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