Should We Defend Taiwan...

[seer]

With our military? Any thoughts? What do Australians or New Zealanders think?

[tabibito]

Is there doubt that expansionist ambitions will not be satisfied with one acquisition?

[seanD]

Being that Taiwan actually produces things we need and thus would have a direct affect on us and our economy, if the question is: Is it in our interest to defend Taiwan, the answer would be yes.

[tabibito]

Being that Taiwan actually produces things we need and thus would have a direct affect on us and our economy, if the question is: Is it in our interest to defend Taiwan, the answer would be yes.

That there is. If I were in charge here, I'd be looking to find ways to provide incentives for Taiwan to take an interest in producing some of the high-tech stuff here. As things stand, Taiwan is producing critical goods that no-one else does.

[Ronson]

Question 1: Should we defend Taiwan? It depends on the level of "defense." Should we send troops? No. Should we fire nukes? No. Since China is so intrinsically linked to the US and the west financially, the best way to control China is economically. I think a carrots-and-sticks approach through trade is the best avenue.
Question 2" Should Biden be spouting off about it? Absolutely not! He's stoking a fire and drawing lines in the sand. He needs to shut his big, fat, demented mouth - otherwise the obstinate Chinese commies are going to raise the ante. What a bumbling idiot.

[Thoughtful Monk]

Being that Taiwan actually produces things we need and thus would have a direct affect on us and our economy, if the question is: Is it in our interest to defend Taiwan, the answer would be yes.

But so does Ukraine. As I recall, they are big exporters of wheat and lithium. Under your standard, we should intervene in Ukraine.

[Thoughtful Monk]

Question 1: Should we defend Taiwan? It depends on the level of "defense." Should we send troops? No. Should we fire nukes? No. Since China is so intrinsically linked to the US and the west financially, the best way to control China is economically. I think a carrots-and-sticks approach through trade is the best avenue.
Question 2" Should Biden be spouting off about it? Absolutely not! He's stoking a fire and drawing lines in the sand. He needs to shut his big, fat, demented mouth - otherwise the obstinate Chinese commies are going to raise the ante. What a bumbling idiot.

Sorry but China controls the West economically. Look at how many companies and the NBA bow to China whenever they object to something. Are you paying attention to what China is doing in the south China sea? After taking over Tiawan, I'll bet they would love to see their troops occupying Japan as revenge for WWII. Have you notice how they haven't done anything practical to rein in North Korea? The economic approach to China, started in 1990's and thinking if they become middle-class, they'll become good citizens of the world, has FAILED.

Biden is doing good by building up alliances. I think one of the pluses of the Trump administration is the raising awareness of China's plans.

I think you need to take some time to see what China is up to before you talk about controlling China.

[Mountain Man]

The real question is, would Joe "10% for the big guy" Biden ever dare to upset China?

[seanD]

But so does Ukraine. As I recall, they are big exporters of wheat and lithium. Under your standard, we should intervene in Ukraine.

We don't even import a quarter of our food supply, and only a minuscule amount comes from Ukraine.

[Thoughtful Monk]

We don't even import a quarter of our food supply, and only a minuscule amount comes from Ukraine.

Regarding wheat, true. However, there is the rest of the world to consider and how a shortage of wheat in the world is going to inflate prices for bread, etc.

Lithium is more of a concern since it's an essential component of batteries. I'll also admit I may be mixing lithium up with some else essential.

[seanD]

Regarding wheat, true. However, there is the rest of the world to consider and how a shortage of wheat in the world is going to inflate prices for bread, etc.

Lithium is more of a concern since it's an essential component of batteries. I'll also admit I may be mixing lithium up with some else essential.

Apparently we get quite a bit of iron and steel from Ukraine, but not enough that we can't compensate for from other sources. As far as the food effects on EU countries, that's EU's problem. They have money and resources so let them handle it. I have a big problem enriching defense contractors and corrupt Ukrainian officials, but I have no problem with humanitarian assistance to countries negatively affected by all this. But, of course, whether we can afford it and how much that help is at the expense of our own citizens is an argument that also can't be ignored.

[rogue06]

Is there doubt that expansionist ambitions will not be satisfied with one acquisition?

But they are only reclaiming "territories" lost due to colonial expansionism. Taiwan was taken by the Japanese empire in the 1890s.

But then again, so was Nepal, Bhutan, Burma and much of Malaysia (including Singapore), which the Brits took in the 19th century. And North Vietnam and Thailand by the French. And then there is Java, Borneo and Indonesia...

[Faber]

We could start by calling that nation by its right name.

[tabibito]

But they are only reclaiming "territories" lost due to colonial expansionism. Taiwan was taken by the Japanese empire in the 1890s.

Which is to say, Taiwan has never been a possession of Communist China.

[Starlight]

With our military? Any thoughts?

On balance, no. The US getting into a direct war with China could too easily escalate. Taiwan isn't worth that.

Major reasons I think Taiwan isn't worth that is that (a) it was historically part of China, (b) it's directly adjacent to China, (c) it's inhabited by people of Chinese descent who speak Chinese. As I've said before I'm pretty apathetic about international intervention in these kinds of situations, which I tend to regard more as a civil war than an international conflict.

Compare to the reasons for defending Taiwan: (1) just generally preventing one country ever invading another, (2) defending a region that wants independence and democracy because those are goods, (3) stopping China expanding because China is viewed as a geopolitical threat, (4) legacy of supporting anti-communist elites from the Cold War, with Taiwan being controlled by the elites who fled the communist regime in China, (5) Taiwan produces the most advanced computer chips which the US uses. I think of that list, 1-2 are good reasons, but 3-5 are dodgy ones.

On balance it seems reasonable to let China have Taiwan because it was historically part of China and is inhabited by Chinese people.

If China started invading unrelated countries, that is a different matter. Then you are potentially in WW3 territory already, and US involvement in such a situation is not really an escalation.

What do Australians or New Zealanders think?

Not sure why you're asking this? Is this another attempt to pretend China is about to invade those countries? Look at a map, those countries are half way around the world from China. If China were to ever invade those countries it would have already invaded half the rest of the world. It's like fantasizing that China might launch and invasion of your area of New England specifically... why, when the rest of the US is closer to China?

Question 2" Should Biden be spouting off about it? Absolutely not! He's stoking a fire and drawing lines in the sand. He needs to shut his big, fat, demented mouth - otherwise the obstinate Chinese commies are going to raise the ante. What a bumbling idiot.

Despite being against the US defending Taiwan, I disagree with you here. Biden saying that the US will defend Taiwan, and saying so forcefully, might mean the Chinese believe it and so don't attack. This would be true regardless of whether Biden would actually defend Taiwan. Biden is potentially saving lives with his words.

The first Iraq war infamously occurred because the US failed to say that it would defend Kuwait. Saddam Hussein decided that what he was hearing from the US meant that he could invade Kuwait without US intervention, and so did. A huge number of people died as a result. Though the US eventually decided it would intervene, the entire war could have been avoided if the US had simply told Saddam in clear terms that he could not attack Kuwait without US intervention against him.

For this reason it's important for leaders, especially those perceived as being more peaceable, to be tougher with their words than they are actually prepared to be with their actions. You can always choose to not intervene if an invasion happens, but you absolutely don't want to encourage an invasion by saying you wouldn't intervene.