Prediction China will lose the "cold war"

[Ozzie guy]

China is similar enough to its opponents to not have any significant ideological advantages or disadvantages.

Near the end of 1976 China once again became a capitalist country when rightists took power following Mao's death. The new leadership ended the cultural revolution, purged Marxists such as arresting the gang of 4 and broke up the communes with the military all in the last months of 1976.
After decades of reform China is more and more no different to any other neoliberal country in fact Deng is often seen as one of the founders of Neo liberalism.



Why China will lose
Without any serious ideological advantages or disadvantages a faction that is much stronger will win.

The USA is stronger than China whist China is catching up to the USA something is forgotten ... China is not just up against the USA they would have to catch up to the combined mite of all Nato/EU countries plus many other pro west countries including future superpowers like India. China has a few allies but they are far outweighed by all the pro western countries, India alone could potentially match the power of China and all her allies combined a few decades from now.

[funkervogt]

What if the U.S. and its allies fail to unify against China enough?

[Ozzie guy]

That could happen maybe China could manage a victory somehow if it did.

I was more so making a bet kind of prediction the future is undecided with many variables, I just thought the above interconnected variables were most important.

[raklian]

China is more likely to self-sabotage itself via its unstable economic and social systems rather than be defeated by external geopolitical enemies.

[funkervogt]

China is more likely to self-sabotage itself via its unstable economic and social systems rather than be defeated by external geopolitical enemies.

As a massive country that has nuclear weapons, I don't see how China could ever be "defeated."

The likeliest "bad outcome" for China would be economically stalling like Japan, but at a lower level of GDP. In other words, they would never get out of the "Middle Income Trap." The nature of their Communist government would prevent it from making the economic and political reforms needed to enter the league of the truly developed nations. Average Chinese people would be dissatisfied with their situation, but not powerful enough to overthrow the Communist party. (Kind of sounds like the marriage of inconvenience between American voters and the two dominant parties)

Another possibility is that China will finally launch its long-awaited invasion of Taiwan and lose, which would be hugely embarrassing and would cast into doubt the narrative that China's ascension to global leadership is inevitable and the West is doomed to decline. I often read about military affairs, and believe China's ability to project military power is weaker than most people think.

[erowind]

.

[Redspector]

China is similar enough to its opponents to not have any significant ideological advantages or disadvantages.

Near the end of 1976 China once again became a capitalist country when rightists took power following Mao's death. The new leadership ended the cultural revolution, purged Marxists such as arresting the gang of 4 and broke up the communes with the military all in the last months of 1976.
After decades of reform China is more and more no different to any other neoliberal country in fact Deng is often seen as one of the founders of Neo liberalism.



Why China will lose
Without any serious ideological advantages or disadvantages a faction that is much stronger will win.

The USA is stronger than China whist China is catching up to the USA something is forgotten ... China is not just up against the USA they would have to catch up to the combined mite of all Nato/EU countries plus many other pro west countries including future superpowers like India. China has a few allies but they are far outweighed by all the pro western countries, India alone could potentially match the power of China and all her allies combined a few decades from now.

You call yourself a marxist and believe in this crap. The USA is in a state of complete decline and its becoming more aggravated. College tuition is burdening the youth and healthcare is burdening the old. How long do you think 8 dollar alcohol swabs and 25,000 dollar a year college tuition can last with 8% inflation a year? Most jobs in america are created for the college educated and upward mobility only exists for the educated. You won't be able to afford college tuition or you will be so in debt that it would have been better to sell your labor for 12 an hour to Mcdonalds. Healthcare costs will mean there will be more people who will go bankrupt and be unable to afford healthcare. Rent is skyrocketing, home ownership is down and trickle down economics aren't working. The youth of this nation will grow up to be bankrupt rentoids in their 40s and 50s. How do you think that will play out?

Climate change is far worse for america than China. The Colorado River supplies water to nearly all of Southern California, Las Vegas, Phoenix and Southern Utah. Everyday it dwindles in water flow. This year, they had mandatory water restrictions in some of those areas. I know because i have family out there. A growing population and less water supply will be a disaster of epic proportions. Its also not like america would bother building desalination pumps from the pacific and then carve whole mountains to supply Phoenix or Las Vegas with water. They can't even pass the infrastructure bill they have now. Water is eroding the gulf coast to the point where communities are being evacuated. Hurricanes are becoming higher intensity and striking more often. China just has to deal with more intense rainstorms and some sea level rise as climate change progresses.

China may be weaker than the US in military strength but a total war will never happen. Why would the corporations who rule america want to lose their profits? A total war would only be done if China decides to keep resources that are only available there to herself.

Even if there was a war, the US is incompetent. The CIA told the whole world that dozens of their spies were executed in China. They don't even have the power to infiltrate the government. Meanwhile China has already hacked into the US government's servers, has information on nearly every american citizen through hacking, has numerous spies throughout the country and is slowly turning allies away from recognizing Taiwan. China invests more money into AI than the US does and with its Road and Belt initiative, it will take over the world. A highway/railroad linking China to the entire world is superior to using boat traffic. America had its cities burned down by angry proles discontent with the status quo while Chinese citizens take pride in the country's achievements. Achievements like lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty. In 50 years, China went from being as poor as Zambia to as rich as Poland.

The US will collapse very soon. I should know, i live here. Everywhere i go i see more poverty and misery than ever before. Police stations struggle with recruiting now and the military can't even find people to join anymore. Once taboo, socialism is now thriving among the working classes despite the US's efforts to infiltrate and destroy them. Bridges are breaking apart now like the Hernando De Soto Bridge in Memphis. It is one of the major links between the east and west and it broke. Billions of dollars have been lost in trade. China doesn't have those problems at all.

[Redspector]

China is similar enough to its opponents to not have any significant ideological advantages or disadvantages.

Near the end of 1976 China once again became a capitalist country when rightists took power following Mao's death. The new leadership ended the cultural revolution, purged Marxists such as arresting the gang of 4 and broke up the communes with the military all in the last months of 1976.
After decades of reform China is more and more no different to any other neoliberal country in fact Deng is often seen as one of the founders of Neo liberalism.



Why China will lose
Without any serious ideological advantages or disadvantages a faction that is much stronger will win.

The USA is stronger than China whist China is catching up to the USA something is forgotten ... China is not just up against the USA they would have to catch up to the combined mite of all Nato/EU countries plus many other pro west countries including future superpowers like India. China has a few allies but they are far outweighed by all the pro western countries, India alone could potentially match the power of China and all her allies combined a few decades from now.

I was so angry that i forgot to criticize the rest of what you wrote.

China is not a neoliberal country and its foolish to believe such things. The corporations are literally owned by China. Out of the 10 largest companies in China, 8 are owned by the state. The surplus productivity from these companies is used to build up productive forces in China, hence why China has developed so rapidly. You clearly don't understand what neoliberalism is. Neoliberal economies have barely any government interference in the economy and the politicians are owned by the rich like slaves. Corporatism thrives in neoliberal societies. A country like China is nowhere near neoliberal. They arrested billionaires for defamation and have effectively shut down companies worth hundreds of millions just because they didn't like them. China is what you would call State Capitalist. Deng realized that China could never implement socialism without productive forces and resources. This development could only come about through globalism and moderate free trade. Deng and his subsequent replacements created the idea that corporations can invest in China by creating factories here. China would then use the productive forces excess to build infrastructure and advertise as a hub of manufacturing. Then they started advertising tourism and many other things until China developed into a middle income country. Chinese people don't worry about starving or not having enough to afford healthcare or being able to send their kids to school anymore. They worry now about being overworked, vacationing, being able to afford the internet bill and random personal problems.

The state owning corporations is so based and i wish america did it instead of being a cuc* and letting corporations own america.

[Redspector]

China is more likely to self-sabotage itself via its unstable economic and social systems rather than be defeated by external geopolitical enemies.

As a massive country that has nuclear weapons, I don't see how China could ever be "defeated."

The likeliest "bad outcome" for China would be economically stalling like Japan, but at a lower level of GDP. In other words, they would never get out of the "Middle Income Trap." The nature of their Communist government would prevent it from making the economic and political reforms needed to enter the league of the truly developed nations. Average Chinese people would be dissatisfied with their situation, but not powerful enough to overthrow the Communist party. (Kind of sounds like the marriage of inconvenience between American voters and the two dominant parties)

Another possibility is that China will finally launch its long-awaited invasion of Taiwan and lose, which would be hugely embarrassing and would cast into doubt the narrative that China's ascension to global leadership is inevitable and the West is doomed to decline. I often read about military affairs, and believe China's ability to project military power is weaker than most people think.

>believe China's ability to project military power is weaker than most people think.

And so is America's ability to project power. America already failed in Afghanistan to obliterate a bunch of goat herders with 1970s military equipment after 20 years of fighting. Taiwan right now is operating with only 60-80% of its military roles being filled (https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/02/15/ch ... low-shell/). What readiness does Taiwan actually have? I mean do you really think a country that produces a significant amount of the worlds arms and has a very efficient manufacturing process with over 60x the population of taiwan would lose? It would be like America fighting Jamaica and betting that Jamaica would win. Its asinine. You are very brainwashed, sir.

[Ozzie guy]

China is similar enough to its opponents to not have any significant ideological advantages or disadvantages.

Near the end of 1976 China once again became a capitalist country when rightists took power following Mao's death. The new leadership ended the cultural revolution, purged Marxists such as arresting the gang of 4 and broke up the communes with the military all in the last months of 1976.
After decades of reform China is more and more no different to any other neoliberal country in fact Deng is often seen as one of the founders of Neo liberalism.



Why China will lose
Without any serious ideological advantages or disadvantages a faction that is much stronger will win.

The USA is stronger than China whist China is catching up to the USA something is forgotten ... China is not just up against the USA they would have to catch up to the combined mite of all Nato/EU countries plus many other pro west countries including future superpowers like India. China has a few allies but they are far outweighed by all the pro western countries, India alone could potentially match the power of China and all her allies combined a few decades from now.

I was so angry that i forgot to criticize the rest of what you wrote.

China is not a neoliberal country and its foolish to believe such things. The corporations are literally owned by China. Out of the 10 largest companies in China, 8 are owned by the state. The surplus productivity from these companies is used to build up productive forces in China, hence why China has developed so rapidly. You clearly don't understand what neoliberalism is. Neoliberal economies have barely any government interference in the economy and the politicians are owned by the rich like slaves. Corporatism thrives in neoliberal societies. A country like China is nowhere near neoliberal. They arrested billionaires for defamation and have effectively shut down companies worth hundreds of millions just because they didn't like them. China is what you would call State Capitalist. Deng realized that China could never implement socialism without productive forces and resources. This development could only come about through globalism and moderate free trade. Deng and his subsequent replacements created the idea that corporations can invest in China by creating factories here. China would then use the productive forces excess to build infrastructure and advertise as a hub of manufacturing. Then they started advertising tourism and many other things until China developed into a middle income country. Chinese people don't worry about starving or not having enough to afford healthcare or being able to send their kids to school anymore. They worry now about being overworked, vacationing, being able to afford the internet bill and random personal problems.

The state owning corporations is so based and i wish america did it instead of being a cuc* and letting corporations own america.

I have nothing against you thinking China will win I was just throwing an argument out there.

Do you view China as socialist as you seem to support them? I used to be a Dengist myself until I realized China is revisionist and capitalist (which you may disagree with).
This is something I would debate you on.
(I plan on being away from content aggregation sites like future timeline but I may be back in the next 14 days if you wanted to start a debate).

[funkervogt]

>believe China's ability to project military power is weaker than most people think.

And so is America's ability to project power. America already failed in Afghanistan to obliterate a bunch of goat herders with 1970s military equipment after 20 years of fighting. Taiwan right now is operating with only 60-80% of its military roles being filled (https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/02/15/ch ... low-shell/). What readiness does Taiwan actually have? I mean do you really think a country that produces a significant amount of the worlds arms and has a very efficient manufacturing process with over 60x the population of taiwan would lose? It would be like America fighting Jamaica and betting that Jamaica would win. Its asinine. You are very brainwashed, sir.

You don't seem to understand what "project power" means in this context. It refers to a country's ability to send its military forces well outside of its borders to fight, and to keep them resupplied in the field. The fact that the U.S. was able to invade Afghanistan--a landlocked country that was literally on the other side of the planet--and occupy it for 20 years demonstrates an outstanding ability to project power.

U.S. forces never lost a significant battle in Afghanistan. The war was "lost" for political reasons (namely, the failure to create a central government in Kabul that the Afghan people supported, and a loss of will among America's ruling class to continue the occupation). But that has nothing to do with "power projection."

And I actually HAVE concerns about Taiwan's ability to defend itself, which I expressed in a recent post elsewhere on this forum:

If a conflict happens, I think it's likelier that Taiwan will "deflate" by bungling its own defense and surrendering to China even though further resistance was possible. America would be able and willing to help, but we'd question whether it was worth it considering that the Taiwanese were too cowardly to fight hard for themselves.

viewtopic.php?p=8722#p8722

Your Jamaica comparison is flawed because it leaves out the fact that U.S. forces would have to fight with a powerful third party and probably coalition of third party nations that would send forces into the Caribbean to block U.S. ships and planes from reaching the island. And even if U.S. troops established a beach head on Jamaica, it might be impossible to adequately resupply them due to Jamaica's allies blowing up U.S. ships and planes en route to the island.

I don't think I'm brainwashed at all. Quite the opposite, in fact. I think Westerners in general and Americans in particular have a habit of succumbing to declinist thinking and overreacting to threats of all sorts. The news media is extremely skilled at doing this, as spreading alarmism and fear boosts their profits, and so are military and intelligence agencies. China has become the new boogeyman that generates ad revenue and voter support for increased defense and spy agency funding. If you're parroting the standard line that China is a growing threat and will inevitably defeat and replace the U.S., you're more likely to be the "brainwashed" party in the discussion.

In reality, while China is certainly growing stronger by the day, they still probably lack the ability to conquer Taiwan. Reading extensively about this and related subjects has made me less "brainwashed" than the average person.

[TrueAnimationFan]

Regardless of who is correct, calling someone brainwashed just because they disagree with you is a little excessive don't you think?

[erowind]

.

[Redspector]

>believe China's ability to project military power is weaker than most people think.

And so is America's ability to project power. America already failed in Afghanistan to obliterate a bunch of goat herders with 1970s military equipment after 20 years of fighting. Taiwan right now is operating with only 60-80% of its military roles being filled (https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/02/15/ch ... low-shell/). What readiness does Taiwan actually have? I mean do you really think a country that produces a significant amount of the worlds arms and has a very efficient manufacturing process with over 60x the population of taiwan would lose? It would be like America fighting Jamaica and betting that Jamaica would win. Its asinine. You are very brainwashed, sir.

You don't seem to understand what "project power" means in this context. It refers to a country's ability to send its military forces well outside of its borders to fight, and to keep them resupplied in the field. The fact that the U.S. was able to invade Afghanistan--a landlocked country that was literally on the other side of the planet--and occupy it for 20 years demonstrates an outstanding ability to project power.

U.S. forces never lost a significant battle in Afghanistan. The war was "lost" for political reasons (namely, the failure to create a central government in Kabul that the Afghan people supported, and a loss of will among America's ruling class to continue the occupation). But that has nothing to do with "power projection."

And I actually HAVE concerns about Taiwan's ability to defend itself, which I expressed in a recent post elsewhere on this forum:

If a conflict happens, I think it's likelier that Taiwan will "deflate" by bungling its own defense and surrendering to China even though further resistance was possible. America would be able and willing to help, but we'd question whether it was worth it considering that the Taiwanese were too cowardly to fight hard for themselves.

viewtopic.php?p=8722#p8722

Your Jamaica comparison is flawed because it leaves out the fact that U.S. forces would have to fight with a powerful third party and probably coalition of third party nations that would send forces into the Caribbean to block U.S. ships and planes from reaching the island. And even if U.S. troops established a beach head on Jamaica, it might be impossible to adequately resupply them due to Jamaica's allies blowing up U.S. ships and planes en route to the island.

I don't think I'm brainwashed at all. Quite the opposite, in fact. I think Westerners in general and Americans in particular have a habit of succumbing to declinist thinking and overreacting to threats of all sorts. The news media is extremely skilled at doing this, as spreading alarmism and fear boosts their profits, and so are military and intelligence agencies. China has become the new boogeyman that generates ad revenue and voter support for increased defense and spy agency funding. If you're parroting the standard line that China is a growing threat and will inevitably defeat and replace the U.S., you're more likely to be the "brainwashed" party in the discussion.

In reality, while China is certainly growing stronger by the day, they still probably lack the ability to conquer Taiwan. Reading extensively about this and related subjects has made me less "brainwashed" than the average person.

Its alarmist and straight up nonsensical to think a tiny island nation of 20 million can win against a already industralized nation of 1.4 billion. I also think too many people believe that China is much weaker than it actually is. People like to pretend China is this incompetent government with complete oppression and is full of "ghost units", made up to make the government look stronger on paper. Truth is, its far from the truth. China is much more competent and powerful than you realize.

I mean even the CIA admitted that China could easily destroy an american invasion and their job is literally american exceptionalism.

You can literally look at the numbers and just tell China would steamroll taiwan. The comparison between Jamaica and the US is pretty similar. You may be well read but it may just be from sources that are pro-western or have a very strong bias. Pro tip btw, CNN and Reuters have a very firm american bias. So do a lot of other western news outlets like NYTimes and WashingtonPost.

[Redspector]

Regardless of who is correct, calling someone brainwashed just because they disagree with you is a little excessive don't you think?

Sometimes people make such ridiculous claims that the only answer is that they are brainwashed.

[funkervogt]

Sometimes people make such ridiculous claims that the only answer is that they are brainwashed.

An ironic thing to say in light of several of your own posts.

[Redspector]

Sometimes people make such ridiculous claims that the only answer is that they are brainwashed.

An ironic thing to say in light of several of your own posts.

Same could be said about you. After all. you seriously believe a country with far higher industrial and manufacturing capacity would lose to a country with a fraction of the same capacity. I'm sorry you can't see beyond western imperalistic news networks that lie about Iraq having WMDs or most countries problems being caused by "x" rather than the CIA. Did you know that Iran had a democracy before the US government overthrow it? What about the democratic socialist regime of Guatemala or Burkina Faso? America is not a champion of freedom but of oppression. It has always been that way.

As for your belief that China would lose a war against Taiwan, i seriously don't know how you can believe in such fallacies. Most american military equipment comes at least partially produced from Chinese REMs and conductors. To think that taiwan would beat China is such a fallacy. The American military is located at least 1000 miles away from China. The American military has a fraction of the number of bomber planes it did in the freaking 1970s when it lost a war against the vietcong. How the f*ck would a small fraction of bomber fighter jets be able to destroy the chinese infrastructure enough to prevent a offensive attack by the Chinese against taiwan? I mean ffs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B- ... tofortress) this link itself says the B52 is at 72 ffs. That number is comparable to the the number of B52s the f*cking british royal air force had in the 1960s after a significant amount of military decline.

It is honestly sad that people believe that Taiwan is a great nation capable of defeating the second largest military and 1st largest economy on earth. Taiwan is no slouch in comparison to its size but its mediocre in comparison to the beast that is china. This is not american fatalism that fuels this belief but objective reality. You really need to consider the fact that reuters, cnn and fox news are inherently pro american and fail to recognize the faults in American military power.

Taiwan will be lost to the chinese and its because America is actually getting weaker while China is getting stronger. China has the home field advantage of being relatively close, being the industrial base of the world, having far greater ability to produce weapons in a shorter amount of time compared to the americans and the american military being weakened by its lack of strategic bomber planes that could dismantle or at the very least hinder Chinese manufacturing capacity.

[RayKurzweilLovesCats]

Sometimes people make such ridiculous claims that the only answer is that they are brainwashed.

An ironic thing to say in light of several of your own posts.

Same could be said about you. After all. you seriously believe a country with far higher industrial and manufacturing capacity would lose to a country with a fraction of the same capacity. I'm sorry you can't see beyond western imperalistic news networks that lie about Iraq having WMDs or most countries problems being caused by "x" rather than the CIA. Did you know that Iran had a democracy before the US government overthrow it? What about the democratic socialist regime of Guatemala or Burkina Faso? America is not a champion of freedom but of oppression. It has always been that way.

As for your belief that China would lose a war against Taiwan, i seriously don't know how you can believe in such fallacies. Most american military equipment comes at least partially produced from Chinese REMs and conductors. To think that taiwan would beat China is such a fallacy. The American military is located at least 1000 miles away from China. The American military has a fraction of the number of bomber planes it did in the freaking 1970s when it lost a war against the vietcong. How the f*ck would a small fraction of bomber fighter jets be able to destroy the chinese infrastructure enough to prevent a offensive attack by the Chinese against taiwan? I mean ffs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B- ... tofortress) this link itself says the B52 is at 72 ffs. That number is comparable to the the number of B52s the f*cking british royal air force had in the 1960s after a significant amount of military decline.

It is honestly sad that people believe that Taiwan is a great nation capable of defeating the second largest military and 1st largest economy on earth. Taiwan is no slouch in comparison to its size but its mediocre in comparison to the beast that is china. This is not american fatalism that fuels this belief but objective reality. You really need to consider the fact that reuters, cnn and fox news are inherently pro american and fail to recognize the faults in American military power.

Taiwan will be lost to the chinese and its because America is actually getting weaker while China is getting stronger. China has the home field advantage of being relatively close, being the industrial base of the world, having far greater ability to produce weapons in a shorter amount of time compared to the americans and the american military being weakened by its lack of strategic bomber planes that could dismantle or at the very least hinder Chinese manufacturing capacity.

There is no doubt China would steamroll Taiwan in any war. An EMP detonated above Taiwan followed by a missile barrage against key targets such as airfields and Taiwan would be a sitting duck. How could they not be when China spends more than 25 times as much as Taiwan does on the military (understandable given their relative sizes). America isn't going to go to war over Taiwan when the superpower who controls it is 80 miles away and would destroy any american invasion fleet with its air and missile assets given Taiwan's extreme close proximity to the mainland. China would win the war but they've made the calculus it would be a pyrrhic victory thus far given the likely international reaction in terms of sanctions not to mention that even with a successful invasion China would still lose tens of thousands of troops. Will the calculus change over time? we shall see..

[Redspector]

An ironic thing to say in light of several of your own posts.

Same could be said about you. After all. you seriously believe a country with far higher industrial and manufacturing capacity would lose to a country with a fraction of the same capacity. I'm sorry you can't see beyond western imperalistic news networks that lie about Iraq having WMDs or most countries problems being caused by "x" rather than the CIA. Did you know that Iran had a democracy before the US government overthrow it? What about the democratic socialist regime of Guatemala or Burkina Faso? America is not a champion of freedom but of oppression. It has always been that way.

As for your belief that China would lose a war against Taiwan, i seriously don't know how you can believe in such fallacies. Most american military equipment comes at least partially produced from Chinese REMs and conductors. To think that taiwan would beat China is such a fallacy. The American military is located at least 1000 miles away from China. The American military has a fraction of the number of bomber planes it did in the freaking 1970s when it lost a war against the vietcong. How the f*ck would a small fraction of bomber fighter jets be able to destroy the chinese infrastructure enough to prevent a offensive attack by the Chinese against taiwan? I mean ffs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B- ... tofortress) this link itself says the B52 is at 72 ffs. That number is comparable to the the number of B52s the f*cking british royal air force had in the 1960s after a significant amount of military decline.

It is honestly sad that people believe that Taiwan is a great nation capable of defeating the second largest military and 1st largest economy on earth. Taiwan is no slouch in comparison to its size but its mediocre in comparison to the beast that is china. This is not american fatalism that fuels this belief but objective reality. You really need to consider the fact that reuters, cnn and fox news are inherently pro american and fail to recognize the faults in American military power.

Taiwan will be lost to the chinese and its because America is actually getting weaker while China is getting stronger. China has the home field advantage of being relatively close, being the industrial base of the world, having far greater ability to produce weapons in a shorter amount of time compared to the americans and the american military being weakened by its lack of strategic bomber planes that could dismantle or at the very least hinder Chinese manufacturing capacity.

There is no doubt China would steamroll Taiwan in any war. An EMP detonated above Taiwan followed by a missile barrage against key targets such as airfields and Taiwan would be a sitting duck. How could they not be when China spends more than 25 times as much as Taiwan does on the military (understandable given their relative sizes). America isn't going to go to war over Taiwan when the superpower who controls it is 80 miles away and would destroy any american invasion fleet with its air and missile assets given Taiwan's extreme close proximity to the mainland. China would win the war but they've made the calculus it would be a pyrrhic victory thus far given the likely international reaction in terms of sanctions not to mention that even with a successful invasion China would still lose tens of thousands of troops. Will the calculus change over time? we shall see..

I beg to disagree with your 1st sentence. Funkervogt disagrees because he has read washingtonpost (american imperalist news), theguardian (another western news outlet) and the economist (peak neoliberal western news). He has read every single article criticizing China and therefore knows China is as weak as Uganda and in no way could destroy Taiwan. In fact, Taiwan has just been waiting for the opportunity for China to invade so they can counter attack and seize beijing and bring an american government into Beijing. Its clear because China has horrible navy with aircraft carriers that would collapse by a sudden breeze and a incompetent military because communism.

[funkervogt]

Same could be said about you. After all. you seriously believe a country with far higher industrial and manufacturing capacity would lose to a country with a fraction of the same capacity. I'm sorry you can't see beyond western imperalistic news networks that lie about Iraq having WMDs or most countries problems being caused by "x" rather than the CIA. Did you know that Iran had a democracy before the US government overthrow it? What about the democratic socialist regime of Guatemala or Burkina Faso? America is not a champion of freedom but of oppression. It has always been that way.

As for your belief that China would lose a war against Taiwan, i seriously don't know how you can believe in such fallacies. Most american military equipment comes at least partially produced from Chinese REMs and conductors. To think that taiwan would beat China is such a fallacy. The American military is located at least 1000 miles away from China. The American military has a fraction of the number of bomber planes it did in the freaking 1970s when it lost a war against the vietcong. How the f*ck would a small fraction of bomber fighter jets be able to destroy the chinese infrastructure enough to prevent a offensive attack by the Chinese against taiwan? I mean ffs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B- ... tofortress) this link itself says the B52 is at 72 ffs. That number is comparable to the the number of B52s the f*cking british royal air force had in the 1960s after a significant amount of military decline.

It is honestly sad that people believe that Taiwan is a great nation capable of defeating the second largest military and 1st largest economy on earth. Taiwan is no slouch in comparison to its size but its mediocre in comparison to the beast that is china. This is not american fatalism that fuels this belief but objective reality. You really need to consider the fact that reuters, cnn and fox news are inherently pro american and fail to recognize the faults in American military power.

Taiwan will be lost to the chinese and its because America is actually getting weaker while China is getting stronger. China has the home field advantage of being relatively close, being the industrial base of the world, having far greater ability to produce weapons in a shorter amount of time compared to the americans and the american military being weakened by its lack of strategic bomber planes that could dismantle or at the very least hinder Chinese manufacturing capacity.

There is no doubt China would steamroll Taiwan in any war. An EMP detonated above Taiwan followed by a missile barrage against key targets such as airfields and Taiwan would be a sitting duck. How could they not be when China spends more than 25 times as much as Taiwan does on the military (understandable given their relative sizes). America isn't going to go to war over Taiwan when the superpower who controls it is 80 miles away and would destroy any american invasion fleet with its air and missile assets given Taiwan's extreme close proximity to the mainland. China would win the war but they've made the calculus it would be a pyrrhic victory thus far given the likely international reaction in terms of sanctions not to mention that even with a successful invasion China would still lose tens of thousands of troops. Will the calculus change over time? we shall see..

I beg to disagree with your 1st sentence. Funkervogt disagrees because he has read washingtonpost (american imperalist news), theguardian (another western news outlet) and the economist (peak neoliberal western news). He has read every single article criticizing China and therefore knows China is as weak as Uganda and in no way could destroy Taiwan. In fact, Taiwan has just been waiting for the opportunity for China to invade so they can counter attack and seize beijing and bring an american government into Beijing. Its clear because China has horrible navy with aircraft carriers that would collapse by a sudden breeze and a incompetent military because communism.

You need to grow up.