Once again, China doesn’t have to fight.

Taiwan is critical to China on all levels.

1) politicians see unifying China as their life goal for historical reasons, from Republic of China to People's Republic of China, it is something colonizers do not understand. I don't understand why people paying a high price to buy some old artifacts stolen from China back, but apparently for something, it is about pride. I believe the government would fall if they declare no interests on Taiwan.

2) strategically, Taiwan's location is important, having a foreign power influenced island (especially the US), is a lock on Chinese Navy, that's why it is called the first islands chain. China has to go beyond to protect its trade and energy routes.

Given the fact that US is all about containing China now, there will have to be a lot power play in Asia now, which is to US's advantage, since US is far, and China will suffer more from the war (trade routes and so on). I don't know how this will play out.

I understand the historical/military circumstance. None of that changes that China does _not_ have to fight.

And the US doesn't have to isolate China or send warships to the SCS. The US didn't have to give Tsingdao to the Japanese, which directly triggered protests that led to the birth of the CPC. The KMT didn't have to be so corrupt that the majority population sided with CPC which led to KMT fleeing to Taiwan.

And yet, those ships have sailed. We aren't in this mess just because China is supposedly a bad guy, there are real relevant historical reasons why things are the way they are, and they can't be swept under a rug.

> We aren't in this mess just because China is supposedly a bad guy, there are real relevant historical reasons why things are the way they are, and they can't be swept under a rug.

If China attacks Taiwan, it is absolutely because of China. It would, after all, but their own choice to engage in such a war of aggression.

Okay. But wait a minute, why are you staying silent on the fact that the US is trying to contain China? Let's say China puts missles in Cuba similar to what happened during the Cuban missle crisis, and the US attacks either China or Cuba as a result. Would you then also wholly blame the US for "its own choice to engage in such a war of aggression"?

> Okay. But wait a minute, why are you staying silent on the fact that the US is trying to contain China?

Because that doesn't change the fact that a war against Taiwan would be a war of choice?

> Let's say China puts missles in Cuba similar to what happened during the Cuban missle crisis, and the US attacks either China or Cuba as a result. Would you then also wholly blame the US for "its own choice to engage in such a war of aggression"?

This is an odd comparison given that the US stopped Taiwan from developing nuclear weapons thus preventing a similar situation as the Cuban missle crisis in Taiwan. If that's your point, then China should _thank_ the US for its actions preventing Taiwanese nuclear "aggression" (I put it in quotes, since really they were developing it to prevent invasion so calling it "aggression" is kind of ridiculous, but I digress...). Besides, the US _removed_ its troops from Taiwan decades ago so the US threat in Taiwan has really decreased if anything.

So yeah none of those points really change the fact that China does not need to invade Taiwan and that it would wholly be war of choice. China could just continue to live with an independent Taiwan as it has for more than 70 years. That is if it chooses not to start a war of its on volition.