Comment by jillesvangurp | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jillesvangurp | Hacker News Reader

A few points here:

- Factories like that would be unlikely to survive an invasion in any case.

- China has domestic chip manufacturers that would end up being a lot more dominant. I'm sure their long term strategy is to not be dependent on Taiwanese imports. I'd be surprised if they have not been implementing that strategy for many years. A threat like this would only accelerate this.

- Threatening with economic suicide is not a great defensive strategy. Somebody might call your bluff.

Of course what the Ukrainian situation has made very clear is that you can invade a country and behave like animals without triggering offensive actions against you from other countries. That's a line NATO just won't cross. Taiwan is not a country many countries even actually acknowledge as a country. They are not a NATO member. Clearly, if it comes to an invasion, they have the choice between economic suicide plus destruction and a quick capitulation. The Russians are doing a great job of show casing what it looks like when you choose to fight.

Countries are happy to supply weapons to Taiwan and the Ukraine. However, the world is much more dependent on the Chinese economically than it ever was on Russia. Russia is a tiny market to export to and it does not export that much else besides oil and gas. China on the other hands exports a lot of stuff that is integral to supply chains around the world. And it's a huge market. And it's going to be the largest economy in the world pretty soon.

The deterrent against a Chinese escalation in Taiwan would have to be economical. But economical sanctions at the scale Russia is currently is experiencing would be a form of mutually assured economic self destruction that is simply unthinkable. It's basically the nuclear option and about as desirable for any side. Even the mere threat of that would cause economic unrest world wide.

The main deterrent against a Chinese escalation in Taiwan is that this is an existential issue for the United States, which undoubtedly along with allies would go to war to defend Taiwan. If China invaded and militarily defeated the U.S. in Asia here it’s the end of American hegemony and the United States would basically be kicked out of Asia.

But it’s a great risk to China to attempt something like this, too great of a risk, which is why it won’t happen. Both sides are pretty satisfied with saber rattling. For China and the CCP it makes much more sense to just wait and perhaps play the soft power game. Although they screwed up with Hong Kong and turned a lukewarm-friendly Taiwan back into an anti-CCP Taiwan. They should have (from the CCP perspective) went after Taiwan first. They’ve had two great opportunities and didn’t take either (HK takeover timeframe and March 2022)

> that this is an existential issue for the United States, which undoubtedly along with allies would go to war to defend Taiwan.

On the contrary, this is not an existential issue for the US and they would not intervene directly against China (they've always been very careful never to commit to intervening).

It's similar to the situation in Ukraine. The US are helping Ukraine but they do not want to intervene directly and certainly do not want to start a war with Russia. Well, China is a much more formidable adversary than Russia and the US will never effectively declare war against them.

For China the issue is (1) they could not afford to lose an invasion attempt (domestically it might mean the end of the regime), which is quite a big undertaking, and (2) the fallout on the world stage may be too big politically and economically. And so the military option has not been a good one so far and the status quo suits everyone.

> On the contrary, this is not an existential issue for the US and they would not intervene directly against China (they've always been very careful never to commit to intervening).

There’s no benefit to verbally committing so you don’t need to do that. Better to keep China guessing. But there is 0 doubt that the US would intervene. This is an existential issue because if China invaded Taiwan successfully it shows the U.S. military can be defeated, and greatly diminishes their security guarantees and ability to project power in Asia. It’s similar to if Russia defeated the U.S. and forced military presence out of Europe. There is little doubt here.

It’s not at all similar to Ukraine. Like in any way whatsoever. If you have any specific questions I could probably answer those as to why it’s not similar.

> But there is 0 doubt that the US would intervene

I think the consensus is pretty much what I wrote in my previous comment: The US would not start WWIII over Taiwan, obviously, and thus would not attack China but would help Taiwan (supply of weapons, intelligence, and other aid like in Ukraine).

The US would only start a war against China in case of 'existential' threat, indeed. But that would mean China attacking the US, which they obviously won't do for the same reason.

> This is an existential issue because if China invaded Taiwan successfully it shows the U.S. military can be defeated

How would that show that he US military can be defeated if the US did not intervene directly? And how would that be existential? Also the US military has effectively been defeated a number of times before. Even directly against China the US did not fare that well during the Korean War and that was when the gap between the two countries was arguably at its greatest.

> I think the consensus is pretty much what I wrote in my previous comment: The US would not start WWIII over Taiwan, obviously, and thus would not attack China but would help Taiwan (supply of weapons, intelligence, and other aid like in Ukraine).

> The US would only start a war against China in case of 'existential' threat, indeed. But that would mean China attacking the US, which they obviously won't do for the same reason.

I don't think that's the consensus at all. It's what I'd call "status quo" thinking. You are reasoning by analogy which doesn't apply here. Why do you think the US has all of these bases, is training Taiwanese troops and selling them weapons, and patrolling the South China Sea? Without US intervention there's nothing preventing China from attacking and taking over Taiwan. You're not understanding the strategic implications here. The U.S. isn't playing around here and building up all of this stuff for no reason, it will defend Taiwan for the foreseeable future. Not doing so flies in the face of pretty much all US policy and military actions. I don't find that to be compelling whatsoever. This actually reminds me of people who thought that the US wouldn't defend the Baltics. You're projecting your own calculations and reasoning onto what the US as a nation state would do and it just doesn't work here.

> How would that show that he US military can be defeated if the US did not intervene directly? And how would that be existential? Also the US military as effectively been defeated a number of times before. Even directly against China the US did not fare that well during the Korean War and that was when the gap between the two countries was arguably at its greatest.

I can't think of a time that the US has genuinely been defeated, militarily, in a war. There have been more so political statements, but the US has not faced a peer or near-peer adversary and lost so far and these types of wars are entirely different ball games. People like to cite Vietnam or Afghanistan but those are not similar. The last war we've fought against an industrial nation was World War 2. Nothing else is very comparable.

> How would that show that he US military can be defeated if the US did not intervene directly?

Because the US would intervene to start with. But if the US doesn't intervene it brings into doubt the ability of the US to check Chinese military power in the Pacific. It completely rearranges security agreements and economic ties to the detriment of the US.

The Us are training Taiwanese troops and selling them weapons for the reason I have stated: They are helping them. But I'd repeat that the serious consensus is that they are vanishingly unlikely to intervene directly because that'd mean WWIII.

I think one thing that you and others in the US should realise is that the US won't be able to check Chinese military power in the Pacific indefinitely.

The historical trend is that the US have found a country that is bigger than that they are and that is starting to have the means to assert its own interests. The US' "ownership" of the Pacific is the legacy of US imperialism in the region, but "this too shall pass".

And, maybe, if one day the mainland decides to take over Taiwan militarily it will mean a watershed moment when this becomes visible in facts as they will have no doubt calculated that the US will have no choice but yield.

> I think one thing that you and others in the US should realise is that the US won't be able to check Chinese military power in the Pacific indefinitely.

I agree, well, in theory. But anything can happen. The US could dissolve. China could have a revolution. China could stop caring. Who knows? But for the foreseeable future I think that this is the case (US can check China in the Pacific).

But to your point, it seems inevitable that the US will maintain interests but likely lose its current foothold in Asia. But that just lends credit to my statements that China won't invade Taiwan. There's no point when you can just wait for the inevitable. They rushed it in Hong Kong and delayed this inevitability by scaring the Taiwanese who were lukewarm toward China and increasingly warming up via economic ties and Chinese influence on Taiwanese politicians. But similarly to Hong Kong, if China were to invade not only is there a serious chance that they would be defeated by the US and allies, if that fail to take Taiwan in a meaningful strategic sense they'd likely just cause themselves harm internally and further delay what appears to me to be an eventual loss of US presence.

> On the contrary, this is not an existential issue for the US and they would not intervene directly against China (they've always been very careful never to commit to intervening).

They've also never committed not to intervene and made many implications that they might. No one really know what the US would do.

If China invaded Taiwan, wouldn't it lead to other Asian countries fearing the same fate and push them towards alliances with other western countries?

Not necessarily. A U.S. defeat in Taiwan makes China the dominant economic and military power in the region, so those countries would court stronger military and economic ties to China in order to keep from being invaded or punished, since the U.S. would be proved incapable of doing anything.

I think you are too optimistic about how fast China can match TSMC's chip-building capabilities. It will take China a decade or more to reach the level of what TSMC is doing right now.

I agree that China is way more important as a manufacturer of goods than Taiwan. But I think Covid has shown that companies need a more diversified manufacturing base.

The question right now is, can China ramp up its plan to be a leader in AI and chip building fast enough?

There are restrictions on lithograph trades so they have to produce their whole pipeline and atm they are at 30+nm.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com