|
celadon posted:How easily can the US help defend Taiwan without becoming vulnerable to anti-ship missiles? Or is there an assumption that China sinking/attempting to sink a carrier would be too significant of an escalation? I know there are ways to stop missiles but my understanding is those defenses are limited by either the total # of missiles they can stop or the # of missiles they can stop in a unit time. This question is part of what posters have been discussing the past few pages. No one knows precisely the capabilities of the PLA. We have a rough idea given publicly available details but the capabilities of the weapons and countermeasures on both potential combatants is highly classified. As an outside observer or even a member of either military, one can make assumptions and plot out possibilities but unless it actually happens and the capabilities are tested under combat conditions, no-one can say for sure. The best answer anyone can give is that the US Navy is publicly very respectful of the PLA's capabilities.
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2023 20:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 23:36 |
|
|
I’m guessing submarine launched cruise missiles would be a big part of that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2023 20:36
|
|
|
If the US launches attacks from an aircraft carrier against Chinese ships or bases then that carrier is a legitimate target and any whining about attacks on it being an escalation is absurd. You don't get to unilaterally declare your airbase off-limits just because it's very valuable to you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2023 20:39
|
|
|
celadon posted:How easily can the US help defend Taiwan without becoming vulnerable to anti-ship missiles? Or is there an assumption that China sinking/attempting to sink a carrier would be too significant of an escalation? I know there are ways to stop missiles but my understanding is those defenses are limited by either the total # of missiles they can stop or the # of missiles they can stop in a unit time. Dmitry Filipoff of CIMSEC recently did a series of analysis articles on USN Distributed Maritime Operations concept (DMO), and how it is shaping the future of naval warfare. One of the parts deals with PLA’s ability to mass fires against distributed naval forces. It gives some indirect insight to the question you are having. It really is a great read.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2023 20:55
|
|
|
MikeC posted:This question is part of what posters have been discussing the past few pages. No one knows precisely the capabilities of the PLA. We have a rough idea given publicly available details but the capabilities of the weapons and countermeasures on both potential combatants is highly classified. As an outside observer or even a member of either military, one can make assumptions and plot out possibilities but unless it actually happens and the capabilities are tested under combat conditions, no-one can say for sure. The best answer anyone can give is that the US Navy is publicly very respectful of the PLA's capabilities. Gotcha. It is very interesting in general to think about cause a bunch of the uncertainties are going to feed into eachother in different ways. Like, with anti ship missiles, you would basically need to have a good idea of the number, the range, and how many can be simultaneously fired for all the types of missiles in order to have a good idea of what the risks to your carriers are. And if you dont know your ability to deploy carriers, the comparative strength of your planes becomes less meaningful, etc. Owling Howl posted:If the US launches attacks from an aircraft carrier against Chinese ships or bases then that carrier is a legitimate target and any whining about attacks on it being an escalation is absurd. You don't get to unilaterally declare your airbase off-limits just because it's very valuable to you. I don't disagree that a carrier is a valid target if the US is launching attacks, but it is also 3000 people and 10 billion dollars and an active nuclear reactor all getting hit at once so the response may not be 'ah yes fair shot you got us'. I mean that'd be more than the entire number of US military deaths in Afghanistan in a single attack. Dante80 posted:Dmitry Filipoff of CIMSEC recently did a series of analysis articles on USN Distributed Maritime Operations concept (DMO), and how it is shaping the future of naval warfare. Awesome, I'll give this a read!
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2023 20:58
|
|
|
If we want more sourcing and less Goon chin-stroke Clancychatting, The Diplomat has a whole series looking at articles in China's defence journals analysing the war: https://thediplomat.com/tag/chinese-military-ukraine-war-lessons/
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2023 21:22
|
|
|
Politically, I think it's not likely China will invade Taiwan any time soon, and I'd mostly leave it at that, and only reconsider the possibility if there's any major unrest in Taiwan or if there's any major saber-rattling from the PRC. If anything, I think it'd be more likely for China to somehow wind up seizing some Indian territory, since there's sort of active fighting on that border that could maybe lead to something after a particularly weird skirmish.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2023 05:31
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Politically, I think it's not likely China will invade Taiwan any time soon, and I'd mostly leave it at that, and only reconsider the possibility if there's any major unrest in Taiwan or if there's any major saber-rattling from the PRC. Xi has repeatedly listed 2025 as the point he wants China to be "ready" for forced reunification if necessary. That said, the country's recent spat of issues has likely delayed that timeline at least somewhat. Also, along the same lines with India, it would be hilarious if China tried to carve off that little chunk of Russian land they're now claiming. https://apnews.com/article/china-map-territorial-dispute-south-sea-702c45165d7f9cade796700fffa5691e Any sort of military move on any of the newly claimed land on their official map will basically cause all of their neighbors to start build ups on their borders. I don't quite understand the reasoning behind this move, though. Even if it is there as red meat to the nationalist hardliners, they're just weakening their position on the national stage even more.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2023 13:30
|
|
|
probably the same level of diplomatic finesse that leads Beijing into repeatedly sending people who say 朋友来了有好酒，豺狼来了有猎枪 out loud in multilateral meetings (before promptly accusing everyone else of bloc mentality) I think Beijing will pull some stunt in November or December that will raise tensions, in a confused bid to aid the KMT's chances, but it probably won't add up to anything I'm more wondering how the KMT will react - and then how Beijing would react if, as seems entirely plausible, the KMT is no longer the dominant pro-Beijing vehicle in the long term. Nobody else gets to claim the Party of Sun Yat-Sen mantle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2023 18:17
|
|
|
It could just be that nobody in the Ministry of Natural Resources has the delegated authority to release a national map of China that's gotten smaller, even where internationally the Foreign Ministry has settled territorial disputes and has lodged maps with the UN.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2023 18:55
|
|
|
This thread has some level of Clancychat that seems extremely unreasonable and completely overestimates China's ability to actually deploy realistically in a wartime situation, especially from the same set of posters. Of course China is going to be logistically stronger than Russia in terms of deployment. That being said China does not have very strong military experience and a lot of Chinese people (especially educated) in particular think that China's military would crumble quickly given a real life and death situation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2023 20:56
|
|
|
ntan1 posted:This thread has some level of Clancychat that seems extremely unreasonable and completely overestimates China's ability to actually deploy realistically in a wartime situation, especially from the same set of posters. Do you have sources to back this up? There's over a billion Chinese people and millions are quite active online with "RAH! China is number 1!" So who are we supposed to believe? Even someone in the PLA in a deployment in Fujian is not going to have a high level view of the readiness of the PLA as a whole or even its elite Category A units. I think its valid to point out that China has been years without active conflict (likewise we see how wartime experience has rapidly separated the wheat from the chaff for Russian Armed Forces!) but so has the ROC's military and technically so has the United States regarding a peer conflict anyways. Remember that "One sure kick and the entire rotten structure will come crumbling down" was also said about the USSR during WW2 and look at what happened; saying the samething about China today, especially with scant evidence seems to me basically the same sort of argument. Also which posters are overestimating China's ability to "deploy realistically in a wartime situation", which situation, which kind of war, why do you disagree, what argument in particular do you disagree with and why? Right now this is just vague posting and hard to respond to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2023 21:51
|
|
|
China spends like a third of what the US does on its military. I think the idea that the US is being overtaken as #1 military superpower is incorrect. Obviously there are things the US can't do to a nuclear-armed opponent that spends multiple hundreds of billions on its military, but the idea that China's the new world boss seems premature.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2023 15:35
|
|
|
Gort posted:China spends like a third of what the US does on its military. I think the idea that the US is being overtaken as #1 military superpower is incorrect. Is anyone claiming otherwise?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2023 15:52
|
|
|
Gort posted:China spends like a third of what the US does on its military. I think the idea that the US is being overtaken as #1 military superpower is incorrect. Yeah as Daduzi asks, no one is claiming that China will become the world's hyperpower able to project force around the world with the means to defend its interests in any region at anytime (which the US as the #1 military power tries very hard to be able to do). The discussions around China's military abilities tend to focus around to varying degrees: - Can China forcefully annex Taiwan if Taiwan is largely forced to fend for itself? (For decades this was mostly a no, with or without the 7th Fleet being in the Taiwan straights as a result of China's intervention in the Korean War). - If the US and its regional allies (Lets suppose just Australia and Japan), can China keep them at bay long enough to complete a naval invasion of Taiwan? (The thought being a long drawn out war is in no one's interests so this sort of conflict will orbit around China's ability to deter the US from being able to military commit a larger force near the theatre). - If someone rams their ship/aircraft too close to someone's ship and aircraft and someone loses their nerve and pulls the trigger and things escalate into a military conflict, is China strong enough to effectively defend its interests in its "core"? - If some domestic instability in a country with a large chinese minority breaks out where China is forced to act to defend the overseas chinese community in said nation, can they project force to force a return to stability? - If some local government in a developing nation backed by China needs help, can China project a carrier battle group to the region to defend its interests to deter the US/West from intervening/toppling the Chinese backed government (or group). Basically, insofar as we look at these scenarios are "plausible" to occur depending on how things escalate, the question is Can China assert itself as a regional military power such that the balance of forces favors China against an (presumably) overstretched United States military? The idea to clarify, isn't "Can China defeat the entire force of the US", its "Can China deter/defeat the proportion of United States military force that can be committed to the theater?" Because the US cannot commit all 14 CVG's to the Taiwan Straights, it needs to keep something in the Persian gulf in case Iran gets ideas; it needs to keep something in the Med and Atlantic to support NATO, it can't just send everything and the kitchen sink towards China at full speed; especially now when its trying to keep an eye on Russia. A lot of the talk from "Realists" suggesting the US should basically abandon Ukraine and focus/pivot to China, and a lot of Obama's foreign policy was predicated on the idea that the US can't effectively be the world's policeman and China's jailer at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2023 17:26
|
|
|
ntan1 posted:This thread has some level of Clancychat that seems extremely unreasonable and completely overestimates China's ability to actually deploy realistically in a wartime situation, especially from the same set of posters. A thought, maybe people should stop resorting to calling everything 'clancychat' whenever they hear an opinion they don't like, even when its both well reasoned and evidenced. I feel like the people who are trying to claim that China is a paper tiger are doing that with stark determination to ignore the extreme advantages that China can call upon as a major economic power with a more than a billion people and a seemingly very intensive programmes to professionalize and expand its military while also being able to observe very keenly probably the most intense and textbook conventional war since the second world war with all the developments and mistakes therein. And that says nothing about the specific advantages it can bring to bear against Taiwan, including the fact that its not a recognized state which will create a lot of issues if America and its allies really want to throw down over this, or the fact that its an island which creates massive supply issues if the Chinese simply blockade it and dare the Americans to do anything about it. There's this strong tendency for people to look at Russian performance and just assume that China is fundamentally similar even though that seems like a serious mistake to me, its just kind of replicating lazy tropes that the world can be cleanly divided into accountable democracies that win wars (except the ones they lost) and opaque despots who lose wars (except the ones they won), its very strongly seated in an implacably western mindset that has fundamental contempt for perceived enemies. khwarezm fucked around with this message at 02:09 on Sep 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2023 02:05
|
|
|
It isn't Clancychat to discuss China's ability to project within the second island chain which is what 99% of China vs. U.S./the West/the world are really discussing since that is stated to be their biggest near-term goal. They don't "intend" to be a current U.S. level superpower until the late 2030s/early 2040s.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2023 03:07
|
|
|
Saying china needs 15 years to become a superpower means any concept of "will they touch Taiwan?" becomes a stupid hypothetical. China's gonna be strong later folks, later! But they're totally not saber rattling right now/demonstrating paper tiger status by not being where they aim for within 15 years.  It's not like Taiwan-US- China issues magically propped up lately, as it's been a back and forth for decades. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/1/3/timeline-taiwan-china-relations-since-1949A whole heck of a lot could change in 15 years.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2023 03:44
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:So what's the plan when a country has significant air defense? https://youtu.be/P0yKSNq-oLg?si=CJ_Oj_DGJcII8lnp (Not saying they’re right, just that I suspect this is the plan) Edit - in case this comes across to mods like I’m just emptyposting or that I think real war = x-men, what in getting at is that I suspect the US military expects through mighty effort and superior force to overcome any opposing air defence that might exist now or in the near future. The Artificial Kid fucked around with this message at 04:06 on Sep 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2023 03:55
|
|
|
ronya posted:
KMT still has a stronghold regionally in several counties of Taiwan (now) and Ko's TPP at this point has a miniscule number of seats in the Legislative Yuan (because the entire party has been built around Ko and his mayoral campaigns.) KMT still holds a majority of Mayor/Magistrate positions as well. Even if it looks like they can't win a presidential election, they still have alot of local control (which...to the mainland doesn't mean poo poo)
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2023 04:31
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:Based on what we are seeing that is not announced. This makes a big deal of the reserve/secrecy about new weapons but where are all these rumours coming from? Didn’t the US basically spring the stealth bomber on the world by complete surprise?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2023 04:46
|
|
|
Gort posted:China spends like a third of what the US does on its military. I think the idea that the US is being overtaken as #1 military superpower is incorrect. When you take into account purchasing power and the range of possible values for wastage on either side, spending of one third on the Chinese side could at least theoretically equate to a better military.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2023 04:54
|
|
|
GoutPatrol posted:KMT still has a stronghold regionally in several counties of Taiwan (now) and Ko's TPP at this point has a miniscule number of seats in the Legislative Yuan (because the entire party has been built around Ko and his mayoral campaigns.) KMT still holds a majority of Mayor/Magistrate positions as well. Even if it looks like they can't win a presidential election, they still have alot of local control (which...to the mainland doesn't mean poo poo) I don't know if that municipal loyalty is to the KMT as a brand or to the KMT as a patronage machine that finds most of its assets frozen for a couple of years now... I think a sudden shift could happen. The problem with being the local-issues-protest-vote-alternative is that anyone can do it; it doesn't have to come with baggage.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2023 05:49
|
|
|
The Artificial Kid posted:When you take into account purchasing power and the range of possible values for wastage on either side, spending of one third on the Chinese side could at least theoretically equate to a better military. I still do not understand any of the logic used in this post. Huh??? Like I could see this being true if China had a smaller, more quality-focused military. But it apparently has both a much bigger military with lots of secret stuff, and yet spending much less. It doesn't sound like they could keep up the quality everywhere if that's the case.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2023 09:22
|
|
|
Kchama posted:I still do not understand any of the logic used in this post. Huh??? Like I could see this being true if China had a smaller, more quality-focused military. But it apparently has both a much bigger military with lots of secret stuff, and yet spending much less. It doesn't sound like they could keep up the quality everywhere if that's the case.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2023 09:46
|
|
|
i say swears online posted:isn't that the definition of purchasing power? I want to hear his logic as to how China's purchasing power can make up for it. Bulk ordering can only do so much. America buys a ton of equipment, too, and in big amounts. They should be having a massive amount of purchasing power. So his argument must rest in America having massive amounts of wasteage and China having very little.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2023 10:02
|
|
|
Kchama posted:I still do not understand any of the logic used in this post. Huh??? Like I could see this being true if China had a smaller, more quality-focused military. But it apparently has both a much bigger military with lots of secret stuff, and yet spending much less. It doesn't sound like they could keep up the quality everywhere if that's the case. Bearing in mind that enormous amounts of US resources are committed to gigantic, specialised means of fighting like carrier battle groups, and that those resources are not allocated without systemic waste, and that China may or may not have weapons that will asymmetrically defeat those units if put to the test, and that a US-dollar's-worth of spending in China buys more than it does in America it becomes hard to be THAT reassured by the difference in raw expenditure. I'm not saying that China's military IS stronger than America's. I think that's unlikely. But I don't think that the monetary gap makes it impossible. And even if we try to make a sober analysis of what each side has actually got for its money we are still left with unknowns, like whether Chinese missiles cut through US defences like butter, or whether the US has some unprecedented voodoo bullshit behind its back that it's just waiting for a reason to deploy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2023 10:03
|
|
|
The Artificial Kid posted:like whether Chinese missiles cut through US defences like butter, or whether the US has some unprecedented voodoo bullshit behind its back that it's just waiting for a reason to deploy. maybe we could make some sort of missile barrier out of scuttled zumwalts surrounding our carrier groups
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2023 10:20
|
|
|
i say swears online posted:maybe we could make some sort of missile barrier out of scuttled zumwalts surrounding our carrier groups Yeah or maybe the US has Effectors now to go with its knife missiles.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2023 11:00
|
|
|
ive heard a tactical nuke is a LOT cheaper than an aircraft carrier
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2023 11:03
|
|
|
[Claps hands] and there you have it, the actual Clancy
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2023 11:57
|
|
|
Kchama posted:I want to hear his logic as to how China's purchasing power can make up for it. Bulk ordering can only do so much. America buys a ton of equipment, too, and in big amounts. They should be having a massive amount of purchasing power. So his argument must rest in America having massive amounts of wasteage and China having very little. I think the idea that China spending 1/3 of the US's military is about the same is a tad overstretching things; clearly China must be deficient in something relative to the US just by raw spending numbers alone; and China can't be totally free of corruption and graft either as historically the PLA directly administering its own supply and procurement chain was almost certainly a great source of such things (that China starting a few decades ago had to phase out in order to professionalize the military). Lacking 14 CVGs and as large a modern airforce is certainly one of those ways, most of China's airframes are older, while most of the US's are more modern and modernized; China's numbers of Sukhoi Su-27 and derivitives is probably not on par with the US's F-16 fleet. IIRC China has around 600, the US has 1200 F-16s and also 300 F-35's and way more flight hours for its pilots. China presumably spends proportionally a lot less on research and development and procurement relatively speaking but that wouldn't particularly close the gap; it just means China developing and deploying effective weapon systems is cheaper and faster but not something that makes their spending equivalent. The key comparison between China's military budget and the US's military budget is that China can devote a far larger proportion of what that budget gets them towards preparations and battlefield shaping operations against their most probable peer adversary (US, Japan, Aus) in the most probable theater which probably does close the gap; because as I said earlier the US cannot do the same without abandoning its commitments elsewhere. If the US has 14 CVGs most of those are going to be useless if they can't be deployed until poo poo has hit the fan and its too late. Same for most of the US military and airforce; not all of the US's places can be devoted and on standby to engage China, and only so many can be hurriedly moved there in time if things escalate. In short, China does not need to spend the same amount to give the US a run for its money.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2023 14:25
|
|
|
i don't know much of anything about china's military or posture, but it's worth noting that the comparative advantage in labour costs also applies to military procurement - a third of the dollar amount spending may simply go a longer way in medium-cost china than it does in high-cost USA. i saw somebody estimate this effect based on attack submarine unit costs once, and while it wasn't enough to make up for three times the budget it was pretty significant. also the US counts healthcare for its veterans as military expenditure, which at least in europe goes into the general public healthcare budgets instead. idk how china does this, but that may also be a factor.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2023 17:14
|
|
|
Kchama posted:I want to hear his logic as to how China's purchasing power can make up for it. Bulk ordering can only do so much. America buys a ton of equipment, too, and in big amounts. They should be having a massive amount of purchasing power. So his argument must rest in America having massive amounts of wasteage and China having very little. Isn't this just a straightforward PPP argument? The defense budget comparison is nominal, but a dollar goes further in China than it does in the US, so China can buy more military equipment for the same price than America can.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2023 17:18
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:also the US counts healthcare for its veterans as military expenditure, which at least in europe goes into the general public healthcare budgets instead. idk how china does this, but that may also be a factor. oh that's interesting. have any euros considered incorporating health costs to fudge the NATO GDP minimum?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2023 17:25
|
|
|
The Department of Veterans Affairs has a separate budget to the DoD. It’s about 4% of federal spending. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_federal_budget Note the chart, veterans are a separate category Edgar Allen Ho fucked around with this message at 17:36 on Sep 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2023 17:31
|
|
|
I don't think that anybody can gently caress with the US as far as military budgets go. It's not even close..in nominal or percentage of GDP terms.  Of course, the same goes for PPP comparisons.  Having said that, military asset development and procurement is but a portion of a country's military budget. Other expenses are salaries, maintenance, training etc etc. I think that the US is spending a smaller portion of its overall budget on acquiring new poo poo than some of the other countries in the top 20 (like China). I mean, just as an example, the US is currently maintaining more than 750 foreign military bases across 80 nations. That is not a trivial expense, actually. Neither is annual maintenance for the largest, most advanced and most global reaching military in the World. Dante80 fucked around with this message at 18:35 on Sep 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2023 18:20
|
|
|
tractor fanatic posted:Isn't this just a straightforward PPP argument? The defense budget comparison is nominal, but a dollar goes further in China than it does in the US, so China can buy more military equipment for the same price than America can. Yeah, but like... there's a limit to it. If you have to stretch your argue to go "Well, they could have military parity if the US has insane wastage and China none, and the PPP of China is so immense that they can make up a huge deficit" but it basically requires so many 'what-ifs' to be both unknowable and kind of pointless. Dante80 posted:I don't think that anybody can gently caress with the US as far as military budgets go. It's not even close..in nominal or percentage of GDP terms. This is why I think it is kind of silly to claim that China could have a strictly superior military without spending nearly as much. PPP does little to help with maintenance/logistics/training. If you want the ability to project your military power, then you need to spend a lot. Raenir Salazar posted:I think the idea that China spending 1/3 of the US's military is about the same is a tad overstretching things; clearly China must be deficient in something relative to the US just by raw spending numbers alone; and China can't be totally free of corruption and graft either as historically the PLA directly administering its own supply and procurement chain was almost certainly a great source of such things (that China starting a few decades ago had to phase out in order to professionalize the military). Maybe in the very short term, but the long-term is an entirely different matter. I'd like to point out that at least 8 of those CVGs are stationed in the US. So if they get wind that China is doing something (which they will, it is VERY difficult to hide troop buildup on the scale needed to do anything, and it takes quite a long time to do it), then the US will have time to redeploy its assets. I'm not sure why you think that the US hasn't spent a massive amount of money on preparations, though. That's kind of the point of those 750 bases and dozen carrier groups. But this seems a step back from the "they could potentially have a superior military" and shifting to "... they might be able to give the US a run for its money."
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2023 19:54
|
|
|
Kchama posted:PPP does little to help with maintenance/logistics/training. If you want the ability to project your military power, then you need to spend a lot. PPP applies to those things more than it does to procurement. If you're buying S-400s or F-16s, a dollar is a dollar and a ruble is a ruble, so nominal exchange rate matters, but with labor all you're worried about is how it compares to labor rates in your own country.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2023 20:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 23:36 |
|
|
tractor fanatic posted:PPP applies to those things more than it does to procurement. If you're buying S-400s or F-16s, a dollar is a dollar and a ruble is a ruble, so nominal exchange rate matters, but with labor all you're worried about is how it compares to labor rates in your own country. Labor's just a small part of what I'm talking about, though. But this doesn't really follow since it would imply that authoritarian governments with command economies should be able to have relatively extremely good militaries without spending nearly as much as the US. But that never seems to be the case. The Soviet Union spent not that much less than the US compared to China currently. $128 (officially, unofficial count was apparently much higher) billion compared to 328 billion in 1988, for example, and their military was still quite behind in a lot of ways. Kchama fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Sep 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2023 20:28
|
|