From China’s perspective, the cost of war is much higher than the cost of developing these chips themselves. In the worst-case scenario, they would be 2-3 years behind the cutting edge, which is not mission-critical. Most electronics (civilian or military) don’t really need cutting-edge chips, and China has already proven that they don’t need the latest chips to be a significant AI competitor.

From the US’s perspective, if a war with China were to break out now, there are only three possible scenarios: 1. China takes Taiwan quickly. In this case, there would be nothing for US to defend, and the US would have to try to take Taiwan back militarily—unlikely to happen. 2. Stalemate. Taiwanese people fight bravely, and Chinese forces turn out to be weaker than expected. In this case, the US would be in a comfortable position to send aid and weapons to help Taiwan, prolonging the war to weaken China. With some luck, a regime change could happen without firing a shot. 3. Taiwan successfully defends itself, repels the Chinese invasion, and possibly even takes back some territory—an unlikely scenario, but this is the only one where the US would send troops to help defend Taiwan. If the US gets involved at this stage, it secures a sure win, puts a military base on the island, and further cements its role as the protector of taiwan.

If you believe the US will or should only act in its own interest, then its interest is to remain the only superpower. Rushing into a war on foreign turf and losing is the quickest way to cede the Asia-Pacific region to China. So, despite what politicians might have you believe, the US is not going to help defend Taiwan, no matter who is in the White House.

I'm not saying China is right in wanting to invade Taiwan. But that's closer to their real motivations than anything having to do with economics or technology. And its important to understand your potential adversaries motivations because that will inform their decisions and tactics.

China's fundamental argument distilled to its most pure form is "we are strong enough to do this, what are you going to do about it?" A world where the strong do whatever they want because no one can do anything about it is not a world anyone should want to live in.

All of the Chinese expressing these opinions from a position of safety can’t seem to put themselves in the shoes of Taiwanese. The inhumanity of an invasion is being hidden by high level ideas like history.

The American civil war comparison fails. No American sits and thinks about invading the UK to “complete” our revolution and that’s much closer than your scenario.

You're fooling yourself if you don't think we live in, and have always lived in, this world.

Citizens like me, living in a relatively just society, can tell ourselves the world is not like this because of our daily lives, but the reality is if some group of people even stronger doesn't care, the strong get to do what they want.

I thought the whole Russia/Ukraine thing snapped people back into the reality of the world we live in, and I'm quite amazed that there are still people that don't realize this is how the world is, and always will, be.

But might isn't one thing. Might arises from complex underlying relationships between people and it arises from what people believe in. Might makes right yes. But what people believe is right also makes might. When people stop believing that it's impossible to stand up to totalitarianism - that's when it wins.

While I agree it is different now because everything is in the spotlight and you can’t get away with things like you used to. So not sure I would go as far as “always will be”.

Also not sure there is a need to say how amazed one is about one other’s opinion, since it belittles it.

We can argue about what the exact desire is - there's 100M people in the CCP - we'll probably never know an exact answer.

The important thing is - China is willing to spend a LOT more money to take Taiwan than it is economically worth.

So this idea that 1) China wants Taiwan for chips, 2) War would cost more than chips, 3) Therefore, Taiwan is logically safe - is a fallacy.

The war in Ukraine is never going to pay off for Russia. They're not fighting that war to make money. They're fighting that war because a bunch of dick bags got together in a room and decided it was expedient for them for millions of people to lose their lives.

This invasion is partially an extension of their goal of securing Crimea with a more solid land connection rather than the more easily interrupted bridge connection that was their only connection until they pushed up to their current lines in Eastern Ukraine.

[0] eg: https://preview.redd.it/least-obvious-russian-tweeting-about...

Nah, they are also against Article 4 (regional security), which while not as concrete of a commitment, applies much more broadly, and which leads to things like the current support for Ukraine, not just Article 5 (mutual defense), which only affects hem when they would want to target a NATO member’s territory in and in a couple areas close to Europe or North America.

Pretty sure Putin needs to start wars, conflicts, terrorist events to maintain political stability. That is to say, he can't lose power because they'll kill him.

In the case of Ukraine, Russia's (read: the russian government which is synonymous with Putin who dictator in all but name) motivation is somewhat similar. But they don't see Ukraine as a rebellious province. They see it as a vassal state as they do all of the other former SSRs and members of the Warsaw pact. Putin and his nationalist group have a very old world view of things and a very specific concept of what their rightful sphere of influence is and what exactly it means to control it. This isn't even unique to them. After securing power, the Bolsheviks quickly attempted to bring former Russian imperial possessions back under their control. That included Ukraine, Poland and Finland. Poland and Finland were able to secure their independence, Ukraine was less fortunate. For all the talk of anti imperialism, they were just as imperial as their predecessors. So this is just russians being russians and an inability for their world view to evolve past the 19th century.

"rogue" means rascal

None of these things requires an education in using the incorrect word. “Irregardless”? Give ‘em what for! Their/there/they’re? A nice reminder. Swapped a couple letters is a plausible explanation? A simple correct spelling followed with a * would suffice.

rogue*

Rouge is red, you rascally rogue!

No, no - don't bother, I'll see myself out :)

THe lands and territories also wax and waned throughout the centuries. A map of the territories controlled by the Qing at its peak is vastly different than that of the Tang or that of the Han dynasty.

This is more like the game of weiqi than it is the game of chess. The endgame isn't necessarily a decisive action with a win condition, but more of an accumulation.

I prefer a free market myself, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking there isn't a narrative being pushed by people who profit off of free markets or capitalism.

From my observation, the West suffers from the opposite of Chinese or Indian nationalism, in excessive self-flagellation to the point of self-destructiveness. Critical Theory, Identity Politics, Woke, Anti-Woke, Postmodernism (both left & right), etc would be immediately crushed in those nationalist societies, they are very much a unique artifact of the Western order.

We know this version is closer to the truth because Mao tried to take Taiwan

There's not always a rational reason. Ideology and nationalism are real things. World leaders do not always act in "rational" ways, nor are they always playing 4D chess.

For China, they hold up all of these technical accomplishments and quality of life improvements they have made under their one party system. But now over here is Taiwan that never bought in and is doing even better! It undercuts all of their messaging.

If the communist party could wave a magic wand, they would take Taiwan and not just extract wealth, but also pump out a lot of propaganda that says Taiwan is doing even better under party rule and Western-style democracy was holding it back.

That statement just made me LOL. In what dimension other than foreign investment do you see Taiwan as more successful than China? In 2025, it's pretty clear that China has self sovereignty, is the world's factory, leads in BRICS, and isn't subject to the US empire.

Yes, China has lifted millions of people out of poverty over the last few decades, but the median person in China is still vastly worse off than the median person in Taiwan.

South Korea is just much more successful at putting bread (and many other foods) on the tables of its citizens. It is also more advanced technologically, and, curiously, has a working democratic government instead of a hereditary single-party rule.

Yes, absolutely.

Never bought in to one party rule huh? It seems like people forgot about the 38 years of martial law:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law_in_Taiwan

But the fact that the martial law came to an end largely democratically is good evidence that both democratic reform was easier outside of the CCCP, and that the Taiwanese single party rule was probably not as totalitarian as some people claim.

i think it's more accurate to give credit where earned: one thing the CCP did smart was _win_ foreign business (US Apple and Dell etc) by building the rentable factory system with deep dependable supply chains directly adjacent. That was uniquely able , globally, to compete and win business.

The US didn't seemingly even think to do that, perhaps distracted by the Cold War?

This is what happens when you structure your entire economy around exports: artificially weak currency, capital controls, artificially low wages, etc.

If everyone in the US saved 30-50%+ it would not go well for our consumer market either.

That's completely deranged. The CCP has intended to take Taiwan from day one. Before they even managed to drive the ROC out of mainland China they intended to take all of China, including Taiwan, and their failure to take Taiwan has never been something they were satisfied with.

Manufacturing has nothing to do with it. America only has anything to do with it insofar as they have helped Taiwan resist the CCP so far.

The ravenous wild beast is pounding at your door. The only thing standing before you and certain death is your front door that needs urgent repairs. You call your landlord begging for help but they say it's not their problem.

The beast smashes through the door and eats you up.

Some would agree that the landlord is to blame because of inaction. Some would argue instead that the landlord is not responsible for your problem. You should have not provoked the beast. Or fixed the door yourself. Or paid more rent etc.

This framing only works of the wild beast has no agency at all. It's by definition wild and we all know what it will do and it can't help itself but being a man eating wild beast. It has no moral obligation to not be a man eating beast.

But by applying this framing to Russia and CCP you're dehumanizing them. You're assuming that they are so evil they cannot possibly have any moral obligations and so the burden falls on third parties (or worse, you, their victim!) if they attack you!

(Not saying that the US policy is decent here, or anywhere else, under the current administration.)

One piece of history is that after Sun Yat-Sen died, his successor Chang Kai Shek purged the Kuomingtang of any socialist, community, and otherwise left-leaning members of their assembly. When some members escaped the purge, this sowed the seeds of the CCP that came to fruit after fighting off the Japanese during WWII.

When the Kuomingtang retreated to Taiwan, it was not run as a republic or a democratic society. Martial law ended in 1987 and a second political party did not appear until it was illegally formed in 1986. The Kuomingtang and its coalition continues to identify with China -- the civilization -- whereas the DDP-lead coalition is done with that and wants their own national identity of Taiwain.

I mean, for a decade or so, try to re-unify, sure. But 75 years later, with slavery abolished and a completely different governmental system? I'd like to think most Americans would have accepted the New Normal by that point. If anything this tells me how irrational Chinese and Russian attitudes are.

The CCP primarily wants to gain power. Political, economic, and social. The levels of ambition probably vary by individuals inside the party, but generally involves a uniform level of control across all regions of China (including Taiwan from their point of view), and enough global power to give them a free hand in East Asia.

Chinese nationals may put more emphasis on increasing prosperity. Taiwan nationals may put more emphasis on strict control and global power. Individual reactions largely vary. Out of both groups, limitations on personal liberties cause the harshest criticism of CCP, with the one child policy almost universally seen unfavorably.

History is full of kings who started terrible wars and got their countries screwed in the process. You can't apply game theory this kind of people.

You are being economically rational. Not all human decisions are done through that lens.

"Thucydides found that people go to war out of 'honor, fear, and interest.'” — Donald Kagan, On the Origins of War and the Preservation of Peace

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Kagan

* https://acoup.blog/2019/12/05/collections-a-trip-through-thu...

A better argument would be that when China has "good enough" chips then they don't care about chip production in Taiwan. They will only care about sea access. So if Taiwan ends up as completely destroyed rock, then that is ok for China. They will see it as a much better result than other parts of China breaking away and becoming independent.

This is not why the CCP cares about Taiwan.

And they’ve cared quite a lot since before there were semiconductors.

Hong Kong was a threat because it showed Chinese people directly that economic growth was possible without the CCP.

Doesn't make his point less valid, in fact it makes it probably more valid. When other people are acting irrationally you might as well do so too since you can't predict what other people will do in response.

I don't think these options are exclusive; more than one party can act irrationally at the same time.

Taiwan is ridiculously favourable terrain for the defenders; if they fight back, there can't be quick victory, and the US will be able to play merry hell with China's naval logistics from day 1 (obviously with escalating levels of firepower available over time as more resources move in-theatre).

China could secure a more reliable victory by expending most of it's ballistic missile inventory to incapacitate the US bases in Guam and Okinawa, but that would inexorably trigger WWIII.

Not true. Just sneakily cut the submarine cables i.e. Internet before the "offical attack".

Most of the comments talk about a blockade, but no need. I doubt a lot of things will function without Internet. There were discussions of Satellite but not confirmed.

Taiwan doesn't have a huge data center capacity. A lot of services are in Hong Kong, Tokyo, Singapore, etc...

Of the big clouds e.g. AWS is only opening a data center later this year.

It's also not so simple. Even local servers / services might have all sorts of "needs" to phone "home" elsewhere e.g. for analytics. A lot of software might not have been tested and will crash. Even the big clouds might not work in isolation.

Then there's also things like patches, updates, firmwares etc. A lot of things like kubernetes clusters may be set to auto update and crash. If you need a docker image the local CDN didn't cache then it is gone.

Have you ever worked on a military contract? Or even just a regular government contract? It's a whole other type of sales, contracting, and fulfillment process.

Not even remotely true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_bases_in_the_Phi...

You'd be surprised. I'm not saying that all of them (or even most of them) will accept the payment, but there have been multiple cases of espionage committed by Taiwanese military personnel for extremely trifling amounts of monetary reward from the Chinese. Here's just one example: https://www.worldjournal.com/wj/story/121222/8572208

Excerpt:

"檢警調查，李慧馨陳姓小弟在台北市中山區放款接觸軍人，2023年6月李女以新北市蘆洲區瑞磘宮主身分及宗教交流名義至澳門，再到大陸接觸國安情資人員，返台以金錢引誘缺錢軍人。

李女等人要求軍人交出軍人身分證審核後，穿制服拿五星旗拍攝宣告投降影片，呼口號「中國人不打中國人，我反對戰爭」，用Telegram傳送交付影片「閱後即焚」，偷公務文書，交付航線圖、演習時間等多項軍機，收賄依資料機密程度計價，吸收同袍可提高報酬。

張、林、劉、吳、彭、李姚姓及兩名陳姓現、退役軍人涉案，涵蓋陸軍、海軍、憲兵軍官、士官、士兵，最高階為中尉，僅劉獲利15萬元台幣(約4500美元)，其他人尚未拿到犯罪所得。"

Translation:

"According to the investigation by the police and prosecutors, Li Huixin's younger associate, surnamed Chen, was involved in lending money to military personnel in the Zhongshan District of Taipei City. In June 2023, Li traveled to Macau under the pretense of religious exchange and as the head of Ruixian Temple in Luzhou District, New Taipei City. From there, she went to mainland China and made contact with national security intelligence personnel. Upon returning to Taiwan, she used money to lure financially struggling military personnel.

Li and her associates required military personnel to submit their military identification cards for verification. Afterward, they were asked to wear uniforms and film surrender videos while holding the Chinese five-star flag, chanting slogans such as "Chinese people do not fight Chinese people, I oppose war." These videos were then transmitted via Telegram with a self-destruct feature. The group also stole official documents and provided information such as flight paths and military exercise schedules. Bribes were paid based on the confidentiality level of the data, and recruiting fellow soldiers could increase rewards.

The case involves active and retired military personnel with the surnames Zhang, Lin, Liu, Wu, Peng, Li, Yao, and two individuals surnamed Chen. The suspects come from various military branches, including the Army, Navy, and Military Police, spanning officers, non-commissioned officers, and enlisted soldiers. The highest-ranking officer involved was a lieutenant. Among them, only Liu received illicit gains amounting to NT$150,000 (approximately USD 4,500), while the others had not yet received any criminal proceeds."

Finding someone who meets Criteria X is a long way from finding either a Majority or even just enough of a minority to make a difference.

When people believe their action will not make a difference, they pay less heed to the consequences of their actions. People will take money to do things if they don't think it will change much.

There are probably plenty of gun runners who sell guns to rebels that would should they succeed in their rebellion it would be detrimental to the gun-running business. Nevertheless they would happily sell them guns to them while they think the rebellion is doomed.

It's not always that simple though. Significant strategic decisions can involve projecting ineffectiveness to obtain the support of those who do not want you to be effective. Because of this, people have committed betrayals that have turned out to be far more significant than they imagined. I suspect this happens more often in fiction than real life, but fiction more frequently focuses on the significant. Real life produces the significant by having millions with the one in a million chance of being significant.

The PRC already buys the loyalty of who they can in Taiwan, but Taiwan nevertheless remains resolute.

Though with an AI race going on and Musk practically living in the White House, I can't imagine the US would let China have Taiwan without a fight right now.

Also, forcing TSMC to build a number of modern fabs in the US is sort of a warning to China to stay away AT LEAST until those fabs are done. If China attacks right now,I think we would see the full might of the US forces coming to their defense.

AI right now has the same role as nukes had during the cold war. Nobody really knows how quickly it will develop, and many scenarios would allow those who get it first to take out all enemy nukes without much risk of receiving a retaliatory strike.

For instance, AI may make it possible to build a virtually perfect missile defense against ICBMS, it may may allow perfect tracking of subs and other submarine threats, it may power drone swarms capabable of disabling any integrated air defense network, and even to destroy all enemy missile siles and nuclear subs whil minimizing loss of life.

The US is not going to let China get there first, if they can stop it.

Massed ICBM defense is a matter of sheer volume - with the current GMD system the US can throw enough exoatmospheric kill vehicles (and THAAD to handle the leftovers) to counter a handful of re-entry vehicles from a smaller nuclear power like North Korea or Iran. Not hundreds (vs China) or thousands (vs Russia) that you would see in a peer-level nuclear exchange where everyone has multi-megaton MIRVs, decoys, and SLBMs with much shorter flight times.

Some fantasy future AI with the right sensors may perfectly track all of that sub-orbital mayhem. Without an enormous fleet of thousands of kill vehicles to actually defend against that threat, and the logistics to keep that fleet operational, it can do nothing about it. Building and supporting that sort of strategic defense is obscenely expensive, and as such it remains a Reagan-era fever dream.

He's very much in favour of the CCP.

Elon Musk suggests making Taiwan a ‘special administrative zone’ similar to Hong Kong (2022): https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/oct/08/elon-musk...

Tesla commits to promoting 'core socialist values' in pledge with Chinese auto companies (2023): https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/tesla-commits-promoti...

Tesla’s path in China clears as Musk courts both Trump and Xi (2024): https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/nov/22/elon-musk...

He and his mother are also wildly popular in China, and we all know how susceptible he is to flattery:

The rise and rise of Maye Musk: China’s love affair with Elon Musk’s mother (2024): https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/dec/25/the-rise-...

Not quite. He favours isolationism. It's just that Israel is an exception because many Americans (especially religious right wingers) view it akin to a 51st US state.

What is your response to this video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lD_KEFpuIro

Transcript here: https://singjupost.com/transcript-jeffrey-sachs-on-the-geopo...

>What was Putin’s intention in the war? I can tell you what his intention was. It was to force Zelensky to negotiate neutrality. And that happened within seven days of the start of the invasion. You should understand this, not the propaganda that’s written about this.

>Oh, that they failed and he was going to take over Ukraine. Come on, ladies and gentlemen. Understand something basic. The idea was to keep NATO. And what is NATO?

>It’s the United States off of Russia’s border. No more, no less. I should add one very important point. Why are they so interested? First, because if China or Russia decided to have a military base on the Rio Grande or in the Canadian border, not only would the United States freak out, we’d have war within about ten minutes.

>Sachs has suggested that the U.S. was responsible for the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipeline. In February 2023, he was invited by the Russian government to address the United Nations Security Council about the topic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Sachs#War_in_Ukraine

On day 7, the three-day military excursion to Kyiv had stalled, the Russian army was scrambling to establish supply routes and figure out logistics for a war that should have been over, and Putin was trying to convert a stalemate into something he could call a success. Nobody at the time would have claimed that his behavior on day 7 was reflective of his plans on day 1, when days 3-7 were clearly not going his way.

That you really can't know, and

>That's like beating someone up to get them to like you.

Is a very flawed analogy.

Or maybe Russia see eastern and central Europe as their sphere of influence, which they lost. And now they're using any excuse to try to re-establish that.

What kind of NATO danger did they expect from Georgia?

Russia had zero reason to see de-militarised Europe as a threat.

That's certainly true now, even if it wasn't true before. So why would Putin act in a way that was absolutely guaranteed -- win, lose or draw -- to fortify and entrench NATO's presence on Russia's borders?

His NATO excuse never made any sense. Don't invade anybody, and you have nothing to fear from NATO.

Umm, no. Bullshit. That's my response. It's the 3rd time in a decade Putin pulled this off. Let's not pretend this is anything about NATO obligations. He wants to take back land he feels was always his (aka the most common reason for war)

Apple, Microsoft, LVMH, Volkswagon, Ferrari, etc don't have that.

Donald Trump is also deep in debt to Chinese banks.

China's arsenal of standoff weapons is orders of magnitude more potent than it was during the last Taiwan Straits Crisis.

That may be more than worth it if they succeed.

Taiwan is not like Ukraine. As long as TSMC has monopoly on the latest AI chips, it's at least as important as access to oil.

For the PRCs invasion of Taiwan to work with minimal risk of excessive losses, they need to do it very quickly so that it's a fait accompli, minimizing the chance of any American response at all.

For China it’s not about the chips. It’s about getting rid of the humiliation that is having a small island, that was originally part of China, not be a part of China.

If anything, China's rising wealth and living standard is a threat to the United States' sense of superiority. I don't see the US saying "Screw it, let's try totalitarianism" if it wasn't falling behind.

Sure, you can write all sorts of alt-history fanfiction about how great it would be if 2014 didn't happen, but that's just one of many possible futures.

USA will not have a hostile cuba, just as Russia won’t have a hostile Ukraine, and China won’t have a hostile Taiwan on its doorstep.

USA will, from all signs, not only continue to have a hostile Cuba, but also create a hostile Mexico.

And that's even before considering the internal hostility to the regime that the deliberately-engineered major economic collapse--that is already happening despite numerous policies that will deepen it still being in the pipeline and not yet in place--will create.

The US withdrawing from international engagement, trashing alliances, and trashing its own economy may enable competing powers more space to dominate their own regions, but it doesn't do anything to strengthen the US's regional position, it radically weakens it.

Regardless of which democracy index (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_indices) you consult, they all disagree with that statement.

Because China is a democracy and Brunei is not a democracy.

I think you confuse being listed on those indices with being a democracy.

On V-dem China takes place 177 of 179, the Bertelsmann index categorized China as "hard-line autocracy" and EDI categorizes it as "authoritarian"

This definition is nowhere to be found. I assume it's your interpretation, which, as already said, is flawed.

For example Saudi Arabia is listed on all of those indices even though its an absolute monarchy and the poster child for an autocracy.

The EDI explicitly does not try to asses whether a country is democratic or not, but just allows relative comparisons. It also doesn't include smaller countries but doesn't have as clear of a cutoff.

If you are going to use inclusion on one or more of these lists as an argument, you'll have actually cite where those lists use status as a democracy as a criteria for inclusion and how that is assessed.

In China, you can vote for The Party, or, for The Party. Much like how in the USA, you can vote for the red wing of the Centralized Corporate Power Party, or the blue wing of the Centralized Corporate Power Party.

Much like how in China, you have the freedom to stand in Tienanmen Square and shout "Down with the USA, long live Chairman Mao, long live The Party" much like you can do so in Times Square or in front of 1600 Penn or in downtown LA.

In the sense that they're on the V-Dem index, they have election laws, they have voter rolls, they have voter turnout, etc. Yes they have one party, so you don't directly vote for the President, but neither do Americans.

Yes, the KMT dictatorship era was awful. You might be surprised to know that in Taiwan there are national holidays commemorating those persecuted by the KMT. The reason The ROC (Taiwan) is more aptly comparable to the Union when making an analogy to alternative American history is because it was the original, legitimate government of China and the PRC were the rebels, just like the USA and Confederacy.

You get to vote sometimes but there's only one party...

It's autocracy with democratic characteristics.

I agree your criticisms of democracy in the US and Taiwan have some validity but in terms of deciding whether China might be a democracy or not they seem like whataboutism.

by that definition, the united states wouldn't even be called a democracy