Subject: [extropy-chat] Taiwan (was: US will cease to exist in 2007)

From: "J. Andrew Rogers" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 17:28:10 -0800

Mike Lorrey wrote:
> Not likely. Chinese popular sentiment is that a) Taiwan is part of
> China, b) any secession action by Taiwan should be met with force. The
> Peoples Congress just passed authorization of force approval.

Don't confuse the Chinese government with the land area that is China. 
It is a fragmented and complex country, and the communist party has to
put on quite a dog-and-pony show just to maintain their control.  They
no longer have the ability to rule with an iron fist within their own
borders, as there are too many other powerful competing interests they
have to keep reasonably unagitated.

> China is rehearsing the invasion NOW.

You do know that Taiwan is an island quite a distance off the continent,
right?  China maintains a littoral Navy with a tiny and third-rate
"green water" force (Taiwan would be a "green water" operation) and no
history of competent naval operations in modern times.  And their
anti-submarine capability is simply obsolete, leaving those ships
vulnerable as they cross the channel.

I'd love to know how they'll mount an "invasion" with that kind of force
projection capability.  China can't project more than a few divisions,
and with such a meager and obsolete force that they would lose most of
these assets to first-line Taiwanese defenses (which are comparable to
what most European countries can field, technology-wise).  

> They are deploying their first generation
> nuclear missile sub fleet NOW, w/ missiles capable of hitting anywhere
> in the US from the west coast.

The subs are obsolete by our standards. If we thought they were a
threat, we'd be have hunter subs on their tail in no time.  Not that it
matters, since China would have a difficult enough time with Taiwan
without giving the US (and likely Japan) an excuse to scuttle every
piece of hardware that leaves their shore by sea or air.

In case you haven't been paying attention, superior battlefield
technology spanks quantity these days, and China is both inexperienced
at this type of warfare AND using outdated technology.  They may have
millions upon millions of soldiers, but they'll be sitting on the
shoreline annoying no one but themselves.

The bottom line is that China has no credible military lever against the
US, even the "we'll go crazy and flip out on you" gambit is a loser
because the US would know it is a bluff.  They aren't invading Taiwan to
drag themselves into a full-scale war with the US -- there are easier
ways to accomplish that.

> They have announced they are going to
> "diversify" their currency reserve portfolio.

So?

> They have started a breakneck project to revitalize and
> expand massive silver deposits.

So?  The price of silver is marginally over the cost of production --
most silver production is incidental from copper, gold, and lead mining.
 I'm not sure what increasing silver production is going to get them,
since the price can't go much lower and there is not a lot of profit in
it anyway.

> They have signed an agreement with the Phillipines, Indonesia,
> Malaysia, and Vietnam over the Spratly oil fields for joint 
> exploration and exploitation.

That's nice.  Unfortunately, they won't see any oil from this for many,
many years, so I do not see the relevance to your hypothesized impending
invasion of Taiwan.

> China is over 1 billion people. Taiwan is only 28 million. Invading
> Taiwan would be a cakewalk for China provided they put the US pacific
> fleet out of commission either militarily or economically.

So now the Chinese can walk on water?  That will be a several day march.

Your entire hypothesis is based on absurd premises.  The Chinese could
not move enough soldiers to do the job today in the absence of the US
Navy and the Taiwanese naval defenses.  And in the real world, there
*are* Taiwanese naval defenses and twitchy US and Japanese military
assets.  The idea that the Chinese have the capability to put the US
Navy out of commission is ludicrous on its face; a 20-30 year military
technology advantage in modern times is all but insurmountable.  And
that is presuming that the Chinese have a significant quantity of these
assets themselves, and in many categories they do not.

The bottom line is that China would have to engage in a massive overhaul
of their naval capabilities to have a prayer, and previous attempts to
do so have been more failure than success.  Assuming a best case
scenario and massive resource expenditure, it would take them many years
to have a fighting chance, at least a decade in all probability.

[...more grossly unrealistic scenarios elided...]

Honestly Mike, your entire scenario is very loosely strung together bit
of fantasy with only marginal grounding in reality.  China wants Taiwan,
but they are not willing to risk a direct military confrontation with
the US to do it, it is doubtful they could handle Taiwan currently
anyway due to force projection credibility issues, and the current
Chinese political structure also has to protect itself from other
factions inside its own borders that would see aggressive stupidity as
an opportunity.  China taking Taiwan by military force may happen some
time many years down the road, but not any time soon.

j. andrew rogers

_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat

---

From: Dirk Bruere <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 03:27:11 +0100

>shoreline annoying no one but themselves.
Not true IMO.
It is air supremacy that spanks quantity and the US is over reliant on it.

-- 
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.6 - Release Date: 30/03/2005

---

From: Dan Clemmensen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 22:09:56 -0500

>what most European countries can field, technology-wise).  
I must agree. Back in the '90s I suggested that China might invade Taiwan
on the Tom Clancy usenet group. I was promptly handed my head in a basket.

Taiwan is a long way from the Chinese mainland, and the eastern coast of
Taiwan is rugged. There is essentially no way that a seaborne invasion can
succeed given any seagoing opposition at all. In spite of all you may think,
there is no way that an airborne invasion is feasible: you just cannot 
air-drop
enough tonnage. A single modest-sized ship carries more tonnage than 1000
large airplanes. The only other option is nuclear. As long as the US is 
committed
to nuclear retaliation against the PRC, this is not a viable option.

China cannot even manage to re-occupy Quemoy and Matsu. these islands are
Taiwanese territory, but they are within artilliary range of mainland china.

A single US attack submarine in the Formosa Strait would probably suffice to
crush any Chinese invasion of Taiwan.

HOWEVER:

Taiwan is the home of several very large Semiconductor Fab companies.
Each company runs several leading-edge wafer Fabs, in total comprising a
substantial percentage of the world's modern semiconductor fabrication
capability.  Any disruption of the output of these fabs will have a bigger
effect on the world economy than a a major disruption in a major 
oil-producing
country. A major new fab costs about $4B. An earthquake that shakes a 
fab can
destroy all work in progress even if no capital equipment is damaged. 
Work in
progress can amount to $250M per fab. A slightly more severe earthquake 
can disrupt
power, causing loss of work in progress plus loss of certain expensive 
capital
equipment ( what are "quartz tubes" and why do they die when power is lost?)
Conclusion: an invasion of Taiwan is a lot more serious than it at first 
appears.
a single nuke in the wrong place will disrupt the world economy.

Why is this Extropian? The Taiwanese fabs are at the leading edge of 
Moore's law.
Even if we don't make a nanotech breakthrough, Moore's law will take us to
the singularity within 15 years (a factor of 1000.) Yes, Moore's Law is 
nothing more
than a 30-year-old observation of an empirical data set, but it has in 
fact held during those
ensuing 30 years.
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat

---

From: Keith Henson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 22:23:30 -0500

At 05:28 PM 30/03/05 -0800, J. Andrew Rogers wrote:

snip

>drag themselves into a full-scale war with the US -- there are easier

snip

I agree, though there *are* situations where China might go to war.

1.  Someone attacks them.  That will always do it.

2.  They get into an economic problem where growth takes a big hit for long 
enough for xenophobic memes (no matter how insane) to grow to the point 
they attack someone.  Taiwan being one of the more likely.

Such an attack would be irrational, of course, but the psychological 
mechanisms we have that get us into wars (inherited from the remote past) 
include suppression of rational thinking.

Wish I could point you to the 20 page article on the subject, but it isn't 
up anywhere yet.

Keith Henson

---

From: Mike Lorrey <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 19:34:28 -0800 (PST)

--- "J. Andrew Rogers" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> It is a fragmented and complex country, and the communist party has
> to put on quite a dog-and-pony show just to maintain their control. 

Yes, and nationalist fever is part of it. The more of a lather they can
get the yokels in about Taiwan, they less they bitch about their own
slavery.

> They
> borders, as there are too many other powerful competing interests
> they have to keep reasonably unagitated.

Every one of which is at least 50% owned by a major state ministry. The
Peoples Liberation Army is the largest industrial conglomerate.
> "green water" force (Taiwan would be a "green water" operation) and
> no history of competent naval operations in modern times.  And their

Not so. They have been building Aegis rip-offs for a decade now and
have purchased a fleet of ultra-quiet german diesel attack subs which
outperform our own. The only category of ship they aren't building
right now are aircraft carriers.

> 
> I'd love to know how they'll mount an "invasion" with that kind of
> force projection capability.  China can't project more than a few
> divisions,
> and with such a meager and obsolete force that they would lose most
> of these assets to first-line Taiwanese defenses(which are comparable
> to what most European countries can field, technology-wise).  

Where do you think all the circuit boards for those Taiwanese ships are
built? The Chinese can afford a Stalingrad style offense if they have
to, but they don't.

> > nuclear missile sub fleet NOW, w/ missiles capable of hitting
> > anywhere in the US from the west coast.
> 

On the contrary, these subs are ultra quiet thanks to 8 years of
Clinton selling top notch machining technology to China.

> shoreline annoying no one but themselves.

You apparently haven't been paying attention. The US Navy is obsolete,
with the sole exception of the Aegis Pac-3 systems. The Hornet attack
plane is now doing double duty as a fighter since the Tomcats are now
worn out and being moved to Reserve units. The Navy is still building a
50 year old aircraft carrier design and flying planes that are 30-40
years old.

> > "diversify" their currency reserve portfolio.

When they dump nearly $600 billion in cash reserves on the
international currency markets, the other $500 billion that other
central banks are holding are going to get dumped too. The dollar is
going to tank, big time, to less than 10% of its current levels, unless
the US gov't does some drastic things, like raising interest rates to
20%, selling off the whole strategic oil reserve, and have the federal
reserve sell off the last of its gold stocks. Even that will not soak
up more than $500 billion.

> since the price can't go much lower and there is not a lot of profit
> in it anyway.

The cost of production is different for different locations. Right now
silver is pushing the $7.50 an ounce. Cost of production averages just
over $5.50 typically, but as the price rises less optimal deposits will
get exploited. That is the nature of mining anything. The fact is that
global silver supply is lagging behind demand by a significant percent
and surplus stocks which had accumulated in the late 90's are about
expended. Forecasters are predicting $10/oz silver within a year and
rising thereafter. Silver prices are now tracking with copper prices as
both are the key metals in the continuously growing electronics
industry.

When China dumps the dollar, they are going to need a new reserve
asset. Euros might suffice for a while, but the european economy is
stagnant. The Chinese govt is opening those silver mines to start
issuing silver and silver backed currency.
 
> That's nice.  Unfortunately, they won't see any oil from this for
> many, many years, so I do not see the relevance to your hypothesized
> impending invasion of Taiwan.

Exploratory wells are starting now. Production is expected in 2008.
Meantime, they are stockpiling arab and south american oil as fast as
possible.

> > Taiwan would be a cakewalk for China provided they put the US
> > pacific fleet out of commission either militarily or economically.
> 
> 
> that is presuming that the Chinese have a significant quantity of
> these assets themselves, and in many categories they do not.

You don't seem to get it. Technology on a ship is irrelevant when your
ship doesn't have fuel. When the dollar is in the tank, oil prices in
the US will be over $150/bbl. The US cannot sustain a logistical train
across the Pacific with that sort of a cost level.

There is a maxim in military circles: "Dillettantes talk tactics,
amateurs talk strategy, professionals talk logistics." Wars are won and
lost on logistics alone. This is how the US wins its wars, not because
of superior technology, despite what the propaganda says. Technology is
a tactic.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat

---

From: Dan Clemmensen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 20:59:36 -0500

Eugen Leitl wrote:

>On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 10:09:56PM -0500, Dan Clemmensen wrote:
>
>  
>
>Do you have a specific scenario, suggesting how exactly Moore (assuming, it
>will hold up for the next 15 years) will result in the Singularity?
>
>  
>
Nope. I'm still operating at the meta level here. Moore's "law" 
(actually, Moore's
rule of thumb) synergizes with the old cliche:
"an order-of-magnitude quantitative change is a qualitative change."

I look at developments like Google, grid computing, and the inexorable
improvement in connectivity and bandwidth, and I see multiple opportunities
for emergent behavior. I cannot specify which scenario is most likely. I 
suspect
that the particular sequence of events that results in the SI will be 
unexpected. It's
not any specific and readily-predictable scenario that is important 
here. Rather,
The environment in which an SI can "spontaneously" emerge is becoming
richer at an exponentially increasing rate. Nine years ago I said that 
my gut feeling
was that the SI would emerge within ten years. With only 14 months to 
go, this is
looking like a bad call on my part, but I will not retract the 
prediction, because the
infrastructure is increasingly rich. My gut feeling is that we are now 
only one clever insight
away from the SI, and that the amount of cleverness that is needed 
decreases as the
infrastructure becomes richer.

You are free to view this as a belief unsupported by facts: a "religion" 
if you will. I
do not think so: I think that any rational analysis will conclude that 
there will be a point
in time when we can construct an intelligence smarter than ourselves, so 
all we are arguing
about is the time when this will occur.
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat

---

From: Dirk Bruere <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 03:18:08 +0100

> infrastructure becomes richer.
I made a similar prediction around 1980.
The earliest I assumed was 2010 and the latest 2050 with 2030 being the 
most probable.
Still on course IMO for 2030.

-- 
Dirk

The Consensus:-