Absolutely, I agree. It should be resolved peacefully or just not resolved (status quo). My point was not that it was wrong to oppose a violent resolution - my point was that it's obviously hypocritical to oppose your opponent employing a violent resolution when they think it might succeed when you support a violent resolution as long as you think you might succeed. It's not genuine non-violence, it's just "They shouldn't be allowed to fight us unless we will win", which is obviously fair for any prospective nationalist, but is damaging to your argument that you're just a peaceful country and you don't understand why your neighbour is so warlike.
And of course, all of this is in the context of me explaining why bringing up that Taiwan nearly had nukes until the US stopped it is not a great idea for those attempting to advocate for Taiwan's side in the dispute, because it raises the obvious question of "Why did they nearly have nukes, what were they planning to do with the nukes?"
And of course, all of this is in the context of me explaining why bringing up that Taiwan nearly had nukes until the US stopped it is not a great idea for those attempting to advocate for Taiwan's side in the dispute, because it raises the obvious question of "Why did they nearly have nukes, what were they planning to do with the nukes?"