8 ms·

I might get downvoted for this but I think it's a very real possibility. Withdraw the embassy from Beijing, recognize Taiwan and force a embargo of all Taiwanes

by euix 6y ago

I might get downvoted for this but I think it's a very real possibility. Withdraw the embassy from Beijing, recognize Taiwan and force a embargo of all Taiwanese/Korean and Japanese semiconductor supplies and components to Mainland China. Then sit back and let China then make the first move. Might not work, but at this point I wouldn't put it past somebody in the White House having already gamed it. There has never been a case in human history where one group of people voluntarily gave up their wealth, status and privilege to another group of people. Wealth transfer always leads to violence.

godzillabrennus 6y ago
Ending Corporate America’s reliance on Chinese slave labor would create global recession. Not likely that Trump would inflict even more economic damage during his presidency just before the Election.
- evan_ 6y ago
  Respectfully- have you not been paying attention? The dude doesn’t make decisions with a long-term outcome in mind. He did this so he can send a tweet tomorrow morning about how he’s sticking it to the commies. That’s where the plan ends.
  - dis-sys 6y ago
    that dude's team actually call China a state capitalist country, that is pretty different from "commies". just look at all the handouts from the US federal government, that is what commies do. to the max of my knowledge, in capitalist China, no one gets unemployment support for COVID-19. communism is a cancer, sadly US has it.
qppo 6y ago
> Then sit back and let China then make the first move. Might not work, but at this point I wouldn't put it past somebody in the White House having already gamed it. I doubt it, there is not a single person of competence in the white house capable of gaming it. They are reactionary, not proactive. The President does not understand causality, and I sincerely doubt that anyone in his inner circle does either (because everyone with a brain has left or been fired). Your strategy here has two moves more than anyone in the Trump whitehouse is capable of fathoming. > There has never been a case in human history where one group of people voluntarily gave up their wealth, status and privilege to another group of people. Wealth transfer always leads to violence. I mean involuntary != violence. There have been plenty of peaceful cessions of power.
- dirtyid 6y ago
  Banning wechat feels like pure Pompeo. Trump probably doesn't even know what wechat is. The craziest bat shit tier China-hawk already got purged, but this is still Pompeo, and if anything hes... good at manufacturing consent.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
testrun 6y ago
South Africa (1994) is one exception.
- kingkawn 6y ago
  South Africa’s power structure gave superficial political power in exchange for complete continuity of economic power.
  - Ericson2314 6y ago
    Well yes that's how these things usually go, but haven't a bunch of white people left? Doesn't make the economic wrong right, but does at least crudely function as justice.
    - kingkawn 6y ago
      Symbolic appeasement without an actual change in living conditions for the majority of the populace who suffered the brunt of the exploitation is not justice
      - Ericson2314 6y ago
        Punishing the perpetrators and undoing the damage are two different things. Absolutely more of the second is needed. But what I mentioned functions as a crude form of the first. Like it or not, kicking out white people isn't just symbolism. To be clear, I agree that transfer of power was a classic neoliberal failure, and the situation is a travesty.
simonblack 6y ago
but I think it's a very real possibility. I'm classing it as a certainty. Have a read of the Wolfowitz Doctrine and work out what it necessitates, and that to be done very soon. Even so, I believe the US has 'missed the bus'. It needed to have initiated vigorous conflict earlier this year to be sure of victory in that coming war. It can't start anything worthwhile now until at least the next Spring-Summer campaign season. By then China will have had another 12 months of growth, and the US another 12 months of decline.
- modeless 6y ago
  What does victory mean in the era of mutually assured destruction? I don't see how a shooting war between the US and China could not end in both sides getting nuked.
  - empressplay 6y ago
    Which is why nobody will push the button, even if they're being invaded, they'll just accept being occupied and mount a resistance. MAD always relied on a fiction of natural insanity that doesn't actually exist. I don't think any tactician takes widespread nuclear exchanges seriously as a likely outcome to any contemporary global conflict.
    - jjeaff 6y ago
      You think we have all rational players in the game right now?
    - hnzix 6y ago
      The numerous instances of near-misses which were only averted by crew disobeying direct orders contradicts your narrative.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
  - baybal2 6y ago
trianglem 6y ago
There is no one in the White House that can do any “gaming”. It’s all gut feel reactionary stuff now.
- kelnos 6y ago
  White House, no, but no doubt there are career officers and civilians in the Pentagon who have gamed this out in excruciating detail. I'm sure this was done even before the current administration came into power.
  - loopz 6y ago
    It matters little with irrational decisionmaking overruling and abusing wargame results.
    - rorykoehler 6y ago
      That will be part of the game design surely. If push comes to shove the war games will matter a lot.
    - Terr_ 6y ago
      "I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." -- Vice President Dick Cheney, 2005-06-20
      - ahmedalsudani 6y ago
        Cheney is 1. A thoroughly mendacious character 2. A moron A lot of people ascribe malice to him, but it’s clear as day that he was in over his head with the entire project. Basically 0 of his goals have been achieved 17 years in. So I would say that while the appearance of competent war games was there, it was a charade.
        mellow2020 6y ago
        He was involved in a war of aggression, and his company made a bit of money both for destruction and rebuiling, did it not? And we can't even begin to guess how many "buddies" profited. At any rate, he's not in jail, and I think that is way too much success than is acceptable. He may be a moron, he certainly is a fool, but then what does that say about the ~300 million people in whose name he did his crimes, to live happily and smugly ever after?
gampleman 6y ago
> There has never been a case in human history where one group of people voluntarily gave up their wealth, status and privilege to another group of people. Wealth transfer always leads to violence. The Velvet Revolution comes to mind. Of course there is a possibility/threat of violent escalation in negotiating these things, but rational actors can make the calculus that getting a good enough deal guaranteed is better than fighting and potentially loosing a better one. However, it requires a non-totalitarian view of the world (i.e. the others are not enemies no matter what and must be punished for their bad deeds doesn't really allow you to negotiate in a de-escalatory manner).
ideals 6y ago
China could also just wait 3 more months until the election and decide action after that. If the presidency changes they are able to deal with a more rational player.
- loopz 6y ago
  A more realistic scenario is that US have a 3 months deadline to fix their political system, as rationality need an empiric and humane system to work within.
- dis-sys 6y ago
  Go and read John Bolton's book, Xi made it clear to Trump in person that he wants Trump to have two more terms. An irrational US president undermining the US credibility in all possible aspects is good for China. Why Chinese would possibly want this trend to change?
  - labster 6y ago
    Bolton has many strong opinions that are not necessarily shared with the rest of the world -- not that he's wrong, but do use critical thinking. There are pros and cons here, like Trump causing short-term trade losses with China while they're dealing with political instability back home. Is economic stability worth more than relative world influence? Hard to say. Also, Xi telling Trump that he should have more terms is a classic way to play to a narcissist; it shouldn't be interpreted as anything more than flattery. Honestly I think China has very little to gain from interfering on either side of the US election, and potentially a lot to lose. Russia, on the other hand...
  - ejanus 6y ago
    Bolton was fired.... Trump is a street man his yes may not be yes.
- FooBarWidget 6y ago
  China is already being very patient in waiting until the reelection. The US military is flaunting its military hardware near the mainland, and all this time China is basically ignoring the threat. But the Trump administration is very active in launching more attacks. If you follow the news on what they've been doing to Chinese companies, the past month has been absolutely insane. The attacks are only getting faster and faster, as the Trump administration gets increasingly desperate to win a reelection. Another problem is that all these attacks leave behind permanent damage. It's not just a matter of ignoring the attacks. I fear that at some point, we get past some boiling point, and things erupt into a hot war.
chvid 6y ago
You can be sure that "war games" are being played out routinely. The problem here is that this is an obvious escalation with US as the aggressor and not all US allies are willing to follow the US into war as the current administration is seen as unreliable. You even had the former and current (!) prime ministers of Australia warning of high likelihood of a war between China and the US within the next 3 months. Where the next 3 months of course is the period of the US presidential election indicating that they clearly see a connection between the US elections and increased China tensions.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- jjeaff 6y ago
  Is it really the US making the first move? Facebook is blocked in China as are several other big countries. Granted, this is a ban after the company made inroads, but it seems that China has been doing this for a long time now and in many industries.
  - chvid 6y ago
    Who made the first move is kind of a philosophical question. And the tech war is part of a bigger "war" that is currently unfolding going from rhetorics to trade to military maneuvers. What is more important is how it is being perceived amongst other countries around the south china sea. And as far as I can tell the US does not have the support it normally would have. Even from surefire allies such as Australia.
- plandis 6y ago
  China has been doing moves like this for a long time so I don’t know how the US is the first aggressor here. Several US tech companies have been banned in China for a while at this point.
  - chrischen 6y ago
    So what are we China now? Also I'm not sure it's quite true those companies were banned. Google voluntarily pulled out of the Chinese market, and re-entered.
paganel 6y ago
> There has never been a case in human history where one group of people voluntarily gave up their wealth, status and privilege to another group of people. Wealth transfer always leads to violence. There was an interesting book published about two years ago (I'm too lazy to search for it) which showed that wealth "re-calibration" only really happened as a result of violent change. I know I wouldn't be here in front of a computer writing this comment if it hadn't been for WW2 that brought communist rule to my Eastern-European country, which communist rule brought forced industrialisation with the help of mass education (that was of course free, unlike before WW2). That benefited my parents who could make the "leap" from the countryside to the city. Probably a new war could similarly eliminate the wealth inequality in countries like the US. Actually I looked for it and I'm 99% sure this is the book: "The Great Leveler: Violence and the History of Inequality from the Stone Age to the Twenty-First Century" [1] [1] https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691183251/the-great-leveler https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691183251/th...
- kortilla 6y ago
  > Probably a new war could similarly eliminate the wealth inequality in countries like the US. Perhaps just by destroying wealth. It’s unlikely that any violence could improve the US middle class since it’s already richer than the middle class in most other countries. Best you can do at that point is just try to eliminate the wealthy if you’re fixated on income inequality.
ahmedalsudani 6y ago
Are you seriously wishing for war with a nuclear power with ICBMs and the largest manufacturing capacity in the world?
anthonypasq 6y ago
There is absolutely zero political will for a war with China. It will never happen

by euix 6y ago

godzillabrennus 6y ago

Ending Corporate America’s reliance on Chinese slave labor would create global recession. Not likely that Trump would inflict even more economic damage during his presidency just before the Election.

evan_ 6y ago
Respectfully- have you not been paying attention? The dude doesn’t make decisions with a long-term outcome in mind. He did this so he can send a tweet tomorrow morning about how he’s sticking it to the commies. That’s where the plan ends.
- dis-sys 6y ago
  that dude's team actually call China a state capitalist country, that is pretty different from "commies". just look at all the handouts from the US federal government, that is what commies do. to the max of my knowledge, in capitalist China, no one gets unemployment support for COVID-19. communism is a cancer, sadly US has it.

qppo 6y ago

> Then sit back and let China then make the first move. Might not work, but at this point I wouldn't put it past somebody in the White House having already gamed it. I doubt it, there is not a single person of competence in the white house capable of gaming it. They are reactionary, not proactive. The President does not understand causality, and I sincerely doubt that anyone in his inner circle does either (because everyone with a brain has left or been fired). Your strategy here has two moves more than anyone in the Trump whitehouse is capable of fathoming. > There has never been a case in human history where one group of people voluntarily gave up their wealth, status and privilege to another group of people. Wealth transfer always leads to violence. I mean involuntary != violence. There have been plenty of peaceful cessions of power.

dirtyid 6y ago
Banning wechat feels like pure Pompeo. Trump probably doesn't even know what wechat is. The craziest bat shit tier China-hawk already got purged, but this is still Pompeo, and if anything hes... good at manufacturing consent.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

testrun 6y ago

South Africa (1994) is one exception.

kingkawn 6y ago
South Africa’s power structure gave superficial political power in exchange for complete continuity of economic power.
- Ericson2314 6y ago
  Well yes that's how these things usually go, but haven't a bunch of white people left? Doesn't make the economic wrong right, but does at least crudely function as justice.
  - kingkawn 6y ago
    Symbolic appeasement without an actual change in living conditions for the majority of the populace who suffered the brunt of the exploitation is not justice
    - Ericson2314 6y ago
      Punishing the perpetrators and undoing the damage are two different things. Absolutely more of the second is needed. But what I mentioned functions as a crude form of the first. Like it or not, kicking out white people isn't just symbolism. To be clear, I agree that transfer of power was a classic neoliberal failure, and the situation is a travesty.

simonblack 6y ago

but I think it's a very real possibility. I'm classing it as a certainty. Have a read of the Wolfowitz Doctrine and work out what it necessitates, and that to be done very soon. Even so, I believe the US has 'missed the bus'. It needed to have initiated vigorous conflict earlier this year to be sure of victory in that coming war. It can't start anything worthwhile now until at least the next Spring-Summer campaign season. By then China will have had another 12 months of growth, and the US another 12 months of decline.

modeless 6y ago
What does victory mean in the era of mutually assured destruction? I don't see how a shooting war between the US and China could not end in both sides getting nuked.
- empressplay 6y ago
  Which is why nobody will push the button, even if they're being invaded, they'll just accept being occupied and mount a resistance. MAD always relied on a fiction of natural insanity that doesn't actually exist. I don't think any tactician takes widespread nuclear exchanges seriously as a likely outcome to any contemporary global conflict.
  - jjeaff 6y ago
    You think we have all rational players in the game right now?
  - hnzix 6y ago
    The numerous instances of near-misses which were only averted by crew disobeying direct orders contradicts your narrative.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- baybal2 6y ago

trianglem 6y ago

There is no one in the White House that can do any “gaming”. It’s all gut feel reactionary stuff now.

kelnos 6y ago
White House, no, but no doubt there are career officers and civilians in the Pentagon who have gamed this out in excruciating detail. I'm sure this was done even before the current administration came into power.
- loopz 6y ago
  It matters little with irrational decisionmaking overruling and abusing wargame results.
  - rorykoehler 6y ago
    That will be part of the game design surely. If push comes to shove the war games will matter a lot.
  - Terr_ 6y ago
    "I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." -- Vice President Dick Cheney, 2005-06-20
    - ahmedalsudani 6y ago
      Cheney is 1. A thoroughly mendacious character 2. A moron A lot of people ascribe malice to him, but it’s clear as day that he was in over his head with the entire project. Basically 0 of his goals have been achieved 17 years in. So I would say that while the appearance of competent war games was there, it was a charade.
      - mellow2020 6y ago
        He was involved in a war of aggression, and his company made a bit of money both for destruction and rebuiling, did it not? And we can't even begin to guess how many "buddies" profited. At any rate, he's not in jail, and I think that is way too much success than is acceptable. He may be a moron, he certainly is a fool, but then what does that say about the ~300 million people in whose name he did his crimes, to live happily and smugly ever after?

gampleman 6y ago

> There has never been a case in human history where one group of people voluntarily gave up their wealth, status and privilege to another group of people. Wealth transfer always leads to violence. The Velvet Revolution comes to mind. Of course there is a possibility/threat of violent escalation in negotiating these things, but rational actors can make the calculus that getting a good enough deal guaranteed is better than fighting and potentially loosing a better one. However, it requires a non-totalitarian view of the world (i.e. the others are not enemies no matter what and must be punished for their bad deeds doesn't really allow you to negotiate in a de-escalatory manner).

ideals 6y ago

China could also just wait 3 more months until the election and decide action after that. If the presidency changes they are able to deal with a more rational player.

loopz 6y ago
A more realistic scenario is that US have a 3 months deadline to fix their political system, as rationality need an empiric and humane system to work within.
dis-sys 6y ago
Go and read John Bolton's book, Xi made it clear to Trump in person that he wants Trump to have two more terms. An irrational US president undermining the US credibility in all possible aspects is good for China. Why Chinese would possibly want this trend to change?
- labster 6y ago
  Bolton has many strong opinions that are not necessarily shared with the rest of the world -- not that he's wrong, but do use critical thinking. There are pros and cons here, like Trump causing short-term trade losses with China while they're dealing with political instability back home. Is economic stability worth more than relative world influence? Hard to say. Also, Xi telling Trump that he should have more terms is a classic way to play to a narcissist; it shouldn't be interpreted as anything more than flattery. Honestly I think China has very little to gain from interfering on either side of the US election, and potentially a lot to lose. Russia, on the other hand...
- ejanus 6y ago
  Bolton was fired.... Trump is a street man his yes may not be yes.
FooBarWidget 6y ago
China is already being very patient in waiting until the reelection. The US military is flaunting its military hardware near the mainland, and all this time China is basically ignoring the threat. But the Trump administration is very active in launching more attacks. If you follow the news on what they've been doing to Chinese companies, the past month has been absolutely insane. The attacks are only getting faster and faster, as the Trump administration gets increasingly desperate to win a reelection. Another problem is that all these attacks leave behind permanent damage. It's not just a matter of ignoring the attacks. I fear that at some point, we get past some boiling point, and things erupt into a hot war.

chvid 6y ago

You can be sure that "war games" are being played out routinely. The problem here is that this is an obvious escalation with US as the aggressor and not all US allies are willing to follow the US into war as the current administration is seen as unreliable. You even had the former and current (!) prime ministers of Australia warning of high likelihood of a war between China and the US within the next 3 months. Where the next 3 months of course is the period of the US presidential election indicating that they clearly see a connection between the US elections and increased China tensions.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jjeaff 6y ago
Is it really the US making the first move? Facebook is blocked in China as are several other big countries. Granted, this is a ban after the company made inroads, but it seems that China has been doing this for a long time now and in many industries.
- chvid 6y ago
  Who made the first move is kind of a philosophical question. And the tech war is part of a bigger "war" that is currently unfolding going from rhetorics to trade to military maneuvers. What is more important is how it is being perceived amongst other countries around the south china sea. And as far as I can tell the US does not have the support it normally would have. Even from surefire allies such as Australia.
plandis 6y ago
China has been doing moves like this for a long time so I don’t know how the US is the first aggressor here. Several US tech companies have been banned in China for a while at this point.
- chrischen 6y ago
  So what are we China now? Also I'm not sure it's quite true those companies were banned. Google voluntarily pulled out of the Chinese market, and re-entered.

paganel 6y ago

> There has never been a case in human history where one group of people voluntarily gave up their wealth, status and privilege to another group of people. Wealth transfer always leads to violence. There was an interesting book published about two years ago (I'm too lazy to search for it) which showed that wealth "re-calibration" only really happened as a result of violent change. I know I wouldn't be here in front of a computer writing this comment if it hadn't been for WW2 that brought communist rule to my Eastern-European country, which communist rule brought forced industrialisation with the help of mass education (that was of course free, unlike before WW2). That benefited my parents who could make the "leap" from the countryside to the city. Probably a new war could similarly eliminate the wealth inequality in countries like the US. Actually I looked for it and I'm 99% sure this is the book: "The Great Leveler: Violence and the History of Inequality from the Stone Age to the Twenty-First Century" [1] [1] https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691183251/the-great-leveler https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691183251/th...

kortilla 6y ago
> Probably a new war could similarly eliminate the wealth inequality in countries like the US. Perhaps just by destroying wealth. It’s unlikely that any violence could improve the US middle class since it’s already richer than the middle class in most other countries. Best you can do at that point is just try to eliminate the wealthy if you’re fixated on income inequality.

ahmedalsudani 6y ago

Are you seriously wishing for war with a nuclear power with ICBMs and the largest manufacturing capacity in the world?

anthonypasq 6y ago

There is absolutely zero political will for a war with China. It will never happen