網頁

2021-05-11

圖窮鄙乃現,板蕩識弄臣

圖窮乃現,板蕩識
平時趴趴走,四處頒獎狀
有事不見人,要你遺忘我
燦爛笑口開,一朝晉三公
靜靜領雙薪,破口絕非俺


因為你!就是你~~~,欺騙了保生大帝~~

美日法澳跨國聯合演習

【縛雞之見】

對日本沒有防衛義務的法國,主動提議舉行聯合演習,罕見地對中國及周邊國家傳達軍事訊息;由於法國在太平洋地區擁有新喀里多尼亞等領土及常駐基地,中國一旦穿越東海和南海進入太平洋,法屬領地也將受到影響」各國的預防邏輯,就是台灣戰事不會只是台灣而已。

美日法聯合軍演 今起九州登場    自由 20210511

透視台海戰雲 林中斌@聯合 20210511

【縛雞之見】

Professor Lin Chung-Bin, a senior strategy analyst, summarized recent behaviors made by the US, Japan, and China in his recent article.  Heat He raised significant facts; however, his comments on the facts smell odd.  For example, he concludes the “trend” across the Strait is negotiation, but not armed conflict, suggesting that the military moves are political gestures or stakes for further discussions.  He also concluded that China had avoided the war for four decades, implying that she will continue to do the same in the future.
Whether Beijing is going to war or not is the issue we have to find out.  Professor Lin’s comments were a kind of tautology.  That is the principal nature of his comments after his retirement.

2021-05-10

北京到底會不會打台灣?《經濟學人》從兩次美軍馳援台海談起:中國的軍事自信讓台灣身處險境 李忠謙@新新聞20210510

【縛雞之見】

文章重要的,大概是這四個想定:
「中國沿海的防空雷達與飛彈是台海戰爭的「重心」,美國若不能摧毀這些軍事設施,恐怕屆時能派來協防台灣的武力選項只會剩下長程武器與匿蹤戰機。問題是,如果真破壞了這些中國境內的目標,也意味著兩個擁核大國很可能會開始互相攻擊領土。」
如果兩岸開戰後陷入僵局(可能是中國的兩棲登陸作戰失利,也可能是雙方的軍事衝突轉入長期化),兩岸還會接著打下去嗎?
台灣人會反抗到底嗎?
「如果趕來增援的美軍發現中方已經登陸,在中方沒有對美國人開火的情況下,美軍會攻擊中國軍隊嗎?」

北京到底會不會打台灣?《經濟學人》從兩次美軍馳援台海談起:中國的軍事自信讓台灣身處險境    李忠謙@新新聞20210510

2021-05-09

疫苗接種四個月後,美國的疫情怎樣了?

疫苗接種四個月後,美國的疫情怎樣了?

美國自去年1220日開始疫苗注射至今已經整整四個月了。今天美國的疫情怎麽樣了?疫苗真實世界的安全性和有效性如何?

1. 美國的疫苗使用現狀

截至今日(51日),美國已經注射了輝瑞疫苗15980萬劑,莫德納疫苗13千零百90萬劑,強生疫苗18百余萬劑。

65歲以上人群83.7%接種了至少一劑,完全接種者已達69.5%

18-29歲人群剛剛開放接種三周,目前34.2%接種了至少一劑,完全接種者18.5%

輝瑞疫苗在青少年人群中(12-15歲)的三期臨床試驗已經於上月得到中期結果,在2260人中有效性接近100%。預計今年夏天會被批準在青少年人群中使用。

6個月-12歲兒童的臨床試驗正在進行中。

整合供應鏈 交給最危險的台灣? 陳朝平@中時 20210509

【縛雞之見】

The author asks a critical question: Will international corporations invest in Taiwan under the scheme of the "Supply Chain Reconstruction" if Taiwan is the most dangerous place on earth from now on, according to the Financial Times.

作者提出了一个关键问题。据《金融时报》报道,如果台湾从现在开始是地球上最危险的地方,国际企业是否会在 "供应链重建 "的计划下投资台湾。(中文由DeepL翻譯,Taimocracy修正)

整合供應鏈 交給最危險的台灣?    陳朝平@中時 20210509

年度WHA取暖大會可以停了 方恩格@中時 20210509

【縛雞之見】

Restoring the meaningful participationthat US Secretary Blinken stated is nothing but a lips favor. The effort of participation in UN institutions is costly for Taiwan. Does it worth it?
Taiwan is “Big,” whenever the international community players intend to use Taiwan as a counterweight for their adversaries or a trigger for something. Otherwise, Taiwan is just a tip of a marker comparing to a desk. Know this unpleasant truth, and then Taiwan can start to choose its road map.

Who shall pay the war bill, if we don't invest in advance?

【縛雞之見】

We have to pay the costly war bill, like it or not.  The problem is the politicos, who care about the next campaign, take the mutual defense from the allies for granted. 
The defense bill may be up to Taiwan’s a century annual military budget.  Who shall pay it?  The politicos, with their pockets full, can immigrate to other countries.

備戰才有和平 談美國學界對台灣的看法 湯先鈍@自由 20210509

【縛雞之見】

I recommend this article, which reveals unpleasant truth.
It is my opinion: Taiwan is too significant for the parties involved to talk about in public.  It will increase the U.S. and its allies to resist CCP’s expansion if the Taiwanese did not show the will and the investment to defend themselves.  However, there is a third way in between the opposite twos. 
The war is costly.  Taiwanese has to pay the bill, though they have to pay it for a hundred-year installment in any form.  The Taiwan independent activists have to recognize it, and the China unification activists have to face the purge after the war.

我推荐这篇文章,它揭示了令人不快的真相。
这是我的看法。台湾的意义太重大了,有关各方都不敢公开谈论。如果台湾人没有表现出保卫自己的意愿和投资,这将增加美国及其盟友对中共扩张的抵制。然而,在这两个相反的二者之间,还有第三条路。
战争是有代价的。台湾人必须买单,尽管他们必须以任何形式支付百年的分期付款。台独分子必须承认这一点,而中国统一的积极分子则必须面对战后的清洗。(中文由DeepL翻譯,Taimocracy修正)

備戰才有和平 談美國學界對台灣的看法    湯先鈍@自由 20210509

2021-05-08

When WHO approves Chinese attenuated vaccine


【縛雞之見】

WHO approved the Chinese inactivated virus vaccine Sinopharm, meaning Taiwan, which holds few AZ vaccines that are far less than needed to produce herd immunity and are expired by mid-June, has faced disturbing pressure to purchase Sinopharm.
The inactivated virus vaccine, or attenuated vaccine, such as like Sinophram, utilizes real viruses, only they are dead or reducing the virulence of a pathogen. For the SARS-Cov-2 is a novel virus, it is difficult to comprehend the whole mechanism of what will happens once the inactivated virus enters into human bodies.
We worry that Chinese authorities reluctant to share the pandemic data, the development of the vaccine is not transparent. How could we trust the attenuated vaccine developed in such a country?
The inactivated virus is an old-fashioned technology that ancient India has introduced for the fighting of Smallpox. The modern smallpox vaccine, using the live virus, was invented in the 18th century.
It is not to say that old-fashioned technologies are inferior. The risk is that the virus does not inactivate completely—the vaccination leads itself to the infection.

世卫组织批准了中国的去活性病毒疫苗国药集团,这意味着台湾持有的AZ疫苗很少,远远低于产生群体免疫力所需的疫苗,而且在6月中旬就会过期,台湾面临着购买国药集团的令人不安的压力。
去活性病毒疫苗,或称减毒疫苗,比如像國耀疫苗,利用的是真正的病毒,只是它们已经死亡或降低了病原体的毒力。由于SARS-Cov-2是一种新型病毒,很难理解灭活病毒进入人体后後的完整机制。
我们担心中国当局不愿意分享大流行病的数据,疫苗的开发也不透明。我们怎么能相信在这样一个国家开发的减毒疫苗?
去活性病毒是一种古老的技术,是古印度为对抗天花而引进的。使用活病毒的现代天花疫苗是在18世纪发明的。
这并不是说老式的技术是劣质的。风险在于病毒没有完全灭活--接种疫苗本身导致了感染。(中文由DeepL翻譯,Taimocracy修正)

Sinopharm: Chinese Covid vaccine gets WHO emergency approval    BBC 20210508

 

 


Restoring the meaningful participation

【縛雞之見】

The U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken released a statement to urge the WHO leadership for Taiwan to the World Health Assembly and others.
Although the statement entitled “restoring,” however, we see no such languages in it, except the terms of invitation and WHA.
What does Secretary Blinken mean?  It is pretty much like to restore the situation before 2016, a yearly guest in WHA and WHO forum under the name of Chinese Taipei, a so-called “meaningful participation.”

2021-05-07

防疫線,要設在乾淨/不乾淨的「介面」上,而非固定的處所

【縛雞之見】

防線,要設置在「乾淨」(台灣相對乾淨)與「不乾淨」(境外感染多)的介面上,不是僵化的空間,而是隨機變動的。這有道理!

「情況不一樣,戰術要全部改變」,基本假設變了,方法就必須跟著變。一如「戰略模糊」或「戰略清晰」,這也有道理!

「有沒有醫學防疫專家的簽字的會議記錄?」柯說「一定沒有」可能太早,但這是一翻兩瞪眼的事實問題,很容易查證。

挨批笑死人 柯文哲:明天再問李秉穎 他不會這樣講    自由 20210507

期待梅雨?不好玩!

【縛雞之見】

A weather expert claimed that 2021 Taiwan’s plum rain season, or the East Asian rainy season, has begun, according to the character of the circumfluence. 
However, the Pacific high-pressure area is so wide and strong that the Monsoon cannot overpass the South China Sea to Taiwan, as is expected.  Checking the weather website “Windy,” the readers can find that the wind, including ground wind and 850hPa wind, is from east to west, contrary to the Monsoon.
It is no good to see that.

20210505:G7共同聲明的台灣

【縛雞之見】

G7共同聲明

It seems to me that the G7 Joint Statement on 2021/05/05 is not that radical, except the first time mentioning Taiwan.
The Joint Statement is a diplomatic document, which has to be latent and polite by its nature.  Though they support Taiwan in the issue of WHO; however, what they support is “meaningful participation,” precisely the same level in this decade.  But we find that it is NOT to support Taiwan's meaningful participation in the WHO, but the WHO’s FORUM.  Taiwan is an annual guest to the WHA.
And the reason why the G7 supports Taiwan’s meaningful participation in the international community could benefit from the contribution of all partners.  Taiwan is one example of all partners.  The G7 does not support Taiwan directly but as an example.
For decades, the international community used the term “Taiwan issue” to address the security and peace of the region.
But the G7 introduces the term “cross-Taiwan issues,” a plural form to replace the former on “Taiwan issue,” indicating that China is also the one that should be responsible for the peace and security here.

金馬是否成為美日峰會聯合聲明的破口 歐瑋群@上報 20210507

【縛雞之見】

Will PLA takedown Kinmen and Matsu before it invades Taiwan and Penghu?
There is an old saying that Mao Tse-dong intended to let Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek hold Kinmen and Matsu, so the latter would keep a dream to return to the Chinese mainland and never declare Taiwan independence to become a new country.  Well, I still cannot see any solid explanation for that.
Like it or not, Kinmen and Matsu have some 150 thousand residents together.  Like it or not, people here in Taiwan have educated that the two islands are the eyes and ears of Taiwan's defense.  That means once PLA takes down Kinmen and Matsu, the people there will become hostages to threaten Taipei.  Even the troops there have reduced from the peak of 170 thousand to 10 thousand.
Beijing yet to takedown Kinmen and Matsu is not because it aims to curb the Taiwan government; but because it does not need the hostages as a bargaining chip.
The retreat of the resident on Kinmen and Matsu is no easy thing, not as easy as the KMT government has done for the resident in Dachen Archipelago and Yijiangshan Islands in 1955 with the help from the U.S. 7th Fleet in the 1950s.
Taking down Kinmen and Matsu has nothing to do with the signs of Chinese unification; instead, it forms a bargaining chip, a political pressure on the Taiwan government, and a wedge to split the U.S-Japan alliance.

2021-05-06

米高官「台湾海峡めぐり日本と適切な措置取る」中国をけん制 NHK 20210505

米高官「台湾海峡めぐり日本と適切な措置取る」中国をけん制    NHK 20210505

202155 1226 米中対立

アメリカのアジア政策を統括する高官は、台湾海峡をめぐって中国が挑発的な行動をとっているとけん制したうえで「日本とともに適切な措置を取る」と述べ、台湾海峡の現状を維持するため日米の協力が重要だと強調しました。

Washington shies away from open declaration to defend Taiwan FT 20210505

【縛雞之見】

I feel that Kurt Campbell is releasing confusion messages to China, which will cause negative consequences.  What he said in Financial Times and in NHK interview are different.

Washington shies away from open declaration to defend Taiwan    FT 20210505

White House official says shift to ‘strategic clarity’ would carry ‘downsides’ in face of China’s belligerence

The top White House Asia official has warned that any declaration that the US would defend Taiwan from a Chinese attack would carry “significant downsides”.

Washington has for decades maintained a policy of “strategic ambiguity” regarding Taiwan, designed to discourage Taipei from declaring independence and China from taking military action to seize the country.  Beijing claims democratic Taiwan as part of its sovereign territory.

坎伯反對「戰略清晰」 「台海不至於爆發衝突 維持某種程度台灣現狀 最符美中利益」 聯合20210506

【縛雞之見】

Any policies have their specific basis of thinking.  The policy should change, once the basis has shifted. 
The policy basis of the U.S. “strategic ambiguity” on the Taiwan issue is that China, which recognizes the strength and strength only, cannot invade Taiwan even she intends to do so. 
The policy worked, comparing to the Seventh Fleet, in the days that PLA was weak.
However, persons who advocate continuing the “strategic ambiguity”, like Kurt Campbell expressed, today reflect their weak mindset.  Campbell said that the military action against Taiwan is just a political “pressure,” nothing to do with the break-off of the war.  He also explained that the short-term and middle-term risk is the accident and the carelessness of the front line soldiers.  But how about the long-term risk, and how long is the long-term?
That is the big mistake for U.S. policymakers.  Beijing is exercising the salami tactics, or the graze zone warfare, against the core interests of the U.S., way beyond the old school scholars can imagine.  The success of the short-term and middle-term salami tactics leads to the ultimate victory in the long run.
Can you imagine that?  Weak staff Campbell.

世界の接種状況

世界の接種状況