• Filthmontane@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    20
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why would China start anything if they haven’t started anything in 50 years? What if another 50 years goes by and China still hasn’t started anything? Isn’t that just a waste of weapons?

        • InvaderDJ@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think the argument is that there wasn’t any movement to take control of Hong Kong and replace its basically independent government for years. Until there was.

          Same with the whole China Sea expansion. Circumstances can change on a dime and the optimal outcome is if nothing happens.

    • Rinox@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because I’m the last 50 years they didn’t have a military powerful enough to assure a swift and painless victory. That’s the whole point of why china keeps increasing their military and why Taiwan needs to do the same. The moment China has a critical force, they’ll attack, they have announced it loudly and repeatedly in the past decades.

      • Filthmontane@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        China could have invaded Taiwan ages ago and won very swiftly. The plans were drawn up and everything. China very big. Much people. Taiwan very small. Not so many people.

        • Rinox@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          China could have invaded Taiwan ages ago and won very swiftly

          Even if the US intervened? Because they said they would ages ago.

          Also, you can have a billion people in the army, but you first need to cross the sea without getting exploded, and keep resupplying your men until Taiwan and US capitulation. This is not something china could do “ages ago”

    • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, that’s the whole point. It’s like nukes. The nuke itself isn’t the big deal, your ownership of one is. If a country was threatening to invade you, and you responded by threatening to nuke them if they do, they’ll stand down.

      It’s the same idea here. The weapons are a deterrent. It’s a sheathed sword to tell your enemy that you’re armed and able to defend yourself. We don’t actually want to use the weapons. It’s a threat that there’s plenty of firepower to fight an invasion.

      • Filthmontane@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The only thing like nukes is nukes. The thing deterring China from invading Taiwan is how intertwined their economies are. China has no reason to invade Taiwan. Taiwan buys a ton of things from China and sells them microchips. They have a symbiotic relationship.

    • toybastard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      They would start something for the same reason Russia started something in Ukraine.

      The goal is that another 50 years go by and they don’t start shit.

      • Filthmontane@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s a brain broken analysis. You think one country would invade another because of what happened with two completely separate countries? I guess by that analysis, the US is going to invade Mexico and England will invade Ireland any day now.