|
.
sincx fucked around with this message at 05:43 on Mar 23, 2021 |
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 08:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 10:39 |
|
|
sincx posted:Not sure what you mean by good. If your question is, "can China's nuclear force match that of the US and Russia," the answer is no. If your question is, "does China have a credible nuclear deterrence against the US," the answer is almost certainly yes. Genuine question: Is that deterrence still credible after THAAD is up and running? I assume they have nukes in submarines roaming the world too that can launch out of THAAD's range.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 08:46
|
|
|
I would blow Dane Cook posted:Are China's nukes any good? Good enough to deter invasion, not good enough to go toe to toe with the US and Russia, although they are building up their stockpile
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 08:49
|
|
|
Invisible Handjob posted:Genuine question: Is that deterrence still credible after THAAD is up and running? I assume they have nukes in submarines roaming the world too that can launch out of THAAD's range. Short answer: yes. I could give a longer answer but I'm on my phone atm
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 08:58
|
|
|
Invisible Handjob posted:Genuine question: Is that deterrence still credible after THAAD is up and running? I assume they have nukes in submarines roaming the world too that can launch out of THAAD's range. THAAD will not stop ICBM's. It does however have a good chance at stopping North Korea's missiles. The reason the Chinese made such a huge stink about it is because A) That's what the PRC does, and B) THAAD radar penetrates deeply into China from its position in South Korea.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 08:59
|
|
|
Invisible Handjob posted:Genuine question: Is that deterrence still credible after THAAD is up and running? I assume they have nukes in submarines roaming the world too that can launch out of THAAD's range. I don't think China has boomers but from what I understand of THAAD it doesn't work on the missiles China would be using anyway. North Koreans lobbing their type of dongs over the border is different.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 08:59
|
|
|
Yeah. Also, even if an anti-missile defence is 90% effective, that's still 10% of all the nukes that didn't just fall apart in midair landing on your country. Rather sobering thought.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 09:00
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:North Koreans lobbing their type of dongs over the border is different. Not the dongs, anything but that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 09:02
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I don't think China has boomers but from what I understand of THAAD it doesn't work on the missiles China would be using anyway. North Koreans lobbing their type of dongs over the border is different. They do (not very many and they're not as good as US/Russian subs) but yeah this is it, THAAD is for smaller stuff and not ICBMs
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 09:02
|
|
|
I would blow Dane Cook posted:Not the dongs, anything but that. China's series of ballistic missiles are coincidentally also dongs, they're all DF-somethings (東風 if anyone cares)
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 09:04
|
|
|
Chinese boomers aren't very good and I've heard them referred to as attack sub bait but I dunno the details. Nonetheless they do have boomers, though they would have difficulty breaking out of China's coastal waters owing to the fact that the US and Japan have everything from South Korea to India rigged with undersea tripwires.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 09:05
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Chinese boomers aren't very good and I've heard them referred to as attack sub bait but I dunno the details. They can hear the crew repeatedly screaming WEI?! into their gold iPhones because the signal keeps dropping when they're underwater.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 09:08
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Chinese boomers aren't very good and I've heard them referred to as attack sub bait but I dunno the details. Nonetheless they do have boomers, though they would have difficulty breaking out of China's coastal waters owing to the fact that the US and Japan have everything from South Korea to India rigged with undersea tripwires. I wonder though, didn't Chinese submarines surface right off Alaska's coast a while back as a sort of ominous warning?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 09:12
|
|
|
China actually has a really good, inexpensive land-based deterrent based on playing a shell game with their road-mobile ICBMs and a huge network of tunnels that makes it really hard for foreign forces to know how many missiles China has and where exactly they are. It's a pretty artful solution for a country that's not interested in playing the expensive numbers game that the US and USSR did. They can hit as far as Europe and the west coast of the US and that's enough for them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 09:12
|
|
|
Yeah their nuclear deterrent is fine. They have enough that nobody's going to risk first striking them but not so many they're wasting poo poo-tons of money on weapons you will hopefully never use. The only real question is if their nukes are built as poorly as everything else. It would be hilarious if they only built real nukes for the tests to show that they have them and then all the ones they have now are fake. Who would know?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 09:16
|
|
|
Invisible Handjob posted:I wonder though, didn't Chinese submarines surface right off Alaska's coast a while back as a sort of ominous warning? I don't remember this. Some PLAN ships transited near Alaska and the media made a hubbub about it even though it's really common for other countries navies to transit through US waters and the Soviets did it constantly and way more provocatively than an Alaska transit. Sometimes people will repost that old story about a Chinese submarine surfacing near a US Navy ship and assume that because the US didn't explicitly say that they knew it was there and they were tracking it (which they would never publicly say for obvious reasons) that it got the drop on them and therefore all carriers will be sunk by invisible Chinese submarines.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 09:21
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Yeah their nuclear deterrent is fine. They have enough that nobody's going to risk first striking them but not so many they're wasting poo poo-tons of money on weapons you will hopefully never use. The only real question is if their nukes are built as poorly as everything else. There are some very  aspects of their program (a lot of them having to do with Mao) that I could get into if I had some time to go back and find sources again--I could do an effortpost on China's nuke program if people were interested.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 09:23
|
|
|
Pirate Radar posted:China actually has a really good, inexpensive land-based deterrent based on playing a shell game with their road-mobile ICBMs and a huge network of tunnels that makes it really hard for foreign forces to know how many missiles China has and where exactly they are. It's a pretty artful solution for a country that's not interested in playing the expensive numbers game that the US and USSR did. They can hit as far as Europe and the west coast of the US and that's enough for them. Yes it is important to remember that China's reason for having nukes is different from the US or the Soviets. The US and Soviets built up their arsenals because they were both preparing for a total war scenario spanning literally the entire planet, not just as deterrence from invasion, and there was still something resembling a nuclear strategy in the vein of "knock out as much of the enemy's ability to retaliate as possible." China knows that they will never possess the kind of nuclear parity with the USA to be able to launch a credible first strike that would disable American ability to retaliate. To my knowledge China hasn't publicly acknowledged even building more warheads and have focused mostly on improving delivery because the absolute last thing they want is an arms race with the USA which they can't win.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 09:25
|
|
|
Pirate Radar posted:There are some very The perspective of someone who knows what they're talking about would be appreciated so I say go for it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 09:26
|
|
|
Pirate Radar posted:There are some very Please do. I know a lot about the US and Soviet programs but not that much about China's.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 09:28
|
|
|
.
sincx fucked around with this message at 05:43 on Mar 23, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 09:44
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Sometimes people will repost that old story about a Chinese submarine surfacing near a US Navy ship and assume that because the US didn't explicitly say that they knew it was there and they were tracking it (which they would never publicly say for obvious reasons) that it got the drop on them and therefore all carriers will be sunk by invisible Chinese submarines. This has happened a bunch of times with literally everyone's submarines, from the USN's to Swden's, because the USN gutted its anti-sub training programs years ago because they weren't useful for bombing browns They're starting to recover but the American military of today is still recovering from the peace dividend and the Bush years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 10:36
|
|
|
I mean the Army got rid of its electronic attack capability in the late 90s and they're only just getting it back, and thanks to not having much to train against and (again) fighting mud herders for a decade, the base plan for any sort of US operation is "assume total air, sea and electronic superiority, all else follows", which, lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 10:37
|
|
|
Nah, for all the mishaps that the US military gets into, having seen NATO forces on exercise, there's a big gulf in capabilities and professionalism between current US forces and even "professional" European armies. The Iraq War was/is a $2 trillion fiasco but it has also meant that the US military has actually gone through actual combat in the past decade. When it comes to the PLA and PLN, when was the last time they were actually involved in conflict? Not to mention their peace time "mission" of being profit centers and labor sinks for Chinese youth.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 10:50
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Nah, for all the mishaps that the US military gets into, having seen NATO forces on exercise, there's a big gulf in capabilities and professionalism between current US forces and even "professional" European armies. 1989. Actually there are Chinese boots on the ground in Mali and South Sudan. With varying results: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/06/un-peacekeepers-refused-to-help-south-sudan-rebels-raped-aid-workers-report
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 12:07
|
|
|
I would call that result a rout. The Ethiopians did infinitely better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 12:16
|
|
|
Thread is back to masturbating at the thought of a race war between the US and china
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
Keep calling everyone whitey three times a page, that'll help
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:Thread is back to masturbating at the thought of a race war between the US and china Uh, I guess I don't think that discussing the relative size, sophistication, and capabilities of the Chinese military forces is the same thing as "masturbating at the thought of a race war." I don't think anyone here is saying, "Holy poo poo wouldn't it be awesome if we invaded China? We would totally kick thier rear end!" The discussion around whether China is more than a regional power turned to thier ability to project force abroad. Seems pretty natural since that is one of the main metrics upon which you would evaluate whether they are a superpower or not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
You're welcome.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
.
sincx fucked around with this message at 05:43 on Mar 23, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
As a white guy with white skin, I really would like to see an independent Taiwan in my white lifetime. I don't know if it's smart, at all, for Tsai to push here, but I could make a white-guy-in-America argument that Taiwan has seen what will happen if they give the PRC an inch. They will be Hong Kong, slowly losing their culture and rights and autonomy. There could be a concern that a KMT candidate would win the next election and do something dumb that Taiwan couldn't recover from. Declaring independence (like in the very white Björk song that got her banned from the PRC) would immediately happen and Taiwan could never "take it back." It would immediately force the PRC's hands to do their worst, and if their worst is economic damage, Taiwan can weather that storm. They will come out of it as an independent nation, and once they have declared independence and not been attacked, other countries will be free to treat them as the country they have been for decades. On the other hand, can they weather the really long storm of China bullying them and trying to get them to give an inch, which will result in them rolling down the slippery slope of falling into a "One Country, one system" deal that Hong Kong is now facing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
I'm 7/8ths white but I racially identify as a 29 year old gay Japanese salary man's toaster oven (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
sincx posted:So along those lines: To add to the Clancy math chat, the CCP's legitimacy as a regime is partially based on protecting China from aggressor nations like Japan, South Korea, and the US. Xi and the CCP are very much aware of how the invasion of Vietnam went down and know that things could go very badly for the PLA in a real conflict against a modern, well trained enemy. A loss or costly victory would erode what little support the CCP has because how can the PLA defend China if they couldn't take an island off their coast that wants to be run by the PRC according to official propaganda? Taiwan is doing alright economically and they could survive severe restrictions but the Nationalists would use it as a point to win coming elections and reverse things. I still think that if Taiwan was retaken by the PRC, at least half the Guomindang would turn out to be spies like in those FBI militia group stings where only one or two people in the "militia" were agents who weren't aware of each other. The US probably wouldn't do much for a number of reasons, mainly that the American people don't really care or even know what Taiwan is for the most part.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
RocknRollaAyatollah posted:The US probably wouldn't do much for a number of reasons, mainly that the American people don't really care or even know what Taiwan is for the most part.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:I think that's true now, but wouldn't be true immediately after something went down. It would be really easy to spin as "Communist China invades Not-Communist China" and the Cold War narrative hasn't really died out yet, you know? I can imagine if there's a charm offensive on the part of Taiwan and American media, people would come around, but the RED CHINA versus FREE CHINA narrative hasn't come up in political discourse since the Kennedy/Nixon debate touching on dropping the bomb if the PLA invades Taiwan. Ronald Reagan didn't even care and he personally told Chiang for Nixon that the US was normalizing relations with China. I doubt even ardent Republicans of any stripe honestly care because the party has shifted so far to isolationism. RocknRollaAyatollah fucked around with this message at 21:35 on Dec 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
If they're going to declare independence, the time while Trump is president seems the best time. He's the only one crazy enough to do something like impose retaliatory tariffs on China if they try to starve out Taiwan, or back them to the hilt because Xi is engaging in brinksmanship.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
Trump is sufficiently led by his ego that he would absolutely double down on relations with Taiwan if the alternative was looking weak. US foreign policy for the next 4 years is going to be far less subtle and far more openly boisterous than the Obama administration. Hell I wouldn't be surprised if Trump takes a page from the PRC handbook and starts heavily funding prestige projects. And I look forward to the world finding out that they mistook the Obama administrations subtle intelligence for weakness. Hopefully this means fewer "When China Rules The World" editorials for the next while, although I wouldn't be surprised if China continued to be a blunt rhetorical instrument to be used for whatever the writer thinks the US should prioritize. Already seeing a ton of "China is beating us on climate change! (???)" stuff from the left. Fojar38 fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Dec 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:I thought African countries didn't have the tax base to keep up with basic maintenance not to mention the corners cut from graft etc creating massive long term problems or having things built in completely wrong places just so they can say they built something. If they can't control the number of ghost cities and massive pointless over construction in all the wrong places within China I shiver at the idea of them coming to you to build things for you for "Free". Yes, sometimes theres problems with maintaining infrastructure, though this was usually a bigger problem back in the Mao period. There might be some places like that, but theyd be the minority.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 10:39 |
|
|
sincx posted:Tsai knows that there's no way the PLA can successfully invade Taiwan proper That's nice, but few minutes of research shows that the Rand corporation believes China has a chance of taking Taiwan (though they describe it as a "roll of the dice"). So I'll take their expertise over Random Guy On Internet With Opinion On China's Military.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 23:27
|
|
