AC,

If you wanted to antagonize China it would be much cheaper to send Kevin Rudd there as ambassador but then we might end up at war.

Once again the village idiot is clueless. The easiest way to maintain peace is to ensure that the cost of anyone attacking you is far higher than any perceived benefit.

Russia attacked Ukraine because Putin felt that it could be quickly overwhelmed for little cost. He would never have tried if Putin had foreseen his army being destroyed and Russia's economy ruined.

Hi shadowminister,

"If you wanted to antagonize China it would be much cheaper to send Kevin Rudd there as ambassador but then we might end up at war."

- Yeah maybe, but he'd probably drive them all mad.

"Once again the village idiot is clueless. The easiest way to maintain peace is to ensure that the cost of anyone attacking you is far higher than any perceived benefit."

- I can't really disagree with the basic premise, but tying ourselves to the US, a nation that already sees China as the enemy, is no recipe for peace in my book. Given both options I'd say the best course of action would be 'neutrality' and home grown efforts at defence and purely for the purposes of defence not to antagonise a potential adversary who is also our largest trading partner.

"Russia attacked Ukraine because Putin felt that it could be quickly overwhelmed for little cost. He would never have tried if Putin had foreseen his army being destroyed and Russia's economy ruined."

Ukraine joining NATO was a red line for Russia.
'Nyet means Nyet'
If the shoe was on the other foot and China was building up a military presence in Mexico the US would certainly respond to it.
Putin's not going anywhere, his army isn't going to be destroyed, but Ukraine's army already has been largely destroyed, and Russia's economy will survive, they have plenty of resources they can find other markets for, where payment can be made outside the western payment system.

This war is more of a threat to the US in terms of de-dollarisation and loss of world reserve currency status, and we see western monetary institutions failing.

Also the US can't defend Taiwan, America has 3 places in the Western Pacific they can use to refuel their naval fleets, and a salvo of precision guided hypersonic missiles can easily destroy them, leaving those fleets dead in the water, or like fish in a barrel.
They can provide weapons to Taiwan, but their naval assets can't achieve anything tangible in a real war, bar the nuclear subs.

SM

How stupid can you be? "The easiest way to maintain peace is to ensure that the cost of anyone attacking you is far higher than any perceived benefit."

Fool, did you tell that to the world in 1914 and again in 1939. Massive military build prior to those years by world powers led to the direct annihilation of over 100 million people. Gee, all we need is you as Fuhrer!

Paul,

Two things are clear, I am smarter than you and your knowledge of history is abysmal. The century before WW1 was an almost continuous series of wars and the reason that Europe was arming was that major power blocs were expecting war. You have confused cause with effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe#19th_century

Germany attacked because it thought it could get an easy win and grab some territory and the spoils of war would compensate for the cost which was true for both wars. Much like Putin thought a year ago.

A half dozen Virginia class subs armed with cruise missiles could not only wreak havoc on any invasion force long before it could launch attacks but could also massively disrupt China's vulnerable supply routes. They would be useless in themselves in attacking China but would be a powerful defence.