>> My next question is how many mask factories have we built in the US since we realized that was important?
There's a guy with a small company that makes N95 masks in the US. He got pissed when they came looking for a production increase. He would be happy to increase production, but nobody was willing to buy from him long-term. They'll just go back to importing cheaper product (probably from China) after the crisis is over. He basically told them to go pound sand.
The "imperialist" model can still work fine if we want to stick with it.
We can keep production in poorer countries with poor worker and environmental protections so long as those countries will clearly side with us and aren't all concentrated in China's sphere of influence. No one's doing a naval blockade of the entire US coastline. And even if they did, we also have some long land borders with allies.
The problem is that US needs to find responsible governments other than the ones close to China. There are not many in the world. They are poor for some reasons.
BTW when I say responsible governments I don't mean democratic, but mean they care about people's education, can keep long term policies and build good infrastructures.
In general, I'd say we've been able to deal with issues by outbidding other countries and exerting international political influence.
> My next question is how many mask factories have we built in the US since we realized that was important?
We're so bad at building.
I'd add to your question with: how custom-built do factories need to be to be efficient?
I expect chip fab is very tailored, but can a t-shirt factory quickly pivot to surgical masks? How about N-95? Can a vacuum cleaner factory start building ventilators? How about HEPA filters? mRNA vaccines?
What are critical things we may need to ramp up rapidly, not just for pandemics, but for the next disaster, and can they be done without building dedicated factories just for those items?
Humans are fabulously general-purpose, so I'd imagine that the more automated the process, the more expensive it is to switch. This would put high-wage countries like the US at a disadvantage with regard to flexible domestic manufacturing. But I've no expertise in this area at all.
These are questions and guesses, not questions and answers. :-)
Thing is, you are assuming that’s what is important.
Look at the billions the US spends on military, all of it domestic. In US, the masks are simply less important than all that, as is healthcare in general.
> My next question is how many mask factories have we built in the US since we realized that was important?
It's not important. Masks don't effectively stop the transmission of SARS2 and N95 masks are only highly effective against something as infectious as SARS2 Delta if you wear them precisely as intended (and to go with that you need to take many other precautions that the mass population is never going to take with great precision on a day to day basis). Even the vaccines don't stop Delta effectively, which you can plainly see from the large outbreaks in highly vaccinated nations.
> My question is why did it take this long?
Because the US Government spends nearly all of its effort on dumb shit, like shuffling papers, playing at admin, processing lobbyist appointments, screeching out empty promises every 2-4 years, going on talk shows and managing PR, managing a globalist superpower clown show, projecting power to every corner of the globe for no great reason other than to fulfill the powerlust of those in control.
They're supposed to be running our government for our people. They're simultaneously running the equivalent of one of the world's largest governments outside of our borders. Think about that for a moment. Do I think the people in power can run the US Government, domestically, effectively? Hell no. Do I think they can then simultaneously run a gigantic other foreign system - military bases, personnel, war, huge embassies, global trade, sticking their noses in every foreign political issue and at all times - on top of that? Triple hell no.
The U.S. supply chains would be completely wrecked. We're probably close to a point where in the event of a global war with China, we wouldn't be able to mobilize industry in the same way we did during WW2 simply because the industrial output fo yesteryear no longer exists in the U.S.
On the other hand, people forget the amount of IP (including semi design) that goes from the world to China/Taiwan to design products.
But that's what the whole point of free trade is supposed to be: increased interdependence, so that everyone has a gun to everyone else's head, and no one is incentivized to pull the trigger.
That's not accurate today. It might be different in 10 years, depending on how successful China is at becoming self-sufficient in semiconductor design and manufacturing.
Global companies didn't just outsource all the work to China. Even in the 90s, they were aware of the risk/reward, and specifically retained high-value, low-headcount/capital work outside of China.
As a result, China makes most of a device, but many core components are imported.
We're not even talking about semiconductors. All of the basic goods you'd need to supply an army, or the industrial capacity for consumer goods that could be shifted to wartime production no longer exists. It's a problem the DoD has been talking about for years, but little action has happened.
Imports, Total Estimated Value by Country, 2017 (most recent) [0]: Canada: 26,200.3, Mexico: 23,541.0, [...] China: 6,159.7
Or energy?
"In 2020, the United States exported about 8.51 MMb/d and imported about 7.86 MMb/d of petroleum1, making the United States a net annual petroleum exporter for the first time since at least 1949." [1]
Or arms?
Based and manufacturing in the US: Honeywell, Huntington Ingalls (ex: Northrup Grumman Shipbuilding), L-3, UTC, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin [2]
If you're talking a full manpower, total war scenario that requires mobilization of the entire country's non-military industrial base...?
I think there's a reason there haven't been any wars like that between nuclear armed powers. Ever.
Because by the time it gets to that stage now, someone has fired nuclear weapons if they have them.
>> The U.S. supply chains would be completely wrecked.
China: Hey cool, we can destroy the US without engaging with them at all, we can just complete our takeover of Taiwan which we wanted to do anyway. We just need to make it disruptive enough to stop exports for a year or so - maybe a bit longer.
The best way to keep China from invading Taiwan is by upholding the One China Policy. With that policy in place, China has plenty of reasons to avoid a war. Unfortunately the US and many other parties are increasingly tearing this policy down, not seldomly without fully understanding why that policy was invented in the first place.
Yes and you should read the book "The Other Side of the Story: A Secret War in Hong Kong" by Nury Vittachi to learn what the mainstream media wasn't telling you about the whole Hong Kong situation.
My Hong Kong friend who is pro China lives in an appartment complex where lots of yellow vests also live, and prior to the NSL every day he feared for his life, fearing that his neighbors would find out that he's pro-China and then do something to him. So much for the western coverage of the yellow vests being "pro-democracy, pro-rule of law, pro-free speech".
As far as American access to semiconductors goes, it doesn't matter if the takeover is peaceful or not. Chinese control over Taiwan could easily disrupt the supply chain through tariffs, export bans, backdoored hardware, etc etc.
Seeing that Hong Kong was literally an NED-sponsored [1] color revolution, and that every country in the world had a national security law except for Hong Kong until last year, I'd say that the Hong Kong situation is not at all a case study for whether China would invade Taiwan. Since 2019 I've watched for a year how the western public and the protesters yelled that "it's going to be a Tiananmen 2.0" and "the tanks will soon roll in", only for the tanks to never have rolled in. In the mean time, the protesters who were called "pro-democracy" by western mainstream media were doing some very undemocratic things, such as assaulting fellow Hong Kongers for merely disagreeing with them[2].
Two Hong Kong youths have a Youtube channel on which they present views that don't align with mainstream western media. This interview is very telling: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYK-cC9mw6c
The guest on the show interviewed 100 protesters. What's interesting is that none of the protesters were able to explain what concrete change they want. The protesters merely blindly reigurated media talking points without being able to explain what's behind those talking points. None of them have actually read the NSL text.
Sound familiar? Yes: the "anti-voting fraud" Capitol rioters, who were hiding unnoble intentions behind a noble label. Many Hong Kong "protesters" were merely anti-China, not pro-democratic. They literally attacked people merely for speaking Mandarin. Ironically, one guy that was attacked was Taiwanese, not mainland Chinese.
Seeing how they literally burned innocent people[3], vandalized public infrastructure, vandalized mainland Chinese busineses merely for being mainland Chinese, made petrol bombs[4], etc. is it really reasonable to expect China to do absolutely nothing? Bringing back safety to the streets is what any government would do. After it was clear that they'd never send in tanks, people moved the goalpost and started demonizing the NSL but few people know what's actually in the NSL.
Demise of Hong Kong's rule of law are exaggerated. Even after the NSL, Hong Kong's judiciary remains fiercely independent — with evidence.[5]
[1] The NED is the regime change arm of the CIA. Despite the name, they are anti-democratic, having overthrown democratic regimes that refuse to align with the US. They publicly admit having sponsored the Hong Kong protests: https://www.ned.org/region/asia/hong-kong-china-2020/
With many violent protestors being confirmed CCP agents, substantial amounts of social media manipulation, dismantling of the free press (eg, Apple Daily), imprisonment of journalists - this topic is so extremely muddied that none of your sources are going to convince anyone who is paying attention.
> Seeing that Hong Kong was literally an NED-sponsored [...] color revolution ... such as assaulting fellow Hong Kongers for merely disagreeing with them[...].
Your comment is vastly disproportionate, and does not explain what happened.
Your comment suggests the following:
- Hong Kong’s protest was mainly due to sponsorship by the US, that is, it would not happen to this scale without US’s sponsorship (via NED).
- Hong Kong’s protest was mainly undemocratic (using your examples).
When discussing a social movement of this scale (millions went to the street, protests went on for half a year, with aftermath still affecting current events), we must judge whether your examples represent the majority or the extremely rare minority of what happened.
Just like the social movement led by Mahatma Gandhi, the movement led by Martin Luther King, or the recent BLM movement would not change much even if hundreds of protestors did things that go against the main thrust of the movements (which did happen).
To make this concrete: imagine blaming the BLM on CCP because they supported it [1], which is absurd [2].
We know that:
- The pro-democracy group had a landslide victory in the 2019 election (during the protests) [3].
- Many Hong Kongers left Hong Kong after the National Security Law [4][5]: a higher percentage of Hong Kongers left Hong Kong after the NSL than German left East Berlin after the split of Berlin.
Blaming the Hong Kong protests on CIA, NED, and the US does not explain the above events. Just like blaming the BLM on CCP does not explain the trend.
A much simpler explanation is that Hong Kongers do not like CCP rule, and they show it in the protests, in the election (when conducted fairly, without screening of candidates), and in their acts of leaving (when faced with the NSL and screening of candidates in future elections).
I suspect that the popularity rating of CCP, or of Kim’s regime in North Korea, would plummet if people know what is going on (that is, when the state censorship and propaganda are gone) and they are allowed to express themselves (for example, with a fair election). We just see this happened in Hong Kong.
You are right in criticizing me for not being proportionate enough. I did not take the time to make my post more nuanced. So let me clarify.
I do not believe that the HK protests were mainly due to US sponsorship (even if they were a contributing factor). My point was rather that it's unreasonable to expect a country to not respond to foreign sponsorship with security measures.
I do not believe that the HK protests were mainly undemocratic. However, the undemocratic and violent faction had effectively taken over, while the actually democratic faction failed in reigning this former faction in, so in my opinion trying to rhetorically separate them is a waste of time.
I do not agree with you that the CCP's popularity in the mainland is fake. There are multiple studies that show that their popularity is real.[1][2] The difference is between mainlanders and Hong Kongers is that many Hong Kongers don't have first-hand experience with how the mainland is governed and how the mainland has improved, and that the media regularly injects disinformation. Mainlanders know about Hong Kong, but they disagree. You can blame it on propaganda, but even mainlanders who have moved outside the mainland and who have been exposed to western media, don't tend to change their stance on Hong Kong.
What bugs me most is that the criminals are getting away with a good reputation in the west, who wholly paints them as "pro-democracy freedom fighters".
It also bugs me that a lot (not sure how many, but a lot) of protesters don't know what sort of freedom they want. Check the Keybros interview I linked: why could none of the 100 protesters articulate what concrete freedoms they are missing? Why are the protesters mostly younger people who have never lived under British colonial times? There is something deeply disingenuous among a part of the protester movement. I hope they can recognize that economic trouble (e.g. cage houses) is one of the reasons, and I hope that Hong Kong will do something about that. If these protesters think that life in Britain is really better, then they should experience it firsthand and come to their own conclusion on whether their protest was right or not.
What I hope for is more reconciliation between mainland and Hong Kong. I even hope that Hong Kong will get more democracy, namely universal suffrage and a strong Common Law-based rule of law environment. However I want Hong Kongers to be honest about things, and I want more democracy/rule of law at the same time as a Hong Kong that is proud of being part of China, and at the same time where criminals aren't swept under a rug for political reasons. One Country Two Systems, not Two Country Two Systems.
> I do not agree with you that the CCP's popularity in the mainland is fake. There are multiple studies that show that their popularity is real.[...][...].
I am not questioning CCP’s current popularity in Mainland (or Kim’s current popularity in North Korea), given their current control (including in education and media, both propaganda and censorship). When the population were brought up that way, even when presented with opposing view points their thinking is skewed (compared with many other democratic countries), and considers things as conflicts of super powers or humiliation by foreigners. Such thinking frequently persists and affects their actions even after they move outside of China (censor Hong Kong and Xinjiang in FANNG [1]), even in face of opposing evidence (linking Xinjiang to CCP [2]). Many of the Chinese population are effectively exporting their values to the world [3].
For a concrete example, even when foreign sponsorship does not pose material threats, some Chinese would suggest disproportionate responses (such as to consider draconian security measures and the National Security Law, resulting in arrests of the majority of democratic candidates [4]). This is disproportionate because UK and other European nations would not take comparable measures against comparable foreign sponsorship (by CCP). Just like in the US, Texas Secession could be discussed and supported without similar consequences to the NSL in Hong Kong [5]. This shows the resilience of their political systems, and by contrast CCP is overreacting.
Gaining popularity this way may be fine for CCP (or for Kim) for now, but when the system becomes unstable (due to declining economy and shrinking population), things may start to crack. The problem is not that it is fake, the problem is that the system (by censoring dissent and pointing fingers at others inconsistently) is unsustainable. And at least, this is why CCP and Kim do not currently have as high popularity in Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Sweden, Czech, Germany, France, or elsewhere.
> It also bugs me that a lot (not sure how many, but a lot) of protesters _don't know what sort of freedom they want_.
Many Hong Kongers want CCP to leave them alone, which was the implicit contract behind the 1997 hand over of Hong Kong. To be more specific, Hong Kongers want to run the city their way (including have their elected representatives not being arrested [4]), and not having laws inserted into their mini-constitution (Basic Law) against their will, to respect their differences—more or less the way Hong Kong was run before 2019. Incidentally, I think that’s what most Tibetans originally wanted, and what most Taiwanese currently want (against unification), too.
Wanting CCP to leave them alone was the main theme behind the 5 demands in the 2019 protest. What they don’t know is how to achieve it, when faced with CCP, the PLA and the massive Chinese population.
I am less worried about them not knowing exactly what or how to achieve the freedom they want, just like the population of Singapore, Taiwan, Japan, or South Korea might not know exactly what they wanted during their democratization (I would not be surprised by a Keybros interview when they democratized. BTW, if you want to know what the protestors think outside of cameras or Keybros, check out https://www.thestandnews.com/). Ignoring the selection bias, not everyone is as articulate, but this does not stop the trend of democratization. They democratized by trial and error 摸著石頭過河, and things work out fine for them. Same for Hong Kong.
> why could none of the 100 protesters articulate what concrete freedoms they are missing?
How did the Keybros interview avoid the selection bias?
> Why are the protesters mostly younger people who have never lived under British colonial times?
The younger ones have less burden and could go to the streets, the older ones with more burden supported them. See the election result for the proof [6].
> There is something deeply disingenuous among a part of the protester movement.
Hong Kongers want to say No to CCP, but this could not be said out loud with the PLA standing by. This is the disingenuous part. (Just like many protests in China would be prefaced with a support of the CCP, however contradictory and disingenuous sometimes it could get. Also, many Taiwanese wanted to say so, but again need to consider the threat of the PLA.) This is why many Hong Kongers left when they still could [6], they vote with their feet, if they could not vote with their hands.
> One Country Two Systems, not Two Country Two Systems.
CCP said that first to Tibet in 1951, then to Hong Kong in 1984. Seeing what happened, now in 2021 even the Nationalist party KMT in Taiwan is rejecting One Country Two Systems. Sometimes we need to learn from history.
Lots of your objection stems from breaking Hong Kong laws (rule of law...being part of China, criminals aren't swept under a rug...).
Worth noting that there is a huge difference between “Rule of Law” and “Rule by Law”: China only has “Rule by Law”, not “Rule of Law” [1][2], because Rule of Law requires Judiciary Independence (hence “having Rule of Law” is incompatible with “being part of China”, as CCP stated explicitly [3]).
To make this concrete, let’s use the recent event of Peng Shuai’s allegation as an example. The accused ex-Premier Zhang Gaoli could be guilty or not, but under Rule of Law—where no one is above law, not even the party or prominent party members—he must go through the same process as other accused. This is the only way to show that criminals aren't swept under a rug for political reasons (such as because Zhang Gaoli was close to Xi Jinping during their time in Shenzhen). Putting the party or prominent party member above law (or behind some opaque process) is NOT Rule of Law.
And a huge disagreement causing the Hong Kong protest is due to deteriorating Rule of Law [4], due to worsening democracy in Hong Kong (the legislative council does not represent the majority opinion). This had been voiced out by a judge of Court of Final Appeal [5] and some prominent lawyer [6].
Indeed, the 2021 Report to Congress by U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission points out (p. 458 of [7]):
Judiciary Independent in Name Only
Hong Kong’s historically independent judiciary is no longer reliably impartial on cases related to matters the Chinese government deems sensitive, since the National Security Law has cemented Beijing’s right to determine which judges hear national security cases in which jurisdiction, almost guaranteeing outcomes the CCP prefers.
Given the difficulty of maintaining Rule of Law under One Country Two Systems (as Tibet and Hong Kong showed), your hope of Rule of Law would object One Country Two Systems.
Also, before demonizing Two Country Two Systems, have you experienced it firsthand and come to your own conclusion? Do you know what you are disagreeing with?
Given the disinformation campaign of CCP [10], that is, CCP regularly injects disinformation into media (or in this case, deliberately confusing “Rule of Law” with “Rule by Law” in a newspeak way [1][2]), it is hard for Mainlanders to know about Hong Kong and have an informed opinion, even when they moved outside China.
It doesn't matter if it is a 100 year old artillery piece, they aren't exactly complicated, just large breach loaded guns. The only thing modern guns and artillery have over old guns is accuracy, which doesn't really matter when you have enough of them firing down range at a massive target.
