Comments by "buddermonger2000" (@buddermonger2000) on "Binkov's Battlegrounds" channel.

@infinityquasar That is... retarded. It's not been very rapid at all as this is optimal circumstances. The civilians now consider themselves Ukrainian thanks to the invasion. And finally, Ukraine doesn't have the ordinance to engage in civilian obliteration. That's a Russian tactic perfected in Grozny.
1
The big battleships did do combat. However the seas were basically dominated as the central powers were land powers first and foremost, and the German navy in jail. There's not a lot of focus on the WW1 naval war, because there wasn't a lot of WW1 naval combat. The 6th generation planes are very much the heart and brains of a system of systems. The planes themselves don't do the work. The drones do.
1
0:13 He broke a little lol
1
Oh yeah which is why I don't think the Chinese will build up the capacity for a successful invasion. It's 3 years later and that thought still holds true. Normandy was a practical miracle, on top of a dedicated misinformation campaign to have tanks and actual troops at a different landing site, with a distracted army using a contingent of troops not even fit for garrison duty. That's why they were on the Atlantic wall in the first place: someone needed to do it but it was so unlikely that it was basically a rest area. And then the Allies invaded.
1
 @ronsmith3523 So we pulled our troops out and were surprised when upon resistance no longer being present that they could sweep?
1
I can see ramping up aircraft production, but the US actually kind of dominates aircraft production. Oh and 4x the population who has historically not been very good at mobilizing their population for war. I'm also curious as to how they'll keep everything fueled since they import 59% of their oil. The US imports more but also primarily exports their oil as well as has strong allied import locations which can't be interfered with (Canada and Mexico). This is compared to the only possible access China having through Russia. Which can likely be bombed all things considered. Btw on that mobilization metric: if the Chinese and Americans were to mobilize in similar ratios as in the second world War the US military would be twice the size of China's military in total numbers.
1
@dabo5078 Yes I'm talking about the mobilization rate because that's a very important factor in war (btw worth noting that by that point the nationalists had united all of the warlords within a few years of the invasion and even then still couldn't mobilize more) and on top of that I'm using it because both countries fought so you can use the conflict and is the closest metric we have. Could that change? Possibly. However culturally the Chinese are fairly opposed to the military with China historically having mostly mercenary armies and WWII attitudes being "Why aren't they doing better when we're paying them so much?" and the Confucian value being that "good steel isn't used for nails" in relation to the military. Also yes why am I bringing it up mobilization rates? Because that's a percentage of the population and thus unaffected by actual population but I made those estimates with modern populations. Also no the reason why China is still cheaper is not because of actual volume but because that the labor pool is so massive as to keep wages low and thus in comparison to the US labor which commands a much higher price. And it's just unlikely to manage to produce more especially since the American factories can still be tooled up incredibly high. In terms of the ballistic missiles the US has very good defense technology against those and so they're unlikely to really do anything. They're also primarily tooled toward local distrances of around the south China sea. They're also expensive, difficult to replace, and overall really not much of "reaching the US". This is also compared to the US who can literally fly higher, fly more, and can fly nearly undetected. The Chinese Air defense however isn't really up to snuff to taking up the US air power in the higher altitudes. Overall kind of not up to the task.
1
@dabo5078 @da bo Well no mobilization rates has little to do with how well they can be supplied. While yes that's important, what's more important is getting people to actually fight for you. Even if they're using swords it's still better than nothing. And it's not like I'm using just them as precedent even during the Taiping rebellion the mobilization rate for China was incredibly small. And then in comparison the American Civil War saw a comparable rate to the second world War. Basically the comparison for me is that I'm looking at the long-term trends of the past roughly 200 years to see about how willing each country's population has been to go to war in a comparable high intensity conflict. Your attempt to brush it aside as saying "it's like saying the US wouldn't be able to mobilize because it left Afghanistan or won't help Ukraine" has 0 basis in analyzing how the country fights and reacts to actual conflicts. Afghanistan wasn't a war it was an occupation and the US simply didn't care to end up in a war it didn't care about (which btw is WWII situation is it not?). The Afghanistan war ended within a month. So that's just in no way accurate. And then the US simply didn't care for the war but given a war the US supports (a defensive war for a strategic interest against an enemy the population agrees on despising) you'll likely see the actual mobilization. Also lol no China is still cheap and you compared it to other southeastern neighbors which are all known as cheap labor and thus that argument kind of falls flat. Also the reason India and Bangladesh haven't taken over the industry is that India keeps out foreign investment and so there's been no-one to start up more factories there. Also worth noting that the Chinese usage of all of those materials make sense in the context of providing for the largest population on the planet but also when you consider that they're for thought of future growth which is actually unlikely to occur basically inflating the number higher than it otherwise would because it was only produced what was needed and for a much smaller population. Overall just isn't an apples to apples comparison there. PS American aircraft can fly above all but the newest Chinese Air defense and also operates stealth bombers which would be undetected.
1
I'm not sure this is as impressive as it sounds, and I'm not sure about its utility with being geosynchronous. First off: that means it has limited coverage. It's one spot. It's eyes in the sky, but it's effectively region locked. Second off: Even GPS isn't in geosynchronous orbit. And there's a reason for that. The reason is that it's very, very high up to each geosynchronous, and IIRC GPS is semi-geosynchronous. So basically, what this indicates to me is that they're trying to get it as far away as possible. And that they're probably compromising in some other categories in order to do this. I don't think this is so much of an achievement as otherwise indicated. This almost seems to be something that hasn't been done yet because it shouldn't, not because it couldn't.
1
Oh yeah, you're right. I didn't think about that since you have to pull off all of those panels for inspection and so have to remove and reapply.
1
@jmalcolmg123 Well no. It was cold because the powers didn't directly fight. But yes proxy wars were very hot. And also really a misunderstanding on your part because that insinuates the Anglos and Rus (which aren't all of the Soviets or the Americans) didn't die in the conflict either when Afghanistan 2 (First was British invasion like a century prior) was fought by the Soviets, Vietnam was fought by the Americans, and the Korean War was also fought by the Americans.
1
@oj3458 Well... if you've seen the trend... sequels always tend to be bigger and Bloodier with scale ever increasing. Remember the first actual world War was in the 1700s. And has all gone up from there. Then you remember The Great War and its sequel World War Two. So sadly... that probably won't be the case.
1
So we come back to the original idea: it's attrition followed by manuever as an unbalance must be established to create a manuever period
1
Probably should've discussed more on the reserve components given state national guards and army reserve given that they're in real terms meant to be equal to us military proper
1