china, China, CHINA

[Hardartery]

Definitely. Russia just tried to stir shit up in Kosovo but it looks like that's been put back to perpetual simmer for the time being.

As far as general grand strategy goes: sure, the US has only a limited capability, but I think it is still a greater capability overall than Russia and China combined, at least as of right now. Especially when Russia is already up their tits in a clusterfuck of their own making. And that's without counting NATO, Japan, Australia, S. Korea.. I realize we have other global defense commitments, but I think if confrontation will be painful for us, it will be equally or more so for them. I mean, if they really want Cold War Two™, well, we beat them before.

Russia and China's autocracies offer an advantage in this regard. As in they give zero shits about the plight of the people. Remember that the USSR's aggregate economic output was shit compared to the US but they still fielded a world class military.

The US government has to be ultra-responsive to a whiny and self indulgent population. We are a nation of brats. Essentially it is a game of who can take the most pain. Sadly, the US is not in a position to win such a fight if the stakes remain low. China knows this but has to have the guts to execute.

I think we are stretched thinner than many realize. We will spend years replenishing the combined arsenal (back stocking European allies) that has been transferred to Ukraine.

The USSR APPEARED to have a world class military. Russia also appeared to have that, but in actual practice we see that it is mostly cardboard cutouts of that. The Soviets got hammered in their military pusuits, much the same as they are getting hammered in Ukraine, with the same basic tactic of throwing more bodies at it hoping that the other side runs out of bodies first. Their actual "Modern" stuff is not very well made and does not live up to fears and expectations. The only actual victories for them have hinged on being able to retreat until the enemy ran out of steam and then froze and starved, and then they could use the enemies abandoned equipment (German tanks) to take back territory from the zombies left on the tundra. If Germany had not been fighting multiple fronts the Soviets could not have managed even that. They are smoke and mirrors already on the verge of collapse, and China is a cheap knockoff of that crap product.

[quikky]

I think we are stretched thinner than many realize. We will spend years replenishing the combined arsenal (back stocking European allies) that has been transferred to Ukraine.

Meh, I don't think we are at all. A lot of the heavier equipment that has gone to Ukraine, such as M777s and MLRS make up a small fraction of the US arsenal, and would likely not even be that useful in a confrontation with China. The stuff that would be useful, like naval and air assets are at full force. The replenishment will just lead to even more weapons development and larger stockpiles and production capacity. I'm not concerned.

The USSR APPEARED to have a world class military. Russia also appeared to have that, but in actual practice we see that it is mostly cardboard cutouts of that. The Soviets got hammered in their military pusuits, much the same as they are getting hammered in Ukraine, with the same basic tactic of throwing more bodies at it hoping that the other side runs out of bodies first. Their actual "Modern" stuff is not very well made and does not live up to fears and expectations. The only actual victories for them have hinged on being able to retreat until the enemy ran out of steam and then froze and starved, and then they could use the enemies abandoned equipment (German tanks) to take back territory from the zombies left on the tundra. If Germany had not been fighting multiple fronts the Soviets could not have managed even that. They are smoke and mirrors already on the verge of collapse, and China is a cheap knockoff of that crap product.

Yeah, the USSR never had a world class military. They did, however, have as world class quantity of military. It was never a highly trained, or motivated, fighting force. Just lots, and lots, and LOTS, of equipment, and the willingness of the government to toss countless people into a meatgrinder.

[quikky]

I wouldn't think, offhand, any Democrat too far from center would get the nomination.
But then, I also read this:

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/35 ... p-in-2024/

I think AOC getting the nomination is... A bit of a stretch to put it lightly. However, I think the bigger issue is more centrist democrats appeasing their woke wing and turning off a lot of voters. Republicans have the same issue with Trumpkins. We would be a lot better off all around if Woke Inc and Trumpkins would disappear from politics.

[aurelius]

Yeah, the USSR never had a world class military. They did, however, have as world class quantity of military. It was never a highly trained, or motivated, fighting force. Just lots, and lots, and LOTS, of equipment, and the willingness of the government to toss countless people into a meatgrinder.

This. High tech wizardry loses to mass blunt force. The US command is very worried about being drawn into a war of attrition against a China. Our equipment is expensive and difficult to replace.

The equipment with 70% of the capability but half (or even less) the cost that can be built quickly in mass is largely missing from the US arsenal. Some adjustment is being made. Example: Air Force canceled the F-22, reduced the planned number of F-35’s, and increased the inventory of the F-15. But there needs to be A LOT more of those changes.

The US military needs to be able win a war of attrition. The US military has become too enamored/reliant on expensive high tech gadgets.

[mikeylikey]

Yeah, the USSR never had a world class military. They did, however, have as world class quantity of military. It was never a highly trained, or motivated, fighting force. Just lots, and lots, and LOTS, of equipment, and the willingness of the government to toss countless people into a meatgrinder.

This. High tech wizardry loses to mass blunt force. The US command is very worried about being drawn into a war of attrition against a China. Our equipment is expensive and difficult to replace.

The equipment with 70% of the capability but half (or even less) the cost that can be built quickly in mass is largely missing from the US arsenal. Some adjustment is being made. Example: Air Force canceled the F-22, reduced the planned number of F-35’s, and increased the inventory of the F-15. But there needs to be A LOT more of those changes.

The US military needs to be able win a war of attrition. The US military has become too enamored/reliant on expensive high tech gadgets.

Where is this hypothetical war happening? I dont' see a scenario where we invade the chinese mainland, nor one where they invade the US mainland. So it's aircraft carriers fighting over islands, right? I think we win that fight, if there's one area we have quality and quantity it's aircraft carriers.

[hector]

I wouldn't think, offhand, any Democrat too far from center would get the nomination.
But then, I also read this:

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/35 ... p-in-2024/

I think AOC getting the nomination is... A bit of a stretch to put it lightly. However, I think the bigger issue is more centrist democrats appeasing their woke wing and turning off a lot of voters. Republicans have the same issue with Trumpkins. We would be a lot better off all around if Woke Inc and Trumpkins would disappear from politics.

That would be nice.

[hector]

Yeah, the USSR never had a world class military. They did, however, have as world class quantity of military. It was never a highly trained, or motivated, fighting force. Just lots, and lots, and LOTS, of equipment, and the willingness of the government to toss countless people into a meatgrinder.

This. High tech wizardry loses to mass blunt force. The US command is very worried about being drawn into a war of attrition against a China. Our equipment is expensive and difficult to replace.

The equipment with 70% of the capability but half (or even less) the cost that can be built quickly in mass is largely missing from the US arsenal. Some adjustment is being made. Example: Air Force canceled the F-22, reduced the planned number of F-35’s, and increased the inventory of the F-15. But there needs to be A LOT more of those changes.

The US military needs to be able win a war of attrition. The US military has become too enamored/reliant on expensive high tech gadgets.

Where is this hypothetical war happening? I dont' see a scenario where we invade the chinese mainland, nor one where they invade the US mainland. So it's aircraft carriers fighting over islands, right? I think we win that fight, if there's one area we have quality and quantity it's aircraft carriers.

Chinese cyber efforts might have results on the US mainland if they can destroy industrial equipment and infrastructure.

[mikeylikey]

Chinese cyber efforts might have results on the US mainland if they can destroy industrial equipment and infrastructure.

Sure, but the contention that I was responding to was that we need lots and lots of cheap fighter planes if we are going to prevail in a war with china. I'm trying to understand the parameters, and seems to me the first question is where exactly such war is taking place and what are the stakes.

[aurelius]

Where is this hypothetical war happening? I dont' see a scenario where we invade the chinese mainland, nor one where they invade the US mainland. So it's aircraft carriers fighting over islands, right? I think we win that fight, if there's one area we have quality and quantity it's aircraft carriers.

aircraft carriers useless against Russian/China. Both have developed asymmetric counter measures. Coker’s, middles, and tactical nuclear torpedos.

Anywhere they want. Which is the point. The US will not pick the battlefield. Our opponents will.

[JonA]

Where is this hypothetical war happening? I dont' see a scenario where we invade the chinese mainland, nor one where they invade the US mainland. So it's aircraft carriers fighting over islands, right? I think we win that fight, if there's one area we have quality and quantity it's aircraft carriers.

aircraft carriers useless against Russian/China. Both have developed asymmetric counter measures. Coker’s, middles, and tactical nuclear torpedos.

Anywhere they want. Which is the point. The US will not pick the battlefield. Our opponents will.

Sounds like Russian/Chinese propaganda.

[aurelius]

Sounds like Russian/Chinese propaganda.

Wish it was. Nuclear torpedoes are no joke.

[Hiphopapotamus]

Sounds like Russian/Chinese propaganda.

Wish it was. Nuclear torpedoes are no joke.

I think any use of a nuclear weapon would almost immediately turn into armageddon, so I don't think nukes are really relevant when discussing conventional forces other than that their existence greatly mitigates the likelihood of a direct conventional confrontation between nations who possess them in meaningful numbers. In other words, Red Dawn notwithstanding, it's extremely unlikely we would find ourselves directly engaging Russia or China militarily for the same reasons it didn't happen between NATO and the Soviet Union. Sure, we'll have proxy wars like we're having today, but any direct confrontation is virtually impossible, imho, because it would inevitably lead to an all-out nuclear exchange that kills everyone. In other words:



As far as US weapon systems competitiveness, Perun did a recent video on Defence economics, and the US production advantage which is really interesting. He's not claiming every US system is better than every other system but rather discussing how being the major defense spender for many decades has created structural advantages to US manufacturers and economies of scale that allow us to sell F-35s, for example, at a unit cost approaching that of 4th gen fighter by this point simply because we make so many of the damn things. Good video, and really good channel.

[mbasic]

Where is this hypothetical war happening? I dont' see a scenario where we invade the chinese mainland, nor one where they invade the US mainland. So it's aircraft carriers fighting over islands, right? I think we win that fight, if there's one area we have quality and quantity it's aircraft carriers.

aircraft carriers useless against Russian/China. Both have developed asymmetric counter measures. Coker’s, middles, and tactical nuclear torpedos.

Anywhere they want. Which is the point. The US will not pick the battlefield. Our opponents will.

agreeing with the bolded up there ....

BUT YET, china seems to go out of their to get their own aircraft carrier fleet going?
...a big expense! esp. since they're defeated "so easily" amirite? ... using the same type of tech (an or equal) against them is not a possibility in their mind. (see also: how easily that russian battle-ship was put down by Ukraine)

I guess they feel they would be able to use carriers without the US or others intervening ... like at all?
I guess there is some possibility for their navy (and carrier fleet) to push around some REALLY lower tier county in the Pacific or Micronesia that we wouldn't want to get involved with. I don't think we are going to standby and let Taiwan fall.

[aurelius]

I think any use of a nuclear weapon would almost immediately turn into armageddon, so I don't think nukes are really relevant when discussing conventional forces other than that their existence greatly mitigates the likelihood of a direct conventional confrontation between nations who possess them in meaningful numbers.

IMO: you are simply wrong here. No one wants an exchange of strategic nuclear weapons and especially the US will look for any reason NOT to exchange strategic nuclear weapons.

*Would the US respond with a strategic nuclear strike if a carrier group out at sea was destroyed by a tactical nuclear weapon? No.
*Would the US respond with a tactical nuclear strike on a land based target if a carrier group out at sea was destroyed by a tactical nuclear weapon? No.

Which is interesting about the development of tactical nuclear weapon systems for naval warfare. Only the US has assets deployed in the naval theater that make a tactical nuclear strike worthwhile. Our bread and butter Naval assets are particularly vulnerable (all are if they had them) to these attacks. Talk to a Navy guy and they are PARANOID. It is all about detection. But with the advent of long range tactical nuclear warhead and nuclear powered torpedoes (1000+ mile range) detection is impossible. Opponents don't even need to pinpoint a carrier group location (previously the hard things was to locate carrier groups). Detonating a tactical nuclear warhead miles ahead of a carrier group will create a tsunami that will wipe it out.

Remember that the battleship was obsolete BEFORE the start of WW2. Unfortunately, carriers as dominant have become an accepted doctrine, carrier commands are prestige command, and carrier commanders inundate the upper echelons of the Navy command. Which has blinded the Navy to how ineffective they would be in a shooting war with Russia/China.

agreeing with the bolded up there ....

BUT YET, china seems to go out of their to get their own aircraft carrier fleet going?
...a big expense! esp. since they're defeated "so easily" amirite? ... using the same type of tech (an or equal) against them is not a possibility in their mind. (see also: how easily that russian battle-ship was put down by Ukraine)

I guess they feel they would be able to use carriers without the US or others intervening ... like at all?
I guess there is some possibility for their navy (and carrier fleet) to push around some REALLY lower tier county in the Pacific or Micronesia that we wouldn't want to get involved with. I don't think we are going to standby and let Taiwan fall.

Also Africa. Carriers are great force projection against lesser opponents. China has spent 2 decades acquiring assets in Africa. They have done so for arable land. China is dependent on US grain exports for food and is making strategic moves to ensure it won't be in the future (see below). It is developing a Navy that will allow it to force project into that region to protect that investment. And the US doesn't intervene in Africa because black people (sarcasm).

The US acquires 90% of its computer chips from Taiwan. Ridiculous that such a critical component to our modern economy is outsourced to that degree. We will have to defend Taiwan if it is attacked.

------------------------------------------------------

I think what Westerners need to recognize, Russia and China don't give a fuck. They lose 10,000,000 in a conflict...so the fuck what? They don't care. China could lose a 100,000,000 and probably improve China. THEY DON'T CARE. They have developed these tactical nuclear weapons systems with the full intent of using them. To think otherwise is foolish.

Both China and Russia have spent DECADES radicalizing its own populace with propaganda. Literally Russia is fighting Ukraine as some kind of holy war against Satan. That is not made up. Go read some of the Chinese nationalist propaganda. It is scary. Our enemies have spent decades developing weapons to attack us and indoctrinating its populace to hate us. They are not Westerners, they do not value individual life, and will accept massive casualties to achieve their goals. I just don't know how fucking stupid about this we can be.

[Hardartery]

------------------------------------------------------

I think what Westerners need to recognize, Russia and China don't give a fuck. They lose 10,000,000 in a conflict...so the fuck what? They don't care. China could lose a 100,000,000 and probably improve China. THEY DON'T CARE. They have developed these tactical nuclear weapons systems with the full intent of using them. To think otherwise is foolish.

Both China and Russia have spent DECADES radicalizing its own populace with propaganda. Literally Russia is fighting Ukraine as some kind of holy war against Satan. That is not made up. Go read some of the Chinese nationalist propaganda. It is scary. Our enemies have spent decades developing weapons to attack us and indoctrinating its populace to hate us. They are not Westerners, they do not value individual life, and will accept massive casualties to achieve their goals. I just don't know how fucking stupid about this we can be.

This is not entirely true. The people are not as indoctrinated as you suspect in these countries, and the reality is not shown. I cannot name the country that I am in, because they look for mentions on the web, there's a whole office building of people dedicated to it, but it is an ally of the countries that you are discussing. It uses the same playbook, right down to adaptations of the music. Old people are all in, young people are not. In pretty much any of these places from what I can glean. People are passive when life is good, and the real weapon is economic. Economic disruptions are people disruptions, which are a problem. If you have to focus capital on controlling the people it's like fighting on two fronts, and then it doesn't matter. You can tolerate high casualties only if the people are on board, and they do not have that level of ondoctrination or control anymore. The last patriotic event here I went to check out the turnout. It was literally 4 guys working for the government, the number of bodies required to caryy and setup the sound equipment and set off the fireworks. Not a single spectator from the populace, not one. When you see rallies from these places, you are only seeing government workers out there under threat of something. Seriously, it is a different world now, there are very few True Believers anywhere anymore.

[Hiphopapotamus]

I think any use of a nuclear weapon would almost immediately turn into armageddon, so I don't think nukes are really relevant when discussing conventional forces other than that their existence greatly mitigates the likelihood of a direct conventional confrontation between nations who possess them in meaningful numbers.

IMO: you are simply wrong here. No one wants an exchange of strategic nuclear weapons and especially the US will look for any reason NOT to exchange strategic nuclear weapons.

*Would the US respond with a strategic nuclear strike if a carrier group out at sea was destroyed by a tactical nuclear weapon? No.
*Would the US respond with a tactical nuclear strike on a land based target if a carrier group out at sea was destroyed by a tactical nuclear weapon? No.

I think we just have a fundamental difference of opinion here. I think the use of any nuclear weapon, whether it's called "tactical" or not, will elicit a nuclear response, and once that gets started it won't end until a full nuclear exchange. Hopefully we'll never find out who is right.

[quikky]

I think any use of a nuclear weapon would almost immediately turn into armageddon, so I don't think nukes are really relevant when discussing conventional forces other than that their existence greatly mitigates the likelihood of a direct conventional confrontation between nations who possess them in meaningful numbers.

IMO: you are simply wrong here. No one wants an exchange of strategic nuclear weapons and especially the US will look for any reason NOT to exchange strategic nuclear weapons.

*Would the US respond with a strategic nuclear strike if a carrier group out at sea was destroyed by a tactical nuclear weapon? No.
*Would the US respond with a tactical nuclear strike on a land based target if a carrier group out at sea was destroyed by a tactical nuclear weapon? No.

I think we just have a fundamental difference of opinion here. I think the use of any nuclear weapon, whether it's called "tactical" or not, will elicit a nuclear response, and once that gets started it won't end until a full nuclear exchange. Hopefully we'll never find out who is right.

I am not sure if we'd respond with a nuclear attack but I agree with you more generally in that the use of a tactical nuclear weapon on our forces would not be taken kindly.

Also, the idea that the US is too soft with this, considering we are the only country in history to actually use nuclear weapons, and considering we are not known for being reserved when it comes to blowing shit up, does not pass muster.

[Hiphopapotamus]

I think any use of a nuclear weapon would almost immediately turn into armageddon, so I don't think nukes are really relevant when discussing conventional forces other than that their existence greatly mitigates the likelihood of a direct conventional confrontation between nations who possess them in meaningful numbers.

IMO: you are simply wrong here. No one wants an exchange of strategic nuclear weapons and especially the US will look for any reason NOT to exchange strategic nuclear weapons.

*Would the US respond with a strategic nuclear strike if a carrier group out at sea was destroyed by a tactical nuclear weapon? No.
*Would the US respond with a tactical nuclear strike on a land based target if a carrier group out at sea was destroyed by a tactical nuclear weapon? No.

I think we just have a fundamental difference of opinion here. I think the use of any nuclear weapon, whether it's called "tactical" or not, will elicit a nuclear response, and once that gets started it won't end until a full nuclear exchange. Hopefully we'll never find out who is right.

I am not sure if we'd respond with a nuclear attack but I agree with you more generally in that the use of a tactical nuclear weapon on our forces would not be taken kindly.

Also, the idea that the US is too soft with this, considering we are the only country in history to actually use nuclear weapons, and considering we are not known for being reserved when it comes to blowing shit up, does not pass muster.

Yeah, I guess I just think that even in a scenario where we were to respond to the destruction of an entire carrier group by a Chinese nuclear weapon with some kind of proportional yet non-nuclear response, the Chinese are still going to respond to our response. I mean, the war wouldn't be over and in this hypothetical China opened hostilities with a nuclear strike, presumably in a sneak attack, so why would they suddenly throw in the towel? I see no reason why they wouldn't just keep using nukes, especially since they were encouraged by a weak response to their initial strike. We could posit all kinds of hypotheticals, but in short I just personally don't see how the use of any nuke doesn't eventually spiral out of control. I mean, how would the US even know this was just a one-off "tactical" nuke and not part of a general First Strike?
But, to a certain extent, it's also a bit academic. If a nation like China has the capability to destroy a carrier group with a nuclear torpedo then that's something we definitely need a contingency for.

I would also mention that nuclear powers have very specific, and very public, doctrines for the circumstances under which they will use nuclear weapons. They make this public for the very purpose of deterring potential enemies from doing things like nuking a carrier group out of the blue. I don't know the US official document name (and a few minutes of googling didn't immediately find it before I gave up) but the document should be out there and it would might very well answer the question as to how we would respond to a tactical nuclear attack.

[aurelius]

I cannot name the country that I am in, because they look for mentions on the web, there's a whole office building of people dedicated to it, but it is an ally of the countries that you are discussing.

I don't believe your experiences in a country not China or Russia is particularly applicable.

I have had conversations with Russians and Chinese citizens here in the United States. Where one would assume their opinions would be moderated. Their view of the world is very skewed. It is amusing for me to hear their outlandish takes and disdain for the United States then ask them why they moved here (freedom and opportunity...duh). Listening to their very disjointed, inept response is the height of cognitive dissonance.

But seriously. Chinese citizens discussing Taiwan...YIKES.

I think we just have a fundamental difference of opinion here. I think the use of any nuclear weapon, whether it's called "tactical" or not, will elicit a nuclear response, and once that gets started it won't end until a full nuclear exchange. Hopefully we'll never find out who is right.

Agreed.

I think are basic disagreement is you are thinking about the use of nuclear weapons like a Westerner. Then applying Western logic to Russia and China. I believe that is mistake.

I envision Russian and China using tactical nuclear weapons if they felt 'justified'. Fully expecting the Westerns response to be based on your very reasoning. That the West will not respond in kind and risk escalation. Which is why Western populations (not military doctrine and policy that may or may not be followed) must really think through this and KNOW what our actual response would be.

[quikky]

I have had conversations with Russians and Chinese citizens here in the United States. Where one would assume their opinions would be moderated. Their view of the world is very skewed. It is amusing for me to hear their outlandish takes and disdain for the United States then ask them why they moved here (freedom and opportunity...duh). Listening to their very disjointed, inept response is the height of cognitive dissonance.

I think your experience is seeing the difference between ideology and philosophy of governance vs. pragmatism. A lot of immigrants in the US, including from Russia and China, are not here because they are strong believers in US values, or even in the US system of government. They are here for pragmatic reasons such as safety (if they come from a crime-ridden place), rule of law (if they come from a massively corrupt place), and above all financial opportunities for themselves and their kids. So, it is less cognitive dissonance, and more a matter of them liking their old country just fine, and sometimes even preferring it to America ideologically, but enjoying the fact that they live safely and with more wealth here in the States and thus making the pragmatic decision to come/stay here.

The poor reasoning can sometimes be not understanding why the US is better than their home country even in purely pragmatic affairs, and somehow thinking that governance and ideology are not direct drivers of things like economic success.