I envision a two-part credible deterrence plan that turns Taiwan into a “porcupine” too costly for the PRC to invade, by providing them with weapons to defend themselves and committing to actually defending the island if they do invade.
It’s more the military armament implementation as a pre-emptive and deterrant policy. So perhaps ‘pro-MIC including war with China’ might’ve been more technically correct? Or a less globalized M.A.D. policy? Localized?
Nonetheless she’s probably going to be no worse and probably better than the retiring incumbent at any rate, so I can even just chalk it up as an electoral strategy.
If a defense strategy doesn’t include “we will use weapons to stop you from doing this” it isn’t actually a defense plan, it’s a strongly worded letter.
without touching the political One China Policy outlined in the Shanghai Communiqué
Coupling that with increasing armaments is what spurred the Kissinger reference. It kinda constrains the trajectory to escalating towards war.
Which, well, as we are seeing unfold with Iran now and have with the American boondoggles of the 21st century, may not serve Taiwan or the US in the long run.
Lip service must be given to the OCP lest Mainland China decide playing the long game isn’t worth it. Speaking against the policy is a signal that the only legitimate claim to Taiwan is through force, while also jeopardizing trade with the entire West Pacific.
But, if they are in an active war. Wouldn’t sending them aid and arms prolong the war? Wouldn’t that be pro-war according to how I understand your argument? Perhaps it might even lead to more deaths then if Russia would just conquer it without the ability for Ukraine to resist invasion.
Pro-war doesn’t mean just preparing for war right? It means a desire for war.
(For the record, I think we should be sending aid and arms to Ukraine. I’m just trying to follow your logic.)
But, if they are in an active war. Wouldn’t sending them aid and arms prolong the war? Wouldn’t that be pro-war according to how I understand your argument?
Sending an active war aid and arms is pro-war by using that logic, yes. But that’s not the point I was making, which was to armaments as a deterrent strategy. I simply don’t think it prevents war, like a deterrent would or should.
To me the pro-war aspect is not the scale of destruction or costs as it is whether pathways to peace or diplomacy are being closed off, or otherwise escalating military tensions and provocations. The destructive costs are double edged, which is the basis of my view, and why I don’t support the more death and destruction rationale to deterrence.
(For the record, I think we should be sending aid and arms to Ukraine. I’m just trying to follow your logic.)
And I don’t fault that, really. There are different goals in play than preventing war once war starts.
So like Kat’s saying do with Taiwan what wasn’t done with Ukraine by committing to a defense of Taiwan maximizing armament and commiting direct intervention. To me that’s a pro-war position, albeit one agnostic to whether it pays off or not. (I generally think it doesn’t work out long-term.) But not touching the One China Policy, however is where the Kissinger red flags started flying for me.
(And for the record I think she’s going to win and I don’t have a problem with that. She’ll likely/hopefully be better than who she is replacing. My current rep is a Zionist so if anything I’d take a China hawk like Kat if I could hotswap.)
Ukraine giving up it’s nukes was one of the reasons it was invaded. Also, the US promised to defend Ukraine incase it was attacked as part of the negotiations for them giving up their nukes, but that promise was broken.
Ukraine inherited about 130 UR-100Nintercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) with six warheads each, 46 RT-23 Molodets ICBMs with ten warheads apiece, as well as 33 heavy bombers, totaling approximately 1,700 nuclear warheads that remained on Ukrainian territory.[2] Thus Ukraine became the third largest nuclear power in the world (possessing 300 more nuclear warheads than Kazakhstan, 6.5 times less than the United States, and ten times less than Russia)[3] and held about one third of the former Soviet nuclear weapons, delivery system, and significant knowledge of its design and production.[4]
That is ultimately where my criticism falls to. I believe the US and NATO powers cynically never had any intention to back up Ukraine to ths extent being promised. Both then and now.
Overpromising and underdelivering is a pattern I want broken.
Like, I want my country to be subject to international law and the ICC. I would love to see many of my elected leaders arrested for war crimes. (And the whole other thing with the pedophilia.)
Honestly I think dragging Bibi and Trump to the Hague would be one of the strongest actual deterrents of more war around the globe.
It’s more the military armament implementation as a pre-emptive and deterrant policy. So perhaps ‘pro-MIC including war with China’ might’ve been more technically correct? Or a less globalized M.A.D. policy? Localized?
Nonetheless she’s probably going to be no worse and probably better than the retiring incumbent at any rate, so I can even just chalk it up as an electoral strategy.
If a defense strategy doesn’t include “we will use weapons to stop you from doing this” it isn’t actually a defense plan, it’s a strongly worded letter.
Sure, but:
Coupling that with increasing armaments is what spurred the Kissinger reference. It kinda constrains the trajectory to escalating towards war.
Which, well, as we are seeing unfold with Iran now and have with the American boondoggles of the 21st century, may not serve Taiwan or the US in the long run.
Lip service must be given to the OCP lest Mainland China decide playing the long game isn’t worth it. Speaking against the policy is a signal that the only legitimate claim to Taiwan is through force, while also jeopardizing trade with the entire West Pacific.
Is providing Ukraine aid and arms pro-war?
Ukraine is an active warzone, so that switch is already flipped.
As a policy of deterrent though, arming a proxy nation to the teeth I do find to be pro-war.
But, if they are in an active war. Wouldn’t sending them aid and arms prolong the war? Wouldn’t that be pro-war according to how I understand your argument? Perhaps it might even lead to more deaths then if Russia would just conquer it without the ability for Ukraine to resist invasion.
Pro-war doesn’t mean just preparing for war right? It means a desire for war.
(For the record, I think we should be sending aid and arms to Ukraine. I’m just trying to follow your logic.)
Sending an active war aid and arms is pro-war by using that logic, yes. But that’s not the point I was making, which was to armaments as a deterrent strategy. I simply don’t think it prevents war, like a deterrent would or should.
To me the pro-war aspect is not the scale of destruction or costs as it is whether pathways to peace or diplomacy are being closed off, or otherwise escalating military tensions and provocations. The destructive costs are double edged, which is the basis of my view, and why I don’t support the more death and destruction rationale to deterrence.
And I don’t fault that, really. There are different goals in play than preventing war once war starts.
So like Kat’s saying do with Taiwan what wasn’t done with Ukraine by committing to a defense of Taiwan maximizing armament and commiting direct intervention. To me that’s a pro-war position, albeit one agnostic to whether it pays off or not. (I generally think it doesn’t work out long-term.) But not touching the One China Policy, however is where the Kissinger red flags started flying for me.
(And for the record I think she’s going to win and I don’t have a problem with that. She’ll likely/hopefully be better than who she is replacing. My current rep is a Zionist so if anything I’d take a China hawk like Kat if I could hotswap.)
Ukraine giving up it’s nukes was one of the reasons it was invaded. Also, the US promised to defend Ukraine incase it was attacked as part of the negotiations for them giving up their nukes, but that promise was broken.
For more info in the topic, see Ukraine and weapons of mass destruction
That is ultimately where my criticism falls to. I believe the US and NATO powers cynically never had any intention to back up Ukraine to ths extent being promised. Both then and now.
Overpromising and underdelivering is a pattern I want broken.
Like, I want my country to be subject to international law and the ICC. I would love to see many of my elected leaders arrested for war crimes. (And the whole other thing with the pedophilia.)
Honestly I think dragging Bibi and Trump to the Hague would be one of the strongest actual deterrents of more war around the globe.
Agreed there.