Did you read this from the CPP play book ?
Trying to use the decisions made by the UN in 1970's around recognition of ROC vs PRC isn't exactly being honest. The modern problem is China will directly attack an economy if a country speaks out against them ( see Australia right now). So until push comes to actual shove your not going to see movement from the world because of blow back. Its not that the rest of the 1st won't its that they didnt have to because of US presence, so don't get confused by this.
I would also like you to explain how the US gets owned Hard in the Pacific without starting WW3. Outside of Guam which is 1600Nm away all other bases are on other countries soil.
People talk about china just catching up like its nothing. Just look at things like advanced metallurgy, they have had SU-27's with AL-31 engines in them in country since '91', been trying to copy them since day dot and only this year have they started to replace Russian engines ( not even modern or high powered Russian engines) in there own indigenous aircraft. The idea that they will just catch up and quickly, just because china, is one I don't subscribe to.
Get this through your head, Taiwan is not part of China. I'M Shocked how far that racist communist government has brainwashed the world.
U.S.-China relations, never simple, are likely to be further complicated by the expected landslide election tomorrow of Tsai Ing-wen as the new president of the Republic
www.lawfareblog.com
First, here is Newsweek discussing how even the US government does not recognize Taiwan as a country:
https://www.newsweek.com/who-recognizes-taiwan-two-change-china-1460559
"After closing its missions in the Solomon Islands and Kiribati, Taiwan would be left with recognition from only 14 out of 193 United Nations member states: Belize, Eswatini, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, the Marshall Islands, Nauru, Nicaragua, Palau, Paraguay, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Tuvalu. The Holy See also recognizes Taiwan. . . . The U.S. maintained its recognition of Taiwan for three decades after the Chinese civil war, but eventually switched in 1979, eight years after the United Nations granted Beijing China's seat as a permanent member of the Security Council. Washington has continued to uphold informal political ties to Taipei, however, and has continued to provide Taiwan with military assistance, something that has deeply angered China, which has threatened to reunify what it viewed as a renegade province by force, if necessary."
The pointing to the TRA as support also misses the 1992 negotiations between China and Taiwan, which has basically implemented that so long as they are considered part of China, they can rule themselves. Even of their own citizens, it is split evenly on whether they want to destroy this balance with China, with about 50% of its population and 40% of it's government officials speaking out against the US arms deals that happened in the past year, which would sell 7 systems, including cruise missiles and drones, to Taiwan.
That is to deal with whether they are considered their own nation.
As to aid, when that agreement was made, China was not a modern military like it is now. More on that in a moment.
I'll take our 11 carrier groups compared to China's two, one of which is an old Soviet design, and neither nearly as capable. Never mind the difference in the number and quality of aircraft. But this has nothing to do with CPU's, so why keep bringing it up?
The problem they pointed out is that Chinese missiles would down our aircraft carriers. They are powerful, if you can use them. They are powerful, if your pilots have something to return to after getting airborne. So if solely that, then you would have a point. But that was already factored into the war games I mentioned.
Scary World War III ‘wargames’ show U.S. forces crushed by Russia and China in certain hot spots around the globe.
www.foxnews.com
Pentagon war games reveal that US would lose any war fought in the Pacific with China
theaviationgeekclub.com
The United States just lost a battle to save Taiwan from a Chinese invasion and it’s not the first time.
www.news.com.au
Sorry, finding them quickly this morning wasn't the exact sources I wanted. One discusses a war game from a year ago in 2019 (Fox), one discusses the pentagon war game from this year (Aviation Geek), and the other discusses the Australia report.
Now, to be fair, many games look at where China will be in 2030, although we have some war games that have shown they could beat us now. In fact, around 2026 is the year some put at them being technologically beyond our ability to contain militarily, which could be why we are pushing for war now.
And that is before discussing how our Phalanx CIWS, which is not just on ships but on our bases abroad to help with missiles, didn't stop the Iranian missiles, suggesting the more advanced Chinese and Russian missiles would not be stopped. China both has the Russian S-400 system and their modified missiles which fly higher and farther that can be used with it. Although not relevant here other than Russia saying they will eventually sell this tech to other countries, now has a Mach 27 missile.
https://www.newsweek.com/russian-ne...rsonic-glide-vehicle-intercontinental-1273729 . By comparison, the US THAAD, created after G.W. Bush pulled out of a missile treaty with Russia, moves so slowly it could not even dream of stopping these missiles.
As to aircraft, have you been following the advancements in Chinese and Russian aircraft? Or are you just assuming superiority?
Now, why is it germane? Great question. Sanctions are an act similar to a siege, which siege warfare is illegal. This is why you are supposed to get the UN to agree to collectively act to implement sanctions. Without UN action, you are violating international agreements through unilateral implementation of sanctions, although you are legally justified to respond to them as they are seen as aggression. Economic warfare, in a more general sense, often leads to actual warfare. And, believe it or not, as seen above, the cards are not all in our favor to pick a war with a country like China. Hell, their mineral rights for rare earth materials alone can effect our ability to produce our military goods if we were cut off during war. You can try to downplay that all you like, but that is a reality.
Further, from the supply side, doing this, while poking China on Taiwan, would cause a disruption in supply of many electronic devices. About 70% of companies refused to move from China for supply even with Trump's trade war. Even those that did move, a large proportion of them still rely on components for incorporation originating in China, with the harmonization schedules changing the country of origin once assembled depending on product, etc.
So I'd be a bit more willing to negotiate with China than what we have been doing for the simple fact that it is easy to cross lines and I distrust our leaders with brinksmanship.
SMIC's 14nm node is widely-believed to have been cribbed from Samsung, who in turn stole from TSMC. There have been accusations of IP theft against SMIC as far back as 2003.
Very true. But I am referencing a very specific patent case. Now, it is true that TSMC has held back, even with other fabs in other countries, when enforcing their IP rights. There are a couple reasons for that, including always facing the potential for invalidation of a patent, but also because when you start pulling threads, the other companies go back to their portfolios to do cross-claims of infringements on their patents.
In no way am I saying your statement is incorrect. Instead, I am saying claims outside of court mean little. And considering SMIC is set to win that case against Intel for violating their patent, it suggests that each company understands fighting this in court could result in being called out on their own violations.
But, IP theft is a real and serious issue. I will not belittle your point there. And China has had claims turned at them numerous times. For example, the Micron case in CA filed after China's anti-monopoly agency started investigating price fixing among ram manufacturers. Although after that RAM prices normalized, the case Micron filed was about the agency helping the chinese ram manufacturer and for patent violations (that's Micron after all).
Did you not see Esquared warning two posts above before posting this?
AT Mod Usandthem