The U.S. absolutely defends Taiwan because losing it isn’t an option!
Taiwan currently produces over 85% of the world’s advanced semiconductors. Letting China take Taiwan would hand the CCP control over the global tech supply chain, crippling the U.S. economy and military. That’s a non starter.
No nation with anything to lose will be using nukes..EVER. The game has been understood for 75 years: mutual destruction means no winners. The U.S. has more nukes, better missiles, and full second-strike capability. China knows this, so nukes aren’t on the table.
The U.S. doesn’t need to invade just stop China’s invasion. Amphibious assaults are the hardest military operation, and China has zero real world experience in them or in fighting hot wars at all. We only need to sink their fleet or disrupt shipping to and from their ports. They know the risk, which is why they haven’t tried.
Now 5 years form now if we are much less dependent on them for semi-conductors that is a different story, but the realities of today. For now? Yeah, we throw down.
Also there is the scenario where China co-opts or influences Taiwans elections such that leadership moves back to a pro China stance. Not impossible, that would really put the US in a bind and I am not sure what would happen then but military engagements would seem much less likely.
Losing Taiwan is an option, and that's exactly the problem. It's not American territory, and China knows they can force America's hand by dominating their navy. If you can neutralize America's will to fight with DF-21s from standoff range, you can bring them to the table for negotiations. American troops have better things to die for than the supply chain of the iPhone 17.
To be honest this is a really immature depiction of the conflict, especially for a site like HN. China has demonstrated their willingness and capability to stage a credible naval assault, if you're still skeptical then I think you're blinded by jingoist ambition. Taiwan is a long ways from home, America can't deter China just with their surface fleet.
Well rich people already own most assets. Why would they want their holdings to lose value? Market crashes hurt HNWI's the most, as they have the most exposure.
I am not sure if you feel the second point follows on from the first or stands on its own? I will respond to it as a separate issue and I take it to mean the economy as a whole and not just residences. That being said I agree it is the goal of companies to move that way as they will always push for more control and recurring revenue, but that’s just corporate incentives at play, not global a shadowy plan imho. If we the consumers push back and demand our DVD's and CD's (yes I still use those) there will be players who come forth to take our money for them.
> Market crash won't hurt the super wealthy. Oh no! My assets went to 60m down from 100m!
This is not necessarily the case, due to leverage. For some, it can be "oh, no, my assets went to -200M down from 100M". In particular, it's somewhat common for rich people to fund their lifestyles, and sometimes fund business ventures (this is really playing with fire, but it happens) by borrowing against the stuff they own, which is usually mostly equity. In a really big crash, this can unwind rather messily, as some overstretched super-rich discovered in the previous financial crisis.
Isn't it kind of sad that 100M doesn't even count as super wealthy anymore? That's missing 3 zeros. Yes 100M is enough that you never have to work again and can basically go anywhere and do anything you want in boundless luxury, but it also doesn't even cover the cost of one (1) boat purchased by the actual super wealthy
>Well rich people already own most assets. Why would they want their holdings to lose value?
If wealth is a function of ownership why would you care if your $500m went down to $100m if the purchasing power you cratered is well below what you lost in 'value' while your ownership increased?
Because it's not just the US economy and USD. If a billionaire is over-invested in the US and USD, then a decline in the US economy and global hard and soft power (what we're seeing now) will lead to a decline in their wealth relative to global wealth.
If the global economy shrinks by 80% (using your numbers) then their relative wealth can remain the same. If the US economy shrinks by 80%, then their global wealth has substantially declined while the wealthy in other countries do not suffer as much.
The fear indexes for Stocks and Crypto are near highs, which historically signals buying opportunities rather than reasons to panic.
The old adage "be greedy when others are fearful" holds true, backed by market history.
More money has been lost trying to time the market than simply staying invested. If this is long-term savings/investing, staying in the market is almost always the best move.
If it’s short-term money, it shouldn’t be in stocks anyway. For short-term capital, treasuries and cash-equivalents are safer plays.
Can you please provide insight into this? As far as I can tell the U.S. has never failed to honor a treaty obligation, so the idea that it would suddenly abandon all commitments lacks historical precedent.
Ukraine is not now nor has ever been an ally To America. The Budapest Memorandum was not a defense treaty. It didn’t commit the U.S. to military intervention, it only committed the U.S. to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and take diplomatic action if it was threatened. We have done that with sanctions and aid.
It doesn't obligate us to do that into perpetuity nor does it keep us from being compensated for that aid. For perspective the price Britain paid for its survival in WW2 was its empire.
The USA is historically inclined to isolationism because of geography. The voters are now inclined to isolationism and the end of 'the brotherhood of nations' because of social media access, authoritarian agitprop, and failure of the American elites to keep the domestic situation comfortable and understandable. It will take a while before these trends reverse.
There is no point relying on an extractive, transactional, reluctant protector. The democracies of the world will have to arrange to engage in collective deterrence without the USA, because nothing is worse than having the rug pulled from under you at a critical time.
I would think our biggest obstacle is large corporations trying to wring every dollar out of farmers. John Deere, Archer Midland Daniels, and Monsanto come to mind. Oh looks like Monsanto is part of Bayer now.
Wait who would ally with China/Russia, Europe or US? I mean either of those are a deathknell for Europe. China will not defend them against Russia. Heck I am not sure China can keep its hands off of Russia's oil fields as they lack their own resources. It would be fun to watch though.
What collective benefit are you referring to exactly that isn't going to be profit? You think Russia and China care about your ideologies? China will exploit you and Russia will do what Russia always does. They all want to gang up and invade America?? They would have better things to do then that if Europe became their pet.
Donald Trump just turned the USA into a liability. I don't know how anyone can think this is a good idea.
Like people thinking killing USAID was a good idea. Guess who is going to pick up to collect the good will USAID gave? China, or possibly some other country that thinks the US hegemony was a bad thing.
How can people not see that Trump is weakening USA?
If China wants to start paying for queer theater in Lesotho, I say they are more than welcome to! But I wouldn't hold my breath for this to happen... Have a Nice Day :)
Don't be silly. Have a look at all the waste that is being claimed and you will notice that the things that are questionable (apart from the irrigation in Afghanistan, which had some unfortunate effects) all sin up to less than a half percent of the USAID budget.
Plus that the people doing the cutting have no clue what they are doing. First the 50 millions dollars for hamas condoms and then not even knowing how government contracts work. It is like watching the evening of amateurs, but where the stakes are people's lives and the world order.
If there's any mineral, water, or food supply advantage to doing so they'll be there with Pink Yuen before the undrunk US coffees cool on the table.
China is nothing if not pragmatic and there's central party policy vs. China's regulated but somewhat free market here.
It was the US after all that forced the sale of Grindr by the Chinese Beijing Kunlun Tech to San Vicente Acquisition for ~ $600 million. I dare say fear of communists having a direct line to toe tapping Republicans drove that.
There are 1000's of them so I wouldn't consider them a monolithic bunch. I will also say it could depend on how long they have been a billionaire and how they obtained it could play a role. The longer they have been a billionaire the longer they have had people either kissing up to them or trying to sabotage/use them. So they can be expectant that things will go their way, I have seen this happen with Hollywood stars who have been famous for a long time. It is almost like they forget that people don't exist for their benefit.
Also could you provide us some insight into the nature of the interaction? Was it just social, where you pitching something to them, or you kicked their butt at pickle-ball and they were poor losers?
We are all able to be jerks on any given day so maybe you just caught them before their lunch and nap lol!
I don't think America would/should shed blood for Ukraine nor Europe for that matter. We have bigger issues at the moment, like illegal immigrants, drug cartels, corruption, and China's stated ambitions in the Pacific.
Ukraine is a buffer state to constrain Russia's westward ambitions. Think of it as an unfortunate flat road connecting Asia and Europe, ideal for military movement (especially Russian tank warfare). It is seen as a linchpin or "heartland" of Eurasia. Unfortunately, there is no strategic option to let Russia dominate it while maintaining US global hegemony. Whether that's "right" or not, it's the consensus opinion in the American foreign policy apparatus. The hope is that it can be Europe's responsibility and the US can "pivot to China."
I am well aware of Ukraine's geography and its consequences for Europe. You all have been fighting over that area quite viciously for the last 1000 years.
Question and I ask this honestly. What if Americans no longer care about global hegemony or the fate of Europe? As an American I am tired of the continual idea that we have to care about what happens in Europe and if anything bad happens there it is egg on our face. What about egg on Europe's face? They choose not to spend money on their defense and keep their end of the NATO agreement. I have no appetite to keep up our end of the NATO treaty in wartime if the other parties couldn't keep up their end in peacetime.
This was a book written by a British about continental Europe. I don't think it holds much value to America. It definitely would impact Europe, Britain, the ME, and North Africa. But honestly it will not have much of an impact on America in terms of our security. There will be impacts to global markets but none that would destroy or really hammer ours. This was written from the view point of European power, which hasn't existed since the end of WW2.
It is the consensus view of the foreign establishment. You can argue for an isolationist foreign policy. We do have a "big beautiful ocean" separating us from the problems of the world. But global powers have a way of competing with each other on a global scale. I'm partial to arguments against global empire because the metropole tends to become just another territory to administer (a kind of home colony). You can see this especially in Britain today. The problems of immigration and border controls at home are hard to separate from foreign policy. Look at a country with extreme border controls like North Korea and see they still need allies to survive. Hence North Korean soldiers dying on the battlefields of Ukraine.
If you want to argue for a renewed commitment to the Monroe Doctrine, I'm with you. Heck, I'm even there for Manifest Destiny (Canada as the 51st state, as Benjamin Franklin would have had it). But the downsides of a multipolar world are legitimate. Ideally we can maintain our global dominance without oppressing/degrading our own and allied populations.
I get what you’re saying, and I appreciate the thoughtful take. It's enjoyable to engage in an actual discussion about this instead of the usual knee-jerk reactions so thank you!
But here’s the thing. Great powers compete globally, but the real question isn’t whether America competes. It’s how, where, and at what cost. If we’re keeping influence by stretching ourselves too thin, ignoring our own problems, and paying Europe’s defense bill forever, then we’re setting ourselves up for failure just like Britain did.
Ukraine matters to Europe, not really to us. Losing Ukraine isn’t a crisis for America, but losing focus on our own borders, economy, and the Pacific definitely is.
I get that multipolarity has risks, but so does trying to be everywhere all the time. If European security is that important, then Europe should handle it. If they won’t, that’s on them.
If we don’t start prioritizing where America actually needs to be strong, we’re going to wake up one day and realize we’ve spent decades managing other people’s problems while letting our own pile up.
I agree with your take. We are stretched too thin and our "allies" have become frenemies. We need to fix our domestic problems or we won't have a country worth preserving. Certainly, at this rate we won't be strong enough to compete with a rising China.
I only point out the foreign policy consensus inherited from the Cold War is still operational among Atlanticists and other Ukraine war hawks. Stripping away the hysteria, we can accept there will be a cost to Russian dominance of Ukraine, if allowed. I expect the foreign policy establishment in State, CIA, and DoD will continue to try to torpedo Trump. But the China hawks are ascendant at the moment. The recent debacle with Zelensky at the WH is maybe the nail in the coffin for overt "Ukraine uber Alles" war hawks. (They say Personnel is policy. Remember that key architects and actors of Atlanticist policy have personal ties to Ukraine. Nuland is second generation Ukrainian-American. The Vindmanns are Ukrainian nationals. Personally, I would not be surprised if Ukraine saboteurs were implicated in the Trump assassination attempt in Butler. They feel, perhaps correctly, that Trump is an existential threat. Doesn't necessarily mean their problems should be our problems.)
I tend to agree that Russia, China, and Iran are our global competitors, that India and Brazil are dark horses, and that transnational Islam (supported by our foreign adversaries) is another wild card. Abandoning the liberal pieties of Pax Americana and retrenching along nationalist sovereignty lines appears to be the way forward with regard to the very real domestic problems you mention. Unconstrained international labor migration is a failure for domestic populations and needs to be largely reversed. Border security and foreign influence need to be addressed. These are civilizational problems as old as civilization itself. The pendulum is swinging back. Some people get it.
I also appreciate the occasional encounter with sensible HN readers who eschew the vitriolic rhetoric and try to argue objectively. Looking at your other recent comments I see you are in a similar boat as I am on HN. Good luck!
Greenland is about the arctic. It's not some farce or meme. Look at an actual globe and when the ice melts that white stuff is going to be a navigable ocean between Canada Greenland and . . . Russia.
We tend to think of the world on a flat world Google map and Russia seems so far away, but when the pole melts Russia will be closer to north America and they will be wanting that area too.
No ice means it's easier to drill for natural resources. The US is preempting the melt and trying to get ahead in the race for the arctic. It's much more valuable than at first glance.
I laughed first too. I then felt that my laughter was due to not understanding it. "How bizarre, LOL". Then I felt like I was missing something big. Now I try to use these "bizarre jokes" as a sign to look deeper.
In a way (although this info isn't secret at all, just boring) we can use Trump's inability to have a filter to leak the advice that his advisors are giving him more than past statesmen would.
Taiwan currently produces over 85% of the world’s advanced semiconductors. Letting China take Taiwan would hand the CCP control over the global tech supply chain, crippling the U.S. economy and military. That’s a non starter.
No nation with anything to lose will be using nukes..EVER. The game has been understood for 75 years: mutual destruction means no winners. The U.S. has more nukes, better missiles, and full second-strike capability. China knows this, so nukes aren’t on the table.
The U.S. doesn’t need to invade just stop China’s invasion. Amphibious assaults are the hardest military operation, and China has zero real world experience in them or in fighting hot wars at all. We only need to sink their fleet or disrupt shipping to and from their ports. They know the risk, which is why they haven’t tried.
Now 5 years form now if we are much less dependent on them for semi-conductors that is a different story, but the realities of today. For now? Yeah, we throw down.
Also there is the scenario where China co-opts or influences Taiwans elections such that leadership moves back to a pro China stance. Not impossible, that would really put the US in a bind and I am not sure what would happen then but military engagements would seem much less likely.