An Anxious Asia Arms for a War It Hopes to Prevent(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
An Anxious Asia Arms for a War It Hopes to Prevent
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/25/world/asia/asia-china-military-war.html
101 comments
America can't even win a culture war with itself... I don't think college-aged leftists have ever fully comprehended what Pax Sinica means for them: work. Just watch "American Factory", the documentary Obama made on Netflix a few years back. American MBAs think you are lazy compared to Chinese who will work 12 hours a day, six days a week, and would love nothing more than for you to accept that schedule for even lower wages.
During the brief time the US enjoyed being an uncontested global superpower, it managed to invade Iraq, creating a power vacuum, leading to the rise of ISIS.
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.
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.
Absolutely, how dare those uppity colonials subvert the unipolarity of His Majesty King George.
Yeah cause it worked out soooo great for those colonials in a multipolar world with the Spanish, Portugese, French, and British empires fighting over the new world or that time Britain, France, Germany, Portugal, Spain, and Italy tore it up in Africa.
Come to think of it, it worked out great for everyone a century ago. Three-peat here we go!
Come to think of it, it worked out great for everyone a century ago. Three-peat here we go!
Only ThrowawayR2's people can bring salvation to the human race. Let there be one ruler, one king.
The old hegemony is already on its way out or this re-armament and re-militarization wouldn't be happening. You're literally getting your wish.
Now everyone is going to have to survive the aftereffects of the resulting power vacuum.
Now everyone is going to have to survive the aftereffects of the resulting power vacuum.
[deleted]
I'm rather hoping that rather than unipolar or multipolar world we move towards a nonpolar one with all countries chipping in to protect each other a bit like the UN was planned. That might seem idealistic but there are a bunch of countries chipping in over Ukraine, not just the US.
1800s is too recent.
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.
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.
Jules Verne was saying the same things in his time.
Well, if the hegemon had done something productive rather than waving their dick with invasions / bombings / sanctions / political interferences / etc. etc. they might have had more sympathetic view from the outside.
I knew somebody would pop up to reflexively say this.
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.
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.
It's not reflexive to critisize US foreign meddling. It IS reflective because it requires considerable consideration to puncture the fabric of US internal propaganda and reach these conclusions. The problem is that it's built on a web of lies and treachery. That's not a very smart attitude to take between whole nations of people. Maybe it is if the end goal is further ethnic domination, subjugation, and/or exterminaton-- which the US has done and still does, systematically.
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.
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.
Don't confuse the US before the collapse of the soviet union and now. There is a reason it is in the position it is - it actually did stuff countries liked such as rebuilding the world after WWII. When the soviet union collapsed the US needed to pivot - instead a bunch of inept politicians have been doing expedient nothings for 30 years.
>"situation could get much, much worse "
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.
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.
Pretending that “the hegemony” has done nothing but terrible things is intellectually dishonest.
I am not pretending. I just mentioned bad things sine those are the reason we are getting deeper in shit. Good things were done by many sides but it is irrelevant in the context. I am not dishonest at all. Maybe you are.
And the fact that you attribute good things to “many sides”, but bad things solely to “the hegemony” shows no bias whatsoever!
Whether I have a bias or not is irrelevant. It does not negate who the hegemon is.
To be fair, a multi-polar world with the level of technology that we have today is unprecedented. I don't think nations would resort to fighting in the past. It would be more similar to the cold war. Tensions, posturing in hot zones, and occasional proxy wars.
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.
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.
Cool, then let China be hegemon for a half a century and we'll debate their merits after that.
How's it going over in China right now?
If America bails on Ukraine, as some politicians want, it will be a signal for everyone on this planet: you're on your own good luck.
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.
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.
Or maybe new alliances will appear from this? What's to say the EU won't unite further and have a decent military? Or maybe another bloc of countries will coalesce. At some point, even if it takes 1000 years, America will stop being numero uno. Then what, we're all doomed?
> At some point, even if it takes 1000 years, America will stop being numero uno. Then what, we're all doomed?
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.
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.
Oddly absent from all this talk, aside from a short mention, is South Korea. If WW2 and the century before it is anything to go about, SK will get involved in this whether they like it or not.
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.
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.
NK isn’t itching to invade SK. They would get rolled and they know it.
But it would be very, um, convenient for China if SK was distracted by NK. So it might be engineered
Im not sure geopolitical experts would agree with this pondering
So what's your take?
https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Chinas-Three-...
But more generally my take is that most people have no idea how these things function at a basic level.
But more generally my take is that most people have no idea how these things function at a basic level.
The document you shared, and that which they link to referring to SK, sort of comes to the conclusion that I stated: SK would probably not allow the US to use its bases. It's the least bad position for them. Aside from securing the peninsula, any support to the US would leave SK exposed to China encouraging NK to make trouble.
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.
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.
They have enough artillery pointed at Seoul to cause mass civilian casualties. It would be a humanitarian disaster on both sides of the border.
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.
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.
Reader View: https://web0.cc/a/eTTUtwgj4S
Of course NYT frames regional rearmament in terms of PRC deterrence instead of US reliability. Yes PLA military modernization plays a part, but anxious US regional partners have been questioning US long term reliability post Trump. Why SKR is pursuing indigenous defense industry, or JP partnering up F-X with UK/IT. Both parties also got boxed in by 3 antagonist nuclear powers, PRC, RU, NKR in the last few years with increasing capabilities. Their security environment has deteriorated considerably. Meanwhile big bois in ASEAN have grown GDP 5-10x in 20 years, so of course they're going to start military modernization as well, while aquistion not sufficient to matter in TW contingency which they're staying out of anyway. The fact that Singapore has most advanced navy and airforce / general defense power in ASEAN is embarassing. Asian rearming is overdue. The question is whether US hegemony/defense and PRC ambitions can drive spending to keep up with Asian military powered by increasing wealth.
Humans of all nations, and all nationalities, and all cultural identities, and all language groups, and even individuals, all of us .. should stop building weapons and start building starships.
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 ..)
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 ..)
We better focus all our resources in colonizing other planets and harvest asteroids that's what makes all better off.
If we fight, we all loose
If we fight, we all loose
“Why payest we taxes to those Earthers, who do nothing but oppress use? We X-Omega-Cypher305s should seek our Independence.”
As is commonly the case, Caitlin Johnstone has the most insightful analysis:
https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2023/03/27/the-new-york-times-i...
https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2023/03/27/the-new-york-times-i...
Pay attention to this. A war between China and Taiwan is quite possible. There are Chinese generals who claim the war will be over in a few days. That's what Putin thought when invading Russia and trying to take Kyiv.
I'm more worried about Pakistan collapsing into chaos and some nutjob getting his hands on some advanced military technology.
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.
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.
I’m pretty sure the US has multiple plans to go in and secure the nuclear weapons and I’m pretty sure in that contingency even China is onboard it really doesn’t want India and Pakistan lobbing nukes at each other.
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.
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.
By "advanced military technology", I mean anything that's not an AK-47 and a bunch of grenades.
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.
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.
US intervening with Imran Khan led to this mess.
> A war between China and Taiwan is quite possible.
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.
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.
That would be 100% dependent on what the Taiwanese decide to do. If they decide to give in and absorb into the mainland, it could be over in a few days. If they decide to fight, it would be a second Ukraine.
It doesn't matter if the Taiwanese were to fold and surrender military suddenly. It would still be a huge a catastrophe. The west would be forced to respond in ways that would be catastrophic for the world economy in a way that the Ukraine crisis doesn't even approach. There's no way normal trade relations could continue as they have.
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.
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.
Are there any pro-China factions in Taiwan? If yes, how much influence do they have?
KMT is broadly poised to win multiple cities this year and they're pro One China, though not communism necessarily.
Also Taiwanese military has some pro-One China elements in it last I've heard.
Also Taiwanese military has some pro-One China elements in it last I've heard.
> There are Chinese generals who claim the war will be over in a few days. That's what Putin thought when invading Russia and trying to take Kyiv.
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.
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.
Taiwan is also an island separated by hundreds of miles of ocean from the mainland. Russia shared thousands of miles of land border with Ukraine, much of it flat steppe. China's ability to make meaningful changes in Taiwan would be difficult with it's own boots on the ground, and it would be far harder to to that in Taiwan than Russia doing it in Ukraine.
You seem to forget that Ukraine has hundreds of km of borders with NATO countries (Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania). Refugees go out, military supplies go in. How would that happen in Taiwan.
Yes, there's no direct land route for Taiwan's allies to use, but the same is true of Chinese forces trying to get onto the island. Their supply routes may be shorter than Taiwan's, but they are just as vulnerable.
Both sides are likely to suffer a majority of their losses just trying to supply their troops, and the effectiveness of submarine warfare against enemy shipping and air superiority against enemy airlifts will determine victory in the long run. So long as the West maintains superior submarine and carrier fleets, they offset the longer supply lines. If China catches up in either or both of those areas, the advantage of shorter supply routes starts to tilt in their favor.
Boats, aircraft.
[deleted]
Invasion of Taiwan would require the largest amphibious assault in history. And it's easy to point defensive artillery at the water.
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.
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.
[deleted]
> There are Chinese generals who claim the war will be over in a few days.
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?
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?
Russia won the Eastern Front despite suffering dramatically higher casualties than the Germans
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
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
USSR won because of American lend lease and Germany having to fight on two fronts. Modern wars are won with equipment and technology, not human wave attacks (see Russia Ukraine war)
Lend lease wasn’t a major contributor to the eastern front, however the North African campaign was.
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.
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.
Current US weaponry and doctrine were informed by their 20th century experiences with massed human attacks, which are still considered to be realistic scenarios in some theaters. They have many tools for effectively solving that problem at scale now.
> Russia won the Eastern Front
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.
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.
None of this may be enough to match China. Its own surging arsenal now includes “monster” coast guard cutters...
China's navy is now bigger than the U.S. Navy.[1] Not as many large ships yet, but for South China Sea dominance, aircraft carrier task groups are not necessary.
[1] https://news.usni.org/2021/11/03/china-has-worlds-largest-na...
[1] https://news.usni.org/2021/11/03/china-has-worlds-largest-na...
Worth noting that while China has a larger navy in terms of number of ships, the US Navy is larger in terms of tonnage, and most critically has more aircraft carrier task forces.
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).
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).
> Worth noting that while China has a larger navy in terms of number of ships, the US Navy is larger in terms of tonnage, and most critically has more aircraft carrier task forces.
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.)
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.)
You don't need larger ships if you are so close to the theaters involved
Also, big tonnage means a bigger target for cheaper and deadly weapons
How useful is that tonnage going to be after the first salvo? It's been a long time since "submarines or targets" and China has invested heavily in missile development.
...for South China Sea dominance...
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.
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.
only bigger by number of ships. By tonnage i think its less then half the size.
the owners of Taiwan's capital must be just thrilled to have so many willing mercenaries
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
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
If such a war happened... and pray that it doesn't... as a Canadian, I have to say I doubt your kids would be safe in Canada.
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.
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.
they're dual citizens, I'm many steps ahead of you
Like I said, wouldn't make a difference. Pretty much whatever the US gets into, we get into, too. Most of the time.
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.
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.
> Also it's not like the US has or needs a draft.
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.
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.
No idea why you are downvoted. During the cold war the constant question on everyone's mind was: is the US willing to sacrifice NYC for Berlin?
Americans talk big but isolationism has always been a powerful force. And not every president is a Roosevelt or Lincoln.
Americans talk big but isolationism has always been a powerful force. And not every president is a Roosevelt or Lincoln.
Isolationism is the main foreign ideology of the GOP today. It’s not some niche movement.
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.
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.
> We have two oceans
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.
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.
I'm personally leaning towards being opposed to intervening (and I think diversifying chip fab locations/companies/etc. over the next decade will remove much of Taiwan's geopolitical importance anyways) but the loss of Taiwanese independence to China would affect a lot more than Apple. The ability to supply any company or individual with modern high-end computing power would be severely limited, and much more expensive. Samsung and kinda sorta Intel are currently the only other fabs with capabilities on the level of TSMC, and their current production capacity is nowhere near enough to meet worldwide demand.
even from a purely material perspective, the US would lose little - China will be more than happy to sell us chips from its conquered TSMC labs just like they are happy to sell us everything else (and chips are not a singular strategic issue - we already need Chinese rare earth minerals among many other things, not just cheap crap at Walmart)
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
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
Taiwan's industrial capacity will not survive a war. Almost all of Taiwan's development is within 15km of the west coast, facing China. Unlike the approach to Kyiv in Ukraine, there's no depth. Look at a map.
The industrial areas of Ukraine near the Russian border are gone. Mariupol is in ruins.
The industrial areas of Ukraine near the Russian border are gone. Mariupol is in ruins.
>...and still, no one seems willing to answer if they or their kids should be among the dead/maimed
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.
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.
They have a large population and are constantly stroking nationalism. In the US the current younger generation has an anti-US mindset (not understanding really the alternatives). There's (many) reasons the US military is having trouble recruiting young talent.
>"China will be more than happy to sell us chips from its conquered TSMC labs"
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.
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.
> China will be more than happy to sell us chips
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).
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).
Conscription today would be interesting, since having most mental/physical disabilities (like autism or depression) currently bars you from service.
Another Catch-22 set of rules would take care of those logical quirks of diagnosis, if up against a really serious existential threat.
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.
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.
As if Canada will not be pulled into such a war... China invading Taiwan won't be the same as the Vietnam war. Better to send your kids to Switzerland or Central/South America
I doubt US intervention would involve sending ground troops to Taiwan. It would probably mostly be providing arms like anti ship missiles similar to what is happening now in Ukraine. If things got worse if might involve US fighter jets and nuclear subs but your kids are probably not going to be piloting those.
do truly hope the people in the region have the wisdom to resist the hype ... mostly for weapon producers to make more and get their stuff tested at the cost of the region ...
Xi never called me racist.. as a Navy veteran I know which side I will be on in this war.. xi never called me racist
Wait so as a Navy veteran you want to support China over the US? Because of domestic culture wars?
Fucking agreed. I’m not dying in a war to drum up support for Biden’s election campaign. Biden hates people like me
You're aware Trump campaign is heavily anti-China, right?
A multipolar world sounds all well and good until Japan starts making plans about Manchuria, Korea and Nanjing again. Don't get me wrong, they are entirely concerned with defense at present, but that's just the present. What will Japanese millenials do when a decade or more passes and they are the ruling constituency? What will the Japanese Overton window of 2035 look like?
[deleted]
"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.