If this was about national security, we wouldn't be ruining relationships with allies while strengthening adversaries.

If this was about industrial capacity, we wouldn't be attacking education, chilling investment, attacking energy innovation, attacking science and research, and creating a historically unstable economic environment, all without a whisper of any logical industrial policy.

Stop trying to rationalize the destructive foolishness of this leadership.

>It’s not China’s fault

There is an element in that the US protects Taiwan. When China was content to make stuff and not invade places things were fine but now it's building up it's military and saying it will take back Taiwan things are more awkward. It's bad for the US in a war situation with China if all their stuff is imported from China.

> When China was content to make stuff and not invade places

Can you tell me more about Chinese invasions?

> saying it will take back Taiwan

Should the world cancel the USA because it is saying something about annexing Canada\Greenland?

>Should the world cancel the USA because it is saying something about annexing Canada\Greenland?

Not the world, but If I were Canada\Denmark, I would think twice about if I rely on the US for defense and arms.

That said Taiwan is a red herring.

Im not sure the US policy has a coherent strategy. If there is one, it is that US economic and military hegemony is waning with global economic growth.

Negative sum strategies are valid in war and power competition. If a global recession hurts the rest of the world less than US, that could be a strategic win.

> Should the world cancel the USA because it is saying something about annexing Canada\Greenland?

Of course, how is that even a question?

I think they wanted to hear that it’s ok to invade other countries. Despite China being very pragmatic in all matters, China’s view on Taiwan is highly irrational. They want to have it because… well, just because. At the same time they manage to mostly ignore the territories that have been stolen by the Russian Empire. From the practical standpoint they actually have a better chance to regain the Russian territories gradually (through negotiations). I mean, Taiwan can be invaded, but it will be a scorched earth type of invasion making it entirely pointless.

Saying China wants Taiwan “just because” over simplifies the situation.

During the Chinese Communist Revolution the previous government of China retreated to Taiwan. The official name of the Taiwanese government is “Republic of China”, demonstrating that their legitimacy stretches back to this time period.

While Chinese settlers in Taiwan dates back further, China claimed the island in the 17th century. The island was under Japanese rule for about 50 years, before being returned to China in the post WW2 treaties.

The history is deep, and Taiwanese independence is a relatively new thing.

I think it is fair to say conquest of Taiwan has always been an issue of national pride for the PRC. It isn't a national security threat.

It is based on a manifest destiny ideology that the PRC is the only legitimate heir of Chinese culture and history, and sole rightful ruler of all people of Chinese descent.

I would say it’s a potential national security threat. The Taiwanese government does call itself The Republic of China.

From a security standpoint it would be like if a group of US politicians and other elites took over Cuba and called themselves The Republic of The United States. Yeah, an island nation wouldn’t win a fight, but their intentions are in the title.

That seems like a very modern and loose definition of "national security threat" which means anything not in the regime's interest.

ROC is not going to conquer or invade PRC. The is ideological and presented by ROC merely existing.

It’s part of the first island chain, of course it’s a national security threat.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_island_chain

Americans seem to be very sensitive about Taiwan, but if you understand the history of our country, you will find that Taiwan has always been a part of China. Even Taiwanese people today will not deny this. In fact, the Taiwan issue was originally caused by the obstruction of the Americans, which led to our country's failure to unify. Our people have always been resentful about this matter.

And if mainland China would simply end its 75-year rebellion against the legitimate government of China, which resides in Taiwan, there would be no problem.

Well that's one take on it. From the western perspective Taiwan was part of China and when the communists overthrew the government in the mainland with military force it retreated to Taiwan. Now Taiwan is effectively an independent democracy and the commies want to overthrow its government militarily against the wishes of the locals as usual. The world's democratic governments generally oppose the overthrow of democratic governments by dictators who want to grab some place by killing the locals.

A civilized compromise might be a union like the EU with both governments continuing on an equal basis.

>The world's democratic governments generally oppose the overthrow of democratic governments by dictators who want to grab some place by killing the locals.

Not only do Western governments not actually oppose this, they have orchestrated the overthrow of democratic governments and installed dictatorships numerous times when it suited their interests.

The actual Western perspective is not to give a damn who runs Taiwan or how many locals they kill as long as we can do favorable business with them. Although the Red Menace rhetoric does play well at home.

Well some of them. I'm western and have friends in Taiwan and want the place to do ok and am not worried about the business side.

Fair enough, I'm mostly talking about governments not people.

If you go deeper, you will find that China's modern history is full of suffering. After the victory of the Anti-Japanese War, the Kuomintang's post-war activities of taking over enemy property exacerbated the Kuomintang's corruption, which was regarded as "robbery" by public opinion, and the issuance of a large amount of currency led to serious inflation. Against this background, the Kuomintang leader Chiang Kai-shek took the initiative to launch an armed attack on the Communist Party. At that time, the Chinese people were already very disgusted with the war. After fighting the Japanese, they had to attack their own compatriots. Therefore, the Kuomintang was very unpopular, and the people's hearts turned to the Communist Party.

I can see that and my Chinese friends seem happy with how it is in China, but I still don't think a takeover of Taiwan against the wishes of the Taiwanese people would be a good idea.

You are a kind person, and I admire you very much. At least before 2018, our general view was that there was nothing wrong with maintaining "one country, two systems" and we would work together for development. But the problem is that our relationship with Taiwan is always easily sown by other countries, who try to make Taiwan independent instead of recognizing "one China".

> When China was content to make stuff and not invade places things were fine

And "content to make stuff"? You mean back when they were underpaid workers doing low-complexity manufacturing and not actually competing with the U.S.?

> but now it's building up it's military and saying it will take back Taiwan things are more awkward.

Maybe it's building up its military because it keeps hearing things like "pivot to Asia" and "we need to prepare for war with China"—for about 8 years now. If I were China, and knowing how the U.S. has violated international law by invading other countries (like Iraq), I’d be ramping up my military even more.

> not invade places

Which country did they invade?

Complex stuff is fine. Invasion - talk of Taiwan, troops into Hong Kong, bases in the sea territory of Vietnam, Philippines etc.

> threatens American national security

Which is itself ideological, being based on a theory of conflict. The giving up of those capabilities was a result of times of peace.

From European perspective, Russia's latest invasion was a wake-up call that the peace isn't permanent, and diplomacy and economic power may not be sufficient to keep it.

Effectiveness of drones and advanced missiles in the war was also a wake-up call that semiconductors and batteries have a strategic military importance, and the rest of the world is quite dependent on China and Taiwan for these.

I assume that all the talk about trade deficits and unfair competition from Chinese EVs is bullshit, and the US and the EU are having an "oh shit" moment realising they're unprepared for the world where wars are fought with drones and robots.

So we should simply have ceded the Baltic states to Russia? Is that what you are suggesting?

No, I am not suggesting this. And to my knowledge neither did Russia at any point suggest this. If Russia did, kindly share. The probability that Russia will invade Europe is propaganda propagated by western media. Request you to watch the 2 videos I have linked above.

But that is what you are insinuating about Ukraine. We should not have let the Ukrainian people self determine their path and instead given them the cold shoulder and left them to Russia.

You are, in fact, either suggesting that or are entirely unaware that Ukraine had a peaceful agreement with Russia prior. The entire point of giving Ukraine official sovereignty was to reduce international pressure on Russia - everyone knew that reneging it would bring war to Russia's doorstep, it's written in black and white on the Budapest memorandum.

You can blame Russia for not knowing their worth, but they did break the treaty and there is no rational justification for doing so.

Some Americans may wish the US had better relative industrial capabilities, but that isn't what this is about.

This is a direct effect of electing a president who deeply, firmly believes that having a trade deficit means we're getting "ripped off", and who has succeeded in dismantling most of the checks and balances around this sort of thing.

There's no 4d chess here. Trump has been both serious and literal about tariffs his entire career.

Exactly. Core industrial capabilities is what things like Biden's CHIPS act were about. Those are targeted tariffs combined with domestic incentives.

What Trump doing is not that. It's tariffs on everything, without any distinction on whether something is important for our national security or not.

Those half measures are never going to work, just like navel gazing about “the root causes of illegal immigration” don’t work. You need big hammers to fix big problems.

It's fun to see people intentionally advocating for the "smash it with a hammer" approach because working with perspective and nuance is apparently ineffective "navel gazing".

I never thought the ~leopards~ hammers would ~eat~ smash MY ~face~ thumb!

[citation needed]

Every successful tariff that I've read about through history has been:

1) Targeted on a segment.

2) Accompanied by subsidies.

3) A plan for developing competence in the segment through education and training.

Sounds a lot more like the half measure than whatever this is.

You're right in that this is a big hammer though, but that's more often used for tearing things down rather than building.

Neither of those are "big problems." The US was going gangbusters, from an economic perspective.

The stock market was going gangbusters. Inflation and job market have been not so great the past few years.

And what makes you feel that inflation & job market are about to head in a better direction?

Exactly. Tariffs are inherently inflationary, and make the economy less efficient which lowers wages, since workers will now be moved to less productive jobs. And unemployment has been low, so this isn't about lowering unemployment either...

“Threatens American national security” is just the administration’s double speak to justify cynical foreign policy decisions. Since 1945 America has struggled with the prospect of its decline. The US would come to exchange a trade deficit for being the world’s reserve currency. However the reserve currency boat has growing leaks. Trump’s administration has circled the wagons, withdrawn support from Ukraine, antagonized allies, raised tariffs. Essentially American international hegemony is collapsing and we are seeing the latest desperate moves made to retain power.

Industrial capabilities could be on shored with various other incentives without risking a global recession with far greater economical & not costs.

This is political incompetence fueled by social media polarization & former political incompetence.

People have been talking that talk my entire lifetime. Nobody has done shit, because nobody wants to hurt their next quarterly profits. We just had a pandemic that was likely caused by China for which we had to buy PPE from China because we can’t make it.

The best time for rebuilding our industrial capabilities in an orderly way was the 1990s. The second best time is now.

I do not disagree with disentangling the hyper globalised world. We have evidence of how quickly things can go south (bronze age collapse, recent supply chain madness etc).

The entire theory is also based on inequality. We build nothing and we ship all the low paid / environmentally disastrous industries abroad.

What I disagree with is the methodology, which is simply idiotic.

People who share this viewpoint have talked about this for decades and the entire time public policy went in the opposite direction. We’ll never get another chance before it’s too late.

Would you defibrillate a functioning heart because of a perceived future fibrillation risk ?

I do not buy that the only answer to the recent incompetence of the US (and western in general) political system is to shock it with even more incompetence.