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.
Taiwan's semi conductor industry must be destroyed, should China invade Taiwan. Allowing China to steal the worlds largest chip manufacturer would give China such a huge advantage in the electronics industry, it would be dangerous when you consider how they would use it. Taiwan cannot be trusted to self destruct those plants and facilitate the escape of their top engineers to the west, if China invades.
China is using Desert Storm as template. This is on the assumption that Taiwanese defense failed to do sufficient damage to the Chinese amphibious fleet while in transit and failed, failed to defend the landing sites, and failed to prevent PLA troops from making inland.
In Desert Storm, the air campaign last 30 days. Assume the generosity that the PLAAF have the resources to replicate the US and allies in both manned aircraft and missile sorties. What this mean is that Taiwan's semicon industry will effectively be destroyed by China. Among the first targets for China will be Taiwan's electrical power infrastructures.
In semicon manufacturing, stable and clean power is critical. Stable mean no interruptions. Clean mean no spikes. To put it simply. In the history of power interruptions in semicon manufacturing, power interruptions have taken MONTHS to recover. Tens of thousands of wafers were literally scrapped, as in whole batches of wafers tossed into 50-gal metal barrels. Some wafers were recoverable or reworked as the industry call it, but that depends on where in manufacturing process. Wafers usually runs in batches of 25 wafers. Early in the process the wafers are recoverable. But the more layers are built on the wafer surface, the less likely it can be recovered in the event of errors. Someone could sneeze at the wrong place and all 25 wafers could be scrapped. For power interruptions, whole batches of chemicals must be discarded. Equipment must be taken down for cleaning before returning to production. Software and databases could be corrupted and reinstalled. If the facility is a foundry we are looking at tens of thousands of wafers per week output so this would take literally months to return the same output level.
So just on power alone, after 30 days of bombardment, Taiwan's semicon industry will be out of action for at least one yr. Add in the loss of clean water and the inevitable physical damages from stray bombs/missiles, we can add in 2+ yrs for recovery. Now add in the loss of experienced workers. Even if China bring in workers from the mainland, it does not mean they can get the facility, or 'fab', running at prewar efficiency. There will be a steep running curve because they have to get familiar with new equipment, processes, procedures, manuals, and even building layouts. Now add in recalcitrant Taiwanese who will want nothing to do with their Chinese conquerors. The world will be looking at five yrs minimum before any repaired fab produce any wafer. By that time, the US and Europe will have their own semicon facilities. Now add in boycotts and various economic sanctions on China/Taiwan semicon products.
This China-Taiwan war WILL destroy Taiwan's semicon industry.
Taiwan is not our problem. Not worth losing one American life or spending one $1 of military resources.
That being said there are endless reasons that we need to force sanctions against China. Cut them off from the world economy. Let them trade with Iran and Afghanistan. But the rest of the world needs to move their plants out of the country and stop buying their junk.
There is no interests, as in self interests, for the US to recognize Catalonia or IS caliphate or any entity, for that matter.
I never said we would, I said we could. If one of the primary geopolitical goals of the United States is to weaken our rivals, it would make sense to recognize every secessionist movement everywhere in the world that isn't in the United States.
So why don't we? Because not only would it lead to war and the loss of our allies, we have secessionists of our own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roderic
However, the fact that there are wars of conquest undermined your argument that support for secessionist movements is detrimental for the nation-state as concept and application.
What I actually said was, "Supporting secessionist movements that aren't overwhelmingly internationally supported could undermine the entire nation-state system and lead to another world war."
Take the American Revolutionary War. The only reason America became an independent country is because we were recognized by and supported by most European countries not named Great Britain. They did this for one reason and one reason only, to weaken the British Empire. Who had just defeated France in the Seven-Years War and gobbled up most of the French Empire.
French support for the American Revolution caused the French Revolution. Or to put it simply, without the American Revolution there wouldn't have been the French Revolution. The French Revolution was then suppressed by force by the various European coalitions, but the principles have shaped the world ever since.
With that said, the nation-state system is a relatively new phenomenon that dates back to the thirty-years war. Coming from what is known as the "Peace of Westphalia" in 1648. The Roman Empire was not a nation-state, nor did nation-states exist at the time. Prior to the Nation-State system the rulers never pretended to be anything but rulers. Conquest as we imagine it really predates the nation-state system, or involved people who were not nation-states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roderic
Taiwan exhibited ALL of the criteria of being a politically distinct entity under the declaratory concept of statehood.
Whether Taiwan should be an independent country is separate from whether China will let it go, or whether other countries will recognize its independence, or whether the United States will go to war for it.
If the China/Taiwan crisis can be framed as China having a policy of expansionism which threatens its neighbors(and thus the nation-state system), then you will have widespread international support for Taiwanese independence(and China will back off). But as long as the China/Taiwan crisis is framed as a domestic conflict, where the United States is intervening in a Civil War to weaken a geopolitical rival, then there is more to lose from opposing China than letting it handle its domestic affairs.
Same reason people stopped caring about Hong Kong. No one wants to start a trade war or a hot-war over Hong Kong. The United States will not go to war for Taiwan either.
I never said we would, I said we could. If one of the primary geopolitical goals of the United States is to weaken our rivals, it would make sense to recognize every secessionist movement everywhere in the world that isn't in the United States.
So why don't we? Because not only would it lead to war and the loss of our allies, we have secessionists of our own.
During the Cold War, when I was active duty, we had the USSR and China supporting various Marxist organizations in the US, as well as ties to AIM and the Hawaiian separatists. Our enemies do not need secessionists to do whatever they can to undermine US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
What I actually said was, "Supporting secessionist movements that aren't overwhelmingly internationally supported could undermine the entire nation-state system and lead to another world war."
Take the American Revolutionary War. The only reason America became an independent country is because we were recognized by and supported by most European countries not named Great Britain. They did this for one reason and one reason only, to weaken the British Empire. Who had just defeated France in the Seven-Years War and gobbled up most of the French Empire.
French support for the American Revolution caused the French Revolution. Or to put it simply, without the American Revolution there wouldn't have been the French Revolution. The French Revolution was then suppressed by force by the various European coalitions, but the principles have shaped the world ever since.
With that said, the nation-state system is a relatively new phenomenon that dates back to the thirty-years war. Coming from what is known as the "Peace of Westphalia" in 1648. The Roman Empire was not a nation-state, nor did nation-states exist at the time. Prior to the Nation-State system the rulers never pretended to be anything but rulers. Conquest as we imagine it really predates the nation-state system, or involved people who were not nation-states.
The Soviets ran over various East European nation-states. When serving a purpose, geopolitics do not respect the nation-state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
Whether Taiwan should be an independent country is separate from whether China will let it go, or whether other countries will recognize its independence, or whether the United States will go to war for it.
If the China/Taiwan crisis can be framed as China having a policy of expansionism which threatens its neighbors(and thus the nation-state system), then you will have widespread international support for Taiwanese independence(and China will back off). But as long as the China/Taiwan crisis is framed as a domestic conflict, where the United States is intervening in a Civil War to weaken a geopolitical rival, then there is more to lose from opposing China than letting it handle its domestic affairs.
Same reason people stopped caring about Hong Kong. No one wants to start a trade war or a hot-war over Hong Kong. The United States will not go to war for Taiwan either.
HK is on mainland China, so at a pragmatic level, there is nothing the US can do. However, Taiwan have successfully served as the 'unsinkable carrier' throughout the Cold War to keep communism in check.
The world, especially Asia, did not see how China framed the Taiwan issue. Everyone knew China claimed Taiwan as a civil war issue. But just like yesterday with the Cold War when they refused to separate Taiwan from communist expansion, today everyone see Taiwan and the SCS, not just Taiwan. So it is possible that had China not claimed the entirety of the SCS, then maybe the world would leave China alone. Possible and maybe. But the die is cast and the perception now is that Taiwan and the SCS are inseparable, which mean the rest of the world are involved via trade traffic thru the SCS. They see the potential of China threatening their economic livelihood via control of the SCS. They probably do not care, or care very little, for the Taiwanese. But if Taiwan can serve as a check on Chinese expansionist plan, they will change their minds, and more countries are sending their navies to the SCS.
So whose 'framing' is critical? Yes, we know that China framed Taiwan as a civil war issue. But my foodstuff runs in the alley between the China House and the Taiwan House. What guarantees do the rest of the neighborhood have that China will not cut us off?
Officially recognizing Taiwan as an independent state would be meaningless to China. But if the perception that my food and energy supplies WILL be, not could be, under China's control, even indirectly, the military option does not look too bad.
I JUST found that, there is, for almost a year, a limited number of the US SEALS and marines in Taiwan. For almost a year by now. Training locals. Xi is NOT happy with that.
Our enemies do not need secessionists to do whatever they can to undermine US.
I agree. I was just explaining the reciprocal problem of supporting secession. If we support it there, they will support it here. If we interfere with their national sovereignty, they will interfere with ours.
Every nation has to follow certain rules, otherwise the nation-state system breaks down and we have WWIII.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roderic
The Soviets ran over various East European nation-states. When serving a purpose, geopolitics do not respect the nation-state.
Churchill, FDR, and Stalin carved up the world between them. We handed Eastern Europe to the Soviets just like we divided Germany. We did this because our three countries combined had the power to enforce it. But that was itself only possible because of the most devastating war in history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roderic
HK is on mainland China, so at a pragmatic level, there is nothing the US can do.
There isn't "nothing we can do". Hong Kong could militarize its border like it was South Korea. But I agree, it would be impractical, and Hong Kong is highly dependent on trade with mainland China. Trying to make Hong Kong independent by force would destroy Hong Kong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roderic
They probably do not care, or care very little, for the Taiwanese. But if Taiwan can serve as a check on Chinese expansionist plan, they will change their minds, and more countries are sending their navies to the SCS.
Exactly. But that dynamic is only possible because China has a legitimate claim to Taiwan. If Taiwan was full of Koreans it would have become independent after WWII.
It is not in the interest of anyone for China to take control of Taiwan. The question is whether it is worth a war(economic or military) to prevent it.
If we fire back at China Nukes could fly and end it all.
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.
