This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
China is never going to invade Taiwan, it defies sense to attack an island with 22 million people, the size of a county. Storming it D-Day style would be a high risk, costly endeavour that would anger the world. Their tactic will be to gain control of the sea and pressure Taiwan into making agreements, while offering a reunification bonanza of government handouts along the way. Responding by attacking the Chinese navy would be too aggressive by the US, and this approach avoids a costly war.
The worst possible tactic is a naval blockade against a country that is far from self-sufficient.
The impression I've gotten is that this might have been practical before the "one country, two systems" deal for Hong Kong was revealed to be less-than-advertised. Since then, Taiwan has been drifting away from China's orbit, and it's unclear what Xi could do to rebuild sufficient credibility to make a believable offer that sounds better than what the West can offer.
It's unclear to me that "control of the sea" is as practical as advertised. Blockade is (debatably) an act of war, and China's reliance on imports of food and oil are vulnerable to a tit-for-tat retaliation from the West.
True, but Taiwan is even more dependent on those things and vulnerable to economic coercion. And much of the world is dependent on Chinese trade: South Korea's and Japan's supply chains are deeply rooted in China, and a blockade of China would send them into spiraling into depression. (Making the blockade leakier helps them, but also defeats the purpose.) If it came to some kind of long-lived stalemate, there would be a lot of pressure to wrap things up, even on terms favorable to China.
Absolutely, there's a world of difference between China's food security issues and Taiwan's. China is 95% secure on the three major cereals: wheat, rice and corn. That means zero starvation in real terms, especially if they economize and ration. They're around 80% on total calories. China mainly imports soy feed for meat, which is a luxury. Herds usually get culled early on in great power warfare, if food security is a problem. China also has land access to Central Asia and good relations with Russia, a major food exporter. They have zero problems with food in real terms. Energy is a much more serious issue.
Meanwhile Taiwan has about 35% food security in total calories. Taiwan is an island and cannot expect resupply by sea. They are completely and totally fucked in a long war.
Japan is almost as fucked, 37% total calories, possibly falling. They can maybe still get some cargo shipping in wartime but there will be serious problems.
Sea routes from the Middle East to China are pretty controlled by US Allies or de facto Allies, so this is probably a very big issue.
Indeed, China's been working land routes for energy, self-sufficiency and so on. It really depends how much energy they need. I imagine a lot of their industry would be shut down if they're at war with the US and allies, so there are savings there. 65% of their energy is used in industry. Whether many of those workers could switch to war work is another question, I doubt China could find ways to employ them all or resources to produce with them.
Between domestic production and Russia, they have enough oil for war use. It's an interesting question as to how much oil is needed for civilian uses in wartime though, or what level of mobilization they choose.
Citation needed.
Also, an energy blockade of China would be unlikely to just last for the duration of the war. The US proved with Cuba that it can impose sanctions for a long time if it doesn't get what it wants.
Finally, the Chinese government's legitimation heavily comes from its provision of prosperity in return for obedience. The younger generations in China have never known a recession or war. They rapidly forced the government's hand over comparatively undemanding covid policies. I doubt that Xi wants to test just how tough they are again.
China is the sixth biggest oil producer on the planet. Four million barrels per day. Plus they're friendly with Russia.
In any serious conflict, the missiles wouldn't just be limited to the Taiwan strait. China would likely take out all major US bases on day 1 of the conflict.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link