Yes a better analogy would be the ongoing Armenian–Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh. Russia very wisely doesn't think a refusal to defend Armenian control over Nagorno-Karabakh means the collapse of CSTO and end of Russian influence in Caucasus. It's only American hubris that tricks them into thinking a final resolution to the Chinese civil war in Beijing's favor means the end of American influence in Asia-Pacific. It's especially laughable when none of America's allies in the region wants to get militarily involved in a conflict over Taiwan.
china/taiwan news
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
- Status
Yes a better analogy would be the ongoing Armenian–Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh. Russia very wisely doesn't think a refusal to defend Armenian control over Nagorno-Karabakh means the collapse of CSTO and end of Russian influence in Caucasus. It's only American hubris that tricks them into thinking a final resolution to the Chinese civil war in Beijing's favor means the end of American influence in Asia-Pacific. It's especially laughable when none of America's allies in the region wants to get militarily involved in a conflict over Taiwan.
I think you have a wrong idea about when a nuke threat can be applied. A nuke attack against another great power with 100s of nukes in ICBM is essentially similar to a suicide bombing. People do not commit suicide bombing unless their situation so desperate that not using suicide bombing is as good as dying. Would a rational person kill themselves just cause they have vital interest in saving another friend? Absolutely not. They might say they will, to try to cause the attacker to feel fear. But when push comes to shove. No one will commit a suicide attack if they are completely safe.
Now US might say that they will attack Soviet Union with Nukes if Sovet Union attacked Europe. But will they really? They might say they want to commit suicide to save Europeans but will they really? I don't think so for one minute. The Europeans might commit a suicide attack by attacking the Soviet Union since not doing so means getting taken over by Soviet Union and losing control over your fate. But even that is not guaranteed.
When faced with a hopeless situation of defeat, most soldiers do not become suicidal and try to take out the enemy. They mostly surrender. Why? Because if they surrender there is a strong chance the other party will allow them to live. So, why commit suicide if there is a chance of survival.
That's why Nukes are paper tigers. They are only good as deterrent against another person using nukes on you. But it is very hard to justify a nuke attack first just to save your ally when you are guaranteed to get nuked and get totally destroyed in return.
If nukes were an absolute guarantee then US and nato would not have created a massive conventional army to field it in Europe.
Let's give another analogy. Suppose China has absolute vital interest in kicking US out of Japan. It threatens US to take all its forces out of Japan or China will attack US with a massive Nuke barrage in its cities. Would US believe that China would do such an attack that is essentially suicidal? Would US take its forces out since its absolutely of vital interest to China compared to US?
Nuke threats are essentially bluffs. You can make them, but anyone can see how likely it is to execute such a bluff that will cause self-destruction for the supposed threat maker.
That's why I said, US so called nuclear umbrella is a myth. Non existent. Its a bluff. When push comes to shove. No US leader will be able to justify why America needs to commit mass suicide to save Japan or Australia or Europe from Nuke attacks. Why would you commit mass suicide when you are secure behind two oceans? I don't think so.
The US would only use nukes against a country which can't retaliate. It's as simple as that.
Now that China has the DF-31AG and DF-41 missiles the entire US can be targeted. Even if you assume China only has 200 warheads it would be enough to wipe 90% of the population of the US out of the map. I doubt China only has 200 warheads.
Now that China has the DF-31AG and DF-41 missiles the entire US can be targeted. Even if you assume China only has 200 warheads it would be enough to wipe 90% of the population of the US out of the map. I doubt China only has 200 warheads.
Not sure what is with all the arguments. A conflict against China at her coastal border means a land-based power against navy+air force of the opposing side. No matter how advance the radar or missiles the non-land side has, they are add a total disadvantage due to sheer difference in quantity of ammunitions, how much damage do you think US navy can sustain against the entire DongFeng arsenal ? That is why US is desperate enough to withdraw from the land-based missile system agreement with Russia, with the aim of installing some in possibly Japan. I can only think of Japan, it will be out of question for S.Korea. Even for Japan, they have to consider the risk of tying their fate to US policy of aggression against China at China's border. What if US lost and abandoned the the conflict in taiwan straits ? Japan will be left alone to face the full-blown retaliation of not ONLY CHINA, but also her historic nemesis inclusing Russia and both Koreas.
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
What paper? Chinese law says it is. That's the only paper that controls the Chinese military.
Well, you know, what's right and what's convenient and nice aren't the same thing; that's why they're different words.
Worry about your Europe and we will worry about our China.
Your welcome for the education.
I guess a gorilla that rips your arms off and beats you to death with them for making faces and pounding your chest at him is also indoctrinated with CCP culture and propaganda then LOL.
You know what stands out the most here? You think you're asking a challenging, thought provoking question in why Chinese people feel strongly about going to war over Taiwan but it's one of the stupidest questions there are. Why does any country go to war to protect its territory? Why do people want to right wrongs and take revenge when what's done is already done? Your question is that level of stupid.
So instead of being brainwashed by MSM, you were brainwashed by the Taiwanese? LOLOL No firsthand experience but oh so sure of yourself just from hearing about a man from his enemy. Is that supposed to make me think that you are more capable of independent thought than being brainwashed by your surroundings? LOLTo be honest, I think we had no more than 2 pages on China in all my classes combined. For the average person, it's just a distant and mysterious land. I was fortunate to meet quite a few Chinese through my studies and work, and I've learned that yes, they can be quite touchy on certain topicsI only got interested into China in a more meaningful way after visiting Taiwan and hearing the rather negative view the Taiwanese I met there had of China. To be honest, up till then I had a very positive view of China. Now it's a wash.
Only the weak covet your opinion. China achieves our goals on our own power whether or not people like you agree.
Don't run before you can walk. You need to study common sense before you study foreign culture and history. You don't even know why generally people defend national territory; what can you learn without such a basic foundation in human psyche?
Oh the most illuminating book on Chinese people was written by a white guy? LOLOL You do really enjoy regurgitated and fed information (by familiar sources nonetheless) over primary sources that require self-interpretation, don't you?
You simply need to read. China's generals have already said we will go to nuclear war with the United States over Taiwan if needed. Death before dishonor. However, the US doesn't quite agree and isn't in step with your imagination. They maintain strategic ambiguity, AKA "only if we think it's easy/convenient at the time."
TW island is critical to US' interest, if you define the interest as being the hegemon power of Eastern Pacific. But what about the core interest ? Does the average Americans care enough about TW island, does the status of TW island affect US mainland security ?
Now to the Mainland China side. Taiwan's reunification is the CORE Chinese interest. Which is why China only have official relation with nations that adhere by the One China Policy. Anymore doubt to clarify ?
I'm glad you caught up with discussion. This is what the discussion is all about. Our friend here thinks he knows China and Taiwan and Chinese people better than anyone else, through having worked in Taiwan and have few friends that are Chinese.
Despite, all his knowledge of all things chinese, he fails to realise what you posted above. And decided to show all his ignorance, prejudice and bigotry for all to see.
You are smart enough to understand this is a poor analogy. Nationalism is not innate. It’s an idea, and a relatively new one at that. Compared to Europe, it appeared quite late in China. There was no shortage of Chinese people who were more than happy to work for the British as guides and transport workers during the Opium wars and even as late as the Boxer uprising.
You clamor about your wokeness, but you’re just asleep at wheel. I grew up in a country at war. I can assure you there is nothing glorious about war. It’s an ugly affair, with confused people on both sides, often acting out as animals. People like you disgust me.
I listened to both sides. I studied the matter from three sides (PRC, ROC, US), and continue to do so.
But you see, that’s the thing. I am conditioned to look at the world from an individual’s perspective. You take the collective approach, seeking strength in group identity, never once letting slip the opportunity to reinforce your position as that shared by 1.4bn Chinese. That’s why I cannot take you nor your wokeness seriously. You just come across as a drone and an emotionally immature person.
My country won its independence through war. I know more about it than you can imagine.
If you weren’t blinded by racism you would’ve at least bothered to read a few pages of the book and then marvel at the stupidity of what you just wrote.
- Status