|
Vladimir Putin posted:E: also I answered why the Russian federation is not a global power. The destruction of the command economy and unsuccessful transition to market economy, social issues, fragmentation of the former USSR territories and other factors means it doesn't have the money, military reach, or soft power to pursue global political objectives it once did as the USSR. Russia still had almost all these nukes, and the vast majority of these forces. The only thing different from December 25th, 1991 on December 27th, 1991 was, as you yourself identify, that there was no longer willingness to brandish them in the name of some objective. "Willpower" is not a good indicator for being a global power or not. Capability is. If the USSR and Russia had nearly identical capability, yet you claim one was a global power and one wasn't, then either you're defining global power in terms of willpower or you're forced to acknowledge the USSR was never a true global power to begin with. Considering the gap between the US and the USSR in terms of economic performance and GDP outlays to defense, I don't think it's hard to pick between those two. To bring this back around, the same goes for China, which was also Arglebargle's point: pursuing a defensive asymmetrical offset strategy vs. the global power does not and will not make China a global power, no matter how spooky people think the DF-21D is or whatever. It's not an actual equal, it's a situational one in a limited theater (East Asia vs. Europe) with some nuclear strike capabilities backing it up.
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 18:04 |
|
|
So does the Warsaw Pact still exist, or did it never exist? You're gonna have to be clear on your alt history here. I mean, by your crazy definition, I suppose "willpower" is that hallmark of a global power, and while this is pretty crazy from a normal perspective, you don't get to present a warped perspective and then judge it by normal standards and pretend you've proved anything.
eSports Chaebol fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Sep 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:So does the Warsaw Pact still exist, or did it never exist? You're gonna have to be clear on your alt history here. e: Also yeah, you're right, saying the highly asymmetric militarized competitor to the US during the Cold War only competed because of its military and that military was only scary because of its asymmetry sure is some crazy talk. I should definitely go check into an insane asylum. 
Dux Supremus fucked around with this message at 23:25 on Sep 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
Dux Supremus posted:The destruction of the command economy occurred because so much output was directed toward keeping up militarily. And so much of the focus militarily was on nuclear weapons, because it was the main way of competing. (Soviet conventional hardware and personnel costs were never that great and at any rate the Gulf War showed what a shitshow a conventional war would've been for them at the end of the run due to cumulative US conventional offsets, even if it was strongly in the Soviets' favor after WWII.) It banked everything on the military, even the ideological pressure. And that military was underwritten by nukes. I don't think this is true. Russia now is not identical to the USSR 1991. They attempted to transition to a market economy and they hosed it up. What remains is some wierd oligarchic corrupt hosed up system which destroyed many institutions that are vital. The life expectancy plummeted and alcoholism is a significant problem. It's not the same as the minute after the USSR collapsed. And of you lived through te Cold War and aftermath like I did you will remember that the USSR didn't automatically fall off the world stage post 1991. It kind of worked itself out and shuffled into irrelevance on a global scale. All this said, maybe it's best I reframe the meaning of this debate. Forget about labels. Can China play the role that the USSR did in the Cold War with the naval access that it has now?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:All this said, maybe it's best I reframe the meaning of this debate. Forget about labels. Can China play the role that the USSR did in the Cold War with the naval access that it has now? China's access points are largely sea and air-based, and they've long been deficient at both. They haven't actually established control over the region they're trying to protect. They also seem to have vague pretensions to trying to actually match certain US capabilities rather than just going for a largely pure offset strategy like the Soviets did, so they're diluting their focus. I would say the PRC's position, circumstances, and focus are all distinctly inferior to the USSR's. Likewise, they're far more tied up into the international regime that the US has established than the USSR was. They're playing the American game with a worse hand. e: This is basically Arglebargle's fourth point restated, for the record. Dux Supremus fucked around with this message at 00:01 on Sep 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:What remains is some wierd oligarchic corrupt hosed up system which destroyed many institutions that are vital. A stark contrast to the Soviet Union of the 1980s.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
Mr. Putin I just continue to be weirded out by this idea that you can be a global power without a navy. Have you looked at a map lately? What is a global power without a navy? Have you considered that it's possible to have a "bipolar" world with a single dominant global power, if the other pole happens to be sitting on the doorstep of the wealthiest region on the planet? The USSR didn't have to go very far to threaten US core interests. It's like, if France had been physically located next to India, Britain would still have had to worry about them long after the French Empire stopped being a serious competitor.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
the pangaean union wasn't a global power they had no navy and their  allies were, at best, comprised entirely of other states on pangaeathe nations of the arctic pact on the other hand spanned the entire globe!
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 06:23
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Also shrewd chinese businessmen have sunk all their money into the Australian and Canadian housing bubbles, really excited to see how that turns out for them. The thing about that is that they think a lot like organized crime cartels. They don't care if they lose 50% or more in the transaction because the money they do get out is legitimate. Buying expensive homes is just money laundering.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 09:35
|
|
|
You know I do wonder what the implications of China, or any other nation, being able to neutralize carriers or similarly sized vessels, would be. Hell if the ballistic missiles work as designed and a country has the tech and support to actually use it then a whole lot of military tech would be hosed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 10:18
|
|
|
Artificer posted:You know I do wonder what the implications of China, or any other nation, being able to neutralize carriers or similarly sized vessels, would be. Hell if the ballistic missiles work as designed and a country has the tech and support to actually use it then a whole lot of military tech would be hosed. e: Tom Clancy talk, but basically unless China launches a war tomorrow ('cause the US won't) then none of the crap that's fielded today really matters, and the actual viability of it is sorta dubious. It's really not worth bothering thinking about. Dux Supremus fucked around with this message at 11:03 on Sep 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 10:38
|
|
|
Dux Supremus posted:There's a reason the Gerald R. Ford-class has 3x the power output of a Nimitz-class, the US Navy and MIC has been quietly subsidizing fusion research, and the same actors are also heavily investing into directed energy weapons. China is investing heavily in missiles. America is investing heavily in lasers and railguns. A missile costs tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. A military-grade portable megawatt probably costs about ten dollars. We're at the beginning of yet another armament offset cycle just like with smart weapons and stealth. People endlessly talk about the DF-21D and its ilk and never really mention jack poo poo about what the US is doing in response. Ballistic missiles will be pretty old-hat by mid-century. It'll be hypersonic ones that'll be left competing if anything. Basically metal gear is the future
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 11:37
|
|
|
A laser can stop a soft target like a jet, but it isn't going to be effective against a kinetic kill vehicle, or a ballistic missile. You can pump a shitload of energy into the tip of a missile, but that's not going to redirect or destroy the motor of a missile on a ballistic arc, and it's not going to guarantee that you'll prematurely detonate the warhead. The US can project power where China can't, but land based batteries can hide and pop exposed ships that get too close. Edit: And of course, the US has a bunch of unsinkable aircraft carriers encircling China. Phobophilia fucked around with this message at 12:18 on Sep 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 12:15
|
|
|
Artificer posted:You know I do wonder what the implications of China, or any other nation, being able to neutralize carriers or similarly sized vessels, would be. Hell if the ballistic missiles work as designed and a country has the tech and support to actually use it then a whole lot of military tech would be hosed. Nothing. We had a lot of carriers during the cold war and they had a lifespan of 20 minutes if the cold war went hot. Carriers aren't used because they're hard to sink.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 14:49
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:A laser can stop a soft target like a jet, but it isn't going to be effective against a kinetic kill vehicle, or a ballistic missile. You can pump a shitload of energy into the tip of a missile, but that's not going to redirect or destroy the motor of a missile on a ballistic arc, and it's not going to guarantee that you'll prematurely detonate the warhead. Lasers would probably be better used to blind enemies in fighter aircraft, but that's illegal. Railguns would be much more effective at stopping missiles.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
Would it be possible for one of you guys to create a South Asian (India, Nepal, Pakistan(?) Sri Lanka) thread and/or a Philippines/South African one?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
How about a thread for people to make poo poo up about weapons and armchair tactics/hypothetical wars etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
angel opportunity posted:How about a thread for people to make poo poo up about weapons and armchair tactics/hypothetical wars etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 03:06
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Yes let's have one of those too. We already have a Clancychat thread buried somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
drat I could go for Clancychat. Teenage summer holiday memories. What genre is that anyway? Airport novels? Never liked Clive Cussler as much, but The Trigger by Cube McDowell and Clarke was good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
angel opportunity posted:How about a thread for people to make poo poo up about weapons and armchair tactics/hypothetical wars etc. I don't think many people talk about hypothetical tactics. Strategy is more like it. Nobody goes around saying the best way to defeat a j-20's is to challenge them to a high altitude high g turn.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 04:00
|
|
|
angel opportunity posted:How about a thread for people to make poo poo up about weapons and armchair tactics/hypothetical wars etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 05:07
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:I don't think many people talk about hypothetical tactics. Strategy is more like it. Nobody goes around saying the best way to defeat a j-20's is to challenge them to a high altitude high g turn. Best way to defeat a J-20 is let it fly for 20 mins and its engines will just burn up The thread for armchair tactics is in Let's Play Steel Panther MBT
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 05:57
|
|
|
angel opportunity posted:How about a thread for people to make poo poo up about weapons and armchair tactics/hypothetical wars etc. Enter the milhist thread.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 06:47
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:I don't think many people talk about hypothetical tactics. Strategy is more like it. Nobody goes around saying the best way to defeat a j-20's is to challenge them to a high altitude high g turn. TheBalor posted:Lasers would probably be better used to blind enemies in fighter aircraft, but that's illegal. Railguns would be much more effective at stopping missiles.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 13:04
|
|
|
Good lord you loving people
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
Clancy-chat with Chinese characteristics.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
Kinda disappointed that mamahuhu has gone so long without an update. I need my deathly skinny blonde asian chick fetish to be satisfied.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
How are u posted:Clancy-chat with Chinese characteristics. 4000 pages of history.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
HK Police are removing references to communists and red guards blowing up poo poo in Hong Kong from their website.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 14:40
|
|
|
We have never been at war with Eastasia.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
Don't worry guys, Ronny Tong's new think tank is here to save HK:Hong Kong Free Press posted:The tank, she explained, aims to show Hong Kongers “a third way” to approach Beijing, presumably other than by air or rail. “In the tank, we are mostly academics who take longer, more unlikely views than other humans. So we are taking a very slow road, walking down the middle of it, not getting run over and getting to the end of it simply by being nice. If we show we are nice, we will be allowed to carry on doing stuff all by ourselves.” she said.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
Trolling with chinese characteristics?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
https://www.hongkongfp.com/2015/07/02/all-aboard-ronny-tongs-think-tank-next-stop-beijing/ Its satire from HKFP, but also the only coherent pro-beijing argument I can find other than "STOP RESISTING!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
Bro Dad posted:Don't worry guys, Ronny Tong's new think tank is here to save HK: Somebody should probably tell this smart European history guy that the dude's name was Chamberlain. e: wait e2: no no no, none of this is adding up e3: ok I think I get it
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 08:32
|
|
|
For people who enjoy the Sinica podcast, someone has now gone through and done up a spreadsheet with links to every recommendation made over all 226 episodes over the last 5 years. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16CNH2TCF7_rU6yJaKb9WiVAVpg6yYZBjIiosebTuOuM/edit#gid=0
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 01:39
|
|
|
drat, I'm sad now that I missed this glorious derail into Soviet history. I am curious what examples of global power projection does anyone actually have for the Soviet Union during the Cold War. I agree with Arglebargle III that in hindsight, the USSR doesn't look like the scary behemoth that everyone thought it was. Could the USSR for instance sustain a long-term war far outside of its borders? That is what global military power to me sounds like. Returning to the topic of China, I remember reading about the PLA's limitations with building a blue-water navy in comparison to what the West currently has available. For example, if the UK and the PRC were to wage war on each other, it could have three results depending on the location/objectives of the war. If UK was trying to conquer the PRC, then it obviously is not going to happen. If the PRC was trying to conquer the UK, then that is obviously not going to happen either. A better test of global power would be if both parties were for some reason to conquer the Arabian peninsula. In that case, the UK is still ahead here simply because they have more modern hardware, superior training, and actual experience using their hardware + training. If we are talking about the US, we are talking about a country that was simultaneously fighting two long distance wars for over a decade at the cost of trillions of dollars. That's the kind of mistake that no one else is capable of replicating right now. Basically, the Chinese military is growing in strength, but they are nowhere near being a threat to us. Furthermore, people need to stop assuming that economic power instantly translates to dominance. The US became the world's largest economy shortly after the civil war in the second half of the 19th century, and it still took us multiple decades and two world wars destroying all of our rivals before we became a superpower. I don't know why anyone thinks China is going to surpass the US, especially after the last few years of watching Xi Jinping fail to reform one of the most imbalanced economies in modern history. I'm not going to bother talking about "soft power" because China has none. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong about anything I mentioned because memory is a fallible thing)
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 06:04
|
|
|
It has soft power in the form of bankrolling useless prestige projects that the IMF won't fund because they're useless prestige projects that are also usually heavily disruptive to the locals.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 07:35
|
|
|
How on the ball (or off) do you guys think China Uncensored tends to be? That's this guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=channel?UCgFP46yVT-GG4o1TgXn-04Q
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2015 05:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 18:04 |
|
|
Was there ever a discussion thread about China and Taiwan's conflict over democracy and such? Particularly about the vote over whether or not China was going to be able to choose Taiwan's candidates for Taiwan's own elections? I recall someone posting a video of a Taiwanese politician tearing into the idea that China would somehow treat Taiwan better if they acquiesced to the plan.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 17:25
|
|