GWOT --> GPC

[old salt]

Thought provoking ideas from John Bolton in a WSJ op-ed.
...raising the possibility of the complete dismemberment of Russia.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-new-amer ... _lead_pos5

A New American Grand Strategy to Counter Russia and China
The U.S. and its allies can’t afford to drift aimlessly as history’s tectonic plates shift.

The post-Cold War era is over. This brief interregnum following the Soviet empire’s defeat proved an illusory holiday from reality and is now rapidly disappearing before expanding or newly emerging threats. ...history is now moving rapidly.

...America’s next president will take office in 2025, the 75th anniversary of NSC-68, Harry S. Truman’s foundational document of U.S. Cold War strategy. With less than two years before Inauguration Day, presidential candidates should be thinking in grand-strategy terms, for both campaign policy statements and their incipient administrations. Given the Sino-Russian axis and accompanying rogue-state outriders like Iran and North Korea, any serious contemporary reincarnation of NSC-68 will be as daunting and hard to swallow as the original.

...here are ...critical elements for any plausible course of strategic thinking:

...Washington and its allies must immediately increase defense budgets to Reagan-era levels relative to gross domestic product and sustain such spending for the foreseeable future. Federal budgets need substantial reductions to eliminate deficits and shrink the national debt, so higher military spending necessitates even greater reductions domestically. So be it. Neither the obese welfare state nor massive income-redistribution schemes protect us from foreign adversaries. Higher levels of economic growth, freed from crushing tax and regulatory burdens, will underlie the necessary military buildup.

Twenty years ago we rightly thought in terms of “full-spectrum superiority.” With the advent of cyberwarfare, hypersonic weapons, drone capabilities in every physical domain and more, today’s spectrum is even broader. Key sectors like national missile defense have languished. Politicians have ignored our aging nuclear stockpile.... Nor can we omit massive increases in the defense-industrial base and logistical and transportation resources, the unheralded but basic instruments of defense.

...America’s collective-defense alliances need improvement and expansion, with new ones forged to face new threats. Good allies are critical force-multipliers, a test not all our current “allies” meet. We should pursue José Maria Aznar’s proposal to take the North Atlantic Treaty Organization global, inviting Japan, Australia, Israel and others committed to NATO defense-spending targets to join. Efforts like the Proliferation Security Initiative against weapons of mass destruction, from which Russia recently withdrew, need reinvigoration. We must address the unease our Middle East friends feel about American resolve and, consistent with longstanding U.S. policy, exclude Moscow from regional influence, along with Beijing.

Emerging Indo-Pacific security efforts like the Quad (India, Japan, Australia and America) and Aukus nuclear-powered-submarines can be enhanced and replicated. An Asian NATO isn’t imminent, but there is enormous room for innovative alliances with like-minded states, including more South Korea-Japan-U.S. cooperation. Most urgently, Washington and its European and Asian allies should provide Taiwan much more military aid and embed Taipei into collective-defense structures with other states opposing Beijing’s hegemonic aspirations.

...after Ukraine wins its war with Russia, we must aim to split the Russia-China axis. Moscow’s defeat could unseat Mr. Putin’s regime. What comes next is a government of unknowable composition. New Russian leaders may or may not look to the West rather than Beijing, and might be so weak that the Russian Federation’s fragmentation, especially east of the Urals, isn’t inconceivable. Beijing is undoubtedly eyeing this vast territory, which potentially contains incalculable mineral wealth. Significant portions of this region were under Chinese sovereignty until the 1860 Treaty of Peking transferred “outer Manchuria,” including extensive Pacific coast lands, to Moscow. Russia’s uncontrolled dissolution could provide China direct access to the Arctic, including even the Bering Strait, facing Alaska.

Obviously, any modern-day NSC-68 would include far more, but the gravity and scope of the strategic task ahead are ample motivation to launch the debate. You can bet Beijing and Moscow are thinking about it.

[PizzaSnake]

Thought provoking ideas from John Bolton in a WSJ op-ed.
...raising the possibility of the complete dismemberment of Russia.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-new-amer ... _lead_pos5

A New American Grand Strategy to Counter Russia and China
The U.S. and its allies can’t afford to drift aimlessly as history’s tectonic plates shift.

The post-Cold War era is over. This brief interregnum following the Soviet empire’s defeat proved an illusory holiday from reality and is now rapidly disappearing before expanding or newly emerging threats. ...history is now moving rapidly.

...America’s next president will take office in 2025, the 75th anniversary of NSC-68, Harry S. Truman’s foundational document of U.S. Cold War strategy. With less than two years before Inauguration Day, presidential candidates should be thinking in grand-strategy terms, for both campaign policy statements and their incipient administrations. Given the Sino-Russian axis and accompanying rogue-state outriders like Iran and North Korea, any serious contemporary reincarnation of NSC-68 will be as daunting and hard to swallow as the original.

...here are ...critical elements for any plausible course of strategic thinking:

...Washington and its allies must immediately increase defense budgets to Reagan-era levels relative to gross domestic product and sustain such spending for the foreseeable future. Federal budgets need substantial reductions to eliminate deficits and shrink the national debt, so higher military spending necessitates even greater reductions domestically. So be it. Neither the obese welfare state nor massive income-redistribution schemes protect us from foreign adversaries. Higher levels of economic growth, freed from crushing tax and regulatory burdens, will underlie the necessary military buildup.

Twenty years ago we rightly thought in terms of “full-spectrum superiority.” With the advent of cyberwarfare, hypersonic weapons, drone capabilities in every physical domain and more, today’s spectrum is even broader. Key sectors like national missile defense have languished. Politicians have ignored our aging nuclear stockpile.... Nor can we omit massive increases in the defense-industrial base and logistical and transportation resources, the unheralded but basic instruments of defense.

...America’s collective-defense alliances need improvement and expansion, with new ones forged to face new threats. Good allies are critical force-multipliers, a test not all our current “allies” meet. We should pursue José Maria Aznar’s proposal to take the North Atlantic Treaty Organization global, inviting Japan, Australia, Israel and others committed to NATO defense-spending targets to join. Efforts like the Proliferation Security Initiative against weapons of mass destruction, from which Russia recently withdrew, need reinvigoration. We must address the unease our Middle East friends feel about American resolve and, consistent with longstanding U.S. policy, exclude Moscow from regional influence, along with Beijing.

Emerging Indo-Pacific security efforts like the Quad (India, Japan, Australia and America) and Aukus nuclear-powered-submarines can be enhanced and replicated. An Asian NATO isn’t imminent, but there is enormous room for innovative alliances with like-minded states, including more South Korea-Japan-U.S. cooperation. Most urgently, Washington and its European and Asian allies should provide Taiwan much more military aid and embed Taipei into collective-defense structures with other states opposing Beijing’s hegemonic aspirations.

...after Ukraine wins its war with Russia, we must aim to split the Russia-China axis. Moscow’s defeat could unseat Mr. Putin’s regime. What comes next is a government of unknowable composition. New Russian leaders may or may not look to the West rather than Beijing, and might be so weak that the Russian Federation’s fragmentation, especially east of the Urals, isn’t inconceivable. Beijing is undoubtedly eyeing this vast territory, which potentially contains incalculable mineral wealth. Significant portions of this region were under Chinese sovereignty until the 1860 Treaty of Peking transferred “outer Manchuria,” including extensive Pacific coast lands, to Moscow. Russia’s uncontrolled dissolution could provide China direct access to the Arctic, including even the Bering Strait, facing Alaska.

Obviously, any modern-day NSC-68 would include far more, but the gravity and scope of the strategic task ahead are ample motivation to launch the debate. You can bet Beijing and Moscow are thinking about it.

“Washington and its allies must immediately increase defense budgets to Reagan-era levels relative to gross domestic product and sustain such spending for the foreseeable future.”

Yeah, right after DoD can pass a fcuking audit.

Where’s all that cash and their “assets,” hmm?

[a fan]

“Washington and its allies must immediately increase defense budgets to Reagan-era levels relative to gross domestic product and sustain such spending for the foreseeable future.”

Yeah, right after DoD can pass a fcuking audit.

Where’s all that cash and their “assets,” hmm?

I'm just stoked that the Neo-Cons are back, and will do exactly what Bolton suggests: F domestic spending, our kids can learn how to read on the internet. Infrastructure is for sissies.

What we need, is to apply pressure on China and Russia to start a war for no reason whatsoever, and stuff MORE money into our military industrial complex, because these guys simply aren't rich enough, and need more cash for yachts.

Awesome. In the meantime, let's keep it so the soldiers doing the actual work can barely feed their families. Boy, sounds like a swell plan.

Gee, I wonder why the youth in our country want to tell these 80 year old morons who desperately want more war to F off, and to move more toward EU style socialism......you know, where our working class and poor citizens can actually get access to a freaking doctor.

Naaaah. Let's start more wars. Great idea, Bolton.

[MDlaxfan76]

I got a chuckle out of Salty's focus on Bolton's musings about Russian dissolution and China taking advantage...rather than Bolton's extreme statements about collapsing America's private economy and social safety net to spend massively more on defense. As if ANY President, any party, has ever massively increased defense spending without also creating massive deficits.

Yes, IMO, defeating Russian aggression could be the best way to deter Chinese aggression, but I don't think we should assume dissolution of Russia as the end result.

Bolton is an extremist. Always has been.
Often wrong, never in doubt.

[PizzaSnake]

I got a chuckle out of Salty's focus on Bolton's musings about Russian dissolution and China taking advantage...rather than Bolton's extreme statements about collapsing America's private economy and social safety net to spend massively more on defense. As if ANY President, any party, has ever massively increased defense spending without also creating massive deficits.

Yes, IMO, defeating Russian aggression could be the best way to deter Chinese aggression, but I don't think we should assume dissolution of Russia as the end result.

Bolton is an extremist. Always has been.
Often wrong, never in doubt.

No doubt he’s mostly wrong.

[old salt]

I got a chuckle out of Salty's focus on Bolton's musings about Russian dissolution...

Because that was where Bolton revealed his true agenda.
I figured neocons like you & Victoria Nuland would embrace it.

If we're going to make Ukraine our 51st state & arm the Ukrainians to defend themselves, it's going to cost massive $$$.
At least Taiwan can pay for their stuff, but we're depleting our war stocks to arm Ukraine (apparently inadequately, if you believe the leaks).
While we go carte blanche to defend our NATO allies, we have similar treaty obligations to our Pacific allies.

[PizzaSnake]

I got a chuckle out of Salty's focus on Bolton's musings about Russian dissolution...

Because that was where Bolton revealed his true agenda.
I figured neocons like you & Victoria Nuland would embrace it.

If we're going to make Ukraine our 51st state & arm the Ukrainians to defend themselves, it's going to cost massive $$$.
At least Taiwan can pay for their stuff, but we're depleting our war stocks to arm Ukraine (apparently inadequately, if you believe the leaks).
While we go carte blanche to defend our NATO allies, we have similar treaty obligations to our Pacific allies.

Or maybe we never had that materiel? Sure would explain that asset tracking problem in the failed audits.

Here’s a scenario: government contractor of your choice makes delivery of “x” death widgets. Corrupt contract officer “inspects and accepts” the delivery but logs it as “y” widgets. Oops. Now, in a normal world, that would be impossible, but the facts are, five failed audits running, with material weaknesses, if you’ll excuse the pun, in asset tracking.

So, where are the assets? Shrinkage? Or maybe they never were actually manufactured and delivered? A 61% percent discrepancy dome serious fcuking explanation!

I’ve got it! Pre-shrinking in the laundering phase…

[old salt]

I got a chuckle out of Salty's focus on Bolton's musings about Russian dissolution...

Because that was where Bolton revealed his true agenda.
I figured neocons like you & Victoria Nuland would embrace it.

If we're going to make Ukraine our 51st state & arm the Ukrainians to defend themselves, it's going to cost massive $$$.
At least Taiwan can pay for their stuff, but we're depleting our war stocks to arm Ukraine (apparently inadequately, if you believe the leaks).
While we go carte blanche to defend our NATO allies, we have similar treaty obligations to our Pacific allies.

Or maybe we never had that materiel? Sure would explain that asset tracking problem in the failed audits.

Here’s a scenario: government contractor of your choice makes delivery of “x” death widgets. Corrupt contract officer “inspects and accepts” the delivery but logs it as “y” widgets. Oops. Now, in a normal world, that would be impossible, but the facts are, five failed audits running, with material weaknesses, if you’ll excuse the pun, in asset tracking.

So, where are the assets? Shrinkage? Or maybe they never were actually manufactured and delivered? A 61% percent discrepancy dome serious fcuking explanation!

I’ve got it! Pre-shrinking in the laundering phase…

It's not an inventory discrepancy. We just haven't procured enough to stand up a national defense for Ukraine & Taiwan, from scratch, on short notice. We're not structured or equipped to fight a WW-I style war of attrition or defend against a WW-II style amphib island hopping defense.

[PizzaSnake]

I got a chuckle out of Salty's focus on Bolton's musings about Russian dissolution...

Because that was where Bolton revealed his true agenda.
I figured neocons like you & Victoria Nuland would embrace it.

If we're going to make Ukraine our 51st state & arm the Ukrainians to defend themselves, it's going to cost massive $$$.
At least Taiwan can pay for their stuff, but we're depleting our war stocks to arm Ukraine (apparently inadequately, if you believe the leaks).
While we go carte blanche to defend our NATO allies, we have similar treaty obligations to our Pacific allies.

Or maybe we never had that materiel? Sure would explain that asset tracking problem in the failed audits.

Here’s a scenario: government contractor of your choice makes delivery of “x” death widgets. Corrupt contract officer “inspects and accepts” the delivery but logs it as “y” widgets. Oops. Now, in a normal world, that would be impossible, but the facts are, five failed audits running, with material weaknesses, if you’ll excuse the pun, in asset tracking.

So, where are the assets? Shrinkage? Or maybe they never were actually manufactured and delivered? A 61% percent discrepancy dome serious fcuking explanation!

I’ve got it! Pre-shrinking in the laundering phase…

It's not an inventory discrepancy. We just haven't procured enough to stand up a national defense for Ukraine & Taiwan, from scratch, on short notice. We're not structured or equipped to fight a WW-I style war of attrition or defend against a WW-II style amphib island hopping defense.

And you know this how?

Personally audited the stocks did you?

[old salt]

I got a chuckle out of Salty's focus on Bolton's musings about Russian dissolution...

Because that was where Bolton revealed his true agenda.
I figured neocons like you & Victoria Nuland would embrace it.

If we're going to make Ukraine our 51st state & arm the Ukrainians to defend themselves, it's going to cost massive $$$.
At least Taiwan can pay for their stuff, but we're depleting our war stocks to arm Ukraine (apparently inadequately, if you believe the leaks).
While we go carte blanche to defend our NATO allies, we have similar treaty obligations to our Pacific allies.

Or maybe we never had that materiel? Sure would explain that asset tracking problem in the failed audits.

Here’s a scenario: government contractor of your choice makes delivery of “x” death widgets. Corrupt contract officer “inspects and accepts” the delivery but logs it as “y” widgets. Oops. Now, in a normal world, that would be impossible, but the facts are, five failed audits running, with material weaknesses, if you’ll excuse the pun, in asset tracking.

So, where are the assets? Shrinkage? Or maybe they never were actually manufactured and delivered? A 61% percent discrepancy dome serious fcuking explanation!

I’ve got it! Pre-shrinking in the laundering phase…

It's not an inventory discrepancy. We just haven't procured enough to stand up a national defense for Ukraine & Taiwan, from scratch, on short notice. We're not structured or equipped to fight a WW-I style war of attrition or defend against a WW-II style amphib island hopping defense.

And you know this how?

Personally audited the stocks did you?

Weapons like Harpoon missiles & ATACMS rockets are not procured in sufficient numbers that their nondelivery or absence would go unnoticed.

[PizzaSnake]

I got a chuckle out of Salty's focus on Bolton's musings about Russian dissolution...

Because that was where Bolton revealed his true agenda.
I figured neocons like you & Victoria Nuland would embrace it.

If we're going to make Ukraine our 51st state & arm the Ukrainians to defend themselves, it's going to cost massive $$$.
At least Taiwan can pay for their stuff, but we're depleting our war stocks to arm Ukraine (apparently inadequately, if you believe the leaks).
While we go carte blanche to defend our NATO allies, we have similar treaty obligations to our Pacific allies.

Or maybe we never had that materiel? Sure would explain that asset tracking problem in the failed audits.

Here’s a scenario: government contractor of your choice makes delivery of “x” death widgets. Corrupt contract officer “inspects and accepts” the delivery but logs it as “y” widgets. Oops. Now, in a normal world, that would be impossible, but the facts are, five failed audits running, with material weaknesses, if you’ll excuse the pun, in asset tracking.

So, where are the assets? Shrinkage? Or maybe they never were actually manufactured and delivered? A 61% percent discrepancy dome serious fcuking explanation!

I’ve got it! Pre-shrinking in the laundering phase…

It's not an inventory discrepancy. We just haven't procured enough to stand up a national defense for Ukraine & Taiwan, from scratch, on short notice. We're not structured or equipped to fight a WW-I style war of attrition or defend against a WW-II style amphib island hopping defense.

And you know this how?

Personally audited the stocks did you?

Weapons like Harpoon missiles & ATACMS rockets are not procured in sufficient numbers that their nondelivery or absence would go unnoticed.

How would one know?

“Because accounting records needed to complete the assessment were not available, all five audits received a “disclaimer of opinion,” though there have been improvements each time. ”

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/3740 ... -progress/

“What they found were several new weaknesses in how DOD accounted for its assets, which include nearly 2.9 million military personnel; equipment and weapons including 19,700 aircraft and more than 290 ships; and physical items including buildings, roads and fences on 4,860 sites worldwide.
To break up the work, the department holds 27 separate, smaller audits and then combines the information to get the bigger picture and prevent “having something on a record that doesn’t exist in reality or having big discrepancies.” ”

[MDlaxfan76]

I got a chuckle out of Salty's focus on Bolton's musings about Russian dissolution...

Because that was where Bolton revealed his true agenda.
I figured neocons like you & Victoria Nuland would embrace it.

If we're going to make Ukraine our 51st state & arm the Ukrainians to defend themselves, it's going to cost massive $$$.
At least Taiwan can pay for their stuff, but we're depleting our war stocks to arm Ukraine (apparently inadequately, if you believe the leaks).
While we go carte blanche to defend our NATO allies, we have similar treaty obligations to our Pacific allies.

Putting aside the audit issue that others are addressing, this is surely a huge boon for the defense contracting industry. We're obviously ramping up production capacities across the board, as are several of the European producers.

As to embracing dissolution of Russia, we've previously discussed that I have no interest nor preference in seeing Russia dissolved much less devolve into a failed state. I DO want to see the Putin regime hung up by their balls by the Russian people, but that's up to them...or by an International court put in jail for war crimes. I'd like to see a democratically elected government eventually prevail, with the Russian people the primary beneficiaries.

Of course, that may just be wishful thinking and the best that we can hope for is a chastened Putin regime, constrained by the realities of their own ineptitude. That's dangerous, (what's new?) but way better than having them prevail, aggressors around the world emboldened.

As to Ukraine, they clearly have the potential to be a dynamic democracy with a very strong economy. It may well require a Marshall Plan-like kickstart, funded by the West, but it won't be all the US the way it had to be post WWII.

Back to Russia, their best path forward would be as I described above, coming to terms with their egregious errors and leadership, and reaching out to build new ties and trust with the West...again, who knows...they may choose China...but that's only if they remain controlled by Putin and his ilk...

[old salt]

As to Ukraine, they clearly have the potential to be a dynamic democracy with a very strong economy. It may well require a Marshall Plan-like kickstart, funded by the West, but it won't be all the US the way it had to be post WWII.

...& who do you think will fund that Marshall plan ? Different donors than those funding Ukraine's pensions now ?

Ukraine will make a great EU member. They can join the rest of the EUroburghers in screwing the US on trade while sucking up to China.

[MDlaxfan76]

As to Ukraine, they clearly have the potential to be a dynamic democracy with a very strong economy. It may well require a Marshall Plan-like kickstart, funded by the West, but it won't be all the US the way it had to be post WWII.

...& who do you think will fund that Marshall plan ? Different donors than those funding Ukraine's pensions now ?

Ukraine will make a great EU member. They can join the rest of the EUroburghers in screwing the US on trade while sucking up to China.

Well, it's certainly any American's right to whine about the world we have created and prospered in so well for 70 years...but that's what it is, a whine.

Me, I like our position in the world. And our prospects going forward...that is, unless right wing, isolationist, gun loving, LGBTQ+ hating, racist "Christian Nationalists" don't keep us from prospering for the next 70...

[old salt]

Taiwan relations Act :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_Relations_Act

The Taiwan Relations Act (enacted April 10, 1979) is an act of the United States Congress. Since the formal recognition of the People's Republic of China, the Act has defined the officially substantial but non-diplomatic relations between the US and Taiwan.

Background
In 1978, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) administration of the People's Republic of China claimed to be in a "united front" with the U.S., Japan, and western Europe against the Soviets and thus established diplomatic relations with the United States in 1979. The CCP also supported American Operation Cyclone actions in Communist Afghanistan, and leveled a military expedition against Vietnam, America's main antagonist in Southeast Asia. In exchange for this consideration by the CCP, the Carter administration cancelled the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty (SAMDT) with the Republic of China (ROC).

The ROC government mobilized its ethnic lobby in the United States to lobby Congress for the swift passage of an American security guarantee for the island. Taiwan could appeal to members of Congress on many fronts: anti-communist China sentiment, a shared wartime history with the ROC, Beijing's human rights violations and its curtailment of religious freedoms.

Senator Barry Goldwater and other members of the United States Congress challenged the right of President Jimmy Carter to unilaterally nullify the SAMDT, which the US had signed with the ROC in December 1954 and was ratified by the U.S. Senate in February 1955. Goldwater and his co-filers of the US Supreme Court case Goldwater v. Carter argued that the President required Senate approval to take such an action of termination, under Article II, Section II of the U.S. Constitution, and that, by not doing so, President Carter had acted beyond the powers of his office. The case ultimately was dismissed as non-justiciable, leaving open the constitutional question regarding a president's authority to dismiss a treaty unilaterally.

The Act was passed by both chambers of Congress and signed by President Carter in 1979 after the breaking of relations between the US and the ROC. Congress rejected the State Department's proposed draft and replaced it with language that has remained in effect since 1979. The TRA is intended to maintain commercial, cultural, and other relations through the unofficial relations in the form of a nonprofit corporation incorporated under the laws of the District of Columbia – the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) – without official government representation and without formal diplomatic relations.The Act entered retroactively into force, effective January 1, 1979.

De facto diplomatic relations
The act authorizes de facto diplomatic relations with the governing authorities by giving special powers to the AIT to the level that it is the de facto embassy, and states that any international agreements made between the ROC and U.S. before 1979 are still valid unless otherwise terminated. One agreement that was unilaterally terminated by President Jimmy Carter upon the establishment of relations with the PRC was the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty.

The TRA provides for Taiwan to be treated under U.S. laws the same as "foreign countries, nations, states, governments, or similar entities", thus treating Taiwan as a sub-sovereign foreign state equivalent. The act provides that for most practical purposes of the U.S. government, the absence of diplomatic relations and recognition will have no effect.[8]

Military provisions
The TRA does not guarantee the U.S. will intervene militarily if the PRC attacks or invades Taiwan nor does it relinquish it, as its primary purpose is to ensure the US's Taiwan policy will not be changed unilaterally by the president and ensure any decision to defend Taiwan will be made with the consent of Congress. The act states that "the United States will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability", and "shall maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan". However, the decision about the nature and quantity of defense services that America will provide to Taiwan is to be determined by the President and Congress. America's policy has been called "strategic ambiguity", and it is designed to dissuade Taiwan from a unilateral declaration of independence, and to dissuade the PRC from unilaterally unifying Taiwan with the PRC.

The TRA further stipulates that the United States will "consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States".

The TRA requires the United States to have a policy "to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character", and "to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan."

Successive U.S. administrations have sold arms to Taiwan in compliance with the TRA despite demands from the PRC that the U.S. follow the legally non-binding Three Joint Communiques and the U.S. government's proclaimed One-China policy (which differs from the PRC's interpretation of its one-China principle).

Reaction and reaffirmation
The TRA's passage caused Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping to begin viewing the United States as an insincere partner willing to abandon its previous commitments to China.

Reagan administration
The PRC aligned itself with the Third World countries rather than with the United States or the Soviet Union, engaging itself in various movements such as nuclear non-proliferation that would allow it to critique the superpowers. In the August 17th communique of 1982, the United States agreed to reduce arms sales to Taiwan. However, it also declared that it would not formally recognize PRC's sovereignty over Taiwan, as part of the Reagan administration's Six Assurances offered to Taipei in 1982.

Clinton administration
In the late 1990s, the United States Congress passed a non-binding resolution stating that relations between Taiwan and the United States will be honored through the TRA first. This resolution, which puts greater weight on the TRA's value over that of the three communiques, was signed by President Bill Clinton. Both chambers of Congress have repeatedly reaffirmed the importance of the TRA.

Since 2000
A July 2007 Congressional Research Service Report confirmed that U.S. policy has not recognized the PRC's sovereignty over Taiwan. The PRC continues to view the TRA as "an unwarranted intrusion by the United States into the internal affairs of China". The United States has continued to supply Taiwan with armaments and China has continued to protest.

Bipartisan affirmation (2016)
On 19 May 2016, one day before Tsai Ing-wen assumed the democratically elected presidency of the Republic of China, U.S. Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and Bob Menendez (D-NJ), former chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and co-chair of the Senate Taiwan Caucus, introduced a concurrent resolution reaffirming the TRA and the "Six Assurances" as cornerstones of United States–Taiwan relations.

[old salt]

Putting aside the audit issue that others are addressing, this is surely a huge boon for the defense contracting industry. We're obviously ramping up production capacities across the board, as are several of the European producers.

This should dispel any accusations that defense contractors are pushing foreign policies that promote military conflict or that they can even anticipate them.

Had they known that US proxy conflicts in Ukraine & Taiwan were likely, they'd have made the upfront investment to be able to meet the emergent demand in a timely manner, rather than too little, too late. There's no "just in time" weapons systems procurement & production.
This is a failure by govt(s) to maintain sufficient demand to sustain a defense industrial base with a surge capacity.

[MDlaxfan76]

Putting aside the audit issue that others are addressing, this is surely a huge boon for the defense contracting industry. We're obviously ramping up production capacities across the board, as are several of the European producers.

This should dispel any accusations that defense contractors are pushing foreign policies that promote military conflict or that they can even anticipate them.

Had they known that US proxy conflicts in Ukraine & Taiwan were likely, they'd have made the upfront investment to be able to meet the emergent demand in a timely manner, rather than too little, too late. There's no "just in time" weapons systems procurement & production.
This is a failure by govt(s) to maintain sufficient demand to sustain a defense industrial base with a surge capacity.

I think your first sentence is either fallacious or misleading. Defense contractor DO push these policies and receive a welcome ear from some politicians, but not others. But in general, defense spending is reactive to hot needs, not potential conflicts.

We've been at direct war for well on 20 years and a whole lot of contractors, the industrial defense complex, did very well...but that's been winding down...and the appetite for spending was understandably low, given massive deficits and domestic priorities...ever hear of INFRASTUCTURE week? Pandemic?

But then Russia's invasion of Ukraine has shocked that mindset...and defense contractors are likely chortling.

[youthathletics]

US destroyer shoots down cruise missiles by Iran-backed Houthis
US Navy intercepted Houthi cruise missiles and drones headed potentially towards Israel, the Pentagon said, amid a new spate of drone attacks on US bases in Iraq and Syria as Iran-backed factions threaten retaliation for Israel’s war in Gaza.

https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/20 ... ed-houthis

video: https://www.nbcnews.com/video/pentagon- ... 5996741962

[youthathletics]

Setting the table.....Ike carrier strike group headed to the Middle East
https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-nav ... ddle-east/

[Kismet]

THAADS and Patriot missile batteries to Eastern Syria and Iraq to protect US deployments against Iranian-backed militias and possibly Iran itself. Houthis just proved they have longer range cruise missile capability so it makes sense that Iranian-aligned forces in Syria and Iraq do also. .