Chinese Re-unification with Taiwan

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.

**Easy E**

I guess a new book is out on the subject, and this has prompted some media coverage. The book seems to have accessed some fairly "juicy" documents from the PLA to add to its case.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/chinas-secret-military-plan-invade-taiwan-2020/

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2017/10/what_would_a_chinese_invasion_of_taiwan_look_like.html

Here is a relevant quote:

There are three reasons to believe this scenario, in the next ten years, is at least as likely as war between the United States and North Korea. For one, the goal of “liberating” Taiwan is the paramount foreign policy concern of Beijing. And it has been a top concern since the end of the 1945–1949 civil war between Mao Zedong’s Communists and Chiang Kai-Shek’s Nationalists, when Chiang and his people fled to the island, setting up what the West viewed as China’s legitimate government until the 1970s. (Because Beijing insists Taiwan is part of China, it does not call Taiwan an international issue.)
Taiwanese reunification and independence is such a sensitive topic on the mainland that any polling on the issue is suspect. Anecdotally, however, in the dozens of conversations I’ve had with Chinese citizens about Taiwan over the last 15 years, many of them supported reunification—some with force, if necessary. The Communist Party ties some of its legitimacy to its ability to follow through on its long-standing promise to re-absorb Taiwan—it risks a loss of legitimacy if it continues to fail. A healthy democracy of 24 million people, Taiwan belies the party’s implicit argument that Chinese people need an authoritarian government in order to flourish.

Secondly, the benefits to China of successfully absorbing Taiwan far supersede the benefits of the United States of neutralizing North Korea. It’s very unlikely that North Korea would ever strike the United States: Its leaders seem rational enough to realize that an attack on U.S. soil, however small, would be an act of regime suicide. If the United States successfully replaced Kim with a regime more supportive of U.S. interests, or even more advantageously, facilitated the reunification of the Korean peninsula under a Western-friendly government in Seoul, that would improve the United States’ ability to project power in Asia and constrain the rise of China. Still, North Korea is a distraction, not an existential issue, for China.

Beijing’s successful occupation of Taiwan, on the other hand, would greatly improve its prospects for regional domination, and undermine the United States’ position in Asia by removing America’s democratic ally Taiwan and weakening Japan. And it would ensure Beijing’s ability to maintain its trade links in the Western Pacific in the face of a U.S.-organized blockade.

Easton cites a line from the restricted Chinese document on Japanese air defenses: "As soon as Taiwan is reunified with Mainland China, Japan's maritime lines of communication will fall completely within the striking range of China's fighters and bombers." Because of the mutual enmity between Japan and China—and the persistent desire for revenge from the Chinese public for the atrocities Japan committed in China during the 1930s and 1940s—another war between China and Japan over the next few decades is not as far-fetched as it may sound. And if Taiwan were occupied, its strategic location in the East China Sea would greatly aid Beijing’s ability to harry southern Japan. (During World War II, U.S General Douglas MacArthur called the island an “unsinkable aircraft carrier.”)

ADVERTISING

inRead invented by Teads
What could set off a Chinese invasion? Beijing has long threatened to invade if Taiwan declares independence—though what exactly that means, like many issues involving Taiwan’s status, is murky and open to interpretation. The ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), one of Taiwan’s two main parties, skirts this by claiming in a 1999 resolution there is no need to declare independence because “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent country.” Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen reiterated this phrase in October 2016, prompting China’s Taiwan Affairs Office to retort, “all secessionist attempts to seek ‘Taiwanese independence’ are doomed to failure.” On Sept. 26, Taiwan’s newly appointed Premier William Lai said he “advocates Taiwan independence,” and repeated Taipei’s stance that the Republic of China, as Taiwan is officially known, was already independent, and thus there is no need for him to declare it. If it so chooses, Beijing could start considering statements like Tsai’s and Lai’s as de facto declarations of independence—and respond with military force. Chinese military experts I spoke with said that if war does come, it will likely be after Beijing has at least several more years of improving its military capabilities—possibly sometime around 2021, the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Chinese Communist Party. (These experts stress it’s impossible to predict if and when Beijing would actually go to war with Taiwan.)

Or Beijing could wait for a moment of relative calm. PLA doctrine, Easton writes, likely favors “a minimal warning, rapid invasion campaign that employs deception and surprise to land on the island and overrun Taipei, securing the government’s capitulation before U.S.-led coalition forces could decisively engage.”

While the United States, along with nearly all Western powers, doesn’t have formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan, the United States has long had a close relationship with the island. The United States continues to sell Taiwan weapons, including a planned $1.42 billion arms sale announced in June. And it maintains a posture of strategic ambiguity about whether it would defend Taiwan in the face of a Chinese attack.

Since some Military folks put the likelihood of a North Korea conventional conflict around 20%, with Nuclear becoming involved at 10%; I wonder what the chances of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan are?

They have been building up their amphibious operations capabilities in the last decade and working on anti-ship missiles to sink aircraft carriers. In addition, the China Sea airspace claims all are good starting points for their Re-unification Policy. I think this could form the basis of some good paperback Mil-Thrillers ala Red Storm Rising (Yes, I know they are all ready out there).

Thoughts?

**oldravenman3025**

China won't risk it, unless they are damn near certain of getting away with it (i.e. without an American response). Most of their "modern" hardware is mostly for propaganda and export, and can't match the capabilities of Western military equipment (although they are catching up). Their power projection and nuclear capabilities are not on par with that of the United States (The RoC's best buddy).

Besides, Beijing (and their cronies) is enjoying all that money rolling in. They are not going to screw that up over a "rebellious" island nation off their coast. They'll keep making threats and sabre rattling. But I don't expect much else out of them regarding Taiwan for the foreseeable future unless something major changes.

**OgreOnAStick**

I doubt that mainland China will risk it They might even join US in knocking off North Korea and after that conflict is resolved the two nations will return to status quo, which despite all the posturing is oddly enough mutually beneficial for both US and PRC..
I'd say within ~50 years the political landscape of mainland China will have reformed enough and shed off the lingering marxist chaff to make a peaceful reunification possible.

**Iron_Captain**

The probability is pretty high I think. They have always been very determined to get Taiwan under their control. Definitely something they are willing to push even if it costs them something. The US won't be able to do much to prevent it, outside of full-scale war with China or economic sanctions that will hurt the US at least as much as not more.
If China really wants it they could get away with it. They are by far the strongest power in that region, and might makes right as they say.
If Russia can take Crimea and get away with it, then China can take Taiwan.
And even better, should the US and China ever go to war over this, Russia can use the opportunity to take the Ukraine and Baltic states back. Yay empire.

**LordofHats**

Why invade when they can barter North Korea for Taiwan?

**Iron_Captain**

LordofHats wrote:
Why invade when they can barter North Korea for Taiwan?

Well, I am all for realpolitik, but that seems cynical even for the US. I don't think they would be willing to make such a deal?

**avantgarde**

Extended family living in Taiwan also extended family from the Mainland.

As it is right now, the chance of a military reclamation of the island is almost nil. Who can say in 20+ or 50+ years though?

I think the Mainlanders are more content to take a risk averse approach to the unification and let economic realities do the work. For example, their economies are heavily intertwined, the infamous Foxconn of the iPhone suicides is a Taiwanese company. Another instance is the Chinese response to Tsai's statement was limiting visas for Chinese tourists to Taiwan (big business) as economic "punishment" and to hurt the DPP.

The DPP response is to avoid the economic entanglements that give China leverage over Taiwan by diversifying it's trading partners. China responds by using it's economic clout to leverage countries into non-recognition of Taiwan or to scuttle trade deals. It's a constant game.

I think the outcome of Hong Kong will be a barometer of the desire for unification in Taiwan. The Chinese made all sorts of half promises about self governance to the HKers but in practice only provided the illusion of choice. It's not something that goes unnoticed on the island.

**LordofHats**

Iron_Captain wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
Why invade when they can barter North Korea for Taiwan?

Well, I am all for realpolitik, but that seems cynical even for the US. I don't think they would be willing to make such a deal?

Don't know. China however is totally that cynical, and I actually could see the US in 10 to 20 years saying "screw Taiwan, this North Korea gak is tiring." Or maybe not. What is real is not necessarily what will be. China knows that it gets a lot out of bartering Taiwan's safety. Invade and they can't do that anymore, even if the US doesn't retaliate militarily.

**Vaktathi**

Iron_Captain wrote:

If Russia can take Crimea and get away with it, then China can take Taiwan.

Russia had extensive forces and infrastructure in place, an extensive friendly and actively cooperating population, excellent and short supply lines, and many other advantages with regards to Crimea. China is powerful on mainland Asia, but Taiwan is not on mainland Asia. China has no forces in place in Taiwan, a hostile population to contend with, and over a hundred miles of ocean to cross where the US Navy holds supremacy. These are very different situations.

**sebster**

Until 1979 the US and Taiwan had a treaty in place that said the US would come to the aid of Taiwan in the event it was attacked. That treaty was cancelled in 1979, as Carter formalised relations with China. The replacement treaty with Taiwan says "the United States will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capabilities". What that's meant in practice is Taiwan is given access to buy high end US weapons, but no-one has any clue what that actually means in the event of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, which is likely the point of it. The US wants China to know that it can and maybe will come to the defense of Taiwan, but at the same time it isn't obligated to (whether this was to make nice with China or because the US actually wants the flexibility to choose not to help Taiwan is anyone's guess).

Iron_Captain wrote:
The US won't be able to do much to prevent it, outside of full-scale war with China or economic sanctions that will hurt the US at least as much as not more.

Taiwan's military is insufficient to stop China, but it's enough to shift the Chinese invasion from a simple occupation and instead in to a sustained campaign. While that campaign is under way it will require a lot of logistics, and the ships carrying that to Taiwan will get slaughtered by US planes.

Of course, that relies on whether China tips their hand as to their intent before they invade, giving the US time to bring sufficient forces in to the region, and whether the US chooses to undertake such a defense of Taiwan.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vaktathi wrote:
Russia had extensive forces and infrastructure in place, an extensive friendly and actively cooperating population, excellent and short supply lines, and many other advantages with regards to Crimea. China is powerful on mainland Asia, but Taiwan is not on mainland Asia. China has no forces in place in Taiwan, a hostile population to contend with, and over a hundred miles of ocean to cross where the US Navy holds supremacy. These are very different situations.

Yeah, also a factor is the Ukraine isn't an economic powerhouse in general, and the Crimea was one of the real economic backwaters of the country. Even if people weren't happy to let the region go, there was at least a feeling that it wasn't a disaster to lose it. It's like if Mexico rolled over the border and occupied Arizona, the first response would be 'how dare they', but then as you spent a day or two getting the tanks and planes together, you think about and think 'maybe this is better for us'.

**Ouze**

sebster wrote:
Of course, that relies on whether China tips their hand as to their intent before they invade, giving the US time to bring sufficient forces in to the region, and whether the US chooses to undertake such a defense of Taiwan.

My gut feeling is that the US would immediately decide "those are Chinese problems".

sebster wrote:
It's like if Mexico rolled over the border and occupied Arizona, the first response would be 'how dare they', but then as you spent a day or two getting the tanks and planes together, you think about and think 'maybe this is better for us'.

Absolutely outrageous. The only way I could possible see us conceding Arizona to Mexico is if they also agree to take Florida.

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
sebster wrote:
Of course, that relies on whether China tips their hand as to their intent before they invade, giving the US time to bring sufficient forces in to the region, and whether the US chooses to undertake such a defense of Taiwan.

My gut feeling is that the US would immediately decide "those are Chinese problems".

Yeah... mine too.

sebster wrote:
It's like if Mexico rolled over the border and occupied Arizona, the first response would be 'how dare they', but then as you spent a day or two getting the tanks and planes together, you think about and think 'maybe this is better for us'.

Absolutely outrageous. The only way I could possible see us conceding Arizona to Mexico is if they also agree to take Florida.

Nah... we'd like to keep Florida. Mexico can have California instead.

**sebster**

Ouze wrote:
My gut feeling is that the US would immediately decide "those are Chinese problems".

My complete guess on the issue is that it would depend on whether the 'business uber alles' group or the 'military dominance uber alles' group holds more sway at that particular point in time, and how well China conceals it as an occupation. They wuold have to do a much more convincing job than Russia managed in the Ukraine.

Absolutely outrageous. The only way I could possible see us conceding Arizona to Mexico is if they also agree to take Florida.

What about all the bits of Texas that aren't Dallas, Austin or an oilfield?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
Nah... we'd like to keep Florida. Mexico can have California instead.

I know you're just running on a 'boo hiss liberal California thing', but seriously CA is like 1/6 of the US economy. It's one of the cash cows that keeps the whole thing going.

**Iron_Captain**

sebster wrote:
Yeah, also a factor is the Ukraine isn't an economic powerhouse in general, and the Crimea was one of the real economic backwaters of the country. Even if people weren't happy to let the region go, there was at least a feeling that it wasn't a disaster to lose it. It's like if Mexico rolled over the border and occupied Arizona, the first response would be 'how dare they', but then as you spent a day or two getting the tanks and planes together, you think about and think 'maybe this is better for us'.

Actually, while being economically backwards compared to Russia or most of the rest of Europe, Crimea (especially the city of Sevastopol) was one of the more powerful economic regions of Ukraine, along with Kiev, Dnipropetrovsk and the Donbass. Furthermore, Sevastopol was Ukraine's most important sea port. Losing these 2 regions has made the Ukrainian economy really, really crappy (and it already was far from being great).

**Easy E**

I use to think there was no way, because America was bulwarking the safety of Taiwan. Now, I am not so sure. That uncertainty is dangerous and allows all sorts of dangerous and deadly games to be played.

Look at our recent policy towards NATO, Ukraine, and the Crimea for why China might think they have an opportunity.

**whembly**

The only reason the US may go to the mat for Taiwan is to curb China's efforts to claiming the whole of the South Sea.

**Co'tor Shas**

The ROChas spent decades turning their island into a fortress, and there really is no reason for China to push it now, especially considering who the US president is right now. what we may see in the next 20-50 years is a political reunification, assuming China heads toward more democratic reforms.

**Manchu**

There is no good reason to feth around about invading Taiwan. First, the PRC rather than the ROC is internationally recognized as China. Even the US does not maintain formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan. Second, even the DPP wants to maintain the status quo regardless of disclaiming the 92 Consensus. Third, the ambiguity of Taiwan's status creates an interesting bridge for a still-developing PRC to developed countries such as South Korea, Japan, and the US. Fourth, military action would be necessarily counterproductive to actually settling the controversy; it would actually only create an even worse controversy. Fifth, the PRC can look with some confidence into the future beyond the immediate horizon to a peaceful reunification premised on its own developing prosperity and global leadership.

**sebster**

Iron_Captain wrote:
Actually, while being economically backwards compared to Russia or most of the rest of Europe, Crimea (especially the city of Sevastopol) was one of the more powerful economic regions of Ukraine, along with Kiev, Dnipropetrovsk and the Donbass. Furthermore, Sevastopol was Ukraine's most important sea port. Losing these 2 regions has made the Ukrainian economy really, really crappy (and it already was far from being great).

The GDP per capita in the Crimea is $3,500 a year. In the Ukraine as a whole its $6,700 a year. People in the Crimea made half as much as people in the rest of the Ukraine. If anyone wants some context for that, GDP per capita in the US is $51,000. There is not one single state in the US that is half the national average. The poorest is Mississippi, at $32,000. So if you think of Mississippi as part of the US, well Crimea is poorer than that compared to the rest of the Ukraine. And Iron Captain is claiming the Crimea is one of the richest parts.

You are right about the sea port, it is a key strategic asset, and also much richer than the rest of the region. But that wealth was nowhere near sufficient to drag the rest of the area in to being anything more than an economic backwater.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
The only reason the US may go to the mat for Taiwan is to curb China's efforts to claiming the whole of the South Sea.

Curbing China would be important, but the much bigger reason is international law. Just try and think of what the world would be after China just straight up annexed a sovereign nation - internationally recognised borders will mean nothing, and the only way anyone could be confident of their ability to continue as a nation will be with military alliances and/or nuclear weapons.

Even Russia's actions had limits, as they already had a foot in the door in Crimea, and always played that 'Ukrainian separatists' nonsense in Ukraine. A Chinese invasion of Taiwan would have no cover, it would require Chinese warships landing troops in Taiwan, a clear annexation.

Not saying the US would do fight to defend Taiwan. I'm just saying what the real reason would be for the US to do it.

**malamis**

sebster wrote:

Even Russia's actions had limits, as they already had a foot in the door in Crimea, and always played that 'Ukrainian separatists' nonsense in Ukraine. A Chinese invasion of Taiwan would have no cover, it would require Chinese warships landing troops in Taiwan, a clear annexation.

China could of course use Alexander The Great's solution and simply institute a land reclamation project across the Taiwan strait seeing that at its deepest it's only 70 meters.

They have the resources after all

**BaronIveagh**

The US has been padding it's budget by selling guns under the table to Taiwan for some time. I have little doubt they'd move to protect such a valuable trade partner in illicit weapons.

**djones520**

BaronIveagh wrote:
The US has been padding it's budget by selling guns under the table to Taiwan for some time. I have little doubt they'd move to protect such a valuable trade partner in illicit weapons.

Not exactly much under the table about it. We're very open about our arms sales to Taiwan.

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

**Tanakosyke22**

avantgarde wrote:
Extended family living in Taiwan also extended family from the Mainland.

As it is right now, the chance of a military reclamation of the island is almost nil. Who can say in 20+ or 50+ years though?

I think the Mainlanders are more content to take a risk averse approach to the unification and let economic realities do the work. For example, their economies are heavily intertwined, the infamous Foxconn of the iPhone suicides is a Taiwanese company. Another instance is the Chinese response to Tsai's statement was limiting visas for Chinese tourists to Taiwan (big business) as economic "punishment" and to hurt the DPP.

The DPP response is to avoid the economic entanglements that give China leverage over Taiwan by diversifying it's trading partners. China responds by using it's economic clout to leverage countries into non-recognition of Taiwan or to scuttle trade deals. It's a constant game.

I think the outcome of Hong Kong will be a barometer of the desire for unification in Taiwan. The Chinese made all sorts of half promises about self governance to the HKers but in practice only provided the illusion of choice. It's not something that goes unnoticed on the island.

I study the region in school, and quite frankly I agree with your assessment. Military reclamation and annexation would be political suicide for the Chinese state, and Xi Jinping knows this. Although is establishes dominance in that area, it will gather the attention of the US since a lot of our other Asian allies are close to Taiwan. Which would potentially lead to a war that would cripple both powers.

Instead, economic dominance would be China's MO in dealing with re-unification with Taiwan. Which also puts the ball in America's court, since using Military Action in that context would be illegitimate (which would be very unlikely of course, but still....)

**BaronIveagh**

djones520 wrote:
BaronIveagh wrote:
The US has been padding it's budget by selling guns under the table to Taiwan for some time. I have little doubt they'd move to protect such a valuable trade partner in illicit weapons.

Not exactly much under the table about it. We're very open about our arms sales to Taiwan.

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

And the four Kidd class ships? The three freighter-loads of AK-47 knock offs hilariously made in mainland China and then shipped to Taiwan? Your list is a bit short.

**Thorax Abdomen**

China is greedy, not crazy.

**sebster**

BaronIveagh wrote:
The US has been padding it's budget by selling guns under the table to Taiwan for some time. I have little doubt they'd move to protect such a valuable trade partner in illicit weapons.

US arms sales to Taiwan are about $2b a year. It's a nice earner for a lot of US weapons manufacturers, but the risk of losing a $2b client is not the kind of thing that'd push the US in to war with a nuclear power. Making that $2b isn't even the reason the US sells those weapons - they do it because the US considers it in their best interest to have an effectively armed Taiwan able to give effective resistance against China.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Thorax Abdomen wrote:
China is greedy, not crazy.

Argentina's military rulers were also greedy, not crazy, but when the economy is toppling and the ruling party is losing its authority, then a nice little war to recapture lost territories and right perceived historic grievances can be very tempting. I'm not saying an invasion of Taiwan will happen, just that it might, and if it does it won't be crazy, but probably some cynical politics.

**Grey Templar**

Argentina had a lot less to lose trying to take those islands than China does trying to take Taiwan.

**sebster**

Grey Templar wrote:
Argentina had a lot less to lose trying to take those islands than China does trying to take Taiwan.

Argentina isn't a decision making entity, and nor is China. Decisions are made by people, who concern themselves not just with the national interest but their own priorities and political survival. China as a whole would have far more to risk in provoking the US than Argentina did in provoking Britain, but does that mean General Galtieri's personal decision was that different to the decision facing President Xi or any other future Chinese president? When the ruling party starts to lose authority and control, and the options become do nothing and lose power, or do something and maybe keep power, a lot of folk choose the latter. It isn't too hard to envision a scenario where the party might believe that a quick, decisive war could be achieved, and afterwards things would return fairly quickly to normal order, including trade with America.

Now, it's a fair point that there's more special interests in China than there had been in Argentina, but while that makes a Chinese attack on Taiwan less likely, it doesn't remove the possibility entirely. The influence of special interests only goes so far, and there are plenty of circumstances where they won't oppose war, and might even support it. Afterall, the circumstances that might drive a Chinese president to war, such as where China's bicycle economy tipped over, then many special interests interests would be facing the exact same pressures as the party leadership, and would likely come to the conclusion that the risks were worth it if there was a decent chance the party could win a quick, nationalistic war.

And again, I'm not saying this will happen. It is quite unlikely, for lots of reasons. But it is possible.

**Iron_Captain**

sebster wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote:
Actually, while being economically backwards compared to Russia or most of the rest of Europe, Crimea (especially the city of Sevastopol) was one of the more powerful economic regions of Ukraine, along with Kiev, Dnipropetrovsk and the Donbass. Furthermore, Sevastopol was Ukraine's most important sea port. Losing these 2 regions has made the Ukrainian economy really, really crappy (and it already was far from being great).

The GDP per capita in the Crimea is $3,500 a year. In the Ukraine as a whole its $6,700 a year. People in the Crimea made half as much as people in the rest of the Ukraine. If anyone wants some context for that, GDP per capita in the US is $51,000. There is not one single state in the US that is half the national average. The poorest is Mississippi, at $32,000. So if you think of Mississippi as part of the US, well Crimea is poorer than that compared to the rest of the Ukraine. And Iron Captain is claiming the Crimea is one of the richest parts.

You are right about the sea port, it is a key strategic asset, and also much richer than the rest of the region. But that wealth was nowhere near sufficient to drag the rest of the area in to being anything more than an economic backwater.

You can't compare one single region to the rest of the country as a whole, because the capital (by far the richest region) is going to skew that tremendously. You have to look at the region and then compare it to all the other regions individually. And comparing to other countries makes GDP even more meaningless. $1 will buy you much more in Ukraine than it will in Mississippi.
I was born in Ukraine. Trust me if I say that I know how the economic situation was. Crimea was a relatively well-off area, especially Sevastopol and the coastal resort area. There was plenty of economical migration to here from the western parts of Ukraine. The interior of Crimea was more poor, and mostly rural, but not as poor as the area to the north of Crimea (Kherson) and the west of the country. Kiev and the cities in the east (Dnipropetrovsk, Kharkov, Donetsk) had stronger economies due to all the industries they inherited from the Soviets.

sebster wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
The only reason the US may go to the mat for Taiwan is to curb China's efforts to claiming the whole of the South Sea.

Curbing China would be important, but the much bigger reason is international law. Just try and think of what the world would be after China just straight up annexed a sovereign nation - internationally recognised borders will mean nothing, and the only way anyone could be confident of their ability to continue as a nation will be with military alliances and/or nuclear weapons.

Taiwan (or rather the Republic of China, its official name) is not actually a widely recognised nation. It was expelled from the UN in 1971, and there is only a few (minor) countries left that continue to recognise it. Even the US does not officially recognise Taiwan as a being a sovereign state. And as I understand it, whether Taiwan should actually become an independent nation or remain part of China is a heated topic within Taiwanese politics. Anyways, invading and annexing a sovereign nation is entirely different from invading and establishing control over one of your country's provinces that has come under control of a rival government. The first one is a war of conquest, the second is a civil war. That is a pretty big difference for international law.

**skyth**

It's funny (Especially considering some of the earlier comments in the thread) that I read the title as 'Chinese Re-unification with Texas'...Had to do a double take...