Miscellaneous News

Bellum_Romanum

Bellum_Romanum

Brigadier
Registered Member
New Demand and Filing from a leading U.S. Think Tank arguing for the banning of any Chinese made displays in the U.S. both for the interest of National Security and Economic development. China is guilty of massive IP THEFT as an example Samsung has won a court cases in South Korea that support the accusations of tech stealing.

Chinese display producers have also benefited from extensive foreign IP theft. In July 2023, Korea’s Supreme Court found executives and employees of Toptec, a key input supplier to the display industry, guilty of leaking key technological assets to BOE. In July 2024, a former Samsung engineer was sentenced to six years in a South Korean prison for leaking $24.5 million worth of display technology secrets to China.3 And now, the ITC’s administrative law judge has determined that certain Chinese displays infringe Samsung Display’s U.S. patents relating to innovations in active matrix organic light-emitting diode (“AMOLED”) display technology.

The rest of the report can be read here:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
FairAndUnbiased

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
quim said:
No. If Taiwan still exists and controls its territory, either China vs Taiwan is a stalemate or it is a defeat for China.

So you think China is losing territory to Taiwan? Ukraine's claim is the same as China's claim in this matter.

In Iraq, the US invaded the territory with ease, but were unable to win, so they reached a stalemate and today the US continues to have military bases controlling territories in Iraq, sharing the territory with the Shiite government. It's a stalemate in every sense.
Click to expand...
It seems you don't recognize any situation besides total win, total loss and stalemate. Let me introduce you to the idea of a partial victory. Not an unconditional victory but one side comes out on top.

Taiwan situation:

1. The Taiwan situation exists because of the civil war. It makes sense to evaluate the entire civil war in that case.

2. The goal of RoC was elimination of the PRC. The goal of the PRC was elimination of the RoC. The way to eliminate another polity is to reduce their area of control to 0. I am not aware of an alternative method.

3. PRC reduced area of RoC control by 99% before the conflict was frozen. Therefore the PRC has a partial win, as the settlement is favorable, but not complete. It is not a stalemate.

4. A stalemate implies that the 2 parties came out equal. Chiang did not want to lose 99% of his territory. He was not better off now (defined as closer to completion of goals) than he was at the start of the conflict. Mao did want to gain 99% of China's territory. Mao is better off than he was at the start of the conflict. Therefore Mao won.

Iraq situation:

1. The Iraq situation exists because the US wanted more control over Iraqi oil and to install a US friendly government. The US already had bases throughout Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Jordan. Iran's primary goal was elimination of a hostile Iraqi government and the establishment of a pro Iranian, pro Shia government. That had been its goal since 1980 with the start of the Iran Iraq War. It's secondary goal was to prevent the US from achieving any conflicting goals.

2. Today the Shia government has become entrenched and China is one of the biggest buyers of Iraqi oil. The US is a negligible customer of Iraqi oil. US bases are redundant, but it is a minor win.

3. Since the US achieved some goals in Iraq, but Iran achieved all goals in Iraq except for prevention of US achieving all goals, this is a partial Iranian victory.

In fact I'll comment on Kosovo too. If it's a stalemate then Yugoslavia and NATO walked away equal. But they didn't, as Yugoslavia no longer exists but NATO does and now includes former Yugoslavian states. It doesn't matter that Serbia still exists as a rump state, NATO won most of its goals.
 
FairAndUnbiased

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
An analogy:

If there is only total win, total loss and stalemate in health, then either someone is a top athlete, exactly average or dead.

There is no such thing as an amateur athlete, or someone really sick but alive, they're all average since they're clearly neither a top athlete or dead.

The cancer patient and the college basketball player are equal. Not NBA means average or dead. They're not dead, thus they're average.
 
Q

quim

Junior Member
Registered Member
FairAndUnbiased said:
It seems you don't recognize any situation besides total win, total loss and stalemate. Let me introduce you to the idea of a partial victory. Not an unconditional victory but one side comes out on top.

Taiwan situation:

1. The Taiwan situation exists because of the civil war. It makes sense to evaluate the entire civil war in that case.

2. The goal of RoC was elimination of the PRC. The goal of the PRC was elimination of the RoC. The way to eliminate another polity is to reduce their area of control to 0. I am not aware of an alternative method.

3. PRC reduced area of RoC control by 99% before the conflict was frozen. Therefore the PRC has a partial win, as the settlement is favorable, but not complete. It is not a stalemate.

4. A stalemate implies that the 2 parties came out equal. Chiang did not want to lose 99% of his territory. He was not better off now (defined as closer to completion of goals) than he was at the start of the conflict. Mao did want to gain 99% of China's territory. Mao is better off than he was at the start of the conflict. Therefore Mao won.

Iraq situation:

1. The Iraq situation exists because the US wanted more control over Iraqi oil and to install a US friendly government. The US already had bases throughout Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Jordan. Iran's primary goal was elimination of a hostile Iraqi government and the establishment of a pro Iranian, pro Shia government. That had been its goal since 1980 with the start of the Iran Iraq War. It's secondary goal was to prevent the US from achieving any conflicting goals.

2. Today the Shia government has become entrenched and China is one of the biggest buyers of Iraqi oil. The US is a negligible customer of Iraqi oil. US bases are redundant, but it is a minor win.

3. Since the US achieved some goals in Iraq, but Iran achieved all goals in Iraq except for prevention of US achieving all goals, this is a partial Iranian victory.

In fact I'll comment on Kosovo too. If it's a stalemate then Yugoslavia and NATO walked away equal. But they didn't, as Yugoslavia no longer exists but NATO does and now includes former Yugoslavian states. It doesn't matter that Serbia still exists as a rump state, NATO won most of its goals.
Click to expand...
A stalemate is an inconclusive outcome in which both sides claim partial victory or nothing at all.

In the Chinese Civil War, the PRC's victory was nearly universally accepted.

But today the status of Taiwan and the cross-strait relations are a situation universally accepted as a stalemate. Where Taiwan is a de facto independent territory but not recognized by China.

But by your logic China really lost Taiwan if control of the territory is the most important aspect.

A victory of the independence movement and a defeat for the PRC China.

And by that logic, the Ukrainians are partially winning, achieving most of their objectives, maintaining 83% of their sovereign territory and armed by NATO.

And the Russians are partially losing by securing only 17% of the territory and failing in most of their objectives.

Or both may claim partial victory or partial defeat. This is essentially inconclusive.
 
Q

quim

Junior Member
Registered Member
FairAndUnbiased said:
An analogy:

If there is only total win, total loss and stalemate in health, then either someone is a top athlete, exactly average or dead.

There is no such thing as an amateur athlete, or someone really sick but alive, they're all average since they're clearly neither a top athlete or dead.

The cancer patient and the college basketball player are equal. Not NBA means average or dead. They're not dead, thus they're average.
Click to expand...
I will ask you a sincere question: is China losing to India because Arunachal Pradesh is controlled by the Indian government?
 
Last edited:
FairAndUnbiased

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
quim said:
A stalemate is an inconclusive outcome in which both sides claim partial victory or nothing at all.

In the Chinese Civil War, the PRC's victory was nearly universally accepted.

But today the status of Taiwan and the cross-strait relations are a situation universally accepted as a stalemate. Where Taiwan is a de facto independent territory but not recognized by China.

But by your logic China really lost Taiwan if control of the territory is the most important aspect.

A victory of the independence movement and a defeat for the PRC China.

And by that logic, the Ukrainians are partially winning, achieving most of their objectives, maintaining 83% of their sovereign territory and armed by NATO.

And the Russians are partially losing by securing only 17% of the territory and failing in most of their objectives.

Or both may claim partial victory or partial defeat. This is essentially inconclusive.
Click to expand...

Taiwan was pursuing 100% total conquest of mainland China until 1976. It was forced to give up this goal because it was laughably unrealistic based on its weakness.

In fact Taiwan used the exact same cope as you proposed: when it was almost entirely defeated, and could not change its defeat, it changed its goals so that it would look like a stalemate under its new goals. But the very fact that it was forced to reduce the ambitions of their goals is proof that they lost. Otherwise why not push for 100% conquest?

Ukraine's original goals as stated in 2022 by Zelensky himself was retaking all Russian occupied regions in Crimea, Donbass, Kherson and Zaporozhye, eliminating the Russian military in Ukraine and joining NATO. Citations available on request.

In 2024, his only remaining goal is joining NATO. He has dropped his goals for Crimea and Donbass.

Putin has not changed his goals. It is still demilitarization of Ukraine, preventing it from joining NATO, keeping Crimea and annexation of Donbass, Thereon and Zaporozhye.

Putin has partially achieved his goals. He did not entirely demilitarize Ukraine but has severely harmed its military, and has taken most of the 4 regions, but not all. Ukraine has not joined NATO.

Zelensky has achieved 0 of his goals. He has not eliminated the Russian military or harmed its ability to project strategic power, retaken any of the 4 regions he set out to do or joined NATO.

Is this a stalemate? Doesn't look like it. Zelensky achieved a lower % of his goals, as in 0%, vs Putin, who achieved a nonzero % of his goals.
 
FriedButter

FriedButter

Colonel
Registered Member
Maikeru said:
If anybody here is sorting out 2025 bingo cards then I want "US invades Greenland" along with "US invades Panama" on mine. Fanx

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1871005304173088939

Edit: Oh, yeah, I want "US invades Mexico" as well. In fact, just "US invades..." will do:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1870897328309293249
Click to expand...

Can’t wait for the modern timeline expansion pack.

Final.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top