Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis

A potato said:

Those 13 countries do not actually recognize Taiwan as independent. The recognize ROC as the seat holder of China in the UN.

Click to expand...

That's even CRAZIER THAN I THOUGHT. There's around 183 million Mainland Chinese (which more than quadruple Taiwan's population of 24 million) who travels outside of China all over the world and the vast overwhelming majority of them return willingly, enthusiastically, and lovingly to the motherland and somehow according to the morons who run those 13 countries, Taiwan or the Republic or China is the legitimate government of all of China? They're more stupid than I thought.

Bellum_Romanum said:

That's even CRAZIER THAN I THOUGHT. There's around 183 million Mainland Chinese (which more than quadruple Taiwan's population of 24 million) who travels outside of China all over the world and the vast overwhelming majority of them return willingly, enthusiastically, and lovingly to the motherland and somehow according to the morons who run those 13 countries, Taiwan or the Republic or China is the legitimate government of all of China? They're more stupid than I thought.

Click to expand...

It's not a case of stupidity, Taiwan bought every one of those 13 countries with aid packages and perhaps the occasional bribe. China has used the same methods to encourage several of them in the past to switch their support.

This article is from three years ago

In a statement, he said Taiwan “rejects and strongly condemns” Kiribati for disregarding the long-standing relationship and aid provided by Taiwan and accused Kiribati’s president Taneti Mamau of entertaining “highly unrealistic expectations regarding China” and requesting “massive financial assistance from Taiwan to purchase commercial airplanes”, which Taiwan did not feel was consistent with its aid policy.

Click to expand...

Taiwan had 17 supporters before the solomans and Kiribati switched sides. China has deeper pockets and Taiwan is slowly loosing it's supporters for the China UN seat
Interesting to see how far the Solomans have strayed from Taiwan in the space of 3 years

Bellum_Romanum said:

That's even CRAZIER THAN I THOUGHT. There's around 183 million Mainland Chinese (which more than quadruple Taiwan's population of 24 million) who travels outside of China all over the world and the vast overwhelming majority of them return willingly, enthusiastically, and lovingly to the motherland and somehow according to the morons who run those 13 countries, Taiwan or the Republic or China is the legitimate government of all of China? They're more stupid than I thought.

Click to expand...

It's a funny quirk in the ROC constitution - the constitution does not define the sovereign territory of ROC, however Chapter 1 Act 4 notes:

The territory of the Republic of China according to its existing national boundaries shall not be altered except by resolution of the National Assembly.

Click to expand...

Presumably because it's not defined in the constitution, to define it would also require the resolution of the National Assembly. So who makes up the National Assembly?

Chapter 3, Act 26:

The National Assembly shall be composed of the following delegates:
1. One delegate shall be elected from each hsien, municipality, or area of equivalent status. In case its population exceeds 500,000, one additional delegate shall be elected for each additional 500,000. Areas equivalent to hsien or municipalities shall be prescribed by law;
2. Delegates to represent Mongolia shall be elected on the basis of four for each league and one for each special banner;
3. The number of delegates to be elected from Tibet shall be prescribed by law;
4. The number of delegates to be elected by various racial groups in frontier regions shall be prescribed by law;
5. The number of delegates to be elected by Chinese citizens residing abroad shall be prescribed by law;
6. The number of delegates to be elected by occupational groups shall be prescribed by law; and
7. The number of delegates to be elected by women’s organizations shall be prescribed by law.

Click to expand...

Naturally since the constitution was written in 1947 the starting assumption was that ROC would have control over mainland China, hence the requirement for Mongolian and Tibetan representation in the Natural Assembly.

Partly because of this, the ROC National Assembly was until the "unification of the country". This power has passed onto Legislative Yuan. That said one could argue that without the (now impossible to form) National Assembly any changes to the constitution regarding territory of ROC is unconstitutional given lack of representation by nominal citizens of ROC (Tibet, Mongolia, rest of China etc) per the constitution.

jvodan said:

It's not a case of stupidity, Taiwan bought every one of those 13 countries with aid packages and perhaps the occasional bribe. China has used the same methods to encourage several of them in the past to switch their support.

Taiwan had 17 supporters before the solomans and Kiribati switched sides. China has deeper pockets and Taiwan is slowly loosing it's supporters for the China UN seat

Click to expand...

During Ma Ying Jeou's time, the two sides had a tacit "money diplomacy" ceasefire. Since then, the balance of power has shifted very much to the mainland's side, and these days it is up to the mainland whether to cause any more breakups for ROC. The only diehards would be the handful of Pacific island nations under US's thumb that are sovereign in name only.

Baihu:

Temstar said:

It's a funny quirk in the ROC constitution - the constitution does not define the sovereign territory of ROC, however Chapter 1 Act 4 notes:


Presumably because it's not defined in the constitution, to define it would also require the resolution of the National Assembly. So who makes up the National Assembly?

Chapter 3, Act 26:

Naturally since the constitution was written in 1947 the starting assumption was that ROC would have control over mainland China, hence the requirement for Mongolian and Tibetan representation in the Natural Assembly.

Partly because of this, the ROC National Assembly was

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

until the "unification of the country". This power has passed onto Legislative Yuan. That said one could argue that without the (now impossible to form) National Assembly any changes to the constitution regarding territory of ROC is unconstitutional given lack of representation by nominal citizens of ROC (Tibet, Mongolia, rest of China etc) per the constitution.

Click to expand...

So you are telling me after China reunifies with Taiwan, there is still a good legal basis for China to claim (Outer) Mongolia and the 11 dash line?

Temstar said:

It's a funny quirk in the ROC constitution - the constitution does not define the sovereign territory of ROC, however Chapter 1 Act 4 notes:


Presumably because it's not defined in the constitution, to define it would also require the resolution of the National Assembly. So who makes up the National Assembly?

Chapter 3, Act 26:

Naturally since the constitution was written in 1947 the starting assumption was that ROC would have control over mainland China, hence the requirement for Mongolian and Tibetan representation in the Natural Assembly.

Partly because of this, the ROC National Assembly was

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

until the "unification of the country". This power has passed onto Legislative Yuan. That said one could argue that without the (now impossible to form) National Assembly any changes to the constitution regarding territory of ROC is unconstitutional given lack of representation by nominal citizens of ROC (Tibet, Mongolia, rest of China etc) per the constitution.

Click to expand...

Taiwan separatism is unlikely to take the legislative route, because it's so difficult. It's much more likely that a future KMT president will be removed by colour revolution and the protest leaders will proclaim that they're liberating Taiwan from ROC occupation. So China needs to be careful if the KMT ever returns to power, it would be a more dangerous situation than today

As I see it the most likely options where the civil war can go hot again are:

1. US does the crimea option. American troops and navy surround Taiwan and try to enter, while local "authorities" rise up on the island itself and proclaim a (sham) referendum to become either an independent country under protection of Washington or a part of USA. This would only happen if US thinks China is too weak to stop them from just going in, which given the current power balance isn't likely unless China radically downsizes the PLA.

2. Local crazy ROC leader decides to start shooting at government forces or settlements, perhaps in response to a worsening situation for the rebels where a sizeable portion of them feel like there's no way out except fighting. In this situation, US would probably not be able to invade.

Number 2 is more likely due to a widening tech gap and a closing numbers gap for the PLA vs US military. Of course, the rise of more overtly national militarist regime in America could lead to a severe overestimation of their own capability and shouldn't be discounted either.

Biscuits said:

As I see it the most likely options where the civil war can go hot again are:

1. US does the crimea option. American troops and navy surround Taiwan and try to enter, while local "authorities" rise up on the island itself and proclaim a (sham) referendum to become either an independent country under protection of Washington or a part of USA. This would only happen if US thinks China is too weak to stop them from just going in, which given the current power balance isn't likely unless China radically downsizes the PLA.

2. Local crazy ROC leader decides to start shooting at government forces or settlements, perhaps in response to a worsening situation for the rebels where a sizeable portion of them feel like there's no way out except fighting. In this situation, US would probably not be able to invade.

Number 2 is more likely due to a widening tech gap and a closing numbers gap for the PLA vs US military. Of course, the rise of more overtly national militarist regime in America could lead to a severe overestimation of their own capability and shouldn't be discounted either.

Click to expand...

But that would require massive troops mobilization and possibly even a reintroduction of a draft since the assumptive force requirements needed to fight China at her own doorsteps is going to be more than what their best analysts (who simply spoon fed their political masters what they want to hear) guesstimates. Undervaluing the will to fight and massive moral for the PLA not to mention the military logistics, equipments, and personnel that's more than what the U.S. can bring to bear on a land that's too far away from there.

It's not even inconceivable that Russia can or will try to open another front if and when they see an opportune time to really weaken and beat the U.S. military forces if and when the U.S. military not only struggles, but are beaten with losses of troops unseen since WWII. The Europeans would be vulnerable since the majority of resources, manpower, ISR will be shifted almost entirely into the Taiwan Strait. A war that could change the world order isn't a moment for the Russians to be wasted. Especially if and when Japan participates on the Taiwan conflict not to mention that the Korean Peninsula could even be ignited if the war in Taiwan somehow goes badly for China. Who's to suggest that North Korean wouldn't be encouraged to attack the South Koreans in order for the U.S. forces be distracted and be forced to repivot some of it's forces that are going to be used in the Taiwan operations?

Here, am going to be venture into a great hypothetical that is going to be controversial: And if the argument that China wouldn't want to disrupt or upend the existing world order for whatever reasons, my respond to that is so what? The existing order needs to be changed and must be changed that has primarily been designed to benefit the western/colonial countries relative economic advantages and control of the world. At the end of the day, China will be sanctioned to death by the entire collective west and it's lackeys if it were to lose and lose big time. And what's the point of even winning the war in Taiwan if the existing rules based order remains the same, then China might as well not take all the risks with little advantage to show for it.

If power, prestige, and countless Chinese bloodshed are to be sacrificed then it requires that sacrifice to be equalled with an outcome that's worthy of their deaths.

Biscuits said:

As I see it the most likely options where the civil war can go hot again are:

1. US does the crimea option. American troops and navy surround Taiwan and try to enter, while local "authorities" rise up on the island itself and proclaim a (sham) referendum to become either an independent country under protection of Washington or a part of USA. This would only happen if US thinks China is too weak to stop them from just going in, which given the current power balance isn't likely unless China radically downsizes the PLA.

2. Local crazy ROC leader decides to start shooting at government forces or settlements, perhaps in response to a worsening situation for the rebels where a sizeable portion of them feel like there's no way out except fighting. In this situation, US would probably not be able to invade.

Number 2 is more likely due to a widening tech gap and a closing numbers gap for the PLA vs US military. Of course, the rise of more overtly national militarist regime in America could lead to a severe overestimation of their own capability and shouldn't be discounted either.

Click to expand...

The USA is never going to be able to put boots or any other assets on the ground in Taiwan in any meaning full way.
As long as the PLA has a rocket force the USA is limited to long range fire support.

Any attempt to arrive en force would be suicide.
Ships wouldn't get within 100kms of the coast and any air assets would arrive to freshly cratered runways.

I would assume that Taiwan is penetrated by Chinese agents to the point that any meaningful clandestine deployment would not go unreported.

Taiwan is lost, in reality the USA can only really threaten to make AR painful.
A key take away from the Ukraine conflict. The West will consume it's 'allies' to hurt it's opponents. Support from the US for Taiwan in any AR with hurt the Taiwanese as much if not more than it will hurt the PLA.

jvodan said:

The USA is never going to be able to put boots or any other assets on the ground in Taiwan in any meaning full way.
As long as the PLA has a rocket force the USA is limited to long range fire support.

Any attempt to arrive en force would be suicide.
Ships wouldn't get within 100kms of the coast and any air assets would arrive to freshly cratered runways.

I would assume that Taiwan is penetrated by Chinese agents to the point that any meaningful clandestine deployment would not go unreported.

Taiwan is lost, in reality the USA can only really threaten to make AR painful.
A key take away from the Ukraine conflict. The West will consume it's 'allies' to hurt it's opponents. Support from the US for Taiwan in any AR with hurt the Taiwanese as much if not more than it will hurt the PLA.

Click to expand...

I think a successful AR is a foregone conclusion probably since the last 5 years, the question remains is that how painful can the US make such a move. Currently the answer to that question is still extreme/crippling, to the point that it will not be attempted unless there's a drastic change in the status quo by Taiwan/US.

A 10% drop in GDP is thrown around here as something acceptable, but in reality will represent a unimaginable amount of human suffering for the second largest economy in the world.