You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
It’s wild though isn’t it, the buzzword these days really is self-sufficiency. Globalisation is a busted flush by the looks of it.
Theres talking about, theres doing it, and theres not ending up like North Korea.
Globalisation is a busted flush by the looks of it.
Possibly not entirely but there is certainly a lot more interest in diversification and ensuring that you have a couple of different sources for anything important.
I think comparing Taiwan to Ukraine in a military sense is probably limited tbh?
I think in the sense that lots of small countries who border large sometimes belligerent regional powers turn themselves into "porcupine" states; Ukraine and Taiwan are similar They realise that ultimately they can't defeat the power in any conventional sense, but they can make themselves pretty unpalatable to try to swallow.
But yeah, Taiwan and Ukraine are very different otherwise
piemonster
Free MemberTheres talking about, theres doing it, and theres not ending up like North Korea.
Seems to be somewhat of a strength of the Chinese looking at the last 30 years, identify a problem and go and fix it. They aren't really the types to sit and mull over a problem.
Well, maybe. Sometimes their attempts to "fix" things dont go so well.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine
Im not really making any calls on how its going to go fir good or bad, my crystal ball fell off the dining table last week and refuses to tune in anymore.
*yes I know, outside your given timeframe
One thing to keep in mind here is that this dispute is happening because the Chinese leadership chose to have it, just like the Ukraine war happened because Putin chose to have it. Taiwan has been a separate country to China for over 70 years, it's a prosperous liberal democracy. The Taiwanese people clearly do not want to be annexed by China and re-educated to be Chinese, especially after seeing the Hong Kong democracy advocates being crushed and thrown into jail. The Chinese leadership have pushed the line that an independent Taiwan is a national humiliation for China because it served their nationalistic purposes, it gets Chinese citizens rallying around the flag. China could have just brushed the Pelosi visit aside, but they chose to react very belligerently.
Talk of China imposing a blockade is talk of China starting a war. A blockade has to be enforced and blockading Taiwan would mean being prepared to fire on ships from the U.S. or other allies of Taiwan if they tried to sail to Taiwan. Guam is a couple of hours flight time from Taiwan and has a large airbase. On top of that, the U.S. has a very powerful Pacific fleet with aircraft carriers, hundreds of advanced aircraft, and submarines. If the Chinese fired on U.S. warships, any U.S. president would have to react with military force. I'm sure the Chinese would cause a lot of damage to the U.S. Navy, but I think the U.S. would utterly destroy the Chinese surface fleet.
So, that would only happen because the Chinese leaders chose it, they would be the ones to push things to armed conflict. It's not impossible that their dreams of a Greater Chinese Empire will cloud their judgement and lead them to make a catastrophic mistake, but if they are pragmatic, they will make a lot of noise and then get back to worrying about their economic situation.
If push came to shove do you think Biden would react? he's under an awful lot of pressure over Ukraine, I expect in a similar state with China.
Taiwan has been a separate country to China for over 70 years, it’s a prosperous liberal democracy.
Pretty contentious tbh, there's only about 14 countries actually recognise them as such at the UN. Taiwan also claim to be the legitimate gov of PRC. It's not really really as simple as taking the ukraine template and applying it to Taiwan. Which is what you seem to be trying to do.
If push came to shove do you think Biden would react? he’s under an awful lot of pressure over Ukraine, I expect in a similar state with China.
I don't think any U.S. president could not support Taiwan. There's a long history of pressure from Congress on it, presidents are usually trying to tell congress to ease up, exactly as has happened with Pelosi. It doesn't mean the U.S. would declare war directly but I can't see the U.S. being deterred from supporting Taiwan with arms deliveries, intelligence and targeting information, etc.
Pretty contentious tbh, there’s only about 14 countries actually recognise them as such at the UN.
There have been two governments for over 70 years. Nothing contentious about that, it's historical fact.
The ROC was recognised by the US up til 1979, after that the PRC is the one that was recognized. It's entirely contentious and the root of the whole issue. They both claim sovereignty over the other.
They both claim sovereignty over the other.
Exactly. They are two independent governments. That's why China is so angry. If Taiwan wasn't run by an independent government, China wouldn't be angry.
This is a question of ideology v reality though. China actually have legal documents that state if the peaceful unification policy is unworkable it's under obligation to invade. So Taiwanese independence is a dangerous dangerous game.
It's not like I'm not sympathetic to Taiwanese independence. I'm an ardent supporter of Scottish independence. So I get it. But my independence quest does not come with an automatic invasion from England.
And don't bet on the US being willing to enter the fight, they are done with that. If they weren't we'd be fighting Russia right now.
The Anti-Secession Law (Chinese: 《反分裂国家法》) is a law of the People's Republic of China, passed by the 3rd Session of the 10th National People's Congress. It was ratified on March 14, 2005, and went into effect immediately. President Hu Jintao promulgated the law with Presidential Decree No. 34.[1] Although the law, at ten articles, is relatively short, Article 8 formalized the long-standing policy of the PRC to use military means against Taiwan independence in the event peaceful means become otherwise impossible. The law does not explicitly equate "China" with the People's Republic of China (referred to in the law as "the State").
FYi.
For me, Taiwan's best strategy would be to maintain the status quo indefinitely and hope that the Chinese demands wain over time.
US posturing isn't really conducive to that. Particularly if they take an approach of actively encouraging independence. That's a disaster waiting to happen for Taiwan.
China actually has legal documents that state if the one country 2 systems policy is unworkable it’s under obligation to invade.
I think you mean "legal" documents. If they had any legal standing, China would have applied to whatever court of international law they were lodged in for permission to invade. China can trot out whatever bogus documents it wants, it doesn't change the reality that they have been two countries for 70 years.
They have legal standing in China. International courts are irrelevant.
For me, Taiwan’s best strategy would be to maintain the status quo indefinitely and hope that the Chinese demands wain over time.
China has rejected that. The U.S. position is ambiguity over it all, in order to maintain the status quo. The country that's trying to change the status quo is China. That's why China's military has modernized with the specific mission of invading Taiwan. Right now, they are firing missiles into Taiwanese sea and airspace, as well as Japanese territory. Not the actions of a country with any interest in maintaining the status quo.
The Chinese military isn't getting specifically built up to invade Taiwan. It's getting specifically built up to dominate the US.
International courts are irrelevant.
Then there is no basis for accusing any country of committing a war crime. Any country can do anything it wants as long as it can get away with it.
Not the actions of a country with any interest in maintaining the status quo.
Yip, agreed they don't but they are patient and leaders change over time. It's a perilous position Taiwan is in.
thols2
Free Member
Then there is no basis for accusing any country of committing a war crime. Any country can do anything it wants as long as it can get away with it.
Can accuse people all you like, actually trying them is another issue. See Vlad Putin.
The Chinese military isn’t getting specifically built up to invade Taiwan. It’s getting specifically built up to dominate the US.
Nope. Their military buildup is specifically planned for an invasion of Taiwan. That's why the Chinese navy has ro-ro vessels. They can ship troops and vehicles to Taiwan. They don't have the range to ship them to California.
They aren't going to invade the US it's about domination of the Indo Pacific(and beyond no doubt) and protection of their interests. Taiwan is a side issue to that, not the reason for their military build up. Google belts and roads.
The U.S. isn't in Asia so dominating the Indo-Pacific isn't dominating America. It think what you mean is that China wants to dominate its neighbours and doesn't want America to help them defend themselves. What justification are you going to pull out next, that some Chinese court ruled that Japan is historically a part of China because Japan using Chinese pictographs to write?
The reality is that Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea are liberal democracies with close ties to the U.S. The status quo is stable, but China resents the status quo. The only country trying to destabilize the status quo is China.
i'm not justifying anything. just explaining the realities as I see them. You're the idealist here that thinks it's about democracy.
I just want peace. And Peace isn't going to come from challenging China.
If push came to shove do you think Biden would react?
During a press conference in Tokyo on May 23, a reporter asked President Joseph Biden, “Are you willing to get involved militarily to defend Taiwan if it comes to that?” Biden responded: “Yes . . . that’s the commitment we made.”
i’m not justifying anything. just explaining the realities.
The reality is that Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea are close friends of the U.S. and other democracies. An attack by China on those countries will provoke a war. You can't claim to be a realist and then say "I just want peace" in denial of the reality of Asian politics. If you want peace, you need to do everything you can to deter China (and Russia) from attacking their neighbours.
You're in denial of the juggernaut that is China.
I just want peace. And Peace isn’t going to come from challenging China.
Peace does not come from looking the other way at the behaviour of an increasingly belligerent autocratic dictatorship.
Peace doesn't come from the 2 world powers going head to head either. Agree it's somewhat of a catch 22 situation.
So just give up then?
Give up what though? The move towards entrenched positions that will kick off something truly horrible?
We need to find a way through this current batch of belligerent and incompetent politicians with as little conflict as possible.
I doubt bringing the issue of Taiwan to a head as quick as possible is the wisest route through that.
You’re in denial of the juggernaut that is China.
China is a major power but it also has some huge weaknesses. It may overcome them and become a juggernaut, it may just remain a regional power, it's too early to know. One of the huge indicators of Chinese (and Russian) weakness is that their elites send their children overseas for education and hide their money overseas. American and European students don't flock to Chinese universities to study physics and engineering, they stay home, but Chinese families mortgage their futures on getting their kids into foreign universities. If you want to study at a world-class university, you look to the U.S., Europe, etc. It's the same with money. Nobody in the West sends their money to China for safekeeping but Chinese billionaires send their money to the U.S. and Europe. China won't be a juggernaut until Chinese people trust their universities and financial system enough to keep their children and money in China.
A rapidly changing situation, they'll overtake the US in about 10-15 years, potentially sooner, if not by then, they certainly will in 20-25 years, so well within our lifetimes(touch wood we live that long and beyond!).
Anyhow, we've had enough back on forth on this yin. I'll step back and let others comment. 😆 i think my thoughts are out there. Compromise would be my keyword.
The US Taiwan Relations Act 1978 "consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States"
It doesn't specify war but we'll see you in the International Courts 🙂
Edit - too angry.
China is not ready yet until they have 70+ aircraft carriers. When they have more aircraft carriers that's the time we see war.
If China goes to war now their strengths will be put back 100 years and CCP will be in trouble. But if they continue to build up their strength without going to war, then in 50 years time there will be a major naval war in that region. No land war because that is logistically a headache.
Many people in the far east have been talking about Pelosi's visit but deep down they know that China is not ready yet. They are all watching very closely at the Ukraine/Russia war at the moment.
China is not ready yet until they have 70+ aircraft carriers.
That would be a rather overkill number, pardon the pun, and somewhat risky and unnecessary given their current apparent ambitions. The unsinkable carriers they are currently building on would be far superior in what they seem to want their area of operations is.
Carriers are only good if you want to project force somewhere you have no decent land bases.
China has a whole bunch of demographic timebombs waiting for it which are going to be problematic for the party to solve and potentially for everyone else as well so fifty years time is a tricky projection.
70+ aircraft carriers sounds like a good idea - they could link them nose to tail and they would probably be about halfway to Taiwan.
70 get's ye 22km, they'd 426 Type 3, @ 315m each 😆 Would need less type 4's I'd guess.
70+ aircraft carriers sounds like a good idea – they could link them nose to tail and they would probably be about halfway to Taiwan.
Lol, maybe they could put a conveyor belt on top of them all 😅
some of the 70+ aircraft carriers are to subdue SE Asia or Asia and to defend their territorial interests. Some SE Asian nations have already voiced neutrality but whether they can maintain it is difficult to say.
They have two problems though:
1. Population is aging.
2. They need other Asian/SE Asian countries to support them ... they need to buy them.
China is not ready yet until they have 70+ aircraft carriers.
Put the scrumpy down Chewk and go to bed.
Put the scrumpy down Chewk and go to bed.
That's the China's logic because it will be a naval warfare, hence the saber-rattling at the moment because they are not confident enough. Once they have the confident they are not going to pussy foot around Taiwan or the region. America might have many bases in South Pacific but it still requires naval capability to go anyway near China/Taiwan.
They are on their 3rd or 4th aircraft carriers now and will be building more in future. They know their arch enemies are focusing (or provoking) on them but they are not biting. You will know when they are ready.
You will know when they are ready.
It will be when they have at least 70 aircraft carriers apparently.
China will implement its own Monroe doctrine type thing at some point. To be honest I generally agree with Chewkw here.
It will be when they have at least 70 aircraft carriers apparently.
That's just an estimation people there are talking but I think it is more or less the equivalent of slightly more than the combined NATO fleet.
To be honest I generally agree with Chewkw here.
Insofar as to whether the PRC is ready to go to war in the Pacific over sleight from Pelosi then I agree that it isn't happening.
"Large scale military drills" on the part of China are likely to make key neighbours very nervous.
To be honest I generally agree with Chewkw here.
Its the 70 carriers which goes into fantasy land. Far more significant are the turning random reefs into unsinkable carriers (whether they are unsinkable beats hard to find is a subject which can only be proved the hard way).
The carriers dont really help much for Taiwan since it is close enough that modern jets with drop tanks would be able to establish air superiority over it (not like BoE where the Germans had very limited loiter time for its fighters and hence open season for the defenders).
The main problem isnt military but general infrastructure and economics. Hence why everyone outside Taiwan are trying to build resilience into their systems and the Taiwan companies are doing the minimal possible to support that whilst pretending to.
Currently a Chinese invasion of Taiwan will hurt everyone massively and so no one is overly keen on it.
However politics always plays a part. If China had ignored the visit then I think everyone else will have. However the delay due to covid pushed it late enough that it seems to have been a bit of a threat to Xi ahead of the party conference and hence he wanted a show of force.
70 is maybe fantasy land, but you could easily see the chinese with up to 30. NATO combined have 17 btw. Good point on the Spratly Islands.
That’s just an estimation people there are talking
You'll pee your pants when I break down the projected performance of the BAC TSR2 on the basis of what I've read on alt-news sites.
“Large scale military drills” on the part of China are likely to make key neighbours very nervous.
Only for Taiwan while other SE Asian countries don't really care much to be honest because China has never invaded them in hundred of years, but China has upper hand in influencing the politics and trade which also annoyed many of them.
However politics always plays a part. If China had ignored the visit then I think everyone else will have.
Yes, if they just let it be then there will be no news but CCP needs to save face hence all the big talk and hot air.
You’ll pee your pants when I break down the projected performance of the BAC TSR2 on the basis of what I’ve read on alt-news sites.
Don't hold back. There are many news sites all over with their views. For me it is simple, no enough carriers no fight. All hot air.
As for whatever NATO power there is when China is ready you will know.
At the moment we are forum "war experts" and we know it all. LOL!
p/s: The eyes in the sky (satellite, drone and etc) will get it first when the real war starts.
There are many news sites all over with their views. For me it is simple, no enough carriers no fight. All hot air.
As you succinctly put, we're all Friday night post-pub shut ins speculating upon the intricacies of US foreign policy. My point was that it would be good to see you cite some of your sources and discuss accordingly.
My point was that it would be good to see you cite some of your sources and discuss accordingly.
Chinese and Taiwanese weekly news. Can't type in Chinese so can't reference or search for them. Some if not all news clips or sites were sent to me without URL ...
Something like this ...
Sometimes they get good guest speakers but most of the time they get too excited ...
Some of the channels are dedicated to nothing but China's military power ...
Sometimes they get good guest speakers but most of the time they get too excited …
Some of the channels are dedicated to nothing but China’s military power …
We've established that you and I broadly agree that the PRC isn't militarily nor politically ready to invade Taiwan.
Seeing you post citations from a range of sources is good. Please cite and discuss.
We’ve established that you and I broadly agree that the PRC isn’t militarily nor politically ready to invade Taiwan.
Yes, they are all hot air at the moment but not in another 50 years.
Seeing you post citations from a range of sources is good. Please cite and discuss.
Too many to cite and translation can be difficult to translate at times.
Its the 70 carriers which goes into fantasy land.
And so is 30. Aircraft carriers wouldn't play a role in invading Taiwan. China has no use for 30 aircraft carriers. A handful might be useful, a huge fleet would just be a waste of money.
Best defence against carriers no matter the number would be small low manned subs. Nothing big like a nuclear version. Small easy and quick to produce and in large numbers. Minimum number of torpedoes, fire and disappear.
no need for manned subs. just the underwater equivalent of aerial drones. maybe designed to look and sound like a large fish.
Yes, if they just let it be then there will be no news but CCP needs to save face hence all the big talk and hot air
Absolutely this. CCP has been threatening Taiwan since CCP won the civil war in 1949 and Chang Kai-shek sailed forth and set up the ROC on Taiwan
The US has stopped potential invasions by just being there, e.g. 7th Fleet during the Korean War (CCP supported N.Korea, US the south).
Diplomatic relations resumed in 1979 with the US switching diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing, but with the US Taiwan Relations Act in place
Essentially, we'll refer to one-China and Taiwan being part of China, but don't invade and everyone's happy
The problem is that China sees the US as upping the ante with arms sales and now Pelosi's visit.
The other problem is that CCP is going to the "polls" soon and President Xi is going for an unheard of third term, what did they think he would do?
It might be a silly question but what has NATO got to do with anything going on in the south china sea?
With this escalation over Taiwan and our reliance of the chips they produce from a handful of factories I would like to think that sister plants are being set up in more suitable/stable parts of the world should, but are they?
NATO's doctrine and the USA's repeatedly stated commitment to militarily support Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion means NATO is involved, to what degree remains to be seen, but in any conflict between the USA and China its hard to see how we wouldn't end up being dragged in.
tagnut69
Free Member
It might be a silly question but what has NATO got to do with anything going on in the south china sea?
It's a very fair question, tbf, it's not really NATO, There a potential of an Asian NATO with the Quad. You'd imagine there'll be some kinda NATO/Quad+ alliance in the future though. Sure they invited Asian countries to the last NATO meeting. But the Asian specific stuff is defo US led.
https://mondediplo.com/2021/06/08bulard
It might be a silly question but what has NATO got to do with anything going on in the south china sea?
In short, nothing. US is a NATO member, but that shouldn't be conflated with NATO defending Taiwan if the US choose to.
It was reported in April that Liz Truss and Boris both want a "global NATO" and NATO discussed the region, CCP, etc at the Madrid summit in June, " The Indo-Pacific is important for NATO, given that developments in that region can directly affect Euro-Atlantic security. We will strengthen dialogue and cooperation with new and existing partners in the Indo-Pacific to tackle cross-regional challenges and shared security interests"
With this escalation over Taiwan and our reliance of the chips they produce from a handful of factories I would like to think that sister plants are being set up in more suitable/stable parts of the world should, but are they?
I'm skeptical that this will actually make any big difference, but the U.S. is working on it.
https://twitter.com/CraigCaplan/status/1552341491468697601
An interesting point made on Dateline in that the Chinese would have known well in advanced about Pelosi's visit giving them time to get their military prepared for its war games and bullying.
Which is presumably why China warned Pelosi not to go ahead with the visit long before it occurred.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/20/china/china-warns-pelosi-taiwan-visit-intl-hnk/index.html
Buy the time the 70th functional carrier launches.
Numbers 1to30 would be rusty out of date deathtraps.
Even using slave labour from Tebet and all the "eduction"facilitys for the Muslim community to build them it's a pipe dream.
It's kinda the wests fault for letting china produce our tech on such huge numbers especially chipsets.
Who brought ARM from the UK? Food security along with gas and oil? We turned a blind eye on who produced our stuff thinking they would become Western facing politically.
And then, there is this ongoing lethal squabble
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932022_China%E2%80%93India_skirmishes
Im not realy sure what Indias view is on rising Chinese power. Time for a cup of tea and a biscuit to find out a bit more.
We've seen how China has treated Hong Kong, would any of us want that for the Taiwanese ?
Definitely not. We’ve basically abandoned Hong Kong and it’s awful. We in the west shouldn’t have enabled China to become the world’s manufacturing plant.
By the time the 70th functional carrier launches.
Numbers 1to30 would be rusty out of date deathtraps.
That won't matter because by then they will probably have built half a dozen death stars too.
They better sort the exhaust ports out then it's a well know weak spot.
you could easily see the chinese with up to 30.
Absolutely no chance and by the time even 10 have been built they will be out of date.
If you sign up for the PLA you're in for life. If you resign you see disgrace. The opposite of citizenship right advancement in Starship Troopers. You lose rights.
So, they stay in, and become corrupt as they blend into the vehicle ruts of the rhetoric.
The son of a poor divorced woman in my circles joined the army as an infantryman. A former student was going to become an army doctor (or, the only way to become a doctor was to be in the army).
I've met tens of thousands of citizens here and these are the only two I've known to signal any willingness to join the military. There's more in my family alone who were in the military, than I've met out here.
And combat experienced troops? None. They're watching the Ukraine carefully to see how this will go. To attack over the water will go horribly wrong for them. Mass casualties expected. The people back home won't have the will for that. There is a large growing dissatisfaction with their one party leadership as it is. If you educate the masses, so that they start to think, they'll not blindly be nationalists baying for western blood.
Who decided that the Chinese are going to build 70 carriers? If there's even 10 operational by 2050 I'd be impressed.
It was a number chewk plucked out of his imagination. No basis in any sort of reality.
chewkw
Free Member
China is not ready yet until they have 70+ aircraft carriers. When they have more aircraft carriers that’s the time we see war.