Taking the beaches here would require spilling the blood of tens of thousands of PLA troops, but as demonstrate two days ago, the only real barrier to blockading us was the threat of the USA showing up.
Xi's hunger for Taiwan shouldn't be underestimated. It's utterly irrational but it is his obsession. It's becoming clear he intends to die in office, and he's seeing his legacy as a mirror of that of the entire communist revolution - he wants to be the next Mao, with a permanent framed photo on the wall of every school and many houses in the PRC. Mao was happy to waste millions of PLA in every conflict the PRC engaged in as an outright military strategy, he called it something like "drowning the enemy in a sea of bodies," Xi will be the same.
Xi himself probably already had war gamed what it would look like to kidnap the president here in Taiwan from the presidential palace or whatever. The main difference is, now we're all talking about it - if it was that easy to snatch a president, will the PRC try it against us? Will the KMT throw Lai under the bus so the PLA can do a targeted kidnapping or assassination, perhaps alongside his US-friendly VP?
Big assumption to be sure, and time will only tell if it’s a correct one.
In a place like Taiwan or the US that assumption is almost certainly false. Imagine Xi kidnaps the US president. Does anyone honestly believe the entire government and its people just roll over and say, “I guess China owns us now”?
It doesn't change the physical realities of that much at all besides maybe slightly further cementing that the US will not come to Taiwan's aid.
No, the main change is that now Xi can more reliably expect a weaker, less unified response from the west due to political divisions inside America as well as between western nations. He can expect less diplomatic pushback, fewer sanctions, etc.
Also, no all serious leaders do not only respect power. Serious leaders who are also morally and ethically good also take into account right and wrong when they make decisions.
The right thing to do would be for America to try to preserve and enforce a rules based order, regardless if other countries do. America has significant agency in the world and should consider how the world should be and try to get there. Not only consider how the world is.
Following an ethical code in international affairs constrains the nation following it. It provides an asymmetric advantage to others who choose not to follow that code.
This is partly why China has become so powerful over the past three decades. They chose to ignore western ethical codes around intellectual property rights, fair trade, environmental protections, and human rights. They are powerful today in no small part to their willingness to disregard these things.
This is difficult for people to understand because in interpersonal relationships following an ethical code is 100% the path to healthy and meaningful relationships, and most modern history education attempts to anthropomorphize past interactions between nations. But the cold fact is that international politics is nothing like interpersonal relationships.
A nation can encourage other nations to follow their ethical code by threatening to use force if they don't. They can create incentives to encourage nations to change their behavior through trade or treaty. But I can't think of a single time in history when a nation was such a shining star of morality that they inspired other nations to change their ways and adopt their ethics.
You can't expect other nations to respect your nation's moral and ethical values when they don't care about them in the first place and in fact hope that you choose to follow them to the fullest extent so that you're easier to compete against.
Isn't that the opposite? The US just demonstrated that it can still conduct military operations, and the presence of Chinese envoys in the country does not deter it in any way. As of now, China has one fewer source of oil it can rely on in case of an invasion.
I get that military resources devoted to one theatre can’t be used in another and for that reason the US might be less able to defend Taiwan, but that may not make them less willing.
A more reasonable read is that the aircraft carriers and other naval assets in the Gulf of Mexico are more effective there than they could be in the Pacific. Venezuela doesn’t have hypersonic anti-ship missiles. China does.
This can mean different things to different people, such as:
(A) Power dynamics determine outcomes i.e. a claim about how the world works
(B) Might makes right i.e. rejecting ethical notions of right and wrong
I'm pretty sure you mean (A). Fair? Are there other meanings you want to endorse? Some form of nihilism perhaps?
From https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
I have put in good faith efforts to convert with MisterMower, for example, in [1]. Shortly after that, they insulted me. [2] This is also against the HN Guidelines, and that kind of behavior is not welcome here. Here are additional examples of hostility and insults they've made:
> Old farts like yourself [3]
> In case you don't understand how analogies work [4]
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46488285
[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46495327
I would also point out that you have engaged in bad faith argumentation of your own, but I'm not so petty as to go through your comment history to point out each instance and appeal to the moderators that you shouldn't be welcome here.
I apologize if my comments came across as offensive. That was not my intent, and I think a charitable interpretation of them reveals no malice. I hope you can find more people in your life that will speak directly and honestly to you so it won't be so jarring in the future.
This is exactly why a lot of people support Trump and his actions. He's at least direct and honest. It's about oil. Yeah, we had the power to do it so we did. It's in our interests. Everybody else can go pound sand. You may not like the reasons, and I'm not sure I do either, but at least he isn't a coward who lies and claims he's doing something altruistic instead, like you are with your model building and deference to unnamed experts.
I know that frightens people like yourself who go through life exerting influence on the people around you not by direct communication and action, but by appealing to fake authorities like the moderators in this situation, or international law in the case of what we're discussing.
Americans increasingly reject the kinds of arguments you're making and the fake systems of power that keep impotent, second rate thinkers in power and grant them an outsized level of respect in public commentary.
I encourage you to engage in some introspection. Your priors are clearly wrong: international law obviously didn't matter in this case and probably won't matter in the future. Why is that? What changed? Was international law ever relevant? If it was, why was it?
This comment comes across as mean-spirited. It's not cool to open with an apology then proceed to put out up to 7 paragraphs of eloquently-worded personal attack.
HN is only a place where people want to participate because this kind of thing is not accepted here. Please show you respect the guidelines and care about the health of the community if you want to participate here.
How does Maduro being ousted change the physical realities of an amphibious invasion of Taiwan? You think international law is what has been preventing Xi from invading?
Trump does only respect power, as do all other serious leaders. Power is all that matters in the end.
How do you think the system of international law came into existence? It was imposed by the US at the end of WWII because of their overwhelming military strength and the fact that no other nation had nuclear weapons at the time.
The armchair analysis from some folks on this topic is really lacking. You guys are just wrong, and the hubris you bring with your “analysis” is really off putting.