Is Taiwan getting invaded worth world war 3

[LindyAF]

This is questionably true. However, as of 2019 this number was only 27%, so I'm not sure how stable that is overtime.

Also I think you posted this with the wrong account?

 

[ShieldWife]

There were so many more reasons to help liberate Poland at the end of WWII than there would be to fight China over Taiwan. Protecting Poland was ostensibly the entire reason for the war, its bizarre that the war ends with “victory” and yet Poland is still occupied by an oppressive foreign regime. The Soviet Union was heavily damaged by WWII, the USA was just getting rolling. The USA had nuclear weapons and the USSR didn’t. The world didn’t depend on the USSR to make all of their stuff for them.

But with Roosevelt and Truman so cosy with the commies, that doesn’t matter. Kinda like the Biden administration and probably every future US administration will be with China.

Also, nobody is going to punish America if they don’t help Taiwan. Britain will still trade with the US, Japan will still trade with the US though they will be nervous as hell. Every country in the world is going to feel the same way, they aren’t going to like it but they are unlikely to risk the consequences of a major war with China.

 

[Husky_Khan]

There are a lot of reasons to fight for Taiwan if China does invade them though. The sheer fact that China would be engaging in bold aggression to resolve some seventy year old grievance. We have an authoritarian, oppressive, communist, one party regime attempting to crush a pro-Western Capitalist Democracy that in addition to all of that (and in spite of its many, many flaws) is tied to the United States both historically, and militarily and most notably in a defensive alliance.

If we just let China curbstomp Taiwan conventionally, then that jeopardizes all of the United States alliances around the world, most notably with Japan, South Korea, the Philippines and even countries like Australia and New Zealand or Thailand. Not to mention endangering things like the Rio Treaty and the like as well. If the redline isn't Taiwan... is it going to be the Philippines? Or South Korea? Or Japan?

With that said a conventional conflict doesn't have to lead to World War Three... this being a regional conflict I don't think it can easily escalate to a World War without some sort of Nuclear Escalation and if China isn't firing first, I can't contemplate the United States doing it first.

A regional conflict might not even draw in many other powers. I don't think China's allies of North Korea or Myanmar would bother getting involved. And South Korea and Japan as far as I know have no collective security agreements with Taiwan. Japan might get involved, solely because the United States will likely insist on using bases on Japanese territory for operations in the Taiwanese theater and that could provoke a response from China attempting to interdict such operations and thus draw Japan in the conflict.

 

[Free-Stater 101]

There were so many more reasons to help liberate Poland at the end of WWII than there would be to fight China over Taiwan. Protecting Poland was ostensibly the entire reason for the war, its bizarre that the war ends with “victory” and yet Poland is still occupied by an oppressive foreign regime. The Soviet Union was heavily damaged by WWII, the USA was just getting rolling. The USA had nuclear weapons and the USSR didn’t. The world didn’t depend on the USSR to make all of their stuff for them.

This ignores a few realities of war from the U.S. perspective.

1. The U.S. unlike Britain had no pre-existing obligations by treaty to defend Poland from the Soviet beyond the interest of national security leaving the issue to be decided by the government on the whims of interest.'
2. The U.S. entry into the war was because of the Japanese attack on pearl and Germany's following DOI, the U.S. was sympathetic to the polish plight but they weren't about to DOI on Stalin for them.
3. Britain didn't defend Poland in 1939 from the USSR because they already had their handsfull with another evil superpower bent on genocide and conquest that was much closer to them why make the war harder?

Also, nobody is going to punish America if they don’t help Taiwan. Britain will still trade with the US, Japan will still trade with the US though they will be nervous as hell. Every country in the world is going to feel the same way, they aren’t going to like it but they are unlikely to risk the consequences of a major war with China.

China can bluster all it wants like usual it doesn't change the fact that beyond nukes their threats hold no water and more importantly can't cross it, heck the Taiwanese by themselves have enough equipment to make an invasion pure hell even without us.



We aren't going to abandon Taiwan and if we do trust me that means we will be having issues at home which make China invading the island irrelevant.

 

[ATP]

It is a different age. also a different treaty. We kinda did not have a choice in that matter, as they occupied Poland. You really think ti would have been beneficial to go to war with the USSR at a time when both countries were weakened?

Different age,but the same democrats.
And soviets in 1945 was giant on USA legs - 75% of trucks and 50% of trains come from USA.remove that,destroy Baku which delivered 70% of oil - and after few month soviets would fight using horses.

Not mention,that their air forces had no good nightfighters and few fighters capable of figting at 7.000 metres attitude,where B.17 operated.

All in all,it would be smarter to sell us in 1946,not gave for free - it is one think be traitor,and another stupid traitor.

But,back to Taiwan - China would wait for democrats to ruin USA,and invade anybody only if they fail.

 

[LindyAF]

Japan will still trade with the US though they will be nervous as hell.

IIRC Japan played a role in the US normalizing relations with the PRC after the Tiananmen square massacre. Abe also advised Xi during US trade conflicts with China. I think traditional foreign policy analysis, probably overstates the extent to which Japan is actually aligned with the US, and understates the extent to which they'd be happy to replace one hegemon with another, as long as they thought the new hegemon wouldn't be actively pursuing vengeance.

 

[Yinko]

Is Taiwan important enough for World war 3 to happen yes or no

Yes, because it wouldn't stop at Taiwan, Taiwan would be a test of a best-case invasion in terms of CB, allowing them to set up further expansion into more wishy-washy areas in Asia. It's also one of the few opportunities to have a war with China on our terms, which is a valuable thing before the power dynamic shifts too much. Conflict with China is necessary, good and inevitable, the only question is what form it will take. Worst case scenario is a totally cold conflict without even a trade-war, that will lead to our slow death and the rise of China as a geo-political hegemon, which is bad for everyone.

 

[Zachowon]

IIRC Japan played a role in the US normalizing relations with the PRC after the Tiananmen square massacre. Abe also advised Xi during US trade conflicts with China. I think traditional foreign policy analysis, probably overstates the extent to which Japan is actually aligned with the US, and understates the extent to which they'd be happy to replace one hegemon with another, as long as they thought the new hegemon wouldn't be actively pursuing vengeance.

Japan is not a fan of China, at least on the level or a threat to their country. Japan was one of the first that following the outbreak, thy pulled a lot of their stuff out of China manufacturing wise, and are building their military, well defense force, to counter China if needed....

Yes, because it wouldn't stop at Taiwan, Taiwan would be a test of a best-case invasion in terms of CB, allowing them to set up further expansion into more wishy-washy areas in Asia. It's also one of the few opportunities to have a war with China on our terms, which is a valuable thing before the power dynamic shifts too much. Conflict with China is necessary, good and inevitable, the only question is what form it will take. Worst case scenario is a totally cold conflict without even a trade-war, that will lead to our slow death and the rise of China as a geo-political hegemon, which is bad for everyone.

Exactly what I thinik

 

[LindyAF]

Japan is not a fan of China, at least on the level or a threat to their country. Japan was one of the first that following the outbreak, thy pulled a lot of their stuff out of China manufacturing wise, and are building their military, well defense force, to counter China if needed....

They also sent aid to and received aid from China during the outbreak. I'm not saying they're best buds, there's both serious historical grievances that neither side can back down on and current disputes like the Senkaku / Diaoyu islands. But China's also Japan's largest trading partner. I'd be very surprised if in the event of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, Japan was willing to stick their necks out for Taiwan unless the US had already declared war.

The Japanese government building up their military is also the sort of thing that makes sense to do if you think the global DC empire is growing unstable, and want to be in a better position to advance and defend your interests without relying on of its implicit military support. And Tailoring their military to the regional power just makes sense. I don't doubt that Japan will defend its interests in conflicts with China, just that they'll back the US government's.

 

[Zachowon]

They also sent aid to and received aid from China during the outbreak. I'm not saying they're best buds, there's both serious historical grievances that neither side can back down on and current disputes like the Senkaku / Diaoyu islands. But China's also Japan's largest trading partner. I'd be very surprised if in the event of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, Japan was willing to stick their necks out for Taiwan unless the US had already declared war.

The Japanese government building up their military is also the sort of thing that makes sense to do if you think the global DC empire is growing unstable, and want to be in a better position to advance and defend your interests without relying on of its implicit military support. And Tailoring their military to the regional power just makes sense. I don't doubt that Japan will defend its interests in conflicts with China, just that they'll back the US government's.

Basically, the gist is, If China invades Taiwan, they wont stop, they wont stay there. It will show the rest of the world they aren't afraid anymore, and that if they invade Taiwan., who knows who is next. Vietnam? Mongolia? South korea with help of North korea?

 

[LindyAF]

Basically, the gist is, If China invades Taiwan, they wont stop, they wont stay there. It will show the rest of the world they aren't afraid anymore, and that if they invade Taiwan., who knows who is next. Vietnam? Mongolia? South korea with help of North korea?

See the issue I think is you're trying to think in terms of US long term interests, rather than the interests of the people who govern US policy. I understand your argument, it's just not the sort of argument that I think actually governs action for the relevant people. Perhaps direct military conflict with China in order to defend Taiwan would be worth it, from the global DC empire's long term perspective or "the international community"'s long term perspective. But the global DC empire doesn't have a perspective. Is it in the immediate interests of enough of America's ruling class? Probably not, although if China invaded Taiwan it might be in their immediate interests to do enough saber-rattling that war happens anyway, so they'll probably wait it out to air on the side of caution.

If the US doesn't intervene, who's interest is it in to do so? What would be better for most of the ruling class in Vietnam or Japan- to get steamrolled by China, or to build themselves up enough that China would prefer to have them as a satellite state rather than an occupied territory with a guerilla problem?

 

[Zachowon]

See the issue I think is you're trying to think in terms of US long term interests, rather than the interests of the people who govern US policy. I understand your argument, it's just not the sort of argument that I think actually governs action for the relevant people. Perhaps direct military conflict with China in order to defend Taiwan would be worth it, from the global DC empire's long term perspective or "the international community"'s long term perspective. But the global DC empire doesn't have a perspective. Is it in the immediate interests of enough of America's ruling class? Probably not, although if China invaded Taiwan it might be in their immediate interests to do enough saber-rattling that war happens anyway, so they'll probably wait it out to air on the side of caution.

If the US doesn't intervene, who's interest is it in to do so? What would be better for most of the ruling class in Vietnam or Japan- to get steamrolled by China, or to build themselves up enough that China would prefer to have them as a satellite state rather than an occupied territory with a guerilla problem?

You do know I have to see what goes on in the world on a level most here don't, and China taking Taiwan wont be the end of it.
If the US does not intervene, Japan and Vietnam for surewill, as will Korea most likely. Because the makes it so China may push further, and use their force to claim areas that are contested, and wont be stopped, as it will be like in world war 2. Let them take something they claim as thiers, and do nothing, and they don't stop...

 

[LindyAF]

You do know I have to see what goes on in the world on a level most here don't, and China taking Taiwan wont be the end of it.
If the US does not intervene, Japan and Vietnam for surewill, as will Korea most likely. Because the makes it so China may push further, and use their force to claim areas that are contested, and wont be stopped, as it will be like in world war 2. Let them take something they claim as thiers, and do nothing, and they don't stop...

Okay, I understand you're claiming some kind of knowledge or authority on the issue here, but frankly without knowing what it is your claiming, I'm not sure how I can reasonably let it inform my opinion. (To be clear, please don't disclose whatever it is as it could be detrimental to you. I don't know what you have or haven't written under the same username and I know right-wingers in the military and government can be targeted).

To be honest, the boogeyman of appeasement seems overblown to me. I remember it being used to justify the endless wars in the middle east as well. If Saddam takes Kuwait, he'll push further and further, taking, I don't know- Jordan and Syria. Maybe even the autonomous Kurdish region in Iraq. And if he doesn't stop there, what will he take next- France?!?

Regardless, I still don't think you're understanding my point. Countries aren't actors. As far as I can tell, US policy is not particularly closely related to what's even good for the global empire long term. Is being the guy pushing for war with China immediately beneficial to enough US political elites (including national security ones)? That's the relevant question. If China takes Taiwan and the US doesn't intervene, what's beneficial for Vietnamese or Japanese political elites- fleeing and being the government in exile, or aligning closer with China?

And for what it's worth (and I don't think this one isn't at all relevant for what US policy would be) what's in the interests of the heritage American people if China invades Taiwan? Sending fathers, sons, brothers to die for an offshored semiconductor supply chain and the interests of a global empire that hates us? Or acknowledging that it isn't our fight?

 

[Zachowon]

Okay, I understand you're claiming some kind of knowledge or authority on the issue here, but frankly without knowing what it is your claiming, I'm not sure how I can reasonably let it inform my opinion. (To be clear, please don't disclose whatever it is as it could be detrimental to you. I don't know what you have or haven't written under the same username and I know right-wingers in the military and government can be targeted).

To be honest, the boogeyman of appeasement seems overblown to me. If Saddam takes Kuwait, he'll push further and further, taking, I don't know- Jordan and Syria. Maybe even the autonomous Kurdish region in Iraq. And if he doesn't stop there, what will he take next- France?!?

Regardless, I still don't think you're understanding my point. Countries aren't actors. As far as I can tell, US policy is not particularly closely related to what's even good for the global empire long term. Is being the guy pushing for war with China immediately beneficial to enough US political elites (including national security ones)? That's the relevant question. If China takes Taiwan and the US doesn't intervene, what's beneficial for Vietnamese or Japanese political elites- fleeing and being the government in exile, or aligning closer with China?

And for what it's worth (and I don't think this one isn't at all relevant for what US policy would be) what's in the interests of the heritage American people if China invades Taiwan? Sending fathers, sons, brothers to die for an offshored semiconductor supply chain and the interests of a global empire that hates us? Or acknowledging that it isn't our fight?

After seeing what China has been doing, and a growing distatse for China within the US people, telling them that they would do worse to taiwan then they are doing in Hong Kong?
The Us people would be more for it then you think

 

[LindyAF]

After seeing what China has been doing, and a growing distatse for China within the US people, telling them that they would do worse to taiwan then they are doing in Hong Kong?
The Us people would be more for it then you think

But why should we be for it? To secure better profit margins for woke tech companies that de-platform us, and replace us with h1bs? For the security of a national security complex that does not secure our own borders?

Don't get me wrong. I dislike China. My sympathy is with all people who wish for self-determination within their own homelands, including Hong Kong and Taiwan. And I too wish the Kuomintang had beat the communists. But they didn't, it's not our fight, and quite frankly past foreign entanglements have only served to make foreign issues domestic ones, rather than keep them abroad.

 

[Zachowon]

But why should we be for it? To secure better profit margins for woke tech companies that de-platform us, and replace us with h1bs? For the security of a national security complex that does not secure our own borders?

Don't get me wrong. I dislike China. My sympathy is with all people who wish for self-determination within their own homelands, including Hong Kong and Taiwan. And I too wish the Kuomintang had beat the communists. But they didn't, it's not our fight, and quite frankly past foreign entanglements have only served to make foreign issues domestic ones, rather than keep them abroad.

Because if CHina spreads we lose anything that holds us to our treaties. We basically lose what it takes to be a superpower

 

[Scottty]

Because if CHina spreads we lose anything that holds us to our treaties. We basically lose what it takes to be a superpower

I think the question there is who is "we"?

Not that I disagree with your point. Nobody will want to make treaties with a country that does not keep its agreements.
But that is a basic problem already with the USA - any promise that a Republican administration makes, a Democrat one will feel free to just ignore - and vice versa.

 

[Zachowon]

I think the question there is who is "we"?

Not that I disagree with your point. Nobody will want to make treaties with a country that does not keep its agreements.
But that is a basic problem already with the USA - any promise that a Republican administration makes, a Democrat one will feel free to just ignore - and vice versa.

I think it is something that has been no the table for multiple years now, and I don't know which side made the deal

 

[ShadowArxxy]

I think the question there is who is "we"?

Not that I disagree with your point. Nobody will want to make treaties with a country that does not keep its agreements.

To a degree. Treaties are also not suicide pacts, and one of the inherent abilities of a superpower in dealing with client powers within its sphere is to alter the deal as it sees fit.

It's a matter of balance -- if you do it too much you're untrustworthy, but if you don't do it enough you're a naive pushover. One of the HUGE reasons the European powers are so self-righteously disrespectful of the United States is we don't push them enough.

 

[Sārthākā]

As a guy who works in RAND, it is estimated through wargames, and research with multiple think tanks, America won't be able to Challenge China in the Yellow Sea, East China Sea and South China Sea by 2023, meaning the eastern Pacific in general. Overall, the US defense budget needs a yearly increase of $28 billion in all sectors to start matching the Chinese, however the Pentagon reported in October that they could only increase the number to $8 billion. So, really, America has 2 years, after that the eastern pacific is Chinese.