The China Thread

[Monoriu]

Most investors won't run a newspaper that calls for open revolt.  So I am not concerned.  It is highly unlikely they will consider that Jimmy Lai's case applies to them.

The bit I think is chilling isn't Jimmy Lai - it's the orders on the banks and lawyers.

Same thing.  You can't run a newspaper that tries to overthrow the government any more, and you can't do business with such a newspaper.  Most foreign investors won't try to do anything remotely like that. 

[grumbler]

The Hong Kong government has abandoned the fig leaf of rule of law.  That's going to hurt HK, as it's presumed legal system was the main attraction of investing through there.  If one is going to have to deal with the tantrums of despots, Shanghai is the better place to invest.  The HK government cannot continue down the road to absolutism without slaying the goose that lays the golden eggs.  But it is clear that the thugs don't mind killing that, so long as they can pound their chests about putting down "rioters.".

[grumbler]

Most investors won't run a newspaper that calls for open revolt.  So I am not concerned.  It is highly unlikely they will consider that Jimmy Lai's case applies to them.

The bit I think is chilling isn't Jimmy Lai - it's the orders on the banks and lawyers.

Same thing.  You can't run a newspaper that tries to overthrow the government any more, and you can't do business with such a newspaper.  Most foreign investors won't try to do anything remotely like that.

Most foreign investors won't want to deal with the whims of thugs, though.  China's thugs are more predictable than HK's.

[Legbiter]

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.

Yeah. Although looking at a map of Taiwan, quickly landing an amphibious assault force on the island itself looks like hell against a determined defender without very significant preparation . Need to knockout punch the Taiwanese airforce and navy at the start of hostilities. Presumably the Taiwanese will want to resist an invasion and have had a lot of time to plan against it.

China would need some time to destroy all of the Taiwanese military installations with missile strikes, gathering an invasion flotilla would be obvious months in advance, giving the Taiwanese time to mobilize, mine the seas around the island and fortify likely landing zones.

[Tamas]

The Hong Kong government has abandoned the fig leaf of rule of law.  That's going to hurt HK, as it's presumed legal system was the main attraction of investing through there.  If one is going to have to deal with the tantrums of despots, Shanghai is the better place to invest.  The HK government cannot continue down the road to absolutism without slaying the goose that lays the golden eggs.  But it is clear that the thugs don't mind killing that, so long as they can pound their chests about putting down "rioters.".

Yeah we discussed this before and admittedly I am ignorant on the intricacies of the region, but I can't see what will set HK apart from every other major Chinese city, except the absolutely insane property prices, and expectation of further unrest before boots on faces get to press down properly.

[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....

I would hope enough of our allies would be involved that it would meet that (very arbitrary) threshold...or I would be rather disappointed. 

The RotW may not be direct belligerents...but bet your ass the entire world would feel, and likely be involved in nearly every aspect of the political and economic fallouts.

But I think we both know, that seriously arguing about the definition of "world war" isn't very useful (and I would grant, even used by me with a bit a dramatic exagerration), as the definition is ultimately a matter of opinion, be that either individual or public (or academic, if you like).

I agree that an argument about what is or is not a world war isn't interesting.

But I don't even agree with the the idea that referencing a future war with China as a "world war" even rheotorically is trying to convey.

I think a war between the US and whatever allies come along and China over Taiwan would be brutal, violent, bloody, and limited.

Of course it would have impacts on the entire world, but any major war would - that doesn't make every major war a world war though. I mean, if it did, then why even have the term if it is just synonymouse with "major war"?

It would be limited to being fought in the immediate environs of Taiwan. It would not spread to other holdings of either power. I think Europe would wring their hands and express dismay but not get involved outside of the UK (maybe) and Canada (maybe) and Australia (maybe) and Japan (maybe). I think some of those might involve themselves, but it is entirely possible that none of them do. If they do however, it won't be them engaging in a general war with China across the globe, but rather contributing forces in the local theater.

There is precedent here, btw - the US and China have already been in a war against one another in Korea. That did not become a world war, and it had lots of other countries participating with the Allies as well.

Neither side would have anything to gain by escalating it beyond Taiwan. For either side, escalation would be considerably worse then simply losing in the immediate theater.

[Berkut]

I think China's relative lack of nuclear capability will serve to avoid the nuclear exchange, because there won't be a threat of first strike.  If US were to duke it out with Russia, however, then all bets are off.

I'm not so confident on this. You frequently see reports from on the surface quite decent sources about China actually having far more than is reported.
And why wouldn't it. It has the resources and expertise and can't be blind to this as a weakness.

They wouldn't because having more isn't a strength, but is actually a weakness.

China has enough capability that they can deter the US from using nukes. But not enough to be a credible threat as a first strike themselves.

They can and will continue to upgrade their capability, make them harder to take out, and harder to intercept, because that is important to their needs.

They are actually a very, very, VERY long way away from having an actual first strike capability, and to get one they would have to spend enormous resources that are frankly better spent on upgrading their conventional forces.

I think China has been very, very smart with their nuclear arsenal.

[HVC]

I'm not 100% convinced the west will intervene in Taiwan. we didn't card when russia gobbled up a chunk of the ukraine.

[grumbler]

I'm not 100% convinced the west will intervene in Taiwan. we didn't card when russia gobbled up a chunk of the ukraine.

Not even Ukraine (not "the Ukraine" anymore, btw) intervened when Russia took the Crimea.

[DGuller]

I'm not 100% convinced the west will intervene in Taiwan. we didn't card when russia gobbled up a chunk of the ukraine.

Not even Ukraine (not "the Ukraine" anymore, btw) intervened when Russia took the Crimea.

Too soon, man, too soon.

[Sheilbh]

I'm not 100% convinced the west will intervene in Taiwan. we didn't card when russia gobbled up a chunk of the ukraine.

A third of global trade doesn't sail through the Black Sea. You might well be right but I think that is a relevant difference.

[mongers]

I agree that an argument about what is or is not a world war isn't interesting.

But I don't even agree with the the idea that referencing a future war with China as a "world war" even rheotorically is trying to convey.

I think a war between the US and whatever allies come along and China over Taiwan would be brutal, violent, bloody, and limited.

Of course it would have impacts on the entire world, but any major war would - that doesn't make every major war a world war though. I mean, if it did, then why even have the term if it is just synonymouse with "major war"?

It would be limited to being fought in the immediate environs of Taiwan. It would not spread to other holdings of either power. I think Europe would wring their hands and express dismay but not get involved outside of the UK (maybe) and Canada (maybe) and Australia (maybe) and Japan (maybe). I think some of those might involve themselves, but it is entirely possible that none of them do. If they do however, it won't be them engaging in a general war with China across the globe, but rather contributing forces in the local theater.

There is precedent here, btw - the US and China have already been in a war against one another in Korea. That did not become a world war, and it had lots of other countries participating with the Allies as well.

Neither side would have anything to gain by escalating it beyond Taiwan. For either side, escalation would be considerably worse then simply losing in the immediate theater.

A key difference was the conflict took place within a third country, Korea, North and South.
In this Taiwan scenario from day one the US will be targeting forces within China itself, because I'm pretty sure they're not going to wait for the Chinese invasion troops, naval forces and aircraft to leave a 12-mile territorial limit before attacking them?

There's no convenient Yalu river for both side to demarcate around.

[Legbiter]

Yeah, if the Chinese launch a flash invasion with SF, missile strikes and unopposed amphibious landings taking the outermost Penghu islands and 3 days later Taipei has fallen then, yeah, fait accompli. 

If they vigorously resist for weeks and months then China is fucked.

[HVC]

I'm not 100% convinced the west will intervene in Taiwan. we didn't card when russia gobbled up a chunk of the ukraine.

Not even Ukraine (not "the Ukraine" anymore, btw) intervened when Russia took the Crimea.

Sorry, yes, slip of the fingers.

Like Legbiter said, if Taiwan can be controlled quickly, would the world come in an pry it from their grubby little commie hands? I'm not sure. The world is economically entangled with china. Would the risk it to free a Taiwan? I'm not wholly convinced. but then again its not like im an expert.

[Jacob]

Yeah fighting a war to dislodge China from Taiwan will be a very different thing from supporting Taiwan defending itself.