Switch Theme:

Chinese Re-unification with Taiwan  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in nl
Tzeentch Aspiring Sorcerer Riding a Disc





 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 sebster wrote:
 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.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/10/17 18:46:23


Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP) 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

 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.

   
Made in nl
Pragmatic Primus Commanding Cult Forces






 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 sebster wrote:
 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.

Error 404: Interesting signature not found

 
   
Made in nl
Tzeentch Aspiring Sorcerer Riding a Disc





 JohnHwangDD wrote:
 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!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/17 19:08:23


Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP) 
   
Made in nl
Pragmatic Primus Commanding Cult Forces






 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 JohnHwangDD wrote:
 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.

Error 404: Interesting signature not found

 
   
Made in nl
Tzeentch Aspiring Sorcerer Riding a Disc





 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 sebster wrote:
 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?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 JohnHwangDD wrote:
 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'.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/10/17 19:41:07


Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP) 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 JohnHwangDD wrote:
 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.

   
Made in nl
Tzeentch Aspiring Sorcerer Riding a Disc





 JohnHwangDD wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
 JohnHwangDD wrote:
 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?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/17 20:02:15


Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP) 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

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.

   
Made in nl
Tzeentch Aspiring Sorcerer Riding a Disc





 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.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/10/17 23:09:02


Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP) 
   
Made in us
Lord of the Fleet





Seneca Nation of Indians

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

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.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/10/17 23:19:14



Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

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.

   
Made in nl
Tzeentch Aspiring Sorcerer Riding a Disc





 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.

This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2017/10/18 00:45:17


Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP) 
   
Made in us
Lord of the Fleet





Seneca Nation of Indians

 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.


Ok, I have to say 'Sources?' at this point.


Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 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.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/10/18 02:19:01


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

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.

Anyhow, I'm out.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/18 04:52:06


   
Made in nl
Tzeentch Aspiring Sorcerer Riding a Disc





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.

Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP) 
   
Made in se
Swift Swooping Hawk





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.

Craftworld Sciatháin 4180 pts  
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 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.

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in de
Dakka Veteran






 sebster wrote:

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
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 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.

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in de
Dakka Veteran






 sebster wrote:


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.

 sebster wrote:


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.


Debatable, but thats for another thread.
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 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.

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in nl
Tzeentch Aspiring Sorcerer Riding a Disc





 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.

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2017/10/18 12:56:26


Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP) 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: