7 ms·

Not to mention a military takeover of Hong Kong would generate valuable data and experience that could be usefully applied to an invasion of Taiwan.

netsharc 7y ago
Aah, crap, good point. And Trump will probably not do anything in both cases. Putin neither, and the EU can't go in themselves.
- kenneth 7y ago
  Uh, if the EU wanted to, it could absolutely go in. The UK has the most valid reason for intervening since it's their treaty that's being violated by a Chinese invasion. EU countries have 2+ million military personnel combined, hundreds of naval assets, thousands of aircraft, strong mutual defense military alliances, etc.
  - Redoubts 7y ago
    Europe couldn’t even handle Libya without running out of bombs. They have no capability to do anything of note. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nato-runs-short-on-some-munitions-in-libya/2011/04/15/AF3O7ElD_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nato-runs-short-on-some... > Libya “has not been a very big war. If [the Europeans] would run out of these munitions this early in such a small operation, you have to wonder what kind of war they were planning on fighting,”
  - richardknop 7y ago
    Europe has no army or military capacity. You have UK/France with some military capability but rest of Europe has in essence no armed forces, their tiny militaries are mostly only used to help during natural disasters or with humanitarian efforts. Europe can't even handle issues in its own backyard without US.
  - netsharc 7y ago
    Except the UK has appointed a child as their PM and is at the moment throwing a "we're not doing any cooperation!" tantrum. China could just dangle the promise of a post-Brexit trade deal (the Brexiters need anything to look good, they were ready to brag about deals with S. Arabia and Turkey). As someone has mentioned, imagine if Le Pen wins in France, the UN Security Council would be run by Xi, Putin, Trump, BoJo and Le Pen...
- billner 7y ago
  EU wouldn't be rearing to go in either.
bitxbitxbitcoin 7y ago
Valuable data about the public and international outcry and response- they already have all the war games simulated out.
Symmetry 7y ago
I'm not sure how applicable it would be. Taiwan does have a military that would resist and Hong Kong doesn't.
- thoughtfunction 7y ago
  HK also doesn't have TSMC, which if destroyed would put semiconductor progress and prices back 5-10 years.
  - monocasa 7y ago
    In another 10 to 20 years that won't matter with Moore's law slowing down. Globally competitive foundaries are one of the CCP's goals, and the same slow down that let TSMC surpase Intel will let some Chinese foundary surpass or equal TSMC. Their competitive edge is going to erode away to commodification (albeit for those who can stomach.the huge capital investment).
    - magduf 7y ago
      TSMC has never been very competitive with Intel. Intel has long been a leader in semiconductor manufacturing, but they almost exclusively used it for making their own chips; they weren't a contract fab. TSMC, on the other hand, has always been a contract manufacturer.
      - monocasa 7y ago
        So following that logic Intel's fab has no competitors. : /
        magduf 7y ago
        Basically, no, it doesn't (unless something has changed a lot since I worked there; I haven't kept up very much since then). Intel designs and makes their own chips, so they don't want or need a contract manufacturer. This is like saying Ford's factories have no competitors, and that's true too. Ford isn't going to farm out their car manufacturing to some other company. (I mean the final assembly; of course carmakers routinely get various components from suppliers, such as airbags, infotainment computers, seats, etc.) Chipmaking is a little weird because, unlike carmaking where the automakers all own and operate their own final-assembly factories, or aircraft makers like Boeing which own their own factories, chipmakers are frequently "fabless" these days and do the design work but partner with a fab like TSMC to actually make the chips. Intel is an exception and doesn't do this.

netsharc 7y ago

Aah, crap, good point. And Trump will probably not do anything in both cases. Putin neither, and the EU can't go in themselves.

kenneth 7y ago
Uh, if the EU wanted to, it could absolutely go in. The UK has the most valid reason for intervening since it's their treaty that's being violated by a Chinese invasion. EU countries have 2+ million military personnel combined, hundreds of naval assets, thousands of aircraft, strong mutual defense military alliances, etc.
- Redoubts 7y ago
  Europe couldn’t even handle Libya without running out of bombs. They have no capability to do anything of note. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nato-runs-short-on-some-munitions-in-libya/2011/04/15/AF3O7ElD_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nato-runs-short-on-some... > Libya “has not been a very big war. If [the Europeans] would run out of these munitions this early in such a small operation, you have to wonder what kind of war they were planning on fighting,”
- richardknop 7y ago
  Europe has no army or military capacity. You have UK/France with some military capability but rest of Europe has in essence no armed forces, their tiny militaries are mostly only used to help during natural disasters or with humanitarian efforts. Europe can't even handle issues in its own backyard without US.
- netsharc 7y ago
  Except the UK has appointed a child as their PM and is at the moment throwing a "we're not doing any cooperation!" tantrum. China could just dangle the promise of a post-Brexit trade deal (the Brexiters need anything to look good, they were ready to brag about deals with S. Arabia and Turkey). As someone has mentioned, imagine if Le Pen wins in France, the UN Security Council would be run by Xi, Putin, Trump, BoJo and Le Pen...
billner 7y ago
EU wouldn't be rearing to go in either.

bitxbitxbitcoin 7y ago

Valuable data about the public and international outcry and response- they already have all the war games simulated out.

Symmetry 7y ago

I'm not sure how applicable it would be. Taiwan does have a military that would resist and Hong Kong doesn't.

thoughtfunction 7y ago
HK also doesn't have TSMC, which if destroyed would put semiconductor progress and prices back 5-10 years.
- monocasa 7y ago
  In another 10 to 20 years that won't matter with Moore's law slowing down. Globally competitive foundaries are one of the CCP's goals, and the same slow down that let TSMC surpase Intel will let some Chinese foundary surpass or equal TSMC. Their competitive edge is going to erode away to commodification (albeit for those who can stomach.the huge capital investment).
  - magduf 7y ago
    TSMC has never been very competitive with Intel. Intel has long been a leader in semiconductor manufacturing, but they almost exclusively used it for making their own chips; they weren't a contract fab. TSMC, on the other hand, has always been a contract manufacturer.
    - monocasa 7y ago
      So following that logic Intel's fab has no competitors. : /
      - magduf 7y ago
        Basically, no, it doesn't (unless something has changed a lot since I worked there; I haven't kept up very much since then). Intel designs and makes their own chips, so they don't want or need a contract manufacturer. This is like saying Ford's factories have no competitors, and that's true too. Ford isn't going to farm out their car manufacturing to some other company. (I mean the final assembly; of course carmakers routinely get various components from suppliers, such as airbags, infotainment computers, seats, etc.) Chipmaking is a little weird because, unlike carmaking where the automakers all own and operate their own final-assembly factories, or aircraft makers like Boeing which own their own factories, chipmakers are frequently "fabless" these days and do the design work but partner with a fab like TSMC to actually make the chips. Intel is an exception and doesn't do this.