When I think through "what if's" there is only one country that seems to stand head and shoulders above the others in it's inability to understand reality and in it's ability to act on that misunderstanding. That country would be China. Too often I've seen Chinese opinion expressed as something like, "The US really doesn’t care about Taiwan. If we look like we are launching a credible and full attack then they will draw back and have to accommodate the new reality." In other words, the same sort of thinking that has caused many other wars. We now have this article from the AP, Thank goodness it's starting to sink in. Even if they believe our leaders don’t really believe in the idea of human rights at least they understand that that is a tool which motivates American voters. The US does not need an economic or other self-interest to defend Taiwan. In fact, a full attack on Taiwan would probably motivate the US to liberate all of China from dictatorship.
I don't want to start WW3, possibly get nuked, and/or spend TRILLIONS, to save Taiwan or "liberate all of China."
That would put you in the minority on either the globalist or idealist spectrum. When idealism and pragmatism have the same objective, America acts.
I fail to see how fighting one of the most powerful armies on the planet and risking a nuclear exchange over Taiwan is pragmatic.
Because it's bad for business when free economies go under. Anyway, we have this from the WaPo, if you can beleive it,
No, actually, the US DOES need an economic or other self-interest to defend Taiwan - or do you not realize just how heavily realism informs our foreign policy? And for the record, that self-interest isn't there. If push came to shove, we'd huff and puff and make a big noise over Taiwan, but actual military action? Don't be ridiculous. It may be bad for business if free economies go under, but not nearly as bad for business as great power war.
We have pledged to defend Taiwan from Chinese attack. If China calls and we show that we're just bluffing, what kind of message does that send to our allies and potential allies around the world--in places like, say, the Middle East?
huh? America's actions in the last couple of years post 9-11 have been dictated by neo cons.....i doubt idealism is part of trheir vocabulary....
That's an inappropriate analogy and you know it. Last I checked, we weren't occupying Taiwan, so stop trying to be cute with the Second World War analogies.
You and USATaliban need to get a room. That is such a terrible analogy. Pearl Harbor was a declaration that Japan intended to take control of English, French AND American interests in the Pacific. They wanted to dominate the whole region. A Chinese attack on Taiwan is no such thing. What, are they planning on using it as a springboard to attack the Phillippines?
Apparently Japan had something to do with 9-11 as well. And not the kamakazie thing, a whole different thing. A new one. This is really fun.
Is defending Taiwan if China invades really a partisan issue? If China invaded England, would we think twice before defending them? Liberate China? How many Chinese citizens want to be liberated? I have a number of Taiwanese friends who don't "get it" - and believe we wouldn't keep our promise and come to their rescue.
I don't think it's a left/right issue so much as a realist/liberal/constructivist issue. I'm a realist. Defending Taiwan militarily doesn't make sense in terms of sheer cost/benefit ratio.
What is the sheer cost? Taiwan won't need any democracy training if we "liberate" them. If China invaded England, would you also engage in this strict cost/benefit analysis? To be honest, this sounds like "I told you so" righteousness over Iraq gone wrong (emphasis on sounds like, I have no idea where you stand).
The cost is whatever cost you'd associate with going to war with China, a nuclear-armed state with the world's largest standing military, in it's own backyard. Make of that what you will, but I'd think it'd be pretty significant. Iraq has nothing to do with it - and yes, if the UK was attacked, I'd say the same thing, minus the "in their backyard" bit.
Talking fighting with China make these feeble conservatives feeling hard down there again. What miserable lots. Too bad USSR no longer exists.
Would there even be a debate on whether or not to assist England in any scenario??? Of course not. England is a member of NATO and we've pledged to act as if any attack on a NATO member is an attack on the US. There might be a 30 second debate on defending Taiwan, but we've had an understanding that we would defend them for so long that I don't think the US could possibly NOT go to war, simply to save face.