Taiwan and China thread.

[Nasher]

I don't think the Chinese people would accept their soldiers being slaughtered in the same way the Russian ones are, which is what would happen. The way of thinking isn't the same. At the moment an attack is unlikely TBH.

 

[SupraWez]

As for all these rules of war, they usually just tie the hands of one side in a conflict, if it came right down to it the gloves come off and rightly so, they really only apply to the side with more capability anyway.

 

[arknor]

Rule 14. Launching an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, is prohibited.

Who decides what's excessive? It's completely arbitrary considering the forced movement of millions in Gaza.

South africa is already takinhg israel to the ICJ
This video basically explains it all and how it works

 

[Grim5]

so your suggested genocide and ethnic cleansing here?

Genocide, cleansing? What have you been smoking

 

[Grim5]

Won't need to in reality as it'll collapse by itself with how corrupt the whole construction was.

Well official reports show that it has developed something like 70 cracks already but that's par for the course for Chinese dams, the ones they've built in other countries are also full of cracks

 

[Bug One]

I don't think the Chinese people would accept their soldiers being slaughtered in the same way the Russian ones are, which is what would happen. The way of thinking isn't the same. At the moment an attack is unlikely TBH.

Not sure they'd have a say in the matter. Their dictator wants it, and dissent isn't tolerated.

 

[arknor]

Well official reports show that it has developed something like 70 cracks already but that's par for the course for Chinese dams, the ones they've built in other countries are also full of cracks

so wiping out 40% of the population of china wouldn't be genocide or ethnic cleansing? what are you smoking

 

[ubersonic]

That's a war crime, You can not intentionally target a civilian population.

However there is sadly long standing precedent that you can target a military target and any civilians that die in the process are collateral damage

As Evidenced with the American nuclear bombings of WW2 and the conventional/chemical weapon bombings of every war they've been involved in since.

 

[Bug One]

However there is sadly long standing precedent that you can target a military target and any civilians that die in the process are collateral damage

As Evidenced with the American nuclear bombings of WW2 and the conventional/chemical weapon bombings of every war they've been involved in since.

You may have missed the sarcasm

 

[Bug One]

so wiping out 40% of the population of china wouldn't be genocide or ethnic cleansing? what are you smoking

Genocide? Who by, the engineers who built a shoddy dam?

 

[Malevolence]

so wiping out 40% of the population of china wouldn't be genocide or ethnic cleansing? what are you smoking

Attacking a dam during the time of war is not genocide. Dams are legitimate targets.

 

[arknor]

Attacking a dam during the time of war is not genocide. Dams are legitimate targets.

What attacks have there been on dams in Ukraine?

The Russian and Ukrainian authorities blame each other for severe damage to the Kakhovka dam.

www.bbc.co.uk

Is it a war crime to attack dams?​

The Geneva Conventions and their protocols explicitly ban war-time attacks on "installations containing dangerous forces" such as dams.

They are civilian infrastructure and generally not valid military targets, says Professor Tracey German at King's College, London.
"In the law of armed conflict, let's say there was a Ukrainian military unit based around a dam. Then, Russia could treat it as a military target. But as far as I am aware, that has not been the case."
"An attack on a civilian target like a dam has to be done out of military necessity," says Dr Mark Ellis, executive director of the International Bar Association.
"But if the military advantage gained is small, and the damage done to civilians is catastrophic, then that would be a violation of international law."

can't see wiping out half of Chinas population being worth any military advantage unless ww3 actually starts and then no one would care I guess.

but just China vs Taiwan I doubt the world would accept it

 

[StriderX]

It's called MAD.

 

[Nasher]

However there is sadly long standing precedent that you can target a military target and any civilians that die in the process are collateral damage

As Evidenced with the American nuclear bombings of WW2 and the conventional/chemical weapon bombings of every war they've been involved in since.

The laws were only created after the war when the UN was set up. It was intended to prevent another one. But the UN has become useless

 

[NickK]

so wiping out 40% of the population of china wouldn't be genocide or ethnic cleansing? what are you smoking

China has a population issue (downwards) so killing off more of it’s popilation ian’t going to be a good long term policy. Not unless it starts enforcing baby farming frozen sperm from the soldiers going to war to maintain population genetic diversity.

 

[Grim5]

so wiping out 40% of the population of china wouldn't be genocide or ethnic cleansing? what are you smoking

It's called strategic deterrence, don't touch me or I'll **** up your stuff

Also neither China or Taiwan are members of the ICC, so neither country accepts your western jurisdiction of war crimes

It's funny to bring up the geneva convention on dams from the 1940s, when well after they were introduced, the Brits were still making movies glorying British "war crimes" in WW2.
In fact as recently as 2018 new memorials were still being built in Britain to glorify these war criminals who bombed German dams.

 

[arknor]

Also neither China or Taiwan are members of the ICC, so neither country accepts your western jurisdiction of war crimes

doesn'tr mean countries wouldn't sanction them like with Russia now.

I don't see no way a country can wipe out about half of someone elses population and expect relations to carry on as normal with the rest of the world, unless its WW3 which in your scenario seems to be just 2 countries, if you can even call Taiwan that.

Isn't it legally recognised as a part of china?

Which countries recognize Taiwan? Currently, there are only 13 countries that recognize Taiwan as a sovereign country; Belize, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, the Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Paraguay, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Tuvalu.

The United States does not formally recognize Taiwan as an independent nation due to its adherence to the One-China policy, but it maintains unofficial relations with Taiwan and provides it with substantial diplomatic, economic, and military support.

Taiwans importance will wane as CPU manufacturing is moved to the west.
TSMC is already building fabs in America

 

[Bug One]

Ha ha. Are you a Chinese bot?

 

[VincentHanna]

China getting ready to unload:

 

[sprite1275]

It's called strategic deterrence, don't touch me or I'll **** up your stuff

Also neither China or Taiwan are members of the ICC, so neither country accepts your western jurisdiction of war crimes

It's funny to bring up the geneva convention on dams from the 1940s, when well after they were introduced, the Brits were still making movies glorying British "war crimes" in WW2.
In fact as recently as 2018 new memorials were still being built in Britain to glorify these war criminals who bombed German dams.

Yeah but come on, they made bouncing bombs... "BOUNCING BOMBS!" dropped by lancs... Awesome stuff.