7 ms·

> or will we get back to a conventional war with tank battles and all? The answer is: no. There isn't a single country in the entire world that could challeng

> or will we get back to a conventional war with tank battles and all? The answer is: no. There isn't a single country in the entire world that could challenge USA to a 1-1 military battle. There is no more such thing as tank warfare. At this point it's impossible to defeat USA on the high seas, or on land.

nradov 6y ago
True for now but the Chinese navy is expanding at a rate not seen since the peak of the Cold War. If they sustain the effort for a couple decades then they'll be in a position to defeat the USA on the high seas.
- VWWHFSfQ 6y ago
  Decades. Decades... and maybe in 2080 they'll be able to assert control of the South China Sea. But until then the USA Navy controls it.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    This is incredibly optimistic. If their hypersonic missiles work properly they could theoretically gain control of the SCS decisively in the next 5 years, at a massive cost of course. This should be expected, military power is more or less a function of economic power, and as they rival the US in economic power they will also rival the US in military power in their own backyard. In a few decades, they could possibly outmatch the US outside the SCS as well.
    - nyokodo 6y ago
      > In a few decades, they could possibly outmatch the US outside the SCS as well. China's has a number of very big problems they have to solve before they'll reach regional hegemony let alone global dominance. India is next-door, they have a massive demographic bomb coming because of the one child policy, and buying friends is unsustainable long-term, especially as those friends get wealthier too. This isn't to mention internal instability that massive concentration camps are unlikely to solve. We'll see what happens I suppose but one thing I do wish is all the best for the Chinese populace.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        India being next-door is not that big of an issue. The fixation on their demographic issue is quite ridiculous. Demographic problems are not problems in a vacuum. Demographic decline is only an issue insofar as it prevents economic growth. It turns out, the CPC is acutely aware of the issue, and considered it before putting the policy into place. The crucial fact is this one: Over 25% of the Chinese population is employed in agriculture. However, only 2% of the American population is employed in agriculture. This fact is the root cause of the demographic decline being planned and indeed wished for by the CPC. They, in effect, have a 20+% population surplus, that could be got rid of without a negative economic impact. Therefore, the Chinese economy is very unlikely to implode because of the upcoming demographic shock, as it will not negatively impact economic growth and will thus not lead to issues with either the retirement system (China already has one of the lowest retirement ages), nor with economic growth. This inscribes itself further in the process of proletarianization in which the Chinese economy is engaging in order to continue its development, as well as calculated so that the peak population will coincide with the carrying capacity of Chinese arable lands. The CCP are a lot of bad things, but they really aren't idiots. An issue that was not foreseen, however, is the gender imbalance that was created, but even that is not that bad of an issue - involuntary celibacy is significantly lower in China than, for example, the United States, and is actually one of the lowest in the world, but this is still a problem, especially for more long term relationships. People have been clamouring for the imminent fall of China for this or that, but objectively I don't see it happening.
        ntsplnkv2 6y ago
        India being next door is a huge issue, you can't just handwave it away.
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        Not in the way GGP was implying. The fact that India is next to China will lead to neither the collapse of China, nor prevent it from projecting power in the South China Sea. The rise of India as a competitor to China will likely be on timescales even longer than 5-25 years. By then, circumstances will be significantly different. In any case, India is not a problem that will prevent the continued economic development nor the increased power projection ability of China.
    - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
      > If their hypersonic missiles work properly they could theoretically gain control of the SCS decisively in the next 5 years, at a massive cost of course Live by the sword die by the sword. American vessels are vulnerable to hypersonic anti-ship missiles. So are Chinese. Firing on American boats on the South China Sea will turn the water into no man's land. Everyone will lose influence. Nobody will gain.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        This is a huge misreading of the situation Naval power is a means of force projection. You can control a sea without a single ship. The US is a naval power. The US cannot project power into the South China Sea without the use of Naval Power. China, however, can. Easily, in fact. Indeed, if you look at the J-20, you will notice that it is significantly larger than the F-22 and F-35. Why is that? In order to store very long range weaponry, and much higher amounts of fuel. This design aspect reflects the doctrine of sea control via air and missile power, not naval power. So, if for some reason there were no way to sail a vessel near the SCS, the China automatically, decisively, gains control thereof. Moreso, China and Russia are significantly ahead of the US in hypersonic flight technology.
        JumpCrisscross 6y ago
        > You can control a sea without a single ship Can. Mutual denial isn't control. (Seoul doesn't control the DMZ.) As you said, "naval power is a means of force projection." If China can't sail the South China Sea its options for projecting force e.g. across the Taiwan Strait are diminished. Their coastline will be safer from incursion. But offensive options will be constrained.
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        I don't know why you would interpret what I wrote as mutual denial. It's not mutual denial, it is supremacy. The US requires naval power to project power into the South China Sea, China doesn't. Without naval power, China has almost uncontested control. US Military Doctrine cannot hope to control the SCS without naval control, Chinese military doctrine is built around that. Even with the US having access to advanced hypersonic missiles, China retains the option of an amphibious landing on Taiwan, for example. Indeed, hypersonic antiship missiles, for a great many reasons, only work very well against large, slow-maneuvering ships that are far away from their destination (and thus offer the attacker the option to choose when to launch), because of kinematic and targeting concerns far away from traditional targeting assets. Their offensive options are more than sufficient using purely air and missile power over the South China Sea. From then on, the ability to project power can be used to disable enemy missile launch options progressively, until the point at which supply lines can be reaffirmed.
    - dogma1138 6y ago
      Hypersonic missiles have very poor terminal guidance it’s physics... all extra-atmospheric ballistic missiles are hypersonic and aren’t suitable for moving targets. Hypersonic missiles have one advantage over ballistic missiles and that is that their flight path is much lower making detection harder but it doesn’t makes it easier to hit. The US has experimented with hypersonic missiles in the 60’s and it became rather clear it wasn’t particularly worth it.
      - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
        > and it became rather clear it wasn’t particularly worth it. Wasn't worth it with the guidance systems of the time. There's a reason everyone and their brother has or is developing a hypersonic anti ship missile.
- ende 6y ago
  There’s a lot more to becoming a naval power than just building ships.
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > There’s a lot more to becoming a naval power than just building ships. Though building ships is an important prerequisite.
  - arethuza 6y ago
    I suspect people were saying that in the British Royal Navy a century ago.
- onetimemanytime 6y ago
  US will just be a seideshow, do you think India, Japan and (at least) South Korea will allow China to dominate the area without a war? US will arm everyone there, especially India and have China try to do something. China has no real friends over there https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/territorial-disputes-south-china-sea https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/territo...
Laremere 6y ago
To reinforce your answer: no because nukes In warfare, logistics and production are major factors. In protracted conflicts, factory capacity and transportation infrastructure are vital, and therefor targets. Nukes, delivered by subs, aircraft, or ICBMs are the most effective way to destroy those targets. The days of nation states fighting other nation states with their own production capacity are forever over on planet earth, baring full out nuclear warfare.
fiblye 6y ago
> There isn't a single country in the entire world that could challenge USA to a 1-1 military battle I guess that really depends on what you consider a "1-1 military battle." Gentlemanly warfare used to be people marching and staying in formation and going straight at each other until they died. With that battle strategy, the victor is generally going to be the one with more people covering more ground. But that strategy hasn't been used in a long while, because there are smarter ways to fight. Tanks and so on are the old way of fighting battle. The US has a decidedly bad post-WW2 record since nobody is really fighting by the "old ways" that much of the American military fights by, and the biggest advantage is the US can just drop bombs indiscriminately basically forever (decidedly not 1-1 combat) and hope to destroy every living thing imaginable (which still failed in basically everything from Vietnam onwards). The claim that the US will beat any country isn't backed by any evidence. At all. There are theoretical situations where maybe the US has more people, more money, more whatever and will win if you line soldiers up and have them fight Napoleonic style, but in reality, successful wars following WW2 include... the Gulf War? Which just ended up leaving Saddam in power, ending up with the unmanageable chaotic wars we've had in the middle east these past 2 decades.
- pdonis 6y ago
  > which still failed in basically everything from Vietnam onwards Dropping bombs didn't fail in Vietnam. It succeeded. North Vietnam was defeated militarily. They only took over South Vietnam after the US Congress snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by withdrawing funding so the US troops had to leave. > The claim that the US will beat any country isn't backed by any evidence. At all. Certainly it is. Given a clear objective, the US military has achieved it in every case. The reasons that the US often fails to capitalize on such victories are political, not military. > the Gulf War? Which just ended up leaving Saddam in power Because removing Saddam from power was explicitly not a military objective in that war; the military objective was to drive Iraqi forces out of Kuwait, and that objective was met. When the US decided it did want to remove Saddam from power, in the second Gulf War, it succeeded. Again, the reasons why the aftermath of that war became a debacle were political, not military.
  - 6y ago
pritovido 6y ago
"There isn't a single country in the entire world that could challenge USA to a 1-1 military battle." That was also true of Nazi Germany. But is actually quite possible to defeat USA on the seas and on land if different countries join against it. Europe is not Iraq or Afganistan, as a whole, it is stronger than the US. I have lived and worked in China(and the US) and while I believe they way weaker(China) than what they project, they can f*ck the world immensely. They can contaminate the Pacific Ocean (with radioactivity and other poisons) forever. BTW most of the intelligent and educated(engineers, scientists) people in the US comes from outside the US. Not reasonable to believe they will contribute against fighting their own countries. This "war on everything" American mentality needs to stop.
- ericmay 6y ago
  > Europe is not Iraq or Afganistan, as a whole, it is stronger than the US. Militarily there is no doubt that Europe is not. The only country in Europe that can really project force is France. (I’m assuming the UK is not getting into a war with the United States). > BTW most of the intelligent and educated(engineers, scientists) people in the US comes from outside the US. Not reasonable to believe they will contribute against fighting their own countries. A lot to unpack behind this weird assertion. First-> many (most?) of these smart people are working at companies like Facebook to hook kids into endlessly scrolling. Second -> your claim is unfounded. Third -> even if it were true, the skills and knowledge to win wars do not have a 1-1 correspondence with the skills of these so called experts. Even then, who is to say given the right opportunity there are plenty of other smart people around. Fourth -> those same smart people have families in the US. You think they’re just going to go transfer some Amex points and hop on a Delta flight home? There wouldn’t even be a way to leave the US. Finally -> the idea that “all the smart foreigners will betray the US” gives ammo to arguing points by suspicious white supremacists. So you probably shouldn’t do that.

nradov 6y ago

True for now but the Chinese navy is expanding at a rate not seen since the peak of the Cold War. If they sustain the effort for a couple decades then they'll be in a position to defeat the USA on the high seas.

VWWHFSfQ 6y ago
Decades. Decades... and maybe in 2080 they'll be able to assert control of the South China Sea. But until then the USA Navy controls it.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  This is incredibly optimistic. If their hypersonic missiles work properly they could theoretically gain control of the SCS decisively in the next 5 years, at a massive cost of course. This should be expected, military power is more or less a function of economic power, and as they rival the US in economic power they will also rival the US in military power in their own backyard. In a few decades, they could possibly outmatch the US outside the SCS as well.
  - nyokodo 6y ago
    > In a few decades, they could possibly outmatch the US outside the SCS as well. China's has a number of very big problems they have to solve before they'll reach regional hegemony let alone global dominance. India is next-door, they have a massive demographic bomb coming because of the one child policy, and buying friends is unsustainable long-term, especially as those friends get wealthier too. This isn't to mention internal instability that massive concentration camps are unlikely to solve. We'll see what happens I suppose but one thing I do wish is all the best for the Chinese populace.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      India being next-door is not that big of an issue. The fixation on their demographic issue is quite ridiculous. Demographic problems are not problems in a vacuum. Demographic decline is only an issue insofar as it prevents economic growth. It turns out, the CPC is acutely aware of the issue, and considered it before putting the policy into place. The crucial fact is this one: Over 25% of the Chinese population is employed in agriculture. However, only 2% of the American population is employed in agriculture. This fact is the root cause of the demographic decline being planned and indeed wished for by the CPC. They, in effect, have a 20+% population surplus, that could be got rid of without a negative economic impact. Therefore, the Chinese economy is very unlikely to implode because of the upcoming demographic shock, as it will not negatively impact economic growth and will thus not lead to issues with either the retirement system (China already has one of the lowest retirement ages), nor with economic growth. This inscribes itself further in the process of proletarianization in which the Chinese economy is engaging in order to continue its development, as well as calculated so that the peak population will coincide with the carrying capacity of Chinese arable lands. The CCP are a lot of bad things, but they really aren't idiots. An issue that was not foreseen, however, is the gender imbalance that was created, but even that is not that bad of an issue - involuntary celibacy is significantly lower in China than, for example, the United States, and is actually one of the lowest in the world, but this is still a problem, especially for more long term relationships. People have been clamouring for the imminent fall of China for this or that, but objectively I don't see it happening.
      - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
        India being next door is a huge issue, you can't just handwave it away.
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        Not in the way GGP was implying. The fact that India is next to China will lead to neither the collapse of China, nor prevent it from projecting power in the South China Sea. The rise of India as a competitor to China will likely be on timescales even longer than 5-25 years. By then, circumstances will be significantly different. In any case, India is not a problem that will prevent the continued economic development nor the increased power projection ability of China.
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    > If their hypersonic missiles work properly they could theoretically gain control of the SCS decisively in the next 5 years, at a massive cost of course Live by the sword die by the sword. American vessels are vulnerable to hypersonic anti-ship missiles. So are Chinese. Firing on American boats on the South China Sea will turn the water into no man's land. Everyone will lose influence. Nobody will gain.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      This is a huge misreading of the situation Naval power is a means of force projection. You can control a sea without a single ship. The US is a naval power. The US cannot project power into the South China Sea without the use of Naval Power. China, however, can. Easily, in fact. Indeed, if you look at the J-20, you will notice that it is significantly larger than the F-22 and F-35. Why is that? In order to store very long range weaponry, and much higher amounts of fuel. This design aspect reflects the doctrine of sea control via air and missile power, not naval power. So, if for some reason there were no way to sail a vessel near the SCS, the China automatically, decisively, gains control thereof. Moreso, China and Russia are significantly ahead of the US in hypersonic flight technology.
      - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
        > You can control a sea without a single ship Can. Mutual denial isn't control. (Seoul doesn't control the DMZ.) As you said, "naval power is a means of force projection." If China can't sail the South China Sea its options for projecting force e.g. across the Taiwan Strait are diminished. Their coastline will be safer from incursion. But offensive options will be constrained.
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        I don't know why you would interpret what I wrote as mutual denial. It's not mutual denial, it is supremacy. The US requires naval power to project power into the South China Sea, China doesn't. Without naval power, China has almost uncontested control. US Military Doctrine cannot hope to control the SCS without naval control, Chinese military doctrine is built around that. Even with the US having access to advanced hypersonic missiles, China retains the option of an amphibious landing on Taiwan, for example. Indeed, hypersonic antiship missiles, for a great many reasons, only work very well against large, slow-maneuvering ships that are far away from their destination (and thus offer the attacker the option to choose when to launch), because of kinematic and targeting concerns far away from traditional targeting assets. Their offensive options are more than sufficient using purely air and missile power over the South China Sea. From then on, the ability to project power can be used to disable enemy missile launch options progressively, until the point at which supply lines can be reaffirmed.
  - dogma1138 6y ago
    Hypersonic missiles have very poor terminal guidance it’s physics... all extra-atmospheric ballistic missiles are hypersonic and aren’t suitable for moving targets. Hypersonic missiles have one advantage over ballistic missiles and that is that their flight path is much lower making detection harder but it doesn’t makes it easier to hit. The US has experimented with hypersonic missiles in the 60’s and it became rather clear it wasn’t particularly worth it.
    - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
      > and it became rather clear it wasn’t particularly worth it. Wasn't worth it with the guidance systems of the time. There's a reason everyone and their brother has or is developing a hypersonic anti ship missile.
ende 6y ago
There’s a lot more to becoming a naval power than just building ships.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > There’s a lot more to becoming a naval power than just building ships. Though building ships is an important prerequisite.
- arethuza 6y ago
  I suspect people were saying that in the British Royal Navy a century ago.
onetimemanytime 6y ago
US will just be a seideshow, do you think India, Japan and (at least) South Korea will allow China to dominate the area without a war? US will arm everyone there, especially India and have China try to do something. China has no real friends over there https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/territorial-disputes-south-china-sea https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/territo...

Laremere 6y ago

To reinforce your answer: no because nukes In warfare, logistics and production are major factors. In protracted conflicts, factory capacity and transportation infrastructure are vital, and therefor targets. Nukes, delivered by subs, aircraft, or ICBMs are the most effective way to destroy those targets. The days of nation states fighting other nation states with their own production capacity are forever over on planet earth, baring full out nuclear warfare.

fiblye 6y ago

> There isn't a single country in the entire world that could challenge USA to a 1-1 military battle I guess that really depends on what you consider a "1-1 military battle." Gentlemanly warfare used to be people marching and staying in formation and going straight at each other until they died. With that battle strategy, the victor is generally going to be the one with more people covering more ground. But that strategy hasn't been used in a long while, because there are smarter ways to fight. Tanks and so on are the old way of fighting battle. The US has a decidedly bad post-WW2 record since nobody is really fighting by the "old ways" that much of the American military fights by, and the biggest advantage is the US can just drop bombs indiscriminately basically forever (decidedly not 1-1 combat) and hope to destroy every living thing imaginable (which still failed in basically everything from Vietnam onwards). The claim that the US will beat any country isn't backed by any evidence. At all. There are theoretical situations where maybe the US has more people, more money, more whatever and will win if you line soldiers up and have them fight Napoleonic style, but in reality, successful wars following WW2 include... the Gulf War? Which just ended up leaving Saddam in power, ending up with the unmanageable chaotic wars we've had in the middle east these past 2 decades.

pdonis 6y ago
> which still failed in basically everything from Vietnam onwards Dropping bombs didn't fail in Vietnam. It succeeded. North Vietnam was defeated militarily. They only took over South Vietnam after the US Congress snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by withdrawing funding so the US troops had to leave. > The claim that the US will beat any country isn't backed by any evidence. At all. Certainly it is. Given a clear objective, the US military has achieved it in every case. The reasons that the US often fails to capitalize on such victories are political, not military. > the Gulf War? Which just ended up leaving Saddam in power Because removing Saddam from power was explicitly not a military objective in that war; the military objective was to drive Iraqi forces out of Kuwait, and that objective was met. When the US decided it did want to remove Saddam from power, in the second Gulf War, it succeeded. Again, the reasons why the aftermath of that war became a debacle were political, not military.
- 6y ago

pritovido 6y ago

"There isn't a single country in the entire world that could challenge USA to a 1-1 military battle." That was also true of Nazi Germany. But is actually quite possible to defeat USA on the seas and on land if different countries join against it. Europe is not Iraq or Afganistan, as a whole, it is stronger than the US. I have lived and worked in China(and the US) and while I believe they way weaker(China) than what they project, they can f*ck the world immensely. They can contaminate the Pacific Ocean (with radioactivity and other poisons) forever. BTW most of the intelligent and educated(engineers, scientists) people in the US comes from outside the US. Not reasonable to believe they will contribute against fighting their own countries. This "war on everything" American mentality needs to stop.

ericmay 6y ago
> Europe is not Iraq or Afganistan, as a whole, it is stronger than the US. Militarily there is no doubt that Europe is not. The only country in Europe that can really project force is France. (I’m assuming the UK is not getting into a war with the United States). > BTW most of the intelligent and educated(engineers, scientists) people in the US comes from outside the US. Not reasonable to believe they will contribute against fighting their own countries. A lot to unpack behind this weird assertion. First-> many (most?) of these smart people are working at companies like Facebook to hook kids into endlessly scrolling. Second -> your claim is unfounded. Third -> even if it were true, the skills and knowledge to win wars do not have a 1-1 correspondence with the skills of these so called experts. Even then, who is to say given the right opportunity there are plenty of other smart people around. Fourth -> those same smart people have families in the US. You think they’re just going to go transfer some Amex points and hop on a Delta flight home? There wouldn’t even be a way to leave the US. Finally -> the idea that “all the smart foreigners will betray the US” gives ammo to arguing points by suspicious white supremacists. So you probably shouldn’t do that.