World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
China actually can challenge US in the Pacific theatre.
Besides, it's a matter of how far each side is ready to go. Taiwan is important for the US, but vital for China. US will back down and avoid escalation sooner.
Also, when you have nuclear states on each side, situation always gets very precarious.
So do not underestimate the leg China has here.
How is Taiwan crucial for China? Locality? There's nothing there of value aside from subjugation and a raw land grab.
The terrain makes it fairly defensible on the west coast. The economy would tank. Businesses of real value would implode.
The people don't want to be "reunified" and will not tow the line so easily. China has never had to endure longterm modern asymmetrical warfare.
I just don't see how it would benefit them vs the cost in the short and near term. If they could pull it off over 50 years then maybe but I don't think it would play out that way.
Taiwan has a big political significance for China; taking it over would mean putting an end to Kuomintang and concluding the war, emerging victorious. No more little neighbor undermining credibility of the Party.
Aside from that, Taiwan is home to the most advanced chipmaking factory in the world, and US has made sure mainland China is cut off from advanced computing technologies, forcing it to lag behind in some of the most important modern industries, as well as military. By capturing Taiwan, China could greatly change the balance of power - either by successfully overtaking TSMC, or by destroying it. Both will work, really.
Yeah but TSMC isn't gonna just walk away and let China have it.. They're gonna sabotage all of it and leave them with nothing.. and if they don't do it themselves, the US will make it so..
That's some dangerous speculation for a country that spent 20 years fighting terrorists in the Middle East whose main demand was, "Yankees go home."
Sure, but the enemy wasn't China but rather some militarily weak Middle Eastern countries.
It wasn't that big of an effort to project power in there.
It was far more of an effort actually. We could only resupply Afghanistan by air and through Pakistan. In comparison we have direct access to many ports in the SE Asia region.
They would almost certainly lose today, though it'd be costly to everyone involved. Provided the Philippines doesn't elect another Duterte-type government, their nearby position will likely be enough to keep Taiwan supplied with air cover, if nothing else.
They don't have a lot of carriers, or the long experience of the US Navy with them, and they're still ramping up production of fifth generation fighters (the J-20). Hypersonic missiles give them an edge, but they're not the wonder weapons they're sometimes made out to be.
Ukraine has had two Patriot missile batteries for most of the past year--they just got a third--and they practically shut down Russian missile attacks. Taiwan has seven, and they need to cover a much smaller amount of land.
It's more a question of where the Chinese military will be in 4 years. However, after 8 years, demographics in the country--long term effects of the One Child policy--are likely to strangle their ability to have a military on equal footing. Too many old people and not enough young people to take care of them. It's possible this window of opportunity is already closed.
There's a lot of classic US sandbagging going on. "We're falling behind, we need a 1,000 ship navy to keep up with China". Truth is, we only need to lay out the right pieces and the invasion will never happen. We don't need to fund an even bigger navy and feed all that more money into the military-industrial complex.
The pieces are already there, all around China.
On one thing you're right - any war in the region will be super costly and will end an awful lot of human lives. There is a reason, thereby, for US holding strategic ambiguity in the matter.
Can they outperform China militarily? Potentially yes, though at that point we'll get to the nuclear danger. Anyways, even the traditional warfare directly held between two countries will be a disaster - for China, for US, and for the world.
And while US has the option to back down, China - barely so. If they begin, they will put it to end or be destroyed. US has an option to not get involved or retreat - and they will likely use it in order to not have their entire military destroyed over one island.
This is not Vietnam. This is not Korea. This is not yet another proxy war. This is like if Kamchatka separated from USSR during the Cold war and tried to get US protections. It would turn out very, very bad, regardless of who emerges victorious.
If US wanted to go this far to solve Taiwan question to its benefit, they'd simply station nukes in there. But the consequences of provoking severe backlash from China are big enough so that they'll never do that. US doesn't need this war, and it will likely back down should severe escalation happen.