Jump to content

US and Western Defense Policy in the Next Four Years


BansheeOne
 Share

Recommended Posts

Why take a sphere, if you can take all of it? The Americans have signalled we are leaving. If you are Iranian, and you can see the bulk of the worlds oil supply just within reach, and your people are wilting under international sanctions, you might find that very tempting.

Of course, im sure Biden has though of that...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 643
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

We must have wanted this because we overthrew Hussein knowing full well this could happen.

Turkey, China, Russia, the Saudis, they'll also all be in play in Iraq.  Iran has some advantages, but I wouldn't guess that they'll wind up with everything.

Edited by glenn239
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Biden says he's working against China, and at the same time gives it direct access to Afghanistan, and its ally Iran direct access to Iraq.

And if his predecessors already made the investments in those countries, why not work to see the profits?

What gives, Joe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Biden says he's working against China, and at the same time gives it direct access to Afghanistan, and its ally Iran direct access to Iraq.

And if his predecessors already made the investments in those countries, why not work to see the profits?

What gives, Joe?

Leaving Afghanistan to China is working against China, just like leaving Iraq to iran to clean up....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

Leaving Afghanistan to China is working against China, just like leaving Iraq to iran to clean up....

Only if China will behave in the same manner as US (and USSR before that) did – by trying to drag XIV century society into XX century. If Chinese decision makers are that stupid, they will end up  badly even without Afghanistan. But currently there are no indications they really are….

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The mistake the US made in Afghanistan was staying there after the Taliban was toppled. The operation should have been treated as an attempt at permanent replacement and more as a punitive raid. No amount of money or effort was going to stabilize that country.

The mistake the US made in Iraq was being there in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

Only if China will behave in the same manner as US (and USSR before that) did – by trying to drag XIV century society into XX century. If Chinese decision makers are that stupid, they will end up  badly even without Afghanistan. But currently there are no indications they really are….

To be fair though, the history of the Red Chinese has been doing just that, in China...

At the moment they seem content with buying the world up. But their beligerence over Taiwan shows they fully intend to use military force on what they want but cant buy. And if one thinks they are going to be a little more enlightened than America, you would do well to look at Hong Kong, which amounts to neo-colonialism.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And it seems, China is not just content with throwing its weight around. No, its seemingly looking for foreign states to help them in that effort...

Falklands at risk after China urged Argentina to use 'strength' against 'arrogant' UK (msn.com)

Britain has long stood firm in the face of calls to enter negotiations with Argentina about the disputed Falklands Islands. Despite this, representatives from Argentina have previously presented their arguments claiming control over the region to the UN. Only in June did Felipe Solá and Daniel Filmus travel to New York in a bid to obtain support from 29 members of the UN's "Decolonisation Committee".

It is unclear whether their talks bore fruit.

Fully behind their calls was China, who attended the meeting.

China has in recent years nestled itself into the debate.

Cui Hongjian, director of the Department of European Studies, China Institute of International Studies, this year argued that the question had reached a point where it could only be resolved by "strength".

Speaking to Global Times - a publication backed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) - in a piece titled: 'Facing arrogant London, Buenos Aires should push back on Malvinas', Mr Cui claimed London believes more in power politics than abiding by international law and the rules-based order.

He said: "On the one hand, there has been a rise in power politics in the international community, harming international rules.

"On the other hand, the UK will hold a stronger position on some historical issues after Brexit."

Mr Cui told the publication that Argentina should continue to put its case to the UN, especially since the UN recognised that the Falklands is framed in a "colonial situation" in 1965.

In this context, he said: "The UK has pushed the problem to a point where it seems that it can only be resolved by strength."

Controversially, he added that Argentina should take "precautions" against the UK's next moves after Brexit, claiming that Britain might take "risky actions" like increasing the number of troops stationed on the islands, "or making provocative moves against Argentina, so Argentina must keep vigilant".

It is worth noting that the Chinese government has not suggested that Argentina should attack the UK.

But the country backed the Argentines this year, hitting out at what it described as prevalent Western "colonialism" in the region.

 

So yes, I think we can take it that the next 50 years or so before the Chinese run out of steam, is likely to be politely described as rough.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Tim the Tank Nut said:

I would like to see the RN send a few Chinese ships to the bottom just off the Falklands to join the Scharnhorst there.

I know it isn't likely but one can dream.

 

on the other hand some of us have been sounding the warning on China for decades

That's funny because it's the Argentinians doing the policing of the waters off the Falklands:

https://seawaves.com/?p=1719

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

Only if China will behave in the same manner as US (and USSR before that) did – by trying to drag XIV century society into XX century. If Chinese decision makers are that stupid, they will end up  badly even without Afghanistan. But currently there are no indications they really are….

You think Afghanistan has a 19th century society? Lol. They have a maybe 16th century society trying to fend off a 10th century BC society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Tim the Tank Nut said:

good for the Argies!

How about a joint task force of Argentine and RN ships plinking illegal Chinese vessels.  It would help heal the wounds of '83 and rid the world of PLAN auxiliaries.

Its a nice thought, but you know what state the Argentinian Navy is in. Im amazed they can afford to send fisheries patrol vessels out.

If the South Americans had any sense, they would form a regional alliance with the UK to stave off Chinese ambitions in the South Atlantic. But they are all too busy pointing the finger at us to see we arent the real problem here.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

You think Afghanistan has a 19th century society? Lol. They have a maybe 16th century society trying to fend off a 10th century BC society.

Deleted for doublepost

Edited by Roman Alymov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

And it seems, China is not just content with throwing its weight around. No, its seemingly looking for foreign states to help them in that effort...

Well, as you pretend to have “Global Brittan”, it is quite logical for your competitors to  exploit your weak points around the globe. More over,  as you parade your ships off China coast, it is only question of time you will see Chinese carrier strike group(s) not only near British coast, but also, for example, off Gibraltar…. When country of 60+ mln is pretending to complete vs. country of 1+bln, outcome is quite predictable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Completely missing the point. They are not responding to us, we are responding to their tentative steps to achieve naval dominance.  China has ALREADY deployed warships to the Mediterranean, and sailed them through the English Channel. Freedom of navigation, right? We dont complain about where they sail, they really have no grounds to complain whether we sail off Taiwan, the Spratleys, or even, oh I dont know, Crimea for instance.

I would really love to see China deploy an aircraft carrier as far west as the North Atlantic. It would be great fun and games for all concerned. But I dont see it happening for some years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Completely missing the point. They are not responding to us, we are responding to their tentative steps to achieve naval dominance.  China has ALREADY deployed warships to the Mediterranean, and sailed them through the English Channel. Freedom of navigation, right? We dont complain about where they sail, they really have no grounds to complain whether we sail off Taiwan, the Spratleys, or even, oh I dont know, Crimea for instance.

I would really love to see China deploy an aircraft carrier as far west as the North Atlantic. It would be great fun and games for all concerned. But I dont see it happening for some years.

Thank you for providing illustration for my point. Country of 60+mln (and modest economy “responding” to global #1 industrial power with 1+bln population, in regions on another side of the globe, is clearly dangerous game.

dcd8f5e70a6562860823deb6d757d3c6.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Tim the Tank Nut said:

good for the Argies!

How about a joint task force of Argentine and RN ships plinking illegal Chinese vessels.  It would help heal the wounds of '83 and rid the world of PLAN auxiliaries.

It would be easier for the Sun to come out of the West. There's a thriving poaching industry going on in the waters disputed by Argentina and the Falklands, and not just by Chinese (although many "Chinese" boats are actually paid for by Westeners), where fishermen are trying to play one side against the other or straddling national/international waters.

The ARA has brought into service 2 new patrol boats (Bouchard and Piedra Buena - becuase they served Belgrano so well... :o ) while neglecting combat components, which gives an idea of just how many bucks are there.

See here too: https://www.falklands.gov.fk/self-sufficiency/commercial-sectors/fisheries/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Tim the Tank Nut said:

good for the Argies!

How about a joint task force of Argentine and RN ships plinking illegal Chinese vessels.  It would help heal the wounds of '83 and rid the world of PLAN auxiliaries.

'82.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

Thank you for providing illustration for my point. Country of 60+mln (and modest economy “responding” to global #1 industrial power with 1+bln population, in regions on another side of the globe, is clearly dangerous game.

The British are rudderless with their exit from the EU and the US losing interest in NATO.  The 'Global Britain' thing is a response to that.   I have a hard time believing that the Chinese care much about Great Britain, except with regards to the United States.

One question I have is whether or not the Chinese will loosen the credit restrictions on countries like Argentina so that these can rebuild their dilapidated armed forces.   Sort of like a Roads and Bridges and Guns program.   The West talks the game of equality, but I think the assumed superiority is deep, and especially with the globalist types.   They can't wrap their minds around an African nation, for example, kicking the living shit out of a Western power in a straight up war.  But, if you want my guess, I would say that the Chinese can imagine that quite easily.  

Edited by glenn239
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

Thank you for providing illustration for my point. Country of 60+mln (and modest economy “responding” to global #1 industrial power with 1+bln population, in regions on another side of the globe, is clearly dangerous game.

dcd8f5e70a6562860823deb6d757d3c6.png

You forget your own history. In 1905 you, a nation of 160 million, were defeated by Imperial Japan, a nation of 47 million. Your navy was something like a third as large again as theirs, and still they defeated you at Tsushima Strait. Not because of any mythical Asian fighting ability, or even because the Tsarist Army and navy were no good. Its because its one thing to have a large Army and capable equipment, and yet another to be able to project it to the other side of the planet. Even the Soviet Navy was distinctly limited at doing that kind of thing.

Will China develop the ability to project naval power into the North Atlantic? Probably, one day. Although considering we have no shortage of friends in the Pacific, and China have none around the Atlantic rim willling to loan them a naval base, its very easy to get carried away about this sort of thing. And its hardly as if India, projected to be the worlds largest nation by 2027, doesnt also have a large navy, with aircraft carriers, and a hell of a lot closer to anything that concerns China. I think that will focus most of that attention in the coming decades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...