Nominal GDP is mostly based on finance. Energy consumption by country is a much better indicator of industrial strenght and the size of the economy.
PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency
- Thread starter pugachev_diver
- Start date
FriedRiceNSpice
Captain
What policymakers in Washington believe should not be confused with what those policymakers want people to believe. While none of us are aware of Washington's actual strategy and motivations, I doubt that anyone in Washington actually believes that the US can suppress China's technological advancement for any meaningful amount of time. In fact, I believe American policies are in fact a response to the realization that Chinese technological independence is an inevitability, and the economic consequences of no longer being able to dominate the high tech market globally.
US actions immediately preceding the chip sanctions reveal its true intentions, preventing Chinese tech companies from taking over traditionally US dominated markets (ie Huawei in telecommunications and consumer electronic devices). However, as the US had no alternatives ready that it could supply to those markets, it needed to buy time to give US controlled companies the time to catch up. The US economy relies on bringing in money via profits and investment from overseas markets in order to prop up an otherwise relatively uncompetitive economy. By delaying Chinese competition for a time, the US hopes it will have time to exert sufficient influence and coercion on countries within its traditional markets in order to continue maintaining its current economic system, and in order to develop alternatives to Chinese technological products that it would need to be able to offer to those nations. The narrative spun by the US is part of its influence/coercion campaign. After all, the US simply cannot tell those countries, "We need the money so we can continue to be rich, so don't buy Chinese alternatives."
Nominal GDP is a meaningless statistic, and China should not plan to proactively start anything kinetic regardless.
Last edited:
I beg to differ. Losing the entire 7th fleet + all the bases with 2IC + all of JSDF would basically handicap US military to a fight where they have to deal with tyranny of long distance.
the idea that US military would want that is quite amusing
solarz
Brigadier
What I find more amusing is that you think wars will go the way you predict.
Lavrov said on the first day of the invasion that Ukraine's air defenses have been completely neutralized.
Losing those assets/capabilities would end the war!
Poor example as only Indians are more delusional than Russians!
It's best that you go back and read these things. US military's biggest concern is that China normalizes military maneuvers around Taiwan, which would make it next to impossible for them to predict when a real attack would happen. There are tremendous advantages to firing the first shot. Which is why if PLA does decide to go forward with a conflict, it would be foolish to not launch the first attack. It would significantly improve their chances. Which is why us military would not want that. Why even the stupid politicians would not want that. But if you keep on insisting that us military wants to hurt their own chances, then there is no point for me to keep discussing this.
D
Deleted member 24525
Guest
It's absurd to put the contemporary PRC on the same level as the RF. Completely different worlds in terms of capabilities, resources, and political systems.
Pre-emptive strike!
However, the politics of your targets are tricky.
It would have to be an extremely intense politico/economic environment to provoke/justify that gambit.
Idiot Biden might help us get there, if he keeps making statements like the one he made, today!
Last edited:
I think the deference exhibited, and patience advocated, by some, here, is based more in their own financial interests than in any ‘loyalty’ to a Chinese national agenda. They make money regardless of U. S. hegemonic domination, and, maybe, even because of it.