More like "Uh, spelling".
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Europe under extreme duress
- Thread starter Randy Daytona
- Start date
FIFY. Because that's what the Chinese do. I company I used to work for in aerospace was briefly doing business with China, as part of a partnership with Chinese nationals working here. It lasted until the Chinese contingent was caught copying engineering drawings and sending them to Beijing. Not a China-based corporation in Beijing. The Chinese government. Our government did nothing about it, but the company ended that relationship as soon as they could.
Fuck China.
Last edited:
But the Chinese need the chips the plants produce. I doubt they would destroy them on purpose. I am told the facilities are built for combat survivability. Rumors abound of plans for the US to evacuate key engineers and personnel, TSMC personnel sabotaging manufacturing software, refusing to work, and in the extreme, scuttling facilities. Short of all that, Taiwanese officials point out that the TSMC plants are tied to a global supply chain and that if those companies refuse to supply Chinese occupiers, the TSMC facilities are useless to China. The world will suffer sever shortages of chips causing economic distress across the world.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant we/the Taiwanese would be doing the destroying. Scuttling is the better term.
Some numbers from Ian Bremmer’s G-Zero Media:
www.gzeromedia.com
“Russia’s economy contracted by just 2.1% last year, far less than predicted, due to continued sales of its discounted crude oil and adaptability. The IMF predicts a 0.3% growth rate for Russia this year thanks to high export prices.”
And a perspective on how the non-western world sees the conflict from the Washington Post:
Hard Numbers … after a year of war in Ukraine
The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has verified 18,955 Ukrainian civilian casualties (7,199 killed, including 438 children), though it believes the actual numbers are higher.
www.gzeromedia.com
“Russia’s economy contracted by just 2.1% last year, far less than predicted, due to continued sales of its discounted crude oil and adaptability. The IMF predicts a 0.3% growth rate for Russia this year thanks to high export prices.”
And a perspective on how the non-western world sees the conflict from the Washington Post:
I wouldn't be looking toward South Africa as any kind of moral compass on such matters. This is the same government whose official position at one point on HIV was that the disease was a hoax, or a weapon created by the CIA to kill black people, or other absurdities. Not a great look when your country is being ravaged by a completely preventable disease.Some numbers from Ian Bremmer’s G-Zero Media:
Hard Numbers … after a year of war in Ukraine
The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has verified 18,955 Ukrainian civilian casualties (7,199 killed, including 438 children), though it believes the actual numbers are higher.
“Russia’s economy contracted by just 2.1% last year, far less than predicted, due to continued sales of its discounted crude oil and adaptability. The IMF predicts a 0.3% growth rate for Russia this year thanks to high export prices.”
And a perspective on how the non-western world sees the conflict from the Washington Post:
It's gonna be an interesting spring in Ukraine . . . .
Ironically, wasn't that urban legend originally started as Soviet disinformation?
Wouldn’t surprise me.
Ah, here we go . . . there's even a Wikipedia article. Knew I'd read it somewhere.
Operation Denver - Wikipedia
I do not myself think that a confrontation with China would lead to a nuclear exchange. The Chinese are not stupid or nuts. In terms of their attacking Taiwan, at least in terms of trying an invasion, China would be carrying out the largest, most complex amphibious operation in human history, something they have absolutely zero experience doing. Regarding chips, yes Taiwan is a major strategic country in that they produce the vast majority of the critical computer chips needed for so much.
IMO, just letting China take Taiwan out of fear of nuclear war would play right into China's hands and possibly let them take control over an extremely important industrial asset but also a free country, which would probably cause all of the countries in the entire region to fall prey to China's wishes due to such a spectacular display of U.S. weakness. So IMO, the nuclear threat is one that must be stared down in such a scenario. I would even go so far as to say that not doing anything out of fear of nuclear retaliation can increase the likelihood of major war because then other countries can get emboldened to try something, and someone miscalculates and does something they shouldn't, which pulls a larger power in, which then pulls even larger powers in, and then you have WWIII.
This is a quote by Michael J. Mazaar from an article in Foreign Affairs Niall quotes, but IMO that description would be 100% accurate for America in the mid-1960s through the 1970s and early 1980s. He then writes:
Yes, but...so does the United States. The primary difference with the U.S. and China on this is similar to what we saw during the Cold War: all the rot and problems in the United States were laid bare and open. Everyone knew the U.S. had major problems with crime, poverty, corruption, pollution, etc...that it was not any utopia. Whereas all the rot and corruption of the Soviet Union, which was significantly worse, was hidden. With China, it is similar: all the problems of America are laid bare for everyone to see, whereas many of the problems with China are masked. These kind of articles often make it sound like a totally problem-laden America would be facing a very efficient China, that is far less corrupt, has a far better-trained, led, equipped, and skilled military, and far more productive and efficient industrial base to supply said super military.
In terms of the comparisons of U.S. manufacturing capability to China's, the story is also more complex. China is responsible for about 28% of global manufacturing, whereas the U.S. does about 17%. However, China does their manufacturing with a much larger number of workers than the U.S., around 130 million versus about 16 million in the U.S. So the U.S. produces 17% of global manufacturing with 16 million workers. To produce double that with the same types of goods and same productivity, the Chinese should thus do it with about 32 million workers. But instead they do it with 130 million. Why is this? Because a lot of what China produces are things that are very simple and cheap to make that they have an advantage in terms of cheap labor. So lots of toys, consumer electronics, clothing, shoes, etc...whereas when it comes to high-tech military, aerospace, industrial, medical, etc...components and technologies, the picture is a lot different. I don't know the specific numbers for how those two types of manufacturing stack up, but I mean the picture isn't **as** simple as some make it. The U.S. produces a lot of high-tech components.
One area that nobody mentions that we've let slip is shipbuilding. Every other country subsidizes their shipbuilding industry but, in what IMO was a mistake, this was stopped for the American shipbuilding industry under Reagan. We still domestically make aircraft carriers and submarines, but other ships are still very important for commerce and industry and allow the Merchant Marine (another component that has declined) to do their job during wartime. The Merchant Marine might play a big role in supplying Taiwan during a Chinese attack, I don't know.
I don't think that our industrial base having trouble producing the munitions needed for war right now is as big an issue as some make it out to be, because that is how it is at the very start of a major war (or little war in this case). A country doesn't produce major numbers of weapons unless there's a demand, otherwise it would be a complete waste. We and the Soviets did during the Cold War, but that was an exception. Since then, unless the military budget is funding it, private companies aren't going to produce or invest in the capital to be able to produce enormous quantities of munitions.
IMO, just letting China take Taiwan out of fear of nuclear war would play right into China's hands and possibly let them take control over an extremely important industrial asset but also a free country, which would probably cause all of the countries in the entire region to fall prey to China's wishes due to such a spectacular display of U.S. weakness. So IMO, the nuclear threat is one that must be stared down in such a scenario. I would even go so far as to say that not doing anything out of fear of nuclear retaliation can increase the likelihood of major war because then other countries can get emboldened to try something, and someone miscalculates and does something they shouldn't, which pulls a larger power in, which then pulls even larger powers in, and then you have WWIII.
Regarding this article, while it makes some good points, I think Niall himself and multiple of the people he quotes are oversimplifying the issue:Couple of interesting articles in Foreign Affairs and Bloomberg:
The US ‘Domain Awareness Gap’ Goes Way Beyond Balloons
If a major conflict breaks out with China, America’s once-vaunted defense industrial base will be exposed as a comatose geriatric, not a sleeping giant.
This is a quote by Michael J. Mazaar from an article in Foreign Affairs Niall quotes, but IMO that description would be 100% accurate for America in the mid-1960s through the 1970s and early 1980s. He then writes:
Yes, but...so does the United States. The primary difference with the U.S. and China on this is similar to what we saw during the Cold War: all the rot and problems in the United States were laid bare and open. Everyone knew the U.S. had major problems with crime, poverty, corruption, pollution, etc...that it was not any utopia. Whereas all the rot and corruption of the Soviet Union, which was significantly worse, was hidden. With China, it is similar: all the problems of America are laid bare for everyone to see, whereas many of the problems with China are masked. These kind of articles often make it sound like a totally problem-laden America would be facing a very efficient China, that is far less corrupt, has a far better-trained, led, equipped, and skilled military, and far more productive and efficient industrial base to supply said super military.
In terms of the comparisons of U.S. manufacturing capability to China's, the story is also more complex. China is responsible for about 28% of global manufacturing, whereas the U.S. does about 17%. However, China does their manufacturing with a much larger number of workers than the U.S., around 130 million versus about 16 million in the U.S. So the U.S. produces 17% of global manufacturing with 16 million workers. To produce double that with the same types of goods and same productivity, the Chinese should thus do it with about 32 million workers. But instead they do it with 130 million. Why is this? Because a lot of what China produces are things that are very simple and cheap to make that they have an advantage in terms of cheap labor. So lots of toys, consumer electronics, clothing, shoes, etc...whereas when it comes to high-tech military, aerospace, industrial, medical, etc...components and technologies, the picture is a lot different. I don't know the specific numbers for how those two types of manufacturing stack up, but I mean the picture isn't **as** simple as some make it. The U.S. produces a lot of high-tech components.
One area that nobody mentions that we've let slip is shipbuilding. Every other country subsidizes their shipbuilding industry but, in what IMO was a mistake, this was stopped for the American shipbuilding industry under Reagan. We still domestically make aircraft carriers and submarines, but other ships are still very important for commerce and industry and allow the Merchant Marine (another component that has declined) to do their job during wartime. The Merchant Marine might play a big role in supplying Taiwan during a Chinese attack, I don't know.
I don't think that our industrial base having trouble producing the munitions needed for war right now is as big an issue as some make it out to be, because that is how it is at the very start of a major war (or little war in this case). A country doesn't produce major numbers of weapons unless there's a demand, otherwise it would be a complete waste. We and the Soviets did during the Cold War, but that was an exception. Since then, unless the military budget is funding it, private companies aren't going to produce or invest in the capital to be able to produce enormous quantities of munitions.
Last edited:
So let's say China decides to attack Taiwan. To do so, they decide to use their subs and missiles to destroy all non-Chinese warships in the area who could fight them. They continue doing this while they execute their amphibious landing.
That involves killing lots of Americans, and likely other country's ships/personnel. That means the pressure for POTUS to go to war with China will be overwhelming, so we will. In order to win, we'd have to attack mainland China to take out their defenses at a minimum. Trying to keep it a small war just fighting in Taiwan, and both sides trusting the other not to use nukes throughout the whole thing as it escalates and gets more and more brutal, seems impossible to me. Brushing it off by saying the Chinese aren't nuts is ignoring the fact that they can no more predict how the war will evolve and escalate than we can. To my knowledge there has never been a war between 2 countries where both countries had an ace up their sleeve that they didn't use. But 2 nuclear powers haven't fought, so hopefully that'll be the exception. Not a gamble I care to take.
On a related note, when will the US stop trying to play world police? When will we focus on ourselves, and stop saying we don't have money to improve the education system or railroads (for example) while throwing hundreds of billions at other countries? When can a patriot sign up to serve and know they will only be asked to risk their life for America?
Well I would think it would be pretty obvious to the U.S. if the Chinese were preparing to try launching an attack. They'd need to concentrate their forces which would probably be obvious. As for the rest, I don't know if it would be so easy for the Chinese to just target American ships with shore-based missiles, that's a whole area of classified tech and knowledge in the Navy (ship defense). And if we did attack the mainland, I am sure we'd leave it to those bases launching missiles at our forces, which the Chinese would understand if they were trying to sink our ships.
Well I agree we need to focus more on domestic America in many ways, but IMO America as the world police is ideal. For one, who else is going to do it? The Europeans? And also, from a standpoint of dealing with threatening nations, IMO it is preferable if there is a clear leader nation that the other nations can rally behind when needed, as opposed to no clear leader which would cause everyone to argue while the crisis boils over.
I suspect if the U.S. stopped policing, then Europe would fall prey to Russia, the Middle East to Iran, and Asia to China, OR Japan would take the place of the U.S. in Asia as the counter to China which might not be the best thing and Germany would take the place as the counter to Russia, also not necessarily a good idea.
At this point, I think we all know this is your opinion. Easy way to drop 23 out of 7,437 words.
Your entire existence relies on global trade. It will remain that way until a nation is capable and willing to maintain stability in the global commons - under their own commonly accepted rules. It would result in a catastrophic implosion of your way of life and quality of living. It was written into American foreign policy when the old empires discharged their extraterritorial claims and the free trade era began.
Most Americans don’t understand that and yet we’re somehow surprised by inflation and massive supply chain issues. The better question is when did appeasement become tolerable by Americans?
Last edited: