291–300 of 321 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You haven't answered the question. Who, in your view, has the right to determine the future of Taiwan?
The legitimate government of China which Taiwan is a province of.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
PRC civilian (RO/RO) fleet used to augment landing is enough to bring 7 full Group Armies (300K+ troops) & their equipment in about 10 days. Go look at Shugarts estimates which is incomplete undercount while PRC increased auto export means sealift cap massively expanding. His outdated estimates = PRC can deliver every Brigade Combat Team in the U.S. Army in a little over 5 days for years now. It's been clear for year…
The Chinese would have to pull off the most difficult military operation in the books (i.e., a contested amphibious landing into heavily defended shores), with a force that has never conducted a major operation of any kind, while using uncle's modifed freighter and dad's fishing vessel in place of built for purpose amphibious assault vessels. All in a sector who's commander has turned over 4-5 times (I forget the exa…
West keeps insisting on this outdated Normandy comparison with the PLA from the 60s, PLA WILL NOT be doing a contested landing because they're not stupid like west keeps assuming. Modern precise modern munitions = there won't be Normandy beach heads. If anything an uncontested maritime transit is much easier than say US logistic ops in MENA because open ocean sensor environment makes contesting mid transition difficult. Uncles modified RO/RO is literally just a military amphib ship with defenses stripped out, i.e it does 90% of the job. The actual defense platforms will be on the plethora of dedicated grey hulls. As for ambush, PRC rockets / mlrs can give TW max 10minutes warning even according to TW can stand alone shills like Ian Easton. The reality is TW ISTAR/command will be gone in opening salvo and major hardware that can contest actual maritime transit will be gone within hours, while light forces like infantry will be picked from stand off distances. It won't be Normany where millions of tons of preshelling couldn't dislodge defenders.
>mass
Did you read any of the analysis for token force reorientation in theatre? Japan merely committed southern islands, i.e. basically the minimum concession vs opening up main islands of ACE basing and AOs already in previous PLA war planning. Marine MLR in Okinawa death even less supportable death sentence. PH doesn't allow perm deployment, i.e. they're basically the minimum US analysts have hoped for in their PRC containment vision.
As for blockading PRC, who's going to do that anymore? Hint no one. Reality is the US has just as much energy and food _security_ as PRC. This isn't Zeihan koolaid from the 2010s, the second PRC energy is disrupted, they'll run blockade and if intervened, start hitting comparable CONUS infra like refineries that support energy and ag output. That's the fundamental new security reality with PLA modernization, US may have better resource autarky, but it has lost resource security, basically Saudi at this point. All the Malacca blockade / wank only works when US has unilateral ability to enforce without homeland vulnerability. That era has closed, blockading PRC is unlikely once PRC has the ability to inflict mutual US homeland disruption.
>Mass drone
Because PRC actually has mass drone options and mass industrial production to make mass drone feasible, they're not Turkey who brags about delivering a handful of low performance MALE drones that depend on western components. Meanwhile TW literally doesn't have "plenty" of missile inventory, that wouldn't barely make a dent in mainland infra. Like the amount of concrete in PRC and the sheer scale of hardened targets is staggering, sinking limited TW missiles is an easy trade if they can even be launched in first place. Which again, every inch can be preempted with less than 10 minutes of warning before ISTAR gone and most missile stockpiles become paperweight. The mistake is thinking TW will be defending as a modern country (currently state of preparedness is not remotely true), functionally TW's "modern" defense will exist for a few hours before reverting to the capabilities of taliban.
>UKR
PRC is a large winner, cheap energy and commodities for a long time. Meanwhile the EU dramatically weakened that they can't substantively back up the US even if they go all in atlanticist camp. As much as RU is a reduced state, so is the EU as a block. Have you seen west "ramped up" proposals, nothing that affects IndoPac theater in a meaningful way, if they even get realized (ditto with JP) with direction economies are trending. DE is already stalling. JP with their 400 tomahawks, enough to destroy 3 medium sized air fields with 50%+ interception rates using 80s Soviet anti-air. Of course that's backstop, but one needs to actually put headlines / developments into perspective. Force balance is trending towards the free world not having a chance in PRC's backyard even if they band together. Like if actually follow the developments closely, it's hard to overstate the preponderance of mass PRC building out, relative to everyone else. Like PRC alone is ~50% of global ship building capacity and testing more advanced missiles per year than most countries acquire. What they learned from UKR is the entire west can supply UKR and an incompetent RU can still fight them to relative stand still with limited special operations tier commitment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The free people of the world have a right to protect themselves from authoritarians and to assist other free people in doing so. That seems like a pretty fundamental moral principle to follow.
The US supported the dictators Chiang Kai-Shek and Chiang Ching-Kuo when they were oppressing the people of Taiwan. US also supported dictators in South Korea and the Philippines, as well as in Latin America.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why should China side with US over Ukraine's territorial integrity as US violates Chinese territorial integrity? I'm asking you and the CCP to stand for Ukraine's territorial integrity and to rebuke Russia. If territorial integrity and international norms are to be respected, shouldn't you and the CCP do that because it is the morale and consistent thing to do? A code of morality is not dependent on what others do,…
First, you might not be aware of this, but vast majority of the world takes a contrary position to the west on the war in Ukraine: https://ecfr.eu/publication/united-west-divided-from-the-res... https://www.counterpunch.org/2023/02/27/the-global-south-ref... https://usrussiaaccord.org/acura-viewpoint-krishen-mehta-the... https://archive.is/2023.02.23-211202/https://www.nytimes.com... https://archive.ph/4kbWG Second,…
Could you define what you mean by "vast majority" here?
What I'm seeing is:
March 2022: "The United Nations General Assembly on Wednesday overwhelmingly voted to reprimand Russia for invading Ukraine and demanded that Moscow stop fighting and withdraw its military forces, an action that aims to diplomatically isolate Russia at the world body. The resolution, supported by 141 of the assembly's 193 members"
https://www.reuters.com/world/un-general-assembly-set-censur...
March 2023: "With a thumping majority of 141 in favour, only 7 against and 32 abstentions, the assembly again issued a non-binding resolution demanding Russia's military withdrawal from Ukraine and calling for a "comprehensive, just and lasting peace".
https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/2517499/un-slams...
It seems disingenuous to leave it at "vast majority of the world"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also they import about 90% of their oil. They probably assumed that sanctions would not be all that severe, given their pivotal position in the world economy. Perhaps they'll reconsider after seeing the level of sanctions against Russia.
>>> ...the article doesn’t mention just how incredibly vulnerable China is to possible sanctions targeting their food supply. China imports most of its food and as their farmland is quite poor, its hugely dependent on fertiliser to feed itself. Sanctions targeting these basics would be devastating... >> Also they import about 90% of their oil. > They probably assumed that sanctions would not be all that severe, given…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
PRC/TW conflict already legally ongoing civil war. PRC a2d2 extends all the way to guam, west tw shore trivially deniable from even mainland, not that there's major ports/landing options or that mountains and limited connections make east/west logisitcs unfeasible. Mining sealanes and destroying airfields = west couldnt run blockade even if they wanted.
> Mining sealanes and destroying airfields = west couldnt run blockade even if they wanted. The Berlin airlift had a similar dynamic. The USSR could have shot down the planes - but they did not as it would have brought them too close to war. If the US/Japan sends an escorted "relief" convoy via air or sea - China is unlikely to intercept without triggering a direct conflict. A direct war between the US/Japan/Australi…
>they cannot win
PRC can very well win against US regional allies, and in many ways, a broader war is preferable because limited war means US IndoPac security infra remains untouched and others in region free to hedge with US security after TW damocles off the table. The greatest PRC strategic vision is to kick US security out of east asia and for that she needs a broad war where PRC demonstrates US cannot fulfill security commitments by destroying a protectorate so utterly that no one else would consider bandwagoning under US security umbrella after TW. Even in case of draw/loss, having opportunity to knock out extensive US IndoPac military infra (i.e. PineGap in AU) cripples US threatre capability for potentially decades. Who wins is relative, one side can win more. PRC and US both losing similar amount of blue water hulls = PRC can STILL assert military projection in her backyard with land based air assets, VS US basically gets kicked out of the Asian power projection and perhaps global hegemony game. The loss is not symmetric.
Also PRC doesn't need USN to protect global shipping, that's more Zeihan wank that hasn't been relevant for decade+. What PRC has been doing is freeloading off US, but it's more than capable to assuming own protection duties.
I've wrote elsewhere about how seriously PRC historically takes nuclear escalation with respect to security interests - it doesn't - having fought with US, USSR, IND, threatened UK, proxy FR over things much less important in TW. US carrier groups are unlikely to threaten mainland with PRC a2ad which again extends to Guam, well past even CSG sprint + stand off extended range. And even lul recent balloon drama aside, PRC rocket force can reciprocate hitting CONUS infra conventionally. If the US takes war to PRC mainland, expect critical infra to be gone on CONUS. It will take a few years for mutual vulnerability to filter way through western analysis, but all the US wank expeditionary warfare is contingent on it being unilateral, with homeland remaining un-disrupted. That's not true with PRC anymore, with PRC ability to strike CONUS only increasing with time, which will greatly circumscribe what the US will do in the TW scenario. And with precise rapid strikes being developed (PRC parlance for prompt global strike), we're talking about every US capital asset being a port visit away from being scrap. Including upcoming B21s that still needs hanger dramaqueen time. West keeps focusing on US deterrence efforts around TW without realizing PRC is also simultaneously building up intervention deterrence. Except PRC deterrence development is much more significant - US could always hit targets in mainland, that calculation was baked it. It's when PRC can hit CONUS that real deterrence math changes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lacking a real executive power, international law is basically a conversational framework in which we phrase diplomacy, which ultimately remains a balance of power. Or more simply, power ultimately always trump international law. Which is to say, the legal position on Taiwan is frankly insignificant compared to the interests of China and the US (not to mention the people of ROC themselves), as either party will end u…
Sure, and if you look at the map it becomes obvious that US cannot beat China by force in their own backyard. So, all US is accomplishing in the long run is to create conditions that may lead to a direct conflict between two nuclear superpowers because US wants to be able to project its power in Asia.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm pretty sure that the Chinese government is actually scared shitless that Taiwan declaring independence would reinvigorate independence movements in Hong Kong, Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia and probably half a dozen more. Why would they be "scared shitless"? They've demonstrated the ability to crack down hard and defeat those movements. For instance: the Hong Kong protests ended almost immediately once China decided…
A good long look at the history of Chinese civil wars should be enough to scare anyone. Maybe they could control simultaneous large scale insurrections. But it would be wise not to be overconfident in that regard.
Why do you think they'd have to deal with any "large scale insurrections"? They easily delt with one HK, once they imposed a Mainland-style security law, because fear evaporated the protests. Those protests also didn't inspire much of a response in the Mainland. They also didn't have to deal with on in Xinjiang, where they implemented so much direct oppression that you'd think they'd have inspired a response if one were possible.
The PRC security apparatus is strong, well organized, and its actions aren't constrained by liberal sensibilities. The PRC population is thoroughly disarmed, disorganized, and dis-informed, so cannot resist it. I think you're indulging in wishful thinking and fantasy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who does, besides the Taiwanese?
I'll try explaining this in more familiar terms for you. A province is like a state in US, and the central government of China is akin to the federal government in US. I hope that helps clear things up for you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You haven't answered the question. Who, in your view, has the right to determine the future of Taiwan?
The legitimate government of China which Taiwan is a province of.
Or is the consent of the governed? And if so, I think saying Taiwan belongs to anyone else except the Taiwanese is a big mistake.