Taiwan: Would War be viable?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


from what i know of the 17thc Presbyterian Kirk, id have to say thats not 100% accurate. Not pure Jacksonians perhaps, but the idea of "rule by the many" was hardly a completely alien concept.

Might I suggest you read 'Society and Puritanism' by Christopher Hill or 'The Protestant Mind of the English Reformation' by C.H. & K. George.

There's also an American two volume anthology of extracts from the works of Puritans, Dissenters and Presbyterians in England and the English colonies in North America (the name of whose author escapes me alas) which, using excerpts from diaries, letters, sermons, pamphlets and political and religious works shows how a variety of ecclesio-theocracy was the preferred form of government, where 'parliament' or monarchical or aristocratic rule had been replaced by the 'spiritual' rule of a select group of laymen (the elders or the elect).

Any society or colony based on the idea of the moral superiority of a special group and spiritual discipline rather than the rule of law, is going to find the notion of democracy as alien.

[TCO]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
We apologized to China when they took Americans hostage. Does anyone think it remotely possible that we are going to do anything for Taiwan besides continue to sell them weapons?

Yes. I think we would go to war over a Chinese invasion and that needs to be made clear at least in private. Furthermore, I think we could win any conventional contest with China. I think we could also "win" a nuclear contest, to the extent that anyone can use the word "win" for what the world would look like after.


Independant of the above, I personally think that Taiwan is a de factor independant country and should be recognized as such. Of course, for many it is more convenient to allow the Chinese a fiction to keep them happy.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Ecthelion

I don't know if USA would defend Taiwan, but I believe they should.

*resists in attempt to make a joke about the role of France and the UK in the first stage of WWII*

Little Ossi Andzi.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Thucydides
As a student of the Chinese language (as well as a practioner of Chinese martial arts), I'll welcome the glorious Chinese Army when they arrive in California, and offer my services to help keep the American rabble in line

Wolverines!!!

[TCO]

Originally posted by PLATO
Here is the Cato Institute's Executive summary of their brief on the China-Taiwan military situation as of February 2003:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb-074es.html

Taiwan seems to be formidable in its own right and it is not at all assured that a PRC attack would be successful even without US intervention.

The logic in there seems to be:

Why bother protecting Taiwan when:

1. They're not worth it.
2. Taiwan can protect themselves.
3. The Taiwanese need to be incented to buy weapons.

1 and 3 make some sense, but 2 is irrelevant. If there's no danger of an invasion, then the guarantee is riskless also.

I would also add some factors in opposition:

1. It's a good way to **** with China.
2. Other nations in the region could see it as a first step, domino, whatever.

[TCO]

Originally posted by GePap


And then you would trully be paranoid. NK nukes anyone offensively, and the country will be destroyed- hence China not only has to worry about refugees streaming on its border, plus whatever fallout comes its way, but then a unified Korea....all the things it does NOt want.

You know what, couldn't the Spviets have done the same thing? Let one of their puppet regimes get nukes, nuke the west, then deny responsiblity? The soviets had East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania and BUlgaria as puppets- most if not all those states had the money and technical knowhow to make nukes- why was it then that only the USSR in the whole warsaw pact had nukes? Cause it was of no use for the Soviets to let thier puppets have nukes.

Yet again, the best evidence against the arguement that NK is a puppet is what is currently going on. On the NK side itself, why would NK need nukes? Does not the puppet have several hundred Chinese nukes to back it?

I have not seen proof that the NKs have nukes.

[TCO]

Originally posted by techumseh
Don't forget, China holds a large portion of the US debt. The Americans are not without vulnerabilities.

Ooooh scary, scary. Remember when you owe the bank a million dollars, you don't have a problem...the bank does.

[TCO]

Originally posted by GePap
The US economy is not "roaring like a lion"- if the government and the Social Security actuaries are correct the US eocnomy will continue to grow in the next 75 years at a rate of 1.9%, about 60% the average of the last 75 years and much slower than China and India.

What does ther US have that India and China can't get??

If China and India develop democracy, the rule of law and capitalism, then they may eclipse us.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Tingkai


Vel: If you have a chance, you should should learn something about Friedman, Japan's economy and economic in general. Then you would see why your statement is so foolish.

Friedman argues for minimal government intervention.

Japan's economy was built with extensive government intervention, both fiscally and through controlling corporate development.

Friedman is against tariffs, Japan maintains numerous trade barriers.

Friedman is in favour of monetary policies, (but free currency markets) and opposed to fiscal policies.

Japan routinely intervenes in the currency markets and has extensive public spending.

There is simply no connection between Friedman's theories and what the Japanese did to successfully develop their economy.

More than that, Friedman's theories have proven a disaster when applied to developing economies.

I'm trying to ignore all the Vel posts as I go through here. Vel likes convoluted non-logical explanations with a plethora of words wrapped around them. Like a lettuce-wrapped eggroll with no eggroll inside. He's not quite as bad as Fez though.

[TCO]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc However, if either nation starts to overregulate they will descend back to stagnation. If they underregulate, they will end up with a Russian style kleptocracy. Only history will tell.

The Russians had plenty of regulation. The kleptocracy is helped by the arcane web of rules that still exist there. Basically you have to cheat to survive there, so it drives away any honest business.

[TCO]

Originally posted by GePap
I think China has too much of a head start on India. India may make software, but increasingly China makes the hardware- more importantly, software industries don;t employ hundreds of millions. I don;t believe you can skip the industrial phase on your way up, and India is way behind China in manufacturing.

I have not seen much from India either when it comes to energy production- China, at huge environmental costs, is on a damn building spree, and has plans to at some point start opening 2 nuke plants a year for 40 years. The Chinese have also gotten a huge jump on securing commodities. Things are going to be expensive for India since China has driven prices in commodites straight throught the roof.

BUt I agree that laws are one of China's greatest problems. The single biggest problem I think is land reform- the Chinese peasant needs to be made the owner of their land, giving them the ability to borrow against it and so forth.

Of course you can skip steps. That is unless you are a socialist planned economy industrial policy Al Gore clone. Countries do not have to all do the same things or go through the same pattern.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Tingkai


You're ignoring some critical flaws in the US economy.

The US gov't is running a massive deficit that elimates its ability to respon to a recession.

The US federal deficit and the consumer debt in the US are extremely high which makes the US vulnerable to interest rate changes.

The US is extremely reliant on cheap imports from China. If China re-evaluates its currency then that will create an inflation shock in the US.

The US and Canada are also extremely suspectable to oil price increase because their cities are designed for cars, unlike Asian and European cities.

The US is also reliant on cheap foreign lenders, but with the improving stength of the euro, countries no longer have to rely on the greenback. They now have an alternative in the euro which did not exist before.

Half of the post is decent. The other half suffers from the "try to talk macro when we don't understand micro" disease.

[Velociryx]

I'm trying to ignore all the Vel posts Good to see you too....and yet, despite that, we seem to be on the same page where China is concerned.

-=Vel=-

[TCO]

Originally posted by GePap


Which reigme controls China is utterly and completely immaterial to the question of whether China will surpass the US.

I think the point being made was that the existing regime or a new one, might find that security of it's own position was more important (to it) than growth.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by TCO


I think the point being made was that the existing regime or a new one, might find that security of it's own position was more important (to it) than growth.

This is a key point IMHO. If the industrial class becomes powerful enough to challenge the Party then a radical crackdown may take place. In China, Power is more important than Money. The ruling Party will no doubt take whatever action is required to maintain their grip on power. To me, this is a limiting factor in Chinese economic growth. How China deals with this will say much on how they will truly be placed in the future economic rankings.

This point alone brings the word "inevitability" into question. The bottom line of this argument is:

China will "likely" grow to be an economic giant...It is, however, not "inevitable". While this argument of semantics has gone on for several pages, it is a moot one unless someone has a crystal ball that they are not admitting to.

Getting back to the TOPIC...The conclusion is obvious from the discussion to this point. War between China and Taiwan is not economically viable for eithier at this point. Equally obvious is that the PRC and ROC may ignore that fact for political reasons. This supports the concept of "Power over Money" and further erodes any "inevitability" argument.

Further...China has shown great acumen in its recent international dealings. Should they stay on this course ( an "if" statement) then they will, in all likelyhood, overtake the US economy. Given the policy changes that can take place with Chinese regime change, however, this is not "inevitable" eithier.

The bottom line is...We can "project", but we cannot "know". Their are to many variables still in play...and likely always will be.