this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2026
121 points (92.9% liked)

Ask Lemmy

39512 readers
1950 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Everybody knows about the backstory, there was a civil war, KMT fled to Taiwan creating two Chinas sort of, maybe, neither recognises the other, whole thing. ROC (Taiwan) ended up transitioning from military rule to a multi-party democracy, while the PRC (mainland China) didn't do that (they did reform economically, "socialism with Chinese characteristics" and all that, but still a one-party state, not a multi-party democracy). The status quo right now is that Taiwan is in the grey area of statehood where they function pretty much independently but aren't properly recognised, and both sides of the strait are feeling pretty tense right now.

Taiwan's stance on the issue is that they would like to remain politically and economically independent of mainland China, retaining their multi-party democracy, political connections to its allies, economic trade connections, etc. Also, a majority of the people in Taiwan do not support reunification with China.

China's stance on the issue is that Taiwan should be reunified with the mainland at all costs, ideally peacefully, but war is not ruled out. They argue that Taiwan was unfairly separated from the mainland by imperial powers in their "century of humiliation". Strategically, taking Taiwan would be beneficial to China as they would have better control of the sea.

Is it even possible for both sides to agree to a peaceful solution? Personally, I can only see two ways this could go about that has the consent of both parties. One, a reformist leader takes power in the mainland and gives up on Taiwan, and the two exist as separate independent nations. Or two, the mainland gets a super-reformist leader that transitions the mainland to a multi-party democracy, and maybe then reunification could be on the table, with Taiwan keeping an autonomous status given the large cultural difference (similar to Hong Kong or Macau's current status). Both options are, unfortunately, very unlikely to occur in the near future.

A third option (?) would be a pseudo-unification, where Taiwan becomes a recognised country, but there can be free movement of people between the mainland and Taiwan, free trade, that sort of stuff (sort of like the EU? Maybe?). Not sure if the PRC would accept that.

What are your thoughts on a peaceful solution to the crisis that both sides could agree on?

edit: Damn there are crazies in both ends of the arguments. I really don't think giving Taiwan nukes would help solve the problem.

I think the current best solution, looking at the more reasonable and realistic comments, seems to be to maintain the status quo, at least until both sides of the strait are able to come into some sort of agreement (which seems to be worlds away right now given their current very opposing stances on the issue)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 25 points 2 months ago (3 children)

A peaceful and realistic solution? Taiwan develops a strategic nuclear deterrent. They're already a near-nuclear country and an industrial and technological powerhouse. A nuclear bomb is fully within their capability, and they already have abundant supplies of all the precursor materials in their possession. The most realistic solution to the Taiwan crisis is that Taiwan obtains nuclear weapons, and China is never able to threaten them with invasion again.

[–] ordnance_qf_17_pounder@reddthat.com 28 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Taiwan trying to develop nuclear weapons would be the fastest way to get themselves invaded. China would put a stop to it before it they could even say "nuclear deterrent".

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago (2 children)

And yet, plenty of other countries have managed to do it...

[–] Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Have you looked into the context of how they were able to do it and how difficult stopping them would have been?

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

If North Korea could do it, so can Taiwan.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago

When I clicked on this thread I did not anticipate one of the answers being "Taiwan just needs to adopt Juche."

A large part of why the DPRK is the way it is is because it has oriented itself around not getting invaded by a much stronger foe. They made the choice to orient their economy around self-suffiency, so that they could survive a prolonged conflict even if foreign navies completely cut them off from the rest of the world.

In contrast, Taiwan has an export economy, producing highly specialized equipment to be sold all around the world. Taiwan's economy is intimately connected to the rest of the world. Taiwan is a much richer country because of it. But it also makes Taiwan more vulnerable to trade disruptions, for example, if China imposed a blockade.

I don't think that Taiwan has any interest in walking the path of the DPRK. I'm also confused on how bringing a historical reenactment of the Cuban Missile Crisis into a situation that has been stable for decades is supposed to, what, bring peace?

[–] Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz 2 points 2 months ago

North Korea has a million artillery pieces and like 20 million people ready to call back to service, and China would probably get involved if the alternative is a hostile puppet state on their border. The calculus of invading NK is quite different than Taiwan.

[–] ordnance_qf_17_pounder@reddthat.com -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Which ones were a small island country that had a massively more powerful hostile neighbour looking right over their shoulder when developing their nuclear weapons?

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

North Korea did it, and it had the United States, the nation with the most powerful surveillance capabilities in the world looking right over its shoulder. And keep in mind, we're still technically at war with North Korea. And North Korea might as well be an island. But really, the island part is irrelevant here, as Taiwan already possesses all the nuclear material it would need. It has a well developed nuclear power sector. The island gets half its electricity from nuclear power. And they have several research reactors. It already has all the fissile material it needs to build a bomb.

plenty of other countries

North Korea

[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

History has proven otherwise.

It turns out, that while everyone says that arms races and escalation lead to conflict... Actually, what we've seen is that waiving a big stick is the only true deterrent.

[–] meldrik@lemmy.wtf 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Wouldn’t that mean China and US would be at war? I don’t think the Chinese would want that.

Yeah, because nukes in what MacArthur called their "unsinkable aircraft carrier", knowing how uhh trigger happy America is, is not the better option, lol.

[–] sbeak@sopuli.xyz 6 points 2 months ago

That sounds like a surefire way for Taiwan to get invaded, since I'm very certain that China does not want more nuclear missiles pointed at it, much less by Taiwan right off its coast. Taiwan might end up like Iran (who the U.S. claimed were developing nukes)

If Taiwan does end up developing nukes without the knowledge of China or other major powers, then you could argue that nuclear deterrance would work. But the intelligence systems of all the global powers is incredibly advanced now, so it would probably be difficult for Taiwan to covertly do something like that (esp given that we know both sides send spies to each other)

[–] BaroqueInMind@piefed.social 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

Unless Taiwan can spend the trillions upon trillions of dollars and fully complete enough MIRV ICBMs to be able to absolutely saturate the entire country of China leaving no inch of land unscathed from nuclear fire, essentially ensuring MAD doctrine to deter an invasion, all without China discovering this, China won't tolerate a nuclear program and simply invade Taiwan so trivially with their unending human meat waves to destroy all hope of defense surrounding the island.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Taiwan doesn't need thousands of nuclear weapons to be a credible threat to China. A dozen bombs with delivery systems would be more than enough to make a credible deterrent. The goal isn't to be able to wipe out the entire population of mainland China. The goal would simply be to make any invasion so costly that the cost would vastly outweigh any potential gains. I don't know what all Xi hopes to gain by conquering Taiwan, but whatever it is, it's not worth losing the dozen largest Chinese cities in a series of mushroom clouds. To the Chinese leadership, the conquest of Taiwan is not worth getting Beijing nuked. Maybe Mao would have made that trade, back when China was a rural peasant nation. But now? China is the workshop of the world. The entire economy and China's place in the world are utterly dependent on its megacities.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml -3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I don’t know what all Xi hopes to gain by conquering Taiwan,

Might want to figure that out first, before trying to come up with a solution. Because I'd say the number one thing Xi would gain by conquering Taiwan would be, "Not having an island full of missiles pointing at us right off our coast."

[–] CybranM@feddit.nu -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

If he stopped being a hostile dictator looking to conquer Taiwan he would achieve the same thing, no invasion needed!

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

No he absolutely would not lmao. How are y'all this naive?

[–] CybranM@feddit.nu -3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Exactly my point, he won't calm down

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago (2 children)

No, he would not achieve the same thing if he "calmed down." Because the reason the US wants missiles on Taiwan has absolutely nothing to do with how "calm" Xi Jinping is.

It also has nothing to do with how democratic China is. In fact, it's the opposite. The US prefers to have anti-democratic governments because those are the governments most willing to hand over all the country's resources.

Tell me, how did "not being a dictator" and "remaining calm" work out for Mohammad Mossadegh, the peaceful, progressive, democratically elected prime minister of Iran, who was deposed in a CIA coup in favor of a fascist monarch who hunted down anyone to his left with secret police?

You are completely delusional and ignorant of history and reality.

Don't feel like you've wasted your time, your comments are appreciated. But there are too many pigs in here who know nothing of pearls. ✌️

[–] CybranM@feddit.nu -2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You are completely delusional and ignorant of history and reality.

Mighty rich coming from a .ml user lol

Why would it matter if the us had missiles in Taiwan if China didn't want to take it over? The us can place missiles in South Korea, Japan or you know, ICBMs are a thing.

Your reasoning is so flawed, why would it be more likely for the US to succeed in a coup in china if Taiwan was free?

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Why would it matter if the us had missiles in Taiwan if China didn’t want to take it over? The us can place missiles in South Korea, Japan or you know, ICBMs are a thing.

Taiwan is much closer to many Chinese population centers. ICBMs are easier to detect and shoot down than missiles on your doorstep.

Also, to be clear, you think the US concern over missiles in Cuba was completely spurious, right?

Your reasoning is so flawed, why would it be more likely for the US to succeed in a coup in china if Taiwan was free?

I have no idea what you're talking about. I didn't say anything about Taiwan being free making it easier for the US to stage a coup (whether or not that's true). The point is that being peaceful and democratic does not in any way placate the US.

[–] BaroqueInMind@piefed.social -5 points 2 months ago

A dozen bombs with delivery systems would be more than enough to make a credible deterrent.

ALL of those can be trivially intercepted with military tech from the mid-90's that China has in abundance (I love you internet armchair generals and the guile to be so wrong constantly), hence the modern necessity to create MIRVs which are impossible to track if enough are deployed.

[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I don't believe you actually need any of that. The thing is, nuclear weapons are scary. When it comes to fear, actually capabilities barely figure in. Because what if it gets through anyway? What if the west sells them a super advanced delivery system? What if they try something we didn't think of?

Better not risk it.

[–] Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz -4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

unending human meat waves

You know China has been building their military for this singular conflict since like 1949 right? They have an entire branch of their military dedicated to missiles.

The idea of WWI-style human meat waves getting applied to communist countries was literally nazi propaganda. China didn't cause the longest retreat in US history during the Korean war because suddenly WWI tactics started working against a military 50 years more advanced than the one that demonstrated human meat waves don't work.

[–] LurkingLuddite@piefed.social 5 points 2 months ago

Not Nazi propaganda. Literally what Russia does to this day...