Oh FFS. How? We can't even stop Chinese hackers infiltrating our infrastructure, let alone Chinese warships. And has anyone told the keyboard warrior-in-chief that we have recently signed a trade deal with China?
Agree. We can't do the basics at home, but we want to get involved in conflicts on the other side of the world. Ridiculous.
We were one of the first out of the gates in the Korean War.
Britain's welfare and prosperity depends on defending the rules-based international order. Wherever in the world it is challenged.
At the very least, I'd like to think China would be kicked out of the Olympics etc. And if not, then we'd be boycotting them.
I have eighteen pubs within easy walking distance. Ten in Barnes and eight just across the river in Hammersmith. They are busy. You usually need to book to get a table for a meal or even a drink outside at the riverside pubs. Maybe Barnes is a particularly boozy place. Or maybe it's because you can walk home, or catch a bus. My nearest pub is literally 30 paces from my front door (60 on the way back).
Barnes is a lovely place, but is there anywhere less representative of the rest of the country.
It’s an example of a village surviving being absorbed into a city.
There are a number in London. Sadly, there is little sign that the planners of New Towns have learnt this lesson.
That's a really interesting question.
Part of the answer is building new towns as a collection of villages.
I think so, yes. When you look at the really high value areas (where people pay a fortune to live) they combine the village feel (to an extent), with linkage to rest of a big city.
So a network of villages integrated to a larger framework by transport.
And on one hand, we sort of get it (of I'm right, the town where JJ of this parish lives has been built up that way, and many of the successful new developments are chunky expansions of existing towns- linked to an existing settlement but with a distinct feel.)
Catch is that it means overcoming the objections of people who thought they were on the edge of town and don't see why that should change. Hence isolated, undersized cowpat estates.
A high-powered EU delegation has landed in Scotland nervously anticipating a breakthrough in talks with Donald Trump at a crunch meeting on Sunday to avoid an escalating trade war with Washington.
The EU trade commissioner, Maroš Šefčovič, and a team of aides arrived at Glasgow Prestwick airport on Sunday morning to join an advance party led by the European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, who flew in on Saturday to prepare for one of the most critical meetings in her tenure, due to be held at 4.30pm.
With the US commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick, and the trade representative, Jamieson Greer, also flying in for the meeting at Trump’s Turnberry golf resort, hopes are rising for a deal.
However, Trump is keeping the EU anxiously waiting, shouting on Sunday morning to Sky News television cameras stationed next to the golf course that the chances of a deal remained “50/50”.
Cricket: it's a day 5 pitch, so it should really be up to the spin bowlers to win it. Dawson has bowled 39 overs but hasn't looked like getting a wicket. Mainly because, er, he's a spinner who barely spins it. At least Bashir got a bit of turn. But there isn't a high class spin bowler anywhere in English cricket.
ChatGPT may be driving people to psychosis as millions of people turn to artificial intelligence (AI) for friendship and advice, NHS doctors have warned...
Watching Trump playing an iron shot off the fairway apron at Turnberry. He's got a horrible "snatchy" style of swing. He reads a put well mind.
He has a terrible swing with head up and I have no idea how he hits a ball
It was comical how Sky showed his tee shot yesterday then it appears he had to play another ball repeatedly adding 1,3,5,7,9 off the tee but it wa just Sky repeating the same shot
I thought he was renowned for playing his partner's ball? So it doesn't really matter how bad his swing is...
Trump's version of Fourballs is he always plays the best placed ball.
Its maybe why he thinks he wins tournaments.
Are there any Trophies at Turnberry where Trump won "One Chump" categories?
Oh FFS. How? We can't even stop Chinese hackers infiltrating our infrastructure, let alone Chinese warships. And has anyone told the keyboard warrior-in-chief that we have recently signed a trade deal with China?
Agree. We can't do the basics at home, but we want to get involved in conflicts on the other side of the world. Ridiculous.
We were one of the first out of the gates in the Korean War.
Britain's welfare and prosperity depends on defending the rules-based international order. Wherever in the world it is challenged.
Oh FFS. How? We can't even stop Chinese hackers infiltrating our infrastructure, let alone Chinese warships. And has anyone told the keyboard warrior-in-chief that we have recently signed a trade deal with China?
Agree. We can't do the basics at home, but we want to get involved in conflicts on the other side of the world. Ridiculous.
We were one of the first out of the gates in the Korean War.
Britain's welfare and prosperity depends on defending the rules-based international order. Wherever in the world it is challenged.
There is zero chance of the UK and Australia going to war with China if it invades Taiwan unless the US has already done so
By the way, it costs a fortune, but I have heard great things about the experience they lay on for kids at the two LaplandUK sites, in Ascot and Manchester. The entry fee alone is usually over £100 per head but they book up ever so fast. Anyone been?
Talking of the cost of children, striking chart in today's Sunday Times;
That feels more relevant to the lack of children being born than certain poster's proclivities.
Yes we need more funding for childcare but even fifty years ago there was very little childcare, 100 years ago next to none, no minimum wage and lower average earnings than now and parents had more children than they do now
Yes and not so long ago we sent children as young as nine down mines, up chimneys and in between complex machinery. I'm sure a return to those days would be hugely popular....we could bring back poorhouses (just call them two star hotels).
There's also the small matter of infant mortality numbers from 100 years ago which don't make attractive reading in the context of today (though much better than they were 100 years before that) and the old life expectancy numbers as well - back then life was perhaps not as nasty, brutish and short as it had been in earlier times but still...
Even in 2000 we were at replacement level fertility with life expectancy and infant mortality rates in the UK little different to now
In 2000 houses were affordable and people could settle down in a home of their own.
100 years ago most people in the UK rented their entire lives and still had 3 children on average
Watching Trump playing an iron shot off the fairway apron at Turnberry. He's got a horrible "snatchy" style of swing. He reads a put well mind.
He has a terrible swing with head up and I have no idea how he hits a ball
It was comical how Sky showed his tee shot yesterday then it appears he had to play another ball repeatedly adding 1,3,5,7,9 off the tee but it wa just Sky repeating the same shot
I thought he was renowned for playing his partner's ball? So it doesn't really matter how bad his swing is...
Trump's version of Fourballs is he always plays the best placed ball.
Its maybe why he thinks he wins tournaments.
Are there any Trophies at Turnberry where Trump won "One Chump" categories?
"If you would read a mans disposition see him game, you will then learn more of him in one hour, than in seven years conversation".
Trump is not just a lousy President, he is a lousy human being.
Oh FFS. How? We can't even stop Chinese hackers infiltrating our infrastructure, let alone Chinese warships. And has anyone told the keyboard warrior-in-chief that we have recently signed a trade deal with China?
Agree. We can't do the basics at home, but we want to get involved in conflicts on the other side of the world. Ridiculous.
We were one of the first out of the gates in the Korean War.
Britain's welfare and prosperity depends on defending the rules-based international order. Wherever in the world it is challenged.
There is zero chance of the UK and Australia going to war with China if it invades Taiwan unless the US has already done so
Taiwan is putting some serious effort and money into its defence.
If not then why bother ? We won’t fight for Ukraine.
That's the Telegraph quote-mining for their twitter soundbite afaics:
Asked by the Telegraph about what the UK is doing to help countries like Taiwan to prepare for potential escalation from China, Mr Healey said: “If we have to fight, as we have done in the past, Australia and the UK are nations that will fight together. We exercise together and by exercising together and being more ready to fight, we deter better together.”
I have eighteen pubs within easy walking distance. Ten in Barnes and eight just across the river in Hammersmith. They are busy. You usually need to book to get a table for a meal or even a drink outside at the riverside pubs. Maybe Barnes is a particularly boozy place. Or maybe it's because you can walk home, or catch a bus. My nearest pub is literally 30 paces from my front door (60 on the way back).
Barnes is a lovely place, but is there anywhere less representative of the rest of the country.
It’s an example of a village surviving being absorbed into a city.
There are a number in London. Sadly, there is little sign that the planners of New Towns have learnt this lesson.
That's a really interesting question.
Part of the answer is building new towns as a collection of villages.
I think so, yes. When you look at the really high value areas (where people pay a fortune to live) they combine the village feel (to an extent), with linkage to rest of a big city.
So a network of villages integrated to a larger framework by transport.
These are villages AI says are absorbed into Milton Keynes:
Bletchley, Wolverton, and Stony Stratford. Some of these villages include Bradwell, Broughton, Caldecotte, Fenny Stratford, Great Linford, Loughton, Milton Keynes Village, New Bradwell, Shenley Brook End, Shenley Church End, Simpson, Stantonbury, Tattenhoe, Tongwell, Walton, Water Eaton, Wavendon, Willen, Great and Little Woolstone, and Woughton on the Green.
I don't know it well, except certain estates and that my dad supplied roofs (upside down cones) for the Bletchley covered market.
The important thing seems to me to be facilitation of gradual growth over decades - MK has now had 50 years - and not to create absolutely huge estates instantly. That mimics how conurbations grow.
I'm a fan of letting a wide range of rural communities expand over time - say an average of 1-2% per annum in small chunks, rather than letting Nimbies freeze them in Aspic - then they are frozen for decades, and growth breaks on it like a dam-burst.
If not then why bother ? We won’t fight for Ukraine.
That's the Telegraph quote-mining for their twitter soundbite afaics:
Asked by the Telegraph about what the UK is doing to help countries like Taiwan to prepare for potential escalation from China, Mr Healey said: “If we have to fight, as we have done in the past, Australia and the UK are nations that will fight together. We exercise together and by exercising together and being more ready to fight, we deter better together.”
It’s not just the Telegraph reporting it.
I’d like to know what our treaty obligation is to Taiwan.
Oh FFS. How? We can't even stop Chinese hackers infiltrating our infrastructure, let alone Chinese warships. And has anyone told the keyboard warrior-in-chief that we have recently signed a trade deal with China?
Agree. We can't do the basics at home, but we want to get involved in conflicts on the other side of the world. Ridiculous.
We were one of the first out of the gates in the Korean War.
Britain's welfare and prosperity depends on defending the rules-based international order. Wherever in the world it is challenged.
So, a third war with the United States? It could be a bit awkward this time around.
If not then why bother ? We won’t fight for Ukraine.
That's the Telegraph quote-mining for their twitter soundbite afaics:
Asked by the Telegraph about what the UK is doing to help countries like Taiwan to prepare for potential escalation from China, Mr Healey said: “If we have to fight, as we have done in the past, Australia and the UK are nations that will fight together. We exercise together and by exercising together and being more ready to fight, we deter better together.”
It’s not just the Telegraph reporting it.
I’d like to know what our treaty obligation is to Taiwan.
In short, afaics not a lot formal (Sir Humprey / Foreign Office basis ie deniable and walk away at will). More formal in trade relations. So informal support as they are one of the 10 most democratic countries in the world (Freedom House rating, iirc), we have a strategic interest (supplier of the most high semiconductors etc), an important trading relationship (no 35 partner), and they are a canary in the coalmine like Ukraine wrt Russia. Plus there is CPTPP membership and potential Tiawanese membership, of course.
I don't believe for a minute that we would go to war with China, but I think we would do sanctions and maybe use a CSG to free up a USN equivalent if needed - assuming the USA is still on the side of democracy / international law by then.
Oh FFS. How? We can't even stop Chinese hackers infiltrating our infrastructure, let alone Chinese warships. And has anyone told the keyboard warrior-in-chief that we have recently signed a trade deal with China?
Agree. We can't do the basics at home, but we want to get involved in conflicts on the other side of the world. Ridiculous.
We were one of the first out of the gates in the Korean War.
Britain's welfare and prosperity depends on defending the rules-based international order. Wherever in the world it is challenged.
So, a third war with the United States? It could be a bit awkward this time around.
It would be more awkward for the whole of South-East Asia to become vassals of China.
If this continues, at some point someone could start shooting back.
I watched all of those clips. It is horrific. The USA is now a police state. The arresting officers wearing masks, no identification, no warrants. Just taking people. If you record, as in the last example you get arrested as well.
I imagine @leon thinks this is ok. This is MAGA. Will this be Reform?
Oh FFS. How? We can't even stop Chinese hackers infiltrating our infrastructure, let alone Chinese warships. And has anyone told the keyboard warrior-in-chief that we have recently signed a trade deal with China?
Agree. We can't do the basics at home, but we want to get involved in conflicts on the other side of the world. Ridiculous.
We were one of the first out of the gates in the Korean War.
Britain's welfare and prosperity depends on defending the rules-based international order. Wherever in the world it is challenged.
So, a third war with the United States? It could be a bit awkward this time around.
It would be more awkward for the whole of South-East Asia to become vassals of China.
I don't think there is anything that we could do about it. It isn't the nineteenth century any more.
If this continues, at some point someone could start shooting back.
I watched all of those clips. It is horrific. The USA is now a police state. The arresting officers wearing masks, no identification, no warrants. Just taking people. If you record, as in the last example you get arrested as well.
I imagine @leon thinks this is ok. This is MAGA. Will this be Reform?
Remember when Rupert Lowe criticised Nigel Farage then Farage and his minions got the police involved to get Lowe investigated....
Oh FFS. How? We can't even stop Chinese hackers infiltrating our infrastructure, let alone Chinese warships. And has anyone told the keyboard warrior-in-chief that we have recently signed a trade deal with China?
Agree. We can't do the basics at home, but we want to get involved in conflicts on the other side of the world. Ridiculous.
We were one of the first out of the gates in the Korean War.
Britain's welfare and prosperity depends on defending the rules-based international order. Wherever in the world it is challenged.
There is zero chance of the UK and Australia going to war with China if it invades Taiwan unless the US has already done so
Taiwan is putting some serious effort and money into its defence.
A war between China and Taiwan would be both horrifying and fascinating.
On one hand, you have China: a massive country that has invested lots of treasure into its military over the past decade, and which has expansionist territorial desires. On the other, you have a much smaller country, with a much smaller military, on an island. But one that has been fearing invasion for decades.
It should all go China's way. But there's one big issue: China's military is massive, but it is also untested. Their navy, air force and army have not been in serious conflict for at least forty-five years, when it was a very different military. As with any military, there will be massive issues with kit, tactics and strategy that can only be 'fixed' by combat. And these issues effect attacker more than defender. Then there's the elephant in the room: Ukraine. Few expected Ukraine to survive as long as it has against Russia's military 'might'. China could easily face similar issues, and I think this may have stayed Xi's hands.
Which is why I expect a China-Taiwan conflict to be very different, starting off with a naval blockade over some imagined slight.
I have eighteen pubs within easy walking distance. Ten in Barnes and eight just across the river in Hammersmith. They are busy. You usually need to book to get a table for a meal or even a drink outside at the riverside pubs. Maybe Barnes is a particularly boozy place. Or maybe it's because you can walk home, or catch a bus. My nearest pub is literally 30 paces from my front door (60 on the way back).
Mate, I live in Camden. There are probably more pubs than anything else. As I type this I’m looking at the Edinboro Castle beer garden (a fine place)
The plethora of pubs here is not surprising. So many workers as was and now so many young people. It’s one reason I love it despite the “challenging” aspects
However what confounds me is the number of supermarkets. Within half a mile there is a
Co op Aldi Big M&S Tesco metro Huge Sainsbury’s Whole Foods
And a massive Morrisons just beyond
Yet now they are opening another Sainsbury’s. Big. On Parkway
What are the economics of this? Can anyone explain it? Can it just be for all the kids at the market?
My local town used to have 14 pubs when I first moved here. Now has eight. Two have closed just in last six months. But it does have three micro-pubs. And a hell of a lot more eating places some of which will do a glass of wine with the meal etc. Must 3x the number of places to eat than a decade or two ago. I have no idea how they are all making money to be honest.
Feels like every other week there's another planning application for an eatery.
Maybe different generation would rather eat and have a glass or two of wine than sit in a pub and have cheese and onion sandwiches?
Partly it's that.
Partly it's that High Street rents have fallen sharply as traditional retail had been supplanted by online. Partly it's that the rise of Door Dash means that every restaurant gets additional takeaway revenues these days.
Oh FFS. How? We can't even stop Chinese hackers infiltrating our infrastructure, let alone Chinese warships. And has anyone told the keyboard warrior-in-chief that we have recently signed a trade deal with China?
Agree. We can't do the basics at home, but we want to get involved in conflicts on the other side of the world. Ridiculous.
We were one of the first out of the gates in the Korean War.
Britain's welfare and prosperity depends on defending the rules-based international order. Wherever in the world it is challenged.
There is zero chance of the UK and Australia going to war with China if it invades Taiwan unless the US has already done so
Taiwan is putting some serious effort and money into its defence.
A war between China and Taiwan would be both horrifying and fascinating.
On one hand, you have China: a massive country that has invested lots of treasure into its military over the past decade, and which has expansionist territorial desires. On the other, you have a much smaller country, with a much smaller military, on an island. But one that has been fearing invasion for decades.
It should all go China's way. But there's one big issue: China's military is massive, but it is also untested. Their navy, air force and army have not been in serious conflict for at least forty-five years, when it was a very different military. As with any military, there will be massive issues with kit, tactics and strategy that can only be 'fixed' by combat. And these issues effect attacker more than defender. Then there's the elephant in the room: Ukraine. Few expected Ukraine to survive as long as it has against Russia's military 'might'. China could easily face similar issues, and I think this may have stayed Xi's hands.
Which is why I expect a China-Taiwan conflict to be very different, starting off with a naval blockade over some imagined slight.
One note: Taiwan's last bit of warfighting was I think 55 years ago - even longer.
(China's I assume being their invasion of Vietnam in 1979, though they may have I think done proxy wars and there have been border skirmishes such as India since then.)
Oh FFS. How? We can't even stop Chinese hackers infiltrating our infrastructure, let alone Chinese warships. And has anyone told the keyboard warrior-in-chief that we have recently signed a trade deal with China?
Agree. We can't do the basics at home, but we want to get involved in conflicts on the other side of the world. Ridiculous.
We were one of the first out of the gates in the Korean War.
Britain's welfare and prosperity depends on defending the rules-based international order. Wherever in the world it is challenged.
There is zero chance of the UK and Australia going to war with China if it invades Taiwan unless the US has already done so
Taiwan is putting some serious effort and money into its defence.
A war between China and Taiwan would be both horrifying and fascinating.
On one hand, you have China: a massive country that has invested lots of treasure into its military over the past decade, and which has expansionist territorial desires. On the other, you have a much smaller country, with a much smaller military, on an island. But one that has been fearing invasion for decades.
It should all go China's way. But there's one big issue: China's military is massive, but it is also untested. Their navy, air force and army have not been in serious conflict for at least forty-five years, when it was a very different military. As with any military, there will be massive issues with kit, tactics and strategy that can only be 'fixed' by combat. And these issues effect attacker more than defender. Then there's the elephant in the room: Ukraine. Few expected Ukraine to survive as long as it has against Russia's military 'might'. China could easily face similar issues, and I think this may have stayed Xi's hands.
Which is why I expect a China-Taiwan conflict to be very different, starting off with a naval blockade over some imagined slight.
There is a conspiracy theory that Taiwan is just a cover story for a build-up against Russia to recover the half of Siberia that used to be China (Outer Manchuria). Two massive nuclear powers facing off against each other. What could go wrong?
Oh FFS. How? We can't even stop Chinese hackers infiltrating our infrastructure, let alone Chinese warships. And has anyone told the keyboard warrior-in-chief that we have recently signed a trade deal with China?
Agree. We can't do the basics at home, but we want to get involved in conflicts on the other side of the world. Ridiculous.
We were one of the first out of the gates in the Korean War.
Britain's welfare and prosperity depends on defending the rules-based international order. Wherever in the world it is challenged.
There is zero chance of the UK and Australia going to war with China if it invades Taiwan unless the US has already done so
Taiwan is putting some serious effort and money into its defence.
A war between China and Taiwan would be both horrifying and fascinating.
On one hand, you have China: a massive country that has invested lots of treasure into its military over the past decade, and which has expansionist territorial desires. On the other, you have a much smaller country, with a much smaller military, on an island. But one that has been fearing invasion for decades.
It should all go China's way. But there's one big issue: China's military is massive, but it is also untested. Their navy, air force and army have not been in serious conflict for at least forty-five years, when it was a very different military. As with any military, there will be massive issues with kit, tactics and strategy that can only be 'fixed' by combat. And these issues effect attacker more than defender. Then there's the elephant in the room: Ukraine. Few expected Ukraine to survive as long as it has against Russia's military 'might'. China could easily face similar issues, and I think this may have stayed Xi's hands.
Which is why I expect a China-Taiwan conflict to be very different, starting off with a naval blockade over some imagined slight.
One note: Taiwan's last bit of warfighting was I think 55 years ago - even longer.
(China's I assume being their invasion of Vietnam in 1979, though they may have I think done proxy wars and there have been border skirmishes such as India since then.)
Chinese airplanes did well in the recent Indo-Pakistan fracas.
A war between China and Taiwan would be both horrifying and fascinating.
On one hand, you have China: a massive country that has invested lots of treasure into its military over the past decade, and which has expansionist territorial desires. On the other, you have a much smaller country, with a much smaller military, on an island. But one that has been fearing invasion for decades.
They are the same country and it would be a civil war. That's literally the point.
I'm strongly in favour of full Taiwanese independence (and for Hong Kong, Tibet and Macao while we're at it) and it might well take a war to make it happen but we really should've got this all sorted 50 years ago, instead of appeasing the 'one China' policy and pretending that everything will be permanently fine so long as there's enough sand to bury our heads in...
Oh FFS. How? We can't even stop Chinese hackers infiltrating our infrastructure, let alone Chinese warships. And has anyone told the keyboard warrior-in-chief that we have recently signed a trade deal with China?
Agree. We can't do the basics at home, but we want to get involved in conflicts on the other side of the world. Ridiculous.
We were one of the first out of the gates in the Korean War.
Britain's welfare and prosperity depends on defending the rules-based international order. Wherever in the world it is challenged.
There is zero chance of the UK and Australia going to war with China if it invades Taiwan unless the US has already done so
Taiwan is putting some serious effort and money into its defence.
A war between China and Taiwan would be both horrifying and fascinating.
On one hand, you have China: a massive country that has invested lots of treasure into its military over the past decade, and which has expansionist territorial desires. On the other, you have a much smaller country, with a much smaller military, on an island. But one that has been fearing invasion for decades.
It should all go China's way. But there's one big issue: China's military is massive, but it is also untested. Their navy, air force and army have not been in serious conflict for at least forty-five years, when it was a very different military. As with any military, there will be massive issues with kit, tactics and strategy that can only be 'fixed' by combat. And these issues effect attacker more than defender. Then there's the elephant in the room: Ukraine. Few expected Ukraine to survive as long as it has against Russia's military 'might'. China could easily face similar issues, and I think this may have stayed Xi's hands.
Which is why I expect a China-Taiwan conflict to be very different, starting off with a naval blockade over some imagined slight.
One note: Taiwan's last bit of warfighting was I think 55 years ago - even longer.
(China's I assume being their invasion of Vietnam in 1979, though they may have I think done proxy wars and there have been border skirmishes such as India since then.)
Chinese airplanes did well in the recent Indo-Pakistan fracas.
OTOH a Chinese-built Bangladesh Air Force plane crashed into a school in Dhaka last week.
Thom Yorke, and other people nobody will admit are terrible singers
THOM Yorke might be a creative genius but his singing sounds like a cat being squished between two breeze blocks. Here are some other tuneless bastards.
Thom Yorke
If you were feeling generous, you might describe the Radiohead frontman’s singing style as ‘haunting’. But you’re not so the truth is his high-pitched keening makes you feel like your ears are going to start bleeding. Don’t criticise him in front of a fan though, as you’ll be given a long, boring lecture on how ‘distinctive’ he sounds.
Annual supermarket sales revenues in the UK, about £200bn per year. So Camden borough's share of that on a per population basis would be somewhere over half a billion pounds. Now, obviously Camden covers enough of central London for all those Metros and Locals to serve the passing shoppers, so I wouldn't be amazed if that bumps up the till rings in Leon's manor to over a billion pounds a year.
Does that support a dozen big and small supermarkets. It's not difficult to see.
I like Creep and Karma Police they are my two favourite Radiohead songs.
Plus I survived putting this in a header.
I expect that at the next few elections Labour will keep on reminding voters of the Liz Truss interregnum because quite frankly only Radiohead have a worse record than Liz Truss.
I like Creep and Karma Police they are my two favourite Radiohead songs.
Plus I survived putting this in a header.
I expect that at the next few elections Labour will keep on reminding voters of the Liz Truss interregnum because quite frankly only Radiohead have a worse record than Liz Truss.
I still maintain that "Karma police, arrest this man" ought to be the start of a Tommy Cooper joke, and I cannot listen to that song without imagining him delivering the line.
I like Creep and Karma Police they are my two favourite Radiohead songs.
Plus I survived putting this in a header.
I expect that at the next few elections Labour will keep on reminding voters of the Liz Truss interregnum because quite frankly only Radiohead have a worse record than Liz Truss.
I still maintain that "Karma police, arrest this man" ought to be the start of a Tommy Cooper joke, and I cannot listen to that song without imagining him delivering the line.
Oh FFS. How? We can't even stop Chinese hackers infiltrating our infrastructure, let alone Chinese warships. And has anyone told the keyboard warrior-in-chief that we have recently signed a trade deal with China?
Agree. We can't do the basics at home, but we want to get involved in conflicts on the other side of the world. Ridiculous.
We were one of the first out of the gates in the Korean War.
Britain's welfare and prosperity depends on defending the rules-based international order. Wherever in the world it is challenged.
So, a third war with the United States? It could be a bit awkward this time around.
It would be more awkward for the whole of South-East Asia to become vassals of China.
I don't think there is anything that we could do about it. It isn't the nineteenth century any more.
We have a carrier group we can deploy. In fact, it's out there right now.
But it's fascinating that you interpret the realpolitik of today through the lens of Victorian imperialism.
I'd say that makes you the out of date one, not us.
Oh FFS. How? We can't even stop Chinese hackers infiltrating our infrastructure, let alone Chinese warships. And has anyone told the keyboard warrior-in-chief that we have recently signed a trade deal with China?
Agree. We can't do the basics at home, but we want to get involved in conflicts on the other side of the world. Ridiculous.
We were one of the first out of the gates in the Korean War.
Britain's welfare and prosperity depends on defending the rules-based international order. Wherever in the world it is challenged.
There is zero chance of the UK and Australia going to war with China if it invades Taiwan unless the US has already done so
Taiwan is putting some serious effort and money into its defence.
A war between China and Taiwan would be both horrifying and fascinating.
On one hand, you have China: a massive country that has invested lots of treasure into its military over the past decade, and which has expansionist territorial desires. On the other, you have a much smaller country, with a much smaller military, on an island. But one that has been fearing invasion for decades.
It should all go China's way. But there's one big issue: China's military is massive, but it is also untested. Their navy, air force and army have not been in serious conflict for at least forty-five years, when it was a very different military. As with any military, there will be massive issues with kit, tactics and strategy that can only be 'fixed' by combat. And these issues effect attacker more than defender. Then there's the elephant in the room: Ukraine. Few expected Ukraine to survive as long as it has against Russia's military 'might'. China could easily face similar issues, and I think this may have stayed Xi's hands.
Which is why I expect a China-Taiwan conflict to be very different, starting off with a naval blockade over some imagined slight.
An opposed amphibious landing is extremely hard to pull off.
Oh FFS. How? We can't even stop Chinese hackers infiltrating our infrastructure, let alone Chinese warships. And has anyone told the keyboard warrior-in-chief that we have recently signed a trade deal with China?
Agree. We can't do the basics at home, but we want to get involved in conflicts on the other side of the world. Ridiculous.
We were one of the first out of the gates in the Korean War.
Britain's welfare and prosperity depends on defending the rules-based international order. Wherever in the world it is challenged.
There is zero chance of the UK and Australia going to war with China if it invades Taiwan unless the US has already done so
Taiwan is putting some serious effort and money into its defence.
A war between China and Taiwan would be both horrifying and fascinating.
On one hand, you have China: a massive country that has invested lots of treasure into its military over the past decade, and which has expansionist territorial desires. On the other, you have a much smaller country, with a much smaller military, on an island. But one that has been fearing invasion for decades.
It should all go China's way. But there's one big issue: China's military is massive, but it is also untested. Their navy, air force and army have not been in serious conflict for at least forty-five years, when it was a very different military. As with any military, there will be massive issues with kit, tactics and strategy that can only be 'fixed' by combat. And these issues effect attacker more than defender. Then there's the elephant in the room: Ukraine. Few expected Ukraine to survive as long as it has against Russia's military 'might'. China could easily face similar issues, and I think this may have stayed Xi's hands.
Which is why I expect a China-Taiwan conflict to be very different, starting off with a naval blockade over some imagined slight.
An opposed amphibious landing is extremely hard to pull off.
My expectation the first Chinese landing will be more of a Dieppe than a Normandy but will the Chinese learn the appropriate lessons?
Oh FFS. How? We can't even stop Chinese hackers infiltrating our infrastructure, let alone Chinese warships. And has anyone told the keyboard warrior-in-chief that we have recently signed a trade deal with China?
Agree. We can't do the basics at home, but we want to get involved in conflicts on the other side of the world. Ridiculous.
We were one of the first out of the gates in the Korean War.
Britain's welfare and prosperity depends on defending the rules-based international order. Wherever in the world it is challenged.
There is zero chance of the UK and Australia going to war with China if it invades Taiwan unless the US has already done so
Taiwan is putting some serious effort and money into its defence.
A war between China and Taiwan would be both horrifying and fascinating.
On one hand, you have China: a massive country that has invested lots of treasure into its military over the past decade, and which has expansionist territorial desires. On the other, you have a much smaller country, with a much smaller military, on an island. But one that has been fearing invasion for decades.
It should all go China's way. But there's one big issue: China's military is massive, but it is also untested. Their navy, air force and army have not been in serious conflict for at least forty-five years, when it was a very different military. As with any military, there will be massive issues with kit, tactics and strategy that can only be 'fixed' by combat. And these issues effect attacker more than defender. Then there's the elephant in the room: Ukraine. Few expected Ukraine to survive as long as it has against Russia's military 'might'. China could easily face similar issues, and I think this may have stayed Xi's hands.
Which is why I expect a China-Taiwan conflict to be very different, starting off with a naval blockade over some imagined slight.
One note: Taiwan's last bit of warfighting was I think 55 years ago - even longer.
(China's I assume being their invasion of Vietnam in 1979, though they may have I think done proxy wars and there have been border skirmishes such as India since then.)
Chinese airplanes did well in the recent Indo-Pakistan fracas.
Oh FFS. How? We can't even stop Chinese hackers infiltrating our infrastructure, let alone Chinese warships. And has anyone told the keyboard warrior-in-chief that we have recently signed a trade deal with China?
Agree. We can't do the basics at home, but we want to get involved in conflicts on the other side of the world. Ridiculous.
We were one of the first out of the gates in the Korean War.
Britain's welfare and prosperity depends on defending the rules-based international order. Wherever in the world it is challenged.
There is zero chance of the UK and Australia going to war with China if it invades Taiwan unless the US has already done so
Taiwan is putting some serious effort and money into its defence.
A war between China and Taiwan would be both horrifying and fascinating.
On one hand, you have China: a massive country that has invested lots of treasure into its military over the past decade, and which has expansionist territorial desires. On the other, you have a much smaller country, with a much smaller military, on an island. But one that has been fearing invasion for decades.
It should all go China's way. But there's one big issue: China's military is massive, but it is also untested. Their navy, air force and army have not been in serious conflict for at least forty-five years, when it was a very different military. As with any military, there will be massive issues with kit, tactics and strategy that can only be 'fixed' by combat. And these issues effect attacker more than defender. Then there's the elephant in the room: Ukraine. Few expected Ukraine to survive as long as it has against Russia's military 'might'. China could easily face similar issues, and I think this may have stayed Xi's hands.
Which is why I expect a China-Taiwan conflict to be very different, starting off with a naval blockade over some imagined slight.
One note: Taiwan's last bit of warfighting was I think 55 years ago - even longer.
(China's I assume being their invasion of Vietnam in 1979, though they may have I think done proxy wars and there have been border skirmishes such as India since then.)
Chinese airplanes did well in the recent Indo-Pakistan fracas.
Aeroplanes.
it's a shame you did not show such pedantic precision to the MH17 airplane.
I like Creep and Karma Police they are my two favourite Radiohead songs.
Plus I survived putting this in a header.
I expect that at the next few elections Labour will keep on reminding voters of the Liz Truss interregnum because quite frankly only Radiohead have a worse record than Liz Truss.
I still maintain that "Karma police, arrest this man" ought to be the start of a Tommy Cooper joke, and I cannot listen to that song without imagining him delivering the line.
Oh FFS. How? We can't even stop Chinese hackers infiltrating our infrastructure, let alone Chinese warships. And has anyone told the keyboard warrior-in-chief that we have recently signed a trade deal with China?
Agree. We can't do the basics at home, but we want to get involved in conflicts on the other side of the world. Ridiculous.
We were one of the first out of the gates in the Korean War.
Britain's welfare and prosperity depends on defending the rules-based international order. Wherever in the world it is challenged.
There is zero chance of the UK and Australia going to war with China if it invades Taiwan unless the US has already done so
Taiwan is putting some serious effort and money into its defence.
A war between China and Taiwan would be both horrifying and fascinating.
On one hand, you have China: a massive country that has invested lots of treasure into its military over the past decade, and which has expansionist territorial desires. On the other, you have a much smaller country, with a much smaller military, on an island. But one that has been fearing invasion for decades.
It should all go China's way. But there's one big issue: China's military is massive, but it is also untested. Their navy, air force and army have not been in serious conflict for at least forty-five years, when it was a very different military. As with any military, there will be massive issues with kit, tactics and strategy that can only be 'fixed' by combat. And these issues effect attacker more than defender. Then there's the elephant in the room: Ukraine. Few expected Ukraine to survive as long as it has against Russia's military 'might'. China could easily face similar issues, and I think this may have stayed Xi's hands.
Which is why I expect a China-Taiwan conflict to be very different, starting off with a naval blockade over some imagined slight.
One note: Taiwan's last bit of warfighting was I think 55 years ago - even longer.
(China's I assume being their invasion of Vietnam in 1979, though they may have I think done proxy wars and there have been border skirmishes such as India since then.)
Chinese airplanes did well in the recent Indo-Pakistan fracas.
Aeroplanes.
it's a shame you did not show such pedantic precision to the MH17 airplane.
Oh FFS. How? We can't even stop Chinese hackers infiltrating our infrastructure, let alone Chinese warships. And has anyone told the keyboard warrior-in-chief that we have recently signed a trade deal with China?
Agree. We can't do the basics at home, but we want to get involved in conflicts on the other side of the world. Ridiculous.
We were one of the first out of the gates in the Korean War.
Britain's welfare and prosperity depends on defending the rules-based international order. Wherever in the world it is challenged.
So, a third war with the United States? It could be a bit awkward this time around.
It would be more awkward for the whole of South-East Asia to become vassals of China.
I don't think there is anything that we could do about it. It isn't the nineteenth century any more.
We have a carrier group we can deploy. In fact, it's out there right now.
But it's fascinating that you interpret the realpolitik of today through the lens of Victorian imperialism.
I'd say that makes you the out of date one, not us.
If HMS Prince of Wales operates within range of land it will suffer the same fate as the last HMS PoW that we sent to the South China Sea.
Oh FFS. How? We can't even stop Chinese hackers infiltrating our infrastructure, let alone Chinese warships. And has anyone told the keyboard warrior-in-chief that we have recently signed a trade deal with China?
Agree. We can't do the basics at home, but we want to get involved in conflicts on the other side of the world. Ridiculous.
We were one of the first out of the gates in the Korean War.
Britain's welfare and prosperity depends on defending the rules-based international order. Wherever in the world it is challenged.
There is zero chance of the UK and Australia going to war with China if it invades Taiwan unless the US has already done so
Taiwan is putting some serious effort and money into its defence.
A war between China and Taiwan would be both horrifying and fascinating.
On one hand, you have China: a massive country that has invested lots of treasure into its military over the past decade, and which has expansionist territorial desires. On the other, you have a much smaller country, with a much smaller military, on an island. But one that has been fearing invasion for decades.
It should all go China's way. But there's one big issue: China's military is massive, but it is also untested. Their navy, air force and army have not been in serious conflict for at least forty-five years, when it was a very different military. As with any military, there will be massive issues with kit, tactics and strategy that can only be 'fixed' by combat. And these issues effect attacker more than defender. Then there's the elephant in the room: Ukraine. Few expected Ukraine to survive as long as it has against Russia's military 'might'. China could easily face similar issues, and I think this may have stayed Xi's hands.
Which is why I expect a China-Taiwan conflict to be very different, starting off with a naval blockade over some imagined slight.
One note: Taiwan's last bit of warfighting was I think 55 years ago - even longer.
(China's I assume being their invasion of Vietnam in 1979, though they may have I think done proxy wars and there have been border skirmishes such as India since then.)
Chinese airplanes did well in the recent Indo-Pakistan fracas.
Aeroplanes.
it's a shame you did not show such pedantic precision to the MH17 airplane.
Aeroplane.
Back at Company Y, we had an engineer who would regularly take part in spec reviews. He would contribute lots of red ink over spelling mistakes, punctuation, and layout issues. He would then argue every single one in the review. This would take up much of the review.
Then someone said something like: "Leave all spelling, punctuation and formatting issues for the author to address afterwards. This meeting is only to discuss the actual content."
After which, it became clear that the engineer had nothing of value to contribute. He was an empty vessel. And when he did have comments on the actual content, it was clear hew had zero understanding of the actual spec.
That's you, that is.
"Aeroplane" or "airplane" does not matter for comprehension. One might be better for British English; the other better for American English. But everyone knows what is meant. And you think you make yourself look smart by pointing this out.
Whereas your actual content: whether it is MH17, Ukrainian Biolabs or battling cancer, is stoopid. Or worse.
Oh FFS. How? We can't even stop Chinese hackers infiltrating our infrastructure, let alone Chinese warships. And has anyone told the keyboard warrior-in-chief that we have recently signed a trade deal with China?
Agree. We can't do the basics at home, but we want to get involved in conflicts on the other side of the world. Ridiculous.
We were one of the first out of the gates in the Korean War.
Britain's welfare and prosperity depends on defending the rules-based international order. Wherever in the world it is challenged.
There is zero chance of the UK and Australia going to war with China if it invades Taiwan unless the US has already done so
Taiwan is putting some serious effort and money into its defence.
A war between China and Taiwan would be both horrifying and fascinating.
On one hand, you have China: a massive country that has invested lots of treasure into its military over the past decade, and which has expansionist territorial desires. On the other, you have a much smaller country, with a much smaller military, on an island. But one that has been fearing invasion for decades.
It should all go China's way. But there's one big issue: China's military is massive, but it is also untested. Their navy, air force and army have not been in serious conflict for at least forty-five years, when it was a very different military. As with any military, there will be massive issues with kit, tactics and strategy that can only be 'fixed' by combat. And these issues effect attacker more than defender. Then there's the elephant in the room: Ukraine. Few expected Ukraine to survive as long as it has against Russia's military 'might'. China could easily face similar issues, and I think this may have stayed Xi's hands.
Which is why I expect a China-Taiwan conflict to be very different, starting off with a naval blockade over some imagined slight.
An opposed amphibious landing is extremely hard to pull off.
My expectation the first Chinese landing will be more of a Dieppe than a Normandy but will the Chinese learn the appropriate lessons?
My own view is that attempting to conduct an invasion over 80-120 miles of sea, against a very well-armed adversary, which is supported by the world's most powerful navy, would be insanity.
Oh FFS. How? We can't even stop Chinese hackers infiltrating our infrastructure, let alone Chinese warships. And has anyone told the keyboard warrior-in-chief that we have recently signed a trade deal with China?
Agree. We can't do the basics at home, but we want to get involved in conflicts on the other side of the world. Ridiculous.
We were one of the first out of the gates in the Korean War.
Britain's welfare and prosperity depends on defending the rules-based international order. Wherever in the world it is challenged.
There is zero chance of the UK and Australia going to war with China if it invades Taiwan unless the US has already done so
Taiwan is putting some serious effort and money into its defence.
A war between China and Taiwan would be both horrifying and fascinating.
On one hand, you have China: a massive country that has invested lots of treasure into its military over the past decade, and which has expansionist territorial desires. On the other, you have a much smaller country, with a much smaller military, on an island. But one that has been fearing invasion for decades.
It should all go China's way. But there's one big issue: China's military is massive, but it is also untested. Their navy, air force and army have not been in serious conflict for at least forty-five years, when it was a very different military. As with any military, there will be massive issues with kit, tactics and strategy that can only be 'fixed' by combat. And these issues effect attacker more than defender. Then there's the elephant in the room: Ukraine. Few expected Ukraine to survive as long as it has against Russia's military 'might'. China could easily face similar issues, and I think this may have stayed Xi's hands.
Which is why I expect a China-Taiwan conflict to be very different, starting off with a naval blockade over some imagined slight.
One note: Taiwan's last bit of warfighting was I think 55 years ago - even longer.
(China's I assume being their invasion of Vietnam in 1979, though they may have I think done proxy wars and there have been border skirmishes such as India since then.)
Chinese airplanes did well in the recent Indo-Pakistan fracas.
Aeroplanes.
it's a shame you did not show such pedantic precision to the MH17 airplane.
Aeroplane.
Back at Company Y, we had an engineer who would regularly take part in spec reviews. He would contribute lots of red ink over spelling mistakes, punctuation, and layout issues. He would then argue every single one in the review. This would take up much of the review.
Then someone said something like: "Leave all spelling, punctuation and formatting issues for the author to address afterwards. This meeting is only to discuss the actual content."
After which, it became clear that the engineer had nothing of value to contribute. He was an empty vessel. And when he did have comments on the actual content, it was clear hew had zero understanding of the actual spec.
That's you, that is.
"Aeroplane" or "airplane" does not matter for comprehension. One might be better for British English; the other better for American English. But everyone knows what is meant. And you think you make yourself look smart by pointing this out.
Whereas your actual content: whether it is MH17, Ukrainian Biolabs or battling cancer, is stoopid. Or worse.
At work, I don't argue about grammar (it's "data are" not "data is" FFS!) for this very reason.
Oh FFS. How? We can't even stop Chinese hackers infiltrating our infrastructure, let alone Chinese warships. And has anyone told the keyboard warrior-in-chief that we have recently signed a trade deal with China?
Agree. We can't do the basics at home, but we want to get involved in conflicts on the other side of the world. Ridiculous.
We were one of the first out of the gates in the Korean War.
Britain's welfare and prosperity depends on defending the rules-based international order. Wherever in the world it is challenged.
There is zero chance of the UK and Australia going to war with China if it invades Taiwan unless the US has already done so
Taiwan is putting some serious effort and money into its defence.
A war between China and Taiwan would be both horrifying and fascinating.
On one hand, you have China: a massive country that has invested lots of treasure into its military over the past decade, and which has expansionist territorial desires. On the other, you have a much smaller country, with a much smaller military, on an island. But one that has been fearing invasion for decades.
It should all go China's way. But there's one big issue: China's military is massive, but it is also untested. Their navy, air force and army have not been in serious conflict for at least forty-five years, when it was a very different military. As with any military, there will be massive issues with kit, tactics and strategy that can only be 'fixed' by combat. And these issues effect attacker more than defender. Then there's the elephant in the room: Ukraine. Few expected Ukraine to survive as long as it has against Russia's military 'might'. China could easily face similar issues, and I think this may have stayed Xi's hands.
Which is why I expect a China-Taiwan conflict to be very different, starting off with a naval blockade over some imagined slight.
One note: Taiwan's last bit of warfighting was I think 55 years ago - even longer.
(China's I assume being their invasion of Vietnam in 1979, though they may have I think done proxy wars and there have been border skirmishes such as India since then.)
Chinese airplanes did well in the recent Indo-Pakistan fracas.
Aeroplanes.
it's a shame you did not show such pedantic precision to the MH17 airplane.
Aeroplane.
Back at Company Y, we had an engineer who would regularly take part in spec reviews. He would contribute lots of red ink over spelling mistakes, punctuation, and layout issues. He would then argue every single one in the review. This would take up much of the review.
Then someone said something like: "Leave all spelling, punctuation and formatting issues for the author to address afterwards. This meeting is only to discuss the actual content."
After which, it became clear that the engineer had nothing of value to contribute. He was an empty vessel. And when he did have comments on the actual content, it was clear hew had zero understanding of the actual spec.
That's you, that is.
"Aeroplane" or "airplane" does not matter for comprehension. One might be better for British English; the other better for American English. But everyone knows what is meant. And you think you make yourself look smart by pointing this out.
Whereas your actual content: whether it is MH17, Ukrainian Biolabs or battling cancer, is stoopid. Or worse.
Oh FFS. How? We can't even stop Chinese hackers infiltrating our infrastructure, let alone Chinese warships. And has anyone told the keyboard warrior-in-chief that we have recently signed a trade deal with China?
Agree. We can't do the basics at home, but we want to get involved in conflicts on the other side of the world. Ridiculous.
We were one of the first out of the gates in the Korean War.
Britain's welfare and prosperity depends on defending the rules-based international order. Wherever in the world it is challenged.
There is zero chance of the UK and Australia going to war with China if it invades Taiwan unless the US has already done so
Taiwan is putting some serious effort and money into its defence.
A war between China and Taiwan would be both horrifying and fascinating.
On one hand, you have China: a massive country that has invested lots of treasure into its military over the past decade, and which has expansionist territorial desires. On the other, you have a much smaller country, with a much smaller military, on an island. But one that has been fearing invasion for decades.
It should all go China's way. But there's one big issue: China's military is massive, but it is also untested. Their navy, air force and army have not been in serious conflict for at least forty-five years, when it was a very different military. As with any military, there will be massive issues with kit, tactics and strategy that can only be 'fixed' by combat. And these issues effect attacker more than defender. Then there's the elephant in the room: Ukraine. Few expected Ukraine to survive as long as it has against Russia's military 'might'. China could easily face similar issues, and I think this may have stayed Xi's hands.
Which is why I expect a China-Taiwan conflict to be very different, starting off with a naval blockade over some imagined slight.
One note: Taiwan's last bit of warfighting was I think 55 years ago - even longer.
(China's I assume being their invasion of Vietnam in 1979, though they may have I think done proxy wars and there have been border skirmishes such as India since then.)
Chinese airplanes did well in the recent Indo-Pakistan fracas.
Aeroplanes.
it's a shame you did not show such pedantic precision to the MH17 airplane.
Aeroplane.
Back at Company Y, we had an engineer who would regularly take part in spec reviews. He would contribute lots of red ink over spelling mistakes, punctuation, and layout issues. He would then argue every single one in the review. This would take up much of the review.
Then someone said something like: "Leave all spelling, punctuation and formatting issues for the author to address afterwards. This meeting is only to discuss the actual content."
After which, it became clear that the engineer had nothing of value to contribute. He was an empty vessel. And when he did have comments on the actual content, it was clear hew had zero understanding of the actual spec.
That's you, that is.
"Aeroplane" or "airplane" does not matter for comprehension. One might be better for British English; the other better for American English. But everyone knows what is meant. And you think you make yourself look smart by pointing this out.
Whereas your actual content: whether it is MH17, Ukrainian Biolabs or battling cancer, is stoopid. Or worse.
At work, I don't argue about grammar (it's "data are" not "data is" FFS!) for this very reason.
High point of the pandemic was when Doctor Jonathan van Tam said at the daily press conference 'the data are'.
Oh FFS. How? We can't even stop Chinese hackers infiltrating our infrastructure, let alone Chinese warships. And has anyone told the keyboard warrior-in-chief that we have recently signed a trade deal with China?
Agree. We can't do the basics at home, but we want to get involved in conflicts on the other side of the world. Ridiculous.
We were one of the first out of the gates in the Korean War.
Britain's welfare and prosperity depends on defending the rules-based international order. Wherever in the world it is challenged.
There is zero chance of the UK and Australia going to war with China if it invades Taiwan unless the US has already done so
Taiwan is putting some serious effort and money into its defence.
A war between China and Taiwan would be both horrifying and fascinating.
On one hand, you have China: a massive country that has invested lots of treasure into its military over the past decade, and which has expansionist territorial desires. On the other, you have a much smaller country, with a much smaller military, on an island. But one that has been fearing invasion for decades.
It should all go China's way. But there's one big issue: China's military is massive, but it is also untested. Their navy, air force and army have not been in serious conflict for at least forty-five years, when it was a very different military. As with any military, there will be massive issues with kit, tactics and strategy that can only be 'fixed' by combat. And these issues effect attacker more than defender. Then there's the elephant in the room: Ukraine. Few expected Ukraine to survive as long as it has against Russia's military 'might'. China could easily face similar issues, and I think this may have stayed Xi's hands.
Which is why I expect a China-Taiwan conflict to be very different, starting off with a naval blockade over some imagined slight.
An opposed amphibious landing is extremely hard to pull off.
My expectation the first Chinese landing will be more of a Dieppe than a Normandy but will the Chinese learn the appropriate lessons?
My own view is that attempting to conduct an invasion over 80-120 miles of sea, against a very well-armed adversary, which is supported by the world's most powerful navy, would be insanity.
I agree, but deluded leaders have a history of doing insane things.
Oh FFS. How? We can't even stop Chinese hackers infiltrating our infrastructure, let alone Chinese warships. And has anyone told the keyboard warrior-in-chief that we have recently signed a trade deal with China?
Agree. We can't do the basics at home, but we want to get involved in conflicts on the other side of the world. Ridiculous.
We were one of the first out of the gates in the Korean War.
Britain's welfare and prosperity depends on defending the rules-based international order. Wherever in the world it is challenged.
Wars aren't won by nostalgia.
* Can we win a war in the Pacific? No * Do the Americans want us there for the Taiwan War 2027? No[1] * Can we win a war in Europe? Possibly * Do the Americans want us there for the Baltic War 2027? Yes[1]
Why in the name of God we are planning to fight a war in a place we can't win and aren't wanted is beyond me. We aren't a Pacific power.
[1] in a meeting with one of the US SecDefs in early 2025, (not Vance or Hegseth I think) the Americans made it clear they need us in Europe to defend it while they fight in the Pacific to defend that. They don't need us there.
Oh FFS. How? We can't even stop Chinese hackers infiltrating our infrastructure, let alone Chinese warships. And has anyone told the keyboard warrior-in-chief that we have recently signed a trade deal with China?
Agree. We can't do the basics at home, but we want to get involved in conflicts on the other side of the world. Ridiculous.
We were one of the first out of the gates in the Korean War.
Britain's welfare and prosperity depends on defending the rules-based international order. Wherever in the world it is challenged.
There is zero chance of the UK and Australia going to war with China if it invades Taiwan unless the US has already done so
Taiwan is putting some serious effort and money into its defence.
A war between China and Taiwan would be both horrifying and fascinating.
On one hand, you have China: a massive country that has invested lots of treasure into its military over the past decade, and which has expansionist territorial desires. On the other, you have a much smaller country, with a much smaller military, on an island. But one that has been fearing invasion for decades.
It should all go China's way. But there's one big issue: China's military is massive, but it is also untested. Their navy, air force and army have not been in serious conflict for at least forty-five years, when it was a very different military. As with any military, there will be massive issues with kit, tactics and strategy that can only be 'fixed' by combat. And these issues effect attacker more than defender. Then there's the elephant in the room: Ukraine. Few expected Ukraine to survive as long as it has against Russia's military 'might'. China could easily face similar issues, and I think this may have stayed Xi's hands.
Which is why I expect a China-Taiwan conflict to be very different, starting off with a naval blockade over some imagined slight.
One note: Taiwan's last bit of warfighting was I think 55 years ago - even longer.
(China's I assume being their invasion of Vietnam in 1979, though they may have I think done proxy wars and there have been border skirmishes such as India since then.)
Chinese airplanes did well in the recent Indo-Pakistan fracas.
Aeroplanes.
it's a shame you did not show such pedantic precision to the MH17 airplane.
Aeroplane.
Back at Company Y, we had an engineer who would regularly take part in spec reviews. He would contribute lots of red ink over spelling mistakes, punctuation, and layout issues. He would then argue every single one in the review. This would take up much of the review.
Then someone said something like: "Leave all spelling, punctuation and formatting issues for the author to address afterwards. This meeting is only to discuss the actual content."
After which, it became clear that the engineer had nothing of value to contribute. He was an empty vessel. And when he did have comments on the actual content, it was clear hew had zero understanding of the actual spec.
That's you, that is.
"Aeroplane" or "airplane" does not matter for comprehension. One might be better for British English; the other better for American English. But everyone knows what is meant. And you think you make yourself look smart by pointing this out.
Whereas your actual content: whether it is MH17, Ukrainian Biolabs or battling cancer, is stoopid. Or worse.
At work, I don't argue about grammar (it's "data are" not "data is" FFS!) for this very reason.
Points 1 and 4 seem to be at odds with each other. Point 2, “up to” covers a multitude of sins but the EU is already substituting for Russian gas. Point 3 probably means the German car makers will build new plants in America rather than more Cadillacs on autobahns. Point 4, see point 2.
Oh FFS. How? We can't even stop Chinese hackers infiltrating our infrastructure, let alone Chinese warships. And has anyone told the keyboard warrior-in-chief that we have recently signed a trade deal with China?
Agree. We can't do the basics at home, but we want to get involved in conflicts on the other side of the world. Ridiculous.
We were one of the first out of the gates in the Korean War.
Britain's welfare and prosperity depends on defending the rules-based international order. Wherever in the world it is challenged.
There is zero chance of the UK and Australia going to war with China if it invades Taiwan unless the US has already done so
Taiwan is putting some serious effort and money into its defence.
A war between China and Taiwan would be both horrifying and fascinating.
On one hand, you have China: a massive country that has invested lots of treasure into its military over the past decade, and which has expansionist territorial desires. On the other, you have a much smaller country, with a much smaller military, on an island. But one that has been fearing invasion for decades.
It should all go China's way. But there's one big issue: China's military is massive, but it is also untested. Their navy, air force and army have not been in serious conflict for at least forty-five years, when it was a very different military. As with any military, there will be massive issues with kit, tactics and strategy that can only be 'fixed' by combat. And these issues effect attacker more than defender. Then there's the elephant in the room: Ukraine. Few expected Ukraine to survive as long as it has against Russia's military 'might'. China could easily face similar issues, and I think this may have stayed Xi's hands.
Which is why I expect a China-Taiwan conflict to be very different, starting off with a naval blockade over some imagined slight.
An opposed amphibious landing is extremely hard to pull off.
My expectation the first Chinese landing will be more of a Dieppe than a Normandy but will the Chinese learn the appropriate lessons?
My own view is that attempting to conduct an invasion over 80-120 miles of sea, against a very well-armed adversary, which is supported by the world's most powerful navy, would be insanity.
Also, people tend to think about "winning" the beach landing but what's most crucial is resupply.
Without it you just run out of ammo and fuel and can be rounded up in fairly short order.
India are the better team. It’s only stokes that keeps us in it. And as soon as he falters - in any way - we’re a bit average. Especially in bowling
We need to find some amazing bowlers quick, for the ashes
What happened to Ollie Robinson?
He was unfit and annoyed the management that he wasn't prepared to put in the effort to improve his general fitness.
It reminded me a bit of the Devon Malcolm saga. They had in Robinson a bowler who, if not especially fast, due to his height and strength got unusual bounce and carry which made him dangerous.
But because they weren't willing to work with what they had rather than what they thought they should have, he got discarded.
Just as Malcolm, a man who took nine wickets in 16 overs of mayhem, was dropped because nobody thought to nurture him properly and see if they couldn't get him to do that more often.
Oh FFS. How? We can't even stop Chinese hackers infiltrating our infrastructure, let alone Chinese warships. And has anyone told the keyboard warrior-in-chief that we have recently signed a trade deal with China?
Agree. We can't do the basics at home, but we want to get involved in conflicts on the other side of the world. Ridiculous.
We were one of the first out of the gates in the Korean War.
Britain's welfare and prosperity depends on defending the rules-based international order. Wherever in the world it is challenged.
Wars aren't won by nostalgia.
* Can we win a war in the Pacific? No * Do the Americans want us there for the Taiwan War 2027? No[1] * Can we win a war in Europe? Possibly * Do the Americans want us there for the Baltic War 2027? Yes[1]
Why in the name of God we are planning to fight a war in a place we can't win and aren't wanted is beyond me. We aren't a Pacific power.
[1] in a meeting with one of the US SecDefs in early 2025, (not Vance or Hegseth I think) the Americans made it clear they need us in Europe to defend it while they fight in the Pacific to defend that. They don't need us there.
It is part of Western political strategy for the USA, UK and Australia to build a much stronger naval presence in the Pacific.
This will prevent China blackmailing independent South East Asian countries.
Oh FFS. How? We can't even stop Chinese hackers infiltrating our infrastructure, let alone Chinese warships. And has anyone told the keyboard warrior-in-chief that we have recently signed a trade deal with China?
Agree. We can't do the basics at home, but we want to get involved in conflicts on the other side of the world. Ridiculous.
We were one of the first out of the gates in the Korean War.
Britain's welfare and prosperity depends on defending the rules-based international order. Wherever in the world it is challenged.
There is zero chance of the UK and Australia going to war with China if it invades Taiwan unless the US has already done so
Taiwan is putting some serious effort and money into its defence.
A war between China and Taiwan would be both horrifying and fascinating.
On one hand, you have China: a massive country that has invested lots of treasure into its military over the past decade, and which has expansionist territorial desires. On the other, you have a much smaller country, with a much smaller military, on an island. But one that has been fearing invasion for decades.
It should all go China's way. But there's one big issue: China's military is massive, but it is also untested. Their navy, air force and army have not been in serious conflict for at least forty-five years, when it was a very different military. As with any military, there will be massive issues with kit, tactics and strategy that can only be 'fixed' by combat. And these issues effect attacker more than defender. Then there's the elephant in the room: Ukraine. Few expected Ukraine to survive as long as it has against Russia's military 'might'. China could easily face similar issues, and I think this may have stayed Xi's hands.
Which is why I expect a China-Taiwan conflict to be very different, starting off with a naval blockade over some imagined slight.
An opposed amphibious landing is extremely hard to pull off.
My expectation the first Chinese landing will be more of a Dieppe than a Normandy but will the Chinese learn the appropriate lessons?
My own view is that attempting to conduct an invasion over 80-120 miles of sea, against a very well-armed adversary, which is supported by the world's most powerful navy, would be insanity.
They don't need to invade just throw missiles and drones at everything and blockade the Taiwanese from aid. Doubt there’s much the Americans can really do so close to China with all the Chinese air and rocket forces in the area.
Oh FFS. How? We can't even stop Chinese hackers infiltrating our infrastructure, let alone Chinese warships. And has anyone told the keyboard warrior-in-chief that we have recently signed a trade deal with China?
Agree. We can't do the basics at home, but we want to get involved in conflicts on the other side of the world. Ridiculous.
We were one of the first out of the gates in the Korean War.
Britain's welfare and prosperity depends on defending the rules-based international order. Wherever in the world it is challenged.
There is zero chance of the UK and Australia going to war with China if it invades Taiwan unless the US has already done so
Taiwan is putting some serious effort and money into its defence.
A war between China and Taiwan would be both horrifying and fascinating.
On one hand, you have China: a massive country that has invested lots of treasure into its military over the past decade, and which has expansionist territorial desires. On the other, you have a much smaller country, with a much smaller military, on an island. But one that has been fearing invasion for decades.
It should all go China's way. But there's one big issue: China's military is massive, but it is also untested. Their navy, air force and army have not been in serious conflict for at least forty-five years, when it was a very different military. As with any military, there will be massive issues with kit, tactics and strategy that can only be 'fixed' by combat. And these issues effect attacker more than defender. Then there's the elephant in the room: Ukraine. Few expected Ukraine to survive as long as it has against Russia's military 'might'. China could easily face similar issues, and I think this may have stayed Xi's hands.
Which is why I expect a China-Taiwan conflict to be very different, starting off with a naval blockade over some imagined slight.
An opposed amphibious landing is extremely hard to pull off.
My expectation the first Chinese landing will be more of a Dieppe than a Normandy but will the Chinese learn the appropriate lessons?
Using what one side of the negotiation says. Suspect the other side might say something completely different. Also some of that does not make sense. Eg 0 is a figure upto 750B and there is no way Europeans are buying US cars in any volume. Can't make them. So I suspect that means something else.
A war between China and Taiwan would be both horrifying and fascinating.
On one hand, you have China: a massive country that has invested lots of treasure into its military over the past decade, and which has expansionist territorial desires. On the other, you have a much smaller country, with a much smaller military, on an island. But one that has been fearing invasion for decades.
They are the same country and it would be a civil war. That's literally the point.
I'm strongly in favour of full Taiwanese independence (and for Hong Kong, Tibet and Macao while we're at it) and it might well take a war to make it happen but we really should've got this all sorted 50 years ago, instead of appeasing the 'one China' policy and pretending that everything will be permanently fine so long as there's enough sand to bury our heads in...
Let's start with Hong Kong, much of which was leased from China for 99 years and at the end of the lease, as per the terms, we handed it back, not before but at the correct time. Yes, I suppose we could have tried to eke out a salient on Hong Kong Island and Kowloon but even Margaret Thatcher knew that wouldn't fly. Her Government signed the Joint Declaration in 1984 and you can argue how much China has lived up to its guarantees and commitments but once we left our influence left with it.
You'll have to talk to Portugal about Macau.
As for Tibet, the initial invasion took place while the West was preoccupied with the Korean War and, let's be honest, what could we have done short of dropping an atomic bomb on China and we were never doing to do that? It was an appalling tragedy as was the suppression of the 1959 uprising but let's be honest with ourselves, until and unless China changes Tibet will be in their control.
If you want an overtly anti-China foreign policy, fine, but let's be realistic.
My own view is that attempting to conduct an invasion over 80-120 miles of sea, against a very well-armed adversary, which is supported by the world's most powerful navy, would be insanity.
Pretty much, yes. An amphibious invasion is very risky indeed. Taiwan with US support would be a bloodbath for China, with no certainty of winning. If Taiwan does not have the US on side it would still be a bloodbath, but China would probably win but with terrible casualties.
Which is why they won't do it. My view for many years is China will start with a total air and sea blockade, as those can be incredibly effective and Taiwan cannot project enough power to break it. Maintain the blockade and Taiwan loses as they are dependant on imported fuel and raw materials.
But keeping it effective would mean being prepared to start a shooting war if the West tries to force the blockade, as they surely would. My guess is Xi is waiting for a point of maximum chaos where Western push-back would be minimised. I've long believed the US is heading for a break-up, and Trump 47 has only accelerated the timetable. Xi loses nothing waiting a few years to see if that occurs.
Oh FFS. How? We can't even stop Chinese hackers infiltrating our infrastructure, let alone Chinese warships. And has anyone told the keyboard warrior-in-chief that we have recently signed a trade deal with China?
Agree. We can't do the basics at home, but we want to get involved in conflicts on the other side of the world. Ridiculous.
We were one of the first out of the gates in the Korean War.
Britain's welfare and prosperity depends on defending the rules-based international order. Wherever in the world it is challenged.
There is zero chance of the UK and Australia going to war with China if it invades Taiwan unless the US has already done so
Taiwan is putting some serious effort and money into its defence.
A war between China and Taiwan would be both horrifying and fascinating.
On one hand, you have China: a massive country that has invested lots of treasure into its military over the past decade, and which has expansionist territorial desires. On the other, you have a much smaller country, with a much smaller military, on an island. But one that has been fearing invasion for decades.
It should all go China's way. But there's one big issue: China's military is massive, but it is also untested. Their navy, air force and army have not been in serious conflict for at least forty-five years, when it was a very different military. As with any military, there will be massive issues with kit, tactics and strategy that can only be 'fixed' by combat. And these issues effect attacker more than defender. Then there's the elephant in the room: Ukraine. Few expected Ukraine to survive as long as it has against Russia's military 'might'. China could easily face similar issues, and I think this may have stayed Xi's hands.
Which is why I expect a China-Taiwan conflict to be very different, starting off with a naval blockade over some imagined slight.
One note: Taiwan's last bit of warfighting was I think 55 years ago - even longer.
(China's I assume being their invasion of Vietnam in 1979, though they may have I think done proxy wars and there have been border skirmishes such as India since then.)
Chinese airplanes did well in the recent Indo-Pakistan fracas.
Aeroplanes.
it's a shame you did not show such pedantic precision to the MH17 airplane.
Aeroplane.
Back at Company Y, we had an engineer who would regularly take part in spec reviews. He would contribute lots of red ink over spelling mistakes, punctuation, and layout issues. He would then argue every single one in the review. This would take up much of the review.
Then someone said something like: "Leave all spelling, punctuation and formatting issues for the author to address afterwards. This meeting is only to discuss the actual content."
After which, it became clear that the engineer had nothing of value to contribute. He was an empty vessel. And when he did have comments on the actual content, it was clear hew had zero understanding of the actual spec.
That's you, that is.
"Aeroplane" or "airplane" does not matter for comprehension. One might be better for British English; the other better for American English. But everyone knows what is meant. And you think you make yourself look smart by pointing this out.
Whereas your actual content: whether it is MH17, Ukrainian Biolabs or battling cancer, is stoopid. Or worse.
Ok hun.
That's better. It may not be properly spelt, but your meaning and intention are clear.
Oh FFS. How? We can't even stop Chinese hackers infiltrating our infrastructure, let alone Chinese warships. And has anyone told the keyboard warrior-in-chief that we have recently signed a trade deal with China?
Agree. We can't do the basics at home, but we want to get involved in conflicts on the other side of the world. Ridiculous.
We were one of the first out of the gates in the Korean War.
Britain's welfare and prosperity depends on defending the rules-based international order. Wherever in the world it is challenged.
There is zero chance of the UK and Australia going to war with China if it invades Taiwan unless the US has already done so
Taiwan is putting some serious effort and money into its defence.
A war between China and Taiwan would be both horrifying and fascinating.
On one hand, you have China: a massive country that has invested lots of treasure into its military over the past decade, and which has expansionist territorial desires. On the other, you have a much smaller country, with a much smaller military, on an island. But one that has been fearing invasion for decades.
It should all go China's way. But there's one big issue: China's military is massive, but it is also untested. Their navy, air force and army have not been in serious conflict for at least forty-five years, when it was a very different military. As with any military, there will be massive issues with kit, tactics and strategy that can only be 'fixed' by combat. And these issues effect attacker more than defender. Then there's the elephant in the room: Ukraine. Few expected Ukraine to survive as long as it has against Russia's military 'might'. China could easily face similar issues, and I think this may have stayed Xi's hands.
Which is why I expect a China-Taiwan conflict to be very different, starting off with a naval blockade over some imagined slight.
An opposed amphibious landing is extremely hard to pull off.
My expectation the first Chinese landing will be more of a Dieppe than a Normandy but will the Chinese learn the appropriate lessons?
Defended, and populated, but only six miles from China. The taiwanese Crimea, if you will. They could then guage western reaction.
View from Kinmen of closest islet of Kinmen. China in background.
It's more like the Channel Islands in WWII than Crimea. It'll take a lot of effort to take with little strategic benefit. Like the channel islands it'll be simpler for China to leave it alone and do the heavy lifting by invading Taiwan directly.
Tom Lehrer, the sardonic singer-songwriter-pianist who rose to national fame after his dark, tartly funny topical songs were used on the comedic ‘60s TV news show “That Was the Week That Was,” has died at age 97.
Friends said that he was found dead in his home in Cambridge, Mass., on Saturday.
Points 1 and 4 seem to be at odds with each other. Point 2, “up to” covers a multitude of sins but the EU is already substituting for Russian gas. Point 3 probably means the German car makers will build new plants in America rather than more Cadillacs on autobahns. Point 4, see point 2.
Um.
"Trump says" .. Trump is a congenital liar & a fantasist who has made multiple similar claims which turn out to be something between overwrought and complete BS. So no one hold your breath .
1 - Steel, maybe - to follow the UK. Or Trump mentioning one little bit of his agreement?
2 - That probably represents several (4-6) years of current USA -> EU energy imports. Quite able to be finessed.
3 - I have no idea what that even means. Europe buys so few USA autos because they are shit as vehicles for European conditions. Teslas may be an exception (Cybertruck excepted), but Trump is pummelling Musk and the Tesla Berlin factory has spare capacity. IIRC Europe exports only a small proportion of sales into the USA - maybe 75% are already made there. Land Rover is an exception. The EU numbers are something like 700k exported to USA, and 3 million made there.
Could it be components? Or are they following the Japanese 'deal'?
4 - 15% was suggested as a "general tariff" rate, following the 10% in the UK model. Our cars are also at 10%.
Tom Lehrer, the sardonic singer-songwriter-pianist who rose to national fame after his dark, tartly funny topical songs were used on the comedic ‘60s TV news show “That Was the Week That Was,” has died at age 97.
Friends said that he was found dead in his home in Cambridge, Mass., on Saturday.
I really can't give that a "like". He was never on the original TW3 (UK) afaik An unequalled combination of musical talent, intelligence and wit who was famous without going into showbiz. He stuck to his academic career
My own view is that attempting to conduct an invasion over 80-120 miles of sea, against a very well-armed adversary, which is supported by the world's most powerful navy, would be insanity.
Pretty much, yes. An amphibious invasion is very risky indeed. Taiwan with US support would be a bloodbath for China, with no certainty of winning. If Taiwan does not have the US on side it would still be a bloodbath, but China would probably win but with terrible casualties.
Which is why they won't do it. My view for many years is China will start with a total air and sea blockade, as those can be incredibly effective and Taiwan cannot project enough power to break it. Maintain the blockade and Taiwan loses as they are dependant on imported fuel and raw materials.
But keeping it effective would mean being prepared to start a shooting war if the West tries to force the blockade, as they surely would. My guess is Xi is waiting for a point of maximum chaos where Western push-back would be minimised. I've long believed the US is heading for a break-up, and Trump 47 has only accelerated the timetable. Xi loses nothing waiting a few years to see if that occurs.
I doubt the US would support Taiwan with troops but would send them arms and funds etc as NATO have done with Ukraine.
Only if Japan or S Korea or the Philippinnes were invaded would the US actually go to war with China
Tom Lehrer, the sardonic singer-songwriter-pianist who rose to national fame after his dark, tartly funny topical songs were used on the comedic ‘60s TV news show “That Was the Week That Was,” has died at age 97.
Friends said that he was found dead in his home in Cambridge, Mass., on Saturday.
ChatGPT may be driving people to psychosis as millions of people turn to artificial intelligence (AI) for friendship and advice, NHS doctors have warned...
Wonders about PB regulars who have in the past posted widely about how they talk to it via the voice assistant all the time.
Maybe it’s not a concern if the individual is already psychotic?
The mistakes AI makes can be really annoying. I needed a bottle of wine and missed the chance to get one yesterday because the heat made it unsafe to leave the dog in the car. So AI told me categorically that in Finland you can’t buy alcohol on a Sunday. I assume that was indeed once true, but it isn’t any more since I managed to acquire some from a reputable source.
Comments
Catch is that it means overcoming the objections of people who thought they were on the edge of town and don't see why that should change. Hence isolated, undersized cowpat estates.
1. Buy a put
2. Make noise about tariffs
3. Exercise a put
4. Ching ching
5. Repeat from step 1
The EU trade commissioner, Maroš Šefčovič, and a team of aides arrived at Glasgow Prestwick airport on Sunday morning to join an advance party led by the European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, who flew in on Saturday to prepare for one of the most critical meetings in her tenure, due to be held at 4.30pm.
With the US commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick, and the trade representative, Jamieson Greer, also flying in for the meeting at Trump’s Turnberry golf resort, hopes are rising for a deal.
However, Trump is keeping the EU anxiously waiting, shouting on Sunday morning to Sky News television cameras stationed next to the golf course that the chances of a deal remained “50/50”.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jul/27/eu-delegation-poised-for-trump-trade-talks-in-scotland
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/07/27/doctors-fear-chatgpt-fuelling-psychosis/
Wonders about PB regulars who have in the past posted widely about how they talk to it via the voice assistant all the time.
https://x.com/kobeissiletter/status/1949490449409847652?s=61
Trump is not just a lousy President, he is a lousy human being.
But then, you already knew that...
Masked, no collar numbers, no warrant.
This one - the husband of a US citizen taking a child to pre-school,
https://youtu.be/VoJ8cE-hu7Y?t=220
If this continues, at some point someone could start shooting back.
Asked by the Telegraph about what the UK is doing to help countries like Taiwan to prepare for potential escalation from China, Mr Healey said: “If we have to fight, as we have done in the past, Australia and the UK are nations that will fight together. We exercise together and by exercising together and being more ready to fight, we deter better together.”
Bletchley, Wolverton, and Stony Stratford. Some of these villages include Bradwell, Broughton, Caldecotte, Fenny Stratford, Great Linford, Loughton, Milton Keynes Village, New Bradwell, Shenley Brook End, Shenley Church End, Simpson, Stantonbury, Tattenhoe, Tongwell, Walton, Water Eaton, Wavendon, Willen, Great and Little Woolstone, and Woughton on the Green.
I don't know it well, except certain estates and that my dad supplied roofs (upside down cones) for the Bletchley covered market.
The important thing seems to me to be facilitation of gradual growth over decades - MK has now had 50 years - and not to create absolutely huge estates instantly. That mimics how conurbations grow.
I'm a fan of letting a wide range of rural communities expand over time - say an average of 1-2% per annum in small chunks, rather than letting Nimbies freeze them in Aspic - then they are frozen for decades, and growth breaks on it like a dam-burst.
I’d like to know what our treaty obligation is to Taiwan.
We need to find some amazing bowlers quick, for the ashes
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9254/CBP-9254.pdf
In short, afaics not a lot formal (Sir Humprey / Foreign Office basis ie deniable and walk away at will). More formal in trade relations. So informal support as they are one of the 10 most democratic countries in the world (Freedom House rating, iirc), we have a strategic interest (supplier of the most high semiconductors etc), an important trading relationship (no 35 partner), and they are a canary in the coalmine like Ukraine wrt Russia. Plus there is CPTPP membership and potential Tiawanese membership, of course.
I don't believe for a minute that we would go to war with China, but I think we would do sanctions and maybe use a CSG to free up a USN equivalent if needed - assuming the USA is still on the side of democracy / international law by then.
I imagine @leon thinks this is ok. This is MAGA. Will this be Reform?
On one hand, you have China: a massive country that has invested lots of treasure into its military over the past decade, and which has expansionist territorial desires. On the other, you have a much smaller country, with a much smaller military, on an island. But one that has been fearing invasion for decades.
It should all go China's way. But there's one big issue: China's military is massive, but it is also untested. Their navy, air force and army have not been in serious conflict for at least forty-five years, when it was a very different military. As with any military, there will be massive issues with kit, tactics and strategy that can only be 'fixed' by combat. And these issues effect attacker more than defender. Then there's the elephant in the room: Ukraine. Few expected Ukraine to survive as long as it has against Russia's military 'might'. China could easily face similar issues, and I think this may have stayed Xi's hands.
Which is why I expect a China-Taiwan conflict to be very different, starting off with a naval blockade over some imagined slight.
Partly it's that High Street rents have fallen sharply as traditional retail had been supplanted by online. Partly it's that the rise of Door Dash means that every restaurant gets additional takeaway revenues these days.
Next question.
(China's I assume being their invasion of Vietnam in 1979, though they may have I think done proxy wars and there have been border skirmishes such as India since then.)
They are the same country and it would be a civil war. That's literally the point.
I'm strongly in favour of full Taiwanese independence (and for Hong Kong, Tibet and Macao while we're at it) and it might well take a war to make it happen but we really should've got this all sorted 50 years ago, instead of appeasing the 'one China' policy and pretending that everything will be permanently fine so long as there's enough sand to bury our heads in...
THOM Yorke might be a creative genius but his singing sounds like a cat being squished between two breeze blocks. Here are some other tuneless bastards.
Thom Yorke
If you were feeling generous, you might describe the Radiohead frontman’s singing style as ‘haunting’. But you’re not so the truth is his high-pitched keening makes you feel like your ears are going to start bleeding. Don’t criticise him in front of a fan though, as you’ll be given a long, boring lecture on how ‘distinctive’ he sounds.
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/arts-entertainment/thom-yorke-and-other-people-nobody-will-admit-are-terrible-singers-20230111230224
Does that support a dozen big and small supermarkets. It's not difficult to see.
Plus I survived putting this in a header.
I expect that at the next few elections Labour will keep on reminding voters of the Liz Truss interregnum because quite frankly only Radiohead have a worse record than Liz Truss.
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/10/25/gone-but-not-forgotten/
Match figures:
Liam Dawson 62 12 140 1
I still think Pope's finest achievement as skipper was getting a duck in an innings England scored 823/7.
Also you can see why Dawson wasn't picked for nearly a decade.
Plan accordingly whilst I am at an Oasis gig.
But it's fascinating that you interpret the realpolitik of today through the lens of Victorian imperialism.
I'd say that makes you the out of date one, not us.
https://x.com/kobeissiletter/status/1949523437585609064?s=61
https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/patriotism-helped-us-build-a-better-britain-entitlement-will-destroy-it-mgvztl5rh
Then someone said something like: "Leave all spelling, punctuation and formatting issues for the author to address afterwards. This meeting is only to discuss the actual content."
After which, it became clear that the engineer had nothing of value to contribute. He was an empty vessel. And when he did have comments on the actual content, it was clear hew had zero understanding of the actual spec.
That's you, that is.
"Aeroplane" or "airplane" does not matter for comprehension. One might be better for British English; the other better for American English. But everyone knows what is meant. And you think you make yourself look smart by pointing this out.
Whereas your actual content: whether it is MH17, Ukrainian Biolabs or battling cancer, is stoopid. Or worse.
* Can we win a war in the Pacific? No
* Do the Americans want us there for the Taiwan War 2027? No[1]
* Can we win a war in Europe? Possibly
* Do the Americans want us there for the Baltic War 2027? Yes[1]
Why in the name of God we are planning to fight a war in a place we can't win and aren't wanted is beyond me. We aren't a Pacific power.
[1] in a meeting with one of the US SecDefs in early 2025, (not Vance or Hegseth I think) the Americans made it clear they need us in Europe to defend it while they fight in the Pacific to defend that. They don't need us there.
The deal includes:
1. Agreement to open up trade at 0% tariff
2. EU to buy up to $750B of US energy
3. EU to purchase “vast amounts” of US auto
4. Tariffs on automobiles reduced to 15%
Trump calls this “the biggest deal ever reached.”
https://x.com/kobeissiletter/status/1949523437585609064?s=61
Points 1 and 4 seem to be at odds with each other. Point 2, “up to” covers a multitude of sins but the EU is already substituting for Russian gas. Point 3 probably means the German car makers will build new plants in America rather than more Cadillacs on autobahns. Point 4, see point 2.
Without it you just run out of ammo and fuel and can be rounded up in fairly short order.
But because they weren't willing to work with what they had rather than what they thought they should have, he got discarded.
Just as Malcolm, a man who took nine wickets in 16 overs of mayhem, was dropped because nobody thought to nurture him properly and see if they couldn't get him to do that more often.
This will prevent China blackmailing independent South East Asian countries.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinmen
Defended, and populated, but only six miles from China. The taiwanese Crimea, if you will. They could then guage western reaction.
View from Kinmen of closest islet of Kinmen. China in background.
You'll have to talk to Portugal about Macau.
As for Tibet, the initial invasion took place while the West was preoccupied with the Korean War and, let's be honest, what could we have done short of dropping an atomic bomb on China and we were never doing to do that? It was an appalling tragedy as was the suppression of the 1959 uprising but let's be honest with ourselves, until and unless China changes Tibet will be in their control.
If you want an overtly anti-China foreign policy, fine, but let's be realistic.
Which is why they won't do it. My view for many years is China will start with a total air and sea blockade, as those can be incredibly effective and Taiwan cannot project enough power to break it. Maintain the blockade and Taiwan loses as they are dependant on imported fuel and raw materials.
But keeping it effective would mean being prepared to start a shooting war if the West tries to force the blockade, as they surely would. My guess is Xi is waiting for a point of maximum chaos where Western push-back would be minimised. I've long believed the US is heading for a break-up, and Trump 47 has only accelerated the timetable. Xi loses nothing waiting a few years to see if that occurs.
Tom Lehrer, the sardonic singer-songwriter-pianist who rose to national fame after his dark, tartly funny topical songs were used on the comedic ‘60s TV news show “That Was the Week That Was,” has died at age 97.
Friends said that he was found dead in his home in Cambridge, Mass., on Saturday.
https://variety.com/2025/music/obituaries-people-news/tom-lehrer-dead-satirist-topical-singer-songwriter-1236471506/
"Trump says" .. Trump is a congenital liar & a fantasist who has made multiple similar claims which turn out to be something between overwrought and complete BS. So no one hold your breath
1 - Steel, maybe - to follow the UK. Or Trump mentioning one little bit of his agreement?
2 - That probably represents several (4-6) years of current USA -> EU energy imports. Quite able to be finessed.
3 - I have no idea what that even means. Europe buys so few USA autos because they are shit as vehicles for European conditions. Teslas may be an exception (Cybertruck excepted), but Trump is pummelling Musk and the Tesla Berlin factory has spare capacity. IIRC Europe exports only a small proportion of sales into the USA - maybe 75% are already made there. Land Rover is an exception. The EU numbers are something like 700k exported to USA, and 3 million made there.
Could it be components? Or are they following the Japanese 'deal'?
4 - 15% was suggested as a "general tariff" rate, following the 10% in the UK model. Our cars are also at 10%.
He was never on the original TW3 (UK) afaik
An unequalled combination of musical talent, intelligence and wit who was famous without going into showbiz. He stuck to his academic career
Only if Japan or S Korea or the Philippinnes were invaded would the US actually go to war with China
An extraordinary man.
Doubt Spain will be as bad as Sweden.
The mistakes AI makes can be really annoying. I needed a bottle of wine and missed the chance to get one yesterday because the heat made it unsafe to leave the dog in the car. So AI told me categorically that in Finland you can’t buy alcohol on a Sunday. I assume that was indeed once true, but it isn’t any more since I managed to acquire some from a reputable source.
As is Ukraine to Europe's security.
We have the capacity to intervene in Ukraine; Taiwan, not so much.