Can China invade Taiwan?

[timothyu]

The Chinese do not have any globally appealing spiritual infrastructure in place.

What does that have to do with an antichrist? The whole world system is anti-christ in nature

 

[eleos1954]

De Santis scared me when he suggested that Ukraine was just a local conflict and not something that the USA should be that concerned about. Trump too was clearly a pal of Putin and Putin wanted him to win in 2020. The Republican side seems a little too tempted by isolationism right now. A Republican victory could result in Russia setting terms for peace in Ukraine and sending the message that China can do what it likes in Taiwan also.

Ukraine is a proxy war ... if Russia escalates it .... no doubt NATO will become involved. President Biden has said that our (Americas') involvement will be whatever it takes.

 

[eclipsenow]

The thing that scares me is China may well invade Taiwan to distract the population at home from the coming economic catastrophe!
This is one of my favourite Aussie journalists in my favourite journalistic podcast - and he also just so happens to have been a member of my church a few years ago. Shame I never got to know him before he moved out of Sydney

 

[mindlight]

The thing that scares me is China may well invade Taiwan to distract the population at home from the coming economic catastrophe!
This is one of my favourite Aussie journalists in my favourite journalistic podcast - and he also just so happens to have been a member of my church a few years ago. Shame I never got to know him before he moved out of Sydney

That is an interesting theory. Of course, they would have to pull off a successful invasion to provide a useful distraction and to prevent revolution. Failure would not be an option if they are already failing as stewards of the economy.

 

[mindlight]

Ukraine is a proxy war ... if Russia escalates it .... no doubt NATO will become involved. President Biden has said that our (Americas') involvement will be whatever it takes.

America's strategy does seem to be the permanent weakening of a strategic rival. The Russians in the meantime are dragging out the war to try and wear the West down. That strategy might work with European powers like Germany worried about their economies though not with the British. So a lot hinges on the 2024 election and especially on whether Trump is elected. That could end all cooperation with Ukraine and damage relations with European allies. Then the Russian/Chinese goal of ending American global hegemony and things like invading Taiwan become possible also as isolationism holds sway in the Republican party and America is perceived as disengaged from global interventions of any sort.

If the Democrats win in 2024 then Russia is looking at a very bleak future, with no prospect of winning a war that continues to bleed it dry, and has lost its most lucrative fossil fuel contracts.

Even if Ukraine loses American support due to a trump victory, it may still have enough support from Britain and other powers to keep the fight going so the Russian strategy is a risky one and more likely than not to fail. Unless of course Trump actively supports an end to the war and insists on a division of the country along the ceasefire lines. That is a strategy he could work out with Putin's support thus marginalizing the Europeans and essentially abandoning Ukraine. Such a strategy by breaking the alliance with Europe would however also effectively end American global hegemony and the advantages that brings

 

[eleos1954]

America's strategy does seem to be the permanent weakening of a strategic rival. The Russians in the meantime are dragging out the war to try and wear the West down. That strategy might work with European powers like Germany worried about their economies though not with the British. So a lot hinges on the 2024 election and especially on whether Trump is elected. That could end all cooperation with Ukraine and damage relations with European allies. Then the Russian/Chinese goal of ending American global hegemony and things like invading Taiwan become possible also as isolationism holds sway in the Republican party and America is perceived as disengaged from global interventions of any sort.

If the Democrats win in 2024 then Russia is looking at a very bleak future, with no prospect of winning a war that continues to bleed it dry, and has lost its most lucrative fossil fuel contracts.

Even if Ukraine loses American support due to a trump victory, it may still have enough support from Britain and other powers to keep the fight going so the Russian strategy is a risky one and more likely than not to fail. Unless of course Trump actively supports an end to the war and insists on a division of the country along the ceasefire lines. That is a strategy he could work out with Putin's support thus marginalizing the Europeans and essentially abandoning Ukraine. Such a strategy by breaking the alliance with Europe would however also effectively end American global hegemony and the advantages that brings

well .... we will see how this plays out ????

 

[Petros2015]

China wants Taiwan's chip industry.

I'm not sure where it stands now, but a year or so ago, yes. Taiwan was key (like literally the only) chip manufacturer for the most advanced chips. Best chips = Best AI. Best AI = Best Tech Advancement Possibilities + Better AI

Ever read SlapStick by Kurt Vonnegut? (ignore the movie, but the book was pretty good)
There's a subplot in the background where the Chinese start making advancements at an exponentially increasing rate. Something like that. Seizing control of the chip industry at a critical time to do that would be very tempting (for me).
Fortunately, I'm not in charge of anything And last I heard, China was a bit mistrustful of AI development (probably rightly so)

 

[eleos1954]

America's strategy does seem to be the permanent weakening of a strategic rival. The Russians in the meantime are dragging out the war to try and wear the West down. That strategy might work with European powers like Germany worried about their economies though not with the British. So a lot hinges on the 2024 election and especially on whether Trump is elected. That could end all cooperation with Ukraine and damage relations with European allies. Then the Russian/Chinese goal of ending American global hegemony and things like invading Taiwan become possible also as isolationism holds sway in the Republican party and America is perceived as disengaged from global interventions of any sort.

If the Democrats win in 2024 then Russia is looking at a very bleak future, with no prospect of winning a war that continues to bleed it dry, and has lost its most lucrative fossil fuel contracts.

Even if Ukraine loses American support due to a trump victory, it may still have enough support from Britain and other powers to keep the fight going so the Russian strategy is a risky one and more likely than not to fail. Unless of course Trump actively supports an end to the war and insists on a division of the country along the ceasefire lines. That is a strategy he could work out with Putin's support thus marginalizing the Europeans and essentially abandoning Ukraine. Such a strategy by breaking the alliance with Europe would however also effectively end American global hegemony and the advantages that brings

We send billions of dollars to Ukraine to protect their sovereignty while here in America we are not doing that and being overran with migrants causing extreme stress, chaos and danger to us (over whelming the system) ..... We are destroying ourselves from the inside out and the current administration is doing NOTHING about it. That's our threat .... not Russia.

 

[timothyu]

All great nations fall from within. There is a reason it is said the divided will fall. If the people want to play the game their leaders and media enforce then that is their loss. They are to work for you, not you for them as we are seeing. The concept of a republic is toallow no outside force to govern yet global Corporatism is running the show.

 

[eclipsenow]

We send billions of dollars to Ukraine to protect their sovereignty while here in America we are not doing that and being overran with migrants causing extreme stress, chaos and danger to us (over whelming the system) ..... We are destroying ourselves from the inside out and the current administration is doing NOTHING about it. That's our threat .... not Russia.

So Biden 'only' spends $25 billion a year on border patrol. (Up $800 million on previous years.) You're lucky you still have a border patrol of any kind after Trump spent $15 billion on a wall that can be defeated by a ladder and rope - or flying the way most illegals get into America!
And what does it cost to have all these 'illegals' in your country - allowing for all the assumptions from the right-wing source I'm quoting below are even true? (That immigrants are less educated and less likely to pay more tax than they consume in government services in their lifetimes. Unlike the average American who are better educated and more productive.)

"Illegal or unauthorized aliens are persons who reside in the nation unlawfully; they have entered and reside in the country without legal permission or have entered the country on a temporary visa and have remained here after its expiration. The current net fiscal cost of illegal aliens in the U.S. is between $84 and $94 billion per year. This means that illegal aliens receive $84 to $94 billion more in government benefits and services than they pay in total taxes."
Robert Recto
Senior Research Fellow
The Heritage Foundation

https://www.budget.senate.gov/download/rector-testimony-913&download=1

Assuming that is true of the first generation of refugees coming into America - the point he makes in the paragraphs above this quote is that native-born Americans are better educated and generate more wealth. So over generational time, the American population grows and the next generation will in their lifetimes generate far more money than their parents cost - according to his own logic.

Also, Federal income is $4.9 trillion. That's $4,900 billion. $94 billion in total taxes is 1.9% of Federal government revenue - which will ultimately make America larger and stronger and eventually the children will pay all that back with profit! But it's even smaller than that because the refugees draw services not only at the Federal level, but state and local as well. They are drawing from a larger pool of money which is (from page 4) "federal, state and local governments spent $5.76 trillion". So it's about 1.6%.

In contrast to protect another sovereign state - a Fledgling democracy from the former Soviet Union - America has given $75 billion. Less than the annual cost of helping 'illegal aliens' (who are often found to be genuine refugees when their cases are finally heard). Why do we have government? Isn't it to reduce chaos in the world? Sure you need to protect your borders from the 'economically aspirational' if that's the way to portray people desperately hoping to escape economic privation who might not genuinely be fearing for their lives. (Many are though!) But why so begrudging of helping Ukraine?
As Romans 13 says "For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience."

Russia's invasion of Ukraine makes them a 'wrongdoer.' They broke international law! They invaded a sovereign country - a new democracy. Surely America is big enough to do both.

 

[eleos1954]

So Biden 'only' spends $25 billion a year on border patrol. (Up $800 million on previous years.) You're lucky you still have a border patrol of any kind after Trump spent $15 billion on a wall that can be defeated by a ladder and rope - or flying the way most illegals get into America!
And what does it cost to have all these 'illegals' in your country - allowing for all the assumptions from the right-wing source I'm quoting below are even true? (That immigrants are less educated and less likely to pay more tax than they consume in government services in their lifetimes. Unlike the average American who are better educated and more productive.)

"Illegal or unauthorized aliens are persons who reside in the nation unlawfully; they have entered and reside in the country without legal permission or have entered the country on a temporary visa and have remained here after its expiration. The current net fiscal cost of illegal aliens in the U.S. is between $84 and $94 billion per year. This means that illegal aliens receive $84 to $94 billion more in government benefits and services than they pay in total taxes."
Robert Recto
Senior Research Fellow
The Heritage Foundation

https://www.budget.senate.gov/download/rector-testimony-913&download=1

Assuming that is true of the first generation of refugees coming into America - the point he makes in the paragraphs above this quote is that native-born Americans are better educated and generate more wealth. So over generational time, the American population grows and the next generation will in their lifetimes generate far more money than their parents cost - according to his own logic.

Also, Federal income is $4.9 trillion. That's $4,900 billion. $94 billion in total taxes is 1.9% of Federal government revenue - which will ultimately make America larger and stronger and eventually the children will pay all that back with profit! But it's even smaller than that because the refugees draw services not only at the Federal level, but state and local as well. They are drawing from a larger pool of money which is (from page 4) "federal, state and local governments spent $5.76 trillion". So it's about 1.6%.

In contrast to protect another sovereign state - a Fledgling democracy from the former Soviet Union - America has given $75 billion. Less than the annual cost of helping 'illegal aliens' (who are often found to be genuine refugees when their cases are finally heard). Why do we have government? Isn't it to reduce chaos in the world? Sure you need to protect your borders from the 'economically aspirational' if that's the way to portray people desperately hoping to escape economic privation who might not genuinely be fearing for their lives. (Many are though!) But why so begrudging of helping Ukraine?
As Romans 13 says "For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience."

Russia's invasion of Ukraine makes them a 'wrongdoer.' They broke international law! They invaded a sovereign country - a new democracy. Surely America is big enough to do both.

It is the way migration is occuring .... by masses .... migration needs to be a controlled process .... yes it's slower but it is better for all so that the receiving countries can prepare for them .... mass immigration (uncontrolled) causes chaos and that's exactly what is happening .... overwhelming the receiving countries.

 

[eclipsenow]

Ouch. Anyone listen to Peter Zeihan?
He makes the "war as distraction" idea even more credible here by adding "the leader is surrounded by Yes-Men."
That remind you of any other ill-advised incursions in the last few years?

 

[mindlight]

Ouch. Anyone listen to Peter Zeihan?
He makes the "war as distraction" idea even more credible here by adding "the leader is surrounded by Yes-Men."
That remind you of any other ill-advised incursions in the last few years?

But, if the invasion is unlikely to succeed, attempting one and failing would just add to revolutionary fervor inside China. People forget that China was a divided country as recently as the 30s-40s. It has a tendency during times of transition to split up into warring regions. Xi knows this hence the focus on unity and loyalty. But he compounds the problems of China with unreal communist ideology stifling the economy, by failing to properly tackle corruption and by his repression of the churches. China was doing fine until the war in Russia made people wonder if they were just sponsoring a monster with their trade deals. The biggest thing that Xi could do to get China back on track is to insist on an end to the war in Ukraine. However, he does not appear to have sufficient traction with Putin to make that happen even if he tried.

 

[Estrid]

Can the US invade Texas if it wishes to recede? Same difference.

Not very similar.

 

[timothyu]

Not very similar.

Same idea.