• b00m@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    177
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    So if Iran goes full monty and China invades Taiwan while Russia is grinding down its population on the Ukrainian front, we’d have WW3 on our hands I reckon.

        • Vqhm@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          51
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Drafts have not won recent wars. Wars are not PVP.

          The US has made an effort to maintain a highly trained and extremely specialized fighting force. It can take over a year of training in certain specialities before you even get to the last school house.

          There’s a focus on making advanced weapon systems easy to use through human factors analysis and that’s slowly transitioning into killbots that do everything but pull the trigger and need a human in the loop to authorize the kill.

          During WWII there was a massive increase in manufacturing which was beyond the enemies reach. If you got drafted to do anything it’d likely be work in a plant making drones or something logistical such as transporting drones.

          • scarabic@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            16
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes the US tries to make soldiers the operators of weaponry, not the weapons themselves as in earlier times. Treasure spent on weaponry stokes the military industrial complex. Benefits to dead veterans families, not so much. Also civilian deaths undermine public support for whatever bullshit they are doing.

          • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            The war in Ukraine is a drafted/conscripted army versus a drafted/conscripted army. They are (to varying degrees) led and bolstered by volunteer career soldiers, but the vast majority of the boots on the ground have little to no experience.

            In times of “peace”, drafts and compulsory service are largely pointless. You are mostly just increasing churn and ensuring that accumulated knowledge is lost. And your “peaceful operations” likely have a small enough footprint that you can make do with volunteers.

            Against a near-peer or even just a conscript army with sheer numbers? You need to increase the amount of cannon fodder. And just the number of guns that can do the “easy” stuff while you rely on the highly trained soldiers to do the “hard” stuff.

            When World War 3 finally kicks off (… and assuming it isn’t over in the time it takes an ICBM to fly halfway around the planet): I don’t know if “civilized” nations will actually activate a draft because it will lead to mass unrest. But I am also not sure if they’ll have a choice.

            And just as a counter argument to weapons being increasingly high tech with a focus on skilled use: The US Military’s M5 is a good yellow flag. It is specifically designed with multiple ammunition types with the higher power round significantly degrading the life of the weapon and expected to only be issued for near peer conflicts. But that also speaks to the lessons learned from Ukraine and similar conflicts where… when the war really kicks off, you don’t have to worry about your weapons or soldiers lasting years. They will be damaged and killed in battles and need to be replaced.

            • Vqhm@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Cannon fodder?

              To quote Patton

              “No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.”

              It’s a good thing this near-peer BS is thrown around about armies that can barely keep their troops fed in their own countries where we have the logistics to feed our troops around the world.

              I’m sure there will always be a roll for infantry. The problem of the last few wars has been using infantry to hold ground and as a police force.

              You don’t win a conflict by holding on to a hill of dirt. You win by removing your enemies ability or will to fight.

              Ukraine is a bad example as they’re playing by other people’s rules. Europe and the West won’t provide them weapons if they use them in Russia. Russia won’t give up ground if Ukraine cannot reach inside of Russia to remove their will or ability to fight.

              It’s trench warfare stalemate a la WWI all over again.

              If there is a WWIII it’ll be marked by hybrid war, hacking, air defense reacting to missle and drone attacks and the deployment of decentralized weapons.

              It’s not a stretch to imagine hundreds of thousands of civilians could be killed by killware in a hacking attack without a single traditional weapon system being involved.

              People aren’t going to line up in pretty little lines fire salvos at each other. If anyone starts digging a fucking trench let them have that ground. They are no immediate threat to the factories, production, and training centers. Let them dig in. Send a bomb run later to clear them out when they come out to play.

              • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                So, because some guy in the 40s had a pithy remark, a war that shows strong indications of playing out similar to WW1 and the Eastern Front of WW2 against similarly armed foes is not at all representative of future wars?

                Also, unless we are willing to completely raze cities (both captured friendly and enemy), there will always be some form of “trench warfare”. That is what we saw in Fallujah and are seeing in Ukraine. It is just that, rather than run from one trench line to the other, it is pushing from a treeline into a city or from one block to another. And bombardments are only viable while you have munitions and/or air superiority. Both of which are limited resources as wars continue… which we are seeing in Ukraine.

                Because of external factors, Ukraine is on a very “weird” time table. But everything that is happening is consistent with a prolonged war. Even the US only has so many stockpiled resources and can only make so many new bombs and vehicles at a time. Especially if supply lines are fucked and the entire world is scrambling to build their own.

                • Vqhm@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  If you want to go trench by trench or door by door go ahead.

                  The future of war is not dirt. But instead information.

                  If Australian warnings for Perl Harbor had been heeded we wouldn’t have had to build so many boats. We built 9000 boats in WWII and we’ll build more than that many drones in WWIII.

                  But what good are drones without information? Without targets? Without information what to they do?

                  Targets, tactics is only one kind of information. Real time surveillance, biometrics, the ability to strike command and control. To cut the head off the snake is worth more than clearing a city.

                  If you need to clear a city, you need infantry.

                  Did we go island hoping all the way to Japan and then go door to door? Or did we break the enemies will to fight and force a surrender?

                  Is it always worth going door to door and holding worthless land? Trading bodies and bullets for what? Dirt?

                  What would it be worth however to cripple the enemies Command, Control, Communication, Computers, Cyber, and Intelligence? Do we really need to take land in future wars as much as force a surrender out of idiots that want to start shit.

                  There’s a terrific documentary about how the Air Force planned to win a nuclear war before ICBMs. It’s called the power of decision. It’s not about going door to door or trench by trench however. It’s about a different kind of war where you win by removing your enemies ability to fight in a flash. Unfortunately similar can be done today in cyberspace without the assurance of MAD or the early warning of an ICMB launch.

                  https://www.c-span.org/video/?426926-1/the-power-decision#

      • scifu@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        45
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not really a world war until 10 countries are actively involved with 2 of them USA and China.

        Right now usa is passive and china is not involved.

    • Sorgan71@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      nah because no country is allowed to be a part of the russo-ukranian war as ukraine is neutral.

    • foggianism@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      51
      ·
      1 year ago

      And all of that because the US can’t tell Israel to stop bombing civilians in Gaza.

        • foggianism@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          42
          ·
          1 year ago

          Oh yes, exactly because of that! It may seem farfetched to come to that conclusion, but only if you look at things as isolated happenings instead of in a more global geopolitical scope.

          Turkey, Iran and Egypt are eager to enter the stage. Their only repellent is the US’ firm stance with Israel. But how long can this Mexican standoff be in place?

          Israel has already cut Gaza in half and now they are going to increase the killings in the northern half in which still 1.1 million citizens live. The number of casualties will increase dramatically and the videos and images will ignite the region. One of the eager neighbors mentioned above might enter the stage, they might even jointly enter all at the same time.

          What happens if Turkey, a NATO member, enters Israel? What are the implications of this?

          China is smelling US weakness and can’t wait for something like that to happen. They will immediately proceed with their plan of annexing Taiwan.

          If that happens, Russia will mobilize with full force and there you have it - WW3.

          All because America couldn’t say to Israel to lift it’s finger from the trigger.

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            This is a very large logic train and you can’t demonstrate A->B let alone A->Z. Basically confirmation bias.

          • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            China cannot simply invade Taiwan in a moment whenever opportunity strikes, it would need significant and obvious preparation and buildup, because they would be contemplating a naval invasion on an almost unprecedented scale.

            Russia probably will mobilize however far it’s government feels it safely can regardless of China; NATO isn’t going to directly invade Russia itself because of it’s nuclear arsenal, and isn’t terribly likely to actually send a serious number of troops to Ukraine for the same reason, so what it primarily has to worry about is western sanctions and military equipment, and of course the efforts of the Ukrainians themselves, which it already has to deal with regardless of what China is doing.

            Israel for it’s part is also a nuclear armed state, so actual full scale war being declared upon it by it’s neighbors is unlikely. Support for terrorist or resistance groups, sure, maybe some sanctions, and definitely a lot strongly worded condemnation, but I’d very much doubt that the leadership of those countries cares enough about the Palestinians to declare a possibility suicidal war over it, the kind of politicians that lead these countries aren’t exactly famous for their empathy.

              • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                But if they’re at war, that ties up a lot of their resources. They’re currently using their military strength to claim international waters in the South China Sea. If they get into a war with Taiwan, they can’t back that claim up. The countries which are being unfairly denied those waters can assert themselves without fear of significant reprisal, and the US would be more than happy to aid that.

                There’s really no sensible reason for China to go after Taiwan, it’s complete bait. They stand to lose far more than they stand to gain.

                • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The two small islands close to mainland China will be the proving grounds, I’d expect. Unless he decides to retake the Vladivostok Oblast.

            • foggianism@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Israel can only ever hope to use its nuclear arsenal as a deterrant to its neighboring countries. As soon as they use a single nuclear warhead in the region, it will instantaneously lose all the support it still had in the world and beyond that point it is hard to predict what the world will turn into, but it would be ugly.

          • deleted@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t think turkey will enter Israel at all. Maybe Egypt if US insisted on moving Gazaians to Sinai.

            Also why Russia will mobilize? They have no incentive to face NATO now. Maybe weakening the west in the long run.

            • foggianism@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Russia is facing NATO right now, just not directly, but by proxy. In case of a major disruption within NATO, they could try to use the opportunity to increase their defending position by taking the 3 small baltic countries.

              • Marin_Rider@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Russia tried to hurt NATO by punching the guy next to him, and in return is getting beaten to a pulp by the guy that got hit while NATO laughs and supplies knuckledusters to their wrongly attacked neighbour. Russia is a clown state that’s done nothing but embarrass themselves for 18 months straight

    • curiousaur@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      83
      ·
      1 year ago

      It was never meant to be covert. That doesn’t work as a deterrent. The headline means quiet as in not announced, not as In nobody knows.

      Like, if you quietly left a party. It just means you didn’t say goodbye, it does not mean that you’re still hiding in the building.

      • MudSkipperKisser@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        37
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh but I DO hide in the building after I “quietly” leave. Then I just like sit at the breakfast table in my “borrowed” jammies and ask what’s for breakfast as my gracious host rounds the corner in the morning

    • cyd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      If anything, it’s the exact opposite of covert. Taiwan has been unwisely hollowing out their military for the past two decades. These recent expenditures—not matched by corresponding manpower increases—are meant to broadcast that everything’s fine, pay no attention to the problems underneath.

      • ours@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        China has also reduced its military manpower. Both are going for quality over quantity.

        Looking at Russia bungling their little adventure in Ukraine, maybe quantity alone doesn’t seem like the best approach.

    • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      63
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The US is paying because it needs Taiwan. If Taiwan didn’t have value for the US, it would have been overrun by China a decade ago

      • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        35
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        israel and ukraine as well. it’s no coincidence that right next to a powerful country (or, in israel’s case, a bloc of countries) that the US is unfriendly with there is a client state whose entire existence depends on Western funding.

    • UnspecificGravity@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      The bulk of the US economy is based on taking money from working people and then consolidating it to billionaires that run defense corporations. So “paying for” it’s basically just an engine for making rich Americans more rich.

    • Roboticide@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      If China invades Taiwan our entire economy will come to a screeching halt. Hence why America is interested.

      If China wanted to invade, idk, Thailand, we’d just kind of shrug and say “Hey, don’t do that.”

    • Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yes. Syria, Yemen, Libya.

      Yemen: US funded, Saudi Led Anti-Houthi Rebels in Yemen. The Saudis fighting with Hezbollah. Wait I think we did sell weapons to the Saudis lol. The conflicts in and around Turkey. Congress has [blocked arms deals to Turkey](blocked arms deals to Turkey), but Biden has tried to make it happen. We are arming Ukraine, but not arming other countries in the former Soviet bloc that would probably enjoy more independence from Russia right now. We’re not arming Africa which aims to stop piracy, stop foreign boats from dragnetting their shores, and has some internal conflicts with governments and insurgents. We aren’t arming Mexico to stop the drug cartels. (Although US citizens frequently arm the cartels).

      And don’t worry, Europe has arms to replace now thanks to the Ukraine-Russia war. US Plans to Backfill the Donated Arms.

      Yeah you can pretty much look up “US sends weapons to X” and get a positive result that we have indeed. We are also actively stopping Syria, Iran, Turkey, and Russia from arming more rebels whenever we can. US siezes Iranian Ammo, Sends to Ukraine.

      • Illuminostro@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well, all those General Dynamics and Raytheon shareholders deserve maximum return on their investments, according to St. Friedman.

  • /home/pineapplelover@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Well Taiwan can either go with the US or China. They’ve been wanting to stay independent from China for a while now so I don’t think it’s much of a surprise.

    • deleted@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Almost all countries other than USA, Russia, and China have to pick a side.

        • deleted@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          32
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Well, their economy isn’t collapsing any time soon. And they managed to destroy modern military systems supplied by NATO.

          • stevehobbes@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            21
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Hasn’t their economy already shrunk by 5% since the war began?

            Seems like they’re going to become a vassal state of China.

            • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              14
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I’ve been saying for the last couple of months that Xi is in a perfect position to reclaim the Vladivostok oblast. The native population is over 40% Han, not just Chinese, the type of Chinese the CCP gives a shit about. He could easily appear strong internally, and reclaim former Chinese territory that the Russians invaded in 1901, under the excuse of “a special military operation to defend the ethnic Chinese people in the region.” I seriously doubt that any other country other than Russia would even bat an eye, and Russia would be impotent to defend itself.

              This would also give China a port that is outside of the first chain of islands that the US has set up

                • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  China probably has more working nukes than Russia. Maintenance hasn’t been their strong suit, making them a liability. I wouldn’t be surprised if 9/10 aren’t working, or will malfunction on launch, causing Russia to nuke themselves, and the best part is they don’t even know which ones actually got maintained.

              • stevehobbes@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                He’s going to have to do something, they’re going to have their own economic issues to deal with…

          • Littleborat@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Their gdp is production of weapons right now. After they lose no one is going to want these weapons and they have been produced for the trash.

            My point is it’s not real growth.

          • Marin_Rider@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Europe could stand against Russia without American support. probably not China though. china couldn’t attack any American aligned state without facing humiliation though

        • Nihilistra@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It is, but I wouldn’t count on our potential to wage an effective modern war in functional cooperation with the many countries in the EU. Especially when it is a war taking place out of Europe and not a defensive action.

          A militaristic endeavor would surely be held up and manipulated by opposing countries within the alliance, just like it is now with economic decisions.

      • capital@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m highly biased but that seems like an easy choice, geography notwithstanding.

  • Gabu@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    Good. Even if nobody likes 'murica, their weapons work well enough to deter China from doing something stupid.

    • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      50
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Imagine if the roles were reversed, and it was China arming i.e. Panama. How would you feel then?

      (Because the USA has done a lot of "something stupid"s as well).

      Edit: Folks, you can analyze the bigger picture without being a tankie. It’s unfortunate that so many ex-Redditors would rather block and report any display of critical thought

      • Gabu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Imagine if the roles were reversed, and it was China arming i.e. Panama. How would you feel then

        False equivalence, Panama’s risk of being suddenly invaded in the current political climate is nearly zero. Taiwan (is #1), on the other hand, has to be ever vigilant. Also, Panama doesn’t house the ‘rightful’ government of the US.

          • Gabu@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Same deal. They’ve suffered an unjust embargo, sure, but are under no real threat of invasion.

          • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I probably should have said Cuba in my main comment. Doesn’t look like it helped people understand, though!

            • cjsolx@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              There’s nothing to understand, it’s the same situation. Neither Panama nor Cuba are currently under threat from the USA. The USA does not claim ownership over either, and is not threatening their sovereignty.

              You’re the one not understanding the false equivalency.

              • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Would you feel comfortable with China putting weapons on Cuba? Because the US got real upset last time, and as you said, the US doesn’t even have plans to invade Cuba (anymore)

                • cjsolx@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It would be irksome, sure. But there is no amount of weaponry that China could supply Cuba with that would threaten the USA (short of nukes), so it would be a moot point. Business as usual. Taiwan similarly has no hope of success in attacking China, regardless of how many weapons the USA provides. Meaning: this only works one way, and if China is upset about that then maybe they should keep their eyes (and hands) within their own borders and everything will be fine.

        • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          19
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Obviously they’re different. But failing to empathize when given the analogy shows either the inability or unwillingness to understand China’s position.

          • Heresy_generator@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I understand the PRC’s position just fine because they’ve been explicit about it for decades: They believe that Taiwan, an island they’ve never controlled, is theirs by imperial right based on the Qing dynasty’s rule over it for ~200 years prior to 1900.

            We don’t need to “empathize” with a desire for imperial conquest, we just need to stand in the way of it.

          • EatATaco@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The US wouldn’t be arming Taiwan if China wasn’t making the claim that it is part of China. Taiwan poses literally zero threat to china. There is no US comparison here.

            It’s the same shit with Ukraine and Russia, and China is watching closely. It’s probably easier politically for Republicans to fund a nation not in conflict, because the deterrence doesn’t look like as big a win for Biden, so this is why they intelligently to along with it.

            • bufalo1973@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              11
              ·
              1 year ago

              From Wikipedia:

              Taiwan, officially the Republic of China (ROC), is a country in East Asia.

              What were you saying?

              • EatATaco@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                What’s your point? Did you just stop there and not read the next sentence that says “It is located at the junction of the East and South China Seas in the northwestern Pacific Ocean, with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to the northwest”?

                • bufalo1973@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  My point is that Taiwan IS a part of China. Two different governments but the same country. And both say they are the “real” China.

              • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Wait until you hear about the official names of China, or North and South Korea

                (For the uninitiated: People’s Republic of China, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and Republic of Korea. Tl;dr there’s more than one issue if you’re going off the country’s official name for which land they own)

          • Gabu@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’ll piss on the CCP any day of the week, thank you very much. I’m a communist, by the way.

      • NAXLAB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        As an American who knows how evil our government is, I would be like “good for panama but also China is probably not doing this out of justice and freedom”

      • cjsolx@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you’re comparing China/Taiwan circumstances to USA/Panama I’m sorry but I cannot call that a critical thought. The only similarity is proximity.

      • Roboticide@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        That’s fine! We should not invade Panama. I don’t think the US is currently planning on it, but after the last 20 years I’m pretty sure most citizens would be fucking glad for any excuse for our military to think twice before invading a foreign country.

      • crackajack@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        The one other one is a democracy, despite being a flawed one. The other, an unabashedly totalitarian state. And before any CCP apologists comments and nevermind what the domestic Chinese think, ask South Korea, Japan and South East Asia what they think of the Chinese Communist Party claiming the entirety of South China Sea and sending armed merchant vessels and the Chinese navy bullying other Asian fishermen in the region. Not to excuse American imperialism, but it’s clear which is the better option for many.

            • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              No, but I thought it was funny someone likely from the West tried to use that argument when I suggested the idea of a weapon deployment next door might make you uneasy

              • crackajack@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Philippines in the 1990s have elected to kick out the Americans from their bases in the country. Back then, there was strong nationalist sentiment against American troops being stationed. Fast forward to twenty years later, many Filipinos have been blaming the past government with hindsight that they should have let the Americans stay because China took the opportunity to camp in an shoal within the Philippines’ legally recognised maritime borders. If the Americans had remained, China would not have been so bold to violate other country’s borders.

                That’s the problem with realpolitik. If it’s not one country or entity, another would prey on the weak. That’s might be a poor analogy considering what I would say next but the point stands. And the American bases, it’s not like US unilaterally set up bases in hundreds of locations across the world. There is given permission by these countries hosting military forces. Of course, nation states still being tribalistic and only after their own interests, others feel it is an affront to see such bases next door. Even the nuclear missiles about to be set up in Cuba in the 1960s, Cuba invited the Soviet Union to do so, not that the Soviet Union unilaterally decided to set up the nukes in the island. Cuba and Soviet Union have mutual interest. The former needs a deterrent to prevent another American inteference, while the latter wants leverage on the US to be convinced remove the missiles from Turkey.

        • clanginator@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Why don’t we ask South America, the Middle East, and Vietnam what they think about the US?

          but it’s clear which is the better option for many

          … American tax dollars are at this moment funding the genocide of Palestinians.

          EDIT to add: I should clarify I’m no CCP apologist, nor do I uplift China as an example of what we should strive for. But I also really get tired of seeing America put on a pedestal. America was built on genocide, slavery, and exploitation, I don’t see how it should ever be an example of how to do things better, BECAUSE that line of reasoning (“at least we’re better than them”) has been used to justify many of the horrors of our history.

          By using that bit of propaganda, you’re contributing to things like Americans looking the other way/enabling - for the past 75 years - genocide. It’s the same “they’re savages” shit that was used to justify literally the most savage acts against Native Americans.

          Our democracy also isn’t actual democracy. By definition, a democracy must represent the will of the people. Ours does not. It is already a failed democracy, and has been for my entire life. America also produces more propaganda than any other country. Do we have more personal freedoms in many areas than people in China? Absolutely. Are there many areas throughout society where I think America has pushed the world forward and made it a better place? Absolutely.

          But I’m getting really sick of seeing America compared to China just to say “we’re better”.

          • PRUSSIA_x86@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Funny you should ask

            https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2015/04/30/vietnamese-see-u-s-as-key-ally/

            Yet four decades after the controversial war, the Vietnamese public sees the United States as a helpful ally and even embraces some of the core tenets of capitalism.

            Today, the Vietnamese view the U.S. in a positive light. About three-quarters of Vietnamese (76%) expressed a favorable opinion of the U.S. in a 2014 Pew Research Center survey. More highly educated people (89%) gave the U.S. especially high marks. Young people ages 18-29 were particularly affirmative (89%), but the U.S. is seen positively even by those who are old enough to have lived through the Vietnam War. Among those ages 50 and older, more than six-in-ten rated the U.S. favorably.

            • clanginator@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yeah I shouldn’t have used Vietnam as an example bc I am aware that they’re somehow largely favorable to the US still, but the lasting effects of US imperialism on the population there is what I was really trying to get at.

          • fritobugger2017@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Greetings from Hanoi. The Vietnamese in general view the USA quite favorably. Much more so than they feel about China which is regularly killing their fishermen and destroying VN oil and mineral development facilities. The 1000 years of Chinese occupation seems to have also left a bit of a bad taste.

          • crackajack@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Past atrocities does not justify today’s actions by another at the present time. US hasn’t been meddling Latin America since the cold war. In Asia Pacific, US isn’t the one who is bullying Japan, South Korea and SE Asia. And funny you mentioned Vietnam, as someone already said that Vietnam view US favourably in spite of history, the former actually dislike China more than the US. Vietnam has a much longer historical animosity with China than the with the US. At present, US and Vietnam have mutual interests in containing China.

            • clanginator@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Past atrocities does not justify today’s actions by another at the present time.

              I’m not saying that. I’m saying that holding America up as a standard and saying that we’re somehow better is hypocritical and dangerous because it helps to justify/overlook shit like what’s happening in Palestine rn, and I’m sick of the general mindset exactly because it has helped lead to the ignorance and complacency we see with a genocide that is fueled largely by American desire to retain influence in that region for capitalistic purposes, with no regard for human rights.

              Vietnam has a much longer historical animosity with China than the with the US.

              I mean yeah no shit, they’ve been at it for thousands of years lmao.

              And, as I’ve said elsewhere I was more getting at the human rights atrocities perpetrated by the US which still have great effect on Vietnam.

              I’m in no way trying to justify anything. Again, I’m just saying I’m sick of seeing people hold the US up as “hey look we’re better” because I really don’t know that we are. We care about human rights at home, to an extent, but we don’t give af who that affects in other parts of the world. Is that really better than China pretending to care about it’s citizens with communism while abusing their human rights and exercising insane governmental control over their lives?

              The US has been and continues to be the direct and indirect perpetrator of a lot of evils, and the more I learn about these things, the more I dislike seeing America characterized as a standard of morality, because it directly reflects propaganda which has allowed for many of these atrocities to happen.

              • crackajack@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                No one is holding US as the gold standard. But with the present dog-eat-dog realpolitik, the US is seen as the “least of all evils”. Last time I checked, a survey carried out across the world said most still prefer the US than China or Russia. In my opinion, it’s better to have a multipolar world to stop the current set up humanity is having right now.

            • bufalo1973@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Cuba and Venezuela are both in Latino America. And both have being targeted by the US as “cold” enemies.

        • teuniac_@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Taiwan is a full democracy, not a flawed one. At least according to the widely respected Economist Democracy Index.

          Taiwan is more democratic than Canada and Germany. And a lot more than the US, but that’s not surprising.

      • Arcity 🇵🇸🇺🇦@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Countries helping arm one another is good. Every country should have the capacity to defend itself. My country got steamrolled during WWII because we had few and outdated wapens

      • Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Gives me Cuban Missile Crisis vibes.

        I’m not as happy that the US sells arms, but I’m convinced by the geopolitical climate that arming Ukraine and now I might add arming Taiwan is better for the world than worse. Refilling Israel’s Iron Dome is probably a good idea too, though we are yet to see what the US sends and how defensive or offensive those weapons we send are.

        There might be better comparisons though in the weird chess games we played in the middle east with Russia. They armed some insurgents, we armed some insurgents, etc. Afghanistan was a disaster for Russia too, though it was worse for us.

  • JdW@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    1 year ago

    Quietly? They have been doing so for at least 40 years. Everybody knew and knows.

  • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    Give them a bunch of nukes and biological weapons and after they arrive send a message to the PRC

    “Just a fyi, we sent them a 100 but they only received 80. Be a real shame if Taiwanese operators had planted them in randomly selected cities on the mainland.”

    It will be hilarious way to end the world.

    • Roboticide@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      There’s a theory that Taiwan could achieve mass destruction with just regular cruise missiles, no need for actual WMDs.

      The destruction of Three Gorges Dam would kill millions of people from the resulting flood. Be a tough target and air defense would be a nightmare, but it is still within Taiwan’s cruise missile range.

      There’s been no acknowledgement ever of this plan, but it’s pretty obvious.

      • Wilzax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The US is wrong to support Israel’s genocide of Palestinians.

        The US is right to help Taiwan defend itself against assimilation by the CCP.

        Genocide and imperialism are bad. Supporting the victims of them to defend themselves is good. Not so hard to understand, is it?

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    When US President Joe Biden recently signed off on a $80m grant to Taiwan for the purchase of American military equipment, China said it “deplores and opposes” what Washington had done.

    It is sending a clear message of strategic clarity to Beijing that we stand together," says Wang Ting-yu, a ruling party legislator with close ties to Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen, and to US Congressional chiefs.

    He says the $80m is the tip of what could be a very large iceberg, and notes that in July President Biden used discretionary powers to approve the sale of military services and equipment worth $500m to Taiwan.

    But Dr Lai says it’s possible to make educated guesses: Javelin and Stinger anti-aircraft missiles - highly effective weapons that forces can learn to use quickly.

    A war-gaming exercise conducted by a think-tank last year found that in a conflict with China, Taiwan’s navy and air force would be wiped out in the first 96 hours of battle.

    The focus will switch to ground troops, infantry and artillery - repelling an invasion on the beaches and, if necessary, fighting the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) in the towns and cities, and from bases deep in the island’s jungle-covered mountains.


    The original article contains 1,687 words, the summary contains 202 words. Saved 88%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • dick_stitches@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    So the US is funding Taiwan, Ukraine, and [checks notes] …Israel? Makes perfect sense to me

  • Ghostlight@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Check out the latest Julian Dorey podcast with Andrew Bustamante, damn insightful, especially about Taiwan and China.