5 ms·

You've got a point. I am not knowledgeable about this topic, but it seems to me that no matter what, the US will always be on a tougher position because any ove

You've got a point. I am not knowledgeable about this topic, but it seems to me that no matter what, the US will always be on a tougher position because any overreaction from them to a provocation could end badly for everybody, and it seems that China is well aware of it, and they play with such fact. As an example: China sends a balloon to the US air space, any bold countermeasure in China's air space / territory means worldwide panic and potential war. The example above is just a simple scenario that I am using to describe the position where the US is at.

moose_man 4y ago
I'm more concerned that there hasn't been a comprehensive analysis of where the situation is heading. It's like we're on autopilot without a strategy. If you look at experts on US China relations in the US and China, both sides basically agree we're heading towards war soon. We can't avoid war, if we just mindlessly react and go forward without a real strategy. All our lives depend on getting this right and hopefully steering to a place where we avoid war. It's not even a Cold War, the Cold War had guardrails. There are no guardrails.
- im3w1l 4y ago
  I think we need to work out a common vision. How would a peaceful, happy and prosperous future for both the West and China look like? How can we cooperate in reaching this? How can we secure buy-in into this vision from the Chinese people? At the same time their needs to be deterrence of course, but I think we are already doing that part.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    All the West needs for peace with China is to stop following the US as it continually threatens China.
  - nradov 4y ago
    What would that common vision look like? The current Chinese leadership sees gaining total control over the first island chain (including Taiwan) as an existential necessity. Western leaders can't allow that. A better solution is to constantly harass, undermine, and isolate China much like we did with the USSR. Apply enough sustained pressure and hopefully the country will eventually collapse into a violent internal revolution.
    - moose_man 4y ago
      If Silicon Valley and Wall Street act like absolutely nothing has changed while the Pentagon ups the pressure militarily that's a scenario I'm afraid will lead to war. All segments of society must know the stake and be on the same page. The fact that one part of American society is pretending like nothing is happening while the other prepares for creates a situation that lacks clarity. This is how you stumble into it. Everything must be crystal clear.
      - nradov 4y ago
        US tech companies have been rapidly diversifying their supply chains to reduce dependence on China for about 2 years now.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  When it comes to issues of national security, we rarely know what analysis has been done when we're on the outside looking in.
  - moose_man 4y ago
    I mean this has to be a national conversation where all stakeholders are aligned. From tech to Wall Street, to Capitol Hill to Main Street. We're all just reacting now with our own interests at the moment but we're all stuck in the same boat. No one is going to escape the horror unscathed if we sleepwalk into war.
    - shadowgovt 4y ago
      If there's war between the US and China, nobody escapes the horror period. Both nations have more than enough nuclear capacity to guarantee that.
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      We're not sleepwalking into war, we're threatening it.
      - reducesuffering 4y ago
        Absolutely not. As long as every populace remains committed to their current borders, there is no aggression, and no war. This is what all people should want. There are no tangible benefits worth the cost of an invasion. Russia broke this by invading Ukraine. China is threatening to break this by invading Taiwan. Right now, there is peace in Taiwan. If China launches an assault, that is China's fault and they're the cause of suffering.
- beebmam 4y ago
  In the event of a country interested in the annexation and colonization of it's neighbors (like with China and its desire for Hong Kong, Taiwan, Senkaku island, and so on), there are three options. 1. A hot war emerges due to it's aggression 2. The aggression is unchecked, effectively meaning the victims surrender to blackmail and/or violence 3. A cold war is put into place to prevent aggression through deterrence and other mechanisms to manage the situation to prevent escalation to a hot war. My concern is that both Democrats and Republicans (and most other countries on earth) are not committed to a cold war and communicating that with the public. I'm far more concerned the US will surrender several more countries and territories to aggressive states before people realize what's going on and are ready to commit to a cold war to contain aggression.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    We're currently occupying a third of Syria. edit: "invading their neighbors" is a rhetorical trick to discount all of the invasions of the US against countries who are not our neighbors. Just like "killing his own people" is a trick to discount the killing of other people.
    - beebmam 4y ago
      Just want to make sure I'm understanding you here: are you making the claim that the US should not have troops in Syria, even though they are there at the request of the people who are being terrorized by supporters of the Islamic State, and authorized by the UN to do so? According to DW news[1], the US is in Syria for these 4 reasons: > Firstly, they were there to sustain the fight against the extremist IS group. This includes helping to train and arm the Syrian Kurdish fighters, known as the Syrian Democratic Forces, or SDF, who fought the IS group and who now control this part of Syria. The US regularly warns that the militias it supports here may only fight the IS group, unless they are acting in self-defense. > Other American priorities in Syria include supporting local ceasefires, stabilizing the area and helping with humanitarian aid and access, as well as "pressing for accountability and respect for international law, while promoting human rights and non-proliferation." > All of these are supposed to help in achieving a political solution to the ongoing Syrian crisis, as set out in Resolution 2254, agreed upon by the UN Security Council in 2015. 1. https://www.dw.com/en/what-does-the-us-actually-want-in-syria/a-62982425 https://www.dw.com/en/what-does-the-us-actually-want-in-syri...
- UncleOxidant 4y ago
  I'm sure that there has been comprehensive analysis in the Pentagon and State Dept. As for the prospects of war with China: Given the current context with Russia's war on Ukraine, how does war with China not escalate into WWIII pretty quickly? I don't think either side wants that - it would completely decimate both economies were it to happen. China would lose the US market and the US would lose a lot of Chinese products that are necessary (we're not de-globalized yet)
  - moose_man 4y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion "In The Great Illusion, Angell's primary thesis was, in the words of historian James Joll, that "the economic cost of war was so great that no one could possibly hope to gain by starting a war the consequences of which would be so disastrous."[4] For that reason, a general European war was very unlikely to start, and if it did, it would not last long.[5] He argued that war was economically and socially irrational[6] and that war between industrial countries was futile because conquest did not pay. J. D. B. Miller writes: "The 'Great Illusion' was that nations gained by armed confrontation, militarism, war, or conquest."[7] This book was published in 1909, it was wildly popular.
    - UncleOxidant 4y ago
      Could anything other than China invading Taiwan precipitate war between the US and China? I doubt it (though sure, 'accidents' could happen given the current level of bellicosity). However, if China does invade Taiwan the whole economic argument seems to go off the table from the US perspective because Taiwan's fabs crank out the majority of the world's most advanced chips - ie. that act of invading Taiwan would in itself do a lot of damage to the world economy were it to happen within the next couple of years (before other fabs currently under construction come on line in 2 or 3 years). But then again, China has to know the stakes and the response (both economic and military) that would come to bear against them should they invade Taiwan.
      - moose_man 4y ago
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  Two points. First, there certainly are analyses (plural) of where the situation is headed. They aren't published places that you and I are allowed to read, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. People are thinking seriously about this, and debating, though I have no idea what conclusions are being reached or what courses of action are being suggested. Second, this is fundamentally about Taiwan. And that isn't "we're headed for war soon". That's "we're headed for war if China invades Taiwan, and China sure looks like they're going to invade Taiwan soon". That's Xi's choice; all we get is to decide how to respond. (Well, a bit more - we get to signal in advance how we're likely to respond, and hope that Xi decides it isn't worth it.)

moose_man 4y ago

I'm more concerned that there hasn't been a comprehensive analysis of where the situation is heading. It's like we're on autopilot without a strategy. If you look at experts on US China relations in the US and China, both sides basically agree we're heading towards war soon. We can't avoid war, if we just mindlessly react and go forward without a real strategy. All our lives depend on getting this right and hopefully steering to a place where we avoid war. It's not even a Cold War, the Cold War had guardrails. There are no guardrails.

im3w1l 4y ago
I think we need to work out a common vision. How would a peaceful, happy and prosperous future for both the West and China look like? How can we cooperate in reaching this? How can we secure buy-in into this vision from the Chinese people? At the same time their needs to be deterrence of course, but I think we are already doing that part.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  All the West needs for peace with China is to stop following the US as it continually threatens China.
- nradov 4y ago
  What would that common vision look like? The current Chinese leadership sees gaining total control over the first island chain (including Taiwan) as an existential necessity. Western leaders can't allow that. A better solution is to constantly harass, undermine, and isolate China much like we did with the USSR. Apply enough sustained pressure and hopefully the country will eventually collapse into a violent internal revolution.
  - moose_man 4y ago
    If Silicon Valley and Wall Street act like absolutely nothing has changed while the Pentagon ups the pressure militarily that's a scenario I'm afraid will lead to war. All segments of society must know the stake and be on the same page. The fact that one part of American society is pretending like nothing is happening while the other prepares for creates a situation that lacks clarity. This is how you stumble into it. Everything must be crystal clear.
    - nradov 4y ago
      US tech companies have been rapidly diversifying their supply chains to reduce dependence on China for about 2 years now.
shadowgovt 4y ago
When it comes to issues of national security, we rarely know what analysis has been done when we're on the outside looking in.
- moose_man 4y ago
  I mean this has to be a national conversation where all stakeholders are aligned. From tech to Wall Street, to Capitol Hill to Main Street. We're all just reacting now with our own interests at the moment but we're all stuck in the same boat. No one is going to escape the horror unscathed if we sleepwalk into war.
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    If there's war between the US and China, nobody escapes the horror period. Both nations have more than enough nuclear capacity to guarantee that.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    We're not sleepwalking into war, we're threatening it.
    - reducesuffering 4y ago
      Absolutely not. As long as every populace remains committed to their current borders, there is no aggression, and no war. This is what all people should want. There are no tangible benefits worth the cost of an invasion. Russia broke this by invading Ukraine. China is threatening to break this by invading Taiwan. Right now, there is peace in Taiwan. If China launches an assault, that is China's fault and they're the cause of suffering.
beebmam 4y ago
In the event of a country interested in the annexation and colonization of it's neighbors (like with China and its desire for Hong Kong, Taiwan, Senkaku island, and so on), there are three options. 1. A hot war emerges due to it's aggression 2. The aggression is unchecked, effectively meaning the victims surrender to blackmail and/or violence 3. A cold war is put into place to prevent aggression through deterrence and other mechanisms to manage the situation to prevent escalation to a hot war. My concern is that both Democrats and Republicans (and most other countries on earth) are not committed to a cold war and communicating that with the public. I'm far more concerned the US will surrender several more countries and territories to aggressive states before people realize what's going on and are ready to commit to a cold war to contain aggression.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  We're currently occupying a third of Syria. edit: "invading their neighbors" is a rhetorical trick to discount all of the invasions of the US against countries who are not our neighbors. Just like "killing his own people" is a trick to discount the killing of other people.
  - beebmam 4y ago
    Just want to make sure I'm understanding you here: are you making the claim that the US should not have troops in Syria, even though they are there at the request of the people who are being terrorized by supporters of the Islamic State, and authorized by the UN to do so? According to DW news[1], the US is in Syria for these 4 reasons: > Firstly, they were there to sustain the fight against the extremist IS group. This includes helping to train and arm the Syrian Kurdish fighters, known as the Syrian Democratic Forces, or SDF, who fought the IS group and who now control this part of Syria. The US regularly warns that the militias it supports here may only fight the IS group, unless they are acting in self-defense. > Other American priorities in Syria include supporting local ceasefires, stabilizing the area and helping with humanitarian aid and access, as well as "pressing for accountability and respect for international law, while promoting human rights and non-proliferation." > All of these are supposed to help in achieving a political solution to the ongoing Syrian crisis, as set out in Resolution 2254, agreed upon by the UN Security Council in 2015. 1. https://www.dw.com/en/what-does-the-us-actually-want-in-syria/a-62982425 https://www.dw.com/en/what-does-the-us-actually-want-in-syri...
UncleOxidant 4y ago
I'm sure that there has been comprehensive analysis in the Pentagon and State Dept. As for the prospects of war with China: Given the current context with Russia's war on Ukraine, how does war with China not escalate into WWIII pretty quickly? I don't think either side wants that - it would completely decimate both economies were it to happen. China would lose the US market and the US would lose a lot of Chinese products that are necessary (we're not de-globalized yet)
- moose_man 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion "In The Great Illusion, Angell's primary thesis was, in the words of historian James Joll, that "the economic cost of war was so great that no one could possibly hope to gain by starting a war the consequences of which would be so disastrous."[4] For that reason, a general European war was very unlikely to start, and if it did, it would not last long.[5] He argued that war was economically and socially irrational[6] and that war between industrial countries was futile because conquest did not pay. J. D. B. Miller writes: "The 'Great Illusion' was that nations gained by armed confrontation, militarism, war, or conquest."[7] This book was published in 1909, it was wildly popular.
  - UncleOxidant 4y ago
    Could anything other than China invading Taiwan precipitate war between the US and China? I doubt it (though sure, 'accidents' could happen given the current level of bellicosity). However, if China does invade Taiwan the whole economic argument seems to go off the table from the US perspective because Taiwan's fabs crank out the majority of the world's most advanced chips - ie. that act of invading Taiwan would in itself do a lot of damage to the world economy were it to happen within the next couple of years (before other fabs currently under construction come on line in 2 or 3 years). But then again, China has to know the stakes and the response (both economic and military) that would come to bear against them should they invade Taiwan.
    - moose_man 4y ago
AnimalMuppet 4y ago
Two points. First, there certainly are analyses (plural) of where the situation is headed. They aren't published places that you and I are allowed to read, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. People are thinking seriously about this, and debating, though I have no idea what conclusions are being reached or what courses of action are being suggested. Second, this is fundamentally about Taiwan. And that isn't "we're headed for war soon". That's "we're headed for war if China invades Taiwan, and China sure looks like they're going to invade Taiwan soon". That's Xi's choice; all we get is to decide how to respond. (Well, a bit more - we get to signal in advance how we're likely to respond, and hope that Xi decides it isn't worth it.)