As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

[US Foreign Policy] is still practicing drone diplomacy

1484951535462

Posts

  • No-QuarterNo-Quarter Nothing To Fear But Fear ItselfRegistered User regular
    Marathon wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    I cant outline a response to increased Chinese aggression because I dont know what it will look like. Are we talking about funding rebels in SE Asia? Invading Australia? Just refusing to give up their artificial island scheme?

    Anyway it goes I can pretty much guarantee you'll be advocating for bombs and bullets before I am and I'll never be ok with things like land mines and cluster munitions. So idk maybe if negotiations over the island expansions fail we just take the L.

    Except taking the L leads to a greater likelihood of an even larger, hotter conflict if they realize they can just keep pushing. Russia and Ukraine are evidence of this, and is likely part of why China thinks they can get away with this now.
    Whatever happens Im not going to pretend the US is engaged in anti imperialism. One empire trying to stave off another empire's encroachment on their sphere isnt anti imperialism.

    No argument there.

    This is very much an assumption and taken to its logical conclusion excuses full blown military action.

    How?

    Because that is the pattern that argument has historically followed throughout the twentieth century if not longer and my earliest memories of it being a neocon favorite during the war on terror

    As opposed to unchecked aggression leading to... more aggression?

    I dont think their scheme of fake islands to make silly naval territorial claims is really aggression.

    The Chinese government certainly seems to think their claims will be taken seriously.

    Empires usually do

    Then maybe we shouldn’t be looking at this as if it is "not really aggression".

    Idk what you're after here. Like idk man a lot of this seems to boil down to "how dobwe make China stop being an empire" and the answer is either WW3 or you dont.

    Mazzy posted about other methods, but if those fail, war may the only option. Otherwise, cool, we'll just let them, then. Let Russia can have Ukraine too, while we are at it.

    Do you think we should invade over the Uighur genocide?

    Invade? No. Sanction the fuck out of them, yes.

    But you have a problem with *those*, too. So you really don't seem to have.... anything in your toolbox for dealing with hostile foreign actors besides giving up.

    Do you really think we can sanction China out of this policy?

    I'd say it would have a better chance of accomplishing.... well anything, rather than just shrugging our shoulders and letting them have it, all the while simultaneously pretending it's not *that* big of a deal despite recent evidence to the contrary.

    I dont know that mass starvation is really a good alternative. You're extremely cavalier about sanctions but really we're just talking about starving the Chinese people until their government stops starving and murdering Uighurs.

    By that same logic does that mean you're extremely cavalier about letting the Chinese government continue to commit genocide?

    Nope.

    On the whole I think a full blown war is arguably more morally justifiable than "sanctioning the fuck out of" China. Americans have largely convinced themselves that sanctions are peaceful bloodless pressure.

    Do you honestly think a full blown war would have fewer casualties than sanctions?

    I have no idea. I dont think casualities is the only measure of moral justifiability of course, which is why I didnt say that.

    This is all getting very into the weeds.

    And by that, you mean "problems that you don't have easy, snappy, morally-righteous answers for".

    Lol the dude just said we should "sanction the fuck out of China", but yeah Im snappy and morally righteous.
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    I cant outline a response to increased Chinese aggression because I dont know what it will look like. Are we talking about funding rebels in SE Asia? Invading Australia? Just refusing to give up their artificial island scheme?

    Anyway it goes I can pretty much guarantee you'll be advocating for bombs and bullets before I am and I'll never be ok with things like land mines and cluster munitions. So idk maybe if negotiations over the island expansions fail we just take the L.

    Except taking the L leads to a greater likelihood of an even larger, hotter conflict if they realize they can just keep pushing. Russia and Ukraine are evidence of this, and is likely part of why China thinks they can get away with this now.
    Whatever happens Im not going to pretend the US is engaged in anti imperialism. One empire trying to stave off another empire's encroachment on their sphere isnt anti imperialism.

    No argument there.

    This is very much an assumption and taken to its logical conclusion excuses full blown military action.

    How?

    Because that is the pattern that argument has historically followed throughout the twentieth century if not longer and my earliest memories of it being a neocon favorite during the war on terror

    As opposed to unchecked aggression leading to... more aggression?

    I dont think their scheme of fake islands to make silly naval territorial claims is really aggression.

    The Chinese government certainly seems to think their claims will be taken seriously.

    Empires usually do

    Then maybe we shouldn’t be looking at this as if it is "not really aggression".

    Idk what you're after here. Like idk man a lot of this seems to boil down to "how dobwe make China stop being an empire" and the answer is either WW3 or you dont.

    Mazzy posted about other methods, but if those fail, war may the only option. Otherwise, cool, we'll just let them, then. Let Russia can have Ukraine too, while we are at it.

    Do you think we should invade over the Uighur genocide?

    Invade? No. Sanction the fuck out of them, yes.

    But you have a problem with *those*, too. So you really don't seem to have.... anything in your toolbox for dealing with hostile foreign actors besides giving up.

    Do you really think we can sanction China out of this policy?

    I'd say it would have a better chance of accomplishing.... well anything, rather than just shrugging our shoulders and letting them have it, all the while simultaneously pretending it's not *that* big of a deal despite recent evidence to the contrary.

    I dont know that mass starvation is really a good alternative. You're extremely cavalier about sanctions but really we're just talking about starving the Chinese people until their government stops starving and murdering Uighurs.

    By that same logic does that mean you're extremely cavalier about letting the Chinese government continue to commit genocide?

    Nope.

    On the whole I think a full blown war is arguably more morally justifiable than "sanctioning the fuck out of" China. Americans have largely convinced themselves that sanctions are peaceful bloodless pressure.

    Sanctions hurt. They're *designed* to hurt. But theyre also designed to hurt a helluva lot less than an *invasion*, which would result in famine and starvation regardless.

    Holy shit dude

    Estimated deaths from sanctions against Iraq sit right around the middle of estimated deaths from the subsequent invasion.

    So you are anti-sanction because they are not bloodless and cause starvation, but you're pro-invasion because....?

    Elvenshae
  • No-QuarterNo-Quarter Nothing To Fear But Fear ItselfRegistered User regular
    I see we're at the "let the Chinese roll over us and then magically beat them from within as they fervently oppress us" part of the discussion.

    Holy shit.

    Harry Dresden
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    I don't know why you thinj Im pro invasion

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    I see we're at the "let the Chinese roll over us and then magically beat them from within as they fervently oppress us" part of the discussion.

    Holy shit.

    Is more easy: The US deserves to lose because Western Countries bad. That's it.

    ElvenshaeSmrtnik
  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    I see we're at the "let the Chinese roll over us and then magically beat them from within as they fervently oppress us" part of the discussion.

    Holy shit.

    I am not quite sure where you got that idea from

    From the idea that the US can't actually do shit about China's internal affairs? They can't. That's not really particularly new either.

    Commander Zoom
  • No-QuarterNo-Quarter Nothing To Fear But Fear ItselfRegistered User regular
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    I see we're at the "let the Chinese roll over us and then magically beat them from within as they fervently oppress us" part of the discussion.

    Holy shit.

    Is more easy: The US deserves to lose because Western Countries bad. That's it.

    I can't tell if you agreeing with that poster or mocking them.

    I *really* hope it's the latter.

  • MazzyxMazzyx Comedy Gold Registered User regular
    Actions that can be taken to punish and put pressure on China by the US and allies are more than sanctions or war. We do not live in a world with just two levers which are used in the international stage.

    Soft power actions:

    China has spent decades building up its reputation and gunning for strong soft power gains from the Olympics to hosting major summits and conferences and joining organizations like the G7. Actions such as moving the 2022 games, maybe to a place that has hosted before with minimal investment, is a good first step. This will cause all sorts of ruckus in the CCP and isn't just sanctions or war. Same for removing China from the G7 and other similar positions just as Russia has been removed.

    Economic Actions:

    Though full sanctions would be counter productive as a whole to the world economy due to where China sits in the current supply chain there are actions that can be taken.
    -Tracking and impounding of goods made in Xinjiang with Uyghur labor. There are laws that allow this already. And puts pressure for companies to move supply chains. This is increasingly difficult as China has been laundering goods through other provinces.
    -Investment to move manufacturing and services out of China to other countries. This requires investment and is long term but possible. Already occurring in Vietnam where countries like Japan are putting a lot of money to develop infrastructure to move manufacturing out of China
    -Locks, limits, and tracking of funds from high level CCP officials and officials tied to Xinjiang and the genocide including confiscation of funds declared to be related to the genocide.

    Legal:

    -This is hard but bringing charges at the International Criminal Court and redress via the general assembly at the UN. Neither will happen but these levers exist.

    This is a short list of not sanctions that can apply pressure. Some with pressure the CCP does deeply care about. Like the Olympics. Expand your idea of levers.

    All of this of course would be just parts of a larger coordination to build up alliances, reduce dependency, and improve rules around trade, commerce, and maritime navigation that China has been targeting for years.

    u7stthr17eud.png
    No-QuarterMarathonHamHamJPolaritieSleepshrykeMrMisterGiantGeek2020Lord_AsmodeusHarry DresdenButtersElvenshae
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    Solar wrote: »
    Does anyone think that sanctions against China would really help or be viable when it comes to the Uighur genocide? In all seriousness? I have not heard of a single concrete proposal on how to make the PRC stop committing genocide which sounds like it exists in reality

    China will be the world's largest economy in ten years. America is probably about to experience something very new for Americans; a world where the most powerful economic sanctions are not the one it imposes but ones that can be imposed upon it.

    If this was true China wouldn't be taking such aggressive actions against companies boycotting Xinjiang cotton. A united effort between the US, EU, Asian allies like Japan, and others absolutely could significantly reduce China's share of the global market and damage their economy. If the world, or even just the big developed democracies of the world, reverse course on economic ties with China, China isn't going to have the biggest economy in 10 years because you can't do that if your only trading partners are Iran, Russia, and whatever third world countries you can bribe.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
    TryCatcherFencingsaxshrykeKayne Red RobeLord_AsmodeusCentipede DamascusElvenshaeSmrtnik
  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    I see we're at the "let the Chinese roll over us and then magically beat them from within as they fervently oppress us" part of the discussion.

    Holy shit.

    Is more easy: The US deserves to lose because Western Countries bad. That's it.

    I can't tell if you agreeing with that poster or mocking them.

    I *really* hope it's the latter.

    Definitely mocking.

    Gnome-Interruptus
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Serious question, how reliable are the safety features on modern landmines? Because needing to mine the beaches of Taiwan and Japan, or getting into a land war with China may seem ludicrous, but even just the capability of doing those things may be necessary as part of the balance of power. And it's one of those things where being unable to contest a conventional war against China narrows the options to fire the nukes or do nothing, which is arguably more dangerous.

    I would like to see actual expert opinions on whether this is a reasonable capability that we need or if this is just an excuse to prop up the military industrial complex.

    Of the 3,000,000 anti-personnel mines remaining in US inventory, all are reported to have self-destruct capability with a maximum of a 30 day lifespan once armed. Reported reliability of the self-destruct mechanisms are 99.999% according to one report, another report cites a failure rate of 6 per million.

    Which...is doubtful and probably at least an order of magnitude lower (edit, lower as in less likely to self-destruct the way they should) than reported.

    If Biden does follow through and rejoin the Ottawa Convention, the US stockpile will have expired (battery shelf life, no maintenance permitted) by about 2030.

    https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/02/27/questions-and-answers-new-us-landmine-policy#

    Thank you. To me those rates adequately address the humanitarian issues that motivate banning landmines, and if they are the result of systemic testing or proper studies I don't see any good reason to just assume they are not accurate. Honestly even if they were twice as bad we would still be talking struck by lightning odds here.
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Whole new theater of kids playing soccer to maim

    It's posturing to send a signal to China, nobody expects an actual war to break out. It's the same reason nobody's going to do the same to Russia. A big reason for the US to get China to back down is to show it, and its allies, are more than able to make a war less palatable is by physically showing fucking around isn't worth it. Then this goes back to soft power bullshit, which everyone prefers.

    Also, is an unfortunate but needed answer to China's ridiculous territorial claims.

    Why do we need anti personel mines to stop the Chinese from claiming a bunch of unoccupied atolls and sand bars?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Whole new theater of kids playing soccer to maim

    It's posturing to send a signal to China, nobody expects an actual war to break out. It's the same reason nobody's going to do the same to Russia. A big reason for the US to get China to back down is to show it, and its allies, are more than able to make a war less palatable is by physically showing fucking around isn't worth it. Then this goes back to soft power bullshit, which everyone prefers.

    Also, is an unfortunate but needed answer to China's ridiculous territorial claims.

    Why do we need anti personel mines to stop the Chinese from claiming a bunch of unoccupied atolls and sand bars?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?

    What makes you think they'll stop there if allowed to do so with impunity?

    Well if they try to extend their claim to the South China Sea by invading New Zealand we can revisit.

    So you're not anti-imperialist after all.

    Good to know for the future.

    Very weird accusation in a discussion about the US manfucatuering and theoretically deploying land mines my dude.

    It’s the foreign policy thread, not the landmine thread. Topics of discussion shift from time to time.

    Lol he's quoting me talking about land mines and china.

    Chinese expansionism is a serious localized problem, as it is for every empire and would be empire. Using this expansionism as a defense of what is widely regarded as a crime against humanity, as has been done deveral times in this thread, is terrible and no one is obliged to take this new age domino theory stuff seriously.

    Is it a serious problem? Because from all your responses so far it seems you aren’t all that bothered by it.

    You seem more upset about the possibility that land mines might be used to push back against that expansion than the expansion itself.

    Landmines don't really push back against anything

    And even if they did how are you using them here? Land mining a bunch of atolls or whatever doesnt matter because they're just using them to extend territorial claims. Are you deploying land mines in countries that China is exerting influence over in preparation?

    Their use, if we want to armchair general this shit, would, I imagine, be deploying them in front of advancing Chinese ground forces to slow them down so you have more time to pound them with air strikes and artillery before they reach your own ground forces, and I guess possibly overrun airfields and bases and shit like that. An army can get through a mine field, but it will take time.

    And this is a capability you need to have before the war even starts because them knowing that you have it is in theory what would convince them that they couldn't win and thus would not start a war at all.

    this is at absolute best severely questionable; it's just not how modern militaries conduct operations. If China did decide to occupy taiwan it wouldn't happen because of like, a hundred thousand soldiers landing normandy-style on the beach and fighting their way inland. One side or the other would establish air/naval superiority, at which point landbound fortifications are largely irrelevant because they'd either just go around/over them or have plenty of time to clear them. Mines don't really help you in the places modern infantry combat realistically happens (i.e. urban areas.)

    NREqxl5.jpg
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
    GiantGeek2020
  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    Actions that can be taken to punish and put pressure on China by the US and allies are more than sanctions or war. We do not live in a world with just two levers which are used in the international stage.

    Soft power actions:

    China has spent decades building up its reputation and gunning for strong soft power gains from the Olympics to hosting major summits and conferences and joining organizations like the G7. Actions such as moving the 2022 games, maybe to a place that has hosted before with minimal investment, is a good first step. This will cause all sorts of ruckus in the CCP and isn't just sanctions or war. Same for removing China from the G7 and other similar positions just as Russia has been removed.

    Economic Actions:

    Though full sanctions would be counter productive as a whole to the world economy due to where China sits in the current supply chain there are actions that can be taken.
    -Tracking and impounding of goods made in Xinjiang with Uyghur labor. There are laws that allow this already. And puts pressure for companies to move supply chains. This is increasingly difficult as China has been laundering goods through other provinces.
    -Investment to move manufacturing and services out of China to other countries. This requires investment and is long term but possible. Already occurring in Vietnam where countries like Japan are putting a lot of money to develop infrastructure to move manufacturing out of China
    -Locks, limits, and tracking of funds from high level CCP officials and officials tied to Xinjiang and the genocide including confiscation of funds declared to be related to the genocide.

    Legal:

    -This is hard but bringing charges at the International Criminal Court and redress via the general assembly at the UN. Neither will happen but these levers exist.

    This is a short list of not sanctions that can apply pressure. Some with pressure the CCP does deeply care about. Like the Olympics. Expand your idea of levers.

    All of this of course would be just parts of a larger coordination to build up alliances, reduce dependency, and improve rules around trade, commerce, and maritime navigation that China has been targeting for years.

    I don't consider any of these to be really viable. None of them are going to prevent the genocide and all of them are simply going to result in increased Chinese isolation and hostility. Plus membership of the G7... like at what point are we going to accept that again in ten years this will be the world'd biggest economy and it cannot be summarily evicted from the table without severe consequences for everyone else?

  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    You might as well have just written a post saying "I've thought of everything we could do and it is basically pitiful and wouldn't actually stop anything at all"

  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Solar wrote: »
    Does anyone think that sanctions against China would really help or be viable when it comes to the Uighur genocide? In all seriousness? I have not heard of a single concrete proposal on how to make the PRC stop committing genocide which sounds like it exists in reality

    China will be the world's largest economy in ten years. America is probably about to experience something very new for Americans; a world where the most powerful economic sanctions are not the one it imposes but ones that can be imposed upon it.

    If this was true China wouldn't be taking such aggressive actions against companies boycotting Xinjiang cotton. A united effort between the US, EU, Asian allies like Japan, and others absolutely could significantly reduce China's share of the global market and damage their economy. If the world, or even just the big developed democracies of the world, reverse course on economic ties with China, China isn't going to have the biggest economy in 10 years because you can't do that if your only trading partners are Iran, Russia, and whatever third world countries you can bribe.

    Except that doing that would also cost the EU, US etc economies too

    And nobody is prepared to do that

  • MazzyxMazzyx Comedy Gold Registered User regular
    Solar wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    Actions that can be taken to punish and put pressure on China by the US and allies are more than sanctions or war. We do not live in a world with just two levers which are used in the international stage.

    Soft power actions:

    China has spent decades building up its reputation and gunning for strong soft power gains from the Olympics to hosting major summits and conferences and joining organizations like the G7. Actions such as moving the 2022 games, maybe to a place that has hosted before with minimal investment, is a good first step. This will cause all sorts of ruckus in the CCP and isn't just sanctions or war. Same for removing China from the G7 and other similar positions just as Russia has been removed.

    Economic Actions:

    Though full sanctions would be counter productive as a whole to the world economy due to where China sits in the current supply chain there are actions that can be taken.
    -Tracking and impounding of goods made in Xinjiang with Uyghur labor. There are laws that allow this already. And puts pressure for companies to move supply chains. This is increasingly difficult as China has been laundering goods through other provinces.
    -Investment to move manufacturing and services out of China to other countries. This requires investment and is long term but possible. Already occurring in Vietnam where countries like Japan are putting a lot of money to develop infrastructure to move manufacturing out of China
    -Locks, limits, and tracking of funds from high level CCP officials and officials tied to Xinjiang and the genocide including confiscation of funds declared to be related to the genocide.

    Legal:

    -This is hard but bringing charges at the International Criminal Court and redress via the general assembly at the UN. Neither will happen but these levers exist.

    This is a short list of not sanctions that can apply pressure. Some with pressure the CCP does deeply care about. Like the Olympics. Expand your idea of levers.

    All of this of course would be just parts of a larger coordination to build up alliances, reduce dependency, and improve rules around trade, commerce, and maritime navigation that China has been targeting for years.

    I don't consider any of these to be really viable. None of them are going to prevent the genocide and all of them are simply going to result in increased Chinese isolation and hostility. Plus membership of the G7... like at what point are we going to accept that again in ten years this will be the world'd biggest economy and it cannot be summarily evicted from the table without severe consequences for everyone else?

    First the fact it can be the biggest economy in 10 years is a possibility. But at the same time China's economic expansion is slowing and they hitting a demographic cliff like South Korea, Japan, and a lot of Europe. I don't expect them to reach the punching power the US did at its height in economic power. The cards aren't there at the moment. Especially with increased disinvestment. This is part of the reason the CCP has put a huge amount of effort to push for domestic consumption as they know they can't rely on foreign consumption in the long run with mixed success.

    The fact is you probably can't undo the damage that is already done but providing consequences that matter to the CCP leadership (personal assets, the Olympics, and such) you can help reduce future damage and at least shift as best as possible. Doesn't mean it will be 100% successful or 0% but also there exists levers beyond invasion or full sanctions on a country. It depends on the goals of leadership of that country on how they respond.

    u7stthr17eud.png
    shrykeTryCatcherMrMisterGiantGeek2020FencingsaxLord_AsmodeusButtersElvenshae
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    Solar wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Solar wrote: »
    Does anyone think that sanctions against China would really help or be viable when it comes to the Uighur genocide? In all seriousness? I have not heard of a single concrete proposal on how to make the PRC stop committing genocide which sounds like it exists in reality

    China will be the world's largest economy in ten years. America is probably about to experience something very new for Americans; a world where the most powerful economic sanctions are not the one it imposes but ones that can be imposed upon it.

    If this was true China wouldn't be taking such aggressive actions against companies boycotting Xinjiang cotton. A united effort between the US, EU, Asian allies like Japan, and others absolutely could significantly reduce China's share of the global market and damage their economy. If the world, or even just the big developed democracies of the world, reverse course on economic ties with China, China isn't going to have the biggest economy in 10 years because you can't do that if your only trading partners are Iran, Russia, and whatever third world countries you can bribe.

    Except that doing that would also cost the EU, US etc economies too

    And nobody is prepared to do that

    The US is literally actively trying to make the tech sector more independent of China right now. Boycotts and sanctions against products made in Xinjiang are happening right now.

    The US at least definitely seems to think that maintaing hegemony is worth an economic hit.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
    DoodmannTryCatchershrykeJragghenNo-QuarterFencingsaxLord_AsmodeusHarry DresdenButtersElvenshaeGnome-Interruptus
  • MonwynMonwyn Apathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime. A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered User regular
    Solar wrote: »
    Does anyone think that sanctions against China would really help or be viable when it comes to the Uighur genocide? In all seriousness? I have not heard of a single concrete proposal on how to make the PRC stop committing genocide which sounds like it exists in reality

    China will be the world's largest economy in ten years. America is probably about to experience something very new for Americans; a world where the most powerful economic sanctions are not the one it imposes but ones that can be imposed upon it.

    "Sanctions" as typically practiced probably wouldn't really do anything.

    What actually needs to happen is an incentive on the US side to move manufacturing out of China, into either the Americas or Africa. But that's likely a generational project, and will come too late for Uighurs.

    uH3IcEi.png
    DoodmannGiantGeek2020
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    I see we're at the "let the Chinese roll over us and then magically beat them from within as they fervently oppress us" part of the discussion.

    Holy shit.

    Where has anyone said that?

    The closest I can see is where Tef suggested the US’s only real answer is international socialism that then pressures China to force its fake communists out of power


    The problem is there are no good answers here. Sanctions won’t work because China already is an authoritarian regime insulated from the suffering of its people and because they’re fairly economically powerful enough to weather them plus that sanctions that hit the populace will in turn serve to create those instigating sanctions as an enemy and bind them to the state through shared suffering and propaganda. Military is out because none of us actually want the inevitable nuclear ICBMs to start flying


    The only real option is something that gets the populace to demand reform of the government if not a new revolution itself. Provided you don’t want to make the average citizen suffer pointlessly or as Sammich put it play a game of nuclear chicken with a rising superpower

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    Commander ZoomTef
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited April 13
    The more I think about it the more that the only answer really is that China has to be reformed by its own populace. Either gradually or through a new revolution. But otherwise all you get is the chance of nukes flying or a populace that binds itself to the party in the face of outside threats be they military or economic. There is no real solution where the US fixes another empire

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    DoodmannCommander ZoomDee KaeMeeqe
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    China does care about internal support (if only tacit) of its government, so sanctions or other economic measures have the potential to change their policy

    The difficulty is in building the consensus to make those kind of measures stick, which the west has largely fallen down on

    NREqxl5.jpg
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
    shrykeFencingsaxLord_AsmodeusGnome-Interruptus
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    China does care about internal support (if only tacit) of its government, so sanctions or other economic measures have the potential to change their policy

    The difficulty is in building the consensus to make those kind of measures stick, which the west has largely fallen down on

    Eh. I dont think we can really get the kind of sanctions that will make things so bad that the government fears mass revolt or revolution or whatever.

    Maybe you can cut into profit margins enough to force some changes but it won't be on something the Chinese government views as critical as what it views as the cultural annexation and pacification of its outlying holdings

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    China does care about internal support (if only tacit) of its government, so sanctions or other economic measures have the potential to change their policy

    The difficulty is in building the consensus to make those kind of measures stick, which the west has largely fallen down on

    turns out the West's real guiding/uniting principle is "freedom is nice and all, for us at least, but what we really like is being rich."

    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
    Gnome-Interruptus
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    I see we're at the "let the Chinese roll over us and then magically beat them from within as they fervently oppress us" part of the discussion.

    Holy shit.

    Is more easy: The US deserves to lose because Western Countries bad. That's it.

    I can't tell if you agreeing with that poster or mocking them.

    I *really* hope it's the latter.

    Definitely mocking.

    This is not an appropriate level of discourse, folks.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."
    Ticaldfjam
  • TefTef Registered User regular
    edited April 13
    I suppose if you are too ensorcelled with neoliberalism as to be incapable of considering other alternatives, you need to make peace with the fact that many do not regard the US as the International World Police in the way they perhaps were before, and that US foreign policy objectives cannot and should not be “our way or the highway”any longer

    I mean, there has been some subtle jabs at the perceived simplicity and idealism of leftist thought by Trycatcher et al in the thread; if we are to be real politik about it, do you really want the US to risk it for the biscuit over the Uighurs and some expanding influence in SE Asia (something that I would argue can and in fact, is happening regardless of maritime claims)?

    Tef on
    help a fellow forumer meet their mental health care needs because USA healthcare sucks!

    Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better

    bit.ly/2XQM1ke
    Styrofoam SammichDee Kae
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    A major barrier to any influence by other nations is that China is firmly established as an exceedingly vital trade partner used to get away with some of the worst consumption behaviors of the West, just like other countries have to play nice with the US.

    SolarGnome-Interruptus
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    So the seeming position we've landed on here is that China's rulership is a genocidal authoritarian imperialist expansionist regime that need not, and will never, answer to its own people or anyone outside of their domain, and that they should be allowed to take what they want as they will because taking any action opposing them would somehow be morally wrong?

    No-QuarterMeeqeTryCatcherButtersElvenshae
  • MazzyxMazzyx Comedy Gold Registered User regular
    The CCP maintains powers using two main levers, economic growth and nationalist rhetoric. Especially surrounding what they describe as "territorial sovereignty" which is a fancy way of basically annexing anything that was part of China as some point in the past or they claim was.

    But the first one, economic growth has been weakening as China's economy becomes more and more developed. This lever will probably flatten to closer to what a developed countries annual growth (2.5-4%) in a good year is. And that is an issue as to continue the current pattern of increasing QoL for the majority of the population China would still need around 6-7% growth rate. This is where even targeted sanctions can be painful to Chinese industries. But more than that China is a limited oligarchical power structure. The real way to crack or apply pressure is pressure to the top party members and their families. Much the power in China is centralized around Xi and Xi loyalist after a decade of purges under "anti-corruption" efforts. Limiting access to foreign capital and banks along with confiscation of funds for this individuals can shift policy in a way that overall probably can't be achieved with less targeted economic pressure.

    Even so the outcomes of a revolution in China, if it came to that, is not great. Russia and the collapse of the USSR should be a lesson that without proper external investment into building new political systems there is a huge chance of a rebound along with the gaping hole in international policy would leave. Probably filled by India and Russia more than the West. Possibly Japan.

    Also Xinjiang isn't what I would call an outlying holding but the pacification has ramped up after China learned it could get away with the Hanization of a region after it successfully did so in Tibet.

    In reality it may be too late to stop the full genocide in China but at the same time its also reaching to Uyghur populations outside of China and that can be contained. And also by the international community applying pressure and punishment for the actions, unlike what they did with Tibet, you would see a shift in actions.

    We know it can happen, not always in the right direction though. Much of China's current nationalist fervor and education was produced by the CCP after Tienanmen and multiple years of sanctions by the international community.

    I do think targeted actions can produce at least an effect on the ends that do have some ability to effect decision making such as current Western corporations who are profiting. Along with hurting China's standing and soft power and maybe for some longer term recalculations by others who operate with China.

    But the concerted effort actions such impounding goods related to the genocide, confiscation of funds, and moving the Olympics requires the international community as a whole willing to pay for the short term consequences which tends to only happen when there is unified leadership or agreement on action. Which usually requires a major power (US, EU, Russia, or even groups like the African Union or the G7) to take the reigns and stand up.

    u7stthr17eud.png
    shrykeGiantGeek2020FencingsaxHarry Dresden
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    China learned it could get away with the Hanization of a region
    That is one euphemism for genocide

    Ticaldfjam
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited April 13
    Sleep wrote: »
    So the seeming position we've landed on here is that China's rulership is a genocidal authoritarian imperialist expansionist regime that need not, and will never, answer to its own people or anyone outside of their domain, and that they should be allowed to take what they want as they will because taking any action opposing them would somehow be morally wrong?

    The actions we have would be:

    - To direct harm against the populace through economic sanctions or removal of manufacture outsourcing such that the government, as you noted a genocidal authoritarian imperialist, will cease it’s genocide and expansionism.
    - Engage militarily against the government and essentially provoke a hot war

    The issue with the first is that one, it is a moral ill because you are harming those who are innocent to the conflict in the hopes they will in turn turn against their government either to pressure reform or overthrow it. Second, you risk that all you end up doing is inflaming nationalism in the populace because they’re not stupid, they know it’s outside governments enacting these sanctions.

    The issue with the second is you get to roll the dice on Nuclear World War Three

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • MazzyxMazzyx Comedy Gold Registered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    China learned it could get away with the Hanization of a region
    That is one euphemism for genocide

    Its the term that is used but yes it is genocide but also replacement by moving in large groups of Han Chinese to replace the population you are removing.

    u7stthr17eud.png
    shryke
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    China learned it could get away with the Hanization of a region
    That is one euphemism for genocide

    Its the term that is used but yes it is genocide but also replacement by moving in large groups of Han Chinese to replace the population you are removing.

    In other words, less a euphemism but more naming the specific variety of genocide, right?

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    Styrofoam SammichFencingsaxElvenshaeGnome-Interruptus
  • MazzyxMazzyx Comedy Gold Registered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    China learned it could get away with the Hanization of a region
    That is one euphemism for genocide

    Its the term that is used but yes it is genocide but also replacement by moving in large groups of Han Chinese to replace the population you are removing.

    In other words, less a euphemism but more naming the specific variety of genocide, right?

    Yes. And is the term used when discussing this in policy and research. Also usually among FP circles.

    u7stthr17eud.png
  • JusticeforPlutoJusticeforPluto Registered User regular
    edited April 13
    JusticeforPluto was warned for this.
    Man, it's a good thing half of you weren't in charge of anything in the 40's.

    I wonder if other nations should adopt a similar attitude towards the US and its immigration policy. After all, if we really want to keep people in camps there's nothing that can be done about it.

    ElJeffe on
  • TefTef Registered User regular
    Man, it's a good thing half of you weren't in charge of anything in the 40's.

    I wonder if other nations should adopt a similar attitude towards the US and its immigration policy. After all, if we really want to keep people in camps there's nothing that can be done about it.

    This is a cheap and facile argument.

    Not to put words in their mouths, but the only thing worse than (what we understand as a) neoliberal capitalist empire, is a fascist one.

    help a fellow forumer meet their mental health care needs because USA healthcare sucks!

    Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better

    bit.ly/2XQM1ke
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 13
    I don't know where the idea the CCP isn't concerned about an internal revolt is coming from - the CCP is terrified of an internal revolt. The effort they put into internet censorship, media control, their "social credit system" and the like - all of this is the CCP seeing the writing on the wall demographically and realizing that they're going to have to switch to oppressing the people authoritarian style to stay in power long term, and trying to get ahead of the problem.

    It'll probably work, but economically China is fucked - they have a massive aging population and their success has led to a rising cost of labor, but authoritarian crackdowns are invasive and not the environment in which you productively sustain western investment or high-tech manufacturing, which is already moving out. They haven't really succeeded in removing corruption (Xi almost certainly "cracked down" to take out political opposition) so business in China is a diceroll as ever.

    The situation for China right now is militarily it's use-it or lose-it. They're very near the peak of the manpower they're ever going to have, but technologically way behind the US with almost no power projection. Their oil supply lines are also very long and international - China likely can't stockpile enough oil to prosecute a war due to naval blockade.

    electricitylikesme on
    MazzyxshrykeGiantGeek2020FencingsaxTryCatcherButtersLord_AsmodeusElvenshaeGnome-Interruptus
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    Man, it's a good thing half of you weren't in charge of anything in the 40's.

    I wonder if other nations should adopt a similar attitude towards the US and its immigration policy. After all, if we really want to keep people in camps there's nothing that can be done about it.

    Yeah, the butchers bill for WWII was 75 million people or so. Now days a single submarine can outstrip that several times over in under 45 minutes...so maybe going all in isn't as great of a call.

    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
    GiantGeek2020
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    Man, it's a good thing half of you weren't in charge of anything in the 40's.

    I wonder if other nations should adopt a similar attitude towards the US and its immigration policy. After all, if we really want to keep people in camps there's nothing that can be done about it.

    The problem is, the advent of nuclear arms has made the methods we used to deal with the Nazis much more difficult. Again, if you meet China’s expansionism or genocide with military might you are doing so against a nuclear power capable of projecting that force worldwide.

    Nuclear arms changed the calculus in a lot of ways which is why the only real and viable method has to come from within the populace itself. Outside force of any nature tends to result in a trend of radicalization towards nationalism and thus the exact opposite of what you want with China.

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    Commander ZoomGiantGeek2020FencingsaxGnome-Interruptus
  • JusticeforPlutoJusticeforPluto Registered User regular
    I'm not saying go all in, but the idea that all we can do is shrug at China's genocide seems really bad.

  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited April 13
    I'm not saying go all in, but the idea that all we can do is shrug at China's genocide seems really bad.

    It is! It’s very bad!

    But there’s also not a lot we can actually do because you can’t just always world police a genocide away. Especially not with a rising superpower


    Turns out superpower empires are not things we should want to have around period!

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    Commander ZoomSolarGnome-Interruptus
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    I'm not saying go all in, but the idea that all we can do is shrug at China's genocide seems really bad.

    The idea actually seemed to be the people you disagreed with are like nazi appeasers but ok sure.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    tinwhiskers
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited April 13
    I'm not saying go all in, but the idea that all we can do is shrug at China's genocide seems really bad.

    The idea actually seemed to be the people you disagreed with are like nazi appeasers but ok sure.

    I’d be lying if I didn’t think to myself if my own line of argument might have parallels to the British appeasement but I think by and large it’s kind of illusionary because the issues are play beyond the surface are just so different

    The output may be similar enough but the systems that are driving it are just so different that it has to be treated as it’s own thing ultimately

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    MonwynMeeqeDoodmann
Sign In or Register to comment.