5 ms·

You're assuming that the US would go to war with China over Taiwan. That's not a given -- by a long shot. > and start a Russian style sanction Unlike the Russ

by iooi 4y ago

You're assuming that the US would go to war with China over Taiwan. That's not a given -- by a long shot. > and start a Russian style sanction Unlike the Russian sanctions, a broad sanction on the Chinese economy would deeply impact the US economy. It's not a viable strategy.

rdtwo 4y ago
Yeah Russia sanctions mostly just affect Europe
tomatowurst 4y ago
> US would go to war with China over Taiwan They've repeatedly signaled and backed this up with a real aircraft carrier that sails between the straits. They aren't doing this just for show. The ball is in CCP's court, if they venture too far past their coastline they are going to face USN + JSDF. Again, Taiwan is NOT ukraine. It's semiconductor supply is critical to national security and the economy. US also signaled they would hit China with sanctions and I don't think it's a bluff. China needs US more than US needs it.
- dirtyid 4y ago
  > real aircraft carrier USN hasn't had the balls to sail carriers through the strait in 20+ years even under Mike Pompeo at the nadir of US/PRC relations since Nixon. Clinton sent 2 during last TW strait crisis for shits and giggles. Strait transits are down to DDGs and coast guard vessels now. PRC doesn't even need Navy to venture outside the first island chain to destroy East Asia semi, or conduct massive crippling cyber warefare on CONUS. Reality is US has very limited options protecting East Asia interests and US is now existentially vulnerable in multiple domains that can't be solved with biggest military budget and 20 aircraft carriers. PRC is moving to sanction proof economy and decoupling anyway, eating sanctions for taking back TW is built into the equation.
  - LAC-Tech 4y ago
    Is it really "balls" to not sail an aircraft carrier? Last time it happened was during the Taiwan straight crisis where the PRC fired missiles - which a defector in the PRC told Taiwan had no warheads - deliberately near Taiwanese cities. Why respond with a crisis level military show of force when - thankfully - there's no crisis?
    - dirtyid 4y ago
      PRC also unofficially communicated missiles drama weeks ahead to TW, so there wasn't any "crisis" either, but US sent 2 carriers as show of force because it could, knowing PRC had no capabilities to counter. Force balance is different now, and for all the US hyping about increased PLAF flights into TW ADIZ or clipping median line last year, basically another crisis brewing, USN still only sent DDGs for strait transits because they can no longer risk using CSG as show of force.
      - LAC-Tech 4y ago
        None of these issues constitute a crisis nearly as much as '96 - an alternate interpretation is that the PRC is still terrified of a CSG appearing in the strait so they deliberately do not cross US red lines, even when much closer US/Taiwan relations cross theirs.
        dirtyid 4y ago
        Alternate interpretation doesn't jive with analysis last few years that PRC has overwhelming A2D2 advantage in region. The parsimonious explanation is US doesn't want to put CVNs at risk or expose carriers to growing PRC ELINT capabilities, including around SCS islands where FONOPs are also conducted with DDGs or smaller vessels. Lanzhou came within 50 meters of Decatur in SCS a few years back, PLAN hasn't been not scared of US in backyard anymore.
        LAC-Tech 4y ago
        Proof is in the pudding. PRC has not initiated another crisis since '96, Taiwan US relations are much closer than 30 years ago and have crossed many of the PRCs red lines, and the US military capabilities have not been standing still either. Looks like cooler heads have prevailed, which is good news for all three parties.
  - tomatowurst 4y ago
    If there's a war in East Asia, I would bet against China. It should be clear that having the world's largest standing army don't really matter, we can see what a paper tiger Russia turned out to be and PLA has far worse corruption. Especially since the PLA only has had success fighting its own, it's lost every single war and hasn't fought a major war since losing to Vietnam in a quick war. The US + allies aren't exactly worried here. It possesses complete air superiority in the region as well as early warning radar. I mean if a small country like Taiwan could lodge missiles at the Three Gorges dam that would completely flood the mainland, think what Korea or Japan can do without even the US helping. The PLA is a paper tiger and this angers a great deal of PRC nationalists and sympathizers but its the truth. There's very little chance it could enter into a prolonged war with QUAD + South Korea, Taiwan. I don't know what this sanction proof economy is about but it clearly isn't working out for Russia with Ukraine.
    - dirtyid 4y ago
      And largest navy, airforce, and missile capabilities in region with A2D2 bubble to support. I'd like to see any security analysis from last few years that suggests US can divert enough assets in theatre to rival PRC, especially as gap projected to widen with time. Literature in last few years is exactly US+allies worrying because they can't concentrate enough forces in region. It's fascinating how PRC is paper tiger advocates have to draw on outdated facts or three gorges memes to deny reality. Like TW having capability to destroy Three Gorges that require bunker busters larger than any conventional missile can carry. They don't. Also PRC won vietnam strategically, the kind of victory that matters. Wars are beyond K:D ratios. Plus fought US/UN, USSR when both were nuclear powers and PRC agrarian shitshow and still managed to secure strategic objectives, all of which less significant than TW, while PRC was more ill-equipped. There is 100% chance PRC would fight prolonged war over Taiwan, because it has never not fought over redlines. And like Ukraine, very little chance of substantive outside support simply because everyone else is as or more vulnerable. Sanction proof = unlike RU, or most PRC trade partners, PRC is comparable to US in terms of trade dependency (not much). And unlike regional US partners, sufficient in domestic resource production to weather war economy for a long time. As well as have enough supply chain dependency over strategic resources like rare earth and leverage over threatening east Asia semi to deter prolonged war at least a few decades. If there's a broader war in East Asia, I would bet against everyone. Including US. Difference is, as with Vietnam, PRC has track record for accepting existential fights.

by iooi 4y ago

rdtwo 4y ago

Yeah Russia sanctions mostly just affect Europe

tomatowurst 4y ago

> US would go to war with China over Taiwan They've repeatedly signaled and backed this up with a real aircraft carrier that sails between the straits. They aren't doing this just for show. The ball is in CCP's court, if they venture too far past their coastline they are going to face USN + JSDF. Again, Taiwan is NOT ukraine. It's semiconductor supply is critical to national security and the economy. US also signaled they would hit China with sanctions and I don't think it's a bluff. China needs US more than US needs it.

dirtyid 4y ago
> real aircraft carrier USN hasn't had the balls to sail carriers through the strait in 20+ years even under Mike Pompeo at the nadir of US/PRC relations since Nixon. Clinton sent 2 during last TW strait crisis for shits and giggles. Strait transits are down to DDGs and coast guard vessels now. PRC doesn't even need Navy to venture outside the first island chain to destroy East Asia semi, or conduct massive crippling cyber warefare on CONUS. Reality is US has very limited options protecting East Asia interests and US is now existentially vulnerable in multiple domains that can't be solved with biggest military budget and 20 aircraft carriers. PRC is moving to sanction proof economy and decoupling anyway, eating sanctions for taking back TW is built into the equation.
- LAC-Tech 4y ago
  Is it really "balls" to not sail an aircraft carrier? Last time it happened was during the Taiwan straight crisis where the PRC fired missiles - which a defector in the PRC told Taiwan had no warheads - deliberately near Taiwanese cities. Why respond with a crisis level military show of force when - thankfully - there's no crisis?
  - dirtyid 4y ago
    PRC also unofficially communicated missiles drama weeks ahead to TW, so there wasn't any "crisis" either, but US sent 2 carriers as show of force because it could, knowing PRC had no capabilities to counter. Force balance is different now, and for all the US hyping about increased PLAF flights into TW ADIZ or clipping median line last year, basically another crisis brewing, USN still only sent DDGs for strait transits because they can no longer risk using CSG as show of force.
    - LAC-Tech 4y ago
      None of these issues constitute a crisis nearly as much as '96 - an alternate interpretation is that the PRC is still terrified of a CSG appearing in the strait so they deliberately do not cross US red lines, even when much closer US/Taiwan relations cross theirs.
      - dirtyid 4y ago
        Alternate interpretation doesn't jive with analysis last few years that PRC has overwhelming A2D2 advantage in region. The parsimonious explanation is US doesn't want to put CVNs at risk or expose carriers to growing PRC ELINT capabilities, including around SCS islands where FONOPs are also conducted with DDGs or smaller vessels. Lanzhou came within 50 meters of Decatur in SCS a few years back, PLAN hasn't been not scared of US in backyard anymore.
        LAC-Tech 4y ago
        Proof is in the pudding. PRC has not initiated another crisis since '96, Taiwan US relations are much closer than 30 years ago and have crossed many of the PRCs red lines, and the US military capabilities have not been standing still either. Looks like cooler heads have prevailed, which is good news for all three parties.
- tomatowurst 4y ago
  If there's a war in East Asia, I would bet against China. It should be clear that having the world's largest standing army don't really matter, we can see what a paper tiger Russia turned out to be and PLA has far worse corruption. Especially since the PLA only has had success fighting its own, it's lost every single war and hasn't fought a major war since losing to Vietnam in a quick war. The US + allies aren't exactly worried here. It possesses complete air superiority in the region as well as early warning radar. I mean if a small country like Taiwan could lodge missiles at the Three Gorges dam that would completely flood the mainland, think what Korea or Japan can do without even the US helping. The PLA is a paper tiger and this angers a great deal of PRC nationalists and sympathizers but its the truth. There's very little chance it could enter into a prolonged war with QUAD + South Korea, Taiwan. I don't know what this sanction proof economy is about but it clearly isn't working out for Russia with Ukraine.
  - dirtyid 4y ago
    And largest navy, airforce, and missile capabilities in region with A2D2 bubble to support. I'd like to see any security analysis from last few years that suggests US can divert enough assets in theatre to rival PRC, especially as gap projected to widen with time. Literature in last few years is exactly US+allies worrying because they can't concentrate enough forces in region. It's fascinating how PRC is paper tiger advocates have to draw on outdated facts or three gorges memes to deny reality. Like TW having capability to destroy Three Gorges that require bunker busters larger than any conventional missile can carry. They don't. Also PRC won vietnam strategically, the kind of victory that matters. Wars are beyond K:D ratios. Plus fought US/UN, USSR when both were nuclear powers and PRC agrarian shitshow and still managed to secure strategic objectives, all of which less significant than TW, while PRC was more ill-equipped. There is 100% chance PRC would fight prolonged war over Taiwan, because it has never not fought over redlines. And like Ukraine, very little chance of substantive outside support simply because everyone else is as or more vulnerable. Sanction proof = unlike RU, or most PRC trade partners, PRC is comparable to US in terms of trade dependency (not much). And unlike regional US partners, sufficient in domestic resource production to weather war economy for a long time. As well as have enough supply chain dependency over strategic resources like rare earth and leverage over threatening east Asia semi to deter prolonged war at least a few decades. If there's a broader war in East Asia, I would bet against everyone. Including US. Difference is, as with Vietnam, PRC has track record for accepting existential fights.