You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
And it's still only Monday! 🤦🏻
I don't know where to start with this (other than laying out the fact that I'm vehemently pro disarmament)... We've had women being blamed for bringing violence upon themselves this week, 10yr prison sentences mooted for peaceful protests, £millions given to a Russian contractor to do about half a days work updating the press room at Downing Street, £billions more given in contracts to their mates etc... And it's STILL only Monday!!! 🤷🏻♂️
The rest of the week should be fun... 😞
I knew I shouldn't have opened this thread. 😩
Maybe they'll take the rest of the week off?
Too early to draw comparisons with a country that started to aggressively rearm in the 1930's.😉
To be clear, there are many that will lap this up as part of the "global Britain/ second Golden Age" BS.
180 nuclear warheads is surely more than enough to wipe a few countries off the face of the earth. How can they justify more when we are meant to be tightening the purse strings? Are they going to be kept in Scotland or is that too much of a risk due to the impending break up of the Union?
Guarantee it's another way to feed public money into one or more of their donor's companies.
Need the means to deploy them if you are going to build more. I’m not against military spending and you certainly don’t want to be building kit when you need them. I view it very much as a deterrent, not sure on bojos view but it’ll go down well with the voters he captured last GE.
Still doesn't quite put us in the same League as America/Russia/China really does it...
And it’s still only Monday!
There is the feeling that they're only just getting started, isn't there. Imagine what they'll be dreaming up to look all edgy and confrontational on the run up to the next election.
Still doesn’t quite put us in the same League as America/Russia/China really does it…
In which case, why bother? Almost all the other nations of the world manage just fine without. It's just that overbearing English sense of speshulness on show again.
We want to be the loudest and shrillest little country out there. We might not be big by any measure anymore, but by jove can we sound self important.
I see what you did there!
Who, me? Edited, just in case it breaks some swear box rule.
The review also warns of the “realistic possibility” that a terrorist group will “launch a successful CBRN [chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear] attack by 2030”, although there is little extra detail to back up this assessment.
Not sure how more nuclear weapons are going to protect us from non-state actors...but if we are being realistic this is just willy waving for home consumption from an increasingly fragile Government.
Too early to draw comparisons with a country that started to aggressively rearm in the 1930’s.
The same as it's still too early to consider investing in Bitcoin...? 🤔😉
180 nuclear warheads is surely more than enough to wipe a few countries off the face of the earth.
That's the thing, modern nuclear warheads are 100x more powerful than Fatman and Little Boy. The US does stockhold some 7000 of them though, Russia approx 700... The point of Nuclear war is that if it happened, it would be total armageddon... NOTHING would be left. Having 260 vs having 180 of them is totally inconsequential, there would be nothing left to defend if we entered into a Nuclear War!
They are a relic of the cold war era... A Broadsword when what is needed is a scalpel. A computer hacker can do more damage in 5 minutes than the threat of 260 Nukes could ever achieve, because EVERYBODY knows that NOBODY is ever going to use on in anger ever again!
Guarantee it’s another way to feed public money into one or more of their donor’s companies.
That's all it is... Plain and simple...
There is the feeling that they’re only just getting started, isn’t there. Imagine what they’ll be dreaming up to look all edgy and confrontational on the run up to the next election.
Call me sceptical, but the next General Election will in no way be "free and fair"... In the Coronavirus Bill (bearing in mind they're dragging this pandemic out as long as they can, the opportunities are so vast for them, it's like all their Christmases come at once!) they will find the means to protect the electorate from "rogue" votes from certain sub sections of society (probably EU migrants who have long been settled here to start) that are statistically more likely to vote Labour... Middle Class Anglo Saxons will still be allowed to vote obviously, but it will be in vain!
I'm no defence expert, but buying more nuclear weapons when we already have 180 seems like an idiotic waste of money to me. Aren't our conventional forces stretched to breaking point? Wouldn't it better to spend the money there if we want to put more into defence? Surely any scenario where 180 nuclear weapons from us alone isn't enough is pretty much end of civilisation territory isn't it?
they will find the means to protect the electorate from “rogue” votes from certain sub sections of society (probably EU migrants who have long been settled here to start) that are statistically more likely to vote Labour…
Is that true? Of the EU migrants I know I'm not certain they are all left leaning. At least one is vocally brexit supporter... a few others don't like paying tax, and as a general rule they've moved here to earn more / improve their own personal circumstances which all sounds quite Conservative sympathetic!
Is it as simple as just a bit of willy waving and a bit of cranking up trident so that the pointless trident replacement seems more proportional? Or am I missing something?
I like the absolute lack of awareness from the people lobbying about the threat of China- "The threat has grown, they've launched cyber attacks etc, clearly we need to upgrade our nuclear deterrant because it's... uh, completely useless at dealing with any of that". As it has been with literally every other threat we've faced since the cold war.
Is that true? Of the EU migrants I know I’m not certain they are all left leaning. At least one is vocally brexit supporter
I was over simplifying to make my point... Might not be ex-pat EU nationals, will be some other sector of society that is overwhelmingly likely to vote for a centre-left party... Young people for instance! 🤷🏻♂️
I like the absolute lack of awareness from the people lobbying about the threat of China- “The threat has grown, they’ve launched cyber attacks etc, clearly we need to upgrade our nuclear deterrant because it’s… uh, completely useless at dealing with any of that”. As it has been with literally every other threat we’ve faced since the cold war.
Tells you as much about British Politics right now as you need to know... It's regressed 50 odd years in just 5, the right thinks we're back in the height of the cold war and is hoping to take us back to WW2 sooner than later!
Sadly it's just comical, but then when has rationale come into politics...? More Nukes to deal with the socio-economic threat of China FFS?!?! 🤦🏻
We really are the little guy in the pub, always p*ssed and looking for a fight.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56410532
From the link:
They will include a White House-style situation room built in the Cabinet Office as well as a new counter-terrorism operations centre intended to improve the speed of response to terrorist incidents.
Looks like Boris has been watching too many Bourne films mixed in with watching Zero Dark Thirty for the lolz.
We are also going to "stand up to China" on the Indo-Pacific. They must be bricking it.
(Though we won't stand up to them too much as we need their money of course...no way our government is going to pay for the reconstruction needed after covid/Brexit after all.)
It sickens me on how the US used these. In fact did they even need to with total air supremacy ?. Tehy were already on a bombing campaign turning Japanese city's into firestorms so that was just a matter of time and no boots would ever have been needed to set foot on Japanese soil before the capitulated. No I feel they wanted to test them on city's, on people. to see what the death toll was and how much damage they actually did.
The even had two types, One Uranium, one plutonium, and they decided to test both. The first they set off they saw the damage it did(uranium), be really really wanted to test the other(Plutonium) and that is the only reason they dropped the second.
Hiroshima was dropped on the 6th of August, Nagasaki was dropped on the 9th of August. So no time was allowed for the Japanese to take stock and make a decision, they dropped them so close together so they wouldnt have had time to take stock.
In fact seeing how the Americans have acted since ww2, its unlikely the Japanese could he done anything to prevent a 2nd bombing.
In the playground trying to be Billy-big-bollocks. FFS
More warheads will mean very little as the new Dreadnaught class subs will carry less of them. Having more will probably be some agreement with the Americans about storage, maintenance and cycling. It makes no difference to our deterrent capability unless we buy more Ballistic Missile submarines, which we won’t.
I’m not even sure that, if they built the submarines to launch them from, they could find the sailors to staff the boats. Shit, they built two carriers and immediately mothballed one.
And yet we have an ageing and ineffective tank fleet and an army that keeps being reduced and combined. How about that new ‘brigade’ they stood up to counter hybrid/information warfare?
Sorry, sarcasm on the last bit and showing a slight bit of bias.
Personally I think that even contemplating nuclear weapon use is retarded. The U.K. has a seat at the special table for historic reasons and is desperate to keep it and seem relevant and will do almost anything to stay there, despite there being no place in the world for nukes and them being practically useless in real terms.
The last trident upgrade cost 50 billion or something, right? But it had to be done because you can’t _not_ do it.
Just more tragic macho posturing from the Empire 2.0 Brexiteer lot to appeal to their gammony base.
A desperate attempt to look more relevant as the parochial little backwater that is the UK becomes less and less relevant globally
It’s a country saying “do you want to see how many press-ups I can do?”
It’s pathetic!
We really are a shit house of a country aren't we. Knew I should have left years ago!!
Knowing how this works, they’ll buy the nukes then realise they’ve nothing compatible to launch them from, so will end up buying some ridiculously expensive mega tech from the US to render them useable.
The biggest single waste of UK tax payer money, is the F35 fleet. £90k per hour running costs, half of which are unserviceable. An absolute travesty that needs to abandoned in favour of UK drone technology.
Even the BBC seems to be printing what they are told from the government now, with matching machismo photo to match.
It does feel like the government are desperate to be seen as The Big Man.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56410532
A win-win for Johnson as he appeals to the insecure little saddos who love a bit of sabre rattling. And all the time vast amounts of money can be siphoned off into the pockets of mates.
Exceptionalism, nationalism, stupidity.
The 'look how many press ups I can do analogy' looks even more stupid when you see that this isn't even down the pub. It is more like the middle of an academic conference.
Great Britain - the international equivalent of Gareth Keenan.
And here’s me thinking there was simply no money in the pot.
Actually more David Brent. I think this clip is the perfect metaphor.
As the last 12 months have shown, there is literally limitless cash available to throw at your mates with dodgy untendered contracts if you’re a government minister.
If you’re a nurse after a pay rise... not so much
Boris has always loved chucking billions at his little vanity projects, so a few more billion so he can try and look like a big swinging dick on the world stage is neither here nor there
With regard to the BBC story about post Brexit policy. What kind of message are they sending out when the picture they use to illustrate it is an aircraft carrier?
In fairness the article talks about stronger co-operation with India, Australia, etc and its the first deployment of the carrier to that region, so it is kinda flying the flag, especially in the Transpac Trade agreement that we hope to participate in.
It's just a very expensive way of protecting vested interests in the arms and military industries plus amazing for diplomatic bunga bunga and willy waving. Not much good at stopping a 19 year old with a bomb belt nor a cyber attack on institutions. Corporeal Johnson must be chuffed to have moved on from second hand water cannons with no MOTs.'The world needs global Britain' apparently to defend the world against China and Russia (oh really?). When people are out on their harris without a job and a home they'll be chuffed to bits about those nuclear subs. 'We'll stand up for human rights', just look at what we do to women on a vigil. We were warned.
. It makes no difference to our deterrent capability unless we buy more Ballistic Missile submarines, which we won’t.
I thought the missiles currently each carried fewer than the maximum number of warheads?
must be rumours going round the UN about us being kicked off the security council.
Alternative: can they simply not afford to decommission the oldest ones?
The decommissioning must be an equally thriving business, build em up, knock em down, no unions, armed security on site, will the LP oppose?
That in itself is a really expensive task. It's not just the warheads, but the delivery system and the vehicle they sit in all have to be taken apart and there's a lot of stuff that will have to be disposed of very carefully.
Nuclear is kind of a lose:lose weapon. If you have to use it, something has gone seriously seriously wrong. Globally wrong. And yet, if you don't use them, then you spend years paying for them and years paying for them again when they are taken apart, modernised and/or decommissioned.
As other people have said, they are not the future. Not of warfare, not of politics. This is, sadly, just a good example of people thinking about the last war and planning for that and not really looking at what is likely to be the next war. You can't use a Trident to threaten a terrorist cell, or a re-surging IRA. You can't use an aircraft carrier to support troops in Afghanistan and their jump-jet aircraft are way less capable than the other models of F35 are.
As for UK drones... Please no. Watchkeeper is seriously crap compared to even the older Predator. If we had bought Reapers, we would have had a much better capability. Hell, we only lease our C-17s now and they are about the most useful transport aircraft we have in our fleet.
(ex-Great) Britain is just a Russian holiday island/retreat so they'll never nuke us. Most of their dirty money is laundered through our financial houses so we're too important to them.
It'll take a while for the ****less British public to realise BJ is a charlatan but by then: he'll be a millionaire disappeared in a cloud of dust, a generation of Tory voting gammons will be boxed up and buried and the Iranians will be a nuclear power!
Buckle up kids, it's going to be an eventful decade 🤣🤣🤣
As for UK drones… Please no. Watchkeeper is seriously crap compared to even the older Predator. If we had bought Reapers, we would have had a much better capability.
Not comparable bits of kit, and it’s a stretch to call Watchkeeper a U.K. drone anyway
Israeli produced radio controlled model aircraft. Yeah, ok, fair point
We need something to deflect from the new police powers bill, what have we got?
Nuclear weapons?
Excellent idea, release the press hounds
I view it very much as a deterrent
To who, Tory voters who might consider voting for someone else?
I don't really see it as a bad thing per se.
There are 1000s of warheads in the world, so adding a few 10s more in the UK makes no real difference.
On the plus side, expanding Trident and the UK Nuclear fleet means billions spent in UK ship yards and UK engineers building / maintaining it all, which is good for the economy and British engineering, which could really use some good news. (NB The warheads themselves come from the US).
reminds me of this. sub warheads for computers.
In fairness the article talks about stronger co-operation with India, Australia, etc and its the first deployment of the carrier to that region, so it is kinda flying the flag
**** sakes, Empire 2.0. Our neighbors are literally 20 miles away, and this bunch of boneheads have a semi-on for wading about the Asia Pacific region with a carrier and some nuclear equipped subs. It's really really pathetic. The sooner sections of this country get over the fact that weren't not 1. a major power, or 2 that the empire has gone, the better.
Gammon friendly economic stimulus/trying to pretend we are still relevant in an international dick-waving contest. Will go down a treat, sadly.
I don’t really see it as a bad thing per se.
There are 1000s of warheads in the world, so adding a few 10s more in the UK makes no real difference.
On the plus side, expanding Trident and the UK Nuclear fleet means billions spent in UK ship yards and UK engineers building / maintaining it all, which is good for the economy and British engineering, which could really use some good news. (NB The warheads themselves come from the US).
You could spend billions on education / infrastructure / global aid / transport / research / healthcare / defeating climate change / etc etc without spunking it up the wall on something that will never get used and will quietly rot away in a submarine somewhere.
Oh, and Trident warheads are supplied by the USA and I imagine that as far as we're concerned they're a black box that gets stuck on the top of a missile. I'd also be willing to bet that they wouldn't actually detonate in the infinitesimal chance that they were used, because what moron sells a *working* nuclear weapon to another country?
You could spend billions on education / infrastructure / global aid / transport / research / healthcare / defeating climate change / etc etc without spunking it up the wall on something that will never get used and will quietly rot away in a submarine somewhere.
There are probably nicer ways to spend a few billion, but investing in British Engineering isn't a bad way, it feeds into education, jobs, local infrastructure, local communities etc.
Eg if you invest in wind farms most of the techy bits are bought in and we just make the shells, whereas with Nuclear Subs, we have Rolls Royce desiging and making the reactors in the UK.
I think it's really positive for the UK (given we'll never actually fire the nukes).
**** sakes, Empire 2.0. Our neighbors are literally 20 miles away, and this bunch of boneheads have a semi-on for wading about the Asia Pacific region with a carrier and some nuclear equipped subs. It’s really really pathetic. The sooner sections of this country get over the fact that weren’t not 1. a major power, or 2 that the empire has gone, the better.
Even the Guardian agrees that keeping trade free in the South China sea is important - and it's important to the many democratic and semi-democratic countries on the periphery of China. South East Asia is going to account for a huge amount of world trade over the next 50 years.
That means aligning with smaller democratic/semi-democratic countries who have shared interests with us.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/mar/15/why-britain-is-tilting-to-the-indo-pacific-region
But the economic and political forces pulling Whitehall back to the region are real, and not all built on an imperial nostalgia.
As Tails said way above, the UK don't have the means to deploy them anyway. Vanguard class is reaching the end of its life but there is no replacement.
So we go buy some shiny nukes and can't use them; unless the plan is to load them on the knackered subs tied up in Faslane/wherever and pop them off at the Belgians.
Oh and Boris will be dead pleased to be extending the global reach into the Pacific with the carriers, but we have no fleet to accompany them. So we have to borrow some frigates and destroyers off the French/Danish/Canadians/whomever. China probably has some spare.
30 years ago when the UK armed forces were much larger than they are now I remember reading about Challenger tanks in Germany being de-gunned to supply the ones in Saudi for Gulf War 1 as we had no spares. We have much less capability now than then - so this is Boris' way of appeasing the masses. Unless it's somehow connected with Vanguard replacement? Some help with the reactors?
Oh and Boris will be dead pleased to be extending the global reach into the Pacific with the carriers, but we have no fleet to accompany them. So we have to borrow some frigates and destroyers off the French/Danish/Canadians/whomever.
There's enough to put together a strike force if we had to, the fact that we operate alongside other nations destroyers and submarines is all about building interoperability with players who have the same interests as us.
Global reach is not really the same as assembling a strike force though. If we patch together whatever we've got and hope the destroyers survive the perilously warm waters of the Red Sea on the way without their engines going kerblam, then who is looking after the home waters? The South Atlantic? The Cod War with those dastardly Icelanders?
It may be nothing but in the mid 90's the first place I ran into a company called Serco was at Coulport.
Global reach is not really the same as assembling a strike force though. If we patch together whatever we’ve got and hope the destroyers survive the perilously warm waters of the Red Sea on the way without their engines going kerblam, then who is looking after the home waters? The South Atlantic? The Cod War with those dastardly Icelanders?
I can see your point.
But that's what NATO is for. We can't have an American full spectrum capability without spending double what we do on defense. Instead the idea is that we bring specialist capability to whatever party our allies get involved with. We're an island a long way from any enemies, sending a strike force to the South Pacific doesn't leave us without any capability around our waters.
Remember, it's probably a good thing that we aren't building too many large destroyers and submarines right now, in 10-20 years it's going to be about saturating large areas with unmanned vessels - to protect a few large motherships such as aging carriers.
but investing in British Engineering isn’t a bad way
So that's a bit to Rolls Royce and BAe, and the rest to the USA. Which bit of British engineering are we investing in here?
On the plus side, expanding Trident and the UK Nuclear fleet means billions spent in UK ship yards and UK engineers building / maintaining it all, which is good for the economy and British engineering, which could really use some good news.
You're the very voter they're after..., just don't be complaining when you're laid in A&E on a trolley for 3 days 'cos there's no beds.
Oh, and Trident warheads are supplied by the USA and I imagine that as far as we’re concerned they’re a black box that gets stuck on the top of a missile.
Nah, the go-bang bits are built here. The delivery bits are bought from the Americans. So it will go bang, just not necessarily exactly where you want it to go bang.
When a boat (Vanguard class at least) goes into service following extensive sea trials it heads off to the US to pick up the delivery bits as Jimdubleyou points out, from Kings Bay in Georgia. It then fires a couple for trials of the coastline and heads back to the UK for warhead loading in Coulport.
It'll be on Jeremy Vine this lunchtime - that'll be a fun listen.
I thought the missiles currently each carried fewer than the maximum number of warheads?
The D5 Trident can carry anywhere from 1-14 warheads and each of the 4 V-Class boats can carry 16 missiles. The new Dreadnaughts are to carry only 12 D5 Missiles, but may well carry a higher number of smaller, more tactical warheads rather than a lower number of higher yield strategic warheads. The likelihood is that the increased number is due to a transition between old and new and will make little difference except as a headline. I'd imagine that most people, even in the military wouldn't chose to spend this money if they didn't have to, but if you're going to build a deterrent system, you might as well arm it suitably for the climate.
There’s enough to put together a strike force if we had to
honestly I doubt that very much. and TBH why would we need to. Who are we going to attack this time?
Instead the idea is that we bring specialist capability to whatever party our allies get involved with
I read this alot, and TBH (using Johnson's own phrase) it doesn't pass the piffle test. Do you honestly think that the US, or Chinese lack capacity or capability to overcome whatever special sauce we think we have. The idea of doing "more with less" in military terms at least is an absolute non starter.
Nah, the go-bang bits are built here. The delivery bits are bought from the Americans. So it will go bang, just not necessarily exactly where you want it to go bang.
Apologies, I stand corrected.
I see two sides,
one) trying to buy favour with the US, it really isn't an "independent" arsenal, it's US.
two) trying to get votes in Scotland by guaranteeing jobs, whether they are wanted.... These are Tories after all.
I read this alot, and TBH (using Johnson’s own phrase) it doesn’t pass the piffle test. Do you honestly think that the US, or Chinese lack capacity or capability to overcome whatever special sauce we think we have. The idea of doing “more with less” in military terms at least is an absolute non starter.
If you have been keeping your finger on the pulse, lots of DoD analysts consider that in the long term the US cannot keep parity with China. Therefore it will need to rely on a strong network of allies such as the UK, India, Australia, Korea, Japan, Singapore and Malaysia to contain China. Increasingly other countries such as Thailand and the Philippines will play a greater part as their economies expand. The combined strength of these partners will be able to act as a military buffer in the region.
It’s NATO in the pacific.
When Indy Ref happened, plans were apparently in place to remove the nuclear arsenal south if the result was "out". That would have been immediate withdrawal. Like next day sort of stuff, of the whole thing. This isn't about Scottish votes, it's about BJoris's playing to his core.
Vanguard class is reaching the end of its life but there is no replacement.
The V-Boats are currently going through a Life Extension program - first one is nearly finished - we're expecting a contract for the bits we supply for the second boat later this year.
This work is required as the V-boats are only fuelled for approx. 15 years - they've all been refuelled once, and now the first one has just been refuelled for a second time.
The First Dreadnought is probably 8 years away from entering service, and the last one probably 15 years away - hence why the V-Boats are being extended.
When Indy Ref happened, plans were apparently in place to remove the nuclear arsenal south if the result was “out”. That would have been immediate withdrawal. Like next day sort of stuff, of the whole thing. This isn’t about Scottish votes, it’s about BJoris’s playing to his core.
This is more complicated than it sounds - apparently there are very few viable locations for this.
The favourite is a liquid gas port facility near Swansea - which i believe is currently owned/used by BP.
lots of DoD analysts consider that in the long term the US cannot keep parity with China.
Yeah I used to read that bollocks when the "threat" was Russia. While it's true that lots of analysts will say that, many of them say so because they're paid to do so by the defence industry. It's past time on both "The Reds are coming" and the "Yellow Peril" But at least Johnson gets to play in the bath with toy boats eh?
I'll tell you what, have a look at the comparison between wars of aggression started by NATO countries, vs those started by Non NATO countries since 1945, and we can use that as a starting point for any discussion about the need for South China Sea gun-boat diplomacy
Is this BoJo's attempt to keep the UK united? Was only last week there were headlines wrt to the Union.
Nuke's seem like a strange thing to want more of, economics aside. More flag waving nonsense
Alternative: can they simply not afford to decommission the oldest ones?
I think this is actually the crux of it, a lot of the current trident system will be due for decommissioning in the not to distant.
The most alarming thing about this is its likely to actually be a bit of joined up thinking so we're placing the lease order to renew stocks before all the old ones are gone and we have missile submarines pootling round with no missiles, or aircraft carriers with planes etc.
I’ll tell you what, have a look at the comparison between wars of aggression started by NATO countries, vs those started by Non NATO countries since 1945, and we can use that as a starting point for any need for South China Sea gun boat diplomacy
I agree with that sentiment.
But I disagree with the rest, mostly because lots of my friends through my wife are South East Asian so they understand just what’s at stake.
You either make a stand in the South China Sea or keep your mouth shut when the rules and human rights based order that the UN/the EU built post world war 2 comes crumbling down.
Democracies need to stick together.
Yeah I used to read that bollocks when the “threat” was Russia.
It was useful for both Russia and the west to hype up the threat. There was lots of 'maskirovska' going on, the Russian economy was never anywhere near at the level of the US.
lots of my friends through my wife are South East Asian so they understand just what’s at stake
Here's a thing. When the UK started negotiating with the Chinese about handing over Hong Kong, the UK made all sorts of noises about "honoring the need to keep democracy alive and well in Hong Kong" which came as something as a surprise to both China and (to be fair) the people of Hong Kong...who had long recognised that it was in fact as far as it could be from actually being democratic under British rule, and every time they'd asked the British Govt for a bit of self goverment, the British had basically told them them not to worry their pretty little heads about it.
Again, I'll ask; show me the wars of aggression started by China aimed at it's near neighbours since 1945...In fact, I'll tell you what, Kabul is about 4500 miles away from London. Has China started, looked it's about to start, threatened with sanctions, tried to topple the govt of, started a proxy war with, started an actual war with, or otherwise imperiled it's neighbours within a 4500 mile radius...on a scale that even comes close to that of the US and the UK
Has China started, looked it’s about to start, threatened with sanctions, tried to topple the govt of, started a proxy war with, started an actual war with, or otherwise imperiled it’s neighbours within a 4500 mile radius
Korea
India
Vietnam
Taiwan
Tibet
Burma
Sino-Soviet border conflict
So they most definitely have imperiled their neighbors, you really know your history don't you?
And the shit about Hong Kong, that can't be undone. But what matters now are that there are democracies around the world that are being undermined by both Russia and China, after Trump and Brexit now is not the time to retreat from those allies.
Also, "South China Sea".
This is a snapshot of foreign boats in Palawan waters
A huge amount of those are armed Chinese trawlers - essentially a militia at sea.
But what matters now are that there are democracies around the world that are being undermined by both Russia and China
And also by the US and by extension the UK...perhaps it's high time we stopped creating bogeymen? The last significant excursion made by the PLA in any great numbers into foreign territory was 1979 into Vietnam, compare and contrast that to our record. The Chinese govt have long realised that money/trade was the real power, and they won that game a while back.
It also doesn't matter in the slightest what they've done or haven't done, it's what they might do that is the issue.
Currently, China is set on a path towards being the number 1 super power and no one knows quite how far it is prepared to go to get there.
The last significant excursion made by the PLA in any great numbers into foreign territory was 1979 into Vietnam, compare and contrast that to our record. The Chinese govt have long realised that money/trade was the real power, and they won that game a while back.
That's not how wars are fought now.
They're fought like the heat map above, using deniable assets. Everything is now war, the clearly defined boundaries between a state of war have now been eroded. As Rosa Brooks points out in her book "How Everything Became War and the Military Became Everything" - it was two Chinese generals back in 1991 who recognized that and wrote a paper on how future postmodern conflict would play out.
And also by the US and by extension the UK…perhaps it’s high time we stopped creating bogeymen?
You can do this, whilst still sticking by your allies. That's a very bien pensant lefty isolationist view.