(Thread IKs:
fart simpson)
|
Antonymous posted:3. the US is not a totalitarian dictatorship enforcing its whims against 95% of humans outside its territory. it treats its own citizens like poo poo anyway. thats factually wrong its a totalitarian dictatorship. Neoliberalism is the naked dictatorship of capital. Capital is a self propagating virus. It literally works by creating more of itself and worms itself into every social relation until everything is a commodity. US hegemony is a delivery system for that virus
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 20:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 10:43 |
|
|
GoLambo posted:the US lost 10,000 combat aircraft in Vietnam. 3,700 of that was basically modern fixed wing jet aircraft, the rest mostly helicopters. You don't need a military if you have nuclear weapons
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 20:54
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:You don't need a military if you have nuclear weapons https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o861Ka9TtT4
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 20:57
|
|
|
LimburgLimbo posted:Real question; are you one of the people that believes North Korea didn’t fire the first shots of the war despite a preponderance of evidence? Like they just happened to have their entire military on the border ready to rumble for shits and giggles? America avoided giving South Korea heavy weapons and almost had their local forces completely wiped off the map as *a cunning ruse*? moron
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 21:04
|
|
|
BrutalistMcDonalds posted:yeah. well, it's unpredictable. combat is like closing your eyes and walking across a highway as cars are zipping down it. it comes down to how well you've been trained whether you freeze up and panic or not the first time you get shot at for real. i think the PLA has been a parade army for so long but under xi they've been pushing reforms, more realistic exercises, and this emphasis on the "will to fight," and these videos emphasize that at least ehh parade army is exaggerating a bit, they're really used more like the national guard so your average soldier does a lot of exercise and team drills but has little actual firearms training. and just like the national guard their officer corps is a total lost cause of incompetence and nepotism Xi's military reforms have mostly focused on the navy which was incredibly neglected until recently. now it's the hottest branch of the military because it has all the cool new poo poo and officers that won't beat you with a stick I think the air force got some investment too, although their pilots are already just as good if not better than america's so idk what a big difference it is (new planes I guess??)
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 21:31
|
|
|
LimburgLimbo posted:Real question; are you one of the people that believes North Korea didn’t fire the first shots of the war despite a preponderance of evidence? Like they just happened to have their entire military on the border ready to rumble for shits and giggles? America avoided giving South Korea heavy weapons and almost had their local forces completely wiped off the map as *a cunning ruse*? drat you don't know poo poo, wow
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 21:49
|
|
|
even a liberal should sweat and wring their hands at the fact that a bunch of sham elections resulted in multiple popular uprisings that were met with by the US military dictatorship having tens of thousands killed in order to install Rhee who killed hundreds of thousands more and divided the country in two how in the world are koreans who organized an army outside of that dictatorship somehow unprovoked in expelling him lmao
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 22:08
|
|
|
Will Russia ever get powerful enough to restart its rivalry with China to be a third power. Give us a tripolar world
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 00:44
|
|
|
Maximo Roboto posted:Will Russia ever get powerful enough to restart its rivalry with China to be a third power. Give us a tripolar world At best it would be "2.5", Russia and Chinese relations are pretty solid right now for a reason, the West is pushing the Russians as hard as they can and this is generally working out for China. Honestly, I could see Russia trying to balance its relations with both the West and China if it had the chance but I doubt it is going to happen soon. Also, China is clearly committed to keeping the Russians on their side, they know the US would love to pit them and the Russians against each other and Russia has a ton of potential agricultural land/energy resources that would give China a lot more flexibility. Also, the Russian rail network and a new arctic route are also useful to them as well. If anything one of the foundations of China's modern foreign policy is keeping the Russians on their side. I don't know if the Russian economy will ever allow it become a superpower again, but at the same time, the recovery of its military, its natural resources, and its ton of nuclear weapons is going to keep them an influential player even if they are a "tier 2" power after United States/China. Also, usually Western publications cite Russian gdp in terms of nominal numbers where its economy is the size of Canada, but in PPP terms it's economy is closer to the size of Germany. This matters because Russia is largest enough to be largely self-sufficient and nominal numbers actually disguise the material strength of its economy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 01:02
|
|
|
Top City Homo posted:thats factually wrong "b-b-b-but you can go and slide a paper in a box/pull a lever every four years!!!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 01:47
|
|
|
LimburgLimbo posted:completely omitting Russia and China and their objectives in the region and conflict and their place in things in your summary in such as way as to suggest this was purely a conflict between Real Korea and Puppet America Korea is perhaps questionable this is the dumbest thing anyone has ever said anywhere, ever
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 02:02
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Also, the future, much like the Cold War is going be about posturing and having leverage over your opponent. It is the reason why China will likely continue to emphasize carriers and more naval bases around the Indian ocean. Also as far as the US military goes, the most of enlisted men that saw serious combat (including NCOs) during the 2000s have steadily left and/or retired. There are some more elite forces that have seen continuous action but there are a smaller and smaller portion of the whole. If anything, being constantly engaged in a hundred neocolonial hell insurgencies is draining on the US military especially when politics back home is in a state where funding the military to what it actually needs or not getting involved in a hundred neocolonial hell insurgencies is impossible. Ships are crashing into each other because fighting hell insurgencies is taking away money from paying people and maintenance, pilots are leaving to fly for airlines because the air force sucks to be in, etc. Hell insurgencies also encourage counterproductive habits that is detrimental to conventional fighting such as tightly grouping up the better part of a division that OPFOR in training exercises blasts away with one artillery volley.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 02:56
|
|
|
Danann posted:If anything, being constantly engaged in a hundred neocolonial hell insurgencies is draining on the US military especially when politics back home is in a state where funding the military to what it actually needs or not getting involved in a hundred neocolonial hell insurgencies is impossible. Ships are crashing into each other because fighting hell insurgencies is taking away money from paying people and maintenance, pilots are leaving to fly for airlines because the air force sucks to be in, etc. Hell insurgencies also encourage counterproductive habits that is detrimental to conventional fighting such as tightly grouping up the better part of a division that OPFOR in training exercises blasts away with one artillery volley. Also, procurement is all over the place, is the US army preparing to fight insurgencies in global south or on the steppes of eastern Europe? Those are two very different types of combat and now the US army is talking about a new MBT just because the Armada exists. Then you have the Navy, which is a bit of a mess. The USN's sub force is still very potent, but the admirals don't really seem to know what to do with their surface fleet. It's cruisers are slated to be retired over the next decade which is going to be a serious loss of firepower, a bunch of money is still being spent on littoral combat ships that don't really serve a purpose, and then you still large a large fleet of amphibious ships which have a very vaguely defined need. Obviously, the carrier fleet is still there, but again the Ford-class is having some serious issues with its sea trials. Then you got the Zumwalt and everything related to it. The US Navy is still a more potent blue-navy force right now but it is very clearly spread thin and doesn't have a clear direction. Also Arleigh Bruke destroyers are still potent vessels, but it is also more questionable if they are really that much more advanced than Chinese design at this point and they are really the offensive core of the non-carrier fleet. I would say Chinese doctrine makes a lot more sense. Its massive green water navy is going to make serious operations in the Straits/East China Seas/South Chinese seas a massive pain for a foreign navy, while its modernizing blue-water navy is clearly designed at protecting trade routes. The Russian navy clearly doesn't have the resources of the other two, and they are still largely a defensive force for the most part, but Northern fleet which will serve double duty as supporting their subs and patrolling the arctic. Ardennes has issued a correction as of 03:22 on Jan 17, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 03:19
|
|
|
Russia currently has a population of 150 million. That's enough people to have full range of industries (including things like vaccines research) but not enough scientists or market to make them very competitive. Their current export heavily rely on energy and military. And China really put in an effort to buy all their exports including stuff China has the technology to make on their own, such as fighter jet's, military helicopter and S400. When the next generation of UAV replace manned fighters in the sky, I don't think Russia's stuff will be competitive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 03:29
|
|
|
stephenthinkpad posted:Russia currently has a population of 150 million. That's enough people to have full range of industries (including things like vaccines research) but not enough scientists or market to make them very competitive. Their current export heavily rely on energy and military. And China really put in an effort to buy all their exports including stuff China has the technology to make on their own, such as fighter jet's, military helicopter and S400. China just bought the S-400 from Russia and the Russians are in the process of developing their own UAVs. Also, modern Russian equipment is easily competitive with NATO material, then wouldn't be conducting a bunch of arms sales if it wasn't.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 03:42
|
|
|
Russia is making big drones. The future is in small drone swarm. Look at the Nagorno-Karabakh war.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 04:13
|
|
|
THS posted:how well does an aircraft carrier stand up to hundreds of simultaneous supersonic surface to sea missiles? are the Phalanx cannons gonna shoot them all down? it's just a loving joke, and that's why there's only one american aircraft carrier in the gulf right now. they know it's a paper tiger. if the us wasn't in full on imperial decadent decline: focus on longer range aircraft so the carrier is not in the ideal engagement zone for those missiles.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 04:19
|
|
|
stephenthinkpad posted:Russia is making big drones. The future is in small drone swarm. Look at the Nagorno-Karabakh war. the russian MOD announced that they were procuring a bunch of tiny bomb drones after ISIS started strapping hand grenades to quadcopters in 2017 and apparently also have plans for bigger ones that can take out tanks exactly like the famous israeli ones in the caucasus (source fwiw, from before the azeri invasion even) that being said, its not exactly hard to weaponize the things and if you can make plastic explosives domestically you probably have the manufacturing capability to mass produce them, so any kind of export market is going to be very limited once these things get more popular. maybe licensing designs to other countries to save on r&d is going to be popular enough to start a branding war between china and russia though, that would be very funny
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 04:37
|
|
|
LimburgLimbo posted:Nothing justifies massive civilian casualties and American is and was poo poo and holt poo poo was Rhee a fucker, but yes, even then when one state starts a war with another by gathering their entire front line military and simultaneously sending it across the border to capture their neighboring state literally does justify an invasion to end the war of an allied (puppet of course in reality) by any reasonable metric. im in awe of the fact that you managed to put these two thoughts right next to each other without it ever crossing your mind how theyre mutually exclusive premises
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 13:35
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/SpokespersonCHN/status/1350458133261373440
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 13:37
|
|
|
China is surrounded by a bunch of rival powers (and US client states) the US isn't and has the luxury of treating Asia as a secondary theatre it's a bit premature to start handicapping naval ship battles
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 14:11
|
|
|
Those client states expect the USN to do the heavy lifting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 14:27
|
|
|
SK, Taiwan, and Japan have more substantial navies than Europe for example so not sure where you're arguing from
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 14:32
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:SK, Taiwan, and Japan have more substantial navies than Europe for example so not sure where you're arguing from I have no idea what Europe has to do with this. Either way, SK/Japan/Taiwan all have separate foreign policies and not obligated to assist each other. The Japanese and Taiwanese navies in particular are not well suited to open combat with the PLAN (especially not the Taiwanese navy) and South Korea has recently taken more of a neutral stance. It is why the USN is suppose to be the "glue" hold the structure together but clearly has been pressed to answer Chinese ship building. Simply put the USN is too thinly spread and too much of its resources have been spent on shipping of dubious necessity. (Also, a recent USN report confirmed this.) Ardennes has issued a correction as of 14:48 on Jan 17, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 14:42
|
|
|
they have pretty robust militaries which China would struggle with outside of China's coast? it's kinda funny how people here are bigging up the Chinese military when the Chinese freely admit they're a couple decades away from being able to challenge the US on that front
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 14:46
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:they have pretty robust militaries which China would struggle with outside of China's coast? The PLAN would wipe the floor with the Taiwanese navy (sorry guys) and the Japanese navy again really isn't designed for open warfare of that scale either. The US Navy would be expected in both cases to swoop in and engage the PLAN directly. The USN itself doesn't believe the PLAN is "decades away" but already has the capacity or will have it within the next 5-10 years. (Also, before its mentioned, the Indian navy is mostly a green water navy and aimed at combating Pakistan.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 14:51
|
|
|
lol at you being suddenly credulous about the military asking for more resources to fight a new threat
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 14:52
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:they have pretty robust militaries which China would struggle with outside of China's coast? Do you think people are talking about the Chinese landing troops on Honshu?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 14:53
|
|
|
genericnick posted:Do you think people are talking about the Chinese landing troops on Honshu? how about Taiwan? they'd have trouble with that
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 14:53
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:lol at you being suddenly credulous about the military asking for more resources to fight a new threat They don't need to make up the fact the PLAN has been clearly rapidly expanding and that construction is accelerating. shrike82 posted:how about Taiwan? they'd have trouble with that If they really cared they would bombard it into dust then land to pick up the pieces. They aren't going to do that as has been discussed dozens of times already.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 14:56
|
|
|
lol so the argument now is that they'd just nuke (literally or figuratively) Taiwan because they don't have the conventional military to occupy it. seems like an indictment of their military to me
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 15:01
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:lol so the argument now is that they'd just nuke (literally or figuratively) Taiwan because they don't have the conventional military to occupy it. Wait...now militaries can't use conventional missile strikes to soften targets? Is that a new rule? Because the US might have done that once or twice...
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 15:07
|
|
|
If the ASEAN countries think USN will go out of their way to stand up against PLAN for the interest of ASEAN countries, Filiphino wouldn't switch to neutral stand after the USA/PLAN secret stand off of 2015 (happened just before the SCC island arbitration.) Let me remind you China took control of Spratly Island in 12, and what happened from 12 to 15 pretty much showed the bottomlines of Obama admin. Trump arguably did less in SCC, because he think he can talk his way into anything with his flithy mouth. stephenthinkpad has issued a correction as of 15:16 on Jan 17, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 15:09
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:how about Taiwan? they'd have trouble with that Wouldn't be easy, but they'd manage unless the USN showed up. But then it's more a question of hoping no one presses their shiny red buttons than who occupies Taiwan.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 15:16
|
|
|
leftist Tom Clancy should write a book about the adventures of Chinese Jack Ryan with the standard milporn write ups of the PLA
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 15:21
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:lol so the argument now is that they'd just nuke (literally or figuratively) Taiwan because they don't have the conventional military to occupy it. Nah. The cross strait issue is entirely depend on the Sino-US great power competition. Taiwanese will resist as long as USN is coming. As soon as they find out USN is not coming vast majority of Taiwanese will give up. PLAN doesn't really have to have a effective amphibious landing, Taiwan's energy heavily depend on natural gas import. (Although the PLAN planners are building tons of amphibious ships and planning a quick invasion. )
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 15:24
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:leftist Tom Clancy should write a book about the adventures of Chinese Jack Ryan with the standard milporn write ups of the PLA This is the Eurasia thread man, I am sorry. stephenthinkpad posted:Nah. The cross strait issue is entirely depend on the Sino-US great power competition. Taiwanese will resist as long as USN is coming. As soon as they find out USN is not coming vast majority of Taiwanese will give up. PLAN doesn't really have to have a effective amphibious landing, Taiwan's energy heavily depend on natural gas import. (Although the PLAN planners are building tons of amphibious ships and planning a quick invasion. ) China has multiple tools it could use if it really wanted to press the issue, but ultimately slowly gaining economic leverage over Taipei is clearly the call here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 15:28
|
|
|
 i think anti-US leftists are pretty bad at objectively handicapping these things. we saw this with Iran where people were jerking off about their military until Soleimani got diced on a whim by Trump maybe an adaption of the old stock market adage might be handy - the US can remain irrationally powerful longer than most people can stay solvent
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 15:36
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:
What do you think we saw there?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 15:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 10:43 |
|
|
genericnick posted:What do you think we saw there? Clearly the Iranians not immediately starting a war with the US is a sign of weakness
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 15:41
|
|
