War for Taiwan?

[Uvuvwevwevwe Onyetenyevwe Ugwemuhwem Osas + 96]

1 hour ago, frankfurter said:

well, let's see...  The USA dropped 2 nuclear bombs onto Japan. The Soviets cooperated with Cuba to place nuclear-capable missiles into Cuba. Kennedy responded with a threat of nuclear war. Today, the USA wants to place nuclear-capable missiles into Taiwan, knowing full well this is a serious provocation to China. China claims Taiwan to be part of China.  The question is how far are Americans willing to go in arming and defending Taiwan: to the point of nuclear war with China?

You may consider the question to be the emanation of low intelligence. But I think not, and I know billions more like me think not, too. A few people in this 'community' have openly stated their desire for a nuclear war with China. I am asking a simple question to see what is the general mood and justifications. I would much rather learn this via a keyboard than via weapons.

Xi is a billionaire.  Billionaires don't care if soldiers die.
But billionaires don't want their family and their property to be destroyed.
They don't want to live in an underground bunker until they run out of food/water.
If one million Chinese soldiers die in war, Xi will still not initiate a nuclear strike.
Soldier lives don't matter.  Billionaire lives matter.

[Hotone + 412]

On 11/11/2020 at 12:31 PM, Ward Smith said:

President Comrade Biden won't pull the trigger against his business partners in China. He plans on being twice as RICH as Trump by the time he cashes out, er "retires". 

C'mon man!  Don't you believe that Trump won the election?  Once he gets the Fraudulent votes thrown out,  won't he be declared president again?

 

Edited November 13, 2020 by Hotone

[Hotone + 412]

9 hours ago, Boat said:

I support China saying they will treat Hong Cong and Taiwan like our lower 48 treats Alaska and Hawaii. I want China to lay out a path where the trade imbalance is even. I want to see a path that will be equal and fair for both nations corporations when it comes to intellectual property. See where this is going? This same template should work for all countries. Time for civilization to catch up with the civilized. You rednecks need to drop the fear card. If these items can’t be worked out, end trade period. We need to work and trade with those we can.

The trade deficit that the US has with China is based on misleading statistics.  Some American companies like GM and Yum brands generate more sales in China than in the US, but these sales are not counted in the trade balance, since their products are made and sold in China. E.g. Apple generated $48 billion in revenue from China in 2016, mostly from the sale of iPhones. But these iPhones cannot be found in US-China bilateral trade figures. 

Instead of making products in America for export, U.S. firms compete in the world marketplace through foreign-affiliate sales, i.e. making products overseas for sales globally - and they are extremely successful with this approach.  Because of this, there is no way for China, or many other countries, to balance the merchandise trade deficit with America - unless US firms move their production home.  

If you count the US affiliate sales in China, then trade is actually balanced between the two countries.  Here it is explained on CNBC

 

Edited November 13, 2020 by Hotone

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

4 hours ago, Hotone said:

The trade deficit that the US has with China is based on misleading statistics.  Some American companies like GM and Yum brands generate more sales in China than in the US, but these sales are not counted in the trade balance, since their products are made and sold in China. E.g. Apple generated $48 billion in revenue from China in 2016, mostly from the sale of iPhones. But these iPhones cannot be found in US-China bilateral trade figures. 

Instead of making products in America for export, U.S. firms compete in the world marketplace through foreign-affiliate sales, i.e. making products overseas for sales globally - and they are extremely successful with this approach.  Because of this, there is no way for China, or many other countries, to balance the merchandise trade deficit with America - unless US firms move their production home.  

If you count the US affiliate sales in China, then trade is actually balanced between the two countries.  Here it is explained on CNBC

 

Calling these companies "American" is becoming a stretch. They're multinationals and only play "American" when it suits their purposes. 

From personal experience I know of a multi-billion dollar company that "thought" it made a ton of money in China. That is until they tried to take the money out of China. Turns out it's a really bad idea to borrow money in your home country for an investment in China that you foolishly believed you could pay back with the money from China. YMMV 

[Boat + 1,323]

5 hours ago, Hotone said:

The trade deficit that the US has with China is based on misleading statistics.  Some American companies like GM and Yum brands generate more sales in China than in the US, but these sales are not counted in the trade balance, since their products are made and sold in China. E.g. Apple generated $48 billion in revenue from China in 2016, mostly from the sale of iPhones. But these iPhones cannot be found in US-China bilateral trade figures. 

Instead of making products in America for export, U.S. firms compete in the world marketplace through foreign-affiliate sales, i.e. making products overseas for sales globally - and they are extremely successful with this approach.  Because of this, there is no way for China, or many other countries, to balance the merchandise trade deficit with America - unless US firms move their production home.  

If you count the US affiliate sales in China, then trade is actually balanced between the two countries.  Here it is explained on CNBC

 

That was an informing video. Of course all countries should adhere to the same standard when counting trade imbalance. It would be interesting to see those numbers. You have them? Are Chinese companies in the US counted in the imbalance as well?
Now show me the video of how China is not claiming the South China Sea. 
Strength is the high road of truth and fairness. Something the US an the world are very weak at. 

The US is the guarantee of world function since WWII and its time for all countries to work towards common standards. If a country decides it’s in their best interests not to do so then trade should end with the rest of the world. Does China really want to be N Korea?

Edited November 13, 2020 by Boat

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

1 hour ago, Ward Smith said:

Calling these companies "American" is becoming a stretch. They're multinationals and only play "American" when it suits their purposes. 

From personal experience I know of a multi-billion dollar company that "thought" it made a ton of money in China. That is until they tried to take the money out of China. Turns out it's a really bad idea to borrow money in your home country for an investment in China that you foolishly believed you could pay back with the money from China. YMMV 

How many times does it need to be said that balance of trade is hyperbole and the real issues are IP theft, currency manipulation, rule of law, etc.?  Balance of trade as a bad thing, for U.S. consumption, is for elections and not much else.

[Boat + 1,323]

7 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

How many times does it need to be said that balance of trade is hyperbole and the real issues are IP theft, currency manipulation, rule of law, etc.?  Balance of trade as a bad thing, for U.S. consumption, is for elections and not much else.

I don’t don’t believe balance of trade imbalances are hyperbole but a huge problem with many countries. 
IP theft, a separate issue, currency manipulation a separate issue. Military threats a separate issue, product dumping a separate issue etc. When a China or Russia blocks a UN initiative the US supports, a separate issue.

 

 

[Boat + 1,323]

12 hours ago, frankfurter said:

well, let's see...  The USA dropped 2 nuclear bombs onto Japan. The Soviets cooperated with Cuba to place nuclear-capable missiles into Cuba. Kennedy responded with a threat of nuclear war. Today, the USA wants to place nuclear-capable missiles into Taiwan, knowing full well this is a serious provocation to China. China claims Taiwan to be part of China.  The question is how far are Americans willing to go in arming and defending Taiwan: to the point of nuclear war with China?

You may consider the question to be the emanation of low intelligence. But I think not, and I know billions more like me think not, too. A few people in this 'community' have openly stated their desire for a nuclear war with China. I am asking a simple question to see what is the general mood and justifications. I would much rather learn this via a keyboard than via weapons.

Nukes in Taiwan are silly. With the amount of nukes on US subs, Chinas survival has little to do with Taiwan missiles. If a dozen of China mega cities were nuked the world would be dead as well from nuclear winter. Your fear is not justified, China and the US are way past overkill for annihilation. Technology is the great equalizer. 

[Uvuvwevwevwe Onyetenyevwe Ugwemuhwem Osas + 96]

 

[NickW + 2,714]

On 11/11/2020 at 10:29 PM, shadowkin said:

Besides TSMC asking if Taiwan is of value to us is the same as asking if the Sudetenland had any value to us. Allowing the CCP to gobble up Taiwan would only embolden the CCP to attempt more invasions. She already claims all of the South China Sea. See 9 dash line. Really outrageous claims to territory right off the shore of all these countries.

CCP tactic is to invent some fake map and say 1 merchant traveled there 500 years ago therefore it's Chinese land and we are entitled to it.

Yep. They tried to compare this to the Falkland Islands which is absurd. The Falkland Islands have been resident to a population of British descent and some South Americans for about 190 years. In a referendum 2997 of the 3000 population voted to say they wanted to remain part of the UK. Had they voted to be part of Argentina the UK would have said fine and wish them well

[Boat + 1,323]

I don’t think the US needs any other nations help nuking any one or group of nations. The US has a plethora of delivery systems.

Let me piss off some red buddies and blue congressmen as well. In the 60’s the US had 10’s of thousands of nukes. Now we’re down to 6,000 or so. Good progress. But if we gave up small tactical nukes and just inventoried mega city killers I believe we could drop that number below 500 and still kill the world a few times over saving tens of billions of dollars. Since were approaching 30 trillion of debt this kind of spending is last generation along with the rhetoric of fear.

Edited November 13, 2020 by Boat

[Strangelovesurfing + 737]

On 11/11/2020 at 11:30 PM, frankfurter said:

true, all parties have serious weaponry.  that is entirely the point.

but would you go to war over Taiwan?  an island of zero value to US and is not part of US territory?

 

I personally don't want war anywhere between anyone.

Will the US go to war if one broke out over Taiwan? Impossible to know until the time comes.

There are many more countries to think of though, Japan, S.Korea, N.Korea etc. are all going to react, everybody would react to a certain extent. Impossible to tell what those reactions would be. There are many pit-falls in many directions if a military action against Taiwan is undertaken by your government.

A question you should be asking yourself is can the PLA/PLAN succeed in a amphibious invasion? Taiwan is no easy picking, hundreds of ships will be sunk in short order counting losses on both sides, anything that moves in the strait becomes a target of precision weaponry. This won't be like the Allied Normandy invasion of World War 2, I'd give a 30% chance a ship can even make it half way through the strait.

If your government doesn't succeed in taking Taiwan, does it survive the domestic backlash?

 

Edited November 14, 2020 by Strangelovesurfing

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

3 hours ago, Boat said:

I don’t think the US needs any other nations help nuking any one or group of nations. The US has a plethora of delivery systems.

Let me piss off some red buddies and blue congressmen as well. In the 60’s the US had 10’s of thousands of nukes. Now we’re down to 6,000 or so. Good progress. But if we gave up small tactical nukes and just inventoried mega city killers I believe we could drop that number below 500 and still kill the world a few times over saving tens of billions of dollars. Since were approaching 30 trillion of debt this kind of spending is last generation along with the rhetoric of fear.

So by your logic we keep buying missiles we already have, year after year? The "billions" to be saved comes from? 

BTW my father worked for what was then called the AEC on guess what? Nuclear bomb testing. 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

4 hours ago, Boat said:

I don’t think the US needs any other nations help nuking any one or group of nations. The US has a plethora of delivery systems.

Let me piss off some red buddies and blue congressmen as well. In the 60’s the US had 10’s of thousands of nukes. Now we’re down to 6,000 or so. Good progress. But if we gave up small tactical nukes and just inventoried mega city killers I believe we could drop that number below 500 and still kill the world a few times over saving tens of billions of dollars. Since were approaching 30 trillion of debt this kind of spending is last generation along with the rhetoric of fear.

Makes you wonder what the "shelf life" of a A-bomb is... how many of these were made decades ago and now need to be taken apart at huge expense?

I think there is potential for a extremely high security bombs-to-energy power plant where they use the weapon grade enriched fractions.

If you just want a global kill switch one super massive hydrogen bomb would be enough.

Edited November 13, 2020 by Enthalpic

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

1 hour ago, Ward Smith said:

 

BTW my father worked for what was then called the AEC on guess what? Nuclear bomb testing. 

Must be so proud, wasting huge amounts of money, contaminating the planet, in order to make weapons of mass destruction.

 

Edited November 13, 2020 by Enthalpic

[Boat + 1,323]

2 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

So by your logic we keep buying missiles we already have, year after year? The "billions" to be saved comes from? 

BTW my father worked for what was then called the AEC on guess what? Nuclear bomb testing. 

https://www.armscontrol.org/issue-briefs/2020-03/surging-us-nuclear-weapons-budget-growing-danger

Its amazing how uninformed you can become when you want while insulting others for being uninformed. Typical red like Trump.

[Boat + 1,323]

What’s funny is I don’t propose eliminating nukes and their deturant. Just the silly spending. A few hundred would be much cheaper than 6000+. Just more socialist spending way out of control on the military. 

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, Enthalpic said:

Makes you wonder what the "shelf life" of a A-bomb is... how many of these were made decades ago and now need to be taken apart at huge expense?

I think there is potential for a extremely high security bombs-to-energy power plant where they use the weapon grade enriched fractions.

If you just want a global kill switch one super massive hydrogen bomb would be enough.

I don't know about the US but the UK's nucs (just Trident now) periodically go to Aldermaston. Warheads are deccommisioned and new ones are made - same U235 & P239 used.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

53 minutes ago, Boat said:

https://www.armscontrol.org/issue-briefs/2020-03/surging-us-nuclear-weapons-budget-growing-danger

Its amazing how uninformed you can become when you want while insulting others for being uninformed. Typical red like Trump.

Read your link, did you? As a matter of fact that (unapproved) budget request did in fact call for replacement of nukes, so yeah, buying them again. 

[frankfurter + 562]

14 hours ago, Hotone said:

The trade deficit that the US has with China is based on misleading statistics.  Some American companies like GM and Yum brands generate more sales in China than in the US, but these sales are not counted in the trade balance, since their products are made and sold in China. E.g. Apple generated $48 billion in revenue from China in 2016, mostly from the sale of iPhones. But these iPhones cannot be found in US-China bilateral trade figures. 

Instead of making products in America for export, U.S. firms compete in the world marketplace through foreign-affiliate sales, i.e. making products overseas for sales globally - and they are extremely successful with this approach.  Because of this, there is no way for China, or many other countries, to balance the merchandise trade deficit with America - unless US firms move their production home.  

If you count the US affiliate sales in China, then trade is actually balanced between the two countries.  Here it is explained on CNBC

 

Why not call a spade a spade?  In other words,,, based upon lies. Make a lie big, tell it often, suppress the truth, and the layman will believe the lie to be truth.

[Boat + 1,323]

53 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Read your link, did you? As a matter of fact that (unapproved) budget request did in fact call for replacement of nukes, so yeah, buying them again. 

Since you don’t like math that chart shows 50 billion of waste in 10 years. Now, you wanna talk aircraft carriers and other slow boats in the world of hypersonic missiles? How about tanks. Convential war is dead and we put hundreds of billions into it. Should we be working on a much more robust hypersonic missile system instead. All those foreign bases are hypersonic missile fodder that are undefendable. What’s the point? We can promise allies sever retaliation if attacked but no ground troops. We can promise world destruction if their attacked. What more can they ask for, it’s reality.

[frankfurter + 562]

On 11/10/2020 at 12:24 AM, Ward Smith said:

I've had Frankie on ignore but I can tell by the title he's back to doing the wumaodang's bidding. I've been following the news in Taiwan, they are the ones who released a lot of the most incriminating Biden dirt including full backgrounds on the parties the American media ignored (well let's be honest, the media could not have ignored more if they tried, which they did). 

Taiwan knows full well Biden will sell them down the river, it was arranged in advance. This means China gets TSMC, which means every single semiconductor you've heard of and a lot you haven't is going to be under their complete control. That is the prize. America can't build a Class 10 Fab overnight and we don't have the support infrastructure for post fab work anymore, thanks to years of neglect. We certainly have the best chip designers in the world, I used to work at one, but everyone went fabless in the 90's and TSMC was the beneficiary. 

Interesting point, re TSMC. Given Korea, Japan, China are accelerating their tech and investing heavily, the days of dominance for TSMC may be numbered. IF a war breaks, TSMC might be a target and destroyed, and thus no prize at all. So, in your mind, the USA would fight China to capture TSMC?

So, would you support a nuclear war with China over Taiwan?

 

 

[frankfurter + 562]

On 11/10/2020 at 1:17 AM, Gerry Maddoux said:

Only if Taiwan would like to become a state (USA) within the next thirty days (which they might). 

 

Ward's entirely right: the damn Taiwan Semiconductor is worth going to war for, by itself. 

 

Bring it on. Viva Taiwan, USA!

ok, you support a nuclear war.

the tally so far appears to be 1 for support, 1 for non support.

 

[frankfurter + 562]

On 11/11/2020 at 6:47 AM, Michael Sanches said:

Interdicting the supply lines of any invading Chinese army will be easy. Any Chinese troops who reach Taiwan will have ammunition for about 2 hours and then will have to defend against Taiwanese counter attacks by giving the enemy the finger, since they won't have any bullets.

See Hitler and Operation Sea Lion to see how hopeless an invasion would be.

uh, you support or not support a nuclear war?

[QuarterCenturyVet + 312]

Do you support nuclear war for anything? 

If not for a sovereign, peace loving nation like Taiwan, then what? 

Hong Kong? 

Japan? 

Hawaii? 

Mainland USA? 

All of the blackheads in China? 

 

What??? 

 

I would chance turning 7.8B people into glass statues if it meant China was wiped from the earth. 

 

Yes. Let's have this war. Get on with it. 

50 minutes ago, frankfurter said:

uh, you support or not support a nuclear war?