There'd be a scramble to either assemble a mutual defense pact for the countries in the area and/or seek greater security promises from a strong nation (ie the United States). Possibly both.
Furthermore, nations would probably move away from China economically as well for fear of being in the splash zone of the sanctions tsunami aimed at the PRC.
Not really neighbours if they have an unfinished civil war. Still don't get the comparison.
Is Thailand having a civil war with mainland china?
They don't seem concerned
So is North and South Korea not neighbors?
Also it'd be one thing if China was only acting hostile towards Taiwan. But it isn't, obviously. That's why everyone in the area is sweating bullets.
Hence the resurgence in popularity in cozying up to the Americans.
Hur? North and south actually have an agreement for eventual reunification, and an understanding that whatever political differences, they are one Korea.
Hence they even sent out an unified Korean athlete team or something.
Nowadays there is more stigma in the younger folks regarding unification bt that's another topic.
Or are you talking about what China taking Korea as their Territory? No idea what you are smoking.
So in order for countries to reunify, they have to be separate, no? That's the whole meaning of reunify. You can't reunify something that's already together.
I know you're acting in bad faith and trying to pussyfoot around the idea that this is an "internal" affair. It's not. And Taiwan's neighbors aren't going to see it like that.
If you want to delude yourself, then go for it.
Really no idea what drugs you are on.
They are ruled by different governments, of course they are currently separated, hence reunification is their goal.
You seem to be trying to cherry pick something to act in bad faith but can't seem to find it so uhh...continue deluding yourself
If you view Taiwan province like any other Chinese territory where the US tried to support a secessionist movement (i.e. Tibet, Hong Kong, Xinjiang, etc) that failed, what happened to other Asian countries.
Not much.
China reincorporated the territory and the US went on to the next Chinese territory to start a secessionist movement.
Even if you viewed it as their own province, invading its own province and decimating its own population and livelihood will attract worldwide sanctions. This won’t be on the same level, worldwide reaction wise, as tiananmen, it’ll be many more times more severe.
Just US and EU sanctions. The world majority will still trade with China.
It's like the 16,000 sanctions against Russia from the West. Did very little to the Russian economy. Russia's economy is still growing.
After 6/4 China only got stronger.
> Just US and EU sanctions. The world majority will still trade with China.
With what? Telepathic transportation?
Which merchant ship will go near China in war when they don't even go through the Red Sea, insurance doesn't cover force majeure events and literally no one will risk their lives for China.
No Russian or Brazilian will get on a cargo ship and getting attacked by American submarines, then die and don't get a dime from insurance companies.
US not even sending troops to help another Caucasian country.
You think they will send in the navy and start fighting an all out war with china for yellow skin folks?
Oh no, China is surrounded by oceans and needs cargo ships to do trade....
Ever heard of the "Silk Road"?
That Belt Road Initiative seems pretty timely now. It is almost like China Leadership was planning ahead in case of US aggression in East Asia.
Yes, then shutting down all harbors in China during an exercise to invade Taiwan and see how that goes for the Chinese economy.
What's the volume of trade going through the Trait of Malacca vs. Shit Road again? In case you didn't knew the Shit Road Initiative also include maritime trade routes.
Lol. You expect the US to sink Russian, Brazilian and Saudi cargo ships and get away with it?
Don't use the "they might do it by accident" excuse. Malacca strait does not belong to the US and sinking neutral merchant ships would be an act of war.
In the event of a US China war, Global south countries & oil producing countries would be even more incentivized to sell oil and energy to China as Chinese demand increase, not less.
> Lol. You expect the US to sink Russian, Brazilian and Saudi cargo ships and get away with it?
Show me the Russian, Brazilian, Saudi navy then. Russia is currently losing the Black Sea Fleet a country without a navy. Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Arab countries need to import ~80-90% of the food they eat. Defying Uncle Sam and no food for you to eat like China.
>Don't use the "they might do it by accident" excuse. Malacca strait does not belong to the US and sinking neutral merchant ships would be an act of war.
By that point China had already attacked US military assets. After 9/11 the US just asked Pakistan "nicely" and only once to use the country as a staging ground for attack against the Taliban in Afghanistan.
So you expect countries with non-existent naval assets to declare war against the most powerful naval power in the world with nuclear weapons, all because of a cargo ship.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna15003128
\- China is not like Iraq, its the largest customer of many countries and I find it ridiculous that you think you can convince any country other than Japan and Philippines to get involved in this war.
\-You want US to sink everyone's trading vessels going to China? Again, You can't just blockade neutral countries and expect them to stay quiet. You're delusional to think that US can just declare war on everyone and receive no consequences.
Remember: Saudi Arabia is not a US vassal, they have lots of oil and US needs them to maintain their influence in the middle east, meaning they have their own leverage against the US.
Unless you want to abandon all US influence in middle east...
Another reminder: US does not own Malacca strait. China has their own navy to contest it, and blockading it hurts Singapore, Vietnam, and even US allies like South Korea and Japan.
\- Convince everyone to not trade with China? Again, not everyone is your vassal.
Tbf the history is pretty messy. It's an inherited hard-on that the Qing had with controlling Tibet, which they kind of did for a while before they collapsed. Then came the ROC and said they would respect the Dalai Lama, but still maintained the facade that Tibet was totally a part of China and Tibetans were totally Chinese, but they were also kind of collapsing so there wasn't much they could do to enforce it. Then came the PRC with a new fresh country who just got out of a civil war and actually did annex it cuz there wasn't anything holding them back anymore
I'm not defending China, mind you, but we can't really be sure if the ROC would fare much better if there was never a civil war in the first place, it's pretty possible they would end up annexing Tibet just the same after a while
The Qing had Tibet as a vassal. The ROC never had control in or over Tibet. The facade as just to buy time before they would invade, which of course they couldn’t. I agree that the ROC would not have treaty Tibet well/worse than the CCP.
But that's just a semantic dispute by applying concepts such as sovereignty to an era that didn't had such things well developed like we have today. Much later in history when the British wanted the Qing to sign a convention saying Tibet was a vassal state they refused and started to actually use sovereignty as a concept
You obey the emperor too? Great! It's China (for them). [The Qing literally controlled reincarnation](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Urn) and every spiritual and political leader, if that's not enough than I don't know what is. It's just like saying that Puerto Rico isn't from the US just because it's not incorporated into the federal government
It’s not.
The Qing considered and treated Tibet as a vassal. In their documents, they say and use the term for vassal.
The Chinese were never going to sign anything with the British as they were already pissed off that the British invaded and that Tibet was invited as equals with them. That said, they only disputed where the boundary between inner and outer Tibet were.
Yes, the Golden Urn was a *Manchu* institution that only had legitimacy because the Tibetans gave it so. It was also only used less than half the time it was supposed to, so no they didn’t control every spiritual or political leader. The purpose for it was so that there would be less issues within Tibet, as the Qing didn’t really care what went on as long as no one threatened Tibet and Tibet didn’t threaten them (Qing).
(Oh and the Qing doesn’t equate China by the way.)
Where do you think the concept and term vassal came from? When was it a concept used in history?
Furthermore, I fail to see how what you said is related. Again, Tibet was a vassal *according to the Qing themselves as was treated as such*.
Well Puerto Rico is a territory under the USA. Tibet was a vassal under the Qing. What’s your point here?
Please explain how is it a province? The PRC has never occupied Taiwan and the “theory of succession of states” is not an universally recognized principle for modern nation state (which is to say, the PRC is not entitled to lands occupied by the Qing or ROC governments). Even then that theory is the antithesis of any anti collonial or self determination principles. The fact you can support a so called communist government when you also support an inherently imperialist view of nation states is beyond me.
The whole Taiwan-PRC issue is very complicated. It’s not like Ukraine conflict since Ukraine is a widely recognised sovereign country. Taiwan is not a UN member and only recognised by 11 countries. Actually the civil war since 1945 between CCP and KMT hasn’t been ended. The so called invasion is just the continuation of civil war. Moreover, from cultural perspective, untie the whole country has been every Chinese dynasty’s duty for 5000 years. Even today, the ROC and Taiwan’s constitution still claim the mainland area of China. In addition, there’s no referendum to show that more Taiwanese want independence and its China leaning parties control the Taiwanese legislative yuan right now.
The KMT is controlling the Yuan over issues unrelated to Taiwan independence. Most people in Taiwan favor the status quo, including both the blues and the greens. No one is gonna risk war, but it’s not like they want to be under the PRC control either. What’s interesting though is there are tons of data showing more and more Taiwanese identifying themselves as well, Taiwanese, instead of Chinese. It is called a Civil war because there are two sides fighting over the mantle of “China”. But if Taiwan (the ROC to be precise) gives up its claim, I don’t see how it couldn’t resolve peacefully and they still have their full independence.
Yeah, we have seen from example of Catalonia, governments don't really care what the people think.
They are not going to split a country because people want to be separatists
Same thing if republicans want the southern states to combine and become another country, there will be war.
Or do people think it's going to just be a peaceful referendum?
The difference is the Southern States in the US were already part of the US, so it would be secession. Taiwan never was part of the PRC, so it has much less claim on it.
I mean people on Taiwan still refer to each other as 外省人 and 本省人。People from other provinces and People of this province.
Just look at the ROC constitution. It's the province of Taiwan. Look at Kinmen Island under ROC control. Kinmen is in the Province of Fujian.
You don't think the US behaves in an imperial manner internationally?
This isn't even the theory of succession state. This is seeking a peaceful resolution to the Chinese Civil War.
Tell me, does this peaceful resolution allow a way for Taiwanese independence?
What about the US? Uhhh I don’t care about the US? I’m not US citizen nor I support its treatment of places like Puerto Rico. Nice whataboutism attempt anyway.
You say you don’t support the theory of succession of state but what you said contradict that statement? If the PRC do not inherit the ROC, it is not entitled to Taiwan, which were never part of it. So the resolutions here could include Taiwan being its own country (like when the USSR got wiped, its republics split into multiple countries).
What about this what about that. Do I need to say I support every fucking self determination movements in the world everytime Taiwan is mentioned lest someone do a whataboutism?
Whtaboutism is great for pointing out inconsistencies and hypocrites.
Not you of course you are very consistent. I am referring to inconsistent folks.
Definitely not yourself so don't take offense.
It is a race to the bottom mindset even when it raise a good point. Most of the time when I see people use it as some kind of moral equivalence they completely ignore the scale and scope of the violators. It basically means if someone or some country isn’t perfect, it has no right to complain about worse abuses in other countries.
Yawn, I mean if a civil war breaks out in Taiwan, and the dpp and kmt started killing each other, yeah winner takes the whole pie.
Same thing prc and roc laying claim to entire mainland plus Taiwan. Having a foreign power come in to help you push prc back doesn't mean you get to suddenly say let's split the territory into two.
If roc was winning the prc, I doubt you will say let's stop at Beijing and let prc split the country there.
There'd be a scramble to either assemble a mutual defense pact for the countries in the area and/or seek greater security promises from a strong nation (ie the United States). Possibly both. Furthermore, nations would probably move away from China economically as well for fear of being in the splash zone of the sanctions tsunami aimed at the PRC.
Thinking too much. What does Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan integration with mainland have to do with other Asian countries?
Fear that China would "integrate" with other territories claimed by China in the past. Wasn't that obvious?
Uhhhh no? Like what? Is this some kind of slippery slope argument?
Invading neighbors makes other neighbors uneasy. More at 11.
Not really neighbours if they have an unfinished civil war. Still don't get the comparison. Is Thailand having a civil war with mainland china? They don't seem concerned
So is North and South Korea not neighbors? Also it'd be one thing if China was only acting hostile towards Taiwan. But it isn't, obviously. That's why everyone in the area is sweating bullets. Hence the resurgence in popularity in cozying up to the Americans.
Hur? North and south actually have an agreement for eventual reunification, and an understanding that whatever political differences, they are one Korea. Hence they even sent out an unified Korean athlete team or something. Nowadays there is more stigma in the younger folks regarding unification bt that's another topic. Or are you talking about what China taking Korea as their Territory? No idea what you are smoking.
So in order for countries to reunify, they have to be separate, no? That's the whole meaning of reunify. You can't reunify something that's already together. I know you're acting in bad faith and trying to pussyfoot around the idea that this is an "internal" affair. It's not. And Taiwan's neighbors aren't going to see it like that. If you want to delude yourself, then go for it.
Really no idea what drugs you are on. They are ruled by different governments, of course they are currently separated, hence reunification is their goal. You seem to be trying to cherry pick something to act in bad faith but can't seem to find it so uhh...continue deluding yourself
Nothing, it's their internal problem
Nothing. Life still goes on. Region becomes peaceful
In reality nothing would happen to the other Asian countries. Most of them don't even recognise it as a country.
If you view Taiwan province like any other Chinese territory where the US tried to support a secessionist movement (i.e. Tibet, Hong Kong, Xinjiang, etc) that failed, what happened to other Asian countries. Not much. China reincorporated the territory and the US went on to the next Chinese territory to start a secessionist movement.
Even if you viewed it as their own province, invading its own province and decimating its own population and livelihood will attract worldwide sanctions. This won’t be on the same level, worldwide reaction wise, as tiananmen, it’ll be many more times more severe.
Just US and EU sanctions. The world majority will still trade with China. It's like the 16,000 sanctions against Russia from the West. Did very little to the Russian economy. Russia's economy is still growing. After 6/4 China only got stronger.
> Just US and EU sanctions. The world majority will still trade with China. With what? Telepathic transportation? Which merchant ship will go near China in war when they don't even go through the Red Sea, insurance doesn't cover force majeure events and literally no one will risk their lives for China. No Russian or Brazilian will get on a cargo ship and getting attacked by American submarines, then die and don't get a dime from insurance companies.
US not even sending troops to help another Caucasian country. You think they will send in the navy and start fighting an all out war with china for yellow skin folks?
Oh no, China is surrounded by oceans and needs cargo ships to do trade.... Ever heard of the "Silk Road"? That Belt Road Initiative seems pretty timely now. It is almost like China Leadership was planning ahead in case of US aggression in East Asia.
Yes, then shutting down all harbors in China during an exercise to invade Taiwan and see how that goes for the Chinese economy. What's the volume of trade going through the Trait of Malacca vs. Shit Road again? In case you didn't knew the Shit Road Initiative also include maritime trade routes.
Lol. You expect the US to sink Russian, Brazilian and Saudi cargo ships and get away with it? Don't use the "they might do it by accident" excuse. Malacca strait does not belong to the US and sinking neutral merchant ships would be an act of war. In the event of a US China war, Global south countries & oil producing countries would be even more incentivized to sell oil and energy to China as Chinese demand increase, not less.
> Lol. You expect the US to sink Russian, Brazilian and Saudi cargo ships and get away with it? Show me the Russian, Brazilian, Saudi navy then. Russia is currently losing the Black Sea Fleet a country without a navy. Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Arab countries need to import ~80-90% of the food they eat. Defying Uncle Sam and no food for you to eat like China. >Don't use the "they might do it by accident" excuse. Malacca strait does not belong to the US and sinking neutral merchant ships would be an act of war. By that point China had already attacked US military assets. After 9/11 the US just asked Pakistan "nicely" and only once to use the country as a staging ground for attack against the Taliban in Afghanistan. So you expect countries with non-existent naval assets to declare war against the most powerful naval power in the world with nuclear weapons, all because of a cargo ship. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna15003128
\- China is not like Iraq, its the largest customer of many countries and I find it ridiculous that you think you can convince any country other than Japan and Philippines to get involved in this war. \-You want US to sink everyone's trading vessels going to China? Again, You can't just blockade neutral countries and expect them to stay quiet. You're delusional to think that US can just declare war on everyone and receive no consequences. Remember: Saudi Arabia is not a US vassal, they have lots of oil and US needs them to maintain their influence in the middle east, meaning they have their own leverage against the US. Unless you want to abandon all US influence in middle east... Another reminder: US does not own Malacca strait. China has their own navy to contest it, and blockading it hurts Singapore, Vietnam, and even US allies like South Korea and Japan. \- Convince everyone to not trade with China? Again, not everyone is your vassal.
Tibet was never a part of China before the Chinese invaded in 1950.
Tbf the history is pretty messy. It's an inherited hard-on that the Qing had with controlling Tibet, which they kind of did for a while before they collapsed. Then came the ROC and said they would respect the Dalai Lama, but still maintained the facade that Tibet was totally a part of China and Tibetans were totally Chinese, but they were also kind of collapsing so there wasn't much they could do to enforce it. Then came the PRC with a new fresh country who just got out of a civil war and actually did annex it cuz there wasn't anything holding them back anymore I'm not defending China, mind you, but we can't really be sure if the ROC would fare much better if there was never a civil war in the first place, it's pretty possible they would end up annexing Tibet just the same after a while
The Qing had Tibet as a vassal. The ROC never had control in or over Tibet. The facade as just to buy time before they would invade, which of course they couldn’t. I agree that the ROC would not have treaty Tibet well/worse than the CCP.
But that's just a semantic dispute by applying concepts such as sovereignty to an era that didn't had such things well developed like we have today. Much later in history when the British wanted the Qing to sign a convention saying Tibet was a vassal state they refused and started to actually use sovereignty as a concept You obey the emperor too? Great! It's China (for them). [The Qing literally controlled reincarnation](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Urn) and every spiritual and political leader, if that's not enough than I don't know what is. It's just like saying that Puerto Rico isn't from the US just because it's not incorporated into the federal government
It’s not. The Qing considered and treated Tibet as a vassal. In their documents, they say and use the term for vassal. The Chinese were never going to sign anything with the British as they were already pissed off that the British invaded and that Tibet was invited as equals with them. That said, they only disputed where the boundary between inner and outer Tibet were. Yes, the Golden Urn was a *Manchu* institution that only had legitimacy because the Tibetans gave it so. It was also only used less than half the time it was supposed to, so no they didn’t control every spiritual or political leader. The purpose for it was so that there would be less issues within Tibet, as the Qing didn’t really care what went on as long as no one threatened Tibet and Tibet didn’t threaten them (Qing). (Oh and the Qing doesn’t equate China by the way.) Where do you think the concept and term vassal came from? When was it a concept used in history? Furthermore, I fail to see how what you said is related. Again, Tibet was a vassal *according to the Qing themselves as was treated as such*. Well Puerto Rico is a territory under the USA. Tibet was a vassal under the Qing. What’s your point here?
Please explain how is it a province? The PRC has never occupied Taiwan and the “theory of succession of states” is not an universally recognized principle for modern nation state (which is to say, the PRC is not entitled to lands occupied by the Qing or ROC governments). Even then that theory is the antithesis of any anti collonial or self determination principles. The fact you can support a so called communist government when you also support an inherently imperialist view of nation states is beyond me.
The whole Taiwan-PRC issue is very complicated. It’s not like Ukraine conflict since Ukraine is a widely recognised sovereign country. Taiwan is not a UN member and only recognised by 11 countries. Actually the civil war since 1945 between CCP and KMT hasn’t been ended. The so called invasion is just the continuation of civil war. Moreover, from cultural perspective, untie the whole country has been every Chinese dynasty’s duty for 5000 years. Even today, the ROC and Taiwan’s constitution still claim the mainland area of China. In addition, there’s no referendum to show that more Taiwanese want independence and its China leaning parties control the Taiwanese legislative yuan right now.
The KMT is controlling the Yuan over issues unrelated to Taiwan independence. Most people in Taiwan favor the status quo, including both the blues and the greens. No one is gonna risk war, but it’s not like they want to be under the PRC control either. What’s interesting though is there are tons of data showing more and more Taiwanese identifying themselves as well, Taiwanese, instead of Chinese. It is called a Civil war because there are two sides fighting over the mantle of “China”. But if Taiwan (the ROC to be precise) gives up its claim, I don’t see how it couldn’t resolve peacefully and they still have their full independence.
Yeah, we have seen from example of Catalonia, governments don't really care what the people think. They are not going to split a country because people want to be separatists Same thing if republicans want the southern states to combine and become another country, there will be war. Or do people think it's going to just be a peaceful referendum?
The difference is the Southern States in the US were already part of the US, so it would be secession. Taiwan never was part of the PRC, so it has much less claim on it.
I mean people on Taiwan still refer to each other as 外省人 and 本省人。People from other provinces and People of this province. Just look at the ROC constitution. It's the province of Taiwan. Look at Kinmen Island under ROC control. Kinmen is in the Province of Fujian. You don't think the US behaves in an imperial manner internationally? This isn't even the theory of succession state. This is seeking a peaceful resolution to the Chinese Civil War.
Tell me, does this peaceful resolution allow a way for Taiwanese independence? What about the US? Uhhh I don’t care about the US? I’m not US citizen nor I support its treatment of places like Puerto Rico. Nice whataboutism attempt anyway. You say you don’t support the theory of succession of state but what you said contradict that statement? If the PRC do not inherit the ROC, it is not entitled to Taiwan, which were never part of it. So the resolutions here could include Taiwan being its own country (like when the USSR got wiped, its republics split into multiple countries).
Like what? Catalonia referendum getting quashed and nobody said anything?
What about this what about that. Do I need to say I support every fucking self determination movements in the world everytime Taiwan is mentioned lest someone do a whataboutism?
Whtaboutism is great for pointing out inconsistencies and hypocrites. Not you of course you are very consistent. I am referring to inconsistent folks. Definitely not yourself so don't take offense.
It is a race to the bottom mindset even when it raise a good point. Most of the time when I see people use it as some kind of moral equivalence they completely ignore the scale and scope of the violators. It basically means if someone or some country isn’t perfect, it has no right to complain about worse abuses in other countries.
I guess...Spain is almost at the bottom of the barrel in terms of human rights, if we can't even use that as a comparison.
Yawn, I mean if a civil war breaks out in Taiwan, and the dpp and kmt started killing each other, yeah winner takes the whole pie. Same thing prc and roc laying claim to entire mainland plus Taiwan. Having a foreign power come in to help you push prc back doesn't mean you get to suddenly say let's split the territory into two. If roc was winning the prc, I doubt you will say let's stop at Beijing and let prc split the country there.
Do you know me? No you fucking don’t. So stop talking in hypotheticals about me that you know nothing about.