<<China's naval disadvantages would require it to go nuclear against US carrier groups>>
there has been no ambiguity on this point even though rummy played dumb re 'transparency'.
china's warning was explicit, that interference in taiwan strait with carrier group(s) will result in nuclear take-out of carrier group, full stop.
stratfor and the pentagon initially poopooed the warning as a chinese general speaking off the ranch, then as for chinese domestic consumption (the warning was served via international-only media), until the truth dawned, after about 6 months of pondering, that a warning had been issued on par with china's warning before entering the korean war on side of north, against usa navy firstly and against hundreds of american cities as a natural follow-on if escalated.
it was also a period when a bunch of submarine games were played against japan mainland and usa fleet exercises, and japan then 'knew' instinctively that nukes will be used against an interfering japan with even less deliberation, as in instinctively automatic response for the neat and tidy yakuza-ran operation.
chinese take war seriously, as in do not fight it unless must.
americans take war lightly, meaning be brave from up on high against civilians.
war is not about weapons as much as about will.
on the warning re taiwan, the american climb down was rapid, and completely muted in the media.
had it been played up, empire over, and so goes the dollar, as opposed to the other way around.
economic realism triumphed, a good thing.
the nature of the game between usa-russia-china is just getting interesting, and i doubt the most likely has been accounted for by the majority. |
