this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2023
67 points (98.6% liked)

World News

32113 readers
768 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Charles Q. Brown Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the Chinese leader would 'try to use other ways to do this.”

all 36 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] bufalo1973@lemmy.ml 9 points 10 months ago (5 children)

I think the best course of action for China is lower the tone and try to have some business with Taiwan (I don't know if they have it now) and from there go up until both side become partners.

[–] fr0g@feddit.de 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Well they basically tried that already. They tried to strike up a trade agreement with the then ruling conservative power that would give China significant economic and thus political influence. But the Taiwanese people were smart enough to see through that. There was a popular uprising, the legislative building got occupied by student protestors, the agreement was retracted and the then president lost the next election in a landslide.

[–] zerfuffle@lemmy.ml 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The DPP received significant funding from the US National Endowment for Democracy during that time. Coincidence? Probably not...

Same meddling shit that happened in Ukraine with Euromaidan and in China with Tiananmen Square. Even the US PsyOps teams themselves admit that they were responsible for those events.

I'd love to say that the Taiwanese people themselves came to the conclusion, but time and time again the US has showed that the people's choice isn't something they really respect abroad.

[–] Schorsch@feddit.de 3 points 10 months ago

Yet as much as I would wish for this, I don't think it's the way of thinking of those in charge.

[–] u_tamtam@programming.dev 3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

China's way of partnering is through domination, and under Xi it is no longer even a matter of opinion or interpretation. The Taiwanese know that well, while the rest of the world is readjusting after a half century of concessions and "trying to be good friends".

China doesn't believe in/wants/cares about a world order with all countries equal under the same international laws, and that's what I personally find to be the scariest for the world's stability in the long term (rather than the naive "democracies are good vs authoritarianisms are bad and hence we should align against CN/RU").

[–] zerfuffle@lemmy.ml 7 points 10 months ago

Ah yes, the classic "domination through trade"

[–] zerfuffle@lemmy.ml 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

China and Taiwan are already some of each others' largest trading partners. China is Taiwan's, and Taiwan-China trade is so significant it's almost half the US-China trade volume.

Don't talk about shit you don't understand.

[–] bufalo1973@lemmy.ml 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It seems there are not enough businesses to make peace more profitable than war.

[–] zerfuffle@lemmy.ml 1 points 10 months ago

Peace is more profitable than war for basics everyone except the US. Only the US' military industrial complex is so geared towards extracting maximum profit.

[–] u_tamtam@programming.dev 5 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Sounds reasonable, even under very generous assumptions regarding the expansion of the Chinese army, there's no way they can take Taiwan within the next few decades (unless big, but unlikely, changes in alliances in the region), according to military strategists. And by that time, those generous assumptions might no longer be tolerable for the Chinese economy.

[–] zerfuffle@lemmy.ml 3 points 10 months ago

Taking Taiwan would lose so many lives it's absolutely absurd. It's complete unviable, especially when the US has already clearly demonstrated an alternative solution (just "not blockade" them like Cuba).

[–] Joncash2@lemmy.ml 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

Well, there have been a lot of war games that currently show China losing but by a small margin. It's likely that in less than a decade China would win by a small margin. According to many US generals.

So while your wrong, China almost certainly could take Taiwan in less than a decade, I would argue that there's no chance in hell they would do it. Winning by a small margin here means millions if deaths if not nuclear war. This would be massacre that would make both Israel and Russia's violence look down right peaceful.

And it's not like China hasn't shown it's hand in what it would do. War is not China's goal, a blockade is.

[–] stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml 1 points 10 months ago

With the way the economy is going there, I can't imagine that we can expect that China will remain as it is now in a few decades. The entire thing is ready to come tumbling down at any moment.

[–] u_tamtam@programming.dev 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Are those games weighing Taiwan's defense capabilities versus China alone? In practice China would be up against the USA, and Korea, and Japan, and the Philippines and a plausible economic and logistics alliance of most countries in the region. I am not a military strategist but the sheer numbers alone are not in favor of China, and that is ignoring the tactical challenges at play.

[–] Joncash2@lemmy.ml 5 points 10 months ago

It includes allies. This is because of the tyranny of distance. US simply cannot power project enough to take on China with Taiwan alone.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/09/politics/taiwan-invasion-war-game-intl-hnk-ml/index.html

But these war games are actually biased towards USA. Pentagon's own war games have China winning already.

https://news.yahoo.com/were-going-to-lose-fast-us-air-force-held-a-war-game-that-started-with-a-chinese-biological-attack-170003936.html

So if we believe the US military, then China can already win. Though many argue US military says this just to get more funding.

I would err on the side of US just barely winning with all allies.

That said, I do not believe China would invade. It makes no sense. Anyone who claims this is could happen should have their credibility questioned. As China as I said already has shown its hand, it will blockade if it comes to it.

[–] fr0g@feddit.de 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)
[–] u_tamtam@programming.dev 0 points 10 months ago

I should spend the time to assemble my sources to oppose yours once I get on a computer, but one thing I found telling was that China's current landing capability for infantry is in the low thousands whereas they would need in the high hundred thousands for minimal strategic goals, and this is the easy part in terms of shipbuilding. If they expect to invade opposed, they would need a whole fleet with anti naval and air capabilities which they don't have and does take decades to build.

[–] HowMany@lemmy.ml 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Remember that "top U.S. general" who unequivocally and with 100% certainty told the U.S. that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction - which led to the longest "war", for nothing, in U.S. history?

Yeah... good times.

[–] stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml 4 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Well that was a whole conspiracy that was never prosecuted and was a special event. I take your point but do think that it was a very unique period in history.

[–] interceder270@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

Name checks out.