Will China invade Taiwan?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Curious as to what yall think.  I say Yes/2006, maybe 7 if they have to deal with NK 1st.

You really can't wait for an all-out war in the Far East, can you?

I just want to see those countries corrected; if that means war, then absolutely.

The question is "if". War would cause more problems than it would solve.

No, war would eliminate it.

How?

The same way "bad" Japan was eliminated.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Curious as to what yall think.  I say Yes/2006, maybe 7 if they have to deal with NK 1st.

You really can't wait for an all-out war in the Far East, can you?

I just want to see those countries corrected; if that means war, then absolutely.

The question is "if". War would cause more problems than it would solve.

No, war would eliminate it.

War is a magical pill that has no adverse side effects?  Oh golly, I hope someone declares war on *me.*

But seriously, war causes the death of innocents and much suffering.   Invading to eliminate suffering isn't always to the best solution.

But invading to eliminate our elimination is.  If they take Taiwan, and just keep taking free countries, ultimately, we're next.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No, war would eliminate it.

How?

I assume he's using the war in Iraq as a point of reference; as we all know, freedom and democracy have blossomed across the Middle East since 2003. Why wouldn't that work in China?

China is not a religiously divided country.  They all pretty much agree that Comm. is bad for them, and those who want it would be killed fighting in the war.

[jokerman]

I hope they do because it would be their utter ruin.

[J. J.]

1.  Militarily, it would be costly for the PRC to invade Taiwan.  Taiwan would inflict huge damage on an invading army and would likely form a massive guerilla movement.  Occupation would be far worse that the US in Iraq.

2.  An invasion would destroy resources that the PRC wants (unlike both Kuwait and Iraq).

3.  There are models of peaceful takeovers (Hong Kong and Macao), that worked very well.  While there might be an "Iron fist in a velvet glove" takeover, with an implied military threat, it won't be an invasion.

4.  Internally, the PRC is seeing the advantage of economic, not military, expansion.  It can benefit, much more greatly, from economic ties to Taiwan that it ever could by a bloody occupation (and war with the US).  If the PRC plays its cards right, in 20 years, Taiwan might be asking to be re-incorporated in the PRC.

[Michael Z]

Curious as to what yall think.  I say Yes/2006, maybe 7 if they have to deal with NK 1st.

You really can't wait for an all-out war in the Far East, can you?

I just want to see those countries corrected; if that means war, then absolutely.

The question is "if". War would cause more problems than it would solve.

No, war would eliminate it.

How?

The same way "bad" Japan was eliminated.

Not all conflicts are the same, and it would be a gross oversimplification to suggest otherwise. Modern China cannot in any way be compared to Japan in the 1930s/1940s, ditto North Korea, not to mention the knock-on effects it would cause. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuked on the back of a six-year long conflict - an attack on China, Taiwan or NK now would actually cause another lengthy conflict (and one which may be considerably more damaging, given that nuclear weapons now are several times more powerful than what landed on Hiroshima and Nagasaki). I could go on and on, but point being, there is a myriad of differences.

[Michael Z]

No, war would eliminate it.

How?

I assume he's using the war in Iraq as a point of reference; as we all know, freedom and democracy have blossomed across the Middle East since 2003. Why wouldn't that work in China?

China is not a religiously divided country.  They all pretty much agree that Comm. is bad for them, and those who want it would be killed fighting in the war.

China is no longer a Communist country - it started embracing the free market in the 90s (which is why it's well on its way of being the 2nd richest nation on Earth).

Sure, China has an abysmal human rights record, and freedom of speech is limited, it's a totalitarian one party state, etc, etc... but point being, it is no longer Communist, at least not the way the USSR or Cuba was/is.

[Jake]

But invading to eliminate our elimination is.  If they take Taiwan, and just keep taking free countries, ultimately, we're next.

You're a nut case.

[Lunar]

Curious as to what yall think.  I say Yes/2006, maybe 7 if they have to deal with NK 1st.

You really can't wait for an all-out war in the Far East, can you?

I just want to see those countries corrected; if that means war, then absolutely.

The question is "if". War would cause more problems than it would solve.

No, war would eliminate it.

War is a magical pill that has no adverse side effects?  Oh golly, I hope someone declares war on *me.*

But seriously, war causes the death of innocents and much suffering.   Invading to eliminate suffering isn't always to the best solution.

But invading to eliminate our elimination is.  If they take Taiwan, and just keep taking free countries, ultimately, we're next.

Come on.  If China ever becomes strong enough to take on the United States, it will be because of their industrial boom and huge population advantage.  We can punish China in many other ways than declaring war and causing millions of people to die.

Taiwan isn't even in the Olympics.  It views Taiwain (and constant Chinese propaganda doesn't help) like the North viewed the Confederacy - a province in rebellion.

I'm not saying we should let China take Taiwan.  Again, I think China is itching for a non-military solution that would allow them to gain Taiwan's industrial base without agitating the rest fo the world.  War would prevent them from doing either.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Curious as to what yall think.  I say Yes/2006, maybe 7 if they have to deal with NK 1st.

You really can't wait for an all-out war in the Far East, can you?

I just want to see those countries corrected; if that means war, then absolutely.

The question is "if". War would cause more problems than it would solve.

No, war would eliminate it.

How?

The same way "bad" Japan was eliminated.

Not all conflicts are the same, and it would be a gross oversimplification to suggest otherwise. Modern China cannot in any way be compared to Japan in the 1930s/1940s, ditto North Korea, not to mention the knock-on effects it would cause. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuked on the back of a six-year long conflict - an attack on China, Taiwan or NK now would actually cause another lengthy conflict (and one which may be considerably more damaging, given that nuclear weapons now are several times more powerful than what landed on Hiroshima and Nagasaki). I could go on and on, but point being, there is a myriad of differences.

My point was not that they;re the same.  My point was that bad countries can be eliminated and replaced with good ones.

[Citizen James]

My point was not that they;re the same.  My point was that bad countries can be eliminated and replaced with good ones.

Dude, have you been ingesting illicit pharmasuiticals; been playing the latest incarnation of trolleye; or are you really that clueless?

Countries don't suddenly fall in line with your views just because you blow stuff up (just ask al-queda).   In certain circumstances war is a nessisary evil (the oft mentioned WW2 being a very well known example).  But the ideological changes come about not with the surrender/occupation, but with the reconstruction. (ever hear of the Marshal plan?).  That's why the long term aftermath to WW2 was so much more productive than the aftermath of WW1 (which sowed the seeds for WW2).

I know that International politics is a complex issue.  It puts things like general relativity and quantum mechanics to shame as nations are not individual entities but orginizations of millions of people who are rarely of one mind - even if there are only a few dozens in positions of power there are still many subtilties and differences.   It is almost inevitable to oversimplify when trying to create a mental model of how things work; but to expect things to change as though you were exchanging currency at a bank goes beyond the pale in terms of absurdity.

China's been threatening Taiwan for decades.   The actual likelyhood of any action I would consider slim.  NK is a far more likely target (and one in which they might be able to get the consent of most major world powers to do given Kim il's beligerence)

[jaichind]

Readly depends on what the ROC Taipei regime does.  If they are foolish enough to declare independence then the PRC will invade, the USA will stand aside, the new independent Taipei regime will face military revolts, third columists and outright defection as the PRC will win in a cakewalk with the support of the powerful overseas cummunity which has over the last decade switched it support to the Peiping regime from the Taipei regime.  Other than I see no need to a conflict, as Chinese reunification on the terms of the PRC will take place in about 20 years or so anyway.  The PRC Peiping regime are not foolish to risk conflict with USA and Japan in a war that will not be supported internally nor the overseas Chinese community.  During my visits to Mainland China I found strong (over 90%) support to reunification efforts and the same proportion will be for war if and when the Taipei regime is foolish enough to claim independence that they are not part of China.  That level of support falls significantly, especially in the South, when it is an unprovoked war launched by the PRC.

[ATFFL]

It is possible they will to try and distract their population from growing problems.  They will probably try to fake a cause for this.

They may also decide that the US is too stretched to oppose them and invade as a target of opportunity.  This may even b an ulterior motive for seemingly encouraging a NK-Japan showdown.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

My point was not that they;re the same.  My point was that bad countries can be eliminated and replaced with good ones.

Dude, have you been ingesting illicit pharmasuiticals; been playing the latest incarnation of trolleye; or are you really that clueless?

Countries don't suddenly fall in line with your views just because you blow stuff up (just ask al-queda).   

Oh come on, where the heck did I ever say that?  Don't act like I'm an idiot.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If China invaded Taiwan and we went to war, teh world would back us (most of it--all of our allies).

[WMS]

During my visits to Mainland China I found strong (over 90%) support to reunification efforts and the same proportion will be for war if and when the Taipei regime is foolish enough to claim independence that they are not part of China.  That level of support falls significantly, especially in the South, when it is an unprovoked war launched by the PRC.

Ah, the region not quite as dominated by Han Chinese, but by all those other ethnic groups the Chinese don't like to talk about much. Interesting...

[2952-0-0]

LOL @ this thread.

[Psychic Octopus]

They'd be incredibly stupid to.

[Хahar 🤔]

The forum was a pretty stupid place back then, wasn't it?

[phk]

The forum was a pretty stupid place back then, wasn't it?