4 ms·

>How did this happen? It started with a Clinton era decision to focus on upgrading legacy platforms instead of developing or purchasing new ones: >By the end o

>How did this happen? It started with a Clinton era decision to focus on upgrading legacy platforms instead of developing or purchasing new ones: >By the end of the Bill Clinton administration, the Pentagon had laid out a strategy to update and replace the Reagan-era fleets... Strange not to mention the USSR collapsed two years before Clinton took office. Hard to justify new weapons systems when you're the global hegemon. Who were these new warships going to be used against, Serbia?

dragontamer 6y ago
If China attacks Taiwan with its newly minted aircraft carriers and large fleets of smaller ships, who will defend them? Now, I'm pretty sure the USA still beats China in a fair fight. But if the USA is playing defense with Taiwan, the picture is very different. China is far closer and therefore has more nearby support: in particular, air support and cruise missiles. In a neutral fight, keeping our fleets outside of Chinese radar / aircraft range will be rather natural. But if we're talking about Taiwan specifically, its clearly a different picture: China can pretty much pepper any ship near Taiwan with its airforce and/or cruise missiles. China invades Taiwan is probably one of the potential fights in this "Terrible 20s" period, where China has enough advantages to seriously consider the move. Not necessarily because of Chinese military spending (which has increased), or technology, but because of simple geographical advantages. A proper invasion of Taiwan isn't even necessary. Chinese naval forces can start a blockade and really mess up international trade. ------------- China vs South Korea is a bit further out but still within a zone where the Chinese Mainland offers a strong advantage to a hypothetical Chinese attacking force.
- PicassoCTs 6y ago
  China could simply cut off North Korea, collapse it into the south and bring that behemoth to fall.
- BelenusMordred 6y ago
  Nuclear armed countries fighting direct hot wars will be decided in a few hours. It's astounding to think that some people still subscribe to this idea of a gentleman's battle with both sides agreeing to not use their full capability while the other is killing their own.
  - leereeves 6y ago
    Nuclear weapons would probably be used in case of invasion of either nation's homeland, but lesser non-nuclear conflicts are possible. For example, both India and Pakistan have had nuclear weapons since at least 1998. Neither used them in the Kargil War in 1999 or any of the skirmishes they've had since.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - remarkEon 6y ago
    >Nuclear armed countries fighting direct hot wars will be decided in a few hours. I think it's astounding that people still think nations will just hit the Doomsday Button willy nilly. Low yield tactical nukes were always a part of any response to a Russian invasion of Poland. And they will be again as well, in a hypothetical CCP invasion of Taiwan.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
  > I'm pretty sure the USA still beats China in a fair fight. But if the USA is playing defense with Taiwan, the picture is very different. The background is that this has been wargamed and the the US could "lose fast", although this is probably in a "defend Taiwan" scenario. I wouldn't assume anything about a hypothetical "fair fight". https://news.yahoo.com/were-going-to-lose-fast-us-air-force-held-a-war-game-that-started-with-a-chinese-biological-attack-170003936.html https://news.yahoo.com/were-going-to-lose-fast-us-air-force-... https://www.businessinsider.com/the-us-apparently-gets-its-ass-handed-to-it-in-war-games-2019-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/the-us-apparently-gets-its-a... https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/war-games-suggest-the-us-will-lose-fast-if-it-confronts-china-44960 https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/war-games-suggest-the-us-w...
  - dragontamer 6y ago
    > The background is that this has been wargamed and the the US could "lose fast", although this is probably in a "defend Taiwan" scenario. I wouldn't assume anything about a hypothetical "fair fight". Taiwan is China's backyard. USA defending Taiwan requires significantly more resources than other locations. China has absolutely no capability to attack say... California, outside of nuclear weapons (at which point, the wargame is simple. We retaliate with our superior strategic weapons and MAD). A "Fair Fight" would be a hypothetical Antartica fight: far away from both countries, where the two navies meet on neutral grounds. China only has 2 carriers right now, and they're smaller 70,000 ton carriers. USA has multiple Gerald Ford super-carriers over 110,000 tons. As far as projecting a shield or area-denial, those carriers are superior to what China can do. Its only within the "radar + missile area" where the USA loses. --------- China has additional carriers on the way, but I'm not convinced that the carrier, nor the aircraft they're loading them with, can perform like a Gerald Ford Supercarrier or its loadout of aircraft.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
      Well, I would say that China knows exactly what they're gunning for, and it's not California or some hypothetical midpoint; it's what they regard as their own backyard.
refenestrator 6y ago
Additionally, it kills me to see the Pentagon whining about not having enough money. They have more money than the next several militaries combined, and every weapons program for 20 years has been a gigantic cluster-fuck. They got a blank check for the littoral combat vessel, the F-35 and these new ford-class carriers. If that stuff is worthless within 1,000 miles of China because it turns out missiles are a thing, that's on the Pentagon and they should own up to it.
- remarkEon 6y ago
  It really has almost nothing to do with money, friend. It's about the direction the elite class and folks in government give to the military. Some people in the Pentagon will whine about money, I'll give you that, but the people that are whining about money are not serious about preparing for the next war. Those who are, are busy in the basement working with some engineers on trying to figure out what new technology beats what.
  - refenestrator 6y ago
    Military people with stars on their shoulders are part of the elite class and they're definitionally 'folks in government'.
    - remarkEon 6y ago
      Sure. Not clear what point you're making. What I'm saying is that getting hyper-concerned about money will constrain your ability to prepare for war.
      - refenestrator 6y ago
        I'm disagreeing with that precise point, thank you for stating it so clearly :) Hopefully no war happens of course, but being effective with resources is actually super important. If it turns out we've dumped 25 years of spending on hardware that makes no sense, and executed inefficiently on top of that... it's not good. That's a ton of wasted opportunity cost whatever your commitment level.
dripiv 6y ago
>Hard to justify new weapons systems when you're the global hegemon Evidently not.

dragontamer 6y ago

If China attacks Taiwan with its newly minted aircraft carriers and large fleets of smaller ships, who will defend them? Now, I'm pretty sure the USA still beats China in a fair fight. But if the USA is playing defense with Taiwan, the picture is very different. China is far closer and therefore has more nearby support: in particular, air support and cruise missiles. In a neutral fight, keeping our fleets outside of Chinese radar / aircraft range will be rather natural. But if we're talking about Taiwan specifically, its clearly a different picture: China can pretty much pepper any ship near Taiwan with its airforce and/or cruise missiles. China invades Taiwan is probably one of the potential fights in this "Terrible 20s" period, where China has enough advantages to seriously consider the move. Not necessarily because of Chinese military spending (which has increased), or technology, but because of simple geographical advantages. A proper invasion of Taiwan isn't even necessary. Chinese naval forces can start a blockade and really mess up international trade. ------------- China vs South Korea is a bit further out but still within a zone where the Chinese Mainland offers a strong advantage to a hypothetical Chinese attacking force.

PicassoCTs 6y ago
China could simply cut off North Korea, collapse it into the south and bring that behemoth to fall.
BelenusMordred 6y ago
Nuclear armed countries fighting direct hot wars will be decided in a few hours. It's astounding to think that some people still subscribe to this idea of a gentleman's battle with both sides agreeing to not use their full capability while the other is killing their own.
- leereeves 6y ago
  Nuclear weapons would probably be used in case of invasion of either nation's homeland, but lesser non-nuclear conflicts are possible. For example, both India and Pakistan have had nuclear weapons since at least 1998. Neither used them in the Kargil War in 1999 or any of the skirmishes they've had since.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- remarkEon 6y ago
  >Nuclear armed countries fighting direct hot wars will be decided in a few hours. I think it's astounding that people still think nations will just hit the Doomsday Button willy nilly. Low yield tactical nukes were always a part of any response to a Russian invasion of Poland. And they will be again as well, in a hypothetical CCP invasion of Taiwan.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
> I'm pretty sure the USA still beats China in a fair fight. But if the USA is playing defense with Taiwan, the picture is very different. The background is that this has been wargamed and the the US could "lose fast", although this is probably in a "defend Taiwan" scenario. I wouldn't assume anything about a hypothetical "fair fight". https://news.yahoo.com/were-going-to-lose-fast-us-air-force-held-a-war-game-that-started-with-a-chinese-biological-attack-170003936.html https://news.yahoo.com/were-going-to-lose-fast-us-air-force-... https://www.businessinsider.com/the-us-apparently-gets-its-ass-handed-to-it-in-war-games-2019-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/the-us-apparently-gets-its-a... https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/war-games-suggest-the-us-will-lose-fast-if-it-confronts-china-44960 https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/war-games-suggest-the-us-w...
- dragontamer 6y ago
  > The background is that this has been wargamed and the the US could "lose fast", although this is probably in a "defend Taiwan" scenario. I wouldn't assume anything about a hypothetical "fair fight". Taiwan is China's backyard. USA defending Taiwan requires significantly more resources than other locations. China has absolutely no capability to attack say... California, outside of nuclear weapons (at which point, the wargame is simple. We retaliate with our superior strategic weapons and MAD). A "Fair Fight" would be a hypothetical Antartica fight: far away from both countries, where the two navies meet on neutral grounds. China only has 2 carriers right now, and they're smaller 70,000 ton carriers. USA has multiple Gerald Ford super-carriers over 110,000 tons. As far as projecting a shield or area-denial, those carriers are superior to what China can do. Its only within the "radar + missile area" where the USA loses. --------- China has additional carriers on the way, but I'm not convinced that the carrier, nor the aircraft they're loading them with, can perform like a Gerald Ford Supercarrier or its loadout of aircraft.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
    Well, I would say that China knows exactly what they're gunning for, and it's not California or some hypothetical midpoint; it's what they regard as their own backyard.

refenestrator 6y ago

Additionally, it kills me to see the Pentagon whining about not having enough money. They have more money than the next several militaries combined, and every weapons program for 20 years has been a gigantic cluster-fuck. They got a blank check for the littoral combat vessel, the F-35 and these new ford-class carriers. If that stuff is worthless within 1,000 miles of China because it turns out missiles are a thing, that's on the Pentagon and they should own up to it.

remarkEon 6y ago
It really has almost nothing to do with money, friend. It's about the direction the elite class and folks in government give to the military. Some people in the Pentagon will whine about money, I'll give you that, but the people that are whining about money are not serious about preparing for the next war. Those who are, are busy in the basement working with some engineers on trying to figure out what new technology beats what.
- refenestrator 6y ago
  Military people with stars on their shoulders are part of the elite class and they're definitionally 'folks in government'.
  - remarkEon 6y ago
    Sure. Not clear what point you're making. What I'm saying is that getting hyper-concerned about money will constrain your ability to prepare for war.
    - refenestrator 6y ago
      I'm disagreeing with that precise point, thank you for stating it so clearly :) Hopefully no war happens of course, but being effective with resources is actually super important. If it turns out we've dumped 25 years of spending on hardware that makes no sense, and executed inefficiently on top of that... it's not good. That's a ton of wasted opportunity cost whatever your commitment level.

dripiv 6y ago

>Hard to justify new weapons systems when you're the global hegemon Evidently not.