Comments by "Digital Nomad" (@digitalnomad9985) on "Would the US military need help from allies to crush China?" video.

Nobody has the power projection ability to do that in the face of the US navy and Air Force. I suppose they could bribe Mexico or something, but we have guns. Yamamoto ruled out any planning of an invasion of the US mainland in WW2, "We would face a gun behind every blade of grass!" Maybe if they get lucky they could land small groups by submarine for raids, but that's not a strategic threat. There are a lot of China proxies, partizans, and agents in the US, but we can handle a fifth column threat without even using the military. The Chinese navy would have to bust a gut to attempt an invasion of Taiwan, and that's just a few miles off the mainland.
3
@КГБ-л3п "Why would we side with USA especially with NATO terrorizing out border?" NATO has no mandate for aggression, and NATO hasn't invaded anybody. Here, let me translate your comment into truth: "Why would we side with the USA when they are protecting all the victims we hope to invade?"
2
Erich Von Manstein "China has millions of bodies to spare....." Manpower loses against firepower. And you're assuming the duped masses will continue to feed themselves into the chipper. China may be a closed society, but it is not as closed as it was during the Korean war, it couldn't have become an economic player if it were.
2
@himedo1512 The NATO charter doesn't extend to Asia. The US will have at least one ally in a war against China, and probably more (REGIONAL allies, not Europe), because the war will ONLY start when China attacks somebody, and the victim will be fighting back in self defense, and the regional allies for the same reason. The whole point of forming an alliance against a potential aggressor is so that that aggressor won't be able to attack all of its victims one at a time and defeat them in detail. "We must hang together or we will all hang separately." - Ben Franklin
1
@ancienttime6307 "there are missles dumb." And missiles smart. And missile defenses.
1
"What would be the end game, to attempt to subjugate and occupy a land of over a billion people? " Of course not. The only way the war starts is if China attacks somebody, and the point would be to capture and hold accountable those who ordered the aggression. Then US allies take their bites, and we leave. China has nothing worth stealing, except maybe their fabled gold reserves, and nobody needs to prolong an invasion to take something that isn't nailed down. Tibet gets liberated in the process, and we all live happily ever after.
1
Then China invades Southeast Asia, South Korea and Taiwan and uses its greater economic power to threaten Australia, and New Zealand. Russia invades Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and sets its sights on Poland, Scandinavia, and Germany. I love it when a plan comes together.
1
"The status quo, even if shakier than 10 years ago, is still too much in the US' favour for them to be the aggressor." If China doesn't start the war, there won't be one.
1
@КГБ-л3п "while we come no where near that of USA or NATO" The Ukraine is quite near to NATO, and we have not positioned forces to invade Russia. If we did, it would have nothing to do with NATO, the only thing Russia has that is worth stealing is Siberia.
1
@КГБ-л3п "Good luck doing it." I wasn't advocating invading Siberia. I was refuting the notion of our invading Russia from the east.. POINTLESS. Which means that your hype about the US/NATO threat is absurd. Just a "tactic" to try to "guilt" us out of defending your intended prey. The glaring flaw in your invasion fantasy is that there is no conceivable MOTIVE for our doing so. We would lose money. "blame Russia and Putin" Yes, Putin is responsible for his aggression, how not?
1
@vlad_47 Afganistan was an invocation of the mutual defense provisions of NATO in response to Afganistan's state support of the 9-11 terrorists. The remaining operations cited were not NATO operations. NATO was involved in Kosovo after the war in peacekeeping operations.
1
@vlad_47 "Of course these were de-facto NATO operations even if not all members like Denmark and other weaklings werent involved." What makes them NATO operations or not is the involvement of the NATO organization or not, not the inculsion or exclusion of particular member millitaries from an operation. You thought NATO was involved because some propaganda arm of Putin cited them as an example of "NATO menace". You have been shown to be wrong and saying "de-facto" is not a magic formula for making your false assertions true. As for the original Gulf War, out of the 35 coalition member states, only 4 were NATO members who provided substantial forces to the defense and subsequent attack: Canada, France, UK, and US. No Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were not bastions of democracy, but they were not aggressive and were willing to make a deal. Trading them for a Hussien hegemony linked to the (still extant then) Soviet Union and sitting on most of the then known oil supply was not in the interest of the preservation of democracy worldwide. "Also, attacking Afghanistan for supporting terrorism is a bit ironic." The terrorist organization that pulled off the 9/11 attack was based in Afghanistan, with the full cooperation and support of the Afghan government. This is not the stuff of which irony is made. Interdicting the aggressor is the essence of the NATO charter (and THAT is why you don't like it). "Maybe you all should attack yourselves first?" Why?
1
@Kabutoes " if all those countries surrounding china declared neutrality, there probably wouldn't be a conflict that brings us in there." If all those countries surrounding China declared neutrality, China would invade them one by one. The current anti-China alliance is a response to Chinese belligerence. Non-aggression didn't help Tibet, and only a defensive military victory saved Vietnam, India, and South Korea from CCP conquest.
1
array s "he western allies would turn their knifes toward russia" From the western point of view, Russia has nothing worth stealing (except maybe Siberia).
1
Opposite of truth. Europe has no power projection ability in the Pacific. The Pacific Rim allies and India are forming an alliance against China because of Chinese aggression. The whole point of such an alliance is to prevent China from being able to defeat its enemies in detail. The war would only start with an attack on one of these nations by China. For the alliance members to hold back then would be long-term suicide.
1
fane babanu The "allies" in this scenario are regional allies. European nations do not have the long distance power projection ability to be of use in a war against China, with the possible exception of the UK. The most likely scenario for starting this sort of war is China attacking the regional allies, which must act in self preservation anyway. So European prejudices are irrelevant. That our European allies would leave us in the lurch with respect to any Asian war can be pretty well taken for granted historically, and any realistic war gaming or strategic planning will assume thiis. In Vietnam, when we were trying to keep the Soviet Union from gaining a strategic naval base by subversion and semi-covert military force, our "European allies" were loudly proclaiming their political support for Soviet proxies, while Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, and Taiwan sent troops to help us. As far as Europe is concerned, the US exists to hold Russia at bay in Europe so they don't have to be bothered with self defense, and anything else we do is a distraction from that and shouldn't be allowed. Europeans lack empathy. Asians, Australians, Japanese, and New Zealanders aren't "people" to them and it never occurs to them to wonder how they can expect a US that abandons its Pacific Rim allies to stand by them in need.
1