This may also be of interest:
China’s political system allows for certain types of dissent because over thousands of years they’ve seen what happens when you end up with cult of personality autocrats. That’s what they’ve spent the better part of two generations getting away from, in fact.
My own personal thinking is that China is going to lead a worldwide movement toward authoritarianism and away from democracy. They’re not just competing with the US; they’re presenting a competing model of governance and stability, and I think we have no idea we’re even in this contest yet. And we won’t realize it until it’s too late.
I have that impression too. The crux, as I see it, is that authoritarianism is always going to look more stable and less chaotic than democracy. Democracy, OTOH, has more flexibility in terms of protecting individual rights, governing according to the rule of law, etc… and so far, the Western democracies have valued that, while managing to go back and forth with authoritarianism over the past couple of centuries.
I’m not sure though, that the Chinese are leading some sort of ideological charge, so much as merely leading through their example. I mean, I half doubt they care much what the ideology of the people they trade with is, so long as they trade and do stuff favorable to Beijing. They seem to practice realpolitik to an almost absurd degree relative to other nations.
Sure. But the Chinese would have the luxury of trying a second time, third time, and more. Taiwan would have to get it right each time. Without outside help from the US, my guess is China could take the island in less than a year if they really wanted to.
I don’t see the Chinese as being leaders in some movement to spread authoritarianism to the west. That seems to be more like Putin style thinking. If they were trying to do so, and they succeeded, the result would likely be that they would now have to compete against an authoritarian west rather than the democratic west they are currently competing against. I’m not sure how that would benefit them. Donald Trump, for example, wasn’t predisposed to be friendly with Xi just because he was a fellow authoritarian. Trying to spread that form of government to the west could very well backfire on them.
Exactly. I’m pretty sure they’re not trying to lead some sort of movement toward authoritarianism; they’re just doing their own thing.
But some other countries, especially smaller ones with more precarious democratic traditions might well look at the US vs. China and conclude that China’s system is more effective, and deliberately imitate it.
I take the opposite view. I think as people’s more basic needs are met, they will become more and more demanding of other freedoms; basically Maslow’s hierarchy. Authoritarians have limited tolerance for liberty, more inclined to arbitrary action and less reactive, aggravating the situation. Authoritarians are on the horns of a dilemma. On the one hand, give the citizens more freedom to determine local policy themselves, and then the demands will creep up the ladder until they are demanding country-wide rights. Alternatively, exercising arbitrary control repressing even local issues just creates more discontent sooner.
So I still think when the economy stops growing - as it likely will eventually - the discontents will bubble to the surface. When my father was a child, most of Europe was under non-democratic rule. When I was young, eastern Europe, much of South America, and Africa were under outright dictatorships. More recently, Places like Indonesia and Philippines were dictatorships, Taiwan was single-party rule, etc. Even China is far more lax and open than in the days when the least criticisms got one beaten in the streets and set to re-education camps. We may see progress in many countries as taking a step back, but I see it more as two steps forward, one step back.
They might not. If China launched a full-out assault on Taiwan but failed to win, Taiwan would probably embark on an immediate indigenous nuclear program after the war’s end. It would be hard for China to ever try again if such a nuclear deterrent existed.
Taiwan had tries such nuclear programs before but was eventually dissuaded from continuing it. If China launched a war, though, any such dis-incentive would be gone.
War over Taiwan would be a one-shot proposition.
@China_Guy believes that Taiwan already has nuclear weapons so the capability to put them together soon. It’s possible, but none of us really know.
Taiwan certainly has the know how and the capability to put together nuclear weapons. For decades, Taiwan was a pariah state along with S Africa. Also, Taiwan is home to a really high population of folks that earned international PhD’s. And has had nuclear powered reactors for decades.
It is my conspiracy theory that Taiwan has several nukes and has made clear to China that it’s a MAD deterrent with Shanghai, Xiamen, Guangzhou and maybe Beijing as the first targets. Not sure that China is really willing to have Shanghai nuked in exchange for taking over Taiwan. (I hope not as I have property in Shanghai)
It’s certainly a possibility. I don’t think anyone will disagree with you there. I think that the only pushback is that when it’s stated as a certainty.
A lot of people think Japan is also very close to a bomb or has some already, but that would be political suicide for any government to admit to that.
I would imagine any country with sufficiently a advanced educational system could produce a bomb if necessary (North Korea? Pakistan?). They key would be sufficient motivation. Having some basic infrastructure like the right reactors would help. However, like Heisenberg once mentioned, the system does not exist independent from the observer. Any obvious signs that the country is making an effort would likely be obvious enough to trigger a pre-emptive action from the very threat that triggered the desire to build a bomb. It’s a delicate balance.
The fact that the USA built an atomic bomb is almost as amazing as the fact that they kept it secret from the rest of the world while spending billions. (Except, I guess, Russia knew).
Several other countries certainly knew about the Project. England, Canada, and France contributed personnel to the Project. I don’t know of others but wouldn’t be surprised. Of course contributing to and being aware of the progress of are two different things. Outside England I doubt other countries were aware of the progress of the development of the bomb-but I don’t know.
And political will.
Could you elaborate on this a little? What are the things that people think are analogues, and why are they not really?
The limiting factor on producing a nuke is the sourcing and enrichment of the nuclear material (i.e. plutonium or uranium). At this stage of history, the cat’s out of the bag on basic design, and given enough HEU or Pu-239, nearly any state with modern technology could easily produce a fairly crude bomb, of either gun or bomb type. The kicker is getting that nuclear material; it’s not the sort of thing that can be done very surreptitiously- plutonium refinement and uranium separation aren’t done in small or inconspicuous facilities.
That said, I read that they estimate the Taiwanese were a year or so from having a deliverable nuke back in the 1980s. It’s not inconceivable that they have a design ready to go, and just would need to enrich the nuclear material and make it.
Former US deputy national security adviser Matt Pottinger said that Japan would come to the aid of Taiwan in the event of an attack by China, as is reported here. He was speaking at a panel discussion with other former Trump administration officials.
Here is a short YouTube clip of his remarks. The relevant part starts around the two-minute mark.
This is interesting because that speculation could be supported by Japan’s recent military buildup.
I don’t have any special knowledge, but most Japanese aren’t particularly excited about the idea of a war, let alone one to defend another country.
Leaving the likelihood aside, it does add some balance to the military hardware equation.
Not sure what he means. I remember at the time of ping-pong diplomacy when China finally cracked open a little, my impression was:
Mao had given us the image that China was a massive collective of people all working in unison to a common goal and waving their little red books. When the door opened a crack, we saw it was a society like any other - despite repression, it had protesting students and bank robbers and all the other intricacies and foibles of any human society.
I suppose the biggest difference is to see how much China has progressed (and Russia hasn’t) in any area of life- education, commerce, infrastructure, industrialization. People making progress, whose lives are getting better, who have hope - are less likely to be restive over how the government is treating them.
(This is also why common wisdom suggests the biggest threat to Chinese stability is an economic downturn)
The latest from Taipei:
China has been engaging in repeated violations of Taiwanese airspace with warplanes, rattling more sabres.
I agree with whomever said China is spreading it’s ideology within the context of “we’re the good guys now, not that terrible USA, come join us and be happy!”. They want to be (and are, I guess) a global superpower with the global influence that entails.
I mean, what other purpose could the “Belt and Road” initiative serve? China is investing in (and exerting control over in varying degrees) about 70 countries across the world.