|
Wistful of Dollars posted:I think there's ample evidence that the US and Canada have been nothing but genocidal towards the native peoples. Yeah, my take would be literal and active genocide
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 00:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 13:52 |
|
|
Wistful of Dollars posted:I think there's ample evidence that the US and Canada have been nothing but genocidal towards the native peoples. Spot on, it was largely genocide. Don't know if I'd call it cultural even, even the cultural genocide parts like the schools were....largely slaughterhouses. It was straight genocide.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 00:06
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Spot on, it was largely genocide. Don't know if I'd call it cultural even, even the cultural genocide parts like the schools were....largely slaughterhouses. It was straight genocide. Sorry, to be clear I'm taking about what is going on right this instant
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 00:09
|
|
|
The question was about contemporary native americans in reservations - I don't think that counts as genocide. The genocide of the native peoples was a thing that happened and it successfully both destroyed the physical populations and their existence as sovereign political entities and prevented any meaningful chance of restoration, but everything we see today is the after-effects of those policies echoing down through the generations, rather than an active attempt at genocide.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 00:11
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:Sorry, to be clear I'm taking about what is going on right this instant Honestly, most likely also counts as Genocide. Regardless, what is happening at the border, with Native peoples in general, is practically motivated by the same hate that creates genocides so why deny it. To get back on topic: Its not going to fly in this thread, and its pretty stupid to try to do a "What about the Americans" in reference to PRC's actions regarding cultural genocide.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 00:11
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:The question was about contemporary native americans in reservations - I don't think that counts as genocide. The genocide of the native peoples was a thing that happened and it successfully both destroyed the physical populations and their existence as sovereign political entities and prevented any meaningful chance of restoration, but everything we see today is the after-effects of those policies echoing down through the generations, not an active genocide. Even though native people have a life expectancy that is a decade shorter than white Americans? (or something like that)
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 00:12
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:Genuinely not trying to whataburger here, what would the treatment of contemporary native Americans in reservations count as, cultural genocide or literal genocide? Trying to sus out how cultural genocide is being defined Genocide. Absolutely genocide. e: contemporaneously, today, not active and targeted genocide like in Xinjiang. Certainly genocide by neglect. e: anyway, this is the China thread. How are u fucked around with this message at 00:16 on Oct 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 00:12
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:Even though native people have a life expectancy that is a decade shorter than white Americans? (or something like that) Yeah. Genocide is a pretty high bar and entrenched inequality isn't it. Someone has to be trying deliberately or through neglect to either wipe you out or wipe out the concept of you. As I posted above, the concept of the native peoples as sovereign states was successfully wiped out (which was the primary objective - eliminating any threats to the US's manifest destiny), and it's unclear that there is any sort of active or passive ongoing effort to squeeze out the rest of the reservations for the sake of it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 00:16
|
|
|
I think we get the point guys, back to China
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 00:18
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:Sorry, to be clear I'm taking about what is going on right this instant The legacy of the damage runs so deep that while there aren't genocidal policies anymore it almost doesn't matter. China is engaged in an active campaign against the Uyghurs. Canada and the US are passive but malignant. They've done the damage and aren't doing what's need to right the wrongs of the past and actually make things better. Anyway, back to China.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 00:19
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:I went back to the OP and while lots of it is still good it's also very written pre-Xi Jinping and so is an interesting look at China from a decade ago. Oh yeah, that's very noticeable. I wonder if there are any posters left here with the knowledge to make similar effortposts about present-day China? Probably not, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 00:21
|
|
|
Here have some drones falling out of the sky https://twitter.com/pitdesi/status/1445118812659933187?s=21
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 00:22
|
|
|
Lmao that's cyberpunk as gently caress
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 00:23
|
|
|
Feel like I did this quest in CP2077
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 00:29
|
|
|
When people seriously try to lawyer up an entire, mincing character separation of "merely cultural genocide" versus "real genocide" its got all the desperate apologetic energy of the "actually its ephebophilia" types. Anybody involved should be ashamed. I guess that's a roundabout way of saying thank you for this thread moving against genocide denial and whataboutism
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 00:46
|
|
|
Ron Paul Atreides posted:the US directly agreed to Chinese Sovereignty over Taiwan in the 70s. regardless of whatever conventions and unofficial agreements are in place, on paper, in international law, the US recognizes Taiwan as under Chinese jurisdiction. Now that this thread is back on track, I would like to go back and dispel this particular notion (bolded). https://china.usc.edu/joint-communiqu%C3%A9-united-states-america-and-peoples-republic-china-december-15-1978 The US-China joint communication of Dec 15, 1978, does not in any way agree to the PRC's claim that Taiwan is a part of China. This communique is the basis of the US "One China" policy. It explicitly acknowledges that China views Taiwan as part of China but refuses to recognize China's position. The verbiage is important here. In fact, the PRC at the time tried to pressure the US into accepting the term "recognize" and in the Chinese version of the communique, the word is changed to be recognized. However, the US views the English version of the text as the one it agreed to. https://books.google.ca/books?id=lC...%20U.S.&f=false In fact, the US has no official policy on who own's the landmass that is called Taiwan/Formosa after the Japanese relinquished legal control of it after WW2. Regarding Taiwan, the US position is that both the PRC and the ROC should come to a mutual and peaceful resolution to the matter, and that's it. When the US (or almost any other Western nation) says they support the "One China" policy, it is within this narrow definition. That is the Taiwanese government is no longer viewed as the legal government of China - that is the PRC now. But it also does not state that Taiwan is a part of China. It may seem like hair-splitting but the distinction is very important. Otherwise you would have diplomatic relations with two separate governments that nominally both claim legal sovereignty to China. The One China policy puts an end to this, but it does not in any way concede that the Taiwanese should bow to Beijing. This tight rope walking exercise is ridiculous but it was the only way forward for two countries that wanted to normalize relations with each other but couldn't agree on the Taiwan issue. Now that 40 years after the fact, with China being the number 2 world power, it is causing a ton of headaches for everyone. Because of this, the conclusions you draw using International law don't apply to Taiwan. Placing troops there would not constitute an invasion of any sort. The US has an unofficial relationship with Taipei and the US view is that until both Beijing and Tapei come to a peaceable and mutual resolution of what is to happen to Taiwan, there is no legal sovereign. The Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 forms the basis of how the US intends to carry out this policy to ensure that Beijing and Taiwan come to a mutual and peaceful resolution. The TRA (1979) spells out in no uncertain terms that Taiwan should not be coerced by force - military or otherwise - to concede its position. It will do so by viewing any attempts to coerce Taiwan into submission as a "grave concern" to the United States and legally spells out that the US should supply Taiwan with arms and maintain the capacity to resist any attempt by the PRC to coerce the Taiwan government into submission. It stops short of saying the US will intervene should armed conflict resume. Hence the current situation which people call the policy of "Strategic Ambiguity". I also have no idea why you are so certain as to think that the US will have to rely on nukes if they choose to intervene in a PRC invasion. While the PRC has modernized its military to a great extent, it has no operational experience and its weapons are untested. Its troops, sailors and pilots are also untested while the US, despite mainly fighting non-peer adversaries has proven to be irresistible in conventional combat with a proven track record of sustain military operations anywhere in the world. Am I saying the US would beat China in their own backyard? Nope. But I am not going to say that they are going to need nukes for sure or something ridiculous like that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 00:58
|
|
|
MikeC posted:I also have no idea why you are so certain as to think that the US will have to rely on nukes if they choose to intervene in a PRC invasion. While the PRC has modernized its military to a great extent, it has no operational experience and its weapons are untested. Its troops, sailors and pilots are also untested while the US, despite mainly fighting non-peer adversaries has proven to be irresistible in conventional combat with a proven track record of sustain military operations anywhere in the world. I'm not convinced that the PRC has much of a stomach for extended war, at this point they are also a nice fat content developed nation comparable to Taiwan, and unlike the U.S. they haven't spent the past twenty plus years stuck in imperial quagmires and overtraining their special forces to be bloodthirsty killing machines at the expense of the human rights of everyone involved. They've developed their military to an impressive extent and invested in state-of-the-art weaponry, and so what? We don't know how it'll fare unless in the unlikely situation that war does break out. China vs. Taiwan will be missile spam, with hardware untested in battle by both sides. If there is infantry combat, it would be the urban version of PLA and Indian military border patrols happy slapping each other in the Himalayas. Or the Yemen Civil War except both sides are Saudi Arabia.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 01:13
|
|
|
Maximo Roboto posted:I'm not convinced that the PRC has much of a stomach for extended war, at this point they are also a nice fat content developed nation comparable to Taiwan, and unlike the U.S. they haven't spent the past twenty plus years stuck in imperial quagmires and overtraining their special forces to be bloodthirsty killing machines at the expense of the human rights of everyone involved. They've developed their military to an impressive extent and invested in state-of-the-art weaponry, and so what? We don't know how it'll fare unless in the unlikely situation that war does break out. I don't think 'stomach' is quite the right word here. Xi, after making himself effectively leader for life, may find himself under tremendous pressure to bring a close to the Taiwan saga since he has no one to kick the can down the road to. Factionalist politics are unpredictable and can be lethal for losers in the CCP internal politics game and Xi might feel like he has to deliver something big to keep his support should he find himself continued to be beset by problems like COVID, the floods and the fact that China is running out of cheap labour and is starting to feel the squeeze economically. Whether that is all-out war or something less is uncertain but if he is in a corner and he feels the US won't intervene, the PLA is essentially ready to go right now if it had to. Ideally, they would want to wait maybe another 5 years and get their 3rd carrier in operation and build out their J-20 fleet to make US intervention less compelling but Taiwan is already in a position where it will lose 100% for sure without US support. I would not underestimate the PLA. The clashes with the Indians with planks of wood are hilarious but it is that way because that is what has become the accepted norm for violence without escalation. Its J-16s are numerous and are accepted as very capable aircraft that can meet US Navy Super Hornets in capability. Their missile are also likely on par with current-gen AMRAAMs. Their pilots now regularly engage with other countries and internally in air combat exercises like Red Flag in the US. They have enough conventional ballistic missiles to plaster Taiwan's defences. They also have enough to go after US bases in the Pacific as well. As their recent exercises as reported by the Taiwanese military has shown, they are running drills with their advanced version of the Russian Badger bombers hunting down US Carrier groups in their likely AOs should the US intervene. Not to mention the fact that they likely have assloads of land anti-ship cruise missiles to keep them at arms length. Unless literally every weapon system they now operate are duds, it is probably not going to be an easy fight even with US intervention. It is just so hard to tell though since we have never seen them in action.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 01:46
|
|
|
there can be no limited war between nuclear powers. all the disgusting people in this thread lusting for it make me sick. millions of people would die and perhaps the world would end. all worth it to save some island on the other side of the world. it makes me crazy, the idea that china interferes in other countries unjustly. east asia is literally on the other side of the world as america and britain, but those countries sailing their war boats through aren't seen as a huge provocation? both the prc and the roc agree officially that there is only one china. the entire world agrees as well, with the vast majority saying that the prc is representative of china (considering it contains 99.9% of the population, I'd agree) you can say that this is a convenient fiction, but it's one that both of the governments have agreed to. anything to disturb the status quo is a huge risk for basically no gain. also just rofl at the idea that china is an aggressor. China hasn't invaded any countries in over 40 years. it's last war was shorter than a month. compare that to America, which is currently stationed in or bombing more countries than the prc has had aggressions with in its entire history. look at the map of american troops and bases. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan (as we recently discovered), Aghanistan (until extremely recently). we have an empire that stretches across the entire world, and rains death and destruction indiscriminately. with that one bombing of that aid workers car in afghanistan, we killed 7 afgahani children. How many foreign children has the PRC killed in the last 40 years? Where are china's overseas bases? maybe djibouti? what a joke. Every newspaper in america constantly writes about how we need to "contain" china. America is the one that needs to be contained. the idea that somehow weare the good guys and china is the bad guys is absurd and childish. for a world power, historically speaking, the PRC has been extremely pacifistic towards its neighbors. it literaly does nothing to threaten america or its interests, so fake situations are constantly drummed up so that americans can believe that we can step in and "be the good guys". Taiwans "air defense zone" that the chinese air force has been "probing" literally extends into fujian province. the roman empire also believed all their wars were defensive. I hope (wrongly) the blob in america that keeps hyping up a war against china keeps it as hype and not reality. I promise that all the armchair generals in this thread won't like what happens if force is actually involved, and the decrepit american military has to face off against an actual competent military.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 03:57
|
|
|
Mirello posted:there can be no limited war between nuclear powers. all the disgusting people in this thread lusting for it make me sick. millions of people would die and perhaps the world would end. all worth it to save some island on the other side of the world. India and Pakistan clash all the time without going nuclear. The US and USSR fought in proxy wars all the time without going nuclear. A PRC invasion of Taiwan (which I neither wish for nor expect to happen) does not necessarily mean nukes fly. I am not sure who you are referencing as wanting a war between PRC and Taiwan or PRC and the US (or between anyone). Almost everyone posting in this thread has been really clear that they don't want war, even the shitposters. Rather there seems to be this really bizarre assumption among some posters that PRC is definitely going to invade Taiwan, and following that assumption, that Taiwan and the rest of the world should just preemptively concede Taiwan to PRC, because otherwise it would be terrible (which is true, an invasion of Taiwan would be terrible) and possibly lead to nuclear war (more of a stretch). Then tacked onto that take are varieties of some weird argument that the PRC actually deserves Taiwan anyway and that Taiwan or the US is actually to blame for PRC wanting/needing to invade Taiwan. Millions of people may also die if PRC invades Taiwan and no one else intervenes. Millions of people may die and certainly would suffer tremendously if PRC were to take Taiwan without military action (barring the long-term possibility that the regime changes quite a bit and Taiwanese popular opinion changes) — how exactly do you 'integrate' 24 million people who don't want to be integrated? "Some island on the other side of the world" is some seriously callous poo poo. Not everyone posting here is American or British. There are Taiwanese posters in this thread. Distance does not discount the value of human life or the rights of people. Your simplistic take on the One China Policy was comprehensively taken down before you even posted it. Your simplistic take on "if the majority of China wants it, then gently caress what Taiwanese want" is embarrassing and morally abhorrent. There are a lot of incredibly terrible things that would happen in the world if (and that do happen when) majorities violate the self-determination and consent of minorities. In the same paragraph you support the status quo, so maybe I'm misunderstanding your argument here and you are saying we should preserve the actual status quo, which is a de facto independent Taiwan (likely best outcome for everyone for the foreseeable future in my opinion). Terrible US behavior does not excuse terrible PRC behavior. How the world should respond to the US is irrelevant to this topic. China's behavior towards Taiwan has little to do with the US. I'm not going to engage further on shallow US whataboutism in this thread, though. The idea that PRC has not been or is not aggressive is laughable. "PRC has been extremely pacifistic towards its neighbors" is one of the silliest things ever written in a thread that has had some real stunners. Again, I don't care if the US has been more aggressive. Your claim about the Taiwanese ADIZ is misinformed by poor media coverage. The maps floating around in articles do not accurately convey what happened nor the significance of changes in air force activities. I won't dwell on that because I don't think it's that big of a deal, but that's just my personal opinion. Lots of people better informed than I am feel differently. Your whole post comes across as just an emotional airing of grievances about the US coming from an angry American. Fine, go for it. But this thread is about China and is a helluva lot better when people engage in debate and discussion using less pathos, more logic, and more careful use of the facts. Also, slightly different topic, contrary to what some people seem to think in this thread, a lot of us (almost all?) are not anti-PRC. You can recognize PRC accomplishments, commend progress, and criticize bad behavior at the same time. That's how we get improvement. You can think differently about the government (Xi admin), regime (PRC), state (mainland China), and people (Chinese citizens, including non-Han, overseas ethnic Chinese, etc). I swear though that some posters seem utterly incapable of intellectual nuance. Edit- I also think that speculation about how a war would be between China, Taiwan, US, etc., is uninteresting and frequently gets weird. It also usually ignores the equally big issue of "then what?" which I suspect has not been forgotten by PRC leaders despite seemingly never being remembered by US leaders. Smeef fucked around with this message at 05:13 on Oct 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 05:02
|
|
|
Oh, and maybe good news for us all. According to live tweet (well, WeChat) coverage of the event for the 110-year anniversary of the 1911 Revolution, Xi stated pretty drat unequivocally that reunification must be peaceful, which I believe is the first time that language has ever been used by PRC. However the piping hot takes on state media are highlighting the more aggressive language used about Taiwanese separatists being the only obstacle.quote:习近平 said on 2021-10-09 10:54: Don't think I can link to a WeChat post unfortunately, and this hasn't hit English-language media yet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 05:51
|
|
|
Smeef posted:How the world should respond to the US is irrelevant to this topic. i know this is just one line of a big post but i felt it’s kind of the essence of the argument, and i disagree totally. who is going to be “responding” to china if not the us? how can you possibly separate the us out of discussion of “what should the world do to respond to china?” people don’t keep bringing it up by accident, it’s because they’re part of the same question. it’s uninteresting to just condemn everyone, the obvious next question is gonna be “then what? what should be done about it?” fart simpson fucked around with this message at 07:24 on Oct 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 06:59
|
|
|
quote:for a world power, historically speaking, the PRC has been extremely pacifistic towards its neighbors. it literaly does nothing to threaten america or its interests, so fake situations are constantly drummed up so that americans can believe that we can step in and "be the good guys". Because it sounds like you literally know nothing about china if you think it's 'pacifistic'. China decides to invade Vietnam in 1979 in support of the khmer rouge, defending the ongoing Cambodian genocide enacted by the regime. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War 7 month long undeclared border war in 1969, soon after the sino-soviet split. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict Border conflict between china and India in 1962. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 07:25
|
|
|
Pharohman777 posted:Mirello, have you read any history of modern china or do you just think Vietnam, India, and Russia/USSR are just abstract concepts? Give me an example more recent than 40 years ago grandpa. Also rofling that you use a less than month long war in Vietnam as evidence that china is war mongering. Ok, I'll allow it, if you agree that America is 200x more war loving. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 07:45
|
|
|
Chinese and Indian soldiers were throwing each other off a mountain last year https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932021_China%E2%80%93India_skirmishes
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 07:52
|
|
|
fart simpson posted:i know this is just one line of a big post but i felt it’s kind of the essence of the argument, and i disagree totally. who is going to be “responding” to china if not the us? how can you possibly separate the us out of discussion of “what should the world do to respond to china?” people don’t keep bringing it up by accident, it’s because they’re part of the same question. it’s uninteresting to just condemn everyone, the obvious next question is gonna be “then what? what should be done about it?” I'm a little confused by your interpretation of my sentence that you quoted, and I would not say it's the essence of my argument. He wrote a paragraph about terrible things the US has done in other places. Even wrote "compare that to America." I was responding specifically to that deluge of whataboutism. I'm not saying that the US is irrelevant to any discussion of China or how the world should respond to the PRC. I'm not saying the US is irrelevant to PRC behavior or Taiwan either. I just fail to see how general condemnation of the US is relevant to this specific topic and to what most people in the thread seem to be in favor of, which is that PRC should not invade Taiwan (and again, I don't think they will) and that the Taiwanese people determine what happens to them — not the PRC, not the US. Additionally — and I really do not want to get into a debate about whataboutism itself — very frequently in this thread the US is brought up as an excuse for defending bad PRC actions. While there are times when comparisons are apt, it is so rarely the case here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 07:54
|
|
|
Yeah but who have they they murdered this year.....well month......ok today? Who have they killed in the last five minutes? Answer that, Americans!
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 07:56
|
|
|
there is a sort of inevitable undercurrent to arguments that go on here being that america is the current hegemon, and the only possible challenger to that position is the prc. this pretty much leads to relentless comparative analysis that verges onto whataboutism frequently since if the prc is to be opposed, then that means we must root for america to maintain its status by default
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 07:56
|
|
|
Mirello posted:Give me an example more recent than 40 years ago grandpa. Do you literally only think in terms of 'good guy/bad guy'? Because that is pretty much where you seem to want to go.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 08:27
|
|
|
Why on Earth would the United States and China have any interest in actual military conflict with each other? They are each others' largest trading partners. The Chinese economy is reliant on US consumption of its goods and the US is reliant on Chinese manufacturing. Saber rattling is just that; politicians and wealthy corporate interests in both nations have zero appetite for open conflict and a strong incentive to push for free trade and at least luke-warm relations. It's also worth noting that Taiwan has much of the world's computer chip manufacturing. An invasion of Taiwan would similarly cause massive economic disruption. If the US and China got into real military conflict it would be ruinous to the economies of both nations. Ain't gonna happen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 08:30
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:If the US and China got into real military conflict it would be ruinous to the economies of both nations. Ain't gonna happen. If I was Xi, and I thought starting a war over Taiwan was the only way to preserve my personal popularity and by extension personal safety, I might do it. Wars have been started for less. Rational thinking about preserving good economies isn't a factor by large groups of people high on nationalistic, jingoistic hate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 08:50
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:Why on Earth would the United States and China have any interest in actual military conflict with each other? They are each others' largest trading partners. The Chinese economy is reliant on US consumption of its goods and the US is reliant on Chinese manufacturing. Saber rattling is just that; politicians and wealthy corporate interests in both nations have zero appetite for open conflict and a strong incentive to push for free trade and at least luke-warm relations. I mean ignore war then. When people say something should be done about China there is no other power that could possibly do a thing about China that isn't the US. You can say we should trade embargo them or whatever other relatively non violent solution to X y or z about something lovely China is doing but the enforcer or creator of that solution will be the United States and without exception any horrible thing China is doing is being done by or being ignored by the US when it benefits US interests. Which is often why the US is brought up so frequently.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 09:05
|
|
|
Sedisp posted:I mean ignore war then. When people say something should be done about China there is no other power that could possibly do a thing about China that isn't the US. You can say we should trade embargo them or whatever other relatively non violent solution to X y or z about something lovely China is doing but the enforcer or creator of that solution will be the United States and without exception any horrible thing China is doing is being done by or being ignored by the US when it benefits US interests. Realistically I think the US-China relationship will continue to be one of uneasy detente. Their economies are too reliant on each other. There will be a bunch of 4th-dimensional chess and dickwaving but ultimately China is the big manufacturer and the US is the big consumer so they're going to play nice-ish. One thing I do have a lot of exposure to and knowledge of is the history of Indian boarding school and adoption/foster systems in the US. I don't want to derail into that other than yep it's pretty similar to what's going on in Xinjiang. edit: the interconnectedness of the Chinese and American economies is a major difference between now and the USSR and US in the Cold War. There was very little trading between the US and USSR. It is a very different scenario with China today. Fritz the Horse fucked around with this message at 09:21 on Oct 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 09:18
|
|
|
Take a look at Putins poll ratings immediately before and after the Georgia and Crimea wars. A short victorious conflict is enormously successful at boosting an autocratic regime's popularity, even if the long term consequences (military standoff, sanctions) make the economic situation worse. If you get it right then you get to stay in power. If you get it wrong then you are Austro-Hungary in 1914. In any case the moral response is effective collective deterrence, not to feed a small country to the dictators once in a while to keep them satisfied. e: /\/\ in 1914 the economies of Europe were more interconnected than they had at any point previously in history. In 1940 Germany's largest trading partner was the USSR. You are right that trade between blocks wasn't huge during the cold war but Europe relied heavily on gas imports from Russia and Russia relied heavily on grain imports from the US - even a limited conflict would have been economically devastating just if the two sides blockaded each other. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 09:50 on Oct 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 09:44
|
|
|
I'm going to guess that "the PRC has been pacifistic towards it's neighbors" because it hasn't been militarily capable of doing dick all for much of it's existence, Korea excepted. And in the case of Korea it wasn't like they were that far behind in technological terms, and the firehose of aid from the Soviets helped a lot. But once that spigot was turned off, things get much less easy. That, and it was much too busy with the grand project of murdering as many of its own citizens as possible to root out "enemies." Which does tend to preoccupy enough to prevent invading others. Or indeed properly developing military tech that could be used as such.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 11:18
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Take a look at Putins poll ratings immediately before and after the Georgia and Crimea wars. A short victorious conflict is enormously successful at boosting an autocratic regime's popularity, even if the long term consequences (military standoff, sanctions) make the economic situation worse. And... an invasion of Taiwan would be short and victorious?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 12:37
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:And... an invasion of Taiwan would be short and victorious? Not today. But give it another 15-20 years. There's some super bad takes about what a modern peer conflict would look like on this forum but essentially Russia and China (and also to an extent Iran) have all been using the same playbook when it comes to confronting US military power, which is to say that you mass enough short and medium range missiles in an area to make any kind of immediate intervention hideously painful, and then make sure the 'hot' period of a conflict is over and done before the US and allies can mobilise enough power to break into the conflict zone. So China's strategy is to keep building up the navy, keep building up those artificial airbases in the South China Sea, keep building those carrier killing long range missiles, all until it is clear to everyone that you can't enter the South China Sea without their permission. Then they'll just squeeze Taiwan politically more and more, while the reality that nobody from the West is coming to the rescue hits. Same thing as what happened to HK. If Xi does panic because it looks like the balance of power isn't going to perpetually tilt China's way and he has a limited window to get things done then they don't need to take all of Taiwan, they just seize all the ports and say "do as you are told or you all starve".
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 12:54
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:And... an invasion of Taiwan would be short and victorious? Very easy you just rush E point with a transport heli then camp Taiwan's spawn.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 14:04
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:And... an invasion of Taiwan would be short and victorious? Azerbaijan cleaned Armenia's clocks using drones and basically had the initiative the entire time and quickly overran Armenia's defences without Armenia being able to do much about it; its surprising how chaotic and quickly things can happen during war. It only takes a few assumptions of the defenders being slightly off for things to spiral out of control.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 15:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 13:52 |
|
|
Alchenar posted:Not today. But give it another 15-20 years. In some broad senses HK has similarities as an entity that’s majority Han Chinese while not being completely in the fold of mainland China et al, but it was officially Chinese and part of Chinese territory. Drawing parallels between it and Taiwan insofar as US military intervention is concerned makes no sense.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2021 16:40
|
|