Hong Kong: Police Raid Tiananmen Square Museum
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
Closing the media outlets, museums, websites that speak against them. And a few key people get abducted here and there to scare more people and force them to accept the Beijing Regime. But... The people from Hong Kong still demonstrates and tries to fight for their lost rights.
that was really powerful
makes me want to rethink some of my flippant comments about Taiwan's impending doom after we get our semiconductor pylons up in other places, but now at least they have my sympathy
All I heard was "husband", "daughter" and "whole family".
https://nypost.com/2021/03/11/us-war-games-over-china-threat...
It is not okay to assume USA supremacy against adversaries anymore.
Why Americans still do business with China is astounding to me.
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.
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
What on earth is this supposed to mean?
I'm no fan of the Chinese government, but trying to claim it is illegitimate seems a pretty big stretch.
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.
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.
In practice, colonial era treaties are less legitimate. No one except the parties directly materially affected care.
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.
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.
That’s exactly what the Chinese government is doing though. Isn’t that a bit of a stretch too?
China claims Taiwan just as Taiwan (more or less seriously, but I doubt with any will to ever try and recover it) claims China.
Or more like they both claim to be the legitimate government of greater China.
Unless it's barbarism then. At that point I'm pretty sure the biggest functional nuclear stockpile wins though.
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.
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.
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?
> That’s exactly what the Chinese government is doing though. Isn’t that a bit of a stretch too?
Yes it is.
Doesn't make the OP's comment any less surprising through.
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.
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.
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?
This does not make them anti-independence, just not suicidal.
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.
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.
Japan surely want to help, but US daddy won't allow rearming herself.
Other Asian nations?
"Why should I care, where is my economy development"
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'.
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.
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.
[1] https://www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/countering-china-...
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.
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.
[0] https://exhibitions.ushmm.org/americans-and-the-holocaust/us...
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'.
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.
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.
Plenty of recent evidence says otherwise.
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'.
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?
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.
There was perhaps a short period before the Iraq war where they were close to defeat but from memory there was never a point they stopped fighting.
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.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/10/08/after-five-years-of-fig...
https://www.news18.com/news/opinion/after-10-years-of-syrian...
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/trump-applauds-russia-vic...
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.
https://www.militarytimes.com/2019/10/13/us-troops-believe-t...
Iran has run America out of Iraq.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/18/leaked-cables-...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/18/leaked-cables-...
Where was any appetite to do anything about China's actions in HK?
Care to share a link? All I can think of is https://pacificrim.fandom.com/wiki/Jaeger XD
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Meanwhile, China has reserves for 100 days of imports.
In the long term domestic and Russian production will catch up fully.
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.
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.
...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.
Where do you you get this crap from?
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.
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.]
China produces very significant amounts of copper ore, iron ore, coal, and has the facilities to expand production on short notice .
It would hurt production in the short term, yes, but there wouldn't be anything that China would completely miss.
A war between the USA and China would ultimately do no one good, even Chinese wolf warriors should realize that.
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.
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.
We legit need their semi production for defense much more than we need cheap plastic kids toys at Walmart.
>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.
I don’t see a need to rebut your false claims and would encourage folks to read your comment history.
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.
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.
yes, wargames are designed to be difficult to win, unless political expediency interferes with the design.
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.
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.
MAD seems to be a very effective peace strategy. China already has nukes. Seems the essential missing ingredient is the 'M'.
If the US gives nukes to Taiwan, what would stop China giving nukes to eg Venezuela (or whatever South or Central American nation the US doesn't like that month).
Edit: previously I wrote "If the US gives nukes to China". I meant Taiwan here of course.
The question posed by the parent is arming Taiwan to defend itself.
In a similar situation (the US had nukes in turkey and other areas close to the USSR) the Soviet Union used the same rational (in part) to justify putting nukes in Cuba. Just leveling the playing field. The result was the closest we’ve ever gotten to a nuclear conflict.
From one point of you could argue this was “fair”, because the US already had missiles close to the USSR and this was leveling the playing field, but fair is a meaningless concept in geopolitical relations. Leaving bad and good aside, who would ever want their rival to place nuclear weapons close by?
The government of China would have to be either traitorous or insane to not do everything in their power to prevent this from happening.
By the time it was announced, it would already be done.
The only real option China would have would be 'force' and a frontal war with China is a really big deal.
That said, US-provided nukes for Taiwan would be a major escelation and fingers would be pointed in the direction of the US for 'blame' etc.. A lot of people would throw a fit over that.
It might be better to just put a US base there because it means the same thing, and more: if you mess with Taiwan, even if you overrun the local US forces, you have 'awoken the actual Dragon' and no amount of 'internal division' in the US would hamper them from becoming united against China and of course all sorts of other huge material fallouts.
Ironically, I think it's the American regime who would not be able to pull it off. It would require cooperation among to many agencies and serious leadership. There'd have to be a pretty good President, with a lot of leverage, he'd have to be popular in the polls, have the backing of the Pentagon etc. etc.. I just can't see that working out so directly. It'd have to be done in a roundabout way.
Unfortunately 'some money to helping Taiwanese' would basically be futile, as there wouldn't likely be a way for that to be applied. (Donations are not going to help Hong Kong, now and won't help Taiwan in the event of invasion)
It also doesn't matter if we 'abhor war', force is a fundamental part of the equation even in 2021, if you're not prepared to use it in the right context, you'll lose the freedom to have the choice. And by that I don't mean 'You need to carry a gun!' because you don't, I mean we need to be prepared to use the Armed Forces (or force in generally) as is reasonably necessary.
And that would effectively be a pretty much necessary case.
These conflicts have 'knock on effects' - for example, if Saddam was able to simply roll into Kuwait willy-nilly, there's no reason to believe that Qatar or Saudi wouldn't be next. That, and 'because Oil stability' -> War.
It's unlikely the US would respond with an invasion of Taiwan because that would be essentially impossible, but probably there would be a 'war' in the South China sea and a Cold War after that.
Neville Chamberlain, is that you?
There are almost no surprises on either side of the Straight. Spies from both sides have thoroughly penetrated the other.
For some reason the following simple truth is difficult for my countrymen to accept, but you have to know on some level that all of this matters more to China than it does to us, and unless we completly overmatch them in power (as we did in the past, and do not now) in the long term they will always win in the east.
We could not even keep Afghanistan before our commitment flagged - what makes you think we could outlast the efforts of the largest economy in the world to remove weapons of mass destruction from Taipei?
The didn't win in Korea, they didn't win in Japan.
They didn't even win in Vietnam, the US completely destroyed N. Vietnam military machine ... and then left.
By the time the US actually left Vietnam there was very little fighting and no casualties. The US could have stayed.
Similarly in Afghanistan ... there were very few soldiers there, with a different Foreign Policy there's no reason to believe the US could have chosen to 'stay'.
There are still major bases in Korea, Japan and Germany, no reason not to keep a base in Afghanistan if they thought they wanted to.
Nukes in Taiwan would really upset China (a lot!) and throw a big wrench into everything, but it's a very legit threat, it would make direct assault really hard.
Certainly one 'Omega Weapon' would be a short range, small yield nuke that Taiwan could use against an invading maritime force. Scary, but real power.
Imagine it in your head: the senior intelligence officer walks into the briefing room and says “The United States has placed their nuclear missiles in Taiwan, but don’t worry - that’s exactly the same as Russia having missiles, or India having done some nuclear tests and maybe having a shitty delivery system that’s 1/100 as advanced as the US. No cause for concern. Nothing has changed.”
It’s a wholly unrealistic analysis that does not even pass a cursory sniff test. The United States of America putting their nuclear warheads in Taipei, a region they consider to be stolen from them with the support of western power, would be taken as a unique and massive escalation of hostilities because it would be, they would be stupid not to consider it as such.
I feel like that would be a much more tenable position that would largely address your concern, and also grant Taiwan the ability to forestall any invasion indefinitely.
PRC fought with US / USSR while both were nuclear powers and China was not over much less important core interests than TW. Like there's currently 10s and eventually 100s of vunerable mainland coastal nuclear power plants that TW missiles can strike right now. TW has a lot of ability to fuck up PRC if they want to. Scope of TW actions/resistence will determine proportionality of destruction by PRC. Though ultimately there is nothing TW can do to deter PRC who has fought harder opponents with less means and more sacrifice.
The subtle difference is offense vs. defense. If China openly agrees with the world to never invade Taiwan, US placing nukes in Taiwan would be unacceptable. But that is not the reality here.
China got antsy, and vociferously complained about plans for the US to supply South Korea with advanced radar defense system (THAAD)[1], which China contended would extend into Chinese airspace. Radar, which is on paper, purely for defense. Nukes will be 2+ orders of magnitude worse.
1. https://www.uscc.gov/research/chinas-response-us-south-korea...
The more meaningful scenario is what happens when Taiwan gets its own nukes. Either developed domestically or acquired shrinkwrap ("POINT THIS SIDE AT ENEMY"). At that point it's out of US control, and you can imagine the Taiwanese would use them in an existential crisis.
Of course China (specifically, the CCP) wouldn't be happy about that. That's not the point.
If you were an abusive ex-husband, who felt that women are property and need to submit to you (and you regularly beat your girlfriends bloody to prove it), how would you feel about your former spouse buying a gun?
Sure, you'd do everything in your power to prevent that from happening.
Fair question, here's at least one answer:
1. that's a violation of the non-profileration treaty and the USA and the West basing its entire legitimacy on the rule of law. Values and all that.
See how far student-union whataboutism gets you once you do that.
2. because nukes are counter-productive: you cannot fire one nuke - you have to fire them all. The second Russia sees the nuclear flashes from US assets, ALL of their nukes start flying.
Unless you think Putin is going to wait to see exactly where in Asia hundred of thermonuclear ICBMs are aimed at.
And the first to land will be in Berlin, Tokyo, Paris, London, Amsterdam, Rome, Jerusalem, Sydney, Toronto [1]. (Before you press the down-vote, take the time to investigate the Sampson Option in orthodox MAD nuclear deterrence).
And that is not counting the Chinese nuclear response.
Childhood fanstasies.
Not if factories move to Vietnam, Thailand, Laos, Bangladesh, India, etc., as the current trend continues.
This is 2019 Thailand:
According to a BoI report, investment applications from Chinese projects in the first nine months of this year amounted to 45 billion baht, up 100% from the same period last year, mainly from the rubber industry and tyre manufacturing.
Thailand advanced six notches to 21st out of 190 countries in the World Bank's 2020 Ease of Doing Business (EODB) rankings. - https://www.bangkokpost.com/business/1782899/chinese-factory...
This is Malaysia in 2016: China is pouring huge money into Malaysia and most people have yet to bat an eye on the significance of this huge impact. In times of trouble, who is it that comes to support Malaysia? It is the Chinese. “This has led to Malaysia’s foreign bond holdings going back up to over 50% and also gave our ringgit some form of stability,” says Astramina Advisory Sdn Bhd managing director Wong Muh Rong. - https://archive.is/Ipbnu#selection-2839.0-2839.191
The reason for pulling old quotes is to show that this is a trend that has continued forward. I'd be happy to be wrong.
That would be the best thing that ever happened to the rest of the world, and to Chinese citizens as well.
China has long abused its citizens to undercut global prices on manufactured goods. Their political and religious prisoners are very often put to work in factories (if not sent to work camps or tortured in prison); and wages for factory work are very low compared to the rest of the world.
In the early 1930s, the USSR survived by shipping so much grain out of Ukraine that by 1933, 25% of the Ukrainian populace had died. Dictatorships and authoritarian regimes always abuse people one way or another to survive.
During the Great Leap Forward around 1958-1962, an estimated 15 to 55 millions died in China due to famine, while China was still a net exporter of grain (to Cuba and Africa).
Another data point to support your point.
Every country and every political leader is capable of committing atrocities. But overall, rule-of-law democracy is much better at mitigating that than other forms of government.
I believe that both are exploitative, just that developed democracy is better at hiding it - either internally through low wage labor or by exporting to developing countries.
>Their political and religious prisoners are very often put to work in factories (if not sent to work camps or tortured in prison)
So you want them to shut down the factories, in which case they'll be sent to be sent to labor camps or rot in prison instead?
>wages for factory work are very low compared to the rest of the world.
China's average wage more than doubled over the past 10 years. Do you expect wages to increase by an order of magnitude overnight? Also, why would you blame China for this instead of the importers demanding razor thin margins or manufactured goods?
The ends don't justify the means when those means are morally wrong. Morally wrong means create collateral damage that I believe will haunt us for generations to come. (I'm sure you can think of various 20th century dictators whose actions still haunt the world.)
> China's average wage more than doubled over the past 10 years.
That's good, but it's more a result of Jintao's relaxed policy than the current president's policy. Not that I approve of Jintao - he was as much an authoritarian leader as those that preceded him.
What do you think a labor camp is, actually? It’s forced manual labor, done for the benefit of the non-imprisoned populace.
I don’t believe there’s much of a difference between being forced to manufacture goods versus rotting in a prison - both are horrible.
Mass shutdown of factories might actually spur some protest from the general populace and shed light on the plight of the imprisoned.
From what I understand, when the media talks about an Apple supplier exploiting Uighurs for example, they're talking about a factory that employs willing people and others who are forced to find a job or else they'll be sent back to a detention camp. This is terrible, but it's not comparable to being sent off to a laogai camp.
>Mass shutdown of factories might actually spur some protest from the general populace and shed light on the plight of the imprisoned.
Someone desperate for work won't give a damn about the plight of others. This goes for the Chinese who will angry at what they perceive as western hegemony, and the people who would lose their jobs at home.
Prisoners forced to choose between harsh detention or menial factory work, are not “willing”.
This is the same argument made by people against minimum wage increases - “why do low wage workers do such jobs, they have a choice”.
The USA also has the same kind of prison labor, and inmates are forced to work for the profit of companies and the state, while receiving barely any wages in return. In fact, most of them cannot get any real work after release either.
> Someone desperate for work
I’m talking about the general global populace waking up to the fact that their goods are made by (essentially) slaves, as a result of labor shutdowns. This would be really beneficial to the worker class, and harm the ruling class.
And from the previous comment:
> importers demanding razor thin margins
Western companies that “believe” in human rights could just as well manufacture goods with a conscience and demand fair-trade supply chains; instead of just profit. But obviously, reality shows us otherwise.
I mean that the factories employ regular employees as well as those threatened to be sent back to detention. I don't see why both groups of people should be punished so that people thousands of miles away can feel a better conscience.
>I’m talking about the general global populace waking up to the fact that their goods are made by (essentially) slaves, as a result of labor shutdowns.
Has anything like that has ever happened in history? I don't see how people in economic distress are less likely to care about the plight of others. Meanwhile, if people cared enough to cut all trade with China, I don't see what more awareness would get us.
What do you mean? This thread is about how China is violently dealing with dissenters within Asia (HK is not China). We’re talking about how a ban on slave labor Chinese goods could solve things.
> Has anything like that has ever happened in history?
Never before in history has the global manufacturing industry concentrated into one region (China).
> I don't see what more awareness would get us.
Awareness would instigate change, and China would be forced to stop utilizing prisoner-slave labor.
> people thousands of miles away can feel a better conscience
I’m really concerned by the level of dismissiveness you’re showing. Not sure if this discussion is leading anywhere.
Who are you kidding? If there was a full scale china vs usa war, there would be nobody left to import the goods either.
Unfortunately, they're so good at propaganda and fear that they seem to have the civil unrest front on lock. Any real protests are erased and no one is allowed to mention it ever happened.
I have to assume this practice won't last forever. Historically, it never does. But it could last a while.
The US got too involved in too many wars for the wrong reasons and we got weary of them. China sees this as a weakness (admittedly).
If the US does not flinch, no one else will and we won’t and no one else will.
We know terrible things are happening en masse in Xinjiang, Iran does terrible things to dissidents, north Korea does terrible things.
China and N Korea have nukes. Iran is close. In the and no one will do anything if they decide to fully bare their teeth.
Economically it’s a “commons” no one is willingly going to leave because it’s leaving too much money on the table. In a globalized world, companies really heavily influence foreign policy. These companies want the printer to stay on.
They may do themselves in, but that’s on them.
So does China with the US.
Y'all need to go watch War Games again. The only winning move is not to play.
I'll sum it up for you: The US has some defense against countries like North Korea. Not against Russia, nor even China. But don't take my word for it, read those articles carefully, paying attention to the details.
-General Buck Turgidson, Dr Strangelove
Here it is in video form, watch it so you can see how ridiculous your idea is: https://youtube.com/watch?v=HgyjlqhiTV8
"SIOP-62 included the virtual obliteration of the tiny country of Albania because within its borders sat huge Soviet air-defense radar, which had to be taken out with high assurance. Power smiled at Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and said with a mock straight face: "Well, Mr. Secretary, I hope you don't have any friends or relations in Albania, because we are just going to have to wipe it out.""
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Integrated_Operational_...
* against other major powers, of course. Major powers themselves continue to test what they can get away with. Russia moving into Crimea. China saying "What? These guys have always been part of China. Do something, I dare you."
I'm not here to only disagree, like everyone else, I'm genuinely curious what influences you have to believe this
They had a very good chance of inducing meaningful change into Chinese people's mindset, and plant the seed for much bigger scale of change in China. Imagine a free and solidified China, with Taiwan finally joining the whole under a free nation. That would be the real junvanation of the nation.
They squandered, they lack the discipline, showing stutling naive approach to serious politics, they are put down like weak fire in the winter days...
What a pity...
Now that Hong Kong is fully back into China and the 50 years of no changes (for Hong Kong) promised by Deng Xiaoping is gone with Xi, basically a emperor for life. There is no hope for China to turn into a democratic country.
Taiwan is the last place for the progressive Chinese. After Chiang's family, Taiwan have progressed to be the most democratic and open minded country. It elected a first female president in Taiwan, allowed gay marriage...etc. While American left Taiwan to have a business relationship with China (CCP) for more than 40 years.
I fear Taiwan will soon be conquered by China, not by force but suppression and economic ties. After Taiwan is gone, there is no more place for any open minded and progressive Chinese.
A majority in Taiwan (two-thirds) are against unification, and that's hardended further after what's happened in HongKong. This is especially so among young people, who mostly also identify as being exclusively Taiwanese. Support for unification mostly comes from KMT, who are older and identify as Taiwanese and Chinese. As that generation fades away, these ratios will tilt even further.
For most young Taiwanese, Mainland China has nothing to offer for them to want unification.
...
Please keep watch of news. They already started "tickling" Singapore since a few years ago.
Not to mention, Mao been sending his subvertionists to Malaysia, and Singapore through sixties, and seventies
Isn't Singapore already pretty authoritarian?
Yes, Singapore does have strict limitations on freedom of speech, but at the same time have separation of powers, free elections and a national identity separate to the PAP.
> That is the most ridiculous hyperbole I have ever heard.
That's an ironically hyperobolic statment itself.
Through limitations on campaigning, gerrymandering and defamation suits. Not ideal, but no threats, no bullets, no bribing the electoral commission. A far cry from China where they crush entire populations with police brutality.
(In regards to my original comment, SG's elections are free in the sense that all citizens can vote without fear of backlash, but they are not fair because the PAP rig things in their favour)
>That's an ironically hyperobolic statment itself
That's the joke.
With enough ammunition, any country can be made a democracy
As a fellow European, I can see that communists are somehow still considered better than the Nazis, and part of the difference might be that their gulags were never conquered by an external force and photos of their skeletal prisoners never made it to the media. They mostly dismantled them themselves once Stalin was dead and the regimes behind the Iron Curtain turned from outright murderous to just oppressive.
Why are you assuming I wouldn't have prefered the Nazis to have "given up the ghost" as well? Are there any signs of the CCP "giving up the ghost" anytime soon? Given the choices that actually existed, I prefer, as the White Rose put it in one of their leaflets, an end with terror rather than terror without end. Human mortality is a given either way, the dignity that comes with agency and intellectual integrity is what the struggle is about. I don't ask for how long someone lived, but as who they lived.. or as Hannah Arendt put it:
> Once upon a time, there was a happy time when people were free to choose; better to die dead than to be a slave, better to die standing than to live on one's knees. Once upon a time there was a wicked time when imbecile intellectuals declared that life was the highest of goods. Today the terrible time has come, when it is proved every day that death begins its reign of terror exactly when life has become the highest good; that he who prefers to live on his knees dies on his knees; that no one is easier to murder than a slave. We the living have to learn that one cannot even live on one's knees, that one does not become immortal by chasing life, and that when one no longer wants to die for anything, one dies even though one has done nothing.
-- Hannah Arendt via DeepL
> As a fellow European, I can see that communists are somehow still considered better than the Nazis
That's still like saying something with a lethal dose of 50g is better food than something with a lethal dose of 5g. I don't see the point of even ranking them.
Let's just assume for a moment that the US will fight off attacks by China to take Taiwan. And that US successfully ward off an attack. What next? What is there to prevent China from trying again and again and again? Will the US be prepared to ward off attacks after attacks after attacks? This is unlikely to happen.
With this, lets again assume that China eventually successfully takes Taiwan. What next? They would have taken over an island with a large number of people who resents their rule. There will be a persistent resistance group as long as Beijing continues her ways and Beijing is aware of this and is trying to shape the education of the younger generations so that the resentment does not cross generations.
Even if all these were to take place and all hope seems to be lost. There is a glimmer of hope. A totalitarian state has one major fault. There is no effective feedback mechanism and to assume that this one man can make the right call, the right decision all the time is a stretch. At some point, be it internal infighting, or a policy misstep creating intense misery amongst the people, there will be discontent and if the history of China is any indication, the discontent can trigger uprisings and eventually a change of regime.
The only way the regime can be changed is from the inside.
America did this in Korea and it split the country in half.
> With this, lets again assume that China eventually successfully takes Taiwan. What next? They would have taken over an island with a large number of people who resents their rule. There will be a persistent resistance group as long as Beijing continues her ways and Beijing is aware of this and is trying to shape the education of the younger generations so that the resentment does not cross generations.
Also, brainwashing via complete control of the media, disappearing dissidents... They're doing it to the Falun Gong and the Muslims and others and they'll have no problem doing it to more.
> Even if all these were to take place and all hope seems to be lost. There is a glimmer of hope. A totalitarian state has one major fault. There is no effective feedback mechanism and to assume that this one man can make the right call, the right decision all the time is a stretch. At some point, be it internal infighting, or a policy misstep creating intense misery amongst the people, there will be discontent and if the history of China is any indication, the discontent can trigger uprisings and eventually a change of regime.
Also possible for there to be enough bureaucratic momentum that those within it have enough skin in the game to want to install a new head. But once China's growth starts to slow down I wouldn't be surprised at the CCP losing the Mandate of Heaven and the Ouroboros eating its tail again.
That is not even close to what happened. Korea was divided at the end of WWII into Soviet and US occupation zones after the Japanese surrender. Prior to that, it had been occupied by Japan.
The social compact I believe that exists in China is that the people put up with the curbs either out of ignorance of the lacks of curbs or because of the promise of a better life which comes along with increased job wages as long as they toe the party line.
The moment the bargain is not held up for the increased wages, the compact starts to get eroded. Turmoil in China if it happens will have a widespread and largely unknown consequences. Unknown because too many pieces are intricately linked to the stable functioning of China.
For one, I hope to be able to witness this one day.
Well, no, this is what US is doing, paint China as the source of all evil.
Yourself is the product of that ploy.
Think about Afghanistan, after so many years of wasted money life and time, one still think war is the answer.
How effective the propaganda has been...
> What next? What is there to prevent China from trying again and again and again?
> The only way the regime can be changed is from the inside.
Worth noting that the Chinese Army “may not be willing to fight” (‘pay the bill’ for the aggressive stance of the Foreign Ministry). [1]
If the Chinese Army did not score decisive victories early on, they may be the one to give up, pushing back pressure from the top, instead of trying again and again.
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/comments/p0nqla/chinese...
I do wager that China's PLA would win a war that involves Taiwan, just due to sheer numbers and resources, but that the experience would be so bitter that the PLA would lose morale in various respects. This is partly because they don't actually have real war experience in the modern era.
Even armies with real war experience can get bitter. Armies without real war experience that suddenly get thrown into the fire, I'd wager that they would get even more bitter. PTSD and suicides would only be par for the course, the real issue would be inexperienced soldiers starting to question "what are we really doing and why am I killing people, do I really believe in what I'm doing?" I wager it would create cracks in what is currently a fairly unified country in China.
No PTSD in the divisions that were driving over their own citizens in this event: https://imgur.com/bGP9oKf
Also no hesitation, dissent of any kind is known, from the internal departments implementing it in Hong Kong, Tibet, or Xinjiang.
1) China won't attack Taiwan until it can be assured a swift victory.
2) China will reach that state within our lifetimes.
WWII was won, in part, by US manufacturing prowess. China has that advantage. It's military is currently behind in equipment, but if it chose to, it could build a blue water navy or whatever else it wants in record time. It also has the political ability to engage in major projects like these (see respective COVID19 responses).
I suspect Chinese military leadership is far more competent than US or EU. The cream of the crop in the West doesn't go into the military (see Afghanistan for an good example of how US armed forces are managed).
I also think we will see major disruptions in military from autonomous and semi-autonomous machines which will really reduce the US lead. DJI is headquartered in China, as are many of the other players here. If heave machines like carriers are obsoleted, the US advantage might turn into an expensive liability.
The Chinese military also has more manpower.
The only issue is that we'd want our carriers closer in practice. Close to the action means faster response times. If we are willing to destroy Chinese satellites, then China's kill chain becomes much harder.
I'm not convinced that a drone or spyplane can reliably penetrate the defensive line of destroyers + cruisers + E2 Hawkeyes.
And satellites aren't even that reliable either, it may be possible to hide a carrier between satellite flyovers in practice.
However, a destroyer costs $870 million. I can build a drone for around $870 which has decent range, and sufficient firepower to do real damage if attacking with sufficient precision (e.g. placing a small explosive charge directly within a barrel).
That means I can launch a million drones for the cost of one destroyer. I'm pretty sure that a line of destroyers, cruisers, and E2 Hawkeyes wouldn't be able to destroy a fleet of a million drones. If they could, the cost of destroying each drone would likely be greater than the cost of the drone.
These CRAMs can aim-bot and destroy subsonic cruise missiles (500mph), and even supersonic cruise missiles (1000mph). That's why China has spent billions developing hypersonic missiles (2500+mph) to dodge our CRAMs and missile defenses.
How fast is your drone flying? Does it pull enough lateral Gs to dodge CRAM shots or avoid the Patriot defense missiles?
--------
https://youtu.be/0bmSCC823tM?t=205
The "city-version" has shorter range, because we need the bullets to self-destroy themselves before they land on someone's property. So the Israeli "Iron Dome" is in fact, inferior, to the defense system on these Destroyers / Cruisers that surround the Carrier.
Tel Aviv's Iron Dome also has a much more difficult job: defending a population center rather than just a few ships. There will naturally be "holes" in the Iron Dome (just areas of the city that aren't as well defended).
In contrast: we can position our ships to maximize the chance of interception, and minimize the chance of our CRAM's failing.
-----------------
The worry about China's drones is their stealth spydrones which will try to triangulate the position of the carrier strike group. The drone then sends the coordinates to a hypersonic missile.
I'm not convinced that the stealth systems on those drones are sufficient to "hide" from radar, probably only good enough to prevent things like CRAM/Patriots from locking on. Without the ability to lock on, we don't have an ability to kill those drones from Destroyers / Cruisers.
That's where the Carrier comes in. The E2 Hawkeye has an aerial radar system and can get "eyes in the sky", making our targeting superior (maybe then our Patriots can hit). We can also launch fighters (F22 is probably sufficient) to close the distance and lock on / destroy the target... or even engage in a dogfight (radar-drones wouldn't have much dogfighting ability).
--------
How is China launching a million drones anyway? Their carriers aren't like ours. We have 4x catapults and 2x runways per carrier, I'm pretty sure China's carriers are only 1x runway. How many minutes does it take per launch?
If its an air battle you want, the 4x catapults + 2x runways the Supercarriers push will get more planes into the air than anything in the Chinese Navy... and we have something like 10 carriers fielded right now.
Looking at the video, it looks like the C-RAM system is shooting perhaps dozens of rounds per second. Shooting down a million drones would take many hours of continuous shooting, assuming every bullet hit, which it wouldn't.
And a Patriot missile is $2-3 million.
I think the future of warfare is likely to be cheap, small, but smart and precision.
* A small drone flies into a gun barrel and explodes.
* A small drone flies into a jet air intake, and explodes, spraying material designed to damage the engine as it passes through
* A small drone deposits a chemical weapon in a ship's HVAC intake
* A small drone sprays corrosive paint on a camera, on a jet window, other surface we look through
* A small drone launches a single bullet to kill a mechanic
... and so on.
I think a lot of this goes like rock-paper-scissors, where a million $1000 drones overwhelms a $1 billion ship. On the other hand, a hundred thousand $10,000 drones could probably make quick work of a million $1000 drones. And so on.
You know that US Warships run at 35mph to 50mph over water, right? You literally can't hit a warship at that speed.
As long as the ship is traveling 25mph away from a 25mph drone, its shooting them down with machine guns (and bullets are very, very cheap). A flock of drones flying at 25mph isn't a weapon, they're sitting ducks. Fully and completely ineffective at ever dealing damage to these warships.
Like, 25mph means that these drones are going to be within effective range of the machine guns for 10 minutes when the ship is standing still. And these AEGIS systems on these destroyers have 300km+ effective radar range.
Unless you have very expensive equipment on those drones: they'll be flying in blind and getting sniped. Either stealth (which prevents the CRAM from locking on), or superior radar (to see the ships before the ships see it), or a combination thereof.
And again: if they're not standing still: the ships can basically run around in circles and the drones would never catch up.
1) China doesn't need to destroy US ships; it merely needs to keep them distracted long enough to take control of Taiwan. If China moves quickly, the Taiwanese leadership are deported to Beijing, and there are boots on the ground, it's a done deal. Once that's done, it will be like Crimea. There's no way the US is getting drawn into a land war in Asia.
2) Ten minutes, at a dozen shots a minute, means a gun firing at 10 RPS can take out 6,000 drones. That's 0.6% of a flock.
3) You can't run circles around a flock of millions of drones, no matter how fast you go. A flock can cover a lot of space. The best you can do is run away, which would take US forces out-of-commission.
4) The Taiwan Straight is simply not that large. It's not hard for China to be aware of everything that happens there, even with a fleet of small, cheap AUVs. Heck, they could drop a few hundred thousand of these as well, if they wanted to.
5) It's equally not hard for China to communicate with a flock of drones. A directional spread spectrum link isn't easy to jam. At that range, even an optical link is practical, and not something where we have countermeasures.
6) A million drones can effectively blanket the whole Taiwan straight.
7) In terms of stealth, I'm not sure how technology will progress, but I'm pretty sure that building drones indistinguishable from birds on radar just wouldn't be that hard. I'm also pretty sure a flock of drones could be made to emulate other forms of craft, on radar.
8) I'm also pretty sure China wouldn't telegraph what they're doing. It's not like we can prepare countermeasures. I gave one example of a disruptive technology; there are dozens of others. To be honest, I have no idea how AEGIS would deal with a million targets, nor what having that many targets would do to its ability to track things like Chinese landing craft, unless the US were explicitly prepared for this particular threat.
Also, the C-RAM price-per-round is about $30. With a $1000 drone, things are cost-neutral if about 3% of rounds hit. At 10 kilometers, it would take rounds a little under 10 seconds to arrive. Even modestly chaotic trajectories would dodge most rounds.
Classic blunder or not, the US gets drawn into land wars in Asia fairly regularly (especially in the 21st century, where we’ve spent most of it involved in two at once.) 1950-1953 Korea, 1955-1973 Vietnam, 1991 Iraq, 2001-2021 Afghanistan, 2003-2011 Iraq II: Elecric Boogaloo, 2014-? Iraq III: Now with Syria, too.
25mph drones will not hold back a warship. They can't effectively close range at 10km out, let alone at 5km, 1km, or shorter. As I stated earlier: warships are literally faster than that.
The "meta" under discussion, by serious people (including Chinese investments / Chinese saber rattling) is the missile. 500mph cruise missiles, 1000mph supersonic missiles, and 3000mph hypersonic missiles.
If you're going to "suicide drone", you do it at 3000mph to impress people. You don't do it at 25mph. Even at 500mph and 1000mph, the methodology is so clearly ineffective that China has spent billions making 3000mph missiles instead.
The minute you start thinking about how these drones are going to take off, refuel, get their payloads (etc. etc.), is the minute you realize how impractical the whole proposal is. What kind of launch platform will these drones take off in? What's the effective range of a drone?
US Destroyers have tomahawk cruise missiles that can reliably hit targets 2000km away, and these missiles fly at 500mph+. How long does it take for your 25mph drone to cover the 2000km range that these Destroyers are at defending Taiwan?
By the time your drones get there, the Destroyers have already launched all their missiles and have gone home.
------
How do you even find the warships in the first place? You keep saying "hundreds of drones", but drones flying at 10km high can only see 300km out.
Secondly: if you fly "like a bird" at say 1000meters, you can only see 100km out before the horizon blocks you. It'd be impossible to track down the warships firing from 2000km away.
At these ranges, the E2 Hawkeye of the Carrier will see your drones, and an appropriate response will be dispatched. Most likely, the warships will just avoid the drones. Hiding behind the horizon.
What kind of drone are you using to even try to tavel 2000km over water? I'm pretty sure that your typical $1000 drone simply don't have the range or speed to even get to the warships.
Actually, this is wrong. That is the cost of the missiles, not the cost of the launch platform, nor the cost of the personnel, nor the cost of the logistics.
China doesn't have the same manufacturing prowess that the US did because of its location. In World War II, the US was essentially an untouchable supply chain with access to both oceans. It could fight Japan and supply Russia through the west if necessary, and it could fight Germany and supply England and Russia through the eat too.
In China's case, the main issue is that while the factories are certainly humming right along, they need to import food, oil, and other raw materials. Where do those come from? Certainly Russia, despite its blustering, isn't going to do too much to help China because that gives the U.S. an easy excuse to attack Russia in the east. Expect Russia to sit this one out and maybe screw around in a inconsequential way in Europe at best.
Will China then get resources from neighbors? Sure. Except now they have to transport all of these raw materials to the east coast of China where all the factories are. Lots of lead times here.
Meanwhile, the US can simply purchase the same materials from untouched supply chains in Europe and South America.
> it could build a blue water navy or whatever else it wants in record time.
I very much doubt this. And this has to happen years (decades?) before a war breaks out. China would have to build these ships in docks on the shore, which would be vulnerable to any number of U.S. bombing campaigns from strategic locations (Guam, Japan, carrier fleet, etc.). Not to say why wouldn't the U.S. also build hypersonic missiles?
> It also has the political ability to engage in major projects like these (see respective COVID19 responses).
Sure, that's always the general strength of the authoritarian regime. The ability to issue dictates. But that's also the great weakness, because you can go down a very wrong path and you won't know until its too late. Japan experienced this in World War II.
But the U.S. (and allies) would undoubtedly be united in a response to a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. The center-left, center, and entire right wing of the US for sure would be. So I'm not sure I'd look at the U.S.'s COVID-19 response and generalize from that.
> I suspect Chinese military leadership is far more competent than US or EU. The cream of the crop in the West doesn't go into the military (see Afghanistan for an good example of how US armed forces are managed).
What do you base this on? If nothing else, the United States and European Union (NATO allies) have been engaging in actual joint operations all over the world for the past 20-some years.
And the U.S. fought a different kind of war in Afghanistan than it would the one it might have to fight against China in the Pacific. First, the U.S. occupied the country just fine for 20 years, and then got tired of it. The U.S. also operated with very strict rules of engagement. Like, shoot at US soldiers then throw your Ak-47 in the weeds and say it wasn't you and nobody could do anything since you didn't have your weapon on you. Iraq looks to be a better example but neither should be relied upon as a good case.
> I also think we will see major disruptions in military from autonomous and semi-autonomous machines which will really reduce the US lead. DJI is headquartered in China, as are many of the other players here.
Who cares about DJI?
> If heave machines like carriers are obsoleted, the US advantage might turn into an expensive liability.
Weren't you saying that China would build a blue-water navy in record time? What would they do with this obsolete navy?
But the U.S. doesn't need to keep its carrier groups within range of any Chinese action to cause lots of problems for China. A naval blockade, they can go sink ships in ports that are friendly to China but aren't in China, etc.
> The Chinese military also has more manpower.
True that quantity does have a quality all of its own, but it seems like a bottle neck to me. Are they going to load up boat after boat and sail soldiers to Taiwan? Seems like a pretty expensive offensive and will Chinese moral handle losing soldiers in boats going to attack Taiwan? Lots of uncertainties.
Anyway, my point here was just to provide some counterpoints to some of yours here. Frankly, this is all really stupid.
China isn't even building missile-defense cruisers (equivalent to the AEGIS system on US-ships). Our tomahawks (cheaper, subsonic cruise missiles) would obliterate them at much cheaper prices.
Why fly at 3000mph (hypersonic) when 500mph is already too fast for their defenses?
There's no reason to build hypersonic missiles until China (or Russia) demonstrates missile-defense capabilities. Even then: the methodology of "launch 20 missiles simultaneously to overwhelm their defense system" seems a lot cheaper than using developing or using hypersonic missiles.
Cheap subsonic cruise missiles are all you need unless your opponent can shoot them down. China needs Hypersonic because of AEGIS (ie: we've reliably demonstrated that we can shoot down missiles flying at 500mph). China hasn't done that, and doesn't seem to have any plans to obtain this technology yet.
I doubt that. I am an American and wouldn't support war with China over Taiwan. I don't know a single person who has ever said anything suggesting they think we should commit the country to war to protect Taiwan.
Coming off the failed Afghanistan war I expect war would be extremely unpopular. Especially with an enemy so much more capable than assorted Afghan militia.
What's wrong with that world? 1) We didn't keep our promises. 2) Another 23 million people oppressed by force against their will. Even if it isn't our job to defend them, it still doesn't sit well to see it happen. 3) We can't get chips (much less important than the other two).
Where does that leave me? Not wanting war, but not wanting the alternative? There are a fair number of people with that perspective. If it comes to it, what will we decide? I don't know, even for myself.
From the Strategic point of view, you have to look at a map to see what that would mean. China would take over Taiwan, and immediately expand its sea island building around its borders. Cut off the Philippines and Japan across the South China Sea. From Taiwan a fighter jet can be over Japan in 10 min. Australia with its rich mineral resources and empty spaces would be next...
That the US, Australia, Japan together not make it clear to China invading Taiwan would mean a price not worth paying, will prove to be the Strategic blunder of this Century.
As far as the PRC is concerned, Taiwan is a part of China. They wouldn't be invading another nations, they would simply be reclaiming sovereignty over a renegade province.
That is something entirely different from invading a Western ally. One thing has absolutely no bearing on the other.
I think you are missing the main point. Despite an arbitration court ruling against it, China decided all of the China Sea is theirs: https://im-media.voltron.voanews.com/Drupal/01live-166/style...
"The South China Sea Arbitration (The Republic of Philippines v. The People's Republic of China)" https://pca-cpa.org/en/cases/7/
Started making artificial islands in the middle of nowhere, and now says all foreign vessels need to report in their ‘territorial waters’.
"China to require foreign vessels to report in ‘territorial waters’" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28395358
Have a look at a map, and see the distance from Yonaguni ( Japan ) to Taiwan and the distance Yonaguni to mainland Japan. You think China will do what they are doing in Hong Kong, Xinjiang, South China Sea and suddenly...Come to their senses and stop, specially if unchallenged for previous actions?
If they do this in the other side of the world: "Hundreds of fishing vessels vanishing along Argentina’s waters" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27412691
What will they do at their door?
HK was sold to Britain as part of the corrupted and weak China's humiliation.
What do you want to say?
Are you trying to depict the image that HK has been forcefully claimed by China?
Please stop this type of propaganda behavior. I don't like CCP, but that does not make HK not part of China.
We Chinese eventually will get rid of CCP, but we don't want the great nation get split. Just like any patriot in US would not want this great nation get split.
First I already debunked the notion that China conquered small nations to form its heritage. No China got it's heritage long ago through tribal merger.
And the US history of founding is patently different, and vastly more brutal and immoral...
Since the Zhou dynasty, which derived from tribal era, China was already a unified entity. The process of creating Zhou was certainly not involving any other nations.
Qin dynasty, China have already been a unified country, under unified laws, economic rules, and mixed culture. With a great deal of characteristics of modern nations.
Qin's unification process is standard warfare between feudal lords. Very much like what happened in the long history of Europe.
Once China was unified this way. The cycle of division and unification have never ceased.
Your statement is at best inaccurate. At worst just random imagination.
> We Chinese eventually will get rid of CCP, but we don't want the great nation get split.
Dude, what? HK hasn't been part of China for years. What possible justification could you have for re-integrating it. This isn't about preventing a split, this is about undoing a split, and destroying a democracy in the process.
For someone who is anti-CCP, you don't seem to empathize with the people in HK who tasted democracy and have had it ripped away.
You can wipe it away like that, but it is the entire point of Chinese leadership since a long time, even opposing parties, that what once was China will be China again. So the 'who cares' is the vital point in why they are doing this; they care very much, not about the pieces of land or the people, but just the simple fact that they consider it China because it was taken from them (and they always said they will get it back) no matter who say they own it now (Taiwan is not uniformly recognised as a state). And I believe many (majority?) on the mainland agree with this, even if they don't agree with the CCP.
HK was always a part of China, just under specific rules.
Where is your evidence?
I have friends live and working in HK. Certainly the silent majority doesn't care much. Like any normal people, they prefer better life and rewarding career, than being full time protester.
The 2016 US election already showed that the silent majority rarely aligned with the mainstream rhetoric.
Please be mindful about the reality.
The pro-democracy camp, who overwhemingly supported the anti-extradition (anti-CCP) protests in 2019, had a landslide victory during the District Council Election in 2019 [1].
CCP, realizing that fair elections could threaten its rule in Hong Kong, later imposed the National Security Law and arrested lots of opposition members [2].
And then many HKers voted with their feet, literally not being part of China, to show their distrust of the future of Hong Kong under CCP rule [3].
> Where is your evidence?
> Please be mindful about the reality.
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/24/world/asia/hong-kong-elec...
[2]: https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/one-year-hong-kon...
[3]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/07/14/hong-kong-ex...
[1] is for local district election. It's ridiculous to say that these elected personels are pro democracy, as if pro democracy is conflicting with CCP. CCP sanctions the democracy state of HK. That's part of deal of the treaty. This is one thing.
Additional, these elected officials are for local executive branches. They actually have no say in how the fundamental political structure ought to do or what to do in the place.
In the typical NYT fashion, they link two groups of people together without formal evidences.
[2] And the national security law. As a common practice all over the world, the law does not change anything in how the HK political system working. I am not sure why any patriotic citizens in HK would find national security law impairs their activity to uphold the democracy in HK. I mean the law literally has nothing to say about how power structure should be. It only states that no one share impair China's sovereignty over HK.
Lastly, stop painting the HK protests as some grandiose ideology fight. It's just young people are not getting the opportunity for flourishing. It's no different than "occupying wall street" it was just that China happen to be the favorite punching bag of disfunctional government to offset their incompetence.
Dude, how ignorant can you be?
HK was returned to China because of the original treaty between Qing and Britain.
Integration? WTF? It's part of the country, how can it not be integrated. I am startled by these showing of ignorance and self grandizlsing...
You now get why it is pointless to argue with the Chinese. And Hong Kong wasn't returned to China. It was Handed over. You can also tell most of their assumption about China were taught when they were young. It is always hard to break those assumptions.
Most part of Hong Kong doesn't belong to China for close to 150 years. And you can read why they want Taiwan with so called unification. Taiwan wasn't even part of so called China for most of human history.
They also claims to be Anti-CCP. But have done absolutely nothing against CCP. But because their love of China they must save China first ( helping CCP ) before they somehow get rid of CCP. Oh the irony.
> You now get why it is pointless to argue with the Chinese
I suppose you say similar things in private, just swap Chinese with black, Mexican, Japanese etc.
It was OK to say this type of statement on “Chinese”, because, of cuz, even US president did this.
> And Hong Kong wasn't returned to China. It was Handed over.
Don't play the word on me...
The treaty was signed long time ago. And was the results of foticful invasion.
Returned or handed over, that's for Chinese, UK, and HK people to decide. You as a random (probably racism inclined as well) has no privilege to apply one word or another! And you are probably the least qualified as well, based on the amount of ignorance demonstrated in such a small number of words.
> You can also tell most of their assumption about China were taught when they were young.
WTF we Chinese told you things about China, and all those are what we were taught?!
First, is there anything wrong with that? You are boasting racism statements, which I assume was also taught in school? Is that OK?
And outside of class, we Chinese cannot learn the truth about China? For God's sake, CCP are not omnipotent entity who can control people's mind...
Or you are simply stating that Chinese are not capable of independent thinking, because we are just Chinese? (Of cuz, I am placing a racist trap for you, but likely that's what you are thinking right now...).
> It is always hard to break those assumptions.
Assumption?
I see things with my own eyes, and hear words with my own ears, and read books with my own mind.
You, someone, who randomly punce on Chinese topics, based on 300 years+ colonists education and indoctrination, and plagued by a racism bigot president, who should lead the nation on the positive and good, instead base his whole presidency on demonizing Chinese and China, are free from assumptions!?
You, are having a assumed righteous mindset, which couldn't be farther from the truth...
> Most part of Hong Kong doesn't belong to China for close to 150 years.
You failed to mentioned HK was abducted.
And UK applied brutal colonial ruling, and harsh indoctrination in all levels of the society.
Oh, of cuz, for someone who was decent from the people, who genocide the indigenous people, forgetting the source, omitting the root, is always the standard practice of demonizing the people with strong cultural roots...
> And you can read why they want Taiwan with so called unification.
What? Shed some light on the facts then.
> Taiwan wasn't even part of so called China for most of human history.
LMAO national states were not a thing for the most of human history, so what? Let's dissolve and ask UN to rule the world. I'll be very happy, if the head of the Mafia, would be willing to relinquish the supremacy...
> They also claims to be Anti-CCP.
Why? Why? Why do you relate to CCP? To paint a picture of hideous valin through association, right?
I am not surprised such ploy is well learned by the observers of the US mainstream media...
> But have done absolutely nothing against CCP.
When I was preaching the Chinese citizens rights and the need to stand strong against the bully and unfairness of the CCP officials, you would be calling me a CCP sponsored propagandist.
You are anti CCP, but only superficially in the name.
> But because their love of China they must save China first ( helping CCP ) before they somehow get rid of CCP.
What? Why save China needs to helping CCP? Are you suggesting that CCP is the only medium through which one can help improve China? I thought you are anti CCP, and want me to be one as well...
> Oh the irony.
Yep, your whole post is an irony. One that someone who does not have a clear mind, even muddier writing, delivered an outrageous irony of human ignorance...
It's a trap to equate "progressive" social change with democracy. It's perfectly possible to have a socially liberal society that's also very authoritarian. In fact the Western world is going in that direction.
The rule of law is a better example of an artifact of democracy.
Thinking of politics as some random personal preference, what a showing of naivate...
Sure Xi is breaking agreements of backing of for few decades, but in the end HK was to be integrated.
Not a lot of interest in fighting china on this as they have 'colonialism' card ready.
But not acknowledging Taiwan as a country, denning them flag in the Olympics is a worrying creeping level of Chinese soft power. Eastern countries should be working on decoupling as much of their economies from china.
"Apple Removes App That Helps Hong Kong Protesters Track the Police"
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/09/technology/apple-hong-kon...
What do you expect them to do?
Put them into a reserve area, like Indian reserve? How about Xinjiang or Tibet?
What do you mean by swallowing anyway?
You mean HK and Macau people are not living the same life as before? All I know is that most people are better off than before.
Imagine whenever an American expat talks to a foreigner, which happens daily, someone mentions racism in US. Very soon people will get really sick and tired of hearing about it, and will emotionally deny/downplay its existence.
And when it does come up? Well yeah, racism in America is a huge problem, and I don't think expats have any problem talking about it.
Being thin-skinned about your country's complicated history is never a good look.
Sadly that's not the experience of Chinese expat and immigrants, especially those in the States. Many people can face criticism, but few enjoys being bombarded with the same criticism everyday.
In fact, American netizens probably has a similar experience and reaction. You just have to look at some sibling comments to see how they deflect and downplay racism, despite my clear intention of just using it to demonstrate a point, as opposed to seriously criticize US on this worldwide problem.
[1]https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/sep/25/revealed-...
My original point was I believe it has to do with their life and schooling in China, not so much social media apps.
> On Tuesday, the deadline for the request, the alliance members handed over a letter explaining their refusal to co-operate.
That takes a magnificent and heartbreaking degree of courage.
The absolute genius of the CCP isn't that they're cracking down on Hong Kong and domestic democratic movements. The brilliant part is spending the last forty years forging a culture that approves of it. Many Westerners perceive the Chinese populace as ignorant of what their government does. That is not true. Speak to some international students some time. They're fully aware of what the CCP does, and they agree with it. To them, national unity and tranquility really is worth throwing dissidents and activists into prison or just disappearing them.
Look at how much China has evolved since WWII and you can see how many could believe that the ends justify the means.
"The camps aren't real, it's just an exaggeration. And if they're real, it's because the Xinjiang people are there voluntarily. And if they're not there voluntarily, it's probably better anyway, since it would be a really bad thing long-term to have a large minority of people that is not culturally united with the rest of China. It's not pretty but it's for the common good."
I can say that at least, it's hard not to be surprised by such opinions. I've been to Xinjiang and know people that live there. Pretty sure you could live your whole life without seeing said camps.
I also know people that have had family members die from attacks from the Uighurs. If real, I suspect the CCP started the camps after the terrorist attacks - if you look up cities like Korla you'll know what I mean - the security there is insane, complete with officers with submachine guns escorting school children. I didn't have the balls to take a picture...
Because if they're right, there's no way to know anything about the world. Even the PRC government now admits the camps exist, and their propaganda approach has moved on from outright denial to other tactics.
Oh neat, I missed that.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2018/...
I think that was pretty impossible to miss if you were following the story at all. And if you weren't following the story, why comment on it?
China is full of a great many intelligent and aware people who are working hard to reclaim their country. Lots of the most progressive folks I know are working within the government, making day-to-day decisions as low level bureaucrats to dull the sharp edge of totalitarianism wherever they can.
Perhaps a modest number of Chinese people genuinely don't care much for anything other than stability and profit. However, the heart of China still beats for independence and many good people are waiting for their chance to reclaim the country.
Hong Kong had a mere 20 years of being truly Hong Kong, free of the UK and generally free of China. Now it is just more China.
It is an interesting perspective
Edited for accuracy, 'cultural' -> 'communist'
Not the Cultural Revolution. Cultural Revolution was in the 1960s, the Communist victory over the Nationalists and the Nationalists' flight to Taiwan was late 1940s. The "Cultural Revolution" was not a "revolution" in the classic sense. It was not an attempt to install a new government. It was a totalitarian exercise in which the Communist Party – led by Mao – attempted to eliminate every aspect of Chinese culture and society that wasn't enthusiastically communist
The cultural revolution took place well after the CCP took over.
Incorrect. The previous government of China (the Beiyang government) was overthrown by a collaboration between the CPC and the KMT (Which was led by Chiang Kai-shek).
The CPC and the KMT then had a war, which the KMT lost - and fled to Taiwan.
As a bonus, the KMT then proceeded to carry out the White Terror - 38 years of one-party rule, repression and martial law, which ostensibly purged Taiwan's of suspected or alleged communists.
They only occasionally use bits and pieces to talk about how they are in ancient culture, but they are rapidly becoming a very young culture in a historical sense.
Please don't give credence to nonsensical nationalist tropes. The Oracle Bone Script goes back to about 1200 BC during the Shang Dynasty, that makes about 3200 years of history. Before that it's _pre-history_.
It's a bit younger than Linear B, Old Avestan and Vedic Sanskrit. So in terms of a traceable, continuous culture China is at the fourth place of so.
These days I'd probably be called a "historical nihilist" in China for saying that.
Linear B does not represent a traceable, continuous culture.
Neither does Old Avestan.
> There's a case to be made for Linear B because of the Greek Dark Ages
That's sufficient to defeat the claim of cultural continuity, but note also that the case that Linear B has been deciphered at all isn't on the firmest ground.
Spouting this as if it somehow justifies or reinforces the CCP's claim to China being the oldest and therefore most venerable of cultures is just continuing to give credence to their nationalist tropes. It's not as if China had never been conquered.
Does being 5000 or 3200 years old really change the discussion to anyone but historians?
Its in chinese only - but it looks like there are plans to translate into other languages
Link to online museum: https://8964museum.com/
More info: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3143762...
China's unfree speech would actually be a strong asset in such a conflict.
Makes you think
1. Would Americans be in favor of (relatively) short term destruction in favor of long term prosperity for their children and future generations?
2. Would the US be able to win a conventional war against China?
I believe the answer to #1 is no. I don't think anybody knows the answer to #2.
On 2, there is no conventional war with a nuclear power.
True. But maybe there can be a purely conventional war between two nuclear powers.
until what point?
inaction is generally one of the biggest causes of death and suffering in historical warfare.
Beyond just Taiwan, the last cold war kept the third world in a constant state of proxy war between the major powers, costing millions of lives in the short-term and delaying development in the long term.
Worth considering if you're in favor of more of that in the name of human rights.
And the alternative might have been "let the Soviets win." That choice would have definitely been a way to avoid war and achieve a kind of "peace."
We had to support one-way helicopter rides under Pinochet and contras gunning down nuns? Or else the soviets win?
If it's about national pride and staying on top, fine, but don't tell me it's human rights with that record. The Chinese haven't acted with force outside of what they consider their soil/sea in like 40 years. Xi is pretty worrying but until he starts doing that, let's not agitate for killing a bunch of people just in case.
The world is a messy place and at many times it may be impossible to pursue that goal in an entirely consistent manner.
There's also the other factor of self-preservation. It's not a good strategy to cede advantages to your opponent and hope a deus ex machina saves you in the end.
> The Chinese haven't acted with force outside of what they consider their soil/sea in like 40 years. Xi is pretty worrying but until he starts doing that, let's not agitate for killing a bunch of people just in case.
Who's advocating for a bunch of killing? I think the main (perhaps only) thing I'm seeing advocated for here is diplomatic recognition.
Xi has been pushing the limits internally and maybe one day that turns external but people here are talking about pre-emptive cold war.
EDIT: diplomatic recognition is a purely symbolic move, and in this case the symbol is a middle finger to China. I'd argue the upsides are limited, but I was more objecting to the general theme of china hawkishness that points towards a new cold war.
What it IS, is a grievous insult to our insistence on being the last word in international affairs.
That's not a great look, and will probably eventually end with our allies either defeated or heading for the exits.
Being a reliable ally seems like it'd be pretty important to self-defense. China has a pretty big population, it's unified, and may have the patience to chip away at things and outlast us.
> What it IS, is a grievous insult to our insistence on being the last word in international affairs.
I suppose it's always an option to withdraw and leave our allies become tributaries of the new empire. Maybe we can eventually become one ourselves and our grandkids can gave peace under the emperor.
Hundreds of thousands were massacred by the Viet Cong after the US left, and hundreds of thousands more died in the ensuing refugee crisis.
It would be a global political shitstorm, but even mainland China would not be stupid enough to invade after that.
Nuclear proliferation may be bad for all sorts of reasons, but MAD really does appear to work.
Also Taiwan already has nuclear power plants, so it's not that crazy. They are capable of developing nuclear weapons on their own if they really wanted to.
US would never do that, it would violate Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Some non-nuclear NATO countries do host US nuclear weapons, but they are legally and physically under US control. In an actual nuclear war, the US would release these nuclear weapons to their allies – at which point the US would have indeed violated the treaty, but in a nuclear war who cares?
So in principle the US could station US-controlled nuclear weapons in Taiwan, and publicly announce they have done so. But it would be an extremely risky move – basically the Cuban Missile Crisis all over again, but this time with the US playing the role of the Soviet Union.
Given the extreme risk of such a move, I doubt the US is going to make it.
The US unlikely to be enormously bothered about violating treaties if it finds doing so in its interest.
> Given the extreme risk of such a move
What exactly is China going to do? Try to break the US-led world order? They're doing that already!
The US cares greatly about the NPT because it wants a world in which only a small number of countries have nuclear weapons, not a world in which dozens of them do.
NPT limits nuclear weapons to 5 countries only - China, France, Russia, UK, US. Four nuclear states refuse to give up their weapons as the treaty demands (and hence refuse to join it) - India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan. But a world with 9 nuclear weapons states is preferable to one with 90
> What exactly is China going to do?
Attack Taiwan? China would likely try to call the US nuclear bluff with a massive conventional attack. The ensuing loss of human life and economic damage would be enormous.
The treaty doesn't ensure that in any way. It's an empty letter.
> NPT limits nuclear weapons to 5 countries only - China, France, Russia, UK, US. Four nuclear states refuse to give up their weapons as the treaty demands (and hence refuse to join it) - India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan.
Exactly. The NPT does fuck-all against this, and it's going to be of equally fuck-all use against the next bunch of countries that really want to get nukes. (Also, BTW, fuck knows if your four shouldn't be a five: how certain are you, really, that South Africa doesn't have them?)
> But a world with 9 nuclear weapons states is preferable to one with 90
Maybe. (Yeah: I'm not even all that sure about that, any more.) But that has fuck-all to do with the NPT, since that is of absolutely no use in ensuring the former in stead of the latter.
IIRC, that's one of the PRC's red lines to trigger an invasion.
Also, I'm not sure if Taiwan could get to the point of having a survivable nuclear arsenal that's large enough to guarantee MAD.
Personally, I think they'd go for it. They've been itching to take over Taiwan by force anyway.
I don't believe this is true. IIRC they've implied they would invade if Taiwan declared itself independent.
If there were sizable numbers of US troops on Taiwan, I don't think they'd attack. They don't want a major confrontation, at least not yet.
There's a decent chance at this point that all those troops would do is hold the airport for a rushed evacuation mission.
US sails ship through South China Sea days after China institutes new maritime ID rules [1]
[1]: https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/08/politics/us-south-china-sea-m...
The US does care about Taiwan, because of real economic interests.
Eh. I think there are plenty of American decision-makers who are motivated to figure out a rationale for swallowing a loss like that.
China would strike as soon as US troops officially settle in China in a military and not police/security/training/sales capacity.
Economically HK isn't that big of a deal compared to the rest of China at this point.
> But the Hong Kong government can only welcome the stock listing opportunity to reinforce Hong Kong as the world’s premier IPO destination, especially at a time when the introduction of the national security law has raised concerns about maintaining the city as a global financial hub.
[1]: https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3145952/why-chi...
The US’s capital markets support international trade in a somewhat similar way, and are thus innately valuable even without accounting for the productivity of American workers.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-protests-finance...
In CN there are largely three types of listings A shares, B shares and H shares. A & B are listed on SZ and SH exchange and are not freely traded like you know it from the west. H shares are listed on HK exchange and are freely traded using the Hong Kong Dollar.
This is why companies like Tencent are dual listed on Shanghai and Hong Kong exchange, to facilitate foreign investment that wouldnt be possible in the same way if Tencent was only listed as B class on Shanghai exchange.
We should also note that with the growth of Shenzhen and other mega cities, HK isn't that important to China anymore. That's part of why they've become more aggressive in the situation.
UK have made it clear they aren’t part of the EU so why would the EU care?
Just recall the context China are operating from: Hong Kong was stolen from them at the height of the opium wars. There is no fairness in these geopolitical dealings.
Overall this sucks for HK… but it’s actually easy to understand all the parties involved actions/inaction… it’s just crap though. :(
Chinese exports are rapidly becoming too expensive relative to their neighbors and they seem to be unable to further cheapen the price of their labor.
Economically, China is actually in a real bind.
They're lying, cheating, and stealing from every entity they deal with on the world stage, blatantly holding themselves above any law, even internally. This doesn't end well unless there's some sort of overwhelming grassroots revolution from the inside. Thanks to Western panopticon tech, that can't happen now, so China's merry band of pirates is headed for Taiwan and global conflict.
Thanks, boomers, ya done good.
Every country is lying/cheating/stealing... Is there an honest operator out there?
If China steals all the Arm Holdings IP and infrastructure in China, there is no recourse.
If I scam someone on EBay or Amazon almost anywhere in the Western world, they can take me to court given sufficient evidence and magnitude of the scam. If a Chinese seller on Alibaba or Amazon scams me, there is zero recourse.
The Western world has a surprising level of default trust and honesty in business. There are gross and obvious exceptions, but China is culturally and legally playing a vastly different and incompatible game.
“The western world” is the minority in the world… like 20 or so countries. And typically they benefited from colonialism. I know it’s fun to ignore history, but it’s dishonest.
We have done and continue to do more than our fair share of lying, cheating, and stealing. We metaphorically stacked the deck. You say "global conflict" - I'll remind you that it takes two to have a conflict. And America has the modern world beat in terms of starting and perpetuating conflicts.
- Kosovo wants to be independent, people decided so, so we must support a new country
- Bosnia has to stay together, no matter what the people want, we won't change maps again
- Catalonia? What, what, sorry, can't hear you, the connection is unstable.. [disconnect]
It is not a UK/EU issue. At the end of the day CCP think itself as a rising power and will want to expand its power to anywhere on earth. The belt and road initiative is basically modern day colonisation, instead of taking over a whole country or city, Sri Lanka lost a port for 99 years. [1]
1: https://www.ft.com/content/e150ef0c-de37-11e7-a8a4-0a1e63a52...
US can walk out of the treaty but there are downsides to it. It will happen sooner or later.
And China can hurt the city enough by just turning the water off. It will only hurt the people of Hong Kong more.
No, this change won't be driven by the military. It will have to come from within. Probably the most durable way anyway (see how this worked out for Afghanistan).
Taiwan would be a totally different thing though. They have been independent for so long and they have no wish to join communist China (which they've never been a part of). And it's much more defensible. I do hope we will stand by them when it comes to it.
Indeed. It's a complete non-starter.
If the West wants to beat China they must be more subtle and crafty than a direct military invasion: the 2nd Cold War will be mainly fought using diplomacy, trade, economics, technology and spying. Not direct military conflict, apart from maybe a few proxy wars.
1: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-09-01/jack-m...
This is maybe the most highly educated and productive population in the world. Any country would be lucky to get them.
Yes. And no longer trade with China.
I'm sure with a bit of reflection you can see the absolute irony of what you are asking for.
Edit: very rudely, please tell me why you're down-voting me if you are?
1. No one is paying attention due to the pandemic,
2. By 2047, there'll be no dissodence left and the transition will seem smooth, instead of a fight. The press will say the transition happened with minimal incidence, and it allows China to de-value any protests/outcry from other countries.
Xi himself probably spent very little time on this in the recent past.
> Is the person ordering it aware of that Surely they do, but to CCP, this is the only way to make them feel confident enough, by squashing all dissidents.
> Is it Carrie Lam? Their chief of police?... Personally, I guess the order from CCP to HK govt is, "get rid of all dissident, use any means that you think that will work."
> I would think that Mr Xiping would have better things to do running a country of a billion people than decide to provoke the HK populace on a random day in September.
CCP have crack down so many things these day, no? Things happen in parallel.[1][2][3][4]
1: https://thediplomat.com/2021/09/the-real-cause-of-chinas-ali... 2: https://www.straitstimes.com/business/companies-markets/tenc... 3: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/commentary/china-xi-jinping-... 4: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-58459318
While you're still waiting to get up to speed, just understand and accept that all Chinese people are the property of the Emperor. It's much easier to make sense of things.
/s
But they basically do deny the event by claiming only 300 dead and then villainizing the victims of an atrocity.
While no-one can predict the future, we can have a good guess what a democratic China would be like, because one exists. It's called Taiwan. Which is richer per capita and arguably more stable than the PRC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests...
https://worldaffairs.blog/2019/06/02/tiananmen-square-massac...
The Chinese government obviously has its own propaganda, but being anti-China is objective and nonpartisan in the US. It's not taking sides, it's just the natural state of affairs, the entire media thinks so, both kinds of it.
Country and Western.
No, pretty much all American propaganda mills that are not formally associated with a political party claim to be “objective and nonpartisan” (the latter is truly universal, the former or a close synonym quite common). It doesn't matter if the viewpoint being pushed is one orthogonal to the party divide, common to the major factions of both parties, or extremely partisan in its appeal, or even outside of the mainstream of either party. The label is, itself, propaganda (though so routine and formulaic and widely recognized that it only has an impact on the most unaware.)
>stopping the "turbulence" was the "correct" policy.
They actively suppress awareness of the event.
It was the UK, which caved because, as revealed in now-declassified democratic cables from 1958, Zhou Enlai flatly stated that the PLA would invade if HK was given independence.
The UK quite simply could not defend HK. It had failed to defend it in WWII against Japan (it couldn't even defend Singapore) and would have no hope against the CCP, even without the Harbour Tunnel to the Kowloon Peninsula, which had already been operating for some time.
Instead it opted for an agreement in the joint declaration and a hope that the CCP would lean more towards international norms as the Shanghai cadre assumed more control. Objectively a poor solution but, I have to say, probably the most rational.
Of course, we all know what happened. Deng's best laid plans came to naught and another 'great leader' emerged.
For those who do not remember they would arrest a member of say the Politburo and then all pictures of him with other leaders would be airbrushed out, sometimes even in library books. It was as if he was no longer ever born.
Also for the record. While interesting Operation Yellowbird seems entirely innocuous
I feel like people agree on the goal of the security law?
Of course both are right.
This is a blatant crushing of dissent, wherein merely attempting to curate a few facts is now cast as a crime deserving a life sentence.
OTOH, the CCP requires stability to maintain its illegitimate[1], brutally dishonest, murderous, expansionist authoritarian 'govt'. This "stability" and requires that the population remain ignorant of the CCP's corruption, history, and current practices.
Western democracies were massively foolish to ever engage with CCP and treat it as if it were legitimate.
While we thought we were exploiting cheap Chinese labor, the CCP strategically exploited our myopic focus on quarterly profits. They now have won a massive transfer of strategic commercial & military intellectual property, strategic manufacturing know-how, and massive amounts of capital to strategically deploy to buy more global influence. This will go down as a blunder of historic proportions.
We see the signs every week, as here, yet nothing is done about it.
[1] While this govt may be recognized, it came to power over it's people at the point of a gun, and can only maintain that power without the free consent of it's people. Being a de-facto ruler does not make a ruler legitimate. By that reasoning, the Taliban should immediately be recognized as a legitimate govt.
“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. History has stopped...." Orwell's '1984'
He who controls the present, controls the past.
-- Hannah Arendt, "Origins of Totalitarianism"
They see what S.Korea has gone through in being a full democracy, taking lessons from it to ensure it doesn't happen there.
S.Korea is a free society now, but even as a 40 something guy, I remember days of militaristic regime holdovers from quasi dictatorship of the past.
You couldn't criticize the president, the press was closely monitored, no one dare expose rampant corruption and collusion of big business and prosecution office.
I remember my neighbor skipping classes to demonstrate against the government, throwing Molotov cocktails.
Some people got whisked away and put into labor camp, not to be seen again for months or not make it out alive.
Where is China on the timeline? They're probably currently at where Korea was in early 1970s. But they also know that the timeline now is far more compressed in modern society and change could happen much quicker.
All the the actions you're seeing from China, is done out of fear of losing grip.
There's that word again.
What do you do when all the authorities, and all the news-sources, and everybody you know calls it "misinformation"?
Who's the bad guy here?
It's enough to make you crazy.
I mean have you met the average person? He believes whatever he's told. And with great enthusiasm.
And he hates whoever he's told to hate.
Crazy.