[maxglute]

TW gets most of energy and calories from strait shipping. It would be PRC mining/denying TW for lulz if anything. Ultimately TW going to have to look to see if they want to be HKers, who got less retarded after kissing PRC boot (see HK kids going to SZ to party) or whether TW wants to be Gaza who capitulates to Israeli demand, because reality is with sufficient force asymmetry, one can destroy civic life enough to force capitulation. And PRC can do that to TW, trivially, with mainland fires alone. The only hold back is the "family across the strait" narrative.

TW forceful reunification even if depopulated husk basically done deal, the real question is whether PRC wants to do an Iran and push US security out of east Asia, which is ultimate grand strategic goal. And to be blunt TW is perfect casus belli to spark this. PRC would be net worse off long run getting TW peacefully and but still deal with US security in region. Hence whether Iran can squeeze US out of CENTOM (even marginally) will set huge precedence.

[statguy]

The down votes to this suggest that many in the west are in denial. China doesn’t need to fight a hot war with Taiwan, they can incrementally pressure Taiwan while their western allies issue impotent statements.

[Saline9515]

China also doesn't need to annex Taiwan. Chinese people have been brainswashed by the PCC into thinking that it was a life-or-death issue for the country. It is not, and China could live another millenia without controlling the island.

If anything, Taiwan proves that Chinese people can be perfectly fine and rich without the authoritarian grip of the PCC. That's the most likely reason why the PCC clique wants to invade TW.

[AnimalMuppet]

It's not an existential issue for China. It's an existential issue for the CPP, because Xi made it so. He made reunification with Taiwan by... 2049 (IIRC, but I admit I'm fuzzy on the exact date) a test of the legitimacy of the CCP. So it's an existential issue for the CCP because Xi ran his mouth, basically.

[seanmcdirmid]

Taiwan being an existential issue for the CPC was long before Xi took control of the CPC.

[raven12345]

First time heard of it,China claim TW since 1949,how they got this reason at 1949

[SpicyLemonZest]

The downvotes suggest that many in the West see it as unconscionable to call people “retarded” for preferring not to be invaded. If someone made a comment like this in my house, I would kick them out immediately and might well never speak to them again.

[JeremyNT]

Isn't a big draw for reunification the advanced manufacturing in Taiwan?

Forced reunification would risk destroying that, either as incidental damage through military operations, or as sabotage.

Far better would be to sit back and allow the US to continue proving itself incompetent and unreliable, until being subsumed like Hong Kong doesn't seem like such a bad deal.

[maxglute]

Leading edge semi that's already largely denied to PRC via export controls that overwhelmingly underpins US semi advantage and economy. Glassing TSMC would actually only close advanced semi gap between US and PRC by simply taking most of US semi high end pipeline offline. Meanwhile PRC retains the most complete semi supply chain, they don't have leading edge but they do have almost fully indigenized semi vs decentralized western semi, a lot of which are in PRC missile range.

> doesn't seem like such a bad deal

This fundamentally doesn't address that US would still retain security architecture in region, i.e. TW doesn't host much US hardware anyway - taking tw does not meaningfully shift security balance. The only way to ensure relative geopolitical sanctuary is to boot US forward basing out of East Asia, and to be blunt that is not something done peacefully from PRC side, i.e. unless US voluntarily abdicate from theatre and I don't see that happening. Now maybe PRC can establish overwhelmingly advantageous regional force balance that it's obvious to all US posture no longer security dilemma for PRC, but I wouldn't discount PRC simply wanting to remove US forces from regional equation just to be sure.

[JeremyNT]

TSMC is building US fabs though (or so they claim) so it's not solely a question of denial.

I guess more generally PRC can play a much longer game than the US, which seems intent on destroying its standing with the rest of the world by electing absolute buffoons every 4 years. How many years of this can allies tolerate?

Shutting down the strait of Hormuz for example is extremely damaging to US allies in Asia and we can expect more incompetence over time.

[maxglute]

There are many sole source fab suppliers in TW, Arizona fabs will run out of inputs and shut down. There maybe effort to fully indigenize TW semi supply chain outside TW, but I've not heard any credible policy/efforts.

There is scenario where US incompetence will negate security dilemma, but see how hard JP is hedging. I would not put money on it. The additional layer to this is US security architecture of of East Asia is not just US basing, but US hardware in general... forcing region to no longer operate US platforms that gathers intel for US MIC / break region interoperability (including data sharing) with US. PRC unlikely to convince JP/SKR/SG etc to abandon F35s politically (because alternative worse vs PRC), at least within lifespan of platforms. That requires glassing hardware and coercing alternate procurement.