China and Taiwan
-
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@george-k said in China and Taiwan:
@jolly said in China and Taiwan:
Taiwan is toast.
What will the US response be?
My prediction: a strongly-worded letter and little more.
Joe is bought and paid for.
And even if he isn't, could you see The Senile Patient commanding that type of situation? C'mon, man!
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
I don't even know what options are on the table if China moves in.
What options did Trump wield that Biden doesn't hav?
Would anywhere here advise the U.S. to intervene (unilaterally) if China moves into Taiwan?
Intervene with deadly force? What's the chance that devolves into conventional war? What's the chance that devolves into nuclear war?
Worth it?
-
@xenon said in China and Taiwan:
I don't even know what options are on the table if China moves in.
What options did Trump wield that Biden didn't?
Would anywhere here advise the U.S. to intervene (unilaterally) if China moves into Taiwan?
Intervene with deadly force? What's the chance that devolves into conventional war? What's the chance that devolves into nuclear war?
Worth it?
All of those questions would be applicable to Crimea.
I think we sent a strongly worded letter, but I might be wrong.
At least neither invaded Poland.
-
@george-k said in China and Taiwan:
@xenon said in China and Taiwan:
I don't even know what options are on the table if China moves in.
What options did Trump wield that Biden didn't?
Would anywhere here advise the U.S. to intervene (unilaterally) if China moves into Taiwan?
Intervene with deadly force? What's the chance that devolves into conventional war? What's the chance that devolves into nuclear war?
Worth it?
All of those questions would be applicable to Crimea.
I think we sent a strongly worded letter, but I might be wrong.
At least neither invaded Poland.
And NK has had a gun pointed at SK for decades now - we don't do much about that.
I just don't see any way out of the overwhelming risk of engaging in conventional war with nuclear powers.
In the vast majority of situations it is almost never going to be worth it.
Belligerent nuclear powers sort of have carte blanche to be belligerent (as long as they're not stepping directly on nuclear powers' toes).
Should we have attacked Russia with conventional weapons after Crimea?
-
@george-k said in China and Taiwan:
@xenon, I agree. All of your comments are, basically "a strongly worded letter to follow."
I'm not sure (and by "not sure" I mean "I don't know") what effects economic or other sanctions' effectiveness are.
I mean - I think we have an economic "nuclear" option with China. "You're cut off, we won't buy anything from you anymore."
That plunges us into the shitter as well though.
I guess my overall point is - it doesn't matter that the U.S. is a hulking body builder judo champion and China is a skinny dude if they both have assault rifles in their hands.
-
@george-k said in China and Taiwan:
At least neither invaded Poland.
I think that's another issue.
We look at future wars with the lens of what came before.
In WW1 - I remember reading something about France having to essentially jettison most senior military leaders and promote the ones with success on the battlefield, early on in the war. The old guard just didn't know how to fight according to the new realities.
-
@xenon said in China and Taiwan:
@george-k said in China and Taiwan:
At least neither invaded Poland.
I think that's another issue.
We look at future wars with the lens of what came before.
In WW1 - I remember reading something about France having to essentially jettison most senior military leaders and promote the ones with success on the battlefield, early on in the war. The old guard just didn't know how to fight according to the new realities.
They noticed that the old guard surrendered on the first day, and then they noticed that the new guard surrendered on the first day. Then they noticed they were French.
-
@xenon said in China and Taiwan:
I don't even know what options are on the table if China moves in.
What options did Trump wield that Biden doesn't hav?
Would anywhere here advise the U.S. to intervene (unilaterally) if China moves into Taiwan?
Intervene with deadly force? What's the chance that devolves into conventional war? What's the chance that devolves into nuclear war?
Worth it?
That's not really the issue. Perception is the issue. The Chinese knew that Trump is not one to back down from a fight. I think they perceive exactly the opposite about the current occupant.
-
@xenon said in China and Taiwan:
@george-k said in China and Taiwan:
@xenon said in China and Taiwan:
I don't even know what options are on the table if China moves in.
What options did Trump wield that Biden didn't?
Would anywhere here advise the U.S. to intervene (unilaterally) if China moves into Taiwan?
Intervene with deadly force? What's the chance that devolves into conventional war? What's the chance that devolves into nuclear war?
Worth it?
All of those questions would be applicable to Crimea.
I think we sent a strongly worded letter, but I might be wrong.
At least neither invaded Poland.
And NK has had a gun pointed at SK for decades now - we don't do much about that.
I just don't see any way out of the overwhelming risk of engaging in conventional war with nuclear powers.
In the vast majority of situations it is almost never going to be worth it.
Belligerent nuclear powers sort of have carte blanche to be belligerent (as long as they're not stepping directly on nuclear powers' toes).
Should we have attacked Russia with conventional weapons after Crimea?
The Korean Situation is a bit different. We still have a lot of troops in harm's way, number one. Number two, that's still an active war (technically, of course).
-
Another reason Taiwan should be nervous.
What will Kerry give away this time? His obsession with climate change plays right in China’s world economic plans.
We need to be clear eyed about China’s plans and patience. Unfortunately our time horizons and feel good accomplishments are perfectly designed to help China.
-
@xenon said in China and Taiwan:
Should we have attacked Russia with conventional weapons after Crimea?
No and why would the West mobilize over Crimea? It is no longer of strategic value to any country, including Russia.
The Crimean question had been the unacknowledged but festering elephant in the room between Russia and Ukraine since the breakup of the USSR. The only reason it was not dealt with earlier was because the US, Britain, France and Russia wanted Ukraine to give up the nuclear weapons on its territory left behind by the Soviet military. In return for the nukes, Ukraine wanted money from the West and a pledge that its borders would remain intact. The Western allies agreed to both the money and the territorial integrity. Russia was willingly on board to take possession of the weapons and destroy them - which it did - but insisted on and agreed to lease the existing naval base in Sevastopol from Ukraine until such time that a decision would be made as to which country, Ukraine or Russia, the territory the Crimean peninsula belonged. The issue was then put on the back burner between Kyiv and Moscow.
Right or wrong, Putin obviously decided that since Crimea had belonged to Russia or following 1917 the Russian Soviet Federative Republic until Khrushchev's time, he saw an immediate opportunity to annex it from Ukraine. While unpalatable to the West, Russia's claim to Crimea is every bit as robust as the US claim to Texas. Putin knew that and acted knowing that annexation would not bring any military retaliation from either Ukraine or any NATO states.
“Little by little I am learning the art of being quite content by doing very little slowly” ~ Lionel Hardcastle
-
@renauda said in China and Taiwan:
why would the West mobilize over Crimea? It is no longer of strategic value to any country, including Russia.
And then, why did Russia move to take over Crimea? If it's of no value, why bother?
Russia's claim to Crimea is every bit as robust as the US claim to Texas.
If you want to be historical, you could say the same thing about Spain's influence on Mexico, or England's claim onto Canada.
Putin knew that and acted knowing that annexation would not bring any military retaliation from either Ukraine or any NATO states.
And China is doing exactly the same thing.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@renauda said in China and Taiwan:
@xenon said in China and Taiwan:
Should we have attacked Russia with conventional weapons after Crimea?
No and why would the West mobilize over Crimea? It is no longer of strategic value to any country, including Russia.
The Crimean question had been the unacknowledged but festering elephant in the room between Russia and Ukraine since the breakup of the USSR. The only reason it was not dealt with earlier was because the US, Britain, France and Russia wanted Ukraine to give up the nuclear weapons on its territory left behind by the Soviet military. In return for the nukes, Ukraine wanted money from the West and a pledge that its borders would remain intact. The Western allies agreed to both the money and the territorial integrity. Russia was willingly on board to take possession of the weapons and destroy them - which it did - but insisted on and agreed to lease the existing naval base in Sevastopol from Ukraine until such time that a decision would be made as to which country, Ukraine or Russia, the territory the Crimean peninsula belonged. The issue was then put on the back burner between Kyiv and Moscow.
Right or wrong, Putin obviously decided that since Crimea had belonged to Russia or following 1917 the Russian Soviet Federative Republic until Khrushchev's time, he saw an immediate opportunity to annex it from Ukraine. While unpalatable to the West, Russia's claim to Crimea is every bit as robust as the US claim to Texas. Putin knew that and acted knowing that annexation would not bring any military retaliation from either Ukraine or any NATO states.
Texas was an independent republic, having won its independence from Mexico. Why wouldn't the Crimean Peninsula belong to Ukraine after the breakup of the U.S.S.R.?
