The China Thread

[Berkut]

Back then I doubted but hoped.

More significantly, back then I thought there was a path for China to ease up on totalitarianism and imperialism. Didn't work out, alas.

I guess my thinking was that even if they eased up totalitarianism, they STILL would not stick to any agreement a moment longer then they absolutely had to.

I really looked at the HK agreement in the same way I look at how Germany looked at Versailles - an odious agreement that is so galling to their own idea of sovereignty, it could not possibly last absent some very, very serious exterior force making adherence simply mandatory. And of course there is and could not be any such force in regards to China.

Even a more liberal China would still be very nationalistic. And frankly, the very idea of Hong Kong has to be just completely galling to China's sense of national identity.

[Jacob]

Yeah, for sure, I agree re: the galling aspect of Hong Kong's existence and the willingness to discard any agreement. I just thought there was a path where it wouldn't be so bad for Hong Kong as China itself could've moved to be less odious. But yeah, China is plenty nationalistic.

[Tonitrus]

The question, I guess, becomes to what degree the West is willing to back Taiwan when push comes to shove.

Call me a cynic...but likely some weak protests followed by impotent targeted sanctions on individuals.  That is all we do nowadays.

After several months..."well yeah, we did agree to that one-China thing in principle after all...back to business".

[Barrister]

I do not think the US would acquiesce to an armed invasion of Taiwan.  Taiwan itself is too important a part of the world economy.

[Tonitrus]

If it goes to a conventional shooting war between the US and China, it's hard not to see that rapidly approaching WW3.

[Tonitrus]

I'm just an armchair general, but I see two likely ways that China would look at a Taiwan invasion:

- A "cautious" approach...invade Taiwan while carefully avoiding attacks on any US (or 3rd party) military assets...essentially daring us to intervene/attack.  This way they could give plausible basis to a "we're just enforcing the one-China thing" argument, and play a partial victim.

- "Balls to the wall" approach...invade Taiwan while eliminating US threats in the regions.  This means obliterating Okinawa and bringing Japan into the fight, and pre-emptive elimination of any CVNs in the area...and risking a "Pearl Harbour all over again" resolve to a US response.  Hard to see this one not reaching a WW3-like spiral very quickly.

I'd think it more likely they'd go with the former, and plan for an overwhelming attack with the goal of a quick victory/quick Taiwanese surrender...and hand the West a fait accompli.

[Jacob]

If it goes to a conventional shooting war between the US and China, it's hard not to see that rapidly approaching WW3.

For sure. So the question for China is whether they're willing to push that for Taiwan, knowing there's a chance the US does not back down.

[Jacob]

I'm just an armchair general, but I see two likely ways that China would look at a Taiwan invasion:

- A "cautious" approach...invade Taiwan while carefully avoiding attacks on any US (or 3rd party) military assets...essentially daring us to intervene/attack.  This way they could give plausible basis to a "we're just enforcing the one-China thing" argument, and play a partial victim.

- "Balls to the wall" approach...invade Taiwan while eliminating US threats in the regions.  This means obliterating Okinawa and bringing Japan into the fight, and pre-emptive elimination of any CVNs in the area...and risking a "Pearl Harbour all over again" resolve to a US response.  Hard to see this one not reaching a WW3-like spiral very quickly.

I'd think it more likely they'd go with the former, and plan for a massive, overwhelming attack and hoping quick victory and quick Taiwanese surrender, and give the West a fait accompli.

I think the best way for China to do this is to get some sort of useful idiots on the Taiwan side to invite them over or provide a pretext for an attack (Taiwanese originated "terrorism" or some such).

[Josquius]

The concern is what happens with nukes.
It's not quite your traditional cold war ww3 when you can expect them to be launched ASAP.
But still.... They are a quick and easy way to be rid of a airfield or carrier group...

[Tonitrus]

The concern is what happens with nukes.
It's not quite your traditional cold war ww3 when you can expect them to be launched ASAP.
But still.... They are a quick and easy way to be rid of a airfield or carrier group...

They don't need to use nukes.  Saturate a carrier group with surprise and enough mid-range conventional anti-ship missiles, and you get the job done.

Our ship-borne anti-missile defenses might be pretty good...but even they run out of ammo.

And that doesn't even mention the potential saturation attacks from submarines...even if we did know where all of them are located at all times.

[Berkut]

If it goes to a conventional shooting war between the US and China, it's hard not to see that rapidly approaching WW3.

That is hyperbole.

I can't see how it could possibly approach anything like a World War. Who would be joining China in this war against the world?

[Berkut]

Who would be firing nukes, and under what scenario would they be launched?

[Tonitrus]

If it goes to a conventional shooting war between the US and China, it's hard not to see that rapidly approaching WW3.

That is hyperbole.

I can't see how it could possibly approach anything like a World War. Who would be joining China in this war against the world?

North Korea? 

But seriously...the next World War...no matter where it is, will likely stand out in more stark terms of highlighting those who refuse to take a side, than those who choose to fight.

For example, Russia would not get involved...but would almost certainly say that China is within its rights to enforce their control over Taiwan.

[Berkut]

If it goes to a conventional shooting war between the US and China, it's hard not to see that rapidly approaching WW3.

That is hyperbole.

I can't see how it could possibly approach anything like a World War. Who would be joining China in this war against the world?

North Korea? 

But seriously...the next World War...no matter where it is, will likely stand out in more stark terms of highlighting those who refuse to take a side, than those who choose to fight.

For example, Russia would not get involved...but would almost certainly say that China is within its rights to enforce their control over Taiwan.

Can you define "World War" then? Because I don't think it means what you think it means. Or maybe it doesn't mean what I think it means....

[Jacob]

Yeah, if for example the US and China get into an all-out knock-down total war with conventional forces and nukes, I think most third parties will want to stay clear of it. I mean, Russia will be laughing and stay clear if they can.

I think US allies may get involved, depending on how it shakes out of course.