Posting from another account (home vs work computer). You can reach me at either.

> The US wants to prevent China's rise to global hegemon status. It has no problem with China growing in general.

The US want to prevent China's rise to even a regional hegemon status. It has a problem even with China growing to equal economic power (without a "hegemonic" component").

It would be hard to separate "growth in general" from "growth that contributes to a relative power gap narrowing." They are practically indistinguishable, so I don't see much point in trying to test from it.

> "If need be" being China starts a conflict with it's neighbors who have asked the US for help. The US will not launch missiles at China if their GDP grows too high or the BRI grows larger.

Which neighbors? So far we've discussed Philippines and Taiwan and shown this isn't true.

> The US will not launch missiles at China if their GDP grows too high or the BRI grows larger.

It would. But it would engineer a conflict to justify such an act by.

> No, the country causing instability here is the one launching missiles into the Taiwan Strait (which was happening long before the "Pivot to East Asia"), salami slicing territory, attacking vessels in the South China sea, and starting border skirmishes with India. US diplomacy and military deterrence aren't causing instability, they are holding it back.

No. The US has undertaken a significantly different policy position in order to engineer, amplify, and become in involved in existing and new disputes (which all countries have).

> Wrong. If China wanted to minimize risk of conflict with the US, it would cease stealing US IP and military secrets (again, started happening before "Pivot to East Asia"), operating unofficial police stations on US soil, hacking into US companies and infrastructure, etc. China wants to keep tensions just below the threshold that would trigger a serious conflict while antagonizing the US in ways that help it grow.

Minimize risk within the context of the situation. It's absurd to think that a country trying to grow would just say, hey the US is creating conflict over this, let's shrink to minimize risk.

This is a straw man.

> This is why I dismissed the earlier post as a gish gallop, because it was full of subtly wrong things like this that I didn't want to spend time debunking.

This has been the pattern so far though. Lots of high level accusations ("that's mental gymnastics") and no substantive specific points. If there are factual errors, discuss them, and draw out where there are issues. In any case, having a "subtlely wrong thing" is a far cry from your claim of "mental gymastics". I'm honestly trying to figure out where you think factually and logically this is wrong. What you've provided so far is hard for me to differentiate from grief over preferred vocabulary, high level pronouncements, and advancing a different but not contradictory idea.

> Biden has made multiple remarks that the US would defend Taiwan, but they've always been walked back by the White House.

This is a political tactic. It's like when Biden stated Putin should be assassinated, and then later in a small statement it's made "not official".

This is clearly and evidently the US policy, as its pushing allies and forming coalitions to interfere in a strait crisis. If this was just some rouge statement by a lone official (accidentally: the President) none of those efforts would be underway.

> Bush made similar remarks in 2000 and 2001, before the "Pivot to East Asia", and they were also walked back

Right. The Bush Administration had considered making this pivot before the Obama Administration actually did, but got bogged down in the Middle East. Interesting point though.

> The US still abides by the 45 year old Taiwan Relations Act and the Six Assurances.

For some very complex definition of "abides." The US was supposed to reduce military shipments to Taiwan. They've increased them. The US is supposed to recognize Taiwan as part of the Republic of China. It's amplified language of independence.

> Meanwhile, China decides to surround the island with warships and conduct live-fire exercises because a single US representative visits

A US representative visit is an act of recognition of statehood. An example of the change in policy that you deny above. And an example of the US not "abiding" by Taiwan treaties.

> Who is the one destabilizing the region again?

The US, as clearly evidenced by all of the above.

> I see no reason for this conversation to continue any further at this point. Bye.

What is it that you were trying to get out of the conversation? I was (and am) trying to establish specific factual and logical context framing. Ultimately the purpose is to support the very top post - which is to understand how and why China would use access established to US infrastructure.

Based on your comment I suspect that you agree in most part with China only using that in case they engage with the US. But you'd not frame their access as a "deterrent" but as something else. Like "aggression". But it would all be flip flopped around with the facts not subtly wrong.

I'm happy to continue to discuss. But I think we can both agree about the top comment that China isn't collecting this as a surprise weapon, but in case the US engages in, and as a deterrent to, the US engaging in military activity against it.

Regards.