Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

China’s Army posts “Preparing for war!”

Options
1235715

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 6,901 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    China has imperial aspirations like the US and European countries in the past.

    You need aircraft carriers for force projection across the world - only the most advanced & heavily armed powers can compete against multiple aircraft carriers.

    The only delusion here is yourself harping on about "tankies" and about to the blow the beans over the thought of dead soldiers. And the idea that all chinese imports are "low-value" and can be done without for however many months, lol. Imports from China are no longer just the plastic toys from the 90s. You'd be doing well to find anything remotely technical nowadays without chinese components in the supply chain.



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    The largest component of Japanese imports from China are white goods like washing machines (from Japanese companies I might add). Japan is many things, but they are not thick. Mrs Toyama in Kobe will live without her new dishwasher for a year as manufacturing is moved to Indonesia.

    The US has enough firepower in Guam and Okinawa to end any PRC flotilla many times over, they don't need carriers to fillet China in this circumstance. An American airman in Kadena could put on an oven pizza, hop in the F35 cockpit, sink a Chinese frigate and be back to eat the pizza before it's burned.

    And any carrier group will be out of range running sorties in any case

    Tankies need a wake-up call. I say these things because it's reality. Chinese hyped up Playstation weapons won't move the dial. The hypersonic missile tankies are spoofing themselves over missed it's target by over a hundred miles when last tested.

    The US, if they were minded, would make short work of a PRC invasion attempt. They may lose a few airmen and vessels, but many tens of thousands of Chinese will have a lungfull of seawater before the sun goes down.

    It's time to put down the PlayStation controller and come into reality (as well as take a look at what Japan imports from China. Hint: it's overwhelmingly low-value goods).



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,901 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    yes yes, its all the tankies, US reigns supreme, home in time for christmas, etc etc.

    Same delusional military nonsense we were hearing about Ukraine.


    What really matters here, is that the US still recognises the one china policy, and that Taiwan is Chinese clay. If they were to deviate from this, China as the single largest holder of US debt, could make it quite painful for them. For Taiwan itself, the Chinese have enough of a navy to blockade the island nation.

    The only people who really could get involved is the US - unlikely theyll have the appetite for it. More than likely theyd try and supply the Taiwanese if it came to it, but much harder to get weapons into a blockaded island than through a land border like Ukraine.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I'm not so sure that the Chinese attitude to the lives of its citizens ( or any other Country's Citizens either) causes them to worry overmuch, if it does come to war.

    There's a certain callousness to Chinese culture regarding the value of life. You can see similar in India, so it's likely due to the massive populations, and the range of historical famines they both suffered through. In any case, I seem to remember Mao saying he wouldn't hesitate to sacrifice half the population if it meant achieving his goals. Xi and the remainder of the upper CCP would be similar, as they're so removed from the way the average poor person in China lives.

    As for Chinese people themselves, while on a daily or normal basis, there's little concern over the lives of others.. if a war was to result in large casualties, I suspect we'd see actual outrage over the losses.

    TBH I suspect their economic and social woes will restrain them from doing anything. The corruption, the banks closing, the loss of savings for normal people, the property bubble, etc all contribute to a very flimsy stability within Chinese society, and they are a people who love to form mobs.. and with the police/army, typically, drawn from the poor I doubt that the CCP want to test their loyalty, especially after some police districts sided with protestors during covid.

    Nah. I don't see China committing to war.. and if they did, their society would implode rather quickly.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    China as the single largest holder of US debt, could make it quite painful for them

    The US could easily renege on such debts, or hold them frozen until the crisis is finished. The US has a range of options that are not generally available to other nations. I wouldn't be holding such debt as being terribly important.

    As for Taiwan, the US has always held the independence of Taiwan as being sacred. Naturally enough as it provides them with a base of operations so close to the Chinese mainland. In any case, Taiwan has been preparing for war with China for 50 years, and they're more than capable of holding out. Also, to have a blockade, China would need to commit the ships and aircraft to reinforce the blockade, making them incredibly vulnerable to attacks from US (or allied) assets throughout SE Asia. Any such blockade would destroy the Chinese surface fleet rather quickly, in addition to their air commitment. Losses that would be extremely expensive and difficult to replace.

    You have rather unrealistic viewpoints on both China, and the situation in the South China sea..



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,901 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    If the US consider Taiwanese independence sacred, then why do they publicly affirm China's right to Taiwan clay, and more importantly, why have they been attempting to onshore semiconductor operations on US soil and away from Taiwan as of late? Not exactly a vote of confidence for Taiwanese sovereignty in the future.

    Also remember the US made quite a furore over Hong Kong's autonomy and democratic rule, when China all but stomped that out there was a few stern statements from the US and then the world moved on. The US do not have the appetite to defend Taiwan, so long as they have time to get their assets out of the island they could let it sink into the ocean



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    The physical safety of semiconductor production facilities, and therefore their supply, and Taiwanese "independence" as you put it, are two entirely different things. It's a lot easier for chinese weapons to destroy semiconductor facilities less than 200km from their shores than in the US. It remains a lot more difficult for chinese military forces to reach the island of Taiwan to destroy it's "independence".



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    Now you are entering a paralell univserse talking about the PRC being able to enforce a blokcade of Taiwan during wartime. They do not have the capacity for a blue water navy, and what little of their navy is left after Taiwan is done with it is easy pickings for the US/Japan/Australia/anyone else who wants to get involved - and all of this within the first island chain, which is where they will be staying and drowning.

    The fact you thought for a second that Japan is not in total lockstep with the US on Taiwan and would keep their head down tells me you're spoofing and fantasising as you go along. Every Japanese governement since the 80s has made it clear that Taiwan is an existential issue for them.

    I won't even get into the US debt matter, the RMB operates a floating peg with the USD, and would become toilet paper overnight like the rouble. The US would only love to welch on that debt and let the Chinese economy burn if they went after Taiwan.

    This may surprise you, but the people who run this stuff in the background in the US are no dummies - anyone actually cheerleading China (low key or not) is going to be dissapointed in the first instance, and should book an appointment for a brain scan to ceck for cysts in their skull. Taiwan is a foreign policy issue unusual in that it has had bipartisan support for decades. Every country in the region that matters a damn is on the same page as well.

    Tankies can keep dreaming.



  • Registered Users Posts: 81,978 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Oh such big manhood energy

    Look out, neighbor, I almost parked my cars on your lawn. Oooh, better freak out. (They don't look like they're in battle formations)



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    If the US consider Taiwanese independence sacred, then why do they publicly affirm China's right to Taiwan clay, and more importantly, why have they been attempting to onshore semiconductor operations on US soil and away from Taiwan as of late? Not exactly a vote of confidence for Taiwanese sovereignty in the future.

    The US has repeatedly said that they stand by Taiwanese independence. If your scenario was even remotely true, US military forces would have been completely removed from Taiwan, to prevent any chance that China might "accidently" target them during a conflict.

    As for your "more importantly".. how is that more important? In any case, it sound economic sense to move such operations out of Asia, and have their own domestic industry capable of providing what they need. For years now, since covid, people have been talking about the weaknesses of depending on China for necessary industry, but the same applies to Taiwan. You're going to find the US seeking to limit it's reliance on other nations, especially a reliance that affects their own national security.

    Also remember the US made quite a furore over Hong Kong's autonomy and democratic rule, when China all but stomped that out there was a few stern statements from the US and then the world moved on. The US do not have the appetite to defend Taiwan, so long as they have time to get their assets out of the island they could let it sink into the ocean

    HK is a completely different scenario, and the US could never have guaranteed their independence. HK was to return to Chinese control due to international legal agreements.

    As for the US appetite, defending Taiwan would be the "good fight" that they've been wanting for decades. I have American friends who have served, and wouldn't hesitate to sign up again if it meant fighting for Taiwan's independence. The US has been searching for "a cause" after the dodgy motivations of their past conflicts. In any case, the US wants China humbled and knocked off it's pedestal, and a war with Taiwan would provide the best opportunity to do just that, due to the range of allies they would gain in the Asian region. It's a win win for them.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,901 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    In an era of increased globalisation up until very very recently (i.e. post covid), onshoring manufacturing of anything never made economic sense in the US - it was only done for strategic reasons. Being confident of an independent Taiwan flies in the face of those decisions



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,157 ✭✭✭Markus Antonius


    When you mentioned "they are our adversaries, not our partners" you are clearly alluding to Trump's desire to pursue trade deals rather than war with China (Trump even hinted at trade deal with North Korea for Christ's sake, which god forbid, may lead to improved lives of those who live there). But no, anything "Orange man did = bad" in your eyes.

    You have the same typical mindset of democrat/liberal/anti-Trumpers in the US - a hatred of their own nation and an obsession with interfering with and turning every other country into a worse sh*thole than it already is.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    In an era of increased globalisation up until very very recently

    You contradict yourself.

    Regardless, the simple point is that the US will want all strategic needs to be provided either within US territories, or held by close allies. ie. Europe. Asia remains too risky an area to leave manufacturing or supply of assets associated with their own national security (and that of their Arms industry). The sanctions against Russia has shown just how vulnerable a country can be when such technologies produced abroad, are no longer easily supplied.

    As for an independent Taiwan, the Taiwan Relations Act and a number of comments made by Biden relatively recently, all point to a firm position of US intervention against Chinese hostility. That might change whenever someone replaces Biden, but the policy from American administrations has been consistent on Taiwan. Their statements have been vague, but they've always recommitted military assets to the region, and the supply of military hardware both in sales, but also the stationing of hardware both in Taiwan, but also in Korea/Japan.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,901 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    No contradiction - the focus has been offshoring and increased globalization until post pandemic when it showed up the flaws in Just-in-time manufacturing and supply chains.

    The process of onshoring semiconductor manufacturing has been going on before the pandemic.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]




  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Pelosi has landed.

    China now reminds me of the nursery rhyme, The Grand Old Duke of York 😀



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,258 ✭✭✭✭TheValeyard


    She's right to visit. The world needs to stand up to China and its bullyboy tactics, concentration camps, crackdown on Hong Kong, constant lies and deceit, Covid cover up, and dictatorship regime.

    Fcuk Putin. Glory to Ukraine!



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    It's why the world needs the US, can imagine EU leaders on the phone to xi pleading to let them visit.



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,258 ✭✭✭✭TheValeyard


    US are no saints either. I remember the George W years well with horror and the Iraq War was one massive war crime. But I'd take USA any day over China.

    In this instance the US is right to visit. Bullies need to be stood up too. China has a despotic regime and the world needs to mvoe away from their cheaply made products. For environmental reasons and we shouldnt be funding a government like that.

    Fcuk Putin. Glory to Ukraine!



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    That's the reality of our world, I'll pick the US over russia/china any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

    I don't disagree with getting rid of Saddam, but they went in for the wrong reasons under false pretenses and had no plan, so no wonder it all went to sh1t.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    "CHINA FOREIGN MINISTRY: THOSE WHO PLAY WITH FIRE WILL PERISH BY IT"



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    As someone said, in that case china should take it's own advice and put down the matches.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]



    Looks fairly on message thus far, wake me when they actually invade somewhere or shoot at something other than seagulls.





  • Registered Users Posts: 12,258 ✭✭✭✭TheValeyard


    I'm okay with the seagull shooting thing. Those guys stole my chips!

    Fcuk Putin. Glory to Ukraine!



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,049 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    Touchdown


    Expect a lot of bluster from the CCP and their lackeys and the edgelords that populate certain parts of the internet.



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,306 ✭✭✭✭Drumpot


    The cynic in me thinks there’s no coincidence of a successful drone strike against an enemy of the USA , the same day as Pelosi is going Taiwan under a cloud of condemnation from China.

    After what happened with Ukraine and Russia (nobody thought Russia would invade) I hope calmer heads prevail in this scenario. These are dangerous times.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Where does this "nobody thought russia would invade" rubbish come from. Anyone paying attention knew putrid was ordering his army to invade.



  • Registered Users Posts: 81,978 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    The less-MAGA half of the Republican Senate have issued statements of support for the Speakers visit, saying it is consistent with the One China diplomatic Policy the Congress has adopted.

    Dan Sullivan (R-AK)

    Mitch McConnell (R-KY)

    John Thune (R-SD)

    Jim Inhofe (R-OK)

    Jim Risch (R-ID)

    Roy Blunt (R-MO)

    John Cornyn (R-TX)

    John Barrasso (R-WY)

    Kevin Cramer (R-ND)

    Ben Sasse (R-NE)

    Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)

    Thom Tillis (R-NC)

    Tommy Tuberville (R-AL)

    Steve Daines (R-MT)

    Susan Collins (R-ME)

    Deb Fischer (R-NE)

    Todd Young (R-IN)

    Joni Ernst (R-IA)

    Rob Portman (R-OH)

    Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV)

    Mike Crapo (R-ID)

    Richard Burr (R-NC)

    John Boozman (R-AR)

    Tim Scott (R-SC)

    Chuck Grassley (R-IA)

    Pat Toomey (R-PA)



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,194 ✭✭✭Ubbquittious


    It will be amusing to see the Poohbear getting very riled up over this



Advertisement