7 ms·

What signal? That NATO is a defensive alliance and not the world's police?

mcguire 5y ago
That having nuclear weapons is literally the only way to prevent a neighbor from annexing your country.
jacquesm 5y ago
No, that for instance China is free to take Taiwan and that we won't do a thing about it. The world's police has abdicated a while ago. This is the kind of thing that happens in the vacuum left behind.
- adamsmith143 5y ago
  >No, that for instance China is free to take Taiwan and that we won't do a thing about it. This was already the case though this does make it clear to me that Taiwan will likely fall in short order.
  - Slippery_John 5y ago
    I wouldn't be so sure. Taiwan is different in that they have TSMC which is definitely of extreme strategic interest to NATO.
    - segfaultbuserr 5y ago
      And I once again asking the age-old question: Are you really sure that the people in power would choose a military conflict with China to stop the invasion, when simply destroying TSMC can be the alternative? Surely, if the fabs are destroyed, half of the world’s semiconductor market would evaporate, but the cost of a military conflict with a superpower like China is extremely high as well. There have been unsubstantiated rumors for years that the Taiwanese military has outfitted TSMC fabs with explosives that can be rigged to go off in the event of a mainland invasion in order to deny China access to TSMC capabilities. Even physical destruction may be unnecessary. Due to the complexity of the semiconductor supply chain, many say that an embargo of materials and the removal of experts are enough to paralyze the fabs for many years.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - bumby 5y ago
    What makes you think that's already the case? The administration has openly said it would defend Taiwan
- mise_en_place 5y ago
  This was my thinking as well. Even the verbiage is similar to what China has said in the past about Taiwan, except now it is Russia saying it about Ukraine.
  - kemiller 5y ago
    China is has a much weaker military and smaller nuke arsenal. Tangling directly with Russia is incredibly dangerous. China too, but less so.
    - adventured 5y ago
      China has a more powerful military than Russia at this point and vastly superior manufacturing and economic means to sustain it and push further. China's nuclear arsenal is merely smaller, but so what, nobody needs 10,000 nukes anyway. A thousand well-aimed nukes will do the job.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      China is estimated to have approximately 100 nuclear warheads and delivery systems that can reach the continental United States, anything over that would not make much sense anyway. Smaller is a relative term, in absolute terms this is a devastatingly powerful set of weapons.
  - avgcorrection 5y ago
    It makes sense. Helping the Ukrainian coup of 2014 doesn’t cost the US much but a direct war with Russia would be catastrophic.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      You know how anti-vaxx trolls have certain key words and phrases they apparently can't stop themselves from using, which gives them away? For their pro-Putler colleagues, one of those phrases is "Ukrainian coup of 2014".
- _joel 5y ago
  The US would definitely defend Taiwan.
  - smegger001 5y ago
    i thought the same about Ukraine back in 2014 when Russia took the Crimean peninsula. after all we told them we would defend them if they handed over their nuclear missiles. I thought the west would do something about Hong Kong... I have thought a lot of things I was sadly wrong about.
- bumby 5y ago
  But, unlike Ukraine, the US has taken a stronger stance on Taiwan: "Asked twice during CNN's town hall whether the US would protect Taiwan if China attacked, Biden said it would." [1] Contrast that to the stance on Ukraine: "We have no intention of fighting Russia."[2] From other statements, it seems clear the administration thinks Taiwan is a critical national interest while Ukraine is not. [1] https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/21/politics/taiwan-china-biden-town-hall/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/21/politics/taiwan-china-biden-t... [2] https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/23/biden-troops-russia-ukraine-00011049 https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/23/biden-troops-russia...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    > From other statements, it seems clear the administration thinks Taiwan is a critical national interest while Ukraine is not. This is true. And it is the main driver behind the United States' renewed interest in domestic fab capability: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/7178 https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/7178 Taiwan isn't explicitly mentioned but it plays a large role in the reasoning behind this.
    - baybal2 5y ago
      Your domestic fab capability can't run without thousands of consumables, and services only available in Asia. USA is not semiconductor self-sufficient since eighties, and cannot be any more, just like anybody else. Semi is the most globalised industry spanning 28 countries, with USA, China, Taiwan, Thailand, Malaysia, SK, Japan, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands being able to singlehandedly stop the whole of it. It's a naive thinking "once TSMC will complete Arizona megafab, we can abandon Taiwan." There, are as I said, hundreds of critical single supplier globally pieces of equipment, services, and materials that most of the world had zero idea about. How about nanoneedle probes capable of testing M0 the entire industry depends on, for which there is 1 small company for the entire world.
- scottLobster 5y ago
  Taiwan has never been a NATO member. Taiwan has semiconductors western industry depends on. And the primary reason for AUKUS and giving the Aussies nuclear sub tech is precisely so their subs will have the range to help counter China. China just "sanctioned" (largely performative) Lockheed and Boeing over a $100 million arms sale to Taiwan. Never mind various economic measures from all parts of the West. The developed world is already doing things about China's Taiwan ambitions, and have motivations far stronger than altruism to continue doing so. Ukraine by contrast is not as well integrated as Taiwan, and it's their desire to be integrated that set Putin off in the first place. If said integration meant nothing, Putin wouldn't be invading.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    Well, let's see what happens when Taiwan applies to NATO then. > Taiwan has semiconductors western industry depends on. For once it isn't about oil. > And the primary reason for AUKUS and giving the Aussies nuclear sub tech is precisely so their subs will have the range to help counter China. I'm sure the Chinese are most impressed. But Australia too will stand by when the Chinese invade Taiwan. > China just "sanctioned" (largely performative) Lockheed and Boeing over a $100 million arms sale to Taiwan. You need to separate out the economic incentives from the political ones there to get a clearer picture of what is happening. > Never mind various economic measures from all parts of the West. The developed world is already doing things about China's Taiwan ambitions, and have motivations far stronger than altruism to continue doing so. China doesn't care about any of that: they care about the United States and them alone because that is the only country that can credibly put up enough force projected into that region to put a stop to it if they decide to move. > Ukraine by contrast is not as well integrated as Taiwan, and it's their desire to be integrated that set Putin off in the first place. You could Swap Ukraine and Taiwan and substitute Xi and you have a winner at some point in the future, provided Taiwan would express a desire to join NATO. > If said integration meant nothing, Putin wouldn't be invading. Put would invade regardless, and this is the mistake that everybody is making: the NATO approach is a figleaf, that only happened after things had already started to slide inside Ukraine. But I'm pretty sure that only a very small fraction of HN is aware of that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovych https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovych Was placed to serve as a Russian puppet to keep Ukraine out of the influence of the West, which the country overwhelmingly wanted. After being tossed out (he's since moved to Russia) the whole separatism affair started fueled by Russia. Ukraine had every right to do so, and the occupation and subsequent invasion are proof positive that Ukraine was right about Russia's intentions, not the other way around. You will find a lively corresponding sentiment in lots of other former USSR states.
- disambiguation 5y ago
  This is a false equivalence, Ukraine and Taiwan are completely different geopolitical theaters. Different histories and different oceanic alliances. USA has gone on record saying it will fall on the sword for Taiwan. [0] USA never said any such thing for Ukraine. The closest commitment is Biden saying "we will defend every inch of NATO territory." [1] [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-59005300 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-59005300 [1] https://news.yahoo.com/biden-warns-russia-us-defend-210547320.html https://news.yahoo.com/biden-warns-russia-us-defend-21054732...
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    > USA has gone on record saying it will fall on the sword for Taiwan. I'll believe that when I see it, under Biden, maybe. But that may also just be posturing and probably won't last longer than the moment that the USA can become independent of Taiwanese manufacturing capabilities at which point it would actually be in the US' interest if Taiwan would no longer be able to produce.
  - treis 5y ago
    The problem is that Taiwan is 20 miles from China and 5,500 to the U.S. (6,500 to the lower 48). It's easy to say that we will defend Taiwan now when the war would be a quick victory. Less so as China continues to close the military gap making it a difficult war. Even less so when victory becomes questionable or impossible. The US made their commitments when their opponents were at their nadir neglecting that they'd be challenged when the opponents were at their strongest. Walking back those commitments to what the US is willing and able to defend will continue to be the challenge of the 21st century. There needs to be a strategic re-evaluation of what the US should defend and what they can defend. IMHO, ultimately the either should not or can not defend Eastern Europe bordering Russia, The Caucasus, Saudi Arabia, and Taiwan. How to wiggle out of those commitments without giving Russia, China, & Iran ideas is the tough part.
    - bcrl 5y ago
      A bigger concern to me is that Taiwan is probably more disposable to China than it is to the rest of the world. China would significantly benefit its internal semiconductor industry by destroying fabs in Taiwan while the rest of the world would be starved of critical semiconductors, and given the active US sanctions towards Huawei in China... The balance of invade vs don't invade for China regarding Taiwan is slowly shifting. The possible what-if scenarios arising from unchecked expansion of superpowers is disturbing.
- chernevik 5y ago
  I am very concerned about exactly this. I think it would be very well at this moment to visibly increase our support for Taiwan, and our preparations for a confrontation with China.
- VictorPath 5y ago
- avgcorrection 5y ago
  The US-led invasion of Iraq was an unprovoked, aggressive war built on lies. I.e. a war lead by the so-called constabulary.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    Yes it was.

That having nuclear weapons is literally the only way to prevent a neighbor from annexing your country.

No, that for instance China is free to take Taiwan and that we won't do a thing about it. The world's police has abdicated a while ago. This is the kind of thing that happens in the vacuum left behind.

adamsmith143 5y ago
>No, that for instance China is free to take Taiwan and that we won't do a thing about it. This was already the case though this does make it clear to me that Taiwan will likely fall in short order.
- Slippery_John 5y ago
  I wouldn't be so sure. Taiwan is different in that they have TSMC which is definitely of extreme strategic interest to NATO.
  - segfaultbuserr 5y ago
    And I once again asking the age-old question: Are you really sure that the people in power would choose a military conflict with China to stop the invasion, when simply destroying TSMC can be the alternative? Surely, if the fabs are destroyed, half of the world’s semiconductor market would evaporate, but the cost of a military conflict with a superpower like China is extremely high as well. There have been unsubstantiated rumors for years that the Taiwanese military has outfitted TSMC fabs with explosives that can be rigged to go off in the event of a mainland invasion in order to deny China access to TSMC capabilities. Even physical destruction may be unnecessary. Due to the complexity of the semiconductor supply chain, many say that an embargo of materials and the removal of experts are enough to paralyze the fabs for many years.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- bumby 5y ago
  What makes you think that's already the case? The administration has openly said it would defend Taiwan
mise_en_place 5y ago
This was my thinking as well. Even the verbiage is similar to what China has said in the past about Taiwan, except now it is Russia saying it about Ukraine.
- kemiller 5y ago
  China is has a much weaker military and smaller nuke arsenal. Tangling directly with Russia is incredibly dangerous. China too, but less so.
  - adventured 5y ago
    China has a more powerful military than Russia at this point and vastly superior manufacturing and economic means to sustain it and push further. China's nuclear arsenal is merely smaller, but so what, nobody needs 10,000 nukes anyway. A thousand well-aimed nukes will do the job.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    China is estimated to have approximately 100 nuclear warheads and delivery systems that can reach the continental United States, anything over that would not make much sense anyway. Smaller is a relative term, in absolute terms this is a devastatingly powerful set of weapons.
- avgcorrection 5y ago
  It makes sense. Helping the Ukrainian coup of 2014 doesn’t cost the US much but a direct war with Russia would be catastrophic.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    You know how anti-vaxx trolls have certain key words and phrases they apparently can't stop themselves from using, which gives them away? For their pro-Putler colleagues, one of those phrases is "Ukrainian coup of 2014".
_joel 5y ago
The US would definitely defend Taiwan.
- smegger001 5y ago
  i thought the same about Ukraine back in 2014 when Russia took the Crimean peninsula. after all we told them we would defend them if they handed over their nuclear missiles. I thought the west would do something about Hong Kong... I have thought a lot of things I was sadly wrong about.
bumby 5y ago
But, unlike Ukraine, the US has taken a stronger stance on Taiwan: "Asked twice during CNN's town hall whether the US would protect Taiwan if China attacked, Biden said it would." [1] Contrast that to the stance on Ukraine: "We have no intention of fighting Russia."[2] From other statements, it seems clear the administration thinks Taiwan is a critical national interest while Ukraine is not. [1] https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/21/politics/taiwan-china-biden-town-hall/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/21/politics/taiwan-china-biden-t... [2] https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/23/biden-troops-russia-ukraine-00011049 https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/23/biden-troops-russia...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- jacquesm 5y ago
  > From other statements, it seems clear the administration thinks Taiwan is a critical national interest while Ukraine is not. This is true. And it is the main driver behind the United States' renewed interest in domestic fab capability: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/7178 https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/7178 Taiwan isn't explicitly mentioned but it plays a large role in the reasoning behind this.
  - baybal2 5y ago
    Your domestic fab capability can't run without thousands of consumables, and services only available in Asia. USA is not semiconductor self-sufficient since eighties, and cannot be any more, just like anybody else. Semi is the most globalised industry spanning 28 countries, with USA, China, Taiwan, Thailand, Malaysia, SK, Japan, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands being able to singlehandedly stop the whole of it. It's a naive thinking "once TSMC will complete Arizona megafab, we can abandon Taiwan." There, are as I said, hundreds of critical single supplier globally pieces of equipment, services, and materials that most of the world had zero idea about. How about nanoneedle probes capable of testing M0 the entire industry depends on, for which there is 1 small company for the entire world.
scottLobster 5y ago
Taiwan has never been a NATO member. Taiwan has semiconductors western industry depends on. And the primary reason for AUKUS and giving the Aussies nuclear sub tech is precisely so their subs will have the range to help counter China. China just "sanctioned" (largely performative) Lockheed and Boeing over a $100 million arms sale to Taiwan. Never mind various economic measures from all parts of the West. The developed world is already doing things about China's Taiwan ambitions, and have motivations far stronger than altruism to continue doing so. Ukraine by contrast is not as well integrated as Taiwan, and it's their desire to be integrated that set Putin off in the first place. If said integration meant nothing, Putin wouldn't be invading.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  Well, let's see what happens when Taiwan applies to NATO then. > Taiwan has semiconductors western industry depends on. For once it isn't about oil. > And the primary reason for AUKUS and giving the Aussies nuclear sub tech is precisely so their subs will have the range to help counter China. I'm sure the Chinese are most impressed. But Australia too will stand by when the Chinese invade Taiwan. > China just "sanctioned" (largely performative) Lockheed and Boeing over a $100 million arms sale to Taiwan. You need to separate out the economic incentives from the political ones there to get a clearer picture of what is happening. > Never mind various economic measures from all parts of the West. The developed world is already doing things about China's Taiwan ambitions, and have motivations far stronger than altruism to continue doing so. China doesn't care about any of that: they care about the United States and them alone because that is the only country that can credibly put up enough force projected into that region to put a stop to it if they decide to move. > Ukraine by contrast is not as well integrated as Taiwan, and it's their desire to be integrated that set Putin off in the first place. You could Swap Ukraine and Taiwan and substitute Xi and you have a winner at some point in the future, provided Taiwan would express a desire to join NATO. > If said integration meant nothing, Putin wouldn't be invading. Put would invade regardless, and this is the mistake that everybody is making: the NATO approach is a figleaf, that only happened after things had already started to slide inside Ukraine. But I'm pretty sure that only a very small fraction of HN is aware of that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovych https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovych Was placed to serve as a Russian puppet to keep Ukraine out of the influence of the West, which the country overwhelmingly wanted. After being tossed out (he's since moved to Russia) the whole separatism affair started fueled by Russia. Ukraine had every right to do so, and the occupation and subsequent invasion are proof positive that Ukraine was right about Russia's intentions, not the other way around. You will find a lively corresponding sentiment in lots of other former USSR states.
disambiguation 5y ago
This is a false equivalence, Ukraine and Taiwan are completely different geopolitical theaters. Different histories and different oceanic alliances. USA has gone on record saying it will fall on the sword for Taiwan. [0] USA never said any such thing for Ukraine. The closest commitment is Biden saying "we will defend every inch of NATO territory." [1] [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-59005300 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-59005300 [1] https://news.yahoo.com/biden-warns-russia-us-defend-210547320.html https://news.yahoo.com/biden-warns-russia-us-defend-21054732...
- jacquesm 5y ago
  > USA has gone on record saying it will fall on the sword for Taiwan. I'll believe that when I see it, under Biden, maybe. But that may also just be posturing and probably won't last longer than the moment that the USA can become independent of Taiwanese manufacturing capabilities at which point it would actually be in the US' interest if Taiwan would no longer be able to produce.
- treis 5y ago
  The problem is that Taiwan is 20 miles from China and 5,500 to the U.S. (6,500 to the lower 48). It's easy to say that we will defend Taiwan now when the war would be a quick victory. Less so as China continues to close the military gap making it a difficult war. Even less so when victory becomes questionable or impossible. The US made their commitments when their opponents were at their nadir neglecting that they'd be challenged when the opponents were at their strongest. Walking back those commitments to what the US is willing and able to defend will continue to be the challenge of the 21st century. There needs to be a strategic re-evaluation of what the US should defend and what they can defend. IMHO, ultimately the either should not or can not defend Eastern Europe bordering Russia, The Caucasus, Saudi Arabia, and Taiwan. How to wiggle out of those commitments without giving Russia, China, & Iran ideas is the tough part.
  - bcrl 5y ago
    A bigger concern to me is that Taiwan is probably more disposable to China than it is to the rest of the world. China would significantly benefit its internal semiconductor industry by destroying fabs in Taiwan while the rest of the world would be starved of critical semiconductors, and given the active US sanctions towards Huawei in China... The balance of invade vs don't invade for China regarding Taiwan is slowly shifting. The possible what-if scenarios arising from unchecked expansion of superpowers is disturbing.
chernevik 5y ago
I am very concerned about exactly this. I think it would be very well at this moment to visibly increase our support for Taiwan, and our preparations for a confrontation with China.
VictorPath 5y ago
avgcorrection 5y ago
The US-led invasion of Iraq was an unprovoked, aggressive war built on lies. I.e. a war lead by the so-called constabulary.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  Yes it was.