Just watched The Apprentice because one of the contestants is from my home town. Would not give house room to any of them.
Either there are lot of utterly self confident, bullshitting, puffed up, over made up, thick as mince millennials who couldn't manage a lemonade stall floating around or the BBC production team are incredibly good at finding them.
No Apprentice, No Trump POTUS, No threat to democracy
Lesson. TV moguls be careful who you cast in reality shows.
Thank god we haven't followed some people's wishes and got rid of the Queen for an elected president.
Djokovic’s dad showing a laudable sense of proportion… Shame on them, the entire freedom-loving world should rise together with Serbia. They crucified Jesus and now they are trying to crucify Novak the same way.
St Petersburg, where Putin hails from and which was the launchpad of his political career, is very close to Finland. He surely knows the country well, as do many Russians who have property there as an insurance against arbitrary expropriation by the Russian state. So unlike Estonia, say, there is unlikely to be a pretext for Russian aggression coming from ethnic Russians living in the country. The other route, namely "provocation" is also very unlikely as the Finns know how to tread a delicate path with their unpredictable neighbour, indeed it has been the basis of their foreign policy, sometimes labelled unkindly "Finlandization".
In WW2, the Finns deliberately did not attack Leningrad for that same reason. If they had of done so, the city would likely have fallen quite quickly.
I doubt it. They endured and survived a horrendous prolonged siege from the Germans, obviously a more formidable force than the Finns.
The historical record on this is crystal clear: Hitler and the OKH kept encouraging - urging - begging Marshal Mannerheim and the Finns to attack Leningrad from the North. In vain.
The Finns knew they would always have to be Russia's neigbours. Mannerheim's forebearance was natural and wise.
IIRC Mannerheim didn't want to fight the Winter War either - but the pols didn't take the Russian insecurities seriously enough.
It's not the 1940s. The situation is not similar. Taiwan has modern air defence system situated in rugged terrain with plentiful spots to hide it.
And it's the 1940s in terms of satellite and electronic measures to find and neutralise those resources. The analogy plays out both ways.
The Serbian Forces in Kosovo showed that it was trivial to hide military assets against an air only attack even if the air attack was by the most advanced sophisticated military on the planet.
You are managing to meld this weird perfect scenario for China where they are both lighting fast to overwhelm, and also slowly and methodically spread their attack out over months backed by all the latest technology that they are experts in using despite having zero adversarial use of it, a ghost in the machine cyber warfare effort to cripple the Taiwanese response and a complete network of spies throughout Taiwan ready to undermine it.
I think you have misread both what I said and what I am arguing, and in at least one case putting words in my mouth I never said. I will repeat again.
If China decides it wants to invade, and it is confident Taiwan's allies will not intervene militarily, then the key question is how far it is willing to accept losses to reach it's aims.
No one - and least of all me - is saying it would be a prefect plan. It would be a bloodbath. But force of numbers, just as they did on the Eastern front (and yes we are back to the 1940s) would win out. Eventually. The discrepancy is too big, even given the island analogy. Taiwan is not the UK of the 1940. It does not have a vastly superior fleet or a comparable air force. It is massively outnumbered.
Re the point re spies, the CCP places a great deal of emphasis on its historical actions and roots. As I said, I have no idea of any network - I find it totally bizarre you claim my words state there is a "complete network" of spies - what I said was that, given the above and their very successful usage in the Civil War plus the familial links between Taiwanese and mainland families, it would be bizarre if they did not deploy that tactic and therefore this is an unknown that could (or not) be significant.
The way to discourage Xi is to make it very openly clear we will use military force to protect Taiwan and be unambiguous. The sooner we do this, the better.
dixiedean:
There are spies and will be fifth columnists you are correct. One thing hindering this is the divergence of accents, and increasing integration of Taiwanese language terms into what really ought to now be known as Taiwanese Mandarin. Plus, of course. The total absence of short form characters on the island. Long form isn't even taught or much known on the Mainland by anyone under 60 now. So. Linguistically they are diverging. As in so, so many other ways. Ironically. It was the PRC granting easy visas to the Taiwanese some 30 odd years ago to attract investment which made many on the island actually realise how different they were. Similar race and language. Culturally alien.
Yes, again I have no clue if this is / not an issue. I agree, they wouldn't use mainlanders if they did but they would probably go down the family route of pressurising Taiwanese families with relatives on the mainland. It is a tactic that worked well for the Chinese in helping to steal US military and technology secrets in the States using ethnic Chinese employees.
Only two Republicans observed the silence for the Capitol Police officers who died a year ago. Dick and Liz Cheney. But hey, both sides are as bad as each other.
It's incredible sad, but it is hard to see how the US survives as a single entity much longer.
How on earth would it divide? Geographically? There is not an obvious north/south split as there was in the First Civil War
There are plenty of Trump voters in the coastal states and plenty of Dems in the flyover states
They will have to fight it out somehow, but one side will win and they will then rule the entire country
Quite amazing how we are talking about this as a real prospect: but it is
Just watched The Apprentice because one of the contestants is from my home town. Would not give house room to any of them.
Either there are lot of utterly self confident, bullshitting, puffed up, over made up, thick as mince millennials who couldn't manage a lemonade stall floating around or the BBC production team are incredibly good at finding them.
I do slightly worry sometimes. My mate's daughter has just quit her job at a gym that she has no issues with management before, because she objected to the new name of the class she had to teach... Calorie Killer.
Apparently it so deeply offensive, it is the ultimate hill to die on, that the shear mention of it in the timetable means she can no longer work there. The management said, its in the advertising, sorry that's the name for the moment.
As a name it is dumb and out of date, but there are hills to die on and hills to die on.
Only two Republicans observed the silence for the Capitol Police officers who died a year ago. Dick and Liz Cheney. But hey, both sides are as bad as each other.
It's incredible sad, but it is hard to see how the US survives as a single entity much longer.
Is it? I think that underestimates how long an entity can eke on even if it is riddled with serious problems. More fractured places than the US have probably kept going, albeit weaker.
Off topic, re Kazakhstan, it feels like one of two things has happened:
1. The US / EU have essentially done a backroom deal with Putin that says "fine, you can intervene in Kazakhstan but the quid pro quo is no Ukraine movements (for now)"
OR
2. Putin knows Biden / the EU is so spineless that he can send his troops into Kazakhstan without serious implications, in which case he is probably going to be emboldened to do something in the Ukraine.
I hope it's the first, I fear it's the second.
An unopposed Putin incursion into Kazakhstan will also embolden Xi re Taiwan
We are beginning to see what a world Not run by the West will look like. Not pretty; quite sad
The world will miss its just and boyish master
Others have said the situation between Taiwan and Kazakhstan are different but in two key ways they are not. The first, as you pointed out, is the message of Western inertia bringing parallels with the the 1930s. The second is that both Russia and China see the respective territories as renegades that rightfully belong to their home nation.
The other way I would look at this is to say, if you are Putin or Xi, why would you NOT invade now? I would argue there might not be a better time - the US is run by a weak President (and, let's be honest, who would bet their mortgage on saying that the Chinese / Russians also don't have something on Hunter Biden - an interesting parallel with Hitler's coming to power in 1933), the EU is weak, America's allies are disheartened by its lack of spine and there are mid-terms coming up where the President's party faces electoral disaster if things continue. If I was Putin or Xi, I would be seriously tempted to call Biden's bluff.
Yes, Hitler progressively taking bits of europe that were ‘rightfully German anyway’ is a striking parallel. First the Ruhr. Then Austria and the Sudetenland. Likewise HK and Taiwan to China
Let's do "would you bet the mortgage on..." question again. How many on here would bet their mortgage that the US would be prepared to inflict severe economic sanctions on Russia if it invaded Ukraine or China intervened in Taiwan?
Well, China can't simply invade Taiwan. It's 120 miles of Ocean from China, and there aren't nice flat beaches on the China side. You would need a flotilla of landing vessels that went all the way around to the far side of the island. Plus, of course, you would need to actually build tens of thousands of barges. In secrecy.
Now, could they, if they committed, invade Taiwan?
Yes, absolutely. But it wouldn't be an "out the blue" thing, because this would be an amphibious invasion over a distance much greater than the channel with at least as many troops as the D-Day landings (against a heavily armed enemy with the latest Western fighter jets and French submarines). Sure, they could do it. But not tomorrow.
So, the question is a very different one. If China was building a force of barges and martialling them in the ports nearest Taiwan, what would the West do? And I suspect the answer is that they'd happily sell the Taiwanese lots more weapons. The French certainly would and I suspect the Americans would too. You might also see some exercises around Taiwan, that would make the Chinese job much more difficult.
If the Chinese wanted to take Taiwan, the only plausible way is via strangulation. It would be a slow uptick in diplomatic pressure; you'd refuse flights from Taiwan being able to overfly China; combined with - eventually - ships outside Taiwanese ports.
The military plans that have heard discussed (obviously I'm not privy to Chinese military plans) is, actually similar to your analogy but more with Sealion in 1940, i.e. they would establish air superiority by knocking out Taiwan's air defence systems and air force, launch cyber attacks, parachute in soldiers to take key installations and airbases, fly in more troops where possible and then would come the amphibious assaults
Now, as Crete showed in 1941, airborne landings can get very messy. However, if you also have complete air control and can fly soldiers in to captured air bases, then less so.
I'm not sure the strangulation policy would work - a lot of nations have a vested interest in making sure Taiwan stays independent and, while they might not go to war, they would support it. Look at what is happening with Lithuania and China after the former allowed Taiwan to establish relations. The US gave Lithuania a nice big juicy credit facility for a start. Better to go full in and then dare others to take military action.
Let's assume that China completely obliterates all Taiwanese air defences and Airforce in an amazing surprise attack over a hundred odd miles of flat water - bearing in mind that a great portion of the air defence material is self-mobile and so can be stashed away. To actually then land parachute troops would be a feat unmatched in modern warfare. China's paratrooper corp is, comparative to the task, tiny. Modern personal weaponry has incredible rates of fire and accuracy that would have obliterated the Crete landing. And modern advancements don't benefit the paratrooper floating through the air at all - they don't get any bonus.
An attempted paratroop invasion of Taiwan (population 24 million, area 35,000 square kilometres) By the 30-40,000 paratoopers of the PLA would be a farce of epic proportions. To try and draw parallels to Crete is, em, misguided.
Even that attack requires enormous marshalling of resources at air bases in Western China. Resources that China does not currently have.
Worth remembering that a Hercules can carry a stunning... 62 parachutists.
62.
A parachute landing requires a *lot* of planes. And it requires that pretty much all ground defences have been eliminated first. Because otherwise those floating things get lots of holes in them.
Ahem, leave the parachutists out of it for a moment and step back.
There are two questions here (1) would Taiwan's allies fight for Taiwan and (2) how far is Xi is willing to go?
If the answer to (1) is yes, then China loses - it would be severely mauled (and the US, Japanese etc have better trained troops). In that case, it's nuts for China to try.
If the answer to (1) is no, then (2) becomes the key question. Is he like Stalin or he is too fearful of the consequences?
If he is determined, even if there was no surprise attack or diminishing of capabilities, it would be very hard for Taiwan to stop the Chinese gaining air superiority even if (for some reason) the Chinese decided not to strike at the air defence systems etc etc. At some point, with enough determination, the Chinese will establish that superiority.
Once that happens, then the Chinese have a massive advantage. Essentially you can pound the ground - and the ships, naval defences etc.
One other thing which hasn't been discussed and, to be honest, I have no clue about is the amount of support China could get from inside Taiwan either from civilians or through its network. That may sound bizarre but, in the 1940s Chinese Civil War, one of the key attributes to Communist victory (and they were heavily outnumbered) was that they had an extremely successful spy / espionage network working within the Nationalists. I would doubt the Chinese have forgotten that lesson.
An additional point.
In war it is customary to seize the enemies assets.
In the case of China and the US, the US would simply indicate the US government bonds owned by China were now it's (the US) property. And tear up a huge chunk of the national debt.
However, there is a cost to that - the US loses its reputation as a 100% safe haven.
Have you ever read the "Hidden Hand" by the way. Worth a read and quite worrying about the potential infiltration tactics of China.
No, it wouldn't.
In WWI and WWII, both sides seized the assets of the other. The assets were never returned and no-one even raised the question that they might be.
During the Falklands War, the UK government seized a number of assets of the Argentine government. Including the catapults for the aircraft carrier, which happened to be in the UK for repair at the time. There is a story that they lie in a warehouse, yet.....
It is according to the customary laws of war.
I thought those were offered back some time around 2000...
Indientally, a question I have always had wrt the Argentine carrier - why was the UK sub unwilling to sink it in Argentine territorial waters.
Is there some legal impediment in time of conflict?
Only two Republicans observed the silence for the Capitol Police officers who died a year ago. Dick and Liz Cheney. But hey, both sides are as bad as each other.
It's incredible sad, but it is hard to see how the US survives as a single entity much longer.
How on earth would it divide? Geographically? There is not an obvious north/south split as there was in the First Civil War
There are plenty of Trump voters in the coastal states and plenty of Dems in the flyover states
They will have to fight it out somehow, but one side will win and they will then rule the entire country
Quite amazing how we are talking about this as a real prospect: but it is
It is beyond incredible that this is now a genuine prospect. Civil war. Or at least massive political violence.
I'm sure the will be many books and PhDs written in the future about how it came to pass. But frankly after a glass or two of wine I just blame fecking Zuckerberg and social media.
Djokovic’s dad showing a laudable sense of proportion… Shame on them, the entire freedom-loving world should rise together with Serbia. They crucified Jesus and now they are trying to crucify Novak the same way.
Just watched The Apprentice because one of the contestants is from my home town. Would not give house room to any of them.
Either there are lot of utterly self confident, bullshitting, puffed up, over made up, thick as mince millennials who couldn't manage a lemonade stall floating around or the BBC production team are incredibly good at finding them.
I do slightly worry sometimes. My mate's daughter has just quit her job at a gym that she has no issues with management before, because she objected to the new name of the class she had to teach... Calorie Killer.
Apparently it so deeply offensive, it is the ultimate hill to die on, that the shear mention of it in the timetable means she can no longer work there. The management said, its in the advertising, sorry that's the name for the moment.
As a name it is dumb and out of date, but there are hills to die on and hills to die on.
What's the issue?
Is it "killer" or suggesting that losing weight is desirable?
Just seen the redecorated No 10 flat on the news. That is going to take a bucket load of money to undo. Shudders.
Not the flat, but examples of the designer’s other work
. That's a relief. Let's hope she was restrained. Absolutely gastly. Like a 3 year old had been let loose.
That no cameras have been allowed inside the flat since, probably isn’t a good sign, however
Voters might not be impressed when they see what the £££££ has actually achieved?
Probably looks like a fin de siecle Viennese brothel in a Carry On film.
Put like that, it might be part of Boris's Operation Stay Here As Long As Possible.
"Well Liz, you could try to depose me. But if you succeed, you will have to move into the Downing Street flat, and replacing the decoration with something less headache-inducing would be awfully expensive..."
There's a good reason why decor in tied accommodation is either flimsy and bland or solid and bland.
Looks like World Affairs night tonight on PB, with our resident experts playing out their war games scenarios.
While in a parallel thread others blame well-meaning medics and scientists for a downturn in hospitality takings, which was actually due to the fact that people (the public), in light of rising and slightly scary Covid rates, followed government (i.e. politicians') advice and were cautious before Xmas, when not much was known about Omicron.
Nope. The absolute crash in hospitality takings was in good part a consequence of bizarre mixed messaging from government and its scientists. Which is one thing. Except it laid waste to thousands of bookings without any compensation offered - equivalent to the government discouraging your customers from using your services, yet offering no compensation to you for the loss of trade. Which of course you would be fine with?
I'm guessing Al doesn't work in the hospitality trade.
No, I don't. But my daughter is a chef; she's had an extraordinarily tough time over the last couple of years, and I've had to bail her out frequently.
She blames Covid, though, and she's right.
The darkly funny bit is that those that demanded no more lockdowns, got no more lockdowns. Then realised they really wanted another lockdown.....
Nope. Daft comment. This has been explained several times now.
Only two Republicans observed the silence for the Capitol Police officers who died a year ago. Dick and Liz Cheney. But hey, both sides are as bad as each other.
It's incredible sad, but it is hard to see how the US survives as a single entity much longer.
How on earth would it divide? Geographically? There is not an obvious north/south split as there was in the First Civil War
There are plenty of Trump voters in the coastal states and plenty of Dems in the flyover states
They will have to fight it out somehow, but one side will win and they will then rule the entire country
Quite amazing how we are talking about this as a real prospect: but it is
It is beyond incredible that this is now a genuine prospect. Civil war. Or at least massive political violence.
I'm sure the will be many books and PhDs written in the future about how it came to pass. But frankly after a glass or two of wine I just blame fecking Zuckerberg and social media.
Yep, social media
It's like the Chinese INVENTED it, to bring down the West, via our own cherished principles of Free Speech
I remember when we used to laugh at the Great Firewall of China, censoring, blocking and prohibiting social media. Now it seems remarkably prescient and sensible of them
No one - and least of all me - is saying it would be a prefect plan. It would be a bloodbath. But force of numbers, just as they did on the Eastern front (and yes we are back to the 1940s) would win out. Eventually. The discrepancy is too big, even given the island analogy. Taiwan is not the UK of the 1940. It does not have a vastly superior fleet or a comparable air force. It is massively outnumbered.
Re the point re spies, the CCP places a great deal of emphasis on its historical actions and roots. As I said, I have no idea of any network - I find it totally bizarre you claim my words state there is a "complete network" of spies - what I said was that, given the above and their very successful usage in the Civil War plus the familial links between Taiwanese and mainland families, it would be bizarre if they did not deploy that tactic and therefore this is an unknown that could (or not) be significant.
The way to discourage Xi is to make it very openly clear we will use military force to protect Taiwan and be unambiguous. The sooner we do this, the better.
What I'm saying is you've continually shifted how China would invade. It started off with a lighting quick Paratrooper invasion and when I pointed out how completely infeasible it was it started morphing into this slow and steady approach.
If China wanted to flatten Taiwan they could do that. But that is not an invasion, that doesn't give them control. At some point they have to get troops there and you seem to be ignoring the huge challenges of doing so even without any outside intervention from the 7th fleet. You have to describe the practical realties of this to make your invasion scenario realistic. How far Xi will go includes him actually constructing the forces necessary. If he doesn't construct the necessary forces then the 7th fleet can pop back to Hawaii for some R&R for all it matters.
And you also ignore the issue with any invasion of Taiwan. A huge chunk of the Chinese economy relies on the flow of chips from Taiwan to China. Every day that a war continues without those chips flowing is a day that factories are shut down. Anything other than a 'quick' war would lead to the shattering of the Chinese economy. A "flattened" Taiwan, pounded by ballistic missiles says would in turn devastate China.
It is in fact Taiwan's trump card. In the face of an invasion they can threaten to blow the fabs.
"What I'm saying is you've continually shifted how China would invade. "
Again, misquoting / misinterpreting. What I said was that is what I heard had been discussed not how they would invade. There is a difference. And, again, I think it would be a bloodbath.
My main point (again) was that the Chinese would, eventually, win out if they were so determined and there was no outside help - even with huge casualties - because they have far more resources than Taiwan. It is a simple numbers game. Planes, rockets, tanks, ships, missles etc. Taiwan does not have an unlimited number of air defence, sea defence missles, pilots etc. Being an island also only gives you so much protection. The Allies expected huge casualties in their planned invasion of Japan. They were still prepare to go for it.
There is also the question of whether the Taiwanese population would want to fight to the death - maybe they would, who knows?
Re the economy, my guess (and I'm not in talks with him) is that Xi cares more about being the man who reunified China rather than an economic hit which, though painful, can be rebuilt over time. And he also knows - probably rightly - that at some point the West will forgive China. just as it has done with HK and elsewhere.
No one - and least of all me - is saying it would be a prefect plan. It would be a bloodbath. But force of numbers, just as they did on the Eastern front (and yes we are back to the 1940s) would win out. Eventually. The discrepancy is too big, even given the island analogy. Taiwan is not the UK of the 1940. It does not have a vastly superior fleet or a comparable air force. It is massively outnumbered.
Re the point re spies, the CCP places a great deal of emphasis on its historical actions and roots. As I said, I have no idea of any network - I find it totally bizarre you claim my words state there is a "complete network" of spies - what I said was that, given the above and their very successful usage in the Civil War plus the familial links between Taiwanese and mainland families, it would be bizarre if they did not deploy that tactic and therefore this is an unknown that could (or not) be significant.
The way to discourage Xi is to make it very openly clear we will use military force to protect Taiwan and be unambiguous. The sooner we do this, the better.
What I'm saying is you've continually shifted how China would invade. It started off with a lighting quick Paratrooper invasion and when I pointed out how completely infeasible it was it started morphing into this slow and steady approach.
If China wanted to flatten Taiwan they could do that. But that is not an invasion, that doesn't give them control. At some point they have to get troops there and you seem to be ignoring the huge challenges of doing so even without any outside intervention from the 7th fleet. You have to describe the practical realties of this to make your invasion scenario realistic. How far Xi will go includes him actually constructing the forces necessary. If he doesn't construct the necessary forces then the 7th fleet can pop back to Hawaii for some R&R for all it matters.
And you also ignore the issue with any invasion of Taiwan. A huge chunk of the Chinese economy relies on the flow of chips from Taiwan to China. Every day that a war continues without those chips flowing is a day that factories are shut down. Anything other than a 'quick' war would lead to the shattering of the Chinese economy. A "flattened" Taiwan, pounded by ballistic missiles says would in turn devastate China.
It is in fact Taiwan's trump card. In the face of an invasion they can threaten to blow the fabs.
In the face of an invasion they’d likely be collateral damage anyway. https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2022/01/01/2003770517 … The foundries are located on the narrow plain along Taiwan’s west coast facing China, about 130km away at the nearest point. Most are close to so-called red beaches, considered by military strategists as likely landing sites for a Chinese invasion. TSMC’s headquarters and surrounding cluster of fabs in Hsinchu are just 12km from the coast.
The industry’s vulnerability was on display in July 2020, when Taiwan mobilized thousands of troops to fight off a simulated Chinese attack on Taichung, home to TSMC’s Gigafab 15, one of the foundries that make cutting-edge chips.
In the counter-invasion exercise, “enemy” paratroopers dropped on Ching Chuan Kang Air Base and captured the control tower, just a nine-minute drive from Gigafab 15. Off the coast, a virtual Chinese invasion flotilla steamed toward the city’s beaches. Fighting enveloped Taichung as Taiwanese troops and tanks counterattacked to regain control of the air base; commanders called in airstrikes, missiles and artillery, using live ammunition to pound the “invasion fleet.” The invasion was repulsed.
In mocking the exercise scenario, reports in China’s state-controlled media reinforced the potential for destruction: Waves of missile strikes would destroy Taiwanese forces before a Chinese landing, they said...
Just watched The Apprentice because one of the contestants is from my home town. Would not give house room to any of them.
Either there are lot of utterly self confident, bullshitting, puffed up, over made up, thick as mince millennials who couldn't manage a lemonade stall floating around or the BBC production team are incredibly good at finding them.
I do slightly worry sometimes. My mate's daughter has just quit her job at a gym that she has no issues with management before, because she objected to the new name of the class she had to teach... Calorie Killer.
Apparently it so deeply offensive, it is the ultimate hill to die on, that the shear mention of it in the timetable means she can no longer work there. The management said, its in the advertising, sorry that's the name for the moment.
As a name it is dumb and out of date, but there are hills to die on and hills to die on.
What's the issue?
Is it "killer" or suggesting that losing weight is desirable?
There is a movement in the fitness industry that you don't go to the gym to loss weight, you go to exercise and get stronger. Which you should fuel your body appropriately for. Thus, the focus on burning calories from the classes is wrong. And you don't "kill" calories, you obviously burn them.
But...you work somewhere....its their business, New Year is a big time for getting new custom and I presume they probably have an idea about class names that get people through the door.
And really, its not like they wanted them to scream out the name etc, it was literally just on the New Year get fit timetable advertising. The reaction apparently was as if she was being asked to teach something called "white's only" fitness.
Just seen the redecorated No 10 flat on the news. That is going to take a bucket load of money to undo. Shudders.
Not the flat, but examples of the designer’s other work
. That's a relief. Let's hope she was restrained. Absolutely gastly. Like a 3 year old had been let loose.
That no cameras have been allowed inside the flat since, probably isn’t a good sign, however
Voters might not be impressed when they see what the £££££ has actually achieved?
Probably looks like a fin de siecle Viennese brothel in a Carry On film.
I don’t remember Carry Ons being quite so sophisticated?
I should have been clearer: the interpretation of a f.d.s. V. b. in a Carry on ... it's certainly more likely than an Arne Jacobsen style total design.
Looks like World Affairs night tonight on PB, with our resident experts playing out their war games scenarios.
While in a parallel thread others blame well-meaning medics and scientists for a downturn in hospitality takings, which was actually due to the fact that people (the public), in light of rising and slightly scary Covid rates, followed government (i.e. politicians') advice and were cautious before Xmas, when not much was known about Omicron.
Nope. The absolute crash in hospitality takings was in good part a consequence of bizarre mixed messaging from government and its scientists. Which is one thing. Except it laid waste to thousands of bookings without any compensation offered - equivalent to the government discouraging your customers from using your services, yet offering no compensation to you for the loss of trade. Which of course you would be fine with?
I agree that compensation should be offered. But I strongly suspect that whatever your opinions, a large number of the public would have voted with their feet whatever the government/scientists had said, because they didn't want to catch Covid. We're not all as fearless as you. That's all. And, as I indicate elsewhere, I was indirectly affected by all this as my chef daughter was laid off two weeks before Xmas.
Only two Republicans observed the silence for the Capitol Police officers who died a year ago. Dick and Liz Cheney. But hey, both sides are as bad as each other.
It's incredible sad, but it is hard to see how the US survives as a single entity much longer.
How on earth would it divide? Geographically? There is not an obvious north/south split as there was in the First Civil War
There are plenty of Trump voters in the coastal states and plenty of Dems in the flyover states
They will have to fight it out somehow, but one side will win and they will then rule the entire country
Quite amazing how we are talking about this as a real prospect: but it is
There is, most Confederate states voted for Trump even in 2020, most Union states voted for Biden.
The divide remains there even over 150 years since Lincoln and the civil war
Reading all the posts on China and Taiwan I can’t help thinking of the fable of the North wind and the sun.
There was a point a few years ago when China looked like it could be on the (long) road to a friendly reunification with Taiwan. Once GDP got close to equal and with the mainland turning into to something vaguely like an open market (albeit not yet a democracy), you could see it being in Taiwan’s interest slowly but surely to get closer until some form of absorption. Not now: PRC has regressed into an increasingly totalitarian, crony capitalist oligarchy and is entrenching itself as the antagonist of its neighbours. Taiwan is a bit like the Chinese version of Cuba to Cold War USA.
Same with the Baltics, Ukraine and Belarus. Russia hasn’t really made much effort to endear itself to the people of those countries recently. As we know from Iraq and Afghanistan, invading is just the beginning. Things get harder from then on.
Only two Republicans observed the silence for the Capitol Police officers who died a year ago. Dick and Liz Cheney. But hey, both sides are as bad as each other.
It's incredible sad, but it is hard to see how the US survives as a single entity much longer.
How on earth would it divide? Geographically? There is not an obvious north/south split as there was in the First Civil War
There are plenty of Trump voters in the coastal states and plenty of Dems in the flyover states
They will have to fight it out somehow, but one side will win and they will then rule the entire country
Quite amazing how we are talking about this as a real prospect: but it is
Unlikely. The reality is that “states’ rights” cuts both ways, and increasingly fractured politics will see more of a concentration on politics at the state level, rather than some fanciful scheme to split up the union.
Just seen the redecorated No 10 flat on the news. That is going to take a bucket load of money to undo. Shudders.
Not the flat, but examples of the designer’s other work
. That's a relief. Let's hope she was restrained. Absolutely gastly. Like a 3 year old had been let loose.
That no cameras have been allowed inside the flat since, probably isn’t a good sign, however
Voters might not be impressed when they see what the £££££ has actually achieved?
Probably looks like a fin de siecle Viennese brothel in a Carry On film.
Put like that, it might be part of Boris's Operation Stay Here As Long As Possible.
"Well Liz, you could try to depose me. But if you succeed, you will have to move into the Downing Street flat, and replacing the decoration with something less headache-inducing would be awfully expensive..."
There's a good reason why decor in tied accommodation is either flimsy and bland or solid and bland.
It's also a lot cheaper to repaint, babies and thrown baby drink etc.
Only two Republicans observed the silence for the Capitol Police officers who died a year ago. Dick and Liz Cheney. But hey, both sides are as bad as each other.
It's incredible sad, but it is hard to see how the US survives as a single entity much longer.
How on earth would it divide? Geographically? There is not an obvious north/south split as there was in the First Civil War
There are plenty of Trump voters in the coastal states and plenty of Dems in the flyover states
They will have to fight it out somehow, but one side will win and they will then rule the entire country
Quite amazing how we are talking about this as a real prospect: but it is
It is beyond incredible that this is now a genuine prospect. Civil war. Or at least massive political violence.
I'm sure the will be many books and PhDs written in the future about how it came to pass. But frankly after a glass or two of wine I just blame fecking Zuckerberg and social media.
Yep, social media
It's like the Chinese INVENTED it, to bring down the West, via our own cherished principles of Free Speech
I remember when we used to laugh at the Great Firewall of China, censoring, blocking and prohibiting social media. Now it seems remarkably prescient and sensible of them
The first social network was arguably SixDegrees.com founded in New York City (1997). The Democratic heartland invented the bomb that blew up the Republic.
Although of course you could argue this idea was based on previous Internet communities and bulletin boards and so on.
Basically, hippies and computer scientists, all mainly from California are fundamentally to blame.
No one - and least of all me - is saying it would be a prefect plan. It would be a bloodbath. But force of numbers, just as they did on the Eastern front (and yes we are back to the 1940s) would win out. Eventually. The discrepancy is too big, even given the island analogy. Taiwan is not the UK of the 1940. It does not have a vastly superior fleet or a comparable air force. It is massively outnumbered.
Re the point re spies, the CCP places a great deal of emphasis on its historical actions and roots. As I said, I have no idea of any network - I find it totally bizarre you claim my words state there is a "complete network" of spies - what I said was that, given the above and their very successful usage in the Civil War plus the familial links between Taiwanese and mainland families, it would be bizarre if they did not deploy that tactic and therefore this is an unknown that could (or not) be significant.
The way to discourage Xi is to make it very openly clear we will use military force to protect Taiwan and be unambiguous. The sooner we do this, the better.
What I'm saying is you've continually shifted how China would invade. It started off with a lighting quick Paratrooper invasion and when I pointed out how completely infeasible it was it started morphing into this slow and steady approach.
If China wanted to flatten Taiwan they could do that. But that is not an invasion, that doesn't give them control. At some point they have to get troops there and you seem to be ignoring the huge challenges of doing so even without any outside intervention from the 7th fleet. You have to describe the practical realties of this to make your invasion scenario realistic. How far Xi will go includes him actually constructing the forces necessary. If he doesn't construct the necessary forces then the 7th fleet can pop back to Hawaii for some R&R for all it matters.
And you also ignore the issue with any invasion of Taiwan. A huge chunk of the Chinese economy relies on the flow of chips from Taiwan to China. Every day that a war continues without those chips flowing is a day that factories are shut down. Anything other than a 'quick' war would lead to the shattering of the Chinese economy. A "flattened" Taiwan, pounded by ballistic missiles says would in turn devastate China.
It is in fact Taiwan's trump card. In the face of an invasion they can threaten to blow the fabs.
"What I'm saying is you've continually shifted how China would invade. "
Again, misquoting / misinterpreting. What I said was that is what I heard had been discussed not how they would invade. There is a difference. And, again, I think it would be a bloodbath.
My main point (again) was that the Chinese would, eventually, win out if they were so determined and there was no outside help - even with huge casualties - because they have far more resources than Taiwan. It is a simple numbers game. Planes, rockets, tanks, ships, missles etc. Taiwan does not have an unlimited number of air defence, sea defence missles, pilots etc. Being an island also only gives you so much protection. The Allies expected huge casualties in their planned invasion of Japan. They were still prepare to go for it.
There is also the question of whether the Taiwanese population would want to fight to the death - maybe they would, who knows?
Re the economy, my guess (and I'm not in talks with him) is that Xi cares more about being the man who reunified China rather than an economic hit which, though painful, can be rebuilt over time. And he also knows - probably rightly - that at some point the West will forgive China. just as it has done with HK and elsewhere.
Anyone telling you there would be a paratroop led invasion of Taiwan is selling you a pup.
Only two Republicans observed the silence for the Capitol Police officers who died a year ago. Dick and Liz Cheney. But hey, both sides are as bad as each other.
It's incredible sad, but it is hard to see how the US survives as a single entity much longer.
How on earth would it divide? Geographically? There is not an obvious north/south split as there was in the First Civil War
There are plenty of Trump voters in the coastal states and plenty of Dems in the flyover states
They will have to fight it out somehow, but one side will win and they will then rule the entire country
Quite amazing how we are talking about this as a real prospect: but it is
Unlikely. The reality is that “states’ rights” cuts both ways, and increasingly fractured politics will see more of a concentration on politics at the state level, rather than some fanciful scheme to split up the union.
Dunno. This feels worse than that
And if Trump wins in 2024 (and he is ahead in notional polls right now) then who the F knows
Both sides have gone quite mad. Both sides can't help antagonising the other, because they hate their enemy, and they are full of the righteousness of their cause. Again I look at that movie, Don't Look Up, which boasted the most glittering cast assembled for a Hollywood film in years
They could have taken a measured approach. Instead they took deliberate aim at Trump and Trump voters, calling them thick white dangerous racists - yet again. Deliberately goading them.
Stupidly irresponsible. The Birth of a Nation, only directed by a liberal this time
Just watched The Apprentice because one of the contestants is from my home town. Would not give house room to any of them.
Either there are lot of utterly self confident, bullshitting, puffed up, over made up, thick as mince millennials who couldn't manage a lemonade stall floating around or the BBC production team are incredibly good at finding them.
I do slightly worry sometimes. My mate's daughter has just quit her job at a gym that she has no issues with management before, because she objected to the new name of the class she had to teach... Calorie Killer.
Apparently it so deeply offensive, it is the ultimate hill to die on, that the shear mention of it in the timetable means she can no longer work there. The management said, its in the advertising, sorry that's the name for the moment.
As a name it is dumb and out of date, but there are hills to die on and hills to die on.
Yeah, but it's quite easy to get another job now. The great resignation is on.
No one - and least of all me - is saying it would be a prefect plan. It would be a bloodbath. But force of numbers, just as they did on the Eastern front (and yes we are back to the 1940s) would win out. Eventually. The discrepancy is too big, even given the island analogy. Taiwan is not the UK of the 1940. It does not have a vastly superior fleet or a comparable air force. It is massively outnumbered.
Re the point re spies, the CCP places a great deal of emphasis on its historical actions and roots. As I said, I have no idea of any network - I find it totally bizarre you claim my words state there is a "complete network" of spies - what I said was that, given the above and their very successful usage in the Civil War plus the familial links between Taiwanese and mainland families, it would be bizarre if they did not deploy that tactic and therefore this is an unknown that could (or not) be significant.
The way to discourage Xi is to make it very openly clear we will use military force to protect Taiwan and be unambiguous. The sooner we do this, the better.
What I'm saying is you've continually shifted how China would invade. It started off with a lighting quick Paratrooper invasion and when I pointed out how completely infeasible it was it started morphing into this slow and steady approach.
If China wanted to flatten Taiwan they could do that. But that is not an invasion, that doesn't give them control. At some point they have to get troops there and you seem to be ignoring the huge challenges of doing so even without any outside intervention from the 7th fleet. You have to describe the practical realties of this to make your invasion scenario realistic. How far Xi will go includes him actually constructing the forces necessary. If he doesn't construct the necessary forces then the 7th fleet can pop back to Hawaii for some R&R for all it matters.
And you also ignore the issue with any invasion of Taiwan. A huge chunk of the Chinese economy relies on the flow of chips from Taiwan to China. Every day that a war continues without those chips flowing is a day that factories are shut down. Anything other than a 'quick' war would lead to the shattering of the Chinese economy. A "flattened" Taiwan, pounded by ballistic missiles says would in turn devastate China.
It is in fact Taiwan's trump card. In the face of an invasion they can threaten to blow the fabs.
"What I'm saying is you've continually shifted how China would invade. "
Again, misquoting / misinterpreting. What I said was that is what I heard had been discussed not how they would invade. There is a difference. And, again, I think it would be a bloodbath.
My main point (again) was that the Chinese would, eventually, win out if they were so determined and there was no outside help - even with huge casualties - because they have far more resources than Taiwan. It is a simple numbers game. Planes, rockets, tanks, ships, missles etc. Taiwan does not have an unlimited number of air defence, sea defence missles, pilots etc. Being an island also only gives you so much protection. The Allies expected huge casualties in their planned invasion of Japan. They were still prepare to go for it.
There is also the question of whether the Taiwanese population would want to fight to the death - maybe they would, who knows?
Re the economy, my guess (and I'm not in talks with him) is that Xi cares more about being the man who reunified China rather than an economic hit which, though painful, can be rebuilt over time. And he also knows - probably rightly - that at some point the West will forgive China. just as it has done with HK and elsewhere.
Anyone telling you there would be a paratroop led invasion of Taiwan is selling you a pup.
Read what Nigel said. It would be selectively targeted at seizing control of bases, not landing in the middle of Taipei.
The central point still stands - if China wants to do it enough, and the West doesn't intervene, then Taiwan will eventually lose.
Sounds like the Russian "peace keeping force" have got to work.
Sky news reported there have been decapitations.
2500 'peace keepers' in a place five times the size of France with 19m people.
Hmmm.
2500 trained, disciplined troops - willing to shoot foreigners on command - can kill an awful lot of amateur protestors and quell an awful lot of civil disorder
Only two Republicans observed the silence for the Capitol Police officers who died a year ago. Dick and Liz Cheney. But hey, both sides are as bad as each other.
It's incredible sad, but it is hard to see how the US survives as a single entity much longer.
How on earth would it divide? Geographically? There is not an obvious north/south split as there was in the First Civil War
There are plenty of Trump voters in the coastal states and plenty of Dems in the flyover states
They will have to fight it out somehow, but one side will win and they will then rule the entire country
Quite amazing how we are talking about this as a real prospect: but it is
Unlikely. The reality is that “states’ rights” cuts both ways, and increasingly fractured politics will see more of a concentration on politics at the state level, rather than some fanciful scheme to split up the union.
Dunno. This feels worse than that
And if Trump wins in 2024 (and he is ahead in notional polls right now) then who the F knows
Both sides have gone quite mad. Both sides can't help antagonising the other, because they hate their enemy, and they are full of the righteousness of their cause. Again I look at that movie, Don't Look Up, which boasted the most glittering cast assembled for a Hollywood film in years
They could have taken a measured approach. Instead they took deliberate aim at Trump and Trump voters, calling them thick white dangerous racists - yet again. Deliberately goading them.
Stupidly irresponsible. The Birth of a Nation, only directed by a liberal this time
Biden has spent a year being measured. It just led the GOP to continuing to rim 45.
Only two Republicans observed the silence for the Capitol Police officers who died a year ago. Dick and Liz Cheney. But hey, both sides are as bad as each other.
It's incredible sad, but it is hard to see how the US survives as a single entity much longer.
How on earth would it divide? Geographically? There is not an obvious north/south split as there was in the First Civil War
There are plenty of Trump voters in the coastal states and plenty of Dems in the flyover states
They will have to fight it out somehow, but one side will win and they will then rule the entire country
Quite amazing how we are talking about this as a real prospect: but it is
Unlikely. The reality is that “states’ rights” cuts both ways, and increasingly fractured politics will see more of a concentration on politics at the state level, rather than some fanciful scheme to split up the union.
Dunno. This feels worse than that
And if Trump wins in 2024 (and he is ahead in notional polls right now) then who the F knows
Both sides have gone quite mad. Both sides can't help antagonising the other, because they hate their enemy, and they are full of the righteousness of their cause. Again I look at that movie, Don't Look Up, which boasted the most glittering cast assembled for a Hollywood film in years
They could have taken a measured approach. Instead they took deliberate aim at Trump and Trump voters, calling them thick white dangerous racists - yet again. Deliberately goading them.
Stupidly irresponsible. The Birth of a Nation, only directed by a liberal this time
Biden has spent a year being measured. It just led the GOP to continuing to rim 45.
Next you will be telling us Biden is 100% mentally there...
Just watched The Apprentice because one of the contestants is from my home town. Would not give house room to any of them.
Either there are lot of utterly self confident, bullshitting, puffed up, over made up, thick as mince millennials who couldn't manage a lemonade stall floating around or the BBC production team are incredibly good at finding them.
I do slightly worry sometimes. My mate's daughter has just quit her job at a gym that she has no issues with management before, because she objected to the new name of the class she had to teach... Calorie Killer.
Apparently it so deeply offensive, it is the ultimate hill to die on, that the shear mention of it in the timetable means she can no longer work there. The management said, its in the advertising, sorry that's the name for the moment.
As a name it is dumb and out of date, but there are hills to die on and hills to die on.
What's the issue?
Is it "killer" or suggesting that losing weight is desirable?
There is a movement in the fitness industry that you don't go to the gym to loss weight, you go to exercise and get stronger. Which you should fuel your body appropriately for. Thus, the focus on burning calories from the classes is wrong. And you don't "kill" calories, you obviously burn them.
But...you work somewhere....its their business, New Year is a big time for getting new custom and I presume they probably have an idea about class names that get people through the door.
And really, its not like they wanted them to scream out the name etc, it was literally just on the New Year get fit timetable advertising. The reaction apparently was as if she was being asked to teach something called "white's only" fitness.
Kill is reasonable for calories you do not consume as part of your balanced programme.
That's what we do at Crossfit. But this is Mansfield and we don't get hung up on cosmetics.
Beats me. Didn't realise you were Crossfit bod. What do you make of Dave Castro getting the sack?
Only two Republicans observed the silence for the Capitol Police officers who died a year ago. Dick and Liz Cheney. But hey, both sides are as bad as each other.
It's incredible sad, but it is hard to see how the US survives as a single entity much longer.
How on earth would it divide? Geographically? There is not an obvious north/south split as there was in the First Civil War
There are plenty of Trump voters in the coastal states and plenty of Dems in the flyover states
They will have to fight it out somehow, but one side will win and they will then rule the entire country
Quite amazing how we are talking about this as a real prospect: but it is
Unlikely. The reality is that “states’ rights” cuts both ways, and increasingly fractured politics will see more of a concentration on politics at the state level, rather than some fanciful scheme to split up the union.
Dunno. This feels worse than that
And if Trump wins in 2024 (and he is ahead in notional polls right now) then who the F knows
Both sides have gone quite mad. Both sides can't help antagonising the other, because they hate their enemy, and they are full of the righteousness of their cause. Again I look at that movie, Don't Look Up, which boasted the most glittering cast assembled for a Hollywood film in years
They could have taken a measured approach. Instead they took deliberate aim at Trump and Trump voters, calling them thick white dangerous racists - yet again. Deliberately goading them.
Stupidly irresponsible. The Birth of a Nation, only directed by a liberal this time
Biden has spent a year being measured. It just led the GOP to continuing to rim 45.
Next you will be telling us Biden is 100% mentally there...
No one - and least of all me - is saying it would be a prefect plan. It would be a bloodbath. But force of numbers, just as they did on the Eastern front (and yes we are back to the 1940s) would win out. Eventually. The discrepancy is too big, even given the island analogy. Taiwan is not the UK of the 1940. It does not have a vastly superior fleet or a comparable air force. It is massively outnumbered.
Re the point re spies, the CCP places a great deal of emphasis on its historical actions and roots. As I said, I have no idea of any network - I find it totally bizarre you claim my words state there is a "complete network" of spies - what I said was that, given the above and their very successful usage in the Civil War plus the familial links between Taiwanese and mainland families, it would be bizarre if they did not deploy that tactic and therefore this is an unknown that could (or not) be significant.
The way to discourage Xi is to make it very openly clear we will use military force to protect Taiwan and be unambiguous. The sooner we do this, the better.
What I'm saying is you've continually shifted how China would invade. It started off with a lighting quick Paratrooper invasion and when I pointed out how completely infeasible it was it started morphing into this slow and steady approach.
If China wanted to flatten Taiwan they could do that. But that is not an invasion, that doesn't give them control. At some point they have to get troops there and you seem to be ignoring the huge challenges of doing so even without any outside intervention from the 7th fleet. You have to describe the practical realties of this to make your invasion scenario realistic. How far Xi will go includes him actually constructing the forces necessary. If he doesn't construct the necessary forces then the 7th fleet can pop back to Hawaii for some R&R for all it matters.
And you also ignore the issue with any invasion of Taiwan. A huge chunk of the Chinese economy relies on the flow of chips from Taiwan to China. Every day that a war continues without those chips flowing is a day that factories are shut down. Anything other than a 'quick' war would lead to the shattering of the Chinese economy. A "flattened" Taiwan, pounded by ballistic missiles says would in turn devastate China.
It is in fact Taiwan's trump card. In the face of an invasion they can threaten to blow the fabs.
"What I'm saying is you've continually shifted how China would invade. "
Again, misquoting / misinterpreting. What I said was that is what I heard had been discussed not how they would invade. There is a difference. And, again, I think it would be a bloodbath.
My main point (again) was that the Chinese would, eventually, win out if they were so determined and there was no outside help - even with huge casualties - because they have far more resources than Taiwan. It is a simple numbers game. Planes, rockets, tanks, ships, missles etc. Taiwan does not have an unlimited number of air defence, sea defence missles, pilots etc. Being an island also only gives you so much protection. The Allies expected huge casualties in their planned invasion of Japan. They were still prepare to go for it.
There is also the question of whether the Taiwanese population would want to fight to the death - maybe they would, who knows?
Re the economy, my guess (and I'm not in talks with him) is that Xi cares more about being the man who reunified China rather than an economic hit which, though painful, can be rebuilt over time. And he also knows - probably rightly - that at some point the West will forgive China. just as it has done with HK and elsewhere.
Anyone telling you there would be a paratroop led invasion of Taiwan is selling you a pup.
Read what Nigel said. It would be selectively targeted at seizing control of bases, not landing in the middle of Taipei.
The central point still stands - if China wants to do it enough, and the West doesn't intervene, then Taiwan will eventually lose.
Indeed, I reckon Taiwan would fold quite quickly if confronted by a real, determined Chinese attack. They don't want to commit national suicide, and in the end life under Beijing is not that bad (especially if you are ethnic Chinese, which they are)
They would lose freedom and free speech but they would otherwise carry on as now. Able to make money, live nicely, eat great food, watch lots of TV. Look at Hong Kong. You're fine and dandy, just don't get into politics
It is not like being overwhelmed by the Soviet Union and being condemned to icy penury
China will try to bully Taiwan into surrender, without actually firing a shot. That's what they did in Hong Kong, and it worked a treat
Only two Republicans observed the silence for the Capitol Police officers who died a year ago. Dick and Liz Cheney. But hey, both sides are as bad as each other.
It's incredible sad, but it is hard to see how the US survives as a single entity much longer.
How on earth would it divide? Geographically? There is not an obvious north/south split as there was in the First Civil War
There are plenty of Trump voters in the coastal states and plenty of Dems in the flyover states
They will have to fight it out somehow, but one side will win and they will then rule the entire country
Quite amazing how we are talking about this as a real prospect: but it is
Unlikely. The reality is that “states’ rights” cuts both ways, and increasingly fractured politics will see more of a concentration on politics at the state level, rather than some fanciful scheme to split up the union.
Dunno. This feels worse than that
And if Trump wins in 2024 (and he is ahead in notional polls right now) then who the F knows
Both sides have gone quite mad. Both sides can't help antagonising the other, because they hate their enemy, and they are full of the righteousness of their cause. Again I look at that movie, Don't Look Up, which boasted the most glittering cast assembled for a Hollywood film in years
They could have taken a measured approach. Instead they took deliberate aim at Trump and Trump voters, calling them thick white dangerous racists - yet again. Deliberately goading them.
Stupidly irresponsible. The Birth of a Nation, only directed by a liberal this time
Biden has spent a year being measured. It just led the GOP to continuing to rim 45.
No one - and least of all me - is saying it would be a prefect plan. It would be a bloodbath. But force of numbers, just as they did on the Eastern front (and yes we are back to the 1940s) would win out. Eventually. The discrepancy is too big, even given the island analogy. Taiwan is not the UK of the 1940. It does not have a vastly superior fleet or a comparable air force. It is massively outnumbered.
Re the point re spies, the CCP places a great deal of emphasis on its historical actions and roots. As I said, I have no idea of any network - I find it totally bizarre you claim my words state there is a "complete network" of spies - what I said was that, given the above and their very successful usage in the Civil War plus the familial links between Taiwanese and mainland families, it would be bizarre if they did not deploy that tactic and therefore this is an unknown that could (or not) be significant.
The way to discourage Xi is to make it very openly clear we will use military force to protect Taiwan and be unambiguous. The sooner we do this, the better.
What I'm saying is you've continually shifted how China would invade. It started off with a lighting quick Paratrooper invasion and when I pointed out how completely infeasible it was it started morphing into this slow and steady approach.
If China wanted to flatten Taiwan they could do that. But that is not an invasion, that doesn't give them control. At some point they have to get troops there and you seem to be ignoring the huge challenges of doing so even without any outside intervention from the 7th fleet. You have to describe the practical realties of this to make your invasion scenario realistic. How far Xi will go includes him actually constructing the forces necessary. If he doesn't construct the necessary forces then the 7th fleet can pop back to Hawaii for some R&R for all it matters.
And you also ignore the issue with any invasion of Taiwan. A huge chunk of the Chinese economy relies on the flow of chips from Taiwan to China. Every day that a war continues without those chips flowing is a day that factories are shut down. Anything other than a 'quick' war would lead to the shattering of the Chinese economy. A "flattened" Taiwan, pounded by ballistic missiles says would in turn devastate China.
It is in fact Taiwan's trump card. In the face of an invasion they can threaten to blow the fabs.
"What I'm saying is you've continually shifted how China would invade. "
Again, misquoting / misinterpreting. What I said was that is what I heard had been discussed not how they would invade. There is a difference. And, again, I think it would be a bloodbath.
My main point (again) was that the Chinese would, eventually, win out if they were so determined and there was no outside help - even with huge casualties - because they have far more resources than Taiwan. It is a simple numbers game. Planes, rockets, tanks, ships, missles etc. Taiwan does not have an unlimited number of air defence, sea defence missles, pilots etc. Being an island also only gives you so much protection. The Allies expected huge casualties in their planned invasion of Japan. They were still prepare to go for it.
There is also the question of whether the Taiwanese population would want to fight to the death - maybe they would, who knows?
Re the economy, my guess (and I'm not in talks with him) is that Xi cares more about being the man who reunified China rather than an economic hit which, though painful, can be rebuilt over time. And he also knows - probably rightly - that at some point the West will forgive China. just as it has done with HK and elsewhere.
Anyone telling you there would be a paratroop led invasion of Taiwan is selling you a pup.
Read what Nigel said. It would be selectively targeted at seizing control of bases, not landing in the middle of Taipei.
The central point still stands - if China wants to do it enough, and the West doesn't intervene, then Taiwan will eventually lose.
Indeed, I reckon Taiwan would fold quite quickly if confronted by a real, determined Chinese attack. They don't want to commit national suicide, and in the end life under Beijing is not that bad (especially if you are ethnic Chinese, which they are)
They would lose freedom and free speech but they would otherwise carry on as now. Able to make money, live nicely, eat great food, watch lots of TV. Look at Hong Kong. You're fine and dandy, just don't get into politics
It is not like being overwhelmed by the Soviet Union and being condemned to icy penury
China will try to bully Taiwan into surrender, without actually firing a shot. That's what they did in Hong Kong, and it worked a treat
Hong Kong was already part of China and became part of China by peaceful handover by Treaty from us in 1997
Just watched The Apprentice because one of the contestants is from my home town. Would not give house room to any of them.
Either there are lot of utterly self confident, bullshitting, puffed up, over made up, thick as mince millennials who couldn't manage a lemonade stall floating around or the BBC production team are incredibly good at finding them.
I do slightly worry sometimes. My mate's daughter has just quit her job at a gym that she has no issues with management before, because she objected to the new name of the class she had to teach... Calorie Killer.
Apparently it so deeply offensive, it is the ultimate hill to die on, that the shear mention of it in the timetable means she can no longer work there. The management said, its in the advertising, sorry that's the name for the moment.
As a name it is dumb and out of date, but there are hills to die on and hills to die on.
What's the issue?
Is it "killer" or suggesting that losing weight is desirable?
There is a movement in the fitness industry that you don't go to the gym to loss weight, you go to exercise and get stronger. Which you should fuel your body appropriately for. Thus, the focus on burning calories from the classes is wrong. And you don't "kill" calories, you obviously burn them.
But...you work somewhere....its their business, New Year is a big time for getting new custom and I presume they probably have an idea about class names that get people through the door.
And really, its not like they wanted them to scream out the name etc, it was literally just on the New Year get fit timetable advertising. The reaction apparently was as if she was being asked to teach something called "white's only" fitness.
Kill is reasonable for calories you do not consume as part of your balanced programme.
That's what we do at Crossfit. But this is Mansfield and we don't get hung up on cosmetics.
Beats me. Didn't realise you were Crossfit bod. What do you make of Dave Castro getting the sack?
Everyone I know who knows Crossfit over a period of time says good riddance because he had become a drag, and looks to a more professionally run future.
No one - and least of all me - is saying it would be a prefect plan. It would be a bloodbath. But force of numbers, just as they did on the Eastern front (and yes we are back to the 1940s) would win out. Eventually. The discrepancy is too big, even given the island analogy. Taiwan is not the UK of the 1940. It does not have a vastly superior fleet or a comparable air force. It is massively outnumbered.
Re the point re spies, the CCP places a great deal of emphasis on its historical actions and roots. As I said, I have no idea of any network - I find it totally bizarre you claim my words state there is a "complete network" of spies - what I said was that, given the above and their very successful usage in the Civil War plus the familial links between Taiwanese and mainland families, it would be bizarre if they did not deploy that tactic and therefore this is an unknown that could (or not) be significant.
The way to discourage Xi is to make it very openly clear we will use military force to protect Taiwan and be unambiguous. The sooner we do this, the better.
What I'm saying is you've continually shifted how China would invade. It started off with a lighting quick Paratrooper invasion and when I pointed out how completely infeasible it was it started morphing into this slow and steady approach.
If China wanted to flatten Taiwan they could do that. But that is not an invasion, that doesn't give them control. At some point they have to get troops there and you seem to be ignoring the huge challenges of doing so even without any outside intervention from the 7th fleet. You have to describe the practical realties of this to make your invasion scenario realistic. How far Xi will go includes him actually constructing the forces necessary. If he doesn't construct the necessary forces then the 7th fleet can pop back to Hawaii for some R&R for all it matters.
And you also ignore the issue with any invasion of Taiwan. A huge chunk of the Chinese economy relies on the flow of chips from Taiwan to China. Every day that a war continues without those chips flowing is a day that factories are shut down. Anything other than a 'quick' war would lead to the shattering of the Chinese economy. A "flattened" Taiwan, pounded by ballistic missiles says would in turn devastate China.
It is in fact Taiwan's trump card. In the face of an invasion they can threaten to blow the fabs.
"What I'm saying is you've continually shifted how China would invade. "
Again, misquoting / misinterpreting. What I said was that is what I heard had been discussed not how they would invade. There is a difference. And, again, I think it would be a bloodbath.
My main point (again) was that the Chinese would, eventually, win out if they were so determined and there was no outside help - even with huge casualties - because they have far more resources than Taiwan. It is a simple numbers game. Planes, rockets, tanks, ships, missles etc. Taiwan does not have an unlimited number of air defence, sea defence missles, pilots etc. Being an island also only gives you so much protection. The Allies expected huge casualties in their planned invasion of Japan. They were still prepare to go for it.
There is also the question of whether the Taiwanese population would want to fight to the death - maybe they would, who knows?
Re the economy, my guess (and I'm not in talks with him) is that Xi cares more about being the man who reunified China rather than an economic hit which, though painful, can be rebuilt over time. And he also knows - probably rightly - that at some point the West will forgive China. just as it has done with HK and elsewhere.
Anyone telling you there would be a paratroop led invasion of Taiwan is selling you a pup.
Read what Nigel said. It would be selectively targeted at seizing control of bases, not landing in the middle of Taipei.
The central point still stands - if China wants to do it enough, and the West doesn't intervene, then Taiwan will eventually lose.
Indeed, I reckon Taiwan would fold quite quickly if confronted by a real, determined Chinese attack. They don't want to commit national suicide, and in the end life under Beijing is not that bad (especially if you are ethnic Chinese, which they are)
They would lose freedom and free speech but they would otherwise carry on as now. Able to make money, live nicely, eat great food, watch lots of TV. Look at Hong Kong. You're fine and dandy, just don't get into politics
It is not like being overwhelmed by the Soviet Union and being condemned to icy penury
China will try to bully Taiwan into surrender, without actually firing a shot. That's what they did in Hong Kong, and it worked a treat
Yes it would depend on whether the population acquiesces or not. I don’t know enough to hazard a guess on this. But what history shows time and time again is that no matter how powerful the empire, if the people at its fringes don’t want you there then eventually you leave. Unless you overwhelm the local population with settlers, but that’s harder in densely populated Taiwan than empty Xinjiang or Tibet (and harder when your own population is rapidly ageing and poorer than the host population).
Only two Republicans observed the silence for the Capitol Police officers who died a year ago. Dick and Liz Cheney. But hey, both sides are as bad as each other.
It's incredible sad, but it is hard to see how the US survives as a single entity much longer.
How on earth would it divide? Geographically? There is not an obvious north/south split as there was in the First Civil War
There are plenty of Trump voters in the coastal states and plenty of Dems in the flyover states
They will have to fight it out somehow, but one side will win and they will then rule the entire country
Quite amazing how we are talking about this as a real prospect: but it is
Unlikely. The reality is that “states’ rights” cuts both ways, and increasingly fractured politics will see more of a concentration on politics at the state level, rather than some fanciful scheme to split up the union.
Dunno. This feels worse than that
And if Trump wins in 2024 (and he is ahead in notional polls right now) then who the F knows
Both sides have gone quite mad. Both sides can't help antagonising the other, because they hate their enemy, and they are full of the righteousness of their cause. Again I look at that movie, Don't Look Up, which boasted the most glittering cast assembled for a Hollywood film in years
They could have taken a measured approach. Instead they took deliberate aim at Trump and Trump voters, calling them thick white dangerous racists - yet again. Deliberately goading them.
Stupidly irresponsible. The Birth of a Nation, only directed by a liberal this time
Biden has spent a year being measured. It just led the GOP to continuing to rim 45.
Next you will be telling us Biden is 100% mentally there...
You may, or may not be accurate, but in the interests of balance what sort of a percentage capacity rating would you allocate to Trump?
No one - and least of all me - is saying it would be a prefect plan. It would be a bloodbath. But force of numbers, just as they did on the Eastern front (and yes we are back to the 1940s) would win out. Eventually. The discrepancy is too big, even given the island analogy. Taiwan is not the UK of the 1940. It does not have a vastly superior fleet or a comparable air force. It is massively outnumbered.
Re the point re spies, the CCP places a great deal of emphasis on its historical actions and roots. As I said, I have no idea of any network - I find it totally bizarre you claim my words state there is a "complete network" of spies - what I said was that, given the above and their very successful usage in the Civil War plus the familial links between Taiwanese and mainland families, it would be bizarre if they did not deploy that tactic and therefore this is an unknown that could (or not) be significant.
The way to discourage Xi is to make it very openly clear we will use military force to protect Taiwan and be unambiguous. The sooner we do this, the better.
What I'm saying is you've continually shifted how China would invade. It started off with a lighting quick Paratrooper invasion and when I pointed out how completely infeasible it was it started morphing into this slow and steady approach.
If China wanted to flatten Taiwan they could do that. But that is not an invasion, that doesn't give them control. At some point they have to get troops there and you seem to be ignoring the huge challenges of doing so even without any outside intervention from the 7th fleet. You have to describe the practical realties of this to make your invasion scenario realistic. How far Xi will go includes him actually constructing the forces necessary. If he doesn't construct the necessary forces then the 7th fleet can pop back to Hawaii for some R&R for all it matters.
And you also ignore the issue with any invasion of Taiwan. A huge chunk of the Chinese economy relies on the flow of chips from Taiwan to China. Every day that a war continues without those chips flowing is a day that factories are shut down. Anything other than a 'quick' war would lead to the shattering of the Chinese economy. A "flattened" Taiwan, pounded by ballistic missiles says would in turn devastate China.
It is in fact Taiwan's trump card. In the face of an invasion they can threaten to blow the fabs.
"What I'm saying is you've continually shifted how China would invade. "
Again, misquoting / misinterpreting. What I said was that is what I heard had been discussed not how they would invade. There is a difference. And, again, I think it would be a bloodbath.
My main point (again) was that the Chinese would, eventually, win out if they were so determined and there was no outside help - even with huge casualties - because they have far more resources than Taiwan. It is a simple numbers game. Planes, rockets, tanks, ships, missles etc. Taiwan does not have an unlimited number of air defence, sea defence missles, pilots etc. Being an island also only gives you so much protection. The Allies expected huge casualties in their planned invasion of Japan. They were still prepare to go for it.
There is also the question of whether the Taiwanese population would want to fight to the death - maybe they would, who knows?
Re the economy, my guess (and I'm not in talks with him) is that Xi cares more about being the man who reunified China rather than an economic hit which, though painful, can be rebuilt over time. And he also knows - probably rightly - that at some point the West will forgive China. just as it has done with HK and elsewhere.
Anyone telling you there would be a paratroop led invasion of Taiwan is selling you a pup.
Read what Nigel said. It would be selectively targeted at seizing control of bases, not landing in the middle of Taipei.
The central point still stands - if China wants to do it enough, and the West doesn't intervene, then Taiwan will eventually lose.
Indeed, I reckon Taiwan would fold quite quickly if confronted by a real, determined Chinese attack. They don't want to commit national suicide, and in the end life under Beijing is not that bad (especially if you are ethnic Chinese, which they are)
They would lose freedom and free speech but they would otherwise carry on as now. Able to make money, live nicely, eat great food, watch lots of TV. Look at Hong Kong. You're fine and dandy, just don't get into politics
It is not like being overwhelmed by the Soviet Union and being condemned to icy penury
China will try to bully Taiwan into surrender, without actually firing a shot. That's what they did in Hong Kong, and it worked a treat
One factor coming along is that Taiwan start to get their new home built submarines in 18 mths to 2 years.
No one - and least of all me - is saying it would be a prefect plan. It would be a bloodbath. But force of numbers, just as they did on the Eastern front (and yes we are back to the 1940s) would win out. Eventually. The discrepancy is too big, even given the island analogy. Taiwan is not the UK of the 1940. It does not have a vastly superior fleet or a comparable air force. It is massively outnumbered.
Re the point re spies, the CCP places a great deal of emphasis on its historical actions and roots. As I said, I have no idea of any network - I find it totally bizarre you claim my words state there is a "complete network" of spies - what I said was that, given the above and their very successful usage in the Civil War plus the familial links between Taiwanese and mainland families, it would be bizarre if they did not deploy that tactic and therefore this is an unknown that could (or not) be significant.
The way to discourage Xi is to make it very openly clear we will use military force to protect Taiwan and be unambiguous. The sooner we do this, the better.
What I'm saying is you've continually shifted how China would invade. It started off with a lighting quick Paratrooper invasion and when I pointed out how completely infeasible it was it started morphing into this slow and steady approach.
If China wanted to flatten Taiwan they could do that. But that is not an invasion, that doesn't give them control. At some point they have to get troops there and you seem to be ignoring the huge challenges of doing so even without any outside intervention from the 7th fleet. You have to describe the practical realties of this to make your invasion scenario realistic. How far Xi will go includes him actually constructing the forces necessary. If he doesn't construct the necessary forces then the 7th fleet can pop back to Hawaii for some R&R for all it matters.
And you also ignore the issue with any invasion of Taiwan. A huge chunk of the Chinese economy relies on the flow of chips from Taiwan to China. Every day that a war continues without those chips flowing is a day that factories are shut down. Anything other than a 'quick' war would lead to the shattering of the Chinese economy. A "flattened" Taiwan, pounded by ballistic missiles says would in turn devastate China.
It is in fact Taiwan's trump card. In the face of an invasion they can threaten to blow the fabs.
"What I'm saying is you've continually shifted how China would invade. "
Again, misquoting / misinterpreting. What I said was that is what I heard had been discussed not how they would invade. There is a difference. And, again, I think it would be a bloodbath.
My main point (again) was that the Chinese would, eventually, win out if they were so determined and there was no outside help - even with huge casualties - because they have far more resources than Taiwan. It is a simple numbers game. Planes, rockets, tanks, ships, missles etc. Taiwan does not have an unlimited number of air defence, sea defence missles, pilots etc. Being an island also only gives you so much protection. The Allies expected huge casualties in their planned invasion of Japan. They were still prepare to go for it.
There is also the question of whether the Taiwanese population would want to fight to the death - maybe they would, who knows?
Re the economy, my guess (and I'm not in talks with him) is that Xi cares more about being the man who reunified China rather than an economic hit which, though painful, can be rebuilt over time. And he also knows - probably rightly - that at some point the West will forgive China. just as it has done with HK and elsewhere.
Anyone telling you there would be a paratroop led invasion of Taiwan is selling you a pup.
Read what Nigel said. It would be selectively targeted at seizing control of bases, not landing in the middle of Taipei.
The central point still stands - if China wants to do it enough, and the West doesn't intervene, then Taiwan will eventually lose.
Indeed, I reckon Taiwan would fold quite quickly if confronted by a real, determined Chinese attack. They don't want to commit national suicide, and in the end life under Beijing is not that bad (especially if you are ethnic Chinese, which they are)
They would lose freedom and free speech but they would otherwise carry on as now. Able to make money, live nicely, eat great food, watch lots of TV. Look at Hong Kong. You're fine and dandy, just don't get into politics
It is not like being overwhelmed by the Soviet Union and being condemned to icy penury
China will try to bully Taiwan into surrender, without actually firing a shot. That's what they did in Hong Kong, and it worked a treat
Plenty aren't ethnic Chinese. It is an existential question for the Aborigines. Guess where they are mostly concentrated? Moreover. The majority don't consider themselves Chinese. Ethnically yes. But not nationally. Just as a WASP in Alabama isn't English. Couple that with what folk will have said given their love of free speech, (The Taiwanese are the Yorkshire of China, they say what they like and like what they bloody well say, a reputation which long preceded the Civil War) and what they see happening in Tibet, Xinjiang and now Hong Kong, I reckon you underestimate the numbers willing to fight. Then there is the freedom of religion on top of that. That's a big motivation.
No one - and least of all me - is saying it would be a prefect plan. It would be a bloodbath. But force of numbers, just as they did on the Eastern front (and yes we are back to the 1940s) would win out. Eventually. The discrepancy is too big, even given the island analogy. Taiwan is not the UK of the 1940. It does not have a vastly superior fleet or a comparable air force. It is massively outnumbered.
Re the point re spies, the CCP places a great deal of emphasis on its historical actions and roots. As I said, I have no idea of any network - I find it totally bizarre you claim my words state there is a "complete network" of spies - what I said was that, given the above and their very successful usage in the Civil War plus the familial links between Taiwanese and mainland families, it would be bizarre if they did not deploy that tactic and therefore this is an unknown that could (or not) be significant.
The way to discourage Xi is to make it very openly clear we will use military force to protect Taiwan and be unambiguous. The sooner we do this, the better.
What I'm saying is you've continually shifted how China would invade. It started off with a lighting quick Paratrooper invasion and when I pointed out how completely infeasible it was it started morphing into this slow and steady approach.
If China wanted to flatten Taiwan they could do that. But that is not an invasion, that doesn't give them control. At some point they have to get troops there and you seem to be ignoring the huge challenges of doing so even without any outside intervention from the 7th fleet. You have to describe the practical realties of this to make your invasion scenario realistic. How far Xi will go includes him actually constructing the forces necessary. If he doesn't construct the necessary forces then the 7th fleet can pop back to Hawaii for some R&R for all it matters.
And you also ignore the issue with any invasion of Taiwan. A huge chunk of the Chinese economy relies on the flow of chips from Taiwan to China. Every day that a war continues without those chips flowing is a day that factories are shut down. Anything other than a 'quick' war would lead to the shattering of the Chinese economy. A "flattened" Taiwan, pounded by ballistic missiles says would in turn devastate China.
It is in fact Taiwan's trump card. In the face of an invasion they can threaten to blow the fabs.
"What I'm saying is you've continually shifted how China would invade. "
Again, misquoting / misinterpreting. What I said was that is what I heard had been discussed not how they would invade. There is a difference. And, again, I think it would be a bloodbath.
My main point (again) was that the Chinese would, eventually, win out if they were so determined and there was no outside help - even with huge casualties - because they have far more resources than Taiwan. It is a simple numbers game. Planes, rockets, tanks, ships, missles etc. Taiwan does not have an unlimited number of air defence, sea defence missles, pilots etc. Being an island also only gives you so much protection. The Allies expected huge casualties in their planned invasion of Japan. They were still prepare to go for it.
There is also the question of whether the Taiwanese population would want to fight to the death - maybe they would, who knows?
Re the economy, my guess (and I'm not in talks with him) is that Xi cares more about being the man who reunified China rather than an economic hit which, though painful, can be rebuilt over time. And he also knows - probably rightly - that at some point the West will forgive China. just as it has done with HK and elsewhere.
Anyone telling you there would be a paratroop led invasion of Taiwan is selling you a pup.
Read what Nigel said. It would be selectively targeted at seizing control of bases, not landing in the middle of Taipei.
The central point still stands - if China wants to do it enough, and the West doesn't intervene, then Taiwan will eventually lose.
Indeed, I reckon Taiwan would fold quite quickly if confronted by a real, determined Chinese attack. They don't want to commit national suicide, and in the end life under Beijing is not that bad (especially if you are ethnic Chinese, which they are)
They would lose freedom and free speech but they would otherwise carry on as now. Able to make money, live nicely, eat great food, watch lots of TV. Look at Hong Kong. You're fine and dandy, just don't get into politics
It is not like being overwhelmed by the Soviet Union and being condemned to icy penury
China will try to bully Taiwan into surrender, without actually firing a shot. That's what they did in Hong Kong, and it worked a treat
Hong Kong was already part of China and became part of China by peaceful handover by Treaty from us in 1997
And Hong Kong was the successful dress rehearsal
Lets put this another way. Is there a single PB-er who does not believe China will somehow re-absorb Taiwan in the next 30 years? As China becomes totally hegemonic in Asia, and probably the dominant superpower in the world?
Of course China will do this. The question then is just: When and How.
As another commenter said earlier, Around About Now is a pretty good bet (but still unlikely). America is roiled and weak, and highly unstable. The EU is shaken by Brexit and still can't put together a unified defence force. Putin is a willing ally, eager to help. China is globally dominant in trading terms, which won't always be the case as India also rises, and China ages
This is PB however, so I'd put money on China attempting to retake Taiwan in the second half of this decade
No one - and least of all me - is saying it would be a prefect plan. It would be a bloodbath. But force of numbers, just as they did on the Eastern front (and yes we are back to the 1940s) would win out. Eventually. The discrepancy is too big, even given the island analogy. Taiwan is not the UK of the 1940. It does not have a vastly superior fleet or a comparable air force. It is massively outnumbered.
Re the point re spies, the CCP places a great deal of emphasis on its historical actions and roots. As I said, I have no idea of any network - I find it totally bizarre you claim my words state there is a "complete network" of spies - what I said was that, given the above and their very successful usage in the Civil War plus the familial links between Taiwanese and mainland families, it would be bizarre if they did not deploy that tactic and therefore this is an unknown that could (or not) be significant.
The way to discourage Xi is to make it very openly clear we will use military force to protect Taiwan and be unambiguous. The sooner we do this, the better.
What I'm saying is you've continually shifted how China would invade. It started off with a lighting quick Paratrooper invasion and when I pointed out how completely infeasible it was it started morphing into this slow and steady approach.
If China wanted to flatten Taiwan they could do that. But that is not an invasion, that doesn't give them control. At some point they have to get troops there and you seem to be ignoring the huge challenges of doing so even without any outside intervention from the 7th fleet. You have to describe the practical realties of this to make your invasion scenario realistic. How far Xi will go includes him actually constructing the forces necessary. If he doesn't construct the necessary forces then the 7th fleet can pop back to Hawaii for some R&R for all it matters.
And you also ignore the issue with any invasion of Taiwan. A huge chunk of the Chinese economy relies on the flow of chips from Taiwan to China. Every day that a war continues without those chips flowing is a day that factories are shut down. Anything other than a 'quick' war would lead to the shattering of the Chinese economy. A "flattened" Taiwan, pounded by ballistic missiles says would in turn devastate China.
It is in fact Taiwan's trump card. In the face of an invasion they can threaten to blow the fabs.
"What I'm saying is you've continually shifted how China would invade. "
Again, misquoting / misinterpreting. What I said was that is what I heard had been discussed not how they would invade. There is a difference. And, again, I think it would be a bloodbath.
My main point (again) was that the Chinese would, eventually, win out if they were so determined and there was no outside help - even with huge casualties - because they have far more resources than Taiwan. It is a simple numbers game. Planes, rockets, tanks, ships, missles etc. Taiwan does not have an unlimited number of air defence, sea defence missles, pilots etc. Being an island also only gives you so much protection. The Allies expected huge casualties in their planned invasion of Japan. They were still prepare to go for it.
There is also the question of whether the Taiwanese population would want to fight to the death - maybe they would, who knows?
Re the economy, my guess (and I'm not in talks with him) is that Xi cares more about being the man who reunified China rather than an economic hit which, though painful, can be rebuilt over time. And he also knows - probably rightly - that at some point the West will forgive China. just as it has done with HK and elsewhere.
Anyone telling you there would be a paratroop led invasion of Taiwan is selling you a pup.
Read what Nigel said. It would be selectively targeted at seizing control of bases, not landing in the middle of Taipei.
The central point still stands - if China wants to do it enough, and the West doesn't intervene, then Taiwan will eventually lose.
I understand the operational use of paratroopers thanks. I wasnt assuming they were just going to be sprinkled lightly over the whole country. The point of the Taiwanese exercise was to show even if you were insane enough to think you could land troops via air against Taiwan in a competative situation then they be pushed off in short order.
Just watched The Apprentice because one of the contestants is from my home town. Would not give house room to any of them.
Either there are lot of utterly self confident, bullshitting, puffed up, over made up, thick as mince millennials who couldn't manage a lemonade stall floating around or the BBC production team are incredibly good at finding them.
I do slightly worry sometimes. My mate's daughter has just quit her job at a gym that she has no issues with management before, because she objected to the new name of the class she had to teach... Calorie Killer.
Apparently it so deeply offensive, it is the ultimate hill to die on, that the shear mention of it in the timetable means she can no longer work there. The management said, its in the advertising, sorry that's the name for the moment.
As a name it is dumb and out of date, but there are hills to die on and hills to die on.
What's the issue?
Is it "killer" or suggesting that losing weight is desirable?
There is a movement in the fitness industry that you don't go to the gym to loss weight, you go to exercise and get stronger. Which you should fuel your body appropriately for. Thus, the focus on burning calories from the classes is wrong. And you don't "kill" calories, you obviously burn them.
But...you work somewhere....its their business, New Year is a big time for getting new custom and I presume they probably have an idea about class names that get people through the door.
And really, its not like they wanted them to scream out the name etc, it was literally just on the New Year get fit timetable advertising. The reaction apparently was as if she was being asked to teach something called "white's only" fitness.
Kill is reasonable for calories you do not consume as part of your balanced programme.
That's what we do at Crossfit. But this is Mansfield and we don't get hung up on cosmetics.
Beats me. Didn't realise you were Crossfit bod. What do you make of Dave Castro getting the sack?
Everyone I know who knows Crossfit over a period of time says good riddance because he had become a drag, and looks to a more professionally run future.
Well the new owner Eric Roza is certainly less of an amateur when it comes to business. Is Castro unpopular with the actual Games athletes?
The UFC has shown though you can become much more of a professional corporate entity and still have the outlandish clownish figure do the PR.
Only two Republicans observed the silence for the Capitol Police officers who died a year ago. Dick and Liz Cheney. But hey, both sides are as bad as each other.
It's incredible sad, but it is hard to see how the US survives as a single entity much longer.
How on earth would it divide? Geographically? There is not an obvious north/south split as there was in the First Civil War
There are plenty of Trump voters in the coastal states and plenty of Dems in the flyover states
They will have to fight it out somehow, but one side will win and they will then rule the entire country
Quite amazing how we are talking about this as a real prospect: but it is
Unlikely. The reality is that “states’ rights” cuts both ways, and increasingly fractured politics will see more of a concentration on politics at the state level, rather than some fanciful scheme to split up the union.
Dunno. This feels worse than that
And if Trump wins in 2024 (and he is ahead in notional polls right now) then who the F knows
Both sides have gone quite mad. Both sides can't help antagonising the other, because they hate their enemy, and they are full of the righteousness of their cause. Again I look at that movie, Don't Look Up, which boasted the most glittering cast assembled for a Hollywood film in years
They could have taken a measured approach. Instead they took deliberate aim at Trump and Trump voters, calling them thick white dangerous racists - yet again. Deliberately goading them.
Stupidly irresponsible. The Birth of a Nation, only directed by a liberal this time
Biden has spent a year being measured. It just led the GOP to continuing to rim 45.
Next you will be telling us Biden is 100% mentally there...
You may, or may not be accurate, but in the interests of balance what sort of a percentage capacity rating would you allocate to Trump?
No Trump voter is going to ever see Don't Look Up.
Unless by some mistake with their remote whilst pissed on becks and Jager and oxy they surf between Survivalist Gun Law Channel 8 and The Lord is A Coming via Armageddon.
No one - and least of all me - is saying it would be a prefect plan. It would be a bloodbath. But force of numbers, just as they did on the Eastern front (and yes we are back to the 1940s) would win out. Eventually. The discrepancy is too big, even given the island analogy. Taiwan is not the UK of the 1940. It does not have a vastly superior fleet or a comparable air force. It is massively outnumbered.
Re the point re spies, the CCP places a great deal of emphasis on its historical actions and roots. As I said, I have no idea of any network - I find it totally bizarre you claim my words state there is a "complete network" of spies - what I said was that, given the above and their very successful usage in the Civil War plus the familial links between Taiwanese and mainland families, it would be bizarre if they did not deploy that tactic and therefore this is an unknown that could (or not) be significant.
The way to discourage Xi is to make it very openly clear we will use military force to protect Taiwan and be unambiguous. The sooner we do this, the better.
What I'm saying is you've continually shifted how China would invade. It started off with a lighting quick Paratrooper invasion and when I pointed out how completely infeasible it was it started morphing into this slow and steady approach.
If China wanted to flatten Taiwan they could do that. But that is not an invasion, that doesn't give them control. At some point they have to get troops there and you seem to be ignoring the huge challenges of doing so even without any outside intervention from the 7th fleet. You have to describe the practical realties of this to make your invasion scenario realistic. How far Xi will go includes him actually constructing the forces necessary. If he doesn't construct the necessary forces then the 7th fleet can pop back to Hawaii for some R&R for all it matters.
And you also ignore the issue with any invasion of Taiwan. A huge chunk of the Chinese economy relies on the flow of chips from Taiwan to China. Every day that a war continues without those chips flowing is a day that factories are shut down. Anything other than a 'quick' war would lead to the shattering of the Chinese economy. A "flattened" Taiwan, pounded by ballistic missiles says would in turn devastate China.
It is in fact Taiwan's trump card. In the face of an invasion they can threaten to blow the fabs.
"What I'm saying is you've continually shifted how China would invade. "
Again, misquoting / misinterpreting. What I said was that is what I heard had been discussed not how they would invade. There is a difference. And, again, I think it would be a bloodbath.
My main point (again) was that the Chinese would, eventually, win out if they were so determined and there was no outside help - even with huge casualties - because they have far more resources than Taiwan. It is a simple numbers game. Planes, rockets, tanks, ships, missles etc. Taiwan does not have an unlimited number of air defence, sea defence missles, pilots etc. Being an island also only gives you so much protection. The Allies expected huge casualties in their planned invasion of Japan. They were still prepare to go for it.
There is also the question of whether the Taiwanese population would want to fight to the death - maybe they would, who knows?
Re the economy, my guess (and I'm not in talks with him) is that Xi cares more about being the man who reunified China rather than an economic hit which, though painful, can be rebuilt over time. And he also knows - probably rightly - that at some point the West will forgive China. just as it has done with HK and elsewhere.
Anyone telling you there would be a paratroop led invasion of Taiwan is selling you a pup.
Read what Nigel said. It would be selectively targeted at seizing control of bases, not landing in the middle of Taipei.
The central point still stands - if China wants to do it enough, and the West doesn't intervene, then Taiwan will eventually lose.
Indeed, I reckon Taiwan would fold quite quickly if confronted by a real, determined Chinese attack. They don't want to commit national suicide, and in the end life under Beijing is not that bad (especially if you are ethnic Chinese, which they are)
They would lose freedom and free speech but they would otherwise carry on as now. Able to make money, live nicely, eat great food, watch lots of TV. Look at Hong Kong. You're fine and dandy, just don't get into politics
It is not like being overwhelmed by the Soviet Union and being condemned to icy penury
China will try to bully Taiwan into surrender, without actually firing a shot. That's what they did in Hong Kong, and it worked a treat
Hong Kong was already part of China and became part of China by peaceful handover by Treaty from us in 1997
And Hong Kong was the successful dress rehearsal
Lets put this another way. Is there a single PB-er who does not believe China will somehow re-absorb Taiwan in the next 30 years? As China becomes totally hegemonic in Asia, and probably the dominant superpower in the world?
Of course China will do this. The question then is just: When and How.
As another commenter said earlier, Around About Now is a pretty good bet (but still unlikely). America is roiled and weak, and highly unstable. The EU is shaken by Brexit and still can't put together a unified defence force. Putin is a willing ally, eager to help. China is globally dominant in trading terms, which won't always be the case as India also rises, and China ages
This is PB however, so I'd put money on China attempting to retake Taiwan in the second half of this decade
Which is why as I have said before, Taiwan needs nuclear weapons.
However I don't believe China would be foolish enough to go beyond Taiwan to threaten Japan and South Korea, otherwise we would be in WW3
"The Speaker of the House of Representatives is the US PM in all but name and has more control over US domestic policy than the President does"
And here is my learned rebuttal:
The notion that the "Speaker of the House of Representative is the US PM in all but name" is total BS.
Certainly the Speaker, however powerful, is NOT responsible in any way for the Executive Branch (unless and until see succeeds POTUS as per US Constitution, when she would automatically cease to be Speaker).
Do you think Denny Fucking Hasstert was the Prime Minister of the United States? OR even Nancy Pelosi, when #45 was (actual) President? Somehow I doubt it.
I disagree. In terms of US domestic policy the Speaker of the House of Representatives has more influence than the Vice President or even the President.
Just look at Speaker Newt Gingrich's Contract with America which totally shifted the US Federal government back to a small government agenda after just 2 years of President Clinton's Presidency in 1994. Obamacare would also never have passed without Speaker Pelosi in 2010. Reagan also had to work closely with Tip O'Neill to get things through.
The US President largely controls foreign policy and the armed forces regardless of which party controls Congress, though he needs the Senate to get Treaties approved. However the Speaker of the House can control the domestic agenda and effectively act as the equivalent of the UK PM on the domestic front if they have the desire
Was almost finished composing a learned rebuttal to your assertion, when my hand slipped and I killed my PB window - literally the feared Fickle Finger of Fate!
Anyway, Newt Gringrich was on a tear alright, but even at the peak of his power he was NOT running the Federal Government. He could attack, delay, frustrate, question - but it was still the Clinton Administration. And while BC famously "triangulated" to meet Newt and the Contact With America at least half-way (if not more) this was a political strategy NOT a government necessity.
And Gingrich is a VERY rare beast among the men and one woman who have served as Speaker. Perhaps it is the fact that he was defenestrated by his own Republican caucus (excuse me, "conference") is somewhat similar fashion to the way Tory backbenchers (and ministers) gave Thatcher the heave-ho as Prime Minister. But that's just one dot to draw the connection Speaker = Prime Minister.
ADDENDUM - Historically, US Speakers have shown a number of different styles, none of which has included complete control let alone direct administration of the Executive Branch.
> in early Republic, they modeled themselves after British Speaker; presiders NOT leaders.
> Henry Clay was the first Speaker as congressional leader, but he ended up moving to the US Senate, as did the focus of power on Capitol Hill for the first part of 19th century
> House regained dominance (though hardly omnipotence) after the Civil War during Reconstruction, though note that the key House leader, Thaddeus Stevens, was NOT the Speaker.
> Next Speaker who amounted to much was Thomas Reed, who modernized House procedure to limit obfuscation by the minority, codified as the famous Reed's rule; but Reed did NOT dominate the House let alone the country in terms of policy.
> Joe "Czar" Cannon used the new rules and his sway over GOP colleagues to dominate the House and exert major level of control (albeit hardly total) over legislation during first decade of 20th century, but for most part he worked closely with the (Republican) presidents during his speakership - until that is he was knocked off his perch by GOP insurgent progressives lead by George Norris.
> Next big-time Speaker didn't emerge until the 1920s, namely Nicholas Longworth, who was similar to Reed in that he focused on managing the House NOT running the country, the job of POTUS.
> Great Depression ended era of GOP ascendancy but it wasn't until 1940 that Sam Rayburn became the next great Speaker, the first for the Democrats. Prepared by decades of service in the House, in positions of ever-increasing importance, he was perhaps the closest to HYUFD's idea of a Speaker as Premier. Yet though he was a key ally to fellow Democrats FDR, HST & JFK, Rayburn was aiding NOT running their domestic agenda. And while he gave some important aid & comfort to Eisenhower, this was also the case with LBJ (then Senate Majority Leader) who tended to dominate his old House mentor, rather than the other way around.
> Tip O'Neill was the next truly significant Speaker, mainly for the way he fought with both Jimmy Carter AND Ronald Reagan, albeit for different reasons, but nonetheless hardly prime-ministerial behavior; the inadequacies of his Democratic successors directly contributed to the rise of Newt.
> Since then, with the exceptions of Gingrich and (maybe) Nancy Pelosi, speakers (all GOP) have second-rate at best, indeed for the most part dominated by some other, truly powerful member (for example, Tom DeLay)
Only two Republicans observed the silence for the Capitol Police officers who died a year ago. Dick and Liz Cheney. But hey, both sides are as bad as each other.
It's incredible sad, but it is hard to see how the US survives as a single entity much longer.
How on earth would it divide? Geographically? There is not an obvious north/south split as there was in the First Civil War
There are plenty of Trump voters in the coastal states and plenty of Dems in the flyover states
They will have to fight it out somehow, but one side will win and they will then rule the entire country
Quite amazing how we are talking about this as a real prospect: but it is
Unlikely. The reality is that “states’ rights” cuts both ways, and increasingly fractured politics will see more of a concentration on politics at the state level, rather than some fanciful scheme to split up the union.
Dunno. This feels worse than that
And if Trump wins in 2024 (and he is ahead in notional polls right now) then who the F knows
Both sides have gone quite mad. Both sides can't help antagonising the other, because they hate their enemy, and they are full of the righteousness of their cause. Again I look at that movie, Don't Look Up, which boasted the most glittering cast assembled for a Hollywood film in years
They could have taken a measured approach. Instead they took deliberate aim at Trump and Trump voters, calling them thick white dangerous racists - yet again. Deliberately goading them.
Stupidly irresponsible. The Birth of a Nation, only directed by a liberal this time
Biden has spent a year being measured. It just led the GOP to continuing to rim 45.
Next you will be telling us Biden is 100% mentally there...
You may, or may not be accurate, but in the interests of balance what sort of a percentage capacity rating would you allocate to Trump?
No Trump voter is going to ever see Don't Look Up.
Unless by some mistake with their remote whilst pissed on becks and Jager and oxy they surf between Survivalist Gun Law Channel 8 and The Lord is A Coming via Armageddon.
That's 74 MILLION American voters you have just casually characterised as drunk, feckless, drugged up, obsessed with guns, religiously maniacal and downright mad
I submit that your opinion is part of the problem, not the solution. Many many many Trump voters are really not like this. For a start, he got a good majority of white women voters, across the USA
No one - and least of all me - is saying it would be a prefect plan. It would be a bloodbath. But force of numbers, just as they did on the Eastern front (and yes we are back to the 1940s) would win out. Eventually. The discrepancy is too big, even given the island analogy. Taiwan is not the UK of the 1940. It does not have a vastly superior fleet or a comparable air force. It is massively outnumbered.
Re the point re spies, the CCP places a great deal of emphasis on its historical actions and roots. As I said, I have no idea of any network - I find it totally bizarre you claim my words state there is a "complete network" of spies - what I said was that, given the above and their very successful usage in the Civil War plus the familial links between Taiwanese and mainland families, it would be bizarre if they did not deploy that tactic and therefore this is an unknown that could (or not) be significant.
The way to discourage Xi is to make it very openly clear we will use military force to protect Taiwan and be unambiguous. The sooner we do this, the better.
What I'm saying is you've continually shifted how China would invade. It started off with a lighting quick Paratrooper invasion and when I pointed out how completely infeasible it was it started morphing into this slow and steady approach.
If China wanted to flatten Taiwan they could do that. But that is not an invasion, that doesn't give them control. At some point they have to get troops there and you seem to be ignoring the huge challenges of doing so even without any outside intervention from the 7th fleet. You have to describe the practical realties of this to make your invasion scenario realistic. How far Xi will go includes him actually constructing the forces necessary. If he doesn't construct the necessary forces then the 7th fleet can pop back to Hawaii for some R&R for all it matters.
And you also ignore the issue with any invasion of Taiwan. A huge chunk of the Chinese economy relies on the flow of chips from Taiwan to China. Every day that a war continues without those chips flowing is a day that factories are shut down. Anything other than a 'quick' war would lead to the shattering of the Chinese economy. A "flattened" Taiwan, pounded by ballistic missiles says would in turn devastate China.
It is in fact Taiwan's trump card. In the face of an invasion they can threaten to blow the fabs.
"What I'm saying is you've continually shifted how China would invade. "
Again, misquoting / misinterpreting. What I said was that is what I heard had been discussed not how they would invade. There is a difference. And, again, I think it would be a bloodbath.
My main point (again) was that the Chinese would, eventually, win out if they were so determined and there was no outside help - even with huge casualties - because they have far more resources than Taiwan. It is a simple numbers game. Planes, rockets, tanks, ships, missles etc. Taiwan does not have an unlimited number of air defence, sea defence missles, pilots etc. Being an island also only gives you so much protection. The Allies expected huge casualties in their planned invasion of Japan. They were still prepare to go for it.
There is also the question of whether the Taiwanese population would want to fight to the death - maybe they would, who knows?
Re the economy, my guess (and I'm not in talks with him) is that Xi cares more about being the man who reunified China rather than an economic hit which, though painful, can be rebuilt over time. And he also knows - probably rightly - that at some point the West will forgive China. just as it has done with HK and elsewhere.
Anyone telling you there would be a paratroop led invasion of Taiwan is selling you a pup.
Read what Nigel said. It would be selectively targeted at seizing control of bases, not landing in the middle of Taipei.
The central point still stands - if China wants to do it enough, and the West doesn't intervene, then Taiwan will eventually lose.
Indeed, I reckon Taiwan would fold quite quickly if confronted by a real, determined Chinese attack. They don't want to commit national suicide, and in the end life under Beijing is not that bad (especially if you are ethnic Chinese, which they are)
They would lose freedom and free speech but they would otherwise carry on as now. Able to make money, live nicely, eat great food, watch lots of TV. Look at Hong Kong. You're fine and dandy, just don't get into politics
It is not like being overwhelmed by the Soviet Union and being condemned to icy penury
China will try to bully Taiwan into surrender, without actually firing a shot. That's what they did in Hong Kong, and it worked a treat
Hong Kong was already part of China and became part of China by peaceful handover by Treaty from us in 1997
Also. Hong Kong has never been a democracy. Taiwan has for c 30 years and counting. And not a sham one either. One that has lively, loud sometimes brutal elections at every level from the President down to village level in which power changes hands regularly between two reasonably well- matched Parties as well as independents.
No one - and least of all me - is saying it would be a prefect plan. It would be a bloodbath. But force of numbers, just as they did on the Eastern front (and yes we are back to the 1940s) would win out. Eventually. The discrepancy is too big, even given the island analogy. Taiwan is not the UK of the 1940. It does not have a vastly superior fleet or a comparable air force. It is massively outnumbered.
Re the point re spies, the CCP places a great deal of emphasis on its historical actions and roots. As I said, I have no idea of any network - I find it totally bizarre you claim my words state there is a "complete network" of spies - what I said was that, given the above and their very successful usage in the Civil War plus the familial links between Taiwanese and mainland families, it would be bizarre if they did not deploy that tactic and therefore this is an unknown that could (or not) be significant.
The way to discourage Xi is to make it very openly clear we will use military force to protect Taiwan and be unambiguous. The sooner we do this, the better.
What I'm saying is you've continually shifted how China would invade. It started off with a lighting quick Paratrooper invasion and when I pointed out how completely infeasible it was it started morphing into this slow and steady approach.
If China wanted to flatten Taiwan they could do that. But that is not an invasion, that doesn't give them control. At some point they have to get troops there and you seem to be ignoring the huge challenges of doing so even without any outside intervention from the 7th fleet. You have to describe the practical realties of this to make your invasion scenario realistic. How far Xi will go includes him actually constructing the forces necessary. If he doesn't construct the necessary forces then the 7th fleet can pop back to Hawaii for some R&R for all it matters.
And you also ignore the issue with any invasion of Taiwan. A huge chunk of the Chinese economy relies on the flow of chips from Taiwan to China. Every day that a war continues without those chips flowing is a day that factories are shut down. Anything other than a 'quick' war would lead to the shattering of the Chinese economy. A "flattened" Taiwan, pounded by ballistic missiles says would in turn devastate China.
It is in fact Taiwan's trump card. In the face of an invasion they can threaten to blow the fabs.
"What I'm saying is you've continually shifted how China would invade. "
Again, misquoting / misinterpreting. What I said was that is what I heard had been discussed not how they would invade. There is a difference. And, again, I think it would be a bloodbath.
My main point (again) was that the Chinese would, eventually, win out if they were so determined and there was no outside help - even with huge casualties - because they have far more resources than Taiwan. It is a simple numbers game. Planes, rockets, tanks, ships, missles etc. Taiwan does not have an unlimited number of air defence, sea defence missles, pilots etc. Being an island also only gives you so much protection. The Allies expected huge casualties in their planned invasion of Japan. They were still prepare to go for it.
There is also the question of whether the Taiwanese population would want to fight to the death - maybe they would, who knows?
Re the economy, my guess (and I'm not in talks with him) is that Xi cares more about being the man who reunified China rather than an economic hit which, though painful, can be rebuilt over time. And he also knows - probably rightly - that at some point the West will forgive China. just as it has done with HK and elsewhere.
Anyone telling you there would be a paratroop led invasion of Taiwan is selling you a pup.
Read what Nigel said. It would be selectively targeted at seizing control of bases, not landing in the middle of Taipei.
The central point still stands - if China wants to do it enough, and the West doesn't intervene, then Taiwan will eventually lose.
Indeed, I reckon Taiwan would fold quite quickly if confronted by a real, determined Chinese attack. They don't want to commit national suicide, and in the end life under Beijing is not that bad (especially if you are ethnic Chinese, which they are)
They would lose freedom and free speech but they would otherwise carry on as now. Able to make money, live nicely, eat great food, watch lots of TV. Look at Hong Kong. You're fine and dandy, just don't get into politics
It is not like being overwhelmed by the Soviet Union and being condemned to icy penury
China will try to bully Taiwan into surrender, without actually firing a shot. That's what they did in Hong Kong, and it worked a treat
Hong Kong was already part of China and became part of China by peaceful handover by Treaty from us in 1997
And Hong Kong was the successful dress rehearsal
Lets put this another way. Is there a single PB-er who does not believe China will somehow re-absorb Taiwan in the next 30 years? As China becomes totally hegemonic in Asia, and probably the dominant superpower in the world?
Of course China will do this. The question then is just: When and How.
As another commenter said earlier, Around About Now is a pretty good bet (but still unlikely). America is roiled and weak, and highly unstable. The EU is shaken by Brexit and still can't put together a unified defence force. Putin is a willing ally, eager to help. China is globally dominant in trading terms, which won't always be the case as India also rises, and China ages
This is PB however, so I'd put money on China attempting to retake Taiwan in the second half of this decade
Which is why as I have said before, Taiwan needs nuclear weapons.
However I don't believe China would be foolish enough to go beyond Taiwan to threaten Japan and South Korea, otherwise we would be in WW3
"Novak Djokovic is a useful distraction from Australia's Zero Covid failure World leaders’ outlandish threats against the unvaccinated are no way to tackle this pressing issue Fraser Nelson"
"The Speaker of the House of Representatives is the US PM in all but name and has more control over US domestic policy than the President does"
And here is my learned rebuttal:
The notion that the "Speaker of the House of Representative is the US PM in all but name" is total BS.
Certainly the Speaker, however powerful, is NOT responsible in any way for the Executive Branch (unless and until see succeeds POTUS as per US Constitution, when she would automatically cease to be Speaker).
Do you think Denny Fucking Hasstert was the Prime Minister of the United States? OR even Nancy Pelosi, when #45 was (actual) President? Somehow I doubt it.
I disagree. In terms of US domestic policy the Speaker of the House of Representatives has more influence than the Vice President or even the President.
Just look at Speaker Newt Gingrich's Contract with America which totally shifted the US Federal government back to a small government agenda after just 2 years of President Clinton's Presidency in 1994. Obamacare would also never have passed without Speaker Pelosi in 2010. Reagan also had to work closely with Tip O'Neill to get things through.
The US President largely controls foreign policy and the armed forces regardless of which party controls Congress, though he needs the Senate to get Treaties approved. However the Speaker of the House can control the domestic agenda and effectively act as the equivalent of the UK PM on the domestic front if they have the desire
Was almost finished composing a learned rebuttal to your assertion, when my hand slipped and I killed my PB window - literally the feared Fickle Finger of Fate!
Anyway, Newt Gringrich was on a tear alright, but even at the peak of his power he was NOT running the Federal Government. He could attack, delay, frustrate, question - but it was still the Clinton Administration. And while BC famously "triangulated" to meet Newt and the Contact With America at least half-way (if not more) this was a political strategy NOT a government necessity.
And Gingrich is a VERY rare beast among the men and one woman who have served as Speaker. Perhaps it is the fact that he was defenestrated by his own Republican caucus (excuse me, "conference") is somewhat similar fashion to the way Tory backbenchers (and ministers) gave Thatcher the heave-ho as Prime Minister. But that's just one dot to draw the connection Speaker = Prime Minister.
Gingrich drove the welfare to work agenda of the latter part of the 1990s in the US and ensured it was arguably the most fiscally conservative era in postwar US history.
The US President is in a minority in being both Head of State and Head of Government, most Presidents like most monarchs are Head of State but have a Prime Minister, or Chancellor in Germany's case, who is Head of Government. However determined Speakers like Gingrich and Pelosi can take on much of that Head of Government role especially on domestic policy
No one - and least of all me - is saying it would be a prefect plan. It would be a bloodbath. But force of numbers, just as they did on the Eastern front (and yes we are back to the 1940s) would win out. Eventually. The discrepancy is too big, even given the island analogy. Taiwan is not the UK of the 1940. It does not have a vastly superior fleet or a comparable air force. It is massively outnumbered.
Re the point re spies, the CCP places a great deal of emphasis on its historical actions and roots. As I said, I have no idea of any network - I find it totally bizarre you claim my words state there is a "complete network" of spies - what I said was that, given the above and their very successful usage in the Civil War plus the familial links between Taiwanese and mainland families, it would be bizarre if they did not deploy that tactic and therefore this is an unknown that could (or not) be significant.
The way to discourage Xi is to make it very openly clear we will use military force to protect Taiwan and be unambiguous. The sooner we do this, the better.
What I'm saying is you've continually shifted how China would invade. It started off with a lighting quick Paratrooper invasion and when I pointed out how completely infeasible it was it started morphing into this slow and steady approach.
If China wanted to flatten Taiwan they could do that. But that is not an invasion, that doesn't give them control. At some point they have to get troops there and you seem to be ignoring the huge challenges of doing so even without any outside intervention from the 7th fleet. You have to describe the practical realties of this to make your invasion scenario realistic. How far Xi will go includes him actually constructing the forces necessary. If he doesn't construct the necessary forces then the 7th fleet can pop back to Hawaii for some R&R for all it matters.
And you also ignore the issue with any invasion of Taiwan. A huge chunk of the Chinese economy relies on the flow of chips from Taiwan to China. Every day that a war continues without those chips flowing is a day that factories are shut down. Anything other than a 'quick' war would lead to the shattering of the Chinese economy. A "flattened" Taiwan, pounded by ballistic missiles says would in turn devastate China.
It is in fact Taiwan's trump card. In the face of an invasion they can threaten to blow the fabs.
"What I'm saying is you've continually shifted how China would invade. "
Again, misquoting / misinterpreting. What I said was that is what I heard had been discussed not how they would invade. There is a difference. And, again, I think it would be a bloodbath.
My main point (again) was that the Chinese would, eventually, win out if they were so determined and there was no outside help - even with huge casualties - because they have far more resources than Taiwan. It is a simple numbers game. Planes, rockets, tanks, ships, missles etc. Taiwan does not have an unlimited number of air defence, sea defence missles, pilots etc. Being an island also only gives you so much protection. The Allies expected huge casualties in their planned invasion of Japan. They were still prepare to go for it.
There is also the question of whether the Taiwanese population would want to fight to the death - maybe they would, who knows?
Re the economy, my guess (and I'm not in talks with him) is that Xi cares more about being the man who reunified China rather than an economic hit which, though painful, can be rebuilt over time. And he also knows - probably rightly - that at some point the West will forgive China. just as it has done with HK and elsewhere.
Anyone telling you there would be a paratroop led invasion of Taiwan is selling you a pup.
Read what Nigel said. It would be selectively targeted at seizing control of bases, not landing in the middle of Taipei.
The central point still stands - if China wants to do it enough, and the West doesn't intervene, then Taiwan will eventually lose.
Indeed, I reckon Taiwan would fold quite quickly if confronted by a real, determined Chinese attack. They don't want to commit national suicide, and in the end life under Beijing is not that bad (especially if you are ethnic Chinese, which they are)
They would lose freedom and free speech but they would otherwise carry on as now. Able to make money, live nicely, eat great food, watch lots of TV. Look at Hong Kong. You're fine and dandy, just don't get into politics
It is not like being overwhelmed by the Soviet Union and being condemned to icy penury
China will try to bully Taiwan into surrender, without actually firing a shot. That's what they did in Hong Kong, and it worked a treat
Hong Kong was already part of China and became part of China by peaceful handover by Treaty from us in 1997
And Hong Kong was the successful dress rehearsal
Lets put this another way. Is there a single PB-er who does not believe China will somehow re-absorb Taiwan in the next 30 years? As China becomes totally hegemonic in Asia, and probably the dominant superpower in the world?
Of course China will do this. The question then is just: When and How.
As another commenter said earlier, Around About Now is a pretty good bet (but still unlikely). America is roiled and weak, and highly unstable. The EU is shaken by Brexit and still can't put together a unified defence force. Putin is a willing ally, eager to help. China is globally dominant in trading terms, which won't always be the case as India also rises, and China ages
This is PB however, so I'd put money on China attempting to retake Taiwan in the second half of this decade
Which is why as I have said before, Taiwan needs nuclear weapons.
However I don't believe China would be foolish enough to go beyond Taiwan to threaten Japan and South Korea, otherwise we would be in WW3
How do you know they don't have them?
Because they would loudly tell the world, to stop CCP threats
The only way they could get them is from America, the UK, France, or the USSR/Russia. Or Israel, NK, India or Pakistan
I can't see the motivation for any of these nations to hand over nukes to Taiwan, thus horribly destabilising Asia and enraging mainland China
They might well be trying, of course. In Taipei. Japan surely has the tech for nukes. Would Japan risk Chinese wrath by giving this to Taiwan? Tricky. Unlikely?
Only two Republicans observed the silence for the Capitol Police officers who died a year ago. Dick and Liz Cheney. But hey, both sides are as bad as each other.
It's incredible sad, but it is hard to see how the US survives as a single entity much longer.
How on earth would it divide? Geographically? There is not an obvious north/south split as there was in the First Civil War
There are plenty of Trump voters in the coastal states and plenty of Dems in the flyover states
They will have to fight it out somehow, but one side will win and they will then rule the entire country
Quite amazing how we are talking about this as a real prospect: but it is
Unlikely. The reality is that “states’ rights” cuts both ways, and increasingly fractured politics will see more of a concentration on politics at the state level, rather than some fanciful scheme to split up the union.
Dunno. This feels worse than that
And if Trump wins in 2024 (and he is ahead in notional polls right now) then who the F knows
Both sides have gone quite mad. Both sides can't help antagonising the other, because they hate their enemy, and they are full of the righteousness of their cause. Again I look at that movie, Don't Look Up, which boasted the most glittering cast assembled for a Hollywood film in years
They could have taken a measured approach. Instead they took deliberate aim at Trump and Trump voters, calling them thick white dangerous racists - yet again. Deliberately goading them.
Stupidly irresponsible. The Birth of a Nation, only directed by a liberal this time
Biden has spent a year being measured. It just led the GOP to continuing to rim 45.
Next you will be telling us Biden is 100% mentally there...
You may, or may not be accurate, but in the interests of balance what sort of a percentage capacity rating would you allocate to Trump?
No Trump voter is going to ever see Don't Look Up.
Unless by some mistake with their remote whilst pissed on becks and Jager and oxy they surf between Survivalist Gun Law Channel 8 and The Lord is A Coming via Armageddon.
That's 74 MILLION American voters you have just casually characterised as drunk, feckless, drugged up, obsessed with guns, religiously maniacal and downright mad
I submit that your opinion is part of the problem, not the solution. Many many many Trump voters are really not like this. For a start, he got a good majority of white women voters, across the USA
Only two Republicans observed the silence for the Capitol Police officers who died a year ago. Dick and Liz Cheney. But hey, both sides are as bad as each other.
It's incredible sad, but it is hard to see how the US survives as a single entity much longer.
How on earth would it divide? Geographically? There is not an obvious north/south split as there was in the First Civil War
There are plenty of Trump voters in the coastal states and plenty of Dems in the flyover states
They will have to fight it out somehow, but one side will win and they will then rule the entire country
Quite amazing how we are talking about this as a real prospect: but it is
Unlikely. The reality is that “states’ rights” cuts both ways, and increasingly fractured politics will see more of a concentration on politics at the state level, rather than some fanciful scheme to split up the union.
Dunno. This feels worse than that
And if Trump wins in 2024 (and he is ahead in notional polls right now) then who the F knows
Both sides have gone quite mad. Both sides can't help antagonising the other, because they hate their enemy, and they are full of the righteousness of their cause. Again I look at that movie, Don't Look Up, which boasted the most glittering cast assembled for a Hollywood film in years
They could have taken a measured approach. Instead they took deliberate aim at Trump and Trump voters, calling them thick white dangerous racists - yet again. Deliberately goading them.
Stupidly irresponsible. The Birth of a Nation, only directed by a liberal this time
Biden has spent a year being measured. It just led the GOP to continuing to rim 45.
Next you will be telling us Biden is 100% mentally there...
You may, or may not be accurate, but in the interests of balance what sort of a percentage capacity rating would you allocate to Trump?
No Trump voter is going to ever see Don't Look Up.
Unless by some mistake with their remote whilst pissed on becks and Jager and oxy they surf between Survivalist Gun Law Channel 8 and The Lord is A Coming via Armageddon.
That's 74 MILLION American voters you have just casually characterised as drunk, feckless, drugged up, obsessed with guns, religiously maniacal and downright mad
I submit that your opinion is part of the problem, not the solution. Many many many Trump voters are really not like this. For a start, he got a good majority of white women voters, across the USA
True.
I should have added the tongue in cheek icon.
But seriously, you are right. The failure by vaguely lefty people like me to understand what is going on with Trump voters is a big part of the problem.
Although in my defence, I have pitched several times on here the books of Mark Lilla and Joan Williams - both looking at what the hell is going wrong with the Democrats and the WWC.
"The Speaker of the House of Representatives is the US PM in all but name and has more control over US domestic policy than the President does"
And here is my learned rebuttal:
The notion that the "Speaker of the House of Representative is the US PM in all but name" is total BS.
Certainly the Speaker, however powerful, is NOT responsible in any way for the Executive Branch (unless and until see succeeds POTUS as per US Constitution, when she would automatically cease to be Speaker).
Do you think Denny Fucking Hasstert was the Prime Minister of the United States? OR even Nancy Pelosi, when #45 was (actual) President? Somehow I doubt it.
I disagree. In terms of US domestic policy the Speaker of the House of Representatives has more influence than the Vice President or even the President.
Just look at Speaker Newt Gingrich's Contract with America which totally shifted the US Federal government back to a small government agenda after just 2 years of President Clinton's Presidency in 1994. Obamacare would also never have passed without Speaker Pelosi in 2010. Reagan also had to work closely with Tip O'Neill to get things through.
The US President largely controls foreign policy and the armed forces regardless of which party controls Congress, though he needs the Senate to get Treaties approved. However the Speaker of the House can control the domestic agenda and effectively act as the equivalent of the UK PM on the domestic front if they have the desire
Was almost finished composing a learned rebuttal to your assertion, when my hand slipped and I killed my PB window - literally the feared Fickle Finger of Fate!
Anyway, Newt Gringrich was on a tear alright, but even at the peak of his power he was NOT running the Federal Government. He could attack, delay, frustrate, question - but it was still the Clinton Administration. And while BC famously "triangulated" to meet Newt and the Contact With America at least half-way (if not more) this was a political strategy NOT a government necessity.
And Gingrich is a VERY rare beast among the men and one woman who have served as Speaker. Perhaps it is the fact that he was defenestrated by his own Republican caucus (excuse me, "conference") is somewhat similar fashion to the way Tory backbenchers (and ministers) gave Thatcher the heave-ho as Prime Minister. But that's just one dot to draw the connection Speaker = Prime Minister.
Gingrich drove the welfare to work agenda of the latter part of the 1990s in the US and ensured it was arguably the most fiscally conservative era in postwar US history.
The US President is in a minority in being both Head of State and Head of Government, most Presidents like most monarchs are Head of State but have a Prime Minister, or Chancellor in Germany's case, who is Head of Government. However determined Speakers like Gingrich and Pelosi can take on much of that Head of Government role
Clinton (Bill, not Hillary) was also a big believer in (as he put it) "ending welfare as we know it" and actually did more to advance this than your hero.
Re: your 2nd para, "much of" is less than all, and just how much much is debatable; but methinks NOT as much as you think.
Just asked my Missus how many Taiwanese would fight if invaded. "Every single, last fucking one" was her assessment. " Whilst there would always be quislings and appeasers, it would be like Britain facing the Nazis. 14 year old girls on bikes as suicide bombers. It is their island home. Being invaded. Hitler thought we wouldn't fight cos he thought we were essentially the same people. He was very wrong."
No one - and least of all me - is saying it would be a prefect plan. It would be a bloodbath. But force of numbers, just as they did on the Eastern front (and yes we are back to the 1940s) would win out. Eventually. The discrepancy is too big, even given the island analogy. Taiwan is not the UK of the 1940. It does not have a vastly superior fleet or a comparable air force. It is massively outnumbered.
Re the point re spies, the CCP places a great deal of emphasis on its historical actions and roots. As I said, I have no idea of any network - I find it totally bizarre you claim my words state there is a "complete network" of spies - what I said was that, given the above and their very successful usage in the Civil War plus the familial links between Taiwanese and mainland families, it would be bizarre if they did not deploy that tactic and therefore this is an unknown that could (or not) be significant.
The way to discourage Xi is to make it very openly clear we will use military force to protect Taiwan and be unambiguous. The sooner we do this, the better.
What I'm saying is you've continually shifted how China would invade. It started off with a lighting quick Paratrooper invasion and when I pointed out how completely infeasible it was it started morphing into this slow and steady approach.
If China wanted to flatten Taiwan they could do that. But that is not an invasion, that doesn't give them control. At some point they have to get troops there and you seem to be ignoring the huge challenges of doing so even without any outside intervention from the 7th fleet. You have to describe the practical realties of this to make your invasion scenario realistic. How far Xi will go includes him actually constructing the forces necessary. If he doesn't construct the necessary forces then the 7th fleet can pop back to Hawaii for some R&R for all it matters.
And you also ignore the issue with any invasion of Taiwan. A huge chunk of the Chinese economy relies on the flow of chips from Taiwan to China. Every day that a war continues without those chips flowing is a day that factories are shut down. Anything other than a 'quick' war would lead to the shattering of the Chinese economy. A "flattened" Taiwan, pounded by ballistic missiles says would in turn devastate China.
It is in fact Taiwan's trump card. In the face of an invasion they can threaten to blow the fabs.
"What I'm saying is you've continually shifted how China would invade. "
Again, misquoting / misinterpreting. What I said was that is what I heard had been discussed not how they would invade. There is a difference. And, again, I think it would be a bloodbath.
My main point (again) was that the Chinese would, eventually, win out if they were so determined and there was no outside help - even with huge casualties - because they have far more resources than Taiwan. It is a simple numbers game. Planes, rockets, tanks, ships, missles etc. Taiwan does not have an unlimited number of air defence, sea defence missles, pilots etc. Being an island also only gives you so much protection. The Allies expected huge casualties in their planned invasion of Japan. They were still prepare to go for it.
There is also the question of whether the Taiwanese population would want to fight to the death - maybe they would, who knows?
Re the economy, my guess (and I'm not in talks with him) is that Xi cares more about being the man who reunified China rather than an economic hit which, though painful, can be rebuilt over time. And he also knows - probably rightly - that at some point the West will forgive China. just as it has done with HK and elsewhere.
Anyone telling you there would be a paratroop led invasion of Taiwan is selling you a pup.
Read what Nigel said. It would be selectively targeted at seizing control of bases, not landing in the middle of Taipei.
The central point still stands - if China wants to do it enough, and the West doesn't intervene, then Taiwan will eventually lose.
Indeed, I reckon Taiwan would fold quite quickly if confronted by a real, determined Chinese attack. They don't want to commit national suicide, and in the end life under Beijing is not that bad (especially if you are ethnic Chinese, which they are)
They would lose freedom and free speech but they would otherwise carry on as now. Able to make money, live nicely, eat great food, watch lots of TV. Look at Hong Kong. You're fine and dandy, just don't get into politics
It is not like being overwhelmed by the Soviet Union and being condemned to icy penury
China will try to bully Taiwan into surrender, without actually firing a shot. That's what they did in Hong Kong, and it worked a treat
Hong Kong was already part of China and became part of China by peaceful handover by Treaty from us in 1997
And Hong Kong was the successful dress rehearsal
Lets put this another way. Is there a single PB-er who does not believe China will somehow re-absorb Taiwan in the next 30 years? As China becomes totally hegemonic in Asia, and probably the dominant superpower in the world?
Of course China will do this. The question then is just: When and How.
As another commenter said earlier, Around About Now is a pretty good bet (but still unlikely). America is roiled and weak, and highly unstable. The EU is shaken by Brexit and still can't put together a unified defence force. Putin is a willing ally, eager to help. China is globally dominant in trading terms, which won't always be the case as India also rises, and China ages
This is PB however, so I'd put money on China attempting to retake Taiwan in the second half of this decade
Which is why as I have said before, Taiwan needs nuclear weapons.
However I don't believe China would be foolish enough to go beyond Taiwan to threaten Japan and South Korea, otherwise we would be in WW3
How do you know they don't have them?
What's the point in having them if your neighbouring countries don't know?
Re: US House Speakers, two people who literally wrote a book about it, were Dick Cheney (longtime House member from Wyoming) and his wife Lynne Cheney (who I think did most of the actually research & writing).
No one - and least of all me - is saying it would be a prefect plan. It would be a bloodbath. But force of numbers, just as they did on the Eastern front (and yes we are back to the 1940s) would win out. Eventually. The discrepancy is too big, even given the island analogy. Taiwan is not the UK of the 1940. It does not have a vastly superior fleet or a comparable air force. It is massively outnumbered.
Re the point re spies, the CCP places a great deal of emphasis on its historical actions and roots. As I said, I have no idea of any network - I find it totally bizarre you claim my words state there is a "complete network" of spies - what I said was that, given the above and their very successful usage in the Civil War plus the familial links between Taiwanese and mainland families, it would be bizarre if they did not deploy that tactic and therefore this is an unknown that could (or not) be significant.
The way to discourage Xi is to make it very openly clear we will use military force to protect Taiwan and be unambiguous. The sooner we do this, the better.
What I'm saying is you've continually shifted how China would invade. It started off with a lighting quick Paratrooper invasion and when I pointed out how completely infeasible it was it started morphing into this slow and steady approach.
If China wanted to flatten Taiwan they could do that. But that is not an invasion, that doesn't give them control. At some point they have to get troops there and you seem to be ignoring the huge challenges of doing so even without any outside intervention from the 7th fleet. You have to describe the practical realties of this to make your invasion scenario realistic. How far Xi will go includes him actually constructing the forces necessary. If he doesn't construct the necessary forces then the 7th fleet can pop back to Hawaii for some R&R for all it matters.
And you also ignore the issue with any invasion of Taiwan. A huge chunk of the Chinese economy relies on the flow of chips from Taiwan to China. Every day that a war continues without those chips flowing is a day that factories are shut down. Anything other than a 'quick' war would lead to the shattering of the Chinese economy. A "flattened" Taiwan, pounded by ballistic missiles says would in turn devastate China.
It is in fact Taiwan's trump card. In the face of an invasion they can threaten to blow the fabs.
"What I'm saying is you've continually shifted how China would invade. "
Again, misquoting / misinterpreting. What I said was that is what I heard had been discussed not how they would invade. There is a difference. And, again, I think it would be a bloodbath.
My main point (again) was that the Chinese would, eventually, win out if they were so determined and there was no outside help - even with huge casualties - because they have far more resources than Taiwan. It is a simple numbers game. Planes, rockets, tanks, ships, missles etc. Taiwan does not have an unlimited number of air defence, sea defence missles, pilots etc. Being an island also only gives you so much protection. The Allies expected huge casualties in their planned invasion of Japan. They were still prepare to go for it.
There is also the question of whether the Taiwanese population would want to fight to the death - maybe they would, who knows?
Re the economy, my guess (and I'm not in talks with him) is that Xi cares more about being the man who reunified China rather than an economic hit which, though painful, can be rebuilt over time. And he also knows - probably rightly - that at some point the West will forgive China. just as it has done with HK and elsewhere.
Anyone telling you there would be a paratroop led invasion of Taiwan is selling you a pup.
Read what Nigel said. It would be selectively targeted at seizing control of bases, not landing in the middle of Taipei.
The central point still stands - if China wants to do it enough, and the West doesn't intervene, then Taiwan will eventually lose.
I understand the operational use of paratroopers thanks. I wasnt assuming they were just going to be sprinkled lightly over the whole country. The point of the Taiwanese exercise was to show even if you were insane enough to think you could land troops via air against Taiwan in a competative situation then they be pushed off in short order.
Just checking.
One thing to point out is that the Taiwanese used a airborne drop in their simulation so they seem to think that is a likely means of attack. I'll take their view thanks.
The most important line in the quote was the last one though. The scenario assumed China wouldn't be launching major missle strikes against Taiwanese defence capabilities and just that a bunch of troopers at one airport would land and then the ships would come over. Which is....unlikely. A more likely scenario would be pound Taiwan and multiple, simultaneous attacks. Which makes you think why the Taiwanese even bothered to stage it. They were essentially assuming the Chinese would launch a full frontal assault with limited other use of force.
No one - and least of all me - is saying it would be a prefect plan. It would be a bloodbath. But force of numbers, just as they did on the Eastern front (and yes we are back to the 1940s) would win out. Eventually. The discrepancy is too big, even given the island analogy. Taiwan is not the UK of the 1940. It does not have a vastly superior fleet or a comparable air force. It is massively outnumbered.
Re the point re spies, the CCP places a great deal of emphasis on its historical actions and roots. As I said, I have no idea of any network - I find it totally bizarre you claim my words state there is a "complete network" of spies - what I said was that, given the above and their very successful usage in the Civil War plus the familial links between Taiwanese and mainland families, it would be bizarre if they did not deploy that tactic and therefore this is an unknown that could (or not) be significant.
The way to discourage Xi is to make it very openly clear we will use military force to protect Taiwan and be unambiguous. The sooner we do this, the better.
What I'm saying is you've continually shifted how China would invade. It started off with a lighting quick Paratrooper invasion and when I pointed out how completely infeasible it was it started morphing into this slow and steady approach.
If China wanted to flatten Taiwan they could do that. But that is not an invasion, that doesn't give them control. At some point they have to get troops there and you seem to be ignoring the huge challenges of doing so even without any outside intervention from the 7th fleet. You have to describe the practical realties of this to make your invasion scenario realistic. How far Xi will go includes him actually constructing the forces necessary. If he doesn't construct the necessary forces then the 7th fleet can pop back to Hawaii for some R&R for all it matters.
And you also ignore the issue with any invasion of Taiwan. A huge chunk of the Chinese economy relies on the flow of chips from Taiwan to China. Every day that a war continues without those chips flowing is a day that factories are shut down. Anything other than a 'quick' war would lead to the shattering of the Chinese economy. A "flattened" Taiwan, pounded by ballistic missiles says would in turn devastate China.
It is in fact Taiwan's trump card. In the face of an invasion they can threaten to blow the fabs.
"What I'm saying is you've continually shifted how China would invade. "
Again, misquoting / misinterpreting. What I said was that is what I heard had been discussed not how they would invade. There is a difference. And, again, I think it would be a bloodbath.
My main point (again) was that the Chinese would, eventually, win out if they were so determined and there was no outside help - even with huge casualties - because they have far more resources than Taiwan. It is a simple numbers game. Planes, rockets, tanks, ships, missles etc. Taiwan does not have an unlimited number of air defence, sea defence missles, pilots etc. Being an island also only gives you so much protection. The Allies expected huge casualties in their planned invasion of Japan. They were still prepare to go for it.
There is also the question of whether the Taiwanese population would want to fight to the death - maybe they would, who knows?
Re the economy, my guess (and I'm not in talks with him) is that Xi cares more about being the man who reunified China rather than an economic hit which, though painful, can be rebuilt over time. And he also knows - probably rightly - that at some point the West will forgive China. just as it has done with HK and elsewhere.
Anyone telling you there would be a paratroop led invasion of Taiwan is selling you a pup.
Read what Nigel said. It would be selectively targeted at seizing control of bases, not landing in the middle of Taipei.
The central point still stands - if China wants to do it enough, and the West doesn't intervene, then Taiwan will eventually lose.
Indeed, I reckon Taiwan would fold quite quickly if confronted by a real, determined Chinese attack. They don't want to commit national suicide, and in the end life under Beijing is not that bad (especially if you are ethnic Chinese, which they are)
They would lose freedom and free speech but they would otherwise carry on as now. Able to make money, live nicely, eat great food, watch lots of TV. Look at Hong Kong. You're fine and dandy, just don't get into politics
It is not like being overwhelmed by the Soviet Union and being condemned to icy penury
China will try to bully Taiwan into surrender, without actually firing a shot. That's what they did in Hong Kong, and it worked a treat
Hong Kong was already part of China and became part of China by peaceful handover by Treaty from us in 1997
And Hong Kong was the successful dress rehearsal
Lets put this another way. Is there a single PB-er who does not believe China will somehow re-absorb Taiwan in the next 30 years? As China becomes totally hegemonic in Asia, and probably the dominant superpower in the world?
Of course China will do this. The question then is just: When and How.
As another commenter said earlier, Around About Now is a pretty good bet (but still unlikely). America is roiled and weak, and highly unstable. The EU is shaken by Brexit and still can't put together a unified defence force. Putin is a willing ally, eager to help. China is globally dominant in trading terms, which won't always be the case as India also rises, and China ages
This is PB however, so I'd put money on China attempting to retake Taiwan in the second half of this decade
Which is why as I have said before, Taiwan needs nuclear weapons.
However I don't believe China would be foolish enough to go beyond Taiwan to threaten Japan and South Korea, otherwise we would be in WW3
How do you know they don't have them?
What's the point in having them if your neighbouring countries don't know?
Because. There is only one that it would really be of any interest to. And it is in the Taiwanese interest for them not to know.
Only two Republicans observed the silence for the Capitol Police officers who died a year ago. Dick and Liz Cheney. But hey, both sides are as bad as each other.
It's incredible sad, but it is hard to see how the US survives as a single entity much longer.
How on earth would it divide? Geographically? There is not an obvious north/south split as there was in the First Civil War
There are plenty of Trump voters in the coastal states and plenty of Dems in the flyover states
They will have to fight it out somehow, but one side will win and they will then rule the entire country
Quite amazing how we are talking about this as a real prospect: but it is
Unlikely. The reality is that “states’ rights” cuts both ways, and increasingly fractured politics will see more of a concentration on politics at the state level, rather than some fanciful scheme to split up the union.
Dunno. This feels worse than that
And if Trump wins in 2024 (and he is ahead in notional polls right now) then who the F knows
Both sides have gone quite mad. Both sides can't help antagonising the other, because they hate their enemy, and they are full of the righteousness of their cause. Again I look at that movie, Don't Look Up, which boasted the most glittering cast assembled for a Hollywood film in years
They could have taken a measured approach. Instead they took deliberate aim at Trump and Trump voters, calling them thick white dangerous racists - yet again. Deliberately goading them.
Stupidly irresponsible. The Birth of a Nation, only directed by a liberal this time
Biden has spent a year being measured. It just led the GOP to continuing to rim 45.
Next you will be telling us Biden is 100% mentally there...
You may, or may not be accurate, but in the interests of balance what sort of a percentage capacity rating would you allocate to Trump?
No Trump voter is going to ever see Don't Look Up.
Unless by some mistake with their remote whilst pissed on becks and Jager and oxy they surf between Survivalist Gun Law Channel 8 and The Lord is A Coming via Armageddon.
That's 74 MILLION American voters you have just casually characterised as drunk, feckless, drugged up, obsessed with guns, religiously maniacal and downright mad
I submit that your opinion is part of the problem, not the solution. Many many many Trump voters are really not like this. For a start, he got a good majority of white women voters, across the USA
It's a closer characterization than your ridiculous claims that Don't Look Up is equivalent to the vile support of Klanism and violence in Birth of a Nation.
No one - and least of all me - is saying it would be a prefect plan. It would be a bloodbath. But force of numbers, just as they did on the Eastern front (and yes we are back to the 1940s) would win out. Eventually. The discrepancy is too big, even given the island analogy. Taiwan is not the UK of the 1940. It does not have a vastly superior fleet or a comparable air force. It is massively outnumbered.
Re the point re spies, the CCP places a great deal of emphasis on its historical actions and roots. As I said, I have no idea of any network - I find it totally bizarre you claim my words state there is a "complete network" of spies - what I said was that, given the above and their very successful usage in the Civil War plus the familial links between Taiwanese and mainland families, it would be bizarre if they did not deploy that tactic and therefore this is an unknown that could (or not) be significant.
The way to discourage Xi is to make it very openly clear we will use military force to protect Taiwan and be unambiguous. The sooner we do this, the better.
What I'm saying is you've continually shifted how China would invade. It started off with a lighting quick Paratrooper invasion and when I pointed out how completely infeasible it was it started morphing into this slow and steady approach.
If China wanted to flatten Taiwan they could do that. But that is not an invasion, that doesn't give them control. At some point they have to get troops there and you seem to be ignoring the huge challenges of doing so even without any outside intervention from the 7th fleet. You have to describe the practical realties of this to make your invasion scenario realistic. How far Xi will go includes him actually constructing the forces necessary. If he doesn't construct the necessary forces then the 7th fleet can pop back to Hawaii for some R&R for all it matters.
And you also ignore the issue with any invasion of Taiwan. A huge chunk of the Chinese economy relies on the flow of chips from Taiwan to China. Every day that a war continues without those chips flowing is a day that factories are shut down. Anything other than a 'quick' war would lead to the shattering of the Chinese economy. A "flattened" Taiwan, pounded by ballistic missiles says would in turn devastate China.
It is in fact Taiwan's trump card. In the face of an invasion they can threaten to blow the fabs.
"What I'm saying is you've continually shifted how China would invade. "
Again, misquoting / misinterpreting. What I said was that is what I heard had been discussed not how they would invade. There is a difference. And, again, I think it would be a bloodbath.
My main point (again) was that the Chinese would, eventually, win out if they were so determined and there was no outside help - even with huge casualties - because they have far more resources than Taiwan. It is a simple numbers game. Planes, rockets, tanks, ships, missles etc. Taiwan does not have an unlimited number of air defence, sea defence missles, pilots etc. Being an island also only gives you so much protection. The Allies expected huge casualties in their planned invasion of Japan. They were still prepare to go for it.
There is also the question of whether the Taiwanese population would want to fight to the death - maybe they would, who knows?
Re the economy, my guess (and I'm not in talks with him) is that Xi cares more about being the man who reunified China rather than an economic hit which, though painful, can be rebuilt over time. And he also knows - probably rightly - that at some point the West will forgive China. just as it has done with HK and elsewhere.
Anyone telling you there would be a paratroop led invasion of Taiwan is selling you a pup.
Read what Nigel said. It would be selectively targeted at seizing control of bases, not landing in the middle of Taipei.
The central point still stands - if China wants to do it enough, and the West doesn't intervene, then Taiwan will eventually lose.
Indeed, I reckon Taiwan would fold quite quickly if confronted by a real, determined Chinese attack. They don't want to commit national suicide, and in the end life under Beijing is not that bad (especially if you are ethnic Chinese, which they are)
They would lose freedom and free speech but they would otherwise carry on as now. Able to make money, live nicely, eat great food, watch lots of TV. Look at Hong Kong. You're fine and dandy, just don't get into politics
It is not like being overwhelmed by the Soviet Union and being condemned to icy penury
China will try to bully Taiwan into surrender, without actually firing a shot. That's what they did in Hong Kong, and it worked a treat
Hong Kong was already part of China and became part of China by peaceful handover by Treaty from us in 1997
And Hong Kong was the successful dress rehearsal
Lets put this another way. Is there a single PB-er who does not believe China will somehow re-absorb Taiwan in the next 30 years? As China becomes totally hegemonic in Asia, and probably the dominant superpower in the world?
Of course China will do this. The question then is just: When and How.
As another commenter said earlier, Around About Now is a pretty good bet (but still unlikely). America is roiled and weak, and highly unstable. The EU is shaken by Brexit and still can't put together a unified defence force. Putin is a willing ally, eager to help. China is globally dominant in trading terms, which won't always be the case as India also rises, and China ages
This is PB however, so I'd put money on China attempting to retake Taiwan in the second half of this decade
Which is why as I have said before, Taiwan needs nuclear weapons.
However I don't believe China would be foolish enough to go beyond Taiwan to threaten Japan and South Korea, otherwise we would be in WW3
How do you know they don't have them?
Because they would loudly tell the world, to stop CCP threats
The only way they could get them is from America, the UK, France, or the USSR/Russia. Or Israel, NK, India or Pakistan
I can't see the motivation for any of these nations to hand over nukes to Taiwan, thus horribly destabilising Asia and enraging mainland China
They might well be trying, of course. In Taipei. Japan surely has the tech for nukes. Would Japan risk Chinese wrath by giving this to Taiwan? Tricky. Unlikely?
If China did invade Taiwan though you could be sure Japan would have nukes within a month
Only two Republicans observed the silence for the Capitol Police officers who died a year ago. Dick and Liz Cheney. But hey, both sides are as bad as each other.
It's incredible sad, but it is hard to see how the US survives as a single entity much longer.
How on earth would it divide? Geographically? There is not an obvious north/south split as there was in the First Civil War
There are plenty of Trump voters in the coastal states and plenty of Dems in the flyover states
They will have to fight it out somehow, but one side will win and they will then rule the entire country
Quite amazing how we are talking about this as a real prospect: but it is
Unlikely. The reality is that “states’ rights” cuts both ways, and increasingly fractured politics will see more of a concentration on politics at the state level, rather than some fanciful scheme to split up the union.
Dunno. This feels worse than that
And if Trump wins in 2024 (and he is ahead in notional polls right now) then who the F knows
Both sides have gone quite mad. Both sides can't help antagonising the other, because they hate their enemy, and they are full of the righteousness of their cause. Again I look at that movie, Don't Look Up, which boasted the most glittering cast assembled for a Hollywood film in years
They could have taken a measured approach. Instead they took deliberate aim at Trump and Trump voters, calling them thick white dangerous racists - yet again. Deliberately goading them.
Stupidly irresponsible. The Birth of a Nation, only directed by a liberal this time
Biden has spent a year being measured. It just led the GOP to continuing to rim 45.
Next you will be telling us Biden is 100% mentally there...
You may, or may not be accurate, but in the interests of balance what sort of a percentage capacity rating would you allocate to Trump?
In terms of being with it? Probably 90%+. Not because I back everything he says but, if you look at his rallies, speeches, interviews etc, he is clearly able to put his point of view and focused. It might be mangled sometimes and you will disagree with all of it but he can put across his point of view clearly. Compare with a JB press confidence.
Only two Republicans observed the silence for the Capitol Police officers who died a year ago. Dick and Liz Cheney. But hey, both sides are as bad as each other.
It's incredible sad, but it is hard to see how the US survives as a single entity much longer.
How on earth would it divide? Geographically? There is not an obvious north/south split as there was in the First Civil War
There are plenty of Trump voters in the coastal states and plenty of Dems in the flyover states
They will have to fight it out somehow, but one side will win and they will then rule the entire country
Quite amazing how we are talking about this as a real prospect: but it is
Unlikely. The reality is that “states’ rights” cuts both ways, and increasingly fractured politics will see more of a concentration on politics at the state level, rather than some fanciful scheme to split up the union.
Dunno. This feels worse than that
And if Trump wins in 2024 (and he is ahead in notional polls right now) then who the F knows
Both sides have gone quite mad. Both sides can't help antagonising the other, because they hate their enemy, and they are full of the righteousness of their cause. Again I look at that movie, Don't Look Up, which boasted the most glittering cast assembled for a Hollywood film in years
They could have taken a measured approach. Instead they took deliberate aim at Trump and Trump voters, calling them thick white dangerous racists - yet again. Deliberately goading them.
Stupidly irresponsible. The Birth of a Nation, only directed by a liberal this time
Biden has spent a year being measured. It just led the GOP to continuing to rim 45.
Next you will be telling us Biden is 100% mentally there...
You may, or may not be accurate, but in the interests of balance what sort of a percentage capacity rating would you allocate to Trump?
No Trump voter is going to ever see Don't Look Up.
Unless by some mistake with their remote whilst pissed on becks and Jager and oxy they surf between Survivalist Gun Law Channel 8 and The Lord is A Coming via Armageddon.
That's 74 MILLION American voters you have just casually characterised as drunk, feckless, drugged up, obsessed with guns, religiously maniacal and downright mad
I submit that your opinion is part of the problem, not the solution. Many many many Trump voters are really not like this. For a start, he got a good majority of white women voters, across the USA
It's a closer characterization than your ridiculous claims that Don't Look Up is equivalent to the vile support of Klanism and violence in Birth of a Nation.
The comparison was centred on their irresponsibility rather than their content. I agree Birth of a Nation was intrinsically much more repulsive. In terms of timing, I reckon Don't Look Up was more criminally reckless
Only two Republicans observed the silence for the Capitol Police officers who died a year ago. Dick and Liz Cheney. But hey, both sides are as bad as each other.
It's incredible sad, but it is hard to see how the US survives as a single entity much longer.
How on earth would it divide? Geographically? There is not an obvious north/south split as there was in the First Civil War
There are plenty of Trump voters in the coastal states and plenty of Dems in the flyover states
They will have to fight it out somehow, but one side will win and they will then rule the entire country
Quite amazing how we are talking about this as a real prospect: but it is
Unlikely. The reality is that “states’ rights” cuts both ways, and increasingly fractured politics will see more of a concentration on politics at the state level, rather than some fanciful scheme to split up the union.
Dunno. This feels worse than that
And if Trump wins in 2024 (and he is ahead in notional polls right now) then who the F knows
Both sides have gone quite mad. Both sides can't help antagonising the other, because they hate their enemy, and they are full of the righteousness of their cause. Again I look at that movie, Don't Look Up, which boasted the most glittering cast assembled for a Hollywood film in years
They could have taken a measured approach. Instead they took deliberate aim at Trump and Trump voters, calling them thick white dangerous racists - yet again. Deliberately goading them.
Stupidly irresponsible. The Birth of a Nation, only directed by a liberal this time
Biden has spent a year being measured. It just led the GOP to continuing to rim 45.
Next you will be telling us Biden is 100% mentally there...
You may, or may not be accurate, but in the interests of balance what sort of a percentage capacity rating would you allocate to Trump?
No Trump voter is going to ever see Don't Look Up.
Unless by some mistake with their remote whilst pissed on becks and Jager and oxy they surf between Survivalist Gun Law Channel 8 and The Lord is A Coming via Armageddon.
That's 74 MILLION American voters you have just casually characterised as drunk, feckless, drugged up, obsessed with guns, religiously maniacal and downright mad
I submit that your opinion is part of the problem, not the solution. Many many many Trump voters are really not like this. For a start, he got a good majority of white women voters, across the USA
True.
I should have added the tongue in cheek icon.
But seriously, you are right. The failure by vaguely lefty people like me to understand what is going on with Trump voters is a big part of the problem.
Although in my defence, I have pitched several times on here the books of Mark Lilla and Joan Williams - both looking at what the hell is going wrong with the Democrats and the WWC.
To give you your credit, @rottenborough you are indeed one of the most open minded lefties on here.
Re WWC, take a look at what Bette Midler said about West Virginians. Makes you weep.
One time I casually mused to a very proper teaching assistant why every Taiwanese school was built to the same strange, identical design? "Maximise the kill zone" was the reply.
No one - and least of all me - is saying it would be a prefect plan. It would be a bloodbath. But force of numbers, just as they did on the Eastern front (and yes we are back to the 1940s) would win out. Eventually. The discrepancy is too big, even given the island analogy. Taiwan is not the UK of the 1940. It does not have a vastly superior fleet or a comparable air force. It is massively outnumbered.
Re the point re spies, the CCP places a great deal of emphasis on its historical actions and roots. As I said, I have no idea of any network - I find it totally bizarre you claim my words state there is a "complete network" of spies - what I said was that, given the above and their very successful usage in the Civil War plus the familial links between Taiwanese and mainland families, it would be bizarre if they did not deploy that tactic and therefore this is an unknown that could (or not) be significant.
The way to discourage Xi is to make it very openly clear we will use military force to protect Taiwan and be unambiguous. The sooner we do this, the better.
What I'm saying is you've continually shifted how China would invade. It started off with a lighting quick Paratrooper invasion and when I pointed out how completely infeasible it was it started morphing into this slow and steady approach.
If China wanted to flatten Taiwan they could do that. But that is not an invasion, that doesn't give them control. At some point they have to get troops there and you seem to be ignoring the huge challenges of doing so even without any outside intervention from the 7th fleet. You have to describe the practical realties of this to make your invasion scenario realistic. How far Xi will go includes him actually constructing the forces necessary. If he doesn't construct the necessary forces then the 7th fleet can pop back to Hawaii for some R&R for all it matters.
And you also ignore the issue with any invasion of Taiwan. A huge chunk of the Chinese economy relies on the flow of chips from Taiwan to China. Every day that a war continues without those chips flowing is a day that factories are shut down. Anything other than a 'quick' war would lead to the shattering of the Chinese economy. A "flattened" Taiwan, pounded by ballistic missiles says would in turn devastate China.
It is in fact Taiwan's trump card. In the face of an invasion they can threaten to blow the fabs.
"What I'm saying is you've continually shifted how China would invade. "
Again, misquoting / misinterpreting. What I said was that is what I heard had been discussed not how they would invade. There is a difference. And, again, I think it would be a bloodbath.
My main point (again) was that the Chinese would, eventually, win out if they were so determined and there was no outside help - even with huge casualties - because they have far more resources than Taiwan. It is a simple numbers game. Planes, rockets, tanks, ships, missles etc. Taiwan does not have an unlimited number of air defence, sea defence missles, pilots etc. Being an island also only gives you so much protection. The Allies expected huge casualties in their planned invasion of Japan. They were still prepare to go for it.
There is also the question of whether the Taiwanese population would want to fight to the death - maybe they would, who knows?
Re the economy, my guess (and I'm not in talks with him) is that Xi cares more about being the man who reunified China rather than an economic hit which, though painful, can be rebuilt over time. And he also knows - probably rightly - that at some point the West will forgive China. just as it has done with HK and elsewhere.
Anyone telling you there would be a paratroop led invasion of Taiwan is selling you a pup.
Read what Nigel said. It would be selectively targeted at seizing control of bases, not landing in the middle of Taipei.
The central point still stands - if China wants to do it enough, and the West doesn't intervene, then Taiwan will eventually lose.
Indeed, I reckon Taiwan would fold quite quickly if confronted by a real, determined Chinese attack. They don't want to commit national suicide, and in the end life under Beijing is not that bad (especially if you are ethnic Chinese, which they are)
They would lose freedom and free speech but they would otherwise carry on as now. Able to make money, live nicely, eat great food, watch lots of TV. Look at Hong Kong. You're fine and dandy, just don't get into politics
It is not like being overwhelmed by the Soviet Union and being condemned to icy penury
China will try to bully Taiwan into surrender, without actually firing a shot. That's what they did in Hong Kong, and it worked a treat
Hong Kong was already part of China and became part of China by peaceful handover by Treaty from us in 1997
And Hong Kong was the successful dress rehearsal
Lets put this another way. Is there a single PB-er who does not believe China will somehow re-absorb Taiwan in the next 30 years? As China becomes totally hegemonic in Asia, and probably the dominant superpower in the world?
Of course China will do this. The question then is just: When and How.
As another commenter said earlier, Around About Now is a pretty good bet (but still unlikely). America is roiled and weak, and highly unstable. The EU is shaken by Brexit and still can't put together a unified defence force. Putin is a willing ally, eager to help. China is globally dominant in trading terms, which won't always be the case as India also rises, and China ages
This is PB however, so I'd put money on China attempting to retake Taiwan in the second half of this decade
Which is why as I have said before, Taiwan needs nuclear weapons.
However I don't believe China would be foolish enough to go beyond Taiwan to threaten Japan and South Korea, otherwise we would be in WW3
How do you know they don't have them?
Because they would loudly tell the world, to stop CCP threats
The only way they could get them is from America, the UK, France, or the USSR/Russia. Or Israel, NK, India or Pakistan
I can't see the motivation for any of these nations to hand over nukes to Taiwan, thus horribly destabilising Asia and enraging mainland China
They might well be trying, of course. In Taipei. Japan surely has the tech for nukes. Would Japan risk Chinese wrath by giving this to Taiwan? Tricky. Unlikely?
If China did invade Taiwan though you could be sure Japan would have nukes within a month
More like 5 minutes. Japan surely has nukes ready to assemble, at a moment's notice. It just doesn't do it, so it can maintain "nuke free status"
I imagine several other rich/big/tech advanced nations are in the same bracket. South Korea for sure. Germany? Probably Brazil. And Saudi Arabia
Off topic, re Kazakhstan, it feels like one of two things has happened:
1. The US / EU have essentially done a backroom deal with Putin that says "fine, you can intervene in Kazakhstan but the quid pro quo is no Ukraine movements (for now)"
OR
2. Putin knows Biden / the EU is so spineless that he can send his troops into Kazakhstan without serious implications, in which case he is probably going to be emboldened to do something in the Ukraine.
I hope it's the first, I fear it's the second.
An unopposed Putin incursion into Kazakhstan will also embolden Xi re Taiwan
We are beginning to see what a world Not run by the West will look like. Not pretty; quite sad
The world will miss its just and boyish master
Others have said the situation between Taiwan and Kazakhstan are different but in two key ways they are not. The first, as you pointed out, is the message of Western inertia bringing parallels with the the 1930s. The second is that both Russia and China see the respective territories as renegades that rightfully belong to their home nation.
The other way I would look at this is to say, if you are Putin or Xi, why would you NOT invade now? I would argue there might not be a better time - the US is run by a weak President (and, let's be honest, who would bet their mortgage on saying that the Chinese / Russians also don't have something on Hunter Biden - an interesting parallel with Hitler's coming to power in 1933), the EU is weak, America's allies are disheartened by its lack of spine and there are mid-terms coming up where the President's party faces electoral disaster if things continue. If I was Putin or Xi, I would be seriously tempted to call Biden's bluff.
Yes, Hitler progressively taking bits of europe that were ‘rightfully German anyway’ is a striking parallel. First the Ruhr. Then Austria and the Sudetenland. Likewise HK and Taiwan to China
Let's do "would you bet the mortgage on..." question again. How many on here would bet their mortgage that the US would be prepared to inflict severe economic sanctions on Russia if it invaded Ukraine or China intervened in Taiwan?
Well, China can't simply invade Taiwan. It's 120 miles of Ocean from China, and there aren't nice flat beaches on the China side. You would need a flotilla of landing vessels that went all the way around to the far side of the island. Plus, of course, you would need to actually build tens of thousands of barges. In secrecy.
Now, could they, if they committed, invade Taiwan?
Yes, absolutely. But it wouldn't be an "out the blue" thing, because this would be an amphibious invasion over a distance much greater than the channel with at least as many troops as the D-Day landings (against a heavily armed enemy with the latest Western fighter jets and French submarines). Sure, they could do it. But not tomorrow.
So, the question is a very different one. If China was building a force of barges and martialling them in the ports nearest Taiwan, what would the West do? And I suspect the answer is that they'd happily sell the Taiwanese lots more weapons. The French certainly would and I suspect the Americans would too. You might also see some exercises around Taiwan, that would make the Chinese job much more difficult.
If the Chinese wanted to take Taiwan, the only plausible way is via strangulation. It would be a slow uptick in diplomatic pressure; you'd refuse flights from Taiwan being able to overfly China; combined with - eventually - ships outside Taiwanese ports.
The military plans that have heard discussed (obviously I'm not privy to Chinese military plans) is, actually similar to your analogy but more with Sealion in 1940, i.e. they would establish air superiority by knocking out Taiwan's air defence systems and air force, launch cyber attacks, parachute in soldiers to take key installations and airbases, fly in more troops where possible and then would come the amphibious assaults
Now, as Crete showed in 1941, airborne landings can get very messy. However, if you also have complete air control and can fly soldiers in to captured air bases, then less so.
I'm not sure the strangulation policy would work - a lot of nations have a vested interest in making sure Taiwan stays independent and, while they might not go to war, they would support it. Look at what is happening with Lithuania and China after the former allowed Taiwan to establish relations. The US gave Lithuania a nice big juicy credit facility for a start. Better to go full in and then dare others to take military action.
Let's assume that China completely obliterates all Taiwanese air defences and Airforce in an amazing surprise attack over a hundred odd miles of flat water - bearing in mind that a great portion of the air defence material is self-mobile and so can be stashed away. To actually then land parachute troops would be a feat unmatched in modern warfare. China's paratrooper corp is, comparative to the task, tiny. Modern personal weaponry has incredible rates of fire and accuracy that would have obliterated the Crete landing. And modern advancements don't benefit the paratrooper floating through the air at all - they don't get any bonus.
An attempted paratroop invasion of Taiwan (population 24 million, area 35,000 square kilometres) By the 30-40,000 paratoopers of the PLA would be a farce of epic proportions. To try and draw parallels to Crete is, em, misguided.
Even that attack requires enormous marshalling of resources at air bases in Western China. Resources that China does not currently have.
Worth remembering that a Hercules can carry a stunning... 62 parachutists.
62.
A parachute landing requires a *lot* of planes. And it requires that pretty much all ground defences have been eliminated first. Because otherwise those floating things get lots of holes in them.
Ahem, leave the parachutists out of it for a moment and step back.
There are two questions here (1) would Taiwan's allies fight for Taiwan and (2) how far is Xi is willing to go?
If the answer to (1) is yes, then China loses - it would be severely mauled (and the US, Japanese etc have better trained troops). In that case, it's nuts for China to try.
If the answer to (1) is no, then (2) becomes the key question. Is he like Stalin or he is too fearful of the consequences?
If he is determined, even if there was no surprise attack or diminishing of capabilities, it would be very hard for Taiwan to stop the Chinese gaining air superiority even if (for some reason) the Chinese decided not to strike at the air defence systems etc etc. At some point, with enough determination, the Chinese will establish that superiority.
Once that happens, then the Chinese have a massive advantage. Essentially you can pound the ground - and the ships, naval defences etc.
One other thing which hasn't been discussed and, to be honest, I have no clue about is the amount of support China could get from inside Taiwan either from civilians or through its network. That may sound bizarre but, in the 1940s Chinese Civil War, one of the key attributes to Communist victory (and they were heavily outnumbered) was that they had an extremely successful spy / espionage network working within the Nationalists. I would doubt the Chinese have forgotten that lesson.
An additional point.
In war it is customary to seize the enemies assets.
In the case of China and the US, the US would simply indicate the US government bonds owned by China were now it's (the US) property. And tear up a huge chunk of the national debt.
Another additional point to the seizing of Treasury debt. The Chinese retaliate by seizing all US assets in China, including from private companies.
Literally trillions wiped off stocks (apple would be f**ked), trillions off Americans' household wealth and their pension plans. Not pretty.
The reality of any military confrontation of scale over Taiwan is that both US and Chinese economies (and ours) would be fncked.
Which is one reason there is slowly increasing cooperation between Taiwan, S Korea, Japan and the US to deter any Chinese action.
The concern is they are not making it clear enough that it will not be tolerated. I will know I will be accused of making this a Trump v Biden issue etc but it's more I am fearful that, if Xi thinks Biden is weak, he will try something and we could all be f**ked.
Just asked my Missus how many Taiwanese would fight if invaded. "Every single, last fucking one" was her assessment. " Whilst there would always be quislings and appeasers, it would be like Britain facing the Nazis. 14 year old girls on bikes as suicide bombers. It is their island home. Being invaded. Hitler thought we wouldn't fight cos he thought we were essentially the same people. He was very wrong."
Possibly a stupid question but is your wife Taiwanese?
Just asked my Missus how many Taiwanese would fight if invaded. "Every single, last fucking one" was her assessment. " Whilst there would always be quislings and appeasers, it would be like Britain facing the Nazis. 14 year old girls on bikes as suicide bombers. It is their island home. Being invaded. Hitler thought we wouldn't fight cos he thought we were essentially the same people. He was very wrong."
We don't, to be fair, know what would have happened had Britain actually been invaded in 1940/41. There was a very controversial film in the 1960s, It Happened Here, which depicted a Britain where that had happened and there was a strong resistence but also a high number of people who just wanted to deal with reality and manage the situation as part of the Third Reich.
It's quite a different thing prior to and after invasion. I suspect there would have been a strong UK resistence, but that there is (or was at that time) a desire for order and survival. Marshal Petain in France wasn't some kind of simple traitor - he was a patriotic war hero who to a fair degree was genuine in his wish to save French lives and French culture by engaging with what he saw as reality. He was wrong, but I can see his approach having been fairly widespread in the UK had push come to shove. Particularly because, had the UK fallen, the foothold goes - really hard to launch D-Day from New York.
No one - and least of all me - is saying it would be a prefect plan. It would be a bloodbath. But force of numbers, just as they did on the Eastern front (and yes we are back to the 1940s) would win out. Eventually. The discrepancy is too big, even given the island analogy. Taiwan is not the UK of the 1940. It does not have a vastly superior fleet or a comparable air force. It is massively outnumbered.
Re the point re spies, the CCP places a great deal of emphasis on its historical actions and roots. As I said, I have no idea of any network - I find it totally bizarre you claim my words state there is a "complete network" of spies - what I said was that, given the above and their very successful usage in the Civil War plus the familial links between Taiwanese and mainland families, it would be bizarre if they did not deploy that tactic and therefore this is an unknown that could (or not) be significant.
The way to discourage Xi is to make it very openly clear we will use military force to protect Taiwan and be unambiguous. The sooner we do this, the better.
What I'm saying is you've continually shifted how China would invade. It started off with a lighting quick Paratrooper invasion and when I pointed out how completely infeasible it was it started morphing into this slow and steady approach.
If China wanted to flatten Taiwan they could do that. But that is not an invasion, that doesn't give them control. At some point they have to get troops there and you seem to be ignoring the huge challenges of doing so even without any outside intervention from the 7th fleet. You have to describe the practical realties of this to make your invasion scenario realistic. How far Xi will go includes him actually constructing the forces necessary. If he doesn't construct the necessary forces then the 7th fleet can pop back to Hawaii for some R&R for all it matters.
And you also ignore the issue with any invasion of Taiwan. A huge chunk of the Chinese economy relies on the flow of chips from Taiwan to China. Every day that a war continues without those chips flowing is a day that factories are shut down. Anything other than a 'quick' war would lead to the shattering of the Chinese economy. A "flattened" Taiwan, pounded by ballistic missiles says would in turn devastate China.
It is in fact Taiwan's trump card. In the face of an invasion they can threaten to blow the fabs.
"What I'm saying is you've continually shifted how China would invade. "
Again, misquoting / misinterpreting. What I said was that is what I heard had been discussed not how they would invade. There is a difference. And, again, I think it would be a bloodbath.
My main point (again) was that the Chinese would, eventually, win out if they were so determined and there was no outside help - even with huge casualties - because they have far more resources than Taiwan. It is a simple numbers game. Planes, rockets, tanks, ships, missles etc. Taiwan does not have an unlimited number of air defence, sea defence missles, pilots etc. Being an island also only gives you so much protection. The Allies expected huge casualties in their planned invasion of Japan. They were still prepare to go for it.
There is also the question of whether the Taiwanese population would want to fight to the death - maybe they would, who knows?
Re the economy, my guess (and I'm not in talks with him) is that Xi cares more about being the man who reunified China rather than an economic hit which, though painful, can be rebuilt over time. And he also knows - probably rightly - that at some point the West will forgive China. just as it has done with HK and elsewhere.
Anyone telling you there would be a paratroop led invasion of Taiwan is selling you a pup.
Read what Nigel said. It would be selectively targeted at seizing control of bases, not landing in the middle of Taipei.
The central point still stands - if China wants to do it enough, and the West doesn't intervene, then Taiwan will eventually lose.
Indeed, I reckon Taiwan would fold quite quickly if confronted by a real, determined Chinese attack. They don't want to commit national suicide, and in the end life under Beijing is not that bad (especially if you are ethnic Chinese, which they are)
They would lose freedom and free speech but they would otherwise carry on as now. Able to make money, live nicely, eat great food, watch lots of TV. Look at Hong Kong. You're fine and dandy, just don't get into politics
It is not like being overwhelmed by the Soviet Union and being condemned to icy penury
China will try to bully Taiwan into surrender, without actually firing a shot. That's what they did in Hong Kong, and it worked a treat
Hong Kong was already part of China and became part of China by peaceful handover by Treaty from us in 1997
And Hong Kong was the successful dress rehearsal
Lets put this another way. Is there a single PB-er who does not believe China will somehow re-absorb Taiwan in the next 30 years? As China becomes totally hegemonic in Asia, and probably the dominant superpower in the world?
Of course China will do this. The question then is just: When and How.
As another commenter said earlier, Around About Now is a pretty good bet (but still unlikely). America is roiled and weak, and highly unstable. The EU is shaken by Brexit and still can't put together a unified defence force. Putin is a willing ally, eager to help. China is globally dominant in trading terms, which won't always be the case as India also rises, and China ages
This is PB however, so I'd put money on China attempting to retake Taiwan in the second half of this decade
Which is why as I have said before, Taiwan needs nuclear weapons.
However I don't believe China would be foolish enough to go beyond Taiwan to threaten Japan and South Korea, otherwise we would be in WW3
How do you know they don't have them?
Because they would loudly tell the world, to stop CCP threats
The only way they could get them is from America, the UK, France, or the USSR/Russia. Or Israel, NK, India or Pakistan
I can't see the motivation for any of these nations to hand over nukes to Taiwan, thus horribly destabilising Asia and enraging mainland China
They might well be trying, of course. In Taipei. Japan surely has the tech for nukes. Would Japan risk Chinese wrath by giving this to Taiwan? Tricky. Unlikely?
Taiwan has had nuclear reactors for quite a while. Which means that that they have a pile of plutonium.
Civil reactors, so high burn up - meaning lots of Plutonium 240. But, half life of every 7 years. So if you started at 20% or so (typical of civilian plant), 10% after 7 years, 5% after 14, 2.5% after 21..... And weapons grade plutonium is 7% or less (generally). The 240 decays to U-236 and can be removed chemically.
So with a bit of simple chemistry, the Taiwanese have a big pile of lovely plutonium. What to do with it?
In the 1940s, The Manhattan project had to kind of guess at getting implosion right. quite literally, they couldn't test if the implosion was accurate enough or not. These days, building x-cameras that take a zillion shots a second - which means they can take a super slow motion picture of an impassion through the metal - is standard science. So instead of a solid core (Christie) bomb, they could go straight to hollow, leviatated pits. Maybe a couple of hundred kilotons, right there.
They could probably go to asymmetric designs, two point implosion, miniaturised and all the rest - say the Swan device of 1956. But that is for smaller yields, and really is about making a primary for an H bomb (not so much explosive - high Z material - bad for H bombs)....
Which raises the really fun question - could they make an H-bob straight out of the gate? getting enough Tritium together might be an issue.. Though another path is possible - a multistage fission bomb, where a primary sets off a secondary fission bomb by radiation pressure. That was Ulam's original thought (though using neutron flux)
In any event
1) The Taiwanese have plutonium 2) With a bit of chemistry they have weapons grade plutonium 3) With a few non-nuclear explosions (lab stuff, really) they could construct a very, very efficient implosion system 4) They might be able to construct something bigger - H bomb, or multi-stage fission device
They probably can do something that weighs less than a ton and yields more than 100Kt. A number of them, at that.
Just asked my Missus how many Taiwanese would fight if invaded. "Every single, last fucking one" was her assessment. " Whilst there would always be quislings and appeasers, it would be like Britain facing the Nazis. 14 year old girls on bikes as suicide bombers. It is their island home. Being invaded. Hitler thought we wouldn't fight cos he thought we were essentially the same people. He was very wrong."
Possibly a stupid question but is your wife Taiwanese?
She lived there a very long time. You can't be Taiwanese if you aren't of the correct ethnicity. Irony klaxon! I think she's hyperbolising FWIW. However. I do think people underestimate how despised the CCP is on Taiwan. Not the Chinese people. But the Party. It unites everyone. The pro independence folk despise them as potential colonisers. The dwindling number of pro unification folk despise them as Communists (they tend to be quite right wing). And the ambivalent despise them as both.
Just asked my Missus how many Taiwanese would fight if invaded. "Every single, last fucking one" was her assessment. " Whilst there would always be quislings and appeasers, it would be like Britain facing the Nazis. 14 year old girls on bikes as suicide bombers. It is their island home. Being invaded. Hitler thought we wouldn't fight cos he thought we were essentially the same people. He was very wrong."
Possibly a stupid question but is your wife Taiwanese?
She lived there a very long time. You can't be Taiwanese if you aren't of the correct ethnicity. Irony klaxon! I think she's hyperbolising FWIW. However. I do think people underestimate how despised the CCP is on Taiwan. Not the Chinese people. But the Party. It unites everyone. The pro independence folk despise them as potential colonisers. The dwindling number of pro unification folk despise them as Communists (they tend to be quite right wing). And the ambivalent despise them as both.
Well, they are certainly communists. And they are certainly colonists.
No one - and least of all me - is saying it would be a prefect plan. It would be a bloodbath. But force of numbers, just as they did on the Eastern front (and yes we are back to the 1940s) would win out. Eventually. The discrepancy is too big, even given the island analogy. Taiwan is not the UK of the 1940. It does not have a vastly superior fleet or a comparable air force. It is massively outnumbered.
Re the point re spies, the CCP places a great deal of emphasis on its historical actions and roots. As I said, I have no idea of any network - I find it totally bizarre you claim my words state there is a "complete network" of spies - what I said was that, given the above and their very successful usage in the Civil War plus the familial links between Taiwanese and mainland families, it would be bizarre if they did not deploy that tactic and therefore this is an unknown that could (or not) be significant.
The way to discourage Xi is to make it very openly clear we will use military force to protect Taiwan and be unambiguous. The sooner we do this, the better.
What I'm saying is you've continually shifted how China would invade. It started off with a lighting quick Paratrooper invasion and when I pointed out how completely infeasible it was it started morphing into this slow and steady approach.
If China wanted to flatten Taiwan they could do that. But that is not an invasion, that doesn't give them control. At some point they have to get troops there and you seem to be ignoring the huge challenges of doing so even without any outside intervention from the 7th fleet. You have to describe the practical realties of this to make your invasion scenario realistic. How far Xi will go includes him actually constructing the forces necessary. If he doesn't construct the necessary forces then the 7th fleet can pop back to Hawaii for some R&R for all it matters.
And you also ignore the issue with any invasion of Taiwan. A huge chunk of the Chinese economy relies on the flow of chips from Taiwan to China. Every day that a war continues without those chips flowing is a day that factories are shut down. Anything other than a 'quick' war would lead to the shattering of the Chinese economy. A "flattened" Taiwan, pounded by ballistic missiles says would in turn devastate China.
It is in fact Taiwan's trump card. In the face of an invasion they can threaten to blow the fabs.
"What I'm saying is you've continually shifted how China would invade. "
Again, misquoting / misinterpreting. What I said was that is what I heard had been discussed not how they would invade. There is a difference. And, again, I think it would be a bloodbath.
My main point (again) was that the Chinese would, eventually, win out if they were so determined and there was no outside help - even with huge casualties - because they have far more resources than Taiwan. It is a simple numbers game. Planes, rockets, tanks, ships, missles etc. Taiwan does not have an unlimited number of air defence, sea defence missles, pilots etc. Being an island also only gives you so much protection. The Allies expected huge casualties in their planned invasion of Japan. They were still prepare to go for it.
There is also the question of whether the Taiwanese population would want to fight to the death - maybe they would, who knows?
Re the economy, my guess (and I'm not in talks with him) is that Xi cares more about being the man who reunified China rather than an economic hit which, though painful, can be rebuilt over time. And he also knows - probably rightly - that at some point the West will forgive China. just as it has done with HK and elsewhere.
Anyone telling you there would be a paratroop led invasion of Taiwan is selling you a pup.
Read what Nigel said. It would be selectively targeted at seizing control of bases, not landing in the middle of Taipei.
The central point still stands - if China wants to do it enough, and the West doesn't intervene, then Taiwan will eventually lose.
Indeed, I reckon Taiwan would fold quite quickly if confronted by a real, determined Chinese attack. They don't want to commit national suicide, and in the end life under Beijing is not that bad (especially if you are ethnic Chinese, which they are)
They would lose freedom and free speech but they would otherwise carry on as now. Able to make money, live nicely, eat great food, watch lots of TV. Look at Hong Kong. You're fine and dandy, just don't get into politics
It is not like being overwhelmed by the Soviet Union and being condemned to icy penury
China will try to bully Taiwan into surrender, without actually firing a shot. That's what they did in Hong Kong, and it worked a treat
Hong Kong was already part of China and became part of China by peaceful handover by Treaty from us in 1997
And Hong Kong was the successful dress rehearsal
Lets put this another way. Is there a single PB-er who does not believe China will somehow re-absorb Taiwan in the next 30 years? As China becomes totally hegemonic in Asia, and probably the dominant superpower in the world?
Of course China will do this. The question then is just: When and How.
As another commenter said earlier, Around About Now is a pretty good bet (but still unlikely). America is roiled and weak, and highly unstable. The EU is shaken by Brexit and still can't put together a unified defence force. Putin is a willing ally, eager to help. China is globally dominant in trading terms, which won't always be the case as India also rises, and China ages
This is PB however, so I'd put money on China attempting to retake Taiwan in the second half of this decade
Which is why as I have said before, Taiwan needs nuclear weapons.
However I don't believe China would be foolish enough to go beyond Taiwan to threaten Japan and South Korea, otherwise we would be in WW3
How do you know they don't have them?
Because they would loudly tell the world, to stop CCP threats
The only way they could get them is from America, the UK, France, or the USSR/Russia. Or Israel, NK, India or Pakistan
I can't see the motivation for any of these nations to hand over nukes to Taiwan, thus horribly destabilising Asia and enraging mainland China
They might well be trying, of course. In Taipei. Japan surely has the tech for nukes. Would Japan risk Chinese wrath by giving this to Taiwan? Tricky. Unlikely?
Taiwan has had nuclear reactors for quite a while. Which means that that they have a pile of plutonium.
Civil reactors, so high burn up - meaning lots of Plutonium 240. But, half life of every 7 years. So if you started at 20% or so (typical of civilian plant), 10% after 7 years, 5% after 14, 2.5% after 21..... And weapons grade plutonium is 7% or less (generally). The 240 decays to U-236 and can be removed chemically.
So with a bit of simple chemistry, the Taiwanese have a big pile of lovely plutonium. What to do with it?
In the 1940s, The Manhattan project had to kind of guess at getting implosion right. quite literally, they couldn't test if the implosion was accurate enough or not. These days, building x-cameras that take a zillion shots a second - which means they can take a super slow motion picture of an impassion through the metal - is standard science. So instead of a solid core (Christie) bomb, they could go straight to hollow, leviatated pits. Maybe a couple of hundred kilotons, right there.
They could probably go to asymmetric designs, two point implosion, miniaturised and all the rest - say the Swan device of 1956. But that is for smaller yields, and really is about making a primary for an H bomb (not so much explosive - high Z material - bad for H bombs)....
Which raises the really fun question - could they make an H-bob straight out of the gate? getting enough Tritium together might be an issue.. Though another path is possible - a multistage fission bomb, where a primary sets off a secondary fission bomb by radiation pressure. That was Ulam's original thought (though using neutron flux)
In any event
1) The Taiwanese have plutonium 2) With a bit of chemistry they have weapons grade plutonium 3) With a few non-nuclear explosions (lab stuff, really) they could construct a very, very efficient implosion system 4) They might be able to construct something bigger - H bomb, or multi-stage fission device
They probably can do something that weighs less than a ton and yields more than 100Kt. A number of them, at that.
Yes. Quite a number of Taiwanese believe they have them. Or at least the short notice capability. Of course. We don't know. And neither does Beijing. Or maybe they do? Which is why nowt, except talk, ever happens?
Just asked my Missus how many Taiwanese would fight if invaded. "Every single, last fucking one" was her assessment. " Whilst there would always be quislings and appeasers, it would be like Britain facing the Nazis. 14 year old girls on bikes as suicide bombers. It is their island home. Being invaded. Hitler thought we wouldn't fight cos he thought we were essentially the same people. He was very wrong."
Possibly a stupid question but is your wife Taiwanese?
She lived there a very long time. You can't be Taiwanese if you aren't of the correct ethnicity. Irony klaxon! I think she's hyperbolising FWIW. However. I do think people underestimate how despised the CCP is on Taiwan. Not the Chinese people. But the Party. It unites everyone. The pro independence folk despise them as potential colonisers. The dwindling number of pro unification folk despise them as Communists (they tend to be quite right wing). And the ambivalent despise them as both.
I've met a few Taiwanese people - mainly in Thailand (which they love)
One thing which has always struck me is how big and muscular the men are, in comparison to our stereotypical view of the Chinese as small and scrawny. Turns out that was always a question of diet and health. After 70 years of protein, young Taiwanese men are as big as Europeans
Yes, they despise the CCP, in my experience. But they still think of themselves as Chinese (after Taiwanese), I am not sure they would fight like the Okinawans against America, if Beijing came knocking
"Sacha Baron Cohen’s movie, Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan, suggests a country rife with sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism and toothless yokels who punch goats, drink horse urine and buy wives in exchange for 15 litres of pesticide.
Just asked my Missus how many Taiwanese would fight if invaded. "Every single, last fucking one" was her assessment. " Whilst there would always be quislings and appeasers, it would be like Britain facing the Nazis. 14 year old girls on bikes as suicide bombers. It is their island home. Being invaded. Hitler thought we wouldn't fight cos he thought we were essentially the same people. He was very wrong."
Possibly a stupid question but is your wife Taiwanese?
She lived there a very long time. You can't be Taiwanese if you aren't of the correct ethnicity. Irony klaxon! I think she's hyperbolising FWIW. However. I do think people underestimate how despised the CCP is on Taiwan. Not the Chinese people. But the Party. It unites everyone. The pro independence folk despise them as potential colonisers. The dwindling number of pro unification folk despise them as Communists (they tend to be quite right wing). And the ambivalent despise them as both.
I've met a few Taiwanese people - mainly in Thailand (which they love)
One thing which has always struck me is how big and muscular the men are, in comparison to our stereotypical view of the Chinese as small and scrawny. Turns out that was always a question of diet and health. After 70 years of protein, young Taiwanese men are as big as Europeans
Yes, they despise the CCP, in my experience. But they still think of themselves as Chinese (after Taiwanese), I am not sure they would fight like the Okinawans against America, if Beijing came knocking
Well. We may find out soon. Incidentally. There is a lot of Polynesian genes in the Taiwanese. The native inhabitants, who were not wiped out are stocky and tend to fat, yet still fit. Think Samoan rugby players. There is a surprising amount of naturally curly hair on the island too. Even amongst the ethnically Han Chinese. They've been mixing for over 500 years after all.
Comments
There are spies and will be fifth columnists you are correct.
One thing hindering this is the divergence of accents, and increasing integration of Taiwanese language terms into what really ought to now be known as Taiwanese Mandarin.
Plus, of course. The total absence of short form characters on the island. Long form isn't even taught or much known on the Mainland by anyone under 60 now.
So. Linguistically they are diverging.
As in so, so many other ways.
Ironically. It was the PRC granting easy visas to the Taiwanese some 30 odd years ago to attract investment which made many on the island actually realise how different they were.
Similar race and language. Culturally alien.
Yes, again I have no clue if this is / not an issue. I agree, they wouldn't use mainlanders if they did but they would probably go down the family route of pressurising Taiwanese families with relatives on the mainland. It is a tactic that worked well for the Chinese in helping to steal US military and technology secrets in the States using ethnic Chinese employees.
There are plenty of Trump voters in the coastal states and plenty of Dems in the flyover states
They will have to fight it out somehow, but one side will win and they will then rule the entire country
Quite amazing how we are talking about this as a real prospect: but it is
Apparently it so deeply offensive, it is the ultimate hill to die on, that the shear mention of it in the timetable means she can no longer work there. The management said, its in the advertising, sorry that's the name for the moment.
As a name it is dumb and out of date, but there are hills to die on and hills to die on.
Indientally, a question I have always had wrt the Argentine carrier - why was the UK sub unwilling to sink it in Argentine territorial waters.
Is there some legal impediment in time of conflict?
"Meanwhile in Kazakhstan"
https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1479222872791040000?s=20
I'm sure the will be many books and PhDs written in the future about how it came to pass. But frankly after a glass or two of wine I just blame fecking Zuckerberg and social media.
Sky news reported there have been decapitations.
Is it "killer" or suggesting that losing weight is desirable?
"Well Liz, you could try to depose me. But if you succeed, you will have to move into the Downing Street flat, and replacing the decoration with something less headache-inducing would be awfully expensive..."
There's a good reason why decor in tied accommodation is either flimsy and bland or solid and bland.
It's like the Chinese INVENTED it, to bring down the West, via our own cherished principles of Free Speech
I remember when we used to laugh at the Great Firewall of China, censoring, blocking and prohibiting social media. Now it seems remarkably prescient and sensible of them
Again, misquoting / misinterpreting. What I said was that is what I heard had been discussed not how they would invade. There is a difference. And, again, I think it would be a bloodbath.
My main point (again) was that the Chinese would, eventually, win out if they were so determined and there was no outside help - even with huge casualties - because they have far more resources than Taiwan. It is a simple numbers game. Planes, rockets, tanks, ships, missles etc. Taiwan does not have an unlimited number of air defence, sea defence missles, pilots etc. Being an island also only gives you so much protection. The Allies expected huge casualties in their planned invasion of Japan. They were still prepare to go for it.
There is also the question of whether the Taiwanese population would want to fight to the death - maybe they would, who knows?
Re the economy, my guess (and I'm not in talks with him) is that Xi cares more about being the man who reunified China rather than an economic hit which, though painful, can be rebuilt over time. And he also knows - probably rightly - that at some point the West will forgive China. just as it has done with HK and elsewhere.
https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2022/01/01/2003770517
… The foundries are located on the narrow plain along Taiwan’s west coast facing China, about 130km away at the nearest point. Most are close to so-called red beaches, considered by military strategists as likely landing sites for a Chinese invasion. TSMC’s headquarters and surrounding cluster of fabs in Hsinchu are just 12km from the coast.
The industry’s vulnerability was on display in July 2020, when Taiwan mobilized thousands of troops to fight off a simulated Chinese attack on Taichung, home to TSMC’s Gigafab 15, one of the foundries that make cutting-edge chips.
In the counter-invasion exercise, “enemy” paratroopers dropped on Ching Chuan Kang Air Base and captured the control tower, just a nine-minute drive from Gigafab 15. Off the coast, a virtual Chinese invasion flotilla steamed toward the city’s beaches. Fighting enveloped Taichung as Taiwanese troops and tanks counterattacked to regain control of the air base; commanders called in airstrikes, missiles and artillery, using live ammunition to pound the “invasion fleet.” The invasion was repulsed.
In mocking the exercise scenario, reports in China’s state-controlled media reinforced the potential for destruction: Waves of missile strikes would destroy Taiwanese forces before a Chinese landing, they said...
But...you work somewhere....its their business, New Year is a big time for getting new custom and I presume they probably have an idea about class names that get people through the door.
And really, its not like they wanted them to scream out the name etc, it was literally just on the New Year get fit timetable advertising. The reaction apparently was as if she was being asked to teach something called "white's only" fitness.
Your “fearless” comment is ludicrous.
The divide remains there even over 150 years since Lincoln and the civil war
Hmmm.
There was a point a few years ago when China looked like it could be on the (long) road to a friendly reunification with Taiwan. Once GDP got close to equal and with the mainland turning into to something vaguely like an open market (albeit not yet a democracy), you could see it being in Taiwan’s interest slowly but surely to get closer until some form of absorption. Not now: PRC has regressed into an increasingly totalitarian, crony capitalist oligarchy and is entrenching itself as the antagonist of its neighbours. Taiwan is a bit like the Chinese version of Cuba to Cold War USA.
Same with the Baltics, Ukraine and Belarus. Russia hasn’t really made much effort to endear itself to the people of those countries recently. As we know from Iraq and Afghanistan, invading is just the beginning. Things get harder from then on.
The reality is that “states’ rights” cuts both ways, and increasingly fractured politics will see more of a concentration on politics at the state level, rather than some fanciful scheme to split up the union.
Although of course you could argue this idea was based on previous Internet communities and bulletin boards and so on.
Basically, hippies and computer scientists, all mainly from California are fundamentally to blame.
And if Trump wins in 2024 (and he is ahead in notional polls right now) then who the F knows
Both sides have gone quite mad. Both sides can't help antagonising the other, because they hate their enemy, and they are full of the righteousness of their cause. Again I look at that movie, Don't Look Up, which boasted the most glittering cast assembled for a Hollywood film in years
They could have taken a measured approach. Instead they took deliberate aim at Trump and Trump voters, calling them thick white dangerous racists - yet again. Deliberately goading them.
Stupidly irresponsible. The Birth of a Nation, only directed by a liberal this time
The central point still stands - if China wants to do it enough, and the West doesn't intervene, then Taiwan will eventually lose.
How many did we send to Sierra Leone?
They would lose freedom and free speech but they would otherwise carry on as now. Able to make money, live nicely, eat great food, watch lots of TV. Look at Hong Kong. You're fine and dandy, just don't get into politics
It is not like being overwhelmed by the Soviet Union and being condemned to icy penury
China will try to bully Taiwan into surrender, without actually firing a shot. That's what they did in Hong Kong, and it worked a treat
https://youtu.be/5LBnMRWeV-E
Moreover. The majority don't consider themselves Chinese. Ethnically yes. But not nationally. Just as a WASP in Alabama isn't English.
Couple that with what folk will have said given their love of free speech, (The Taiwanese are the Yorkshire of China, they say what they like and like what they bloody well say, a reputation which long preceded the Civil War) and what they see happening in Tibet, Xinjiang and now Hong Kong, I reckon you underestimate the numbers willing to fight.
Then there is the freedom of religion on top of that. That's a big motivation.
Lets put this another way. Is there a single PB-er who does not believe China will somehow re-absorb Taiwan in the next 30 years? As China becomes totally hegemonic in Asia, and probably the dominant superpower in the world?
Of course China will do this. The question then is just: When and How.
As another commenter said earlier, Around About Now is a pretty good bet (but still unlikely). America is roiled and weak, and highly unstable. The EU is shaken by Brexit and still can't put together a unified defence force. Putin is a willing ally, eager to help. China is globally dominant in trading terms, which won't always be the case as India also rises, and China ages
This is PB however, so I'd put money on China attempting to retake Taiwan in the second half of this decade
The UFC has shown though you can become much more of a professional corporate entity and still have the outlandish clownish figure do the PR.
Unless by some mistake with their remote whilst pissed on becks and Jager and oxy they surf between Survivalist Gun Law Channel 8 and The Lord is A Coming via Armageddon.
However I don't believe China would be foolish enough to go beyond Taiwan to threaten Japan and South Korea, otherwise we would be in WW3
Anyway, Newt Gringrich was on a tear alright, but even at the peak of his power he was NOT running the Federal Government. He could attack, delay, frustrate, question - but it was still the Clinton Administration. And while BC famously "triangulated" to meet Newt and the Contact With America at least half-way (if not more) this was a political strategy NOT a government necessity.
And Gingrich is a VERY rare beast among the men and one woman who have served as Speaker. Perhaps it is the fact that he was defenestrated by his own Republican caucus (excuse me, "conference") is somewhat similar fashion to the way Tory backbenchers (and ministers) gave Thatcher the heave-ho as Prime Minister. But that's just one dot to draw the connection Speaker = Prime Minister.
> in early Republic, they modeled themselves after British Speaker; presiders NOT leaders.
> Henry Clay was the first Speaker as congressional leader, but he ended up moving to the US Senate, as did the focus of power on Capitol Hill for the first part of 19th century
> House regained dominance (though hardly omnipotence) after the Civil War during Reconstruction, though note that the key House leader, Thaddeus Stevens, was NOT the Speaker.
> Next Speaker who amounted to much was Thomas Reed, who modernized House procedure to limit obfuscation by the minority, codified as the famous Reed's rule; but Reed did NOT dominate the House let alone the country in terms of policy.
> Joe "Czar" Cannon used the new rules and his sway over GOP colleagues to dominate the House and exert major level of control (albeit hardly total) over legislation during first decade of 20th century, but for most part he worked closely with the (Republican) presidents during his speakership - until that is he was knocked off his perch by GOP insurgent progressives lead by George Norris.
> Next big-time Speaker didn't emerge until the 1920s, namely Nicholas Longworth, who was similar to Reed in that he focused on managing the House NOT running the country, the job of POTUS.
> Great Depression ended era of GOP ascendancy but it wasn't until 1940 that Sam Rayburn became the next great Speaker, the first for the Democrats. Prepared by decades of service in the House, in positions of ever-increasing importance, he was perhaps the closest to HYUFD's idea of a Speaker as Premier. Yet though he was a key ally to fellow Democrats FDR, HST & JFK, Rayburn was aiding NOT running their domestic agenda. And while he gave some important aid & comfort to Eisenhower, this was also the case with LBJ (then Senate Majority Leader) who tended to dominate his old House mentor, rather than the other way around.
> Tip O'Neill was the next truly significant Speaker, mainly for the way he fought with both Jimmy Carter AND Ronald Reagan, albeit for different reasons, but nonetheless hardly prime-ministerial behavior; the inadequacies of his Democratic successors directly contributed to the rise of Newt.
> Since then, with the exceptions of Gingrich and (maybe) Nancy Pelosi, speakers (all GOP) have second-rate at best, indeed for the most part dominated by some other, truly powerful member (for example, Tom DeLay)
I submit that your opinion is part of the problem, not the solution. Many many many Trump voters are really not like this. For a start, he got a good majority of white women voters, across the USA
World leaders’ outlandish threats against the unvaccinated are no way to tackle this pressing issue
Fraser Nelson"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/01/06/novak-djokovic-useful-distraction-australias-zero-covid-failure/
The US President is in a minority in being both Head of State and Head of Government, most Presidents like most monarchs are Head of State but have a Prime Minister, or Chancellor in Germany's case, who is Head of Government. However determined Speakers like Gingrich and Pelosi can take on much of that Head of Government role especially on domestic policy
The only way they could get them is from America, the UK, France, or the USSR/Russia. Or Israel, NK, India or Pakistan
I can't see the motivation for any of these nations to hand over nukes to Taiwan, thus horribly destabilising Asia and enraging mainland China
They might well be trying, of course. In Taipei. Japan surely has the tech for nukes. Would Japan risk Chinese wrath by giving this to Taiwan? Tricky. Unlikely?
I should have added the tongue in cheek icon.
But seriously, you are right. The failure by vaguely lefty people like me to understand what is going on with Trump voters is a big part of the problem.
Although in my defence, I have pitched several times on here the books of Mark Lilla and Joan Williams - both looking at what the hell is going wrong with the Democrats and the WWC.
Re: your 2nd para, "much of" is less than all, and just how much much is debatable; but methinks NOT as much as you think.
"Every single, last fucking one" was her assessment. " Whilst there would always be quislings and appeasers, it would be like Britain facing the Nazis. 14 year old girls on bikes as suicide bombers.
It is their island home. Being invaded.
Hitler thought we wouldn't fight cos he thought we were essentially the same people. He was very wrong."
https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_inflation_rate
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/dec/10/us-inflation-rate-rise-2021-highest-increase-since-1982
One thing to point out is that the Taiwanese used a airborne drop in their simulation so they seem to think that is a likely means of attack. I'll take their view thanks.
The most important line in the quote was the last one though. The scenario assumed China wouldn't be launching major missle strikes against Taiwanese defence capabilities and just that a bunch of troopers at one airport would land and then the ships would come over. Which is....unlikely. A more likely scenario would be pound Taiwan and multiple, simultaneous attacks. Which makes you think why the Taiwanese even bothered to stage it. They were essentially assuming the Chinese would launch a full frontal assault with limited other use of force.
UK is not far behind. Anyone under say about 50 has no idea what is coming down the tracks...
Re WWC, take a look at what Bette Midler said about West Virginians. Makes you weep.
"Maximise the kill zone" was the reply.
I imagine several other rich/big/tech advanced nations are in the same bracket. South Korea for sure. Germany? Probably Brazil. And Saudi Arabia
It's quite a different thing prior to and after invasion. I suspect there would have been a strong UK resistence, but that there is (or was at that time) a desire for order and survival. Marshal Petain in France wasn't some kind of simple traitor - he was a patriotic war hero who to a fair degree was genuine in his wish to save French lives and French culture by engaging with what he saw as reality. He was wrong, but I can see his approach having been fairly widespread in the UK had push come to shove. Particularly because, had the UK fallen, the foothold goes - really hard to launch D-Day from New York.
Civil reactors, so high burn up - meaning lots of Plutonium 240. But, half life of every 7 years. So if you started at 20% or so (typical of civilian plant), 10% after 7 years, 5% after 14, 2.5% after 21..... And weapons grade plutonium is 7% or less (generally). The 240 decays to U-236 and can be removed chemically.
So with a bit of simple chemistry, the Taiwanese have a big pile of lovely plutonium. What to do with it?
In the 1940s, The Manhattan project had to kind of guess at getting implosion right. quite literally, they couldn't test if the implosion was accurate enough or not. These days, building x-cameras that take a zillion shots a second - which means they can take a super slow motion picture of an impassion through the metal - is standard science. So instead of a solid core (Christie) bomb, they could go straight to hollow, leviatated pits. Maybe a couple of hundred kilotons, right there.
They could probably go to asymmetric designs, two point implosion, miniaturised and all the rest - say the Swan device of 1956. But that is for smaller yields, and really is about making a primary for an H bomb (not so much explosive - high Z material - bad for H bombs)....
Which raises the really fun question - could they make an H-bob straight out of the gate? getting enough Tritium together might be an issue.. Though another path is possible - a multistage fission bomb, where a primary sets off a secondary fission bomb by radiation pressure. That was Ulam's original thought (though using neutron flux)
In any event
1) The Taiwanese have plutonium
2) With a bit of chemistry they have weapons grade plutonium
3) With a few non-nuclear explosions (lab stuff, really) they could construct a very, very efficient implosion system
4) They might be able to construct something bigger - H bomb, or multi-stage fission device
They probably can do something that weighs less than a ton and yields more than 100Kt. A number of them, at that.
https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1479242455761444869?s=20
Looks like Tiananmen Square all over again
I think she's hyperbolising FWIW.
However. I do think people underestimate how despised the CCP is on Taiwan. Not the Chinese people. But the Party.
It unites everyone. The pro independence folk despise them as potential colonisers.
The dwindling number of pro unification folk despise them as Communists (they tend to be quite right wing).
And the ambivalent despise them as both.
Of course. We don't know. And neither does Beijing. Or maybe they do? Which is why nowt, except talk, ever happens?
One thing which has always struck me is how big and muscular the men are, in comparison to our stereotypical view of the Chinese as small and scrawny. Turns out that was always a question of diet and health. After 70 years of protein, young Taiwanese men are as big as Europeans
Yes, they despise the CCP, in my experience. But they still think of themselves as Chinese (after Taiwanese), I am not sure they would fight like the Okinawans against America, if Beijing came knocking
Sebastian Gorka DrG
@SebGorka
Who got to Ted Cruz?
https://twitter.com/SebGorka/status/1478928889908969472
"Sacha Baron Cohen’s movie, Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan, suggests a country rife with sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism and toothless yokels who punch goats, drink horse urine and buy wives in exchange for 15 litres of pesticide.
Nothing could be further from the truth"
Phew!
Incidentally. There is a lot of Polynesian genes in the Taiwanese. The native inhabitants, who were not wiped out are stocky and tend to fat, yet still fit. Think Samoan rugby players. There is a surprising amount of naturally curly hair on the island too. Even amongst the ethnically Han Chinese. They've been mixing for over 500 years after all.
And can lead to similar amounts of moisture