Politics

[Kharn]

That looks rather uncomfortably gay.

Went right over my head but they do say it takes one to know one...

 

[Corey0372]

having a factory that can pump out a million artillery shells in a week is awesome.. if you have the raw materials to make the shells.. if you dont, its really just a big building that not worth shit during a fight..

Until China cut us off last year the US was importing more weapons grade nitrocellulose from China than we can produce domestically. People often talk about the "powder shortage", but what it mostly stems from is a nitrocellulose shortage. China also produces around 48% of the worlds supply of antimony, mines around 60% of rare earth minerals, and processes/refines around 90% of all rare earth minerals.

China has something like 100x our shipbuilding capacity by tonnage (South Korea has more shipbuilding than the US at this point too) and nearly all of China's ships are built with the "Civil-Military fusion" model where they can support military equipment such as main battle tanks, roll on-roll off of heavy equipment, helicopters on the deck, extra electrical output, etc.

wheres all the fuel going to come from to fight the US?

Russia? Pakistan? Iran? Afghanistan? I know blocking the Malacca Straits are a big part of our strategy, how long can we block them? Can we also prevent pipelines from Pakistan and Afghanistan being built? Can we also ensure Myanmar is willing to help deny China oil? How much oil do they really need to take Taiwan? This seems to be the biggest achilles heel to China, but how vulnerable are they as it applies to their ambitions? Assuming taking Taiwan is the ambition.

he size of China's ground forces is a bit of a red herring. How would we ever come to grips with each other? The Chinese Navy is rather unlikely to appear off San Diego to conduct an amphibious invasion, and under no circumstances are we going to invade China. Therefore the conflict, should it occur and assuming it is conventional, will take place at sea, in the air, and in space. It is possible, in a period of heightened tensions, we could have a military assistance team on Taiwan should the Chinese attempt an invasion, but that battle, one way or another, would be over before we could introduce conventional land forces onto the island.

I think this is ultimately the crux of the matter. The discussion around whether the US or China would "win in a war" doesn't seem to be the real issue. It doesn't seem to me that the CCP has any interest in occupying and governing North America, nor does the US have any interest in occupying and governing mainland China. In an existential fight between the US and China, nuking Beijing, Shenzen, and blowing up the 3 Gorges Dam are on the table, in the defense of Taiwan those are not (although the last one.... during a period of heightened tensions but not active hostilities? Don't wanna think about it too much).

I honestly don't see a scenario where the US could defend Taiwan if China wanted to seize it by force, I also don't think China would just blatantly seize it by force. I think the CCP will continue to try and grow the organic pro-unification political elements in Taiwan (small, but they do exist) as well as make it enticing for the "don't really care" part of the population to continue to not really care. I don't think its outside of the realm of possibility that sometime in the next couple of decades Taiwan holds a referendum and votes to seek re-unification. I can see that election being seriously contested, causing major tensions, and the CCP using that as an opportunity to enter the country. At that point it becomes a race between the CCP and the US, one that the CCP would very likely win. Would China be willing to sink a US carrier today over Taiwan? Doubtful. Would the US be willing to have a carrier sunk over Taiwan today? I think also doubtful. But in a scenario where Taiwan "votes for re-unification" and then is under control of the PLA, and then the carriers show up? That's different, the CCP might sink a carrier over that.

So I think the status quo will continue until such a time that China feels they can take it with little to no resistance, sort of like Crimea in 2014 where enough people support it, enough people are indifferent, the people who don't want it can't really do anything about it, and the US isn't going to start a war over it. Japan isn't going to war over Taiwan without the US, South Korea isn't going to war over Taiwan without the US, Australia isn't going to war over Taiwan without the US.

The size of their ground forces is a red herring in a lot of ways, but what is the US response when the PLA puts 5,000 guys in uniforms, puts them on troop transport ships (converted commercial shipping vessels), and has them "surrender" to an incoming carrier battle group after Taiwan is taken? Fully armed troops, semi-armed ships, ready to fight. Maybe 1 in 50 of these guys are true believers, there to keep the other guys in check, and the non-true believers don't know who the other ones are. Then what if they do it again? And then again? Is the US going to sink a ship with 5,000 surrendering lawful combatants on the way to defending Taiwan? Maybe we would, and maybe it would be totally within LOAC in that scenario. I only bring this up because I've seen it discussed before, the logistics of dealing with a "meat wave" of guys surrendering can mess up operations in a multitude of ways that just engaging them doesn't.

These are just my thoughts.... very interested in any other scenarios.

Also @Red Leg , if I understood you correctly.... you were saying the Army is obsolete and its all up to the Navy, Marines, and Air Force to win this thing? I think that was everyone else's takeaway too, wow never thought I'd hear that. JOKES!!!!

 

[Red Leg]

Until China cut us off last year the US was importing more weapons grade nitrocellulose from China than we can produce domestically. People often talk about the "powder shortage", but what it mostly stems from is a nitrocellulose shortage. China also produces around 48% of the worlds supply of antimony, mines around 60% of rare earth minerals, and processes/refines around 90% of all rare earth minerals.

China has something like 100x our shipbuilding capacity by tonnage (South Korea has more shipbuilding than the US at this point too) and nearly all of China's ships are built with the "Civil-Military fusion" model where they can support military equipment such as main battle tanks, roll on-roll off of heavy equipment, helicopters on the deck, extra electrical output, etc.


Russia? Pakistan? Iran? Afghanistan? I know blocking the Malacca Straits are a big part of our strategy, how long can we block them? Can we also prevent pipelines from Pakistan and Afghanistan being built? Can we also ensure Myanmar is willing to help deny China oil? How much oil do they really need to take Taiwan? This seems to be the biggest achilles heel to China, but how vulnerable are they as it applies to their ambitions? Assuming taking Taiwan is the ambition.




I think this is ultimately the crux of the matter. The discussion around whether the US or China would "win in a war" doesn't seem to be the real issue. It doesn't seem to me that the CCP has any interest in occupying and governing North America, nor does the US have any interest in occupying and governing mainland China. In an existential fight between the US and China, nuking Beijing, Shenzen, and blowing up the 3 Gorges Dam are on the table, in the defense of Taiwan those are not (although the last one.... during a period of heightened tensions but not active hostilities? Don't wanna think about it too much).

I honestly don't see a scenario where the US could defend Taiwan if China wanted to seize it by force, I also don't think China would just blatantly seize it by force. I think the CCP will continue to try and grow the organic pro-unification political elements in Taiwan (small, but they do exist) as well as make it enticing for the "don't really care" part of the population to continue to not really care. I don't think its outside of the realm of possibility that sometime in the next couple of decades Taiwan holds a referendum and votes to seek re-unification. I can see that election being seriously contested, causing major tensions, and the CCP using that as an opportunity to enter the country. At that point it becomes a race between the CCP and the US, one that the CCP would very likely win. Would China be willing to sink a US carrier today over Taiwan? Doubtful. Would the US be willing to have a carrier sunk over Taiwan today? I think also doubtful. But in a scenario where Taiwan "votes for re-unification" and then is under control of the PLA, and then the carriers show up? That's different, the CCP might sink a carrier over that.

So I think the status quo will continue until such a time that China feels they can take it with little to no resistance, sort of like Crimea in 2014 where enough people support it, enough people are indifferent, the people who don't want it can't really do anything about it, and the US isn't going to start a war over it. Japan isn't going to war over Taiwan without the US, South Korea isn't going to war over Taiwan without the US, Australia isn't going to war over Taiwan without the US.

The size of their ground forces is a red herring in a lot of ways, but what is the US response when the PLA puts 5,000 guys in uniforms, puts them on troop transport ships (converted commercial shipping vessels), and has them "surrender" to an incoming carrier battle group after Taiwan is taken? Fully armed troops, semi-armed ships, ready to fight. Maybe 1 in 50 of these guys are true believers, there to keep the other guys in check, and the non-true believers don't know who the other ones are. Then what if they do it again? And then again? Is the US going to sink a ship with 5,000 surrendering lawful combatants on the way to defending Taiwan? Maybe we would, and maybe it would be totally within LOAC in that scenario. I only bring this up because I've seen it discussed before, the logistics of dealing with a "meat wave" of guys surrendering can mess up operations in a multitude of ways that just engaging them doesn't.

These are just my thoughts.... very interested in any other scenarios.

Also @Red Leg , if I understood you correctly.... you were saying the Army is obsolete and its all up to the Navy, Marines, and Air Force to win this thing? I think that was everyone else's takeaway too, wow never thought I'd hear that. JOKES!!!!

Naval persons are so irritating. Probably something done to them in infancy by their mothers - should they have had one. But no. hardly obsolete. Simply imagining the naval and marine offensive to win a land war in Central Europe or Central Asia. But the US Army is not going to conduct a land campaign in China.

 

[Mountainshadows]

I've only had a decade in the US Military. There are a lot of others on here with way more time in service and in rank than I ever had, but I'll throw my two cents out on China from the perspective of a guy who has bounced around the world some what, and had numerous interactions with foreign militaries.

I'll start with 1991 when Saddam invaded Kuwait and our subsequent build up in Saudi Arabia. All ya heard on the news was how tough, badass, and well trained the Republican Guard was and they were going to cause so many casualties to us we would have to start the draft again. Well, we were able to witness their toughness on two different occasions and it sure didn't match with what all the intel weinies were spouting. A year spent on the DMZ in South Korea. We were told the Norks were the toughest baddest thing to face along with the Ruskies at that time (1992). We watched videos of them training and looking mean and bad ass. Same with the Soviets. The few Norks that managed to get across south told a different story. In all the wargames that were played on the computers, my unit was wiped out within the first 7 minutes of shots being fired and South Korea was overrun by the North within just a couple of days (best I can remember, wasn't long).

At that time, maybe someone smarter can pipe up if its changed, the Soviets, China, and North Korea all used the same type of military echelon type of fighting. The only leaders they have are officers. The NCO corps cannot make command decisions. A gentleman posted just earlier about the US Military's NCO's. It's not just the NCO's but the trickle down from the officers. If the battalion commander bites it then one of the company commanders takes over, if a company commander bites it, one of the platoon leaders takes over. If all of the platoon leaders bite it, then it falls to the first sergeant to take over. If he bites it, then one of the squad leader takes over and so on and so on until it is just that lowly private E-1 by himself. I know there was a fancy term for it but I've forgotten. The Communist military system, again, I don't know if its changed, I am a bit dated, cannot maintain its cohesion and effectiveness once leaders start getting killed off and no other officers can take charge. It's one of their fatal flaws.

As some others (way more knowledgeable than I am) posted earlier, China has mass, and a lot of everything. I'm also guessing they have no problem throwing lives away like I've heard Russia is doing. Their so-called advanced technology has been discussed too. What is their training like? Are they really as trained as we are or is it hype like the Republican Guard was?

I read the article and took it as making a lot of hype out of some secret document and those pesky un-identified sources in the know, telling a tale. There is a lot of hate for Trump, and for Hegseth but from my jaundiced perspective they've taken our military back from the embarrassing social experiment it had become. As some of you know, Esprit de Corps, and pride in yourself, and your unit go along way to having a fit fighting unit. China would be tough, but I don't think they are what all the hype says they are.

 

[Corey0372]

Naval persons

This is a wonderful insult. It's encompassing, so in a way you can get away with not saying Sailors and Marines, technically not correct, but in a way also technically not incorrect. It's the perfect level of passive aggression, because the inference is that you should be ashamed of being associated with the Navy... "What... you're not ashamed of the Navy are you??" It places the burden on the accused.

10/10

 

[fourfive8]

So, an acquaintance of yours from Boulder? LOL

Oh my! Now that’s a Colorado insider joke!
Thankfully I live about as far from Boulder as one can and still be in-state. Haven’t been there since about 1980. And to think, my family were founders of Boulder and Longmont in the late 1870s.

 

[mdwest]

This is a wonderful insult. It's encompassing, so in a way you can get away with not saying Sailors and Marines, technically not correct, but in a way also technically not incorrect. It's the perfect level of passive aggression, because the inference is that you should be ashamed of being associated with the Navy... "What... you're not ashamed of the Navy are you??" It places the burden on the accused.

10/10

I believe that’s what us rednecks in the south call a left handed compliment..

Well done lol!

 

[WAB]

Pretty sure the rest of us got it…

 

[bowjijohn]

or not ….