this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2023
9 points (90.9% liked)
Credible Defense
110 readers
11 users here now
An unofficial counterpart to the subreddit r/CredibleDefense, intended to be a supplementary resource and potential fallback point. If you are an active moderator over there, please don't hesitate to contact me to be given a moderation position.
Wiki Glossary of Common Terms and Abbreviations. (Request an addition)
General Rules
Strive to be informative, professional, gracious, and encouraging in your communications with other members here. Imagine writing to a superior in the Armed Forces, or a colleague in a think tank or major investigative journal.
This is not at all intended to be US-centric; posts relating to other countries are highly encouraged.
No blind partisanship. We aim to study defense, not wage wars behind keyboards. Defense views from or about all countries are welcome so long as they are credible.
If you have experience in relevant fields, understand your limitations. Just because you work in the defense arena does not mean you are always correct.
Please refrain from linking the sub outside of here and a small number of other subs (LCD, NCD, War College, IR_Studies, NCDiplomacy, AskHistorians). This helps control site growth (especially limiting surges) and filters people toward those with a stronger interest.
No denial of war crimes or genocide.
Comments
Should be substantive and contribute to discussion.
No image macros, GIFs, emojis or memes.
No AI-generated content.
Don’t be abrasive/insulting.
No one-liners, jokes, insults, shorthand, etc. Avoid excessive sarcasm or snark.
Sources are highly encouraged, but please do not link to low-quality sources such as RT, New York Post, The National Interest, CGTN, etc. unless they serve a useful purpose.
Be polite and informative to others here, and remember that we should be able to disagree without being disagreeable.
Do not accuse or personally challenge others, rather ask them for sources and why they have their opinions.
Do not ask others about their background as it is rude and not encouraging of others to have an open discussion.
Please do no not make irrelevant jokes, offtopic pun threads, use sarcasm, respond to a title of a piece without reading it, or in general make comments that add nothing to the discussion. Please refrain from top-level jokes. Humor is appreciated, but it should be infrequent and safe for a professional environment.
Please do not blindly advocate for a side in a conflict or a country in general. Surely there are many patriots here, but this is not the arena to fight those battles.
Asking questions in the comment section of a submission, or in a megathread, is a great way to start a conversation and learn.
Submissions
Posts should include a substantial text component. This does not mean links are banned, instead, they should be submitted as part of the text post. Posts should not be quick updates or short-term. They should hold up and be readable over time, so you will be glad that you read them months or years from now.
Links should go to credible, high-quality sources (academia, government, think tanks), and the body should be a brief summary plus some comments on what makes it good or insightful.
Essays/Effortposts are encouraged. Essays/Effortposts are text posts you make that have an underlying thesis or attempt to synthesize information. They should cite sources, be well-written, and be relatively long. An example of an excellent effort post is this.
Please use the original title of the work (or a descriptive title; de-editorializing/de-clickbaiting is acceptable), and possibly a sub-headline.
Refrain from submissions that are quick updates in title form, troop movements, ship deployments, terrorist attacks, announcements, or the crisis du jour.
Discussions of opinion pieces by distinguished authors, historical research, and research on warfare relating to national security issues are encouraged.
We are primarily a reading forum, so please no image macros, gifs, emojis, or memes.
~~Moderators will manually approve all posts.~~ Posting is unrestricted for the moment, but posts without a submission statement or that do not meet the standards above will be removed.
No Leaked Material
Please do not submit or otherwise link to classified material. And please take discussions of classified material to a more secure location.
In general, avoid any information that will endanger anyone.
#Please report items that violate these rules. We don’t know about it unless you point it out.
We maintain lists of sources so that anyone can help to find interesting open-source material to share. As outlets wax and wane in quality, please help us keep the list updated:
https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/credibleoutlets
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Countries are make-believe. They exist because a critical mass of people all agree that “country” is a meaningful category, and that certain groups fit into that category. The exact particulars of both of these vary across time and space, but the modern Western definition includes ideas like “the monopoly on violence”, “Westphalian sovereignty”, and so on. The point is, peoples’s image/perception of a country and the country itself are to some degree one and the same. Things which shake a country’s citizens’ perception of their own nation really do shake the nation itself. Therefore, when the identity of a country is threatened, said country will react in the same way as if it were faced with any other existential threat. Similarly, when a concept or idea is incorporated into the identity of a country, it becomes worth protecting to the same or greater extent as the physical markers of a country’s existence.
China has incorporated the idea of territorial integrity, including Taiwan, into its very bedrock as a nation. There are many reasons why it did so, but they are beyond the scope of this comment. Therefore, China must pursue the reintegration of Taiwan, the same way it pursues “internal security” or “common values” or any other thing that you may consider part of being a “country”. To give up on this pursuit would be a body blow to its people’s consensus that the current “China” is a meaningful entity worth preserving. In short, China must pursue Taiwan because pursuing Taiwan is what the People’s Republic of China does. If ever it was to cease to do so, there would be a real risk of the People’s Republic of China ceasing to be the People’s Republic of China.
I feel that that is a circular argument of epic proportions.
Thanks for stopping by! A circular argument is when an argument’s conclusion is part of its priors. The arguments conclusion is “China wants Taiwan because territorial integrity is part of its social contract with its citizens”. The arguments immediate priors are “states are social constructs whose characteristics and aims are determined by a consensus of their citizens”, “maintaining territorial integrity is a core part of the CCPs claim to be the legitimate government of China”, and “the Chinese people view Taiwan as a part of China’s territory”. As far as I can tell, there is no circularity there, though, I do admit, I could have been more clear with my wording. I wanted to emphasize that this is a core goal of the Chinese government, and failing to achieve it has existential risks for them.
Thanks for your quality comment