8 ms·

Now they'll exhaust interceptors and other long range missiles like tomahawks and whatnot. And then China gets frisky with Taiwan and the US will totally not a

Now they'll exhaust interceptors and other long range missiles like tomahawks and whatnot. And then China gets frisky with Taiwan and the US will totally not abandon them and tell them to just give up pressured by the lack of firepower to defend them, the risks of China getting back into bidding oil in international markets and the mess the treasury would be in if China raises capital by selling bonds (they just told the fed to print more so Japan can buy yens without selling their US bonds, so they are at least very concerned about the possibility). Sorry for the rant.

greedo 2mo ago
As much as I support Taiwan, there's no realistic timeline where the US goes to war against the PRC over Taiwan. None.
- PowerElectronix 2mo ago
  A timeline in which AI is everything Amodei and Altman say it is and intel is still stuck in an older node while tsmc has the good gaafet stuff on could be one where it's worth fighting for taiwan. Also, if the US doesn't fight for taiwan, will they fight for the phillipines? Malasia? South korea?
  - vuurmot 2mo ago
    if the US can't even spell Malaysia, I doubt they have interest fighting for them
- bamboozled 2mo ago
  War isn't just about bombs though.
rbanffy 2mo ago
On the flip side, at least the press is not hammering the Epstein files and the lack of any prosecution for the crimes documented in those.
- locknitpicker 2mo ago
  Trump's Iran war is known as "operation Epstein fury" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_2026_Iran_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_2026_Iran_war
  - Razengan 2mo ago
    It's amazing how a handful of people can cause the deaths and suffering of millions.. throughout history. What the fuck is wrong with the human species and its tendency for self-destructive leader-worship??
    - M95D 2mo ago
      It's very simple, really: we're susceptible to indoctrination and brainwashing. That's what one of the main objectives of military training - throughout history.
    - inglor_cz 2mo ago
      The point is that before the era of modern weapons, many wars were a net positive for the winners. Much of our genome is inherited from successful conquerors, many of whom are long forgotten. Starting wars has only been unequivocally negative for maybe the last 100 years. Not enough for an evolutionary change to manifest itself.
      - rbanffy 2mo ago
        The US made about $68 billion just by kidnapping Venezuela’s president (and making sure the successor would be next if she didn’t allow the sacking). For something that required intelligence work and two choppers, the margin was great. The fallout will come later, of course.
        inglor_cz 2mo ago
        On a purely Machiavellistic level, coups with an inside element helping along (and that is what Venezuela was: Delcy Rodriguez going full Judas on Maduro) are a distinct phenomenon with a different profile of risks and rewards. As you say, even today, they may pay very well - but precisely because they don't lead to a large-scale war with all the destruction it entails. Iran is a true war, where the local elite didn't even partly defect, and it is already becoming an expensive quagmire with nothing of value gained. Of course some politicians do mistake one for another. Putin in 2022 probably expected a swift coup by his crony Medvedchuk, who instead turned tail and ran. Instead he got a brutal war of attrition.
chmod775 2mo ago
If they can exhaust all their firepower in a couple weeks fighting Iran, China would have no reason to feel threatened in the first place. The reality is that fighting China would be a proper all-out war, not whatever this spitting match with Iran is.
- notaigenerated 2mo ago
  There won't ever be an "all out war" of nuclear states with each other. Only via proxies.
  - chmod775 2mo ago
    Of course there can be - likely with a gentleman's understanding that neither would use them, and each side careful to not back the other into a corner where they'd have nothing left to lose. It's just going to be your typical meatgrinder and attrition warfare.
    - FpUser 2mo ago
      >"gentleman's understanding that neither would use them, and each side careful to not back the other into a corner where they'd have nothing left to lose." So we'll just grind each other into a halt? And what is the end state? What a BS.
      - tcp_handshaker 2mo ago
        In case you did not notice, that is exactly what happened between China and India. Disputes at the border are frequent and they fight with sticks: https://youtu.be/T1-Gi_l-024 https://youtu.be/T1-Gi_l-024
      - toyg 2mo ago
        That's what's happening in Ukraine right now, I don't understand why you think it's BS. The point is reaching a situation where one of the parties is ok with going "alright, enough". Not all wars are WWII-level fight-to-the-death conflicts, a lot of them just end with both sides agreeing a new status quo.
BenFranklin100 2mo ago
I imagine elements in the Taiwanese govt are pushing a massive drone network to turn the nation into a porcupine.
- missedthecue 2mo ago
  Unfortunately, they are instead spending lots of money on procuring surface fleet for their navy. They just recently announced 10 more frigates.
expedition32 2mo ago
If you look at Taiwan history when the US gave PRC the UN seat and Nixon visited Beijing it was pretty much decided. Taiwan is no West Berlin and everyone knows it.
- tharmas 2mo ago
  What about TSMC?
  - lossolo 2mo ago
    What about it? TSMC now has fabs on U.S. soil. Intel and Samsung also have fabs and are working on processes that compete with TSMC's, even if their yields may be somewhat lower. Washington will have to decide whether the U.S. is willing to pay slightly more and rely on domestic Intel, Samsung, and TSMC fabs, or risk a military defeat and potentially millions of American lives if the situation escalates to intercontinental ballistic missiles. The choice is obvious. Real life is not a Hollywood action movie. Also, anyone who thinks South Korea or other Asian allies would automatically go to war with China is delusional. So U.S. would be left alone. U.S. has never faced an opponent like China so a country that is also the world's leading manufacturing power. Nazi Germany was nowhere near as economically and industrially formidable as China is today, and the U.S. fought it alongside most of Europe and the Soviet Union. If anything happens, Taiwan will probably give up. They are mostly posturing, and China may not even need to invade. they could simply impose a blockade. Bombing things may seem normal to the U.S., but as Sun Tzu argued, the best victories are achieved without fighting, once swords are clashing, that's a strategic failure.
    - tharmas 2mo ago
      >TSMC now has fabs on U.S. soil. It will take years to get to the level of skill TSMC in Taiwan has. I don't think Washington should spend money and lives on defending Taiwan. My point is that TSMC is a very valuable manufacturer of chips so it will be a big loss in skill and technology for the "West". Ultimately the destiny of Taiwan should be whatever the people of Taiwan wish but alas the world does not work that way.
shevy-java 2mo ago
The USA will not really defend Taiwan anyway. Perhaps they may send some ships or airplanes but even that attempt at show of force will quickly collapse when Beijing increases pressure. The only thing Beijing can not control is what Taiwan does and invading an island is always difficult. Also Taiwan needs a nuclear arsenal just as Israel has; Japan too, Canada and the EU as well. The days where the big countries abuse the smaller ones are over - we all can see this past the point of Putin starting his genocide against Ukraine. His next step of escalation will be mass mobilization; that's why his propaganda department already now calls the "special military operation" (which it never was) a war (which it always was from the get-go, but now he wants to send more of his slaves to die for him and his oligarch-bros).
steveBK123 2mo ago
Hey look on the bright side - every time we cut CDC staff by 25% or kick a 100K people off SNAP, we can afford a few more weeks of missiles.
- omikun 2mo ago
  100k people is like 400mil, one day of war is estimated at 2billion dollars. So more like one volley of missiles or 1/5th of a day
maxglute 2mo ago
LBH US hasn't been in position to defend 1st island chain in a while, US performance vs Iran just made that obvious. The one thing we have learned in recent wars is highend hardware can shoot down subsonic munitions reliably, highend missiles can penetrate high end defense reliably. AKA PRC is uniquely positioned to blunt most of US fires (subsonic munitions) while having tons of highend fires vs US defense. But really PRC doesn't even need highend fires for TW scenario, see their subsonic cruse missile / drone gigafactory (like proper not ghetto tier) that can churn 1000s per day, i.e. even with pure subsonics PRC can fully saturate entire US posture/basing structure in 1IC/2IC. US in westpac has been thoroughly functionally cooked for years. It just took Iran performance for sensible people to realize how cooked. Not just how not up to task i.e. force balance, but how US tech stack uniquely vulnerable to PRC, who TBF has spend past 10 years of modernization strictly on this issue. NVM PRC can now conventionally hit CONUS as recognized by recent Pentagon China Power report, something PLA watchers have known for years, meanwhile said report still assumes PRC highend missile stockpiles is about size of Irans which is kek territory if not delulu. TLDR people should stop hopiuming about PRC and evaluate consequences of commodity precision fire for mid tier operators. What Iran can do today, most of Americans can do in 10-15 years, i.e. we are entering a world where CONUS is vulnerable due to tech again (remember US project almost extinguished to wooden British boats). CONUS isolation/security as much man made as god/geographic given. It relies on US expeditionary model containing everyone ability to project fires to their shores. Once that's done, entire US defense model post war breaks. All of which is to say, forget Iran, anticipate Monroe wars in the future.
- cmxch 2mo ago
  [dead]
- maxglute 2mo ago
  @cmxch [dead] >Sure about that? Give the US a permissive RoE and the ability to ignore the CNN/MSNOW peanut gallery and then get back to us about that series of claims. Reasonably sure given US RoE vs Iran has been extremely permissive, even more permissiveness just means depleting highend munitions faster for same marginal effect. reality is US simply doesn't have the standoff stockpiles - US can go Vietnam / close air but then you'd be dealing with more down pilots and peanut gallery unavoidable. Given that VS PRC is forgone, ROE has nothing to do with fundamental US techstack/stockpile (mis)allocation. If US cannot defeat high end hypersonics at scale then expeditionary model with exquisite tooth/tail logistics cannot survive to reach theatre to deliver standoff munitions, and given most US standoff munitions subsonic, even if they could deliver theoretically they face near 100% interception rate. US would also have to retool basically entire delivery systems around supersonic munitions, which are more expensive, larger, i.e. reduced fire bandwidth. These are geometric not RoE constraints.
jmyeet 2mo ago
I really dislike the manufactured conflict with China because it only exists to sell weapons. There are several flaws in this theory: 1. All but about 10 countries in the world recognize Taiwan as an independent nation. This always seems to get in people's feelings when I point this out but I'm sorry, the One China policy is the official policy of the US and virtually every country on Earth [1]; 2. US military policy is that the US is the only country allowed to be a global superpower (aka "hegemon"). Taiwan is a key link in containment, known as the island-chain strategy [2]. If Taiwan falls into China's sphere of influence then that strategy falls apart. And that's really why this Cold War 2.0 narrative has been manufactured; 3. The level of hypocrisy here is insane. Every allegation is a confession. For one thing, China has shown no imperial ambitions. This gets the inevitable "But Tibet!" rejoinder. It was 1950. Let it go. Also, 90% of the people in Tibet prior to annexation were slaves. They have euphemistically been called "serfs" in Western coverage (when it's mentioned at all) but these "serfs" could be traded like property. You know, like slaves. Also, Tibet and the Dalai Lama is a CIA project [3]; If you find yourself on the same side as the CIA, it's probably time to be asking some questions; 4. In the event of a direct military conflict with China, what are the goals? What is the theory of victory between two nuclear powers? The US has been militarily defeated by Iran. Do you think they'd fare better against China? Really? For one thing, China has a virtual monopoly of rare earths, which are essential for all these missile systems and radars we've depleted; and 5. There's no credible fear of a military invasion of Taiwan. Or even a blockade. China's position is simply to leave the question unanswered, which is typically called strategic ambiguity in policy circles. That's the US position as well, officially. China believes the question will resolve all on its own at some point. That may take decades. There's no reason to do anything, particularly when most of the world already recognizes Taiwan as Chinese territory. Also, China simply does not have the military to invade Taiwan over 100 miles of open ocean. This would likely require half a million to more than a million troops. The amphibious capability simply doesn't exist. Nor does maintaining the supply lines to maintain that. This is also the issue with any invasion of Iran, btw. It's impossible. So why are we spending so much time drumming up fear of something that doesn't benefit China at all and is impossible to carry out? That question should lead you to the true motive: American imperial interests and the continued sale of arms. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_China [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_chain_strategy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_chain_strategy [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_Tibetan_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_Tibetan_program
tbugrara 2mo ago
You're not considering how our economy/manufacturiing is currently not oriented for war but could easily be made to be.

greedo 2mo ago

As much as I support Taiwan, there's no realistic timeline where the US goes to war against the PRC over Taiwan. None.

PowerElectronix 2mo ago
A timeline in which AI is everything Amodei and Altman say it is and intel is still stuck in an older node while tsmc has the good gaafet stuff on could be one where it's worth fighting for taiwan. Also, if the US doesn't fight for taiwan, will they fight for the phillipines? Malasia? South korea?
- vuurmot 2mo ago
  if the US can't even spell Malaysia, I doubt they have interest fighting for them
bamboozled 2mo ago
War isn't just about bombs though.

rbanffy 2mo ago

On the flip side, at least the press is not hammering the Epstein files and the lack of any prosecution for the crimes documented in those.

locknitpicker 2mo ago
Trump's Iran war is known as "operation Epstein fury" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_2026_Iran_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_2026_Iran_war
- Razengan 2mo ago
  It's amazing how a handful of people can cause the deaths and suffering of millions.. throughout history. What the fuck is wrong with the human species and its tendency for self-destructive leader-worship??
  - M95D 2mo ago
    It's very simple, really: we're susceptible to indoctrination and brainwashing. That's what one of the main objectives of military training - throughout history.
  - inglor_cz 2mo ago
    The point is that before the era of modern weapons, many wars were a net positive for the winners. Much of our genome is inherited from successful conquerors, many of whom are long forgotten. Starting wars has only been unequivocally negative for maybe the last 100 years. Not enough for an evolutionary change to manifest itself.
    - rbanffy 2mo ago
      The US made about $68 billion just by kidnapping Venezuela’s president (and making sure the successor would be next if she didn’t allow the sacking). For something that required intelligence work and two choppers, the margin was great. The fallout will come later, of course.
      - inglor_cz 2mo ago
        On a purely Machiavellistic level, coups with an inside element helping along (and that is what Venezuela was: Delcy Rodriguez going full Judas on Maduro) are a distinct phenomenon with a different profile of risks and rewards. As you say, even today, they may pay very well - but precisely because they don't lead to a large-scale war with all the destruction it entails. Iran is a true war, where the local elite didn't even partly defect, and it is already becoming an expensive quagmire with nothing of value gained. Of course some politicians do mistake one for another. Putin in 2022 probably expected a swift coup by his crony Medvedchuk, who instead turned tail and ran. Instead he got a brutal war of attrition.

chmod775 2mo ago

If they can exhaust all their firepower in a couple weeks fighting Iran, China would have no reason to feel threatened in the first place. The reality is that fighting China would be a proper all-out war, not whatever this spitting match with Iran is.

notaigenerated 2mo ago
There won't ever be an "all out war" of nuclear states with each other. Only via proxies.
- chmod775 2mo ago
  Of course there can be - likely with a gentleman's understanding that neither would use them, and each side careful to not back the other into a corner where they'd have nothing left to lose. It's just going to be your typical meatgrinder and attrition warfare.
  - FpUser 2mo ago
    >"gentleman's understanding that neither would use them, and each side careful to not back the other into a corner where they'd have nothing left to lose." So we'll just grind each other into a halt? And what is the end state? What a BS.
    - tcp_handshaker 2mo ago
      In case you did not notice, that is exactly what happened between China and India. Disputes at the border are frequent and they fight with sticks: https://youtu.be/T1-Gi_l-024 https://youtu.be/T1-Gi_l-024
    - toyg 2mo ago
      That's what's happening in Ukraine right now, I don't understand why you think it's BS. The point is reaching a situation where one of the parties is ok with going "alright, enough". Not all wars are WWII-level fight-to-the-death conflicts, a lot of them just end with both sides agreeing a new status quo.

BenFranklin100 2mo ago

I imagine elements in the Taiwanese govt are pushing a massive drone network to turn the nation into a porcupine.

missedthecue 2mo ago
Unfortunately, they are instead spending lots of money on procuring surface fleet for their navy. They just recently announced 10 more frigates.

expedition32 2mo ago

If you look at Taiwan history when the US gave PRC the UN seat and Nixon visited Beijing it was pretty much decided. Taiwan is no West Berlin and everyone knows it.

tharmas 2mo ago
What about TSMC?
- lossolo 2mo ago
  What about it? TSMC now has fabs on U.S. soil. Intel and Samsung also have fabs and are working on processes that compete with TSMC's, even if their yields may be somewhat lower. Washington will have to decide whether the U.S. is willing to pay slightly more and rely on domestic Intel, Samsung, and TSMC fabs, or risk a military defeat and potentially millions of American lives if the situation escalates to intercontinental ballistic missiles. The choice is obvious. Real life is not a Hollywood action movie. Also, anyone who thinks South Korea or other Asian allies would automatically go to war with China is delusional. So U.S. would be left alone. U.S. has never faced an opponent like China so a country that is also the world's leading manufacturing power. Nazi Germany was nowhere near as economically and industrially formidable as China is today, and the U.S. fought it alongside most of Europe and the Soviet Union. If anything happens, Taiwan will probably give up. They are mostly posturing, and China may not even need to invade. they could simply impose a blockade. Bombing things may seem normal to the U.S., but as Sun Tzu argued, the best victories are achieved without fighting, once swords are clashing, that's a strategic failure.
  - tharmas 2mo ago
    >TSMC now has fabs on U.S. soil. It will take years to get to the level of skill TSMC in Taiwan has. I don't think Washington should spend money and lives on defending Taiwan. My point is that TSMC is a very valuable manufacturer of chips so it will be a big loss in skill and technology for the "West". Ultimately the destiny of Taiwan should be whatever the people of Taiwan wish but alas the world does not work that way.

shevy-java 2mo ago

The USA will not really defend Taiwan anyway. Perhaps they may send some ships or airplanes but even that attempt at show of force will quickly collapse when Beijing increases pressure. The only thing Beijing can not control is what Taiwan does and invading an island is always difficult. Also Taiwan needs a nuclear arsenal just as Israel has; Japan too, Canada and the EU as well. The days where the big countries abuse the smaller ones are over - we all can see this past the point of Putin starting his genocide against Ukraine. His next step of escalation will be mass mobilization; that's why his propaganda department already now calls the "special military operation" (which it never was) a war (which it always was from the get-go, but now he wants to send more of his slaves to die for him and his oligarch-bros).

steveBK123 2mo ago

Hey look on the bright side - every time we cut CDC staff by 25% or kick a 100K people off SNAP, we can afford a few more weeks of missiles.

omikun 2mo ago
100k people is like 400mil, one day of war is estimated at 2billion dollars. So more like one volley of missiles or 1/5th of a day

maxglute 2mo ago

LBH US hasn't been in position to defend 1st island chain in a while, US performance vs Iran just made that obvious. The one thing we have learned in recent wars is highend hardware can shoot down subsonic munitions reliably, highend missiles can penetrate high end defense reliably. AKA PRC is uniquely positioned to blunt most of US fires (subsonic munitions) while having tons of highend fires vs US defense. But really PRC doesn't even need highend fires for TW scenario, see their subsonic cruse missile / drone gigafactory (like proper not ghetto tier) that can churn 1000s per day, i.e. even with pure subsonics PRC can fully saturate entire US posture/basing structure in 1IC/2IC. US in westpac has been thoroughly functionally cooked for years. It just took Iran performance for sensible people to realize how cooked. Not just how not up to task i.e. force balance, but how US tech stack uniquely vulnerable to PRC, who TBF has spend past 10 years of modernization strictly on this issue. NVM PRC can now conventionally hit CONUS as recognized by recent Pentagon China Power report, something PLA watchers have known for years, meanwhile said report still assumes PRC highend missile stockpiles is about size of Irans which is kek territory if not delulu. TLDR people should stop hopiuming about PRC and evaluate consequences of commodity precision fire for mid tier operators. What Iran can do today, most of Americans can do in 10-15 years, i.e. we are entering a world where CONUS is vulnerable due to tech again (remember US project almost extinguished to wooden British boats). CONUS isolation/security as much man made as god/geographic given. It relies on US expeditionary model containing everyone ability to project fires to their shores. Once that's done, entire US defense model post war breaks. All of which is to say, forget Iran, anticipate Monroe wars in the future.

cmxch 2mo ago
[dead]
maxglute 2mo ago
@cmxch [dead] >Sure about that? Give the US a permissive RoE and the ability to ignore the CNN/MSNOW peanut gallery and then get back to us about that series of claims. Reasonably sure given US RoE vs Iran has been extremely permissive, even more permissiveness just means depleting highend munitions faster for same marginal effect. reality is US simply doesn't have the standoff stockpiles - US can go Vietnam / close air but then you'd be dealing with more down pilots and peanut gallery unavoidable. Given that VS PRC is forgone, ROE has nothing to do with fundamental US techstack/stockpile (mis)allocation. If US cannot defeat high end hypersonics at scale then expeditionary model with exquisite tooth/tail logistics cannot survive to reach theatre to deliver standoff munitions, and given most US standoff munitions subsonic, even if they could deliver theoretically they face near 100% interception rate. US would also have to retool basically entire delivery systems around supersonic munitions, which are more expensive, larger, i.e. reduced fire bandwidth. These are geometric not RoE constraints.

jmyeet 2mo ago

I really dislike the manufactured conflict with China because it only exists to sell weapons. There are several flaws in this theory: 1. All but about 10 countries in the world recognize Taiwan as an independent nation. This always seems to get in people's feelings when I point this out but I'm sorry, the One China policy is the official policy of the US and virtually every country on Earth [1]; 2. US military policy is that the US is the only country allowed to be a global superpower (aka "hegemon"). Taiwan is a key link in containment, known as the island-chain strategy [2]. If Taiwan falls into China's sphere of influence then that strategy falls apart. And that's really why this Cold War 2.0 narrative has been manufactured; 3. The level of hypocrisy here is insane. Every allegation is a confession. For one thing, China has shown no imperial ambitions. This gets the inevitable "But Tibet!" rejoinder. It was 1950. Let it go. Also, 90% of the people in Tibet prior to annexation were slaves. They have euphemistically been called "serfs" in Western coverage (when it's mentioned at all) but these "serfs" could be traded like property. You know, like slaves. Also, Tibet and the Dalai Lama is a CIA project [3]; If you find yourself on the same side as the CIA, it's probably time to be asking some questions; 4. In the event of a direct military conflict with China, what are the goals? What is the theory of victory between two nuclear powers? The US has been militarily defeated by Iran. Do you think they'd fare better against China? Really? For one thing, China has a virtual monopoly of rare earths, which are essential for all these missile systems and radars we've depleted; and 5. There's no credible fear of a military invasion of Taiwan. Or even a blockade. China's position is simply to leave the question unanswered, which is typically called strategic ambiguity in policy circles. That's the US position as well, officially. China believes the question will resolve all on its own at some point. That may take decades. There's no reason to do anything, particularly when most of the world already recognizes Taiwan as Chinese territory. Also, China simply does not have the military to invade Taiwan over 100 miles of open ocean. This would likely require half a million to more than a million troops. The amphibious capability simply doesn't exist. Nor does maintaining the supply lines to maintain that. This is also the issue with any invasion of Iran, btw. It's impossible. So why are we spending so much time drumming up fear of something that doesn't benefit China at all and is impossible to carry out? That question should lead you to the true motive: American imperial interests and the continued sale of arms. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_China [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_chain_strategy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_chain_strategy [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_Tibetan_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_Tibetan_program

tbugrara 2mo ago

You're not considering how our economy/manufacturiing is currently not oriented for war but could easily be made to be.