Attitude towards war depends on context. In 2007 "war" meant "Iraq" which was extremely unpopular, pointless, and had an imperialist flavor. Today "war" means Gaza, Iran, and Venezuela, but it also means Ukraine and Chinese aggression, possibly ramping up to an invasion of Taiwan. I suspect Amodei and many Anthropic employees are thinking of the latter.
Iraq was much more popular in 2003 [1] than the current war in Iran is [2].
[1] "In the months leading up to the war, majorities of between 55% and 68% said they favored taking military action to end Hussein’s rule in Iraq. No more than about a third opposed military action."
[2] "Some 27% of respondents said they approved of the strikes, which were conducted alongside Israeli attacks on Iran, while 43% disapproved and 29% were not sure"
Country wants to expand its territory? Most likely place to extend to is those in its borders. It's literally the lowest hanging fruit.
Small country being invaded by large country? Who are they most likely to turn to? Does it seem that unlikely that they'd go to the biggest actor who doesn't like that country? The enemy of my enemy?
Coincidence? I think not! It's literally the most logical thing
"Need" defending? I couldn't care less who rules Ukraine, Taiwan, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Iran, and these countless other places half-way around the world. It's not like China taking over Taiwan will have any impact on semiconductors. They're happy to play merchant to the world, independent of allegiance. E.g. - Ukraine complains about China supplying Russia with tech for their drones, while failing to recognize the countless "Made in China" stamps on their own hardware.
When despots act subservient to the US we're more than fine being BFF with them. See: Saudi Arabia. Heck we're even aiding them in their little 'special military operation' in Yemen. So funny how the rhetoric changes depending on who's involved: "On 26 March 2015, Saudi Arabia, leading a coalition of nine countries from West Asia and North Africa, staged a military intervention in Yemen at the request of Yemeni president Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi, who had been ousted from the capital, Sanaa, in September 2014 by Houthi insurgents during the Yemeni civil war." [1]
So a president is overthrown by a popular insurrection, and then another country which was fond of the old government decides to take advantage of the situation to invade, primarily to further their own ends. This sounds oddly familiar, yet somehow the rhetoric around it is entirely different. Nah, I'm tired of this nonsense. If a country literally invades another country which we have a military alliance with then yeah - we have an obligation to intervene. But without that - I can think of far better ways to spend trillions of dollars than killing people half-way around the world.
That's a really weird claim about Ukraine, which the US leadership would love to sweep under the rug, leave alone to be taken apart, except for the bad optics - so they just drag their feet forever.
I think the funniest part is the fact that all the western countries are even afraid to recognize Taiwan's independence. It's a much better argument to say Korea or Japan are ruled by the US (and Korea and Japan absolutely hate one another!).
Does the US have influence in Taiwan? Certainly! But if that meant Taiwan was the US's puppet then Taiwan would simultaneously be China's puppet. Schrödinger's Vassal
I thought that both the government in Beijing and the government in Taipei both claim that all of China is united, and that they are the legitimate government of that united entity.
You're arguing semantics. The west refuses to recognize Taiwan as the legitimate government of China and refuses to recognize it as an independent country.
Whatever they claim, the west (and most of the world) due to Chinese leverage/power refuses to recognize.
Taiwan meets all the criteria for being a state. It controls land, population, it has a military, it has a government, currency, passports etc. etc. It's a de-facto country/state.
Taiwan buys military equipment and operates it's own military very much like it is independent of China and views Chinese troops in it's territory as a threat.
So you think North and South Korea are the same country? If not, which is the rightful country and which is the rebel? They both claim the same territory and that the other is illegitimate.
Do you think India and Pakistan are the same country? Or at least parts? There's a lot of disputed territories there.
Or do you believe Palestine is independent from Israel? They sure claim independence and Israel claims it's theirs.
Or what about the USA? The British sure thought it was theirs for a long time. Should France not have gotten involved in all of that?
> So you think North and South Korea are the same country? If not, which is the rightful country and which is the rebel? They both claim the same territory and that the other is illegitimate.
I know not enough about the conflict to declare which side is more justified.
> Do you think India and Pakistan are the same country? Or at least parts? There's a lot of disputed territories there.
Again, I know too little about the conflict.
> Or do you believe Palestine is independent from Israel? They sure claim independence and Israel claims it's theirs.
The Arab citizens of the holy land did not declare a state when the former ruling party (the Brits) left, the Jews did declare a state. The Arabs even rejected the UN partition plan and decided that the fate of the area would be determined by war instead. Which they lost, and though they had some territory after the war they _still_ did not declare a state on that land. Only 15 years later did they form a government and an identity, and yet still did not declare a state. Only after the Israelis conquered the lands in yet another war, and then almost thirty years after that, did they declare a state with provisional borders. And they have rejected every final borders proposition made to them since. And during that entire time, they have been murdering civilians, both Jews and those who support peace with the Jews.
So yes, clearly in Area A the Palestinians have limited sovereignty - limited only because they consistently refuse all attempts to provide them more sovereignty.
> Or what about the USA? The British sure thought it was theirs for a long time. Should France not have gotten involved in all of that?
Perhaps the French should not have gotten involved. I can imagine an alternate history where the British rule over the North American continent. The great result of the American Revolution wasn't the independent United States. The great result of the American Revolution was the implementation of a government based upon secular values and equality for all before the law. And even with the tools in place to implement that government, it still took almost two hundred years to enshrine those values into society.
And now, a mere two generations later, people have forgotten how hard the Americans worked to build that society and they are willing - active even - to discard it because of the few remaining minor deviations from perfection.
You seem to have trouble reading. Here's a map that shows countries that recognize Taiwan's independence[0]. That's a lot of gray...
> Taiwan themselves still claim to be the Republic of China and not separate from the rest of China.
You seem very confused... but I get it, it is confusing
Mainland China's current government is called the "People's Republic of China" (PRC)[1]
Taiwan calls itself the "Republic of China" (RoC)[2]
The difference of one word is very important. It's easy to miss, which is why Taiwan even changed its passport[3]... over a decade ago.
But also... they issue different passports. They have different governments. Really, this is not hard to understand that Taiwan considers themselves independent and the PRC considers the RoC a bunch of rebels. And... what do rebels typically do?
You will finally google this claim you've been repeating without evidence, and realize there's no supporting evidence for this claim. I guarantee it, because there is no evidence for this claim.
The Republic of China has not amended its constitution to eliminate its claim to all of China. You may be referring to the views of the current ruling party on what Taiwan should be, but constitutionally, it still claims everything.
Article 4. It's actually near the top. You probably missed it because you have to know the history of the constitution to know what Article 4 means. This is the text:
"The territory of the Republic of China within its existing national boundaries shall not be altered except by a resolution of the National Assembly."
The key phrase is "existing boundaries." The constitution was passed in 1947, when the "existing boundaries" of the ROC were very clear: all of China, plus Mongolia.
The constitution says that those boundaries may only be changed by an act of the legislature. There has never been such an act.
> The key phrase is "existing boundaries." The constitution was passed in 1947, when the "existing boundaries" of the ROC were very clear: all of China, plus Mongolia.
Nope, they were never formally defined, not even in legislation.
This flexibility was explicitly acknowledged in the constitutional reforms, when a clear delineation was made between "territory the ROC controls, and mainland territory (which the ROC does not claim)". The constitutional court also addressed the question directly: https://cons.judicial.gov.tw/en/docdata.aspx?fid=100&id=3105... TLDR "the constitution does not define the actual territory."
Thus, the constitution does not represent the ROC claiming PRC territory. Lacking any other Taiwanese claim to the territory (legislation, etc), it's therefore a fact that Taiwan makes no claims whatsoever to PRC territory.
ROC claims over all Chinese territory formally via inherent territory / universal succession when Qing abdication transferred sovereignty of all China to ROC, territories predefined as all China. Seperatistards tried to get court to formally define, i.e. redefine it as to not include mainland but court chickened out and tossed it down to political level and original state/claims (again, all china) persists. Cue additional articles of constitution which only tries to hack jurisdiction by creating free area / mainland area as separate political jurisdiction because seperatistards couldn't muster actual political power to constitutionally renounce claims, i.e. change sovereignty.
Hence ROC constitution still maintains full sovereignty claims over all China, while legally tries to spins restricting jurisdiction in few specific territories is life hack for independence, like sharia law applying to Taliban occupied villages translate to sovereignty claim (/s). When its explicitly clear the ROC constitution still fully dejure claims all territories including mainland areas, and will continue to claim, until formal referendum renounces dejure claims.
Until then, it's just revealed preference that TWners don't want dejure independence hard enough. And why pro independant narrative has to do deliberately retarded misreading of constitution / additional articles to support equally retarded / strained interpretation that jurisdiction claims = sovereignty claims. It doesn't. Feeling independent doesn't make one legally so.
Tone has nothing to do with validity, policing tone is deflection for claim simply being wrong. TW constitutionally claims over mainland territory. There is no alternative legal reading despite how hard pro-independence tried (and failed) to create ambiguity at constitutional level. Hence reply more PSA for others against confidence passport bro "I read the constitution" but clearly do not understand it tier misinformation.
I'm not the only one who read the constitution, the constitutional court did, and in doing so directed that it doesn't constitute a claim to a specific territory, thus setting in stone the fact that the Taiwanese government makes no claim to PRC territory.
You may interpret the Taiwanese constitution however you please; since you aren't the Taiwanese judiciary nor legislative yuan, your interpretation is meaningless in terms of answering the question of whether Taiwan makes claims to PRC territory.
Honestly it doesn't even matter if true or false, their logic is flawed. We could just swap China/Taiwan for the Koreas and it would still be dumb. Clearly they have independent governing bodies even though they both claim the other is an illegitimate ruling party.
The patent is either trolling or delusional. Best to waste no more time
> Chinese aggression, possibly ramping up to an invasion of Taiwan.
It's amusing amidst the US bombing Iran, incarceration the president of Venezuela and his wife after slaughtering everyone who was in the room with him, seizing oil tankers off Cuba, continuing the siege of Gaza and on and on to start getting sanctimonious about China.
Taiwan is Kinmen island in Xiamen harbor, so a mainland invasion of Taiwan would be mainland China "invading" an island in its harbor.
Also mainland China does not recognize Taiwan and mainland China to be separate countries. The US does not recognize Taiwan and mainland China to be separate countries. Taiwan does not consider Taiwan and mainland China to be separate countries. I'm not sure what the invasion would be, a country invading itself? It would be like if the US president sent armed agents to Minnesota who started killing people willy nilly - oh yaa, that just happened.
The most satisfying thing is if mainland China did choose to reassert it's rightful authority in Taiwan against the colonial powers, there's absolutely nothing those western powers can do about it. Just like Russia's assertion over the West tring to nove it's NATO armies to its western borders in the Ukraine. It's amusing to see the US flailing about, hitting a Venezuelan here, a Cuban there to try to look tough. I guess Nicaragua is next on the list. The changes coming in the 21st century are welcome. A bozo like Trump as president is a sign of a fading West.
> Taiwan does not consider Taiwan and mainland China to be separate countries.
This is false. Both the government of Taiwan, and the people here, obviously consider the two countries separate, and neither have made any overtures challenging the sovereignty of the CPC in nearly fifty years. Not to mention the fact that the last government to do so has been overthrown in the 90s (the overthrow of the KMT settler colonial dictatorship).
You will now vaguely refer to the ROC constitution, but I'll preempt that by saying the constitution makes no claims to PRC territory, full stop. And the constitutional reforms in the 90s explicitly recognize PRC sovereignty over its territory - because Taiwanese people aren't the KMT and want nothing to do with the KMT's now 8 decade old fight.
> I'm not sure what the invasion would be, a country invading itself?
I know exactly what it would be: tens of thousands of PLA dead at the order of Xi in service of his old man's ego, and economic disaster for both countries, followed up by the most riotously uncontrolled occupied territory in the PRC. Taiwanese people in living memory bled to overthrow a military dictatorship, you think they won't fight to do so again?
There's a distinction between countries and governments. Both sides officially consider themselves to be China, the country, but under different, competing governments. They're the product of a civil war inside China, after all.
The current ruling party of Taiwan would like to change that, but they haven't done so for the obvious reason that the PRC would not accept it (and most Taiwanese people prefer to just leave things as they are).
> Both sides officially consider themselves to be China
There is no "China, the country." "China" just means, essentially, "Empire." It's like a country claiming to be Europe, or maybe better, The Roman Empire. Many States may try to make claims for the title to support their legitimacy and heavenly mandate to rule, but that doesn't make it true.
> They're the product of a civil war inside China, after all.
Only one side of that conflict still exists. The other was overthrown by the people of Taiwan in the 90s. Descendants of those overthrown maintain government positions under that party name, but it's essentially a different government, given that it's a multi party democracy now, not a single party military dictatorship.
> The current ruling party of Taiwan would like to change that, but they haven't done so for the obvious reason that the PRC would not accept it (and most Taiwanese people prefer to just leave things as they are).
This is mostly true, with caveats: Most people in Taiwan prefer independence, but don't want to declare it to trigger a war, so therefore they only prefer status quo because it involves independence without war. If they could get it, most Taiwanese would prefer declared independence with no threat of war, but pragmatism rules out.
I'm also not sure I agree the DPP is necessarily pro-overt independence, just the current president tends to use more aggressive language than normal.
There was a civil war inside China, with the rulers of both competing sides claiming the entire country as their own for decades after the shooting ended. Inside Taiwanese politics, there has been a shift relatively recently (in the last 20 years), but it would be a major shift if that were actually implemented as official policy.
> Many States may try to make claims for the title to support their legitimacy and heavenly mandate to rule, but that doesn't make it true.
We live in a post-WWII world of national sovereignty and inviolable borders (or at least we did until very recently). That's what China rests on for its claims, legally speaking.
"France" is a great example, as is "Italy." What we perceive of when we hear those words is a territory and government that are perfectly overlain. In reality, what one might consider France or Italy in reality contains other sovereign states! San Marino, The Vatican, Monaco, Andorra.
Personally I think it's important for modern people to reject this feudal era idea that a government can claim a mandate to rule over certain territories just because of the territory of previous governments, or because of the distributions of certain ethnicities, religions, or languages. I think it's important for people to maintain an identity separate from any given government, to defang the ability of governments to leverage racialized nationalism to protect the state's continuity at all costs, even to the detriment to the people living in its territory.
By the way, it remains false that Taiwan makes any claims to PRC territory. Imagine how silly you could make me look if you could quote exactly where in the Taiwanese constitution it does! I invite you to try.
> Imagine how silly you could make me look if you could quote exactly where in the Taiwanese constitution it does! I invite you to try.
Okay, since you asked for it. Article 4 of the constitution of the Republic of China:
"The territory of the Republic of China within its existing national
boundaries shall not be altered except by a resolution of the
National Assembly."
This was passed in 1947, when the Republic of China very explicitly claimed all of China (plus Mongolia). The constitution sets that claim in stone, and says that it can only be changed by an act of the legislature. There's never been such an act.
Taiwan formally recognizes mainland China as the "Mainland Area," and legally considers it part of the ROC but under different rules than the "Free Area." It's a legal mess that arises out of formally claiming a territory that they don't control (and now no longer want to regain control over).
I didn't realize it was the same person I had made this comment to twice, so I will copy and paste my answer here:
> > The key phrase is "existing boundaries." The constitution was passed in 1947, when the "existing boundaries" of the ROC were very clear: all of China, plus Mongolia.
Nope, they were never formally defined, not even in legislation.
This flexibility was explicitly acknowledged in the constitutional reforms, when a clear delineation was made between "territory the ROC controls, and mainland territory (which the ROC does not claim)". The constitutional court also addressed the question directly: https://cons.judicial.gov.tw/en/docdata.aspx?fid=100&id=3105... TLDR "the constitution does not define the actual territory."
Thus, the constitution does not represent the ROC claiming PRC territory. Lacking any other Taiwanese claim to the territory (legislation, etc), it's therefore a fact that Taiwan makes no claims whatsoever to PRC territory.
> and legally considers it part of the ROC but under different rules than the "Free Area."
There is no evidence to back this claim.
> It's a legal mess that arises out of formally claiming a territory that they don't control
There is no evidence that Taiwan makes a formal claim to territory it doesn't have sovereignty over (aka, PRC territory).
They were formally defined by the term "existing boundaries," which was clear in 1947. It most definitely did not mean the island of Taiwan, a tiny part of the Republic of China at the time.
> TLDR "the constitution does not define the actual territory."
That's not the TLDR of the ruling, and nothing like that appears in the ruling. The TLDR of the ruling is that the court does not have the authority to rule on what the territory of the ROC is.
> Thus, the constitution does not represent the ROC claiming PRC territory.
The constitution clearly defines the existing territory as the borders of the ROC at the time of the passage of the constitution, in 1947. That was explicitly maintained by the ROC government for decades after it lost the civil war. The current ruling party doesn't agree with it, but hasn't changed the constitution or passed any act that eliminates the claim.
>> and legally considers it part of the ROC but under different rules than the "Free Area."
> There is no evidence to back this claim
You're disputing that the ROC formally defines a "Mainland Area," as opposed to recognizing the mainland as belonging to a separate country? This is not even something you can reasonably dispute. They do use that legal fiction.
Actually dinosaurs existed in China before there were people. And their descendents, the birds, are still around. We should all consider it our moral duty to continue what was begun in Tiananmen Square in 1989 and overthrow the CCP and replace them with the true historical rulers, the chicken.
By this logic, America not recognising by the sovereignty of Venezuela, Iran and Cuba—and Israel of Palestine, as well as vice versa—makes everyone an a-okay actor!
> there's absolutely nothing those western powers can do about it. Just like Russia's assertion over the West tring to nove it's NATO armies to its western borders in the Ukraine
Russia is a spent power and geopolitical afterthought because of Ukraine. Its borders with NATO have increased massively, all while reducing its security, economy and demography.
Even Xi couldn’t fuck over China as thoroughly as Putin has Russia. But Xi going on a vanity crusade into Taiwan would essentially write off China’s ascendancy as a military and economic superpower this generation.
> if mainland China did choose to reassert it's rightful authority in Taiwan against the colonial powers
An aging dictator invading a democracy. At least Deng chose a quarry he could crush [1].
Palestine is only a state due to international recognition. It meets no definition of a state, it controls no land, has no currency, government, military, etc. It meets no criteria for statehood yet is recognized by most of the world as a state. Taiwan (and e.g. Somaliland) meet all the criteria for statehood and yet are not recognized as states. Venezuela, Iran and Cuba meet the criteria for statehood and ofcourse are actually recognized universally as states. State (pun intended) of the world.
I would like to believe there's no chance Xi would invade Taiwan but I also didn't think Putin would invade Ukraine. Those leaders are full of themselves. If we learnt much over the last few years is that anything can happen. China has both declared the intention and built the capabilities to invade Taiwan. As the saying goes if a loaded rifle is introduced in the first act of a play, it must be fired by the final act.
China looks like the good guy now, but if Xi decided to “reassert control” over Taiwan, it would quickly become an international pariah and everyone would forget about Trump immediately, the country would immediately be isolated from everyone other than their closest (geographically speaking) allies. Is China ready to do that? Not today, maybe in a decade or two (when they’ve replaced the USA as the top economic/military power, there won’t be severe consequences). Xi is smart enough to wait, taking Taiwan now wins them nothing and loses them everything.
> We'd just cut off all of our goods manufacturing and leave the shelves empty? I don't think it's likely.
All bets are off if China attacks Taiwan now, I think, it would be hard but there would be a response like that. In a decade or two, probably not, but more due to China's dominance in the world by that point rather than just their ability to make things clout.
Xi isn't dumb, he isn't going to stir the pot right now, he doesn't have to, China doesn't have much to gain from it. China has nothing but patience.
