Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
2 hours ago, mkenny said:

The 'Exceptionalism' myth? Ego should never be taken out of the equation.  

Is this all  sarcasm because I simply can not accept you don't see what is actually going on. 

The USA does have China firmly in its sights and unless China accepts a USA  'Rules Based' subservient position (which it won't) then resistance/conflict is inevitable from the losing country

The US will accept China as is so long as it doesn’t invade a major US ally. If you think the US will initiate a war, you don’t understand US politics or culture. That isn’t to excuse all the conflicts that the US has instigated; it is merely to suggest your cultural understanding of the US misunderstood why those conflicts were initiated.

  • Replies 96.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Roman Alymov

    16172

  • Stuart Galbraith

    11364

  • glenn239

    5046

  • Josh

    3789

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Posted
1 hour ago, Josh said:

 If you think the US will initiate a war, you don’t understand US politics or culture.

Confirmation you are being sarcastic?

Given the US track-record of invading/bombing all those who do  not bend to its will your claim the US does not initiate war is risible. 

Posted
4 hours ago, mkenny said:

The 'Exceptionalism' myth? Ego should never be taken out of the equation.  

Is this all  sarcasm because I simply can not accept you don't see what is actually going on. 

The USA does have China firmly in its sights and unless China accepts a USA  'Rules Based' subservient position (which it won't) then resistance/conflict is inevitable from the losing country

The PRC should give up threats and calls for "national rejuvenation" even if by force the annexation of Taiwan. 

Posted
4 hours ago, Josh said:

That isn’t to excuse all the conflicts that the US has instigated; it is merely to suggest your cultural understanding of the US misunderstood why those conflicts were initiated.

US culture in this sense is the same as everyone else's. You guys need to be lied to a bit in the media for a couple of weeks until you're good and scared (or angry) and then your government can do just about whatever it wants. Same goes for everywhere else.

Posted
2 hours ago, ink said:

US culture in this sense is the same as everyone else's. You guys need to be lied to a bit in the media for a couple of weeks until you're good and scared (or angry) and then your government can do just about whatever it wants. Same goes for everywhere else.

The PRC was having a party on their newly built base islands in the Spratly island group way back in 2016 with basically only FONOPs as a response. The US could have put a target on the PRC back then. The 2016 UN tribunal had no impact.

...

Chinese military folk singer Song Zuying who performed a duet with the Canadian diva during CCTV’s 2013 Spring Festival Gala, took to the stage at the weekend to entertain troops at Fiery Cross Reef, the state news agency Xinhua reported on Tuesday.

The reef is just one stop on a tour of islands in the disputed South China Sea that Song is making with a 50-strong troupe from the PLA Navy.

...

https://amp.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/1941006/how-mainlands-most-celebrated-military-folk-singer

Posted
21 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 It doesnt really surprise me that the price went up as the economy started to fall to bits. No wonder the Arabs started going elsewhere.

Also evident of how little newer equipment Warsaw Pact countries bought in the '80s, of course their own economies were also going down the drain.

Posted
30 minutes ago, Yama said:

Also evident of how little newer equipment Warsaw Pact countries bought in the '80s, of course their own economies were also going down the drain.

That fits with something one of the other posters said. That Poland was in negotiations to buy/build T72BM, but rather than negotiate terms on it being a more up to date version of a tank they were already building, no, the Soviets wanted to sell the rights based on it being an entirely new tank. If it had been T90A they might have had a point but... Anyway, the cold war ended whilst they were still arguing, so it arguably cost them at least one sale.

They really had painted themselves into a corner, hadnt they?

Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, mkenny said:

...Given the US track-record of invading/bombing all those who do  not bend to its will your claim the US does not initiate war is risible. 

US track record is that they bomb and invade those much weaker than US. Hence China is pretty much safe.

Edited by bojan
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, futon said:

The PRC was having a party on their newly built base islands in the Spratly island group way back in 2016 with basically only FONOPs as a response. The US could have put a target on the PRC back then. The 2016 UN tribunal had no impact.

...

Chinese military folk singer Song Zuying who performed a duet with the Canadian diva during CCTV’s 2013 Spring Festival Gala, took to the stage at the weekend to entertain troops at Fiery Cross Reef, the state news agency Xinhua reported on Tuesday.

The reef is just one stop on a tour of islands in the disputed South China Sea that Song is making with a 50-strong troupe from the PLA Navy.

...

https://amp.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/1941006/how-mainlands-most-celebrated-military-folk-singer

China's artificial islands are some 7000km from Hawaii. What business does the US have there exactly?

Edited by ink
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, Josh said:

Target priorities are one thing, target recognition is another. Things like facial or vehicle recognition based on imagery are more recent then the Cold War, particularly in disposable munitions. Perhaps Russia has some but I’d want to learn more about it, and I sincerely doubt it’s a capability that Russia can scale the way Glenn thinks it can since no one to my knowledge has.

Kamikaze drones operating in frontline conditions in Ukraine are having to pick out low-contrast targets from behind a difficult background in which their targets blend in and hide.    Trees, mud, netting, these are difficult for even skilled human operators to see into and perceive the target lurking underneath.  Aircraft sitting on runways or roads - these are in comparison very high contrast.  They stand clear against their background, and so much easier for a computer to automatically detect and classify.

Edited by glenn239
Posted
14 hours ago, Josh said:

And anything China wants from Russia it can buy. Why would China do anything more than simply purchase what it wants? It owes Russia nothing, it has not helped Russia to date, and it is the single biggest market for Russian commodities. 

In one post you type that the US will fight China without hesitation if it deals by force with Taiwan or the Philippines, in another you wonder at why the Chinese would ally with Russia.  

Posted
3 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

In one post you type that the US will fight China without hesitation if it deals by force with Taiwan or the Philippines, in another you wonder at why the Chinese would ally with Russia.  

The Chinese sure are self serving bastards... just like everybody else.  Doesn't mean that are stupid and would want to be left alone against US and their vassals when the shit will hit the fan.

Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, ink said:

US culture in this sense is the same as everyone else's. You guys need to be lied to a bit in the media for a couple of weeks until you're good and scared (or angry) and then your government can do just about whatever it wants. Same goes for everywhere else.

It's more complicated than that.  After Trump, Washington fears its own public.  Beltway neocons might be shills and liars, but they are not stupid.  They are perfectly aware that a war with China could turn into a disaster at home, so they are deterred from proceeding in the manner that they would choose with a lesser power like Iraq.

Edited by glenn239
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, mkenny said:

Confirmation you are being sarcastic?

Given the US track-record of invading/bombing all those who do  not bend to its will your claim the US does not initiate war is risible. 

I meant specifically in the context of war with China; I thought that clear. That conflict would result in economic ruin for the US even if it were completely successful. It basically guarantees a global depression. It would be a huge own goal for no discernible reason.

Also the US population is much more resistant to military action than it used to be precisely because of its unsuccessful foreign involvements of the last couple decades. Look at how much the last several administrations have tip toed around Iran. If it weren’t for the debacle in Afghanistan and pointless, expensive war in Iraq I think it highly likely Irans nuclear program would have been targeted many years ago.

Edited by Josh
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, ink said:

US culture in this sense is the same as everyone else's. You guys need to be lied to a bit in the media for a couple of weeks until you're good and scared (or angry) and then your government can do just about whatever it wants. Same goes for everywhere else.

You miss the differences between knocking over a country that the US can immediately incapacitate vs a peer competitor with nuclear weapons (something the U.S. has never done even when it had a clear advantage-see Soviet Union in the 50s and early 60s). There also is a big difference in current appetite for war versus previous eras. A huge percentage of the US population lived its entire adult life with a pair of open ended wars that seemed to accomplish nothing. Getting into another one would be hard for any administration to survive (Iran I think is safe for the next year at least).

What advantage would there be to war with China? Within two decades their population implodes and their economy likely enters a series of lost decades, assuming something doesn’t trigger that sooner.

Edited by Josh
Posted
1 hour ago, bojan said:

US track record is that they bomb and invade those much weaker than US. Hence China is pretty much safe.

The short version of my post, yes.

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

In one post you type that the US will fight China without hesitation if it deals by force with Taiwan or the Philippines, in another you wonder at why the Chinese would ally with Russia.  

Chinese assistance sent to Russia is only especially useful to China if Russia is willing and capable of engaging the US in Europe at roughly the same time China is engaging in a campaign to take Taiwan. Even then, chances are that the US prioritizes China and simply lets Europe/NATO take the blow. In at least one public wargame (run just prior to Ukraine) involving a China-Russia-DPRK offensive, that was the end result: Korea and Europe just had to make do with what they had. In that context, it makes more sense for China to focus its resources on its own armed forces rather divert anything to Russian where it just gets spent on NATO forces that would have no role in the Pacific.

This, along with the potential economic consequences of antagonizing the EU/US, is why we don’t even see China selling ammunition to Russia. That policy might change, but if Russia is already having to buy from Bestest Korea, it seems likely they have been thoroughly rebuffed by China.

Edited by Josh
Posted
3 hours ago, Yama said:

Also evident of how little newer equipment Warsaw Pact countries bought in the '80s, of course their own economies were also going down the drain.

In comparison to 1960s one can say yes. But still huge numbers in comparison to current times.

Posted
29 minutes ago, Josh said:

Chinese assistance sent to Russia is only especially useful to China if Russia is willing and capable of engaging the US in Europe at roughly the same time China is engaging in a campaign to take Taiwan. 

I think it's more complicated than that.  I believe the Chinese seek to leverage the US back into its 'place' in a multipolar world without need to resorting to a war.  To do that, what Beijing must do is, one opportunity at a time, transform the US global position from what it looked like in 1992 back to what it looked like in 1939.   Within that strategy Russia is an important asset due not only to geography and its resources available for export, but increasingly from its own regional power that forces Europe to deal with China to restrain.

Quote

This, along with the potential economic consequences of antagonizing the EU/US, is why we don’t even see China selling ammunition to Russia. That policy might change, but if Russia is already having to buy from Bestest Korea, it seems likely they have been thoroughly rebuffed by China.

China is the reason why the West's efforts to throttle Russian military production and its economy have failed miserably.  In terms of direct armaments transfers, the Russian war violates Chinese doctrine on the use of military force in international relations, so I personally don't look further than that for explanations why the Chinese are content to allow Iran and NK to do the finished weapons supplying to Russia, while China supplies the basic dual-use components to all.

Posted

 

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

China is the reason why the West's efforts to throttle Russian military production and its economy have failed miserably.  In terms of direct armaments transfers, the Russian war violates Chinese doctrine on the use of military force in international relations, so I personally don't look further than that for explanations why the Chinese are content to allow Iran and NK to do the finished weapons supplying to Russia, while China supplies the basic dual-use components to all.

Regardless of the reason, China isn’t directly arming Russia. That is always going to heavily limit the “no limits” alliance of the two.

Posted
36 minutes ago, Josh said:

Regardless of the reason, China isn’t directly arming Russia. That is always going to heavily limit the “no limits” alliance of the two.

If by "always" you mean "during the next number of years", then sure.

Posted
2 hours ago, glenn239 said:

... the West's efforts to throttle Russian military production and its economy have failed miserably

That doesn't correspond to reality. Of course, Russia has not collapsed, just as North Korea, for example, has not yet collapsed. But Russia's industry has definitely lost a lot of hair. That is undeniable. Russian business journals regularly write about the disastrous consequences of the war for the economy.

As an example: The much-vaunted import substitution - 'We can do everything ourselves and much better '- is simply a switch to Chinese products.

Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, Josh said:

I don’t see why they would want to do that in the short term because they have no suitable off the shelf platform to achieve that result and Russia can always throw some cruise missiles, or even Iskander, at anything it deems worthy enough.

Doesn't look to me like heavy missiles can be made available in the numbers required.   Even in the war in Ukraine, the Russian stocks of this type of munition have not been adequate to achieve a decisive effect.

Quote

NATO airpower probably also gets a vote as to how many slow drones get to cross into NATO airspace for hundreds of miles.

Drone's are not intended to defeat air defenses by outfoxing them, they work by simply swamping them with numbers.

Quote

Any aircraft in a HAS, which most NATO airbases have all the way to the UK, is safe from the dinky non penetrating 20kg/40lb warhead delivered at 100 mph/150kph.

Hardened aircraft shelters are an important defensive asset, and the Russians seem to have lost quite a few aircraft on the ground for the lack of them.  I don't think small drones would be at all suitable for these.   

Quote

Again, where is Russia going to get 50,000 autonomous seekers in five years? They almost certainly can’t produce them and China likely can’t provide that many in that time frame even if they wanted to.

https://www.scmp.com/tech/big-tech/article/3223016/chinas-drone-industry-crosses-us14-billion-mark-annual-output-2022-amid-local-market-expansion-low

The Chinese drone industry annual output hit 16 billion last year.  The types of drones we are talking about would range from maybe 25,000 to 200,000 dollars.  Not sure how many drones that translates into, but if each drone were $25000, Chinese production in 2022 would be north of 300,000 units per year. Why do you think an industry that can produce that level of material can't produce 1/6th of it?

Quote

I also am skeptical Russia can make 50,000 Shaheds even just using satellite guidance and nothing sophisticated. Is there anything to support that number or is it made up?

I don't think Russia could produce 5,000 a year, they would need China for that.  

Quote

CONUS based units would not be interrupted, even if we buy into your fantasy. A dozen B-52s can deliver 240 JASSMs. A half dozen B-1s can deliver 144. Three B-2s can deliver 240 500# JDAM. The US could maintain that sortie level every day easily without a bomber or even tanker ever touching the ground in Europe, assuming the Russians did to all of NATO what they cannot do to Ukraine.

We're talking about tactical airpower, not strategic airpower.  Assuming that the sortie rate you list can be maintained indefinitely, and that 20% of the missiles launched are shot down and another 25% miss due to jamming, that would be 375 attacks per day.  I have no idea what the average number of KIA per such attack is, but it surely must be at least 2, so the level of attack you list might be sufficient to inflict maybe 1,000 casualties per day?  That sounds decisive against an army of 100,000, but not for one that is 2 or 3 million strong.

I see that the USAF operates 76 B-52's, 45 B-1's and 19 B-2's, for a total of 140 aircraft.  The daily sortie rate you propose is 21, or 15%.  This sounds like a reasonable estimate.  The range of the JASSM is about 200 nautical miles, the range of the JDAM is about 50 miles.  Seems a bit tight - close enough that defending systems, (S-400, SU-57, possibly J-20) can hope to inflict significant attrition on attacking forces.  What level of attrition are you proposing on USAF strategic assets per mission?

 

Edited by glenn239
Posted
14 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

That doesn't correspond to reality. Of course, Russia has not collapsed, just as North Korea, for example, has not yet collapsed. But Russia's industry has definitely lost a lot of hair. That is undeniable. Russian business journals regularly write about the disastrous consequences of the war for the economy.

  All reports are that Russian armaments production are massively up from pre-war across practically every category.  

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...