[lupusreal]

The nature and number of the naval assets that China is building suggests that China invading Taiwan is actually very likely. Westerners who don't understand why China would want to do that get hung up on their lack of understanding, think it an irrational act (bad for trade, etc) and therefore unlikely for China to do. What they're missing is the concrete evidence of China preparing to do it.

Those amphibious landing ships have one purpose; they're as clear a signal as Russia building field hospitals near the border stocked with blood.

[_heimdall]

A bit off topic, but Russian field hospitals and blood supply was only the last, most obvious indicator.

The build up of troops could have been written off as sabre rattling, they did the same a year or two earlier. Sending a bunch of naval assets the long way around Europe was a much more clear sign, at least for me that's when I knew they were actually going to invade (again).

[ethbr1]

Bingo.

The terrifying thing about China's shipbuilding and armament focusing is "Why would they be building these specific things if they weren't planning on invading Taiwan?"

The focus on amphibious capability doesn't have a lot of dual purpose use...

[ramblenode]

"31 Amphibious Ships are 'Not Enough,' Expert Says" [0]

I guess the US is about to invade Cuba.

[0] https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2023/4/5/31...

[digitalscribe]

> Why would they be building these specific things if they weren't planning on invading Taiwan?

It's basic, obvious, and rational defense policy. Everyone does it.

Why does the US have thousands and thousands of nukes? It's to ensure the destruction of any adversary in case of nuclear war.

The US isnt the only country that's entitled to an arms stockpile.

[ethbr1]

There's a difference between building nukes vs. building amphibious assault ships and transports.

The former aren't much use if you want to invade an island. The latter are.

https://asiatimes.com/2025/01/china-building-monster-barges-...

Pretending like Chinese needs to stockpile amphibious assault capabilities for defensive purposes is sticking your head in the sand.

[digitalscribe]

> There's a difference between building nukes vs. building amphibious assault ships and transports.

Nukes have essentially zero "defense" purposes. Yet all the great powers have them. It's called "good defense policy." All great powers do this.

> Pretending like Chinese needs to stockpile amphibious assault capabilities for defensive purposes is sticking your head in the sand.

Pretending that building out a military = instant invasion is paranoia.

Take a look at the USA military posture, including in Asia. See what forces are available.

So this means the USA is prepared to invade China any minute now? Plus nuke China, Russia because of the nukes?

[specialist]

Yes and: I vaguely recall that reunification was part of Xi's ideology, necessary for maintaining his domestic grip on power.

At this point in time, USA's isolationists may succeed in withdrawing from its foreign commitments. In which case, per your comment elsethread, realizing they no longer have USA's protection, Taiwan may capitulate.

[digitalscribe]

Does anyone else not live off of propaganda here?

The Chinese civil war started in the 1900s, many many decades ago, not yesterday.

Every single last PRC leader has had a goal for reunification of China, including Mao, Deng, Xi, Hu, etc, etc.

Every last one of them.

The civil war didnt start yesterday.

[specialist]

Nope.

Thanks for the clarification. Next time I'll write "Xi, like every CCP leader before him, is wholly committed to retaking Taiwan."

[digitalscribe]

It's important to understand what "reunification" means. The PRC is seeking "peaceful development" [1] towards the goal of reunification. To this end, the mainland encourages exchange, including investments and workers from Taiwan -- something like 1 to 2 million Taiwanese work or live in the mainland [2].

"Reunification" DOES NOT mean the absolutely idiotic policy that US "think tankers" imagine of the PRC scheming to invade the island as soon as military might exists. We have idiots in year 2000 writing drivel like "Jiang Zemin’s desire to make reunification his legacy indicate that Taiwan will be attacked soon" [3]. Hint: no such attack took place because this mindset exists nowhere but in the minds of the retarded think-tankers.

Secession of Taiwan is absolutely a red line, but outside of a move towards secession, the peaceful development will continue.

1: "actively promote the peaceful development of cross-Strait relations" - http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/SpecialReports/2024/Celebratingth...

2: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/12/opinion/international-wor...

3: https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2000/03/how-china-will-t...