NationStates

Gallia- wrote:Chinese civil war might be the longest running civil war in history I guess, unless we count the existence of Byzantium as a Roman Civil War or something.

The Karen conflict is an armed conflict in Kayin State, Myanmar

Its The Longest Running Civil War with 73 Years

Nemidia wrote:To be entirely honest, I think the US and China would need a very, very good reason to go to war, they are far to economically intertwined to do it haphazardly

Well If China Still Wants Taiwan and Is Building A Better Navy, and attempts To Invade. I Think thats A Good reason

Duvniask wrote:

Gallia- wrote:Chinese civil war might be the longest running civil war in history I guess, unless we count the existence of Byzantium as a Roman Civil War or something.

Dear Eastern Roman Empire, instability is not a form of government.

Considering that the Eastern Roman Empire outlasted its Western counterpart, I doubt that the East was more unstable than the West. And since we're talking about Rome: down with the Secret Triumvirates!

Kubra wrote:

Shofercia wrote:Doubtful. China's not going to go beyond Taiwan, and the US isn't going to fight for Taiwan. Although I have to admit, this thread reads like a "you may also like this war" suggestion.

Conversely, China is not going to fight for Taiwan, because bombs and artillery is for places where you can cash in on the land, not the infrastructure.

Infrastructure can be rebuilt. Control of the South China Sea, East China Sea, and the Philippine Sea, cannot: https://thediplomat.com/2015/05/taiwan- ... -security/

Taking Taiwan would be a step in that direction. Whether China tries to do so military or through other means, is up for debate, but China will try to take it, there's no doubt about it in my mind.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower described the reason for the Taiwan defense treaty as follows:

In unfriendly hands, Formosa and the Pescadores would seriously dislocate the existing, even if unstable, balance of moral, economic, and military forces upon which the peace of the Pacific depends. It would create a breach in the island chain of the Western Pacific that constitutes for the United States and other free nations, the geographical backbone of their security structure in that ocean.

In addition, this breach would interrupt north-south communications between other important elements of that barrier, and damage the economic life of countries friendly to us.

Taiwan doesn't matter as an island as much as it matters as a strategic place for control of trade routes throughout Asia. With Taiwan taken, there's no long a need for China to have disputes with ASEAN, thus fortifying that border, and with SCO being the broker between the Chinese-Indian border, that area only needs to be lightly militarized. This, in turn, enables China to shift its focus to Africa, everyone's playground.

Shofercia wrote:

Duvniask wrote:Dear Eastern Roman Empire, instability is not a form of government.

Considering that the Eastern Roman Empire outlasted its Western counterpart, I doubt that the East was more unstable than the West. And since we're talking about Rome: down with the Secret Triumvirates!

Kubra wrote: Conversely, China is not going to fight for Taiwan, because bombs and artillery is for places where you can cash in on the land, not the infrastructure.

Infrastructure can be rebuilt. Control of the South China Sea, East China Sea, and the Philippine Sea, cannot: https://thediplomat.com/2015/05/taiwan- ... -security/

Taking Taiwan would be a step in that direction. Whether China tries to do so military or through other means, is up for debate, but China will try to take it, there's no doubt about it in my mind.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower described the reason for the Taiwan defense treaty as follows:

In unfriendly hands, Formosa and the Pescadores would seriously dislocate the existing, even if unstable, balance of moral, economic, and military forces upon which the peace of the Pacific depends. It would create a breach in the island chain of the Western Pacific that constitutes for the United States and other free nations, the geographical backbone of their security structure in that ocean.

In addition, this breach would interrupt north-south communications between other important elements of that barrier, and damage the economic life of countries friendly to us.

Taiwan doesn't matter as an island as much as it matters as a strategic place for control of trade routes throughout Asia. With Taiwan taken, there's no long a need for China to have disputes with ASEAN, thus fortifying that border, and with SCO being the broker between the Chinese-Indian border, that area only needs to be lightly militarized. This, in turn, enables China to shift its focus to Africa, everyone's playground.

Cmon now man you know that eastern instability didn't kick off until well after the west kicked the bucket.
the lower the stakes, the greater the viciousness. Protips for academia.

Back to the topic, the desirability shipping lane control is predicated on shipping lane denial or the threat thereof. This ain't terribly interesting for China in a military sense, since a rinky dink sphere of influence in SEA ain't worth losing access to the global market if it lets artillery shells do the talking.
And in any case, why damage a perfectly good economy when economic pressures have so far worked out so well for it? Entaglement with the mainland chinese economy is basically what drives folks to orient there, and Taiwan is no different. All it has to do is keep the engine running and it'll get what it wants without pesky sanctions and whatnot.

Araznan wrote:

Gallia- wrote:Chinese civil war might be the longest running civil war in history I guess, unless we count the existence of Byzantium as a Roman Civil War or something.

The Karen conflict is an armed conflict in Kayin State, Myanmar

Its The Longest Running Civil War with 73 Years

Chinese Civil War is 95.

Gallia- wrote:

Araznan wrote:
The Karen conflict is an armed conflict in Kayin State, Myanmar

Its The Longest Running Civil War with 73 Years

Chinese Civil War is 95.

The truce fell apart in June 1946 when full-scale war between CCP and KMT forces broke out on 26 June 1946. China then entered a state of civil war that lasted more than three years.

The United States Empire would certainly go to war if it had an economic interest.

Araznan wrote:

Gallia- wrote:
Chinese Civil War is 95.

The truce fell apart in June 1946 when full-scale war between CCP and KMT forces broke out on 26 June 1946. China then entered a state of civil war that lasted more than three years.

I think we can consider the civil war to be a fairly continuous line from 1927 to now TBF. Like the Korean War, it's just frozen.

It's had its periods of stalemates and pauses but it's not like PRC or ROC have stopped fighting.

It won't end until ROC is taken or PRC implodes.

Gallia- wrote:Chinese civil war might be the longest running civil war in history I guess, unless we count the existence of Byzantium as a Roman Civil War or something.

This is always a difficult one to gauge and define, but even if we restrict ourselves to Chinese history, the Warring States Period lasted roughly 230 years, while the Jin-Song Wars lasted almost 110 years.

So not even close.

Shofercia wrote:

Duvniask wrote:Dear Eastern Roman Empire, instability is not a form of government.

Considering that the Eastern Roman Empire outlasted its Western counterpart, I doubt that the East was more unstable than the West. And since we're talking about Rome: down with the Secret Triumvirates!

'Tis a meme.

And I was not making a comparison.

Gallia- wrote:

Araznan wrote:

The truce fell apart in June 1946 when full-scale war between CCP and KMT forces broke out on 26 June 1946. China then entered a state of civil war that lasted more than three years.

I think we can consider the civil war to be a fairly continuous line from 1927 to now TBF. Like the Korean War, it's just frozen.

It's had its periods of stalemates and pauses but it's not like PRC or ROC have stopped fighting.

It won't end until ROC is taken or PRC implodes.

We don't count em unless a mortar goes over the border every now and again, or it's been a few centuries since so it's easier to write it off as one long conflict à la hundred-years-war

"China".

You must mean the "Republic of North Taiwan".

As much as China would like to annex Taiwan, it's not really expedient for them to do so, especially when the world is on high alert after Russia's invasion of Ukraine. They'll probably just keep trying to force companies and celebrities to refer to Taiwan as part of China by throwing around their economic weight.

Kubra wrote:

Shofercia wrote:
Considering that the Eastern Roman Empire outlasted its Western counterpart, I doubt that the East was more unstable than the West. And since we're talking about Rome: down with the Secret Triumvirates!




Infrastructure can be rebuilt. Control of the South China Sea, East China Sea, and the Philippine Sea, cannot: https://thediplomat.com/2015/05/taiwan- ... -security/

Taking Taiwan would be a step in that direction. Whether China tries to do so military or through other means, is up for debate, but China will try to take it, there's no doubt about it in my mind.



Taiwan doesn't matter as an island as much as it matters as a strategic place for control of trade routes throughout Asia. With Taiwan taken, there's no long a need for China to have disputes with ASEAN, thus fortifying that border, and with SCO being the broker between the Chinese-Indian border, that area only needs to be lightly militarized. This, in turn, enables China to shift its focus to Africa, everyone's playground.

Cmon now man you know that eastern instability didn't kick off until well after the west kicked the bucket.
the lower the stakes, the greater the viciousness. Protips for academia.

Back to the topic, the desirability shipping lane control is predicated on shipping lane denial or the threat thereof. This ain't terribly interesting for China in a military sense, since a rinky dink sphere of influence in SEA ain't worth losing access to the global market if it lets artillery shells do the talking.
And in any case, why damage a perfectly good economy when economic pressures have so far worked out so well for it? Entaglement with the mainland chinese economy is basically what drives folks to orient there, and Taiwan is no different. All it has to do is keep the engine running and it'll get what it wants without pesky sanctions and whatnot.

Damn Westerners, exporting instability to the East

It's not just a shipping control lane, it's a strategic influence lane, hence the Ike quote. China will take over Taiwan, I'm just not sure how China will accomplish it. As for sanctions, if the US sanctions both, Russia and China, and need I remind you that Russia's already sanctioned, then the US economy will be headed for a depression, and no party in power wants that.

Many Russian soldiers were horrified to discover that they're actually the bad guys in this conflict, and this dread the fact that Putin has sent them there. Especially considering that they're conscripts and didn't wanna be in the army in the first place. The Russian army are actually turning against the government that put them there, as they were lied to about the reason for why they were there. I hope China is watching this and shitting themselves in the fear that that might happen to them.

Gallia- wrote:

Araznan wrote:
The Karen conflict is an armed conflict in Kayin State, Myanmar

Its The Longest Running Civil War with 73 Years

Chinese Civil War is 95.

Cats v. Dogs is the longest by far.

War with China plays right into Russia's hands. They'll make themselves the only available provider of energy as the rest of Europe are stuck deciding whether they should help the U.S. or stay and protect Ukraine. Predictably Russia will remain neutral as they would rather see China weakened enough that they lose power and abandon any plans to invade Siberia.

Ayytaly wrote:War with China plays right into Russia's hands. They'll make themselves the only available provider of energy as the rest of Europe are stuck deciding whether they should help the U.S. or stay and protect Ukraine. Predictably Russia will remain neutral as they would rather see China weakened enough that they lose power and abandon any plans to invade Siberia.

Invade Siberia? Russia is one of China's best friend. Why the fuck would they jepodise that? And for what? What could Siberia provide China?

Nemidia wrote:To be entirely honest, I think the US and China would need a very, very good reason to go to war, they are far to economically intertwined to do it haphazardly

This is quickly becoming less of an issue. The problems with doing business in China are becoming apparent and many companies are packing off. As the economy continues to grind down it will continue to be easier to oppose them politically. It's a problem that China can't avoid either, since the root cause is birth rates, even if they could reverse the trend, and they can't, it won't help in time.

No.

Because America isn't about to kick it off, and if China were to at this juncture, they would not win. Ask again in ten years.

(In the unlikely case that America/NATO actually engages against the Russians instead of just giving Ukraine cheerleading and ATGMs, all bets are off.)

Not any time soon

Cetacea wrote:Taiwan Is Taiwan

Both RoC and PRC should piss off back to China and leave Independent Taiwan alone

But no the US and China won’t go to war - that’s not good for the profit margins of either cartel.

This. Taiwan is independent

Shofercia wrote:

Kubra wrote: Cmon now man you know that eastern instability didn't kick off until well after the west kicked the bucket.
the lower the stakes, the greater the viciousness. Protips for academia.

Back to the topic, the desirability shipping lane control is predicated on shipping lane denial or the threat thereof. This ain't terribly interesting for China in a military sense, since a rinky dink sphere of influence in SEA ain't worth losing access to the global market if it lets artillery shells do the talking.
And in any case, why damage a perfectly good economy when economic pressures have so far worked out so well for it? Entaglement with the mainland chinese economy is basically what drives folks to orient there, and Taiwan is no different. All it has to do is keep the engine running and it'll get what it wants without pesky sanctions and whatnot.

Damn Westerners, exporting instability to the East

It's not just a shipping control lane, it's a strategic influence lane, hence the Ike quote. China will take over Taiwan, I'm just not sure how China will accomplish it. As for sanctions, if the US sanctions both, Russia and China, and need I remind you that Russia's already sanctioned, then the US economy will be headed for a depression, and no party in power wants that.

Aw you know that ain't it, folks didn't get uppity out east because they had enough money to stay placated. And then when that ran out, well, that's no ones business but the turks. Many such cases!

Anyways, that's why I mentioned a "rinky dink sphere of influence in SEA", which is what (oh, and oil) strategic control over the sea lanes effectively means, which is nice but not worth jeopardising its more lucrative western projects and overall economy, which is what bombs would do. It's not say they won't ever turn to bombs, but it just ain't favourable at this present moment.
The US probably won't sanction China all that much, man. You know how it is, China is for the red-staters, Russia is for the blue-staters, and the blue states run the show rn.

Why not leave Taiwan as an independent state?or give it back to Japan rule

United Northen States Canada wrote:Why not leave Taiwan as an independent state?

That's pretty much what everyone is de facto doing.

or give it back to Japan rule

SO many reasons.