China Risks Landing Fleet Losses in Any Modern Taiwan Strait Attack

中国若在现代发动台海攻击将面临登陆舰队损失风险 美国在涉台高端海战中占据优势，但面对中国长期的经济封锁，其联盟阵营仍极易受到严重冲击。 本期内容探讨了在霍尔木兹海峡关闭等全球供应链中断背景下，围绕台湾展开的复杂地缘政治、经济和军事态势。嘉宾 Eyck Freymann 阐述了台湾的历史地位及其半导体产业的重要地位如何使其成为全球稳定的核心，同时指出了中国实施两栖入侵所面临的严重后勤阻碍。讨论深入分析了相较于西方国家，中国抵御西方制裁的经济韧性、能源储备以及承受损失的政治意愿。对话最终强调，美国若要实现有效威慑，绝不能仅凭军事力量，更需要推进战略性供应链脱钩、与盟国深化协调，并理解台湾内部政治的微妙之处。 霍尔木兹海峡的关闭表明，长期停留在理论层面的地缘政治咽喉要道问题，如何能迅速演变为现实的经济问题。 (0:00) 与短期能源中断不同，台湾半导体供应链一旦被迫中断，将引发前所未有的全球经济冻结。 (0:00) 协防台湾是一项涵盖军事战略、科技政策、产业规划和宏观经济的复杂且跨领域的治国理政挑战。 (5:00) 中国主张对台主权的意图源于国共内战的历史遗留问题和中共的政治合法性，早于现代芯片供应链的出现。 (10:00) 美国政策依赖于“战略模糊”与“双重威慑”，力求同时阻止台湾正式宣布独立和北京发起军事侵略。 (15:00)

Hoover Institution Fellow Eyck Freymann argues that while the United States retains a tactical naval advantage against a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, Western deterrence is fundamentally threatened by asymmetric economic endurance and deep supply-chain vulnerabilities. Tactical Realities of Cross-Strait Amphibious Warfare (30:00) A cross-strait invasion presents severe logistical and environmental hurdles for the People's Liberation Army. The Taiwan Strait is characterized by 50 mph winds, extreme tides, frequent typhoons, and only a handful of viable, heavily fortified landing beaches. Even if an initial wave of 15,000 Chinese troops secured a beachhead, maintaining continuous resupply lines of fuel, ammunition, and food against sea mines, anti-ship artillery, and low-cost drones remains an extraordinarily vulnerable task. Freymann notes that unlike prolonged, attritional land conflicts dominated by industrial mass, naval warfare relies on high-value, specialized platforms. Because these engagements can be decided in hours or days, the U.S. military holds an edge in domain dominance, broad-area surveillance, undersea capabilities, and early cyber or counter-space operations. Consequently, war games suggest a full-scale Chinese amphibious assault today would carry an exceptionally high risk of catastrophic failure for Beijing. Beijing's Economic Endurance and Financial Shock Absorbers (35:00) Western strategists previously assumed China's economic exposure would prevent conflict, but Freymann emphasizes that Xi Jinping has reframed China's domestic compact around national security, party discipline, and ideological struggle, instructing citizens to "eat bitterness." Drawing lessons from Russia's survival of Western sanctions through liquid reserves, high interest rates, and capital controls, Beijing has built significant financial buffers. Including shadow reserves, China holds an estimated 10 to 20 times the liquid foreign exchange reserves Russia had in 2022, backed by comprehensive state control over its banking system. Energy calculations further skew in Beijing's favor during a confrontation. Against peacetime consumption of 13 to 14 million barrels of oil per day, China produces 4 million barrels domestically, imports supply overland from Russia and Central Asia, and maintains 1.3 to 2 billion barrels in total petroleum reserves, while the military would require only 500,000 barrels daily. Crucially, regional U.S. allies such as Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea possess far shorter survival timelines under a maritime blockade, creating an asymmetric vulnerability that could force an American diplomatic retreat. Supply Chain Vulnerabilities and Structured Decoupling (47:00) The United States faces acute economic blackmail risks due to structural dependencies on Chinese manufacturing for active pharmaceutical ingredients, commercial and military drone components, and mature-node automotive semiconductors. An uncontrolled, sudden supply cutoff would trigger severe market dislocations, particularly given that seven tech firms tied to AI represent 40% of the S&P 500 index and hyperscalers invest roughly $600 billion annually in data centers. To manage this exposure, Freymann advocates for "avalanche decoupling," sequentially disentangling dependencies beginning with the most critical inputs. However, this strategy faces the "transshipment problem," where Chinese goods circumvent tariffs through minimal processing in third-party nations like Mexico or Vietnam. Freymann points out that resolving this loophole requires multinational rules-of-origin agreements and deep coordination with European and Asian allies who hold the advanced manufacturing workforce and technical expertise that the U.S. previously outsourced. Taiwanese Political Dynamics and the Silicon Shield (20:00) Taiwan’s internal political landscape introduces major complexities for American strategy. While the ruling Democratic Progressive Party views Taiwan as already functionally independent and aligns closely with Washington, the opposition Kuomintang operates under a "one China, respective interpretations" framework, remaining skeptical of being treated as a geopolitical proxy. Beijing's "one country, two systems" proposal has lost virtually all domestic traction following the 2019 suppression of civil liberties in Hong Kong, accelerating a separate Taiwanese identity among younger generations. Simultaneously, the centrality of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company presents a strategic paradox. While TSMC generates an outsized share of Taiwanese exports and operates as a national champion, American initiatives to reshore advanced microchip production directly erode Taiwan's "silicon shield." If the U.S. reduces its own technological reliance on the island, it risks diminishing the vital economic deterrent that guarantees Western security commitments. Freymann and the program hosts conclude that preventing conflict requires looking past tactical military counting to address political and economic endurance. The central unresolved question is whether a war-weary American political system can sustain the domestic economic discipline, trade architecture, and allied consensus required to deter an adversary prepared to endure prolonged economic strain.

斯坦福大学胡佛研究所学者 Eyck Freymann 认为，台湾不仅是地缘政治的战略支点，更是全球高科技与供应链架构的核心枢纽；西方威慑中国对台动武的关键，不仅在于美军在常规海战与拒止能力上的战术优势，更取决于美盟阵营能否有效化解在长期经济封锁与资源消耗战中的严重不对称脆弱性。 历史正统诉求与台湾内部政治博弈 (10:00) Freymann 指出，北京对台湾的领土主张并非源于现代半导体产业，而是根植于国共内战的历史遗留问题，以及中国共产党消除“百年国耻”以确立执政合法性的政治诉求。自1895年甲午战争后台湾割让日本并历经数十年工业化，到1949年国民党政权撤退至台北，两岸形成了长期的政治对峙。美国在法理上始终维持二战后台湾地位“未定”的战略模糊框架，强调任何政治地位的变更都必须通过和平与民主方式解决。 在台湾内部政治格局上，各派系对国家认同与安全战略存在深刻分歧。国民党仍坚持“一个中国，各自表述”的历史与文化认同，虽然放弃了武力反攻大陆，但保留了未来某种邦联化和平统一的构想，并对美国可能将台湾作为对抗地缘棋子持有戒心；民进党则主张台湾已是事实独立的民主国家，将对美安全伙伴关系视为生存基石。此外，鉴于2019年后香港“一国两制”遭遇强力整肃，台湾25岁以下年轻选民几乎完全认同自己是“台湾人”，使得北京提出的“一国两制”方案在岛内基本丧失吸引力。 两栖跨海天堑与海上战场决胜机制 (30:00) 从军事战术维度考量，穿越台湾海峡发起大规模两栖登陆面临着严酷的自然与地理屏障。海峡内部存在高达50英里时速的强风、剧烈潮汐、台风与浓雾，且全岛仅有极少数适合登陆的海滩，并已经历了数十年的针对性防御工事加固。根据兵棋推演，即便解放军先头部队能够将约1.5万人送上滩头，现代防空体系、水雷、岸导与低成本无人机也将极易切断后续补给舰队，导致登陆部队陷入弹尽粮绝而被围歼的绝境。 Freymann 进一步区分了陆地战与海上战事的本质差异。过去80年美国参与的陆地战争属于消耗战，依赖庞大且可互换的作战单位在静态防线上比拼工业产能；海空战争则完全依托高价值、不可快速替代的核心作战平台，战事往往在爆发后的数小时至数天内定局。美军在水下潜艇力量、广域监视网络、远程精确打击以及针对敌方传感器系统的太空与网络反制能力上仍保有质化技术优势。若北京判断自身在高端常规战争中具备确凿胜算，其在印太区域的军事行动早已远比现状更为激进。 经济制裁韧性不对称与能源持久战 (35:00) 西方战略界过去普遍假定经济受损能有效威慑北京，但 Freymann 认为该假定已经失效。在习近平将国家重心由单纯经济发展转向意识形态整肃、国家安全及要求社会“吃苦”以实现民族复兴的背景下，中国体制对经济阵痛的承受力显著超出西方预估。与俄罗斯在乌克兰战争前持有的外汇储备相比，若计入影子储备，中国拥有的流动性外汇资产是其10至20倍，并享有完全受控的国有银行系统、严格的资本管制以及大规模的工业品与棉花等实物储备。 更为严峻的失衡体现在能源供应结构上。中国在和平时期每日消耗约1300万至1400万桶石油，国内自产约400万桶，并依托煤制油技术与内陆管道弥补短缺，其实际战略石油储备估计达13亿至20亿桶，而解放军战时日均燃油需求仅约50万桶。相反，台湾、日本与韩国等美方盟友极度依赖海上航运输入能源与物资，战备储备通常仅能维持数月。若北京能承受12个月的全面封锁而盟国在3个月内消耗殆尽，耐受力优势的倒转将使美方联盟面临巨大瓦解风险。 供应链脱钩困境与“硅盾”双刃剑 (47:00) 为了削弱北京的经济要挟能力，Freymann 建议西方阵营实施“雪崩式脱钩”，即从关键原料药、无人机关键零组件及成熟制程汽车芯片等对华依赖度极高的领域入手，依优先级分阶段剥离供应链。然而，激进的全面脱钩在现实中面临巨大阻力：中国企业可通过越南或墨西哥等第三国转运规避关税；与此同时，标普500指数中七大科技巨头市值占比高达40%，超大规模云服务商每年在数据中心与硬件上的支出接近6000亿美元，供应链的突发中断极易引发金融恐慌与深层衰退。 此外，美国推动本土半导体制造回流的产业政策对台湾构成了微妙的地缘悖论。台积电作为高度集中的国家冠军企业，构成了阻止外国放弃防御的“硅盾”。节目讨论指出，如果美国与盟国成功在本土与日本复制了尖端晶圆代工产能，国际社会全力协防台湾的核心经济动机恐遭削弱。这一结构性矛盾不仅加剧了台湾内部对自身沦为大国博弈牺牲品的忧虑，也对美台间的战略信任构成了考验。 该节目最终指出，有效威慑台海冲突需要超越单纯的舰队数量清点，转向涵盖经济韧性建设与供应链风险分散的综合国力治理。然而，在经历伊拉克等长期冲突后，美国公众参与大规模海外危机的政治意愿依然存在不确定性，而在推动关键产业自主化的同时如何避免削弱盟友安全杠杆、并与盟友协调统一的转运规则与贸易防线，仍是西方未解决的核心战略难题。

## Background 本期节目由彭博社（Bloomberg）旗下的《Odd Lots》播客于 2026 年 5 月 1 日在 RSS 与网络平台发布。节目由主持人 Tracy Alloway 和 Joe Weisenthal 对话斯坦福大学胡佛研究所研究员、《保卫台湾：防止对华战争的战略》（Defending Taiwan）作者艾克·弗雷曼（Eyck Freymann），探讨霍尔木兹海峡危机现实化之后，全球最为凶险的地缘政治瓶颈——台海冲突的潜在场景、两岸历史与政治动量、全球半导体命脉及美国的威慑战略。 ## TL;DR 节目深度剖析了台海危机的多重维度，指出台湾问题本质上是中国内战的未竟之业与政权合法性之争，绝非仅关乎芯片产业。对话对比了美军在常规海空作战中依托超视距协同和隐蔽优势的质化胜算，与两栖跨海登陆作战的极端地理天险；但同时也揭示了残酷的现实——中国拥有庞大的战略石油储备、Shadow Reserves 以及高度集中的体制抗压韧性，而美国及其区域盟友对供应链断供与通胀剧痛的承受阈值极低。此外，讨论还拆解了“雪崩式脱钩”在原产地转运规避下的落地困境，以及美国加速半导体回流可能削弱台湾“硅盾”护栏的结构性悖论。 ## Atmosphere & style 对谈整体洋溢着典型《Odd Lots》式的硬核知性与机智幽默，主持人的即兴打趣（如预测翻车不耽误当评论员、找借口去台湾出差）巧妙中和了极具窒息感的地缘战争话题。嘉宾弗雷曼条理清晰、语调沉稳，信手拈来翔实的军事后勤数据与宏观金融推演，在冷峻严密的沙盘推演中层层剥离战略幻想。整场播客给听众带来一种既烧脑又冷汗直流的智力冲击感，在战术无懈可击的军力自信与战略极度脆弱的经济现实之间形成了强烈的反思张力。 ## Bulletin - `10:00` 台海危机的核心逻辑并非单纯争夺半导体，芯片仅是战略附带利益；统一台湾在北京叙事中是国共内战的未竟之业，直接关乎政权合法性与民族复兴图腾。 - `43:26` 在极限经济封锁推演中，中国大陆凭借约20亿桶战略原油储备、庞大外汇与战略物资囤积，抗压韧性可达12个月以上，而美日韩台等盟友在断供3个月内即面临严重困境。 - `52:30` 美军在常规海空战中依托广域机动、网络压制与反太空等质化代差仍占优势，但美国脆弱的国内通胀与股市耐受力构成了国家战略层面的最大软肋。 - `01:00:00` 美国推动半导体供应链回流正在引发“硅盾悖论”：本土先进制程能力越完备，全球对台湾芯片的绝对依赖度越低，原本维系台湾安全的天然护栏反而被持续削弱。 ## Key takeaways - `05:00` 霍尔木兹海峡封锁验证了理论瓶颈成真的破坏力，而台海若突发危机切断先进算力芯片供应，对全球经济与AI产业的打击将远超石油断供。 - `10:00` 北京对台湾的战略执念远早于芯片产业诞生，本质上是国共内战的历史遗留问题，关乎谁是代表全中国的合法政权及洗刷百年国耻的叙事。 - `12:30` 华盛顿长期坚持“台湾法律地位未定论”，底线是反对单方面武力胁迫并捍卫二战后的自由航行秩序与民主程序认可。 - `15:00` 美方“战略模糊”政策是多届政府妥协堆叠的产物，其“双重威慑”过去有效运转依赖绝对优势，如今随着中美实力差距收窄已显脆弱。 - `21:20` 国民党与民进党对“中国”认同存在根本分歧：国民党认同文明意义上的一个中国且担忧沦为乌克兰，民进党则笃定台湾已是独立民主政体且坚信美军必援。 - `25:00` 台积电主导台湾出口大盘，在岛内政治上保持中立，但因底层半导体设计与EDA工具受制于美国，不得不严格服从美方出口管制。 - `30:00` 2019年香港局势打破了“一国两制”在台湾的政治信任，台湾社会对接受北京框架已形成普遍抵触，而灰色地带施压正成为迫在眉睫的威胁。 - `32:38` 台湾海峡恶劣的海况气象与极少数要塞化滩头构成了两栖登陆的天然天险，脆弱的后勤运输链使任何大规模渡海突击都极易遭受毁灭性打击。 - `35:48` 中国国内社会契约已从单纯追求GDP增长转向意识形态与国家安全，动员体制与社会监控使得官方对经济阵痛的承受阈值远高于外界传统预期。 - `37:40` 俄罗斯在遭受半数外汇冻结后通过加息、资本管制和本币结算稳住汇率的实战经验，向北京展示了庞大金融减震器的实际防御效能。 - `40:00` 传统“惩罚中国”的经济制裁逻辑往往反噬自身，西方必须转向以自身供应链安全为优先，同时通过“雪崩式脱钩”分层解决最致命的单向依赖。 - `50:00` 通过越南、墨西哥转运洗产地的漏洞严重削弱了现有对华关税效能，若缺乏盟友联合穿透的原产地规则，定向脱钩在实操中寸步难行。 - `52:30` 台海海空战打的是少数高价值平台的体系瓦解战而非陆战消耗战，美军在数百万平方英里大洋上的隐蔽机动与电子网络压制能力依然构成了非对称优势。 - `55:40` 霍尔木兹海峡带来的终极教训是战术卓越无法弥补战略脆弱，阻止台海生战的关键不仅在五角大楼的军备，更在全政府维度的经济耐受力与盟友协作。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### `00:00` 地缘政治的假想敌：从霍尔木兹海峡到台湾海峡 在长期以来的地缘政治推演中，有两个潜在的“封锁场景”一直盘旋在战略学家的心头：一个是伊朗封锁霍尔木兹海峡，另一个则是中国大陆针对台湾采取军事行动或封锁。近期霍尔木兹海峡的危机已然成真，彻底从理论演变为现实，引发了全球对能源与物流通道的深度恐慌。然而，主持人 Tracy Alloway 与 Joe Weisenthal 指出，在政策制定圈与战略推演中，讨论最频繁、关注度最高、潜在影响最深远的，其实始终是台海局势。 围绕台海问题的预测往往伴随着战略判断的失误与修正。Tracy 幽默地分享了自己在大学时撰写的一篇论文，当时她曾断言中国大陆会在 2008 年北京奥运会之前收复台湾，结果事实证明完全预测错误。Joe 则打趣回应称：“判断失准从未阻碍过任何时事评论家的职业生涯。”在录制节目的当天（4月21日），新闻依然充斥着台海博弈的涟漪：台湾领导人取消了访问非洲仅存邦交国之一埃斯瓦蒂尼（Eswatini）的行程，官方给出的理由是“航线问题”以及“来自中国大陆的压力”。尽管这类外交拉锯日常发生，但它时刻提醒着外界台海背后紧绷的地缘暗流。 - 霍尔木兹海峡与台湾海峡曾被视为全球最重要的两大潜在封锁瓶颈，前者已经演变为现实危机。 - 台湾的外交空间持续承压，在非洲极少数仍维持邦交关系的国家（如埃斯瓦蒂尼）面临严峻的地缘博弈。 --- ### `05:00` 芯片封锁与石油危机：全球经济的心脏骤停风险 对比霍尔木兹海峡危机与台海危机，二者对全球资本市场和经济体系的冲击维度截然不同。霍尔木兹海峡关系到原油供应，而石油驱动着实体经济运转；然而，在危机爆发后的数周内，全球市场展现出了一定的韧性，事实证明人类社会在部分石油供应短缺的情况下尚能维持运转几周。但芯片和半导体的逻辑完全不同。 当今资本市场和科技产业的核心引擎是人工智能（AI）与高算力半导体。一旦台湾海峡发生冲突导致芯片运输中断，全球供应链面临的将不仅是原材料上涨，而是先进算力的全面断绝。先进逻辑芯片无法像原油那样短期内从其他产区补齐或依赖战略储备支撑，全球市场与科技生态面临的震荡将比石油危机高出数个数量级。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 霍尔木兹海峡与台海危机对全球市场冲击对比 accDescr: 对比石油断供与半导体断供在全球经济中引发的不同后果 subgraph Energy["能源危机：霍尔木兹海峡"] E1["伊朗封锁海峡"] --> E2["原油供给锐减"] E2 --> E3["能源成本飙升与通胀"] E3 --> E4["依赖库存缓冲，全球短期勉强运转"] end subgraph Tech["科技/算力危机：台湾海峡"] T1["台海突发冲突或封锁"] --> T2["台积电等晶圆厂停摆"] T2 --> T3["先进算力与AI芯片全球断供"] T3 --> T4["全球科技体系硬重启与供应链崩溃"] end ``` --- ### `06:40` 重新审视台海：艾克·弗雷曼与新书《保卫台湾》的诞生 为探讨这一致命地缘枢纽，节目邀请了斯坦福大学胡佛研究所研究员艾克·弗雷曼（Eyck Freymann）。弗雷曼刚出版了新书《保卫台湾：防止对华战争的战略》（*Defending Taiwan: A Strategy to Prevent War With China*）。谈及自己的实地调研，弗雷曼开玩笑称，自己现在或许还能去中国大陆，但“问题是还能不能走得出来”——上次离境时他曾在海关遭到盘问。如今在中国大陆开展学术研究不仅很难查阅关键档案和进行深度访谈，研究者的人身与数字设备安全风险也在上升，因此他更倾向于在第三国进行交流。 弗雷曼回顾了自己关注该议题的渊源。他最初的研究聚焦于中国大陆的全球经济扩张与“一带一路”倡议，曾实地走访斯里兰卡、坦桑尼亚、希腊乃至格陵兰岛，探究党政体制如何动员资源将经济工具转化为地缘政治筹码。在新冠疫情爆发与全球 AI 浪潮兴起期间，弗雷曼意识到，台湾问题早已超越了传统的地理博弈，演变为全球经济与技术格局的核心中枢。当时他向杰出的海军历史学者哈里·哈勒姆（Harry Halem）请教：市面上是否有哪本书能系统讲清楚中美若因台湾开战会是什么样、怎样才能打赢，以及美国目前能做什么和不能做什么？哈勒姆直言：“这本书根本不存在，文献里有成百上千篇碎片化的论文和推特讨论，但没有一本专著能融会贯通。” 这促成了两位学者的合作：一人从经济政治视角出发，一人从军事战术切入，试图拼凑出完整的战争与威慑拼图。弗雷曼指出，台海危机是美国治国方略（American Statecraft）有史以来面临的“最复杂、多学科、多功能的跨领域外交政策难题”： - **军事与工业层面**：面对中国大陆在舰艇、战机、导弹和无人机数量上的绝对扩张，美国是否真的处于劣势？战争推演中两栖登陆战与反制手段的细节如何展开？ - **外交与科技政策层面**：如何在维持与北京、台北及全球盟友多边关系的同时，守住尖端半导体供应链？ - **全球经济秩序层面**：半导体晶圆代工厂（fabs）的得失关乎存亡。一旦台湾遭到武力攻占或胁迫，晶圆厂落入他手或被彻底破坏，全球自 1989 年冷战结束乃至 1945 年二战后建立的经济体系将面临彻底的“硬重启”（hard reset）。 现有的大量讨论仅仅局限于对两栖登陆战役的局部兵棋推演，而严重忽视了与之相配套的全球经济战备规划。《保卫台湾》一书正是为了填补这些知识盲区，整合中文一手资料与多方访谈，试图构建出一套完整的防务与威慑框架。 ### `10:00` 台湾并非仅关乎芯片：中国内战未竟之业与政权合法性 主持人抛出了一个看似显而易见却至关重要的问题：中国究竟为何如此在意台湾？这究竟是“中国”的诉求，还是应当被精准定义为“习近平”个人的执念？艾克·弗雷曼（Eyck Freymann）指出，要理解这一议题，首要的一点是认清“这绝非仅仅为了芯片”。半导体产业充其量只是一项“附带利益（co-benefit）”，早在台湾生产芯片之前，中国就已经极度重视台湾；即便台湾一颗芯片都不造，北京对它的执念也丝毫不会减退。从本质上讲，台湾是中国内战的“未竟之业”。1949年，蒋介石领导的国民党政权在失去对中国北方的控制后，将军队连同故宫的大批稀世珍宝一同撤退到台北，并在岛上建立政权。随着朝鲜战争爆发，台湾顺理成章地被纳入美国的冷战同盟体系，艾森豪威尔总统更于1955年访问台北，使台湾成为美国亚太同盟架构中的关键节点。 对于毛泽东与当时的中国共产党而言，消灭残余敌人、彻底终结内战是不可动摇的目标。更棘手的是，海峡对岸长期存在着另一个自称代表全中国的政权，不仅在当时占据着联合国安理会的中国席位，更被世界上绝大多数国家承认为唯一的合法政府。这直接动摇并拷问着中国共产党的政权合法性。自此，“解放台湾”、“实现国家完全统一”演变成极具图腾性质的政治宣传口号。中共叙事将其置于洗刷“百年国耻”、实现“中华民族伟大复兴”的宏大语境之中，强调必须将台湾收归麾下，且全世界都必须承认这一现实。弗雷曼强调，台湾问题争夺的不仅是对一片地理岛屿的控制权，更关乎谁是合法的“中国代表”。联合国和美国是否承认台湾是中国的一部分、是否承认中共是唯一合法政府，构成了这套政治博弈的核心，并且从一开始就深深卷入了中美大国竞争的漩涡之中。 - **半导体的定位**：芯片只是战略附带红利，并非北京对台野心的根源。 - **历史分水岭**：1949年国民党撤退台北并带走故宫文物；1955年艾森豪威尔访台确立美台冷战同盟。 - **政权合法性冲突**：早期退守台湾的中民国政府在联合国安理会代表中国，直接威胁中共的合法性叙事。 - **民族复兴图腾**：统一台湾被北京定义为洗刷“百年国耻”、完成文明复兴必须迈过的门槛。 --- ### `12:30` 历史迷思与法律地位：从大清边缘、日治时期到二战后地位未定论 追溯国民党迁台之前的历史脉络，台湾与中国大陆的法理与实际关系十分复杂。早在17世纪，荷兰殖民者便在台湾建立据点；明末清初天下大乱之际，来自大陆的将领郑成功等人跨海收复并经营台湾，如今两岸均尊崇其历史地位，部分将领甚至在台湾被神化建庙。进入清朝后，台湾在很长一段时间内仅隶属于福建省管辖，但清廷中央并未对其推行严密的实际治理。当时的台湾被视为瘴疠横生、遍布原住民的边陲荒岛，清廷在帝国的边缘地带缺乏持久的统治意志。1895年中日甲午战争爆发后，清政府战败割台，台湾进入长达半个世纪的日本殖民统治期。 与日本在朝鲜半岛实施的残酷高压统治截然不同，日本在台湾推进了工业化和近代化建设，留下深刻的历史印记，使得当地社会对日治时期保留了相对温和的复杂记忆。因此，在20世纪前半叶国共两党于大陆激烈内战之际，台湾社会完全处在日本的治理体系之下。这就引出了1945年日本战败投降后的核心法律争议：日本当时究竟将台湾的主权移交给了谁？华盛顿的官方立场至今仍然坚持“台湾法律地位未定论”。美国并不直接对台湾的法理归属下定论，而是主张该问题应由台北与北京两岸自行和平解决。美国的底线是绝对不能使用武力或胁迫手段，且鉴于台湾如今已转型为成熟的民主政体，最终方案必须获得台湾人民的民主认可。这一立场的深层逻辑在于捍卫自1945年以来依仗国际公海与国际领空维系的自由贸易航线与亚太秩序。若允许以武力强行改变边境与航道，整个区域安全架构将面临坍塌，给美国带来灾难性的地缘政治与经济危险；而北京当前正试图通过“灰色地带”蚕食与胁迫手段来单方面打破这一均势。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 台湾历史归属演变与美国政策逻辑 accDescr: 展示从17世纪至今台湾历史地位变迁及美国在此问题上的核心法理与战略关切 subgraph Hist["历史阶段更迭"] A["17世纪：荷兰殖民与郑氏政权治理"] --> B["清代统治：边陲岛屿、控制力有限"] B --> C["1895年甲午战败：割让日本，开启半世纪日治工业化"] C --> D["1945年日本战败投降：主权移交对象在法理上存疑"] end subgraph USPolicy["美国的核心原则与安全利益"] D --> E["法律地位未定论：由两岸自行和平协商"] E --> F["民主认可：最终方案必须获台湾民众接受"] E --> G["反对暴力：坚决遏制灰色地带侵扰与军事强权"] F & G --> H["终极目标：确保印太航道自由与战后国际秩序稳定"] end ``` --- ### `15:00` 解构“战略模糊”：层层累加的妥协与其面临的现实危机 当谈及美国对台政策时，主持人打趣道，“战略模糊（strategic ambiguity）”听起来极像一个人为了推脱晚上的社交应酬而耍的太极，“也许我会去吧，看情况再说”，并好奇这种奇怪的表态为何能成为一项公认的外交政策。弗雷曼解释称，这项政策之所以显得支离破碎，是因为它从未出自某个战略家的单一顶层设计，而是几十年来历届政府不断修补、堆叠而成的产物，就像一首“墙上有100瓶啤酒”的漫长民谣，每一任新政府上台都要再加一句歌词。 当前美国的一个中国政策主要由三大支柱层层包裹而成： 1. **中美三个联合公报**：这是华盛顿与北京关系的政治基石，其文本措辞极为模糊，且部分关键概念在中英文翻译中存在微妙差异，使得双方均能各取所需、自说自话； 2. **《与台湾关系法》（1979年）**：由美国国会强力推动立法，明确规定美国在几乎所有实际功能层面上将台湾视为一个主权国家对待，仅在少数最高层级的正式政治与军事交往中维持非官方界限； 3. **里根政府的“六项保证”**：明确承诺美国绝不强迫台湾坐上谈判桌，绝不把台湾当作与北京利益交换的筹码，确保台北不会屈服于外部压力而被迫接受城下之盟。 这些政策相互嵌合，构成了政治学界所称的“双重威慑（dual deterrence）”架构：一方面威慑台湾，阻止其宣布独立或采取可能激化冲突的挑衅行为；另一方面威慑北京，暗示一旦动武将遭到美国的毁灭性反击，但同时也安抚北京无需因恐惧台湾独立而急于动手。弗雷曼深刻指出，战略模糊在过去数十年里之所以能够成功运转，完全建立在美国对华拥有压倒性的经济、技术和军事绝对优势的基础之上。然而今天，力量天平正在发生剧烈倾斜。尽管美国在高强度常规战争中依然有胜算，对华制裁也可能重创中国经济，但随着两军实力差距收窄，美国需要承担的伤亡代价与地缘风险正呈几何级数飙升。在战略成本急剧膨胀的现实面前，战略模糊正变得越来越脆弱，甚至容易被误解为一张自欺欺人的“免罪逃生卡”。 ### `21:20` 台湾政党政治与“中国”认同之争：国民党与民进党的根本分歧 主持人坦言自己对台湾内部政治所知甚少，但抛出了一个直觉疑问：作为昔日革命政权与蒋介石衣钵继承者的国民党（KMT），如今在对北京的关系上反而是更为温和、鸽派的一方，甚至主张某种程度的两岸缓和与走近，这究竟是如何演变成现实的？艾克·弗雷曼（Eyck Freymann）半开玩笑地反问：“你想聊得多深入（多硬核）？”他随即剖析道，两岸争端在很大程度上源于对“中国”一词究竟意味着什么的理解差异。 国民党依然在理念上认为自己代表着“真正的中国”。尽管他们深知当今世界存在一个“自由的中国”与一个“不自由的中国”，且早已放弃了反攻大陆、以武力接管海峡对岸的历史执念，但他们仍抱有长远期许，认为两岸有朝一日可以通过联邦或邦联架构实现统一，甚至国民党仍有可能占据主导地位。在文化、历史与文明认同上，国民党视自己为无可争议的中国人：“我们是中国人，只是恰巧生活在台湾，我们属于同一个文明、同一个民族。”国民党坚守“一个中国，各自表述”的原则立场，这正是北京愿意与其保持对话的基础——虽然双方对“一个中国”的具体内涵各执一词，但至少在原则上均认同世界上只有一个中国，且台湾是其中的一部分。 执政的民进党（DPP）则采取了完全不同的叙事逻辑。民进党认为：“我们是一个名为台湾的国家。”台湾是全球技术最先进的地区之一，是一个蓬勃发展的民主社会，全世界都依赖台湾生产的芯片，台湾本身就处在核心安全架构之中。民进党并不打算盲动求死，也深知单方面宣布法理独立可能会引来毁灭性的打击，但他们的核心逻辑在于——“我们永远不需要宣布独立，因为我们现在就已经是独立国家了。”面对即将到来的台湾领导人选举，美国必须学会理解并适应这种截然不同的党派动态： - **民进党（DPP）视角**：将美台关系视为重中之重，深信台湾对美国至关重要，且笃定一旦台湾陷入危机，美军“援军必定会赶来”。 - **国民党（KMT）视角**：对美国持深层怀疑态度，担心美国只是在更宏大的地缘政治博弈中将台湾当作棋子，感叹“援军可能根本不会来”；他们极力避免台湾沦为“下一个乌克兰”，因而认为谈判与降温才是更稳妥的出路。 - **对美政策影响**：若国民党重掌政权，他们对协助美国推进芯片制造业回流（Reshoring）的意愿可能会大幅降低，同时也会极力避免开展过度刺激北京的美台军事合作。 --- ### `25:00` 台积电（TSMC）与芯片产业在台湾政治经济中的微妙角色 主持人转而探讨半导体产业在台湾内部政治与国家安全决策中的实际分量，询问台积电等晶圆代工巨头是否在国安政策制定中拥有直接话语权。弗雷曼指出，半导体在台湾社会与经济架构中的影响力极其巨大。虽然包括上下游配套服务在内的半导体全产业链在台湾本土仅占总就业人口的5%左右，但它在台湾出口总额中所占的比重却极为惊人。由于全球对先进制程芯片的需求永远无法被满足，台湾的宏观出口数据持续处于爆发状态。 台湾的整个政治经济生态系统正是围绕台积电的成功运转而建立的，政府提供了巨额税收优惠、土地补贴，并由大学院校和职业技术中心源源不断输送人才，其国家冠军企业的地位类似韩国的三星。然而，身处聚光灯中心的台积电面临着复杂的现实： - **国内党派平衡**：台积电保持着足够的政治智慧，从不在国民党与民进党之间明确选边站队，而是确保能与任何一届执政当局维持紧密合作。 - **中美地缘夹缝**：台积电本身并不认同也不承担美国的政治对抗目标，它十分乐意向中国大陆客户出售大量芯片；但由于其高端先进制程完全依赖采用美国技术和EDA工具的设计，美国拥有实施出口管制的关键杠杆，迫使台积电必须全面配合美方的出口限制政策。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: TSMC's Position in Taiwanese and Global Geopolitics accDescr: Diagram illustrating TSMC's relationships with the Taiwan government, domestic parties, the US, and China. subgraph Taiwan["台湾内部生态"] GOV["台湾产业政策与资源<br/>(土地补贴 / 税收优惠 / 人才生态)"] PARTIES["跨党派政治环境<br/>(DPP 与 KMT 均视其为核心支柱)"] TSMC["台积电 (TSMC)<br/>(占全台就业~5%，主导出口大盘)"] GOV --> TSMC PARTIES <--> TSMC end subgraph Global["大国博弈制约"] US["美国<br/>(控制底层芯片架构设计与出口管制规则)"] CHINA["中国大陆市场<br/>(庞大商业需求，台积电愿与其做生意)"] US -- "严苛技术与出口管控" --> TSMC TSMC -. "商业销售受制约".-> CHINA end ``` --- ### `26:50` 台湾选民的长期代际演变与半导体供应链外迁的必要性 主持人提出了一个长远假想：美国自里根时代以来的对台政策原则一向强调“绝不施压台湾接受不平等的协议”。但如果随着时间推移，台湾新一代选民在审视世界时，逐渐觉得美国表现得像个好战帝国，而中国大陆不仅摆脱了贫困、展现出繁荣与稳定，两岸在未来是否有可能自发且有机地走向融合甚至统一？美国届时又是否有立场去强行阻拦？ 弗雷曼回应称，美国的长期基本政策历来是“台湾的前途应由台湾人民自行决定”。这不仅是一个原则性立场，从美国自身的现实利益来看也是唯一的选择：如果台湾通过民主程序自愿选择与大陆达成某种统一协议，美国难道还能出兵推翻台湾政府、告诉他们“不准这么做”吗？他强调，中国大陆所使用的“祖国统一（Reunification）”在语义上其实是一种偷换概念的话术（weasel word），因为台湾在历史上从未被中华人民共和国统治过一天。然而，只要和平自愿统一或外部封锁的潜在风险存在，美国就必须做好万全准备： - **芯片去中心化布局**：这正是为什么美国推动本土、日本以及其他盟国建设半导体制造基地是完全“无需多想的必然选择（no-brainer）”。 - **避免鸡蛋放在同一个篮子里**：鉴于无法绝对确信能够永远长期无阻地获取台湾的芯片供应，加之尖端芯片是当今大模型与前沿人工智能（Frontier AI）发展的最核心瓶颈，美国绝不能将所有关键战略资产押注在单一脆弱节点上。 关于台湾年轻一代的真实政治认同，弗雷曼指出，25岁以下的年轻选民在民调中呈现出鲜明的本土倾向：他们绝大多数仅自称为“台湾人”，几乎没有人会单独认同自己是“中国人”；在以往的选举中，这批年轻选民在意识形态上也普遍更加亲近民进党。代际更迭正在重塑台湾的社会心理，使得两岸在文化心理与身份认同上的距离越拉越大。 ### `30:00` “一国两制”的破产与灰色地带危机设想 在谈及台湾民众的身份认同与两岸未来的政治出路时，艾克·弗雷曼（Eyck Freymann）指出，虽然绝大多数人自认是“纯粹的台湾人”，但也有许多人同时认同自己“既是台湾人也是中国人”——这里的“中国人”纯粹是指文化与文明意义上的传承，绝非认同中华人民共和国的政权。北京方面其实非常乐意看到台湾主动签署一份接受“一国两制台湾方案”的文件，即承认“只有一个中国且大陆是合法代表”，以此换取类似过去香港的安排：保留自身的法律制度、民主架构、言论与结社自由，甚至保留免签待遇优渥的护照，外加大陆提供的廉价能源与其他经济补贴。然而，这一构想在当下的台湾早已彻底丧失了吸引力。2019年香港的遭遇让台湾人彻底看清了现实：当香港市民站出来抗议北京侵蚀其制度与自由时，当局便纵容蒙面暴徒在街头暴力袭击民众，实施午夜抓捕，以恐怖手段将整座城市镇压屈服。自此，台湾社会达成了深刻的共识：“一国两制”不过是其民主体制走向终结的慢性毒药。 但如果未来美国与国际社会被视作不可靠的后盾，北京就可能逼迫台湾面对现实：“你们到底想吃敬酒还是吃罚酒？”在这种巨大的窒息感下，妥协的风险便骤然上升。弗雷曼强调，威胁并不只存在于全面的军事摊牌时刻，和平时期与危机前夕的“灰色地带”施压同样致命。北京可以调动部队在台湾海峡进行大规模集结，“演习只是演习，直到它不再只是演习”；他们还可以逐步限制进出台湾的客货运航班，甚至在半空中要求航空公司递交乘客名单，找借口要求“既然艾克（Eyck）在飞机上，能否请班机在上海经停一下？我们有些问题想向他了解”。除此之外，利用在台的特工与统战网络、对关键基础设施发起网络攻击、铺天盖地的舆论宣传战，都能在台湾、美国与日本之间狠狠打入楔子。令人担忧的是，面对这种市场开始恐慌、甚至需要撤离在台美籍公民的政治危机，美国除了针对正面登陆的军事预案外，至今仍缺乏一套清晰且深思熟虑的政治应对策略。 - **香港经验的政治幻灭**：2019年反修例运动与后续国安法的落地，让“一国两制”在台湾各政治光谱中彻底丧失信任度。 - **灰色地带施压手段**：常态化军演常态逼近、空中与海上航线部分管制、搜税与乘客名单盘查、潜伏特工策应、关键基建网络瘫痪以及认知舆论战。 - **美方战略盲区**：缺乏针对未达到全面战争阈值的经济恐慌与社会动荡的危机政治响应机制。 --- ### `32:38` 历史与地理的天然屏障：两栖登陆的极端难度 长期以来约束中国大陆对台动武的核心瓶颈究竟是什么？弗雷曼坦言，虽然决策层的真实意图无法百分之百洞悉，但根本原因在于：中国人民解放军在历史上、乃至直到最近，都缺乏以武力攻占并守住台湾的实际能力。这段军事困境早在1949年毛泽东取得大陆政权时便已注定。当时毛泽东要求将领拿出攻台方案，参谋们在实地评估后得出结论：这项任务在当时几乎无法完成。台湾海峡是世界上通航难度最高、海况最险恶的水域之一，常年充斥着狂暴的潮汐、巨浪、时速高达50英里的强风、频繁的台风以及浓雾。更致命的是，全岛适合两栖大规模登陆的“红色海滩”屈指可数，而台湾军方对这些地点心知肚明，并耗费了将近四分之三个世纪的时间在其周边修筑了坚固的防御工事。 跨海运送大军唯有走海空两条途径，但空运在密集的防空火力面前极度脆弱，乌克兰战场的经验已经证明战机与直升机极易被单兵防空武器击落。因此，进攻方必须严重依赖庞大的两栖舰队。然而，这些慢速舰艇极易被水雷、廉价无人机和岸基火炮击沉。大规模两栖登陆是一项环环相扣、容错率极低的精密联合作战：就算解放军成功运送了第一批1.5万名士兵冲上滩头，后续的补给线一旦被切断——几艘关键的两栖运输舰被击沉在海峡深处——先头部队在失去弹药、燃料、食物和医疗物资后，就会在滩头遭到全歼。历史上的诺曼底登陆拥有无与伦比的先决优势，却依然险些彻底失控；而对于缺乏实战经验的解放军而言，两栖攻台的复杂程度只增不减。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 两栖登陆作战的脆弱补给链与瓶颈 accDescr: 展示解放军跨海两栖突击所面临的海况威胁、防御阻击以及后勤补给链断裂的风险机制 subgraph Geography ["海峡天险与自然阻碍"] G1["险恶海况<br/>(狂风/大浪/台风/浓雾)"] G2["极少数可行登陆海滩<br/>(早已被台军高度要塞化)"] end subgraph Transit ["跨海投送风险"] T1["空中空运：极易遭防空导弹击落"] T2["海上两栖船队：暴露于水雷/无人机/岸炮火力"] end subgraph Beachhead ["滩头孤立危机"] B1["先头部队抢滩登陆<br/>(约1.5万人建立阵地)"] B2["后勤补给链遭切断<br/>(弹药/燃料/医药中断)"] B3["滩头部队丧失战力并遭围歼"] end Geography --> Transit Transit --> B1 B1 --> B2 B2 --> B3 ``` - **海峡地理制约**：50英里/小时强风、汹涌海潮与极端季风气候，大幅缩短了一年中适合发起两栖行动的时间窗口。 - **后勤链的脆弱性**：两栖重型运输船数量有限，面对低成本巡航导弹、精确制导火炮和自杀式无人艇的威胁，脆弱的补给线构成了决定性软肋。 - **军事现代化的追赶**：尽管目前盲目攻台仍可能招致灾难性惨败，但解放军正在系统性补齐短板：大举扩建两栖船队、升级反潜作战网络、部署远程反舰弹道导弹以推离美军航母战斗群，并发展庞大的无人机与网电作战力量，这种能力积累正在逐渐推高北京的军事自信。 --- ### `35:48` 社会契约的转变与承受经济痛苦的阈值 过去政策圈中普遍流行一种假说：中国共产党执政的合法性建立在一项隐性的“社会契约”之上——即“由党垄断权力，以换取老百姓持续发财致富”；因此，武力攻台所招致的西方严厉制裁与经济剧痛，将直接动摇其执政根基，使全面冲突变得不可承受。但弗雷曼指出，这一论调在当下已经严重过时。根本原因在于，中国最高领导层在过去十年间对国内的社会契约进行了大刀阔斧的重塑：治理核心已经从单纯的“经济发展”转向了“意识形态与国家安全”。 通过雷厉风行的反腐运动、意识形态整风、修改历史教科书，以及组织党政干部重访革命时期的历史苦难遗址，北京反复倡导在党内发扬“斗争”精神。面对青年失业问题，官方公开呼吁年轻人要“吃苦”，其背后的叙事逻辑是：中华民族正在全力以赴实现“民族复兴”，要攀登人类文明成就的高峰，全社会就必须耐受艰辛、准备付出代价。配合高度数字化的社会监控体系与严格的纪律整肃，体制对社会的强制动员与掌控能力显著提升，这意味着中国对外部经济制裁与阵痛的承受阈值远比外界想象的高得多。虽然面对资本恐慌性外逃或金融体系突发崩盘的“黑天鹅”风险依然存在，但这绝非基准情景。 - **治理叙事重构**：从以GDP为导向的实用主义契约，转向追求民族复兴、强调国家安全与意识形态纯洁性的“吃苦”叙事。 - **体制抗压韧性**：高度集中强化的社会组织与管控工具，使得国家能够在战时或受制裁时将阵痛强行下沉，压制因经济受损而滋生的社会不满。 --- ### `37:40` 金融“减震器”与俄罗斯卢布反弹的启示 弗雷曼在书中详尽阐述了一个关键论据：过去十年中，中国一直在未雨绸缪地为其金融系统筑造各种“减震器”，目的正是为了抵御未来可能降临的毁灭性制裁冲击。而2022年俄乌战争爆发后俄罗斯的经济应对，更为北京提供了一场极具价值的实战沙盘推演。 战争打响之初，俄罗斯的准备并不完善。莫斯科曾误判欧洲不会全力跟随美国的极限制裁，并将大量央行储备从美元资产挪至欧元区，结果约有一半的外汇储备在顷刻间遭到西方冻结，重大商业银行（如俄罗斯联邦储蓄银行 Sberbank）亦被切断国际连接，卢布汇率在短短数周内贬值近半，金融体系一度濒临雪崩。然而，俄罗斯仅仅依靠剩余可调用的约3000亿美元外汇储备，通过一套极其激进有力的逆周期干预手段迅速稳住了大局： ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 俄罗斯金融防御组合拳机制 accDescr: 展示俄罗斯在面临外汇冻结和汇率暴跌时，通过利率工具、资本管制和强制本币结算实现汇率稳定的流程 subgraph Shock ["外部制裁冲击"] S1["半数外储遭西方冻结"] S2["主要银行受制裁/卢布暴跌50%"] end subgraph Defense ["应急金融防御措施"] D1["基准利率暴加至20%"] D2["极严格的资本管制<br/>(限制银行资金流出)"] D3["强制卢布结算<br/>(能源与国企出口本币化)"] end subgraph Equilibrium ["市场再平衡"] E1["进口断崖式下滑"] E2["能源价格飙升带动出口强劲"] E3["经常账户大幅顺差<br/>(卢布汇率强势反弹)"] end Shock --> Defense Defense --> Equilibrium ``` 俄罗斯央行果断将利率骤升至20%，实施滴水不漏的资本管制以阻截资金外逃，并强制国有企业和能源贸易必须使用卢布进行结算。这套组合拳极大地刺激了对卢布的硬性需求并保护了银行流动性。与此形成配合的是，由于西方限制，俄罗斯进口暴跌，而国际油价的飙升又使得其能源出口创收激增，经常账户顺差创下历史新高。国际对冲基金在获利平仓空头后迅速意识到，只要后续制裁不再无限加码，所有的坏消息就已被完全定价。到了2022年4月，卢布奇迹般地逆袭成为当年全球表现最强劲的货币。俄罗斯在底牌残缺的情形下尚能依靠资源优势与管制工具稳住阵脚，这无疑让在制造业深度、供应链内循环以及外汇防御准备上更为雄厚的大陆决策者看在眼里，也进一步削弱了西方经济制裁对台海危机的实际威慑力。 ### `40:00` 经济持久战的迷思：惩罚逻辑的失效与中国的防御韧性 在探讨西方与俄罗斯的经济制裁对抗时，埃克·弗雷曼（Eyck Freymann）指出，这场经济战已经演变成一场旷日持久的消耗战，而西方迄今并未真正取胜。将这一动态投射到中国身上时，情况将更加严峻。虽然有人猜测中国的金融体系可能会在巨大冲击下内爆，但现实是，如果算上“影子外汇储备”（shadow reserves），中国可动用的外汇储备是当年俄罗斯被冻结储备的10到20倍。更重要的是，中国拥有现成的资本管制体系，所有银行都由国家控制与运营。如果能够承受住最初的猛烈冲击，即便彻底切断对外进口，中国凭借庞大的物资战略储备，也能依靠自身供给维持许多个月的运转。 面对无法通过经济手段迅速拖垮对手的现实，弗雷曼提出，民主联盟必须重新审视如何应对长期的经济阵痛。在《保卫台湾：防止对华战争的战略》（*Defending Taiwan: A Strategy to Prevent War With China*）一书中，他得出的结论是：西方必须彻底放弃“单方面惩罚中国”的传统思维。不能总盘算着如何去伤害中国——因为那种伤害往往会以“自损八百”的形式反噬自身。正确的逻辑应该是：在危机爆发时，盟友体系应优先考虑采取哪些最符合自身利益、能够巩固本国经济安全的举措，而这些举措恰好将对中国造成沉重打击作为“附带结果”（byproduct）。 ### `43:26` 石油储备、配给制与不对称的消耗耐受力 当被问及如果外部海运进口被切断，中国在石油等关键资源上的抗压能力如何时，弗雷曼给出了极为明确的判断：中国在石油供应上能够支撑相当长时间。和平时期，中国每天消耗大约 1,300 万至 1,400 万桶石油，其中约 400 万桶由国内开采提供。一旦爆发危机，中国对价格将完全不再敏感，可以通过不计成本的投入进一步压榨出国内增产潜力。此外，中国目前每天通过陆路管道从邻国进口数百万桶石油，紧急情况下即便代价高昂、过程繁琐，陆路进口量依然有扩大的空间。中国手握充足的外汇，也有能力效仿二战时德国的“费托合成”（Fischer-Tropsch）煤制油工艺，将充沛的煤炭转化为燃料油。当年纳粹德国向所有石油供应国宣战后，依然依靠这种工艺坚持打到了 1945 年。 更惊人的是战备储备数据：中国公开披露的战略石油储备（SPR）约为 13 亿桶，而实际储备量很可能高达 20 亿桶。一旦转入战时状态，民用经济将立刻推行配给制，而中国人民解放军（PLA）在战时的实际消耗量预计每天仅在 50 万桶左右。经过简单的粗略测算便能发现，重点并不在于中国最终是否会耗尽石油——因为长期来看他们确实会感到紧绷——核心问题在于：日本、韩国、中国台湾等美国盟友在断供冲击下的崩溃速度要远远快于中国大陆。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 中美盟友体系在极限经济封锁下的持久耐受力对比 accDescr: 对比中国大陆与美日韩台联盟在资源储备、承受周期与战略博弈层面的差异 subgraph China["中国大陆防御纵深"] C1["战略石油储备：约20亿桶"] C2["粮食/棉花/芯片/全要素大宗囤积"] C3["民用配给制 + PLA日耗仅约50万桶"] C4["耐受周期：12个月以上"] C1 --> C3 C2 --> C3 C3 --> C4 end subgraph Allies["美日韩台脆弱链条"] A1["关键资源对外依存度极高"] A2["战备库存普遍薄弱"] A3["供应链中断与社会承受阈值低"] A4["耐受周期：仅约3个月"] A1 --> A3 A2 --> A3 A3 --> A4 end subgraph Outcome["地缘胁迫结果"] End["极限施压博弈下民主联盟被逼至死角，全盘体系面临瓦解"] end C4 --> End A4 --> End ``` 中国不仅囤积石油，还囤积了巨量的棉花、芯片以及几乎所有可预见的关键战略物资，而台湾地区和日本根本不具备这种储备深度。这种极端的不对称性构成了巨大的战略威慑：中国可以蓄意将危机推至战争边缘，迫使西方审视长期经济战的前景。当西方发现中国能撑 12 个月，而自身和盟友只能撑 3 个月时，这就是一场民主阵营无法承受的赌局，最终只能被迫退缩。这种强制威慑的影响远远超出台湾海峡本身，它将直接动摇美国在亚太地区的整个同盟架构，甚至威胁到西半球的安全。 - 关键指标与数据支撑： - 中国国内原油产量：约 400 万桶/日（占常态消费的 28%~30%） - 战时军用消耗预估：解放军约 50 万桶/日 - 战略原油储备（SPR）：官方声明约 13 亿桶，实际估算接近 20 亿桶 - 极限界限对比：中国具备维持 12 个月以上的内循环抗压潜力，而区域盟友预计在 3 个月内即陷入极度困境 ### `46:42` “雪崩式脱钩”的困境：从结构性脆弱到金融风暴的现实约束 针对弗雷曼在书中提出的美国对华战略不能仅依赖军事力量、还必须运用经济力量推行“雪崩式脱钩”（avalanche decoupling）并联合民主盟友孤立中国的观点，对话深入到了其可行性难题。过去数年间，西方去风险化的尝试成效参差不齐，且盟友关系在不同政治周期下屡现裂痕。弗雷曼直面这些现实痛点，指出目前西方对中国的关键依赖已经深入到经济与民生的肌理之中：从医院救命药物的核心原料药（API），到美国本土制造任何无人机所需的供应链，再到制造汽车必不可少的成熟制程芯片（legacy chips）——失去了这些基础芯片，福特（Ford）和斯特兰蒂斯（Stellantis）等汽车巨头根本无法运转。这种单向敞口使美国及其盟友极易受到经济勒索，而中国却在竭尽全力消除对西方的依赖。 更危险的现实在于，如果危机在当下或不久的将来突然爆发，西方在没有完成去风险准备的情况下将被迫面临“昨天本该做好准备”的绝境。更糟糕的是，危机很可能伴随着灾难性的股市崩盘与极度深重的经济衰退。目前的美股市场高度依赖 AI 科技叙事，对完美定价的七大科技巨头占到了标普500指数市值的 40% 左右；今年超大规模云服务商（hyperscalers）在数据中心上的资本开支高达约 6,000 亿美元。一旦半导体供应链因台海危机断绝，这根支柱将彻底崩塌，美国经济会瞬间坠入深度衰退。 弗雷曼形象地指出，那种幻想在危机爆发当天像“解放日”（Liberation Day）一样一揽子与中国全面脱钩的想法是极不切实际的。在极端的金融风暴下，债券市场极可能率先引爆，商业领袖和工业巨头们会在一周之内惊慌失措地给总统打电话哀求：“总统先生，你必须立刻撤回这个决定，否则我们所有人都要完蛋了。”这也是为什么去风险化绝不可能在一夜之间靠休克疗法完成，而必须有深度的战略协同与长远布局。 ### `50:00` “雪崩式脱钩”的现实困境与转运规避难题 想要一夜之间彻底与中国经济脱钩无异于痴人说梦，唯一可行的方式是循序渐进，先解决最关键的瓶颈，后处理非核心物资。在建立应对危机的沙盘推演时，决策者必须对各类供应链依赖程度进行精细的百分位排序：哪些处于第 99 百分位？哪些处于第 90、70 或 50 百分位？随后逐项研究如何拆解这些致命依赖。假若台海爆发危机——不论是全面封锁、两栖入侵，还是复杂的灰色地带行动——一旦美国政府决定必须重置对华关系并实现 5%、10% 乃至 30% 的对华经济脱钩，实际操作中面临的阻碍远超想象。 最首要的绊脚石便是极为棘手的“转口转运”（transshipment）问题。目前关税体系存在巨大落差：针对中国商品的关税高企，而对越南、墨西哥等国的关税则低得多。跨国企业顺理成章地将货物从中国运抵越南或墨西哥，撕去原标签换上“越南制造”或“墨西哥制造”，再堂而皇之地运入美国。如果无法从机制上堵塞转运漏洞，在危机时刻想要哪怕削减 10% 的对华实际依赖都只是空谈。建立一套能够穿透供应链迷雾的贸易“原产地规则”（Rules of Origin）需要耗费数年心血并与盟国展开极其繁杂的协调，绝非一朝一夕之功。所谓的“雪崩式脱钩”（Avalanche Decoupling）正是为了打破“一揽子立刻脱钩”的幻想，探讨在斩断不同比例的对华贸易联系时，如何构建一套新型经济秩序以维系与世界其他地区的正常贸易。 主持人调侃道，如果这一切听上去足够令人焦虑，那么唯一的“好消息”似乎是——美国过去几年一直在大力加深与世界盟友的友谊，携手建立排他的非中贸易联盟……“等等，事实正好相反，我们正在反其道而行之！”艾克·弗雷曼（Eyck Freymann）直言不讳地指出，脱钩必须依赖盟友，这并非出于道德说教，而是出于极其残酷的现实：美国早在两代人之前就将大量工业基础外包，如今国内根本找不到懂得如何制造关键零部件的技术工人。日本、韩国以及诸多欧洲伙伴在高精尖制造领域拥有无法替代的绝活与诀窍。他们同样面临中国经济胁迫的巨大风险，且由于体量差异，单独面对中国时处于更不利的弱势地位。尽管特朗普政府通过双边贸易协议收紧原产地规则、与日本签订经济安全协议有其合理内核，但美国真正需要的是将更广泛的多边盟友阵营团结在一起，而非单打独斗甚至惩罚盟友。 - **关税套利与转运漏洞**：高额对华关税催生了借道越南、墨西哥“洗产地”的庞大规避网络，若不重构原产地追溯体系，危机时期的定向经济脱钩完全无法执行。 - **制造业技能断层**：美国经历了长达数十年的去工业化外包，国内关键制造工程人才与熟练工匠严重断代，不得不高度依托日、韩、欧的先进制造技术。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 转运规避与雪崩式脱钩困境 accDescr: 展示中国商品绕道第三国进入美国，以及推行雪崩式脱钩所需的制度链条。 subgraph Circumvention["现行转运规避路径"] A["中国制造核心部件/商品"] -->|"低关税或自贸协定"| B["中转国（越南/墨西哥等）"] B -->|"更换标签：'当地制造'"| C["流入美国市场（规避对华惩罚性关税）"] end subgraph Avalanche["'雪崩式脱钩'所需体系"] D["梳理关键依赖等级 (99/90/70/50百分位)"] --> E["多国联合穿透式原产地规则体系"] E --> F["盟友技术互补与供应链韧性重构"] F -.->|"封堵规避通道"| C end ``` ### `52:30` 海战与陆战的本质分歧：美军常规军力的质化代差优势 主持人提出疑问：面对中国高调展示的阅兵式、无人机群以及令人惊叹的“机器狗”等新型装备，为何截至 2026 年，弗雷曼依然断定美军在常规军事冲突中占据明显上风？弗雷曼回顾了他在撰写其姊妹篇著作《民主的军火库》（*The Arsenal of Democracy*）时梳理的军事底层逻辑——那本书记录了太多硬核战术细节，甚至被编辑吐槽“过于极客硬核而难以畅销”。他强调，二者之间最根本的认知误区在于：美国在过去 80 年里打的几乎全是陆战，而台海冲突的本质是海空战，两者的战争形态截然相反。 陆战的核心逻辑是“消耗战”（Attrition），充斥着大量在战术上近乎同质、可相互替换的部队单位。军队沿漫长的战线犬牙交错、持续施压，双方都在积蓄预备队的势能，试图在防线上砸出一个缺口，随后投入骑兵或装甲集群实施突破并宣告胜利。第一次世界大战的地图便是典型代表——战线数月纹丝不动，直至某一点彻底崩塌。然而海空战则是由极少数高度专门化的大型平台构成的非连续战场。只要击沉或瘫痪敌方一两艘关键特种战舰、预警机或指控中枢，敌方的整个作战架构就会瞬间分崩离析，剩余单位的生存能力也会断崖式下跌。在海战中，保留大规模预备队毫无意义；一旦开火，战况将极其暴烈，胜负往往在最初的数小时至几天之内便见分晓。 在这种超视距、高烈度的大洋对抗中，跨作战域的“态势感知与通信协同能力”（See and Communicate）是绝对的制胜密码。随着美军远程导弹和无人平台射程的大幅攀升，能够打击中国本土及周边目标的美军战机、水面舰艇和核潜艇，可以在数百万平方英里的开阔大洋中高速机动隐蔽。对任何对手而言，想要在广袤大洋上持续追踪这些平台并汇聚火力予以歼灭，在物理与信息层面上都难如登天。美军依托深厚的网络战、反太空（Counter-space）及电子压制实力，有能力在开战前几个小时彻底扰乱致盲对手的情报网，从而打出一场极度倾斜的压倒性战局。如果仅仅机械地数舰艇甲板数量、飞机架数或导弹库存，就会完全遗漏这些由尖端科技、AI 辅助乃至最高保密级别（Special Access Programs）所赋予的质化优势。弗雷曼总结道，如果北京高层确信自己真能在高端海空冲突中击溃美军，他们在台海乃至整个印太地区的实际军事行动早就会比现在更加激进狂妄。 - **陆战与海战的哲学差异**：陆战依赖可替换兵力的战线消耗与预备队突破；海战依赖极少数高价值特种平台，打的是体系战与节点瓦解。 - **广域机动的空间优势**：美军作战平台活动范围涵盖数百万平方英里大洋，缺乏全域感知能力的对手极难完成从“发现”、“锁定”到“打击”的杀伤链闭环。 - **无形战力的决定性角色**：决定台海战局胜负的不是公开的军舰数量，而是无法公开兵棋推演的尖端网络攻击、反卫星、反侦察及高度保密的战术电子对抗能力。 ### `55:40` 霍尔木兹海峡的警钟：战术无懈可击与经济战略脆弱 针对从中东霍尔木兹海峡封锁危机中汲取的战略教训，弗雷曼给出了贯穿全书的核心结论。美军在战术和战役执行层面堪称拥有“神一般的超强能力”（Godlike capabilities）——无论是特种作战部队、网络渗透战、前沿电子压制，还是防空反导系统的拦截实战表现，都无懈可击。然而，美军尽管在战术层面出类拔萃，美国在宏观战略层面上却正在走向失败，因为克劳塞维茨的名言颠扑不破：“战争是政治通过另一种手段的延续。” 美国体制的真正软肋在于其国内政治对于经济波动和通胀痛感具有极高的敏感度，而威权体制对手承受经济痛感的能力却强得多。霍尔木兹海峡的局势犹如一记振聋发聩的警钟：倘若美国不能借此正视自身经济韧性不足、缺乏承受供应链中断与生活成本冲击耐受力的现实，在未来更为严峻的台海终极考卷面前必将一败涂地。与伊朗相比，中国手中掌握的经济反制杠杆要庞大数个数量级，不仅能够对施加给美国的经济痛感进行精细入微的“微观校准”（Micro-calibrate），更具备在全球多个战区、长时间持续施压的能力。要抵御这一威胁，美国绝不能将台海问题仅视作五角大楼的军事任务，必须将其上升为全政府、跨部门协调以及需要凝聚两党共识的“国家经济安全与韧性”战略工程，并紧密捆绑盟国利益。 在对谈尾声，主持人乔·韦森塔尔（Joe Weisenthal）与特蕾西·阿洛威（Tracy Alloway）向弗雷曼致谢，并盛赞其著作《保卫台湾：防止与中国爆发战争的战略》（*Defending Taiwan: A Strategy to Prevent War With China*）内容翔实深刻，尤其是附录中收录的台湾高层多篇珍贵演说极具参考价值。两位主持人在后续讨论中感慨，这场对话最令人警醒之处，在于指出了美国当前政策的内在撕裂：一方面，建立抗衡中国的经济韧性迫切需要全球多边经济体的深度嵌入与协同；另一方面，新一届美国政府却正在单边主义道路上狂飙，将赖以自保的关键盟友推向疏离的悬崖边缘。 - **战略与战术的倒挂**：美军拥有世界顶级的战术杀伤与反导作战能力，但美国脆弱的国内通胀耐受度和去工业化供应链成了国家地缘战略中最致命的罩门。 - **全政府跨部门响应**：阻止台海滑向战争不能仅依赖军备震慑，必须联合全球核心盟友，将供应链穿透追溯、关键物资去脆弱化与国家经济耐受力建设融为一体。 ### `01:00:00` 美国的战争意愿、石油储备推演与“硅盾”悖论 两位主持人在采访结束后展开复盘，首先反思了美国社会的战争承受力。除了之前探讨的经济韧性——比如股市仅仅下跌几个百分点公众就可能退缩发怵之外，更关键的变量是国内对战争的政治胃口。尤其是在经历伊拉克战争之后，美国公众参与海外重大冲突的意愿已被大幅削弱。正如眼下涉及伊朗的军事对抗，无论在战略上是否明智，其在民意层面上都极不受欢迎。主持人指出，即使政策制定者可以坐在演播室里条分缕析地论证“我们必须保卫芯片供应链”或“我们必须捍卫自由民主原则”，但在真实的政治现实中，美国社会是否真的具备为一场全面大国冲突承担惨重代价的政治意愿，仍需打上一个巨大的问号。 复盘中还特别肯定了艾克·弗雷曼（Eyck Freymann）在节目中对中国战略石油储备（SPR）的量化推演。这一计算清晰描绘了在遭遇海上封锁的极端情境下，中国依靠现有原油库存究竟能支撑多久，将宏观地缘推演落到了实实在在的硬核物资数据上。这再次印证了美中关系以及台海局势是当今全球最错综复杂、维度最多的地缘政治难题。 随后，特蕾西与乔探讨了一个深层次的结构性悖论：美国一方面在极力构筑自身的半导体供应链韧性，另一方面又试图威慑中国大陆对台采取行动。这两者之间存在不可调和的张力。如果美国通过推进本土半导体制造能力（如《芯片法案》）取得了全面成功，那么长期以来保护台湾免遭军事打击的“硅盾”（Silicon Shield）就会被不断削弱。由此延伸，国际社会必须密切关注台湾内部的选举动态与政局演变，未来的台湾执政当局是否还会继续毫无保留地全力配合美国将芯片产能转移出去，正在成为国际关系分析中必须正视的新变量。 - **政治意愿与经济韧性的脱节**：伊拉克战争后的创伤与厌战情绪，使得美国公众对海外长期高代价冲突的容忍度极低，即使为了半导体原则也难以凝聚全民好战共识。 - **中国原油库存推演**：弗雷曼在访谈中精算的战略原油储备维持天数，成为评估台海封锁情景下威慑有效性的核心现实底牌。 - **“硅盾”的削弱机制**：美国本土芯片先进制程产能越完备，全球对台湾半导体代工的不可替代性就越低，原本依托芯片命脉维系的外部安全护栏反而可能逐渐变窄。 --- ### `01:01:45` 复杂的内部政治视角与播客结语 在探讨地缘战略时，主持人谈到了外界普遍存在的认知误区。乔调侃特蕾西“其实你只是想找借口去台湾出差罢了”，特蕾西欣然承认确实想去，但她随即指出更深层次的分析陷阱：人们在谈论美国时往往熟知其内部两党恶斗与纷繁的国内政治，但在谈论外部对手或盟友时，却习惯将其扁平化地简化为单一整体，仿佛存在一个铁板一块的“台湾政策”、“伊朗政策”、“以色列政策”或“韩国政策”。事实上，每一个国家或地区内部都存在激烈的分歧、派系博弈与民意起伏。只有理解了这些复杂的内部政治细节，才能真正读懂其外交决策的底层逻辑。 节目最后进入了《Odd Lots》的常规收尾流程。特蕾西·阿洛威与乔·维森塔尔向观众致谢，并分享了嘉宾与制作团队的社交平台主页与联络渠道，同时呼吁听众加入 Discord 社区参与全天候讨论，并订阅彭博社的每日专属通讯。乔打趣道，如果听众支持他们去台湾实地录制一期现场播客，请务必在播客平台上留下五星好评。 - **主创团队信息**： - 联合主持人：特蕾西·阿洛威（Tracy Alloway，推特账号 @TracyAlloway）与乔·维森塔尔（Joe Weisenthal，推特账号 @TheStalwart） - 本期嘉宾：斯坦福大学胡佛研究所研究员、《保卫台湾：防止对华战争的战略》（*Defending Taiwan: A Strategy to Prevent War With China*）作者艾克·弗雷曼（Eyck Freymann） - 制作人团队：卡门·罗德里格斯（Carmen Rodriguez）、达希尔·贝内特（Dashiell Bennett）、凯尔·布鲁克斯（Kel Brooks）与凯文·洛萨诺（Kevin Lozano） ## Notable quotes > `00:00` 判断失准从未阻碍过任何时事评论家的职业生涯。 — 乔·韦森塔尔 > `06:40` 这本书根本不存在，文献里有成百上千篇碎片化的论文和推特讨论，但没有一本专著能融会贯通。 — 哈里·哈勒姆 > `10:00` 这绝非仅仅为了芯片 — 艾克·弗雷曼 > `21:20` 你想聊得多深入（多硬核）？ — 艾克·弗雷曼 > `21:20` 我们是中国人，只是恰巧生活在台湾，我们属于同一个文明、同一个民族。 — 艾克·弗雷曼（引述国民党视角） > `21:20` 我们永远不需要宣布独立，因为我们现在就已经是独立国家了。 — 艾克·弗雷曼（引述民进党视角） > `30:00` 你们到底想吃敬酒还是吃罚酒？ — 艾克·弗雷曼 > `30:00` 演习只是演习，直到它不再只是演习 — 艾克·弗雷曼 > `46:42` 总统先生，你必须立刻撤回这个决定，否则我们所有人都要完蛋了。 — 艾克·弗雷曼（引述商业领袖设想） > `55:40` 战争是政治通过另一种手段的延续。 — 艾克·弗雷曼（引述克劳塞维茨） ## Mentioned 特蕾西·阿洛威（Tracy Alloway）, 乔·韦森塔尔（Joe Weisenthal）, 艾克·弗雷曼（Eyck Freymann）, 哈里·哈勒姆（Harry Halem）, 习近平, 毛泽东, 蒋介石, 艾森豪威尔, 里根, 郑成功, 克劳塞维茨, 彭博社（Bloomberg）, 胡佛研究所（Hoover Institution）, 斯坦福大学（Stanford University）, 国民党（KMT）, 民进党（DPP）, 中国共产党（CCP）, 中国人民解放军（PLA）, 联合国（UN）, 台积电（TSMC）, 三星（Samsung）, 俄罗斯联邦储蓄银行（Sberbank）, 福特（Ford）, 斯特兰蒂斯（Stellantis）, 五角大楼, 台湾海峡, 霍尔木兹海峡, 埃斯瓦蒂尼（Eswatini）, 《保卫台湾：防止对华战争的战略》（Defending Taiwan: A Strategy to Prevent War With China）, 《民主的军火库》（The Arsenal of Democracy）, 《与台湾关系法》（Taiwan Relations Act）, 《芯片法案》（CHIPS Act）, 中美三个联合公报, 六项保证, Odd Lots ## Video description <p>The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has highlighted the potential for long-running theoretical chokepoints to turn into reality, with dramatic results for both geopolitics and the global economy. But the hypothetical scenario that policymakers have arguably been losing the most sleep over for decades is the prospect of a major conflict between China and Taiwan. So how likely is it, and what would such a conflict actually look like? On this episode, we speak with Eyck Freymann, author of the new book,&nbsp;<em>Defending Taiwan: A Strategy to Prevent War With China</em>, and a fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. We discuss Xi Jinping's strategy, whether Taiwan's "silicon shield" of semiconductor manufacturing can last forever, the state of Taiwan's domestic politics, and what the US can do to deter such a conflict.</p> <p><a href="http://bloomberg.com/subscriptions/oddlots" data-link-cookie="1" data-destination="http://bloomberg.com/subscriptions/oddlots">Subscribe to the Odd Lots Newsletter</a><br>Join the conversation: <a href="https://discord.gg/oddlots" data-destination="https://discord.gg/oddlots">discord.gg/oddlots</a></p><p>See <a href="https://omnystudio.com/listener">omnystudio.com/listener</a> for privacy information.</p> [Source](https://podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/tracking.swap.fm/track/UVBrz8bN8aM2Xe47PEPu/traffic.omny.fm/d/clips/e73c998e-6e60-432f-8610-ae210140c5b1/8a94442e-5a74-4fa2-8b8d-ae27003a8d6b/f7904791-f77c-421b-a3d3-b43b015542d2/audio.mp3?in_playlist=982f5071-765c-403d-969d-ae27003a8d83)

[0:00] 乔·韦森塔尔: 判断失准从未阻碍过任何时事评论家的职业生涯。 [6:40] 哈里·哈勒姆: 这本书根本不存在，文献里有成百上千篇碎片化的论文和推特讨论，但没有一本专著能融会贯通。 [10:00] 艾克·弗雷曼: 这绝非仅仅为了芯片 [21:20] 艾克·弗雷曼: 你想聊得多深入（多硬核）？ [21:20] 艾克·弗雷曼（引述国民党视角）: 我们是中国人，只是恰巧生活在台湾，我们属于同一个文明、同一个民族。 [21:20] 艾克·弗雷曼（引述民进党视角）: 我们永远不需要宣布独立，因为我们现在就已经是独立国家了。 [30:00] 艾克·弗雷曼: 你们到底想吃敬酒还是吃罚酒？ [30:00] 艾克·弗雷曼: 演习只是演习，直到它不再只是演习 [46:42] 艾克·弗雷曼（引述商业领袖设想）: 总统先生，你必须立刻撤回这个决定，否则我们所有人都要完蛋了。 [55:40] 艾克·弗雷曼（引述克劳塞维茨）: 战争是政治通过另一种手段的延续。

[5:00] Eyck Freymann: This is the most complex, multidisciplinary, multifunctional foreign policy problem that American statecraft has ever faced because it's a military problem. It's also an industrial problem. It's a technology policy problem... And then finally, it's an economic problem.

[0:00] Whatever your goal, trade show giveaways, client gifts, or team gear, 4imprint has the promo products to match. With thousands of options, from apparel and drinkware to tech and totes, it's easy to find the right fit for your brand and budget, with standout choices at every price point. And with their 360-degree guarantee, you can be 4imprint certain your order will show up just right, right on time. Explore more at 4imprint.com. 4imprint. 4certain. So there's a lot of noise about AI. But time's too tight for more promises. So let's talk about results. At IBM, we work with our employees to integrate technology right into the systems they need. Now, a global workforce of 300,000 can use AI to fill their HR questions, resolving 94% of common questions. Not noise. Proof of how we can help companies get smarter by putting AI where it actually pays off. Deep in the work that moves the business. Let's create smarter business. IBM. Health care doesn always work great If you ever waited on a refill or couldn schedule an appointment you get it That the kind of stuff Optum is changing They using data and technology to integrate patient care pharmacy and everything else So health care is connected not complicated What that look like Cheaper prescriptions that are easier to get and care that looks at the whole person how you need it Optum is helping make healthcare work as one for everyone. Learn more at business.optum.com. Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio, news. Hello and welcome to another episode of the Odd Lots podcast. I'm Tracy Alloway. And I'm Joe Weisenthal. Joe, up until recently, very recently, I would say there are or were two hypothetical blockades that kind of loomed large in the minds of geopolitical strategists everywhere. And the first was, of course, Iran blockading the Strait of Hormuz. That's clearly not a hypothetical anymore. It's actually happened. It's reality. And we've been doing a lot of episodes about it. And so the big hypothetical blockade that we're left with to ponder is China potentially doing something with Taiwan. Definitely. And you know the only thing I would actually flip them in the sense that I would say the vast majority of discourse has been about the latter China potentially blockading Taiwan in some way That was the thing that everyone has been talking about for years and years with growing intensity And then, of course, as you mentioned, now the Hormuz situation, which sort of hit people by their blind spot because they didn't think it could ever really happen or whatever really has happened. But when this resolves, if this resolves, et cetera, I believe the question of Taiwan will very quickly return to the fore. Oh, absolutely. So as you mentioned, it obviously hasn't happened yet, but people have been writing and thinking about it for years and years and years. And as you know, I consider myself an expert on this topic, having once written a paper in college saying that China was going to invade Taiwan before the 2008 Beijing Olympics. And that obviously didn't happen. Well, being wrong has never gotten in the way of any pundit's career. That's right. So I would not worry about that. That has never been an issue. As long as it was well articulated and showed some knowledge, et cetera, then you're fine. It was written from a server closet while I was in Beijing. So it had that going for it. But anyway my point is that this is something that always sort of looming in the background And you always see headlines kind of coming up that hint at China tension So we actually had one this morning We recording on April 21st The headline is, Taiwan's president canceled his visit to Eswatini. Do you know where that is? No. It's a tiny, tiny place in Africa. Huh. Did they like, you know, it's interesting because there's a few countries still holding out there that recognize. That's right. Taipei is the unified capital of China. Most of like a lot, most of Swiss, there's a few random ones out there that are still like they don't recognize the mainland, etc. So I'm all, you know, a little factoids here and there. I didn't know that. But so Taiwan's presidential office is citing air route issues. I'm doing air quotes for those who can't see this video and China pressure. So, yeah, you do get those kind of headlines every once in a while. And then one other thing I would say is like, OK, the Strait of Hormuz, the blockade there, clearly an oil story. And oil is something that powers the entire global economy. But as we've kind of learned over the past six or seven weeks oil might not actually be the thing that like powers markets Right if you think about true true the thing that matters for markets, it's [5:00] might be something much closer to AI and semiconductors and valuation. Which entirely is cut. Right. That's totally. I mean, evidently the world could go a few weeks and not grind to a halt if the strain of Hormuz is closed for a few weeks. I believe the reaction in markets would be, and just all around the world, and really everything would just be orders of magnitude differently if someone was like, no chips, no chips are coming out. That would be such a bigger deal. And of course, the question of Taiwan's role in the world, that would already have been a very big security question even prior to the now constant drumbeat obsession with AI chips, etc. But it only magnifies why this is such a live issue. Right. So apparently we can kind of survive a few weeks without oil. Can we survive a few weeks without advanced compute or months? We can survive a few weeks without a certain fraction. the whereas if we you know the chip flow were to be disrupted on that level would just be yes much bigger deal all right well we do in fact have the perfect guest to talk about all of this someone who has just written a book on exactly this topic called Defending Taiwan a Strategy to Prevent War with China We going to be speaking with Ike Freiman He is also a Hoover Fellow at Stanford. So Ike, thank you so much for coming on All Thoughts. Thanks for having me on. Here's my first question. You've spent a lot of time in China, including researching this book. Are you going to be able to go back? I think I could go back. The question is whether I could leave. I'm joking. I'm joking. They gave me a hard time at immigration on the way out last time. Oh, interesting. And I can't do useful research there anymore. It's not like there's archives I can access, interviews I can do. So the value of it for research is going down for me, but also the risk to my person, the risk to my devices is going up. I do try to engage as much as I can, but I think it's better to engage in third countries. What do you tell us the genesis of this book or the origin of it or how you got interested in this particular topic? Well, my background is as a China scholar looking at China's global investment campaign. My first book was about the Belt and Road and I looked at a bunch of Chinese language sources that show how it works under the hood as a campaign to mobilize the party state behind Xi Jinping And then I went on the trail of it to Sri Lanka to Tanzania Greece Greenland actually I did my PhD about China in Greenland trying to understand how China leverages... You did a PhD about China in Greenland? Yeah. Oh, that is timely. Anyway, keep going. That'll be another book. But what I learned in the process of doing this book is that China has this formidable toolkit for blending economic power with its geopolitical objectives. And Taiwan was clearly emerging during COVID as the AI story was heating up as this monumental issue in the structure of the world economy, not just for the old reasons that we care about Taiwan, which is largely about geography. So it seemed to me reading about this, China had more ships, more planes, more missiles, more drones. What was I missing? Why is the United States not completely outmatched? So I started this project with a friend of mine named Harry Halem, who's a superstar naval historian. And I asked him, what's the book I should read to understand what a U.S.-China war over Taiwan would be like, what it would take to win, and then what of those things the U.S. can do or can't do? And he said, well, the book doesn't exist. I can give you hundreds of articles hundreds of people to follow on Twitter but no one thing to read And so it became this collaboration between two historians one focused on the economics one focused on the military to put the pieces together And as I did so I began to discover there huge gaps in our knowledge of this problem This is the most complex, multidisciplinary, multifunctional foreign policy problem that American statecraft has ever faced because it's a military problem. It's also an industrial problem. It's a technology policy problem. It's a diplomatic problem, a real one, a complex one for how we deal with China, with Taiwan and with the rest of the world. And then finally, it's an economic problem. It's a question of global economic order because if Taiwan falls by force or coercion and China seizes the fabs, the semiconductor fabs, or the fabs are disabled or destroyed, that is a hard reset of the entire global economic system that we have had since 1989 and arguably back to 1945. So what comes next? And while we have a lot of good thinking about certain aspects of the scenario, like the war gaming of what an amphibious campaign would look like and how we stop it, there's other aspects like the economic planning that we just haven't done. So that was the idea for the book. Pull together the best of existing knowledge, fill in the gaps where we can based on interviews, based on historical work, Chinese language materials, and try to be the person to put the pieces together. I want to, [10:00] back way up for a second and ask a very obvious question, which is, why does China actually care so much about Taiwan? And then is it even accurate to say, like, why does China care about Taiwan? Should I be asking, why does Xi Jinping care about Taiwan? Those are the two right questions to ask, and it's where we start with the book. The first thing to understand is that it's not about the chips for China. The chips are a co-benefit, but China cared about Taiwan long before they made chips, and they would care about them if they didn't make chips. Taiwan is the unfinished business of China's civil war. In 1949, as the Kuomintang, Chiang Kai-shek's government was losing control of northern China, they began to evacuate their forces alongside all the treasures of the imperial palace to Taipei. And they set up a government there, essentially took over the island by force, and became, over the course of the Korean war, essentially a U.S. ally. In 1955, Eisenhower went to Taipei. They became a critical node in the U.S. alliance architecture. Mao obviously wanted to take this island. He wanted to wipe out the remnants of his enemy And for him the fact that there was this other China right across the strait which at the time enjoyed the Chinese seat in the U Security Council was recognized by most of the world as the one true China This was a fundamental question of the legitimacy of the Chinese Communist Party And so it became this totemic propaganda point that we will liberate Taiwan from the imperialists. And in the process, we will make China whole. We will fix this historical wrong that we were separated under this century of humiliation. and therefore for us to be fully rejuvenated as a civilization, Taiwan has to be brought to heel and the world must accept. It's not just about control over Taiwan. It's about political legitimacy. The United Nations must accept. The United States must accept that Taiwan is part of China and there's only one China in the world and the Communist Party is the only legitimate government. So this is why it's sensitive. It's not just about the status of Taiwan. It's about what China means And that has always been bound up in competition with the United States. Prior to the KMT having fled the mainland, the Civil War and all that, what was understood to be the status of that geography called Taiwan? And to what degree going back even prior to the Civil War etc what was its relationship to mainland China It depends how far back you want to go Back in the 17th century the Dutch had a presence there As the Ming empire was falling apart you had generals who came from the mainland. They're claimed by both sides now. A couple of them became gods, actually, and there's temples to them in Taiwan. And essentially, during the Qing dynasty, China's final dynasty, they were a region of the province across the strait on the mainland. But the Qing dynasties didn't really run there. They were settled by people from the mainland, but it was swampy and pestilential, and there were indigenous people, and it wasn't really actively administered by the center. The Qing pretty quickly lost control over the fringes of their empire, and then the Japanese took it in the Sino-Japanese War in 1895, and the Japanese developed it. The Japanese industrialized, they left a mark on it, and unlike other places that the Japanese colonized were like Korea, where their colonization was brutal. In Taiwan, they left relatively good feelings. So all through the first half of the 20th century, when the communists and the nationalists were fighting on the mainland, Taiwan was under Japanese control. Then the question is after Japan surrendered in 1945 who did they surrender it to And was the status of Taiwan decided after Japan surrender And the U.S. position is legally it remains unresolved. It remains unresolved who Japan surrendered it to. So the U.S. position is we don't actually take a view on what the true status of Taiwan is. This is something for Taipei and Beijing to work out between themselves. and we're open to any outcome but it has to be done peacefully so no no force and no coercion and since taiwan's become a democracy it has to be democratically acceptable to the people of taiwan and that's a principled position which is really about the stability of the broader region because it recognizes that this region is held together through trade routes that go through international waters international airspace it's been stable since 1945 and if the united States starts allowing borders to be changed by force, trade routes to be changed by force, very quickly, the whole regional order in this part of the world will collapse. And this is a grave economic danger for the United States as a geopolitical danger. So that's the view. And unfortunately, what China is doing is they're trying to revise that situation by pushing in the gray zone, pushing through coercion. [15:00] And there's obviously always the risk they could escalate to war. I want to talk more about that. But just on the topic of, I guess, U.S. policy towards China, and you already touched on the one China policy. But what exactly is strategic ambiguity? Because whenever I hear that term, I always think it's like it's what I would do if I was trying to get out of a social commitment later that evening or something like, oh, maybe I'll come. Maybe, you know, we'll see. We'll see what happens. What exactly does that mean? And isn't it weird that people recognize that as an actual policy, strategic ambiguity? What does it mean? So the whole policy is sort of strange because it was never put forward by one person. It emerged through accretion. So it's like seeing 100 bottles of beer on the wall. Like you keep adding a new lyric every time there's a new administration. So what is the components of the one China policy? Well, there's three communiques, three agreements that the United States signed with China between the 70s and the 80s. And those are the political foundation of our relationship with the PRC. And the language is vague, and there are some key phrases that are translated differently in English and Chinese. So we get to claim that the other side said things that the other side says it doesn say There a whole lot of that But basically the United States position is we will have a relationship with the PRC We will treat Beijing as the sole legitimate government of China, but we will maintain for all practical purposes an informal relationship with Taiwan as if it were a country, just not technically, not de jure. And this has been reaffirmed by Congress, which in 1979 passed the Taiwan Relations Act, that makes very clear that it's the sense of Congress that we should treat Taiwan as a state in basically every respect except for some of these formal, very high-end political and military interactions. And then in the Reagan administration, we made some extra commitments to Taiwan called the Six Assurances, and they basically reduced to we will not force you to the negotiating table. We will not trade you away. In other words, you will never face pressure from us to take a bad deal. And what this policy adds up to has been called by political scientists dual deterrence. We want to deter Taiwan from declaring independence or doing something provocative that might trigger a crisis. and we want to persuade Beijing that if it intervenes it might face a devastating reaction but that they don have to worry because Taiwan is also deterred so they can take their time And hopefully if we deter both sides from doing something extreme we can encourage them to resolve their differences peacefully So that strategic ambiguity is the not saying exactly what we would do or under what circumstances. The tricky thing is that was a great policy when we had overwhelming economic, technological and military advantages. That is no longer the case. We probably could defeat China in a high-end conventional war, and we can go into why. If we put sanctions on China, we could probably cause a greater GDP hit in China, and we can get into why. But the cost to us and the risk to us as Americans is just going up, up, up as the relative balance shifts. And so now it increasingly seems like it's a get-out-of-jail-free card, even if it isn't. Thank you on team gear finding the right promotional products makes all the difference 4imprint offers thousands of options from on apparel and premium drinkware to tech totes and giveaways so you can find the right fit for any audience purpose or budget You can customize it all, your logo, your message, your look, and many items come with no setup charge to help you save. And if you're really watching the bottom line, you'll find standout choices at every price point, so you can make a real impact while staying on budget. Plus, you'll get expert help, fast turnaround times, and their 360-degree guarantee. So you can be 4imprint certain your order will arrive on time and look exactly right. Whatever your goal, 4imprint makes it easy to find your perfect promo match. Explore the possibilities today at 4imprint.com. 4imprint. 4certain. Support for this show comes from public.com. If you're actively involved in your portfolio, you probably catch yourself repeating the same actions. buying the dip, manually sweeping idle cash, putting on a hedge. On public, you can now create AI agents that handle all these tasks on your behalf. Just describe what you want to do in plain English. Like, if the VIX hits 25, buy a put option on the S&P 500. Or, if my cash balance goes above $20,000, move the excess into my direct index. You approve of the workflow. [20:00] Your agent handles the rest. Monitoring the market, watching for your conditions, and executing your strategies exactly as defined. An investing platform driven by your intent, not just your clicks. You can also get full read and write access to your account via the public API. Go to public.com slash market and fund your account in five minutes or less. That's public.com slash market. Paid for by Public Investing. Brokered services by Open to the Public Investing, Inc. Member FINRA and SIPC. Advisory services by Public Advisors, LLC, SEC Registered Advisor. Complete disclosures available at public.com slash disclosures. Let's talk about healthcare for a second. It doesn't always work the way people expect it to. If you've ever waited on a prescription refill or had a hard time getting the care you needed, you know the feeling. The system should just work better for everyone. That's exactly what the people at Optum are trying to do every day. They're a healthcare company linking patient care and pharmacy services and using data and technology to drive the whole system so care is connected, not complicated, for patients and providers. Things like making it easier to get care that looks at the whole person from primary care doctors to mental health support and even in care and then using technology to make sure they all work together Technology designed to help doctors spend less time on busy work and more time with their patients And those prescriptions? Optum is working to bring costs down, save patients money, and make it easier to get refills. Little by little, Optum is helping make healthcare work as one for everyone. Head to business.optum.com to see how. Quick question. I know basically nothing about Taiwanese domestic politics. Am I wrong, though? I feel like I read somewhere. It's like the KMT, the success, the and they were the revolutionaries. Aren't they the more dovish of the parties and relations with Beijing? And don't aren't they the party that seems to be a little bit softening of the stances of the future? And maybe, you know, uniting the two sides a little bit. Am I wrong about that? How is that possible? How nerdy do you want to get? So here's the thing. I mentioned that the dispute is largely about what China means. Now, that question continues. The Kuomintang the KMT which is the successor of Chiang Kai party they believe that they still the legitimate representatives of the true China The entire thing Well they recognize that there a free China and an unfree China Okay And I think they long since given up their aspirations of raising an army and going back across the strait and taking over the mainland. But I think they have an aspiration that one day this divided China can be unified, either in some kind of confederation structure or who knows, maybe with the KMT on top. And they identify culturally, historically, civilizationally as Chinese. Yeah. They say, we're Chinese. we just happen to live on Taiwan, but we're one civilization, one nation. And the KMT's point of view is that we, one China respective interpretations. And on that basis, Beijing is willing to talk to them because they disagree about what one China means, but they both believe in principle that there is only one China in the world and Taiwan's part of it. But the current ruling party in Taiwan, the Democratic Progressive Party of the DPP, they have a different perspective. They say we are a country called Taiwan. We're one of the most technologically advanced places in the world. We are a thriving democracy. The world needs our chips. We are at the center of this security architecture. So they just see themselves as a distinct nation. We are a distinct nation and we should be recognized by the world as such And they not suicidal They not crazy They recognize that if they declare independence that this could bring the hammer down on them But their point of view is we will never declare independence because we already are and Americans I think are about to have to learn this lesson because Taiwan is going into a presidential campaign and it is far from clear where the wind is blowing and the United States will have to work with whoever wins because that's what it means to have a partner that's a democracy but these two parties have very different points of view and one of the points I make in the book is we need to learn to handle Taiwan's domestic politics. We are two democracies that respond to one another. For example, I think the KMT, if they come back to power, will be much less interested in helping America reshore chip production. And they're also probably much less interested in doing military cooperation with the United States if that's going to inflame China. I think basically you can think about it this way. The DPP believes that the relationship with the United States is the most important thing, that we matter to them just as they matter to us, and that if Taiwan gets in trouble, America will come. And the KMT views are diverse, but they tend to have the view, the cavalry might not be coming. [25:00] The Americans might be using us as a pawn in a bigger geopolitical game, but can we really trust them? And we don't want to become Ukraine. So maybe the best approach is to negotiate. And these are two very different points of view. They're both plausible interpretations of the facts. And the United States has to learn to deal with both sides. I want to ask you more about reshoring, but since we're on the topic of domestic Taiwanese politics, one thing I've always wondered, and I'm curious if you maybe got some color on this in the course of your research, But one of the reasons, it's not the only reason, but a big one. One of the reasons Taiwan is strategically important is because of the semiconductor business and the presence of TSMC and companies like that. What role does a TMC play in Taiwanese domestic politics? Like, are there actual instances of like semiconductor companies having a seat at the table when it comes to formulating national security policy or indirect influence or anything like that? Have you seen examples? It hugely hugely important It only a couple of percent The semiconductor industry depending on how you define it with related services industries it something like 5 of employment in Taiwan but it an outsized share of Taiwan exports And right now just as you look at the macro data Taiwan exports are booming because no one can get enough of their chips There is an entire ecosystem of universities, vocational training centers, companies that supply to TSMC. This is a national champion in so many ways, and they get tax benefits and subsidized land. And Taiwan's political economy is organized around making them a success, just as South Korea's has been organized around making Samsung and others a success. TSMC is smart enough to know that it has to deal with administrations of both parties. But TSMC is also caught in a U.S.-China tension, too. And TSMC doesn't share the United States political objectives here. TSMC is happy to sell to China. They don't have a problem if China buys lots of their chips. But they have to work with the United States because ultimately they're fabricating chips at the high end that are made with U.S. designs. So the U.S. does have the ability to export control where those final products go. This is really interesting and important, and I hadn't thought about this dynamic. I mean I guess it sort of makes sense to me that like if I were like the leadership in Taiwan I don know if I would be like that thrilled about our main company opening up fabs in Arizona et cetera But I guess it sort of makes sense Like okay you know the U is a pretty important partner But what I'm wondering, you know, like in a future scenario, so going back to Reagan and it's like this doctrine, we're never going to put pressure on you to like accept a bad deal. What if over time organically, a new generation of sort of more sympathetic, Like mainland voters, like they grow up, they look at the world, they see maybe the US sort of looks like a belligerent power sometimes, etc. They look at China and it seems – it looks like they're doing a lot better. They're not as poor as they used to be. They look pretty stable, etc. Like could Taiwan just sort of migrate closer to the Chinese sphere or perhaps even merge back into China organically? Yes. And is that something that like US policy – do we feel that we have to prevent that if that's sort of where the democratic action in Taiwan goes? Well, our longstanding policy is that it's the right of the people of Taiwan to decide their own future. And that a principled position that we hold for a reason that is also self which is if Taiwan decides that they want to submit or they want to take a deal and they want to unify with the mainland By the way the mainland uses this term reunification. That's a weasel word. Taiwan has never been subject to the People's Republic of China in its history. But if Taiwan becomes unified as part of China, what's the United States going to go in? We're going to go in and topple the government? We're going to tell them no? They should have self-determination to decide. And that is one reason why it's a no-brainer to start to build a semiconductor manufacturing base in the United States and Japan and other allied countries because there's any number of reasons to doubt whether we have assured access in the long term to Taiwan's chip supply. And if this is the most essential bottleneck to the development of frontier AI, then we cannot put all of our eggs in that basket. Do we know younger Taiwan – is there a reason to think that – I don't know. Again, I haven't looked at polling of how Chinese voters under 25 years. The younger Taiwanese – What do we know about them? So the younger Taiwanese tend to lean more towards the DPP historically. They tend to – in polls, they tend to identify as I'm Taiwanese only. Okay. Rather – very few of them will say I'm Chinese only. Okay. More of them will – and increasingly – [30:00] Number will say that I'm Taiwanese only, although many will say I'm both Taiwanese and Chinese. OK, Chinese in the sense of culturally, civilization, Chinese, not Chinese in the sense of People's Republic of China, Chinese. And I think these dynamics are affected by what the mainland does. China is, I think, perfectly happy. Xi Jinping would be perfectly happy if Taiwan would sign a piece of paper that says, I accept one country, two systems, Taiwan plan. which is to say, I accept your principle that there's only one China and we're part of it and you're the legitimate leaders. And we will get a Hong Kong style arrangement where we get to keep our laws, our institutions, our democracy. We get some freedom of expression, freedom to organize. We get our fancy passports that have visa-free access to all these countries, all these perks. And maybe Beijing will give them free energies, other subsidies, other perks. That is the offer that's on the table for Taiwan. But it's become a whole lot less attractive now that Taiwan has watched what happened to Hong Kong. Because Hong Kong took that deal and it was all right until people in Hong Kong started to object to the CCP encroachment on their institutions and their freedom to organize and speak out And what ended up happening is Xi Jinping sent in masked thugs that brutalized people rounded them up, disappeared people in the night, terrorized the population and crushed them into submission. So I think Taiwan has understood since 2019 that if they take one country, two systems, it's the slow beginning of the end of their democratic institutions and their freedom. It is not a deal that they would take, I think, willingly. But if they feel that the United States and the rest of the world isn't backing them up and they're offered, Beijing essentially says, you want to do this the easy way or the hard way, I can imagine a world in which they choose the easy way. And this matters because we're not just talking about peacetime. We're also talking about crisis scenarios. There's all kinds of things that China can do to dial up the pressure. They can mobilize their forces in the Taiwan Strait for a potential invasion. Oh, it's just an exercise. It's just an exercise until it's not. They can start to curtail the flow of goods and planes coming to and from Taiwan. They can start to ask for manifests Who on the plane Oh so sorry Ike is on the plane Could you make a pit stop in Shanghai We want to ask him some questions There so many ways that Beijing can turn up the pressure They probably have special forces united front people on the ground in Taiwan They can do cyber attacks against Taiwan critical infrastructure. They can blank the country with propaganda, the island rather with propaganda. There's so much things that China can do to put the pressure on and try to drive wedges between Taiwan, the United States and Japan. And in those moments, what is the US political strategy? Yeah, we have a military strategy if they turn to an invasion, but what is the political strategy if the markets start to panic, if we think we may need to get our American citizens out? And these are the scenarios I argue in the book that we haven't yet fully thought through. In your framework, what's been the big constraint on Xi Jinping so far historically? Like why hasn't he done something on Taiwan yet? Well, we don't know. We have to speculate. one reason is that the People's Liberation Army, the PLA I think it's fair to say up until recently and probably still now lacks the ability to take and hold Taiwan by force back in 1949 after Mao took over the mainland the first thing he did was he told his generals now give me the plan to take Taiwan and they studied it and they concluded sir it can be done this is one of the hardest waterways in the world There crazy tides there enormous waves there 50 mile an hour winds there typhoons there fog And there only a few landing beaches that are plausible And Taiwan knows what those are And now they have spent the better part of a century fortifying them So if you want to get all of your men across the strait, you have to deliver them by sea or by air. And air is difficult. As Ukraine has shown, it's easy to shoot down helicopters and planes. And so you need to take them in these amphibious ships, which can be sunk by mines or cheap drones or artillery. And then you have to get the men to the shores, and then you potentially have to sustain them for a long period of time. You need to give them vehicles and ammo and fuel and food and medicine. And what happens if you successfully deliver 15,000 troops to the shores and then your logistics tail gets cut because a number of your amphibious ships end up on the bottom of the Taiwan Strait and then your men are massacred on the beaches? so many things have to go right in a highly synchronized way for an amphibious invasion to work such that d-day which is the great example in history where we had all these advantages that china wouldn't have today very very almost it came very very close to going completely off the rails as i discussed in the book [35:00] So Xi Jinping is systematically building the capabilities he would need. He's building out this amphibious fleet. He's building better anti-submarine warfare to force us back. He's building longer-range ballistic missiles that can target ships to force our aircraft carriers to stay further back from the conflict zone. He's building out his air force and drones, cyber tools, all these things to coerce Taiwan. But if he rolled the dice on an invasion today, I think at least if you look at the public war games, it is possible that he would suffer a pretty catastrophic defeat. So that's one reason for patience. But as his preparations proceed, I think he's getting more confident. So one of the things you used to hear a lot more, and I don't think you hear it nearly as much nowadays, but this idea of economic pain, right? If China invaded Taiwan, there would be some sort of retaliation, maybe sanctions, something like that. And because the CCP had built its legitimacy on the social compact with its population, which was basically, you know, we're in power and in exchange, you all hopefully get rich. That was just untenable for Xi Jinping and other policymakers. You don hear that that much anymore And I wonder why that is Is it just because people feel that China has reached the level of economic development where okay the legitimacy has been established in terms of the social compact? Or is it because we had an example of Russia invading Ukraine and very obviously being willing to trade off that military action, even though it generated an enormous amount of economic pain for the country? It's a whole bunch of factors at once. Xi Jinping has overseen a transformation in the social contract in China from development to ideology and national security. From the anti-corruption campaign to his ideological rectification campaigns to rewriting the history textbooks to taking Communist Party cadres to historical sites to study points of hardship in party history, Xi Jinping uses this term struggle. to describe what the party should do. And he has told young people that can't find work that they should eat bitterness. The idea being you should tough it out. We are a nation striving for national rejuvenation. National rejuvenation means rising to the height of human achievement in every human endeavor And to do that we gonna work hard we going to make some sacrifices And he has tightened surveillance He has tightened discipline that allows him to run this regime according to a very different set of rules through coercion And that means we have to assume that China's tolerance for economic pain has increased. Now, at some point, there's a limit. If the financial system were just to implode under the threat of sanctions or because there's just mass capital flight, because no investor wants to be stuck in illiquid assets in China if the US and China are headed to war. Yes, it's possible that China could suffer a sudden black swan collapse, but I think that's not base case. And I have a work that I describe in a lot of detail in the book about how over the last 10 years, China has been systematically building shock absorbers into its financial system to make it more likely to survive the gut punch of the imposition of sanctions. And the fact that Russia's financial system, which had lacked many of these advantages, was able to steady itself after the imposition of sanctions is, I think, an encouraging sign. Just a couple of numbers to bring this home At the beginning of the Russia war Russia was blindsided that the Europeans joined all the sanctions They had moved a lot of their central bank assets from dollars into euros And then the Europeans froze those assets, which meant suddenly half of their foreign exchange reserves were just inaccessible to them. That was a huge boo-boo for the Russians. And then the sanctions regime targeted Sparabank and other major banks in ways that had not been expected. So the ruble lost something like half its value in a couple of weeks, and there was a real risk of Russian collapse. But with only $300 billion of foreign exchange available, they were able to right the ship because they limited – they imposed a capital control regime. They limited outflows from banks. They raised interest rates to 20%. They demanded that state enterprises take payments in rubles, all of these things to increase demand for rubles and keep the bank solvent. And then foreign hedge funds that had profited on the ruble short took a look at the situation and they said, well, are there more sanctions coming? Well, if the answer is no, then it's all priced in and the ruble looks pretty cheap because actually Russia's imports have just collapsed and their exports are booming because the oil price is up. And then in April of 2022, the ruble was the best performing currency in the world. And then the ship was set in. [40:00] And then the economic war became an attritional contest that we have not won yet. And I think there is a similar dynamic with China. There is some possibility that their financial system could implode. But China, if you count their shadow reserves, has between 10 and 20 times the FX that was available to Russia. They have an existing capital control regime. All the banks are run by the state. And if they survive that gut punch, they have the stockpiles to live on their own supply for many, many, many months if they're entirely cut off from imports. So the question is, if we can't defeat them economically slowly, how do we think about the long-term contest of economic pain such that it is something that we as a coalition of democracies can possibly win? And the answer I come to in the book is we have to stop thinking about it as punishment. Stop thinking about how we could hurt China in a way that hurt us too. We need to think about what are the things that we would want to do in our own best interest in a crisis to secure our own economic interests that would just happen to hurt China as a byproduct. Thank you Thank you. Support for the show comes from public.com. If you're actively involved in your portfolio, you probably catch yourself repeating the same actions, buying the dip, manually sweeping idle cash putting on a hedge On public you can now create AI agents that handle all these tasks on your behalf Just describe what you want to do in plain English Like if the VIX hits 25 buy a put option on the S 500 Or if my cash balance goes above move the excess into my direct index. You approve the workflow and your agent handles the rest. Monitoring the market, watching for your conditions, and executing your strategies exactly as defined. An investing platform driven by your intent, not just your clicks. You can also get full read and write access to your account via the public API. Go to public.com slash market and fund your account in five minutes or less. That's public.com slash market. Paid for by public investing. Brokered services by open to the public investing, Inc., member FINRA and SIPC. Advisory services by public advisors, LLC, SEC registered advisor. Complete disclosures available at public.com slash disclosures. Let's talk about healthcare for a second. It doesn't always work the way people expect it to. If you've ever waited on a prescription refill or had a hard time getting the care you needed, you know the feeling. The system should just work better for everyone. That's exactly what the people at Optum are trying to do every day. They're a healthcare company linking patient care and pharmacy services and using data and technology to drive the whole system so care is connected not complicated for patients and providers Things like making it easier to get care that looks at the whole person from primary care doctors to mental health support and even in-home care, and then using technology to make sure they all work together. Technology designed to help doctors spend less time on busy work and more time with their patients. And those prescriptions? Optum is working to bring costs down, save patients money, and make it easier to get refills. Little by little, Optum is helping make healthcare work as one for everyone. Head to business.optum.com to see how. Just real quickly on cutting off imports. Are they good on oil? We know they have this big oil stockpile. War would be extremely oil-intensive process. They've electrified a lot of cars. I doubt their military is nearly as... I think they're good on oil. You think they're good on oil? So they, in peacetime, they consume, what is it, 13, 14 million barrels a day, of which around four are produced domestically. If they became cost insensitive, which they would be in a crisis, they could probably squeeze that up a bit. They also can import over land. They import a couple of million barrels a day over land, and if they have to, they [45:00] And two, they could import more by land. It wouldn't be comfortable. It wouldn't be cheap. But if they would have willingness to pay, they have plenty of foreign exchange. They could also do as the Nazis did, which is turn coal into fuel oil. Fisher Troves has been done in the past. The Nazis declared war on all their oil suppliers, and they still managed to fight through 1945 pretty effectively. But there's more to this. They've got – they declare – what is it? 1.3 billion barrels in their SPR. They probably have something more like two. and then they can make the civilian economy ration. The PLA would use something like 500,000 barrels a day. So if you run the math, and I just do the back of the envelope in the book, what matters is not that they would run out of oil eventually. At some point, they would feel the squeeze. But our allies, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, would feel the squeeze much faster. So our coalition, as currently set up, doesn't have the advantage in a long-term contest of extreme economic war. And it's not just about oil. It's about everything else. They have stockpiles of cotton. They have stockpiles of chips. They have stockpiles of everything plausible that they might need. Taiwan doesn have that Japan doesn have that So this is the risk that they take us up to the brink We are forced to contemplate what the long term economic war looks like We realize that if they can last for 12 months and we can last for three, that's not a game we want to play. And we fold. And then if that is established, they can coerce us. And this is not just about Taiwan. This goes far, far, far beyond Taiwan. This is about our entire alliance architecture in the region. And frankly, this is about our hemisphere too. One of the arguments you make in the book is this idea that a U.S. policy response can't just be about military power. It has to be about economic power as well. And you talk about this idea of avalanche decoupling, so sort of forming a grand alliance with other democracies to try to isolate China from the global economy. And when I hear a term like avalanche decoupling, I kind of think like, well, in some respects, the U.S. and maybe some other parts of the world have been trying to decouple from China for a long time with varied degrees of success. What convinces you that something like that would be possible in a crisis moment, especially when we're talking about, again, grand alliances with democracies that maybe under the Trump administration, we don seem to have the best of relations with at the moment It a really important question So let take the hard facts head on In the last couple of years we have learned some very important things about what is and is not possible when it comes to breaking our critical dependencies on China. Everyone knows that we have these critical dependencies, which strike at the very heart of our lives and livelihoods. We depend on China for the active pharmaceutical ingredients that save lives every day in hospitals. We depend China on the supply chain to build any drone in the United States. We depend on China for legacy chips without which we can't make cars. There is no Ford. There is no Stellantis. I think that's crazy. I think it's crazy. I think it opens up the United States to economic blackmail. And frankly, the fact that our allies have the same dependencies opens them up to blackmail too. So it's a no-brainer that we should start to break these dependencies on China In the same way that China is trying to break its dependencies on us because they don't want to be blackmailed. So what is dangerous is that China would be able to de-risk their economy largely from ours, but we couldn't do that in a symmetrical way. But if a crisis happens over Taiwan whether that tomorrow or 18 months from now or five years from now it will be an oh shoot I guess we should have done all of that five years ago But that will be yesterday problem And the question for today's problem is how do we deal with the situation we face? And it's very possible that that situation would be in the context of a crushing recession and stock market correction, because as we mentioned at the beginning of this conversation, the whole equity market is being held up by an AI trade where seven tech companies that are priced for perfection make up 40% of the S&P. And if you take away the supply of chips, they fall to earth. $600 billion, is that the number that the hyperscalers are spending on data centers this year? It's close enough. You take that away and the US economy is in recession. So imagine the context of a terrifying stock market correction and heading into recession. Let's assume that China has taken some actions that reveal that we really need to expand this de-risking or partial decoupling thing. But we've also learned that we can't decouple from China all at once because we tried this on Liberation Day and we got cold feet within a week because the bond market blew up and all the captains of industry called up the president and said, you have to reverse this, Mr. President, or we're cooked. Thank you. [50:00] So if you can't decouple from China all at once and quickly, the only way to do it is gradually looking at the critical stuff first and the non-critical stuff later, if ever. So what I want to do is say, what is the most critical things if you have to stack rank our dependencies? What's 99th percentile? What's 90th? What's 70th? What's 50th? And then let's go down the list one at a time and figure out how do we break these dependencies. So in the event of a crisis, an invasion of Taiwan or a blockade of Taiwan or some gray zone ambiguous thing, if we decide we need to reset this relationship and we need to decouple from China 5%, 10%, 30%, what does that actually entail? And I would submit that that's a much harder problem than we've realized because even if we want to decouple just a little bit, we face a transshipment problem. Right now, as we've discovered, you have a tariff differential on China. The tariff on China is here, the tariff on Vietnam, Mexico, everyone else is here. So companies will export their stuff from China to Vietnam or Mexico. They'll write made in Vietnam or Mexico on it and they'll resend it to us. So if you don develop a solution to this transshipment problem there is no way that you can decouple from China even a little bit even in a crisis That to me is very scary And the process of working with other countries to address this essentially this is rules of origin for trade. This is a big enterprise that is going to take years and years to do. It cannot be done right away. So what we're talking about with avalanche decoupling is a process that abandons the fiction that we can do this all at once. and starts thinking about if we need to divorce China 10%, 30%, 60%, whatever it is, how do we go about building a new kind of economic order such that we can still have trading relations with the rest of the world? And that question has not been addressed until this book. I find this conversation to be very alarming and obviously, and it should be very alarming. I guess the good news, if there is any, is that we have spent the last several years deepening our friendships with the rest of the world and building up our allies and establishing that open non-China trading block. At least, oh wait, no, we're literally doing the opposite. Well I was going to say on the plus side if one of the elements of China deterrence is building a better custom system where we can actually track trans shipments Then maybe some of that work has been done It's better than like building more nukes. But like it does seem like we're kind of not doing any of this, right? I mean not only not doing any of this. We are like rowing. Like if the goal is let's do this avalanche decoupling around the world, etc. Like we're going in the opposite direction. Yeah, that's exactly right. The only way you can get this stuff done is if you work with your partners. That's the only way. And that's not about being moralistic. It's about practically speaking, there's stuff that we don't know how to make in this country anymore. Because we outsourced it two generations ago and there literally aren't any people left who know how it's done. And Japan or South Korea in particular, but many of our European partners too, have this know-how in advanced manufacturing. and not to partner with them, I think is kind of crazy. Also, they face the same problems, the same risks of economic coercion by China. And they have even less leverage to push back against China because China is relatively speaking is much bigger than they are. So I think the Trump administration has a few correct ideas dealing with those rules of origin through these bilateral deals doing bilateral economic security packs like with Japan But we need to be bringing larger groups of allies and partners together to do this Just real quick, I think you mentioned at the beginning that you actually think currently in a conventional war that the American military would have the upper hand. I don't – but like it looks like – I don't know what's going to go on with Iran, and I'm very susceptible. I watch all the Chinese propaganda. I watch the military praise. It's like, whew, that looks really impressive. The robot dogs and all this stuff. Oh, the robot dogs. Yeah, like, can you just give the short version of why as of April 21st, 2026, you think the U.S. military still has the upper hand? This is something I learned in the process of working on this book. And the previous book, there's a companion book called The Arsenal of Democracy, which is all of the military nuts and bolts that my editor was like, no way you're putting us in. That's too nerdy. But here's what I discovered in researching that book. The wars that America has fought over the last 80 years have been land wars. And land war has a certain character. And war at sea has a totally different character. And the basic reason is that war on land involves lots and lots and lots of units that are basically interchangeable. And so it's attrition. [55:00] You're wearing each other down. You're fighting along a long line. You're applying pressure, and there's an equilibrium and a balance, and you're basically trying to hold up enough reserves with potential energy to punch through the enemy's line and then send in the cavalry, and their line collapses, and you ride to victory. So if you look at the maps of World War I, for example, the line doesn't move. It doesn't move. It doesn't move. It doesn't move, and then it breaks. War at sea is different. You have a very small number, a much smaller number of platforms, and they're much more specialized. And so if you can take out just one or two of the enemy's vessels, specialized aircraft, specialized ships, the whole structure starts to collapse and the rest become easier to kill. And that means that there's no real incentive to hold back reserves. Once the engagement starts, it's incredibly intense and it's often decided in the first hours to days. And one significant implication of that is your ability to see and communicate across the battle space is really, really critical. And especially as the range of our missiles and our drones has increased, that means that US aircraft and ships and submarines that could potentially strike targets in or around China can be zooming around across literally millions of square miles of ocean So to see these things to target them and then to deliver mass to a target to kill them is no easy feat And if the U.S. can use cyber, counter space capabilities, and so on to disrupt China's ability to see and communicate in those critical early hours, then it could potentially win a lopsided victory or vice versa. And one of the implications of that is if you're just counting ships or counting planes or missiles, you will miss the parts of the balance that are most important, that are actually qualitative, many of which can be augmented with AI. And this is hard because it means when you're wargaming these things, if you don't have a clearance, you kind of have to make it up with these capabilities. We don't know what the cutting edge of cyber is, for example. Only a very small compartmented group of people within the national security establishment know all of the relevant capabilities. But I just think that if China believed that they could defeat the U.S. in a high-end war, they would be behaving more assertively. They would be operating not just in the Taiwan Strait but all around the region in a way that they're not yet. We started this conversation talking about the famous hypothetical blockades in geopolitics and international relations classrooms around the world What your big takeaway from the Strait of Hormuz situation as it applies potentially to China and Taiwan It's a good wrap up for the conversation, really. It's the United States military has these godlike capabilities with special forces, with cyber, electronic warfare. In some senses, the way our air defenses have performed, which is exceptionally, exceptionally well. But while our military is very good at doing the operational military stuff, we are not succeeding at the strategic level because ultimately war is the continuation of politics by other means. And our politics is susceptible to economic pressure in a way that our adversaries is not. And if we don't get the message, if we don't take the wake-up call and start working on our economic resilience and our credible ability to bear economic pain and supply chain disruptions and the rest, we will be unprepared on exam day because China has so many more capabilities to impose economic pain on us and to micro-calibrate the character of that economic pain than Iran does. And they have more ability to do it for a long period of time in multiple theaters in parts of the world And we can only deal with this problem if we treat it as an all interdepartmental problem not just a military problem and if we work with allies and if we try to make some kind of bipartisan consensus that national economic resilience matters. That, to me, is the lesson of Hormuz. All right. On that cheerful note, Ike Freiman, thank you so much for coming on All Thoughts, and the book is Defending Taiwan, a Strategy to Prevent War with China. Really appreciate it. Thanks so much for having me on. Thanks so much, Hank. That was great. Joe, that was a fascinating conversation. And I haven't read the entire book, but I did flip through it and I do recommend it. It's super interesting. There's also like some really interesting appendices with speeches from various Taiwanese officials. Yeah, I'm going to have to. Yeah. Yeah, it's definitely worth reading. One of the things that stood out there was this, I mean, towards the end of the conversation, when we were talking about the possibility of like, how do you build up economic resilience that requires the participation of other economies at the same time that the Trump administration seems to be pushing a lot of those other economies and strategic alliances? [60:00] further away. You know, so we didn't get into this, but obviously, okay, like we don't like the stock market. It falls a couple percent and suddenly we get cold feet. Okay, that's economic resilience. I think there's another issue which we didn't get into, which is political appetite for war, you know, especially after the Iraq war is diminished. The Iran, the current war in Iran is not popular pretty clearly regardless of whether it's wise or regardless of how serious the economic toll is. And so I think like another interesting and important dimension here is look around and I'd be curious like how many, okay, we can sit here and make the argument, look, we really need chips or we need to defend this principle, whatever, et cetera. Is there really the domestic political appetite for massive conflict, etc. I don't really know, even beyond the economic question, does the appetite exist? But I really enjoyed that conversation. It was certainly very interesting hearing him, for example, walk through the math of how much oil China has and how long it would be able to go with its existing stockpiles And it does seem right This question of whether there will ever be some sort of serious change to the China relationship etc it a complicated one on many dimensions as he said in the beginning Yes. On almost one of the most complicated questions there is. Oh, absolutely. There's also a fundamental tension between the U.S. building out its chips resilience while deterring China from doing something in Taiwan. If the U.S. actually manages to be successful in building domestic capacity, chips capacity, then the silicone shield that's protected Taiwan gets weaker and weaker, right? We have to start paying attention to the upcoming Taiwanese election and start wondering whether the government in Taiwan will continue to be enthusiastic about the idea of the U.S. building up chip capacity. This is a new dimension of international relations and so forth that we have to key in on. You just want to go to Taiwan. Well, you know what the one thing I will say is I do want to go to Taiwan. But the one thing I will say is I always want to learn more about the domestic policy of other countries because I do think it very easy to look at the U and say okay here I know a fair amount about American domestic policy And then you hear about like and here Taiwan policy Here's Iran's policy. Here's Israel's policy. Here's Korea's policy. As if there is just one polity or it's just, there is just this one unified thing. And I think it's important to remember that all these countries have domestic politics, just like the United States does. And disagreements and nuances and all of that. Yep. Absolutely. Shall we leave it there? Let's leave it there. This has been another episode of the All Thoughts podcast. I'm Tracy Allaway. You can follow me at Tracy Allaway. And I'm Joe Weisenthal. You can follow me at The Stalwart. Follow our guest, Ike Fryman. He's at Ike Fryman. Follow our producers, Carmen Rodriguez at Carmen Armand, Dashiell Bennett at Dashpot, Kale Brooks at Kale Brooks, and Kevin Lozano at Kevin Lloyd Lozano. And for more All Thoughts content, go to Bloomberg.com slash All Thoughts. We have a daily newsletter on all of our episodes. And you can chat about all these topics 24-7 in our Discord, discord.gg. And if you enjoy Odd Lots, if you want us to take a trip to Taiwan, then please leave us a positive review on your favorite podcast platform. And remember if you are a Bloomberg subscriber you can listen to all of our episodes absolutely ad All you need to do is find the Bloomberg channel on Apple Podcasts and follow the instructions there Thanks for listening We'll see you next time. Explore more at 4imprint.com. 4imprint. 4certain. Healthcare doesn't always work great. If you've ever waited on a refill or couldn't schedule an appointment, you get it. That's the kind of stuff Optum is changing. They're using data and technology to integrate patient care, pharmacy, and everything else. So healthcare is connected. [65:00] not complicated. What's that look like? Cheaper prescriptions that are easier to get and care that looks at the whole person, how you need it. Optum is helping make healthcare work as one for everyone. Learn more at business.optum.com. She's been thinking about this sleepover all week, but I think about her food allergies all the time. Fortunately, her doctor prescribed Zolair, omelizumab. It's proven to significantly reduce allergic reactions if a food allergy accident happens. Zolaire 150 milligrams is a prescription medication used to treat food allergy in people one year of age and older to reduce allergic reactions due to accidental exposure to one or more foods. While taking Zolaire, you should continue to avoid all foods to which you are allergic. Don't use if you are allergic to Zolaire. Zolaire may cause a severe, life-threatening allergic reaction called anaphylaxis. Tell your doctor if you ever had anaphylaxis. Get help right away if you have trouble breathing or if you have swelling of your throat or tongue. Zolaire should not be used for the emergency treatment of allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis. Zolaire is for maintenance use to reduce allergic reactions including anaphylaxis while avoiding food allergens. Serious side effects such as cancer, fever, muscle aches and rash, parasitic infection or heart and circulation problems have been reported. Please see Zolaire.com for full prescribing information. Ask an allergist about Zolaire. This is an advertisement for Zolaire paid for by Genentech and Novartis.