Elsewhere in this discussion you are blaming America for Russia's decision to start a war with Ukraine. Obviously you have been steeping in authoritarian anti-American propaganda. You should probably stop doing that.
Acknowledging the role of the US State Dept & CIA in the 2014 coup in Ukraine, doesn't require thinking Putin is a saint or even justified. But denying our role in the coup is denying reality.
> How about, overthrowing the traitor puppet government in Taiwan and peacefully uniting with the mainland?
> Oh, and yeeting the Yankies out of Taiwan.
You are calling for China to go to war with Taiwan and to call it peace. Why not just be open about it? What's the purpose of pretending you're advocating peace when you're clearly advocating for war?
Relatively so. The Romanian Revolution in 1989 killed less than two thousand people (including Ceaușescu and his wife, who's well deserved executions were the last executions in Romanian history.)
And what was the cost of peace? Ceaușescu and his wife killed far more than 2000 Romanians every year with their brutal communist regime.
Actually I don't think that's a good scenario for the US as, if anything, that'd ultimately make China a more formidable adversary and reunification with Taiwan more likely (which the US and Japan do not want for strategic reasons).
This user is way too far down the rabbit hole to be persuaded by mere trifling matters such as “facts” or “the events that actually happened”, they look beyond that into the unprovable unknown and concoct a fantasy reality.
People like this see Russia invading Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk in 2014 and go “ah-ha, clearly the work of the USA”. They see Russia launch a full scale invasion in 2022, and see a secret USA/NATO plot to destabilise Russia. They see Trump losing an election and deduce that it must have been some pro-war nefarious deep state trickery.
They are broken, unless you want to have a bit of fun winding them up a bit you would have a more enriching conversation with a brick wall :-)
He's a man of war. It's his job to prepare those under his command for non-peaceful scenarios. He would be failing at this if he did not instill discipline and rigor into the forces he's responsible for. It starts with putting them in the mindset for battle.
It's not his job to make peace. It's his job to put a well-honed weapon into the hands of the Statesman back in Washington. It is their purview to actually preserve the peace through diplomacy.
But make no mistake, the peace starts with China understanding that the weapon in-hand is sharp and ready.
The guy said war was possible, well, duh, it’s always possible. Is it more likely? Ya, if China makes a military play for Taiwan, the USA is most definitely getting involved (but you think Russia’s failure in the Ukraine would have dissuaded them?). It would be dumb for America to assume no war is possible as dumb as it would be for America to instigate that war themselves.
Surely we wouldn’t go to war on Taiwan’s behalf solely to support their independence. It would be to guarantee our access to their microchips. So why not produce those ourselves, and end our dependence on both China and Taiwan.
Obviously that process has already started. So if Xi is smart, he delays the invasion until the US and Europe have enough domestic fabs to be independent of Taiwan/TSMC.
Well, the smartest dumb move, anyway. The Chinese fixation on claiming Taiwan is already a serious waste of their mental energies, but the real cost for making such a move at any time would be massive. Even without Western involvement.
Never the less, we've seen men do stupider things for pride. See: Ukraine.
> The Chinese fixation on claiming Taiwan is already a serious waste of their mental energies, but the real cost for making such a move at any time would be massive.
Different people seem to have different value systems. The "costs" involved may not concern Xi all that much, provided he "wins".
I sometimes wonder if Xi has realized that Taiwan is more valuable independent. Xi gets to sell his populace on the idea of a united West intent on shaming and restraining China, and can point to Taiwan as a tangible embodiment of this.
Hell, we've got genuine believers (...or shills) even in these comments talking about how US support for Taiwan is all just a ploy to weaken China.
If Xi makes a move on Taiwan, he turns China into a Russia-like pariah to the West and bears an immense cost in lives and materiel. For what gain exactly?
Taiwan is worth more as a bogeyman he can point to for nationalistic rallying than as an actual possession.
How do you measure gain? If consider only economic benefits, why did Putin attack Ukraine?
Now if you consider that these men have big egos, are more driven by nationalist motives than economic ones and that they want to go down in history as the next Peter the Great or Qin Shihuang?
Then maybe they are willing to tolerate that their peoples experience a period of economic decline, to ensure the greatnest of the nation and the supreme leader?
Given their value systems, this may even be rational.
Taking Taiwan back won't make a Chinese leader "great". It is more of a responsibility and sort of a minor one, as a not so famous general （Shi Lang) in Qing dynasty achieved this and people have criticized and are still criticizing him for his betrayal to the Ming dynasty.
Deng Xiaoping brought Hong Kong and Macao back, but he was memorated as a great leader not because of this, but because he opened the door for China to its economic prosperity.
Taiwan’s semiconductor industry is wholly dependent on the west. China taking over Taiwan, if it can do it without turning the island into a crater, wouldn’t be able to do much with these factories over a significant amount of time, so that isn’t the USA’s real concern. Economically speaking, the people (skills, experience) are much more important.
> Surely we wouldn’t go to war on Taiwan’s behalf solely to support their independence.
Why not? The parallels with Czechoslovakia in 1938 are dramatic. The 20th century showed that if you let dictators win, you just fight a bigger war later.
Powerful nations have a moral obligation to stick up for free populations. If the Taiwanese don't want to live under the CCP's thumb, they shouldn't have to.
The Kool Aid is not to be drunk. What you state is the PR for the masses, not what the game is really about.
The US's objective is to keep China divided and as weak as possible. Taiwan is at at important strategic location and it suits the US's interests that it does not reunite with mainland China and stays dependent on the US. The type of government in Taiwan is irrelevant (as long as it's not communist) and really it's only desirable that Taiwan be governing itself in that it implies weakness.
In any case, it is extremely unlikely that the US would attack China in case of an invasion of Taiwan.
Taiwan not being part of China does little or nothing to "weaken" them. It's sort of like arguing that Peurto Rico being independent would destabilize the United States. China chooses to make Taiwan a big deal to them, but it really doesn't have to be. The United States for decades has tried to make Taiwan not a big deal, creating policies of strategic ambiguity, cozying closer to the PRC, while still standing up for Taiwan's right to be independent.
If you wanna try to go all real-politik here, sure it's useful to the United States to hold something back from China that they're weirdly fixated on. But these days the real value of Taiwan is mostly about semi-conductor supply chains.
China's antagonism and petulance toward Taiwan is an own-goal they choose to continue making. It's not the United State's fault, and it doesn't have to be this way.
China would inevitably get into conflict with the USA in the event of a Taiwan invasion because the USA has focused much of its military resources in asia in the Ryukyus (on purpose).
The ryukyus are adjacent to Taiwan. That no troops are station in Taiwan proper is just a formality that gives mainland China face (which it finds very important).
Adjacent means nothing. It's outside of the conflict area and thus it wouldn't be touched, especially since neither the US nor China want a war with one another.
It's not just about face. Neither side wants to escalate the situation or to be dragged into war.
NATO is adjacent to Ukraine. Has Russia attacked them? No. Has NATO attacked Russia? No. Neither side are suicidal. So it remains a proxy war. The same would happen over Taiwan.
That phrase tends to be mainly popular in societies that starts the wars tho. Like, neonazi like to tattoo it.
So, imo, that phrase primary serves to get ready for violence you intend to start, all the while you are convincing yourself your intentions are good and you are just a victim of circumstances.
It's good advice; all else equal, the visibly weak are more often assaulted than the visibly strong. But it can be taken to excess; it's one thing to carry oneself as if one means business, and quite another to go everywhere with one's finger on the trigger of a shotgun with a chambered shell. After a certain point, you make people feel they need to defend themselves from you.
The fate of Taiwan sets the geopolitical and economic tone for the remainder of the century. Whichever side wins (if there is a clear victor) will see more of the world shift alliances and trade to them.
It might set the tone for 20-40 years, not 75 years. And it may do it in different ways than you may think.
Should the US win such a war, it may cause China to go even more militaristic than they currently are, and seek a rematch in 2050, or so. That's what happened after WW1, and there are plenty of cases throughout history of countries losing a war going for a rematch 1-2 generations later.
And IF there is a rematch in 2050, even if China loses again, the economic costs of two such conflicts may drain both countries to such a degree that a new power emerges as dominant. India would be the most likely candidate, but by the end of the century, one could even imagine a rejuvenated Europe
Maybe the Western governments should just let protesters know that they the support corrupt governments? Of course it's hardly a good argument from me because this is what the West does a lot, e.g. with Saudi Arabia or the Egyptian government before the Arab revolution. I suppose what you want is everyone supporting authoritarian governments, because hey, at least there the oppression is quiet and doesn't involve mass violence (e.g. individuals will be tortured behind closed doors instead of masses being shot in public).
This is a weak argument. There are plenty of luxurious residences in the West, from the Buckingham Palace to Palace of Versailles, etc. Why should they be exempt from the evidence of "corruption" you speak of?
The second paragraph should be a clear indication that the West cares not if the country is democratic or not. As long as it serves their interests.
> There are plenty of luxurious residences in the West, from the Buckingham Palace to Palace of Versailles, etc.
Oh, what a great argument. You win! /s
> Why should they be exempt from the evidence of "corruption" you speak of?
Because there's a paper trail of how these buildings came to be in the posession of their owners, and it's all rightful. Besides, Versailles, what a solid argument, duh, it's owned by the country? (But hey, don't let this fool you into believing you made a stupid argument). As for Buckingham Palace, well, the monarchy is a weird concept but it's now been molded into something that's palatable with democracy but hey, congratulations, now you've successfully changed to argument to be about monarchy vs democracy instead of the corrupt Yanukovych and Putin governments. You're so clever!
> Minihan, who as head of Air Mobility Command
Domestic acquisition politics, current USAF tanking fleet lacking 50-150 airframes to persecute stand off war outside of first island chain according to analysis. AF wants grab piece of pie like everyone else, and this man wants more tankers, which would take decade+ to acquire in sufficient numbers let alone by 2025.
You're gonna need to expand on that one. As is, it sounds like you're saying Cold War domino theory is a live concern in 2023, but that would be just too absurd a position to imagine anyone seriously taking.
In any case, what cost MacArthur his job was putting too many toes over the bright line of civilian control of the military. I don't think Minihan's being as brazen about trying to influence policy as MacArthur was, but I suspect he may be being brazen enough, both from someone having leaked this memo in the first place, and from this:
> A U.S. defense official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said that Minihan’s comments “are not representative of the department’s view on China.”
If you don't know how to read these things, let me help you: this is DoD/military bureaucracy speak for "he fucked up."
Or this could have been leaked purposefully to send a signal to China that the US prepared for war if it acts against Taiwan—even if the official position is more diplomatic.
A deliberate leak to reinforce a hawkish foreign policy stance, for one thing, doesn't come out of a staff command. For another, it doesn't get disavowed by DoD in the military's official news outlet. There's a significant difference between "deniable" and "denied".
While I don't think it's particularly special that military leaders tell soldiers to be ready and angle for more funding or attention, can we just imagine how breathless and fake-outraged the reporting would be if this came verbatim from a Chinese general:
> ... directs airmen who are qualified to use a weapon to “fire a clip into a 7-meter target with the full understanding that unrepentant lethality matters most” sometime in February.
Officers carry pistols so they can coerce enlisted men to stand up and run into machinegun fire, not because they're meant to engage in combat. What the general is talking about is just one of those head games to make people put on their war face, like making someone attack a scarecrow with a bayonnet on a plastic M-16 while they scream about blood making the grass grow green.
The F-35 is ready and networks well with EWACS and 4th gen fighters. It's stealth allows the navy and air force to execute many scenarios much better than before. Watch this: https://youtu.be/mGwU9HKH_Eo
No, it's actually like in any tech giant - staff officers want postings that make them look good to earn a promotion. War over Taiwan will no one make look good and will not lead to promotions.
Yeah, no kidding. One thing that could easily happen in a real fight between the US and China over Taiwan is the first combat loss of an American aircraft carrier since the Second World War. Which admiral do you think wants to risk ending up with the responsibility for that?
That fellow who suggested going to war is in military logistics, he is an Etappenschwein, not a Frontschwein, as Ernst Jünger would have said. If anyone won't see combat, that's him!
Look up how much American generals get paid, then tell me why any general would want to rock the boat with something so uncertain and dangerous to the status quo as a war.
>Taiwan’s presidential elections are in 2024 and will offer Xi a reason. United States’ presidential elections are in 2024 and will offer Xi a distracted America. Xi’s team, reason, and opportunity are all aligned for 2025.
It's not terrible reasoning, but there is a big gap between calendar dates & people actually shooting
desantis unfortunately wins in 2024, america goes full isolationist. as the 2028 election approaches, china will invade to ensure desantis becomes a war president and stays out of it. pushes racist chinese talk and makes sure china takes over taiwan. american then suffers massive tech inflation from lost semis and trade driving US into 2030 recession that will push for a Dem wave in 2032. basically, the whole 2000-2008 period is starting again. sigh
The point I was trying to make is that conflating POSSIBLE with PROBABLE to me smacks of click bait; my opinion. It doesn't really tell you anything meaningful but sounds extremely scary. Weasel words.
A more useful quip from the general might be "shooting war with china in next two years all but certain"
When people talking about an asteroid "destroying all life", they probably don't usually mean it literally like that, but rather just all multicellular life on the surface.
Maybe, though my guess is that most people who use this phrase really don't know or even care precisely what they mean, beyond "cause a bigger catastrophy than humanity has ever seen".
It's the same for poeple talking about extinction from nuclear war or climate change. There is little support in "The Science" for any prediction of a fatality rate of 100% from either (given current arsenals in the case of Nukes). People simply do not want to imagine what the world would be after a large scale nuclear war.
So if they're given advice that would actually significantly increase survival chances (such as duck&cover, having some store of fresh water, etc), they prefer to laugh it off instead of taking it seriously.
Man, a Chinese-American war would be a great tragedy. Think about how many problems there are on earth and how a beneficial cooperation of these two powers would be in solving them. Climate change alone would need that, just for China's manufacturing power alone (so many cheap solar panels could happen!).
Alas, realizing that war is generally bad for human welfare is of course a somewhat trivial remark. I hope China and the US find a way to de-escalate. Recent commentary and media reports make it seem that a war in the 2020s is a foregone conclusion.
Also, China's at its best position to fight a war right now. In a few decades or a century, demographic collapse[0] will mean it'll be at a fraction of its current power.
In adversarial terms, for China, it's now or never; for the U.S., it's later or never.
China has been trying to incentivize people to have more children for a few years now, and it hasn't been working. Turns out, when the future looks bleak and you don't have time outside of work to socialize, let alone raise a child, you're less likely to be willing to have one.
Add to that all the work China did for decades to promote and enforce its widely-known one-child policy, and you've got a recipe for demographic collapse.
Even if they managed to turn around China's birth trends right now, it still would take a generation to catch up. The CCP can't just will this problem away.
Maybe it’s easier to force the village elders to perform forced sterilizations than it is to do the opposite?
In authoritarian communist countries you typically see silent protests in the form of giving up of quiet quitting. This would apply to starting families as well due to low levels of hope.
Break down pipeline problem. PRC is generating roughly ~OECD countries combined worth of STEM talents per year with other disciplines also catching up. There's already increasing youth unemployment due to the shock of oversupply of talent that makes industries move up the value chain and economies grow. The pipeline problem is more constrained at low end labour, that's mostly going to be plugged by record automation, more than the next 15 industrial powers combined. If labour shortages persist, will be compelled to adopt some foreign worker systems like MENA countries, in which case there's about 100 millions from low/mid income countries to import on a transient basis. The TLDR is PRC is trending from a population mixture of roughly 2 Japans and 6 Nigerias to 5 Japans and 1 Nigeria over next 80 years in terms of productive potential, the latter being a significantly more productive society even if it only has 60% of people due to net human capita upgrades.
The problem with rate of birth decline IMO is it compresses and increases stress of PRC weathering society transitioning to more strategically/geopolitically suitable population levels from something like 80 years to 60 years which poses governance challenges. But productivity increase will chug on due to recomposition into a disproportionate high skilled society, by 100s of millions. Best way to conceptualize this is that PRC will be transitioning from current population mixture of roughly 2 Japans and 6 Nigerias to 6 Japans over next 60-80 years in terms of productive potential, the latter being a significantly more productive society even if it only has 60% of people due to net human capital upgrades. Higher birth rate means maybe PRC can manage transition largely alone with domestic births and automation, lower means importing 10s of millions of foreign workers and remittance outflows which is politically and strategically unpalatable. There's plenty to do, but some more politically preferrable than others.
Yes, in a few decades China might hit its peak due to demographic decline. But the Chinese Army is rapidly modernizing and industrializing and will definitely be becoming more powerful over the next couple of decades. So that argues the Chinese would be better to wait a couple of decades to fight that war when they are at their peak.
Their best position is likely to be the 2025-2030 period. Their fleet is currently growing much faster than the US Navy, and the J20 are quite possibly more suitable for the geographical region than F22's and F35s (that were developed primarily for air supremacy over Europe, where range is much less important than over the Pacific).
If the West is not reacting soon, China's ability to dominate East Asia may extend well into the 2030s.
At some point, though, it's reasonable to expect stagnation in China, unless there is some black swan event (AGI breakthrough, large scale eugenic/crispr "directed evolution" or something similar that democratic countries do not have the stomach for)
The same is true for USA. You can see American society collapsing. American military cant get enough people to sign up. Majority are too out of shape to serve. Then you have underperforming troops that peppered with softies other than a typical male. Police kills for pleasure, elections irrwgularities across ALL election tiers (used to be around local municipal level, but now at presidential level). High homelessness and proverty. Lifespan dropped. Literacy dropped. Significatlnt dedollarization in the last year now in favor of BRICS new currency, gold and crypto. Defeat by Talebans, Yemens and Syrians. Weapons are largely designed for maximization of maintenance then being effective. Expenditure literal has no bounds other than occasionall haggling of new debt ceiling. Compare to China, at least the Chinese able to build mega structures at record speed. You can ask any American architects that Americam absolutely cant built a Three gorge dam due to lack of know-how and severe legal constraint. China is waiting Russia to conclude so as to have strong partners to sink American pacific fleet and setup Eastern bureau for suicidation activities similar lile Mossad but on steroid level akin to what the Chinese practiced during Ming dynasty. USA is going for a very roigh ride in comong decades. Maybe Ray Dahlio is right om his book/YT.
US prefer sooner war because PRC military closing gap and will continue to both in platfrom numbers and capabilities.
PRC also has the BEST demographics to fight future wars. She's still going to generate multiple times US population as 800M country by 2100, except most will be high skilled necessary to operate modern military, which current reforms is running short on talent because access to high end mil talent is relatively new due to efforts paying off from past education reforms. Reality is, even depressed PRC demographics is still generating 8-5 million bodies a year, and all you really need is a few hundred thousand for modern war machine. The entire demographics will affect PRCs ability to wage war is frankly stupid. Doubly so in age where unmanned roles increasing which still overwhelmingly favours PRC industry.
Meanwhile PLA isn't even close to upper limit of military size and power, with a signficantly greater upper bound than US due to population and industrial base. Like her defense budget is ~2%. She's barely trying. Decades from now PLA will be multiple times more powerful than now, like PLA modernization plans anticipates MATCHING broad spectrum US military primacy after 2040s, there's no reason to do anything now especially if trigger is capability based. Condition based sure, like if TW declares indpendance or US crosses redlines, but that's not for PRC to decide.
Hence why all the PRC will attack TW "windows" are coming from US, because the long term trend significantly favours PRC who'd rather wait. At minimum until post 2030s until she builds out another few thousand nukes. Overlooking that PRC would rush TW scenario unilaterally without proper nuke umbrella is what gives these "windows" little credibility.
As an aside, have a look at that table and sort it on "Total", descending. Notice which countries rise to the top and in what way they differ from more or less all other countries:
Country/region birth 0–14 15–24 25–54 55–64 Over 65 Total
Vatican City -- -- -- -- -- -- All male
Qatar 1.02 1.02 2.42 5.01 3.40 1.89 3.39
United Arab Emirates 1.06 1.07 1.19 3.27 6.05 3.39 2.56
Bahrain 1.03 1.03 1.31 1.87 1.67 1.04 1.53
Kuwait 1.05 1.09 1.21 1.69 1.26 0.79 1.38
Saudi Arabia 1.05 1.04 1.09 1.52 1.61 1.12 1.30
Oman 1.05 1.05 1.11 1.33 1.13 0.92 1.18
Where do women in Qatar, the UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia end up? Do they die much earlier or is this some weird effect of migration?
The US aren't going to war with China but it's the job of the military to be ready or at least to give a fact-based assessment. I don't think the US military does the latter, at least publicly, as the factual reality is that a direct war is a lose-lose situation
Also it is not like militaries in general don't have internal goals of increasing their budgets and trying to gain more funding. And thus advancing their own careers or gaining various forms of power.
In the end they are similar to bureaucracies, big companies and so on.
American here. Lived 10yrs in China, still own a business there now primarily operating in Shenzhen. What I learned living there is, the Chinese mainland population are 100% certain, that Taiwan is wholly owned property of Mainland China. Now, considering the nature of war, winners win and losers lose, and there's no doubt the communist party won the war, took control of mainland China, and the Nationalists lost, fled to Taiwan. From Mainland China view, just because they didn't take Taiwan then doesn't mean they don't own it! This view will never change. In my view, USA should stay out of it, we don't belong there!
I have no experience with Russia or Ukraine. I do however have 10 yrs experience in China, and a lot of people have no idea that 1.6B Chinese vehemently assert ownership of Taiwan. Your question is off topic and add no value.
100+ million Russians vehemently assert ownership of Ukraine. That doesn't mean they have a right to it.
If I vehemently assert ownership of your house and bank account, should I get it? I think I should. And the police should stay out of it, because it's none of their business; it's just between you and me.
FYI - from Wikipedia.
A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".
There's no strawman here; your principles advocate allowing aggressors to commit crimes and not becoming involved. You're a disgusting person with disgusting values.
Just like Brexit. A very few people can make out like bandits, and everyone else pays, and somehow we end up doing what the bandits want and even when we don't, it's a constant rearguard defense.
150 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 203 ms ] threadI'm not sure if this is sarcasm, but yes of course they are.
It seems like, the more democratic you are, the more wars youstart.
Except, the USA is trully a Republic. Figures, same as Rome.
> Oh, and yeeting the Yankies out of Taiwan.
You are calling for China to go to war with Taiwan and to call it peace. Why not just be open about it? What's the purpose of pretending you're advocating peace when you're clearly advocating for war?
And what was the cost of peace? Ceaușescu and his wife killed far more than 2000 Romanians every year with their brutal communist regime.
How about No.
EDIT: Except WWIII?
Furthermore, if China invaded Taiwan it would be China starting WWIII not America.
People like this see Russia invading Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk in 2014 and go “ah-ha, clearly the work of the USA”. They see Russia launch a full scale invasion in 2022, and see a secret USA/NATO plot to destabilise Russia. They see Trump losing an election and deduce that it must have been some pro-war nefarious deep state trickery.
They are broken, unless you want to have a bit of fun winding them up a bit you would have a more enriching conversation with a brick wall :-)
Mexico doesn't own the Gulf of Mexico.
- Budget
- Seen as a leading voice
- True conviction
Any one of the three are enough.
It's not his job to make peace. It's his job to put a well-honed weapon into the hands of the Statesman back in Washington. It is their purview to actually preserve the peace through diplomacy.
But make no mistake, the peace starts with China understanding that the weapon in-hand is sharp and ready.
And what is the USA even doing in China's sphere of influence, if not provoke? Do you see Chinese shipps patrolling the Mexican bay?
China's sphere of influence? Are you also an apologist for Russia's adventures within their claimed "sphere of influence" ?
If it wasn't already clear, you've pretty much outed yourself.
Surely we wouldn’t go to war on Taiwan’s behalf solely to support their independence. It would be to guarantee our access to their microchips. So why not produce those ourselves, and end our dependence on both China and Taiwan.
Well, the smartest dumb move, anyway. The Chinese fixation on claiming Taiwan is already a serious waste of their mental energies, but the real cost for making such a move at any time would be massive. Even without Western involvement.
Never the less, we've seen men do stupider things for pride. See: Ukraine.
Different people seem to have different value systems. The "costs" involved may not concern Xi all that much, provided he "wins".
Hell, we've got genuine believers (...or shills) even in these comments talking about how US support for Taiwan is all just a ploy to weaken China.
If Xi makes a move on Taiwan, he turns China into a Russia-like pariah to the West and bears an immense cost in lives and materiel. For what gain exactly?
Taiwan is worth more as a bogeyman he can point to for nationalistic rallying than as an actual possession.
How do you measure gain? If consider only economic benefits, why did Putin attack Ukraine?
Now if you consider that these men have big egos, are more driven by nationalist motives than economic ones and that they want to go down in history as the next Peter the Great or Qin Shihuang?
Then maybe they are willing to tolerate that their peoples experience a period of economic decline, to ensure the greatnest of the nation and the supreme leader?
Given their value systems, this may even be rational.
Deng Xiaoping brought Hong Kong and Macao back, but he was memorated as a great leader not because of this, but because he opened the door for China to its economic prosperity.
Xi needs to take Korea and Japan too?
Why not? The parallels with Czechoslovakia in 1938 are dramatic. The 20th century showed that if you let dictators win, you just fight a bigger war later.
Powerful nations have a moral obligation to stick up for free populations. If the Taiwanese don't want to live under the CCP's thumb, they shouldn't have to.
The US's objective is to keep China divided and as weak as possible. Taiwan is at at important strategic location and it suits the US's interests that it does not reunite with mainland China and stays dependent on the US. The type of government in Taiwan is irrelevant (as long as it's not communist) and really it's only desirable that Taiwan be governing itself in that it implies weakness.
In any case, it is extremely unlikely that the US would attack China in case of an invasion of Taiwan.
If you wanna try to go all real-politik here, sure it's useful to the United States to hold something back from China that they're weirdly fixated on. But these days the real value of Taiwan is mostly about semi-conductor supply chains.
China's antagonism and petulance toward Taiwan is an own-goal they choose to continue making. It's not the United State's fault, and it doesn't have to be this way.
The US have no troops stationed in Taiwan equally on purpose: to make sure they will NOT be dragged into a war with China.
It's not just about face. Neither side wants to escalate the situation or to be dragged into war.
NATO is adjacent to Ukraine. Has Russia attacked them? No. Has NATO attacked Russia? No. Neither side are suicidal. So it remains a proxy war. The same would happen over Taiwan.
Geopolitics 101, really.
That's sue for peace, prepare for war and it's as true now as when it was first written.
So, imo, that phrase primary serves to get ready for violence you intend to start, all the while you are convincing yourself your intentions are good and you are just a victim of circumstances.
Yeah, I can't either.
It's good advice; all else equal, the visibly weak are more often assaulted than the visibly strong. But it can be taken to excess; it's one thing to carry oneself as if one means business, and quite another to go everywhere with one's finger on the trigger of a shotgun with a chambered shell. After a certain point, you make people feel they need to defend themselves from you.
I wrote a little about it here [1].
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34418600
Should the US win such a war, it may cause China to go even more militaristic than they currently are, and seek a rematch in 2050, or so. That's what happened after WW1, and there are plenty of cases throughout history of countries losing a war going for a rematch 1-2 generations later.
And IF there is a rematch in 2050, even if China loses again, the economic costs of two such conflicts may drain both countries to such a degree that a new power emerges as dominant. India would be the most likely candidate, but by the end of the century, one could even imagine a rejuvenated Europe
Peace by trade failed.
If that didn't happen, there would simply be no war in Ukraine.
Because if the president is corrupt and the population is angry about it, it's USA's (or EU's) fault?
There's a good record of Yanukovych's luxury residence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mezhyhirya_Residence), do you believe is it also just Western lies and propaganda?
Maybe the Western governments should just let protesters know that they the support corrupt governments? Of course it's hardly a good argument from me because this is what the West does a lot, e.g. with Saudi Arabia or the Egyptian government before the Arab revolution. I suppose what you want is everyone supporting authoritarian governments, because hey, at least there the oppression is quiet and doesn't involve mass violence (e.g. individuals will be tortured behind closed doors instead of masses being shot in public).
There's a good record of Yanukovych's luxury residence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mezhyhirya_Residence), do you believe is it also just Western lies and propaganda?"
This is a weak argument. There are plenty of luxurious residences in the West, from the Buckingham Palace to Palace of Versailles, etc. Why should they be exempt from the evidence of "corruption" you speak of?
The second paragraph should be a clear indication that the West cares not if the country is democratic or not. As long as it serves their interests.
Oh, what a great argument. You win! /s
> Why should they be exempt from the evidence of "corruption" you speak of?
Because there's a paper trail of how these buildings came to be in the posession of their owners, and it's all rightful. Besides, Versailles, what a solid argument, duh, it's owned by the country? (But hey, don't let this fool you into believing you made a stupid argument). As for Buckingham Palace, well, the monarchy is a weird concept but it's now been molded into something that's palatable with democracy but hey, congratulations, now you've successfully changed to argument to be about monarchy vs democracy instead of the corrupt Yanukovych and Putin governments. You're so clever!
Talking about weak argument... Next level whataboutism.
Ukraine didn't want to be involved with soviet mentality.
Source: literal refugee friends from Ukraine.
All too well, in fact. That is why the trade agreement is being nullified. It no longer benefits the USA.
Gas was found in Crimea that could replace Russian deliveries.
Guess what they invaded first in 2014.
We are lucky the US was predicting the Russians were going to invade last year; the preparation saved the country (for now).
In any case, what cost MacArthur his job was putting too many toes over the bright line of civilian control of the military. I don't think Minihan's being as brazen about trying to influence policy as MacArthur was, but I suspect he may be being brazen enough, both from someone having leaked this memo in the first place, and from this:
> A U.S. defense official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said that Minihan’s comments “are not representative of the department’s view on China.”
If you don't know how to read these things, let me help you: this is DoD/military bureaucracy speak for "he fucked up."
> ... directs airmen who are qualified to use a weapon to “fire a clip into a 7-meter target with the full understanding that unrepentant lethality matters most” sometime in February.
> “Aim for the head,” he said.
- cheerleading war in Ukraine
- cheerleading anti-China sentiment (on their iPhones!)
- lamenting being laid off
Well guess what folks - we have a massive enlistment deficit in every armed service
Kill three birds with one stone, enlist today!
Another general already predicted a Taiwan war would happen in 2022:
https://nypost.com/2022/10/21/china-could-invade-taiwan-late...
It's not terrible reasoning, but there is a big gap between calendar dates & people actually shooting
desantis unfortunately wins in 2024, america goes full isolationist. as the 2028 election approaches, china will invade to ensure desantis becomes a war president and stays out of it. pushes racist chinese talk and makes sure china takes over taiwan. american then suffers massive tech inflation from lost semis and trade driving US into 2030 recession that will push for a Dem wave in 2032. basically, the whole 2000-2008 period is starting again. sigh
That's the first time I hear that. Source?
A more useful quip from the general might be "shooting war with china in next two years all but certain"
Also, an astroid needs to be quite big to destroy ALL life, even bacteria deep within the Earth's crust.
I would give a Chinese attempt to invide Taiwan between now and 2035 at least a 25% probability.
It's the same for poeple talking about extinction from nuclear war or climate change. There is little support in "The Science" for any prediction of a fatality rate of 100% from either (given current arsenals in the case of Nukes). People simply do not want to imagine what the world would be after a large scale nuclear war.
So if they're given advice that would actually significantly increase survival chances (such as duck&cover, having some store of fresh water, etc), they prefer to laugh it off instead of taking it seriously.
Alas, realizing that war is generally bad for human welfare is of course a somewhat trivial remark. I hope China and the US find a way to de-escalate. Recent commentary and media reports make it seem that a war in the 2020s is a foregone conclusion.
In adversarial terms, for China, it's now or never; for the U.S., it's later or never.
0: Check out how dark blue it is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_se...
China has been trying to incentivize people to have more children for a few years now, and it hasn't been working. Turns out, when the future looks bleak and you don't have time outside of work to socialize, let alone raise a child, you're less likely to be willing to have one.
Add to that all the work China did for decades to promote and enforce its widely-known one-child policy, and you've got a recipe for demographic collapse.
Seems a bit premature to draw any conclusion when the window includes the years of covid lockdowns.
In authoritarian communist countries you typically see silent protests in the form of giving up of quiet quitting. This would apply to starting families as well due to low levels of hope.
China's problem is a pipeline problem. What to do until the new humans arrive?
The problem with rate of birth decline IMO is it compresses and increases stress of PRC weathering society transitioning to more strategically/geopolitically suitable population levels from something like 80 years to 60 years which poses governance challenges. But productivity increase will chug on due to recomposition into a disproportionate high skilled society, by 100s of millions. Best way to conceptualize this is that PRC will be transitioning from current population mixture of roughly 2 Japans and 6 Nigerias to 6 Japans over next 60-80 years in terms of productive potential, the latter being a significantly more productive society even if it only has 60% of people due to net human capital upgrades. Higher birth rate means maybe PRC can manage transition largely alone with domestic births and automation, lower means importing 10s of millions of foreign workers and remittance outflows which is politically and strategically unpalatable. There's plenty to do, but some more politically preferrable than others.
If the West is not reacting soon, China's ability to dominate East Asia may extend well into the 2030s.
At some point, though, it's reasonable to expect stagnation in China, unless there is some black swan event (AGI breakthrough, large scale eugenic/crispr "directed evolution" or something similar that democratic countries do not have the stomach for)
US prefer sooner war because PRC military closing gap and will continue to both in platfrom numbers and capabilities.
PRC also has the BEST demographics to fight future wars. She's still going to generate multiple times US population as 800M country by 2100, except most will be high skilled necessary to operate modern military, which current reforms is running short on talent because access to high end mil talent is relatively new due to efforts paying off from past education reforms. Reality is, even depressed PRC demographics is still generating 8-5 million bodies a year, and all you really need is a few hundred thousand for modern war machine. The entire demographics will affect PRCs ability to wage war is frankly stupid. Doubly so in age where unmanned roles increasing which still overwhelmingly favours PRC industry.
Meanwhile PLA isn't even close to upper limit of military size and power, with a signficantly greater upper bound than US due to population and industrial base. Like her defense budget is ~2%. She's barely trying. Decades from now PLA will be multiple times more powerful than now, like PLA modernization plans anticipates MATCHING broad spectrum US military primacy after 2040s, there's no reason to do anything now especially if trigger is capability based. Condition based sure, like if TW declares indpendance or US crosses redlines, but that's not for PRC to decide.
Hence why all the PRC will attack TW "windows" are coming from US, because the long term trend significantly favours PRC who'd rather wait. At minimum until post 2030s until she builds out another few thousand nukes. Overlooking that PRC would rush TW scenario unilaterally without proper nuke umbrella is what gives these "windows" little credibility.
Whether it's democratic is not relevent to the definition. Dont let personal emotions affect literal meanings of English words.
The US also had a civil conflict where the south attempted to secede, I wouldnt consider it unreasonable to call what followed a reunification.
[0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reunify
potayto / potahto
being literal is pretending words don't exist in a wider context
And you're indirectly comparing Taiwan to the Confederate States which seceded primarily to continue the use of slavery.
Or am I wrong?
U.S. general warns troops that war with China is possible in two years(https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/01/27/...)
8 points|MilnerRoute|1 day ago|15 comments
Air Mobility Command Boss Predicts War with China in 2025 in Dire Memo(https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/usaf-general-warns-of-...)
4 points|graderjs|1 day ago|1 comments
Air Force general predicts war with China in 2025(https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/us-air-fo...)
3 points|baybal2|1 day ago|0 comments
U.S. four-star general warns of war with China in 2025(https://www.reuters.com/world/us-four-star-general-warns-war...)
4 points|Kukumber|19 hours ago|3 comments
US general warns troops that war with China is possible in two years(https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2023-01-27/us-air-force-...)
27 points|okasaki|45 minutes ago|50 comments
Air Force general predicts war with China in 2025, tells officers to get ready(https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/us-air-fo...)
7 points|ironyman|14 hours ago|3 comments
Japan, Netherlands Agree to Limit Exports of Chip-Making Equipment to China(https://www.wsj.com/articles/japan-netherlands-agree-to-limi...)
3 points|mfiguiere|14 hours ago|1 comments
In the end they are similar to bureaucracies, big companies and so on.
If I vehemently assert ownership of your house and bank account, should I get it? I think I should. And the police should stay out of it, because it's none of their business; it's just between you and me.
Your post adds no value.