Comments by "Alan Friesen" (@alanfriesen9837) on "Binkov's Battlegrounds" channel.

  1.  @someguy3766  NATO is only bound if the United States is attacked first. If the U.S. attacks, our NATO allies are not required to fight (see Vietnam War/Iraq War).
    25
  2. The German navy at Jutland was only a four decades old. The Japanese Imperial Navy was developed in the 1870s as well.
    21
  3. I suspect China is concentrating on development rather than on mission. In part because of the costs of these ships I doubt that China will produce more than one of any design until they feel like it can go toe-to-toe with the American equivalent.
    17
  4. If Finnish armies started showing up in Lithuania in this scenario, I think it's likely that Russia would attack Finland itself.
    15
  5.  @robbrown4621  The term he used was formidable. Are you suggesting the German navy was not formidable?
    12
  6.  @beniaminosani2719  We in The United States regularly overestimate the amount of people that we think agree with us. We listen to the relatively well-off (middle and upper—professional—classes), including the expat community, and assume that they speak for the majority. It's not that these people aren't important, but they have much more bark than bite. In most countries the working class, in some cases the underclass, is much larger and the military is much more powerful, and they're usually not friendly towards their bourgeois countrymen. These groups can be overpowered, like in Iraq or Libya, but the results are still terribly messy and rarely lead to the healthy liberal democracies that Americans and like-minded allies think they're helping to create.
    11
  7. I think the real question is: which side would the United States blindly support and supply?
    11
  8. Israel is on Israel's side. They look after themselves—as they should.
    11
  9. True, they also underestimate China and Russia.
    10
  10. Same goes for China and the United States.
    10
  11.  @abraham2172  The EU has the same problems that the Holy Roman Empire had or that the American states had under the Articles of Confederation. If a United Europe formed up with a strong central government then they would be a superpower rivaling the United States and China. They would certainly surpass the power of Russia. But until they do, they will not be a superpower. Of course, many Europeans don't want to be a superpower. And Russia absolutely doesn't want them to become one.
    10
  12. Perhaps the only way the battle would have been possible would be through alliances. You could have a scenario where the Romans and the Persians had an alliance and the Chinese and the Bactrians had an alliance and the two forces each made up of two armies faced off somewhere in Transoxiana.
    9
  13. There's very little that is realistic about this scenario. China has no beef with Singapore. In fact Singapore is probably one of the most China-friendly polities in the region. So if you can imagine China attacking Singapore, you can imagine Malaysia not getting involved.
    9
  14.  @robbrown4621  Absolutely agree. If you're going to kill the king, kill the king.
    7
  15. Sorry about being a jerk guys, but damn our military is awesome.
    7
  16.  Doglover extrem  Underestimate Russia at your peril. Russia is never as weak as she looks.
    6
  17.  @nathanielalaburgDelhi  One would hope so.
    6
  18. Underestimation of an enemy has never led to an unexpected defeat.
    6
  19.  Doglover extrem  The USA can only count on NATO if Russia is the aggressor. If Russia is attacked by the United States, than NATO is not obligated to support U.S. forces. You may be right about the far east. Bringing over and supplying American forces by sea may be easier than bringing in Russian forces and supplying them through Siberia. At some point westward that balance reverses though. If the goal of the United States is to take and hold a chunk of Eastern Siberia then that may be achievable in the short and medium terms.
    5
  20.  @kingofchebureki3448  Perhaps. It would definitely be a completely different kind of conflict than an attack limited to Singapore. China's enemies would have more resources, but the Chinese army would have direct access to the battlefield and the difficulties of strictly maritime air operations would be somewhat mitigated.
    5
  21.  @Dies1r4e  China is just like every other country. They'll attack another country if they believe it is in their best interest. Most of the time attacking another country has greater costs than benefits. China is pretty rational in its policies. I think Singapore is pretty safe.
    5
  22.  Doglover extrem  I think extremely hostile terrain, and lots of it, along with the top air defense system in the world, durable weapons systems (compared to NATO models) that are easier to replace. The U.S. might steamroll Russia. But I wouldn't bet money on it if the conflict took place in Russia. Now, on neutral ground, absolutely the United States would win. But why on Earth would Russia fight the United States on neutral ground?
    4
  23. I don't think you're going to see Korea jumping on board.
    4
  24. Their utility in war is something that can be debated, but they are very valuable during peacetime for securing and defending trade routes.
    4
  25. The Chinese will not attack unless they are confident they can win. Right now that is not the case. Eventually the Taiwan issue will have to be resolved because the Chinese are not giving up their claim on it. If the United States draws first blood, and in Binkov's scenario above that would almost certainly be the case, the world might not side with the United States regarding sanctions and such.
    4
  26.  @Theoryofcatsndogs  I haven't been to either location so I can only go on what I've heard. From what I understand of Tibet, China is investing substantially in the autonomous region. That has led to the improvement and modernization of the lives of of most Tibetans. That, of course, means that some of the folks invested in the past are unhappy, this includes most of the exile community in India whose families were the beneficiaries of the old medieval theocratic system. There are some instances of friction as many Chinese of non-Tibetan ethnicity have migrated into the region in search of economic opportunities. Though most fold up shop within a few years and leave, many have made lives for themselves in the region, and there are concerns of the loss of influence of the ethnically Tibetan Chinese within their own autonomous region. In an effort to fight inequality along ethnic lines the central government has initiated a slough of affirmative action programs, most notably policies favoring Tibetan students on university entrance exams and those supporting ethnic Tibetan entrepreneurs. I know that several years ago there were a couple cases of monks self-immolating in protest. I have to admit that I'm not sure exactly what they were protesting, and I don't want to be overly dismissive of their concerns, but I cannot ignore the fact that they represented what had been the ruling class prior to 1959 and who are no-longer allowed to enslave the populace. My understanding about Xinjiang is that it is an autonomous province with a heavy police presence largely due to a surge in domestic terrorism in the early years of this century. General chaos and religious fundamentalism in the countries to Xinjiang's west were imported into the region by jihadists whose strategy was, in part, to promote a Uighur separatist state called East Turkistan which would be based on Shari'a law and ethnic purity which cost the lives of many moderate Muslims including at least one Uighur Imam. This situation was then exascerbated by an incident in eastern China where a rumor was started that some Uighur men raped a co-worker, which resulted in a murderous attack on over a hundred Uighurs in Shaoguan. News of this event then triggered a riot in Urumqi in which UIghurs attacked Han Chinese. The Chinese government executed the man who started the original rumor, which, though I understand, I don't approve of being that I'm an opponent of the death penalty. With the province spiraling into violence, the government embarked on campaign to reduce fundamentalism and separatism in the region. At this point, multiple narratives emerge. The police presence increased substantially. Educational material in Xinjiang's schools were reviewed for separatist ideology and symbolism and several administrators that had been responsible for promoting separatist doctrine in Xinjiang's textbooks were convicted of treason and jailed. Xinjiang's citizens were surveilled for interest in fundamentalist or separatist information, and those caught were taken into reeducation camps. I'm sure many of them were largely innocent—they just looked at the wrong website. China admits that these reeducation centers existed. China says that the purpose of the centers was two-fold. The first goal was to inform the detainees of the dangers of fundamentalism and separatism, the degree to which their country disapproved of such things, how much their country cares for them, and how important it is for them to be good Chinese citizens, so, what you might charitably call patriotic brainwashing. The second goal was to provide vocational education and certification so that the graduates of the program could have happy and productive lives within the broader Chinese system. Now the critics of these systems claim that up to a million Uighurs out of a population of 12 million have been brought into this system. They claim that people have been tortured and killed in these programs and that they've been used as slave labor. The Chinese claim that everybody who went through this system has completed the program and that they have been released and allowed to move on with their lives. While the accusations of systemic abuses are unsubstantiated and highly suspect, I certainly don't doubt that there were instances of abuse. The same is true of any system of detention pretty much everywhere, but of course that doesn't excuse it. The questions I have for the government regarding the program are "Why don't I see more profiles of people who have supposedly successfully completed the program?", and "Surely there are some people who failed to give up on their old views, what happened to them?" I haven't seen answers that satisfy me on these questions and I do fault the Chinese on the breadth of their dragnet. Though I don't believe they came anywhere close to a million people detained, I'm pretty sure they detained more than what was appropriate. Even with my misgivings though, I still think that brainwashing jihadists into patriotic citizens over a year or two and teaching them a trade is much better than locking them up for decades at a time, like the dumb kid we framed in Portland to try to blow up Pioneer Square. And while these reeducation camps have legitimate human rights complaints, as near as I can tell, they're not concentration camps—they're damn sure not death camps. They seem to be much less damaging to those inside than, say, American prison, and they in no way make China comparable to Nazi Germany.
    4
  27.  @Tekisasubakani  BUsiness are concerned about short-term profits. China takes advantage of it.
    4
  28. That's not the Second Korean War, that's World War Three.
    4
  29. Transit would be a limiting factor. Pipelines and rail connections are being built but for the immediate future it wouldn't completely make up for loss of shipping.
    4
  30. Though I don't know, I think this may be part of the reason that China appears to have shelved their type 005 and type 006 developments. You could load a much smaller ship with drones and China is at the forefront of AI development.
    3
  31.  Doglover extrem  I don't think I agree with you.
    3
  32.  @joemikey278  I agree that much of the South China Sea should be outside of credible claims for China, however, the Chinese don't see it that way for two reasons. The first is that they've been able to acquire an ancient map that described those waters as Chinese. The Chinese position isn't so much that these were Chinese waters so much as that these waters were part of Imperial China and therefore are now part of modern China. This is a difference in cultural perspective that most non-Chinese dismiss. There is also the practical importance of these waters. Because so much of Chinese trade passes through these waters they want to be able to make sure they're not going to be blockaded there (The Japanese and Koreans could say the same, but balance of power and all). I suspect that in the end the Chinese are going to win this fight. But for the immediate future it's just going to be awkward and uncomfortable for everyone.
    3
  33.  @joemikey278  I think we're largely in agreement. My point about an attack on carriers is that if we weren't at war prior to the sinking of a carrier, we would be immediately thereafter. Military leadership in China is very hawkish indeed and part of the challenge of the Chinese premiership is keeping the generals on a leash while still maintaining their political support. I do think Premier Xi is up to the challenge on that one, though it is reasonable to be concerned about potential successors. Regardless of what the Chinese generals say or think, a full-blown military contest with the United States at this time would be a disaster for them. It probably would be no picnic for the United States either with heavy losses at sea and in the air. How and why it all started would play a big role in both domestic and international support for the U.S. operations. If a carrier were taken out just because it was patrolling the South China Sea then the U.S. population would almost certainly rally 'round the need to avenge the attack. If after a declaration of independence China began military operations to reincorporate Taiwan and the United States injected itself and then took casualties because of that then global and domestic support for the United States would be more tepid. I'd still put my money on the U.S. Navy as the ultimate victor for at least the next two decades either way. I wanted to say something about this part of your post: "Maybe Egypt should claim the entire Mediterranean sea, because they have ancient trade route maps. How about Norway/Vikings claiming the entire Baltic Sea. They were the first to establish sailing routes there! So, for most of the rest of the world, the South China Sea maritime claims along with East China Sea Maritime claims seem stupid silly and against modern international law!" The reason the South China Sea claims are not "stupid silly" is because unlike Egypt and Norway, in a couple of decades China's going to have the wherewithal to back up their claim practically. China cares a lot more about the territory than it does about international convention and because those rules were set up at a time of Chinese weakness the Chinese leaders will be quite comfortable dismissing them once they are powerful enough to do so, saying that their needs weren't considered at the time. They will have the support of the Chinese people and probably some others with non-conforming claims or a desire to ingratiate themselves with the Chinese. The East China Sea claims are actually more legitimate in the big picture, but not the way Beijing is painting it. The Daiyou islands were returned to China along with the rest of occupied China including Taiwan by the Allies after the defeat of the Japanese in 1945. Being that the PRC never took the islands during the Chinese Civil War the islands are still part of the Republic of China currently residing on Taiwan. If the PRC government were taking advice from me they would back the Taiwanese claim on the islands understanding that at some point most likely around 2049 they'd get them back anyway as Taiwan is reintegrated into the People's Republic one way or another. Of course they have no reason to listen to me so they don't.
    3
  34. Russia as it currently operates would probably see this as an opportunity to unseat the U.S. as world superpower and see China reduced at the same time. They'll probably side with the Chinese, which if they do so openly would really change the calculus. Unless China has done something horrific I can't see Europe sending support and even countries like Korea may want to see how things play out before securing the long-term enmity of the colossal neighbor.
    3
  35.  @errormatrix4159  So what if it wasn't a case of clear Russian aggression? What if one or more of the Baltic states poked the bear?
    3
  36.  @erikdekter2384  No I'm not. I don't think it's likely that one or more of the Baltic nations would antagonize Russia beyond passive-aggressive rhetoric, but if a nationalist government threatened the welfare of the ethnic Russians living within their state, I could see Russia considering that as provocation. And frankly, it would be.
    3
  37.  @Theoryofcatsndogs  The CPC is nothing like the Nazis. They're not racists, they're not warmongers, they certainly aren't wholesale murderers. Your comparison is disgusting.
    3
  38. Carriers are more effective in some situations than in others. Marines are going to need air support and if the target is a long way from a friendly airfield the carrier can provide that. Certainly in a conflict with a relatively weak foe carriers can act as effective hammers as well as contribute to the area air superiority. Also, during peacetime nothing says "Don't ignore me!" quite like a visit from a carrier group. The costs and rebuild times of capital ships seem to have made naval powers reluctant to engage each other at least during the World Wars. It's during these all-or-nothing wars though that we really learn which weapons can get by which defenses and how vulnerable these vessels actually are. Of course there are other less direct influences on this as well, especially the ability, or inability, of a force segment to avoid detection. Also, things like communications interception and code-breaking have played huge roles in who defeats whom especially in the open ocean. And then there is luck: A commander who dooms their people by engaging prematurely without enough information to make a sound decision could on the other hand be the commander who doesn't seize the opportune moment because s/he is afraid to engage without a better understanding of the battlefield details. Sometimes being aggressive is the path to victory, other times it's the best way to get slaughtered, but I digress. The supercarrier is a remarkable weapon, and given the choice, I'd rather enter the war with a fleet of them than without, and I think that will be the case for some time.
    3
  39. The Russians are rotating, but yeah, Putin may have trapped himself a bit with his declaration that he won't be using conscripts in battle.
    3
  40.  @nehronghamil4352  But not on the front lines, presumably.
    3
  41. Perhaps, but not necessarily. NATO is only obligated to participate if the United States is attacked, not if the United States gets involved in a civil war on the other half of the world. Our other allies are no more sincerely obligated. That's not to say they won't show. They might. Then again, they might not.
    3
  42. I doubt your definition of the whole world extends beyond the friends of the United States. The west isn't totally in control anymore and it certainly doesn't represent the whole world.
    3
  43. It was an excellent idea for a country with a runaway population. That policy has a lot to do with China's current success.
    3
  44. As is any capital ship.
    3
  45.    I think Maduro's support among "the common man" is definitely on the decline. But that is his base and he's certainly more popular in that demographic than he is with the doctors and lawyers.
    2
  46.  @triumphant39  As a fellow American I think there is a flaw in your logic. Anything can happen over time and China surpassing the United States militarily at some point is no more ridiculous than assuming that the United States would one day surpass the might of the British Empire back in the day. The U.S. military today is much larger than the Chinese military and will be for some time. Right now the U.S. is producing large stocks of modern cutting edge equipment which is the best in the world. While China is technologically behind the U.S. it is concentrating on producing a few cutting edge armaments so that it can catch up technologically without sinking more resources into production of what may yet be inferior platforms beyond what's necessary to mount a credible defense of its territory and maybe a little intimidation of its weaker neighbors. I suspect once the Chinese feel confident in the parity of Chinese weapons and training to that of the United States you'll probably see a lot more production. And because weaponry and training become obsolete quickly, numerical parity of effective weaponry can be achieved in a relatively short time once the arms race is on. A really good example of this is Soviet Russia vs. Nazi Germany in WWII.
    2
  47.  @joemikey278  If China destroys an American carrier battle group then the two countries are at war. Should the United States attack Chinese territory with nuclear weapons (assuming that China didn't use nuclear weapons to destroy the carriers) than that would be a serious escalation and probably more than what non-Trumpian military commanders would order because it very well could lead to mutually assured destruction. We believe that the United States has a lot more nuclear weapons than China. And that may very well be correct, though China has what is believed to be a nationwide tunnel complex worthy of a herd of Bond villains and if we know what's in those tunnels it hasn't made it to my ears. Neither side has any strong desire to go to war with the other but China has a lot of unfinished business in the region and the status quo that we're trying to preserve is one that the Chinese don't feel like they have any investment in or expected return on. But the Chinese are careful and smart and usually the Americans are too. Both sides are perfectly happy to shake their finger at each other without picking up any rocks.
    2
  48. China's growth rate in 2023 was 5.2 percent. You can't have peaked if you're still growing. The U.S. grew at 4.9 percent in the same period. You could argue that China's growth is not substantially outpacing the United States' growth at this time, but that's not the same as peaked.
    2
  49. Putin hasn't said he intends to go to war. Western observers are extrapolating this intention from troop movements within Russia which are meant at least in part to intimidate the Ukraine. Putin's basically saying, "I'm not gonna kill you, but I can if I want to."
    2
  50.  @vadfarkas14  About half of the Americans at the time of the revolution spoke German. I don't think language is that much of a barrier, but history…? Whether or not it ever comes to pass, Europe will be a superpower if they form a superstate. If they do not, then they will not. It's up to the people in Europe to decide whether they're willing to accept the costs in order to reap the benefits. I never said it was inevitable.
    2
  51.  @neolink8197  Actually there was a great deal of German immigration into the colonies and much of the interior was peopled by German speakers, particularly in Pennsylvania and what would later be Ohio. I was probably a little generous to suggest half of the population. I've been looking for numbers with limited success. I did come across one source that suggested that the vast majority of German speakers were first generation immigrants and that most colonists born in America had shifted to English. As to the Hessian mercenaries, they were a result of the same phenomenon that had so many Germans coming to America looking for a new future. Basically, with the destruction of the Holy Roman Empire in the Thirty-Years War (1618-1648) Germany was left in chaos with minor principalities, including the Electorate of Hesse-Kassel, trying to find their way in what was left of central Europe. Germany wouldn't be reunified until the North German Confederation was formed in 1867 and German speakers outside of Prussia, Austria and Bavaria were under severe pressure just to survive.
    2
  52.  Saroshi  I always thought you could fill a freighter with cheap drones especially if they have sufficient AI to not require a pilot. I've wondered recently though if this isn't old technology. I mean what's the practical difference between a suicide drone and a missile?
    2
  53.    Aircraft carriers can be very effective in some situations. Most of America's foes are not China and being able to bring that kind of air power near the coast of any other country is a huge benefit. Carriers are good for policing and protecting trade routes and they are great for diplomatic posturing. The degree to which they would be an asset or liability in this particular scenario is not known, because it has not been tested. The loss of the Japanese carriers in WWII was the beginning of the end of the Japanese navy. Once air superiority was established ground support and logistics protection were greatly enhanced by the presence of American flattops. Of course now the question of vulnerability to anti-ship missiles comes in to play. The Chinese PLAN has been pouring boatloads of research and investment into the development of Carrier-killer missiles while the United States has been developing counter-measures in response. Also, at some point somebodies going to develop a much smaller carrier filled with squadrons of drones to engage the ships and aircraft of the other side. These may be a lot cheaper and may put a much smaller contingent of sailors and naval aviators at risk in what would otherwise be carrier operations. It may be that tomorrow's battle carrier looks more like a toy shop.
    2
  54.  Elevated Status  No one outside of the Western hemisphere has the capacity to attack U.S. soil unless you're referring to a nuclear attack. Frankly, it's not going to happen. Americans don't love war, but we hate looking weak, and that combined with a belief that only democratic countries have their people's interests at heart as well as our possession of the world's strongest military sometimes leads us to decisions that history kind of frowns on. Americans love the people of the world so long as they're not trying to enter through our southern border (argument for a different thread), and what we do we do out of love, admittedly a sick and twisted love, but love none-the-less. In the movie "Caddyshack" the judge played by Ted Knight told Danny that "I've sent younger boys than you to the gas chamber; but it was for their own good." There's a bit of a Judge Smails vibe running through the American psyche, especially regarding foreign policy.
    2
  55.  Gavin Guzicki  I think it was a PR stunt. If anything we should have fewer branches of service. There was no good reason to elevate the Army Air Corp into the Air Force, it just complicated the command chain and created a branch of service with no consideration of casualties. This creation of a "Space Force" is even worse. The orbital military assets and strategy should be determined by the needs of the Army and Navy and they should be controlled by those branches.
    2
  56. Ooooh, you get down with your jingoist self!
    2
  57.  @LocalBloodAngelEnjoyer  I'm not so sure. I think American soldiers are as good as any in the world, but I'm pretty sure that the Chinese soldiers are perfectly competent as well.
    2
  58.  @jakegold5495  The Russians and the Chinese both have strong economic relationships with both countries but they don't seem to be quite as involved. I think these other countries' support would be the third question. First which side does the U.S. end up on? Second, Where do Iran and Egypt end up in this conflict? Third, how about China, Russia, Europe, and Turkey? And fourth, how about the rest of the world?
    2
  59.  @jakegold5495  It would be really interesting to see how the cookies crumbled. It's hard to guess because they both have the same allies and adversaries.
    2
  60.  @CedarHunt  You're confusing war with occupation.
    2
  61.  @LazyDrug-nz1cf  Western accounts of what occurred in Syria in the last decade proved extremely inaccurate. It's curious that people don't remember this. I don't know that anybody's numbers can be trusted. Both sides have reasons for cooking the books. I tend to trust the Russian numbers over the Ukrainian numbers, but I also am slightly more sympathetic to the Russian side.
    2
  62. Dropping a plane from a carrier deck is the president's fault?
    2
  63.  @MrFlatage  That buck should have stopped well below the presidential level. Honestly, this is an expected periodic consequence of regular training. While the cost of this aircraft and the sensitivity of the tech on it should trigger an investigation, I don't know that anyone should be held to account for this. After all, you don't want carrier captains to be reluctant to conduct training exercises or show-of-force aerial operations.
    2
  64.  @MrFlatage  I'm American, and you're obnoxious. Have a good day.
    2
  65.  @MrFlatage  I wasn't going to respond to you again but I'm a sucker. I'm not going to discuss most of your diatribe but I am curious about one thing. You say that I "…cannot offer proof to [my] own words and claims." I haven't stated any facts or anything claiming to be facts. What exactly are you expecting me to prove?
    2
  66. Kevin, everything you said about the Chinese navy is true, but much of it applies to the U.S. navy as well. The USN, the most powerful maritime unit in human history, is itself untested. The combat that it has participated in since 1945 has been against adversaries with no ability to challenge the sheer mass of firepower and defense that the USN presents. None of the current leadership in the navy was around when their was any kind of equity in combat capability and sailors had to be motivated to fight in battles that could very well end up with all hands lost. And even if they were, the game has changed so much since then that, except for the raw grit, the experience would be of limited value. As to your numbered points, I don't know how training compares. I know the Chinese were very concerned about the training that their airmen were receiving after a dismal set of wargames about half a decade ago, but I believe that they are attempting to address that; I do not know how successful they have been with that. I think China's technology is very close to on par with the United States and will probably exceed it sometime in the next decade. I think the U.S. has a very slight edge on proven leadership which I explained above, and I think the tactics advantage is undeterminable because effective tactics for fighting a peer competitor in this day and age are completely untested. There are two other considerations, the first of which is location, if the fighting is off the coast of China or Taiwan then China will have a lot more other assets to bare from land locations. Likewise, if it were off the coast of the United States or say, Cuba, the U.S. would have an overwhelming tactical advantage. The second is industrial capacity, which only really plays out in a long conflict. I think China holds a substantial advantage there, though that could be mitigated if the U.S. were able to successfully attack enough of China's factories.
    2
  67. When it comes to stoking internal disruptions, the Russians are in good company.
    2
  68.  @outman6207  When was the first edition published? Oh yeah, 2001.
    2
  69.  @charlesdoesstuff7379  I beg to differ about nobody having issues with Chinese sovereignty. If that was the case then the rest of the world would be encouraging Taiwan to negotiate their incorporation into the PRC, and nobody would have been sending political and material support to the Hong Kong separatists a few years ago. That being said, Chinese claims in the South China Sea are, shall we say, ambitious, regardless of whether or not they go back hundreds of years. The South China Sea claims are something that China needs to work out with the other claimants. I think it's perfectly all right to back other countries in their claims and try to make sure that they have some capacity to resist Chinese intimidation, but ultimately there has to be an agreement that doesn't entirely dismiss China's strength and China's history. The rules that everyone is accusing China of breaking are rules that were put in place when China was weak and without their consultation. This includes the territorial waters definitions and the McMahon line in the Himalayas. China acknowledges the rules that it benefits from and it constantly tests the rules that it doesn't like. It will continue to do this, because that is what is in China's best interest. The power dance between China pushing for a new world order and the United States defending the status quo is to be expected. I think that it's really unlikely to erupt into anything serious though. China is very adept at compartmentalizing its issues. It has pretty good relations with all of its neighbors along the South China Sea despite the territorial disagreements. China even takes advantage of the complicated relationship it has with India, they fight and yet they stay engaged, kind of like a difficult marriage. Taiwan's a different story. China will go to the mat on that one.
    2
  70. Believed by whom? Oh yeah, believed by people who want to believe the worst of China.
    2
  71.  @exactlybasically8603  Y'know I've thought of that. Wouldn't it be cool just to have a massive war game where you pit two countries' forces against each other in a series of non-lethal battles. I'd definitely be willing to pay to watch the highlights. I don't think it would fly because everyone has too many secrets. But it would be soooooo cool.
    2
  72. I seriously doubt the Chinese will send out into the open ocean alone.
    2
  73. Over the top, maybe?
    2
  74.  @joecater894  Actually—it kind of does work that way. Perhaps it shouldn't, but an awful lot of diplomacy, including war, is based on relative strength and proximity. What's right isn't so important as what's real, and Russia is strong, Ukraine is weak, Russia is paranoid about having NATO (an organization expressly designed to contain them) forces on its doorstep and the west is obtusely dismissive of Russia's anxiety. If these antipathies can't be managed diplomatically, then it ends up being played out on a battlefield with a defined winner who gets their way and a loser who gets nothing.
    2
  75. If China really wanted to take Australia they would have to go a step at a time through the island nations of the Western Pacific. Right now that's probably beyond their ability even without U.S. interference. In a decade it won't be, but I can't see any reason why China would want to take Australia anyway.
    2
  76. Combat experience will benefit the United States until China acquires some. I'm guessing that will take about a month. I don't think the United States is going to get much penetration in that short time period. The U.S. won't just be fighting the PLA. We'll be fighting the Chinese people, assuming we actually land. We'll also be fighting the largest industrial engine in the world. And realistically, how much of our military can we dedicate to this mission. Are we pulling out of the Persian Gulf?
    2
  77. I think it's good that we're looking at something that can be mass-produced. I worry some of our stuff is virtually irreplaceable within the time constraints of an actual war.
    2
  78.  @AaronDrake22  What planet are you from?
    2
  79.  Adversary American  None of these were invasion attempts..
    2
  80. It's been a while since we've seen that level of American generosity, and that was pretty much solely to thwart Soviet global ambitions. Unless the United States thinks that Korea might be lost to a rival I don't see us whipping out the checkbook.
    2
  81. All of the Israelis are of Palestinian origin.
    2
  82.  @USSAnimeNCC-  You mean, like a missile?
    2
  83. I think this is a fairly sober analysis of what would likely happen. China would lose almost all of its projection platforms but would almost certainly fend off any kind of land invasion. If the war stretched out to a year and and production capacity became the defining factor it would still be complicated. China would probably have a marginal edge in industrial production if they could keep their factories relatively safe. The U.S. would have to reestablish its industries but U.S. factories would be beyond the range of military attack. And then there is the cyber angle.
    1
  84. It depends on what you mean by "colonized". China has been conquered twice, once by the Mongols and once by the Manchus. It has also been partially conquered by the Jurchen's and by the Japanese. The first three groups were eventually absorbed into China and the Japanese were expelled within a generation.
    1
  85. The U.S. hasn't faced a foe with effective air defenses since the Korean War. The Chinese have good anti-aircraft artillery and their fighter aircraft will have the same benefit the Germans had in the First World War. Namely, they will have flexibility in engagement because they do not have to worry about running out of fuel. Also, infantry is hard to destroy by air if they are in the field because they are not lumped into a convenient target; they're spread out.
    1
  86.  @thearmchairyoutuber8669  Yes, as did the Japanese in 1905. I didn't say it couldn't be done, just that I don't think they are as weak as everyone else does.
    1
  87. I hope you're timing an EU vs UK scenario for next March.
    1
  88. So your contention is that the Great Game is over?
    1
  89.    Yeah, you might be right. Maduro's support may be close to nothing among the people at this point. I'm just not sure who to trust with that assessment. From what I understand he still has the support of the military and that's not inconsequential. I'm not an advocate of Maduro though I don't like Guaido much either. I know Venezuela has suffered under Maduro's mismanagement but I don't think the current approach is a good solution. I hope the best for the Venezuelan people but I think the rest of the world is just trying to aggravate the misery in hopes that somehow a good pro-western regime will emerge from the inevitable chaos. At this point it's just sad. I have a hard time seeing a light at the end of the tunnel here.
    1
  90.  @BlazeXkilla  That's kind of my point. I don't really know what to believe. I'm not a fox viewer (I do have some standards) but I'm not sure any other media outlets are reliable either in this regard.
    1
  91. Maybe…
    1
  92. The Russian army in Finland was very disorganized, being the first major conflict the Russians actively participated in since their revolution. There was an ongoing debate about whether soldiers in a people's army should even have rank. They got that sorted out by the time the Germans invaded. If Ukraine has the kind of winter that Poland had in '39, then that would clearly work in favor of the defenders. We'll have to see what the planet decides to dish out.
    1
  93.  @joemikey278  Despite what you, I or anyone else wants, China is not going to "succeed with freedom and human rights" beyond the reproach of critics until it has a more comfortable grip on the parts of the country that were compromised during its weak period from 1839-present, during which time Xinjiang, Tibet, Mongolia, Hong Kong, Macau and later Taiwan were separated to various degrees politically from the Chinese government. So long as there are semi-credible secession movements in any of these or any other Chinese location then the Chinese government will not be able to comfortably relax its grip on the people. This will be the case regardless of which kind of ideology the government follows. No concept is more important to China, and this includes the great majority of Chinese people, than imperial integrity. So long as the government is viewed as strong and relatively uncorrupt than the people will stand behind it. And frankly, a strong, secure, centralized autocracy is better for the Chinese people than a weak and chaotic democracy. China may someday become a democracy. China may never become a democracy. If they do it will be in their own time and pushing them from outside is doing them no favors.
    1
  94.  @joemikey278  Thank you for the compliment and keep writing, your perspective is valued.
    1
  95.  @pgr3290  I could be mistaken, but I don't see Koreans viewing China as a threat, especially as China has been reaching out to them over the last few decades. Koreans have far greater animosity towards Japan than they do China and the only reason South Korea has as close a relationship as it does with the United States is because the U.S. has troops stationed in Korea in the event of an attack by the DPRK. I think China has grown as close to South Korea as it has to North Korea and deep down I think they respect South Korea a lot more. It's possible that the U.S. could try to force South Korea into an anti-China alliance, and that might succeed, but it could also backfire. Many in South Korea understand that the United States may be there (in northeast Asia) now, but China will be there forever.
    1
  96.  @voltagedrop5899  The PLAN is not a joke. It is probably the second most capable navy in the world. It is nowhere near a match for the U.S. Navy now but over time it will very likely close the gap. If the United States flooded troops into the eastern side of the island than it could probably keep the PLA at bay at this time. The question is, does the United States want to keep Taiwan out of the PRC more than the PRC wants to bring it in because if the PRC bets the farm on military reunification then the cost of thwarting them will be brutal.
    1
  97.  @lamb-mz2sd  You are absolutely correct. I was oversimplifying, but the broader question still stands, what's it all worth versus what's it gonna cost?
    1
  98. In my foolish optimism I still hold out hope that unification can occur without violence. It would certainly be the best option for the people of China, Taiwan, the United States and the rest of the world.
    1
  99.  @evilchili4787  The culture in Taiwan is Chinese. The political systems are different, but if the people of Taiwan want to preserve their right to a democracy at the provincial level, they have a much better chance at negotiating that then they do at defending it militarily.
    1
  100.  @evilchili4787  China lived up to their end of the Hong Kong deal, both the one in the 1820s and the one in the 1980s—this despite the fact that they never acknowledged Britain's right to set terms in either "deal".
    1
  101.  @evilchili4787  They vet the candidates, which is not prohibited in the handover agreement but it is usually what "pro-democracy" demonstrators don't like. "…what's to stop them from doing that same thing to Taiwan?" They probably would vet candidates to make sure that they are not secessionists. But as for further interference beyond what is negotiated, just a promise. Nothing can guaranty that the central government wouldn't "go back on their word." but there's a good chance that they wouldn't so long as no culture of sedition arises. The alternative is to get curb-stomped in a hot war which leads to an environment reminiscent of a hostile occupation similar to what Japan suffered immediately after the end of World War Two where the political system is dictated by hard-liners.
    1
  102.  @evilchili4787  Well, they are part of China. I just see two roads ahead for Taiwan. One road leads to death, massive suffering, and total loss of any kind of local control of their government for a generation or more. The other road is much less certain. It's based on what can be negotiated and which negotiated terms are honored. I get that you don't trust the central government. I think in the long run the governance of special zones like Hong Kong, Macau, and, if the second road is taken, Taiwan, will probably evolve to match the rest of China, whatever that looks like in the future, but it does give these areas some time to integrate with some of their peculiarities. It also gives them a chance influence the rest of the country and respectfully promote the values that they want to see preserved over time. The choice of which road to take is ultimately going to depend on the people of Taiwan, but I don't realistically see another road.
    1
  103. I'm not sure how much more land the Russian army is intending on taking. I think it's likely that Russia is hoping to keep pressure on the Ukrainian government to commit to staying out of NATO and to recognizing Crimean annexation and Donbass independence. Russia has established an overland connection to Crimea and they've connected Crimea to the Dnieper River which one would think secures the water supply to the peninsula. I suspect they'll probably try to encircle Ukraine's western armies but I don't know that their objectives go beyond that. They might. It's possible that the Russian government wants to take all of Ukraine, but I doubt it.
    1
  104.  @AEB1066  I'm not sure you are correct in your assessment. I'm not sure you are wrong either, but Russia is not flattening the country, which they could. They're putzing around at the edges of the cities just keeping steady pressure. If their goal is as you stated then they are not using their resources very effectively. They have control of the air and enough mobile armor and artillery to run across the country in formation destroying everything they come in contact with. While that would definitely test their logistical support it shouldn't be that difficult to execute in a battlefield that borders their own country.
    1
  105. Taiwan's probably got fifteen to twenty-five years to get their affairs in order.
    1
  106.  @Jagonath  It would probably be termed a liberation from American dominance. I agree that it wouldn't be an actual liberation. It would be a reconciliation though and I think that within a generation or two it would be totally accepted.
    1
  107. This was always a choice of least bad options for Russia. NATO had been creeping towards the Russian border since 1989, actually reaching the border in 2003 with the inclusion of the Baltic states. The rubber hit the road in 2014 when Yanukovich was ousted in a coup and Russia's lease on its largest Black Sea port in Sevastopol became at risk of not only being lost to the Russian navy, but becoming an asset for NATO. This made annexation of Crimea a necessity, which Russia executed in that same year. Crimea does not have sufficient fresh water to support its population and agriculture requirements, so when Ukraine threatened to cut Crimea off, Russia moved to secure the region between the Dnieper River and the peninsula. Russia also pursued a more aggressive ambition through the rest of Ukraine that failed because of some misjudgments, previously unexposed corruption, and also because of effective Ukrainian defenses. There does appear to be a movement within the U.S. intelligence community to actively diminish Russian power, and the war in Ukraine is largely a fight against that movement. Unfortunately the people of Ukraine are the pawns in that chess game.
    1
  108.  Bradley Scott  I don't think China can depend on Russia to act as an ally. I think Russia will have two goals. The first is to maximize the weakening of both the United States and China so as to improve Russia's power position relative to the other great powers. The other thing I think is that they will avoid betraying China outright because if China isn't beaten down to the point where they can't recover, Russia doesn't want an angry, vengeful and powerful China on their southern border in the medium-range future. I think Russia will do the bare minimum necessary to support China logistically, but I'd be very surprised to see Russia engage militarily unless they saw China running the score up and they determined that they needed to be counted on the winning side.
    1
  109.  @samg6548  With China and the U.S. beating themselves senseless what would remain would be a world without superpowers in which Russia would have some parity with China and the U.S. militarily and tactical military superiority over Europe, at least until such a time as Europe strengthened their political union to the level of a state. Europe as defined by the Eurodollar would continue to have the top economy in the world followed by Japan. This would most likely be seen as an improvement from Russia's standpoint even though you're right, they would not recover their old superpower status.
    1
  110.  @martingilvray06  With all due respect, and I really mean that, you're being unfairly critical of China. The Belt and Road initiative is a net positive for the world. China is investing in places that the rest of the world has been highly neglectful of. Yes, it is done in large part to increase their global influence, but it is also in part a response to accusations leveled against them for decades that they weren't carrying their weight in global development. Creating islands is highly provocative, but legally it's new territory. No one has really ever done this before outside of some Gulf nations creating resort islands. The greatest claim against them is that other nations claimed the atolls upon which these islands were built, so China is occupying contested territory in order to strengthen their claim. Like I said, it's provocative. Their reasoning for doing this is mostly to protect their shipping lanes. Of course the fact that American allies Korea and Japan share those shipping lanes means that one side's protection is the other side's threat. China does not operate death camps for Christians or anyone else. China has over sixty million practicing Christians and while operating an unauthorized church can get you in trouble in China, it's not going to get you the death penalty. I'm a veteran myself and I am very keen to see China and the United States get along in the future and work together to run the world for the betterment of humanity. Yeah, I know, sissy stuff. But I don't want Americans to die fighting the inevitable. It doesn't have to be like this, and if cooler heads can prevail, we can all have a better future. Engineers—Let Us Try.
    1
  111.  @martingilvray06  I don't know what you're drinking but you probably ought to put the bottle down.
    1
  112.  @martingilvray06  Are you seriously suggesting that western media is covering for China? Western media hates China because China censors their coverage of internal Chinese affairs. If you look at coverage of China from the NYT, the BBC, Deutsche Welle, even Al Jazhera it's heavily slanted, one might say unethically slanted, against China in both the framing of stories as well as the choice of stories themselves, and don't even get me started on Australian media. And no, death camps for Christians is not a little unfair, it's slanderous. Don't get me wrong, I know China has issues, some of them are serious and embarrassing. But China is nothing like the way it's portrayed in American or any other western mainstream media. The West has a beef against China for not collapsing according to Cold War formula and the media has an understandable grudge against China because it doesn't live up to their free-speech standards. Because of this China is maligned at all opportunities.
    1
  113.  @formworksucks  I don't doubt it. The question is, what if it escalates?
    1
  114.  @abraham2172  They're economically powerful enough to secure good trade terms. I don't know if that power is strong enough to shape policy in third countries. I may be selling them short. They might have the power, but not the focus of will because of their consensus-mandated structure.
    1
  115.  @abraham2172  It's a lot more likely to change if they consolidate their sovereignty into a central state. Sorry, I was just dreaming there.
    1
  116.  @timothylyons5686  World War Two started when the Japanese invaded Manchuria.
    1
  117.  @timothylyons5686  I was under the impression that the Germans were pretty candid about their history regarding the war and the years leading up to it. Am I mistaken?
    1
  118.  @timothylyons5686  That's interesting. Thanks for letting me know.
    1
  119. The most effective use of an aircraft carrier is intimidation.
    1
  120. I hope we have better relations with China when Biden gets elected. What we have now is nuts and it isn't helping anybody.
    1
  121. Can miniature submarines be operated remotely?
    1
  122. That's assuming that Russia will absorb eastern Ukraine. I think it more likely that it will set up a friendly state in eastern Ukraine so that they get their buffer after all.
    1
  123. War is slow. Think Syria.
    1
  124. That sword cuts both directions.
    1
  125. Whatever it takes.
    1
  126.  @josephdestaubin7426  I don't think China would be that easily goaded into attacking the United States, at least not to a degree that can't be walked back. China's long-term plans are for the reincorporation of Taiwan and the Chinese leadership knows that a premature engagement with the United States puts that in Jeopardy. There could be an incident where a couple of destroyers collide in the East China Sea or something but I think the United States would have a difficult time convincing the world, let alone its own people, that that kind of thing would warrant a full-on war with China.
    1
  127.  @jacobriverson3807  The middle class in China can't do that now and they are plenty supportive. Why people assume the Chinese have less love for their country than the citizens of other nations I cannot fathom.
    1
  128.  @josephdestaubin7426  I think that terrain and infrastructure constraints preclude a large Chinese initiative against India and China is very calculating regarding Taiwan. While their island building in the South China Sea is certainly provocative I don't see them as hills to die on in China. And at this point, a conflict there would be the result of someone else attacking China. China's leaders are well aware of what led up to the War in the Pacific and they are keen to avoid the Thucydides trap. There could be a miscalculation and perhaps a change in leadership at some point that is less aware of the risks than the current cadre, but if China can't be goaded into a conflict within the next decade it likely won't matter. At that point China will be the world's most powerful state and the Belt & Road diplomacy will have born fruit and most countries will probably be very reluctant to openly side against them militarily or economically.
    1
  129.  @josephdestaubin7426  I'm not sure what your standards of proof are. Perhaps you consider the explosion of the battleship Maine in Havana Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin incident or the link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 as proven victimhood of international aggression. It seemed to be proven enough to bring the American public onboard initially, though most of the rest of the world didn't seem to buy it (No offense to the Koreans in Vietnam or the British in Iraq). Or perhaps you consider these events to be so far back in time that they are no longer relevant to the argument. I'm also perplexed by the term "sadly". You can't seriously want this war to take place, can you?
    1
  130. It's nice to see such a clean brain.
    1
  131.  @endintiers  Running out of assets first makes whatever you've got obsolete.
    1
  132.  @tombrunila2695  Not during a war it doesn't.
    1
  133.  @jakegold5495  I definitely agree.
    1
  134. I suspect the Chinese are going to skip this phase. If I'm guessing correctly, the Chinese will go directly to fully autonomous drones without the pilot.
    1
  135.  @The136th  My suggestion is that the Chinese won't have the live pilot in the formation.
    1
  136.  @Jamicaman516  Which is why producing simpler weapons that can be churned out quickly might be a better industrial strategy. I think simple missile platforms would be one key to ultimate victory.
    1
  137.  @Jamicaman516  You're right in that it doesn't work if the mass-produced cheap weaponry is liquidated by more advanced weapon system that can't be touched, which was the case in Iraq. It gets more complicated when the technological gap between existing hardware isn't as wide to begin with. If your best stuff is taking casualties then replacement of that stuff becomes a concern, and if you can't field replacement equipment in real time because of its complexity than you may lose through attrition. Any assumption that an invasion of China will be swift and decisive in my opinion is a mistake. Chinese arms and personnel are effective in a way that America's recent enemies have not been. The Chinese government—both its industry and its military—is efficient and trusted by the Chinese people. Chinese terrain is much more varied than anything in Iraq. And Chinese assets are well-protected by the largest defensive missile arsenal in the world. An American invasion into China would likely take casualty numbers and equipment losses that the U.S. hasn't experienced since WWII. After the initial clash the contest would begin on who could best replace losses. That is both a quantitative and a qualitative equation. It's a balancing act. They say you shouldn't take a knife to a gun fight, and that's good advice. But if you're still fighting after all the bullets have been spent, it's good to have that knife.
    1
  138.  @RomanianReaver  My sources are admittedly sparse, but it looks like tanks aren't doing particularly well in this conflict. It's looking to me like drones are dominating them. But then again, I'm just regurgitating what I'm seeing from my laptop monitor on the other side of the world.
    1
  139. That's assuming that China and Russia would be the ones who picked the fight. But I agree with the assessment that the United States and Japan would win at least during the current decade.
    1
  140.  @jamiemeza6148  I think their act is together. The only possible serious threat comes from the United States and I don't think the United States is interested in a war with China. If the U.S. and China went to war and the United States really believed that they faced an existential threat from China then the U.S. would win if it happened today. But Americans, despite a lot of ill will towards China, do not see them as an existential threat, and they will not engage in total war, which is what would be necessary to stop progress in China. As for time and money, I don't think that's a formidable problem for China. I think time is definitely on China's side, and I think that while participating in the established, western dominated, global economic regime is the best way for China to strengthen and progress quickly, I don't really think it's necessary. China has shown remarkable resilience during global economic crises in 1997 and 2008 and I think their heavily command-influenced market economy is one of the most nimble in the world. I don't want to oversell China's future prospects; their are many challenges on their horizon. But I have a great deal of confidence in the country's ability to deal with challenges, which I think rivals the same abilities demonstrated by the United States.
    1
  141.  @jamiemeza6148  Since the seventies I’ve been paying keen attention. The United States was very supportive of China so long as the Cold War was on and Americans assumed that China was naturally evolving into a western-style liberal democracy. This illusion was shattered by the tragic events in Tiananmen Square in 1989. Since then political relations have been cool (in the bad sense of the term). Chinese government and industry have definitely been involved in industrial espionage and the free-rider argument is a legitimate one, but American businesses and consumers could not overcome the lure of trade with China and all that China had to offer them. China has since sought out and taken advantage of every competitive advantage, whether it be above board or not, it could find and they have defended their ability to do so. On a political level, this includes treatment of their weaker neighbors. I have no illusions that China is a nation of angels. I think China is strong, proud, industrious, well-governed, and neither better nor worse than the United States which is it’s only real peer competitor. I do think China’s behavior is logical and steeped in realpolitik, and I think their future century is brighter than their past one by a long-shot. American treatment of China has been schizophrenic because we’ve never been so integrally economically linked with a country that we’ve adopted as an ideological enemy. This is made even more nebulous because China refuses to declare the U.S. as an ideological foe. Both sides work with each other while also undermining each other. Both sides are quick to claim victim status, and not without some justification. The relationship between these two countries—and the people, businesses, and institutions within them—is about as complicated as international relations get.
    1
  142.  @Theoryofcatsndogs  You got me. I don't see the parallels.
    1
  143.  @Theoryofcatsndogs  So you're comparing China to Nazi Germany?
    1
  144.  @Asonunique23  They're not likely to face off. They're both primarily offensive forces.
    1
  145.  @MrFlatage  Whew, didn't intend to offend you. Just pointing out that accountability has to be appropriate for the circumstances or else it has consequences of its own.
    1
  146.  @MrFlatage  Well, there are costs associated with training and operation because training requires use of equipment by people. Equipment used, even correctly, is subject to wear. The more complex an operation, the more likely that human error or human or equipment inability to meet the challenges either built into the operation or injected by unseen circumstance leads to the loss or damage of equipment or personnel. This has been evidenced by operations performed uniformly throughout the course of human history, but I suspect that by your standards it falls short of proof. So be it. As for you're being obnoxious, you are providing plenty of evidence in this thread. I will defer to that.
    1
  147.  @fukkitful  I should have guessed. Thanks for the heads up.
    1
  148.  @Ewig_Luftenglanz  I completely agree regarding new conscripts, but conscripts currently on the payroll should have some relevant training already. You are right about it likely being very unpopular, but so is losing a war.
    1
  149. I don't think NATO would because Japan is not a NATO member. I don't think most European countries would want to have a war with Russia. They probably would provide a lot of non-military support and military logistical support though. You might see direct military support from countries like Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Great Britain. God knows what would happen on the Korean peninsula.
    1
  150.  @phurian_6560  Actually the entire population of mainland China wants to see reunification. The people of China believe that they are no longer weak and they feel that their disadvantages vis--vis Taiwan's potential allies are steadily diminishing. At some point the people of China will demand that the government makes a move.
    1
  151.  @derHallen  You sound like every other naysayer that's been rooting for China's demise over the last three decades. China's always on the verge of collapse. Don't believe me, ask Gordon Chang. A handful of protesters in cities with populations of millions don't a revolution make, even if your completely dismissive of the allegations of paid participation. The Chinese people support their government and they long for the reunification of their country. If you don't want to believe it, that's your perogative. It doesn't change reality.
    1
  152.  @guzelataroach4450  Signed, The People's Front of Hattusa
    1
  153. China will attack Taiwan if Taiwan declares independence, regardless of who's president. Otherwise, China will wait and try to convince Taiwan to come into the fold without violence. Admittedly, this probably won't happen. The U.S. is investing too much into separatist groups like the DPP, and our investment is affective. China will eventually seize back Taiwan if it looks like the only possibility of reincorporation is through military engagement and if China feels like it would definitely win any resulting war. This is currently not the case. When it becomes the case, of that I'm not sure. China will have to assume Japanese involvement and the possibility of involvement by other neighbors against them, even though it's pretty unlikely.
    1
  154.  @MrSpecialhacker  They're clearly not comparable, but neither were the United States and North Vietnam. There are a lot of variables, many of them political.
    1
  155.  @dylanmorris7946  That is true. So, why didn't the U.S. steamroll into North Vietnam? or for that matter, Syria? because of politics. The same might or might not occur in Iran. There are political reasons not to go all out, especially if Iranian resistance proves to be united and effective or if Russia or China starts parking planes in Iranian airbases.
    1
  156.  @dylanmorris7946  A few planes could change the war if it meant that U.S. military felt it imprudent to attack those airfields with Russian or Chinese assets present because that could mean an escalation of participation. Fighting such a war without international support (likely with international condemnation), no formidable allies, no land access, on the other side of the world,… Could the U.S. do it? yes, if the U.S. wanted to badly enough it could do it. In the real world would the United States have the will to see the project through? I don't know. It's not worth it. There's no good foreseeable outcome.
    1
  157.  @MrFlatage  The Bay of Pigs was no naval assault, it was an attempt to land a bunch of Cuban expats in hopes of inducing a coups.
    1
  158.  @MrFlatage  We've been discussing the efficacy of the PLAN and the USN. You brought up the Bay of Pigs in this discussion. My point is that the Bay of Pigs fiasco is not an indication of weakness in the U.S. Navy.
    1
  159.  @mozaix1  China is focused on Taiwan and they will make no claim on Russian governed territory until well after the Taiwan situation is taken care of. I think Russia is more concerned about this issue eventually manifesting than China is and I think it's part of the reason the movement towards comradery between the two was such a delicate dance. The possibility of maintaining the buffer zone in the Ukraine at the cost of driving Finland into the arms of NATO is a huge potential risk for Russia, and it is probably something Putin is watching very closely. He's determined to make sure that there are no new NATO allies on his border, but Finland is much more stable than Ukraine ever was and it would be a lot harder to undermine that determination.
    1
  160.  @ricoanderson6626  It's not lost ego, it's proximity of a threat. The same logic that says that Russia building up troops on the Ukrainian border is a threatening move also says that bringing a state on Russia's border into NATO is a threatening move. Russia claiming that they should be able to do whatever they want with their military within their own territory is both valid and unacceptable. NATO claiming that a sovereign state like Ukraine should be able to join whatever alliance they can negotiate is also valid but unacceptable. There are no angels here. Both sides are championing their own interest's legitimate point and neither side is acknowledging the other's. Ukraine suffers as the gameboard between the two more powerful posturing opponents.
    1
  161.  @ricoanderson6626  Well, Russia's taking back Crimea was spurred on by a western-backed coup three months short of an election. Nobody's slate is clean here. As for media propaganda, it's neck deep crap on all sides.
    1
  162. That is not correct. The United States is still very much a superpower and will likely be so for the foreseeable future.
    1
  163.  @evanangeletos964  I take it you haven't been to China in the last decade.
    1
  164. That's the way MAD works.
    1
  165.  @SpaceMonkeyBoi  China seems to be pretty good at providing housing and services to her people.
    1
  166.  @SpaceMonkeyBoi  Fair point, although the government usually goes after the people involved in construction failures once they occur.
    1
  167.  @SpaceMonkeyBoi  Getting rid of corruption is the trick. It's all but impossible unless you have a terrifying secret police force. China had an anticorruption campaign in 2012 that eliminated a great deal of corruption, though clearly not all. It was very popular among ordinary Chinese. My understanding is that Russia has a much greater corruption problem than China. In the United States the illegal corruption problem has been largely eliminated by making it all perfectly legal. ;)
    1
  168.  @theresearcher8912  Blockades are a long-standing strategy. A strategy that had a lot to do with the defeat of Germany in the first World War.
    1
  169. These carrier comparisons will get a lot more interesting in about ten to fifteen years.
    1
  170. I doubt S. Korea will get involved at all. They have far too much to lose. It's likely that they won't even allow use of ports and airfields. Also, I doubt that the Philippines will be much of a factor either. Letting the U.S. use their territory means that China will have the green light to bombard them with missiles. Japan will probably side wholeheartedly with the U.S. and that may make the difference in China's decision. They have to assume that they're not just facing off against the United States.
    1
  171. Doesn't it hurt to hate so deeply? It can't be good for the brain.
    1
  172.  @sarinsarin7898  You obviously hate. The quality of Chinese manufacturing and engineering today is world class. If you got Chinese crap, it's because you ordered Chinese crap. The Chinese are perfectly willing to accommodate your parsimony. As for copying, of course they copy. It's the most efficient way to catch up on technologies that are already established. In fact, not copying would be an act of stupidity. And if there is one thing the Chinese aren't, it's stupid.
    1
  173.  @pascal9055  I would like your comment if not for the bit between the parentheses.
    1
  174. So, 2049?
    1
  175. If it's under the US Air Force then it's not a 5th military branch.
    1
  176.  @matthewbaldwin964  Yeah, I should have checked before I spoke, though it really doesn't make sense to me.
    1
  177.  @muchadoaboutnothing6196  I always thought of the Marine Corps as a corps rather than a branch. It's tiny next to the Army and the Air Force. I have a lot of respect for Marines; I got along well with them when I was in the Army and I'm not trying to diminish them in any way here but as part of the Navy I never considered them a branch of service.
    1
  178. There is no need for the Chinese to be enemies of the United States, so long as the United States recognizes China's right to be China.
    1
  179.  @nematolvajkergetok5104  We're all biased, and it's very difficult to overcome those biases when it comes to judging alternating statistics and news reports accurately.
    1
  180. The Chinese would still consider themselves red and they would be the senior partner in that coalition.
    1
  181.  @刘涛-x7g2i  The Communist Party has done a lot for the people of China. I don't doubt for a moment that the populace would rally quickly and wholeheartedly.
    1
  182.  @istvancsiszar1118  Communist in China is about as correct a term as liberal is in America. Authenticity is rarely prioritized in politics.
    1
  183. That's the great irony. War is horrible, about as horrible as anything can be, but the machines of war are frickin' awesome, awesome to the point where it's almost worth it.
    1
  184. Go ahead and underestimate Russia. How could that go wrong?
    1
  185.  @Warp10x  What happens when they get shot down?
    1
  186.  @Warp10x  They're still big slow targets. And who are they going to bomb anyway? Are they going into Russia? They'll get shot down unless air superiority is established. That would take time to wear down the Russian air forces and anti-aircraft artillery.
    1
  187.  @Warp10x  Yeah, if it ain't broke…
    1
  188. Agreed, but the gap is quickly narrowing.
    1
  189.  @babyyoda6549  China has no desire to fight the United States, but they do want their province back and they're not afraid to fight to get it back. Their desire isn't to out-do the United States, it's to control their own destiny. Their analysis of the intentions of the United States indicates that in order to do this, they have to have enough military strength to control the waters in the Western Pacific out to the second island chain.
    1
  190.  @babyyoda6549  China has no fear of Japan or South Korea. Also, it's extremely unlikely that South Korea will attack China, and while Japan is more likely, I wouldn't call it likely.
    1
  191.  @babyyoda6549  You know how the IJN was defeated, don't you? Japan was unable to produce ships at anything like the rate that the United States could. The same is true in relation to China today. That's not to say that Japan would not be formidable in their own right, or particularly formidable in an alliance with the U.S. Navy, but a modern Japanese navy would not be comparable to what China could produce.
    1
  192. I think it's a pretty balanced group of pro-mainland nationalists and anti-Chinese sabre rattlers. In both camps, some of them have some idea of what they're talking about, while a slim majority has no clue.
    1
  193. I think the Russians would have an immense advantage in maintaining and replacing equipment. While raw numbers are huge when it comes to war, if India didn't roll over the Russians quickly I think they would lose their ability to repel Russian air support at which point they'd be ground up.
    1
  194.  @tusk3260  While an alliance between Canada and Russia would be nothing to scoff at, I think you greatly underestimate the American military, especially considering that the northern front would be easily supplied and the vast majority of the Canadian population lives within a hundred miles of the U.S. border. Ground occupation would swift and overwhelming. Russian support would have to come either across the Arctic ocean or through eastern Siberia. It's hard to supply through the Arctic in the winter and hard to supply through the tundra in the summer. Canada might get some initial penetration because the bulk of American infantry and armored cavalry divisions are in southern states, but American air superiority in North America would be total unless the Russian air force completely relocated to northern Canada in which case it would be merely nearly total. An all out push might make it into Pennsylvania but I'd be shocked if it got all the way to Washington.
    1
  195.  @tusk3260  I fully respect the geography of Canada—rugged mountains in the west, lakes and prairies in the central regions, permafrost in the continental north, archipelagos in the northeast that rival Indonesia in their complexity. I think the difficulties of taking and holding territory in greater Canada would be the same limitations to supplying it whether it was supplying American forces from the south or supplying Canadian/Russian forces from the north. In most of Canada's population centers though, the logistics would favor the Americans over Russian support. There's not enough of a supply line from the north coast, and certainly not year round. And while we can debate your disdain for American military hardware I don't think you can credibly argue that within a few days Canadian forces encroaching into American territory wouldn't be engulfed in its sheer quantity. I think the biggest advantage such an invasion force would have is the initial reluctance of the U.S. Army to charge tanks through private property. Once we got over that hang up I think the Canadians would be toast.
    1
  196. The advantage an island has over a carrier is that if an airfield is bombed it can be repaired in a few days if the construction equipment is present. Of course, it could be bombed again. If a carrier is bombed successfully it probably won't be salvaged during the current conflict. Of course theoretically if a carrier survives a bombing it could go somewhere else, maybe somewhere out of reach or at least somewhere where defenses are stronger.
    1
  197.  @Jimmy2toes4u  I think you've bought in to some pretty vicious anti-Chinese ideological propaganda. China's behavior towards its minorities overall has been quite supportive and anecdotal allegations of abuse, while potentially plausible at an individual level, are certainly unproven, and I would say extremely unlikely, on a systemic scale.
    1
  198.  @Jimmy2toes4u  Countries considering foreign investment, whether from China, Japan, or the west, have an obligation to their people to vet the offer thoroughly. I wouldn't refer to that level of inspection as push-back, but rather as due-diligence. Nor would I consider that careful scrutiny of investment options as suspicious of China. Investment recipients know full well that Chinese investments are designed to benefit China first and the recipient second—such is the nature of investment. Criticism of China, however, seems to be coming predominately from the anglosphere, from India, and to a lesser extent from western Europe. While this is an important part of the world, it is not the totality of the world. The rest of the world, regardless of whether or not they are participating in the Chinese foreign investment regime, are far less critical of China, in part because they don't trust the western anti-Chinese narrative, and for good reason.
    1
  199. Actually I'm really curious about the "protracted war" scenario. I think an industry vs. industry analysis would be fascinating. Which country could mobilize its factories faster and pump out the most hardware over the course of a couple of years? China has more factories and more workers than the U.S., but it also would have a harder time reaching the American industrial core than the U.S. would have reaching China's. It might very well depend on China's ability to protect those factories. Of course the U.S. has more factories currently churning out military equipment, so less of its manufacturing base would have to be re-purposed. The U.S. also currently has a technology edge that might or might not endure over the course of a long conflict.
    1
  200.  @carlosviajes  They did a number on us as well. A lot has happened since the 70s.
    1
  201.  @carlosviajes  Vietnam would rather do business with both economies. You are right in your suggestion that Vietnam is not friendlier to China than it is to the U.S. though.
    1
  202.  @carlosviajes  China is the closest large market and it makes sense for light manufacturing to move to less developed countries. Of the less developed countries available Vietnam has one of the most reliable workforces. Vietnam has historical anxiety regarding China and it has issues regarding water resources and maritime territorial claims, but I don't think they would be full-throated cheerleaders for the U.S. in the above scenario either. The countries on China's perimeter aren't likely to want a destroyed China next door (India and Taiwan excepted).
    1
  203.  @carlosviajes  Sometimes. That is the dynamic when a larger powerful country has a hegemonic presence in the region (see USA/Mexico). Of course Vietnam wants to keep its independence which is not really under threat right now. But Vietnam also wants to benefit from its proximity to China, which it is doing to the tune of $42 billion worth of goods exported, and 5.8 million visitors last year. The destruction of China in the best scenario would greatly damage the Vietnamese economy and the United States would not come close to picking up the slack. And of course the worst case for Vietnam would be to be seen as China's enemy after China successfully drove back the invasion. If China came out relatively stronger, which is a real possibility, then assisting the United States might prove to have been a terrible mistake.
    1
  204.  @SerinaDeMadrigal  Right, right, right, right, and never dismiss Russia no matter how weak they look on paper.
    1
  205.  @kaybee65  I think Russia's strategy would be to try to get along with Europe and make sure that China remained strong enough to wear the United States down but withhold assistance if it looks like China will come out too strong. If their two greatest rivals could beat each other into total ineffectiveness, Russia will finally feel they security that they've never really known.
    1
  206.  @davenobody407  I wasn't referring to Hitler's navy, I was referring to Wilhelm's.
    1
  207.  @davenobody407  To some extant I'd agree, but I think the Kriegsmarine was more on par with the British Imperial Navy than the PLAN is with the U.S. Navy is now, at least it was by 1914.
    1
  208. You've got one hell of a bathtub.
    1
  209. So said Hitler and Napoleon.
    1
  210. That's a sensible approach if you don't have the budget build a proper battle fleet.
    1
  211. I don't think anything is verifiable right now.
    1
  212. I don't think India is nearly as relevant as Russia.
    1
  213.  @Castapher  According to this fellow https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7s-llqrkYk China walked away from Moscow with pretty much everything they asked for at India's expense. I'm not sure what you mean by "Tibet which originally belonged to India." It appears that in 1914 southern Tibet was ceded to the British by the 13th Dalai Lama but that was never recognized by China and Chinese claims on Tibet go back to the Yuan Dynasty.
    1
  214. I don't think a helicarrier is realistic, at least not one that remains airborne indefinitely. It would require too much fuel and a simple mechanical issue would spell the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands, as well as the loss of an insanely expensive platform. What would be more feasible would be an airship. Of course a lighter-than-air craft that could hold an air wing and all of its components would be incredibly large.
    1
  215. That would require more than a loss for Trump. You'd have to have make sure you had substantial majorities in both houses of Congress. Trump's supporters are beginning to define themselves by opposition to Ukrainian assistance.
    1
  216. Unsupported offensive strike—Marines, Unsupported defensive stand—Army.
    1
  217.  @PedanticNo1  I'm thinking rampant piracy.
    1
  218.  @KingZercules  Actually most people in Taiwan have ancestral villages on the mainland. If people in Taiwan can be identified as trouble makers they could be repatriated to their ancestral villages where trouble making would become a lot more complicated. I don't know if China would do this, but it would be an option for them.
    1
  219.  @KingZercules  I'd say they just want to win a decisive victory to put their country back together and get this nightmare of division behind them. Don't get me wrong, China is not above intimidating other countries, but then again, no great power ever has been.
    1
  220. Russia wouldn't likely absorb eastern Ukraine into its territory. They would probably establish a new country that, regardless of its eventual name, would be East Ukraine. They would make sure that a pro-Russian government ran the country. This would give them the buffer zone they seek.
    1
  221.  @karlparratt1730  Putin is many terrible things, but an idiot is not one of them. Of course his buffer zone would be NATO adjacent, that's the very nature of a buffer zone. And while having a western Ukrainian state in NATO would be bringing NATO closer to Russia, it wouldn't be as close as having the entire Ukraine in NATO, which is what he is determined to avoid. I'm sure that Putin is aware that former soviet client states despise Russia for a number of reasons. They feel like the Soviets manipulated them politically, oppressed them personally, and held them back economically, and on top of all that the people of these states bought into their own ethnic nationalism. Access to the west has provided most of them with lifestyles that appear more affluent than their Russian counterparts. It will be a long time before Russia appears favorably in the eyes of most Poles, Czechs and Hungarians. I don't think this is lost on Putin, but I don't think he feels that the hearts and minds of the peoples of the former Warsaw Pact are realistically capturable. I don't think he's going to waste resources on that approach. He's concentrating on political control, or at least political neutrality, of the former republics that currently lie on the borders of Russia because that is the extent of his reach and he knows it.
    1
  222.  @Dies1r4e  Xi hasn't set a date taking Taiwan by force. He's said that Taking Taiwan by force is an option and that Taiwan cannot permitted to declare independence. That, and everything else you mentioned, assuming what you are referring to as polluting fishing waters is island building, are in China's interest, you know, Rational.
    1
  223.  @Dies1r4e  Attacking a neighbor can be in your interest, but usually it's not. China hasn't attacked a neighbor since Vietnam in 1979, and that didn't go so well. It doesn't relate much to today however—so many things have changed. I guess you can argue that what's in a particular government's interest isn't always in the peoples to which they serve's interest. But on the whole, the CCP has done well for the Chinese people and in most instances the Chinese people feel that the success of the CCP is in their best interests. I would agree.
    1
  224.  @tadders2172  Tragic and shameful, but a very small part of American military history.
    1
  225.  @batswing4473  " the Middle East is in Asia", only because Asia is a catchall term for all the civilizations on the world's largest land mass except for the westernmost one. The Greeks determined what Asia was back when they had no idea what Asia really was. We're probably a thousand years overdue for a new perspective on civilizational balance.
    1
  226. You think Russia will switch sides in the middle of the war? I don't get the analogy.
    1
  227.  @HailAzathoth  While it is true that nothing lasts forever, most of human history has been ruled by despots, and by most I mean almost all.
    1
  228. What are you smoking?
    1
  229.  @kylenelson2477  Turkey hasn't been attacked.
    1
  230. A2AD
    1