Was Biden's Taiwan comment a Gaff or Deliberate?

Burning Man

Super Anarchist
9,726
1,759
Back to the desert
I think it was a good move personally and I think absolutely planned.  Been reading/listening a fair bit about this and I don't think it was a gaff.  It might have been an unplanned remark, but some analysts I've read says it's consistent with his stated previous remarks on the subject.  

One of the analysts on the news this am said that removing the ambiguity now is actually a good move because it takes away the chances for Jhyna to miscalculate our intentions.  If Xi thinks we are distracted or worse yet would refuse to go fight for an allied nation who is not in a formal defense treaty, like we are doing with Ukraine - it makes the chances higher that he might miscalculate and make a play for the Island while he thinks the gettin's good.  

And those that say the US policy has not changed are 100% correct.  We've always planned to defend Taiwan - we've just never stated it publically until now.  I think it's a good thing thing we finally stopped with the "Strategic Ambiguity" charade.

Fuck China!  Just saying.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:

phillysailor

Super Anarchist
7,843
2,702
I think China being reluctant to call out Russia for war crimes is also hampering their ability to call out Biden and the US for pledging to come to Taiwans aid.

They risk being painted with the same brush as Russia if they try to absorb a country which claims, and has demonstrated, complete independence.

Bad for business, and bonds are coming due just as recession s in the offing. 

 

Lark

Supper Anarchist
9,079
1,452
Ohio
I'm not sure, but I've heard a bit from the Japanese perspective.   They seem to be very happy.   After Trump vs NATO, they have no confidence the next POTUS will actually do anything.   They hope it will keep China guessing though.

 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
59,401
4,432
De Nile
I think it was a good move personally and I think absolutely planned.  Been reading/listening a fair bit about this and I don't think it was a gaff.  It might have been an unplanned remark, but some analysts I've read says it's consistent with his stated previous remarks on the subject.  

One of the analysts on the news this am said that removing the ambiguity now is actually a good move because it takes away the chances for Jhyna to miscalculate our intentions.  If Xi thinks we are distracted or worse yet would refuse to go fight for an allied nation who is not in a formal defense treaty, like we are doing with Ukraine - it makes the chances higher that he might miscalculate and make a play for the Island while he thinks the gettin's good.  

And those that say the US policy has not changed are 100% correct.  We've always planned to defend Taiwan - we've just never stated it publically until now.  I think it's a good thing thing we finally stopped with the "Strategic Ambiguity" charade.

Fuck China!  Just saying.  
yeah, it wasn't a gaff.

 

Sisyphus

New member
37
15
Tartarus
This statement seems as much or even primarily calculated for domestic consumption. Biden has been accused of being a pawn of China and as being weak (as allegedly demonstrated by his response in Ukraine). It’s a little sabre rattling to provide a sound bite to counter those accusations. 
 

I doubt the US position was actually ambiguous to China. To the extent publicly binding the US to that position affects China’s thinking, it also puts Biden critics (turned China apologists if the US does have to defend Taiwan) in the position of having to argue that the US should break its word (not that the US hasn’t done that in the past, it’s just a harder political position to criticize an administration for not breaking its word). 
 

 

Grrr...

▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰ 100%
9,234
2,022
Detroit
Now we need to park a carrier group or two in Taiwan's territorial waters.  Then offer to conduct (unending) mitlitary excercises with them.

Payment should be in free microchips and technology.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Steam Flyer

Super Anarchist
40,035
7,587
Eastern NC
I'm not sure, but I've heard a bit from the Japanese perspective.   They seem to be very happy.   After Trump vs NATO, they have no confidence the next POTUS will actually do anything.   They hope it will keep China guessing though.
the Japanese may be pleased with this statement because they think it will make it more difficult for future US Presidents to simply shrug off alliance(s) and treaty obligations.

- DSK

 

Olsonist

Super Anarchist
27,483
3,227
New Oak City
Gaff but saying what’s obvious. Dumpeo changed policy in his last day. That was deliberate (and stupid).

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/09/mike-pompeo-restrictions-us-taiwan-china

In fact, none of this matters. It was previously in the Fuck Around And Find Out doctrine. It’s now in the Don’t Even Think About It doctrine.

China would be stupid to attack. They’d rather just sabre rattle for internal consumption. Indeed the US passed on invading Taiwan in WW2  when Japan had a force of like 7000.  It was considered insurmountable without a D-Day sized force. With modern weapons for defense, it’s only worse.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Voyageur

Super Anarchist
2,796
582
On The Borderline
Now we need to park a carrier group or two in Taiwan's territorial waters.  Then offer to conduct (unending) mitlitary excercises with them.

Payment should be in free microchips and technology.
Joseph Fucking Biden probably said what he meant. We do spend a metric shit ton on our military. If we can't get cooperation, we must make very specific threats. TFG asked the military to send missiles into Mexico, BTW. Strategic ambiguity has worked so far, Joe just said the quiet part, out loud.

 
Not a gaff. If we are willing to go to war against China to save Tiawan then saying we wouldn't would be dangerously stupid. However I think a cagier answer to that awkward question would be to say we don't think the Chinese intend to move militarily against Tiawan, as such a war would destroy that nation and destroyed Tiawan would be a pyrrhic victory. So the Chinese, being the highly intelligent and eminently rational people they are, are highly unlikely to take that tack.  Standard hip-wader grade diplo-BS. 

  However for Biden the FOX Newsies have been trying to make hay by saying Biden is China's bitch. Hunter did some bidness there and sumshit. There is a need to extablish some street cred in the matter. Russia is currently the greater threat and we all know what side Tucker and The Donald are on. The wolf at the door... 

 

Olsonist

Super Anarchist
27,483
3,227
New Oak City
Not a gaff. If we are willing to go to war against China to save Tiawan then saying we wouldn't would be dangerously stupid. However I think a cagier answer to that awkward question would be to say we don't think the Chinese intend to move militarily against Tiawan, as such a war would destroy that nation and destroyed Tiawan would be a pyrrhic victory. So the Chinese, being the highly intelligent and eminently rational people they are, are highly unlikely to take that tack.  Standard hip-wader grade diplo-BS. 

  However for Biden the FOX Newsies have been trying to make hay by saying Biden is China's bitch. Hunter did some bidness there and sumshit. There is a need to extablish some street cred in the matter. Russia is currently the greater threat and we all know what side Tucker and The Donald are on. The wolf at the door... 
In fact, we never said that we wouldn't. We also sell Taiwan F-16s, Stingers, Abrams, MREs, .... It's long been pretty obvious, blindingly obvious, that we would.

Moreover, not only would a Chinese attack on Taiwan be incredibly stupid militarily, but considering the debilitating sanctions that Russia is suffering through, the same would be worse for China. China imports a lot of food and most energy. A shipping embargo would be easy to implement and catastrophic.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

spankoka

Super Anarchist
I would think ships and their cargos would be uninsurable anywhere near the South China Sea in the evet of war. After all, one part of Taiwan's deterrence is the latest in sea mines. 

 

phillysailor

Super Anarchist
7,843
2,702
Taiwan would be much harder to supply during wartime. Ukraine has ample land borders with NATO countries well away from Russian forces which lend themselves to international support.

Taiwan would rather rapidly be completely isolated from naval resupply. Black sky drone capability and satellite coverage by the Chinese would make this conflict very lethal for naval groups and individual ships. The Chinese have set up hardened and unsinkable carriers on islands in the China Sea as preparation for any military invasion of or battle with Taiwan: they have some natural advantages from shorter supply lines.

Pledging to respond militarily to an attack on Taiwan risks a fur ball very quickly becoming a regional theatre conflict with the first outer space strikes coming quickly in the campaign. The world's economy would take a sudden and drastic nosedive. 

I support Biden's pledge of support, but we gotta understand what it entails.

 

Grrr...

▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰ 100%
9,234
2,022
Detroit
I just read an absolutely hilarious article about how the US fucked up by announcing they'd protect Taiwan.  Something about how Austrailia is pissed at us, and that we've 'antagonized Beijing', etc etc.

When did we stop worrying about doing the right thing and start worrying about what fascist dictatorship we piss off?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mrleft8

Super Anarchist
24,535
3,048
Suwanee River
Taiwan is a tiny island right on the coast of Main land China. There is no way we could influence any "attack" by PROC. It would be like China trying to defend Long Island if they decided to separate from New York.

 

BeSafe

Super Anarchist
7,714
1,114
I think Biden just said the practical part out loud.  It was a 'gaffe' in that he said something we've tacitly agreed not to say - 'Yes, that dress does make you look fat.. sorry'.  Its a little bit embarrassing but totally in character, so Biden is to be forgiven.  It doesn't matter.

I don't believe China will invade Taiwan.  They'd lose.  Its not close.  The Chinese known this.  Taiwan has been practicing to defend itself for 50 years - they're well armed, and well trained.

The Ukrainians have stalled the Russian invasion essentially using US surplus hardware - stingers/Javelins/Drones, etc.  They're fighting using left over Soviet era stuff and the new generation of 'automated' weapons that the US has spent... oh.. 300 billion? developing.  They're dovetailing over a ubiquitous satellite network system to and using US intelligence to get a real time assessment of the battlefield.  And they're holding off the '2nd' or '3rd' best army with 1% support from the US?  And they didn't have anywhere near the level of entrenched defenses the Taiwanese have developed.  The object lesson of Ukraine is the reminder...there is one superpower, and everyone else.   And we don't like change.

China would be obliterated in a straight up fight against the US - unless one of the two sides decides to end the world.

The problem is there's no 'resolution' to that conflict.  The US has zero interest in taking over the Chinese mainland so the US would simply keep destroying Chinese assets until eventually China chose to stop fighting - and that could take DECADES.  We don't want China.  We want status quo.  And that's what we'd maintain.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Super Anarchist
60,951
1,625
Punta Gorda FL
I think Biden just said the practical part out loud.  It was a 'gaffe' in that he said something we've tacitly agreed not to say - 'Yes, that dress does make you look fat.. sorry'.  Its a little bit embarrassing but totally in character, so Biden is to be forgiven.  It doesn't matter.
I was wondering if anyone would get around to spelling it correctly.

DolphinGaffMouth.jpg


 
Top