[JumpCrisscross]

> PRC considers Taiwan as part of broader China

And I believe Staten Island to be my sovereign dominion.

Xi’s views are of limited relevance. Taiwan is a sovereign country boasting a military alliance with America.

Moving production home is good. But safeguarding global assets in Taiwan from Beijing pulling a Falklands is also savvy.

[remarkEon]

Xi's views are of limited relevance to you and me, perhaps, but they are not of limited relevance to how PRC operates. Of course they're relevant, and then by extension that makes them relevant for how global politics plays out.

>Taiwan is a sovereign country boasting a military alliance with America.

Yep, this is certainly true, and part of maintaining that military alliance will be further entangling things like high tech manufacturing.

>But safeguarding global assets in Taiwan from Beijing pulling a Falklands is also savvy.

I actually don't know as much as I should about the Falkland Islands War, other than the UK took a decent amount of losses surprisingly. I think PRC actually invading Taiwan is extremely unlikely, given the terrain and weather aspects of how that war would go, but doing something like launching some missiles is definitely within the realm of possibility.

[redis_mlc]

> I actually don't know as much as I should about the Falkland Islands War, other than the UK took a decent amount of losses surprisingly.

Good summary, actually! :)

Argentina and Britain lost about the same number of ships, with Britain having an edge on the air war. British troops marched into Port Stanley with dysentery from drinking bog water, but defeated the Argentine conscripts.

Ignoring Argentine military and etiquette lapses, the modern war lessons were:

1) Although subsonic, Harriers were ok ish for defending the fleet against an inferior force.

2) Argentine pilots used terrain masking (fly in on the deck at the bow, similar to "crossing the T") to sink some ships, so good tactics are always in style:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nap-of-the-earth

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_the_T

3) Without first-rate satellite intelligence, the British tried and failed to find and sink Argentine's aircraft carrier using subs. (Argentina withdrew their carrier to preserve it, after the traumatic sinking of the Belgrano. So tactically the British achieved the same result, but there's always uncertainty with a ship that's still floating.)

4) A British troop carrier was bombed at anchor with the soldiers ordered to remain onboard. That was a command mistake on par with US amphibious landing mistakes in the WW2 Italy campaign. Anzio, anybody?

5) Aluminum ships burn, like the Sheffield.

Having said that, the result could have been very different considering how few Harriers Britain had, or if Argentina had 10 more Exocet missiles.

(Little-known fact: An Exocet destroyed one British ship without the warhead even detonating, just the rocket fuel. The watch saw it coming, and couldn't do anything about it.)

[JumpCrisscross]

My analogy to the Falklands War was in it being a failing junta‘s Hail Mary, an attempt to detract from problems at home.

Galtieri gambled Britain would ignore the provocation. He was wrong. He lost. And then he was deposed.

[redis_mlc]

> it being a failing junta‘s Hail Mary

Oh, for a minute there, I thought you meant Thatcher. lol.

[remarkEon]

Nice summary. Any books to recommend? My military history has a few gaps in it, and the Falkland Islands War is one of the most prominent.

[redis_mlc]

You can watch a few videos on Youtube and piece things together.

The most fascinating interviews are with the Argentine mechanics, who because of the French embargo, mounted the Exocets on hand-made launch rails, and the Argentine pilots who used them to devastating effect.

Some subjects:

0. The failed diplomatic effort to avoid war (the Argentine diplomats were too busy drinking cocktails to negotiate with the British diplomats. Very macho!)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V887sYcmIAc @15:30

1. The race to get the obsolete Vulcan bombers ready:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8FEmLVHE_w

2. The war itself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V887sYcmIAc

3. The remarkably successful Argentine Air Force operations:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUx9HtNqd3E

- Exocet launch against Sheffield @8:17

- Exocet launch against Atlantic Conveyor @10:30

- (The Ardent was also bombed and destroyed, probably with gravity bombs.)

4. Mark Felton's video on a returning Vulcan seized by Brazil:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ng_X2dHJpZ4

I'll see if I can find the Argentine mechanics interview later.

[redis_mlc]

Argentine Diplomats Scoff at Threat of War @20:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V887sYcmIAc

The same thing happened with Iraq, and this is typical. Unless you have a credible force, there is always conflict.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Xi's views are of limited relevance to you and me, perhaps, but they are not of limited relevance to how PRC operates

Fair enough. I amend my earlier statement to Xi’s messaging on Taiwan is of limited relevance to American economic, foreign and military policy. He’s playing to a domestic audience.

It could become more relevant in the future. But for day to day policymaking, it can usually be ignored.

[chrischen]

To be fair, it's not strictly Xi's views, and China's government can't be so easily be dismissed as illegitimate by outsiders.

[JumpCrisscross]

> China's government can't be so easily be dismissed as illegitimate

I believe the U.S. government is legitimate. That doesn’t mean I believe its every view is so.

Xi’s government’s legitimacy can exist alongside his statements on Taiwan being ridiculous. (I’ll note, too, that Xi and the CPC are outsiderS to Taiwan’s affairs.)

[chrischen]

My point isn't on whether or not all his views are legitimate—that's a pointless argument to make. My point is that quite a lot of people (probably the majority of Chinese) are on his side regarding his viewpoints on that.

[calvinmorrison]

JumpCrisscross has entered the nuclear arms race