r/moderatepolitics • u/Soggy_Association491 • 1d ago
News Article China’s Fallen Generals Are Getting Unexpectedly Harsh Punishments
https://foreignpolicy.com/2026/05/22/china-xi-jinping-purge-generals-punishment-death-sentence/54
u/cathbadh politically homeless 1d ago
There are generally two reasons to do this:
1) concerns about Xi's position and wanting to shore up loyalty
2) Preparations for military action by getting rid of dissenters or those who won't be able to perform.
Xi has purged people for "corruption" in the past, and most estimates or an invasion of Taiwan still point to a year or more away for when they'll have the capabilities to even attempt an attack, and most of those ignore the lessons of Ukraine. So I wouldn't go to the worst possibility yet
•
5
u/Nice-Appearance-9720 1d ago
"most estimates or an invasion of Taiwan still point to a year or more away"
sounds like Israel estimating Iran's nuke development.
7
u/cathbadh politically homeless 13h ago
In the Iranian case it's accurate. Once they hit 60% enrichment, which they openly declared, they were about a week from a single device and a month from several.
-7
u/Nice-Appearance-9720 12h ago
..they were about a week from a single device..
sounds like a speech of Bibi.
10
u/cathbadh politically homeless 10h ago
Sigh do you want to discuss this or just make comments comparing me to a man many (including myself) don't like? I don't want to waste time here.
The US DIA, the IAEA, multiple think tanks, and relatively basic mathematics all point to this time frame for enrichment.
Enrichment time frames are known by scientists, and while we may not know the exact number of centrifuges Iran possessed, we do know a minimum number. That means the amount of time to get from 60 to 90 can be figured out. 60 to 90 is fast. It takes about 10% of the time that 0 to 60 did because enrichment is not linear.
They would still need a device and a delivery system. Those are easier steps,especially since the engineering behind a workable bomb is more then 80 years old and well known, they had prior weapons research, and are already good at rocket building, assuming they didn't just put it in a truck and smuggle it somewhere to be used.
-11
u/Nice-Appearance-9720 8h ago
I can already imagine your next comment is that Sadam has WMD.
7
u/cathbadh politically homeless 6h ago
So no, you don't want to discuss it then. I guess making up arguments for me is easier than actually replying to what I actually said.
2
u/BendicantMias 1d ago
China won't invade. Why bother? They don't need to. They could simply blockade Taiwan indefinitely. It's not Ukraine or Iran - it's actually an island. Why do it the hard way? If the US tries to intervene, which is looking increasingly unlikely, it'd be fighting in the most favorable battlespace China could ask for - right in China's backyard, against the PRC Navy (already larger, albeit shorter ranged but who cares when the battle is close to China), Air Force, Rocket Force, Drones and even parts of its army air force. They've also already fortified that area with AA/AD weapon systems all over the place. China is already the world's largest shipbuilder, and drone producer. The US is neither, and far from home. It would be a disaster. So why should they invade?
It is already the policy of the PRC to retake Taiwan, that didn't start with Xi. They largely left it alone for generations as they focused on their own internal development, but the recent uptick in interest to taking it is likely a reaction to the US than cos Xi especially needs to do it politically. Reaction to what from the US? This - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_chain_strategy
For both the U.S. and the PRC, the island chain strategy emphasizes the geographical and strategic importance of Taiwan.
Lastly, what does China spend on its military? Its defense spending amounts to 1.7% of its GDP. That's HALF the US figure, and even less than Europe spends. That hardly looks like a massive defense buildup. They could double that and still be only on par with the US, and still under NATO's new defense spending target. They could quadruple that and still only be matching that of Russia, never mind Israel and especially not Ukraine's ridiculous spending (only possible due to massive quantities of foreign money).
So this hardly looks like the prelude to an invasion of Taiwan. More likely they see Taiwan as a foregone conclusion and are only waiting for the best time to deal with it i.e. with minimal foreign intervention. They'd prefer that Taiwan gets disheartened enough by American reticence to help it that it decides to compromise and come to negotiations. And that will wait until the next US president, as right now Taiwan is, like everyone else, hoping Trump will burn himself and his movement out, resulting in a complete volte face in the US govt. after he's gone. China would like to know how much of Trumps' foreign policy will quietly persist after Trump. Then they can decide whether force is needed or simple pressure on Taiwan will do
43
u/terpcity03 1d ago
Taiwanese identity is at record highs, and every election in Taiwan for the past decade has moved Taiwan further away from Beijing’s preferred outcome. Public opinion in Taiwan consistently shows 80–90% opposition to unification under any model, and that hasn’t budged even during periods of intense U.S. uncertainty.
https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2025/11/25/2003847788
The idea that Taiwan will simply get "disheartened" and negotiate away its sovereignty doesn’t match how Taiwanese politics or society actually behave. China’s pressure reliably pushes Taiwan further from Beijing and not closer.
A blockade is a plausible coercive option because it lets China apply sustained pressure without immediately crossing into a full scale war. The challenge for Beijing is that a blockade is not a low risk move. It would still be seen as an act of war by many governments and it would disrupt global trade on a scale that would damage China’s own economy. It would also give the United States and its partners a clearer legal and diplomatic basis to intervene because freedom of navigation is a core interest for many countries. Taiwan has prepared for this scenario for years and it has stockpiled essential supplies to avoid being forced into negotiations by short term pressure.
A blockade is therefore not a simple or cost free tool. It is a coercive option that carries serious risks and uncertain outcomes. It is not guaranteed to break Taiwan’s political will and it could easily harden it instead. It is also not guaranteed to keep outside powers on the sidelines. China knows this which is why it continues to test the boundaries without crossing into a sustained blockade.
-20
u/BendicantMias 1d ago edited 1d ago
That's mostly irrelevant to China. I didn't say they'd win Taiwan over with roses, rather that Taiwan would be left with little choice if they can see that no one is gonna save them if China chooses to act. Taiwanese defiance is based on confidence that it will get help, so the past years are not really indicative of how a blockade will actually go. If Taiwan knows that it's on its own - which has NOT been the case for all these years (and even now still isn't), then they'll have to reconsider their stance. Not before the blockade, when they can be as defiant as they like, but during it. If they aren't saved within months, or if their saviors are sunk to the bottom of the sea, then all that spirit will soon have to contend with their geographic and economic reality. I'm not talking about US uncertainty - I'm talking about certainty. If the US doesn't come, or if it comes and loses, then there is no hope for the future. They give in or starve.
It would still be seen as an act of war by many governments and it would disrupt global trade on a scale that would damage China’s own economy.
Nowhere near as much as trying to take out the largest trading nation on Earth. It's funny how people treat Taiwan as somehow crucial, yet neglect to note that China today is the largest trade partner of the most nations in the world. Without Taiwan the rest of the world loses advanced chips - not even all chips, just the most advanced, mostly only used in computers and phones, not all devices. Without China you've lost the literal 'factory of the world', and its second largest consumer market too. Every market would face massive upheaval. In addition Taiwanese chips can be had once more after China takes the island if they're not destroyed (which China has no reason to do). They'll simply be Chinese exports now. That makes no difference to most of the world, only to the West which will face even more reliance on a strategic rival.
give the United States and its partners a clearer legal and diplomatic basis to intervene.
I already spoke of them doing so, and mentioned just how disadvantageous that fight would be. Assuming a US intervention would be an automatic victory is nothing but hubris. Also, though their opinion is really irrelevant these days, but an intervention would not have UN backing, as Taiwan isn't recognized as independent by it. And China could simply veto any resolution too.
Taiwan has prepared for this scenario for years and it has stockpiled essential supplies to avoid being forced into negotiations by short term pressure.
Who said this had to be short term? China can keep up a blockade indefinitely if it wants. And there's no way Taiwan can last longer than China itself could, which has even larger stockpiles and even more open trade routes as it's not an island - and the largest trader on Earth.
It is not guaranteed to break Taiwan’s political will and it could easily harden it instead.
You cannot harden beyond starvation. They will bend, the only question is how long it'd take. Although I don't think it'll ever come even close to this, I'll mention it anyway - even if the entire population were to starve rather than give in, China has more than enough people to replace them with. I don't say that cos I think that's how it'll play out, just to emphasize just how hopeless that defiance is. China doesn't even need to take the island alive, just to take it.
And China will still prefer that outcome, cos even that is preferable to this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_chain_strategy The US nearly started WW3 over the Soviets being in Cuba, and China will absolutely be as ruthless if necessary to keep the US off of its 'Cuba'. The Cuban crisis was averted by the Soviets backing off. We'll see if the US will do that.
It is also not guaranteed to keep outside powers on the sidelines.
I never said it was guaranteed to begin with, so this is a strawman. China would like to minimize the cost of doing so sure. But my point was that it can do so. The easy way, or the hard way...
15
u/terpcity03 1d ago
The idea that Taiwan would simply collapse once it feels alone ignores how coercion has actually worked in the region, and it also assumes China can run an indefinite blockade without triggering consequences that would hit its own economy and security. A blockade is not a clean pressure tool because it would still be treated by many governments as an act of war, and it would invite counter measures from other states that includes the possibility of war. China is the largest trading nation in the world which means it is also one of the most vulnerable to a maritime crisis, and even a partial interruption of shipping would cause economic shock, capital flight, supply shortages and a collapse in foreign investor confidence.
Taiwan is also not relying on hope or bravado, and it has spent years preparing for a long siege. Political will does not evaporate the moment supplies tighten and history shows that populations under attack often become more resistant rather than less. The claim that China could simply starve out twenty three million people and then replace them is not a realistic political scenario. It would create a humanitarian disaster so severe that China would face international isolation on a scale similar to the backlash Russia received after its invasion of Ukraine. A blockade or even the threat of a blockade would accelerate the ongoing trend of countries moving their manufacturing to places like Vietnam, India and Mexico.
While China could still choose to impose a blockade, the real question is whether the leadership is willing to accept a result that inflicts severe long term damage on China itself. Nobody can predict how a blockade would unfold because any military action in the Strait carries enormous uncertainty and risks that no state can fully control. Russia thought it could conquer Ukraine in three days. Most analysts gave them a month or two. Yet the results speak for themselves.
Better to let the status quo be the status quo.
-10
u/BendicantMias 1d ago edited 1d ago
China is the largest trading nation in the world which means it is also one of the most vulnerable to a maritime crisis, and even a partial interruption of shipping would cause economic shock, capital flight, supply shortages and a collapse in foreign investor confidence.
None of this is one-sided, and it would hurt other nations far more than China as it would not be a unified global response. Far from it, the list of nations expected to respond is very short, while China has a very diverse list trade partners as literally the state that is the biggest trade partner of the most nations globally. More than even America. And almost all nations don't recognize Taiwanese independence, nor share America's worries over chips coming from China rather than Taiwan (they import most of their electronics from China anyway). China is also not as dependent on exports as, say, Germany or Japan are. Exports are a fifth of its gdp, whereas for Germany it's around half - that's what an export dependent economy actually looks like. China is also a large market for Germany btw.
The claim that China could simply starve out twenty three million people and then replace them is not a realistic political scenario.
I never said it would come to that, it was merely to illustrate just how much more preferable it would be to China than to let the US have it. Look at what the US is doing to Cuba now. As I've said, Taiwan is China's Cuba. Quite literally - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_chain_strategy
Also, you vastly overestimate the amount of backlash powerful states ever receive. Trade is still open for Russia to most nations in the world. Less than quarter of the worlds nations are sanctioning it, representing even less of the worlds' people (really just Europe and North America). Most nations and people still trade with Russia, and even today there are still even western firms operating in Russia.
Now scale that up for China, far more critical to the world economy and the majority trade partner of the most nations on Earth. And btw, what of the US, which has already done comparable wars? Vietnam killed over 3 MILLION people, yet trade continued, while the more recent War on Terror saw to the deaths of over 4.5 MILLION - https://costsofwar.watson.brown.edu/costs/human
If you want to claim the whole world is going to boycott China over an island most everyone already proclaims as theirs, then why has the whole world not boycotted the US yet? Even now, as the whole world is suffering from yet another American war? This is what the world thinks of the US, and yet still trades with it - https://brilliantmaps.com/threat-to-peace/
Russia thought it could conquer Ukraine in three days.
That claim came from US General Mark Milley actually - https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/why-gen-milleys-ukraine-war-prediction-missed-mile
Better to let the status quo be the status quo.
That's what China has done. The island chain doesn't allow them to, as it upsets the status quo. You can directly trace the rise of recent Chinese hostility to changes in America, not China, in the form of air and seaspace violations of Taiwan. They rose greatly starting in 2016-17 - China didn't change then (Xi came to power half a decade earlier), America did (Trump came to power on the back of an anti-China crusade, which even Biden continued albeit multilaterally)
China may very well not even formally take Taiwan in the end, instead offering it some sort of superficial protectorate status to entice them after a blockade has worn them down. That would leave them nominally 'independent', but without control of their foreign policy. That would avoid starvation, but crucially also put an end to their partnership with America. They might eventually end up absorbed in all but name like Hong Kong, but not initially. China can afford to be patient about that, but the island chain demands they act to ensure America is kept at bay.
9
u/terpcity03 1d ago
We can speculate all day about who would respond, how unified the reaction would be, or how China might try to manage the fallout, but none of that changes the basic reality that a blockade is a profoundly risky move for China and nowhere near as straightforward or inevitable as you are trying to make it sound. There are reasons why the status quo remains the status quo.
As for your last paragraph, it overlooks the most important factor of all: the people of Taiwan have no desire to be dominated by China. Every major poll for years has shown that the overwhelming majority of Taiwanese reject unification, reject Beijing’s political model and prefer to maintain their current democratic system. Even under pressure, even under intimidation, that sentiment has remained stable or strengthened. You cannot coerce a population into believing they are part of a country they do not want to join, and assuming they will eventually “bend” ignores the political identity and lived experience of twenty three million people. Whatever China’s long term goals may be, the will of the Taiwanese public is not something Beijing can simply override.
-5
u/BendicantMias 1d ago edited 1d ago
China already prefers the status quo, or at least the status quo prior to 2016 or so. They would prefer to do things slowly, but will not allow the US to reverse that steady progression as it escalates its rivalry with them. I mention a blockade as itself a less bloody alternative to an invasion, if push comes to shove (such as by a US recognition of the island, in response to disputes over other things). Even that I expect to be presented otherwise, as some sort of 'quarantine' operation to stop weapons or the like - very much like what the US did to Cuba during the Missile Crisis.
And I think you have an overly romantic view of these things tbh. Which is ironic, considering America itself is known for it. It's currently at war with Iran for instance, but this conflict traces back a long way. All the way back to a time when America DID coerce the country into accepting a puppet ruler (albeit not forever), and that too without invading it - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
China has also incorporated territories it claims into itself, as has the US (which once fought a war with Mexico over land, remember, or Hawaii - both lands are now firmly part of the US by now). There's Hong Kong of course, whose resistance has crumbled. Or Tibet, which also no one imagines is going to gain its independence anytime soon. You don't even need to be a superpower to do it, as Azerbaijan is now proving in formerly Armenian controlled (and populated) territory.
https://www.cftjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Exodus_FinalV4.pdf
As I said, China may not even formally take over the island. Do I think the Taiwanese will be fooled by being labelled a 'special autonomous region' or 'protectorate'? No. But neither was Hong Kong, and it didn't matter. Once it becomes clear the US can't/won't save them, it will come as a relief. And China so far has held on to these territories afterwards even as it slowly absorbs them into itself. Once America is out of the picture, they can afford to be patient. The more restive Taiwanese will just leave, and more Chinese people will move in, as has happened in Hong Kong. The 'will of the Taiwanese people' will eventually shift as they themselves do.
8
u/terpcity03 23h ago
The entire argument you are building depends on the idea that Washington either cannot or will not act. Yet nothing in the last forty years of US policy suggests that the United States would simply step aside and allow a strategic shift of that scale. Whether one likes US involvement or not, it is a central variable in the region, and removing it from the equation is what makes your scenario look far more straightforward than it actually is. You assume away the single most influential external actor in the region. Not to mention that the regional environment is moving in the opposite direction of what you are implying. Countries in East and Southeast Asia have been growing more wary of China, and their defense policies, partnerships and public opinion all reflect that shift. Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia and even Vietnam have tightened security ties with the United States precisely because they do not want to live in a region dominated by Beijing.
It also does not make sense to treat Taiwan as another Hong Kong. From the moment the New Territories lease was signed in 1898, Hong Kong’s eventual return to China was baked into the legal structure of the territory. Everyone involved knew the handover date decades in advance. Taiwan is a self governing democracy with its own armed forces, its own political identity, and sovereign control over its own borders. The situations are fundamentally different, and treating Taiwan as if it is simply another Hong Kong is not just inaccurate, it shows a misunderstanding of the basic history.
-4
u/BendicantMias 22h ago edited 14h ago
The entire argument you are building depends on the idea that Washington either cannot or will not act.
No, it does not. In fact I acknowledged American involvement right at the start, and pointed out very clearly how unfavorable such a battle would be. So the entire argument you're arguing against here is a strawman from start to finish. Indeed some of the comments focused especially on that, which I ignored as their responses were just jingoism about how untouchable America is. Ironic, while it's losing a war yet again.
they do not want to live in a region dominated by Beijing.
And Latin America doesn't want to live in a region dominated by Washington. Doesn't change how that played out. China has long dominated that region for most of its history. It's funny how much of these arguments mirror the US itself. The US even has Cuba as an island thorn in its side, just as China has Taiwan. China may make some of its neighbors nervous, but so has the US to pretty much its whole continent.
Your gallery of potential participants isn't very impressive either. Japan and Korea (the only significant military power among them) hate each other, and the latter has its northern neighbor to worry about. The Philippines is a reed in the winds that's already aligned with China before, and has much to fear from reprisal if the war is lost. They might let America use bases there, but will shut them down the moment the US either wavers or is defeated. Australia depends on China for its whole economy, and can offer nothing but token naval support. They're not gonna keep up a futile fight after the US is gone. Vietnam also has China as its largest investor, and is not a naval power capable of changing anything afterwards. Their history is one of staunch defiance to outside powers - including btw famously the US too - not of fighting afield to save islands populated by other Chinese people. Indeed Vietnam actually has its own disputes with Taiwan. Some of these nations may offer America support from bases there, especially Japan, but none of them can continue to fight on their own or even together. Either the US wins, largely with its own forces, or the island is lost. They won't save it.
Much like Latin America hates what the US has done to Cuba, yet none of them are rescuing it either. Indeed the whole world hates what the US has done to Cuba, and I mean THE WHOLE WORLD literally (save, notably, Israel), yet the world hasn't saved Cuba either - https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/11/1143112
Taiwan is a self governing democracy with its own armed forces, its own political identity, and sovereign control over its own borders.
So is Somaliland. Fat lot of good that's done it. The only way they've been able to get any semblance of recognition at all is by playing regional players against each other, much like Taiwan is. And much like Somaliland, most of the world still doesn't recognize Taiwan, so if China were to reclaim it it wouldn't represent a change at all for most countries. Only in the western alliance would it lead to a lot of handwringing.
You're treating Taiwan as special, it isn't. There are many such places, but only one that the west gets all up in arms about it. It's not like the Western Sahara dispute gets westerners excited, but this little island does. And the reasons for that have little to do with principles and everything to do with geopolitics. It will be settled geopolitically too. In the words of Clausewitz, war is just politics by other means. China may be content to play politics normally, but if the US tries to undermine that, it may very well decide it must pursue politics 'by other means'. They wrote the Art of War, after all, which long predates Clausewitz.
→ More replies (0)32
u/Tman1677 1d ago
A blockade is an act of war, and for most intents and purposes can be considered the same as an invasion.
-12
u/CallOfValhalla 1d ago
Just because it can be considered the same doesn’t mean the international community will treat it the same. Besides, Taiwan can make an invasion a blood bath. They can’t break a blockade. That is something only the US can do and I’m not confident at all that this administration will send US warships into battle against Chinese warships.
-15
u/BendicantMias 1d ago
It is an act of war yes, but it's hardly what most people think of when you mention the word 'invasion'. And the difference matters militarily as well, as the blockade is FAR easier than an actual invasion would be. Which is why Trump is currently using one instead of invading Iran, but Taiwan would be even more vulnerable to blockade than Iran as it's actually an island.
-14
u/Nice-Appearance-9720 1d ago
No its not. Just look at US and Iran - US navy blockading Iran ships doesn't mean war.
21
u/ViskerRatio 1d ago
They could simply blockade Taiwan indefinitely.
The problem with this strategy is that active hostilities in the China Sea would de facto blockade all commerce in the China Sea. Without active commercial shipping through the China Sea, Taiwan would be in a difficult situation. However, it's a relatively small nation that could easily be kept afloat by U.S. merchant marine activities.
China, on the other hand, would run out of fuel and food in a matter of months with no realistic way to keep its infrastructure operating or feed its people.
The only way China takes Taiwan is with a rapid victory. Which, if we remember our 20th Century history, is the strategic linchpin of nations who lose wars.
If the US tries to intervene, which is looking increasingly unlikely, it'd be fighting in the most favorable battlespace China could ask for
The battle space is actually a lot more favorable to the U.S. than China.
Remember, we're not talking about interior supply lines here. Any major war fought in the China Sea region has to be fought with food and fuel from elsewhere.
However, China's enemies control all the paths to that 'elsewhere' - China is surrounded by hostile nations on all sides. So while China itself would be cut off from essential resources to continue the fight, its enemies would not.
Lastly, what does China spend on its military?
The U.S. and Chinese military are fundamentally different in nature.
The Chinese military has limited power projection, is primarily built around internal security and mainly functions as a container for state businesses.
The U.S. military is in the business of warfighting - and they are very, very good at it. Not only is the basic U.S. military far more capable than what other nations (including China) manage, but it has a vast and deep institutional knowledge about how to fight wars that places like China lack.
More likely they see Taiwan as a foregone conclusion
Honestly, China's got bigger problems - a looming demographic and debt crisis - than Taiwan that they're probably focused on. Taiwan is an issue of national pride more than anything else.
17
u/ouiaboux 1d ago
The problem with this strategy is that active hostilities in the China Sea would de facto blockade all commerce in the China Sea. Without active commercial shipping through the China Sea, Taiwan would be in a difficult situation. However, it's a relatively small nation that could easily be kept afloat by U.S. merchant marine activities.
More importantly, shutting down commercial traffic will hurt China itself more than anyone else as they need their cheap plastic goods shipped out.
10
u/ViskerRatio 1d ago
Long-term, it would definitely hurt them. However, in the short-term, they'd simply assume more debt - especially to their own citizens - to cover the shortfall in external trade.
World War II hurt U.S. trade a great deal. So we sold war bonds - essentially saying to our workers "volunteer to work for a pittance now in exchange for getting paid back once we finish up this fight".
The imports are a much bigger deal since food and fuel are immediate concerns that you can't replace by shuffling numbers on a piece of paper or giving a rousing motivational speech.
-7
u/BendicantMias 1d ago
it's a relatively small nation that could easily be kept afloat by U.S. merchant marine activities.
Uh what? Do you know what a blockade is? What kind of a blockade do you imagine China would impose? Some sort of glorified naval parade?
China, on the other hand, would run out of fuel and food in a matter of months
Right, supposedly the massive continental nation that's the largest trader on Earth, with an even more massive allied neighbor just to its north that has plenty of food and fuel, and has the largest stockpiles on earth - is just going to fall over faster than the tiny island next to it.
I've heard this rhetoric used to argue that the Iran war is really about hurting China. The reality is that they're holding up better than any other non-American nation, for good reason - https://www.reuters.com/graphics/IRAN-CRISIS/CHINA-OIL/egpbeormkvq/
In fact they're holding up so well under it that they're literally partially sparing the rest of the world from its worst effects - https://www.channelnewsasia.com/commentary/iran-war-china-cuts-oil-imports-energy-prices-6109266
Any attempt to blockade China won't be as effective as it's not an island, will do nothing to save Taiwan, and will quite possibly result in other nations like Japan also being blockaded too in retaliation if the US insists on staying far away anyway. Plus the nations in the region where that blockade would have to be imposed - we both know you're talking about the Malacca Strait - would not take kindly to being dragged into a war they'd rather sit out. All of them have China as their largest trade partner, so any such blockade would majorly hurt their economies. All you'd accomplish is taking a bad situation and making it worse.
The U.S. military is in the business of warfighting - and they are very, very good at it.
Right, the military that keeps losing wars over and over 'is very, very good at it'.
Taiwan is an issue of national pride more than anything else.
Taiwan is an issue of Cuba more than anything else - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_chain_strategy And we all know how the US responded to the Soviets in Cuba...
22
u/ViskerRatio 1d ago
Uh what? Do you know what a blockade is? What kind of a blockade do you imagine China would impose? Some sort of glorified naval parade?
Blockading the entire island would be essentially impossible - especially given that the U.S. would almost certainly maintain air supremacy over the entire region.
Remember, this isn't a few aircraft carriers fighting halfway around the world. It's the entire sky-darkening might of the U.S. air force flying out of places like Japan, kept operational by endless sea of fuel from unassailable resource areas.
with an even more massive allied neighbor just to its north that has plenty of food and fuel
Russia is not 'allied' to China. They're political adversaries.
Any attempt to blockade China won't be as effective as it's not an island
About three months after the war you're imagining, China would be in the grips of a famine. It wouldn't even be able to operate the internal infrastructure necessary to distribute its domestic food production - much less cover the shortfall in that domestic food production.
Moreover, you don't need to blockade the Chinese coast. All you need to do is close the Straits of Malacca - easily done by the U.S. and well outside the operational reach of the Chinese navy.
Not to mention that any sort of large-scale conflict in the South China Sea would inherently shut down all commercial shipping without even having to shoot anyone because those commercial shipper wouldn't be able to cover the risk.
in other nations like Japan also being blockaded too
Again, you're imagining scenarios that just aren't feasible in the real world. You cannot conduct a naval blockade when your enemies have air supremacy over the water or interfere with submarine operations. While China might be able to maintain control over its own air space, there's no chance they'd be able to do so over Japan. Likewise, while they might be able to interdict submarines passing into the China Sea, there's no chance for them to do so in blue water.
In fact they're holding up so well under it that they're literally partially sparing the rest of the world from its worst effects
Read the article. They're not 'holding up'. They're invading their strategic reserve. While they're not actually drawing it down, this is because they're not maintaining the tempo necessary for an offensive war.
Right, the military that keeps losing wars over and over 'is very, very good at it'.
The U.S. military isn't good at counter-insurgency because no one is. But we're not discussing counter-insurgency. We're discussing the ability to establish and maintain military supremacy in a region - which the U.S. has been able to do with complete impunity in every war since Korea. Even then, the U.S. military could have driven to Beijing if that was the overall strategic goal. We didn't conquer China back then not because we couldn't but because it wasn't in our national interest.
Ask yourself this: if it was an easy as you're imagining for China, why haven't they done it? It's not like they're a bunch of peace-loving hippies who just want to give love a chance. They're aggressively expansionistic and have no problems using brutal force to suppress local populations.
They're also facing debt and demographic catastrophes that likely make it a "if not now, then never" issue for them.
The reason they don't is simple: they know they'd get annihilated. The logistics are severely disadvantageous and while it may not be apparent by just counting ship hulls, the force disparity disadvantage is equally enormous.
22
u/cathbadh politically homeless 1d ago
They could simply blockade Taiwan indefinitely.
Because the rest of the world will just accept the end of their tech sectors and a future of Chinese dominance over them?
Why do it the hard way
Because the world won't actually just roll over and give you everything you want and bow down before you, so you need to take the island quickly because you have zero experience whatsoever at fighting wars and have a fragile economy that can be shut down with a few submarines to the point where it would collapse and you'd face famine?
it's actually an island
... Which makes things harder for them, not easier should they actually have to do something other than stand around and declare a blockade.
If the US tries to intervene, which is looking increasingly unlikely, it'd be fighting in the most favorable battlespace China could ask for - right in China's backyard
Its only the most favorable battlespace they can ask for because they're incapable of projecting power anywhere else. In any case, the US's ability to project power, especially in the air and at sea is renown.
against the PRC Navy
The one with no relevant experience in well over a century, attached to a government not known for winning wars, fought by completely untested sailors, lead by inexperienced leaders?
(already larger, albeit shorter ranged but who cares when the battle is close to China
This is propaganda, and not even good propaganda at that. Their ships are smaller and weaker. The main way to judge naval forces is by displacement, which the US leads in. You could also use experience, but China has zero, and equipment quality, which the US is known to have whereas China only has untested designs.
Air Force
The one that's never fought anything at all? The one who's latest and greatest planes barely qualify as 5th generation?
Rocket Force, Drones
Probably the most relevant part. Too bad only they have these weapons and Taiwan and the US don't I guess.
even parts of its army air force
Really? Ok fine. So then we should include the US Army's air assets too, right? That would mean the US is bring the first, second, and third largest air forces on the planet to the fight, instead of just the first and second.
China is already the world's largest shipbuilder, and drone producer.
They're also a huge importer of food. And fuel. And fertilizer. And seeds. As well as being entirely dependent on exports to fuel their economy. This is what their fans on Reddit don't seem to get. Any plan for China to succeed in a war with the US REQUIRES the assumption that the US and the rest of the world will just continue to trade with China. It is preposterous, especially under Trump (required reddit disclaimer: I am not praising him). The US would interdict all shipping in and out of China. They would be mostly cut off from their sources of fuel right when they need fuel the most. War consumes incredible amounts of fuel. It also consumes a great deal of food. China imports a third of their food. How long can they manage without food imports? What happens if they miss a planting season because they didn't get the fertilizer they need?
The US of course wouldn't fight alone either. Alongside Taiwan, a nation that can also produce drones of its own, would be Japan, Australia, The Philippines, some of Europe, and possibly even South Korea. Who would be joining China?
It would be a disaster. So why should they invade?
Yes, China's reddit fans say it will be a disaster. They also make long posts without acknowledging anything could possibly go wrong for China or that it has any flaws whatsoever.
What happens when a US destroyer escorts a cargo ship or two towards Taiwan? Do you think China will be willing to start a world war and attack them? Note that that would make them braver than the Soviets ever were as they folded when presented with a similar situation.
Lastly, what does China spend on its military? Its defense spending amounts to 1.7% of its GDP. That's HALF the US figure, and even less than Europe spends.
Do you think there's any reason for that? Could it possibly have to do with being able to dictate wages to employees who often may not have a choice in the work they do? Or their ability to just declare the value of whatever they want within their country? Or the quality of what they're producing?
It is already the policy of the PRC to retake Taiwan, that didn't start with Xi.
No, but he's the one pushing for firmer dates and has expressed a desire to complete it before he dies. China has been 1 year away from invading since I was in high school in the 1990's, so I don't think they're going to risk the status quo and attack. Despite what some think, it would be disastrous for them, their economy would be in shambles, their people would be starving, and if they won, it would be control of an island with little economic value afterward. That may not prevent them from doing it for ideological reasons.
It would be pretty disastrous for the US and everyone else involved as well. Hopefully they don't fall into the absurd notion that a blockade is a perfect tactic with no chance of failure that will give them everything they want.
hey'd prefer that Taiwan gets disheartened enough by American reticence to help it that it decides to compromise and come to negotiations.
How disenheartened would you have to be to consign your family to torture camps? Because that's what will happen to a large number of people in Taiwan. The rest just have to face constant surveillance, the end of most freedoms, and the occasional trip to a tiger chair when they make the mistake of complaining about things as trivial as bad parking.
China would like to know how much of Trumps' foreign policy will quietly persist after Trump
Well, what do you think? Do you think the US after Trump will decide it no longer cares about having a tech based economy or remaining a super/hyperpower?
-1
u/onespiker 18h ago edited 18h ago
Think the food part is a bit overstated considering the size of thier food reserves. They have like 85% of the world's food reserves something like enough without any food production to support a year of consumption.
So yea they can hold on a while with likely more enough time to scale up to cover thier own needs.
This wouldn't be without substantial costs to thier own economy though. ( especially considering that it would then likely need to take a large share of the then limited fossile fuels needed for thier economy).
They are also currently seem to be doing a lot of agricultural development to increase thier productivity in that area and to likely make them even more self reliant.
This will take a while to advance to substantially effect thier current deficit but there are plenty of things that they can already do to make it way more productive, but that would be taking away recources from thier industrial focus( witch boosts gdp growth way more )
Generally agree with everything else.
1
u/e00s 1d ago
I think the smarter path for them is the slow boiling of the frog. If you do something really clear like a full blockade, it’s easier for your adversaries to conclude that action is appropriate. If you take things slower, with each step purportedly having a legitimate purpose, you make it much more difficult for your adversaries to take the leap of getting involved. It’s like what dictators do when taking power. You don’t just declare yourself President for Life, you slowly erode institutions, with no one step looking like such a big deal.
1
u/BendicantMias 1d ago
Well that's what China has been doing, and would prefer to keep doing. Even a Chinese blockade, if it comes to that, is expected to be presented as a 'sanitizing' affair to perhaps interrupt the flow of weapons or the like (whether that's true or not matters little), akin to America's 'quarantine' of Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The problem is they have to react to America, not letting it empower Taiwan while they slowly 'boil' it.
You can directly trace the recent rise of Chinese hostility to changes in America, not China, in the form of air and seaspace violations of Taiwan. They rose greatly starting in 2016-17 - China didn't change then (Xi came to power half a decade earlier), America did (Trump came to power on the back of an anti-China crusade, which even Biden continued albeit multilaterally). The largest Chinese naval drills around Taiwan directly followed from more senior US officials visiting the island than had been the case before. The more America escalates its feud with China, the more China escalates with Taiwan, as they see Taiwan as an American asset.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_chain_strategy
China may very well not even formally take Taiwan in the end, instead offering it some sort of superficial protectorate status to entice them after a blockade has worn them down. That would leave them nominally 'independent', but without control of their foreign policy. That would avoid bloodshed, but crucially also put an end to their partnership with America. They might eventually end up absorbed in all but name like Hong Kong, but not initially. China can afford to be patient about that, but the island chain demands they act to ensure the US is kept at bay.
13
u/Soggy_Association491 1d ago edited 1d ago
Starer comment:
This is the first time senior officials, just one level below member of politburo is sentenced to suspended death sentences which life imprisonment with a permanent bar on parole and further commutation. While suspended death sentences are not unusual in major Chinese corruption cases, the permanent denial of parole and commutation is exceptionally severe and sets a new benchmark for punishment
Additionally Chinese state media also has shifted its language from describing offenses as corruption to portraying them as acts of political disloyalty against the Communist Party and implicitly against Xi himself.
Then there is the concern about the effectiveness of such a strong handed approach against combating corruption. If senior officials believe they face the maximum punishment regardless, they may have little incentive to limit their behavior.
However I would like to present another angle of this news. (I am bad at writing this kind of stuff so bare with me)
Historically the Central Military Commission consisted 7 members. Now there are only 2 remaining (including Xi) and the last member, Zhang Shengmin originated from the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection which is a part of Xi faction. It can be surmised that Xi want to concentrate the control over the military to him by reducing the influence of senior generals.
Also when we examine the charges against Zhang Youxia or Wei Fenghe, most of them focus on "violations of discipline" or "undermined the CMC system". Their language in the PLA context imply that they are guilty of seeking to establish some level of independence for the PLA and push back the influence of the non-military member of the CMC over military strategy and decision-making.
This pattern feels eerily similar to Nacht der langen Messer or Night of long knives in 1934 where Hitler purged a long list of unfavorable elements in order to consolidate his authority and prepare to the rearmament of Germany. Then in 1938, he ousted senior generals like Ludwig Beck, Werner von Fritsch, Werner von Blomberg who disagreed with him on foreign policy (aka the war).
Do you think history will repeat itself now that Xi has total control including the ability to tell the PRC to invade Taiwan even if the generals said no?
17
u/ViskerRatio 1d ago
This pattern feels eerily similar to Nacht der langen Messer or Night of long knives in 1934 where Hitler purged a long list of unfavorable elements in order to consolidate his authority and prepare to the rearmament of Germany.
It's not remotely akin to the Night of the Long Knives.
The Nazi Party was not a functional governing coalition when it assumed power. It was a radical political party whose objectives were opposed by most of Germany. Most particularly their objectives were opposed by two critical factions - business and the military. Hitler simply couldn't be successful without those groups being at least nominally on his side.
Thus, the Night of the Long Knives. Hitler wasn't ridding himself of enemies. He was purging some of his most loyal supporters who had nonetheless become an impediment to consolidating power because they prevented him from reaching an agreement with the broader forces in German society.
-11
u/ExpressLab6564 1d ago
The time for him to invade is the next 3 years. He will not make the mistake putin made and wait for the next democratic president
16
u/cathbadh politically homeless 1d ago
I don't think party matters here as much as capabilities and ideology. Biden was a Democrat and responded with weak half measures and constant constraints on Ukraine. There's no reason to believe he would have rushed to an all out war with China.
On the other side Trump is a wild card who preaches a turn away from neoconservative foreign policy while attacking and threatening nations frequently. There's no reason to automatically believe he wouldn't defend Taiwan.
The economic factor matters a great deal. The world's economy needs Taiwanese chips. The US especially. The risk of their destruction would be devastating, and the risk of their intact capture would be even worse. Even the most isolationist President can't just accept economic disaster or outright surrender tech or AI supremacy to China.
Looking to the future, I keep hearing that Vance is owned by the tech elite and Rubio does have a long history or neoconservative foreign policy beliefs. Why wouldn't either of them step up? What's more is it totally out of the realm of possibilities that the Dems would elect a populist who ran on saving jobs by fighting AI or who just sees American interventionism as colonialism and bad? What makes the thought of a Dem in the White House somehow the greatest fear Xi could have; one so bad that he'd give up his greatest ideological goal?
-2
u/Interesting_Total_98 19h ago
Trump is anti-China, but him being a wildcard means his allies can't trust him as much. Although Biden should've been more lenient, his support for Ukraine was far more consistent than Trump looking for reasons to delay aid.
1
u/cathbadh politically homeless 13h ago
Maybe more consistent, but far from reliable. Every ounce of aid came with handcuffs that did nothing but draw the fight out and lead to a reasonable belief that the Western goal was to bleed Russia's war making capability by prolonging the war rather than helping Ukraine win
-1
u/Interesting_Total_98 13h ago
He sent about $180 billion worth of aid.
Which would you prefer: Receiving a gigantic amount of help that came with some handcuffs, or a relatively tiny amount of aid that's delayed because the president wants something in return?
Criticizing the handcuffs is fine, but Biden was far more reliable than Trump.
2
u/cathbadh politically homeless 11h ago
I didn't realize those are the only choices. What about aid with significantly less restrictions on its use? Why can't I say that is the better option?
You seem to think I'm saying Trump was more reliable, and if I forgot to add the absurd "I'm not saying anything good about Trump" caveat that is sadly necessary to get reasonable replies, I apologize. Im not going to sit here and praise Biden just because he didn't do as bad as Trump.
So to make it clear, neither did an especially good job in my opinion. Ukrainians died needlessly because of how both Presidents approached things.
-1
u/ExpressLab6564 7h ago
It's not Biden didn't do as bad a Trump, it's trump has not done anything that has benefited the US at all.
2
u/cathbadh politically homeless 6h ago
trump has not done anything that has benefited the US at all.
Nothing? Literally nothing at all? OK, I'll tap out here if we're not going to be at least a LITTLE realistic.
-11
u/BendicantMias 1d ago edited 1d ago
Making Nazi comparisons of everything is tiresome tbh. It's far too much of a go-to in the west due to its Nazi obsession, unlike the rest of the world. There is more to history, including that of authoritarianism and especially in a completely foreign culture, than just 'Hitler did this, if you squint a little'.
As for preparing for an invasion, why? China could simply blockade Taiwan indefinitely. It's not Ukraine or Iran - it's actually an island. Why do it the hard way? If the US tries to intervene, which is looking increasingly unlikely, it'd be fighting in the most favorable battlespace China could ask for - right in China's backyard, against the PRC Navy (already larger, albeit shorter ranged but who cares when the battle is close to China), Air Force, Rocket Force, Drones and even parts of its army air force. They've also already fortified that area with AA/AD weapon systems all over the place. China is already the world's largest shipbuilder, and drone producer. The US is neither, and far from home. It would be a disaster. So why should they invade?
It is already the policy of the PRC to retake Taiwan, that didn't start with Xi. They largely left it alone for generations as they focused on their own internal development, but the recent uptick in interest to taking it is likely a reaction to the US than cos Xi especially needs to do it politically. Reaction to what from the US? This - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_chain_strategy
For both the U.S. and the PRC, the island chain strategy emphasizes the geographical and strategic importance of Taiwan.
Lastly, what does China spend on its military? Its defense spending amounts to 1.7% of its GDP. That's HALF the US figure, and even less than Europe spends. That hardly looks like a massive defense buildup. They could double that and still be only on par with the US, and still under NATO's new defense spending target. They could quadruple that and still only be matching that of Russia, never mind Israel and especially not Ukraine's ridiculous spending (only possible due to massive quantities of foreign money).
So this hardly looks like the prelude to an invasion of Taiwan. More likely they see Taiwan as a foregone conclusion and are only waiting for the best time to deal with it i.e. with minimal foreign intervention. They'd prefer that Taiwan gets disheartened enough by American reticence to help it that it decides to compromise and come to negotiations. And that will wait until the next US president, as right now Taiwan is, like everyone else, hoping Trump will burn himself and his movement out, resulting in a complete volte face in the US govt. after he's gone. China would like to know how much of Trumps' foreign policy will quietly persist after Trump. Then they can decide whether force is needed or simple pressure on Taiwan will do
0
u/dufutur 1d ago
A US arm sales blockade at sea is more likely scenario than a full blockade when China is ready. If it escalated between US and China, the battle field cannot be any realistically better for China, and if US backs down, the effect to Taiwan psychology is about the same as full blockade, and it gives others an excuse to look the other way. After all, nobody sells weapons to Taiwan except US.
-10
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/Magic-man333 1d ago
Always, US is just the most popular. If you want to post other stuff feel free.
-3
u/BendicantMias 1d ago
It's popular cos this place is filled mostly with Americans, as the responses to me here also clearly show. You're never going to get a global perspective here, just an American one. Reddit is already a heavily western-dominated space, other than the national subs, and this sub is even more so.
12
u/shaymus14 1d ago
Posts pro-CCP talking points
Other posters point out flaws in the talking points
"The responses to me show this place is filled with Americans who don't have a global perspective"
-2
u/BendicantMias 1d ago edited 1d ago
Your characterization of what I posted is itself telling.
And there were no flaws pointed out, only repeated affirmations of American might over and over. Every single point they made was based on 'America is so strong it can do anything' thinking. All of them have been addressed, and the only response to that was that 'America is so strong that it'll do it anyway'. Literally supremacism, which is not an attitude non-Americans would have. Especially not now, with American might failing again, with Iran. I even responded to the ones whose reactions weren't based on jingoism. But for others the jingoism was rife.
Lastly, the absolute and utter dominance of American politics in this space, including even the minutiae of its domestic politics, backs up my claim. If this place was global, it would have a MUCH MUCH MUCH more varied, and contested, discourse.
This is the kind of posts that're typical of the vast majority of posts here - https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1tttmve/fake_homeless_encampment_sparks_controversy_in_la/ That is domestic politics, down to the very mayoral level. To imagine the rest of the world is fascinated by US mayoral politics is absurd. Near everything in this sub caters to American interests.
So everything both in this post, and outside it, is very clearly pointing to the same conclusion - this is an American dominated space.
1
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 1d ago
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 4:
Law 4: Meta Comments
~4. Meta Comments - Meta comments are not permitted. Meta comments in meta text-posts about the moderators, sub rules, sub bias, reddit in general, or the meta of other subreddits are exempt.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
•
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 6h ago
This message serves as a warning that your post is in violation of Law 2f:
Law 2: Submission Requirements
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.