I’m inclined to agree with Martin Hyde in that it is enormously difficult to get people to actually overthrow a ruling party. Just look at how the North Koreans have endured every deprivation and indignity under the sun and yet the regime is still firmly entrenched there. It’s not just enough for people to be suffering or angry, they need to perceive that their actual coming out to storm the streets or buildings will a) not get them killed and b) actually make a difference. Without both A and B present, people may be enraged but still not take action.
If China lost a war over Taiwan, the populace would be mightily pissed but what viable alternative would there be? There is no alternative to the CCP waiting in the wings to take over. The chairman might be deposed but I think the CCP, with a firm enough hand, could clamp the lid tight enough for years until the thing finally dies down - maybe by loudly and vocally promising, “We’re not done! This is only Round 1, we’ll get Taiwan in Round 2.”
At this point it doesn’t matter what the US thinks with regards to Taiwan. It only matters what China thinks. We aren’t going to fight the Chinese over Taiwan. What president is going to want to be the president that saw several carriers sink under his or her watch?
That’s fine. It is, after all, IMHO…and your opinions on this are as valid as anything. And you have quite a bit of support for this position from a lot of US and European elites. Blackrock investments agrees with you 100%, and they aren’t alone.
And, right now, today, the majority of the Chinese people (IMHO of course) are behind the CCP…believe in the CCP, support the CCP. But…this isn’t as rock solid as it was in the past. Cracks and fissures are there to be seen. The CCP is it’s own worse enemy on this score, as they do stuff all the time to erode their own peoples support. Sometimes it’s because of factional infighting (or local verse national CCP), but sometimes it’s because, at it’s heart, they are an authoritarian/totalitarian state that is really out for their own power at any costs and are corrupt in ways it’s hard to grasp. The Soviets were this corrupt at the end…and I think the CCP is going to go the same way. And, like with the USSR it’s going to be a huge surprise to many, who won’t see it coming and will think it’s coming from the blue. Maybe a future Reagan will be there to take all the credit.
At any rate, I appreciate both of your posts, even if I don’t agree with your conclusions. I wanted a spirited discussion on this, and I’m pleased that anyone even responded, to be honest.
What president is going to want to preside over the US turning it’s back on an ally and allowing them to conquer a democratic nation of 23 million with all of the death and destruction that entails? There is also bipartisan support for Taiwan and the status quo.
Now, if the CCP can convince Taiwan to surrender peacefully that would be a different matter. But for the US to do nothing in the face of an attack I think whatever administration is at the helm would be going down. And I doubt the US as it is today would survive, as it would throw into question all our alliances. Who would…or could…trust us going forward? And why should they? We would come out of such an event a much weaker and far less influential nation.
You make a lot of valid points and perhaps I’m overly pessimistic. I just don’t see the US tangling with a nuclear power that is retaking a breakaway territory.
I would be shocked if 8 out of 10 Americans could find Taiwan on a map, and even more so if there was even low double digits of percentage of voters who would base their vote on what happens there.
I think you underestimate the blowback this would have. Consider Afghanistan…this was a place Americans didn’t want to be in (both parties were saying this…both Trump and Biden wanted to bring the US out), and it was STILL a huge mess when we essentially left. And no one thinks or thought the Afghan government was any sort of model of democracy, most people didn’t have a huge amount of sympathy for them, and more key, the US wasn’t bound to them by long term ties of support…and even more key, we didn’t have a huge economic stake in Afghanistan.
And I think more people know what and were Taiwan is than you think. I also think that this spans both parties in the exact opposite way Afghanistan did…and, again, look at the blowback from that.
Maybe. I suspect the media would react very negatively, at least enough to shift public opinion for a while. A lot would depend on the timing and the specific facts. Even if all that happens is that China takes Taiwan in a low-casuality invasion and millions aren’t displaced, if the global economy takes a crap as a result, the incumbent is probably losing.
Exactly. The only ‘good’ outcome (from the CCPs and probably a US administration that doesn’t support Taiwan) would be if Taiwan basically surrenders. US and other elites will say ‘well, Taiwan always was part of China and this has been coming for a while’, and the will just shake their heads sadly and go back to doing what they do. If Taiwan resists though, and the US does nothing, the blowback would be huge when the reports of Taiwanese civilians dying in large numbers comes flooding in (until the CCP takes control and puts Taiwan under the Great Firewall as they have in Hong Kong). Even if regular people aren’t moved by the bodies and no one knows or cares where Taiwan is, when they can’t get their iPhones and cars because of a chip disruption folks will be asking why…and why the US sat by and did nothing.
I doubt any administration would survive the blowback. Hell, Biden’s number dropped by a large amount for Afghanistan…and there were very few who wanted is to stay there or thought staying there would help. But look at the press on what’s happening to civilians, especially women there.
I don’t think any president would, but a war over Taiwan may not need personnel-heavy platforms like carriers at all. A few submarines could make an immense difference in the war’s outcome while putting only a small fraction the number of lives at risk that a carrier does. Neither would American ground troops have to be deployed like they were in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Those two things - carriers at sea, and boots on land - are the main thing that could lead to heavy American casualties. By choosing personnel-lite platforms like submarines and bombers, the US could put minimal lives at risk.
It’s not a breakaway territory. That’s CCP propaganda. Taiwan was never part of the CCP, and as I said it wasn’t even really part of the ROC until the very end.
The funny thing about tangling with a nuclear power is, you don’t think the US would do this (when it’s clearly to our advantage on every score, while clearly being detrimental to the US if we don’t) yet you think China will do that…as they would be, if the US supports Taiwan. It’s interesting to me that people see it the one way, but can’t see it the other way. Not a hit against you…just interesting to me.
ETA: BTW, I don’t think that, even if there is a conflict and the US comes in on Taiwan’s side that it will go nuclear. As I said earlier when responding to a poster positing nuclear strikes on Taiwan, I don’t see either side going nuclear, even if it gets really ugly.
I think from every perspective…moral, ethical, pragmatic, etc…the US should support and defend Taiwan. I honestly believe that if we made this clear to the CCP…clear so they really grasped it…that it would do a lot to avoid a war that seems more likely to me now than at any time in the past decade or so.
It will certainly make the news here if lots of Chinese ships are sunk or 100s of Chinese soldiers are killed. The difference will be that it’ll be broadcast on the state-run news outlets after the general public spreads the news on their social media sites and lose their social media accounts if they said something about it that the government here does not like to be said about it. In short: it’s no longer the 1950s, even in China.
Depending on the extent to which the Chinese government successfully massaged the public’s expectations, though, there might not even be a need to conceal bad news.
The tricky task facing the Chinese government is that it needs to give the public an expectation of swift and easy victory prior to the outbreak of war, so as to build confidence in the prowess of the PLA and reduce any anti-war reluctance. But once the war is actually underway or about to kick off, it is suddenly in the interest of the government to tack to the opposite extreme - make the Chinese public expect and anticipate heavy casualties, so as to reduce their angst when or if such casualties happen.
This way, if the Chinese government successfully convinces the populace that 1) heavy casualties are likely to happen and 2) the deaths are very much worth it in light of the big overall patriotic mission, then there’s no longer as much need to censor “bad news” anymore. The government could truthfully report “We lost 70,000 troops today while crossing the Strait under heavy fire” and the populace would accept it without blinking, especially if the Chinese state-run media is careful to also balance it out, or exceed it, with heavy coverage of good news “…BUT, we are advancing near the capitol city of Taipei as we speak.”
The state-run media could even invoke some historical casualty tolls from previous patriotic wars such as the resistance against Japan in World War II and say, “Compared to losing 15 million men in the fight against Japan, two hundred thousand deaths to patriotically reclaim our Taiwanese territory ain’t a thing.”
And, of course, the government could always water down the tolls and give a lesser-but-still-realistic figure. 80,000 deaths could become 30,000 instead. Four hundred ships sunk could be two hundred; a thousand warplanes lost could become 400. The public would be hard-pressed to prove or verify otherwise. What Beijing couldn’t do would be to claim absurdly low tolls, figures that nobody would believe.
I’d be shocked if 8 out 10 Americans could find the UK on a map, or Vietnam, Korea, or even Montana. Where it is physically is almost certainly irrelevant. Where it is geopolitically is a very different thing.
The thing we are not privy to is the real military capability on either side and the analysis done. You can be sure that the US military has done countless sims of various scenarios, and has a good idea of what not to do. Probably much less clear idea of what should be done. The US has the disadvantage of being reactionary to any aggression, and needs to be able to react in hours if not minutes.
Any reaction much include an exit plan. And that is the hardest. It is easy to get into a war. Very very difficult to get out. Xi and his faction will be in a significant bind. Losing face and capitulating is essentially impossible. Doing so, and he may as well sign his own death warrant. The CCP will not let him survive making such a mess.
The idea that the CCP would be threatened is pretty fanciful IMHO. This isn’t like the question in the US of whether the Republicans or Democrats could survive the next election. There needs to be a clear competitor to the CCP ready to take control. That doesn’t exist, and the manner in which the CCP run the country from top to bottom means it is more entrenched than any idea of just political leadership or some imperial dynasty. That role is taken by Xi’s faction. That would be expunged.
The level of brinkmanship required with actual aggression over Taiwan will make the Cuban missile crisis look like childs play. For all involved.
You keep providing examples that prove my point. Americans wanted nothing to do with the war when Japan invaded country after country. It was only on December 7, 1941 that Americans started to care about Japan.
And if China sinks an aircraft carrier, how will Americans react? There’s the concept of a “tripwire troops” - that forces can be posted in a hotspot, not to fight, but to die, and by dying escalate the conflict. There are plenty of U.S. troops in the Taiwan area. Do you really think the Chinese will be able to avoid killing them?
(Also, IIRC the only country the Japanese invaded prior to the war was China, which was not a U.S. ally, and in fact the U.S. itself had been occupying parts of it. The Japanese only started their cross-Asian rampage after Pearl Harbor).
I’m not volunteering my children for that post, and I wouldn’t dare ask anyone else to either. American arrogance that we need to be involved in every conflict is really getting old. I hope the status quo remains, and I think America should take all steps short of war to stop or reply to an invasion, but the idea of getting involved in a war with China over Taiwan, with no idea what it could lead to, seems ludicrous.
