POLL - Likelihood of Taiwan Invasion by China before 2030

[Spekulatius]

Worth checking out if interested in the topic:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-15/what-would-a-chinese-invasion-of-taiwan-do-to-the-global-economy?srnd=oddlots

[Saluki]

1 hour ago, Spekulatius said:

Worth checking out if interested in the topic:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-15/what-would-a-chinese-invasion-of-taiwan-do-to-the-global-economy?srnd=oddlots

 

The odds of an invasion contemplate a binary outcome, but there are other scenarios to consider also.  What if they invade some of the 100+ islands but not the main island:

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

 

Argentina took a gamble that the UK wouldn't fight for the Falklands/Malvinas. They were wrong.  But if China started taking some of the smaller islands, especially the ones that aren't inhabited or sparsely populated, would Taiwan fight for it? What if they kept doing it? Russia took a gamble that nothing would happen when they sent troops into Ukraine and annexed Crimea and occupied Donbas.  It worked then they tried again and started a war. 

 

What if the new Chinese navy decides to blockade Taiwan? The US did this to Cuba during the missile crisis.  They could destroy the Taiwanese economy without firing a shot. Most of Africa, Latin America, and even Australia have more economic ties to China now than the US. That wasn't the case 20 years ago. Would they support sanctions/shooting war with China?  

[cubsfan]

^^^ Don't forget Europe. Europe has huge economic ties to China, so they have a large stake in this.

[ValueArb]

6 hours ago, economonoc said:

What about Tibet?

 

Tibet has been part of China or has ruled China for roughly as much as its been an independent nation over the last 1,500 years. So I was counting it as part of insular China. But even if you disagree, it is not a major exception to my thesis that China basically has had little interest in expansionism for the last few hundred years.

 

Compare China to Russia over the last 150-200 years. Russia has been constantly trying to expand its borders (wars with Japan, Germany, Finland, Poland, Ukraine, Turkey, etc) while China has rarely done so. 

[elliott]

Its difficult to know what the end goal of the Chinese really is for Taiwan.

The rhetoric could be like the constant harassing they practice - is it aimed to the Taiwanese politicians, or to American politicians?

 

I tend to think that China prefers to let fruits fall on their own, but I am not sure time plays on their favour here.

Maybe they just think that there will be a point in time when Taiwan will prefer to look up to them rather than to the US?

 

 

 

[Spekulatius]

7 minutes ago, elliott said:

Its difficult to know what the end goal of the Chinese really is for Taiwan.

The rhetoric could be like the constant harassing they practice - is it aimed to the Taiwanese politicians, or to American politicians?

 

I tend to think that China prefers to let fruits fall on their own, but I am not sure time plays on their favour here.

Maybe they just think that there will be a point in time when Taiwan will prefer to look up to them rather than to the US?

 

 

 

if you listen to the Oddball podcast - only 5% of the Taiwanese are pro unification and that number has been dropping. the longer the countries ( I would call them separate countries at that point) stay apart, the less likely a peaceful unification becomes. Xi going Big brother Mao 2.0 does not help.

[cubsfan]

The election was a snub to China's Xi, whose administration made it clear that William Lai election would be a separatist move. The younger generation wants nothing to do with reunification.

 

https://thefederalist.com/2024/01/09/china-meddles-in-taiwans-presidential-election-with-false-framing-about-peace-and-war/

 

 

[zippy1]

If you plot the Shanghai stock index, the ShenZhen Stock index, the HengSeng stock index against Taiwan stock index over the past 20 years,  Taiwan stock index outperformed all these three.  If you plot the chart for the last 8 years under current Taiwanese administration, the gap is even bigger.
Taiwanese enjoy higher GDP per capita.  The income distribution in Taiwan is more equal than that in China. 
With a Taiwanese passport, a Taiwanese can visit more countries without first applying for a visa than with a Chinese passport. 
Why would Taiwanese want to be a part of China? 

Not only Taiwanese get to complain about their government, they can throw out their government if the government does not perform.  If they live under the rule of CCP, they won't have this option.

Incidentally, There is very little reporting about the Taiwanese election in China this year. Probably CCP is worried about its own legitimacy in the eyes of ordinary Chinese more than anything. 

[james22]

 

[james22]

A proud tradition.

 

Corruption seems to have played a major role; many Chinese shells appear to have been filled with cement or porcelain, or were the wrong caliber and could not be fired.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Yalu_River_(1894)

[cubsfan]

8 minutes ago, james22 said:

 

 

I've seen all these headlines about the purge, but no detail. Thanks.

[Spekulatius]

24 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

 

I've seen all these headlines about the purge, but no detail. Thanks.

Purges are done quietly. People disappear. New people take their job. Just because corruption exists, I would not assume that the Chinese armed forces are a paper tiger. it is very clear that they substantially have increased their capabilities and continue to do so. Unlike Russia, they have a strong industrial backbone which is necessary for a defense industry.

[gfp]

My impression was that "corruption" was just the cover story for removing people who might be critical of Xi from important government bodies.  But what do I know.

[cubsfan]

1 hour ago, Spekulatius said:

Purges are done quietly. People disappear. New people take their job. Just because corruption exists, I would not assume that the Chinese armed forces are a paper tiger. it is very clear that they substantially have increased their capabilities and continue to do so. Unlike Russia, they have a strong industrial backbone which is necessary for a defense industry.

 Yup. Lots of manpower to send into any meat grinder they please.

[elliott]

yes, time does not play to Chinas favour at all, least of all with their attitude.

 

still, for those that think that Taiwan is becoming more actively "independentist" (whatever that means considering the current state of affairs) there are some things to consider:

1- the independentist candidate won with 40% of the votes (or seats, cant remember), that still means 60% are non independentists

2- the party of the independentist candidate had also won the previous two elections, and the results of thist last one are the worst of the three

 

I wouldnt surprised if many in Taiwan were just happy with things the way they are, and so long as this is the case they care less about this matter than about employment, house affordability, and where will they spend their next summer holidays

 

 

 

[zippy1]

2 hours ago, elliott said:

yes, time does not play to Chinas favour at all, least of all with their attitude.

 

still, for those that think that Taiwan is becoming more actively "independentist" (whatever that means considering the current state of affairs) there are some things to consider:

1- the independentist candidate won with 40% of the votes (or seats, cant remember), that still means 60% are non independentists

2- the party of the independentist candidate had also won the previous two elections, and the results of thist last one are the worst of the three

 

I wouldnt surprised if many in Taiwan were just happy with things the way they are, and so long as this is the case they care less about this matter than about employment, house affordability, and where will they spend their next summer holidays

 

 

 

Actually, in Taiwan, the spectrum of the voters is not between "pro-independence" and "pro-reunion."  It is more nuanced as there are many different  "answers"in between these two extremes.  The president-elect has stressed that he is for preserving the "status quo." (which happens to be "de factor independence.")  All three candidates chose to be in the "center" of these two extremes.

There is a long running survey by a leading Taiwanese University (Chen-Chi University) about this question.  I posted the link below.  You can see it yourself. The answers range from:
1) independence as soon as possible,  (4.5%)
2) maintain status quo move toward independence, (21.4%)
3) maintain status quo indefinitely, (32.1%)
4) maintain status quo decide at a later date, (28.6%)
5) maintain status quo move toward unification, (5.8%)
6) unification as soon as possible (1.6%) 
7) undecided (6%)    
The numbers in the bracket above were from June 2023. The candidates have positioned themselves for the election accordingly.  DPP was looking for votes from categories 1) to 4). KMT and TPP were looking for votes from categories 3)-6).  There are all get votes from the middle categories. 
As you can see, extreme positions are not popular in Taiwan. 
https://esc.nccu.edu.tw/PageDoc/Detail?fid=7801&id=6963

Edited January 17 by zippy1

[shhughes1116]

On 1/17/2024 at 9:55 AM, Spekulatius said:

Purges are done quietly. People disappear. New people take their job. Just because corruption exists, I would not assume that the Chinese armed forces are a paper tiger. it is very clear that they substantially have increased their capabilities and continue to do so. Unlike Russia, they have a strong industrial backbone which is necessary for a defense industry.

People underestimate the experience and logistics necessary to execute military operations.  Maybe they aren’t a paper tiger, but there is little evidence to suggest that they are capable of executing cross-service military operations outside of the Chinese mainland over a sustained period of time, or even a short period of time.
 

Sure, they have a large military-industrial complex that can produce equipment.  And sure, they have millions of military-aged men that Xi would be willing to march right into a meat grinder.  
 

But no one is invading China - they aren’t going to bring their resources to bear on a little tiny bridgehead on the coast of China.  If they want to fight (and assuming no war with India), they have to take the fight to another land mass, across a significant body of water.  
 

I remain unconvinced that the Chinese can pull this off.  I think their military capability is overestimated.  And this is why I do not believe China will invade Taiwan. 

[james22]

1 hour ago, shhughes1116 said:

I remain unconvinced that the Chinese can pull this off.  I think their military capability is overestimated.  And this is why I do not believe China will invade Taiwan. 

 

Sure, but all that matters is what Xi, surrounded by yes-men, believes.

 

Luckily, he's recent reasons to question his military's capability.

[ValueArb]

On 1/16/2024 at 8:43 AM, Saluki said:

 

The odds of an invasion contemplate a binary outcome, but there are other scenarios to consider also.  What if they invade some of the 100+ islands but not the main island:

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

 

Argentina took a gamble that the UK wouldn't fight for the Falklands/Malvinas. They were wrong.  But if China started taking some of the smaller islands, especially the ones that aren't inhabited or sparsely populated, would Taiwan fight for it? What if they kept doing it? Russia took a gamble that nothing would happen when they sent troops into Ukraine and annexed Crimea and occupied Donbas.  It worked then they tried again and started a war. 

 

What if the new Chinese navy decides to blockade Taiwan? The US did this to Cuba during the missile crisis.  They could destroy the Taiwanese economy without firing a shot. Most of Africa, Latin America, and even Australia have more economic ties to China now than the US. That wasn't the case 20 years ago. Would they support sanctions/shooting war with China?  

 

I think these scenarios are more likely than outright invasion, especially because they require far fewer resources (and casualties). But the problem is the South China Sea, China's most important economic resource.

 

If they blockade Taiwan, they have to be confident that none of its allies, three of the most powerful militaries in the world, won't attempt to lift the blockade, and they'll almost certainly be wrong. Its very unlikely that Japan or South Korea is going to countenance Chinese aggression even if the US does. But lets assume they all do. The blockade will immediately cut off most of China's own imports and exports. The CCP can't survive that for long. 

 

Taking individual islands is far more likely, but still risks blowback that blocks or greatly reduces trade. If Taiwan contests these takeovers, there will be air-strikes, naval battles, missiles flying and insurance for the commercial carriers in the South China Sea goes infinite. China does have an obsession with building or taking islands in the South China sea, but my belief is so far entirely defensive in nature. They want to be able to defend the sea because they know how terrible the consequences are if an adversary controls it and blockades them.

[Spekulatius]

China needs to be even more afraid to get blocked themselves if they do me a play on Taiwan. I think it’s a likely counter play if Taiwan gets attacked and blockaded and China has no good way to counter this and it would absolutely wreck their economy.

 

Zeigen is right on one thing, China geographic location is absolutely terrible from the POV to make war against the allied Japan, US, Australia. You can literally cut China off from most of their trade flow by placing a carrier combat unit in the Singapore / Malacca straight and no Chinese ship is going to make it from the Indian Ocean to China any more.

Edited January 20 by Spekulatius

[james22]

Reminds me of this:

 

In the military literature he had become familiar with a subject called The Fragile City scenario, a term used to describe the vulnerability of mega-metropolises in the Third World. The theory was they were subject to the special danger of catastrophic collapse. Nothing like these cities had ever been been seen in human history; they were creatures, not of local conditions, but of globalization. Paid for by the entire output of their countries, these gigantic urban sprawls held together by imported food, imported cars, imported fuel and imported telecommunications.

 

In 1800, only 3% of the world's population lived in cities, a that figure rose to 47% by the end of the 20th  century. In 1950, there were only 83 cities with populations in excess of 1 million; by 2007, this number had risen to 468.  In the first decades of the 21st century, there were more than 30 cities with a population greater than ten million, each larger than the largest city in the world at the end of the World War 2.

 

All but a handful of these monster mega-cities were in the Third World.  The biggest were in Asia of a size that in human terms boggled the mind. Tokyo was now the largest concentration of humans ever seen, with 35 million people, packed 4,900 to the square mile.  The mega cities on the China coast, Guangzhou with 32 million and Shanghai with 29 million, were next biggest with densities of 5,000 and 10,000 people per square mile. By comparison New York with 24 million people at 1,876 people per square mile was pastoral.

 

But Manila’s 22 million people were crowded in at an incredibly 48,000 per square mile -- 25 times the density of New York was in a league by itself. Just what happened when a human hive with 48,000 to the square mile suddenly lost power and fuel for weeks was a matter for conjecture. No one really knew because it had never happened before. But the Fragile City scenario suggested the power loss would literally have the effect of an atomic bomb or perhaps more accurately, one of apocalyptic zombie infections seen only in movies.

 

Great masses of people would suddenly be deprived of every necessity of life. The power plants that lighted them, the trucks that fed them, the cell towers that held together the links in an incalculable chain would suddenly stop working.  The city would have no means of sustenance, no power to organize a recovery. Without power food would spoil, hospitals would could become airless infernos, communications would collapse, sewage and water supply would cease. High rise apartments predicated on uninterrupted air conditioning couldn’t even open the windows. Chaos would at most be 48 hours away.

 

If China ever destroyed the fuel storage of a mega-city Manila the result would not resemble the bombings of World War 2 cities, horrible as these had been. They would be something never before witnessed: a mountain of humanity collapsing of its own weight.

 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/10jMqhI2_N1RvopXlH4L-BeYu-rldDfCLHzxdXqgq8pQ/pub

[ValueArb]

2 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

China needs to be even more afraid to get blocked themselves if they do me a play on Taiwan. I think it’s a likely counter play if Taiwan gets attacked and blockaded and China has no good way to counter this and it would absolutely wreck their economy.

 

Zheihan is right on one thing, China geographic location is absolutely terrible from the POV to make war against the allied Japan, US, Australia. You can literally cut China off from most of their trade flow by placing a carrier combat unit in the Singapore / Malacca straight and no Chinese ship is going to make it from the Indian Ocean to China any more.

 

When you look at the situation from a Chinese perspective, even if a liberal democratic China existed they'd have to be concerned about this scenario. They'd be investing in their navy, claiming/building island outposts to ring the South China Sea, and would be eager to recombine with Taiwan (but would pursue it in a far more friendly manner). 

 

We need to stop assuming every Chinese move is a step towards waging war with us or Taiwan, and consider whether they are merely steps towards being able to better defend themselves if we wage war on them.

[ValueArb]

1 hour ago, james22 said:

Reminds me of this:

 

In the military literature he had become familiar with a subject called The Fragile City scenario, a term used to describe the vulnerability of mega-metropolises in the Third World. The theory was they were subject to the special danger of catastrophic collapse. Nothing like these cities had ever been been seen in human history; they were creatures, not of local conditions, but of globalization. Paid for by the entire output of their countries, these gigantic urban sprawls held together by imported food, imported cars, imported fuel and imported telecommunications.

 

In 1800, only 3% of the world's population lived in cities, a that figure rose to 47% by the end of the 20th  century. In 1950, there were only 83 cities with populations in excess of 1 million; by 2007, this number had risen to 468.  In the first decades of the 21st century, there were more than 30 cities with a population greater than ten million, each larger than the largest city in the world at the end of the World War 2.

 

All but a handful of these monster mega-cities were in the Third World.  The biggest were in Asia of a size that in human terms boggled the mind. Tokyo was now the largest concentration of humans ever seen, with 35 million people, packed 4,900 to the square mile.  The mega cities on the China coast, Guangzhou with 32 million and Shanghai with 29 million, were next biggest with densities of 5,000 and 10,000 people per square mile. By comparison New York with 24 million people at 1,876 people per square mile was pastoral.

 

But Manila’s 22 million people were crowded in at an incredibly 48,000 per square mile -- 25 times the density of New York was in a league by itself. Just what happened when a human hive with 48,000 to the square mile suddenly lost power and fuel for weeks was a matter for conjecture. No one really knew because it had never happened before. But the Fragile City scenario suggested the power loss would literally have the effect of an atomic bomb or perhaps more accurately, one of apocalyptic zombie infections seen only in movies.

 

Great masses of people would suddenly be deprived of every necessity of life. The power plants that lighted them, the trucks that fed them, the cell towers that held together the links in an incalculable chain would suddenly stop working.  The city would have no means of sustenance, no power to organize a recovery. Without power food would spoil, hospitals would could become airless infernos, communications would collapse, sewage and water supply would cease. High rise apartments predicated on uninterrupted air conditioning couldn’t even open the windows. Chaos would at most be 48 hours away.

 

If China ever destroyed the fuel storage of a mega-city Manila the result would not resemble the bombings of World War 2 cities, horrible as these had been. They would be something never before witnessed: a mountain of humanity collapsing of its own weight.

 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/10jMqhI2_N1RvopXlH4L-BeYu-rldDfCLHzxdXqgq8pQ/pub

 

This is an incredibly static analysis. People didn't starve in Kyiv despite a massive military attack that nearly surrounded the entire city and shut down air travel and made transport in and out of the city much harder and slower for months.  First, cities contain large numbers of warehouses full of stores of foods and supplies, nothing is "just in time" delivery. Those stores soften the initial blow, then fairly quickly new transport is arranged and fuel and supplies delivered, both from the efforts of government but also just standard market responses. 

 

Another example is 9/11, where subways and public transport in Manhattan was shut down for days (and air travel in the US for almost a week excepting return flights) but nobody starved and there was no chaos, no widespread panic or riots.

 

One more example is COVID where entire nations were shut down and transport became much more difficult. But people sheltered in their homes and fuel requirements plummeted. The idea that we are so dependent upon technology that any substantive failure would quickly lead to apocalyptic conditions is a common science fiction trope, but I'm at a loss to think of any compelling real world examples of it. Outside of direct military assault its apparently really hard to kill a large city population overnight. Hopefully compelling examples don't happen in our lifetimes.

[james22]

 

51 minutes ago, ValueArb said:

This is an incredibly static analysis.

 

Kyiv? Manhattan?? Manila is unlike either.

[ValueArb]

3 hours ago, james22 said:

 

 

Kyiv? Manhattan?? Manila is unlike either.

What’s the difference? You think Manila won’t react similarly?