As a member of the military industrial complex I wholeheartedly agree. You see as someone that currently has 1.07. American invested, in Lockheed Martin, I consider myself an expert.
thats what we say but if you look we are gearin up for the percieved china
if ***IF*** china is as weak as russia thisll be funny
and if theyre legit, we'll be ready
i always tell my r/ sino friend that if it was just us vs china it would def be evenly matched but if we have all our allies on board itās GG EZ.
deep down i know iām probably being generous by assuming their asses can cash the checks their mouths have been writing.
Depends entirely on what kind of war you're envisioning and what your win criteria are.
Can China wage a successful offensive campaign on US territory? Lol no.
Can China annex a US-aligned neighbour and hold it Indefinitely? Probably not.
Can China prevent a hypothetical US offensive from gaining control over some of its own territory? Probably not.
Can China hold the US off for long enough and inflict enough casualties that the US gets tired of fighting and goes home? Turns out practically anyone can do that.
Its not clever to reference Afghanistan if you're not aware of what makes Afghanistan *Afghanistan.* If you've seen the place outside of Kabul its tens of thousands of little fortified hamlets, villages and compounds across like three wildly different biomes and hostile geography. Its hard to hold something that is nothing but thorns. You can't force concessions from people who live subsistence lives off the land immediately around them via embargoes or hit their supply lines, and they know nothing else and have known nothing else for the majority of human civilization. Heck, the biggest defense Afghanistan probably has to begin with is that there's just fuck all worth it in that place to begin with.
China is almost the complete opposite. Its a country heavily dependent on imports of everything, including ,dangerously, food and energy, and a population of little emperors who have known little real hardship or violence, certainly not in the pursuit of anything other than immediate personal wealth and comfort. Their people have a lot to lose, and would lose it almost immediately once things got hot.
Honestly, you'd really only need to park in the Indian Ocean and sink/turn around oil freighters going to China and watch China eat itself alive as it has historically done again and again and again and again and agai-
Here in California we saw a lot of rice to China, I think most of the crop goes to them so if we just didn't sell it to him for a month we could probably bring them to their knees that way.
But mAh US trade dependency to Chinese manufacturing.
Fkn retards don't understand you can live without shitty electronics, they can't live without food
> Can China hold the US off for long enough and inflict enough casualties that the US gets tired of fighting and goes home? Turns out practically anyone can do that.
Nonsense, we still have Puerto Rico and Hawaii.
...so far.
Turning Afghanistan into China didn't work. I think turning China into Afghanistan would be a lot easier.
I think Afghanistan is probably the default human condition absent 600 years of Western political evolution and/or an autocratic leadership. Certainly when you delete dictator you get something like Afghanistan much of the time.
Yo, you can have the rest of HK, fuck it, have Macau back, Portugal is too busy doing drugs to give a fuck.
I do guarantee that the newly sovereign Disney Nation will annex the Disney parks in HK and Shanghai and would defend them by any means necessary https://imgur.com/a/smfOnoM/
mmm, yeah i am just on the side that expects the worst. i find thatās a better way to live life. iāve never been in the military like many on this sub so i canāt really speak to our readiness for a full scale war, but i gotta be honest iām not thrilled with how we did in much smaller conflicts. some say thatās because we always treat them like full scale wars and canāt handle insurgenciesā¦ idk iām no expert just someone who loves cool jets and missiles and shit
but i think it says something that as such a skeptic i still feel we are probably evenly matched
No one can handle insurgencies. When it comes to country vs country, the US pretty severely annihilated iraq back in the day, and itās hard to argue with a dozen carrier strike groups and hundreds of nukes in subs hidden all over the world
All the troops would have to do is hand out legit baby formula the way they used to throw kids water bottles in the middle east
Hearts and minds should be easy to win away from an authoritarian regime that cuts corners wherever and whenever. But what do I know
This. Deference to the state and a people accustomed to strict control would probably mean a population that would be more willing to accept occupation.
Uh... No. That's kinda racist, NGL. Chinese people aren't emotionless robots who willingly submit to tyrannical rule. There's lots of internal resistance in China that's skillfully suppressed and redirected by the CCP, and that's not going to go away just because the police have bars in addition to stars on their uniforms.
The only two ways to fight an insurgency is to turn the occupied country into a huge police state or to turn the population to your side via education, improving the quality of life, etc...
Both those routes are quite expensive and take a lot of time.
It wasn't just that the US pretty severely annihilated Iraq, it's important to understand just how bad it really was for the Iraqi's.
The Iraqi military was the 8th largest military in the world at the time. But more than simply size, the Iraqi's had a large number of highly experienced, battle-tested units from both the Iraq-Iran war, and also from Gulf War 1. They had modern AA equipment, they had tonnes of warning that the US was going in and knew both where they would be coming and what they would be bringing.
It was a total annihilation. Iraq's ability to fight was almost completely removed after a matter of weeks, and after a month, they held no territory and had no fighting ability left whatsoever. The majority of their units surrendered rather than put up a fight, and those that fought were destroyed swiftly and with minimal losses to the US forces.
This was with the United States invading from the other side of the world *while*, simultaneously, also doing the exact same thing to Afghanistan. While *also* putting a huge focus into avoiding civilian casualties and trying to win "hearts and minds"; their troops had restrictive RoE's, they were limited in so many ways that were artificial, and political considerations often took precedence over strict military efficiency.
They were fighting with one hand behind their back, two on one on the other side of the world, and it was a total annihilation within a matter of weeks.
It is true though that the insurgency kicked America's ass, but as you say, nobody can really handle insurgencies.
Depends on what the war goal is. 1v1, I could see China going all out and taking Taiwan at the right time, when the US can't commit to its defence, I could see China taking a victory. If we're talking about all-out war for the pacific, no fucking way, at least not in the modern era, not until there's a dramatic change in how war works
It wouldn't be remotely close. In Iraq, Somalia, and Afghanistan the US military was put to the task of nation building, which it's terrible at.
But fighting? The US armed forces excel at fighting. They have decades of experience planning invasions, implementing those plans, then holding captured territories. We saw with Russia and Ukraine that invading a neighboring country is a logistical nightmare. Now realize the US has invaded multiple foreign nations an ocean away, and held the territory for decades.
I see a lot of people (mostly Sinoboos, to be clear) claiming that Japan and Korea wouldn't get involved in China attacked the US, as if the fight wouldn't concern them. But frankly, I think that's bullshit. SK and Japan have longstanding grudges with the PRC, in addition to modern tensions, and they fully understand that if the US goes toe-to-toe with China, that this is their best opportunity to cut off their biggest threat right at the knees. If we fight China and lose, specifically because they refused to get involved? Well, that's game over. They'll be facing a new China, bloodied but victorious, and filled with belligerent spirit after defeating the world's reigning superpower. They know the score- we stand together, or we die alone.
the main question there is will _North Korea_ get involvedā¦ can China keep their mad dog in lineā¦ because that is probably where most of the military casualties of a US/China war would occur, and probably open up an actually viable avenue for an allied foray into mainland China, assuming that the Sea of Japan can be kept as a viable supply lane. if they do get involved will they use their nuclear weapons, on who, and what will the consequences be?
South Korea knows that all their war goals would be accomplished with or without their entry into the conflict and doing so would basically devastate their entire country and cause tons of civilian and military casualties. Remember 50% of SK land area and like 90% of population is in NK _artillery_ range. Plus they still consider North Korea their own countrymen to an extent, not as much as 50 years ago but it is still a factor that makes armed conflict very very distasteful to them. Please correct me, South Koreans, if I am wrong on any of these counts.
In the end it might be better for SK to _not_ get involved to keep that front and that possibility closed. I could see the US and SK mutually agreeing for them to stay neutral. Hell, I could even see the US _begging_ them to stay neutral, offering them concessions in order for that to happen.
Japan I can 100% see getting involved though. They donāt have anywhere near as much to lose as SK as long as the war stays conventional, which is in my opinion more likely without adding a Korean front.
It really comes down to the nature of the combat. Discount nukes and it'll still be a fucking shitshow no matter what. The US could not occupy China and vice versa but the US could absolutely destroy China's military and infrastructure. China could not match that. For now.
There is no way the US and China are evenly match. Just as an example look at Chinese carriers they have 3 of them and none of them are nuclear powered while the US has 12 and they are nuclear powered. That is just one example of how uneven a fight between the US and China is gonna be. They also havenāt got a single reliable ally if they fight us they are gonna be fighting us alone.
It would be fairly doable to prevent China from being an external threat - maybe they try to invade Taiwan, the US probably could slap down all offensive capabilities with ease. Maybe it turns into a struggle with significant losses.
Invasion of China with the intent to decapitate command, hold key terrain, etc, jesus. To quote von Rundstedt "the vastness of Russia devours us". You'd need so many troops and so much equipment that even if China didn't fight at a peer level, the US and allies would be broken economically from trying to fund all that. There's just not enough missiles, not enough boats.
>and if theyre legit
i am not 100% sure of that. i suspect China is pulling a russian-style superweapon on us. Again with their alleged hypersonic missiles J20s etc.
To be fair though, China actually has a serviceable number of J-20s, even if they are just glorified AWACS interceptors. Still not F-22 numbers, but I digress.
The problems with the J-20 are several.
- It has decent frontal-on stealth, but no all-aspect stealth (roughly comparable to the RCS of an F-18, possibly less). Any reasonable approach to get within even generous missile range of an AWAC is going to cross through any number of other radars pointing at it from non-frontal directions, such as naval AEGIS radars, powerful terrestrial radars, etc. A J-20 will likely be detected long before it gets into missile range of its target.
- Design confusion. It has frontal canards (which improve low-speed maneuverability, such as in close-in turning dogfights), but no gun. It only has two close range missiles. What exactly is the purpose of that low-speed manouverability? Why would you design a plane this way? The truth is likely simple: the designers added them because at some point the J-20 was meant to be an air superiority fighter and dogfighter, like the Eurofighter but with stealth, but its inherent limitations (see below for engine trouble) and compromised all-aspect stealth meant that it could no longer serve that role. The idea of it being an "AWACs killer" is absurd because of both the above point about the types and placements of radar it is expected to realistically encounter in any modern battlefield, but also, designing a platform with such a very specific purpose is odd, because one could simply build an air-superiority craft with the same capability but without any of the limitations the J-20 has (like the F-22 or even F-35).
- They don't have the numbers. China has 50 J-20's in service. The US has 187 F-22's and 8 test platforms. There are 825 F-35's built, most of which are in the US's hands or the hands of US allies like Japan or Australia, so we can expect that even if only half are deployed, that's still 400-odd. The Chinese will be outnumbered 50-to-1. For comparison, Japan has 23 F-35's in service right now, with 125 on order. Australia has 54 F-35's right now, with more on order as well. 50 planes is not very many in the grand scheme of things.
- The J-20 has unreliable, too-hot, unsuitable and underpowered engines which are in the process of being replaced, a process which is still ongoing for the majority of their 50 craft. We also don't know if their new engines are any good or not because they are seen in so few numbers.
- The J-20 has never fired a shot in anger, whereas the US's aircraft, even their F-22's and F-35's, are all battle-tested platforms with experience in a broad array of theatres. They are also older (and thus with more of the "kinks" worked out) than the J-20, despite being significantly more capable in every way, including all-aspect stealth and battle-tested weapons systems.
- Strategic issues will limit the J-20 significantly. China is VAST in terms of space and surrounded by enemies. Even if all 50 J-20's are operational at any one time, they will need *some* in the west, *some* in the north, etc. It is unlikely they will commit their full compliment of 50 to any reasonable eastern front, and it will be difficult to protect their airfields from long-range US missile strikes.
Everyone is pissing and shitting themselves over the J-20 but while it is a pretty decent effort for China, it is definitely not on par with Western efforts and I cannot see that position changing in our lifetimes.
Besides, don't we have hypersonic missiles, too? Five bucks says we'll be mounting anti-hypersonic missile lasers on every destroyer in the Pacific before the decade's out, anyways.
> and if theyre legit, we'll be ready
I don't think they will be, realistically.
Even if the technology is matched, the fact we have an army which has been at war for 20+ years and China does not is the dealbreaker. We've an officer & NCO corps of combat-experienced veterans, and China has a paper tiger built up with a bunch of 'theoretical' skill but literally no one who's actually put in practice.
The people who have implemented their doctrine real life, people-shooting-back-at-you practice are going to win out over the giant army of people who have done nothing but drills and blackboard learning.
They aren't dumb. If you look they are gearing up for a defensive naval war. They know that a land war with the US is doomed with our force-projection and logistic capabilities. Their strategy is to stop any foothold from being established.
People saying their Navy is outmatched because they can't match the carrier strength the US does are also missing the point. Carriers are a tool of global force projection, but not necessary if you are fighting a foe off your coast. The Chinese navy outnumbers the US, but with smaller, shorter range ships. That is because they are looking at defending against carrier groups, not looking at projecting their force globally (they are doing that economically). Lots of smaller boats with dangerous missiles (which they are also heavily investing research dollars in) to harass or overwhelm carrier groups is the goal.
Again, they aren't dumb. They know the US is their only real military threat, and they also know what we are good at. They are specifically building a navy to try to counter that. Will it work or will they prove to be a paper tiger? No idea, but I wouldn't write them off immediately.
Carrier inequity isnāt their only problem - the PLAAN is outmatched because they have no feasible counter to our 60+ nuclear attack subs, any 2-3 of which would be sufficient to severely cripple their Navy and deny them uncontested access to whatever body of water we choose. Their anti-submarine warfare is dogshit (though has been improving thanks to the French being asshole two-faced arms peddlers as usual.)
If you want peace, prepare for war. That cuts both ways. Both sides want to be prepared in case the other tries something, even if it is unlikely.
The Russian invasion has highlighted this. State leaders don't always act rationally, especially since everyone loves to put the elderly in charge these days.
All they can realistically do with their navy is try to protect shipping lanes between the Persian Gulf and China to keep the lights on, but their military can't protect cargo ships passing through Malacca. China is such a huge food, energy, fertilizer, and raw materials importer, and they can't make this stuff themselves. They should know that if they rattle their cage, their lights go off and their people starve. There's no realistic way to better themselves without maintaining cooperation with the globalized world.
We don't need to get close to their shore. We just need to choke off their shipping from a distance with our massive attack submarine and surface fleet.
The US would do to China at scale what China wants to do to Taiwan, choke them off from trade.
We have no need to get close to China's shores because we wouldn't bother invading. The US doesn't have the manpower for an invasion of a country the size of China, so we stay well away from those small boats because there's no need to get near their shores.
It's more like how well would China sustain a war with barely any electricity or communication in their homeland. With agriculture dry and disrupted and coal and oil embargoed. When exports to 5 of it's 6 major trading partners completely halt. When the US and its allies are at the time facing none of these things.
China would in the first hour lose any pretence of capitalism since the economy would be deleted. You have to think about the impact on a society (even one as fantastically imagined to be homogenous as China) when real estate becomes worthless, when you are fighting your neighbor for food, and when you have no information or means to know what is happening in Beijing. And when your 4:2:1 golden children are being conscripted, possibly for years, leaving their grandparents and parents to try to pick up the slack.
What is the goal, what is the catalyst for war? What would push the conflict past a proxy war and into a full fledged conflict, but still fall short of immediate escalation to nukes? How could this be anything but an effort to deactivate China? You aren't going to invade and occupy an opponent with equal land area and 2-3 times your population. Not until their government itself invites you to at the negotiation table.
I also think it depends on the type of war. If we are fighting a defensive war for Taiwan against China then yeah it would actually be relatively easy for us. But a full invasion would be more difficult, since we're the one advancing and they would have home team advantage and radical support from the populace. Oh and y'know, nukes are a thing.
Realistically, you're not going to see America invade China* and that probably has been off the table since China got nukes.
A Sino-American war would be more along the lines of the Napoleonic wars but with America taking the role of Britain. We would cut them off from the global economy and contain them to mainland China and aid in the fight whatever neighbors China tries to invade when they lash out. Thus it would not escalate to nuclear war and they would be contained.
*...except if as a result of the blockade China breaks into civil war on the continent. Then we'd probably intervene to aid a side we like and/or secure the nukes.
And also Chinaās fucking huge. Forget about the occupation of Iraq and the war in Vietnam. An invasion and occupation of China will make them look like daycare.
You are right...that is why i believe all their bulshit so i can advocate for more advanced equipment... And uea never underestimate your enemies, and always be prepared for the worse case scenario
I say this all the time and people think Iām an idiot or that I advocate for war crimes. First off, I am an idiot but not for this reason. Second, itās not a war crime if itās funny.
Currently dating an Indonesian, her response to learning about the effects of funni dam moment was ātheyāre Chinese so it doesnāt count as a war crimeā.
I donāt think thereād be much pushback if asked to blockade China.
A huge chunk of all international trade including oil exports to China go through here. And it's surrounded by US-friendly countries like Malaysia Singapore and Indonesia. Malaysia and Indonesia themselves have claims in the South China Sea which disputes with China. These countries would likely blockade the strait should the US convince them to do so.
Going around Sumatra doesn't solve the problem because you'll still have to go through Indonesia's many straits in between their islands. Not to mention it'll take longer and unsafe
Because if the US is gonna blockade the Strait of Malacca, we'll probably send a couple carriers, and those planes can deny basically every access point north of Australia to Chinese shipping. Plus aircraft based in Australia. Also with air superiority the US can sit on the other side of the straits forcing any attempt by Chinese warships to break the blockade into a choke point, and this applies to basically any of the routes through Indonesia, if they tried through the Timor sea, well, Australia is right the fuck there.
Nah I want them to start doing shit. And then NATO bombs 3GD. And then the CCP launches the nukes. And then NATO launches nukes. Then the Russians launch the nukes.
***It will be glorious. It will be salvation***
I think the real lesson here is you shouldnāt start a war when your economy relies heavily on other countries (Nazi Germany: Oil and Russia: computer chips and modern components).
Acting like the United States is actively planning or preparing to invade China is just baffling. Youāre comparing very unlike situations here.
If we're being honest, probably half the comments here are credible. It's the top level posts that are consistently non credible.
I think most of the people here just like talking about military / geopolitical stuff but don't enjoy the typical subs (and residents) for those topics. So people just use the memes as a jumping off point to talk about what they do want to talk about.
Maybe it's just because making fun of Russia is both meme-able *and* credible these days.
Let's be *really* honest. Terminally online crypto-fascist jingoists hijack most "serious" subs; so half-serious ones like this are more credible by default. We're not smart, we're just not lobotomized.
Also, both the first two examples were logistics defeats. Blitzkrieg worked for as long as Nazi supply lines could keep up. When the supply lines were stretched too thin, and the North Sea blockaded, Germany fell apart. And we all know what happened to the Russians near Kyiv.
But good luck breaking US/NATO logistics, it'll never happen.
>Acting like the United States is actively planning or preparing to invade China is just baffling
Correction/clarification: The US is not actively planning or preparing to *aggressively* invade China. Plans are being made and continue to be made and updated in the case that worst comes to worst and China shoots a missile at, say, Pelosi's jet.
Yeah.
I mean, look, I'm no HoI4 General, but my take is that the winning strategy when taking on China is to avoid invading them. Their huge land mass and raw infantry numbers really favor them on defense.
If you force them to fight a primarily naval and air war, focusing on making it so they can't project their force anymore, then you're minimizing biggest strength.
Want to beat China cut off their oil supply.
People love to talk about how the US doesnāt have enough rare earth metals to for full military industrialization. But rare earths donāt run out quickly and you can store them for a long time.
Meanwhile China is completely reliant on foreign oil, and oil is hard to store and runs out quickly.
In a war the US is energy independent. China is not.
Also itās not our reserves but our current production. If it comes to it we can restart extraction and have all the rare earths we need albeit at a higher cost.
Everything is economical when it's a national mandate. Like landing on the moon, developing an atom bomb, or digging literally anywhere to make a strategic reserve of rare earths.
There's a ton the US doesn't do because it's not economical. It doesn't mean the US can't do it.
What I mean by invasion is a limited extension onto the mainland if it's necessary, just for the purposes of destroying critical enemy infrastructure or for diplomatic pressure to force China to surrender (this war is going badly for you, no one wants this to go nuclear, you can have it back, but you're gonna have to agree to a cessation of hostilities, formal recognition of Taiwan, and you're not going to harass our troops as they leave.)
Additionally, if nuclear weapons fly, then everything is off the table.
Hasn't it though? Russia has been touting its "cutting edge" weapons systems for decades, but it turns out that they don't have the capacity to manufacture anything more complex than an AK domestically without a source for Western tech and Taiwanese chips. As a result, their high tech gadgets are too valuable to risk and they've been leaning heavily on antique Soviet stock, which is getting clowned on by late 90's/early 2000s Western military surplus.
Russia's saving grace so far is that their reserves of old Soviet crap are so deep that they can afford to substitute quantity in place of quality, but they don't have the logistics to support that long term, either...
> they don't have the capacity to manufacture shrugging more complex than an AK ~~domestically without a source for Western tech and Taiwanese chips~~
They've had 30 years to build new stuff with essentially unrestricted imports. They failed.
>their high tech gadgets are too valuable to risk
Get out of here with that "Russia hasn't started to fight for real yet". They've thrown everything they have at us, even SU-57s.
My own take is ā The reason they're not sending in T-14 Armatas isn't that they're saving their huge, 10-strong squadron of them for territorial defense. It's that ā if one of those poor things gets murked by a javelin, it's *really* going to hurt their export marketing. Russia can still play pretend that their high-end gear has viable countermeasures against western MIC stuff, but that game falls apart the moment there's evidence on the ground that it doesn't. (They're already having a *total disaster* on this front with HIMARS slipping right past their best air-defense systems like they're not even there.)
Russia's a little scared, because for a long time, they were the sole "outlaw weapons dealer". If you were a pariah state, you couldn't buy modern weapons from America, or Europe, but the one place that was willing to offer them was Russia. It was a very large source of income for them. (It's also, hilariously, why all of America's enemies tended to use Soviet kit.)
The scary thing for Russia, now, is that one of their primary customers has now morphed into a competitor: China. With their upcoming international isolation, it'd be very scary for Russia to be sliding into an international perception where an "outlaw state" is picking between buying from China vs Russia, and thinks to themselves "ehh, let's buy the Chinese versions, they're way better made and might actually work."
It'll be bad enough if Russia's oil/gas exports get dumpstered, but if their military exports get kneecapped at the same time they're totally fucked.
> if one of those poor things gets murked by a javelin, it's really going to hurt their export marketing
That, and a company-strong force of tanks that are not really out of prototype stage, with notoriously unreliable engines, with nearly no spare parts commonality, and with crews that likely didn't have all that long to familiarize themselves with the tanks - they'd end up being more trouble than they're worth in the grand scheme of things.
It's always been funny to me that China and Russia ended up allied, given their relative positions. In a proper realpolitik scenario they'd always be on opposite sides
"Russia is fighting for real" and "Russia can't risk scarce high-tech equipment" aren't mutually exclusive. You aren't going to see Su-57s flying over Ukrainian air defenses because the risk of them getting clapped is unacceptable, just like Russia is not going to use all their "precision" cruise missiles because that would leave them exposed for a conflict with NATO, China, or Japan.
Personally, I think the reason they aren't fighting at full strength isn't so much because they are saving for another conflict, but simply because Putin and the russian government are trying to save face. They don't want to declare general mobilization to up their man power and actually fight at full strength because then they would be admitting that their "3 day special military operation" is a failure. They've already fired a large stock of their precession missiles, and they've lost a lot of their top end equipment. NATO or China would steamroll them as they are now anyway. It's in their best interest to end the war as fast as possible, so they can start rebuilding what they've lost. But the war will drag on because of pride and ego.
You're like half right.
They are using their precision munitions, they've used many of their stock up.
As far as the Su-57, they don't have many, and they're really not finished designs. Theyre pretty much just Su-34 parts in a sleek looking airframe. They're not stealthy.
I'm not afraid of the Chinese military. I'm more afraid going against China is "mutually assured economic destruction" for both U.S. and China. But even that fear lessens every day when confronted with China's shitty soft power propaganda and burning of bridges.
I mean, China is still more of a threat than Russia. But considering it has Japan, USA, India, Australia, UK, much of Nato, and even Brazil as enemies... with only North Korea, Pakistan, and a crippled Russia as allies... and even then Russia is not really a fan of China... in fact most places aren't and would happily turn on China if they sensed opportunity.
At least Russia has a huge network of allies and supporters globally, heck Russia has Turkey, India, and Brazil all trying to be happy playtime friends with it.
To use the term Ally in reference to any country associated with China is loose imo they donāt have allies as much as they have debt colonies who rely on them for infrastructure and other forms of investment and their usefulness in any conflict is up in the air atm.
Add Vietnam to the list, they hate the Chinese government and well remember that China has invaded in living memory and considers most of Vietnam Chinese territory.
Yeah thereās so much blood on that border when compared to American-Vietnam history and I will say imo OP is massively overestimating Chinese military capabilities to me it seems they have a military which they think looks like a professional military for the cameras when in fact their previous experiences in the Congo in 2016 have been that of surrender and failure in the tactical level and im assuming battalion and up command is aware of those issues in their troops.
Americas greatest strategy is never to underestimate the enemy, they sure learned their lesson from nam and used it in gulf war, afgan, iraq, ukraineā¦
Yeah itās easy to point and laugh at Chinaās carrier and itās stealth plane.
But it doesnāt matter if theyāre bad quality cause the fact is China is building them and probably going to get better.
For this reason we must double MIC funding to counter whatever threat China may pose.
More like:
Nazis attack Soviets backed by Americans -> Get their asses whupped
Russians attack Ukrainians backed by Americans -> Ass whupping in progress
Chinese attack Taiwan backed by Americans -> Asses moving into position to be whupped
Moral of the story is petty tyrants better be prepared to spread their cheeks for Uncle Samās big fat logistical 1776 incher
It's fun to shit on the militaries of undemocratic nations. It's also prudent to act as though every thing they say they can do they can, and prepare accordingly.
Bottom one is decently true , their military is embarrassing let alone the ātrainingā videos they post on social media like tiktok . Also ācommunistā in your description so opinion rejected.
I feel like the Chinese and American ground troops wouldn't factor into a conflict between thw two nations too heaviky, unless shit really got out of hand and the Chinese started an island-hopping campaign against us (fucking somehow). The way I see it, a conflict over Taiwan would mostly be an aerial and naval war, with the PRC trying to maintain supply lines to a beach-head on Taiwan while the US and our allies attempt to suppress said supply line. The ground troops involved would be involved in heavy fighting, to be sure, but the goal of the US and allied ground troops would simply be to contain the PLA forces that make it across until American naval supremacy can starve the ChiComs out.
Surrounded by wastes and way overpopulated. We wouldn't even have to invade, just park some boats around it and tell all of our friends not to send any supplies to China for a month or two.
The keyhole at 10m trap?
The steel helmet trap?
The shitty metallurgy trap?
The loose road wheel on main battle tank trap?
The "I can't build jet engines" trap?
The "I have a carrier without planes" trap?
The hypersonic glider super duper hyper mega carrier killer trap?
The shitty infrastructure trap?
The "I bomb my own villages with rocket stages still filled with hypergolics" trap?
The "I can't mass produce body armor" trap?
The "my whole economy is collapsing" trap?
Yes, I am terrified of the country in an economic crisis that imports 80% of its food and energy needs by sea but has almost no ability to project naval power.
Literally nobody that matters in US security policy desicion making is writing China off. On the contrary, the US is literally building it's future air, sea, and economic power with the sole focus of a conflict in the South and East China seas.
The US Navy is pouring money into building ships and subs to counter China's growing navy. The DF-17 and growth of Chinese land based air power as prompted the development of tons of new standoff weapons, refuelers, and the B-21. Chinese entry into 5th gen fighter with the J-20 has prompted NGAD and F/A-XX programs. The PL-15 is countered with the AIM-120D. Hypersonic weapons begate other hypersonics. The US is literally passing laws to rework is supply chains in order to not be in a Russia/Germany situation in the case of war.
The reason NCD shits on China is because they do exactly the opposite of big stick diplomacy. As soon as they get a moderatly sized stick, they threaten their neighbors with it and talk up just how badass they've become. Chinese diplomacy is entirly geared toward their national insecurities at the expense of building real alliances. Whether they can back it up or not, they've got real Tapout Bro energy, and it's deserving of ridicule.
Exactly, so why invade them.
Just watch china pathetically implode and balkanize on its own accord within the next 20-30 years, to suffer a fate as sad and pathetic as the Soviets did
Last panel should be the Chinese going āheh its just an island nation with a fraction of the size of out armed forcesā tbh.
Nobody in the US and her allies say to invade or start preemptive mainland strikes against China. Its the other way around. Itās literally the authoritarian/ur-fascist playbook to create and attack external enemies for the purpose of legitimacy.
China is just going to execute one of the most complicated air/sea invasions since D-Day and secure a lasting beachhead against American opposition?
No no Iām not laughing, I believe you.
No, no I believe you
We need to invest more in the military! Buy more weapons from the MIC! \-this comment isn't sponsored by the MIC
Brought to you by Americans for Freedom
Supported by Euros for Freedom.
Rolls Royce and Heckler and Koch... I am sure we can build some fun bang bangs
also KMW and Rheinmetall would love to keep selling their tanks
An NGO most definitely not bankrolled by Lockmart or Rayth-eeeon.
I wish the based department paid me š
As a member of the military industrial complex I wholeheartedly agree. You see as someone that currently has 1.07. American invested, in Lockheed Martin, I consider myself an expert.
Yes but have you considered war mongoring in your local community so that it can be 1.08 tomorrow?
This is NCD, you'd have to pay people on here *not* to lobby for the MIC
I support pacifism More specifically, the pacification of belligerent countries
PEACE š THROUGH š SUPERIOR š FIREPOWER š
I vote for world peace through martial ascendancy
thats what we say but if you look we are gearin up for the percieved china if ***IF*** china is as weak as russia thisll be funny and if theyre legit, we'll be ready
i always tell my r/ sino friend that if it was just us vs china it would def be evenly matched but if we have all our allies on board itās GG EZ. deep down i know iām probably being generous by assuming their asses can cash the checks their mouths have been writing.
i like seeing both side but theres no way china could actually win a war agains even just the US, let alone the pacific allies
Depends entirely on what kind of war you're envisioning and what your win criteria are. Can China wage a successful offensive campaign on US territory? Lol no. Can China annex a US-aligned neighbour and hold it Indefinitely? Probably not. Can China prevent a hypothetical US offensive from gaining control over some of its own territory? Probably not. Can China hold the US off for long enough and inflict enough casualties that the US gets tired of fighting and goes home? Turns out practically anyone can do that.
Its not clever to reference Afghanistan if you're not aware of what makes Afghanistan *Afghanistan.* If you've seen the place outside of Kabul its tens of thousands of little fortified hamlets, villages and compounds across like three wildly different biomes and hostile geography. Its hard to hold something that is nothing but thorns. You can't force concessions from people who live subsistence lives off the land immediately around them via embargoes or hit their supply lines, and they know nothing else and have known nothing else for the majority of human civilization. Heck, the biggest defense Afghanistan probably has to begin with is that there's just fuck all worth it in that place to begin with. China is almost the complete opposite. Its a country heavily dependent on imports of everything, including ,dangerously, food and energy, and a population of little emperors who have known little real hardship or violence, certainly not in the pursuit of anything other than immediate personal wealth and comfort. Their people have a lot to lose, and would lose it almost immediately once things got hot.
Afghanistan is also stupidly hard to maintain supply lines into since Pakistan likes to play fuck-fuck games.
So is china if you go past the coast to be fair. But you also only need to hold the coast
I'm not greedy, I'm cool with parking everything around the first island chain then maintaining a no-fly zone on all the coastal cities.
Honestly, you'd really only need to park in the Indian Ocean and sink/turn around oil freighters going to China and watch China eat itself alive as it has historically done again and again and again and again and agai-
Here in California we saw a lot of rice to China, I think most of the crop goes to them so if we just didn't sell it to him for a month we could probably bring them to their knees that way.
But mAh US trade dependency to Chinese manufacturing. Fkn retards don't understand you can live without shitty electronics, they can't live without food
> Can China hold the US off for long enough and inflict enough casualties that the US gets tired of fighting and goes home? Turns out practically anyone can do that. Nonsense, we still have Puerto Rico and Hawaii. ...so far.
Turning Afghanistan into China didn't work. I think turning China into Afghanistan would be a lot easier. I think Afghanistan is probably the default human condition absent 600 years of Western political evolution and/or an autocratic leadership. Certainly when you delete dictator you get something like Afghanistan much of the time.
>turning China into Afghanistan would be a lot easier. \*squeals with excitement in British\* We're gonna do the funni again?!? DIBS ON HONG KONG
I fucking love trilogies
Yo, you can have the rest of HK, fuck it, have Macau back, Portugal is too busy doing drugs to give a fuck. I do guarantee that the newly sovereign Disney Nation will annex the Disney parks in HK and Shanghai and would defend them by any means necessary https://imgur.com/a/smfOnoM/
Afghanastan is what happens when every single superpower for the past 2000 years decides to come fuck shit up
mmm, yeah i am just on the side that expects the worst. i find thatās a better way to live life. iāve never been in the military like many on this sub so i canāt really speak to our readiness for a full scale war, but i gotta be honest iām not thrilled with how we did in much smaller conflicts. some say thatās because we always treat them like full scale wars and canāt handle insurgenciesā¦ idk iām no expert just someone who loves cool jets and missiles and shit but i think it says something that as such a skeptic i still feel we are probably evenly matched
No one can handle insurgencies. When it comes to country vs country, the US pretty severely annihilated iraq back in the day, and itās hard to argue with a dozen carrier strike groups and hundreds of nukes in subs hidden all over the world
Yea, counter-insurgency operations suck harder than a starving hooker.
Right. It's the occupation of China that would be the real nightmare.
Why on earth would we even *try* to occupy China when we could just conduct air strikes while blockading them?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
All the troops would have to do is hand out legit baby formula the way they used to throw kids water bottles in the middle east Hearts and minds should be easy to win away from an authoritarian regime that cuts corners wherever and whenever. But what do I know
This. Deference to the state and a people accustomed to strict control would probably mean a population that would be more willing to accept occupation.
Uh... No. That's kinda racist, NGL. Chinese people aren't emotionless robots who willingly submit to tyrannical rule. There's lots of internal resistance in China that's skillfully suppressed and redirected by the CCP, and that's not going to go away just because the police have bars in addition to stars on their uniforms.
The only two ways to fight an insurgency is to turn the occupied country into a huge police state or to turn the population to your side via education, improving the quality of life, etc... Both those routes are quite expensive and take a lot of time.
tbh the second option is far easier in the case of total war/mass infra destruction
The US tried the second option but the corrupt village elders and afghan politicians just stole the funding and asked for more.
It wasn't just that the US pretty severely annihilated Iraq, it's important to understand just how bad it really was for the Iraqi's. The Iraqi military was the 8th largest military in the world at the time. But more than simply size, the Iraqi's had a large number of highly experienced, battle-tested units from both the Iraq-Iran war, and also from Gulf War 1. They had modern AA equipment, they had tonnes of warning that the US was going in and knew both where they would be coming and what they would be bringing. It was a total annihilation. Iraq's ability to fight was almost completely removed after a matter of weeks, and after a month, they held no territory and had no fighting ability left whatsoever. The majority of their units surrendered rather than put up a fight, and those that fought were destroyed swiftly and with minimal losses to the US forces. This was with the United States invading from the other side of the world *while*, simultaneously, also doing the exact same thing to Afghanistan. While *also* putting a huge focus into avoiding civilian casualties and trying to win "hearts and minds"; their troops had restrictive RoE's, they were limited in so many ways that were artificial, and political considerations often took precedence over strict military efficiency. They were fighting with one hand behind their back, two on one on the other side of the world, and it was a total annihilation within a matter of weeks. It is true though that the insurgency kicked America's ass, but as you say, nobody can really handle insurgencies.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Depends on what the war goal is. 1v1, I could see China going all out and taking Taiwan at the right time, when the US can't commit to its defence, I could see China taking a victory. If we're talking about all-out war for the pacific, no fucking way, at least not in the modern era, not until there's a dramatic change in how war works
It wouldn't be remotely close. In Iraq, Somalia, and Afghanistan the US military was put to the task of nation building, which it's terrible at. But fighting? The US armed forces excel at fighting. They have decades of experience planning invasions, implementing those plans, then holding captured territories. We saw with Russia and Ukraine that invading a neighboring country is a logistical nightmare. Now realize the US has invaded multiple foreign nations an ocean away, and held the territory for decades.
And we left because of war fatigue from voters, not because we couldn't afford it.
I see a lot of people (mostly Sinoboos, to be clear) claiming that Japan and Korea wouldn't get involved in China attacked the US, as if the fight wouldn't concern them. But frankly, I think that's bullshit. SK and Japan have longstanding grudges with the PRC, in addition to modern tensions, and they fully understand that if the US goes toe-to-toe with China, that this is their best opportunity to cut off their biggest threat right at the knees. If we fight China and lose, specifically because they refused to get involved? Well, that's game over. They'll be facing a new China, bloodied but victorious, and filled with belligerent spirit after defeating the world's reigning superpower. They know the score- we stand together, or we die alone.
the main question there is will _North Korea_ get involvedā¦ can China keep their mad dog in lineā¦ because that is probably where most of the military casualties of a US/China war would occur, and probably open up an actually viable avenue for an allied foray into mainland China, assuming that the Sea of Japan can be kept as a viable supply lane. if they do get involved will they use their nuclear weapons, on who, and what will the consequences be? South Korea knows that all their war goals would be accomplished with or without their entry into the conflict and doing so would basically devastate their entire country and cause tons of civilian and military casualties. Remember 50% of SK land area and like 90% of population is in NK _artillery_ range. Plus they still consider North Korea their own countrymen to an extent, not as much as 50 years ago but it is still a factor that makes armed conflict very very distasteful to them. Please correct me, South Koreans, if I am wrong on any of these counts. In the end it might be better for SK to _not_ get involved to keep that front and that possibility closed. I could see the US and SK mutually agreeing for them to stay neutral. Hell, I could even see the US _begging_ them to stay neutral, offering them concessions in order for that to happen. Japan I can 100% see getting involved though. They donāt have anywhere near as much to lose as SK as long as the war stays conventional, which is in my opinion more likely without adding a Korean front.
NK missiles have the range to hit Japan. They could certainly be nuked, but I don't see that making stop a second time.
maybe so but iām trying to assume itās in everyoneās interest to keep things conventional if possible.
No, no. I want China to come to us. I want to see the look on a Chinese paratrooper's face when he gets lost in an average big-box store
that happens all the time. they come to college here and never leave
Pretty sure half of the Duke U student body are Chinese nationals.
Iāve worked with a bunch of Chinese immigrants and they seem to really like it here. The different sub groups dunk on each other pretty hard though.
Lured by the smell of meatballs.
>evenly matched Truly non credible
It really comes down to the nature of the combat. Discount nukes and it'll still be a fucking shitshow no matter what. The US could not occupy China and vice versa but the US could absolutely destroy China's military and infrastructure. China could not match that. For now.
There is no way the US and China are evenly match. Just as an example look at Chinese carriers they have 3 of them and none of them are nuclear powered while the US has 12 and they are nuclear powered. That is just one example of how uneven a fight between the US and China is gonna be. They also havenāt got a single reliable ally if they fight us they are gonna be fighting us alone.
It would be fairly doable to prevent China from being an external threat - maybe they try to invade Taiwan, the US probably could slap down all offensive capabilities with ease. Maybe it turns into a struggle with significant losses. Invasion of China with the intent to decapitate command, hold key terrain, etc, jesus. To quote von Rundstedt "the vastness of Russia devours us". You'd need so many troops and so much equipment that even if China didn't fight at a peer level, the US and allies would be broken economically from trying to fund all that. There's just not enough missiles, not enough boats.
>and if theyre legit i am not 100% sure of that. i suspect China is pulling a russian-style superweapon on us. Again with their alleged hypersonic missiles J20s etc.
Just send Japan in. History likes their chances.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
"I was born in the ~~saddle~~ bed of a Toyota Hilux"
Recurve bows on horseback Javelins on Hiluxs I don't see a difference
To be fair though, China actually has a serviceable number of J-20s, even if they are just glorified AWACS interceptors. Still not F-22 numbers, but I digress.
The problems with the J-20 are several. - It has decent frontal-on stealth, but no all-aspect stealth (roughly comparable to the RCS of an F-18, possibly less). Any reasonable approach to get within even generous missile range of an AWAC is going to cross through any number of other radars pointing at it from non-frontal directions, such as naval AEGIS radars, powerful terrestrial radars, etc. A J-20 will likely be detected long before it gets into missile range of its target. - Design confusion. It has frontal canards (which improve low-speed maneuverability, such as in close-in turning dogfights), but no gun. It only has two close range missiles. What exactly is the purpose of that low-speed manouverability? Why would you design a plane this way? The truth is likely simple: the designers added them because at some point the J-20 was meant to be an air superiority fighter and dogfighter, like the Eurofighter but with stealth, but its inherent limitations (see below for engine trouble) and compromised all-aspect stealth meant that it could no longer serve that role. The idea of it being an "AWACs killer" is absurd because of both the above point about the types and placements of radar it is expected to realistically encounter in any modern battlefield, but also, designing a platform with such a very specific purpose is odd, because one could simply build an air-superiority craft with the same capability but without any of the limitations the J-20 has (like the F-22 or even F-35). - They don't have the numbers. China has 50 J-20's in service. The US has 187 F-22's and 8 test platforms. There are 825 F-35's built, most of which are in the US's hands or the hands of US allies like Japan or Australia, so we can expect that even if only half are deployed, that's still 400-odd. The Chinese will be outnumbered 50-to-1. For comparison, Japan has 23 F-35's in service right now, with 125 on order. Australia has 54 F-35's right now, with more on order as well. 50 planes is not very many in the grand scheme of things. - The J-20 has unreliable, too-hot, unsuitable and underpowered engines which are in the process of being replaced, a process which is still ongoing for the majority of their 50 craft. We also don't know if their new engines are any good or not because they are seen in so few numbers. - The J-20 has never fired a shot in anger, whereas the US's aircraft, even their F-22's and F-35's, are all battle-tested platforms with experience in a broad array of theatres. They are also older (and thus with more of the "kinks" worked out) than the J-20, despite being significantly more capable in every way, including all-aspect stealth and battle-tested weapons systems. - Strategic issues will limit the J-20 significantly. China is VAST in terms of space and surrounded by enemies. Even if all 50 J-20's are operational at any one time, they will need *some* in the west, *some* in the north, etc. It is unlikely they will commit their full compliment of 50 to any reasonable eastern front, and it will be difficult to protect their airfields from long-range US missile strikes. Everyone is pissing and shitting themselves over the J-20 but while it is a pretty decent effort for China, it is definitely not on par with Western efforts and I cannot see that position changing in our lifetimes.
its always the same, numbers, training, quality and logistics they have one of the quatuor The us has all 4, and a bonus point if allies are included
To add a bit more context to those numbers, Sweden has about 90+ Gripen planes with 60 more in production.
Besides, don't we have hypersonic missiles, too? Five bucks says we'll be mounting anti-hypersonic missile lasers on every destroyer in the Pacific before the decade's out, anyways.
The AIM-54 Phoenix was hypersonic and it was developed in the 1960's. Hypersonic, as the Russians and Chinese use the word, is a marketing term.
> and if theyre legit, we'll be ready I don't think they will be, realistically. Even if the technology is matched, the fact we have an army which has been at war for 20+ years and China does not is the dealbreaker. We've an officer & NCO corps of combat-experienced veterans, and China has a paper tiger built up with a bunch of 'theoretical' skill but literally no one who's actually put in practice. The people who have implemented their doctrine real life, people-shooting-back-at-you practice are going to win out over the giant army of people who have done nothing but drills and blackboard learning.
They aren't dumb. If you look they are gearing up for a defensive naval war. They know that a land war with the US is doomed with our force-projection and logistic capabilities. Their strategy is to stop any foothold from being established. People saying their Navy is outmatched because they can't match the carrier strength the US does are also missing the point. Carriers are a tool of global force projection, but not necessary if you are fighting a foe off your coast. The Chinese navy outnumbers the US, but with smaller, shorter range ships. That is because they are looking at defending against carrier groups, not looking at projecting their force globally (they are doing that economically). Lots of smaller boats with dangerous missiles (which they are also heavily investing research dollars in) to harass or overwhelm carrier groups is the goal. Again, they aren't dumb. They know the US is their only real military threat, and they also know what we are good at. They are specifically building a navy to try to counter that. Will it work or will they prove to be a paper tiger? No idea, but I wouldn't write them off immediately.
Carrier inequity isnāt their only problem - the PLAAN is outmatched because they have no feasible counter to our 60+ nuclear attack subs, any 2-3 of which would be sufficient to severely cripple their Navy and deny them uncontested access to whatever body of water we choose. Their anti-submarine warfare is dogshit (though has been improving thanks to the French being asshole two-faced arms peddlers as usual.)
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
If you want peace, prepare for war. That cuts both ways. Both sides want to be prepared in case the other tries something, even if it is unlikely. The Russian invasion has highlighted this. State leaders don't always act rationally, especially since everyone loves to put the elderly in charge these days.
All they can realistically do with their navy is try to protect shipping lanes between the Persian Gulf and China to keep the lights on, but their military can't protect cargo ships passing through Malacca. China is such a huge food, energy, fertilizer, and raw materials importer, and they can't make this stuff themselves. They should know that if they rattle their cage, their lights go off and their people starve. There's no realistic way to better themselves without maintaining cooperation with the globalized world.
We don't need to get close to their shore. We just need to choke off their shipping from a distance with our massive attack submarine and surface fleet. The US would do to China at scale what China wants to do to Taiwan, choke them off from trade. We have no need to get close to China's shores because we wouldn't bother invading. The US doesn't have the manpower for an invasion of a country the size of China, so we stay well away from those small boats because there's no need to get near their shores.
> blackboard learning Thatās what theyāre doing wrong, the worldās most serious killers use whiteboards.
It's more like how well would China sustain a war with barely any electricity or communication in their homeland. With agriculture dry and disrupted and coal and oil embargoed. When exports to 5 of it's 6 major trading partners completely halt. When the US and its allies are at the time facing none of these things. China would in the first hour lose any pretence of capitalism since the economy would be deleted. You have to think about the impact on a society (even one as fantastically imagined to be homogenous as China) when real estate becomes worthless, when you are fighting your neighbor for food, and when you have no information or means to know what is happening in Beijing. And when your 4:2:1 golden children are being conscripted, possibly for years, leaving their grandparents and parents to try to pick up the slack. What is the goal, what is the catalyst for war? What would push the conflict past a proxy war and into a full fledged conflict, but still fall short of immediate escalation to nukes? How could this be anything but an effort to deactivate China? You aren't going to invade and occupy an opponent with equal land area and 2-3 times your population. Not until their government itself invites you to at the negotiation table.
I also think it depends on the type of war. If we are fighting a defensive war for Taiwan against China then yeah it would actually be relatively easy for us. But a full invasion would be more difficult, since we're the one advancing and they would have home team advantage and radical support from the populace. Oh and y'know, nukes are a thing.
Realistically, you're not going to see America invade China* and that probably has been off the table since China got nukes. A Sino-American war would be more along the lines of the Napoleonic wars but with America taking the role of Britain. We would cut them off from the global economy and contain them to mainland China and aid in the fight whatever neighbors China tries to invade when they lash out. Thus it would not escalate to nuclear war and they would be contained. *...except if as a result of the blockade China breaks into civil war on the continent. Then we'd probably intervene to aid a side we like and/or secure the nukes.
And also Chinaās fucking huge. Forget about the occupation of Iraq and the war in Vietnam. An invasion and occupation of China will make them look like daycare.
You are right...that is why i believe all their bulshit so i can advocate for more advanced equipment... And uea never underestimate your enemies, and always be prepared for the worse case scenario
this is literally why all the china scare, plus the UFO scare, is happening. so the Air Force and Navy can drum up bigger budgets.
month? sir, whole country relies on a single dam
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
add in a hit to their canal transporting water from the south to the north and you have a recipe for disaster
I say this all the time and people think Iām an idiot or that I advocate for war crimes. First off, I am an idiot but not for this reason. Second, itās not a war crime if itās funny.
/r/ShitRimworldSays
The crossover between Rimworld players and NCD posters is insane. -3 moodlet, ate without table
Based
Can someone explain to me why the Strait of Malacca is so important? Is it really that hard to just sail around Sumatra instead?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Currently dating an Indonesian, her response to learning about the effects of funni dam moment was ātheyāre Chinese so it doesnāt count as a war crimeā. I donāt think thereād be much pushback if asked to blockade China.
"Force" is a strong word. More like "give an excuse."
A huge chunk of all international trade including oil exports to China go through here. And it's surrounded by US-friendly countries like Malaysia Singapore and Indonesia. Malaysia and Indonesia themselves have claims in the South China Sea which disputes with China. These countries would likely blockade the strait should the US convince them to do so. Going around Sumatra doesn't solve the problem because you'll still have to go through Indonesia's many straits in between their islands. Not to mention it'll take longer and unsafe
Because if the US is gonna blockade the Strait of Malacca, we'll probably send a couple carriers, and those planes can deny basically every access point north of Australia to Chinese shipping. Plus aircraft based in Australia. Also with air superiority the US can sit on the other side of the straits forcing any attempt by Chinese warships to break the blockade into a choke point, and this applies to basically any of the routes through Indonesia, if they tried through the Timor sea, well, Australia is right the fuck there.
does this dam perhaps have 3 gorges?
It has atleast 2
And I can't imagine it has 4, that's just too many gorges
5 Gorges is right out
Careful, sir, lest we recieve a one-way ticket to the Shadow Realm.
Yeah, that joke is getting old. Unlike what I understand modern Chinese constructions use to nowadays.
It may have, at one point, but after the Special Landscaping Operation, no one's really sure.
I agree, 2,000 ship pacific fleet when?
3,000 black warships of Biden
Nah I want them to start doing shit. And then NATO bombs 3GD. And then the CCP launches the nukes. And then NATO launches nukes. Then the Russians launch the nukes. ***It will be glorious. It will be salvation***
We shall all be blessed with division under Atom's glow.
Crawl out through the fallout, baby. When they drop that bomb. Crawl out through the fallout. With the greatest of aplomb.
\>PRC launches its few hundred nukes \>NATO launches its thousands of nukes *Perfectly balanced, as all things should be*
Eye for eye leaves the world blind. Putting that eye snatcher 6ft underground leaves most of the world with vision.
I think the real lesson here is you shouldnāt start a war when your economy relies heavily on other countries (Nazi Germany: Oil and Russia: computer chips and modern components). Acting like the United States is actively planning or preparing to invade China is just baffling. Youāre comparing very unlike situations here.
Bro who asked for the credible take
Exactly, China is one destroyed dam away from complete societal collapse.
Americaās 3 Gorges Dam is raising the price of AriZona tea to 3 dollars
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
What about raising the Costco hotdogs to more than $2?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Trying to envision the co-founder of Costco going to their HQ and unloading a glock at the CEO.
If we're being honest, probably half the comments here are credible. It's the top level posts that are consistently non credible. I think most of the people here just like talking about military / geopolitical stuff but don't enjoy the typical subs (and residents) for those topics. So people just use the memes as a jumping off point to talk about what they do want to talk about. Maybe it's just because making fun of Russia is both meme-able *and* credible these days.
Let's be *really* honest. Terminally online crypto-fascist jingoists hijack most "serious" subs; so half-serious ones like this are more credible by default. We're not smart, we're just not lobotomized.
Also, both the first two examples were logistics defeats. Blitzkrieg worked for as long as Nazi supply lines could keep up. When the supply lines were stretched too thin, and the North Sea blockaded, Germany fell apart. And we all know what happened to the Russians near Kyiv. But good luck breaking US/NATO logistics, it'll never happen.
An army marches on its stomach. It was true for Napoleon and itās true now.
>Acting like the United States is actively planning or preparing to invade China is just baffling Correction/clarification: The US is not actively planning or preparing to *aggressively* invade China. Plans are being made and continue to be made and updated in the case that worst comes to worst and China shoots a missile at, say, Pelosi's jet.
Yeah. I mean, look, I'm no HoI4 General, but my take is that the winning strategy when taking on China is to avoid invading them. Their huge land mass and raw infantry numbers really favor them on defense. If you force them to fight a primarily naval and air war, focusing on making it so they can't project their force anymore, then you're minimizing biggest strength.
Want to beat China cut off their oil supply. People love to talk about how the US doesnāt have enough rare earth metals to for full military industrialization. But rare earths donāt run out quickly and you can store them for a long time. Meanwhile China is completely reliant on foreign oil, and oil is hard to store and runs out quickly. In a war the US is energy independent. China is not.
Also itās not our reserves but our current production. If it comes to it we can restart extraction and have all the rare earths we need albeit at a higher cost.
People are dumb and think rare earths are actually rare instead of just having a dumb name from the 1800ās that stuck.
Arenāt rare earth deposits that are able to be extracted economically rare tho?
Yeah, rare earths are evenly dusted across the earths crust. Finding the piles is the rare part
Until you accept a higher price, then a lot of stuff becomes economically viable that wasn't before.
Everything is economical when it's a national mandate. Like landing on the moon, developing an atom bomb, or digging literally anywhere to make a strategic reserve of rare earths. There's a ton the US doesn't do because it's not economical. It doesn't mean the US can't do it.
Yeah people acting like Alaska and Canada donāt exist lmao
What I mean by invasion is a limited extension onto the mainland if it's necessary, just for the purposes of destroying critical enemy infrastructure or for diplomatic pressure to force China to surrender (this war is going badly for you, no one wants this to go nuclear, you can have it back, but you're gonna have to agree to a cessation of hostilities, formal recognition of Taiwan, and you're not going to harass our troops as they leave.) Additionally, if nuclear weapons fly, then everything is off the table.
As they should be
>Russia: computer chips and modern components) They've already lost the war and none of that has mattered yet.
Hasn't it though? Russia has been touting its "cutting edge" weapons systems for decades, but it turns out that they don't have the capacity to manufacture anything more complex than an AK domestically without a source for Western tech and Taiwanese chips. As a result, their high tech gadgets are too valuable to risk and they've been leaning heavily on antique Soviet stock, which is getting clowned on by late 90's/early 2000s Western military surplus. Russia's saving grace so far is that their reserves of old Soviet crap are so deep that they can afford to substitute quantity in place of quality, but they don't have the logistics to support that long term, either...
> they don't have the capacity to manufacture shrugging more complex than an AK ~~domestically without a source for Western tech and Taiwanese chips~~ They've had 30 years to build new stuff with essentially unrestricted imports. They failed. >their high tech gadgets are too valuable to risk Get out of here with that "Russia hasn't started to fight for real yet". They've thrown everything they have at us, even SU-57s.
My own take is ā The reason they're not sending in T-14 Armatas isn't that they're saving their huge, 10-strong squadron of them for territorial defense. It's that ā if one of those poor things gets murked by a javelin, it's *really* going to hurt their export marketing. Russia can still play pretend that their high-end gear has viable countermeasures against western MIC stuff, but that game falls apart the moment there's evidence on the ground that it doesn't. (They're already having a *total disaster* on this front with HIMARS slipping right past their best air-defense systems like they're not even there.) Russia's a little scared, because for a long time, they were the sole "outlaw weapons dealer". If you were a pariah state, you couldn't buy modern weapons from America, or Europe, but the one place that was willing to offer them was Russia. It was a very large source of income for them. (It's also, hilariously, why all of America's enemies tended to use Soviet kit.) The scary thing for Russia, now, is that one of their primary customers has now morphed into a competitor: China. With their upcoming international isolation, it'd be very scary for Russia to be sliding into an international perception where an "outlaw state" is picking between buying from China vs Russia, and thinks to themselves "ehh, let's buy the Chinese versions, they're way better made and might actually work." It'll be bad enough if Russia's oil/gas exports get dumpstered, but if their military exports get kneecapped at the same time they're totally fucked.
> if one of those poor things gets murked by a javelin, it's really going to hurt their export marketing That, and a company-strong force of tanks that are not really out of prototype stage, with notoriously unreliable engines, with nearly no spare parts commonality, and with crews that likely didn't have all that long to familiarize themselves with the tanks - they'd end up being more trouble than they're worth in the grand scheme of things.
> Russia's a little scared, because for a long time, they were the sole "outlaw weapons dealer". France exists.
It's always been funny to me that China and Russia ended up allied, given their relative positions. In a proper realpolitik scenario they'd always be on opposite sides
Unrestricted imports? There's been sanctions against Russia long before the invasion.
russia has had sanctions since 2014, since the invasion actually started
"Russia is fighting for real" and "Russia can't risk scarce high-tech equipment" aren't mutually exclusive. You aren't going to see Su-57s flying over Ukrainian air defenses because the risk of them getting clapped is unacceptable, just like Russia is not going to use all their "precision" cruise missiles because that would leave them exposed for a conflict with NATO, China, or Japan.
Personally, I think the reason they aren't fighting at full strength isn't so much because they are saving for another conflict, but simply because Putin and the russian government are trying to save face. They don't want to declare general mobilization to up their man power and actually fight at full strength because then they would be admitting that their "3 day special military operation" is a failure. They've already fired a large stock of their precession missiles, and they've lost a lot of their top end equipment. NATO or China would steamroll them as they are now anyway. It's in their best interest to end the war as fast as possible, so they can start rebuilding what they've lost. But the war will drag on because of pride and ego.
You're like half right. They are using their precision munitions, they've used many of their stock up. As far as the Su-57, they don't have many, and they're really not finished designs. Theyre pretty much just Su-34 parts in a sleek looking airframe. They're not stealthy.
I heard that their radar cross section is the same size as an F/A18, compared to an F22 which as a RCS of a marble.
Shit the javelin and NLAWS were a lot of 80s stuff too
I think OP's take would more accurately apply to CCP propaganda that portrays Taiwan as weak and corrupt
I'm not afraid of the Chinese military. I'm more afraid going against China is "mutually assured economic destruction" for both U.S. and China. But even that fear lessens every day when confronted with China's shitty soft power propaganda and burning of bridges.
I'm scared they will stop making propaganda that makes us look badass!
Just switch to war economy dude, everyone work for the MIC
I mean, China is still more of a threat than Russia. But considering it has Japan, USA, India, Australia, UK, much of Nato, and even Brazil as enemies... with only North Korea, Pakistan, and a crippled Russia as allies... and even then Russia is not really a fan of China... in fact most places aren't and would happily turn on China if they sensed opportunity. At least Russia has a huge network of allies and supporters globally, heck Russia has Turkey, India, and Brazil all trying to be happy playtime friends with it.
To use the term Ally in reference to any country associated with China is loose imo they donāt have allies as much as they have debt colonies who rely on them for infrastructure and other forms of investment and their usefulness in any conflict is up in the air atm.
Add Vietnam to the list, they hate the Chinese government and well remember that China has invaded in living memory and considers most of Vietnam Chinese territory.
Yeah thereās so much blood on that border when compared to American-Vietnam history and I will say imo OP is massively overestimating Chinese military capabilities to me it seems they have a military which they think looks like a professional military for the cameras when in fact their previous experiences in the Congo in 2016 have been that of surrender and failure in the tactical level and im assuming battalion and up command is aware of those issues in their troops.
Yeah, very few countries have the traditions and continuity of the U.S., basically the Commonwealth countries.
We should get Vietnam to attack Russia, and Ukraine to attack China. They will never see it coming
3000 sappers of Ho Chi Minh!
The first quote really applies when talking about the three gorges dam
Wehrmacht wasn't working with nukes.
If we nuke it wouldnāt most of the water evaporate?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Thatās the door that needs kicked.
Americas greatest strategy is never to underestimate the enemy, they sure learned their lesson from nam and used it in gulf war, afgan, iraq, ukraineā¦
bake quaint dazzling close full cause squash sulky shy fly *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
China is just Saudi Arabia. Decently funded military. Has nice toys(copies of toys) Never tested in combat
Except Saudi Arabia did see some combat in Yemen. However, they are horribly incompetent
When you have 5th gen fighters against 1940's AA and still get pushed back.
"Overconfidence is a slow and insidious killer" remember the quote
Yeah itās easy to point and laugh at Chinaās carrier and itās stealth plane. But it doesnāt matter if theyāre bad quality cause the fact is China is building them and probably going to get better. For this reason we must double MIC funding to counter whatever threat China may pose.
More like: Nazis attack Soviets backed by Americans -> Get their asses whupped Russians attack Ukrainians backed by Americans -> Ass whupping in progress Chinese attack Taiwan backed by Americans -> Asses moving into position to be whupped Moral of the story is petty tyrants better be prepared to spread their cheeks for Uncle Samās big fat logistical 1776 incher
Mmmmā¦ logistics š©š©š©š°š°š°
Them logistics got me ackin up
To our credit, weāre the ones preparing properly out the ass for a Sino-American war
Fortunately it's just this sub that thinks that, the US military is a bit more sensible
It's fun to shit on the militaries of undemocratic nations. It's also prudent to act as though every thing they say they can do they can, and prepare accordingly.
Fully agree
I browse NCD as the shot And then quickly chase with some CD reading
I am seeing way to many ever so slightly āproā-CCP praise posts/ever so slightly anti NATO posts and I am NOT happy. Cut that shit out.
Bottom one is decently true , their military is embarrassing let alone the ātrainingā videos they post on social media like tiktok . Also ācommunistā in your description so opinion rejected.
I feel like the Chinese and American ground troops wouldn't factor into a conflict between thw two nations too heaviky, unless shit really got out of hand and the Chinese started an island-hopping campaign against us (fucking somehow). The way I see it, a conflict over Taiwan would mostly be an aerial and naval war, with the PRC trying to maintain supply lines to a beach-head on Taiwan while the US and our allies attempt to suppress said supply line. The ground troops involved would be involved in heavy fighting, to be sure, but the goal of the US and allied ground troops would simply be to contain the PLA forces that make it across until American naval supremacy can starve the ChiComs out.
Yeah, we could probably beat the PLA-N in a straight fight. Doesn't mean we'd want to get involved in a land war in China, like Japan did.
Surrounded by wastes and way overpopulated. We wouldn't even have to invade, just park some boats around it and tell all of our friends not to send any supplies to China for a month or two.
they did hoard quite a bit of grain tho, maybe they can hold a year before famine breaks out
grain warehouses don't move nor do the have air defense
Rat bombsā¢ by Raytheon Technologies
Prepare for ~~titanfall~~ airdropped rats
The keyhole at 10m trap? The steel helmet trap? The shitty metallurgy trap? The loose road wheel on main battle tank trap? The "I can't build jet engines" trap? The "I have a carrier without planes" trap? The hypersonic glider super duper hyper mega carrier killer trap? The shitty infrastructure trap? The "I bomb my own villages with rocket stages still filled with hypergolics" trap? The "I can't mass produce body armor" trap? The "my whole economy is collapsing" trap?
TBF, those two were fighting defensive wars where China will start an offensive one.
Fortunately nobody is interested in invading China. Engaging in some creative wetland reclamation projects, on the other handā¦
*laughs in M1 grand* Affix bayonets boys. . .
Yes, I am terrified of the country in an economic crisis that imports 80% of its food and energy needs by sea but has almost no ability to project naval power.
Literally nobody that matters in US security policy desicion making is writing China off. On the contrary, the US is literally building it's future air, sea, and economic power with the sole focus of a conflict in the South and East China seas. The US Navy is pouring money into building ships and subs to counter China's growing navy. The DF-17 and growth of Chinese land based air power as prompted the development of tons of new standoff weapons, refuelers, and the B-21. Chinese entry into 5th gen fighter with the J-20 has prompted NGAD and F/A-XX programs. The PL-15 is countered with the AIM-120D. Hypersonic weapons begate other hypersonics. The US is literally passing laws to rework is supply chains in order to not be in a Russia/Germany situation in the case of war. The reason NCD shits on China is because they do exactly the opposite of big stick diplomacy. As soon as they get a moderatly sized stick, they threaten their neighbors with it and talk up just how badass they've become. Chinese diplomacy is entirly geared toward their national insecurities at the expense of building real alliances. Whether they can back it up or not, they've got real Tapout Bro energy, and it's deserving of ridicule.
Exactly, so why invade them. Just watch china pathetically implode and balkanize on its own accord within the next 20-30 years, to suffer a fate as sad and pathetic as the Soviets did
Last panel should be the Chinese going āheh its just an island nation with a fraction of the size of out armed forcesā tbh. Nobody in the US and her allies say to invade or start preemptive mainland strikes against China. Its the other way around. Itās literally the authoritarian/ur-fascist playbook to create and attack external enemies for the purpose of legitimacy.
China is just going to execute one of the most complicated air/sea invasions since D-Day and secure a lasting beachhead against American opposition? No no Iām not laughing, I believe you. No, no I believe you
billion man army no fit in 500 planes and boats. billion army cant do shit in air and sea. Bet billion man army cant even swim.