There is nothing inevitable about a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. My sense is that the Chinese leadership are far too insightful to actually start that war, but you never know.
But if it came to a nuclear exchange, China has ~300, and the US and Russia ~6,000 each. Total yield numbers are harder to come by(?), so those are +/- considering tactical-scale inventory.
Historically, this was because China's nuclear doctrine was to limit their stockpile to a minimal deterrent.
Personally? Sitting about 40km from a priority US target, I'd support the US risking a strike to guarantee Taiwan's freedom.
Either you stand for something, or you don't. And China doesn't get to claim modern territory by dusting off historical documents. Hong Kong was untenable, but Taiwan should be a line. If its citizens don't want to be Chinese, they get to make that choice.
PS: Russia would probably care less about a strike on China, unless China negotiated their support via treaty. That ship sailed in the early 60s.
Personally I'd support the US never letting people with this kind of thinking anywhere near decision making. Let them play stocks.
One could argue that the only reason why the ROC hasn’t declared independence is because they’d fear that it would provoke an attack from across the straight, but the reality is that independence is not a cut and dry issue in Taiwan.
Take some time to actually educate yourself on the issue before advocating for nuclear war.
> it’s official government policy on both sides of the straight that there’s “one China”
That's an oversimplification. The KMT / Pan-Blue believe there's "one China" in the sense that they believe the PRC is an illegitimate government, currently occupying mainland Chinese territory that belongs to the ROC.
The DPP / Pan-Green believe there are two Chinas, with Taiwan as an independent entity from the mainland PRC. Their current official position is that this state of affairs already exists, and therefore there is no need to make any declarations or changes from the status quo.
So in summary, about one half of Taiwanese political power considers the communist government as illegitimate, and the other half considers Taiwan independent. Which I would guess is fairly different from what the PRC defines "one China" as.
Yes, there are different definitions on both sides of the straight. And while the independence side has gained strength in recent years, the official stance has been that China and Taiwan are a part of one country, however defined, and, to my knowledge, no official government act of the ROC has been promulgated to the contrary.
As I stated in my original reply, independence isn’t a cut and dry issue. To assert that these claims are “dusty” historical claims in light of what you’ve written here is disingenuous.
Edit: I should add that there is only one government in Taiwan, the ROC. The stances of the individual political parties cannot be taken as synonymous with the stance of the ROC itself. To do so would be as ludicrous to say that there’s no right to an abortion in the United States, because 1 of the two major political parties opposes it. The most that can be said is that both abortion in the US and independence in Taiwan are controversial and delicate political issues within each respective jurisdiction.
The 1999 "Resolution on Taiwan's Future," since elevated to DPP party platform, is crystal clear on "two Chinas."
What? That doesn’t make sense. If the US triggered nuke slinging over Taiwan the Taiwanese would be ash, not free.
It's a pretty bad look if your "winning" looks like "killed millions of people and rendered the land in question uninhabitable for a decade+." (To say nothing of the potential non-Taiwan collateral damage)
Mutually assured destruction
Means that we might come out of a war with china with only a few cities lost. Might actually be worth it.
In case of China, or Russia, thousands.