Taiwan & China

The USA will NOT commit her troops

people, people, just my 5-cents worth

IMHO, the US will NOT want to commit her troops

The US DOD Annual Defense Review 2001, had SOD, Rumsfeld, saying that in any war with China over Taiwan, the US would withdraw her Carriers and all surface vessels out of te South China Sea and back to HAwaii. As such, the US wll use long-range bombrers from GUAM. The American public, in a Poll had overwhemingly disapproved sending troops to intervene in an Isreali-Arab conflict. And in view of the US setback in IRAQ, it is safe to say that the US may be very reluctant to poke her nose into any PRC-Taiwan war

An American Naval officer had written that any US CVCG (carrier task-force) approaching the China-Mainland has to face;
(1) some 30 submarines, the Russian KILOs , Chinese “Songs” with SKUVALS cavitating torpedoes and cruise missiles
(2) RICHARD FISHER of the JAMESTOWN FOUNDATION has claimed that PRC DF-21 are precision-guided and accurate enough to be used against US Carriers
(3) US carriers will face a “devastating barrage of a rain of (a) land-based attack cruise missiles with range of up to 1500 kms,(b) airborne AShM with ranges og 350km (in overwheming numbers) (c) naval launched AShM like the “SUNBURNS” (PRC has 300). The US has NO defense against these supersonic AShM,US radar cannot detect them on time)
(4) and 1000s of anti-shipping mines
This US Naval guy also concluded that CVCGs carriers are too expensive to invest, and too vulnerable to missiles and subs—sitting ducke, so said he

So, I’m sorry to have to say to all my Taiwanese friends, face the REALITY, ie the US will keep all her 18 year-olds boys and girls safety out of harm’s way in HAWAII and ……….FIGHT TO THE LAST TAIWANESE……..

well thats an overly rosey analysis of the situation. i dont think america will fight, but im not willing to rule out the possibility either.

much will depend on the circumstances that started the conflict.

added:

also, your analysis under estimates the ability of the US armed forces and over estimates the effectiveness of china’s weapons. if the US is really commited to fighting china, it can pretty much keep the chinese military on the mainland. but it would be extremely costly for the US, and i just dont see any US government being that commited to fighting for taiwan.

the only possibility i can think of where the US could be that commited to fighting china over anything is if china attacked the US first, either pearl harbour style or 9/11 style. neither is even remotely likely.

Land based weapons, by that you mean short ranges conventionally armed ballistic missles. The numbers of these you would have to launch to wipe out Taiwans air and sea defences as well as adequetly “soften up” a beach head would number in the thousands if not tens of thousands. So why not just save the expense and use nukes? So like I said, the only way China could take Taiwan is to nuke it.

no, i mean MLRs (refer to above post for more on them if you dont know what they are), and china has these in the tens if not hundreds of thousands and can make them in huge quantities if needed.

and when used in the manner described in my last post, they can be very effective.

i must say that it is stupid to think china would used nukes on taiwan (no offence). not only will this cause an uproar domestically (the chinese people view taiwanese as chinese too you know), it would destroy china’s image abroad and also break china’s commitment not to use nuclear weapons first. all of this makes foreign intervention much more likely. if china uses nukes, foreign governments may be forced by pulic oppinion to interven even if they didnt want to.

using nukes is also impractical. taiwan is only 200 miles off the most densely populated area of china, radioactive fallout is also certain to affect those areas.

using nukes would also make it almost impossible to rule the island with anything but an iron grip after the war is over. which would cost more chinese lives and also increase the chance of outside intervention or prolong sanctions.

finally, although china is unwilling to launch an unprovoked attack on taiwan, it still wants to reclaim the islands as it views it as part of its own terriroty and has much to gain from intergrating its economy to that of the mainland’s. using nukes would take much of the shine off a victory, cos now all china has gotten back is a radioactive piece of rock that it cant use for about 20 million years. :rolleyes:

in short, using nukes against taiwan is a no brainer, china has nothing to gain and everything to loose by doing that, and considering the fact that china now has the ability to take the island using none-nuclear means (china might use some unconventional methods, but no WMD) only fools would consider it a viable option. 😡

edited for clarity.

If anything, this emphasises my point.

Even the nations with a history of such operations – the USA, UK and (to a lesser extent), France – have not carried out such operations in the face of resistance from modern weapons systems.

The PLA has [b]never[/b] carried out an opposed airborne or seaborne amphibious assault in it’s entire history – has it, plawolf?

Your point about the distance between the PRC and Taiwan is a bit of a red herring – the distance between the UK and France is even less, yet look at the massive planning and preparation that went into the D-Day landings and how close some of those landings came to disaster despite an overwhelming superiority of force, men and material on the Allied side.

The analogy with Pearl Harbour is not a good one, either. Taiwan has been expecting and preparing for an attack from the PRC for the last fifty years and more and is highly unlikely to be caught napping.

And yet you blithely assume that forces defending their homes, their families and their way of life would step aside to allow the PLA to establish a beach-head without exacting a terrible price or even destroying the invading forces?

Such arrogance!!!

temper temper. :rolleyes:

“The PLA has [b]never[/b] carried out an opposed airborne or seaborne amphibious assault in it’s entire history – has it, plawolf?”

depend on you definition of ‘amphibious assault’, but because the PLA has managed to cross the yanzy (or whatever the west likes to call it :rolleyes: ) river with a million men in nothing more then a collection of fishing boats and junks during the civil war. not the same as crossing a sea, but i think the bair basics are roughly the same.

also, the PLA has the benefit of being able to learn from the experiences of others, and from the different excerises they conduct themselves.

“Your point about the distance between the PRC and Taiwan is a bit of a red herring – the distance between the UK and France is even less, yet look at the massive planning and preparation that went into the D-Day landings and how close some of those landings came to disaster despite an overwhelming superiority of force, men and material on the Allied side.”

well your empyhsis on the comparison between the situation then and today is also a red herring. the distance might be similar to that of the D-day landings, but the weapons have advanced significantly and you are not considering many of the important factors that made the landings so difficult for the allies then.

you can make the argument that weapons advances cancel each other’s advantages out. that is true to a certain degree. but one has to remeber that the area that has improved the most and is the most important in today’s world is air power.

as i already explained before, taiwan’s AF will be hard pressed to servive the innitial attacks, and if the PLA gains air superiority or even air domonace, then the battle will pretty much be effectively over before the landing ships even set off. without air cover, massed troops are sitting ducks in today’s world of pinpoint bombing.

during the D-day landings, allied air power only played a reletively minor role in the innitial landing stages. this was mainly because there was the need to keep the landing sites a secret so the beaches werent saturated with bombs beforehand, but the landings took place at the break of dawn, and since allied ac then didnt have night attack ability, the german beachheads were left reletively untouched until the naval forces opened up. but with the short time they had and their poor accuracy, the damage done was not exptensive. also, as a result of poor co-ordination between forces, allied ground troops were seldomly able to call up air strikes to cover them.

once on the beach, the allied forces also suffered as a result of the lack of armour and anti-armour weapons, and were often pinned down for long periods with no means of getting past fortified possitions undamaged by the air and naval attacks.

the D-day landings were also put in danger as a result of the superior land forces of the germans. often small numbers or even single german tanks ( usually tigers) were able to stop whole allied columbs from breaking out of the beachheads.

many of those factors will not be relevent in a taiwan conflict situation.

there are many possible ways the PLA can used to sucessfully mount a landing, here are just a couple off the top of my head. (all plans are assuming that taiwan knows the PLA is about to attack and so have mobalised its forces beforehand, and that the landings are taking place after the PLAAF have gained air superority)

Plan A:

with modern radar, it is pretty much impossible to fool the enemy about where you are going to land. so the PLA most likely wont even try.

they will choose the most suitable beach. days maybe even weeks before the landing, while the air war is going on, PLA special forces teams will land near the target beach/beaches via covert means (having transport ac drop them off miles from the coast and have them get ashore via inflatables at night; having subs drop them off near the coast etc).

after the teams are in position they will start locating high value targets. together with sat and other forms of intel, they will start marking the positions of high value targets for multirole fighter bombers like the MKKs and crusie missiles to strike. they will also gather or confirm intel on the location of the main coastal defences.

hours before the landings are to take place, taiwan’s coastal defences should be on high alert as the chinese invasion forces are spotted, meaning they will move out of hardened shelters to men their defensive possitions. once the special forces teams confirm that this is taking place, land based MLRs (multipule launch rockets) will be fired in the tens of thousands at these possitions. with the troops out in the open and having speical forces act as spotters, the damage should be significant. the teams can also call in precision strikes on high value targets like SAM and AShM batteries that will need to be taken out of hiding to propair to oppose the landings.

during the landings, large numbers of small boats and a small number of amphibious tanks will take the point while huge numbers of fighters, ground attackers and attack helos (just the armed Z9s with anti-tank missiles and multiple rock launchers) cover the landings.

the small boats means that the AShMs and man portible anti-tank missiles that are likely to servive will not be able to be used to their full potential. and any positions that start firing will be attacked by ground attackers (Q5s) or attack helos. heavily defended or hardened targets will be taken out by fighter bombers (MKKs, JH7s) with standoff weapons or bunker buster bombs. once the first wave are about to land the heavy amphibious assault ships start to move in and unload the bulk of the amphibious tanks and troops. J10s and Su27s will ensure the remints of the RoCAF dont play any part in trying to provent the landings.

much of the MANPADS that the defenders have would have been expanded on the Q5s and attack helos, and most of the fixed SAM batteries would have been destroyed or forced to shut down by crusie missiles and SEAD ac by this stage, and the chinese airborne division will be able to move in and drop its troops behind the beachheads with minimal to moderate losses.

these troops will stablish a perimiter to stop reinforcements and also start fighting towards the beach to attack the defenders from their weaker side and also to force the them to divide their forces, making it easier for the main landing forces to get ashore.

on the beach, the first wave should have gotten as far as they can, and the follow on tanks will have targets as soon as they get within range. the troops on the beach should also mean that the man portible anti-tank weapons are kept at a distance from the tanks, giving them a better chance to take out the enemy stronge points.

with much of the stronge poinst taken out and having the defenders fighting a battle on two fronts, the follow on main landing forces should have little trouble getting beyound the beach defences.

once that happens, the bulk of the transport helo fleet can move in to drop off more troops and to evacuate the wounded.

once a beachhead has been established, large transport ships will be able to drop off MBTs such as the type 98s. these are comparble to the latests MBTs like the M1A2, challenger II etc, and are at least two gens beyound anything taiwan has. once these get on land, the PLA would be able to easily break out of the beachheads, and the land war is as good as over.

Plan B:

the greatest advantage the PLA has is numbers, and it is going to use that to its advantage. it will have thousands of small boats attack all along the coast while the main forces wait a few miles off shore and observe for weaknesses. with its limited forces, taiwan will not be able to adequetly defend all the beaches and the main force will attack the weakest position in a similar manner as described above and break through very quickly. with the taiwan army tied down fighting all along the coast, the PLA main force should face little opposition and can take taipei within days, maybe even hours, ending the war very quickly.

these are just two attack plans i thought of as i was writing this reply, so one can only imagine what the real things would be like. 😮

the fact of the matter is, with its limited size, taiwan will always be on the defensive, and like most sporting events, if you are limited to defence, you are bounded to loose. your opponent can choose to attack you when he wants, where he wants and in the matter that he wants. he has to screw up pretty bad for you to have even half a chance.

“And yet you blithely assume that forces defending their homes, their families and their way of life would step aside to allow the PLA to establish a beach-head without exacting a terrible price or even destroying the invading forces?”

😀 i have thus far left out the moral analysis as i thought that would be giving teh PLA too big an advantage.

if you know a little history about taiwan, you would realise that its military has been traditionally the strongest advocates of reunification, and the view is a fundamental part oft he military’s culture.

after they came to office, LDH and CSB has been systematically perging the military to remove the pro-reunification officers, and has done a great deal to try to crush that culture. but unfortuately for them, many of the officers they releaved are also taiwan’s most experienced and competant. the attack on one of the fundamental cultures of the military has also left many in it confused and disalusioned.

while there have been rumors about high ranking officers expersing their ‘position’ that they will not fight for CBS if he pushes the two sides to war, i think these stories are overhyped and partially made up by china. however, there is still genuine discontent within the military about what CSB is doing.

while i doubt that they will refuse to fight if the mainland attacks, i also doubt that they will be willing or able to fight with great convition.

the average american might see china attacking taiwan after it has decleared independence as china’s bad, many ordinary taiwanese will not see it as that.

The USA will NOT commit her troops

people, people, just my 5-cents worth

IMHO, the US will NOT want to commit her troops

The US DOD Annual Defense Review 2001, had SOD, Rumsfeld, saying that in any war with China over Taiwan, the US would withdraw her Carriers and all surface vessels out of te South China Sea and back to HAwaii. As such, the US wll use long-range bombrers from GUAM. The American public, in a Poll had overwhemingly disapproved sending troops to intervene in an Isreali-Arab conflict. And in view of the US setback in IRAQ, it is safe to say that the US may be very reluctant to poke her nose into any PRC-Taiwan war

An American Naval officer had written that any US CVCG (carrier task-force) approaching the China-Mainland has to face;
(1) some 30 submarines, the Russian KILOs , Chinese “Songs” with SKUVALS cavitating torpedoes and cruise missiles
(2) RICHARD FISHER of the JAMESTOWN FOUNDATION has claimed that PRC DF-21 are precision-guided and accurate enough to be used against US Carriers
(3) US carriers will face a “devastating barrage of a rain of (a) land-based attack cruise missiles with range of up to 1500 kms,(b) airborne AShM with ranges og 350km (in overwheming numbers) (c) naval launched AShM like the “SUNBURNS” (PRC has 300). The US has NO defense against these supersonic AShM,US radar cannot detect them on time)
(4) and 1000s of anti-shipping mines
This US Naval guy also concluded that CVCGs carriers are too expensive to invest, and too vulnerable to missiles and subs—sitting ducke, so said he

So, I’m sorry to have to say to all my Taiwanese friends, face the REALITY, ie the US will keep all her 18 year-olds boys and girls safety out of harm’s way in HAWAII and ……….FIGHT TO THE LAST TAIWANESE……..

something to remeber with china and taiwan is the close proximity of the two. land based weapons will be able to play a major role in ‘softening up’ a beach-head, which means a much much more intensive and sustained bombardment then is possible with only naval forces and airborne assets.

Land based weapons, by that you mean short ranges conventionally armed ballistic missles. The numbers of these you would have to launch to wipe out Taiwans air and sea defences as well as adequetly “soften up” a beach head would number in the thousands if not tens of thousands. So why not just save the expense and use nukes? So like I said, the only way China could take Taiwan is to nuke it.

and how many nations have carried out large scale opposed amphibious assaults/ airborne assault under modern combat conditions?

If anything, this emphasises my point.

Even the nations with a history of such operations – the USA, UK and (to a lesser extent), France – have not carried out such operations in the face of resistance from modern weapons systems.

The PLA has [b]never[/b] carried out an opposed airborne or seaborne amphibious assault in it’s entire history – has it, plawolf?

Your point about the distance between the PRC and Taiwan is a bit of a red herring – the distance between the UK and France is even less, yet look at the massive planning and preparation that went into the D-Day landings and how close some of those landings came to disaster despite an overwhelming superiority of force, men and material on the Allied side.

The analogy with Pearl Harbour is not a good one, either. Taiwan has been expecting and preparing for an attack from the PRC for the last fifty years and more and is highly unlikely to be caught napping.

And yet you blithely assume that forces defending their homes, their families and their way of life would step aside to allow the PLA to establish a beach-head without exacting a terrible price or even destroying the invading forces?

Such arrogance!!!

latest pentegon estimites worry whether taiwan will be able to last long enough on its own until the US can mobilise its forces. while that has a heavy hint of warmongering and sales pitch, the fact of the matter is that without outside intervention, china can take taiwan by purely conventional means. the only question is how long it would take and how many lives it would cost.

Once China has taken over the Island, would the US still go ahead and start a counter-offensive against the occupying Chinese forces? You brought up an important asset, and that is that once China has invaded Taiwan, will the world still react? This opposed to the scenario of “Taiwan being threatened” and US/allies backing the Taiwanese, to keep them away from the island. I can still see the US ‘protecting’ Taiwan, but I don’t see it starting a counter-offensive-war to clear the island from Chinese oppression. So, theoretically, a supprise attack using conventional weapons would be possible I can imagine. However, in real life, prior to an attack there will already be tensions between PRC and the US/Europe and in the meanwhile the “allies” can mobilise their troops in the region, or at least put them on an alert. But nobody imagined ‘Pearl harbour’ to be realistic before that one, sunny day somewhere in 1941.
Big difference (and not just semantics this time), any comments?

An opposed amphibious landing is, perhaps, the riskiest and most difficult military operation there is, with the exception of an opposed airborne assault.

The PLA, to my knowledge, has never carried out a major operation of either kind – barring exercises, of course – and therefore has no body of relevant knowledge or experience to call on, further reducing the chances of a successful outcome.

If this is factually incorrect feel free to correct me, preferably quoting your sources.

and how many nations have carried out large scale opposed amphibious assaults/ airborne assault under modern combat conditions?

something to remeber with china and taiwan is the close proximity of the two. land based weapons will be able to play a major role in ‘softening up’ a beach-head, which means a much much more intensive and sustained bombardment then is possible with only naval forces and airborne assets.

the only question is how long it would take and how many lives it would cost.

An opposed amphibious landing is, perhaps, the riskiest and most difficult military operation there is, with the exception of an opposed airborne assault.

The PLA, to my knowledge, has never carried out a major operation of either kind – barring exercises, of course – and therefore has no body of relevant knowledge or experience to call on, further reducing the chances of a successful outcome.

If this is factually incorrect feel free to correct me, preferably quoting your sources.

The only way PRC can take Taiwan it too nuke it. How many troops do you think it would take just to hold a beachhead? Id estimate about 50,000 and thats just if they can get them in with in few hours. Do you think that Chineese navy can land that many troops just against the Taiwaneese navy alone? Do you think that a landing force can even get within 20 miles of the Taiwaneese coast? Your the one who is going to have to do some convincing.

please. :rolleyes: the only possible scenario where nuclear weapons even becomes a faint possibility is if the US gets involved.

the taiwanese navy will by sunk if they come within 200km of the mainland coast. and thats not taking the chinese air arm and navy into consideration. chinese land based AShMs alone would be able to ensure the taiwanese navy play no part in stopping any landing.

chinese land based SAMs have a range of 200km and would give the RoCAF a hell of a time by themselves.

factor in the hunderds of modern 3rd gen and borderline 4th gen fighters with their advanced AA and AG weapons; the dozon or so (even dozens depending on when the possible conflict takes place) of fairly advanced SSKs; the hundred of SRBMs; the hundreds maybe even thousands and tens of thousands of MLRs; the as of yet unknow number of LACMs (most likely also in the hundreds); the scores of new gen surface warships with advanced SAMs and long range missiles…

taiwan’s navy will be extremely hard pressed to servive let alone stop an all out landing and there is a good chance that most of its ships wil never leave port; taiwan’s airforce have a better chance, but given the fact that taiwan is so small and so close to the mainland, they will not have anywhere that is safe. if the planes are not destroyed in the air, there is a good chance that alot of them will be destroyed on the ground or grounded if their runways are destroyed or badly damaged.

without a navy or an air force, ground forces stand little chance on their own these days.

latest pentegon estimites worry whether taiwan will be able to last long enough on its own until the US can mobilise its forces. while that has a heavy hint of warmongering and sales pitch, the fact of the matter is that without outside intervention, china can take taiwan by purely conventional means. the only question is how long it would take and how many lives it would cost.

How exactly do you know that Taiwan will automatically base U.S. forces? U.S. presence in the Far East has slowly dwindled ever since the Cold War….

Are you privy to some sort of information that the rest of us aren’t?

Until you give me some type of proof that the U.S. will put a base on Taiwanese soil then that part of your argument is moot. Not only does the Taiwanese government (as well as its people) have to agree to something like that, the U.S. government would have to agree on that, and I just don’t see that happening. U.S./PRC relations are still slightly tense (especially after the EP-3 incident), and both sides are working to increase the cooperation between each of the two nations. As you said, China exports a lot to the United States, and vice versa so why would the United States want to jeapordize a good thing by putting a base in the region when that would only serve to cause concern in Beijing?

Credibility? Sounds more like saving face to me…..

In any case name another place that has the same situation as Taiwan at the current time? You seem to think that if Taiwan becomes independent and China does nothing about it then other “places” will do the same thing?? What other places does China have the same relationship that they do with Taiwan?

Using the U.S. civil war as part of your argument is rather irrelevant because it was nothing like the conflict and tensions between Nationalist and Communist China. There wasn’t a huge break in hostilities as there apparently has been with Taiwan and China. The world is not going to view China invading Taiwan as a resumption of a civil war. They are going to see it as an invasion of another country, and I don’t really know another way to put it, but that wouldn’t be good for China.

Then there’s the whole issue about the world economy. Basically what you are trying to tell me is that the world can’t do without China, but China can do without the world? I’m sorry, but i just don’t buy it. Embargoes, elimination of trade with certain countries, etc. is going to have serious effects on the Chinese economy and you know it.

it will merely incovenience it

That’s the understatement of the century right there.

everyone know’s america’s the big bully on the block

If you want to be taken seriously, little “jabs” like that will do you no good. Grey Area had some very good points when he was referring to your “methods” of debate, and as this continues, I’m starting to really understand what he meant a lot more….

As far as me speaking for Taiwan I don’t think I spoke for the whole country. I’m not naive, I realize the whole country doesn’t necessarily want to push for reunification, but I do realize that even the ones who enjoy the status quo wouldn’t enjoy being invaded, by China, even if China is “supposeduly within its rights” by doing so……again, the rest of the world won’t see an invasion that way.

This debate is apparently getting nowhere so I think we’ll probably have to agree to disagree on all matters.

And again I never said the whole world would fight China, but there are other ways to deal with them should they invade Taiwan, and I think that despite your denials, the PRC would pay dearly if they invaded that island.

“How exactly do you know that Taiwan will automatically base U.S. forces? U.S. presence in the Far East has slowly dwindled ever since the Cold War….

Are you privy to some sort of information that the rest of us aren’t?

Until you give me some type of proof that the U.S. will put a base on Taiwanese soil then that part of your argument is moot. “

although we seldomly see eye to eye, i am disappointed with that. :rolleyes:

by that standard, your entire agrument is a moot point. the US has never offically and implicitly said that it will fight for taiwan if china invades it. all it has ever said on the matter is that it ‘is against either said taking unilateral decisions to change the status quo’, or that it ‘against’ something that one side has done etc. there are hints, but there was never a firm commitment.

the US has been seeking a base near china for donkeys years. they tried to push for tailand to allow them to re-open their naval base in the country but was met with resistance from the population.

hell, why does the US still keep troops in japan? to protect japan from NK? please, the JSDF can more then handle any ‘invasion’ force the NKs can throw at japan, and the US has significant military bases and assets in SK to counter the NKs there.

also, if the US military is ‘disinterested’ in the region, why are they expanding the AFB at guam? dont tell me its those pesky NKs again. :rolleyes:

“Not only does the Taiwanese government (as well as its people) have to agree to something like that, the U.S. government would have to agree on that, and I just don’t see that happening. U.S./PRC relations are still slightly tense (especially after the EP-3 incident), and both sides are working to increase the cooperation between each of the two nations. As you said, China exports a lot to the United States, and vice versa so why would the United States want to jeapordize a good thing by putting a base in the region when that would only serve to cause concern in Beijing?”

lol, here you are, convinced that the US is willing to go to war with china over taiwan, yet you also think the US will care about the ‘feelings’ of beijing when considering whether or not to place troops on taiwan if it gains independence unchallenged from china? :rolleyes:

“Credibility? Sounds more like saving face to me…..”

in that case any government who ever stood by their word is only out to ‘save face’, the US doesnt negotiate with terrirosts to save face; the world invaded kuwait to ‘save face’. :rolleyes:

“In any case name another place that has the same situation as Taiwan at the current time? You seem to think that if Taiwan becomes independent and China does nothing about it then other “places” will do the same thing?? What other places does China have the same relationship that they do with Taiwan?”

the situations dont have to be identical for the people there to get an ‘insparation’ from taiwan breaking away. places like tibet will be in danger, all nations that have territorial disbutes with china will get bolder. if china lets taiwan break away unchallenged it would have effectively proven to the rest of the world that it is only a paper tiger and can be easier scared off. and then no-one will take china’s words seriously and china WILL have to fight a war to regain some of that credability.

the same principle applies to all nations. would the world have taken the UN’ words seriously had the UN not gone into kuwait in 91? would the world have taken britan at its word again had its task force merely sailed to the falklands and then turn back without firing a single shot?

this is the world we live in, and these are the rules of this world. we didnt make them, but we all know the consequences of not following those rules.

“Using the U.S. civil war as part of your argument is rather irrelevant because it was nothing like the conflict and tensions between Nationalist and Communist China. There wasn’t a huge break in hostilities as there apparently has been with Taiwan and China. The world is not going to view China invading Taiwan as a resumption of a civil war. They are going to see it as an invasion of another country, and I don’t really know another way to put it, but that wouldn’t be good for China.”

was it not? the same people fighting for different ideals. whats ‘not so different’? as for the ‘huge break’ well read up on your history, because that ‘huge break’ was not a result of the two waring sides deciding to call time out, the US imposed that on the people of china. :rolleyes:

also, are you now also the speaksman for the people of the world now too? :rolleyes: if there is something that people should have learnt from these past few years it is that the people of the world can interprite things in some very perculier ways. just as how the majority of americans still beleive saddam had something to do with 9/11 or how a sizable proportion of the american population still beleives that going into iraq was a war of liberation.

like it or not, the events of the past years have proven that even the western governments still posses the ability to distort the truth and shape public oppinion to best suit their needs. and the situation between china and taiwan doesnt even require western nations to distort the true. all they need to do is to tell the whole story and fill in all the little omissions they have made over the years when reporting the situation there.

“Then there’s the whole issue about the world economy. Basically what you are trying to tell me is that the world can’t do without China, but China can do without the world? I’m sorry, but i just don’t buy it. Embargoes, elimination of trade with certain countries, etc. is going to have serious effects on the Chinese economy and you know it. “

go back and re-read my posts if you have to, but when did i ever say ‘the world cant live with china’? :rolleyes:

the world can do without china, but it would be extremely painful for governments, firms and individuals to cut off the world’s 5 largest economy and the engine for global economic growth over the last couple of years. and so far you have given no reasons why the world’s governments and people would be willing to sacrafic so much for a wanabe-nation.

sure being cut off from the rest of the world will be seriously damaging to china’s economy, but it will not be nearly as damaging as you make it out to be. china’s economy will still be fully functional even if cut off. output might drop, but then without exports, so will demand. china has all the natural resources any economy needs, it just doesnt have enough domestically to fuel the level of growth that we have seen over the pasted decades. without imported raw material, china’s economic growth will stall sure, but without needing to make so much exports, damand for raw materials will also drop off significantly.

the fact of the matter is china has already shown that it can withstand the longest and most comprehansive of embargos, and so the chinese government are particularly ‘scared’ of it. they would want to aviod it if they can, but an embargo alone will not be enough to change their minds on something as important as taiwan.

“If you want to be taken seriously, little “jabs” like that will do you no good. Grey Area had some very good points when he was referring to your “methods” of debate, and as this continues, I’m starting to really understand what he meant a lot more….”

so, let me see. invading and bombing a nation for ten years ‘for their own good’; flying spy planes along the boader of another; putting carriers on other nations coasts when they do something you dont like (not even something against international law); imposing your will on the people of another nation… all that are the actions of a good ‘neighbour’ and responsible superpower? :rolleyes:

“As far as me speaking for Taiwan I don’t think I spoke for the whole country. I’m not naive, I realize the whole country doesn’t necessarily want to push for reunification, but I do realize that even the ones who enjoy the status quo wouldn’t enjoy being invaded, by China, even if China is “supposeduly within its rights” by doing so……again, the rest of the world won’t see an invasion that way. “

again, either playing with words or getting the issues mixed up.

china has said that it will invade if taiwan declears independence, so logic would dictate that if you dont want to be invaded, then dont declear independence. hence the status quo is maintained, which is what the vast majority of the people of taiwan want anyways, so why push for independence in the first place if you are ‘representing’ the willing to the people of taiwan? :rolleyes:

and as i said before. the rest of the world will see what happens as their governments want them to see it, and for those governments that dont want a war with china, all they would need to do is give their people a breif history lesson and tell the truth, the whole truth. not a very difficult thing to do is it?

“This debate is apparently getting nowhere so I think we’ll probably have to agree to disagree on all matters.

And again I never said the whole world would fight China, but there are other ways to deal with them should they invade Taiwan, and I think that despite your denials, the PRC would pay dearly if they invaded that island. “

i agree with your assessment that this debate has not just become a waste of time. however, as i explained before, the ‘other’ ways you described wont work on china.

and you can say, ‘the PRC is crazy to invade taiwan’ as many times as you like and it wouldnt convice anyone if you dont back it up with any sound arguments.

The only way PRC can take Taiwan it too nuke it. How many troops do you think it would take just to hold a beachhead? Id estimate about 50,000 and thats just if they can get them in with in few hours. Do you think that Chineese navy can land that many troops just against the Taiwaneese navy alone? Do you think that a landing force can even get within 20 miles of the Taiwaneese coast? Your the one who is going to have to do some convincing.

How exactly do you know that Taiwan will automatically base U.S. forces? U.S. presence in the Far East has slowly dwindled ever since the Cold War….

Are you privy to some sort of information that the rest of us aren’t?

Until you give me some type of proof that the U.S. will put a base on Taiwanese soil then that part of your argument is moot. Not only does the Taiwanese government (as well as its people) have to agree to something like that, the U.S. government would have to agree on that, and I just don’t see that happening. U.S./PRC relations are still slightly tense (especially after the EP-3 incident), and both sides are working to increase the cooperation between each of the two nations. As you said, China exports a lot to the United States, and vice versa so why would the United States want to jeapordize a good thing by putting a base in the region when that would only serve to cause concern in Beijing?

Credibility? Sounds more like saving face to me…..

In any case name another place that has the same situation as Taiwan at the current time? You seem to think that if Taiwan becomes independent and China does nothing about it then other “places” will do the same thing?? What other places does China have the same relationship that they do with Taiwan?

Using the U.S. civil war as part of your argument is rather irrelevant because it was nothing like the conflict and tensions between Nationalist and Communist China. There wasn’t a huge break in hostilities as there apparently has been with Taiwan and China. The world is not going to view China invading Taiwan as a resumption of a civil war. They are going to see it as an invasion of another country, and I don’t really know another way to put it, but that wouldn’t be good for China.

Then there’s the whole issue about the world economy. Basically what you are trying to tell me is that the world can’t do without China, but China can do without the world? I’m sorry, but i just don’t buy it. Embargoes, elimination of trade with certain countries, etc. is going to have serious effects on the Chinese economy and you know it.

it will merely incovenience it

That’s the understatement of the century right there.

everyone know’s america’s the big bully on the block

If you want to be taken seriously, little “jabs” like that will do you no good. Grey Area had some very good points when he was referring to your “methods” of debate, and as this continues, I’m starting to really understand what he meant a lot more….

As far as me speaking for Taiwan I don’t think I spoke for the whole country. I’m not naive, I realize the whole country doesn’t necessarily want to push for reunification, but I do realize that even the ones who enjoy the status quo wouldn’t enjoy being invaded, by China, even if China is “supposeduly within its rights” by doing so……again, the rest of the world won’t see an invasion that way.

This debate is apparently getting nowhere so I think we’ll probably have to agree to disagree on all matters.

And again I never said the whole world would fight China, but there are other ways to deal with them should they invade Taiwan, and I think that despite your denials, the PRC would pay dearly if they invaded that island.

so? even in a ‘not so free’ society as china people still gets to voice their opinions. and there is no such thing as ‘taiwanese’ as a nationality, the people of taiwan are the same as the people on the other side of the strait in all intents and purposes. the only difference is the way of government. ‘taiwan nationalism’ is a recent creation by the people who has the most to gain from the island’s formal independence.

the two sides might live under different forms of government, but that doesnt make the two sides two different nations and peoples, and if there is to be a vote, then all the people on both sides should be included. but i guess the will of the people shouldnt apply there, cos…well cos we are talking about the ‘evil commy chinese’ here. :rolleyes:

That would depend on your definition of a nation. Is Austria a part of Germany then, as the people there a practical the same living in both countries. Even the form of the government is the same.

So if the people in Germany and Austria would vote and the majority of the peoe would vote to make Austria german, then it should happen. 😉

That is not the way things are happening today. China can only choose to take Taiwan by force (it is a shame that they did not achieve it yet, after all those years) or wait until the people of Taiwan want to reunite peacefully.

I have read all of your posts multiple times, and I’m still left with a question mark as to a GOOD reason that China would have to invade Taiwan.

So you are trying to tell me that if China invades Taiwan…..that would be the word INVADE….(i.e. marching your troops onto that island without their approval obviously)…..then the world would see it as Taiwan’s fault???

give me a break! taiwan’s leaders know they cant win be themselves, thats why they been trying every trick in the book and some more to tie themselves to the US to get america to fight its war for them. why else do you think the US gov was getting so p!ssed off with CSB recently?

This coming from a person who claims he has never said that Taiwan was in any way a rouge or a renegade island?? Certainly sounds to me like you view them in that light….

that would depend on the cercumstances. dont tell me you honestly believe anyone would jump to fight china over taiwan no matter what the details that started the conflict are.

Who said anything about the rest of the world all coming to fight against the Chinese? There are other ways they can show their displeasure for the PRC invading Taiwan…..diplomatically, economically, etc.

That said I don’t think Taiwan would be on their own militarily despited the fact that you seem to be convinced that that would be the case….

china doesnt have much to gain from invading taiwan

You say they don’t have MUCH to gain……well what in that “not much” category are they gaining? Perhaps the chance to stop a rouge nation from doing…..oh wait…….that’s right…..Taiwan’s goal might NOT be to screw China over if they gain independence anyway….

That’s what this all boils down to……China is afraid Taiwan might try to screw them, and therefore they lose the “all powerful” image in the region.

The truth probably lies in the fact that many people in Taiwan simply don’t want to run the risk of living under communist rule, and independence is a way to get that…..despite the PRC’s consistent threats to invade….again, the PRC would be crazy to invade and I don’t see how many more times I have to say that for you to understand it.

China is a large contributor to the world’s economy, but the world can find a way to make do without China, and that’s something I think the Chinese will learn if they invade Taiwan….

” have read all of your posts multiple times, and I’m still left with a question mark as to a GOOD reason that China would have to invade Taiwan.”

well, it me see, heres just a few:

– security. once taiwan declears formal independence the first thing that would happen is the US military will move in. would the US accept the PLA moving its best weapons and troops into cuba?

– stability. china’s leaders might not be elected, but they cant ignore the will of the people. if they dont fight and let taiwan break away and two days later the US movings into taiwan, it would look like china has secceded the islands to the US, and that will be a much more direct threat to the chinese leadership then all the US carriers.

as you admitted yourself, the US will never, and can never invade china and win. that means it can never overthrough the chinese government, but the chinese people can, and most likely will if the chinese leaders dont live up to their promises of stopping taiwan from breaking away.

– credibility. sooner or later a line has to be drawn. in fact a line has already been drawn, and it is that china will never accept or allow anyone to take an inch of land that china views as its own by force, or by the threat of force. if you have terrirotial disputes with china, then you settle it through negotiations.

and like any line, if one person have crossed it and nothing happens, then others will be less concerned about crossing it as well themselves. allowing taiwan to break away like this will set a very damaging precident and example to china’s neighbours. they will get the idea that, ‘hey, if the chinese wont fight over taiwan, then they might not fight us over this little bit of disputed land over here, lets take a chance and take it over. its not like they can send a carrier over to bomb us…’

ok, now i have just used up half a page repeating what i have already said. happy now?

“So you are trying to tell me that if China invades Taiwan…..that would be the word INVADE….(i.e. marching your troops onto that island without their approval obviously)…..then the world would see it as Taiwan’s fault???”

you seem to be unable to grasp the fact that taiwan and china were two sides fighting a civil war and that the civil war never ended. it was merely put on hold after a mutal understanding has been reached. and that is that there is only one china and both the mainland and taiwan are part of it. if that mutal understanding has been broken, then the basis for the ceasefire no long stands, and the two sides are free to continue where they left off and there is no international law against it. and you dont need, nor are you going to get permission to win a civil war by beating the other.

when the US was fighting its civil war, did the two sides need to ask each other’s permission to take over territory that the other side held? :rolleyes:

i use the term ‘invade’ because that is what it is, to take over a piece of land by means of military force. although the term ‘liberate’ is more appropriate and accurate to describe what a chinese attack on taiwan would be, but i feel it is a little too corny.

“This coming from a person who claims he has never said that Taiwan was in any way a rouge or a renegade island?? Certainly sounds to me like you view them in that light….”

the two sides were, and technically, still are in the middle of a civil war, they both consider each other ‘renegades’.:rolleyes: there is an old saying in china that describes the situation very well. ‘sheng zhe wei wang, bai zhe wai kou’, it means that the winner is the king and the looser is the outlaw. thats just life. but its not as unfair as it sounds. in a civil war, the side that wins is the side that have the support of the majority of the population.

and i never said that taiwan was a ‘renegade island’, i said the chinese government considers it as such, and i also said that they chinese government is in its rights to restart the civil war whenever it chooses, and the same goes for the ‘taiwanese’.

“Who said anything about the rest of the world all coming to fight against the Chinese? There are other ways they can show their displeasure for the PRC invading Taiwan…..diplomatically, economically, etc.

That said I don’t think Taiwan would be on their own militarily despited the fact that you seem to be convinced that that would be the case….”

and that is where your lack of knowledge of world events shows. the chinese economy has now become an intergral part of the world economy. any economic ‘hurt’ the rest of the world puts on china will hurt them to a proportional degree, ie the more ecomoic ‘hurt’ they put on china, the more they get ‘hurt’ themselves.

also, as i explained before. the chinese government has preserved china’s ability to be self-sufficent at great cost. the chinese insistance on having a domestice ‘backup’ or replacement to all weapon systems it imports is not restricted to the military. it is the same in all industries. while this makes the chinese ecomomy a little less efficeint today, it means that the chinese economy can still be fully functional even if completely cut off from the outside world.

it shows just how commited they are to their words. they have been proparing for the possible political and ecomoical fallout from a taiwan war for decades. its ‘propair for the worst and hope for the best’ being applicated on a national level.

this means that even if the worst case scenario occurs, the chinese have less on the line then you would care to admit, and so are less bothered then most would think.

a world wide embargo of china will not bring the chinese government down. it will merely incovenience it. it will still be able to provide its people will the same kinds of goods and services they have become acustomed to (although quantity and quality will no doubt drop, but changes in prices will reflect that). there will be a drop in the living standards of city foke, but the drop will not be great enough to convince many (if any) to take up arms against the government. the only major drawback would be that china will not be able to raise the living standerds of its people as fast as it could without the embargo.

this means that an embargo is ultimately ineffective as a tool to try to prevent a chinese invasion of the taiwan if it declears independence, nor can it be used to convince china to pull out its forces if it has taken the island.

and i still dont see how taiwan cant be ‘ on their own militarily’ if no-one is willing to send troops to fight for taiwan.

“You say they don’t have MUCH to gain……well what in that “not much” category are they gaining? Perhaps the chance to stop a rouge nation from doing…..oh wait…….that’s right…..Taiwan’s goal might NOT be to screw China over if they gain independence anyway….

That’s what this all boils down to……China is afraid Taiwan might try to screw them, and therefore they lose the “all powerful” image in the region. “

no, taiwan’s goal is not a ‘screw china over’, but in order to gain independence, its leaders are willing to be a prawn in america’s stratgey to ‘limite’ china’s growth. the end result is pretty much the same as ‘screwing china over’. :rolleyes:

and dont be silly. everyone know’s america’s the big bully on the block. china didnt have that image to perserve in the first place. :p

“The truth probably lies in the fact that many people in Taiwan simply don’t want to run the risk of living under communist rule, and independence is a way to get that…..despite the PRC’s consistent threats to invade….again, the PRC would be crazy to invade and I don’t see how many more times I have to say that for you to understand it.

China is a large contributor to the world’s economy, but the world can find a way to make do without China, and that’s something I think the Chinese will learn if they invade Taiwan…”

so now you can speak on behalf of the people of taiwan bout what they want? :rolleyes:

again, like the last dozen times i said it. china is not pushing for taiwan to re-unifiy with it. there is simply no threat that the people of taiwan will be living under ‘communist’ rule when taiwan’s leaders started to push for independence.

ironically, pushing for independence drastically increases the chance that the people of taiwan will be living under ‘communist’ rule. :rolleyes:

the percentage of ‘taiwanese’ who want independence is small, as is the percentage that wants to re-unify with the mainland. the vast majority of taiwan’s people want the status quo to remain. and if you’d open your eyes once in a while, you would find that it is china who is currently fighting to preserve the status quo while taiwan’s leaders are pushing to change that. :rolleyes:

sure the world can get on without china, hell, the world can even get on without the mighty USA, so? the world can get along without cahin, but it would be an extremely painful ‘devorce’. and so far you have given ZERO reasons as to why the world’s leaders would have enough reason to do that.

and you can say, ‘the PRC is crazy to invade taiwan’ as many times as you like and it wouldnt convice anyone if you dont back it up with any sound arguments.

so far you are simply skipping over all my reasoning and would only repeat the same lame line over and over again, while i have completely taken apart all arguments in support of your belief that the world would fight china over taiwan no matter what the circumstances that started the conflict are. so who’s the one being unrealistic and unreasonable now?:rolleyes:

I have read all of your posts multiple times, and I’m still left with a question mark as to a GOOD reason that China would have to invade Taiwan.

‘oh taiwan cant possibly be the one responsible, cos…well… they are smaller arent they.’ what kind of reasoning is that?

So you are trying to tell me that if China invades Taiwan…..that would be the word INVADE….(i.e. marching your troops onto that island without their approval obviously)…..then the world would see it as Taiwan’s fault???

give me a break! taiwan’s leaders know they cant win be themselves, thats why they been trying every trick in the book and some more to tie themselves to the US to get america to fight its war for them. why else do you think the US gov was getting so p!ssed off with CSB recently?

This coming from a person who claims he has never said that Taiwan was in any way a rouge or a renegade island?? Certainly sounds to me like you view them in that light….

that would depend on the cercumstances. dont tell me you honestly believe anyone would jump to fight china over taiwan no matter what the details that started the conflict are.

Who said anything about the rest of the world all coming to fight against the Chinese? There are other ways they can show their displeasure for the PRC invading Taiwan…..diplomatically, economically, etc.

That said I don’t think Taiwan would be on their own militarily despited the fact that you seem to be convinced that that would be the case….

china doesnt have much to gain from invading taiwan

You say they don’t have MUCH to gain……well what in that “not much” category are they gaining? Perhaps the chance to stop a rouge nation from doing…..oh wait…….that’s right…..Taiwan’s goal might NOT be to screw China over if they gain independence anyway….

That’s what this all boils down to……China is afraid Taiwan might try to screw them, and therefore they lose the “all powerful” image in the region.

The truth probably lies in the fact that many people in Taiwan simply don’t want to run the risk of living under communist rule, and independence is a way to get that…..despite the PRC’s consistent threats to invade….again, the PRC would be crazy to invade and I don’t see how many more times I have to say that for you to understand it.

China is a large contributor to the world’s economy, but the world can find a way to make do without China, and that’s something I think the Chinese will learn if they invade Taiwan….

Not too strange if one studies the conditions that the Koreans face now and in the past..

For example the American entertainment media influence and anti-Americanism with the young people versus Japanese entertainment media influence..

right now, who has troops stationed in the country that has large bases in an over crowded capitol, and lots of controversey over criminal incidents between foreign soldiers and civilians?

if there were no Americans stationed there but the same amount of American media influence.. how do you think the Koreans will view the Americans then?

furthermore, the older generation grew up during a time where Japanese pop influence was much weaker than now, so there is very few things that can appeal to them to outweigh the past.

A large percentage of the young Koreans I know and Korean forums I go to that are frequented by Korean youths show a strong interest in Japan, despite past histories.. There are still a significant amount of youths who are anti-Japan, they’re common..but the numbers have been dwindling down.

For example, one of my Korean teachers told me of the story when she first went to Japan. She said she couldn’t believe she was in the “land of the enemy”.. but after a while she ended up loving them.

As for the Anti-Chinese sentiments..I believe it also has some roots in long standing distrust of their bigger neighbor.

When I was living in Beijing for a while, I had a Korean girlfriend at the time, whose family would frequently say things like “don’t eat that way, that’s how Chinese people eat”, and other negative stereotypes (i’m neither Chinese or korean btw). The feelings were the same with the other Koreans in Beijing that i had to encounter (as I was at the time encouraged not to eat or shop in any Chinese areas..which simply was a waste).

Speaking of generational gaps..Japan also has a major one between the older generation and younger generation. And like Korea, the previous generations had to endure the harsh “nation building” processes and working conditions while the new ones benefit from the “fruits of their labor” and live during a time of much improved prosperity. As a result, the domestic conditions and atmosphere they grow up in is significantly different which results in their outlook in life being different than that of their parents.

interesting! will need to look into it more. thanks for helping to clear things up.

No, no, Flood.

You’ve got it all wrong. Clearly Kuwait brought the Iraqi invasion on itself by being a flagrantly independant country in the proximity of a larger and more powerful neighbour. As clear a case of contributory negligence as you are ever likely to see.

Fancy not realising a simple fact like that after all the trouble that plawolf has gone to educating us, explaining all those big difficult words to us and the like.

Why, you’ll be saying that the Spratleys and Paracels aren’t part of the Peoples’ Republic Of China next – you wicked revisionist, you! 😮

Now, that’s sarcasm…………..

still need more practice. 😎

Wasn’t the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait claimed to be an internal matter; the returning of a breakaway section of the country back into the bosom of its motherland…?
Whatever happened to Saddam Hussain?;)

Flood.™

and people here still dont get how significant a single word can be. :rolleyes:

kuwait declared formal independence, thats why the world could form a solid anti-iraq coalition. because iraq’s actions broke the UN’s rules.

taiwan hasnt decleared formal independence, nor has there been any formal peace treaties between taiwan and china from their civil war (will there is a mutual understanding that open hostilies are over, but nothing written on paper). that mains if china or taiwan attack each other, they technocally haven broken any international laws. and thats a get out clause for anyone and everyone (governments) who doesnt want a war with the world’s most populous nation over a island that few of their people neither knows or cares about that much.

sure the western people are generous and rightous in nature (as all all peoples), however their governments need to think about whats in the best interest of themselves and their nation as well. and in the international world, true generocity is a very rare commodity and easily exhaused if being ‘generous’ involves lossing money, or more importantly, loosing lives.

most governments will condamn china is it invades taiwan and will probably put up limited sanctions, but those will mostly be for show to tell its people that it is doing something to ‘try’ and stop what is happening. dont expect too many countires to be willing to fight china.

and i’m not being overly cynical either. look at iraq. no-one was going to fight the US over iraq, obviously. but no-one in the end had the will to veto the UN bill that ultimately gave the US the excuse it needed to start its invasion.

plawolf,
Give me a break on the Iraq War what’s right and wrong business. I’m not in the government, and I didn’t order our troops into that country so don’t you dare lecture me on things that aren’t even in my control.

Mentioning the Iraq war is simply something you are doing to try and avoid my question, or request rather.

Give me a good reason that China has to invade Taiwan….

i have given you plenty of reasons why china would invade taiwan if taiwan decleared independence. yet you have so far given me zero reasoning as to why the world would sacrfic so much to help a wanabe-nation fight a battle that it started

You think the world is going to view a Chinese invasion of China as something that Taiwan…the much smaller party involved……is reponsible for??

Your only “reasons” boil down to the fact that the PRC wants to save face, and show the world they are tough, and that a “renegade” place like Taiwan will not be tolerated.

Do you actually believe that if China invaded Taiwan that everyone in the West (and the East for that matter) would turn away and pretend it never happened?

You’re smarter than that I hope….

Since you refuse to acknowledge my other request here’s another one for ya….

Explain to me how China would benefit from an invasion of Taiwan….

Afterall the world is going to pretend like it never happened right?

“Give me a good reason that China has to invade Taiwan….”

go back and read all my posts and you will find plenty of good reasons.

china doesnt have to invade taiwan just for the sake of it, but china will invade if taiwan moves towards formal independence.

“You think the world is going to view a Chinese invasion of China as something that Taiwan…the much smaller party involved……is reponsible for??”

‘oh taiwan cant possibly be the one responsible, cos…well… they are smaller arent they.’ what kind of reasoning is that? :rolleyes:

give me a break! taiwan’s leaders know they cant win be themselves, thats why they been trying every trick in the book and some more to tie themselves to the US to get america to fight its war for them. why else do you think the US gov was getting so p!ssed off with CSB recently? :rolleyes:

“Your only “reasons” boil down to the fact that the PRC wants to save face, and show the world they are tough, and that a “renegade” place like Taiwan will not be tolerated.”

:rolleyes: dont tell me you have set up mental blocks to ‘filter’ out the info you dont like. the reasons are many, security, stability, social, political…

“Do you actually believe that if China invaded Taiwan that everyone in the West (and the East for that matter) would turn away and pretend it never happened?”

that would depend on the cercumstances. dont tell me you honestly believe anyone would jump to fight china over taiwan no matter what the details that started the conflict are. :rolleyes:

“Explain to me how China would benefit from an invasion of Taiwan….”

how many times do i have to say this? :rolleyes: china doesnt have much to gain from invading taiwan, nor does it want to. however it will never accept taiwan declearing formal independence and will invade to stop it.