Jump to content

Josh

Members
  • Posts

    11,083
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Josh

  1. I think it goes without saying that in an weapons import like this that some get smuggled. The question is does that risk justify the action, and I would say simply yes, considering the gravity of the situation. Throwing weapons at a situation will have blowback. Not reacting at all will also have blown back. IMO breaking Russia’s ability to threaten its neighbors without directly engaging a nuclear power is a once in a lifetime opportunity that is worth a lot of blowback.
  2. I think that’s because the planes themselves got a lot more expensive. A flight of four modern fighters would probably buy you a frigate or light destroyer.
  3. I’m aware the two share a border; that’s how the Kim’s have always transported themselves to Russia on the few occasions that was necessary. That would still be a lot of trains over a lot of ground.
  4. And you say I’m inconsistent? I’m sure that US units will be based in Europe. I think rather less of them will be necessary going forward and I don’t see how you can characterize this war as requiring more US resources in Europe-if anything the US just got a get out of Europe card.
  5. Russia has absolutely lost over a thousand MBTs by anyones numbers. That represents a third of their active inventory. If that isn’t you definition of having the heart cut out of an army, we’ll agree to disagree on semantics. Regardless, Russia is no longer a conventional threat, and I posted a quote FROM YOU that agrees with that assessment. It’s hard to label you as anything more than a troll when you blatantly contradict your owe narrative on another forum. You are not arguing consistently or in good faith; you are the very definition of a troll whether you are paid or not. If you think a 10-15% loss of GDP isn’t cutting the heart out of a national economy we’ll agree to disagree on that as well.
  6. My position is completely consistent; the US is spending next to nothing to set Russia back a decade. How many USN ships or long range cruise missiles are being donated to Ukraine? Nothing the US has given would be of any use in a Taiwan fight unless the US Army landed in brigade strength…in which case I’d argue Chyna! already lost.
  7. The HARM fragments are curious if authentic. There really isn’t a mechanism I could fathom that would put them there. There’s no way the US denied request for ATACMS and then turned around and fired weapons at Russia, and no stealth platform can fire HARM so it would have had to be a rather obvious F-16 if fired by NATO. As far as I know HARM never had a ground launch capability, though we have seen rigged AAMs set up for ground launch in Yemen. But I don’t see the US supplying weapons for such an improvised method of launch.
  8. I can’t even imagine how one would ship 100,000 Bestest Koreans to Ukraine. Though presumably those that made the journey would eat better than they ever have in their lives.
  9. I don’t know this but having read Clancy through the early 90s before it jumped the shark, I think Bond might have had a big role in writing that one. I do think it holds up well, outside the very contrived mechanism for the war being initiated.
  10. Erdogan will be brought to heel or his successor will be instead. Militarily and economically he’s a small fish in a big pond siding with an opponent nation. His economy will likely fall apart due to his own mismanagement; it would probably take a fairly minor effort on the part of the EU/US to ferment hyper inflation that damages the country for years. Militarily their manned air force is US supplied and maintained; if they want to buy Russian or Chinese they are welcome to. But the Russians seem occupied at the moment and it isn’t clear that Turkey could afford a 1:1 replacement of all of its fighter aircraft with Chinese analogs.
  11. That likely would work assuming no US Or Japanese involvement. But either accidentally or intentionally, Taiwan has made itself a vital economic strategic interest to literally every developed nation in the world. It’s hard to imagine that a blockade, which by international norms has long been in and of itself an act of war, would be tolerated by the Republic Of China’s allies.
  12. Ukraine could collapse today and Russia would still have the heart carved out of its army and economy. Your own post in another forum stated that Russia has proven itself no danger to NATO outside its missiles. I quote you from NavWeaps forum: “This war has demonstrated that Russia has zero capacity for offensive warfare anywhere on NATO soil, so arguments to the effect that Ukraine needs to be supported for fear of Russian aggression against this or that NATO member are simply not credible. The only Russian threat to NATO is of the missile warfare variety.” China doesn’t give a shit because that ship already sailed, as you pointed out. They probably would have preferred an easy Russian victory that put pressure on the US to reinforce Eastern Europe, particularly with aircraft that might be needed in the Pacific since US Army units don’t matter much in there. But at this point there is no pressure regardless of outcome; the Russians are not a serious conventional threat to NATO and it’s hard to see when and if they ever will be again. So China has no skin in this game. Ie, they don’t give a shit.
  13. I don’t think NATO can or will want to have a significant involvement in the Pacific. Maybe the Brits. But the changed situation should free up some Air Force assets I would imagine. It does seem like USAF is going to have help the Army cling to the Salwaki gap anytime soon. The equipment and attention the US supplies to Ukraine doesn’t seem at all significant as far as draining the US of material or dividing it’s attention. A war with Iran would be, but that would probably hit the Chinese in the pocketbook as well.
  14. Where do any of those statistics come from?
  15. I don’t think the US will have to significantly increase its defense budget. China has a lot of catching up to do and is hitting a lot of economic headwinds of its own that are systemic (see their real estate market). Additionally they have a demographic time bomb brewing. They already have a declining work force and will have a declining population this decade, assuming they don’t already. It seems likely they will have to accept rough economic parity with the US along with an inferior geographical position. Also the US can now focus on China alone; the Russians have broken themselves conventionally and Europe is moving towards military parity with Russia sans US.
  16. Their problems are geographical as much as technical. That and fact they’ve alienated most of their neighbors. I’m not sure there’s any situation where an invasion works; the US has basically given up on large scale opposed landings and the USMC exist pretty much on inertia and congressional support. I think if they want to swing for the fences they at least need a thousand nuclear warheads on launchers that range the CONUS. Otherwise the US can exact a heavily lopsided exchange rate.
  17. The US has at least several thousand AGM-158s (its building to a stated goal of 10k) and several thousand more of BGM-109. That isn’t enough to utterly destroy China by a wide mark but it’s enough to make an invasion of Taiwan unworkable in the near and likely medium term. The big difference between the US and China, at least for the foreseeable future, is that the US can deliver its weapons to the actual mainland of China while the PRC is limited to out lying US territories and allied bases. If the US wanted to say, blow up a new carrier while it was still in its dry dock being built, that’s a thing missile armed bombers could easily do from as far away as Wake, Hawaii, or Australia, even if the entire first and second island chains were demolished. This is reason China is building up to nuclear parity - they know that until they do, the US controls the escalation cycle.
  18. It does seem like an expensive way of going about that. If you already paid for the helo and crew, ok, why not, but I’m really not sold on helos as a recon or attack asset in this day and age. It’s a platform that requires several times the maintenance of fixed wing that seems more vulnerable; I feel like arty and drones do a better job for less money. Vertical envelopement is still a thing if you aren’t very risk adverse and you’ll need escort gun ships for that, but using helos for other offensive operations when they are vulnerable to literally every caliber from rifles to tank guns doesn’t seem like a cost effective way of doing business.
  19. There are, and there are Chinese bases within range of US platforms. For the sake of argument I was assuming that the US would limit its target set to just ships and occupied areas of Taiwan so long as it’s own bases went unmolested. If the entire Chinese coast is fair game then the PLAAF has a much bigger problem.
  20. Agreed. There couldn't be a shortage of old M109s either. If nothing else a lot of A6s never were updated to A7s; I think there are several hundred.
  21. Wouldn't the entire breach mechanism also have to be replaced?
  22. As bojan noted, it is probably light weight that has its price, not accuracy or range. To the extent M777 is more accurate or longer ranged than other pieces with similar barrel length it is a function of the fire control and the ammunition.
  23. China won't lift a finger to help Russia. If the Russians want to buy weapons, they will accept cash. That is all. China's solidarity with Russia includes such practices as demanding double digit $ discounts per barrel of the oil they buy. "Unlimited" indeed.
  24. He's not; he's making a case that the US should put itself between Ukraine and Russia. China clearly doesn't give a shit about Ukraine one way or the other.
  25. That is the only reason Hawley voted no, is to get his name in the papers/internet. He's an unprincipled con man of a senator like Cruz; he's say anything and take up any side if it puts his name in lights.
×
×
  • Create New...