4 ms·
> Sanctions won’t work. They will just punish businesses that were stupid enough to work with Americans and Europeans. At the end of the day, Myanmar is going t
by baybal2 6y ago
> Sanctions won’t work. They will just punish businesses that were stupid enough to work with Americans and Europeans. At the end of the day, Myanmar is going to come out of this period looking more like China than like the British colony it was before — guess what that’s meant to prepare us for, in terms of the way the world looks by the end of this century?
Sanctions won’t work, but tanks would.
The entirety of Myanmar's army stock of modern armoured vehicles is less than 1000, with only 200 modern tanks in unknown state of readiness.
3-4 marine heavy brigades can easily stomp all tank battalions in Myanmar's disposal.
Just saying it to state that if US wants to do anything about that, it can do that effortlessly much like its Grenada, and Panama interventions.
Laos, and Vietnam will also be eager to trim ambitions of their bellicose neighbour.
The question is how Washington, and countries in the region are afraid the prospect of direct encounter with Chinese military which is rumoured to have a secret military treaty with Yangon.
- oefrha 6y agoThe question I always ask when people suggest warfare, especially an invasion: will you personally fight in it?
- klibertp 6y ago> will you personally fight in it? Personally, like in piloting a drone? It's a good question to ask, to be sure, but its value continues to diminish as more and more tech is deployed in warfare.
- mofosyne 6y agoMaybe a better question would be are you willing to allow crimes against humanity to occur if you can avoid personally fighting against it? Plus there is a whole spectrum of physical intervention if we choose to. E.g. drones, supporting insurgencies, etc... that doesn't even require boots on ground. This principle would be under R2P responsibility to protect.
- oefrha 6y agoWe must have pretty different views of history if you think the actual goals of this kind of "intervention" ever included fighting "crimes against humanity", and they were not or did not lead to crimes against humanity themselves. Also, killing <s>human beings</s> enemy combatants dispassionately with drones... Not something I'm energetic enough to debate today.
- baybal2 6y agoThe predominant part of HN demographic are young military age men. In case of any real conflict US will get dragged in, you will all be drafted, want you or not. Becoming a soldier after being a freewheeling young man with 6 digit income, and effectively loosing everything you put into your career, business, education, relationship with your woman is not a pleasant thing. But think, sooner or later US will be dragged into a real conflict. Everything is going towards that, and 2020, and multiple weak presidencies have only accelerated the timeline for Beijing, and Moscow. China's strategy is to keep US in Iraq, and Afghanistan indefinitely, and have US dragged into fighting equally pointless, exhausting conflicts, whether they will be military, trade, or diplomatic. They want to move that big direct conflict as much into future as possible, but that day will eventually, and inevitably come. The question will be on whose terms will it happen. What do you want? Loose everything and win, or loose everything and loose?
- chevill 6y ago>In case of any real conflict US will get dragged in, you will all be drafted, want you or not. A conflict doesn't have to be a global war to qualify as "real conflict" by any sensible definition. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were a real conflict, yet there were no drafts.
- brobdingnagians 6y agoThe dirty secret is that the US will probably lose either way. Instead of absolute dollar amounts, if you compare China's military purchasing power with the US, adjusting for different labor costs and the fact that they don't include things like R&D in their military budget, then China is much closer to US spending than it appears. Having a supply line to Asia versus China fighting close to home, that is a recipe for disaster.
- User23 6y agoNot to mention the US's idiotic policy of allowing Chinese nationals to work in classified defense industries. Not only is China benefitting from their own massive defense spending, they are benefiting from a significant chunk of the USA's[1]. Presumably there are many more instances where this occurs that have not been caught. [1] https://www.csis.org/programs/technology-policy-program/survey-chinese-linked-espionage-united-states-2000 https://www.csis.org/programs/technology-policy-program/surv...
- VLM 6y agoThe problems is revolutions are people-based. No matter how many decades you keep American tanks in various middle eastern countries, if the people don't want to change, they won't. Consider if China makes a better offer for the country than the US State Dept, which seems likely based on historical performance of the US State Dept. After the USA blows up all their old tanks, cementing anti-US hatred for generations, they can buy nice new Chinese ones after the treaty with China is signed.
- baybal2 6y agoThis is very much a description of the fiasco US encountered in Iraq. The battle was a total triumph, but aftermath a tragedy, and mainly so for mind boggling incompetence of post-war Washington policy effectively instigating a civil war, then backing one side in it, then another, and then showing a middle finger to both, and walking away. All of this could've been avoided under different leadership.
- tomp 6y ago> All of this could've been avoided under different leadership. What do you mean? The war in Iraq has outlasted 3 US presidents, so clearly "different leadership" just doesn't work in practice. IMO the US should completely change the modus operandi. "Invade & install new regime & call it democratic & steal oil" just isn't a good proposition for the local population. Unless the US can improve the proposition (to match China's "we give you lots of money and improve your quality of life") foreign military interventions just won't work.
- 24gttghh 6y agoI'm going to guess they are talking about different leadership from the one which started the Iraq war.
- DSingularity 6y agoPlease emphasize the "steal oil" part. Im pretty sure that the liberators became invaders once the local population figured out that OIL was the #1 target.
- sbmthakur 6y agoWhat's the incentive for the US? There were clear objectives when US invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. Without those the invasion is anyway more trouble than its worth.
- djohnston 6y agoThere are none as far as I can see. US is much better off letting China deal with this place.
- dirtyid 6y agoTo comment more generally, Myanmar has probably the most enviable geopolitical _potential_ in the region if the not the world. It's the only country that can land connect China/India, has deep shore potentials that would wreck maritime trade patterns in the region... which contains 1/2 of the worlds population and is rapidly developing economically. It's almost in everyone's external interest to control Myanmar, or see it in dysfunctional shambles to create environment subject to easy influence. Having long-term military basing there by US or China would be... strategically significant and only IMO possible via invasion. That applies to military basing in the region in general, too much colonial history and political baggage for anything other than logistics support during peace time.
- jacquesm 6y agoAh, but the Panama intervention was all about American economic interests, and the Grenada one was about saving American lives. What economic or other interests does the USA currently have in Myanmar?
- samus 6y agoLimiting Chinese influence could be a goal by itself. Of course, boots on the ground would mean risking a Chinese intervention as well, like it happened during the Korean War. Different to that one and Vietnam though is, in Myanmar there is no comparable status quo ante belli. It is not at all clear whether the West has any support or some sort of stake in Myanmar. It would be like Irak all over again.
- Steltek 6y agoClose. You described Vietnam all over again. The only American interest was in, and still is, stopping hostile foreign influence.
- jacquesm 6y agoExactly.
- jacquesm 6y agoThat would be exactly like Vietnam though (and like Korea too), the USA has no other reason to be there other than that they were trying to limit the Russian sphere of influence.
- djohnston 6y agoMyanmar's mess isn't worth a single missile off a Predator drone. No more military interventions from the West please.
- sandworm101 6y ago>> Sanctions won’t work, but tanks would. Southeast asia + tanks = bad mojo. Study the history. Tanks are white elephants in areas dominated by mountains and rainfall (both are tank kryptonite). Sure, US air power could dominate. They can use the same flightpaths they used in Vietnam, to the same ends. Myanmar is a country where light soldiers, guys with AKs and flipflops, are far more capable than a dozen tanks sinking into the mud.
- baybal2 6y agoYangon surroundings is a plain, with a lot of roads, and agriculture, and it is situated on the coastline. The same is much with the rest of South Myanmar, where most of country's population, and economy is.
- notahacker 6y agoSaigon and Hanoi are on flat coastal plains too, but you don't decisively win a war by only controlling part of the country, and Myanmar's economy is propped up by gas reserves and other resources in the wild northeast. Myanmar's army is less likely to inspire devotion than North Vietnam's, but can easily be propped up by China if it fancies a proxy war. The likely result of conflict would be everybody being a loser.
- Fordec 6y agoIf the recent Armenia Azerbaijan crisis was anything to go by, in mountainous terrain a drone/artillery combination is quite effective but a relatively new combat style on the scene.
- sandworm101 6y ago>> in mountainous terrain In mountainous terrain with few trees. Drones, and air power generally, become less effective over a dense canopy. The dry bare mountains of Afghanistan was a paradise for drones. Southeast Asia's jungles and river networks won't be.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago3-4 marine heavy brigades can easily stomp all tank battalions in Myanmar's disposal. Yeah well unfortunately they're in the wrong hemisphere for that to be an geopolitically tolerable let alone domestically palatable. The American public and international community could likely tolerate marines preventing regime change in some former bannana republic that otherwise seems to be on the up and up but ain't no way we're getting sucked into another jungle quagmire.
- finnthehuman 6y ago>3-4 marine heavy brigades can easily stomp all tank battalions in Myanmar's disposal And once that's done, how many years of U.S. occupation will it take when they can't get the locals to support a government run the way the US wants? Who will give up first, the US or the occupied country?
- sorokod 6y agoCan you explain what a "heavy marine brigade" is? It vaguely sounds like a technical term, but I am not able to map it to a concrete unit type.
- baybal2 6y agoAn amphibious brigade with a lot of tanks.