I'd be somewhat curious to learn how you fantasize military planning works.
Kevmo: "***For me.
For the USA.
For indigenous peoples like the Kurds, and the Taiwanese (whom you so often misapply the term about)."
None of that can be true, unless by "the Taiwanese" you really mean: Chi-Com rule over Taiwan, which you fantasize will "liberate" & improve the lives of "the Taiwanese."
Kevmo: "***Frack off, @$$#0/e.
You’re the one working for the chicoms by not acknowledging the facts on the ground."
Seriously, how did your brain get so messed up?
You're here endlessly, totally dishonestly supporting a Chi-Com invasion of Taiwan, and yet you want to accuse me of your own malfeasance?
What's wrong with you, FRiend?
Kevmo: "***You’re the one upholding this bullshiite as good policy.
Now your buddy Biden is in place, so how is it good policy?
Eh? It aint, because he is throwing the ethnic Taiwanese under the bus."
Naw... Biden is your buddy, not mine.
Like you he's in the pay of the Chi-Coms and will potentially throw Taiwan under the bus if push comes to shove.
Biden will do just what you want -- stand aside while the Chi-Coms "liberate" Taiwan, and genocide anybody there they don't like.
So, congratulation, you're a "winner"!
Kevmo: "***Will you just fracking stop it, @$$#0/e?
You seem to have some weird sexual Freudian thing about wet dreams. "
No, no, silly boy -- I'm simply illustrating in the best way I know how, how utterly pathetically disgusting your hypothetical fantasies are to me, and to anyone else who reads them.
Are you finally now starting to "get" it?
Kevmo: "***No, my approach is to declare independence and fight it out while we’re still strong enough to do so.
That time is rapidly dwindling because of this ridiculous policy you uphold and because libtard pacifist China-appeasers are in charge now.
But it won’t work unless it’s about Taiwan becoming an independent country."
Your problem is that's total fantasy because Taiwan has always been, since circa 1949, an independent country.
There's no need for them to declare anything.
There's every need for us to support them in the event of a Chi-Com military invasion.
And yet you refuse to to support that.
Kevmo: "***You’re SAYING this? You took THIS LONG to SAY this? "
No, I've said the same thing from the beginning, but you've been far more interested in insults than reasoned arguments.
Kevmo: "***You have not developed this thesis whatsoever.
It would need its own thread but you’re too much of a pu$$y to open your own thread."
Sane people wouldn't need to hear that expressed at great length, it would be more than adequate to mention it in passing, which I've done, frequently.
Kevmo: "***You ARE kowtowing to them by upholding the policy that will lead to Taiwan’s doom."
You're the one who wants to let the Chi-Coms invade Taiwan without support from the US -- that will lead to their doom.
Of course, if you fantasize the Chi-Coms will "liberate" Taiwan, then I totally "get" where you're coming from: you're the enemy.
Kevmo: "***OMG.
You ACTUALLY ACKNOWLEDGE something that was written in furtherence of a position you disagree with, a FACT.
I do believe this is the first time this has happened with you on this thread, and it possibly could be the first time it has ever happened with you, ever."
You apparently have no clue what you're saying, you're just babbling insanely.
For people of "a certain age", nobody needs to explain the theory of "Mutual Assured Destruction" (MAD), which even today largely rules international relations.
It could well be argued that MAD has helped keep the world mostly at peace since the end of the Second World War.
MAD is based on the idea that a country which first uses nuclear weapons will be utterly destroyed.
It's intended to prevent the use of nukes, but it depends on each country believing others will use nukes if their own country used nukes first -- do you "get" that idea?
Kevmo: "***Yup. All those civilian sampan migrators will be perfect targets.
PR Nightmare. And of course when this all goes pear-shaped we can come back to folks like YOU to make things right?
Nope.
Just as I thought. You folks are sociopaths."
So now you will accuse me of what appears to be the essence of who & what Kevmo is: "sociopath"?
Consider this: just this century we've seen huge numbers -- millions & millions -- of migrants into Europe and the USA from various poor countries.
Many of those to Southern Europe even came by boat from Africa.
The results were widely predicted to cause huge problems within those countries that accepted millions of migrants.
So far it's hard to say if any European country is threatened existentially by these migrations, but for certain, no other country has used migration as their excuse for military invasion of a European country.
So there's no reason to think your fantasies are anything else.
Kevmo: "***All it takes is one of those ASBMs to get through.
America would luze about 10,000 men and $500Billion for each aircraft carrier lost.
At the cost of perhaps $10M for the missile that knocks out the carrier.
And notice that it took you THIS LONG to start addressing the issues.
You’re just a jerk."
The only jerk here is you -- you're just calling me what you see in the mirror.
The truth is I've patiently addressed all these issues now several times, but you are vastly more interested in insults than actual arguments.
Now, so far, you've predicted that US will lose five aircraft carriers and 250,000 sailors/marines/troops if we attempt to support Taiwan against a Chi-Com invasion.
Here you tell us we'll lose 10,000 men and $500 billion for each aircraft carrier your Chi-Com masters sink, if even one of their magic-missiles gets through.
I'm saying all of that -- every word of it -- is utter nonsense.
But wars can be very deadly indeed, and if the Chi-Coms first start a war, then escalate it beyond a mere "flotilla of civilians", they themselves will suffer at least as much as they inflict on us.
You understand that, right?
Kevmo: "***But we won’t be able to stop a civilian-led invasion of Taiwan."
Your fantasies notwithstanding, Taiwanese will have no serious trouble distinguishing civilians from military, with or without the help of the Chi-Com News Network.
Kevmo: "***Oh what a fun game you have invented. You’re obtuse. No, you’re obtuse. Frack off, sociopath."
Your insults are not arguments, they don't make you look smart, they do make it look like you have nothing serious to say.
Kevmo [on "helpless"]: "***I did not say we were, so quit the fracking straw argumentation, sociopath."
You've said we'll lose five aircraft carriers, at $500 billion and 10,000 men each, plus 250,000 total troops killed if we help defend Taiwan from Chi-Com invasion.
That sounds pretty helpless.
I think the Chi-Coms would lose as much or more, and fail to take Taiwan.
So who's really helpless?
Kevmo: "***And none of which CURRENTLY can guarantee taking out ALL ASBMs aimed at a carrier."
Nothing is "guaranteed" in wartime.
But you understand, don't you, that whatever damages they inflicted, your Chi-Coms would suffer at least as much?
Kevmo: "***That is exactly the scenario I have been addressing, that you have been studiously and sociopathically avoiding.
You’re quite the @$$#0/e."
From the beginning you've fantasized endless nonsense, but now your words are more insults than anything else.
Time for you to give it up.
Kevmo: "***The chicoms would be launching missiles at a fleet of warships coming towards a civilian migration from internal provinces to another internal province of CHINA.
Not that you are ever going to address such issues, sociopath."
So, now, finally, you confess this fantasy "civilian flotilla" of yours is actually a Chi-Com state-sponsored form of terrorism against Taiwan, intended to use human shields to protect its military invasion force?
I'm saying the natural Taiwan response would be to destroy anything which seemed to be more military that civilian, and to the degree to which true civilians could be rescued & saved, within the limits of military necessity, that would also be done.
But you doubtless know about the "fog of war" and how it would prevent any guarantees.