An Anxious Asia Arms for a War It Hopes to Prevent
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
"Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it" and what seems likely is a repeat of the 1800s and its rivalry between the great powers, only this time with modern arms. May we all survive the coming era of international strife and war.
Now everyone is going to have to survive the aftereffects of the resulting power vacuum.
Let's be clear, I didn't say the hegemon was good, or nice, or just. What I said is that the situation could get much, much worse than it was under the past hegemony.
Yes it could. And one of the reasons is that over long time nobody will tolerate hegemon telling them how live their lives. Hegemon must be smart enough not to be one but that is not what we have.
There are bearings a country can take, foreign relations wise, that over the long term that lead to better outcomes and just quality-of-life improvements in general. Benevolence and smart relationship management com ined with military dominamce has immense soft power, of which the U.S. has left unexplored.
I just found this reading up on S.Pacific politics:
Weiner, Tim (9 October 1994). "C.I.A. Spent Millions to Support Japanese Right in 50's and 60's". The New York Times. Retrieved 29 December 2007.
Add japan to the laundry list where these organized, professionalized, politically motivated paramilitary "groups" involve themselves in the democratic process of other nations, with absolutely no control or oversight from the very society they comes from.
Its not like US hegemony has brought about peace. In fact, the US has intentionally provoked wars in nations that needed a regime change. Iraq War brought ISIS. ISIS brought terrorist attacks to EU and US.
Political instability in Africa has caused genocides. Often with a connection to US decisions. South American regime change doesn't happen as often as it did in 70s to 90s, but that was the source of a lot pain for people.
Come to think of it, it worked out great for everyone a century ago. Three-peat here we go!
Now is more like a repeat of the 1300s and a build up to an exploratory treasure voyages from China in the 1400s.
Modern wars between super powers can't be fought. They are an existential threat for the human species. Plenty of proxy wars to waste lives on though.
At that point you have two options: conciliate with the baddies or arm yourself. Including nuclear weapons- even Japan is rethinking it's stance on nuclear proliferation. This is nothing new really Europe was a war torn continent for a thousand years.
In 1000 years, if the US gets taken over, the new power that takes over will have the same reasons to keep the peasants doing what they are doing to keep the state useful as a whole at the time of the takeover. If a completely different nation state takes power openly, sure, a few idiots who have been too brainwashed to serve their old exploiters will struggle... but they'll eventually be forced to get in line or suffer. This will not affect the population at large. They'll keep doing whatever they are doing, like they have been, for many many generations all over the world. New history will make old history boring and uninteresting to the politically minded, but it will be just the same for everyone else.
The outcomes will be vastly different if it happens in the next couple of hundred years though. There is no way there will be enough decentralised resources for people to survive by themselves... so the elites losing the power will try to do everything to hold on to it. They will control food supply to starve the people and force them into war... and won't stop until a lot of damage is done on the population.
Let's not pretend history ever stopped repeating. It was always repeating. If you think the world enjoyed a brief reprieval under a single superpower, that's because you and I happened to live in privileged places.
Some say an attack on Taiwan is inevitable. If this is true, I think a conflict between the North and the South will also happen. Everybody would be busy in Taiwan and the South would be exposed from a distracted US.
The US would certainly want to use SK as a launch platform, and then Seoul would be a legitimate target for China (and thus NK). The gap between the Chinese and SK coast isn't that large. It's almost as if the least bad thing SK can do is declare neutrality and prevent the US from using their land. China would probably contain NK in exchange.
I certainly hope no conflict will break out, and I hope I'm wrong.
But more generally my take is that most people have no idea how these things function at a basic level.
And even if China doesn't, NK would be emboldened by the lack of focus from the US and Japan. If there's a large scale conflict, SK might be able to hold off and defeat NK, but this wouldn't be without massive pain. That might be less likely, but small scale skirmishes already happen and I would expect much larger ones to take place under the umbrella of a wider US/China conflict.
And yet, SK also doesn't really have a choice but to follow the US in a wider conflict, because of mutual defense treaties. Breaking from those agreements would ruin the long term prospects of SK, unless China prevails in the long term.
It strikes me as really not an easy position for them to be in. The SK population would hate losing capitalist US as an ally and becoming closer to communist China. And yet if the US doesn't look like it'll prevail over China, geopolitics pressure would almost require SK to break from their defense treaties with the US.
Yeah, to me this strikes me as an area that is really overlooked. Any conflict between the US and China would involve Tokyo, and Seoul. But Tokyo isn't as exposed to hard power from China as Seoul is. And yet, Seoul is barely mentioned in those articles.
Now, in a case where a (conventional) war broke out between NK and SK without China's involvement, that artillery would be carpet bombed to oblivion by US air superiority in a matter of hours/days.
But if the US was tied up elsewhere, or China was providing support. Nightmare scenario.
That way, we can just get on with having peace, even if it isn't here on Earth.
I know, I know, this is hard. But seriously, sign me up for a one-way ticket to 16 Psyche.
(Disclaimer: will need to take some thingiverse or two ..)
If we fight, we all loose
https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2023/03/27/the-new-york-times-i...
And the trading relationship between the west and China is the most important in the world.
There'd be famine, hyperinflation, riots, and chaos all over the place.
Even if an immediate war ended quickly, the following instability would merely pave the way for new ones.
The best thing that can happen for the world situation is for the Chinese domestic political tone to step away from the brink with all the imperialist sabre rattling, and for the US to do the same.
The second best thing is that elites in the west plan now to disentangle economic dependencies enough that if such a thing were to happen it would have less impact. There seem to be some moves on that front, but doesn't seem realistic overall.
Also Taiwanese military has some pro-One China elements in it last I've heard.
That’s why China is using Russia to try to tie down, wear down, and/or split the Western alliance, not because of either national or ideological affinity. It creates a temporary, or if really successful more durable, opening.
China smashed the US at Chosin Resevoir despite dramatically higher casualties
Ho Chi Minh once said something like "ten Vietnamese will die for every US soldier that dies...we will win"
and he was right
keep that in mind
every American should learn about Chosin Reservoir...a forgotten battle that may very well be the worst US military defeat since WW2, maybe the only time in recent history where US soldiers broke unit cohesion and were running for their lives
It pushed German logistics off the edge, forcing them to allocate most of their heavy lift aircraft and fuel to try to keep North Africa.
That said Ukraine isn’t binary case either. Russian problems in Ukraine seem to go well beyond just logistics and are plagued by lack of strategy and even a remotely competent military leadership.
The technological advantage Ukraine has isn’t what led them to prevail.
If Russia could employ even basic combined arms warfare and conduct organized advances that serve a singular strategic objective the result would likely be very different.
The question is right now is where the people element of the Chinese military sits.
No, that was the Soviet Union. And, by modern Russia’s standards as used to describe the situation in Ukraine, you can’t really credit the USSR either, as it was really a proxy war by the USA against Nazi Germany.
Geographically Taiwan is easier to isolate. It is also a much smaller and denser country. Ukraine has a direct border with a NATO country that has been very useful as a safe staging area. Taiwan would be completely reliant on sea and air for resupply.
As a Taiwanese American, I do believe my cousins would put up a valiant fight. However it is hard to imagine it lasting very long without foreign boots on the ground. A conflict of any length in Taiwan would result in a huge loss of life.
So the PRC would need air superiority to disable those defensive positions, which would immediately pull the US and allies into the fight.
There's no Blitzkrieg option. By the time the PRC reaches the semiconductor facilities they will be scuttled. And consider the straight of Malacca instantly closed too. To win the invasion of Taiwan, the PRC would essentially need to defeat the military of the US and every Pacific ally.
I wouldn't move to Taiwan any time soon, but (despite the rhetoric) invasion still seems unlikely... Unless starting a war is the end goal itself.
Pakistan collapsing has always been a meme but I've never seen things be this bad in all those years. For the first time in my living memory, the Pakistani Army is losing legitimacy. As corrupt as it might be, as an Indian, you could at least go to sleep knowing that there was some order and hierarchy on the other side.
But if the army goes, then I don't know what chaos fills that vaccum.
Beyond that Pakistan doesn’t really have advanced military technology sure it has some US jets but those aren’t particularly useful to anyone outside of maybe Iran.
The danger isn't that someone will use Pakistani military equipment to cause mass destruction. The danger is that someone will use that equipment to bait India into a war.
Just like with Putin's generals, Xi's generals may tell him what he wants to hear. If the wants to hear they will be ready to invade Taiwan in 2027, and they say it's not possible, then they'll be replaced with some who say it's possible. If 2027 comes and the invasion is about as successful as Russia's invasion, then they may or may not be replaced. Replaced for sure today versus replaced maybe in 4 years, which one to choose?
[1] https://news.usni.org/2021/11/03/china-has-worlds-largest-na...
I am aware that there are still some unanswered questions regarding the role / effectiveness of aircraft carriers in a world of hypersonic anti ship missiles. But it's still some important context for that stat. These questions probably will not be answered unless a peer conflict occurs (which we can only hope never happens).
China needs carriers if it is going to fight the US over, say, Puerto Rico.
It doesn’t need them to fight the US over Taiwan. Mainland China (well, the parts close to Taiwan, at any rate) is one big, unsinkable, aircraft carrier for that war.
OTOH, they do need amphibious assault ships, but they have lots of them (slightly fewer than the US does.)
Try as I might, I can't escape the conclusion that it is totally valid for China to "dominate" a body of water called the South China Sea. In similar fashion, Thailand dominates the adjoining Gulf of Thailand. That isn't to say that neighbors like Vietnam or Indonesia don't also have interests, or indeed that shipping wouldn't be welcome under any flag, but simple straightforward reality is right there in the name. If there were some other entity called e.g. The Holy Righteous Ethical Sea Dominators, maybe they would have a case for dominating the South China Sea or any other part of the ocean. There is no such entity.
answer honestly any parents of teens here - would you volunteer your kids to defend Taiwan?
I have two 18 year-olds who will be on the first plane to Canada in the event...they're not dying so Apple can secure its relationship with TSMC
the only real losers are the Taiwanese who now don't own those factories anymore (but are otherwise fine - they will be on the first planes out)...and American soldiers who are dead or maimed
...and still, no one seems willing to answer if they or their kids should be among the dead/maimed
rich Americans with opportunities are far too comfortable about asking poor/disadvantaged Americans (i.e almost everyone who joins the armed forces) to die for oil, phones etc
bring back the draft, get kids from Stanford and MIT CS potentially on the front line and you will see a 180 change in almost all US policy
I've heard that in case of invasion TSMC labs would be rendered useless. Suppliers like ASML will stop support and selling new goodies as well. China has only one real option: keep improving what they already have and hope to match competitors. The way things going they have a chance.
this is a narrow view of the possible outcomes. a huge amount of our military and intelligence capabilities, as well as much of our advanced manufacturing (i.e. the things that make us relevant on the world stage), completely depend on TSMC's chips. China controlling TSMC could remove the USA from the world stage in a single decade by simply refusing to sell us the best (or any) chips.
Similarly, military and intelligence sources would likely volunteer to stop using TSMC chips immediately since Chinese control could mean those chips are compromised through-and-through.
Basically, Chinese control of Taiwan represents an existential threat to US global power and the US would likely go to the mat over it. Paradoxically though, I think this fact also reduces the likelihood of open conflict over Taiwan, because unlike Putin, Xi does not appear to let his ego drive bad decisions.
The most likely outcome is a new Cold War, with smaller conflicts around the chip industry in Taiwan, most prominently seen at the moment with China's continued expansion into the South China Sea. They cannot risk open conflict over TSMC directly, but they can try to flex their growing naval power over the shipping lanes.
If there will be a conflict over Taiwan, it will likely not happen until the 3nm fab in Arizona is operational in 2026 (planned). We'll likely see a huge shift in the dynamic once we have US chip supply lines secured inside our borders. The paradox will be resolved and Taiwan will be vulnerable to invasion since the US won't need to risk lives and material defending it's chip supply chain, but China will still want to control advanced chips at the level of TSMC's production since while they have made huge strides to catch up over the last several decades, they are still struggling to match TSMCs level of expertise (as we all are).
The industrial areas of Ukraine near the Russian border are gone. Mariupol is in ruins.
Why don't you instead ask that of the Chinese? How many of them are willing to go to the bottom of the ocean in order to complete a pointless and petty war? There's a lot of hostile water between the mainland and the sovereign nation of Taiwan that they'll have to cross, many would die. And for what?
The USA has one of the largest and most ready navies in the world, if it came to a fight, China - which has very little naval experience in war as far as I can remember - might find itself massively outclassed between the US and possibly Japan.
What then happens in a war of attrition where China can't win, but won't back down?
The allies will basically blockade China until it chokes to death on it's own hubris, and industrial production will return to the US and Europe.
a) Canada would probably be involved. Just like it was with 1st gulf war, and Afghanistan, and Kosovo, and pretty much most other things other than the Iraq war. (And while we didn't send troops, there was still all sorts of backchannel support)
b) This ain't the 60s. Unless your kids are Canadian citizens our gov't would just deport them back.
Also it's not like the US has or needs a draft. By the time conscription became such a thing in such a war, the world would be so far f*cked that Canada wouldn't be a place to hide :-(
(Also just because they're Canadian citizens, we have extradition treaties with the US, and if they were breaking a US law, there'd be process. Dodging the draft is a crime. The 1960s Pearson and Trudeau govt's tolerated Vietnam draft dodgers. I'm not convinced a 21st century one would do the same)
War sucks. Let's not have one.
It does have a draft, it’s just not active. You still have to register for selective service as an adult male.Now , I don’t think that it’s ever going to made active again.
As far as needing a draft, there does seem to be a shortage of recruits, notably in the Army and Navy. The army has ads now basically guaranteeing new recruits choice of their duty station, and I’ve seen some interesting signing bonuses from the Navy, but most of those big bonuses are for things like physicians, where you’ll make a ton more money somewhere else anyway and probably aren’t hurting for work.
Honestly though, watching my father try to navigate his mid and late military career, and seeing my brother navigate his early career, I’m not shocked no one wants to join. They seem to be more interested in creating middle managers and bureaucrats than soldiers and fighters. I do have a friend who seems to enjoy it, but mostly because it provided him stability to support his daughter.
I wonder how many people would feel like they have to show up if you simply texted them personally, out of the blue, and put the country in a state of fear via the media.
Americans talk big but isolationism has always been a powerful force. And not every president is a Roosevelt or Lincoln.
We have two oceans and Canada. I have seen what Europeans say about dumb Americans like me, and I’m not dying for them. Same with Sorks.
Good luck guys.
China is in possession of ICBMs with a reported range of 15,000 km, allowing them to threaten U.S. interests with or without intervening oceans. Unless you truly regard the U.S. has having no interests abroad, in which case, once war breaks out, the economic chaos that follows may disabuse you of that perspective.