Taiwan & Pacific Politics
- Thread starter ____no5
- Start date
Yax
Ancient Mariner
There is a vast difference in China’s ability to broker deals and their willingness to commit to their own agreements. It is not worth trying, because any deal would negate Taiwan’s ability to forcefully retain their system and autonomy. When Xi decides to go back on his word that would be that.
Jer
'Til Tomorrow
Thank you, Neville Chamberlain.
Yes, we do. The ROC suffered horribly at the hands of the imperial Japanese and helped us to defeat them. We owe them. And they have a flourishing democracy, a strong economy, and are the nerve center of high-end semiconductor production for the world. They are a standing example of what China could have been, and could still be, if not for the Communist Party. The only reason we dropped formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan was to put on a dog and pony show for the PRC, which was the pound of flesh they demanded for normalizing relations with the mainland.
If you acknowledge that at the end of the day, a "private" company in China must ultimately do the government's bidding regardless of what the government demands (i.e. the checks and balances are ultimately an overridable formality), then it is de facto no longer a private company.
No, that's not at all true. I've already explained why. Having an independent and co-equal judiciary provides a check and balance that can't be directly overridden by the executive or legislative branches. That is a fundamental difference that you keep refusing to fully acknowledge.
Can an overly aggressive government agency bully companies into doing certain things for them in the short term in the name of "national security"? Yes, PRISM shows that this is possible. But can they institutionalize it and do it long term? No, they can't. And any company willing to stand up to attempted bullying by the U.S. government can immediately take them to court and stop them if they have a valid argument. You can't say the same for China, not even close.
Yes, in China it's apparently legal to steal foreign companies' and foreign governments' intellectual property and repurpose it for the benefit of the state. And yes, of course China's growth would be accelerated by stealing the result of other countries' R&D efforts without having to make the time and money investment themselves.
Is the west partially to blame for greedily taking advantage of cheap labor without considering the long-term ramifications of that labor stealing their work? Yes, of course. But does China bear primary responsibility for institutionalizing unethical behavior and leveraging their huge population to act as a honeypot for western interests for the specific purposes of consuming their money and premeditatedly stealing their inventions for their own benefit? Yes, of course.
China also wouldn't be the thing they are today without the consistent greed, immorality, and ethical bankruptcy of the Communist Party.
And Chinese companies can and will act as Chinese agents even in times of peace. So any country that is not China, and especially not their ally, should be very careful with that.
Rather than cherry-picking out-of-context facts to support your point of view, how about looking at the facts in context to see why you're wrong?
Taiwan Arms Sales Notified to Congress 1990-2022
Updated Charts: Taiwan Arms Sales notified to Congress 1990 - 2022. Foreign Military Sales (FMS) only, in US$ billion and by number of notifications.
www.ustaiwandefense.com
Have you actually read and considered anything else I've written in this thread? China is constantly carrying out aggressive actions toward the west in every arena short of military action, and has been doing so since at least 1999. This is the definition of a cold war, and China is the clear aggressor. I have cited many examples. An abjectly ludicrous response like this from you makes me question the value of continuing this discussion at all.
Holy shit, dude. Again, have you actually read and considered anything else I've written in this thread? I've already explained this to you multiple times. The U.N. and U.S. don't believe that Taiwan is a quaint breakaway republic underneath the PRC. They never have. The U.S. recognized the ROC government in Taiwan as the only valid Chinese government until Nixon went to China and agreed to formally acknowledge a One China policy that was codified into U.S. law in the 70s. That policy also doesn't treat Taiwan as a breakaway republic under the PRC -- it just ended formal diplomatic ties to the ROC, opened formal diplomatic ties to the PRC instead, and committed to the eventual peaceful reunification of Taiwan and China while also committing to the defense of Taiwan against any non-peaceful attempts at reunification. It's political theater. We're still 100% committed to the defense of Taiwan against military aggression, and the only reunification we will support is one that's entered into willingly by the government of Taiwan, which would likely only happen if China were to eventually liberalize and democratize.
There is no upside to a military conflict with China unless it completely breaks the back of the Communist Party there, and even then it probably still wouldn't be worth the collateral damage. But China taking Taiwan by force would be an unacceptable result, both from a moral perspective in allowing a totalitarian regime to stamp out a vibrant democratic one, and from an economic and strategic perspective in allowing China to take control over the majority of the world's high-end semiconductor supply chain.
The U.S. doesn't seek war with China, but you bet your ass we seek to contain them. An aggressive totalitarian state holding 1/6 of the world's entire population is like a giant tumor on the body of the free world, and it can't be allowed to metastasize. If it can function as a non-adversarial neighbor, we can accept that, despite its rampant corruption and human rights abuses. But if it insists upon projecting its force to seriously undermine or conquer free nations, then it has to be stopped.
On the flip side, Xi has already said that the Taiwan situation has to be resolved by 2049. And let's consider Xi's place in recent Chinese history. He's already established himself as the strongest Chinese leader since Mao, taking control of all three leadership positions (head of state, head of the party, and head of the military), getting rid of term limits so he can hold his offices for life, and publishing Xi Jinping Thought to style himself as a philosophical leader comparable to Mao. What's the one thing left to seal his legacy? Doing the thing that even Mao couldn't do, which is ending the ROC and bringing Taiwan back under the boot heel of the Communist Party. It's the obvious culmination of his life's work, and he won't let the opportunity pass him by. Since Taiwan would never willingly subjugate themselves to the PRC, how do you think Xi will try to accomplish his goal? The answer is obvious.
And by the way, the 2027 estimate is when the U.S. military believes China will have the military capability to mount an invasion of Taiwan. It has nothing to do with the conspiracy theory of the U.S. trying to provoke an all-out conflict with China, which would benefit no one.
When China starts behaving peacefully toward the west again, there might be a starting point for that discussion. In the meantime we're in the middle of a cold war being actively fought by China.
Actually, this is why China needs to cool it down. The U.S.'s position has been consistent. China's behavior hasn't been.
If you don't see the danger of being able to exploit personal data of an unprecedented scope and level of detail to predict behavior and manipulate people to further a totalitarian regime's aggressive political and strategic goals, then I don't know what to say. Maybe you don't understand just how much can be done with total information awareness.
And all China would have to do is say "you know what, we won the revolution decades ago and the mainland is enough for us", and the Taiwan issue would cease to be an issue. Why does your dovish fervor magically disappear on that topic?
It's too early to judge the long-term impact of how western powers' reactions to Putin will turn out. His economy could collapse within months. One of his own generals could kill him tomorrow. You just don't know.
And as I've already said, you're conflating multiple things here. There's the question of what sort of information anyone should be able to collect with or without consent, how that data should be able to be used with or without consent, and what additional restrictions to collection and use should apply to foreign entities. The first two apply to fully domestic companies while the final one doesn't, unless they use offshore labor, which is a legitimate concern.
I agree that those questions should all be resolved through generally applicable rules for the long term, and ideally also in the short term if possible.
Yes, there's some truth to that. When you're on top you tend to get a little fat and lazy. The question is whether you can effectively course correct once you realize this has happened, and that's what the U.S. is attempting to do.
Last edited:
GhostofCain
Ancient Mariner
When have the US cared about democracy? Their intervention in Latin American countries since the 1970s (actively supporting fascist dictatorships) would tell otherwise.
Jer
'Til Tomorrow
While there’s a pretty awful history there, I think the intentions were generally around trying to prevent Communist-sympathizing governments from taking root in the Americas so we wouldn’t have another Cuban missile crisis scenario, which almost sparked a nuclear war. Not excusing, just contextualizing.
There obviously would have been far better ways to handle it as a matter of principle, honoring these countries’ sovereignty and just flooding the zone with foreign aid and other incentives to be on good terms with the U.S., while being ready to roll out hard sanctions if they made any moves toward allowing Soviet military assets to set up shop there. But Nixon and Kissinger had different ideas, as did Reagan. And in fairness, they had more information about what the Soviets were doing at the time than we do now, and maybe we would have found ourselves making the same decisions if we were in their shoes. Sometimes the lesser of two evils is the best you can manage.
Obviously there was all the post-colonial crap in the Caribbean too, and the banana wars in the early 1900s, etc. But most developed nations had unclean hands when it came to dealing with underdeveloped nations.
So, while it’s a fair criticism to say that the U.S. has often put its self-interests ahead of supporting democracy worldwide, that doesn’t negate the level of support that we have offered to free nations around the world over the years. It could and should have been better, but we do have some pretty significant gold stars in our column alongside the ethical stains.
GhostofCain
Ancient Mariner
____no5
Free Man
This is not an argument. Always it's worthy to try with diplomacy, always.
@GhostofCain already replied you. In the meantime Taiwanese are terrified from US plans to bomb Nordstr.. eeerr TSMC factory. Wow. US truly cares about Taiwan.
Taiwan's Defense Minister pledges to provide defence to TSMC from US threats during Chinese attack | Digital Watch Observatory
Taiwan's defence minister says any attempt to destroy a Taiwanese facility, including Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSMC), will not be tolerated.
dig.watch
Rather than cherry-picking out-of-context facts to support your point of view, how about looking at the facts in context to see why you're wrong?
As you can see from the chart on that page, $1B of aid would be a below-average package for Taiwan. We supplied over $5B in 1992, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2019, and 2020.Taiwan Arms Sales Notified to Congress 1990-2022
Updated Charts: Taiwan Arms Sales notified to Congress 1990 - 2022. Foreign Military Sales (FMS) only, in US$ billion and by number of notifications.
Good insight. What about DPA? Did US used that for those years too?
What provocations seriously? As we speak US is busy on regime changing /meddling in Sudan, Georgia, Thailand, Kazakstan, Mianmar, Syria, Pakistan and god knows where else. Failed regime change in Belarus a few years ago, sabotaging German property last autumn, talking about sabotaging Taiwanese property and Chinese are the aggressors for building roads and ports? For what? Brokering for peace in the Middle East?
They may be aggressive in the South China Sea, but this is not aggression towards the West exactly.
Do you realise that Monroe doctrine is still alive in the US? Below some of your own words:
Do you realise that the invasion in Ukraine was under the same imperialistic "context"?
That's not true.
It's not about democracy. Petrodollar & the absolute hegemony of US was built on the shoulders of Saudi Arabia, so don't buy this crap, you are smarter than that.
It was never about democracy, it's about power, power and power.
Good insight, thanks!
Please, can you state me some incidents of aggression towards the West? US is selling arms to one of its provinces for fucks sake. Or to what China considers one.
Agreed, but what I was arguing it's that Biden has been foolish to push it so hard with Putin if it was China that he was going after. In retrospective it was foolish (if not calculated) to assign Victoria Nuland, who was actively involved (doing some dirty regime changing work) in Maidan uprising as under Secretary of State in his cabinet.
Last edited:
Jer
'Til Tomorrow
No, but it's an apt historical metaphor. Diplomacy should always be the first resort, but when diplomacy fails you need to have fallback options or you risk being rolled over. Appeasement is not a valid long-term strategy if you need to actually solve the problem.
This is not an argument. And at a minimum South Korea and modern Japan would likely take issue with your characterization of U.S. intentions re: democracy.
Once again, hilarious cherry-picking. The notion that Taiwan is terrified of the U.S. instead of seeing them as a critical partner in their self-determination is patently absurd.
But strategically, yes, if China were to successfully invade Taiwan, it would make sense to destroy the high-tech chip production facilities before China was able to exploit them. Just as it makes sense to invest in TSMC's expansion of those facilities into safer parts of the world as a fallback if China does invade Taiwan.
And please, explain how these two things are supposedly incongruous. If China forcibly takes Taiwan, destroying the TSMC facility would then be denying China a globally important strategic asset, not Taiwan. And it would be denying them an asset that they didn't develop themselves, but that they attempted to take by force, in violation of the agreements they made with other countries (including the U.S.) in exchange for formal diplomatic recognition.
I think you're conflating the Defense Production Act with presidential drawdown authority. The DPA was used to help drive the production of TSMC facilities in the U.S. as a strategic hedge, which is consistent with its purpose. Presidential drawdown authority can be used to send money to provide military assistance in crisis situations. The $500M just allocated for Taiwan is the first time this specific authority has been used to fund Taiwan defense, as this normally happens through the annual budget process. Presumably the recent saber rattling from China led them to believe that Taiwan needed more short-term funding than was originally planned for, though U.S. spending on Taiwan this year is still far below historical highs.
- The Third Taiwan Strait Crisis (1995-1996), sparked by the Taiwanese president giving a speech at his collegiate alma mater in the U.S.
- Assorted "Wolf Warrior Diplomacy" bullshit since 2017, which I already linked to.
- China's violation of the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984 and Hong Kong's Basic Law in their active repression of Hong Kong's local self-determination and personal freedoms, which they had agreed in writing to leave alone until 2047 (a preview of how they actually view the "one country, two systems" philosophy they keep suggesting for Taiwan).
- Using economic influence to extort apologies from western companies and celebrities if they ever step outside the PRC's preferred characterization of Taiwan's status.
- Financing questionable sea port expansions around the world, then manipulating Chinese commercial traffic to those ports to force defaults so China can take control of the ports for their own strategic use.
- Broader Belt & Road Initiative efforts, which may be debt traps similar to their port gambit.
- Massive influence peddling in Central and South America, similar to Soviet tactics during the previous cold war.
- Dumping large amounts of Chinese investment capital into western media in exchange for veto power on the topics and opinions expressed by those media.
That last one is unsubstantiated for sure (the Hersch article hasn't been corroborated by anyone else), and I would be eager to see credible citations for the rest, rather than innuendo.
I don't doubt that the U.S. is involved in influence operations, as all major powers are. The real questions are what tactics are being used and what end results are being achieved, and those should be the basis for judging any such actions. I'm sure the U.S. has been involved in its fair share of questionable ones, especially under Republican administrations, which tend to be more imperial.
Nice try, but the glove doesn't quite fit. Ukraine surrendered its Soviet nukes in exchange for its independence. It had expressed interest in NATO membership, but I'm not aware of any discussion of putting western military bases or troops in the country. There was no imminent threat to Russia, but their annexation of Crimea showed that Russia posed an imminent threat to Ukraine, and had reneged on their former acknowledgement of Ukraine's independence.
Is it understandable that Russia would try to help install politically supportive figures in the Ukrainian government? Yes, of course. Would Russia have had legitimate concerns if Ukraine had tried to join NATO without denuclearizing first, or if there had been discussion of building western military bases in Ukraine? Yes, of course. But that's not what happened.
Yes, "Taiwan Province Of China". That does not say "Taiwan Province Of The People's Republic Of China". I have explained this difference to you multiple times, and you still don't appear to get it. The "One China" policy that the west agreed to was a commitment to the eventual peaceful reunification of Taiwan and the mainland in exchange for formally recognizing the PRC diplomatically. It was a barter. From the perspective of the west, the "One China" is actually Taiwan, and the PRC is an unfortunate temporary obstacle to all of China democratizing and liberalizing to the point where peaceful reunification would be possible. Note that the language never says Taiwan is a province under the PRC. This is intentional.That's not true.
It's about both. On the international stage there is no globally recognized system of law and order that every country adheres to. To use an American metaphor, it's the Wild West. And for any country to protect its interests it has to have its own strength and/or ally itself with like-minded countries to share their strength. So yes, in that sense security on the global stage will always be about power unless or until that situation changes.
But what you do with that power matters. And power is the only way to support the things that you stand for on the global stage. The U.S. has a spotty record on this, as all powerful countries have, since pragmatism often overrules idealism -- but I would happily put the U.S.'s record up against the records of the colonial European powers or the Communist superpowers on that front.
Can you argue that the world is worse off after the U.S. broke the back of imperial Japan and rebuilt the country in its own image? Would South Korea be the vibrant democracy it is today without the use of American power? How many people would willingly choose the totalitarian alternative over western permissiveness and freedom, if they were truly given that choice?
Yeah, and North Korea probably thinks Seoul is one of its cities, too. Should we appease their delusional point of view?
China was well aware that the U.S. was going to continue to provide for Taiwan's military defense. This was part of the deal to get the PRC formal diplomatic recognition. The U.S. continues to defend Taiwan militarily, China agrees not to take Taiwan by force, and China and the U.S. commit to eventual peaceful reunification as "One China".
China keeps spinning this as, "see, no one acknowledges that Taiwan is a separate country anymore", pointing at a piece of paper and pretending it says what they wish it said instead of what it actually says. And you're doing the same thing. This is so important to China that they continue to bribe the handful of countries that still recognize Taiwan as its own country to try to get them to drop formal ties, so they can eventually say that the entire world acknowledges that Taiwan is not independent. And guess what happens then...?
Jer
'Til Tomorrow
Sure glad ByteDance is a “private” company, so this sort of thing could never happen!
GhostofCain
Ancient Mariner
I am not interested in getting into a rhetorical fight (you are a nice guy @Jer and I have thought this since you had your Bruce Dickinson newsletter more than 25 years ago), but I am afraid the USA has never been interested in promoting democracy, but only in supporting regimes that are either enemies of their enemies or happy to promote their extreme version of capitalism.
The same can be said about many first world countries though (the UK have been particularly pathetic at this at times), but let’s not kid ourselves.
Last edited:
Jer
'Til Tomorrow
I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one, as you suggested before. My lived experience as an American and my understanding of our history doesn’t comport with your viewpoint here.
Promoting democracy certainly isn’t priority #1 in U.S. foreign policy, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t a priority at all.
GhostofCain
Ancient Mariner
____no5
Free Man
Hahahah perfect! Though even if Taiwan will become China for good they will most probably keep the same visa restrictions. Even for Chinese passport holders. Just like HK. It's much more practical Than political. If mainlanders could freely move anywhere those small islands like HK or TW would be soon flooded -and I mean flooded- with all kinds of people searching for a better future. Guaranteed chaos.
That's why in mainland it's not that evident to buy a house anywhere you’d wish even if you got the money.
And social security privileges is a headache to be transferred when changing provinces. In many ways it’s easier to change country in Europe than province in China.
Last edited:
____no5
Free Man
As per Washington post article a few days back “China increasingly sees the US as abrogating its “One China policy,” which has been the basis of relations since 1979.”
Well, no more. During his recent visit to China Blinken reaffirmed US’ commitment to One China policy by going on record that “we do not support Taiwan’s independence”.
As some people in the press pointed out he was painfully lectured by the Chinese who “didn’t roll out the red carpet for him.” US diplomats are not used to be on the receiving side of lecturing they usually do this themselves.
It’s almost certain that Biden Administration was expecting this kind of beating and was prepared to state loud and clear that they not support Taiwan independence, as Head of CIA has prepared the ground a few weeks earlier with a secret trip to Beijing.
Last October Pelosi visits Taiwan full of arrogance and now this 180 deg. turn. What changed?
1) US starts to realize that it’s impossible to win on two fronts. Actually, seeing how they looked for ammunition from Korea, Japan and Israel, I’m questioning if US alone, could even win on one front at this point of time.
2) The war in Ukraine seem to play heavily in favor of China, for now. In Taiwan, the support for independence leaning DPT has been dropped to 24.6 per cent from 31.1 per cent in May, while a newly, China leaning formed party, TPP is close to 22 per cent. China friendly KMT is around 20 per cent. This is a huge drop for DPT in a short amount of time and I can only explain it in relation with the war in Ukraine. Taiwanese people, even youth, value peace and prosperity the most and are not willing to see their island destroyed the way Ukraine was. In many ways the best outcome for Taiwanese would be the restoration of relations with China to pre President Tsai levels and continuation of political ambiguity.
To conclude, I’m reading US’ 180 deg. turn as an attempt to buy time, though I can‘t tell what the bigger plan would be. Maybe increase its military industrial base, before a second round in 2025? I don’t believe US is prepared to let it go so easy and I hope I’m wrong.
In any case no matter the motives, it was a pragmatic no no-sense move from Biden Administration. Not too many lately let's hope it's a first of many more realistic approaches to come.
PS: Biden calling Xi a dictator almost simultaneously as Blinken was in Beijing, I don’t know what to make of that.
US Department of State read out
@Jer Note how even in the Official US read out CPC (as correctly spelled in the Chinese read out, above) is called CCP.
Well, no more. During his recent visit to China Blinken reaffirmed US’ commitment to One China policy by going on record that “we do not support Taiwan’s independence”.
As some people in the press pointed out he was painfully lectured by the Chinese who “didn’t roll out the red carpet for him.” US diplomats are not used to be on the receiving side of lecturing they usually do this themselves.
It’s almost certain that Biden Administration was expecting this kind of beating and was prepared to state loud and clear that they not support Taiwan independence, as Head of CIA has prepared the ground a few weeks earlier with a secret trip to Beijing.
Last October Pelosi visits Taiwan full of arrogance and now this 180 deg. turn. What changed?
1) US starts to realize that it’s impossible to win on two fronts. Actually, seeing how they looked for ammunition from Korea, Japan and Israel, I’m questioning if US alone, could even win on one front at this point of time.
2) The war in Ukraine seem to play heavily in favor of China, for now. In Taiwan, the support for independence leaning DPT has been dropped to 24.6 per cent from 31.1 per cent in May, while a newly, China leaning formed party, TPP is close to 22 per cent. China friendly KMT is around 20 per cent. This is a huge drop for DPT in a short amount of time and I can only explain it in relation with the war in Ukraine. Taiwanese people, even youth, value peace and prosperity the most and are not willing to see their island destroyed the way Ukraine was. In many ways the best outcome for Taiwanese would be the restoration of relations with China to pre President Tsai levels and continuation of political ambiguity.
To conclude, I’m reading US’ 180 deg. turn as an attempt to buy time, though I can‘t tell what the bigger plan would be. Maybe increase its military industrial base, before a second round in 2025? I don’t believe US is prepared to let it go so easy and I hope I’m wrong.
In any case no matter the motives, it was a pragmatic no no-sense move from Biden Administration. Not too many lately let's hope it's a first of many more realistic approaches to come.
PS: Biden calling Xi a dictator almost simultaneously as Blinken was in Beijing, I don’t know what to make of that.
US Department of State read out
@Jer Note how even in the Official US read out CPC (as correctly spelled in the Chinese read out, above) is called CCP.
Jer
'Til Tomorrow
Nothing. Ever since agreeing to the "One China" principle the U.S. has not supported formal independence for Taiwan. We support the status quo, which is de facto Taiwanese independence, with the stated goal of eventual peaceful reunification with the mainland. Since the Taiwanese would never willingly give up their democracy and their personal freedoms to live under authoritarian rule, peaceful reunification with the PRC is not possible, and reunification would only become possible if China liberalized and democratized.
In the same breath where we formally bought into "One China", we made it clear that strategic and material military support for the defense of Taiwan is U.S. law. This has also not changed. And it's not in conflict with the "One China" policy, since that only allows for peaceful reunification with the mainland.
What you're noticing is the normal ebb and flow of the relationship. When China starts getting uppity and pretending the Taiwan Strait isn't international waters, and starts engaging in aggressive, bullying moves against Taiwan and the ships exercising free navigation through the Strait, then the U.S. makes stronger public moves to reinforce the idea that we're prepared to defend Taiwan against any aggression. When China backs off, we downplay it. Simple as that. Russia's invasion of Ukraine may have prompted a more proactive effort to make sure China didn't get any ideas about invading Taiwan in its wake, but that's the only thing that may have played out a bit differently here.
We don't have any fronts at the moment. We, along with most of western and central Europe, are providing material support to Ukraine in the form of older weapons systems. We're asking others to contribute ammo because we need to stay at full operational readiness, which ever since WWII has always been the capability to directly fight full-scale wars on two fronts simultaneously.
Your questioning is pretty hilarious, by the way. The United States spends more on national defense than the next 10 countries (China, Russia, India, Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, South Korea, Japan, and Ukraine) combined. What on earth makes you think we're not fully outfitted and ready to handle a full-blown military conflict? We have weaknesses in cyberwarfare, and in fighting insurgent non-state-actor groups; but when it comes to traditional military warfare we are pretty clearly dominant in force and technology.
Yeah, the younger generations also didn't live through WWII and the Chinese civil war, so they don't have any direct memory of what was done to their people. All they've known is democracy, freedom, and societal wealth, and like many people in privileged countries they have a hard time seriously considering the idea that those things could actually be lost. But all they have to do is look at Hong Kong to see what Taiwan would quickly become under PRC rule.
Well, Xi is a dictator. It's not like that's news.
Yep, pretty much all English-language media abbreviates it "CCP", as do all of the Chinese immigrants I've personally encountered in the U.S. If China is so adamant that it be abbreviated "CPC", I don't know why it's turned out differently.
If you want to be concerned about a potential flashpoint where China is clearly the one ruffling feathers, how about their conversations to potentially set up a military base in Cuba, which is only 80 miles off the coast of Florida? The last time a major Communist power tried this, it brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. You can be sure the U.S. will never allow this to happen.