Comments by "" (@craigkdillon) on "Binkov's Battlegrounds"
channel.
-
611
-
268
-
114
-
28
-
17
-
16
-
14
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
What makes you think that US and Japan would keep the conflict in this theater of war?? It would expand.
First, China's navy would be targeted no matter where they are. South China Sea, Pacific, Indian Ocean -- any Chinese boat anywhere would be sunk.
Second, China's maritime trade would cease under an American blockade.
Third, China' air, naval, and army bases on the mainland would suffer from a rain of Tomahawk missiles. The ports of Shanghai, Hong Kong, Tianjin and many others would be attacked, with the aim of destroying their container handling infrastructure.
As for Russia, its navies would be sunk. Russia's navies in the Black Sea, Mediterranean, Baltic Sea, and Arctic Ocean would all be sunk, unless they are kept in port. Russian assets around Vladivostok would be attacked.
I don't think they are that stupid to start something like this.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
Your analysis is obsolete.
It is like judging ww2 tanks, without talking about radio.
It is known that the tank that sees, targets, and shoots first is almost always the winner.
US tanks are now becoming networked. So, targeting can be done by a drone, an A-10, or another tank, and the tank then fires first, kills first.
Tanks DO NOT operate alone. So, to judge them in a one to one comparison is misleading, and basically stupid.
US tanks still operate in platoons of 5 tanks minimum, I think.
So, you have to also look at tank doctrine and tactics to come to any kind of reasonable conclusion as to which would do better in a battle.
I really get tired of these silly analyses that are not even good enough for teenagers.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
When countries spend heavily on weapons wars usually follow.
Britain and Germany spent heavily before WW1.
Would WW1 have happened if both had not done that?
IMO, the US long wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan were both, at least partly, encouraged by our high military spending at the time.
Would the US had spent (wasted) so much men and material if our military was smaller??
Even if not planned, wars seem like a rational solution to international political problems.
Also, when a huge military is just sitting there, using it may seem like an easy solution.
After all, diplomacy is tricky, and you really have to think hard about how and what you say and do.
Unfortunately, wars are messy, and they have a very bad habit of not turning out the way they were intended. Our own Vietnam and Afghanistan wars are proof of that.
So, with China spending heavily on planes, rockets, and ships will they start a war??
Very likely, IMO.
4
-
Taiwan does NOT need to maintain air superiority over Taiwan ----
Taiwan merely needs to DENY air superiority to China.
That can be done with missiles & radars --
as long as they can survive.
A big unanswered question is "how sophisticated is Taiwan's ECM (electronic counter measures)?. If its ECM is effective, then many of China's missiles could be deflected away from their targets. If ECM is effective, then China could fire hundreds, or thousands of missiles, and not degrade Taiwan's power that much.
Ultimately, China needs to invade to succeed. Invasion troops & ships would have to get through javelins, TOW's, machine gun fire, artillery, mortars, and other weapons fire that their missiles would NOT have destroyed.
China will suffer local defeats. How will the green troops react to defeats?
Taiwanese will be fighting for their homes, their independence, and their freedom.
What will Chinese troops be fighting for??
I doubt PLA troops will have high morale, despite the Wolf Warrior propaganda.
4
-
If the US was to invade Venezuela (and that is a big IF) it would not do it alone. Done alone, US would be alienated from other SA countries. The US would be seen as invading the continent, not merely Venezuela.
Venezuela is causing headaches in South America. So, it may be able to be done in concert with OAS, and specifically Brazil and Columbia, who are the most affected by refugees.
In a combined military operation, through a coalition with Brazil, Columbia, and other countries that want to partake, it could be done quite easily.
The US invaded at Maracaibo, then Brazil from the south, and Columbia from the west. Then all parties proceed to Caracas, and install a democratic government. Like Japan and Germany after WW2, occupying forces stay for several years until governmental and financial institutions are stabilized.
If Trump wasn't such a jerk and overall idiot, we could have done this by now.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
BTW...Carriers have a huge role in peace time -- they project the physical power of America all over the world.
China would like to do that same, so they are building carriers. However, without a global network of bases, China's ability to project that power is very limited.
Sure, they have Djibouti in Africa, and Karachi in Pakistan, but these are of limited use. Any war with India, and both would be easily destroyed or blockaded by India. Even more so with America.
Can this change?? Sure, if China keeps at for 30 to 50 years. Even then, it is not likely because China is poor at making friends.
Also, in Africa, the arrangements being made with the rulers are anti-democratic and against the interests of both the citizens and the countries. That may work for awhile. But, sooner or later, a new regime comes to power and ends or cancels those arrangements.
Monies owed by contracts signed by dictators will be noncollectable. Europe and US will not allow China to send its army to enforce its contracts. So, tough luck China, you will be out of the money you gave for dictator vanity projects.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
You talk about the population difference, which has usually been an important factor, especially if the wars lasts.
However, times have changed. Wars are now technology based.
In that regard, Israel has a huge advantage over Egypt. Israel has an arms industry, and has clients around the world.
Another advantage that Israel has is motivation -- Egypt fights to conquer, while Israel fights to survive. That makes a BIG difference, IMO.
I also question Egypt's ability to effectively use the high tech equipment it has. How well trained & motivated is the Egyptian military, especially its air force???
It seems to me that the Egyptian military's primary use has been to keep the government in power -- not train or prepare for a real war. Police forces don't make good armies, IMO.
If an Egyptian/Israeli war broke, I think Israel would win again ------
BUT --- the United States & EU would NOT come to Egypt's rescue, and stop Israel from completely defeating Egypt.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You can NEVER merely talk about what a carrier can do.
NO carrier goes alone. Each is accompanies by destroyers, cruisers, and subs.
Therefore, when talking about range, or theaters of operations,
you have to talk about the range and supply issues of all the support ships.
This is where bases become an issue.
If US wants to operate in the Indian Ocean, we have a base at Diego Garcia.
If the US wants to operate in the Atlantic, we have US bases, and in the UK.
For the Mediterranean, we have a base in Naples
Near China, we have naval bases in Japan, Philippines, Palau, Guam, and Wake Island.
Plus, countries friendly to the US, like Australia, will allow us to use their facilities, if need arises.
China needs to do a lot more if it wants to challenge the US on the high seas.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
One more point, the "Belt And Road" initiative will fail. The main purpose of it seems to be to get nations to become debt slaves to China - essentially modern day colonies.
Well, that won't work. National loans can be easily denied, UNLESS the threat of Chinese military force exists to force countries to pay their debts to China.
Well, China cannot force nations in Africa to pay their debts. US, India, and EU will not allow China to use its military to enforce loan collection.
Besides, the colonial powers tried that on their colonies, and it didn't work then. And, it won't work for China, either.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
Interesting, but of little value. First, carriers go to battle in battle groups, in coordination with other surface ships and submarines. A valid comparison would have to include these other assets that China and UK bring to a battle. Next, naval battles are often, if not typically, supported by land based air and missile operations. A battle in the North Sea would probably end very differently than if a battle occurred in the Yellow Sea.
Lastly, doctrine is important in assessing the effectiveness of units in battle. For instance, the apparently superior British and French tanks performed badly in the Battle of France because of differences between the German doctrine of concentrated panzer units and mobility versus the British/French doctrine of distributing tanks within infantry units with no radios. Doctrine was the factor in victory, not tank design.
So, what do we know of China's naval battle doctrine? Anything?? If we don't, then how can we make any assessment of their capability vis-a-vis the UK or the US?
If anything is known of China's naval doctrine, or overall military doctrine, I would really love to see a video discussion of it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You missed some very important factors.
1. Even without the trade war, companies would be moving production and sourcing out of China - due to increased trade risk, and due to rising costs.
2. China's belligerent local attitude is driving Vietnam, Indonesia, India, NK, and Japan away. All will likely reduce imports from China to a minimum, so they won't be dependent on China.
3. China's arrogance will irritate other cultures. US has immigrant communities from all over the world, so there are profound deep personal connections with most countries. Vietnamese, Indian, Taiwanese, Korean, and people from so many other countries have lives and businesses in the US.
That creates common connections that China cannot easily counter.
4. China's GDP and other economic numbers are known to be highly inaccurate. The GDP number, for instance, includes all the empty cities that have been built. They are useless, and add nothing to the Chinese economy. The rise of the poor to middle class in China was done mostly by redefining poverty line downward.. So, more Chinese are classified as middle class, even though their earnings may not have changed.
I think China's overtaking of the US is farther off than projected.
I think in the future, it will be seen that China's progress has already been virtually halted, and that China is no longer gaining much on the US.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
About military doctrine -- Doctrine does effect weapon design, and military organization. For instance, the British/French doctrine of putting tanks in infantry units led them to build tanks that were slow, and lacked radios, since coordination with other tanks was not foreseen.
So, what can be deduced about China's military naval doctrine from the design of the ships and aircraft designs, and how they are organized?
First, like the UK carrier, the Chinese carrier are NOT blue water carriers, but primarily designed to support amphibious landings. That is why the UK carrier will have F-35B's with VSTOL, while the US carriers get F-35A's with CATOBAR. With that in mind, it is unlikely that current Chinese and British carriers would ever battle each other.
However, China says CATOBAR carriers in the Nimitz class are in its future. If so, that would be a real game changer. The US is the only country with blue water carriers and bases able to initiate and sustain conflict over the whole world. If China invests in 4 to 6 such carriers, that would be a game changer in the region.
{Not globally, because they still would not have the base structure necessary to support them.}
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hard?? Impossible without total air supremacy, which I do not believe China can accomplish.
Ships in the Taiwan Strait are sitting ducks for rockets, artillery, submarine, and air attack.
Does anyone really think China can run that gauntlet, and not lose an unacceptable number of ships??
Of course, the idea is to eliminate the Taiwanese air force, land based assets, and submarines.
DO you really think China has the ability?? I don't.
This video thinks that satellite surveillance will tell China where all assets are and that they can then be easily destroyed. No chance....
1. The Taiwanese are totally aware of Chinese recon ability. That recon can be fooled with props and dummies.
2. The time delay of getting info from recon to front line means that assets won't be where they think they are -- they will have moved.
3. Many small assets - rockets & artillery can be quite easily camouflaged until needed. The Chinese won't know where a rocket installation is until a rocket is fired and sinks a ship. An installation with 20-30 rockets can be hidden until used. Taiwan would have dozens of such installations.
BTW - these rockets would have the entire strait within range. ALL SHIPS WOULD BE VULNERABLE.
Would you launch an invasion in such circumstances???
You would be an idiot if you did. Are the Chinese idiots?? Not usually, but Xi is a bit off, so maybe.
1
-
1
-
@АлександрДрагович-ч2г That is an odd take on history. From your script, I take it you are Russian.
Like the typical Russian, you see the world through paranoid lenses, and think everything countries do is to hurt Russia.
In 1815, Americans did not even know Russia existed. Those that did know, did not care.
We had two wars with Britain, and were glad to see the end of them. We did not know about the developing "Great Game" in Asia.
As for 1991, that was the Soviet Union collapsing in on itself, which has to do with the policies, philosophy, and structure of the USSR.
Its demise was inevitable.
What is a shame is the disagreeable direction that Putin has taken Russia.
Putin has not helped Russia, IMO.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1