What is certain that if they do, and the PRC blinks (does not invade), the PRC's government will suffer from massive loss of face.
So again, no. The KMT is not the anti war / friendliness party. It’s the party in favor of letting China seize everything.
Refusing to spread your butt cheeks against an imperialistic nation’s ambitions is not “pro war”.
Ukraine is fighting Russia without other nation's armies directly joining them. Taiwan's allies have most of the globe's naval power.
Large empires tend to lose through military victories and bad economic strategy.
As for the actual practical situation: Sailing enough troops to conquer Taiwan across 90 miles of ocean, to land on a very small number of workable beaches, that have been known to be the only workable beaches for decades and therefore have highly prepared defenses... yeah, that's not something that China is guaranteed success at. Xi has looked at what happened to Russia, and may be less certain of Taiwan rolling over, and less certain of success.
So no, it's not inevitable. Stop counseling despair.
But you have to be intelligent about it in other circumstances, and consider whether it’s actually worth throwing your life away, if the enemy isn’t genoicidally murderous like the Germans under the Nazi party.
Consider African Americans under Jim Crow laws — should they have fought violently? That only would have led to them murdered, even potentially in large numbers. African Americans have survived in the U.S. and not been mass murdered partially due to not fighting (and also by moving to more hospitable areas during the Great Migration).
To quote https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-cas...:
>It was in these early years that Ross began to understand himself as an American—he did not live under the blind decree of justice, but under the heel of a regime that elevated armed robbery to a governing principle. He thought about fighting. “Just be quiet,” his father told him. “Because they’ll come and kill us all.”
Basically don’t fight the enemy that’s enslaving you, unless you’re strong enough to win; otherwise you endanger suffering ethnic cleansing / genocide of your people.
If there is a choice, sure. If there isn't a choice, then living is also a good option. Losing liberty isn't a reason to commit suicide.
> Stop counseling despair.
What despair? Why would Taiwan have to despair? China already controls something like 10% of the human race, the 10% that has seen the biggest improvement in living standards over the last 50 years.
Signing up with that would be unpleasant. But it seems like a better option than a war with the world's greatest industrial superpower that Taiwan is quite likely to lose. We've had a bunch of countries choose war with the US and they'd almost uniformly have been better off surrendering and arguing for liberty in a diplomatic way.
if Taiwan carried out its former plan of using nuclear power stations to build the bomb it wouldn't have to worry about China again (or fickle US support)
The nuclear program in Taiwan was heavily tied to the KMT's ambitions, and as a result Taiwan's anti-nuclear movement is heavily tied to Taiwan's pro-democracy movement which became the DPP, along with the MASSIVE beating nuclear power took all over Asia after the Fukushima disaster (which imo was overhyped in Chinese language media).
Politically speaking, Taiwan under authoritarian KMT rule was in a fairly similar spot to China today, and most of the significant gains that Taiwan saw happened after Taiwan democratized.
That said, anti-nuclear sentiment is equally strong in Mainland China as well, and aside from flashy tech demonstrations, the PRC prefers to use a mix of more politically palatable coal and renewables.
Finally, it is the 1980s-90s generation that is currently in power in Taiwan, and has been for a decade now. Anti-nuclear sentiment will remain for the foreseeable future [0]
"Fast forward to the present day, and the energy battle lines have not much shifted, with most pro-nuclear advocates also representing the Kuomintang (KMT), the party of Chiang Kai-shek and whose candidate drew just 39% of the vote in the 2020 presidential race. Meanwhile, the DPP, which has grown to become dominant, remains heavily anti-nuclear. Over time, the distinctions on nuclear have become less about anti- or pro-authoritarianism; rather, the DPP is widely seen as the young, pro-environment party, while the KMT is seen as pro-business (and, paradoxically given its origins, too cozy with China). This leaves very little political space to advocate for nuclear energy on the premises of eco-modernist environmentalism."
Ok. That's gets me there. The pressure is coming from environmentalists, that are imbued with the unassailable virtue, so any discussion of the matter carefully conceals the prevailing parties and positions and names go unnamed, by both journalists and the participants in this thread. Exactly what I suspected.
[1] https://thebreakthrough.org/journal/no-18-fall-2022/taiwans-...
The anti-nuclear sentiment is more due to the age/state of the reactors and concerns over earthquake safety after the Fukushima nuclear accident and the inability for the island to store/handle/dispose of waste.
I don't think the state of nuclear power will change much even if the blues gain power. Taiwanese politics has a way of making the minority party always be against the status quo for some issues just to be a pain for the majority party, and their stance on nuclear power tends to flip flop depending on who's in power.