• Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.

ROC-CCP | DISCUSSIONS

Status
Not open for further replies.
DEFCON Warning System said:
And when it happens, the U.S. will not put in the resources to beat China. That is the problem.
Click to expand...
DEFCON Warning System said:
We aren't keeping China contained in that area. The U.S. won't put the resources into it.

I guess in some future scenario Taiwan could be used rather than fighting for it like in WWII when we were island hopping.

Still, we aren't going to fight for it now.
Click to expand...
Can you explain the pivot towards the pacific then? Isnt it to confront China?
 
Erecon said:
Can you explain the pivot towards the pacific then? Isnt it to confront China?
Click to expand...
Yes, it is to confront China. But this isn't a shooting war. Let's take a look at the last few wars:

Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan.

In each case, the United States had the capability to win but didn't put enough resources or do what was necessary to win.

Why do we think a war with China would be any different? Especially for a country most people couldn't point out on a map.
 
DEFCON Warning System said:
Yes, it is to confront China. But this isn't a shooting war. Let's take a look at the last few wars:

Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan.

In each case, the United States had the capability to win but didn't put enough resources or do what was necessary to win.

Why do we think a war with China would be any different? Especially for a country most people couldn't point out on a map.
Click to expand...
But the USA has invested alot in that area the last 10 years, and I could point to Iraq, Kuwait, ww1 ww2 why would you think they dont want to fight when they put so many resources and the story about pivoting its focus?
 
Erecon said:
why would you think they dont want to fight when they put so many resources and the story about pivoting its focus?
Click to expand...
I didn't say they don't want to fight. I'm saying the U.S. won't put in the resources necessary. Why? Politics for the main reason. Politics is what lost us those wars.
 
DEFCON Warning System said:
Yes, it is to confront China. But this isn't a shooting war. Let's take a look at the last few wars:

Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan.

In each case, the United States had the capability to win but didn't put enough resources or do what was necessary to win.

Why do we think a war with China would be any different? Especially for a country most people couldn't point out on a map.
Click to expand...
A war with those countries listed were not a title fight so to say. Sure they had importance but winning them wasn't a matter of survival. A fight against China would be a fight for survival and to remain on top, damn right it should be viewed as a fight to the death with no holding back. They need to be crushed and sooner rather than later. The best case scenario is they jump the gun and go before all their ducks are in a row giving the West the excuse needed to obliterate them. The reason I think it's a fight to the death: both China and the USA are working towards AI and harnessing fusion. The country that wins this race will beat out the competition regardless of military strength. I think winning this race is much more close than China winning a military confrontation therefore I would hedge my bets on beating them out militarily and thus beating the completion in the AI/Fusion race.
 
DEFCON Warning System said:
I didn't say they don't want to fight. I'm saying the U.S. won't put in the resources necessary. Why? Politics for the main reason. Politics is what lost us those wars.
Click to expand...
Korea yes from a military viewpoint unless you want that mcarthur dropped the bomb - Korea might be seen as a standoff between superpowers.. The 2 other cases the USA won in military terms, but didnt ( like in the case of Iraq too ) have plans or what you call "putting enough resources" into persuading the locals to the "american way of living"

So if I understand you correct, the USA will beat China but will lose interrest when its goal ( destruction of Chinas fleet at Taiwan is done )
 
DarkNoon 🌑 said:
If we didn't take the brains or sabotage the factories the Tawain military/Gov would sabotage it themselves with or without us & the scientists would flee to other nations, so might as well be us the only nation that has been there for them or seriously fought for their stability & independence on the world theater.

They have been preparing for war longer then most have been alive. They will not allow anything they have fall into the CCP hands. So yes we will be there to refuge/take in the brains and help aid in defending & possibly sabotaging any potential gain for the CCP directly or indirectly.
Click to expand...
The better plan would be to prepare and help in a way that discourages China from launching an invasion.
The CCP might be obsessed with absorbing Taiwan. But they are not stupid. They know any military attack will be incredibly costly and destructive.
Their main plan is to keep the pressure on and subvert Taiwan’s stability till it simply happens.
I suppose that was the reason for my reply to you.
Only fighting for the economic resources and refugees is the wrong fight.
This like Ukraine can and could have been fought and won without military conflict.
 
With the way people are feeling here in the US with the economy slowing I think a war with China is exactly what the US needs. I think xi jinping is making similar calculations to not look weak. It think XI is a scared man in a corrupt government. I think we would have an easier time forcing a surrender of china than say Russia. The Chinese people are very oppressed. I also think XI would be more willing to push the nuclear button in fear. I just don't think that china's military is cohesive enough to take us on. I tell people in war time china builds nails we build hammers. If a war were to break out in the pacific now is a good time. Economic war we are probably going to lose if we don't confront them now. We do not want a world where the Chinese government is the big boy superpower. Besides the us needs a winning distraction and a boost to the economy. 280 billion just went into a chip bill so yeah. Force china to surrender and free them look at japan.

Edit I don't think any war is a good. But now would be the best time as long as it stays conventional. I believe that the life cost would be less than any time in the future. I do think eventually china will out pace us with tech and beat the us and the world will be worse off.
 
TCharley300 said:
Most people don't see it, but we're fixing to be in real deep shit.
Click to expand...
We are fixing to call China's bluff.
Most people don't realize it, but there are so many geopolitical factors at play that pretty much ensure China will not do much more than wave a big stick. They might make a symbolic move, to save face, - but in fact, if we DONT cross the "red line", we are making it *more* likely China does something significant. Just like Russia, when they made the whole "red line no ukraine nato" - and we obliged - yet they still invaded Ukraine, because its not about NATO. In fact, these two conflicts are *very* alike. Lets not play the same card we tried in Ukraine because it didn't work, and the true reasons behind these conflicts are the same.
 
DarkNoon 🌑 said:
Chinese Lawmakers:

Video:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1553017075794427909
Click to expand...
That’s like saying there is not a damm thing we can do about this right now. But we will get even one day.

I agree with intel-bank. Ukraine was played wrong, let’s try not to do the same with Taiwan.
For those who are hesitant to respond firmly and clearly consider this.
Failures in diplomacy that result in wars are usually of the kind where one side fails to clearly and resolutely make their nations position absolutely clear. It either encourages aggression from the other nation or misunderstandings that lead to accidental conflicts that can escalate.
However I don’t know if the west is up to it. These two hotspots at this time are really troubling given the economic and cultural disruption playing out in so many of the nations involved.
If I’ve realized one thing this year. The fourth turning premise is very convincing right now in history
 
lcurle said:
Sending a plane with no souls on board
Click to expand...
That's called a drone.
lcurle said:
claiming that Pelosi was on board would be a good test.
Click to expand...
Doesn't really matter. If China shoots down any Taiwan-bound US plane, even one not actually carrying Pelosi, it's an act of war. And if you later reveal that it was all a ruse, they'll just say "we knew" (even if they didn't).
 
Socom7 said:
That's called a drone.

Doesn't really matter. If China shoots down any Taiwan-bound US plane, even one not actually carrying Pelosi, it's an act of war. And if you later reveal that it was all a ruse, they'll just say "we knew" (even if they didn't).
Click to expand...
Swap the transponder of a USAF 747 with a F22..... let the games begin.
 
DEFCON Warning System said:
Hmm....how much to read into this? It's Global Times, which means it is published with the blessing of the government. But this is a commnetator, who may be speaking on his own, but in line with Party feeling?
Click to expand...
I'm not really familar with the level of control the PRC gov't exercises over their commentators, but if it's anything like Russia - treat them as weathervanes rather than mouthpieces. These people are not typically in the loop when it comes to strategic decisionmaking, but they do care about their status, so they try to guess what features in Putin's (or Xi's) wet dreams. More often than not, they go overboard.

Having said that, we are indeed dealing with a serious - and developing - situation.
 
Socom7 said:
'm not really familar with the level of control the PRC gov't exercises over their commentators, but if it's anything like Russia - treat them as weathervanes rather than mouthpieces.
Click to expand...
China keeps a much tighter control over their media.

I think Global Times is more than a weathervane. I think it's more of an unoffical way of saying something so they don't have to say it officially.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom