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

  1. 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
  2. I don't think he said "full scale", either. This thing could be 1/2 size or 1/4 size, and unmanned.
    3
  3. These "the sky is falling" videos are pointless, absurd, and don't understand how our military reacts to threat developments. They hypersonic missile panic was a case in point. First, it ignored that our old Phoenix missile was hypersonic. We know all about hypersonic. And so now we have some, and more are coming. No big deal. You will see that the issues in this video will end up being NO BIG DEAL.
    3
  4. Conquer China?? Why would the US ever want to do that? So, no. But, if you mean defeat China? Then yes, US would defeat China in a conventional war. BUT, it would likely go nuclear, and the world would be destroyed.
    3
  5. Don't forget the US is good at missiles, too. Our LRASM will destroy enemy ships. If we need them, I am sure we can develop long-range anti-radiation missiles to target and destroy missile batteries that threaten the Navy or our aircraft. Right now, those missiles are only on our aircraft, I think. The US Navy is not a static entity. It develops new weapons to counter enemy developments.
    3
  6.  @Abuahmed770  LOL😜 If you read some history, you will see that infighting and betrayal between Muslim leaders was the rule. Look at the deep conflict between the Iran & Arabia. Shia vs Wahabbi Muslims. With Wahabbis calling non-Wahabbi Sunni apostates - how can Muslims unite?? The greatest threat to Muslim governments today is radical Islam, not western states, or Russia, or China. The Pan-Islamic ideal of a united Islamic world is a fantasy. Did the people of the Ottoman Empire want to be ruled by the Ottomans?? Nope. They preferred having their own countries. [Tragedy that the borders and rulers of those new countries were determined by European powers. Big mistake that.]
    3
  7. Interesting. Didn't know about this.
    3
  8. How about Portland Police vs the National Guard???
    3
  9. UK has a base on Cyprus. Would UK get involved? Also, would there not be political impact on NATO?? Would NATO keep Turkey in NATO? Or, kick it out? Would there be trade problems? Would Greece impose a trade blockade on Turkey??? (Since trade to Istanbul goes through the Aegean.) Seems to me that Turkey would lose a lot, if it starts a war.
    3
  10. An exceptionally good or bad general would alter the outcome dramatically.
    3
  11.  @benjaminhagood8734  And now you taking me seriously??? If you think I missed your joke, you just missed mine. I liked your comment about Netflix and Coast Guard. Seriously, though, the Coast Guard does the most good in the world. IMO.
    3
  12. 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
  13.  @evergreenhills  What makes you think China's radar absorbing coatings are more advanced than America's??
    2
  14.  @jaek__  China is going to coat their stealth jets with Bounty paper towels -- they found out they are the most absorbent. 🤣😅😂😆
    2
  15. BTW...The US and Russia would love a war between Iran and Arabia. Oil prices would soar, benefiting both.
    2
  16. 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
  17.  @henrikscania-1st  Yep. Gripen was designed to fight Russia, in real war conditions.
    2
  18.  @jonathanpfeffer3716  Are you saying that drones must be on the large carriers then? If so, then many planes would have to be left off. Drones take up space. I do agree that CATOBAR designed drones would be best. I don't see why smaller drone carriers couldn't be CATOBAR.
    2
  19.  @jonathanpfeffer3716  If the drones were much smaller --- why couldn't the CATOBAR systems be made proportionately smaller? I do not accept your reasoning.
    2
  20. And what about AUKUS?? How does that fit into the US strategy for dealing with China? We have these different pieces -- AUKUS, Philippine bases, Palau, Japan bases, and ROK. How do they all fit together to create a security system for the region?
    2
  21.  @maninredhelm  Agreed with you, up to the Philippines. China has sunk Philippine fishing boats, leaving the sailors to die in the ocean. Anti-China sentiment is high. Also, US will not start a conflict. It will let China start it.
    2
  22. That's silly. Russia has no navy that can project power much beyond its coast. Unlike things in the mirror, Russia appears more powerful than it really is.
    2
  23.  @dylian_  Is trade interference? Is selling arms interference? Is giving satellite intelligence interference?? Like we gave UK satellite info in the Falklands War, but we didn't "interfere".
    2
  24.  FB fib 10/23  Great. So, you see how the Taiwanese feel about it. If China invades, will the Taiwanese fight for their freedoms, and their country?? Will the people of Taiwan support the taxes needed to have a strong military?? Sometimes Freedom and Independence need to be fought for, sacrifices made, and people dying. Will Taiwan fight when they need, to keep their country from the CCP???
    2
  25.  My Creative Learning  in this I don't think so. Reason being is US cannot allow China to control SCS and other sea lanes. China has shown it will weaponize such dominance to make countries reliant upon China. Conquest of Taiwan cannot be allowed for that reason. Japan and ASEAN do not want to be vassal states. They will fight too.
    2
  26. Point and counter-point. As rockets develop, the US is developing energy weapons that will take them out in a moment --- no matter how fast they go. If they can be detected - then they can be targeted and destroyed by energy weapons. Energy weapons are coming, and will be on our ships in 10 years or less, IMO. With rockets neutralized, the surface fleet becomes more powerful again.
    2
  27. Maritime insurance rates would not allow any ship to go through the Strait of Malacca. So, China would be effectively blockaded by global maritime trade rules. 🤣🤣👌💋
    2
  28. 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
  29. Meanwhile, even if the US did not participate militarily, the US would ensure maritime trade with Japan stays open. We would not be so kind to China.
    2
  30. Personally, I think Xi is already overplaying China's military bullying, Companies are moving manufacturing out of China, and others are sourcing parts and products from other countries. Partly this is due to recent increases in wages and production costs. But I think, it is mostly due to higher risk of regional conflict disrupting export trade.
    2
  31.  @BeaverChainsaw  What you say is true. BUT -- China did claim parts of Siberian Russia as its own, AND stated that it will come for it someday. IMO, Russia & China are natural rivals or enemies, and have been so for 800 years. The US is a distraction from that underlying condition. That condition is not changing - geography is permanent - and it will determine their relationship, eventually. IMO.
    2
  32.  @mauricio-leyenda  You have to look at the fundamental pressures and ambitions of both countries. Their geography, both behemoths on Asia, make them natural enemies. That reality will always be there. Hatred of the US will come and go.
    2
  33. Simple, play a video game. It's easy there. In real life?? Not so easy. Even if successful, the American pay back is brutal. The last time a country attacked our Navy, they did sink some of our capital ships. They paid a very heavy price for that. Do you really think America would just stand by and not react to an act of war?? And, if we were already at war -- don't you think we would be hunting and killing ALL the ships of an enemy's surface and submarine fleets?? If its China, don't you think we would shut ALL maritime trade of China??? Don't you think the bases and military assets of China would all become targets?? Don't you think we would have allies, while China would not?? These kinds of exercises ignore a whole range of issues.
    2
  34. In case of war, the US would NEVER invade. Too costly, and deadly. Instead, the US would blockade China, and cut it off from the world. No maritime trade. No internet connection to the world. No telephone connection to the world. All Chinese satellites destroyed. China would be strangled.
    2
  35. What about the new US base on the island of Palau?? How does that fit into the American strategy?
    2
  36. Also, you may presume American neutrality, but South Korea and Japan may take a different view. Neither may want a militaristic belligerent China on Taiwan. I wonder how much aid they might give.
    1
  37. What would a modern war look like?? Trade & Finance would cease, at least for China -- wouldn't it?? Would China be cut off from the world internet?? Could the US do that? I think we could cut China off from the world internet. Many of the countries of the region would be glad to do that, I am sure. Many countries would be glad to see us taking China down, and would help us in many ways, even if they don't join is in direct military operations. Some countries might use such a war as an opportunity to correct border problems. India could push China out of Kashmir, and correct the legacy of the 1962 war. Vietnam could destroy the fake island bases China has in the South China Sea. Philippines might do the same. Also, by joining the US, they could make demands when peace happens, and a peace treaty is written.
    1
  38. 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
  39.  @sihiushitposterbiasa-reliv5199  Nope.
    1
  40.  @sihiushitposterbiasa-reliv5199  It is not about me admitting anything. It is about our sources. You, obviously, accept China's economy numbers. You don't accept that companies are leaving China, and foreign investment has crashed. You don't accept that China is losing the export markets it needs. That's OK.
    1
  41.  @ViolentCabbage-ym7ko  The F-35 is complete. However, it is modular. So, new developments and improved items can be added as needed. Plus, it was designed at the start in full knowledge that some items would not be developed for awhile. It was very cutting edge.
    1
  42.  @ViolentCabbage-ym7ko  I don't think the F-35 is the most expensive program, EIther our aircraft carriers or nuclear subs are more expensive. The F-35C is only a PART of the cost of a fully kitted out carrier. The cost of our military has long been a cause for concern. EIsenhower said it very well in his "Cross of Iron" speech. The cost of a ship is the cost of a hospital or school. We spend on our military at a cost to our society, our children, and ourselves. But, that is another discussion.
    1
  43.  @ViolentCabbage-ym7ko  Cross of Iron speech --- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyBNmecVtdU&ab_channel=Ewafa
    1
  44.  @ViolentCabbage-ym7ko  I do lots of research. You don't. You only accept Chinese and Russian sources. You are so wrong., I haven't the time to tell you how., Besides, you are so convinced of your delusions that it would be pointless. The real tell, is that you cannot give detailed facts (not assertions) supporting your ideas.
    1
  45.  @archangel7052  True, it is obvious - to those that have a slight understanding of naval operations. Unfortunately, many do not have that knowledge.
    1
  46. The US is deeply interested in the Ukraine War. However, the US is NOT involved in it. No troops. No naval action. Sanctions and arms sales is the limit of our "involvement". The US can easily be involved in another theater, if we need to be.
    1
  47. 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
  48.  @TSUTENKAKU007  India is NOT part of AUKUS. AUKUS is a military alliance -- not a trade pact. If the alliance is activated then US, UK, and Australia will fight together.
    1
  49.  @Greycloak996  That is good news. I was not aware of PH developing military cooperation with Japan and Australia. Thanks.
    1
  50.  @GabrielLopez-mo2xo  Wouldn't it be great if AUKUS expanded to include Japan, PH, and India? And even ROK, maybe.
    1