Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
States in a federal country have their own legislatures. China's divisions do not have their own except the HKSAR, MSAR and Taiwan. The three also have their own immigration and customs policies.
Why do you always sound like a very sad version of Siri?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdw
You’re aware the level of control the CCP has over its populace. Wouldn’t you say the comparison is similar to prisoners under duress? The fact that they’ll openly use peoples’ family members as bargaining tools to get people to behave a certain way overseas makes me question how much the average Chinese truly believes in what their government is doing. They’ve been fed lies about Taiwan and don’t know the full story of your history.
Probably, but as the victim, we are not obligated to empathise. It's not our responsiblity that the Chinese populace are indoctrinated to the core.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdw
As much of a cultural clash there is when tourists from the mainland come visit due to different norms around personal space, littering, etc; aren’t you hopeful that these tourists will return home and gain a better perspective even if it’s not 100%?
Absolutely not. They can't give less of a **** about any of that. If you've conversed with enough Chinese people you would know that they by and large harbor disdain towards democracy and civil and political rights, and believe the Chinese system to be superior.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdw
I’ve read defectors from North Korea face similar challenges in the South due to the vastly different lifestyles, and I don’t doubt many probably still defend the Kim regime similar to how many Chinese defend the CCP, probably for similar reasons. Maybe I have too much hope still, I would just like to one day see a Europe type situation in Asia where the past can be put aside for a peaceful future. Obviously the CCP and North Korea are the ones holding that back.
Europe is only peaceful now because Germany was partitioned for half a century and its military neutered. Japan has been pacifist since the war as well largely for the same reason. If the same thing happens to China then sure, there would be peace in Asia.
And I would hardly call Europe "peaceful". Ukraine and Russia are Europe too. As long as irredentist pipedream and morons who buy it still exist, there will never be peace on any continent.
Last edited by Greysholic; 03-24-2023 at 01:10 PM..
great leap forward is mostly good actually as it gives china nukes and rapid industry revolution (just to catch up to a whole century in 1 to 2 decade
cultural revolution is mostly bad unfortunately but it was short and fault was admitted in corrected.
it usually takes time to build "prime time", but only strong centralized government is capable of building "prime time"
are you a dem though? if you are, you would favor a strong central government. that's part of the value for a dem.
The idea that the Great Lea Forward was mostly good is idiotic because it does not take a massive famine and destruction of useful farming practices or the making of a lot of useless pig iron in order to get to nukes or rapid industrial revolution. China did get those eventually, but there are easy counterexamples of those being attained without the calamities akin to the Great Leap Forward. Many countries caught up within decades to becoming fairly modern--that's just how that usually works where if somewhere shows an extent of what's possible, then there's an actual recognizable goal to work towards to and often outline of steps on the way there.
No, it has historically not required a single centralized government over a large mass to have "prime time". I have no idea why you think that's true, because there are multiple examples of smaller nation-states doing no worse than periods of larger nation-states which have also been very tumultuous. None of these peaces every last all that long nor do any of these conditions ever last that long.
Something's wrong with how you comprehend things. It's hard to pinpoint if this is actually a problem with your grasp of a language that is foreign to you or if you mentally are having difficulties regardless of the language. I had just said that I do not think the mostly two party system is optimal and that while I voted for a democratic president in the last election, my vote on issues is generally a mix including candidates outside of the two party system simply because trying to align issues to one of only two camps is silly given that some issues simply do not make sense to always be aligned with positions on other issues. Somehow this is still too hard for you to understand. It also speaks to your lack of actual knowledge of the US political system if you think democratic governments automatically assumes strong central government when it's more like which facets of society is one party more willing to regulate versus another.
They are widely used today. If China were to invade then large parts of those waters would be a war zone and commercial traffic tend to avoid war zones unless they have to.
Also, the principle of international water is not set in stone, just look at China threatening countries from navigating through South China Sea. In an event of war, there will be a complete understanding that they can't sail or trade as free as before. It's also not difficult for the USA to setup checkpoints, they have radar that can detect ships from thousands of miles away.
In 99 of 100 cases, the ships will participate and provide the information the USAs coalition needs. In the remaining cases, the USA will be able to handle the rouge ships trying to break through the blockade. This might upset China and its allies, but China has already went to war and the rest don't want to get involved.
Large parts still wouldn't be particularly large compared to how much ocean there is. I think it needs to be understood just how large that expanse of ocean is. It is very, very large. It makes it likely difficult for China to be blockaded to a significant extent for a prolonged period of time even if the US were committed to doing so, and it would likely be difficult for China to blockade Taiwan to a significant extent for a prolonged period of time especially as any particularly heavy handed way of doing so would heavily interfere with China's own trade. It's very, very large and there will not be a complete understanding by other nations that they cannot navigate in the waters around Taiwan or China's coastline, but instead a lot of anger and disruption. It's certainly possible to detect most floating vessels thousands of miles away, but to actually effectively intercept and engage all that area for any particularly long span of time would be incredibly draining.
The idea that the Great Lea Forward was mostly good is idiotic because it does not take a massive famine and destruction of useful farming practices or the making of a lot of useless pig iron in order to get to nukes or rapid industrial revolution. China did get those eventually, but there are easy counterexamples of those being attained without the calamities akin to the Great Leap Forward. Many countries caught up within decades to becoming fairly modern--that's just how that usually works where if somewhere shows an extent of what's possible, then there's an actual recognizable goal to work towards to and often outline of steps on the way there.
No, it has historically not required a single centralized government over a large mass to have "prime time". I have no idea why you think that's true, because there are multiple examples of smaller nation-states doing no worse than periods of larger nation-states which have also been very tumultuous. None of these peaces every last all that long nor do any of these conditions ever last that long.
Something's wrong with how you comprehend things. It's hard to pinpoint if this is actually a problem with your grasp of a language that is foreign to you or if you mentally are having difficulties regardless of the language. I had just said that I do not think the mostly two party system is optimal and that while I voted for a democratic president in the last election, my vote on issues is generally a mix including candidates outside of the two party system simply because trying to align issues to one of only two camps is silly given that some issues simply do not make sense to always be aligned with positions on other issues. Somehow this is still too hard for you to understand. It also speaks to your lack of actual knowledge of the US political system if you think democratic governments automatically assumes strong central government when it's more like which facets of society is one party more willing to regulate versus another.
like which country? india? at that time it's the height of the cold war and just had a war with the #1 power in the world over in korea. the only thing that prevents an invasion of US and taiwan invasion of the mainland is being a nuclear power. the country is essentially at war during that time. Don't forget, china have no navy and no air force at that time. So tell me again if focusing on producing steel and developing nuke is idiotic.
give me example then, during which prime time did china not have a strong central government?
despite their relative long length, there isn't that many "prime times" in chinese history.
first one is the han during starting after first han emperor, emperor jing and emperor wen period + han wu emperor which is the peak of west han dynasty
then come the tang, which started in the begining of tang tai zhong "jing guan" period and lasted till tang "ming" king period. it only began to decline with "an shi" revolt
then come the ming, I would say it starts when the capital is moved to beijing and lasted until after "man li" period
the last is the qing which started when kang xi finish reuniting china to the end of qian long.
please tell me, which one of those prime time did not have a strong central government?
Large parts still wouldn't be particularly large compared to how much ocean there is. I think it needs to be understood just how large that expanse of ocean is. It is very, very large. It makes it likely difficult for China to be blockaded to a significant extent for a prolonged period of time even if the US were committed to doing so, and it would likely be difficult for China to blockade Taiwan to a significant extent for a prolonged period of time especially as any particularly heavy handed way of doing so would heavily interfere with China's own trade. It's very, very large and there will not be a complete understanding by other nations that they cannot navigate in the waters around Taiwan or China's coastline, but instead a lot of anger and disruption. It's certainly possible to detect most floating vessels thousands of miles away, but to actually effectively intercept and engage all that area for any particularly long span of time would be incredibly draining.
Take a look at the sea map below. Strait of Malacca is not wide at all, it is not difficult to blockade. There are some alternative routes, but they are either too narrow or too close to Australia. The ocean is huge, but the chokepoints of China are not.
The USA and its allies have a big fleet. They need to put their ships somewhere, so it won't be difficult to maintain it for a long period. Economically, it will drive trade away from China to US allies, which is good for the USA.
I am not sure why you are talking about China blockading Taiwan. But yes, it might start with China blockading Taiwan, which escalates into a full scale invasion. If China has already blockaded Taiwan, then it will only be fair that China experience some of their own medicine.
Take a look at the sea map below. Strait of Malacca is not wide at all, it is not difficult to blockade. There are some alternative routes, but they are either too narrow or too close to Australia. The ocean is huge, but the chokepoints of China are not.
The USA and its allies have a big fleet. They need to put their ships somewhere, so it won't be difficult to maintain it for a long period. Economically, it will drive trade away from China to US allies, which is good for the USA.
I am not sure why you are talking about China blockading Taiwan. But yes, it might start with China blockading Taiwan, which escalates into a full scale invasion. If China has already blockaded Taiwan, then it will only be fair that China experience some of their own medicine.
Straits of Malacca are not Chinese or Taiwanese territorial waters. It would be pretty insane to blockade the Straits of Malacca and rope in all the countries into a confrontation and disrupt all of these countries. I'm not understanding how you came to the conclusion that this is the step that would be taken in a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.
The USA and its allies have a big fleet. They also do not have a defensive treaty that commits boots on the ground with Taiwan. This is also not the only area of interest to the USA and its allies, and again, a big fleet or even multiple big fleets is still tiny compared to the ocean.
I am talking about China blockading Taiwan, because that's a potential direction they would try to go and this topic was about China and Taiwan and also I want to make sure that we're all talking about the same subject matter since this is a public forum and it's possible that someone will come in and misread this and then respond talking about one blockade when quoting something referring to another blockade. Perhaps it would be good to have a shorthand that's understandable though. However, even with China trying to blockade Taiwan, it is a lot of area to cover.
Regardless, all of this would be disastrous for both of their economies and their peoples and for almost no reasonable gain. Better that China is doing so damn well for itself and its citizens that it's actually an attractive idea to join China rather than have it be a constant bogeyman and a waste of time and energy rattling sabres and being prepped for an invasion on both sides. This constant threatening from China is so immensely stupid and if one were cynical either an unimaginative play by XJP to try to rally on a cause against an exterior bogeyman in order to deflect attention away from his disrupting of the previously functioning system of succession or a man in his twilight years making a selfish and brash grab for some kind of imagined legacy even if it's stupidly destructive to Chinese citizenry.
Straits of Malacca are not Chinese or Taiwanese territorial waters. It would be pretty insane to blockade the Straits of Malacca and rope in all the countries into a confrontation and disrupt all of these countries. I'm not understanding how you came to the conclusion that this is the step that would be taken in a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.
Its a war in their backyard, they are going to be disrupted no matter what. The blockade is against China, not them, so they will still be able to trade, just not as smoothly as before. They can either ask for permission, or they can go the long way around.
They also have strong reasons to work with the USA. Japan has some islands that will be taken from them if China wins. Phillippines and Vietnam is having conflict with China over South China Sea and South Korea needs US protection against North Korea. They all have strong incentives to help the USA stop China, and hence they will understand that they can't escape the consequences of war.
Every ship that makes it way to China strengthen China's ability to fight Taiwan and potentially the USA. If the USA is remotely interested in helping Taiwan win, then it is in their interest to prevent China from importing freely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
I am talking about China blockading Taiwan, because that's a potential direction they would try to go and this topic was about China and Taiwan and also I want to make sure that we're all talking about the same subject matter since this is a public forum and it's possible that someone will come in and misread this and then respond talking about one blockade when quoting something referring to another blockade. Perhaps it would be good to have a shorthand that's understandable though. However, even with China trying to blockade Taiwan, it is a lot of area to cover.
Regardless, all of this would be disastrous for both of their economies and their peoples and for almost no reasonable gain. Better that China is doing so damn well for itself and its citizens that it's actually an attractive idea to join China rather than have it be a constant bogeyman and a waste of time and energy rattling sabres and being prepped for an invasion on both sides. This constant threatening from China is so immensely stupid and if one were cynical either an unimaginative play by XJP to try to rally on a cause against an exterior bogeyman in order to deflect attention away from his disrupting of the previously functioning system of succession or a man in his twilight years making a selfish and brash grab for some kind of imagined legacy even if it's stupidly destructive to Chinese citizenry.
Blockading Taiwan is actually more difficult than blockading China. They will need to block the eastern part of Taiwan, which will put Chinese ships in range of Taiwanese missles. It is also very vulnerable to Japan and the USAs navy which put them in a difficult dilemma. They don't want the USA to enter the war as that would make their blockade very difficult, but if it becomes obvious that they don't want the USA to enter the war, then the USA can break the blockade without consequences.
This is why I think a blockade of Taiwan will be temporary. Taiwan will sink some of the ships, China will respond by bombing Taiwan and from there the war will escalate till it becomes a full-scale war. I agree with you that it is a complete disaster for everyone in Asia, but so is the war in Ukraine. This is what happens when countries become obsessed with historical grievances instead of trying to improve people's standard of living.
The USA and its allies have a big fleet. They also do not have a defensive treaty that commits boots on the ground with Taiwan. This is also not the only area of interest to the USA and its allies, and again, a big fleet or even multiple big fleets is still tiny compared to the ocean..
I agree that an American blockade of the Straits of Malacca sounds insane, I also don’t think it’s far fetched that Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia cooperate with the US and Taiwan in allowing this considering how Hitleresque an invasion of Taiwan is. Also, while Ice Major and you are right in that China has a massive coastline, its coast is the Sea of Japan and the South China Sea. It needs to pass through narrow passages to get the the open ocean where it would be able to reach its maritime trading partners, if there are any left besides Iran and North Korea after it hypothetically invaded Taiwan. In a full scale war, there’s not a chance in hell it’s getting past Japanese waters, and the Americans would be all over the Philippines. That leaves the expectation that Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore stand as lone wolves in Southeast Asia to enable China’s fascist, expansionist annexation attempt. Not likely, I don’t think.
I agree that an American blockade of the Straits of Malacca sounds insane, I also don’t think it’s far fetched that Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia cooperate with the US and Taiwan in allowing this considering how Hitleresque an invasion of Taiwan is. Also, while Ice Major and you are right in that China has a massive coastline, its coast is the Sea of Japan and the South China Sea. It needs to pass through narrow passages to get the the open ocean where it would be able to reach its maritime trading partners, if there are any left besides Iran and North Korea after it hypothetically invaded Taiwan. In a full scale war, there’s not a chance in hell it’s getting past Japanese waters, and the Americans would be all over the Philippines. That leaves the expectation that Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore stand as lone wolves in Southeast Asia to enable China’s fascist, expansionist annexation attempt. Not likely, I don’t think.
The politics and foreign relations of Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia are often not aligned with each other let alone with Taiwan and the US. It would seem very unlikely that this is doable. Even South Korea and Japan would likely be reticent about large trade disruptions with China given how closely entwined its economy is to China in a way that no NATO country was with Russia. It is unclear how these countries would react in the event of an invasion of Taiwan by China, but it'd probably be pretty awful for everyone including the Chinese, so hopefully nothing that stupid happens.
The politics and foreign relations of Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia are often not aligned with each other let alone with Taiwan and the US. It would seem very unlikely that this is doable. Even South Korea and Japan would likely be reticent about large trade disruptions with China given how closely entwined its economy is to China in a way that no NATO country was with Russia. It is unclear how these countries would react in the event of an invasion of Taiwan by China, but it'd probably be pretty awful for everyone including the Chinese, so hopefully nothing that stupid happens.
We could have said the same about European countries before the invasion of Ukraine. But when it actually happened, they were all willing to tolerate massive disruption in trade. They didn't follow China's advice to drop the sanctions so that they can resume trade with Russia.
It won't be different in Asia, they will understand that trade can't be normal when the South China Sea has turned into a war zone. The blockade is not against them, so they can still trade provided it is not sanctioned goods. In addition Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia have major ports that is in front of the blockade. The countries that will get affected is mainly Cambodia, Vietnam, Philippines, South Korea and Japan and all of those countries have reasons to fear China. Letting China import freely is not in their interest.
Taiwan residents flee remote islands as China severs internet sea cables
The Matsu Islands have been cut off from the outside world after two submarine internet cables were severed by Chinese ships last month.
Letting this happen increases the risk that China can suffocate Taiwan's economy and they give up voluntarily. That will be the easy victory that Chinese nationalists are dreaming of and it will make the USA looks weak on the international stage.
To avoid this from happening, then it is not enough to just break the blockade, but they also need to make sure that the east side is not safe for the Chinese navy. The USA obviously can't put their navy there, or it will get sunk, but they can have submarines in the area making the area too unsafe for the Chinese navy.
But if the USA is committed to sink Chinese ships, then they can't let China trade freely, that will be counterproductive.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
