Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd
Search
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Search
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd


The week's question
In December 2024, in the thread "Re: BRK: Why Not XOM?", BreckHutHigh asked the members: "What about the long road trips with kids?" This week it is put to everyone again. The button below opens the small thread re-asking it - read what others have said so far, then give your own answer as an ordinary reply.
Answer this questionContinue to Shrewd'mThis note won't appear again
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (45) |
Author: albaby1 SILVER
SHREWD
  😊 😞

Number: of 84359 
Subject: Re: Dope?
Date: 01/05/26 12:18 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 12
Nothing changed vis a vis China and Taiwan because of Venezuela. They believe Taiwan is a breakaway province and a part of China. That perception was not affected at all by us arresting Maduro.

And China already believes they own the South China Sea and everything in it. You of all people are especially aware of their territorial ambitions far beyond Taiwan.


It doesn't change their desires. But it makes it more difficult for the rest of the world to say to China, "You're wrong." For the rest of the world to marshall diplomatic and economic forces in opposition to China's ambitions in the region.

Right now, the rules-based international order is that countries cannot use military force against other countries except in certain very limited circumstances - which circumstances do not include "they have resource we want or need" or "our national security would be better off if we had their territory instead of just our own." The idea is that if even the strong nations agree to be bound by those rules, then everyone has the protection of being more secure (though not absolutely certain) than in the absence of that rules-based system.

If the U.S. backs away from that rules-based international order in favor of a system where using military force against other countries is okay if the strong country really wants something from the weak country, then it becomes much easier for other strong countries to do the same thing. Not that there was anything physically preventing them from doing it in the first place - if China wanted to roll into Laos and take a chunk for themselves, nothing could stop them. But because of the rules-based order, doing so would present China with costs in the international community that make taking a bite out of Laos using a military invasion less attractive.

When you erode that, you don't change what China wants - or what it believes it's entitled to - but you do change the cost benefit equation to the use of military action, and you expand the collection of excuses that can be made for military action that China might determine (correctly or not) it can engage in without arousing the costly wrath of the international community. Again, these norms don't prevent China from using military force, but increase the cost of using direct military force relative to other efforts to try to obtain their ambitions.
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Members reply directly to albaby1 here — and replies get answered. Reading is free; so is joining the conversation. Join Shrewd'm »
This community has written 84,309 posts about US Policy. The article-length ones it recommended most:
It's going to get worse · 33 recs · 2025
G’day Donny · 30 recs · 2026
Old Related Story · 28 recs · 2026
HCR is a national treasure · 27 recs · 2025
Fascism in America · 27 recs · 2025
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (45) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds | Open Questions | Moving a community