|
Trying to remember which video game had a dialog option along the lines of a warrior is just a blood thirsty savage while a soldier is an honorbound servant of the people and the nation. Probably some Bioware schlock.
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2023 05:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 20:45 |
|
|
Yeah, they should be called something cooler like Kinetic Marines, Nautical Operators, or Surface Warfighters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2023 05:27
|
|
|
Lostconfused posted:Trying to remember which video game had a dialog option along the lines of a warrior is just a blood thirsty savage while a soldier is an honorbound servant of the people and the nation. Alpha Protocol.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2023 05:29
|
|
|
Now that I think about it it's the same wolf/warrior sheepdog/soldier moralization. Edit: I should play Alpha Protocol again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2023 05:36
|
|
|
I think the change over to well Orwellian terms like Warfighter, or referring to soliders as warriors, is like when a High School football team is called The Warriors, it's to make the teenagers feel badass, and Warfighter is somewhere between that orwellian (to keep abusing the term) of clincialness ro detach from what the job entails, and sounds like aomething some hot dog necked cop would come up with to sound cool and professional
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2023 05:39
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:I think the change over to well Orwellian terms like Warfighter, or referring to soliders as warriors, is like when a High School football team is called The Warriors, it's to make the teenagers feel badass, and Warfighter is somewhere between that orwellian (to keep abusing the term) of clincialness ro detach from what the job entails, and sounds like aomething some hot dog necked cop would come up with to sound cool and professional Hey kids war is cool, the army is radical cool. You want to be king of cool right? Enlist today! Images of Michael Bay's explosions with kickass soundtrack.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2023 06:08
|
|
|
Anyway, one big deal with the Chinese fleet is while it is lower in total tonnage, it does have more surface units and even their corvettes have anti-ship missiles (as well as their purpose built missile boats), and the USN can only get so much to the region in any reasonable amount of time. An carrier group can only take so much pressure placed on it before it is suicidal. I don't think the US is going to fight for Taiwan, and I don't think there will be any real landing, if anything happened, it would be a blockade for a few weeks and then some type of compromise deal. Taiwan can't sustain itself without sea lanes. Also, we are very much in the bargaining stage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2023 06:16
|
|
|
A fun mental exercise is to think in broad strokes about current ship building capacity, hull longevity, material sustainability and recruitment. Nothing more than extrapolation over time. But forget all that. Check out this cool PowerPoint presentation about information warfare and situational dominance. I don't know what those words mean but by golly it sounds cool and my uniform has extra starch and spaghetti vomit medals all over it so don't worry about it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2023 07:19
|
|
|
Zeppelin Insanity posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7JcAvnbRtE wait, they did the job in 6 weeks but that made them think their own military was poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2023 08:02
|
|
|
There's been this persistent belief that China "lost" the Sino-Vietnamese War
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2023 08:10
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:There's been this persistent belief that China "lost" the Sino-Vietnamese War Same as how the USSR lost the winter war. genericnick has issued a correction as of 08:24 on Aug 25, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2023 08:12
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:There's been this persistent belief that China "lost" the Sino-Vietnamese War i get that, but it seems like they're contradicting themselves in a single point edit: or 6 weeks meant to be too slow? crepeface has issued a correction as of 08:24 on Aug 25, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2023 08:17
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:There's been this persistent belief that China "lost" the Sino-Vietnamese War They went to war to protect an allied state, that state was overthrown, despite the Soviets betraying their commitments, they could not compel Vietnam to withdraw from Cambodia. However much I support the present Chinese government (a great deal), this seems like a tremendous cope.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2023 09:02
|
|
|
and, it is worth emphasizing, the objective purpose of it was to prove to American imperialism that the leadership of the party was willing to, not just rhetorically oppose the Soviet line, but shed the blood of fellow socialists.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2023 09:05
|
|
|
crepeface posted:i get that, but it seems like they're contradicting themselves in a single point Whatever the reality of the situation in regards to China\Vietnam, or whether it prompted any reevalution and reform, it's objectively hilarious for the US to try to dunk on someone for doing a quick war with Vietnam and, in the US' words, "achieving operational objectives".
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2023 09:52
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:I'm sure you guys are aware the USS Tang sank itself right? Circular run torpedo. i know this but only because it's a game mechanic in pacific typhoon
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2023 10:07
|
|
|
Pomeroy posted:They went to war to protect an allied state, that state was overthrown, despite the Soviets betraying their commitments, they could not compel Vietnam to withdraw from Cambodia. However much I support the present Chinese government (a great deal), this seems like a tremendous cope. cope by the us analyst that other guy was quoting? that doesn’t make sense
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2023 10:27
|
|
|
Pomeroy posted:They went to war to protect an allied state, that state was overthrown, despite the Soviets betraying their commitments, they could not compel Vietnam to withdraw from Cambodia. However much I support the present Chinese government (a great deal), this seems like a tremendous cope.   
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2023 10:55
|
|
|
crepeface posted:i get that, but it seems like they're contradicting themselves in a single point It all stems from a single book. There’s been one English text everybody reads if they do a module on Asia in staff college and that’s kind of it. Dragons Entangled: Indochina and the China-Vietnam War from 1993. I haven’t read it but it’s not just influential or whatever, it’s the only book. e: Correction. Harjeet Singh, LCol with the British Columbia Regiment (Duke of Connaught’s Own), fmr Defence Minister and Minister responsible for the Pacific Economic Development Agency of Canada, wrote A War Nobody Won: The Sino-Vietnam War 1979, for his Canadian Forces College dissertation I believe. Frosted Flake has issued a correction as of 11:55 on Aug 25, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2023 11:49
|
|
|
There were more than one goal of the Sino-Vietnamese war, make Vietnam get out of Cambodia (or prevent Vietnam become a regional hegemon in continental Southeast Asia); the 2nd goal was to this proxy war against Soviet and created more troubles in Soviet peripheral. On the 2nd goal, the war didn't ended after the initial incursion, it continued as border war in the hilly terrain for many years. Vietnam didn't have any resource in terms of oil and industrial product, all of them were supplied by Soviet. So Deng was rotating different troops to fight the Vietnamese army and sucked up Soviet resource. It was exactly the same motive of China supporting Afghanistan guerrillas weapons to fight Soviet via the Pakistani. On to the 1st goal, the post war Cambodian government became a very pro China regime. In fact all Cambodian factions were pretty friendly to China, including the communist and the King, which spent more time lived in China than in Cambodia, kind of like how the current Myanmar factions are alll prety friendly to China. Laos is also became very friendly to China and not friendly to Vietnam. So I say the first goal was accomplished. Although the war against Vietnam was only the first part of it. The rest were not done by hard power. It's important that China had to show to the continental SEA countries that China didn't have territorial ambition against Vietnam, it's a major part of building trust with small neighbors. Also, I forgot to mention the most important goal which was obvious but you guys didn't mentioned it. The war was a symbolic signal to ditch the Soviet camp and join the west camp at the beginning of the 80s. There is a phrase in Chinese, "Toumin zhuang", which describes the ritual of before joining a gang of mountain bandit, you have to go out yourself and rob some guy and bring back his head, in order to show you are throwing away your previous life and prove that you are not an undercover of the government. If you can bring your old boss's head to the bandit, that's even better. That's how you gain trust with the new brothers. There is a Jet Li movie of this subject. A lot of Chinese discussion of the war afterward understood that what Deng did was a Douming zhuang. He literally went to US before the war, did the sing and dance, wore the cowboy hat, and told the US president he was going to punish the Vietnamese. That's how China gained the trust of the capitalists and got invited to the globalization supply chain. I am pretty sure WTO was created around that time, and with China joining in mind. It's also true that the Chinese troops performed badly during the initial attacks, the Chinese discussion didn't avoid that subject because Deng used it as an excuse to reformed the PLA. stephenthinkpad has issued a correction as of 12:56 on Aug 25, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2023 12:53
|
|
|
that sounds about right to me but didn't china only join the WTO in 2001?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2023 12:59
|
|
|
Who cares, nobody going to be in the WTO but USA n' friends in another 20 years. World this, world that, all just means mainland USA.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2023 13:17
|
|
|
crepeface posted:that sounds about right to me but didn't china only join the WTO in 2001? China had to reform the domestic economy significantly in order to join the WTO. Most of the "letting go of factory workers who had had iron rice bowl since they joined the factories" were done before 2001 in the Jiang/Zhu era. There were tons of books of "what happen when we joined WTO" before that. China's export economy was already partly integrated to world globalization via HK/Taiwan/oversea Chinese foreign investment before 2001. Maybe this topic doesn't belong to this thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2023 13:40
|
|
|
crepeface posted:wait, they did the job in 6 weeks but that made them think their own military was poo poo? In the context of that surprisingly honest assessment video, I think it was just summarizing that yes they won but they also realized the need for massive improvements. Very funny timing tho. Which is also juxtaposed to the US where we lost and decided our military was perfect, no notes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2023 16:34
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Which is also juxtaposed to the US where we lost and decided our military was perfect, no notes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2023 16:37
|
|
|
Real dumb noob question: Why is Taiwan the only place to make the good microchips? Is it the water, like New York with the bagels?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2023 16:42
|
|
|
Animal-Mother posted:Real dumb noob question: Why is Taiwan the only place to make the good microchips? Is it the water, like New York with the bagels? A bunch of places make microchips, Intel has foundries in Israel and Germany, for example. Taiwan just happened to pull ahead of all the rest. The underlying story there is that it keeps cropping up in US client states because they're supposed to be manufacturing powerhouses that sell goods to third world markets, then America soaks up the surplus via financialization. The fruits of Bretton-Woods.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2023 16:50
|
|
|
Hatebag posted:China is definitely doing that but they already have at least a half dozen slbm nuke subs that each have 12 slbms with 3 warhead mirvs and a 9000 km range which means they could blow up dc from just west of hawaii. they have the capability of destroying every city over half a a million and all the us nuke silos with weapons that aren't counterable. nobody is shooting down a missile going mach 25. I'm sure the very smart guys in the us military understand that Yea, people in "the business" as it's called knows you don't use one nuke, you use all of the nukes, at the same time. It's how we have mathed out waging and winning nuclear war. Luckily world leaders are universally cowards who just want to enjoy the perks of being on top and unlike a conventional war, where their life stays normal, in a nuke shootout they are the targets. If they wanted to be targets they would be soldiers, not leaders.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2023 16:50
|
|
|
Animal-Mother posted:Real dumb noob question: Why is Taiwan the only place to make the good microchips? Is it the water, like New York with the bagels? Per Cross-Taiwan Strait Relations in an Era of Technological Change: Security, Economic and Cultural Dimensions, "Taiwan’s economic performance in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s is often characterized as a ‘miracle’, both for its rapid growth rates and its equitable distribution. At the heart of that miracle was Taiwan’s ability to manufacture products for export, most often under foreign labels. Taiwan entered the high-technology era as an original equipment manufacturing (OEM) powerhouse, making products to design specifications provided by clients. Today, many Taiwanese companies occupy a higher-status position in the high-technology world, that of original design manufacturers (ODM) – firms that refine and develop product designs in collaboration with their clients and then manufacture the products. " "Taiwan’s role in the worldwide high-technology sector has been as a manufacturer for many of the world’s leading global brands. This position in global value chains has made it imperative for Taiwanese companies to keep their production costs down. When, shortly after the lifting of martial law, economic prosperity, rising incomes and the limits to a small island economy made production costs rise in Taiwan, companies started outsourcing parts of their production to the main- land, where land and labour were cheaper whilst linguistic and cultural barriers were low. " It also has hilarious passages, "One of the mysteries of our age is how the People’s Republic of China (PRC) – an isolated, impoverished nation that eschewed private busi- ness and international trade for decades – became the world’s factory and second-largest economy in little more than twenty years. China’s success owes much to the globalization trend that took off in the 1970s and to the political and economic reforms its leaders put in place in the 1980s. Most accounts of China’s explosive economic growth focus on Deng Xiaoping’s decision to unleash his nation from the restraints of Maoist economic policy, and it is certainly true that the pent-up potential of an economy that had been artificially restrained goes a long way toward explaining China’s success. Nonetheless, few developing countries manage to achieve the rates of growth that have char- acterized the PRC economy since the 1980s, and only a handful of countries can boast of the kind of deep development – including industrialization, urbanization and industrial upgrading – China has achieved."  "In terms of size and technological sophistication of the military, the balance is shifting in the mainland’s favour, whilst in the economy, technological change presents both a challenge and an opportunity to Taiwan. In the cultural sphere, however, technology (particularly internet technology) gives agency to Taiwan. It opens up spaces in which Taiwan can voice its values, explore its identity and project its democratic soft power." "A central theme negotiated in the cross-Strait cultural sphere, and traced in the chapters of this section, is nationalism. How do both sides of the Strait define their national identity? Do people on Taiwan define themselves as Chinese or as Taiwanese? Does technology reinforce or bridge gaps in conceptualizing national identity across the Strait? These questions are pressing since the cultural gap between the mainland and Taiwan has been widening in recent decades, as Fang- long Shih points out in this book. While the KMT emphasized the Chineseness of people on Taiwan, inhabitants of the island have been developing a distinct Taiwanese identity since the 1980s. ‘Taiwanization’ (bentu hua) and ‘de-Sinification’ (qu Zhongguo hua) were given a new boost by Chen Shui-bian after 2000." but it's funny because the book was written in 2015, before the US decided that they were going to set a bear trap, destroying Taiwan in the process. Materially, all of the conditions that existed then exist now, but ideologically you won't hear anyone say much of what this book contains, less than a decade later. Specifically that peaceful reunification is basically inevitable, most Taiwanese have no desire to fight, "de-Sinification" was a non-starter, the NGO sector seems mostly to create tension and organize for US interests during periods of reconciliation etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2023 17:03
|
|
|
stephenthinkpad posted:China had to reform the domestic economy significantly in order to join the WTO. Most of the "letting go of factory workers who had had iron rice bowl since they joined the factories" were done before 2001 in the Jiang/Zhu era. There were tons of books of "what happen when we joined WTO" before that. China's economy and the reasons it is what it is are directly related to why The US will lose WW3. The story has 2 sides, the decline of the western empire and the rise of the eastern. It's interesting in how it's tied together. The US crippled it's industrial capacity for short term gains and to cripple labor power. China took advantage of that. I'm curious, at the time the US was de-industrializing, what was our plan to keep China down after they ramped up? I'm assuming allowing China into the WTO was some kind of a trap, how did they avoid it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2023 17:16
|
|
|
Fell Mood posted:I'm curious, at the time the US was de-industrializing, what was our plan to keep China down after they ramped up? I'm assuming allowing China into the WTO was some kind of a trap, how did they avoid it? It 100% was, the trap had already worked on Japan and Korea. iirc capital controls, foreign investment and ownership restrictions and the party as a political body with an ideology that could not itself -even if individual members could - be compromised or bought out prevented it from working. I know I've seen an essay explaining this somewhere but as an example of why liberalizing China "failed". Books about this are so numerous, I'd say it's a cottage industry, though you'd have to use their specific jargon to find the books on it. My understanding is that it's an axiom that "market reform" leads to "political reform", because politicians can be bought out and money flow to campaigns, media, NGOs. That this didn't happen in China is something Fukuyama and his ilk have had to try to explain since China didn't collapse at the same time as the USSR, as predicted. One of the assumptions of The End of History was that they'd defeat China while capturing its workforce in a moment of apotheosis. I have a chapter in mind if you give me a second to look for it.       
Frosted Flake has issued a correction as of 17:38 on Aug 25, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2023 17:22
|
|
|
US assumed they could do a "Asian financial crisis" or "Plaza Accord" to PRC, which they have done very successfully to various Asian manufacturing countries. The Asian financial crisis also affected Russia greatly and indirectly helped made Putin lol.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2023 18:41
|
|
|
The west thought they had a superior economic ideology but it turns out all those previous times they thought they beat someone with the ideology it was just material circumstances of having more stuff and being able to bully people. Like a guy who thinks he's a hot poo poo judokai but he's just big and gets his rear end kicked by a slightly larger guy in two seconds, plus he's already gotten beaten by guys half his size (Vietnam, Cuba) and made up a bunch of bullshit about how he only lost because he wasn't ready and didn't have his tabi shoes on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2023 18:46
|
|
|
Fell Mood posted:I'm curious, at the time the US was de-industrializing, what was our plan to keep China down after they ramped up? I'm assuming allowing China into the WTO was some kind of a trap, how did they avoid it? The Oldest Man posted:The west thought they had a superior economic ideology but it turns out all those previous times they thought they beat someone with the ideology it was just material circumstances of having more stuff and being able to bully people. Like a guy who thinks he's a hot poo poo judokai but he's just big and gets his rear end kicked by a slightly larger guy in two seconds, plus he's already gotten beaten by guys half his size (Vietnam, Cuba) and made up a bunch of bullshit about how he only lost because he wasn't ready and didn't have his tabi shoes on. Yep, it was literally racism by the lead poisoned idiots running the show at the end of history.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2023 20:39
|
|
|
The Chinese not letting the liberals run the show also helpee in avoiding the US trap
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2023 21:51
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/someplaosint/status/1695279532188520523quote:The Han Kuang exercise is the biggest military exercise held by Taiwan. Since the 2000s, it has been increasingly devoid of military significance in terms of scale, professionalism & become a political token for the public. This year’s No.39 is no different. A series of 🧵: i guess all the troops with brains defected to the pla because i thought it was just small scale goofs and not the control point being a steel ladder
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 08:01
|
|
|
Command and control usually fails exercises HARD. It's the ranks who know what they're doing. After enough repeated attempts they units only pass because the ranks get fed up, don't wait for orders and just do what they know needs to be done. After all, they're the ones actually learning anything. Command then just take the credit, as is tradition, despite being the proverbial or literal boat anchors. If you see anyone with a whiteboard mid exercise get as far away from it as possible. Thar be dragons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 10:05
|
|
|
We just had an accident on the ranges this week where it turned out CASEVAC from the Tactical Helicopter Squadron is not allowed to land at the civilian hospital but Ornge (formerly Ontario Air Ambulance Corporation and Ontario Air Ambulance Service) is not allowed to land out in the training area, so a ground ambulance from the Field Ambulance had to take the casualty to the helipad to get picked up by Ornge. This is apparently due to a rule that says the military cannot cut into the “business” of the civilian service by direct MEDEVAC or CASEVAC flights to hospital.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 12:02
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:We just had an accident on the ranges this week where it turned out CASEVAC from the Tactical Helicopter Squadron is not allowed to land at the civilian hospital but Ornge (formerly Ontario Air Ambulance Corporation and Ontario Air Ambulance Service) is not allowed to land out in the training area, so a ground ambulance from the Field Ambulance had to take the casualty to the helipad to get picked up by Ornge. You already have tactical helicopters. Eliminate that Ornge group and anyone who disagrees. Cut the gordion knot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 12:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 20:45 |
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 14:09
|
|
