Unless I missed it in the article what exactly is the simulated attack? Are they flying real planes over US targets? Wouldn’t that in and of itself be considered an act of aggression?
The US Air Force ran a war game. While the war game was in progress the Chinese Military ran a war game of their own, simulating a series of attacks on Taiwan. The timing appears to be unrelated, I suppose the article mentions them to draw attention to the escalating tensions in the area.
Huh. Makes me think about two adversaries agreeing to run a simulated conflict in order to correct any of the opponents misconceptions that could lead to accidental escalation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_simulation It's something they've been doing for a long term. No idea if it's accurate and it probably isn't very, but not sure what else they should be doing.
"Then in September in the midst of the war game, actual Chinese combat aircraft intentionally flew over the rarely crossed median line in the Taiwan Strait in the direction of Taipei an unprecedented 40 times and conducted simulated attacks on the island that Taiwan’s premier called “disturbing.” Amid those provocations, China’s air force released a video showing a bomber capable of carrying nuclear weapons carrying out a simulated attack on Andersen Air Force Base on the U.S. Pacific island of Guam. The title of the Hollywood-like propaganda video was “The god of war H-6K [bomber] goes on the attack!”
In case the new U.S. administration failed to get the intended message behind all that provocative military activity, four days after President Biden took office, a large force of Chinese bombers and fighters flew past Taiwan and launched simulated missile attacks on the USS Roosevelt carrier strike group as it was sailing in international waters in the South China Sea."
Countries do acts of aggression all the time. Last June 20 Indian troops were killed in Himalayas clash with Chinese army. The political question is when it is enough to declare war.
Most conventional strategists believe a nuclear war wouldn't need to last a decade, as both parties would destroy themselves. Given the heavy civilian casualties and the decimation on the economies and infrastructure, the cost of a nuclear war and mutually assured destruction (MAD) outweigh the potential benefits.
Yes it’s just an emergent state of two or more actors doing the somewhat sensible thing (not wanting their own people to be annihilated). The question is still why this wouldn’t work, since it did work (albeit very riskily) through the entire Cold War. AFAICT no relevant variable has changed.
China is engaging in fifth generational warfare (information, hacking, economics) against the US. How can you win a war if you don't even know it's happening?
Once again, blame can be heaped upon the goddamned Boomers.
Their incessant desire to keep running shit, to constantly keep their standard of living not only the same, but *increasing* during their old age - has been the catalyst for this problem.
The offshoring to China of manufacturing and electronics assembly has given China an enormous economic advantage. At least the "Greatest Generation" had the good grace to retire and die instead of trying to suck everything dry like some kind of economic vampire. And just like vampires of lore, the Boomers destroy everything with which they come into contact.
500 years from now, historians are going to marvel at this generation that crippled multiple generations after it due their avarice and entitlement.
> Once again, blame can be heaped upon the goddamned Boomers.
As someone who actually believes there is a lot of merit to this stance, you do almost nothing to persuade anyone of its truth. You're making a bold claim with very little evidence. I don't know how much boomers are to blame for certain problems today, but I don't believe it's all of them like your comment implies.
I genuinely would enjoy hearing more evidence to support your claim if you have any to share. So far you've only used deductive reasoning based on principles, which is essentially worthless when talking about something as complicated as the world economy and military might over a timespan of decades.
Being aware that it's happening as an enthusiast and being aware as an Average Joe are very different. We're not having this conversation much in society right now. Defending against fifth generational warfare explicitly requires an informed population, not just a large military.
* There is political and economic benefits to projecting American power in Asia and the Pacific and protecting American hegemony.
* China has had recent border clashes with many of its neighbors, including India, and the Philippines.
* China continues to build its man-made islands despite it being deemed illegal, an violating its neighbor's sovereignty and international law.
* Not to mention the numerous human rights violations China commits against its minority citizens and the people of Tibet.
Now, imagine an unchallenged China, potentially subjugating its neighbors by force, including India, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and the Philippines.
Other regional powers, such as Australia, have taken notice of Chinese ambitions and are taking steps to protect themselves. Arguable, a threatening China is an opportunity for America to strength ties and increase its power in the region.
Throwing Taiwan under the bus is hardly the answer either. There needs to be some clarity from the international community about what happens to China if, for example, Taiwan isn’t sovereign.
Sanctions and seized Chinese assets abroad would be a good start. Banning western universities from accepting tuition money from Chinese citizens would also very effectively turn a powerful demographic against the leadership.
reply