that once Taiwan falls it opens up the ocean for the Chinese navy and the ability for US to protect Japan/Korea comes into question
Is the part that doesn't seem very materialist. Yes, Having a 300x100 square kilometers of bridge point is beneficial to project power as the US, however China got a long coast and already a dominance in naval operations and forces in the area. With post 70s naval technologies and the established naval- and air-forces the People's Republic would already able to project power in the way you claim (and could implicitly threaten invasions - if they would want to).
However the PRC is not utilizing military aggression in foreign diplomacy.
Comrade I'll be honest I rarely go to leftists for analysis.
On the left you can find people discussing the "self-determination of South Vietnam" during the Vietnam war. Today you can find many leftists that supported the fascist/neoliberal uprising in Belarus/Hong Kong or told everyone that Ghadaffi should be overthrown because "then they could build a real revolution for socialism".
No, I go to liberals and far rightists for a materialist analysis most of the time and if DW (Germanys bbc) and a pro US empire liberal Ian Easton are "deeply concerned about the Empires ability to project power if Taiwan falls to China" then I am inclined to believe them.
That deep concern is just domino theory, which is the geopolitical extension of "there goes the neighbourhood". They're always deeply concerned, they frame any minor hypothetical defeat as an existential threat.
Domino theory is correct though. Everywhere a sociaist revolution happens an uptick in class consciousness and revolutions are attempted in its neighbouring countries. This happened all over 20th century with Russia then a wave of attempts in Hungary/Finland/Germany/Ireland/Greeze/Mexico/Spain/Malta and Egypt etc.
Then with China then a wave of attempts across Asia.
To combat both the PRC and Communist ideology the US along with the compradors in Taiwan (the KMT) had to create an opium drug haven in it's neighbouring countries to create the Golden Triangle (Myanmar/Laos and Thailand) directed against China and communist ideology.
Creating drug lords and turning those countries into narco states had the effect of "creating a pro business pro capitalist and anti communist and anti PRC social fabric" (Peter Dale Scott, American War Machine : Deep Politics, the CIA Global Drug Connection, and the Road to Afghanistan p.78).
The KMT used agents for drug smuggling alongside literal ex-Nazis (Ibid p.79)
It is good to read their assessments, however between the possibility and the factual is a gap. Would a anti-Chinese Taiwan be a problem if you want to invade Japan? Yes. However the power to project is there already, as Taiwan is tiny compared to the strategical ports China got. The point is not if it would make stuff easier, but if Taiwan is a necessary condition - which it isn't (though would make it a load more easy, after building much more port sites).
Is the part that doesn't seem very materialist. Yes, Having a 300x100 square kilometers of bridge point is beneficial to project power as the US, however China got a long coast and already a dominance in naval operations and forces in the area. With post 70s naval technologies and the established naval- and air-forces the People's Republic would already able to project power in the way you claim (and could implicitly threaten invasions - if they would want to).
However the PRC is not utilizing military aggression in foreign diplomacy.
Comrade I'll be honest I rarely go to leftists for analysis.
On the left you can find people discussing the "self-determination of South Vietnam" during the Vietnam war. Today you can find many leftists that supported the fascist/neoliberal uprising in Belarus/Hong Kong or told everyone that Ghadaffi should be overthrown because "then they could build a real revolution for socialism".
No, I go to liberals and far rightists for a materialist analysis most of the time and if DW (Germanys bbc) and a pro US empire liberal Ian Easton are "deeply concerned about the Empires ability to project power if Taiwan falls to China" then I am inclined to believe them.
That deep concern is just domino theory, which is the geopolitical extension of "there goes the neighbourhood". They're always deeply concerned, they frame any minor hypothetical defeat as an existential threat.
Domino theory is correct though. Everywhere a sociaist revolution happens an uptick in class consciousness and revolutions are attempted in its neighbouring countries. This happened all over 20th century with Russia then a wave of attempts in Hungary/Finland/Germany/Ireland/Greeze/Mexico/Spain/Malta and Egypt etc.
Then with China then a wave of attempts across Asia.
To combat both the PRC and Communist ideology the US along with the compradors in Taiwan (the KMT) had to create an opium drug haven in it's neighbouring countries to create the Golden Triangle (Myanmar/Laos and Thailand) directed against China and communist ideology.
Creating drug lords and turning those countries into narco states had the effect of "creating a pro business pro capitalist and anti communist and anti PRC social fabric" (Peter Dale Scott, American War Machine : Deep Politics, the CIA Global Drug Connection, and the Road to Afghanistan p.78).
The KMT used agents for drug smuggling alongside literal ex-Nazis (Ibid p.79)
It is good to read their assessments, however between the possibility and the factual is a gap. Would a anti-Chinese Taiwan be a problem if you want to invade Japan? Yes. However the power to project is there already, as Taiwan is tiny compared to the strategical ports China got. The point is not if it would make stuff easier, but if Taiwan is a necessary condition - which it isn't (though would make it a load more easy, after building much more port sites).
They act deeply concerned about everything lol