Comments by "" (@craigkdillon) on "Binkov's Battlegrounds" channel.

  1. By "neutral", I presume you mean "non-belligerent". The US would still trade with Taiwan and sell it weapons and munitions. Also, the US would supply Taiwan satellite intelligence, as we did to UK in the Falklands conflict, where we were also "neutral". The word "neutral" is ambiguous. The US can be "neutral", yet give significant aid & support, which I presume we would do.
    611
  2. Taiwan is a winner. Taiwan wins by remaining unconquered and free.
    268
  3. I doubt your conclusion. I think the Indian army and air force are better trained. As you mentioned, the Himalayas negates China's armor and artillery advantage. Both navies only defend home waters, and have little impact, except that oil and resources to China through the Indian Ocean are stopped - this could hurt China big time. I think the superior training and motivation of the Indian army will give India a marginal victory.
    114
  4. Also, the conflict would stay isolated to that theater of warfare. Russian ships in the Atlantic and elsewhere would be sunk. Same for China. A total worldwide blockade on both would be established on day one. China would get no fish, its people would get upset. China could not export or import - its economy would crash. That is why this will not happen.
    28
  5. The biggest difference, IMO, is that Ukraine's equipment losses are being resupplied by NATO countries, while Russian losses can only be replaced by stored equipment. So, Ukraine can sustain continued losses indefinitely, while Russian supplies will run out at some point.
    17
  6. What happens if Ukraine run's out of air defense missiles?? Or artillery shells? Or, ammo? Or, rifles? Or, APC's? Simple, they just call NATO's Amazon service for next day delivery. I thought you knew that.
    16
  7. Again, you know little of history. Russia and China are traditional enemies, going back centuries. The post WW2 "alliance" between them, is mostly a myth. I guess you never heard of the Sino-Soviet split in the 70's? I guess you did not know that China recently claimed much of Siberia as their own? I guess you did not know Russia is pissed China has copied its weapons and stole technology?? I guess there is a lot you don't know, or maybe just choose to ignore.
    14
  8. Claim that Japan's subs would stay close to Kyushu is wrong, IMO. They would be best used aggressively, torpedoing and sinking merchant ships by Shanghai and Hong Kong. After sinking a few export container ships, China's foreign trade would be crippled, IMO. Such a war would be devastating to both Japan and China.
    13
  9. You really haven't a clue what is going on, do you?? Just as Russia's belligerence made taking sides easy in the 50's, so it is now. Russia did NOT liberate Eastern Europe -- it conquered it. Russia treated Eastern Europe as conquered peoples. If any protested -- the tanks rolled in. Much of the US support for Europe after WW2 was done without loans. We helped Europe recover. Just look at Europe today. We don't own it or control it. Today, China is threatening everyone. That will make their decisions easier. Look at what China is doing to Philippines, Australia, and India. The new Cold War will not be US vs China. It will be US/India/Japan/Philippines/Vietnam/EU/UK/Argentina/../../ vs China. China pushes countries into the US camp, because the US supports free world trade. China wants to replace the current system of free world trade with its own China-centric system. No one wants the China system, so China will lose this Cold War. It is losing it, and it hasn't really got started yet.
    12
  10. Absurd. Like so many of these analyses, this portrays Taiwan as a punching bag that does not fight back. 1. Taiwan has missiles that can reach Chinas ports. Chinas navy would be under attack from the start. 2 Taiwan has missiles that can reach deep inland, and can hit targets like Beijing or the 3 Gorges Dam. 3. Taiwan could sink any tankers that come close to China. Chinas imports would stop. 4 Chinas exports would stop. 5 Taiwans missiles and torpedos would survive an attack. They would destroy any invasion fleet. 6. The war would likely last years. 7 Taiwan would outlast China. China needs conquest to win. Taiwan merely needs to survive. Wars of conquest are hard in the modern world.
    12
  11. Ha!! Australia would unleash their undefeatable Emus and Kangaroos. China would not have a chance.
    11
  12. How many trained, equipped, and ready soldiers can Russia mobilize??? ZERO. None will get the 6 months needed for proper trained and preparation for combat. They will become Ukraine target practice.
    11
  13. Was it conscripts or regular troops that performed war crimes in Bucha??
    11
  14. Nope. Putin wishes. War is over, when Crimea falls.
    11
  15. Ukraine has shown that air superiority is not easily established anymore. Missiles of all kinds make that very difficult. Taiwan will deny it to China.
    10
  16.  @nickjoseph1043  US commitment to Taiwan goes back to the 50's. The commitment is from the United States, not one party or one person. It does not matter who is in office. In fact, Trump walking away from our NATO allies says to me that he is unreliable, and less likely to back our allies, like Taiwan. Biden, or any Democrat or Republican will back Taiwan.
    10
  17.  @benjaminhagood8734  So Netflix is now our authority on facts. Good to know.
    9
  18. America is protected by our oceans, just as in WW2. US has bases very close to China. US would blockade China. No oil, no fertilizer, no iron ore, no coal, etc. China's industry and food production would be hit hard. China has no way to have the same impact on the US. Our blockade alone would defeat China.
    9
  19. Video was done in 2015. World has changed. 1. China no longer has access to advanced chips. 2. China's economy is declining --- advanced planes take a lot of money. 3. China cannot match America's annual investment in R&D and manufacturing.
    8
  20. Asinine. You blithely talk about amphibious assaults as if they were easy. Amphibious warfare is the most difficult of all types. Russia and China have ZERO experience with. They have NONE of the requirements for success. 1. Total naval dominance of the area is needed. NOT just superiority -- dominance. 2. Total air dominance is also required -- NOT just superiority. 3. Without such dominance, the attacking forces are VERY vulnerable. 4. Chinese and Russian troop ships would likely be sunk, killing tens of thousands. 5. Any assault troops getting to shore are likely to be cut off from naval support - isolated, and slaughtered. I think you play too many war games.
    8
  21. Singapore would defeat China with one phone call ---- "Hello, Biden? We have a problem, could you give us some help??" Problem solved.
    7
  22. 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
  23. Another analysis that assumes Taiwan won't or can't strike back. WRONG ! ! HF-2e missiles can strike 3 Groges Dam. But, probably won't be done. All China's ports from Shanghai to Hong Kong will be struck. China's invasion fleet will be hit in port. Infrastructure and buildings in the port cities will be struck. China's airfields will be struck. Meanwhile, missile bases and launchers in Taiwan are mobile and easily hidden. Taiwan has sophisticated ECM and ECCM capabilities. Most Chinese missiles will not hit their targets. Meanwhile, the SCS and ECS become war zones. That means China's maritime trade will cease. Cargo ships will not go into a war zone. Also, the US will stop ALL oil imports going to China through the Indian Ocean. Within months, China's production will cease. Within 6 months, China will begin to starve (see Peter Zeihan on how and why). Remember, China needs complete conquest to win. Taiwan merely needs to survive to win.
    7
  24. You focus too much on military vs military. First thing that would happen after such an attack is that all tankers going to China would divert to other ports, or be sunk. To make the point, several container ships coming out of China would sunk close to harbor, so everyone in China would get the point. ALL Chinese ports would be blocked. All Chinese fishing vessels and other Chinese flagged vessels would be sunk, ASAP. Russian naval vessels at sea around the world would all be sunk within a few weeks, many in the first few days. Russia + China would own the land, but the sea belongs to the US. (Just like when Napoleon owned the land, and Britain owned the sea in 1805.) The air attacks would suffer heavy losses. Japan's pilots are well trained, and they have the best radars and missile defenses. China and Russia would lose many planes. The South China Sea bases of China would be immediately destroyed. Basically, Russia + China wouldn't have a chance.
    7
  25. This starts with a silly premise, that does not allow for American assistance. US would definitely supply Australia with satellite intelligence. Australian pilots are very well trained. I doubt the Chinese air force would be able to control the air space. With air dominance, China could not invade. Moreover, China's ships would be vulnerable when near Australia, to land and air launched missiles. China's forces would be annihilated. I wish the scenarios would communicate how difficult amphibious assaults are. They are VERY difficult. And, one mistake, and you get annihilated. You don't just merely lose. The invasion force would likely be wiped out, when not victorious.
    7
  26. To be effective, China must develop the Carrier Task Force. A carrier must not operate alone.
    6
  27. What about drone carriers?? CCA's will take up space on a carrier. Will the Navy want to reduce the number of aircraft?? Or, will they want smaller drone carriers of about 10000 tons to work with the carriers? Drone carriers make operational sense to me.
    6
  28. My view is a little different. For Japan, the real issue is China's claim of sovereignty over the South China Sea. IF China achieved that, then China would control much of the maritime trade of Japan. It could relegate Japan to a client state. Japan cannot have that. If China were to take Taiwan, China would likely then be able to control the SCS, too. SO, from Japan's POV, it is imperative that China NOT get Taiwan. IMO, that is what is driving Japan's policies.
    6
  29. What makes you think the war would stay limited to the Pacific? The US Navy would sink every Russian and Chinese ship they came across ---- ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. Chinese & Russian maritime trade would also be targeted.
    6
  30. Why don't you mention Japan's F-35's?? They could easily destroy Russia's jets on the ground AND their radar stations, just like the F-117s did in the Iraq war. Those 20 planes change the situation entirely. Japan would be the EASY victor, IMO.
    6
  31. Wouldn't this activate the Five Power Defense Agreement?? UK, Malaysia, and Australia would support Singapore. A Chinese conquest of Singapore would mean that Malaysia is next. Malaysia would be intimidated, and likely controlled by China in Singapore. So, Malaysia would assist.
    6
  32. This is silly. India does not have a problem with US on Diego Garcia, so, why would it have a problem with UK? In fact, India welcomes the US, and would welcome UK. Why?? China, of course. The US and UK will help India control the area and keep China out. We are all about to join an alliance against China.
    6
  33.  @mauricio-leyenda  Disagree. Last year, China claimed parts of Siberia as its own territory. China just did a cyber attack on a weapons design bureau in Russia. The China/Russia relationship is complicated, and is always in danger of rupturing. Bottom line -- I don't see either helping the other in a shooting war. They are NOT allies. Also, don't dismiss history so easily.
    6
  34. Changes in Japan is only one thing altering the military landscape in the region. Aukus is huge. Multiple bases in the Philippines for American forces is also huge. South Korea becoming a major arms exporter is important. The bipartisan support in the US for supporting Taiwan, and in opposing China is fundamental. The military world that China will face in the future will be profoundly different from the recent past.
    5
  35. 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
  36. I believe the radar absorbing coatings on the fighters require frequent maintenance. Is that true?? If so, then the maintenance practices of the ground crews should be assessed (if that can be found out). I bet the Russian ground crews do a poor job of radar coating maintenance. In fact, I bet they don't do it at all. I have no idea or opinion on China's practices on that. If anyone has any idea about how radar coatings are maintained, please comment. Thanks.
    5
  37. Kermit wins because he is American. Binkov loses because he is Russki.
    5
  38. You keep showing the carriers close in to China. The US Navy is BLUE ocean navy. That is, its job is to dominate the ocean, NOT to dominate land areas. It has been used in that role against weak opponents in the Middle East and against Vietnam. Against an advanced foe, that won't work. Against China, the Navy's job will be to stop China from projecting power into the South China Sea, and against Taiwan & Japan. That it could do - using mostly submarines, IMO. The surface fleet will be brought in when the Chinese assets have been destroyed or removed.
    5
  39. BTW, a stable and prosperous Venezuela would be good for the region and for the US. It would be worth the effort for the US and the OAS to invade Venezuela and impose order, allowing for a new Constitution, new institutions, new businesses, and a stable justice system to be created. A five year period allowed for all to be accomplished. Elections then held, and Venezuela put on its own again.
    5
  40. UK has a base in Singapore. Any attack on Singapore is an attack on a UK military base. Any attack on a military base is an Act Of War. UK will be at war with any country attacking Singapore. Because of the AUKUS alliance, US would be at war, too. If China attacks Singapore, China will have a very bad day.
    5
  41. Don't be too sure. They are not Americans, and they don't have Americans love affair with guns.
    5
  42. 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
  43. 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
  44. 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
  45. Sounds like you are talking about the virtues of the Gripen. I agree. Those are important considerations in a real war. Gripen's ability to use highways as runways is a huge advantage. While the F-16's need for 10,000 ft runway in pristine condition is a problem, IMO.
    4
  46. With our LHA's getting F-35B's, we get about 9 new light carriers, that could augment our main carriers in the open ocean. Our Navy has just gotten more flexible and more dangerous.
    4
  47. These silly analyses NEVER seem to take into account the difficulty of amphibious warfare. Also, the Kuril islands would be very hard for Russia to hold onto, and would likely be taken very quickly by Japan. I doubt Russia would be able to do much of anything, meanwhile Russia's Pacific ports would be blockaded. ALL Russian material would have to come from Europe, overland.
    4
  48. US has no ambitions for military conflict with Russia. No profit in it. However, China has claimed Russian territory, and states that it is an Arctic power. The only Arctic land near China that it must acquire to become an Arctic power is Siberia. Is Russia structuring its forces in any serious way to stop an invasion from China?? If not, are they brain dead?
    4
  49. One more thing, China does not have enough of the new stealth fighters to make a difference, and the F-15's are superior to ALL other Chinese fighters. Your video dismisses Japan's F-15's as if they would be no problem for China. Very wrong commissar breath.
    4
  50. If you hate America, you could do that. But, of course, any country doing that would be totally destroyed with hundreds of nukes hitting them. Then the nuclear winter follows -- destroying most human life on Earth. Yep, good idea.
    3