China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread

[weig2000]

Ultimately in final analysis with regards to TW red line, China will do what China will do, and US will do what US will do... neither can stop the other irrespective of one anothers so called calculations...

Unfortunately this may lead to wwiii and MAD/end of world, but that is not the worst case scenario... the worst case is for China to cave and all 1.6 billion Chinese get enslaved by Anglo west while American homeland remains untouched....

As I have always said, if the US decided it has got one good reason to risk MAD in order to prevent China's reunification of Chinese territory Taiwan, then China would have at least one million reasons to do so.

In order to avoid a WWIII or the end of world, one side or both sides would have to back off from the edge of the cliff. And China will NOT be the one, if the result is the loss of Taiwan.

 

[Richard Santos]

the truth is there is only statements and propaganda, there really has never been any actual Chinese behavior, by current or past governments, that convincingly shows that her government, this one or any other, would genuinely risk total destruction of the entire nation in the interest of asserting control over a dubious province without which the nation has fared quite well.

 

[Richard Santos]

As I have always said, if the US decided it has got one good reason to risk MAD in order to prevent China's reunification of Chinese territory Taiwan, then China would have at least one million reasons to do so.

In order to avoid a WWIII or the end of world, one side or both sides would have to back off from the edge of the cliff. And China will NOT be the one, if the result is the loss of Taiwan.

The US bears no real risk of her own destruction in her interaction with China in the past, or now, and would not bear any such risk for a substantial window of time yet.

 

[9dashline]

the truth is there is only statements and propaganda, here really has never been any actual Chinese behavior, by current or past governments, that convincingly shows that her government, this one or any other, would genuinely risk total destruction of the entire nation in the interest of asserting control over a dubious province without which the nation has fared quite well.

Based on this logic, US should be willing to give up Texas to the Chinese once China achieves true MAD and blackmails US with nuclear extinction of entire world if America doesnt give up the Lone Star state? After all, losing one state and getting to keep 49 states is better than ending up with zero.

 

[Richard Santos]

Based on this logic, US should be willing to give up Texas to the Chinese once China achieves true MAD and blackmails US with nuclear extinction of entire world if America doesnt give up the Lone Star state? After all, losing one state and getting to keep 49 states is better than ending up with zero.

No, the idea of being forced to give up something one genuinely possesses is of order of magnitude greater existential threat to what is left than being forced to not seize what one does not actually possess.

So the US being forced to give up Texas and China being forced not to take Taiwan are totally different in terms of how much threat acquiescence poses to what each side has remaining. Therefore the rational willingness of each side to risk what is left to hold the line would be dramatically different.

 

[9dashline]

No, the idea of being forced to give up something one genuinely possesses is of order of magnitude greater existential threat to what is left than being forced to not seize what one does not actually possess.

So the US being forced to give up Texas and China being forced not to take Taiwan are totally different in terms of how much threat acquiescence poses to what each side has remaining. Therefore the rational willingness of each side to risk what is left to hold the line would be dramatically different.

Its really just boils down to hard power. Native Americans should have been much less willing to give up their land than the English settlers were to take that land. And at one point in time Texas belonged to Mexico but as I recall Santa Anna was forced at gunpoint to cede the state and all the way to California to the US...

Of course in the nuclear age the entire calculation changes... Soon the dynamic will be such that China will also have the capability to effectively end the world (and certainly end the US) much like US can do the same in return....

So if the US really thinks China will just let them take TW and use it as another military base (and nuclear tipped at that) then its better for China to die with honor (implication being it will take US and much of Western world down with it) than to suffer the alternative of being enslaved again this time with permanent nuclear blackmail by US, and if China loses or gives up TW, its fair to say SCS will turn US as well, China wont even have a navy much less a blue water one that can get out to Pacific etc and BRI will be dismantled in a series of unequal and humiliating treaties... therefore under this analysis by your own metric of what constitutes unacceptable compromise, a loss of TW for China would be far more devastating than for the US who has never had a claim on it in the first place. Here loss by China means closing the civil war ambiguity etc in anything other than total victory, as surely you dont pretend that America ever had a rightful claim to the island.

China losing TW is precisely an order of magnitude greater existential threat to China than the US not being able to have it would be to the US.

 

[Sleepyjam]

The US bears no real risk of her own destruction in her interaction with China in the past, or now, and would not bear any such risk for a substantial window of time yet.

Wrong, there is a high risk of destruction for the US if it goes to war with China. In fact they are more desperate at avoiding a war than China is.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

The US bears no real risk of her own destruction in her interaction with China in the past, or now, and would not bear any such risk for a substantial window of time yet.

Just because you assert it doesn't make it true.

 

[Overbom]

Its really just boils down to hard power. Native Americans should have been much less willing to give up their land than the English settlers were to take that land. And at one point in time Texas belonged to Mexico but as I recall Santa Anna was forced at gunpoint to cede the state and all the way to California to the US...

Of course in the nuclear age the entire calculation changes... Soon the dynamic will be such that China will also have the capability to effectively end the world (and certainly end the US) much like US can do the same in return....

So if the US really thinks China will just let them take TW and use it as another military base (and nuclear tipped at that) then its better for China to die with honor (implication being it will take US and much of Western world down with it) than to suffer the alternative of being enslaved again this time with permanent nuclear blackmail by US, and if China loses or gives up TW, its fair to say SCS will turn US as well, China wont even have a navy much less a blue water one that can get out to Pacific etc and BRI will be dismantled in a series of unequal and humiliating treaties... therefore under this analysis by your own metric of what constitutes unacceptable compromise, a loss of TW for China would be far more devastating than for the US who has never had a claim on it in the first place. Here loss by China means closing the civil war ambiguity etc in anything other than total victory, as surely you dont pretend that America ever had a rightful claim to the island.

China losing TW is precisely an order of magnitude greater existential threat to China than the US not being able to have it would be to the US.

China will gladly take the US and its puppets for a nuclear war if they dont step down from Taiwan

What do you think is the reason that China is now ramping up nuclear warhead production...

When China feels comfortable about nuclear parity, around 2025, it will start the reunification process while giving an ultimatum to the West

 

[antiterror13]

Based on this logic, US should be willing to give up Texas to the Chinese once China achieves true MAD and blackmails US with nuclear extinction of entire world if America doesnt give up the Lone Star state? After all, losing one state and getting to keep 49 states is better than ending up with zero.

I am confused .. where did you learn that logic?