Definitely real AGM-84 missiles and definitely not photoshopped.
Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis
- Thread starter sndef888
- Start date
- Status
In4ser
Junior Member
Do you guys think China will extend its “blockade exercise” indefinitely? It’s already been extended and what is the US going to do? Send a Carrier Group through the straits surrounding by PLAN and PLAAF assets? China can just shadow the USN en masse while maintaining its blockade. You have to use force to lift a blockade and doing that means the US fired the first shot.
It's hard to tell, but US is on the verge of declaring war, so China may be surging troops in a last ditch effort to make US back down. Once this so-called Taiwan act is down, the only thing left waiting for is US to try and land on Taiwan as they have threatened, then open war will happen, even a world war if US can successfully call NATO which will in turn cause China to immediately form a counter alliance out of every country scared of US military violence.
Currently, China lacks the H-20 bombers which when combined with Beijing's unparalled industrial might, will shift the position in the Pacific into sure Chinese supremacy. Without an ability to carpet bomb safely anywhere in Asia deep inside US vassal states, and therefore absolutely discourage their involvement, conflict becomes more unsure and dangerous.
Yup, no ending date. It would be a new norm and a changed Status Quo from now on.
PLA will drill as and when they see fit. I foresee in the near future, China Coastguard will routinely patrol the waters surrounding Taiwan too, à la "The Diaoyu Island Model".
Anymore big and silly movement by US & Taiwan (Taiwan especially), my guess is PLAAF will fly through directly above the sky of Taiwan Island and force them to respond/open fire, and Mainland will respond in kind and probably begins with AR.
If we see carefully enough in details, PLA is actually staging a major AR force of manpower and equipment as we speak (amphibious assets, fully Starry Sky uniformed troops, RORO vessels, moving of DF missiles into strategic locations..etc..etc). Finally H20 will be the trump card to warn US, hence it will not be launched and revealed yet as previously expected until the right moment. Each of the announced exercise's sea area such as the Taiwan surrounding waters, Yellow sea, Bohai sea, is actually a disguise for force & equipment staging while also act as a deterrent to the USS Ronald Reagan Strike Group.
DISCLAIMER: Above all are just my amateurish personal take on things. Please ignore if it sounded silly.
Have you ever heard of words " servo arbitrio" ? These were the oldest formalized propaganda words, combined with the printing press, that inflamed the various nationalism and wars across western world for hundreds of years. So you're about 500 years too late to realize propaganda exists on all fronts more or less to a degree at all times.
Compromise don't tend do survive in the long term. Case in point 1 country 2 system.
USSR was built on a compromise and a war is being fought 100 year later.
If resources and resolve is there, better to bleed now and get it done. Sure don't want a Taiwan war 2.0 in 2120 due to a poorly crafted compromise.
""This will be followed by some relaxation, a pause for reflection and offers of talks. Squeeze and relax, with the message that at any time a large military exercise could be the real thing. In fact, the effective blockade is the real thing."" Thats the shot to medium term strategy.
It is The Sun, man, one of the most retarded British medias, I'm not even sure it can be considered one of the British government's mouthpieces because it is legitimately so retarded that I don't think the UK govt is directly involved in it because they would be above such a thing. Unless they have sources outside The Sun for that particular article, I'd consider the Onion to be a more reliable news source.
The article seems to just talk about the war games US made and how they turned out, which we've known since a long time almost never turn out well for US. But hardcore US nationalists in the leadership represented by those who sent Pelosi already demonstrated they don't give a fuck about what the military thinks is achievable or if their odds are good or not.
Its a hail mary because they've failed domestically and when the dollar is removed as a reserve currency, their economy and life quality will likely plunge to the levels of Brazil and India. That is, unless they can fix the rot of corruption at home. However, without regime change, this is as far as I can see, impossible.
Kind of off-topic but perhaps you will find it useful:
This is misunderstanding of terms that reminds me of "America is not a democracy but a republic" except that Greek for "Hellenic Republic" is Ελληνική Δημοκρατία (Elliniki Dimokratia).
Languages are evolved structures that facilitate communication so the meaning of the word should be understood through interpretation of the meaning in its natural context (linguistic ethology) as deriving meaning from etymology alone can be misleading. I think this should be particularly obvious to people who speak both Chinese and English and often are challenged by translation.
If we apply this to "hegemony" we find that the Greek word ἡγεμών (ygemon) literally translates to "leader" but its proper meaning should be derived through an analogous Latin term imperator.
Imperator is a title bestowed by the Senate on the military leader in charge of one or more legions. Imperium was the title of authority bestowed and it referred to power over free men, as power over things and slaves was called dominium. Imperator was the ruler of men, dominus was the ruler of things and slaves.
Similarly the title of ygemon is bestowed by polis (Greek city-state ) on the military leader in charge of the polis' military which then would be either referred collectively as a "ygemonia" or divided into multiple units called "yegemonia" each with its "ygemon". This naming convention lead to the creation of a separate title of strategos which referred to the supreme commander of forces from multiple poleis during the Persian wars, since to refer to such person as "hegemon" would imply direct authority over the militaries of sovereign city-states. The title of "hegemon" was used to describe the city-states of Sparta, Athens and Thebes who held a similar power over other city states as an ygemon held over his soldiers.
So whenever you are referring to "hegemony" of the United States you are literally referring to an empire which is a very specific thing.
An empire is a structure in which one state is capable of violating another state's monopoly of force without entering a state of legal war. So for example any protectorate is an empire because withdrawal of military protection a legal threat. The protector doesn't have to threaten the protected directly for the threat to take effect. A subject state in an empire is sovereign in all matters except any intervention by the imperial power.
Therefore it is impossible for an empire to continue existing and cease to exist at the same time. It is possible for one state to push out another state's imperial power from a region, but not to "break it". If the empire continues to exist then it can return to the region - as it was the case of many imperial provinces changing hands between empires throughout history - as soon as the power that pushed it out initially weakens sufficiently. However to "break" an empire means to "end an empire".
So the question you should ask instead is "if US power is pushed out of West Pacific can the US continue as an imperial entity" to which my answer would be "extremely unlikely".
US imperial power depends on its monetary creation which sustains its power - both political and military - and that to a large extent depends on the USD demand generated by WestPac region. Currently China, HongKong, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea and Singapore account for approximately 6 trillion USD in reserves which is more than the rest of the world combined.
So while it is theoretically possible for China to take over the "hegemony" in the region while allowing USD to function as reserve currency it would effectively put the US under Chinese control so the US would resort to war or deliberate destruction of those reserves through economic means. If there's one factor that is always inextricably linked with political power it is means of debt repayment and with the US having no economic leverage over China to balance that it must use force.
Empires are inherently unsustainable and the only way that they can stabilize long-term is if they create civilizations. Once that happens they enter a process of dynastic echange like China and its imperial dynasties or Europe which recreates a binary of "Rome" and "Greece" throughout its history (currently US is the "Rome" and EU is the "Greece" while USSR was is the "Macedon"). The US hasn't created a civilization so a collapse of its empire might trigger a full collapse as in Western Rome. The US is de facto two radically different states (Union and Confederacy) since the beginning - the two just shift their territory and party allegiance.
This is inversion of the relationship between the sides.
Those two countries are DPP's "paymasters" and the US is DPP's de facto political sovereign. DPP is the equivalent of the communist parties in the Warsaw Pact countries - puppet-like collaborators with the occupying power. It is a tool of social control, not a venue of democratic expression.
Modern DPP was created during the late 80s internal purge of reunification supporters to shift the previous strategy under KMT of Taiwan as entry point into China's political structure toward Taiwanese independence as a credible threat of war to China. This was seen as necessary to facilitate China as additional USD buyer, along with intervention in the Middle East in the first and second Gulf War. It is all about finding dumping ground for USD following the economic resurgence of Europe and the decline and collapse of the Soviet bloc.
This of course is only a part in the broader control system as like Japan or Korea Taiwan is not a proper democracy as any system that uses First-Past-The-Post to elect a majority of representatives is by its mathematical nature pseudodemocratic.
The proper definition of democracy is not ideological but mathematical. It's how independent of other factors the collective decision-making process is. Democracy or "full democracy" as it is sometimes called in modern political parlance requires that the distribution of voters' choices must be reflected in the distribution of the outcomes. FPTP forces voters to vote against rather than vote for as well as to include radical positions without an alternative. It's as disruptive as a single-party list.
Parallel voting used on Taiwan can be considered democratic if FPTP results are adjusted by party lists like in Germany but the system on Taiwan is essentially a modified Westminster system with majority of seats elected through FPTP and the party list electing less than half of the number of seats being a independent vote that largely mirrors FPTP results. "Democracies" of East Asian US vassals are a fraud perpetrated by an oligarchical structure and/or external power to divert attention of the controlled population from the control system - and that includes the US population thinking that they are defending "democracies".
Personally I don't think democracy - which is a product of European culture - fits with the East Asian culture. Decline of US influence will most likely mean a decline of "democracy" because while European culture is built around tribal councils and contesting of power East Asian culture is not. What we find inherent to resolving political conflict most Asian cultures find highly disruptive and in both instances it has to do with geography - what is sustainable in Europe is not sustainable in Asia... or in North America. Hence pseudodemocracies emerging in Russia or the US which are the consequence of European cultural influence clashing with geographical reality of power projection. Functional democracies are very unusual thing because they reside in a "goldilock zone" of heavily reacting elements that form a a functional if messy ecosystem. Similarly China occupies an "island of stability" as a large, heavy element. The analogy is not perfect but I hope it illustrates my point about politics culture being just physics with extra steps of carbon-based life developing sophisticated reproductive strategy called "civilization".
This is misunderstanding of terms that reminds me of "America is not a democracy but a republic" except that Greek for "Hellenic Republic" is Ελληνική Δημοκρατία (Elliniki Dimokratia).
Languages are evolved structures that facilitate communication so the meaning of the word should be understood through interpretation of the meaning in its natural context (linguistic ethology) as deriving meaning from etymology alone can be misleading. I think this should be particularly obvious to people who speak both Chinese and English and often are challenged by translation.
If we apply this to "hegemony" we find that the Greek word ἡγεμών (ygemon) literally translates to "leader" but its proper meaning should be derived through an analogous Latin term imperator.
Imperator is a title bestowed by the Senate on the military leader in charge of one or more legions. Imperium was the title of authority bestowed and it referred to power over free men, as power over things and slaves was called dominium. Imperator was the ruler of men, dominus was the ruler of things and slaves.
Similarly the title of ygemon is bestowed by polis (Greek city-state ) on the military leader in charge of the polis' military which then would be either referred collectively as a "ygemonia" or divided into multiple units called "yegemonia" each with its "ygemon". This naming convention lead to the creation of a separate title of strategos which referred to the supreme commander of forces from multiple poleis during the Persian wars, since to refer to such person as "hegemon" would imply direct authority over the militaries of sovereign city-states. The title of "hegemon" was used to describe the city-states of Sparta, Athens and Thebes who held a similar power over other city states as an ygemon held over his soldiers.
So whenever you are referring to "hegemony" of the United States you are literally referring to an empire which is a very specific thing.
An empire is a structure in which one state is capable of violating another state's monopoly of force without entering a state of legal war. So for example any protectorate is an empire because withdrawal of military protection a legal threat. The protector doesn't have to threaten the protected directly for the threat to take effect. A subject state in an empire is sovereign in all matters except any intervention by the imperial power.
Therefore it is impossible for an empire to continue existing and cease to exist at the same time. It is possible for one state to push out another state's imperial power from a region, but not to "break it". If the empire continues to exist then it can return to the region - as it was the case of many imperial provinces changing hands between empires throughout history - as soon as the power that pushed it out initially weakens sufficiently. However to "break" an empire means to "end an empire".
So the question you should ask instead is "if US power is pushed out of West Pacific can the US continue as an imperial entity" to which my answer would be "extremely unlikely".
US imperial power depends on its monetary creation which sustains its power - both political and military - and that to a large extent depends on the USD demand generated by WestPac region. Currently China, HongKong, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea and Singapore account for approximately 6 trillion USD in reserves which is more than the rest of the world combined.
So while it is theoretically possible for China to take over the "hegemony" in the region while allowing USD to function as reserve currency it would effectively put the US under Chinese control so the US would resort to war or deliberate destruction of those reserves through economic means. If there's one factor that is always inextricably linked with political power it is means of debt repayment and with the US having no economic leverage over China to balance that it must use force.
Empires are inherently unsustainable and the only way that they can stabilize long-term is if they create civilizations. Once that happens they enter a process of dynastic echange like China and its imperial dynasties or Europe which recreates a binary of "Rome" and "Greece" throughout its history (currently US is the "Rome" and EU is the "Greece" while USSR was is the "Macedon"). The US hasn't created a civilization so a collapse of its empire might trigger a full collapse as in Western Rome. The US is de facto two radically different states (Union and Confederacy) since the beginning - the two just shift their territory and party allegiance.
This is inversion of the relationship between the sides.
Those two countries are DPP's "paymasters" and the US is DPP's de facto political sovereign. DPP is the equivalent of the communist parties in the Warsaw Pact countries - puppet-like collaborators with the occupying power. It is a tool of social control, not a venue of democratic expression.
Modern DPP was created during the late 80s internal purge of reunification supporters to shift the previous strategy under KMT of Taiwan as entry point into China's political structure toward Taiwanese independence as a credible threat of war to China. This was seen as necessary to facilitate China as additional USD buyer, along with intervention in the Middle East in the first and second Gulf War. It is all about finding dumping ground for USD following the economic resurgence of Europe and the decline and collapse of the Soviet bloc.
This of course is only a part in the broader control system as like Japan or Korea Taiwan is not a proper democracy as any system that uses First-Past-The-Post to elect a majority of representatives is by its mathematical nature pseudodemocratic.
The proper definition of democracy is not ideological but mathematical. It's how independent of other factors the collective decision-making process is. Democracy or "full democracy" as it is sometimes called in modern political parlance requires that the distribution of voters' choices must be reflected in the distribution of the outcomes. FPTP forces voters to vote against rather than vote for as well as to include radical positions without an alternative. It's as disruptive as a single-party list.
Parallel voting used on Taiwan can be considered democratic if FPTP results are adjusted by party lists like in Germany but the system on Taiwan is essentially a modified Westminster system with majority of seats elected through FPTP and the party list electing less than half of the number of seats being a independent vote that largely mirrors FPTP results. "Democracies" of East Asian US vassals are a fraud perpetrated by an oligarchical structure and/or external power to divert attention of the controlled population from the control system - and that includes the US population thinking that they are defending "democracies".
Personally I don't think democracy - which is a product of European culture - fits with the East Asian culture. Decline of US influence will most likely mean a decline of "democracy" because while European culture is built around tribal councils and contesting of power East Asian culture is not. What we find inherent to resolving political conflict most Asian cultures find highly disruptive and in both instances it has to do with geography - what is sustainable in Europe is not sustainable in Asia... or in North America. Hence pseudodemocracies emerging in Russia or the US which are the consequence of European cultural influence clashing with geographical reality of power projection. Functional democracies are very unusual thing because they reside in a "goldilock zone" of heavily reacting elements that form a a functional if messy ecosystem. Similarly China occupies an "island of stability" as a large, heavy element. The analogy is not perfect but I hope it illustrates my point about politics culture being just physics with extra steps of carbon-based life developing sophisticated reproductive strategy called "civilization".
- Status