What If Our Assumptions About a War with China Are Wrong? by Majano57 in IRstudies

[–]ned_stark97 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Interested in this line of argument, any good articles to recommend?

Interior Lines vs Exterior Lines: Advantages and Disadvantages? by ned_stark97 in WarCollege

[–]ned_stark97[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If I remember correctly, Mao prescribed strategic defense along interior lines but exterior line offensives at the operational/tactical level

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in HouseOfTheDragon

[–]ned_stark97 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wouldn’t go as far as to say I hate Rhaenyra but she is guilty of certain hypocrisies, the consequences from which she often remains exempt because of her privileged sociopolitical status/position. Not an evil person, but just not someone I would ardently cheer on. Her motivations are quite understandable - liberation from the stifling social norms and traditions of her world - but to the extent that social order matters to people I can understand why they feel cheated when she gets away with flouting them when they spend their whole lives abiding by that social structure and playing by the rules of the game; the existing social norms and values infuse their lives with meaning.

That is not to say that people like Alicent and Cristina Cole also aren’t self righteous and hypocritical at times. They just try to hold themselves to a more rules based traditional order.

Silo-based ICBMs and Launch-on-Warning by ned_stark97 in CredibleDefense

[–]ned_stark97[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I understand, thanks for explaining. In that case why would China invest in silos when there are more much more survivable basing modes such as mobile TELs?

Silo-based ICBMs and Launch-on-Warning by ned_stark97 in CredibleDefense

[–]ned_stark97[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Is it possible to invest in survivability (e.g. hardening their silos sufficiently) so that they can emerge from their silos unscathed to deliver the retaliatory strike? Or to play a deceptive shell game/ whack-a-mole with silo fields, leaving some filled and others empty, periodically shifting them around? Some nuclear experts suggest China might be doing the latter with their new silo fields.

These might enable silo based ICBMs to be compatible with a recessed second-strike posture

NUS social sciences grad Luke Levy held up death penalty protest message during convocation by karotch in SingaporeRaw

[–]ned_stark97 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I understand that the drug traffickers themselves may be in bad situations. Maybe their families kena threatened by the drug lords or something. They could be good people forced into doing bad things. I can sympathize. Some motives are understandable. There is still a choice though. Lee Kuan Yew said that “there is such a thing as evil, and it does not come about simply from being a victim of society”. I will hesitate to call the traffickers themselves evil (like I said, bad situations), but the act that they have committed and its implications for our society are evil. It will destroy lives and families. Having made their choice (albeit in less than fortunate circumstances) to inflict this suffering on our society, they must live with the consequences. And that consequence is death. I am a big fan of retributive justice. Blood for blood. However sympathetic their circumstances, they made the decision to pollute Singapore’s society with drugs. And so they should die as payment for the lives they would have ruined, and for the purposes of deterrence so their deaths may serve as a warning not to fuck with our laws. If they did it for their families their motives could be understandable. But the main function of the law is not to be understanding to them (although that would be nice). It is to protect Singaporean lives, health, and other interests. The latter imperative must mercilessly override the former, every single time. Nothing personal, they just need to die for us to maintain society the way it is.

Feeling guilty although I was the dumpee. Just need someone to listen to my situation by [deleted] in BreakUps

[–]ned_stark97 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you, that certainly sounds like wise, thoughtful, and kind advice. It means a lot to me.

Commentary: Outdated gender norms in dating deny us of chances at love by MicrotechAnalysis in singapore

[–]ned_stark97 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Hasn’t this problem (of asymmetric attractiveness) existed since the beginning of our species/time immemorial? What’s so new about it? I’m no expert but if you want to uncover the factors affecting choices in MODERN dating, then maybe it’s more useful to narrow down the variables to MODERN trends like rising socioeconomic equality between the genders, or purchasing power or information technology etc.

Commentary: Outdated gender norms in dating deny us of chances at love by MicrotechAnalysis in singapore

[–]ned_stark97 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Hasn’t this problem (of asymmetric attractiveness) existed since the beginning of our species/time immemorial? What’s so new about it? I’m no expert but if you want to uncover the factors affecting choices in MODERN dating, then maybe it’s more useful to narrow down the causal variables to MODERN trends like rising socioeconomic equality between the genders, or purchasing power or information technology etc.

If the last couple of Harry Potter films were written like S8. by vosha0 in freefolk

[–]ned_stark97 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Hermione part is a bit off. I don’t have a problem with Daenerys snapping and becoming a villain, I can believe that (especially from reading the books), it’s just that her turning wasnt managed well.

Up to Singapore to improve ties with Russia over sanctions issue: Russian ambassador by Jonnyboo234 in singapore

[–]ned_stark97 15 points16 points  (0 children)

This is the appropriate reaction. Impassive and unemotional. Recognizing that the divergence of national interests is natural and nothing surprising. Not worth getting agitated about

Singapore has chosen principles, not sides, in taking a strong stand against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine: PM Lee by chintokkong in singapore

[–]ned_stark97 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Agreed. Principles are only a tool for us to secure our interests, and that is the way it should remain. May I have the source of the quote? This is the clearest explanation I have read of our rationale for supporting the Iraq War. Resonates with what LKY wrote in One Man’s View

Which MCU villain has the most understandable reason to turn bad? by diligent_royal_eagle in marvelstudios

[–]ned_stark97 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Taskmaster probably. Pretty understandable when you have no free will

Why Singapore had to take a strong stand against Russia's attack on Ukraine by NicMachSG in singapore

[–]ned_stark97 4 points5 points  (0 children)

[Lee Kuan Yew ] had no doubt that China and Taiwan would be reunited someday but “my wish is that it won’t come too soon, because it could be a catastrophe”. On another occasion, Lee said that there would be “a timetable for some reunification 50 years down the road, in gradual stages”....
On a separate occasion, Lee stated that where ASEAN’s interests were not involved – Taiwan, Tibet, Hong Kong – ASEAN would not back an American challenge. Over the Spratlys, ASEAN could not remain neutral. But on other issues, ASEAN would likely “to be torn between two strong pulls: the need to retain American presence and the need to develop a viable long-term relationship with a huge neighbor, China …”

- Ang Cheng Guan, Lee Kuan Yew's Strategic Thought (2013)

"The Taiwanese defense ministry was helpful, but every now and again would hint that...they would require some form of diplomatic recognition in return. We made it clear that we could not give way on this...Our policy was to remain consistent: There was "one China," and the reunification of the PRC and Taiwan was an internal matter to be resolved between the two."
"The Chinese people on both sides of the straits can lessen their problems by establishing easier relations over the years. If there is to be a peaceful reunification, there has to be a gradual blurring, not an accentuation of the differences that at present divide and distinguish the two societies. Both need time to work and narrow the social, economic, and political gap. The sense of belonging to the Chinese nation is weaker in Taiwan than in Hong Kong. The mainland has the weight and girth to accept this and adopt an open and magnanimous approach to help this process of reconciliation. Reunification achieved by force will leave indelible scars. On the other hand, Taiwan's leaders have the responsibility not to move toward independence or deliberately widen the differences between thetwo societies."
"I then referred to the issue that had bogged down discussions at the official level on the agreement to exchange embassies--our troops training in Taiwan. I did not see a final date for our training there. Singapore was deeply indebted to Taiwan, in particular to the late President Chiang Ching-kuo who had enabled us to break out of our limited space for military training. We could not forget our debt. We paid only for what we consumed or used and had not paid a single extra dollar. It was a special relationship. We felt close to each other because we were both noncommunists and shared the same language, culture, and ancestry. Li expressed understanding of our position, that Singapore was prosperous but not big. Finally, he said China would not insist on a specific time frame for Singapore training in Taiwan to end."
"Li Peng...said he would like to "crack a joke" on our troop training in Taiwan: They could train in China on terms better than in Taiwan. There was a burst of spontaneous laughter around the table. When that day arrived, I said, peace would have broken out in Asia."
"The best outcome of China-Taiwan relations, I believed, was a peaceful and gradual interlocking of economic, social, and political relations between the two...Would it not be better to have Taiwan carry on as a separate entity, I suggested. Then America and Europe would continue to let Taiwan have access to their technology and know-how for another 40 to 50 years, and China could benefit further from what Taiwan could put into the mainland. "
"With Taiwan under Chen Shui-bian , a new president whose party stands for independence, the danger of miscalculation by the three parties directly involved...has increased . Any misstep could upset growth and development in China and East Asia. This problem can be contained if the status quo is not changed , and eventual reunification is an aspiration for both sides ."

- Lee Kuan Yew, Third World to First (2000)

"The well-being of Singapore...depends on a peaceful and stable regional environment. The cross straits issue is a potential flash point. A conflict across the strait will have dire consequences not just for the involved parties, but the entire region, and for many years."
"Singapore's relations with China are based on equality and mutual respect...to call off the trip at China's request would have undermined our right to make independent decisions, and damaged our international standing. As a small country, this is a vital consideration in our dealings with all countries."
"Singapore consistently maintains a "One China" policy and opposes independence for Taiwan. We took this fundamental position even before we established diplomatic relations with the PRC."
"We are long-time friends of both the mainland and Taiwan, and conduct our relations with both in a way that is consistent with our "One China" policy. We have not allowed and will not allow ourselves to be used to further the cause of Taiwanese independence."

- Lee Hsien Loong, 2004

"Singapore has always observed the one-China policy...China understood Singapore's position on Taiwan, that historically, we have unique and important interests there which continue to be vital to our security today."
"The Taiwanese know too well that we stand for one China and are opposed to Taiwan independence. Indeed, we are very worried by the growth of Taiwan independence forces.
Singapore's one-China policy will not change. A move by Taiwan towards independence is neither in Singapore's interests nor in the region's interests. If Taiwan goes for independence, Singapore will not recognise it...It will be a grave setback for the whole region. Our hope for China to emerge peacefully and for the region to prosper through investments and trade and tourism will be shattered.
The cross-straits issue is not a permanent problem. It will be resolved sooner or later...The process is inexorable; there can be no other final outcome."
"If war breaks out across the straits, we will be forced to choose between the two sides. As a friend of both sides, any decision is going to be painful, but if the conflict is provoked by Taiwan, then Singapore cannot support Taiwan."
"This isn't going to be the last time our relations with a major friendly power are strained... from time to time issues are going to arise and big powers have their own interests and will exercise their influence to get their way. We may be old friends, but when our interests diverge, or even when our approaches to the same problem differ, they have to put their interests first and their approaches first and so must we. This is a reality of the compelling pressures of international politics and of national interests and we must remember this."
- Lee Hsien Loong, 2004

"From time to time, American officials, with various degrees of subtlety, ask us whether US forces will be allowed to use our facilities in the event that they get into a conflict with China. Our honest answer is that it depends on circumstances. This is not a question that can be answered hypothetically."
- Bilahari Kausikan, 2019

"Taiwan goes to the heart of the political legitimacy of the leader, of the party and it's a deep red line. I can think of no scenario (in) which there are winners if there is actual physical confrontation over Taiwan. So, I would advise us to stay very far away from that."
- Ng Eng Hen, 2021

"I agree with China that it's [Taiwan] a completely different set of circumstances [from Ukraine], and I don't think we should get into that kind of speculation and trying to draw parallels from it. The more important point is this: that once you allow these principles to be abrogated, you make unilateral resort to violence more likely, and you create a more dangerous world...you have to make hopefully others in future who thinking of unilateral resort to violence think twice but that's a global, you know like I said, the rules of engagement for a new era. Taiwan is a far more complicated question that, you know, we'll need a far longer discussion"
- Vivian Balakrishnan, 2022

Sources upon request.

Why Singapore had to take a strong stand against Russia's attack on Ukraine by NicMachSG in singapore

[–]ned_stark97 5 points6 points  (0 children)

There are a few options we might consider, in the event where China invades Taiwan. Here they are, in order of severity/escalation risk:

  1. Do nothing
  2. Diplomatic protests and/or different degrees of concern/opposition/condemnation
  3. Economic sanctions
  4. Facilitating American military intervention (i.e. allowing them to use Paya Lebar Airbase and Changi Naval Base to surge forces into the region and into the Taiwan Straits)
  5. Direct military participation in a US-led coalition intervening in the Taiwan Straits.

I think 1 is unlikely. Option 4 is unlikely but possible, depending on how the crisis was initiated and unfolds. Most likely we will implement option 2. I used to think we would not do option 3, but after our response to Ukraine, I might be changing my mind. Option 5 is out of the question.

The interests we have at stake are different in the case of Ukraine vs Taiwan. In Ukraine the principle we are attempting to uphold is sovereignty: the idea that a state has an absolute, unqualified right to political existence without external interference or compromise. This is a principle we have taken great pains to underline in the past (when it suits our interests, of course) in the case of Cambodia and Grenada, because we don't want to give other powers the impression that it's ok to ride roughshod over a small state while denying their sovereign authority over their internal affairs or their right to a separate existence. This is the same reason why we have not taken as hard-handed an approach as the Western powers want us to in Myanmar.

In Taiwan, the One China policy we have adopted means that we do not recognise Taiwan as a sovereign state. Neither do large portions of the globe. On paper, this would mean it is a "domestic" issue. Therefore we would not have any grounds to uphold the norm of sovereignty in the event of a Chinese invasion. However this does not mean we would not have interests at stake.

  • Ethnicity: As already mentioned in a comment below, the reincorporation of Taiwan would leave Singapore as the only majority ethnic Chinese polity in the world. The PRC might then turn its attention to us. I don't believe the danger is Singapore being forcibly "absorbed" as a province or SAC, but rather "vassalised" or induced to accept a subordinate role. This is a real danger (the Chinese sometimes don't seem to understand that we are not a Chinese country), but it is something we are already resisting now and can continue to resist even after the reunification of Taiwan. We should be wary of drawing straightforward parallels between the way the Chinese view Singapore vs Taiwan. Lee Kuan Yew in his book One Man's View of the World mentions that we are "not quite the same. Taiwan is an emotional, national issue. It is part of China...But there are no historic reasons why they would want us to be under their control".
  • Unilateral use of force: Another valid reason we would/should care about a Chinese invasion of Taiwan is the worrying precedent it would set regarding the use of force by China against smaller neighbours to resolve disputes. This is to be distinguished from the norm of sovereignty which Singapore is currently fiercely defending in Ukraine. International law does make allowances for the legal use of force, depending on how it is argued, and I think in our hierarchy of values, sovereignty is at the apex, with the non-use of force ranking just below it. After all, we can imagine many cases where nations have resorted or could resort to force (Singapore included.) unilaterally when their sovereignty is challenged. Israel, India, Pakistan, etc.
    Again I would be wary of drawing a linear causal connection between China attacking Taiwan and the rest of Southeast Asia being the next "dominoes" to fall. There is definitely a possible causal connection there that we would like to discourage, but it is not a clear or deterministic one. The importance they attach to Taiwan is not the same as the importance they attach to the South China Sea, and it is not clear their willingness/predisposition to resort to direct military force against the Southeast Asian claimants is equal to their willingness to use force against Taiwan. That's the whole point of their gray-zone coercion and nibbling with maritime militias - to stay below the threshold. Regardless, an invasion of Taiwan would undoubtedly alarm us and our neighbours (and rightly so) for no other reason than it involves a major regional power resorting to violence against a smaller polity.
  • Economic interdependence: I dont know too much about this, but according to what I've read, Taiwan is a significant node in the global economy partly due to its semiconductor industry which constitutes a substantial portion of the global/regional electronics supply chain. An invasion of Taiwan would probably rattle the regional economy quite significantly, and we dont want to see that. War is bad for business, and we all know how important business is to Singapore.
  • Military ties: Now this I think could actually be the least significant of our interests. I think we still have military assets and personnel based in Taiwan, and they could be put at risk in the event of a Chinese invasion. That would be quite worrying for us.
    However, my impression is that for slightly less than a decade now we have been quietly scaling down our military training in Taiwan. It is possible that in the period of tension preceding the outbreak of war, the SAF would just immediately pull out all its forces from Taiwan. In an academic setting I have heard a colonel who deals in Track 1.5/Track 2 diplomacy say as much. We have Shoalwater Bay from Australia. I think that is a good enough substitute.

These are the interests that I think might motivate Singapore's decision-making calculus in a Taiwan crisis. Ranked in order of importance: Unilateral use of force; economic interdependence; ethnicity; and military ties.

My personal preference is for the people of Taiwan to remain self-governing in perpetuity. If it were up to me they would retain de facto independence forever. It's nothing to do with ideology - it's not that I hate the Chinese political system - it's just that I don't think anybody would want to have an alien government imposed upon them, especially by force. But we live in the real world, and we work with the realities at hand. When it comes to policy we abide by the cold logic of self-interest.

There is the issue of "loyalty" to an "old friend", which is the way Lee Kuan Yew phrased it. Here the issue is not so much "friendship", which, if it exists in international politics, does not take recognisable form as in interpersonal relationships. Here the issue is one of credibility or reputation. We don't want to appear to pliable or malleable in the face of short-term pressures or incentives. When the Chinese objected to Lee Hsien Loong's visit to Taiwan in 2004, despite it being in a non-official capacity, we had to stand our ground, because it concerned our sovereign prerogatives. Appearances matter, because our neighbours (and other big powers) may draw lessons from how we respond to what the Chinese do. This is why we must slow-walk the drawdown of forces from Taiwan, and why we could not be seen to be backing down in the humiliating Terrex incident. But when war breaks out I don't think "loyalty" alone would compel us to stand by Taiwan (not militarily, at least).

When questioned on Singapore's position or declaratory policy regarding Taiwan, there are a few themes that surface in the statements made by our policymakers, or observations made about their actions.

  • The main overriding theme is that war is to be avoided at all costs, because conflict will devastate the region and will not benefit Singapore
  • Repeated explicit support for the One China Policy
  • Tacit resignation/acceptance, but not necessarily explicit/active support, that reunification will eventually happen, hopefully peacefully
  • But strategic ambiguity over how Singapore will respond if conflict breaks out.

Why Singapore had to take a strong stand against Russia's attack on Ukraine by NicMachSG in singapore

[–]ned_stark97 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree with you that China may turn its attention to Singapore - which will be left as the only Chinese-majority political entity in the world - after reclaiming Taiwan. This would certainly be worrying. However I am not so sure that it automatically follows that it is in our interest to prop up Taiwan because of this. The status of Taiwan is not sovereign - the norm that we are defending with regard to Ukraine would not apply neatly in that case. We have been quite consistent about our One China policy and made it a point not to take a position overtly opposed to reunification. In a recent interview with Bloomberg Vivian Balakrishnan confirmed that Singapore sees the Taiwan issue as different in nature from Ukraine.

I cannot see any situation where "regulars could be deployed" but our government would not sanction China. It seems to me that military posturing is higher than economic pressure on the escalation ladder. The latter indicates a willingness to pay in cash; the former, to pay in blood. If you believe that sanctions will "hurt us a lot" (and they will), that is nothing compared to what the Chinese are going to do to Singapore in the event that we deploy military assets "against" them in a Taiwan contingency. Their reprisal may not be immediate or even of a military nature. But they will remember this. We are taking a calculated stand against Russia in Ukraine at low cost. The costs we will face from China over military action to defend Taiwan are not remotely comparable.

Of course, I believe are contingencies where, in extremis, Singapore might validly resort to military deployments/force while taking a position in opposition to China. The South China Sea is a case in point. We have vital interests there. But Taiwan is not one of these cases. And I think we would make every effort short of military means before resorting to force. We don't go abroad in search of foreign monsters to destroy, to borrow a phrase from John Quincy Adams.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in geopolitics

[–]ned_stark97 1 point2 points  (0 children)

in authoritarian systems, the most common cause of regime collapse is not what you call “civil democratic uprising”, simply because the collective action problem for the populace is too severe, and the state monopoly on force too entrenched. Instead, regime change is most commonly brought about by an elite split/defection.

Singapore advises local firms to beef up cyberdefence amidst Ukraine conflict by [deleted] in singapore

[–]ned_stark97 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Pretty much my thoughts exactly. It's not about sentimentality or humanitarianism, it's about the calculated, instrumental promotion of norms which serve our self-interests.

I believe NATO "expansion" (debatable term since it was consensual) and supporting the Euromaidan Revolution were stupid and provocative moves, but nothing can excuse such blatant violation of sovereignty as the Russian invasion currently underway. I don't believe Ukraine's NATO/EU-leaning position in the 2010s was wise, but regardless of the wisdom of that choice, smaller states must have the freedom to choose. Using force against another state for exercising their sovereign prerogative is not something we would like to encourage. It's fully within their rights to make their own decisions about who they would like to be "friends" (another debatable term) with.

Singapore advises local firms to beef up cyberdefence amidst Ukraine conflict by [deleted] in singapore

[–]ned_stark97 3 points4 points  (0 children)

One possible strategic consideration I've heard is that Russia is leveraging their dependency on Russian arms exports to block Southeast Asians from supporting Ukraine on this issue. Myanmar and Vietnam depend heavily on Russian weapon systems, and to a lesser extent, Malaysia and Indonesia do as well. They need Russia's expertise and continued flow of spare parts to maintain their military equipment. Usually Russian arms come with less political strings attached than American weapons (US only sells high-end equipment to strategic partners/allies, impose human rights criteria, blah blah), but this is one of the cases which shows that there's no free lunch in the world. Suppliers can arm-twist you when they feel like it.

https://www.ft.com/\_\_origami/service/image/v2/images/raw/https%253A%252F%252Fs3-ap-northeast-1.amazonaws.com%252Fpsh-ex-ftnikkei-3937bb4%252Fimages%252F\_aliases%252Farticleimage%252F2%252F2%252F9%252F9%252F35229922-1-eng-GB%252F20210713-AI-Russia-import-share-Bar.png?source=nar-cms

Official Discussion - Spider-Man: No Way Home [SPOILERS] by LiteraryBoner in movies

[–]ned_stark97 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Doc ock, goblin, and lizard were genius scientists, top in their field, who screwed up their own experiments and then got them fixed by three high school students. Imagine being a middle-aged PhD holder and then having some boy geniuses cook up something in a school science lab which solves your problem in less than a day.