Is WWIII with China going to be over Chips & Biden's Puppet Master "Neocons... not [being] interested in the type of Diplomacy that the US used to engage in"?
Putin backs Xi on Taiwan amid tensions ...youtube.co
NY Times Opinion | Why Pelosi’s
Visit to Taiwan Is Utterly
Reckless
US Congress has passed the CHIPS and Science act (opens in new tab). The package, worth $280 billion, includes $52 billion in subsidies to entice companies to manufacture semiconductors in the United States. It also includes a whopping $200 billion for research into cutting edge scientific fields, including quantum computing, AI, and robotics.
The bill passed with bipartisan support in the Senate with a vote of 64 to 33, and was approved by the House with a vote of 243 to 187. Its ultimate goal is to restore American technological leadership, not just for commercial reasons, but also broader strategic reasons including reduced reliance on manufacturing in Asia.
Make no mistake, advanced chipmaking technology is an arms race. The US maintains an advantage over China when it comes to chip-making technology, and this bill aims to keep it that way. Military applications will be at the forefront of the US government's mind. Things like missiles, drones, signal intelligence and communications all rely on advanced chipmaking tech, and countries obviously want to keep their tech secrets in-house...
... Semiconductor supply issues look set to remain, especially if relations between China and Taiwan deteriorate further. A halt in Taiwanese manufacturing would be catastrophic for the world economy. There are inflation issues to worry about and the disruption caused by the war in Ukraine (opens in new tab) too. - PC Gamer [https://www.pcgamer.com/chips-act-passes-us-congress/]
One chip consultant in China, who requested anonymity due to the sensitivity of the topic, said China will likely "watch and learn" from the sanctions and their impact on Russia.
"The
Russians have a failed chip industry and rely on global semiconductors.
So if there are technology issues that come out during the
'non-invasion' from sanctions, it reinforces Beijing's desire to own the
technology for itself." - Reuters [https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/us-sanctions-russia-serve-china-sharp-reminder-need-its-own-chips-2022-02-25/]
It appears that the NeoCon controllers of puppet Joe Biden decided to send Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan. Yesterday, The Catholic Monitor speculated that Communist China invading and taking over of Taiwan could signal the beginning of the end for the United Sates economy as the following headlines suggest:
U.S. recession would be 'deep and immediate' if it ... - Fortune
Loss of Access to Taiwan's Chips May Kickstart a Recession ...
Pelosi going to Taiwan is apparently a correct move; the problem is the NeoCon warmongers and their puppet Biden symbolize an enfeebled declining America which encourages China to act rashly.
The NeoCon/Biden misuse of the American military in the disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal and the Biden apparently lost proxy war against Russia in the Ukraine have made the United States look like a dying horse on its last legs which encourages China to act in a way that could lead to World War III.
On this danger and the possible NeoCon warmonger thinking, Mark Wauck, a retired FBI special agent and RealClear Politics as well as American Thinker contributor, quotes a globalist expert who says "Pelosi going to Taiwan the same week the Biden administration is touting its new CHIPS Act, to invest billions in new US-based fabs, is clearly an attempt to get China to over-react to give the US the excuse it needs to put export-control sanctions on China," moreover, Wauck gives the following interesting analysis on the overall situation:
The US response to Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine illustrates that our military establishment has come to the realization Russia must be treated as a peer for strategic purposes. We can be a nuisance to Russia, but we can’t stop Russia when Russia chooses to exert its military force within its currently defined limits—not without risking massive retaliation that we would be powerless to deter, except by launching full out nuclear war. China, too, is likely capable of inflicting that type of massive damage on the US military within their chosen range of operations. The key here is that, while neither China nor Russia have expressed an intent to interfere militarily outside their historic territorial ranges of interest, they both reject the idea of American hegemony, and especially that of a hegemony based on military supremacy. Both have repeatedly rejected what they view, rightly, as US threats of a military nature.
Now, the military rise of Russia and China has been based on their economic and technological rise—and US neglect of its own long term economic and technological interests. It’s not a stretch to say that American trade and security policies have directly contributed to the hollowing out of our economy and the rise not only of China’s manufacturing sector but also of China’s technology sector. In turn, this has affected America’s military capabilities. This also explains the US reliance on economic warfare, “sanctions”, which are proving so counterproductive with Russia.
This is exactly the imbalance that the Bad Orange Man sought to address with tariffs and encouragement of US based manufacturing in critical technological sectors—such as semi-conductors. These policy responses to an obvious problem seemed rational and proportionate but, needless to say, Trump was criticized for this. Of course, rectifying the destructive work of our ruling elites that took place over decades cannot be accomplished in a few years.
Thus, it appears that, with global challenges to US hegemony growing and becoming increasingly serious, the American response has become ever more aggressive and threatening. In fact, as regards China, from the very inception of the Zhou regime our Neocon masters have adopted a highly provocative attitude toward China, which the Chinese—and not only the Chinese—have seen as arrogant and offensive. We see this also with regard to Russia. In place of diplomacy, name calling and offensive epithets have become the American default mode of international communication. One could be excused for suspecting that the US has been actively seeking to provoke crises with the two major countries that have proven most reluctant to subordinate their own national interests to the US Rules-Based Order—China and Russia.
Russia has proven notably measured in its response to repeated and serious US provocations. The US clearly instigated the Ukraine conflict—almost certainly in search of a plausible reason for launching it’s economic “shock and awe” campaign to bring Russia to its knees—to reduce the ruble to “rubble”, in the offensively arrogant, and inaccurate, phrase Zhou’s handlers coined for him. Is the Pelosi trip to Taiwan a page out of the same playbook? A move to provoke China to actions that the US will use to broaden its economic war to most of the rest of the world?
Yesterday Tom Luongo made an argument that this may be the case. The article—Sanctions Only Buy Time, Not Victory—focuses heavily on Russia, but China (including Taiwan) figures into his analysis in a significant way. While I disagree with much of what Luongo suggests regarding purely military matters, I believe in a bigger picture view Luongo has important insights. Luongo argues that the goal of the US sanctions war is to deprive China and Russia of key technology that is applicable to advanced military systems. The aim is to maintain US military hegemony long enough to force Russia and China back into a uni-polar world order—the US Rules-Based Order. However, as the title openly states, there is good reason to believe that the amount of time bought in this way will not be sufficient to purchase victory.
In the portion of his article that specifically addresses China, Luongo begins by pointing out that China’s Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp. (SMIC) has, in the past year, made enormous technological strides. Luongo comments:
SMIC’s surprising progress raises questions about how effective export controls have been and whether Washington can indeed thwart China’s ambition to foster a world-class chip industry at home and reduce reliance on foreign technologies. It also comes at a time American lawmakers have urged Washington to close loopholes in its Chinese-oriented curbs and ensure Beijing isn’t supplying crucial technology to Russia.
This, he suggests, is the proper context in which to view Pelosi’s hyper-provocative trip to Taiwan. It seems designed to induce a proportionately extreme response from China—one that will make something perhaps as as extreme as a full out trade war seem to be a rational response.
Pelosi going to Taiwan the same week the Biden administration is touting its new CHIPS Act, to invest billions in new US-based fabs, is clearly an attempt to get China to over-react to give the US the excuse it needs to put export-control sanctions on China.
Or something like that. Export control sanctions would seem to me to pale in significance in light of the rhetoric we’re seeing from China. Luongo agrees that the US is seeking to enforce unipolarity—US hegemony—on the entire world. The Neocons are not interested in the type of diplomacy that the US used to engage in—Kissinger’s trip to China, and that sort of thing. But that hegemony is slipping away, day by day, as more and more countries see the attractions of BRICS. The only way to stop that process, or so it seems to me, is a massive offensive against both China and Russia—presumably an economic offensive, but the Neocons are clearly flirting with the possibility of kinetic military action. Consider Luongo’s framing of this situation:
Remember, when it comes to fighting Russia and China, Davos and US/UK neocons have common purpose. When it comes to who controls the restored Unipolar world and what it looks like, that’s where their paths diverge.
We’ve been threatening China’s chip industry since the war began. We did the same thing to the Russians before the invasion. But it was Trump’s blacklisting Huawei that spurred SMIC to ramp up development work to get us to where we are today.
So, don’t think those sanctions aren’t the first thing on the list if China over-reacts to any future provocation. In fact, I’d wager good money that getting those sanctions in place aren’t the whole point of this ridiculous l’affair Pelosi.
...
This is why sanctions aren’t a path to victory. They are nothing more than a time-buying exercise. ...
You can’t stop the flow of information without eventually running into the very real ‘put up or shut up’ moment where someone says, “I can also build this or make this, what are you going to do to stop it?”
SMIC is likely reverse engineering TMSC’s [Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited] designs, if not outright stealing them. Are we going to start a two-front war with nuclear powers on opposite sides of the world over this?
This
seems to be where we are. We know that China is cooperating closely
with Russia. What will be the response to the Pelosi provocation? Will
China coordinate with Russia, and deal the US yet one more setback? [https://meaninginhistory.substack.com/p/the-taiwan-trip-is-on-at-last-report]
Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis's Amoris Laetitia.