Of cuz, that's known everywhere. Chinese netizens are ecstatic about this ingenious move that fenced off SEA countries from meddling the water area in any way that could affect China's claim over them.
> They routinely send their fishing fleets into the legitimate territorial waters of other nations
They are just self directed business man. Just like the numerous business man who invaded almost every Asian countries in the early 1900s. These fisherman would have been invading all-over the places if they were in 1900 as well.
Of cuz, not like the 1900s, these fisherman are not going to be protected (very strongly) by their home country when they were caught.
> they are starting to struggle again with the size of their population, expansion will seem like a natural solution.
Well, almost everyone is expecting the population to be dwindling from now on. A lot have calling the recent census fake, because they all expect a population drop.
Not sure why this population driven expansnism holds itself...
Personal attacks are against site rules, and you've been here long enough that you should know that.
> China had no ambition for territorial expansion other than defending herself. That's the pattern for 2 thousands years.
China occupied Tibet. China invaded Vietnam twice. The first time, they stayed for a thousand years. "China has no ambition for territorial expansion" only if you accept China's definition of what is rightfully China. A bunch of us don't, though. For that matter, a bunch of nations don't.
Specifically with regard to Taiwan: Yes, China has a historical claim on Taiwan. (And, yes, Taiwan has a historical claim on the mainland.) Technically, as you say it is a civil war.
Practically, it's two countries. They have two militaries, issue two different passports, have two different currencies, etc. Neither one wants to admit this, but de facto they are two separate countries. (So are North and South Korea, even though that civil war legally isn't over either.)
So, legal fictions aside, for China to conquer Taiwan would be a dramatic increase of their actual territory. (That's kind of implied in the word "conquer".)
And it's clearly China that's the aggressor here. Nobody's talking about Taiwan invading and conquering the mainland. But China talks about invading if Taiwan even dares to say that they're a separate country. They act like, if we all play pretend with them, it makes their claim more legitimate or something.
Speaking of legitimacy, let's note that Taiwan is the legitimate government of China. The mainland is held by the rebels.
> only if you accept China's definition of what is rightfully China.
In the same way, when the bank robber says that he was just withdrawing his own money, we do not accept that the bank robber has authority to declare "what is rightfully his money".
But the practical answer is, under Westphalian order whose principles are enshrined in UN Charter (again the organizing order post war), PRC has authority to declare whatever she wants within her domestic jurisdiction, of which Tibet and Taiwan is formally recognized to be part of. UN has no position on legal/procedural merits PCA/UNCLOS ruling for SCS. That's a messy situation that gets resolved same way all territorial problems in Westphalian order gets resolved in lieu of treaty/accord that formally assigns ownership, territorial control with lots of force. So Chinese authority is derived from the same post war order as everyone else.
And private persons with human rights have the authority to name territorial conquest by its rightful name.
You might assume that I sided with China mainland. Well, that not where I stand. Neither do I side with Taiwan, nor US.
I stand with the safety and prosperity of people.
"Shut up, Y is bad."
Uh.
I think you are projecting the warlike tendencies of the US onto China.
No one is saying something like that is likely. We are discussing hypotheticals. There's no need to be so upset.
I believe that GP is trying to generalize that question to "what is the proper response to any hyper aggressive nation". And the fact that the answer to that question will have more profound effects on responses to the US than to China.
In fact, I think that the question is valid. Limiting the discussion to China is blatant anti-Chinese propaganda. Broadening the discussion to "hyper aggressive nations" is fair and legitimate.
I assume your reading list is approved in Langley
I'll also remind you Tiananmen was internal, whereas all of our wars are just that - wars. Directed against other nations.
edit: to clarify, I don't see how Tiananmen suggests China will go to war, but I do see how a sordid history of spurring violence across the globe suggests the US will go to war again.