Is it being an "emotional" issue more correct than it being an issue of (1) educational indoctrination, (2) explicit media based propaganda, and (3) lack of access to opposing view points? Clearly there is some systemic explanation for people's emotions.

If the Chinese government preached the values of "do unto others as you would have done to you" rather than "we must right the wrongs of the century of embarrassment" would we see this being an "emotional issue." If the issue of Taiwan were cast in the light of "if you were Taiwanese, how would you feel about China?" do you think it would still be an "unstoppable irrational force"? If the Chinese government preached values like tolerance and diversity, do you think the Chinese people would have the stomach for dominating another people?

China, rightfully, was angered by colonial transgression against it, but then wishes to be a colonial power itself, committing the very same evils it faced against less powerful countries. By Chinese standards, it appears that might makes right, so should the world not exercise might against and colonize China, an action that is right under Chinese morality? Or is it a matter of Han Supremacy, where the moral system is built upon the idea of Han superiority and rules for other nations that don't apply to China itself.

How should I feel empathy for "the Chinese people" when from the outside it appears that they wish to dominate another people?

This is where you are mistaken, thinking that the characteristics of Chinese people have anything to do with the behavior of the Chinese government.

Edit: it appears that the sentence I was quoting was removed from the parent comment.

There is no Han supremacy in China, ethnic is not a big topic in China except for the large minor ethnic groups. There are City Supremacy maybe, people from big cities look down on small cities for example.

People view Chinese in through racism eyes would see things differently. I remember that the Chinese university was labeled as colonial power, and people went to street and protect the establish of a division of Chinese university with labels saying "we don't want to be Chinese colony". There is NYC division in Shanghai, and there are no Chinese people protesting being a US colony. Most brands in big mall in China are western brands. It is okay for people to learn English but learning Chinese is surrendering to Chinese colony power. I only see racism in these stories, nothing more.

That's a negotiating position portrayed by China, the same simplistic one used by lots of people: 'I'm so emotional that you'll just have to back down.'

The risk is that having lit the fire of nationalism among their population (as many people are doing), the resulting forest fire can be hard to contain.

That's not true at all. The first island chain blocks the Chinese military from unfettered access to the Pacific. Taiwan is the only part of that chain the CCP can potentially occupy. If they do and put PLAN bases there, then they gain a portal to the Pacific. It's extremely strategically valuable to them.

If China is serious Taiwan will be encircled with s-400's in little islands(artificial or otherwise) surrounding it before the first shot is ever fired, at which point the conclusion is already a forgone tale.

When it does happen the rest of the world(by which i mean the U.S) will be pre-occupied with domestic issues, cyber space issues and possibly another pandemic.

Not to mention the backdrop of the fact that the U.S launching missiles to China might trigger the MAD doctrine of Russia because missiles heading in that general direction might as well be heading to Russia, or be assumed to be as much.

>“Russia will perceive any ballistic missile launched at its territory as a nuclear attack that warrants a nuclear retaliation” - Russian military chief warned last year after round of reforms

Ergo the U.S president at that time will leave Taiwan out to dry instead of risking World War 3.

We're living in interesting times.

I don't think (or atleast I hope not) the US would use nuclear weapons to defend Taiwan, but I have a hard time believing that the US wouldn't offer atleast token military resistance. At the very least, the US has a lot of standing to lose with it's many allies accross the globe that would make leaving Taiwan out to dry very costly.

>“Russia will perceive any ballistic missile launched at its territory as a nuclear attack

and based on recent historical data in ukraine, it's not beyond the states course of action to not do anything of consequential note, and instead opting for token gestures.

At best, it'd be a drawn out Afghanistan with a diplomatic sanction frenzy worldwide. China would be painted by global media outlets as evil if they took a total war approach. They'd have to do it like Russia with Crimea or Milosevic in Yugoslavia with paramilitary groups. Everyday the Taiwanese identify less Chinese making it that much harder.

The only thing that will make them do it is if the US and EU are in a weak state and can't be bothered with policing that. Like another depression and global war elsewhere.

If that were the case then neither would they be reigning in Japan, Vietnam, the Philippines, South Korea, and India. All Chinese strategic adversaries right on their doorstep. India alone could shut down oil shipments to China that all have to sail close by. Japan’s navy is stronger than China’s and they have formidable air defenses. China might just spark a regional war which they probably wouldn’t win. I hope they’re not suicidal enough to test this though.

They don’t care about the people there one bit.

When they control most of the world in the future, they can just rewrite history and nobody will know. Classic move.

Cook didn’t take Trump as a threat enough to justify diversifying his supply chain much, he isn’t losing any sleep about Taiwans upcoming annex.

You can be damn sure that an American politician would use that as rhetoric to bring jobs back. I can assure you republicans would leap for this opportunity. It would be the best PR they could ever get.

It doesn't have a marital culture. It isn't large. It doesn't have especially rugged or inhospitable terrain. It doesn't have religious fundamentalism. It doesn't have a bottom-heavy population pyramid full of young men willing to fight a decades-long insurgency.

There's not going to be a Taiwanese insurgency after the deed is done. If China takes control of Taipei, the game is over. We need to help Taiwan before it gets to that point.

The PRC has asserted their claim over Taiwan for half a century at this point. The PRC is China and Taiwan has been a part of China for over 100 years. Taiwan is still a government in exile as far as diplomacy is concerned.

Why exactly do we need to get involved? You do realize that it's a declaration of war? How many Americans eligible for the draft do you think right now are going to voluntarily sign up for a fight against China? Especially if it's just for the defense of some small nation like Taiwan? Nobody would be pro draft for what would be another Vietnam but instead is an actual fight against China.

It's not just a matter of "We should." It's very easy for you to say that when you or your children aren't going to fight the Chinese in a war that we most definitely do not need to be involved in.

I think this is not factually accurate. In the last 100 years, Taiwan and Mainland China have been controlled by the same government only between 1945-1949.

China (Qing Dynasty) controlled Taiwan for ~220 years before losing it to Japan. Japan ruled Taiwan for ~50 years. RoC ruled both Taiwan and the mainland for ~5 years before losing the mainland in the revolution. (Edit: RoC has not ruled the mainland for ~60 years, which is almost twice as it ruled the mainland.)

I think you are correct that no draft would be instituted. We have plenty of military assests that certain people would love to justify the maintenance of so there would absolutely some fighting by US personel on behalf od Taiwan, regardless of how smart or winnable that war would be.

Is that why there are so many bases and troops in South Korea and Japan? Any invasion of either of those two countries would likely trigger an instant war with the US.

The U.S. barely had standing armies for either of those wars and a highly no-involvement mindset that came directly from the sentiments of the American population.

Flash forward to today. Why do you think the U.S. has ~ a dozen aircraft carriers if not to defend its interests?

The U.S. would absolutely go to war with China over Taiwan. For better or worse. Ground troops? Highly unlikely. Air and naval assets? Yea no doubt about that.

The U.S. interactions with the Soviet Union are interesting but it’s just not quite the same. Had the Soviet Union attacked, directly, a key U.S. ally then the U.S. might have simply retaliated with nuclear weapons. Not worth the risk. There isn’t a sense that this is how a war with China would progress. A lot has changed.

But overall, there won’t be a war unless something catastrophic happens to Chinese leadership (like they get a real Hitler type of figure), because they’re not stupid and the status quo works fine for everyone, despite the rhetoric.

But the U.S. won’t defend Taiwan because China has nukes? Ok how about China won’t attack Taiwan because the U.S. has nukes?

And you’re severely oversimplifying the entire interaction. China has geographic advantage to do what exactly? Fly planes to Taiwan? Not with U.S. forces nearby. Land troops? Good luck with that. Bombard the island with ships? Well that’s why the U.S. fleet is there.

Fortunately all of this is saber rattling. Nobody not China, Taiwan, or the U.S. cares to change the status quo. The U.S. gets to maintain Taiwan as is. The CCP has a boogeyman they can use. And Taiwan gets to do business with everyone.

The US is done with interfering in Asian conflicts over communism. China knows it too and they're gonna make a move while the whole of the US's industry is there still. The US solely supplies Taiwan to keep them technologically up to date so that they can mount a reasonable defense. But with almost all 1st world nations universally not acknowledging Taiwan's sovereignty, you'll be hard pressed to see any bureaucrat NOT turning a blind eye but sending out a measly sanction and move some manufacturing home.

America is a very, very stubborn country. We spent like a trillion dollars and killed hundreds of thousands of people b/c of Osama Bin Laden over the course of a 20-year war and absolutely brutal insurgency. But I'm expected to believe that the United States wouldn't have the appetite for a conventional war? The one that all of its military might is built for? That the U.S. would not defend an ally and undue all trust in all alliances on the global stage? NATO is gone, in this scenario. The E.U. starts building up military forces b/c they can't trust that the U.S. will defend against Russian aggression. Etc.

There are a lot of cascading effects that are very bad for the U.S. and global stability compared to just buying stuff from other countries temporarily and checking Chinese aggression here.

On the other hand, the U.S. has a high potential for smashing Chinese forces in a quick and intense war. It's a gamble I think U.S. leadership is willing to take.

I don't see either side backing down. And China loses out in longer-term wars. So why bother when you can just keep things as they are and rattle sabers instead while trading with each other?

Why would the Taiwanese not fight against an invasion of their country? Are they just wasting money buying missiles and planes to defend their island against China for no reason?

I think you just have a slant here and aren’t thinking about how these forces might interact. Comparing the invasion of Taiwan by China in 2021 to U.S. war in Vietnam is very confusing. Maybe you’re trying to make me angry by saying the U.S. lost the war? I mean they did “lose the war” in the sense of “why are we killing all of these people again? Let’s go home and stuff.”. But who cares anymore? This isn’t sports where we are keeping a score.