Taiwan is worth ending the world over. Not because Taiwan is particularly important by itself, but because expansionist dictators must be stopped at all costs. If Xi succeeds in conquering Taiwan then that would be just the first of many targets.
From a game theory perspective, being willing to end the world over Taiwan is ironically the best way to prevent the world from ending. Deterrence works.
>
Taiwan is worth ending the world over. Not because Taiwan is particularly important by itself, but because expansionist dictators must be stopped at all costs.
If at all costs, you include hundreds of millions of corpses, no, absolutely not. It's not worth it. It's not remotely worth it, and it's insane (In the colloquial, 'madman with his finger on the button' way) to consider it. Burning down the village does not save the village.
> From a game theory perspective, being willing to end the world over Taiwan is ironically the best way to prevent the world from ending. Deterrence works.
That's a bait and switch. The only reason nuclear weapons can be tolerated is because they prevent war between empires. When your doctrine explicitly expects them to fail to do that, it puts the lie to the sole reason for why civilization-ending nuclear arsenals should be allowed to exist.
You can draw red lines that can't be crossed like 'an attack against our territory will be responded to dispropritionately', but you can't take a red sharpie to the entire map of the world. Nobody will actually believe you when you do.
> if at all costs, you include hundreds of millions of corpses, no, absolutely not
Nobody is saying we should nuke China if they invade Taiwan. Just that our risk tolerance to Beijing escalating conventional engagement to all-out nuclear war cannot be zero.
We must be ready to sink Chinese ships and potentially hit port and missile facilities with conventional arms. Refusing to do so is the sort of appeasement that virtually guarantees a future, far deadlier conflict. That engagement risks nuclear escalation is an important consideration, but not a decisive one.
> puts the lie to the sole reason for why civilization-ending nuclear arsenals should be allowed to exist
We agree. This has been a lie for some time. Nukes are terrible. Between rationale regimes, they seem to reduce large-scale conflict. With dictators, the calculus shifts.
Were getting rid of them an option, I’d take it. Presently, the world is going in the opposite direction, with the normalisation of tactical nukes a likelihood in our lifetimes.
> you can't take a red sharpie to the entire map of the world
Nobody has done that. Taiwan has de facto American security guarantees. If China invades Mongnolia the world will be angry, but nobody will go to war.
People in Taiwan disagree, recent US saber rattling has pushed more of the population towards one china policy support. Im sure the demolition and casualty rate in Ukraine didnt help.
From a game theory perspective, being willing to end the world over Taiwan is ironically the best way to prevent the world from ending. Deterrence works.