Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
It's a value added question, though. If the PRC has taken the step of deciding on attempting an armed intervention, it means something has gone *drastically* wrong within the Politburo and they're going all in. There's very little added costs will change.
And in that case, A2/AD, mines, missiles and infantry training are going to do a lot more to make any US intervention in the conflict likely to succeed (by there being a military presence we can support there, rather than a fait accompli) than prestige systems.
Which in turn, both reinforces the security umbrella - because it's harder to create that ideal fait accompli - and in the event deterrence fails AND we decide to intervene anyway, are the sort of systems we'd get a lot of value out of.
IMO the umbrella is first and foremost nuclear. It's the same factor as was at play in Europe during the Cold War, where the USSR never didn't have a dominant conventional position. Our conventional forces were purely there to stop a smash and grab.
Deterrence and Denial are sometimes aligned, and sometimes opposed
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
