The China Thread

[Admiral Yi]

Well... no one else has a position as global power to defend. I think "the US has to intervene" is not "they are morally obligated to intervene" but rather "to maintain its economic and political and military security, the US basically has to intervene...." Though obviously that'll be for the US to decide.

A Chinese invasion of Taiwan would threaten the US's economic and military security about as much as it would threaten Belgium's.

[The Larch]

Well... no one else has a position as global power to defend. I think "the US has to intervene" is not "they are morally obligated to intervene" but rather "to maintain its economic and political and military security, the US basically has to intervene...." Though obviously that'll be for the US to decide.

A Chinese invasion of Taiwan would threaten the US's economic and military security about as much as it would threaten Belgium's.

Taiwan produces like 90% of the world's advanced microchips. If it goes, the developed world's economy goes to the shitter.

[DGuller]

I know it's obvious in hindsight, but how the fuck did the US just let a country under threat of Chinese attack be essentially the sole manufacturer of a super strategically important good?  I assume the US is stepping up the production now, but how long will it take to ramp up the production to the point where it's not vulnerable?

[Jacob]

A Chinese invasion of Taiwan would threaten the US's economic and military security about as much as it would threaten Belgium's.

I'm not convinced that's true, but I don't care enough to argue it so sure.

Even so, the US is entitled to (and should and typically does) assess the scenario and act based on its own interests.

Most of the analysis I've read have been by Americans, from an American point of view. And while I'm sure Belgium (and Canada and Denmark) has policy objectives and will feel the repercussions of a potential invasion, personally I'm more interested in the American point of view as I expect it to be more relevant to how things unfold.

[Jacob]

I know it's obvious in hindsight, but how the fuck did the US just let a country under threat of Chinese attack be essentially the sole manufacturer of a super strategically important good?  I assume the US is stepping up the production now, but how long will it take to ramp up the production to the point where it's not vulnerable?

Part of it may be deterrence. "You know we can't let you take this... so don't try. "

[Admiral Yi]

Even so, the US is entitled to (and should and typically does) assess the scenario and act based on its own interests.

And other countries assess their own self interest with the assumption that the US will act to protect those as well.

How about Ukraine?  Much of the rhetoric is not about self interest on the part of countries imposing sanctions and/or supplying weapons, but rather defense against aggression to protect democracy, freedom, self-determination, etc.  Is that false rhetoric?  If it is true, shouldn't those principles apply to countries not just on Europe's borders?

Common defense against external aggression is part of the UN Charter.

[The Larch]

I know it's obvious in hindsight, but how the fuck did the US just let a country under threat of Chinese attack be essentially the sole manufacturer of a super strategically important good?  I assume the US is stepping up the production now, but how long will it take to ramp up the production to the point where it's not vulnerable?

According to what I've read on the topic it's been a gradual industry change that started in the late 80s when the current industry leader, a company called TSMC (one of these "the most important company you've never heard of" kind of companies) was founded and introduced a new production model (called the foundry model) for microchips. I guess that by the time China started to really be a threat this model was already so successful that most of the world's industry was following it.

[Jacob]

Even so, the US is entitled to (and should and typically does) assess the scenario and act based on its own interests.

And other countries assess their own self interest with the assumption that the US will act to protect those as well.

How about Ukraine?  Much of the rhetoric is not about self interest on the part of countries imposing sanctions and/or supplying weapons, but rather defense against aggression to protect democracy, freedom, self-determination, etc.  Is that false rhetoric?  If it is true, shouldn't those principles apply to countries not just on Europe's borders?

Common defense against external aggression is part of the UN Charter.

For sure.

But what do you think the US will do if the PRC attacks Taiwan?

[Admiral Yi]

But what do you think the US will do if the PRC attacks Taiwan?

Beets me.

[Jacob]

But what do you think the US will do if the PRC attacks Taiwan?

Beets me.

What do you think the US should?

[Admiral Yi]

What do you think the US should?

Make ambiguously threatening statements about intervening then walk away if China pulls the trigger.

[Tonitrus]

But what do you think the US will do if the PRC attacks Taiwan?

Beets me.

What do you think the US should?

Make a deal with Taiwan and offer them full diplomatic recognition as an independent state if they cut all the old claims to the mainland (may even need to drop being the "Republic of China").  Then simultaneously sign a mutual defense pact (ideally with Japan/other east Asian allies) and park a few fighter squadrons and SAM batteries there.

[Admiral Yi]

What do you think the US should?

What do you think Canada and Denmark should do?

[Eddie Teach]

What do you think the US should?

What do you think Canada and Denmark should do?

Support us.

[Josquius]

I know it's obvious in hindsight, but how the fuck did the US just let a country under threat of Chinese attack be essentially the sole manufacturer of a super strategically important good?  I assume the US is stepping up the production now, but how long will it take to ramp up the production to the point where it's not vulnerable?

Capitalism at work.
What the market says is the most efficient setup may not necessary be the best and most resilient setup.
I really hope we do learn this from covid rather than seeking to get back to business as usual as we did after all those lessons from 2008.