JD

Lawyer. I follow technology and military matters.

[JD @heredity]

@CaoHuangDi @ShangguanJiewen @clashreport I can't convince anyone of anything. You're free to believe whatever you want.

[JD @heredity]

@CaoHuangDi @ShangguanJiewen @clashreport The US is legally, litetally admitting the truth of the Chinese posititon, that Taiwan is part of China.

There's this saying not to piss on someone and tell them it's raining.

You think piss is rain.

[JD @heredity]

@CaoHuangDi @ShangguanJiewen @clashreport "The Government of the United States of America acknowledges the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China."

https://t.co/pbAd4U5eUs

[JD @heredity]

@CaoHuangDi @ShangguanJiewen @clashreport That's not the important acknowledgment. Read all three communiques, and you'll find it.

[JD @heredity]

@CaoHuangDi @ShangguanJiewen @clashreport "But if the fact is particularly important, it might be best to reinforce that importance by having one or more parties *acknowledge* that fact in the body of the contract."

Emphasis on "particularly important."

https://t.co/QtqVuOeL0k

[JD @heredity]

@CaoHuangDi @ShangguanJiewen @clashreport Really funny how lay people can be convinced "acknowledge" in this context means anything other than an admisson of a statement.

[JD @heredity]

@CaoHuangDi @ShangguanJiewen @clashreport As a lawyer, I will never not find this artificial talking point funny.

"Acknowledge" is a legal term of art, literally means to admit the truth of a statement.

[JD @heredity]

@hyruliangoat @HydroFoundry The other guy shows “fundamental attribution error” applied to countries.

US is guilty of similar misdeeds, but explained away as situational. China does it, then it’s because China is fundamentally evil.

I’ve found it’s impossible to correct people’s cognitive biases.

[JD @heredity]

@gonglei89 We can agree to disagree.

[JD @heredity]

@gonglei89 He literally said:

“I think the U.S. focuses on the Chinese invasion of Taiwan because that’s the scenario we are most confident we could defeat. That’s about sinking ships, and we can be pretty good at that.”

[JD @heredity]

@gonglei89 OK my mistake on the subject.

Anyway, this is the subject’s (John Culver’s) view. He clearly thinks the US can “defeat” a PLA invasion.

That’s a fact.

I’m not trying to bullshit.

[JD @heredity]

@gonglei89 I dont have personal knowledge of anything.

But informed opinions seem to think USN subs can be devastating to PLA surface fleets:
https://t.co/jpIAlW0Frz

[JD @heredity]

@gonglei89 I’m inclined to call you a “bozo.” (Feel free to block me).

Why such a fragile ego?

Max Boot wrote what he wrote. It’s clear that he thinks some things are in the US favor and other aren’t.

That’s it.

[JD @heredity]

@gonglei89 You’re claiming you have or had top secret clearance? Just want to be clear.

[JD @heredity]

@gonglei89 Everyone interested in this knows what SOSUS or equivalent is. It’s not a secret.

Nevertheless every serious discussion has the possibility of USN subs operating in or near the strait.

I haven’t made up my mind. It’s probably not knowable unless or until actual war breaks out.

[JD @heredity]

@gonglei89 You’re leaning way too heavy on some class you took a long time ago.

Did you read and learn about classified US Navy subs and operations?

[JD @heredity]

@gonglei89 Guess it’s impossible to have nuanced discussions here.

I’ve read every book/article I could find on this hypo TW contingency. I haven’t made up my mind, but the US side seems unusually confident in the effectiveness of submarines countering PLAN surface ships.

[JD @heredity]

@gonglei89 “Chinese invasion of Taiwan” = confident US military can defeat = sinking ships. He clearly states this (sinking ships) is what the US military is good at.

[JD @heredity]

@gonglei89 1) He literally stated “Chinese invasion of Taiwan [is] the scenario we are most confident we could defeat…”

2) You’re misunderstand this entire piece.

He’s talking about the US losing a punitive campaign wrt TW, which is where China’s magnitudes of advantage comes in.