In the News II

Quote: Gandler

And, it is worth noting, China (and it's military in particular,) has evolved significantly in the last 20 or so years. China in 2024, is very different than China in 2001. Especially in regards to their Navy, America could probably easily defend an island from China in 2001 indefinitely. Not impossible now, but it would be much less one-sided (of course if they go nuclear, all bets are off in either time period, but hopefully it would not come to that.)

Their Navy has made remarkable strides in growing its size. I am very skeptical of the quality of their defenses. I would not be surprised if it is about as capable as Soviet weapons.

Quote: ams288

Sometimes, ignorance is bliss.

I don’t have any idea what the beef is between China and Taiwan and I COULDN’T CARE LESS.

Taiwan is basically China, pre-communist. When the communist militias took over the country in the 1940s, the old government fled to Taiwan and set up shop there. Republic of China (ROC) is Taiwan, and the People's Democratic Republic of China (PRC) is what most people mean when they say "China." PRC considers it all part of "one China" and ROC of course views Taiwan as their land. And, since the 1940s, many people in the West love Taiwan since it is looked at as the last holdout of non-communist China against communism spreading. (This is a total offhand simplified summary, but that is the gist of it.)

It is actually pretty interesting history.

And, yes they do have passports if you ever see a passport labeled "Republic of China" that is a Taiwan passport.

Quote: DRich

Their Navy has made remarkable strides in growing its size. I am very skeptical of the quality of their defenses. I would not be surprised if it is about as capable as Soviet weapons.

I agree, you even see it on this forum, many anti-American types laud China for how great it's military is compared to the U.S. And, it is a world of difference since 2001. But, there is no equivalence (except in terms of raw numbers of troops, which based on population, China will always have.) It is strange how many people on the right are so quick to believe China propaganda on the most lied about thing in human history (military strength.) I simply mean in 2001, that may have been a reasonable statement by Bush, and in 2024, it would be much more of a commitment.

Quote: Gandler

I agree, you even see it on this forum, many anti-American types laud China for how great it's military is compared to the U.S. And, it is a world of difference since 2001. But, there is no equivalence (except in terms of raw numbers of troops, which based on population, China will always have.) It is strange how many people on the right are so quick to believe China propaganda on the most lied about thing in human history (military strength.) I simply mean in 2001, that may have been a reasonable statement by Bush, and in 2024, it would be much more of a commitment.

If we can make China keep thinking it's not worth it, that will be good enough.

It doesn't always have to be about total victory to dissuade someone from a fight.

Perhaps the stupidest thing is neither China nor Russia really need the property they're interested in. Just as we don't need Cuba. We don't need Puerto Rico to ever become a 51st state.

Quote: rxwine

Perhaps the stupidest thing is neither China nor Russia really need the property they're interested in. Just as we don't need Cuba. We don't need Puerto Rico to ever become a 51st state.

Russian geography works against it on it's Western border, as there are no natural defenses or choke points along the European Plain. In the Russian mind, the further west it can control, the better. So Russia thinks it does need the Baltics, Poland, Belarus and Ukraine to prevent invasion from the west.

Quote: GenoDRPh

Russian geography works against it on it's Western border, as there are no natural defenses or choke points along the European Plain. In the Russian mind, the further west it can control, the better. So Russia thinks it does need the Baltics, Poland, Belarus and Ukraine to prevent invasion from the west.

Besides that and the historical perspective of WW1 and II, if one pretends NATO is really an offensive organization, it works really well for their argument...except that Russian leadership totalitarian nature, has more armory to waste, than I have napkins, and also nukes, which are so far, indisputably the ultimate protection, as tiny N. Korea is helping to prove, I might even agree with them.

That and no telling how many small nations enjoy a similar historical perspective and could certainly use neighbor's land as buffer zones,

After they threatened to block his movies, John Cena emerges from re-education camp and begs China for mercy after making the 'mistake' of saying Taiwan is a country.

Is anyone else following the story of two navy Seals missing during the boarding of the Houthis transport vessel? They are saying that one fell overboard when the boat was hit by a big wave and the second jumped in to help (as is standard protocol).

Something just doesn't seem to add up to me. Assuming they just fell overboard we would assume that at least the second one wasn't injured when he purposefully jumped in. These are Navy Seals with extreme competency in the water and they generally carry locator beacons and lights. I am generally not a conspiracy theorist but I am guessing more happened than is being reported.