All things: China

[Unagi]

China isn't going to invade Taiwan. Good thing Chinese leader isn't that stupid.

Just because you say so? A little reasoning behind your assertion would be nice. Otherwise, you got nothing.

Suddenly VR has put faith in a world leader to make a good choice.

Anyone else notice VR's foot taken off the gas as of late?

[Zarathud]

VR’s propagandists accomplished their goals, so they’re waiting. It’s only a matter of time before VR realizes Biden was so much better than Trump on their issues (Palestine, Taiwan, etc.).

[Unagi]

I was being subtle.

[Zarathud]

What’s that?

[Victoria Raverna]

Okay. Let's wait and see, wait 4 years and you'll see that I'm right.

[Blackhawk]

And if they invade in 5?

[Daehawk]

If China makes a move on Taiwan and the US has their orange potato emperor god in the white house thats a do nothing man then I think and would hope Japan or other allies would step in and save the day. But China has its own problems. They talk a lot and like to puff out their chest and I dont disagree that they want Taiwan to be back in the fold. But I dont think they have the power to do it. Not now not ever.

[Anonymous Bosch]

If China makes a move on Taiwan and the US has their orange potato emperor god in the white house thats a do nothing man then I think and would hope Japan or other allies would step in and save the day. But China has its own problems. They talk a lot and like to puff out their chest and I dont disagree that they want Taiwan to be back in the fold. But I dont think they have the power to do it. Not now not ever.

Daehawk's Sino-Taiwanese proficiency notwithstanding…

China will be ready for potential Taiwan invasion by 2027, US admiral warns

FILE – Adm. John Aquilino, U.S. Indo-Pacific Command commander, speaks at a news conference at Camp H.M. Smith, Hawaii, on June 30, 2022. Adm. Aquilino said Monday, Aug. 1, that he wants to expand and strengthen its ties with New Zealand. His visit to Wellington comes as the U.S. is looking to increase its presence in the region amid deep concerns over China’s growing ambitions in the Pacific. (AP Photo/Audrey McAvoy, File)

U.S. Adm. John Aquilino, head of Indo-Pacific Command, said “all indications” point to the Chinese military being ready for a potential invasion of Taiwan by 2027, the date China’s leader Xi Jinping has set for a possible military operation.

Aquilino testified in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday that China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) continues an “aggressive military buildup” and modernization effort.

“All indications point to the PLA meeting President Xi Jinping’s directive to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027,” the admiral said in a statement released ahead of his testimony. “Furthermore, the PLA’s actions indicate their ability to meet Xi’s preferred timeline to unify Taiwan with mainland China by force if directed.”

China increased its defense budget by 7.2 percent this year, the third year in a row that Beijing has boosted the budget, Aquilino told lawmakers during the Senate hearing.

“My assessment is they are actually spending more on defense than they articulate,” he said, adding later that “we haven’t faced a threat like this since World War II.”

Aquilino said at the hearing that the “trend is going in the wrong direction” for the U.S. and pushed for more resources to counter the Chinese buildup.

While China is pursuing the 2027 objective to prepare for an invasion, a military invasion of the island is not assured.

Aquilino said China will seek to unify with Taiwan through other means by force, but he stressed Beijing has not ruled out military force if those efforts fail.

“Although the PRC claims it prefers to achieve unification through peaceful means, Xi will not renounce the use of force,” he said in the statement.

Still, China has grown increasingly aggressive against Taiwan in recent years, conducting frequent military drills and airspace violations around the island nation, which has self-ruled since 1949 after breaking off from communist rule on the mainland. China has also floated spy balloons around the island.

[Victoria Raverna]

And if they invade in 5?

5 years if you want. Let's wait 6 years, if that is not enough.

[waitingtoconnect]

If China makes a move on Taiwan and the US has their orange potato emperor god in the white house thats a do nothing man then I think and would hope Japan or other allies would step in and save the day. But China has its own problems. They talk a lot and like to puff out their chest and I dont disagree that they want Taiwan to be back in the fold. But I dont think they have the power to do it. Not now not ever.

The challenge isn’t in the taking- they could do that right now. It’s how much damage they are willing to take.

And as Putin has found in Ukraine the further challenge isn’t just on the taking it’s in the keeping.

Taiwan is only worth it if it can be conquered in 3 days or less. And if they can get the tech from the chip foundries. The longer it drags on the more chance the west will feed the Taiwanese with weapons to keep the conflict going (but not enough to start nuclear war).

And Taiwan isn’t like Ukraine. It’s an island over 100miles offshore with very few viable spots to land an attack force. And you can’t take them by surprise. And they’ve had 70 years to prepare.

Frankly even the US military would struggle against an opponent like this.

And even if you do you’ll have a hostile population of tens of millions to reeducate. They saw in Hong Kong how hard it was in an urban setting. An insurgency in the Taiwanese mountains will take years to contain.

And in the event of an invasion there would probably not be a US response except to destroy the chip foundries. We can’t let the Chinese have them.

[Punisher]

If China makes a move on Taiwan and the US has their orange potato emperor god in the white house thats a do nothing man then I think and would hope Japan or other allies would step in and save the day. But China has its own problems. They talk a lot and like to puff out their chest and I dont disagree that they want Taiwan to be back in the fold. But I dont think they have the power to do it. Not now not ever.

The challenge isn’t in the taking- they could do that right now. It’s how much damage they are willing to take.

And as Putin has found in Ukraine the further challenge isn’t just on the taking it’s in the keeping.

Taiwan is only worth it if it can be conquered in 3 days or less. And if they can get the tech from the chip foundries. The longer it drags on the more chance the west will feed the Taiwanese with weapons to keep the conflict going (but not enough to start nuclear war).

And Taiwan isn’t like Ukraine. It’s an island over 100miles offshore with very few viable spots to land an attack force. And you can’t take them by surprise. And they’ve had 70 years to prepare.

Frankly even the US military would struggle against an opponent like this.

And even if you do you’ll have a hostile population of tens of millions to reeducate. They saw in Hong Kong how hard it was in an urban setting. An insurgency in the Taiwanese mountains will take years to contain.

And in the event of an invasion there would probably not be a US response except to destroy the chip foundries. We can’t let the Chinese have them.

Let's not be greedy.
Ruffles are fir everyone!

[Daehawk]

Ruffles hez ridges

[waitingtoconnect]

Can you imagine these in Chinese government hands?



What would we use for snacks during Super Bowl? It’s a huge national security risk.

[raydude]

China isn't going to invade Taiwan. Good thing Chinese leader isn't that stupid.

On what do you base this rationale? Can we agree that Trump approaches every decision as transactional and that his idea of a good solution is one that benefits him personally? If we can agree on that we can see how easy it is for Trump to be manipulated. All it takes is for China to agree to let him build a couple of Trump golf courses in China in exchange for a few days of "uninterrupted peacetime exercises" near Taiwan. China points a couple of mines around the island, prevents any ships from bringing food and supplies in, and now China has a chance of getting Taiwan.

[Victoria Raverna]

My rationale is that there is no urgency for China to take Taiwan in the next few years and Xi Jin Ping isn't going to start a war since it is risky for his hold on China.

Last time China fought in a war was in 1979. Unlke US, China is not a country that use military to get what they want to. China is going to use economy to get what they want. US forced Taiwan to stop selling chips to China? China is going to build their own foundry.

I think most Americans including those on this board because of the western propaganda, can't believe that China doesn't want to use military to take Taiwan. Now I can be wrong, if Taiwan decide to formally declare independence, that can force China to attack. Hopefully Taiwan's leaders are also not stupid.

[El Guapo]

I think most Americans including those on this board because of the western propaganda, can't believe that China doesn't want to use military to take Taiwan. Now I can be wrong, if Taiwan decide to formally declare independence, that can force China to attack. Hopefully Taiwan's leaders are also not stupid.

So China might use its military to get what it wants?

[hepcat]

Now I can be wrong, if Taiwan decide to formally declare independence, that can force China to attack. Hopefully Taiwan's leaders are also not stupid.

For wanting to be their own sovereign nation? Seems like that's the kind of thought process that results in Palestinians still not having a state.

[Max Peck]

And in the event of an invasion there would probably not be a US response except to destroy the chip foundries. We can’t let the Chinese have them.

Of course, whether even that happens would have a lot to do with, say, how generous China is when granting more trademarks to Ivanka. Nothing is off the table so long as Trump gets his cut.

[Alefroth]

My rationale is that there is no urgency for China to take Taiwan in the next few years and Xi Jin Ping isn't going to start a war since it is risky for his hold on China.

When would be a better time and what does he gain by waiting?

[Alefroth]

I think most Americans including those on this board because of the western propaganda, can't believe that China doesn't want to use military to take Taiwan. Now I can be wrong, if Taiwan decide to formally declare independence, that can force China to attack. Hopefully Taiwan's leaders are also not stupid.

So China might use its military to get what it wants?

Dude, put down the propaganda bong.

[Victoria Raverna]

My rationale is that there is no urgency for China to take Taiwan in the next few years and Xi Jin Ping isn't going to start a war since it is risky for his hold on China.

When would be a better time and what does he gain by waiting?

What does he gain by taking Taiwan? Does he need to take Taiwan to secure his position?

[Victoria Raverna]

Now I can be wrong, if Taiwan decide to formally declare independence, that can force China to attack. Hopefully Taiwan's leaders are also not stupid.

For wanting to be their own sovereign nation? Seems like that's the kind of thought process that results in Palestinians still not having a state.

Unlike Palestine, Taiwan is practically independence. There is no need to declare it.

[hepcat]

Got it. So they can live under the shadow of a larger nation that considers them a part of their country, and as long as they don’t say they’re free, they can go about their daily lives?

…wait…you did say this wasn’t anything like Israelis and Palestinians, right?

[Victoria Raverna]

Got it. So they can live under the shadow of a larger nation that considers them a part of their country, and as long as they don’t say they’re free, they can go about their daily lives?

…wait…you did say this wasn’t anything like Israelis and Palestinians, right?

It is not the same. With Palestinians (Gaza), everything has to passthrough Israel to get into Gaza.

Taiwan is not the same. I visited Taiwan without having to ask for China's permission. I had imported goods from Taiwan without having to deal with China.

[hepcat]

It shares SOME aspects nonetheless. So basically saying that they should keep their mouth shut so a larger country doesn’t attack them seems wrong.

[Victoria Raverna]

Real reason why US is waging war against China:



Competition is for losers!

[Holman]

Real reason why US is waging war against China:

[…]

Competition is for losers!

I know you think we’re always dumping on you, but come on: you can’t just drop a one hour video and say “watch this.” Tell us what you think about it.

Anyway, I looked at the source, and the one common thread is tankie praise of China.

“Competition is for losers.” Thus we venerate the famously free-market Chinese system?

[Holman]

First crack in the Trump-Musk bromance?

Donald Trump said on Friday that plans for possible war with China should not be shared with Elon Musk because of his business interests, a rare admission that the billionaire faces conflicts of interests in his role as a senior adviser to the US president.

Trump rejected reports that Musk would be briefed on how the United States would fight a hypothetical war with China, saying: “Elon has businesses in China. And he would be susceptible, perhaps, to that.”

[...]

In the early hours of Friday morning, Musk denied the reports that he would be briefed on war with China, calling it “pure propaganda” and threatening to find those who leaked the information.

“I look forward to the prosecutions of those at the Pentagon who are leaking maliciously false information,” he wrote. “They will be found.”

They're not exactly speaking in parallel here.

[Victoria Raverna]

Real reason why US is waging war against China:

[…]

Competition is for losers!

I know you think we’re always dumping on you, but come on: you can’t just drop a one hour video and say “watch this.” Tell us what you think about it.

Anyway, I looked at the source, and the one common thread is tankie praise of China.

“Competition is for losers.” Thus we venerate the famously free-market Chinese system?

I linked to the exact point in the video to watch.

[Holman]

Real reason why US is waging war against China:

[…]

Competition is for losers!

I know you think we’re always dumping on you, but come on: you can’t just drop a one hour video and say “watch this.” Tell us what you think about it.

Anyway, I looked at the source, and the one common thread is tankie praise of China.

“Competition is for losers.” Thus we venerate the famously free-market Chinese system?

I linked to the exact point in the video to watch.

I know. But tell us why we should listen to this tankie.

[Victoria Raverna]

Real reason why US is waging war against China:

[…]

Competition is for losers!

I know you think we’re always dumping on you, but come on: you can’t just drop a one hour video and say “watch this.” Tell us what you think about it.

Anyway, I looked at the source, and the one common thread is tankie praise of China.

“Competition is for losers.” Thus we venerate the famously free-market Chinese system?

I linked to the exact point in the video to watch.

I know. But tell us why we should listen to this tankie.

To listen to what JD Vance said.

[Blackhawk]

To listen to what JD Vance said.

Here:

And what I'd propose is that each group -- our workers, the populace on the one hand, the tech optimists on the other -- have been failed by this government -- not just the government of the last administration but the government, in some ways, of the last 40 years, because there were two conceits that our leadership class had when it came to globalization.

The first is assuming that we can separate the making of things from the design of things. The idea of globalization was that rich countries would move further up the value chain, while the poor countries made the simpler things.

You would open an iPhone box, and it would say "designed in Cupertino, California." Now, the implication, of course, is that it would be manufactured in Shenzhen or somewhere else. And, yeah, some people might lose their jobs in manufacturing, but they could learn to design or, to use a very popular phrase, learn to code.

But I think we got it wrong. It turns out that the geographies that do the manufacturing get awfully good at the designing of things. There are network effects, as you all well understand. The firms that design products work with firms that manufacture. They share intellectual property. They share best practices. And they even sometimes share critical employees.

Now, we assumed that other nations would always trail us in the value chain, but it turns out that as they got better at the low end of the value chain, they also started catching up on the higher end. We were squeezed from both ends.

What do you suggest that we take from that?

[Victoria Raverna]

Poor countries have to stay poor and keep making cheap stuffs for rich countries? Don't dare to improve and can make your own high end stuffs or you'll be considered enemy and a threat to national security of US.

[El Guapo]

In the early hours of Friday morning, Musk denied the reports that he would be briefed on war with China, calling it “pure propaganda” and threatening to find those who leaked the information.

This story is totally false. In fact it's so false that I am mad at the people in the Pentagon who are the only plausible source for this completely false story.

[Unagi]

In the early hours of Friday morning, Musk denied the reports that he would be briefed on war with China, calling it “pure propaganda” and threatening to find those who leaked the information.

This story is totally false. In fact it's so false that I am mad at the people in the Pentagon who are the only plausible source for this completely false story.

Actually took me longer than I care to admit to figure out if you were discrediting Holman's report. But no, you were paraphrasing Elon's absurd declaration.

[Unagi]

To listen to what JD Vance said.

Here:

And what I'd propose is that each group -- our workers, the populace on the one hand, the tech optimists on the other -- have been failed by this government -- not just the government of the last administration but the government, in some ways, of the last 40 years, because there were two conceits that our leadership class had when it came to globalization.

The first is assuming that we can separate the making of things from the design of things. The idea of globalization was that rich countries would move further up the value chain, while the poor countries made the simpler things.

You would open an iPhone box, and it would say "designed in Cupertino, California." Now, the implication, of course, is that it would be manufactured in Shenzhen or somewhere else. And, yeah, some people might lose their jobs in manufacturing, but they could learn to design or, to use a very popular phrase, learn to code.

But I think we got it wrong. It turns out that the geographies that do the manufacturing get awfully good at the designing of things. There are network effects, as you all well understand. The firms that design products work with firms that manufacture. They share intellectual property. They share best practices. And they even sometimes share critical employees.

Now, we assumed that other nations would always trail us in the value chain, but it turns out that as they got better at the low end of the value chain, they also started catching up on the higher end. We were squeezed from both ends.

What do you suggest that we take from that?

So the Frog said to the Scorpion, "Okay, let's go over this one more time. You will not sting me in the middle of the river, right?"

I would honestly suggest people just stop engaging. I mean - certainly feel free to (and it's commendable.... the effort and your goal) - but I just think people need to realize VR is not interested in any other way of communicating than the way they consistently do.

[Punisher]

To listen to what JD Vance said.

Here:

And what I'd propose is that each group -- our workers, the populace on the one hand, the tech optimists on the other -- have been failed by this government -- not just the government of the last administration but the government, in some ways, of the last 40 years, because there were two conceits that our leadership class had when it came to globalization.

The first is assuming that we can separate the making of things from the design of things. The idea of globalization was that rich countries would move further up the value chain, while the poor countries made the simpler things.

You would open an iPhone box, and it would say "designed in Cupertino, California." Now, the implication, of course, is that it would be manufactured in Shenzhen or somewhere else. And, yeah, some people might lose their jobs in manufacturing, but they could learn to design or, to use a very popular phrase, learn to code.

But I think we got it wrong. It turns out that the geographies that do the manufacturing get awfully good at the designing of things. There are network effects, as you all well understand. The firms that design products work with firms that manufacture. They share intellectual property. They share best practices. And they even sometimes share critical employees.

Now, we assumed that other nations would always trail us in the value chain, but it turns out that as they got better at the low end of the value chain, they also started catching up on the higher end. We were squeezed from both ends.

What do you suggest that we take from that?

So the Frog said to the Scorpion, "Okay, let's go over this one more time. You will not sting me in the middle of the river, right?"

I would honestly suggest people just stop engaging. I mean - certainly feel free to (and it's commendable.... the effort and your goal) - but I just think people need to realize VR is not interested in any other way of communicating than the way they consistently do.

I'll be honest, I don't like this idea.
For the most part, I don't see this place as one that shpuld shut people out except in cases where they are being nothing but mean for the sake of being mean.
I'm semiok if individuals don't want to engage but I'm against a group effort.
Sure, maybe VR can make a better effort but what if he is just wired this way and it's not something that can be changed?

VR. I think the main thing is less that you aren't posting bullet points and more on why you aren't posting why YOU think a video is important in your opinion.
Yes, people can watch the video to make up their own mind but this is a board for communication and I think people just want your opinions on the videos. It's different if you are posting in the random YouTube videos thread.
Also, just because you post your opinion it doesn't mean that everyone or even anyone will agree with you so don't take that too hard.

[raydude]

First crack in the Trump-Musk bromance?

Donald Trump said on Friday that plans for possible war with China should not be shared with Elon Musk because of his business interests, a rare admission that the billionaire faces conflicts of interests in his role as a senior adviser to the US president.

Trump rejected reports that Musk would be briefed on how the United States would fight a hypothetical war with China, saying: “Elon has businesses in China. And he would be susceptible, perhaps, to that.”

[...]

In the early hours of Friday morning, Musk denied the reports that he would be briefed on war with China, calling it “pure propaganda” and threatening to find those who leaked the information.

“I look forward to the prosecutions of those at the Pentagon who are leaking maliciously false information,” he wrote. “They will be found.”

They're not exactly speaking in parallel here.

I'm not buying it. I think DJT and Musk are saying those things as cover for the fact that Musk WILL be briefed on the war plans. I mean, it seems to be working so far in that the right-wing media will simply say "Mump said 2+2=5 so it must be true." and other media will have no other recourse except maybe to post anonymous officials stating that "Musk actually was briefed." And in a climate where DOGE can just go anywhere who would want to do that?

[Unagi]

To listen to what JD Vance said.

Here:

And what I'd propose is that each group -- our workers, the populace on the one hand, the tech optimists on the other -- have been failed by this government -- not just the government of the last administration but the government, in some ways, of the last 40 years, because there were two conceits that our leadership class had when it came to globalization.

The first is assuming that we can separate the making of things from the design of things. The idea of globalization was that rich countries would move further up the value chain, while the poor countries made the simpler things.

You would open an iPhone box, and it would say "designed in Cupertino, California." Now, the implication, of course, is that it would be manufactured in Shenzhen or somewhere else. And, yeah, some people might lose their jobs in manufacturing, but they could learn to design or, to use a very popular phrase, learn to code.

But I think we got it wrong. It turns out that the geographies that do the manufacturing get awfully good at the designing of things. There are network effects, as you all well understand. The firms that design products work with firms that manufacture. They share intellectual property. They share best practices. And they even sometimes share critical employees.

Now, we assumed that other nations would always trail us in the value chain, but it turns out that as they got better at the low end of the value chain, they also started catching up on the higher end. We were squeezed from both ends.

What do you suggest that we take from that?

So the Frog said to the Scorpion, "Okay, let's go over this one more time. You will not sting me in the middle of the river, right?"

I would honestly suggest people just stop engaging. I mean - certainly feel free to (and it's commendable.... the effort and your goal) - but I just think people need to realize VR is not interested in any other way of communicating than the way they consistently do.

I'll be honest, I don't like this idea.
For the most part, I don't see this place as one that shpuld shut people out except in cases where they are being nothing but mean for the sake of being mean.
I'm semiok if individuals don't want to engage but I'm against a group effort.
Sure, maybe VR can make a better effort but what if he is just wired this way and it's not something that can be changed?

VR. I think the main thing is less that you aren't posting bullet points and more on why you aren't posting why YOU think a video is important in your opinion.
Yes, people can watch the video to make up their own mind but this is a board for communication and I think people just want your opinions on the videos. It's different if you are posting in the random YouTube videos thread.
Also, just because you post your opinion it doesn't mean that everyone or even anyone will agree with you so don't take that too hard.

I do NOT want to shut people out at all. I'm telling people that are consistantly rubbed wrong by VR that VR isn't going to change, apparently. I'm not sure what you mean about a 'group effort'. You mean when I say "people stop engaging" ? I also said that they should feel free to, and it's commendable. But that wanting VR to change is something they are not interested in doing. That he is just wired this way, as you put it.

What you just wrote to VR is almost exactly what everyone keeps saying to VR. So - yeah. Not sure what to say.

That was the whole point of my Scorpion/Frog statement. We keep thinking this wont happen if we just explain the results of VRs approach to VR - they will understand - but then, each time, STING.

[Punisher]

Yeah, the whole suggest people stop engaging thing.

I know that what I said is what other people have said I just put it in my own words as best as I could.