Comments by "" (@craigkdillon) on "laowhy86"
channel.
-
26
-
I lived in England for a few years. When I went, I expected to find US 2.0, or our 51st state. I saw their movies, read their books. I knew the English -- or so I thought.
After living there, I came to see them as being very different. Lovable, quirky, but different.
I was very relieve to get back to the US after 3 years.
I cannot begin to understand what you experienced in China. Through you and Serpentza, I have gotten a tiny glimpse of how alien China is from America. I have difficulty in seeing how you stayed their for so many years.
Like you, I came back with a higher appreciation of what we have over other places, even like Britain.
I enjoy people from other countries and cultures. But, you are on a whole other level from me. Both your toleration and enjoyment of other peoples amazes me.
One more thing -- you are very eloquent. You use words very efficiently and precisely. There is no ambiguity to your prose. That is rare today.
14
-
11
-
Laowhy, why are you painting such a rosy picture of China??
Sure, you say you are showing how its failing, but you only scratch the surface of its failure.
You didn't mention its tofu dreg infrastructure, with tunnels, bridges, and roads falling down or caving in.
You didn't mention the transit, education, and government workers not getting paid for months, going on years.
You didn't mention the empty malls, and shuttered restaurants.
You didn't mention the exploding unemployment.
You didn't mention the containers building up at China's ports as exports crash.
You didn't mention banks freezing people's bank accounts and stealing their money.
You didn't mention the flight of the rich leaving China, taking what money they can.
You didn't mention the huge increase in illegal Chinese immigrants being caught at our border.
Like I said, you painted an optimistic up-beat assessment, IMO.
It is way way worse, Laowhy.
4
-
3
-
2
-
Very well said. Thank you.
About propaganda ---
Dictatorships, I think, try to keep the truth and lies separate.
Truth for themselves - lies for their party and the people.
Lies for their party members, to keep them motivated and enthralled.
Lies for the people, for obvious reasons.
The KGB in Russia, I think tried to keep truth & lies separated.
However, the way China is structured, I don't think they have any mechanism
for keeping truth & lies separated.
That means that overly patriotic pilots, captains, or bureaucrats
will likely overstep their orders someday
to sink an American ship, or shoot down a Taiwanese plane,
or attack India.
And, in this way, a shooting war will start.
It seems so clear to me. I don't see how it can be avoided.
2
-
I totally agree.
FYI.. Taiwan has an arsenal of domestically designed and produced quality missiles that can shoot down planes, sink boats, and attack mainland China. Taiwan has missiles that can go at least 600 miles.
Taiwan has been producing these missiles for the last 30 years.
Taiwan has excellent engineers to produce sophisticated radars, and jamming devices.
I doubt Taiwan's missiles can be easily defeated with ECM, since I expect them to have ECCM.
The Taiwan Strait has high sea states, that is, it is not very calm usually.
Amphibious assaults are difficult. Most of China's troop ships will be sunk.
People think that just China is big, that it will have an easy time, and will just walk into Taiwan.
The dangerous part is that it is possible that the CCP believes its own propaganda.
After all, who has the courage to tell Xi that he is wrong???
The hubris and self-delusion of the CCP is what may lead it to war.
That is the problem with being "logical" and "rational". You are assuming people will think rationally.
If Hitler was rational, he would never had started WW2.
If Kaiser Wilhelm was logical, he never would have given carte blanche to Austria in 1913.
If Napoleon was rational he would never had invaded Russia.
I don't think logic or rationality are good predictors of military policymaking.
But, China will lose if they try it.
2
-
Whoa -- not CSIS again.
IMO, they are not competent.
The CSIS "study" makes assertions, but does not back them up.
What is more, the assertions are idiotic.
For example, it asserts the US will lose several nuclear subs.'
Oh yeah?? How? China cannot locate any of our subs underwater.
How is China supposed to target and kill them??
Next, it claims US will lose several carriers.
Again, HOW?? The US is NOT going to put our carrier groups within the first island chain -- for obvious reasons.
China may have missiles capable of getting through our ECM systems, but I doubt that.
China has NOT shown that any of its systems are able of defeating ours.
HOWEVER - that is actually beside the point.
WHY?? Simple -- why would Japan or US be involved at all??
A Chinese invasion of Taiwan will NOT survive the advanced anti-ship missiles Taiwan has.
Taiwan makes the advanced chips, and has the techs that can put them into their HF missiles.
The HF2 and HF3 can take out ANY Chinese ship. How will their ships survive the hundreds of missiles Taiwan has??
NEXT -- the HF-2e missile is long range and precise -- it can hit targets in EVERY Chinese port.
What makes you even think all the Chinese ships will be able to put to sea to start the invasion???
Taiwan has the means to destroy China's navy with their missiles.
Can China intercept and defeat Taiwan's missiles??
Maybe -- but not all of them. Only a few of China's ships might have sophisticated anti-missile tech.
But, those systems can be defeated with multiple missiles.
Now, the question becomes -- how many missiles does Taiwan have?
AND, how effective are their ECCM systems??
Well, Taiwan has been making its missiles for over 20 years now.
I expect them to have thousands, IMO.
We know they have several hundred Harpoons.
We also know that Taiwan has increased its defense spending a lot recently.
The CSIS study seemed to me to be a scare tactic to induce increased defense spending by the US.
BTW -- don't forget China has no answer to the F-35's of US & Japan.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1