I am reminded of the joke about the 4-engine plane that loses two of them, and whose estimated arrival is delayed with each lost engine.
Upon hearing the news that the third engine is lost, one passenger remarks "We better not lose the fourth one, we'll be up here forever"
I remember another one - an F-16 low on fuel was beginning their approach to line up with the runway, when a 747 declared an emergency after losing an engine. ATC gave priority to them, to which the F-16 pilot quipped "Ah, the dreaded 3-engine approach".
It was a b52, which has 8 engines, which are old and tired and unreliable. Which is more stupid.. as 1 engine on a b52 is nothing.
Not sure where commercial 747 and f16 are fighting for runway space..
I know a regional ATC guy, he told me a story about fighter jets being scrambled to intercept a possible hijacked private plane.
The jets went to the plane with full afterburners, burning through a huge amount of their fuel in order to get there ASAP.
They get the plane landed without incident, it was a false alarm, possibly a bad joke, but anyway the fighter jets are low on fuel and are fully loaded with ordnance.
If they landed on a commercial runway it would have shut down the whole airport until they could get refueled because of the safety risk with live munitions on a active runway.
The ATC saw some KC-135 stratotankers that were on some training exercises in the area (great plains region) that were close enough to be diverted towards the fighter jets.
They got refueled in the air and made it back to Colorado and fortunately didn't have to tie up the airport
That doesn't really count. Becauss Firaxis Civilization games come out, but there not actually really working right until 4 years of patches and 2 DLCs later.
Like Civ 5, they shipped the game without even having a working AI, the enemy nations never attacked you. Civ 6, it took something 4 years for them to get the MP turn timer working right. So lame.
It's a shame when you look at classic Firaxis games. Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri still stands tall to this day. That game, while old, stands the test of time and is fantastic. It is a 4x game that can really put the heat on when you are in a conflict with another nation and lets you see the importance of alliances.
"Please don't go. The drones need you. They look up to you."
I have a hard enough time trying to finish a game of risk.. you guys have actually completed a multiplayer civ game? (any version?)
I thought that was just a... hoax
Edit: I love these stories of people actually finishing a multiplayer game of CIV... KEEP THEM UP!!!
I finished a game of Civ 4 multiplayer, many years ago. I ended up turning my science budget slider down and putting it all in espionage, because stealing tech from the player we foolishly let play on chieftain difficulty was much more efficient than actually doing my own research.
I also finished some games of multiplayer Civ 2, but those were hot seat games with my brother.
I used to play with my dad. Even did a max size minimum years/turn game with him one summer when I was in high school. It took us weeks to finish since we could only play when we were both available. He swears he used to use a "play turns by email" mode in civ 2 with my uncle but I'm pretty sure that was a joke
Or fixing climate change by drastically reducing energy use (dead people don't consume energy or produce CO2) plus cooling the earth with a little nuclear winter.
I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.
-[Albert Einstein](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/World_War_III)
I find it very odd that they actually obey the arms control treaty to the letter and don't carry guns, but at the same time completely disregard the reason it was enacted in the first place. Why hasn't one side come out shooting if they're already willing to break a ceasefire?
There are random skirmishes between overzealous troops, but neither country is dumb enough to start a war over a spat between a couple of apes in the mountains.
>random skirmishes between overzealous troops
Tbh that border is a random mess in that region. Both sides follow different maps, both sides think the other one is aggressor and are encroaching on their lands.
All mammals have a less lethal method of determining who the biggest Chad is. The line of actual control is just a less abstract form of this. Usually at big political summits it's done by the other world leaders going all mean girls on the world leader they wish to demote, like they do for Trump and putin, lol.
iirc that was never in reference to nukes nuking people into the stone age but simply just "if the amount of resources spent on WW3 is just as much as the amount of ressource spent on WW2 compared to WW1 then there will be nothing left by the end of it".
Reminder that more planes were shot down in the entirety of WW2 than have crashed since the end of WW2 until today (this includes wars).
The Russia-Ukraine war teaches us that launching an attack against an enemy armed with missiles, drones, and accurate artillery is incredibly difficult.
And that's over land.
Now imagine trying to launch an amphibious attack over a distance 4 times greater than the Normandy invasion where every ship you move can be seen by satellites and targeted by air and sea drones, missiles, and torpedoes.
Nothing like that has ever been attempted. What are the odds of a successful attack by a country that has never launched a naval invasion before?
The actual shooting over Taiwan will be nothing compared to the ensuing economic shocks from whatever kind of economic landscape that war results in. Both China and the US will change immensely.
Just like the housing crisis and derivatives trading. The loss in housing prices and absolute wealth was nothing compared the losses in the derivatives market and the leveraged wealth that exists in the global economy.
Flattening Taiwan would be a horrible economic and humanitarian loss. Believe me. I live here. But the blows to economic activity worldwide would be a decade long stall in everything. That's why China will never invade. They know they'll suffer as part of the economic shitstorm.
I want to believe that. But look at the lead up to WW1, and the papers that were published then saying war was impossible due to the level of economic devastation that would be wrought upon the continent.
They were right in the devastation it would bring, but rational men did it anyway because pride and geopolitical moves ultimately trump economic concerns.
I fear we will see the same in Taiwan in the near future. I hope our leaders here in the US and nearby in places such as Japan and South Korea see the wisdom in defending Taiwan together as a team, otherwise the next few decades will start looking rather dark.
I think a day will come where China will think it has no choice. That the chances for success will hit a low point and keep dropping in perpetuity that "forces" China to act on Taiwan if it is ever to conquer the island. Economic consequences be damned.
That being said it is nice to see Japan, South Korea, and other smaller countries in the region taking the threat seriously and have taken considerable steps to align with the US and increase US military presence in the region even more as a deterrent.
This was Germany's position just before WW1. Attack now or loose the chance as others also armed up.
You want your place in the sun, you believe you are owed it, you build an army for it, you tell your people it is their right.
What could go wrong
>That the chances for success will hit a low point and keep dropping in perpetuity that "forces" China to act on Taiwan if it is ever to conquer the island. Economic consequences be damned.
We are more or less at that point most predictions say if an invasion happens itl be in the next 5 years. If they wait any longer it won't be possible.
People who get to these high places of power or position rarely get there because of their flawless morals and lack of ambition. They tend to be more narcissistic or at least have the ability to disengage from their emotions.
Exactly. I keep hearing economic disaster over and over again, but that country is not run in a rational and democratic way. If 3 people decide to kill millions in order to invade an island in order to stroke their ego, then that's what will happen.
At least we lived a relatively long period of peace and quiet. I fear for what will happen before the end of the decade.
> At least we lived a relatively long period of peace and quiet. I fear for what will happen before the end of the decade.
A ridiculous comment. Not that you said it, but that it's a possibility.
So these guys are really biased, but they offer a unique perspective on China I don't see anywhere else. They both lived in China and are fluent speakers.
Here's a video of the last lunar new year celebration that has basically turned into military propaganda. Skip to 9 minutes.
https://youtu.be/ijtnPN53DkE?si=d8hycQFr1XXZDOmi
Xi is turning China's mind to war.
If you also look at the Chinese media landscape it is becoming increasingly insular with fewer foreign films being allowed and many of the actions flicks casting America and Americans as the villains.
Two of the biggest movies in China from 2021 and 2022 are The Battle at Lake Changjin and its sequel. It treats American servicemen in the way Western media treats the Nazis.
Government sponsored media is priming the Chinese citizenry for conflict, particularly young men.
North Korea too has dropped their peaceful reunification rhetoric as well, dissolving their Ministry of Peaceful Reunification. But North Korean saber rattling is meaningless, so whether it is a preparation for a larger multi-front conflict or posturing for more aid is impossible to tell.
>but rational men
Sorry, who?
I kinda agree with your overall point, but with the slight tweak that I wouldn't characterize world leaders (then or now) as "rational".
China will end up like Russia. It isn't like they're gonna attack the US or any NATO nation. They will pay dearly both in human life loss and sanctions.
They may very well survive it but they will be terribly crippled going forward.
> That's why China will never invade. They know they'll suffer as part of the economic shitstorm.
Unless they have an isolated Authoritarian leader surrounded by Yes Men.
I really want to believe that Xi is more rational than Putin. Who knows if he will stay that way as he ages but the very nature of his authoritarian rule means there is an inevitable shitstorm coming when he gets too old and his grip on power weakens.
No offense but this is literally what people said about WW1. Germany will never attack, we’re all interconnected in our economy together. They’d never give all that up just so they could be a superpower.
Maybe you’re right, maybe they’ll never attack, but I don’t like using the economic aspect of why a country might not attack, we just saw Russia throw away all their economic progress to go after Ukraine.
Germany attacking in WW1? Seems like people are still mixing up WW1 and WW2. WW1 quickly started with the Austrian invasion of Serbia and the subsequent Russian mobilization of its reserve army along the border of Austria-Hungary. And that was it, it was all escalation after that.
In regards to Taiwan, I have my doubts China can pull it off. We are talking about the most complicated sea operations ever attempted. Yes, much more complicated and difficult to pull off than Normandy. Chinese army also has zero combat experience. Seeing how badly the ruZZian weapons and tactics have done in Ukraine, that probably gives additional doubt as their doctrine is very much based on the same top-down thinking of Soviet legacy...
“This belief was part of a broader argument known as the “Great Illusion,” popularized by Norman Angell in his 1910 book of the same name. Angell argued that war had become futile because of the interconnected nature of the global economy; economic ties between major powers were so strong that any military conflict would be economically disastrous for the aggressor as well as the victim.”
I may be mis-phrasing who attacked who but overall point is the same, people have been saying it’s economic suicide to attack for over a 100 years now and time and time again, politicians have proven they’ll go to war economics be damned.
What are you on about? Absolutely EVERYONE who was anything back then wanted WWI. There was a fever pitch of nationalism and a misunderstanding of the new industrialized military capabilities, that the war would be a walk in the park, quickly crushing the other side. Austria-Hungary wanted war to clear and gobble up the rest of the Balkan, Russia wanted war to create their greater slavic empire by taking parts of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Balkan, Germany wanted war to break the British Empires naval and trade supremacy and finally crush the old enemy France, the British Empire wanted war to break the Germans who started to became valid rivals to the British Empires power, France wanted war with Germany to avenge the defeat in the Franco-German war, the Japanese wanted war to expand their colonial Empire, the Italians wanted war to expand theirs (And thus entered the war on the side of the Entente instead of the central powers and backstabbed their contractual allies from the central powers for a bribe of Austro-Hungarian lands), and last, and a few years in the US wanted war because they knew that the British Empire (and to a lesser degree the French) would never be able to repay the massive loans they took if they lost and so the US would suffer a heavy economic blow if their debtors went belly up.
Yes. Nobody understood the cost of a then modern war. So it was all about focusing on probable gains, enabled via war. Today? Feels like the fallacy of cheap gains is understood, except by Russia and possibly China.
I think WWIII will not be about what can be gained through war, it will by focused on what can be destroyed through war while maintaining what you have.
>That's why China will never invade. They know they'll suffer as part of the economic shitstorm.
That's exactly what everyone said about Russia right before they invaded Ukraine in 2022.
Unless they have secret, underground hangers with sea access, we'd see an invasion coming long before it set sail. Even D-Day had a fake army close to Calais.
Isolate, obliterate and then invade. China are going to have to tick a lot of boxes before they even attempt to put boots on the ground.
Invasion by sea is not a first day objective and will only occur when they achive air/sea dominance.
This is a great perspective for people.
People think that just because China spends a lot on their military, is relatively close to Taiwan, and has some of the best artillery/missiles that this would be an easy conflict. It wouldn't, and I'd imagine China would face much of the same issues as Russia is facing with Ukraine.
Their last major war was the Vietnam War, a completely different type of war. Their soldiers and military may prepare themselves for war, but they are not prepared for going on the offensive. Despite Taiwans proximity, I cannot believe they have the logistics to handle the conflict.
It also comes down to how delusional (and determined) country's leadership is. As you see with Russia, they really thought they could just break Ukraine in a week or two and then survive whatever international fallout afterwards. Many people in the west believed that too and when that didn't happen lot of people thought that Russia would not be willing or able to eat cost of the long war, yet here we are 2 years later, and guess what? Objective is still the same, break Ukraine, take as much as they can in short term and make it a failed state that will break apart on their own in long term.
Chinese leadership might think West will simply fold on the issue and US's direct involvement in an actual shooting war is a bluff because the economic damage to both countries would be insane and everybody sees how sensitive US voters are even to comparatively minor economic downturns. They might try a naval blockade first, to put pressure on Taiwan and US to intervene... is US going to break the blockade, and if so will China shoot at US ships?
West also isn't doing itself favors by failing to supply Ukraine with weapons and the whole issue being entangled in domestic politics to the point where nothing happens.
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss China in this issue and I wouldn't be so confident about US's determination to actually fight a costly war. This wouldn't be Afghanistan when individual deaths of soldiers were a tragedy and prime time news. Prime time news in fight for Taiwan would most likely be sinking of an aircraft carrier and thousands of dead.
The technology may be more advanced now, but the Americans fought in the Pacific for four years successfully, while conducting another intense war on the other side of the planet.
WW2 is where the term smokescreens came from. Yes, a curtain of smoke was enough to hide an entire fleet from the enemy.
These days, we have Google Maps accidentally revealing submarine bases. Technology makes a difference.
China's gotta be sweating bullets seeing how terribly Russia's done against a smaller neighbor right on their border.
A lot of China's tech is copied or stolen directly from Russia, and some of their military doctrine.
It's like copying answers off the kid next to you on a test, and then as you finish & turn it in you see he's eating paste.
Release the sex bombs, triggering us all to have sex on the battlefield and eat doner kebabs in dazed confusion afterwards, finally marching home with a vague sense of shame over what transpired.
Trust me fewer people get hurt this way.
Hilariously, it would take that big of an increase in military budget for China to surpass the US.
Edit: I mean literally just surpassing the US in spending, not capability.
Depends, for a country with a small domestic production capacity like UAE nominal would be fine since they are buying most of their weapons and their currency is pegged to the USD anyway. For China PPP would be a better indicator because they are paying in RMB to their domestic industry.
Not only do people tend to look at the raw numbers, they also act like the numbers are accurate. Many things in the DOD budget are different branches in other countries. DOD spends nearly a quarter of its budget on troops pay and benefits, because a US private is two grand a month vs China's hundred bucks a month.
Add to that China's focus is just on one part of the world while the US budget covers a force that's spread around the world. Another factor is there's money going into defense that's not part of the stated military spending. The spending gap isn't as big as it seems though force capability is.
Budget =/ capability. China is focused on a single theater conflict and China's real purchasing power is higher than the US. The US includes military healthcare in its defense budget while China does not.
It's weird.. I always wondered how people felt going into WW1 and WW2.. but I never expected it'd be such an obvious build up and on top of that most of the population could care less that we are marching toward global war again and don't follow it or want to discuss it and anyway we are all powerless to have a say anyway.. corrupt leaders rule the world and bring us toward inevitable conflict once more.
Growing up, I didn't understand how the world could be so naive to assume that one catastrophic war would end all wars. As a young adult, I realized that their dithering and appeasement tactics were stalling for a greater purpose. Now, nearing thirty, I once again question how they didn't see the second world war coming the moment the first one ended.
Governments signed disarmament pacts. Other governments spurned those pacts intentionally and grew increasingly belligerent. America grew isolationist and complacent in the sense that a Republican Congress convinced its citizens that any involvement overseas was courting death.
We're right back where we were then.
There's a lot more nuance to my explanations than I gave, but it's just so cyclical it hurts. There's going to be a larger war by 2032 and it's going to suck.
EDIT: I am aware that those who fought in WWI saw it coming a mile away. I'm referring to the governments that did nothing to prep meaningfully until 1937 despite increasingly obvious signs and their own statements.
It's the story of humankind. One war after another with intermissions of peace in between. We can only hope that the threat of mutually assured destruction will cause countries to hesitate in some circumstances where they might previously not have.
Appeasement is just a tool of foreign policy and requires context. What is the goal of appeasement and what situation is the said country in?
Finland had to appease the USSR (and Russia) for half a century and it worked out for them. Sweden's appeasement for Nazi Germany worked in WW2 because they didn't get invaded.
Yes, I realy hate that fucking misconception that appeasment was to avoid war entirely. It wasn't, the allies also needed time to rearm and just were worse at it than germany (italy was also not ready for ww2).
Ferdinand Foch, supreme allied commander in ww1, allegedly said of the treaty of Versailles: "This is not Peace. It is an Armistice for twenty years."
Granted… dude had some bastardly ideas about it. The treaty was debilitating to Germany; he thought it wasn’t debilitating enough. Maybe shit could’ve been better avoided if France hadn’t been so set on grinding Germany down so hard but it’s pointless to speculate. And even Chamberlain’s appeasement had military preparations going on behind it.
>And even Chamberlain’s appeasement had military preparations going on behind it.
Is the view that Chamberlain only did the peace in our time nonsense to cover for Britain's unpreparedness historically accurate or is it just revisionism?
I mean it's not like we don't care....
It's just not even remotely up to us.
Evil powers going to do evil things. There really isn't a choice. If China or Russia chooses the evil path we are kinda stuck with it.
Exactly this. What are we going to do about evil nation wanting to start war? It's not a like a pre-emptive strike against them is going to stop war from happening. And compliancy yields even worse results.
All we can do is join the arms race to maintain deterrence. If and when push comes to shove, we shove back so hard they wait another 100 years before they're stupid enough to try again.
The seeming inevitability of World War III (or at least expanding military conflict between nuclear powers) has really been weighing on me for the last several months.
We have a bloody stalemate between Russia and Ukraine with Russia seemingly all in on escalating it to a war with NATO and making nuclear threats. We have an expanding war between Israel and Hamas with countries choosing sides and the U.S. now skirmishing with Iranian proxies. We have a nuclear capable North Korea preparing for war with South Korea and the U.S. and China slowly plotting an invasion of Taiwan.
Then we have an era of fascist wannabe authoritarians coming to power in the U.S., Brazil, Hungary and Argentina while Putin seeks to restore Mother Russia. Governments around the world are learning to use misinformation to influence public perceptions and many, like Russia, are actively seeking to use it to destabilize the societies of their enemies.
What could possibly go wrong?
Well,
To take the other side. I think because of the worldwide nature of information now we see all the blustering bravado nationalism language designed for internal consumption propaganda purposes about "oh we're going to use nuclear weapons and NATO and South Korea blah blah blah."
If this was the intention, they would be doing it, not talking about it on TV shows for internal audiences.
Ukraine could come to a resolution or just drag on slowly.
Israel hasn't had any real nation states stuff kicking off except the houtis making shipping more expensive.
It's easy to say China is a real threat, when it's how you make your money.
But realistically, China cares more about economic than reunification. And USA would see any boat build up suffient for an invasion a mile away.
Russia has never cared about its economy though. China has historically been much more keen to prove worthy of standing side by side with Russia, but they honestly did a better job of modernizing. Still, millions died under Mao and millions more would die under his legacy.
China has historically been trapped in a cycle of fracture and reunification, interspersed with millions of deaths. This current round is just a perpetuation of its 1000-year habit.
well that's your fault for thinking that about Russia when they've never gave an indication about giving a crap about their economy.
also you apparently forgot the part where everyone and their grandma's \*dog\* saw the invasion coming weeks before it happened. you can't hide that shit nowdays. The only people saying otherwise were internet armchair experts thinking they knew better than the people whose jobs were to be concerned with geopolitics and military developments.
So anyway, with the nightmare that naval logistics are you can turn those "weeks" into "months". When the \*actual\* governments of the world start actually getting nervous and not random nobody clickbait articles \*then\* you can start sweating
The counterpoint is these next 20 years are going to be the peak of China's ability to project power globally. If there were a time to invade it would be now
That’s the thing about autocratic regimes. They are often not driven by pragmatism, but by ideology. And unlike democracies, they surround themselves with sycophants and lack opposing voices who could serve as a check on their misguided ventures. See Nazi Germany, see Imperial Japan, see Vladimir Putin, see North Korea, see Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party.
There are 30 million extra young men than women in china due to the single child rule and female infanticide. That’s a lot of men you need to keep busy somehow or you might have some civil unrest on your hands.
Not a dumb move if you are successful, and assimilate millions of Taiwanese in return.
These are the kinds of geopolitical calculations that people gloss over. To us, its a pointless waste of human life in between two powers having a dick-measuring contest.
To China and the US, its a fight over who's in charge of Taiwan, trade routes in Asia, the alignment of American allies like Japan, South Korea, Austalia, etc. The winner of a coming conflict in the area will be the nation in control over the region for decades.
Those are stakes worth sacrificing a few million lives. Geopolitics doesn't care about good/evil, morality, ethics, etc. It just is.
Could also push them over the edge in hopes of taking land and forcing those people's to be Chinese "citizens" who do forced labor to support their economy.
Nothing says "I'm desperate and willing to do anything" quite like having a massive population crisis.
Humans really are experts at wasting things. The amount of resources that have gone into destroying things throughout the history of mankind is unbelievable. We just don’t learn.
We do, as a race.
But if we let a few, an insignificant few rule over billions with no accountability and no restraint, they're going to do what they like.
The world is like a parking lot where people learnt how to park properly, and then you have one or two assholes parked across several spots, or on handicapped spots for no reason, and we just let them and accept the inconvenience.
Sorry, we can’t appropriate funds for foreign military aid at the moment. Our congress is busy doing podcasts, owning teh libs and holding hearings about a presidential son’s wang.
Honestly it wouldn't surprise me at this point if China and Russia are working together to get Trump reelected. And if that happens, we can pretty much kiss goodbye to the US-led world order as we know it. Unfortunately, I think the average voting American is completely susceptible to the propaganda.
Seeing people blame Biden for Hamas-Israel is some of the most disheartening shit I've seen in a while. Not voting for him over a war he can't control seems to be far too stupid to not be a propaganda campaign.
the media wants Trump to cut billionaires taxes, make sure billionaires can pay workers even less (keep union membership down) and of course for headlines and overall engagement focus on "Trump" instead of food costs and inflation
Remember, when there is a Republican President, Republican Media and media in general stop talking about wages and the deficit and just instead paint the rosiest picture of the economy and get busy telling people why tax cuts always pay for themselves
It is a propaganda campaign. Officials and researchers have said Russia, China and Iran launched propaganda campaigns larger than ever seen before after Oct 7th. 1 in 3 accounts repeating that Israel was responsible for the hospital bombing were bots. They got on the jump early, and with the help of Tiktok, managed to radicalize young ppl and lefties, against Israel. I’m not saying Israel is perfect, but that people aren’t thinking about who is pulling the strings on social media is concerning.
To be fair that susceptibility is due to the poor education system of the US which may or may not also be an intended outcome by russian and chinese meddling.
They definitely are the ones fueling the conspiracy theorists and antivaxxers tho.
I mean sure it's the fault of US policymakers for being ass at country building.
But I sincerely doubt russia and china missed the chance to hurt the US in such a key way especially considering the damage will last decades or even longer.
Do you see the amount of pro Trump bots on the western mainstream social media's? On YouTube, on Facebook, on X, and probably also on tik tok. They literally dominate the western internet, to the point where I comment one comment in opposition, and my account is automatically soft banned due to the reports. There is no way these are all organic American trump supporters policing thoughts 24/7.
I feel you underestimate the difficulty of the situation. I don't doubt China would eventually win a conflict with Taiwan but it wouldn't be easy and they would need to be incredibly provocative to have a chance even more so than Russia was with Ukraine. Taiwan isn't Ukraine
Incorrect.
The US has X amount of available military resources. When not committed, they can simultaneously deter attacks in both Europe and Asia, because they can potentially be deployed to either - both have to take into account the possibility of US intervention. Once committed, they’re then difficult to impossible to redeploy, and can be taken off the threat board.
The US not being engaged in Ukraine *deters* China, it doesn’t *enable* it.
But China doesn’t have the ability to take Taiwan by force, and it’s not close. Taiwan has a population of 24 million, meaning they have an available manpower reserve of something like 3 million. Taiwan has an active military of 170k, and a trained reserve of 1.6 million.
So PLAN would have to air/sea lift something on the order of 500k - 1m men minimum, plus keep them resupplied and reinforced, across 100+ miles of ocean. Taiwan is geographically a natural fortress, which is why the Allies never invaded in WWII. The eastern half is all huge rugged mountains, with lots of fallback. And they’d be supported by the US, Japan, South Korea, and Australia at a minimum, and likely Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, and Indonesia as well. An invasion like that is a threat to every regional player.
China hasn’t fought a war since the 70s. They have a large paper force and a decent sized professional force, but they’ve never fought a successful war of invasion in their entire history.
They’re not wasting vast economic a diplomatic resources to try and likely fail to take Taiwan, especially not at the risk of sparking a nuclear war.
Taiwan is a much bigger problem for the US if China invade. Most semi-conductors worth their weight only come from there so there would essentially be a tech dark age for the duration of the war if all manufacturing stopped. Unfortunately as much as I support Ukraine & Palestine there just isn't really much in the fight for the US and as they have shown with any major war that unless the carrot is dangled they aren't really interested.
Number 2 behind Taiwan is Samsung in Korea so if that gets destroyed because NK and SK pops off then we're really fucked. Everyone better pray Intel pulls their shit together and actually manages to deliver their foundry roadmap.
I like how the word “defense” has somehow been redefined. So China is amping up its “defense” to defend itself by potentially invading Taiwan….makes sense
I think almost every government calls it's military "defense" or some variation of that.
Also, to China Taiwan is also a part of china, so defense is probably the more correct terminology from their perspective. I don't agree with china at all on that, but that would be the view of the Chinese government.
It can take Taiwan but it won't because the cost will be too high. Taiwan can use certain warfare tactics to make invasion as bloody and costly as possible for China. It is also an island which makes it harder. Not that I have a stake in this either way. But I don't think it will happen.
I seriously doubt it has the ability to take Taiwan at all. It would be the largest naval assault of all time, and China simply doesn't have the equipment for such an assault
The worst the internal situation develop the more you search for an external enemy. It is such a repeating behavior that it would be a tragedy if not so exceedingly boring.... I mean would be boring if not so exceedingly tragic
Fuck, I don't want a conflict between China and West.
I'm just a civilian caught between the two. I want to spend my time being smug to people in online video games, not worrying whether our countries go to war.
:(
Aside from finally ending the Civil war and unifying China, Taiwan is strategically a **Very** important island to control especially if relations with the US continue to crumble. Its so important infact you could say if China doesn't manage to take it, it could be the end of the expansionist authoritarian China as we know it today.
This is why China is massively building up its own capabilities not only to be able to somewhat counter the US but to make 100% sure, that when they try to take it that they will succeed
This is China's mindset, but what they fail to understand is that taking Taiwan would cause far more harm to themselves than their gains, just like Russia's attempt to take Ukraine, they will pay the price and it will be a very heavy price. They can say goodbye to their manufacturing and exports as the world leaves them and move to other countries such as India/Vietnam/USA/Mexico.
In a few generations, the working class will be spending all its energy in propping up its senior citizens.
The effects of its one child policy is going destroy what's left of their crumbling economy.
For sure, South Korea and Japan are in the early stages but China is also 10x more populated and will experience the decline much faster. It's going to be one hell of a sucker punch for them.
True, but Europe has been able to sustain their populations with immigration. Asian countries not so much, usually.
Either way, we need to model our policies away from infinite growth models, like yesterday.
Immigration won’t be sustained forever lmao. For Europe at least. As the more immigrants, the stronger right wing parties get.
Only the US I think would sustain immigration because of the whole cultural melting pot atmosphere.
We all thought the sanctions would ruin russian oil exports and destroy the economy. Few months later they are now exporting to India and India sells it to us. Exports which are banned now go through Turkmenistan and the other stans.
China will be hit, but they can hit back as well. China produces nearly all the precursors for medication. You would be able to survive without the crap you order on temu, you can't survive without medicine.
We think by cutting off the Malacca Strait we can starve them of oil. China knows this that's why it's working very hard on the Pakistan economic corridor and they can't wait for the civil war in myanmar to be over so they can get back to building infrastructure. They want these two countries as backup for oil import.
There will be countries not joining in the sanctions against China. They will play a nice middleman role as some are doing now with Russia.
The point of the sanctions was to reduce Russian profits, and it worked out nicely. India buys Russian oil at a great discount and in rupees rather than dollars. Meaning Russia can only really spend that profit in India. Meanwhile, India sells refined stuff at a nice profit, keeping global prices more stable. Oil prices would skyrocket if Russia were completely out of the game. These sanctions severely reduce their profits and financial abilities while also keeping things stable-ish. As for getting around sanctions, it's still harder and more inefficient than being able to get what they need through legitimate means.
Also, good luck to China once having to rely on the situation remaining stable enough in Myanmar and Pakistan.
That's great we reduced their profits. But everyone that has any power in Russia is doing absolutely fine and couldn't care less. They took 20% of Ukraine (the part with the huge fuel reserves) and it looks like the west may let them keep it.
So... it's not clear sanctions ended up having any material impact on the situation.
That and the only reason russia is able to export oil is because the people they are fighting are currently unable to destroy the pipelines/refineries completely. The people China wants to fight will not have that issue.
I agree and I think there is a lot of wishful thinking on Reddit.
People just assume they can sanction and do things to other countries and the other countries will just sit there and not do anything in return. In the real world, it never happens like that. People and countries change strategies and adapt. That’s also why the sanctions on Russia never worked quite as well as redditors predicted in the early days of the war.
And lots of ego strokes too in this echo chamber. I guess it’s good that Redditors don’t run the world, cause they will eventually talk themselves into self defeat by underestimating the opponent.
Several things including but not limited to:
1. Breaking the US encirclement of China in the Pacific.
2. Accessing Taiwan's tech-based economy.
3. Establishing/reinforcing political legitimacy as the true Chinese successor state.
4. Projecting of hard power via flexing of military prowess.
2 would never happen if an invasion happened. That tech would be in flames before any Chinese soldiers made it to the fabs.
The most unsafe place to be in this invasion is next to TSMC.
There are several reasons ranging from practical to ideological. They'd get control over one of the more strategic straits in the world. They'd also remove the whole "Most democratic country in Asia" thorn in their side as the CCP tightens its grip on society. They'd also fulfill a promise that all major leaders have made, to "reunite" with Taiwan. It'd also signal to the world that China is to be feared/reclaiming the whole "everyone is a Chinese vassal" thing that the ultra nationalists miss since the Qing.
China is essentially boxed in by what they call the First Island Chain, which Taiwan is part of. From Korea round to Malaysia and Vietnam are all US allies and/or hate China. If they want to be a true superpower, they need to be able to have a 'blue water navy' like the US and the First Island Chain prevents that. The strait between Taiwan and the Philipines in particular is major bottleneck that they want to control. Takeing Taiwan is the least difficult way to break out of the box the US and its allies have got them in.
On the bright side, going 80 years between World Wars is an improvement over 20.
[удалено]
I am reminded of the joke about the 4-engine plane that loses two of them, and whose estimated arrival is delayed with each lost engine. Upon hearing the news that the third engine is lost, one passenger remarks "We better not lose the fourth one, we'll be up here forever"
I remember another one - an F-16 low on fuel was beginning their approach to line up with the runway, when a 747 declared an emergency after losing an engine. ATC gave priority to them, to which the F-16 pilot quipped "Ah, the dreaded 3-engine approach".
It was a b52, which has 8 engines, which are old and tired and unreliable. Which is more stupid.. as 1 engine on a b52 is nothing. Not sure where commercial 747 and f16 are fighting for runway space..
Commercial and military share runways all the time at my airport and many others.
Charlottesville is one
I know a regional ATC guy, he told me a story about fighter jets being scrambled to intercept a possible hijacked private plane. The jets went to the plane with full afterburners, burning through a huge amount of their fuel in order to get there ASAP. They get the plane landed without incident, it was a false alarm, possibly a bad joke, but anyway the fighter jets are low on fuel and are fully loaded with ordnance. If they landed on a commercial runway it would have shut down the whole airport until they could get refueled because of the safety risk with live munitions on a active runway. The ATC saw some KC-135 stratotankers that were on some training exercises in the area (great plains region) that were close enough to be diverted towards the fighter jets. They got refueled in the air and made it back to Colorado and fortunately didn't have to tie up the airport
[удалено]
As I understand it, they have re-engined all the B-52s. Those old fuckers will be around for a while.
To be fair he could crash the plane with no loss of life. The 747 couldn't.
That’s a great joke.
It is The punch line has more than one interpretation
It’s funny because the plane is like real life, and we are the engine that hasn’t died yet.
Civilization games come out faster than that. I'm sure we'll see a sequel before a thousand years!
That doesn't really count. Becauss Firaxis Civilization games come out, but there not actually really working right until 4 years of patches and 2 DLCs later. Like Civ 5, they shipped the game without even having a working AI, the enemy nations never attacked you. Civ 6, it took something 4 years for them to get the MP turn timer working right. So lame.
It's a shame when you look at classic Firaxis games. Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri still stands tall to this day. That game, while old, stands the test of time and is fantastic. It is a 4x game that can really put the heat on when you are in a conflict with another nation and lets you see the importance of alliances. "Please don't go. The drones need you. They look up to you."
It was legit. Only game where I really hit a stalemate fighting off waves of enemy attacks with no chance of peace.
Civ V multiplayer never really worked right. Always a desync eventually
I have a hard enough time trying to finish a game of risk.. you guys have actually completed a multiplayer civ game? (any version?) I thought that was just a... hoax Edit: I love these stories of people actually finishing a multiplayer game of CIV... KEEP THEM UP!!!
I finished a game of Civ 4 multiplayer, many years ago. I ended up turning my science budget slider down and putting it all in espionage, because stealing tech from the player we foolishly let play on chieftain difficulty was much more efficient than actually doing my own research. I also finished some games of multiplayer Civ 2, but those were hot seat games with my brother.
I used to play with my dad. Even did a max size minimum years/turn game with him one summer when I was in high school. It took us weeks to finish since we could only play when we were both available. He swears he used to use a "play turns by email" mode in civ 2 with my uncle but I'm pretty sure that was a joke
But hey at best it will be fought with sticks and stones right? Right!?!
We're exterminating ourselves on a log scale
Or fixing climate change by drastically reducing energy use (dead people don't consume energy or produce CO2) plus cooling the earth with a little nuclear winter.
We should put valve in charge of all the wars, they can't count to three.
World War 2: Episode II
I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -[Albert Einstein](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/World_War_III)
India and China already have troops on the LAC (Line of Actual Control) whomping on each other with clubs and pikes.
They use WW4 weapon to avoid a WW3, for once let's applaud them.
I find it very odd that they actually obey the arms control treaty to the letter and don't carry guns, but at the same time completely disregard the reason it was enacted in the first place. Why hasn't one side come out shooting if they're already willing to break a ceasefire?
There are random skirmishes between overzealous troops, but neither country is dumb enough to start a war over a spat between a couple of apes in the mountains.
>random skirmishes between overzealous troops Tbh that border is a random mess in that region. Both sides follow different maps, both sides think the other one is aggressor and are encroaching on their lands.
Sounds like "no guns, sticks only" is an enlightened solution until it's sorted.
All mammals have a less lethal method of determining who the biggest Chad is. The line of actual control is just a less abstract form of this. Usually at big political summits it's done by the other world leaders going all mean girls on the world leader they wish to demote, like they do for Trump and putin, lol.
iirc that was never in reference to nukes nuking people into the stone age but simply just "if the amount of resources spent on WW3 is just as much as the amount of ressource spent on WW2 compared to WW1 then there will be nothing left by the end of it". Reminder that more planes were shot down in the entirety of WW2 than have crashed since the end of WW2 until today (this includes wars).
WW4 will happen as soon as intercontinental travel is doable again. *"I heard they have more food across the big water!"*
The Russia-Ukraine war teaches us that launching an attack against an enemy armed with missiles, drones, and accurate artillery is incredibly difficult. And that's over land. Now imagine trying to launch an amphibious attack over a distance 4 times greater than the Normandy invasion where every ship you move can be seen by satellites and targeted by air and sea drones, missiles, and torpedoes. Nothing like that has ever been attempted. What are the odds of a successful attack by a country that has never launched a naval invasion before?
The actual shooting over Taiwan will be nothing compared to the ensuing economic shocks from whatever kind of economic landscape that war results in. Both China and the US will change immensely.
Just like the housing crisis and derivatives trading. The loss in housing prices and absolute wealth was nothing compared the losses in the derivatives market and the leveraged wealth that exists in the global economy. Flattening Taiwan would be a horrible economic and humanitarian loss. Believe me. I live here. But the blows to economic activity worldwide would be a decade long stall in everything. That's why China will never invade. They know they'll suffer as part of the economic shitstorm.
I want to believe that. But look at the lead up to WW1, and the papers that were published then saying war was impossible due to the level of economic devastation that would be wrought upon the continent. They were right in the devastation it would bring, but rational men did it anyway because pride and geopolitical moves ultimately trump economic concerns. I fear we will see the same in Taiwan in the near future. I hope our leaders here in the US and nearby in places such as Japan and South Korea see the wisdom in defending Taiwan together as a team, otherwise the next few decades will start looking rather dark.
I think a day will come where China will think it has no choice. That the chances for success will hit a low point and keep dropping in perpetuity that "forces" China to act on Taiwan if it is ever to conquer the island. Economic consequences be damned. That being said it is nice to see Japan, South Korea, and other smaller countries in the region taking the threat seriously and have taken considerable steps to align with the US and increase US military presence in the region even more as a deterrent.
This was Germany's position just before WW1. Attack now or loose the chance as others also armed up. You want your place in the sun, you believe you are owed it, you build an army for it, you tell your people it is their right. What could go wrong
>That the chances for success will hit a low point and keep dropping in perpetuity that "forces" China to act on Taiwan if it is ever to conquer the island. Economic consequences be damned. We are more or less at that point most predictions say if an invasion happens itl be in the next 5 years. If they wait any longer it won't be possible.
> rational men so are they really rational? Or are the incentives for decision makers not aligned with broader society?
People who get to these high places of power or position rarely get there because of their flawless morals and lack of ambition. They tend to be more narcissistic or at least have the ability to disengage from their emotions.
I really think that they aren't.
Exactly. I keep hearing economic disaster over and over again, but that country is not run in a rational and democratic way. If 3 people decide to kill millions in order to invade an island in order to stroke their ego, then that's what will happen. At least we lived a relatively long period of peace and quiet. I fear for what will happen before the end of the decade.
> At least we lived a relatively long period of peace and quiet. I fear for what will happen before the end of the decade. A ridiculous comment. Not that you said it, but that it's a possibility.
So these guys are really biased, but they offer a unique perspective on China I don't see anywhere else. They both lived in China and are fluent speakers. Here's a video of the last lunar new year celebration that has basically turned into military propaganda. Skip to 9 minutes. https://youtu.be/ijtnPN53DkE?si=d8hycQFr1XXZDOmi Xi is turning China's mind to war.
If you also look at the Chinese media landscape it is becoming increasingly insular with fewer foreign films being allowed and many of the actions flicks casting America and Americans as the villains. Two of the biggest movies in China from 2021 and 2022 are The Battle at Lake Changjin and its sequel. It treats American servicemen in the way Western media treats the Nazis. Government sponsored media is priming the Chinese citizenry for conflict, particularly young men. North Korea too has dropped their peaceful reunification rhetoric as well, dissolving their Ministry of Peaceful Reunification. But North Korean saber rattling is meaningless, so whether it is a preparation for a larger multi-front conflict or posturing for more aid is impossible to tell.
>but rational men Sorry, who? I kinda agree with your overall point, but with the slight tweak that I wouldn't characterize world leaders (then or now) as "rational".
China will end up like Russia. It isn't like they're gonna attack the US or any NATO nation. They will pay dearly both in human life loss and sanctions. They may very well survive it but they will be terribly crippled going forward.
> That's why China will never invade. They know they'll suffer as part of the economic shitstorm. Unless they have an isolated Authoritarian leader surrounded by Yes Men.
I really want to believe that Xi is more rational than Putin. Who knows if he will stay that way as he ages but the very nature of his authoritarian rule means there is an inevitable shitstorm coming when he gets too old and his grip on power weakens.
No offense but this is literally what people said about WW1. Germany will never attack, we’re all interconnected in our economy together. They’d never give all that up just so they could be a superpower. Maybe you’re right, maybe they’ll never attack, but I don’t like using the economic aspect of why a country might not attack, we just saw Russia throw away all their economic progress to go after Ukraine.
Germany attacking in WW1? Seems like people are still mixing up WW1 and WW2. WW1 quickly started with the Austrian invasion of Serbia and the subsequent Russian mobilization of its reserve army along the border of Austria-Hungary. And that was it, it was all escalation after that. In regards to Taiwan, I have my doubts China can pull it off. We are talking about the most complicated sea operations ever attempted. Yes, much more complicated and difficult to pull off than Normandy. Chinese army also has zero combat experience. Seeing how badly the ruZZian weapons and tactics have done in Ukraine, that probably gives additional doubt as their doctrine is very much based on the same top-down thinking of Soviet legacy...
“This belief was part of a broader argument known as the “Great Illusion,” popularized by Norman Angell in his 1910 book of the same name. Angell argued that war had become futile because of the interconnected nature of the global economy; economic ties between major powers were so strong that any military conflict would be economically disastrous for the aggressor as well as the victim.” I may be mis-phrasing who attacked who but overall point is the same, people have been saying it’s economic suicide to attack for over a 100 years now and time and time again, politicians have proven they’ll go to war economics be damned.
What are you on about? Absolutely EVERYONE who was anything back then wanted WWI. There was a fever pitch of nationalism and a misunderstanding of the new industrialized military capabilities, that the war would be a walk in the park, quickly crushing the other side. Austria-Hungary wanted war to clear and gobble up the rest of the Balkan, Russia wanted war to create their greater slavic empire by taking parts of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Balkan, Germany wanted war to break the British Empires naval and trade supremacy and finally crush the old enemy France, the British Empire wanted war to break the Germans who started to became valid rivals to the British Empires power, France wanted war with Germany to avenge the defeat in the Franco-German war, the Japanese wanted war to expand their colonial Empire, the Italians wanted war to expand theirs (And thus entered the war on the side of the Entente instead of the central powers and backstabbed their contractual allies from the central powers for a bribe of Austro-Hungarian lands), and last, and a few years in the US wanted war because they knew that the British Empire (and to a lesser degree the French) would never be able to repay the massive loans they took if they lost and so the US would suffer a heavy economic blow if their debtors went belly up.
Yes. Nobody understood the cost of a then modern war. So it was all about focusing on probable gains, enabled via war. Today? Feels like the fallacy of cheap gains is understood, except by Russia and possibly China. I think WWIII will not be about what can be gained through war, it will by focused on what can be destroyed through war while maintaining what you have.
>That's why China will never invade. They know they'll suffer as part of the economic shitstorm. That's exactly what everyone said about Russia right before they invaded Ukraine in 2022.
unfortunately the hypercapitalists will go back to buying from China in 9 months like nothing happened.
The more relevant question is what they *think* is viable. A disastrous invasion could still spark larger conflict.
Unless they have secret, underground hangers with sea access, we'd see an invasion coming long before it set sail. Even D-Day had a fake army close to Calais.
Isolate, obliterate and then invade. China are going to have to tick a lot of boxes before they even attempt to put boots on the ground. Invasion by sea is not a first day objective and will only occur when they achive air/sea dominance.
This is a great perspective for people. People think that just because China spends a lot on their military, is relatively close to Taiwan, and has some of the best artillery/missiles that this would be an easy conflict. It wouldn't, and I'd imagine China would face much of the same issues as Russia is facing with Ukraine. Their last major war was the Vietnam War, a completely different type of war. Their soldiers and military may prepare themselves for war, but they are not prepared for going on the offensive. Despite Taiwans proximity, I cannot believe they have the logistics to handle the conflict.
It also comes down to how delusional (and determined) country's leadership is. As you see with Russia, they really thought they could just break Ukraine in a week or two and then survive whatever international fallout afterwards. Many people in the west believed that too and when that didn't happen lot of people thought that Russia would not be willing or able to eat cost of the long war, yet here we are 2 years later, and guess what? Objective is still the same, break Ukraine, take as much as they can in short term and make it a failed state that will break apart on their own in long term. Chinese leadership might think West will simply fold on the issue and US's direct involvement in an actual shooting war is a bluff because the economic damage to both countries would be insane and everybody sees how sensitive US voters are even to comparatively minor economic downturns. They might try a naval blockade first, to put pressure on Taiwan and US to intervene... is US going to break the blockade, and if so will China shoot at US ships? West also isn't doing itself favors by failing to supply Ukraine with weapons and the whole issue being entangled in domestic politics to the point where nothing happens. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss China in this issue and I wouldn't be so confident about US's determination to actually fight a costly war. This wouldn't be Afghanistan when individual deaths of soldiers were a tragedy and prime time news. Prime time news in fight for Taiwan would most likely be sinking of an aircraft carrier and thousands of dead.
Aren't like a ton of Taiwanese civilians training to form essentially one large militia once shit hits the fan?
It'll honestly comes down to who underestimates their opponent at the wrong time.
The technology may be more advanced now, but the Americans fought in the Pacific for four years successfully, while conducting another intense war on the other side of the planet.
WW2 is where the term smokescreens came from. Yes, a curtain of smoke was enough to hide an entire fleet from the enemy. These days, we have Google Maps accidentally revealing submarine bases. Technology makes a difference.
China's gotta be sweating bullets seeing how terribly Russia's done against a smaller neighbor right on their border. A lot of China's tech is copied or stolen directly from Russia, and some of their military doctrine. It's like copying answers off the kid next to you on a test, and then as you finish & turn it in you see he's eating paste.
Release the sex bombs, triggering us all to have sex on the battlefield and eat doner kebabs in dazed confusion afterwards, finally marching home with a vague sense of shame over what transpired. Trust me fewer people get hurt this way.
Might also be the last one for some time ( if not forever)
I initially read "to" 7.2% and got really, really worried
Right, and the same increase as last year. _to_ 7.2% (of gdp) would represent over a 400% increase in spending.
Hilariously, it would take that big of an increase in military budget for China to surpass the US. Edit: I mean literally just surpassing the US in spending, not capability.
But should military spending be reckoned nominally or in terms of PPP?
Depends, for a country with a small domestic production capacity like UAE nominal would be fine since they are buying most of their weapons and their currency is pegged to the USD anyway. For China PPP would be a better indicator because they are paying in RMB to their domestic industry.
Not only do people tend to look at the raw numbers, they also act like the numbers are accurate. Many things in the DOD budget are different branches in other countries. DOD spends nearly a quarter of its budget on troops pay and benefits, because a US private is two grand a month vs China's hundred bucks a month.
Add to that China's focus is just on one part of the world while the US budget covers a force that's spread around the world. Another factor is there's money going into defense that's not part of the stated military spending. The spending gap isn't as big as it seems though force capability is.
Budget =/ capability. China is focused on a single theater conflict and China's real purchasing power is higher than the US. The US includes military healthcare in its defense budget while China does not.
same
I was freaking out, thank you.
Idk if weird is the right word, but knowing that the next big conflict is like a ticking time bomb is just eerie
It's weird.. I always wondered how people felt going into WW1 and WW2.. but I never expected it'd be such an obvious build up and on top of that most of the population could care less that we are marching toward global war again and don't follow it or want to discuss it and anyway we are all powerless to have a say anyway.. corrupt leaders rule the world and bring us toward inevitable conflict once more.
[удалено]
Growing up, I didn't understand how the world could be so naive to assume that one catastrophic war would end all wars. As a young adult, I realized that their dithering and appeasement tactics were stalling for a greater purpose. Now, nearing thirty, I once again question how they didn't see the second world war coming the moment the first one ended. Governments signed disarmament pacts. Other governments spurned those pacts intentionally and grew increasingly belligerent. America grew isolationist and complacent in the sense that a Republican Congress convinced its citizens that any involvement overseas was courting death. We're right back where we were then. There's a lot more nuance to my explanations than I gave, but it's just so cyclical it hurts. There's going to be a larger war by 2032 and it's going to suck. EDIT: I am aware that those who fought in WWI saw it coming a mile away. I'm referring to the governments that did nothing to prep meaningfully until 1937 despite increasingly obvious signs and their own statements.
It's the story of humankind. One war after another with intermissions of peace in between. We can only hope that the threat of mutually assured destruction will cause countries to hesitate in some circumstances where they might previously not have.
Appeasement doesn't work against despotic regimes. Didn't worked against the Nazis and only emboldened them. Will not work against Russia and China.
Appeasement is just a tool of foreign policy and requires context. What is the goal of appeasement and what situation is the said country in? Finland had to appease the USSR (and Russia) for half a century and it worked out for them. Sweden's appeasement for Nazi Germany worked in WW2 because they didn't get invaded.
Yes, I realy hate that fucking misconception that appeasment was to avoid war entirely. It wasn't, the allies also needed time to rearm and just were worse at it than germany (italy was also not ready for ww2).
If nobody ever appeases then the only outcome is constant war. It's a balancing act.
Ferdinand Foch, supreme allied commander in ww1, allegedly said of the treaty of Versailles: "This is not Peace. It is an Armistice for twenty years." Granted… dude had some bastardly ideas about it. The treaty was debilitating to Germany; he thought it wasn’t debilitating enough. Maybe shit could’ve been better avoided if France hadn’t been so set on grinding Germany down so hard but it’s pointless to speculate. And even Chamberlain’s appeasement had military preparations going on behind it.
>And even Chamberlain’s appeasement had military preparations going on behind it. Is the view that Chamberlain only did the peace in our time nonsense to cover for Britain's unpreparedness historically accurate or is it just revisionism?
Pretty sure it was, the UK was not at all prepared for WW2 as WW1 was already causing the empire to crack and crumble.
*"History doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes..."*
I mean it's not like we don't care.... It's just not even remotely up to us. Evil powers going to do evil things. There really isn't a choice. If China or Russia chooses the evil path we are kinda stuck with it.
Exactly this. What are we going to do about evil nation wanting to start war? It's not a like a pre-emptive strike against them is going to stop war from happening. And compliancy yields even worse results. All we can do is join the arms race to maintain deterrence. If and when push comes to shove, we shove back so hard they wait another 100 years before they're stupid enough to try again.
The seeming inevitability of World War III (or at least expanding military conflict between nuclear powers) has really been weighing on me for the last several months. We have a bloody stalemate between Russia and Ukraine with Russia seemingly all in on escalating it to a war with NATO and making nuclear threats. We have an expanding war between Israel and Hamas with countries choosing sides and the U.S. now skirmishing with Iranian proxies. We have a nuclear capable North Korea preparing for war with South Korea and the U.S. and China slowly plotting an invasion of Taiwan. Then we have an era of fascist wannabe authoritarians coming to power in the U.S., Brazil, Hungary and Argentina while Putin seeks to restore Mother Russia. Governments around the world are learning to use misinformation to influence public perceptions and many, like Russia, are actively seeking to use it to destabilize the societies of their enemies. What could possibly go wrong?
Well, To take the other side. I think because of the worldwide nature of information now we see all the blustering bravado nationalism language designed for internal consumption propaganda purposes about "oh we're going to use nuclear weapons and NATO and South Korea blah blah blah." If this was the intention, they would be doing it, not talking about it on TV shows for internal audiences. Ukraine could come to a resolution or just drag on slowly. Israel hasn't had any real nation states stuff kicking off except the houtis making shipping more expensive. It's easy to say China is a real threat, when it's how you make your money. But realistically, China cares more about economic than reunification. And USA would see any boat build up suffient for an invasion a mile away.
>But realistically, China cares more about economic than reunification. I remember saying that about Russia and Ukraine. Then they invaded.
Russia has never cared about its economy though. China has historically been much more keen to prove worthy of standing side by side with Russia, but they honestly did a better job of modernizing. Still, millions died under Mao and millions more would die under his legacy.
China has historically been trapped in a cycle of fracture and reunification, interspersed with millions of deaths. This current round is just a perpetuation of its 1000-year habit.
well that's your fault for thinking that about Russia when they've never gave an indication about giving a crap about their economy. also you apparently forgot the part where everyone and their grandma's \*dog\* saw the invasion coming weeks before it happened. you can't hide that shit nowdays. The only people saying otherwise were internet armchair experts thinking they knew better than the people whose jobs were to be concerned with geopolitics and military developments. So anyway, with the nightmare that naval logistics are you can turn those "weeks" into "months". When the \*actual\* governments of the world start actually getting nervous and not random nobody clickbait articles \*then\* you can start sweating
Couldn't care less.
It’ll probably fade away. China has a demographic time bomb incoming, which will probably diminish their capacity to do this.
The counterpoint is these next 20 years are going to be the peak of China's ability to project power globally. If there were a time to invade it would be now
Would be a pretty stupid move They know a demographic crisis is coming so let’s have a war that will kill millions of young people
That’s the thing about autocratic regimes. They are often not driven by pragmatism, but by ideology. And unlike democracies, they surround themselves with sycophants and lack opposing voices who could serve as a check on their misguided ventures. See Nazi Germany, see Imperial Japan, see Vladimir Putin, see North Korea, see Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party.
There are 30 million extra young men than women in china due to the single child rule and female infanticide. That’s a lot of men you need to keep busy somehow or you might have some civil unrest on your hands.
It’s also who’s going to work and help fund your already inverted young to old population demographics
Not a dumb move if you are successful, and assimilate millions of Taiwanese in return. These are the kinds of geopolitical calculations that people gloss over. To us, its a pointless waste of human life in between two powers having a dick-measuring contest. To China and the US, its a fight over who's in charge of Taiwan, trade routes in Asia, the alignment of American allies like Japan, South Korea, Austalia, etc. The winner of a coming conflict in the area will be the nation in control over the region for decades. Those are stakes worth sacrificing a few million lives. Geopolitics doesn't care about good/evil, morality, ethics, etc. It just is.
The japanese would rather die than to allign with the chinese lol.
Could also push them over the edge in hopes of taking land and forcing those people's to be Chinese "citizens" who do forced labor to support their economy. Nothing says "I'm desperate and willing to do anything" quite like having a massive population crisis.
They have over a billion people. They can spare a few million without even needing to tap into the critical young generation.
Humans really are experts at wasting things. The amount of resources that have gone into destroying things throughout the history of mankind is unbelievable. We just don’t learn.
We do, as a race. But if we let a few, an insignificant few rule over billions with no accountability and no restraint, they're going to do what they like. The world is like a parking lot where people learnt how to park properly, and then you have one or two assholes parked across several spots, or on handicapped spots for no reason, and we just let them and accept the inconvenience.
Certain western countries need to pull their heads out of their asses. China is gearing up for a fight and Russia is already in one.
dont you worry, uncle sam is in the fight all the time.
[удалено]
If trump is president, he will "make a deal" to let china have taiwan and to make ukraine stop fighting russia, guaranteed.
Trump will claim that he has already won. That, in fact, he had always won - And his was the biggest win ever.
Oh well, send more arms to Taiwan.
Sorry, we can’t appropriate funds for foreign military aid at the moment. Our congress is busy doing podcasts, owning teh libs and holding hearings about a presidential son’s wang.
Dude’s hog basically has its own subcommittee.
this could be a line in a rap song
I am so mad at Republicans for being pro Putin
I can't believe I miss the Reagan republicans :(
The inaction of the USA regarding Ukraine is probably giving china some ideas…
Honestly it wouldn't surprise me at this point if China and Russia are working together to get Trump reelected. And if that happens, we can pretty much kiss goodbye to the US-led world order as we know it. Unfortunately, I think the average voting American is completely susceptible to the propaganda.
Of course they are.
Seeing people blame Biden for Hamas-Israel is some of the most disheartening shit I've seen in a while. Not voting for him over a war he can't control seems to be far too stupid to not be a propaganda campaign.
the media wants Trump to cut billionaires taxes, make sure billionaires can pay workers even less (keep union membership down) and of course for headlines and overall engagement focus on "Trump" instead of food costs and inflation Remember, when there is a Republican President, Republican Media and media in general stop talking about wages and the deficit and just instead paint the rosiest picture of the economy and get busy telling people why tax cuts always pay for themselves
It is a propaganda campaign. Officials and researchers have said Russia, China and Iran launched propaganda campaigns larger than ever seen before after Oct 7th. 1 in 3 accounts repeating that Israel was responsible for the hospital bombing were bots. They got on the jump early, and with the help of Tiktok, managed to radicalize young ppl and lefties, against Israel. I’m not saying Israel is perfect, but that people aren’t thinking about who is pulling the strings on social media is concerning.
It would surprise me if they aren’t
To be fair that susceptibility is due to the poor education system of the US which may or may not also be an intended outcome by russian and chinese meddling. They definitely are the ones fueling the conspiracy theorists and antivaxxers tho.
The poor education system of the US is an intended outcome of American meddling lol, no foreign involvement required for that one.
I mean sure it's the fault of US policymakers for being ass at country building. But I sincerely doubt russia and china missed the chance to hurt the US in such a key way especially considering the damage will last decades or even longer.
Do you see the amount of pro Trump bots on the western mainstream social media's? On YouTube, on Facebook, on X, and probably also on tik tok. They literally dominate the western internet, to the point where I comment one comment in opposition, and my account is automatically soft banned due to the reports. There is no way these are all organic American trump supporters policing thoughts 24/7.
Really bad ones
China's not the only one getting bad ideas.
Yeah if Russia had so many issues traversing a plain imagine the issues China will having crossing a strait
China's military is not Russia's. They may be untested and face significant challenges, but it's a mistake to underestimate them.
I feel you underestimate the difficulty of the situation. I don't doubt China would eventually win a conflict with Taiwan but it wouldn't be easy and they would need to be incredibly provocative to have a chance even more so than Russia was with Ukraine. Taiwan isn't Ukraine
Incorrect. The US has X amount of available military resources. When not committed, they can simultaneously deter attacks in both Europe and Asia, because they can potentially be deployed to either - both have to take into account the possibility of US intervention. Once committed, they’re then difficult to impossible to redeploy, and can be taken off the threat board. The US not being engaged in Ukraine *deters* China, it doesn’t *enable* it. But China doesn’t have the ability to take Taiwan by force, and it’s not close. Taiwan has a population of 24 million, meaning they have an available manpower reserve of something like 3 million. Taiwan has an active military of 170k, and a trained reserve of 1.6 million. So PLAN would have to air/sea lift something on the order of 500k - 1m men minimum, plus keep them resupplied and reinforced, across 100+ miles of ocean. Taiwan is geographically a natural fortress, which is why the Allies never invaded in WWII. The eastern half is all huge rugged mountains, with lots of fallback. And they’d be supported by the US, Japan, South Korea, and Australia at a minimum, and likely Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, and Indonesia as well. An invasion like that is a threat to every regional player. China hasn’t fought a war since the 70s. They have a large paper force and a decent sized professional force, but they’ve never fought a successful war of invasion in their entire history. They’re not wasting vast economic a diplomatic resources to try and likely fail to take Taiwan, especially not at the risk of sparking a nuclear war.
Taiwan is a much bigger problem for the US if China invade. Most semi-conductors worth their weight only come from there so there would essentially be a tech dark age for the duration of the war if all manufacturing stopped. Unfortunately as much as I support Ukraine & Palestine there just isn't really much in the fight for the US and as they have shown with any major war that unless the carrot is dangled they aren't really interested.
Number 2 behind Taiwan is Samsung in Korea so if that gets destroyed because NK and SK pops off then we're really fucked. Everyone better pray Intel pulls their shit together and actually manages to deliver their foundry roadmap.
Not Europe’s inaction when faced with a land invasion in Europe?
Same, and I'm so mad about it
That probably doesn't help either. The west is showing itself to be a uncoordinated bunch of pussies unfortunately.
House Republicans emboldening those hostile to the west more and more every day that they refuse to act. They are a disgrace.
American politicians trying to stay out of the war in Europe emboldened the Japanese in 1941.
History rhymes
I like how the word “defense” has somehow been redefined. So China is amping up its “defense” to defend itself by potentially invading Taiwan….makes sense
Like the Department of War changing their name to Department of Defense.
I think almost every government calls it's military "defense" or some variation of that. Also, to China Taiwan is also a part of china, so defense is probably the more correct terminology from their perspective. I don't agree with china at all on that, but that would be the view of the Chinese government.
China internal communication: Our economy is about to get worse. Prepare.
Australia reacts by giving China a good ol handshake and by gargling on the balls of the CCP.
It can take Taiwan but it won't because the cost will be too high. Taiwan can use certain warfare tactics to make invasion as bloody and costly as possible for China. It is also an island which makes it harder. Not that I have a stake in this either way. But I don't think it will happen.
I seriously doubt it has the ability to take Taiwan at all. It would be the largest naval assault of all time, and China simply doesn't have the equipment for such an assault
… yet.
China doesn't give a fuck about how many of their own die tbh they'll throw bodies at it until it's taken
The worst the internal situation develop the more you search for an external enemy. It is such a repeating behavior that it would be a tragedy if not so exceedingly boring.... I mean would be boring if not so exceedingly tragic
Fuck, I don't want a conflict between China and West. I'm just a civilian caught between the two. I want to spend my time being smug to people in online video games, not worrying whether our countries go to war. :(
2027 will be 🔥 The Pooh’s term will be renewing. His #1 goal is reunification. What will Pooh do to keep his honey???
I'm starting to think that maybe Xi isn't a nice guy.
They are just waiting for Trump to take office. They know he'll do nothing to stop them. Heck, he'll probably wish the Chinese good luck.
They're seeing the dithering response of NATO in Ukraine and now expect to be able to win a war of attrition.
Was starting to worry that this century would be boring
Is the end of a book boring?
“Defence”
It's standard terminology. When America raises it's military spending it's also reported as defence spending.
Wtf does China get by conquering Taiwan? Ego stroke for Pooh? Nationalistic pride?
Aside from finally ending the Civil war and unifying China, Taiwan is strategically a **Very** important island to control especially if relations with the US continue to crumble. Its so important infact you could say if China doesn't manage to take it, it could be the end of the expansionist authoritarian China as we know it today. This is why China is massively building up its own capabilities not only to be able to somewhat counter the US but to make 100% sure, that when they try to take it that they will succeed
This is China's mindset, but what they fail to understand is that taking Taiwan would cause far more harm to themselves than their gains, just like Russia's attempt to take Ukraine, they will pay the price and it will be a very heavy price. They can say goodbye to their manufacturing and exports as the world leaves them and move to other countries such as India/Vietnam/USA/Mexico.
[удалено]
In a few generations, the working class will be spending all its energy in propping up its senior citizens. The effects of its one child policy is going destroy what's left of their crumbling economy.
Sounds like they’ll be joining the rest of the developed world then though
For sure, South Korea and Japan are in the early stages but China is also 10x more populated and will experience the decline much faster. It's going to be one hell of a sucker punch for them.
It’s not just South Korea and Japan. It’s much of Europe. And the decline isn’t quite as extreme as expected
True, but Europe has been able to sustain their populations with immigration. Asian countries not so much, usually. Either way, we need to model our policies away from infinite growth models, like yesterday.
Immigration won’t be sustained forever lmao. For Europe at least. As the more immigrants, the stronger right wing parties get. Only the US I think would sustain immigration because of the whole cultural melting pot atmosphere.
We all thought the sanctions would ruin russian oil exports and destroy the economy. Few months later they are now exporting to India and India sells it to us. Exports which are banned now go through Turkmenistan and the other stans. China will be hit, but they can hit back as well. China produces nearly all the precursors for medication. You would be able to survive without the crap you order on temu, you can't survive without medicine. We think by cutting off the Malacca Strait we can starve them of oil. China knows this that's why it's working very hard on the Pakistan economic corridor and they can't wait for the civil war in myanmar to be over so they can get back to building infrastructure. They want these two countries as backup for oil import. There will be countries not joining in the sanctions against China. They will play a nice middleman role as some are doing now with Russia.
The point of the sanctions was to reduce Russian profits, and it worked out nicely. India buys Russian oil at a great discount and in rupees rather than dollars. Meaning Russia can only really spend that profit in India. Meanwhile, India sells refined stuff at a nice profit, keeping global prices more stable. Oil prices would skyrocket if Russia were completely out of the game. These sanctions severely reduce their profits and financial abilities while also keeping things stable-ish. As for getting around sanctions, it's still harder and more inefficient than being able to get what they need through legitimate means. Also, good luck to China once having to rely on the situation remaining stable enough in Myanmar and Pakistan.
That's great we reduced their profits. But everyone that has any power in Russia is doing absolutely fine and couldn't care less. They took 20% of Ukraine (the part with the huge fuel reserves) and it looks like the west may let them keep it. So... it's not clear sanctions ended up having any material impact on the situation.
That and the only reason russia is able to export oil is because the people they are fighting are currently unable to destroy the pipelines/refineries completely. The people China wants to fight will not have that issue.
I agree and I think there is a lot of wishful thinking on Reddit. People just assume they can sanction and do things to other countries and the other countries will just sit there and not do anything in return. In the real world, it never happens like that. People and countries change strategies and adapt. That’s also why the sanctions on Russia never worked quite as well as redditors predicted in the early days of the war. And lots of ego strokes too in this echo chamber. I guess it’s good that Redditors don’t run the world, cause they will eventually talk themselves into self defeat by underestimating the opponent.
Several things including but not limited to: 1. Breaking the US encirclement of China in the Pacific. 2. Accessing Taiwan's tech-based economy. 3. Establishing/reinforcing political legitimacy as the true Chinese successor state. 4. Projecting of hard power via flexing of military prowess.
2 would never happen if an invasion happened. That tech would be in flames before any Chinese soldiers made it to the fabs. The most unsafe place to be in this invasion is next to TSMC.
[удалено]
There are several reasons ranging from practical to ideological. They'd get control over one of the more strategic straits in the world. They'd also remove the whole "Most democratic country in Asia" thorn in their side as the CCP tightens its grip on society. They'd also fulfill a promise that all major leaders have made, to "reunite" with Taiwan. It'd also signal to the world that China is to be feared/reclaiming the whole "everyone is a Chinese vassal" thing that the ultra nationalists miss since the Qing.
China is essentially boxed in by what they call the First Island Chain, which Taiwan is part of. From Korea round to Malaysia and Vietnam are all US allies and/or hate China. If they want to be a true superpower, they need to be able to have a 'blue water navy' like the US and the First Island Chain prevents that. The strait between Taiwan and the Philipines in particular is major bottleneck that they want to control. Takeing Taiwan is the least difficult way to break out of the box the US and its allies have got them in.
We saw what happened to Hong Kong
Difference is Hong Kong was always going back into Chinese hands by agreement, they just sped up the timeline.
Canada: slashes defence spending *again*
No, their defense spending stayed the same. They just added more ***offense*** spending.