3 ms·

>The china spat is _nowhere_ near the prelude to iraq’s invasion. They're just getting warmed up. The way China's legitimate concerns are just completely washe

>The china spat is _nowhere_ near the prelude to iraq’s invasion. They're just getting warmed up. The way China's legitimate concerns are just completely washed away in the American press at this point is honestly terrifying. We don't stop for even a second to wonder how we'd feel about Chinese warships cruising 12 miles off the coast of Miami, regardless of the "legality" of it. There are concessions to be made on both sides. But if cable news were to be believed, you'd think that China was actively taking over the world. I am not simping for the CCP here. But we're starting to look apoplectic in comparison.

lostlogin 3y ago
> We don't stop for even a second to wonder how we'd feel about Chinese warships cruising off the coast of Miami, regardless of the "legality" of it. Spy balloons in your airspace is in a similar category. They weren’t armed, but could clearly spy.
- gizmo686 3y ago
  Until 2020, the US was part of the Open Skys treaty, which was specifically for allowing member states to fly unarmed spy aircraft in each others airspace. China was never a member, so wasn't covered under it, but Russia was until they withdrew in 2021. The only reason the US responded at all was internall politics. Geopolitically, we already assume that anything with line-of-sight to the sky is observable, and that this is probably good for geopolitical stability.
jjoonathan 3y ago
[flagged]
- ecshafer 3y ago
  Last I checked, Taiwan is not a territory or state of the United States. Why should some kid from Kansas pick up a rifle for Taiwan?
  - jcranmer 3y ago
    The same reason several kids from Kansas picked up a rifle for France.
    - sofixa 3y ago
      The difference being that France was an internationally recognised independent and sovereign country that was occupied by a foreign one. Taiwan is drastically more complex, and de jure doesn't exist, being the loser of the Chinese Civil war, with both sides still claiming to be the one and only China (thus only one can be recognised at a time). De facto it is for all intents and purposes an independent sovereign country, but China would never allow that prestige blow (they won the Civil war, for them that means all of China, no exceptions, leaving the losers take a part of China away would be a big loss). For an American to imagine it, imagine the Confederates running away to Hawai and assimilating the locals, continuing to claim they're the legitimate government of the USA (to be fair historically they never did that, but imagine), and surviving for decades with no international recognition/trade/etc. outside of China/Russia. The US had every right to come to the help of France. Taiwan.. is more complicated, as far as international law is concerned.
      - tptacek 3y ago
        I'm not at all confident about international law, but I'm quite confident that international law had very little to do with why kids from Kansas picked up rifles to fight for France.
    - ecshafer 3y ago
      Because Germany declared war against the United States after their ally Japan attacked the United States? The us wasn’t the aggressor in that situation, and did not get involved when Germany invaded France.
nradov 3y ago
You can't possibly think that refraining from freedom of navigation exercises near China would be a good idea. That type of appeasement would set a terrible precedent and only encourage further aggressive expansionism by China and other countries. Either the open seas are free or they're not. There is zero room for negotiation or concessions on that point.
- bllguo 3y ago
  And sailing along their coast is not aggressive expansionism, but.. what, exactly? Furthermore, 1. UNCLOS allows coastal states to determine whether foreign ships are allowed to enjoy the right of innocent passage, and 2. the US does not even recognize UNCLOS. So much for "zero room for negotiation" - an unequivocally false statement.
  - nradov 3y ago
    The 12 nm limit is hardly "along their coast". In most cases it's not even in sight of their coast. Nothing even remotely aggressive about it. Warships are allowed to transit foreign national waters under the right of innocent passage. They don't conduct any military operations during those transits. So again, that is obviously not aggressive. https://sites.tufts.edu/lawofthesea/chapter-three/ https://sites.tufts.edu/lawofthesea/chapter-three/
    - bllguo 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - jcranmer 3y ago
        > The US has not ratified UNCLOS. You have no right to invoke it in your defense. You're the one who brought it up first. Also, the US generally adheres to the principles of UNCLOS, as it specifically objects to only a single section (Part XI, the International Seabed Authority). > Article 25: 1. The coastal State may take the necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage which is not innocent. But you omit this key part: > Every State has the right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles, measured from baselines determined in accordance with this Convention. The Tawain Strait is more than 70 nautical miles wide, ergo, the middle part of the strait is reasonably outside the definition of "territorial sea."
USB5 3y ago
[flagged]

lostlogin 3y ago

> We don't stop for even a second to wonder how we'd feel about Chinese warships cruising off the coast of Miami, regardless of the "legality" of it. Spy balloons in your airspace is in a similar category. They weren’t armed, but could clearly spy.

gizmo686 3y ago
Until 2020, the US was part of the Open Skys treaty, which was specifically for allowing member states to fly unarmed spy aircraft in each others airspace. China was never a member, so wasn't covered under it, but Russia was until they withdrew in 2021. The only reason the US responded at all was internall politics. Geopolitically, we already assume that anything with line-of-sight to the sky is observable, and that this is probably good for geopolitical stability.

jjoonathan 3y ago

[flagged]

ecshafer 3y ago
Last I checked, Taiwan is not a territory or state of the United States. Why should some kid from Kansas pick up a rifle for Taiwan?
- jcranmer 3y ago
  The same reason several kids from Kansas picked up a rifle for France.
  - sofixa 3y ago
    The difference being that France was an internationally recognised independent and sovereign country that was occupied by a foreign one. Taiwan is drastically more complex, and de jure doesn't exist, being the loser of the Chinese Civil war, with both sides still claiming to be the one and only China (thus only one can be recognised at a time). De facto it is for all intents and purposes an independent sovereign country, but China would never allow that prestige blow (they won the Civil war, for them that means all of China, no exceptions, leaving the losers take a part of China away would be a big loss). For an American to imagine it, imagine the Confederates running away to Hawai and assimilating the locals, continuing to claim they're the legitimate government of the USA (to be fair historically they never did that, but imagine), and surviving for decades with no international recognition/trade/etc. outside of China/Russia. The US had every right to come to the help of France. Taiwan.. is more complicated, as far as international law is concerned.
    - tptacek 3y ago
      I'm not at all confident about international law, but I'm quite confident that international law had very little to do with why kids from Kansas picked up rifles to fight for France.
  - ecshafer 3y ago
    Because Germany declared war against the United States after their ally Japan attacked the United States? The us wasn’t the aggressor in that situation, and did not get involved when Germany invaded France.

nradov 3y ago

You can't possibly think that refraining from freedom of navigation exercises near China would be a good idea. That type of appeasement would set a terrible precedent and only encourage further aggressive expansionism by China and other countries. Either the open seas are free or they're not. There is zero room for negotiation or concessions on that point.

bllguo 3y ago
And sailing along their coast is not aggressive expansionism, but.. what, exactly? Furthermore, 1. UNCLOS allows coastal states to determine whether foreign ships are allowed to enjoy the right of innocent passage, and 2. the US does not even recognize UNCLOS. So much for "zero room for negotiation" - an unequivocally false statement.
- nradov 3y ago
  The 12 nm limit is hardly "along their coast". In most cases it's not even in sight of their coast. Nothing even remotely aggressive about it. Warships are allowed to transit foreign national waters under the right of innocent passage. They don't conduct any military operations during those transits. So again, that is obviously not aggressive. https://sites.tufts.edu/lawofthesea/chapter-three/ https://sites.tufts.edu/lawofthesea/chapter-three/
  - bllguo 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - jcranmer 3y ago
      > The US has not ratified UNCLOS. You have no right to invoke it in your defense. You're the one who brought it up first. Also, the US generally adheres to the principles of UNCLOS, as it specifically objects to only a single section (Part XI, the International Seabed Authority). > Article 25: 1. The coastal State may take the necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage which is not innocent. But you omit this key part: > Every State has the right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles, measured from baselines determined in accordance with this Convention. The Tawain Strait is more than 70 nautical miles wide, ergo, the middle part of the strait is reasonably outside the definition of "territorial sea."

USB5 3y ago

[flagged]