|
Solaris 2.0 posted:Or, and hear me out, the Chinese could not invade the country that doesn’t want their rule? Now whose ignoring the history. lol, we're all gonna die like, cmon? You honestly going to lecture me about ignoring context and say this? never mind, pay no mind list you go Hope you enjoy the war (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 22:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 19:42 |
|
|
Ron Paul Atreides posted:Now whose ignoring the history. Nice red text.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 22:49
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Do you doubt this would happen if they did? Like not as a one off designed to test readiness but just decided to fly bombers over Teipei? I'm not sure why you aren't understanding the argument. I actually do doubt that if the PRC flew airplanes over Taiwan that they would be shot at. It'd be suicide.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 22:50
|
|
|
Ron Paul Atreides posted:Now whose ignoring the history. I just don’t like imperialism no matter who does it sorry you decided that it’s cool.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 22:50
|
|
|
Ron Paul Atreides posted:Now whose ignoring the history. What are the steps do you think that would happen for "we're all going to die" to be a result? Because I don't see how a conflict that would largely be over in under a month and involves only the local forces of the 7th Fleet and the Fujian military district (with build up and reinforcements prior to D-Day) woulds in any American civilians on the mainland dying as a direct result. The vast majority of casualties would be Taiwanese people who have via the democratic process decided they were willing to take their chances fighting out the war rather than surrender; followed by the PLA who are the attackers who would naturally take casualties; while the US-Japanese-Canada/Etc would only really lose people as a result of damage to surface ships or long range strikes on forward bases like Guam/Okinawa/and other military viable targets. Hawaii wouldn't get touched at all even if Chinese subs decided to go that far to try to intercept the Pacific version of REFORGER. A nuclear exchange granted would be playing the odds but that is an exceedingly unlikely outcome. The US win or lose isn't going to resort to nuclear weapons to defend Taiwan, China is not going to violate its No-First Use Policy. Cpt_Obvious posted:I actually do doubt that if the PRC flew airplanes over Taiwan that they would be shot at. It'd be suicide. Then why doesn't the PRC test that theory and find out? You've shitposted yourself into a corner here and you smell.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 22:55
|
|
|
Slow News Day posted:Nice red text.  don't care. I don't want WW3 and I'm watching most of the forums psyche themselves up for it. Everyone assuring themselves for sure it won't happen while openly calling then Nazis and ignoring the direct imperialism the west is currently carrying out.We are on a loving collision course and when it's lights off everyone is gonna be assuring ourselves we are the good guys yet again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 22:58
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:What are the steps do you think that would happen for "we're all going to die" to be a result? Because I don't see how a conflict that would largely be over in under a month and involves only the local forces of the 7th Fleet and the Fujian military district (with build up and reinforcements prior to D-Day) woulds in any American civilians on the mainland dying as a direct result. The vast majority of casualties would be Taiwanese people who have via the democratic process decided they were willing to take their chances fighting out the war rather than surrender; followed by the PLA who are the attackers who would naturally take casualties; while the US-Japanese-Canada/Etc would only really lose people as a result of damage to surface ships or long range strikes on forward bases like Guam/Okinawa/and other military viable targets. Hawaii wouldn't get touched at all even if Chinese subs decided to go that far to try to intercept the Pacific version of REFORGER. Right now, given the US current state, in my opinion a nuclear exchange is all but a guaranteed, with US launching first.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 22:59
|
|
|
For the good of humanity, Taiwan should surrender immediately if China invades. Any escalation would be catastrophic for the entire world - the already fragile supply chains would completely break down and financial markets would be upended within days. It would be morally monstrous to try to encourage the rest of the world to get dragged down with Taiwan into a war over some god drat islands in the SCS. Taiwan is China's land anyway. What 40 million people want is immaterial when the remaining 7 billion would face a global depression on an unprecedented scale.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 23:00
|
|
|
Ron Paul Atreides posted:
No one wants WW3 that’s why some of us are against imperialism wether it’s the US in the Middle East, Russia invading Ukraine, or the Chinese invading Taiwan. The quickest way to start WWII is when imperialism happens.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 23:03
|
|
|
Ron Paul Atreides posted:Right now, given the US current state, in my opinion a nuclear exchange is all but a guaranteed, with US launching first. You sound unhinged. Even the most insane hawks don't advocate for nuking China, or anyone else for that matter. So how can it come to a nuclear exchange?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 23:03
|
|
|
So you believe that the ROC would risk war with the PRC if their airspace were violated? Edit: This was directed at Raenir Cpt_Obvious fucked around with this message at 23:09 on Oct 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 23:04
|
|
|
Slow News Day posted:You sound unhinged. Even the most insane hawks don't advocate for nuking China, or anyone else for that matter. So how can it come to a nuclear exchange? When China starts taking the notion of dedollarization seriously it's absolutely in the cards.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 23:04
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Then why doesn't the PRC test that theory and find out? You've shitposted yourself into a corner here and you smell. Because it would have a non zero risk of destroying a plane and crew for.... literally nothing? If someone hands you a 100 sided dice and tells you on a 1 I have to give them 100 dollars and if it lands on any other number nothing happens are you taking the bet?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 23:10
|
|
|
The worst that would happen is that the Taiwanese nuclear program would have a "sudden breakthrough" and now the question is "Do you want to trade Beijing for Taiwan?". Nobody is going to war over this, it's not worth the money. For anyone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 23:11
|
|
|
The PRC isn’t a robot they don’t have to invade Taiwan and kill millions of people. There are literally dozens of non military methods they can use to exert influence without resorting to over imperialism and wars of aggression.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 23:12
|
|
|
Solaris 2.0 posted:The PRC isn’t a robot they don’t have to invade Taiwan and kill millions of people. Alternatively America doesn't have to militarily intervene for another country across the world we have very little cultural and historical ties too. Israel or Britain are very robust and strong democracies but no one is assuming they would intercede om behalf of Taiwan without Americans leading the way of course.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 23:16
|
|
|
Mulva posted:The worst that would happen is that the Taiwanese nuclear program would have a "sudden breakthrough" and now the question is "Do you want to trade Beijing for Taiwan?". Nobody is going to war over this, it's not worth the money. For anyone. loving around and finding out at all is suicidal, yeah, but the escalation right now is mutual and the simplest solution to the problem (that IMO, doesn't have to be one) is allowing China to annex Taiwan. The repercussions of the alternatives to annexation or the current status quo are too dire to even consider.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 23:17
|
|
|
Terminal autist posted:Alternatively America doesn't have to militarily intervene for another country across the world we have very little cultural and historical ties too. Who said anything about America intervening? The US doesn’t have to “intervene” for the Chinese to kill millions in their imperialist conquest.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 23:24
|
|
|
Sedisp posted:Because it would have a non zero risk of destroying a plane and crew for.... literally nothing? If someone hands you a 100 sided dice and tells you on a 1 I have to give them 100 dollars and if it lands on any other number nothing happens are you taking the bet? Cpt_Obvious posted:So you believe that the ROC would risk war with the PRC if their airspace were violated? So it would be fine then for the US to send bombers into the PRC's airspace? Lets say 100 B-2 bombers straight for Beijing; you think this would be fine and that Beijing shouldn't open fire to protect their sovereignty? Sovereignty is a thing that requires a nation to not only have a military, but a willingness to shoot at things in order to maintain and pretty much all nations do this, even if it doesn't get them much. The USSR after all fired at the SR-71's that did flights over their territory; Cuba fired at the numerous US warplanes that did recon flights during the Missile Crisis; that didn't result in a war. In general though, a nation's sovereignty will quickly fall apart if they don't take measures to defend it. Taiwan would cease to be a meaningfully independent country if it let Chinese troops do whatever they want, its absolutely reasonable for Taiwan to defend itself and its borders in order to defend their sovereignty, as it would be for the PRC if the US was violating PRC's airspace in a way that indicated immediately imminent danger.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 23:26
|
|
|
Solaris 2.0 posted:Who said anything about America intervening? The US doesn’t have to “intervene” for the Chinese to kill millions in their imperialist conquest. Im going to go ahead and say that the Taiwanese military wouldn't be able to put up enough of a fight without American intervention where the death toll would be millions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 23:27
|
|
|
Terminal autist posted:Im going to go ahead and say that the Taiwanese military wouldn't be able to put up enough of a fight without American intervention where the death toll would be millions. Yeah this probably true; unless they like, completely gently caress up the food supply chain, but I don't think that's even remotely likely. At worst you're looking at OIF numbers and without an extended blockade I don't think the civilian side of things gets that bad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 23:29
|
|
|
Terminal autist posted:Im going to go ahead and say that the Taiwanese military wouldn't be able to put up enough of a fight without American intervention where the death toll would be millions. The Iraq War and subsequent occupation killed millions and Taiwan is a far more populated country with a far more effective military. My point is any invasive even sans US would be a human rights nightmare and a bloodbath. Wars are horrific and a modern war even more so.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 23:45
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:So it would be fine then for the US to send bombers into the PRC's airspace? Lets say 100 B-2 bombers straight for Beijing; you think this would be fine and that Beijing shouldn't open fire to protect their sovereignty? Sovereignty is a thing that requires a nation to not only have a military, but a willingness to shoot at things in order to maintain and pretty much all nations do this, even if it doesn't get them much. The USSR after all fired at the SR-71's that did flights over their territory; Cuba fired at the numerous US warplanes that did recon flights during the Missile Crisis; that didn't result in a war. Yes or no: do you believe that Taiwan would shoot down a PRC fighter for violating their airspace. And agree, btw, that Cuba is probably the best example from which we can draw conclusions. However, it is important to remember that Cuba had already successfully overthrown a US backed puppet government and were expecting a reactionary war.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 23:46
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 23:48
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:So it would be fine then for the US to send bombers into the PRC's airspace? Lets say 100 B-2 bombers straight for Beijing; you think this would be fine and that Beijing shouldn't open fire to protect their sovereignty? Sovereignty is a thing that requires a nation to not only have a military, but a willingness to shoot at things in order to maintain and pretty much all nations do this, even if it doesn't get them much. The USSR after all fired at the SR-71's that did flights over their territory; Cuba fired at the numerous US warplanes that did recon flights during the Missile Crisis; that didn't result in a war. It's an entirely false equivalency to compare the power difference between Taiwan and China to the US and China. It's also 100 strategic bombers instead of a single fighter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 23:49
|
|
|
It is very strange to see people act like the CCP is some inevitable, inhuman force of nature that cannot help but to try to conquer and annex Taiwan. Like it's the the changing of the seasons or something wholly outside of human control. It isn't. They have agency. The CCP gets to make a choice of whether to engage in a war of imperial conquest or not. If they do I think the United States and other free democracies should step up to check them. Imperialism is wrong. Full stop.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 23:50
|
|
|
How are u posted:It is very strange to see people act like the CCP is some inevitable, inhuman force of nature that cannot help but to try to conquer and annex Taiwan. Like it's the the changing of the seasons or something wholly outside of human control. They aren't listening to you or anyone else in America nor should they. Thinking you can impose your will on the situation is what's delusional here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 23:53
|
|
|
How are u posted:It isn't. They have agency. The CCP gets to make a choice of whether to engage in a war of imperial conquest or not. If they do I think the United States and other free democracies should step up to check them. Define "check them" cause this just sounds like chickenhawk rhetoric.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 23:53
|
|
|
Bathtub Cheese posted:They aren't listening to you or anyone else in America nor should they. I'm sorry, pardon? Are you in favor of the CCP engaging in a war of aggression to conquer Taiwan?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 23:56
|
|
|
How are u posted:I'm sorry, pardon? Are you in favor of the CCP engaging in a war of aggression to conquer Taiwan? That's not even in the same ballpark of what you're quoting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 23:58
|
|
|
How are u posted:It is very strange to see people act like the CCP is some inevitable, inhuman force of nature that cannot help but to try to conquer and annex Taiwan. Like it's the the changing of the seasons or something wholly outside of human control. Tell your handlers that sparking world war three over a tiny island on the other end of the world is absolutely batshit. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 23:59
|
|
|
Sedisp posted:That's not even in the same ballpark of what you're quoting. I said "They shouldn't invade Taiwan" and the other poster said "they shouldn't listen to you". That seems pretty clear cut to me, but maybe I'm misinterpreting?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 23:59
|
|
|
How are u posted:I said "They shouldn't invade Taiwan" and the other poster said "they shouldn't listen to you". That seems pretty clear cut to me, but maybe I'm misinterpreting? They shouldn't be listening to anyone in the USA was what the person said. Now wether you think that is sensible or not is up for interpretation, but it presumably includes themselves alongside you, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2021 00:02
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:They shouldn't be listening to anyone in the USA was what the person said. Now wether you think that is sensible or not is up for interpretation, but it presumably includes themselves and you, right? I think everybody should listen when the message is "Don't engage in aggressive imperial wars of conquest." That seems, to me, to be a universally good and acceptable message and philosophy by which nations should live. I have zero issue with holding the CCP to that standard. It is the minimum standard.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2021 00:03
|
|
|
How are u posted:I'm sorry, pardon? Are you in favor of the CCP engaging in a war of aggression to conquer Taiwan? If China must and if and only if Taiwan surrenders quickly or does not escalate then I have no problem with that. It does not affect me directly as an American and China is within its rights to take back its land from the compradors in charge of Taiwan should it see fit. It's the wrong thing to do for the rest of the world, but the US being entangled in the situation at all is worse in long term assuming war is inevitable. Regardless, the relevant moral calculus here is global -- any escalation and the ripple effect from a regional war breaking out over this would be incredibly dire for the rest of the world.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2021 00:03
|
|
|
How are u posted:I said "They shouldn't invade Taiwan" and the other poster said "they shouldn't listen to you". That seems pretty clear cut to me, but maybe I'm misinterpreting? You also said a lot of other things in there if I said "China shouldn't invade Taiwan but if they do the US should nuke the invasion force" do you think someone telling me no one should listen to me is endorsing an invasion?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2021 00:04
|
|
|
Bathtub Cheese posted:and China is within its rights to take back its land from the compradors in charge of Taiwan should it see fit. It isn't Chinese land. Taiwan is a sovereign nation that does not want to be conquered and annexed by its neighbor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2021 00:06
|
|
|
How are u posted:I think everybody should listen when the message is "Don't engage in aggressive imperial wars of conquest." That seems, to me, to be a universally good and acceptable message and philosophy by which nations should live. I have zero issue with holding the CCP to that standard. It is the minimum standard. Yes, but I don't think anyone in the US government is capable of really saying that without it coming across as, shall we say, a tad myopic. Sure it'd be great and I support that, but you seem to be saying a lot of different things that do not seem to come from that necessarily. If it's the minimum standard then why have so many governments dug under them in the last 20 years alone? Should we, as citizens, overthrow our own governments when they fail to meet these standards?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2021 00:06
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:They shouldn't be listening to anyone in the USA was what the person said. Now wether you think that is sensible or not is up for interpretation, but it presumably includes themselves alongside you, right? I don't think China has any moral obligation to entertain the US's opinion (or anyone living here) on this issue for even a second. Pragmatically, yes. The West and the US were the prime movers here in creating this geopolitical powder keg. No amount of hokey liberal moralism will erase that fact.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2021 00:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 19:42 |
|
|
Sedisp posted:You also said a lot of other things in there if I said "China shouldn't invade Taiwan but if they do the US should nuke the invasion force" do you think someone telling me no one should listen to me is endorsing an invasion? I don't think anybody should use nuclear weapons for any reason whatsoever. We are in complete agreement on that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2021 00:07
|
|