The purpose of making noise about China's increased desire and capability to invade Taiwan is to strengthen deterrence and avert a war.
Articles like this assume that the traditional strategic ambiguity provides enough deterrence. Is that a good assumption? 🤔
Articles like this assume that the traditional strategic ambiguity provides enough deterrence. Is that a good assumption? 🤔
https://twitter.com/resplinodell/status/1389989741232365568
The big danger here, as I see it, is not "too much deterrence will make China attack". Don't think that has ever been how deterrence works.
Instead the danger seems like "too much ambiguity will tempt China into attacking, then we find ourselves in World War 3".
Instead the danger seems like "too much ambiguity will tempt China into attacking, then we find ourselves in World War 3".
This sums it up very well.
Ambiguity is what leads to miscalculation. Miscalculation is what leads to war.
Ambiguity is what leads to miscalculation. Miscalculation is what leads to war.
https://twitter.com/JustinMNelson/status/1390371871259037698
@ProfPaulPoast Would love to get your thoughts on this btw.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
