digitalscribe
> get real.
Hmm, who is more credible, the literal government of Japan or some rando.
This shift in the balance of power has been on-going for well over 10 years now. I've been following this for many years, so it's jarring to read very un-informed opinions on the balance of power in WESPAC, especially as it relates to PRC and Taiwan.
Read the many warnings from the various heads of INDOPACOM: China’s Sea Control Is a Done Deal, ‘Short of War With the U.S.’ [1]
OR
"Indeed, the overall balance of conventional military power along China’s borders has shifted dramatically in China’s favor." [2]
By the way, this is against the USA, not just Taiwan, which has a joke of a military.
> China will immediately be sanctioned by all the countries, leading to its collapse
LOL at this absurdly ignorant take.
[1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/20/world/asia/south-china-se...
[2] - https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Media/News/News-Article-View/Articl...
Nukes have essentially zero "defense" purposes. Yet all the great powers have them. It's called "good defense policy." All great powers do this.
> Pretending like Chinese needs to stockpile amphibious assault capabilities for defensive purposes is sticking your head in the sand.
Pretending that building out a military = instant invasion is paranoia.
Take a look at the USA military posture, including in Asia. See what forces are available.
So this means the USA is prepared to invade China any minute now? Plus nuke China, Russia because of the nukes?
Most of the points raise are simply wrong.
> 1.) too much corruption within the military. also no real war experience for 40 years
China has corruption, yet is able to modernize and build up the military at a pace exceeding the USA's, which spends at least 2x more.
> 2.) not enough oil to supply all the ships needed for invasion. look at how Russia's column of tanks failed in the early invasion of Ukraine.
China is one of the largest oil producers in its own right. It extracts around 4 million barrels a day. The rest is imported, but primarily used for cars -- China's industry and rail networks do not rely primarily on oil. Due to China's transition to electric vehicles, they may have hit peak imports of oil.
During the US Gulf War, even with the tyranny of distance, the DoD used about 400k barrels a day: "Even during the peak of US military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and “normal” training activities and force movements, the Defense Department’s daily average fuel use was nearly four hundred thousand barrels per day—an amount equal to slightly more than 10 percent of China’s domestic crude-oil output.38" [1]
China produces about 4 MILLION barrels a day, which is 10x 400k barrels. Also, China would be fighting on the front door step.
3.) China is broke and you need money for a war against US and Japan.
China has MULTIPLE TRILLION dollar funds. Did I say MULTIPLE? [2]
Plus, there's the annual TRILLION dollar trade surplus.
4.) China imports most of its food and oil
China imports a lot, but they are self-sufficiency on a caloric basis. The oil imports are primarily for cars. The country doesn't rely on oil for industry.
5.) Taiwan has very advanced anti-ship missile systems, homegrown and from US. and once a ship is sunk near the landing, that then prevents other ship from landing, basically piling up ship corpses.
Read the Japanese government's assessment: "China’s military has the capability to land ground forces on Taiwan within as little as one week after imposing a naval blockade on the island, according to a Japanese government analysis of Chinese military exercises conducted last year." [3]
[1] - https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl...
[2] - https://www.amazon.com/Sovereign-Funds-Communist-Finances-Am...
[3] - https://japannews.yomiuri.co.jp/politics/defense-security/20...
"Reunification" DOES NOT mean the absolutely idiotic policy that US "think tankers" imagine of the PRC scheming to invade the island as soon as military might exists. We have idiots in year 2000 writing drivel like "Jiang Zemin’s desire to make reunification his legacy indicate that Taiwan will be attacked soon" [3]. Hint: no such attack took place because this mindset exists nowhere but in the minds of the retarded think-tankers.
Secession of Taiwan is absolutely a red line, but outside of a move towards secession, the peaceful development will continue.
1: "actively promote the peaceful development of cross-Strait relations" - http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/SpecialReports/2024/Celebratingth...
2: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/12/opinion/international-wor...
3: https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2000/03/how-china-will-t...
The Chinese civil war started in the 1900s, many many decades ago, not yesterday.
Every single last PRC leader has had a goal for reunification of China, including Mao, Deng, Xi, Hu, etc, etc.
Every last one of them.
The civil war didnt start yesterday.
It's basic, obvious, and rational defense policy. Everyone does it.
Why does the US have thousands and thousands of nukes? It's to ensure the destruction of any adversary in case of nuclear war.
The US isnt the only country that's entitled to an arms stockpile.
Probably few people here realize that China settled the majority of its land border disputes (12 of 14) through negotiation.
China, by and large, gave up much more territory than it acquired for each border settlement.
You might want to update your understanding of the balance of forces in Asia.
For example: "China’s military has the capability to land ground forces on Taiwan within as little as one week after imposing a naval blockade on the island, according to a Japanese government analysis of Chinese military exercises conducted last year." [1]
Only the United States military could challenge the PRC in the western Pacific. But even that is not a certainty: "Indeed, the overall balance of conventional military power along China’s borders has shifted dramatically in China’s favor." [2]
It's not the 1900s anymore. The PLA isnt a peasant army. It's every bit as modern, and in some cases more so than even the US military.
https://japannews.yomiuri.co.jp/politics/defense-security/20...
https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Media/News/News-Article-View/Articl...
I don't think it's obvious that Marilyn's interpretation is the correct one. Two possible interpretations could be equally valid.
In law we have the "rule of the last antecedent" that says descriptive clauses modify the nearest antecedent noun.
Under this interpretation "which has a goat" modifies the exemplary door "say #3". Same as saying host opens a door, for example door #3 containing a goat. It could have been say door #2 containing a car.
Marilyn's interpretation is that "which has a goat" modifies "host opens another door." Same as saying the door opened by the host always has a goat.
Language is inherently ambiguous. I don't think either interpretation is unreasonable...
I would consider both interpretations equally valid. If anything, in law we have the "rule of the last antecedent" (phrase/clause modifies nearest antecedent noun) so that the hater's interpretation could be more correct if based only on this rule.
This language is ambiguous: "host ... opens another door, say #3, which has a goat."
The two options are Marilyn's interpretation of the door always containing a goat (invariant version), or that one door he opens (say #3) just happens to contain a goat (hater's version) but it could have contained a car.
As suggested by someone below, a much clearer formation could have said "host opens a door with a goat, say door #3" to avoid this particular ambiguity.
There's also the issue of usage of "which" signifying a non-restrictive non-essential clause.
Isnt this an argument that helmets are more important for passenger vehicles? After all, car accidents cause about 10x more head trauma in the usa.
I thought they were forcing you to run some election polls.
But we did get an interesting movie out of the fake population bomb hysteria: Soylent Green.
A quick look at their site shows "battery power capacity" is measured in watts, whereas "battery energy capacity" is measured in watt-hours.
It's really silly to assume that the literal Energy Information Administration doesn't know the difference between the units of watts and watt-hours.
Battery power capacity is watts.
Battery energy capacity is watt-hours.
This article is talking about power capacity.
Like banning chewing gum. And the death penalty for bringing in drugs?
Felt compelled to comment on this.
Don't worry, i'm opinionated and give equal opportunity commenting to most everything.
This deceptive faux environmentalism just rubs me the wrong way. People are more persuaded by emotions (dead whales) than by the data and facts (nuke asia if you want to stop the majority of ocean garbage).
Fishing gear killed the whale. Coca-cola has nothing to do with it.
If you want to rid the ocean of the vast majority of its trash, station a person to monitor each fishing boat, and permenently plug up all the rivers in asia that empty into the oceans. The vast majority of ocean garbage comes from asian rivers and fishing boats.