Sorry Dayuhan. The short exchange between me and the Cuyahoga Kid was pretty clear and plain. Nothing else I can do to clarify it.
Sorry Dayuhan. The short exchange between me and the Cuyahoga Kid was pretty clear and plain. Nothing else I can do to clarify it.
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
David:
If a bunch of Americans are deciding the fate of Asia I don't see why an Englishman can't join in.
My guess is any RoC people caught on the mainland in the event of trouble would lay very low and quiet. The secret police would not look upon obstreperous behavior with favor.
The anti-Apartheid stuff worked because it didn't cost much money. The feel good/financial pain balance was way over on the left. If people tried in on Red China it would shift way over to the right and it wouldn't be done.
The financial question is a good one and I have no clue.
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
Sorry, I'm not seeing it. Possibly I'm just dense. Why would the Chinese blockade Taiwan unless they were actually prepared for a full-scale war with the US, a war with enormous risk and not much potential gain for them? Why would they go into a war in which they know their antagonist can inflict enormous damage on them without ever coming within range of most of their weapons? A war that could potentially go nuclear? To gain what?
Do you assume the Chinese to be irrational, or unskilled at weighing profit and risk?
To enter into a blockade, the Chinese would have to be either absolutely 100% sure that there would be no response, or absolutely 100% sure that they could win a war. That kind of certainty is a tough thing to come by in this world, and Chinese behavior has not typically tended toward that kind of brinksmanship. The status quo is not going all that badly for them, and when that's the case you don't rock the boat unless you are very sure it will rock your way.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
If you are not seeing it, it is because you choose not to.
Read what was written, all of it.
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
This is how China invents it Spheres of Influence
China's Invented History
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj
I read it several times, and it still seems too hypothetical to be relevant to any practical question. Why would the Chinese want to blockade Taiwan?
Spheres of influence are ephemeral and overlapping; the whole construct is not specific enough to be of much use. Accepting that China has some influence and some capacity to act withing certain areas does not mean nobody else has influence or the capacity for action within those areas, nor does it mean consigning those areas to a solely Chinese sphere of influence. It's simply accepting reality, always a good start for practical policy questions.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
Ok. You wore me down. It was a hypothetical. It was a hypothetical. Often hypotheticals are not terribly relevant to much of anything at all. That is why they are called hypotheticals.
I realize you go into a hysterical panic anytime anybody anywhere anyhow mentions that somebody somewhere somehow might have to fight the Red Chinese, but rest easy if you can-it was a hypothetical. I also realize that you are desperate to head things off by bringing up spheres of influence and matters of high policy but that has nothing at all to do with what I commented upon to the Cuyahoga Kid because it was all hypothetical.
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
No hysteria or panic in it, just confusion... I can't see the point of assuming that there has to be a war and developing hypothetical scenarios for it, especially since the conclusion of the hypotheses always seems to be that the Red Horde will surely overrun the world if we don't confront, contain, man the ramparts and (most important) spend a few more trillions of dollars gearing up for war.
Personally, I think the most likely medium/long term scenario for China at war involves Russia, simply because the two countries' spheres of influence and activity overlap in an area bordering both that also has real (not hypothetical) resource wealth.
My comments above on spheres of influence were a response to a post above regarding spheres of influence. It's not something I brought up.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
U.S. reopening World War II bases in Pacific
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/...ses_in_pacific
Bookmarks