Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What if Taiwan declare independent?

suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 1:39:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This idea just came to my mind, what if the current KMT government broke up with the PRC for some reason, and they decided to formally declare independence, do you think the US will respond militarily if the China did indeed use force to openly subjugate Taiwan at this current stage?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2014 10:31:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 2:34:07 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
No.

Well, your government certainly do have capability to respond, and from the look of it the Obama Administration could have been careless about his public opinion (he isn't going to make a return anyway). Global opinion may view it favourably (except Russia of curse, and possibly India) if China is the one who carry out the military action... but China is a far more complex opponent than Syria so I think it's quite interesting case on how Obama would weight the risk.
XLAV
Posts: 13,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2014 10:50:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/11/2014 10:31:10 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 9/10/2014 2:34:07 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
No.

Well, your government certainly do have capability to respond, and from the look of it the Obama Administration could have been careless about his public opinion (he isn't going to make a return anyway). Global opinion may view it favourably (except Russia of curse, and possibly India) if China is the one who carry out the military action... but China is a far more complex opponent than Syria so I think it's quite interesting case on how Obama would weight the risk.

Why will the US help Taiwan with its independence? The oil is in the Middle East.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2014 10:58:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/11/2014 10:50:37 AM, XLAV wrote:
At 9/11/2014 10:31:10 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 9/10/2014 2:34:07 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
No.

Well, your government certainly do have capability to respond, and from the look of it the Obama Administration could have been careless about his public opinion (he isn't going to make a return anyway). Global opinion may view it favourably (except Russia of curse, and possibly India) if China is the one who carry out the military action... but China is a far more complex opponent than Syria so I think it's quite interesting case on how Obama would weight the risk.

Why will the US help Taiwan with its independence? The oil is in the Middle East.

To drive drove off your creditor? I don't really know why your government would want a conflict with China but they sure present themselves in that gesture, may it economic reason, may be it political. American just have too many interest to protect this day.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2014 11:00:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/11/2014 10:50:37 AM, XLAV wrote:
At 9/11/2014 10:31:10 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 9/10/2014 2:34:07 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
No.

Well, your government certainly do have capability to respond, and from the look of it the Obama Administration could have been careless about his public opinion (he isn't going to make a return anyway). Global opinion may view it favourably (except Russia of curse, and possibly India) if China is the one who carry out the military action... but China is a far more complex opponent than Syria so I think it's quite interesting case on how Obama would weight the risk.

Why will the US help Taiwan with its independence? The oil is in the Middle East.

Oh, and I like Jeffrey by the way ;D
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2014 3:46:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 1:39:59 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
This idea just came to my mind, what if the current KMT government broke up with the PRC for some reason, and they decided to formally declare independence, do you think the US will respond militarily if the China did indeed use force to openly subjugate Taiwan at this current stage?

The US currently supports the "One China two Governments" policy, so if the KMT broke with China it would break with the US as well. It would essentially go rogue.

This is what Chen Suibien attempted to do...and he is now in jail. Tangentially, Roh Moohyun in South Korea also advocated a more independent stance for SK from both China and America, and he is now dead.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2014 3:47:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/15/2014 3:46:57 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

The US currently supports the "One country two systems" policy

corrected
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2014 11:11:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/15/2014 3:46:57 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/10/2014 1:39:59 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
This idea just came to my mind, what if the current KMT government broke up with the PRC for some reason, and they decided to formally declare independence, do you think the US will respond militarily if the China did indeed use force to openly subjugate Taiwan at this current stage?

The US currently supports the "One China two Governments" policy, so if the KMT broke with China it would break with the US as well. It would essentially go rogue.

This is what Chen Suibien attempted to do...and he is now in jail. Tangentially, Roh Moohyun in South Korea also advocated a more independent stance for SK from both China and America, and he is now dead.

? Sorry, I don't really see why this is related to my original question...

And from my understanding, it is the KMT who are currently advocate for the long term goal of Chinese unification, the pan green is the one opposing it.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2014 11:30:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/17/2014 11:11:40 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 10/15/2014 3:46:57 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/10/2014 1:39:59 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
This idea just came to my mind, what if the current KMT government broke up with the PRC for some reason, and they decided to formally declare independence, do you think the US will respond militarily if the China did indeed use force to openly subjugate Taiwan at this current stage?

The US currently supports the "One China two Governments" policy, so if the KMT broke with China it would break with the US as well. It would essentially go rogue.

This is what Chen Suibien attempted to do...and he is now in jail. Tangentially, Roh Moohyun in South Korea also advocated a more independent stance for SK from both China and America, and he is now dead.

? Sorry, I don't really see why this is related to my original question...

You asked what if the KMT broke with China? I answered it, the KMT would be breaking with the US as well and would go rogue. Would the US help a rogue country? Probably not.

And from my understanding, it is the KMT who are currently advocate for the long term goal of Chinese unification, the pan green is the one opposing it.

It is, but you are asking "what if" the KMT did a 180 and began advocating the opposite.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2014 11:34:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/17/2014 11:30:48 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/17/2014 11:11:40 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 10/15/2014 3:46:57 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/10/2014 1:39:59 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
This idea just came to my mind, what if the current KMT government broke up with the PRC for some reason, and they decided to formally declare independence, do you think the US will respond militarily if the China did indeed use force to openly subjugate Taiwan at this current stage?

The US currently supports the "One China two Governments" policy, so if the KMT broke with China it would break with the US as well. It would essentially go rogue.

This is what Chen Suibien attempted to do...and he is now in jail. Tangentially, Roh Moohyun in South Korea also advocated a more independent stance for SK from both China and America, and he is now dead.

? Sorry, I don't really see why this is related to my original question...

You asked what if the KMT broke with China? I answered it, the KMT would be breaking with the US as well and would go rogue. Would the US help a rogue country? Probably not.

And from my understanding, it is the KMT who are currently advocate for the long term goal of Chinese unification, the pan green is the one opposing it.

It is, but you are asking "what if" the KMT did a 180 and began advocating the opposite.

Ohhhh! sorry, my bad, I understand what you've said now.

But really? My understanding is that the US would prefer Taiwan to remain independent, and would have frame them to that cause had you have some forces to spare.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2014 2:09:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/17/2014 11:34:36 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 10/17/2014 11:30:48 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/17/2014 11:11:40 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 10/15/2014 3:46:57 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/10/2014 1:39:59 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
This idea just came to my mind, what if the current KMT government broke up with the PRC for some reason, and they decided to formally declare independence, do you think the US will respond militarily if the China did indeed use force to openly subjugate Taiwan at this current stage?

The US currently supports the "One China two Governments" policy, so if the KMT broke with China it would break with the US as well. It would essentially go rogue.

This is what Chen Suibien attempted to do...and he is now in jail. Tangentially, Roh Moohyun in South Korea also advocated a more independent stance for SK from both China and America, and he is now dead.

? Sorry, I don't really see why this is related to my original question...

You asked what if the KMT broke with China? I answered it, the KMT would be breaking with the US as well and would go rogue. Would the US help a rogue country? Probably not.

And from my understanding, it is the KMT who are currently advocate for the long term goal of Chinese unification, the pan green is the one opposing it.

It is, but you are asking "what if" the KMT did a 180 and began advocating the opposite.

Ohhhh! sorry, my bad, I understand what you've said now.

But really? My understanding is that the US would prefer Taiwan to remain independent, and would have frame them to that cause had you have some forces to spare.

I think you're generally correct but the political situation is much more complicated:

1) The US has enormous business ties to China that it does not want to upset, so it will take China's official line on Taiwan.
2) The KMT has always held itself to be the legitimate government of China, not just the government of Taiwan. In this sense it doesn't make any sense for China, the US, or the KMT to advocate for Taiwanese independence...the KMT is a Chinese organization, not a Taiwanese organization, and seeks to regain control of China. This is something the US would like to see as well, but given how unrealistic such a prospect is and has been since the end of the Chinese civil war, all parties make do with the current arrangement. Note that this has nothing to do with Taiwanese independence...merely that the KMT is a rogue organization according to the CCP, whereas the US would like to see the KMT ostensibly become the legitimate government of all of China, not just Taiwan.
3) I say "ostensibly", because it's not in US interests to see a unified China not mired in conflict. To this end the US more than likely will pursue policies that advocate for the dissolution of China as a polity, i.e. human rights violations, Tibetan legitimacy, etc...

Most of the professors I studied with in Berkeley did not think China could survive as a unified polity, and most Western media reporting on the country tends to try to paint China as a country on the brink of disaster. I think this reflects a realpolitik calculus where regardless of whether or not it can survive, it's simply not in US interests for it to do so.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2014 1:12:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/17/2014 2:09:45 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/17/2014 11:34:36 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 10/17/2014 11:30:48 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/17/2014 11:11:40 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 10/15/2014 3:46:57 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/10/2014 1:39:59 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
This idea just came to my mind, what if the current KMT government broke up with the PRC for some reason, and they decided to formally declare independence, do you think the US will respond militarily if the China did indeed use force to openly subjugate Taiwan at this current stage?

The US currently supports the "One China two Governments" policy, so if the KMT broke with China it would break with the US as well. It would essentially go rogue.

This is what Chen Suibien attempted to do...and he is now in jail. Tangentially, Roh Moohyun in South Korea also advocated a more independent stance for SK from both China and America, and he is now dead.

? Sorry, I don't really see why this is related to my original question...

You asked what if the KMT broke with China? I answered it, the KMT would be breaking with the US as well and would go rogue. Would the US help a rogue country? Probably not.

And from my understanding, it is the KMT who are currently advocate for the long term goal of Chinese unification, the pan green is the one opposing it.

It is, but you are asking "what if" the KMT did a 180 and began advocating the opposite.

Ohhhh! sorry, my bad, I understand what you've said now.

But really? My understanding is that the US would prefer Taiwan to remain independent, and would have frame them to that cause had you have some forces to spare.

I think you're generally correct but the political situation is much more complicated:

1) The US has enormous business ties to China that it does not want to upset, so it will take China's official line on Taiwan.

..... then, how can you explain the current development in South China sea? At least, for now, your government doesn't seem to shy about upsetting China even with this enormous business ties.

2) The KMT has always held itself to be the legitimate government of China, not just the government of Taiwan. In this sense it doesn't make any sense for China, the US, or the KMT to advocate for Taiwanese independence...the KMT is a Chinese organization, not a Taiwanese organization, and seeks to regain control of China. This is something the US would like to see as well, but given how unrealistic such a prospect is and has been since the end of the Chinese civil war, all parties make do with the current arrangement. Note that this has nothing to do with Taiwanese independence...merely that the KMT is a rogue organization according to the CCP, whereas the US would like to see the KMT ostensibly become the legitimate government of all of China, not just Taiwan.

I think both KMT and your government would have known by now that those goals are impossible. The CPC has growth far too powerful for the KMT to handle, and even if they manage to - it will be a unified China with Taiwan anyway. The KMT only become the US allied because they faced a greater threat from Mao's PLA, the same way that the CPC only become US allied because they faced threat from the historical USSR - if history repeated itself, I predicted that the moment that the KMT managed to rule a unified China, they will be exactly what the CPC are now (with western democracy overtone which make them even more difficult to deal with).

3) I say "ostensibly", because it's not in US interests to see a unified China not mired in conflict. To this end the US more than likely will pursue policies that advocate for the dissolution of China as a polity, i.e. human rights violations, Tibetan legitimacy, etc...

Most of the professors I studied with in Berkeley did not think China could survive as a unified polity, and most Western media reporting on the country tends to try to paint China as a country on the brink of disaster. I think this reflects a realpolitik calculus where regardless of whether or not it can survive, it's simply not in US interests for it to do so.

Agree, most people think of Chinese as a unified language and races - while there isn't even the word "Chinese" in China. They are so different culturally, linguistically, and in some case even racially as well. The Tibetan issues might not be too much of a issues for the Chinese though, Hong Kong probably are. If Hong Kong become independent, there's a real chance that the entire Souther Chinese will want to be independent too - and that's mean big, big issues.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2014 7:06:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/18/2014 1:12:24 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 10/17/2014 2:09:45 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/17/2014 11:34:36 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 10/17/2014 11:30:48 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/17/2014 11:11:40 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 10/15/2014 3:46:57 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/10/2014 1:39:59 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
This idea just came to my mind, what if the current KMT government broke up with the PRC for some reason, and they decided to formally declare independence, do you think the US will respond militarily if the China did indeed use force to openly subjugate Taiwan at this current stage?

The US currently supports the "One China two Governments" policy, so if the KMT broke with China it would break with the US as well. It would essentially go rogue.

This is what Chen Suibien attempted to do...and he is now in jail. Tangentially, Roh Moohyun in South Korea also advocated a more independent stance for SK from both China and America, and he is now dead.

? Sorry, I don't really see why this is related to my original question...

You asked what if the KMT broke with China? I answered it, the KMT would be breaking with the US as well and would go rogue. Would the US help a rogue country? Probably not.

And from my understanding, it is the KMT who are currently advocate for the long term goal of Chinese unification, the pan green is the one opposing it.

It is, but you are asking "what if" the KMT did a 180 and began advocating the opposite.

Ohhhh! sorry, my bad, I understand what you've said now.

But really? My understanding is that the US would prefer Taiwan to remain independent, and would have frame them to that cause had you have some forces to spare.

I think you're generally correct but the political situation is much more complicated:

1) The US has enormous business ties to China that it does not want to upset, so it will take China's official line on Taiwan.

..... then, how can you explain the current development in South China sea? At least, for now, your government doesn't seem to shy about upsetting China even with this enormous business ties.

And what have we done in response to China's provocations? Nothing. At best we've moved troops to Australia, and reopened bases we had in the Philippines. We have not forced China in any way to stop their economic development of the SCS.

2) The KMT has always held itself to be the legitimate government of China, not just the government of Taiwan. In this sense it doesn't make any sense for China, the US, or the KMT to advocate for Taiwanese independence...the KMT is a Chinese organization, not a Taiwanese organization, and seeks to regain control of China. This is something the US would like to see as well, but given how unrealistic such a prospect is and has been since the end of the Chinese civil war, all parties make do with the current arrangement. Note that this has nothing to do with Taiwanese independence...merely that the KMT is a rogue organization according to the CCP, whereas the US would like to see the KMT ostensibly become the legitimate government of all of China, not just Taiwan.

I think both KMT and your government would have known by now that those goals are impossible. The CPC has growth far too powerful for the KMT to handle, and even if they manage to - it will be a unified China with Taiwan anyway.

This goes to our other discussion in the thread about Korea...had the US decided to take the war into Chinese territory, then the CPC would have easily fallen and the KMT would have become the nominal head of state in China (although realistically speaking they would probably be at best a puppet government for the US). Again, this all assumes the lack of Soviet intervention.

After all, the US had a stationary aircraft carrier in Japan, a foothold on the mainland in Korea, and a vastly superior force.

The KMT only become the US allied because they faced a greater threat from Mao's PLA, the same way that the CPC only become US allied because they faced threat from the historical USSR - if history repeated itself, I predicted that the moment that the KMT managed to rule a unified China, they will be exactly what the CPC are now (with western democracy overtone which make them even more difficult to deal with).

I agree, which is why I stated that it's not in US interests to have a unified China. They will back the KMT to the extent that the KMT frustrates the CCP, but more than likely will find some way to make China more manageable during some sort of occupation, if such an opportunity presented itself.

3) I say "ostensibly", because it's not in US interests to see a unified China not mired in conflict. To this end the US more than likely will pursue policies that advocate for the dissolution of China as a polity, i.e. human rights violations, Tibetan legitimacy, etc...

Most of the professors I studied with in Berkeley did not think China could survive as a unified polity, and most Western media reporting on the country tends to try to paint China as a country on the brink of disaster. I think this reflects a realpolitik calculus where regardless of whether or not it can survive, it's simply not in US interests for it to do so.

Agree, most people think of Chinese as a unified language and races - while there isn't even the word "Chinese" in China. They are so different culturally, linguistically, and in some case even racially as well. The Tibetan issues might not be too much of a issues for the Chinese though, Hong Kong probably are. If Hong Kong become independent, there's a real chance that the entire Souther Chinese will want to be independent too - and that's mean big, big issues.

I don't see that as a political reality. Deng Xiao Ping was a southerner.

I think there may be a distinct possibility of a future federation evolving from what is currently China for the reasons you cite, but I don't see antagonistic elements evolving out of it.

I also think you're blowing Hong Kong out of proportion. I mean, students have been pepper sprayed all over the US by the police, but no one seriously thinks that these student groups are going to over throw the federal government.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2014 12:24:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
And what have we done in response to China's provocations? Nothing. At best we've moved troops to Australia, and reopened bases we had in the Philippines. We have not forced China in any way to stop their economic development of the SCS.

You did send in the whole fleet last time when China attempt to blockade Taiwan militarily, Obama might have respond differently but I will still say that military intervention is a distinct possibility.

2) The KMT has always held itself to be the legitimate government of China, not just the government of Taiwan. In this sense it doesn't make any sense for China, the US, or the KMT to advocate for Taiwanese independence...the KMT is a Chinese organization, not a Taiwanese organization, and seeks to regain control of China. This is something the US would like to see as well, but given how unrealistic such a prospect is and has been since the end of the Chinese civil war, all parties make do with the current arrangement. Note that this has nothing to do with Taiwanese independence...merely that the KMT is a rogue organization according to the CCP, whereas the US would like to see the KMT ostensibly become the legitimate government of all of China, not just Taiwan.

I think both KMT and your government would have known by now that those goals are impossible. The CPC has growth far too powerful for the KMT to handle, and even if they manage to - it will be a unified China with Taiwan anyway.

This goes to our other discussion in the thread about Korea...had the US decided to take the war into Chinese territory, then the CPC would have easily fallen and the KMT would have become the nominal head of state in China (although realistically speaking they would probably be at best a puppet government for the US). Again, this all assumes the lack of Soviet intervention.

After all, the US had a stationary aircraft carrier in Japan, a foothold on the mainland in Korea, and a vastly superior force.

? Not sure what time frame are you talking about? In 1950? or in the modern context?

In any case, the last time you fought the Chinese with your the foothold in Korea - You've failed to penetrate deep into China, you can't even capture the whole Korea peninsular. Stalemate is just a sugar coating, realistically speaking it can be even considered a minor defeat, we failed to defeat the Chinese, we failed to even completely recover all of the South Korea territories, we failed to neutralize North Korea as a threat. It might not be a disaster but certainly not the most satisfactory outcome.

The KMT only become the US allied because they faced a greater threat from Mao's PLA, the same way that the CPC only become US allied because they faced threat from the historical USSR - if history repeated itself, I predicted that the moment that the KMT managed to rule a unified China, they will be exactly what the CPC are now (with western democracy overtone which make them even more difficult to deal with).

I agree, which is why I stated that it's not in US interests to have a unified China. They will back the KMT to the extent that the KMT frustrates the CCP, but more than likely will find some way to make China more manageable during some sort of occupation, if such an opportunity presented itself.

Again, I found this statement chronologically confusing, are we talking about the CPC in Korean War or in the modern context?

3) I say "ostensibly", because it's not in US interests to see a unified China not mired in conflict. To this end the US more than likely will pursue policies that advocate for the dissolution of China as a polity, i.e. human rights violations, Tibetan legitimacy, etc...

Most of the professors I studied with in Berkeley did not think China could survive as a unified polity, and most Western media reporting on the country tends to try to paint China as a country on the brink of disaster. I think this reflects a realpolitik calculus where regardless of whether or not it can survive, it's simply not in US interests for it to do so.

Agree, most people think of Chinese as a unified language and races - while there isn't even the word "Chinese" in China. They are so different culturally, linguistically, and in some case even racially as well. The Tibetan issues might not be too much of a issues for the Chinese though, Hong Kong probably are. If Hong Kong become independent, there's a real chance that the entire Souther Chinese will want to be independent too - and that's mean big, big issues.

I don't see that as a political reality. Deng Xiao Ping was a southerner.

I think there may be a distinct possibility of a future federation evolving from what is currently China for the reasons you cite, but I don't see antagonistic elements evolving out of it.

I admit that I probably don't know enough about this issues but from my personal experience, the Southern Chinese (Cantonese in particular) are not very fond of having Beijing-based government. Most of their complain have something to do with cultural differences - mockery of Southern Chinese facial structure, skin colour, eating culture etc.

Their points sound minor enough to me, but significant cultural differences always post a threat of division and conflict. Thailand has far less of an issues with the North East region who are mostly Laos-speaking and adhere to Laotian-based culture, yet during the Cold War - with substantial enough foreign support, this minor cultural issues has been elaborated to the point that the North Easterner become the backbone of anti-government communist forces. I suppose the same thing can be done to China, and that's probably what the CPC expected as well - that's why they spend so much effort in keeping foreign influences out of their people.

But also, the North-South divide in China is also a historical trend. Southern Chinese has always been the wealthiest element within China (and still is), yet they has been keep out from politic for so long - first as a Huns subject of the Qing, and now as a regional groups of China. I believe this is the reason why so many Cantonese has became revolutionary, Sun, Deng, or even Mao himself are a Southern Chinese, saved for Chiang, almost the entire leadership of KMT and CPC are a Southern Chinese. But now when they become a functional government, the trend started to reverse again, more and more power is now shifted to Beijing - and at least, from what I heard, not many Southerners are too fond of it.

I also think you're blowing Hong Kong out of proportion. I mean, students have been pepper sprayed all over the US by the police, but no one seriously thinks that these student groups are going to over throw the federal government.

So do I, unless they can some what deal with the Chinese Forces Hong Kong, there is no way that movement could become successful, but as I said earlier, conflict like this will continue to happen. When I first went to Hong Kong, I felt almost instantly that this kind of crisis will soon happen (and I am corrected, 3 months later..), they are like a bomb ready to explode, which could be dangerous if the same atmosphere are also exist in rest of Southern China as well.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2014 2:32:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/18/2014 12:24:28 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
And what have we done in response to China's provocations? Nothing. At best we've moved troops to Australia, and reopened bases we had in the Philippines. We have not forced China in any way to stop their economic development of the SCS.

You did send in the whole fleet last time when China attempt to blockade Taiwan militarily, Obama might have respond differently but I will still say that military intervention is a distinct possibility.

We did not send any fleet to deal specifically with the SCS situation. You are changing goalposts here. Stay on topic.

This goes to our other discussion in the thread about Korea...had the US decided to take the war into Chinese territory, then the CPC would have easily fallen and the KMT would have become the nominal head of state in China (although realistically speaking they would probably be at best a puppet government for the US). Again, this all assumes the lack of Soviet intervention.

After all, the US had a stationary aircraft carrier in Japan, a foothold on the mainland in Korea, and a vastly superior force.


? Not sure what time frame are you talking about? In 1950? or in the modern context?

1950.

In any case, the last time you fought the Chinese with your the foothold in Korea - You've failed to penetrate deep into China,

Absolutely incorrect. We did not even ATTEMPT to penetrate China. The political directive precluded such. Had we attempted to do so, it would have succeeded (again, absent Soviet intervention). To think otherwise would demonstrate a profound ignorance of military capabilities of the two sides.

you can't even capture the whole Korea peninsular.

We captured the entire peninsula. This caused China to intervene.

Stalemate is just a sugar coating, realistically speaking it can be even considered a minor defeat, we failed to defeat the Chinese, we failed to even completely recover all of the South Korea territories, we failed to neutralize North Korea as a threat. It might not be a disaster but certainly not the most satisfactory outcome.

We completely recovered SK territories, we re-established the 38th parallel, and NK has not dared to invade again since then.

The KMT only become the US allied because they faced a greater threat from Mao's PLA, the same way that the CPC only become US allied because they faced threat from the historical USSR - if history repeated itself, I predicted that the moment that the KMT managed to rule a unified China, they will be exactly what the CPC are now (with western democracy overtone which make them even more difficult to deal with).

I agree, which is why I stated that it's not in US interests to have a unified China. They will back the KMT to the extent that the KMT frustrates the CCP, but more than likely will find some way to make China more manageable during some sort of occupation, if such an opportunity presented itself.

Again, I found this statement chronologically confusing, are we talking about the CPC in Korean War or in the modern context?

This part specifically deals with the KMT since its establishment in Taiwan and includes the modern period.

3) I say "ostensibly", because it's not in US interests to see a unified China not mired in conflict. To this end the US more than likely will pursue policies that advocate for the dissolution of China as a polity, i.e. human rights violations, Tibetan legitimacy, etc...

Most of the professors I studied with in Berkeley did not think China could survive as a unified polity, and most Western media reporting on the country tends to try to paint China as a country on the brink of disaster. I think this reflects a realpolitik calculus where regardless of whether or not it can survive, it's simply not in US interests for it to do so.

Agree, most people think of Chinese as a unified language and races - while there isn't even the word "Chinese" in China. They are so different culturally, linguistically, and in some case even racially as well. The Tibetan issues might not be too much of a issues for the Chinese though, Hong Kong probably are. If Hong Kong become independent, there's a real chance that the entire Souther Chinese will want to be independent too - and that's mean big, big issues.

I don't see that as a political reality. Deng Xiao Ping was a southerner.

I think there may be a distinct possibility of a future federation evolving from what is currently China for the reasons you cite, but I don't see antagonistic elements evolving out of it.

I admit that I probably don't know enough about this issues but from my personal experience, the Southern Chinese (Cantonese in particular) are not very fond of having Beijing-based government. Most of their complain have something to do with cultural differences - mockery of Southern Chinese facial structure, skin colour, eating culture etc.

Their points sound minor enough to me, but significant cultural differences always post a threat of division and conflict. Thailand has far less of an issues with the North East region who are mostly Laos-speaking and adhere to Laotian-based culture, yet during the Cold War - with substantial enough foreign support, this minor cultural issues has been elaborated to the point that the North Easterner become the backbone of anti-government communist forces. I suppose the same thing can be done to China, and that's probably what the CPC expected as well - that's why they spend so much effort in keeping foreign influences out of their people.

The same could be done in America too and was done, i.e. the Civil War. The question is what would cause such internal conflicts to occur, and without a reason there's no reason to think there would be one.

But also, the North-South divide in China is also a historical trend. Southern Chinese has always been the wealthiest element within China (and still is), yet they has been keep out from politic for so long - first as a Huns subject of the Qing, and now as a regional groups of China. I believe this is the reason why so many Cantonese has became revolutionary, Sun, Deng, or even Mao himself are a Southern Chinese, saved for Chiang, almost the entire leadership of KMT and CPC are a Southern Chinese. But now when they become a functional government, the trend started to reverse again, more and more power is now shifted to Beijing - and at least, from what I heard, not many Southerners are too fond of it.

Well, your point is moot then. You have a southern Chinese administration based in Beijing. The CCP's base of operations after the Long March was in the north. I don't see the problem.

I also think you're blowing Hong Kong out of proportion. I mean, students have been pepper sprayed all over the US by the police, but no one seriously thinks that these student groups are going to over throw the federal government.

So do I, unless they can some what deal with the Chinese Forces Hong Kong, there is no way that movement could become successful, but as I said earlier, conflict like this will continue to happen. When I first went to Hong Kong, I felt almost instantly that this kind of crisis will soon happen (and I am corrected, 3 months later..), they are like a bomb ready to explode, which could be dangerous if the same atmosphere are also exist in rest of Southern China as well.

So what would cause it to explode? What would cause it to explode here (because we are sitting on the same bomb)?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2014 5:30:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
After all, the US had a stationary aircraft carrier in Japan, a foothold on the mainland in Korea, and a vastly superior force.


? Not sure what time frame are you talking about? In 1950? or in the modern context?

1950.

Ok, that's may be where our disagreement arise, I am talking about possible military intervention in modern context, not in the '50. At most I would go back to the Taiwan strait crisis, you will need to elaborate its relevant to me if you would like to go back any further.

In any case, the last time you fought the Chinese with your the foothold in Korea - You've failed to penetrate deep into China,

Absolutely incorrect. We did not even ATTEMPT to penetrate China. The political directive precluded such. Had we attempted to do so, it would have succeeded (again, absent Soviet intervention). To think otherwise would demonstrate a profound ignorance of military capabilities of the two sides.

you can't even capture the whole Korea peninsular.

We captured the entire peninsula. This caused China to intervene.

But we lost almost all of it after the Chinese intervened, the UN forces are seriously damaged after the Chinese counterattack, we barely managed to improve the situation and stabilize the front - not reversing the trend.

That's why I question in your confidence in your ability to win against Chinese forces, I think Korea War is one of the most serious attempt of the US and your eastern allied (geographically, including Australia, New Zealand, and yes, Thailand - notice that I used the word "we") in conventional warfare yet we clearly failed to completely defeat the Chinese, what make you think that you could guarantee victory now or even back then. Without relocating more forces from Europe or send in some politically costly domestic forces or draft, I don't see where else can you bring more resources to actually win the war.

Stalemate is just a sugar coating, realistically speaking it can be even considered a minor defeat, we failed to defeat the Chinese, we failed to even completely recover all of the South Korea territories, we failed to neutralize North Korea as a threat. It might not be a disaster but certainly not the most satisfactory outcome.

We completely recovered SK territories, we re-established the 38th parallel, and NK has not dared to invade again since then.

We've failed to recover Kaesong, yes it's a minor city but given the resources and effort we've poured in we should have capture more town from the North, leave alone losing one from the South.

The KMT only become the US allied because they faced a greater threat from Mao's PLA, the same way that the CPC only become US allied because they faced threat from the historical USSR - if history repeated itself, I predicted that the moment that the KMT managed to rule a unified China, they will be exactly what the CPC are now (with western democracy overtone which make them even more difficult to deal with).

I agree, which is why I stated that it's not in US interests to have a unified China. They will back the KMT to the extent that the KMT frustrates the CCP, but more than likely will find some way to make China more manageable during some sort of occupation, if such an opportunity presented itself.

Again, I found this statement chronologically confusing, are we talking about the CPC in Korean War or in the modern context?

This part specifically deals with the KMT since its establishment in Taiwan and includes the modern period.

.... what kind of opportunity you could realistically expected to occupy modern China without unifying Taiwan in the process?

But also, the North-South divide in China is also a historical trend. Southern Chinese has always been the wealthiest element within China (and still is), yet they has been keep out from politic for so long - first as a Huns subject of the Qing, and now as a regional groups of China. I believe this is the reason why so many Cantonese has became revolutionary, Sun, Deng, or even Mao himself are a Southern Chinese, saved for Chiang, almost the entire leadership of KMT and CPC are a Southern Chinese. But now when they become a functional government, the trend started to reverse again, more and more power is now shifted to Beijing - and at least, from what I heard, not many Southerners are too fond of it.

Well, your point is moot then. You have a southern Chinese administration based in Beijing. The CCP's base of operations after the Long March was in the north. I don't see the problem.

Not with the North, but from my understanding (which I admitted is rather limited) that's one of the reason why KMT support are primarily from the South. The North want more equal income distribution, the South want to keep their properties - that's the sources of conflict that exist ever since the Qing.

So what would cause it to explode? What would cause it to explode here (because we are sitting on the same bomb

Generally, I found western model dealt better with this kind of situation. The exploding energies are difficult to channel because, you are exploding all the time, the subtleness of Asian culture - which reflect in our administration tend to keep thing smooth for most of the time but when explosion occurred, it usually ground breaking.

But in any case, the most realistic fuse is money. The paranoid anti-government demographic exist in every societies in the world, give them resources and they will start causing trouble - underline what cause it to explode is foreign support.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2014 7:54:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/19/2014 5:30:01 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
After all, the US had a stationary aircraft carrier in Japan, a foothold on the mainland in Korea, and a vastly superior force.


? Not sure what time frame are you talking about? In 1950? or in the modern context?

1950.

Ok, that's may be where our disagreement arise, I am talking about possible military intervention in modern context, not in the '50. At most I would go back to the Taiwan strait crisis, you will need to elaborate its relevant to me if you would like to go back any further.

In any case, the last time you fought the Chinese with your the foothold in Korea - You've failed to penetrate deep into China,

Absolutely incorrect. We did not even ATTEMPT to penetrate China. The political directive precluded such. Had we attempted to do so, it would have succeeded (again, absent Soviet intervention). To think otherwise would demonstrate a profound ignorance of military capabilities of the two sides.

you can't even capture the whole Korea peninsular.

We captured the entire peninsula. This caused China to intervene.

But we lost almost all of it after the Chinese intervened, the UN forces are seriously damaged after the Chinese counterattack, we barely managed to improve the situation and stabilize the front - not reversing the trend.

To fully reverse the Chinese offensive would require that we attack China. That's how we reversed the North Korean offensive...we attacked Inchon and took Pyongyang.

Was the situation stabilized? Of course it was, that has been the paradigm since the armistice.

That's why I question in your confidence in your ability to win against Chinese forces, I think Korea War is one of the most serious attempt of the US and your eastern allied (geographically, including Australia, New Zealand, and yes, Thailand - notice that I used the word "we") in conventional warfare yet we clearly failed to completely defeat the Chinese, what make you think that you could guarantee victory now or even back then. Without relocating more forces from Europe or send in some politically costly domestic forces or draft, I don't see where else can you bring more resources to actually win the war.

1) I think you're absolutely incorrect in this regard, and you do not seem to appreciate how military operations work. It's very much like chess...if you don't take the king piece, the other pieces will just relentlessly pressure you. Now imagine if unlike chess, you can continually bring new pieces onto the board...this is essentially what the Chinese did while their "king piece" (i.e. their C3) was fully immune from attack.

2) The "we" in the Korean war and Vietnam was essentially 95% US forces, and 5% "other" (excluding indigenous forces). At most perhaps Britain had a sizable contribution and South Korea in the Vietnam war, but such contributions have always paled in comparison to US forces. In this specific context, "eastern allies" is akin to a lion leading a pack of mice into a conflict.

Stalemate is just a sugar coating, realistically speaking it can be even considered a minor defeat, we failed to defeat the Chinese, we failed to even completely recover all of the South Korea territories, we failed to neutralize North Korea as a threat. It might not be a disaster but certainly not the most satisfactory outcome.

We completely recovered SK territories, we re-established the 38th parallel, and NK has not dared to invade again since then.

We've failed to recover Kaesong, yes it's a minor city but given the resources and effort we've poured in we should have capture more town from the North, leave alone losing one from the South.

This is trivially insignificant. To quibble over minor geographic locations is a non-argument.

The KMT only become the US allied because they faced a greater threat from Mao's PLA, the same way that the CPC only become US allied because they faced threat from the historical USSR - if history repeated itself, I predicted that the moment that the KMT managed to rule a unified China, they will be exactly what the CPC are now (with western democracy overtone which make them even more difficult to deal with).

I agree, which is why I stated that it's not in US interests to have a unified China. They will back the KMT to the extent that the KMT frustrates the CCP, but more than likely will find some way to make China more manageable during some sort of occupation, if such an opportunity presented itself.

Again, I found this statement chronologically confusing, are we talking about the CPC in Korean War or in the modern context?

This part specifically deals with the KMT since its establishment in Taiwan and includes the modern period.

.... what kind of opportunity you could realistically expected to occupy modern China without unifying Taiwan in the process?

Your question doesn't make sense. Taiwan was already unified under the KMT.

But also, the North-South divide in China is also a historical trend. Southern Chinese has always been the wealthiest element within China (and still is), yet they has been keep out from politic for so long - first as a Huns subject of the Qing, and now as a regional groups of China. I believe this is the reason why so many Cantonese has became revolutionary, Sun, Deng, or even Mao himself are a Southern Chinese, saved for Chiang, almost the entire leadership of KMT and CPC are a Southern Chinese. But now when they become a functional government, the trend started to reverse again, more and more power is now shifted to Beijing - and at least, from what I heard, not many Southerners are too fond of it.

Well, your point is moot then. You have a southern Chinese administration based in Beijing. The CCP's base of operations after the Long March was in the north. I don't see the problem.

Not with the North, but from my understanding (which I admitted is rather limited) that's one of the reason why KMT support are primarily from the South. The North want more equal income distribution, the South want to keep their properties - that's the sources of conflict that exist ever since the Qing.

This doesn't explain why the CCP originated with southerners...in fact, that the CCP (an organization that sought to abolish property altogether) originated in the south completely refutes your point, and you should have known that before you made your statement.

So what would cause it to explode? What would cause it to explode here (because we are sitting on the same bomb

Generally, I found western model dealt better with this kind of situation. The exploding energies are difficult to channel because, you are exploding all the time, the subtleness of Asian culture - which reflect in our administration tend to keep thing smooth for most of the time but when explosion occurred, it usually ground breaking.

The "Western Model" resulted in the Bolsheviks and the Nazis. I do not see any pertinent differences in temperament. The Japanese transitioned into a constitutional monarchy without incident.

But in any case, the most realistic fuse is money. The paranoid anti-government demographic exist in every societies in the world, give them resources and they will start causing trouble - underline what cause it to explode is foreign support.

Agree. Follow the money...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2014 8:35:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
To fully reverse the Chinese offensive would require that we attack China. That's how we reversed the North Korean offensive...we attacked Inchon and took Pyongyang.

Was the situation stabilized? Of course it was, that has been the paradigm since the armistice.

That's why I question in your confidence in your ability to win against Chinese forces, I think Korea War is one of the most serious attempt of the US and your eastern allied (geographically, including Australia, New Zealand, and yes, Thailand - notice that I used the word "we") in conventional warfare yet we clearly failed to completely defeat the Chinese, what make you think that you could guarantee victory now or even back then. Without relocating more forces from Europe or send in some politically costly domestic forces or draft, I don't see where else can you bring more resources to actually win the war.

1) I think you're absolutely incorrect in this regard, and you do not seem to appreciate how military operations work. It's very much like chess...if you don't take the king piece, the other pieces will just relentlessly pressure you. Now imagine if unlike chess, you can continually bring new pieces onto the board...this is essentially what the Chinese did while their "king piece" (i.e. their C3) was fully immune from attack.

Nobody will just allow you to walk in for a King, you will need to pressure their movement for those opportunity to present itself. From my perspective, the US government had already invested nearly all of their existing assets in the East - and the West in this Korean War, you even shifted some of your divisions from Europe, where else can you draw additional forces to attack mainland China? Mainland China is a much larger nations which required a much larger resources just to keep the troops moving - if all of your available resources (note: avaialble, forces that you could not relocate, for whatever reason i.e. to safeguard Europe and other point of interest are not counted for obvious reason ) are not enough to even conquer Korea proper, why do you think it will be significant threat to Chinese who still have much more to spend than just the PVA?

2) The "we" in the Korean war and Vietnam was essentially 95% US forces, and 5% "other" (excluding indigenous forces). At most perhaps Britain had a sizable contribution and South Korea in the Vietnam war, but such contributions have always paled in comparison to US forces. In this specific context, "eastern allies" is akin to a lion leading a pack of mice into a conflict.

Forces wise, South Korea deploy almost twice to that of UN forces but you're right, in term of combat effectiveness, the US is the largest contributor to both war.

Stalemate is just a sugar coating, realistically speaking it can be even considered a minor defeat, we failed to defeat the Chinese, we failed to even completely recover all of the South Korea territories, we failed to neutralize North Korea as a threat. It might not be a disaster but certainly not the most satisfactory outcome.

We completely recovered SK territories, we re-established the 38th parallel, and NK has not dared to invade again since then.

We've failed to recover Kaesong, yes it's a minor city but given the resources and effort we've poured in we should have capture more town from the North, leave alone losing one from the South.

This is trivially insignificant. To quibble over minor geographic locations is a non-argument.

Point is we supposed to conquer at least some North Korea provinces to consider it a military victory - we can't, and in the conclusion we even lose a town to the North. And strategic-wise North Korea remained a serious threat to the RoK at least until 1960. The outcome of the war is barely satisfactory, and so far from a proper victory.

The KMT only become the US allied because they faced a greater threat from Mao's PLA, the same way that the CPC only become US allied because they faced threat from the historical USSR - if history repeated itself, I predicted that the moment that the KMT managed to rule a unified China, they will be exactly what the CPC are now (with western democracy overtone which make them even more difficult to deal with).

I agree, which is why I stated that it's not in US interests to have a unified China. They will back the KMT to the extent that the KMT frustrates the CCP, but more than likely will find some way to make China more manageable during some sort of occupation, if such an opportunity presented itself.

Again, I found this statement chronologically confusing, are we talking about the CPC in Korean War or in the modern context?

This part specifically deals with the KMT since its establishment in Taiwan and includes the modern period.

.... what kind of opportunity you could realistically expected to occupy modern China without unifying Taiwan in the process?

Your question doesn't make sense. Taiwan was already unified under the KMT.

Not sure we're talking about the same thing here, I understand that you've said you would support the KMT in Taiwan to the extent that they will keep frustrating China - but if given a chance you would prefer to see them return as a ruler in China under American influences.

What I don't understand is that the KMT is already the Ruler of Taiwan, putting them or Beijing (or Nanjing) is automatically equal to having Taiwan and China unified, what cold you possibly do to replace the CPC with KMT while Taiwan still excluded from China proper?

Not with the North, but from my understanding (which I admitted is rather limited) that's one of the reason why KMT support are primarily from the South. The North want more equal income distribution, the South want to keep their properties - that's the sources of conflict that exist ever since the Qing.

This doesn't explain why the CCP originated with southerners...in fact, that the CCP (an organization that sought to abolish property altogether) originated in the south completely refutes your point, and you should have known that before you made your statement.

Originated in the south but found more support in the North, that's what I said.

So what would cause it to explode? What would cause it to explode here (because we are sitting on the same bomb

Generally, I found western model dealt better with this kind of situation. The exploding energies are difficult to channel because, you are exploding all the time, the subtleness of Asian culture - which reflect in our administration tend to keep thing smooth for most of the time but when explosion occurred, it usually ground breaking.

The "Western Model" resulted in the Bolsheviks and the Nazis. I do not see any pertinent differences in temperament. The Japanese transitioned into a constitutional monarchy without incident.

Western model of modern administration, I am referring to the multiethnic, multicultural societies that is used in the English speaking world. America used to be the nation of refugee, to some extent, everybody is different and should be respect as such. In Asia, differences are only for mockery and subclass citizen, social pressure are so much more for assimilation and when it failed - it exploded with forces.

Noted that the issue still persisted even in Japan (especially in Japan) but compare to other the Japanese with comparatively more tendency toward western internationalism has far less of an issues than, say RoK with more Asian nationalism tendency.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2014 9:36:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/19/2014 8:35:24 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:

1) I think you're absolutely incorrect in this regard, and you do not seem to appreciate how military operations work. It's very much like chess...if you don't take the king piece, the other pieces will just relentlessly pressure you. Now imagine if unlike chess, you can continually bring new pieces onto the board...this is essentially what the Chinese did while their "king piece" (i.e. their C3) was fully immune from attack.

Nobody will just allow you to walk in for a King, you will need to pressure their movement for those opportunity to present itself. From my perspective, the US government had already invested nearly all of their existing assets in the East - and the West in this Korean War, you even shifted some of your divisions from Europe, where else can you draw additional forces to attack mainland China? Mainland China is a much larger nations which required a much larger resources just to keep the troops moving - if all of your available resources (note: avaialble, forces that you could not relocate, for whatever reason i.e. to safeguard Europe and other point of interest are not counted for obvious reason ) are not enough to even conquer Korea proper, why do you think it will be significant threat to Chinese who still have much more to spend than just the PVA?

Like I pointed out already, the troops committed in the Korean war was a small fraction of the troops committed in WWII. Attacking China would be WWIII no question...were we justified in doing it? Yes, the Chinese attacked us without provocation.

So, instead of the couple hundred thousand troops you saw in Korea, it would probably be a couple million troops in another nationalized war effort. It would not be a limited campaign using a largely demobilized military.

Even it it was a limited campaign, could it still be a limited war with a US victory? Absolutely. All that would have been required was that we had the clearance to neutralize Chinese C3. We simply did not have that clearance (again, mainly due to possible nuclear retaliation by the USSR).

Imagine winning a game of chess if you were not allowed to take the opponent's king piece. You can't. The most you could get is a stalemate.

We completely recovered SK territories, we re-established the 38th parallel, and NK has not dared to invade again since then.

We've failed to recover Kaesong, yes it's a minor city but given the resources and effort we've poured in we should have capture more town from the North, leave alone losing one from the South.

This is trivially insignificant. To quibble over minor geographic locations is a non-argument.

Point is we supposed to conquer at least some North Korea provinces to consider it a military victory - we can't, and in the conclusion we even lose a town to the North. And strategic-wise North Korea remained a serious threat to the RoK at least until 1960. The outcome of the war is barely satisfactory, and so far from a proper victory.

No one considers it a military victory. It's a stalemate that succeeded in containing the spread of communism. We achieved our directive but did we "win" over NK? No.

If you look at the borders, the South gained square mileage after the war, but again this is absolutely trivial.

.... what kind of opportunity you could realistically expected to occupy modern China without unifying Taiwan in the process?

Your question doesn't make sense. Taiwan was already unified under the KMT.

Not sure we're talking about the same thing here, I understand that you've said you would support the KMT in Taiwan to the extent that they will keep frustrating China - but if given a chance you would prefer to see them return as a ruler in China under American influences.

This has nothing to do with unifying Taiwan. I do not know what you mean by saying that.

What I don't understand is that the KMT is already the Ruler of Taiwan, putting them or Beijing (or Nanjing) is automatically equal to having Taiwan and China unified, what cold you possibly do to replace the CPC with KMT while Taiwan still excluded from China proper?

The KMT having jurisdiction over Taiwan has absolutely nothing to do with the KMT having jurisdiction over the mainland. I really do not know what point you are trying to make.

Your point is similar to saying that Jefferson Davis presided over a unified, American government. He simply did not. He presided over a short-lived confederacy that wasn't recognized by most great powers of the time.

Not with the North, but from my understanding (which I admitted is rather limited) that's one of the reason why KMT support are primarily from the South. The North want more equal income distribution, the South want to keep their properties - that's the sources of conflict that exist ever since the Qing.

This doesn't explain why the CCP originated with southerners...in fact, that the CCP (an organization that sought to abolish property altogether) originated in the south completely refutes your point, and you should have known that before you made your statement.

Originated in the south but found more support in the North, that's what I said.

This adds more weight to China becoming more unified through CCP administration. It weakens your argument about supposed cultural divides between north and south.

So what would cause it to explode? What would cause it to explode here (because we are sitting on the same bomb

Generally, I found western model dealt better with this kind of situation. The exploding energies are difficult to channel because, you are exploding all the time, the subtleness of Asian culture - which reflect in our administration tend to keep thing smooth for most of the time but when explosion occurred, it usually ground breaking.

The "Western Model" resulted in the Bolsheviks and the Nazis. I do not see any pertinent differences in temperament. The Japanese transitioned into a constitutional monarchy without incident.

Western model of modern administration, I am referring to the multiethnic, multicultural societies that is used in the English speaking world. America used to be the nation of refugee, to some extent, everybody is different and should be respect as such. In Asia, differences are only for mockery and subclass citizen, social pressure are so much more for assimilation and when it failed - it exploded with forces.

So let's be specific...you're NOT talking about a "Western model" but an "English model" specifically, one you think is supposedly multi-ethnic.

Most Hong Kong citizens were rejected by Britain from becoming British citizens after the 99 year lease ran out. Britain today remains well over 90% Anglo-Saxon even though Indians outnumber Britains by several times. Not exactly multi-ethnic.

Noted that the issue still persisted even in Japan (especially in Japan) but compare to other the Japanese with comparatively more tendency toward western internationalism has far less of an issues than, say RoK with more Asian nationalism tendency.

These same issues are present in most of Europe. You may think America is the exception but a closer study of American immigration policy would probably make you change your mind.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2014 11:07:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
So, instead of the couple hundred thousand troops you saw in Korea, it would probably be a couple million troops in another nationalized war effort. It would not be a limited campaign using a largely demobilized military.

Hmnn, ok so that what you're referring to, remobilized the US for another total war? I must admit that you're probably win a decisive victory if you're going that route (if Truman could muster enough popular support that is).
Even it it was a limited campaign, could it still be a limited war with a US victory? Absolutely. All that would have been required was that we had the clearance to neutralize Chinese C3. We simply did not have that clearance (again, mainly due to possible nuclear retaliation by the USSR).

This is more realistic scenario, I still not sure why do you think with confidence that you could neutralize Maos C3 with whatever you have left at the point that the PVA had entered the fray though.

If you look at the borders, the South gained square mileage after the war, but again this is absolutely trivial.

Then we're probably in agreement here.

.... what kind of opportunity you could realistically expected to occupy modern China without unifying Taiwan in the process?

Your question doesn't make sense. Taiwan was already unified under the KMT.

Not sure we're talking about the same thing here, I understand that you've said you would support the KMT in Taiwan to the extent that they will keep frustrating China - but if given a chance you would prefer to see them return as a ruler in China under American influences.

This has nothing to do with unifying Taiwan. I do not know what you mean by saying that.

What I don't understand is that the KMT is already the Ruler of Taiwan, putting them or Beijing (or Nanjing) is automatically equal to having Taiwan and China unified, what cold you possibly do to replace the CPC with KMT while Taiwan still excluded from China proper?

The KMT having jurisdiction over Taiwan has absolutely nothing to do with the KMT having jurisdiction over the mainland. I really do not know what point you are trying to make.

Your point is similar to saying that Jefferson Davis presided over a unified, American government. He simply did not. He presided over a short-lived confederacy that wasn't recognized by most great powers of the time.

then what do you mean by this?

I agree, which is why I stated that it's not in US interests to have a unified China. They will back the KMT to the extent that the KMT frustrates the CCP, but more than likely will find some way to make China more manageable during some sort of occupation, if such an opportunity presented itself.

I
Not with the North, but from my understanding (which I admitted is rather limited) that's one of the reason why KMT support are primarily from the South. The North want more equal income distribution, the South want to keep their properties - that's the sources of conflict that exist ever since the Qing.

This doesn't explain why the CCP originated with southerners...in fact, that the CCP (an organization that sought to abolish property altogether) originated in the south completely refutes your point, and you should have known that before you made your statement.

Originated in the south but found more support in the North, that's what I said.

This adds more weight to China becoming more unified through CCP administration. It weakens your argument about supposed cultural divides between north and south.

When they are Mao's CPC, the modern CPC, have far too many Northern Chinese official but far too few real economic wealth.

So what would cause it to explode? What would cause it to explode here (because we are sitting on the same bomb


Western model of modern administration, I am referring to the multiethnic, multicultural societies that is used in the English speaking world. America used to be the nation of refugee, to some extent, everybody is different and should be respect as such. In Asia, differences are only for mockery and subclass citizen, social pressure are so much more for assimilation and when it failed - it exploded with forces.

So let's be specific...you're NOT talking about a "Western model" but an "English model" specifically, one you think is supposedly multi-ethnic.

Most Hong Kong citizens were rejected by Britain from becoming British citizens after the 99 year lease ran out. Britain today remains well over 90% Anglo-Saxon even though Indians outnumber Britains by several times. Not exactly multi-ethnic.

They're generally and easily accepted as UK citizen before Deng force it out of Thatcher's hands. I think the policy is due to the pressure by the CPC, they just want the island deserted by the time they actually took power.

Any way, my points has more to do with social pressure than the percentage of representation in one domain. You can be Malaysian British or American and proud with your culture and custom - if you do that in, say Japan, or even in Thailand you will become an outsider forever.

You have been living in Korea, you should have know how cruel it is to become a foreigner in Korean society or a Gaijin in Japan. American immigration policy may not be perfect, discrimination sometime occurred but I would say that it's a paradise for an immigrant compare to what you can expect here.
Noted that the issue still persisted even in Japan (especially in Japan) but compare to other the Japanese with comparatively more tendency toward western internationalism has far less of an issues than, say RoK with more Asian nationalism tendency.

These same issues are present in most of Europe. You may think America is the exception but a closer study of American immigration policy would probably make you change your mind.

back to above
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2014 2:27:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/19/2014 11:07:16 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
So, instead of the couple hundred thousand troops you saw in Korea, it would probably be a couple million troops in another nationalized war effort. It would not be a limited campaign using a largely demobilized military.

Hmnn, ok so that what you're referring to, remobilized the US for another total war? I must admit that you're probably win a decisive victory if you're going that route (if Truman could muster enough popular support that is).
Even it it was a limited campaign, could it still be a limited war with a US victory? Absolutely. All that would have been required was that we had the clearance to neutralize Chinese C3. We simply did not have that clearance (again, mainly due to possible nuclear retaliation by the USSR).

This is more realistic scenario, I still not sure why do you think with confidence that you could neutralize Maos C3 with whatever you have left at the point that the PVA had entered the fray though.

I don't understand how you think we couldn't.

If you look at the borders, the South gained square mileage after the war, but again this is absolutely trivial.

Then we're probably in agreement here.

.... what kind of opportunity you could realistically expected to occupy modern China without unifying Taiwan in the process?

Your question doesn't make sense. Taiwan was already unified under the KMT.

Not sure we're talking about the same thing here, I understand that you've said you would support the KMT in Taiwan to the extent that they will keep frustrating China - but if given a chance you would prefer to see them return as a ruler in China under American influences.

This has nothing to do with unifying Taiwan. I do not know what you mean by saying that.

What I don't understand is that the KMT is already the Ruler of Taiwan, putting them or Beijing (or Nanjing) is automatically equal to having Taiwan and China unified, what cold you possibly do to replace the CPC with KMT while Taiwan still excluded from China proper?

The KMT having jurisdiction over Taiwan has absolutely nothing to do with the KMT having jurisdiction over the mainland. I really do not know what point you are trying to make.

Your point is similar to saying that Jefferson Davis presided over a unified, American government. He simply did not. He presided over a short-lived confederacy that wasn't recognized by most great powers of the time.


then what do you mean by this?

That's my question to you lol.

I agree, which is why I stated that it's not in US interests to have a unified China. They will back the KMT to the extent that the KMT frustrates the CCP, but more than likely will find some way to make China more manageable during some sort of occupation, if such an opportunity presented itself.

I
Not with the North, but from my understanding (which I admitted is rather limited) that's one of the reason why KMT support are primarily from the South. The North want more equal income distribution, the South want to keep their properties - that's the sources of conflict that exist ever since the Qing.

This doesn't explain why the CCP originated with southerners...in fact, that the CCP (an organization that sought to abolish property altogether) originated in the south completely refutes your point, and you should have known that before you made your statement.

Originated in the south but found more support in the North, that's what I said.

This adds more weight to China becoming more unified through CCP administration. It weakens your argument about supposed cultural divides between north and south.

When they are Mao's CPC, the modern CPC, have far too many Northern Chinese official but far too few real economic wealth.

I don't understand your argument here.

So what would cause it to explode? What would cause it to explode here (because we are sitting on the same bomb


Western model of modern administration, I am referring to the multiethnic, multicultural societies that is used in the English speaking world. America used to be the nation of refugee, to some extent, everybody is different and should be respect as such. In Asia, differences are only for mockery and subclass citizen, social pressure are so much more for assimilation and when it failed - it exploded with forces.

So let's be specific...you're NOT talking about a "Western model" but an "English model" specifically, one you think is supposedly multi-ethnic.

Most Hong Kong citizens were rejected by Britain from becoming British citizens after the 99 year lease ran out. Britain today remains well over 90% Anglo-Saxon even though Indians outnumber Britains by several times. Not exactly multi-ethnic.

They're generally and easily accepted as UK citizen before Deng force it out of Thatcher's hands. I think the policy is due to the pressure by the CPC, they just want the island deserted by the time they actually took power.

I'm fairly certain none of this is true.

1) You have to remember that Deng did not use any force, this was simply the expiration of a lease and the proper restoration of borrowed property to the rightful owner.
2) You also have to remember that the "force" you are talking about actually refers to British military victories during the Opium wars. "Force" was the British modus operandi in this case. It was Britain that declared war against China after China made opium illegal, and the British used that war to force the Chinese to pay for opium they did not want in the first place.
3) You're going to have to provide evidence that HK citizens could easily apply for British citizenship. I'm fairly certain no such evidence exists.

Any way, my points has more to do with social pressure than the percentage of representation in one domain. You can be Malaysian British or American and proud with your culture and custom - if you do that in, say Japan, or even in Thailand you will become an outsider forever.

But you are an outsider as any citizen of an English country if you're not white, specifically Anglo-Saxon, and probably Protestant (WASP). What makes you think otherwise?

The main reason this is not necessarily true in the US is because Latinos are perceived as making up the majority of the US population in the next couple decades. It has very little to nothing to do with the acceptance of a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural mentality. The main question asked is whether or not other ethnicities can be assimilated, not whether or not other ethnicities can establish their own cultural identity.

You have been living in Korea, you should have know how cruel it is to become a foreigner in Korean society or a Gaijin in Japan. American immigration policy may not be perfect, discrimination sometime occurred but I would say that it's a paradise for an immigrant compare to what you can expect here.

Not at all. Americans were welcomed. Koreans almost worship Americans. Americans are friendly and wealthy, and have made Koreans wealthy as well. Americans are treated about the same as their traditional yang-ban (i.e. their patrician/elite class) from my experience.

They look down upon Chinese immigrants, this much I did notice, because they tend to be low skill migrant labor.

Life is exceptionally easy for English-speakers in Korea. I talked to some Canadians that had free accommodations in Korea and were paid more than the average Korean salary for teaching English 30 hours a week...this in a society where a 50-60 hour work week was normal. They had no skill sets, no goals in life, and just wanted to coast, and Korea was where they found their ideal habitat.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2014 11:41:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/19/2014 11:07:16 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:

Even it it was a limited campaign, could it still be a limited war with a US victory? Absolutely. All that would have been required was that we had the clearance to neutralize Chinese C3. We simply did not have that clearance (again, mainly due to possible nuclear retaliation by the USSR).

This is more realistic scenario, I still not sure why do you think with confidence that you could neutralize Maos C3 with whatever you have left at the point that the PVA had entered the fray though.

Most Hong Kong citizens were rejected by Britain from becoming British citizens after the 99 year lease ran out. Britain today remains well over 90% Anglo-Saxon even though Indians outnumber Britains by several times. Not exactly multi-ethnic.

They're generally and easily accepted as UK citizen before Deng force it out of Thatcher's hands. I think the policy is due to the pressure by the CPC, they just want the island deserted by the time they actually took power.

I reread your comment, and I think you really do have an absolute and fundamentally incorrect perception of these two events (American military superiority in Korea and what Hong Kong means to China and the rest of the region).

1) Keep in mind that in the Korean war, we inflicted 20:1 casualties with a force 10% the size of our opponent's, and this given that we could not actually disrupt our opponent's C3. For anyone to think that such a potent force, once able to actually disrupt the opponent's C3, could not subdue the opponent is absolutely and utterly ridiculous on every level. The only thing that precluded such was Soviet nuclear retaliation.

2) Hong Kong for a very long time has been the door through which trade occurred with China. Hong Kong's import/export numbers alone at times rivaled that of ALL OF CHINA. For anyone to think that China wanted this economy deserted is again absolutely and utterly ridiculous on every conceivable level.

I really think you have absolutely no factual information that can possibly corroborate your views on these two topics. I really think you are just harboring theories you have not bothered to research, and that the moment you research them you will discover how fundamentally incorrect such theories are.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 8:48:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/17/2014 11:30:48 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/17/2014 11:11:40 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 10/15/2014 3:46:57 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/10/2014 1:39:59 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
This idea just came to my mind, what if the current KMT government broke up with the PRC for some reason, and they decided to formally declare independence, do you think the US will respond militarily if the China did indeed use force to openly subjugate Taiwan at this current stage?

The US currently supports the "One China two Governments" policy, so if the KMT broke with China it would break with the US as well. It would essentially go rogue.

This is what Chen Suibien attempted to do...and he is now in jail. Tangentially, Roh Moohyun in South Korea also advocated a more independent stance for SK from both China and America, and he is now dead.

? Sorry, I don't really see why this is related to my original question...

You asked what if the KMT broke with China? I answered it, the KMT would be breaking with the US as well and would go rogue. Would the US help a rogue country? Probably not.

And from my understanding, it is the KMT who are currently advocate for the long term goal of Chinese unification, the pan green is the one opposing it.

It is, but you are asking "what if" the KMT did a 180 and began advocating the opposite.

I am re-reading this post again, and begin to wonder...

My understanding is that you believe that due to the vast economic ties, the US would not react if Taiwan declare independent - even if the PRC resort to military action. What about the opposite? What if within the next two decades China has become democracy and the Taiwan peacefully rejoined with them in accordance to KMT 3 if policy, do you think there will be any reaction at all from the west?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 2:06:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 8:48:31 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 10/17/2014 11:30:48 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/17/2014 11:11:40 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 10/15/2014 3:46:57 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/10/2014 1:39:59 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
This idea just came to my mind, what if the current KMT government broke up with the PRC for some reason, and they decided to formally declare independence, do you think the US will respond militarily if the China did indeed use force to openly subjugate Taiwan at this current stage?

The US currently supports the "One China two Governments" policy, so if the KMT broke with China it would break with the US as well. It would essentially go rogue.

This is what Chen Suibien attempted to do...and he is now in jail. Tangentially, Roh Moohyun in South Korea also advocated a more independent stance for SK from both China and America, and he is now dead.

? Sorry, I don't really see why this is related to my original question...

You asked what if the KMT broke with China? I answered it, the KMT would be breaking with the US as well and would go rogue. Would the US help a rogue country? Probably not.

And from my understanding, it is the KMT who are currently advocate for the long term goal of Chinese unification, the pan green is the one opposing it.

It is, but you are asking "what if" the KMT did a 180 and began advocating the opposite.

I am re-reading this post again, and begin to wonder...

My understanding is that you believe that due to the vast economic ties, the US would not react if Taiwan declare independent - even if the PRC resort to military action. What about the opposite? What if within the next two decades China has become democracy and the Taiwan peacefully rejoined with them in accordance to KMT 3 if policy, do you think there will be any reaction at all from the west?

I think if there would be a reaction to such an event, it would be similar to the reaction when HK rejoined China...i.e. not much if any at all, and overall acceptance of the situation.

I mean, if Taiwan declared independence, the US would be presented with a choice - to side with China or with Taiwan on the issue. When presented with such a choice, I think the outcome is rather clear.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 10:35:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 2:06:22 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/9/2014 8:48:31 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 10/17/2014 11:30:48 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/17/2014 11:11:40 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 10/15/2014 3:46:57 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/10/2014 1:39:59 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
This idea just came to my mind, what if the current KMT government broke up with the PRC for some reason, and they decided to formally declare independence, do you think the US will respond militarily if the China did indeed use force to openly subjugate Taiwan at this current stage?

The US currently supports the "One China two Governments" policy, so if the KMT broke with China it would break with the US as well. It would essentially go rogue.

This is what Chen Suibien attempted to do...and he is now in jail. Tangentially, Roh Moohyun in South Korea also advocated a more independent stance for SK from both China and America, and he is now dead.

? Sorry, I don't really see why this is related to my original question...

You asked what if the KMT broke with China? I answered it, the KMT would be breaking with the US as well and would go rogue. Would the US help a rogue country? Probably not.

And from my understanding, it is the KMT who are currently advocate for the long term goal of Chinese unification, the pan green is the one opposing it.

It is, but you are asking "what if" the KMT did a 180 and began advocating the opposite.

I am re-reading this post again, and begin to wonder...

My understanding is that you believe that due to the vast economic ties, the US would not react if Taiwan declare independent - even if the PRC resort to military action. What about the opposite? What if within the next two decades China has become democracy and the Taiwan peacefully rejoined with them in accordance to KMT 3 if policy, do you think there will be any reaction at all from the west?

I think if there would be a reaction to such an event, it would be similar to the reaction when HK rejoined China...i.e. not much if any at all, and overall acceptance of the situation.

I mean, if Taiwan declared independence, the US would be presented with a choice - to side with China or with Taiwan on the issue. When presented with such a choice, I think the outcome is rather clear.

Actually the idea of "what if China become democracy" itself can be quite an interesting topic, may be I should post another topic on this.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 2:26:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 2:06:22 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/9/2014 8:48:31 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 10/17/2014 11:30:48 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/17/2014 11:11:40 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 10/15/2014 3:46:57 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/10/2014 1:39:59 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
This idea just came to my mind, what if the current KMT government broke up with the PRC for some reason, and they decided to formally declare independence, do you think the US will respond militarily if the China did indeed use force to openly subjugate Taiwan at this current stage?

The US currently supports the "One China two Governments" policy, so if the KMT broke with China it would break with the US as well. It would essentially go rogue.

This is what Chen Suibien attempted to do...and he is now in jail. Tangentially, Roh Moohyun in South Korea also advocated a more independent stance for SK from both China and America, and he is now dead.

? Sorry, I don't really see why this is related to my original question...

You asked what if the KMT broke with China? I answered it, the KMT would be breaking with the US as well and would go rogue. Would the US help a rogue country? Probably not.

And from my understanding, it is the KMT who are currently advocate for the long term goal of Chinese unification, the pan green is the one opposing it.

It is, but you are asking "what if" the KMT did a 180 and began advocating the opposite.

I am re-reading this post again, and begin to wonder...

My understanding is that you believe that due to the vast economic ties, the US would not react if Taiwan declare independent - even if the PRC resort to military action. What about the opposite? What if within the next two decades China has become democracy and the Taiwan peacefully rejoined with them in accordance to KMT 3 if policy, do you think there will be any reaction at all from the west?

I think if there would be a reaction to such an event, it would be similar to the reaction when HK rejoined China...i.e. not much if any at all, and overall acceptance of the situation.

I mean, if Taiwan declared independence, the US would be presented with a choice - to side with China or with Taiwan on the issue. When presented with such a choice, I think the outcome is rather clear.

Just one more thing before I started another topic about democracy in China, if you would think that the west would not react if Taiwan is to reunified with China - why do you think they are so antagonistic about PRC now? Isn't that is such a waste, at least in term of relationship with China if you are to invest in something you don't really want to protect? Unlike the USSR, China is unlikely to expand further than its Asia sphere of influence and most definitely not going to affect American way of life in the same way the communist revolution would, the domino effect is certainly not as effective in this case. The best they could have done is following the Imperial Japan route and expand into South East Asia (informally), if you are ok with that is it wiser to just forget Chinese aggression and forged a better friendship?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2014 2:54:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 2:26:20 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 11/9/2014 2:06:22 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/9/2014 8:48:31 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 10/17/2014 11:30:48 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/17/2014 11:11:40 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 10/15/2014 3:46:57 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/10/2014 1:39:59 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
This idea just came to my mind, what if the current KMT government broke up with the PRC for some reason, and they decided to formally declare independence, do you think the US will respond militarily if the China did indeed use force to openly subjugate Taiwan at this current stage?

The US currently supports the "One China two Governments" policy, so if the KMT broke with China it would break with the US as well. It would essentially go rogue.

This is what Chen Suibien attempted to do...and he is now in jail. Tangentially, Roh Moohyun in South Korea also advocated a more independent stance for SK from both China and America, and he is now dead.

? Sorry, I don't really see why this is related to my original question...

You asked what if the KMT broke with China? I answered it, the KMT would be breaking with the US as well and would go rogue. Would the US help a rogue country? Probably not.

And from my understanding, it is the KMT who are currently advocate for the long term goal of Chinese unification, the pan green is the one opposing it.

It is, but you are asking "what if" the KMT did a 180 and began advocating the opposite.

I am re-reading this post again, and begin to wonder...

My understanding is that you believe that due to the vast economic ties, the US would not react if Taiwan declare independent - even if the PRC resort to military action. What about the opposite? What if within the next two decades China has become democracy and the Taiwan peacefully rejoined with them in accordance to KMT 3 if policy, do you think there will be any reaction at all from the west?

I think if there would be a reaction to such an event, it would be similar to the reaction when HK rejoined China...i.e. not much if any at all, and overall acceptance of the situation.

I mean, if Taiwan declared independence, the US would be presented with a choice - to side with China or with Taiwan on the issue. When presented with such a choice, I think the outcome is rather clear.

Just one more thing before I started another topic about democracy in China, if you would think that the west would not react if Taiwan is to reunified with China - why do you think they are so antagonistic about PRC now? Isn't that is such a waste, at least in term of relationship with China if you are to invest in something you don't really want to protect?

Well this supposed antagonism has been on a decline ever since Nixon's visit to China 40 years ago...it would probably be fairly accurate to say that with each passing year the antagonism subsides more and more.

It's not like a switch you can turn on and off...it's more like a ship you have to steer.

Unlike the USSR, China is unlikely to expand further than its Asia sphere of influence and most definitely not going to affect American way of life in the same way the communist revolution would, the domino effect is certainly not as effective in this case.

This is extremely inaccurate. China is in places like Iran, Iraq, and Africa. They are buying farmland in South America. China has much, much more potential than the USSR ever did to expand its sphere of influence outside of its own region. This potential stems from its projected economic growth, something the USSR could not hope to rival or equal the US/Europe. China is not (at all) constrained by such.

To my knowledge Soviet goods never really made it into the US. I'm typing this on a Lenovo computer (a Chinese corporation that bought IBM's PC division). Sooner or later I'll be seeing Chinese automobiles here in the US (they surpassed US auto production a couple years ago). That's penetration the USSR never achieved.

The best they could have done is following the Imperial Japan route and expand into South East Asia (informally), if you are ok with that is it wiser to just forget Chinese aggression and forged a better friendship?

If you're talking about military adventurism, I'm fairly certain China won't be going that route...it won't seek open antagonism with the US if it can help it...at least not until it can match the US's capability to project power (something the USSR has more or less been on par with the US for most of the Cold war). That's probably 30-40 years down the road (i.e. when China's standard of living and per capita GDP begins to approach developed nation levels).

I've made this point a long, long time ago that I think China's rise will mirror Germany's rise in Europe at the turn of the 19-20th centuries. There is the dominant off-continent power (in China's case the US, in Germany's case England) that slowly but surely loses influence as the continental power rises in strength. The parallels are IMHO all there. Germany like China was a fragmented mess before it unified. China's unification is almost complete.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 12:13:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/10/2014 2:54:09 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/10/2014 2:26:20 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 11/9/2014 2:06:22 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/9/2014 8:48:31 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 10/17/2014 11:30:48 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/17/2014 11:11:40 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 10/15/2014 3:46:57 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/10/2014 1:39:59 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
This idea just came to my mind, what if the current KMT government broke up with the PRC for some reason, and they decided to formally declare independence, do you think the US will respond militarily if the China did indeed use force to openly subjugate Taiwan at this current stage?

The US currently supports the "One China two Governments" policy, so if the KMT broke with China it would break with the US as well. It would essentially go rogue.

This is what Chen Suibien attempted to do...and he is now in jail. Tangentially, Roh Moohyun in South Korea also advocated a more independent stance for SK from both China and America, and he is now dead.

? Sorry, I don't really see why this is related to my original question...

You asked what if the KMT broke with China? I answered it, the KMT would be breaking with the US as well and would go rogue. Would the US help a rogue country? Probably not.

And from my understanding, it is the KMT who are currently advocate for the long term goal of Chinese unification, the pan green is the one opposing it.

It is, but you are asking "what if" the KMT did a 180 and began advocating the opposite.

I am re-reading this post again, and begin to wonder...

My understanding is that you believe that due to the vast economic ties, the US would not react if Taiwan declare independent - even if the PRC resort to military action. What about the opposite? What if within the next two decades China has become democracy and the Taiwan peacefully rejoined with them in accordance to KMT 3 if policy, do you think there will be any reaction at all from the west?

I think if there would be a reaction to such an event, it would be similar to the reaction when HK rejoined China...i.e. not much if any at all, and overall acceptance of the situation.

I mean, if Taiwan declared independence, the US would be presented with a choice - to side with China or with Taiwan on the issue. When presented with such a choice, I think the outcome is rather clear.

Just one more thing before I started another topic about democracy in China, if you would think that the west would not react if Taiwan is to reunified with China - why do you think they are so antagonistic about PRC now? Isn't that is such a waste, at least in term of relationship with China if you are to invest in something you don't really want to protect?

Well this supposed antagonism has been on a decline ever since Nixon's visit to China 40 years ago...it would probably be fairly accurate to say that with each passing year the antagonism subsides more and more.

ok, it also make sense international-wise, a nations threaten by China expansion would definitely flock to the US for protection whether you intended to carry out that protection or not, it can be quite profitable politically.


Unlike the USSR, China is unlikely to expand further than its Asia sphere of influence and most definitely not going to affect American way of life in the same way the communist revolution would, the domino effect is certainly not as effective in this case.

This is extremely inaccurate. China is in places like Iran, Iraq, and Africa. They are buying farmland in South America. China has much, much more potential than the USSR ever did to expand its sphere of influence outside of its own region. This potential stems from its projected economic growth, something the USSR could not hope to rival or equal the US/Europe. China is not (at all) constrained by such.

I talking more in term of Red Scare theory, American fear communist revolution because extreme socialism as in form of the USSR is far too extreme from what people anywhere else in the world would stand for. Buying Chinese product is just an extension of capitalism, if I remember correctly your people used to have the same fear with Japan as well but even if they do succeed in dominating American market - I don't see how they could affect your way of life in anyway, you still use your computer and enjoy free access to internet if one day we're buying Chinese car then so what? Your people are driving Japanese and then Korean car now and it doesn't seem to affect your baseball or apple pie in anyway.

The best they could have done is following the Imperial Japan route and expand into South East Asia (informally), if you are ok with that is it wiser to just forget Chinese aggression and forged a better friendship?

If you're talking about military adventurism, I'm fairly certain China won't be going that route...it won't seek open antagonism with the US if it can help it...at least not until it can match the US's capability to project power (something the USSR has more or less been on par with the US for most of the Cold war). That's probably 30-40 years down the road (i.e. when China's standard of living and per capita GDP begins to approach developed nation levels).

I've made this point a long, long time ago that I think China's rise will mirror Germany's rise in Europe at the turn of the 19-20th centuries. There is the dominant off-continent power (in China's case the US, in Germany's case England) that slowly but surely loses influence as the continental power rises in strength. The parallels are IMHO all there. Germany like China was a fragmented mess before it unified. China's unification is almost complete.

I didn't look at it in term of formal military expansion though, but it is most certainly that China might want to open a new military base in a more traditional US allies, like Indonesia, Malaysia, most likely Thailand which I would consider a form of military expansion as well (which could have serious affect if they managed to "expand" into somewhere like Philippine, replacing the current US base )
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 2:46:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 12:13:15 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 11/10/2014 2:54:09 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

I mean, if Taiwan declared independence, the US would be presented with a choice - to side with China or with Taiwan on the issue. When presented with such a choice, I think the outcome is rather clear.

Just one more thing before I started another topic about democracy in China, if you would think that the west would not react if Taiwan is to reunified with China - why do you think they are so antagonistic about PRC now? Isn't that is such a waste, at least in term of relationship with China if you are to invest in something you don't really want to protect?

Well this supposed antagonism has been on a decline ever since Nixon's visit to China 40 years ago...it would probably be fairly accurate to say that with each passing year the antagonism subsides more and more.

ok, it also make sense international-wise, a nations threaten by China expansion would definitely flock to the US for protection whether you intended to carry out that protection or not, it can be quite profitable politically.

No it wouldn't be "profitable politically", for the same reason why we wouldn't help Taiwan either.

Unlike the USSR, China is unlikely to expand further than its Asia sphere of influence and most definitely not going to affect American way of life in the same way the communist revolution would, the domino effect is certainly not as effective in this case.

This is extremely inaccurate. China is in places like Iran, Iraq, and Africa. They are buying farmland in South America. China has much, much more potential than the USSR ever did to expand its sphere of influence outside of its own region. This potential stems from its projected economic growth, something the USSR could not hope to rival or equal the US/Europe. China is not (at all) constrained by such.

I talking more in term of Red Scare theory, American fear communist revolution because extreme socialism as in form of the USSR is far too extreme from what people anywhere else in the world would stand for. Buying Chinese product is just an extension of capitalism, if I remember correctly your people used to have the same fear with Japan as well but even if they do succeed in dominating American market - I don't see how they could affect your way of life in anyway, you still use your computer and enjoy free access to internet if one day we're buying Chinese car then so what?

That's because Japan and Korea and any single European polity are all small countries compared to the US. China is larger than the US and Europe COMBINED.

The real question to ask is to think about how much consumption of US products have influenced other countries. Then, ask yourself what would happen if the US was dwarfed by another country in terms of production and consumption. The last time America experienced something like that was when Europe was still where the dominant great powers resided (i.e. before 1900), yet now we have China already breaking records in production. It will be a matter of time before that production increases in quality enough to compete toe-to-toe with developed nation products, like Japan, like Taiwan, and like Korea.

Your people are driving Japanese and then Korean car now and it doesn't seem to affect your baseball or apple pie in anyway.

Take one look at Detroit and then try to make that assertion again. In America we talk about the "new normal". That "new normal" is what globalization has done to our economy and way of life.

The best they could have done is following the Imperial Japan route and expand into South East Asia (informally), if you are ok with that is it wiser to just forget Chinese aggression and forged a better friendship?

If you're talking about military adventurism, I'm fairly certain China won't be going that route...it won't seek open antagonism with the US if it can help it...at least not until it can match the US's capability to project power (something the USSR has more or less been on par with the US for most of the Cold war). That's probably 30-40 years down the road (i.e. when China's standard of living and per capita GDP begins to approach developed nation levels).

I've made this point a long, long time ago that I think China's rise will mirror Germany's rise in Europe at the turn of the 19-20th centuries. There is the dominant off-continent power (in China's case the US, in Germany's case England) that slowly but surely loses influence as the continental power rises in strength. The parallels are IMHO all there. Germany like China was a fragmented mess before it unified. China's unification is almost complete.

I didn't look at it in term of formal military expansion though, but it is most certainly that China might want to open a new military base in a more traditional US allies, like Indonesia, Malaysia, most likely Thailand which I would consider a form of military expansion as well (which could have serious affect if they managed to "expand" into somewhere like Philippine, replacing the current US base )

This IS formal military expansion. Most of our foreign military bases were established during a war or as a precursor to war in the region.

There is little to no question that our recent deployments in Australia and the Philippines are preparations for war. The question is what kind of war, and whether or not it will occur.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?