Miscellaneous News
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
I already said it: Taiwan.
Taiwan is a maritime fight. Not a land war. Therefore it'll be a naval and aerial conflict, and guess what, South Korea and Japan are both fairly competent naval and air powers. Both host US bases, as well, which means that if China starts bombing them directly, it'll trigger a war with the US.
I'm saying - this is the way they intend to engage - South Korea and Japan sail to Taiwan's defense on the front lines, while the US sits back and plays support. China is forced to fight those navies and air forces with one hand tied behind its back because if it starts bombing their bases, that triggers an all-out war vs. the US. So either China bites the bullet and goes all-out (low/moderate chance of victory) against the entire alliance, or (ideally for the US) it tries to do what Russia is doing in Ukraine, which is fight with one hand tied behind its back while the US supports from a distance. The latter may seem an "easier" fight but it is ultimately even more draining and beneficial to the US.
Did nuclear game theory ever factor in a narcissistic generation that grew up with the threat of nuclear annihilation, and now in their sunset years and impending old age and death (the octogenarian Pelosis and Bidens), and are adopting an apres mois, la deluge view towards the rest of the nation? The anglos are a death cult, exemplified by their 'green' political groups infesting other western nations steering them back to the palaeolithic and 0 human births.
Musk leads the charge for sending american factories and jobs to China; that's an entire generation of Chinese who will work those factories, build their lives with that money and raise their kids to build China, build back better.
Then it cannot be helped. If those country attack China directly, it is an act of war. North Korea will mobilize and start a land war. Either US accept this fact, or it too must enter a state of war on China.
This is not happening. That is like saying Russia will not declare war if entire NATO airforce and navy start shooting Russia directly. This is a total war scenario.
Three words: false flag attack
I don't get this kind of wishful thinking. If the US wants a China-Japan war they will find a way to trigger it. This is what Xi meant when he said to prepare for the worst case scenario.
Japan entering the war is not certain, but it is plausible. But that can be hardly called the worst case scenario. It cannot be worst case scenario unless USA is directly involved.
I've had a senior care patient fall on me like that before. I didn't know it at the time, but he was suffering a minor stroke.
On Pride month, the battle over LGBT— sorry, LGBTQ— sorry, LGBTQQIP2SAA+, continues...
Russia's been shot at for a year and still hasn't declared Ukraine to be an actual war. Ukrainian drones are literally flying into Moscow to assassinate Putin and he's still not declaring war. NATO trainers, advisors, spy planes, mercenaries, and special forces are operating in Ukraine right at this moment.
Countries will thread this needle every time when they want to avoid escalation. The US is betting that China won't be willing to escalate and so it can get away with having its East Asian vassals do the bulk of the work. It's betting that any conflict over Taiwan will be a limited conflict that is fought primarily over military targets. In such scenarios, South Korea and Japan can do a lot of damage without the US formally joining the war (because its defense treaties with Japan and South Korea only requires it to defend their land; it doesn't require it to defend their military assets sent against China).
I can easily see a future in which the US states, "we fully support our allies' committed defense of Taiwan and will do everything in our power to help them succeed. However, rest assured, American troops will not be fighting China."
When that Ukrainian S300 fell in Poland and took out that tractor and farmers was that a false flag attack? Then what happened did NATO and Russia go to war?
Yes I agree finding/making excuses for a war is easy, the hard part is the willpower and capability to actually carry out a war. Do you suppose in PLA's war-planning for reunification they don't take into account the potential need to remove all US bases this side of the pacific ocean? Or do you doubt the PLA's ability to carry that out? Because if US doubt the PLA they've already created their Casus Belli. The fact that they haven't should tell you something about their calculation of PLA capabilities.
Like if you look at all that stuff that USN and USAF are putting into action in western pacific, is that done with the goal of becoming more lethal to better fight PLA (offensive) or how to better survive and fight on under overwhelming PLARF fire (defensive)?
Last edited:
It's called LETTUCE LOGIC