Comment by cman1444
4 days ago
Indeed. If I'm Xi, I'm invading Taiwan tomorrow. Russia invading Ukraine, USA decapitating Venezuela....there's not even a pretense that international law matters any more.
It's also clear that Trump only respects power, which China clearly has. He already backed off tariffs with the critical minerals threat. Unlikely he'd come to Taiwan's aid in my opinion.
With political polarization in America, you can bet all kinds of fingers would start pointing at Trump in America, saying he enabled it by meddling with Venezuela. Stock market collapse from TSMC blockade would enhance this even moreso. I wouldn't count on much, if any, rallying around the flag effect.
I’m skeptical any of this is true.
How does Maduro being ousted change the physical realities of an amphibious invasion of Taiwan? You think international law is what has been preventing Xi from invading?
Trump does only respect power, as do all other serious leaders. Power is all that matters in the end.
How do you think the system of international law came into existence? It was imposed by the US at the end of WWII because of their overwhelming military strength and the fact that no other nation had nuclear weapons at the time.
The armchair analysis from some folks on this topic is really lacking. You guys are just wrong, and the hubris you bring with your “analysis” is really off putting.
>How does Maduro being ousted change the physical realities of an amphibious invasion of Taiwan? You think international law is what has been preventing Xi from invading?
It doesn't change the physical realities of that much at all besides maybe slightly further cementing that the US will not come to Taiwan's aid.
No, the main change is that now Xi can more reliably expect a weaker, less unified response from the west due to political divisions inside America as well as between western nations. He can expect less diplomatic pushback, fewer sanctions, etc.
Also, no all serious leaders do not only respect power. Serious leaders who are also morally and ethically good also take into account right and wrong when they make decisions.
The right thing to do would be for America to try to preserve and enforce a rules based order, regardless if other countries do. America has significant agency in the world and should consider how the world should be and try to get there. Not only consider how the world is.
Even from a realpolitik standpoint, there is benefit on showing consistent adherence to an ethical code. It encourages other actors to follow that same code as well. When we violate our own morals and values, we can't expect others to respect them.
1 reply →
> maybe slightly further cementing that the US will not come to Taiwan's aid
Isn't that the opposite? The US just demonstrated that it can still conduct military operations, and the presence of Chinese envoys in the country does not deter it in any way. As of now, China has one fewer source of oil it can rely on in case of an invasion.
2 replies →
> Power is all that matters in the end.
This can mean different things to different people, such as:
(A) Power dynamics determine outcomes i.e. a claim about how the world works
(B) Might makes right i.e. rejecting ethical notions of right and wrong
I'm pretty sure you mean (A). Fair? Are there other meanings you want to endorse? Some form of nihilism perhaps?
> The armchair analysis from some folks on this topic is really lacking. You guys are just wrong, and the hubris you bring with your “analysis” is really off putting.
From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45001357
Apologies for the snark. In all seriousness, you need to refine your writing. No one enjoys reading rambling streams of consciousness, nor do they have time to parse it to try and figure out what you're saying.
I would also point out that you have engaged in bad faith argumentation of your own, but I'm not so petty as to go through your comment history to point out each instance and appeal to the moderators that you shouldn't be welcome here.
I apologize if my comments came across as offensive. That was not my intent, and I think a charitable interpretation of them reveals no malice. I hope you can find more people in your life that will speak directly and honestly to you so it won't be so jarring in the future.
This is exactly why a lot of people support Trump and his actions. He's at least direct and honest. It's about oil. Yeah, we had the power to do it so we did. It's in our interests. Everybody else can go pound sand. You may not like the reasons, and I'm not sure I do either, but at least he isn't a coward who lies and claims he's doing something altruistic instead, like you are with your model building and deference to unnamed experts.
I know that frightens people like yourself who go through life exerting influence on the people around you not by direct communication and action, but by appealing to fake authorities like the moderators in this situation, or international law in the case of what we're discussing.
Americans increasingly reject the kinds of arguments you're making and the fake systems of power that keep impotent, second rate thinkers in power and grant them an outsized level of respect in public commentary.
I encourage you to engage in some introspection. Your priors are clearly wrong: international law obviously didn't matter in this case and probably won't matter in the future. Why is that? What changed? Was international law ever relevant? If it was, why was it?
> How does Maduro being ousted change the physical realities of an amphibious invasion of Taiwan?
Taking the beaches here would require spilling the blood of tens of thousands of PLA troops, but as demonstrate two days ago, the only real barrier to blockading us was the threat of the USA showing up.
Xi's hunger for Taiwan shouldn't be underestimated. It's utterly irrational but it is his obsession. It's becoming clear he intends to die in office, and he's seeing his legacy as a mirror of that of the entire communist revolution - he wants to be the next Mao, with a permanent framed photo on the wall of every school and many houses in the PRC. Mao was happy to waste millions of PLA in every conflict the PRC engaged in as an outright military strategy, he called it something like "drowning the enemy in a sea of bodies," Xi will be the same.
I don’t dispute Xi wants Taiwan. My question still stands: how did today’s events change any of the hurdles he would face during an invasion?
2 replies →
Taiwan could easily become China's Ukraine.
An invasion of Taiwan is incredibly risky for China and will be guaranteed to be very expensive.
Just guessing but a long term strategy from Xi could be to wait and show that he is different and gain simpathy.
Except this was already going to happen and everybody has known for years.
Xi made a new years address just a few days ago essentially saying China would reunite Taiwan.
> reunite
This is the incorrect word to use since the PRC has never held territory here. If the PLA sets foot on Taiwan, that's an imperialist invasion, nothing less, unless the people of Taiwan have democratically chosen to abdicate their government for CPC rule, in which case the word should be "unify" or "merge."
Reunite is not incorrect in the broader sense.
We use the term "reunification" for Germany but the Federal Republic never "held territory" in the Democratic Republic. However, of course both states were the result of a split of "Germany". This is the same with the ROC and PRC so bringing both sides together, whatever the mean, is a reunification in that sense.
The narrative of rejecting the term can be said to be broadly propaganda but plays on a peculiarity that both sides don't recognise each others.
17 replies →
China would invade Taiwan.
You're subconsciously echoing Chinese propaganda.
Invade Taiwan to reunite China.
This is a factual statement, not propaganda. The propaganda (or political theatre in mainland China) is that the ROC does not exist and Taiwan is part of the PRC.
14 replies →
Duh, yes obviously that means invasion.
I was just quoting the actual speech. The point is, for anyone claiming the US attempting regime change in Venezuela is going to factor into China's long standing plans to invade Taiwan is delusional.
The US has been involved in regime change operations spanning like 40+ different countries, and almost continuously for a century. This is not a unique event in even recent US history, even though folks with orange-man syndrome would like you to believe otherwise.
As if Xi is thinking "gee, I'd really like to invade Taiwan, but people might get upset! If only Trump would conduct the US's 5th regime change operation this decade...then people would...not care anymore about Taiwan or something?? Wait, this fantasy may have logical flaws..."
The bending over backwards that Americans do to convince themselves the US is responsible for everything that happens is always amusing.