The US will lose WW3

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > The US will lose WW3

«‹›604 »

Palladium: May 8, 2012; Very Good
✔️✔️✔️✔️

neolib brains destroying their own imperialism will never stop being funny

# ? Jan 6, 2023 04:42

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 25, 2024 07:11

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

they�ve modeled shipyard labor / production pretty seriously. from those models it�s pretty clear that sudden unexpected extra work creates a bunch of lovely feed back loops that are really hard to stop when they get started. labor gets overworked, labor quits from burnout, increasing overwork repeat.

basically to prevent this you have to both staff up and capital up before the big spike in work occurs.

so it depends on how they do it and how fast they want em.

# ? Jan 6, 2023 05:35

genericnick: Dec 26, 2012

ModernMajorGeneral posted:

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/leaked-senators-letter-warns-aukus-deal-could-harm-us-submarine-industry-20230106-p5cary.html

Leaked senators’ letter warns AUKUS deal could harm US submarine industry

What trusting America gets you; we already spent 800 million dollars to cancel our French submarines for the privilege of the opportunity to maybe get American submarines

This seems like US losing WW3 material - your ~~most slavish~~ close ally pays to undermine their own security so they can pay your industry to supply material, reinforcing their dependency on you, and the arms are being used to defend your interests and fight your main rival (again, at your ally's expense), and the response is now 'uhh, thanks for your support but sounds too hard sorry'

Lmao. The French must be livid.

# ? Jan 6, 2023 15:11

Hubbert: Mar 25, 2007; At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

Palladium posted:

neolib brains destroying their own imperialism will never stop being funny

# ? Jan 6, 2023 17:02

cat botherer: Jan 6, 2022; I am interested in most phases of data processing.

Gotta burn up all of our remaining goodwill to make up for our lovely industrial capacity

# ? Jan 6, 2023 17:09

Weka: May 5, 2019; That child totally had it coming. Nobody should be able to be out at dusk except cars.

genericnick posted:

Lmao. The French must be livid.

Probably laughing, all like 'hon hon hon'.

# ? Jan 7, 2023 10:19

Tankbuster: Oct 1, 2021

The french can just sell those subs to india.

# ? Jan 7, 2023 11:24

Frosted Flake: Sep 13, 2011; Semper Shitpost Ubique

ModernMajorGeneral posted:

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/leaked-senators-letter-warns-aukus-deal-could-harm-us-submarine-industry-20230106-p5cary.html

Leaked senators’ letter warns AUKUS deal could harm US submarine industry

What trusting America gets you; we already spent 800 million dollars to cancel our French submarines for the privilege of the opportunity to maybe get American submarines

This seems like US losing WW3 material - your ~~most slavish~~ close ally pays to undermine their own security so they can pay your industry to supply material, reinforcing their dependency on you, and the arms are being used to defend your interests and fight your main rival (again, at your ally's expense), and the response is now 'uhh, thanks for your support but sounds too hard sorry'

This is kind of Australia's whole deal:

A Ceaseless Watch: Australia's Third-Party Naval Defense, 1919�1942

To Marxist it up, basically because the Australian ruling class is coal and cattle barons they have opposed industry basically forever, and gone out of their way to make sure Australian capital doesn't do something silly like invest in an industrial base. Shipbuilding is one of the most intensive heavy industries and requires supporting industries, particularly for warships. As a result of this, Australia can't (won't) build ships. This leaves the problem of defending Australia. They've cultivated relationships with the two naval powers, the UK and now US, with the understanding that they'd be protected. However, the Australian ruling class also hates spending, so they hosed over British Imperial defence before both world wars by not actually building the ships they promised to or maintaining military spending - again because of the attitudes of regional capital that controls the country.

quote:

A Ceaseless Watch: Australia�s Third Party Naval Defense, 1919�1942 illustrates how Australia confronted the need to base its post�World War I defense planning around the security provided by a major naval power: in the first instance, Britain, and later the United States. Spanning the period leading up to Australia�s greatest security crisis�the military threat posed by Japan throughout the majority of 1942�the work takes the reader all the way up to the defeat of the Imperial Japanese Navy by the United States Navy in the Solomon Islands campaign.

Angus Britts focuses on Anglo-Australian defense relations from 1919�42 when the British were Australia�s primary naval protectors until they were superseded in the Pacific by the United States in May 1942 at the battle of the Coral Sea. Britts traces the process of the alignment or divergence of differing strategic interests between Australia and Britain in particular. Taking place against the backdrop of Imperial Japan�s expansionism debates within Australian political and defense circles during this period, namely the nature of the most likely threat to the continent itself, what became an important subplot to the events then unfolding in the Pacific. Looking at the development of the �Singapore strategy� which utilized the British fleet at Singapore to protect Australia�s interests, Britts lays out how the cornerstone for Australian defense planning was based on the continued assurances from successive British governments that they would honor their naval commitments should Australia itself eventually come under serious threat from Japanese aggression. The Australian-American defense relationship evolved at a later stage within the timeframe in this work, but the varying interactions between both nations throughout the interwar years are likewise addressed, as is the foundation of their wartime relations.

Britts illustrates the difficulty in forming a defense relationship between small and great powers, where the needs of the former are not subsumed by the interests of the latter, from the interwar years to the start of World War II. In an era when the entire Pacific region was at war, the inability of a larger power to fulfill its side of a defensive pact with a smaller power shaped the future of the region itself.

# ? Jan 7, 2023 15:50

Real hurthling!: Sep 11, 2001

why does australia need any defense at all lol they consider refugee rafts to be enemy battleships. china cant even conquer all of china.

# ? Jan 7, 2023 18:06

Rutibex: Sep 9, 2001; by Fluffdaddy

no one wants to conquer australia its a wasteland full of poisonous monsters

# ? Jan 7, 2023 22:24

Brandon Proust: Jun 22, 2006; "Like many intellectuals, he was incapable of scoring a simple goal in a simple way"

Rutibex posted:

no one wants to conquer australia its a wasteland full of poisonous monsters

yeah, and the insects and animals there are pretty dangerous too

# ? Jan 7, 2023 23:46

gradenko_2000: Oct 5, 2010; HELL SERPENT; Lipstick Apathy

https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/1075288.html

quote:

A recent wargame suggested China would have little chance of winning if it invaded Taiwan.

However, the strategy game also suggested that the US and its allies must be prepared to suffer terrible losses of life and material in stopping China�s invasion, including tens of thousands dead, two aircraft carriers lost, and countless warships and aircraft destroyed.

The US think tank Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) on Monday released a report titled, �The First Battle of the Next War: Wargaming a Chinese Invasion of Taiwan,� which included the results of a wargame predicated on a Chinese amphibious invasion to occupy Taiwan in 2026.

The CSIS said it ran the wargame 24 times to confirm how a Chinese invasion of Taiwan � which would instantly upend the existing US-centered international order � would play out and what the losses would be.

The wargame scenario starts with the Chinese military destroying most of Taiwan�s navy and air force with pre-emptive strikes using massive firepower in the first hours of the war.

The Chinese military then mobilizes its navy to surround Taiwan and blockade all sea lanes to the island, after which it lands ground forces on Taiwan�s shores.

Chinese aircraft also drop airborne units deep into Taiwan�s interior.

In every scenario, however, China�s invasion ends in failure.

Taiwanese ground forces mostly survive China�s initial artillery assault and defend the beaches, stopping Chinese forces from pushing inland.

In the meantime, US forces intervene and neutralize Chinese warships and amphibious units.

To prevent this, the Chinese military launches counterattacks on Japanese bases and US warships, causing great damage.

However, the counterstrikes cannot reverse the course of the war.

The report said the scenario is based on the key premise that the Taiwanese military refuses to surrender to the Chinese and holds out.

It also advised that if the US military is to push the Chinese out, Taiwanese ground forces should be strengthened, the Taiwanese military should store up sufficient supplies, the US military should acquire the right to freely use US bases in Japan, and the US military should acquire lots of long-range anti-ship missiles.

However, the wargame predicted losses so great they would negate the joy of victory.

According to the report, in defending Japan, the US would lose �dozens of ships, hundreds of aircraft, and tens of thousands of servicemembers,� and the high losses would damage the US�s global position for many years.

More specifically, in most scenarios, the US lost two aircraft carriers and 10 to 20 warships.

The wargame also predicted the US would lose 3,200 troops in three weeks of fighting.

That would be almost half of what the US lost in 20 years of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Because of this, the report warned, �The United States might win a pyrrhic victory, suffering more in the long run than the 'defeated' Chinese," and that "victory isn't everything."

More important, it said, was establishing a "strong deterrence" that would prevent the Chinese from miscalculating.

China, too, would suffer terrible losses.

The wargame predicted that China would lose over 10,000 servicemembers and lose 138 major warships and 155 aircraft.

The report wrote, �China also suffers heavily. Its navy is in shambles, the core of its amphibious forces is broken, and tens of thousands of soldiers are prisoners of war.�

The report predicted Taiwan would maintain its independence, but at a terrible cost, including the complete destruction of its economy.

It would lose 3,500 servicemembers and all of its naval warships, including its 26 destroyers and frigates.

The report said, �While Taiwan�s military is unbroken, it is severely degraded and left to defend a damaged economy on an island without electricity and basic services.�

Predicting whether Japan would jump into the war is difficult, but the report said Japan would probably get involved with China likely attacking bases such as Okinawa's Kadena Air Base, a major US launching base.

The report predicted Japan would lose 26 warships and more than 10 aircraft.

The report said the US would likely release two of its four squadrons in South Korea for use in defending Taiwan.

India and Southeast Asian nations would maintain neutrality, with some offering passive support such as permitting overflight by US forces.

US ally Australia, too, would actively support US forces, but would not take part directly in operations.

# ? Jan 11, 2023 15:03

mycomancy: Oct 16, 2016

gradenko_2000 posted:

https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/1075288.html

# ? Jan 11, 2023 15:09

Rutibex: Sep 9, 2001; by Fluffdaddy

gradenko_2000 posted:

https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/1075288.html

Lol yeah sure nice Tom Clancy novel you got there CSIS

# ? Jan 11, 2023 15:21

OctaMurk: Jun 21, 2013

gradenko_2000 posted:

https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/1075288.html

2 aircraft carriers lost results in only 3000 dead ?

# ? Jan 11, 2023 16:05

lobster shirt: Jun 14, 2021

OctaMurk posted:

2 aircraft carriers lost results in only 3000 dead ?

no, the 3k dead is from ground combat. article says "tens of thousands" of total military losses but you can't really predict how many people will die from a ship sinking since, depending on the circumstances, sailors can be rescued.

# ? Jan 11, 2023 16:11

sullat: Jan 9, 2012

Rutibex posted:

Lol yeah sure nice Tom Clancy novel you got there CSIS

Needs a love interest to be killed off by the ChiCom hordes so that Navy Green Beret SEAL Jack "Manly Man" Johnson who speaks fluent Chinese can avenge her.

# ? Jan 11, 2023 16:17

Cerebral Bore: Apr 21, 2010; Fun Shoe

i ran this wargame 25 times and we won every time as long as we assumed that we'd definitely win every battle

# ? Jan 11, 2023 16:27

Ardennes: May 12, 2002

Also according to this war game, Taiwan pretty much loses the war from the get go but doesn�t surrender and the PLA sends in ground forces regardless. Then the USN (which would never intervene in the first place) still mashed the PLAN despite it being just off its own coast with pretty much the full support of the Chinese military at its disposal. Sure

At the end of the day, the USN would only get a portion of its navy, maybe 3-4 carriers max into the theatre and the PLA already has weapon systems that directly compare to the US.

# ? Jan 11, 2023 16:41

Hubbert: Mar 25, 2007; At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

gradenko_2000 posted:

[...]
Because of this, the report warned, “The United States might win a pyrrhic victory, suffering more in the long run than the 'defeated' Chinese," and that "victory isn't everything."
[...]

*D&D-ishly* A Pyrrhic victory beats a flat loss

# ? Jan 11, 2023 20:27

Centrist Committee: Aug 6, 2019

Hubbert posted:

*D&D-ishly* A Pyrrhic victory beats a flat loss

yeah but it�s a pyrrhic victory

# ? Jan 11, 2023 20:33

KomradeX: Oct 29, 2011

I keep getting video reccomends on Youtube for Task and Purpose rhat boil down to why this Western/Ukrainian weapon is secretly good and this Russian weapon is actually bad

# ? Jan 11, 2023 20:54

Tempora Mutantur: Feb 22, 2005

Centrist Committee posted:

yeah but it�s a pyrrhic victory

correct, a victory

# ? Jan 11, 2023 20:56

cenotaph: Mar 2, 2013

quote:

countless warships and aircraft destroyed.

quote:

According to the report, in defending Japan, the US would lose “dozens of ships, hundreds of aircraft,

Remember when we had editors?

# ? Jan 11, 2023 22:06

KomradeX: Oct 29, 2011

Dozens of ships and hundreds of aircraft would mean the effective end of the US Navy and Airforce wouldn't it? Those sound like World War 2 numbers of losses for a dramatically smaller in material.

# ? Jan 11, 2023 22:14

atelier morgan: Mar 11, 2003; super-scientific, ultra-gay; Lipstick Apathy

KomradeX posted:

Dozens of ships and hundreds of aircraft would mean the effective end of the US Navy and Airforce wouldn't it? Those sound like World War 2 numbers of losses for a dramatically smaller in material.

nah the US navy still real loving big

those casualties would absolutely be crippling to the pacific fleet and take decades to replace, of course

# ? Jan 11, 2023 22:25

indigi: Jul 20, 2004; ^{how can we not talk about family

when family's all that we got?}

"hundreds of aircraft" would be existentially devastating to US force projection especially considering half our fifth generation fleet is grounded at any given time

# ? Jan 11, 2023 22:29

atelier morgan: Mar 11, 2003; super-scientific, ultra-gay; Lipstick Apathy

indigi posted:

"hundreds of aircraft" would be existentially devastating to US force projection especially considering half our fifth generation fleet is grounded at any given time

casualties would be almost entirely hornets, only 2 of the pacific fleet's 20 squadrons of fighters are f-35s

still be crippling of course

# ? Jan 11, 2023 22:37

Danann: Aug 4, 2013

gradenko_2000 posted:

https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/1075288.html

they must be using ukrainian bs numbers because the whole island is under missile/rocket/drone range from the mainland

# ? Jan 11, 2023 22:49

Real hurthling!: Sep 11, 2001

if they invade we will either end the world or just eat poo poo about it and write op/eds about increasingly isolated xi

# ? Jan 11, 2023 22:55

indigi: Jul 20, 2004; ^{how can we not talk about family

when family's all that we got?}

my main question about a Chinese invasion is how quickly could the US even hope to get there, it seems like China should be able to blockade and invade before the US could muster up more than a token response but maybe I�m overestimating mobilization and travel time

# ? Jan 11, 2023 23:21

atelier morgan: Mar 11, 2003; super-scientific, ultra-gay; Lipstick Apathy

indigi posted:

my main question about a Chinese invasion is how quickly could the US even hope to get there, it seems like China should be able to blockade and invade before the US could muster up more than a token response but maybe I�m overestimating mobilization and travel time

the PLAN could definitely blockade taiwan before the US could muster up any response (and in fact just did that for like a day or so in response to harris flying over there and saber-rattling last year), but actually invading would take months of buildup and preparation that would be impossible to hide

# ? Jan 11, 2023 23:29

Rutibex: Sep 9, 2001; by Fluffdaddy

How much arable land does Taiwan have? China could just blockade them for a year and ask them to politely join the PRC

# ? Jan 11, 2023 23:30

Hatebag: Jun 17, 2008

indigi posted:

my main question about a Chinese invasion is how quickly could the US even hope to get there, it seems like China should be able to blockade and invade before the US could muster up more than a token response but maybe I’m overestimating mobilization and travel time

It probably would be an escalating situation over the course of months or years of usa provocation to get china to invade taiwan so I'd assume us forces would be gathering for a while beforehand

# ? Jan 12, 2023 00:21

Ardennes: May 12, 2002

atelier morgan posted:

the PLAN could definitely blockade taiwan before the US could muster up any response (and in fact just did that for like a day or so in response to harris flying over there and saber-rattling last year), but actually invading would take months of buildup and preparation that would be impossible to hide

Well they didn�t really blockade Taiwan but had exercises that basically surrounded the island for a week with the idea they could stop civilian traffic at any time.

The Taiwanese economy is extremely dependent on imports including food and energy and probably couldn�t more than a few weeks before things started to get seriously dire. Even if the USN tried to run the blockade it would run directly into the teeth of pretty much the entire arrayed PLA.

# ? Jan 12, 2023 00:36

Cerebral Bore: Apr 21, 2010; Fun Shoe

taiwan imports basically all of its energy, so china wouldn't even have to put a single boot on the ground if they don't want to. just blockade the island for a week or so and wait for the lights to go off

# ? Jan 12, 2023 00:43

atelier morgan: Mar 11, 2003; super-scientific, ultra-gay; Lipstick Apathy

Cerebral Bore posted:

taiwan imports basically all of its energy, so china wouldn't even have to put a single boot on the ground if they don't want to. just blockade the island for a week or so and wait for the lights to go off

if there's one thing the situation in ukraine is demonstrating it is that no amount of civilian misery is likely to have any impact on the fighting capabilities of a western-backed military

thankfully, china is not run by people looking to emulate the ongoing

# ? Jan 12, 2023 00:57

indigi: Jul 20, 2004; ^{how can we not talk about family

when family's all that we got?}

if China did blockade Taiwan I imagine they'd be landing necessities simultaneously

# ? Jan 12, 2023 01:14

Rutibex: Sep 9, 2001; by Fluffdaddy

atelier morgan posted:

if there's one thing the situation in ukraine is demonstrating it is that no amount of civilian misery is likely to have any impact on the fighting capabilities of a western-backed military

thankfully, china is not run by people looking to emulate the ongoing

its not civilian misery, their jets and military vehicles will run out of fuel

# ? Jan 12, 2023 01:15

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 25, 2024 07:11

lobster shirt: Jun 14, 2021

the taiwanese military will also need things like food and electricity

# ? Jan 12, 2023 01:18

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > The US will lose WW3

«‹›604 »