Probably because they have much fewer warheads than the other major powers. It’s not even close.
I am comparing with taiwan, not china vs usa. I really dont get the logic people have with thinking taiwan should not defend itself when they want to arm themselves with even worse weapons, on massive scales while actively promoting their oppression goals. There us no other conflict on earth now so out of ballance compared to china wanting to fuck up taiwan. I cant think of a single bigger difference in powers than these 2 and with one wanting to completely own the other without any sense of decency or legitimacy.
escalation breeds escalation, china can’t know where that brinksmanship will end, but it could be US patriot missile batteries in penghu; so, best not to push further too far lest they have to put their money where their mouth is and come up a few yuan short
Which is like in 1914 comparing Germany to Belgium and wondering why they are arming so fast. The US in 1950 vastly outmatched Poland, so why did they have to spend so much?You can do the same with the USSR and Canada. If you ignore a major power’s main adversary and concentrate on a small one. you can always make this point.
Because they are afraid America’s conventional weapons are getting so good they will be able to take out China’s nukes before they threaten America, thus depriving them of MAD defense. It has nothing to do with an attack on Taiwan.
1 Like
Well, ya that all makes sense. At least to us monkey brains that deal in destruction rather than progress.
However, i am replying to those saying taiwan shouldnt buy weapons that are deemed offensive rather than defensive. By your post, i think we are agreeing. China builds up nukes and pulls out of safety agreements to pose a threat, which theoretically is done to avoid invasions.
Taiwan is FAR more at risk of being attacked and so i dont follow peoples logic in saying taiwan shouldnt rock the boat by defending itself. Its quite the double standard and is quite short sighted. At best, completely hypocritical and pro oppression. At worst…? treasonous most likely.
1 Like
The planes entered Taiwan’s Air Defense Identification Zone, according to the Ministry of National Defense of the Republic of China (ROC). But this is not the same as entering Taiwan’s airspace—under international law, there’s nothing illegal about entering an ADIZ. Air forces typically set these zones up to mark the point at which they should become alert to nearing aircraft. Ideally, air forces want to know information about planes nearing their ADIZ in advance, including flight plans.
Despite talk of the Chinese Air Force becoming more skilled, this flight didn’t show it. There are several air bases in the area facing Taiwan, but apparently the PLAAF needs all of the planes taking part in the operation to take off from one location—Liangcheng Longyan Guanzhi. This suggests that Chinese Air Force commanders keep a tight hold on their pilots and that there’s a ton of top-down direction for what amounts to fairly elementary flying.
Second, PLAAF’s flight tracks are not all that impressive. The fighters flew straight out and straight back, creating essentially a straight line in the sky. The rest of the planes flew a furtive L-shape before returning, not even circling the small island.
Pilots were celebrated as conquering heroes when they returned alive! 
So, what would actually be impressive for China? Flying around Taiwan for starters. Or, flying out from multiple bases, then rendezvousing in the sky, before proceeding on with the mission. Flying from multiple bases and then meeting on the far side of Taiwan—creating a giant aerial pincer—would also show PLAAF’s ability to coordinate different air units from different bases under a common headquarters.
Although the Chinese Air Force attempted to send an intimidating signal to Taiwan, the maneuver only really highlighted its shortcomings. If these flights illustrated the peak skill of Chinese air power, China’s neighbors—and the United States—don’t really have much to worry about. Yet.
2 Likes
These seem like some pretty odd conclusions. What, do they want them to do a couple of loop-the-loops too?
1 Like
It’s just hype, I think they’re saying. If they wanted to scare Taiwan or the world, they wouldn’t yell from across the street. They’d cross it.
1 Like
Yeah, it doesn’t mean much in itself. They just are plumbing what they can get away with and probably gauging Taiwan’s reactions electronically. I’ve often thought that if they really wanted to invade, the last thing they would probably do is throw up signs about it. But, one never knows, do one.
1 Like
I thought pointing out how lame the mock attacks were was kind of embarrassing. “If they’d taken off from several airfields…not just one duh…and flow around the island…not just out and back…duh…it would have more effective.” 
1 Like
Yeah, not understanding what they’re talking about there at all.
Trouble is, almost without fail, psychologically damaged bullies trying desperately to prove themselves after/while commiting so many crimes against humanity cannot return to the moral world. Or, at least, they feel they cant. And like most said mentally damaged people, acting like a meth head with a knife in a kindergarten, will eventually stop shouting across the street and grow some balls/lose some sense and and do something really fucking terrifying. a bully with a knife, gun, car, bat etc is one thing. Said bully with numerous nukes and trillion s of dollars and billion plus slaves is an entirely new threat that is new to our species.
I dont think this is a paranoid delusion anymore, in fact its very much likely. I often wonder why the world enables them 
Historically, War solves a lot of problems. 
1 Like
Ok. Unfortunately, it never seems to solve the problem of having more wars though.
You killing your neighbour solves the problem of noise at night, doesnt make it right.
Right is subjective. As is History. Both should be rationally and factually viewed in hindsight, so as to avoid the whole moral high ground fallacy.
This is true. Althought right is more of present and future tense importance than history.
So to clarify, my meaning.of morals is not causing pain and extreme poverty onto other beings with the exception of food, defense and basic species survival. Killing people for mor oil to run is not essential. As an example
So your morality in the present and future are somewhat centered on self preservation. I think you’re making my point about viewing morality in hindsight… and I do not mean using today’s morality to judge human behavior that was the norm hundreds of years ago. Btw one can cause mucho pain and suffering on others and be completely unaware. Ask the Aztecs. Oh… wait.
1 Like
Well sort of. But i am also extrapolating it onto other species and the enivronment at large. I have no issues with a crocodile eating a person. This is normal. I may be sad, but i cannot say it is wrong if it is simply eating. We do the same. a badger, or a dog, going to kill everything in a chicken coup without eating one thing is also immoral. Acat messing.up a gecko for fun is immoral. Because its causing severe pain without the need to. Aka it doesnt need to eat it. And torturing it doesnt have to meaning other than its fun or interesting.
As an example. A hydroelectic dam can be justified as moral, from a human persepctive (obviously), if it is powering hospitals, creating food etc. It is not justified as moral if we go to restaruants with brightly lit up street signs wasting electricity for extremely useless reasons and we throw 30% of the food away. That is clearly immoral based on my perspective of sustainability and causing harm to others while wasting the product you created with such torment.
Of course most species, ours included, has a selfish need to preserve our own. This is pretty well documented throughout various species. Its all of course sellfish, but sellfish for survival we can justify towards our own species. I think waste is not justifiable. Regardelss, we can .be “moral” in that if we eat food we dont torture it and waste it. The act of consuming another thing to sustain ones life wouldnt be considered immoral if based simply on the fact every species requires this to survive. The moral aspect is how we treat what we are consuming while it is alive.
I suspose we can hire a lawyer to go down the chain of command to see how everything works out in all the trillions of what ifs that exist. Generally im not sure this basic level of stop wasting, dont kill for fun or greed, dont rape, dont steal unless needed for survival etc is so debatable. But if you go down that road we can justify every genocide on earth quite easily as well. Killing jews was justified…not a good thing in my opinion… We make rules, even the christians did with their 10 rules… they became a cult an messed it up, but perhaps its time to make a new set of rules without bias or justifications based on cultures/races/genders/classes etc. Just bare minimum basic common sense, then build from there. Of course, corruption will always interfere We all ought to strive towards a more “moral” means. But i am talking about a natural order moral set, not a nazi/ccp/apple/greed/ego etc type moral set.
Great post, but I’m gonna stick to this for kicks: So you agree with those who think burn it all or mostly all down and start anew?
5 Likes