[HN Gopher] China uses anti-fraud app to track access to oversea...
___________________________________________________________________
China uses anti-fraud app to track access to overseas financial
news sites
Author : jbegley
Score : 175 points
Date : 2021-09-14 12:41 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.ft.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.ft.com)
| aurizon wrote:
| deleted, the comments revealed the flaws
| trompetenaccoun wrote:
| It would never happen. Musk wants to sell cars in China, Tesla
| has important factories there as well. The Chinese government
| has a lot more leverage when it comes to these companies, they
| could simply shut them down without warning and crash the
| shareholder's stocks.
| postingawayonhn wrote:
| I tend to agree with this line of thinking though Tesla has
| some leverage too.
|
| The factory complex Tesla has built in Shanghai has been
| funded with several billion dollars of local debt. If China
| were to seize the factory then Tesla would simply stop
| servicing that debt.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| I don't know if this is true, especially in the case of
| Tesla.
|
| The fact is, China prevents money from leaving their country,
| so any western company in China is kind of a farce, because
| they can't actually take their money out if they make any.
| What they do hope to get out of China though is intellectual
| property, which can pass boundaries without taxes.
|
| If Musk really has a utopian goal of decreasing emissions, he
| couldn't care less if China took over Tesla China, because he
| won't be making actual money from Tesla China anyway.
| Instead, he hopes that manufacturing innovations and ideas
| can be shared to his other factories.
|
| If china took over tesla China and didn't share innovations,
| that would just be stupid on their part, because the rest of
| the world would be working together and sharing innovation
| without them.
| Loic wrote:
| They _will_ do it. The 100-year-CCP discourse of Xi clearly
| stated that he wants CCP to be self-sufficient. He will
| simply take control of all the _West_ assets in China once he
| considers that the _West_ cannot do anything against the
| takeover.
|
| _West_ : in the sense everything but China.
| justicezyx wrote:
| Well, you certainly underestimate Mr. Xi. He wants his
| state-owned enterprise to be so efficient and innovative
| that, it's useless to own the worse foreign assets. After
| all, Mr. Xi believe that his state owned enterprise will
| produce the best and the most desirable products on the
| market. Without foreign assets, the world would not open
| their market to Mr. Xi then. The same capitalism logic...
| Proven wrote:
| Where would we spend our subsidies if we didn't have Tony Stark
| and his inventions!
|
| Satellite internet (and TV) have been available - and illegal
| to use - in China for decades.
| wongarsu wrote:
| Instead of shooting down satellites and causing an
| international incident, along with risking Kessler syndrome,
| why not just prevent people from owning Starlink Terminals? You
| can enforce it fairly easily with import bans, and find
| smuggled devices by triangulating their radio signals (worst
| case equip a couple planes to fly over the country to look for
| Starlink radio signals). Or just strongarm SpaceX into not
| providing service to terminals in mainland China.
| ashtonkem wrote:
| Aren't the current terminals quite large? They'd be hard to
| smuggle.
| Mindless2112 wrote:
| Or just jam it.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_jamming_in_China
| trompetenaccoun wrote:
| What the CCP's been doing over the past couple of months is
| worrying. I wish there were a nicer explanation but it almost
| looks like they're preparing for war, or at least increasing
| confrontation.
| throwaway_2047 wrote:
| I used to live in Hong Kong. In the past 2 year situation has
| been Orwellian. News outlet being shutdown, pro-democratic
| parties dismissed, charities disbanded, whole members of
| political party got arrested, among others. At least 1% of the
| population fled the city in the first half of 2021.
|
| In a parallel universe, and completely unrelated note, my
| friends in China, thinks their country can finally stand-up
| against the west. They cannot be more proud of their country.
| There is also the sentiment that the West would not doing
| anything concrete against China
|
| I can dig up figures and references if anyone interested
|
| Edited with reference:
|
| [1] Clam down on Apple Daily, the only pro-democratic (that I
| know of) news outlet in Hong Kong
|
| [2] Directors of Apple Daily arrested
|
| [3] 65,000 applications of BN(O) visa, the visa for HKers to
| move to the UK. HK population is around 7.5M
|
| [4] Youtubers exodus, for fear of government prosecution in the
| name of the national security or for whatever reason.
|
| [5] 230 Democrats quitting local council.
|
| [6] There are around 479 local council in total. So about half
| of them quit
|
| [7] People were arrested in the name of national security here
| and there. A charity, formed last year, providing inmate
| visiting service, will be dismissed. Only Chinese source
| available at the moment
|
| [8] During the peak of mass migration in the 90s, 62,000 people
| per year moved away from HK. Compare with 65,000 moving to the
| UK in the first 6 months
|
| [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/hong-kongs-apple-daily-will-
| clo...
|
| [2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/17/hong-kong-
| poli...
|
| [3] https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/65-000-hongkongers-
| apply-...
|
| [4] https://www.youtube.com/c/memehongkong
| https://www.youtube.com/c/bobsyouruncle1981
| https://www.youtube.com/c/Gavinchiu001
| https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVjj_osiKAP_qTtJAr6IrvA
| https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCh_KRmXM4RiQFvOBBDpvC6Q
|
| [5] https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/230-elected-pro-
| democrats-q...
|
| [6]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_councils_of_Hong_Kong
|
| [7] https://news.now.com/home/local/player?newsId=449783
|
| [8]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waves_of_mass_migrations_from_...
| 3pt14159 wrote:
| When Trump was elected China had no better time to finally
| act. A destabilized and distracted west and political cover
| for actions as responses to Trump's aggressive on China tone.
|
| Even now, we're not out of the woods yet. The west is still
| dealing with the lingering effects of Trumpism and Covid has
| balance sheets and attentions. Consolidating power now while
| nobody in the world will really challenge them. The democrats
| can't survive a recession on top of the Afghanistan disaster
| and prolonged Covid. They're not going to really sanction
| China.
| dillondoyle wrote:
| I don't buy this. I think it would have been the WORST time
| for Xi to act or get aggressive.
|
| Trump is legitimately unstable and so selfish as to try to
| use the military and provocations - even on US soil he
| wanted to deploy forces - to win or fulfill his deluded
| post election craziness.
|
| Just today excerpts came out of Woodward's new book; one
| revelation is General Milley called up his counterpart in
| China, kind of roguely, in a Nixon esque attempt to say
| hey, this guy is freaking crazy let's use bureaucracy to
| try to maintain status quo and go around any dangerous
| orders.
| 3pt14159 wrote:
| I'm aware of the book and two things can be true at the
| same time. The clampdown in HK came at a time when
| Americans were least likely to lead a coordinated effort
| to punish it.
|
| China has been way less cautious over the past four or
| five years, and I do not think Trump being in office is a
| coincidence.
| rjzzleep wrote:
| If John Boltons book is to believed Trump was very much pro
| China behind the scenes, with a lot of senior officials
| like Pompeo and Bolton pushing for things such as free
| trade agreements with Taiwan in which Trump had no interest
| in. His family has a lot of business there after all. But
| who knows.
|
| At least we know that China calls Trump Trump the
| nation(china) builder.
|
| https://www.ibtimes.com/why-beijing-may-want-keep-trump-
| whit...
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Trump was a symptom of a huge disruption due to
| globalization.
| moondistance wrote:
| Please share figures and references. This is fascinating and
| of great interest to many of us. Thanks!
| jeswin wrote:
| Indeed. In other CCP news, they forced a Colorado highschool to
| edit their website to say Taiwan is a province of China. The
| school complied, so that the kids could attend United Nations
| Commission on the Status of Women. [1]
|
| 1: https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-makes-sure-everyone-
| write...
| pphysch wrote:
| For some perspective, this is still nothing compared to what
| the government of Israel has recently achieved in
| manipulating the American education system [1].
|
| [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-
| BDS_laws#Amawi_v._Pfluger...
| ketralnis wrote:
| Two things can be bad
| nix23 wrote:
| And three can be too, but it's not possible to talk about
| two at once.
| toxik wrote:
| What-aboutism at its finest.
| pphysch wrote:
| "Whataboutism" remains one of the most self-destructive
| inventions of Cold War propaganda. Dismissing context
| because it makes "your side" look hypocritical or
| undermines a narrative (in this case, "CCP is uniquely
| evil") is no way to understand geopolitics.
| toxik wrote:
| I, and HN it seems, disagree. Israel's anti-BDS tactics
| provided little interesting context while moving the
| discussion to an unrelated topic.
| pphysch wrote:
| It is extremely relevant to provide context for what the
| baseline/expected behavior is when discussing a
| particular instance of it.
|
| Otherwise, false assumptions replace the facts: "US
| allies would never interfere with our domestic education
| system, only bad guys do that!".
| nebula8804 wrote:
| There is some good news though. Recently Abby Martin won
| her lawsuit.
|
| From your link:
|
| "Documentary filmmaker Abby Martin was invited to speak at
| an event at Georgia Southern University on February 28,
| 2020.[69] She was supposed to be paid $1,000 for her
| speech. She was asked to sign a pledge to agree not to
| boycott Israel which she refused to do and her speaking
| arrangement was subsequently cancelled. She therefore
| announced on January 10, 2020 that she had filed a free
| speech lawsuit against the State of Georgia and Georgia
| Southern University over its anti-BDS law. She was
| represented by CAIR Legal Defense Fund and the Partnership
| for Civil Justice Fund.[70][71] On May 24, 2021, the United
| States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
| ruled in Martin's favor, holding that Georgia Southern
| violated her First Amendment rights."
|
| From what I understand they are now trying to alter the law
| so that it works around this ruling. These laws appear to
| be easy to implement but once challenged they are shot
| down. I think more lawsuits need to occur in each state
| unfortunately. That way we have clear cut precedence.
| [deleted]
| ConcernedCoder wrote:
| Question: why does china have the power to dictate who can
| attend (whatever) at the "United Nations" ?
| dgfitz wrote:
| 5th paragraph.
|
| > China sits on the U.N. Committee on Non-Governmental
| Organizations, which authorizes groups big and small to
| participate at U.N. functions. At its publicly held
| meetings, any representative can hold up an application.
| Chinese bureaucrats scour each group that comes before the
| committee, scrutinizing every nook and cranny of their
| websites for references to Taiwan, say researchers who've
| studied the committee. If groups don't include Beijing's
| preferred language, China asks the committee to request
| changes.
| ishikawa wrote:
| Indeed. And they can manipulate many weaker countries.
| dirtyid wrote:
| > nicer explanation
|
| Xi is seeking 3rd term, he's initiating populist moves to
| appeal to the masses. That's more or less it on top of some
| medium/long term strategic shifts to improve self sufficiency
| (from US) which takes time to unfold.
|
| >preparing for war
|
| That's still 15-30 years away over TW, and by that time PLA
| will be strong enough to deter a big war with US. PLA is
| modernizing and preparing for war because that's what competent
| militaries do. PLA has been incompetent for too long. Keep in
| mind PRC military budget is still ~2%, if it's preparing for
| war expect this to double/triple. Plus PRC has been selling off
| oil reserves to control oil prices. It would be hoarding if
| preparing for imminent war.
| depaulagu wrote:
| Yep, what the CCP's been doing over the past couple of
| /decades/ is worrying
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| You are making a very valid point. For a good amount of time
| China was not just tolerated, but supported by US business in
| general. In a sense, Lenin was right about the rope. The
| trope about prosperity bringing democracy was wrong.
|
| I will go even further. What China is doing may become
| something US will at least partially adopt.
| dillondoyle wrote:
| We already have. Thinking of HK, Xinjiang makes me feel we
| have lost moral standing. But I do understand the calculus
| and nuance of weighing what an actual war would inflict if
| we stood up to stop the wrong.
| postingawayonhn wrote:
| I think it is correct that prosperity will eventually bring
| democracy.
|
| Xi sees that too and is busy trying to knock China's
| wealthy citizens down a couple of notches.
| tablespoon wrote:
| >> I think it is correct that prosperity will eventually
| bring democracy.
|
| > Xi sees that too and is busy trying to knock China's
| wealthy citizens down a couple of notches.
|
| What do billionaire-wealthy citizens have to do with
| prosperity or democracy (besides the fantasies of pro-
| billionaire propaganda)?
| ddoolin wrote:
| Well, they did pick up Jack Ma for speaking out against
| gov't regulation (to put it simply). Celebrities in
| China, including the wealthy, have a lot of influence.
| Their "abductions" almost certainly are intertwined with
| keeping a grip on their power.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| From that perspective, I can understand why Xi wants to
| limit power of individuals he sees in US ( they do wield
| tremendous amount of power ). He obviously understands it
| is a threat to the system ( and by extension himself ).
|
| I have long argued that too much power in one individual
| is a bad thing ( and that includes billionaires ).
| alisonkisk wrote:
| The CCP inner congress is full of billionaires. They only
| cut down non-CCP billionaires.
| sersi wrote:
| I'd say there's a clear difference between what they were
| doing post Deng Xiaoping and what they've been doing since Xi
| Jinping came to power. It's much more worrying now.
|
| I remember 15-20 years ago, my friends in China had hope that
| eventually it would open up but there's no longer any hope
| there. The few friends who are still outspoken (and are much
| much more careful than they used to be) now have no hope of
| this whatsoever.
| causi wrote:
| The difference is a turn in the tide of public opinion. The
| real battle, the one for the hearts and minds, has been
| won. Talk to almost any Chinese national who hasn't had a
| ton of international exposure, like a fresh international
| student. They either don't care about what the CCP is doing
| or they fully agree with the justifications.
| vkou wrote:
| You've described the view of most nationals of _any_
| country about their country 's foreign policy.
|
| Remember '03 when two thirds of Americans seemed utterly
| convinced that Iraq was an existential threat to the
| security and prosperity of the United States? Or '21,
| when half of Americans have suddenly remembered that they
| actually _want_ other people 's children to continue
| fighting a forever war in Afghanistan?
| sersi wrote:
| I agree but to be fair, I do remember that a lot of fresh
| international undergrad students just arriving from China
| tended to be very patriotic and pro-CCP even back in
| early 2000s. The difference is that a lot of them changed
| their minds after a few years living in a different
| country.
|
| I did notice back then that graduate students who had
| completed undergrad in China tended to be much less pro
| CCP and not buying that much into things. This does seem
| to have changed.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > I'd say there's a clear difference between what they were
| doing post Deng Xiaoping and what they've been doing since
| Xi Jinping came to power. It's much more worrying now.
|
| > I remember 15-20 years ago, my friends in China had hope
| that eventually it would open up but there's no longer any
| hope there. The few friends who are still outspoken (and
| are much much more careful than they used to be) now have
| no hope of this whatsoever.
|
| Yes. I don't think they were ever exactly for
| liberalization, but Xi took a hard turn against it (and
| made that policy):
| https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/world/asia/chinas-new-
| lea....
|
| Liberals (both the American and more classical kind) often
| seem to assume their ideals will eventually prevail, but
| _nothing_ guarantees that.
| depaulagu wrote:
| Agreed
| president wrote:
| It has escalated in the past few years but they've been
| preparing for decades. Last month, Chinese warships were
| spotted [1] near Alaska. I find it strange that these acts of
| aggression are not known by your average American citizen.
|
| [1]
| https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3148725/us-...
| pphysch wrote:
| Until the Chinese have carriers perpetually parked in the
| Gulf of Mexico, they haven't even begun to reciprocate
| Washington's naval aggression in the South China Sea.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| A better analogy would be closer to California, because the
| US is protecting trade routes.
| pphysch wrote:
| Protecting trade routes from whom? Itself?
|
| https://www.voanews.com/extremism-watch/us-seeks-seizure-
| ira...
| dillondoyle wrote:
| I don't think following maritime law is aggression. From my
| understanding, CCPs claims to islands and waters become
| legitimate if we cede the ground under maritime law.
| justicezyx wrote:
| No, the parent post is talking about the distance to the
| main land...
| dillondoyle wrote:
| Maybe I'm not understanding? But my point is in both
| cases - unless there is really huge news I missed - both
| China and the US did not enter actual territorial waters
| with military vessels. The US transits the strait so
| China's large claims don't have legitimacy. It'd be like
| the us claiming any ships sailing around cuba are in our
| waters.
| justicezyx wrote:
| If all other countries park their military weaponry at
| the same distance as US weaponry to their own home land,
| the US border will be packed with all sorts of killing
| machines from a lot of countries. That's the point.
|
| As for how long is the actual distance, well, that
| doesn't matter much.
| postingawayonhn wrote:
| I don't think it necessarily signals war. It's just Xi trying
| to bring the citizens and economy back under his control. In
| his mind the opening up of China went a little too far.
| roenxi wrote:
| "If you want peace, prepare for war"
|
| It is very scary in the Asia-Pacific region. But in recent
| times the wars of note have been America v. [various smoking
| craters]. In the local area, China, India, Japan & Korea all
| know how war works, and the SEA nations might be surprising.
|
| It is early to start worrying about China starting something.
| It is a scarier thought imagining them responding to something
| else.
| trompetenaccoun wrote:
| I have friends and family in the Mainland. I've lived there
| myself for years. The CCP does not want peace, not sure where
| you're getting this from. First they'll take Taiwan at the
| first sign of American weakness (which may have happened
| already). Then they'll go for the rest of the world. It's not
| even a one party state anymore, it's been transformed into an
| outright totalitarian dictatorship under Xi. Absolute power
| is the ultimate goal of such systems, they won't stop until
| they're defeated or control it all.
| nathanyukai wrote:
| May I ask what makes you think that CCP will go for the
| rest of the world?
| dillondoyle wrote:
| I don't know Xi's intentions, but there is a lot of
| rhetoric from him about restoring China's 'natural place'
| as the world's leader as viewed through hundreds of years
| ago.
| [deleted]
| justicezyx wrote:
| > The CCP does not want peace, not sure where you're
| getting this from.
|
| CCP certainly looks like wanting peace, judging against US,
| which CCP has always been open about to surpass or at least
| excel...
| roenxi wrote:
| China is a superpower. The future is bleak for Taiwan.
|
| But India has nukes, Japan can probably produce nukes in
| short order, Korea is in a state of hyper-militarisation
| for unrelated reasons and the US, insofar as they are
| active in the region, have nukes.
|
| It doesn't matter what the CCP wants, they might get away
| with Taiwan but it is hard to see what the follow up would
| be where Shanghai still gets to have skyscrapers. Most of
| China's success in the last 40 years has been economic.
| chunghuaming wrote:
| > The future is bleak for Taiwan.
|
| I keep seeing this argument. Let me explain why Taiwan
| will be free from China's attack for the next 30-50 years
| (long enough for Xi JinPing to expire)
|
| - US protection. If there's one thing both parties in US
| agrees on, it's against China. Biden just emphatically
| committed protection for Taiwan and peace in the south
| east Asia. There are many US warships sailing up and down
| Taiwan straits. There are many military deals and
| cooperations with Taiwan. TSMC is a critical part of the
| world's electronic supply chain. Taiwan is a critical
| part of the island chain strategy to contain China, since
| it acts as an unsinkable carrier against China.
|
| - United democracies. US and its many allies are now
| coordinating naval exercises in the Region. Japan.
| Australia. India. UK, France, and Germany now have
| warships in the region as well. South Korea and Taiwan
| are now increasing its military defenses. These
| firepowers are 90% of the world's military right now.
|
| - China's military is only starting up. It doesn't even
| have capability to produce its own jet engines or
| carriers. Its strength lies in the large # of soldiers,
| which have to be transported. And its large # of ships,
| which are mostly coast guard/civilian level, and can be
| sank relatively easily. China's military is about 3-4
| generations behind US, and currently is no match for the
| 10X power from US and its allies
|
| - Taiwan as a fortified island. Fortified islands are
| hard to take, as evident in the modern war histories.
| There are only a few times in the year that China can
| safely cross the straits without fearing typhoons or
| rough sea. And landing only on a few spots. Especially if
| the island is armed with the latest war technologies from
| US, and has the missile capability to strike Beijing, or
| the three gorges dam which will then wipe out millions of
| Chinese. Taiwan is now producing domestic submarines,
| long range missiles, and ship missiles. You'll want to
| remember that Taiwan has very sophisticated electronic
| capabilities, so the arms it is starting to produce will
| be very good.
|
| - China only gets one shot at attacking. After which, it
| will get economically sanctioned into oblivion by the
| world economies. Because otherwise Japan, South Korea,
| and other island nations near China can be attacked with
| similar attempts as well. Since China mainly imports most
| of its resources, and is export focused, it will sank
| into a deep economic depression filled with local riots.
| glogla wrote:
| One more thing to note is that China doesn't have much
| oil, natural gas and other resources on its own, and it
| is very hard to get any to it by any other way than by
| sea - otherwise it's combination of Siberia, Himalayas,
| deserts and neighbors that hate China.
|
| China has enormous manufacturing capacity, but rather
| fragile supply to make use of it should the seas around
| it become warzones.
| ashtonkem wrote:
| Japan's policy has always been to keep highly enriched
| uranium on hand, which they could use to make nukes in
| relatively short order. It's a backup plan in case
| America stops being the guarantor of Japanese safety
| against China.
| xxpor wrote:
| Do they have the wherewithal to pull off a deliverable
| Teller-Ulam thermonuclear warhead, without doing any
| atmospheric testing? Does Japan even have SLBMs or
| bombers?
|
| It takes a lot more to be a credible nuclear threat than
| just having some U235 sitting around...
| abecedarius wrote:
| The U.S. funded an exercise back in, iirc, the 60s of
| getting a few physics grad students to design a fission
| bomb using only open-source info. (That's far less
| resources than modern Japan could give it.) They
| succeeded at coming up with a viable implosion design.
| kesselvon wrote:
| Nuclear weapons are a technology that is almost 100 years
| old, and is old enough for a country like North Korea to
| pull off.
|
| It has a space program with rockets, a nuclear power
| sector, etc. It's the thing you do when you want all the
| pieces for a potential nuclear weapons program without
| signaling that you're looking to develop a nuclear
| weapons program.
|
| I think the current contemporary estimate is that Japan
| could assemble a functioning nuke in 6-12 months.
| petra wrote:
| Isn't 6 to 12 months that ages in wartime ?
| ashtonkem wrote:
| The presumption is that they'd begin building them once
| they decide that America won't guarantee their safety,
| not once China declares war.
| gruez wrote:
| Presumably china's not randomly declaring war? They could
| start building it once tensions rise.
| xxpor wrote:
| Note I didn't ask if Japan could make a fission weapon. I
| have no doubt they could in relatively short order. I
| also don't doubt given enough time, they could assemble a
| fusion weapon, they have the resources and smarts. But
| 6-12 months I think is probably too long in a crisis
| situation.
| ashtonkem wrote:
| I can't speak to the delivery aspect, but I don't think
| you'd even need a Teller Ulam thermonuclear warhead to
| make a credible threat to a neighboring power. But the
| delivery aspect matters a lot, obviously.
| xxpor wrote:
| > Teller Ulam thermonuclear warhead to make a credible
| threat to a neighboring power.
|
| Granted, I haven't read a ton of analysis on this, but my
| guess would be that you do if you're going up against
| someone with their own thermonuclear bombs. If China
| drops some of their own thermonuclear weapons on Tokyo,
| what's Japan's response? Dropping a fission weapon? If
| they got to that level, I'm sure that would be considered
| an acceptable risk for China. The converse is also true.
| If Japan dropped the fission weapon first, they'd
| instantly have a bunch of thermonuclear warheads headed
| their way.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > If China drops some of their own thermonuclear weapons
| on Tokyo, what's Japan's response? Dropping a fission
| weapon?
|
| I don't think it works that way. Fission bombs are
| perfectly capable of leveling a city. If a city gets
| leveled, no one's going to shrug it off because it was
| done with the "wrong" kind of weapon.
|
| IIRC, modern thermonuclear warheads have yields along the
| lines of a couple hundred kilotons. Even through
| theoretically they can be made much more powerful, in
| practice they aren't.
| trompetenaccoun wrote:
| You can't take on the entire world with bombs and tanks,
| the Nazis tried that and failed. The CCP has a smarter
| strategy, they only use force where everything else
| fails. Like in Hong Kong, they were never going to get
| the HKnese on their side because no one knows the CCP
| oppression better than the people of HK, they've had
| front row seats for decades watching it all in HD. Same
| goes for Taiwan. They almost successfully infiltrated
| Australia and New Zealand, they already have people in
| parliament there. But it seems this didn't quite work out
| and they promptly threatened Australia with war as well.
| We'll probably see increasing conflict in the region. The
| united front work department is active globally. Some
| regions have priority, like parts of Africa, Eastern
| Europe and Central Asia. But it's a bit naive thinking
| China will stay neutral when Xi has given any indication
| possible that he won't. I find it bizarre many still
| won't take China seriously. They claim half of SEA at
| this point and pressure foreign businesses like film
| studios and airlines into only showing their maps. Ethnic
| Chinese are at risk of getting kidnapped and brought to
| China where they're tortured, even if they're foreign
| citizens. Then there are the concentration camps. What
| else will it take for foreigners to take notice? Does
| Wang Yi have to personally travel to their country and
| leave a severed horse head in their bedrooms?
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| > You can't take on the entire world with bombs and
| tanks, the Nazis tried that and failed.
|
| They got pretty damn close. I'd say the outcome involved
| a lot of luck.
| xxpor wrote:
| "bombs and tanks" means something _very very_ different
| in 2021 than it did in 1942. You have to remember they
| barely had V2 rockets in WW2...
|
| What actually causes issues for modern armies is
| relatively low tech guerilla warfare, as we've seen in
| nearly every war (that any country has engaged in, not
| just the US) since Vietnam especially, but the hints were
| there since the second Boer war.
|
| Forget even nukes for a second, I don't think anyone has
| the stomach for a regular conventional war between modern
| nation states. We've seen the pictures of what cities
| looked like in Europe after WW2. Now add modern bombs and
| missiles. Imagine Shanghai or LA just completely
| flattened. It's not worth it.
| dillondoyle wrote:
| planes too:
|
| I find the lessons of our reliance on air support in the
| context of Afghanistan an interesting lesson that our
| military hopefully learns from.
|
| There is some good reporting that reported the total
| collapse of their army was partially because without the
| US they couldn't reach their bases or provide support,
| let alone maintain their planes & helos.
|
| The US brass were even bragging the the Taliban couldn't
| use even our guns that were left behind since they take
| so much special maintenance.
|
| What happens to our 'fancy' planes with
| electronics/software attacks? Do we even have the
| capability to drop bombs if something like that happens?
| jjoonathan wrote:
| Does Taiwan have nukes?
| Retric wrote:
| In theory no, in practice yes. They had an active nuclear
| weapons program that officially stopped just short of
| completion in the 1980's. They also currently have
| multiple nuclear reactors in the country.
|
| So, they have the capacity to have produced nuclear
| weapons in the past or to produce them in the near
| future, but if they have any is somewhat unclear. Still,
| I would expect Shanghai to probably get nuked at some
| point if China invaded Taiwan.
| dirtyid wrote:
| TW nuclear breakout window is long gone. The island is
| now thoroughly infiltrated by PRC intelligence. There is
| no opportunity post 90s to secretly start up a nuclear
| program without getting glassed by PRC first, and with
| full endorsement from every nuclear power who doesn't
| want to see nukes proliferate to mid-tier nations.
| Retric wrote:
| That's a very optimistic take on PRC intelligence
| operations. Historically countries simply aren't nearly
| as good at gathering intelligence as you might think.
|
| Further we don't know what intelligence the PRC has
| gathered. If China believes Taiwan has nuclear weapons or
| the capacity to assemble them quickly, there is going to
| be very little change in rhetoric from China.
| dirtyid wrote:
| There's no reason to talk in generalities. PRC's thorough
| infiltration of TW military/industry and fact that ROC
| military brass are prodominantly KMT with pro-PRC
| sympathies has been intelligence consensus for decades.
| This isn't speculation, it's more or less accepted fact
| that guides US selling TW 2nd/3rd tier weapon platforms
| because they know anything that filters to TW military
| will finds it's way to PRC. Like everyone knows Israel
| intelligence has been very proficient in infiltrating
| Iran's nuclear program. PRC infiltration of TW is more
| comprehensive on whole of society level. No reason to
| pretend otherwise.
|
| To your edit: any credible nuclear break out threat from
| TW would be taken out within 10minutes from PRC rocketry.
| Of all PRC redlines, the most serious are TW ones. PRC
| has fought with nuclear USSR and US over less important
| core interests while PRC wasn't nuclear. PRC will
| absolutely preemptively crush any TW nuclear efforts.
| Retric wrote:
| I don't disagree that the PRC is gathering a lot of
| intelligence, but that's a long way from saying they
| gather all relevant information.
|
| As to a preemptive strike that's extremely unprecedented
| for China. It would definitely be considered at the
| highest levels, but would they act is a much larger
| question especially if they discovered functional nuclear
| weapons. Taiwan meanwhile benefits of China did such a
| strike on a non nuclear weapon manufacturing factory so
| could be giving them false intelligence etc. This stuff
| just has a lot more uncertainty than you might assume.
| quintaindilemma wrote:
| Why shanghai? Beijing would be more appropriate. Taiwan's
| missiles are capable. And shanghai has better food!
| rjzzleep wrote:
| No and no. It didn't officially stop just short of
| completion. The US actively worked to subvert it. Both
| overtly using the UN and covertly using the CIA.
|
| Taiwans nuclear industry was decimated as a result with a
| lot of the research facilities getting shut down and a
| lot of aspiring Nuclear scientists leaving the country or
| switching industries.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_and_weapons_of_mass_
| des...
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20110227231955/http://www.hig
| hbe...
| jszymborski wrote:
| The claims GP made about Taiwan practically being able to
| develop Nukes is supported by that wiki article, though.
|
| > "There is no evidence that Taiwan possesses any nuclear
| weapons or any programs to produce them, although it does
| have the advanced technological ability necessary to
| develop nuclear weapons as well as the high-tech ability
| to enrich uranium or process plutonium."
| rjzzleep wrote:
| No it's not. That's a gross oversimplification of what is
| necessary to build a nuke. These arguments have been made
| over and over about other countries. If Taiwan had
| anything of the sort, China wouldn't be itching for a
| fight.
|
| It's also doubtful that Japan has any weapons grade
| plutonium left seeing that they handed over a bunch of it
| to the US in 2016.
|
| "On 24 March 2014, Japan agreed to turn over more than
| 700 pounds (320 kg) of weapons grade plutonium and highly
| enriched uranium to the US,[43] which started to be
| returned in 2016.[44] It has been pointed out that as
| long as Japan enjoys the benefits of a "nuclear-ready"
| status held through surrounding countries, it will see no
| reason to actually produce nuclear arms, since by
| remaining below the threshold, although with the
| capability to cross it at short notice, Japan can expect
| the support of the US while posing as an equal to China
| and Russia.[45]
|
| On 29 March 2016, then-U.S. President candidate Donald
| Trump suggested that Japan should develop its own nuclear
| weapons, claiming that it was becoming too expensive for
| the US to continue to protect Japan from countries such
| as China, North Korea, and Russia that already have their
| own nuclear weapons.[46] "
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_nuclear_weapon_pro
| gra...
| Retric wrote:
| A gun type nuclear weapon is an extremely simple device,
| though with relatively low yield. To the point where the
| US did not feel the need to test it before dropping
| Little Boy. Weapon delivery systems are a larger issue.
|
| As to Japan having weapons grade plutonium or highly
| enriched uranium, 5 years is a long time in a weapons
| program. At it's peak the US was pumping out hundreds of
| nuclear weapons a year.
| esyir wrote:
| The solution for Taiwan is obvious. Nuclearization.
|
| The only way for a country of that size to resist a
| superpower is to ensure that that superpower loses their
| capital if they dare bite.
| christkv wrote:
| They would need to develop something like the minuteman
| missiles but on mobile launchers to be able to retaliate
| with success.
| mullen wrote:
| This would be a terrible idea for Taiwan since every
| country that supports Taiwan is down wind of China. South
| Korea, Japan and the US do not want nuclear fallout
| coming over their territory. It makes coming to Taiwan's
| aid a lot more difficult both logistically and
| politically.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > The only way for a country of that size to resist a
| superpower is to ensure that that superpower loses their
| capital if they dare bite.
|
| That's not MAD. Also I'm not sure if it's even plausible
| that Taiwan could successfully target Beijing even if it
| had nukes. Would their system be able to survive a first
| strike? Would it be able to penetrate hundreds of miles
| of Chinese air defenses or defeat an ABM system? IIRC,
| ABM systems are far easier to build if you're willing to
| put nukes on the interceptors.
|
| From my armchair, Taiwan's best bet is to create an
| Israeli-style reserve army that can mobilize most of the
| population to fight a short, intense war.
| gruez wrote:
| >That's not MAD. Also I'm not sure if it's even plausible
| that Taiwan could successfully target Beijing even if it
| had nukes
|
| do they need to target beijing? Targetting guanzhou would
| already wipe out any gains from capturing taiwan.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > Targetting guanzhou would already wipe out any gains
| from capturing taiwan.
|
| That doesn't address the lack of MAD nor any
| vulnerability to a first strike.
| ginko wrote:
| It's you who brought up MAD. For a small country like
| Taiwan it may be enough to make the attack painful enough
| that it's not worth it to larger power. This essentially
| was(and is) Switzerland's defence strategy.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > For a small country like Taiwan it may be enough to
| make the attack painful enough that it's not worth it to
| larger power. This essentially was(and is) Switzerland's
| defence strategy.
|
| It's worth noting that China isn't just "a larger power,"
| it has a _particular fixation_ on Taiwan. It may not be
| deterred as easily as you think. IIRC, Taiwan acquiring
| nuclear weapons is one of their stated red lines that
| would trigger a war.
|
| If Taiwan managed to nuke a Chinese city when it's
| invaded, it would probably just make the Chinese madder.
| tomjen3 wrote:
| Taiwan is less than twice the size of Israel, so they
| would only need to create a few bombs, attach perpetual
| countdown timers to them and smuggle them into Beijing.
| If China attacks Taiwan, the bombs don't get reset and go
| of. If China does the same to Taiwan they have a mutally
| assured destruction.
| walrus01 wrote:
| > What the CCP's been doing over the past couple of months is
| worrying.
|
| Past couple of months?
|
| Try past 40 years...
|
| One of my earliest childhood concrete memories of watching a
| news event of global importance was the CNN, NBC and BBC
| coverage of the Tienanmen Square massacre.
| schuke wrote:
| Basic Orwell 101: Eternal war is a prerequisite for
| totalitarian rule. The war doesn't have to be real but the
| appearance of war or preparations for war is a must. Look at
| North Korea. It's almost always on brink of war with the South.
| China is moving in NK's direction so people feel war is coming.
| It's not, it's just that China is becoming more totalitarian.
| The ruling class don't care, don't want and actually cannot
| fight a war.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > Basic Orwell 101: Eternal war is a prerequisite for
| totalitarian rule.
|
| I like Orwell, but people schematize real things into his
| examples too much, especially 1984. It's better to pay
| attention to the real thing as it is.
|
| For instance, I think it's a serious possibility that China
| will mainly use economic power to expand its empire, by using
| markets to foster dependency in ways you can't really do if
| you've swallowed free market propaganda and your main motive
| is profit. The end goal could be something like China at the
| center of the world, with its ideology and system having
| prestige and setting the standard, surrounded by clearly-
| subordinate tributaries. That'd be great if your main
| ideological commitment is to Chinese nationalism, but not so
| great if you care about anything else.
| totony wrote:
| To be fair, you're describing the USA over the past century
| astrea wrote:
| I know you meant this as nothing more than a dig at the
| US (yawn), but if anything that lends credence to his
| argument. They've seen the playbook and they're gonna try
| their hand at it now. If they're successful, then it
| becomes yet another chapter in the book on the rise and
| fall of empires that my grandson will write a high school
| essay on.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > To be fair, you're describing the USA over the past
| century
|
| Then the question is: what are your commitments and which
| empire is closer to them?
|
| Also, it's not _exactly_ the US, since the US has a
| different underlying ideology, and US 's commitment to
| free markets was successfully exploited by the Chinese in
| a way I don't think they'll be dumb enough to repeat.
| justicezyx wrote:
| LMAO...
|
| Blaming war preparation on totalitarianism...
|
| Do you know why CCP geared up military? Because the bombimg
| on Chinese embassy by US [1] and war plane collision off
| Chinese border [2].
|
| That scared the shit out of CCP. It just shows that US always
| retain military option against them. And plant the deepest
| resentment towards US in Chinese citizens. CCP literally need
| to actively suppress the anti US sentiment to avoid affecting
| the business relationship.
|
| [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_bombing_of_
| the...
|
| [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hainan_Island_incident
| pphysch wrote:
| The most plausible explanation [1] is that China is insulating
| its domestic economy from the coming global financial
| reckoning, by cracking down on excessive financialization, etc.
| Either the US Fed will hike rates (taper QE) and crash the
| financial markets like never before, or they will continue to
| kick the can down the road with increasingly negative rates and
| the USD will 'gradually' become worthless. Regardless, the
| correct play is to limit exposure to the USD system, and
| historically "closed" societies have the advantage here.
|
| [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_circulation
| justicezyx wrote:
| I think CCP is indeed preparing for a war over Taiwan. There
| are plenty activities recently pointing to the mutual
| independence between China and US, in economy, cultural,
| military etc.
|
| I don't believe there is an active war plan in place. But it
| looks like at least CCP is laying the foundation for a war, so
| that there might be chance for US to concede wholy to
| relinquish their support for Taiwan Independence.
|
| Well, I guess that's better than a nuclear war.
| Trias11 wrote:
| Please - if you're posting paywalled articles - provide the way
| to read them without paying.
|
| Otherwise it looks like a sales pitch.
| dillondoyle wrote:
| The #1 comment on basically all threads now is archive.is and
| you simply need to do archive.is/https://whatever.url
| EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote:
| Why financial news sites are so dangerous? My guess police
| officers are looking for people with illegal wealth overseas for
| a little shake up.
| neonate wrote:
| https://archive.is/dCxl0
| ipnon wrote:
| Technically, this application appears to request all permissions
| for your phone. An FT commentator claims the app seems to leave
| spyware on your phone even after you delete it.
| baja_blast wrote:
| So like Zoom?
| jack_riminton wrote:
| Was the cracking down always the plan for the CCP? use capitalism
| to rise the tide and then once everything has been modernised
| take control again?
| bakuninsbart wrote:
| It depends on what you mean by crackdown. On capitalism? Yes,
| and they've been really clear about it. China still has the
| official plan to introduce socialism by 2050, capitalist
| freedoms were never meant to be permanent. Now by 2050, the CCP
| is also supposed to be merely taking a backseat roll and the
| society will be equal and free. I think that's the contentious
| point within the CCP. Xi is part of the hardline left within
| the party, who is scared of losing to much influence to
| capitalists. He is naturally allied with CCP members who want
| more hard power. Lastly he's also almost certainly a social
| conservative, as are many of the current people in the
| leadership.
|
| Xi was sent to hard labor in the countryside as a youth, and
| then went on to pretty strict education. He sees younger people
| today as weak and fun-seeking and that doesn't sit well with
| him and the other bigwigs. (This is all my own conjecture, take
| it with a grain of salt)
| justicezyx wrote:
| > China still has the official plan to introduce socialism by
| 2050
|
| Where did you get this?
|
| Socialism is installed in China in 1960s, as we were told in
| text book.
|
| If there was such a plan to start socialism in China in 2050,
| that must be invented after 2008 after I left China.
|
| As for what is really socialism, the definitions I see so far
| are as colorful as capitalism. You might be referring some
| definition of socialism you saw from Chinese source, or some
| translated sources?
|
| It's becoming more and more clear that China is more of a
| political imagination for venting, at least on HN.
| vmception wrote:
| Just one of many plans that now has a decent opportunity
| presented.
|
| China can sometimes seem arbitrary but its much easier to think
| of it as a theme park than what we respect as governments. At a
| theme park, run by a corporation, you understand there are
| rules that can be enforced, your participation is limited and
| conditional, anything exploitative or erotic will be policed
| swiftly and heavily, and some exhibits are cordoned off and
| empty. Even if we want to imagine that everyone is woefully
| oppressed actively thinking about how oppressed they are, the
| day to day experience can actually be pretty pleasant and
| everyone also understands that it would be dumb to challenge
| the stewards of the park.
| jack_riminton wrote:
| Yes but in this case I think a more apt analogy would be of a
| funfair with lots of different stall owners who were under
| the impression that although they weren't completely free,
| they at least wouldn't have their stalls taken over at some
| point in the future
| cybernautique wrote:
| I never thought I'd see an unironic invocation of panem-et-
| circenses[1], especially with regards to a sinofascist
| regime.
|
| It is extremely incorrect, untoward, and downright harmful to
| draw parallels between the CCP and, say, Busch Gardens.
|
| In a theme park, run by a corporation, I understand that the
| proprietors of said park will not: drag me to a detention
| camp; do the same, or worse, for the unfortunate souls who
| share my relation; imprison and enslave millions of
| ethnic/religious minorities; make extremely aggressive
| overtures against other "theme parks," to the tune of
| building artificial land to claim (in whole or part) the
| international commons.
|
| [1] https://www.mccc.edu/pdf/arc141/Bread%20&%20Circuses%20(P
| ane...
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Maybe a doom park is better?
| vmception wrote:
| Think of it more like if the British East India Company ran
| a theme park, if the analogy is what bothers you. (As that
| corporation did have those unilateral powers)
| dragonelite wrote:
| Like the Deng Xiaoping quote goes "Some areas and some people
| can get rich first, lead and help other regions and people, and
| gradually achieve common prosperity." wouldn't be surprised its
| probably a mistranslation of the real quote.
|
| But Lenin talks about using capitalism to increase the
| productive powers of a nation and use the generated surplus
| values to help the people get cheap healthcare, infrastructure
| and a better common prosperity. Instead of seeing the
| capitalist stash away in a bank account not being trickled down
| to general public.
| colordrops wrote:
| The goal of capitalism was never to concentrate wealth in the
| hands of a tiny minority, regardless of the ideology of the
| nation.
| ulzeraj wrote:
| That makes no sense. Capitalism has no goal. Capitalism is
| the market and the market are people. You might not like
| the results but saying it is alive and has a goal sound
| exactly like conspiracy theorists who believe in NWO and
| the Illuminati.
| andrekandre wrote:
| > Capitalism is the market and the market are people.
|
| markets can (and did) exist before capitalism
|
| https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042215/what-
| differe...
| colordrops wrote:
| What I meant was "the goal of regimes that implement
| capitalism was never to concentrate wealth".
|
| Also I was saying what the goal _wasn 't_.
|
| Do you understand now?
| ulzeraj wrote:
| I'm sorry I've misread.
| ulzeraj wrote:
| Thats not Lenin's idea. Karl Marx wrote that communism cannot
| be achieved without capitalism. You can't jump from a potato
| farming economy into a communist utopia.
|
| If I'm not mistaken and I'm pretty sure if I am people will
| correct me, he actually praised capitalism for being a much
| more efficient economic system than what humanity had in
| feudalism and mercantilism. However he believed that
| capitalism has a hard cap where it starts to devour itself.
| He lived in a time when people where buying bonds from
| countries that did not exist.
| president wrote:
| I don't think there is any plan other than use any tool
| available to maintain power and control.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-09-14 23:03 UTC)