- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
I mean, yeah, why wouldn’t they?
Should we just let China carpetbomb Taiwan instead?
And act just like Israel?
If China had the chance, they would love to act like Israel is acting towards palestinians, yes.
The US is wrong to support Israel’s genocide of Palestinians.
The US is right to help Taiwan defend itself against assimilation by the CCP.
Genocide and imperialism are bad. Supporting the victims of them to defend themselves is good. Not so hard to understand, is it?
Good. Even if nobody likes 'murica, their weapons work well enough to deter China from doing something stupid.
Imagine if the roles were reversed, and it was China arming i.e. Panama. How would you feel then?
(Because the USA has done a lot of "something stupid"s as well).
Edit: Folks, you can analyze the bigger picture without being a tankie. It’s unfortunate that so many ex-Redditors would rather block and report any display of critical thought
Imagine if the roles were reversed, and it was China arming i.e. Panama. How would you feel then
False equivalence, Panama’s risk of being suddenly invaded in the current political climate is nearly zero. Taiwan (is #1), on the other hand, has to be ever vigilant. Also, Panama doesn’t house the ‘rightful’ government of the US.
Obviously they’re different. But failing to empathize when given the analogy shows either the inability or unwillingness to understand China’s position.
Nobody needs to understand chinas positions. They are irrelevant.
The US wouldn’t be arming Taiwan if China wasn’t making the claim that it is part of China. Taiwan poses literally zero threat to china. There is no US comparison here.
It’s the same shit with Ukraine and Russia, and China is watching closely. It’s probably easier politically for Republicans to fund a nation not in conflict, because the deterrence doesn’t look like as big a win for Biden, so this is why they intelligently to along with it.
From Wikipedia:
Taiwan, officially the Republic of China (ROC), is a country in East Asia.
What were you saying?
What’s your point? Did you just stop there and not read the next sentence that says “It is located at the junction of the East and South China Seas in the northwestern Pacific Ocean, with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to the northwest”?
Wait until you hear about the official names of China, or North and South Korea
(For the uninitiated: People’s Republic of China, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and Republic of Korea. Tl;dr there’s more than one issue if you’re going off the country’s official name for which land they own)
it’s just a poor analogy, not worth taking seriously.
I’ll piss on the CCP any day of the week, thank you very much. I’m a communist, by the way.
I understand the PRC’s position just fine because they’ve been explicit about it for decades: They believe that Taiwan, an island they’ve never controlled, is theirs by imperial right based on the Qing dynasty’s rule over it for ~200 years prior to 1900.
We don’t need to “empathize” with a desire for imperial conquest, we just need to stand in the way of it.
How about Cuba, then?
Same deal. They’ve suffered an unjust embargo, sure, but are under no real threat of invasion.
I probably should have said Cuba in my main comment. Doesn’t look like it helped people understand, though!
There’s nothing to understand, it’s the same situation. Neither Panama nor Cuba are currently under threat from the USA. The USA does not claim ownership over either, and is not threatening their sovereignty.
You’re the one not understanding the false equivalency.
Would you feel comfortable with China putting weapons on Cuba? Because the US got real upset last time, and as you said, the US doesn’t even have plans to invade Cuba (anymore)
It would be irksome, sure. But there is no amount of weaponry that China could supply Cuba with that would threaten the USA (short of nukes), so it would be a moot point. Business as usual. Taiwan similarly has no hope of success in attacking China, regardless of how many weapons the USA provides. Meaning: this only works one way, and if China is upset about that then maybe they should keep their eyes (and hands) within their own borders and everything will be fine.
That’s fine! We should not invade Panama. I don’t think the US is currently planning on it, but after the last 20 years I’m pretty sure most citizens would be fucking glad for any excuse for our military to think twice before invading a foreign country.
deleted by creator
.ml means ‘Marxist-Leninist’. From their about page:
“In particular, I would like to see someone (or a group of people) create a mainstream, or liberal instance. That should help to avoid further drama, and avoid attempts to turn lemmy.ml into something that it is not.”
But really, it’s Mali. But they could have set it up that way for the Marxist Left thing
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/.ml#:~:text=ml is the Internet country,domain (ccTLD) for Mali.
Yeah that’s what I mean. Same as .dj is Djibouti, but people use it for music; or .mu (Mauritius) or .am / .fm (Armenia/Federated States of Micronesia); .io (Indian Ocean Territory) for tech (from Input/Output); .gg (Guernsey) for gaming or gambling; or .tv (Tuvalu) for Television.
As an American who knows how evil our government is, I would be like “good for panama but also China is probably not doing this out of justice and freedom”
Neither is the US. We’re doing it because Taiwan is a strategic ally
Gives me Cuban Missile Crisis vibes.
I’m not as happy that the US sells arms, but I’m convinced by the geopolitical climate that arming Ukraine and now I might add arming Taiwan is better for the world than worse. Refilling Israel’s Iron Dome is probably a good idea too, though we are yet to see what the US sends and how defensive or offensive those weapons we send are.
There might be better comparisons though in the weird chess games we played in the middle east with Russia. They armed some insurgents, we armed some insurgents, etc. Afghanistan was a disaster for Russia too, though it was worse for us.
Countries helping arm one another is good. Every country should have the capacity to defend itself. My country got steamrolled during WWII because we had few and outdated wapens
If you’re comparing China/Taiwan circumstances to USA/Panama I’m sorry but I cannot call that a critical thought. The only similarity is proximity.
The one other one is a democracy, despite being a flawed one. The other, an unabashedly totalitarian state. And before any CCP apologists comments and nevermind what the domestic Chinese think, ask South Korea, Japan and South East Asia what they think of the Chinese Communist Party claiming the entirety of South China Sea and sending armed merchant vessels and the Chinese navy bullying other Asian fishermen in the region. Not to excuse American imperialism, but it’s clear which is the better option for many.
ask South Korea
너 지금 한국에 사는 사람한테 답하는 거야…
Do you speak on behalf the population of South Korea?
No, but I thought it was funny someone likely from the West tried to use that argument when I suggested the idea of a weapon deployment next door might make you uneasy
Why don’t we ask South America, the Middle East, and Vietnam what they think about the US?
but it’s clear which is the better option for many
… American tax dollars are at this moment funding the genocide of Palestinians.
EDIT to add: I should clarify I’m no CCP apologist, nor do I uplift China as an example of what we should strive for. But I also really get tired of seeing America put on a pedestal. America was built on genocide, slavery, and exploitation, I don’t see how it should ever be an example of how to do things better, BECAUSE that line of reasoning (“at least we’re better than them”) has been used to justify many of the horrors of our history.
By using that bit of propaganda, you’re contributing to things like Americans looking the other way/enabling - for the past 75 years - genocide. It’s the same “they’re savages” shit that was used to justify literally the most savage acts against Native Americans.
Our democracy also isn’t actual democracy. By definition, a democracy must represent the will of the people. Ours does not. It is already a failed democracy, and has been for my entire life. America also produces more propaganda than any other country. Do we have more personal freedoms in many areas than people in China? Absolutely. Are there many areas throughout society where I think America has pushed the world forward and made it a better place? Absolutely.
But I’m getting really sick of seeing America compared to China just to say “we’re better”.
Greetings from Hanoi. The Vietnamese in general view the USA quite favorably. Much more so than they feel about China which is regularly killing their fishermen and destroying VN oil and mineral development facilities. The 1000 years of Chinese occupation seems to have also left a bit of a bad taste.
Past atrocities does not justify today’s actions by another at the present time. US hasn’t been meddling Latin America since the cold war. In Asia Pacific, US isn’t the one who is bullying Japan, South Korea and SE Asia. And funny you mentioned Vietnam, as someone already said that Vietnam view US favourably in spite of history, the former actually dislike China more than the US. Vietnam has a much longer historical animosity with China than the with the US. At present, US and Vietnam have mutual interests in containing China.
Past atrocities does not justify today’s actions by another at the present time.
I’m not saying that. I’m saying that holding America up as a standard and saying that we’re somehow better is hypocritical and dangerous because it helps to justify/overlook shit like what’s happening in Palestine rn, and I’m sick of the general mindset exactly because it has helped lead to the ignorance and complacency we see with a genocide that is fueled largely by American desire to retain influence in that region for capitalistic purposes, with no regard for human rights.
Vietnam has a much longer historical animosity with China than the with the US.
I mean yeah no shit, they’ve been at it for thousands of years lmao.
And, as I’ve said elsewhere I was more getting at the human rights atrocities perpetrated by the US which still have great effect on Vietnam.
I’m in no way trying to justify anything. Again, I’m just saying I’m sick of seeing people hold the US up as “hey look we’re better” because I really don’t know that we are. We care about human rights at home, to an extent, but we don’t give af who that affects in other parts of the world. Is that really better than China pretending to care about it’s citizens with communism while abusing their human rights and exercising insane governmental control over their lives?
The US has been and continues to be the direct and indirect perpetrator of a lot of evils, and the more I learn about these things, the more I dislike seeing America characterized as a standard of morality, because it directly reflects propaganda which has allowed for many of these atrocities to happen.
No one is holding US as the gold standard. But with the present dog-eat-dog realpolitik, the US is seen as the “least of all evils”. Last time I checked, a survey carried out across the world said most still prefer the US than China or Russia. In my opinion, it’s better to have a multipolar world to stop the current set up humanity is having right now.
Funny you should ask
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2015/04/30/vietnamese-see-u-s-as-key-ally/
Yet four decades after the controversial war, the Vietnamese public sees the United States as a helpful ally and even embraces some of the core tenets of capitalism.
Today, the Vietnamese view the U.S. in a positive light. About three-quarters of Vietnamese (76%) expressed a favorable opinion of the U.S. in a 2014 Pew Research Center survey. More highly educated people (89%) gave the U.S. especially high marks. Young people ages 18-29 were particularly affirmative (89%), but the U.S. is seen positively even by those who are old enough to have lived through the Vietnam War. Among those ages 50 and older, more than six-in-ten rated the U.S. favorably.
Yeah I shouldn’t have used Vietnam as an example bc I am aware that they’re somehow largely favorable to the US still, but the lasting effects of US imperialism on the population there is what I was really trying to get at.
Taiwan is a full democracy, not a flawed one. At least according to the widely respected Economist Democracy Index.
Taiwan is more democratic than Canada and Germany. And a lot more than the US, but that’s not surprising.
Give them a bunch of nukes and biological weapons and after they arrive send a message to the PRC
“Just a fyi, we sent them a 100 but they only received 80. Be a real shame if Taiwanese operators had planted them in randomly selected cities on the mainland.”
It will be hilarious way to end the world.
There’s a theory that Taiwan could achieve mass destruction with just regular cruise missiles, no need for actual WMDs.
The destruction of Three Gorges Dam would kill millions of people from the resulting flood. Be a tough target and air defense would be a nightmare, but it is still within Taiwan’s cruise missile range.
There’s been no acknowledgement ever of this plan, but it’s pretty obvious.
hilarious
yea sounds funny if you like reddit
Aaaand… Música, maestro!
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
The ultimate end of the world song. Just as the canisters release Covid-20 through 30 plus airbourne HIV
Covid-20 would mean it started in 2020.
Guaranteed that poster thinks they are very perceptive and see through the all the bs.
In a world of guided missiles everywhere… invasions probably won’t go so well.
So quietly that no one knows about it
I realize that you think you are being clever, but actually that’s precisely the point. They want the CCP to know about it otherwise it’s pointless as a deterrent.
They seem to be mocking this journalist, not the US.
Well Taiwan can either go with the US or China. They’ve been wanting to stay independent from China for a while now so I don’t think it’s much of a surprise.
Almost all countries other than USA, Russia, and China have to pick a side.
I mean Russia is pretty close to needing to pick a side.
Well, their economy isn’t collapsing any time soon. And they managed to destroy modern military systems supplied by NATO.
Their gdp is production of weapons right now. After they lose no one is going to want these weapons and they have been produced for the trash.
My point is it’s not real growth.
Hasn’t their economy already shrunk by 5% since the war began?
Seems like they’re going to become a vassal state of China.
I’ve been saying for the last couple of months that Xi is in a perfect position to reclaim the Vladivostok oblast. The native population is over 40% Han, not just Chinese, the type of Chinese the CCP gives a shit about. He could easily appear strong internally, and reclaim former Chinese territory that the Russians invaded in 1901, under the excuse of “a special military operation to defend the ethnic Chinese people in the region.” I seriously doubt that any other country other than Russia would even bat an eye, and Russia would be impotent to defend itself.
This would also give China a port that is outside of the first chain of islands that the US has set up
He’s going to have to do something, they’re going to have their own economic issues to deal with…
Yeah but nukes.
China been dreaming of this for decades.
I mean yeah, but the EU is also an available Option
When it comes to military, EU is basically NATO which is led by USA.
Europe could stand against Russia without American support. probably not China though. china couldn’t attack any American aligned state without facing humiliation though
It is, but I wouldn’t count on our potential to wage an effective modern war in functional cooperation with the many countries in the EU. Especially when it is a war taking place out of Europe and not a defensive action.
A militaristic endeavor would surely be held up and manipulated by opposing countries within the alliance, just like it is now with economic decisions.
So US then?
So if Iran goes full monty and China invades Taiwan while Russia is grinding down its population on the Ukrainian front, we’d have WW3 on our hands I reckon.
Great what a time to be alive! /s
That war is already underway, we just won’t be calling it that until after…
Not really a world war until 10 countries are actively involved with 2 of them USA and China.
Right now usa is passive and china is not involved.
We’re in the lend and lease phase right now
I could see it being called a proxy world war. There’s enough concentration of where support is coming from.
I think that’s just called a Cold War. We didn’t invade Vietnam because we actually give a shit about Vietnamese people, it was a proxy war with the USSR
That and they were the major exporter of opium at the time.
We won’t be calling it that until the US has a draft.
Drafts have not won recent wars. Wars are not PVP.
The US has made an effort to maintain a highly trained and extremely specialized fighting force. It can take over a year of training in certain specialities before you even get to the last school house.
There’s a focus on making advanced weapon systems easy to use through human factors analysis and that’s slowly transitioning into killbots that do everything but pull the trigger and need a human in the loop to authorize the kill.
During WWII there was a massive increase in manufacturing which was beyond the enemies reach. If you got drafted to do anything it’d likely be work in a plant making drones or something logistical such as transporting drones.
When ww3 starts I hope I’m on the ice cream boat
Yes the US tries to make soldiers the operators of weaponry, not the weapons themselves as in earlier times. Treasure spent on weaponry stokes the military industrial complex. Benefits to dead veterans families, not so much. Also civilian deaths undermine public support for whatever bullshit they are doing.
Also, spending money on a weapon is money that goes to a shareholder. Spending money on training doesn’t.
The war in Ukraine is a drafted/conscripted army versus a drafted/conscripted army. They are (to varying degrees) led and bolstered by volunteer career soldiers, but the vast majority of the boots on the ground have little to no experience.
In times of “peace”, drafts and compulsory service are largely pointless. You are mostly just increasing churn and ensuring that accumulated knowledge is lost. And your “peaceful operations” likely have a small enough footprint that you can make do with volunteers.
Against a near-peer or even just a conscript army with sheer numbers? You need to increase the amount of cannon fodder. And just the number of guns that can do the “easy” stuff while you rely on the highly trained soldiers to do the “hard” stuff.
When World War 3 finally kicks off (… and assuming it isn’t over in the time it takes an ICBM to fly halfway around the planet): I don’t know if “civilized” nations will actually activate a draft because it will lead to mass unrest. But I am also not sure if they’ll have a choice.
And just as a counter argument to weapons being increasingly high tech with a focus on skilled use: The US Military’s M5 is a good yellow flag. It is specifically designed with multiple ammunition types with the higher power round significantly degrading the life of the weapon and expected to only be issued for near peer conflicts. But that also speaks to the lessons learned from Ukraine and similar conflicts where… when the war really kicks off, you don’t have to worry about your weapons or soldiers lasting years. They will be damaged and killed in battles and need to be replaced.
Cannon fodder?
To quote Patton
“No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.”
It’s a good thing this near-peer BS is thrown around about armies that can barely keep their troops fed in their own countries where we have the logistics to feed our troops around the world.
I’m sure there will always be a roll for infantry. The problem of the last few wars has been using infantry to hold ground and as a police force.
You don’t win a conflict by holding on to a hill of dirt. You win by removing your enemies ability or will to fight.
Ukraine is a bad example as they’re playing by other people’s rules. Europe and the West won’t provide them weapons if they use them in Russia. Russia won’t give up ground if Ukraine cannot reach inside of Russia to remove their will or ability to fight.
It’s trench warfare stalemate a la WWI all over again.
If there is a WWIII it’ll be marked by hybrid war, hacking, air defense reacting to missle and drone attacks and the deployment of decentralized weapons.
It’s not a stretch to imagine hundreds of thousands of civilians could be killed by killware in a hacking attack without a single traditional weapon system being involved.
People aren’t going to line up in pretty little lines fire salvos at each other. If anyone starts digging a fucking trench let them have that ground. They are no immediate threat to the factories, production, and training centers. Let them dig in. Send a bomb run later to clear them out when they come out to play.
So, because some guy in the 40s had a pithy remark, a war that shows strong indications of playing out similar to WW1 and the Eastern Front of WW2 against similarly armed foes is not at all representative of future wars?
Also, unless we are willing to completely raze cities (both captured friendly and enemy), there will always be some form of “trench warfare”. That is what we saw in Fallujah and are seeing in Ukraine. It is just that, rather than run from one trench line to the other, it is pushing from a treeline into a city or from one block to another. And bombardments are only viable while you have munitions and/or air superiority. Both of which are limited resources as wars continue… which we are seeing in Ukraine.
Because of external factors, Ukraine is on a very “weird” time table. But everything that is happening is consistent with a prolonged war. Even the US only has so many stockpiled resources and can only make so many new bombs and vehicles at a time. Especially if supply lines are fucked and the entire world is scrambling to build their own.
If you want to go trench by trench or door by door go ahead.
The future of war is not dirt. But instead information.
If Australian warnings for Perl Harbor had been heeded we wouldn’t have had to build so many boats. We built 9000 boats in WWII and we’ll build more than that many drones in WWIII.
But what good are drones without information? Without targets? Without information what to they do?
Targets, tactics is only one kind of information. Real time surveillance, biometrics, the ability to strike command and control. To cut the head off the snake is worth more than clearing a city.
If you need to clear a city, you need infantry.
Did we go island hoping all the way to Japan and then go door to door? Or did we break the enemies will to fight and force a surrender?
Is it always worth going door to door and holding worthless land? Trading bodies and bullets for what? Dirt?
What would it be worth however to cripple the enemies Command, Control, Communication, Computers, Cyber, and Intelligence? Do we really need to take land in future wars as much as force a surrender out of idiots that want to start shit.
There’s a terrific documentary about how the Air Force planned to win a nuclear war before ICBMs. It’s called the power of decision. It’s not about going door to door or trench by trench however. It’s about a different kind of war where you win by removing your enemies ability to fight in a flash. Unfortunately similar can be done today in cyberspace without the assurance of MAD or the early warning of an ICMB launch.
deleted by creator
Don’t forget the middle east
Where in the world is Iran located?
I am sorry, I can’t read
Was that not covered by “if Iran goes full monty?”
Idk, there is more middle east than just Iran
Yes, like Yemen or Palestine or Syria or Iraq or Afghanistan? They have interests and influence outside their own country, to varying degrees.
I am sorry, I obviously can’t read properly
And all of that because the US can’t tell Israel to stop bombing civilians in Gaza.
broken fucking record
Not because that wtf
Oh yes, exactly because of that! It may seem farfetched to come to that conclusion, but only if you look at things as isolated happenings instead of in a more global geopolitical scope.
Turkey, Iran and Egypt are eager to enter the stage. Their only repellent is the US’ firm stance with Israel. But how long can this Mexican standoff be in place?
Israel has already cut Gaza in half and now they are going to increase the killings in the northern half in which still 1.1 million citizens live. The number of casualties will increase dramatically and the videos and images will ignite the region. One of the eager neighbors mentioned above might enter the stage, they might even jointly enter all at the same time.
What happens if Turkey, a NATO member, enters Israel? What are the implications of this?
China is smelling US weakness and can’t wait for something like that to happen. They will immediately proceed with their plan of annexing Taiwan.
If that happens, Russia will mobilize with full force and there you have it - WW3.
All because America couldn’t say to Israel to lift it’s finger from the trigger.
China cannot simply invade Taiwan in a moment whenever opportunity strikes, it would need significant and obvious preparation and buildup, because they would be contemplating a naval invasion on an almost unprecedented scale.
Russia probably will mobilize however far it’s government feels it safely can regardless of China; NATO isn’t going to directly invade Russia itself because of it’s nuclear arsenal, and isn’t terribly likely to actually send a serious number of troops to Ukraine for the same reason, so what it primarily has to worry about is western sanctions and military equipment, and of course the efforts of the Ukrainians themselves, which it already has to deal with regardless of what China is doing.
Israel for it’s part is also a nuclear armed state, so actual full scale war being declared upon it by it’s neighbors is unlikely. Support for terrorist or resistance groups, sure, maybe some sanctions, and definitely a lot strongly worded condemnation, but I’d very much doubt that the leadership of those countries cares enough about the Palestinians to declare a possibility suicidal war over it, the kind of politicians that lead these countries aren’t exactly famous for their empathy.
China has the world’s largest Navy currently. That buildup has been happening for at least a decade.
I don’t mean number of ships, I mean getting the ships and troops into position to use them.
But if they’re at war, that ties up a lot of their resources. They’re currently using their military strength to claim international waters in the South China Sea. If they get into a war with Taiwan, they can’t back that claim up. The countries which are being unfairly denied those waters can assert themselves without fear of significant reprisal, and the US would be more than happy to aid that.
There’s really no sensible reason for China to go after Taiwan, it’s complete bait. They stand to lose far more than they stand to gain.
more boats /= capable navy. most of their “navy” is small patrol boats
I’m aware of their current capabilities. The troop transports and carriers are the things that raise my eyebrow.
Israel can only ever hope to use its nuclear arsenal as a deterrant to its neighboring countries. As soon as they use a single nuclear warhead in the region, it will instantaneously lose all the support it still had in the world and beyond that point it is hard to predict what the world will turn into, but it would be ugly.
That’s the nature of nukes for any country. But as a deterrent they have proven highly effective
I don’t think turkey will enter Israel at all. Maybe Egypt if US insisted on moving Gazaians to Sinai.
Also why Russia will mobilize? They have no incentive to face NATO now. Maybe weakening the west in the long run.
Russia is facing NATO right now, just not directly, but by proxy. In case of a major disruption within NATO, they could try to use the opportunity to increase their defending position by taking the 3 small baltic countries.
I see.
I thought you mean nuking NATO.
Russia tried to hurt NATO by punching the guy next to him, and in return is getting beaten to a pulp by the guy that got hit while NATO laughs and supplies knuckledusters to their wrongly attacked neighbour. Russia is a clown state that’s done nothing but embarrass themselves for 18 months straight
Russia made a mistake by invading Ukraine, but they are far from “being beaten to a pulp”.
Egypt is not going to enter, they hate hamas and their own Muslim brotherhood.
They’ll to defend their land.
This is their prime minister statement.
Amid rising pressure on Egypt to admit Palestinian refugees, the country’s prime minister, Mostafa Madbouly, said it remained committed to protecting its land and sovereignty regardless of the cost. “We are prepared to sacrifice millions of lives to ensure that no one encroaches upon our territory,” Madbouly told a gathering in Sinai of military leaders, local tribal leaders, members of parliament and other politicians.
This is a very large logic train and you can’t demonstrate A->B let alone A->Z. Basically confirmation bias.
I can’t demonstrate geostrategic happenings? Of course I can’t. Can you?
I don’t make claims I can’t demonstrate and demand people take me on faith for my tinfoil nonsense
Way too broad a brush, mate.
nah because no country is allowed to be a part of the russo-ukranian war as ukraine is neutral.
…and Israel, for that matter.
At least Taiwan isn’t an apartheid state.
Where is that legalized race segregation even hinted at in that article?
Also, an editorial is not really sufficient to make that argument. Editorials are like opinion articles.
That’s quite an old article though
How is Israel an apartheid state? Don’t they have an active Arab population?
Thanks for the article. I’ll have to read this later. It looks like it answers all my questions on that topic.
There’s only so much they can do if Taiwan is unserious about its own defense. Exhibit A: the fact that eliminating conscription has apparently turned into a bipartisan consensus in Taiwan, in spite of the hollowing out of Taiwan’s military. Who exactly is going to be operating all that expensive military equipment?
Wtf you talking about?!?! They raised the conscription age to 40. I just have friends who just finished their conscription. The mass majority of us already consider ourselves independent. We have our own currency, our own government, our own laws.
Best believe if Xi bear attacks, we are stepping up to beat those China-nese scums.
Conscription period used to be 3 years, then 2, then 1, then 4 months. Finally it became too obvious that 4 months is a joke, so it’s being grudgingly raised back up, but only to 1 year. Still barely time to get any proper training done; for comparison, Israel’s conscription is almost 3 years and includes women.
The Taiwan government also persistently underpays military service members. The result is that it never hits its targets for professional (non-conscript) personnel, then wrings its hands about it…
That’s very different from your “Exhibit A”. Pretty far from what you said about eliminating conscription. Ya sure it’s 1 year now for now. The military thinks it’s enough for now. We pay the government for their expertise. We trust them here.
One year is barely enough to get proper training?
Very few actually do, as evidenced by the fact that almost none of them draft women for any role or duty, except for less than a dozen (only sweden and norway on equal terms).
The US will definitely have egg on their face if Taiwan and China never go to war.
Why? That’s literally been the entire point of arming Taiwan for the past 50 years. It’s even stated in the article, the US gives them enough so that China doesn’t get stupid and start something, but not enough so that Taiwan gets stupid and start something.
Why would China start anything if they haven’t started anything in 50 years? What if another 50 years goes by and China still hasn’t started anything? Isn’t that just a waste of weapons?
ask Tibet
ask Hong Kong
ask the Uighurs
Ask them what? About invading Taiwan?
Tibet is in a historical economic boom.
Tibet is ranked as the least-free country on Earth, with no political rights or civil liberties.
That’s a lie perpetuated by Freedom House, a US funded propaganda machine. Tibet not being a free country is like saying Hawaii isn’t a free country. No shit, it’s part of China. However, Tibet is an autonomous region with it’s own governance and laws. The Dalai Lama is just upset because he lost his kingdom and his slaves.
Tldr: Tibet is far from the least free country on Earth because it is neither a country, nor is it bad.
Because I’m the last 50 years they didn’t have a military powerful enough to assure a swift and painless victory. That’s the whole point of why china keeps increasing their military and why Taiwan needs to do the same. The moment China has a critical force, they’ll attack, they have announced it loudly and repeatedly in the past decades.
China could have invaded Taiwan ages ago and won very swiftly. The plans were drawn up and everything. China very big. Much people. Taiwan very small. Not so many people.
China could have invaded Taiwan ages ago and won very swiftly
Even if the US intervened? Because they said they would ages ago.
Also, you can have a billion people in the army, but you first need to cross the sea without getting exploded, and keep resupplying your men until Taiwan and US capitulation. This is not something china could do “ages ago”
Well, China was the winner of the civil war, so they did win. It was just determined that after so many decades of fighting and war, it was time to stop and focus on rebuilding China. As for their military might, you underestimate China’s capabilities and technology. It’s not just a country of a bunch of people with bolt action rifles. They’re military technology is on par with the US and they’re not spread thin.
They would start something for the same reason Russia started something in Ukraine.
The goal is that another 50 years go by and they don’t start shit.
That’s a brain broken analysis. You think one country would invade another because of what happened with two completely separate countries? I guess by that analysis, the US is going to invade Mexico and England will invade Ireland any day now.
You are being very obviously obtuse, and it’s really funny.
Well I’m acuter than you
Remember Hong Kong?
I remember there being protests. I fail to see how hong Kong is relevant.
I think the argument is that there wasn’t any movement to take control of Hong Kong and replace its basically independent government for years. Until there was.
Same with the whole China Sea expansion. Circumstances can change on a dime and the optimal outcome is if nothing happens.
Hong Kong had become a safe haven for corrupt capitalists and politicians so China decided to start extradition to the mainland so they could be put in jail instead of bribing they’re way out of every change. Hong Kong still has plenty of autonomy.
As for the Sea expansion, they claimed the 9 dash line after world war 2 and we’ve been arguing over it ever since. They’re being reactive to America’s constant provocation. Nothing will come of any of it though.
No, that’s the whole point. It’s like nukes. The nuke itself isn’t the big deal, your ownership of one is. If a country was threatening to invade you, and you responded by threatening to nuke them if they do, they’ll stand down.
It’s the same idea here. The weapons are a deterrent. It’s a sheathed sword to tell your enemy that you’re armed and able to defend yourself. We don’t actually want to use the weapons. It’s a threat that there’s plenty of firepower to fight an invasion.
The only thing like nukes is nukes. The thing deterring China from invading Taiwan is how intertwined their economies are. China has no reason to invade Taiwan. Taiwan buys a ton of things from China and sells them microchips. They have a symbiotic relationship.
That’s the point
You are badly confused.
Between what and what?
So the US is funding Taiwan, Ukraine, and [checks notes] …Israel? Makes perfect sense to me
Proxies against Russia, Iran and China.
Iran feels like just Russia Proxy with an extra step tbh.
deleted by creator
Iran is more of a man-on-the-side proxy for Russia imo.
These days it’s more the other way around, Russia has gotten so weak Iran is propping up Russia to cause mischief and take attention away from Iran and where their other proxies are playing.
she cute
BBC found out about it. It aint that quiet.
Quietly? They have been doing so for at least 40 years. Everybody knew and knows.
It’s in the BBC ffs how quiet can it be?
