Sounds rational, but this decision is in a small number of hands. And those hands can change quickly. I also thought the US would never threaten to annex territory of a NATO member.
From a political perspective, perhaps.
> doing it forcefully just isn't something China would realistically do
From a military perspective, taking Taiwan by force would allow China to, "threaten the sea lines of communication and to strengthen its sea-based nuclear deterrent in ways that it is unlikely to otherwise be able to do." Taiwan would give China access to the Philippine Sea. https://gwern.net/doc/technology/2022-green.pdf
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2025/01/china-suddenly-...
Is "it" the propaganda (useful to politicians for achieving political power) or reunification? My sense is that the number of Taiwanese that are enthusiastic about reunification has probably bottomed out in recent decade(s)???
And quite frankly, its only geopolitically stupid if they lose. Consequences for this sort of thing usually tend to happen if the conflict is long and drawn out. If the win quickly the consequences would likely be minor.
With the addition of most countries now looking for other trade partners the Art of the no deal…
That's not much of an achievement for the first military in the world. That's like second military in the world struggling to take a village in Donbas region for 4 years.
Iran did billions in damage across the middle east, put a major dent in munitions stockpiles, and there is effectively no military way to shut down all of Iran and protect shipping. Too many drones, too many ballistic missiles, and it only takes one. This is basically like an insurgency on a macro level, where small and cheap weapons threaten very large very expensive targets.
https://mynews4.com/news/nation-world/centcom-naval-blockade...
The drones are useless if you dont have targeting systems which were taken offline by F35s 2 months ago.
What targeting systems are you talking about? You can use optical targeting with a raspberry PI in the drone itself, pre programmed. Nothing for an F-35 to take out.
The EU is running out of jet fuel. 20-30% of the hydrogen needed for chip fab comes through the straight. Fertilizer for food comes through the straight, and planting season has already begun.
This was a political and economic disaster.
I mean, that's certainly a take. A wholly inaccurate one, but it's a take.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Iranian_officials_kill...
I'm trying to do that too but what the hell is going on with Putin? Why does he continue to engage in this ridiculously expensive war? I don't see any evil genius explanation anymore. It just seems like a mix of sunk-cost-fallacy and save-face.
I think many geopolitical decisions are actually based in irrational emotions of a hand full of people.
But I will say, in a very broad stroke, we’re heading for a great power conflict and the US has two primary factions on foreign policy; the primacists vs the restrainers, both want to take on China (contain with war) but the primicits want to topple Iran first and set up Israel as a regional hegemony where the restrainers want to build up locally first. China knows this and Russia is a junior partner / quasi vassal state to China. China lacks modern war fighting experience which the Russian Ukraine war has been very helpful in fixing. Yes it’s very expensive, but so is losing a great powers conflict.
While it is undoubtedly true that china is learning everything it can from this conflict, and that russia is at least a little subservient to china, they aren't so subservient for this explanation to make sense.
Like what though? If the problem is that not going to actual war has enabled the MIC to be captured by grifters, then "taking the bait" and going to war should actually help improve that by showing up the grifters and giving us a chance to switch to making stuff that works.
The bait is for the buildup that promotes the grifters.
> An actual war would fix a lot of the grifting in the US as it would align interests
We are in agreement. I made these points earlier in this chain.
The Iran war doesn't count as the alignment of interest requires an actual threat of being defeated.
That's starting to sound a bit no-true-scotsman. If we need an existential threat to the US, that's not going to happen - realistically China conquering Taiwan or even building an empire around the Pacific would still not be felt as such a threat.
The US is already close to losing world hegemony status and it kinda needs it in order to print money / export inflation. A multipolar world is one where the US is greatly diminished and this will happen with or without losing a war.
Like what though? The failure in Iran has had pretty substantial consequences that are being felt. If that's not good enough, what is? You were talking like you thought there was a realistic path to a better military, but consequences for the US aren't going to come much bigger than this.
These two conflicts would be so different that i don't think it makes sense to draw this conclusion.
In addition, some of the other countries like Canada, Mexico, Australia, and New Zealand had better get busy from within because they’ll be on their own. In the same applies probably to Europe.