Recently bought a Switch dock new on Amazon. What showed up was in a manilla envelope bubbled wrapped. The power adapter was hilariously fake to my eye but plenty of consumers wouldn’t notice. Here are images of a genuine Nintendo a/c adapter vs the counterfeit version:
USA cannot end the trade deficit. USA is a parasite on the world economy: it prints dollars and buys everything it needs with a pieces of paper (or zeros and ones in some bank computer).
Unlike almost all other countries in the world, where they have to work hard with their hands and brains to get something. USA printed more trillions only in the last year, that China - country that provides all the world, including US, with clothes, electronics and just about everything else - managed to save in the last 20 years.
This position is incredibly profitable for the USA, but it needs the largest military power to maintain status quo, because all the other countries understand they're being ripped off. And this military power immediately kills anyone who renounce use of dollar for trade (see Iraq, Libya).
If USA will end trade deficit somehow, it would mean that it would be on par with other countries, and population of USA would have to reduce its consumption of goods and resources by 15-20x. It will be the end of USA, most probably civil war and collapse.
Wargames are designed to be lost. It's not as useful to say "welp we stomped all over them" as it is to push the forces being tested further and further until they break, then fixing or compensating where it broke and pushing even further. Wargames aren't constrained by reality, and the game's opposing force may be more powerful than in reality. Just hearing that the US lost a wargame doesn't mean anything without knowing more details. Think of a wargame as the military's version of a pentest.
> Wargames are designed to be lost. It's not as useful to say "welp we stomped all over them" as it is to push the forces being tested further and further until they break, then fixing or compensating where it broke and pushing even further.
Wasn't there a pretty famous case, in a wargame meant to simulate conflict with Iran, where the red team general actually played to win but the game leaders reset things with new constraints that played to US advantages?
There are also pretty significant intrinsic problems with a Taiwan strait conflict: it's literally in China's backyard and the PLA is modernizing so the US can no longer rely on having an overwhelming technological advantage. IIRC, Taiwan's military strategy also assumes that they'll have a technological over the PRC, so they haven't embraced asymmetric tactics as much as they should.
From my armchair, it seems to me that Taiwan needs to adopt something like the Israeli model, where pretty much their whole population is in the reserves and can be mobilized quickly for a conflict. The US needs to figure out a way to reinforce and resupply it, and disentangle its supply chains from China to make that workable.
However, I'm not hopeful with the kind of leadership we have now. It's thinking is too short term and it's unwilling to make any really costly commitments.
You're probably thinking of the 2002 Millennium Challenge. That was a wargame plus a training exercise, which complicates things. For example, there were real US Navy ships out in the Persian Gulf, but to avoid disrupting commercial traffic they were confined to a specific area. The OPFOR (opposing forces) commander knew the confines, so he didn't have to scout for BLUFOR (US forces), and BLUFOR couldn't maneuver to avoid him. For another example, BLUFOR was jamming and destroying all of OPFOR's communications, so OPFOR switched to motorcycle runners. Unfortunately the simulation software didn't exactly support motorcycle runners, so they moved just as fast as radio communications but were invulnerable to BLUFOR strikes.
BLUFOR kept getting revived because it was also a training exercise in addition to a wargame. You've got dozens of ships gathered in the area to practice formation maneuvering, underway replenishment, etc, under wartime conditions. If you're on a ship that's blown up on day 2 of 20, what are you supposed to do for the rest of the time? It's better for training to revive casualties.
Stuff like this is why it's not easy to trust the outcome of a wargame.
>Wasn't there a pretty famous case, in a wargame meant to simulate conflict with Iran, where the red team general actually played to win but the game leaders reset things with new constraints that played to US advantages?
yes, wargames are designed to be difficult to win, unless political expediency interferes with the design.
We won Afghanistan fairly easily (a few months), and held it fairly easily for 19 years. And not to trivialize 4000 dead, but if it had mattered, that would have been a pretty small sacrifice.
Where we failed miserably was at turning the result into a stable country, but Taiwan is already a country.
Besides that, stability is always relative, in the longer term no country is ever stable, in the shorter term in the case of countries like Afghanistan they are stable about as long as other nations don't cross their borders.
Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and many others besides. All of these were at some point reasonably stable, and then someone somewhere decided to attempt to enlist them in one scheme or another and/or tried to wage a proxy war through them or actively tried to install regimes more friendly to foreign interests.
The Roman Empire in the long run also wasn't stable, but it fell to rot from within, as most countries eventually do. But in the case of Afghanistan the destructive force was applied from without.
Sure, but you can also examine recent US defense proposals / thinktank wonks gaming out indo pacific strategy, i.e. AGILE deployment in Japan, hosting IRBMs in region. The overwhelming pattern and prevailing consensus for those that follow the space is that despite proposals being aspirational / borderline geopolitical fantasy, US blobs aren't even pretending to pursue strategies that explicitly defend TW anymore. Force balance has changed so much with PRC military modernization that US simply cannot defend TW against PRC off her shores. So much so that it's barely worth speculating anymore. Focus is on containing PRC which =/= defending TW. Entirely different propositions that normies still try to conflate with TW defense.
Japan would care a lot if China made a move on Taiwan. They recently strengthened defense ties there.
Wouldn't just be the U.S.
Oh, and two of the above mentioned countries have real blue water navies that can go anywhere to cut supply lines like say, oil from the Middle East. One does not.
the thing is Taiwan can't count on the US as we have demonstrated that we aren't willing to help when called on by a nation we have treaty obligations to. The US agreed to defend Ukraine from Russia in event of invasion in exchange for Ukraine getting rid of its nuclear stockpile. Then Russia invaded the Crimean peninsula, part of Ukraine, and the US did nothing.
Why would the US treat Taiwan any differently when China is the US biggest trading partner?
As for Japan, they are constitutionally prevented from declaring war.
So of Taiwans strongest alies, one cant defend them,and one wont defend them.
Cutting oil from the ME would not be enough. China would ration oil and increase imports from Russia massively as well as reactivate domestic oil production, it would be great for the environment, China would carry on, and the US would make a lot of enemies.
The Ryukyus are mostly adjacent to Taiwan, it’s also where most of America’s Japan based military bases are. So in terms of air power brought to bare, China has a huge hill to climb with enemies right next door. The main reason that China has pushed for dominance of the entire South China Sea is simply so that they aren’t easily hemmed in from the rest of the world.
A war between the USA and China would ultimately do no one good, even Chinese wolf warriors should realize that.
No, it really doesn't. Japan doesn't have the capacity to deploy enough air power to affect the invasion. If Japan made the strategic mistake of getting involved militarily before the US, the Chinese would use ballistic missiles to strike Japanese airbases and supply infrastructure and carry on.
I agree it would do no good to have a war between the US and China for anyone. I want Taiwan to stay independent and chose its own destiny. But the reality is that China has an overwhelming advantage in-theater over anyone and it's only getting worse.
If China invaded Taiwan, Europe would stand together with the US on any retaliation. It would be the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait all over again, geopolitically. China would be cut off dead from the global economy, no matter the cost. I don’t think it would be practical to liberate Taiwan, but China would be ruined.
China is not Iraq. It's insane to compare the two.
Europe was okay with the first invasion of Iraq because they frankly had very little to lose and a lot to gain.
Meanwhile suiciding the EU economy by cutting off Chinese exports would hurt the EU a lot more than it would hurt China and certainly much more than the invasion of Kuwait.
In any case I'd recommend reading what Chinese generals write on the subject. For the exact same reason as you cited they don't want to invade Taiwan unless "necessary" until the balance of trade shifts far more into the Chinese side.
Yet when confronted on the possibility of doing it now they make a very solid point. China is the only country in the world that produces everything it needs for daily operations, without a single exception, in one way or another.
That is to say, in the Chinese calculus, the EU and US cutting themselves off of Chinese trade would hurt the former more in the short term and medium term than it would hurt China, and their arguments for it are compelling.
Beyond that, the truth is that there is a lot more to the economy than the EU and the US. China would still trade with Russia, Africa, South East Asia, almost definitely South Korea, and most of Central and South Asia.
The real thing that is at issue in Chinese military planning is not a voluntary embargo, it's a blockade by the US. But even the ability for the US to execute such a maneuver is already questionable and dwindles every year, and it would assuredly royally piss of the entirety of the world and definitely kill millions outside of China from economic dysfunction.
>China is the only country in the world that produces everything it needs for daily operations, without a single exception, in one way or another.
Tell me what I'm missing about their domestic oil industry then, because everything else I'm reading tells me they need to import around 10 million barrels of crude oil a day (primarily to produce gasoline and diesel, so it's very hard to substitute).
Indeed, they do. They still have the domestic capacity to expand internal production to cover most of those 10 million barrels. I didn't say they produce everything they need in sufficient quantities, just that they produce it. It would cause short term trouble and rationing but long term the impact is mitigated.
Looking at the most recent numbers, they produced just under 4 million barrels a day domestically. Oil production isn't something where you can just triple the output over a few months. China has been working to expand their internal production for a while, and it takes billions of dollars and years to do so: https://www.forbes.com/sites/edhirs/2019/06/06/china-is-bett...
Did you read the article? Why would they plan to spend 77 billion over 5 years for a 50% increase in production if they could crank it out of their existing infrastructure in under 100 days?
And even if Russia repudiated every other contract they have in Asia, it doesn't look like they have the pipeline capacity to get that much oil to China, even if the cross border capacity for China to import it existed. So it would have to come on tankers, which would generate some interesting geopolitical brinkmanship.
That's assuming things don't escalate far beyond sanctions or a possible blockade. The risk with a naval confrontation is that it's very easy to quickly generate casualties that would make backing down politically suicidal. Even just a few of the smaller ships getting sunk means hundreds of dead sailors.
77 billion is the price to do it right over 5 years. If you don't care about quality and are willing to spend more you can do it faster. We have historical examples of this.
The pipeline capacity alone from Russia to China is 1.6mbd. Of that, 600 000bd are used, so there is 1mbd of spare capacity just in that pipeline.
It doesn't really matter if the US can or can't back down. It will be disastrous politically and economically to the US and its allies to a level that can scarcely be imagined. Even then, US naval forces have a serious chance of defeat. China is not a small country you can roll over. They have a very well thought out, multilayered, exceedingly technologically sophisticated A2/AD umbrella that means that millions of square kilometers will be in practice off limits to the US. Beyond those zones, China enjoys extremely prompt hypersonic strike capability that has no real counter, which means that in a hot war any US vessel that gets it's rough location leaked running a blockade or running through a strait risks getting sunk straight up.
It's not a war that the US can win. What are the objectives? Take back Taiwan? Literally impossible. Regime change in China? Forget about it. About the only thing that can be done is to hurt the Chinese economy roughly as much as the US economy, enrage the entire rest of the world and destroy any semblance of goodwill the US has, and trigger a recession followed by a restructuring of the US economy that reduces the place of the US in the value chain.
It's simply a stupid move that has no upside. It doesn't matter how the public acts immediately, eventually the US will have to give up.
"China is the only country in the world that produces everything it needs for daily operations, without a single exception, in one way or another."
...produces finished goods. China cannot do this without massive imports of raw materials copper, iron ore, coal, etc. China has effectively colonized Africa for access to said raw materials.
Belt and Road is a way to set up overland routes to avoid any naval blockades.
I live in Africa and I have never been told what to do by a Chinese official or business - or even a local official actin on the instructions of a mandarin.
Unless you have watered 'colonisation' down to 'Chinese interests own some stuff in parts of Africa'.
Which - to indulge my woke hat - pretty offensive to people who lived under actual colonisation.
That's fair, don't understand the downvotes. The thing is colonisation now extends to things like believing western science and liking western music. It's become watered down to just mean any form of developed world influence.
Just a small correction: there is no such thing as Western science.
There is just science.
[Unless people truly believe the Chinese space programme uses its own, different physics, or that the concrete in the new Ethiopian dam on the Nile river has its own chemistry.]
JP/TW had "security" dialogue that basically amounted to JP begging Taiwan for semi fabs. JP isn't going to do shit because like US they're even less capable of defending TW. JP actions has been all rhetoric. It means nothing until they commit to credible but politically expensive actions. Some notional missile force increase on Ryukyu is theatre when what's needed is massive mobilization of main islands (and put every JP civilian in harms way) outside of Okinawa as prescribed in AGILE. It's not going to happen, they can't even commit to land based Aegis Ashore ABM to save themselves from NK nukes.
>One does not.
PRC has blue water Navy that operates up to ME and has been for years. It's also signifantly larger and more capable than Japans. I suspect you need to update understanding from old Zeihan powerpoints.
With respect to US, PRC has 30 CEP ICBMs which means USNavy vessels become scrap the second they pull into port. Even nuclear carriers can't stay at sea forever, nevermind their sustainment / oilers / resupply ships will be long gone. US carrier groups will likely be one-time deployment assets. This is roughly reality now, and and even more dire in the coming years. US can sink every PLAN ship on the waters and PRC can sink every USN ship in port. Or destroy entire east Asian fab supply chain, setting back US industry/tech decades. Or bait US security commitments in Korea / Japan which compels US to send assets within 1st island chain where they are weakest, negating point of blockade outside of 1st island chain. The wank over blockading PRC via Malacca / SLOC overlooks the fact that at minimum PRC can force US to sign a hegemony suicide pact. PRC can make US lose everything even in defeat. And is willing to over TW.
Acknowledging reality is wolf warrior now? Yes, I encourage people to read my comment history on the subject to get sense of current US/PRC strategic thinking and update their model likely formed by bad takes from pop Chinawatching sources. Consensus today is dramatically different than consensus from 5/10 years ago, yet there's still folks pretending TW is hard to invade / easy to defend nonesense arguments from 20 years ago.
The only thing that will stop china from interfering in Taiwan is, universal consciousness willing, South Korea and Japan along with the other Asian nations having enough sway with China to keep them at bay. I very much prefer not to entertain WW3, but as others have said many times recently, if it is going to start, it may very well be over Taiwan.
The issue is, the CCP sees Taiwan as theirs when in reality China belongs to Taiwan.
It would seem a treaty acknowledging Taiwan as an independent sovereign would be an ideal outcome, but it's weird to see nations express wounded pride, imo
That would be like saying the US belongs to the Native Indians, the Vikings or the British. It might be true, but what is the point exactly? Like it or not but Might Is Right and in less than 20 years Might equals PRC above all else (including the US, yes).
> That would be like saying the US belongs to the Native Indians, the Vikings[...]
That's not quite right. The government of Taiwan consists (consisted?) at least partially of the literal former government of the country now commonly known as China before the "cultural revolution" that murdered tens of million of people and put the CCP into power.
The closest analogy that you can get is the idea that the US belongs to the British (as they were our former government) - which you can make a decent case for, although I would still argue that the vastly different natures of the Revolutionary War and the Cultural Revolution still make them distinct.
The Republic of China was the government of China from 1912 until 1949 when it was overthrown by the CCP and retreated to Taiwan. Until at least 1971 the UN recognized it as the legitimate government of all of China.
The poster's comment is outdated, but that's the historical background -- and why it's less crazy than you might have assumed without knowing the history.
There is more relevant history: when the ROC retreated to Taiwan, they killed a lot of the upper crust of the Taiwanese already on the island. Truth is, while Japan treated Korea fairly bad, they treated Taiwan as an almost province, so that fostered a lot of distrust between the KMT and the Taiwanese on the island before they arrived, leading to atrocities. The pre-1949 Taiwanese distrust the mainlanders a lot (represented by both the ROC and PRC).
Most Taiwanese would rather refer to throw off the legacy of the ROC completely, but doing so would be considered an act of war by the PRC.
I remember my mind being blown when I read about internal Taiwanese politics and learned that both parties are more or less anti-independence.
The liberals / doves think it would provoke China, and be too high a price to pay for something that's already de facto truth.
But the conservatives / hawks argue against it because they deny the legitimacy of the PRC, so why would Taiwan need to declare it's independence from rebels in its own country?
> Possession counts for a lot more than theoretical legal legitimacy.
So in your mind, the act of murder "counts for a lot more" [0] than someone's right to their own life, and theft does not exist, since whoever possesses something owns it?
[0] What's the unit we're counting in? How do you "count" intellectual integrity or moral character?
>Might does not make right in questions of rule of law
Sure it does. The laws are written by those who can enforce them. That is by definition those with Might. If that is barbarism then all of earth is under barbarism (and I'd argue that this is true).
History is full of good examples. The Nuremberg trials is a great example of Might Is Right. The exact same laws used against the Nazis never were enforced on US citizens.
Rule of law does not have baked into it that laws are written by the mighty, or even that they can or will be enforced, consistently or otherwise. Merely that laws exist, can be made, and unmade, and should be followed.
After all, there was a reason the Founders advised that it was a great evil to put a law on the books that couldn't be reasonably enforced due to the tendency to deligitimize the authority in question.
The current status quo depends on the PRC pretending that Taiwan is ruled by a regional government, while the Taiwanese government has restricted its actual scope to Taiwan. To this effect, in 1991 Taiwan has added articles to its constitution to account for the fact that its government has only control over the "Taiwan Area".
The actual policy of the Taiwanese government depends on who is in charge at the moment. The Pan-Blue Coalition favors reunification, while the Pan-Green Coalition tries to assert a separate Taiwanese national identity.
The claim on the rest of China is still there, but only because it cannot be dropped in practice. The PRC would interpret dropping the claim on the rest of China as a declaration of Secession and Independence, which would have diplomatic and possibly military consequences.
I also don't understand your comment. I went so far as to quickly skim through the history of Taiwan and I don't understand why you said China belongs to Taiwan?
Why were the Fourth Republic upstarts allowed to take control from the Vichy regime? De Gaulle's people ran for the hills and lost any claim to their old territory.
I expect his argument is that the former national government of mainland China fled to Taiwan during the revolution.
This is true, but it doesn't make a strong argument for legitimacy. Former governments flee countries frequently, and unless there is a rapidly implemented plan to try to get them back into power they are generally ignored.
Taiwan is better viewed as a breakaway state than having any legitimate stake in the government of mainland China.
One could even argue that the agreement Great Britain had for the 100 year lease of Hong Kong was with the Nationalist (Taiwan) government and not the PRC.
Whether it is colonial or not does not matter for legitimacy. A blanket rejection of treaties on the basis of being colonial and unfair would invalidate all border agreements between former colonial countries.
Of course, the international community can condemn treaties and push for decolonialization, but in most cases this is foiled by the refusal of the colonial power to give up the claim. Examples: Falkland islands, West Sahara, Goa (reconquered by India using military force).
In many cases, it is advantegeous for both parties to seek a peaceful decoloniazation treaty, which becomes a part of international law and formal basis for the future claim on the decolonized territory.
It has a huge impact in practice. The international community will look much more favourably on a country that violates a colonial treaty with its former Metropolis than with any other country.
In practice, colonial era treaties are less legitimate. No one except the parties directly materially affected care.
> the agreement Great Britain had for the 100 year lease of Hong Kong was with the Nationalist (Taiwan) government and not the PRC
This appears to be a difficult argument to make in a consistent way. HK was ceded to GB a the Treaty of Nanking[1] which was between the UK and the Qing Dynasty Chinese government. It was later expanded in 1897, again with the Qing Dynasty.
That Dynasty collapsed in the early 20th century. That was followed by the warlord era, and then the nationalist government in the 1930s. That lasted until defeated by the Communist government in 1949.
So there were only around 20 years the Nationalist government governed mainland China, and it was long after the treaty ceding HK.
So the smart thing for the British government to have done would have been to declare the treaty invalid when the PRC came to power. GB could have claimed Hong Kong in perpetuity and the PRC would not have dared to stand up to GB in that era.
Well apart from over 70 years of mostly stable government (with Tiananmen square being the exception) they are broadly recognized by most countries and the UN and have been for close to 50 years.
There's little evidence of support in China or even in Taiwan for the idea that the Taiwan government are the legitimate government of mainland China, and Taiwanese ambition is pretty much limited in practical terms to self government.
Indeed, I don't believe Taiwan claims China in anyway I can find reference to.
> the latest war game was based on a Chinese biological-weapon attack that swept through US bases and warships in the Indo-Pacific region more than a decade in the future
If China starts a war by releasing a biological weapon, Taiwan will be the least of their concerns. I don't see any scenario in which every Western and neutral nation on Earth doesn't turn against them. Maybe Russia helps, but I doubt it.
Hmm. Hard to imagine. Nothing remotely similar has ever happened. But, now that I think of it, the consequence might be something like a pandemic, which coincidentally we are in now.
I am a European and the idea that two superpowers would actually go to full-on war seems absurd. At least, I hope all sides agree that it is a terrible idea.
We haven't had full-on war between two sides that are "in the same league" since WW2. The cold war was tense, and there have been proxy wars, or wars between a super power and a tiny power.
When two sides are matched somewhat evenly, that's when the loss of life has been dramatic, as we've seen in both world wars.
I really hope I don't see a full on war between super powers in my or my children's lifetimes, because it would be brutal.
I mean, would we really see aircraft carriers and bombers in action? submarines? Will both sides blow up each other's satellites and create a Kessler syndrome? At which point do they start threatening with nukes?
No, I can imagine some power projection and rough play, but I don't think anyone is considering full-on war.
This is definition of ad hominem. Sure, there's a motivation, but do you think the war games are a conspiracy? I don't find it difficult to imagine the US would fail to protect an ally on enemy turf.
1) "Last fall, the latest war game was based on a Chinese biological-weapon attack that swept through US bases and warships in the Indo-Pacific region"
These are superfluous conditions (i.e. predicting bioweapons), and of course, and you're not going to hear about the 'real' results. And of course it ignores the after effects.
2) Defenders have considerable advantage in that situation, especially with a water gap. The 'amphibious assault' situation is severely hampered by the fact that even with air cover, all Chinese surface vessels are 'extremely vulnerable'.
Literally just a single, 2-man style team weapon system, if it could actually be deployed without sabotage, could make it nary impossible for such landings. I think it would be crazy for Taiwan not to have specialty capabilities against that kind of assault. Landing operations very dangerous for the landers.
3) Taiwan has 23M most of whom won't go down without a fight. It's incredibly difficult to occupy a place like that.
4) The 'angle' for China is likely political, and to land a vanguard of political operatives, saboteurs of all kinds, media controllers etc. and possibly to try a 'coup from within' as opposed to a frontal military confrontation.
5) Any direct military engagement would be met with pretty serious repercussions, for the first time maybe, from the West. It would be 'a big deal'.
If there were actually even a small US confrontation and say a couple of US frigates were sunk ... don't underestimate how Americans will rally under the wrath of that offence. 90% of the generally anti-war voices will quiet and look the other way while the 'other half' of the US releases the dragons in one way or another. If, as in the stated example there were 'Bioweapons' used against the US, then it would be WW3 level escalation and a nuclear standoff.
So again 'military confrontation' is a big deal, but 'military confrontation with Americans' is a much bigger deal they won't forget.
In either case, the tide of geopolitics will shift dramatically.
NPTO - the Asian equivalent of NATO would be formed instantly, with UK and EU as participating members.
TPP v2 - this would happen immediately and China would be de-facto ignored / out of the WTO.
There would be a China v. 'Almost Everyone Else' Cold War in which everyone would be forced to choose sides. In that scenario, there are actually very few places that would chose China, if forced. Aside from Russia, which would try to 'broker peace' (and of course Iran/N. Korea/Afghanistan/Syria) I think the only real holdouts would be in Africa, and they wouldn't be consequential. The Arab world would mostly go 'With the US/EU-led rest of the world' and so would South American for the most part.
6) We 'do business' with Taiwan in the hope that they can remain at least at their current levels of independence.
If China wants to take Taiwan and leverage the kind of spineless 'look the other way' artefact of our businesses and politicians they'll do it piece by piece, and/or make it look like a popular and legitimate 'coup' - and that Chinese forces are there 'only to ensure order and stability' and to 'protect democracy'. They need to give enough political cover to Nike, Pizza Hut and Apple to not pull out from China etc.. Kind of like Crimea, where we just 'forgot about it'.
2) A giant smokescreen? Creeping (missile) barrage of the beach? There are plenty of ways to make it hard to target anything on a beach. Air cover and missile defense will be a big deal.
3) You mean the civilian population will fight to the death? Absolutely no way that's true. Russia showed the way in Crimea: offer incentives to those who support the "liberation"; it both erodes defender support and gives the attackers more legitimacy.
5) Headlines for days, sure, but recently the West has shown that its "red lines" are more crossable than they might appear.
If the PRC ever manages to take even momentary control of Taiwan, there's no way they let it slip away again. And remember that the ocean supply lines heavily favor China over the US (even from Japan or South Korea) for any sort of protracted conflict. The only wild card is nuclear weapons, and all we can do is hope that neither side is insane enough to use them, "tactically" or "strategically."
Pacific NATO was called SEATO. We might be surprised at how few committed and capable allies we'd have. It'd be in most countries' interest to stay neutral in an uncertain war between the current and future economic superpowers. I'd also wager that there'll be much less domestic support for sending hundreds of thousands of Americans to die over Taiwan than there was as a response to Pearl Harbor.
> I'd also wager that there'll be much less domestic support for sending hundreds of thousands of Americans to die over Taiwan than there was as a response to Pearl Harbor.
The US was interfering in Japan's affairs (particularly hampering access to oil) in the lead up to late 1941, even though support for either war was in the low 60%s prior to Pearl Harbor (amazingly as low as 7% when the Netherlands, Belgium, and France were invaded).[0] The US government, in some respects, forced the Japanese's hands in a stretched gamble by attacking it first. In a hypothetical confrontation, given the historical support US (among others) have shown Taiwan, even the existing interference alone could force China's hands to take some action that causes a drastic increase in domestic support.
In other words, my wager is that you're probably correct, but the probability of a forced action after some aggression has taken place, which subsequently causes an increase of domestic support would be more likely to occur.
Not sure US baiting Japan for Pearl harbor, but nowadays US is not the country 80 years ago. Politicians, military leaders are not as capable, more critically the industrial base is crippled. The king almost naked.
2) If you've seen these type of landings, you know that 'smoke screens' are not an area cover, just some very local cover. They can be accounted for.
Missiles barrages are not particularly useful unless they have some kind of targeting ability that we don't know about. There are not enough missiles, same for artillery. They will be able to hit communications centres and established defences, but as I said, if there is a '2 man team weapon' - and Taiwan can actually deploy them, the landings will be painful.
3) I don't agree with the Crimea Taiwan comparison.
a) 1/2 of Crimeans were pro-Russian, the rest not necessarily nationalist, or prepared. There was no material military defence of Crimea, Ukraine is poor, corrupt, and uncoordinated. Crimea is fairly sparsely populated, and nobody in the world cares about it, other than the fact it was 'taken'.
b) Taiwan is a rich, highly populated country, a strong sense of identity even if their a Pro Mainland nationalists, there are millions otherwise. They wealthy, very well prepared, very well organized. They have weapons, training a political cause. Taiwan is a mid-sized economy 'that matters'.
If CCP completely overruns Taiwan in a very heavy-handed way, with visible footprint everywhere (tanks rolling through most areas), then there might be a lack of an uprising.
But if there is any coordinated attempt by Taiwan to prepare for that, and any material ability for fighters to operate, there will be ongoing fighting.
5) I think you're misunderstanding the 'reaction'.
Yes, if CCP did 'Take Taiwan' - then there's probably no way anyone would uproot them directly. Unless there was an ongoing civil uprising etc. - then it's going to belong to China.
But there would be a 1) Geopolitical re-orientation like there never has been and 2) Americans do not rollover when there is blood involved. If China 'sinks a US ship' then 'they will pay' probably a disproportionately heavy price.
'Asian NATO' will form under completely new auspices: India, Vietnam, Philippines, Japan, Korea etc. are now witnessing the China Dragon with a military conflict and so their fear escalates.
To your point about 'Neutrality' - Singapore might be, but not others, like India, Japan, Korea, and Arab countries which the US has incredible power over.
The 'South China Sea' probably becomes the forum for retribution, and I can see a multinational force, led by the US declaring that area 'open seas' and basically attacking any Chinese forces there. That'd be one way for the US to get their 'pound of flesh' to save face.
Pan Pacific Trade v2 would surely happen for the same reasons - it was going to happen, the only reason it did not was Trump, and now that he's killed it, it's just too hard to get going again. But a Taiwan invasion would trigger that. The 'possibly neutral' countries on the military side would more likely join this - their 'neutrality' is mostly based on fear of China, not fear of the West.
A Taiwan invasion might probably mean immediate trade war between the US and China, with the rest of the world dragged in.
And the more global geopolitical repercussions would be a little bit similar to the Cold War. The US/EU/UK/India/Japan/Korea+Others 'side' would put immense pressure on the system to try to isolate China.
Again, yes, I think China would end up keeping Taiwan, but it's the 'realignment' outside China that is the real impact.
Anyhow - direct invasion of Taiwan would be a big deal.
I think you are radically underestimating the soft power China has in Asia. Countries like Vietnam and the Philippines are far from Chinese allies, but have little faith in US commitment to the region and have to survive in the region.
There's probably a number of people in leadership positions in the region who accept the realpolitik that is isn't worth fighting China over Taiwan.
> Americans do not rollover when there is blood involved.
Your point about Vietnam and Philippines wavering on direct conflict is well taken but I did hint at that.
I didn't say 'they would be going to war over Taiwan' - I would agree with you there there.
In the geopolitical realignment, they'd be in a difficult situation, and though they might not join the Asian NATO, they'd join the new Trade Pact.
Neither Sweden nor Finland nor Austria belong to NATO either, but there's a fair degree of coordination still.
But Japan, S. Korea, India would, and that's the start of a fairly powerful coalition - some of which would probably engage the Chinese Navy in S. China sea, and maybe be involved in blockades.
"Americans do not rollover when there is blood involved Plenty of recent evidence says otherwise. :
I don't know what you mean. 9/11 resulted in two major wars and that was a non-state actor.
China sinking a couple of US ships is definitely an act of war, the only question would be 'how' the US would respond. It would be in blood, not just 'sanctions'.
> I don't know what you mean. 9/11 resulted in two major wars and that was a non-state actor.
As I said elsewhere: In the last few years the US has been run out of Iraq by Iran, Syria by Russia and Afghanistan by the Taliban. I don't see much appetite for going back to any of those.
Or more starkly: The US lost both those wars and the US population is sick of it.
If China sank a couple of US ships, I'm sure the US would declare war. But China would be 100% committed to winning an invasion of Taiwan, no matter what the cost.
The US.. not so much.
> Japan, S. Korea, India would, and that's the start of a fairly powerful coalition - some of which would probably engage the Chinese Navy in S. China sea, and maybe be involved in blockades.
Note that none of these countries have every said they would defend Taiwan in the event of an invasion. That's statement is conspicuously absent from anyone at all, actually.
As for a blockade, I think you are - again - overestimating support Taiwan has, and underestimating the realpolitik that would happen.
Where are the blockades over Chinese behaviour in Hong Kong? Or diplomatic protests? Or...anything at all other than newspaper articles?
The US was not run out of Iraq by Iran, not was it run out of Syria by Russia. That's a total misrepresentation of the situation.
The US lost the political will to stay in Afghanistan. It wasn't actually that difficult or costly, just not worth it.
There was no appetite for war after Vietnam, and yet Iraq 1, Iraq 2 and Afghanistan all happened.
If China invaded Taiwan, then the 'appetite for war would change' and if a couple of American ships were sunk, then the 'appetite for war' would be at 100%.
Sometimes I think I'm debating young people with no living memory of how these things change over time and how Americans absolutely do not tolerate direct attacks.
Pearl Harbour, 9/11, both had devastating consequences.
America was run out off Syria by Russia. There was lots of other things going on too, but Russia got a deep water port in the Mediterranean - something that both the British and American empires tried to stop for hundreds of years - before the Crimean war.
I mean Turkish forces shelled a US post in Syria at one point and laughed about it. That's how worried the rest of the world is about US appetite for war.
> As I said elsewhere: In the last few years the US has been run out of Iraq by Iran, Syria by Russia and Afghanistan by the Taliban. I don't see much appetite for going back to any of those.
As was said elsewhere here, the Afghanistan war was won quickly. Afghanistan was also easily kept. And that's fighting against an opponent using guerilla tactics. What failed was nation-building. But that's not the goal with a confrontation with China. The goal is symmetric warfare to hold back an invasion. Defensive warfare is easier than offensive, so the cost would be far higher on China invading than Taiwan/US defending.
> If there were actually even a small US confrontation and say a couple of US frigates were sunk ... don't underestimate how Americans will rally under the wrath of that offence.
I suspect you are drastically overestimating the US public's appetite for another war. In the last few years the US has been run out of Iraq by Iran, Syria by Russia and Afghanistan by the Taliban. I don't see much appetite for going back to any of those.
Those essentially local attempts at occupation and state building are completely different to a potential hypothetical symmetrical war with China that implicates the whole global order.
> US public support for a war over Taiwan is modest: one recent poll found significant majorities of foreign policy elites supporting US intervention, but only about 40 per cent of the American public backing it. (Even that figure likely reflects soft and reflexive backing; the country has not fought a major war against a peer adversary for two generations, and in the event of catastrophic US losses amidst perceptions that the war was unnecessary, public support could collapse very quickly.)[1]
And if the last 10 years of US politics has taught us anything it is how vulnerable the US is to arguments that cause division. China has plenty of money, and plenty of people who will be economically hurt by a war. It's pretty easy to make an argument against defending China.
Piece by piece sounds good. But after Xi and the rest of the old men who run the country kick the can, I find it hard to believe next gen Chinese leaders will care about Taiwan as much. Whats the upside to them for all this drama?
Taiwan is the #1 foreign policy issue of China and maybe a top 3 long term goal - they consider it existential to their existence.
China is an ethnocentric state, they have long memories and they plan for things.
Xi is definitely more aggressive than the others, but China basically will be trying to 'get Taiwan back forever'.
Frankly, the 'long term solution' if Taiwan remains free, may be something like a 'One China' where Taiwan is actually completely independent. Maybe even Tibet and HK. That would probably only happen if China fell apart, there were wars, and we had this Peace Agreement where the world nominally recognized China as 'One Entity' even if they were actually completely different nation states. That is obviously not likely to happen but aside from a Chinese->Taiwan invasion I don't see how union happens.
The 'Taiwan Issue' is totally nonnegotiable to China, any attempt to bring the issue up in foreign policy discussions would have the Chinese Officials walk out in anger. As far as they are concerned 'Taiwan is China and There Is No Discussion' about it.
My first year at university I took over the student radio program and found such a computer had been left online for months directly connected to the internet. It was so pwned the mouse would struggle to move.
I wish to this day I’d imaged the hard drive before formatting it. It’d have been so much fun to boot up in a VM to play with today.
I for one hated gambling on overclocks that could brick my expensive hardware. I’m glad the equipment being sold today comes at max performance out of the box and that the reputable company making it will support it.
Regarding the max-performance-out-of-the-box, unfortunately you're mistaken. Part of the reason people could often get insane overclocks out of their hardware was that AMD and Intel would periodically produce a higher than expected number of processors that could handle a greater clock speeds. And rather than cutting prices on those parts they'd simply configure and sell them as a lower-spec'd part - so back in the day AXIA core Athlons may have been sold at 1GHz, but would often comfortably hit 1.33GHz and beyond[0]. This still happens to this day[1], nothing's different about that.
Whether you're comfortable going down this unsupported/warranty-breaking route is another story, but it's certainly not the case that all processors nowadays are sold at their peak possible performance out of the box.
I have the latest newest xbox, and it's so confusing, I couldn't actually tell you the name of it. I think it's pretty close to what you have there. Maybe without the "360"? But I distinctly recall that it seems to be a mishmash of other xbox names.
Upvoting this grayed-out comment. Like it or not, overly generalized/personalized or not, this is still an important truth about how journalism is sustained under capitalism.
Extremely large quantities of money have been removed from the business models of traditional, worker-employing journalism and redirected to Google, Facebook etc. to the point where I don't understand how any of the traditional old school businesses remain functioning at all. Hell, Craigslist struggles, and Craigslist was an early wave of the internet hurting what newspapers do.
"Yep. All ad money went to zuck, brin, and page" is glib, but does not deserve this degree of downvoting. In important ways, it's the truth.
Not sure about Craigslist. How is anyone expected not to struggle when they seem to have done little in terms of improvements in 25 years? I checked whether it's still alive and it had a few listings in Berlin, one of which may or may not be offering to sell a baby, so at least it's kind of a weird lawless place, but I'm not sure that's enough to run a business on (might be good enough for a few reddit threads exploring creepy stuff though).
I'm sure that ad spending has shifted online, but traditional media companies have been losing audience before Google launched News and Facebook started to dominate. There's plenty to blame, and the web as a whole probably played a part, but I'm not sure it's the primary driver. Before there were online alternatives, there was TV or just not getting "the news" at all. Relying on not having competition feels like a bad idea with regards to being a sustainable business.
These “assets” are usually just participation trophies in decentralized Ponzi schemes. Bitcoin is propped up by the ongoing tether scandal that is now larger than Bernie Madoff ever was.
https://ibb.co/qkK3mWm https://ibb.co/d7qGvLd