Should the US commit to defending Taiwan?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 19, 2022, 03:23:52 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Should the US commit to defending Taiwan?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Is it in our interest to defend Taiwan?
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 36

Author Topic: Should the US commit to defending Taiwan?  (Read 446 times)
Orange is back
Rookie
**
Posts: 49


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 05, 2022, 08:54:39 PM »

I think it is in our interest to defend Taiwan. And I say that as someone who thinks it is not in our interest to blindly side with Ukraine.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,716
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 06, 2022, 06:33:34 AM »

yes
Logged
Red Velvet
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,452
Brazil


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 06, 2022, 07:27:21 AM »

The only difference is that Taiwan means something for US with the semiconductors industry, while Ukraine means nothing, being more of the European political interest.
Logged
NUPES Enjoyer
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 55,303
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 06, 2022, 07:36:54 AM »
« Edited: August 06, 2022, 07:40:23 AM by NUPES Enjoyer »

Yes, as it should have committed to defending Ukraine in October 2021.
Logged
HisGrace
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,449
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 06, 2022, 12:32:48 PM »

If China actually attacked Taiwan I would not want to go to war with them over it but publicly our policy should be that we would as a deterrent. That deterrent would feel a lot more credible if Biden hadn't let the Taliban take over Afghanistan, though. Not sure why China would expect us to do anything, just like Russia and Ukraine.   
Logged
Dark Brandon Raided Your House
theflyingmongoose
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,652
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.41, S: -1.29

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 06, 2022, 03:51:39 PM »

If China actually attacked Taiwan I would not want to go to war with them over it but publicly our policy should be that we would as a deterrent. That deterrent would feel a lot more credible if Biden hadn't let the Taliban take over Afghanistan, though. Not sure why China would expect us to do anything, just like Russia and Ukraine.   

Yes, NATO famously fell apart and Ukraine fell within days  🙄
Logged
Benjamin Frank
Frank
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 06, 2022, 08:34:31 PM »

Yes, but in concert with a renewed SEATO that includes Taiwan. 
Logged
ZMUN M441
Adowemiti
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 492
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.06, S: -3.48

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: August 06, 2022, 08:46:21 PM »

Yes, up to standing with Taiwan if China threatens war.
Logged
Cassandra
Situationist
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,655


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: August 09, 2022, 02:29:40 PM »

No, baiting a nuclear-armed power into a shooting war is insane. Like it or, the US has pursued a policy of "strategic ambiguity" for half a century. We do not have a defense treaty with Taiwan like we have with Japan or the NATO countries. Which puts it in the same basket as Ukraine. I do not condone wars of aggression, of course, but trying to stop China (or Russia) from invading one of their neighbors would lead to a nuclear exchange. How can anyone seriously contemplate that?
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,716
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: August 10, 2022, 06:30:49 AM »

No, baiting a nuclear-armed power into a shooting war is insane. Like it or, the US has pursued a policy of "strategic ambiguity" for half a century. We do not have a defense treaty with Taiwan like we have with Japan or the NATO countries. Which puts it in the same basket as Ukraine. I do not condone wars of aggression, of course, but trying to stop China (or Russia) from invading one of their neighbors would lead to a nuclear exchange. How can anyone seriously contemplate that?
it would only lead to a nuclear exchange if Russia or the PRC initiated it.  How could either of them seriously contemplate going to war with the greatest military the world has ever seen?  Just so they can invade a weaker neighbor?  No chance.  They aren't suicidal.

And arguments such as yours are the same arguments cowards make when dealing with terrorists.  Which is why you never deal with terrorists.  Threatening nuclear war if you don't get to invade your neighbors is terrorism.
Logged
Overturn Dobbs
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,818


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: August 10, 2022, 08:35:13 AM »

No, baiting a nuclear-armed power into a shooting war is insane. Like it or, the US has pursued a policy of "strategic ambiguity" for half a century. We do not have a defense treaty with Taiwan like we have with Japan or the NATO countries. Which puts it in the same basket as Ukraine. I do not condone wars of aggression, of course, but trying to stop China (or Russia) from invading one of their neighbors would lead to a nuclear exchange. How can anyone seriously contemplate that?
it would only lead to a nuclear exchange if Russia or the PRC initiated it.  How could either of them seriously contemplate going to war with the greatest military the world has ever seen?  Just so they can invade a weaker neighbor?  No chance.  They aren't suicidal.

And arguments such as yours are the same arguments cowards make when dealing with terrorists.  Which is why you never deal with terrorists.  Threatening nuclear war if you don't get to invade your neighbors is terrorism.

They wouldn't want to initiate it, but Xi may feel it's a choice between that and him losing power, which would happen to any Chinese leader that was seen as capitulating on TW. In that case, he'd choose war.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,716
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: August 10, 2022, 09:03:33 AM »

No, baiting a nuclear-armed power into a shooting war is insane. Like it or, the US has pursued a policy of "strategic ambiguity" for half a century. We do not have a defense treaty with Taiwan like we have with Japan or the NATO countries. Which puts it in the same basket as Ukraine. I do not condone wars of aggression, of course, but trying to stop China (or Russia) from invading one of their neighbors would lead to a nuclear exchange. How can anyone seriously contemplate that?
it would only lead to a nuclear exchange if Russia or the PRC initiated it.  How could either of them seriously contemplate going to war with the greatest military the world has ever seen?  Just so they can invade a weaker neighbor?  No chance.  They aren't suicidal.

And arguments such as yours are the same arguments cowards make when dealing with terrorists.  Which is why you never deal with terrorists.  Threatening nuclear war if you don't get to invade your neighbors is terrorism.

They wouldn't want to initiate it, but Xi may feel it's a choice between that and him losing power, which would happen to any Chinese leader that was seen as capitulating on TW. In that case, he'd choose war.
sure, people usually have good reasons in their head to do terrorism.  That doesn't change how we should deal with the terrorists.  Are we supposed to do just do everything Pooh wants just so he doesn't worry about losing power?  Where do we draw the line?
Logged
Cassandra
Situationist
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,655


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: August 10, 2022, 09:13:42 AM »

No, baiting a nuclear-armed power into a shooting war is insane. Like it or, the US has pursued a policy of "strategic ambiguity" for half a century. We do not have a defense treaty with Taiwan like we have with Japan or the NATO countries. Which puts it in the same basket as Ukraine. I do not condone wars of aggression, of course, but trying to stop China (or Russia) from invading one of their neighbors would lead to a nuclear exchange. How can anyone seriously contemplate that?
it would only lead to a nuclear exchange if Russia or the PRC initiated it.  How could either of them seriously contemplate going to war with the greatest military the world has ever seen?  Just so they can invade a weaker neighbor?  No chance.  They aren't suicidal.

And arguments such as yours are the same arguments cowards make when dealing with terrorists.  Which is why you never deal with terrorists.  Threatening nuclear war if you don't get to invade your neighbors is terrorism.

They wouldn't want to initiate it, but Xi may feel it's a choice between that and him losing power, which would happen to any Chinese leader that was seen as capitulating on TW. In that case, he'd choose war.
sure, people usually have good reasons in their head to do terrorism.  That doesn't change how we should deal with the terrorists.  Are we supposed to do just do everything Pooh wants just so he doesn't worry about losing power?  Where do we draw the line?

How about drawing the line where we already have clear defense treaties in place (Japan, South Korea, etc). And if anything, the US is more likely to initiate a nuclear exchange. We would likely have a single carrier group on the region when China invaded Taiwan. That carrier group will certainly punch above it's weight, but should still be overwhelmed by sheer numbers of jets and sas missiles. US force projection is going to be a bigger issue than most commentators realize. Judging from all the recent rhetoric from DC cretins about the utility of tactical nukes and how a nuclear exchange "wouldn't actually cause an apocalyptic nuclear winter," I could absolutely see the Pentagon signing off on "limited nuclear strikes" to soften the Chinese invasion while additional carrier groups are scrambled across the Pacific. Which would be insane, because of course china would retaliate in kind. But that seems to be where we are headed, as far as I can tell.
Logged
Sir Mohamed 🇺🇸 🇺🇦
MohamedChalid
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,540
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: August 10, 2022, 09:28:38 AM »

Yes, as it should have committed to defending Ukraine in October 2021.

This, though Ukraine should have been admitted as NATO member back in 2008 or 2014 at latest.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,716
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: August 10, 2022, 10:13:53 AM »

How about drawing the line where we already have clear defense treaties in place (Japan, South Korea, etc).
or, ya know, we don't let terrorists dictate our foreign policy
Quote
And if anything, the US is more likely to initiate a nuclear exchange.
maybe, or maybe we don't
Quote
We would likely have a single carrier group on the region when China invaded Taiwan.
maybe
Quote
That carrier group will certainly punch above it's weight, but should still be overwhelmed by sheer numbers of jets and sas missiles.
maybe
Quote
US force projection is going to be a bigger issue than most commentators realize.
we are the best the world has ever seen at it (and it's not close), but maybe you're right
Quote
Judging from all the recent rhetoric from DC cretins about the utility of tactical nukes
cite?
Quote
and how a nuclear exchange "wouldn't actually cause an apocalyptic nuclear winter,"
a nuclear exchange with the PRC certainly wouldn't, if Russia decided they wanted to play too (and why would they?) it might be a different story
Quote
I could absolutely see the Pentagon signing off on "limited nuclear strikes" to soften the Chinese invasion while additional carrier groups are scrambled across the Pacific. Which would be insane, because of course china would retaliate in kind. But that seems to be where we are headed, as far as I can tell.
That is possible, but only if the PLA is competent, and there is zero evidence they will be.
Logged
Cassandra
Situationist
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,655


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: August 10, 2022, 10:30:49 AM »

How about drawing the line where we already have clear defense treaties in place (Japan, South Korea, etc).
or, ya know, we don't let terrorists dictate our foreign policy
Quote
And if anything, the US is more likely to initiate a nuclear exchange.
maybe, or maybe we don't
Quote
We would likely have a single carrier group on the region when China invaded Taiwan.
maybe
Quote
That carrier group will certainly punch above it's weight, but should still be overwhelmed by sheer numbers of jets and sas missiles.
maybe
Quote
US force projection is going to be a bigger issue than most commentators realize.
we are the best the world has ever seen at it (and it's not close), but maybe you're right
Quote
Judging from all the recent rhetoric from DC cretins about the utility of tactical nukes
cite?
Quote
and how a nuclear exchange "wouldn't actually cause an apocalyptic nuclear winter,"
a nuclear exchange with the PRC certainly wouldn't, if Russia decided they wanted to play too (and why would they?) it might be a different story
Quote
I could absolutely see the Pentagon signing off on "limited nuclear strikes" to soften the Chinese invasion while additional carrier groups are scrambled across the Pacific. Which would be insane, because of course china would retaliate in kind. But that seems to be where we are headed, as far as I can tell.
That is possible, but only if the PLA is competent, and there is zero evidence they will be.

The fact that you're able to say "maybe" to all that instead of just categorically write it off...that doesn't unsettle you at all? I'm not on some pro-Xi kick or whatever, but I really think we ought to be realistic about where our interests lie and what is reasonable to go to war over.
Logged
NUPES Enjoyer
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 55,303
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: August 10, 2022, 10:40:03 AM »

Accepting the principle that nuclear-armed states can invade their neighbors with impunity functionally guarantees that nuclear war will happen sooner or latter. Just like accepting Hitler's invasion of Czekoslovakia functionally guaranteed WW2.

The only way you actually stop it is by putting your foot down and saying "try me".
Logged
Overturn Dobbs
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,818


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: August 10, 2022, 03:36:27 PM »

Accepting the principle that nuclear-armed states can invade their neighbors with impunity functionally guarantees that nuclear war will happen sooner or latter. Just like accepting Hitler's invasion of Czekoslovakia functionally guaranteed WW2.

The only way you actually stop it is by putting your foot down and saying "try me".

So the only way to stop nuclear war is to get into one? Makes no sense.

Taiwan is not Ukraine. Ukraine is an internationally recognized U.N. member state, including recognized by Russia itself until 2014, with its 1991 borders. Taiwan on the other hand is not recognized by any but a handful of tiny countries and has not even declared its own existence except as the Republic of China (ROC), let alone ever having been recognized by the PRC. So there are huge differences in principle between that island and other neighbors that are actual states.

Further, there are things we can do to defend Taiwan and deny "impunity" without getting into a direct war with China. We can impose economic costs like prohibiting Chinese exports which would cripple their economy, sanctions, and providing weapons and other aid to Taiwan that would make the attack prohibitively costly.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,716
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: August 10, 2022, 04:56:22 PM »

The fact that you're able to say "maybe" to all that instead of just categorically write it off...that doesn't unsettle you at all?
not at all.  "maybe" Big Foot exists, "maybe" aliens will visit tomorrow, "maybe" Democrats will stop charging the future for the inflation of today, "maybe" Republicans will remember they like free markets and hate Russians.
Quote
I'm not on some pro-Xi kick or whatever, but I really think we ought to be realistic about where our interests lie and what is reasonable to go to war over.
as should the Red Chinese, if they want to lose a war trying to stay in power, well, they won't be the first to die under such a situation and they won't be the last either.  It's the way of many tyrants.
Logged
DT
Republican95
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,921
United States


P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: August 12, 2022, 10:50:11 AM »

Atlas is sounding like Lindsey Graham - LOL

No, the U.S. should not commit to a military defense of Taiwan.  An underappreciated purpose of strategic ambiguity is to allow the U.S. and Taiwan to informally cooperate (i.e., arms sales, low-level military exercises, a de facto U.S. embassy in Taiwan, etc.) without provoking a military reaction from Beijing.  An impending formal alliance increases the possibility of war because 1) it gives the mainland the rationale it needs to invade and 2) it encourages Taiwan to take more aggressive steps towards independence, which itself provokes China. 
Logged
DaleCooper
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,131


P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: August 12, 2022, 04:34:14 PM »

If China actually attacked Taiwan I would not want to go to war with them over it but publicly our policy should be that we would as a deterrent. That deterrent would feel a lot more credible if Biden hadn't let the Taliban take over Afghanistan, though. Not sure why China would expect us to do anything, just like Russia and Ukraine.   

This is why I was against the US surrendering to the Taliban.
Logged
Pericles
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,825



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: August 12, 2022, 05:40:27 PM »

Taiwan is a vital strategic ally of the US, rather than it just being immoral for it to be subjugated like Ukraine. So the US should take any necessary measures to prevent it from being invaded. The problem is if China does not believe the US sees it this way and so chooses to invade. If the risk of an invasion is low, then the US can get away with not complicating things and antagonising China with a public alliance. If the risk is high, the US needs to make clear to China before it's too late that an invasion can't be allowed to occur.
Logged
Meclazine
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,143
Australia
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: August 14, 2022, 07:37:43 AM »

No, baiting a nuclear-armed power into a shooting war is insane. Like it or, the US has pursued a policy of "strategic ambiguity" for half a century. We do not have a defense treaty with Taiwan like we have with Japan or the NATO countries. Which puts it in the same basket as Ukraine. I do not condone wars of aggression, of course, but trying to stop China (or Russia) from invading one of their neighbors would lead to a nuclear exchange. How can anyone seriously contemplate that?

Agreed. In addition to Cassandra's points, the entire economy of Western Australia would collapse and Australia would go into recession if we don't supply them with their coal and iron ore.

We are killing the pig on coal with China at the moment after they tried to cancel our coal exports only to drive up the price through the roof and we sold it elsewhere. Now they are paying triple per tonne for it.

Gooses.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.069 seconds with 14 queries.