[lopsotronic]

You also have to ponder how it looks when you remove the Chinese supply chain for all those commodity parts. Which will almost certainly be the case if we decide to punch that dance card.

Having a boundless cornucopia of servos and radios will affect the shape of your logistics/maintenance/fabrication complex.

That's not just a "Ukraine Problem" either.

[Animats]

Ukraine and Taiwan quietly cooperate in weapons development and production, especially drones.[1] They both have big, aggressive neighbors. Ukraine knows how to fight them, and Taiwan can make electronics in quantity. Ukraine is starting to get cooperation from Japan, too, but that's in an earlier stage.[2] With Taiwan, it's serious.

The paper doesn't mention Ukraine at all, yet it's all about the kind of war that Ukraine is fighting.

[1] https://dset.tw/en/research/000491-2/

[2] https://www.technology.org/2026/03/17/japan-might-sell-weapo...

[lo_zamoyski]

And if we're talking Ukraine, we have to talk Poland as it has been facilitating 90% of all Western military equipment, humanitarian aid, and crucial trade deliveries into the country.

Poland is, of course, geopolitically positioned in a way that requires at least regional power status to survive if not thrive. A power vacuum in Poland is bad news for the security of Europe and Poland's immediate neighbors and regional partners as well.

As a result, an important component of long term Polish grand strategy has been the quiet building up of its logistical prowess and might and its supply chains for years. Current big names: the CPK/Port Polska megaproject which is designed with civilian/military dual use in mind; Euroterminal Sławków; expansion of the Port of Gdańsk and other ports. Regional projects include the Via Carpathia and the Via Baltica.

[zonzujiro]

> if we're talking Ukraine, we have to talk Poland

No, we're not ;) They are where they are because they lease the ground under a NATO base, WHICH is actually doing the job. Not the Polish government.

Whis has been a very unreliable partner for the last 4 years, constantly using their geographical position to push Ukraine into submission and leverage their own political interests for internal and external programs.

> geopolitically positioned in a way that requires at least regional power status to survive, if not thrive

As long as Ukrainian military power is there, the region is safe. That's why the Baltic and Northern countries are investing so much in Ukraine + constantly taking our war experience.

In general, are they being useful? Absolutely yes. Do we need to include them in any discussions? No, since they are already misusing their position. Plus telling everyone how useful they are. Like, in case anybody can forget.

[Animats]

Poland and the Baltics know they're next on Putin's list. So they're glad to help Ukraine. Better than fighting the Russians on home territory.

Taiwan and Japan, though, aren't in Russia's line of fire. The cooperation with Ukraine is because Ukraine figured out how to stop Russia. Taiwan has a real threat, and if they can build defenses that mean China faces a years-long war, there probably won't be one.

[caycep]

I think they already have that, they want to make sure it stays that way

alternatively, there's a Dennis Ross piece out pointing out that China's procurement patterns over the years suggests they are not seriously thinking of invading Taiwan, they just want everyone to think that way...

[wahern]

To the extent Xi Jinping isn't seriously interested in invading Taiwan (and that seems dubious), he still needs to keep the PLA and other factions thinking he does. Reclaiming Taiwan is a pillar of PLA ideology and strategic doctrine. PLA culture is why China has never forced its will in North Korea despite continued disobedience to Beijing--the old guard in the PLA feels honor bound to defend North Korea's independence, rather than making it a client state, which it easily could do. It's similar to defense policy hawks in the US regarding Middle East intervention, who have nominally always been a minority faction. Perennial Middle East intervention never made much sense, and yet it keeps happening over and over, even when the military is woefully unprepared (e.g. Iran), because that faction is adept at manipulating defense policy, and has been playing the same long game since the 1990s. Which is precisely why the Taiwan threat is real. China isn't a political monolith, and the forces pushing to invade Taiwan, even if presently held at bay, could succeed in a blink of an eye, even without China being properly prepared for a successful invasion.

[Lonestar1440]

No one has watched Ukraine unfold and said "Yes, it will indeed be easy for me to invade a smaller but technically sophisticated neighbor"

China will never invade Taiwan, but they will unite politically one day.

[mschuster91]

> they just want everyone to think that way

That's the thing with religious or ideologically driven dictators. They're nutjobs, not beholden to reality in their decisionmaking but to whatever their ideology prescribes - and thus are prone to making decisions that seem to (or end up being) utterly stupid / irrational.

With Yugoslavia, it was Tito's idea to force all the various countries into one common ethnicity. With Russia, it is Putin's dream of restoring "Greater Russia". With China, it's the dream of re-unification with Taiwan on one side, and reversing what is seen as a land grab by back-then Czarist Russia in Outer Manchuria. With Trump it is the desperate desire to be beloved (and the desire of his Project 2025 handlers to turn the US into an ethno-christo-nationalist state). With Ben Gvir and Smotrich in Israel, it is the desire to wipe out anything Palestinian.

And the result of these madmen was and is an untold amount of needless suffering. There is no reason at all to not believe what China is openly saying [1] and to prepare accordingly. Better be prepared than be sorry.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/dec/31/xi-jinping-vow...

[idiotsecant]

It's wildly naive to think that dictators are 'nutjobs'. They are, without exception, shrewd political operators. You don't get to be dictator and stay dictator without a certain skill set, and part of that is having a good sense of which actions get you a bigger bank account and which ones end with your head on a stick.

They might be wrong like any human, but they aren't cartoon villains.

[caycep]

Granted, there is what is China is "openly saying" in terms of official warnings and such, and what they are "openly saying" in terms of what they are actually spending money on in terms of material, equipment and capability (of which there is at least some degree of logical, non-nut job type thinking behind):

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/china/mirage-chinas-military-...

[troupo]

Or you completely ignore what China is openly saying: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China's_final_warning

[ExoticPearTree]

> Taiwan has a real threat, and if they can build defenses that mean China faces a years-long war, there probably won't be one.

China could just bomb Taiwan into submission if it chooses to. I don't think it is a problem for China to build 20-30k ballistic missile and launch them at Taiwan. Or send a million drones over there just to be sure nothing survives them.

Taiwan is, unfortunately, in a very precarious situation should China decide enough is enough and reunification must happen no matter what.

[the_gastropod]

1. “Reunification” is straight Chinese propaganda. Taiwan has never been part of the PRC. Japan has a stronger claim for “reunification” than the PRC does (and that’d also be very dumb)

2. Taiwan and Taiwanese allies also have agency. China doesn’t just get to fire 20-30k ballistic missiles at Taiwan with no consequences. The consequences would maybe be asymmetrical, but they’d no doubt be very painful for China.

[telxosis]

The idea is completely absurd to me.

China is constrained on this by near certain mutually assured economic destruction.

Even the food supply in China would basically be destroyed unless you believe that the population is going to just go back to a diet of largely rice with meat being a luxury.

20-30k ballistic missiles at Taiwan would cause a global depression that dwarfs the great depression. There would be almost no way the CCP survive this. That is why this subject is mostly people talking nonsense.

Reunification has to happen politically, persuasively, over time and without firing a shot.

[ExoticPearTree]

1. That I see it as payback for the KMT losing the civil war.

2. Yeah, dunno about that, who will do what exactly to China? I also think that, since you mentioned it, Japan would intervene, China will pretty much use it as an excuse for retribution on what the Japanese did to the Chinese during WW2.

[0x457]

I'd assume China wants to keep as much manufacturing capabilities of Taiwan intact. If it was just about unification, then it would have happened long time ago.

[D_Alex]

>Poland and the Baltics know they're next on Putin's list.

"Putin's list" is a dishonest meme, just like the "rules-based international order" that the Western nations supposedly embrace.

There is no such list, and there are no such rules. There is only deceitful propaganda used to justify geopolitical ambitions. Don't spread it.

[brabel]

Even the most optimistic Russian does not think Russia will ever get beyond https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novorossiya which is not much more than Russia currently occupies. You really think they will eventually march over Ukraine on to Warsaw?? That’s as likely as the exiled Chinese government in Taiwan taking over China.

[nostrademons]

When the war started, it certainly looked like it. Russian soldiers were in Kyiv at one point:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kyiv_(2022)

It was the failure of Russian logistics and the triumph of Ukrainian logistics that beat them back.

[ericmay]

Credit certainly that Russian logistics failed, but was it Ukrainian logistics that beat them back or was it Ukrainian logistics and heroism alongside American and British support, intelligence, and 24/7 airlifts of critical weapons and equipment that beat them back?

[esseph]

There have been rumblings of a Russian attack on Poland for awhile.

https://youtu.be/NVnbtbtgu2Y?is=2lMFmF2kQ0SXqIw0

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2026/07/03/russia-pla...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jun/26/russia-provoca...

Polish news: https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2026/07/09/8043294/

---

The head of Poland's Foreign Ministry noted that he cannot comment on intelligence data but stressed that Russia has long been waging a hybrid war against Poland and France.

He said this involves cyberattacks on state systems, attempts to gather information on critical infrastructure using shadow fleet vessels, arson, sabotage on railways and drone attacks.

Sikorski also recalled that before the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russia allegedly prepared false flag provocations to create a pretext for starting the war. At the time, American intelligence warnings helped thwart those plans.

"Today you must believe us – not just me, but other countries too – that we have credible information that the Russians are planning something again. The purpose of these warnings is to discourage them from carrying out these provocations," he said.

French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot, for his part, confirmed that Paris is also recording increased Russian hybrid activity.

[brabel]

Poland is delivering 90% of NATO’s support to Ukraine. France is one of the staunchest enemies of Russia. In this situation I just don’t understand what people expect Russia to do?? Sit and accept while those countries work hard to kill its soldiers and destroy its economy? I am surprised Russia hasn’t bombed transport depots in Poland that are known to be used for weapons delivery to Ukraine yet, but that seems very likely to happen in the next few months. However that is not the same as Russia invading Poland! Those reports are talking about attacks, no one in their right mind is expecting an invasion, which is what my comment was referring to.

[XorNot]

Ukraine is keeping Russia where it is at a tremendous expenditure of people and treasure.

Their success in the conflict is not guaranteed.

[brabel]

Their success is already impossible: you cannot lose half of your population and suffer millions of casualties and still consider that a success in the end, even if Ukraine was to retake most of the territory it has lost, which seems less and less likely as the years pass.

Wars of this kind never have winners. Russia also lost too many soldiers to celebrate anything.

[decimalenough]

The paper has a lengthy section entitled "The Crucible of Ukraine: The Transparent Battlefield".

[Animats]

Right. Sorry.

[dash2]

The paper explicitly mentions Ukraine and that’s a key motivation for its conclusions.

[ExoticPearTree]

In Taiwan's case, the question is how does China see the reunification.

It could be a naval blockade until Taiwan runs out of food/fuel/medicines and they surrender. Or it could be "we will take the island no matter what" and if somebody survives OK, if not, also OK.

[n4r9]

Wow, I just looked up how self-sufficient the island is and the answer is barely at all. Which initially seems surprising given the continual threat. But I guess they're counting on global support as a tech chokepoint.

[Taikonerd]

Yeah, people always talk about the China "invading" Taiwan like PLA soldiers are going to be storming the beaches.

If I were Xi, I wouldn't do that; I would just blockade them. You can get the same capitulation (hopefully) without firing a shot.

[elictronic]

Here is a 2024 article pointing out China doing exactly this and Ukraine making many of the blocked items at home. You might be 2 years to late with this comment. https://kyivindependent.com/as-china-weaponizes-the-drone-su...

China controls much of the integration and many of the low level components for super low cost electronics and motors. They aren't the ones controlling all the fabs for the circuits and integration can be done anywhere if you want to pay extra.

[bix6]

Thanks for linking this is interesting. It sounds like they are still unable to produce many of the base components though?

> most manufacturers of everything within Ukraine remain dependent on imported machining tools — traditionally Chinese, but increasingly Indian and, for those who can afford it, European.

But for the cheapest components, simple base-line products like transistors, circuit boards, wiring, or solar cells, nobody can yet step up to the scale of China’s mass production.

[Cthulhu_]

It's not so much a matter of can, but willingness and (worse) economic viability. But recent worldwide instability - from leadership changes to supply disruptions to war - has given that a push.

[dmsayer]

Taiwan?

[t-3]

Taiwan is tiny, far from Ukraine, and the majority of the economy is TSMC. Just because they're also Chinese doesn't mean they have the ability to make everything China does.

[d-cc]

The revolution lives on, comrade.

[kevin_thibedeau]

The US strongly avoids foreign content for this reason. This policy is often the only thing keeping domestic commodity component manufacturing afloat. This is also the main reason Micron is getting a subsidized fab.

[lopsotronic]

The sheer quantity of "mislabelled"[1] PRC origin parts passing through the logistics chains as Primo-A-grade-American-Made - even in Defense - is deeply disturbing, and that's the stuff that they do catch.

Transshipment is the elephant in the room here - smaller components made in PRC, then shipped to wherever as Raw Materials (tm), and then put in a "friendly nation" box and sold as safe.

DoD's DMEA and DLA CD programs, plus GIDEP reporting, capture confirmed cases . . but not the miss rate. On the occasion they do bust open a jet (or god forbid a missile) and look at all the bits with a microscope, it can be scary.

[1] They like to avoid the more precise "criminal fraud"

[kevin_thibedeau]

The point is that, when PRC cuts off the parts, there are backstops for alternate sourcing most of them even if it means reopening mines to get the materials and subsidizing production.

[zemvpferreira]

I don't mean to belittle the American war machine but as someone involved in overseas manufacturing for a while, I just don't see how it's possible to source 90% of items now made in China without a solid decade or two of investment. There are no factories, no supply chains, no skilled workers. It seems like fantasy.

[hollerith]

Maybe, but I wish people in these conversations would sometimes point out that China is also dependent on imports to continue to make the stuff it makes.

China is a heavy importer of petroleum, food and fertilizer. A modern economy needs petroleum to grow food and to deliver food to consumers. Although China is wisely trying to replace that dependence on petroleum with electric vehicles, it has not yet succeeded. If there's ever a sustained shortage of food, Chinese young men are likely to start revolting and rioting like they've done dozens of times in Chinese history in response to food shortages. China relies on foreign nations for approximately 75% to 80% of its total iron ore consumption, making it the world's largest importer. Despite having had semiconductor manufacturing self-sufficiency as a top national priority for many years, it is still the case that Chinese smartphone manufacturers rely heavily on Samsung and TSMC for the SOCs that go into those smartphones -- and MediaTek (Taiwan) and Qualcomm (US), not Chinese firms, design most of those SOCs.

Geopolitical strategist Peter Zeihan argues that the United States is the only major global power fully capable of national self-sufficiency. I.e., if global trade is ever disrupted by world war, the US would be able replace its missing imports much faster than China would be able to.

[xp84]

I would bet Japan, Korea, Taiwan all produce some of the needed things in an emergency scenario (obv Taiwan may be under artillery attack, but then again, does China want a destroyed Taiwan or do they want to own it, with its priceless industries intact, as a crown jewel? They may avoid such destruction).

But honestly, I don't think China wants Taiwan "reunification" quite as much as they want to have their economy be prosperous and, just as importantly, not to have millions of people die on both sides. If massively provoked, e.g. Taiwan declares independence and joins NATO, sure. But I expect non-war outcomes somewhat more than I expect war.

I recognize this is a big bet on the ethics of perhaps a small group of important CPC decision makers, but I do bet on that. Xi Jinping is no Hitler, no Stalin.

[nswango]

Offshoring into China was literally invented by Japanese, Korean and Taiwanese companies.

We see high quality tech products coming out of the countries and assume that they're very good at building things. In fact they are extremely good at managing complex supply chains going in and out of PRC, while keeping certain high value add parts of the business within their own countries.

[Epa095]

> If massively provoked, e.g. Taiwan declares independence and joins NATO, sure.

You think NATO would stand there with open arms in such a case? NATO membership requires agreement from all member states, and I don't sense a great appetite among the European countries for a war with China.

I agree with the overall point of your post though.

[lazide]

The US has been running on fantasy for a long time.

[kevin_thibedeau]

The US defense industry keeps track of these things. Civilian production will suffer but the military will keep itself supplied.

[klooney]

Stuff like https://www.hadrian.co/ is pretty neat, but the whole "electric stack" is hopelessly Chinese from this perspective- batteries, motors, all kinds of small and crucial electrical things- and critical minerals, like Gallium for radar.

[bix6]

I am so curious about this. There are a lot of 3D printed drone startups now. But nobody really seems to be thinking about the electronics sourcing. Great you can print a drone shell wherever but what happens if China turns off exports?

[galangalalgol]

Ukraine seems pretty paranoid about this, having backup suppliers for parts. Looks like they take efficiency hits and build more complicated things out of multiple discrete chips that would normally be ontegrated commercially so that they can go to suppliers in Oceania, eurasia, or eastasia depending on who is being helpful.

[cyberax]

Which supplies? Batteries are produced everywhere. Power electronics are dime-a-dozen. IMUs, GPS chips, and CPUs are produced in Taiwan anyway.

[klooney]

If China/Taiwan kicks off, you're not getting new parts from Taiwan

[cyberax]

The US can produce these chips. South Korea can also do that.

[ddtaylor]

The US cannot produce most of what that TSMC can can. And those US factories aren't rolling yet either.

[xp84]

TSMC is absolutely critical for 'frontier' silicon but:

1. In a China/Taiwan conflict, China's not getting TSMC output either - Bear in mind that I doubt China would ever want to destroy TSMC though, so I'm talking about a naval blockade rather than artillery destroying the fabs.

2. Although SOTA chips are off the table, we could get older process node stuff. We could still build say, 2015-era chips. We had great missiles in 2015.

[cyberax]

Most drones don't use anything cutting-edge. Even 15-year-old chips are more than enough.

[nswango]

You know that when there were COVID related supply chain disruptions to microchips coming out of Taiwan, Europe and the US actually found it impossible to make the right number of cars?

[giantg2]

The US manufacturing capacity was a huge factor in winning WW2. I wonder who holds that advantage now...

[ericmay]

There are a lot of differences. One of the chief differences was that during World War II the United States continental homeland was pretty much untouchable, which allowed the United States and the allies access to a secure and resource rich supply chain that helped lead to victory over the Axis powers.

In an engagement with China it is likely that both sides would be able to strike each other's defense industrial base, with the added "benefit" that American missiles, aircraft, and other equipment are stationed strategically in the region in various countries (Japan, South Korea, Philippines, Australia, and others) and as such the United States can project some amount of destruction on critical Chinese industrial facilities. I'm wondering if China in this scenario would be eager to, or hesitant to strike the United States for fear of a very rapid escalation of the war. Anyway - the point is that long range missiles, drones, and other offensive capabilities mean that supposedly "safe" manufacturing facilities are in danger, with the United States being a bit closer in range to inflict damage than China and with China having I would guess a little bit of hesitancy to strike mainland America.

In addition to some of the simple geographic differences, China has its own strategic challenges. Energy, for one. So far nobody has built a tank, plane, or ship that can run on batteries and while drone technology has continued to advance in many critical ways they don't bring the big bombs quite yet. Naturally the United States in the event of a war is going to at least consider if not outright strike Chinese energy facilities, and deny imports of oil which are critical to supply chains and conducting a war.

If China's only theater is perhaps Taiwan that's probably less of an issue, but then you've got the United States with its, in my view, inferior supply chain, operating unfettered, similar to during World War II while the Chinese supply chain both local and superior particularly for small or "low cost" components is facing both energy stress and stress from missiles or other attacks.

I don't mean to sound pro-USA here or to suggest there aren't other significant advantages or disadvantages for either the United States or China, but to just highlight that your thoughtful comment here which seems to imply that China's massive industrial capacity is akin to the United States' during World War II is not quite an apples-to-apples comparison.

[marcus_holmes]

> So far nobody has built a tank, plane, or ship that can run on batteries and while drone technology has continued to advance in many critical ways they don't bring the big bombs quite yet.

Ukraine is proving that the "big bombs" are useless - fpv drones can and do take out tanks, planes and ships. They don't survive long enough to deliver the "big bombs".

Russia is currently reduced to sending in unmechanised light infantry to try and take ground because everything larger doesn't survive (and the light infantry apparently survive for only 20 minutes on average). Russia's Black Sea fleet cowers in port under its anti-air defences and even then takes losses. Their long-range bombers are not being used in the long-range bombing of Ukraine's civilians, that's all down to cruise missiles, because they're too valuable to lose (and a lot of them have been destroyed on the runway by drones).

The age of WW2-era mechanised warfare is gone. It's as obsolete as the cavalry that came before it.

[ericmay]

> Ukraine is proving that the "big bombs" are useless

Depends on the application. The drones have to be manufactured somewhere. You need electricity. Running water. Industrial facilities. The big bomb still matters there.

> The age of WW2-era mechanised warfare is gone. It's as obsolete as the cavalry that came before it.

Well the primary issue is that drones can’t hold or take land, only deny. I think mechanized infantry will continue to have a place, they’ll just be augmented by drones. But who knows you could be right depending on how things develop.

[marcus_holmes]

> Well the primary issue is that drones can’t hold or take land, only deny.

https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-russia-position-take...

That's changing

[ericmay]

I agree and upvoted you for a good comment with a good source.

In my mind I was thinking about how humans have to actually go back to the land. In Ukraine we’ve seen what amount to drone enforced no-man’s lands where no human can really seize or make use of the land. There of course can be the case where the drones clear the land of enemy troops and drones and then your own people or soldiers move and then occupy the land.

[Epa095]

There is a very very large ocean between China and the USA, you cant just assume the lessons from the Ukraine-Russian war will transfer. It would be a completely different beast, and as OP said, missiles might play an important role for both sides. In such a scenario we might see both powers having most of their industrial base destroyed before any of their soldiers (or drones) come into reach of each other.

[wildzzz]

Sure but neither side has a B-2 or F-35. Drones are great for blowing up a few conscripts or a parked plane but a stealth bomber carrying 80 JDAMs can level 5km^2.

[troupo]

As Ukraine has shown, a truckload of drones takes out any number of planes, and large chunks of the airfields where those planes are parked.

Oh, and planes need fuel. And large production plants for parts, and huge maintenance hangars.

[wildzzz]

Right but that works well for a war against your neighbor. Ukraine isn't launching these drones to fly over to the Central African Republic.

[marcus_holmes]

Which is working so well against Iran, right?

Oh wait, no, the other thing.

[budsniffer952]

Hilarious. You realize the US could nuke and flatten Iran tomorrow, right? Do you imagine that Trump was trying to conquer Iran and just couldn't do it with all the American military power? There is no scenario that Iran wins a war with the USA.

They were trying to overthrow the regime, for the second time in a year, and failed.

[budsniffer952]

You realize Russia has drones too, right? And also artillery shell manufacturing capacity 2x the west? And they continue to bombard Ukraine?

[marcus_holmes]

Russia is not using their drones in the same way that Ukraine is.

Russia cannot get conventional artillery close enough to use it properly, and Ukraine is keeping personnel away from the front line so they're hard to spot and harder to hit.

Russia is bombarding Ukraine's population centres with long-range cruise missiles. This is the failed Blitz strategy that Britain goaded Germany into during WW2 - get the enemy mad enough to bomb population centres, and not military or economic assets (Germany had almost achieved air superiority by bombing British airfields). Ukraine is leaving the population centres alone and focusing on economic and military production facilities.

Russia is losing this war. And has been for over a year.

[ExoticPearTree]

Russia could end the war instantly with a few nukes if it wanted to. I don't get it why it hasn't done that yet. Pride?

[skolos]

There was lots of discussion within Russian and Ukrainian war analytics that nukes (at least tactical) are useless in this war for the following reasons:

- they would not change much on battlefield - there is no large concentrations that you can nuke - everything is dispersed

- nuking urban centers again won't change much on battlefield but would alienate China

- Russia's equipment is known to be not most reliable/maintained and worst that can happen to Russia is them trying to nuke and nukes not working

[ExoticPearTree]

Nuking all the major population centers would pretty much destroy the ability of Ukraine to manufacture weapons in any meaningful number and it would also deprive its army of any new soldiers, no reinforcements, no food supplies and so on. I think it will change the course of the war pretty fast and pretty drastically.

[lopsotronic]

Yeah, I was going to point out there's a few "big bombs" out there that aren't useless at all . .

Someone will break the First Use taboo, but I wouldn't put money on it being Russia, at the moment, not for Ukraine, as odd as it sounds to say that.

There are more important concerns keeping Putin from breaking First Use, but one interesting one is a genuine anxiety that the stupid thing just wouldn't work. Just lay an egg of fissionable material in Zelensky's bedroom.

[troupo]

Yup. As soon as Russia nukes someone, the war instantly ends. Because no one will ever think to retaliate.

[ExoticPearTree]

I get the sarcasm, but besides the US that for whatever reason might retaliate with nukes, who else? And would they risk it just because?

[marcus_holmes]

Because the point of the war was part of the plan to reform the Soviet Union under Russia/Putin.

The idea was to spend a few days, a couple weeks at most, taking Kyiv and the major cities, and then absorb Ukraine into a greater Russian state.

If they have to nuke Ukraine to make them do that, then that's not going to work. Absorbing a radioactive hellhole, with all the problems that will bring, isn't the plan.

Of course, the plan has gone badly wrong, and pretty much everything has gone the opposite to the way Putin wanted it do, so he could still nuke Ukraine just out of petty spite.

[xp84]

Good analysis. I agree that China could consider targeting the US mainland, but in every scenario other than "crazed madman" I think they'll know that kind of thing inevitably ends up with symmetrical (or worse for them) destruction. It would be easy to get public support for massive retaliation if Americans see proof that China has no qualms about blowing up their home, workplace, etc. The fringe will say "Nuke China - it worked in 1945!" and the mainstream will say "Blow up every power plant and dam we can."

When the dust settles, China's killed a bunch of Americans, America has killed even more Chinese, and we're in the same place we were before. I don't think China's that dumb, and they're not that evil, either.

[Brybry]

China does have nuclear-powered submarines and they are currently building a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier (type 004). [1]

[1] https://features.csis.org/hiddenreach/china-fourth-carrier/

[throw0101a]

> The US manufacturing capacity was a huge factor in winning WW2.

Not wrong, but the British were outproducing the Germans in many things (e.g., aircraft[1]) even before lend-lease was a thing.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_aircraft_producti...

The Nazis were really bad at running the economy:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wages_of_Destruction

[analog31]

Maybe there should be a saying for national economies: Amateurs talk about finance and IT, and professionals talk about resources and manufacturing.

[cyberax]

There are no truly irreplaceable components there. It's going to only be a problem if China stops _all_ the exports.

Even then, a custom supply chain can be set up domestically. You'll probably have to limit the number of variations for these servos and motors, but you can produce them even manually if you absolutely have to.