Thread by @WilliamYang120

"It therefore makes sense to advocate for military deterrence, as William Hague did in May and to entertain a willingness to supply #Taiwan with the sorts of nimble weapon systems that would help rebuff #Beijing’s advances." ft.com/content/55e354…

"It also makes sense for the US to remind #China that, in the event of an invasion, it could block the Malacca and Sunda straits through which China’s oil arrives from the Middle East. Even the threat of interdiction would be sufficient to discourage ship owners."

"But military deterrence is the smaller part of the story. There are good economic reasons why the Chinese Communist party will not invade.

The Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company produces the majority of the world’s advanced semiconductors. Its CEO has declared that it would not be allowed to fall into Chinese hands."

"If that were not enough, most of Taiwan’s nearly $200bn exports to China are components in China’s own exports. Their disappearance would reduce Beijing’s exports by trillions.

Other countries’ trade and investment would dry up. Shipping and insurance costs would rise enormously."

"Deterrence means magnifying existing restraints. The governments of free and open countries need to make it clear to the CCP that invasion or an extended blockade would trigger sanctions."

"This threat needs to be believable (it is worth noting that even Switzerland has said that it would follow whatever sanctions the EU imposed on China if it invaded). Governments need to convey this message to the CCP quietly and now."

"The CCP is not good at reading foreigners. But sanctions would happen — and not just in the form of spontaneous boycotts of Chinese goods led by civil society."

"The clamour from ordinary people, the press, parliamentarians and others, many of whom may not understand the consequences of sanctions, will be irresistible for western governments.

The US will lead and expect its allies to follow.

This is MAD — mutually assured destruction, the basis of cold war deterrence."

"The consequences for all would be horrible, but especially for China and the CCP. Resources, supply chains and components would dry up.

Unemployment, already at around 20 per cent among young people in China, would boom. And in the absence of a meaningful social security system, the resulting poverty and desperation would lead to protests and riots."