From batteries and solar panels to drones and satellites, China is building tech capabilities that extend well beyond AI, writes Steve Feldstein in his new book, "Bytes and Bullets: Global Rivalries, Big Tech, and the New Shape of Modern Warfare."
I think their broader point was “it’s good till it isnt”. It feels like you’re looking at China as a savior. When instead it’s a “Oh, I wouldn’t say you’re free… more like under new management” scenario. They’re good till they aren’t, as we’ve seen with Taiwan.
As much as globalization has connected us, we need to still focus on independent sustainability. Does that mean there becomes a lot of redundancies and costs, yes, but it also grants better independence as we’re clearly seeing what happens when a large power turns evil.
Independence, while not a fringe issue, is about as politically unpopular there as ICE is here, for different reasons. use whatever polls you want, or read their own stuff:
I think, like most global things Americans are passionate about, Taiwan doesn’t want the freedom we want for them. The average resident just want tomorrow’s experience to resemble today’s, everyone should leave them alone.
Physical destruction isn’t the only measurement. What has China done to the Uyghurs? More damage than a bomb there. What about Tibetans? Tienamen Square? There is also their indirect support Russia and that definitely does involve bombs. You can’t just brush it off because “they’re not directly dropping them”. Just because it’s not “shock and awe” doesn’t mean there isn’t death and oppression.
This doesn’t have to be a simple dualism, there is a third option ie. it would be better for the US to lose power and others (not China) to gain power. The more equally power is distributed in the world the better a shot we have at balance. The last thing the world needs is a “G2”.
When did I say either one was good. Re-read my original comment. My point was for independent power, not just switching from one “master” to another. It would do good for both China and the US to lose their soft power and have a more level shift of independence among nations.
You have selected which is the lesser of two evils. That doesn’t mean everyone will make the same choice, that all.
Also everyone decides who deserved to die, nothing special about “liberals” for that. (Also, are Americans liberal? I find all these political jargons confusing)
It isn’t.
The less share of the pie America takes up, the less it can bully other countries into its evil bullshit. So yeah, this is objectively good.
I think their broader point was “it’s good till it isnt”. It feels like you’re looking at China as a savior. When instead it’s a “Oh, I wouldn’t say you’re free… more like under new management” scenario. They’re good till they aren’t, as we’ve seen with Taiwan.
As much as globalization has connected us, we need to still focus on independent sustainability. Does that mean there becomes a lot of redundancies and costs, yes, but it also grants better independence as we’re clearly seeing what happens when a large power turns evil.
Independence, while not a fringe issue, is about as politically unpopular there as ICE is here, for different reasons. use whatever polls you want, or read their own stuff:
https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/news/6395438
I think, like most global things Americans are passionate about, Taiwan doesn’t want the freedom we want for them. The average resident just want tomorrow’s experience to resemble today’s, everyone should leave them alone.
How many bombs has China dropped in the last 50 years? How about America?
This is objectively a good thing.
Physical destruction isn’t the only measurement. What has China done to the Uyghurs? More damage than a bomb there. What about Tibetans? Tienamen Square? There is also their indirect support Russia and that definitely does involve bombs. You can’t just brush it off because “they’re not directly dropping them”. Just because it’s not “shock and awe” doesn’t mean there isn’t death and oppression.
Would you rather live in Xinjiang or in Gaza?
And the US has done all of that, dropped millions of tons of bombs on civilians, and worse, lol.
It is objectively good for the US to lose power and for China to gain power, lol.
This doesn’t have to be a simple dualism, there is a third option ie. it would be better for the US to lose power and others (not China) to gain power. The more equally power is distributed in the world the better a shot we have at balance. The last thing the world needs is a “G2”.
I disagree, lol.
When did I say either one was good. Re-read my original comment. My point was for independent power, not just switching from one “master” to another. It would do good for both China and the US to lose their soft power and have a more level shift of independence among nations.
I disagree, obviously.
Also you think what China has done to the Uyghurs, which is re-education, is worse than bombing them all to death??
Fuck is wrong with you lol?
Well, someone once said give me freedom or give me death. So it’s up for debate I suppose.
Liberals deciding who deserves death, must be a day ending in Y.
You have selected which is the lesser of two evils. That doesn’t mean everyone will make the same choice, that all.
Also everyone decides who deserved to die, nothing special about “liberals” for that. (Also, are Americans liberal? I find all these political jargons confusing)