3 ms·

Ahhh US army, that explains it. You know of the two main factions in US foreign policy, the primacists and the restrainers both seek conflict with China. The on

Ahhh US army, that explains it. You know of the two main factions in US foreign policy, the primacists and the restrainers both seek conflict with China. The only difference being that the primacists wanted to win a war in Iran first to set up Israel as regional hegemony. We have a different read on objective reality, using the simple proxy of 'success has many fathers and failure is an orphan', not many people are taking credit for the war with Iran - so I take that as a sign of failure. The Pentagon is many years late on drone warfare and the whole incentive structure is set up for gold plated drones with the fat margins needed to buy lobbyists. Also I see much of the US Army as a make work program / pseudo welfare system still carrying on the great traditions of McNamara's morons. As the US declines it is in China's interest to wait and it is in the US interest to initiate the conflict while it can still potentially win. Taiwan is simply a way of getting the US to act in the ways China wants them to, there is no need for them to actually invade Taiwan to make that happen, but they do have to convincingly pretend like they will by constantly harassing them.

ericmay 6mo ago
> not many people are taking credit for the war with Iran - so I take that as a sign of failure. Certainly an interesting point to think about, but I don't think it passes the smell test if for nothing else but that we've done successful things in the past and partisan politics will simply define those in a negative light purely to create wedge issues or distort reality. The President and others have gone way out of their way to claim success, of course it's Donald Trump, but nonetheless there are folks claiming success. But even so, it's sort of early. How long did it take until George Bush stood on an aircraft carrier and claimed Mission Accomplished? If anything folks are more cautious about claiming success precisely because of this backlash in the past. It's a nice heuristic but I wouldn't over-index on it, especially for anything Donald Trump does. Folks are still claiming failure over Venezuela despite that being a resounding success in all aspects. > The Pentagon is many years late on drone warfare and the whole incentive structure is set up for gold plated drones with the fat margins needed to buy lobbyists. Nah don't think so. I think you're just making stuff up here. Of course the Pentagon has historically worked with contractors and there's definitely some fat that needs to be trimmed, but the Pentagon has, certainly in response to the Ukraine war, though of course earlier too, been working on building lower cost drones, interceptors and other capabilities precisely because folks know this. New companies have been standing up to build cheaper, less complex missile and drone systems. It takes a little bit of time without intense pressure (a real real war) to do these things. We do tend to over-pay, but you could just argue other countries are actually under-paying. We know our stuff works, and we have demonstrated that time and time again. Maybe it's worth paying extra for that. Who wants to cut corners on fighter jets or missiles? I similarly reject, though to a lesser extent, the claims that laymen make around China and military corruption and purges and so forth. It can be true, but it's not the determining factor in how well the organization operates and is likely to, perhaps be systematic, but not likely to have such a large effect that it matters in the long run. It's just like hypersonic missiles. Hypersonic missile this hypersonic missiles that, drones this drones that - it's just what you hear on the news and folks for some reason misunderstand that other countries, whether that's China, Iran, or the United States can and do take action to address challenges and new capabilities. The world isn't stagnate. Your general lack of knowledge or awareness of military capabilities doesn't mean they don't exist or aren't in development or being tested. Obviously countries keep these things secret to the extent possible too. > As the US declines it is in China's interest to wait and it is in the US interest to initiate the conflict while it can still potentially win. Taiwan is simply a way of getting the US to act in the ways China wants them to, there is no need for them to actually invade Taiwan to make that happen, but they do have to convincingly pretend like they will by constantly harassing them. The military buildup that China is doing demonstrates that you're wrong, or at least they seriously believe they need the option to invade Taiwan. You're right about what China could do here, which is wait the US out by establishing increasingly dependent and positive ties between Taiwan and China and focus on a peaceful reunification via economic and political means. The problem is that Xi Jingping's viewpoint is more in line with Vladimir Putin's in that they are old people and they want to do something grand before they die and they have massive egos, like their buddy Donald Trump. That leads to mistakes, as Putin saw with Ukraine.
- cjbgkagh 6mo ago
  To point out what should have been pretty obvious, China has to do the military build up if it wants the US to believe they will actually invade Taiwan. It’s a costly signal, and it has to be costly or it won’t be believed, sure sending a memo would have been cheaper but without also doing the work no one would believe them.

ericmay 6mo ago

> not many people are taking credit for the war with Iran - so I take that as a sign of failure. Certainly an interesting point to think about, but I don't think it passes the smell test if for nothing else but that we've done successful things in the past and partisan politics will simply define those in a negative light purely to create wedge issues or distort reality. The President and others have gone way out of their way to claim success, of course it's Donald Trump, but nonetheless there are folks claiming success. But even so, it's sort of early. How long did it take until George Bush stood on an aircraft carrier and claimed Mission Accomplished? If anything folks are more cautious about claiming success precisely because of this backlash in the past. It's a nice heuristic but I wouldn't over-index on it, especially for anything Donald Trump does. Folks are still claiming failure over Venezuela despite that being a resounding success in all aspects. > The Pentagon is many years late on drone warfare and the whole incentive structure is set up for gold plated drones with the fat margins needed to buy lobbyists. Nah don't think so. I think you're just making stuff up here. Of course the Pentagon has historically worked with contractors and there's definitely some fat that needs to be trimmed, but the Pentagon has, certainly in response to the Ukraine war, though of course earlier too, been working on building lower cost drones, interceptors and other capabilities precisely because folks know this. New companies have been standing up to build cheaper, less complex missile and drone systems. It takes a little bit of time without intense pressure (a real real war) to do these things. We do tend to over-pay, but you could just argue other countries are actually under-paying. We know our stuff works, and we have demonstrated that time and time again. Maybe it's worth paying extra for that. Who wants to cut corners on fighter jets or missiles? I similarly reject, though to a lesser extent, the claims that laymen make around China and military corruption and purges and so forth. It can be true, but it's not the determining factor in how well the organization operates and is likely to, perhaps be systematic, but not likely to have such a large effect that it matters in the long run. It's just like hypersonic missiles. Hypersonic missile this hypersonic missiles that, drones this drones that - it's just what you hear on the news and folks for some reason misunderstand that other countries, whether that's China, Iran, or the United States can and do take action to address challenges and new capabilities. The world isn't stagnate. Your general lack of knowledge or awareness of military capabilities doesn't mean they don't exist or aren't in development or being tested. Obviously countries keep these things secret to the extent possible too. > As the US declines it is in China's interest to wait and it is in the US interest to initiate the conflict while it can still potentially win. Taiwan is simply a way of getting the US to act in the ways China wants them to, there is no need for them to actually invade Taiwan to make that happen, but they do have to convincingly pretend like they will by constantly harassing them. The military buildup that China is doing demonstrates that you're wrong, or at least they seriously believe they need the option to invade Taiwan. You're right about what China could do here, which is wait the US out by establishing increasingly dependent and positive ties between Taiwan and China and focus on a peaceful reunification via economic and political means. The problem is that Xi Jingping's viewpoint is more in line with Vladimir Putin's in that they are old people and they want to do something grand before they die and they have massive egos, like their buddy Donald Trump. That leads to mistakes, as Putin saw with Ukraine.

cjbgkagh 6mo ago
To point out what should have been pretty obvious, China has to do the military build up if it wants the US to believe they will actually invade Taiwan. It’s a costly signal, and it has to be costly or it won’t be believed, sure sending a memo would have been cheaper but without also doing the work no one would believe them.