6 ms·

Yes. Literally the US is the one building a military wall around China and we say China is the aggressor? China is largely reacting to this in ways that can be

Yes. Literally the US is the one building a military wall around China and we say China is the aggressor? China is largely reacting to this in ways that can be considered mature and will prevent war. I don't like a lot of what china does but in this specific situation the country is making the right choice. Imagine if China did the same thing and tried to build a blockade around the US. Something minor like maybe putting some missiles in Cuba... how would the US react? Oh wait. Honestly the real thing going on here is the economic and technological rise of china to surpass or become a peer to the US. It's a story about patriotism, power and refusal to to become 2nd place.

ericmcer 3y ago
Having independent countries around your country isn’t a blockade… as far as I can tell things are flowing pretty freely in and out of china
- corethree 3y ago
  Putting a missile in Cuba isn't a blockade either.. things can still move freely out of the US. What's the problem here? Why all the hysteria?
  - fnordpiglet 3y ago
    There’s a difference between a missile and a nuclear missile. I would note that advanced nuclear submarines somewhat make the issue moot. You keep saying a single missile in your comments. I’m not sure if you’re mistaken or being hyperbolic. But the Soviet’s actually deployed 24 R-12 medium range missiles and 16 R-14 intermediate range missiles as well as a large number of long range bombers. At this time the soviets had several hundred nuclear warheads, so deploying 40 to Cuba was something like 10% of their entire nuclear arsenal. The entire point of such a move at the time was first strike capability, which is entirely offensive in nature. This is not comparable to establishing defensive capability in nations surrounding a geopolitical rival who has been expansionist and nationalistic. The Soviet move established their desire to destroy us without provocation (after all first strike requires surprise), while establishing defensive positions is meant to stabilize a status quo.
    - reisse 3y ago
      > The entire point of such a move at the time was first strike capability, which is entirely offensive in nature. You know one of the reasons for Soviet missile deployment on Cuba was to counterbalance US missile deployment in Turkey, right? And that the resolution of Cuban missile crisis was basically "withdrawing US nukes from Turkey in exchange for withdrawing Soviet nukes from Cuba"? Was the US missile deployment in Turkey "desire to destroy us [Soviets] without provocation", by your own words?
      - fnordpiglet 3y ago
        Yes and yes it was. I didn’t take sides did I?
    - corethree 3y ago
      Right so weapons of war, air raids and bombs, the threat of death is not a big deal but if the US moved nukes to taiwan then China will go into hysteria? If there was a Chinese carrier off the coast of california (but no nuclear weapons) you're saying that's not a big deal? Of course it's a big deal. It's provocative either way. You're argument is like saying threatening someone with a knife to their throat is not as big of a deal as threatening someone with a gun to their throat. Btw, for the cuban missile crisis, the US already had weapons pointing at Russia from adjacent countries long before Russia made a move.
      - fnordpiglet 3y ago
        I’m not sure any of your points counter any of what I said. The carriers near China are near China because Taiwan is near China, a carrier or even a carrier group isn’t an offensive posture against a nation, it’s too small a force. It’s provocative because there’s a provocative situation between Taiwan, Vietnam, Philippines, et al, and China all of whom are U.S. allies. However I don’t see any evidence the U.S. is preparing to attack China. On the rest re: Soviet and U.S. deployments, I’m not taking a side. I’m taking issue with you repeatedly saying “a missile” in the threads, when it was much more than that. Absolutely the Cold War was a two sided war. There were no clean hands. But in the Cuban missile crisis it was much different than the situation in and around Taiwan.
anon291 3y ago
China has claimed the island of Taiwan despite having no control over it for several decades now. Is it any surprise that Taiwanese allies are building bases to prevent that happening. > Imagine if China did the same thing and tried to build a blockade around the US. If the United States threatened to annex Hong Kong over and over and over again, I think this would be an appropritae response.
- corethree 3y ago
  I'm Taiwanese and an American citizen. Let me ask you, which lives are more important? Ukrainian people? The people in Gaza? Or Taiwanese people? Obviously the Taiwanese people. As someone who is Taiwanese myself, I know the US is making the right choice here for using military intervention exclusively for the Taiwanese people. We are just that much better. It obviously has nothing to do with the fact that China is becoming a military and economic peer to the US. And of course nothing to do with the fact that Taiwan is a key point for control of the Pacific and cutting edge semiconductor technology. Nothing to do with those things at all because the US is a country that cares. Sarcasm aside, I really am Taiwanese and a US citizen. This duality allows me to have the least biased view of the situation as it isn't clouded with just the typical patriotic attitude you see from your average US citizen.
  - anon291 3y ago
    The entire pacific is of strategic importance to the United States. China does not just claim Taiwan but exclusive jurisdiction over the South China Sea, a major international shipping corridor. There is no way the United States will let that happen, and it has nothing to do with determining whose lives are more important (although you can be sure the defense department has a ranking of which fronts are most important for American interests). As for your dual citizenship. This does not reduce your bias. In fact your dual allegiances seem to cloud your ability to analyze things from an American interests perspective
    - corethree 3y ago
      >As for your dual citizenship. This does not reduce your bias. In fact your dual allegiances seem to cloud your ability to analyze things from an American interests perspective I'm the least biased one here. Look at your post. It's actually in complete agreement with my points. You are supporting and agreeing with my point. But you can't see it.

ericmcer 3y ago

Having independent countries around your country isn’t a blockade… as far as I can tell things are flowing pretty freely in and out of china

corethree 3y ago
Putting a missile in Cuba isn't a blockade either.. things can still move freely out of the US. What's the problem here? Why all the hysteria?
- fnordpiglet 3y ago
  There’s a difference between a missile and a nuclear missile. I would note that advanced nuclear submarines somewhat make the issue moot. You keep saying a single missile in your comments. I’m not sure if you’re mistaken or being hyperbolic. But the Soviet’s actually deployed 24 R-12 medium range missiles and 16 R-14 intermediate range missiles as well as a large number of long range bombers. At this time the soviets had several hundred nuclear warheads, so deploying 40 to Cuba was something like 10% of their entire nuclear arsenal. The entire point of such a move at the time was first strike capability, which is entirely offensive in nature. This is not comparable to establishing defensive capability in nations surrounding a geopolitical rival who has been expansionist and nationalistic. The Soviet move established their desire to destroy us without provocation (after all first strike requires surprise), while establishing defensive positions is meant to stabilize a status quo.
  - reisse 3y ago
    > The entire point of such a move at the time was first strike capability, which is entirely offensive in nature. You know one of the reasons for Soviet missile deployment on Cuba was to counterbalance US missile deployment in Turkey, right? And that the resolution of Cuban missile crisis was basically "withdrawing US nukes from Turkey in exchange for withdrawing Soviet nukes from Cuba"? Was the US missile deployment in Turkey "desire to destroy us [Soviets] without provocation", by your own words?
    - fnordpiglet 3y ago
      Yes and yes it was. I didn’t take sides did I?
  - corethree 3y ago
    Right so weapons of war, air raids and bombs, the threat of death is not a big deal but if the US moved nukes to taiwan then China will go into hysteria? If there was a Chinese carrier off the coast of california (but no nuclear weapons) you're saying that's not a big deal? Of course it's a big deal. It's provocative either way. You're argument is like saying threatening someone with a knife to their throat is not as big of a deal as threatening someone with a gun to their throat. Btw, for the cuban missile crisis, the US already had weapons pointing at Russia from adjacent countries long before Russia made a move.
    - fnordpiglet 3y ago
      I’m not sure any of your points counter any of what I said. The carriers near China are near China because Taiwan is near China, a carrier or even a carrier group isn’t an offensive posture against a nation, it’s too small a force. It’s provocative because there’s a provocative situation between Taiwan, Vietnam, Philippines, et al, and China all of whom are U.S. allies. However I don’t see any evidence the U.S. is preparing to attack China. On the rest re: Soviet and U.S. deployments, I’m not taking a side. I’m taking issue with you repeatedly saying “a missile” in the threads, when it was much more than that. Absolutely the Cold War was a two sided war. There were no clean hands. But in the Cuban missile crisis it was much different than the situation in and around Taiwan.

anon291 3y ago

China has claimed the island of Taiwan despite having no control over it for several decades now. Is it any surprise that Taiwanese allies are building bases to prevent that happening. > Imagine if China did the same thing and tried to build a blockade around the US. If the United States threatened to annex Hong Kong over and over and over again, I think this would be an appropritae response.

corethree 3y ago
I'm Taiwanese and an American citizen. Let me ask you, which lives are more important? Ukrainian people? The people in Gaza? Or Taiwanese people? Obviously the Taiwanese people. As someone who is Taiwanese myself, I know the US is making the right choice here for using military intervention exclusively for the Taiwanese people. We are just that much better. It obviously has nothing to do with the fact that China is becoming a military and economic peer to the US. And of course nothing to do with the fact that Taiwan is a key point for control of the Pacific and cutting edge semiconductor technology. Nothing to do with those things at all because the US is a country that cares. Sarcasm aside, I really am Taiwanese and a US citizen. This duality allows me to have the least biased view of the situation as it isn't clouded with just the typical patriotic attitude you see from your average US citizen.
- anon291 3y ago
  The entire pacific is of strategic importance to the United States. China does not just claim Taiwan but exclusive jurisdiction over the South China Sea, a major international shipping corridor. There is no way the United States will let that happen, and it has nothing to do with determining whose lives are more important (although you can be sure the defense department has a ranking of which fronts are most important for American interests). As for your dual citizenship. This does not reduce your bias. In fact your dual allegiances seem to cloud your ability to analyze things from an American interests perspective
  - corethree 3y ago
    >As for your dual citizenship. This does not reduce your bias. In fact your dual allegiances seem to cloud your ability to analyze things from an American interests perspective I'm the least biased one here. Look at your post. It's actually in complete agreement with my points. You are supporting and agreeing with my point. But you can't see it.