Should the US (with UN aid) invade China?

[The JELLEAIN Republic]

I mean, can we just stop with the idea that the US needs to invade every place that isn't like us? Shitty as China's government is, they haven't launched any wars of conquest against anyone and are spreading their influence through purely economic means. Unlike us, they haven't decided to start toppling other country's governments to make them play nice (yet), so no matter how you try to spin it the US would invariably be seen as the aggressors in such a war. Regardless, what "UN aid"? Anything worthy of the name would have to be approved by the Security Council, which China is on. Not only would they veto such a proposal, but it's unlikely any of the permanent members would be particularly fond of the idea, either (invading a nation that, itself, hasn't invaded anyone is very much outside the UN's purview or desire).

“Russia sanctions”

[The JELLEAIN Republic]

Ok.

But China's literally acting like Nazi Germany at the moment. What with the whole concentration camps where ethic minorities get sent to have their organs harvested for China's organ black market.

Declaring an existential war against a nuclear power is still not a viable response. I'm fucked if I know what the best response is, but it sure as fuck isn't nuclear war.

It is questionable weather China could land a warhead on us soil.

[The JELLEAIN Republic]

Well it is not the the islands can be legitimately dispute as the PRC’s claims, as found by the Permanent Court of Arbitration have no legal basis whatsoever.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines_v._China

Interesting, though according to that page Taiwan also rejected the ruling, so one could also use that as argument to invade Taiwan, no?

Either way, I still don't think it's worth military intervention. The cost-benefit analysis is very much negative on that. Worth keeping an eye on, though.

It should be noted the PRC is almost certain to become even more aggressive as its military and economic power grow.

Historically, yes, that does tend be true. However, it's also irrelevant. The UN isn't going to intervene in a country based on things they "could do in the future." Their job is to react to things country actually do.

It clearly has no moral qualms against invasion and gives zero shits about international law.

Neither do a lot of other countries (up to, and including, the US). Again, if that's the argument we're going to use, it can just as easily be used against us.

Sure it cannot currently invade Taiwan BUT is working to fix that. It will be able to in the future.

Source?

Lack of current capabilities should not be confused with lack of desire or plans to do so once said capabilities are acquired.

What "capabilities" are they lacking? They're a nuclear power with a large, technologically-advanced military. They're not not-invading Taiwan because they physically can't, they aren't invading it because it's geopolitically impractical to do so.

You're probably correct that they would if they could get away with it (if only to back up all of their bluster over the decades), but the fact of the matter is they can't get away with it, hence why they haven't already invaded.

But I agree with you that I do NOT support an invasion.
But rather a containment effort like we used with the Soviets.

Yes, because that worked so well.

I should also note that George Kennan, whose Long Telegram influenced the Containment policy, went on to become one of the biggest critics of US foreign policy in regards to the USSR and basically felt that the US's obsession with Containment as an ideology was undermining its ability to make well-formed foreign policy decisions--almost saying as much during his testimony on the Vietnam War.

China at this time is incapable of invading Taiwan.

[Byzconia]

See this is just a straw man. You are assuming that the Cold War would exactly repeat, that we would have learned nothing. But I am not advocating that. I am advocating we focus on economic, diplomatic and political actions and deterrence over actual large scale military actions anyways.

You said, "We should use Containment like we did with the Soviets" (paraphrasing), then I pointed out all of the issues with said strategy, and now you're saying, "No, no, not that, I actually totally meant this instead!" That's not a strawman, that's you changing your argument because you recognized it wasn't working (which, by itself, is fine, but accusing people of logical fallacies they didn't commit is not fine).

What I am advocating is what we did in the Cold War AFTER Vietnam.

Then you should've said that? It's not my fault you didn't specify what you meant from the get-go. I can't read your mind; I can only react to what you type.

I explicitly said we should learn from our mistakes and do it better this time.

You also explicitly said we should do Containment again.

The Soviet Union might not have imploded if not for our actions. Our actions played a role.

Source?

So long as it could keep expanding it could keep its political system and economy afloat.

Yes, because that's definitely how empires work. No political system has ever collapsed from becoming too large.

Our political and economic actions against it accelerated its problems.

In what regard?

The Cold War is NOT over and it is delusional to think so.

I...I literally don't know how to respond to this. This is like saying it's "delusional" to say that World War II is over. I just...what? Agreeing with the historical and political-scientific consensus is "delusional"? I don't...what? How?

The irony. It hurts.

Yes it has changed. And as a result while we can use the same overall strategy, yes obviously the strategy would and should have to be adjusted accordingly.

Yes, it has changed. Largely due to the fact the one of the participants no longer exists.

And a non adversarial approach is literally impossible as our goals are mutually exclusive.
Negotiation is only possible when you both have a common end goal.

The common end goal is, "Let's not start World War III," which is absolutely what a US-China war would be. Seems like a pretty solid end goal, IMO.

If your end goals are mutually exclusive it cannot happen.

And we do not have a common end goal. Our goals and purposes are irreconcilable. Sure they are not about spreading Communism, which they do not even believe in. But their goal to become the global hegemon is one we should oppose.

Oppose on what grounds? That we want to be the global hegemon? Would China being the global hegemon be a good thing? No, of course not and you're right we should want to oppose it, but motivation matters. What are you trying to accomplish by opposing them? Do you legitimately want to protect the world from the spreading of authoritarianism, or do you just want the US to maintain its role as (declining) world police? The answer to this question is relevant.

Besides we NEED an adversary.

No, we don't. Creating new adversaries is literally how governments create justifications for stripping away people's civil liberties (see: PATRIOT Act, The). When you have an "enemy" you can blame all your country's (or even the world's) problems on, it only breeds hatred, which in turn makes people easier to control. It's a mentality that only benefits despots and fanatics.

See the Hong Kong act for example. And external enemy is the only way to unite our political parties.

I'd think a better motivator would be, "wanting Americans to live the same happy and healthy lives that citizens of all developed nations do," but yes, giving our nation an external enemy for everyone to rally against totally won't end badly.

You run better in a race than you do on your own. Having a competitor drives you to excel, gives you a purpose and provides a benchmark.

Sure, but there's a difference between healthy competition and "competition that risks blowing up the entire world."

Once the Soviet Union fell the US massively cut spending on R&D and STEM education, and our politics became more divisive.

This had more to do with the rise of neoliberalism than it did the USSR's collapse (not that those two events are completely disconnected, but the relationship is a bit more complex than that).

We need NEED an external adversary. If people do not have an external adversary to unite against they turn against each other. Create internal enemies instead.

Or we could just stop looking for enemies at all and unite under the fact that we're all living in the same fucking country so it would behoove us greatly to make it work (and finally kick all of our shitty, corrupt politicians out of office). All of the enemies in the world aren't going to make up for the fact that our government is just complete shite.

[Byzconia]

Interesting, though according to that page Taiwan also rejected the ruling, so one could also use that as argument to invade Taiwan, no?

Either way, I still don't think it's worth military intervention. The cost-benefit analysis is very much negative on that. Worth keeping an eye on, though.


Historically, yes, that does tend be true. However, it's also irrelevant. The UN isn't going to intervene in a country based on things they "could do in the future." Their job is to react to things country actually do.


Neither do a lot of other countries (up to, and including, the US). Again, if that's the argument we're going to use, it can just as easily be used against us.


Source?


What "capabilities" are they lacking? They're a nuclear power with a large, technologically-advanced military. They're not not-invading Taiwan because they physically can't, they aren't invading it because it's geopolitically impractical to do so.

You're probably correct that they would if they could get away with it (if only to back up all of their bluster over the decades), but the fact of the matter is they can't get away with it, hence why they haven't already invaded.


Yes, because that worked so well.

I should also note that George Kennan, whose Long Telegram influenced the Containment policy, went on to become one of the biggest critics of US foreign policy in regards to the USSR and basically felt that the US's obsession with Containment as an ideology was undermining its ability to make well-formed foreign policy decisions--almost saying as much during his testimony on the Vietnam War.

China at this time is incapable of invading Taiwan.

Source?

[Major-Tom]

Oh, I'm sure that'd go swimmingly. Let's just groggily thrust our dick into a conflict that involves the world's largest country by population, one that is immensely militarized and one that exerts an enormous economic influence on the world. Why not? I mean, fuck it, we have no real pretense to use our military, but why don't we just entertain some middle-school fantasy of US boots in a war that might be the most cataclysmic in world history? Fuck it, sounds good, I'm in!!!

I mean, shit, the Chinese government is just despicable, but I think the mental leap from "Hey, maybe China needs to change it's awful ways" to "Let's just use our lesser military might to invade the damn place" is the stupidest thing I've ever seen.

[Novus America]

See this is just a straw man. You are assuming that the Cold War would exactly repeat, that we would have learned nothing. But I am not advocating that. I am advocating we focus on economic, diplomatic and political actions and deterrence over actual large scale military actions anyways.

You said, "We should use Containment like we did with the Soviets" (paraphrasing), then I pointed out all of the issues with said strategy, and now you're saying, "No, no, not that, I actually totally meant this instead!" That's not a strawman, that's you changing your argument because you recognized it wasn't working (which, by itself, is fine, but accusing people of logical fallacies they didn't commit is not fine).

What I am advocating is what we did in the Cold War AFTER Vietnam.

Then you should've said that? It's not my fault you didn't specify what you meant from the get-go. I can't read your mind; I can only react to what you type.

I explicitly said we should learn from our mistakes and do it better this time.

You also explicitly said we should do Containment again.

The Soviet Union might not have imploded if not for our actions. Our actions played a role.

Source?

So long as it could keep expanding it could keep its political system and economy afloat.

Yes, because that's definitely how empires work. No political system has ever collapsed from becoming too large.

Our political and economic actions against it accelerated its problems.

In what regard?

The Cold War is NOT over and it is delusional to think so.

I...I literally don't know how to respond to this. This is like saying it's "delusional" to say that World War II is over. I just...what? Agreeing with the historical and political-scientific consensus is "delusional"? I don't...what? How?

The irony. It hurts.

Yes it has changed. And as a result while we can use the same overall strategy, yes obviously the strategy would and should have to be adjusted accordingly.

Yes, it has changed. Largely due to the fact the one of the participants no longer exists.

And a non adversarial approach is literally impossible as our goals are mutually exclusive.
Negotiation is only possible when you both have a common end goal.

The common end goal is, "Let's not start World War III," which is absolutely what a US-China war would be. Seems like a pretty solid end goal, IMO.

If your end goals are mutually exclusive it cannot happen.

And we do not have a common end goal. Our goals and purposes are irreconcilable. Sure they are not about spreading Communism, which they do not even believe in. But their goal to become the global hegemon is one we should oppose.

Oppose on what grounds? That we want to be the global hegemon? Would China being the global hegemon be a good thing? No, of course not and you're right we should want to oppose it, but motivation matters. What are you trying to accomplish by opposing them? Do you legitimately want to protect the world from the spreading of authoritarianism, or do you just want the US to maintain its role as (declining) world police? The answer to this question is relevant.

Besides we NEED an adversary.

No, we don't. Creating new adversaries is literally how governments create justifications for stripping away people's civil liberties (see: PATRIOT Act, The). When you have an "enemy" you can blame all your country's (or even the world's) problems on, it only breeds hatred, which in turn makes people easier to control. It's a mentality that only benefits despots and fanatics.

See the Hong Kong act for example. And external enemy is the only way to unite our political parties.

I'd think a better motivator would be, "wanting Americans to live the same happy and healthy lives that citizens of all developed nations do," but yes, giving our nation an external enemy for everyone to rally against totally won't end badly.

You run better in a race than you do on your own. Having a competitor drives you to excel, gives you a purpose and provides a benchmark.

Sure, but there's a difference between healthy competition and "competition that risks blowing up the entire world."

Once the Soviet Union fell the US massively cut spending on R&D and STEM education, and our politics became more divisive.

This had more to do with the rise of neoliberalism than it did the USSR's collapse (not that those two events are completely disconnected, but the relationship is a bit more complex than that).

We need NEED an external adversary. If people do not have an external adversary to unite against they turn against each other. Create internal enemies instead.

Or we could just stop looking for enemies at all and unite under the fact that we're all living in the same fucking country so it would behoove us greatly to make it work (and finally kick all of our shitty, corrupt politicians out of office). All of the enemies in the world aren't going to make up for the fact that our government is just complete shite.

Who is grossly over simplifying now? Saying we should use similar strategy does not mean doing the exact same thing. That is not how history works, and yes it would be a strategy of general containment in terms of trying to keep them from gaining more influence and power new places, rather than trying to invade them. That is the whole point.

And are you ready saying the Soviets would not have taken over more had we let them do whatever they want? That Afghanistan played no role? Our economic pressure and propaganda played no role?

Anyways while the US did not solely cause it, we should not have let them do whatever they want. We have to oppose them, or they will control our economy and political system.
Which is ultimately what they want.

In do not blame them really. That is not the point. It is as much the oppose us, and we oppose them. That we both want mutually exclusive things that cannot coexist. It is a competition and we should want to win. And a friendly competition can only happen if your competitor plays by the rules. The PRC will not.

Now yes we might want to avoid WWIII. We never had a WWIII with the Soviets. Avoiding WWIII does not require we be non adversarial. Again stopping them SHORT of outright war would be the whole point! Sure we can negotiate on certain individual things, but overall we will still be adversarial, like with the Soviets.

See there are different levels of being adversarial. There is a middle ground between dying they are and adversary and outright war which is the whole point!

Yes the Soviet Union fell, replaced by the PRC, but that does not mean it is over. Sure you can say this is a New Cold War, but ultimately the PRC immediately moved in to fill the gap left by the USSR.

And your naive and idealistic views will not work in practice.

We will not magically unite around being nice and good or whatever. It will not happen.
We know that an outside adversary unites us, and we fall into internal conflicts and complacency when we do not have one.

We were doing better on many things when we all recognized we had one.
And we will do better when we recognize it again.

BTW the Stalinists and Fascists focused on internal enemies as much as foreign ones.
Again you can obviously can address an external threat without resorting to those extremes.

Pretending the PRC is not a threat to us will not make the threat go away.

[Greater Cesnica]

Pretending the PRC is not a threat to us will not make the threat go away.

Yeah but we're talking about billions of lives on the line here. Billions. The US should stick to covert action until China escalates it to overt, direct action.

[Novus America]

Oh, I'm sure that'd go swimmingly. Let's just groggily thrust our dick into a conflict that involves the world's largest country by population, one that is immensely militarized and one that exerts an enormous economic influence on the world. Why not? I mean, fuck it, we have no real pretense to use our military, but why don't we just entertain some middle-school fantasy of US boots in a war that might be the most cataclysmic in world history? Fuck it, sounds good, I'm in!!!

I mean, shit, the Chinese government is just despicable, but I think the mental leap from "Hey, maybe China needs to change it's awful ways" to "Let's just use our lesser military might to invade the damn place" is the stupidest thing I've ever seen.

Moreover it is unnecessary. We have plenty of other non military and military ways to address the threat short of outright invasion or outright war.

We can and should use political, diplomatic, propaganda and economic pressure, use military DETERRENCE, not actual war. The best way to prevent war is to have a very strong, but ultimately defensive military positioning. Not attack, but let them know you can stop any attack they might have.

[Novus America]

Pretending the PRC is not a threat to us will not make the threat go away.

Yeah but we're talking about billions of lives on the line here. Billions. The US should stick to covert action until China escalates it to overt, direct action.

Of course, as I have said many times an outright invasion is pure insanity and an actual war (which would be a air and naval war, not and invasion) would only be a last resort, if they start it first.

But we have plenty of other ways to address it. Covert actions yes, as well as economic, diplomatic, political and propaganda actions. And having a military powerful enough to deter theirs. They are not going to start a war unless they think they can win.

So we need to have a strong enough military to make them realize they cannot win.

[Novus America]

China at this time is incapable of invading Taiwan.

Source?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.co ... index.html

Obviously the PRC has a much larger military, but it does not yet have the logistical and amphibious assets needed. Having the troops is one thing. Actually getting them there, landing and supplying them is a very different thing.

[Salandriagado]

Declaring an existential war against a nuclear power is still not a viable response. I'm fucked if I know what the best response is, but it sure as fuck isn't nuclear war.

It is questionable weather China could land a warhead on us soil.

Questionable in what way?

And apart from that, how many allies are you willing to see wiped out? Japan? South Korea? Israel? Bahrain? Jordan? Australia? New Zealand?

[Novus America]

It is questionable weather China could land a warhead on us soil.

Questionable in what way?

And apart from that, how many allies are you willing to see wiped out? Japan? South Korea? Israel? Bahrain? Jordan? Australia? New Zealand?

Questionable in whether their limited long range delivery systems are sufficient to penetrate our defenses.

But yeah, they can still kill a ton of people without hitting our mainland.
The overwhelming majority of their nuclear forces are short to medium range.

[Satuga]

Better dead than red was an actual slogan used by America during the cold war...

I knew that one, but the "Death is a better alternative to communism" is one I did know of.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Better dead than red was an actual slogan used by America during the cold war...

I knew that one, but the "Death is a better alternative to communism" is one I did know of.

It's from Fallout, the US builds a giant robot to fight the Chinese called Liberty Prime and it shouts a bunch of anti-communist slogans and it's pretty wonderful.

[Kowani]

Were terrible ideas on sale or something?

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Honestly, if the UN is telling America to invade China, with China sitting on the UN Security council and able to veto that motion hard (similar to why the UN never motioned to invade Soviet Union, Soviet Union would veto).... then is probably time to invade China.

Questionable in what way?

And apart from that, how many allies are you willing to see wiped out? Japan? South Korea? Israel? Bahrain? Jordan? Australia? New Zealand?

Would you like a politically correct answer or an honest answer to that?

[UniversalCommons]

China could easily invade Taiwan within five years. They have 2 Divisions of Type 63 A Tanks, a full Marine Force, and have been building Type 75 helicopter assault ships. They also have been building assault ships for troops and have the ability to transport offload their tanks at sea. It is about attacks subs and nuclear war that stops this from happening.

[UniversalCommons]

What China is doing is the classic strategy of building their economy and exports so even if the same percentage of the economy goes into the military, because of greater general wealth, the military will be larger.

[Salandriagado]

Questionable in what way?

And apart from that, how many allies are you willing to see wiped out? Japan? South Korea? Israel? Bahrain? Jordan? Australia? New Zealand?

Questionable in whether their limited long range delivery systems are sufficient to penetrate our defenses.

But yeah, they can still kill a ton of people without hitting our mainland.
The overwhelming majority of their nuclear forces are short to medium range.

US soil goes a fucking long way beyond the mainland, though.

[Gorbehstan]

China could easily invade Taiwan within five years. They have 2 Divisions of Type 63 A Tanks, a full Marine Force, and have been building Type 75 helicopter assault ships. They also have been building assault ships for troops and have the ability to transport offload their tanks at sea. It is about attacks subs and nuclear war that stops this from happening.

Type 63A tanks? That’s obsolete. The best tanks China have are Type 99s but I don’t think even they are modern..They look like Sinicized T-72s.

Most Chinese weapons do not have much combat history. Hence I doubt their efficacy. A few drones seem to at least work though.

[Novus America]

Questionable in whether their limited long range delivery systems are sufficient to penetrate our defenses.

But yeah, they can still kill a ton of people without hitting our mainland.
The overwhelming majority of their nuclear forces are short to medium range.

US soil goes a fucking long way beyond the mainland, though.

True. I never said nuclear war with them was a good idea. It is not.

And we need to greatly expand our defenses, especially for Guam and Hawaii.

[UniversalCommons]

There are a lot of perceptions about Chinese military weapons which are off. They are leapfrogging with many of their systems. This includes hypersonic military systems, more advanced boats, and other things. The weapons are pretty reliable.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

China could easily invade Taiwan within five years. They have 2 Divisions of Type 63 A Tanks, a full Marine Force, and have been building Type 75 helicopter assault ships. They also have been building assault ships for troops and have the ability to transport offload their tanks at sea. It is about attacks subs and nuclear war that stops this from happening.

Type 63A tanks? That’s obsolete. The best tanks China have are Type 99s but I don’t think even they are modern..They look like Sinicized T-72s.

Most Chinese weapons do not have much combat history. Hence I doubt their efficacy. A few drones seem to at least work though.

63A is a 63 with extra floaty bits and a 105mm autoloady boi for a gun instead of the old 85.

Type 96 would be gutting a T-62 and upgrading it to T-72B2 standards

Type 99... the newer models are vroomy-bois but it has been shown that their wheels have a higher than average chance of falling-off at bad moments due to lack of quality-control in their critical-component metallurgy.

Getting said armor to Taiwon is problematic, but the war would likely be over by the time type 99s arrive anyways... so better to compare airpower issues with the F-16s and F-35s against waves of modernized chinese MiG-21s (J-7E).

So how'd America invading China turn into discussing China pre-emptively invading Taiwon to halt "Percieved Imperialist Aggression"?

[Christian Confederation]

Nah we just insure Hong Kong gains indipendince and arm Militias In China and make sure the Commies fall