"China conducted a second day of drills around Taiwan on Wednesday, adding to the unprecedented military pressure it is applying to President Lai Ching-te, a leader it strongly dislikes."
If there is to be another WW, this is probably where it starts. While Putin is an irritating bastard, he can't even break through Ukraine's defenses. A unified Europe could easily stop him if the got their shit together..
China is a different animal. If they move to take Taiwan, and we move to stop them, Putin's excursion into Ukraine will pale in comparison..
Maybe they’ve been waiting for trump’s second term, on the assumption that his administration is unlikely to do little more beyond officially voicing ‘a lack of approval/support’.
Timing is everything!
-- Edited by Vam on Wednesday 2nd of April 2025 04:36:59 PM
jackb said
Apr 2 4:39 PM, 2025
Is Trump going to cripple the UK later on today?
Maddog said
Apr 2 5:29 PM, 2025
Vam wrote:
Maddog wrote:
"China conducted a second day of drills around Taiwan on Wednesday, adding to the unprecedented military pressure it is applying to President Lai Ching-te, a leader it strongly dislikes."
If there is to be another WW, this is probably where it starts. While Putin is an irritating bastard, he can't even break through Ukraine's defenses. A unified Europe could easily stop him if the got their shit together..
China is a different animal. If they move to take Taiwan, and we move to stop them, Putin's excursion into Ukraine will pale in comparison..
Maybe they’ve been waiting for trump’s second term, on the assumption that his administration is unlikely to do little more beyond officially voicing ‘a lack of approval/support’.
Timing is everything!
-- Edited by Vam on Wednesday 2nd of April 2025 04:36:59 PM
They are waiting for the US to become crippled with internal problems.
Maybe a little side war in Ukraine.
Do you think the US, Japan, Phillipines and S Korea should square up and fight China over Taiwan?
Will Europen boys be involved too?
Vam said
Apr 3 11:31 AM, 2025
@ MD - my (admittedly layman’s) response to your question…
I guess it depends on how China may attack Taiwan. An amphibious attack could be an onerous mission.
If China imposes a blockade all around the island, and shipping lanes adversely affect trade, then I guess other countries could be forced to weigh in.
And given the likelihood that 47 may prove to be unwilling to actively help protect Taiwan, the ultimate sad reality could prove to be an acceptance that China will reign supreme throughout the region.
Maddog said
Apr 3 2:35 PM, 2025
Vam wrote:
@ MD - my (admittedly layman’s) response to your question…
I guess it depends on how China may attack Taiwan. An amphibious attack could be an onerous mission.
If China imposes a blockade all around the island, and shipping lanes adversely affect trade, then I guess other countries could be forced to weigh in.
And given the likelihood that 47 may prove to be unwilling to actively help protect Taiwan, the ultimate sad reality could prove to be an acceptance that China will reign supreme throughout the region.
Leave 47 out of it and answer the question. Should the US square up and engage in what could be WW3 over Taiwan? A country we don't have a defense agreement with?
Should the British?
Vam said
Apr 3 3:20 PM, 2025
Maddog wrote:
Vam wrote:
@ MD - my (admittedly layman’s) response to your question…
I guess it depends on how China may attack Taiwan. An amphibious attack could be an onerous mission.
If China imposes a blockade all around the island, and shipping lanes adversely affect trade, then I guess other countries could be forced to weigh in.
And given the likelihood that 47 may prove to be unwilling to actively help protect Taiwan, the ultimate sad reality could prove to be an acceptance that China will reign supreme throughout the region.
Leave 47 out of it and answer the question. Should the US square up and engage in what could be WW3 over Taiwan? A country we don't have a defense agreement with?
Should the British?
Why should 47 be left out of it, given that the vaunted ‘Leader of the Free World’ might refuse to lead?
🤷🏻♀️ But okay, if you insist, my layman’s knee-jerk response is ‘yes’. Alliances spanning several decades should always hold fast in the face of unprovoked aggression.
I‘ve already said I don’t know enough about the probable ramifications of a Chinese attack on Taiwan, to offer an informed opinion. I can only offer hypotheticals. Maybe someone far better informed than me could weigh in.
-- Edited by Vam on Thursday 3rd of April 2025 03:21:01 PM
Maddog said
Apr 3 3:46 PM, 2025
Vam wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Vam wrote:
@ MD - my (admittedly layman’s) response to your question…
I guess it depends on how China may attack Taiwan. An amphibious attack could be an onerous mission.
If China imposes a blockade all around the island, and shipping lanes adversely affect trade, then I guess other countries could be forced to weigh in.
And given the likelihood that 47 may prove to be unwilling to actively help protect Taiwan, the ultimate sad reality could prove to be an acceptance that China will reign supreme throughout the region.
Leave 47 out of it and answer the question. Should the US square up and engage in what could be WW3 over Taiwan? A country we don't have a defense agreement with?
Should the British?
Why should 47 be left out of it, given that the vaunted ‘Leader of the Free World’ might refuse to lead?
🤷🏻♀️ But okay, if you insist, my layman’s knee-jerk response is ‘yes’. Alliances spanning several decades should always hold fast in the face of unprovoked aggression.
I‘ve already said I don’t know enough about the probable ramifications of a Chinese attack on Taiwan, to offer an informed opinion. I can only offer hypotheticals. Maybe someone far better informed than me could weigh in.
-- Edited by Vam on Thursday 3rd of April 2025 03:21:01 PM
You want to British mothers sending their kids off to possibly die every time there is unprovoked aggression on this planet.
Or is that just an American job now?
Hows the British Expeditionary Force doing in Ukraine?.
It's easy to spout slogans. Are you remotely aware of what the death count will be if the US fights the Chinese in Asia?
Knowing Trumps dislike of the Chinese, if they go forward, you may get to find out.
Vam said
Apr 4 12:00 PM, 2025
Why the snark, MD?
‘Remotely aware’? Who in their right mind wouldn’t be VERY aware of the risks of deploying servicemen and women into any active combat zone, not to mention the constant fear and anxiety it causes their loved ones.
Maddog said
Apr 4 3:40 PM, 2025
Vam wrote:
Why the snark, MD?
‘Remotely aware’? Who in their right mind wouldn’t be VERY aware of the risks of deploying servicemen and women into any active combat zone, not to mention the constant fear and anxiety it causes their loved ones.
China has the largest military on the planet.That wouldn't be just any combat zone..
The snark is because you can't seem to answer any questions in terms of the actual issues. Your obsessed with the individuals involved..
Regardless of who is in charge, what should the US response be to a Chinese invasion of Taiwan?
Should we expect the British navy to sacrifice a few dozen ships and tens of thousands of sailors?
Are you ready for conscription of young men in London, New York and Paris?.
Vam said
Apr 4 4:30 PM, 2025
oh ffs, Dawg!
I’ve already said I can’t offer anything other than hypothetical theories, when it comes to the ‘actual issues’. I’m simply not well informed enough (yet).
It should go without saying I neither ‘expect’, nor am I ’ready’ for any of that! And I hope like hell none of it will happen.
But in a tale as old as time, should all hell break loose in the region, the people in charge of Taiwan’s allied countries will ultimately decide if/how they should respond militarily.
And that’s where the character, integrity and morals of a country‘s leader - or lack of them - would be crucial.
-- Edited by Vam on Friday 4th of April 2025 04:34:18 PM
Maddog said
Apr 4 4:57 PM, 2025
Vam wrote:
oh ffs, Dawg!
I’ve already said I can’t offer anything other than hypothetical theories, when it comes to the ‘actual issues’. I’m simply not well informed enough (yet).
It should go without saying I neither ‘expect’, nor am I ’ready’ for any of that! And I hope like hell none of it will happen.
But in a tale as old as time, should all hell break loose in the region, the people in charge of Taiwan’s allied countries will ultimately decide if/how they should respond militarily.
And that’s where the character, integrity and morals of a country‘s leader - or lack of them - would be crucial.
-- Edited by Vam on Friday 4th of April 2025 04:34:18 PM
It's not hypothetical if I ask you what your position is.
As for the morality of leaders, the US and UK weren't very choosy in terms of their ally during WW2.
Stalin was a murderous pig.
But a useful one..
Maddog said
Apr 4 8:20 PM, 2025
"The Army is quietly considering a sweeping reduction of up to 90,000 active-duty troops, a move that underscores mounting fiscal pressures at the Pentagon and a broader shift in military strategy away from Europe and counterterrorism, according to three defense officials familiar with the deliberations."
We won't be ready for the next WW anyway, we're broke.
Anonymous said
Apr 6 3:18 AM, 2025
Social Chat Sites end up one of the following when discussing "global news" fed to them by the mainstream media / alt-media.
a) Arguing strongly among themselves - often resorting to ad hominems. Divide and Rule.
b) Moderators / persistent commentors end up kicking out / repelling those with alternative views to create a sort of safe space clique. One ends up with different safe spaces. Divide and Rule.
Epistemology: examines the nature, origin, and limits of knowledge. Explores different types of knowledge, such as propositional knowledge about facts, practical knowledge in the form of skills, and knowledge by acquaintance as a familiarity through experience. Epistemologists study the concepts of belief, truth, and justification to understand the nature of knowledge. To discover how knowledge arises, they investigate sources of justification, such as perception, introspection, memory, reason, and testimony.
The school of skepticism questions the human ability to attain knowledge while fallibilism says that knowledge is never certain. Empiricists hold that all knowledge comes from sense experience, whereas rationalists believe that some knowledge does not depend on it. Coherentists argue that a belief is justified if it coheres with other beliefs. Foundationalists, by contrast, maintain that the justification of basic beliefs does not depend on other beliefs. Internalism and externalism debate whether justification is determined solely by mental states or also by external circumstances...
Anonymous said
Apr 6 11:22 AM, 2025
Anonymous wrote:
Social Chat Sites end up one of the following when discussing "global news" fed to them by the mainstream media / alt-media.
a) Arguing strongly among themselves - often resorting to ad hominems. Divide and Rule.
b) Moderators / persistent commentors end up kicking out / repelling those with alternative views to create a sort of safe space clique. One ends up with different safe spaces. Divide and Rule.
Epistemology: examines the nature, origin, and limits of knowledge. Explores different types of knowledge, such as propositional knowledge about facts, practical knowledge in the form of skills, and knowledge by acquaintance as a familiarity through experience. Epistemologists study the concepts of belief, truth, and justification to understand the nature of knowledge. To discover how knowledge arises, they investigate sources of justification, such as perception, introspection, memory, reason, and testimony.
The school of skepticism questions the human ability to attain knowledge while fallibilism says that knowledge is never certain. Empiricists hold that all knowledge comes from sense experience, whereas rationalists believe that some knowledge does not depend on it. Coherentists argue that a belief is justified if it coheres with other beliefs. Foundationalists, by contrast, maintain that the justification of basic beliefs does not depend on other beliefs. Internalism and externalism debate whether justification is determined solely by mental states or also by external circumstances...
Fascinating, but how's it relevant?
Anonymous said
Apr 7 4:31 AM, 2025
The BBC open certain articles to comment. It is called "Have Your Say". One can learn a lot about BBC viewers from examining these comments.
Then one can compare those comments to other websites to see if differing groups of people have the same "BBC mindset" or differing mindset.
One of the things I have learnt is the willingness of people to support their government in creating the conditions for WW3 if they have something "foreign" they can blame it on.
In addition to the "foreign" element there is also growing division from within: where people perceive an enemy from within (far-right, far-left, far-woke, nationalist, globalist,
traditionalist, changists, gammons, racists ...)
One of the predictions Stephen Hawkings made before he died was that Humankind is almost certain to destroy itself within two hundred years.
Magica said
Apr 7 1:23 PM, 2025
Anonymous wrote:
The BBC open certain articles to comment. It is called "Have Your Say". One can learn a lot about BBC viewers from examining these comments.
Then one can compare those comments to other websites to see if differing groups of people have the same "BBC mindset" or differing mindset.
One of the things I have learnt is the willingness of people to support their government in creating the conditions for WW3 if they have something "foreign" they can blame it on.
In addition to the "foreign" element there is also growing division from within: where people perceive an enemy from within (far-right, far-left, far-woke, nationalist, globalist,
traditionalist, changists, gammons, racists ...)
One of the predictions Stephen Hawkings made before he died was that Humankind is almost certain to destroy itself within two hundred years.
Stephen was a very clever man. Not sure this will happen, I won't be here, but it's possible.
Digger said
Apr 7 2:46 PM, 2025
Anonymous wrote:
The BBC open certain articles to comment. It is called "Have Your Say". One can learn a lot about BBC viewers from examining these comments.
Then one can compare those comments to other websites to see if differing groups of people have the same "BBC mindset" or differing mindset.
One of the things I have learnt is the willingness of people to support their government in creating the conditions for WW3 if they have something "foreign" they can blame it on.
In addition to the "foreign" element there is also growing division from within: where people perceive an enemy from within (far-right, far-left, far-woke, nationalist, globalist,
traditionalist, changists, gammons, racists ...)
One of the predictions Stephen Hawkings made before he died was that Humankind is almost certain to destroy itself within two hundred years.
I think that's a given. We are well on the way to annihilation unless something drastic changes.
Anonymous said
Apr 7 5:54 PM, 2025
Bombs could be dropping all around and Starmer would adjust his specs and continue suggesting we all "calm ourselves". If Trump wants to take on China, which I'm sadly afraid he may , he might get a bit of a shock. He is certainly singling them out and goading them. Not a good move Donald.
jackb said
Apr 9 11:45 PM, 2025
Maddog wrote:
Digger wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
We are not under attack but Ukraine is, and Trump seems more interested in making deals with the enemy than defending a European country at war.
We help fund our own defence and we are set to give more, I have no idea what other countries give, probably a lot less. I guess some smaller countries can't afford to give as much.
Norway could pay a great deal more and they have profited nicely from the Russian oil embargo.
And why don't you have an idea what other countries have (or haven't) spent?
The defense of Ukraine requires money and many of our allies haven't stepped up, outside of some bullshit about "standing" with them.
Words are cheap and they dont put Russian soldiers in body bags..
I'm not in charge of any countries budget, whether I know the figures or not is inconsequential.
I didnt say you were in charge.
Do you think other countries (especially those in the region) should meet their obligations?
-- Edited by Maddog on Monday 3rd of March 2025 07:21:17 PM
I think other countries should step up more, as we have done.
I certainly don't think any country should be pulling out.
It looks like you might be getting half your wish..
After decades of not meeting their obligations several countries are stepping up (still not all of them)..
Should have done it years ago and we probably wouldn't be here..
I agree. The UK and Europe have never been so weak and lame.
What's worse, this isn't our backyard. If Europeans aren't interested in properly defending their region why should we?
Why should you?
You signed an agreement that if Ukraine gave up it's large stockpile of nuclear weapons you would defend that nation against all invaders.
Yet another reason no one can trust America?
-- Edited by jackb on Wednesday 9th of April 2025 11:46:05 PM
Maddog said
Apr 10 12:28 AM, 2025
jackb wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Digger wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
We are not under attack but Ukraine is, and Trump seems more interested in making deals with the enemy than defending a European country at war.
We help fund our own defence and we are set to give more, I have no idea what other countries give, probably a lot less. I guess some smaller countries can't afford to give as much.
Norway could pay a great deal more and they have profited nicely from the Russian oil embargo.
And why don't you have an idea what other countries have (or haven't) spent?
The defense of Ukraine requires money and many of our allies haven't stepped up, outside of some bullshit about "standing" with them.
Words are cheap and they dont put Russian soldiers in body bags..
I'm not in charge of any countries budget, whether I know the figures or not is inconsequential.
I didnt say you were in charge.
Do you think other countries (especially those in the region) should meet their obligations?
-- Edited by Maddog on Monday 3rd of March 2025 07:21:17 PM
I think other countries should step up more, as we have done.
I certainly don't think any country should be pulling out.
It looks like you might be getting half your wish..
After decades of not meeting their obligations several countries are stepping up (still not all of them)..
Should have done it years ago and we probably wouldn't be here..
I agree. The UK and Europe have never been so weak and lame.
What's worse, this isn't our backyard. If Europeans aren't interested in properly defending their region why should we?
Why should you?
You signed an agreement that if Ukraine gave up it's large stockpile of nuclear weapons you would defend that nation against all invaders.
Yet another reason no one can trust America?
-- Edited by jackb on Wednesday 9th of April 2025 11:46:05 PM
No we didn't. The Budapest Agreement didn't require military defense.
The UK signed it too, and neither of us defended Crimea when it was invaded even though Russia violated the terms of that agreement with that invasion.
Maybe they’ve been waiting for trump’s second term, on the assumption that his administration is unlikely to do little more beyond officially voicing ‘a lack of approval/support’.
Timing is everything!
-- Edited by Vam on Wednesday 2nd of April 2025 04:36:59 PM
They are waiting for the US to become crippled with internal problems.
Maybe a little side war in Ukraine.
Do you think the US, Japan, Phillipines and S Korea should square up and fight China over Taiwan?
Will Europen boys be involved too?
@ MD - my (admittedly layman’s) response to your question…
I guess it depends on how China may attack Taiwan. An amphibious attack could be an onerous mission.
If China imposes a blockade all around the island, and shipping lanes adversely affect trade, then I guess other countries could be forced to weigh in.
And given the likelihood that 47 may prove to be unwilling to actively help protect Taiwan, the ultimate sad reality could prove to be an acceptance that China will reign supreme throughout the region.
Leave 47 out of it and answer the question. Should the US square up and engage in what could be WW3 over Taiwan? A country we don't have a defense agreement with?
Should the British?
Why should 47 be left out of it, given that the vaunted ‘Leader of the Free World’ might refuse to lead?
🤷🏻♀️ But okay, if you insist, my layman’s knee-jerk response is ‘yes’. Alliances spanning several decades should always hold fast in the face of unprovoked aggression.
I‘ve already said I don’t know enough about the probable ramifications of a Chinese attack on Taiwan, to offer an informed opinion. I can only offer hypotheticals. Maybe someone far better informed than me could weigh in.
-- Edited by Vam on Thursday 3rd of April 2025 03:21:01 PM
You want to British mothers sending their kids off to possibly die every time there is unprovoked aggression on this planet.
Or is that just an American job now?
Hows the British Expeditionary Force doing in Ukraine?.
It's easy to spout slogans. Are you remotely aware of what the death count will be if the US fights the Chinese in Asia?
Knowing Trumps dislike of the Chinese, if they go forward, you may get to find out.
Why the snark, MD?
‘Remotely aware’? Who in their right mind wouldn’t be VERY aware of the risks of deploying servicemen and women into any active combat zone, not to mention the constant fear and anxiety it causes their loved ones.
China has the largest military on the planet.That wouldn't be just any combat zone..
The snark is because you can't seem to answer any questions in terms of the actual issues. Your obsessed with the individuals involved..
Regardless of who is in charge, what should the US response be to a Chinese invasion of Taiwan?
Should we expect the British navy to sacrifice a few dozen ships and tens of thousands of sailors?
Are you ready for conscription of young men in London, New York and Paris?.
oh ffs, Dawg!
I’ve already said I can’t offer anything other than hypothetical theories, when it comes to the ‘actual issues’. I’m simply not well informed enough (yet).
It should go without saying I neither ‘expect’, nor am I ’ready’ for any of that! And I hope like hell none of it will happen.
But in a tale as old as time, should all hell break loose in the region, the people in charge of Taiwan’s allied countries will ultimately decide if/how they should respond militarily.
And that’s where the character, integrity and morals of a country‘s leader - or lack of them - would be crucial.
-- Edited by Vam on Friday 4th of April 2025 04:34:18 PM
It's not hypothetical if I ask you what your position is.
As for the morality of leaders, the US and UK weren't very choosy in terms of their ally during WW2.
Stalin was a murderous pig.
But a useful one..
www.military.com/daily-news/2025/04/03/army-mulling-dramatic-reduction-of-tens-of-thousands-of-troops.html
We won't be ready for the next WW anyway, we're broke.
Social Chat Sites end up one of the following when discussing "global news" fed to them by the mainstream media / alt-media.
a) Arguing strongly among themselves - often resorting to ad hominems. Divide and Rule.
b) Moderators / persistent commentors end up kicking out / repelling those with alternative views to create a sort of safe space clique. One ends up with different safe spaces. Divide and Rule.
Epistemology: examines the nature, origin, and limits of knowledge. Explores different types of knowledge, such as propositional knowledge about facts, practical knowledge in the form of skills, and knowledge by acquaintance as a familiarity through experience. Epistemologists study the concepts of belief, truth, and justification to understand the nature of knowledge. To discover how knowledge arises, they investigate sources of justification, such as perception, introspection, memory, reason, and testimony.
The school of skepticism questions the human ability to attain knowledge while fallibilism says that knowledge is never certain. Empiricists hold that all knowledge comes from sense experience, whereas rationalists believe that some knowledge does not depend on it. Coherentists argue that a belief is justified if it coheres with other beliefs. Foundationalists, by contrast, maintain that the justification of basic beliefs does not depend on other beliefs. Internalism and externalism debate whether justification is determined solely by mental states or also by external circumstances...
Fascinating, but how's it relevant?
The BBC open certain articles to comment. It is called "Have Your Say". One can learn a lot about BBC viewers from examining these comments.
Then one can compare those comments to other websites to see if differing groups of people have the same "BBC mindset" or differing mindset.
One of the things I have learnt is the willingness of people to support their government in creating the conditions for WW3 if they have something "foreign" they can blame it on.
In addition to the "foreign" element there is also growing division from within: where people perceive an enemy from within (far-right, far-left, far-woke, nationalist, globalist,
traditionalist, changists, gammons, racists ...)
One of the predictions Stephen Hawkings made before he died was that Humankind is almost certain to destroy itself within two hundred years.
Stephen was a very clever man. Not sure this will happen, I won't be here, but it's possible.
I think that's a given. We are well on the way to annihilation unless something drastic changes.
-- Edited by jackb on Wednesday 9th of April 2025 11:46:05 PM
No we didn't. The Budapest Agreement didn't require military defense.
The UK signed it too, and neither of us defended Crimea when it was invaded even though Russia violated the terms of that agreement with that invasion.