Asia is at a dangerous moment. China is rising fast, and its regional ambitions are growing. Reckless North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un may be assembling more nuclear weapons, despite diplomatic efforts to eradicate his arsenal. Japan is building up its military, throwing off constitutional constraints imposed after World War II. The United States, for so long a stabilising presence in Asia, is behaving erratically: Donald Trump is the first US president since the 1970s to break diplomatic protocol and speak with Taiwan, and the first to threaten war with North Korea if denuclearisation does not occur. The possibility of global catastrophe looms ever closer.
In this revelatory analysis, geopolitical expert Brendan Taylor examines the four Asian flashpoints most likely to erupt in sudden and violent conflict: the Korean Peninsula, the East China Sea, the South China Sea and Taiwan. He sketches how clashes could play out in these global hotspots and argues that crisis can only be averted by understanding the complex relations between them. Drawing on history, in-depth reports and his intimate observations of the region, Taylor asks what the world’s major powers can do to avoid an eruption of war – and shows how Asia could change this otherwise disastrous trajectory.
At a surface level, it is strange that the United States and China are viewed as destined for war. They do not share a border, they live in different parts of the world, and though they have very different political systems they have complementary economic systems. Yet for all the ink spilt and pixels burned highlighting why they might fight, too few have looked at how or where it could occur.
The Four Flash points: How Asia Goes to War is an ideal introduction to the tense security politics of Asia. It explains and ranks the four key slow burning crises of the region. Three are left overs of the Second World War (Taiwan, East China Sea, Korean Peninsula), one relatively new (South China Sea). By explaining how each emerged, and how each is viewed by the major states, Professor Taylor shows that the potential for war between the US and China is very real. Yet it will look very different depending on where it occurs (and I might add, when it occurs).
One of the great achievements of this book is to also show that these crises are not distinct but feed into each other, with the calming of one paradoxically inflaming another. And though we've had long periods of muddling through each flare up, Taylor shows there is worrying complacency about a 'crisis slide' where the sheer weight of past events makes war more likely tomorrow.
This book should sit proudly beside The China Choice as the two best public books on security in Asia. It is an easy read, it is a deep read, it is a rewarding read. Highly recommended.
A very well written book that explores the possibility of a crisis slide to major power conflict in Asia. It is a short, easy read that is suitable for anyone interested in Asia-Pacific affairs. Worth your time.
A book which doesnt really contain much of a thesis, reiterates the same commentary as has been promoted for the last 40 years and fails to substantiate most of its claims. A useful survey for people new to regional strategy but a miss for the audience the boom is supposed to target.
Great, if brief, overview of the issues. Would have loved more detail on some of the flashpoints, but the suggested course of action is fascinating and quite challenging.
Brendan Taylor’s The Four Flashpoints is a competent, well-researched survey of the most precarious geopolitical zones in the Indo-Pacific—Taiwan, the Korean Peninsula, the South China Sea, and the East China Sea. It offers a solid overview of each, outlining the historical context, strategic stakes, and potential triggers for conflict. For readers seeking an accessible primer on the subject, Taylor’s book delivers exactly what it promises: a measured, clear-eyed account of the region’s simmering tensions.
Yet while there’s nothing particularly wrong with The Four Flashpoints, there is also little about it that lingers. Taylor’s prose is clean and workmanlike, and his analysis is balanced—perhaps too much so. The book rarely strays from well-trodden ground, and its cautious tone, while commendable in some respects, gives the impression of a text that is more summary than insight. There are no especially bold arguments here, no provocative reframings or memorable turns of phrase. It is careful and well-behaved—perhaps overly so.
That said, Taylor does succeed in stitching together the strategic linkages between these disparate zones, and in stressing that instability in one can easily spill into another. This interconnectedness is one of the book’s more valuable takeaways, even if it’s not explored with quite the depth or originality that might elevate the work.
Ultimately, The Four Flashpoints is a useful if somewhat unremarkable contribution to the conversation around Indo-Pacific security. It neither dazzles nor disappoints—it simply informs, competently and cautiously. For readers new to the topic, it offers a firm foundation. For those already familiar, it's a refresher, not a revelation.
Founded on the notion of Coral Bell's 'crisis slide' Brendan Taylor simply, and systematically, identifies, describes and analyses the potential for conflict in Asia.
Taylor's use of geopolitical, economic, and cultural lenses for his analysis offer seemingly considered insight, although I was left wanting a more thorough description of the methodology used to reach his conclusions.
More journalistic than academic, I would recommend this book to anyone seeking a measured synopsis of the crisis flashpoints in East and Southeast Asia.
Taylor provides a terrific overview of potential points of rupture to Asia's peace. What I would have liked to see more of - and what I found lacking in the conclusion of this book - was a synthesis that tied these points together and made the case for certain US policy recommendations, which I felt Taylor neglected (or gave short shrift). In the end, these shortcomings made for a compelling analysis that ultimately lacked the rigor of seeing the argument through to conclusion with depth.