vietnam. Civil wars can easily remain frozen or entirely put on ice, that does not mean the international community wouldn't blink an eye at a sudden hostile action undertaken by one side, especially in such a diplomatically volatile region as East Asia. Most countries just accept the One China policy because it is beneficial, but they wouldn't just roll over to aggressive annexation of an 'informally' independent country. It would set an incredibly bad precedent internationally to just let China take over Taiwan. Now no country in the region would feel safe from China. The South China Sea Disputes are already increasing tensions and leading to a (semi) arms race in the region. The annexation of Taiwan would really set things off.
What Sebster is arguing does apply. International politics and laws are really about feelings or 'the spirit' of the laws for independent countries. It doesn't mean that once China invades Taiwan they will look at the laws and go ''well that doesn't violate anything'' and walk away whistling. It opens it up to all kinds of exceptions and back door actions. Mongolia used to be a 'part' of China and broke off just like Tibet after the fall of the Qing. The only thing that saved Mongolia from the fate of Tibet was its relation with the Soviet Union and it being communist. What if China would suddenly decide if Mongolia was just a breakaway province in a civil war that was a core part of what constitutes 'China'? What if China starts expanding the One China doctrine to include parts it considers historically Chinese? This is what China basically did with Taiwan, use its power to refuse international recognition, which critically it did use to have. If this is followed by hostile annexation of Taiwan in the current day, what country neighbouring China will not get nervous? What if they are next in line for being pushed out? International law means nothing for countries if they are next to a belligerent neighbour who just violently annexed another independent neighbour, regardless of any weird international limbo.
Hainan is different because it was on the tail end of a successful PRC victory and the Cold War. But the PRC victory was almost 70 years ago and the last 'real' conflict (Second Taiwan Strait Crisis) almost 60 years. That is the difference between Hainan and Taiwan. Times and expectations change, the Cold War is over, Mao is dead, war would be a massive departure from the semi peaceful relations in East Asia for the last few decades.
While I agree with your analysis on the difference between Hainan and Taiwan, as well as on the fact that the international community wouldn't just accept a Chinese invasion on Taiwan (despite it being fully legal according to established international law.), I do have to dispute you saying that the PRC/ROC situation isn't unique. In those other situation you mention (North and South Korea, East and West Germany etc.) both sides of the conflict have become widely and officially recognised as being legitimate states, and their governments are fine with being separate states for the moment even if their desire is to eventually re-unite with the other. The PRC and ROC do not want to re-unite ever, because they have never been apart. According to both of them, there is only one single country called China and they are its legitimate government. The ROC views the territory of China as indivisible and has no desire to ever become a separate state from the PRC. The PRC and ROC are rival governments within the same state, and that is a pretty unique situation to last for so long. Instead of comparing it to North and South Korea, it would be better to compare it to Syria or Yemen or any other place where you got multiple governments claiming authority over the same state. The unique aspect of the PRC/ROC conflict is the duration of the conflict and the way it has 'gone cold'.
It being fully legal under international law is basically worthless though, that's the point. No country around China is going to care that the annihilation of an independent neighbour was technically legal.
Widely and officially recognized? Taiwan once was a lot more widely and officially recognized before China started pushing through its One China policy.
That is wrong. Taiwan has never been recognised by anyone as a country. China is recognised as a country, not Taiwan. I know you are just using Taiwan as an alternative name for the ROC and that I am just being a nazi on semantics here, but it is a very important distinction to make.
And the One China policy isn't just a PRC thing either. It is used by the ROC as well.
I'm afraid it isn't. Its just engaging in useless semantics. Following your logic China was never officially recognized as its true name is the People's Republic of China. China as a country does therefore technically not 'exist' just like Taiwan. Taiwan, or the ROC if you want to stand on useless semantics, did use to have international recognition. The ROC or Taiwan is the same entity, just because it would one day possibly refer to itself by a different name does not mean it ceases to be a country.
And I did mention that the ROC also considers themselves the legitimate China, that's why they used to claim Mongolia. Taiwan is just too small relatively speaking to properly enforce its One China policy. Although in cases like the South China Sea they actually kind of work together by acknowledging both their claims are valid under the One China policy.
Again, it is important to use names properly here. Taiwan has never been on the security council, it is not even a country. China's seat has only ever been held by China. The only thing that changed is which Chinese government sat on the chair. The PRC usurped the seat from the ROC just like Russia usurped the seat from the Soviet Union. Same state, different government.
Again, useless semantics. The ROC was pushed out in favor of the PRC, it was never a transition like the SU-Russia seat, The SU ceased to exist, Taiwan/ROC is still very much alive and kicking. The seat of 'China' has been held by both the ROC and the PRC. Different states, same territorial claims. For all intents and purposes Taiwan was recognized and held a seat on the Security Council. International politics and diplomacy forced out Taiwan. That begs the question though, does UN recognition make a country? I would argue that there is more to it, yet it does help to illustrate that it is bonkers to act as if Taiwan does not exist as a country. Did China/PRC not exist before 1971?
Disciple of Fate wrote: Furthermore, countries such as North Korea and North Vietnam never accepted the existence of their Southern counterpart. Neither were fine with it, as 1950 and 1975 had shown. They were as fine with it as the PRC is with the ROC/Taiwan existing. They don't like it, but any conflict would spectacularly backfire. The PRC and the ROC do want to re-unite, they just have different ideas about that reunification in mind. Germany was actually the unique case in that sense, as both countries voluntarily came back together. If you ask North Korea for example, you won't get them to recognize South Korea as the legitimate government, just as the PRC doesn't recognize the ROC.
Yeah, I may have worded that poorly. What I meant is that they implicitly or explicitly recognised there being such a thing as South and North Korea or East and West Germany, and both sides got widely recognised by the rest of the world. In contrast, here there is no North and South China, or Mainland and Taiwan China (maybe in Western media only). To both PRC and ROC there is simply one indivisible Chinese state with one single government, not two states with each their own government within a single country such as with Korea and Germany.
Yes and the reason North and South Korea and others had such recognition was the Cold War. The 'West' for all intents and purposes does not like to withdraw recognition all that easily. Taiwan had the same kind of recognition during the Cold War that was only later withdrawn for geopolitical importance. If the 'West' withdraws recognition of North Korea does it stop being a country? Because that is basically what happened to Taiwan. When it was kicked from the UN not every country just stopped recognizing them, the US only did so in 1979. So did that mean two China's existed between 1971-1979 or is international recognition just a terrible metric for statehood? Its like the PRC is arguing that if we believe hard enough then Taiwan does not exist anymore. But it did and it still does, even though internationally states tend to look the other way. North Korea treats the South very much in the same way, yet internationally we don't care about North Korea, so South Korea gets to be a country. If China was not this giant economy the international community would have a much easier time ignoring the One China policy.
This also avoids the issue of Taiwanese independence, plenty of Taiwanese believe Taiwan should just declare itself independent. But they realistically can't because the last time those sentiments were possibly rising the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis showed that China was still very much belligerent over it. If the Taiwanese government declared itself independent tomorrow, would you recognize it as a country?
Disciple of Fate wrote: The key difference is that China had the economic power to push Taiwan out of diplomatic recognition, a power North Korea never managed to wield. The general public views North and South Korea as separate countries, just like it views Taiwan and China as separate countries. The legal and diplomatic wrangling is mostly for show, as their are plenty of contacts and economic interaction with Taiwan. So no, it is not very unique, the only way we see it as unique is because of the fact that Taiwan can never let the pretense of being together fall, as it would mean Chinese invasion. West Germany and South Korea could, as there were plenty of US troops stationed in both countries to protect them. But US protection is not a guaranteed certainty Taiwan has the luxury of having. For all other intents and purposes it is the same as other divided countries.
Yes and no. You are forgetting the One China policy was an ROC thing as much as it was a PRC thing. It is only recently that both have begun to soften up a little bit. But regardless of how the PRC came to be the widely recognised Chinese government, the fact that there is only one recognised Chinese government makes it different from Korea, Vietnam and Germany where there are or were two widely recognised governments.
I wasn't though, plenty of countries have held to the idea that both parts are indivisible. Even South Korea still has government agencies that are 'running' the area under the control of North Korea. The only exceptional part is that Taiwan still holds to it today so strongly. But as mentioned earlier this is also partly about the desire not to commit national suicide over a meaningless difference about having 'independence' when Taiwan is already independent in all but name.
Again, the recognition makes very little difference. If everyone withdraws recognition from Russia and gives some random guy the title of head of the real government, does Russia stop existing as the entity that occupies the current territory? All the other countries are doing is paying lip service to the PRC, in the big picture it barely makes a difference. There is plenty of trade and interaction with the 'illegal' government on Taiwan.
Disciple of Fate wrote: And no, comparing it to Syria or Yemen is not really that great, they are both relatively new civil wars fought for entirely different reasons and stil ongoing. The PRC/ROC conflict fits much better in the context of the Cold War conflicts in the region between the ROV/SROV and between the DPRK/ROK. None of the three civil wars in these East Asian countries were solved peacefully and have similar histories. All neighbours tried to forcefully annex the US supported counterpart. The only difference is that the SROV managed to win its war in the long term in 1975. The PRC hoped that with the end of the Cold War and reduced commitments by the US to the ROC it might imitate the succes of the SROV and tested the waters so to speak, yet the US was still prepared to hold up the status of Taiwan in the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis. So no, I don't think Syria or Yemen are a good comparison. Neither opposition group in Yemen or Syria has had the length of being practically independent, the stability and construction of independent institutions that Taiwan has had. The PRC/ROC and DPRK/ROK conflicts have both been frozen for the good part of 60 years with some 'minor' incidents. Both the DPRK and PRC developed nuclear weapons, while their US supported counterparts felt relatively secure not to have to. The US has supported both the ROC and ROK with military support. The only really big difference is the succes of the One China policy in getting the world to 'think' that Taiwan is not a 'real' country. If North Korea had the economic power China did, we might now not be thinking of South Korea as a 'real' country.
You have some good points, but I still won't say the PRC/ROC situation is similar to other Cold War divisions (and not just because it actually predates the Cold War). Before 1970 the situation was indeed quite similar, but after that it became pretty much unique. Again, there we had 2 different, both recognised and internationally supported states facing off. Here we have a government fighting against a rebel movement consisting of loyalists to the previous regime (or a government fighting communist rebels if you will). A well-organised rebel movement, but like ISIS or the Kurds in Syria and Iraq (which also have official institutions and state-like organisation) not a recognised, separate state. If Syria had never seen foreign intervention (or foreign intervention on both sides), we might have very well seen a seperate development as in China, where the civil war slows down and eventually freezes entirely, leading to different, relatively stable governments ruling in different parts of the same state. Libya is actually pretty close to that already. It just lacks the stability, but that may come in time just as it did in China. As you say, the only big difference may be that the ROC is not a real country, but to me that seems indeed a pretty big difference that makes this situation unique.
No, you're ignoring the fact that both in Vietnam and Korea the insurgencies led by Ho and Il-sung predated the Cold War. Yet both North Korea and North Vietnam are included in the context of the Cold War and the Taiwan-China split is also an inherent part of the Cold War. The only difference you keep hammering on is international recognition, which is basically meaningless. Again, you could withdraw it from any country tomorrow, then what? You're describing every communist insurgency, Mao was fighting the state, Ho was fighting the state and so was Il-Sung. Taiwan used to be internationally recognized, it is a country. Comparing them to ISIS or the Kurds brings with it massive historical blind spots on how it used to be. ISIS never had international recognition and neither have the Kurds (although less clear cut than ISIS). If we withdraw international recognition from Assad tomorrow, he doesn't suddenly turn into a 'well-organised rebel movement', they will be the old state, no longer recognized but still in existence. Also to add, the Taiwan-China conflict froze like this exactly because of foreign intervention. US aid really saved the ROC after it got beaten and had to retreat to Taiwan. When you make this comparison for Syria-Taiwan 'civil war slows down and eventually freezes entirely', you're also describing South Korea and South Vietnam. They were frozen due to foreign intervention that has saved South Korea to survive until this day, although lack of support led to one Vietnam. The comparison to Libya and Syria really loses the essence of the PRC-ROC conflict put into the context of the Cold War. The comparisons to the Koreas and Vietnams really serves to make a better comparison, both as a time in history, politically and geographically.
This narrow focus on international recognition leads to dangerous tendencies of exceptions and reasoning why the other isn't a state. You forget my use of air quotes around 'real'. For all intents and purposes Taiwan is a real country, the only thing it doesn't have is other countries saying it is, which is a terrible metric and has been used by aggressive states throughout history to wipe out their newly formed neighbours.
Essentially, what you are saying is that international recognition is not important. International recognition however is hugely important for any country. It is what separates actual countries like Britain or the Netherlands from places like Transdnistria, Abkhazia or the ROC which exist in a sort of grey area and total jokes like the Principality of Sealand. A country is a purely social construct that only exists by virtue of being recognised by other countries as existing. Without being recognised, a country can not officially engage in diplomacy and relations with other countries or treat with them on an equal level. As you can imagine, this really prevents a country from actually being a country. Most of these places that aspire to being countries but do not have widespread recognition only can survive because they are supported by a powerful country.
Furthermore, recognition is not bestowed by the UN. Every country in the world individually has to recognise every other country in the world. That means that a country can exist for some countries, but not for others. For example, Paraguay does not recognise the People's Republic of China to be a country, while most of the world does. Does not being recognised by Paraguay mean that the PRC is not a country? Of course not. But in the hypothetical scenario that every single country in the world would stop recognising the PRC, then it would effectively stop existing as a country since it no longer would be able to do the things that countries are supposed to be doing. Of course, this would not mean that the PRC would disappear. It would still have control over its claimed territory. But not being recognised, it would be little different from a rebel movement or paramilitary group or any non-state actor holding territory, and them holding that territory would be illegal according to the customs of international law (which means a nice excuse for anyone wanting to do something about it). Of course, we all know that international law is usually just abandoned in favour of realpolitik, but at the moment it supports a great power's actions, then the great power is not going to ignore the opportunity. And this is why the whole legal status of Taiwan and all the semantics surrounding it matter. Because it provides China with a justification and a pretext for invading Taiwan, and because it makes it a lot harder for the US to do anything against it.
The comparison to the Koreas, Germanies and Vietnams doesn't work because while there were always two of those, there is only one China. Like it or not, but in terms of international law and diplomatic possibilities, that means a huge difference. The Cold War context is completely meaningless, since the Cold War is long since history. That goes for China, but also for Korea. You can't look at those in a Cold War context anymore, simply because they no longer are in a Cold War context. The Chinese and the Korean conflicts share a lot of similarities, yes. But more than there are similarities there are differences. Saying they are similar is simply not true.
No, what I am saying is that its incredibly dangerous to accept countries strong-arming others into withdrawing recognition that was once there and then pretend its not a country anymore. Its an incredibly dangerous road to go down. Taiwan critically did use to have that recognition, unlike those you listed. It is also different, as that is Russia strong-arming other nations into accepting enclaves on their sovereign territory of Russian influence. Its not comparable. Taiwan was an actual country that was suddenly dropped due to politics. You're really doing Taiwan a disservice by comparing it to those examples. Taiwan is just as capable of surviving against China alone as Vietnam or Mongolia are, yet we consider them nations. Its just a false equivalence that leads to survival of the strongest if the only metric for survival of a nation is if it has support by a bigger country.
Recognition is indeed not bestowed by the UN, yet it is part of international recognition. but recognition alone does not a country make. You're undermining your own argument however, as you say Paraguay does not recognize the PRC yet it is a country. But the ROC is a country regardless of that recognition as well. Again, international recognition alone is a terrible metric for statehood that is open to a host of abuses as the aggressive pursuit of the One China policy by the PRC shows. International law only applies as far as it is reasonable, we have to guard against abuse inside of it. The status of Taiwan is a clear cut case of abuse that is being obfuscated by arguing about semantics. What China did to Taiwan might happen to any smaller country.
Again, there are only two of those because we say there was. Once we also said there were two Chinas. Like it or not, that is just the historical reality. International law and diplomatic possibilities are full of holes and errors that countries are too lazy or inactive to correct. It is not the end all decider. You shouldn't discount the Cold War, that is ridiculous. Just because it is history does not mean the consequences do not reverberate through history. North Korea and Taiwan are some of those consequences. Ignoring the historic context leads to nowhere. There are many more differences between Libya-Syria and Taiwan than Vietnam and the Koreas. Saying those similarities don't exist is simply just ignoring the decades of Cold War politics that led to the current situation.
The similarities do exist, but they are few and only relevant from a historical perspective. Therefore comparing the situation does not really make much sense. The situation between the PRC and ROC is pretty much unique, to re-iterate my original point. That also means it can't just happen to any small country. The reason the PRC was able to force others to stop recognising the ROC was because of its greater economic power, but just as much because they were both claiming to be the same country. The ROC was trying to force others to stop recognising the PRC just as much as the other way around. China trying to force other countries to stop recognising countries like Mongolia or Vietnam would cause a very strong international response quite unlike what happened with the One China thing, because it would be an act of aggression rather than part of an internal conflict of China itself.
sebster wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote: By your logic, you might call every place in the world poor just so because it happens to contain some poor people. The US would be poor because it has poor people living in dirty trailers that have no healthcare. You are not making any sense, and your comparison is still ridiculous.
No, my argument isn't that Crimea has some poor people therefore it is poor, my argument is that Crimea has lots of poor people and a low average income by Ukrainian standards, therefore it is poor. This is a simple and obvious thing, and you are pretending to be confused about because you don't want to admit your original claim that Crimea was rich was a simplistic view, based on only being aware of the wealthy port region.
Your argument is very wrong. Again, you are not looking at it relatively. Crimea does not have lots of poor people, nor does it have a low average income by Ukrainian standards. It is poor when compared to countries in Western Europe or even Russia, yes. But compared to Ukraine as a whole even the poorer parts of Crimea were quite average. It wasn't as well off as the capital or the areas in the east of Ukraine, but it was better off than the areas to the north of Crimea and in the west of Ukraine. The average income on Crimea was very average on a national level (again, measured against the average income of each other region of Ukraine individually, not against the average income of Ukraine as a whole because Kiev has an income that is like more than that of most regions combined and thus will heavily skew the picture). Not all of Crimea was rich, no. You are right in that. But saying that Crimea was an economic backwater or wasteland in Ukraine is a blatant lie. Even outside the tourist sector, Crimea had quite a lot of important industry and contained about half of Ukraine's port facilities (the port of Odessa being the other half). The area was economically important to Ukraine, much more so than the whole western half of the country which is where the real economic backwater was.
By your comments you show you have never actually been to Ukraine and Crimea. Don't argue about subjects you are ignorant of. Just don't.
sebster wrote:
No. The government on Taiwan is the Republic of China, which is the government of mainland China. You will never get the Republic of China to admit that it is in fact a separate, independent nation from 'China'.
You are still getting caught up on the legalistic and diplomatic nonsense, and missing the reality of a self-sufficient, self-determining government in Taiwan running the country for 70 years. Government is not the treaty, its the organisation that sets the laws, collects the taxes to pay for defense, infrastructure etc.
Yes, because when it comes to international relations and diplomacy, legal and diplomatic 'nonsense' is important. Any organisation can call itself a government and act like one. ISIS, Kurdistan, Catalonia, Transdnistria, Sealand etc. But an essential part of what actually makes them a proper government is being recognised as such by other governments. In this, organisations like the ROC and Transdnistria fall into a grey area where some other governments recognise them but most of the world does not.
sebster wrote: Lots of parts of the world used to be controlled by lots of other countries. A large chunk of France used to be under the British crown. Does that mean the UK can drop troops in Normandy tomorrow, arguing its a province that came under the control of a rival government? The mindset you've arguing for is very fething dangerous, and opens the door for a return to the bad old days of old historical grievances being used to justify wars of conquest, behaviour that frequently lead to escalation and fights between major powers, a situation we cannot have in this nuclear age. That people like you think thoughts like that is exactly why the global community must be committed to protecting the sovereignty of international borders.
France is not Britain. The Republic of China and the People's Republic of China are both China. They are the same country, just locked in a frozen civil war between rival governments, of which only one is widely recognised as being a legitimate government internationally. You totally can not compare that with Britain and France, both of which have been seperate, recognised and independent states since the moment states became a thing. Britain and France are different countries. China and Taiwan are not different countries. Taiwan is not a country. It is an island that is part of China and has never been an independent country. Huge difference. What you are arguing simply does not apply, the PRC/ROC situation is pretty unique in the world. If China were to land troops on Taiwan tomorrow, it would not violate international law or set bad precedents for anything. It simply would be a continuation of a civil war that began in the 1920's. When the PRC took Hainain from the ROC in 1950, nobody argued that it would set a precedent for Britain invading France. Why would it be different if the PRC took Taiwan from the ROC? What makes Taiwan so different from Hainan?
This is very much underestimating current international relations in East Asia. You're also underestimating the PRC being the legitimate international government versus not recognizing the ROC or Taiwan as a separate independent entity. Yes technically the PRC is the only official government, mostly because of China's One China policy, which forces countries to cut loose Taiwan for political and economic considerations. This would not at all mean that the PRC can just invade and kill off Taiwan as a separate entity. Other countries such as Israel in the current day, were or aren't universally internationally recognized. That does not mean the international community is open to the idea of letting them get invaded or wiped out. Most countries still have plenty of informal relations with Taiwan.
The PRC/ROC situation was never that unique, the only unique part is the sheer size and economic power China can wield internationally. A number of countries that fell to civil war or were divided due to civil war did not have an immediate and final conclusion, with both parts managing to exist. North and South Korea, West and East Germany, Sudan and (the new) South Sudan or North and South Vietnam. Civil wars can easily remain frozen or entirely put on ice, that does not mean the international community wouldn't blink an eye at a sudden hostile action undertaken by one side, especially in such a diplomatically volatile region as East Asia. Most countries just accept the One China policy because it is beneficial, but they wouldn't just roll over to aggressive annexation of an 'informally' independent country. It would set an incredibly bad precedent internationally to just let China take over Taiwan. Now no country in the region would feel safe from China. The South China Sea Disputes are already increasing tensions and leading to a (semi) arms race in the region. The annexation of Taiwan would really set things off.
What Sebster is arguing does apply. International politics and laws are really about feelings or 'the spirit' of the laws for independent countries. It doesn't mean that once China invades Taiwan they will look at the laws and go ''well that doesn't violate anything'' and walk away whistling. It opens it up to all kinds of exceptions and back door actions. Mongolia used to be a 'part' of China and broke off just like Tibet after the fall of the Qing. The only thing that saved Mongolia from the fate of Tibet was its relation with the Soviet Union and it being communist. What if China would suddenly decide if Mongolia was just a breakaway province in a civil war that was a core part of what constitutes 'China'? What if China starts expanding the One China doctrine to include parts it considers historically Chinese? This is what China basically did with Taiwan, use its power to refuse international recognition, which critically it did use to have. If this is followed by hostile annexation of Taiwan in the current day, what country neighbouring China will not get nervous? What if they are next in line for being pushed out? International law means nothing for countries if they are next to a belligerent neighbour who just violently annexed another independent neighbour, regardless of any weird international limbo.
Hainan is different because it was on the tail end of a successful PRC victory and the Cold War. But the PRC victory was almost 70 years ago and the last 'real' conflict (Second Taiwan Strait Crisis) almost 60 years. That is the difference between Hainan and Taiwan. Times and expectations change, the Cold War is over, Mao is dead, war would be a massive departure from the semi peaceful relations in East Asia for the last few decades.
While I agree with your analysis on the difference between Hainan and Taiwan, as well as on the fact that the international community wouldn't just accept a Chinese invasion on Taiwan (despite it being fully legal according to established international law.), I do have to dispute you saying that the PRC/ROC situation isn't unique. In those other situation you mention (North and South Korea, East and West Germany etc.) both sides of the conflict have become widely and officially recognised as being legitimate states, and their governments are fine with being separate states for the moment even if their desire is to eventually re-unite with the other. The PRC and ROC do not want to re-unite ever, because they have never been apart. According to both of them, there is only one single country called China and they are its legitimate government. The ROC views the territory of China as indivisible and has no desire to ever become a separate state from the PRC. The PRC and ROC are rival governments within the same state, and that is a pretty unique situation to last for so long. Instead of comparing it to North and South Korea, it would be better to compare it to Syria or Yemen or any other place where you got multiple governments claiming authority over the same state. The unique aspect of the PRC/ROC conflict is the duration of the conflict and the way it has 'gone cold'.
It being fully legal under international law is basically worthless though, that's the point. No country around China is going to care that the annihilation of an independent neighbour was technically legal.
Widely and officially recognized? Taiwan once was a lot more widely and officially recognized before China started pushing through its One China policy.
That is wrong. Taiwan has never been recognised by anyone as a country. China is recognised as a country, not Taiwan. I know you are just using Taiwan as an alternative name for the ROC and that I am just being a nazi on semantics here, but it is a very important distinction to make. And the One China policy isn't just a PRC thing either. It is used by the ROC as well.
I'm afraid it isn't. Its just engaging in useless semantics. Following your logic China was never officially recognized as its true name is the People's Republic of China. China as a country does therefore technically not 'exist' just like Taiwan. Taiwan, or the ROC if you want to stand on useless semantics, did use to have international recognition. The ROC or Taiwan is the same entity, just because it would one day possibly refer to itself by a different name does not mean it ceases to be a country.
And I did mention that the ROC also considers themselves the legitimate China, that's why they used to claim Mongolia. Taiwan is just too small relatively speaking to properly enforce its One China policy. Although in cases like the South China Sea they actually kind of work together by acknowledging both their claims are valid under the One China policy.
Again, it is important to use names properly here. Taiwan has never been on the security council, it is not even a country. China's seat has only ever been held by China. The only thing that changed is which Chinese government sat on the chair. The PRC usurped the seat from the ROC just like Russia usurped the seat from the Soviet Union. Same state, different government.
Again, useless semantics. The ROC was pushed out in favor of the PRC, it was never a transition like the SU-Russia seat, The SU ceased to exist, Taiwan/ROC is still very much alive and kicking. The seat of 'China' has been held by both the ROC and the PRC. Different states, same territorial claims. For all intents and purposes Taiwan was recognized and held a seat on the Security Council. International politics and diplomacy forced out Taiwan. That begs the question though, does UN recognition make a country? I would argue that there is more to it, yet it does help to illustrate that it is bonkers to act as if Taiwan does not exist as a country. Did China/PRC not exist before 1971?
Disciple of Fate wrote: Furthermore, countries such as North Korea and North Vietnam never accepted the existence of their Southern counterpart. Neither were fine with it, as 1950 and 1975 had shown. They were as fine with it as the PRC is with the ROC/Taiwan existing. They don't like it, but any conflict would spectacularly backfire. The PRC and the ROC do want to re-unite, they just have different ideas about that reunification in mind. Germany was actually the unique case in that sense, as both countries voluntarily came back together. If you ask North Korea for example, you won't get them to recognize South Korea as the legitimate government, just as the PRC doesn't recognize the ROC.
Yeah, I may have worded that poorly. What I meant is that they implicitly or explicitly recognised there being such a thing as South and North Korea or East and West Germany, and both sides got widely recognised by the rest of the world. In contrast, here there is no North and South China, or Mainland and Taiwan China (maybe in Western media only). To both PRC and ROC there is simply one indivisible Chinese state with one single government, not two states with each their own government within a single country such as with Korea and Germany.
Yes and the reason North and South Korea and others had such recognition was the Cold War. The 'West' for all intents and purposes does not like to withdraw recognition all that easily. Taiwan had the same kind of recognition during the Cold War that was only later withdrawn for geopolitical importance. If the 'West' withdraws recognition of North Korea does it stop being a country? Because that is basically what happened to Taiwan. When it was kicked from the UN not every country just stopped recognizing them, the US only did so in 1979. So did that mean two China's existed between 1971-1979 or is international recognition just a terrible metric for statehood? Its like the PRC is arguing that if we believe hard enough then Taiwan does not exist anymore. But it did and it still does, even though internationally states tend to look the other way. North Korea treats the South very much in the same way, yet internationally we don't care about North Korea, so South Korea gets to be a country. If China was not this giant economy the international community would have a much easier time ignoring the One China policy.
This also avoids the issue of Taiwanese independence, plenty of Taiwanese believe Taiwan should just declare itself independent. But they realistically can't because the last time those sentiments were possibly rising the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis showed that China was still very much belligerent over it. If the Taiwanese government declared itself independent tomorrow, would you recognize it as a country?
Disciple of Fate wrote: The key difference is that China had the economic power to push Taiwan out of diplomatic recognition, a power North Korea never managed to wield. The general public views North and South Korea as separate countries, just like it views Taiwan and China as separate countries. The legal and diplomatic wrangling is mostly for show, as their are plenty of contacts and economic interaction with Taiwan. So no, it is not very unique, the only way we see it as unique is because of the fact that Taiwan can never let the pretense of being together fall, as it would mean Chinese invasion. West Germany and South Korea could, as there were plenty of US troops stationed in both countries to protect them. But US protection is not a guaranteed certainty Taiwan has the luxury of having. For all other intents and purposes it is the same as other divided countries.
Yes and no. You are forgetting the One China policy was an ROC thing as much as it was a PRC thing. It is only recently that both have begun to soften up a little bit. But regardless of how the PRC came to be the widely recognised Chinese government, the fact that there is only one recognised Chinese government makes it different from Korea, Vietnam and Germany where there are or were two widely recognised governments.
I wasn't though, plenty of countries have held to the idea that both parts are indivisible. Even South Korea still has government agencies that are 'running' the area under the control of North Korea. The only exceptional part is that Taiwan still holds to it today so strongly. But as mentioned earlier this is also partly about the desire not to commit national suicide over a meaningless difference about having 'independence' when Taiwan is already independent in all but name.
Again, the recognition makes very little difference. If everyone withdraws recognition from Russia and gives some random guy the title of head of the real government, does Russia stop existing as the entity that occupies the current territory? All the other countries are doing is paying lip service to the PRC, in the big picture it barely makes a difference. There is plenty of trade and interaction with the 'illegal' government on Taiwan.
Disciple of Fate wrote: And no, comparing it to Syria or Yemen is not really that great, they are both relatively new civil wars fought for entirely different reasons and stil ongoing. The PRC/ROC conflict fits much better in the context of the Cold War conflicts in the region between the ROV/SROV and between the DPRK/ROK. None of the three civil wars in these East Asian countries were solved peacefully and have similar histories. All neighbours tried to forcefully annex the US supported counterpart. The only difference is that the SROV managed to win its war in the long term in 1975. The PRC hoped that with the end of the Cold War and reduced commitments by the US to the ROC it might imitate the succes of the SROV and tested the waters so to speak, yet the US was still prepared to hold up the status of Taiwan in the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis. So no, I don't think Syria or Yemen are a good comparison. Neither opposition group in Yemen or Syria has had the length of being practically independent, the stability and construction of independent institutions that Taiwan has had. The PRC/ROC and DPRK/ROK conflicts have both been frozen for the good part of 60 years with some 'minor' incidents. Both the DPRK and PRC developed nuclear weapons, while their US supported counterparts felt relatively secure not to have to. The US has supported both the ROC and ROK with military support. The only really big difference is the succes of the One China policy in getting the world to 'think' that Taiwan is not a 'real' country. If North Korea had the economic power China did, we might now not be thinking of South Korea as a 'real' country.
You have some good points, but I still won't say the PRC/ROC situation is similar to other Cold War divisions (and not just because it actually predates the Cold War). Before 1970 the situation was indeed quite similar, but after that it became pretty much unique. Again, there we had 2 different, both recognised and internationally supported states facing off. Here we have a government fighting against a rebel movement consisting of loyalists to the previous regime (or a government fighting communist rebels if you will). A well-organised rebel movement, but like ISIS or the Kurds in Syria and Iraq (which also have official institutions and state-like organisation) not a recognised, separate state. If Syria had never seen foreign intervention (or foreign intervention on both sides), we might have very well seen a seperate development as in China, where the civil war slows down and eventually freezes entirely, leading to different, relatively stable governments ruling in different parts of the same state. Libya is actually pretty close to that already. It just lacks the stability, but that may come in time just as it did in China. As you say, the only big difference may be that the ROC is not a real country, but to me that seems indeed a pretty big difference that makes this situation unique.
No, you're ignoring the fact that both in Vietnam and Korea the insurgencies led by Ho and Il-sung predated the Cold War. Yet both North Korea and North Vietnam are included in the context of the Cold War and the Taiwan-China split is also an inherent part of the Cold War. The only difference you keep hammering on is international recognition, which is basically meaningless. Again, you could withdraw it from any country tomorrow, then what? You're describing every communist insurgency, Mao was fighting the state, Ho was fighting the state and so was Il-Sung. Taiwan used to be internationally recognized, it is a country. Comparing them to ISIS or the Kurds brings with it massive historical blind spots on how it used to be. ISIS never had international recognition and neither have the Kurds (although less clear cut than ISIS). If we withdraw international recognition from Assad tomorrow, he doesn't suddenly turn into a 'well-organised rebel movement', they will be the old state, no longer recognized but still in existence. Also to add, the Taiwan-China conflict froze like this exactly because of foreign intervention. US aid really saved the ROC after it got beaten and had to retreat to Taiwan. When you make this comparison for Syria-Taiwan 'civil war slows down and eventually freezes entirely', you're also describing South Korea and South Vietnam. They were frozen due to foreign intervention that has saved South Korea to survive until this day, although lack of support led to one Vietnam. The comparison to Libya and Syria really loses the essence of the PRC-ROC conflict put into the context of the Cold War. The comparisons to the Koreas and Vietnams really serves to make a better comparison, both as a time in history, politically and geographically.
This narrow focus on international recognition leads to dangerous tendencies of exceptions and reasoning why the other isn't a state. You forget my use of air quotes around 'real'. For all intents and purposes Taiwan is a real country, the only thing it doesn't have is other countries saying it is, which is a terrible metric and has been used by aggressive states throughout history to wipe out their newly formed neighbours.
Essentially, what you are saying is that international recognition is not important. International recognition however is hugely important for any country. It is what separates actual countries like Britain or the Netherlands from places like Transdnistria, Abkhazia or the ROC which exist in a sort of grey area and total jokes like the Principality of Sealand. A country is a purely social construct that only exists by virtue of being recognised by other countries as existing. Without being recognised, a country can not officially engage in diplomacy and relations with other countries or treat with them on an equal level. As you can imagine, this really prevents a country from actually being a country. Most of these places that aspire to being countries but do not have widespread recognition only can survive because they are supported by a powerful country. Furthermore, recognition is not bestowed by the UN. Every country in the world individually has to recognise every other country in the world. That means that a country can exist for some countries, but not for others. For example, Paraguay does not recognise the People's Republic of China to be a country, while most of the world does. Does not being recognised by Paraguay mean that the PRC is not a country? Of course not. But in the hypothetical scenario that every single country in the world would stop recognising the PRC, then it would effectively stop existing as a country since it no longer would be able to do the things that countries are supposed to be doing. Of course, this would not mean that the PRC would disappear. It would still have control over its claimed territory. But not being recognised, it would be little different from a rebel movement or paramilitary group or any non-state actor holding territory, and them holding that territory would be illegal according to the customs of international law (which means a nice excuse for anyone wanting to do something about it). Of course, we all know that international law is usually just abandoned in favour of realpolitik, but at the moment it supports a great power's actions, then the great power is not going to ignore the opportunity. And this is why the whole legal status of Taiwan and all the semantics surrounding it matter. Because it provides China with a justification and a pretext for invading Taiwan, and because it makes it a lot harder for the US to do anything against it.
The comparison to the Koreas, Germanies and Vietnams doesn't work because while there were always two of those, there is only one China. Like it or not, but in terms of international law and diplomatic possibilities, that means a huge difference. The Cold War context is completely meaningless, since the Cold War is long since history. That goes for China, but also for Korea. You can't look at those in a Cold War context anymore, simply because they no longer are in a Cold War context. The Chinese and the Korean conflicts share a lot of similarities, yes. But more than there are similarities there are differences. Saying they are similar is simply not true.
No, what I am saying is that its incredibly dangerous to accept countries strong-arming others into withdrawing recognition that was once there and then pretend its not a country anymore. Its an incredibly dangerous road to go down. Taiwan critically did use to have that recognition, unlike those you listed. It is also different, as that is Russia strong-arming other nations into accepting enclaves on their sovereign territory of Russian influence. Its not comparable. Taiwan was an actual country that was suddenly dropped due to politics. You're really doing Taiwan a disservice by comparing it to those examples. Taiwan is just as capable of surviving against China alone as Vietnam or Mongolia are, yet we consider them nations. Its just a false equivalence that leads to survival of the strongest if the only metric for survival of a nation is if it has support by a bigger country.
Recognition is indeed not bestowed by the UN, yet it is part of international recognition. but recognition alone does not a country make. You're undermining your own argument however, as you say Paraguay does not recognize the PRC yet it is a country. But the ROC is a country regardless of that recognition as well. Again, international recognition alone is a terrible metric for statehood that is open to a host of abuses as the aggressive pursuit of the One China policy by the PRC shows. International law only applies as far as it is reasonable, we have to guard against abuse inside of it. The status of Taiwan is a clear cut case of abuse that is being obfuscated by arguing about semantics. What China did to Taiwan might happen to any smaller country.
Again, there are only two of those because we say there was. Once we also said there were two Chinas. Like it or not, that is just the historical reality. International law and diplomatic possibilities are full of holes and errors that countries are too lazy or inactive to correct. It is not the end all decider. You shouldn't discount the Cold War, that is ridiculous. Just because it is history does not mean the consequences do not reverberate through history. North Korea and Taiwan are some of those consequences. Ignoring the historic context leads to nowhere. There are many more differences between Libya-Syria and Taiwan than Vietnam and the Koreas. Saying those similarities don't exist is simply just ignoring the decades of Cold War politics that led to the current situation.
The similarities do exist, but they are few and only relevant from a historical perspective. Therefore comparing the situation does not really make much sense. The situation between the PRC and ROC is pretty much unique, to re-iterate my original point. That also means it can't just happen to any small country. The reason the PRC was able to force others to stop recognising the ROC was because of its greater economic power, but just as much because they were both claiming to be the same country. The ROC was trying to force others to stop recognising the PRC just as much as the other way around. China trying to force other countries to stop recognising countries like Mongolia or Vietnam would cause a very strong international response quite unlike what happened with the One China thing, because it would be an act of aggression rather than part of an internal conflict of China itself.
Not necessarily. Lets not get bogged down on the comparison list, that seems like a personal measurement. However, China-Taiwan-US relations were shaped by the Cold War, so they are relevant from both a historical as well as modern perspective. We can always make comparisons because the conflict has often been placed in the context of the Cold War and the US fight against communism. It just depends on the angle of approach I guess.
Again, the situation is not very unique. Both the Republic of Korea and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea name themselves as the official legitimate government. They both lay claim to the entire Korean peninsula. This is similar to the ROC/PRC situation. If what you say: 'but just as much because they were both claiming to be the same country' is true, why do we recognize both Koreas when they both claim to be the same country? There is the incredible international disconnect, the only reason the international community doesn't recognize the ROC is the sheer size of the PRC, they have no issue accepting a North and South Korea even if they represent a single country.
This is also flawed because of Korea: 'because it would be an act of aggression rather than part of an internal conflict of China itself'. Korea is also an internal conflict, yet countries have no trouble jumping on one or the other's side to support it. Why would China support North Korea if its just an internal conflict? Isn't support of North Korea not in itself an inherent act of aggression if we decided that South Korea was the only legitimate Korea? Would the US and South Korea be free to wipe North Korea off the map under the same 'internal conflict' application? No, because part of the international community would not stand for it, as it will be seen as an act of aggression. This will be exactly how an invasion of Taiwan will be seen by part of the international community. Just because Taiwan is in a legal limbo does not mean that its annexation will lead to no international response, it will be rightly seen as an act of aggression and any neighbour is going to consider if its next on the list. And again, what if the PRC declared Mongolia to be a secessionist government just like the ROC used to? Would it become part of an internal conflict? Is there a statute of limitations on these things? Its been almost 60 years since the last violent confrontation between Taiwan and China, I would say that we shouldn't really treat it under the narrow rules of any old civil war after 60 years of inaction. International law is messy and incomplete, wielding it as the absolute truth can lead to absurd or even farcical situations, of which Taiwan is one.
Iron_Captain wrote: Your argument is very wrong. Again, you are not looking at it relatively. Crimea does not have lots of poor people, nor does it have a low average income by Ukrainian standards. It is poor when compared to countries in Western Europe or even Russia, yes. But compared to Ukraine as a whole even the poorer parts of Crimea were quite average.
And here you are walking back your argument. Here's what you originally said;
"Crimea (especially the city of Sevastopol) was one of the more powerful economic regions of Ukraine"
So which is it? Crimea is one of the more powerful economic regions, or is the region quite average? Were you wrong in your original claim, or are you wrong in your new claim?
Anyhow, Crimea remains a poorer region in the country. In Crimea GDP per capita is $2,900 USD per year, compared to the national average of $4,200 USD per year. Earning 70% of the national average puts a region among the weaker parts of the country.
It wasn't as well off as the capital or the areas in the east of Ukraine, but it was better off than the areas to the north of Crimea and in the west of Ukraine. The average income on Crimea was very average on a national level (again, measured against the average income of each other region of Ukraine individually, not against the average income of Ukraine as a whole because Kiev has an income that is like more than that of most regions combined and thus will heavily skew the picture).
And now we're back to your debating technique that you can make anything true if we just agree to cut out all the bits that make it not true. Why not take this all the way? You should declare Crimea is the most productive region in the country (as long as no-one does anything crazy like include the 16 or 17 ecoomically stronger Ukrainian regions).
Yes, because when it comes to international relations and diplomacy, legal and diplomatic 'nonsense' is important. Any organisation can call itself a government and act like one. ISIS, Kurdistan, Catalonia, Transdnistria, Sealand etc. But an essential part of what actually makes them a proper government is being recognised as such by other governments. In this, organisations like the ROC and Transdnistria fall into a grey area where some other governments recognise them but most of the world does not.
You're still getting confused by what's on paper versus what's real. Yes, recognition from other countries is important, but you seem to think that recognition comes from paper treaties, and not real relationships between countries. By your analysis, a Chinese invasion could happen, the US could want to act to defend Taiwan and be confident that will swift intervention they could rapidly defeat the Chinese navy at sea... but then someone says 'hey wait everyone we haven't formally recognised Taiwan as a country, we're not allowed to aid them'.
Iron_Captain wrote: Your argument is very wrong. Again, you are not looking at it relatively. Crimea does not have lots of poor people, nor does it have a low average income by Ukrainian standards. It is poor when compared to countries in Western Europe or even Russia, yes. But compared to Ukraine as a whole even the poorer parts of Crimea were quite average.
And here you are walking back your argument. Here's what you originally said;
"Crimea (especially the city of Sevastopol) was one of the more powerful economic regions of Ukraine"
So which is it? Crimea is one of the more powerful economic regions, or is the region quite average? Were you wrong in your original claim, or are you wrong in your new claim?
I already explained this to you: When I wrote my original statement, I was thinking of the coastal area of Crimea and of the city of Sevastopol and its surrounding area.
sebster wrote: Anyhow, Crimea remains a poorer region in the country. In Crimea GDP per capita is $2,900 USD per year, compared to the national average of $4,200 USD per year. Earning 70% of the national average puts a region among the weaker parts of the country.
Yes, and that national average is totally useless. It is way too high because Kiev's GDP is somewhere like $14,000 USD per year, more than double that of the next wealthiest region and more than that of most Ukrainian regions combined. This is making the national average meaningless for comparisons across the whole of Ukraine. Every region of Ukraine except Kiev is poor compared to the national average. You do not seem to understand that there are huge differences between and in the regions of Ukraine, making averages effectively meaningless.
It wasn't as well off as the capital or the areas in the east of Ukraine, but it was better off than the areas to the north of Crimea and in the west of Ukraine. The average income on Crimea was very average on a national level (again, measured against the average income of each other region of Ukraine individually, not against the average income of Ukraine as a whole because Kiev has an income that is like more than that of most regions combined and thus will heavily skew the picture).
And now we're back to your debating technique that you can make anything true if we just agree to cut out all the bits that make it not true. Why not take this all the way? You should declare Crimea is the most productive region in the country (as long as no-one does anything crazy like include the 16 or 17 ecoomically stronger Ukrainian regions).
Stop using information out of context. I am not cutting out bits, I am just trying to place them in a context for you so that you can understand them. Because what you are doing right now is just looking at numbers without placing them in any context whatsoever, which is not a very smart thing to do.
sebster wrote: quote]Yes, because when it comes to international relations and diplomacy, legal and diplomatic 'nonsense' is important. Any organisation can call itself a government and act like one. ISIS, Kurdistan, Catalonia, Transdnistria, Sealand etc. But an essential part of what actually makes them a proper government is being recognised as such by other governments. In this, organisations like the ROC and Transdnistria fall into a grey area where some other governments recognise them but most of the world does not.
You're still getting confused by what's on paper versus what's real. Yes, recognition from other countries is important, but you seem to think that recognition comes from paper treaties, and not real relationships between countries. By your analysis, a Chinese invasion could happen, the US could want to act to defend Taiwan and be confident that will swift intervention they could rapidly defeat the Chinese navy at sea... but then someone says 'hey wait everyone we haven't formally recognised Taiwan as a country, we're not allowed to aid them'.
It's goofy nonsense.
I never said anything like that. You are putting words in my mouth right now. Of course a country can negate international laws and customs. But as I explained before, that can lead to problems. Now if China were to invade Taiwan, the US would likely try to intervene in some way or another. But in the United Nations and such, the legal situation surrounding Taiwan would give China a good ground to condemn the US actions and to smear the US in front of the international community and to create all kinds of great propaganda. And propaganda is a powerful tool.
International law and treaties are not all in international relations. Frequently, countries just ignore them in favour of realpolitik or ideology-driven politics. But they remain nonetheless important, especially for PR.
Iron_Captain wrote: Yes, because when it comes to international relations and diplomacy, legal and diplomatic 'nonsense' is important. Any organisation can call itself a government and act like one. ISIS, Kurdistan, Catalonia, Transdnistria, Sealand etc. But an essential part of what actually makes them a proper government is being recognised as such by other governments. In this, organisations like the ROC and Transdnistria fall into a grey area where some other governments recognise them but most of the world does not.
You're still getting confused by what's on paper versus what's real. Yes, recognition from other countries is important, but you seem to think that recognition comes from paper treaties, and not real relationships between countries. By your analysis, a Chinese invasion could happen, the US could want to act to defend Taiwan and be confident that will swift intervention they could rapidly defeat the Chinese navy at sea... but then someone says 'hey wait everyone we haven't formally recognised Taiwan as a country, we're not allowed to aid them'.
It's goofy nonsense.
I never said anything like that. You are putting words in my mouth right now. Of course a country can negate international laws and customs. But as I explained before, that can lead to problems. Now if China were to invade Taiwan, the US would likely try to intervene in some way or another. But in the United Nations and such, the legal situation surrounding Taiwan would give China a good ground to condemn the US actions and to smear the US in front of the international community and to create all kinds of great propaganda. And propaganda is a powerful tool. International law and treaties are not all in international relations. Frequently, countries just ignore them in favour of realpolitik or ideology-driven politics. But they remain nonetheless important, especially for PR.
You're vastly overestimating the value and weight that international law carries in international relations. Most countries still more firmly side with Neo-Realist IR approaches and international law takes a secondary position in that approach. Yes, international law is nice and all, but not at the cost of regional stability or perhaps even national survival.
In the UN Security Council the US, France and the UK still outnumber China and Russia. Furthermore plenty of countries will side with the US in case of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. They couldn't care less about any legal situation in the face of a violent annexation of an independent state. Smear the US? Its China that will face an enormous political and perhaps economic backlash. A Chinese invasion would serve as the best propaganda for the US. East and South East Asia will be lining up against China, allying up or getting closer to the US. North Korea and Russia might support it, but none of the other neighbours are going to be jumping for joy to smear the US. The US will be the only country in the region that stands between them and becoming the next Taiwan. Nobody will care about the legalistic mumbo jumbo. All they will see is an aggressive and large neighbour that has or might have territorial claims on them as well. Vietnam, India, the Philippines, all will be fully aware of the implications of a conflict. It sure as hell won't end favourably internationally for China. Its a PR nightmare for China.
feeder wrote: 12 nukes along the West Coast would be enough to ruin that half of the US. It might not be actually blown up, but it is highly irradiated and unlivable.
Portions would still be fine. Hiroshima and Nagasaki aren't exactly nuclear hellholes. Even accounting for these being much larger bombs, the devastation wouldn't be as bad as post-apocalyptic video games and movies would lead us to believe.
You'd really just be looking at a hundred or so miles around each blast zone, with modifications for terrain.
Making 100 miles around the LA, SF, SD and Seattle epicenters uninhabitable for the next century due to multiple nukes pretty much turns off the entire West Coast. So does a string hitting DC, Philly, NYC and Boston. Add Chicago and DFW, and the US is done. Even if it's only a 50-mile radius from each city center, that's a HUGE impact. Lucky for the US, there are a lot of Overseas Chinese living in those cities, to give China pause. However, given the fact of a terminal US nuclear launch, I doubt China would simply take the hit and not retaliate.
Iron_Captain wrote: Yes, because when it comes to international relations and diplomacy, legal and diplomatic 'nonsense' is important. Any organisation can call itself a government and act like one. ISIS, Kurdistan, Catalonia, Transdnistria, Sealand etc. But an essential part of what actually makes them a proper government is being recognised as such by other governments. In this, organisations like the ROC and Transdnistria fall into a grey area where some other governments recognise them but most of the world does not.
You're still getting confused by what's on paper versus what's real. Yes, recognition from other countries is important, but you seem to think that recognition comes from paper treaties, and not real relationships between countries. By your analysis, a Chinese invasion could happen, the US could want to act to defend Taiwan and be confident that will swift intervention they could rapidly defeat the Chinese navy at sea... but then someone says 'hey wait everyone we haven't formally recognised Taiwan as a country, we're not allowed to aid them'.
It's goofy nonsense.
I never said anything like that. You are putting words in my mouth right now. Of course a country can negate international laws and customs. But as I explained before, that can lead to problems. Now if China were to invade Taiwan, the US would likely try to intervene in some way or another. But in the United Nations and such, the legal situation surrounding Taiwan would give China a good ground to condemn the US actions and to smear the US in front of the international community and to create all kinds of great propaganda. And propaganda is a powerful tool. International law and treaties are not all in international relations. Frequently, countries just ignore them in favour of realpolitik or ideology-driven politics. But they remain nonetheless important, especially for PR.
You're vastly overestimating the value and weight that international law carries in international relations. Most countries still more firmly side with Neo-Realist IR approaches and international law takes a secondary position in that approach. Yes, international law is nice and all, but not at the cost of regional stability or perhaps even national survival.
In the UN Security Council the US, France and the UK still outnumber China and Russia. Furthermore plenty of countries will side with the US in case of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. They couldn't care less about any legal situation in the face of a violent annexation of an independent state. Smear the US? Its China that will face an enormous political and perhaps economic backlash. A Chinese invasion would serve as the best propaganda for the US. East and South East Asia will be lining up against China, allying up or getting closer to the US. North Korea and Russia might support it, but none of the other neighbours are going to be jumping for joy to smear the US. The US will be the only country in the region that stands between them and becoming the next Taiwan. Nobody will care about the legalistic mumbo jumbo. All they will see is an aggressive and large neighbour that has or might have territorial claims on them as well. Vietnam, India, the Philippines, all will be fully aware of the implications of a conflict. It sure as hell won't end favourably internationally for China. Its a PR nightmare for China.
I think you are grossly overestimating the importance of Taiwan to the rest of the world. No one really cares for Taiwan. Even in Asia, I am pretty sure most countries value their business and good relations with China a lot more than some foreign place that doesn't mean much to them. They sure as hell aren't going to be rushing to confront China. Confronting China will put them in jeopardy and bring regional instability. Better to just let China do its thing and pretend nothing happened. That's better for relations, better for trade, better for stability and better for everyone except Taiwan. If the US ever goes to war with China over Taiwan, then the only country in the world I could see supporting them is Japan, and even that is highly doubtful. People may not like China very much. But they sure as hell like trade and peace a lot more than a war in which they could gain nothing but lose everything. Nobody in that part of the world has any desire to antagonise China (and neither has anyone in the rest of the world). The US will be left standing alone, and Chinese propaganda could most certainly play a role in it. I find that in the West, people often underestimate the power of propaganda. Never, never underestimate the power of propaganda. It can be more powerful than entire armies.
Iron_Captain wrote: Yes, because when it comes to international relations and diplomacy, legal and diplomatic 'nonsense' is important. Any organisation can call itself a government and act like one. ISIS, Kurdistan, Catalonia, Transdnistria, Sealand etc. But an essential part of what actually makes them a proper government is being recognised as such by other governments. In this, organisations like the ROC and Transdnistria fall into a grey area where some other governments recognise them but most of the world does not.
You're still getting confused by what's on paper versus what's real. Yes, recognition from other countries is important, but you seem to think that recognition comes from paper treaties, and not real relationships between countries. By your analysis, a Chinese invasion could happen, the US could want to act to defend Taiwan and be confident that will swift intervention they could rapidly defeat the Chinese navy at sea... but then someone says 'hey wait everyone we haven't formally recognised Taiwan as a country, we're not allowed to aid them'.
It's goofy nonsense.
I never said anything like that. You are putting words in my mouth right now. Of course a country can negate international laws and customs. But as I explained before, that can lead to problems. Now if China were to invade Taiwan, the US would likely try to intervene in some way or another. But in the United Nations and such, the legal situation surrounding Taiwan would give China a good ground to condemn the US actions and to smear the US in front of the international community and to create all kinds of great propaganda. And propaganda is a powerful tool. International law and treaties are not all in international relations. Frequently, countries just ignore them in favour of realpolitik or ideology-driven politics. But they remain nonetheless important, especially for PR.
You're vastly overestimating the value and weight that international law carries in international relations. Most countries still more firmly side with Neo-Realist IR approaches and international law takes a secondary position in that approach. Yes, international law is nice and all, but not at the cost of regional stability or perhaps even national survival.
In the UN Security Council the US, France and the UK still outnumber China and Russia. Furthermore plenty of countries will side with the US in case of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. They couldn't care less about any legal situation in the face of a violent annexation of an independent state. Smear the US? Its China that will face an enormous political and perhaps economic backlash. A Chinese invasion would serve as the best propaganda for the US. East and South East Asia will be lining up against China, allying up or getting closer to the US. North Korea and Russia might support it, but none of the other neighbours are going to be jumping for joy to smear the US. The US will be the only country in the region that stands between them and becoming the next Taiwan. Nobody will care about the legalistic mumbo jumbo. All they will see is an aggressive and large neighbour that has or might have territorial claims on them as well. Vietnam, India, the Philippines, all will be fully aware of the implications of a conflict. It sure as hell won't end favourably internationally for China. Its a PR nightmare for China.
I think you are grossly overestimating the importance of Taiwan to the rest of the world. No one really cares for Taiwan. Even in Asia, I am pretty sure most countries value their business and good relations with China a lot more than some foreign place that doesn't mean much to them. They sure as hell aren't going to be rushing to confront China. Confronting China will put them in jeopardy and bring regional instability. Better to just let China do its thing and pretend nothing happened. That's better for relations, better for trade, better for stability and better for everyone except Taiwan. If the US ever goes to war with China over Taiwan, then the only country in the world I could see supporting them is Japan, and even that is highly doubtful. People may not like China very much. But they sure as hell like trade and peace a lot more than a war in which they could gain nothing but lose everything. Nobody in that part of the world has any desire to antagonise China (and neither has anyone in the rest of the world). The US will be left standing alone, and Chinese propaganda could most certainly play a role in it. I find that in the West, people often underestimate the power of propaganda. Never, never underestimate the power of propaganda. It can be more powerful than entire armies.
To be fair, you're misunderstanding the point. Taiwan is not important (in the big picture). What is important is forceful annexation by China of another country in East Asia. If you don't see the implications of a consequence free war of annexation by a very nationalistic and belligerent semi-superpower (or at least moving towards it) I don't have much else to say. Look at how much dust is being kicked up over the South China Sea Disputes. That's just about rocks in the middle of a sea of water! You think other countries are just going to be ok with China annexing one of their neighbours when they won't even give up rocks? The same countries that China has territorial claims on? Chinese annexation has far more dire implications than just the disappearance of Taiwan. Sure, its unlikely that most neighbours will fight for Taiwan, but you can bet that all of them will be lining up for a renewed East Asian NATO. There is a response between doing nothing and going full on balls to the wall conflict. What happens in between is what is going to be incredibly damaging politically to China. Its driving everyone right into the arms of China's greatest regional rival. Today its Taiwan, tomorrow its you, this is the lesson countries have learned from history, which is why they are watching China in the South China Sea like hawks. In the end a decision has to be made if this is just about money and economics or if the world cares about hostile powers annexing neighbours. The US and its allies will certainly move towards containment of China in a more active fashion.
The consequences are much much bigger than just the annexation of Taiwan. You very much overestimate support for China in this scenario. You think people in the West underestimate propaganda? I think you underestimate the fear of China in East Asian countries as a consequence of years of border disputes and hostile actions in the South China Sea. Its bigger than just Taiwan, Taiwan will be the wake up call.
Disciple of Fate wrote: To be fair, you're misunderstanding the point. Taiwan is not important (in the big picture). What is important is forceful annexation by China of another country in East Asia.
Taiwan is NOT "another country". That's what you keep forgetting.
Iron_Captain wrote: Yes, because when it comes to international relations and diplomacy, legal and diplomatic 'nonsense' is important. Any organisation can call itself a government and act like one. ISIS, Kurdistan, Catalonia, Transdnistria, Sealand etc. But an essential part of what actually makes them a proper government is being recognised as such by other governments. In this, organisations like the ROC and Transdnistria fall into a grey area where some other governments recognise them but most of the world does not.
You're still getting confused by what's on paper versus what's real. Yes, recognition from other countries is important, but you seem to think that recognition comes from paper treaties, and not real relationships between countries. By your analysis, a Chinese invasion could happen, the US could want to act to defend Taiwan and be confident that will swift intervention they could rapidly defeat the Chinese navy at sea... but then someone says 'hey wait everyone we haven't formally recognised Taiwan as a country, we're not allowed to aid them'.
It's goofy nonsense.
I never said anything like that. You are putting words in my mouth right now. Of course a country can negate international laws and customs. But as I explained before, that can lead to problems. Now if China were to invade Taiwan, the US would likely try to intervene in some way or another. But in the United Nations and such, the legal situation surrounding Taiwan would give China a good ground to condemn the US actions and to smear the US in front of the international community and to create all kinds of great propaganda. And propaganda is a powerful tool.
International law and treaties are not all in international relations. Frequently, countries just ignore them in favour of realpolitik or ideology-driven politics. But they remain nonetheless important, especially for PR.
You're vastly overestimating the value and weight that international law carries in international relations. Most countries still more firmly side with Neo-Realist IR approaches and international law takes a secondary position in that approach. Yes, international law is nice and all, but not at the cost of regional stability or perhaps even national survival.
In the UN Security Council the US, France and the UK still outnumber China and Russia. Furthermore plenty of countries will side with the US in case of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. They couldn't care less about any legal situation in the face of a violent annexation of an independent state. Smear the US? Its China that will face an enormous political and perhaps economic backlash. A Chinese invasion would serve as the best propaganda for the US. East and South East Asia will be lining up against China, allying up or getting closer to the US. North Korea and Russia might support it, but none of the other neighbours are going to be jumping for joy to smear the US. The US will be the only country in the region that stands between them and becoming the next Taiwan. Nobody will care about the legalistic mumbo jumbo. All they will see is an aggressive and large neighbour that has or might have territorial claims on them as well. Vietnam, India, the Philippines, all will be fully aware of the implications of a conflict. It sure as hell won't end favourably internationally for China. Its a PR nightmare for China.
I think you are grossly overestimating the importance of Taiwan to the rest of the world. No one really cares for Taiwan. Even in Asia, I am pretty sure most countries value their business and good relations with China a lot more than some foreign place that doesn't mean much to them. They sure as hell aren't going to be rushing to confront China. Confronting China will put them in jeopardy and bring regional instability. Better to just let China do its thing and pretend nothing happened. That's better for relations, better for trade, better for stability and better for everyone except Taiwan. If the US ever goes to war with China over Taiwan, then the only country in the world I could see supporting them is Japan, and even that is highly doubtful. People may not like China very much. But they sure as hell like trade and peace a lot more than a war in which they could gain nothing but lose everything. Nobody in that part of the world has any desire to antagonise China (and neither has anyone in the rest of the world). The US will be left standing alone, and Chinese propaganda could most certainly play a role in it. I find that in the West, people often underestimate the power of propaganda. Never, never underestimate the power of propaganda. It can be more powerful than entire armies.
To be fair, you're misunderstanding the point. Taiwan is not important (in the big picture). What is important is forceful annexation by China of another country in East Asia. If you don't see the implications of a consequence free war of annexation by a very nationalistic and belligerent semi-superpower (or at least moving towards it) I don't have much else to say. Look at how much dust is being kicked up over the South China Sea Disputes. That's just about rocks in the middle of a sea of water! You think other countries are just going to be ok with China annexing one of their neighbours when they won't even give up rocks? The same countries that China has territorial claims on? Chinese annexation has far more dire implications than just the disappearance of Taiwan. Sure, its unlikely that most neighbours will fight for Taiwan, but you can bet that all of them will be lining up for a renewed East Asian NATO. There is a response between doing nothing and going full on balls to the wall conflict. What happens in between is what is going to be incredibly damaging politically to China. Its driving everyone right into the arms of China's greatest regional rival. Today its Taiwan, tomorrow its you, this is the lesson countries have learned from history, which is why they are watching China in the South China Sea like hawks. In the end a decision has to be made if this is just about money and economics or if the world cares about hostile powers annexing neighbours. The US and its allies will certainly move towards containment of China in a more active fashion.
The consequences are much much bigger than just the annexation of Taiwan. You very much overestimate support for China in this scenario. You think people in the West underestimate propaganda? I think you underestimate the fear of China in East Asian countries as a consequence of years of border disputes and hostile actions in the South China Sea. Its bigger than just Taiwan, Taiwan will be the wake up call.
China, in its thousands of years of history has only very rarely shown indications that it wants to annex other countries. In fact, China has never invaded or annexed other countries in recent history. China does have border disputes with some of its neighbours, but these mostly concern small, marginal areas about which you may be kicking up dust but that in the end are not worthy of risking one's entire country for. China has never shown any aggressiveness towards areas that haven't been part of China in recent history, nor does it have territorial claims on any of those areas. The idea that all countries in East Asia are terrified of being invaded and annexed by China is ridiculous. At most, they are frightened that China will just take those disputed rocks in the sea and they won't be able to do anything about it (something which everyone knows is going to happen anyway and which is in fact already happening right now). And in this sense the distinction between Taiwan and countries like Vietnam, North and South Korea, Laos, Cambodia etc. etc. is very important. Taiwan is at risk of Chinese invasion and annexation because it is part of China. The other areas are not part of China, not subject to any territorial claims and China has never in its long history shown any desire to invade or annex them.
The world does care about hostile powers annexing neighbours. But when it is a superpower doing the annexing, small countries do not care very much. Just look at Crimea. Vietnam or Japan aren't going to be caring anymore about a Chinese annexation of Taiwan than Lithuania or Poland cared about the Russian annexation of Crimea. They will shout, maybe even introduce sanctions, but that is it. And under the table they will keep talking and trading.
Also, I am not overestimating support for China. I never said there would be any support for China. China will have zero support in this. But neither will the US. Every single country in the world that is not China or the US will be wanting to stay the hell out of this.
Disciple of Fate wrote: To be fair, you're misunderstanding the point. Taiwan is not important (in the big picture). What is important is forceful annexation by China of another country in East Asia.
Taiwan is NOT "another country". That's what you keep forgetting.
For all intents and purposes it is. You keep forgetting that international recognition is not the end all decider of things in this world. That it technically isn't a country won't matter to anyone once Chinese troops start rolling in!
Disciple of Fate wrote: To be fair, you're misunderstanding the point. Taiwan is not important (in the big picture). What is important is forceful annexation by China of another country in East Asia.
Taiwan is NOT "another country". That's what you keep forgetting.
For all intents and purposes it is. You keep forgetting that international recognition is not the end all decider of things in this world. That it technically isn't a country won't matter to anyone once Chinese troops start rolling in!
How are you so certain about this? Every country in the world (except maybe the US of course) will be wanting to stay of this total mess. Taiwan not technically being a country provides the perfect excuse for that. When asked to comment on the situation, all leaders will need to say is that they are worried about the situation, wish to see an end to the violence but won't give further comment on Chinese internal affairs. Result: Relations with China maintained, stability and trade preserved and no loss of face.
Iron_Captain wrote: Yes, because when it comes to international relations and diplomacy, legal and diplomatic 'nonsense' is important. Any organisation can call itself a government and act like one. ISIS, Kurdistan, Catalonia, Transdnistria, Sealand etc. But an essential part of what actually makes them a proper government is being recognised as such by other governments. In this, organisations like the ROC and Transdnistria fall into a grey area where some other governments recognise them but most of the world does not.
You're still getting confused by what's on paper versus what's real. Yes, recognition from other countries is important, but you seem to think that recognition comes from paper treaties, and not real relationships between countries. By your analysis, a Chinese invasion could happen, the US could want to act to defend Taiwan and be confident that will swift intervention they could rapidly defeat the Chinese navy at sea... but then someone says 'hey wait everyone we haven't formally recognised Taiwan as a country, we're not allowed to aid them'.
It's goofy nonsense.
I never said anything like that. You are putting words in my mouth right now. Of course a country can negate international laws and customs. But as I explained before, that can lead to problems. Now if China were to invade Taiwan, the US would likely try to intervene in some way or another. But in the United Nations and such, the legal situation surrounding Taiwan would give China a good ground to condemn the US actions and to smear the US in front of the international community and to create all kinds of great propaganda. And propaganda is a powerful tool.
International law and treaties are not all in international relations. Frequently, countries just ignore them in favour of realpolitik or ideology-driven politics. But they remain nonetheless important, especially for PR.
You're vastly overestimating the value and weight that international law carries in international relations. Most countries still more firmly side with Neo-Realist IR approaches and international law takes a secondary position in that approach. Yes, international law is nice and all, but not at the cost of regional stability or perhaps even national survival.
In the UN Security Council the US, France and the UK still outnumber China and Russia. Furthermore plenty of countries will side with the US in case of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. They couldn't care less about any legal situation in the face of a violent annexation of an independent state. Smear the US? Its China that will face an enormous political and perhaps economic backlash. A Chinese invasion would serve as the best propaganda for the US. East and South East Asia will be lining up against China, allying up or getting closer to the US. North Korea and Russia might support it, but none of the other neighbours are going to be jumping for joy to smear the US. The US will be the only country in the region that stands between them and becoming the next Taiwan. Nobody will care about the legalistic mumbo jumbo. All they will see is an aggressive and large neighbour that has or might have territorial claims on them as well. Vietnam, India, the Philippines, all will be fully aware of the implications of a conflict. It sure as hell won't end favourably internationally for China. Its a PR nightmare for China.
I think you are grossly overestimating the importance of Taiwan to the rest of the world. No one really cares for Taiwan. Even in Asia, I am pretty sure most countries value their business and good relations with China a lot more than some foreign place that doesn't mean much to them. They sure as hell aren't going to be rushing to confront China. Confronting China will put them in jeopardy and bring regional instability. Better to just let China do its thing and pretend nothing happened. That's better for relations, better for trade, better for stability and better for everyone except Taiwan. If the US ever goes to war with China over Taiwan, then the only country in the world I could see supporting them is Japan, and even that is highly doubtful. People may not like China very much. But they sure as hell like trade and peace a lot more than a war in which they could gain nothing but lose everything. Nobody in that part of the world has any desire to antagonise China (and neither has anyone in the rest of the world). The US will be left standing alone, and Chinese propaganda could most certainly play a role in it. I find that in the West, people often underestimate the power of propaganda. Never, never underestimate the power of propaganda. It can be more powerful than entire armies.
To be fair, you're misunderstanding the point. Taiwan is not important (in the big picture). What is important is forceful annexation by China of another country in East Asia. If you don't see the implications of a consequence free war of annexation by a very nationalistic and belligerent semi-superpower (or at least moving towards it) I don't have much else to say. Look at how much dust is being kicked up over the South China Sea Disputes. That's just about rocks in the middle of a sea of water! You think other countries are just going to be ok with China annexing one of their neighbours when they won't even give up rocks? The same countries that China has territorial claims on? Chinese annexation has far more dire implications than just the disappearance of Taiwan. Sure, its unlikely that most neighbours will fight for Taiwan, but you can bet that all of them will be lining up for a renewed East Asian NATO. There is a response between doing nothing and going full on balls to the wall conflict. What happens in between is what is going to be incredibly damaging politically to China. Its driving everyone right into the arms of China's greatest regional rival. Today its Taiwan, tomorrow its you, this is the lesson countries have learned from history, which is why they are watching China in the South China Sea like hawks. In the end a decision has to be made if this is just about money and economics or if the world cares about hostile powers annexing neighbours. The US and its allies will certainly move towards containment of China in a more active fashion.
The consequences are much much bigger than just the annexation of Taiwan. You very much overestimate support for China in this scenario. You think people in the West underestimate propaganda? I think you underestimate the fear of China in East Asian countries as a consequence of years of border disputes and hostile actions in the South China Sea. Its bigger than just Taiwan, Taiwan will be the wake up call.
China, in its thousands of years of history has only very rarely shown indications that it wants to annex other countries. In fact, China has never invaded or annexed other countries in recent history. China does have border disputes with some of its neighbours, but these mostly concern small, marginal areas about which you may be kicking up dust but that in the end are not worthy of risking one's entire country for. China has never shown any aggressiveness towards areas that haven't been part of China in recent history, nor does it have territorial claims on any of those areas. The idea that all countries in East Asia are terrified of being invaded and annexed by China is ridiculous. At most, they are frightened that China will just take those disputed rocks in the sea and they won't be able to do anything about it (something which everyone knows is going to happen anyway and which is in fact already happening right now). And in this sense the distinction between Taiwan and countries like Vietnam, North and South Korea, Laos, Cambodia etc. etc. is very important. Taiwan is at risk of Chinese invasion and annexation because it is part of China. The other areas are not part of China, not subject to any territorial claims and China has never in its long history shown any desire to invade or annex them.
The world does care about hostile powers annexing neighbours. But when it is a superpower doing the annexing, small countries do not care very much. Just look at Crimea. Vietnam or Japan aren't going to be caring anymore about a Chinese annexation of Taiwan than Lithuania or Poland cared about the Russian annexation of Crimea. They will shout, maybe even introduce sanctions, but that is it. And under the table they will keep talking and trading.
Also, I am not overestimating support for China. I never said there would be any support for China. China will have zero support in this. But neither will the US. Every single country in the world that is not China or the US will be wanting to stay the hell out of this.
The PRC in its short history has fought against the SU, India, Vietnam, South Korea, the US and Taiwan. It has also annexed Tibet and Xinjiang because they 'belonged' to China. All these wars with the exception of the Korean War were started and pursued by China. Vietnam has been especially weary of Chinese belligerence and invasion throughout the centuries.
You say these border disputes are not worth risking your country for. But is Taiwan really as 'no one really cares' for it? China decides what is worth it and other countries aren't going to sit back and relax betting it will be over after Taiwan. China has claims on border areas with India. Islands with Vietnam, the Philippines, South Korea and Japan. It has killed for some of these islands and is prepared to hold shows of military force. If you really think other countries around China aren't worried by these developments I would advise you read up on military investments and developments of relations with the US of East Asian countries exactly over Chinese assertiveness. China is willing to push to the brink of war for its claims and the others aren't going to back down in fear of losing even more. Its an incredibly volatile situation with war ships standing off. One mistake and the world has a conflict on its hand over rocks. If China goes that far over rocks, why would any country not be worried?
Crimea is a good example. Most of the world has condemned Russia's actions and it has led to sanctions. Yet this was only a part of Ukraine and not the entire country which is key. Annexation of the entire country would have pushed the envelop much further. Even China has not fully supported Russia, as its commited to preserving territorial integrity and sovereignty (for obvious reasons). After Crimea was annexed it was not business as usual. You don't see the potential for political isolation of China in East Asia that an invasion might bring, a ring of US allies united to contain China. Maybe some African nations or former SU states won't care, but those aren't the countries China cares about either.
You said they could 'smear the US', if no one supports China who will they 'smear the US' to? Themselves?
Disciple of Fate wrote: To be fair, you're misunderstanding the point. Taiwan is not important (in the big picture). What is important is forceful annexation by China of another country in East Asia.
Taiwan is NOT "another country". That's what you keep forgetting.
For all intents and purposes it is. You keep forgetting that international recognition is not the end all decider of things in this world. That it technically isn't a country won't matter to anyone once Chinese troops start rolling in!
How are you so certain about this? Every country in the world (except maybe the US of course) will be wanting to stay of this total mess. Taiwan not technically being a country provides the perfect excuse for that. When asked to comment on the situation, all leaders will need to say is that they are worried about the situation, wish to see an end to the violence but won't give further comment on Chinese internal affairs. Result: Relations with China maintained, stability and trade preserved and no loss of face.
Because historically speaking giving aggressive countries an inch has proven detrimental to world peace. You don't look at the big picture of what could happen after Taiwan. What if China starts lobbying to kick out another country. Because critically the ROC/Taiwan used to be a 'country'.
Disciple of Fate wrote: To be fair, you're misunderstanding the point. Taiwan is not important (in the big picture). What is important is forceful annexation by China of another country in East Asia.
Taiwan is NOT "another country". That's what you keep forgetting.
For all intents and purposes it is. You keep forgetting that international recognition is not the end all decider of things in this world. That it technically isn't a country won't matter to anyone once Chinese troops start rolling in!
How are you so certain about this? Every country in the world (except maybe the US of course) will be wanting to stay of this total mess. Taiwan not technically being a country provides the perfect excuse for that. When asked to comment on the situation, all leaders will need to say is that they are worried about the situation, wish to see an end to the violence but won't give further comment on Chinese internal affairs. Result: Relations with China maintained, stability and trade preserved and no loss of face.
Because historically speaking giving aggressive countries an inch has proven detrimental to world peace. You don't look at the big picture of what could happen after Taiwan. What if China starts lobbying to kick out another country. Because critically the ROC/Taiwan used to be a country.
The lack of international recognition is the entire reason everybody (including the US) is going to "tut-tut, how sad" when China retakes Taiwan by force. There's absolutely no reason for America to lose lives starting an international war we can't possibly "win".
As for giving an inch, how are things in Russian Crimea today? I believe that the Russians took a LOT more than an inch. But to be fair, the UN did go as far as to condemn the annexation and occupation of Crimea. Have the Russians taken Finland, Estonia, Latvia, or Lithuania? What about the rest of the Ukraine? No?
Best case, China takes Taiwan with minimal (Taiwanese civilian) casualties, and the US gets to pass a resolution decrying the non-peaceful resolution to the Chinese Civil War.
Disciple of Fate wrote: To be fair, you're misunderstanding the point. Taiwan is not important (in the big picture). What is important is forceful annexation by China of another country in East Asia.
Taiwan is NOT "another country". That's what you keep forgetting.
For all intents and purposes it is. You keep forgetting that international recognition is not the end all decider of things in this world. That it technically isn't a country won't matter to anyone once Chinese troops start rolling in!
How are you so certain about this? Every country in the world (except maybe the US of course) will be wanting to stay of this total mess. Taiwan not technically being a country provides the perfect excuse for that. When asked to comment on the situation, all leaders will need to say is that they are worried about the situation, wish to see an end to the violence but won't give further comment on Chinese internal affairs. Result: Relations with China maintained, stability and trade preserved and no loss of face.
Because historically speaking giving aggressive countries an inch has proven detrimental to world peace. You don't look at the big picture of what could happen after Taiwan. What if China starts lobbying to kick out another country. Because critically the ROC/Taiwan used to be a country.
The lack of international recognition is the entire reason everybody (including the US) is going to "tut-tut, how sad" when China retakes Taiwan by force. There's absolutely no reason for America to lose lives starting an international war we can't possibly "win".
As for giving an inch, how are things in Russian Crimea today? I believe that the Russians took a LOT more than an inch. But to be fair, the UN did go as far as to condemn the annexation and occupation of Crimea. Have the Russians taken Finland, Estonia, Latvia, or Lithuania? What about the rest of the Ukraine? No?
Best case, China takes Taiwan with minimal (Taiwanese civilian) casualties, and the US gets to pass a resolution decrying the non-peaceful resolution to the Chinese Civil War.
I'm sorry, you seem to forget that even when Taiwan was no longer a 'country' the US indicated a willingness to defend it during the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis. The US has started a good number of international wars it can't 'win', it doesn't seem to stop the US.
Yes and after giving Russia Abkhazia and South Ossetia they took Crimea. Slowly taking bits and pieces. Maybe later Donetsk and Luhansk. The slow creeping progress is there even if you don't want to see it. Also its foolish to pretend Russia's neighbours didn't get scared and hammered on more NATO presence, it has consequences.
Question though, if the world declared the US not to be a country anymore, are we free to annihilate it?
First, the Cold War is over. Second, none of those wars have been against a country with MIRV MRV ICBMs like China.
Maybe Russia's non-NATO neighbors should better Finlandize their behavior, with a default acquiescence and obeisance to Russian wishes.
That's a pretty stupid question, even for you; however, playing along, if the US failed to be a sovereign nation, then yes, someone could annihilate it without much in the way of international consequences, just like the Palestinans and Kurds today. Or the Taiwanese.
JohnHwangDD wrote: First, the Cold War is over. Second, none of those wars have been against a country with MIRV MRV ICBMs like China.
Maybe Russia's non-NATO neighbors should better Finlandize their behavior, with a default acquiescence and obeisance to Russian wishes.
That's a pretty stupid question, even for you; however, playing along, if the US failed to be a sovereign nation, then yes, someone could annihilate it without much in the way of international consequences, just like the Palestinans and Kurds today. Or the Taiwanese.
It still doesn't make sense. The Third Taiwan Strait Crisis was after the end of the Cold War, between Taiwan+US and a nuclear capable China. Even now US warships are facing off their Chinese counterparts in the South China Sea, a tiny mistake can lead to war. All that is needed is one mistake, it doesn't even need to be a deliberate action.
"Finlandize their behavior" is exactly the problem with letting countries like China and Russia do what they want. It means going back to the bloody 19th century and spheres of influence. These are independent countries that should be able to direct their own fate. This is why those international laws were set up in the first place. Going back to letting China and Russia do what they want will end up in every country nuking up in no time. Latvia can't beat Russia alone? Better get nukes for MAD! Taiwan is very capable of developing them too, it is likely they might if China starts breathing down their neck a bit too much. You have a very classical realist world view, which in theory/practice is terrible for stability and peace.
Its not a stupid question however. Your answer is twisting the question. I never said anything about the US failing 'to be a sovereign nation'. I said if international recognition is withdraw. Sovereignty is given by the people to the state, not by other states. The Westphalian system holds that sovereignty is only held by the domestic authority i.e. the ROC government. There are key differences between the Kurds, Palestine and Taiwan. First, Palestine is recognized as a state, even in the UN. Second, the Kurds have never had a territory they had de facto control over without outside interference, no country existed of which recognition was taken away. Taiwan used to be a state forced out of the international system. All these three groups/states are covered by different parts of international law. That you just heaped them all together says a lot about the depth of your argument. You're blindly hammering on legal definitions while ignoring the facts.
Finally, its absurd that you believe nations can be annihilated without international consequences. Those that enforce international law are individual states in the system. There will be consequences, as every state is free to apply what action it thinks is best.
Taiwan is NOT "another country". That's what you keep forgetting.
That's arguable.
JohnHwangDD wrote:
Making 100 miles around the LA, SF, SD and Seattle epicenters uninhabitable for the next century due to multiple nukes pretty much turns off the entire West Coast. So does a string hitting DC, Philly, NYC and Boston. Add Chicago and DFW, and the US is done. Even if it's only a 50-mile radius from each city center, that's a HUGE impact. Lucky for the US, there are a lot of Overseas Chinese living in those cities, to give China pause. However, given the fact of a terminal US nuclear launch, I doubt China would simply take the hit and not retaliate.
The issues with this are many, and I'll have to simplify a bit.
One, firing China's handful of sufficiently long range weapons across the pacific would be a skeet shoot. Bar act of God, none of them will reach their targets.
Two, even if the missiles that could hit targets in the US did, there are these things called the Rocky Mountains that would minimize damage east of them.
Three air bursts, the most effective way to kill humans with nukes also do not actually produce the huge irradiated clouds of fallout, as most of the radioactive material is consumed in the blast.
Four, with an optimum altitude detonation, China's Dong Feng 5, one of the biggest bangs in their arsenal, at 5 megatons, would, in a hit on San Francisco, obliterate downtown, but it's secondary effects would only stretch from about San Mateo to San Rafael. You see burned people in the area, increasing in severity as you approach ground zero, but not the sort massive devastation you seem to think. With this particular missile and warhead, you'd see reduced effectiveness in a ground impact, though the sexy crater would pump out over 1k rads an hour, it still would not cover a very large area.
That sexy 20psi+over-pressure wave that you see in so many nuclear tests is only possible due to the relatively low altitudes that the test is taking place at. At ideal altitudes you're looking at 5psi or less on the ground, but lots of fires.
You seem to have missed that the Chinese have downed US planes and sunk US ships since then, and neither country has launched their nukes.
You think Russia or China would allow Latvia or Taiwan to develop nukes? LOL. That's the sort of thing that DEMANDS an immediate decapitation and occupation. As for your claim of instability, there seems to be no issue. Russia has their buffer states and warm water port in case of US aggression. China is securing the SCS against US aggression. The world is by far a safer place today precisely because Russia and China are actively reining in the US on a global basis, both in Europe and the Pacific.
Taiwan has never been a state. It was always the mainland Chinese government in exile, and the PRC was rightful heir to China.
As above, if the US failed to be a sovereign, yes it could be annihilated. That won't happen, which is why I called you out as asking an exceedingly stupid question.
JohnHwangDD wrote: You seem to have missed that the Chinese have downed US planes and sunk US ships since then, and neither country has launched their nukes.
You think Russia or China would allow Latvia or Taiwan to develop nukes? LOL. That's the sort of thing that DEMANDS an immediate decapitation and occupation. As for your claim of instability, there seems to be no issue. Russia has their buffer states and warm water port in case of US aggression. China is securing the SCS against US aggression. The world is by far a safer place today precisely because Russia and China are actively reining in the US on a global basis, both in Europe and the Pacific.
Taiwan has never been a state. It was always the mainland Chinese government in exile, and the PRC was rightful heir to China.
As above, if the US failed to be a sovereign, yes it could be annihilated. That won't happen, which is why I called you out as asking an exceedingly stupid question.
I just don't know where you're going with this. You said: "First, the Cold War is over. Second, none of those wars have been against a country with MIRV MRV ICBMs like China." I replied by noting that the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis occurred after the Cold War with the US facing down a nuclear capable China. You then give me further examples of hostile actions, which are wrong by the way. China has not sunk a US vessel since the Third Crisis (or ever for that matter) and only one US plane needed to make an emergency landing after colliding with a Chinese jet that killed the Chinese pilot. None of this has led to nuclear war. If anything the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis shows that China is not prepared to risk war with the US over Taiwan, let alone nuclear war. Taiwan is not worth a nuclear war to China and Taiwan is never going to push it.
"LOL"? You contradict yourself. Your slavish adherence to international law when it comes to Taiwan and Chinese intervention goes out the door when it comes to Latvia? Also, why does it DEMAND an immediate occupation. The US has let plenty of countries acquire nukes. Furthermore Latvia is already under the NATO nuclear umbrella. Why would Russia risk nuclear war to prevent a few more nuclear missiles in the world? The contradictions are astounding. There is plenty of instability, Ukraine is experiencing a civil war and NATO expanded into former SU satellite states exactly because they were scared of Russia. Is it only instability if it is full on conflict instead of proxy wars? Russia has funded and facilitated plenty of proxy wars, going against international law. So yes, letting strong countries do what they want leads to instability. The SCS Disputes are being waged over the backs of independent countries and the lives of their citizens, how that isn't causing more instability or making the world safer is beyond me.
Also no, the world has become progressively safer due to US unipolar power if you look at the statistics. The world becomes more dangerous if moving between polar worlds. A shift to a multipolar or bipolar world after US hegemony will likely lead to more conflict due to hegemonic competition and rising superpowers becoming assertive. How have Russia and China made the world safer exactly?
Again, Taiwan was a state, even a member of the P5 of the UN Security Council until 1971. I'm not sure why you keep insisting on "never", as that is just objectively wrong. You're just doubling down of the semantics of the name of Taiwan over the ROC. The ROC is a state, just a state with the same territorial claims as the PRC, the ROC is Taiwan and the PRC is China. Again, both South Korea and North Korea claim full ownership over the Korean peninsula. Who gets to have that according to your 'rightful heir' theory? You argue from a position that is completely lacking historical awareness and in many cases facts.
You seem not to understand the difference between sovereignty and international recognition. Calling it a stupid question while completely misunderstanding it is very ironic. The US can still be a sovereign country without international recognition. You may call the question stupid all you wish, but it highlights the absurdity of just being able to delete a country based on another powerful one not liking it.
JohnHwangDD wrote: You seem to have missed that the Chinese have downed US planes and sunk US ships since then, and neither country has launched their nukes.
Iron_Captain wrote: I already explained this to you: When I wrote my original statement, I was thinking of the coastal area of Crimea and of the city of Sevastopol and its surrounding area.
I know, and as I've explained to you many times now, thinking of just the coastal region was the core of your mistake. When Ukraine controlled the region it didn't get to just think about and manage the rich parts, it had to deal with the whole Crimea. When Russia took control of the region, they didn't just get the rich and strategically important parts, they got the whole region. You don't get to look at just the good bits, ignore the bad bits, and declare the region wealthy.
Yes, and that national average is totally useless. It is way too high because Kiev's GDP is somewhere like $14,000 USD per year, more than double that of the next wealthiest region and more than that of most Ukrainian regions combined. This is making the national average meaningless for comparisons across the whole of Ukraine. Every region of Ukraine except Kiev is poor compared to the national average.
When Kiev is taken out of the figures the rest average $3,252 USD, which is still greater than Crimea's $2,952. So even if we manipulate the figures as you request, your claim that Crimea is one of the rich areas of Ukraine is still completely and utterly wrong. At an absolute stretch, you could make the claim that if we exclude the wealthiest part of Ukraine, then Crimea almost reaches the average of the rest of the Ukraine.
Stop using information out of context. I am not cutting out bits, I am just trying to place them in a context for you so that you can understand them. Because what you are doing right now is just looking at numbers without placing them in any context whatsoever, which is not a very smart thing to do.
You are trying cut bits out. You're doing this to justify your original claim that Crimea was one of the richest regions of Ukraine. Given that was totally wrong, you've now backtracked, saying we should ignore the actual rich parts of Ukraine, and only look at the rich parts of Crimea.
I never said anything like that. You are putting words in my mouth right now. Of course a country can negate international laws and customs. But as I explained before, that can lead to problems. Now if China were to invade Taiwan, the US would likely try to intervene in some way or another.
You've gotten confused about what is being debated. This isn't about the US or anyone negating international laws and customs, that's a weird interpretation you've placed on this. It is about recognising independent states and ensuring they maintain sovereign borders, and recognising this is an essential element of a peaceful world order, and believing that is true whether they are internationally recognised states or states in reality without complete, formal recognition.
But in the United Nations and such, the legal situation surrounding Taiwan would give China a good ground to condemn the US actions and to smear the US in front of the international community and to create all kinds of great propaganda. And propaganda is a powerful tool.
You are wildly ignorant about how a Chinese attempt to occupy Taiwan will play out in the UN.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Iron_Captain wrote: I think you are grossly overestimating the importance of Taiwan to the rest of the world. No one really cares for Taiwan.
No, but they care about their own sovereign borders, and they care about international stability. A world where China can forcefully occupy Taiwan with no response from the international community is a world where any nation in reach of China can be similarly occupied. And China's reach will only expand.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnHwangDD wrote: Taiwan is NOT "another country". That's what you keep forgetting.
No-one is forgetting anything. Read the fething thread. In terms of formal international law China and Taiwan are tied together in a legal mess. In terms of real world, functioning societies they are independent, unique entities.
If China made an overt, hostile move against Taiwan, no-one is gonna care about the legal formalities.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Iron_Captain wrote: How are you so certain about this? Every country in the world (except maybe the US of course) will be wanting to stay of this total mess.
Wildly ignorant nonsense. The rest of the world won't act without the US taking the lead, because an effective military counter requires US blue seas naval superiority. But if the US wants to act to protect Taiwan, they'll get overwhelming support from the international community.
You seem to have absolutely no idea how important sovereign borders are to the international world order.
Again, Taiwan was NEVER a state. China was a state, and the ROC was recognized as the government of all China, then government in exile, then stripped of recognition. Taiwan has never declared independence, and lacks sovereignty. It was a puppet regime that propped up by the US, but it is not, and never has been a state.
Second, the US as the primary power seems to have only exacerbated wars in the Middle East. It is obvious that the US needs to be checked.
Again, the same could be said of South Korea. That people grant the distinction of country to one but not the other is just out there.
When the world had two superpowers the world wasn't exactly more peaceful than it is now. Statistically speaking violence has been in decline for a long time and has gone further down after the end of the Cold War. The US shouldn't have free reign to do what it want. But another superpower will only lead to renewed competition.
Taiwan is a country in all but name. It functions as a country, and the fact that it's formally a rival government of China doesn't change that.
I don't even think most people know it's formally China, people call it Taiwan and think of it as a country, at least here. It's obviously different in the PRC, but the fact that they haven't gone in and tried to take over by force yet shows that they're really not that confident it'd turn out well for them.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Again, Taiwan was NEVER a state. China was a state, and the ROC was recognized as the government of all China, then government in exile, then stripped of recognition. Taiwan has never declared independence, and lacks sovereignty. It was a puppet regime that propped up by the US, but it is not, and never has been a state.
And you are making the same mistake in thinking legal formalities are what makes a state, and informs whether other countries will act to protect that country's borders. Taiwan has for 70 years set its own laws, collected its own taxes to fund services and government authorities, and it has done this while transitioning to democracy, unlike China. It has handled its own trade and other international agreements. Saying that doesn't matter because it doesn't have formal legal recognition is a very weak argument.
As I said above, to believe your argument would mean believing the US would see Chinese invasion preparation, decide it was in US interest to check China and support Taiwan, but then have someone say 'wait Mr President, I just remember Taiwan isn't formally recognised as a nation. We have no choice but to let China carry on."
That is just not how the world works. Nor is it how the world should work. Formal legal documents are important for lots of things, but they don't override reality.
Second, the US as the primary power seems to have only exacerbated wars in the Middle East. It is obvious that the US needs to be checked.
This is a fairly typical view, but its quite myopic. Yes, the US has played a role in creating or prolonging many conflicts, some because they didn't know what they were doing, and some because they knew damn well what they were doing. But the US has been the only power in the world for around three decades, and before that it was the dominant power in a two faction world environment for another four decades, and for many decades before that it was the major power across two continents for more than 100 years.
Other nations having held similar levels of power have all performed far, far worse than the US. People often confuse powerless with goodness, and power with evil. This is because they never look at positive actions, only negative, and never stop to think what another in the same situation with the same power might have done.
This doesn't mean we shouldn't be critical of the US when they do stupid and/or shady stuff, but the idea that watching a country like China assume more power will be good for the world order because it will replace some of the US' power is fairly absurd.
This doesn't mean we shouldn't be critical of the US when they do stupid and/or shady stuff, but the idea that watching a country like China assume more power will be good for the world order because it will replace some of the US' power is fairly absurd.
Is it? I will admit that I'm worried that China's brand of authoritarianism will be imported in to the west if the economic stagnation continues, but on a global level I'm not sure it would be a radical change if it was China or the US that supported terrorists and invaded oil producers
ulgurstasta wrote: Is it? I will admit that I'm worried that China's brand of authoritarianism will be imported in to the west if the economic stagnation continues, but on a global level I'm not sure it would be a radical change if it was China or the US that supported terrorists and invaded oil producers
But that's exactly the issue. People see the nefarious stuff the US has got up to, but they kind of forget what stuff was like before the US was the dominant power. Even the UK, which was probably the least awful world empire until the US came along, has a record that makes the US look like saints in comparison.
We're all just kind of accustomed to thinking life as its been post WWII is how it is, and think all world powers will ever do is fund some terror groups, organise the odd coup and invade an oil producing country about once a decade. But world powers in the past have been far worse than that, colonising and dominating smaller countries, and inflicting vast death tolls as they did so. People just don't have a scale for how awful stuff can actually be.
The US doesn't live up to its values of international law and open trade, but it at least aims in that direction and succeeds more than it fails. The CCP doesn't even register those as things to worry about.
But that's exactly the issue. People see the nefarious stuff the US has got up to, but they kind of forget what stuff was like before the US was the dominant power. Even the UK, which was probably the least awful world empire until the US came along, has a record that makes the US look like saints in comparison.
We're all just kind of accustomed to thinking life as its been post WWII is how it is, and think all world powers will ever do is fund some terror groups, organise the odd coup and invade an oil producing country about once a decade. But world powers in the past have been far worse than that, colonising and dominating smaller countries, and inflicting vast death tolls as they did so. People just don't have a scale for how awful stuff can actually be.
My line of thinking is that this is an effect of technology more then American exceptionalism, nukes have made it far more riskier for even a superpower to be a bully. it's also a question on how the economy has changed, the old type of colonialism isn't really needed at this global stage. You can gain the same effects by just controlling debt and the international trade institutions.
The US doesn't live up to its values of international law and open trade, but it at least aims in that direction and succeeds more than it fails. The CCP doesn't even register those as things to worry about.
ulgurstasta wrote: My line of thinking is that this is an effect of technology more then American exceptionalism, nukes have made it far more riskier for even a superpower to be a bully. it's also a question on how the economy has changed, the old type of colonialism isn't really needed at this global stage. You can gain the same effects by just controlling debt and the international trade institutions.
That's a fair point, though I'd nitpick and say nukes are much of the issue, it's economic changes that have caused the change.
But it isn't all of the issue, there are huge cultural factors at play as well. I also don't mean to say the US alone could be a 'about as good as it gets' kind of hyperpower. There's plenty of other countries who'd do a similar job, and maybe even a bit better. But China is not one of them.
Anyhow, as you say it's all probably best left for another thread.
ulgurstasta wrote: Is it? I will admit that I'm worried that China's brand of authoritarianism will be imported in to the west if the economic stagnation continues, but on a global level I'm not sure it would be a radical change if it was China or the US that supported terrorists and invaded oil producers
ulgurstasta wrote: My line of thinking is that this is an effect of technology more then American exceptionalism, nukes have made it far more riskier for even a superpower to be a bully. it's also a question on how the economy has changed, the old type of colonialism isn't really needed at this global stage. You can gain the same effects by just controlling debt and the international trade institutions.
Nukes are part of it, but not the full part. US hegemony was built on the pillars of human rights, democracy and the Washington Consensus. This of course to offset its superpower brand to that of the Soviet Union. The US hasn't always lived up to those lofty ideals and as a hegemonic superpower can't always do so for that matter. Yet at its core the US has done more to promote its brand of 'good' and yes, even though we have seen horrible decisions like Iraq, the US is more likely to engage in foreign intervention in the name of its brand. There has been plenty of research around the US and humanitarian intervention (although that is also a difficult subject legally) to show that the US does indeed care.
Contrasts this with older style powers such as Russia and China which are very much opposed to humanitarian intervention in many cases over the 'sacredness' of national sovereignty. Yet they turn around and have no problem ignoring that sacredness when it comes to neighbours or the South China Sea. While the US talks a lot about values, it also tends to act on them, making plenty of mistakes along the way. But powers like China and Russia don't talk about values like human rights and democracy, the inherent nature of their states won't really allow it. Furthermore they have themselves been willing to break international rules such as with Crimea and the South China Sea. They are by no means better than the US, with internal affairs showing they can certainly be a lot less benevolent.
What further adds to the problem is that during the Cold War we had two superpowers keeping their respective allies in check. It wasn't any better when we had the US and the Soviet Union waging wars directly and by proxy for power. Now the US is basically the only 'world police' left, which makes its mistakes stand out even more. The problem with the rise of China is that we might start heading back to proxy wars and conflicts for power. China for example firmly believes that East Asia is for Asians (read for China) and wants the US gone. China's direct interests when moving towards superpower status clash with those of the US and its regional allies. That is a recipe for problems. This is why Taiwan is so important to the US and its allies, not because of any inherent value of the state of Taiwan itself, but the symbolic value. As Sebster has pointed out, when it comes to states and borders, they should not be easily trampled by another power. That is one side of the symbolic aspect of Taiwan. The other is the indirect competition between the US and a rising China, a competition for power. Can the US maintain its power in the region and keep regional allies safe? If the US does not respond to a Chinese invasion, the other countries in East Asia might start thinking its better to side with China and leave the US. For the US position in East Asia and the sense of security of East Asian allies, it is very important to see the US take a strong and decisive stand. If the US can't offer this sense of security it might be better to start siding with China, leading to an overall loss in US power/influence in the region.
So yes, having two powers is often worse than one as they will likely seek to compete with each other. The problem of a strong China isn't that there might not be a difference between "China or the US that supported terrorists and invaded oil producers". The problem could be that you would have two countries now doing that. On a final note, while the US is at times (or often depending on how you perceive the US) hypocritical about its values, it is important to remember that countries like China don't even support those in the first place. Of course none of us can stop or should declare China's rise wrong, its just a natural consequence. Yet China will need to find its voice or brand if it transitions into superpower status. For now China does not really have a clear view on the direction of the world and international politics. But some views coming from China are less about the equality of nations and the UN and more about a world run by a strong leader that leads the other countries. If you're interested you should look up the theory of Tianxia. Its a (semi) international relations theory from Chinese authors on how China might run an international world order.
