Australia to Get Nuclear Submarines

[Simon Tan]

The drums of nuclear power are beating loudly in Oz. Which is only sensible but it is being done by the Ministry of Lib-Nat propaganda since ScoMo has no balls.

[glenn239]

12 hours ago, Josh said:

If it is your opinion that Canada shouldn't be involved in the Taiwan question, that's reasonable. But that doesn't seem at all relevant to US foreign policy.
 

Please stop evading the question and answer it directly yes or no.  I answered yours about being pro-China, you answer mine about suicide pacts.

Should the US fight a war if its own military tells POTUS it cannot win it?  Yes or no?

[glenn239]

11 hours ago, Simon Tan said:

The drums of nuclear power are beating loudly in Oz. Which is only sensible but it is being done by the Ministry of Lib-Nat propaganda since ScoMo has no balls.

Presumably somebody will retire from government service and then get hired at a massive salary somewhere as the quid pro quo.  Institutional corruption!

[Stuart Galbraith]

16 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

Please stop evading the question and answer it directly yes or no.  I answered yours about being pro-China, you answer mine about suicide pacts.

Should the US fight a war if its own military tells POTUS it cannot win it?  Yes or no?

The question would be better directed at China, which also cannot win. Its a war everyone can lose, but nobody can win.

The logic I would have thought ought to be conflict prevention, not on how capable the US is at fighting said war. If it occurs, then deterrence has failed. You always seem to overlook that, and assume things have to be finalized in a binary fashion by combat. The Cold War didnt end like that.

 

[glenn239]

13 hours ago, Josh said:

I think not only will there be a correction, there will be a rebalancing that will result in permanent lower GDP growth rates. The effectiveness of this rebalancing effort, which is already underway now, will determine if there is a period of recession or not. But the fact that power generation right now seems to be a serious problem for China for purely economic reasons rather than natural disasters seems to indicate that the country is going to have some economic growing pains sooner rather than later.

I think China might have a recession, or some number of years with small (say 2%) growth rate, but I don't think this will impact China's military buildup. 

 

Quote

In the longer term, I think the rapidly aging population will pose huge challenges. 

I don't think it will be the case that China's declining population will have that much effect because the Chinese fighting population will always be far larger than necessary for any conceivable Chinese military requirement.  Future military power will be increasingly robotic, in which China's powerhouse production capacity will weigh in.

 

Quote

I don't expect the US to lose a war this decade (at least not one where the goal is to stop a Chinese invasion of Taiwan) and I don't expect China to be economically as competitive past that time frame. So I see no reason for the US not to support Taiwan overtly such as to make sure there is no miscommunication about the US resolve in the short to medium term.

Provided you mean informal support with  no formal alliance commitment, then what you say is feasible.

Quote

I think the highest risk of war comes from China misinterpreting the intentions of the US vis-a-vis defending Taiwan in the near to medium term. See the posts above that mention Iraq as an example of what happens when you aren't clear about where your red lines are.

I don't see that at all.  I think the highest risk for the US gets dragged into a wars nearby to Russia or China that it cannot win.   Taiwan is such a place and so is Ukraine.

 

[futon]

13 hours ago, Angrybk said:

I'm not usually a fan of applying Theory to foreign policy -- human beings aren't predictable by any tech we currently have, social science is an oxymoron, etc. -- but this is a pretty interesting read. The authors' point is that China tends to get aggro when they get scared, not when they think they're on top. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/11/us-china-war/620571/

"Examples of this are plentiful. In 1950, for instance, the fledgling PRC was less than a year old and destitute, after decades of civil war and Japanese brutality. Yet it nonetheless mauled advancing U.S. forces in Korea out of concern that the Americans would conquer North Korea and eventually use it as a base to attack China. In the expanded Korean War that resulted, China suffered almost 1 million casualties, risked nuclear retaliation, and was slammed with punishing economic sanctions that stayed in place for a generation. But to this day, Beijing celebrates the intervention as a glorious victory that warded off an existential threat to its homeland."

There's a lot of good points in the article. I think one thing missing is it not mentioning the very long term stated CCP goals which go until 2050. There being two phases, a 2020 to 2035 phase in which the PRC society reaches basic level economic prosperity, end of poverty, and modernization of PRC military. So that basic outline gives domestic anticipation much time to reach a fully modernized military. The second phase goes from 2035 to 2050 in which high level economy and high culture (culturually engineered nanny state, ね), and top world class military.  To any chinese with this in mind, then they should feel there is still much time so no need to fret just yet about desired opportunities disappearing even after reading an article like that one. The CCP stated goals for unification with Taiwan doesn't have a deadline at the end of the 2020s. There's a lot of hype that give an air of a likely showdown this decade but its been hype made by US military leaders and think tanks. The CCP wouldn't have much of a domestic policy contradiction if they waited until 2040 or 2045 even to achieve unification with Taiwan. So then with that very long term goal in mind, then they can dampen PRC population or debt issues with counter points about issues in other countries like US domestic rife potential, Japan's shrinking population and debt, etc. There are good points made by others in this recent exchange in this thread.  Although the sum of good points leaves a very wide future possibilities that not reconcilable. At any rate, the effort to keep Taiwan safe from forceful PRC action is to go into the very long term. So anyone can say anything as the further into the long term, the wider the possibilities from today's posture. 

[glenn239]

32 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

The question would be better directed at China, which also cannot win. Its a war everyone can lose, but nobody can win.

If your answer is no, that the US should not fight a war its military says it cannot win, then the US must never entangle itself with commitments to countries in places where it could lose a war, only forming alliances in places it can successfully protect.  (This is my opinion).

If the answer is yes, that the US should fight a war it will lose, then either the person answering the question is reckless, (merrily wanting to play and losing someone else's stack of chips, except the 'chips' are dead American kids serving their country) or the poster has some compelling argument to be made that losing a war can further our interests and improve our position on the world stage.

So, those are the two answers, and the right and wrong one are pretty fucking clear.  So, why are you and Josh having so much trouble answering a simple yes/no question that only has one correct answer?  The more you both evade, the more I start to think your answer is "yes", you would want the US to fight a war its military says it will lose. 

Quote

The logic I would have thought ought to be conflict prevention, not on how capable the US is at fighting said war. If it occurs, then deterrence has failed. You always seem to overlook that, and assume things have to be finalized in a binary fashion by combat. The Cold War didnt end like that.

I think when we throw our weight around in places like Ukraine and Taiwan, we actually  increase the chances of war. This concept seems one that you cannot abide by.

[futon]

15 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

If your answer is no, that the US should not fight a war its military says it cannot win, then the US must never entangle itself with commitments to countries in places where it could lose a war, only forming alliances in places it can successfully protect.  (This is my opinion).

If the answer is yes, that the US should fight a war it will lose, then either the person answering the question is reckless, (merrily wanting to play and losing someone else's stack of chips, except the 'chips' are dead American kids serving their country) or the poster has some compelling argument to be made that losing a war can further our interests and improve our position on the world stage.

So, those are the two answers, and the right and wrong one are pretty fucking clear.  So, why are you and Josh having so much trouble answering a simple yes/no question that only has one correct answer?  The more you both evade, the more I start to think your answer is "yes", you would want the US to fight a war its military says it will lose. 

I think when we throw our weight around in places like Ukraine and Taiwan, we actually  increase the chances of war. This concept seems one that you cannot abide by.

The biggest factor that would entirely prevent the possibility of war is for the PRC to accept Taiwan as a separate country so that Taiwan can identify itself as no longer as ROC but just as Taiwan. Taiwan is fully in the right to seek security partners. Japan is fully in the right to not concede a reality in which Taiwan becomes a PRC island. Both those factors become a strong foundation of support for US involvement. With US involvement comes the package of others such as Aus, UK, France even, and so on. So that strong foundation for US presense and commitment is likely to not go away even if the US decides to not stand on it anymore. If the US does decide to not stand on it someday, then that leaves Japan with a much bigger role for safe guarding Taiwan. And even though Japan is the world's pervert uncle, if the topic is of such a matter as the security of Taiwan, then it is not Japan but NIPPON because of how fateful that matter can be.

[Stuart Galbraith]

16 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

If your answer is no, that the US should not fight a war its military says it cannot win, then the US must never entangle itself with commitments to countries in places where it could lose a war, only forming alliances in places it can successfully protect.  (This is my opinion).

If the answer is yes, that the US should fight a war it will lose, then either the person answering the question is reckless, (merrily wanting to play and losing someone else's stack of chips, except the 'chips' are dead American kids serving their country) or the poster has some compelling argument to be made that losing a war can further our interests and improve our position on the world stage.

So, those are the two answers, and the right and wrong one are pretty fucking clear.  So, why are you and Josh having so much trouble answering a simple yes/no question that only has one correct answer?  The more you both evade, the more I start to think your answer is "yes", you would want the US to fight a war its military says it will lose. 

I think when we throw our weight around in places like Ukraine and Taiwan, we actually  increase the chances of war. This concept seems one that you cannot abide by.

 

During the Cold War, the US held 30 days of ammunition stocks for fighting in Germany. The Soviets had the ability to fight, and had ammunition stockpiles, to last months. The British Army, by contrast, held 6 days of ammunition, according to a document I found in 1973, 'And Further economies may have to be made' it added.

By YOUR arguement, Britain should not have committed to fight in Germany, because it could not win. By the logic of deterrence, the only requirement is that no side could win, and the war wouldnt occur. That is how deterrence works. You have to make a plausible case you can fight, and deny the other side the ability to win. Which with nuclear weapons we had. And considering, despite the risks, there was no nuclear exchange, clearly it did work, despite both sides great fears.

China can probably land on Taiwan, nobody can change that. We can ensure that it will choke them like ashes, and give them absolutely nothing they can use, and Global derision, resulting in loss of markets and probable economic collapse. Yes, they probably have the ability to sink a US Carrier, more than one. Maybe, on the outside, even massive losses. Enought to ensure they win without losing most of their pretty fleet? Not really.

See how it works? This is often called MAD, but I would argue its just risk theory. You just have to do enough to ensure the other side loses all it could stand to gain, and conflict will not occur. You cannot risk without being park of the game, hence you cant complain if the other side wins without loss if you dont take part.

Look, at the risk of condescension, this is a very simple primer.

 

[futon]

When all this blah blah goes on, some things related go on but as if not taken into consideration in some of the blah blahs.

Oct 28th, joint-training in airspace over Northwest of Okinawa and over East China Sea, USAF: 10 F15s, a KC-135, an MC-130, and a C-130J. JASDF: 12 J-15Js, a C-1, a C-2, a C-130H, a U-125A, and a UH-60J.

https://www.mod.go.jp/asdf/news/houdou/R3/20211101.pdf

[Simon Tan]

Blabla Japan Stronk.

[futon]

3 minutes ago, Simon Tan said:

Blabla Japan Stronk.

Well, they'll have to be. But its for Taiwan. If there was no Taiwan matter, then the geopolitical support so far for Japan's "remilitarization" such as constitution reintepretation, introduction of USMC-like ARDB, and programs to intriduce long range missles, would be far less I reckon. Strong for the times.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

[glenn239]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 

By YOUR arguement, Britain should not have committed to fight in Germany, because it could not win. 

As I said, the more you don't answer a simple yes or no question, the more I conclude that you would have the US fight a war it cannot win.   

 

[glenn239]

1 hour ago, futon said:

When all this blah blah goes on, some things related go on but as if not taken into consideration in some of the blah blahs.

Same question for you futon.  You throw Japan's name around here like they're fucking Godzilla in a sumo wrestler suit. 

Answer this question - would you have Japan fight a war for Taiwan if the outcome were certain to be the defeat of Japan?  Yes or no.

Edited November 2, 2021 by glenn239

[Josh]

3 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Please stop evading the question and answer it directly yes or no.  I answered yours about being pro-China, you answer mine about suicide pacts.

Should the US fight a war if its own military tells POTUS it cannot win it?  Yes or no?

I explicitly stated I don’t think China can succeed in an invasion this decade, as you yourself have also posted, nor do I expect China to ever achieve that capability. Your question doesn’t apply. I’d also state yes, the US should fight a war regardless of the military’s opinion, because decisions in our government are not the purview of the military.

 

Your assumption is that ultimately China will be in a position to assure victory and I’ve stated that we disagree completely on this assumption. There is nothing evasive about my position.

Edited November 2, 2021 by Josh

[seahawk]

People underestimate China. The population getting older is something that they can easily adjust be killing off the old. Sounds unrealistic, look at the cultural revolution and look at where the Chinese state is again enforcing total control -> education of children. They just axed the huge economic sector of private learning and took control of the media available to kids.

[glenn239]

27 minutes ago, Josh said:

I explicitly stated I don’t think China can succeed in an invasion this decade, as you yourself have also posted, nor do I expect China to ever achieve that capability. Your question doesn’t apply

Stop evading and answer the question.  Would you have the US fight a war that the US military says it will lose?  Keeping in mind that the US Military does not need your permission to hold the view that a war might be one it cannot win.  That is a yes or a no.  Answer the question.  Yes, you would have the US fight that war, or no you would not. 

Pentagon rattled by Chinese military push on multiple fronts | CTV News

Edited November 2, 2021 by glenn239

[Josh]

14 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

Stop evading and answer the question.  Would you have the US fight a war that the US military says it will lose?  Keeping in mind that the US Military does not need your permission to hold the view that a war might be one it cannot win.  That is a yes or a no.  Answer the question.  Yes, you would have the US fight that war, or no you would not. 

Pentagon rattled by Chinese military push on multiple fronts | CTV News

If I were the president, I’d take the military’s opinion of the situation quite seriously. I can’t imagine a scenario in which the top echelon advised me a war was not winnable and I chose to prosecute it anyway, barring an existential war.

that said, it’s not relevant to this discussion. You’re making up assumptions and using them as facts while you move the goal post at the same time. The story you posted quotes pentagon officials as being ‘alarmed’. That is not the same as ‘not winnable’ . You yourself conceded any PRC invasion of Taiwan in this decade had a poor chance of success IN THIS THREAD. And on that we agree. Where we disagree is Chinas inevitability, and on that we will agree to disagree. There is nothing more to accomplish here.

Edited November 2, 2021 by Josh

[glenn239]

1 hour ago, Josh said:

If I were the president, I’d take the military’s opinion of the situation quite seriously. I can’t imagine a scenario in which the top echelon advised me a war was not winnable and I chose to prosecute it anyway.

Then your answer is no, you would not have the US fight a war in which it cannot win.   Since Taiwan is a place where such a war is possible within the next decade, you can understand why I don't want the West to formally tie its anchor to Taiwan.  For, if a war becomes unwinnable, the US is in the position of either losing a war or breaking a treaty.  But, if the US retains its military advantage such that it can defend Taiwan, the Chinese will not invade because of that superiority, whether there is a US-Taiwan defense alliance or not.

Either way, a formal treaty does nothing to help Taiwan and is not within US interests.  So, we need to keep the relationship informal, no treaties, no formal defense commitments.

Edited November 2, 2021 by glenn239

[Stuart Galbraith]

We should formally anchor with Taiwan, and offer a nuclear guarantee to Taiwan. In fact, let go all out. Give them dual key B61s.

Edited November 2, 2021 by Stuart Galbraith

[Josh]

2 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Then your answer is no, you would not have the US fight a war in which it cannot win.   Since Taiwan is a place where such a war is possible within the next decade, you can understand why I don't want the West to formally tie its anchor to Taiwan.  For, if a war becomes unwinnable, the US is in the position of either losing a war or breaking a treaty.  But, if the US retains its military advantage such that it can defend Taiwan, the Chinese will not invade because of that superiority, whether there is a US-Taiwan defense alliance or not.

Either way, a formal treaty does nothing to help Taiwan and is not within US interests.  So, we need to keep the relationship informal, no treaties, no formal defense commitments.

Actually the rest of my post made it quite clear that I think you’re making a false equivalency. And the fact that you trimmed that part of my response tends to make me think you are doing it quite consciously.

 

goodnight, Glenn.

[futon]

7 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Same question for you futon.  You throw Japan's name around here like they're fucking Godzilla in a sumo wrestler suit. 

Answer this question - would you have Japan fight a war for Taiwan if the outcome were certain to be the defeat of Japan?  Yes or no.

It depends on many things. If Japan had nor been making the necessary preparations, then there's no point in fighting. If Japan has been making the necessary preparations, then perhaps yes. That would depend on how much is it worth risking the acceptance of the kowtow posture of mercy. If PRC marched toward war with Taiwan while at the same time wirh a high tempo anti-Japan propoganda which would mean that the PRC would use its power leverage to cobtinue to suppress Japan into near nothingness, then yes, better to go down with a fight. 

 

[Josh]

Japan has a working solid rocket space booster that is effectively just a US MX. it also is sitting on a fairly vast amount of plutonium.

 

the first thing that would happen if the US gave up on Taiwan is Japan establishing itself as a nuclear power, assuming China hadn’t bombarded it to oblivion first, which even in Glenn Bizarre world is unlikely to be a thing the US accepts.

[glenn239]

15 hours ago, Josh said:

Actually the rest of my post made it quite clear that I think you’re making a false equivalency. And the fact that you trimmed that part of my response tends to make me think you are doing it quite consciously.

The first part of your post made it clear that in the scenario of China drawing ahead of the US militarily such that the US would lose a war, you would not go to war with China to defend Taiwan.  This is the correct answer.    Since it is possible China will draw ahead of the US militarily in the next decade, an actual alliance with Taiwan therefore does not serve US interests because it will not deter China and it may drag the US into a situation where it either has to lose a war or break an alliance.  Whereas, if the US retains military dominance, China will not invade Taiwan whether an alliance exists or not.

The US should stick to the status quo ante by bolstering its alliances with Japan and Australia, but it should treat the rest of Asia more cautiously.   This is the conclusion you are good enough at this stuff that you too would reach if you would ever drop your reflexive US bias.