I don’t think it would be ww3 as China would get roflstomped by US and Japan.

They might take Taiwan though and ruin the global economy for a few decades.

But I’m not seeing how this gets to be ww3 and not a regional war of just blowing shit up with missles. I don’t think Europe, Africa or South America would get involved unless China fired icbms or bobbed Hawaii or something.

China’s military just isn’t strong enough yet. Maybe in 20-50 years.

I agree that China can't project military force far outside China. But they don't have to, a large portion of the world's population and manufacturing capacity is in their neighborhood. If they take over Taiwan, occupy Vietnam and get countries like Laos and Thailand which have good relations with China on their side, then other countries might join against China to protect their interests and supply lines.

Meanwhile the US has failed to roflstomp much smaller and weaker countries that didn't prepare for this exact scenario. China can't take the war to the US, but they can defend their costal waters and core territory longer than the US can maintain popular support for a war.

China has done an awesome job in building a military that can win a war for Taiwan. They have a very strong integrated air defense system, enough short range missiles to effectively deny the South China Sea to surface vessels and enough long range missiles to crater all of the nearby airfields the US would use in any such conflict. It's not clear they could successfully invade, but can they sink any ship bringing food into Taiwan? Probably, and realistically that's all they need to do to win.

On the flip side, what can the US do to get China to stop fighting if they don't want to give up? An invasion couldn't possibly take over the whole country and might trigger a nuclear reprisal, a blockade would take longer to work against China than Taiwan, and the economic consequences would hit the US quite hard. How many Americans want to buy war bonds and go on rationing to protect Taiwan? Especially with the current political polarization?

I don't think it's a sure fire win for China, but it's already in the realm of plausibility.

> I don’t think it would be ww3 as China would get roflstomped by US and Japan.

Yes, a country with nukes would get "rolfstomped". I expect this opinion from a hacker news commentator.

I suppose I’ll never get to be Secretary of State.

Only when provoked by US.

Provoked by an old lady flying in and giving a few speeches?

That is one rather weak provocation. Compare that to the CCP launching missiles over the island of Taiwan. Who is provoking whom?

Wasn't that after removing the infamous "Taiwan Is Part Of China" from the Taiwan Fact Sheet, and the proposal for expansion of military aid to Taiwan? That old lady is also the US House Speaker, second in line for POTUS succession among other things.

Not exactly irrelevant.

China does look very weak when they behave exactly like North Korea does. They think it's a show of strength, and in a way it is, but it's also a dangerous weakness stemming from fear and insecurity, the kind that may start WW3 some day, and China and particularly the CCP will be wiped off the face of the earth, along with a lot of us.

> Provoked by an old lady flying in and giving a few speeches?

This statement is just ridiculous.

Except The old lady is -

> The order of succession specifies that the office passes to the vice president; if the vice presidency is simultaneously vacant, or if the vice president is also incapacitated, the powers and duties of the presidency pass to the speaker of the House of Representatives

As you stated there are many steps before Pelosi is in a position to "push the button." Xi today at this vary moment is practicing/simulating the murder of the people in Taiwan so he can complete his grand vision of 'unifying' 'China'.

One is using words and the other weapons. We should not tolerate such attempts to stifle an open dialog. I know it's popular now to say 'words are violence,' but at the end of the day they are still not military drills and missile launches.

Xi's posture is one of murder. Pelosi's (who I don't agree with on most things) is one of democratic freedom for the people of Taiwan.

People trying to compare the threat level of Pelosi speeches to Xi missile launches are almost unbelievable in their level of sophistry.

Sure. But many countries have their "weak" spots.

Let Nancy Pelosi go to Catalonia on a military jet, without Spain's approval. It would be a major scandal.

Or hell, if Xi Jinping got around US government on a submarine, and appeared in Texas to support its independence.

All independence is based on having some autonomy (trivial) and no one other calling your bluff.

No, actually. I do not think many people would care if Xi made some speech in texas.

Mostly that sounds just funny. He can go ahead and do that.

It was a fantastical example, but I doubt US would look kindly to sedition.

US doesn't look kindly to someone endangering their energy supplies. Let alone territorial integrity

That is where you would be wrong. People in the US are free to talk all they want about fantastical topics.

In fact, in Texas people make political comments about independence frequently.

In Puerto Rico, there have even been literal votes, where the people actually voted on what they want to do with this US territory, and independence was one of the options.

Further examples of these topics coming up, are the frequent comments I hear about how california, or pacific states should form up and create their own country.

And to give a more historical example, I believe a couple decades ago, there was a major Alaska independence party. This party actually even won a governorship, at one point!

People who claim that the topic of states leaving the US, is some taboo topic, that will get you sent to jail, or start a war, if people simply talk about it, are just wrong.

You are just wrong. People talk about this stuff, all the time, and there have even been official votes on this stuff. And wars aren't started over it.

> People in the US are free to talk all they want about fantastical topics.

It's one thing to talk between US people on various topics. Another is for head of foreign state to covertly enter your country and espouse a topic that's controversial and could cause problems for you down the line.

> And to give a more historical example

To give a more recent historical example. Election of Donald Trump. And the role Russia played. Steele dossier non-whistanding.

From what I gather, merely buying up trolls and doing some marketing was enough for US to have hissy fit, over it.

> It's one thing to talk between US people

It's not just talking though! Instead it is actual votes, in actual territories, about becoming independent from the US. Like the votes that have happened in Puerto Rico.

If there was a vote in Taiwan, and they voted to officially say that they are independent (although they are independent already, they just haven't officially said so), I can assure you that the mainland would not treat such a case as how we literally have allowed Puerto Rico to have such votes.

That's why this is a false equivalence. In Puerto Rico we literally have allowed independence votes. Whereas regarding Taiwan, if they change the name on an embassy, China threats to bomb them, even though Taiwan is already independent, and this has been the case for 70 years.

This sad orientalism: neither China nor Russia are some weird state machines that are "provoked" or "forced" to do anything, or kids that we have to constantly placate to not start crying in the middle of the mall.

Any aggression, like Russian one is only and purely a result of their own choices and they are the one to bear consequences.

How is this even remotely a provocation justifying this kind of response? It‘s a diplomatic gesture confirming the US‘s support for the decades old de-facto status quo. China‘s insistence on their power fantasy is the permanent provocation here.