5 ms·

When I say I 'hope that sanity prevails' I'm hoping that China realizes Taiwan isn't worth the cost. I'm also extremely dubious that it's worth 10's or even 10

When I say I 'hope that sanity prevails' I'm hoping that China realizes Taiwan isn't worth the cost. I'm also extremely dubious that it's worth 10's or even 100's of thousands of American lives for us to intervene. I'm happy for us to sell Taiwan as many weapons as they want for them to defend themselves, but I draw the line at putting American lives at risk for a country that has taken a negligent attitude to it's own defenses in the hopes that we bail them out.

llamaimperative 2y ago
Directionally agreed, but what gives you reason to say Taiwan has neglected its own defenses in the hopes that we bail them out?
- wing-_-nuts 2y ago
  I compare them with Israel, another small nation with high defense needs. They've spent less than 2% of their GDP on defense until very recently, they don't have a strong history of conscripting and training their civilian population. In short, they seem to have operated under the assumption that the united states would ride in to save the day. I am a little sick of seeing the US, a country with two friendly neighbors, and massive oceans between us and our nearest peer adversaries spend ~ 1T / yr on defense to be the 'world's police'. The real threat to our security is at home.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    Why is 2% a meaningful number? Less than that is insufficient and more than that is sufficient? Taiwan couldn't effectively defend itself against China regardless of how much it spends on defense. Nor could any other country on the planet except potentially the US. > I am a little sick of seeing the US, a country with two friendly neighbors, and massive oceans between us and our nearest peer adversaries spend ~ 1T / yr on defense to be the 'world's police'. If you think the US isn't a major beneficiary of global peace and open trade, you are very mistaken. It isn't a charity project, it's a strategy. > The real threat to our security is at home. What does this mean?
    - wing-_-nuts 2y ago
      >Taiwan couldn't effectively defend itself against China regardless of how much it spends on defense. They don't have to be able to defeat China to deter them, they simply have to make an invasion too costly to be worth it. Google porcupine strategy. If Taiwan was serious about their defense, they would have a higher percentage of their population conscripted and trained for longer. They would have been spending a much higher proportion of their GDP on defense. The fact that they've done neither of these things tells me they're passing the buck to us and expecting the US to pay the cost (in both money and lives) of their defense, and I don't think we should. >If you think the US isn't a major beneficiary of global peace and open trade, you are very mistaken. You don't think the world had free trade before US hegemony? The truth is that other countries would step up and help shoulder the burden instead of simply relying on us to do everything. I'm extremely doubtful of the benefit to the average us citizen of the tens of trillions of dollars in us military expenditures since WWII. I think we would find ourselves in a more stable, prosperous country had we spent that money on education, infrastructure and healthcare. Regardless, I'm not interested in continuing this conversation further. We're not going to change each others minds.
      - llamaimperative 2y ago
        Again, what benchmark are you using to assess the sufficient level of deterrence, GDP ratio, or conscription? As far as I can tell, we have solid empirical evidence that those things are sufficient, based on the fact that China hasn't invaded. > The truth is that other countries would step up and help shoulder the burden instead of simply relying on us to do everything. Right... and they would each overlay their own protectionist policies. I don't know who in here said the US's military expenditures are optimal, but it wasn't me. I hope you find 'em so you can tell them they're wrong!
gamepsys 2y ago
That seems to be the recent business plan of the military industrial complex. Wars aren't popular among US voters, and military recruitment numbers are struggling. Instead, if we sell slightly dated weapons to foreign armies then the money keeps flowing into our war economy. I think this strategy will only work because of MAD, and it's essentially a modification of our previous proxy war strategies that existed prior. It has several risks and benefits. I'm worried that the separation Americans feel (we aren't at war, one of our allies we are heavily supporting is) isn't the same level of separation that the other side of the conflict feels. I'm worried that some of these allies will be manipulated into conflicts in order to generate customers. I'm worried that if our soldiers are needed too many of them won't have combat experience, which improves their effectiveness. I'm worried that the loss of life will have less of an emotional impact when it's happening to other people far away. The benefit of not risking American lives while still maintaining cashflow for weapons R&D is massive though.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  Not a new strategy, predates MAD. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease > I'm worried that some of these allies will be manipulated into conflicts in order to generate customers Manipulated into being invaded?

llamaimperative 2y ago

Directionally agreed, but what gives you reason to say Taiwan has neglected its own defenses in the hopes that we bail them out?

wing-_-nuts 2y ago
I compare them with Israel, another small nation with high defense needs. They've spent less than 2% of their GDP on defense until very recently, they don't have a strong history of conscripting and training their civilian population. In short, they seem to have operated under the assumption that the united states would ride in to save the day. I am a little sick of seeing the US, a country with two friendly neighbors, and massive oceans between us and our nearest peer adversaries spend ~ 1T / yr on defense to be the 'world's police'. The real threat to our security is at home.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  Why is 2% a meaningful number? Less than that is insufficient and more than that is sufficient? Taiwan couldn't effectively defend itself against China regardless of how much it spends on defense. Nor could any other country on the planet except potentially the US. > I am a little sick of seeing the US, a country with two friendly neighbors, and massive oceans between us and our nearest peer adversaries spend ~ 1T / yr on defense to be the 'world's police'. If you think the US isn't a major beneficiary of global peace and open trade, you are very mistaken. It isn't a charity project, it's a strategy. > The real threat to our security is at home. What does this mean?
  - wing-_-nuts 2y ago
    >Taiwan couldn't effectively defend itself against China regardless of how much it spends on defense. They don't have to be able to defeat China to deter them, they simply have to make an invasion too costly to be worth it. Google porcupine strategy. If Taiwan was serious about their defense, they would have a higher percentage of their population conscripted and trained for longer. They would have been spending a much higher proportion of their GDP on defense. The fact that they've done neither of these things tells me they're passing the buck to us and expecting the US to pay the cost (in both money and lives) of their defense, and I don't think we should. >If you think the US isn't a major beneficiary of global peace and open trade, you are very mistaken. You don't think the world had free trade before US hegemony? The truth is that other countries would step up and help shoulder the burden instead of simply relying on us to do everything. I'm extremely doubtful of the benefit to the average us citizen of the tens of trillions of dollars in us military expenditures since WWII. I think we would find ourselves in a more stable, prosperous country had we spent that money on education, infrastructure and healthcare. Regardless, I'm not interested in continuing this conversation further. We're not going to change each others minds.
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      Again, what benchmark are you using to assess the sufficient level of deterrence, GDP ratio, or conscription? As far as I can tell, we have solid empirical evidence that those things are sufficient, based on the fact that China hasn't invaded. > The truth is that other countries would step up and help shoulder the burden instead of simply relying on us to do everything. Right... and they would each overlay their own protectionist policies. I don't know who in here said the US's military expenditures are optimal, but it wasn't me. I hope you find 'em so you can tell them they're wrong!

gamepsys 2y ago

That seems to be the recent business plan of the military industrial complex. Wars aren't popular among US voters, and military recruitment numbers are struggling. Instead, if we sell slightly dated weapons to foreign armies then the money keeps flowing into our war economy. I think this strategy will only work because of MAD, and it's essentially a modification of our previous proxy war strategies that existed prior. It has several risks and benefits. I'm worried that the separation Americans feel (we aren't at war, one of our allies we are heavily supporting is) isn't the same level of separation that the other side of the conflict feels. I'm worried that some of these allies will be manipulated into conflicts in order to generate customers. I'm worried that if our soldiers are needed too many of them won't have combat experience, which improves their effectiveness. I'm worried that the loss of life will have less of an emotional impact when it's happening to other people far away. The benefit of not risking American lives while still maintaining cashflow for weapons R&D is massive though.

llamaimperative 2y ago
Not a new strategy, predates MAD. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease > I'm worried that some of these allies will be manipulated into conflicts in order to generate customers Manipulated into being invaded?