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.
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.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2017/10/15 20:35:23
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)
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/10/15 20:50:02
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/15 22:14:55
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)
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.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/10/15 22:30:11
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/16 06:37:46
“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.
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.
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
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.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2017/10/16 13:28:31
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)
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/16 15:28:24
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/16 16:53:13
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
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.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
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.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/10/16 17:59:44
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)
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
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.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
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.
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)
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.
I guess he was't the only one thinking about it.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
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.
“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.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/17 17:38:10
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)
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'.
It's goofy nonsense.
“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.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/17 17:32:58
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)
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/17 18:30:26
1750 pts Blood Specters
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
-- 9k 
-- 6k 
-- 4k 
-- 
