War with China is indeed madness, and we do not have the mettle for it. You failed to mention that China's advanced ACBMs go much farther than Taiwan so they wouldnt even have to risk men or materiel taking the carriers out, and this country cannot stand one fully crewed carrier sinking.
My piece this week will be about the insane drive to bomb Mexico, which, though less apocalyptic, is terrible policy. Also, of course, related to fentanyl, as if they want a world opium war. We are ruled by idiots.
Btw, I wouldnt normally correct a typographical error but this is an obscure homonym and you might not know: the expression is "bury the lede." I don't know wtf a "lede" is and "lead" makes more sense, but it really is "lede."
Definitely right about China's missile abilities. Didn't have the space in this article to get into weapon specifics, which are certainly worth their own article.
Looking forward to your piece. That's something I've been thinking about a lot. Currently reading a book by historian Amaury de Riencourt called The Coming American Caesars. If I were to imagine a wild scenario, a war against drug cartels in Mexico could lead to an American Caesar moment where a military leader gains wild popularity. Especially because we are definitely ruled by idiots, so any semblance of competency would be hugely appreciated.
Appreciate the correction on the typo, I didn't even know that. Thanks for the heads up!
Yes, I'm having trouble finding a quote, there is a good one from Polybius regarding the start of the Social War, but it makes an opposite argument than mine, but neighbors being unable or unwilling to stop bandit raids is a common cause/pretext of wars which is the clear historical parallel, except Obrador has been cooperating to an unprecedented expense and nothing pleases these people (which may be a way to look for a quote.) I was already planning on looking through Gallic Wars, perhaps Caesar's decision to invade Britain. Some of the wars against Thrace are probably also relevant.
Regarding "bury the lede", pretty sure I only know that because I saw it and thought it was a strange mistake so then looked it up.
Extrapolating here: What do you think the odds are the US goes full-empire mode and invades Mexico sometimes in the next 20 years? Maybe sooner? The pretext would be the narcotraffickers, of course. I'm seeing a strong possibility of things going radically weird over the next couple decades.
We're long past the days of the border raids of Pancho Villa, because Texas and the entire southwest are economic powerhouses. Back 100+ years ago, those raids weren't that big of a deal economically. But when tens of thousands of Americans are dying from fentanyl brought over the border, what could we reasonably do? Besides activate border security, of course, which no one in DC seems willing to do. And that's its own topic
I will definitely cover the fact that unlike some previous Presidents of Mexico IIRC (still early in research) Obrador hasnt been hostile to US border security.
The thing is the US has never gone to war with a country the population of Mexico (by total numbers, not relative to US population at the time), Mexicans are fiercely nationalistic, Mexico has good standing in the world and has never attacked anyone in its current form, and Latin America has got to be full of various people happy to use Mexico as a proxy war to turn back US imperialism in their sphere. I dont know who is more economically dependent on whom, but the Mexicans are definitely better at withstanding poverty and their quality goods will always find ready market.
I dont know if the US could conquer Mexico (the 10th most populous country on earth) but a US invasion of Mexico would be a disaster, likely fatal, economically, diplomatically, and militarily
Btw the idea that most of their guns come from America is made up. Most guns Mexico asks the ATF to track _because they already suspect them of being trafficked from America_ come fron America, its like 15% total. The cartels make their own guns. It isnt difficult if you have the resources to run an international drug cartel.
To be clear, I'm not at all envisioning a standard invasion of Mexico. That's just absurd. More like the US partners with Mexican government to take out the cartels, which have closer ties with some local governments than they do with others. And again, this is in the realm of fantasy and speculation. But we need to explore that realm quite a bit, because the world in 2023 looks way different than it did in 2013.
In the same way Caesar was invited into (a divided) Gaul to protect some allies, the US might be invited to protect certain states or even the central government. This is definitely a thought experiment in action and I'm happy to have holes poked in it.
Mexico is cooperating with the US now and the belligerent rhetoric of the Republicans is a serious threat to that cooperation. Rasmussen posted that like 65% of Americans want to declare the cartels terrorist organizations, so it seems inevitable this at least turns into a Waziristan or Somalia sort of situation, or heaven forbid, Laos.
the further problem is that Americans are so relentlessly entitled that even if the Mexican military turns back US troops who have illegally entered Mexico and there is a single US casualty over half of the body politic will be out for blood.
my piece should be out Friday morning at the latest, I would hope, but this is all drastically worse than I thought when I got the idea for the topic.
yes, sorry, I should have said, a major source are illegally obtained from other Latin American militaries, which is cheaper than manufacturing their own, however, they have taken to manufacturing their own in the last decade as well:
Lede is the first sentence of a news story. Because linotype machines used a strip of lead (the metal) to separate stories, in newsrooms it was easy to confuse the two separate concepts - a story's lead sentence, and a separating strip of lead. So somewhere, some newspaper dude started spelling the reference to a story's first, thematic, sentence 'lede.' Its reception was mixed. But actually, both 'lede' and 'lead' were used in the industry, so it's technically as correct to say "bury the lead" as "bury the lede." The second is industry jargon. And, imo, more colorful.
Honestly don't know. Too early to say. My gut says yes, though. Also fits with FedNow timing, as the system was set to launch between May-July of this year.
I fear that war is inevitable. Much to my surprise last year, all the blue and yellow signs and ribbons went up in my neighborhood in spite of there being a fairly large Jewish community here. I guess it's now okay to support Nazis around people who likely lost extended family in WW2. Those flags have mostly come down now. But probably not because people woke up. Likely because the media moved on. "Is it bank-run season? I still have my train derailment decorations up!" If the media in the U.S. pushes war the way they did COVID the sheep will go along. And sheep to the slaughter we will be, because as you astutely pointed out, we are way too soft and unprepared for this fight.
My question to you is about China's energy supply. Even if they broker deals for all the oil they need from the middle east, isn't it still vulnerable in transport? Russia is the world's second largest supply, but is the infrastructure there to get it to China? And although Russia and China seem to be strange bedfellows now, that's not a match made in heaven. My guess is that we will lack the manufacturing tech and physically/mentally fit people, and China will lack the energy supply in a real shooting war.
Totally with you on how fast the current thing changes. Who knows what's next. It's exhausting keeping up.
Re: energy supply — There is a pipeline from Siberia to China but it's nowhere near enough to meet their demands. Oil tankers would be super vulnerable in transport and China can't yet protect its shipping lanes outside of its immediate vicinity. No oil tanker would need to be sunk to prevent oil delivery to China. It would just need to be threatened and that's it. No one working a civilian vessel wants to die a fiery death for another country, and the companies would order them to stand down anyway.
I think one reason the war rhetoric is ramping up now is because China is still vulnerable to energy disruptions. The US may be seeing now as a better opportunity to fight China than five years from now. Personally, I think there's a good chance the CCP doesn't make it through this decade anyway, and I think maps in a decade or so look quite different than they do now.
Re: Russia-China — they're only friends of convenience, but it's pretty damn convenient for them both right now. This is Realpolitik at its finest, which is something the US has forgotten entirely. China most certainly covets Siberia and will turn on Russia as soon as it's no longer convenient to them to be friends. I don't know when that happens, so can only speculate so far.
some basic points about future Chinese invasion of Taiwan that sadly is always missing from "expert" discussion:
1) On the economic side:
a: majority of Taiwan's foreign investment goes to China
b: majority of Taiwan's foreign trade is with China
c: majority of Taiwanese working overseas work in China
2) On the Military side:
a: The Taiwanese military strategic mission given to them by the government is to hold for 30 days.
b: two districts of Taiwan are islands in the territorial waters of China, they were deemed indefensible in the 90's, the military thus admits they will not defend them. They fall within 48 hours.
c: two islands in the South China seas are closer to mainland than Taiwan and similarly indefensible. They fall within 72 hours.
d: if Taiwan is an unsinkable carrier to the east of China then Penghu is an unsinkable carrier to the west of Taiwan and whoever controls it controls Taiwan biggest ports and harbors. it should fall in 7 to 10 days.
e: once Penghu is transformed into a forward base of operations invading Taiwan becomes an order of magnitude easier than what the "expert" claim it will be.
I don't know if the invasion of Taiwan's main island will be successful, if it fails Taiwan will remain autonomous, but it will lose the whole of its foreign investment and trade, every island apart of the main island, internally it will be shattered and destroyed.
NB: The Qing Empire defeated the Dutch and kicked them out of Taiwan by taking over Penghu and making it a forward base of operations, do you know a single "expert" who mentioned that historical fact?!!
Interesting points there. Re: Penghu — in every iteration of the war game the CSIS carried out, an invasion of Penghu didn't work. As they wrote:
"In three iterations, the Chinese captured the island of Penghu off the west coast of Taiwan, planning to use the island as a staging base for an attack on the main island. Although they defeated Taiwanese forces there, their dwindling amphibious capabilities prevented a successful invasion of the main island. Thus, occupying Penghu during a campaign to invade Taiwan proper was an operation dead end."
I agree with this assessment. It'd be a waste of manpower, naval resources and, most importantly, time. This is nothing like the Qing-Dutch conflict because the speed at which war moved was radically different back then and air superiority was no consideration at all.
In short, I see the other Taiwanese islands as strategically unimportant, especially since Chinese missiles already have plenty of range to not require a forward operating base. The same is even more true for Chinese air force assets, since 200 km vs 100 km is not a major difference these days at the speeds they're traveling.
Re: Trade with China — Taiwan's closeness with China is a major source of concern to the US since Taiwan produces the best chips in the world, which the US wishes to deny to China. Rather than being a benefit, that's now a concern since the US has a bee in its bonnet about that.
CSIS report is useless, forget about that piece of nonsense.
Penghu takeover is ESSENTIAL to the invasion, once taken you don't need any "amphibious capabilities" you'll dominate the ports in south west Taiwan and you'll just land there, it would be like the Allied invasion of Italy, land the troops in Calabria and Brindisi ports, drive all the way to Rome!!
the two island district are indeed not strategic that's why the Taiwanese decided NOT to defend them 30 years ago, but losing Kinmen would be a political blow bigger than losing Hawaii. Taiwan declaration of independence is instant loss of Kinmen (and the other one).
"This is nothing like the Qing-Dutch conflict" nonsense, geography is geography, Allied and Germans officers were studying Roman wars to figure out war in Italy 2000 years later, German officers studied Bonapart's invasion of Russia to prepare for their own attempt. Can't change geography.
Repeat after me: He who controls Penghu controls the Straight and who controls the Straight controls Taiwan!!
War with China is indeed madness, and we do not have the mettle for it. You failed to mention that China's advanced ACBMs go much farther than Taiwan so they wouldnt even have to risk men or materiel taking the carriers out, and this country cannot stand one fully crewed carrier sinking.
My piece this week will be about the insane drive to bomb Mexico, which, though less apocalyptic, is terrible policy. Also, of course, related to fentanyl, as if they want a world opium war. We are ruled by idiots.
Btw, I wouldnt normally correct a typographical error but this is an obscure homonym and you might not know: the expression is "bury the lede." I don't know wtf a "lede" is and "lead" makes more sense, but it really is "lede."
Definitely right about China's missile abilities. Didn't have the space in this article to get into weapon specifics, which are certainly worth their own article.
Looking forward to your piece. That's something I've been thinking about a lot. Currently reading a book by historian Amaury de Riencourt called The Coming American Caesars. If I were to imagine a wild scenario, a war against drug cartels in Mexico could lead to an American Caesar moment where a military leader gains wild popularity. Especially because we are definitely ruled by idiots, so any semblance of competency would be hugely appreciated.
Appreciate the correction on the typo, I didn't even know that. Thanks for the heads up!
Yes, I'm having trouble finding a quote, there is a good one from Polybius regarding the start of the Social War, but it makes an opposite argument than mine, but neighbors being unable or unwilling to stop bandit raids is a common cause/pretext of wars which is the clear historical parallel, except Obrador has been cooperating to an unprecedented expense and nothing pleases these people (which may be a way to look for a quote.) I was already planning on looking through Gallic Wars, perhaps Caesar's decision to invade Britain. Some of the wars against Thrace are probably also relevant.
Regarding "bury the lede", pretty sure I only know that because I saw it and thought it was a strange mistake so then looked it up.
Extrapolating here: What do you think the odds are the US goes full-empire mode and invades Mexico sometimes in the next 20 years? Maybe sooner? The pretext would be the narcotraffickers, of course. I'm seeing a strong possibility of things going radically weird over the next couple decades.
We're long past the days of the border raids of Pancho Villa, because Texas and the entire southwest are economic powerhouses. Back 100+ years ago, those raids weren't that big of a deal economically. But when tens of thousands of Americans are dying from fentanyl brought over the border, what could we reasonably do? Besides activate border security, of course, which no one in DC seems willing to do. And that's its own topic
I will definitely cover the fact that unlike some previous Presidents of Mexico IIRC (still early in research) Obrador hasnt been hostile to US border security.
The thing is the US has never gone to war with a country the population of Mexico (by total numbers, not relative to US population at the time), Mexicans are fiercely nationalistic, Mexico has good standing in the world and has never attacked anyone in its current form, and Latin America has got to be full of various people happy to use Mexico as a proxy war to turn back US imperialism in their sphere. I dont know who is more economically dependent on whom, but the Mexicans are definitely better at withstanding poverty and their quality goods will always find ready market.
I dont know if the US could conquer Mexico (the 10th most populous country on earth) but a US invasion of Mexico would be a disaster, likely fatal, economically, diplomatically, and militarily
Btw the idea that most of their guns come from America is made up. Most guns Mexico asks the ATF to track _because they already suspect them of being trafficked from America_ come fron America, its like 15% total. The cartels make their own guns. It isnt difficult if you have the resources to run an international drug cartel.
I cant say if the US could con
To be clear, I'm not at all envisioning a standard invasion of Mexico. That's just absurd. More like the US partners with Mexican government to take out the cartels, which have closer ties with some local governments than they do with others. And again, this is in the realm of fantasy and speculation. But we need to explore that realm quite a bit, because the world in 2023 looks way different than it did in 2013.
In the same way Caesar was invited into (a divided) Gaul to protect some allies, the US might be invited to protect certain states or even the central government. This is definitely a thought experiment in action and I'm happy to have holes poked in it.
Mexico is cooperating with the US now and the belligerent rhetoric of the Republicans is a serious threat to that cooperation. Rasmussen posted that like 65% of Americans want to declare the cartels terrorist organizations, so it seems inevitable this at least turns into a Waziristan or Somalia sort of situation, or heaven forbid, Laos.
the further problem is that Americans are so relentlessly entitled that even if the Mexican military turns back US troops who have illegally entered Mexico and there is a single US casualty over half of the body politic will be out for blood.
my piece should be out Friday morning at the latest, I would hope, but this is all drastically worse than I thought when I got the idea for the topic.
yes, sorry, I should have said, a major source are illegally obtained from other Latin American militaries, which is cheaper than manufacturing their own, however, they have taken to manufacturing their own in the last decade as well:
https://insightcrime.org/news/brief/first-arms-manufacturing-lab-discovered-in-mexico/
Lede is the first sentence of a news story. Because linotype machines used a strip of lead (the metal) to separate stories, in newsrooms it was easy to confuse the two separate concepts - a story's lead sentence, and a separating strip of lead. So somewhere, some newspaper dude started spelling the reference to a story's first, thematic, sentence 'lede.' Its reception was mixed. But actually, both 'lede' and 'lead' were used in the industry, so it's technically as correct to say "bury the lead" as "bury the lede." The second is industry jargon. And, imo, more colorful.
Do you think the SVB Crash is the beginning of the big crisis? Or is there still some time?
Honestly don't know. Too early to say. My gut says yes, though. Also fits with FedNow timing, as the system was set to launch between May-July of this year.
Just read the news. Looks like Credit Suisse is next.
Sure as hell does. Been a long time coming. I wonder which one's after that. Deutsche Bank?
Credit Suisse first, DB second was on my bingo card.
I fear that war is inevitable. Much to my surprise last year, all the blue and yellow signs and ribbons went up in my neighborhood in spite of there being a fairly large Jewish community here. I guess it's now okay to support Nazis around people who likely lost extended family in WW2. Those flags have mostly come down now. But probably not because people woke up. Likely because the media moved on. "Is it bank-run season? I still have my train derailment decorations up!" If the media in the U.S. pushes war the way they did COVID the sheep will go along. And sheep to the slaughter we will be, because as you astutely pointed out, we are way too soft and unprepared for this fight.
My question to you is about China's energy supply. Even if they broker deals for all the oil they need from the middle east, isn't it still vulnerable in transport? Russia is the world's second largest supply, but is the infrastructure there to get it to China? And although Russia and China seem to be strange bedfellows now, that's not a match made in heaven. My guess is that we will lack the manufacturing tech and physically/mentally fit people, and China will lack the energy supply in a real shooting war.
Totally with you on how fast the current thing changes. Who knows what's next. It's exhausting keeping up.
Re: energy supply — There is a pipeline from Siberia to China but it's nowhere near enough to meet their demands. Oil tankers would be super vulnerable in transport and China can't yet protect its shipping lanes outside of its immediate vicinity. No oil tanker would need to be sunk to prevent oil delivery to China. It would just need to be threatened and that's it. No one working a civilian vessel wants to die a fiery death for another country, and the companies would order them to stand down anyway.
I think one reason the war rhetoric is ramping up now is because China is still vulnerable to energy disruptions. The US may be seeing now as a better opportunity to fight China than five years from now. Personally, I think there's a good chance the CCP doesn't make it through this decade anyway, and I think maps in a decade or so look quite different than they do now.
Re: Russia-China — they're only friends of convenience, but it's pretty damn convenient for them both right now. This is Realpolitik at its finest, which is something the US has forgotten entirely. China most certainly covets Siberia and will turn on Russia as soon as it's no longer convenient to them to be friends. I don't know when that happens, so can only speculate so far.
some basic points about future Chinese invasion of Taiwan that sadly is always missing from "expert" discussion:
1) On the economic side:
a: majority of Taiwan's foreign investment goes to China
b: majority of Taiwan's foreign trade is with China
c: majority of Taiwanese working overseas work in China
2) On the Military side:
a: The Taiwanese military strategic mission given to them by the government is to hold for 30 days.
b: two districts of Taiwan are islands in the territorial waters of China, they were deemed indefensible in the 90's, the military thus admits they will not defend them. They fall within 48 hours.
c: two islands in the South China seas are closer to mainland than Taiwan and similarly indefensible. They fall within 72 hours.
d: if Taiwan is an unsinkable carrier to the east of China then Penghu is an unsinkable carrier to the west of Taiwan and whoever controls it controls Taiwan biggest ports and harbors. it should fall in 7 to 10 days.
e: once Penghu is transformed into a forward base of operations invading Taiwan becomes an order of magnitude easier than what the "expert" claim it will be.
I don't know if the invasion of Taiwan's main island will be successful, if it fails Taiwan will remain autonomous, but it will lose the whole of its foreign investment and trade, every island apart of the main island, internally it will be shattered and destroyed.
NB: The Qing Empire defeated the Dutch and kicked them out of Taiwan by taking over Penghu and making it a forward base of operations, do you know a single "expert" who mentioned that historical fact?!!
Interesting points there. Re: Penghu — in every iteration of the war game the CSIS carried out, an invasion of Penghu didn't work. As they wrote:
"In three iterations, the Chinese captured the island of Penghu off the west coast of Taiwan, planning to use the island as a staging base for an attack on the main island. Although they defeated Taiwanese forces there, their dwindling amphibious capabilities prevented a successful invasion of the main island. Thus, occupying Penghu during a campaign to invade Taiwan proper was an operation dead end."
I agree with this assessment. It'd be a waste of manpower, naval resources and, most importantly, time. This is nothing like the Qing-Dutch conflict because the speed at which war moved was radically different back then and air superiority was no consideration at all.
In short, I see the other Taiwanese islands as strategically unimportant, especially since Chinese missiles already have plenty of range to not require a forward operating base. The same is even more true for Chinese air force assets, since 200 km vs 100 km is not a major difference these days at the speeds they're traveling.
Re: Trade with China — Taiwan's closeness with China is a major source of concern to the US since Taiwan produces the best chips in the world, which the US wishes to deny to China. Rather than being a benefit, that's now a concern since the US has a bee in its bonnet about that.
CSIS report is useless, forget about that piece of nonsense.
Penghu takeover is ESSENTIAL to the invasion, once taken you don't need any "amphibious capabilities" you'll dominate the ports in south west Taiwan and you'll just land there, it would be like the Allied invasion of Italy, land the troops in Calabria and Brindisi ports, drive all the way to Rome!!
the two island district are indeed not strategic that's why the Taiwanese decided NOT to defend them 30 years ago, but losing Kinmen would be a political blow bigger than losing Hawaii. Taiwan declaration of independence is instant loss of Kinmen (and the other one).
"This is nothing like the Qing-Dutch conflict" nonsense, geography is geography, Allied and Germans officers were studying Roman wars to figure out war in Italy 2000 years later, German officers studied Bonapart's invasion of Russia to prepare for their own attempt. Can't change geography.
Repeat after me: He who controls Penghu controls the Straight and who controls the Straight controls Taiwan!!